Chapter 4
Pompeius
Pompeius taught as a grammarian in Africa in the late fifth or perhaps the early sixth century, the countryman and (in rough terms) contemporary of a clutch of African grammatici ranging in date from Dracontius's teacher, Felicianus, to the young Corippus.[1] We know Pompeius through his Commentum Artis Donati, the most garrulous of grammatical texts and, since its first modern publication by Lindemann in 1820, perhaps the least' esteemed.[2] The harsh modern verdict, although overdone, is not entirely undeserved: the commentary's scholarship is flawed, and its sprawling devotion to one of the most elegant Latin handbooks is a stunning paradox.[3] Nonetheless, that devotion can pay generous dividends to the modem reader, for it is expressed in a distinctive, lively voice that strikingly reveals the concerns of a late-antique teacher.
The object of Pompeius's attention was composed by Donatus in the mid-fourth century; by Pompeius's time it was on its way to becoming a central document of Latin studies in the West.[4] Donatus's work consisted of two parts, the Ars minor and, in three books, the Ars maior. The Ars
[1] On Pompeius's place and date, see Part II no. 125. On the other African grammarians of this period, see Part II nos. 23 (probably but not certainly African), 24, 37, 58, 59, 124, 126 (if a native of Caesarea Mauretania), and perhaps 138. In this chapter Pompeius and Cledonius are cited by page and line of Keil, GL 5; Explanationes 1 and Servius's commentary on Donatus are cited by page and line of Keil, GL 4.
[2] Characterized as a "botch" and a "sham" by Keil, GL 5.90; and by Jeep, Zur Geschichte der Lehre 43f. The judgment was resumed by Helm, RE 21.2313.23f., 2314.63f.
[3] Cf. Holtz, "Tradition" 50, who also offers the best concise and general characterization of Pompeius's work.
[4] See now the massive study of Holtz, Donat, esp. 75ff., on Donatus's relation to the earlier tradition, and 219ff., on the reception of Donatus down through the High Middle Ages.
minor offered a swift introduction to the parts of speech—the heart of the grammarian's doctrine—cast in the form of questions (partes orationis quot sunt? . . . nomen quid est? ) with the appropriate answers. The Ars maior then followed the standard sequence for such handbooks, beginning with brief, introductory definitions (of vox, littera, and so on) before taking up the parts of speech in greater detail and concluding with a rapid survey of the vitia et virtutes orationis.[5] The work is concise, almost clipped, throughout: drawing on several sources for his doctrine, Donatus evidently tried to pare it down to its essentials. By contrast, Pompeius is brief only in his passing glance at the lesser Ars, praising its utility as an introduction and approving its ordering of the partes.[6] He then presses on to exhaust the greater Ars.[7] To appreciate the value of his comments, we must first try to understand Pompeius's method, his style, and the audience he has in mind. And in turn, to understand his method we must understand his relationship to his main source, Servius's early fifth-century commentary on Donatus.
To speak of Pompeius's "relationship" to Servius is to put the matter delicately, or at least neutrally: some would say that Pompeius shamelessly plagiarized Servius, whom in fact he does not name. Although the charge is inaccurate, as we shall see, the dependence is nonetheless plain—not on the extant, abridged version of Servius, but on a more complete version of his original work. Though that original is now lost, it is represented in different ways and in varying degrees by the surviving epitome (405.2-448.17), by Book 1 of "Sergius's" Explanationes in Artem Donati (486.4-534.12), and by Cledonius's commentary on Donatus (9-79).[8] Pompeius drew from Servius much of the substance of his own
[5] With the prominence given the partes orationis in the Ars minor and the modification of the standard sequence thus produced, compare the similar dislocation in Book I of Diomedes; see Jeep, Zur Geschichte der Lehre 57.
[6] See the full form of the preface published by Holtz, "Tradition" 59-60, with GL 5.96.19-98.8.
[7] Apparently Pompeius assumes that his audience was already familiar with the Ars minor ; see 246.32, legistis illas [sc. significationes adverbiorum ] in prima parte artis, adverting to Don. 596.1-5 Holtz. Cf. Pomp. 189.27, quem ad modum legistis in primordiis, with the apparatus in Holtz's edition of Don. at 587.28; and cf. Keil, GL 5.90.
[8] On the relationship of Pompeius, Serv. Comm. Don., and Explan. 1, see Keil, GL 5.92; Helm, RE 21.2313.59ff.; and esp. Schindel, Figurenlehren 21f., 36f., refining Jeep, Zur Geschichte der Lehre 43-53. For dear evidence that Pompeius and Explan. 1 draw on a common source, compare, e.g., Pomp. 208.28f. and Explan. 502.17f. On Cledonius, see Holtz, "Àl'école de Donat" 526, correcting Jeep, Zur Geschichte der Lehre 41f.
I should stress that the matter of Pompeius's main source is probably more complex than previously suspected: I use "Servius" in what follows to mean the version of Servius known to Pompeius. That version had very possibly been interpolated by some intermediary: note, e.g., Pomp. 262.28, where the subject of dicit can be neither Donatus nor Servius; or Pomp. 224.32ff., where the nonsensical statements quam removit and "clam" vult remotam esse omnino may derive from interpolations in Pompeius's source subsequent to Servius; and cf. the appendix to Part II no. 125. It is possible, therefore, that some of Pompeius's departures from Servius discussed below were already present in his main source. It is also conceivable that if Pompeius's version of Servius had already been revised to include non-Servian material, the name of the reviser was Astyagius; see below, nn. 35, 36, and Part II no. 189. (This could, incidentally, account for Pompeius's failure to mention Servius by name: he might not even have known that the work before him was originally Servius's.)
These and other puzzles (e.g., the curious doublet Pomp. 165.19-174.11 vs. 174.12-190.13) need to be considered in a full study of Pompeius (desiderated by Holtz, "Tradition" 50f.), which this chapter does not provide; but such a study must be based on a decent critical edition, a still more pressing need. I have used Keil's text but have tacitly repunctuated in some places.
comments, including the references to pre-Donatan scholars (Varro, Pliny, Caper, Terentianus, the younger Probus, and others) that pepper the work, and many of the illustrative quotations from auctores.[9] The extent of the debt can scarcely be overestimated and can be exemplified by some of the howlers that Pompeius evidently borrowed without blinking an eye,[10] or by a brief passage like the following:
sed sunt aliquae litterae, quae neque ab "e" inchoant neque in "e" desinunt. hae litterae calumniam patiuntur, ut est "x." idcirco non littera dicitur, sed duplex littera. "k" et "q" neque ab "e" inchoant neque in "e" desinunt. "h" et ista similiter in calumniam venit. (101.18-22)
Pompeius means that the letters x, k, q, and h were charged with being illegitimate or unnecessary: so much emerges from the parallel passage in the Explanationes. But Pompeius has reproduced his source so elliptically—as though forgetting his audience would not have Servius open before them, as he did—that his reference to the letters' calumnia becomes
[9] The doubts of Jeep, Zur Geschichte der Lehre 44-53, that Pompeius himself ever saw the work, e.g., of Probus were well founded, although Jeep's discussion of some individual passages is vitiated by the belief that Pompeius used the surviving version of Servius's commentary; see, e.g., a garbled version of Probus clearly taken over by Pompeius from Servius: Pomp. 224.30ff., with Jeep, pp. 44f.
[10] E.g., Pomp. 215.24f. (cf. Serv. 411.35-37; Explan. 504.5f.); and cf. Pomp. 185.33-186.6, the assertion that mille in the clause habeo mille servorum is in the genitive: the presence of a supporting citation from Cicero suggests that the lesson was already in his source. Note, however, that Pompeius does not reproduce Servius's equally astonishing claim that vulgus is attested in the feminine: Serv. 431.27f., citing in vulgum ambiguam, evidently a faulty recollection of Aen. 2.95f., spargere voces / in vulgum ambiguas.
intelligible only when it is compared with the passage in the Explanationes derived from the common source.[11]
The way Pompeius mined his Servius can be illustrated from his discussion of the participle, a passage that also exemplifies some of his more peculiar habits. The discussion begins as follows:
pleraque dicit quae et in superiore arte memoravit, pleraque addit. participium dictum est pars orationis ab eo, quod pattern capit nominis, partem verbi, ut siqui dicat "legens" "scribens" "currens": ista participia sunt. ham habent haec quae dixi: "legens" habet et casus et genera et tempora et significationes. quod casus et genera habet, nominis sunt: nam et casus nomini accidit, et genus nomini accidit. quod tempora et significationes habet, haec duo verbi sunt: nam tempus verbo accidit, significatio verbo accidit. ergo participium habet a nomine partes, habet a verbo partes. ideo dicitur participium, quasi particapium. (256.9-17)
The striking feature of the paragraph is Pompeius's cross-reference to an earlier mention of the participle's accidents (256.12, nam habent haec quae dixi )—striking because Pompeius has previously said nothing whatever about the specific attributes of the participle and their relation to the attributes of nouns and verbs. But Servius, who worked through both parts of Donatus's text, had earlier reviewed the accidents of the participle in his comments on the Ars minor. Pompeius here has simply taken over a cross-reference from Servius: compare participium est quasi particapium: habet enim a nomine genera et casus, a verbo tempora et significationes, ab utroque numerum et figuram et cetera, quae in superioribus dicta sunt (440.17-19). This is not an isolated symptom; Pompeius's discussion as a whole is articulated by the introductory statement pleraque dicit quae et in superiore arte memoravit, pleraque addit (256.9) and by the transitional statement hoc est quod legimus etiam in arte superiore. iam addit alia propria et utilia (260.39). And both the introduction and the transition correspond to Servius's quae in superioribus dicta sunt. in posterioribus illud adicit (440.19).
