STATILIUS MAXIMUS AND CICERONIAN STUDIES IN THE ANTONINE AGE

Author(s): J. E. G. Zetzel
Source: Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, No. 21 (1974), pp. 107-123
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43646331
Accessed: 18-01-2018 22:11 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43646331?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the
Institute of Classical Studies

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 STATILIUS MAXIMUS AND
CICERONIAN STUDIES IN THE ANTONINE AGE

by J. E. G. Zetzel

The Emperor Hadrian, if we are to believe the statement of the Historia Augusta (16.6),
preferred Cato to Cicero, Ennius to Virgil, and Coelius to Sallust; this statement is
often taken as a summary of second-century taste. To judge from Fronto and Gellius,
however, it is not a completely accurate summary. The aim of the more educated and
scholarly writers of the second century was not so much to emulate earlier writers as
to place rhetorical emphasis on rare and striking vocabulary and turns of speech. To
this end, Gellius and Fronto read carefully through many of the less widely known
writers of the Roman Republic; not only Cato and Ennius and Pļautus, but Laberius
and Laevius, Claudius Quadrigarius, Gaius Gracchus and others whose works had not
been in demand for some time. These, however, were not their only sources, and
Cicero, Virgil and Sallust remained consistently among the authors read most assiduously.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss one type of Ciceronian scholarship in the
Antonine age, and also to point out its relevance to the history of Cicero's text.1

Gellius, Fronto and their friends were men of exceptional education and of high
social standing, and Gellius is scornful of the rash and pompous students of grammar
and rhetoric whom he and his friends continually embarrass in the scenes of the Nodes
Atticae. Gellius' learning was clearly superior, and his methods of study more thorough
than those of the average rhetor. Nevertheless, Gellius is, together with Fronto, our
best source for the aims and ideal methods of the education of the day. The technique,
simply put, was to read and remember as much as possible of texts whose language
might be suitable for imitation, and then so to employ them. Fronto, in instructing
his imperial pupil, offers some valuable insights. In a long letter on the importance
of using the right word, Fronto gave examples of suitable sources: Cato and Sallust,
Pļautus and Ennius, Coelius, Naevius and others are very useful, but Cicero, while far
and away the greatest of Roman orators, was less studious than he should have been
(Ad M. Caes, iv 3.4):

107

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Itaque comperisse uideor, ut qui eius scripta omnia studiosissime lectitarim,
cetera eum genera uerborum copiosissime uberrimeque tractasse, uerba
propria translata Simplicia conposita et, quae in eius scriptis ubique dilucent,
uerba honesta, saepenumero etiam amoena; quom tamen in omnibus eius
orationibus paucissima admodum reperias insperata atque inopinata uerba,
quae non nisi cum studio atque cura atque uigilantia atque multa ueterum
carminum memoria indagantur . . .

Fronto goes on to praise Marcus for his diligence in discovering words of the last category,
and to stress the importance of using such words correctly. Again, in another letter,
he observes (Ad Ant. Imp. i 2.7):

praecipue autem gaudeo te uerba non obuia arripere, sed optima quaerere.
hoc enim distat summus orator a mediocribus, quod ceteri facile contenti
sunt uerbis bonis, summus orator non est bonis contentus, si sint ulla
meliora.

It is not my purpose here to show how important the use of rare and unusual words
was to Fronto, Gellius and their contemporaries; that can be documented from numerous
other passages of Fronto and Gellius, and the whole topic has been carefully examined
by R. Marache. The question here, however, is how they got their words. Fronto
commended Marcus for his careful reading of early authors. But on another occasion,
replying to a request from Marcus, he sent his own excerpts from Cicero's letters (Ad
Ant. Imp. iii 10.2):

memini me excerpsisse ex Ciceronis epistulis ea dumtaxat, quibus inesset

aliqua de eloquentia uel philosophia uel de re p. disputatio; praeterea si
quid elegantius aut uerbo notabili dictum uideretur, excerpsi.

Elsewhere, he advised Marcus to occupy his spare time in collecting singularia and
synonyma , the basic verbal lists of the rhetorician. Far more examples of the techniques
of reading and collection could be cited from Gellius; one of the clearest is xvii 2, in
which he gives a long set of excerpts from Claudius Quadrigarius, all selected for their
notable language.2

Not every would-be rhetorician, however, had the wherewithal to pursue such
studies freely. Gentlemen of leisure like Fronto and Gellius could afford to travel, to
read widely, to have slaves copy or excerpt texts for them. Less well-placed students,
however, might not be so fortunate, and the rash young grammaticus or rhetor who ran
into Gellius or Favorinus clearly felt the inadequacy of his education. Lacking the
time, or perhaps the inclination, such aspiring intellectuals would have to try to learn
rapidly the elements of the obscure and precious vocabulary of their models and teachers.
It was surely not easy, and Gellius has nothing but scorn for the education of his day.
In his preface, he proclaims the unusualness of his compilation (pr. 15):

et satis hoc blandum est non esse haec neque in scholis decantata
ñeque in commentariis protrita. . .

After a scholarly discourse on the meaning and occurrence of eques in Ennius, he seems
surprised that similar learned comments could be found even in schoolbooks (xviii 5.12):

108

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 hoc tum nobis Iulianus et multa alia erudite simul et adfabiliter dixit,
sed eadem ipsa post etiam in peruulgatis commentariis scripta offendimus.

Gellius and his like seem, in fact, to have been highly scornful of standard Roman
education: it is perhaps worth recording that, while the name of Valerius Probus is
frequently to be found in the Noctes Atticae , that of Remmius Palaemon, his contemporary
the eminent schoolmaster, and his neighbour in Suetonius' De Grammaticis, is not
mentioned once, nor are most of the other grammatici of that treatise, such as Orbilius
or Caecilius Epirota. Only the most eminent and esoteric scholars were worthy of his
attention.