We can see what Pompeius has done with his source in this passage. He starts from the introduction (256.9ff.), with its reference back to Donatus's Ars minor, that he found in Servius's discussion of the participle in his commentary on the Ars maior ; and he offers a preliminary clarification of the difference between the participle and the noun, antequam tractemus hoc participium, debes scire discretionem participii ipsius a nomine (256.18f.), which is also derived from Servius's commentary on the Ars
[11] Explan. 520.20-26; cf. also Serv. 422.34ff.
maior.[12] He then makes a new beginning, repeating the definition of the participle (258.6-8 = Don. 644.2-4H.; cf. 597.5-6H.) and the review of its accidents (258.8-10), and discusses the accidents as they occur in Donatus (258.12-260.38 = Don. 644.6-645.3H.). But for this purpose he has turned back to Servius's commentary on the Ars minor (416.32ff.), which he follows until the transition hoc est quod legimus etiam in arte superiore. iam addit . . . (260.39f.).[13] At this point he resumes Servius's commentary on the Ars maior, which he uses until the end of the chapter,[14] garbling its account at one point and disagreeing with it at another.[15] Pompeius's general procedure, flipping back and forth between different sections of his Servius, is especially transparent here, but it is not at all unusual, and requires little comment. To understand the way Pompeius works, however, we must examine his other peculiarities glimpsed above (particularly his tendency toward confusion) and the marks of independence amid his general and profound reliance on his main source.
We can begin with Pompeius's curiously inconstant attitude toward that source. As was noted earlier, Pompeius does not mention Servius by name; but this does not prevent him from occasionally revealing he is aware of his debt. When, for example, Pompeius is about to retail an easy way to distinguish the proper accents of words (127.1ff.), he says, et hoc traditum est ; he then goes on to present the lesson he found in Servius. Similarly, Pompeius repeats Servius's doctrine that if any part of speech "ceases to be what it is," it becomes an adverb (250.36ff.);[16] when he has occasion farther on to refer to the same lesson, Pompeius says, legimus enim talem regulam, omnis pars orationis, cum desierit esse quod est, nihil est aliud nisi adverbium (273.34f.), where legimus suggests he was conscious of
[12] See esp. Pomp. 256.;58-258.5, with Serv. 441.16-21; and cf. Don. 646.3-6H. For this sort of preliminary ground-clearing in Pompeius, cf. 112.6ff., 128.15ff.
[13] Note that Pompeius omits discussion of numerus and figura, which occur in Donatus (645.9-12H.) only after the material (645.4-8H.) that provokes his return to Servius on the Ars maior.
[14] Cf. Pomp. 261.1-264.15, with Serv. 440.19-441.15 and 441.21-27—i.e., all of Servius's discussion except 441.16-21, which had already contributed to Pompeius's preliminary remarks; see n. 12 above.
[15] Disagreement: compare Pomp. 262.26-33 and 263.5-9 vs. Serv. 441.4-10; for other examples of Pompeius's independence, see pp. 150ff. below. Garbling: compare Pomp. 261.21-26 and Serv. 440.27-29; similar instances occur, e.g., at Pomp. 101.27ff. (cf. Serv. 421.16ff., Explan. 520.27ff., with Keil's apparatus on p. 102), 105.19-29 (cf. Explan. 521.21ff., with Don. 604.5-6H.), 231.9f. (cf. Serv. 437.14f.), 286.7ff. (cf. Serv. 445.8-10, with p. 157 below).
[16] Cf. Serv. 439.22f. The notion does not appear in Donatus.
having read the lesson in Servius and is in effect citing his source.[17] But Pompeius is far from consistent in this. Discussing communes praepositiones Pompeius concludes his series of examples for in with the remark iam de aliis [sc. exemplis ] saepius dixit (275.28f.); the subject of dixit here cannot be Donatus but must be Pompeius's source.[18] A bit earlier, however, in his comments on the prepositions, Pompeius includes the cross-reference sicut . . . diximus (275.6). As in the passage on the participle, Pompeius here refers back to the discussion of a topic he has nowhere treated before; like haec quae dixi (256.12), the clause sicut . . . diximus must have been lifted from his source. In the space of less than a page, then, Pompeius wavers between nonsensically reproducing his source and consciously referring to it as a separate entity. The example is not unique.
Elsewhere, to conclude his explanation of why the nominative is regarded as a casus even though cadit cannot accurately be said of a noun in the nominative, Pompeius draws an analogy with the positive degree of comparison, so regarded even though the positivus gradus does not make comparisons. He introduces the analogy by saying, habet hoc etiam exemplum de gradibus (182.15f.). Once again, the subject of the verb (here, habet ) must be his source; the clause functions as an acknowledgment of a debt, like et hoc traditum est (127.1). But when he offered the same analogy a bit earlier, he said, diximus etiam talem rem de gradu positivo (171.1ff.)—another cross-reference with no antecedent, which must have been taken over from his version of Servius. The clause, like haec quae dixi (256.9) and sicut . . . diximus (275.6), is only one more example of a habit first discerned in Pompeius long ago. The most notorious instance is found where Pompeius says, sed diximaus in illa priore parte artis, id est in superioribus (208.11f.), a reference to a comment on the Ars minor that of course does not occur earlier in Pompeius's text: Servius had already made the cross-reference (cf. 436.7, qua ratione fiant, diximus superius ) to a passage in his commentary on the Ars minor (cf. 410.32ff.).[19]
[17] Cf. also Pomp. 243.23, legimus in principio, referring to material provided at Pomp. 149.19ff. that remedies an omission for which Donatus is criticized (Pompeius cannot therefore refer to what was read in Donatus); Pomp. 274.4f., nam legimus praepositionem adverbio non iungi, referring to the lesson presented at Pomp. 255.6ff.
[18] Cf. Serv. 443.9f.: "in" autem et "sub" qua ratione servantur in superiore arte tractatum est.
[19] See Keil, GL 5.90; Jeep, Zur Geschichte der Lehre 44; Schindel, Figurenlehren 21; Holtz, Donat 237 n. 45. For such confusions, see also Pomp. 135.36, et iam saepius hoc tractavimus, with Serv. 416.19ff.; Pomp. 227.4, diximus etiam in principio, with Serv. 413.35-38. A similar borrowing may explain the inconsequence of Pomp. 199.10f., dixi hoc saepius: multi dicunt, utrum "lac" dicamus an "lact" (contrast Pomp. 165.15); cf. also the appendix to Part II no. 125.
At times, then, Pompeius seems to remember that he is drawing on the commentary open before him, referring to its doctrine impersonally (traditum est ) or to its author in the third person singular (dixit, habet ). At other times, perhaps more frequently, that awareness seems completely submerged—he simply borrows his source's references, apt or not. The vagueness makes itself felt in another, more unsettling form: Pompeius's inconsistent discrimination between Donatus and Servius, the text on which he is supposed to be commenting and the commentary he is using as his source. In this respect, his use of dixit and habet is a disturbing sign. Although one might naturally expect that the subject of those verbs is Donatus, whose text he is ostensibly reviewing, sometimes such statements can only refer to Servius, and much more often the subject remains ambiguous.[20]
Pompeius is capable of drawing the distinction. When he says, for example, Donatus ait, "quinque sunt adverbia, quae non debemus iungere nisi positivo tantum, 'tam' 'magis' 'maxime' 'minus' et 'minime.'" . . . et reddita est ratio non a Donato, sed ab aliis, quare non iunguntur ista adverbia comparativo et superlativo, sed tantum positivo (156.1-8), the former reference must look back to the text of Donatus,[21] and the latter statement—despite the generalizing ab aliis —is clearly Pompeius's way of referring to Servius.[22] But Pompeius attaches little significance to the distinction, or at least he is concerned to maintain it only flickeringly. At one point Pompeius assures his reader, hoc quod dicit tenendum nobis fideliter: omnis pars orationis, cum desierit esse quod est, adverbium est (250.36f.). Although it becomes plain farther on in the paragraph that Pompeius is in general dealing with a Donatan doctrine (cf. 643.4-8H.), the specific lesson introduced by hoc quod dicit corresponds to nothing in Donatus; it is the formulation of Servius.[23] Yet at the end of the same paragraph Pompeius reports, "sed plane," ait, "in his rebus aliqua discernimus accentu, sensu aliqua" (251.33-34), referring to Donatus's horum quaedam accentu discernimus, quaedam sensu (643.7-8H.). In this instance we can follow the shift that occurs in the space of less than a page from dicit to ait, from Servius to Donatus.
Whether Pompeius himself was aware of the shift is much more difficult to determine; the distinction is effaced often enough to indicate he was not. For example, when introducing his discussion of adverbs ending in -e and
[20] Cf. Keil, GL 5.91f.
[21] Don. 618.14-15H., of which Pompeius's text is an accurate paraphrase; see below at n. 26.
[22] So Serv. 431.15ff., giving the explanation reproduced by Pompeius, beginning ea scilicet ratione, quoniam. . . .
[23] Cf. Serv. 439.22f., and above at n. 16.
et ait sic, "omnia adverbia 'e' terminata producuntur, omnia penitus . . . exceptis tribus regulis" (244.21-26). The statement after ait sic corresponds in substance to Donatus: adverbia quae in "e" exeunt produci debent praeter illa quae aut . . . aut . . . aut . . . (640.12-14H.). But in form it much more closely resembles—and must surely refer directly to—the formulation in Servius, omnia adverbia "e" terminata in positivo semper producuntur . . . exceptis tribus regulis eorum adverbiorum quae aut . . . vel . . . vel . . . (438.22ff.). This example in effect shows Pompeius commenting on the commentary, and the examples could easily be multiplied.[24]
Such confusions may tell us something not only about Pompeius's work habits but about his resources as well. Even the most careless of men would not blend Ars and source commentary so frequently if he were constantly reminded of the distinction as he turned from the text of Donatus spread open before him to his copy of Servius. But the confusion would be readily explained if Pompeius did not have separate copies of the two works. One is tempted to suggest, therefore, that Pompeius was not reading Donatus independently but was working directly from a version of Servius that like Cledonius's commentary had lemmata from Donatus's text.
The instances where Pompeius's text coincides with Donatus against Servius seem to guarantee that he had at least lemmata before him.[25] But there is much evidence that Pompeius was not following Donatus line by line, hanging on every word. He can, for example, be hair-raisingly inexact, even when he clearly has Donatus in mind, especially in his tendency to paraphrase instead of quoting.[26] This habit is harmless when the paraphrase is tolerably accurate. Less innocuous, however, and
[24] For clear instances of this sort of confusion, see Pomp. 103.22-24, with Serv. 421.26-28 vs. Don. 604.1-2H.; Pomp. 135.8ff., with Serv. 436.25f. vs. Don. 631.12-632.1H.; Pomp. 219.10f., with Serv. 412.29ff. and Explan. 505.15ff. vs. Don. 633.6-7H.; Pomp. 232.16-17, with Serv. 437.23f. vs. Don. 636.8-9H. (remarked by Holtz, Donat 237 n. 43); Pomp. 241.11-12, with Serv. 415.7-8 and 438.7 vs. Don. 640.2-3H.; Pomp. 274.17-19, with Serv. 442.23-25. Probable or possible instances also occur at Pomp. 98.21, with Explan. 519.11f. vs. Don. 605.5-6H.; Pomp. 189.35-37 (contrast Don. 626.19-627.6H.); Pomp. 225.16f., dicit, correcting Donatus; Pomp. 278.24ff. (contrast Don. 651.9-10H.); Pomp. 298.10f. (see Schindel, Figurenlehren 25 n. 42).