A Gellius or a Fronto could afford to scorn the ready-made learning of the common
schools, and it is therefore not surprising that we have to go to other sources to learn
anything about it. At least one book that may have been used by Gellius' less fortunate
contemporaries provided its readers with a useful collection of singularia, rare words,
culled from the works of Cato and Cicero by one Statilius Maximus. Fragments of it
are preserved in the chapters on adverbs and exclamations of the óccpopuai of C. Iulius
Romānus, themselves preserved only in the extended citations of the grammarian
Charisius. Charisius wrote in the second half of the fourth century;3 Romānus, who
cited Fronto and other late second- and early third-century sources, seems to have lived
in the early third century.4 Statilius certainly lived no later than that, and no earlier
than the beginning of the second century, as he is not named by Suetonius in the De
Grammaticis ; his interests, as we shall see here and as I have shown in an earlier
article, suggest strongly that he was a contemporary of Fronto and Gellius.5

Technical problems raised by the fragments of Statilius' work may be left until after
we have examined the texts themselves. In any case, it is clear that it was a collection
of rare words found in the works of Cato and Cicero of the general category of singularia.
Singularia , or semel posita (fr. 17), are the Latin equivalents of cxttocÇ Áeyóneva. But as
the fragments will show, the words discussed are not always unique: singularia , in fact,
are merely rare words. The term, moreover, is found in a passage of Fronto referred to
above ( Eloq . 4.7):

tum si quando tibi negotiis districto perpetuis orationis scribundae

tempus deesset, nonne te tumultuaris quibusdam et lucratiuis studiorum
solaciis fulciebas, synonymis colligendis, uerbis interdum singularibus
requirendis . . .

Synonyma and singularia are contrasted in this passage, and rightly so: in opposition
to glossae , which were the clearest equivalent to a modern dictionary, these two forms
of word collection served the rhetorician of the second century.6 It was necessary for
the student of rhetoric not only to have many words for the same thing, but also to know
accurately what rare words and forms were in fact attested in his model, be it Cato or
Cicero. Singularia , it should be stressed, include not only words whose meaning is
obscure, but also rare morphological items. This is shown quite clearly by Statilius'
collection, which includes a number of words whose meaning is clear, even if their form
is not widely attested. The rhetorician's synonyma and singularia , as found collected
in the various grammatical works of late antiquity that still survive, particularly in
Charisius, represent the poor man's alternative to the years of reading and excerpting
of a Gellius or Fronto.

109

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Just as the arrogant young grammatici of Gellius do in fact know quite a lot about
their subject, even if they can easily be tripped up by someone as skilful as Gellius or
his friends, so the words collected by Statilius, while by no means all to be found in
the works of Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius, our major sources for elegant Latin in the
Antonine age, still show some overlap. In commenting on the following fragments of
Statilius' work, my aim is first to improve and explain a sometimes obscure text, and
secondly to point out areas of coincidence with Fronto, Gellius and Apuleius. Unless
otherwise noted, the text printed is that of Barwick, but the punctuation and arrangement
are in all cases my own.7

1 Char. 252.15 Et quia saepenumero contendere a nobis non desinitis, licet

Statilius Maximus de singularibus apud Ciceronem quoque positi s 'saepenumero'
notet, ut in ceteris an ratio teneat examinemus, per easdem uias pedetemptim
subire conabimur, quidue sit cum officiis rectae constitutaeque rationis, quidue
licentius proditum, requiramus.

1 have put in more commas than are strictly necessary in an attempt to make the sentence
more easily comprehensible. It is by no means easy to grasp in any case, and examinemus
is W. Kroll's conjecture for examen in the manuscripts (and in Barwick's text).8 Barwick
also mispunctuated the sentence to include at the beginning a preliminary phrase, "et
tarnen 'magni te faciť dicimus et 'multi' ", which belongs in the previous sentence.
Moreover, even though Romanus' language is frequently difficult, there seems to be no
good reason to accept the parallel of conabimur and requiramus' the latter might well be
emended to requiremus. The point of the sentence is in any case less than clear. It
comes from Romānus' introduction to his chapter de aduerbio , and the reference to Stati-
lius is a humorous aside, referring to Romānus' own use in this sentence of the adverb
saepenumero .9 It is thus clear that Statilius discussed saepenumero in his collection,
and the reference to Cicero in the title as cited by Romānus suggests that Statilius
cited the word from Cicero, not Cato. The meaning of notet in this context also suggests
that Statilius somehow criticized the use of the word. The peculiar form of the title,
with its anomalous use of quoque , will be discussed later.10 Saepenumero is fairly
common in Cicero (e.g. De Or. i 1, Sen. 4); it is attested in Fronto (Ad M. Caes, ii 1.1,
iv 3.4; De Or. 20; Ad Ant . i 21.2, ii 7.8), Gellius (ii 30.1, iv 12.3, xii 1.19, xii 8.1,
xvii 4.1 and in the comparative iii 16.1) and Apuleius (Fl. 16.24.10, 18.35.7; Soc.
10.17.24, 14.22.17, 20.29.15). One of these passages, at least, shows that the word
was considered desirable by Gellius: at xii 8.1, he was basing his story on one by
Valerius Maximus (iv 2.3), who did not use the word there.

2 Char. 254.25 'Confestim' uelut conpetenti festinatione Sisenna Milesiarum XIII,

"confestim secuta est" (fr. 3 P). 'confestim' pro continuo et sine interuallo, sed
iugi festinationis studio pergentis Sallustius libro * "fes sit ut nuntiis confestim
lugubribus" (fr. inc. 29 M), ubi Statilius Maximus "ordine" inquit "et sine inter-
missione"; [Sisenna Milesiarum XIII "confestim secuta est"] Naeuius in Taren-
tilla (fr. XIII R) et in Corollaria (fr. X R).

The text printed here is that of Barwick, but it is singularly unsatisfactory. The passage
is clearly corrupt, as no book number or title is given for the fragment of Sallust, and
fessit is not a helpful beginning. It is normally assumed that the asterisk printed after
libro conceals a book number and a fragment of Sallust, together with a phrase introducing
the existing fragment, which, it is implied, is by Cato or Cicero.11 This is not

110

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
convincing. It is, in the first place, quite true that Statilius' comment cannot be attached
to a fragment of Sallust: nothing else that we know of Statilius permits the assumption
that he included Sallust in his singularia , and Romānus' limited use of sources precludes
the possibility that he made use of two different works of Statilius.12 It is therefore
clear that there is at least one lacuna in this passage concealing a fragment of either
Sallust or Cato or Cicero, and either Cato's or Cicero's name. So far, we agree with
Maurenbrecher and Barwick. But there is one major difficulty overlooked by them:
Romānus and Charisius never quote Sallust' s Histories with only libro and a book number,
but normally with the name of the author either alone or followed by historiarum (or
historiarum libro) with a book number. I suggest, therefore, that Sallustius alone is
the indication of the source in this case, that librofessit is the beginning of the quota-
tion of Sallust, badly corrupted, and that the lacuna should be located before ubi Stati-
lius. If this suggestion is accepted, it remains to identify the source of confestim as
discussed by Statilius. Although no certainty is possible, confestim appears fairly
frequently in Cicero, and in several passages has precisely the meaning given by
Statilius.13 One of these is Phil. 2.77 , " . . .confestim ad earn, cuius causa uenerat,
deducitur"; it is worth noting that this passage is quoted at length by Gellius (vi 11. 6). 14
There are a number of other occurrences of the word in Fronto, not necessarily with the
meaning desired by Statilius (Ad M. Caes, i 2.1, ii 2.2, 5.2, iii 13.1; Ad Ant. ii 2.2;
Ad Am. ii 7.19; Add. 7.3), and it is common in Apuleius (more than twenty examples).