[25] E.g., Pomp. 281.9f., on the definition of the interjection, with Don. 602.2H. and 652.5-6H. vs. Serv. 420.19f. and 443.19f.; Pomp. 269.22ff., on the irregular use of conjunctions, with Don. 648.1-2H. vs. Serv. 441.30.
[26] Cf. above at n. 21; and for this feature of Pompeius's text in general, see Keil, GL 5.91 and, e.g., Pomp. 164.13ff. vs. Don. 621.7-9H.; Pomp. 170.2ff. vs. Don. 624.5 and 10-11H.; Pomp. 188.28ff. vs. Don. 626.5-7H.; Pomp. 177.20f. vs. Don. 623.6H.; Pomp. 186.34ff. vs. Don. 625.10H.; Pomp. 240.3-5 vs. Don. 639.8-10H.; Pomp. 279.14ff. vs. Don. 651.11-12H.; Pomp. 288.6-8 vs. Don. 655.1-2H.; Pomp. 292.8-11 vs. Don. 658.1-2H.; Pomp. 302.3-4 vs. Don. 664.9-10H. (but cf. also Schindel, Figurenlehren 32 n. 75).
perhaps more revealing, are the places where Pompeius offers an inaccurate, interpretive version of Donatus's words and then criticizes Donatus on the basis of the inaccurate interpretation. Thus in his chapter on the pronoun Donatus observed, sunt alia demonstrativa, quae rem praesentem notant, ut "hic" "haec" "hoc" (629.12-13H.), and went on to add, sunt alia magis demonstrativa, ut "eccum" "ellum" "ellam" (630.1-2H.). The corresponding passage in Pompeius reads, sunt aliqua pronomina quae rem praesentem significant, ut diximus [= 203.10ff.], "hic" "haec" "hoc." sunt aliqua quae magis significant (205.25-26). Pompeius then continues, hoc quid sit nescio. omnis res aut praesens est aut non est praesens: "magis praesens" quid sit nescio (205.26-28). The absurdity of magis praesens that troubled Pompeius does not of course appear in Donatus's text; it is a careless combination—based, moreover, not on Donatus's ipsissima verba but on the version of Donatus that Pompeius transmits: rem praesentem significant blended with magis significant, so that the latter is taken to mean rem magis praesentem significant.[27]
Whether Pompeius would have stumbled here if he had been reading the text of Donatus is difficult to say. But the error is indistinguishable from the confusions and imprecisions in other passages where Pompeius was obviously commenting on Donatus only through Servius. For example, semper Donatus "clam" conputat inter ablativas praepositiones: et in alia parte artis [= Ars min. 601.1, 3H.] hoc fecit, et hic [= Ars mai. 649.17, 19H.] fecit hoc. . . . falsum est, sed est utriusque casus (274.33ff.). The criticism has been taken over directly from Servius (cf. 419.25-27), as has a cross-reference farther on in the discussion that cannot be Pompeius's.[28] Pompeius has not noticed that Servius missed a statement by Donatus, "clam" praepositio casibus seroit ambobus (650.2-3H.), which undercuts the criticism (contrast Pompeius's semper Donatus, evidently a case of secondhand confidence). Or, omne verbum aut agere aliquid aut pati significat (213.21). The statement corresponds to the second half of Donatus's definition of the verb, aut agere aliquid aut pati aut neutrum significans (632.5-6H.), except that it omits aut neutrum —no doubt because Servius had already rejected that part of Donatus's definition.[29] But Pompeius betrays no knowledge that he is departing from Donatus and commenting on an improved version. In such places (and again the examples could be multiplied) it is
[27] For another criticism based on an inaccurate paraphrase, see Pomp. 117.29-118.25, with reference to Don. 606.11-12H., and cf. Serv. 4114.21-28.
[28] Pomp. 275.6f.: sicut in illis diximus. See p. 144 above.
[29] Cf. Explan. 503.6ff., with Serv. 413.35ff., Explan. 507.3ff., Pomp. 227.3ff.
difficult to believe Pompeius was consulting the full text of Donatus directly, independent of his source.[30]
There is little question, then, that Pompeius was hugely indebted to Servius for much of the substance of his commentary; and the preceding paragraphs argue that Pompeius more than occasionally misunderstood or poorly presented or ill digested that substance.[31] It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that Pompeius was merely reproducing Servius, that he did not use other sources, or that he brought nothing of his own to the work. Eclecticism is characteristic of the late-antique grammarians: heirs to a long tradition, they could draw on large resources, adapting to their own purposes the variations they found in one branch of the tradition or another. For the individual grammarian, the question was not whether he would help himself to this varied heritage, but how much, and how; depending largely on circumstances and inclinations, the answer could differ considerably from one man to the next.
For example, we have noted that Donatus drew on a fairly small number of sources for his Ars and attempted to weave them seamlessly together. Diomedes, in contrast, had very different intentions and methods: expansive where Donatus is terse, Diomedes wished to produce a wide-ranging collection of excerpts from earlier works in order to display to its best advantage the tradition that (he said) "the brilliance of human talent has brought to a state of high polish" (GL 1.299.3). Where Donatus had tried to achieve a tight weave, Diomedes created from his excerpts a mosaic, in which the junctures between the individual pieces remain visible while the pieces combine to form a coherent pattern. lie plainly exerted himself in hunting out the byways of the tradition, so that, for example, his long treatment of verbal coniugatio (1.346.30-388.9) can be seen to derive from at least five different major sources and an indeterminate number of lesser works. Whether because of his own inertia or (at least equally possible) because of limited resources,
[30] Compare esp. Pomp. 217.28-219.4, a vindication of the gerundi modus, after Servius (cf. Serv. 412.18-26 and Explan. 504.30-505.2; Donatus ignored this modus ); Pomp. 293.14ff., on three kinds of cacenphata (cf. Serv. 447.16f.; Donatus had recognized only two, 658.11-12H.); Pomp. 298.32ff., a double departure from Donatus's comments on antithesis (663.1H.; Pompeius gives no hint that he is aware of any such departure). See. also Pomp. 100.5f., with Explan. 519.29f.; Pomp. 200.5-7, with Keil, GL 5.91 and his app. crit. on p. 200; Pomp. 164.28-165.18, where Pompeius cannot be following the order or substance of Donatus's text.
[31] Note that Pompeius sometimes ignores in his own usage the regulae he transmits: e.g., contrast 157.20ff., Pompeius's strictures on the proper use of cases with the comparative degree (after Servius: cf. Serv. 407.28f.; Explan. 492.11ff.), with his phrasing at 110.18 [regula ] melior ab antiqua (similarly Pomp. 127.6, 10; 148.2, 5; 151.28; 155.5f.; 280.15f.).
Pompeius does not show anything like the eclecticism of a Diomedes.[32] But that characteristic is nonetheless discernible in his work.
So, for example, Ulrich Schindel has demonstrated that Pompeius exploited Donatus's commentaries on Vergil and Terence in order to supplement the literary examples with which he corroborated various lessons.[33] He used still other sources to expand or refine the lessons, most obviously in the case of Astyagius.[34] Pompeius cites this otherwise unknown authority twice. On the first occasion, he provides an expanded argument to demonstrate that the first-person-singular pronoun does not possess a vocative.[35] The second citation shows that Astyagius like Pompeius must have been active after Servius and must have been influenced by him.[36]
More tentatively, we can point to a deficiency of Servius that Pompeius criticized and remedied in a matter of prosody: et nusquam voluerunt hoc dicere isti qui instituerunt artem, quare quattuor breves pro duabus longis ponantur. legimus tamen in antiquis, quae sit ratio (119.32ff.). Pompeius does not make plain just what distinction he has in mind in the antithesis isti qui instituerunt artem versus in antiquis.[37] But with the former phrase, "those who have drawn up the ars," he appears to be referring to his source commentary: for when he goes on to unveil the ratio he has found, Pompeius applies that explanation to the same examples (except one) that had already been noted, without explanation, by Servius (425.17-19). A similar supplement seems to occur, with less fanfare, at 197.24ff.: here Pompeius announces eight modi of analogy and proceeds to review them as they occur in Servius (cf. 435.16ff.); but Pompeius ultimately includes a ninth modus (cf. 197.28-29, 198.14-15), not found in Servius and presumably imported from another source.[38]
[32] For Pompeius's dependence on Servius for his knowledge of much of the pre-Donatan scholarship, see above at n. 9. For Diomedes, see Part II no. 47. For brief accounts of his method, see Jeep, Zur Geschichte der Lehre 59f., and "Jetzige Gestalt" 408f.; Barwick, Remmius 11f.
[33] Schindel, Figurenlehren 29ff., 101ff., esp. 113f.
[34] See Part II no. 189.
[35] Pomp. 209.3ff. The vocative was already denied to ego by Servius (cf. 436.7), whom Astyagius here supplements.
[36] Pomp. 211.5ff. Pompeius quotes Astyagius's definition of the pronoun—precisely the same definition, illustrated by the same example, that Pompeius himself elsewhere reproduces from Servius: cf. Pomp. 96.32f. and 199.26, with Serv. 409.35f., Explan. 488.18f. and 499.12.
[37] With the latter phrase, cf. Pomp. 141.12, habes in antiquis artibus ; Pomp. 150.34, ita definierunt antiqui ; Pomp. 151.14, habes hoc in antiquo tractatu.
[38] Note also Pomp. 284.30-285.9, Pompeius's comments on the form of barbarism that occurs pronuntiatu, which differ both from the meaning of Don. 653.5-7H. and from the doctrine of Serv. 444.13-14.