3 Char. 262.21 'Imperabiliter' Cato senex (inc. fr. 43 J), ubi Maximus "pro
nimis imperiose, dure".

It may be noted here that, as in the last fragment, ubi need not refer to a commentary,
as has been assumed by some. Since as long ago as Ritschl, it has been known that
ubi may simply refer to a comment in a grammatical treatise or other work.15 Impera-
biliter is not otherwise attested, and its original context in Cato's works is unknown,
but imperiose, itself no very common word, is found in Gellius ii 29.1, and the adjective
imperiosus is in Fronto, Ad Ver. ii 1.6.

4 Char. 267.16 'Malitiose' Cato senex: "malitiose istorum iura torque"

(fr. 235 ORF) pro uersute, ut Maximus.

The text printed here is as emended by Stroux; Barwick read iuratorque eo uerto, and
N exhibits additional corruptions.16 Maximus , also, is omitted in N and supplied by
Barwick from Cauchius' excerpts of a lost manuscript; Suringar omitted this fragment
from his collection. A further difficulty is that only here and in fr. 19 (also restored)
does Romānus use ut Maximus without the verb notât; it should perhaps be supplied.
The adverb malitiose is not attested in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius, but the corresponding
adjective malitiosus is found in both Gellius (ix 2.8) and Fronto (Ad M. Caes . i 9.6, and
in the superlative iv 3.1).

5 Char. 270.28 'Ostiatim' (II Verr. 4.48, 53), 'uicatim' ( Sest . 34) Cicero, quod
Statilius Maximus notât nesciens quia, ut 'continuo' statim est, 'continuatim'
frequentatiuum.

The text of this fragment is clearly corrupt, although not noted as such by Barwick.
In no other passage does Romānus simply give two lemmata together, nor does he normally
offer a lemma and a definition without using pro to separate them. Either the text of

111

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Charisius is corrupt, or Romānus has misunderstood Statilius. Presumably Statilius'
note gave parallels for ostiatim , as he did in fr. 17 below, where stirpitus is explained
with the aid of two similar forms. As for Romānus' comment on Statilius' note, it seems
that he did not agree with Statilius' objections, expressed in the use of notât , to the
particular use of adverbs in -im represented by the words cited from Cicero. The word
uicatim is not attested in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius; ostiatim is found twice in
Apuleius (Met. 2.2, 3.3), and formations of this type are fairly common in all three
authors.17

6 Char. 275.1 'Placate' Cicero, ut Maximus quoque notât: "placate et moderate

feramus" (Farn, vi 1.4).

It should be noted that quoque in this position has no parallel in Romānus' chapter on
adverbs, and may reflect either the loss of a citation for placate before this fragment,
or the use of quoque found in fr. 1 and elsewhere, and discussed below. The adverb
placate is not found in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius, who generally employ placide in
this sense.

7 Char. 276.4 'Pudenter' Cicero, ut etiam Maximus notat[um]. Afranius in

Emancipato: "malo pudenter metientem' (fr. 80 R).

The wording of this fragment leaves something to be desired; Barwick's alteration of

notatum is clearly correct, but etiam, which has no parallel in Romānus' chapter on
adverbs, may be corrupt. The citation from Afranius is Romānus' contribution, not
Statilius'. The exact source of the word in Cicero cannot be determined, as it occurs
more than once ( Quinci . 39, Tuli . 20, Vat . 6; comparative De Or. 2.364; superlative
Att. xvi 15.5). It appears in the Antonine period once in Apuleius (Met. 3.12) and in
the comparative in Gellius (xii 11.5).

8 Char. 277.12 'Pariter' pro pariliter Cicero, ut Maximus notât, similiter et Maro
XI (592, 673), ubi Celsus "pro aequaliter". idem Georgicon "pariter frumenta
sequentur" (1.189) et "pariter puero donisque mouetur" (Aen. 1.714).

As in other fragments, only the citation from Cicero belongs to Statilius. One is not
accustomed to think of the adverb pariter as a rare word, and it is too frequent in Cicero
to permit identification of Statilius' source. On the contrary, to modern ears, both
pariliter and its related adjective parilis and noun parilitas seem far less common.
Ancient evidence, however, suggests that, at least in the second century A.D., pariter
was less readily understood than pariliter ; the evidence also suggests the possibility
of textual corruption in this fragment. In the first place, both Servius on Aen. 11.592
and DS on G. 1.189 describe pariter as antiquum , an archaic word, and define it with the
gloss similiter. Likewise, Donatus on Terence Eun. 92 (i 2.12) notes: " 'pariter'
similiter. Sallustius 'cui nisi pariter obuiam iretur' (i 92 M)." Also, we may note
that pariliter is glossed aequaliter at CGIL iv 267.22, and pariter is glossed similiter
at CGlLv 555.27. Despite the fact that all of this shows that pariter was considered
an unusual word in the later empire, pariter occurs in all three Antonine authors. Pari-
liter , on the other hand, does not occur, although parilitas is found in both Apuleius
(Met. 2.10; Soc.pr. 3.3.5) and Gellius (xiv 3.8). Finally, the presence of similiter as
a frequent gloss for pariter suggests that for " similiter et Maro" , we might do well to
read "similiter ut Maro" .

112

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
9 Char. 278.24 'Primo pedato' Cato senex: "in his duobus bellis alteras
stipendio agrique parte multati, alteras oppidum ui captum, alteras primo pedato
et secundo" (fr. 136 P), ut Maximus notât; hodieque nostri per Campaniam sic
locuntur.

Primo pedato is obviously not an adverb, and its inclusion in this list is probably due
to Romānus' rather haphazard categorization: among the other 'adverbs' found in Romānus'
chapter are dedita opera (256.16), Edio fidio (258.1), in mundo (261.17), and inopinans
(262.29). Other than in two further fragments of Cato cited by Nonius Marcellus (64.18 M),
the word pedatus is quite rare, and is not found in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius.18

10 Char. 280.19 'Repentino' pro repente Cicero ( Quinci . 14), ut Statilius Maximus
notât. Afranius in Emancipato "ut sint repentino apparandae nuptiae" (fr. 82 R);
idem in Vopisco "ubique repentino huius consimile accidit" (fr. 397 R).

Again the citations of Afranius are not part of Statilius' note. As for the rare use of
repentino , it is found in Apuleius (Fl. 16.24.1, 16.24.23; De Mundo 16.152.7), while the
adjective repentinus is found in all three authors.19

11 Char. 280.24 'Rare' Cicero pro raro, ubi idem Maximus notât Catonem
quoque ita locutum. sed et Pļautus in Rudente "uerum rare capitur" (995).

12 Char. 281.5 'Rarenter' Cato (Ag. 103), ut idem Maximus notât, pro raro.

Fr. 11 immediately follows fr. 10 in the text of Charisius, and fr. 12 is separated from
fr. 11 by a discussion of rarissime. Nevertheless, it seems best to discuss these two
notes together, as they are clearly related. Sources for rare pose a problem, which is
of some importance for the history of the text of Cicero.20 Even though raro appears
a number of times in Cicero, rare does not occur. Two possible explanations arise:
either the word was found in a now lost work of Cicero, or the source of the word in an
extant work has been corrupted to raro. The latter is much more likely, not only because
of the relatively high proportion of Cicero's works now surviving, but because in the
passage of the Rudens also cited by Romānus (not by Statilius) for the use of rare, all
manuscripts of Pļautus now read raro. Rare is not found in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius,
and Gellius in fact quotes Varro to show that it is not correct (ii 25.8):
(a) 'rarus' non dicitur 'rare', sed alii 'raro' dicunt, alii
'rarenter'.

Rarenter , on the other hand, is used in the Antonine period by both Apuleius (Fl. 9.11.12,
17.31.14) and Gellius (iii 16.1, x 15.4, xvii 8.8). As for its source, the appearance of
rarenter at Ag. 103 suggests that it was cited from that passage, although it could of
course have been drawn from an otherwise unknown source.21

13 Char. 282.5 'Stomachose' Cicero (inc. fr. 8 M), ut Statilius Maximus de

singularibus apud eum quoque positi s notât.

Again, as in fr. 1, we note the presence of quoque in the title. As in the case of rare,
stomachose is not attested in Cicero, although the comparative is found at Att. x 5.3.
We are therefore entitled to assume either that Statilius has been careless, that his
text of Cicero was different from ours, or that the word was cited from a no longer extant
work. The word is not attested in any of our Antonine authors.

113

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
14 Char. 282.28 'Salutariter' Cicero (Br. 8), ut idem (Maximus) notât,
quasi salubriter.

15 Char. 282.30 'Salutarius' Cicero, ut idem notât, quasi salubrius.

These two fragments are consecutive in Charisius, and clearly belong together. The
addition of Maximus' name to fr. 14 is obviously correct, and was made in an early copy
of N. The second fragment is not found in N at all, but is supplied by Barwick from
Cauchius' excerpts. As for the sources in Cicero, they are not completely clear.
Barwick cites salutariter from Br. 8, but Statilius might well have meant to refer to
Plancus' letters to Cicero, Farn, x 23.2, 24.2. The second is unattested in Cicero or
elsewhere; we can only assume that the neuter adjective salutarius which is found at
N.D. 3.23 was misinterpreted as an adverb. As the gloss salubrius would be subject
to the same misinterpretation, it is not certain whether Statilius or Romānus made the
mistake. Neither word is found in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius.

16 Char. 284.5 'Singularie' pro singulariter, quasi unice Cicero (inc. fr. 12 M),
ut Maximus notât.

As with some other adverbs already discussed, singularie is not attested in Cicero, and
is in fact found only here. One may again wonder whether Statilius was citing a no
longer extant work, or if our text of Cicero differs from his. While singularie is not
attested elsewhere, the rare adjective singularius appears twice in Gellius (ix 4.6,
xvii 9.2).

17 Char. 284.7 'Stirpitus' Cicero ( T.D . 4.83), quod apud eum idem Maximus
semel positum notât, "ut" inquit "funditus radicitus".

This fragment immediately follows fr. 16 in the text of Charisius. The note is of the
type mentioned above in discussing fr. 5. Stirpitus does not appear in Fronto, Gellius
or Apuleius, although radicitus and other similar formations are attested.22

18 Char. 284.27 'Secunde' Cato senex, ut Maximus notât.

Barwick did not point out that there is extant a passage of Cato from which this citation
may have been drawn; in fact, it is one of the most famous fragments of Cato's speeches,
the opening of the speech on behalf of the Rhodians (fr. 163 ORF):

Scio solere plerisque hominibus rebus secundis atque prolixis

atque prosperis animum excellere atque superbiam atque ferociam
augescere atque crescere, quo mihi nunc magnae curae est, quod
haec res tam secunde processit. . .

It is worth noting that this fragment is preserved by Gellius (vi 3.14); secunde is not
found elsewhere in our Antonine sources.

19 Char. 285.22 'Taetre' Cato senex: "taetre aetatem exigit" (fr.248 ORF),
ut Maximus.

As in fr. 4, the final phrase ut Maximus is not in N, but is supplied from Cauchius' excerpts.
The word is not found in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius, except in another fragment of Cato
cited by Gellius (x 23.4).

114

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
20 Char, 313.1 'Vita deum immortalium' Cato senex (fr. 247 ORF), ubi
Statilius Maximus "eKcpcoviļais" inquit "kpxa'ÌKT1, cos ttottoi".

This is the only fragment of Statilius found in Romānus' chapter on exclamations.

There is no parallel in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius.23

Fr.Dub. Char. 283.27 'Seorsum' Cato senex "suapte natio sua separata
seorsum" (inc. fr. 8 J).

Froehde plausibly assigned this fragment to Statilius, even though it does not have his
name; it is the only fragment of Cato or Cicero that is cited without the title of the
work from which it is drawn, a clear sign of Statilius' style. Seorsum (and sursum )
are attested in a number of passages of Gellius and Apuleius.

As the reference to singularia in Fronto shows, such collections were to be of

practical value, not merely scholarly compilations of interest only to writers of gram-
matical treatises like Romānus. The purpose of Statilius's list, beyond any doubt,
was to supply its users with handy justification for the use of rare words and forms,
primarily the latter, by giving them a suitable authority, in this case either Cicero or
Cato. A brief glance over the second century parallels adduced, however, shows clearly
that Gellius and his contemporaries do not seem to have made extensive use of this
list; barely more than a third of the actual forms cited by Statilius appear in their works,
although similar words are fairly frequent. As was said above, Gellius, Fronto and
others of their class will have taken the trouble to do their own excerpting.