At other times Pompeius seems to furnish differences in judgment or extensions of a lesson that may be all his own. Some of these are little more than departures in minor details.[39] In other places, however, more substantive issues are involved. At 214.33ff. Pompeius comes to accept the promissivus modus as an authentic part of the verbal system, although Donatus had rejected it out of hand (632.10H.) and Servius had apparently left the question open, merely noting the arguments on both sides.[40] Pompeius similarly stakes out a position independent of Servius at 273.25ff., when he confronts the problem of usque in the Vergilian phrase ad usque columnas (Aen. 11.262). Pompeius first applies the rule (273.25) that a preposition cannot be joined with a preposition, in order to show that usque here cannot be a preposition. Then, recalling the principle that if any part of speech "ceases to be what it is," it becomes an adverb,[41] he shows that this in turn is in conflict with the rule (274.4-5; cf. 255.6ff.) that a preposition (here, ad ) cannot be joined with an adverb. He therefore concludes that since the rules are in conflict, usque can be regarded as either an adverb or a preposition:
ob hanc causam, quoniam nec illud nec illud verum est, utrumque accipitur. habemus enim hoc in iure: in plerisque regulis, ubi neque illa firmissima est neque illa firmissima est, utrique consentimus. quoniam nec illud firmissimum est nec illud firmissimum est, ita fit ut defendatur utraque pars. (274.9-14)
Although Pompeius knew Servius's discussion of this problem,[42] the last rule of thumb has no counterpart here or elsewhere in Servius, who takes a different position on the matter.[43] Moreover, Pompeius applies that same rule of thumb at one other point in the commentary, where again he appears to be independent of Servius.[44]
[39] E.g., Pomp. 288.28-35 vs. Serv. 445.36-446.2 (with Schindel, Figurenlehren 22), on the origins of the term soloecismus ; Pomp. 269.22ff. vs. Serv. 441.30f., a license granted by Servius but emphatically denied by Pompeius.
[40] Cf. Serv. 412.6-12; Explan. 503.30-504.3. Note that one of Pompeius's arguments (215.10-17) shows no trace in the surviving versions of Servius's commentary and may be Pompeius's invention.
[41] Pomp. 273.34f., legimus enim talem regulam, referring to Pomp. 250.36ff. Cf. pp. 143ff. above.
[42] Cf. Pomp. 274.17-19, with Serv. 442.23-25.
[43] See Serv. 419.16-21 and 442.15-25, denying that usque can be an adverb and identifying it as a praepositio novo modo sibi aliam [coniungens ] praepositionem.
[44] See Pomp. 166.6ff., on the accusative forms duolduos, ambolambos. Neither the extant version of Servius nor Explan. contributes anything on this point, and Servius is silent on the morphology of duo (s ) and ambo (s ) in his commentary on Vergil; contrast DServ. at Ecl. 5.68 and 6.18, and at Aen. 12.342 (on this form of the Servian commentary, see Chap. 5, n. 2). Cf. also below at n. 66: Pomp. 136.18ff. vs. Serv. 428.26-31.
Pompeius's independent forays are not all equally successful. When discussing how the doubling of medial consonantal -i - can lengthen the preceding syllable in a word such as Troi (i )a ,[45] Pompeius cites arma virum tabulasque et Troia gaza per undas (Aen . 1.119). He appears to have chosen the example himself; he also appears to be unaware that Troia in that verse cannot possibly be scanned to support his point.[46] Pompeius stumbles similarly elsewhere.[47] And in at least one place, we can watch as Pompeius's self-sufficiency rebounds to leave him noticeably discomfited.
When taking up the topic of barbarism (283.37ff.), Pompeius draws a traditional distinction, noting that what would be a barbarism in prose is regarded as a metaplasm in poetry.[48] But Pompeius goes on to add, sed plerumque contingit ut etiam in versibus deprehendamus barbarismos (283.37f.), explaining that if a barbarism in verse is not justified by the demands of meter, it is a barbarism no less than in prose and cannot be passed off as a metaplasm (284.3ff.).[49] Pompeius here is extending the doctrine of barbarism in the direction of greater strictness; he goes on to make the analogous claim when he comes to the section on solecism (289.2-6), insisting that a solecism remains such in verse and cannot be excused as a figura if it is not justified metri necessitate . The unusual stringency of Pompeius's teaching in both places is owed to no one else—certainly not to Servius[50] —and it causes Pompeius difficulty when he encounters the different doctrine of solecism that Servius transmitted from the elder Pliny:
Plinius sic dicit, "quando sit soloecismus, quando sit schema [= figura , "figure"], sola intellegentia discernit." noli te referre ad illud, quod
[45] Pomp. 105.37-106.3. Pompeius, like Servius (cf. 422.6, 423.28ff.), believed that the -o - was short by nature.
[46] The example does not occur in the corresponding passages of Servius and Explan. ; Servius gives a different, if equally false, explanation of the scansion of Aen . 1.119 in his commentary ad loc .
[47] E.g., Pomp. 158.16, an inept and apparently independent citation of Aen . 1.343: cf. Serv. 407.32, 431.25; Explan . 492.2f. Or Pomp. 210.16ff., where Pompeius adduces Ecl . 3.1, dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus , to illustrate the supposed genitive forms cuia and cuium ; the example does not appear in Serv. or Explan ., and Servius's Vergilian commentary ad loc . gives the correct explanation.
[48] Cf. Don. 653.2-3H., Serv. 444.8-11.
[49] Cf. Pomp. 284.13ff., the examples Catilinna vs. Catilina .
[50] The statement concerning barbarism might be thought a case of Pompeius's making explicit what was implied by Servius; see Serv. 444.8-11, with 447.22f. = Pomp. 296.4f. But the extension to solecism, which corresponds to nothing in Servius and is inconsistent with, e.g., Serv. 447.22f., is certainly Pompeius's.
diximus de metaplasmis. ham [et][51] in soloecismo hoc quaeritur, utrum sciens hoc fecerit an nesciens: si sciens fecerit, erit schema; si nesciens fecerit, erit soloecismus. (292.13-17 = Serv. 447.5-10 = Plin. frg. 125 della Casa)
Confronted with Pliny's claim, Pompeius begins to thrash about, adverting to his doctrine de metaplasmis but insisting it does not apply in soloecismo —seeming to ignore the fact that he had himself extended the same doctrine to solecisms a few pages earlier. The reason for Pompeius's uneasiness is clear. In order to extend that doctrine to solecism, Pompeius now realizes, he must be prepared—as he is not—explicitly to convict Vergil of solecism:
in hoc loco quid dicimus? "pars in frusta secant"[52] et "pars in frusta secat": et ita et ita stat versus, unde apparet quoniam adfectavit novitatem.[53] nefas est autem de isto tanto viro credere per inperitiam hoc fecisse, non per scientiam adfectasse novitatem. (292.20-23)
According to Pompeius's earlier lesson, Vergil's coupling of a singular subject with a plural verb should be judged a solecism in this line, since it plainly cannot be justified metri necessitate: et ita et ita stat versus . But Pompeius recoils—nefas est —and in excusing Vergil must swallow his own inconsistency. The disgruntled note on which he ends the discussion shows that he is conscious of doing so, and not entirely pleased:
hoc [= the restatement of Pliny's formulation, 292.23-27] quidem dixit [sc. Plinius]. tamen quivis potest facere soloecismum et dicere "figuram feci," si noluerit rationem reddere. nihil est hoc, licentia est prava. (292.27-29)
Pompeius's piety before Vergil may overcome the logic of his rule, but he is not willing to Met go of the rule gracefully.
These displays of independence, if they do not uniformly increase our regard for Pompeius as a scholar, should nonetheless soften the impression that he was a simple plagiarist. They scarcely touch at all, however, on what is distinctly Pompeius, the tone and style of the text. More than any other Latin grammatical work, the commentary allows us to hear a
[51] Although printed by Keil, et here cannot be correct.
[52] Aen . 1.212, from Servius; cf. Serv. 447.11, with 446.37f. = Pomp. 291.20; and Serv. 448.2f. On this stock example, see also Chap. 5 n. 77.
[53] Cf. Serv. 447.8: novitatis cupidi .
living, idiosyncratic voice.[54] To that voice and its nuances we can now turn our attention.
The most conspicuous characteristic, perhaps already revealed in some of the excerpts above, is Pompeius's prolixity. Pompeius evidently believed that he had not made his point unless he had made it at least twice. He repeats himself launching a piece of instruction; he repeats himself referring to scholars; he repeats himself registering approval. So in his pleasure that the pronoun stands second in the order of the parts of speech—et hoc bene secundum est. bene secunda est ista particula (97.3-4)—he sounds uncannily like a distant ancestor of Polonius: "That's good. 'Mobbled queen' is good."[55] Above all, he repeats himself to make certain the abstract principle he is stating does not merely receive the necessary stress but is given specific application through an example: a typical passage will find him first stating the rule twice, once with direct reference to his audience and himself (tu hoc scire debes; conputamus ) and again with reference to the world at large (quisquis vult ), then repeating the rule twice more with a specific example, as he responds to an imagined request from his audience (quando dicis mihi . . .).[56]
Often the examples are vivid and seem to bubble up spontaneously, to reveal now a taste for the amenities (bene olebant in hospitio meo rosae ),[57] now a touch of the macabre: when he wants to clarify the meaning of totus , he says, "What's this that I've said? Pay attention. Take, for example, 'The whole man was eaten up by a bear': look now, what does it mean? The whole man all at once, so that nothing was left. 'The whole man was eaten up,' that is, his hands, feet, back, everything" (204.11-14). In like fashion Pompeius tosses off allusions to simple features of contemporary life as he flows along. He expects his audience to regard "Gaudentius" as a typical slave name or to recognize that birrus was a corrupt noun in the communis sermo .[58] When he comes to the treatment of proper names in the Ars , he passes along the traditional distinction between nomen and cognomen —then in the same breath acknowledges
[54] Cf. Holtz, "Tradition" 50, Donat 236f.
[55] Cf., e.g., Pomp. 182.30-32, 184.12-15, 227.23-25, 249.13-19; examples could be gathered from any page.
[56] See, e.g., Pomp. 112.6-15, his instructions for distinguishing the length of syllables; and contrast the parallel passage at Serv. 423.14-15.