Gellius and Statilius have considerably more in common than a list of verbal coinci-
dences would suggest, but before dealing with the aspects of second-century Ciceronian
studies that unite them, there is quite a lot to be learned about the structure and purpose
of Statilius' book, and about some fragments of a similar compilation. In the first place,
Statilius' book title needs to be explained. It clearly was, despite the doubts of some
scholars, a single work.25 Romānus' methods show that he was far too lazy to make
use of two similar books by the same author: other sources used in the chapter on adverbs
include the second book only of Cicero's Tusculan Disputations , the single speech of
Cato de consulatu suo, and book xiii alone of Sisenna's Milesiae . As has been pointed
out above, the title cited by Romānus is quite strange: de singularibus apud Ciceronem
quoque positis in fr. 1, and a similar version in fr. 13. But even though one does not
expect quoque to be used in this way in a book title, its presence is justified by fr. 11,
in which Statilius cited the adverb rare from. Cicero, and then pointed out the appearance
of the same word in Cato: Maximus notât Catonem quoque ita locutum. One may sus-
pect that the title of Statilius' collection of rare words in Cicero and Cato was in fact
in the form cited by Romānus, and that its purpose, as suggested by the presence of
9 fi
quoque , was to show that Cicero as well as Cato used rare and archaic words. In
effect, this could be seen as a reply to the charges of Fronto, who criticized Cicero
for inadequate use of unexpected words (Ad M. Caes . iv 3.4).

There is other evidence about the scope and aim of Statilius' work. Even though
a number of Romānus' excerpts seem to present a bare minimum, the author's name and
a laconic ut Maximus notât , others have more. In some fragments, Statilius appears
to have defined words, if they needed it, as is the case with confestim . On the other
hand, he seems to have supplied only analogical forms for such entries as stirpitus .
In some cases, he quoted the source of the lemma. In no case did he indicate a

115

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
specific work from which the quotation or word was drawn. One other fact is relevant
to this question. In two fragments (1 and 5), Statilius in some way criticized the use
of the word cited; in those cases, notare is clearly used in a critical sense, although
in at least one other fragment (11) its meaning is neutral. We can only assume from
this that, like the Atticist lexicographers, Statilius not only cited words from his sources,
he sometimes criticized their use.

The arrangement of Statilius' list is a more complex question. Given the form of
Romānus' chapter, we cannot assume the same order in his source. But internal evidence
does suggest that Statilius' list was alphabetical, if not arranged by part of speech.
The arrangement was clearly not according to source: the words cited come from many
different works of Cicero and Cato, and an excerptor as lazy as Romānus would certainly
not have distributed his selections so well if his source had not done it for him. The
concentration of entries from the second half of the alphabet is also worth noticing as a
sign of alphabetical organization, as are the clusters of related words like rare and
rarenter , salutariter and salutarius drawn from different works. It is possible, but most
unlikely, that Statilius grouped words by grammatical category; we should hesitate to
carry Romānus' organization back to his source. There would be no reason for a rhetor-
ical word list to be arranged in such classes. It is also suspicious that fr. 20, the only
exclamation in the group, comes from a different section of Romānus' work and yet falls
into the alphabetical order of the adverbs; this is particularly noticeable as the chapter
on exclamations is not in alphabetical order.27 Again, it is not clear why Statilius
would prefigure Romanus' lax categories by including primo pedato or mistaking salu-
tarius for an adverb. In sum, it is fairly safe to conclude that Statilius' alphabetical
list was not subdivided by grammatical category.

One further point of organization may be noted. In fr. 11, Statilius cited rare from
Cicero and then from Cato. This unchronological order is found also in the arrangement
of words under each letter; that, at least, is the order found in the fragments from the
letters P, R and S, the only ones for which the relevant evidence survives. This arrange-
ment lends some support to the suggestion made above, that Statilius' main purpose was
to collect and criticize the rare words of Cicero in order to show that he, like Cato,
used forms not otherwise well attested.

There are two types of handbook that an intellectual like Gellius would probably not
deign to employ. One is the grammar or word list, like those of Statilius or Romānus.
The other is the commentary, a type of work generally used in schools. The Bobbio
scholia on Cicero, surviving in a fifth-century palimpsest, preserve some sections of a
rhetorical and historical commentary on Cicero's speeches, whose sources are clearly
rooted in the scholarship of the Antonine age.28 These scholia contain six notes which
form a distinct group similar in tone to the fragments of Statilius.29 Since they probably
are not by Statilius, I number them separately.

1 Bob. 97.13 S (F/ac. 7) NVLLAM IN RE FAMILIARI SORDEM notabile hoc, quod

singulari numero 'sordem' dixit, cum de moribus ad cupiditatem pecuniae promtioribus
secundum numerum plurálem consuetudo celeberrima sit 'sordes' dicere, hoc igitur
de uerbis rarioribus adnotemus.

It should be noted that, as with Statilius, the author of this scholium was concerned with
the form of the word, not its meaning. The form in question is found once in Apuleius

116

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
(Met. 1.21), but not in Fronto or Gellius; Charisius considered sordes to be plurale
tantum (36.16).

2 Bob. 128.30 ( Sest . 28) SI DIX[1SS]ET HAEC SOLVM . . . et notabiliter

media uerbi parte subtracta non impleuit omnibus syllabis 'dixisseť, sed 'dixeť.
inueniuntur apud ueteres pleraque huiusmodi.

In this case, the scholiast signals another irregularity of form, but here it is a form
that is not in fact attested in Cicero: neither the lemma of the scholium nor any of the
manuscripts of the Pro Sestio reads dixet , nor is the form found in Fronto, Gellius or
Apuleius. This is to be compared with the case of rare , Statilius fr. 11.

3 Bob. 131.28 (Sest. 49) BIS REM P. SERVAVI, SEMEL GLORIA, ITERVM
AERVMNA MEA notabiliter singulari numero, non pi urát iuo, 'aerumnam' dixit. . .

Aerumna in the singular is attested fairly often in Apuleius, but is not found in Fronto
or Gellius.

4 Bob. 141.1 (Sest. 135) NON EA EST MEDICINA, CVM SANAE PARTI
CORPORIS SCALPELLVM ADHIBETVR de uerbis notabilibus 'scalpellum'.

Presumably again it is the form, in this case a diminutive, which the scholiast thought
worth his attention. The word is not found in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius.

5 Bob. 152.3 (Vat. 41) LABECVLAM notabile Gttokopiotikov. sic tarnen

ueteres et 'aetatulam' et 'nubeculam' dixerunt.

Again the diminutive is the subject of comment. In this case similarities with Statilius
are worth noting. The use of Greek, compared with Statilius fr. 20, is not significant;
such random words and phrases in Greek are frequent in all grammatical writers. More
important is the use of analogical forms to elucidate the lemma, as is found in Statilius
fr. 17. While labecula does not occur in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius, this type of forma-
tion was certainly frequent in the second century.30

6 Bob. 154.17 (Plane. 22) NON FVCOSA uerbum et hoc notabile inter alia
quae sunt rariora referendum est.

The word is presumably a rare synonym of fucata. While fucosa is found elsewhere in
Cicero's works (e.g. Rab. Post. 40, Att. i 18.2), a number of manuscripts ( deteriores )
of Plane. 22 read fucata. Fucosa is not attested in Fronto, Gellius or Apuleius, while
fucata is.

These six scholia are by no means the only ones in the Bobbio commentary to discuss
unusual or archaic words, but they form a distinct class, united first by the fact that
all but one are concerned, like Statilius' notes, with rare forms more than with rare
words, and second by the common use of the word notabile , not used elsewhere in the
Bobbio scholia in this sense. This use of notabile to identify rare forms is to be
compared with a similar passage in Fronto (Ad Ant. iii 10.2, cited above, pJ.08) using

117

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
the same word, and with Romānus' frequent form of citing Statilius, ut Maximus notata
the use of notare is not otherwise frequent in Romānus.

The presence of these six notes in the Bobbio scholia is of value here only because
it shows that Statilius' singularia were not unique. As we might expect from the evi-
dence of Gellius and Fronto, the search for rare words was central to the literary tenden-
cies of their age. The lists of singularia employed by Romānus and the Bobbio scholiast
are of interest not only because they reveal the reconciliation of the desire for obscure
vocabulary with the unquestioned pre-eminence of Cicero in rhetorical technique, but
also because they show clearly that the wide reading of a Gellius or a Fronto was not
attainable by the average rhetor or student. Most people found short-cuts such as these
inescapable.

Of more lasting importance to the modern scholar than the existence of second-
century vocabulary lists is the significance of the attitude toward the text implied by
such a concern for rarities in the vocabulary of classical authors. I have dealt in a
previous article with another aspect of this interest shared by Statilius with Fronto and
Gellius, the search for old and valuable copies of Cicero and earlier authors, manuscripts
that unfortunately seem to have been of dubious authenticity.31 The most important
link between them is their use of copies of Cicero allegedly corrected by Tiro, but which
were in fact forgeries of a later date. In that article I suggested that Statilius' efforts
to improve the text of Cicero with the aid of the Tironian text and other early copies was
futile, but probably caused no lasting damage; but further evidence about the quality
of the text of Cicero in the second century may now be adduced from the collections of
singularia and from some comments of Gellius.

More than one of the singularia in Cicero cited by Statilius does not now exist in
the text of Cicero. That need not be disturbing: not ail of Cicero survives that was
available to Statilius. Still, rare (fr. 11) is a cause for concern, and neither stoma-
chose (fr. 13) nor singularie (fr. 16) is found either. Nor is it reassuring when, in the
list from the Bobbio scholia, we find a form cited ( dixet , no. 2) that is not found in any
manuscript of Cicero, not even in the scholiast's lemma. It is certainly worth wondering
whether the archaist compilers of such lists were prone to accept as genuine words that
were in fact only slips of the pen, or even to read what may not have been there at all,
in the search for inaudita uerba. On the other hand, it is possible that they had access
to better texts than we now possess.

Evidence from Gellius adds further material for speculation. Using only citations
of Cicero, one can begin by referring again to the Tironian copy of the Verrines cited
by Gellius in two chapters (i7, xiii 21) for three readings of dubious authenticity and
archaist overtones.32 But beyond those clear examples, there are a number of citations
whose text of Cicero is of less than perfect accuracy, and two at least that are clearly
not mere errors in the transmission of Gellius.

The first example occurs at i 7.16-19, in the same chapter as the first reference to
the Tironian text. Gellius portrays a friend quoting a sentence from Cicero's speech
De Imperio Cn. Pompei (33), including the phrase "in praedonum fuisse potestatem
sciatis". Gellius proceeds to defend potestatem against the objections of the uulgus
semidoctum. It is disturbing that our manuscripts clearly belong in the latter category,
as all read in this passage "in praedonum fuisse potestate sciatis". Even if the

118

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
accusative were grammatically acceptable here, in the context it is more likely to be
an error: four lines above this phrase in the text of Cicero is the source of the reading
(32): "in praedonum potestatem peruenerint".

An example of equal interest occurs at i 16.15, where Gellius quotes from the
speech Pro Milone :

Quapropter nihil iam dubium est, quin M. Cicero in oratione, quam

scripsit pro Milone, ita scriptum reliquerit: "ante fundum Clodi, quo
in fundo propter insanas illas substructiones facile mille hominum
uersabatur ualentium" (53), non 'uersabantur', quod in libris minus
accuratis scriptum est.

Again, Gellius prefers the more archaic reading, uersabatur , and characterizes the
bearers of the other reading as inaccurate. In this, in fact, he is followed by Clark
in the Oxford Text, who accepts the singular, relying on the testimony of two humanist
excerptors of the lost Cluniacensis and on Gellius, spurning the evidence of the major
manuscripts HET.33 One may well wonder whether Gellius and Clark were correct in
their choice; the weight of the manuscript evidence now extant is firmly against them.34

These are clear examples of textual differences between Gellius and our manuscripts,
and others could be adduced.35 I have discussed in my previous article other textual
variants in Cicero and Virgil that are allegedly based on rare copies or autographs; other
discussions in Gellius that are of interest include the examination of Catullus 27.4 at
vi 20.6, of Cato at ii 14, of Fabius Pictor at v 4. The only difficulty is that our control
of the text of these citations is in one case weak, in the others non-existent.