[57] Pomp. 102.8, prompted by the single word rosa , which appears to have stood as the example in Servius: cf. Serv. 428.18f.; Explan . 520.30f.
that the old system of nomenclature has passed out of use: "We can't nowadays say, 'What is your cognomen?' We'd get laughed at if we did" (140.35-141.3). Similarly, he breaks off a discussion of nouns that occur only in the plural to pursue a tangent—a quaestio concerning the morphology of Pascha —in a way that suggests the matter was of some personal interest:
idcirco etiam debemus hoc animadvertere, quod aliquis obiecit. quaerebatur "Pascha" cuius est numeri. dies festus est: omnia nomina dierum festorum numeri sunt tantum pluralis, "Vulcanalia," "Compitalia." dicebat ille qui obiciebat etiam hoc numeri esse tantum pluralis. sed sunt causae quae repugnant: primo, quod. . . . deinde. . . . unde constat non esse numeri pluralis. (177.3ff.)
This is the only indication in the work that Pompeius was a Christian (as we should anyway expect), and it is probably fair to infer that he himself had been nettled by ille qui obiciebat . The passage suggests a vignette from the life of Pompeius's African town, a group of local learned men in conversation, perhaps, falling into debate over a matter of grammatical detail: quaerebatur . . . A reminder of the time that Gellius and his mentors spent pondering the sense of nani in the vestibule of the imperial palace or that Libanius and his friend Eudaemon of Pelusium spent discussing the vocative of "Heracles" while awaiting the arrival of the governor at Antioch, the passage is also a token of the continuity that can be traced through changes of place and time.[59]
To match emphatic repetitions and vivid examples, there are turns of phrase to rivet his audience. Most common is Pompeius's beloved ecce , his constant gesture of satisfaction, whether in producing an illustration, launching into an explanation he likes, or rounding off a lesson.[60] Only slightly less constant, and equally flexible, is Pompeius's vide , now warning, now peremptory, now patently excited.[61] He conveys a similar excitement in the clipped quare . . . ? quare? quoniam . . .,[62] or in the questions (or statements, or commands) cast in the form numquid [or non , or ne ] . . . ? non. sed [or nam , or autem ] . . . —a question, when Pompeius is
[60] E.g., Pomp. 103.14, 123.20f., 128.37, 129.12f., 134.23f., 194.36f., and passim .
[61] E.g., Pomp. 104.16f.: quando "u" nihil est? tunc "u" nihil est—vide qua subtilitate nihil est!—si dicas "quoniam." Cf. Pomp. 127.25ff., 139.26f., 144.16f., 163.7, 184.17, 224.36, 227.23, and passim .
[62] E.g., Pomp. 116.33f.; cf. Pomp. 149.37ff.
trying to make plain the sound of vocalic u;[63] a flat statement, when he is treating the quality of the letter a;[64] or an abrupt command, when he is discussing the prosody of cano in the first line of the Aeneid .[65] These and other features of Pompeius's language can best be savored in a characteristic passage such as the following, in which Pompeius discusses the questions that arise when a nomen (i.e., an adjective) is used as an adverb, or an adverb is used as a nomen (i.e., a noun);[66]
Don't let anyone tell you, "If we sometimes use an adverb as a noun, we are also obliged to decline the adverb itself." Impossible. For when a nomen is put in place of an adverb, it maintains its cases; but when an adverb passes into the place of a nomen , there's no way it can take on a case. Don't say to me, "hoc mane :[67] now, if hoc mane is a noun, you ought to decline huius manis, huic mani. " We don't find that sort of explanation [ratio ista ]; it can't follow that it's declined. "Nonetheless, we read that very declension, a primo mani , in Plautus.[68] Where did a mani come from, if there isn't the declension mane, manis, mani?" mane , from which a primo mani came, produced the declension. But we still shouldn't decline it. Why? You want to know why? Because an adverb absolutely cannot be declined. . . . When we say toroum clamat ,[69]toroum is now an adverb, and toroum stands for torve . I'm not allowed, am I, to say, for example, torvi clamat, torvo clamat, a torvo clamat ? I'm not, but I pick up that one case for the special use [ad usurpationem ]. If, therefore, I pick up that one case when I produce the adverb, and I can't pick up the other cases, so too when I use an adverb in place of a noun, I'm not allowed to decline it, but have to put the adverb itself in place of the noun. (136.18-35)
Logic is not the argument's strong point: "But we still shouldn't decline it. Why? You want to know why? Because an adverb absolutely cannot be declined." The passage does have a brute movement about it, though,
[63] E.g., Pomp. 103.34ff.; cf. Pomp. 143.22f., 230.1-3.
[64] E.g., Pomp. 106.16f.; cf. Pomp. 138.36ff., 139.16f.
[65] E.g., Pomp. 118.7f.; cf. Pomp. 138.2f., 191.31ff., 240.10ff., 252.30f.
[66] The discussion is directed implicitly against Servius's position; cf. Serv. 428.26-31. Pompeius probably has Servius in mind when he begins, nequi tibi dicat, "si aliquotiens fungimur adverbio pro nomine, debemus etiam declinare hoc ipsum adverbium" (Pomp. 136.18-20): cf. Serv. 428.26f., item adverbium si transeat in significationem nominis, non nunquam declinatur ; and cf. n. 68 below.
[67] Alluding to Georg . 3.325, dum mane novum , cited earlier at Pomp. 136.3f.
[68] Most. 767, usque a mani ad vesperum , the example on which Servius based his case; see Serv. 428.28-30.
[69] Aen . 7.399, cited earlier at Pomp. 135.38.
as the repetitions, warnings, and emphatic questions hammer the point home.
In this passage, as in any number of others, it is also notable that Pompeius speaks as though to one other person, the second person singular, tu .[70] Here he imagines the reader offering an objection or counterexample—ne dicas mihi, "hoc mane "—or exposed to some third-party influence: nequi tibi dicat, 'si aliquotiens. . . ." Similar turns of thought appear frequently in the small dialogues with which Pompeius spices the commentary. Compare, for instance, Pompeius's ruminations on the letter u ,
puta si dicas mihi, "'unus,' 'u' qualis est?" dico tibi, "nescio utrum brevis sit an producta, nisi . . ." (106.31ff.),
or on barbarisms,
et dico tibi, "in versu barbarismus est." tu dicis mihi, "quo modo mihi dixisti . . .? quo modo?" (284.38ff.).
Such dialogues, to which we shall return below, reinforce the impression Pompeius's discourse creates with its freely flowing repetitions, its spontaneous tangents, or its abrupt questions and commands. Pompeius is a man talking, not writing, and talking with his audience either face-to-face or vividly fixed in his imagination. The impression has been noted before,[71] although doubtless these features of Pompeius's style could equally occur in a work composed at the writing desk. It is, however, possible to go beyond the mere impression that Pompeius was speaking, with his words taken down by a notary; for Pompeius has left unequivocal indications that that is just what he was doing.
The best evidence occurs where Pompeius takes up the notion of vox and the distinction between vox articulata and vox confusa :
vox dicitur quicquid sonuerit, sive strepitus sit ruinae sive fluvii currentis, sive vox nostra, sive mugitus boum: omnis sonus vox dicitur.
[70] Against the several hundred times that the second person singular occurs, the second person plural is found in just over two dozen places, mostly in references either to auctores (e.g., Pomp. 167.10, legite in Petronio et invenietis , a citation certainly taken over from Servius [cf. Serv. 432.24f.]; Pomp. 186.2, habetis in ipso Cicerone ; sim. Pomp. 153.12, 242.5, 293.27f., 305.7f., 306.17ff.) or to the technical literature (e.g., Pomp. 114.1, habetis hanc rationem in Iuba ; Pomp. 138.20, legite artem Probi et invenietis ; sim. Pomp. 109.34, 137.33, 139.34f., 246.34f., 269.10, 280.12f., 295.34ff., 297.34f.), only once in one of Pompeius's warnings to the reader (253.23f.), never in one of the characteristic dialogues.
[71] Cf. Holtz, "Tradition" 50, Donat 236f.
verum hae duae sunt partes, articulata et confusa. articulata est vox quae potest scribi: ut ecce hoc ipsum quod dixi potest scribi. (99.9-12)
As the characteristically extended list of examples shows, Pompeius is thinking of vox as real sound, the physical phenomenon; and when he exemplifies vox articulata by saying, ut ecce hoc ipsum quod dixi , he must be referring self-consciously to his own speech, the sonus he is making—which, as he is also aware, is being written down as he speaks: potest scribi .[72] The statement scarcely makes sense otherwise, and some other passages are most naturally interpreted in the same way.
Listen, for example, to the following, where Pompeius expands on Donatus's mention (612.7-8H.) of the periodos :
et non dixit quem ad modum fiant, aut quare quaerantur periodi, aut qui sint periodi—vel quae periodi (nam feminino genere dicimus hoc nomen). (281.22-24)
Here Pompeius realizes he has made a slip in the gender of periodos , and we can suppose it was more likely a lapsus linguae than a lapsus still : although the error obviously occurred to him immediately, he did not simply remove it with a stroke, but flowed right along, adding the correct phrase in midstream.[73] Another, perhaps still better sign of oral composition comes in Pompeius`s treatment of iotacism:[74]
iotacismi sunt qui fiunt per "i" litteram, siqui ita dicat "Titius" pro eo quod est "Titius" [i.e., "Titsius"], "Aventius" pro eo quod est "Aventius" [i.e., "Aventsius"], "Amantius" pro eo quod est "Amantius" [i.e., "Amantsius"]. . . . non debemus dicere ita, quem ad modum scribitur "Titius," sed "Titius" [i.e., "Titsius"]: media illa syllaba mutatur in sibilum. ergo si volueris dicere "ti" vel "di," noli, quem ad modum scribitur, sic proferre, sed sibilo profer. (286.7-9, 14-16)[75]
[72] With ut ecce hoc ipsum quod dixi potest scribi contrast the parallel passage at Explan . 519.15-18: articulata est quae scribi potest, quae subest articulis [= Pomp. 99.12ff.], id est digitis, qui scribunt, vel quod artem habeat aut exprimat. . . . ergo si dicas "orator," articulata vox est.
[73] Compare Pomp. 252.14-18, 297.19-27: in both places Pompeius begins to illustrate a lesson with an example, then realizes that the example was not well chosen and abruptly shifts to another, leaving the inept example in his wake. Cf. also the shift from quo vadis? to quo festinas? in the example used at Pomp. 235.16ff., quoted at p. 158 below.
[74] Pompeius here reverses the correct doctrine concerning iotacism (contrast Serv. 445.8-10), but the confusion does not affect the point under discussion.
[75] See also Pomp. 286.20-24, on dies vs. meridies ; Pomp. 286.24-28, on castius . For Titius , see also Pomp. 104.6f.
The passage makes sense only if Pompeius distinguished the forms as he spoke: evidently Pompeius did say "Titsius," but his amanuensis simply rendered the word in its usual written form, quem ad modum scribitur .[76] It is appropriate, therefore, to note that elsewhere one of Pompeius's illustrations for the nomen proprium presumes he would as a matter of course have had a notary.[77]
We can pause here to piece together the picture of Pompeius that has emerged so far. We should first of all imagine Pompeius sitting with his version of Servius open before him, a version probably supplied with lemmata from Donatus's text. He sometimes reads directly from his Servius, but more commonly he paraphrases or elaborates upon it; at times he ignores the distinction between what his source has said and what he is saying himself, and at times he confuses Donatus with Servius. As he goes along, he might supplement or alter the commentary in front of him, relying on a few written sources at hand, or on his memory, or on his own mother wit, striking out on tangents or repeating and emphasizing his point ad libitum in his own distinctive voice, while his notary takes it all down. The picture is consistent and almost complete: one question remains, concerning his audience. Who, after all, are "you"?
We can begin to sketch an answer by recalling Louis Holtz's sympathetic observation that more than any other Latin grammatical work, Pompeius brings us directly into the grammarian's classroom.[78] The remark is just, in the sense that we hear in Pompeius's text a teacher's voice, speaking with some immediacy. But I would like to suggest that the text does not bring us directly into the classroom—the second person singular by itself tells against this—and to refine Holtz's observation by drawing attention to a set of passages in which Pompeius reveals the audience he has in mind.
Consider, for example, the implications of the following vignettes Pompeius uses to illustrate the proper application of the future tense:
festinanter vadis nescio quo per plateam, occurrit tibi amicus et dicit tibi, "quo vadis?"—ut advertas, quam gravia sic fiunt vitia—dicit tibi, "quo festinas?," dicis, "ad auditorium festino." "quare?" melius, si
[76] Keil resisted the urge to print Titsius , etc. (see his app. crit., ad loc .), against Lindemann and against Wilmanns, "Katalog" 402.
[77] Pomp. 141.28f.: puta notarium meum volo vocare "Africanum."
[78] Holtz, "Tradition" 50, "ce text n'a pas son équivalent pour nous faire réellement pénétrer dans l'école du grammaticus "; and more specifically Donat 236, "le seul texte de l'Antiquité romaine qui nous faire entendre les paroles mêmes du maître en présence de ses élèves"; with n. 37, suggesting "un cours publié d'après les notes sténographiques." Cf. also Keil, GL 5.89, 90; Helm, RE 21.2313.31ff. We should not, however, forget the fragment of the Ars grammatica accepta ex auditorio Donatiani (GL 6.275.11, with Part II no. 51); and cf. Chap. 5, on Servius.
participialiter utaris et dicas, "quoniam dicturus sum." ecce per par-ticipium sane locutus es: dixisti enim te necdum fecisse, sed facturum esse. si autem sic dicas—"quo festinas?" "ad auditorium." "quare?" "hodie dico."—soloecismum fecisti. "dico" enim non est nisi eius qui agit, qui iam tacit hoc ipsum. ergo siqui dicit, "hodie dico," qui adhuc vadit ad dicendum, iam videtur soloecismum facere. (235.16-24)
ergo siquis tibi hoc iterum dicat, "exponis mihi hodie lectionem?," si dicam, "expono," soloecismus est. non enim exponis, non adhuc facis, sed facturus es. (236.19-21)
In the first passage the reader is imagined to be hurrying across the town square on his way to speak in the schoolroom (auditorium ). In the second, related passage, he is asked if he plans to lecture on a text (exponere lectionem ).[79] In other words, the reader seems to be thought of as a teacher, setting out on his day, fielding questions from fellow townsmen interested in his plans. The scene might remind one of the grammarian in Juvenal, stopped on his way to the baths to answer less innocuous questions (7.232ff.), and such scenes were doubtless a part of Pompeius's own experience.
That the tu of the commentary is thought of as a teacher much like Pompeius himself is confirmed in other passages. After setting out the rules of antepenultimate accent, Pompeius advises the reader not to concern himself with unnecessary details when he is discussing the matter: ergo noli te in diversas ambages mittere, sed tracta quando debeat accentum habere (129.32f.). The significant word is the verb tracta , virtually a technical term of the grammarian's professional activity, applied by Pompeius throughout the work both to himself (e.g., tractaturus sum , 98.25) and to Donatus (e.g., tractaturus est , 98.21-22).[80]
When explaining how poor punctuation can undermine the rules of accentuation, Pompeius warns the reader of the risk of misleading a student through his own error: si male distinguas, potest errare puer (130.31ff.). The reference to the student (puer ) in the third person shows that the text does not derive from Pompeius's schoolroom; rather, the reader himself appears to be thought of as a teacher, who must guard against setting a bad example for the student.[81] A passage on punctuation
[79] On Pomp. 236.20, dicam , see below at n. 84. For lectio meaning "text" in a similar context, see Pomp. 141.34ff.; and cf. n. 82 below.
[80] With reference to Pompeius, see also Pomp. 128.16f., 132.5f., 135.36, 256.18, 289.14; with reference to Donatus, Pomp. 96.10ff., 133.4, 155.1, 156.11, 159.23, 162.3, 164.28, 165.15f., 231.32, 238.38, 244.21, 281.27 (bis ), 289.15, 292.30f. (bis ), 305.2, 305.34; similarly Pomp. 180.31, of Probus.
[81] For pueri , beyond the passages quoted below, see also Pomp. 293.19f.; and cf. the version of the preface published by Holtz, "Tradition" 59f.
proper that follows shortly—quod si vis codicem distinguere, ita distingue (132.1)—makes my point plainer still. Once more the reader is warned against leading the student into error: ne erret puer et male pronuntiet . . . . ne erret puer et dicat . . . (132.7ff.). And from the context it is clear Pompeius is thinking of the grammarian's task of praelectio and of the punctuation of his codex for that purpose.[82]
In discussing the correct definition of the noun, Pompeius stresses the importance of making the definition clear to the student: ut possit puer intellegere (137.18). Here again Pompeius is thinking of the reader as a teacher, and note that he immediately thinks of Donatus in the same terms: idcirco laborat [sc. Donatus ] ut definitionem nominis propriam reddat (137.20). A few pages farther on, Pompeius offers another bit of coaching, this time in the classroom practice of question and answer (142.35-143.8). Pompeius provides two examples of how a teacher ought to handle the questions put to and by a student. In the first example (142.36ff.) Pompeius plays the teacher as interrogator , and the purr replies—the format, to take only the most obvious example, of Donatus's Ars minor . In the second example, ceterum, si te interroget [sc. puer ] (143.4f.), the reader takes Pompeius's place and responds to the student's question—ineptly, as it happens, so that Pompeius can reinforce his advice by pointing out the correct procedure.[83]
There are other, comparable passages, to which we will come shortly; but these examples should suffice to show how Pompeius thinks of his audience. Pompeius is talking to another grammaticus —or, more strictly, he is talking to an imagined audience presumed to share the point of view and concerns of Pompeius himself as grammaticus .[84] Notionally, then,
[82] On punctuation for reading by the grammarian, see Bonner, Education 220-22, esp. 221, citing Pomp. 133.4ff. Bonner assumes, no doubt rightly for most circumstances, that only the teacher would have a text: in the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana, colloquia Monacensia (CGL 3.122.26-29 = 3.646), clamatus ad lectionem audio expositiones, sensus, personas seems to imply that the student listened while the teacher lectured from his own text; the version of the Hermeneumata published by Dionisotti, "From Ausonius' Schooldays?" 100 (line 37, eunt 'priores ad magistrum, legunt lectionem de Iliade, aliam de Odysseia ; and cf. line 39, tunc revertitur quisque, in suo loco considunt. quisque legit lectionem sibi subtraditam ), seems to show students reading from a text prepared by the teacher. Cf. also Lib. Or . 1.9: Libanius stands by his teacher's chair while reading Acharnians .
[83] For questions put to teachers by their students, see the general comment of Eutyches, GL 5.447.1ff. (quoted at Part II no. 57); and the questions put by Filocalus and Rusticus at Explan . 498.23ff., with Part II no. 217.
[84] Tu does not denote a specific listener but is used in the generalizing sense of "one," "someone in our position": note esp. the shift from second to first person and back again in Pomp. 236.19-21 at p. 159 above (siquis tibi . . . dicat, "exponis mihi hodie lectionem?," si dicam, "expono," soloecismus est. non enim exponis ) and the interchangeability of probas and probamus in the formulas unde hoc probas? (Pomp. 114.13, 151.37f., 200.20, 225.23) and unde hoc probamus? (Pomp. 159.5, 180.12ff., 185.31f., 196.13); cf. Pomp. 191.38, unde hoc probem?
the commentary is a manual for colleagues. In this respect Pompeius's work is comparable to Donatus's variorum commentary on Vergil, expressly composed as an aid "for the grammaticus still wet behind the ears."[85] Pompeius no doubt assumed his audience would use his commentary as he used Servius's, as part of the inherited Gemeingut of the profession, taking it over as his own. At the same time, and because it is intended as a manual for colleagues, the commentary offers the closest approximation that we have to a grammarian's extended musings on his profession—often oblique, offhand, and rambling, to be sure, but for that reason more unself-conscious, more revealing, than the poise of formal reflection. Whatever its other shortcomings, Pompeius's text is exceptionally vivid evidence for the grammarian's mind-set.
To appreciate this cast of mind we might look first at a passage similar to those just noted. While reviewing the category of nouns defective in two or more cases, Pompeius says, vide autem, quid dicit ipse Donatus: ait "sed haec, quae dico deficere, secundum usum dico, ceterum scio me legisse haec ipsa quae deficiunt " (186.34ff.). The statement attributed to Donatus is in fact an extended paraphrase of sunt nomina quorum nominativus in usu non est (625.10H.). Leaving aside the question how far Pompeius has stretched Donatus's intended meaning here, we can identify the motive behind the paraphrase easily enough. For Pompeius soon points out that the nominative forms of certain words (later, Iovis ), although not in common use, can indeed be found in literary texts (in auctoritate ); and he concludes, ideo dixi, ne putes istum [viz., Donatum ] inperitum esse aut te omnia debere dicere. ita enim locutus est, "sunt aliqua quorum nominativus in usu non est " [i.e., 625.10H.; see above]; non dixit "quorum nominativus non est quidem," sed "in usu non est." ergo vides quia docuit lecta esse, sed non debere poni (187.13-16). Thus the passage has two purposes beyond the stringent lesson of the last sentence, which Pompeius has inferred from or imposed on Donatus's text. First, Pompeius is intent on defending Donatus—ne pules istum inperitum esse —by claiming that Donatus of course knew the rare forms and signaled his knowledge in the phrase in usu non est . Second, Pompeius takes the opportunity to offer an object lesson to his reader, evidently imagined as a teacher in the same position and subject to the same criticisms as Donatus, by assuring the reader that he is not obliged to tell everything he knows: ne pules . . . te omnia debere dicere . A well-chosen formula—like Donatus's in usu non est —can make a point clearly, economically, and blamelessly, without a parade of learning that might in the end obscure the teaching.
[85] Don. Epist. praef . 17 Hardie: grammatico . . . rudi ac nuper exorto .
The passage is reminiscent of Pompeius's comments, remarked above, on the proper definition of the noun; there his injunction to the reader is linked with praise for Donatus's effort:
quid si ita definias nomen, ut possit puer intellegere quid sit nomen, ut dicas, "nomen est pars orationis cum casu"? idcirco laborat [sc. Donatus] ut definitionem nominis propriam reddat. (137.18-20)
The two passages are symptomatic of the work's sustained demand for clarity, precision, and logic. (Here, as elsewhere, the disparity between Pompeius's values and his own achievement is not without poignancy.) So, when Donatus is praised, typically the economy and exactness of his organization or his definitions are singled out: in presenting the accidents of the verb, Donatus tenuit conpendium optimum (240.3f.); when touching on the period—which strictly "pertains to rhetoricians, not to grammarians"—Donatus noluit dilatare, ut doceret aperte (281.27f.); Donatus's definition of the pronoun's qualitas is preferred to competing views as vera . . . et brevis et utilis , earning Donatus a "well done."[86] Pompeius dispenses similar praise when he thinks he has spotted similar virtues in the doctrine he has inherited from other grammarians, who made their points "carefully" or "plainly" or "vigorously."[87]
Conversely, when Donatus is criticized, the fault is usually superfluity or confusion in presentation, or imprecision in a definition, or the failure to teach aperte .[88] Pompeius occasionally softens such criticisms by magisterially assuring the reader that Donatus really did know what he was talking about, even if he expressed himself badly.[89] But he is unforgiving when he finds faults of logic, in explanations or positions that lay themselves open to a reductio ad absurdum or are internally inconsistent. His distaste is apparent when he rejects as stupid the belief of many that de intus venio is a proper expression and observes that for consistency
[86] Pomp. 200.31: bene hoc fecit Donatus . See also Pomp. 96.15-17 (with Pomp. 98.6f. and the version of Pompeius's preface published by Holtz, "Tradition" 59f.), 281.9, 289.29, 292.9-11, 307.28f.
[87] Pomp. 111.13 and 118.15f. (Terentianus), 139.34 (Apollonius), 154.13f. (Caper), 227.23f. and 283.13f. (Pliny).
[88] Superfluity or confusion: Pomp. 140.20, with Don. 614.8-9H. (contrast Pomp. 237.10f., with Don. 638.5-8H.); Pomp. 231.15f., on Don. 636.6-7H. Imprecision: Pomp. 138.12ff., concerning Probus as well. Failure to teach fully and plainly: Pomp. 305.33f., introducing a supplement to Don. 668.7H.; cf. also the omissions criticized at Pomp. 105.19ff., 149.24ff., 151.5ff., 192.12ff., 302.2ff. (with Schindel, Figurenlehren 35, 101-2).
[89] See Pomp. 279.14ff., a correction already made—but tacitly, it appears, and without the attempted extenuation—in Servius (cf. Serv. 420.8-9, 443.4-5); Pomp. 220.13ff. (a similar correction: cf. Serv. 413.10-13, Explan . 506.14-18).
such people would have to embrace the equally awful ad intro .[90] So too, it was "extremely stupid" of Probus to include accent among the accidents of the noun, for he might as well have gone on to include letter and syllable and all the other attributes the noun shares with the remaining parts of speech.[91]
A demand for ratio —both "reason" and the "clear and systematic account" it provides—pervades the commentary. What does not "make sense" (habet rationem ) is simply stultum and is easily dismissed.[92] But what reason demands is codified in the ars and its regulae , to produce the rigor artis and the rigor regularum .[93] It is consistent with this rigor that when faced with the two traditional etymologies of ars , from the Greek 
and from the Latin artus , Pompeius should prefer the latter, because of the power of the ars to embrace the language with its "tight" or "firm precepts" (artis praeceptis ).[94] Surrounded by these, Pompeius is conscious of the special sphere of expertise the ars defines for him and other grammatici , centering above all on the partes orationis , which distinguish the grammarian's territory alike froth that of the teacher of letters and from that of the rhetorician.[95] The ars fortifies Pompeius and fills him with exuberant confidence: so, for example, he can differentiate between the definitions of the noun according to the grammatici and according to the philosophi , dismissing the latter as ridiculum .[96]
That verdict is characteristic of Pompeius's magisterial tone, as he complacently delights in the support his profession's traditional doctrine lends and in the certain belief that he can separate the precious metal in
[90] Pomp. 248.16ff., with 248.38ff.
[91] Pomp. 138.22ff., with reference to Prob. GL 4.51.22, 74.32ff. (But from Pomp. 139.16ff., Probus . . . dixit "nomini accidunt qualitas, genus, numerus, figura, casus," et non dat conparationem nomini , it is clear that Pompeius never set eyes on Probus's text and is probably basing his comments on the report that he found in the full commentary of Servius; this seems preferable to the suggestion of Jeep, Zur Geschichte der Lehre 51, that Probus in the last sentence is a corruption.) For similar criticisms, see Pomp. 169.19ff. (cf. Explan . 495.11, with Jeep, pp. 48f.), 173.26ff. (cf. Jeep, p. 47), 240.34ff. For seeming inconsistencies in Donatus explained away, see Pomp. 170.2ff., 217.10ff.; and cf. below, pp. 164f., on Pomp. 230.19ff.
[92] Stultum est vs. habet rationem , in the vice of perissologia , Pomp. 294.11ff.; for the virtue of rationabiliter dicere (= regulariter dicere , to speak according to the rules laid down by ratio ), see Pomp. 276.16, 290.31, 310.21f.
[93] Ratio exigit : Pomp. 185.23, 195.14. Rigor artis (vs. auctores confuderunt ): Pomp. 268.8. Rigor regularum : Pomp. 196.9.
[94] Pomp. 95.5-96.2, agreeing with the preference of Serv. 405.2.
[95] Pomp. 96.2-18. For the sphere of the grammarian distinguished from that of the rhetorician, see also Pomp. 281.25f., 282.34f., 299.20ff. = 300.1ff.
[96] Pomp. 137.26f., with 137.36. To judge from Explan . 489.22ff., the distinction was already included in Servius's commentary, without the ridicule.
one vein of the tradition from the fool's gold in another. Criticism he metes out with a curt stultum or, if the victim is lucky, a simple falsum , and he adjudicates firmly and surely between competing views.[97] When the received doctrine works, his pleasure is audible: vide quam bonam brevitatem invenerunt Latini , he exclaims three times in reviewing word accent (127.25, 128.1, 128.6), and then concludes, vides quanta brevitate utantur Latini. Graeci vero chaos fecerunt, totum confuderunt, ut quamvis mille legas tractatus non te convenias (130.1f.). And he is plainly satisfied when the maiores —the ancients, the classical authors—can be thought to have followed ratio .[98] He is satisfied, that is, when the maiores seem to behave as he and his colleagues behave. But when their auctoritas goes against the regulae firmissimae he has inherited, his satisfaction gives way to a strong warning against literary blandishments.[99] The shift is only to be expected, since the past practitioners who built up the tradition of firm rules piece by piece have an auctoritas of their own,[100] a match for the auctoritas of antiquity. In the coordination of verbal person and nominal case, Donatus laid down the law and resolved the confusiones antiquitatis :[101] just so, Pompeius later with a flourish produces a regula to resolve a "great difficulty."[102]
Here as elsewhere we see Pompeius taking his place in the authoritative tradition and identifying with it. He is ready, not surprisingly, to make its strengths his own: when he declares, "I have three rules" to deal with the genitive plural of the third declension, he seems oblivious of the fact that the rules are not his, but Donatus's.[103] Yet before we conclude that he is simply pilfering from Donatus, we should remember that he identifies as readily with the vulnerability of the inherited doctrine as with its strength. When he touches on the verbs pudet and taedet (230.19ff.), he notes an apparent contradiction with what he has said
[97] Stultum : Pomp. 108.19 (Varro), 110.12 (Iuba), 125.9ff. (non nulli metrici ), 138.32 and 178.15ff. (Probus), 186.12ff. and 248.17ff. (multi ), 180.32ff. (Donatus; subsequently mitigated). Falsum : Pomp. 174.21ff. and 222.30ff. (non nulli ), 193.31ff. (the elder Pliny), 228.18ff. (in artibus istis vulgaribus ). Adjudication: e.g., Pomp. 108.29ff. (multi and levis ratio vs. multi and valentissima [ratio ]), 144.14ff. (Caesar vs. the elder Pliny), 151.18ff. (multi vs. multi ), 164.33ff. (Probus vs. alii and auctoritas ), 209.2ff. (plerique vs. Astyagius).
[98] Pomp. 193.10ff.; cf. Pomp. 197.4ff., 199.21ff.
[99] Pomp. 253.23ff.; cf. Pomp. 232.2-8 and 12-14, 255.31ff., 263.11ff., 269.22ff.
[100] See Pomp. 156.32, secundum auctoritatem Donati ; Pomp. 159.24, auctoritatem ipsius [viz., Varronis ]; Pomp. 169.19, eius [viz., Probi ] auctoritatem ; cf. Pomp. 144.31, melius est ut sequaris praeceptum tanti viri, Plinii Secundi .
[101] Pomp. 237.11-22; cf. Pomp. 110.18.
[102] Pomp. 242.15ff., on the derivation of adverbs from proper nouns. On regulae, auctoritas, maiores , and their interrelation, see Chap. 5 pp. 182ff.
[103] Pomp. 191.16ff. = Don. 626.19-627.4H.
previously, then affirms he has not made an error after all: et illo loco bene . . . dixi et hoc loco bene . . . dixi . The noteworthy point is that the inconsistency is in fact due to Donatus; but instead of attributing the contradiction to Donatus and treating it in those terms,[104] Pompeius regards the lapse as his own and defends himself.
Pompeius's need for self-defense is virtually a reflex, inseparable from his magisterial tone. His confidence in passing the verdict stultum is constantly shadowed by his anxiety in contemplating an attack on his own expertise; his avoidance of calumnia and his search for excusationes , to show he is not guilty of inperitia , are leitmotifs of the commentary.[105] So, for example, in the dialogues with the reader there recur anticipated objections or the dreaded counterexamples that can upset one's ratio :[106]
scire debes. . . . ne dicas mihi, "sed. . . ."(138.1f.)
non potest inveniri. . . . ne dicas mihi. . . . (240.10f.)
sed tamen illud meminisse debes. . . . ne dicas mihi ergo, "quoniam. . . ."(269.22ff.)
Above all, Pompeius is intent on preparing the reader, the alter ego of his tu , for situations in which he can expect to be put on his mettle. "If anyone asks you" is a constant refrain,[107] together with the negative counterpart, "Take care lest anyone put a question to you in this matter."[108] You must anticipate the question, How do you prove this?[109] and can expect to be challenged especially on doubtful or ambiguous points.[110] As a result, you must also be on guard against being deceived, sometimes by the language itself,[111] but also by the tricks and cross-grained ingenuity of your fellow men:
[104] As at Pomp. 217.10ff. (referring to Don. 633.2-4H., 639.10-12H.; cf. Serv. 437.8-10), explaining that the contradiction was only superficial; cf. n. 91 above.
[105] Calumnia : Pomp. 153.25ff., 158.34ff., 205.7ff., 283.1ff. Excusatio : Pomp. 155.1ff., 159.27ff., 229.4f.
[106] E.g., Pomp. 138.28., 177.31f., 180.13ff., 191.31ff., 202.1ff., 260.25ff., 263.11ff., 284.38ff., with Pomp. 136.18-35, translated at p. 155 above. For Pompeius's use of counterexamples, see, e.g., 115.15-21, 164.33ff.
[107] E.g., Pomp. 160.19ff., 166.6-7, 175.22ff., 230.11ff., 262.40f.
[108] E.g., Pomp. 138.15f., 227.36f.; cf. Pomp. 142.23ff., 228.36ff.
[109] Unde hoc probas : see n. 84.
[110] Pomp. 256.20ff.: plerumque proponitur nobis et dicitur, "'amans' quae pars est orationis?," el videmus quod et nomen est et participium. videamus ergo discretionem ipsam .
[111] See Pomp. 141.25, sed non te decipiat ista res nec fallat , with, e.g., Pomp. 153.15f., 163.7, 175.11, 179.15f., 270.15f. For Donatus so deceived, see Pomp. 243.19ff., 270.27ff.
quare hoc dico? solent aliqui homines plerumque esse callidi, et inter-rogat te aliquis et dicit tibi, "'Lucius' quale nomen est?" "proprium." "quae pars est proprii nominis?" dicis illi, "praenomen." dicit tibi, "falsum est: nam ecce servus meus ita appellatur et non habet praenomen."[112] (142.8-12)
This anxious hedging against a world of continuous challenges produces an interesting symptom in Pompeius's comments, a tendency toward plainly subjective interpretations through which he projects his own concerns and defenses onto Donatus. When, for example, Donatus takes up the subject of nouns that waver between the feminine and neuter genders—sunt incerti generis infer femininum et neutrum, ut "buxus," "pirus," "prunus," "malus," sed neutro fructum, feminino ipsas arbores saepe dicimus (621.1-2H.)—Pompeius's comment focuses on the phrase saepe dicimus , which Donatus used to qualify his distinction between the neuter (the fruit) and the feminine (the trees): et interposuit "saepe dicimus." scit enim esse arborem et masculini generis quae sit et neutri, ut 'siler" neutri est, "oleaster" masculini est (163.31-33). In other words, Pompeius takes saepe to be Donatus's means of protecting himself against counterexamples, which Donatus is also presumed to know: scit enim . There is, of course, no explicit sign of this in Donatus's text.[113]
The concern with counterexamples here is Pompeius's own, imposed on Donatus's words. Although it is surely possible that Donatus had some such point in mind in this case, the chance is slim he did in every other. Reviewing the use of the various cases with various verbs, Donatus says, alia [sc. verba ] accusativi [sc. casus formulam servant ], ut "accuso," "invoco" (638.14H.). Pompeius comments:
"accuso" accusativum regit tantum modo, "accuso illum": non possumus dicere "accuso illius." hoc satis latinum est; nemo potest dicere "accuso illius." quis hoc nesciat? sed timuit vim Graecam. Graeci enim "accuso illius" dicunt,
. ergo ut faceret differentiam propter Graecam elocutionem, ideo huius rei reddit rationem. ubi enim dubitatum est, utrum hoc sic possit dici? semper "accuso illum" dicimus. sed propter expressionem verbi Graeci ideo hoc fecit. (238.19-26)
[112] For the principle, viz., that a slave does not possess a praenomen , see Pomp. 141.24ff. For trick questions, see also the exchange just preceding, Pomp. 141.34ff., and, e.g., Pomp. 231.34f.
[113] Compare Pomp. 186.34ff., the interpretation of in usu non est (Don. 625.10H.), discussed on p. 161 above. With scit enim , cf. Pomp. 162.2ff., sciens . . . tractat in the interpretation of Don. 620.1-5H.
Pompeius is evidently surprised that Donatus has bothered to say what every schoolboy knows, and he hits upon an explanation: sed timuit vim Graecam . . . . ut faceret differentiam propter Graecam elocutionem . Once again, Donatus's text gives no hint he was motivated as Pompeius suggests; and in this case there is no probability at all that he had the Greek usage in mind, much less that he feared it. In his survey Donatus naturally chose accuso as an example of a verb taking the accusative case; the accusative derived its name from it.[114] Pompeius has simply (if unconsciously) used Donatus's text as a peg to hang his lesson on, concerning a topic—the possibly misleading example of Greek usage—that obviously worried him elsewhere.[115]
In this instance Pompeius projected his concerns onto Donatus where a specific point of doctrine was involved; but we can find him behaving much the same way in a passage that reveals the grammarian's anxious turn of mind more generally. When Donatus comes to the category of nouns occurring in the singular or plural only, he follows his usual practice of noting the various subcategories and offering a few examples for each: sunt semper singularia generis masculini, ut "pulvis," "sanguis," semper pluralia, ut "Manes," "Quirites," "cancelli," semper singularia generis feminini, ut "pax," "lux," and so on (623.1-9H.). At this point Pompeius tells his reader, vide quia, quodcumque tibi dat exemplum, dat secundum artem, ne recurras ad auctoritatem et rumpas hoc ipsum quod proponit. multa enim contraria sunt (176.6-8). Pompeius is not accusing Donatus of chicanery, as the statement might at first sight suggest, of suppressing information in the interest of preserving an invalid lesson.[116] Rather, Pompeius is again using Donatus as a model of effective teaching, to underscore the principle that one does not need to say everything:[117] Donatus presents his examples secundum artem , according to the handbook—that is, as straightforward rules, according to what one is supposed to say. He does not clutter his lesson with the exceptions in the literary texts (auctoritates ), so that one will not be tempted to point to those exceptions and fractiously challenge the generally valid rule by saying, ecce . . .
But as so often, the specter of counterexample preys on Pompeius's mind, and he soon returns to the matter as it concerns Donatus: ait sic
[114] As Pompeius himself later notes at 171.10f.: accusativus, quod per ipsum accusemus, "accuso illum."
[115] Cf. Pomp. 259.23f., Graeci habent [sc. praesens participium in passivo et praeteritum in activo ] et idcirco praemonui, ne quasi trahant te elocutiones Graecae el velis miller ponere , and Pomp. 260.31ff., ne dicas ergo, "licet mihi." Pompeius shows a similar concern at 232.16-17.
[116] As the larger context shows (e.g., Pomp. 176.11ff.), Pompeius approves of Donatus's lesson.
[117] See Pomp. 186.34ff., with p. 161 above.
etiam ipse timens (quoniam scit lecta esse multa contra regulas suas), "sed scire debes multa per usurpationem esse conexa." nam ecce "pulvis" dicimus secundum artem, d tamen invenimus 'pulveres," "bigae" debemus dicere, invenimus "biga " (177.21-24). As in the passage above, what Donatus is alleged to know, and especially what he says fearfully, owe far more to Pompeius's concerns than to his own text. Indeed, Pompeius's subjectivity is particularly evident here, since it has led him to tear from its context the qualification he attributes to Donatus in the paraphrase sed scire debes . . . and apply it misleadingly to the whole category of nouns under discussion.[118] Safeguarding one's rules and expertise exacts a price, as Pompeius's agitation eloquently testifies: ait . . . timens. With so many worries crowding about, it was not altogether easy being a grammarian.
If Pompeius's free-flowing talk tells us anything, it tells us of values and aspirations, and their cost: the importance placed on the rational mastery of language that is condensed in the grammatical tradition, the desire to set one's own stamp on the tradition even as one merges with it, and the edgy self-concern that those values and desires evoke. It would be possible to elaborate the portrait of Pompeius and trace the qualities we have already seen, as he treats the topic at the heart of the grammarian's authority, the definition of linguistic correctness. There is, however, another text that can teach us more about the criteria of correctness and their dynamics. We will turn, then, to Servius and his commentary on Vergil.
[118] Donatus's qualification concerns only singularia generis neutri ; cf. Don. 623.4-6H.