The archaist fashions of the Antonine age led to a renewed interest in the authors
of the Roman Republic, and to a different perspective on literature from that of the
previous century. The studies of Gellius and Fronto, and the word lists of Statilius
and the Bobbio scholia all attest the desire for rare and exotic words, but they also show
clearly the dangers that might beset such an interest. Gellius and Fronto provide firm
evidence that their archaist bent and the rare manuscripts that they discovered could
combine to make Cicero sound far more antique than he appears from the extant manu-
scripts, and the citations in the word lists of forms no longer attested in the manuscripts
of Cicero, or even of Pļautus, are likewise disturbing. The question arises: are the
archaisms correct, or are our manuscripts? Did the old manuscripts used in the second
century contain some truth, or were they completely misleading? The answer to these
questions does not affect the text of Cicero alone, but of all Republican authors: it has
been pointed out that archaist readings seem to have disappeared in large numbers from
the text of Terence as well, in some cases from only sections of the manuscript tradition,
but in many cases from the entire direct tradition.36

The style of an author as complex as Cicero does not lend itself to quick or easy
descriptions. Some of the archaisms adopted so enthusiastically in the second century
are very hard to justify for Cicero's time now; such are the undeclined future infinitive
at II Verr. 5.167, cited from a Tironian copy by Gellius i 7.1, or in potestatem fuisse , or
rare. On the other hand fretu at II Verr. 5.169 may well be correct, as also aeditumus
at II Verr. 4.96. What is troubling is that not only the false readings, but also those
that might well be correct, have disappeared from the manuscript tradition. Indeed, it
seems quite probable that while excessive archaism had a deleterious effect on the

119

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
manuscripts known to Gellius, excessive classicism may not have been altogether
helpful for the preservation of the extant copies. We can only conclude that the effect
on the transmission of texts of the literary fashions of the schools of antiquity may
-3 7
have been great, and if that is so, it is a problem that merits the closest attention.

Harvard University/ Brown University

NOTES

1 It will be obvious to anyone familiar with this subject that my summary of the literary theor
of Gellius and Fronto owes a great deal to the valuable study of R. Marache, La Critique
littéraire de langue latine (Rennes 1952), particularly to his chapters on the theory of rare
words in Fronto and Gellius, pp. 138-151 and 218-225. Discussion of the passages cited in
this section of my paper, together with further examples, may be found there. Of value also
is W. Kroll's brief account, Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur (Stuttgart 1924 =
Darmstadt 1973) 90-95. It is most unfortunate that Fronto is not represented, and Gellius
scarcely so, in the recent translation of Russell and Winterbottom, Ancient Literary Criticism
(Oxford 1972). It should be noted here that Fronto is cited from van den Hout's edition (Leiden
1954), Gellius from Marshall's (Oxford 1968), and Apuleius from the various Teubner editions
of Helm and Thomas (in the case of the Florida and the philosophical works my references are
to section, page and line of those editions).

2 Note also the dyspeptic Domitius Insanus portrayed at xviii 7.3 as attacking Favorinus for
collecting glossario and lexidia.

3 On Charisius cf. H. Usener, RhMus 23 (1868) 491-493 (= Kleine Schriften ii [Leipzig 1913]
173-175), J. Tolkiehn, BPhW 30 (1910) 1054 f., 35 (1915) 188 f., and Philologische Streifzüge
(Leipzig 1916) 29 f., and K. Barwick, Remmius Palaemon und die römische Ars grammatica
(Philol . Supp . XV. 2 [1922]= Hildesheim 1967), esp. 3 ff., 62 n. and 246 f. Charisius is cited
here from Barwick's second edition (Leipzig 1964). On the theory of L. Jeep ( RhMus 51 (1896)
423 f.), supported by Tolkiehn, RE 12 (1925) 2481 s.v. Lexicographie, that the excerpts from
Romānus were a later addition to Charisius, cf. Barwick, Remmius Palaemon 66.

4 On Romānus cf. H. Keil, Grammatici Latini I (Leipzig 1857 = Darmstadt 1961) xlv-xlviii,
Tolkiehn, RE 10 (1917) 788 f., and O. Froehde, "De C. lulio Romano Charisii auctore", Jahrb.
/. Philol. Supp . 18 (1892), esp. 652-672. Tolkiehn, RE 12 (1925) 2481 for some reason dated
Romanus to Pius* reign, which is clearly impossible. On Romānus' work cf. also Barwick,
Remmius Palaemon 250 n. 1.

5 On Statilius see my article "Emendaui ad Tironem", HSCP 77 (1973) 225-243.

6 On the various forms of word collection the best discussion is that of G. Goetz, Corpus Glossari-
orum Latinorum [= CG/L] I (Leipzig 1924), esp. 1 ff. (de glossariis uetustissimis) and 75 ff.
(de synonymis Ciceronis), and also RE 7 (1910) 1433 ff., s.v. Glossographie. On the meaning
of singularia , cf. also W. H. D. Suringar, Historia Critica Scholiastarum Latinorum I (Leiden
1834) 203, Froehde (above, n.4) 647.
It should be noted here that rhetorical dictionaries and handbooks like Statilius' are by no
means limited to Latin; they are in fact far better attested for Greek, particularly in the works
of Phrynichus and Pollux. Both works demonstrate the generally felt need to have an authority
for words, but while Pollux was prepared to accept almost anything Attic, Phrynichus was far
more critical: see Pollux Onom. vi pr., Phrynichus Eel. pr. This type of rigid Atticism is
satirized by Lucian in the Lexiphanes , Rhetorum Praeceptor (esp. 16 f.) and Pseudologista ,
and by Athenaeus in the character of Ulpian (Keitoukeitos). On the general subject of the

120

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Atticist léxica, see W. Schmid, Der Aîticismus I (Stuttgart 1887) 204 f., Kroll (above, n.l) 91 f.,
and Tolkiehn, RE 12 (1925) 2453 ff . ; on Lucian's Lexiphanes and Pseudologista see now
C. P. Jones, GR BS 13 (1972) 475-487.

7 The fragments of Statilius' singularia have been previously collected and discussed by Suringar
(above, n.6) 63-65, 200-203, 258-259, omitting fr.4, and by Froehde (above, n.4) 645-647,
omitting frs. 15 and 19. It should be noted here that my citations of Apuleius are taken from
the index Apuleianus of Oldfather, Canter and Perry (Middletown, Conn. 1934), while references
to Fronto and Gellius are of my own collection, checked by standard dictionaries and by
Marache's useful complementary thesis, Mots nouveaux et mots archaïques chez Fronton et
Aulu-Gelle (Rennes 1956). Fragments of Cato are referred to H. Malcovati, Orátorům Roman-
orum Fragmenta ^ (Turin 1955) (ORF), to H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae
(Leipzig 1914) (P), or to H. Jordan, Catonis quae Supersunt (Leipzig 1860) (J). References
to Cicero are to the Oxford or Teubner text; fragments of comic poets are cited from Ribbeck's
third edition (Leipzig 1888).

8 W. Kroll (above, n. 1) 95 n.

9 Cf. Froehde (above, n.4) 646.

10 See below, p. 115 f.

11 Keil, ad loc., assumed two lacunae, one before and one after the fragment of Sallust.
Froehde's text of the fragment (above, n.4, p. 646) implies that the quotation is from Cicero
Inv. ii 42 or Phil, v 31, clearly nonsense. Both Barwick ad loc. and B. Maurenbrecher,
C. Sallusti Crispi Historiarum Reliquiae (Leipzig 1893) 205, believe the fragment of Sallust
to be lost in the lacuna, but do not explain the extant quotation.

12 Suringar (above, n.6) 258 f., accepted the existence of a commentary on Sallust as well as
one on Cato. On Romānus' use of sources, see below, p. 115.

13 Keil (above, n. 11) suggested the two later misappropriated by Froehde.

14 For another coincidence between Statilius and Gellius see fr. 18 below.

15 F. Ritsehl, Parerga zu Pļautus und Terenz (Leipzig 1845) 363 f.

16 J. Stroux, Philol. 86 (1931) 356 n.45. N in fact reads here iurato...uerto ut ; the remainder
is supplied from C by Barwick.

17 Cf. Marache (above, n.7) 206 f. for examples in Gellius.

18 It should be noted that pedatu is the reading of N in both the lemma and the citation of Cato,
while pedato , in the excerpts, is justified by modern editors with reference to Nonius. I
am not convinced that pedatu is wrong. It should be noted here that Tolkiehn, RE 10 (1917)
788 f., is surely wrong to ascribe the reference to Campania to Statilius rather than to
Romānus .

19 Fronto, Ad M. Caes, i 3.7, Gellius i 13.3, frequently in Apuleius.

20 See below, p. 118 f.

21 Cf. A. Mazzarino, M. Catonis de agri cultura (Leipzig 1962) xiii f. On rarenter see also
Marache (above, n.7) 210. Rare does seem to have become the accepted form in the later
Empire: cf. Nonius 164. 21M RARENTER pro rare , followed by citations from Caecilius and
Pomponius, and CGILV 646.48 Rarenter rare.

22 Cf. Marache (above, n.7) 67, 208 for some examples. Radicitus is found in Fronto, De Or.
2, Fer. Als. 3.9.

121

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
23 Two minor points about this fragment deserve notice. In the first place, I print go rather than
go: cf. LSJ^ s.v., sect- 4. Secondly, it is disturbing that the exclamation before fr.20 in
Charisius is Attattatae (312.27), while the related word Attat is glossed go ttottoi at CGIL
II 482.23. There is a possibility, therefore, that this fragment is corrupt.

24 Froehde (above, n.4) 647 also suggested the entries for taetre in Cato (now fr. 19, but then
incomplete) and plure in Cicero (274.8) as fragments. But plure is also found in another
section of Charisius and may have been drawn from a different source, as Froehde also saw.

25 Suringar divided Statilius into three parts, one each on Cicero, Cato and Sallust (see above,
n. 12). Th. Bergk, Kleine Philologische Schriften i (Halle 1884) 597 f., thought that there
was one book each on Cato and Cicero. This view was accepted (p. 645) and then rejected
(p. 647) by Froehde (above, n.4).

26 This solution was partially reached by Froehde (above, n.4).

27 The arrangement may not be due to Romānus: cf. Froehde (above, n.4) 658, and J. Tolkiehn,
BPhW 24 (1904) 27-30. The arrangement of Statilius' work is not discussed by L. W. Daly,
Contributions to a History of Alphabetization in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Brussels 1967),
who does refer (p. 57) to the alphabetic arrangement of another of Romānus' second-century
sources, Caesellius Vindex.

28 On the date and origins of the Bobbio scholia, cf. P. Hildebrandt, De Scholiis Ciceronis
Bobiensibus (Diss. Berlin 1894) 33-63. On the palimpsest itself cf. E. A. Lowe, CLA I 28.

29 This group was singled out by Hildebrandt (above, n.28) 47 f., along with other passages in
which unusual words are discussed. He also cited the passage of Fronto dealing with
singularia and other relevant passages of Fronto and Gellius, but did not recognize the
similarity with Statilius. A larger group was also identified by T. Stangl, Ciceronis Orati-
onum Scholiastae ii (Vienna 1912 = Hildesheim 1964) 98, on Flac. 14. Not all of these,
however, are singularia : see below, p. 117f. The Bobbio scholia are cited from Stangl's
edition.

30 Cf. Marache (above, n.7) 86 f., 250 f. Nubecula is found four times in Apuleius, aetatula
six times.

31 "Emendaui ad Tironem" (above, n.5). On the subject of rare and suspect manuscripts I
should have referred (pp. 241-3) to the well-known parallel of Lucian, Adv. Indoctum , esp.
sections 2 and 4, referring to the beautiful copies of Atticus and Callinus, and to the putative
autograph manuscripts of Demosthenes.

32 Ibid. 230-2. Another important example not cited there is the variant aeditumi : aeditui at
II Verr . 4.96, Gellius xii 10.6, where the former reading is said to be found in exemplar ibus
fidelissimis , the latter in libris uulgariis. This may have come from a 'Tironian' copy, but
Gellius does not say so. Aeditumus is clearly the more archaic reading, but is printed in the
Oxford Text on the testimony of Gellius alone, although attested in no extant manuscript.
Gellius (xii 10.4) reports that Varro preferred the earlier form, and indeed at R.R. i 2.1 he
attacks the more recent one.

33 Clark also cited Macrobius as a source for the reading, but Macrobius is clearly drawing on
Gellius.

34 On the grammatical question cf. Kühner-Stegmann, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinische

Sprache ^ (Darmstadt 1962) i 26 f.

35 See n.32 for another example. There are numerous variants between the manuscripts of
Gellius and those of Cicero at vi 11.6, vii 16.6, xii 13.22, but these are principally due to
the accidents of the mediaeval transmission of both authors. A further variant in the
Verrines also deserves notice: Servius on Aen. 1.1, followed (more briefly) by Expl. in Don.
4.511.28K and Cledonius 5. 65. IK cites ad Messanam uenit from II Verr. 5.160, where no

122

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 manuscript of Cicero has ad. Peterson does not report the variant in his apparatus, but cf.
W. Heraeus, Hermes 34 (1899) 161.

36 Cf. J. D. Craig, CQ 21 (1927) 90-94. I have discussed another disappearing Terentian archaism
from a different point of view in " Andria 403 (ii 3.29)", to appear in Hermes.

37 I have discussed some of these problems extensively in my dissertation, Latin Textual Criti-
cism in Antiquity (Harvard 1972), which I am now revising for publication. I am grateful to
Professors Christopher Jones of University College, Toronto, and Mary Lefkowitz of Wellesley
College for their helpful criticisms of a draft of this paper.

123

This content downloaded from 128.103.33.2 on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:11:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms