Donati Graeci

Columbia Studies in the

Classical Tradition
Editorial Board
William V. Harris (editor)
Eugene F. Rice, jr. , Alan Cameron, Suzanne Said
Kathy H. Eden, Gareth D. Williams
VOLUME 32
Donati Graeci
Learning Greek in the Renaissance
By
Federica Ciccolella
LEIDEN BOSTON
2008
Cover illustration: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, MS. 2167 (Liber Donati, end of the fteenth
century), fol. 13
v
: young Earl Massimiliano Ercole Sforza at school.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ciccolella, Federica.
Donati Graeci : learning Greek in the Renaissance / by Federica Ciccolella.
p. cm. -- (Columbia studies in the classical tradition ; 32)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-16352-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Greek language--Study and
teaching--History--To 1500. 2. Greek philology--History--To 1500. I. Title. II. Series.
PA57.C53 2009
480.71--dc22
2008039458
ISSN: 0166-1302
ISBN: 978 90 04 16352 2
Copyright 2008 by The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York.
Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
rnix+rn ix +nr xr+nrnr\xns
Marco carissimo
CONTENTS
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Chapter One. The Latin Donatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
:. Aelius Donatus Artes: A Pedagogical Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
.. The Shaping of the Medieval Donatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
. Donatus(es) as Schoolbook(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
. Ianua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
. Ianua(e): Structure and Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Vernacular Donatus(es) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
. Donati meliores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8. The Association with Disticha Catonis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
q. Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Printed Editions of
Ianua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
:o. Learning Latin: Repetition, Memorization, and
Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
::. The Latin Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Chapter Two. The Greek Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
:. The Position of Greek in Roman Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
.. Greek Grammar in the Middle Ages: An Impossible
Dream? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
. Humanism and the Revival of Greek Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
. The Byzantine Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
. Practicing Greek Grammar: Ertmata, Epimerismoi, and
Schedography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6. The Making of Humanist Greek Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
. Other Grammars and Course Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
8. Teaching Greek in Humanist Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
q. Schools of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
:o. Teaching Greek in Greek: Michael Apostolis and the
Direct Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
\iii cox+rx+s
Chapter Three. Donati graeci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
:. In Search of the Greek Donatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
.. The Four Donati graeci or Pylai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
. Pyl a: The Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
. Pyl a: Toward a Stemma Codicum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
. Pyl a as a Grammar Book: The Variable Parts of Speech. . 180
6. Pyl a as a Grammar Book: The Invariable Parts of
Speech and the Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
. The Other Donati graeci: Pylai as Compilations or Donati
compositi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
8. The Manuscripts of the Donati compositi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
q. The Donati compositi as Grammar Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
:o. The Language of the Greek Donatus: Between Greek and
Latin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
::. The Greek Cato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Chapter Four. The Greek Donati and Their Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
:. Latin in Byzantium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
.. Maximus Planudes and the Greek Donatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
. Places of Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
. Using the Donati graeci in Schools: Reutilization and
Superimposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
TEXTS
Donatus graecus a
Siglorum conspectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Textus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Appendix latina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Donatus graecus b
Siglorum conspectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Textus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
Donatus graecus c
Siglorum conspectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Textus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
Donatus graecus d
Siglorum conspectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
Textus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
cox+rx+s ix
Notes
Donatus graecus a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
Donatus graecus b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
Donatus graecus c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529
Donatus graecus d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544
Appendix I. Comparing the Four Donati graeci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
Appendix II. The Manuscripts of Ianua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
Index of Personal Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623
Index of Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
INTRODUCTION
Hi nunc Constantinopoli capta quis dubitet incendio quaevis scriptorum monumenti
concidentur? Nunc ergo et Homero et Pindaro et Menandro et omnibus illustrioribus
poetis secunda mors erit. Nunc Graecorum philosophorum ultimus patebit interitus.
Restabit aliquid lucis apud Latinos, at fateor neque id erit diuturnum.
[Now that [the Turks] have captured Constantinople, who can doubt
that every memorial of the ancient writers will be set on re? Now
Homer, Pindar, Menander, and all the most famous poets will die for
the second time. Now the last destruction of the Greek philosophers
will be at hand. A gleam will survive among the Latins, but, I would
say, it will not last for a long time either.]
1
Few phenomena shaped Western European culture as signicantly as
the rediscovery of ancient studies during the Renaissance. As Jacob
Burckhardt has pointed out, though the essence of the phenomena
[i.e., the cultural aspects of the Renaissance] might still have been
the same without the classical revival, it is only with and through this
revival that they are actually manifested to us.
2
As the ideal training
for the ideal citizen of the new era, the system of humanist education
replaced the medieval curriculum, which had equipped individuals
with complex skills appropriate to specialized tasks, but was based on
the authoritative message of a few selected texts.
The inuence of the culture of antiquity had not died out in
Europe during the Middle Ages. The revival of classical antiquity pro-
moted by Charlemagne in the ninth century was already a form of
Renaissance; even some aspects of monastic scholarship can be under-
stood by considering the direct inuence of Latin writers, whose works
had continued to be copied, studied, and imitated within the walls
of medieval monasteries. Despite the increasing spread of vernacular
languages, Latin kept its role as the language of the church, law, and
international aairs, as well as of science and learning, throughout
1
From a letter by Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II) to Cardinal Nicholas of
Cues, .: July : (Pertusi :qqo
2
, .. ).
2
Burckhardt :qqo [:86o], :.o.
xii ix+nontc+iox
the Middle Ages, especially in Italy, where the Roman past had left
the most outstanding traces.
However, the Renaissances attitude toward classical antiquity was
very dierent from that of the Middle Ages. The rebirth of city life,
which started in Italy in the fourteenth century, favored the rise of
a new culture and, at the same time, the rediscovery of the past:
Culture, as soon as it freed itself from the fantastic bond of the
Middle Ages, [] needed a guide, and found one in the ancient
civilization.
3
Men of culture continued to study the Latin authors
of the medieval curriculum, but expanded their knowledge by adding
other authors and literary works. Recovering ancient texts that, for a
long time, had lain neglected in monastic libraries of Europe became
the goal of many humanists. The new manuscripts made up large
collections, and the texts they contained reached a wider audience:
the use of a simplied handwriting in manuscripts and, later, the
invention of printing sped the reproduction of books and made their
circulation easier. Translations spread the knowledge of these texts
among a wider public.
4
This new culture had enormous eects on education. In the hu-
manist system of global education of the perfect citizen, the humani-
ties acquired a signicant place, along with the seven liberal arts and
more practical disciplines, such as law and medicine.
5
At the same
time, ethical and religious values were nurtured: nally, the conict
between ancient pagan culture and Christianity found a solution in
3
Burckhardt :qqo [:86o], :.. See also Kristeller :qq [:q], :q.o; Witt .ooo,
:; and Marcucci .oo., ::q. Scholars have often emphasized that, among the Ital-
ian city-states, Florence had partially recreated the political and social environment
of fth century Athens: the rise of a new class of merchants and traders encour-
aged the development of human abilities and being open to the world, while wealth
and powerand not the nobility of birthdetermined participation in political life.
Florentines grounded the pursuit of human happiness in the use of creative intel-
ligence and the fulllment of the values of antiquity: virtue, justice, wisdom, and
prudence, i.e., the four Platonic virtues (cf. Symp. .oqA). Thus, there was no contra-
diction between the individual quest for material wealth and Christian morality. See,
e.g., Stinger :q88, :6.
4
On Renaissance translations, see in particular the excellent works by Baldassarri
(.oo) and Botley (.oo).
5
The idea that the humanities are a necessary component of a global educa-
tion is expressed in Pier Paolo Vergerios treatise De ingenuis moribus et liberalibus studiis
adulescentiae (text and translation in Kallendorf .ooo, .q:, in particular .8.q). See
Buck :qq, .f.; Gundersheimer :q6, and . (with a partial translation of the
treatise, .68); and Garin :q66, ::f.
ix+nontc+iox xiii
the West. By the rst half of the fteenth century, the studia humani-
tatis became a clearly dened circle of scholarly disciplines: grammar,
rhetoric, history, poetry, and moral philosophy. In each of these dis-
ciplines, the reading and interpretation of Latin and Greek authors
played an important role.
6
The humanities were not regarded as an
encouragement to otium, but as a necessary support of negotium, a stim-
ulus to action; the imitation of the style and content of the works of
the classical writers provided an excellent source of inspiration.
7
The picture, however, is not homogeneous. Although the crisis
of medieval pedagogy had already emerged during Petrarchs time
(:o:), there was no conscious break with the past until the f-
teenth century. For a long time, humanist teachers continued to use
medieval teaching methods, readings, and schoolbooks, and to regard
repetition, memorization, and imitation as the students main tasks.
8
Moreover, in spite of the steady rise of the vernacular languages, the
prevalence of Latin as the medium of instruction remained unchal-
lenged for a long time.
9
The manifold aspects of the humanist revival of ancient culture
have been extensively studied. In the last hundred years, the discov-
ery and publication of many documents has oered a more precise
and detailed picture of Renaissance education. Evaluating the rela-
tionship between the new pedagogy and medieval culture and educa-
tion, however, is much more dicult:
10
the interpretation of the extent
6
According to Kristeller (:qq [:q], ..), the humanists main concern was
literature. In fact, most of them were teachers, professors, or secretaries to princes or
cities; most of their works were orations, letters, poems, or historical works. Therefore,
Renaissance humanism must be understood as a characteristic phase in what may
be called the rhetorical tradition of Western culture. Kristeller denies a philosophical
origin of Humanism, even if he acknowledges the impact of the new culture on
philosophy because of the emphasis placed on the individual and the rediscovery
of the Greek philosophers.
7
Witt (.ooo, 8.), instead, interprets Renaissance education as being based on a
polarity between vita contemplativa and vita activa and considers grammar and rhetoric
to represent the terms of this opposition. Such a contrast was not felt in antiquity:
grammar and rhetoric were complementary in education. For an overview of the
history of modern studies on the Renaissance after Burckhardt see Rabil :q88; and
Celenza .oo, :.
8
See Padley :q6, q: Rather than a training in original thought, [humanist
pedagogy] proposed a model of elegance. Therefore, everywhere, Renaissance
grammar remains to a large extent bound up with rhetoric.
9
See, e.g., Bolgar :q, .6.; and Garin :q8, XIII.
10
For example, Garin (:q8, q::o, al.) emphasized the contrast between medie-
val education and Renaissance pedagogy, which he regarded as a sort of revolution.
xi\ ix+nontc+iox
and eects of the changes in humanist education, as well as the evalu-
ation of its continuity with the past, are still being discussed. However,
it is undeniable that the classical revival was extremely important, at
least in the intentions of humanist educators: the idea of an indissolu-
ble bond between past and present inspired the pedagogical theories
of the Renaissance.
11
The re-introduction of Greek studies in the West represented a sig-
nicant innovation in Renaissance culture. Most contemporaries were
aware of its importance and described it as a sort of miracle, due
to the initiative of some individuals (Coluccio Salutati and the Flo-
rentine humanist circles) and to the ability of a Byzantine teacher
(Manuel Chrysoloras) who taught Greek to Westerners. Actually, the
Greek revival was the culminating point of a long process; the alter-
nately friendly and hostile relationships between Byzantium and the
West had contributed to the mutual knowledge of the two worlds.
Interestingly enough, the West and Byzantium followed parallel paths
in their mutual approach: the interest in Greek culture that, during
the fourteenth century, began to develop in the West, corresponded to
the spread of Latin culture in Byzantium.
12
The migration of Byzan-
tine scholars to Italy, which had started long before the capture of
Constantinople by the Turks (:),
13
disclosed to Westerners a culture
almost unknown to them: Greek writers, whom Westerners had for-
gotten since the end of antiquity, were read, translated, commented
on, and imitated. Gemistos Plethons lectures challenged centuries of
Scholasticism and, in this way, the foundations of medieval culture.
On the other hand, both Byzantine scholarship and Western culture
Almost three decades later, Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine (:q86, xiixiv) chal-
lenged Garins assumption by pointing out the aspects of continuity with the past dis-
played by humanist culture, in general, and with school, in particular. Black (:qq:a,
:.) oers a summary in an analysis of the conclusions reached by Grendler (:q8q;
see, however, Grendler :qq:, .). See also Witt :q88.
11
See Grafton-Jardine :q8., .
12
See in particular Kristeller :q66, .:. In any case, Byzantiums interest in Latin
culture was less intense and was basically restricted to the Latinophrones, the supporters
of the Union (i.e., of the return of the Orthodox Church under the sovereignty of the
Church of Rome).
13
See Monfasani .oo., o: We no longer believe in the myth that Greek emigrs
eeing the fall of Constantinople in : caused the Renaissance in Italy. This
idea, expressed by the humanist Pier Candido Decembrio, has been repeated for
centuries in textbooks as the logical cause of the Italian Renaissance; see Burke
.oo: [:qqq
2
], ., who compares this migration to the ight of central European
scholars to England and America after :q; and Bianca .oo6, .
ix+nontc+iox x\
were heirs to the homogeneous Greco-Roman j of late antiq-
uity. Thus, for example, Byzantine and Western scholars practiced the
same methods of teaching and approaching ancient texts; the focus on
studia humanitatis in humanist schools resembled the rhetorical training
of Byzantine schools in the Palaeologan age.
14
For this reason, Byzan-
tine curriculum and pedagogy could be easily transferred in the West;
Western scholars who wanted to practice their Greek read the same
texts and did the same exercises as Byzantine students.
The re-introduction and the spread of Greek studies in the West,
however, required important transformations with respect to the an-
cient Greek and Byzantine traditions; for example, it became neces-
sary to adapt Byzantine grammar, conceived for native Greek speak-
ers, to the needs of students who approached Greek as a foreign
language, usually through Latin. Only those changes could grant to
Greek studies a permanent place in Western culture. So far, scholar-
ship has paid little attention to grammar books, lexica, and dictionar-
ies: in other words, to the tools that made this revival possible, as well
as to the methods that teachers followed to impart to their students a
knowledge of Greek.
15
Even a partial analysis of these tools reveals that the return of
Greek studies to the West was everything but a straightforward pro-
cess; its history includes bright triumphs and depressing failures, con-
sent and criticism, acceptance and resistance. Byzantine emigrs who
taught Greek in Italy became rich and famous (e.g., Manuel Chrysolo-
ras) or were frustrated in their ambitions (e.g., Michael Apostolis);
Westerners who spent their energies learning Greek could reach an
impressive mastery of the language (e.g., Bruni, Filelfo, and Politian)
or remain obscure and mediocre scholars. More importantly, this
minor grammatical material, still largely unexplored, reveals that
Chrysoloras, the author of the rst Greek grammar for Westerners,
14
See in particular Geanakoplos :q88, of.
15
See Cortesi :q86, :6f.: La dicolt maggiore nasce [] dalla mancanza di
studi sistematici e organici relativi alluso dei manuali di grammatica per lapprendi-
mento del greco in occidente, alla loro struttura e alle fonti in essi conuite [] La
conoscenza del fenomeno grammaticale greco imporrebbe [] un preciso lavoro
di raccolta dapprima di tutti i testimoni rimasti, fase indubbiamente faticosa per
limmenso materiale che giace inedito nelle biblioteche, per passare poi allanalisi
e alla verica dei contenuti. Pontani (:qq6, :) also stresses the importance of the
study of lexica and grammar books: Qualunque discorso sulla presenza della lingua
greca in Occidente deve fondarsi sula positiva conoscenza degli strumenti attraverso i
quali la lingua poteva essere appresa: cio grammatiche e lessici.
x\i ix+nontc+iox
was not the demiurge or the deus ex machina that his contemporaries
described. First of all, Byzantine scholarship of the Palaeologan age
already had promoted a rethinking of Greek grammatical tradition;
during the Palaeologan age, Byzantine elementary grammar was
slowly undergoing a process of simplication to meet the demands
of students for whom the Attic Greek still used in literature and
documents was like a foreign language. Secondly, Chrysoloras main
innovationthe use of the Latin system of declensions based on the
ending of the genitive singular for Greek nominal inection, antici-
pated by Roger Bacon in the thirteenth centurywas not the only
case of application of a Latinate scheme to Greek grammar. The four
Greek Donati, the object of this book, represent four attempts to create
a Greek grammar modeled on Latin; thus, students could learn Greek
using patterns as familiar to them as those that they had used to learn
Latin.
A study of the four Donati graeci must take into account the com-
plex balance between continuity and innovation in grammatical stud-
ies and pedagogy, as well as the interaction and exchanges between
East and West during the Renaissance. The Greek Donati are Greek
translations or adaptations of the so-called Donatus or Ianua, an ele-
mentary book used during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in
learning Latin. By unveiling the origin, function, and fate of the Greek
Donati, it will be possible to analyze an almost unknown aspect of the
revival of Greek studies in the Renaissance. As Greek grammar books,
in fact, the Greek Donati are failed experiments: they were not deemed
worthy of a printed edition, nor, apparently, did they circulate outside
of Italy and/or Crete.
One of the four texts, version a, probably originated as a sim-
ple word-for-word translation of the Latin textbook for Greeks who
wanted to learn Latin. During the fteenth century, this version,
perhaps originally written in the interlinear spaces of a Latin text,
became an independent grammar and was used to learn Greek;
apparently, Greek Donatus a did not undergo the process of adap-
tation of Latin morphology to the target language that led to the
composition of Donati in modern languages.
16
More advanced and
improved grammars replaced the Greek Donatus, but the replacement
16
See below, 6. Greek Donatus a applies to several Greek versions of Ianua,
which are dierent from each other but, apparently, closely related for their approach
to the original text and the language used.
ix+nontc+iox x\ii
may not have been complete. In fact, when the extant manuscripts of
version a were produced, the Greek grammars of Manuel Chrysolo-
ras, Theodore Gaza, Constantine Lascaris, and some other Greek
scholars already existed. Thus, Greek Donatus a, the Donatus transla-
tus, may have been transformed into an independent grammar in an
area where such books were not circulating. Many elements point to
Crete or some other Venetian colony in Greece as possible places of
origin. It is highly probable that some Venetian ocers and their fam-
ilies brought the most widespread elementary Latin schoolbook, Ianua,
and that the book was later translated into Greek.
Versions b, c, and d, on the other hand, are clear and conscious
attempts to create real Greek elementary grammars using Ianuas
structure. Some parts maintain a tight link with the Latin text, while
some other parts are taken from authentic Greek grammatical mate-
rial, especially from Moschopoulos ertmata or from his source(s).
In all three Donati compositi, for example, the paradigms of the sec-
tion on verbs are derived from the same source, which was prob-
ably an improved Greek translation of Ianua. Most probably, Donati
compositi were just some of the many compilations of grammatical
material available at that time. In any case, compiling seems to be
a typical method in the composition of Renaissance Greek gram-
mars: for example, some sections of Chrysoloras Erotemata closely
echo Moschopoulos work.
As Greek grammars, in spite of their many dierences, the four
Donati graeci show some common features. All of them consider ve
nominal declensions and four regular verbal conjugations (with the
addition of a variable number of irregular verbs, all modeled on
Latin). The parts of speech expounded are the same and in the same
order as in Ianua: this means that in Greek there is no article, but,
as in Latin, there is an interjection. Greek nouns lack a dual but
have an ablative (and Greek prepositions can take the ablative, too);
Greek verbs lack both the dual and the middle voice but have the
impersonal voice, the future imperative, all tenses of the subjunctive
(in a), and even a supine and a gerundive (in a). The Donati compositi,
on the other hand, acknowledge the existence of the aorist, but often
confuse it with the perfect. These four grammars build up a type of
Greek grammar that I would call Donatus-type or Pyl-type.
17
The
17
The use of the term Pyl is explained below, ::.
x\iii ix+nontc+iox
Greek Donati are closely connected with Latin elementary grammar:
they represent the introduction of Latin parsing grammar (Poeta quae
pars est, etc.) within a dierent system, which privileged denition (i
r , etc.).
Greek Donatus a, rst of all, is a translation from Latin. Therefore,
the rst chapter of this study deals with its Latin original, the Pseudo-
Donatan Ianua, by sketching out the evolution of Aelius Donatus Ars
minor in its medieval forms; Ianua was just one of them. Chapter
Two examines the rediscovery of Greek culture and the revival of
Greek studies in the West. After a brief description of the study of
Greek in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, this chapter describes
and evaluates the role played by Byzantine emigrs in re-establishing
a Greek curriculum in the West. Three aspects receive particular
emphasis: the creation of a new Greek grammar for Westerners, the
similarities between Byzantine and Latin pedagogy, and the position
of Greek in Renaissance schools.
The last two chapters focus on the Greek Donati. Chapter Three
oers an analysis of the texts, describing the manuscript tradition and
the content of the four versions, with particular emphasis on version
a. Since, however, a critical edition of a grammatical text makes sense
only if it takes into account the pedagogical context within which the
text was produced,
18
the nal chapter deals with the questions raised
by the Greek Donati: chronology, authorship, place of origin, and use
in classrooms and/or for the self-study of Greek.
The anonymous translator(s) of Greek Donatus a probably did not
intend to write a Greek grammar and Maximus Planudes did not
know that his Greek translation of the Disticha Catonis would become
an elementary reading for Western students of Greek. In the same
way, I did not approach the Greek Donatus originally for its signif-
icance in Renaissance Greek studies. This project started as a nal
paper for a graduate course on the reception of antiquity, taught at
Columbia University by Professor Suzanne Said in the fall of :qq8.
While inquiring into the reception of Latin culture in Byzantium, I
came across Maximus Planudes translations from Latin; among the
works of this extraordinary polymath, the (supposed) translation of
18
See Carlotta Dionisottis programmatic assertion (:q8, .o8): when dealing with
grammatical texts, it is necessary to engage with the text, to ask it questions, in short
to understand both it and why one is working on it.
ix+nontc+iox xix
Aelius Donatus Ars minor still awaited a critical edition. I decided to
undertake this task in my dissertation: the limited number of manu-
scripts transmitting the textsix, ve of which are in Italian libraries
and directly accessible to meseemed to oer an ideal condition for
textual criticism. Also, that topic granted my study a fair level of origi-
nality; in fact, the only existing monograph on the Greek Donatus was
an unpublished dissertation that Wolfgang Oskar Schmitt defended
in :q66 at the Humboldt Universitt of Berlin. Schmitts outstand-
ing workwhich, unfortunately, had almost no circulation outside of
the former German Democratic Republiccontained a thorough dis-
cussion of the problems related to the Greek Donatus (especially of
Planudes authorship) and a critical edition of the text.
19
I began my work by checking the existence of other manuscripts
containing the Greek Donatus; I was able to use catalogues, electronic
resources, and data banks that were not yet available at the time when
Schmitt was doing his research or were not accessible to him as a
scholar living beyond the Iron Curtain. The result was the discovery
of ve new manuscripts, containing three dierent versions of the
same text. In my dissertation (Columbia University, .oo), I presented
a critical edition of the Planudean Greek Donatus, i.e., version a, as
well as an overview of other two versions, i.e., b and what I believed
was the only extant part of c, the section on verbs.
20
In my edition
of the text, the new manuscripts allowed me to conrm or to correct
many of Schmitts assumptions.
Further research has led me to discover the missing parts of ver-
sion c, as well as a fourth version, d, in the grammar attributed to
Zacharias Calliergis in one of the manuscripts of version a. Another
signicant result has been the identication of some elements that
19
Schmitts dissertation was made available to me in microforms, thanks to the
eort of the Interlibrary Loan Service of Butler Library at Columbia University.
Schmitts dissertation still represents an indispensable starting point for further re-
search on the Greek Donatus. Starting from a general outline of Planudes activity
as a translator (pp. :6), Schmitt analyzed the text of the Latin Ianua (:o), its
Greek translation, and its manuscript tradition (:o.::). He equipped his edition
of the Greek text (:
+
q.
+
) with a commentary centered mainly on language and
style (.:..6). The hypothesis of Planudes authorship was examined and rejected in
the nal part of the work. My attempts to contact the author in Berlin through his
former advisor, Johannes Irmscher, have yielded no result. This book is also dedicated
to Wolfgang Schmitt, an extraordinary scholar, and to the memory of Johannes
Irmscher.
20
See Ciccolella .oo, .6o.
xx ix+nontc+iox
point to Crete or the Northeastern part of Italy as the place of ori-
gin of the four Greek Donati.
21
These new discoveries have immensely
widened the eld of inquiry. One Greek Donatusthe vulgate, ver-
sion amight still be viewed as the result of the initiative of an indi-
vidual or as the authentic or spurious work of a Byzantine scholar
and, as such, as a contribution to literary history only. But four ver-
sions of the same text, which probably originated within the same
environment, indicate that they were created to respond to precise
cultural demands; thus, we must consider the four extant Donati graeci
in general, within the context of the revival of Greek studies in the
West, and in particular, as products of the search for adequate tools
for the teaching of Greek, which distinguished the rst stages of that
revival.
Working on Renaissance Greek grammar represents a challenge
and requires, so to speak, the spirit of a pioneer. First of all, no mod-
ern critical editions are available for the most important Byzantine-
humanist grammars: Manuel Chrysoloras Erotemata, Theodore Ga-
zas Introduction to Grammar (ij j), Constantine Las-
caris Summary of the Eight Parts of Speech ('j u ou
u), and, of course, minor works such as Chalcondyles and Cale-
cas grammars. Secondly, there is no general survey of the study of
Greek in the Renaissance comparable, for example, to Robert Blacks
.oo: extensive study on Latin education. A monograph that may con-
sider not only the products of high scholarship, such as translations
of classical texts, but also the tools available for elementary instruc-
tion in Greek is still a desideratum for the study of Greek culture in
the Renaissance. Also, we need systematic studies on the structure,
sources, and use of Greek grammar manuals in the West, but not
without the preliminary, careful work of collecting and cataloguing all
the immense amount of extant material scattered throughout Euro-
pean and American libraries.
This book is intended as a rst attempt to ll this gap by describ-
ing a tradition of Greek studies somehow connected with Venice and
Crete; this tradition was certainly inferior in quality and circulation
when compared with the Florentine scholarship, but it is still impor-
tant in the cultural history of the Renaissance.
22
21
See Ciccolella .oo, :.o.
22
On the dierences between Venetian and Florentine humanism, see Witt .ooo,
88, 8.
ix+nontc+iox xxi
The edition of grammatical texts raises particular problems. It is
true that Renaissance texts present the advantage of being closer in
time to our age than classical texts.
23
However, texts created for school
use were subject to continuous modications. As a matter of fact, a
grammar was not merely read but used: like all secular books, gram-
mar books were not made to last.
24
In the past as well as in the
present, a grammar was continuously open to corrections. Unusual
forms were likely to be corrected and replaced with more normal
forms or perhaps deleted entirely. Teachers were free to modify the
text by excluding superuous material or including what they con-
sidered appropriate to their own pedagogical methods and to the
demands of their classes. Typically, later editions of schoolbooks are
better than earlier ones: this reverses the idea of an archetype, in
Lachmanns sense, as a possible goal of a critical edition. We should
also consider that elementary school texts were usually much more
tolerant of forms of the spoken language than literary texts. Theoreti-
cally, then, an excess of normalization of language and style would
be inappropriate. Practically, however, we should not exclude that
some modern or extravagant forms were introduced in the copy-
ing of manuscripts unintentionally by copyists rather than intention-
ally by grammarians. Applying common sense or skeptical suspension
of judgment is often the best solution: in some cases, abandoning the
idea of correcting the text or even using cruces desperationis may be not
signs of defeat, but ways to respect what is no longer accessible to
minds educated in analogical Greek grammar.
25
23
See Celenzas considerations about the editing of Renaissance texts (.oo, :6).
24
See Cavallo :q8o, :8.
25
For a discussion of Lachmanns method and of its use in modern textual criti-
cism, see Reynolds-Wilson :qq:
3
, .:; Irigoin .oo [:q]; and Montanari .oo,
o. Polara (:qq:) has eectively described the diculty of editing grammatical works;
his remarks deserve to be quoted extensively: (:o.) Tra gli obblighi pi evidenti per
un editore di testi grammaticali seri c quello di correggere, o almeno tentare di
correggere errori visibilmente non dautore, che rendano lesposizione incomprensi-
bile, incoerente o contraria alla dottrina consolidata. (:o) Di fronte ad evidenti
inesattezze, che non si possono neppure attribuire ragionevolmente ad un momento
di distrazione del grammatico, lintervento editoriale si impone ed il rispetto della
tradizione manoscritta signica solo incomprensione della dottrina. On the other
hand: (:o) [] nel tentativo di formire un testo ragionevole, non solo si pu incor-
rere in madornali errori, quando ci si lasci prendere la mano dal gusto dellintervento
e si sostituiscano il proprio pensiero e la propria dottrina a quelli dellautore, ma c
anche il pericolo sottile di eliminare, come sviste involontarie e perci emendabili,
veri e propri usi stilistici, o addirittura consuetudini di lingua.
xxii ix+nontc+iox
I have corrected or modied the texts only when they appeared
clearly altered or corrupted and when their alterations could be ex-
plained by the manuscript tradition.
26
In general, however, I have
tried to preserve elements that I consider as constituent features of
the Greek Donati and closely bound to their Latin model, such as
the confusion between declensions and verbal tenses or the Latinate
lexicon and syntax of some passages. Similarly, I have preserved forms
that reveal the inuence of demotic Greek in the study of Greek
classical grammar. In fact, I have not aimed to make the Greek Donati
similar to grammars in the modern sense, but to oer to readers and
scholars four texts that, with their imperfections, might document a
particular stage of the revival and spread of Greek studies in the
West.
In laying out the texts, I have tried to oer a complete picture of the
variae lectiones found in the manuscripts of versions a and b by present-
ing them in parallel columns when they represent dierent branches
of the manuscript tradition.
27
Often, I have given my preference to
26
Of course, xed rules do not exist: choices may vary according to specic
situations. The fact that most of the scribes of the Greek Donati so far identied
were professional copyists, priests or notaries and, as such, presumably in control
of the texts they were copying would discourage any textual intervention; an excess
of conservatism, however, may harm the clarity and readability of texts, which is
the purpose of any modern critical edition. Thus, on the one hand, assuming that
the Greek Donati were tools to teach literary Greek, I have corrected nominal and
verbal forms inuenced by the spoken language (j). Most probably, in fact,
these anonymous grammarians relied on the grammar taught by late antique and
Byzantine grammatical texts, which were based on Attic Greek; the inuence of
the current language may have easily aected the writing and the transmission of
ancient grammatical forms. On the other hand, I have preserved some non-classical
forms and constructions attested in Hellenistic and Byzantine literary texts, espe-
cially in the parts of the Greek Donati intended for describing conceptse.g., de-
nitions and exampleswhere grammarians may have chosen language and style in
order to communicate more easily with their students. I have preserved inconsisten-
cies and omissions, as well as some forms attested by all manuscripts and reect-
ing the common usage of the spoken language, because correcting them would have
meant introducing an abstract idea of Greek into a text that originated as a response
to concrete demands. Conversely, I have corrected forms and passages that may
have appeared obscure to modern readers. Finally, I have avoided textual interven-
tions in the many cases of non-attested grammatical forms or irreparably corrupted
passages.
27
In the Greek Donatus a, I have italicized the passages that belong to MS. R only.
This manuscript is closely related to the vulgate text (x), but is often independent
from it; see below, :.. In the Latin texts facing the Greek Donati a and c, I have
indicated in italics the passages where the Greek and Latin texts do not coincide. Also,
in the transcription of cs Latin version (Pl), I have italicized words and forms that do
ix+nontc+iox xxiii
readings contained in the manuscripts bearing the most recent ver-
sion of the text, which happen to be more complete and correct than
the earlier versions. On the other hand, I adapted punctuation and
orthography to modern usage. In the negative critical apparatus, I
did not mention the mistakes of iotacism, psilosis, and orthography
in each manuscript, unless they represent signicant (possible) textual
variants. Versions a and c have been edited with a Latin translation
facing the Greek text. In cs case, I have oered a transcription of the
Latin text as it appears in the manuscript, with all its orthographic
peculiarities, its gaps, and its mistakes. In as case, I have not oered
an existing text, but a sort of ideal Ur-Ianua a that may or may not
have been the original of Greek Donatus a, but that functions as a
point of reference and a support for better understanding the Greek
text. For this reason, unlike the c-text, for a I have maintained the
standard classical writing (e.g., ae and oe instead of e).
28
I wish to express my gratitude to my advisors, Alan Cameron and
Carmela Vircillo Franklin, who have supervised my dissertation with
patience and care and provided invaluable intellectual and moral sup-
port during the various stages of the process. I am also grateful to the
other members of the defense committee, Consuelo Dutschke, Kathy
Eden, and James Zetzel, for their constructive criticism and sugges-
tions. Alexandros Alexakis and Roger Bagnall were very helpful at the
rst stage of my research, while Maria Luisa Angrisani and Maria
Grazia Jodice gave me the opportunity to present the rst results in a
lecture at the University of Rome La Sapienza, in April .oo:. The
questions raised during that lecture and the other presentations that
not correspond with regular grammar and vocabulary. The notes on pages :
were not intended as an extensive commentary on the four texts, which would deserve
a separate volume. With these notes, which supplement the description of the texts in
Chapter and the critical apparatus, I have tried to explain some diculties in the
language of the Latin and Greek Donati, their relationship with other grammatical
texts, and my choices in establishing the texts. I have devoted more attention to the
Donati compositi, which, unlike version a, are not treated individually in Chapter and
have never been objects of specic studies until now.
28
I have used the Latinized form of Greek names that are familiar to modern
scholars and readers (e.g., Marcus Musurus, instead of Markos Mousouros).
Conversely, I have transliterated less familiar Greek names (e.g., Moschopoulos or
Margounios). Greek words have been usually transliterated (e.g., ertmata instead of
rj, but Erotemata as the title of Chrysoloras grammar). The bibliography is
updated to March .oo.
xxi\ ix+nontc+iox
I gave on Renaissance Greek grammar have stimulated me to recon-
sider many of my assumptions and widen the eld of my research.
Two grants from Texas A&M University have allowed me to ex-
plore some Italian libraries in order to nd the Latin originals of the
Greek grammars edited in this book; I wish to thank in particular
Isabella Fiorentini of the Biblioteca Trivulziana in Milan for her
assistance.
I completed the revision of the manuscript as a fellow of Villa I
Tatti, the Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies.
Like all those who have had the privilege of working at I Tatti, I
beneted from a stimulating intellectual environment and invaluable
resources.
I am extremely grateful to my colleague Craig Kallendorf and to
Christopher Celenza for their continuous encouragement and their
patience in reading the manuscript and pointing out mistakes and
omissions. Giuseppina Magnaldi helped me solve many doubts con-
cerning the constitutio textus, while Wolfgang Haase, Steve Oberhel-
man, and three anonymous referees were lavish with advice when an
article based on my dissertation appeared in the International Journal of
the Classical Tradition (.oo). Their contributions have been so numer-
ous that it would be impossible to acknowledge all of them as they
occur. I thank Concetta Bianca, Msgr. Paul Canart, Guglielmo Cav-
allo, Mario De Nonno, Elizabeth Fisher, James Hankins, Umberto
La Torraca, Athanasios Markopoulos, Antonio Martina, and David
Speranzi for many useful conversations, for a wealth of bibliography,
and for often making available to me their works before publication.
I am grateful to William Harris and the editorial board of the
Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition for accepting this work in
their prestigious series, to Krista May for revising my English carefully
and patiently, and to the sta of Brill for solving all kinds of editorial
problems.
My professors and fellow graduate students at Columbia, my
friends in Italy and in the U.S., my colleagues at Texas A&M, and
the other fellows at I Tatti have shared in one way or another the long
process that has led to this book. Particular thanks go to my family,
especially to my mother Paola and my husband Marco, for tolerating
my long absences and making me feel their warm support in all ways
possible.
I consider this book as a point of departure rather than a point of
arrival. Much research still needs to be done on Renaissance Greek
ix+nontc+iox xx\
studies, and I hope that, in the future, new discoveries will add new
information, widen the perspective, and even challenge the conclu-
sions reached so far.
Florence, May .oo
cn\r+rn oxr
THE LATIN DONATUS
The use of Aelius Donatus Ars minor and of other grammars derived
from it during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance bears witness to
the eectiveness of Donatus method for teaching elementary Latin.
At the same time, the many modications that the text underwent
throughout the course of the centuriesin particular, its contamina-
tion with Priscians Institutiones and other medieval works on gram-
mar, as well as the massive insertion of paradigmscorrespond to
important changes in the teaching methodology used for Latin. This
chapter analyzes the causes and eects of the evolution of the Ars minor
into one of its many new forms, Ianua, which became the most com-
mon Latin elementary grammar in the Italian schools of the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance. An early version of Ianua constituted the
original of Greek Donatus a.
:. Aelius Donatus Artes: A Pedagogical Program
During the Middle Ages, the Latin grammarian Aelius Donatus, al-
though pagan, was held in the greatest esteem. He owed much of his
fame to Saint Jerome, who proudly referred to him as his teacher
(praeceptor meus Donatus: Contra Runum :. :6, PL ., .q A; etc.).
1
Donatus, grammaticus urbis Romae, was active between and 6C.E.
The name Donatus is especially attested to in Africa, which was
also the place of origin of other grammarians of that age, including
Probus, Nonius Marcellus, and perhaps Charisius.
2
Aelius Donatus grammatical works constitute a corpus (Ars gramma-
tica Donati) of four books. The rst book, known as Ars minor, contains
a synthetic treatment of elementary morphologythe eight parts of
1
Humanists explicitly attributed to Donatus the merit of Jeromes rened literary
education. See Brugnoli :q6; Rice :q8, 8; and the passages quoted ibid., .: n. .
2
On Donatus life, see in particular Holtz :q8:, :.o; and Kaster :q88, ..8.
For a survey of Donatus life, work, and fate, see Holtz .oo.
. cn\r+rn oxr
speechin a catechistic format. The last three books make up the
Ars maior, where grammar is treated more extensively. The second
book (Ars maior :) deals with the constituent elements of words and
phrases: letters, syllables, accents, and punctuation. The third book
(Ars maior .) analyzes the eight parts of speech: noun, pronoun, verb,
adverb, participle, conjunction, preposition, and interjection, paying
particular attention to the properties (accidentia), i.e., the changes to
which words are subject when related to other words. The fourth
book (Ars maior ) focuses on style and contains a description of its
qualities (gures of speech) and defects (barbarism, soloecism, etc.).
The genetic structure of the Ars maior and its transition from sim-
ple to complex, from essential to ancillary elements, correspond to
the method followed in classrooms. At the same time, however, the
Ars maior has the framework of the rhetorical-philosophical treatises
of antiquity: there is, in fact, a clear attempt to codify previous knowl-
edge into an all-inclusive, self-contained system.
3
The pyramidal struc-
ture of each chapter, the division of the matter into classes and sub-
classes, the exposition by antitheses and complements, and especially
the dogmatic tone, make the Ars maior a complex work. Adding to
this complexity, Donatus does not ever declare his aim or his general
plan.
4
At any rate, a comparison between the Ars minor and the Ars
maior reveals that Donatus conceived the two works as two stages in
the study of grammar. The Ars minor is a compendium, a textbook for
an introductory course; it focuses on the rudiments of the language
and presents them in a form that is easy to memorize. The Ars maior
meets the demands of more advanced students, who require a real ref-
erence book in order to accomplish the stylistic ideal of artistic prose.
Although the treatise in three parts was by far the most common
method in expounding grammatical material, short grammars like
3
See the observations by Holtz, :q8:, 6:. Lomanto (:q8, :::.) has focused on
the uniformity in structure of Roman Artes grammaticae, of which DonatusArs maior
represents a clear example. Based on the Stoic distinction between r (dictio, the
word considered per se) and (oratio, the word within a context), most Artes deal
rst with the elements of r (de voce, de littera, de syllaba, de dictione, de oratione; de
accentibus, de tonis or de distinctione or de posituris; de rhythmo, de metro, de pedibus), then
with what concerns (the eight parts of speech), and nally with the elements of
style (Latinitas). This tripartite structure seems to have been elaborated by Remmius
Palaemon in the rst century C.E.
4
As Holtz remarks (:q8:, ): Il ne sagit pas ici dun corps de doctrines qui se
cre sous nos yeux dans une libre mditation, [] mais dune srie de trs pesantes
armations qui ont pour eet de constituer une sorte dinventaire.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
the Ars minor were not unknown in antiquity. The most successful
handbook for the study of Greek, the r j by Diony-
sius Thrax, of the second century B.C.E., shows the same character-
istics found in Donatus Ars minor: it consists of a set of denitions,
sometimes explained with examples. Dionysius r allows us to
locate the origin of the short grammar within the Alexandrian cul-
tural milieu.
5
In the initial chapters of his Institutio oratoria, Quintilian criticized
the use of manuals (commentariola) for the teaching of elementary gram-
mar (:. . ):
Ex quibus ( scil. grammaticis) si quis erit plane impolitus et vestibulum modo artis
huius ingressus, intra haec, quae protentium commentariolis vulgata sunt, consistet;
doctiores multa adicient.
[If a teacher is quite uneducated, and has barely crossed the threshold
of his profession, he will conne himself to the rules commonly known
from teachers manuals; a more learned man will be able to add many
more.]
6
Quintilian was perhaps aware of the incongruities and obscurities
that such elementary books could contain: they synthesizedoften
arbitrarilycomplex issues, summarized longer works, or reported
teachers dictations in classrooms, but they lacked thoroughness and
consistency.
The innovative character of the Ars Donati lies in its combination
of an elementary textbook with a grammatical treatise, thus oering
a complete course of Latin. Moreover, Donatus devotes much more
space to practical issues, such as inection, than to theory, deni-
tions, and concepts. We cannot say to what extent Donatus inno-
vation reects an actual change in the teaching of Latin in classrooms.
However, it is interesting to note that other grammarians of the late
fourth centuryfor example, Charisius and Diomedesalso reduced
the extent of the traditional theoretical parts in their Artes: a more
pragmatic view of grammar seems to have prevailed during this time,
and it was perhaps a general custom not restricted to individual schol-
ars.
A comparison of the treatment of a topic common to both the Ars
minor and the Ars maior, the eight parts of speech, will clarify this
point. The Ars minor is conceived in question-and-answer format, as
5
On Dionysius r, see below, :o6.
6
Translation by Russell .oo:, :..
cn\r+rn oxr
a dialogue between a teacher and a pupil who repeats his assignment
in the classroom. The colloquial style of the Ars minor is evident also in
introductory expressions typical of the language of classrooms, such as
Da declinationem verbi activi (, p. q Holtz); Da adverbia loci; Da temporis,
etc. (, p. q6 Holtz). As noted by Holtz, this pattern, which is as
old as the school itself, reects not only the philosophical (Platonic)
dialogue, but also the Roman tradition of a father educating his son.
7
The dialogical form was not uncommon in grammatical works, but
in the Ars minor it is used extensively and systematically for the rst
time. The Ars minor became a model for later works on grammar: the
dialogical form, in fact, was more suitable than the enunciative form
for recognizing and memorizing rules or denitions at the elementary
level.
The following passages on the noun oer an interesting example of
the similarities and the dierences between Donatus two Artes:
Ars minor, p. 8 Holtz: (.) Nomen quid est? Pars orationis cum casu corpus aut
rem proprie communiterve signicans. Nomini quot accidunt? Sex. Quae? Qualitas,
comparatio, genus, numerus, gura, casus. Qualitas nominum in quo est? Bipertita
est: aut enim unius nomen est et proprium dicitur, aut multorum et appellativum.
[What is the noun? A part of speech with cases, which signies a person
or an object either specically or generally. How many properties apply
to the noun? Six. Which ones? Quality, comparison, gender, number,
form, and case. What does the quality of nouns consist in? It is twofold:
either the noun belongs to one, and it is called proper; or it belongs
to many, and it is called common.]
Ars maior ., pp. 6:f. Holtz: (.) Nomen est pars orationis cum casu corpus
aut rem proprie communiterve signicans, proprie ut Roma Tiberis, communiter
ut urbs umen. Nomini accidunt sex, qualitas, conparatio, genus, numerus, gura,
casus. Nomen unius hominis, appellatio multorum, vocabulum rerum est. Sed modo
nomina generaliter dicimus. () Qualitas nominum bipertita est. Aut enim propria
sunt nomina, aut appellativa. Propriorum nominum secundum Latinos quattuor
sunt species, praenomen, nomen, cognomen, agnomen, ut Publius Cornelius Scipio
Africanus [] Appellativorum nominum species multae sunt. Alia enim sunt
corporalia, ut homo, terra, mare; alia incorporalia, ut pietas, iustitia, dignitas. etc.
[The noun is a part of speech with cases, which signies a person or
an object either specically or generally: specically like Rome or
Tiber, generally like city or river. Six properties apply to the
noun: quality, comparison, gender, number, form, and case. The name
refers to one man, the noun to many, the term to objects. However,
7
Holtz :q8:, :oo.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
we call them nouns only, in a general sense. The quality of nouns
is twofold: nouns are either proper or common. In Latin there are
four kinds of proper names: the personal name, the gentile name,
the surname, and the nickname, like Publius Cornelius Scipio the
African [] There are many kinds of common nouns. Some of them
are corporeal (= concrete), like man, land or sea; others are
incorporeal (= abstract), like devotion, justice or dignity; etc.]
Apart from some slight dierences, the denitions of the Ars minor
build up, so to speak, the framework of those of Ars maior .. By
rst learning, most likely by heart, the basic rules in the Ars minor,
the pupil would acquire the background necessary to understand the
more complex classications of the Ars maior. Moreover, the Ars minor
contains charts of declensions and conjugations, but very few techni-
cal details and examples that may distract pupils from absorbing the
essential concepts. On the other hand, in book . of the Ars maior the
author has generously supplied examples and details but has omitted
charts. The student who tackled the Ars maior, in fact, was supposed to
have already mastered the Latin language well enough to concentrate
on word analysis (); therefore, examples were an indispensable
tool for remembering rules and grammatical categories.
8
The Ars minor and the Ars maior, the handbook of elementary mor-
phology and the encyclopedic treatise on grammar, were not ends in
themselves, but were conceived as preparatory to the study of liter-
ature, the nal purpose of the teaching of the grammaticus. Donatus
commentaries on Terence and Virgil represent the fulllment of his
eort to equip late-antique teachers with pedagogical tools useful for
their task. The rst has been handed down with gaps and interpola-
tions. Of the second commentary, which is probably the earlier of the
two, only the biography of Virgil taken from Suetonius De poetis, the
letter of dedication to Munatius,
9
and the introduction to the Bucolics
8
See Holtz (:q8:, ::o::): isolated words are taken from everyday language and
from the school environment or refer to the Roman tradition, whereas sentences are
usually quotations from Virgil, the auctor mainly studied in schools.
9
This letter (published by C. Hardie in Vitae Virgilianae antiquae, Oxford :q6o)
is particularly interesting in identifying Donatus aims and methodology. Donatus
intended to write a book that might be useful to his colleagues, especially those
who were just beginning their career; at the same time, he wanted to improve the
ancient commentaries by taking into account the dierent pedagogical demands of
his age. For this purpose, as Donatus claims, he had collected a considerable amount
of documentation, had carefully selected the material, and had decided to reproduce
his sources to the letter. Donatus shows the tendency, typical of Roman scholarly
prose, to juxtapose heterogeneous elements, as well as a remarkable taste for inserting
6 cn\r+rn oxr
are still extant. The rest can be reconstructed through Servius, espe-
cially the so-called Servius Danielis or Servius auctus.
Literature had become a science during the Hellenistic age thanks
to the accurate studies of the Alexandrian scholars, and had received
a place of distinction in the Hellenistic school. In its three-level cur-
riculum studiorumj, , and jthe second
stage, that of the grammarian, was in fact devoted to the study of
poetry. When literary studies were introduced in Rome in the late sec-
ond century B.C.E., the grammaticus was assigned the same role in the
Roman school system: for Cicero, Horace, Juvenal, and other Latin
authors, the grammarian was rst of all a teacher of literature whose
main task was the interpretation of poetry. Donatus himself was bet-
ter known for his commentaries than for his grammatical treatises.
Throughout the imperial age and up until the nal decline of the
ancient educational system, Virgil and Terence (with Cicero and Sal-
lust for prose and, from the late fourth century, also Lucan, Statius,
and Juvenal) held a steady place in the Latin curriculum. The four
stages of the teaching of auctores in classrooms remained unchanged:
lectio (reading a text, usually aloud), enarratio (exposition and inter-
pretation of the content and the language), emendatio (correction and
improvement of the transmitted text), and iudicium (evaluation of the
author and his work).
From the fourth century B.C.E., with Plato, Aristotle, and the Sto-
ics, the origin, development, and functions of language had become
objects of study as well.
10
Consequently, grammatical studies followed
two parallel lines, codied in Quintilians distinction between the
interpretation of the authors (historice, exegetice, enarratio auctorum) and
the science of speaking and writing (methodice, horistice, scientia loquendi et
scribendi).
11
quotations in the text. However, he rarely mentions his own interpretation. See Holtz
:q8:, .q.
10
See in particular Irvine :qq, .q.
11
Cicero (De oratore :. :8) indicated the main tasks of grammar in the study of
poets (poetarum pertractatio), the knowledge of the contents of literary works (historiarum
cognitio), and the explanation of words and their correct pronunciation (verborum intepre-
tatio and pronuntiandi sonus). Quintilians division of grammar into the study of correct
speech (recte loquendi scientia) and the interpretation of poets (poetarum enarratio: Inst. or. :.
. .; :. q. :, etc.) substantially followed Ciceros assumption. In the fteenth century,
Niccol Perotti still hinted at Quintilians denition in his Rudimenta grammatices: Gram-
matica est ars recte loquendi recteque scribendi, scriptorum et poetarum lectionibus observata (quoted
by Percival :q8:, .).
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
The interpretation of literary texts (scientia interpretandi) and the rules
for the correct use of language in speaking and writing (ratio scribendi et
loquendi) were both still relevant for late-antique grammarians. Audax,
who lived some time between the fourth and the sixth centuries,
species this in the question that introduces his grammar book (GL
, .:):
Grammatica quid est? Scientia interpretandi poetas atque historicos et recte scribendi
loquendique ratio.
[What is grammar? The science of interpreting the poets and the
historians and the method of writing and speaking correctly.]
The same concept is expressed in the pompous words that Diomedes
addressed to Athanasius when introducing the three books of his Ars
grammatica (GL :, .qq):
Artem merae Latinitatis puraeque eloquentiae magistram sub incude litteraria doci-
liter procudendo formatam humanae sollertiae claritas expolivit.
[The brightness of human ingenuity rened the art of the true Latin
style (Latinitas) and the master of pure eloquence [i.e., grammar],
molded by hammering (it) on the anvil of literature in a teachable way].
Literary sources demonstrate that Latin grammarians taught exactly
as their Greek colleagues: grammars distinction between historice and
methodice applied also to Roman schools. As for methodice, Varro and
Remmius Palaemon had adapted to Latin the Greek grammar codi-
ed by Dionysius Thrax. The adaptation of Latin to Greek was car-
ried to such a point that Roman grammarians felt obliged to nd
a Latin equivalent for the article in the demonstrative pronoun hic,
haec, hoc; to distinguish between subjunctive and optative, even if in
Latin the same forms function for both meanings; and to introduce
an eighth part of speech, the interjection, in order to make the num-
ber equivalent to that of their Greek models.
12
However, the use of correct language in writing and speaking,
which in late antiquity had already gained importance in the common
concept of grammar,
13
gradually came to prevail over the study of
12
See Bonner :q, :q.
13
See, for example, Dositheus denition (:, p. . Bonnet): r j r
u 0r oi r _u r i r _u o o i 0-
u r i / Ars grammatica est scientia emendati sermonis in loquendo et
scribendo poematumque ac lectionis prudens praeceptum. On this subject, see Sandys :q8
3
, :.
8f.; Percival :q88, 8 n. ..; and Irvine :qq, .
8 cn\r+rn oxr
literature. The gradual but inexorable changes in the linguistic facies
of the Roman world required that teachers should pay more attention
to the correctness of language than to the reading of the auctores.
Thus, the study of literature became subsidiary to that of language.
At the same time, instead of being a preliminary stage for the study of
the auctores, grammar became an end in itself. The attempt to save
Latinitas from inevitable decline made elementary grammar books
increasingly necessary to meet the demands of students who, because
of the diusion of the vernaculars, more often than not had to learn
Latin as a foreign language. Over the course of time, Donatus Ars
minor became the preferred handbook for Latin grammar in schools.
Donatus twofold commitment to language and literature fully con-
forms to the Greco-Roman grammatical tradition. However, he can
also be considered as a point of departure: his Ars minor, which was
used to learn the Latin language for about twelve centuries, built up
the foundations of medieval and Renaissance elementary grammar.
.. The Shaping of the Medieval Donatus
The Ars Donati was just one of many works on grammar handed
down from late antiquity to the Middle Ages. Both abbreviated school
texts, like the Ars minor, and encyclopedic treatises, like the Ars maior,
belonged to the so-called Schulgrammatik-type, which was based on the
methodical analysis of the morphological elements of the language,
the parts of speech. For each part, a denition, a list of properties
(accidentia), and a fairly detailed discussion of its functions is given;
denitions usually prevail over examples and paradigms.
With more than one thousand pages, Priscians Institutiones grammat-
icae is the most monumental work of this kind. A medieval student
of Latin could benet also from Artes dealing with specic aspects,
such as metrics, orthography, and gures of speech: for example, De
orthographia by Caper, Agroecius, and Bede, or De arte metrica by Bede.
Less systematic guides to nominal and verbal inection, known as Reg-
ulae and containing lists of paradigms, were available also: for exam-
ple, Pseudo-Palaemons Regulae, Probus Catholica, and Priscians Insti-
tutio de nomine pronomine et verbo.
14
These categories, however, should be
14
See Irvine :qq, ; and Law :qq, .
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts q
considered in a very broad sense because few works on grammar fall
within only one of them: every kind of variation and cross-inuence
was possible, depending on the goals of the grammarian and the
demands of his audience.
This point explains why Donatus Ars, the most successful textbook
ever written in the history of Western education,
15
underwent an
endless process of transformations and adaptations from late antiquity
to the sixteenth century. Like many other ancient grammatical texts,
Donatus work survived a transformation of the culture that had
produced it. Christian communities, in fact, realized very quickly that
Latinitas and emendatiowriting correctly and establishing a correct
textwere indispensable to the preservation of a written tradition
and the continuation of their textual culture. In order to achieve
their goals, Christian scholars had to rely on a well-established set of
rules and on the authority of accepted literary models.
16
The demand
for a normative grammar became even more compelling after the
sixth century, when vernaculars were gradually replacing Latin in
everyday usage: therefore, access to the Latin texts of ecclesiastical
and monastic culture had to be assured through the systematic study
of Latin grammar. Donatus pedagogy, based on a course of Latin on
two levels, was seen as particularly suitable in satisfying this urgent,
practical need.
It was Servius, grammaticus urbis Romae at the beginning of the fth
century, who mainly contributed to making the Ars Donati an authori-
tative text. His commentaries on Donatus Ars minor and Ars maior were
widespread. As in his commentary on Virgil, Servius treated Donatus
as an auctor, whose statements were subject to comments by teachers
and were memorized by students. Servius often used the formula ut
Donatus dicit to reinforce his assertions.
17
15
Irvine :qq, 8. See Murphy :q, :q.
16
Irvine :qq, . A strong and lasting opposition to the use of pagan grammari-
ans, however, arose among the most conservative Christians. Law (:qqa, :oo) quotes
a short text, handed down by two ninth-century manuscripts, which bears witness to
the debate between those who asserted the usefulness of ancient grammar and those
who considered it as a vessel of the wine of error which lying teachers poured out
(vinum erroris quod [] propinaverunt magistri mendaces: a quotation attributed to Gregory
the Great).
17
On Servius and Sergius, see Holtz :q8:, ..., .8.q; and Kaster :q88,
:6q:q6, 6q, .qo. Two versions of Servius commentary (GL , o.8
and .88) have been handed down by an eighth-century manuscript (Paris, Bib-
liothque Nationale, MS. lat. o), severely corrupted in spite of its antiquity. The
:o cn\r+rn oxr
From the fth to the seventh centuries, Donatus work had several
imitators and commentators: for example, Cledonius, a Latin gram-
marian in Constantinople, who wrote the rst commentary on Dona-
tus equipped with lemmata (thus bearing witness to the condition
of Donatus text that was circulating at Constantinople at the time);
Servius and the mysterious Sergius or Pseudo-Cassiodorus; Pompeius,
who taught in Africa; and Julian of Toledo, a bishop of Visigothic
Spain.
18
Writers and grammarians from the sixth century onwards
demonstrate that Donatus had risen to the level of a symbol.
19
Pri-
scian, who taught Latin in Constantinople during the sixth century,
praised Donatus and made extensive use of his work, even if his
attitude toward the Ars Donati was cautious and realistic rather than
blindly laudatory.
20
Cassiodorus, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville,
and Bede held Donatus work in great esteem. In most cases, however,
they relied not on the original text but on commentaries that ampli-
ed the authentic Donatan material through more or less arbitrary
additions.
21
Between the fth and the sixth centuries, ancient grammar was
Christianized. Donatus work also underwent the same treatment:
words taken from Christian texts or lexica and passages from the
Scriptures replaced, or were added to, the examples taken from Vir-
rst editor, Jenson (Venice, ca. :6), attributed the rst to Marius Servius Honora-
tus and the second to Sergius grammaticus. A Servius plenior, a more extensive
version of a commentary on Donatus Ars with a massive use of Virgil to explain
Donatus rules, is also attributed to a Sergius, which is most likely just a wrong read-
ing of the name Servius; see Heinrich Keils introduction to his edition in GL ,
LII. This Servius plenior was used by Cledonius, Pompeius, and the anonymous
author of the two books of Explanationes in Donatum (GL , 866). Holtz (:q8:, .q),
in turn, attributed the two books to two dierent authors. On the vexatae quaestiones
of the origin and authorship of the Explanationes, see De Paolis .ooo. A fragmentary
treatise (Sergii fragmenta Bobiensia: GL , :) and a commentary on the Ars minor
(GL 8, ::8) have also been attributed to Sergius: see Holtz :q8:, .q.
18
On Cledonius (GL , q), see Holtz :q8:, ., .q:. On Pompeius (GL
, q:.), ibid., .6f., :, and the comprehensive study by Kaster :q88, :q:68.
Excerpts from Julian of Toledos work have been edited in GL , :.8, and 8,
CCIVCCXXXIX.
19
For example, Boethius (Categ., PL 6, . D, .6o A) considered Donatus and
Aristarchus as the undisputed authorities on Latin and Greek grammar respectively.
See Holtz :q8:, .8.
20
Priscians works are edited in volumes . and of GL. On Priscians use of
Donatus Ars, see Holtz :q8:, .q., ..
21
Holtz :q8:, ..q, :8f.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts ::
gil and from the Roman pagan tradition.
22
This Donatus Christianus
became the basic textbook in the cloisters of eighth-century Ireland,
where learning Latin was a compelling necessity for religious prac-
tice.
Donatus, however, had conceived his Ars for fourth-century native
speakers of Latin. With his workespecially the Ars maiorhe had
aimed to impart not knowledge of the Latin language, which was
taken for granted in native speakers, but a taxonomy and classication
of words necessary to dene the style of the auctores. Therefore, in
the Ars minor Donatus had oered the conjugation of only one verb,
lego, and the declension of ve nouns or adjectives, one for each
gender traditionally recognized: hic magister (genus masculinum), haec musa
(genus femininum), hoc scamnum (genus neutrum), hic et haec sacerdos (genus
commune), and hic et haec et hoc felix (genus omne). This certainly was not
enough to acquaint a non-native speaker with the complex verbal and
nominal inections of Latin. Donatus grammar, in fact, does not deal
with Latin morphology, but restricts the treatment of the language to
basic denitions and to very few examples of the main grammatical
categories.
23
In order to adapt this text to the needs of Christian students for
whom Latin was a foreign language, Irish grammarians resorted to
several strategies: from the contamination of the Ars minor with Book
Two of the Ars maior to the improvement of Donatus text by the
works of other grammarians, such as Charisius, Diomedes, Probus,
Consentius, and Priscian, probably made accessible through an inux
of manuscripts from the European continent. This is the case, for
example, in Virgilius Maro and the source of the seventh-century Ars
Malsachani. Commentators also continued their activity, focusing on
the Ars maior: the anonymous Ars Laureshamensis, the Ars Ambrosiana,
and Quae sunt quae of the seventh-eighth centuries.
24
The Ars minor
22
For example, in Donatus Christianus the nouns ecclesia and templum and the adjec-
tive delis replaced Donatus musa, scamnum, and sacerdos as examples of nominal gen-
ders and as paradigms of inection; fructus and species were added as paradigms of
fourth- and fth-declension nouns; the question (part of speech) quid est? became
Quid est (part of speech)?. See Law :qq, .
23
See Percival :q88, ..
24
Vivien Law has devoted several important studies to the problems connected
with the preservation, transmission, and use of Latin grammars in medieval Ireland
and England (:qq; :qq, .8q, q::.; etc.). On the reception of Donatus in Ire-
land, see Holtz :q8:, ...o. On the treatise Quae sunt quae, see Munzis observations
in his recent edition (.oo, q:; text and commentary on pp. :66).
:. cn\r+rn oxr
gradually prevailed over other short grammar books, such as the man-
uals by Asper, Dositheus, and Scaurus, or the Ars breviata attributed to
Augustine. Even more important, however, was the fact that the Ars
minor was integrated with Regulae-type grammar books. Irish gram-
marians of the seventh and eighth centuries (e.g., Tatwine and Boni-
face) concentrated their eorts on improving the content and struc-
ture of the Ars minor by adapting it to the needs of their pupils: they
abandoned the semantic and derivational criteria of ancient grammar
and reduced the space traditionally devoted to denitions in favor of
a more thorough description of accidence and morphological phe-
nomena.
25
The merging of Schulgrammatik with Regulae created a model
of elementary foreign-language grammar unprecedented in antiquity.
The creation of a grammar for foreigners seems to be peculiar to
the insular grammarians of the seventh and eighth centuries. Works
conceived by teachers who taught Latin to Greek students, such as
Eutyches, Phocas, and Priscian, although based on a comparative
approach to the Latin language, in fact were written according to the
usual formal and descriptive criteria.
26
The earliest surviving example is the Ars Asporii. Although still
defective in its disposition and organization of contents, we can con-
sider it as a rst experimental grammar for non-Latins: written per-
haps in Gaul at the end of the sixth century, the Ars Asporii consists of
a contamination between the Ars minor and the second book of the Ars
maior. Donatus Ars is reproduced in its Christianized form and with
a signicant increase in the number of examples quoted.
27
Typical
Christian contents and methods are displayed by another anonymous
25
Law :qq, :o.; see also Contreni :q86 (:qq.). Word separation, graphically
visual forms, and modication of the word order were some of the devices through
which Insular grammarians made Latin grammar more easily accessible to pupils; see
Saenger :qq, 8qo.
26
See Law :q86; :qq, 8, .
27
A version of the Ars Asporii, or Ars Donati exposita ab Aspero, was published in GL 8,
q6: from MS. lat. .o of the Brgerbibliothek in Bern. On the transmission of the
text and its versions, see Holtz :q8:, .. The author keeps and expands Donatus
distributional classications of nouns by gender (GL 8, o: Genera nominum sunt quattuor,
masculinum, femininum, neutrum, commune. Masculinum ut hic iustus, femininum ut haec ecclesia,
neutrum ut hoc ieiunium, commune duobus generibus ut hic et haec nis vel hic et haec sacerdos vel hic
et haec dies. Est praeterea trium generum, quod omne dicitur, ut hic et haec et hoc ingens felix prudens.
Est epicoenon nomen, id est promiscuum, ut vultur ardea accipiter vel aquila, etc.). Christian
paradigms are quoted for the verbal system (q:): ieiunio, oro, vigilo, praedico, supplico,
commendo, etc. See Law :qqa, q: and :qq, :o.f.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts :
elementary grammar in question-and-answer format, the fragmen-
tary Ars Bernensis, which was composed in Ireland during the eighth
century. As in the other Artes of that age, Donatus is considered an
absolute authority: his words are constantly quoted in the form of
lemmata, paraphrased, and explained, like the Scriptures, in a literal
sense. The anonymous author of the Ars Bernensis contaminated Dona-
tus Ars minor and the second book of the Ars maior with Pompeius,
Priscian, Sacerdos, Charisius, and Isidore, following a procedure that
reminds us of the catenae of the early commentators of the Bible.
28
The adoption of the formal classications of nouns and verbs into
ve declensions and four conjugations, used by Priscian in his Institutio
de nomine pronomine et verbo, represented a signicant improvement: it
provided the framework for a description of Latin morphology that
complemented Donatus denitions.
29
In turn, this new Priscianic
Donatus was supplemented by commentaries, which often preceded
the text in manuscripts, and by tools aimed at making the gram-
mar book suitable for beginning students. They included, for instance,
exercises and lists of paradigms taken from the stock material avail-
able to teachers and often circulating separately in schools, such as
Declinationes nominum, i.e., lists of nouns declined without a connecting
text, composed in England perhaps during the seventh century.
30
This
Insular elementary grammar was, therefore, an elementary descrip-
tive grammar, which Vivien Law has dened as a succinct systematic
exposition of Latin grammar in which morphology takes rst place.
31
It originated in England during the seventh century and built up the
foundations of later elaborations of the Ars minor.
28
Text in GL 8, 6:.. Another catena grammaticalis is the so-called Donatus orti-
graphus (edited by J. Chittenden, CCCM o D, Turnhout :q8.), a dialogue between a
teacher and a pupil, in which Priscian and other grammarians are also used exten-
sively. See Holtz :q, o; :q8:, 6.
29
Cf. :. :, GL , : Omnia nomina, quibus Latina utitur eloquentia, quinque declinationibus
ectuntur; . 8, o: Omnia verba [] habent coniugationes quattuor. On the (probable)
origin of the traditional classication of Latin morphology from Varro and Remmius
Palaemon, see Barwick :q.., .6.
30
See Holtz :q8:, :, 8; Law :qq, and :qq, ., :o; and Colom-
bat :qqq, 6q (on Vestibulum, a list of three thousand Latin words in . sentences,
which usually supplemented Ianua). Declinationes nominum were copied, for example,
after Donatus Ars maior . in the third part of Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, MS. lat.
o, dating from the beginning of the twelfth century. According to Holtz (:q8:, :q),
they are a free exploitation, in catechistic form (at least at the beginning of the text)
of Priscians Institutio de nomine pronomine et verbo (my translation).
31
Law :q8 and :qq, 8.
: cn\r+rn oxr
The British-Irish case was not isolated: in the rest of Europe, Dona-
tus Ars also underwent transformations and adaptations. Among the
many variants of the Ars Donati handed down to us, Louis Holtz has
recognized another main tradition: the Visigothic, which is of Span-
ish origin. In Italy, the Visigothic and the Irish traditions merged in
the middle of the eighth century, perhaps in the Irish monastic foun-
dation of Bobbio.
32
Whereas the transmission of the Ars minor, constantly used in
schools, was continuous and uniform, the three books of the Ars maior
had a more varied fate. From the time of Servius, because of two
books devoted to the morphology of the parts of speech (the Ars
minor and the second book of the Ars maior), Donatus corpus was often
handed down in two independent parts: Ars minor and Ars maior :,
and Ars maior . and . Book Two of the Ars maior competed with the
Ars minor, which was considered too elementary, especially during the
so-called Carolingian Renaissance, when an elevation in culture also
caused a change in pedagogy.
An increase in the number of manuscripts of classical authors (e.g.,
Virgil, Terence, and Horace) copied in the Carolingian age attests to a
renewed interest in ancient literature and, most probably, to a revival
of the practice of reading poetry in schools. The teaching of grammar,
however, remained generally restricted to the doctrine of the parts
of speech.
33
Elementary morphology, based on Donatus, built up the
core of the most widespread grammatical works of that age: the tracts
by Paul the Deacon,
34
Peter of Pisa,
35
and Smaragdus.
36
Because of its simplicity, the Ars minor became in later centuries the
most common elementary schoolbook for Latin. From the thirteenth
32
See Holtz :q8:, 6qq.
33
On the conservatism of Carolingian education, see Munzi .ooo. For example,
the parts of speech constitute the main theme of Alcuins De grammatica (PL :o:, 88
qo.; see below, n. q), a dialogue between a teacher and two students, one Frankish
and one Saxon. Alcuin, although trying to insert the grammatical doctrine within a
wider context, did not go very far beyond elementary grammar. See Holtz :q8q, :.
34
In his Ars Donati quam Paulus Diaconus exposuit (re-edited by M.F. Bua Giolito,
Genova :qq), Paul contaminated an interpolated version of Donatus Ars minor
with a complete Declinationes nominum-type treatise and other shorter supplements
(on formae casuales, monosyllabic nouns, compound pronouns, impersonal verbs). See
Holtz :q8q, :; Giolitos introduction, .:; and Law :qq, . and :qq, :.
35
A partial edition in GL 8, :q::.
36
Liber in partibus Donati, ed. by B. Lfstedt, L. Holtz, and A. Kibre, CCCM 68,
Turnhout :q86.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts :
century on, an increasing number of manuscripts handed down the
Ars minor with other more advanced grammars, such as the Doctrinale
by Alexander of Villedieu, a verse grammar through which students
would complete their study of Latin grammar. Commentaries by
Irish and Carolingian grammarians (Murethach, Sedulius Scottus,
and Remigius) replaced those transmitted from late antiquity.
37
Carolingian teachers also introduced a signicant innovation in
foreign-language grammar by supplementing the Ars minor with a new
tool, the parsing grammar, in which the descriptions of the character-
istics and properties of each morphological element were introduced
by the analysis of a headword. The closest model was Priscians Par-
titiones duodecim versuum Aeneidos principalium, a detailed analysis of every
word of the rst line of each of the twelve books of the Aeneid. Priscian,
who lived and worked in Constantinople, may have been inuenced,
in turn, by the methods used in Greek and Byzantine schools.
38
The return to the traditional practice of parsing (i.e., identifying
and labeling grammatical forms) was a consequence of the rediscov-
ery of Priscian promoted by the Carolingian grammarians and inu-
enced the later development of medieval grammar and teaching.
39
The most important elementary grammar books used in the Mid-
dle Ages, Remigius and Ianua, were parsing grammars resulting from a
contamination between Donatus Ars minor and Priscians Institutiones.
Parsing grammar was an open form that easily permitted varia-
tions and insertions of new material: this exibility was its key to suc-
cess.
40
On the other hand, the imitation of Priscians Partitiones caused
a revival of the dialogical form, which had been used already in the
Ars minor and perhaps corresponded to the actual practice that was
being followed in schools. In his dialogue De grammatica, Alcuin had
37
See Holtz :q8:, o and n. .; Holtz :q8q:qqo; and Law :qq, 6of., ::6.
38
On Byzantine schools, see below, :o6.
39
Quintilian (Inst. or. :. 8. :) recommended the practice of parsing in the teaching
of grammar. The rediscovery of Priscian, which corresponded to the higher stan-
dard of Carolingian scholarship, was promoted by Alcuin of York, abbot of Tours,
who lived between the eighth and ninth centuries. By means of his Dialogus Franconis
et Saxonis de octo partibus orationis and his abstracts of the nal two books of Priscian,
Alcuin attracted the attention of his contemporaries to Priscians main work, the
eighteen books of Institutiones grammaticae. The transmission and use of Priscians Insti-
tutio de nomine pronomine et verbo had continued without interruption from late antiquity
onwards, and in Mediterranean Europe the knowledge of Priscians whole corpus had
never ceased. See Law :qq, 6:f., 8; and Holtz .ooo.
40
Law :qq, 8.
:6 cn\r+rn oxr
tried to set the content of Priscians Institutiones grammaticae in question-
and-answer format. However, the earliest proper example was oered
by Peter of Pisa, who taught grammar to Charlemagne: in Peters Ars,
questions such as What is pater? and To what word class does it
belong? introduced an analysis of each part of speech. This format
was later maintained and improved to such an extent that it became
a distinguishing feature of these handbooks, for the most part anony-
mous, and usually known by their initial question: Codex quae pars, Doc-
tus quae pars, Quid est doctus,
41
Magnus quae vox, or, in the more distinctly
Christianized versions, Anima quae pars and Propheta quae pars. At the
end of the ninth century, Usuard of St. Germain introduced in his
grammar the rst declension with the parsing of poeta. Poeta quae pars
est? was also the introductory question of the twelfth-century Ianua,
which, together with the contemporary Dominus quae pars and Magi-
ster quae pars, was one of the most widespread grammar books of the
Middle Ages.
42
Therefore, together with Donatus, Priscian gradually became an
authority and an object of commentaries.
43
In particular, the Scotti
peregrini Sedulius and John Eriugena commented on Donatus Ars on
the basis of Priscian. Priscians works were used both as a complement
to Donatus grammar and as autonomous textbooks until at least the
eleventh century, when they eventually supplanted the Ars Donati in
schools.
. Donatus(es) as Schoolbook(s)
A catalogue of the Library of St. Gall allows us to identify the content
of the schoolbag of a student of Latin during the Carolingian age
and to evaluate the presence of Donatus Artes in the curriculum.
41
On Quid est doctus / TI ESTIN DOCTUS, see below, qo.
42
Law :qqa, q.; :qq, :., :::. For a list of the anonymous parsing
grammars of the ninth and tenth centuries, see Law .ooo, .q:. On Dominus quae
pars, see also below, . n. 6:.
43
As Carlotta Dionisotti remarks (:q8, .of.): It is a curious fact that, Roman
Donatus notwithstanding, the Latin grammars written for Greeks, from Charisius
and Diomedes, to Cledonius, Priscian and Eutyches, were all at some point imported
into the West. [] One reason [] was that Donatus naturally assumes you know
the language, he teaches how to analyse it; the Eastern grammars taught Latin as a
foreign language, so with heavy emphasis on descriptive morphology, and plenty of
vocabulary: and this was what was increasingly needed in the West.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts :
Eight copies of Donatus Ars minor, supplemented with three charts of
nominal declensions and one of verbal conjugations, were to be used
at the elementary stage, while nine copies of Donatus Ars maior, one
of the so-called Priscianus maior (books ::6 of Priscians Institutiones),
and two of Priscianus minor (books : and :8) were for the intermediate
level. Other books (three copies of the rst book of Isidore of Sevilles
Etymologies, ve of Bedes De arte metrica, and copies of commentaries
on Donatus Artes) probably functioned as reference books on a more
advanced level.
44
Another interesting document is the Dialogus super auctores by Con-
rad, a schoolmaster of the Cluniac monastery of Hirsau, between
the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh centuries. By
means of a conversation between a teacher and a student, Conrad
described and analyzed the literary works read in schools. He took
into account the life of the author, the title of the works, their purpose,
content, and usefulness, and the branch of philosophy to which each
work could be assigned.
45
As for Donatus, Conrad at rst listed the
qualities of his Ars in the elementary teaching of grammar: Donatus
should not be considered a minor author because he only deals with
the basic elements of grammar (quia rudimentis parvulorum aptus cognosc-
itur). In fact, other grammarians also used Donatus way of expound-
ing grammar because they considered him to be a remarkable foun-
dation (inter maximos ponendus est et quasi quoddam singulare fundamentum in
ceteris auctoribus habendus: q. .8. Huygens). Moreover:
Quantus autem fructus nalis legentium in hoc opere sit, per hoc cognoscitur, ut
ignoret quid grammatica sit qui Donatum neglexerit: de maiore enim et minore
Donato nobis sermo est, qui unus idemque minores quidem lactis fovet in minoribus
disciplinis alimento, maiores in institutis fortioribus pascit solido cibo. (8:. ::
:6 Huygens).
[The great degree to which readers can prot from this work can
be seen from the fact that he who neglects Donatus ignores what
grammar is. For we are dealing with a major and a minor Donatus,
who, being one and the same, foster the younger with the nourishment
of milk in minor disciplines and feed the elder with solid food in braver
undertakings.]
On the one hand, the question-and-answer format of the Ars minor,
its conciseness, and its presentation of the matter divided into short
44
See Ising :qo, ...
45
On Conrads work, see in particular Murphy :q8o, :6.
:8 cn\r+rn oxr
sections, ensured easy memorization of its content.
46
On the other
hand, the subject matter was complete enough to provide material for
a basic knowledge of Latin. These qualities and the extensive use of
the Ars minor in medieval schools gradually made Donatus (Donat,
Donnet, etc.) synonymous with primer or elementary textbook.
47
For example, along with the Psalter, the rst reading, Donatus appears
in some thirteenth-century North Italian documents concerning the
hiring of private teachers.
48
In most cases, however, the Donatus used in medieval schools was
no longer the original text of the Ars minor. The insertion of the
necessary tools for students who were learning Latin as a second
languageparadigms, examples, and tables of inectionhad also
brought about signicant changes in the theoretical parts of the gram-
mar book. Thus, if we trust Bedes complaint, it was already impossi-
ble in the seventh century to distinguish Donatus authentic text from
the additions that had corrupted it:
Artium Donati liber ita a plerisque vitiatus est et corruptus, dum unusquisque pro
libitu suo, sive ex aliis auctoribus, quod ei visum est addidit, sive declinationes aut
coniugationes et ceterum huiusmodi inseruit, ut nisi in antiquis codicibus, vix purus
et integer ut ab eo est editus reperiatur.
49
[Donatus Artes have been spoiled and corrupted by many peoplefor
everyone has included at his whim whatever contributions from other
authors seemed proper to him, as well as declensions, conjugations, and
other material of that kindso that it can hardly be found to be pure
and complete, as it was edited by him, except in ancient manuscripts.]
46
Schmitt :q66, o.
47
On the antonomastic use of Donatus, see Murphy :q, ..
48
See Grendler :q8q, , who quotes two Genoese documents of :..: and :.8.
49
Preface to Cunabula grammaticae artis Donati a Beda restituta, PL qo, 6: C; an
English translation of the whole passage can be read in Law .ooo, .f. Bede himself
tried to improve the Ars minor by increasing the number of examples quoted and
parsed. In addition to the Cunabula (PL qo, 6:6.), in question-and-answer format,
Bede also wrote a treatise on elementary morphology, the Libellus de octo partibus
orationis (6:6.). The usage of interpolating grammar books is condemned also in
the lines quoted by Thurot (:86q, .) from an anonymous verse grammar:
Haec alicui si qui legat exponendo minori,
deprecor hunc ut, quod posui minus exposuive
non bene, supplere velit. Apponet moderate,
non tamen in serie ponendo, sed memorando
tantum per verba, vel margine suppleat extra.
Si, quaecumque velit, lector addas seriei,
non poterit libri certus sic textus haberi.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts :q
As Law has pointed out, the appearance of the parsing gram-
mar as a distinct genre is associated with the desire to safeguard the
integrity of the Ars minor. That was better achieved [] by preserving
the Ars minor in its original form (or as near to it as centuries of inter-
polation would permit) and transmitting it together with an assort-
ment of other texts designed to supplement its lacunae.
50
At any rate,
by the end of the Middle Ages, the name Donatus was used for
three kinds of elementary Latin grammar: a) the authentic Ars minor
by Aelius Donatus, handed down by many manuscripts dating from
the eight century onwards; b) a late-medieval version of the Ars minor
with the insertion of parts from the Ars maior and the increase in nom-
inal and verbal paradigms; and c) the so-called Pseudo-Donatus, also
entitled Ianua, Liber Donati, or Rudimenta grammaticae. Composed per-
haps before the thirteenth century, Ianua oers a conspicuous example
of the contamination of Donatus Ars minor and Priscians Institutiones
grammaticae. The handbook concentrates on elementary morphology,
for which it provides a large number of paradigms, but in the sec-
tions on prepositions and conjunctions it also contains a short outline
of syntax.
51
Both the rst and the second texts were rather common
in Northern and Central Europe, whereas Ianua had particularly high
circulation in Italy, as demonstrated by the Italian origin of most of its
manuscripts and printed editions.
52
The critical attitude of humanist scholars toward medieval gram-
mar apparently did not concern elementary schoolbooks. In his De
linguae Latinae elegantia (:), Lorenzo Valla (:o:) criticized the
grammatical treatises mostly used in the Middle Ages, such as Doctri-
nale by Alexander of Villedieu and Graecismus by Eberhard of Bthune.
While recommending that Latin be purged from the medieval bar-
barism and Scholasticism, Valla supported a return to an eloquence
based on usus rather than on logical causae and, especially, a restora-
tion of the ancient and late antique grammatical tradition, from Varro
and Caesar to Donatus and Priscian. Scholars such as Niccol Pe-
rotti, Antonio de Nebrija, and Aldus Manutius followed Vallas advice
50
Law .ooo, ..
51
See Ising :qo, ; Schmitt :qq, qqf.
52
Thirty of the thirty-four manuscripts of Ianua identied by Black (.oo:, 8,
and below, Appendix II) have certain Italian origin. Of the thirty-one incunabula of Ianua
listed in GW (, 6:., 8q8qo:), only six did not appear in Italy: GW 8qq8qq6
(Ulm :8o/qo), qooo (Kln :86/8q), qoo: (Westminster, ca. :8), qoo8 (Geneva
:q), and qo:6 (Barcelona :oo).
.o cn\r+rn oxr
and modeled their Latin grammar books closely on Donatus and
Priscian.
53
The similarities between Ianua and the authentic works by
Donatus and Priscian made Ianua perfectly compatible with the new
pedagogical trends.
Indeed, the humanists rediscovery of the study of classical Latin
brought an increased demand for schoolbooks. This greater need for
literacy favored a reassessment of the Ars Donati in the school curricu-
lum. Donatus Ars minor and its by-products were copied and printed
many times. After the rst block-printed edition, which appeared
a little before :o, 8 incunabular editions of Donatus minor were
printed.
54
The presumed authorship of Aelius Donatus may have pro-
tected even the defective Ianua from attacks. In any case, there were
no elementary schoolbooks to replace those used in the Middle Ages.
. Ianua
The third kind of elementary Donatus is commonly known as Ianua.
Remigio Sabbadini assigned it this title because of the rst word of its
introductory poem:
55
Ianua sum rudibus primam cupientibus artem,
Nec prae me quisquam recte peritus erit.
Nam genus et casum speciem numerumque guram
His quae ectuntur partibus insinuo.
Pono modum reliquis quid competat optime pandens
Et quam non doceam dictio nulla manet.
Ergo legas, studiumque tibi rudis adice lector.
Nam celeri studio discere multa potes.
[I am a door for the ignorant desiring the rst art; without me no
one will become truly skilled. For I teach gender and case, species
and number, and formation in their parts, which are inected. I put
method into the remaining parts of speech, explaining what agrees t he
best. And no use of the word remains that I do not teach. Therefore,
53
On Vallas Elegantiae and Perottis Rudimenta, see Ax .oo: and Worstbrock .oo:,
respectively. Although insisting on the semasiological rather than on the formal
aspects of grammar, humanists retained and developed many aspects of medieval
grammar, such as the division of nouns into substantives and adjectives and the
importance of the verb esse. See Padley :q6, :o, in particular q.
54
Holtz :q8:, oq.
55
Sabbadini :qo:qo, .8; and :q.., .
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts .:
unskilled beginner, read and dedicate yourself to study, because you can
learn many things with rapid study.]
56
In four elegiac couplets,
57
the book introduces itself to its intended
reader, the unskilled beginner (rudis lector). After summing up its
content (lines 6), the poem suggests the right approach to the sub-
ject matter: reading and careful study (legas studiumque tibi adice) will
make it possible to learn the Latin grammar quickly (celeri studio). The
fact that the poem does not appear in the earliest manuscript of Ianua
(London, British Library, MS. Harley .6, of the second half of the
twelfth century) suggests that it was composed later than the text.
58
Such introductory poems were not unusual in grammatical works.
For example, the sixth-century Latin grammarian Phocas introduced
his nine books of his Ars de nomine et de verbo with six elegiac distichs, in
which he emphasized the new shortness of his work (line .: nova
brevitas; cf. line : Multa loqui breviter sit novitatis opus; etc.). Immediately
afterwards, Phocas reinforced this programmatic assertion in a prose
prologue: although writing a short grammar book (libellum) may be
regarded as an inconsiderate and almost impious endeavor (temera-
rius ac paene sacrilegus conatus), he is aware that he has undertaken a
useful task (fateor me negotium suscepisse pluribus profuturum) because pupils
will certainly benet from a short exposition of grammatical rules and
from an easier approach to the subject matter (nominum regulas breviter
explanare et scrupulosam dicilemque materiam adulescentibus perviam facere).
59
The term ianua (gateway) recalls the concept of authoritative
guide.
60
Ianua diers widely in structure and content from Donatus
56
Translation by Gehl (:qq, 888q). The epigram has been quoted also by Garin
(:q8, q8 no. :), with quisquis instead of quisquam in line ..
57
Style and metrics of the poem have been carefully analyzed by Schmitt (:q66,
q).
58
See Black .oo:, of., 6q. Before Blacks study, MS. Magliabechi I of the
Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence was considered as the earliest extant copy of Ianua
(a description in Gehl :qq, .). Dated between the eleventh and the fourteenth
centuries, the manuscript was assigned to the thirteenth century by Schmitt (:q66,
:) and to the thirteenth-fourteenth by Bursill-Hall (:q8:, q:..). Black (.oo:, f.)
assigns it to the rst half of the fteenth century.
59
GL , oq, in particular :o::.
60
See Gehl :qq, 8 n. : God is dened as doorway and teacher by Hra-
banus Maurus (ninth century). The use of ianua for a grammar book echoes Roger
Bacons denition of the knowledge of languages as the rst gate of wisdom (prima
porta sapientiae: Opus Tertium, ed. by J.S. Brewer, London :8q, XXVIII, :o.). In the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, ianua occurred rather frequently in the titles
of liminal texts, such as handbooks for learning foreign languages. For example: :)
.. cn\r+rn oxr
Ars minor. This dierence may explain why it has been neglected by
scholars to such an extent that, although printed several times during
the Renaissance, it has not been deemed worthy of a critical edition:
Ianua does not oer any contribution to the constitutio textus of Donatus
grammar.
As an introductory text to the study of Latin grammar, the pseudo-
Donatan Ianua deals only with the eight parts of speech: the four
variable (noun, verb, participle, and pronoun) and the four invariable
(preposition, adverb, interjection, and conjunction). With the doctrine
of the parts of speech, language becomes a rational phenomenon:
by learning how to classify each word into given categories, pupils
discover that language has a logical structure. Inection becomes the
rst distinctive criterion.
Ianua is therefore divided into eight sections, each devoted to one
part of speech. In some manuscripts, a short title (De verbo; De prono-
mine; etc.) is added to indicate the passage from one section to the
next, either in the text or, more often, in the right- or left-hand mar-
gin. The grammatical material is presented in catechistic form by
means of a series of questions and answers. All sections have the same
structure. The description of each part of speech is introduced by an
example, and the pupil is asked to identify the part: Poeta (amo, legens,
ego, ad, nunc, heu, et) quae pars est? Nomen (verbum, participium, pronomen,
praepositio, adverbium, interiectio, coniunctio) est. Another question leads
to the denition of the part of speech itself; for example: Quare est
nomen? Quia signicat substantiam et qualitatem propriam vel communem cum
casu. Further questions are devoted to explaining accidence; for exam-
ple: Nomini quot accidunt? Quinque. Quae? Species, genus, numerus, gura et
casus. Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur; etc. Then, for
William Bathe (:6:6:), Ianua linguarum sive modus maxime accomodatus: quo patet aditus
ad omnes linguas intelligendas, Londini, excudebat H.L. (= Lownes) impensiis Matthaei
Lownes, :6: (rst published in Latin and Spanish, Salamanca :6::); Bathe, an Irish
Jesuit, presented ,o. Latin words in :,.oo moral sentences, with a Spanish transla-
tion facing the Latin text; .) Isaac Habrecht (d. :6), Ianua linguarum silinguis. Latina,
germanica, gallica, italica, hispanica, anglica. Sive, Modus ad integritatem linguarum compendio
cognoscendam maxime accomodatus [] Argentinae, sumptibus E. Zetzneri, :6o; ) Johan
Amos Comenius (:q.:6o), Ianua aurea reserata quatuor linguarum sive Compendiosa metho-
dus Latinam, Germanicam, Gallicam et Italicam linguam perdiscendi: sub titulis centum, periodis
mille comprehensa, vocabulis bis mille ad minimum aucta: cum quadruplici indice Genevae,
sumptibus Ioannis de Tournes, :6. Published in Leszno in :6:, Comenius Ianua
consists of 8,ooo Latin words used in :,ooo sentences of increasing diculty, which, in
turn, are divided into :oo chapters. See Colombat :qqq, 6.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts .
the four inected parts, a number of examples are given to describe
inection (e.g., declensions and conjugations). For the four indeclin-
able parts, all categories are listed with suitable examples, such as: Da
[adverbia signicationis] temporis, ut hodie, heri, nunc, nuper, cras, aliquando,
olim, tunc, quondam, iam et semper. Da loci, ut hic vel ibi, illuc vel inde, intro,
foras, longe et procul.
The last section, on conjunctions, is very short. We should attribute
this shortness to a conscious pedagogical choice: the study of con-
junctions introducing coordinate and subordinate clauses, in fact, took
place at a more advanced level. Therefore, a general overview of con-
junctions, which completed the treatment of the eight parts of speech,
was considered fully adequate for learning the rst stage of Latin.
In his detailed study on the Latin Ianua, Wolfgang Schmitt has
pointed out that, in spite of the alleged authorship of Donatus, the
main sources of this grammar are Priscians Institutiones grammaticae or
some medieval work deriving from Priscians, as well as an elementary
grammar, the Regulae attributed to Remigius of Auxerre, a ninth-
century commentator of Donatus, also known as Pseudo-Remigius,
Remigius or Dominus quae pars.
61
The similarities between Ianua and
Priscians work are striking: they include the general structure and the
way of presenting grammar (e.g., the order of the parts of speech
62
and
the division of pronouns into four modi), as well as the terminology
used in denitions and the examples chosen to explain them. As for
61
Schmitt :q66, q:qq; q.: Mit der Ars minor des Aelius Donatus hat der Pseudo-
Donatus (Ianua) nur den Namen gemein. See, however, Sabbadini :qo:qo, .8
(Ianua is a reworking of Donatus Ars minor with Priscianic inuences), and Garin :q8,
q8 (Ianua is a medieval compendium, in question-and-answer format, of Donatus
grammar). On Remigius of Auxerre, le dernier grand professeur de grammaire
de lpoque carolingienne, see Holtz :q8q:qqo, :.f.; Law :qqa, :of. Remigius
(handed down in Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, MS. lat. q., and published by
Pinborg in :q8. from a printed edition of :86) was conceived as the rst part
of a complete Latin course. Its sources are Donatus, Priscian, and other medieval
grammarians: Alexander of Villedieu, Peter Helias, Eberhard of Bthune, Giovanni
Balbi, etc. The general structure is very similar to that of Ianua. There are, however,
some dierences in the examples chosen to explain each part of speech. Moreover, in
the exposition of the eight parts of speech, the anonymous author preserved Donatus
order, whereas Ianua followed Priscians order. According to Merrilees (:qqo, ..),
in fact, Dominus quae pars was not an elementary grammar. Droz (:q6, .) and
Pinborg (:q8., 6 n. ) considered Ianua to have been derived from Remigius, although
there are no convincing elements to conrm this hypothesis.
62
Priscian, in turn, takes up the order of Dionysius Thraxs r: noun, verb,
participle, [article], pronoun, preposition, adverb, interjection, conjunction. This
order is justied by several scholia on r, e.g., GG :., f. See Robins :qq, 6o.
. cn\r+rn oxr
the Regulae, its uncertain chronology does not allow us to draw any
conclusion: the similarities between Regulae and Ianua may be due to
their derivation either from a common source or from each other, but
it is dicult to establish which one served as a model for the other.
The close relationship to Priscians Institutiones places Ianua within
the context of the rediscovery of Priscian in the Carolingian age.
More precisely, if MS. Harley .6 is really the earliest of the Ianua
manuscripts, the twelfth century is a terminus ante quem.
63
On the basis
of some internal elements, Schmitt supposed that Ianua might date
from the middle of the twelfth century: the reference to the coin
byzantius in the section on the conjunction, the use of neutropassivum
for the verbal categories, of supinum for verbal adjectives, and of regere
and regimen in the section on the preposition, and the inuence of
Ovids versication in the initial poem.
64
In any case, the fact that
the manuscript tradition of Ianua already appears full of variants
in its thirteenth-century examples suggests that, at that time, the
distance from the archetypeif there ever was onewas already
considerable.
65
Ianua has been handed down in a large number of manuscripts and
printed editions. In his inventory, Bursill-Hall listed thirty-four manu-
scripts altogether, scattered throughout several European and North
American libraries.
66
In :qq:, Black identied another manuscript as
one of the most interesting copies of Ianua: Florence, Biblioteca Lau-
renziana, MS. Strozzi 8o.
67
Then, in his outstanding .oo: study on
63
Above, n. 8.
64
See Schmitt :q66, qq:o; and :q6q, .f. His arguments are: a) there is no
mention of byzantius before the eleventh-twelfth centuries; b) neutropassivum belongs
to Scholastic Latin; c) Ianua knows the dierence between supine and gerund (with
which forms like amatum and amatu were previously identied), established by Peter
Helias in the middle of the twelfth century; d) regere became a common term in
medieval grammar during the thirteenth century, but its rst use may be traced
back to Peter Helias (but see below, n. :.:); and e) Ovids inuence suggests that
the twelfth-century rediscovery of Ovid had already taken place.
65
Either directly quoted or unconsciously echoed by those who had learned Latin
with it, Ianua inuenced other grammatical treatises of the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance, such as Guarino da Veronas Regulae grammaticales. However, Sabbadinis
conclusions on the direct inuence of Ianua on Guarinos treatise (:8q6) have been
contradicted by Percival (:q., .6.): the two works are similar because they derive
from a common source, Priscian.
66
Bursill-Hall :q8:.
67
Black :qq:, :o:.; and .oo:, o, . See also the description in Gehl :qq,
..f. The volume is a school anthology that also contains a set of Regulae grammaticales
by Tebaldo and some reading texts: Catos Disticha, Prosper of Aquitaines Epigram-
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts .
medieval and humanist education, Black revised and updated Bursill-
Halls list.
68
We cannot exclude the possibility of other manuscripts
being discovered as the cataloguing of all the surviving Latin manu-
scripts proceeds.
Most of the manuscripts listed by Bursill-Hall and Black belong
to the fourteenth and fteenth centuries; by that time, the text of
Ianua had been abbreviated, consistently with the changes that had
occurred in elementary education.
69
To my knowledge,
70
manuscripts
containing Ianua generally correspond to the typology of grammatical
manuscripts: small in size and with wide margins, written in minus-
cule, soberly decorated, and often inaccurate in layout and script.
71
With very few exceptions, these books were not created to last or to
be preserved in libraries, but were conceived for immediate use, often
by many users. Thanks to the conservatism of the school system, the
same book could be used by generations of students if it survived the
wear and tear of being passed from hand to hand; generally, manu-
scripts written on parchment had better chances of surviving than did
those written on paper, but in any case the extant manuscripts are
certainly a small fraction of those originally produced and circulating.
Ianua is usually not the only text contained in the volume. It is
followed by reading texts, such as the Disticha attributed to Cato the
Elder or other works of the so-called auctores octo, or by works on
grammar for intermediate or advanced students of Latin, such as
Alexander of Villedieus Doctrinale or Guarinos Regulae grammaticales.
Many of these volumes, therefore, may be dened as complete courses
of Latin, of which Ianua represented the rst stage.
The picture oered by the manuscripts of Ianua, however, is ex-
tremely complex: several dierent versions of the text have been
handed down. A systematic study of the manuscript tradition of this
mata, and some fables. Initially, Black dated it at the thirteenth century, but later
(:qq6a, o n. ) he opted for the beginning of the fourteenth century.
68
Black .oo:, 8. Blacks inventory is reproduced in Appendix II (below,
88).
69
Black .oo, .:: The shortening of Ianua suggests the works changing function
in the classroom. Its abbreviation coincides with new educational aims and the new
class of specialist elementary masters whose aims were not to give a full course in
Latin grammar but only to teach elementary reading and writing.
70
My remarks do not claim to be complete; they are based on the limited number
of copies of Ianua that have been accessible to me so far.
71
See Holtz :qa, .q: Sauf exception, le livre de grammaire est un livre austre,
compact, destin rendre service, et non un object dart.
.6 cn\r+rn oxr
grammar book has not been undertaken so far, and in any case lies
outside the scope of the present work. What follows is the result
of personal observation and data obtained from modern studies on
Ianua.
The earliest extant manuscripts of Ianua are: London, British Li-
brary, MS. Harley .6, of the twelfth century, and Paris, Bibliothque
Nationale, MS. lat. :q., written between :.6o and :.8o.
72
As Black
has pointed out, these earliest copies contain a much more extensive
text than the later manuscripts or the printed editions: this seems
to indicate a change in the function of Ianua from a grammar for
advanced students to an elementary manual for the study of Latin in
classrooms.
73
The majority of Ianua manuscripts date from the fteenth cen-
tury. Particularly interesting is manuscript .:6 of the Trivulziana
Library in Milan, a beautiful book written before :qq for Massi-
miliano Ercole Sforza, Earl of Pavia (:q:o), the eldest son of
Ludovico il Moro and Beatrice dEste. Lavishly decorated in gold, red,
and blue, the manuscript includes eight miniatures, other smaller pic-
tures, and the coats of arms of the closely related Visconti and Sforza
families. The miniatures are captioned by short poems (sonnets or
rhymed distichs of hendecasyllables) in Italian, which describe the life
of the young earl, based on the fundamental assumption of humanist
teaching that both culture and physical training are important (mens
sana in corpore sano).
74
The miniatures are related to Latin grammar,
the content of the book,
75
and convey an unmistakable visual message:
72
Schmitt :q66, :.; :q6q, o:; Black :qq6, :., and .oo:, .
73
Black :qq:b, :f.; .oo:, of. and 6q..
74
The manuscript has been described by Santoro (:q6, :8.). It contains Ianua
(fols.
r
-.
r
), Catos Distichs (
r
-o
r
), and a short catechism on grammar, inc. Quot sunt
partes orationis? Octo (see below, ). On the miniatures (reproduced in Ferrari .ooo,
::6o, plates ::8), see Santoro :q6., :., and the detailed descriptions by Porro
(:88, :q:) and Fava (:q., ..). On the pedagogical meaning and purposes
of the pictures in the Trivultianus manuscript, see Mariani Canova :q8:, .::.; and
Ferrari .ooo, :8:., and .oo, :o6f.
75
On fol. .
r
, now lost, a group of boys was represented with books in their hands,
going to school; in the background, a large gate hinted at the incipit of the grammar,
Ianua. At the beginning of the treatment of the verb amo, a noble girl, from the
window of her palace, looks at the earl below; edo is described through a laid table,
and gaudeo through a triumph. On fol. :
v
, at the beginning of the section on doceo,
the young earl is at school with his teacher, classmates, servants, fowlers, a dog, and a
dwarf; below this, two lines read: Inn chel mastro insegna el conte a gara / studia
et ascolta e volunteri impara (As long as the teacher lectures, the Earl unceasingly
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts .
thanks to its moral values, culture is crucial in the training of the good
ruler.
76
The other manuscripts correspond to the typology described above.
Although the general structure of Ianua is preserved, the number and
quality of examples and paradigms quoted may vary considerably. By
following a purely numerical criterion, the extant manuscripts can be
divided into two groups. The majority belong to the short grammar
book, Ianua brevis, where the number of examples is limited and, if
possible, uniformfor example, MS. Plimpton :8 of Columbia Uni-
versity Library in New York, which contains three paradigms for each
declension, or MS. lat. :. of the Biblioteca Casanatense in Rome,
with four.
77
In both cases, we have small manuscripts in gothic script,
containing Ianua and Catos Distichs only. In the Casanatensis codex,
dots divide the text into shorter units in order to aid memorization.
MS. Vat. Ottoboni lat. :q6, formerly in the library of Giovanni
Angelo, Duke of Altemps, also belongs to this category, although it
presents more paradigms and a more accurate version of the text.
It contains an interlinear version of the verbal forms in a Central-
Northern Italian (Tuscan?) vernacular, perhaps written down from a
printed exemplar.
78
Sometimes we also nd traces of the notes that a
pupil may have taken during a class.
79
reads, listens, and eagerly learns). On fol.
r
, the teacher gives him a book containing
moral precepts, perhaps alluding to the next stage of his education, the reading of
Catos Disticha.
76
On fol. :
v
, at the beginning of the book, a portrait of Massimiliano is captioned
by a sonnet urging him, as a future ruler, to practice not only strength and wisdom,
but also culture, literature, and virtue, so that he may gire a lalte cime (reach the
high peaks, scil. of fame and glory). Marcucci (.oo., q) remarks that the purpose of
these pictures was to educate through images as well a to image: through them, the young
prince could see himself as a model for his subjects.
77
On the Plimpton manuscript, see the description by Seymour De Ricci and
W.J. Wilson, Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada,
New York :q:qo, vol. ., :; see also Ives :q., o; and Black .oo:, 6. MS.
Plimpton :, another copy of Ianua according to Bursill-Hall (:q8:, no. :8. :),
actually contains Guarinos Regulae grammaticales and Carmina dierentialia, and two
short anonymous grammatical treatises, the rst of which is a reduced version of
Ianua (see De Ricci and Wilsons catalogue, :8; and Ives, loc. cit.). The Casanatensis
manuscript has been described by Maddalena Ceresi and Emma Santovito, Catalogo
dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Casanatense, Roma :q6:, . See Black .oo:, .
78
For example: ut amem, Dio voglia chio ame; cum amem, con ci sia cosa chio
ame; etc.
79
As for the perfect subjunctive of amo, cum amarem, the pupil notes that El tempo
comenzato non fornito (the time has begun but is not nished) and translates con
.8 cn\r+rn oxr
The second group, Ianua longa, is represented by more extensive
grammars, in which the standard stock of denitions and forms is
increased through insertions from other grammatical works. Impor-
tant examples are MS. Strozzi 8o of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in
Florence, MS. lat. :q. of the Bibliothque Nationale in Paris, and
MS. o of the Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile in Padua.
80
Other
Ianuae resemble Ianua longa for the number of paradigms: MS. Vat.
Chigi L. VI. q8with eight paradigms for the rst declension, ve for
the second, no fewer than eighty-six for the third, and four for both
the fourth and the fthand MS. Vaticanus lat. q.q, an edition of
Ianua by the humanist Pietro da Montagnana.
81
Clearly, this hypothesis should be taken as a starting point that
is open to all kinds of modications when the analysis of a larger
number of copies of Ianua will produce a more precise picture. At
any rate, even a supercial investigation of the few manuscripts that
I have seen reveals that each of them contains a dierent version of
the text. As is the case with schoolbooks in general, teachers could
introduce changes into the textbooks they used, according to their
own pedagogical demands and to those of their classes. Nor is it
possible to infer that the fuller version of the text found in the Harley
manuscript was completely supplanted by the short one:
82
the two
versions may have circulated together, at least for some time and in
some places.
The advent of printing contributed to an enormous increase in the
number of copies of Ianua available in the book market. We know of
thirty-two incunabular editions; twenty-eight of them were printed in
Italy.
83
The number of the copies of Ianua printed after :oo has not
ci fosse cosa chio amassi o amaria. For the pluperfect cum amavissem, he reports El
tempo andato longamente passato (the time has gone and has elapsed long ago)
and translates con ci fosse stato cosa che avesse o averia amato.
80
I refer only to manuscripts that I have seen directly. Black (:qq6, :.) oers a
brief description of the Ianuae longae contained in MSS. Strozzi 8o, Magliabechi I ,
and Paris. Bibl. Nat. lat. :q., to which he adds (:qf.) MS. Harley .6.
81
See below, f.
82
See Gehl :qq, qo; and Black .oo:, of.
83
An additional incunable of Ianua not listed in GW or in the other catalogues of
incunabula has been identied by Grendler (:q8, . n. :): Venice, Theodorus de
Ragazonibus de Asula, 8-XII-:88. Grendler also notes that, in some cases, the text
of Ianua was considered to be interchangeable with the Ars minor. For example, in GW
8qo8 the epigram Ianua sum, etc., is followed by the text of Donatus work.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts .q
yet been calculated.
84
This abundance has so far imposed a serious
obstacle to a modern critical edition of Ianua: even among the printed
editions available, two identical copies are hard to nd.
. Ianua(e): Structure and Variants
Between :o and :oo, the rst period of the history of printing,
about 6o editions of Donatus grammar were printed in Europe.
Whereas the Ars maior was printed only ve times and incompletely
(GW qooqo), the Ars minor and its later versions, including Ianua
or Rudimenta grammatices, had a wide circulation (GW 86qo.8).
Schoolbooks immediately attracted the attention of the rst print-
ers, such as Gutenberg in Germany or Sweynheym and Pannartz in
Italy:
85
these texts were easily sold, circulated widely, and the demand
for them was steady. Thus Donadelli (little Donatuses) occur very
often in inventories of booksellers and stationers.
86
Printed editions of Ianua present some common aspects. Usually
in quarto, their average size is cm ::q.o. Most incunabular and
later editions of Ianua were printed in large Gothic type fonts, with
the rst page decorated in red and black ink, without paragraphing
and without any visual distinction between paradigms and denitions.
As Grendler has pointed out, the type and layout of Ianua hint at the
way chivalric romances, vernacular religious texts, or works generally
intended for a popular audience were printed; partly for obvious
economic reasons and partly for the conservatism of book forms, Ianua
continued to be printed in Gothic type fonts well beyond the advent
of Roman type, as employed, for instance, for Guarinos Regulae.
87
84
Nineteen editions of Ianua printed from ::o to :6 are listed and analyzed by
Grendler (:q8, .6.6).
85
Johannes Gutenberg printed several editions of Donatus Ars minor between :
and :6. A Donatus was printed by Sweynheym and Pannartz at the Benedictine
abbey of Subiaco in :6. See Plebani :qq, 8.
86
For example, an inventory of the contents of the shop, the house, and the farm-
house of the Florentine stationer Giovanni di Michele Baldini made after his death
in :. (published by De La Mare :qa, ..8) mentions several schoolbooks,
including (no. ::) sette Donadelli con Cato e ve n uno vechio (i.e., seven copies
of Ianua with Catos Distichs, one of which quite old), and (no. :q) cinque Donadelli
in carte vechie (ve copies in old paper, i.e., probably, in bad condition).
87
See Grendler :q8, .6.f.
o cn\r+rn oxr
There are, however, some dierences that cannot always be ex-
plained by place and time of origin. Even copies separated by a short
time span and originating in contiguous areas can show completely
dierent features. Ianua manuscripts were still being copied in the f-
teenth century; moreover, several editions of the text most probably
circulated at the same place and at the same time. The old grammar
book entirely in Latin (GW 8q8qo:: from :o to :oo) coexisted
with the new editions featuring translations of Latin forms into ver-
nacular languages, such as Donatus melior by Antonio Mancinelli (GW
qo:qqo.: :q::oo) and the Latin-Italian Ianua (GW qo.qo.8:
:q.:qq). Such variety may reect several dierent methods used in
classrooms to teach and learn Latin.
88
What follows is a general description of Ianua. The manuscripts
and the printed editions considered here, although representing only
a small part of the available documentation, oer a suciently clear
picture of the style and content of Ianua.
89
a. Nouns
Introduced by the question: Poeta que pars est? Nomen est, the section on
nouns also includes comparative, superlative, and numeral adjectives.
Nouns and adjectives, in fact, were usually considered by ancient
grammarians to belong to the same category. After the denition of
88
On the printing and circulation of Donatus Ars minor and Ianua in the fourteenth
century, see Jensen .oo:, :o:o6 and :o8.
89
The following remarks are intentionally generic; my purpose is to provide
readers with a general overview of Ianua to support my analysis of the Greek Donati.
For this reason, I will not account for, or explain, the individual features of each Ianua-
text I am dealing with because it would lie outside the purpose of the present study. I
will use the following abbreviations:
a) Manuscripts:
K: New York, Columbia University, MS. Plimpton :8, :th c. (Ianua brevis);
S: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS. Strozzi 8o, early :th c.
(Ianua longa);
U: Padua, Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile, MS. o, :6: (Ianua longa).
b) Printed editions:
p: Pescia, typiis Savonarolae, .8. IX. :q. (GW qoo6 = IGI , .. :6)
v: Venice, Giovanni Battista Sessa, :. I. :q (GW qo. = IGI 6., .. :68)
The p-edition represents the vulgate version, the one that, to my knowledge, occurs
most often. The v-text is a bilingual Donatus and contains the translation of part of
the Latin text into the Venetian vernacular.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts :
the noun, taken from Priscian (Quare est nomen? Quia signicat substantiam
et qualitatem propriam vel communem cum casu: Inst. gramm. .. , GL ., 6),
a list of ve accidentia follows, in the same order as in Priscian: species,
genus, numerus, gura, casus. The distinction between species primitiva (or
principalis) and species derivativa is also derived from Priscian. Thus, poeta
is considered as a derivative of poesis.
90
The main criterion of distinction for gender is the use of the artic-
ular pronoun hic haec hoc. Seven genders are identied: masculinum (hic),
femininum (haec), neutrum (hoc), commune (hic, haec), omne (hic, haec, hoc), incer-
tum, and promiscuum. The numeri, singular and plural, are dened per
idem (Quia singulariter / pluraliter profertur). The three guraesimplex, com-
posita, and decompositahint at Priscians classication.
91
The sequence
(iustus)iniustusiniustitia, which replaces Priscians magnusmagnani-
musmagnanimitas, occurs in almost every copy of Ianua. As for the
last property, case, most Ianuae breves are limited to the denition of
the nominative; some copies, however, oer a complete list of cases
(Quot sunt casus nominum? Sex. Qui? etc.) and further distinguish between
casus recti and casus obliqui (Quot sunt recti? Duo. Qui? [] Quot sunt obliqui?
Quattuor. Qui? etc.).
92
The main dierence among copies of Ianua concerns the paradigms
used to expound the declensions. Their number is extremely varied,
and it is almost impossible to nd two copies with identical exam-
ples. Some examples, such as poeta and musa, belong to the ancient
school grammar and have already appeared in Donatus Ars minor;
others (grammatice, magister, scamnum, etc.) refer to the classroom itself.
Some names hint at classical reading books of late antiquity and the
Middle Ages, in particular Virgil: Anchises, Priamides, Aeneas; Vergilius,
Orpheus, and Theseus. In particular, the group of nouns referring to
the readings typical of a Christian environment stands out: Abraham,
Pascha, Andreas, parsimonia, anima; dominus, deus, synodus, Petrus, Laurentius,
Eustochius; sacerdos, lectio, lector, virgo, pauper, etc.
The exposition of the declension is uniform:
Nominativo hic poeta, genetivo huius poete, dativo huic poete, accusativo hunc
poetam, vocativo o poeta, ablativo ab hoc poeta; et pluraliter: nominativo hi poete,
90
The connection between poeta and poesis is perhaps derived from medieval
grammar, whereas Priscian (Inst. gramm. . , GL ., :; :. .o8, GL , .o8) considered
poeta as being derived from the Greek j. See Schmitt :q66, o: n. q.
91
Inst. gramm. . 6, GL ., :.
92
See Schmitt :q66, , n. 8o.
. cn\r+rn oxr
genetivo horum poetarum, dativo his poetis, accusativo hos poetas, vocativo o poete,
ablativo ab his poetis.
93
[In the nominative hic poeta, in the genitive huius poetae, in the dative
huic poetae, in the accusative hunc poetam, in the vocative o poeta, in the
ablative ab hoc poeta; and in the plural: in the nominative hi poetae, in
the genitive horum poetarum, in the dative his poetis, in the accusative hos
poetas, in the vocative o poetae, in the ablative ab his poetis.]
Each of the ve sets of paradigms concludes with a question con-
cerning the declension to which they belong. The denition takes into
account the ending of the genitive singular; sometimes the dative sin-
gular is also given as a distinguishing element.
94
Also included in each
declensions section are the declensions of irregular nouns.
95
Some
qualifying adjectives, as well as the adverbs derived from them, are
given in their three degrees of comparison: bonus, malus, magnus, parvus,
and doctus appear in almost all editions; fortis, velox, felix, verus, pridem
(prior, primus), ante, infra, and pius can be also found. The declension of
the numeral adjectives, accompanied by the article (pluraliter: nomina-
tivo hi duo, he due et hec duo, etc.) also includes the indeclinable quattuor
(pluraliter: nominativo hi et he et hec quattuor, etc.) because, as is specied
immediately afterwards:
omnia nomina numeralia a quattuor usque ad centum sunt omnis generis, numeri
pluralis et indeclinabilia.
[All numerals from quattuor to centum are of all genders, of plural num-
ber, and indeclinable].
b. Verbs
The question Amo que pars est? introduces the section on verbs, by far
the longest and the most complex of Ianua. The denition of the part
of speech is taken from Priscian (Quare est verbum? Quia cum modis et
temporibus sine casu agendi vel patiendi est signicativum).
96
The list of the
93
In v, the translation of the paradigms involves the entire declension. For exam-
ple: Nominativo hic et hec advena, lhomo e la femina forestera. Genitivo huius advene, de
lhomo e de la femina forestera. Dativo huic advene, a lhomo a la femina forestera; etc.
94
In the case of the rst declension, the p-text reads: Cuius declinationis? Prime. Quare?
Quia eius genitivus singularis in e diptongum desinit, ut hic poeta huius poete, et hec musa -se. In
other texts, an objective statement may replace the direct question; e.g., K, S, and v
read: Prima declinatio nominis est, cuius genitivus singulari et dativus in e diphtongum desinit, ut
hic poeta huius poete huic poete.
95
To my knowledge, however, only Ianuae longae contain irregular nouns.
96
In some texts (e.g., v), the denition is completed with the etymology of verb:
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
eight verbal properties follows Priscians order: genus, tempus, modus,
species, gura, coniugatio, persona, and numerus.
97
As for genus, voice or
signicatio verborum, Donatus lists ve genera, whereas Ianua normally
acknowledges eight: activum, passivum, neutrum, commune (deponent verbs
with both active and passive meaning), deponens, neutrum passivum (or
neutropassivum, semideponent verbs), passivum neutrum (active verbs with
passive meaning), and nullum (or neutrum substantivum, verbs not ending
in -o, e.g., sum).
98
Denitions and terminology, however, vary conspic-
uously in the many versions of the text. In their descriptions, formal
aspects usually prevail over syntactical meaning.
99
The ve verbal tenses (praesens, praeteritum imperfectum, praeteritum per-
fectum, praeteritum plusquamperfectum, and futurum) are dened per idem:
Cuius temporis? Presentis (preteriti imperfecti, etc.). Quare? Quia presens (preteritum
imperfectum, etc.) tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem.
100
[Of what tense? Present (imperfect, etc.). Why? Because it designates a
present (imperfect, etc.) tense, either active or passive.]
The same kinds of denitions also occur in some texts for the moods
(indicativus, imperativus, optativus, subiunctivus, and innitivus),
101
but other,
more formal criteria may also be employed.
102
Unde dicitur verbum? A verbero, -as, vel a verberatum, eo quod in perferendo aerem verberamus. See
Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. :, GL ., 6q: Verbum est pars orationis cum temporibus et modis, sine
casu, agendi vel patiendi signicativum [] Verbum autem quamvis a verberatu aeris dicatur, quod
commune accidens est omnibus partibus orationis, tamen praecipue in hac dictione quasi proprium
eius accipitur, qua frequentius utimur in omni oratione.
97
Inst. gramm. 8. ., GL ., 6q.
98
Seven genera usually occur in medieval grammar (e.g., in Francesco da Butis
grammar); humanist grammar returns to ve. See Rizzo :qq, .
99
For example, K, U, and p read: Cuius generis? Activi. Quare? Quia in o desinens facit
ex se passivum in or. The same formal denition can be found in Donatus, Ars minor
(p. q. Holtz): Activa quae sunt? Quae in o desinunt et accepta r littera faciunt ex se passiva, ut
lego, legor; and in Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. q, GL ., : Activa vel recta vocantur [verba] quae
in o desinentia et assumpta r facientia ex se passiva, etc. On the other hand, the denition in
S and v also hints at the use of the active voice: Cuius generis? Activi. Quare? Quia in o
desinens potest facere transitionem ad aliquod rationale animal unde possit eri conversa locutio.
100
The originals of the Greek versions a and c must have also contained a denition
of the combined tenses (Priscians coniuncta tempora: Inst. gramm. 8. , GL ., o8):
praesens et praeteritum imperfectum and praeteritum perfectum et plusquamperfectum for optatives,
innitives, and participles. See below, n. :oq.
101
The v-text denes the indicative, imperative, and optative by using the same
formula: Cuius modi? Indicativi (imperativi, optativi). Quare? Quia indicat (imperat, optat) rem
esse vel fuisse vel futuram esse. U has Quia eo utimur ad indicandum (imperandum, optandum)
aliquid alicui.
102
For example, the denition of subjunctive reads: Cuius modi? Subiunctivi. Quare?
cn\r+rn oxr
Like nouns, verbs may belong to two species, primitiva and derivativa,
and to three gurae: simplex, composita, and decomposita. Dierent exam-
ples might be used to illustrate them.
103
The four conjugations are distinguished according to the ending
of the second person singular of the present indicative. This criterion
is generally used by grammarians.
104
Irregular verbs are considered
nullius coniugationis:
Cuius coniugationis? Prime (secunde, tertie, quarte). Quare? Quia in secunda persona
presentis indicativi modi habet a productum (e productum, i correptum vel e, i
productum) ante s vel ante ris, ut amo amas et amor, amaris (doceo doces et doceor
doceris; lego legis et legor legeris; audio audis et audior audiris).
Cuius coniugationis? Nullius. Quare? Quia anomalum est et non sequitur
105
regulam
alicuius coniugationis.
[Of what conjugation? The rst (second, third, fourth). Why? Because
in the second person of the present indicative it has a long a (a long e, a
short i or e, a long i) before s or before ris, like amo amas and amor amaris
(doceo doces and doceor doceris; lego legis and legor legeris; audio audis and
audior audiris). Of what conjugation? None. Why? Because it is irregular
and does not follow the rules of any conjugation.]
The denitions of the four personae (prima, secunda, tertia, and nulla)
106
Quia egens adverbio vel coniunctione subiungit sibi aliud verbum vel subiungitur alteri verbo ut
perfectum signicet sensum. This denition echoes Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 68, GL .,
.: [subiunctivus] eget non modo adverbio vel coniunctione, verum etiam altero verbo, ut perfectum
signicet sensum.
103
As examples of gurae, K, U, p and probably S have amo-adamo and peramo-
peramasco, whereas v has cupio-concupio-concupisco. Both amasco (not peramasco, which is
not attested) and cupio concupisco are mentioned by Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. , GL .,
.8 and 8:, , respectively. On amasco (or adamasco), see Rizzo :qq6, :.
104
Donatus, Ars minor , q:f. Holtz (the third conjugation includes also the fourth);
Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. q, GL ., ; etc.
105
The v-text has non servat.
106
The denition in S, p, and v is semantic and closely modeled on Priscians
denition: the rst person is que cum loquitur de se ipsa pronuntiat, the second ad quam
prima loquitur directo sermone, and the third de qua prima loquitur ad secundam extra se et illam
positam ad quam dirigit sermonem (dirigitur sermo v). K has: Quia in prima persona verbi reperitur
(quia est secunde/tertie persone verbi), and U has: Quia signicat rem de se loquentem (rem ad
quam aliquis loquitur / rem ut de qua prima loquitur ad secundam, etc.). Innitives, impersonal
verbs, gerunds, and supines are nullius persone and nullius numeri. See Priscian, Inst.
gramm. 8. :o::o. (GL ., 8o). Donatus denition, on the other hand, is simpler
and based on examples. Cf. Ars minor , q Holtz: Personae verborum quot sunt? Tres.
Quae? Prima, ut lego; secunda, ut legis; tertia, ut legit; Ars maior .. :., 68 Holtz: Personae
verbis accidunt tres, prima, secunda, tertia. Prima est, quae dicit lego; secunda, cui dicitur legis;
tertia, de qua dicitur legit.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
and of the two numeri (singularis and pluralis, identical to that given for
nouns)
107
conclude the introduction to the verb.
A long section on verbal paradigms follows. For each of the four
conjugations, one regular verbamo, doceo, lego, and audiois conju-
gated in its voices, moods (modi), and tenses (tempora), according to the
following chart:
I. Verbum activum:
:. Indicativus
a. Presens, b. Preteritum imperfectum, c. Preteritum perfectum, d.
Preteritum plusquamperfectum, e. Futurum
.. Imperativus
a. Presens,
108
b. Futurum
. Optativus (all forms are introduced by utinam)
a. Presens et preteritum imperfectum (= imperfect subjunctive),
b. Preteritum perfectum et plusquamperfectum (= pluperfect
subjunctive),
109
c. Futurum (= present subjunctive)
. Subiunctivus (all forms are introduced by cum)
a. Presens, b. Preteritum imperfectum, c. Preteritum perfectum, d.
Preteritum plusquamperfectum, e. Futurum (= future perfect
indicative).
. Innitivus
a. Presens et preteritum imperfectum (= present), b. Preteritum
perfectum et plusquamperfectum (= perfect), c. Futurum.
110
II. Verbum impersonale
Third person singular, passive, of each mood and tense of the
active voice (I. :), plus:
107
Another denitio per idem, common to all texts: Cuius numeri? Singularis (pluralis).
Quare? Quia singulariter (pluraliter) profertur.
108
Contrary to modern normative Latin grammar and like Greek grammar, the
imperative in Ianua has a third person, corresponding to the third persons singular
and plural of the present subjunctive.
109
Double tenses are given by Donatus (Ars minor , p. q Holtz) and explained
by Priscian by considering the aspect of each tense (Inst. gramm. 8. ., GL ., of.):
In hoc autem modo (scil. optativo) dumtaxat et innito tempora coniuncta habent Latini praesens
com praeterito imperfecto et praeteritum perfectum cum plusquamperfecto ad imitationem Graecorum
[] Nam praeteritum imperfectum rationabiliter idem est etiam praesens; dico enim utinam legerem
nunc et utinam legerem heri [] Praeteritum quoque perfectum et plusquamperfectum optativi
coniuncta sunt; licet enim vel multo ante vel paulo ante esse perfecta haec eadem intellegere nos optare,
ut si dicam utinam legissem ante quinquaginta annos et utinam legissem ante horam.
110
Two forms are usually given: supine in -um+ire and future participle+esse.
6 cn\r+rn oxr
6. a. Gerundia vel participialia nomina, b. Supina, c. Participia (=
present and future participles)
111
III. Verbum passivum
Same moods and tenses as the active (I. :), plus:
6. a Participia (perfect participle), b. Gerundivum.
In the treatment of the nite moods, the transition from the singular
to the plural persons is always marked with the formula et pluraliter.
Moreover, each verb is usually introduced by a list of its most sig-
nicant forms, which perhaps reects the way principal parts were
memorized in schools: the rst three persons of the present and per-
fect indicative, the rst two of the imperative, then present and perfect
innitive, the gerund, the two supines, and the present and future par-
ticiples. For example:
amo, amas, amat; amavi, amavisti, amavit; ama, amet; amare, amavisse; amandi,
amando, amandum; amatum, amatu; amans et amaturus.
For the passive, the same tenses are used, but the perfect participle
and the gerundive replace the gerund, supines, and active participles:
amor, amaris vel amare, amatur; amatus sum, es, est; amare, ametur; amari,
amatum esse vel fuisse; amatus et amandus.
After the regular four conjugations, the irregular verbs are introduced.
They are basically the same in all editions of the text, although their
order may vary: sum, volo, fero, edo, eo, gaudeo, o, and memini.
112
In addi-
tion to presenting a stock of irregular forms suitable for memorization,
this section of Ianua illustrates some of the denitions included in the
introductory section, by oering examples of the conjugation of verbs
generis nullius (sum), neutri (eo), neutri passivi (gaudeo, o), etc.
111
The gerund is given in the genitive, dative, and accusative. Usually, a sentence
marks the transition to the verbal nouns and adjectives: Gerundia vel participialia nomina
sunt hec, etc.; supina sunt hec, etc., whereas the participles deserve a catechistic question:
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Que? Answers may vary. K, S, U, and p,
for instance, insist on the formation of participles, as in the following example: Amans
et amaturus. Amans unde formatur? A prima persona preteriti imperfecti indicativi modi. Quomodo?
Amabam, -bam in ns, t amans. Amaturus unde formatur? Ab ultimo supino. Quomodo? Amatum,
amatu, addita rus t amaturus.
112
Other irregular verbs, such as poenitet and decet, may also be included. For
example, poenitet is found in the twelfth-century MS. Harley .6 (Black .oo:, :)
and decet is in S and U.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
c. Participles
The introductory question is followed by a general denition of the
participle, which modern grammar generally includes under the verb.
Its properties are explained as including accidentia of both the noun
and the verb:
Legens que pars est? Participium est. Quare est participium? Quia partem capit
nominis partemque verbi. Recipit enim a nomine genera et casus, a verbo autem
tempora et signicationes, ab utroque numerum et guram. Participio quot accidunt?
Sex. Que? Genus, casus, tempus, signicatio, numerus et gura.
113
[What part of speech is legens? It is a participle. Why is it a participle?
Because it partakes of the noun and of the verb: it takes from the
noun the genders and cases, from the verb the tenses and meanings,
and from both the numbers and forms. How many properties apply to
the participle? Six. Which ones? Gender, case, tense, meaning, number,
and form.]
Each of the properties is then described with examples. Legens is
dened as generis masculini vel feminini vel neutri or generis omnis, depending
on the noun or pronoun to which it refers (Quia sic est illud cui adheret).
Several denitions of casus can be found in the various versions of
Ianua. Three tenses are acknowledged and distinguished according to
the usual formal criterion, i.e., from the ending of the nominative:
Cuius temporis? Presentis et preteriti imperfecti. Quare? Quia omne participium
desinens in ans vel in ens presentis et preteriti imperfecti temporis est.
Cuius temporis? Preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti. Quare? Quia omne particip-
ium desinens in tus vel in sus vel in xus, et unus in uus, quod est mortuus, preteriti
perfecti et plusquamperfecti temporis est.
114
Cuius temporis? Futuri. Quare? Quia omne participium desinens in rus vel in dus
futuri temporis est.
[Of what tense? Present and imperfect. Why? Because every participle
ending in ans or ens is of the present and imperfect tenses.
113
Priscian had not given any exact denition of the participle: its distinctive
character results from its being related to both the noun and the verb (see Robins
:q:, 6f.). Thus, the denition given in Ianua summarizes Priscians statements on
participles: cf. Inst. gramm. ::. :, GL ., 8; , :; 8, .; and :, .
114
Cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. ::. :6:, GL ., 8: Praeteriti vero temporis participia, quae
in tus vel sus vel xus desinunt, similiter a supino extremo unt, addita s et correpta u [] Excipitur
mortuus a morior, cuius supinum cum secundum analogiam moritu et hinc moriturus facere futurum
debeat et praeteritum moritus, mortuus, non moritus facit.
8 cn\r+rn oxr
Of what tense? Perfect and pluperfect. Why? Because every participle
ending in tus or in sus or in xus, and one in uus, which is mortuus, is of
the perfect and pluperfect tenses.
Of what tense? Future. Why? Because every participle ending in rus or
in dus is of the future tense.]
The denitions of the fourth property, signicatio, emphasize the link
between the participle and the verb from which it is derived. A
maximum of seven signicationes are mentioned: activa, passiva, neutralis
or neutra, communis, deponens, neutralis passiva or neutra passiva, and nulla
or neutralis substantiva. Their denitions are formulaic:
Cuius signicationis?Quare? Quia a verbovenit, quod est illud:, inde ve-
nit
[Of what meaning? Why? Because it comes from a verb, which
is: ; therefrom comes ]
Except for legens for the active and lectus for the passive, the examples
chosen to explain the signicationes may vary.
After the declension of the participles in their tenses (legens, lectus,
and sometimes lecturus and legendus), some texts add a useful summary
of the inection; for example:
115
Cuius declinationis? Tertie. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in is correptum
desinit, ut legens, legentis. Et sic alia participia desinentia in ans vel in ens
sunt declinationis tertie. Alia vero participia sunt prime et secunde, quia genitivus
singularis desinit in e et in i, ut lecti, lecte, lecti.
[Of what declension? The third. Why? Because its genitive singular
ends in short is, like legens, legentis. Thus, all the other participles ending
in ans or in ens are of the third declension. Conversely, the other partici-
ples are of the rst and the second, because their genitive singular ends
in ae and i, like lecti lectae lecti.]
d. Pronouns
After the introductory questions (Ego que pars est? Pronomen est) and the
denition of the part of speech (Quare est pronomen? Quia ponitur loco
proprii nominis et certam signicat personam),
116
the six properties of the pro-
115
The text is quoted from p. Us summary is much shorter: Cuius declinationis? Prime
et secunde. Quare? Quia ex parte feminini sunt prime et ex parte masculini et neutri secunde.
116
This denition is based on Priscian (Inst. gramm. :.. :, GL ., ), who linked the
pronoun to proper names only, whereas his source, Dionysius Thrax, correctly linked
it to all nouns (:, p. 6o Lallot): 0i ri r 0i o r
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts q
noun (species, genus, numerus, gura, persona, and casus) are described in
the usual way. After the species primitiva and derivativaalready known
to students, and therefore not dened with examples
117
the genus,
numerus, and gura are introduced.
Figura can be simplex or composita. No example is given for the
former (Cuius gure? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur), whereas
for the latter texts oer several options: idem, from is and demum; egomet,
from ego and met; istic, from iste and hic, etc.
118
The most important property of the pronoun, however, is persona.
The following denition occurs in almost every copy of Ianua, with
slight variations:
[Quia] omnia nomina et pronomina sunt tertiarum personarum, exceptis ego, quod
est prime, et tu, quod est secunde, et vocativis casibus aliorum, qui sunt persone
secunde.
[(Because) all nouns and pronouns are of the third persons, except for
ego, which is of the rst, and tu, which is of the second, as well as the
vocatives of the other pronouns, which are of the second person.]
As in Priscians Institutiones grammaticae,
119
the fteen pronouns about
which there is no doubt for Latins (de quibus nulla dubitatio est apud La-
tinos) are then divided into four modi according either to the endings
of the genitive and dative singular (in -i or -is / -i: ego, tu, sui, for the
rst; in -ius / -i: ille, ipse, iste, hic, and is, for the second) or to the de-
clension they follow (rst and second declensions for the third: meus,
tuus, suus, noster and vester; third declension for the fourth: nostras and
vestras). Each denition is followed by the declension of the pertinent
pronouns.
Pronouns are further divided into two main categories: primitiva,
which includes eight pronouns and corresponds to the rst two modi,
and derivativa, concerning seven pronouns and corresponding to the
last two modi.
(a pronoun is a word that is substituted for a noun). See Robins :q:, 66, and :qq,
.
117
In Ianua, species is treated both at the beginning and toward the end of the sec-
tion on pronouns. Both sections constitute a synthesis of Priscians extensive treat-
ment. In Inst. gramm. :.. : and , GL ., and 8o, he distinguishes between prim-
itive (ego, mei, tu, tui, sui, etc.; ille, ipse, iste, hic, is) and derivative pronouns: Derivativa
septem diximus. A prima persona derivantur tria; a singulari genitivus unum, mei meus, a plurali
duo, nostrum vel nostri, noster et nostras; a secunda quoque tria [], a tertia vero persona unum,
sui suus. The same extensive treatment is found in S.
118
See Priscian, Inst. gramm. :.. .:, GL ., 8q (idem), and .., qo (istic, egomet).
119
Inst. gramm. :. ., GL , ..
o cn\r+rn oxr
e. Prepositions
After the question Ad que pars est?, the fth part of speechthe rst of
the non-inectedis thus dened ex causa in all texts:
Quare est prepositio? Quia preponitur aliis partibus orationis per appositionem vel
per compositionem;
120
per appositionem, id est per regimen casuum; per composi-
tionem, id est quando componitur.
[Why is it a preposition? Because it is placed before other parts of
speech either by juxtaposition or by combination: by juxtapositon,
which means by taking cases; by combination, which means when it
is combined (with other parts of speech).]
Ianua acknowledges only one property for prepositions: casus or regi-
men casus.
121
Four categories of prepositions are distinguished, depend-
ing on the case they take (the accusative, the ablative, or both), or
whether they appear in compound words. Each list is introduced by
two questions (Ad / Ab / In cui casui servit? and Quot sunt prepositiones
in compositione?). The pertaining prepositions follow a roughly alpha-
betical order.
f. Adverbs
The section begins with the question Tunc or Nunc que pars est?, fol-
lowed by the denition of the adverb:
Quare est adverbium? Quia stat iuxta verbum et semper nititur verbo.
[Why is it an adverb? Because it stands near the verb and is always
supported by a verb.]
The text then mentions the three adverbial properties: species, signi-
catio, and gura, which hint at Priscians (Inst. gramm. :. , GL ,
6) rather than at Donatus signicatio, comparatio, and gura (Ars min.
, p. q Holtz; Ars maior .. :, p. 6: Holtz).
120
Cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. :. :, GL , .: Est igitur praepositio pars orationis indeclin-
abilis, quae praeponitur aliis partibus vel appositione vel compositione.
121
The term regere and its derivatives (e.g., regimen), dear to medieval grammar
(Thurot :86q, 8.), were already used by Servius as meaning to determine; for
example, Comm. in Don., GL , o8, .8: ablativus singularis regit genetivum, dativum et
ablativum pluralem; etc. The use of regere as to govern, for verbs or prepositions taking
particular cases, is rare in grammatical works earlier than Doctrinale. See Rizzo :qq,
6; Reynolds S. :qq6, q:oq; and Colombat :qqq, ..q.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts :
Ianua-texts, however, dier considerably in the part regarding signi-
catio, which concerns the semantic classes of the adverbs. After the
adverbs of time and place, which Donatus and Priscian also consider
as the initial categories, the number, order, and even name of the
other categories and the quoted examples are extremely varied.
122
All
categories, however, are introduced with the same formula: da, geni-
tive, ut, examples.
g. Interjections
Latin grammarians added the interjection to replace the article and
keep the number of the parts of speech unchanged. Both Donatus
and Priscian, in fact, point out that Greek grammarians include inter-
jections in the category of adverbs and express their own opinion on
this issue.
123
In Ianua, of course, there is no trace of such a debate, and
the treatment of the interjection occupies the shortest section. The
standard denition reads:
Heu que pars est? Interiectio est. Quare est interiectio? Quia interiacet aliis partibus
orationis.
[What part of speech is heu? It is an interjection. Why is it an interjec-
tion? Because it lies between other parts or speech.]
This denition, modeled on Donatus denition in the Ars maior, hints
at the function rather than the semantic value of the part of speech.
The categories of meaning (signicatio), the only property of this part
of speech, may vary in name and number in Ianua-texts.
124
h. Conjunctions
Conjunctions were conceived as a trait dunion between morphology,
i.e., elementary Latin, and syntax, which pupils tackled at a more
122
Ianuae longae (S, U) and v list twenty-eight categories, p twenty-six, and K
eighteen.
123
See Donatus, Ars maior .. :, p. 6. Holtz; Priscian, Inst. gramm. :. o, GL , 8.
The rst evidence of interiectio is in Quintilian (Inst. or. :.. :q), who probably took it
up from Remmius Palaemon: see Barwick :q.., :6.
124
Both p and v include the categories dolentis, (ad)mirantis, exclamantis, and timentis
(expavescentis p), to which p adds indignantis (racha) and deridentis (vah), whereas v has
gaudentis (euax, euge). U has dolentis, gaudentis, admirantis, and expavescentis, whereas K and
S are limited to dolentis and admirantis.
. cn\r+rn oxr
advanced level of the Latin curriculum. Thus, this part of speech
receives a synthetic treatment in the last chapter of the elementary
grammar. The example quoted in Ianua to introduce conjunctions is
et, and the denition, because it connects the other parts of speech
(quia coniungit ceteras partes orationis), echoes Priscian, Inst. gramm. :6. :,
GL , q: coniunctio est pars orationis indeclinabilis, coniunctiva aliarum partium
orationis.
125
Ianua agrees with Priscian also in the denition of the three
properties: species, gura, and ordo.
126
Donatus acknowledged ve kinds of conjunctions: copulativae, dis-
iunctivae, expletivae, causales and rationales. The Ianua-texts considered
here list from twelve to seventeen categories, which correspond, more
or less, to the species indicated by Priscian. The fact that some cate-
gories almost always occur in a xed sequence and usually in groups
of three suggests that this was the way they were memorized in
schools.
127
The examples quoted in Ianua include both single conjunctions
and entire sentences, in order to represent the actual usage of the
part of speech within a context. The quoted sentences are mostly
exempla faithfully repeated from Priscian: for example, si stertit dormit
for coniunctiones continuativae (= Inst. gramm. :6. , GL , q); equidem merui
nec deprecor, a quotation from Virgil, Aeneid :.. q:, which Priscian
used in order to describe coniunctiones approbativae; and Aeneas quidem
pius fuit, Ulixes vero astutus for coniunctiones completivae (= :6. :, GL ,
:o.).
Priscians statements are often quoted almost literally in Ianua, as in
the denition of coniunctiones copulativae and adversativae:
125
See, however, Donatus, Ars minor (p. qq Holtz) and Ars maior .. : (p. 66
Holtz): pars orationis adnectens ordinansque sententiam.
126
Donatus (see the previous note) has potestas instead of species, whereas species, in
turn, is a category of potestas: (Ars maior .. :, 66 Holtz) potestas coniunctionum in quinque
species dividitur.
127
The p-text even quotes the rst seven categories in the same order as Priscian:
copulativae, continuativae, subcontinuativae, adiunctivae, causales, eectivae, and approbativae.
This order is repeated in v, except that adiunctivae are put after approbativae. Another
sequence occurs in Priscian and in both editions: disiunctivae, sub(dis)iunctivae, and
discretivae vel electivae. Moreover, v and Priscian have in common the series adversativae,
abnegativae, and collectivae vel rationales.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
Priscian (Inst. gramm.) Ianua
(:6. ., GL , q) Copulativa est
quae copulat tam verba quam sensum.
Copulativa est que copulat tam sensum
quam verba
(:6. :o, GL , qq) Adversativae sunt
quae adversum convenienti signicant,
ut tamen, quamquam, quamvis, etsi,
etiamsi, saltem.
Adversativa est que adversum convenienti
signicat, ut tamen, quamquam,
quamvis, si, etsi, ut: ego multo tempore
servivi tibi, tu tamen habes me odio.
[Copulative is that which
connects both words and
meaning. Adversative are
those which signify opposition to
a statement, like tamen, quamquam,
quamvis, etsi, etiamsi, saltem.]
[Copulative is that which
connects both meaning and
words. Adversative is that which
signies opposition to a statement,
like tamen, quamquam, quamvis, si,
etsi, as in: I have served you for
a long time; however (tamen), you
hate me.]
In some cases, Ianuas denitions paraphrase or summarize Priscians
text, thus making it easier and more accessible to beginners of Latin.
We may infer that the anonymous compiler(s) of Ianua left out every-
thing that was not considered immediately usefulsuch as Priscians
frequent references to Greekand reduced grammar to synthetical
but also to rather obscure denitions. Priscians examples were also
maintained.
i. Appendix
Some Ianuae conclude the treatment of the eight parts of speech
with a short appendix that, through a sequence of questions and
answers, recalls the fundamental concepts, denitions, and practical
rules treated and explained in the manual. This was certainly meant
as a tool for reviewing or checking the level of preparation reached
after a thorough study of the handbook. Usually, each part of speech
is presented by way of the same three questions, concerning its deni-
tion, properties, and etymology (Quid est ? Quid est proprium? Unde
dicitur?). Rather than a summary of the text, the appendix seems
to be a complement to it: the etymological meanings of the names of
the parts of speech, usually taken from Priscian, do not appear in the
pertinent sections of the handbook, but are inserted here as tools for
memorization and comprehension.
128
128
An extensive appendix can be found in U and one much shorter in p. The
cn\r+rn oxr
The exibility of Ianua and its ability to be modied and adapted to
all kinds of demands constitute the main reasons for its success.
6. Vernacular Donatus(es)
Nowadays it is generally agreed that books that teach the rules of
a native language should be in that language, whereas a foreign lan-
guage should be taught in the students native tongue. Until the begin-
ning of the Renaissance, however, this assumption was not valid.
129
For example, Manuel Chrysoloras wrote his elementary Greek gram-
mar, Erotemata, entirely in Greek, and it was thanks to the translation
into Latin by Guarino Guarini that it became eective in the West as
a tool for learning Greek. Only in :q8 do we have the rst Greek
grammar written in Latin: Urbano Bolzanios Institutiones.
Although dual-language Ianuaethe so-called Donato al sennodo
not appear before the advent of printing,
130
it is possible to trace some
ancestors of these Latin-vernacular grammar books: for example,
an incomplete Latin grammar translated into a North Italian dialect,
recognized by Sabbadini in the yleaves of MS. S o sup. of the
Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan.
131
The name Donatus, however, was also used for handbooks for
the elementary study of languages other than Latin. Consequently,
we do not know whether the titles included in medieval library cat-
aloguesDonatus gallicus, a Donatus sive partes translatae ex
appendix of v was aimed at a practical purpose, the translation from Latin into the
(Venetian) vernacular. The v-text concentrates on nouns and verbs, the most complex
parts of speech. The appendix gives practical rules for recognizing the gender and
the declension of nouns (for example: Si genitivus singularis desinit in e et dativus in e est
declinationis prime, etc.), as well as for translating from and into Latin (Quem sensum habet
nominativus? Lo vel la, etc. In quot accidentibus debet concordare nominativus cum verbo? In
duobus, scilicet in persona et in numero, etc.).
129
An exception is represented by the Greek translation of Dositheus grammar,
written to teach Latin to Greeks.
130
Black :qq6a, o8; .oo:, .. Latin-Italian Ianuae were printed in Venice from :q.
onwards (GW qo.qo.8). As in the v-text, the vernacular translation was limited to
the introductory poem and to single forms of paradigms and examples, but did not
concern the parts on theory and denitions. Twenty-one editions of bilingual Ianuae
from :o to :: are listed by Grendler (:q8, .6f.).
131
Sabbadini :qo:qo, .8:. The yleaves belong to the thirteenth-fourteenth
centuries. Sabbadinis identication of the Latin text with Ianua has been rejected by
Black (:qq6a, o8 n. :8).
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
latino in theutonicum, and a Donatus anglice
132
refer to trans-
lations of the Latin grammar into vernaculars or to books written for
the teaching of those languages.
Over the course of time, in fact, the Ars minor and Ianua became
the basis for handbooks on the teaching of vernacular languages. The
authors of these handbooks, mostly anonymous, not only applied the
handy question-and-answer format, but also adapted to other lan-
guages the Donatan-Priscianic pattern of the eight parts of speech,
often with some eort. They also followed their model(s) in placing
much more emphasis on morphology than on syntax. More impor-
tantly, they adopted (and adapted) the grammatical terminology em-
ployed for Latin. The comparative method, commonly used in teach-
ing foreign languages, provided the background for these Latinate
grammar books.
133
There are two striking cases. lfric, Abbot of Eynsham (ca. q
ca. :oo), wrote an elementary Latin handbook using Donatus ques-
tion-and-answer format to teach Latin; he paired each Latin form
with an Anglo-Saxon translation. He also conceived the project of
teaching the Anglo-Saxon language by applying the method used by
Donatus and Priscian. In this way, he stretched Anglo-Saxon mor-
phology into the Procrustean bed of Latin grammatical categories.
For example, he increased the number of Anglo-Saxon cases from
four to six. Moreover, as exempla of each nominal gender, lfric used
words with a meaning equivalent to the Latin paradigms but often of
dierent gender.
134
132
Schmitt :qq, :oo. The same can be said about a lost Donatus in Old
Prussian, written by William of Modena in the thirteenth century: see Schmitt :q66a.
133
See Bischo :q6 [:q6:], .:: The more seriously medieval language studies
were pursued, the more they derived their principles from Latin grammar. Holtz
(.oo, :.6) correctly remarks that these adaptations were based on the assumption
that all languages have the same structure and, therefore, Donatus and Priscians
analyses of Latin applied to any language. Interesting remarks on the teaching of
French during and after the Renaissance can be found in the studies by Minerva
and Pellandra (:q8q); see also Merrilees :q8, q:. Similarly, between the fth and
sixth centuries, Dionysius Thraxs r j (see below, :o6f.) was adapted to
describe the Armenian language: see Sirinian .oo.
134
See Robins :q:, :; Sandys :q8
3
, :. :.f. (with a facsimile of lfrics Latin
grammar from an eleventh-century manuscript in Cambridge); and Orme .oo6, .f.
The relationship between Latin and English in lfrics grammar has been analyzed
by Menzer (.oo), who remarks (::o): [W]riting for English speakers, [lfric] is
teaching English grammar the way we teach introductory grammar or linguistics,
6 cn\r+rn oxr
In the thirteenth century, Uc Faidit (Ugo Faiditus) composed a Donatz
Proenal for two Italian ocials of the court of Frederick II. Faidits
original text was perhaps in Provenal with an interlinear Latin trans-
lation. Faidit adopted the framework of the elementary Latin gram-
mar to expound the rudiments of the Provenal language. He gave up
the question-and-answer format but adopted the division into eight
parts of speech, the grammatical terminology, and the denitions of
both Donatus and Priscian. Therefore, we cannot exclude the pos-
sibility that an early version of Ianua was the basis of Faidits work.
Faidit, however, went so far in adapting the Provenal morphology
to Latin that he omitted the treatment of the article, which exists in
Provenal, and included the neuter and the genus omne for nouns, both
of which are absent in Provenal. He then had to point out, however,
that neuter substantives behaved like the masculine. Faidit acknowl-
edged six nominal cases, which were nothing but the literal transla-
tion of the Latin cases, and three declensions so closely modeled on
the rst three Latin declensions as to obscure the real distinctions rel-
evant to Provenal.
135
Particular cultural factors contribute to explaining some other cases
of the Latin grammatical traditions inuence in establishing the
grammars of some vernacular languages. For example, Donatus Ars
minor, extensively used in Germany as a schoolbook, provided the
framework for the systematization of German vernacular grammar.
136
In France, a new emphasis on the preservation of Greek and Roman
heritage led to the most thoroughly Latinizing of French vernacular
grammars, Jacques Dubois In linguam Gallicam isagoge, una cum eiusdem
Grammatica Latin-Gallica, ex Hebraeis, Graecis, et Latinis auctoribus (Paris
::), written entirely in Latin.
137
making it possible for students to talk about their language grammatically. lfrics
Grammar does teach English [] as a textbook written for speakers of English teaches
introductory English grammar.
135
On the Donatz Proenal, see Bischo :q6 [:q6:], ..q, as well as Marshalls :q6q
edition and extensive study.
136
See Padley :q88, ..: in spite of the opposition of some scholars (e.g., Valentin
Ickelsamer, ca. :), many Latinate German grammars were produced in the six-
teenth century. On the inuence of Latin grammar in the systematization of Hebrew
and Slavic languages, see Holtz .oo, :.6f.
137
Padley :q88, :.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
. Donati meliores
As humanists became aware of the dierence between medieval and
classical Latin, they began to challenge the eectiveness of Ianua as a
tool for learning Latin. Although Ianua continued to be used in schools
for a long time, various attempts were made to improve it. The two
examples described below show that humanist teachers still consid-
ered Ianuas general framework to be eective and left it unaltered. At
the same time, however, they tried to dignify the elementary school-
book by connecting it with the tradition of ancient grammar and with
the best examples of medieval pedagogy.
The Latin grammar copied on fols. .
r

v
of MS. Vat. lat. q.q
is entitled Editio Petri de Montagnana presbyteri super Donato minori qui est
de octo partibus orationis (sic). Pietro da Montagnana (ca. :oo:8), a
teacher of grammar and the rector of the parish of San Fermo,
138
based his Latin elementary grammar on an Ianua longa, but inte-
grated Ianuas short theoretical parts with quotations from ancient and
medieval grammarians.
Montagnana usually indicates his sources (secundum Donatum, fol. .
r
;
ut scribit Priscianus, .
v
; ut scribit Priscianus in principio octavi libri, :o
r
; etc.);
also, he often takes up, with slight variations, the same quotations
from classical authors used by Priscian to explain his denitions.
Montagnanas grammar does not contain more paradigms than a
traditional Ianua. On the other hand, for the sake of clarity, he often
equips his explanations with easy examples, probably taken from his
practice as a teacher; for example (fol. .
r
):
Quot sunt partes grammatice? Quattuor Quae? Littera, syllaba, dictio et oratio.
Littera? A. Syllaba? An. Dictio? Antonius. Oratio? Antonius legit lectiones.
[How many parts of grammar are there? Four. Which are they? Letter,
syllable, word, and sentence. What is a letter? A. What is a syllable? An.
What is a word? Antonius. What is a sentence? Antonius legit lectiones.]
Pietro juxtaposes grammatical denitions from ancient and medieval
authors, without making any attempt to reach an original synthesis;
138
Pietro da Montagnana taught grammar at the school of the Cathedral of
Padua from :. to : or :, and later at a public school sponsored by the
comune. Grammar meant Latin, and probably Greek and Hebrew as well; in fact,
Pietros library and works testify to his knowledge of the three languages and justify
the praises that he received from his contemporaries. See Sambin :q.:q; Wilson
:q, 8 and :qq., ::; and below, .8 n. 8.
8 cn\r+rn oxr
his compilation is often repetitive and sometimes even confusing.
However, repeating concepts several times may correspond to the
pedagogical aim of facilitating their memorization.
Some decades later, Antonio Mancinelli from Velletri (:.:o),
who taught Latin grammar in Rome, Venice, and other Italian cities,
attempted another and more fortunate improvement of Ianua. In the
preface to his Donatus melior (Rome :8),
139
which Mancinelli ded-
icated to his sons Pindarus, Quintus, and Sextus, he presented his
edition of Donatus booklet of grammar (Donati libellum grammaticae),
together with the corrected text of Carmen de moribus by a certain
Cato (Catonis cuiusdam). He had decided to improve both texts (eli-
mare constitui; [] haud piguit emendare), because Donatus grammar had
been corrupted by carelessness in many passages (plurimis quidem locis
[] incuria depravatum) and Catos poem was in even worse condition
(ubique paene corruptum). Such a dicult undertaking was not only use-
ful, but also necessary. Since, according to Quintilian (ut Fabius meminit:
Inst. or. :. :. :q), human minds retain most steadfastly what they per-
ceive in the initial stage of learning (natura tenacissimi sumus eorum quae
rudibus animis percipiuntur), an elementary textbook full of mistakes and
imperfections might irreparably aect the future knowledge of a dis-
cipline. The vernacular translation of the most dicult forms might
also prevent a students misunderstanding of the foundations of the
Latin language (visum est [], quo et vobis et posteris ego prodessem, di-
ciliora quaeque vernacula lingua exponere). In conclusion, Mancinelli urged
teachers not to be deceived by the apparent simplicity of the gram-
mar book; he encouraged students to memorize both Donatus text
and the short essays on declensions and syntax that he had written
and attached to the handbook:
Postquam vero Donatum hunc recte edidiceritis, summam declinationis et construc-
tionis libellum, quos anno superiori edidimus, memoriae commendantes, facile totius
grammaticae summam scietis.
[After learning this Donatus thoroughly, commit to memory the treatise
on declensions and the essay on syntax that we published last year, and
you will easily know the whole of grammar.]
Having been presented as an improvement of a pre-existing text
rather than a completely new book, Mancinellis Donatus melior main-
139
Datum in Urbe intra Cal(endas) Decemb(res), M.cccc.lxxxvii. My observations are based
on the edition printed as: Venetiis, per Ioannem de Cereto de Tridino alias Tacui-
num, Anno Domini nostri Iesu Christi Mccccc, die 8 Martii (GW qo.).
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts q
tains almost unaltered the structure and content of the original hand-
book.
140
After the short initial poem, Mancinelli treats the parts of
speech in the same order and according to the same method. Some
slight modications, however, show that his rst concern was to make
the form and content of Ianua clearer and more rational.
141
Like some
more recent editions of Ianua, Mancinelli also reduces the frequency of
catechistic questions by replacing them with objective statements that
are more authoritative and, consequently, have a stronger impact on
students.
142
Thus, induction replaces the traditional deductive method:
pupils are rst supposed to learn the rule and then to reinforce their
knowledge with paradigms and examples.
Mancinelli takes up the nominal paradigms of Ianua with some
adjustments and additions. For example, pascha is included among
the nouns of the third declension because of its genitive paschatos or
paschatis, and the adjective f(o)elix, which had been mentioned and
declined already by Donatus (Ars minor ., pp. 86 and 8, and Ars
maior .. , p. 6:q Holtz), is taken as an example of genus commune.
143
Apparently, Mancinelli also acknowledges the importance of the
use of the vernacular in pedagogy. As an aid to his Italian pupils, he
translates the rst noun declined, poeta, and the rst verb conjugated,
amo, into a central Italian vernacular. The verb of the rst conjugation
is fully and accurately translated in order to function as a model for
the translation of the other verbs: in fact Mancinelli, unlike the com-
140
The precise title of the whole book, printed in the upper margin of the rst
page, is Donatus Melior. Catonis Carmen de moribus. De arte Libellus.
141
For example, in the old textbook, nominal properties followed the denition
of poeta in a list, with no connection to the example quoted (only the denitions of
species derivativa and genus masculinum pertain to poeta). Although repeating the same
wording and sequence of denitions, Mancinelli accompanies the mention of all
nominal properties with examples taken from Ianua itself; for example: Cuius generis
musa? Foeminini. Quare? Quia praeponitur ei in declinatione unum articulare pronomen, haec []
Cuius gurae iustus? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur; etc.
142
For example, the basic rule regarding the rst declension follows the list of
paradigms in most editions of Ianua. In Mancinellis edition, the rule precedes the
paradigms and reads: Prima declinatio nominis est cuius genitivus singularis in ae diphthongum
desinit, ut hic poeta, huius poetae, et haec musa, huius musae.
143
Mancinellis paradigms are: poeta, musa, advena (rst declension); dominus, deus,
magister, scamnum (second); pater, mater, pascha, homo, omnis, foelix (third); visus, manus,
domus, cornu (fourth); dies, res, species (fth); bonus (rst and second declension com-
bined); duo, tres, quattuor (nomina numeralia); and bonus, malus, pius (degrees of compari-
son of adjectives and adverbs). Mancinelli may have collated two or more editions of
Ianua.
o cn\r+rn oxr
pilers of the Donati al senno, refrains from translating other nominal
and verbal paradigms.
144
The only exceptions are memini, for which
several variants are given, and the impersonal form of eo.
145
As for
the other verbs, both regular (doceo, lego, and audio) and irregular
(volo, fero, edo, eo, gaudeo, and o), only forms which may present some
diculties, such as the innitives or the gerunds, are deemed worthy
of an accurate translation.
146
In the sections on adverbs and conjunctions, Mancinelli does not
seem to follow any of the known editions of Ianua. Also, he increases
the number and quality of the examples for each category: sometimes
he improves their style or makes them clearer by supplementing them
with material taken from Priscian.
147
The booklet also respects the demands of students in many other
senses. Mancinelli maintains a consistent use of principal parts before
the verbal conjugations. He was conscious of the value of mnemonic
verses in pedagogy; thus, he sometimes inserts lines taken from medi-
eval verse grammars at the end of regular conjugations.
148
At the same
time, Mancinelli made the elementary grammar more scientic and
less empirical by mentioning ancient authors and grammarians and
144
The Latin perfect indicative amavi, etc., is translated into Italian in both the past
tense and the present perfect (io amai and ho amato), whereas v mentions only the
present perfect (mi ho amado). The same prevalence of the present perfect over the past
tense can be observed nowadays in North Italian dialects.
145
For example: Ego memini, io me ricordo, recordaime, et some recordato; tu meministi, tu te
recordi, recordasti, et site recordato, etc.; Verbo impersonali modi indicativi tempore praesenti itur, se
va. Praeterito imperfecto ibatur, se giva, etc.
146
For example: Innitivo modo sine numeris et personis tempore praesenti et praeterito imper-
fecto docere, insegnar. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto docuisse, haver insegnato, etc.; Gerundia
vel participialia nomina sunt haec: docendi, de insegnar et de esse insegnato, etc.
147
For the adverbs of place, instead of reproposing the generic list of Ianua, Manci-
nelli divided them into sub-groups according to their meaning (hic, illic, istic; hinc, illinc,
istinc, etc.), thus following the same criterion as Priscian, Inst. gramm. :. o, GL , 8.
To the adverbs of time quoted in Ianua, Mancinelli added four adverbs in an order
corresponding to Priscians, ibid. .8, p. 8:. In the example for coniunctio deminutiva,
which in most Ianuae reads Si non potes mihi dare bis(s)antium, saltem accommoda denarium,
Mancinelli replaced bisantium with the more classical aureolum (Mart. q. . , etc.).
148
Here is an example concerning the verb edo (the source of these lines is unknown
to me):
Induperativis ede tum vel es; ac edat ille
este edite adiungit plurali quippe secunda.
Esto tu esto ille vel edat; dic velle futurum.
Plurali estote apponuntur, et edant vel edunto.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts :
comparing their theories; this use of primary sources to support the
exposition of grammatical rules is indeed one of the most interesting
features of Donatus melior.
149
At the end of the grammar book, in
an afterword to his readers (Mancinellus ad lectorem), Mancinelli feels
obliged to justify his decision to maintain the denitions of Ianua even
in some controversial cases, such as the identication of optative,
the third persons and the rst person plural of the imperative, and the
passive meaning of the gerund: passages from Latin writers (Terence,
Ovid, Lucan, Suetonius, Martial, etc.) and grammarians (Priscian and
Diomedes, as well as Augustine) had encouraged him not to change
the traditional way of presenting Latin grammar. Mancinelli also used
the authority of grammarians in the appendix, which consists of the
juxtaposition of denitions of the parts of speech and their properties,
mostly taken from Donatus, Diomedes, and Priscian.
In short, Mancinelli tried to make Ianua a useful and rational
tool for teaching and learning Latin. A huge gap separated teachers
and pupils of Renaissance and post-Renaissance schools, Mancinellis
intended audience, from those of the Middle Ages, for which Ianua
had been conceived. The text of Ianua itself, which had not escaped
the typical fate of all schoolbooks, was in need of emendation and
improvement. The teacher from Velletri attempted to satisfy the de-
mand for a more eective textbook by sticking close to tradition.
However, because of the increasing cultural importance of the vernac-
ular languages, times were ripe for a radical change in pedagogy. On
the other hand, in spite of Mancinellis eort to revise and improve
the Latin Ianua, editions of the original grammar continued to circu-
late.
150
149
For example, in the section on prepositions, taken directly from Ianua, after
mentioning the prepositions that can be found only in compoundsdi, dis, re, se,
am, conMancinelli adds an interesting remark on am and grounds his assumption on
the authority of Macrobius, Festus, and Priscian: Cave an dicas. Nam veteres an pro circum
ponere solebant auctore Macrobio. Et Festus inquit am praepositio signicat circum. Hinc dicitur
ambustus, i.e., circum ustus. Priscianus et etiam liber xiiii inquit am per graecam praepositionem
signicat ut amplector, amputo, ambio, etc.
150
See Grendlers discussion of six editions of Ianua issued from :o: to :q (:q8,
.68f.).
. cn\r+rn oxr
8. The Association with Disticha Catonis
The Distichs of Cato (Disticha Catonis), a work in verse, were often
appended to Ianua and to other elementary grammars. Attributed
either to Marcus Porcius Cato the Censor (Cato the Elder, .
:qB.C.E.)who, according to Gellius (Noct. Att. ::. .. .), wrote a
Carmen de moribus for his sonor to an unknown Dionysius Cato,
151
the Distichs actually were composed sometime after the third century
C.E. and assumed their present form by the ninth century. In any
case, quotations from this work do not appear before the fourth
century.
152
The Disticha are a product of the interest in archaic Latin
writers typical of Latin culture in the late Empire.
Written in a very easy Latin, the Distichs functioned as the rst
Latin reader in schools: they provided beginners with a text to read
and memorize after learning the fundamental notions of Latin mor-
phology. Notes on manuscripts suggest that pupils read the sentences
in class, paraphrased them, and commented on them almost word by
word. Two Piedmontese documents of :oq and :.: mention pupils
legentes de Donato et Catone.
153
Cato is a metonymy for the Disticha,
which follows Ianua or Rudimenta grammatices in almost all manuscript
copies and in twenty-three of the thirty-two incunable editions.
154
The
presence of the Disticha is regular in the editions of Donatus melior by
Antonio Mancinelli, as well as in the vernacular version of Ianua:
Donato or Donadello often meant Ianua plus the Distichs.
The Disticha or Dicta Catonis are a collection of moral sayings:
introduced by a praefatio and fty-seven short sentences (breves sententiae)
in prose, they consist of about :o maxims in elegiac couplets. They
make up a didactic poem divided into four books.
155
Among the
large number of manuscripts that have transmitted Catos Distichs,
modern editors have singled out at least three dierent versions: a
vulgate of o6 lines, bearing the title Marci Catonis ad lium libri ();
151
The misunderstanding concerning Dionysius Cato, which originated from
Scaligers :q8 edition, lasted until the nineteenth century; see Roos :q8, :qf.
152
On quotations from the Disticha in late antique literary works, see Roos :q8,
:8:qo.
153
Black :qq:b, :.
154
GW 8q88, 8qq:, 8qq., 8qqqooo, qoo.qoo, qoo6qo::, qo:qo:6.
155
The metrical prologues of Books Two, Three, and Four and the breves sententiae
are probably interpolations.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
a second version of : lines, which is more complete but not free
from interpolations, entitled Dicta Marci Catonis ad lium suum (); and
the so-called Barberini recension, of uncertain origin.
156
The importance of the Distichs in education went far beyond that
of a simple linguistic exercise: as Hazelton has written, the Disticha
Catonis [] reveals itself as a compendium of the root ideas that
informed the thinking of mediaeval men, since it contained in bulk
the amalgamation of classical and Scriptural lore that is character-
istic of medieval literature.
157
Thus, Donatus and Cato were both
regarded as ancestors: they were considered as authorities of the
past and as products of a pagan culture that had merged with Chris-
tianity and transmitted its values to it. As Donatus had established
the rules for the correct use of the language, Cato had provided
the rules for living in a society based on the same high moral val-
ues as those promoted by Christianity.
158
Although the Distichs lack
a signicant religious dimension, some similarities between them and
the Sapiential books of the Bible promoted the conversion of Cato
into a Christian moralist. Just as Donatus drew much of his author-
ity as a former teacher of St. Jerome, Cato was often compared to
Solomon and associated with St. Paul or the Fathers of the Church.
This process undoubtedly favored the continuous use of the Distichs
in medieval Christian schools. Some passages of the Distichs, in fact,
were explained through references to the Scriptures. Admittedly, the
fact that Cato was a pagan author left the work open to occasional
criticism.
159
However, the Distichs were highly valued by most men
of culture because of their eectiveness in teaching good habits and
customs to young people, and because their shortness and sententious
tone was well suited to the tastes of men of the Middle Ages.
156
See Schmidt :qq
2
, :. The most important modern editions are J.W. Du
and A.M. Du in Minor Latin Poets, LondonCambridge MA, :q
2
, 86q; and
M. Boas and H.J. Botschuyver, Amstelodami :q..
157
Hazelton :q, :.
158
See Hazelton :q, :6.: Cato reects the values of its era. It is in fact a
distillation [] of many of the ideas and sentiments found in Augustan and Silver
Latin literature; and Reynolds S. :qq6, :o: If Donatus was the basic grammar of
Latin, [] the Disticha of Cato was the basic grammar of pragmatic morality. See
also Waquet :qq8, :f.
159
Doubts about the suitability of Cato for study in schools were expressed by
Othloh of St. Emmeran in the eleventh century and by Mathurin Cordier in the
sixteenth century. See Hazelton :q, :q and n. q, and Thomson-Perraud :qqo, 8.
cn\r+rn oxr
As a text used in schools almost without interruption from late
antiquity to the Renaissance,
160
Catos Distichs were handed down in
many copies, often together with other elementary readers, the so-
called auctores octo.
161
Like Donatus, Cato also kept his place in human-
ist education. One reason for this may be found in the fame of the
author as a representative of ancient Roman pagan culture. Erasmus
included the Distichs in a collection of moral sayings, together with
the Sayings of the Seven Sages and Publilius Syrus sentences. Moreover,
they were translated into many vernacular languages. In the twelfth
century, after French and Occitan, already the Distichs were gradu-
ally rendered into Greek, German, English, Dutch, Icelandic, Span-
ish, and Catalan; in the thirteenth century, they were translated into
several Italian vernaculars as well.
162
q. Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Printed Editions of Ianua
The relative abundance of printed copies proves that Ianua continued
to be used in Italy after the fteenth century, in competition with
other grammar books. Grendler has listed a fair number of editions,
163
showing that the basic text of Ianua continued to circulate rather
widely, sometimes in conjunction with other grammatical material.
On the other hand, the vernacular version Donato al senno, based on
the revised edition of Mancinelli, slowly supplanted the Latin Ianua.
The titles of the editions convey some information about the way
in which the book attracted its readers. The elementary character
of the grammar is usually underlined (grammatices rudimenta, brevissimae
puerorum institutiones), together with the name of its prestigious alleged
author, Aelius Donatus, which guaranteed scientic exactitude and
respect for an ancient tradition of studies as well. Moreover, the geo-
graphical distribution of the titles suggests that some local traditions
had been established in the printing of Ianua:
160
Hazelton (:q, :8 n. ) has outlined a short history of the fortune of Catos
Distichs, noting that the rst certain evidence of their circulation dates back to the
Merovingian times. A commentary was written by Remigius of Auxerre in the ninth
century. See also Rich :q8, :.
161
See below, 68.
162
See Mead :qq:qo, :; Segre-Marti :qq, :8f.; Roos :q8, ..8.:; and
Ortoleva :qq., XXXIf., with bibliography.
163
Grendler :q8q, ::8.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
:) Aelii Donati grammatici pro impetrando ad rempublicam litterariam aditu
novitiis adolescentibus grammatices rudimenta que aptissime dedicata is the
title of four Venetian editions by Lucantonio Giunta (::o and
:.) and Guilelmus de Fontaneto (:. and :o);
164
.) two editions issued in Brescia (Brixiae) by Ludovicus Britannicus
in :6 and :8 bear the title Aelii Donati grammatici brevissimae
puerorum intitutiones;
165
) the titles Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices and grammatices (e)rudi-
menta appear in two Florentine and two Roman editions, respec-
tively;
166
) Aelii Donati grammaticale is the title of three Milanese editions: two
by Francesco Paganello (:q and :6::) and one by Graziadei
Feriolo (:q). In all cases Ianua is printed with Catos Distichs;
) Donatus ad lectorem appears on top of the rst page of several
editions of Central-Northern Italy (e.g., Venetiis, apud Jo. Gry-
phium, :, with Disticha; Patavii, apud Laurentium Pasquatum,
:6o8, with Disticha; Maceratae, apud Curtium Gobbum et Iose-
phum Pandarum, :6, with Disticha);
6) an edition entitled Aelii Donati grammatices erudimenta was published
in Rome (apud Antonium Facchettum, :q [?], with Disticha).
The Roman edition of :68 (Typis Vitalis Mascardi, :68, with
Disticha) features a text of Ianua inuenced by Donatus melior. In
another Roman edition (apud Victorium Elianum, :, with
Disticha and other grammatical material), declensions and con-
164
Venetiis, impensiis Lucantonj de Giunta orentini [] ::o tertio idibus No-
vembris (with Disticha); Venetiis per Guilelmum de Fontaneto, :. (with Disticha);
Venetiis [] Luce Antonii Junta orentini impressa, :. die xviii Maij; Venetiis per
Guilelmum de Fontaneto :o (almost identical to the ::o edition).
165
Brixiae, per Ludovicum Britannicum, :6 (with Disticha); idem, :8 (with
Disticha).
166
Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices incipiunt, Florentiae, apud Iuntas, :8 (with
Disticha and other material); nuperrime ab innumeris erroribus expurgata, Florentiae, typis
Massae, :6 (with Disticha). Another Florentine edition (per Benedictum Iunta, :8,
with Disticha) is untitled. However, in an edition printed in Milan, the name of the
curator is also mentioned: Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices studio et opera Barptolomei
Moirani [], Mediolani, ex ocina Valerii et Hieronymi fratrum de Meda, :68.
The Roman editions are: Aelii Donati grammatices erudimenta, Romae, apud Antonium
Facchettum, :q(?) (with Disticha); and Aelii [] erudimenta nunc demum post omnium
editiones, quae ad hanc usque in lucem prodiere, novo ac faciliori ordine digesta. Accuratius ac
diligentius emendata et ab innumeris erroribus purgata, Romae, Typis Vitalis Mascardi, :68
(with Disticha; the Ianua text is inuenced by Donatus melior; printed with Guarinos
Regulae by the same printer, in the same year, using continuous signatures).
6 cn\r+rn oxr
jugations of Ianua are supplemented with other examples, and a
small amount of translation is added.
The circulation of Mancinellis Donatus melior had its peak in the rst
decades of the sixteenth century.
167
At the end of the century, however,
editions of Donato al senno (generally entitled Donato al senno con / et il
Cato volgarizzato in lingua Toscana) became much more frequent.
168
This varied supply of dierent texts corresponds to the various
pedagogical demands of that time: while new methods of teaching
and learning were being developed, it was still possible for old and
new forms to coexist. The history of the Greek Donatus, on the other
hand, demonstrates that the same dialectic between continuity and
innovation inuenced the teaching of Greek in the West.
:o. Learning Latin: Repetition, Memorization, and Translation
Elementary Latin grammars were in Latin: schoolbooks entirely in
the vernaculars appeared only in the seventeenth century. During
the Middle Ages and part of the Renaissance, the native language
of students was almost never used in grammar books and probably
rarely employed in oral teaching: Latin was taught in Latin, with an
approach to the language that was very similar to the so-called direct
method.
169
The preservation of Latin as a learned means of com-
munication up until the threshold of the modern age helps explain
why fteenth-century humanists continued to use the same textbooks
167
Editions listed by Grendler: Milan, Leonardo Pachel, :8 May :o:; Venice,
Giovanni Tacuino de Tridino, .q October :o. and August :o8; Milan, Pietro
Martire de Mantegatiis, .. September :o and :o February :o6; Venice, Georgio
de Rusconibus, :8 April ::q; and Rome, Antonio Facchetto, :q.
168
Editions listed by Grendler: Venice, Manfredo de Monferrato de Sustreno de
Bonelli, .. April :o, and Melchiore Sessa, .q April :o8 (both untitled; the lat-
ter also contains a short review section); Venice, Francesco de Leno, :o; Milan,
Iacobus Girardonius, :o; Verona, Bortolamio Merlo, between :6oo and :6o; Tre-
viso, Girolamo Righettini, :66; Florence, nel Garbo, Giuseppe Manni, between
:6o and :oo; Bergamo, MarcAntonio Rossi, :6; Bologna, Domenico Barbie-
ri, :6; Treviso, Francesco Righettini, :66o; and Florence and Bologna, Gioseo
Longhi, :6o.
169
On the interaction between Latin and the vernacular languages in education in
early modern Europe, see Waquet :qq8, :q. On the direct method or audiolingual
instruction, very popular in foreign language pedagogy in the :q6os, see, e.g., Titone
:q68, :oo:o6, and :q8o, .f.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
and to read the same literary works upon which late antique and
medieval men of culture had built their knowledge. The most sig-
nicant innovation in medieval grammatical studies, a philosophical
approach to grammar (speculative grammar) inspired by Scholas-
ticism, was conned to North European universities and did not
aect elementary and intermediate education.
170
Nor were signicant
changes introduced in terminology and in teaching philosophy:
171
as
one of the seven liberal arts, grammar was based on a set of pre-
scriptions imparted in a systematic fashion,
172
and, as such, resisted
radical transformations.
In his dialogue entitled De vanitate mundi, the twelfth-century theolo-
gian Hugh of St. Victor described the activity of a medieval school.
He presented consecutive stages of learning Latin as taking place
at the same time in dierent classrooms: learning the alphabet and
vocabulary, listening to a teacher lecturing on inection, composition,
and etymology of words, reciting and memorizing the new words, and
writing exercises.
173
The structure of elementary books and the writings of some Re-
naissance teachers reveal that little had changed from antiquity. In-
serting linguistic phenomena into logical categories arranged in a
hierarchical structure made those phenomena intelligible: teachers
began with the denition and explanation of the rst elements of
languageletters, syllables, and wordsthen went through elemen-
tary morphology, i.e., the eight parts of speech. Finally, as a prepara-
tion for the study of advanced grammar and rhetoric, they analyzed
some syntax and elements of style.
174
This process corresponds to an
170
On speculative grammar see Bursill-Hall :q:; :q, :8o.; Grendler :q8q,
:6f.; and Black .oo:, o. A general overview of all aspects of medieval grammar
is oered by Huntsman :q8.
171
Italian documents from the fourteenth to the end of the fteenth century show
that the traditional link between (Latin) grammar and Christian morality was main-
tained during the Renaissance: see Kohl :q88, 6 and Black :qq:b, ::q. On termi-
nology, see Rizzo :qq.
172
Percival :q88, 68.
173
See Marrou :q6 [:q8], :o.; Taylor :qq
4
, :. :; and Murphy :q8o, ::.
Words were often grouped together according to their etymology to aid memoriza-
tion, and this practice is reected in medieval word lists and glossaries; see Weijers
:q8q, :.
174
See Grendler :q8q, :q, who quotes Battista Guarinis treatise De ordine docendi
et studendi (., Kallendorf .oo., .68.; see also Piacente .oo., 8., with an Italian
translation) and Orazio Toscanellas I modi pi communi con che ha scritto Cicerone le sue
epistole secondo i generi di quelle, con altre cose (Venice, Bolognino Zaltieri, :q, ).
8 cn\r+rn oxr
inductive method, which was already well-established in antiquity: in
its shift from the easier to the more complex, from letters to syllables
and from words to sentences, this method also resembles the structure
of the grammatical works handed down to us. In this learning process,
called progymnasmatic, Murphy has distinguished eight major ele-
ments, four of which directly concern the elementary study of Latin:
at rst, pupils learned sounds, words, and meanings, and then they
moved on to grammatical rules. Writing skills and speaking skills were
used to reinforce each other. In the study of grammar, memorization
preceded understanding.
175
Repetition and memorization were two stages closely related to
each other in the learning process: the former ensured the latter, and
constant practice enlarged the capacity of memory. As Grendler has
mentioned, they corresponded to a psychology of learning inherited
from the ancient world, based on a mechanistic view of the minds
operation.
176
At rst, pupils just read the grammar book, and then
they had to memorize the grammatical rules: latinizing by the rules
(latinare per le regole) appears frequently in documents concerning teach-
ers and pupils. All the pupils in a class recited together and in a loud
voice. When pupils had acquired a fair mastery of Latin grammar,
they began to do exercises or concordances: they had to use the
forms that they had learned by heart in all ways possible. Oral repe-
tition and written exercises continued to follow each other at length,
even when students approached their rst literary text, Catos Dis-
tichs. Repeating, in fact, expands memory and makes memorization
175
Murphy :q8o, :.:.
176
Grendler :q8q, :q6; see also Rich :q8, :f. The reason, as Grendler remarks,
was that Renaissance pedagogues viewed childrens minds as blank wax tablets on
which anything written deeply enough would endure until death. In his Vita schola-
stica, for example, Bonvesin de la Riva (ca. :.o ca. ::) considered memorization
as the fth key to wisdom (see Marcucci .oo., ::q). The idea that education must
inculcate a capacity to think independently is a recent achievement: from antiquity
to the eighteenth century, an exclusive emphasis was placed on the acquisition of a
xed set of notions, which were usually the product of the dominant ecclesiastical and
secular authorities; see the interesting remarks by Houston (:q88, 6) and Marcucci
(.oo., q). Repetition and memorization continued to be recommended and applied
in classrooms by Renaissance teachers. For example, in a letter of :. to Martino
Rizzon, who had become a teacher, Guarino Guarini recommended that boys should
memorize (memoriae mandent) Virgils lines, with more regard for frequent repetition
than for the number of lines (Virgilii versus magis frequentes quam multos). See the text in
Garin :q8, .
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts q
easier; memorizing was considered as equivalent to understanding
and knowing.
177
The importance of memory in education had already been stressed
by Quintilian (Inst. or. ::. .. :: omnis disciplina memoria constat) as a funda-
mental component of the study of grammar (:. :. :q and ). Quintil-
ian suggested that the text should be memorized word for word, after
being divided into shorter sequences (divisio). The practice of divisio
explains the layout of medieval sacred textsespecially the Psalms,
used as an elementary readingor of schoolbooks, both handwritten
and printed. They were divided into cola and commata, with colored
initials and many other devices to attract readers attention. Among
these devices, the use of pictures was very common: the decoration
of the incipit of the works or of sections of texts as well as the im-
ages accompanying texts created a pictorial rubric.
178
Moreover, the
very title Ianua, gateway, hints at the memoria articiosa or articialis,
or architectural memory, which consisted of connecting objects to
places, buildings, or parts of buildings.
179
Also, the frequency of alpha-
177
See Gehl :qq, 88. In particular, Rich (:q8, :8) observes that memorizing
grammatical catechisms allowed pupils to practice the Latin language already at
an early stage of their learning: as in modern Assimil, lenfant apprend par coeur
ce dialogue [scil. lfrics grammar: above, ] et arrive ainsi parler dune faon
courante le latin.
178
Carruthers :qqo, ..6f. On the per cola et commata text format, see Saenger
:qq, :6. Cicero recommended the use of striking images in his De oratore .. :
utendum est [] imaginibus autem agentibus, acribus, insignitis, quae occurrere celeriterque percutere
animum possint. The Latin grammar in Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, MS. C 68,
copied in the fteenth century in the Benedictine cloister of Seligenstadt, oers an
interesting example. The grammatical text is a contamination of Donatus Ars minor
and Priscians Institutiones. The Latin words and forms are either translated into the
local vernacular, Hochdeutsch, or illustrated with pictures functioning, so to speak, as
a visual translation: their purpose was to strike the imaginations of pupils, to make
the matter entertaining, and to encourage memorization. For example, next to the
title of the chapter on conjunction (coniunctio: fol.
r
), there is a picture of two old
men sitting opposite each other, with their beards tied in a knot. Sometimes pictures
and glosses in Hochdeutsch appear together: on fol. :o
r
, a little monkey uses a rope
to draw the initial t of the verb traho, glossed zychen (Germ. ziehen), to draw. Other
pictures recall moral and religious issues (little skulls, indicating the lack of forms in
defective verbs; a dance of the dead; etc.) or a mundus inversus (mice burying a
cat, hares hunting a hunter; etc.). The manuscript of Uppsala represents an agreeable
exception within a pedagogical context in which boredom, constraint, and corporal
punishments were extremely frequent: Luther considered learning Latin grammar
a torture (carnicina); more recently, Churchill did not tolerate the repetitive and
meaningless exercises in inection. See Asztalos :q8q, . (a facsimile of the manuscript)
and Stolt in Asztalos :q8q, :. ::.
179
This also applies to Vestibulum, forecourt, the title of one of the supplements
6o cn\r+rn oxr
bets (Latin, Greek, Coptic, Hebrew, or imaginary) written on school-
books suggests that the alphabetic sequence was often used for the
same purpose.
180
Much more frequent were mnemonic verses, usually
leonine hexameters, employed for grammar books such as Alexander
of Villedieus Doctrinale or Eberhard of Bthunes Graecismus.
181
In areas where the knowledge of Latin as a spoken language had
been lost more quickly, such as Central and Northern Europe, ver-
nacular languages began to be used quite early at the initial stage of
education. In English, Irish, and German manuscripts, glosses in ver-
nacular languages already appear in the ninth and tenth centuries.
182
In most cases, teachers translated the Latin grammar book word by
word into the vernacular language and explained it carefully. Accord-
ing to Ising, teachers could also dictate the text; pupils wrote it down
on paper or wax tablets and learned by heart both the Latin forms
and their equivalents in the vernacular. This methodology aected
the printing of schoolbooks before :oo, as demonstrated by some
incunables of Ianua and the Ars minor in Latin with German glosses.
183
of Ianua (above, : n. o). Considered an invention of the Greek poet Simonides of
Ceos (ca. 6 ca. 68 B.C.E.), architectural memory was taught by the Sophists and
mentioned by Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, and the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium,
and enjoyed a revival during the Middle Ages. For example, at the beginning of
medieval Bibles, the Tables of Eusebius, compiled in the fourth century and later
translated into Latin, showed the parallel passages of the four Gospels inserted within
a frame of four arcades. See Carruthers :qqo, q, :..; Bockelmann in Ars memorativa
:qq, .q:.; Heimann-Seelbach :qq6; and Law :qq6, 8o.
180
Aristotle had recommended the use of the alphabetic sequence in memorizing;
see Carruthers :qqo, :oq:::.
181
On mnemonic verses, see Percival :q8:, .; Rich :q8 (:qq), :; Carruthers
:qqo, 8o; and Ernst and Massing in Ars memorativa :qq, :oo and :o:::.
182
See Ising :qo, .; and Orme .oo6, :oq::8. MS. C 68 of Uppsala (above,
n. :8) demonstrates that, in the fteenth century, the use of Hochdeutsch in the
teaching of elementary Latin grammar was even recommended to teachers. Most
of the Latin words are glossed, and rules and technical terms are translated into the
vernacular; moreover, teachers are urged, in Latin, to use the mother language of
their pupils in classrooms. See the interesting remarks by Stolz :qq, ::f.
183
See Ising :qo, .6. Ising quotes the program of the four schools of Latin in
Nrnberg in :o: students must learn the Latin declensions and conjugations, but
also learn nouns and verbs in German, with examples (die nomina und verba tewtschen
lernen, mit exempeln). More specically: Magister ein maister oder der maister, exemplum magister
est in choro, magistri des maisters, exemplum claves sunt magistri, die schlssel sind des maisters []
Auch die verba mit exempeln, als ego amo ich hab lieb, tu amas du hast lieb [] und sochs also
furbasser in singulari und plurali, in preterito und futuro zuvertewtschen, alles mit exempeln. For
pupils, the lesson must be not only useful (nutzlich), but also pleasant and delightful
(lustig und lieplich). Moreover, in his program for the Latin school at Husum, Rector
Johannes Oldenburg (::6o) considers that, by learning Latin in German, pupils
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts 6:
However, because of the traditional conservatism of the forms and
contents of education, Latin continued to oer a pedagogical model
for centuries, even when the linguistic reality had changed. As Black
has pointed out repeatedly, it may have been pedagogically problem-
atic, if not impossible, to teach basic reading techniques in a language
without any xed orthography. Latin had become a sort of articial
language, unchangeable and suited for teaching, whereas vernacular
languages were changeable, unstable, learned naturally but unteach-
able; vernacular could not be taught because it was not considered as
an ars.
184
In countries where Romance languages were spoken, the replace-
ment of Latin by the vernacular languages as a means of instruc-
tion took place more slowly but consistently from the fteenth cen-
tury onward.
185
In Italy, the rst documents concerning the use of the
vernacularnot only in elementary reading and in writing, but also
in the teaching of Latin beyond the elementary levelbelong to the
thirteenth century; the translation from Italian vernaculars into Latin
(thema) was a very common exercise in fourteenth-century schools.
186
During the Renaissance, the demand for a restoration of the origi-
nal purity of Latinitas hampered the extensive use of the vernaculars
in teaching; however, teachers had to cope with the linguistic real-
ity of that time, which was continuously evolving and was following
a direction opposite to that of pedagogical treatises.
187
After a careful
can improve not only their Latin, but also their mother language: this concept is still
common in modern pedagogy.
184
Black :qq6a, of.; .oo:, ., and .oo, .o; and Gehl :q8q, 88f. See also
Burkes interesting observations (.oo, 6o). On the distinction between vernacular
languagesconsidered as natural languagesand Latinthe grammatical lan-
guage by antonomasiain the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance, see Rizzo :qqo,
:qq8, and .oo. Humanists applied a similar rigid distinction to Greek by distinguish-
ing between Homers language (oral and popular) and the sermo Atticus (written and
literary): see Ferreri .oo..
185
Some translations of the Ars minor or Ianua into French, however, date from the
thirteenth century; see Colombo Timelli :qq6. Merrilees (:qq:, q:) remarks that the
teaching of Latin in French was already well-established at that time.
186
See Sabbadini :q.., :..
187
On the one hand, in his Regole della lingua orentina (ca. :o), Leon Battista
Alberti regarded Italian as a form of Latin, although corrupted and disgured;
therefore, using Latin instead of Italian was equivalent to using the language in its
pure state instead of its degenerated form: see Padley :q8:q88, .. .. In Venice,
a large number of vernacular Donatuses, Donati al senno, and Donati meliores were
circulating between the fteenth and the sixteenth centuries, but Aldus Manutius,
who printed many works in vernacular, wrote his Latin grammar on the model of
6. cn\r+rn oxr
study of the vernacular glosses in school manuscripts, Robert Black
has concluded that vernacular languages were not used where we
would expect to nd them, namely, at the very elementary stage of
basic Latin morphology. On the other hand, the importance of ver-
naculars in the Latin syllabus would increase progressively with the
study of advanced Latin prose composition and with the reading of
authors.
188
During the rst half of the fourteenth century, vernacular
languages began to be commonly used at the intermediate level of the
study of grammar.
189
In the sixteenth century, the decay of Latin as the language of
instruction was indisputable even in Italy.
190
In the preface to his
Donatus melior, Antonio Mancinelli recommended that teachers should
explain each of the more dicult issues in the vernacular language
(diciliora quaeque vernacula lingua exponere). The increase in vernacular
translations of Ianua (Donato al senno) from the sixteenth century shows
that the use of vernacular languages in the teaching of Latin had
become more and more frequent: teachers wanted their students to
understand the text instead of simply memorizing it.
191
The compo-
sition of Latin grammars in the vernacular marks the nal stage in
the transformation of Latin into a dead language and the evolution of
the teaching method from memorization to translation. Their authors
justify their choice as an attempt to meet the demands of beginners,
who need to feel comfortable when tackling a new and strange lan-
guage.
192
the ancient grammarians and without any consideration for the vernacular. On the
other hand, in the thirteenth century, Alexander of Villedieu, in the introduction to
his Doctrinale (8:o), had already urged pupils to solve their problems in the study
of the language by listening to their teachers, who would lecture them in their own
language (laica lingua). More than two centuries later, the same consideration led the
Spanish grammarian Antonio de Nebrija to arm in his Gramtica castellana (:q.)
that Latin could be more easily approached via the vernacular: see Padley :q88, :6.
188
Black :qq6a, ::f., .:; .oo:, :.
189
For instance, in the Regulae parvae by Goro dArezzo, denitions were still in
Latin, but examples and paradigms were extensively translated, and references to
common vernacular usage were constant in the description of Latin syntax. See Black
:qq6a, .8.
190
Waquet (:qq8, .:) links the decay of Latin education to changes in society
and culture, which made Latin no longer necessary to pursue public careers of
communicate scientic knowledge.
191
See Black :qq:b, :.
192
Grendler (:q8q, :86.) mentions: a Grammatica latina in volgare (Verona :.q),
attributed to Bernardino Donato da Verona; Della lingua romana (:o) and De primi
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts 6
::. The Latin Curriculum
With the collapse of the Roman Empire, the network of schools cre-
ated throughout the empire disintegrated under the barbarian inva-
sions.
193
Even after the partial re-establishment of the school system
during the Carolingian age, the task of educating future church-
men, administrators, and professionals was undertaken almost exclu-
sively by monasteries. In the fourteenth century, the number of doc-
uments concerning schools (notarial records, letters of appointment,
etc.) increases signicantly. It is dicult to say whether this is due to
the fortuitous circumstances that often determine the survival of doc-
umentation or to a real pedagogical explosion, as Grendler put it.
194
In any case, documents attest to the fact that, during the Renaissance,
children had to choose between two dierent curricula: the vernacu-
lar curriculum, based on arithmetic and abacus, for those who were
to become merchants or craftsmen; and the Latin grammar school,
which trained future professionals. Girls, especially of the lower social
strata, rarely attended schools. As for boys, the distinction between
the vernacular and Latin curricula usually coincided with the pupils
social level: of course, children of the upper class were more likely to
attend the Latin grammar school than boys belonging to less well-to-
do families.
195
principii della lingua latina, ovvero il Priscianello (:o) by the Florentine Francesco Priscia-
nese; and the Latin grammar by Orazio Toscanella (d. :q). Needless to say, the
use of vernacular languages was very common in grammar books conceived for
the self-study of Latin. An interesting example is the anonymous Exercitium grammati-
cale puerorum per dietas distributum (Antwerpen :8), which had no fewer than fteen
incunabular editions. The author orders grammatical rules according to their di-
culty and describes them with literary exempla. In addition to the traditional devices
of an elementary manualsimple prose, dialogical form, direct addresses such as da
mihi, declina, etc.the book employs a carefully planned layout (fonts of various sizes,
paragraphs, and lists and charts of forms) and an extensive translation of all of the
Latin forms into German; see Pu :qq6, :.
193
See the extensive analysis by Rich :q6 [:q6.
3
], ..
194
Grendler :q8a, :8.
195
See Witt :qqa. Documents on the vernacular curriculum, of course, are less
numerous than those on the Latin curriculum. However, Gehl (:qq, .f.) maintains
that, from the thirteenth century, there was increasing literacy outside Latin (see
also Ortalli :qq6, 6., for Venice and the Veneto, and Balestracci .oo, .:., for
Tuscany). Some students, in fact, never studied grammaticawhich in fourteenth-
century documents means Latinbut learned only the basic skills, i.e., reading
and writing for commercial purposes. Gehl concludes that the evidence that some
schooling was entirely in the vernacular is sketchy but incontrovertible; contra Black
6 cn\r+rn oxr
Documents dating from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolu-
tion convey the idea of a scholastic tower of Babel rather than of
a unied educational system.
196
Moreover, forms and contents of the
curriculum could vary according to external factors, such as, most
importantly, the availability of teachers. In general, the basic curricu-
lum oered by Renaissance schools was rather homogeneous across
Europe.
Italy oers the richest and most varied amount of documenta-
tion.
197
A document from Arezzo dating from :o gives us a clear
picture of the Renaissances three-level school system.
198
The rst two
stages of education were distinguished according to the knowledge
of Donatus, the elementary grammar book. In fact, we have an ele-
mentary level of pupils not reading Donatus yet (scholaribus nondum
legentibus Donatum), who were taught to read and write by means of
the tabula, a sheet of parchment or paper (carta, collum, cedula, pagina,
etc.) xed on a wooden board (tabula, tolla, tola or toletta) and display-
ing the letters of the alphabet, a series of syllables, and the text of one
or two prayers. Tabula was also called the Holy Cross (la Santa Croce)
because the alphabet was usually preceded by the picture of a cross.
Another primer was the Psalter (salterio, libricciolum, libretto, quaternus
or vesper), perhaps a collection of prayers (Lords Prayer, Hail Mary,
and the Apostles Creed) and short religious texts, usually introduced
by the alphabet and a list of syllables.
199
For many children, education
ended at this point.
.oo:, n. 66. A primer entirely in vernacular, the so-called Babuino, may have been
used for the vernacular curriculum or for self-study at the elementary level: see Black
.oo:, n. 6.
196
Houston :q88, :o.
197
Most documents come from North and Central Italy, with very few being from
the South. On Renaissance schools in Italy (private, communal, state, and church
schools), see Grendler :q8a; :q8q, 8:; :qqo; and Houston :q88, .. See also
Trovato :qq8, .o.q, who corrects some of Grendlers assumptions.
198
Black :qq:b, :q: Archivio di Stato di Arezzo, Deliberazioni del Magistrato dei
Priori e del Consiglio Generale , fols.
v
-
r
.
199
Psalters, or salteri, could also include some psalms, in particular the seven
penitential psalms, the basic devotional text of the Middle Ages. Both the Psalter
and the Book of Hours (Libro dore, usually for girls) were books of prayers and could
also circulate outside schools. Several salteri are mentioned in the inventory of the
shop of the Florentine stationer Giovanni Baldini (above, .q n. 86), but they were
not necessarily schoolbooks. In some areas of Italy, Salteri continued to be used for
education until the nineteenth century. The only extant Salterio of the Renaissance is
the Liber Iesus (Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, MS. .:6), copied and decorated for
Massimiliano Ercole Sforza (see above, .6). See Rich :q8, :; Grendler :q8q,
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts 6
A second level included pupils reading Donatus but not procient
in Latin (scholares legentes Donatum nondum lactinantes): they approached
Latin elementary morphology by reading the Pseudo-Donatan Ianua
(Donato, Donado, or Donadello: hence the name Donatisti), together with
Catos Distichs. Often, Donatus meant both Ianua and Cato. The ab-
sence of vernacular glosses in manuscripts of Ianua until the fteenth
century suggests that the text had to be read and memorized entirely
in Latin.
200
Moreover, based on the lack of paragraphs and of any
divisio of the text in the layout of many manuscripts and printed edi-
tions, Black has inferred that, in most cases, Ianua was used primarily
as a reading text rather than as a manual for learning Latin gram-
mar. Other elements seem to conrm this hypothesis: rst, the many
Donadelli mentioned in fourteenth- and fteenth-century inventories
do not correspond to the limited number of children who actually
learned Latin in schools. Secondly, the verb normally used in doc-
uments about Donatus is legere, while the current expressions for the
study of Latin are facere and la(c)tinare.
201
According to many documents and curriculum descriptions from
the mid-fourteenth century to :oo, Ianua was taught in two stages:
per lo testo (a veduta, testualiter, syllabicando, compitare), i.e., simply sound-
ing it out syllable by syllable and word by word; and per lo senno (cum
sensu, sensualiter), i.e., by meaning. The teacher provided an inter-
linear translation into the vernacular, which was often written (and
later printed) in the interlinear spaces of the text. At that point, stu-
dents learned the text by heart: memory seems to have been at times
synonymous with understanding.
202
This method, probably designed
:6; Plebani :qq, 8o; Black :qq:b, :of.; Gehl :qq, .; Reynolds S. :qq6, q; and
Ferrari .ooo, :6:8.
200
Gehl :q8q, oo; :qq, q8.
201
See Black :qq:b, ::f.
202
Black :qq6, :6; see also :qq:b, :., :qq6a, o n. 6, and .oo:, 6. Black criticizes
Gehls assumption (:qq, :, 886) that both expressions refer to memorization, the
rst of a visual type (to test the students ability to memorize and to conceive of
language in formal terms) and the second of a more internalized kind (the text
could be used in a substantial and instrumental way as a means for acquiring some
understanding in Latin grammar). A Venetian contract of :o. conrms Blacks
assumption: a teacher, Daniele dal Pozzo from Capodistria, is hired to teach the two
sons of the noble Agostino Contarini, Marco and Jacopo. Marco, the elder son, who
will take up the family business, will learn to read Latin and scribere condecenter, whereas
the younger will stop at the elementary level because it will be enough quod bene sciat
legere Donatum et Catonem ad textum. See also Pastore Stocchi :q8o:q8:, :o6; Witt :qqa,
66 cn\r+rn oxr
to satisfy the demand for rapid literacy,
203
seems to have changed
in the late fteenth century, when the bilingual editions of Donatus
demonstrate that translation had replaced memorization as the pri-
mary learning method.
Donatus Ars minor and its medieval versions imparted the basic
notions of morphology and inection, but could not provide a level of
knowledge of Latin adequate for professional uses or for an approach
to classical literary texts. This was the goal of two thirteenth-century
treatises in verse, Doctrinale by Alexander of Villedieu and Graecismus
by Eberhard of Bthune,
204
both of which contain very few exam-
ples of inection but are much more detailed in the theoretical parts.
Priscians Institutiones grammaticae, the most extensive treatment of Latin
grammar, remained the undisputed authority for intermediate Latin.
Some attempts were made to supplement Priscians schematic de-
nitions and to improve the possibility of a pedagogical use of Institu-
tiones.
205
During the second half of the fteenth century, some com-
prehensive grammatical manuals were composed, certainly with the
purpose of replacing Donatus and Priscian; each of them constituted
a complete course of Latin.
206
:o:; and Ortalli :qq6, f. On reading aloud as a learning practice, see Saenger
:qq, f.
203
Black .oo, .:: in the rst stage, pupils acquired a reading skill that applied both
to Latin and to vernacular texts, whereas the second stage was for those who could
progress to the study of Latin.
204
Doctrinale has been edited by D. Reichling, Berlin :8q, and Graecismus by J. Wro-
bel, Breslau :88. The former had .8o incunabular editions (GW q:.::), while the
latter had only eighteen (GW q.::q..8); see Mead :qq:qo, q.
205
For example, Pietro da Isolella tried to build a new grammar by putting together
Priscians denitions, Donatus catechistic form, and the language and the mnemonic
verse of Doctrinale and Graecismus. On Pietro da Isolellas grammar (edited by Fierville
:886), see Black :qq6a, .6, and .oo:, 8 n. :.. Some mnemonic verses from
Doctrinale and Graecismus became popular or even proverbial and appear also in other
works on grammar, such as the lexicon by Giovanni Balbi; see Weijers :q8q, :.
206
For example: Niccol Perottis Rudimenta grammatices (Rome :); Antonio de
Nebrijas Introductiones Latinae explicitae (Salamanca :8:); and Despauterius Commen-
tarii grammatici, a collection of essays on grammar (Paris :). See Percival :q8:,
.6., and :q88, 6qo; and Waquet :qq8, q. Niccol Perottis Rudimenta are in-
debted to the genuine Ars minor by Donatus, but many parts of this work are no more
than an elaboration and an improvement of Ianua, whose question-and-answer for-
mat is also maintained. Some forms are translated into the vernacular, and inection
is often organized into columns and rows. In addition to morphology, Rudimenta also
treat syntax and letter writing. See Percival :q8:, .., .; and Grendler :q8q, :.
On Perottis method of teaching Latin, see Charlet :qq.. Grendler also mentions the
Regulae grammaticales by Gaspare da Verona, a student of Guarino, and Ognibene Bon-
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts 6
The ability to lactinare or latinare by the rules (per le regole)
207
was
the main objective of the second grade. The rules may indicate
other Latin textbooks for the intermediate level, such as the Regu-
lae by Francesco Da Buti (d. :o6)
208
and the Regulae grammaticales by
Guarino Guarini (::6o), which were usually tackled after Ianua.
During the Renaissance, Ianua and Guarinos Regulae became a cor-
pus and were often printed together, sometimes with Catos Distichs.
209
In particular, Guarinos grammar did not contain inection (probably
taken for granted at that stage), simplied the presentation of mor-
phology, concentrated on verbal syntax, and presented some forms
translated into the Italian volgare.
210
With Guarinos Carmina dieren-
tialia, often appended to the grammar book, students could learn a lot
of synonyms, homonyms, and dicult Latin terms. The Carmina were
expounded in elegiac couplets for the sake of memorization.
211
The practice of writing the meaning of dicult words (glosses)
explained in the classroom between the lines or in the margins of
isolis De octo partibus orationis liber, an attempt to improve Guarinos Regulae by adding
examples of inection and employing some references to Greek.
207
On latino or latinor as a technical term, see Rizzo :qq, o.
208
Like other intermediate booksfor example, the Regulae parvae by Goro dArez-
zoDa Butis grammar had been conceived as a practical tool for Latin composition;
see the passages quoted by Black (:qq6a, .qo; and .oo:, ::o n. o.) A manuscript
of Da Butis Regulae (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. lat. misc. e. .) describes the con-
tent of the instruction of lactinantes. The syllabus was divided into three parts: Lati-
nus minor, which included the regule pertinentes ad primam bancam (eight parts of speech,
nouns, and active and passive verbs), the regule secunde bance (neutra and communia verba),
the regule tertie bance (deponent and impersonal verbs), and the regule quarte bance (imper-
sonal verbs, active and passive voices, and inchoative verbs); Latinus mediocris (nouns in
detail, comparatives, superlatives, partitives, numbers, interrogatives, adverbs, rela-
tives, innitives, distributives, participles, and pronouns); and Regule maiorum (conjunc-
tions and gures of speech). See Black :qq:b, :f.; .oo:, :oo.
209
Grendler (:q8q, :8qf.) mentions three joint editions: Romae, apud Victorium
Elianum, :; Romae, apud Antonium Facchettum, :q; and Romae, typis Vitalis
Mascardi, :68. An edition of Donati et Guarini grammatica insitutio by Marco Antonio
Bongiari (Perugia :q) oers the two grammatical texts together in a complete course
of Latin.
210
The formula si, or quando, detur thema often introduces the vernacular translation
of the text. Verbs are classied into the traditional ve genera (active, passive, neuter,
common, and deponent), but within each genus verbs are sub-classied according to
the case they govern. On the sources of Guarinos grammar (Priscian, Folchino dei
Borfoni, and Francesco Da Buti), see Sabbadini :qo6, ::., and Percival :q., ..f.
On themata, translation exercises from the vernacular into Latin, see Garin :q8, :.;
and Black :qq6a, 6; .oo:, :::.
211
For an edition of Guarinos Carmina, with introduction and commentary, see
Percival :qq, :.
68 cn\r+rn oxr
a text is as old as school itself. Even in antiquity, the demand for
bilingual catalogues of words concerning specic topics had inspired
the composition of lists of glosses, which later evolved into lexico-
graphical works or real dictionaries. In order to satisfy the practical
need for translations, medieval lexica entirely in Latin (for example,
Papias vocabulista, dating from :o:; Osbern of Gloucesters Panormia;
Hugutio of Pisas Magnae derivationes, of the twelfth century; and Gio-
vanni Balbis Catholicon, of :.86) were gradually supplemented with
lists of Latin/vernacular words, usually grouped according to vocabu-
lary classes.
212
When a satisfactory mastery of Latin grammar had been reached,
pupils began to read the auctores minores or auctores octo (scholares lacti-
nantes et auctores audientes, or auctoristae). The auctores octo were chosen
not only for their moral and religious content, but also for their utility
in reviewing and improving the notions of grammar acquired in the
previous stages. They also contained very useful notions on history,
mythology, geography, and religion: maxims, proverbs, and edifying
stories provided a repertory useful in embellishing the style of any
prose writing that a pupil might produce in his career.
213
According to Boas, a xed corpus of these simple post-Donatum
Latin works was created in the ninth century. In addition to Disticha
Catonis, which usually occupied the rst place (hence Boas deni-
tion of Libri Catoniani), the kernel of auctores octo included Theodulus
Ecloga or Aethiopum terras,
214
Avianus Fabulae, the elegies by Maximia-
nus, Claudians De raptu Proserpinae, and Statius Achilleis. In the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries, other works were included in the col-
lection.
215
Boethius Consolatio philosophiae, the most complex reading
212
Latin-Old English and Latin-Old German glossaries already began to appear
in the eighth century. On medieval Latin lexica, see Garin :q8, q8f.; Gianola :q8o;
Weijers :q8q, :o.; and Charlet .oo, :68::. A list of Latin/vernacular words by
Domenico Bandini has been published by Black in the appendix to his :qq6 study
(:). Two lists by Goro dArezzo are preserved in two manuscripts of the British
Library, Harley .8 and 6:.
213
See Gehl :qq, :.
214
Attributed to Gottschalk of Fulda, a pupil of Hrabanus Maurus (d. 86), the
Ecloga is a dialogue between the shepherd Pseustis (Liar) and the Jewish Alithia
(Truth) on the relationship between classical mythology and the Christian revela-
tion. See Garin :q8, qf., and Grendler :q8q, ::..
215
These works were Facetus or Supplementum Catonis (a handbook on good manners,
attributed to John of Garland); Cato novus; Geta or Graecorum studia; Tobias by Matthew
of Vendme (a verse book of morality); Doctrinale altum parabolarum by Alain of Lille;
Elegia by Henry of Settimello; a rhymed version of St. Augustines sentences by
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts 6q
of the elementary course, constituted a trait dunion between the au-
ctores minores and the classical Latin authors. Ovid or other Christian
authors could also be included in the texts of this rst stage.
216
Boas conclusions conict with the extreme variety of texts included
in the manuscripts. Admittedly, the sequence (Donatus)CatoTheo-
dulusAvianus occurs quite frequently at the beginning in the libri
manuales, manuscript anthologies of various subjects dating from the
eleventh to the thirteenth century.
217
However, there is no xed order
in the sequence of the texts: within a general list of elementary read-
ings, teachers were free to choose the texts they considered most
suitable for their classes.
218
The most common reading list, however,
included eight works: Cato, Theodulus, Facetus, Chartula, Liber parabo-
larum, Tobias, Aesopus, and Floretus (hence the denition of auctores
octo).
219
Between the thirteenth and the fteenth centuries, these texts
circulated in Italyrst in manuscripts, then in printed editions
either individually or in groups of two or three: probably, for the ped-
agogy of that time, one or two texts were sucient for reading in
class.
220
After the easy Latin verse of the medieval auctores octo, pupils ap-
proached more complex classical authors, the auctores maiores. Virgil,
Lucan, Senecas tragedies, Terence, Statius, Persius, Claudian, and
Ovid were included in the syllabus; Latin prose was limited to Cicero
and Sallust.
221
In a poem for the death of the Bolognese grammarian
Prosper of Aquitaine; Aesops fables translated by Waltherius or Galterus Anglicus
(the chaplain of king Henry II of England); Chartula or De contemptu mundi; Physiologus
or Tres leo naturas (the transposition in verse of Theobaldus Physiologus); Liber quinque
clavium sapientiae; Floretus; Poenitentiarius; Synonima atque equivoca by John of Garland; De
quattuor virtutibus attributed to Seneca; and Prudentius Dittochaeum or Prudentiolus or
Eva columba. Most of these works belong to the twelfth century. See Garin :q8, q.;
and Orme .oo6, q8::.
216
See Boas :q:, :.; Avesani :q6, :; Kohl :q88, 6; and Gehl :qq, .f.
217
The three works were dened as primus, secundus, and tertius liber de moribus,
respectively; see Thomson-Perraud :qqo, :., .f.
218
See Avesani :q6, q; and Thomson-Perraud :qqo, ::.. For example, the
thirteenth-century scholar John of Garland included Cato and Theodulus in his reading
list for students, together with the Latin classics (Virgil, Horace, Cicero, etc.): see
Sandys :q8
3
, :. o and notes 6.
219
For a description of these texts, see Garin :q8, q.. Black (.oo:, :qq, .:q
.6) has analyzed extensively the manuscripts containing collections of minor Latin
authors to be read in schools.
220
Thomson-Perraud :qqo, .f.
221
Virgil, introduced in the Latin school curriculum for the rst time by Quintus
Caecilius Epirota at the end of the rst century B.C.E., never lost his predominance.
o cn\r+rn oxr
Ambrosius, the anonymous author mentioned the entire list of Latin
authors read in his schools. It included the typical medieval read-
ing list for intermediate studentsCato, Prosper, Boethius, Claudian,
etc.as well as classical and post-classical poets and prose writers:
Lucan, Seneca, Ovid, Terence, Tullius (i.e., Cicero), Martial, Juve-
nal, and Sallust.
222
A canon of Latin authors to be read at a more
advanced level, in fact, was established in the fourteenth century: Vir-
gil, Ovids Metamorphoses, Horace, Statius Thebais, and Lucans De bello
civili. Other poetry included Senecas tragedies, Terences comedies,
and Juvenals satires. As for prose, Cicero and Seneca were read for
philosophy, and Livy, Caesar, Sallust, Suetonius, Valerius Maximus,
and the Historia Augusta were for history.
223
However, the method fol-
lowed by teachers in classrooms did not change substantially from the
Middle Ages to the Renaissance. The glosses in manuscripts reveal
that teachers gave the meaning of some words through Latin syn-
onyms, paraphrased the text, commented on the mythological, histor-
ical, and geographical information it contained, pointed out the g-
ures of speech, and often oered a moral or allegorical interpretation
of the text.
224
By the turn of the fourteenth century, medieval Latin education
began to be challenged and criticized, even if its basic philosophy and
methodology remained unquestioned for a long time. At the end of
the century, the Florentine Coluccio Salutati (:::o6) supported
with much energy and rmness the cause of a Latin style puried
from all non-classical elements.
225
In a :. letter to his son Niccol,
Guarino Guarini resolutely condemned the dicendi et scribendi horrens et
inculta barbaries (a quotation from Cicero, De oratore :. : and De senectute
) that had polluted Latin studies because Cicero, the greatest model
Next came Terence, who ranked only sixth in the canon of Volcacius Sedigitus, but
who had enjoyed great success during the imperial age. Horace was read in schools,
but not as often as were the rst two authors. Of the prose writers, Cicero was the
most important, followed by Sallust. The quadriga Virgil, Terence, Cicero, and Sallust
dominated Latin schools up until the Renaissance; see Marrou :q6 [:q8], .8f.
222
The poem has been published by Avesani (:q6, 68.).
223
Kohl :q88, 6. The most extensive treatment can be found in Black .oo:, :
..
224
Black :qq:b, :o.; and .oo:, .. On teachers comments on ancient texts in
the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, see Marcucci .oo., 8oq..
225
See Witt :q8, ...:. See also Sandys :q8
3
, :. 6:o; Kohl :q88, ; and Percival
:q88, . For an overview of the debate about the Latin language during the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance, see Rizzo .oo.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts :
of Latin prose, was being ignored, while Italy had swallowed Prosperi,
Evae columbae, and Chartulae (cum Prosperos, Evas columbas et Chartulas
[] absorbuisset Italia).
226
The Florentine Matteo Palmieri (:o6:),
in his dialogue La vita civile, cited among the causes of the present
decline the dismal teachers with dismal authors and the obscure
and gloomy books taught in schools.
227
Like Lorenzo Valla, Leon
Battista Alberti (ca. :o:.) proposed to replace cartule e gre-
gismi with the study of the sources of Latin grammar (Priscian and
Servius) and the reading of the classical Latin authors (Cicero, Livy,
and Sallust).
228
However, medieval grammars continued to be used at
the elementary level of instruction. Guarino, for instance, kept Ianua
and even Doctrinale and Graecismus as points of reference for his own
manual, Regulae; memorization, repetition, and catechism continued
to be considered as the basic elements of eective learning.
229
Although rejected by humanists because of their impure Latin, the
auctores minores did not disappear immediately. Perhaps their moral
content or a precise editorial choice prevented the favorite medieval
readings from disappearing. Especially in France and in Spain (and
rarely in Italy, where the crisis of the medieval educational system had
manifested itself much earlier than elsewhere), they were collected
in anthologiesthe Libri minoresand printed and reprinted many
times until the middle of the sixteenth century.
230
However, by this
point, the culture based on the auctores octo was being questioned. In a
letter to his patron Juan Rodriguez de Fonseca, Bishop of Palencia,
Antonio de Nebrija, who prepared an edition of the Libri minores,
expressed serious doubts about the eectiveness of the texts. Nebrija
acknowledged the value of Disticha Catonis, which had been a pillar
in the education of generations of pupils, but considered the other
texts litterarum quisquilias. In the same way, Mathias Bonhomme, in the
introduction to his edition of Auctores octo (Lugduni :8), emphasized
the dierence between Catos Distichs (antesignanum illum Catonem []
226
Quoted by Garin :q8, q: and :6.
227
Tristi maestri con tristi autori [] obscuri e tenebrosi libri. See Garin :q8,
:of.
228
See Garin :q8, q.. On humanists critical attitude toward medieval grammar,
see Rizzo :qq6. On Valla, see above, :q.
229
See Grafton-Jardine :q8., 6., and Black .oo, .. The importance of mem-
orization in learning is stressed by Battista Guarini, De ordine docendi et studendi :
(Kallendorf .oo., .).
230
A list of editions of Libri minores in Avesani :q6, .:., and 8q.
. cn\r+rn oxr
tibi damus, quem unice ames, colas, amplexeris) and the other libri minores
(reliquos vero, qui Catoni impie assuti sunt, illumque multis parasangis male
sequuntur, tamquam scopulum fugias).
231
Two pedagogical experiments concerning the teaching of grammar
deserve to be mentioned. Giulio Pomponio Leto, a pupil of Valla,
who lived in Rome and Venice during the second half of the fteenth
century, wrote a course on Latin grammar in two parts: Romulus for
beginners and Fabius for more advanced students. He proposed a
return to the authentic sources of Latin grammar and the rejection
of all the additions and modications introduced in the Middle Ages,
such as themata and the vernacular translation of paradigms. Instead of
Donatus and Priscian, he considered Varro and Quintilian as his priv-
ileged sources. Leto also replaced themata with passages from classical
authors and went so far as to modify the traditional terminology and
disposition of the matter. Letos innovations did not enjoy any suc-
cess, except for the tabular disposition of paradigms, which was also
adopted by later grammarians.
232
Almost one century later, the Spanish humanist Franciscus Sanc-
tius, known as el Brocense (Francisco Snchez de la Brozas, :.
:6o:), who taught eloquence at Salamanca, rejected medieval gram-
mar tout court as well as the normative approach common to most
Renaissance grammarians, which enslaved language to a set of rules.
He proposed a direct approach to the authors, the real authorities
of the ancient languages: Plato and Aristotle for Greek and Cicero
and Quintilian for Latin. Moreover, Sanctius reduced the parts of
speech from eight to threenomen, verbum, and particulaand consid-
ered the verb esse as the basis for every verb. This clear attempt at a
231
On Nebrijas letter (printed at the beginning of his edition, Libri minores de novo
correcti per Antonium Nebrissensem, of :::) and Bonhomes introduction, see Avesani
:q6, ...
232
Letos grammar was printed in Venice in :8 by Battista de Tortis. This edition
is now incorporated into MS. Reginensis lat. :8:8 of the Vatican Library. Leto
acknowledged six parts of speech (noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, conjunction, and
preposition) and six declensions (of which the third corresponded to the traditional
fth, the fourth to the third, the fth included just genu, and the sixth domus; a list of
irregular nouns was also given). On the life and work of Pomponio Leto, see, e.g., the
studies by Lovito (.oo. and .oo). On Letos grammar, together with Zabughins still
fundamental study (:qoq, .. .o8..), see Bianchi-Rizzo .ooo, 66o, where Letos
activity is considered within the context of Pope Nicholas Vs cultural environment.
Manuscripts and printed editions have been analyzed by Ruysschaert in his articles of
:q and :q6:. See also Percival :q88, ; and Rizzo :qq, of.
+nr r\+ix nox\+ts
universal grammar makes Sanctius a forerunner of Port Royal and
Chomsky.
233
The attempts of Leto, Sanctius, and many others to renew gram-
mar, although fruitless, should be taken as signs of dissatisfaction with
traditional methods. Indeed, the innovation that most deeply aected
Renaissance culture was the revival of ancient Greek language and lit-
erature, which enabled the Latin world to regain consciousness of its
roots and, at the same time, to confront dierent pedagogical meth-
ods.
233
Sanctius expounded his theories in his Minerva seu de causis linguae Latinae (Sala-
manca :8, repr. StuttgartBad Cannstatt :q86). On Sanctius grammar, see Vilja-
maa :q6, q:; Padley :q8:q88, :. .6q.; and Vogt-Spira .oo:. Sanctius reduc-
tion of the number of the parts of speech recalls Lorenzo Vallas reduction of Aris-
totles ten ontological categories and six medieval transcendentals into three: sub-
stantia, agere / actio, and qualitas (Repastinatio dialectice et philosophie, ed. by G. Zippel,
. vols., Padova :q8.). Moreover, Vallas logical-ontological categories closely resem-
ble Sanctius grammatical tripartition (I owe this remark to Christopher Celenza,
whom I warmly thank). On Vallas dialectic, see Blum .oo, q: (with extensive
bibliography).
cn\r+rn +vo
THE GREEK CURRICULUM
During the fourteenth century, the threat of a growing Turkish power
and the inability of Christianity to oppose it eectively brought Italy
and the Byzantine world closer to each other: the acknowledgment of
common roots, not only Christian but also Greco-Roman, stirred the
conscience of Western men of culture and awoke their interest in the
fate of the Byzantine Empire. At the same time, Petrarch and other
scholars marked a turning point in Italian culture, in favor of a redis-
covery of the authentic Latin tradition after centuries of barbarism.
1
Humanists, aware that a deep and long-lasting knowledge of the clas-
sical tradition also involved the study of the Greek language, turned to
Byzantium and its culture. The cultural exchange began with Manuel
Chrysoloras teaching in Florence (:q) and continued well beyond
the fall of the Byzantine Empire (:). Both the Italians who studied
under Byzantine emigrs and those who went to Constantinople to
learn Greek were exposed to the Byzantine pedagogical and literary
tradition, in which grammar held a particularly important place. In
Byzantine education, in fact, Greek classical literature and language
had never lost their importance: as in antiquity, they were consid-
ered the foundation of culture itself. In any case, Byzantine pedagogy
was not completely dierent from the teaching methods used in the
West: the emphasis on memorization and repetition, the use of reli-
gious texts (in particular, the Psalms) as the rst readings, the practice
of parsing and dening grammatical phenomena (schedography), the
question-and-answer format of the school books and exercises (ert-
mata), and the link between the correctness of the form and morality
of the content created an ideal connection between schools on both
sides of the Mediterranean.
Byzantine teachers who found refuge and employment in the West
did not simply import their culture and pedagogy into an environ-
ment ready to receive it. Rather, they provided the material for the
1
See Dionisotti C. :q6, :.:.
6 cn\r+rn +vo
teaching of Greek as a foreign language. Thus their success had,
and continues to have, an eect, profound and irreversible, on the
structure and content of education and intellectual life in Europe and
in those parts of the wider world that have come under European
inuence. This is no small achievement.
2
At any rate, the insertion
of Greek studies into the Western school curriculum took place by
adapting the new pedagogy to the Latin tradition. The new Greek
curriculum was closely modeled on the Latin, and even the study of
Greek grammar was usually based on a comparison between Greek
and Latin forms.
As Hankins has pointed out, the integration of Greek culture into
Western civilization was one of the few cases in human history in
which a mature literary culture absorbed the rened language of
another nation, reserving a permanent place for it in its pedagogical
system.
3
The revival of Greek studies in the West during the Renais-
sance apparently began because of the initiatives of individual person-
alities and was not founded upon a previous tradition. It would be
restrictive, however, to explain the whole phenomenon only through
the action of external elements. Greek had been part of Latin cul-
ture since antiquity. Even in the Middle Ages, the thread that bound
Latin and Greek cultures together had never been completely broken.
Rather, the renewed contacts with Byzantium gave new life to issues
that, for a long time, had remained latent in Western culture. Never
had Byzantium been so close to the West as at the end of its history, as
demonstrated by the Byzantine Latinophrones of the Palaeologan age.
In the West, the rediscovery of Greek heritage in Latin literature pro-
moted by Petrarch and the rst humanists prepared the way for the
revival of the study of ancient Greek, the language of the literary mas-
terpieces that had so remarkably inuenced the most important Latin
works.
4
In fact, the presuppositions for the revival of Greek studies
2
Robins :qq, .6..
3
Hankins .oo:, :.6.
4
The idea that it is impossible to understand Latin literature fully without know-
ing Greek occurs so often in the writings of the rst humanists (Leonardo Bruni,
Guarino, Politian, etc.) that it can be considered a topos. See Hankins .oo:, :.. For
example, in a ::6 letter to Niccol Pirondolo, Guarino Guarini says that Greek and
Latin are related to each other like a mother and daughter: [Graecae litterae] tam iocun-
dae, tam utiles nostris hominibus sunt, et latinis litteris tanta cognatione ac necessitudine devinctae,
ut matrem ac liam non iniuria dixeris (see Garin :q8, o8). Another interesting pro-
grammatic assertion comes from Andronicos Contoblachas, a Byzantine emigr who
taught Greek in Basel from : to :. In his oration In Praise of Greek Letters,
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx
were closely connected with the demand of the rst humanists for
restoring the purity of the Latin language; only later did Greek studies
acquire the dignity of an independent eld.
5
:. The Position of Greek in Roman Education
From the second Punic war onward, all educated Romans had to
be bilingual, procient in both Latin and Greek (utriusque linguae:
Horace, Carm. . 8. ). Quintilian (Inst. or. :. :. :.) demonstrates
that Romans were well aware of the Greek roots of their culture. In
fact, Latin literature had begun with the translation of the Odyssey by
Livius Andronicus, a Greek slave from Tarentum. From the theater
of Plautus and Terence, the poems of Catullus, Virgil, or Horace,
and the philosophical works of Cicero and Seneca, to the products
of Silver Latin authors and late antique writers, Latin literature
continued to be heavily infuenced by Greek models.
6
As Marrou has pointed out, the Romans were the rst to use a
foreign language systematically to increase their mastery over their
own.
7
For a long time, in fact, teaching remained the prerogative of
Greek slaves from South Italy, Greece, or Asia. They were entrusted
with the education of children of well-to-do families and with teach-
ing in schools. They obviously imported into the Roman world the
contents and methodologies of their own learning, which inuenced
preserved in the Vatican manuscript Reginensis lat. :, Contoblachas says that he
has always associated Latin and Greek (Latina cum Grecis coniunxi), as Priscian had
done, since Latin culture is derived from Greek culture: Profecto nullo modo quispiam
prima elementa absque licteris Grecis accipere poterit, adeo connexa est hijs omnibus disciplina Greco-
rum, ut nihil sit altum nec perfectum sine ipsa. See Schmitt :q:, with an edition of the
oration on ...
5
See Grafton :q88, .: The humanists of the period :oo to :6o wished above
all to revive classical Latin culture [] They translated Greek works that lled gaps
in the Latin culture of their timeabove all, works of history, geography, and moral
philosophy. In fact, as Francesco Filelfo remarks in introducing his translation of
Aristotles Rhetoric: Non enim Graecas litteras tantopere omnes discere studemus quo iis apud
Athenienses Byzantiosve utamus, sed ut illarum subsidio et ductu Latinam literaturam et eloquentiam
melius teneamus et lautius (in Georgii Trapezuntii Rhetoricorum libri V, etc., Venetiis, in aed.
Aldi et Andreae, :., . :6
r
-:6
v
, quoted by Gualdo Rosa :q8, :8o). Politian also
expressed the same opinion: see Grafton :q, :.
6
See, e.g., Momigliano :q, :6.; Bonner :q, .o.; Aerts :q8, 8; Harris
:q8q, :8.; and Bivilles remarks in Bilingualism .oo., 86.
7
Marrou :q6 [:q8], ..
8 cn\r+rn +vo
the shaping of the Latin school curriculum. The Greek culture that
spread in Rome was Hellenistic culture, based on writing rather than
on orality, and centered on epic, drama, and rhetoric. The Romans
absorbed it, but also adapted it to their own needs: for them, in fact,
Greek was a foreign language. We have no precise indication either of
the way in which most Latin writers acquired a knowledge of Greek
good enough to allow the reading and understanding of Greek liter-
ary works, or of the tools, if any, used for this purpose.
8
Instead, we
may suppose with Kramer that foreign languages were taught and
learned according to the same method as mother languages, that is,
by memorizing formal grammar, word lists, and literary passages.
9
The emphasis on Greek in culture and education increased pro-
gressively from the second century B.C.E. to the beginning of the
imperial age, when Latin culture reached its full development.
10
Dur-
ing the Republican age, the same grammaticus could teach both Greek
and Latin. On the other hand, inscriptions show that under the
Empire teachers specialized in one language or the other, and Greek
grammarians were gradually distinguished from Latin grammarians.
11
However, in spite of this diversication of tasks, we may suppose that
both Latin and Greek teachers continued to practice the traditional
methods.
The comparison, or u, between Greek and Latin was the
basis of the study of Greek among the Romans. Usually it concerned
8
See Grafton-Jardine :q8., f. Rochette (:qq, q) remarks that the teaching
of foreign languages never held any place in Greek and Roman education, even if
literary sources mention cases of polyglotism: e.g., Mithridates according to Pliny the
Elder (Nat. hist. .. 6) or Crassus according to Valerius Maximus (8. . 6). On the
attitude of ancient Greeks toward foreign languages, see De Luna .oo. Ovids case is
particularly interesting: he learned the Getic language only when it became clear that
he would never return to Rome from his exile, probably for fear that the knowledge
of another language would contaminate his Latin.
9
Kramer :qq6, 8. However, according to Morgan (:qq8, :6.), there is no
evidence [] that formal grammar was used to teach non-speakers to speak, read
or write classical or koine Greek: tables, charts, etc. were for pupils who already
spoke and understood the language and wanted, or needed, to use it correctly in
preparation for the next step in their education, rhetoric.
10
Augustus pursued a politics of integration between the two main cultures of
the empire (cf. Horace, Epist. .. :. 6: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, etc.). The
peak was reached under Hadrians rule, when the rst translations from Latin into
Greek appeared: e.g., the translations of Virgils Georgics and Sallusts historical work
by Arrianus and the sophist Zenobius, respectively. See Marrou :q6 [:q8], .8f.;
and Rochette :qq, .:.
11
Bonner :q, .
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx q
the treatment of literary genres; thus, Cicero could be compared
with Demosthenes, and Virgil compared with Homer.
12
However, the
comparison between the grammatical forms of both languages also
became frequent from Varro onwards, as is demonstrated by the
interesting remarks of Quintilian in his Institutio oratoria.
Quintilians position was rather moderate. Since the Late Republic,
Roman culture had been markedly characterized by the use of the
two languages. Quintilian saw such a close connection between Greek
and Latin that elementary education could start in either language,
for both follow the same path.
13
However, Quintilian also realized
that, if Greek education had prevailed, Latin would have lost its
importance. On the one hand, Greek was a language of culture, and
in part of Roman society it had even superseded Latin as the language
commonly used;
14
in the pars Orientis of the Empire, Greek continued
to be the rst language well after the Roman conquest. On the other
hand, Latin was the chief means of communication for any ocial or
professional transaction within the political and social structure of the
Roman Empire: in addition to being the language of law, army, and
administration, Latin was spoken by entire communities within the
connes of the Empire.
Quintilian was also aware that the similarities between Latin and
Greek were more apparent than real:
(Inst. or. :. :. :.:) A sermone Graeco puerum incipere malo, quia Latinum, qui
pluribus in usu est, vel nobis nolentibus perbibet, simul quia disciplinis quoque
Graecis prius instituendus est, unde et nostrae uxerunt. Non tamen hoc adeo
superstitiose eri velim ut diu tantum Graece loquatur aut discat, sicut plerisque
moris est. Hoc enim accidunt et oris plurima vitia in peregrinum sonum corrupti et
sermonis, cui cum Graecae gurae adsidua consuetudine haeserunt, in diversa quoque
loquendi ratione pertinacissime durant. Non longe itaque Latina subsequi debent et
cito pariter ire. Ita et ut, cum aequali cura linguam utramque tueri coeperimus,
neutra alteri ociat.
12
Cf. Quintilian, Inst. or. :o. :. :of.; :o. . .. See Marrou :q6 [:q8], ..
13
Inst. or. :. . :: Nec refert de Graeco an de Latino loquar, quamquam Graecum esse priorem
placet: utrique eadem via est.
14
Roman votive and funerary inscriptions show a high percentage of Greek-
speaking slaves and freedmen, and borrowings from Greek were common in everyday
language, as demonstrated, for example, by Petronius Satyricon. In the second century
C.E., Juvenal dened Rome as a Greek city (Sat. . 6:) and criticized the snobbish
ladies of the Roman lite, who preferred speaking in Greek to Latin and compared
Homer to Virgil (Sat. 6. :8:q, ). On the relationship between Greek and
Latin in the Roman world, see Rochette :qq and the articles by Biville, Swain, and
Leiwo in Bilingualism .oo..
8o cn\r+rn +vo
[I prefer a boy to begin by speaking Greek, because he will imbibe
Latin, which more people speak, whether he will or no; and also
because he will need to be taught Greek learning rst, it being the
source of ours too. However, I do not want a fetish to be made of
this, so that he spends a long time speaking and learning nothing
but Greek, as is commonly done. This gives rise to many faults both
of pronunciation (owing to the distortion of the mouth produced by
forming foreign sounds) and of language, because the Greek idioms
stick in the mind through continual usage and persist obstinately even
in speaking the other tongue. So Latin ought to follow not far behind,
and soon proceed side by side with Greek. The result will be that, once
we begin to pay equal attention to both languages, neither will get in
the way of the other.]
15
Quintilian was also very cautious in recommending lexical borrowings
from Greek (Inst. or. :. . 8).
16
Children would learn, already at an
elementary stage, the explanations of obscure words (glossae: :. :. :
Protinus potest interpretationem linguae secretioris, id est quas Graeci
glossas vocant, ediscere). Their training had to include oral and written
exercises with a moral content:
(ibid., 6) Ii quoque versus qui ad imitationem scribendi proponentur non otiosas
velim sententias habeant, sed honestum aliquid monentis. Prosequitur haec memoria
in senectutem et impressa animo rudi usque ad mores prociet.
[I should like to suggest that the lines set for copying should not
be meaningless sentences, but should convey some moral lesson. The
memory of such things stays with us till we are old, and the impression
thus made on the unformed mind will be good for the character also.]
17
Some exercises (progymnasmata) consisted in turning verse into prose
and prose into verse, Latin into Greek and Greek into Latin.
18
In
Book :o of his Institutio oratoria, Quintilian applied the idea of the
parallel study of Latin and Greek literature by creating, for each
literary genre, a canon of Latin authors (:o. :. 8:.) that corre-
sponded as closely as possible to the Greek canons (:o. :. 68).
Greek authors were studied in Roman schools during the Empire:
Papinius Statius father, a grammarian, taught Homer, Hesiod, Sap-
15
Translation by Russell .oo:, :.
16
See Dionisotti :qq, o.
17
Translation by Russell .oo:, 8:. See also Xenophon, Cyn. :. : o r
o 0 0 u, u r, i u r [For words would not educate,
but maxims would, if well found]. On the importance of moral issues in ancient
education, see Morgan :qq8, :f.
18
Murphy :q8o, :6.f.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx 8:
pho, Alcman, Corinna, Stesichorus, Pindar, Ibycus, Callimachus, and
Lycophron in his school near Naples (Silvae . . :6:8).
19
Bilingual
(Greek-Latin) papyri show that both languages and literatures were
taught in Egypt during the imperial age, even if the two languages
were used within two dierent economic and social contexts.
20
The analogies between the Latin and Greek languages in grammar
and lexicon did not escape the attention of ancient grammarians. In
the rst century C.E., Dionysius of Halicarnassus considered Latin as
a Greek dialect (Ant. Rom. :. qo. :, etc.). Greeks, in fact, held Latin
in much greater esteem than the other barbarian languages and
even deemed it worth studying. Four centuries later, Macrobius gave
a u of the Latin and the Greek verbal systems in his treatise
De verborum Graeci et Latini dierentiis vel societatibus.
21
Macrobius justi-
es his attempt by remarking that nature herself had given to both
languages both the grace of the sounds and the system of an ars,
as well as a similar elegance and a very close kinship in the gentle-
ness of the language itself (et soni leporem et artis disciplinam atque in ipsa
19
We may wonder whether Statius description applies to all schools of the Empire
or only to the school of his father, who at any rate lived and worked in a Greek-
speaking area. Moreover, the selection of authors may reect the personal interests
and tastes of the teacher rather than a Greek curriculum generally established for
Roman schools; see Bonner :q, .:6. Many Greek inscriptions have been found in
Pompeii, where Greek was widely spoken together with Latin (see Garca y Garca
.oo, :o). Some Latin inscriptions from this area are written in Greek letters: for
example, the inscription on the fth page of a triptych (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
vol. , Suppl., pars :, Berolini :8q8, no. .:. XXXII), displays a bizarre mixture of
Latin and Greek.
20
In Roman Egypt, Latin was the language of law, administration, and the army,
whereas Greek was the language of business and was uently spoken by the Roman
ruling class as well; the local population spoke Demotic. A knowledge of Greek
and Latin was necessary to pursue any public career, especially after Diocletians
Latinization of the imperial public administration. Many Egyptian papyri contain
tools for the study of Greek grammare.g., fragmentary treatises similar to Diony-
sius r, charts, tables of declensions and conjugationsor bilingual editions of
Latin authors (Cicero and Virgil), as well as school exercises in Greek, Latin, or
both languages; see Morgan :qq8, :6.; and Swiggers-Wouters .ooo. Cribiore (:qq6,
.qo) points out that the same tools (alphabet writing, literary passages, glossaries,
grammatical treatises, etc.) were used to learn both Greek and Latin, but the hands
of papyri containing Latin exercises demonstrate that Latin was studied at a more
advanced level. Since scribes knew Greek better than Latin, confusion between scripts
occurred frequently. See also Kramer :qq6; and Rochette :qqq.
21
The treatise, addressed to a Symmachus, has been handed down fragmentarily
and in two versions. See the edition by De Paolis :qqo. On Macrobius identity and
chronology, see Cameron :q66, ..
8. cn\r+rn +vo
loquendi mansuetudine similem cultum et coniunctissimam cognationem dedit).
22
Macrobius work oers an interesting document of comparative lin-
guistics.
23
His purpose was not pedagogical: he described, but did not
explain, similarities and dierences between Greek and Latin verbal
inections. Moreover, his description of Greek verbs, which takes up
the work of Dionysius Thrax, is dierent from that of the Latin verbs.
It is worth noticing, however, that Macrobius used the comparative
approach, generally practiced in antiquity in the teaching of foreign
languages, for a work aimed at dierent purposes and intended for an
audience of Romans who already knew Greek.
24
With the advent of Christianity, Greek became the language of
the new faith, but by the end of the second century Christian com-
munities in Africa and Italy began to adopt Latin for liturgy and
theological writings. In the fourth and fth centuries, the Christian
Hellenism of Jerome and Runus contributed to an increase in the
knowledge of Greek theology in the Latin world.
25
On the other hand,
the need for translations indicates that, during this time, the cultural
separation of the two sides of the Mediterranean basin had already
started. This process reached its conclusion in the seventh century.
In late antiquity, Graeco-Roman civilization was still vital, and the
exchanges between the two parts of the Empire were intense: the idea
of a universal Christian empire undoubtedly contributed to reinforc-
ing a sense of unity. The cultural j that connected the two parts of
the Roman Empire has often been emphasized. Africa, the terra bilin-
guis, was the birthplace of Tertullian, Apuleius, and other authors who
mastered both Latin and Greek in the same way. The same can be
said of Macrobius, Martianus Capella, and others, up to the period
22
De verborum di. :, in De Paolis :qqo, .
23
De Paolis (:qqo, XXVIII), in fact, considers Macrobius work as lunica tes-
timonianza di una certa consistenza dellanalisi linguistica del greco e del latino, di
cui ci sono rimaste solo deboli tracce. Rochette (:qq, 6: n. ) relates Macrobius
treatise to a long tradition of comparative studies dating back to Claudius Didymus
treatise on analogy among the Romans (i j o `i 0i), dated
during the rst century C.E.
24
There are some similarities between Macrobius De verborum dierentiis and an
anonymous treatise De verbo, probably a product of Priscians circle, composed for a
Greek who wanted to learn Latin; the same environment also produced the two books
of the Ars de verbo by Eutyches, a pupil of Priscian (GL , 8q). The earliest copy
of De verbo, the palimpsest MS. lat. : of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples, belongs to
the late seventh century. See Dionisotti :q8, .o6f.; and De Paolis :qqo, XXXVIIIf.
25
Courcelle :q8, and :o.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx 8
of the Gothic kingdom, the second blossoming of philosophical Hel-
lenism in Italy, when Boethius and Cassiodorus undertook the ambi-
tious project of transmitting Greek knowledge to the West by translat-
ing the most important Greek philosophical and scientic works into
Latin.
26
In third-century Gaul, boys learned both Latin and Greek in
schools;
27
a century later, the grammarian Ausonius mixed Greek and
Latin in his poems. Libanius often mentioned the school of Roman
law that ourished in Berytus, and Procopius of Gaza wrote a letter
of recommendation for a grammarian, Hierius, who taught Latin in
the Palestinian city between the fth and sixth centuries.
28
In sixth-
century Constantinople, Priscian and Eutyches taught Latin and John
Lydus used Latin sources for his historical work.
During the seventh and eighth centuries, the Byzantine Empire
withdrew into itself under the threat of the Arabs and the Icono-
clastic crisis. Contacts with the West became less frequent, to the
detriment of the knowledge of Latin, which after the sixth century
ceased to be the language of law, administration, and the army.
29
The increasing gap between written (Attic) and spoken Greek (-
j) required more emphasis on the technical aspects of grammar
in the teaching of the language. However, a school system substan-
tially unchanged since antiquity ensured the survival of ancient Greek
culture.
30
Conversely, the barbarian invasions in the West caused the
end of civic life and, with it, that of the school system and of the cul-
ture that it had produced for centuries. As Cavallo has pointed out,
one of the aspects of the gap between Antiquity and the Middle Ages
was the loss of Greco-Latin identity by the Latin and Greek sides of
26
See Courcelle :q8, X, ..6:; and Berschin :q88 [:q8o], ., . However,
Rich (:q6 [:q6.
3
], ) notes the substantial failure of the eort of Boethius and his
group to restore Greek philosophy and literature: such an eort was not understood
by Boethius contemporaries, since there were simply not enough people who could
read Greek or who were even interested in the translations produced during this
period. In any case, Boethius translations exerted great inuence on Western culture
during the Middle Ages.
27
Morgan :qq8, .qo, from a scene described in a parallel Latin-Greek school-
book.
28
On Libanius attitude to Latin, see Cribiore .oo, .o6.:.. On the knowledge
of Latin in the Greek world during the fourth century, see Fisher :q8.. On Hierius, a
Latin grammarian in Gaza (Procop. Gaz., Ep. :), see Kaster :q88, .q.
29
The nouns of most of the military and bureaucratic oces of the Byzantine
Empire were taken from Latin. See Oikonomides :q..
30
On the Greek school system in Late Antiquity, see, e.g., Courcelle :q8o, q.;
and Cribiore .oo:, :q.o:.
8 cn\r+rn +vo
the ancient world, which became purely Western and Byzantine,
respectively.
31
An immediate consequence was a loss of the knowledge of Greek
in the West. From the fth century, the Latin-speaking world seems
to have known the Greek tradition not through the original texts,
but through their Latin translations or reworkings. What survived
of Greek was conned to liturgy or drawn from glossaries, bilingual
sacred texts, or Latin authors.
32
Even the Byzantine conquest accom-
plished by Emperor Justinian had no apparent lasting consequences
on Greek studies in Italy, judging from the fact that Gregory the
Great (ca. o6o), even after his missions to Constantinople, lacked
a knowledge of Greek.
33
One of the main reasons for the decay of Greek in Western cul-
ture was that Greek was no longer felt and taught as a living lan-
guage: a repetitive and mnemonic study of grammar in classrooms
had replaced the direct learning from a pedagogue described by
Quintilian. In his Confessions, Augustine of Hippo oers a very interest-
ing description of the methods used to teach Greek in North Africa at
the end of the fourth century. As a boy, Augustine hated being forced
to learn (Conf. :. :.. :q: non amabam litteras et me in eas urgeri oderam), but
enjoyed attending the class of the Latin grammaticus (:. :. .o: adamav-
eram [] Latinas [] quas docent qui grammatici vocantur). However, for
reasons that he was not able to explain, he hated Greek (quid autem
erant causae cur Graecas litteras oderam [] ne nunc quidem mihi satis explo-
ratum est): for him, Greek was a burden and a cause of distress (onerosas
poenalesque habebam [] omnes Graecas). He explained his aversion to
Greek in terms of being forced to memorize words and poetic pas-
sages in a foreign language. Thus the most-sweetly vain Homer (:.
:. .: Homerus dulcissime vanus) was bitter (amarus) to him, as Virgil
must have been to Greek children when they were forced to learn his
poetry:
Dicultas omnino ediscendae linguae peregrinae quasi felle aspergebat omnes suavi-
tates Graecas [] Nulla verba illa noveram et saevis terroribus ac poenis, ut
nossem, instabatur mihi vehementer.
31
Cavallo :qqo, 8.
32
For example, Fulgentius of Ruspe (ca. 6./), whom his contemporaries
praised for his extraordinary knowledge of Greek, probably did not read in Greek the
works that he quoted. See Courcelle :q8, .o.
33
See Rich :q6 [:q6.
3
], :.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx 8
[In truth, the diculty of learning a foreign language sprinkled all the
Greek sweetness with gall, so to speak [] I did not know any of those
words, and I was being vehemently urged to learn them with cruel
threats and punishments].
The main obstacles, therefore, came both from the unfamiliarity of
a foreign language (lingua peregrina) and from the methods used in
schools to impart its knowledge. In contrast to this gloomy picture,
Augustines description of how he learned Latin, his native language,
sounds almost like an idyll:
Nam et Latina aliquando infans utique nulla noveram et tamen advertendo didici
sine ullo metu atque cruciatu inter etiam blandimenta nutricum et ioca adridentium
et laetitias adludentium. Didici vero illa sine poenali onere urgentium, cum me
urgeret cor meum ad parienda concepta sua, et qua non esset, nisi aliqua verba
didicissem non a docentibus, sed a loquentibus, in quorum et ego auribus parturiebam
quicquid sentiebam. Hinc satis elucet maiorem habere vim ad discenda ista liberam
curiositatem quam meticulosam necessitatem.
[For there had also been a time when, as a child, I knew absolutely no
Latin. However, I learned it by paying attention, without any fear and
suering, amid the caresses of my nurses and the jokes and cheerfulness
of my friends who smiled and played with me. Indeed, I learned Latin
without any pressure or punishment urging me to do so: it was my
heart that urged me to give birth to its conceptions, and there was
no other way, except by learning words not from teachers but from
speakers, in whose ears, in turn, I gave birth to whatever thought I
conceived. Hence, it is suciently clear that free curiosity has more
power in learning such notions than fearsome constraint.]
Thus, in the fourth century Greek had undergone in the West the
same fate as Latin in the Middle Ages: it was no longer a living
language, but a foreign language, no longer learned by ear, but with a
massive use of memorization and a set of rules.
.. Greek Grammar in the Middle Ages: An Impossible Dream?
After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Greek gradually disappeared
almost completely from the Western school curriculum. During the
Middle Ages, Latin was the medium for learning, literature, and
business. Medieval men of letters knew Latin poets and prose writers
but, apart from few exceptions, had no knowledge of Greek language
and literature. However, the situation was not homogeneous. The
knowledge of Greek never vanished in Rome, South Italy, and Sicily,
86 cn\r+rn +vo
that is, in areas with a relevant presence of Byzantines and with
intense commercial, cultural, and political relations with the Greek-
speaking world.
34
In his lavishly documented study on the survival of Greek in the
Middle Ages, Walther Berschin has recognized a dotted line [] of
concern with and knowledge of Greek throughout the Latin Mid-
dle Ages.
35
Conversely, Guglielmo Cavallo has pointed out that it is
necessary to make a clear distinction between a real knowledge of
Greek and the use of Greek at modest levels. The evidence collected
by Berschin has led Cavallo to arm a substantial absence of the
Greek language in the West between the seventh and the eleventh
centuries: [The] disappearance of the study of Greek grammar pre-
vented the circulation of texts, and in eect limited the use of Greek
to symbolic message, sacred, distinctive, or decorative sign, formulaic
word, learned stereotype, rened quotation, obscure reference, and
even coquetry.
36
For example, the lexica by Papias, Hugutio or Brito,
and the works by Eberhard of Bthune, John of Garland, Alexander
of Hales, and others, show an often arbitrary use of Greek for ety-
mologies. However, as Berschin himself remarks, all of these works
belong to the history of Latin language instruction in the Middle
Ages. Their purpose is not to teach Greek [] but rather to expand
the expressive capacity of Latin by means of exotic nesse.
37
The problem of Greek studies in the West during the Middle Ages
requires, rst of all, a denition of the kind of Greek that was actu-
ally lacking in the knowledge of Western scholars. Learning Greek in
order to trade with Byzantine merchants or to go on pilgrimages in
Greek-speaking areas was still possible through contacts with native
34
According to Harris J. (:qq, :.:), Greek appears to have been widely under-
stood, for example, in Rome in the eighth and ninth centuries, when there was a
substantial Greek presence in the city and although the study of Greek in Rome and
elsewhere in Northern Italy tended to decline after the eighth century, the presence
of a sizable Greek-speaking population in the South ensured that it did not die out
completely.
35
Berschin :q88 [:q8o], . Greek studies in the Middle Ages represent a large
eld that concerns the survival and transmission of Greek literary works, the inuence
of Greek works on Western literature and art, translations, grammatical studies, etc.
The present overview considers only some aspects related to the study of Greek
grammar and the teaching of the Greek language.
36
Cavallo :qqo, o (my translation). Also, McCormick (:q, ..o) warns against
overestimating the inuence of Byzantium on the West during the Middle Ages.
37
Berschin :q88 [:q8o], ..
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx 8
speakers and even by means of phrasebooks circulating from the third
century onwards, the so-called hermneumata, which taught the words
and the colloquial expressions useful to communicate in practical cir-
cumstances.
38
But this Greek was not appropriate for reading ancient
literary texts. Nor could ancient Greek be recovered through dictio-
naries, lexica, or grammatical works: these tools had been conceived
for native speakers, not for foreigners striving to acquire the basis of
the language. Moreover, as Carlotta Dionisotti has put it, a serious
obstacle was imposed by the fact that the world of ideas, institutions,
and daily living assumed by the writers of such manuals had disap-
peared centuries before: for medieval monks, Homers gods, or Athe-
nian democracy, [] the Olympic games, the idealized nude were
forms devoid of contents, if not outright sources of scandal.
39
Another
very important factor was a lack of a real demand for Greek in West-
ern culture during the Middle Ages. Few Western scholars were inter-
38
These bilingual school manuals, probably written for Greeks but used also
by Latins, contained a Greek-Latin vocabulary, in alphabetical order and/or by
subject (names of gods and goddesses, vegetables, sh, etc.), bilingual colloquia (written
conversations), and some simple reading exercises in both languages (anecdotes,
Aesops or Hyginus fables, etc.). A collection of hermneumata has been edited in
the third volume of CGL; see also the recent edition of Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana
Leidensia by G. Flammini, Mnchen-Leipzig .oo. On hermneumata, see Dionisotti
:q8., 86.; Debut :q8; and Korhonen :qq6. Marrou (:q6 [:q8], .6f.) quotes an
example from P. Fouad I , :.f. (CGL . :. .f.):
i0 petente quodam
i u ut militaret
`i i Adrianus dixit
t 0r Ubi vis
u0; militare?
Marrou notes that the same kind of word-for-word translation was used by Greeks
learning Latin, as evident, for example, from a passage of Virgils Aeneid (. )
quoted in the same papyrus:
illa manent rt r
immota 0i
locis r t
neque ab ordine 0r 0 j o
cedunt i.
Such word-for-word translations, therefore, apply to a foreign language the same
method used in Hellenistic schools for ancient literary texts, i.e., the glossing of
obsolete words into colloquial Greek.
39
Dionisotti :q88a, :q.
88 cn\r+rn +vo
ested in learning Greek outside of vocabulary and etymologies, which
could be supplied by many medieval lexica; this lack corresponded to
the limited supply of qualied teachers able to teach Greek to West-
erners.
40
For medieval scholars interested in Greek, the main hindrance to
the study of the language was a lack of grammar books. The few
extant traces of medieval Greek grammars, together with the evidence
oered by manuscripts, do not allow us to believe that, during the
Middle Ages, there was ever a systematic study of Greek grammar
that might have promoted the mastery of the language and, in this
way, the spread and circulation of texts. The knowledge of Greek that
survived in the Middle Ages was lexical, not grammatical. Medieval
scholars were able to obtain a fair number of Greek words from the
texts of Cicero, Pliny the Elder, the Latin poets, and many late-antique
and Christian writers, but these isolated words or glosses were not
enough to construct or to read a sentence. The late-antique bilingual
glossaries that survived in libraries had been conceived for native
speakers of Greek and could hardly be used by Latins. Nor would
the Greek forms inserted in Latin grammar booksthe Greek text of
Dositheus grammar, Macrobius treatise on Greek and Latin verbs,
Priscians Institutiones grammaticae, and the Artes of other grammarians,
such as the Ars de verbo of Priscians pupil Eutycheshave enabled
anyone to read Greek classical texts.
Therefore, some scanty evidence of Greek studies in England and
Ireland during the seventh and the eighth centuries seems surpris-
ing, to say the least; the Latin translations of the works of Pseudo-
Dionysius the Areopagite, made rst by Hilduin between 8: and 8
and then by John Scottus Eriugena between 8o and 86o, even if still
very approximate, really seem to border on the miraculous.
41
For a long time scholarship has maintained and often overempha-
sized that, during the Middle Ages, the Greek cultural tradition sur-
vived in England and Ireland.
42
However, British and Irish monks did
40
See Gianolas interesting observations (:q8o, q:o).
41
See, however, Mc Cormicks remarks (:q, .:8f.).
42
On Greek in the British Isles during the Middle Ages, after the fundamental
study by Ludwig Traube (:8q:), see Berschin :q88 [:q8o], :.. In 668, Pope Vitalian
sent two Greek monks to England: Theodore of Tarsus, in Cilicia, and Hadrian,
perhaps from the Greek-speaking area of North Africa. Theodore, who became
Bishop of Canterbury, established a school in that city. Both monks taught the Bible
as well as patristic and non-patristic texts in Latin, with the aid of Greek sources when
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx 8q
not know much more of Greek than the alphabet and some vocabu-
lary, taken from glossaries and some Latin grammar books; the same
can also be said for many of the grammarians who dealt with Greek.
43
During the Carolingian age, increased relations between the Frank-
ish court and Byzantium incidentally stimulated and promoted the
study of Greek. Negotiations were made for marriages between Char-
lemagne and the Byzantine Empress Eirene, and between Hrotrud,
one of Charlemagnes daughters, and Eirenes son, Constantine VI.
The Byzantine historian Theophanes the Confessor reports that the
eunuch Elissaeus was sent from Constantinople to Aachen to instruct
the Princess in the Greek language and the usages of the Byzan-
tine court: she would evidently have never received the same train-
ing from any Westerner.
44
The Ottonian emperors pursued a similar
necessary. Most probably, Theodore and Hadrian brought their own Greek books to
England, but none of them survived. The teaching of the Greek language may also
have been part of their task, although no evidence points to any instruction, even
in the rudiments of Greek grammar in their school. Rather, the documents handed
down to us suggest that students received only some oral instruction in Greek. See
Bischo and Lapidge :qq, and also Rich :q6 [:q6.
3
], :; Berschin :q88 [:q8o],
qq; and Lapidge :q88. The latter has recognized in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana,
MS. M q sup. a rst-hand document of the teaching of the two monks. In spite
of Bedes enthusiasm for the Canterbury school (Hist. eccl. . .), its instruction in
Greek was probably not satisfactory. One of the students of Canterbury, Adhelm of
Malmesbury, misunderstood the use of the letters mu and delta, meaning 0j and
o respectively, in the source of his dialogue on grammar, the sixth-century
work Instituta regularia divinae legis by Iunilius. Instead, he took them to be abbreviations
of magister and discipulus, thus producing the instance, very rare in medieval treatises,
of a teacher answering the questions of a pupil. See Aerts :q8, 8o.
43
Bede himself (6), although not completely ignorant of Greek, was able
to read Greek theological works by Origen, Basil, and Clement only in their Latin
translation. Bedes Greek may have come from dictionaries, lexica, or even grammar
books unknown to us. He may have built up his knowledge of Greek with a thorough
study of a bilingual Bible, by comparing the Greek and the Latin texts word for word,
perhaps with the help of a copy of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana brought to Eng-
land by Theodore of Tarsus. In his De orthographiawritten for monks who, having
learned the rudiments of Latin grammar, wanted to tackle Biblical interpretation or
the copying of textsBede used also lists of idimata, i.e., verbs and nouns with dier-
ent constructions in Latin and Greek, in addition to late-antique treatises on gram-
mar (Caper, Agroecius, etc.) and specic works on orthography. He may have taken
them either from the works of grammarians, such as Charisius, Diomedes, Dositheus,
and Priscian, or from lexica, such as the Greek-Latin Harleyan glossary (see below,
q.). Until now, however, no evidence supports any attempt to establish which tools
were actually available to him. See Sandys :q8
2
, :. 8.; Rich :q6 [:q6.
3
], 8;
and Dionisotti :q8.a, ::f., :.q, :o::.
44
Chronographia :. ed. by C. de Boor, Lipsiae :88:88. See Jeauneau :q
:q8, .
qo cn\r+rn +vo
policy of dynastic union and reached a signicant result in q., when
Emperor Otto II married the Byzantine Princess Theophano, a niece
of emperor John Tzimisces. Their son, Otto III, seemed to bridge
the gulf between East and West. Meanwhile, Carolingian and Otto-
nian emperors favored the introduction of Byzantine customs in their
courts. Greek words appear even in ocial documents issued by the
Church and the imperial chancery, as well as in the poems that court
poets addressed to the emperors.
Two short grammatical texts are probably related to the ephemeral
revival of Greek during the ninth-tenth centuries: both represent at-
tempts to compose a Greek grammar within the Latin tradition only
and can be considered ancestors of the Greek Donati of the Renais-
sance. The rst is a grammar that begins with the words i r doc-
tus:
45
it is a Greek translation of part of a Latin elementary grammar
modeled on Donatus Ars minor. However, grammar is an exagger-
ated denition for this text: after the initial questions and answers, the
exposition becomes a mere list of grammatical terms to dene gen-
ders, numbers, gures, cases, parts of speech, and declensions, appar-
ently without any logical connection. The anonymous translator may
have taken the Greek terms from Priscians Institutiones or Dositheus
grammar, or even from a bilingual lexicon. Here is the beginning of
the grammar:
TI ESTIN DOCTUS Quid est doctus.
MEPOC UU. Pars orationis.
TI MEROC UU ESTIN. Que pars orationis est.
ONOMA ECTIN. Nomen est.
OCA TUTO ONOMATI. Quot accedunt huic nomini.
EX. Sex.
etc.
45
Published by Omont (:88:), the grammar can be read on fols. :
v
-:
r
of the
ninth-century MS. lat. .8 of the Bibliothque Nationale in Paris, probably copied in
the French abbey of St. Denis; see Bischo :q6 [:q:], .q. The text occupies fty
lines in all and is written in two parallel columns, with the Greek version on the left
and the Latin original on the right side of the page. Iotacism, the transformation of
the diphthongs into single vowels, and the confusion between long and short vowels
or smooth and aspirated consonants reect the post-classical pronunciation of Greek.
As happens in most Latin medieval manuscripts, the Greek is written in capital
letters. Moreover, the confusion between Greek and Latin letters demonstrates that
the copyist did not know the Greek alphabet well and tended to confuse the Greek
letters with similar Latin letters.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx q:
Rather than a document demonstrating dans quelle decadence
taient tombes les tudes grecques en Occident,
46
this short text
can be considered an ancestor of the Greek Donatus a and a rst
experiment of a Greek elementary grammar outside the Byzantine
tradition.
The second text is the beginning of a Greek grammar, written on
fols. :
r
:
v
of MS. :: (philol. :oq) of the sterreichische National-
bibliothek in Vienna.
47
After the usual introductory parts on the al-
phabet and numerals, the authorprobably a South German monk,
Fromundgives the Greek articles and several examples of nominal
declensions. Fromund chooses nouns according to their gender: o u-
for the masculine; j 0, j j, j jr, j 0i for
the feminine; and , r, and i for the neuter.
Also, o 0j is declined as an example of a patronymic. This is fol-
lowed by a list of about two hundred nouns (many of which are taken
from biblical and liturgical texts) and the declensions of o lu i j
lr and of 0j i 0r. As Berschin observes, this grammar
oers no evidence of rsthand lessons given by Greeks.
48
However,
it is interesting to note that this grammar contains paradigms0,
i, lu, and 0jtaken from Donatus Ars minor, where
the Latin equivalentsmusa, scamnum, sacerdos, and felixall appear in
the chapter on the noun (86 Holtz).
Between the ninth and the tenth centuries, cultural exchanges be-
tween Byzantium and the West also became more intense. Trans-
lations of Greek texts were produced in Italy, particularly in Rome
and Naples.
49
Meanwhile, some slight traces of Greek scholarship
appeared north of the Alps, especially in the monasteries of St. Denis,
Lige, Laon, and St. Gall. In the library of St. Gall, in particular,
many bilingual manuscripts and copies of Dositheus grammar and of
the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana were stored.
50
The renewed interest
in Greek may have been due to the presence of Byzantines or Italo-
46
Omont :88:, :.6.
47
The manuscript was partly written at the monastery of St. Pantaleon in Co-
logne. See Bischo :q6 [:q:], .6o; and Aerts :q8, 8. Berschin (:qqo [:q88], :q6)
considers this text the only Ottonian attempt to a Greek grammar.
48
Berschin :qqo [:q88], :q6.
49
See Berschin :q88 [:q8o], :::; and Chiesa :q8, .
50
St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, MS. qo., of the second half of the ninth century,
contains both texts. In other manuscripts (e.g., 8 and 88), Greek and Latin texts
appear together: see Kaczynski :q88, .
q. cn\r+rn +vo
Greeks in those monastic communities, but there is scanty evidence to
support this hypothesis.
In 8., the Byzantine Emperor Michael II sent a copy of the
works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (now Paris, Bibliothque
Nationale, MS. gr. ) to Louis the Pious. After a rst version by
Hilduin, Charles the Bald ordered a new translation from the Irish
monk John Scottus Eriugena (ca. 8:o ca. 8), who completed it
before 86.. Eriugena shows knowledge of Greek that is extraordinary
for his age: he was familiar both with Greek patristics and with some
classical texts, and might even have read Platos Timaeus in Greek. In
addition to the Corpus Dionysiacum, he translated into Latin works by
Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor.
51
His extravagant habit
of interspersing his Latin poems with Greek words corresponded to
his love for the sacred nectar of the Greeks (sacrum Graecorum nectar).
John appreciated the Greek language, which he found more expres-
sive, comprehensible, precise, and penetrating (signicantius manifestius,
expressius acutius) than Latin.
We may wonder where and how John Scottus had learned enough
Greek to undertake the translation of a complex work like the Diony-
sian corpus.
52
Like Bede and some others, he may have used bilingual
Bibles, Greek-Latin glossaries (e.g., Laon, Bibliothque Municipale,
MS. and London, British Library, MS. Harley q.), lists of
Greek words (Graeca collecta) taken from Latin authors and equipped
with a Latin translation,
53
and the elements of Greek grammar that
51
Maximus Ambigua and Scoliae deal with the same main themes as Pseudo-
Dionysius corpus: the armative and negative theology, the doctrine of procession
and return, etc. Gregory of Nyssas De imagine, like the other texts translated by
John, reects an interest in cosmology. Jeauneau (:q:q8, .f.) has suggested
that these translations were also commissioned by Charles the Bald and, therefore,
corresponded to precise philosophical and theological interests of the Emperor.
52
Like all medieval translators of theological texts, John had given a word-for-
word version of the Dionysian corpus. For this reason, at the end of the ninth century,
Anastasius the Librarian, a supporter of the method of translating ad sensum, criticized
Johns translations, although he paid due respect to the achievements of a vir barbarus
(PL :.., q CD): This barbarian living on the connes of the world, who might
have been deemed to be as ignorant of Greek as remote from civilization, could have
proved capable of comprehending such mysteries and translating them into another
tongue (translation in Sandys :q8
3
, :. q.). See Chiesa :q8, 8; and Berschin :q88
[:q8o], :68.
53
Word lists from Priscians Institutiones and from Augustines Categoriae decem, for
example, were used for the glossary of Laon. Other lists were drawn from Jeromes
letters and from Lactantius Divinae institutiones, which contained entire sentences in
Greek. See Jeauneau :q:q8, .6f.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx q
could be taken from late-antique Latin grammarians. Most probably,
however, Johns translations would not have been possible without the
benet of his direct contacts with Greeks. The favorable attitude of
Emperor Charles the Bald toward Byzantium may have encouraged
their presence in the Frankish kingdom.
Two centuries later, Robert Grosseteste (ca. ::68:.), Bishop of
Lincoln, summoned Greek monks to England and entrusted John of
Basingstoke, Archdeacon of Leicester (d. :..), with the task of col-
lecting grammar books in Greece.
54
Grosseteste had evidently under-
stood that the study of the Greek language would have been impos-
sible without both the contribution of native speakers and the use of
appropriate textbooks.
55
Nothing certain can be said about the gram-
mar books that Basingstoke brought from Greece; as for the lexica,
some hypotheses are possible.
56
In any case, Grossetestes knowledge
of Greek allowed him to complete a new Latin translation of the Cor-
pus Dionysiacum and to translate other theological works, including the
Byzantine Testamenta XII patriarcharum.
57
The quite astonishing Greek studies
58
that ourished in England
during the thirteenth century were due especially to the initiative of
some men of culture whose greatest concern was the recovery of the
Graeca lectio in Biblical exegesis. Roger Bacon (:.::.q), the doctor
54
Cf. Roger Bacon, Opus tertium, p. q: Brewer (above, .: n. 6o): vocavit Graecos et fecit
libros grammaticae Graecae de Graecia et aliis congregari.
55
As Carlotta Dionisotti (:q88, .:) has pointed out, the real watershed in Gros-
setestes Greek studies [] was the point when he stepped beyond all the nuggets
embedded in Western tradition and sat down to work on continuous Greek texts with
the aid of grammars and dictionaries composed by Greeks.
56
In her study on the Greek books available to Grosseteste (:q88, ...), Dionisotti
has assumed that he used two Greek lexica (the tenth-century Suda and the so-called
Etymologicum Gudianum) and a bilingual dictionary, a copy of which is the thirteenth-
century Lexicon Arundelianum (London, College of Arms, MS. Arundel q: see James
:q:o). Its original was most probably a lexicon compiled by substituting Latin words
for the Greek glosses of a Byzantine lexicon now lost. The manuscript contains :6,ooo
Greek words generally transliterated in the Latin alphabet and glossed in Latin for
users who did not know any Greek. Some glosses of clear South Italian origin link
this lexicon with the native speakers of Greek who were part of Grossetestes circle,
such as magister Nicolaus or Nicholas the Greek. See James :q:o, oo; and Weiss
:q [:q:], 88. On Nicholas the Greek, see Berschin :q88 [:q8o], ...
57
Grosseteste translated verbum de verbo. Often, however, he rendered one word
with several synonyms (connected by the conjunction seu) and sought a way to adapt
Latin morphology and syntax to the structure of the Greek language. See Mercken
:qqq, 8.
58
Berschin :q88 [:q8o], .q.
q cn\r+rn +vo
mirabilis, educated in Paris and Oxford and a pupil of Grosseteste,
considered the mastery of Greek and Hebrew to be necessary for a
thorough knowledge of the Scriptures and of the philosophers, since
those languages granted direct access to the sources. Like his master,
Bacon was aware that the main problem was a lack of knowledge of
grammar and of pedagogical methods. Unlike Grosseteste, however,
he did not consider the contribution of native speakers to be eective.
Speaking a language did not necessarily mean knowing how to teach
it:
Non sunt quattuor Latini qui sciant grammaticam Hebraeorum et Graecorum et
Arabum [] Multi vero inveniuntur, qui sciunt loqui Graecum et Arabicum et
Hebraeum inter Latinos, sed paucissimi sunt, qui sciunt rationem grammaticae
ipsius, nec sciunt docere eam: tentavi enim permultos.
59
[There are not even four Latins with knowledge of the grammar of
Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic [] Indeed, there are many among the
Latins who can speak Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew, but very few know
the grammatical system of the language; nor do they know how to
teach it: indeed, I have tested very many of them.]
The ignorance of Greek and Hebrew had led to the false derivations,
interpretations, and etymologies of the lexica of that age (Papias et
Hugutio et Brito), accused by Bacon of being deceitful (mendaces).
60
Bacon was the author of the rst known attempt to compile a
Greek grammar for Westerners by combining the Greek and the
Latin grammatical traditions.
61
Bacons Greek grammar has been
handed down in the fteenth-century MS. :8 of the library of Cor-
pus Christi College in Oxford and in a fragment now at the Cam-
bridge University Library. The work is in Latin and deals with the
rudiments of the Greek language: alphabet, syllables, diphthongs,
dialects (idimata), vowels, semivowels, consonants, a limited number
of antistoichiai and possible orthographical mistakes, as well as prosody,
nouns, pronouns, and verbs.
59
Opus Tertium :o, p. f. Brewer.
60
Compendium studii philosophiae, p. 6f. Brewer. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew were
considered the sacred languages of humankind: see Resnick :qqo.
61
Another attempt should be mentioned. Gerard of Huy, the author of a thir-
teenth-century versied grammar entitled Triglossos, refers to a small book (codex
parvus) that he himself had written, containing the eight parts of speech in Greek
(octo logu grece partes), the nominal declensions (quomodo per casus inectat nomina grecus),
and the prepositions (protheses). Unfortunately, this work is lost. Petrarch used the
Triglossos to obtain at least an elementary knowledge of Greek. See Berschin :q88
[:q8o], .; and Dionisotti :qq, f.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx q
The introductory chapter on grammar (Pars prima, Distinctio secunda)
begins with a programmatic assertion: the author will provide Greek
words with an interlinear translation into Latin because understand-
ing their meaning will make learning easier and more pleasant.
62
Thus, Bacon broke with the tradition of monolingual grammar books,
anticipating what was to take place only centuries later. Bacons view,
in fact, was comparative, and his methodology was based on the
observation of the similarities and dierences between the two lan-
guages.
63
On the other hand, as happens in many medieval texts,
in the Greek prayers quoted with Latin interlinear translation (the
Lords Prayer, Hail Mary, Creed, Magnicat, and the Songs of Symeon
and Zachariah), Greek was transliterated and written according to the
iotacistic pronunciation, most likely for practical purposes. As for the
section on verbs, Bacon declared that translating all the forms would
have been outside the scope of an introductory work and superu-
ous for the immediate goal of reading texts. Therefore, not wanting
to oppress his readers, he would give a paradigm in Greek letters, a
paradigm in transliteration, and some general rules on the formation
of verbal moods and tenses.
64
Bacon introduced the conjugation of the verb u by quoting a
passage in Greek, certainly from a Byzantine erotematic manual. It
is worth noticing that he refers to a Greek usage, which he wishes to
introduce in his pedagogy (p. :f. Nolan-Hirsch, quoted faithfully):
Sicut igitur grecus, ante formacionem coniugacionis secundum hoc verbum, querit
de hoc vocabulo, cuius sit partis oracionis [], sic hic queram greco sermone et
62
See the edition by E. Nolan and S.A. Hirsch, The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon,
Cambridge :qo., :: Quoniam lingua insipida est, que non intelligitur, ideo ad delectacionem
legentis ponuntur vocabula latina in prima linea, ut sic cum lectura grecorum vocabulorum pateat
eorum intelligencia quamvis suavius legantur et maior utilitas consequatur.
63
Considerare tamen debet lector quod pono latinum sicut respondet grecis vocabulis (p. :
Nolan-Hirsch). Cupiens igitur exponere grammaticam grecam ad utilitatem latinorum necesse
est illa comparari ad grammaticam latinam [] quia grammatica una et eadem est secundum
substanciam in omnibus linguis (p. .). Bacon considers, in particular, the use of cases,
the article, and the dual. The presupposition for a comparison was the idea of
the universality of grammar, which in the Middle Ages gave rise to the so-called
Modistae.
64
Coniugaciones vero non omnes ponam in hoc tractatu [] propter gravitatem multitudinis
earum et superuam dicultatem intelligendi eas, quia novicius addiscens grecas coniugationes
vix unam recipiet pacienter, et quia hic tractatus est introductorius in grammaticam grecam []
grecis igitur litteris ponam hic unam coniugationem et aliam ponam latinis litteris secundum tamen
formam coniugandi grecam [] Ponam tamen regulas quasdam de formacione verbi coniugationum
(pp. ::f. Nolan-Hirsch).
q6 cn\r+rn +vo
grecis litteris et repondebo ut grecus respondet. Querit igitur grecus: ,
r r; j. i i; oj. i 0r;
j. i i; u. i j; 0. i
000; . i u; . i ; ru.
i i; u u . (sic).
[Thus, so as, before conjugating this verb, a Greek asks to which part
of speech it belongs, [] here I will ask questions in Greek language
and letters and will answer them as a Greek answers. The Greek asks:
To which part of speech does u belong? The verb. To which
mood? Indicative. To which voice? Active. To which class?
Primitive. To which form? Simple. To which number? Sin-
gular. To which person? The rst. To which tense? Present.
To which conjugation? The rst of the non-oxytone. Decline!].
This passage demonstrates that Bacon most probably had on his
desk a copy of some Greek ertmata, such as those preserved in
Wolfenbttel (Erotemata Guelferbytana).
65
The section of his grammar on
nominal declensions is unfortunately incomplete, but it is clear that
Bacon wanted to reduce the Greek declensions from fty-six to three.
In fact, he criticized the classication of the Greek nouns according
to the ending of the nominative, used from Theodosius onward; as
an option, he proposed abolishing the distinction of genders and
adopting the ending of the genitive as the main distinctive criterion,
sicut t apud nos.
66
Although Bacons Greek grammar does not seem to have circulated
widely, it represents a signicant symptom of an interest in the sys-
tematic study of Greek three centuries after the Scotti peregrini and one
century before Humanism. In ::., during the Council of Vienne, the
papacy made an eort to give a permanent place in the school cur-
riculum to Greek and to other Eastern languages. Forty chairs were
established in the four main universities of the Christian world and
at the papal court, with the purpose of preparing experts in Bibli-
cal studies and Christian missionaries in the East. The only concrete
65
Identifying the text used by Bacon and tracing the stages of its journey to
England would be extremely interesting for the history of Greek studies in the Middle
Ages.
66
Sic igitur possunt declinationes Graecorum reduci ad tres modos declinandi; sed tamen greci
moderni aliter procedunt in nominum declinacione (p. :6 Nolan-Hirsch). Following this
is a brief account of the fty-six canons of Theodosius iuxta singulas terminaciones
nominativorum, sed hic modus superuus est (:). See Sandys :q8
3
, :. q; and Pertusi
:q6., :f.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx q
result of this initiative was the institution of a chair of Hebrew in
Oxford.
67
The papal decree, however, is a clear sign that the West
was breaking away from its secular isolation and turning with new
attention toward the languages and cultures of the Eastern part of the
Mediterranean.
. Humanism and the Revival of Greek Studies
Considering the general situation of Greek culture in the West at the
end of the thirteenth century, it is quite surprising to nd that in
Italy, where the Greek traditionat least in some areashad never
completely vanished, learning ancient Greek was as dicult as it
was in England. In the later Middle Ages, an interest in philoso-
phy and the sciences developed, perhaps under the inuence of the
Arabs. Through Arabic works, Greek authors like Euclid, Ptolemy,
Galen, and Hippocrates became known in the West. However, the
many theological, medical, philosophical, and scientic works trans-
lated from Arabic or Greek into Latin in Italy during the Middle Ages
had not stimulated any interest in those languages. Medieval scholars
did not seek an approach to original texts because they considered
it useless: they were inclined to neglect what was not of immediate
use. For example, a copy of a purely literary text, Plutarchs Moralia
(now Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. C :.6 inf.), was circulating
in Padua at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Its owner, Pace of
Ferrara, did not know Greek; nor, apparently, did he have any interest
in a translation of the text.
68
Like Grosseteste and Bacon, Petrarch tried to learn Greek from a
native speaker. Between August and September :., he took some
lessons in Avignon from the Byzantine monk and polymath Barlaam
of Calabria, who had converted to Catholicism and become involved
in the debate on the Union.
69
Petrarch, however, either because of the
67
See Berschin :q88 [:q8o], .6:.6.
68
The manuscript contains Maximus Planudes edition of Plutarch. Pace, who
taught grammar and logic at Padua, may have received it from Pietro dAbano,
a doctor, philosopher, and translator of Greek, who had lived in Constantinople
between :.o and :.qo. See Stadter :q, :; and Wilson :qq., ..
69
See Baron :q68, 6o. On Barlaams life and work, see Hunger :q8, .. .o. The
reasons and aspects of Barlaams conversion have been analyzed by Kolbaba :qq,
q8 cn\r+rn +vo
limited number of lessons he received or because of the bad character
of his teacher, achieved no more than a rudimentary knowledge of
Greek grammar.
70
In Florence, as in the rest of Europe, the relations with the Byzan-
tine Empire, although rather intense in some periods,
71
had never
contributed to an awakening of interest in the Greek language. Some
years after Petrarchs attempt, Giovanni Boccaccio invited to Florence
another Greek speaker from South Italy, Leonzio Pilato, a pupil of
Barlaam, who taught him the basics of Greek.
72
Pilatos teaching in
Florence, which lasted for about three years (:6o:6.), was very
important for the development of Florentine culture.
Pilato did not go far beyond an elementary level of teaching. An
interesting document comes from the notes that Giovanni Boccaccio
and Domenico Silvestri took during one of his classes, concerning the
Greek epigram AP :6. .q: Pilato read the epigram and translated
it into Latin, while his students took notes on the translation and
pronunciation of the Greek text.
73
More important are his translations
of the Homeric poems and of 66 lines of Euripides Hecabethe rst
readings in Byzantine schoolsthat Pilato produced as a teaching
aid. Although later criticized by several humanists for their roughness,
these word-for-word versions contributed to spreading the knowledge
:.6. On the cultural environment of the papal court in Avignon, see Reynolds and
Wilson :qq:
3
, :.8f.
70
Petrarch never succeeded in reading the manuscript of Homer (now Milan, Bib-
lioteca Ambrosiana, MS. I q8 inf.) that the Byzantine ambassador Nicholas Sigeros
had given him. See Familiarium rerum libri XVIII, .. :o (ed. by V. Rossi, Firenze :q,
.): Homerus [] apud me mutus, immo vero ego apud illum surdus sum. Gaudeo tamen vel
aspectu solo et saepe illum amplexus ac suspirans dico: O magne vir, quam cupide te audirem!
Sed aurium mearum alteram mors obstruxit, alteram longinquitas invisa terrarum (Petrarch refers
to the death of Barlaam and the departure of Nicholas Sigeros). See Pertusi :qqoa
[:q:q8], .; Sowerby :qq, q, ; and Young .oo, 8.
71
For example, the Florentine Acciajuoli family ruled Athens, Thebes, and Co-
rinth between the fourteenth and the fteenth centuries. See Ostrogorsky :q6q
2
[:q6
3
], :o, o; and Weiss :q, ..8.
72
Pilatos culture, rooted in the South Italian tradition, was also deeply inuenced
by Latin: he knew Homer, Euripides, Lycophron, and Tzetzes as well as Virgil, Pliny,
and Livy. Born probably in Gerace (Calabria), Pilato began his studies with Barlaam;
in about :8, he moved to Crete, where he spent almost ten years. In :8/q, he
was in Venice, where he met Petrarch (see below, n. ). See Pertusi :q6, ; Cavallo
:q8o, .6; Pertusi :qqoa [:q:q8], .; and Fyrigos .oo..
73
Silvestris notes can be read in Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS. I III :., fol. .6,
and Boccaccios in Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. 8, :, fol. 8
v
(see De La
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx qq
of the original Homeric text in the West after centuries of oblivion.
74
Moreover, Pilatos explanatory notes aroused a remarkable interest
in Greek mythology, stimulating Boccaccio, for example, to write
his Genealogia deorum gentilium. However, Pilatos teaching of Greek
remained an isolated episode and did not give rise to a school of
Greek. Several reasons may be proposed: Pilatos own insucient
knowledge of ancient Greek, his dicult character,
75
and, especially,
the fact that he had to proceed empirically because of the lack of
appropriate tools to teach a non-Greek audience. The silence that
surrounds the identities of his students is perhaps a clue that his
teaching was not completely successful.
76
Thirty years after Pilatos departure, the Florentine administrators
took a concrete initiative for the institution of a school of Greek.
Coluccio Salutati, humanist and Chancellor of Florence, seized the
opportunity oered by increasing contacts between Florence and the
Latinophrones of Constantinople: he entrusted Jacopo Angeli da Scarpe-
ria with the tasks of nding Greek books and persuading the Byzan-
Mare :q, plate VI a). The Greek epigram concerns the seven cities that lay claim
to Homers birth. The text reads:
`o ri o i `j
u, u, i, u, u, , '0j,
which Boccaccio transcribed:
Epta erimenusi polis diarison homiru
Chimi Smirni Chios Colophon Pylos Argos Athine.
See Martellotti :q8 [:qq], .:.
74
The Middle Ages knew the Iliad only through the so-called Ilias Latina or
Homerus Latinus, an epitome of Homers poem in :,oo Latin hexameters, composed
perhaps before the rst century C.E. Pilato probably made a rst translation of
books : of the Iliad at Petrarchs request; parts of this prima translatio appear in
Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, MS. lat. 88o.: (written by Giovanni Malpaghini and
annotated by Petrarch) in the margins of Pilatos nal version of the poem. In :q,
Petrarch (albeit dissatised with this rst version) and Boccaccio commissioned Pilato
to translate the complete Iliad. Pilato translated the two Homeric poems in Florence,
where he received from the Commune a public salary of :oo orins per year for his
teaching. On Pilatos method of translating, see Pertusi :qqoa [:q:q8], .f. In a
:q. letter to Antonio Loschi, Coluccio Salutati criticized the bad Latin of Pilatos
versions of the Homeric poems and entrusted Loschieven if he did not know
Greekwith their improvement. See Witt :q8, o; Gualdo Rosa :q8, :8; and
Berti :qq8, 86.
75
Petrarch, who met Pilato in Padua in the winter :8/q, called him magna bellua
for his shabby appearance and his rough manners: see Pertusi :qqoa [:q:q8], ..
76
See Pertusi :q6, o; Weiss :q, ..q; and Wilson :qq., f.
:oo cn\r+rn +vo
tine scholar Manuel Chrysoloras to move to the Tuscan city.
77
That
choice may have been dictated by a distrust of the teaching ability
of South Italian Greek speakers:
78
perhaps Salutati tried to avoid a
new failure by turning to a renowned Byzantine scholar from Con-
stantinople (still the most prestigious center of the Greek culture), who
also had a very good reputation as a teacher.
79
After long negotiations,
in :q the mission of bringing Chrysoloras to Florence was accom-
plished, thanks also to the nancial support of Niccol Niccoli and
Palla Strozzi.
80
Chrysoloras spent only a little more time in Florence than Leonzio
Pilatofrom February :q to March :oo
81
but the extent of his
impact on Florentine intellectual life can scarcely be exaggerated.
82
Chrysoloras, in fact, succeeded where his predecessor had failed. First,
he was experienced in teaching ancient Greek as a foreign lan-
77
On Salutatis life and contribution to humanism, see Witt :q8 and .ooo, .o
.q:.
78
Greek culture in South Italy survived long after the Norman conquest. However,
the interruption of direct contacts with Byzantium and the strong inuence of the
surrounding Latin culture determined its main features: a steady conservatism and a
particular emphasis placed on grammar books, lexica, dictionaries, and tools for the
study of the Greek language. Nevertheless, in the fourteenth century, South Italian
Greek culture was in decay.
79
Manuel Chrysoloras had taught in Constantinople from the :8os to the :qos.
In :qo:q:, he was sent to Venice on a diplomatic mission and gave some Greek
lessons to Roberto Rossi, a member of Salutatis circle, who became enthusiastic
about Chrysoloras personality and methodology. On his return to Florence, Rossi
contributed to the spread of Chrysoloras reputation in Florence. See Weiss :q, ..;
Witt :q8, o.; and Wilson :qq., 8.
80
The ocial documents pertaining to Chrysoloras appointment, sojourn, and
teaching in Florence are quoted in Gherardi :88:, 6. See Garin :q8, ::.::6;
and Weiss :q, ..
81
Chrysoloras accepted the appointment for obvious reasons: the extremely good
conditions oered by the Florentines (:o orins per year) as well as the dicult
situation in Byzantium because of the impending Turkish menace and the religious
controversies. He may also have considered the spread of Greek culture as a way
to gain support for Byzantium among the Western cultural lites (see Hankins .oo:,
:.:). In any case, Chrysoloras led a very comfortable life in Florence. His success
as a teacher, as well as a competitive oer made by Duke Gian Galeazzo Visconti
to attract him to Milan, led the Florentine government to increase his already-high
salary. On the other hand, it is not entirely clear what caused Chrysoloras departure
from Florence: perhaps some conicts with the Florentine men of culture or his desire
to resume diplomatic work for Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, whom he joined in
Pavia immediately after leaving Florence. See Weiss :q, .8f.; and Mergiali :qq6,
:q.
82
Stinger :q, :6.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :o:
guage. Like most teachers of the Palaeologan age, in Constantino-
ple he had taught ancient Greek to students who, although being
native Greek speakers, actually spoke a language very dierent, in
terms of grammar and vocabulary, from the language of the classical
age. Secondly, his excellent knowledge of Latin enabled him to com-
municate eectively with his Western students.
83
Thirdly, and more
importantly, Chrysoloras simplied the complex system of the Greek
grammar handed down from antiquity and made it accessible to Latin
speakers. Chrysoloras achieved his goals mainly by adapting Greek
grammar to patterns common in Latin grammar and by using teach-
ing devices deeply rooted both in Byzantine and in Latin tradition,
such as the catechistic grammar book. His grammar book, Erotema-
ta, Questions, was soon revised and equipped with a Latin trans-
lation by one of his pupils, Guarino Guarini, and became the most
widespread Greek textbook in the Renaissance.
The merit of bringing Greek studies back to Italy after seven cen-
turies of exile, which Boccaccio claimed for himself,
84
was attributed
by humanists to Manuel Chrysoloras;
85
additionally, the concrete ef-
forts of the Florentine administrators did not remain unconsidered.
86
83
See document CI (March .8, :q6) in Orlandi :88:, 6: Volentes iuventutem
nostram posse de utroque fonte bibere, latinisque greca miscere [] decrevimus aliquem utriusque
linguae peritum, qui nostros greca docere possit adsciscere. Chrysoloras may have learned
Latin in Constantinople well before :q at the Dominican monastery of Pera: see
Frstel :qq., 8. In any case, the knowledge of Latin was a crucial requirement in the
employment of Byzantine teachers during the Renaissance.
84
Boccaccio proudly emphasized his eort to obtain an appointment for Leonzio
Pilato (Genealogia deorum gentilium :. , ed. by V. Romano, Bari :q:, 66): Nonne ego fui
qui Leontium Pylatum a Venetiis occiduam Babilonem quaerentem a longa peregrinatione meis exi
consiliis, et in patria tenui, qui illum in propriam domum suscepi et diu hospitem habui, et maximo
labore meo curavi, ut inter doctores Florentini studii susciperetur, ei ex publico mercede apposita? Fui
equidem! Ipse insuper fui, qui primus meis sumptibus Homeri libros et alios quosdam Graecos in
Etruriam revocavi, ex qua multis ante saeculis abierant non redituri. Nec in Etruriam tantum, sed in
patriam deduxi. Ipse ego fui, qui primus a Leontio in privato Yliadem audivi. Ipse insuper fui, qui,
ut legerentur publice Homeri libri, operatus sum.
85
For example, in ::: Guarino wrote to Angelo Corbinelli: Qua in re abs te
peto et magis atque magis oro, ut illustrissimo in primis Manuel Chrysolorae gratias habeas
suumque attollas ad sidera nomen, quoniam eius viri opera simul et humanitate factum est ut
graecarum splendor litterarum ad nostros redierit homines, quos ob earum ignorationem non parvae
dudum involverant tenebrae (quoted by Garin :q8, o8). In his Commentaria rerum suo
tempore gestarum, Leonardo Bruni wrote: Retulit [] Graecam disciplinam ad nos Chrysoloras
Byzantius, vir domi mirabilis ac litterarum Graecarum peritissimus (quoted by Gualdo Rosa
:q8, :8).
86
In the biography of Niccol Niccoli included in his Lives of Illustrious Men of
:o. cn\r+rn +vo
The idea of being a group of elect, the devotees of the classical
paideia, and the only guardians of an ancient and glorious heritage,
inspired the writings of many of Chrysoloras pupils.
87
Humanists
implicitly acknowledged the role of Chrysoloras as a bridge between
two cultural traditions with common roots but separate development
and as the point of departure for a new tradition. However, as an heir
to Greek and Byzantine cultures, Chrysoloras also represented a point
of arrival. In order, then, to assess his contribution to the culture of the
Renaissance, his Byzantine background and the cultural environment
from which he came should be taken into account.
88
the Fifteenth Century (Vite di uomini illustri del secolo XV), Vespasiano da Bisticci (b. :.:)
attributed to Niccoli the honor of being the reviver of Greek and Latin letters in
Florence. Those studies, in fact, had for a long time lain buried, and although
Petrarch, Dante, and Boccaccio had done something to rehabilitate them, they had
not reached that height which they attained through Niccols cultivation of them
for diverse reasons (.. .6, ed. A. Greco, Firenze :qo). Vespasiano also indicated
two of these reasons: Niccolis concrete action to induce Chrysoloras and other Greek
teachers to come to Florence by providing money for their journeys, and his creation
of a collection of a vast number of books on all the liberal arts in Greek and Latin
[] accessible to everyone (..8). Upon Niccolis death, eight hundred books,
valued at six thousand orins, were left for public use. See Gundesheimer :q6, of.;
and Stinger :q, 6. On the manuscripts brought to Florence by Chrysoloras, see
Rollo .oo..
87
Gualdo Rosa (:q8, :8) quotes Guarinos letters to Roberto Rossi and to
Bartolomeo Aragazzi of Montepulciano, where Chrysoloras is compared to a father
and his pupils to his sons. Together with Boccaccios Genealogia, Leonardo Brunis
Laudatio Florentinae urbis, written in :o or :o, is the rst literary work directly
inuenced by Greek literature; see Baron :q68, ::. On Brunis Greek studies, see
Wilson :qq., :., .q:. The enthusiasm for Greek culture in Florence inuenced
not only literature and learning, but also theology and, to a lesser extent, the visual
arts; see the interesting article by Hetherington, :qq..
88
See Robins .ooo, .: The sort of information provided in the skhede [on which
see below, ::.], the glosses of the commentators on classical texts of all sorts, the
grammar books of the Byzantines, and the Byzantine grammarians themselves, who
in the last decades of the Eastern Empire came to teach and write in Italy, were
the instruments and the agents of the recovery and restitution of the learning of
the Greek language and of Greek literature in the Italian and then in the whole
Western European Renaissance. It is hard to see how all this could have come about
so quickly and have established so rm a hold on Western European education
and scholarship without the material and intellectual achievements of the Byzantine
linguistic scholars.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :o
. The Byzantine Tradition
The scholars of the Byzantine and of the latter part of the Roman
age are unsystematic and diuse, are decient in originality of thought
and independence of character, and are only too ready to rest sat-
ised with a merely mechanical reproduction of the learning of the
past. In matters of scholarship they seldom show a real advance, or
even display a sound and impartial judgment [] Their weakest side
was grammar. They laid little stress on syntax and not much more
on accidence, while they paid special attention to accentuation and
orthography [] But the scientic study of grammar was set aside
for the preparation of mere manuals for the use of beginners. Thus
wrote John E. Sandys in his comprehensive History of Classical Scholar-
ship. Indeed, Sandys acknowledged some contributions of Byzantine
scholars from Photius and Arethas to Planudes, Moschopoulos, and
Triclinius, but only if they are regarded as among the earliest precur-
sors of the Renaissance.
89
Sandys did nothing but quote a common opinion. Still, as Robert
Robins has pointed out in one of the few studies specically devoted
to grammar in Byzantium, it is possible to explain the activity of
Byzantine grammarians by taking into account three important ele-
ments. First of all, Byzantine grammarians considered themselves as
the guardians of the Greek language and culture, invested with the
task of preserving the glorious heritage of the past. Secondly, they
were rst and foremost teachers, and their research activity makes
sense if related to their teaching. Spreading the knowledge of cor-
rect Greek and, at the same time, protecting the language from exter-
nal inuences and deviations from the accepted standards of correct-
ness engaged all their energies.
90
Thirdly, if grammar was the basis,
rhetoric was the nal object of Byzantine education. In spite of deep
social and cultural changes, eloquence had retained in Byzantine soci-
ety the same importance as in antiquity.
91
Skills in composition and
speech were necessary to undertake any career in any environment,
from the Church to the imperial palace: educated individuals who
had at least a passable level of literacy were indispensable to the com-
plex bureaucratic system of the Byzantine state. On the other hand,
89
Sandys :q8
3
, :. 6.
90
Robins :qq, .o.q.
91
See Webbs interesting observations (:qq, 8).
:o cn\r+rn +vo
there was no need for specic technical skills, except for ocials of
the highest ranks, who had to know law and administration. Thus, the
traditional education based on ancient Greek language and literature,
which trained individuals on the appropriate use of the language, was
more than sucient for aspiring state administrators: the imitation (i-
) of a canon of literary models of the past led to the acquisition
of that articial Hochsprache typical of most Byzantine literary works.
92
These considerations explain, for example, why no grammarian
has ever attempted a general synthesis of Greek grammar, as Priscian
did with Latin in his Institutiones grammaticae. Although grammar was
also studied at a higher level,
93
schoolbooks concentrating on correct-
ness in morphology, orthography, and prosody responded suciently,
in general, to the immediate demands of teachers and pupils. The
handy question-and-answer format of ertmata and the short sketch
(r) of schedography were considered as particularly appropriate
for these immediate goals.
Donatus and Priscian remained the basis of Latin grammatical
instruction throughout the Middle Ages. In the same way, in Byzan-
tium, some works inherited from antiquity and late antiquity laid,
so to speak, the foundations of grammar from the beginning to the
end of Byzantine civilization. For example, the importance given to
nouns and verbs and a lack of consideration for syntax in Manuel
Chrysoloras Erotemata faithfully mirror a grammatical tradition that
dates back to the Hellenistic age.
94
The fact that these texts, although
variously elaborated, were constantly used over the course of the cen-
92
See Browning :q8; and Maltese .oo:, 6:f. On i, see the important study
by Hunger, :q6q:qo.
93
An analysis of some biographies of Byzantine scholars and educated saints has
led Ann Moatt (:qq) to conclude that, between the mid-seventh and mid-ninth cen-
turies, grammar was considered the foundation of secondary education in Byzantium.
In fact, Bardas University of Constantinople, founded in the ninth century, included
grammar among the curricular disciplines, together with philosophy, geometry, and
astronomy. See Frstel :qq., :8.
94
Pontani (:qq6, :8), quoting Bertis :q8 study, remarks: [Nell] utilizzazione
degli erotemata crisolorini [] si riette luso della scuola bizantina, saldamente anco-
rato ab aeterno alla Techne di Dionisio Trace e soprattuto alla sua ampia tradizione sco-
lastica. [] [La] grammatica di Manuele Crisolora mostra di continuare il modello
didattico che sappiamo essere in uso in Oriente dallet tardo-antica. The fact that
grammatical teaching concentrated on single words rather than on sentences may
explain the lack of interest in syntax in Byzantine grammar: see Swiggers-Wouters
.oo. On syntax in Byzantium, see Picciarelli .oo, .6..
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :o
turies has contributed to conveying the impression of a long-term
immobility of Byzantine pedagogy.
95
Indeed, the grammatical works of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries show that Byzantine grammar was anything but a xed,
immutable system. Nicephorus Blemmydes, George Acropolites,
Manuel Holobolos, Maximus Planudes, Manuel Moschopoulos, De-
metrius Triclinius, and many others introduced signicant innovations
in elementary and advanced grammar. They explained the dierences
between everyday language (j) and Attic Greek, established
the rules for writing Attic, and, using word lists and lexica, stored
the specic vocabulary and idioms employed by the writers used as
models. By this time, in fact, Attic Greek had become a dead lan-
guage. Other interesting innovative features may be derived from
contacts with the West. For example, syntax, generally neglected by
Byzantine grammarians, became central in the treatises of Maximus
Planudes and John Glykys. Glykys theories on the origin of language
and on the function of cases remind us of the speculative grammar,
which was in vogue at this time in Western schools. An idea of the
universality of linguistic phenomena is in fact implied in Gregory of
Cyprus failed attempt to learn grammar and logic at a Latin school.
96
In general, however, we may regard Byzantine grammar as the
continuation of ancient Greek grammar, which had begun with the
rst studies on language by sophists (Protagoras and Prodicus) and
philosophers (Democritus, Plato, Aristotle and his school, and the Sto-
ics). On the one hand, the ourishing of literary studies in Alexan-
dria at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. and at Pergamon one
century later led to closer attention to linguistic aspects as an inte-
gral part of literary works.
97
On the other hand, the spread of Greek
among non-Greek populations as a cultural medium and the increas-
ing gap between written and spoken language created the necessity of
95
In his excellent survey of Byzantine education, Markopoulos (.oo6) notices a
substantial absence of innovations throughout the centuries: Byzantine school re-
mained une institution marque par un attachement quasi sacr la tradition
intellectuelle grco-romaine; on the other hand, une tonnante facult dadaptation
aux conditions chaque foix en vigueur ensured the survival and the perpetuation of
ancient pedagogy in Byzantium (q).
96
On Byzantine grammar in the last two centuries of the empire, see Bolgar :q,
86.; Geanakoplos :q6., .f.; Garzya :q; Constantinides :q8.; and Robins :q8,
.:q., and :q88, . Webb (:qq, qq6) has focused on the relationship between
Byzantine and Western grammar.
97
On the origins of Greek grammar, see Montanari F. :q8, :oq:oq8.
:o6 cn\r+rn +vo
defending the correct usage of the language (`). Thus, both
theoretical and practical reasons explain why, during the second cen-
tury B.C.E., the Alexandrian Dionysius Thrax (ca. :o ca. qo), a
pupil of the grammarian Aristarchus, wrote the rst systematic treatise
on Greek morphology, known as r j. The authenticity
of this work has been discussed at length;
98
in any case, Dionysius r-
enjoyed great success among both Greek and Latin grammarians
such as Varro and Remmius Palaemon.
99
It was also widely used in
late antique schools, probably as a text to be memorized and recited,
as demonstrated by some Egyptian papyri.
100
The r was popular
in Byzantium: Michael Psellus echoed, or even quoted, entire passages
from it.
101
Dionysius r also had an important inuence on the
creation of a grammatical terminology both in Greek and in Latin.
Since actual life apparently lay outside the concerns of Byzantine
men of culture, we have neither specic texts nor reliable documen-
tary sources on schools in Byzantium: we cannot fully reconstruct,
for example, the exact content of the curriculum or the teachers
98
Di Benedetto (:q8, .:6.:o; :qq) has pointed out the discrepancies between
the introductory chapter on the denition of grammar and the actual content of the
r, and between the extant text and the quotations from it by other ancient gram-
marians. Considering also that there are no direct quotations from the r under
the name of Dionysius Thrax before the fth century C.E., Di Benedetto concluded
that the text handed down to us is an anonymous compilation from between the
third and the fourth centuries and that only the initial chapter belongs to Dionysius
Thrax. The debate is still open: see Di Benedetto :q; Pinborg :q; Wouters :qq,
6; Robins :qq6; Morgan :qq8, :f.; the articles by Robins, Schenkeveld, Collinge,
Wouters, and Di Benedetto in Law-Sluiter :qq8
2
; and Cribiore .oo:, .::.
99
On Dionysius r in the Roman world, see Law in Law-Sluiter :qq8
2
, ::
::.
100
See Wouters :qq, in particular , and the commentary on two fth-century
papyri containing fragments of Dionysius r, P. Hal. A and P.S.I. I. :8 (:oq.
and :.o.). Dionysius work is just one of the several r handed down in papyri:
see Cribiore .oo:, .::. It is worth noticing that, since Greek and Roman education
was based on memory rather than on written texts, no editorial activity originated
from the demands of schoolbooks, with the exception of the literary texts read at
the schools of grammarians and rhetoricians. The fact that Egyptian papyri include
many school exercises but very few manuals demonstrates that, until late antiquity,
teaching continued to be based on dictation and/or transcription of sentences read
or written by the teacher, whereas individual study of manuals was practiced only to a
very limited extent. See Fedeli :q8q, 6qf. On school exercises on papyri, see Cribiore
:qq6.
101
See, for example, the encomium i 'o 0
0 r j `i _u (in Oratoria minora, ed. by A.R. Littlewood, Leipzig :q8,
:::).
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :o
demands and the students performance. Even from the small amount
of data available, however, we can infer that the traditional three-stage
school system was maintained throughout the Byzantine Empire.
102
Children
103
learned to read and to write at the school of the -
j. A passage in a fteenth-century manuscript describes the
stages of elementary learning:
104
rst of all, pupils must learn to write
correctly (o 0i) what is handed over to them (o r-
) and memorize it carefully (0o 0u). After in-
terpreting and explaining it (ru), they must arrange it (o-
) according to grammatical rules and logic (o i
r0 j) and paying close attention to antistoichiai (
i u 0i 0r0), i.e., to words written dierently
but pronounced in the same way. The text belongs to a relatively late
date; however, considering the conservative character of ancient edu-
cation, we may suppose that the same method was also in eect at
earlier times. Writing, memorization, and composition were the stan-
dard pedagogical methods, and grammatical rules and orthography
were the content of elementary teaching in Byzantine schools.
105
After learning the rst rudiments of classical Greek, pupils usually
practiced them on some easy texts: the Psalms, the Book of Wis-
dom and other passages from the Scriptures, Saints lives, and even
some history. These rst readings and the grammar books used at
the school of the remained almost unchanged over the
course of the centuries.
106
In an anonymous and undated dialogue containing a list of the
grammar books commonly used by Byzantine teachers, Dionysius
Thraxs r j is the rst text quoted. It is followed by
102
See Efthymiadis .oo, .6o. The distinction between the three levels, however,
was not rigid and uniform; see Kaster :q8, f.
103
Children, of course, meant essentially boys. Women, except for members of
the establishment, did not have access to education. Sources insist on the exclusion of
women from the study of classical (pagan) literatureconsidered as inspiring passion
and lustand of the other disciplines of the ru i. According to George
Tornices, the author of her epitaph, even the imperial Princess Anna Comnena, as
a girl, had to read classical literature secretly. See Maltese .oo:, 6f.; and Cavallo
.oo
2
, :f. and ..
104
Quoted by Hunger :q8q, and :o n. , from Vienna, sterreichische Natio-
nalbibliothek, MS. theol. gr. ., fol. 6..
105
The many works on orthography produced in Byzantium reect the importance
that correct writing had in the Byzantine curriculum; see Schneider :qqq.
106
On the Psalter, which was the rst reading book in Byzantium as well as in the
West (above, 6f.), see Cavallo .oo
2
, f.
:o8 cn\r+rn +vo
Theodosius Canons, Herodians work on prosody, and the commen-
taries by George Choeroboscus and Orus.
107
In the form in which it
has been handed down, r is a very concise compilation of the ele-
mentary morphology, orthography, and phonetics of classical Greek.
Its author dened grammar as a practical knowledge of what is gen-
erally said by poets and prose writers (ri u o t
i 0 u ri u r).
108
Therefore, the study
of morphology was not per se, but secondary to the main purpose of
grammar, i.e., literary criticism ().
After accentuation (), punctuation (j), letters (t),
and syllables (i), Dionysius grammar deals with the parts of
speech: noun (), which includes adjectives as well as demonstra-
tive and interrogative pronouns; verb (j); participle (j); arti-
cle (00), with the relative pronoun; pronoun (0i), i.e., per-
sonal and possessive pronouns; preposition (0); adverb (ri-
); and conjunction (u). The r ends with declension
and conjugation (i and i, exemplied by the verb u),
but does not consider syntax and style.
109
Syntax was extensively treated in the four books i o
by Apollonius Dyscolus, of the second century C.E., which Priscian
used as a model for the nal part of his Institutiones.
110
Apollonius son,
Aelius Herodian, concentrated on accents and metrics in his
j 0j _i, handed down as fragmentary, but surviving
through an epitome made by Theodosius in the fourth century.
111
The Introductory Canons on Inection of Nouns and Verbs by Theodosius
of Alexandria (ii i i oo i o-
107
The text, which concerns the study of grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, and law,
has been edited by Treu (:8q, qqq), who has dated it to the eleventh century.
108
Webb (:qq, qo) points out that generally (ri u) indicates that analysis
of individual style is not part of grammar: the subordination of grammatical studies
to the aims of rhetoric makes texts not much more than repositories of lexical and
syntactical paradigms, regardless of their content and literary value.
109
See Sandys :q8
3
, :. :8f., and Bonner :q, :qf. Dionysius (:, p. 8 Lallot)
divided the Greek verbs, according to the letter before the ending of the rst person
singular, into six classes of unaccented (u: labials, velars, dentals, or ,
liquids and nasals, vowel or pure ), three classes of circumexed (u:
the contracted verbs in -, -, and -), and four classes of -verbs (i0,
i, i, j). Together with the verb u as a paradigm of conjugation,
Dionysius distinction was also adopted in most of the later grammar books.
110
Edited by R. Schneider and G. Uhlig in GG .. ., :q.
111
Herodians works have been edited by A. Lentz in GG ; see Hunger :q8, .. :.
and :.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :oq
) presented a list of nominal and verbal forms with the rules of
inection, which in the third-fourth centuries supplemented the the-
oretical denitions of Dionysius r.
112
Theodosius Canons were
often appended to Dionysius handbook and contributed to forming
Greek school grammar. Theodosius divided Greek nouns into fty-six
declensions according to their gender and to the ending of the nom-
inative: thirty-ve masculine, twelve feminine, and nine neuter. He
took up Dionysius terminology and verbal paradigmthe verb u-
but at the same time started the regrettable practice of invent-
ing forms for the sake of completeness. Thus, he oered to his readers
not only the forms of u actually in use, but also imaginary futures
and aorists, which eventually were transmitted to later grammarians
up to modern times.
The commentaries by George Choeroboscus (second half of the
eighth century), Sophronius of Jerusalem (ninth century), and other
grammarians usually circulated with Theodosius Canons in Byzantine
schools.
113
Designed to complement Theodosius schematic informa-
tion, these commentaries oered to teachers a conspicuous amount
of grammatical material for their classes.
114
The commentators dwelt
upon the word accent, prosody, and inection of each nominal and
verbal form, also taking into account possible antistoichiai and ortho-
graphical problems.
. Practicing Greek Grammar:
Ertmata, Epimerismoi, and Schedography
The West had known school texts in question-and-answer format
since late antiquity from Donatus Ars minor. This tradition had lasted
throughout the Middle Ages, especially in the Lombard-Cassinese
environment. But grammatical catechisms were also very popular in
112
Edition by A. Hilgard in GG . :, qq.
113
The texts of these commentaries follow Theodosius Canons in GG : :. :o6:
and .. :: (Choeroboscus); and .. (Sophronius, who used the scholia of the
sixth-century grammarian John Charax). See Sandys :q8
3
, :. 6:; Pertusi :q6., .q;
Hunger :q8, .. ::f.; and Robins :qq, ::..
114
Sometimes these commentators resemble teachers lecturing their students. See,
for example, Choeroboscus in GG . ., q: i r t i 0j, o
o r0 i o r i o j [] u 0 i ..., We have
already learned about the -verbs that r0, r, and j [] have been noted
as rst aorists, etc.
::o cn\r+rn +vo
Byzantium. The dialogical form was considered so eective in the
exposition of grammar that it was also used for scholarly treatises,
such as Planudes i j o.
115
In the fteenth cen-
tury, this form reached great popularity thanks to elementary school-
books by Manuel Chrysoloras, Demetrius Chalcondyles, and Manuel
Calecas.
Therefore, the two most popular Byzantine forms of schoolbooks,
ertmata and sched, may well represent a meeting point between East-
ern and Western pedagogy. South Italy seems to have played an
important role in this exchange. Many of the manuscripts that have
handed down these school texts are of South Italian origin,
116
and
the Longibardos (Lombard) mentioned by Anna Comnena as a
teacher of schedography might also have been South Italian. At the
same time, since the Byzantine scholars who taught in Italy had also
learned grammar from those textbooks and were inuenced by them
in their teaching, they can be rightly considered to be the ancestors of
humanist Greek grammar books.
a. Ertmata
Conceived as a supplement to the study of grammar, ertmata, ques-
tions, consisted of an exposition of grammatical rules based on the
parsing of words and sentences, in the form of a short dialogue
between a teacher and a pupil. All ertmata followed Theodosius
nominal canons and verbal conjugations.
117
Their origin is uncertain;
a precursor can be found in a Florentine papyrus (P.S.I. sine numero) of
the rst century C.E., which contains a short dialogue on the prop-
erties of the noun.
118
The earliest manuscript containing ertmata is
115
On the use of dialogues (erotapokriseis) in Byzantine school texts, see Garzya :qq,
:. and .ooo, :f. An extension of the erotematic form for non-grammatical
texts can be found in the Homeric catechism on characters of the Iliad, probably
dating from the rst half of the tenth century. It has been handed down in a
manuscript divided into two parts: MSS. gr. 6 of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Rome
and 6.6 of the Biblioteca Nacionl in Madrid; see Cavallo :q8o, :66.
116
Most manuscripts are palimpsests: the school texts were written on liturgical
texts of the tenth-eleventh centuries. See Gamillscheg :q, .:f.
117
Pertusi (:q6., ) quotes the ertmata contained in the thirteenth-century manu-
script . . : of Grottaferrata (see below, n. ::q) as an example of absolute faithfulness
to Theodosius classication.
118
Wouters :qq, ::8 (no. ).
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :::
perhaps the eleventh-century MS. F 8 of the Biblioteca Vallicelliana
in Rome. The number of manuscripts increased notably in the cen-
turies that followed.
119
The so-called Erotemata Guelferbytana oer a clear example. Handed
down by the thirteenth-century MS. Gudianus ::. of the Herzog
August Bibliothek in Wolfenbttel, these ertmata are based on Diony-
sius Thrax, Theodosius, Herodian, and the scholia on George Choe-
roboscus or their source. The anonymous author(s), in fact, followed
the canonical division of the grammatical matter into fty-six nomi-
nal declensions, nine verbal conjugations in and four in .
120
The
title of the rst ertma, u u iu i ru -
. i (The rst of the introductory and compendious canons:
Ajax), is analyzed word by word by means of a sequence of ques-
tions (0 u; i r ij; i r rj; i
r u; 0 u; etc.). Then the paradigm, i, leads
to other questions. In this way, the word is dened according to the
part of speech to which it belongs, i.e., the noun, as well as to its ve
properties: gender, species, form, number, and case. Each property, in
turn, is specied in its meaning and function. For example:
(GG . :, XXI. .XXII. ) ` i i r ri; '-
. i r; '0. i r 0 r; u o
0 00t i rj u 00 o. i i; u.
i i u u; `0. i r ; 0 j-
r, ...
[i: to which part of speech does it belong? To the noun. To which
gender? Masculine. What is the masculine gender? That which, in the
nominative singular, is preceded by the article o. To which species?
Derivative. What kind of derivative? Verbal. What is verbal? That
which is created from a verb, etc.]
After some questions concerning prosody, etymology, and position in
Theodosius canons of the nominal inection, the paradigm i is
declined in the singular, dual, and plural. For each case, the basic rule
of composition and prosody are given. For example:
119
The most important are two twelfth-century manuscripts of the Biblioteca
dellAbbazia in GrottaferrataZ. . : and Z. . .as well as Venice, Biblioteca
Marciana, MS. gr. 8, of the rst half of the thirteenth century. See Pertusi :q6.,
:; and Cavallo :q8o, :66, :q:.
120
Alfred Hilgard has provided an introduction, an analysis, and a partial edition
of the text in GG . :, XXIXXXVII.
::. cn\r+rn +vo
(GG .:, XXIII. ..) ` i u i; 0 i. ` u;
o i 0 o u u o o
0 i, i i, ...
(XXIII. .) 0 i o ; 0 j o j 0-
0j ri u j j r , r j i j 00t ...
[` i (Ajax): how is it declined? 0 i. What is the rule?
Disyllabic and unaccented nouns in pure -, ending with a long
syllable, are declined in --, like Ajax (i i) and Thoas
( ), etc.
0 i: which rule regulates the accent? Every genitive of a
noun, if common
121
and not modied, bears the accent on the same
syllable as the nominative, etc.]
The same pattern can be observed for verbs. There are introductory
questions concerning properties; for example:
(ibid. XXX. :o:) i, i i u ; r u
. 0 j; ` r r o u o 0,

[] i, ri j o; o. i
0 i; o u, u. ...
[i (I sow): to which conjugation of the unaccented verbs does it
belong? To the fth of the unaccented. How is it evident? The fth
is shown through the four invariable, , , , and .
122
[]. Is i
primitive or derivative? Derivative. And from what does it derive? From
u (I draw), u (I draw down); etc.].
Such questions are followed by a survey of the other tenses (perfect,
aorist, and future active; perfect middle-passive), each completed by
the rule (u) that governs its composition and accent. For the
sake of brevity and simplicity, the last paradigms of a category receive
a less extensive treatment than the rst ones.
Ertmata show the general structure of a parsing grammar. There
is no hint, however, of the syntactical function of the words analyzed:
the emphasis is placed exclusively on forms and prosody. This issue
demonstrates how dicult it was for Byzantine pupils of the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries to write and scan ancient Greek words cor-
121
I.e., capable of being long or short; see LSJ, s.v.
122
See Dion. Thrax 6, p. Lallot. The editor explains (p. :o): L ou les autres
consonnes donnent lieu variation dans certaines exions nominales et dans les
formations sigmatiques de la morphologie verbale, les quatre liquides demeurent
telles quelles.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx ::
rectly because of the deep transformations that the spoken language
had undergone over the course of time.
123
The anonymous Erotemata Guelferbytana anticipated the Erotemata by
Manuel Moschopoulos, a student of Planudes (born ca. :.6).
124
Co-
pied and printed many times, Moschopoulos catechism eventually
overshadowed all the earlier experiments of the same kind. It contin-
ued to be widely used for the study of Greek in European schools even
after the publication of the improved grammar books by Chrysoloras,
Gaza, and Lascaris, all of whom, in turn, used Moschopoulos work
as a model. Although retaining the structure, the language, and the
content of the genre, Moschopoulos abridged the grammatical mate-
rial and thus made it more eective and more suitable for memo-
rization.
125
He eliminated the repetitions that made earlier catechisms
dicult to use by simply referring to rules and paradigms already
expounded. The large number of manuscriptsmany of which were
variously contaminatedmake it dicult to recover Moschopoulos
original text.
126
b. Epimerismoi and Schedography
The practice of parsing, or epimerism (r or , Lat.
partitio, as in Priscians work Partitiones duodecim versuum Aeneidos principa-
lium), consisted of analyzing all the words of a text in all their aspects:
morphology, meaning, etymology, spelling, accentuation, and prosody.
Originally limited to the Homeric poems, this kind of exercise was
later applied to other texts, both pagan and religious, which teachers
could choose depending on their personal tastes and on the demands
of their classes. Thus we have, for example, epimerisms on the Psalms
123
Typical late Greek forms that can be found in ertmata are for 0 or
0 (e.g., in the frequently asked question i o;) and the particle 0 in
exhortations (e.g., 0 ri, let us decline); see Hilgards observations, XXXVIf.
124
Part of Moschopoulos Erotemata has been edited by Hilgard in GG . :,
XXXIXXLIV. On Moschopoulos literary activity, see Hunger :q8, .. of.; and
Fryde .ooo, .q.qq.
125
0r (abridged) appears, in fact, in the title of Moschopoulos Erote-
mata in Bern, Brgerbibliothek, MS. gr. :6. See Hilgards introduction, XXXVIII.
126
The many copies written by teachers bear witness to the success of Moschopou-
los work in schools. Frstel (:qq., ..f.) mentions the case of George Baophoros,
who taught at the Catholicon Mouseion of the monastery of Prodromou-Petra (see
below, :): between :o and :, he seems to have copied about eighteen manu-
scripts.
:: cn\r+rn +vo
by George Choeroboscus and on Philostratus Imagesthe so-called
iby Maximus Planudes and Manuel Moschopoulos.
127
The etymology of the term schedography (i) is uncer-
tain. It probably derives from the words r (gen. r, pl.
r) and r (gen. r; cf. Latin scheda), which in Byzantine
Greek meant draft, sketch, or note.
128
From the eleventh cen-
tury, r properly indicated a short didactic passage on gram-
mar.
Schedography was a further application and development of epi-
merism. In Byzantine schools, it supplemented the theoretical study
of schoolbooks by means of examples taken from the actual use of
the language. Often in question-and-answer format, r contained
a detailed analysis of each word of a passage; they could be arranged
either according to the word order of the original text or alphabet-
ically. Most probably, pupils learned them by heart from a written
text and recited them in classrooms. The purpose of r was to
equip pupils with an extensive vocabulary and to oer examples of
correct writing and grammar. A particular emphasis was given to anti-
stoichiai. Indeed, the r handed down to us are extremely various:
they may include simple lexical observations as well as extremely con-
voluted grammatical topics. The texts parsed were prayers, hymns,
fables, and passages from the Scriptures or from pagan authors, taken
from gnomologia or from manuals of rhetoric. More often than not,
however, these texts were expressly created ad usum scholae, with style
and content appropriate for the teaching of grammar and lexicon.
129
Most r are anonymous. When an author is mentioned, they
are attributed either to well-known literatessuch as Theodore Pro-
dromos, Nicetas Eugenianos, and Constantine Manassesor to ob-
scure teachers or priests.
130
Over the course of time, however, Manuel
127
Choeroboscus 'i 0 i were published by Th. Gaisford,
Oxford :8.. On ri, see Krumbacher :8q
2
, qof.; Hunger :q8, .. ..f.,
o; and Garzya .ooo, :.
128
Cp. LSJ and PGL, ss. vv., and modern Greek r, drawing, sketch, or
draft. In humanist Latin, scheda or schedula indicates an unbound sheet used for
drafts; see Rizzo :q, of.
129
See the extensive study by Gallavotti (:q8, .) and the texts published by
Vassis (:qq:qq, ::q) and Miller (.oo, :..).
130
See Browning :q6, ..6; Gallavotti :q8, ..; and Vassis :qq:qq. A
female author of r seems to be mentioned in an iambic poem by John Tzetzes,
preserved in Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS. .o (F. 68), f. ..o
r
and published
by Mercati (:q:). Tzetzes urges the woman to devote her time to female-oriented
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx ::
Moschopoulos became the schedographer by antonomasia, and
many collections of r of dierent times and origins were arbi-
trarily attributed to him in manuscripts.
131
A rst piece of evidence of the use of schedography in Byzantine
schools dates back to the tenth and eleventh centuries. Christopher
of Mytilene, Michael Psellus, John Mauropous, John Tzetzes, Gre-
gory of Corinth, and Eustathius experienced that method in vari-
ous ways. From their texts, it emerges that schedography was taught
in several schools of Constantinople (such as those of the Orphano-
tropheion, the Church of the Forty Martyrs, and St. Theodore 0
i), which often organized competitions between students.
132
Most of these authors, however, display an ironic and critical attitude
toward schedography.
133
The most interesting judgment is expressed
in Anna Comnenas Alexiad, :. :
134
0 r r j r I u r ri i j r ju
0. i r u i u r o
i o rj ro u oo [] 0o
0 0 r r_ _ o i u u u i u
i 0u r i j 0 u ri i r
u []. 0 r r 00r o j j j ri
u 0r. 0 o j j 0r. o u i
0o rr, 0, ro 0j j u u
j i i j j i i jo i u
u ru o i t j i j u
u 0 rt0 ro, i j ru ri
r j {0} j i j. 0o 0
r j0, i i r 0 r, 0o o 0
00.
[The technique of grammar analysis was invented by younger men of
our generation (I am passing over Stylianos and his school, men like
activities such as spinning and weaving instead of reading and writing, because
speeches and culture are suitable for men, and reinforces his idea with a quotation
from Aeschylus, Sept. .oo. However, the presence of many words referring to weaving
suggests that the poem may be itself a r on the terminology of that activity.
131
On Moschopoulos schedography and its origin, see Keaney :q:, o.
132
These competitions probably consisted in improvising commentaries as elabo-
rate as possible on a given text. On r contexts, see Lemerle :q, ...; and
Miller .oo, :8.
133
Hunger :qq, .. .f. On schedography during the age of the Comneni, see
Garzya :q:, .6; and Efthymiadis .oo, .6.
134
The text has been re-edited by D.R. Reinsch and A. Kambylis (vol. :, Berlin
New York .oo:, 8). I have followed, and partially modied, the English translation
by Sewter (:q6q, qf.).
::6 cn\r+rn +vo
Longibardos and the compilers of catalogues of all kinds []).
135
Today
these sublime studies are considered not even of secondary importance;
the poets and even the historians, together with the experience to be
derived from them, are denied their rightful place. Today it is the game
of draughts that is all the rage [].
136
It grieves me to see the total
neglect of general education. It makes my blood boil, for I myself spent
much time on these same exercises. After liberation from the elemen-
tary studies, I devoted myself to rhetoric, touched on philosophy and
in the midst of these sciences eagerly turned to the poets and histori-
ans. So the rough edges of my style were smoothed out; thereafter, with
the aid of rhetoric, I condemned excessive indulgence in schedography.
These personal reminiscences, by the way, are not superuous: they are
intended to reinforce my argument for a general education.]
Annas passage does not convey precise data and information on
schedography, but contains an explicit critique of the eects of this
practice on education. According to Anna, schedography induced
students to neglect the original literary texts and reduced learning
to a purely mechanical exercise to such an extent that it became
responsible for the decay of literary studies.
137
In spite of the disapproval of intellectuals, schedography continued
to be used in schools for centuries. From the twelfth century, a r
or j i, represented by Theodore Prodromos and his
135
Anna denes schedography as a product of the culture of her age (I u
r). On Stylianos, who taught at the school of St. Theodore 0 i,
see Lemerle :q, .8. Longibardos o u i u wrote some -
i o i 0i o ur, mentioned by Psellus. A text
transmitted under his name has been published by Festa (:qo, ..), who assigned
Longibardos to the tenth or eleventh centuries. Hunger (:q8, .. .6f.) dened Lon-
gibardos work as ein extremes Beispiel fr die unmethodische und unpdagogi-
sche Anhufung von Wissensto in schwer verdaulicher Form: grammatisches, syn-
taktisches und orthographisches Material, mit etwas Mythologie gemischt, wird unter
einem leichten moralisch-asketischen Firnis dargeboten.
136
Krumbacher (:8q
2
, q:) interpreted the game of draught (i) as refer-
ring to schedography itself, either for its banality or, more probably, for its desultory
treatment of texts and, consequently, its continuous repetitions in the word analy-
sis. Similarly, other twelfth-century authorse.g., Eustathius and Tzetzesemphasize
the ambiguity (i, t, etc.) and the complexity (u, 0u,
etc.) of schedography. See Vassis :qq:qq, :o; and Efthymiadis .oo, .6q.
137
John Tzetzes (Chiliades q. :o:.) also expressed the same opinion. See Krum-
bachers harsh critique (:8q
2
, q.) of Byzantine schedography and the very similar
exercises in fashion in Prussian schools at the end of the nineteenth century: Ob nun
die fortlaufende Analyse zwischen die Zeilen oder unter dem Texte steht, berhrt
das Wesen der Sache nicht, und dieses besteht bei beiden Methoden darin, dem
Schler alle Schwierigkeiten zu ebnen und eigenes Nachdenken, Suchen und Ler-
nen mglichst zu ersparen.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx ::
followers, tried to reinvigorate the traditional matter by presenting it
in the form of puns.
138
Indeed, such a pedantic method of teaching
grammar and orthography was considered more and more appropri-
ate in a linguistic context determined by an increasing gap between
the written and the spoken language. For example, in a passage from
MS. gr. IX.:, of the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, . ::::
v
, an
anonymous grammarian reminds a young man (u r) that schedo-
graphy is necessary if one wants to learn correct writing ( -
t o o0t ri 0t). Learning to write
without correctness is a waste of time (i r u r ri o-
, 0 o r ri o0t, ri _u ii); therefore, the
young man is urged to devote his energies to it (i i u, i lj
o0j, u i 0i o i).
139
Many manuscripts containing r are of Italian origin.
140
The
fteenth-century MS. Ven. Marc. gr. XI.:6, formerly in the Library
of San Giovanni di Verdara in Padua, oers an example of the pop-
ularity of this method up until the Renaissance.
141
In its ninety-two
folios, written by a Greek-Italian hand, the manuscript contains a set
of resources for teachers: commentaries on some troparia for the Vir-
gin Mary, on short sentences and anecdotes taken from Demosthenes,
Diogenes Laertius, Aesop, and other authors, on some of Aesops
fables, on the Pseudo-Homeric Batracomyomachia, etc. It also allows
us to glimpse the method followed in classrooms: after an interlin-
ear paraphrase of the text, the teacher commented extensively on its
grammar, lexicon, and orthography. The commentaries included anti-
stoichiai, lists of words with the same ending, compounds, and also the
complete declension of some nouns, in an order based on associa-
tion rather than on logic. As Webb has pointed out, in fact, schedo-
138
On this new schedography as opposed to the old one (o), see Garzya
.ooo, :.
139
Quoted in Debiasi :q::q., ::::6. The manuscript contains a sample of
the collections of r that teachers could use to supplement Moschopoulos work.
They included various material, often from Theodore Prodromos or the scholars of
his circle: see Gallavotti :q8, 8, ::. Addresses to young men are typical of these
texts: with such devices, teachers tried to attract the attention of their pupils. Other
interesting passages are quoted by Browning from MS. Ven. Marc. gr. XI. : (:q6,
...).
140
A list of these grammatical manuscripts can be found in Gamillscheg :q, .:f.
See also Browning :q6, ..; and Cavallo :q8o, :8: n. :. On schedography in the
Salentine area, see also Gallavotti :q8, :q.
141
Described and partially edited by Debiasi :q::q., :oq.
::8 cn\r+rn +vo
graphy conveyed the idea that each word had to be considered not
by itself but within a context, in a constant cross-reference, and
rmly anchored within a complex and multi-dimensional linguistic
system.
142
6. The Making of Humanist Greek Grammar
After learning grammar mostly by memory, Byzantine students pro-
ceeded to the study of Greek orators; in fact, rhetoric was the goal of
Byzantine education. The emphasis placed on rhetoric associated the
Western studia humanitatis with the Byzantine curriculum; as Kristeller
remarked, the learning and interests of the Italian humanists were
more similar to the Byzantine tradition than to the tradition of the
Western Middle Ages.
143
Moreover, pedagogy was based on the same
principles on both sides of the Mediterranean: repetition, memoriza-
tion, and parsing.
However, the Greek emigrs who taught in Italy could not propose
to their students the curriculum of Byzantine schools without some
adaptations. Thus, the need for a teaching methodology suitable for
non-Greek speakers resulted in a demand for simplifying the teaching
of Greek grammar. Memorizing the Dionysian-Theodosian scheme of
fty-six nominal declensions and thirteen verbal conjugations would
have daunted even the most zealous Western student, who, in con-
trast, had easily learned Latin according to the comfortable system
of ve declensions and four conjugations. The same demand, how-
ever, apparently arose within the Greek-speaking world. The work of
Nilos Diassorinos, Metropolite of Rhodes in the mid-fourteenth cen-
tury, demonstrates that the process of simplication had started inde-
pendently from contacts with the West. Diassorinos introduced the
distinction between parisyllabic and imparisyllabic nouns, later taken
up by Calecas, Chrysoloras, and all of the other Byzantine grammari-
ans.
144
142
Webb :qq, 88.
143
Quoted in Geanakoplos :q88, ..
144
The words iu and u are attested already in the twelfth
century. Frstel (:qq., .) quotes Etymologicum Magnum s.v. r, which o j
iu i, follows the parisyllabic declension (cf. also ss.vv. o and ).
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx ::q
After Roger Bacons eort, the rst conscious attempt to simplify
the Greek grammar was made by Manuel Calecas at the end of
the fourteenth century. Calecas, a Dominican and a supporter of the
Union, applied to the Greek nominal inection the ve-declension
system of Latin, a language that he knew well: the Greek declen-
sions were determined by the endings of the genitive and of the nom-
inative singular combined.
145
Calecas grammar was in question-and-
answer format and contained many paradigms and examples. Written
between :qo and :o, it is almost contemporary with Chrysoloras
Erotemata, but it is dicult to establish which of the two works inu-
enced the other. The ve-declension system according to the genitive
singular appears also in an anonymous grammar attributed to Manuel
Moschopoulos, the so-called Enchiridion Tubingense, but the lack of pre-
cise chronological elements prevents us from assessing the value of this
text in the history of humanist Greek grammar.
The many extant manuscripts and printed copies of Erotemata bear
witness to the extraordinary success of this grammar book. Unfortu-
nately, no manuscript provides any clue on the date or place of its
composition. A terminus ante quem comes from a subscriptio in the Vat-
ican MS. Palatinus gr. ::6, to our knowledge the oldest extant copy
of Erotemata. Guarino Guarini, who had bought the volume, noted the
place and date of his purchase: Constantinople, March :, :o6. There
is no convincing evidence that Chrysoloras wrote his Erotemata before
his arrival in Italy.
146
In any case, the demands and questions of his
Italian students certainly played an important role in the shaping of
the work.
147
145
Calecas rst declension included all the imparisyllabic nouns with the genitive
singular in - (our third declension), further divided according to the ending of the
nominative (-, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -,
-, -, -, -). The other four declensions included the parisyllabic nouns with the
genitive singular in -, -, -, and -, respectively. See Bernardinello :q::q.,
.:.
146
According to Pertusi (:q6., q; :q8o:q8:, :q8), Chrysoloras composed
his Erotemata while teaching Jacopo Angeli in Constantinople before :q6 or Roberto
Rossi in Venice between :qo and :q:. On the Vatican copy (which also contains
three of Aristophanes comedies), see Thomson :q6, :o n. q.
147
For example, Chrysoloras wrote, most probably at the request of Coluccio
Salutati, a short treatise on breathings (i o), printed after the text of
Erotemata in the Florentine edition of :q6. Perhaps Chrysoloras wrote it to complete
the meagre exposition of breathings in Erotemata. See Ullman :q, .q.; Weiss :q,
.; and Rollo .oo. Frstel (:qq., o) remarks that [r]ien ninterdit, du reste, de
penser que la redaction dune grammaire lmentaire a t elle-mme directement
:.o cn\r+rn +vo
The reduction of the fty-six nominal canons to ten and the clear
exposition of the matter were among the reasons for the success of
Chrysoloras Erotemata.
148
It is dicult to say whether the elemen-
tary handbooks used to teach Latin in medieval schools, Ianua and
Donatus Ars minor, or even their Greek translations, had exerted any
inuence on Chrysoloras exposition of Greek morphology. Schol-
ars have answered this question in dierent and often contradictory
ways.
149
Since we do not know exactly how, when, where, and from
whom Chrysoloras learned Latin, we cannot say whether he had
access to Ianua or to any other Latin elementary schoolbook. Nor is
there any evidence that Ianua or Donatus Ars minor ever circulated in
Constantinople. In any case, humanists were aware that Chrysoloras
work was dierent from a traditional Greek grammar book. In the
prologue to what is usually considered the rst printed edition of
Erotemata (Adam von Ambergau, Venice ::),
150
the anonymous edi-
tor remarked that Chrysoloras had composed that booklet (opusculum)
for the benet of the Latins rather than for the needs of the Greeks
themselves (magis ad Latinorum utilitatem quam ad ipsorum Graecorum neces-
sitatem).
151
An abridged edition and a Latin translation by Guarino
the so-called Erotemata Guarinimade Chrysoloras Erotemata accessi-
sollicite par les nombreuses questions dun humaniste de lentourage de Salutati,
que ce soit Florence ou Constantinople.
148
Robins (:qq, .), in fact, notes that Chrysoloras grammar embodies the
accepted tradition handed down from the Techne, with little or no theoretical dis-
cussion or explanation. This is not necessarily a defect, given the requirements of his
pupils in whose interest he had originally composed it.
149
Pertusi (:q6., q), following Sabbadini, armed that lipotesi [] pi sensata
che il Crisolora abbia appreso il latino col sussidio della Ianua e che si sia basato
su questa grammatica [] per dare una nuova sistemazione alle declinazioni [] Su
questo libro i Bizantini imparavano il latino come gli umanisti italiani imparavano
il greco [on its Greek translation]; (:q8o:q8:, :q8): Molto probabilmente alla
base della nuova sistemazione del Crisolora da porre la cosiddetta Ianua, riduzione
medievale dellArs minor di Donato, che ebbe anche lonore di essere tradotta in greco,
prima del :o, dal famoso monaco Massimo Planude, e su cui i Costantinopolitani
imparavano il latino. See also Pontani :qq6, :o. Contra Frstel (:qq., .f.): since, as
demonstrated by Schmitt (:q66), the Greek translation of Ianua belongs to the fteenth
century, [il] est [] formellement exclu quelle ait pu inuencer la grammaire de
Manuel Chrysoloras. Moreover: rien nest plus tranger la philologie byzantine
que le recours une autre langue pour mieux comprendre le grec. In any case,
the Latin environment, where Chrysoloras was living and operating, exercised a
signicant inuence on his scholarship: see Pontani :qqq, ..
150
The edition does not contain the place, the year, or the name of the printer. See
Pertusi :q6., . and n. :.
151
Quoted by Frstel :qq., .q.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :.:
ble to Latin-speaking students who wanted to learn Greek by them-
selves. Later manuscripts and printed editions of Erotemata show a ten-
dency to incorporate into the original text material of dierent origin,
both in the theoretical parts and in the paradigms.
152
Two more grammars contributed to establishing Greek studies in
the West some decades after Chrysoloras teaching in Florence: Theo-
dore Gazas Introduction to Grammar (ij j) and Con-
stantine Lascaris Summary of the Eight Parts of Speech ('j u ou
u). Like Chrysoloras, Gaza and Lascaris were Byzantine
emigrs teaching in Italy, but their works mirror the fundamental
changes that had occurred in Greek studies after Chrysoloras time.
In fty years, Greek studies had spread all over the Western world.
The council of Ferrara-Florence and the fall of Constantinople had
multiplied the number of available, qualied Greek teachers. How-
ever, as Frstel has pointed out, the paradoxical result of this expan-
sion of Hellenism was a regression in the inuence of the Byzan-
tines.
153
Over the course of the fteenth century, Italian humanists
had attained a knowledge of Greek that had made them independent
from Greek teachers. In a highly competitive job market, the ability
of the Byzantines to teach ancient Greek was being questioned, since
the Greek they spoke was corrupted and completely dierent from
the pure classical language. Moreover, Chrysoloras Erotemata had met
the immediate need for a handbook of Greek grammar, but had not
gone beyond a very elementary level. The new cultural environment
required grammars suitable for advanced students.
Thanks to his outstanding knowledge of Latinacquired in Fer-
rara, at the school of Vittorino da FeltreTheodore Gaza of Thessa-
lonica (:oo:) was entrusted by Pope Nicholas V with the transla-
tion of Greek philosophical texts into Latin. Like Planudes, Gaza also
translated Latin works into Greek: Ciceros De senectute and the part of
De republica known as the Somnium Scipionis.
154
These translations were
152
The abridged editions of Erotemata, with the Greek text and Guarinos Latin
translation on parallel columns, usually contain between thirty-two and forty folios,
whereas, in the Florentine edition of :q6, by Lorenzo de Alopa, the Greek text
alone occupies sixty-four folios. See Percival :q, .6; Pertusi :q6., . and :q8o
:q8:, :q8; and Frstel :qq., :6, :6. For a comparison between the editio maior of
Chrysoloras Erotemata (with the Greek text only, as in the editions of :q6 and :q8
:oo) and Guarinos shorter Greek-Latin edition, see Bernardinello :q, :.:..
153
:qq., .. See also Monfasani :qqo, ..
154
See Frstel :qq., 8:: Cette partie de son oeuvre rappelle les traductions de
:.. cn\r+rn +vo
probably meant as tools for the teaching of Greek, which Gaza suc-
cessfully undertook in Mantua, Ferrara, and Rome. The rst edition
of his ij was printed in Venice in :q by Aldus Manutius;
a partial Latin translation by Erasmus contributed to the circulation
and the success of this work, especially in Central Europe during the
sixteenth century. The structure, in four books with a rst introduc-
tory book, was probably modeled on Donatus Ars.
Constantine Lascaris of Constantinople (d. :o:) was both a teacher
and a copyist of manuscripts, thus covering with his activity both
stages of literary teaching in Byzantium: the theoretical study of gram-
mar and the grammatical analysis of texts. Lascaris wrote his Greek
grammar some time after :8 for his pupil Ippolita Sforza, the
daughter of Duke Francesco Sforza of Milan. As in Donatus Ars,
a rst book, a manual on the eight parts of speech, introduced a
more extensive treatment of Greek grammar, which also included
some notions on syntax. Published in Milan in :6 by Dionysius
Paravisinus, Lascaris grammar was the rst book printed entirely in
Greek. A Latin translation by Giovanni Crastone was printed along-
side the Greek text in the edition of :8o (Milan, by Bonus Accur-
sius).
155
The Greek and the Latin texts circulated together under the
title Compendium octo orationis partium. Lascaris used the enunciative style
for denitions and the erotematic form to introduce paradigms.
156
His methodology, based on progressive language learning,
157
was
considered so eective by Renaissance and post-Renaissance teachers
that, over the course of time, Lascaris grammar supplanted Chrysolo-
ras Erotemata as the favorite textbook for learning Greek.
The grammars by Chrysoloras, Gaza, and Lascaris show substan-
tial dierences. In general, Lascaris grammar is a development of
Maxime Planude et de Dmtrius Cydons: elle fait de Gaza un humaniste de la
renaissance des Palologues autant que de la renaissance italienne.
155
The editio princeps of Lascaris grammar, edited by Demetrios Damilas, has been
reprinted in :q66 (Amsterdam) and :q6 (Athens); Frstel (:qq.) has given a critical
edition based on MSS. gr. .qo and .q: of the Bibliothque Nationale in Paris.
In the later Aldine editions (Venice :q, :o., and ::.), a progressively larger
amount of material was added to the grammar. See Grafton-Jardine :q86, :o.;
and Martnez Manzano :qq, :8.. (an updated synthesis in :qq8, :.).
156
Questions are introduced with the formulas codied in the Byzantine erotematic
tradition. For example: ` ii i r ri; [] i u;
oj j i 00t t, ... (quoted by Frstel :qq., q.).
157
Frstel (:qq., q) points out that the material seems to be ordered according to
mere association rather than with a precise logical plan.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :.
Chrysoloras Erotemata, whereas Gazas work is more conventional.
Their common features, however, qualify them as products of the
Byzantine tradition rather than as original works.
158
First of all, since
they were meant as handbooks for beginners, their content, structure,
terminology, and way of presenting the material closely recall the
most famous Greek elementary grammar, Dionysius Thraxs r.
As in Dionysius, the description and the classication of the letters
of the alphabet introduce the treatment of the eight parts of speech.
Because of their complexity and importance, nouns and verbs receive
more attention than the other morphological elements. For each part
of speech, the traditional sequence of denition-properties-paradigms
is maintained. Secondly, all three works follow the rigid principle of
analogy typical of Byzantine grammar, which leads to the creation of
ctitious forms (such as the perfect r, or the plural of proper
names) for the sake of completeness. Simplication is programmati-
cally pursued and irregular forms are often reduced to regularity.
159
At the same time, irregularity, or anomaly, is also given an exten-
sive treatment. Thirdly, the language taught in these grammars is the
usual mixture of fth-century Attic Greek, archaic Ionic dialect, and
Hellenistic-Byzantine j, without any focus on the history or the
evolution of the language.
There are, however, some deviations from traditional Byzantine
grammar, since each grammarian felt free to modify the traditional
pedagogical scheme according to the demands of his Western audi-
ence. The three works are often indicated as Erotemata in catalogues,
but the question-and-answer format, so popular in Byzantine school-
books and still maintained by Chrysoloras, is considerably reduced
in Lascaris grammar and absent in Gazas treatment.
160
Chrysoloras
reserves very little room for denitions and descriptive parts; Gaza,
similarly, gives very schematic denitions, but his lists of categories
158
See Frstels detailed comparative analysis of the three grammars (:qq., :oq.).
159
For example, Lascaris makes the -verbs equivalent to contracted verbs (so
i0 becomes 0r or 0u, etc.). Gaza reduces the verbal conjugations from
thirteen to ve (four of verbs and one including all the verbs). As for the third
person plural of the perfect middle-passive, Gaza considers as regular the rare Ionic
form u instead of the more common r ii. See Frstel :qq., ::.f.,
::6.
160
In general, it is worth noticing that in Chrysoloras Erotemata questions are
much less numerous than in the traditional Byzantine ertmata of the fourteenth
century. Their number, however, tends to increase in the later, enlarged editions of
the grammar book. See Frstel :qq., :of.
:. cn\r+rn +vo
and paradigms are as exhaustive and complete as those of Lascaris. As
for the parts of speech, the traditional order established by Aristarchus
and Dionysius Thrax (noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, prepo-
sition, adverb, and conjunction) is often altered: Chrysoloras and
Gaza deal with the article before the noun, and both Chrysoloras
and Lascaris include participles in the category of verbs. Moreover,
Chrysoloras deals with adverbs and conjunctions very concisely; in-
stead, he gives a list of irregular verbs, a chapter on comparative
adjectives, and one on patronymics. In Lascaris grammar, several
chapters follow the part on conjunctions: on comparative adjectives,
on the seven kinds of derivative nouns, on the twenty-four classes or
species (i) of nouns,
161
on punctuation, and on the syntax and the
meaning of prepositions.
162
. Other Greek Grammars and Course Books
In addition to the works by Chrysoloras, Gaza, and Lascaris, three
more Greek grammars were available to students of Greek during
the Renaissance: the works by Manuel Moschopoulos (above, ::),
Manuel Calecas (::q), and Demetrius Chalcondyles. A Byzantine re-
fugee from Athens, Chalcondyles (:.:::) taught in Perugia, Pa-
dua, Florence, and Milan and was very active in publishing Greek
literary texts. The rst edition of his 'j o u ou
0 u was printed in Milan around :q.
163
In any case,
these works did not achieve the success of Chrysoloras and Lascaris
grammars.
164
Nor should we neglect to consider the large number of
anonymous grammatical ertmata handed down in manuscripts and
still awaiting a systematic study.
165
161
Lascaris follows the treatment of nominal i in Dionysius r (:., pp. .
Lallot), but lists the i in a slightly dierent order; see Martnez Manzano :qq, .o:.
162
Frstel (:qq., :oqf.) also describes the dierences in the treatment of verbal
properties (). Lascaris lists ve voices: active, passive, neuter, middle or
common, and deponent. Gaza distinguishes between a deponent 0,
such as o, and an 00, represented by the verb o.
163
See Manoussos Manoussakas in Graecogermania :q8q, of.; Wilson :qq., qq8;
and Stakos :qq8 [:q8q], ....
164
According to Stakos (:qq8 [:q8q], ..6), Chalcondyles grammar was prob-
ably a commercial failure, like his edition of Isocrates speeches (Milan :8).
165
For example, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. gr. 88 (described in
Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 8,:, rec. Petrus Schreiner, in Bibliotheca Vaticana
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :.
Moreover, it should be noted that neither comprehensive manuals
nor specic grammar books for an intermediate or an advanced level
of Greek were ever produced in the Renaissance. Except for Gazas
work, none of the Greek grammars written in the Renaissance resem-
bles, for example, Guarinos Regulae grammaticales or Priscians Institu-
tiones for Latin.
166
Over the course of time, however, changes became
necessary for the three most important Byzantine-humanist gram-
mars, in order for them to meet the demands of a wider and more
procient audience. Initially, these texts were entirely in Greek and
often heavily abbreviated. They did not contain any treatment of syn-
tax or any explanation of the most important linguistic phenomena.
167
Chrysoloras himself, and especially Gaza and Lascaris, tried to make
up for the insucient and often vague information provided by their
grammars with short essays, usually incorporated into the editions by
printers. Latin translation, explanatory notes, and every kind of sup-
plementary material (from the short treatises on specic grammatical
matters to elementary readings) were often added to grammar books,
which in this way became comprehensive and accessible textbooks for
Greek courses.
168
The rst Greek grammar written by a Western scholar was the
Institutiones Grammaticae by the Franciscan Urbano Bolzanio of Bel-
luno, published in Venice by Aldus Manutius in :q. A pupil of Las-
caris, Bolzanio was heavily inuenced by the Greek grammar of his
teacher.
169
An anonymous Greek grammar, handed down in Wolfen-
bttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, MS. : .: Aug. and attributed
:q88, o) oers an interesting collection of texts for a complete Greek course.
It contains an anonymous short treatise (perhaps a fragment) on the eight parts of
speech; several works on orthography, dialects, and metrics; epimerisms; a lexicon
and some glosses from other lexica; and the treatises on syntax by John Glykys,
Gregory of Corinth, and Maximus Planudes, as well as Gregory of Nazianzus Disticha
gnomologica.
166
See Percival .oo., :oo.
167
The fourth book of Gazas grammar contained a treatment of syntax based on
Apollonius Dyscolus, Michel Syncellus, and Maximus Planudes (see Donnet :qq).
In turn, Constantine Lascaris, in the second book of his grammar (i o)
tried to apply to Greek verbs the Latin distinction into genera and ordines (see above,
n. :8). However, Jean Louis Vives, in his :. Epistola II de ratione studii puerilis (in
Opera omnia, Valentiae Edetanorum :8.:qo, pp. .8.q), criticized Gazas syntax
for its diculty and Lascaris treatment as prolix and unsuitable for students. See De
Torraca .oo6, . n. 6. and .6 n. o.
168
See Grafton-Jardine :q86, :o.
169
On Bolzanios grammar, see Rollos extensive .oo: study.
:.6 cn\r+rn +vo
with some reservations to the humanist scholar Francesco Filelfo, rep-
resents a curious example of Greek ertmata in Latin. Rather than a
systematic manual on Greek grammar, Filelfos book resembles a col-
lection of notes taken by a student and partially revised by the mas-
ter.
170
The author took up the stereotypical material of the erotematic
tradition and inserted the results of his own readings and specula-
tions. He limited the question-and-answer format to denitions and
expounded paradigms and rules concerning inection systematically.
In general, however, he followed Chrysoloras description of nominal
and verbal inections, with reference to Lascaris grammar as well. All
denitions are in Greek and are followed by a word-for-word Latin
translation introduced by the formula id est. However, Filelfo seems to
be interested more in Latin style than in Greek grammar: he consid-
ers Greek as a necessary tool for restoring the original purity of the
Latin language, which had been corrupted by the arbitrary transfor-
mations and deformations of the Middle Ages.
Coming to terms with the Latin grammatical tradition and lan-
guage seems to have been a fundamental concern of Western scholars
who wrote grammars for the study of Greek. Paul Botley has demon-
strated that the Greek schoolbooks, lexica, and collections or read-
ings available during the Renaissance were usually a collaboration
between teachers and printers and represented, therefore, a compro-
mise between pedagogical principles and the demands of customers.
171
The famous scholar, teacher, and printer Aldus Manutius (ca. :o
::), for example, adopted from Quintilian and from his own teacher
Battista Guarini, the son of Guarino, the idea of a close link between
Latin and Greek.
172
Aldus activity in the promotion of Greek studies
170
Francesco Filelfo (:q8:8:) learned Greek in Constantinople from John Chry-
soloras between :.o and :. and married a member of the Chrysoloras family.
He taught in Bologna and Milan from :q to :8:. On his life and scholarship, see
Wilson :qq., 8; on his Greek grammar, see the extensive study by Cortesi (:q86,
:6f.).
171
Botley (.oo.) has analyzed the production of Greek books by some printers in
Milan, Venice, and Paris, concluding (.:8f.): [It] is clear that only a very small part
of the available Greek corpus was regularly used to teach Greek in the West before ::6
[] Most widely used in the classrooms were versied sententiae; the moral poems
attributed to Pythagoras and Phocylides, and collections of gnomic verses.
172
In the dedication of his edition of Theocritus to Battista Guarini, Aldus refers
to his study of Greek in Ferrara. He was actually in that city during the late :os,
perhaps until :8. Aldus taught both in Ferrara and at Carpi, where he tutored the
sons of Prince Alberto Pio, Alberto and Lionello Pio. Thanks to the princes of Carpi,
Aldus became acquainted with their uncle, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and with
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :.
in Latin-speaking countries was manifold. Besides founding his New
Academy (i) with a group of scholars interested in Greek
studies,
173
Aldus specialized in the printing of Greek texts, both literary
works and schoolbooks.
174
In addition to the well-known Aldine edi-
tions of Greek texts, he published a large number of grammar books,
Greek-Latin lexica, and dictionaries. One of his most signicant con-
tributions to the teaching of Greek was the compilation of a list of
simple Greek texts to be read after the study of elementary grammar.
The list included some prayers (the Lords Prayer, Hail Mary, Hail
Holy Queen, and the Apostles Creed), the beginning of the Gospel
of John, Pseudo-Pythagoras Carmina aurea, and Pseudo-Phocylides
Sententiae.
175
These elementary readings, all with a Latin translation,
were usually appended to every Greek grammar printed by Aldus.
The texts included in Aldus Greek syllabus resemble the elementary
readings of Latin, which consisted of the same prayers, the Psalter
(Salterio) or the Book of Hours (Libro dore), and Catos Disticha.
176
Aldus gave an interesting sample of comparative linguistics in an
essay on Latin and Greek diphthongs appended to his earliest edition
of Constantine Lascaris Greek grammar (dated February .8, :q,
with the Greek text faithfully translated into Latin):
177
he oered a list
of parallelisms between Greek and Latin proper names taken from
Ovids Metamorphoses, underlining the similarities and the dierences
between the two languages.
Picos friends and fellow scholars, Politian and Ermolao Barbaro the Younger. See
Lowry :qq, :f.; and Davies :qqq
2
, 6. Aldus assumption of a close relationship
between Greek and Latin language and literature exerted a deep inuence on his
printing activity; see Hexter :qq8.
173
See Saladin .oo
2
, q6:oo; and Wilson :qq., :.q., and :qq.a, f., on the
inaugural lecture of Aldus New Academy by Scipio Carteromachus (Forteguerri).
174
On Aldus Greek press, see in particular the studies by Proctor :qoo; Barker
:qq.
2
; and Davies :qqq
2
, :o:.
175
See Davies :qqq
2
, :f.; Plebani :qq, q n. ::q; and Botley .oo., .::.
176
On the Psalter and the Book of Hours, see above, 6; on Catos Distichs, see
above, .. Aldus did not include Planudes translation of Disticha Catonis (below,
...) in the Greek elementary readings. Instead, the fact that he published the
Greek Disticha together with Theocritus Idylls and Hesiods Theogony (Venice :q)
demonstrates that he considered them as suitable for a more advanced stage of the
study of Greek. Aldus also published Greek translations of the Psalter and the Book of
Hours in :q8 and :o, respectively: this is perhaps another sign of his intention to
establish a Greek curriculum parallel to the Latin one. See Plebani :qq, 8..
177
Aldus edition is basically a reprint of the edition of Bonus Accursius (Milan
:8o), with the addition of corrections by Lascaris and Aldus himself. See Davies
:qqq
2
, :f.
:.8 cn\r+rn +vo
In his Musarum panagyris (sic), Aldus expressed his idea of a com-
bined Greek-Latin curriculum, which he made more explicit in his
Latin grammar. In :q, he published his Institutionum grammaticarum
libri quattuor, a Latin grammar in question-and-answer format mod-
eled on Donatus Ars and on Ianua, and inuenced by the more
advanced Rudimenta by Perotti and Doctrinale by Alexander of Ville-
dieu.
178
In the edition of :o8, Manutius included as an appendix a
section on Greek letters, accents, and abbreviations, followed by the
usual Greek elementary readings. The same texts were also printed
with Manutius Greek grammar. It was published by Marcus Musurus
after his death, in ::, and fully respected the Byzantine-humanist
tradition. Dedicated to Jean Grolier of Lyon, a minister of the King of
France, this very rare book entirely in Greek apparently did not have
a signicant impact on Greek studies.
179
178
Aldus Institutiones were published on March q, :q, by Andrea Torresano, who
became one of Aldus partners in the establishment of his press. The incipit (In nomine
Domini nostri Iesu crucixi. Amen), the prayers, the layout, and the use of black and red
letters made the book look like a liturgical text. Three editions followedin :o:,
:o8, and ::8each with fundamental changes in style, content, and layout. See
Lowry :qq, 6:; Plebani :qq, q.; Dionisotti C. :qq, qq6; and Jensen :qq8. Like
Ianua, Aldus grammar begins with a short poem in two elegiac distichs, in which
the book praises itself for making the path to the knowledge of Latin short, easy, and
pleasant:
Non mihi per scopulos aut devia parvus Iulus
ducitur, aonias ebibiturus aquas.
Et via per placidos colles, per orea rura
hac iter ad Musas perbreve carpe, puer.
In the introduction to the edition of :o:, Aldus expressed his dissatisfaction with
existing grammarsin particular with Alexander of Villedieus Doctrinalewhich he
considered appalling and daunting for students. As an alternative, he proposed
a return to the ancient grammatical tradition and texts. The rst question (Quid est
Grammatice? Ars et professio quae usu, ratione atque auctoritate constat) introduces a series
of other questions, marked with a black initial on the left margin. Aldus often
adopts the typical formulas of grammatical catechisms (e.g., Da declinationem) as well.
From the Florentine edition of ::q onward, Aldus Institutiones were printed together
with Erasmus De octo partibus orationis constructione libellus, as the elementary and the
intermediate level of a Latin course, respectively. In some cases (e.g., the edition
printed at Lyon by Gryphius in :), Aldus Institutiones were replaced with Donatus
Ars minor or with Ianua. See Grendler :q8, :, .f.
179
On Aldus Greek grammar (written and corrected many times by Aldus him-
self in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. P sup.), see Rollo .oo:, :8 n. .o.
Aldus conceived another tool for students of Greek: with his Thesaurus cornucopiae et
horti Adonidis, a compilation from thirty-four Greek and Byzantine grammarians, he
intended to complement the Greek grammars available on the book market (the :q6
edition is partly reproduced by Lemke [:qq]). However, only readers at ease with
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :.q
A grammar entitled Institutiones grammaticae Graecae, written by Philip
Melanchthon (:q:6o) and published in Tbingen in ::8, became
extremely important for the history of Greek studies in Germany
and in Central Europe; it was used in schools well into the eigh-
teenth century. Melanchthons grammar is closely modeled on the
works by Chrysoloras, Lascaris, and especially Gaza, but with a sig-
nicant extension of the theoretical parts and an increase in the num-
ber of paradigms. Much more important is the constant comparison
between Greek and Latin: Melanchthon considered the rules of Latin
morphology and syntax, more familiar to Western students, as useful
for understanding and memorizing those of Greek. The practical
section of Melanchthons Greek course, in which the notions exposed
in the rst part were applied to a literary text, reinforced this bilingual
approach: he provided lines .:...o of the second book of the Iliad
with a Latin translation and a grammatical commentary in catechistic
format.
180
Many other Greek grammars followed: for example, the Institutiones
in linguam Graecam by a humanist and university professor from Bra-
bant, Clenardus (Nicolaas Cleynaerts, :q/:.), rst published in
Louvain in :o and printed more than three hundred times;
181
and
De omnibus Graecae linguae grammaticae partibus by Franciscus Vergara,
published in Alcal in :.
Other important tools for the study of Greek were the lexica. The
so-called Philoxenus, probably of the end of the sixth century, survived
in a few libraries of South Italy and had no circulation outside of
this area. The rst humanists were forced to do without lexica and
dictionaries and to rely on their personal word lists. In :o, Guarino
the complex technical vocabulary of Greek grammar could use this book, which is
entirely in Greek; see Wilson :qq., :6.
180
See Frstel :qq., :8q:q.
181
According to Stevens (:qo, .6), Clenardus grammar was successful thanks
to its clarity, conciseness, and the convenient arrangement of materials. Clenardus
also supplemented the texts he read in class with interlinear translations into Latin,
word lists, and other tools to make learning easier. His Meditationes Graecanicae in
artem grammaticam, often published together with the grammar book, consisted in a
word-by-word translation and parsing of a letter of Basil the Great. In this way,
Clenardus intended to create a Christian basis for Greek teaching (Grafton-Jardine
:q86, ::.). Clenardus grammar, which taught Greek in Latin, became the standard
classroom text in sixteenth-century Venetian and Jesuit schools: see Grendler :q8q,
.6f. Clenardus also wrote a Hebrew grammar (Louvain :.q) and a Latin grammar
(Braga :8). On Clenardus Latin grammar and pedagogy, see Swiggers .oo:.
:o cn\r+rn +vo
composed a Greek-Latin lexicon, now lost, and a Dictionarium Graecum,
doubtfully identied by Pertusi with the lexicon contained in Vienna,
sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS. philol. gr. :q.
182
Greek-Latin
lexica were also composed by Giovanni Crastone (Vocabulista), Varinus
Favorinus Camers, and Giovanni Tortelli.
183
8. Teaching Greek in Humanist Schools
Poggio Bracciolinis rediscovery of the complete text of Quintilians
Institutio oratoria (::6) restored to European culture the most complete
pedagogical treatise of antiquity. The relevant place that Quintilian
assigned to Greek in the education of the future orator justied,
and even encouraged, the inclusion of Greek in the humanist school
curriculum. In their letters, treatises, and speeches, humanist scholars
often emphasized the cultural link between Greek and Latin, which
oered the ideological framework for a Greco-Latin education: no
good knowledge of Latin is possible without Greek, and vice versa.
184
The most important document on theory and practice of the study
of Greek in the Renaissance is the treatise De ordine docendi et studendi,
written in Verona in :q by Battista Guarini, the son of Guarino.
182
Pertusi :q8o:q8:, :q8 n. q. See also Sabbadini :q.., ; and Thiermann :qq6,
66.f.
183
The lemmata contained in most of these lexica were derived from Byzantine
lexica and explained with no reference to Greek authors. On Crastones lexicon,
printed in :8and therefore the rst printed Greek-Latin dictionarysee Stevens
:qo, ..; Thiermann :qq6, 66.; Botley .oo., .o; and Sandy .oo, :88. Tortellis
lexicon is incomplete; within an approximate alphabetical order similar to some
medieval lexica, the words are grouped together according to their roots, suxes,
and meanings; see Cortesi :qq, . On medieval lexica, see Weijers :q8q, :qf.
184
Among the many examples (above, n. ), see Gregorius Tiphernas in his oration
on literary studies (Mllner :8qq, :8..): Nam, ut nec ego eos probo, qui Latina omnia a
Graecis deducunt, sic eos vitupero, qui nihil volunt ab illis derivatum. [] Sed quidam, cum Graeca
ignorent, [] dolent, insaniunt et, ne quid sibi deesse videatur, illa tamquam non necessaria damnant
et insectantur; Ludovico Carbone in his oration for Guarinos death (December , :6o;
Mllner :8qq, q.): Guarino would never have reached his outstanding knowledge of
Latin (plenissimam latinae linguae cognitionem) nisi etiam Graecos fontes hauriret, a quibus omnia
nostra uxerunt; Francesco Barbaro in his letter to Jacopo Foscari (Mllner :8qq, .o8):
Qui sine Graecorum admixtione se plane in Latinis eruditum putet, is magno se in errore versari []
Discat exemplo maiorum, quorum nullum videmus aliquod dignum memoria monumentum reliquisse,
qui non aeque Graeca tenuerit atque Latina; etc. See also Pier Paolo Vergerio, De ingenuis
moribus et liberalibus studiis adulescentiae q (Kallendorf .oo., 6; Woodward :q6
5
,
:o6); and Enea Silvio Piccolomini, De liberorum educatione . and 6: (Kallendorf .oo.,
:8.:8 and .o8.oq).
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx ::
After emphasizing the importance of a thorough study of Latin gram-
mar and of regular written and oral exercises, Battista proclaims the
impossibility of a complete mastery of Latin without a knowledge
of Greek (absque litterarum graecarum scientia: :, :6). A great part of
the Latin vocabulary, in fact, derives from Greek, and Latin litera-
ture has a Greek origin (:). Battista also includes some practical rules
for teaching Greek. Despite his unconditional admiration for antiq-
uity, Battista is forced to admit that Quintilians advice that children
be taught Greek before Latin is inapplicable to modern times, when
Latin itself is no longer a colloquial language (:8):
Quo pacto eam linguam discere possint, pro ingenioli nostri iudicio commostrabimus.
Nec sane me fugit Quintilianum ut ab illis sumatur exordium praecipere, quod mihi
ea ratione dicilius videtur: quia, cum ea nobis lingua naturalis non sit, nisi prius
aliquod loquendi principium ex nostra habuerint, in ea perdiscenda pueri nescio quo
modo deferentur. Atque ita mihi persuadeo Quintilianum sic praecepisse, quia suis
temporibus latinam linguam omnes haberent, nec in ea tanta elaboratione opus esse.
[I shall now indicate, as far as the judgement of my poor wit allows,
how students may learn Greek. To be sure, it does not escape me that
Quintilian instructs us to begin with the Greek authors. This seems too
dicult to me for the following reason: Greek is not a natural language
for us, so unless some beginning is rst made in Latin, I do not know
how children may be brought to learn Greek. So I persuade myself that
Quintilian gave this advice because in his time everyone knew Latin,
and there was no need to take great pains with it.]
185
Students must acquire Greek after the basics in Latin (postea quam
nostrarum fundamenta contingerant). Whereas the Greeks used to teach
their language in a confused and disorderly way (confuse et inordi-
nate), Battista recommends the use of a textbook, in particular the
abridged version of Chrysoloras Erotemata by his father Guarino. Stu-
dents should learn the general rules of inection
186
and memorize the
irregular verbs like the back of their hands (tamquam ungues),
187
stimu-
185
For this passage and the other quotations from Guarinis work, I follow the text
and the translation by Kallendorf .oo., .8o.8:.
186
Battista seems to encourage an active approach to the study of language, when
he suggests that students derive the tenses of the verbs from a given general princi-
ple (verborum tempora generali quadam praeceptione derivare), as opposed to the widespread
habit of learning forms by rote. However, the old custom persisted, as demonstrated
by a letter of the Venetian Agostino Valiero (:::6o6). Valiero maintains that stu-
dents should devote their time to learning by heart the basic rules (praecepta) of the
Greek and Latin languages and should rely on the observations of scholars rather
than try to observe phenomena by themselves (Mllner :8qq, .8).
187
Kallendorf .oo., .8..8. Perhaps Battista had in mind a mnemonic device
:. cn\r+rn +vo
lated by frequent and careful questioning from their teachers (frequenti
et diligenti praeceptoris interrogatione). When pupils master grammar on
a decent level, they can read the Greek authors (:q): rst, the eas-
ier prose writers, in order for them to strengthen their command of
grammar; then Homer, who is the prince of poets (poetarum principem),
not dicult to learn (ad discendum non dicilis), and a source to all Latin
writers, especially Virgil; and nally, the other authors of epic, tragedy,
and comedy.
Battista recommends that pupils also improve their Greek vocabu-
lary (.o). Writing is considered more eective than memory for learn-
ing Greek because of its complex orthography. For this reason, Bat-
tista strongly encourages students of Greek to translate from and into
Latin:
Ubi vero aliquantum progressi fuerint, tunc vel ex Graeco in Latinum vel ex Latino
in Graecum vertere incipient; quo genere exercitationis proprietatem splendoremque
verborum et promptitudinem linguae facillime comparabunt; multa enim quae legen-
tem forte fallerent, transferentem nullo modo fugere possunt.
[Indeed, when they have made some progress, they must then begin to
translate either from Greek into Latin or from Latin into Greek. This
kind of exercise readily yields a vocabulary marked by propriety and
distinction as well as facility and readiness of tongue. For many things
which may be invisible to a reader are impossible for a translator to
overlook.]
188
When learning Greek by themselves, students can use bilingual texts,
in particular sacred books, with a faithful Latin translation, a method
that, as Battista says, proved eective for certain men (quosdam: a
possible reference to Ambrogio Traversari, who learned Greek with
the help of bilingual copies of the Psalms and the New Testament).
189
common in schools, the mnemotechnical hands: see Carruthers :qqo, :q. An
example is oered by the elementary Latin grammar in the fteenth-century MS.
C 68 of Uppsala (see above, q n. :8). For declensions, the anonymous decorator
has represented the endings of the singular on the palm and those of the plural on
the upper part of the bent ngers of a left hand: the thumb is for the nominative,
the forenger for the genitive, etc. More complex is the representation of verbal
conjugations. Pupils probably used to write forms of inection on their left hand.
See Stolt :qq, ::q, with plates .; Asztalos :q8q, :. .o; and Gehl :qq, 8q.
The symbolic-topological method of locating concepts or images on a well-known
sequence of real or ctitious places (loca) was recommended by Cicero, De oratore ..
868, etc., and also in the Rhetorica ad Herennium attributed to Cicero, . :. o. On
this subject, Bede wrote a treatise, De loquela digitorum (PL qo, 68o.).
188
Kallendorf .oo., .8.8.
189
In a letter to Francesco Coppola (quoted by Sabbadini :q.., :8.o; see also
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :
It is easy, in fact, to pick up Greek vocabulary through a comparison
with Latin (.). Reading each sentence aloud improves blood circula-
tion, holds the readers attention, and makes it easier to understand
and retain the text (). Here Battista takes the advice that his
father Guarino had given to the Marquis of Ferrara, Leonello dEste,
in one of his letters. In turn, Guarino had attributed it to his teacher,
Manuel Chrysoloras.
190
Battistas work, both theoretical and practical, actually describes
the methods used in his fathers school in Ferrara. On the other hand,
there is no specic evidence of the way Greek was actually taught in
most humanist schools.
The method of the rst Greek teachers is indirectly documented
by their students notes. Of course, students had to learn the Greek
alphabet rst. The writing of Chrysoloras, their teacher, was in fact
the model for the Greek writing of Leonardo Bruni, Palla Strozzi,
Guarino Guarini, and others. Then came the study of grammar. MS.
gr. . of the Bibliothque Nationale in Paris allows us to glimpse
the methodology followed in classes. Fols. 8 contain a fragment of
Calecas Greek grammar,
191
introduced by a summary of the whole
work in Latin. This Latin summary, perhaps written by Coluccio
Salutati,
192
seems to correspond to the rst, introductory stage of the
study of Greek: only after some time, when the student was able
to read and understand Greek, would he approach the Greek text
of the grammar book. The fact that, in the summary, Greek words
are transliterated completely or written with alternating Latin and
Stinger :q, :q.), Traversari described the stages of his study of Greek. He began
with a Psalter with the Latin translation alongside the Greek text: he compared each
Greek word with its Latin equivalent and memorized it (Id igitur cum Latino conferre
incepi atque notare singula tum verba, tum nomina et reliquas orationis partes, quidque singula
signicarent mandare memoriae ac vim verborum omnium tenere quantum fas erat). He did the
same with the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Acts of the Apostles. Finally, he
was able to approach the much more complex secular texts. Traversari used the same
method in his teaching of Greek: see Stinger :q, .o.
190
Mllner :8qq, ..f. Battista, however, does not mention the codicillum, which his
father recommended as a means of improving vocabulary (below, :o).
191
The manuscript, copied in the fteenth or sixteenth century, comes from the
library of Cardinal Mazarin. It also contains some dogmatic works, a selection
from Hesiod and Xenophon, the Pseudo-Homeric Batracomyomachia, some essays on
grammarfor example, Guarinos De diphthongisand a collection of letters. See
Bernardinello :q::q., .o n. .
192
A signature (Colucius) seems to conrm this hypothesis: see Bernardinello :q:
:q., .:o.
: cn\r+rn +vo
Greek letters and sometimes entirely in Greek, shows a progressive
acquisition of the Greek alphabet that, therefore, followed a rst viva
voce approach to the pronunciation and the rudiments of lexicon.
193
Grafton and Jardine have called our attention to a commentary on
Chrysoloras Erotemata by Ponticus Virunius. Virunius Erotemata Guari-
ni cum multis additamentis et cum commentariis latinis, published in Ferrara
in :oq, show what seems to have been the actual practice in humanist
classrooms: the text often contains the exhortations that a teacher
would address to his students.
194
Virunius read the grammar book in
class, gave the Latin translation of each sentence, and commented on
it with remarks on pronunciation and grammar. Frequent repetition
and the use of images and metaphors made learning easier. In some
casesfor example, when dealing with the Greek articleVirunius
felt free to refer to the Italian vernacular instead of Latin, which lacks
a denite article.
195
Virunius commentary shows that humanist Greek
grammar was based on a process of dilution of Byzantine grammar,
which made the teaching of Greek in the West more compact and
less rigorous,
196
but suitable for the demands of a Western audience.
After the study of grammar from a manual, students had to prac-
tice the notions they had acquired. Under the guidance of their
teacher, they read Greek texts and translated them into Latin. From
193
Here are some examples quoted by Bernardinello (:q::q., .oq, nos. :, ., and
) from fol.
v
: (for 0r) dimosteneos and dimostenus, dimosthen and dimostenei;
j / tribunal; m (sic) / coniunctae; ametabola / immutabilia, dilonoti / videlicet,
timi / honor. Students were also slowly introduced to the use of abbreviations, very
common in Greek texts. For example (ibid.): oi (abbr.) / metoligon id est post
paululum.
194
Grafton and Jardine (:q86, :o.) quote Virunius commentary on the rst
sentence of Erotemata (i 0 o i r o; i u):
(on 0) Esto bono animo, et noli nunc quaerere quomodo declinatur, quoniam postea scies
per te ipsum [Be of good cheer and do not ask me right now how this is declined;
you will know how to do it yourself later on]; (on i u) est responsio discipuli, qui non
nugatur in schola, quando praeceptor legit, sed notat, scribit diligenter omnia, et ideo doctus doctissime
respondit [This is the answer of the student who does not waste time in school when
his teacher is lecturing, but takes notes, writes everything down very carefully, and
therefore, being well taught, answers questions very well] (quotations and translations
in Grafton-Jardine :q86, :o).
195
For example: o nihil facit, nam graeci ponunt articulos propter has causas: sicuti dicimus
in genitivo poetae del, dativo poetae al, graeci ponunt illos articulos, qui el, del, al signicant, et
aliquando partim signicat [o has no meaning. The Greeks use articles for this reason:
just as we say in the genitive poetae del, in the dative poetae al, the Greeks use the articles
that mean el, dal, al. It also sometimes means some] (quotation and translation in
Grafton-Jardine :q86, :o).
196
Grafton-Jardine :q86, ::o.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :
the letters and notes of some German young men who went to Italy
at the end of the fteenth century to study Greek, it appears that the
teaching of Greek, after the rst elements of grammar and syntax, fol-
lowed several stages: at rst, students worked on the Greek text with
the help of a translation, preferably interlinear, and if possible with a
dictionary. A further step was to undertake a translation of the text on
ones own. Finally, the student would be able to compose Greek texts.
Copying Greek works was also a useful way of acquiring familiarity
with the language.
197
The syllabus of the Hellenistic i, taken up by the Byzan-
tines, included Homer, Hesiod, some lyric and epigrammatic poets
(especially Pindar and Theocritus), the tragic poets, and Aristophanes
for poetry; the fables of Aesop, the historians (Herodotus, Thucy-
dides, Xenophon), and the orators (especially Demosthenes) for prose.
According to Dionysius Thraxs r (:, p. . Lallot), the reading of
literary texts took place in six stages: the reading itself (0o),
the explanation of the text and of its tropoi (rj), the interpreta-
tion of rare and obscure words (u 0), the identica-
tion of the etymology of the words (ri I), the estab-
lishing of analogies (0i r), and the critical judgment
(i).
198
However, because of the dierent linguistic abilities of non-
native speakers of Greek, Byzantine scholars who taught Greek in
Italy had to introduce signicant changes in the selection of elemen-
tary texts. Manuscripts and printed editions show that the rst Greek
readings in humanist schools were the New Testament, Aesops fables,
passages from Plutarchs Moralia, the dialogues of Lucian, and the
speeches of Demosthenes and Isocrates. As for poetry, students read
Homer, Hesiod, or Theognis, some tragedies, Aristophanes, Theocri-
tus or Pindar, and often epigrams from the Planudean Anthology as
well. The availability of texts must have been a relevant factor in the
teachers choices. Printers tried to meet the demands of teachers and
students with small and cheap editions of Greek literary works, often
complemented with a Latin translation, and with anthologies of easy
readings.
199
197
See Mondrain :qq.. On translations of Greek texts produced in humanist
schools, see Cortesi :qq, ::. Like their Latin colleagues, Byzantine teachers had
their students exercise by means of the traditional progymnasmata, which included
ctitious speeches and letters; see Hunger :q8q, 8.
198
See Lallots commentary, on pages 8. of his edition.
199
See Grafton-Jardine :q86, ::o. On Lucian in Renaissance classrooms, see Marsh
:6 cn\r+rn +vo
First, the teacher expounded the life of the author and summa-
rized the content of the literary work. Then he read the text in short
sections and translated each of them word-for-word. He also gave an
interpretation of the text, underlined the historical and mythologi-
cal data it conveyed, and focused on its lexicon, style, and rhetorical
gures.
200
The parsing of each word of the text, however, absorbed
most of the teachers energies: generally, Greek teachers applied the
familiar method of epimerisms and schedography. For example, the
marginal and interlinear glosses on ve of Lucians dialogues in Bib-
lioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Urbinas gr. :.:, copied in Florence
before :o, are notes taken from Chrysoloras lectures. These notes
mainly concern elementary morphology, in particular the distinction
and the denition of the eight parts of speech. As in Chrysoloras
Erotemata, syntax receives very little attention.
201
MS. Paris. Bibl. Nat.
gr. oq6 contains Politians own notes for his lectures on the Iliad and
the Odyssey, held at the Florentine Studium from :8 to :qo. Politian
commented extensively on the grammar of the two poems, using an
:qq8, :; and Deligiannis .oo6, :6:. The use of Lucian for beginners in Greek
and before all other authors was recommended by Erasmus in his De ratione studii;
see Stevens :qo, .. Chrysoloras taught and translated in his school mainly prose
texts of pagan authors; according to Hankins (.oo., :8:8:), Chrysoloras choice
was dictated by obvious pedagogical reasons (prose is easier to read than poetry)
and especially by the fact that, within a context dominated by religious controversies,
analyzing ancient Greek secular works was less dangerous than reading religious
works.
200
Some letters by Guarino Guarini and some manuscripts used in his cultural
environment oer clear examples of Guarinos method of reading Greek. First, he
read the text: for example, part of Sophocles Ajax ., o o i, which
sounded like charis charin ticti in the Byzantine pronunciation. Secondly, he translated
it into Latin: gratia gratiam parit. Then he commented on it briey, comparing the
Greek poet Sophocles with the Roman Ovid: Quod nos dicimus ex amore amorem gigni
quodque Ovidius sensit, cum dixit: ut ameris, amabilis esto (Ars Am. .. :o). Guarino also
practiced translation from Latin into Greek: Ciceros aut bibe aut abi (Tusc. . ::8) is
translated i pine i apithi (j i j 00). Guarinos commentary reads: Lex olim fuerat
in Graecorum conviviis ut adeuntes vel biberent vel abirent; quam M. Cicero elegantissime, ut cetera,
quinto Tusculanarum libro ad humanae vitae conditionem transtulit, admonens omnes quas vita ferret
molestias aut fortiter ferendas aut morte fugiendas. See Sabbadini :q.., .:.
201
The Urbinas manuscript, which contains some of Lucians dialogues, was writ-
ten by an anonymous Florentine pupil of Chrysoloras. The pupil copied the text from
MS. Vat. gr. 8, which belonged to Chrysoloras himself, and lled the wide interlinear
and marginal spaces with glosses in Greek and a partial Latin translation. The pupils
little acquaintance with the Greek language and the oral character of Chrysoloras
teaching explain the many mistakes interspersed in the Greek and Latin texts. See
Berti :q8 and :q8; Frstel :qq., 6:f.; and Deligiannis .oo6, qf.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :
impressive number and variety of Hellenistic, late antique, and Byzan-
tine works on grammar (Theodosius, Apollonius Dyscolus, Herodian,
Moschopoulos, etc.), together with the grammars by Gaza and La-
scaris, but no specic work on syntax.
202
In :q, Girolamo Amaseo, a twenty-six-year-old Paduan student
of the arts, ran away from home to go to Florence and learn Greek.
He described his experience in a long letter to his brother Gregorio.
This letter constitutes one of the most interesting documents on the
teaching of Greek in the Renaissance.
203
Girolamo attended the school
of Varinus Favorinus Camers (Guarinus), a pupil of Politian. Students
began by reading, annotating, and summarizing the elementary text-
book, Lascaris grammar (Constantinum omnem primo pernotavi []; libel-
lum mira dispositione ex Constantino, excerptis quibusdam necessariis, confeci). In
order to practice his Greek writing, Girolamo copied (excribere) parts of
Aristophanes Plutus: a particularly dicult exercise, considering the
quantity of abbreviations and ligatures in manuscripts and in the rst
printed editions.
Girolamos Greek class included sixteen students: a fty-year-old
poet, some thirty- of forty-year-old men, boys, and young men (iuniores
[] ephebi). Some of them, like Girolamo himself, were from other
cities. Besides attending a very intense study program, students had
to cope with a lot of practical problems: bad and expensive food
and accommodations, cohabitation with other people, and a lack
of furniture in their dwellings. Every day, Varinus read thirty lines
of the Odyssey in the morning, about twenty lines of Aristophanes
Plutus in the afternoon, and forty lines of the Iliad in the evening.
204
For each sentence, Varinus gave a word-for-word translation (verbum
202
According to Cesarini Martinelli (:qq., ..), the fact that Politian used both
grammar treatises based on the ancient classication of nouns in fty-six declensions
(Theodosius and Moschopoulos) and works that adopted the new ten-declension
order (Gaza and Lascaris) added a historical dimension to his teaching of grammar
and allowed him to recover the best of the Byzantine exegetical tradition (my
translation).
203
Girolamos letterhanded down in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. A q
inf., fols. :6has been published by Pozzi (:q66, :q..o:).
204
In his preface to his edition of Aristophanes comedies (:q8), Aldus explains
that Aristophanes was taught at an elementary level because it was considered equiv-
alent to the Latin Terence. MS. :, :q of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence,
which contains Plutus only, may be related to Varinus course. The text is full of inter-
linear glosses written by a fteenth-century hand. The fact that even very simple
words are translated reveals the work of a beginner, most probably of North Italian
origin, because he often omits the reduplicated consonants; see Pozzi :q66, .:f.
:8 cn\r+rn +vo
e verbo transferens) and then the rules of inection (verborum et nominum
inexionem, si duriuscula est, reperit), etymologies, and gures of speech.
After a second reading, Varinus questioned students about his lecture.
A comparison of the notes taken by the pupils of the fteenth-
century Byzantine and Italian teachers of Greek with those taken
in sixteenth-century schools clearly reveals a shift of emphasis from
rhetoric and style to moral and philosophical issues, even though
elementary grammar still occupied a privileged place.
205
The most
demanding task facing students of Greek, however, was the transla-
tion of the Greek text into Latin. Chrysoloras encouraged a word-by-
word translation (ad verbum), but only as a preliminary tool, useful in
the study of the language. At a more advanced stage, he promoted
the more elaborate translation ad sententiam, faithful to the content and
respectful of the style of the original.
206
Unlike medieval versions from
Greek into Latin, these translations were the result of a systematic
study of Greek and reected a new philosophy of language, centered
on words (verba) rather than on objects (res).
207
This meant a return
to the ancient concept of translating as imitari and aemulari, although
within a cultural milieu remarkably dierent from the bilingual envi-
ronment of antiquity.
208
Obviously, within the large number of Latin translations of Greek
texts produced in the Renaissance, we should distinguish between
those made for purely pedagogical purposes and those made to re-
store the original texts of the Greek writers (philosophers, scientists,
theologians, or historians), and in this way to get rid of the many mis-
understandings of the barbarian medieval translators such as, for
example, the many translations of Platos texts made in the Floren-
tine Neoplatonic circles (Bruni, Decembrio, Ficino) and the project
of a library of Greek texts in Latin conceived by Pope Nicholas V.
205
See Graftons observations (:q8:, o.) on the school of Claude Mignault (Clau-
dius Minos), who taught the humanities in Paris in the :os.
206
On Chrysoloras theory of translationfollowed and codied by his pupil Leo-
nardo Bruni, who introduced the new term traduceresee Weiss :q, .6f.; and Wil-
son :qq., ::. However, Berti (:qq8, q:f.) has pointed out that the rst humanist
translations from Greek, although related to Chrysoloras school, did not represent
a programmatic objective in Chrysoloras teaching: Limpresa delle traduzioni ora-
torie, oggi diremmo letterarie, nasceva da dinamiche che erano tutte latine. On
humanist translations in general, see Sabbadini :q.., ..6; Gualdo Rosa :q8; and
Botley .oo.
207
Gualdo Rosa :q8, :8: (my translation).
208
Berti :qq8, 8.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :q
Whereas the importance of the scientic and philosophical transla-
tions has been acknowledged for a long time, many translations ad
usum scholae made by teachers and students of the Renaissance still
need to be studied.
Over the course of time, the translation of Greek texts into Latin
became the main purpose of the study of Greek. In spite of the
development of Greek studies, Latin translations continued to be the
most eective way to spread Greek culture in the West. In any case,
the approach to Greek literature, both direct and indirect, had a huge
impact on the burgeoning literature in vernacular languages.
209
q. Schools of Greek
The many texts and editions circulating in the fteenth and sixteenth
centuries show that, by that time, Greek had become a part of the
Western school curriculum. In fact, it was a slow and dicult process:
in spite of the rst humanists enthusiam, it took about one century for
Greek studies to become permanently rooted in Western culture.
210
The most famous schools of the Renaissance, those of Guarino da
Verona in Ferrara and of Vittorino da Feltre in Mantua, were orga-
nized as boarding schools and attended by children of the North Ital-
ian aristocracy and upper middle classes. The boarding school or con-
tubernium, in fact, represented the practical fulllment of the humanist
ideal of a global education, which involved not only learning, but also
a cultured lifestyle.
211
Within the traditional curriculum of the liberal
209
See Grafton and Jardine :q86, :.of.
210
For example, Coluccio Salutati and Leonardo Bruni had to defend Greek stud-
ies against the attacks of the most conservative sector of the Catholic clergy, who were
worried about a possible revival of paganism. In particular, Salutati and Bruni fought
o the critiques of two Florentine priests, Giovanni da San Miniato and Giovanni
Dominici, by using St. Basils twenty-second homily on the method of proting from
pagan literature. See the texts collected by Garin :qq, :. See also Witt :q8,
o8.; and Hankins .oo., :8.
211
Sani (:qqq, q) emphasizes the experimental character of humanist schools
and explains them as responses to the demands of emerging social classes for which
the pedagogical oers from cities and states were inadequate. The pioneer of the
collegial system, which in the late fourteenth century was extended to Italian
universities, was Giovanni Conversini of Ravenna (::o8), who taught in several
Italian cities (see Witt :qq, :86.). His model certainly exerted a great inuence
on the educational projects of three of his students, Gasparino Barzizza (:6o:o),
:o cn\r+rn +vo
arts, both Guarino and Vittorino assigned an important role to classi-
cal culture in general and to Greek in particular.
Guarino Guarini (:o:6o) was a professional scholar, interested
in all elds of classical civilization. He studied Latin in Padua and,
between :o and :o8, Greek in Constantinople; then he taught both
languages in Venice, Bologna, Florence, and Verona. In :.q, Gua-
rino moved to Ferrara because Marquis Niccol dEste entrusted him
with the education of his son Leonello. There he founded a school
that became the core of a public Studium, which was transformed
into a university in :..
212
Guarinos school included three stages of education: elementary,
grammatical, and rhetorical. Some letters by Guarino and the trea-
tise of his son Battista are our main sources on Guarinos pedagog-
ical activity. After learning to read, to write, and to master the rst
rudiments of Latin grammar (probably on Ianua), pupils at the sec-
ond stage perfected their Latin morphology and learned syntax from
Guarinos Regulae grammaticales. Guarino also emphasized the impor-
tance of oral compositions in Latin, called themata, and encouraged
students to build their vocabulary by writing down unknown words in
a notebook (codicillum) and ordering them into categories of meaning.
Greek was probably taught side-by-side with Latin and approached
through Guarinos abridged edition of Chrysoloras Erotemata: pupils
read aloud, memorized rules of grammar, and did their exercises.
Guarino regarded the study of the Greek authors as indispensable
for Latin literature; thus, Virgil could be read only through Homer,
Cicero through Demosthenes, etc. Greek texts were also used to learn
sciences: for example, Strabo for geography and Ptolemy for astron-
omy. Greek, however, was considered essentially a written language:
Guarinos students translated from Greek into Latin and vice-versa,
but apparently did not practice oral composition in Greek.
213
Vittorino da Feltre, and Guarino da Verona. See Kohl :q88, :. On Barzizzas ideas
and pedagogy, see Mercer :qq; and Marcucci .oo., ..q, 68.
212
On Guarinos life and work, see in particular Woodward :q6
4
, .6.; and
Wilson :qq., .. On culture in Ferrara during the Renaissance and the role of
the Este family, see Garin :q6, ., 8:q; and Gundersheimer :q, 8:.
213
On Guarinos pedagogywhich followed Quintilians project (in particular, Inst.
or. :. . :; q.:)see Woodward :q6
4
, 8.; Sabbadini :q.., o; Garin :q6
2
,
:.6.; Grafton-Jardine :q86, ::; Kohl :q88, :f.; Grendler :q8q, :.6:.q; and Sani
:qqq, 6:. The codicillum had been already recommended by Chrysoloras: see
Bolgar :q, 8.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx ::
After studying Latin in Padua with Gasparino Barzizza, Vittorino
da Feltre (:8:6) attended Guarinos Greek lectures in Venice
between :: and ::. In :., Gianfrancesco Gonzaga, the Marquis
of Mantua, entrusted him with the education of his children. In Man-
tua, Vittorino founded a boarding school called Casa Gioiosa or Ca
Zoiosa, The Joyful House, and later Ca Zocosa, The Playful House,
probably to emphasize a return to the Latin term for school, ludus.
In Vittorinos school, the children of the Marquis and boys from every
social class were educated together; classes were attended, for exam-
ple, by the Venetian aristocrat Francesco Barbaro, the Duke of Urbino
Federigo da Montefeltro, and the philologist Lorenzo Valla. Vittorino
directed his school for twenty-two years, until his death.
214
Vittorinos pedagogical program was largely inspired by Quintil-
ians Institutio and Plutarchs i i 0j. His attitude toward
education was much more moralistic and religious than Guarinos:
the study of classical literatures was a means and not an end in itself.
In Vittorinos global humanism, which reconciled classical tradi-
tion with Christianity, ancient Greek language and literature occu-
pied a special place. In order to emphasize the unity of ancient civ-
ilization, Latin and Greek were studied together. Vittorino thought,
in fact, that the knowledge of each language would make the other
easier (quod utraque alterius cognitione facilior videretur).
215
Vittorino him-
self taught both languages; for Greek, however, he relied on the help
of native Greeks, to whom he oered room and board at his school.
He hired, for example, George Trapezuntius in :o, and, as already
seen, Theodore Gaza between : and :6. Both earned a living as
teachers of Greek and copyists of manuscripts for the school.
216
214
Vittorino has left only a short treatise on Latin orthography and some letters
(see Cortesi :q8o, ). His life, thought, and pedagogy can be reconstructed from the
works and the letters of his friends and pupils: Francesco Prendilaqua, Francesco da
Castiglione, Bartolomeo Platina, and Sassolo da Prato (Pesenti :q., ..; texts and
Italian translations in Garin :q8). On Vittorino, see Woodward :q6
5
, q., and
:q6
4
, :o.; Pesenti :q., :q.; Garin :qq, :6:8; Mller :q6q, q and :q8,
; Agazzi :q8:; Vasoli :q8:; Mariani Canova :q8:; Kohl :q88, :6f.; Grendler
:q8q, :.q:.; Wilson :qq., .; and Sani :qqq, :.
215
Platina in Garin :q8, 68:. In a poem for Vittorino, the Venetian Gregorio
Correr praises his mixing of Greek with Latin (miscere Graeca Latinis); see Pesenti
:q., .6.
216
Francesco da Castiglione in Garin :q8, 6. Also, Prendilacqua (Garin :q8,
6oo) mentions the presence of librarii graeci latinique at Vittorinos school; both Greek
and Latin texts, in fact, appear in the inventory of the books that one of his students,
Gian Pietro da Lucca, borrowed from Vittorino on June :., : (published by
:. cn\r+rn +vo
In Vittorinos school, Latin was the language of everyday conver-
sation. As for Greek, Vittorino used Chrysoloras Erotemata in Gua-
rinos abridged and translated version.
217
Greek classes were taught
in Latin and quite early in the curriculum: when describing, in his
Hodoeporicon, his visit to Vittorinos school in :, Ambrogio Traver-
sari mentions that the daughter of Marquis Gonzaga, Cecilia, already
was able to faultlessly read, write, and decline Greek words at the
age of seven.
218
At a more advanced level, Virgil and Homer, Cicero
and Demosthenes, Senecas tragedies and the Greek tragic poets were
studied comparatively: the study of Greek literature had the main pur-
pose of drawing parallels and complementing the reading of Latin
authors. Pupils also approached Greek poetry through Hesiod, Pin-
dar, Aristophanes, and Theocritus, and Greek prose through some
historians, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and some Christian
writers.
219
Reading aloud, memorizing, and reciting the text previously
explained by the instructor were the presuppositions of the methodol-
ogy that Vittorino applied to both classical languages.
220
Vittorinos school remained an isolated example and did not sur-
vive long after the death of its founder. Although Ca Zocosa did not
produce any theoretical statement of educational principles or signi-
cant works of scholarship,
221
Vittorino succeeded in his experiment of
bringing Greek education in general, and Greek language and litera-
ture in particular, into the school curriculum of a secondary school.
222
Some sixty years after Vittorinos death, Pope Leo X de Medici
(:::.:) took up a project of his father, Lorenzo the Magnicent,
and founded in Rome the so-called Gymnasium Caballini montis, located
on the slope of the Quirinale hill. The Gymnasium was the result of
a broad and well-constructed plan of the Florentine popea pupil of
Cortesi, :q8o, 88q). Other copyists employed by Vittorino were Girard of Patras
and Peter the Cretan. See Pesenti :q.; Monfasani :q6, .; and Wilson :qq., .
217
See Woodward :q6
4
, :. Erotemata quedam are in fact listed in the book
inventory (see the previous note and Cortesi :q8o, qo); see below, .o n. :...
218
Garin :q8, o. Traversari was also impressed with Vittorinos library; on
Vittorinos book collection, see Pesenti :q., :f.; and Wilson :qq., o.
219
Sassolo da Prato in Garin :q8, .; Platina in Garin :q8, 688. See also
Woodward :q6
5
, q; and Wilson :qq., f.
220
See Woodward :q6
5
, q.
221
Wilson :qq., o.
222
Wilson :qq., :. See also Woodward :q6
5
, ..; and Pesenti :q., .. The
Italian liceo classico (high school focusing on the humanities) is still largely modeled
on Vittorinos educational project.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :
Demetrius Chalcondyles and Janus Lascaristo revive Greek studies
in Rome. Leo gave the Cretan Marcus Musurus, a professor in Padua,
the job of bringing to Rome ten or twelve Greek boys: they had to be
educated in both Greek and Latin, together with Western boys.
223
At rst, the initiative was successful. Lascaris and Musurus taught
Greek and Benedetto Lampridio of Cremona taught Latin. A pub-
lishing house was attached to the school, at the house of Angelo
Colocci.
224
Lascaris planned to found similar schools in Florence and
Milan, but a lack of funds and the death of Leo X (:.:) prevented
him from carrying out his project. The Roman Gymnasium and the
publishing house ceased all activities soon after ::q.
225
Until the Jesuits made Greek a fundamental element of their syl-
labus,
226
the study of Greek remained limited to a restricted lite of
223
Between :qo and :q., Lorenzo de Medici the Magnicent (:q:q.)
entrusted the Greek emigr Janus Lascaris with the mission of bringing to Flo-
rence children from Greece. The project was abandoned after Lorenzos death; see
Pagliaroli .oo, .:. On the Greek Gymnasium in Rome, see Fanelli :q6:; Manous-
sakas :q6; Barberi-Cerulli :q.; Tsirpanlis :q8, o::; Saladin .oo
2
, :o.:..;
and Pagliaroli .oo (with extensive bibliography). The cultural level of the Greek
emigrs in Rome was considerably high: they included representatives of the Unionist
party, such as Cardinal Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Gregory Melissenos, as well
as members of the imperial family (e.g., Thomas Palaeologus, a brother of the last
Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI, who was granted an annual pension by Pope
Pius II). On Greek culture in Rome during the Renaissance, see DAmico :q8, q;
Stinger :q8; and Rowland :qq8.
224
On Musurus activity in Rome, see Cataldi Palau .oo, 8o. On Coloccis
commitment to promote Greek studies in Rome, see Rowland :qq8, :8:8q.
225
In ::8, after Musurus death and Lascaris departure from Rome, Arsenios
Apostolis became the principal of the Gymnasium, but held his appointment for a
very short time. The last books printed ad Caballinum montem bear the date of
::q. See Fanelli :q6:, qo; Geanakoplos :q6., :86; and the list and description of
books printed by the press of the Gymnasium in Saladin .oo
2
, ::q:... On the
Greek Gymnasium in Florence and Milan, see Pagliaroli .oo, ..8. Little is
known about the activity of the Greek students of the Roman Gymnasium after the
college was closed: some of them became teachers and scholars in Rome or in Venice,
whereas others returned to the Greek areas under Venetian rule, where they created
disturbances in support of the Union of Florence. See Geanakoplos :q6., n. :;
and Tsirpanlis :q8, :of.
226
The rst Jesuit school was founded in Sicily in :8. Conceived as an exper-
iment in mass education, Jesuit schools ended up teaching upper- and middle-class
boys from ten to sixteen years old, with a background in Latin. After two prepara-
tory years, pupils learned Greek grammar and metrics during the last three classes
of a ve-year course. Students learned Greek morphology from Clenardus gram-
mar and later from the Institutiones de octo partibus orationis syntaxi et prosodia Graecorum
by the Jesuit Jacob Gretser (rst edition: Ingolstadt :q). Gretsers grammar was
used in Jesuit schools until the nineteenth century. Pupils practiced their grammar by
: cn\r+rn +vo
students: in particular, to those who could aord to continue their
studies beyond a fair knowledge of Latin required in everyday life.
The three cases here described show that the history of the revival of
Greek studies in the West included both brilliant successes and dis-
appointing failures. As Grendler remarks, the number of humanists
uent in Greek [] and the number of students learning Greek may
have been too small. One doubts if many more learned Greek else-
where [than in Italy] in the late fteenth or sixteenth centuries. For
a long time, in fact, the study of Greek lingered at the periphery of
the Latin syllabus [] Competence in Greek remained the province
of scholars, not the goal of schools [] Mastering Greek did not seem
worth the eort to the vast majority of Italian schoolboys, teachers,
and parents.
227
Moreover, until the second half of the fteenth century, very few
Western scholars could claim to have a good knowledge of Greek. In
general, the level of teachers and students was not high, as seen in
the many mistakes and misunderstandings that can be found in their
translations into Latin. Before the fall of the Byzantine Empire, even
after Chrysoloras teaching in Italy, a stay in Constantinople was the
best way to acquire a good knowledge of Greek for those who could
aord it: for example, Guarino, Rinuccio Aretino, Francesco Filelfo,
Giovanni Aurispa, Giovanni Tortelli, and Gregorius Tiphernas. Prob-
ably, some of these scholars also attended Byzantine universities, such
as the Catholicon Mouseion;
228
they contibuted to transplanting into Italy
reading some of Aesops fables and Isocrates To Nicocles, as well as passages from Pin-
dar, Demosthenes, and other authors. The Jesuits Greek curriculum is described in
the documents collected in the four volumes of the Monumenta paedagogica Societatis Iesu
(ed. by L. Lukcs, Romae :q6, :. qq, :o6, :f.; .. 6q, :, 6qf.; etc.). On Jesuit edu-
cation, see Grendler :q8q, ..; OMalley :qq, .oo.; Loach .oo6; and De Torraca
.oo6, ..:f.
227
Grendler :q8q, :., :.8. Cristoforo Landino (:.:q8) represents a striking
case. Landino lectured on Cicero, Virgil, Horace, and other Latin authors at the
Studium Florentinum, where he held the chair of rhetoric and poetry for about forty
years. From a lack of references to Homer in his lectures on Virgil, it may be inferred,
as Kallendorf suggests (:q8q, :f.), that Landino did not know enough Greek to
approach the Homeric text.
228
The Catholicon Mouseion, or Mouseion of the Xenon (t 0 u),
was founded at the end of the fourteenth century. Little is known about its cur-
riculum and teaching. Among its teachers, sources mention George Chrysococces,
John Chortasmenos, John Chrysoloras, George Scholarios, John Argyropoulos, and
Michael Apostolis; Theodore Gaza and George Trapezuntius may have also taught
there. See Stakos :qq8 [:q8q], :8:8o.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :
the methods and contents of Byzantine education, which they had
absorbed through direct contact with Greek teachers and students.
The situation improved signicantly with the migration of many
Byzantine scholars to Italy around :. Unlike the rst Greeks who
had taught in Italy, these were mostly professional teachers. The
opportunities to learn Greek multiplied and the quality of teaching
improved: schools of Greek were founded in most Italian cities and
chairs of Greek were established in the major universities. Politian
was the rst scholar educated exclusively in Italy; he rivaled the
Byzantines for his knowledge of ancient Greek.
229
The creation of
Greek libraries and the invention of printing also contributed to the
establishment of a market for Greek literary texts and schoolbooks.
The death of Cardinal Bessarion, in :., deprived Greek emigrs
of their great protector. However, during the last decade of the f-
teenth century, a last generation of Greek teachers began to teach in
Italy. Venice and Padua, along with Florence, became important cen-
ters of Greek studies. Teaching and translating were no longer the
main tasks of these scholars: most of themArsenios Apostolis, Mar-
cus Musurus, Demetrius Ducas, John Gregoropoulos, Janus Lascaris,
Nicholas Vlastos, Zacharias Calliergis, etc.also worked as supervi-
sors of the printing of Greek texts.
230
The sort of collective enthusiasm for Greek studies that had made
Girolamo Amaseo and his classmates run to Florence ended at the
beginning of the sixteenth century, with the death of the last Byzan-
tine teachers of Greek. The outbreak of new wars and the economic
crisis had relevant consequences on culture. A re-evaluation of the
serious and austere Latin tradition was progressively gaining ground
at the expense of Greek culture, which was considered more frivolous
and pagan, and therefore ideologically more dangerous.
According to Burckhardt, Greek scholarship in Italy decayed strik-
ingly after :.o: were it not for Northerners like Erasmus, the Ste-
phani, Guillaume Bud, etc., Greek studies in the West would have
been short-lived.
231
Actually, the teaching of Greek in Padua, Rome,
229
See Hankins .oo:, :.. On Politians scholarship, see Wilson :qq., :oo::.
230
See Monfasani :qqo, 6.
231
Burckhardt :qqo [:86o], ::: The impulse which had proceeded from
Petrarch and Boccaccio, supercial as was their own acquaintance with Greek, was
powerful, but did not tell immediately on their contemporaries, except a few; on the
other hand, the study of Greek literature died out about the year :.o with the last of
the colony of learned Greek exiles.
:6 cn\r+rn +vo
Venice, and on a lesser scale also in Verona, Ferrara, and Pavia, went
well beyond that date. In the same way, the constant printing of Greek
grammars, lexica, and literary texts demonstrates that there was still
a stable demand for Greek books. The impact of the revival of Greek
studies in the West cannot be calculated or given chronological limits.
The study of the Bible encouraged by the Reformation stimulated
an interest in Greek in Central and North Europe at the end of the
fteenth century. Paris became an important center of Greek studies:
the Italians and the Greeks who taught there (Gregorius Tiphernas,
George Hermonymos, and Girolamo Aleandro) introduced into that
cultural environment the scholarship and pedagogy developed in Italy.
Scholars like Johannes Reuchlin, Erasmus, Beatus Renanus, and Guil-
laume Bud bear witness to the eectiveness of their teaching.
232
Greek was also used for purposes unrelated to scholarship. In his
Trait de la conformit du langage franais avec le grec (Paris, :6), Hen-
ricus Stephanus (Henri Estienne) justied and encouraged the study
of Greek in France in order to recover the real cultural roots of the
nation. Stephanus urged his fellow countrymen to get rid of the Latin
tradition and, in this way, of any link with Italy. Other scholars fol-
lowed his example: between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
many treatises were produced on the anities of other modern lan-
guages (Italian, Spanish, German, Flemish, and English) with ancient
Greek, often for purely political purposes.
233
:o. Teaching Greek in Greek: Michael Apostolis and the Direct Method
As already noted, ancient Greek was a language of culture rather than
a means of communication; it was studied not for itself, but in order
to achieve a deeper understanding and a more appropriate use of
Latin. The comparative study of the two languages, therefore, was
encouraged.
In spite of the increasing importance of the vernaculars, Latin was
still the predominant language in education, and Greek instruction
232
On Greek studies in North Europe after the Renaissance, see Grafton .oo:.
233
Trapp :q, :o:; and Rothstein .oo6, 6. On Greek studies in France,
see Stevens :qo; and Ford .oo6. The superiority of the Greek language over Latin
was implied in Buds Commentarii linguae graecae (Paris :.q); see Sanchi .oo6, 6
and q8f.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :
continued to be carried out in Latin for a long time. Greek emi-
grs were supposed to teach in Latin: uency in that language con-
stituted an essential requirement for their employment. The major
Renaissance Greek grammars were soon translated into Latin, and
the translations were often printed alongside the Greek text. Finally,
many Greek manuscripts with interlinear or marginal glosses in Latin
show that a translation into Latin represented an important stage in
the teaching of Greek. Several reasons may be given. Firstly, students
usually approached Greek when they had already acquired at least
a fair knowledge of Latin. Secondly, the rst students of Greek in
Florence came from areas where dierent languages or volgari were
spoken, and Latin was the only language that they could share with
each other and with their Greek teachers. Thirdly, Latin had a long
and solid grammatical tradition, whereas the grammar of the vernac-
ular languages was still far from being systematized. Vernaculars were
reputed to be the languages of lower-class people, of everyday conver-
sation, and of literature designed for pure entertainment.
234
A singular document indirectly conrms the use of Latin in the
teaching of Greek. Some time after the death of his patron Cardi-
nal Bessarion (:.), the Cretan emigr Michael Apostolis (ca. :.o
ca. :8o) wrote a long Exhortation from Gortyna to Rome in Italy,
a discourse to the Italians on the state of Greek studies in Italy.
235
Michaels presupposition is that a systematic learning of Greek gram-
mar is fundamental to acquiring a good background in the lan-
guage:
236
(6:) i u u 0r t 0o 0-
r, I j i jr ru i-
u 0u o t i j, r i i
i j ir o 0i i r0 j, 0o j
ri i i, i 0 0 r , ir
r r r u.
[If you decide to teach your children our [the Greek] tongue in the
same way that you instruct and educate them in your own language
234
Percival :q, .6.
235
On the life of Michael Apostolis, see Geanakoplos :q6., :o:. On Apostolis
activity as a copyist and on his scriptorium, see Wittek :q, .qo.q; and Mioni :q6,
.q6.
236
The text is quoted from Anna Pontanis edition (:qq6, :.:6, with an Italian
translation) and in the English translation by Percival (.oo., qq), which I have
partially modied and made more faithful to the Greek text.
:8 cn\r+rn +vo
[Latin]that is, beginning with the letters, then the syllables, the
words, syntax, and the deeper meaning of the ideas involved, step by
step by means of a systematic method and not by means of exhibition
and merely by making soundsthen you would become as skillful in
Greek as you are in your tongue.]
As Percival has pointed out, such statements do not mean that Apo-
stolis is proposing some sort of direct method of language teaching
in which pupils are only exposed orally to the language that they
are learning: a preliminary training in grammar, in fact, is seen as
essential.
237
Instead, Apostolis criticizes the method used by Greek
teachers in Italian schools. His main point is that, since Greek is
taught in Latin and not in Greek, as it should be, Italians eventually
acquire a poor knowledge of the language:
(6o.) i u r0 u ii r rr u
i j o u i ro 0t. u r i
rr ri i r , ri r o r.
[] j rr 00 u j0, r u o u `j
0t i ru0, i 0i u r i 0 rr 0
r [] o o0u i i rt i j r
o0 0i j 0 j o u r i
o rr o r o [];
[You permit them to teach both literatures [Latin and Greek] in the
Latin language and not in accord with what is natural and peculiar
to each particular tongue. The natural method of teaching Latin is in
Latin, but the other literature [Greek] should be taught in Greek []
See how much time has elapsed since you began to cultivate Greek,
and yet there is nobody among you, nor has been nor will there be []
who knows the rules of grammar and etymology, or who can compose
a discourse without error, or, at the very least, express himself correctly
and teach others what he has learned.]
The use of Latin as a point of reference and the continuous switching
from Greek to Latin and vice versa prevent students from improving
their Greek and render them unable to compose a Greek text without
mistakes. Thus, Apostolis proposes that Latin be restricted to the
elementary stage of teaching, that of the rudiments of the language. At
a more advanced level, reading Greek authors in Latin and translating
them into that language destroys the choice of words, and above all
the grace of expression of the words, as if one hear(s) a lyre playing
which is false and discordant (::q, :.:.):
237
Percival .oo., q.
+nr onrrk ctnnictrtx :q
(::) o o u 'u u 0u j
0r i i j i 0 u , i j `-
j i i , o j 0 , i o-
;
[Whenever an Italian reads Homer, Demosthenes, or Thucydides in
Latin, or the two philosophers [Plato and Aristotle], what fruit does he
gain of Greek culture? All he acquires is the bare meaning that even
barbarians can understand.]
Apostolis may have presented such a gloomy picture of the state of
Greek studies in Italy in order to reach his goal, an appointment as
professor of Greek; we know, however, that his hopes were frustrated.
His opinion, antithetical to that of Battista Guarini and other human-
ist teachers, was perhaps ahead of his time: today we know that it
is possible to learn a foreign language by being directly exposed to
it and without any intermediary. However, Apostolis harshly critical
remarks enable us to glimpse the state of Greek studies in Italy at the
end of the fteenth century. Translations allowed students to compare
the morphology, syntax, and lexicon of Greek and Latin, and there-
fore to pick up the vocabulary and phraseology of the language that
they were learning. This exercise was necessary in order to ll the
gaps of an insucient preparation in Greek lexicon and syntax, due
to a lack of adequate tools, such as advanced textbooks or dictionar-
ies. Apostolis rejected the teaching of Greek as a dead language, but
apparently no other option was available.
cn\r+rn +nnrr
DONATI GRAECI
The translations of the Latin Ianua into Greek, or Donati graeci, and
their use as grammar books for the study of Greek should be viewed
in the context of the revival of Greek studies in the West as described
in the previous chapter. As we have seen, that revival developed within
Florentine culture between the fourteenth and fteenth centuries and
later spread throughout Italy and Europe.
Determining time and place of origin of the Greek Donati is not an
easy task. Probably, as Schmitt has supposed, one of the Greek ver-
sions (a) was initially an interlinear translation of Ianua, which later
was put together as a proper grammar book and used as such.
1
The-
oretically, then, anytime after the twelfth centurythe time of the
origin of Ianuaand anyplace where Greeks needed to learn Latin
would be possible candidates. The analysis carried out in the follow-
ing two chapters will not solve this problem but at least will allow us to
set precise boundaries to the eld of investigation. Two factors are cer-
tain. First, the title of the Greek translation, Erotimata (sic) Guerrini, in
MS. Conventi Soppressi gr. :o6 (C) of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in
Florence, suggests that the use of one of the Greek Donati as a gram-
mar book may have begun or continued after the publication of the
edition of Chrysoloras Erotemata with the Latin translation of Gua-
rino Guarini. Secondly, most of the manuscripts handing down the
Greek Donati seem to be related to Venice and its colony, Crete, i.e.,
to a bilingual environment where there was great demand for learn-
ing and mastering both Latin and Greek. Unfortunately, the sources
presently available do not convey information that is more precise.
1
Schmitt :q66, .6q and n. :o.
:. cn\r+rn +nnrr
:. In Search of the Greek Donatus
A catalogue of the Library of Christ Church at Canterbury from ::o
mentions a Donatus graece along with a Donatus anglice: it is the only
Greek book in a list of .. titles. In a catalogue of the same library of
ca. :oo, however, the Greek Donatus does not appear, even if the
number of books owned by the library amounts to about ,ooo. The
Greek Donatus of Canterbury was perhaps a Greek grammar similar
to Dionysius Thraxs r j or a product of the Byzantine
tradition of ertmata. The text, therefore, may have been entirely in
Greek.
2
Ising, on the other hand, has suggested that the book was a
bilingual copy of Donatus Ars minor, which was in Latin with Greek
terms written above or alongside the Latin text, in the interlinear
spaces or in the margins.
3
In any case, this mysterious Donatus graece
bears witness to the interest that Irish and British monks had in Greek
culture. It would be tempting to connect this Greek Donatus with
the books brought to England by the Greek monks Theodore and
Hadrian in the seventh century (above, 888q n. .), but no evidence
supports this hypothesis.
Faint traces of a Greek Donatus appear in the later centuries. In his
Chronica maiora of :.., Matthaeus Parisiensis (Matthew Paris, :.oo
:.q), a monk of St. Alban, mentioned the translation of a grammar
from Greek into Latin by a French master, Joannes, who called his
translation Donatus graecorum:
Memoratus insuper magister Joannes quoddam scriptum transtulit de Graeco in
Latinum, in quo articiose et compendiose tota vis grammaticae continetur; quod
idem magister Donatum Graecorum appellavit.
4
[The aforementioned master John translated from Greek into Latin a
work, in which the whole essence of grammar is contained skillfully and
concisely; the master himself called it Donatus of the Greeks.]
Magister Joannes is probably Joannes de Basing, or John of Bas-
ingstoke, one of the adiutores of Robert Grosseteste. In about :.o,
Basingstoke was sent to Athens, where he spent some time learning
Greek and collecting books. We cannot establish which Greek gram-
mar John translated into Latin or if he also intended to compose a
2
Schmitt :qq, :o:f.
3
Ising :qo, ..
4
Edited by H.R. Luard, London :88o, . .86. See Ising :qo, .q n. q; and
Schmitt :qq, :o.
nox\+i on\rci :
Greek grammar for Latins: the Franciscan monk Roger Bacon made
the same attempt a little later and independently. At any rate, the fact
that the grammar John translated was in Greek prevents us from iden-
tifying it with the Greek Ianua, which is a translation from Latin into
Greek.
The existence of Donati graeci is attested to more frequently dur-
ing the Renaissance. In the fteenth-century MS. Vaticanus gr. :.,
which contains some anonymous sched based on Moschopoulos sche-
dography, a small strip of paper pasted on one of the yleaves (I
r
)
reads Donatus g(rae)cus optimus.
5
In a letter of :.q, Stefano de Porcari
made it known to his friend Ambrogio Traversari that the humanist
Gaspare da Verona wished to obtain from him a copy of a Donatus
graecus.
Upon his return from Spain to Italy in :6, the humanist Angelo
Decembrio was robbed of his books. We do not know if Angelo
succeeded in recovering them; in any case, he provided an inventory
of the stolen books in a letter to Duke Borso dEste of Ferrara. The
books included many Latin texts (Horace, Ovid, Pliny, etc.), some
Greek texts in Latin translation (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, etc.),
two Greek-Latin dictionaries, and a Donatus antiquissimus in graeco. A
Donatus graecus was part of the inventory of the books of Giovanni Pico
della Mirandola (:6:q), where it is listed among the quinterni
desligati in charta bona: it was perhaps an incomplete text, of which
only unbound quires were extant.
6
All of these factors lead us to suppose that in the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance Donatus graecus meant not only the Greek
translation of Ianua, but also several other elementary Greek gram-
mar books. The Greek Ianua itself was often associated with the
5
Described by Ciro Giannelli in Codices Vaticani graeci. Codices .8.8, in Byblio-
theca (sic) Vaticana :qo, 88.
6
See Schmitt :q, .::f. and :qq, :o. On Angelo Decembrios book list, see
Celenza .ooa, 6 and n. q. In addition to a Donatus graecus, Decembrio lists
pleraeque scripturae optimae grece in grammatica percipienda: his library may
have included more than one Greek grammar. On quinterni (Lat. quiniones) in
Picos catalogue, see Rizzo :q, .f. Most of Picos library was destroyed by a re in
:8; it contained about :.o books, both printed and manuscript, on various subjects
and included about : Greek volumes, partly from the library of the Byzantine
emigr Manuel Adramythenos. See Kibre :q6, . In addition to a printed edition
of Lascaris grammar (no. 88 of the catalogue edited by Kibre), Pico owned three
anonymous Greek grammars (nos. ., , and q.). Picos Donatus graecus is listed
as no. :.
: cn\r+rn +nnrr
Byzantine ertmataas witnessed by the title of codex Cand con-
sidered a tool for the study of elementary Greek, as the presence of
other, more advanced grammatical works in many of its manuscripts
demonstrates.
The common use of the name Donatus for elementary grammar
books prevents us from identifying these Donati graeci with Greek trans-
lations of Aelius Donatus Ars or of Ianua. We cannot exclude, how-
ever, the possibility that Donatus Ars was also translated into Greek
sometime in late antiquity or in the Middle Ages. In his commentary
on Donatus Ars minor, Sedulius Scottus tried to explain and comment
on Donatus denition of the pronoun (Ars maior .. ::, p. 6.q = Ars
minor , p. 88 Holtz: Pronomen est pars orationis quae pro nomine posita tan-
tundem paene signicat personamque interdum recipit) by means of its Greek
translation:
Unde hic locus melius in Graeco legitur: i r0 o 0r.
7
Since this denition is peculiar to Donatus and because its Greek
equivalent does not occur in any of the Greek grammars known to
us, Holtz has suggested that it may come from a Greek translation
of Donatus Ars minor.
8
On this question, however, any hypothesis is
possible.
.. The Four Donati graeci or Pylai
The Donati graeci treated in the present study are Greek grammars
translated from, or modeled after, the Latin Ianua.
9
Just as Ianua was
named after its incipit (Ianua sum rudibus primam cupientibus artem), we
may call its Greek versions with the plural of the Greek word
7
Sedulius commentary on Donatus Ars minor, together with his commentaries
on Priscian and Eutyches, has been edited by B. Lfstedt, CCCM o C, Turnhout
:q. The passage quoted is at .q. qf. Other passages of Sedulius commentaries
conrm that he knew some Greek: an excursus on Greek verbal conjugations (Comm.
in Eut. 8q. qq. 8) and the Greek translation and etymology of fuga, triumphus, and
stomachus (ibid. ::. .). Also, Sedulius often employed Greek terms, followed by a
Latin translation, to explain Latin grammar (cf. Comm. in Don. 6. :, :. 88o, etc.).
On Sedulius knowledge of Greek, see Traube :8q:, ..; and Berschin :q88 [:q8o],
:.:.
8
Holtz :q8q, :6o.
9
Both Krumbacher (:8q
2
, ) and Wendel (:qo, ...) maintain that the origi-
nal of Planudes translation was Donatus Ars minor.
nox\+i on\rci :
equivalent to ianua: Pylai (u). In fact, u is the rst word of
version a, which begins with the word-for-word Greek translation of
the short poem that opens the Latin Ianua (u ii t 00r t
r00 u r, etc.), as well as the rst word of the poem
written at the beginning of versions b and d (u 0j j j
o 0 0r, etc.).
None of the extant Greek Donati has ever been published. During
the Renaissance, no printer deemed them worthy of an edition, nor
did modern scholars show any interest in them, except for Wolfgang
Oskar Schmitt: he made Pyl a the object of his dissertation, which he
defended in :q66 at Humboldt Universitt of Berlin. As an appendix,
Schmitt presented a critical edition of the text, based on the six
manuscripts known at that time: Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS. gr.
(A); Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Barberini gr. :o
(B); Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MSS. Conventi Soppressi :o6
(C), Gaddi :8. (G), and Redi : (R); and Oxford, Bodleian Library,
MS. Barocci . (O).
10
Schmitt published the results of his research
in some articles, allowing us to get an idea of the value and depth
of his work. At the end of a paper read in :q. at the International
Conference of Classical Studies in Bucharest, Schmitt announced the
imminent publication of a book with the same title: Donati graeci. Zum
Griechischstudium der italienischen Humanisten.
11
His promise, however, has
remained unfullled.
The ve manuscripts discovered after Schmitts edition have com-
pletely changed our perspective. First of all, they have revealed that,
in addition to the Donatus (Pyl a) described and edited by Schmitt, at
least three more Greek grammars of the Donatus-type were circulat-
ing during the Renaissance;
12
the dierences between the four Greek
Donati are so signicant that they cannot be considered as belonging
to the same tradition. Secondly, whereas all of the manuscripts known
to Schmitt belong to the fteenth or sixteenth centuries, two of the
new manuscripts allow us to establish for two versions (Pylai b and c)
a terminus ante quem at the beginning of the fteenth century: Venice,
10
Schmitt also knew MS. Vaticanus gr. :88 (V), which contains Pyl b; see below,
n. :.
11
Schmitt :q, .: n. :. Schmitt used the plural Donati, considering the two main
variants of Pyl a (x and R: see below, :..).
12
Of course, new discoveries will be possible as the cataloguing of the extant
Greek manuscripts and the creation of data banks for the study of manuscripts
proceed.
:6 cn\r+rn +nnrr
Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. X. q (M), and Biblioteca Apostolica Vat-
icana, MS. Palatinus gr. . (P). Thirdly, MSS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. gr.
.q (N) and Vat. Ottoboni gr. .o6 (Q) convey important information
on the use of the Pyl for the study of Greek; also, Q attests to the
circulation of Pyl a in Northeastern Italy (Veneto) at the beginning of
the sixteenth century.
Eight of the eleven manuscripts so far identied (A, B, C, G, N,
O, Q, and R) contain Pyl a, which is apparently a word-for-word
translation of an Ianua longa. The picture oered by version a is com-
plex. By taking into account errores coniunctivi and separativi, Schmitt has
divided the six manuscripts known to him into two main groups: R
and the p-group (named x in the present edition), which included
the other ve (A, B, C, G, and O). Two of the manuscripts recently
discovered, N and Q, might be added to this group. No manuscript,
however, can help us solve what Schmitt indicated as the main prob-
lem in the critical edition of the text: the search for an archetype.
13
All the extant manuscripts belong to the same period; moreover, most
of them reveal traces of contamination with copies belonging to dif-
ferent branches of the tradition, as is typical of schoolbooks.
Manuscripts M and V (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. gr.
:88) have transmitted Pyl b, where the Latin Ianua constitutes the
framework of a regular Greek grammar that employs material from
Theodosius Canons and excerpts from other Greek grammarians.
Schmitt knew only MS. V; after examining the manuscript by means
of a microlm, Schmitt concluded that Vs text was a combination of
a Greek translation of a Latin Ianua independent from Pyl a and a
Greek erotematic grammar.
14
Schmitt correctly remarked that, unlike
version a, the Greek grammar written in V is impeccable. He also
sensed a relationshipalready suggested by Pertusibetween V and
the Greek grammar of codex O attributed to Zacharias Calliergis (i.e.,
13
Schmitt :q66, :6: Die Untersuchung der Abhngigkeitsverhltnisse der Hand-
schriften [] mit dem Ziel, den Text des Archetypus zu rekonstruiren, erweist sich
aus mehreren Grnden als uerst schwierig. From Giorgio Pasquali onwards, how-
ever, modern classical philology has put into a dierent perspective the importance of
the archetype in textual criticism and has attributed much more importance to the
history of the text itself; see above, XXI.
14
Schmitt :q66, :oq:oqa n. :6: Es handelt sich [] um eine Kombination des
lateinischen Pseudo-Donatus [] und der von P. Egenol verentlichten Erotema-
ta grammatica ex arte Dionysiana oriunda (verentlicht als Beilage Progr. Mannheim
:8q/:88o). Schmitt certainly refers to Egenols Erotemata Tubingensia, which are
strikingly similar to bs text.
nox\+i on\rci :
our Pyl d); Schmitt, however, did not reach any conclusion on this
question.
Another detail makes manuscript V interesting. From the name
of Lorenzo Valla on fol. q
r
: Egregio viro d(omi)no Laure(n)tio Vallensi,
it may be inferred that this copy of Pyl was sent to, or made for,
the famous humanist, and, therefore, that a version of the Greek
Ianua was used by the rst Florentine humanists in learning Greek.
15
However, Schmitt has suggested that the bifolio qq might have
been taken from another manuscript and used to wrap the quires
containing the text of Pyl b, which is copied on fols. 8oq. Mariarosa
Cortesis study of the watermarks of the manuscript has conrmed
Schmitts hypothesis.
16
The second copy of Pyl b, manuscript M, raises an interesting
question about the relative chronology of Pyl a and b. Since b rep-
resents a signicant improvement when compared with a, it would
be logical to infer that b was made after a, in order to make up for
the aws of the original, rough translation of the Latin Ianua. But M
is contemporaneous with, or even earlier than, most of the manu-
scripts containing version a. If we consider that the transmission of
ancient texts is often purely fortuitous, the lack of any a-manuscripts
from before the fteenth century does not mean, of course, that they
did not exist. However, the manuscripts presently available lead us
to suppose that the two versions originated almost at the same time,
although in dierent cultural environments.
Pyl c has been handed down in one manuscript (P). The sec-
tion on verbs is based on an Ianua longa probably earlier than the
original of Pyl a, in which denitions received much attention and
lines from medieval grammars in verse were included; this applies
also to the section on nouns, of which only a Greek-Latin glossary
remains. The word-by-word translation from Latin, however, is lim-
ited to denitions; in fact, cs verbal paradigms have been taken from
the same source as those of Pylai b and d. This source was probably a
Greek translation and adaptation of Ianuas section on verbs, where,
for example, the Latin pluperfect and the double tense perfect-
pluperfect were replaced with the aorist. The other six sections of Pyl
15
See, for example, Stevens (:qo, .o): Valla and many other Italian humanists
had used [to learn Greek] a little Latin grammar called Janua, translated into Greek
by Maximus Planudes in the thirteenth century.
16
See below, .o.
:8 cn\r+rn +nnrr
c have been taken from other Byzantine grammatical texts. An exten-
sive word-for-word Latin translation has been written in bright red
ink in the interlinear spaces of sections .8; since the Latin and Greek
texts sometimes do not coincide, we may suppose that the translator
relied on his mnemonic knowledge of a dierent Ianua-text or that the
Latin translation was added from an edition of Ianua that was similar,
but not identical, to the original Latin text of P.
Like Pylai b and c, Pyl d is a miscellaneous grammar. Pyl d has
been transmitted in the O-manuscript together with Pyl a, under the
name of Zacharias Calliergis (Z); in this fragmentary Greek Donatus,
denitions are taken from Pyl b or its source, whereas paradigms of
nominal declensions are probably derived from a literal translation
of an Ianua brevis. We can certainly exclude the authorship of the
Cretan scholar and editor Zacharias Calliergis: the compiler, probably
a Greek, supplied the paradigms of nominal inection from a Latin
Ianua with the help of a bilingual dictionary. The incompleteness
of the text and the frequent mistakes and misunderstandings would
suggest that Pyl d was a draft rather than a complete grammar.
The following paragraphs oer a more detailed description of the
four Greek Donati and their manuscripts.
17
. Pyl a: The Manuscripts
The eight manuscripts of Pyl a so far identied can be dated between
the end of the fteenth and the rst half of the sixteenth centuries.
The following abbreviations will be used (the asterisk indicates the
manuscripts that I have seen personally):
A *Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS. gr.
B *Vatican City, Biblioteca ApostolicaVaticana, MS. Barberini gr. :o
C *Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Conventi Soppressi :o6
G *Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Gaddi :8.
N Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, MS. gr. .q
O *Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Barocci ., fols. .66
r
:
r
17
The following remarks provide general information on the content of manu-
scripts and on their external aspects related to the transmission and use of the Greek
Donati (layout, marginalia, Latin glosses, etc.) and do not claim to oer a complete
palaeographical and codicological analysis, which I leave to experts in the eld.
nox\+i on\rci :q
Q *Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Ottoboni gr.
.o6
R *Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Redi :.
In most manuscripts, Pyl apparently represents the initial stage of a
course of Greek grammar. In fact, it is often followed or preceded by
more complex grammatical works and by other material of diverse
origin for the study of Greek, such as exercises or simple readings.
Like most grammatical manuscripts, those of Pyl generally are small
and written with no aesthetic pretensions. Their wide margins provide
room for additions and for the translation of single words or entire
sentences. The decoration is poor and usually restricted to rubricated
initials, asterisks, and other devices intended to favor memorization of
the text.
Finally, a form like o (o) instead of o in the
titles of six manuscripts hints at the weakening of the stops in modern
Greek and at the same time reproduces the Venetian pronunciation
of the name Donatus, Donado; the exchange t / d, in fact, is still
frequent in the modern dialects of the Northeastern part of Italy.
A MS. gr. of the Biblioteca Angelica in Rome (formerly C. . :.: paper,
mm .:o:, fols. :)
18
is apparently a handbook for the study of
Greek at the elementary and intermediate levels. The manuscript
is the result of two volumes bound together. The rst (fols. :
r
:
v
)
was written between the fteenth and sixteenth centuries. It contains
Pyl (fols. :
r
:
v
) and the canons of some masculine nouns and of the
nine verbal conjugations. The second part (fols. :
r
:
v
), written in
the fteenth century, contains some prayers in Greek (the Apostles
Creed, Hail Mary, the Lords Prayer, the Minor Doxology, etc.) and
the rst book of Theodore Gazas grammar.
18
Described by Giorgio Muccio and Pio Franchi de Cavalieri in Index codicum
Graecorum bibliothecae Angelicae, FirenzeRoma :8q6, pp. 6. Fol. :
r
shows an incom-
plete index in Latin, the mark of the library of Cardinal Domenico Passionei (:68.
:6:), and the number XIII written by the librarian, Filippo Vitale. Passionei,
appointed protobibliothecarius of the Vatican library by Pope Benedict XIV in ::, was
a bibliophile and a collector of Latin and Greek manuscripts. Many of his Greek
books came from the library of Cardinal Ascanio Sforza (::8:6). Passioneis
library was incorporated into the Biblioteca Angelica, the rst public library in Rome,
which was founded by the Augustinian priest Angelo Rocca (::.o) and open to
the public in :6:. See Enea Piccolomini in the introduction to the catalogue quoted
above, :o.o; Grendler-Grendler :q8, ; and Granger :qq, 6q.
:6o cn\r+rn +nnrr
Pyl is written in a square, upright, and very conservative hand,
which imitates the minuscule of the ninth and tenth centuries. The
hand has been identied as being that of Michael Lygizos. Born
at Cydonia, Lygizos was a pupil and a friend of Michael Apostolis
(above, : .), with whom he kept an assiduous correspondence.
He was active as a scholar and as a scribe in Crete, specically in
Rethymnon, Candia, and Gortyna, between :6 and :. He also
copied the text of Pyl in O and part of Q.
19
The text of Pyl, entitled j o 0, is writ-
ten in columns of ..6 lines; the right-hand part of the page is usu-
ally left blank, perhaps for a translation, notes, and glosses. As an aid
to memory, short titles and bigger initial letters, occasionally rubri-
cated, mark the beginning of the paragraphs or sections of the gram-
mar book. Punctuation divides the text into short sections.
In spite of its many mistakes and omissions,
20
this manuscript is
one of the most valuable copies of Pyl a. The writing is accurate; the
text has been improved by a second hand, which corrected a lot of
mistakes, mostly due to iotacism.
B MS. Barberini gr. :o (I. :o) of the Vatican Library is a small manu-
script (paper, mm :6::o; 68 fols., sixteen lines per page) containing
the text of Pyl (fols. :
r
6
r
), followed by some short texts (fols. 6
v
68
r
)
that qualify the manuscript as a schoolbook.
21
The title of Pyl, -
j o o o 0t (sic) r j u `i
u j `o (sic) o 0 i 0 u (cf.
R), can hardly be read because of the bad condition of the rst pages
of the manuscript. The title Donati grammatica graece appears on one of
the yleaves.
The watermarks allow us to date the manuscript to the mid-f-
teenth century;
22
however, B is actually the result of the work of many
19
See Vogel-Gardthausen :; and Gamillscheg-Harlnger I A, :::.
20
For example, A often omits i, i, and in questions and answers, as well
as i at the beginning of lists of examples. Obsolete or rarely used forms (e.g., some
vocatives) are often omitted.
21
Described by Valentino Capocci, Codices Barberiniani graeci, vol. :: Codices .., in
Bibliotheca Vaticana :q8, :o::. With its :o,o: Latin, q Greek, and :6o Oriental
manuscripts, the Barberini library was the largest book collection of the seventeenth
century. It was incorporated into the Vatican library in :qo.. See De Nicol :q8,
.f.
22
Of the watermarks identied by Capocci, one (a ower: fols. , , :o, etc.) does
not correspond to any known watermark. The second (two crossed arrows: fol. 6) is
nox\+i on\rci :6:
hands of dierent times. The text is written in a uent and very legible
writing, with many capital and enlarged letters. Schmitt has found
traces of four hands in the text of Pyl. The hand that wrote the
sections on prepositions and conjunctions (fols. 6.
r
6
r
) is probably
contemporaneous with the hand of the previous part. At least two
later hands added a lot of corrections and glosses in the margins and
in the interlinear spaces. There are clear traces of a collation of B
with a manuscript of the group of A, N, O, and Q.
23
Several lost pages
were replaced by pasting other leaves to the quires (e.g., fol. . and
fols. bis6:). On fol. 6
r
, after the chapter on conjunctions, the
explicit reads: r u _u i_ 0 o 0 `i. We
cannot exclude the possibility, however, that B originally contained
an appendix, like its cognates C and G.
24
A late-sixteenth-century hand added the short religious texts that
we nd in fols. 6
v
6
r
. In fol. 68
r
, a short grammatical catechism on
the Greek alphabet and accents written in Latin, inc. In quot dividuntur
viginti quattuor littere, concludes the manuscript.
C MS. Conventi Soppressi :o6 of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Flo-
rence (AF .88., formerly MS. 8o of the Benedictine abbey of Santa
Maria or Badia Fiorentina) is a paper manuscript from the end of
the fteenth century. It measures mm :8.o and contains :6:
folios with some blank pages (:..:. and ::6). The manuscript
has been badly damaged by humidity.
25
The text of Pyl is written
on fols. :.
r
:
r
, twenty-two lines per page. The writing is a reg-
ular minuscule, slightly inclined to the left; the long oblique strokes
of delta and chi break its uniformity. Sometimes the copyist has dis-
posed declensions or conjugations in charts (e.g., in fols. :6
r
:
v
,
similar to Briquets nos. 6.6q (Venice :, Barcelona :6, Venzone :6) and 6.:
(Venice :6.). The third (scissors: fol. 6) resembles no. 66: Briquet (Venice :8).
23
Schmitt :q66, :.f. The hands that corrected and improved the text are hardly
distinguishable from each other. In fact, Schmitt (:.8 n. ) recognizes weitere
Hnde besides the copyists but remarks that wieviel Hnde insgesamt Eintragun-
gen und Verbesserungen vorgenommen haben, lt sich schwehr sagen. Fols. . and
:o
v
show traces of at least three hands.
24
See Schmitt :q66, :..
25
Described by Del Furia in Supplementum alterum ad catalogum codicum manuscriptorum
Graecorum, Latinorum, Italicorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae, s. l., s. a., I. ., 8.,
and by Enrico Rostagno and Nicola Festa, Indice dei codici greci Laurenziani non
compresi nel catalogo del Bandini, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica : (:8q), ::..:
:.
:6. cn\r+rn +nnrr
containing the conjugation of 0u). The rst pages have a sober
ornamentation: the Latin and the Greek titles are separated by a band
with a oral pattern. The same pattern decorates the initial letters of
each paragraph on the rst page, whereas simple rubricated initials
mark the beginning of each section of the text on the following pages.
In fol. :
r
, the last words of Pyl form an upside-down triangle. The
anonymous copyist also inserted short titles before each section most
certainly in order to make memorization easier.
The words Erotimata Guerrini that appear on top of fol. :.
r
, before
the Greek title (j u _u i_ o '0
0t u), allow us to suppose that the copyist has
associated or confused the Greek Pyl with the edition of Chrysoloras
Erotemata by Guarino Guarini. However, it is more probable that the
reference to Guarini did not concern the supposed authorship of
the grammar: like Donatus for Latin, Chrysoloras-Guarinis Erotemata
were presumably synonymous with Greek elementary grammar.
In this manuscript, Pyl follows the second and third books of
Constantine Lascaris Greek grammar, and is followed, in turn, by
two short liturgical Greek texts: the u 0 i '0i
(:
r
:8
v
) and the 0 j r, 0 u i 0
i (:8
v
:6:
v
).
A note in the lower margin of fol. :
r
, usui D(omini) Laur(entii) Lucal-
berti Flor(entini), mentions one of the readers, if not the purchaser,
of the manuscript: the Florentine humanist and Hellenist Lorenzo
Lorenzi or Lorenzano, who taught logic, physics, and medicine at
Florence and Pisa from :q until his death in :o..
26
However, the
analysis of the watermarks suggests that the manuscript was copied
some time during the last twenty years of the fteenth century, pre-
sumably in Venice.
27
26
See Cosenza :q6., . :qf., . q8qf. Lorenzi has been confused with the
Venetian Laurentius Lauretanus (r ), or Lorenzo Loredan, who
copied part of MS. R (see below, :.): see Vendruscolo :qq, 8. After Lorenzanos
death, the manuscript became part of the library of the Badia Fiorentina, whose
manuscripts were incorporated into the Biblioteca Laurenziana in :8:o; see Schmitt
:q66, :o and n. .
27
For example, the watermark (a scale) of fols. ::: and :: is similar to
Briquet .qo, which is attested to in Nordlingen :q: and Venice :q6 and :qq. That
of fols. .o.: and of the fth quire (o) resembles Briquet .88, i.e., Treviso and
Venice :8. That of the eleventh quire (8:
r
-88
v
, coinciding with the end of one of
Constantine Lascaris books), Briquet .:., has been located in Venice :q or :q6.
nox\+i on\rci :6
G MS. Gaddi :8. of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence (formerly
q.6: paper, mm :.o, q folios, some of which were misplaced
in the binding)
28
may be dated from the beginning of the sixteenth
century. Therefore, G is one of the most recent manuscripts of Pyl
a. G was part of the library of the Florentine aristocrat Angiolo
de Gaddi, a collector of manuscripts and occasionally a copyist.
29
The manuscript does not oer any clue to its origin. However, the
watermarks hint at an area in Northeastern Italy.
30
G contains the text of Pyl only, without the prologue but with an
extensive Latin translation and a complete appendix. The Greek text
was written by one hand, thirteen lines per page. The writing is clear
and legible but not elegant; letters are separated and slightly inclined
to the right. A Latin translation (Gl
1
) was written in a late Gothic
cursive, perhaps by the same hand, in the wide interlinear spaces up
to fol. .
v
. From .
v
to
r
, the Latin text is written in sections and
inserted in the Greek text, in spaces left blank for this purpose (Gl
2
).
These insertions generally make up for the parts of Ianua omitted in
the Greek translation. No translation or supplement is oered from
fol.
r
, where the section on participles begins, until the end of Pyl:
at that stage, students were probably procient enough in Greek and
did not need any more pedagogical support. On the other hand, the
fact that the rubricated initial letters appear only in the rst half of the
text suggests that the work was left incomplete. The Latin title Libellus
grammatices (fol. :
r
) is a later addition. On fol. q
v
, the last words of Pyl
form a triangle similar to that of C.
Gs Greek text is full of omissions and mistakes: the text is related
to B and C, but is of inferior quality (see below, :); similarities to
28
After the third quire (fol. .), the correct sequence is: ., q, 8 , .,
.6:, o, etc.
29
For a description of the manuscript, see Angelo Maria Bandini, Bibliotheca Leo-
poldina Laurentiana seu Catalogus manuscriptorum qui iussu Petri Leopoldi [] in Laurentianam
translati sunt [], vol. ., Florentiae :q., :; and Enrico Rostagno Indicis codicum
Graecorum Bibliothecae Laurentianae supplementum, Studi Italiani di Filologia Clas-
sica 6 (:8q8), :.q:66: :of. no. . On Angiolo de Gaddi and his library, incorpo-
rated into the Biblioteca Laurenziana in :, see Baron :q68, ...
30
The watermark of the third quire (fols. ..: three mountains surmounted by a
cross, a typically Italian watermark) is similar to Briquet ::6qq, Padua :., or ::.,
which is found in Pistoia ::6: or in Venice :6.:66. The watermark of the
second quire (fols. q:6: a head of a unicorn) resembles Briquet :6o or :8, both
from Treviso between : and :6., but very common in the Veneto throughout the
fteenth century.
:6 cn\r+rn +nnrr
Rs text, although not signicant, also can be found.
31
Gs interest
lies especially in the Latin translation (Gl). It is dicult to establish
whether this translation was already in Gs original or was added by
Gs copyist. In any case, combining the Greek and the Latin texts
could have been particularly useful for the Latins who wanted to learn
Greek from Pyl: in this way, both texts were available for a quick and
easy comparison of forms and paradigms. The interlinear Gl
1
is a
literal Latin translation of the Greek text, even if some discrepancies
between the Greek and Latin texts suggest that some parts of Gl
1
were
not made ex novo to t in with Gs text.
32
N MS. gr. .q of the Bibliothque Nationale in Paris is a paper codex of
the fteenth century. In its . folios, it contains what may be dened
as a complete Greek elementary course:
33
in addition to Pyl (fols. 6
v

6
r
) and the Greek translation of Catos Disticha (6
v
6.
v
), it includes
some short anonymous works on orthography, prosody, word order,
syntax, and style, together with excerpts from collections of r (for
example, one entitled 0j i i, on fols. ::8) and
from the grammatical works of Anastasius Sinaites, Michael Syncellus,
George Choeroboscus, John Tzetzes, Michael Psellus, and Theodore
Prodromos. At the end of the book, there are some texts of moral
and religious content that were probably meant to be read after the
study of grammar: part of Gregory of Nazianzus second oration on
Easter, followed by an explanation of the references to history and
31
For example: both G and R omit the declensions of i (:. qq6), r,
lu, , 0o (:::8), (..8), and i (..6), as
well as the vocative of r (. :::). Both manuscripts give the present subjunctive
of 0u, ro 0u (.. :.:(b): j oi ABCNOQ). Other errores
coniunctivi are 000 for 0_u0 (.. .o), r0 for r0 (.. 88),
and j for u (8. .).
32
Gl
1
is sometimes faithful to the Greek text: for example, :. ..: hoc species for
i; .: hoc res for o; etc. A bizarre case is at :. :6, where t 00i
0i is rendered with tria articularia et pronomina: the nal syllable of 00i was
probably taken as the conjunction i and translated into Latin. On the other hand,
on :. :, the opening question j i r ri; o is translated
with the nominative instead of the genitive (Poeta quae pars orationis est? Nomen), as is
typical of Ianua. On :. q8, in the excursus on the vocative of the second declension,
Gl
1
disregards the incorrect j u of Gs text and writes desinentibus, which
corresponds to the correct reading t j. For a complete list of discrepancies
between the Greek and Latin texts of G, see Schmitt :q66, :.
33
A concise description in Henri Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la
Bibliothque Nationale, vol. , Paris :888, q:o.
nox\+i on\rci :6
legends contained in his text, the prophecies of the Seven Sages on
the incarnation of Christ, and a short collection of moral sentences.
In the rst part (fols. ::86), the writing is a regular cursive that imi-
tates the Fettaugenmode-Stil. The copyist has been identied with
Michael Souliardos. Born in Nauplion, he began his activity in Crete:
he was at Cydonia from : to :8. After moving to Nauplion and
Methone, Souliardos left Greece for Italy (:q: or :q.) and was in
Florence between :q and :q6. Souliardos last dated manuscript
belongs to :o8 or :oq.
34
It is dicult to say where N was copied: the
analysis of the watermarks did not provide any useful information.
35
However, the fact that the N-text shows similarities with the Vene-
tian/Cretan A, O, and Q rather than with the Florentine recensio
(B, C, and G) suggests that Souliardos used a copy of the text circulat-
ing in the Venetian colonies.
The original title of Pyl cannot be read in the photographic repro-
ductions, but in the upper left margin of fol.
v
a later hand added
o j j. The decoration is sober: on the rst
page, over the title, there is a band with oral patterns surmounted
by a cross. The initials of u and j are also decorated. Red
ink is often used for initials and even for entire sentences. The writing
is small and compressed: each page contains thirty-one lines. Unlike
the other manuscripts of Pyl, there are no wide margins or inter-
linear spaces and the page is quite crowded, but the text is copied
only on the verso of the folios; the facing recto is left blank, presumably
for a Latin translation.
36
Translations of single words or entire sen-
tences appear, on the other hand, in the margins and in the interlin-
ear spaces of the text of Catos Distichs, showing that the manuscript
comes from an area where Latin was important in the teaching of
elementary Greek.
One of the most interesting features of this manuscript is the num-
ber of marginal notes and reference marks added by a later hand:
dotted crosses indicate the denitions, maniculae and more or less com-
34
On Souliardos, who calls himself 't or o or o, see Vogel-
Gardthausen :8.o; and Gamillscheg-Harlnger :A, :, and .A, :8. I follow
Lobels reconstruction of Souliardos activity (:q, 6).
35
The watermarks have been checked for me by Henri D. Sarey, whom I
warmly thank. The watermarka scale, very common in Northern Italyis the
same throughout the manuscript, but does not seem to correspond precisely to any of
the watermarks described by Briquet and Piccard.
36
See Webb :qq, q6.
:66 cn\r+rn +nnrr
plex asterisks mark the changes of topic, whereas short titles anticipate
the content of the sections that follow. In particular, the corrector was
aware of the dierence between the perfect and the aorist and indi-
cated this in the margins. For example, he wrote u 0
0 beside the perfect and pluperfect subjunctive passive ro
0u etc. (.. :(a): fol. .:
v
) and beside the pluperfect optative
active i0 0u etc. (.. :.: .
v
); he also wrote 0 0
beside the perfect and pluperfect optative i0 0j
etc. (.. 6(b): .
v
), the perfect indicative active ro (.. 686(b):
.
v
), etc.
O MS. Barocci . of the Bodleian Library at Oxford is a paper manu-
script from the end of the fteenth century. Like N, it contains a col-
lection of material to be used in schools for the study of Greek at the
elementary and intermediate levels. In fact, the manuscript consists of
eighty-six units, perhaps originally intended to be used as separate
schoolbooks.
37
However, the texts contained in Os folios concern
a much wider range of subjects than those contained in N: morphol-
ogy, syntax, and style, as well as prosody and metrics, with copies
of Hephaestions Enchiridion, Herodians De dichronis, De guris poeticis
attributed to Tryphon, etc. Some textsfor example, Hephaestions
treatise on metricsoccur more than once. The book also provides
students with a lot of information on Greek language and culture: the
voices of animals, the calendar, as well as the names of patriarchs,
the Apostles, the Seven Sages, etc. Among the readings, we nd one
speech and one letter by Libanius introduced by Eunapius biogra-
phy, an anonymous essay on the twelve labors of Heracles, Annaeus
Cornutus De natura deorum, Palaephatus Historiae incredibiles, and some
short poems, including a distich from Palladas.
This manuscript belonged to the library of the humanist and math-
ematician Francesco Barocci or Barozzi.
38
In :6.q, Barozzis collec-
37
See Schmitt :q66, :.., and :q, .q. The manuscript has been described
by Henry O. Coxe, Bodleian Library Quarto Catalogues, vol. :: Greek Manuscripts, Oxford
:q6q, :::. (reprint, with corrections, of the edition of :8: Catalogi codicum manu-
scriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae pars prima recensionem codicum Graecorum continens, confecit
Henricus O. Coxe, etc.)
38
Born in : at Candia, in Crete, to a noble Venetian family, Barozzi was a
humanist and a mathematician, who was also interested in philosophy and occult
sciences; he studied and taught at the University of Padua. Accused of heresy and
apostasy, in :8 and :8 he went on trial before the Inquisition; the exact charges
are not known. At Rethymnon, in :6., Barozzi founded the Accademia dei Vivi
nox\+i on\rci :6
tion, which had been inherited and expanded by his nephew Jacopo,
was purchased by Sir William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and Chan-
cellor of Oxford University, who donated it to the Bodleian Library.
Pyl, entitled j o o 0t (sic) r
j u `i j j `o o 0 i 0
u, is copied on fols. .66
r
o
v
and :o
r
:
r
. Each page con-
tains twenty-one lines and has wide margins; the use of initial letters,
short titles, and punctuation is similar to what we nd in A.
39
Prob-
ably because of the misplacement of two quires in the binding pro-
cess, the text of Pyl is interrupted by part of the Greek translation
of Catos Distichs (o6
r
oq
v
) with plenty of glosses in Greek. Indeed,
Pyl a is not the only Latinate elementary grammar included in the
manuscript: Pyl d is also written on fols. ..q
r
.6
v
and attributed to
Zacharias Calliergis.
Of the dierent hands of the manuscript, two have been identi-
ed. Fols. ::o were copied by Andreas Donos, who was proba-
bly from Crete: he was active between the end of the fteenth and
the beginning of the sixteenth centuries. In :q, he was in Sicily,
at Messina, perhaps as a member of the circle of Constantine La-
scaris. In any case, he spent much time in Crete, where he taught
Francesco Barozzi. Fols. .66:, which include Pyl and the Distichs,
were copied by the Cretan Michael Lygizos, the copyist of A and
part of Q.
40
The owner of the manuscript, its Cretan copyists, Cal-
liergis name, and the Greek glosses on Catos Distichs refer to the
Cretan cultural environment. This manuscript, therefore, is an inter-
esting document on the study of ancient Greek in the Venetian colony
of Crete.
41
(Academy of the Living) in order to promote the return to Crete of all the intellectuals
who had left the island; later, Barozzi founded two more academies in Crete. Little
documentation on Barozzis academies survives: most documents may have been
destroyed after his second trial, in order to protect the other members. Barozzi
himself spent most of his life in Venice, where he died in :6o. See Spiazzi :q6;
Bancroft-Markus :q8.:q8, o6o; and Panagiotakis :q88, :q:.
39
Unlike A and like N, however, O contains several glosses specifying that forms
like 00, 00i, 0j, and ro are aorist and not perfect (for exam-
ple, on fols. .qo
v
and .q:
r
: 0 0 ). These marginal notes, less fre-
quent than Ns, have been added by a later hand.
40
On Donos, see Gamillscheg-Harlnger :A, .f.; on Lygizos, see above, :6o.
41
The part with Pyl may have been copied in Crete or in Venice; in fact, the
watermark of the folios with Pyl are similar to Briquet :q (Venice :6).
:68 cn\r+rn +nnrr
O is not without mistakes and omissions; however, it is a very valu-
able copy of the text of Pyl a. The text shows traces of corrections, for
the most part by the copyist himself.
Q Together with R, the Vatican MS. Ottoboni gr. .o6 (formerly V. I. ;
paper, mm :..:o, .q folios) is the only manuscript of Pyl a pre-
cisely dated. A subscriptio on fol. .q.
v
reads, in fact: r

i o, the fourth of May of the year 6q8, corresponding to
:.
42
The hand of the rst part of the manuscript, containing Pyl a,
has not been identied; it is, however, very similar to that of Michael
Lygizos, who wrote the second part of the manuscript (fols. :86.q.).
43
This manuscript contains the tools necessary for the study of elemen-
tary Greek: the Greek alphabet explained in Latin, lists of abbrevia-
tions, and prayers in Greek (the Apostles Creed, the Lords Prayer,
the Minor Doxology, etc.). Pyl (fols. 6a
v

v
) and the rst book of
Catos Distichs (6
r
6.
v
) are followed by excerpts from the Canons of
Theodosius of Alexandria, from Theodore Gazas grammar, and from
Moschopoulos Erotemata.
The text of Pyl is very similar, although not identical, to that of
A. However, the extraordinary interest of Q lies in the information
that it conveys on the circulation of Pyl in the vicinity of Venice at
the beginning of the sixteenth century and on the actual use of this
grammar in learning elementary Greek. On top of fol. 6a
v
, where Pyl
begins, we read some words written in an almost completely faded
sepia ink:
Die :: Octobris ..o anno salutis Franciscus Hyazchas Plato incepit dare operam
literaturae graecae Corneliani oppidi procul Taurisio .ooo passuum. Agens aetatem
annorum.
This is followed by the list of the Greek diphthongs in a Latin translit-
eration according to their pronunciation:
42
Described by Ernest Feron and Fabiano Battaglini, Codices manuscripti Graeci Otto-
boniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae descripti etc., Romae :8q, :.of. The library of Cardi-
nal Pietro Ottoboni, who became Pope Alexander VIII in :68q, was incorporated
into the Vatican library in :8. Ottobonis library included some of the books of
Christina, Queen of Sweden (collected in France and in Rome) as well as those of
Cardinal Sirleto (many of which are from Calabria) and the Altemps family. Many
of the Ottoboniani Greek manuscripts came from Mount Athos. See De Nicol :q8,
.qf.
43
See Gamillscheg-Harlnger : A, :.
nox\+i on\rci :6q
e af i ef i u

The question about the identity of Franciscus Hyazchas Plato can-
not be answered. Like Girolamo Amaseo some years before (above,
:), he may have left his native country to study the humanities in
more prestigious Italian cultural centers.
44
It is not surprising that
he was no longer a young man, if we consider that some of Giro-
lamos classmates in Florence were in their forties or in their fties.
The place where Hyazchas studied, Cornelianum oppidum, was almost
certainly Conegliano Veneto, which is actually about fteen miles (.8
Km) from Taurisium (i.e., Treviso).
45
Because of its close contacts with Treviso and Venice, Conegliano
had a solid cultural tradition. The famous teachers and literates Gio-
vanni Conversini and Pietro da Asolo had taught there between ::
and :8:. Moreover, between :6 and :, Petrarchs sojourn in
Padua and Arqu, in the Euganean Hills, had sparked interest in
literary studies. In :q8, Coneglianos territory became part of the
Republic of Venice: the absorption of the culture and the customs of
the capital allowed the city to reach its apogee in the second half of
the fteenth century. However, in ::o, when Hyazchas was under-
taking his study of Greek, Conegliano was no longer a prosperous
city. A plague had broken out, weakening the city to such an extent
that, in :::, it was conquered by the army of the League of Cambrai
44
So far, I have not been able to nd evidence of the name Hyazchas elsewhere,
nor do I have any clue about its root, its origin or its meaning. Plato may be a
nickname, perhaps inspired by Neoplatonic philosophy. Together with Aristotelian-
ism, Neoplatonism had become popular in the Veneto, thanks to Nicolaus Leoni-
cus Thomaeus, who taught in Padua from :q for about ten years (see Monfasani
:qqo, 6f.; and Grendler .oo., .qf.). Also, Paduas school of civil and canon law
attracted many students from northern and central Europe to the Veneto; for exam-
ple, between the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries one thousand Hungarians
studied at Padua. See Plumidis :q:, :.; Walter .ooo, :..; and Grendler .oo.,
8.
45
In antiquity and in the Middle Ages, the toponym Cornelianum indicated several
places in Italy (Cornegliano Landense near Milan, Cornigliano near Piacenza, and
Corneliano dAlba in Piedmont), in Dalmatia (Mons Cornelianus, now Cornio), and
in France (Corneillan in Gers, Corneilhan in Hrault, and Corneilla-de-Conent
in Pirenes Orientaux). Taurisium or Tarvisium may indicate Tabriz, in Armenia (see
Blanchet-Ganchou .oo, 6), but here it refers, most probably, to the city of
Treviso, in the Veneto. In medieval documents, Conegliano Veneto and Treviso
are usually mentioned as Coneclanum and Tarvisium respectively; Hyazchas may have
chosen to archaize their names. See TLO .. :. :q; and Orbis latinus :. , . 8.
:o cn\r+rn +nnrr
(:o8::6). Conegliano did not recover its prestige until the Venetian
reconquest, in ::..
46
In Q, Pyl is written in columns of twenty-six lines per page; like
Lygizos writing, the writing of the Greek text is square and archaiz-
ing. In the rst four pages we have a faithful Latin translation, clearly
and accurately written, placed beside the Greek text. From fol. q
r
onwards, however, we nd only glosses alongside the Greek text. The
hand and the pale sepia ink that was used belong to Hyazchas him-
self; he also tried to separate the words of the Greek text with ver-
tical strokes. Hyazchas translated some of the denitions into Latin;
more often, however, he gave the Latin meaning of the nouns or the
verbs, or the corresponding Latin tense of the verbal forms only. He
also followed the same method with the canons of the parisyllabic
nouns written in fols. 6
r
:6:
v
.
47
Some mistakesfor example, 0
glossed with piscator and 00, abbreviated , confused with
0 and translated with demensdemonstrate that Hyazchas used
the book for the independent study of Greek, perhaps with the help of
a bilingual dictionary.
R MS. Redi : of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence (paper, mm
.:::, fols. .o), from the end of the fteenth century, is the result
of the binding of several texts written by at least ten dierent hands.
It contains, for example, excerpts from Clement of Alexandrias Stro-
mata, Epictetus Enchiridion, Plutarchs Consolatio ad Apollonium, Eratos-
thenes letter to Ptolemy, and Michael Apostolis letters to Gemistos
Plethon. Part of this heterogeneous material was to be used for learn-
ing Greek.
48
Pyl is neatly written on fols. :::
r
::
r
(or ::6
r
:6
r
, tak-
ing into account the blank pages) in a typical fteenth-century cur-
sive. The presence of decoration, although very simple (a large band
over the title, Alexandrian capital letters for the title, and some deco-
rated initials), as well as the layout (twenty-ve lines per page) sug-
gest that the text was not copied to serve exclusively as a school-
book. Several corrections can be observed in the margins and in the
46
On the culture and history of Conegliano and its environs, see Gargan :q6,
8.; Grendler :q8a, :q:; De Mas :q.; and Caniato-Baldissin Molli :q8, .o..
47
For example: i aiax, 0o thoas, i klimax, r lebes, u fenerator,
0 nomen p(ro)p(rium), o vates, i gra(ti)osus, u peleus, etc.
48
The manuscript has been described by Rostagno and Festa (above, n. .), .:qf.
See also the thorough analyses by Vendruscolo (:qq) and Speranzi (.oo, 8).
nox\+i on\rci ::
interlinear spaces; some are by the copyist himself, but most of them
are by a later hand.
In any case, Pyl marks the beginning of the second section of the
book, which is dedicated to school texts. Pyl is entitled j
o 0t r j u `i j j `-
o o 0 i 0 u. It is followed by Planudes
translation of Catos Distichs (:.
r
:66
v
). The hand of the Distichs is
dierent from that of Pyl, but is identical to the hand that wrote two
elementary texts: the sentences attributed to Phocylides (see above,
:.) and a riddle in epigrammatic form (AP. :. ::o: fols. :6
r
:6
r
).
Another hand wrote a section on prayers (e.g., Te Deum laudamus:
o t 't r o, sic), while two dif-
ferent hands added the Pseudo-Homeric Batracomyomachia and Philo-
stratus Imagines ::.
49
The manuscript, previously no. :o in the library of the Monastero
degli Angeli in Florence (Monasterii Angelorum on fol. :
r
), belonged to
the Camaldolite Petrus Candidus (Pietro da Portico), who between
:q: and :q6 was in Crete to learn Greek and was in close contact
with Apostolis circle. Pyl a was probably one of the grammars that
Candidus used to acquire his knowledge of the language. According
to the subscriptio on fol. ::
r
, Pyl was copied by George Gregoropou-
los: 0 u i i 0 u o i
u. Gregoropoulos, a priest (0u), was at Candia some time
before :q. Gregoropoulos uses a regular minuscule with capital and
enlarged letters; he carefully divides the text into shorter units and
often disposes paradigms in tables.
50
More Cretan hands can be iden-
tied in the manuscript: e.g., Thomas Bitzimanos, who copied the cor-
pus of Apostolis letters to Plethon;
51
and Antonios Damilas (Antonius
Mediolanensis), a notary in Crete, who copied Epictetus Enchiridion.
52
49
See Rostagno and Festa, loc, cit.
50
On Gregoropoulos family, see Kaklamanis-Lambakis .oo, ... See also
Vogel-Gardthausen .; Gamillscheg-Harlnger : A, f.; Vendruscolo :qq, 8
n. 86; and Speranzi .oo, . On Gregoropoulos writing, see Melandri :qqq, ::8
:.8.
51
Vogel-Gardthausen :o; and Gamillscheg-Harlnger : A, 88.
52
The glosses on Epictetus Enchiridion, which Rostagno had attributed to Poli-
tian, were added by Petrus Candidus (see Gionta .oo). On Antonios Damilas, who
also worked for the humanist Francesco Filelfo, see Vogel-Gardthausen .. He
was the brother of Demetrios Damilas (i.e., da Milano, from Milan), who migrated
to Italy from Crete and worked in Milan (::8), Florence (:8:qo), and
Rome (:qo::o). Demetrios, who was also a printer, has been identied by Canart
:. cn\r+rn +nnrr
All the hands so far identied belong to the scriptorium of Michael
Apostolis; therefore, the Redi manuscript can be considered a product
of this cultural environment. On the other hand, another subscriptio
on fol. o
v
(i r0 i o) tells us that the text
of Eratosthenes letter to Ptolemy was copied in Venice (`i) on
December , :8q (

0 0 j 0 j -
i ) by Lorenzo Loredan.
53
The watermarks indicate that the
paper was produced in Crete and in Venice and/or in the nearby
area at the end of the fteenth century.
54
R reached Florence in :q6, when Petrus Candidus returned from
his sojourn in Crete.
55
Therefore, R bears witness to the transmission
of Pyl a from Crete to Florence by the end of the fteenth century.
. Pyl a: Toward a Stemma Codicum
My analysis of the manuscripts of Pyl a has conrmed and reinforced
the conclusions reached by Schmitt in his dissertation. The manu-
scripts of Pyl a can be divided into two main groups: the rst includes
A, B, C, G, N, O, and Q, and the second consists of R only. Rs
text belongs to the Pyl a-type because it is a literal translation of an
Ianua longa, but it often diers from the other manuscripts, which I will
dene as the x-group, in the order and in the number of paradigms as
well as in the language of the Greek translation.
56
For example:
(:q:qq, .8..) as the Librarius Florentinus, an anonymous copyist whose hand
has been recognized in many manuscripts now at the Biblioteca Laurenziana. See
Geneakoplos :q6, .o; and Branca :q8, :.. A detailed analysis of Demetrios life
and printing activity can be found in Stakos :qq8, ::6.
53
Born in :6 to a prestigious Venetian family, Lorenzo Loredan was a student of
Giorgio Valla, who taught at the School of San Marco from :8 to :oo. Through
Valla, he became acquainted with Politian. Loredan died in :.6. See Vendruscolo
:qq, o..
54
For an analysis of Rs watermarks, see Vendruscolo :qq, 8 n. 86; and Spe-
ranzi .oo, ..
55
After Candidus death (::), his library was incorporated into the library of the
Monastero degli Angeli. On Candidus books, see Scapecchi :qq; Melandri :qqq,
::6f.; and Speranzi .oo, .qq.
56
For a complete list of dierences between x (p) and R, see Schmitt :q66, :8
:6. Some similarities between R and b s text (for example: a :. :8.:(b) = b :. ::8;
a . :.(b) b. . ::) may be derived from the presence, in Rs original, of variae
lectiones taken from bs source, or, more probably, from the anity between Rs original
and bs source.
nox\+i on\rci :
pr. 6 o x o R
:. 8, :o, :. 00j x i 00j R
:. o 0; x 0 r; R
:. : 0j x u R
:. ::6. om. x
:. :6..: om. R
.. :o jo x jj R
.. :6 00j0 x 000 R
.. .:. om. x
.. q8 om. x
.. , 8o, :, etc. r x o r R
.. 6 0u 00
0u x 0j R
.. 6q om. x
. :q o x j R
. .. i x i R
. :o:o8 om. x
. :: u x u R
. :: rr x 0r R
6. ... r x u R
0 x ui R
etc.
It is possible that Rs original was a Latin Ianua either earlier or
later than that of x, but very similar to it.
57
In any case, some sim-
ilarities and some errores coniunctivi between R and all, or some, of
the manuscripts of the x-group led Schmitt to consider as probable
(wahrscheinlich) a common origin for all the extant manuscripts
of Pyl a.
58
We cannot exclude that such similarities may be due to
57
There will be no solution to the problem of the relative chronology of the two
originals until the history of the text of Ianua becomes suciently clear. Here are
some examples, taken from the treatment of nominal inection. At :. o, x uses the
objective statement (oj r 0 0 oo, ...), whereas R has a
question (oj r 0 r; 0 0 oo, ...): a dierence that
can also be found, for example, when comparing some printed editions of Ianua, e.g.,
p and v (see above, o n. 8q). At :. , concerning the endings of the rst declension,
together with j, 0 R also gives the nominative and genitive of 0 (like
the p-edition). For the fth declension, R replaces i (des: :. .6.68) with ri
(spes, which actually appears in the p-edition: :. .6q.). Finally, R does not give
the inection of the nouns 0 (arma), o (Tartarus), 0 (coelum), j
(portus, instead of porrus), r (epulum), and (cepe: :. :qo).
58
Schmitt :q66, :6: Trotz die zahlreichen Unterschiede [] gibt es eine Reihe
von bereinstimmungen und gemeinsamer Fehler, welche die gleiche Herkunft fr
alle berlieferten Texttrger wahrscheinlich machen. Here are some examples (a
complete list in Schmitt :q66, :6:6q): :. q. t BCGNOR (instead of
: cn\r+rn +nnrr
pure coincidence or to contamination between manuscripts. In gen-
eral, however, if compared with the other three extant Donati graeci,
the texts of both groups of manuscripts of Pyl a are homogeneous: the
similarities between the two groups are much more numerous than
their dierences. This homogeneity consists mainly in the choices
made by the translator(s) when rendering the Latin text. In the chap-
ter on verbs, for example, both x and R translate the Latin verb lego in
0u (to read), whereas the other Donati graeci use the Greek
r, despite the dierent meaning (to say, speak). In both x and R
we observe the same confusion between aorist and perfect indicative
or between the passive and the middle voices.
59
Both x and R trans-
late the Latin pluperfect with the corresponding Greek tense, which
is rare in classical Greek and almost nonexistent in late Greek. More-
over, both x and R lack the translation of the forms of r (mem-
ini) and the impersonal conjugations of r0i (edo) and u (eo).
On the other hand, all manuscripts of Pyl a agree in translating the
Latin perfect participle lectus with the aorist active 0u. These
similarities have led me to present both texts together as Pyl a and to
attempt the reconstruction of an original hypothetical Ianua, on which
both xs and Rs original may have been based.
Within the x-group, some sub-groups can be easily identied. First
of all, MSS. B, C, and G are closely related to each other: these
manuscripts contain readings that distinguish them from R and from
the rest of the x-group.
60
For example:
i); .. 8 i0 i, i, i codd. (instead of r i, i,
i, as Schmitt corrected); 8. :o::: the translation of the Latin exemplum Cicero solus
Catilinam sua sapientia domuit; solus igitur Cicero patriam servavit (cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm.
:6. :., GL , :o:) reads in all manuscripts i (sic) i j i
00 ri i j i ij (sic) t i j i
ru. The words i j i ij (AQ, ij BG, ij
C, ij N, ij OR) were probably taken from a double version of
patriam servavit, later incorporated into the original text of Pyl a.
59
The merger of the aorist and the perfect started in the Hellenistic age. Accord-
ing to Horrocks (:qq, ::8), it may reect the inuence of Latin; see also Debrunner
:q6q [:q], ::::6. For the replacement of the middle voice with the passive, see
Horrocks :qq, , :88.
60
For example, in BCG the interrogative pronoun quae is translated with i instead
of t or i (cf., e.g., :. ) and the personal pronoun sui with 00, pl. ru,
instead of 0 and u (. o.; see below, :q). Remarks such as o i and
o u are usually omitted, as well as the identical forms in the declensions of
nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and participles. See Schmitt :q66, ::q and :q:8..
nox\+i on\rci :
:. : o j BCG j alii
:. o: 0u, 0 0i alii
0u BCG
:. 6 i BCG i alii
:. .86 j BCG o alii
.. (a) ri BCG r ANQ, r OR
.. : 00t BCG 00i AQ,
0j NOR
.. :qo jo om. BCG
.. : ri BCG ri alii
.. 8. i BCG i alii
.. 88 i BCG r alii
.. 888 r BCG r0 alii
etc.
On the other hand, the presence of errores separativi and of readings
peculiar to each manuscript suggests extreme caution in formulating
any hypothesis of derivation of these manuscripts from each other. For
example:
:. 0j B j C 00 G
:. . B C G
.. 6(a) 0 B i0 C 0r G
.. (a) 0j B 0j C 0r G
.. .... ju0 B jj0 C ji0 G
.. 8(a) 0u B 0u C 0u G
.. 8qo u0 B 0j C 0j u G
.. 8q.8q 0j B 0i C 0i G
etc.
It is worth noticing that, in most cases, C oers the correct reading.
Also, B and C often agree against G; for example:
:. : i r BC i r G
:. : u BC om. G
:. : i BC G
.. 8 0 BC 0 G
.. .o 00j0 BC 0j0 G
.. 6 0u BC 00j G
. 6o r BC r G
etc.
:6 cn\r+rn +nnrr
Among the other manuscripts of the x-group, A (and its close
relative, Q) and N have several readings in common with BCG;
61
for
example:
:. . o 0 om. ABCGQ
.. : 00 ABCGQ 000 alii
.. 0 j ABCGQ 0_ j alii
.. 88 0 ABCGQ 0 alii
.. ::(a) u om. ABCGQ
.. :qq 0o ABCGQ 00 alii
.. 6.68o om. ABCGQ
etc.
.. : 0r0 BCGN 0r alii
.. jr ii om. BCGN
.. 8: i, i BCGN i, i alii
. ::(a) 0o BCGN 0o alii
etc.
Sometimes both A(Q) and N agree with the BCG-group; for example:
:. qq i ABCGNQ i B
m
O
.. 6(a) i ABCGNQ i0 alii
.. : r ABCGNQ o r alii
.. 8q r om. ABCGNQ
.. 6 00r ABCGNQ 0r O
etc.
However, many of these common readings may have originated inde-
pendently. Much more relevant are the similarities between A and
O:
62
these two manuscripts, copied by the hand of Michael Lygizos,
represent an individual sub-group within x. In particular, A contains
61
The most frequent case is the translation of nominativus with 00t instead of
oj; see Schmitt :q66, :.
62
A agrees with both O and R, for example, in the declension of 0r (:.
:::6) with both the feminine and the masculine article (o i j 0r, which
corresponds to Ianuas hic et hec virgo), instead of j 0r only; or in the use of
the masculine form of the adjectives dening the categories of conjunctions (8. .:
, 00, , etc., scil. u) instead of the feminine of
BCG, which is the result of a faithful translation from Latin (coniunctio). See Schmitt
:q66, :8:86. On the other hand, in the denition of the neuter gender of verbs
(.. q:o), A and R have t r 00 0, whereas O reads 0 t
i, as in b .. 8; this may be a case of varia lectio or of a collatio with a
manuscript of Pyl b.
nox\+i on\rci :
a more recent and improved version of Pyl a than BCG.
63
Several
elements allow us to recognize a deliberate attempt to improve the
quality of the text: sometimes A omits forms that can be considered as
redundant or superuous in a basic introduction to Greek morphol-
ogy, such as some obsolete vocatives (e.g., that of o, :. ) or the
forms of the neuter adjectives or pronouns coinciding with those of
the masculine.
The corrections of B (B
m
) and the two manuscripts unknown to
Schmitt, N and Q, also belong to the same sub-group. B
m
agrees with
O in several cases; for example:
64
:. . 0 0 B
m
O (and R) r 0 alii
:. . j 0 B
m
O o j 0 0 NR,
om. ABCGQ
:. qq6 j etc. B
m
O i etc. alii
.. :: 0r B
m
O 0r alii
.. 6(a) rj B
m
O 0 AQ, 0_u BCG,
0_u rj R
0_ j B
m
O (and R) 0 j alii
.. q6q(b) r j r om. B
m
O
.. 6q j ri B
m
O j r alii
.. 6q68o r u_ om. B
m
O
etc.
Q is closely related to A; the mistakes, omissions, and lectiones potiores
that the two manuscripts have in common suggest that they may
derive from the same original (k).
65
However, Q oers an improved
63
For the good readings of BCG, see the critical apparatus and Schmitt :q66,
:q. n. :o..
64
Schmitt (:q66, :8f., n. :o:) includes a list of readings common to Bs marginalia
and O, and concludes: Es mu oen bleiben, ob etwa die Vorlage von O die Quelle
der Korrekturen in B ist, wie sich auch nicht entscheiden lt, ob etwa eine Abschrift
von Bb (= B
m
) als Vorlage fr O diente. The rst hypothesis seems to be more
probable, but the lack of more precise elements regarding the history of the text does
not encourage any nal conclusion.
65
For example, both A and Q call the deponent verb 0 (0-
A, but 00 NOR: .. :). Both A and Q omit the accusative and vocative
neuter plural of 0i (:. .o. and .o), the ablative plural of r (:. .o
.o8), the vocative singular of i (:. .), the vocative plural of r (:. 6),
etc. On the other hand, like O and N, Q contains the denition of the future tense,
which A omits (.. 6). A comparison between AQ and the other manuscripts of
the same group gives us some clues about the probable original of AQ (k). At .. :,
the perfect-pluperfect optative impersonal of 0o is i0 jo in N and O; A
omits the form and Q writes i0 j, followed by a blank space. Similarly, at .. :q,
:8 cn\r+rn +nnrr
version of A.
66
On the other hand, the copyist of Q, or an almost
contemporary hand, seems to have inserted some readings of A into
the text of Q.
67
Indeed, the fact that part of manuscript Q was written by Michael
Lygizos, who wrote A and O, and that both the writing and the layout
of Qs Pyl resemble that of A rather than that of O, encourage the
hypothesis that A and Q come from the same environment or even
from the same scriptorium, whereas O may represent an earlier copy of
the same text. As for N, it undoubtedly belongs to the same group as
AQ and O, but is related more closely to O than to AQ; for example:
.. :. 0o0 NO 00j AQ
.. : j NO j AQ
.. 666 i0 0j ... NO i0 0j ... AQ
.. 68668q ro ... NO o ... AQ
.. 6qo6q: ro ... NO ro ... AQ
.. ro0 NO o AQ
.. 8q88. ru0 ... NO ... AQ
. 8:o om. AQ
etc.
A gives the imperfect subjunctive impersonal ro 0u (sic) and for the perfect, at
:6:(a), simply writes i, but Q writes ro 0 (with blank space) and ro 0r-
(sic, but j- in the interlinear space) i. At .. ., where all manuscripts have ro
00j, both A and Q have simply ro 0; etc. Thus, the original was perhaps
defective or illegible in some parts, and each copyist tried to ll its gaps independently
or else suspended his judgement.
66
Q oers r as an example of the superlative, which A omits (:.
.8.). Unlike A, Q gives, for example, the vocative plural of (:. .) and the
dative of the verbal adjectives (gerund) of i (r_: .. 8o) and i
(r_: .. q6). At .. ..8, Q has the correct reading (o i i -
r 00j. r 00j0), whereas Aprobably for a
saut du mme au mmehas o i i r 00j.
In the same way, Q does not have either As lengthy omissions on .. 668. (the
complete indicative passive of 0u) and .. 6:o6:.(a) (the plural of the pluperfect
subjunctive passive of 0u, missing also in O and in BCG), or As repetition of the
declension of jr (. :::).
67
At :. o6 and :o, Q wrote t i and t r, but added the feminine
article t in the interlinear space, perhaps from A, which has t, t i and
t, t r (t i, t i, t i and t, t, t r O;
t, t i and t r N). At .. 6o, Q has 0 rr, which is Ns
reading, later changed into As 0o r in the interlinear space. At . , 6,
and (a), only the forms of the feminine (j 0u, j 0u,
and t u) are added in Qs interlinear space from A, which lacks the
neuter.
nox\+i on\rci :q
However, the many peculiar mistakes and omissions reduce the im-
portance of this manuscript for the constitutio textus.
68
In conclusion, as is clear from the following chart, the manuscripts
presently available allow us to distinguish two main branches of the
tradition of Pyl a: x and R. The original of x, , should be meant
not as an archetype in Lachmanns sense, but as a sort of ideal Greek
translation of a Latin Ianua longa that may or may not have given
origin to all the extant texts, but that contains features common to
all of them; in the same way, the Latin translation printed below,
facing the Greek text, will hardly correspond to an existing exemplar
of Ianua. The x-branch includes two groups: a Florentine recensio
(y), to which BCG belong, and a Venetian/Cretan recensio (z) that
includes AB
m
NOQ.
69
In turn, B
m
NO must be distinguished from AQ,
which probably are derived from the same original (k). It is also clear,
however, that no manuscript is a direct original or a direct copy of
another, and no branch or group is exempt from interpolations from
other branches or groups.
68
Like AQ, for example, N omits the vocative feminine and neuter singular of
i (:. :) and the dative neuter plural of i (:. :), as well as the declension
of the relative pronoun (. :.::.), etc. N also contains the same denition of the
r 0r (genus neutrum) of verbs (.. q:o). Like AOQ, N omits the ablative
singular of (:. .:..:). On the other hand, N does not contain the section on
the irregular nouns (:. :q:). At .. 668, N gives the rst three passive principal
parts of 0u0u, 0u, 0uas active (!) participles. Some readings
appear in N only; for example, .. qq6 in N reads 0 o 0r, 0-
, 0o 00u i u ri, whereas the other manuscripts have
0 o 0r, 0, 0o i 0o 00u i r-
i. At .. ...q and oq:, for the perfect (i) indicative active
and passive of o, N has the perfect i and i, whereas all the
manuscripts of the same group have the aorist ri and ro0. At . :, in
addition to o 0u ..., N also has the complete declension of the singular
of the present participle of r (O has the nominative o r, j r i
r only).
69
I have chosen Florentine and Venetian/Cretan as conventional names,
considering rst of all the (supposed) places of circulation of the manuscripts related
to each category.
:8o cn\r+rn +nnrr
The Stemma codicum of Pyl a (x-group)
. Pyl a as a Grammar Book: The Variable Parts of Speech
Both x and R oer a translation faithful to the letter of their Latin
originals. This faithfulness allows us to reconstruct a Latin original
text very similar in content to the still surviving Ianuae longae and in
style to the vulgate Ianua, represented, for example, by the Pescian
edition of :q. (p: see above, o n. 8q). Any inference from these
data, however, will remain pure hypothesis until a careful study of
the manuscripts and printed editions of Ianua allows us to shed light
on the number of its variants and on their circulation from the Mid-
dle Ages to the Renaissance, and until a search for the Latin orig-
inal of Pyl a is seriously undertaken. In any case, if, as it seems,
the Greek translation was based on an expanded Ianua, then it was
made at a time when, and at a place where, copies of Ianua longa
were still circulating and had not yet been replaced by the brevis ver-
sion.
70
The fact that each Latin word usually is rendered in the same
way encourages the assumption that the translator(s) used a bilingual
70
See Black .oo:, of.
nox\+i on\rci :8:
dictionary. The Greek grammatical terms used in Pyl a generally
coincide with those of the grammar books, ertmata, and sched of the
Byzantine tradition, but it is dicult to say whether the translator(s)
found them in dictionaries or lexica or had learned them in school,
as would have been the case with Greek native speakers. In any case,
the many non-literary forms suggest that Pyl a was the product of an
environment where Greek was spoken as well as read.
If Pyl a was really conceived as a Greek grammar, we must con-
sider it a failure. In fact, its author(s) did not attempt to solve the con-
tradictions of a Greek grammar completely modeled on Latin. Thus,
for example, the article is not considered as a part of speech and is
replaced with the interjection, which Greek grammarians regarded
as a category of the adverb. In Pyl a, Greek nouns have six cases
the regular ve cases and the ablative (0j, scil. u), cor-
responding to 0+genitivehave no dual and can be divided into
ve declensions according to the endings of the genitive singular.
71
In
the same way, Greek verbs belong to four conjugations; they have nei-
ther a middle voice nor an aorist tense (although the term 0
appears in some manuscripts), but they may have a future imperative,
an imperfect and future subjunctive (in R), a gerund, a gerundive, and
a supine. The paradigms used to explain the ve Greek declensions
and the four conjugations are the literal translations of the paradigms
of Ianua. Here is how Pyl a presents the ve nominal declensions:
rst declension (genitive singular: -):
o j hic poeta
j 0 haec musa
o hoc Pascha
o i j j hic et haec advena
o 'o hic Abraham
o i hic Priamides
o ii hic Aeneas
71
The nominative is called oj in O and 00t in all the other manu-
scripts. Dionysius Thrax used both terms (:., p. . Lallot: j r o0j [scil. u]
oj i 00t); thus, they were considered to be interchangeable. The origi-
nal text(s) of Pyl a probably gave both readings. However, oj occurs in def-
initions (cf. :. o oj 0 r; etc.) and is etymologically closer to the
Latin nominativus than 00t. A trace of the original reading can perhaps be found at
:. :q:, where even A and Q have j oj.
:8. cn\r+rn +nnrr
second declension (genitive singular: rr, lengthened, Lat.
productum):
o u hic dominus
o 0 hic deus
i hoc scamnum
o i hic magister
o i hic Vergilius
third declension (genitive singular: r, with a short
vowel, Lat. correptum):
o j hic pater
j j haec mater
r hoc opus
o i j lu (sic) hic et haec sacerdos
j haec civitas
j 0o haec lectio
o i j 00 hic et haec homo
o 0j hic lector
o i j 0r hic et haec virgo
o rj hic sapiens
72
o 0 i j 0 hic et haec omnis
i 0 et hoc omne
o i i j io hic et haec fortis
i i et hoc forte
o i i j ir hic et haec fortior
i i et hoc fortius
hoc monile
73
o i j 0i i u hic et haec et hoc felix
o r hic pauper
o i j j i hic et haec et hoc inops
74
j u haec vis
fourth declension (genitive singular: or rr):
72
In R only. Sapiens is included among the paradigms of the third declension in
the Ianua of Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, MS. lat. :q. (J: see below, Appendix II).
73
Schmitt (:q66, n. 6:) suggested decus, which, however, is not attested to in any
copy of Ianua. Conversely, monile is in the Ianuae longae of MSS. Strozzi 8o and Paris.
lat. :q..
74
r and , missing in G and R, are complete in AB
m
NOQ, whereas B
and C give the singular o r and the plural l i.
nox\+i on\rci :8
j hic visus
j i haec manus
i haec domus
r hoc cornu
hoc genu
fth declension (genitive singular: r i, separated
syllables, Lat. divisae syllabae):
i haec species
o haec res
j jr hic vel haec dies
j i haec des
j ri haec spes
75
j i hic meridies
Even an excursus on the vocative of the names in -ius of the second
declension is translated into Greek and included in the text, although
it does not apply to Greek nominal inection.
76
Adjectives and adverbs, grades of comparison, and numerals,
which were part of the rst chapter of Ianua, were also translated
into Greek, together with some irregular nouns: 0 (arma: plural
only),
77
(locus: heterogeneous), o (Tartarus: heteroclite);
0 (caelum: heteroclite); j (portus, most probably a misun-
derstanding of porrus or porrum: heterogeneous), r (epulum: hete-
roclite), and (cepa or cepe: heterogeneous).
More importantly, the place of each noun and adjective within the
system of Greek declensions according to version a can be explained
only by referring to their Latin equivalent. The genitive singular of
j, 0, o, and of all Greek nouns of the rst declension
does not end in -, nor does the genitive singular of the nouns of the
second declension end in , etc. The Greek nouns in Pyl a are nothing
but a transposition of the Latin nouns of Ianua. The fact that both the
75
In R only. Spes is declined among the paradigms of the fth declension in some
Ianuae breves and in the Ianuae longae of MSS. o of the Biblioteca del Seminario
Vescovile in Padua (U; see above, o n. 8q) and Paris. lat. :q. (J).
76
The Greek text of this excursus, which appears in x only (:. q:o), is heavily
corrupted and very dicult to correct. See below, :f.
77
In Byzantine Greek, 0, borrowed from Latin, is used as weapon (cf.
Sophokles, s.v.).
:8 cn\r+rn +nnrr
translation and the paradigms given are generally correct suggests the
use of a manual on Greek nominal inection. Identifying this tool,
however, is almost impossible.
78
The frequent occurrence of the words o i (according
to the Latins) demonstrates that the translator(s) or some readers of
Pyl a were aware of the limits of such a presentation of Greek mor-
phology. An example of such awareness occurs after the observation
that the distinguishing feature of the third declension is the genitive
singular in short -is: someone added that this rule applied to Latin
rather than to Greek, for in Greek it is dierent (0o 0 r
o i 0 r 0 I r). If not written by the
translator himself, this short comment may have been a marginal note
by a reader that was later incorporated into the text.
The question 0u i r ri; (what part of speech is
0u?) introduces the section on verbs. Four paradigms are used
to explain the four Greek conjugations according to Pyl a: 0u,
o, 0u (a late form of 0u), and 0u, which
correspond to the Latin amo, doceo, lego, and audio. As the distinctive
feature of each conjugation (i, coniugatio), Pyl a refers to the
vowel before the ending of the second person singular of the present
indicative, i.e., before s or before ris in Latin ( 0 j 0
o i). Here are the four verbal conjugations according
to Pyl a, with their characteristic vowel and the verbs chosen as
paradigms:
u rr 0u, -0, 0u, -0
r rr o, -, o, -
i r 0u, -, 0u, -
o rr 0u, -, 0u, -
The treatment of each verb does not dier from the Latin original.
The names of moods and tenses are taken from the Greek grammati-
cal tradition that prevailed from the time of Dionysius Thrax onward.
Like Ianua, Pyl a presents each of the four regular conjugations by
voice (r), mood (r), and tense ():
78
On the use of dictionaries and grammars in the grammatical treatises of the
Middle Ages, see Dionisotti :q8., ::f.
nox\+i on\rci :8
I. r, scil. r (genus activum):
:. oj, scil. r (modus indicativus):
a. ru, scil. (tempus praesens)
b. (praeteritum imperfectum)
c. i (praeteritum perfectum)
d. r (praeteritum plusquamperfectum)
e. r (futurum).
79
Both the active and passive voices of 0o and 0u are intro-
duced with a list of its principal parts that recall those given for the
Latin verbs. The following forms are given for the active (.. qq:o:):
the rst three persons of the present (0u, 00, 00, Lat. amo,
amas, amat) and of the perfect indicative (jo, jo, jo,
Lat. amavi, amavisti, amavit); the second and third persons of the present
imperative (0o, 0o, Lat. ama, amet); the aorist and the perfect
innitive (00, jr, Lat. amare, amavisse); some forms of the
verbal adjective in -r (0r, 0r_, 0r, handed
down by all manuscripts, whereas Ianua had amandi, amando, amandum);
the accusative and genitive of the verbal adjective in - (0,
00, Lat. amatum, amatu); and the nominative masculine singu-
lar of the present and future participles (0u i 0j, Lat.
amans et amaturus).
80
The present, imperfect, pluperfect, and future active of each verb
are given. As for the i, the perfect, Pyl a shows the
traditional confusion between aorist and perfect for the rendering of
the Latin perfectum.
81
In Pyl a, the problem is usually solved in favor of
the perfect, but the aorist often replaces missing and obsolete forms
of the perfect. The fact that the translator(s) of Pyl a considered the
aorist and the perfect as interchangeable mirrors the changes that the
79
On the origin of the Greek grammatical terminology, see Lallots commentary
on Dionysius r j (pp. :6::q of his edition).
80
R respects the original Latin text much more closely than x. In x, the present
and perfect innitives, 00 and jr, are replaced with the aorist 00
and the rst person singular of the perfect optative 0j, but Rs 0u and
0r show traces of the original readings. Moreover, ABCNQ conclude the list
with 00, which may have been added to the forms of the imperative and later
incorporated into the text.
81
See Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. , GL ., :: Sciendum, quod Romani praeterito perfecto
non solum in re modo completa utuntur, in quo vim habet eius, qui apud Graecos i
vocatur [], sed etiam pro 0i accipitur, quod tempus tam modo perfectam rem quam multo
ante signicare potest.
:86 cn\r+rn +nnrr
Greek language had been undergoing since the Hellenistic age: tenses
had lost their qualitative value. On the other hand, the fact that in Pyl
the perfect, which is already rare in New Testament Greek, represents
an alternative to the aorist may be due to the conservatism of the
teaching of grammar in schools, which favored the survival and the
transmission of forms no longer existing in the spoken language.
Thus, for the Latin perfectum we have the Greek perfect jo
and 0r as well as the aorist ri and j.
82
As for
the pluperfect, much more common in Latin than in Greek, it is
sometimes confused with the aorist passive: jj, 0u,
ju, but ro0 (written ro0 in C and G).
.. j (imperativus):
a. ru (praesens)
b. r (futurum)
The present imperative has four persons: the second and the third,
both singular and plural. Unlike Latin, Greek does not have a future
imperative, but Priscian seems to encourage the use of the Greek per-
fect or past (praeteritum) imperative to express the idea of a command
in the future.
83
This means that, whereas in most manuscripts the text
reads o r 0 r o u u, R gives the aorist imper-
ative, e.g., .. ::::6(b): 0o, 0o, 0j, 0o-
(the rst two persons are also quoted in a marginal note in B).
. 0j (optativus): all forms are introduced by i0 (utinam):
a. ru i (praesens et praeteritum imperfectum)
b. i i r (praeteritum perfectum et plus-
quamperfectum)
c. r (futurum).
Latin and Greek grammar coincide in the double tenses and in
the future of the optative (cf. Theod. Can., GG .:, 686q); Greek
also acknowledges an aorist optative. For the present/imperfect and
82
For docui etc., N has i ... (.. ..(b)). In O, R, and in a marginal
note in B, however, the copyists noted that the perfect i was obsolete: o
i i (r R) 0. Most manuscripts (ABCGOQR), in fact,
give the aorist ri. As for audivi etc. (.. q6.), the aorist j ... is adopted
by BCGNOR, whereas A and its relative Q have the perfect 0j. The text of R
reads: o i 0 r j r 0, i j, ...
83
Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. :, GL ., o6: Apud Graecos vero etiam praeteriti temporis
sunt imperativa, quamvis ipsa quoque ad futuri temporis sensum pertineant, ut j_u0 j u,
aperta sit porta; videmur enim imperare, ut in futuro tempore sit praeteritum.
nox\+i on\rci :8
the future, Pyl a uses the present and the future optative, respectively
(e.g., .. :: i0 0_u and :. i0 0j, Lat. utinam amarem
and utinam amem). For the perfect/pluperfect, on the other hand,
the ambiguity between perfect and aorist leads to dierent solutions.
Thus, we have the perfect 0j (:.o) as well as the aorists
o (.6), 0u (q), and 0u (:.).
84
. j (subiunctivus): as in Theodosius Canons (GG . :,
6), all forms are introduced by ro (Lat. si, instead of Ianuas
cum):
a. ru (praesens)
b. (praeteritum imperfectum)
c. i (praeteritum perfectum)
d. r (praeteritum plusquamperfectum)
e. r (futurum).
In Latin, the subjunctive has ve tenses, which include a future sub-
junctiveunknown to modern school grammarthat is actually a
future perfect indicative.
85
In R, in fact, the translation strives to main-
tain the Latin system in Greek, most of the time by simply adding ro
to the tenses of the indicative. Thus, in addition to the regular present
subjunctive (ro 0u -0, ro o -, etc.), there is also an
imperfect (ro jo, ro ri, etc.), a perfect (ro jo,
ro ri, etc.), a pluperfect (ro jj, ro ro0, etc.),
and a future, which corresponds to the aorist subjunctive (ro 0-
j -, ro o -, etc.). The manuscripts of the x-group, on
the other hand, usually depart from Ianua by adopting the Greek sys-
tem, where the subjunctive has only three tenses (cf. Theod. Alex.
Can., GG . :, .6): ru i (ro 0u -0, etc.),
i i r (ro 0j, ro 0u [sic]), and
0 i r, aorist and future, which in Pyl a becomes r-
84
The choice between aorist and perfect may vary according to the manuscripts.
For example, the perfect and pluperfect optative active of 0r is i0 0j
(perfect) in AQ and i0 0j (aorist) in the other manuscripts (.. 6.). For the
other verbs, see charts 8.o (below, q). The authors of N and O apparently
knew the dierence between the perfect and the aorist. For example, at ..., in
N we read: o r 0 o i i (sic):
i0 o, etc., and in O: o i i (sic): 0 r. `
0 i0 o, etc.
85
See Donatus, Ars minor (qf. Holtz) and Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. (GL ., o8):
Subiunctivus, cum apud Graecos coniuncta habeat tempora, apud nos divisa habet omnia, quomodo
indicativus.
:88 cn\r+rn +nnrr
only (ro 0j, ro o). Choices, however, are not always
consistent. Whereas R oers a complete paradigm for the four con-
jugations, the manuscripts of the x-group, for example, give only the
present and future of o, the present of 0u, and the
present and past (or future?) of 0u.
86
. 0r (innitivus):
87
a. ru i (praesens et praeteritum imperfectum)
b. i i r (praeteritum perfectum et plus-
quamperfectum)
c. r (futurum).
In Greek and in Latin, the tenses of the innitive express both the
time and the aspect of an action.
88
For the past, the usual hesitation
between aorist and perfect leads, for example, to jr and
0r, but o and 00.
II. 0 (impersonale): third person singular, middle-passive or
passive, of each mood and tense of the active voice (I. :).
The impersonal voice is omitted for o, u, and r0i.
For the future and the aorist, which have both the middle and passive
voice, the passive is generally used. In addition, a future imperative
is given for 0o,
89
whose impersonal subjunctive has the ve Latin
tenses: a present (ro 00j), an imperfect (ro j0),
90
a perfect
(ro jr i [sic], probably for j, but jo R), a pluper-
fect (ro jr 0 [sic], but jo R), and a future
(ro jr r [sic], but 00j R). As is the case with
the active, the subjunctive of the impersonal verbs is generally created
with ro and the indicative. The perfect, pluperfect, and future sub-
junctive of 0o in the x-group are closely modeled on the Latin
forms cum amatum sit, cum amatum esset, and cum amatum erit.
86
The form ro 0u (.. .(a) .), given as a perfect/pluperfect but actually
more appropriate as a future, is perhaps the result of a misreading (saut du mme au
mme).
87
The title of the section on the innitive, 0o ri 00u i
u, translates Donatus Ars minor (q Holtz): innitivo modo numeris et personis.
88
See Donatus, Ars minor (q Holtz); and Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. , GL ., oqf.
89
Missing in G. AQ have the aorist imperative passive 00j, BC the future
optative passive 00j, and NOR the aorist imperative middle 0o0,
which also appears as a marginal reading in B.
90
Written 0o in BC. A has 0u and the other manuscripts 00.
nox\+i on\rci :8q
6. a. 0o j o o (gerundia vel participialia nomina)
91
b. 0o (supina)
c. i (participia).
Gerunds and participles follow the impersonal voice because, as Pri-
scian notes, they have cases but not tenses and can be used both as
active and as passive, which is unsuitable to verbs (quod alienum est a
verbo).
As the Greek equivalent of the Latin gerund, Priscian indicates
either the innitive preceded by the article or the verbal adjective in
-r; the latter applies when the gerund has a passive meaning and
expresses the idea of obligation (and becomes a gerundive, according
to school grammar).
92
Thus, Pyl a gives the gerund of 0o
(0r, 0r_, 0r) and 0u (0r, 0r_,
0r). As for the supine, it is specied that there are no supines
for the Greeks (.. :: 0o o u 0 r), with the
exception of the verb 0u, for which a supine is found in the verbal
adjective in - (0, 00).
93
For 0o, the active present and future participles (0u,
0j) are indicated as being derived from the active verb; for
0u, however, we nd 00i and 0. But R, with
scrupulous faithfulness to the original Latin text, adds that, for the
Latins (o i), the present participle is derived from the
rst person singular of the imperfect indicative, amabam (.. :
:q: r 0 u u 0 0 oj ri,
0o): by changing bam into ns, one obtains amans (j j
o i t 0). The future participle can be obtained
by adding rus to the second form of the supine, amatu (.. :8o:8::
r 0 r 00, i 0o, 0j 0 i
0u). This rule is not repeated for the other verbs because it
probably was meant to be generally valid.
91
The introductory sentence 0o j o oo i 0 is the faithful
translation of Ianua: gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt hec, which is, in turn, a quotation
from Donatus Ars minor (p. q Holtz).
92
Inst. gramm. 8. , GL ., oq: legendi legendo legendum, lectum lectu, inniti vice
[] funguntur, quod solet apud Graecos articulis coniungi. Itaque pro innito, qui coniungitur
genetivo casui articuli apud Graecos, nos utimur in di terminatione, quae similis est genetivo
nominis, legendi, 0 0r i 0 0u i 0 0u0. See
also ibid., , ::.
93
The endings reproduce the Latin -um and -u. For Priscian (Inst. gramm. 8. 8, GL
., :.), the Latin supine corresponds to the Greek innitive preceded by the article:
:qo cn\r+rn +nnrr
III. 0 (passivum): same moods and tenses as the active (I. :).
A list of the principal parts opens the section on passive verbs.
That of the x-group (.. :8.:8(a): 0u, 00 00i i-
i, i[], ri 0j 00j 00i) reproduces approx-
imately Ianuas list (amor, amaris vel amare, [amatur]; amatus sum es est;
amare, [ametur; amari]; amatum esse vel fuisse; amatus [et amandus]), whereas
R again reveals the work of a translator more faithful to the original
(.. :8.:8(b): 0u, 00, 00 jo, jo, jo-
0u, 0o0 000 jj0, but 00j0).
In R, the passive voice also includes a future imperative for 0o
and 0u.
94
In the treatment of the indicative, Pyl a uses the same moods and
tenses that were used for the active. For the perfect, Pyl a gives the
perfect middle-passive jo, 0r, and j, but the
aorist ro0.
95
As for the optative, the subjunctive, and the inni-
tive, we observe the same ambiguities that we nd in the active. For
the perfect-pluperfect optative, the x-group uses the aorist optative
passive; for the future, the same manuscripts use the future opta-
tive passive (but the middle for 0u). In the conjugation of the
subjunctive passive, R preserves the ve-tense system (ro 0u,
ju, jo, jj, 00j; etc.). For the perfect-
pluperfect subjunctive, the x-group has the improbable ro jo,
but also the aorist subjunctive passive ro 0u, ro 00u,
and ro 00u. The future subjunctive literally is created ad hoc by
adding the endings of an aorist subjunctive middle to the stem of the
aorist passive: ro 0j, ro 00j.
96
The perfect-pluperfect innitive passive corresponds either to the
perfect middle (jj0) or to the aorist passive (0j, 0-
0j, 00j).
oratum t i t0, oratu _u t i _u
t0 j j j.
94
In R, the future imperative passive of 0o, which x omits, is an imperative
aorist middle: 0j (for 0o), 0o0, 0j0, 0o0,
which should correspond to Ianuas amator tu, amator ille, [amemur], amaminor (sic),
amantor. For 0u, both R and the x-group give the imperative aorist passive:
0u0, 00j, 0u0, 00j, corresponding to Ianuas auditor tu,
auditor ille, [audiamur], audiminor, audiuntor.
95
However, N has i, etc.
96
Very interesting, for example, is the future subjunctive passive of u (-
o) as handed down by R: forms derived from the future (ro 0j,
0j, 0j) are followed by forms modeled on the aorist (ro -
0u, 0j, 0u).
nox\+i on\rci :q:
In Ianua, the question Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo?
introduced the perfect participle and the gerundive or future partici-
ple passive. The latter, however, does not have a corresponding form
in Greek. The translator of the x-group omits the passive participles of
0o and o; in the case of 0u, he solves the prob-
lem with the usual formula (0 r o i, 0
r 0 I r). For 0u, he gives ju0 (for 00i) and
0. On the other hand, R correctly oers jj and
00, and continues with a description of the formation of
the perfect participle and the gerundive o i (.. ..).
In Pyl a, as in the Latin Ianua, a number of irregular verbs follow
the four regular conjugations. They are the translation of the Latin
verbs. In the x-group, the order is 0r (volo), o or u (fero),
r0i (edo), i (o), u (eo), and i (gaudeo). In R,
i follows r0i and u is omitted. The verb ii (sum) is
found in dierent locations in the manuscripts of the group.
97
For the third part of speech, the participle (j), the explanation
faithfully reproduces that of the Latin participle. Between the x-group
and R, there are slight variations in the order of the properties and in
the denitions. For example, in the x-group the signicationes (i)
of the participles and their intended paradigms are:
98
rj = 0u (0u) activa = amo (amans)
0j = 0u (0u) passiva = amor (amatus)
j = ri
99
communis = criminor (criminatus)
(r)
0r = u () neutra = eo (iens)
0j = u (u) deponens = sequor (sequens, secutus)
0r 0j = i neutropassiva = gaudeo (gaudens)
()
0i = u (o) nulla = possum (potens)
97
In N, ii is placed at the end of the grammar, after the section on conjunctions.
A and Q omit it; in O it follows 0r, and in B it is written in the lower margin of the
folio that contains the nal part of 0r (
v
). In R, it immediately follows the four
regular conjugations, but in an incomplete form. In any case, additions like u
or 'u for some forms show the direct inuence of a Greek grammar on the
translation from Latin.
98
Perhaps the Latin original of x did not contain the last part of the usual formula
Cuius signicationis? Quare? Quia a verbo venit, quod est illud: , inde venit
99
A derivative from r, accusation, ri appears in a papyrus of
the third century C.E. (see LSJ, s.v.). The participle r occurs, for
example, in Joseph Genesius t, :. :6. : (tenth century; ed. by A. Lesmller-
Werner and J. Thurn, CFHB Series Berolinensis :, Berlin :q8).
:q. cn\r+rn +nnrr
R shows the same examples, but following an order similar to the
vulgate Ianua (p): rj, 0j, 0r, 0r 0-
j, j, and 0j; the last one, 0i, is omitted.
The Latin paradigm, legens, is translated as 0u.
100
Like
Ianua, Pyl a gives the complete declension of the present, the aorist
(0u), and the future participles (0u) in all three gen-
ders and in the singular and the plural. R also adds the present
participle middle-passive, 0, as a replacement for the
Latin gerundive (future participle passive) legendus.
101
Moreover, the
x-group replaces the plural of the present (l 0u, etc.)
with the present of r, which is similar to the Latin form but dier-
ent in meaning (l r, etc.).
The x-group answers the conclusive question about the declension
of the participle with a very brief remark: it has little to do with xs
last paradigm (the future participle 0u) and rather refers to
the Latin perfect participle (lectus) and gerundive (legendus):
i i; u i r r r 00 u, r
r 00 i 0r r.
The answer is much more complex in R and shows one more time its
faithfulness to a Latin original very close to the Pescian Ianua (p):
i i; i. i; u j j rj i -
r j o i, i o 0u, 0 0u
i u r i j i i i ii i i
l r r i i u i r. i; j j u
ru j i i i , i 0 0u, j 0o,
0 0u.
= (p) Cuius declinationis? Tertie. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in is
correptum desinit, ut legens, legentis. Et sic alia participia desinentia in ans vel
in ens sunt declinationis tertie. Alia vero participia sunt prime et secunde. Quare?
Quia genitivus singularis desinit in e et in i, ut lecti, lecte, lecti.
The dierences between x and R in the chapter on the pronoun
(0i) conrm that slightly dierent Latin editions were used.
The x-group leaves out the questions on the i (species), whereas R
100
Q preserves a trace of a translation of the Latin legens with the masculine o
0u only; all the other manuscripts treat the participle as a three-ending
adjective, as it is in Greek. However, all manuscripts lack the feminine form of the
genitive and ablative plural (0) u u.
101
The future middle 0 could be confused with the present 0-
. Additionally, R is not very accurate in giving the declension of the future
nox\+i on\rci :q
mentions both the i (species primitiva) and the i
o (species derivativa). The question on the r (genus) leads
to two dierent denitions. Here is the text in x, as reconstructed by
Schmitt:
i r; i 0 r _u _u _ 0 j 0 j
0r. i; I ri rt _u .
= Cuius generis? Omnis; sed in hoc loco masculinum vel femininum vel neutrum.
Quare? Quia sic est illud cui adhaeret.
102
On the other hand, Rs denition echoes Pylai b and d:
i r; i o 00, 00 i 0r,
0u r i j j.
The important denition of the (persona) also receives a
dierent treatment. Rs text closely resembles that of the Pescian
Ianua, whereas x adds some details about the meaning of the rst and
second persons:
x R
i u; u. i;
i 0 i 00
r. i u; r.
i; i 0 i i
0 j. i u;
i. i; o o
o i l 0i ii
i u, j j ru,
j ri u, i u, j ri
r, i u r 0
0u.
i u; u j
r j i. i; o
o o i l 0i ii
i u, j j ru,
j ri u, i j u, j
ri r, i u u
u u rr, i ii
u r.
= Cuius personae? Primae. Quare? Quia
signicat rem ut per se ipsam loquatur.
Cuius personae? Secundae. Quare? Quia
signicat rem ut ad aliquem alius loquatur.
Cuius personae? Tertiae. Quare? Quia
omnia nomina et pronomina sunt tertiarum
personarum, exceptis ego, quod est primae,
et tu, quod est secundae, et quae ab illis
derivantur.
= Cuius personae? Primae vel secundae
vel tertiae. Quare? Quia omnia nomina
et pronomina sunt tertiarum personarum,
exceptis ego, quod est primae, et tu, quod
est secundae, et vocativis casibus aliorum,
qui sunt personae secundae.
active 0u, where forms of the aorist mix with those of the future, because of
the confusion between the suxes --/-- and --/--.
102
The denition of the x-text is similar to what we nd in p: Cuius generis? Masculini
vel feminini vel neutri. Quare? Quia sic est illud cui adheret.
:q cn\r+rn +nnrr
The Greek translation does not modify the general structure of the
chapter in Ianua, which, in turn, took up Priscians division of the
pronouns into four modi () based on the ending of the geni-
tive singular or on the declensions to which they belong (above, q).
However, the Greek translation of Ianuas Latin pronouns is not uni-
form in all manuscripts of Pyl a, as the following chart will show. In
particular, the dierent translations of the third-person pronouns and
possessive adjectives show how complex the matter was considered in
Greek grammar:
u ru-jt modus primus: ego-nos
u-t tu-vos
0 x, sui
(00-ru BCG)
103
u R
u rt modus secundus: ille
u iste
0 x, r (sic) R ipse
o hic
104
om. is
i unus
o totus
om. x, o j o,
o R
quis, qui
i r modus tertius: meus
tuus
o u i r u
B
m
O, o j o CG, om.
al., o o, j j, o R
suus
jr noster
r vester
r *** modus quartus: nostras
r x vestras
105
103
In B, however, j oj 0 is added in the margin (B
m
).
104
As already noted, hic replaced the Greek article in Latin.
105
No Greek translation is given for the rare Latin pronouns and adjectives nostras,
-atis and vestras, -atis, of our/your country (cf. cuias, of which country): these
pronouns, which did not have corresponding forms in Greek, were simply omitted
in the translation. However, x borrows from the Latin original the denition of
the fourth pronominal mode, which follows the third declension and gives the
declension of r (omitted by G; cf. d . 88), whereas R mentions o
nox\+i on\rci :q
6. Pyl a as a Grammar Book:
The Invariable Parts of Speech and the Appendix
The treatment of the last four parts of speech0 (praepositio),
ri (adverbium), o0 (interiectio), and u (coniunctio)is
much more condensed than that of the previous parts and conrms
the general picture of Pyl a discussed in the previous paragraph.
As for the question introducing the section on prepositions, either
r (ABCNOQ, 0 G) or i (R) translate in or ad, which is found in
most editions of the Latin Ianua.
106
Four lists of prepositions are given,
each introduced by the common formula (da) and following the
roughly alphabetical order of the Latin text:
a) prepositions taking the accusative:
i (r x = ad), (apud), (ante), o (adversus), u_
(circum), ru (circa), 0i (contra), r (extra), r (intra), u
(inter), i (iuxta), r ri (ob), o (per), o (prope), o
(secundum), o (post), r (trans), ro (supra), 0 (circiter),
r (usque), r (penes).
107
b) prepositions taking the ablative (sic):
0 (a, ab), u (cum), ru (coram), o0 (clam), r (e), r (ex),
ru (prope), i (palam), 0 (sine), i (absque).
c) prepositions taking both the accusative and the ablative (sic):
r (in), (sub), ro (super), o (subter).
and o (sic) among the o 0i (pronomina derivativa). Schmitt
proposes j and , which were considered as pronouns by Priscian
after Apollonius Dyscolus (GG .. ., ..).
106
The confusion between r and i is a typical feature of late Greek; see Sophok-
les, s.v. A discrepancy between the Greek translation and the Latin original text can
be detected in the denition of the preposition. Pyl a takes up Ianuas denition assert-
ing that the preposition is put before the other parts of speech (i0 t 0-
r 0 ). According to the Latin text, prepositions can either be placed
near the word (per appositionem) or they can form a compound with it (per compositionem).
In the Greek text, appositio and compositio are inverted and both terms, u and
r0, are explained with synonyms: o u j u0, j r0 -
r o (by composition or combination, or by insertion, i.e., sequence). This
discrepancy shows the traces of a Latin original dierent from the common forms of
Ianua. However, the juxtaposition of synonyms may also be due to the simple insertion
of dierent translations of the same Latin words in the text of Pyl a.
107
Needless to say, there is no consistency between the Latin and the Greek
prepositions. For example, , u_, 0i, r, r, u, i, r,
ro, and r take the genitive instead of the accusative; ru, r ri, 0,
and r are adverbs only.
:q6 cn\r+rn +nnrr
d) prepositions occurring only in compounds (r 0r, in com-
positione). Here the Latin forms are simply transliterated into
Greek:
(di-), (dis-), (re-), (se-), (an-), (con-).
The question 0 i r ri; (nunc quae pars est?)
108
introduces the
chapter on the adverb, which appears quite dissimilar in the two
branches of the tradition of Pyl a. However, the starke Unterschiede
shown by Schmitt
109
are actually more apparent than real and reect
the common variations that can be found in several editions of the
Latin Ianua. The most evident dierences concern the order and the
number of examples quoted. With the usual formula rj
i+genitive+i+examples (Lat. da adverbia signicationis+
genitive+ut +examples), R lists twenty-two categories (i, signi-
cationes) of adverbs, compared to the nineteen of the x-group. The
names of the categories may vary, but the examples quoted are gen-
erally the same in both x and R.
110
A comparison of x and R with
a Latin (standard) text shows that not all of the Latin examples were
translated into Greek: the translator(s) may have left out what could
be considered as a doublet, a synonym, or something too dicult to
translate.
The short part on the interjection (ro0) begins with a ques-
tion on 0 (= heu); as in Ianua, i (signicatio) is its only property.
However, the treatment of the Greek interjection is much shorter than
in Latin. The x-group mentions only the i 0j (dolens):
i, 0i, 0, 0 . R has 0i and i, but adds two more
108
Nunc is a common variant of tunc; hence the Greek 0.
109
Schmitt :q66, :66.
110
Both x and R list the following categories (given here in alphabetical order):
00i (congregandi), 000 (numeri), 0o (0j R = negandi), i
(demonstrandi), i (discretivi), 0 (o R = dubitandi), rj (eli-
gendi), r0 (rj R = interrogandi), j (vocandi), ou (simil-
itudinis), ou (iurandi), (qualitatis), (quantitatis), 0r-
(u R = conrmandi or adrmandi), i (comparandi), (j
R = loci), (j R = temporis). Four of Rs categories are missing in x:
iu (intentivi), u (hortandi), j (remissivi), and o (ordinis),
whereas the adverbs 0i (respondendi) and 0j (optandi) appear in x only.
Among the adverbs of time, both x and R have j, 0r, 0, and i for
hodie, heri, nunc, and nuper, but x adds u (cras) and R 0 (modo). Docte and pul-
chre, adverbs of quality, are translated r and 0 in x, and u and
ui in R.
nox\+i on\rci :q
categories: 0j (mirans), with i and 0, and j
(timens or expavescens), with 0 0, a transliteration of the Latin at at.
In the nal chapter of Pyl a, the conjunction (u) is intro-
duced with the question i i r ri; (Et quae pars est?). Both x
and R list thirteen i (species) in the same order:
u: coniunctio:
copulativa
adiunctiva
00 j collectiva vel rationalis
j i vel illativa
continuativa
i causalis
disiunctiva
subcontinuativa
eectiva
i discretiva
r adversativa
0 dubitativa
completiva
diminutiva
Both the conjunctions and the examples are accurately translated
from Latin.
111
R treats the other two properties of the conjunction,
j (gura) and o (ordo), more extensively and more faithfully to
the Latin text than does x, even if the examples pertaining to these
properties are reduced to the essentials.
111
However, the sentence quoted to explain the u (coni-
unctio completiva: 8. :), which in Ianua reads Aeneas quidem fuit pius, Ulixes vero astutus,
in ANQ became ii r j 0j, ' r 0j (0u OR,
om. BCG). We may wonder if the substitution of Ulysses by ' was due to
confusion between the two names (which roughly coincide in their rst letters: uli-,
iuli-) or to an edition of Ianua where Julian (most probably Julian the Apostate,
Roman emperor from 6: to 6, who abjured Christianity to return to paganism)
was quoted as an example of impiety (impius), as opposed to Aeneas pietas. The adjec-
tive 0j in the Greek text justies this hypothesis. The example quoted for the
i r (species adversativa) corresponds to that quoted in Ianua (8. .6.q):
ru u ruo , 0o u r i i (ego multo tempore servivi
tibi, tu tamen habes me odio). However, with the exception of AQ, all manuscripts add
three more examples: ru 0u, u r 0; o r 0 i; and i-
i 0 0. These examples actually correspond to the Latin examples
for the species distributiva (ego lego, tu vero dormis) and for the species abnegativa (comederem si
haberem, and gaudeator gaudetPriamus si audeat). Neither category is included in the
Greek translation. See Schmitt :q66, .o6.
:q8 cn\r+rn +nnrr
In MSS. C and G, an appendix follows the treatment of the parts of
speech. Its structure is very similar to that of the Latin editions and, at
the same time, its language and style echo Byzantine ertmata. Three
questions are asked for each part of speech: denition (i r ; =
quid est?), properties (i r i ; = quid est proprium?), and
etymology (0 i ; = unde dicitur?).
. The Other Donati graeci:
Pylai as Compilations, or Donati compositi
The analysis of Pyl a has highlighted the weaknesses of a Greek
grammar that faithfully reproduces a grammar conceived for the
teaching of another language. As the following chapter will explain,
there are many reasons to believe that Pyl a did not originate as a
Greek grammar but as an interlinear translation of the Latin Ianua.
Pyl a was not conceived for Latins studying Greek, but for Greeks
studying Latin and in need of a translation of their elementary Latin
grammar book into their own language. On the other hand, the
other three Donati were consciously and deliberately conceived as
schoolbooks: each of them represents a dierent attempt to adapt
to Greek the method used to teach Latin elementary morphology.
Therefore, although still highly imperfect, Pylai b, c, and d belong
to the wide category of Renaissance pedagogical experiments for
the teaching of Greek, which also include, for example, Chrysoloras
grammar of Filelfos Greek ertmata in Latin (above, ::q.); all of
these texts represent attempts to reconcile the Byzantine and the Latin
grammatical traditions for the benet of Western students.
The Greek Donati preserve the Latinate scheme of the ve nomi-
nal declensions and the four verbal conjugations, with all the features
that we have already seen in Pyl a, including the confusion of declen-
sions, moods, and tenses. In fact, some sections of these grammars
reproduce Latin Ianuae to the letter. Pylai b, c, and d give the parts of
speech in the same order as in Ianua; there is still no consideration of
the article, the dual number, and the middle voice; nouns, adjectives,
and pronouns still have an ablative, verbs have a future impera-
tive, etc. There are, however, some improvements in the treatment
of verbs, such as the distinction between aorist and perfect.
112
Another
112
Some confusion, however, was still possible. For example, c gives the aorist
nox\+i on\rci :qq
important element separates these three Donati from Pyl a: in some
cases, the anonymous compilers tried to make up for the aws in the
treatment of Greek grammar through Latin by replacing some sec-
tions of the original Ianua with excerpts from other Hellenistic and
Byzantine grammatical texts. Thus, these unknown grammarians still
used Ianua as a framework, probably because their students could
learn Greek more easily thanks to their familiarity with the Latin ele-
mentary book. This aspect constitutes the strength of these grammars,
when compared with Pyl a, as well as their weakness: the incapacity
of the anonymous author(s) to make a complete break with the Latin
text is the main reason for the failure of the compilation Donati as
Greek grammars. On the other hand, the authors employed authen-
tic Greek grammatical material for some sectionse.g., bs section on
prepositionswhere a Latinate treatment would have been ineec-
tive because of the dierences between the two languages. As with
medieval Latin grammarians, Greek teachers and grammarians of the
Renaissance could rely on some sort of stock material when assem-
bling their schooltexts according to the demands of their classes.
113
For
example, in the sections on nouns, bs and ds denitions have a com-
mon source, whereas the two texts present dierent paradigms. More
importantly, all three grammars use the same source for the treatment
of verbal inection.
Most probably, Pylai b, c, and d were produced in a Western envi-
ronment with a keen interest in learning Greek and with a good avail-
ability of Greek books. The data emerging from the analysis of the
manuscripts seem to point to Venice and Crete, but further research
is still needed to conrm or reject this hypothesis.
Because of their similarities in structure, Pylai b, c, and d are treated
together. However, since each Pyl represents an individual work and
shows specic aspects, each text has been edited separately.
optative passive of 0u as i0 jr i, etc. (.. ::8), which is actually
a perfect.
113
For example, MS. P can be considered a compilation of material for the ele-
mentary teaching of Greek: see below, .of. A serious study of the anonymous Greek
grammatical compilations that, like the three Pylai here analyzed, are contained in
Renaissance manuscripts has not been undertaken yet.
.oo cn\r+rn +nnrr
8. The Manuscripts of the Donati compositi
Two manuscripts have handed down the text of Pyl b:
M *Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. X. q
V *Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. gr. :88.
Their text is rather homogeneous and may derive from a common
archetype, even if, as is the case with Pyl a, neither manuscript is
the original or a copy of the other. The hands that copied both
manuscripts belong to the rst half of the fteenth century.
Both M and V have Italian origins. M is clearly related to the
Veneto, precisely to Padua. Conversely, V seems to be a product of
the environment of Mantua, but the watermarks of the paper used
suggest that Central Italy is also possible as its place of origin.
M Like most of the manuscripts of Pyl a, the fteenth-century MS.
gr. X. q of the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice (formerly :.:; paper,
mm ..o:, fols. :.) looks like a Greek coursebook. Pyl occupies
fols. :
r
.
v
, and it is neatly written on sixteen lines per page, with wide
margins and interlinear spaces. The text of Pyl b probably ended
with the chapter on the adverb; interjections and conjunctions were
omitted.
The manuscript also contains a very accurate summary (u-
r) of a grammar attributed to Manuel Moschopou-
los (fols. 6o
r
:.
r
), Theodore Prodromos r (:6
v
:q
v
), and
some short essays on grammar (:q
v
:.
v
). Greek elementary read-
ings are also included. Planudes Greek translation of Catos Distichs
has Greek glosses between the lines and the Latin text written in the
margins by a more recent hand (
r
q
r
). Some sentences attributed
to Demosthenes, Socrates, Nicocles, Alexander the Great, and others,
as well as six fables of Aesop and other authors, the Capita admonitoria
attributed to Agapetus, and four letters of Libanius (:.
v
:6
v
) com-
plete the readings for practicing Greek grammar.
114
114
The manuscript has been described by Elpidio Mioni in Bibliothecae Divi Marci
Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti, vol. , Roma :q., 6. The damages caused by
humidity make it dicult to read some parts of the manuscript. For example, the
Latin text written alongside the Greek Cato is unreadable. The Greek interlinear
glosses of the Distichs explain Planudes high poetic style by means of words similar
to the language of prose (but not in j); for example, the short sentence
nox\+i on\rci .o:
M was copied by Nicholas Phagiannis, active during the rst half
of the fteenth century, who left his subscriptio on fol. :.
v
: o-
o o i lr.
115
Phagiannis did not
intend to write a luxurious book: there is no decoration, apart from
some rubricated titles and initials.
116
The writing is a round and reg-
ular minuscule with many capital letters and some enlarged letters,
especially at page ends. The text contains many mistakes caused by
iotacism and by confusion between long and short vowels. The folia-
tion is continuous,
117
but at least one folio is missing between fols. 6
and .
M was brought into the Marciana library in :8.. The manuscript
was formerly volume .:6 of the library of the monastery of San Gio-
vanni di Verdara (in Viridario) in Padua. From a note on fol. :.
v
, we
learn that the book was part of the bequest that Ioannes Calphurnius,
who taught rhetoric in Greek and Latin, made to that library in
:o.
118
0j r0 is glossed with o 0, and 0u o0 with
r 0 (instead of u: see b .. :.). The Capita attributed to Agapetus of
Constantinople (sixth century) can be read in PG 86, ::6.
115
See Vogel-Gardthausen 6o. On Phagiannis subscriptiones in other manuscripts,
see Politi .ooo. Ms watermark (anvil with hammer) resembles q Briquet (Venice
::6:.6).
116
For example, at the beginning of the active conjugation of 0u, the formula
i 0u (et pluraliter) and the names of moods and tenses are rubricated. Later,
however, the rubrication is limited to some initials and disappears with the beginning
of o.
117
The fth quire (marked with an on the recto of the rst and on the verso of the
last folio) includes fols. o and is complete.
118
Io. Calphurnius oratoriam artem graece latineque docens librum hunc Can.cis (=canonicis?)
Reg(ularibus) s. Io(annis) in Viridario devotus legavit ut inde protiens lector sit gratus. MCCCCC
(sic). Giovanni Perlanza dei Runoni, also known as Ioannes Calphurnius (Giovanni
Calfurnio), was lecturer of rhetoric in Padua from :86 until his death in :o and
devoted himself to the study and correction of Greek texts. Of the ..q manuscripts of
his library, : were Greek. The monastery of San Giovanni di Verdara, a Benedictine
foundation of :..:, was taken over in :o by the Canonici Regulares Lateranenses,
a religious order open to cultural and spiritual reforms. Two decades later, the
monks began to collect a library that became quite large, thanks to the donations
of Giovanni Marcanova (:6), Pietro da Montagnana (:8; see below, .8 n. 8),
and Calphurnius (:o). The Marciana Library has only a part of the volumes from
Verdara; the rest ended up in several Italian libraries and in London, Oxford, Paris,
Bern, and Copenhagen. See Sambin :q6; Pertusi :q8o:q8:, :q, .6., .qf.; and
Vitali :q8..
.o. cn\r+rn +nnrr
V MS. Vaticanus gr. :88formerly no. 8 of the library of Cardinal
Fulvio Orsiniis composed of three manuscripts bound together.
119
The rst part (fols. :
r

r
) contains Theognis u; the second
part (:
r
6
r
) contains Aristotles Poetics. Pyl occupies the last folios of
the manuscript (q
v
q
r
); in the index written on one of the yleaves
(fol. II
r
), it is called 'i (corr. in -j) o o o
(sic), whereas on fol. 8o
r
, where the Greek text begins, a later hand
has added j 0 o 0t ri. Pyl s text
is incomplete: part of the chapter on prepositions and the chapters on
adverbs, interjections, and conjunctions are missing; however, Vs text
is much more correct than Ms.
Pyl is copied on the full page, on twenty-seven lines. The writing
is neat and accurate and resembles the archaizing u `u-
style.
120
There is no decoration, apart from a band with an interlaced
pattern on the page where the Greek text begins, as well as some
rubricated initials at the beginning of each section.
The copyist of the second and third parts of the manuscripti.e.,
of Poetics and Pylhas been identied with Girard of Patras, who was
active during the rst half of the fteenth century; one of the manu-
scripts bearing his signatureFlorence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS.
6q,:, which contains part of Plutarchs Liveswas copied in Mantua
in ::.
121
In fact, Girard worked as a Greek copyist for the school
of Vittorino da Feltre. This issue raises the question of the relation-
ship between Aristotles Poetics and Pyl b, and, more importantly, of
the possible use of Pyl b at Vittorinos school. Aristotles text was part
of the curriculum in Vittorinos school, and the work of Girard of
Patras certainly belongs to that context.
122
However, there seems to be
119
Although its rst two parts have repeatedly been the object of study, this manu-
script has never been fully described. The words ex libris Fulvii Ursini appear at the
bottom of fol. II
r
. Orsinis library became part of the Vatican library under Pope
Clement VIII, in :6o.; see De Nicol :q8, .8. On Orsinis Greek manuscripts (now
MSS. Vaticani gr. :.88:.:), see De Nolhac :88, ::qo (on V: :68 n. :); and
Devreesse :q6, .
120
See Harlnger :q, . and tab. .
121
On Girard of Patras (o r u u, which Bandini translated
Ex Antiquis Patribus), see Vogel-Gardthausen q6f.; Gamillscheg-Harlnger :A,
6; and Wilson :qq., 8. In the rst part, containing Theognis sentences, their
editor Douglas Young (Lipsiae :q:
2
) recognized the hand of Janus Lascaris, but
his hypothesis has been rejected by Canart (:q, 6 n. ). On Janus Lascaris as
a copyist, see in particular Mondrain .ooo, :.
122
See above, ::f. and Cortesi :q8o, q8qq and .ooo, ::. Cortesi mentions two
more manuscripts of Poetics written by Girard: MSS. Laur. 6o, .: and .T.8. (=
nox\+i on\rci .o
little connection between Pyl b and Casa Gioiosa: whereas the paper of
the second part of V comes from Northern Italy, the third part (Pyl)
was written on a kind of paper that, thanks to its watermark, may be
located in Central Italy.
123
The analysis of the watermarks has contributed to the discrediting
of another legend associated with this manuscript. The words Egregio
viro d(omi)no Laure(n)tio Vallensi, which appear on fol. q
r
immediately
before the text of Pyl, had led various scholarsfrom De Nolhac
to Sabbadinito assume that parts two and three of the manuscript
were commissioned by the humanist Lorenzo Valla, who, therefore,
used Pyl b to learn Greek.
124
Poetics and Pyl may have been copied
in Mantua, and then they may have reached Valla through Giovanni
Tortelli. If this is true, a terminus ante quem for the text would be Vallas
death, that is, between : and :8. However, the bifolio wrapping
Pyl, fols. q+q, shows the same watermark of part two and appar-
ently has nothing to do with the paper of Pyl.
125
On the verso of fol. q,
a hand wrote the prologue of the Latin Ianua (Ianua sum, etc.) with
an interlinear Greek translation and the beginning of the Latin text,
from Poeta quae pars to cuius generis. It is highly improbable that q
v
was
written by Vallas hand. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful that Valla
used Pyl b to learn Greek. He learned Greek in Rome with Giovanni
Aurispa in :.o/: and with Rinuccio Aretino in :., but we do not
know anything about the grammar book(s) he used.
126
The third Donatus graecus known to us is another grammatical compi-
lation. It has been handed down in one manuscript:
gr. :oo) of the Biblioteca Estense in Modena. Pyl b could even be the Erotemata
quedam mentioned in the inventory of Gian Pietro da Lucca (see above, :. n. .:6).
123
Cortesi .ooo, :o n. o: for Poetics, three mountains with a cross; for Pyl, a
M-letter similar to Briquet 888q, i.e., Central Italy between ::. and :..
124
De Nolhac :88, :68 n. :: Il faut sans doute rattacher Lorenzo Valla le :88
[] or tout au moins la seconde partie de ce manuscrit, even if le nom (Laurentio
Vallensi) is dans un grattage. Sabbadini :q.., :8: La grammatichetta latina, che
io ho chiamato Ianua, era stata tradotta in greco da Massimo Planude nel secolo
XIII, e su quella traduzione taluni, tra cui il Valla, si procacciarono unelementare
cognizione di greco.
125
See Schmitt :qa; Wilson :qq., 8; and Cortesi .ooo, :o n. o. Elsewhere
(o) Wilson shares Schmitts skepticism, but notes that it would make good sense for
the author of the Elegantiae to own such a text [i.e., Pyl], and probably any work
associated with the name of a famous grammarian was eagerly examined at the time
owing to the lack of good reference books.
126
See Schmitt :qa, of.
.o cn\r+rn +nnrr
P *Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Palatinus gr.
..
P MS. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. . (formerly C qo; paper, mm :o:.o,
fols. :o.), a miscellaneous manuscript, is a book for the study of Greek
in a Latin-speaking environment. The title of the whole manuscript,
Theodori Prodromi de accentibus et alia quaedam grammatica, appears on
fol. :
v
, followed by the ex libris of the Palatine Library.
127
Henry Steven-
son has assigned to the fteenth century;
128
the watermarks allow us to
establish Venice as the probable place of origin of its greatest part and
the years ::o:: as a terminus post quem.
129
This date makes MS. P
one of the earliest known manuscripts of the Greek Donatus. A Vene-
tian, certain Mattia, lled Ps blank pages and spaces with all sorts of
doodles, drawings, and probationes pennae.
130
127
Sum de bibliotheca quam Heidelberga capta spolium fecit & P.M. Gregorio XV. trophaeum
misit Maximilianus utriusque Bavariae dux et C.S.R.I. archidapifer et princeps elector. Anno
Christi .:. This manuscript, probably purchased in Venice, originally was part of
the library of the German banker and bibliophile Ulrich Fugger (:.6:8), who,
burdened by debts, sold his books to Count Palatine Ottenrich (:6o). In :6.o,
during the Thirty Year War, the Catholic Duke Maximillian I of Bavaria defeated
Frederick V, Elector Palatine and leader of the Protestant forces. The ca. ,oo
volumes of the Palatine library were part of the booty, and the Duke oered them
to the papacy. In :6., the Palatine library was incorporated into the Vatican library;
the librarian and scholar Leo Allatius (Leone Allacci) supervised the operation. In a
recently rediscovered letter to Giovanni Francesco Guidi, papal nuncio in Brussels
from :6.: to :6., Allacci documented the diculties of his task (faticha immensa)
and the high costs of the operation: see Canfora .oo, 6o. Some manuscripts were
returned to Germany during the nineteenth century, but the bulk of the collection
is still in the Vatican library. See Biedl :q; Grendler-Grendler :q8, .; De Nicol
:q8, .8; and Berschin :qq, q.
128
Codices manuscripti Palatini graeci Bibliothecae Vaticanae descripti [], Romae :88,
:.:.8. Traces of an original foliation, in ink, are still visible in the right-hand upper
margin of the recto of each folio, under numbers written in pencil more recently. The
structure of the quires is irregular, probably because of the loss and addition of some
folios in the volume; however, no gap can be detected either in the content or in
the original foliation (presumably added after the binding of the volume). When the
volume was re-bound, fols. q:q6 were misplaced after q:o..
129
The watermark of fols. :: and 86:o. is similar to VII q: Piccard (Die
Ochsenkopf-Wasserzeichen, vol. .. .): Venice :o::o. That of fols. :q6 (in particular
.:..) resembles .qq Briquet: Venice :oq::. That of fols. 8 (in particular
q8o) is similar to Briquet :6: Florence :oq::o.
130
As Stevenson remarks in his description (:.), the manuscript contains plurima
[folia] calamo Matthiae cuiusdam foede deturpata. Doodling on schoolbooks has
been common at every time and place: in his Piazza universale di tutte le professioni del
mondo (Venice :8), Tommaso Garzoni mentions the scarabozzi (Ital. scarabocchi)
nox\+i on\rci .o
P consists of several parts written by dierent hands and bound
together. Pyl c occupies fols. 8
v
8.
r
. As in other manuscripts, Pla-
nudes translation of Catos Distichs follows the grammar, but here the
Greek Cato is limited to the sententiae and the rst book. Much more
interesting are the works on Greek grammar that precede Pyl. The
rst part (fols. ::) contains a treatise on breathings by Theodore
Prodromos, two short lexica in verse (one in political verse and one in
dodecasyllables), and the grammar attributed to Cyril of Alexandria.
In the second part (fols. :6), we nd eight grammatical texts; in
the wide interlinear spaces, a word-for-word Latin translation was
written in bright red ink, probably by the same hand that wrote the
Greek text.
131
These texts include: a chart of the Greek conjugations,
some of Theodosius canons of masculine nouns, and short essays
on articles, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, letters, and the eight
parts of speech, taken from many sources
132
and introduced by bright
red titles. These essays were not aimed at building up a systematic
grammar, but constituted a basic stock material for any teacher of
Greek: as the section on adverbs in Pyl b demonstrates (below, ..o),
that children used to make on their Donati; see Ortalli :qq6, 8:. The author of Ps
doodles, however, was probably and adult. His name, Mattia, appears on fol. :
r
:
Questo liber opia de Mattia. On fol. q
v
, the same hand added Questo liber
e opre de mi mano. On fol. :
r
Questo Liber is repeated, in capital letters
written in black ink; the initial Q has on its left side the face and the hand of a
man brandishing a sword. On fol. q
v
, Mattia several times begins a letter to a
Messer Anzolo (the Venetian form of the Italian name Angelo), whom he calls
benegnisimo sigior mio (my most benevolent lord), apparently to recommend a
servant to (viy sia recomanda uno nostro servidor, sic). On fol. q
v
, we learn that
Anzolo imperatore will take a trip in arbia (i.e., either to the Arbia valley, in
Tuscany, or to Arabia). On fol. :oo
v
, some women are mentioned: Gatarina,
Lucia, Joanna, Giulia. Also, human heads and hands, the sun and the stars, a
landscape with ships (Venice?), and a stylized representation of a tournament appear
in the pages of the manuscript.
131
The Latin interlinear translation is written in a small cursive Gothic script of
the kind used for documents of ordinary administration until the fourteenth and the
fteenth centuries, heavily abbreviated and in stark contrast to the large and rough
Greek script. A case of confusion between the two scripts (6. : semper, in Latin, among
the Greek adverbs of time) demonstrates that the same hand wrote both the Greek
text and the Latin translation. The translation of the Greek adverb ru (6. 6) into
the Latin presentialiter, a typical term of law documents, suggests that the copyist was
a Western public ocial (perhaps a o: see below, .. n. 66).
132
For example, the chapter i u / de coniugationibus, on fols. :6
r
-:
r
, is
basically a paraphrasis of Dionysius Thraxs r. The chapter on articles (i
00 / de articulis), on fols. .o
r
-.o
v
, is similar to the Scholia Marciana on Dionysius
r (GG , :), as well as to Moschopoulos Erotemata.
.o6 cn\r+rn +nnrr
teachers could incorporate each of these essays separately into any
Greek schoolbook.
Pyl c, a Donatus-type grammar, was added to this heterogenous
grammatical material without a specic title. The text is written on
the full page, on sixteen-seventeen lines per page. Some parts of Ps
text have been corrected with the help of a manuscript from another
Pyl, most probably a. The writing belongs to a Western hand
133
and
is thick, square, easily legible, and without any aesthetic pretension;
additionally, the manuscript contains no decoration. Like all the texts
of this section, the text of Catos Distichs also has an interlinear Latin
translation. Clearly, the book was used in an environment in which
the teaching of Greek took place in Latin.
The last of the Greek Donati so far identied, Pyl d, is written in MS.
O:
Z *Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Barocci ., fols. ..q
r
.6o
r
.
Z Pyl d constitutes one of the many works included in MS. O, which,
as already discussed (above, :66), contains many texts for the study
of Greek grammar. The grammar, entitled i j
rj i 0 r (sic), is copied in .-line columns,
on the left side of the folios; most probably, the right side was left
for a translation. Also, the many blank spaces left in the columns
probably were to be lled with a Latin translation or supplement, as
in G. However, no glosses or marginalia appear in the text.
Z seems to be written by two dierent hands: the rst uses a
round cursive with a sharp contrast between strokes and round letters;
the second hand, which appears in fol. .6
v
, is similar to the rst,
but uses a smaller and more inaccurate writing. Few red initials at
the beginning of paragraphs demonstrate some aesthetic pretensions;
however, the text is laid out with little care and is full of mistakes. The
shape of some letters (e.g., mu often like a Latin m and iota with the
dot on top) hints at two Latin scribes. A later hand has inserted few
corrections in the interlinear spaces. The watermark of fols. .o.
(a scale), similar to .q Briquet (Venice :oo), suggests that this text
was copied later than the Pyl a contained in the same volume.
133
My thanks to Monsignor Paul Canart for this information.
nox\+i on\rci .o
Zs grammar is incomplete: of the chapter on verbs, only part
of the passive conjugation of 0u and the irregular inection are
extant, while only a few notes remain of the chapters on prepositions
and conjunctions. At least one quire seems to be missing between
fols. .6
v
and .
r
, and fols. ..6, which originally followed the
missing quire(s), have been misplaced in the binding; as a result, part
of the chapter on verbs follows the treatment of the pronoun and the
beginning of the section on prepositions.
We may doubt whether Z is what remains of a complete grammar
or is just a draft of it, as the few lines and many blank spaces in
the chapter on conjunctions may suggest. In any case, this short
Greek grammar shows all the distinguishing features of a Donatus-type
grammatical compilation.
The title attributes this grammatical epitome to Zacharias Cal-
liergis, but his authorship is out of the question. Born in Rethymnon,
in Crete, to a noble family probably related to some of the ruling
dynasties of Byzantiumsuch as the Lascarides or the Ducades
Zacharias Calliergis (ca. : ca. :.) was a scribe, a scholar, and
a printer. He moved to Venice in about :qo, where, with Nicholas
Vlastos and Anna Notaras, he founded the rst Greek publishing
house.
134
However, because of the dicult economic conditions cre-
ated in Venice by the League of Cambrai, in :: Calliergis moved
to Rome, where he worked for the Greek gymnasium (above, :.f.)
and founded a Greek publishing house with the support of the banker
Agostino Chigi.
135
Calliergis probably spent his last years as a copyist;
his last manuscript, MS. Vat. Ottoboni gr. 8q, dates from :..
134
In order to preserve Greek-Byzantine heritage in the West, Vlastos and Callier-
gis conceived the ambitious project of publishing the whole corpus of ancient Greek
and Byzantine literature, as well as liturgical books useful for the Greek community
in Venice. These books, intended to last for generations, were mostly luxury products
intended for a market completely dierent from Aldus Manutius audience. Other
Cretan scholars participated in the project: among them, Marcus Musurus and John
Gregoropoulos. From :q8 to ::, Calliergis publishing house, whose logo was a
two-headed eagle, issued several important texts: e.g., the Etymologicum Magnum and
Simplicius commentaries on Aristotle.
135
Calliergis publishing house in Rome concentrated on literary texts, lexica,
and grammatical treatises: editions of Pindar and Theocritus with scholia (:: and
::6), Chrysoloras Erotemata (:..), Phrynichus and Thomas Magisters works on
the Attic dialect, Chalcondyles treatise on the Greek tenses, and Favorinus Greek-
Latin lexicon (:.). On Calliergis life and works, see Cosenza :q6., :. 8f., . 6;
Geanakoplos :q6., .o:... and :q6, :8o, .o; Barberi-Cerulli :q., ; Mioni :q;
.o8 cn\r+rn +nnrr
Calliergis was known for his grammatical works, also: he wrote a
very traditional catechism on the eight parts of speech entitled Erote-
mata,
136
and other short grammatical treatises on specic subjects.
137
Also, his long activity in the West would have been impossible without
a sound knowledge of Latin. For all these reasons, it is hard to believe
that Calliergis could write a defective grammar like Pyl d,
138
which
seems to be a collection of notes by a teacher or a student rather
than a real grammar book oriented toward a pedagogical project.
Therefore, we should consider the Epitome attributed to Calliergis as
another anonymous Greek grammar modeled on the Latin Ianua and
composed according to the same criteria as Pyl b and c.
Manoussos Manoussakas in Graecogermania :q8q, f.; Stakos :qq8 [:q8q], q:q;
Rowland :qq8, ..of.; and Pagliaroli .oo, .8 n. : (with extensive bibliography).
136
Calliergis Erotemata apparently had very limited circulation. They have been
handed down by only three manuscripts, all of the sixteenth century: Sinai, Monas-
tery of St. Catherine, MS. gr. :6:; Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS. C. II. .:; and
Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana, MS. . D. :. My observations are based on the (often
barely readable) photographic reproduction of the manuscript of the Corsiniana
library. Calliergis Erotemata respect the traditional patterns of a Byzantine-humanist
elementary grammar. After dealing with letters and syllables, the work analyzes the
article (and the relative pronoun) and the other parts of speech: noun, verb, pronoun,
preposition, adverb, and conjunction. The participle is considered a part of speech
but does not receive separate treatment. Calliergis introduces each chapter with a
question: o (?) / ii / u / ru, etc. i r ri, etc. Then he
describes at length the properties of each part of speech. For the Greek nouns and
verbs, Calliergis adopts Chrysoloras classications with some modications. It is also
interesting that paradigms are often presented in charts.
137
The sixteenth-century MS. Vat. Ottoboni gr. : contains several works on
Greek syntax (Nicholas Sophianos and Apollonius Dyscolus), prosody (Porphyry),
and orthography. On fols. ::
r
-:.:
v
, Calliergis short essays on Greek letters, syllables,
numbers, etc. have been copied. The translation into Italian attached to the last short
essay, concerning the names of the months (Zenaro, Febraro, etc.), hints at a Northeast-
ern Italian environment. There follows (fol. :..) a list of denitions on prosody: Cal-
liergis put together denitions by Moschopoulos, Choeroboschus, Theodore Gaza,
and himself. On fols. :.
r
-:.
v
, we nd Calliergis two short essays on prosody and on
accentuation in nominal inection.
138
For example, Calliergis would never have confused res with rex (translated -
u, for the fth declension) nor claimed that the genitive of the rst declension ends
in - on the ground of j (gen. -0), 0 (gen. -), r (gen. r, r),
and o (gen o). Moreover, Schmitt (:q, .o8, .:o) observed that it would be
odd for Calliergis to write a Greek grammar relying on Ianua instead of, for example,
Chrysoloras Erotemata or one of the many grammars that he himself had printed.
Calliergis probably knew Ianua and may have known Pyl b in Crete, in Venice, or in
Padua, where he seems to have spent the years between :oo and :oq (MS. M had
been in San Giovanni di Verdara since :o: see above, .o:). See Mioni :q, :;
and Manoussakas in Graecogermania :q8q, 6.
nox\+i on\rci .oq
q. The Donati compositi as Grammar Books
Pylai b, c, and d preserve the structure and the general plan of the
Latin Ianua: the parts of speech are introduced and described in the
same way and in the same order and denitions are reduced to the
essentials, whereas a considerable number of paradigms and exam-
ples are oered. However, among the three Donati compositi, Pyl b is
the most successful attempt to adapt a Greek translation of Ianua to
the demands of Westerners who wanted to learn Greek. Thus, for
example, the anonymous compiler of Pyl b, on the one hand, main-
tains the Latin ve-declension system, gives the ablative, and omits
the dual of Greek nouns; on the other hand, he makes the system
compatible with the actual Greek nominal inection. The four ver-
bal conjugations are preserved but modied in order to t into the
Greek verbal system, although the paradigms used are still a transla-
tion of the Latin amo, doceo, lego,
139
and audio. Of the irregular verbs,
b considers ii only. Chapter presents an extensive treatment of
prepositions that, as the formula ir o suggests, was taken from
a Byzantine grammar. A probable source is Moschopoulos Erotema-
ta, whereas the examples coincide with those employed by Michael
Syncellus, Gregory of Corinth, and George Scholarios in their gram-
matical treatises; thus, Pyl bs section on prepositions may come from
the stock material of various origins that was available to Byzan-
tine grammarians.
140
Similarly, the chapter on adverbs corresponds to
those in Moschopoulos and Chrysoloras Erotemata; both grammari-
ans, in turn, took up the corresponding section in Dionysius Thraxs
r (:q, p. 6o Lallot). Also, the same section appears, in a more cor-
rect and extended form, among Ps grammatical material in the i
ro/De adverbiis in fols. .:
r
..
r
.
It is worth noticing that Vs text contains only Pyl bs treatment of
the rst four parts of speech and ends at the beginning of the section
on prepositions, i.e., exactly where these Byzantine additions begin.
Therefore, we may suppose that the Ianua-based chapters on the last
four parts of speech had been lost, or were omitted, already in the
archetype of both M and V and that M derives from a branch of
the tradition where those parts were replaced with other material.
139
Pylai b, c, and d use r instead of 0u.
140
MSS. Vat. gr. .q and Vat. Urbinas gr. :: contain two anonymous treatises on
Greek prepositions that present striking similarities to Pyl bs chapter.
.:o cn\r+rn +nnrr
It is possible that Ms recensio originated in an environment where
this material was available, i.e., in an area where Byzantine grammar
books circulated; this may not have been the case with the Western
MS. V.
141
The two manuscripts show some dierences in the text. There are
few errores coniunctivi, in addition to common mistakes that may have
originated independently:
:. :o r u MV
:. ::6:: 0i 0o om. M, in marg. add. V
1
.. MV
.. 00 0 MV
.. 6: 00j 00j MV
etc.
Much more signicant are the dierent readings. A few examples will
suce:
:. : M o V
:. 8 00 o M o 00 V
:. :8, .:, al. r, -r M r, -r V
:. .qo 0o o0 M 0o V
:. q j o0j i 00t M j 00t V
.. :: 0j M rj V
.. r 0 M rj 0_ V
.. M 0 V
.. :q j r M V
etc.
V often presents lectiones potiores and a more accurate orthography
In V, Pyl does not have its poetic prologue. An anonymous hand
wrote in fol. q
v
the Latin text of Pyl as poem with an interlinear
translation into Greek. This translation diers from that of Pyl a
in several respects, just as an interlinear, word-for-word version may
dier from a translation with some literary pretensions.
142
141
It is worth noticing that Chrysoloras Erotemata, in its earliest extant version (MS.
Vat. Palatinus gr. ::6), ends with the chapter on prepositions and does not account
for the other three parts of speech. Similarly, the last three chapters may have never
been included in Vs elementary grammar because the teacher who used V probably
considered the study of adverbs, interjections, and conjunctions as useless or suitable
for a more advanced level.
142
For example: line ., nec sine me: 0 i r0 V, i i r0 Pyl a; peritus:
nox\+i on\rci .::
In M and Z, Pyl is introduced by a poem in eight rather accurate
tonic paroxytone dodecasyllables:
143
u 0j j j o 0 0r
o0u 0t i 0r
o 0u u ri r,
r u 0r i i .
u 00 i j i r
_u _u 0 r0
i i o r
I o r u o 0.
[Whoever wants to enter the unwavering door of the art of writing
correctly and methodically, should accurately learn all of my contents,
from which he will know how to judge the style irreproachably. There-
fore, let him apply himself with wise reasoning to case, number, species,
gure, and gender, and let him bow his head to the master; for thus he
will reach the highest pitch of all beauty.]
Most probably, this poem was not composed for Pylai b and d. It can
be read with some diculty in fol. 6
v
of the fourteenth-century MS.
Vat. gr. 68.
144
But it is also written in N, in fol. o
v
, after the conju-
gation of ii and the explicit of Pyl a, and with the indication chartula
iambica on the left margin. The poem may have been composed ear-
lier, as an introduction to another grammatical text; its stereotyped
content made it possible to add it to any grammar.
145
r V, rj a. Lines his quae ectuntur partibus insinuo. / Pono modum
reliquis, quod competat optime pandens:
V: i 0 i r u.
i0 t t, r 0i u,
a: t r r ru
o u u, o t 0i ri.
V has instead of the relative pronoun o. Line 6, manet: riV, r a.
Line , ergo: 0 V, o0 a; studiumque tibi. adice: j 0 V,
_u rui a; lector: u 0u V, u 0u a. Line 8 celeri studio:
o j V, _ 0j a; potes: u V, j a.
143
On Byzantine dodecasyllables, see Maas :q [:qo].
144
Described by Robert Devreesse, Codices Vaticani graeci, II: codices oo, Romae
:q, .o... There is an apparent relationship between M and the Vatican manu-
script, which contains theological works by Anastasius Sinaites, Gregory of Nazian-
zus, Ephraem Syrus, etc. A careful codicological examination would tell us if fol. 6
was added later to the volume as a yleaf, as I suspect it was.
145
In his description of M, Mioni mentioned Z as a possible source of the poem,
but denied Calliergis authorship observing that codex noster [M] fere uno saeculo Cal-
liergem praecedit (6).
.:. cn\r+rn +nnrr
On the other hand, Pyl c is a bilingual grammar and, as such,
much more dependent on the Latin model; as in Pyl a, in fact, a faith-
ful respect for the Latin original required the creation of forms ad hoc,
usually according to the same method observed in R.
146
An extensive
Latin translation was written in the interlinear spaces after the copy-
ing of the Greek was concluded. Each Latin word has been carefully
written above the corresponding Greek term; in this way, as is the case
with G, readers could benet from a direct and immediate compari-
son between the two languages. The Greek text reproduces its Latin
original almost to the letter, in spite of syntactical dierences between
the two languages. However, the Latin text is not a translation of the
Greek: it seems to come from an edition of Ianua very similar, but not
identical, to Pyl cs original.
147
The Greek translation does not con-
tain any literary pretension: Pyl cs language contains many forms of
the lexicon and the grammar of the spoken language.
148
Also, c often
diers from a and bd in the grammatical terminology.
149
The question j i r ri; introduces the
chapter on nouns in Pylai b and d; cs rst section survives only in
a bilingual glossary copied before the section on verbs. Denitions
are almost identical in b and d: they may have been derived from a
common source that probably was based on a translation of the rst
section of an Ianua dierent from a. In fact, the order of the denitions
of nouns properties generally coincide with Pyl a, but b and d are
much more concise and often use a dierent language. For example,
this is the denition of the genus compositum in a (:. ..8):
i r; 0r. 0 i0; ' 0 0 i
i i i0 0.
146
Here are some peculiar forms in Pyl cs Greek verbal system: the pluperfect
optative active of 0u as i0 0j; the aorist subjunctive passive of 0u
as ro jj0, and the future subjunctive passive (!) as ro jr r; the
aorist subjunctive active of o as ro ri; the future as ro o; etc.
147
Thus, for example, the Latin eo quod is translated _u o ( cod.), and in
proferendo becomes r r. However, Pyl c adds from some Greek grammar
that j, verb, comes from u, a form of r; above u, the Latin translator
incorrectly wrote verbero, which corresponds to the Latin etymology given by Priscian
(and by Ianuas appendix). Also, sometimes the terms imperfectum and perfectum are
reversed in the Latin version.
148
For example, the Latin exulo and nubo are translated with i (cod.: a form
created on i) and 0 (a clear reference to the Orthodox marriage; see
PGL, s.v. ).
149
For example, c calls the verbal voices 0r, while a and bd use r (Lat.
genera).
nox\+i on\rci .:
In b (:. ..) and d (:. ..), it is called j u0 (gura
composita) and is dened in this way:
150
i j; 0r. 0 i0; ' 0 i o
r0 0i (0 d).
On the other hand, the denition of the genus incertum, called 0
in a and 0i in b and d,
151
oers an interesting case: Pyl b and
d coincide ad verbum with R (a :. :8.:(b) = b :. ::8, d :q.o):
i r; 'j. i; 0i t 0, 0o
j i u u r t i o r r.
Pyl cs lost section on nouns corresponded to the beginning of a
Priscianic Ianua, or Ianua longa, where denitions were given much
more room. From the glossary at the beginning of Pyl c we may infer,
for example, that c : contained the etymology of (cf. Priscian,
Inst. gramm. .. .., GL ., ):
Unde dicitur (: i, r) nomen? A u, tribuendo (: 0 r-
()), t noma et adiecta (6: 0r) o ou, vel a notamen (:o:
), eo quod (8: _u o) hoc notamus (q r, r) substan-
tiam (::: 0i) vel qualitatem (:.: ).
Like a, Pyl b acknowledges ve nominal declensions, based on the
endings of the genitive singular. However, the following chart shows
that its system represents a signicant improvement over Pyl a. The
nouns in brackets are quoted in the nominative and genitive after the
denitions:
rst declension (genitive singular: - i0: j, u,
u):
o j
o r
u
second declension (genitive singular: : i, u, j, ,
ju):
150
Pyl b continues: i 0 u r u0 , 0i.
Because in ds text this sentence belongs to the denition of the j u0
(:. .6.8), we may assume that the two denitions merged in bs manuscript tradition.
151
This rare adjective properly means unnished, incomplete, imperfect and
belongs to philosophical language. See LSJ, s.v.
.: cn\r+rn +nnrr
o i
o u
third declension (genitive singular: : 0, i, j):
j 0
j i
j j
fourth declension (genitive singular: : t, `r, u):
j t
j `r
fth declension (genitive singular equal to the nominative: 'o,
'o, u, 'u):
o 'o
o 'o
o u
o 'u
The author(s) of Pyl b retained some nouns from the Latin Ianua
poeta, musa, and Abrahambut organized the Greek nominal inec-
tion according to a system similar to Chrysoloras Erotemata.
152
Like
Chrysoloras work, bs choice of paradigms reveals a clear inuence
of Theodosius Canons. Rather surprisingly, the fth declension,
which includes only names taken from Hebrew and therefore not
inected, is represented by more paradigms than the other groups;
this hints perhaps at the interests of bs author(s) or audience, for
whom the reading of the Greek Bible could be the main reason
for learning Greek or the favorite means of achieving this goal (this
applies also to u, Eve, mentioned for the fourth declension).
Conversely, Pyl d oers a faithful translation of the section on
nouns of an Ianua brevis; this may conrm its late date. The denitions
152
Pyl b combines the masculine nouns of the rst declension and the nouns of
the second declensions, which Chrysoloras kept separated, but divides the feminine
nouns of the rst declensionthe second according to Chrysolorasinto two groups
(stems in ; stems in and ). In spite of their variety, the nouns with the genitive in
-our third declension, which Chrysoloras divided into six groupsreceive very
brief treatment.
nox\+i on\rci .:
coincide with bs, but are not related to the paradigms in three cases
out of ve:
153
rst declension (genitive singular: - i0: j, u,
r):
o j hic poeta
j 0 haec musa
o r i j r hic et haec advena
o hoc Pascha
second declension (genitive singular: : u, 0, o-
, 0):
o u hic dominus
o 0 hic deus
o o hic magister
o 0 hoc scamnum
third declension (genitive singular: : 0, i):
o j hic pater
j j haec mater
o i j 00 hic et haec homo
o 0 i j 0 hic et haec omnis et hoc
i 0 omne
fourth declension (genitive singular: : i, o, ):
j i hec manus
r hoc cornu
r hic visus
o 0u hic auditus
153
The paradigms that are quoted correspond almost completely, for example, to
the Ianua of MS. B vi 8 of the Biblioteca Queriniana in Brescia (mid-fteenth century:
cf. Black .oo:, ): poeta, musa, advena, Pascha; dominus, deus, magister, scamnum; pater,
mater, homo, omnis; visus, manus, cornus; and dies, meridies, res. The compiler of Pyl d
probably was a Greek and relied on a bilingual dictionary; this may explain the
confusion between res and rex and the presence of u among the fth-declension
nouns. As for 0u, he may have confused the noun auditus, gen. auditus, hearing,
with the participle auditus -a -um, heard, and then may have rendered it incorrectly
with a Greek present participle.
.:6 cn\r+rn +nnrr
fth declension (genitive singular: : jr, i):
j jr hic et haec dies
j i hic meridies
o u hic rex (for res)
i haec species
As for Pyl c, from the glossary that replaces the section on nouns
and from the elements found in the other Pylai, we may infer that
it certainly contained the declensions of j (poeta: :. .), 0
(musa: .), j (advena: .), and o (Pasqua: .8), and proba-
bly of j (anima: .6).
154
For the second declension, only r
is mentioned (saturatus: o). The third declension certainly included 0-
i (felix: :), 0 (omnis: .o), i (fortis: :), i (for-
tior: .), and other nouns; the fourth included and 0j (visus and
auditus: 6o) and r (cornu: 6.), and the fth 0 (res: 6). Other
nouns may have been quoted to explain a rule, but not declined, as is
often the case with Ianuae longae. Also, like a, Pyl c contained a treat-
ment of numeral adjectives that does not appear in b and d.
155
As for the degrees of comparison of adjectives and adverbs, b cor-
rectly mentions r (:. :o), which, however, becomes -
r, r, and r etc. as an adverb. The
adjectives 0j and 0i (:. ::::8), which were also in c (:.
86q), correspond to the Latin felix and pius, which were included
in some editions of Ianua. The adjective u, itself a superlative,
is quoted with a comparative and a superlative, and u-
(b :. :oq::o).
156
For u, which is missing in a, b gives the
adverbs u, (late form of t), and o, mostly,
very often (instead of t: b. :. ::., cf. c. :. :o:o). The three
adverbs derived from are r (late form of the com-
parative r with the Attic --, here treated as a positive), and
154
In the thirteenth-century Ianua of MS. Par. lat. :q. (J), anima is declined among
the nouns of the rst declension at fol. ::o
r
, and is also mentioned at fol. :oq
v
as an
example of gura simplex: Quot sunt gure nominum? Tres. Que? Simplex ut anima, composita ut
magnanimus, decomposita ut magnanimitas.
155
Here and elsewhere, Pyl c seems to be derived from an Ianua longa-text earlier
than as and similar to that of MSS. J (Par. Bibl. Nat. lat. :q.) and S (Laur. Strozzi
8o: see above, .8).
156
and u are considered a comparative and a superlative derived
from the preposition . The form u, attested already in Homer, becomes
common in late Greek: see LSJ, s.v.
nox\+i on\rci .:
rr (created on the previous one), whereas the superlative is
o (b :. :.o:.:).
'u is also used by the Donati compositi, as well as by Pyl a,
to introduce the section on verbs. The beginning of this section is
lost in d, whose text starts with the future optative passive of 0u.
Here again, the part that b assigns to denitions is much shorter than
in version a. Pyl b mentions four conjugations. The rst three are
distinguished according to the vowel(s) preceding the ending of the
second person singular of the present indicative, whereas the fourth
conjugation includes all the -verbs:
u 0u, -0, 0u, -0
r (sic), o, -, o, -; r, -, r, -
i , -t, 0, -t
o -, i0, i0; i, i; i, i;
u, u.
By adopting the same method of Ianua, Pyl b introduces within the
Greek verbal system a distinction based on the ending of the second
person singular. In this way, all the categories of non-contracted verbs
can be reduced to one, the second, which includes the verbs ending in
-/-. There is also room for the contracted verbs in -o (0o)
and in - (). The contracted verbs in -r are not included:
they probably were considered as part of the second conjugation be-
cause, apart from the accent, their endings coincide (u, t and
0, j). Additionally, bs author may have been forced to omit
them in an attempt to preserve the four-conjugation system of Latin.
In Pyl c, the chapter on verbs is derived from an Ianua longa. Like
the Ianua of MS. Laur. Strozzi 8o, for example, Pyl cs original con-
tained detailed denitions taken from Priscian, as well as mnemonic
verses taken from medieval grammars. For example, two lines from
Alexander of Villedieus Doctrinale (q6q) conclude the description
of the genus neutrum passivum (semi-deponent verbs):
Cuius generis? Neutri passivi. Quare? Quia in preteritis perfectis et in hiis que
derivantur ab eo retinet literaturam passivorum, in ceteris autem neutrorum; et sunt
quinque verba neutra passiva, sicut dictum est:
gaudeo cum o, soleo simul audeo, do:
157
quinque, puer, numero neutra passiva tibi do,
157
Cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 6:, GL ., .o. In Alexanders text, the order of the
.:8 cn\r+rn +nnrr
which in Greek becomes (c .. ..8):
i 0r; 0r 0j. i; r t _r-
i t r 0 00 r j 0u, r
t rj r u 0r i i r j 0r 0o,
u i
i u i, i0 o0 u, r
r o 00_u 0r 0o i (sic).
The same lines occur, in a reverse order, in MS. Strozzi 8o (fol. 8
v
).
In the treatment of verbal inection, the similarities between the
three Donati compositi become more evident; in fact, there are good
reasons to suppose that the source of the three texts was a treatise
on Latin verbs in Greek.
158
As we have already seen, this treatise
was probably based on a translation of Ianuas section on verbs, but
the translator(s) rendered lego with the Greek r and replaced the
pluperfect with the aorist. Thus, the verbal system described by the
Greek Donati becomes an interesting mixture of Latin and Greek
grammar: Westerners could practice Greek conjugations by using
verbs with which they were familiar and, in this way, they could learn
by comparing the forms of both languages.
The inuence of Latin elementary grammar on the verbal para-
digms of Donati compositi, however, is very strong. Here, too, verbs are
usually introduced with a list of principal parts. The voices include
the active, the passive, and the impersonal; signicantly, the mid-
dle voice is not mentioned and is often confused with the passive.
159
Also, there is no attempt to create forms expressly to make the Greek
verbal system match the Latin one, except, perhaps, for the future
subjunctive, for which translators adopt the same solutions as Pyl a
verbs in the rst lines is slightly dierent (audeo cum soleo, o quoque gaudeo, do); the
anonymous compiler of Ianua c probably relied on his memory to quote Alexanders
line.
158
In fact, the three texts present some readings that may come from their common
source: 00 for 0u (b .. :., c .. :o), and r0 r0 for r
r in the conjugation of the present imperative of ii (b .. :q.o, c .. .
, and d .. .:..; cf. a .. 6q68o).
159
Sometimes the anonymous translator(s) hesitated over whether to use a middle
or a passive and gave them both, as is the case with the future innitive passive of
r and 0u: 0j0 j r0 (b .. . and c .. 6) and 00j0
j 0u0 (b .. oq and c .. 8). In the same way, the future participles are
0 j (b .. . and c .. 6) and 00 j 0
(b .. :::. and c .. 6o6:; d has only the innitive passive and does not consider
participles in the conjugation of 0u).
nox\+i on\rci .:q
(ro+future indicative, or nonexistent forms of future with a - / -
sux).
160
Of r and other polythematic verbs, only the forms with
the regular stem are usually given, with no mention of supplemen-
tary forms.
In the question that begins the chapter on participles, r re-
places as 0u; c has no paradigms, whereas b and d give
the declension of the present active r and the perfect middle-
passive r, which corresponds to the Latin present and perfect
participles. However, Pylai b and d adapt the original description
of the Latin participles to the Greek system by including the right
suxes for the active voice: - for the present and the imperfect
as well as for the future, - for the aorist, and - for the perfect.
Also, the examples that Pylai b and d give for the voices (called r or
0r) are less faithful to Latin grammar than Pyl as example, but
t the Greek system much better. The middle voice is not considered:
r (active) = 0u (0u)
0 (passive) = 0u (0u)
0r (neuter) = o0 (0j)
(common) = i ()
(deponent) = u ().
161
In the chapter on pronouns, Pylai b and d have two elements in
common with R: the reference to and the denition of the i
and o (species primitiva and derivativa)omitted
by x, and the denition of the r t, which coincides ad
verbum with Rs denition. Pyl c contains general denitions only,
which apply both to Greek and to Latin. On the other hand, in this
chapter, Pylai b and d distance themselves remarkably from both the
Latin Ianua and Pyl a. Unlike a, the Donati compositi do not consider
Ianuas division of pronouns into four modes (). Instead, b
and d divide the seventeen Greek pronouns into three categories: six
primitive, eight derivative, and three compound pronouns. Starting
from the personal pronouns ru, u, and i (the very rare nominative
160
As for the future imperative, often called r 0, the aorist imperative
is always used. The second and third persons singular are followed by the pronouns
(e.g., 0i , 0o0 rt), as in the Latin original, where the two forms
are identical (audito tu, audito ille).
161
In c, r[]i (Lat. largior) replaces i and 00u (Lat. sequor)
replaces u, while a sixth signicatio, the 0r 0j (Lat. neutralis passiva
or neutropassiva), is added with i (Lat. gaudeo).
..o cn\r+rn +nnrr
of the reexive u),
162
which are given in the singular, dual, and plural,
b and d give the possessive adjectives pertaining to each pronoun,
and then describe the demonstrative pronouns and adjectives. Also, b
and d oer the complete declensions of the personal pronouns, of the
demonstrative rt, u, and 0, and of the possessive r,
, and o.
The three Donati compositi dier in the treatment of prepositions.
The c- and d-texts preserve the Latin distinction of prepositions ac-
cording to the cases they take (accusative, ablative, or both), even if it
does not apply to Greek. Pyl bs chapter begins with Ianuas question
(r i r ri;) and adopts Ianuas general denition of
the 0, but, as already observed, is completely independent of
the Latin model. After the division of the eighteen Greek prepositions
into two groups(0r) u and u, originally
in Dionysius Thrax (:8, p. 6. Lallot)Pyl b treats each preposition
in detail, in the same order that we see in Dionysius
163
and with
particular emphasis on the changes in meaning according to the cases
it takes. The lacuna between Ms fols. 6
v
and
r
, which occurred
before the pages of the manuscript were numbered, resulted in a loss
of the treatment of part of the section on , the whole section on
0o, and the beginning of that on o.
In the three Donati compositi, the chapter on adverbs begins with
the question 0 i r ri, which corresponds to Pyl
a. However, each text deals with this part of speech independently
from the others. As already seen, bs chapter was probably taken
from Moschopoulos Erotemata. It is also signicant that the distinc-
tion between 0 and u0 rj (simple and compound
adverbs) goes back to Dionysius Thrax, as do most of the categories
acknowledged by Pyl b, which retain the same examples and the
same order as Dionysius (Ars gramm. :q, pp. 6.6 Lallot). The text
of Dionysius r, therefore, oers a valid support for the emenda-
tion of this part of Pyl b, which is full of mistakes and omissions. Pyl
c acknowledges twenty-three classes of adverbs, and Pyl d acknowl-
edges nineteen: in both texts, the adverbs names and the examples
162
Dionysius Thrax (Ars gramm. :, p. 6o Lallot) mentions this form, which, how-
ever, is a ction grammaticale (Lallot, p. .o). Sophocles fragment : Radt,
quoted by Apollonius Dyscolus, contains the pronoun i twice. However, as Lallot
remarks: la forme h est, dans les faits, pratiquement inexistantesauf dans les
traits de grammaire.
163
The only exception is the sequence , which reverses Dionysius order.
nox\+i on\rci ..:
quoted for each category are related to Ianua. As in all Latinate Greek
grammars, the interjectioncalled in c and j
ri in dhas its place among the eight parts of speech.
The chapter on conjunctions, missing in b, is reduced to a few
lines in d. In the c-text, it coincides with Dionysius Thraxs treatment
of conjunctions (.o, pp. 666 Lallot) and, more precisely, with the
section in the anonymous grammar attributed to Basil the Great.
164
This conrms the diverse origin of the material contained in the
Donati compositi.
:o. The Language of the Greek Donati: Between Greek and Latin
As Greek translations from Latin that were produced independently,
from dierent originals and, probably, at dierent times, the four
Greek Donati show many dierences in terms of language and style.
In the sections more closely derived from Latin, the Donati compositi
appear as completely independent from Pyl a, as, for example, in the
following passages taken from the sections on pronouns in all four
texts:
a . ..8(a): i u; i. i; o o o
i l 0i ii i u, j j ru, j ri u-
, i u, j ri r, i u r 0 0u.
b . ::, c . ::6, and d . :.:: i u; u. i;
o o o i 0 l 0i ii i u,
i 0 ru, o ri u, i 0 u, o ri r, i
u u u i u r 0u r.
165
Ianua longa (MS. Laur. Strozzi 8o, fol. .
v
): Cuius persone? Prime. Quare?
Quia omnia nomina et pronomina [et pronomina] sunt tertiarum personarum,
exceptis ego, quod est prime, et tu, quod est secunde, et hiis que derivantur ab eis, que
sunt prime et tertie, secunde et tertie, et vocativis casibus aliorum qui sunt secunde
persone.
All in all, in the four Donati graeci the specic language of the disci-
pline, grammar, is used correctly. Formulas like i r (i r)
ri or ir o ... belong to the language of Schulgrammatik
164
There are also similarities between cs text and the treatment of conjunctions in
George Scholarios grammar, presumably because of the use of the same source(s).
165
Pyl c omits 0 before l 0i, while d has i instead of u
and o 0i (sic) instead of (0) l 0i.
... cn\r+rn +nnrr
as well as their Latin equivalents quae pars orationis est and sciendum est.
Unlike the translations of Ianua into vernacular languages, the Greek
Donatus did not require the creation of a metalanguage to describe
grammatical phenomena. In fact, most of the grammatical terminol-
ogy used in Pylai appears already in Dionysius r and had been
employed in grammatical work from that time onward. However, the
translators of Pylaiand especially those of Pyl ahad to solve the
problem of rendering into Greek Latin terms that did not correspond
to any category of Greek grammar. The easiest solution, the linguis-
tic calque, is often adopted in Pyl a. The following examples provide
some interesting observations:
A. Ablativus = 0j: the name ablative, ablativus, appears for
the rst time in Quintilian (Inst. or. :. . .6). In the fourth century,
Dositheus solved the problem of translating the ablativus casus, which
does not exist in Greek grammar, with 0j or 0j (:8,
p. Bonnet, etc.), or 0j (.. p. : Bonnet); the term
0j prevailed among later grammarians.
B. The genera verbi: as already considered, in the Greek Donati Greek
verbs lack the middle voice (), which is generally confused
with the passive. On the other hand, elementary Latin grammar
acknowledges eight genera, voices (above, ). From Dionysius Thrax
onward, the genus activum and passivum had had their Greek equivalent
in (r) r and 0. Also, translating (genus) neutrum,
neutrum passivum or passivum neutrum with (r) 0r, 0r
0 or 0 0r, as well as commune with and
nullum with 0r, was an easy and obvious operation. Conversely, no
Greek term was available for deponens. Pyl a solves the problem in two
ways: with the calque 00 (B
m
ONR), which was used also by
Constantine Lascaris,
166
and with the more rened 0
(ABCGQ: 0 codd.), from 0o, a form of 0-
i, leave, abandon.
Pylai b and d use , which literally means able to pass
from one place to another, transitional; grammarians use it for tran-
sitive, i.e., not reexive. We may explain the misunderstanding by
166
As Schmitt has pointed out (:q66, .:6), Lascaris use of the denition of 0-
0 0 for verbs like i demonstrates that Latin grammar eventually
inuenced the Greek grammar of the Renaissance.
nox\+i on\rci ..
considering that deponent verbs are passive but constructed as transi-
tive, i.e., with the accusative.
167
Pyl c uses either 0 (trans-
lated deponentalis: . .6) or the extravagant 00, which means
opposite (.. .o).
C. Intransitivus = 0o or 0o: Apollonius Dyscolus (cf.
LSJ, s.v.) uses 0o or 0i. The former is also found
in most manuscripts of Pyl a as well as in b, d, and c . :. On the
other hand, BCG and c . : have 0o, which is a calque from
the Latin in-trans-itivus.
168
D. Impersonale = 0: Greek grammar does not consider the
impersonal use of verbs as a separate voice; therefore, this verbal cat-
egory lacks a specic Greek term. For this reason, Pylai b and d trans-
late the Latin verbum impersonale in j j 0 ur -
(verb not expressing a specic person) and j j r -
(verb that has no person), respectively. However, Planudes uses
the adjective 0 to dene verbs like j, r, j,
etc. (o 0 j: De gramm. q. qf., . :8.; Synt. :6. f.).
Pyl a translates Ianuas verbum impersonale in j 0: the
adjective means without substance and is very common in Chris-
tian writings (see PGL, s.v.). The confusion between and
may be due to the frequent occurrence of the two terms
as a iunctura in religious texts (see PGL, s.v. ). Pyl c takes up
bs formula (.. o), but contaminates it with as 0 (..
::.: j 0 j ) and Planudes 0 (..
.:.).
E. Gerundium = 0: the use of 0 as gerund is explained by
Dionysius Thrax, who refers to 0o rj as the neuter forms
of the verbal adjectives in -r (q. ., p. 6 Lallot), corresponding to
the Latin gerundive (perhaps considered as equivalent to the gerund
because of the similarity of the forms).
167
This denition only partially applies to u, which Pylai b and d quote as
an example of a deponent verb (b . :; d . o): u used with a direct object,
in fact, is rare. In the section on verbs, Pyl b adds 0 to (.. :).
168
Gregory of Nyssa and Proclus use 0o as not to be passed and refer it
to the division between the impenitent and the good; cf. PGL, s.v.
.. cn\r+rn +nnrr
F. Supinum = 0: the Greek -i0 was probably intended
as a calque of sub-ponere, from which supinum derives.
G. Interiectio = ro0, , j ri: Greek
grammarians did not consider the interjection as an independent
part of speech. Dionysius Thrax included words indicating fear, pain,
sadness or joy in the categories of the o rj, the
adverbs expressing anger or complaint (t, i0, 0), the 0-
o, expressing astonishment (t), and the rj u-
, expressing exhortation (i, 0, r).
169
Dionysius classication,
although modied and improved, continued to be used until the late
Byzantine period.
170
Late antique glossaries, Charisius, and Priscian
suggest that the Greek term for interiectio was ,
171
whereas
Dositheus bilingual grammar has r0, insertion, taken from
the language of rhetoric (6, p. q8 Bonnet).
172
The translator(s) of Pyl a, who probably did not know the specic
term for interiectio, constructed ro0 by means of the individual
elements making up the word: with a purely formal process, inter-iectio
becomes r-o-0.
173
Pyl ds j also means insertion (cf.
o, insert, interpose, Lat. immitto, intericio). Instead, Pyl c
uses the Greek grammatical term .
H. Conjunctions: Dionysius Thrax (.o, p. 6. Lallot) divided Greek
conjunctions into eight groups: (u) i, copulative,
i, disjunctive, i, connective, i,
subconnective, ii, causal, 0[]i, dubita-
tive, i, syllogistic, and i, expletive.
169
See Ars gramm. :q.:, .o, and ., pp. 6.6 Lallot.
170
See the references collected by Schmitt :q66, .of. n. :::.
171
Priscian, Inst. gramm. :. o (GL . qo): Interiectio tamen non solum quem dicunt
Graeci , sed etiam voces quae cuiuscumque passionis animi pulsu per exclamationem
intericiuntur. Other quotations in Schmitt :q66, .: n. ::::.
172
On r0, the insertion of a sentence into another, see Quintilian, Inst.
or. q. . .. The term was also used as synonymous with rr0, which means the
insertion of letters into a word; see LSJ, s.v.
173
Schmitt (:q66, . and n. :.6) also proposes a second explanation, based on the
meaning of o0 as aectus. In grammar, o0 usually means the voice of a
verb, i.e., the relationship between the subject and the action, as shown by two signi-
cant passages by Macrobius (GL . 6.. 68) and George Scholarios (Gramm. 8.. .f.).
Since the interjection is related to aection, states of mind, etc., the translator(s) also
may have taken into account the semantic value of o0.
nox\+i on\rci ..
Pyl c takes up Dionysius section on conjunctions, but adds the cat-
egory of (u) ri, adversative. In Pyl d, only a
list of names survives of the section on conjunctions, and it is di-
cult to determine if they correspond to Dionysius model or to some
other source. Pyl a employs the terms , ,
, 0, and ;
174
as for the other
categories, the Latin original has exerted a decisive inuence. As we
already have seen, Ianua takes up Priscians categories, which, in turn,
are a translation from the Greek of Apollonius Dyscolus. Pyl a often
presents a dierent Greek retranslation of the names of those cate-
gories. For example, the Greek , which Priscian trans-
lated with collectiva, became 00 in Pyl a (from 00i, to
collect, etc.).
175
Priscians coniunctio continuativa is rendered by -
(cf. r, to continue, j, continuous, etc.), al-
though it actually corresponds to the u ; but Pyl a
uses for the adiunctiva. In the same way, coniunctio subcontinu-
ativa becomes , which is clearly a calque from Latin, but
corresponds to the of Dionysius and Apollonius.
::. The Greek Cato
The similarity between the Greek Pyl and the Latin Ianua is enhanced
by the fact that, in the manuscript tradition, Pyl is often followed by
Planudes Greek translation of Catos Disticha, so as Ianua is either
written or printed before Catos Latin text. Pyl a and Cato can be
found together in part of the Cretan groupN, O, and Qand in
the Cretan-Venetian R. MSS. M of Pyl b and our only copy of Pyl c,
P, also include both texts.
Like Pyl a, the Greek Cato also eventually was used for a pur-
pose that was not intended by the translator. Most probably, Planudes
translated the Distichs uniquely in order to spread knowledge of one
of the favorite Latin readings throughout Byzantium. Like genera-
tions of scholars, students, and readers in the West, Planudes and his
readers may have liked Catos Distichs for their moral content and
their simple and straightforward way of expressing the basic princi-
ples of ancient ethics. The Byzantines knew Cato mainly from the
174
i (iu in Apollonius Dyscolus) is replaced with i.
175
Apollonius Dyscolus uses 00 as copulative (see LSJ, s.v.).
..6 cn\r+rn +nnrr
portrait that Plutarch gave of him, in parallel with Aristides: Cato the
Elder had the reputation of being a strict moralist and a man of great
stature. However, the large number of manuscripts handing down the
Greek Cato show that, in the Renaissance, it achieved great success
not as a treatise on morality, but as an elementary reading of Greek.
176
The time and place of Planudes translation have been discussed at
length. In his translation, in literary Greek, Planudes strives to respect
the original text as faithfully as possible. However, many misinterpre-
tations of the Latin text and many mistakes in the Greek version seem
to prove that this was one of the rst of Planudes translations. He may
have done it long before his diplomatic mission to Venice in :.q6;
Planudes later versions from Latinfor example, that of Boethius
Consolatioare in fact much more accurate.
177
Although we have no
specic evidence, it is tempting to suppose that Planudes tackled the
Latin Pseudo-Cato immediately after completing his study of elemen-
tary Latin grammar in Byzantium.
178
Thus, the Distichs may have
been the rst Latin reading for him, as they used to be for many
Western pupils. Planudes may have conceived the project of translat-
ing this text as both an exercise for practicing his Latin and a way to
make accessible to Greek readers the moral issues it contains.
Although not very faithful to the original text,
179
Planudes trans-
lation succeeded in conveying its moral message. From this point of
view, Planudes use of the Homeric hexameter and language to ren-
der the Latin text reveals not only a search for a highly rened style,
but also an attempt to connect the Latin morality to the moral values
of the Homeric epos, the foundation of the Greek tradition.
180
176
See Schmitt :q6 (with an overview of Cato the Elders fortune in Byzantium);
and Ortoleva :qq:, q8.
177
Turyn :q:q, :. Ortoleva (:qq., XIIXVIII) has recognized a rst, rough
experiment in a Greek version of Catos Distichs handed down in Munich, Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek, MS. gr. :.
178
Copies of Catos Distich may have been circulating in thirteenth-century Con-
stantinople, occupied by the Latins from :.o to :.6:; see Ortoleva :q8q, :o6 n. 6.
On Latin books in Byzantium, see below, ..f.
179
Mehr Nachdichtung als bersetzung according to Hunger (:q8, .. 68).
Schmitt (:q6, .) interprets Planudes freedom in translating Catos work as an
attempt to Hellenize it: in Planudes translation, Schmitt nds bewuten nde-
rungen, die [] davon zeugen, da es Planudes trotz der bersetzung um die Schaf-
fung eines originalen griechischen Literaturwerks ging, in dem lateinisches Kolorit
vermieden werden sollte.
180
See Opelt :q86; and Ortoleva :qq:, q.
nox\+i on\rci ..
The Planudean translation met with a fair degree of success in
the Byzantine world. In the fourteenth century, Manuel Gabalas and
Macarios Chrysocephalos included Planudes translation in their
personal volumes (Vienna, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS.
theol. gr. : and Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. 8, respec-
tively). The Greek Cato was also inserted in a schoolbook that cir-
culated throughout the Greek world during the Turcokratia.
181
But
it was during the Renaissance that the work reached its widest dif-
fusion: in the fteenth century, it was copied in about one hun-
dred manuscripts. The combination of the Greek Cato with elemen-
tary Greek grammarsPyl, Chrysoloras Erotemata, the grammar of
Manuel Calecas, and others
182
is undoubtedly of Western origin.
This parallelism between the Latin and Greek elementary curricula
was most probably intentional.
In manuscripts written in and for the Byzantine environment, the
Latin text rarely appears. Rather, translations into j are usu-
ally related to the text: the Distichs, in fact, were studied mainly for
their content. For example, in the fteenth-century MS. Athous Ivi-
ron :q, the Greek text is written on the recto of the page, while
the verso is left blank for the Latin text. However, only the rst sec-
tion of the work, with the sentences, was translated. The rest is left
blank: this is perhaps an indication that the original Latin text was
not perceived as important. Some manuscriptsin particular Oxford,
Bodleian Library, MSS. Barocci : and . (O)contain prose para-
phrases in Byzantine 0u, most probably school exercises.
183
On the other hand, in Western manuscripts, the Greek text is
usually copied with wide margins and interlinear spaces. The Latin
text, generally written alongside or between the lines of the Greek
one, is functional to the study of the Greek grammar and syntax,
which, as we have seen already, took place by comparing the forms
of both languages.
181
Constantinides :q8., 88f.
182
See Schmitt :q66, .; and Plebani :qq, .
183
See Louisides :q6; Schmitt :q, .q; and Ortoleva :qq:a, :qq.a, and :qq.
Ortoleva concludes his detailed analysis of the marginalia in manuscripts of Catos
Distich with the following remark (:qq.a, .6): Siamo di fronte a unopera di tale
successo da imporre un continuo lavoro di mediazione tra essa e il suo pubblico,
di cui gli scholia, le glosse, le o, le parafrasi e le traduzioni non sono che
altrettanti momenti, ciascuno nalizzato a rendere il pi comprensibile possibile il
messaggio del Catone ai suoi lettori, sempre mutevoli con il passare del tempo e il
variare dei contesti socio-geograci.
..8 cn\r+rn +nnrr
The editio princeps of the Greek Cato was printed in Venice in
:q by Aldus Manutius, together with Theocritus Idylls, Chrysoloras
Erotemata, and the Sayings of the Seven Sages. Almost all of the editions
that followed reproduced the text printed by Aldus.
184
In :6oq, Joseph
Justus Scaliger published in Paris his own translation of Catos Distichs
into Greek: he thought, in fact, that the traditional Greek Cato
was too defective to be the work of a scholar like Planudes. Scaligers
Notae were printed in many editions until the eighteenth century and
contributed to the decline of Planudes translation as a school text,
a decline that could not be stemmed when Greek classical authors
became part of the school curriculum.
184
On the editions of Planudes Cato, see Boas :q:; and Ortoleva :qq:, q8 and
:qq., XXIVXXVII.
cn\r+rn rotn
THE GREEK DONATI AND THEIR CONTEXT
This chapter will try to answer several questions raised by the Greek
Donati as translations from Latin and as grammar books used to learn
Greek. First of all, Pyl as attribution of three manuscripts to the
Byzantine scholar Maximus Planudes involves questions about the
authorship of this translation and the context or the environment
within which it was produced: we may wonder if the Planudean
hypothesis is completely unfounded or contains some element of
truth. Secondly, the analysis of the manuscripts of the Greek Donati
has revealed their connections with the Venetian/Cretan environment
between the fteenth and sixteenth centuries; probably, then, these
grammars responded to particular demands of a particular cultural
milieu. Thirdly, the fact that the Greek Donati apparently originated at
a time when the rediscovery of Greek studies in the West and several
pedagogical experiments in search of the Greek textbook were taking
place leads us to reect on how they actually could be used either in
schools or for the self-study of Greek.
The conclusions reached in this chapter do not claim to be nal:
further research on manuscripts will certainly contribute to modifying
and improving these data, and thus will give us a clearer picture of the
study of Greek in peripheral areas during the Renaissance.
:. Latin in Byzantium
Modern scholarship has emphasized that the translatio of Greek cul-
ture to the West during the fteenth century was the result of a long
process of mutual approach between the two sides of the Mediter-
ranean: while in the West Greek culture was arousing more and more
interest among the rst humanists, the cultural lite of Byzantium
were rediscovering Western culture.
1
1
Cf. Ostrogorsky :q6q
2
[:q6
3
], : Fate had willed that Byzantium should
come into close relationship with the Western world soon after the fellowship of the
.o cn\r+rn rotn
Greeks and Latins had coexisted in the Roman Empire, although
they were well aware of their dierences. With few exceptions (for
example, Diocletian and his successors), the Romans had never made
any eort to achieve linguistic unication between the two parts of the
empire, which remained divided into two well-dened linguistic areas.
Moreover, Latin and Greek had two distinct areas of application.
Latin was the language of the administration and the army, and
Greeks who wanted to pursue a military or an administrative career
had to learn it. On the other hand, Romans learned Greek because
it was a language of culture as well as a lingua franca for trade and
exchanges. However, after the dissolution of this cultural unity in the
seventh century, the knowledge of Greek in the West and of Latin
in the East gradually vanished, except for in a few areas (South
Italy), in particular environments (the imperial chancery) or among
social groups (merchants) that maintained contact with the Byzantine
Empire.
2
The lack of understanding of the respective languages was
just a sign of the broader political and religious gaps that divided the
two worlds.
A change in the relationship between Byzantines and the Western
world occurred in the eleventh century. In Byzantium, the successors
of Emperor Basil II (q6:o.) were unable to face the social and
economic transformations that were aecting the structure of the
Empire, as well as the increasing external menace from Normans,
Turks, and Slavs. Thus, being open to the emerging powers of the
West was a necessity rather than a choice. The inuence exerted by
the West culminated in the introduction of Western customs in the
Byzantine court during the reign of Manuel I Comnenus (::::8o);
the Western princesses who married into the Byzantine court
3
and
Churches (which at this period included intellectual contacts) had been disrupted
[with the schism between Rome and Constantinople in :o]. Hatred and contempt
were the feelings that the Byzantine and Western lands felt for each other, and
closer acquaintance only strengthened this antagonism. Nevertheless, from this time
onwards the inuence of the West began to make itself felt in Byzantium in many
ways, both culturally and politically. After the essential study by Setton (:q6), the
contribution of Byzantine culture to the Renaissance has been the principal object of
some important studies by Geanakoplos (:q6., :q6, :q88) and Pertusi (:q6., :q6,
:q8o:q8:).
2
See the literary sources collected by Geanakoplos :q8, .o... and 68:.
Fisher (:qqo, .) oers a well-documented survey of the relations between Latins
and Greeks from the Hellenistic age to Byzantium.
3
On Manuel Comnenus and the West, see Gallina .oo[:q8o]. Regarding mar-
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .:
the members of the diplomatic missions from both sides acted as a
trait dunion between the two cultures. Even though the fourth Crusade
(:.o) and the creation of the Latin Empire of Constantinople (:.o
:.6:) marked a break in friendly relations between East and West,
these events also brought the two worlds closer to each other. On
the one hand, the Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates (ca. ::o
:.:), who witnessed the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders,
perceived the dierence between the Byzantinesthe new people
of God and a beacon of civilizationand the greedy, vulgar, and
ignorant Westerners.
4
On the other hand, with the signicant increase
in diplomatic activity, political, religious, and cultural ties became
deeper.
From the restoration of the Byzantine Empire by Michael VIII
Palaeologus (:.6:) to the Turkish conquest of Constantinople (:),
relations between Byzantium and the West uctuated between open
hostility and benevolent tolerance. However, even the frequent reli-
gious dissension contributed to mutual knowledge. The Westerners
who had permanently settled in territories of the Byzantine Empire
became the main interlocutors of Byzantium in economy, politics, and
culture. Thus, in the fourteenth century, Demetrius Cydones could
insist on the similarities between Greeks and Romans, who were for-
merly both like citizens of one city, the Church (u 0
0 j 'i t).
5
He urged his fellow countrymen
to look at the elements in common (origin, law, and usages), rather
than at the causes of dissension between themselves and the Latins.
riages between members of Byzantine and Western ruling families, see Kazhdan-
Epstein :q8, :8. Western customs that the Comnenian emperors introduced to
the Byzantine court, such as jousts and knightly tournaments, survived for centuries
in spite of the general hostility of the Byzantine population; see Nicetas Choniates,
Chron. . . .; and Nicephorus Gregoras, Hist. Byz :. 8.. (ed. by I. Bekker and
L. Schopen, Bonn :8.q; English translation in Geanakoplos :q8, .).
4
Latins attributed to Greeks (Graeculi) adulatio, levitas, facilitas, libertas, libido, superbia,
and even fallacia and perdia, as opposed to the Roman gravitas and probitas. Greeks,
in turn, considered Latins as o, as evident, for example, from the following
passage of Nicetas Choniates Chronicle (:o. 6. 8): The accursed Latins [] lust after
our possessions and would like to destroy our race [] Between them and us there
is a wide gulf of hatred, our outlooks are completely dierent, and our paths go in
opposite directions (translation in Ostrogorsky :q6q
2
[:q6
3
], qo). See Kazhdan-
Epstein :q8, :6q; Angold :q8q; Harris J. :qq, qo; Kolbaba .ooo; and Koder
.oo.. Byzantine literary sources usually attribute impudence (i), wickedness
(ru), and arrogance (0i) to Latins; see Hunger :q8, ....
5
Demetrius Cydones, To the Orthodox Greeks, in Mercati :q:, o:, .
.. cn\r+rn rotn
The last period of the Byzantine Empire was noted for a ourishing
of culture, often dened as Palaeologan Renaissance.
6
The protag-
onists of the new revival of classical studies were scholars like Maxi-
mus Planudes, Theodore Metochites, George Pachymeres, Nicepho-
rus Gregoras, Demetrius Triclinius, and Demetrius and Prochorus
Cydones. However, unlike other similar renaissances of Byzantine
cultural history, Palaeologan culture was remarkably open to the
West.
7
The religious controversies, and in particular the continuation
and the exacerbation of the controversy about the Union, caused an
increase in Greek translations of Latin theological works. The sup-
porters of the Union tried to demonstrate to their opponents the legit-
imacy of their claims about the main theological issues at stake (the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as well as from the Son,
the existence of Purgatory, and the primacy of the Roman papacy) by
appealing to the authority of the Western Church Fathers and theolo-
gians. Therefore, Manuel Holobolos (ca. :.-between ::o and ::)
produced a Greek translation of two works by Severinus Boethius, De
hypotheticis syllogismis and De topicis dierentiis; his contemporary Maxi-
mus Planudes (ca. :.:o) translated Augustines De Trinitate, and
De duodecim abusivis saeculi, which had been attributed to Cyprian or to
Augustine.
8
In the fourteenth century, Demetrius Cydones (ca. :.
:q/q8) translated Thomas Aquinas Summa contra gentiles and works
by Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter of Poitiers, and Ricoldo da
Monte Croce; his brother Prochorus (ca. :o:68/6q) worked on
texts by Thomas Aquinas, Hervaeus Natalis (Herv Ndlec), Jerome,
6
Palaeologan revival of learning according to Geanakoplos (:q88, :). For a
detailed analysis of the intellectual life in Byzantium during the Palaeologan age, see
Wilson :qq6
2
, ..8.68; and Mergiali :qq6.
7
On the so-called Macedonian Renaissance, which took place after the end of
the Iconoclastic controversy, see Lemerle :q:.
8
For an overview of the Greek translations of Latin theological works, see Nikitas
.oo: (with extensive bibliography), Benakis .oo, Garzya .oo, and Bianconi .oo,
q. On Holobolos life and works, see Treu :8q6 (on the translations from Latin see
f.). Both works have been edited by Demetrios Z. Nikitas (De hypotheticis syllogismis:
Gttingen :q8.; De topicis dierentiis: Athens :qqo), who maintains Holobolos author-
ship. See Fisher .oo./, 8o. Planudes translation of Augustines fteen books of De
Trinitate has been edited by M. Papathomopulos, I. Tsavari, and G. Rigotti, Athens
:qq (see also Maltese .oo), and that of De duodecim abusivis saeculis by G.N. Gian-
nakis in c (:q), .:q.6. These translations may have been commissioned
by Emperors Michael VIII or Andronicus II, since the question of the procession of
the Holy Spirit was fundamental in the debate on the Union. See Wilson :qq6
2
, .o;
and Fisher .oo./, q.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .
and Boethius.
9
Manuel Calecas (d. ::o), a student and friend of
Demetrius Cydones and a translator of acts of Councils, undertook
the Greek version of Boethius De Trinitate and Anselms Cur Deus
homo.
10
One of the last voices, in the fteenth century, was that of
George Gennadios Scholarios (ca. :o ca. :.), who became
the rst patriarch of Constantinople under the Turks. He translated
Thomas Aquinas De fallaciis, De ente et essentia, and Commentarium in
de anima libros, and works by Peter of Spain and Gilbert de la Pore.
Scholarios also wrote a Greek summary of Thomas Summa contra gen-
tiles.
11
Maximus Planudes activity as a translator demonstrates, however,
that secular Latin literature also roused some interest in the Palae-
ologan cultural milieu: he made works by Ovid, Cicero, Macrobius,
Boethius, the Pseudo-Cato, and perhaps Juvenal accessible to Greek
readers. Another eect of the Western inuence on the culture of the
Palaeologan age was a new ourishing of the novel inspired by West-
ern models, in particular by chivalric literature, written in vernacular
languages.
12
Translations from Latin also demonstrate that Latin texts
were somehow available in Constantinople, perhaps in the Dominican
and Franciscan monasteries, which functioned as important centers of
cultural exchange for Byzantine and Western scholars.
13
The many
9
On Demetrius translations, see Beck :qq, . Prochorus translations
from Latin have been analyzed by Mercati :q:, .8o; see also Beck :qq, f.
10
Beck :qq, :; see also Mergiali :qq6, :f. On Calecas as a grammarian see
above, ::q.
11
Beck :qq, 6.. On Thomas of Aquinas reception in Byzantium, see Papado-
pulos :q; and Podskalsky :q and :q, :., :8o.o.
12
Six romances were translated into Greek, probably in Greek lands under West-
ern rule after the Latin conquest of Constantinople. A detailed analysis of these works
can be found in Cupane :qq, qq, and Beaton :qq6
2
, :. Like most medieval
translations, these novels are faithful to the content of the Western originals, but
reproduce their style freely. Some modications in content were due perhaps to the
demands of the Byzantine audience. On medieval translations, see Brock :qq, o.;
Chiesa :q8; and Folena :qq:, q:.
13
Latin monasteries in Constantinople provided spiritual service for the members
of the Latin communities residing in the city and, at the same time, functioned as
centers for the spread of Western Christianity and culture in the Byzantine Empire:
see Richard :q8q, o. The problem of Latin schools and libraries in Byzantium
has been debated for a long time. In his own apology to the Orthodox Greeks,
Demetrius Cydones declared that, when he decided to learn the Latin language
(i), he sought for teachers and collected books, and all the rest was as it
would be for a pupil attending school (o rj i i r,
i o 0 j u ri u i: Mercati :q:, 6:, 6.6). Emperor John VI
encouraged Demetrius to learn Latin in order to deal with Westerners without relying
. cn\r+rn rotn
manuscripts that have transmitted these translations demonstrate that
their audience appreciated them or that at least there was some inter-
est in them.
It is dicult to say if the translators reached their goals, since the
goals themselves are not completely clear. Demetrius Cydones rst
approached Thomas Aquinas works when his teacher gave him a
copy of the Summa contra gentiles to practice his Latin.
14
The translations
by Holobolos and Planudes are associated with their participation in
the theological debates of their age as well as their teaching activity:
we may regard the translation from Latin into Greek as an extension
of a traditional rhetorical exercise, the paraphrasis between various
linguistic levels of Greek. However, such translations were not con-
ceived as simple school exercises.
15
In the prefatory letter introducing
his translation of De topicis dierentiis, Holobolos expressed his moti-
vations. He compared his translating Latin into Greek to grafting
(i) a literary work from the wild olive (r 0i)
of the Italians language, which is unproductive in its literary texts
on untrustworthy interpreters. Demetrius learned Latin from a Dominican monk
at the Genoese colony of Pera (Philip of Pera, according to Mercati :q:, :): see
Kianka :q8o, 6o; and Glycofrydi-Leontsini .oo, :f. Therefore, teachers, books,
and probably schools for learning Latin were available in Constantinople. Schmitt
(:q66, :f.; :q68, :) thinks that the availability of texts was the main element that
inuenced the choices of the translators, although he has to admit that wir wissen
leider so gut wie nichts ber lateinische Bibliotheken und Bcher in Byzanz (:,
n. ).
14
As Cydones reports in his oration To the Orthodox Greeks: j
i j rj i j u [o o] i i, i j
r 0_u i. The author of the book (i) was Thomas
Aquinas, a man who had eclipsed all his contemporaries for his knowledge of
theology. Cydones teacher intended to give him a tool for improving his Latin
vocabulary, so as school teachers (i) often urge children to collect the
best of Homer and Hesiod. Cydones soon took a great interest in the content
of the book and undertook the dicult task () of translating it entirely; the
Emperor himself encouraged him. As a result, he gained a better understanding
of Latin culture and helped his friends overcome the typical Byzantine prejudices
against Westerners: in fact, the long separation had caused in both nations great
ignorance of each other ( o u 0j o o r0 j
0j 0 0r rr0). Cydones long passage can be read in Mercati
:q:, 6.66. See Kianka :q8o; and Mergiali :qq6, :.:.
15
See Fisher .oo./, :o. In particular, Fisher (8.f.) considers Planudes trans-
lation of Catos Distichs as a pedagogues jeu desprit, whereas the two treatises
by Boethius translated by Manuel Holobolos assume an audience of mature stu-
dents. Fisher also points out the use of Holobolos translation of De topicis dierentiis
by the historian and rhetorician George Pachymeres (:.. ca. ::o). On the fate of
Planudes translation of the Distichs, see above, ..f.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .
and earthy in its speech (j u r i j o-
0), onto the cultivated olive ( j r) of
the Greek language, which is evergreen, luxuriant [] and fruitful
(00j i 0 i o: cf. Ps. :.:o and Rom.
::.:.). For Holobolos, Greek philosophy does not need contribu-
tions from Latin sources, no more than the great light-bringing sun
needs [] the light of a lamp (0 o r -
i j ). Thus, a translation of Boethius tract will allow
Greeks to have in superabundant degree (0) what
they already possess in suciency, so that the nature of the rhetor-
ically sophisticated works produced by the Italians might not entirely
escape the notice of those who are also children of Ausonia [i.e., of
Roman Italy] and who of all people are especially zealous to acquire
literary works (i o 't u, i u-
, j o i u 0 t 0o, i i i
0 j u j rr r u).
16
The
idea of Latin literature as an enhancement of Greek tradition seems
also to have inspired Planudes activity of translating. The fact that all
the works he translated are based on Greek sources has led Elizabeth
Fisher to remark that to a Byzantine audience immersed in the study
of classical Greek literature, these works [] represent an extension
and reinterpretation of the Greek tradition, since they successfully
amalgamate Greek philosophy or mythology into a new and challeng-
ing Latin cultural matrix.
17
Within a political and social context marked by the Greeks radical
distrust of Latins and Latinophrones, the willingness of some Byzantine
men of culture to be open to the Western world appears strange and
sometimes even contradictory. Holobolos himself, who in the passage
quoted above shows respect for Latin culture, reveals a completely
dierent attitude elsewhere.
18
The limited circulation of the transla-
tions from Latin into Greek before the Renaissance demonstrates that
16
The text has been translated into English by Fisher (.oo./, 888 and 8qq:),
who reprints the Greek text as published by Manolis Papathomopulos (with Planudes
translation of Boethius Consolatio philosophiae, Athens :qqq).
17
See Fisher .oo./, q8.
18
See Fisher .oo./, qf. Theological issues were important, but not exclusive,
in another phenomenon of the last Palaeologan age, the conversions to Roman
Catholicism of Byzantine men of culture such as Barlaam, Demetrius Cydones, and
Cardinal Bessarion. They turned to the West because they saw it as a model of order,
wisdom, and unity, in contrast to the lack of order and authority of the Patriarch and
the Emperor of Constantinople in the last years of Byzantium: the West had inherited
.6 cn\r+rn rotn
the eort was only partially rewarded.
19
However, these scholars con-
tributed to building a bridge between the two cultures, thus anticipat-
ing what became the most signicant phenomenon of the humanist
age; for example, Planudes translations into Greek, in spite of their
many imperfections, were used by Italian humanists striving to learn
Greek.
20
The fall of Constantinople, on May .q, :, created quite a stir
in the West. Men of culture saw the end of the Byzantine Empire as
an irreparable disaster. It was the end of an entire stage of human
history; the death of Byzantium was the death of the glory of ancient
Greece. However, the idea of the West as the heir to Byzantium had
already spread throughout Europe.
21
the primacy and the role of guide of the civilized world that had once belonged to
Byzantium. See

Sev cenko :q6:, :.; and Kolbaba :qq, :..
19
Dekkers (:q, .:) reached this conclusion after a thorough analysis of the
Greek translations of Latin patristic texts.
20
Cf. Krumbacher :8q
2
, : Die bersetzungen des Planudes knnen nicht
als Muster von Treue und stilistischer Gewandtheit gelten. According to Gigante
(:q6.a, .::f.), in fact, the quality of Planudes translations is much higher when he
works on Latin texts based on Greek sources. Cardinal Bessarion praised Planudes
translation of Augustines De Trinitate (Refutatio syllogismorum Maximi Planudae, PG :6:,
: D). However, the same translation was criticized in an anonymous Tractatus
contra errores Orientalium et Graecorum of :.., as well as by George Scholarios in his
tract on the procession of the Holy Spirit of :/: in both cases, ideological
issues inuence the evaluation of Planudes work. On the other hand, the humanist
Ambrogio Traversari and the mathematician and astronomer John Dee (:.:6o8)
read and appreciated another of Planudes Greek versions, that of Boethius Consolatio.
See Schmitt :q68, ::.; and Maltese .oo.
21
On the reactions to the Turkish conquest of Byzantium, see the literary doc-
uments collected by Pertusi (:qqo
2
). We may wonder why there was no humanism
and no Renaissance in Byzantium, where the classical tradition had never died out.
It has often been emphasized that in Byzantium the heritage from the glorious past
functioned as an obstacle rather than as a stimulus, clipping the wings of innova-
tion, creation, and originality. As Pertusi remarked (:q6, o6), except for Arethas of
Caesarea (ca. 86o ca. q.) and a few other scholars, the Byzantines did not have
the sense of discovery. For Western humanistswith some exceptionsthe works
of the past were a starting point for their political, aesthetic, and moral reections,
whereas Byzantine scholars used the classics as repositories of models of good style
or of eective arguments to reinforce their points in disputations or controversies. In
particular, in Byzantium (qq) le opere dei classici sono semplicemente riaccolte
nel patrimonio culturale, reinserite nella tradizione, ricollocate nel posto che a loro
spetta dal tempo degli Alessandrini; (:) I letterati bizantini. [] li riaccolgono nel
vistoso patrimonio della loro cultura greca [] ma senza grandi entusiasmi, con lo
stesso animo con cui un glio molto ricco riceve in eredit un grosso patrimonio da
conservare; and (:q) Dal IX secolo in poi non ci fu pi stacco con il mondo antico;
non ci fu umanesimo e non ci fu rinascimento, perch non ci fu problema.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .
.. Maximus Planudes and the Greek Donatus
In spite of Wendels authoritative remarks,
22
it is now unquestion-
able that the Latin grammar that Planudes supposedly translated
into Greek does not correspond to Donatus Ars minor. As previously
discussed, the Greek Donatus is a late Byzantine translation of the
medieval Latin schoolbook called Ianua. It was Remigio Sabbadini
who recognized in the Latin Ianua the original of the Pseudo-Planu-
dean Greek translation. He considered the only Greek version known
at his time, Pyl a, as an anonymous fteenth-century work related
to the revival of Greek studies promoted by Manuel Chrysoloras and
Guarino Guarini. Later, however, Sabbadini returned to the tradi-
tional hypothesis that the translator was Maximus Planudes.
23
In his
opinion, Planudes translated the elementary Latin grammar book into
Greek in order to give the Byzantines a tool for learning Latin; during
the Renaissance, Westerners also beneted from the Greek Ianua in
learning Greek.
The hypothesis of a Planudean authorshipcommonly accepted
from Krumbacher onwards
24
has given rise to a great deal of specu-
lation. The assumptions most frequently repeated are that Planudes
translated the grammar book for his school where, in addition to
Greek and sciences, Latin was also taught, and that the dialogical
form and content of the Latin Ianua aected Planudes composi-
tion of a grammatical dialogue.
25
The Planudean hypothesis may
not look totally groundless if we consider that Pyl a is attributed
to Planudes in three manuscriptsB, O, and Rrepresenting three
dierent branches of the tradition (see above, :q) and that one of
these manuscripts, O, is one of the most valuable testimonies of the
text. Moreover, imagining that Pyl a was translated and used in Con-
stantinople would help to shed light on the complex issue of the study
of Latin in Byzantium. Pyl a may have been the rst schoolbook used
22
See Wendel :qo, ....
23
Sabbadini :q.., quoted by Pertusi (:q6., q): La traduzione greca di Mas-
simo Planude [] e su di essa i Costantinopolitani imparavano il latino, come gli
umanisti italiani del sec. XV vi imparavano il greco.
24
See Krumbacher :8q
2
, .
25
See Wendel :qo, ..o. According to Fryde (.ooo, .8), Priscians syntax inu-
enced Planudes grammatical theory (on which see below, .:f.); however: Planudes
did not translate Priscians Institutiones Grammaticales into Greek. But he did translate
the second best thing, the much shorter Latin Ars Minor by Aelius Donatus.
.8 cn\r+rn rotn
by Greeks who wanted to learn Latin; in the schools of Constantino-
ple, teachers of Latin may have taught the rst elements of Latin mor-
phology by means of the elementary grammar book most commonly
used in Western (Italian) schools, Ianua, and by its Greek translation.
Such conclusions are attractive, but we must consider them with
caution. First, and most importantly, there is no evidence that copies
of Ianua circulated in Constantinople during Planudes time, i.e., be-
tween the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Perhaps there were
Latin schools in the Latin monasteries and within the communities
of Venetian and Genoese merchants who had settled in Constantino-
ple at the end of the eleventh century. More Latin schools may have
been established in the Byzantine territory after the Latin conquest
in :.o. For example, because of the diculties he had obtaining a
Greek secular education on his island, Gregory of Cyprus, Patriarch
of Constantinople from :.8 to :.8q, tried to study grammar and
logic at a Latin school for some time.
26
The most famous Latin cul-
tural institution in Constantinople was the Dominican monastery of
Pera, where Prochorus and Demetrius Cydones learned Latin in the
fourteenth century. We have no idea, however, of the textbooks used
in these schools, if there were any. Moreover, there is no evidence that
the Byzantine Latinists of the thirteenth century, Manuel Holobo-
los and Maximus Planudes, ever taught Latin.
27
A keen interest in
Latin arose in Constantinople about fty years after Planudes death;
unfortunately, the documentation presently available does not allow
us to establish a connection between Planudes and Holobolos and the
translators of the fourteenth century.
The monk Manuel-Maximus Planudes from Nicomedia lived in
Constantinople during the tormented reigns of Michael VIII (:.6:
:.8.) and Andronicus II Palaeologus (:.8.:.8). His literary activity
was impressive. The interests of this polymath, a typical representative
of Byzantine culture in the Palaeologan age, ranged from theology to
mathematics, from grammar to geography, and from poetry to astron-
omy. He combined his religious life with scholarship and commitment
to the most urgent political and theological issues of his age. His fre-
26
See above, ::, and Webb :qq, 8. On Gregorys life and works, see Krum-
bacher :8q
2
, q8f., 6f.
27
It is not clear, therefore, why Ortoleva (:qq:, q) maintains that caratteristica
peculiare of Planudes school was linsegnamento e la diusione della lingua e della
cultura latina.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .q
quent contacts with the Latin world led him to take sides (indeed,
ambiguously) in the debate over the Union
28
and also fostered his
interest in Latin culture. In :.q6, Emperor Andronicus II sent him
to Venice on a diplomatic mission to proclaim the non-involvement of
the Byzantines in the crimes committed by the Genoese against the
Venetians.
29
It is dicult to establish whether he learned Latin under
these circumstances oras is more probablethe emperor appointed
him to the mission precisely because of his knowledge of Latin, which
he may have acquired in Constantinople.
30
In any case, his journey to
Italy put him in direct contact with Latin culture and perhaps gave
him access to copies of the Latin works that he translated.
Together with works related to the theological debate of his time,
Planudes translated several of the most popular Latin literary works
in the Middle Ages: Ovids Metamorphoses and Heroides, and a selection
from Ovids amatory works (Amores, Ars amatoria, and Remedia amoris);
Boethius Consolatio philosophiae, with a Vita of the author appended;
the part of Ciceros De republica known as Somnium Scipionis and Mac-
robius commentary on it; the Disticha attributed to Cato the Elder;
and perhaps Juvenals Satires.
31
We do not know whether these trans-
28
On Planudes role in the controversy over the Union, see Constantinides :q8.,
666. The unionist George Metochites, Demetrius Cydones, and Cardinal Bessa-
rion (cf. PG :6:, oq:) rejected Planudes four o or i against
the Latins on the procession of the Holy Spirit. See Krumbacher :8q
2
, qq; and Beck
:qq, 68.
29
An act of retaliation by the Genoese against the Venetians in Constantinople
had caused the killing of the Venetian ocer Marco Bembo and of many Venetians.
The Byzantine Emperor, who had not managed to keep the public order, was afraid
of being accused of complicity with the Genoese by the Venetian government. See
Nicol :qqo [:q88], .8..
30
Planudes may have learned Latin at the monastery of Christ Akataleptos, which
was probably the rst Franciscan establishment in Constantinople. See Wilson :qq6
2
,
.:; and Mergiali :qq6, 8.
31
No absolute and relative chronological order of Planudes translations can be
established with certainty. We know, however, that Planudes translated Augustines De
Trinitate in or before :.8: and Boethius Consolatio before :.q6 (Schmitt :q68, :o n. q;
Fisher .oo./, q; and Maltese .oo, .oq). The many editions of Planudes transla-
tions demonstrate that they have always attracted the attention of scholars. The signif-
icant increase in Planudean studies during the last decades has led to an improvement
in the quality of the texts published. Ovids Metamorphoses: A. Ch. Megas, Thessa-
lonica :qqq (a new edition is being prepared by M. Papathomopulos for the Academy
of Athens: see Fisher .oo./, q6 n. , as well as Fishers study of :qqo); Ovids
Heroides: M. Papathomopulos, Joannina :q, :q6
2
; parts of Ovids amatory works:
P.E. Easterling and E.J. Kenney, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. :,
:q6; Boethius Consolatio: A. Ch. Megas, Joannina :qq6, and M. Papathomopulos,
.o cn\r+rn rotn
lations were intended as tools for teaching Latin in Planudes school,
or were simply an attempt to spread throughout Constantinople some
knowledge of books that were, so to speak, the best-sellers of the Latin
Middle Ages. In any case, the texts chosen by Planudes seem to corre-
spond to a generic interest in moral philosophy, astrology, and mythol-
ogy, rather than to a precise cultural and pedagogical program.
32
Planudes translations eventually were widely used in the Renaissance
to teach Greek: this explains their rich manuscript tradition.
Planudes was essentially a teacher and most of his works may be
considered as the result of his teaching activity. He taught at the
monastic schools in the cloisters of Chora and Akataleptos in Con-
stantinople.
33
Planudes was at home with several disciplines of the r-
Athens :qqq; Ciceros Somnium Scipionis: A. Pavano, Roma :qq.; Macrobius commen-
tary: A. Ch. Megas, Thessalonica :qq; and Catos Disticha: V. Ortoleva, Roma :qq..
Of Planudes translation of Juvenals satires, only four lines are preserved, correspond-
ing to Sat. :o. :q.. (edited by S.B. Kugeas in Philologus [:q:], :8:q). Planudes
wrote those lines in a marginal note to his translation of Boethius. The apparent
contradiction that Planudes translated Ovids poetry in prose and Juvenals satires in
verse is not decisive in negating his authorship of both translations. Other translations
attributed to Planudes are either anonymous (Ianua and Caesars De bello Gallico) or
by other authors (Ciceros De senectute by Theodore Gaza, Peter of Spains Summulae
logicales by George Scholarios; etc.). See Schmitt :q66, ..; and Hunger :q8, .. 68.
32
According to Wilson (:qq6
2
, .:), Planudes main concern as a translator was to
convey to his readers information about classical mythology, philosophy, and theology.
Gigante (:q6., qq) noted that Somnium, Commentum, and Consolatio built up a sort
of trilogy concerning the destiny of the soul and the relationship between life on
earth and the afterlife. The success of Ciceros Somnium during the Middle Ages was
mainly due to its visionary and apocalyptic tone, to its treatment of themes such as
the immortality of the soul and contempt for human power, and in general to its
Platonic Neopythagoric background. Macrobius Commentary was a real Neoplatonic
encyclopedia on the soul and its destiny (ibid., ; my translation). The work of
Severinus Boethius, a Platonist who loved Aristotle, can be considered the rst real
armation of the Christian spirit implied in ancient pagan culture. The rediscovery
of Ovid took place in the West at the same time, as an innovation and, perhaps,
as a reaction against Virgils long-lasting predominance. It is interesting to note that
the anonymous author of Disticha Catonis recommends the reading of Ovidtogether
with Virgil and Lucanin the preface to book .. Thanks to his biting satires, Juvenal
also was held in great esteem as a moralist. Fisher, who basically agrees with Gigantes
interpretation (:qqo, 6), remarks that the Latin works selected for translation by
Planudes resulted from the intersection of Eastern and Western intellectual interests.
Bianconi (.oo, 6:) suggests that Planudes translations satised the demands of
a Byzantine audience interested in Western culture as well as of Latins living in
Byzantium and probably unable to read their literature in the original language
(my translation).
33
From Planudes letters .8 and 6 (edited by M. Treu, Breslau :8qo), it may be
inferred that he taught at an imperial monastery (j j) with an imperial
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .:
u i (including mathematics, astronomy, and geography),
but his main interests were in grammar and literature. He worked on
Aesop, Plutarch, Theocritus, the tragic poets, Aristophanes, Thucy-
dides, Hermogenes, Euclid, Diophantus, Aratus, and Ptolemy. He also
produced compilations of texts to be used in schools, in which ancient
Greek and Byzantine cultures were seen as indistinguishable and com-
plementary: an anthology of classical and Byzantine epigrams and
minor poetry, along with collections of passages from pagan and
Christian writers, Aesops fables, and proverbs.
34
Two works in particular show Planudes interest in grammatical
studies: a dialogue on grammar (i j o) and a
treatise on the syntax of the parts of speech (i o u 0
u).
35
The dialogue does not oer a systematic treatment
of grammar; rather, in the style of Platos dialogues, the contrasting
positions of a Palaitimos (Old Stager) and a Neophron (New Thinker)
help the author make his point on several aspects of morphology,
syntax, and style. In general, Planudes is faithful to the traditional
view of grammar as a form of literary and philological education
useful in the study of literature. However, his theories on verbal tenses
and nominal cases mark a signicant improvement. Planudes did not
just classify and describe the grammatical phenomena: he also tried to
nd their origin and to analyze their semantic and pragmatic aspects.
This concept, although not explicitly stated, constitutes the theoretical
background to many of Planudes assertions.
36
In his work on syntax,
library (j 0j), but the location of this school is controversial: see
Constantinides :q8., 68.
34
See Krumbacher :8q
2
, .; Wendel :qo, ..o.; Hunger :qq, .. 68.;
Constantinides :q8., 8:; Wilson :qq6
2
, .:.; Mergiali :qq6, .; and Fryde .ooo,
..6.6. On Planudes as a collector of epigrams, see Cameron :qq, :6f., .
35
Both works have been published by G.L.E. Bachmann in the second volume
of his Anecdota Graeca, Lipsiae :8.8, on pp. ::o: and :o:66, respectively. Planudes
also wrote a tract on transitive and intransitive verbs (i u i 0-
o o) and some parsing exercises ('i). The work on verbs, which
enjoyed great success among the later grammarians, was partially edited by Gottfried
Hermann in :8o:, but still awaits a complete critical edition. The 'i have
been edited by S. Lindstam in Eranos :q (:q:q:q.o), q.. See Constantinides :q8.,
q; and Guida :qqq, :., .:.
36
For example, according to Planudes the three oblique casesgenitive, dative,
and accusativeoriginally had a local meaning, as demonstrated by the locative
adverbs i0, i, and i, corresponding to r , r _, and i
. Planudes maintains that cases, not prepositions, are the principal markers of
location and movement (Robins :qq, ..). In the verbal tenses, Planudes stressed
.. cn\r+rn rotn
conceived as an appendix to the dialogue, Planudes also apparently
incorporated parts of Priscians Institutiones grammaticae translated into
Greek.
37
Therefore, Planudes innovative approach to grammar and
interest in Latin grammar and literature may help explain why the
Greek translation of a Latin grammar was attributed to him.
With his detailed analysis of the language and the style of Pyl a,
Schmitt has demonstrated that its translator(s) had a fair knowledge of
both Latin and Greek: a knowledge on the level of either a Byzantine
who knew Latin or a Westerner (perhaps an Italian?) who knew
Greek. Nothing in the language and the style of Pyl a, however,
hints at the deep mastery of literary Greek or the insight into Greek
grammar of a scholar and a philologist like Planudes.
38
On the other
hand, there were several reasons to assign Pyl a to Planudes: he was
the translator of Latin into Greek by antonomasia; he was the author
of the Greek translation of Catos Distichs that usually followed Pyl in
manuscripts and in the school practice; and, nally, he had access to
Latin sources, including Ianua, in which dialogue was commonly used.
In fact, he wrote a grammar in dialogical form, the i j
o.
Even if we do not consider some phenomenaiotacism, wrong
accentuation, psilosis, inconsistent use of / , etc.that may be
generally attributed to the manuscript tradition, it is undeniable that
the text of Pyl a contains many non-literary forms in contrast with
the style of Planudes authentic works. The most apparent discrep-
ancy is the translation technique. Planudes translations from Latin
into Greek were not word-for-word versions of the original. In order
to convey the content and the style of the Latin texts to his Greek
readers, Planudes did not refrain from considerable modications of
the text. Conversely, Pyl a is just a transfer of the Latin elementary
grammar into Greek; the Latin moods, tenses, and word order are
faithfully respected, even when they do not correspond to the Greek
usage.
39
There are frequent mistakes in the agreement of nouns, adjec-
the importance of aspect together with time. Robins chapter on Planudes
grammatical theory (:qq, .o:..) is the most extensive study on this subject.
37
See Fisher .oo./, 8:. We cannot exclude the possibility, pace Buttmann (see
Wendel :qo, ..oq), that Planudes relied not on Priscian directly, but on Priscians
Greek sources (Apollonius Dyscolus in particular).
38
Mit Maximos Planudes [] haben die Donati Graeci nichts zu tun (Schmitt
:q, .:o).
39
Exceptions include a substantivized participle instead of a relative clause (8.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .
tives, and pronouns, confusion in the sequence of moods and tenses,
and Latinizing constructions that hardly make any sense in Greek.
40
Thanks to his in-depth knowledge of both languages, Planudes cer-
tainly would have eliminated, in his translation, the contradictions
implied in the faithful adaptation of the Greek morphology to Latin.
Here are just a few examples of non-Planudean features of Pyl
as language and style.
41
In Pyl as rst section, a non-classical form is
the adjective r (:. .8), corresponding to the modern Greek
perfect participle of o; it is a literal translation of the Latin
adjective/past participle doctus. As an adjective, r has a com-
parative (r = doctior), a superlative (r =
doctissimus), and an adverb with all degrees of comparison (r-
... = docte, etc.). In fact, Pyl a usually forms comparatives and
superlatives by adding the suxes - and - to adjectives and
does not consider the supplementary forms of the irregular adjectives.
Thus, we have 00, 00u, 00u, r u
u, etc. In Pyl b (which, however, includes r)
and in the fragmentary rst part of c, the anonymous grammarians
followed Greek grammar more faithfully. On the other hand, in his
dialogue on grammar (p. ), Planudes gives the supplementary forms
only: 0i, i, i, and 0, o, r; j-
(and i) and i (with o); i and r. As
for verbs, Pylai do not consider the middle voice and often confuse it
with the passive, whereas Planudes discusses the dierence between
middle and passive voices at length (pp. 8:.). Among Pyl as irreg-
ular verbs, u and o are equivalent to fero and i to
gaudeo. Planudes uses r (De gramm. 8, q) and i (q:, ). Both
quae copulat = o r), a substantivized neuter adjective intead of a purpose
clause (8. faciam ut prosit = j ur), and presents translated with aorists
or perfects (e.g. app. 6 signicare = 0; app. 8, al. dicitur = i; . 8 adhaeret
= ). Also interesting is bisantius translated with r (8. ), the
Byzantine gold coin introduced in the eleventh century and circulating until the end
of the Empire (Ostrogorsky :q6q
2
[:q6
3
], 8); according to contracts, r
was the currency circulating in Venetian Crete.
40
Here are two examples: at 8. 8, the feminine l i is referred to the
masculine u (cf. Lat. coniunctiones, feminine); and at 8. ..8, the transmitted
u r i (u AQ) corresponds to tu habes me odio, but is anomalous in
Greek.
41
A complete list in Schmitt :q66, .:6., summarized in :q68, :.:. I refer
to dierences between Pyl as and Planudes style only; the examples quoted do not
claim to cover the vast topic of the non-classical forms in Pyl a.
. cn\r+rn rotn
the new o and the old r appear in Pylai c and d, which
use i instead of i.
Pyl as non-classical and often incorrect style prevents us from
considering it as a work by Planudes. No other hypothesis about Pyl
as authorship will be possible until new discoveries allow us to reach
dierent conclusions.
. Places of Origin
The Greek Donati are most probably products of a bilingual envi-
ronment, where the interaction between Latin and Greek was par-
ticularly intense. Until the Middle Ages, only South Italy and Sicily
oered conditions favorable for the development of a Latin-Greek cul-
ture. Pylai seem to have circulated mainly in Italy, but no element in
the transmission of the texts connects them to a South Italian environ-
ment. South Italy had its own tradition in the study of Greek gram-
mar and played a signicant role in the transmission of Byzantine
schoolbooksertmata, schedand lexica. The process of Latiniza-
tion of the Byzantine possessions in South Italy had begun after the
Norman conquest in :o:. Some Norman and Swabian emperors
had granted protection for Greek culture. Moreover, in the fourteenth
and fteenth centuries many Greek refugees had migrated from the
Balkans to South Italy under the Turkish advance. However, neither
factor had modied the cultural environment of the region: Greek
culture managed to survive amid the prevailing Latin elementand
still survives in some areasbut as a separate and isolated reality.
As discussed in the previous chapter, many elements of the manu-
script tradition of the Greek Donati refer to two other important meet-
ing points between East and West: the Veneto and Crete. In :o8.,
along with other privileges, Emperor Alexius I Comnenus granted
Venice a quarter in Constantinople; in the following centuries, the
Venetian community in the Byzantine capital grew to about ten thou-
sand inhabitants.
42
The relations between Byzantines and Venetians,
42
On the Venetian community in Constantinople, see Durstelers .oo6 excellent
study. We may suppose that children born of Venetian families received some instruc-
tion in Latin and Italian as well as in Greek; teachers of Latin may well have used
the same textbooks as their Western colleagues, in particular Ianua, but the lack of
evidence for the circulation of Ianua in Constantinople warns against drawing any
conclusion.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .
indeed not always friendly, led to a substantial inuence of Venice on
Byzantine politics and economy. The disastrous fourth crusade, the
sack of Constantinople, and the foundation of a Latin empire in the
Byzantine territory (:.o) represented the fulllment of an old project
on the part of the Western powers, the conquest of Byzantium; addi-
tionally, they represented the triumph of the commercial ability of the
Venetians, who took maximum advantage of this situation.
43
During
the rule of the Palaeologan emperors, Venice managed to found an
empire on the ruins of Byzantium. Crete, Corfu, Negroponte, Coron
and Modon in Morea (Peloponnese), and other islands and ports in
the Aegean became Venetian colonies.
In the fourteenth and fteenth centuries, under the Turkish men-
ace, many Byzantines found refuge in Crete and then made their
way to Venice, attracted by the stability and order that the Western
world apparently oered. In :8, twenty-ve years after the fall of
Constantinople, the Greek community in Venice amounted to four
thousand people; in :8o their number had reached thirty thousand.
Most of the Venetian Greeks were employed in the naval industry or
were part of the military force as stradioti. Others worked in book pro-
duction, which involved both the printing of books and the copying
of manuscripts. The Venetian senate had granted them permission to
keep their language, culture, and religion.
44
The remarkable Greek
presence inuenced the usages, customs, and language of the city.
Modern Greek was spread throughout Venice by Greek immigrants,
and ancient Greek was transmitted through the rise of humanism and
the printing of classical texts.
45
The Greek community in Venice constitutes the background to the
activity of the most famous printers of Greek books, Aldus Manutius
and Zacharias Calliergis. On the other hand, we may reasonably infer
that, for Venetian Greeks, learning Latin was not an option but a
necessity. Before evolving into an independent Greek grammar, Pyl a
may have been an interlinear translation of the Latin Ianua for Greek
pupils who had to learn Latin in Venetian schools. Several documents
show that Donatus or Donado, often with the Disticha Catonis, was also
43
See Geanakoplos :q6., :f.; and Nicol :qqo [:q88], .6.8.
44
In :o, the community was assigned a chapel of the church of San Biagio;
beginning in :, San Giorgio dei Greci became the Greek church of Venice. See
Geanakoplos :q6., o; Pertusi :q8o:q8:, .q.:; and Nicol :qqo [:q88], .
.
45
On the inuence of Greek on the Venetian dialect, see Cortelazzo :qo.
.6 cn\r+rn rotn
used in Venice as an elementary textbook for Latin, whereas there is
no evidence of the use of Pylai for Greek.
46
The teaching of Greek in Venice is not well documented. Certainly,
the training of ocers for the colonies required Greek for practical
use. At the same time, the rise of Humanism in Padua and Florence,
as well as the presence of Chrysoloras, Bessarion, and other Byzan-
tine scholars, were powerful stimuli for Greek literary studies. How-
ever, we know little about Greek schools, teachers, and textbooks in
Venice, at least until :8, when all of the Venetian teachers were
required to profess their Catholic faith before the bishop, providing
detailed information about their schools, their students, and the books
they used.
47
Humanists coming from other citiesfor example, Gua-
rino da Veronaor private pedagogues opened the rst schools of
Greek, but it was not until between :6 and :o that the Vene-
tian government established a public school of humanae litterae,
the Ducal Chancery School of San Marco (Gymnasium literarium), with
a curriculum centered on grammar, rhetoric, Latin, and Greek; on
the other hand, we have no information about the teaching of Greek
at the other important Venetian school, the School of Rialto (Gym-
nasium Rivoaltinum), whose curriculum was based on logic, philosophy,
mathematics, and theology. The university of Padua continued to be
the favorite destination for Venetians desiring to learn law, sciences,
and humanities; nevertheless, the rst chair of Greek was established
in Padua as late as :6.
48
As Grendler remarks, the limited inter-
46
Some documents of Venetian booksellers, which are preserved in the Marciana
Library and have been published by Brown (:8q:, ..), mention several Donati
and Donati in carta bona, both bound and unbound (libri sciolti), sold between
:8 and :8. Among the Greek books, we nd several copies of the Psalms,
Chrysoloras-Guarinos Erotemata, Lascaris grammar, a dictionary (Vocabulista greco),
Aesops fables, and some literary and medical texts, but no traces of a Greek
Donatus. Documents and contracts concerning the employment of private teachers
show that in the fteenth century, Donatus and Catos Distichs constituted the core of
elementary education (see above, 6 n. .o.). See Pastore Stocchi :q8o:q8:, :o6.;
and Ortalli :qq6, ., .6.
47
The Professione di fede richiesta agli insegnanti is preserved in the Archive
of the Patriarchal Curia in Venice and contains the professions of faith made by .8
Venetian teachers from April o, :8 to May ., :88; see Grendler :q8, .8, ..
n. .. Lascaris grammar appears to be the most common Greek schoolbook.
48
Demetrius Chalcondyles, the rst professor of Greek at Padua, held his appoint-
ment for about nine years (:6:.). In his inaugural speech, Chalcondyles justies
at length the study of Greek by stressing the tight relationship between Greek and
Latin culture, as well as the practical applications of Greek in politics and sciences; see
Geanakoplos :q. Slowly and with diculty, in fact, humanist culture made its way
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .
est in Greek contrasts sharply with the preeminent role previously
played by Venice in Greek printing and with Venices continuing role
in Greek manuscript collecting and copying in the late sixteenth cen-
tury. Apparently neither the presence of a large colony of Greeks and
Cretans in Venice nor the Republics commercial contacts with the
Eastern Mediterranean stimulated much interest in the language of
ancient Greece.
49
For some decades, Cardinal Bessarions bequest of
his rich library to the Republic of Venice (:.) did not bring about
any signicant improvement in the citys Greek studies. Indeed, a keen
interest in ancient Greek culture arose between the fteenth and six-
teenth centuries and concerned mainly members of the Venetian rul-
ing class.
50
into Venetian society, which was mostly devoted to business and maintained a very
pragmatic view of education. Venetian culture inclined toward sciences and philoso-
phy rather than rhetoric and literature. The government exercised strong control of
education, and the most conservative circles reacted harshly to the spread of humanist
culture. Some inventories of private libraries and records of bequests of books reveal
that, in the middle of the fteenth century, Venetian teachers still used medieval books
only. On Venetian culture and schools, see Geanakoplos :q6., 8; Nardi :q: [:q],
o.; Connell :q.; Logan :q.; Ross :q6, ..; Lowry :qq, :8o:88; Pertusi :q8o
:q8:; Grendler :q8, .o:.o, and :q8q, .; Ortalli :qq6; and Cox .oo, 668.
According to Lepori (:q8o, 6o), the schools of Rialto and San Marco represented
two dierent views of culture: [L]a dierenza esistente fra il Gymnasium rivoaltinum
e la Scuola di S. Marco [] era [] la dierenza fra indagine teorica (logica in
particolare) e indagine linguistica, lologica e storica. Incidentally, the professors of
the School of Rialto were all Venetian, patrician, laymen, and graduates from Padua,
whereas those of San Marcowith few exceptionswere non-Venetian and of non-
noble origin.
49
Grendler :q8q, 8q.
50
See Geanakoplos :q6., qo. As Cox has put it (.oo, 6), the change in
attitude to humanistic culture is probably related to the gradual shift in patterns
of patrician investment from maritime commerce to landed property in Venices
mainland empire, and the patriciates consequent progressive cultural assimilation
to the values of the aristocracy of the terraferma; see also King :q86, .f. At the
beginning of the fteenth century, however, Lorenzo de Monaci, chancellor of Crete
(d. :.8), voiced the reaction of conservative men of culture to the spread of Greek
studies amongVenetian noblemen; the rejection of otium in a society oriented to
business and political commitment, as well as the Venetians sense of superiority (or
even hostility) toward the Greeks, may have inspired de Monacis attitude. The debate
was probably still lively in :q, when the aristocrat and humanist Pietro Bembo
(:o:) addressed an oration in Greek to the senate of the city, in defense of
Greek studies (edited by N.G. Wilson, Messina .oo). Bembo underlines, in particular,
the practical utility of the Greek language for Venetian ocers and the importance
of the Greek tradition for Latin literature and sciences. Bembos orationtogether
with similar appeals by Chalcondyles (above, n. 8), Carteromachus, and others
may have contributed to the senates decision to establish a chair of Greek at the
.8 cn\r+rn rotn
Crete, which became a Venetian colony in :.:o, had a renowned
cultural tradition that had existed since antiquity. During the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries, the many uprisings against the Vene-
tian rulers made the political, social, and economic situations of the
island extremely unstable.
51
For a long time Latins and Greeks coex-
isted side by side, with religion and language functioning as the prin-
cipal ethnic markers for the two communities.
52
However, ocial
documents from Crete show that, as the integration between the two
groups progressed, ethnic distinctions gradually became less impor-
tant; from the fteenth century onward, for example, the case of Cre-
tans of Latin descent who spoke Greek as rst language was frequent.
The distinction between the three languages spoken on the island
Greek, Latin, and Italianpersisted mainly because of their dierent
elds of application. On the one hand, the Greek-speaking popula-
tion outnumbered the Venetian conquerors; on the other hand, Latin
was the language of law and administration, and Italian was spoken
by Venetian ocials and merchants constantly arriving on the island.
Over the course of time, however, Greek replaced Latin and Italian as
the administrative language and was used even by the local Catholic
church.
53
Little is known about Cretan schools. A school was founded in the
monastery of St. Catherine in Candia (an ospring of the famous
Sinaite monastery), probably by the mid-sixteenth century; we know
nothing about the curriculum or the level of the education oered in
this school, which was probably similar either to the schools of Latin
monasteries in the cities, or to the schools of Greek monasteries in the
countryside.
54
Documents of the end of the fourteenth century con-
Ducal Chancery School (:o8). See Pertusi :q8o:q8:, :8:8q, .oq.:o; and Wilson
:qq., :.:..
51
On the Venetian conquest and rule in Crete (i: :.:o:66q), see
Margaritis :q8, :.; Maltezou :qq:, :.; Detorakis :qq [:q86], :.; Ravegnani
:qq8; and Ortalli :qq8 and .oo..
52
See McKees .ooo outstanding study, :o:., :6q.
53
See Panagiotakis :qq, .q6; and McKee .ooo, ::6.
54
According to Geanakoplos (:q6., 6), the rudiments of ancient Greek, theology,
religious music, philosophy, and rhetoric were taught at the school of St. Catherine,
the leading Greek educational center in Crete; see also Panagiotakis :q88, :8f.
The fact that Marcus Musurus and George Logothetes served as monks and teachers
at St. Catherine suggests that a high-level education was oered. Panagiotakis (:qq,
.qo), in fact, emphasizes a general comparatively high standard of Greek education
during the Venetokratia. This assumption, however, clashes with the data resulting
from McKees thorough analysis of sixteenth-century notarial contracts (.ooo, ::6).
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .q
cerning the hiring of private teachers show that a bilingual culture
had developed on the island, especially in the cities, thanks to the
presence of Western teachers and professionals.
55
The purpose of such
culture essentially was practical, because public life and administra-
tion needed people able to communicate in Latin, Greek, and Ital-
ian.
56
Fourteenth-century manuscripts copied in Crete show a clear
inuence of Western manuscripts in layout and decorations; many of
them are bilingual.
57
The Latin monasteries of the island, such as the
Monastery of St. Francis in Candia, became important meeting points
for the two cultures; their libraries contributed to spreading Latin cul-
ture in an often-hostile Greek environment. Famous scholars, such
as Petrus Philarges, the future Pope Alexander V (:oq::o), and
the humanist and businessman Lauro Quirini (ca. :.o: or :q),
received their rst Latin education on the island.
58
Cretan teachers of
55
Pertusi (:q6::q6., :.) quotes some fourteenth-century documents from
Crete, preserved in the State Archive of Venice (Archivio del Duca di Candia, col-
lection Notai di Candia). These documents give us an idea of what elementary
education on the island might have been like. Some documents concern the mas-
ter grammarian Pietro di Narnia from Spoleto (magister, gramaticus, artis gramatice
professor Petrus de Narnia, civis Spoletanus), who, in :., rented some houses to open
some schools (, ). Other Western teachers are mentioned: e.g., Bartholomaeus
de Hongulardis, a notary, who owned a collection of books (8, :; on notaries as
teachers of grammar see below, note 66, and Witt :qqa, qof.), and Franciscus de
Bancaria, who directed schools of grammar and of other disciplines (regens scolas in
gramatica et aliis scientiis) (q, :8; see also McKee .ooo, ::6::8). Grammar probably
means Latin, but it may also mean Italian, which was very important for trade
(Gasparis :qq, :f.: the formula scrivere et legere vulgariter ad modum mercatorum refers to
the vernacular curriculum; see above, 6). In fact, a Master Gentile of Arezzo, rector
scholarum, is mentioned in three contracts of :8 as a teacher of Latin and Italian
(McKee .ooo, ::8f.). Greek was not neglected: on October :, ::, Papas Michael
Pedhione committed himself to teaching Greek (licteram Grecam) for four years, for
a salary of four hyperpera per year; his pupil, Emmanuel, son of Basil Catochopo of
Candia, had to learn to read any sacred book and write correctly (taliter quod sciat
calonarchiare [sic] et legere in quibuslibet libris ecclesie et quod sciat scribere amodo) (Pertusi
:q6o:q6., :, :; and McKee .ooo, ::q).
56
On July 8, ::, the Venetian senate granted to the rector of Pteleon a Latin
scribe who knew Greek (Pertusi :q6o:q6:, , :6). Also, a document of : shows
that there was great demand on the island for physicians who knew Greek (q,
:q). Westerners who moved to Crete usually learned Greek and approached Greek
culture: as Raimondo Morozzo della Rocca remarks, at the end of Pertusis article
(8o), [Si] scorge che lelemento colto dellIsola non soltanto greco (ed ebraico),
bens anche latino [] Ma chi approdava a Candia per aprirvi una scuola desiderava
a sua volta imparare e forse, gi nel Trecento, era spinto dallimpulso di accostarsi
alla cultura greca.
57
See the extensive study by De Gregorio (:qq).
58
See Branca :q and Panagiotakis :qq, .q:. The Monastery of St. Francis was
.o cn\r+rn rotn
Latin probably followed the same methods and used the same text-
books as their colleagues in the West.
59
Between the fourteenth and the fteenth centuries, many Greek
men of culture settled in Crete: they were especially Latinophrones seek-
ing refuge, such as Demetrius Cydones, Manuel Calecas, and Maxi-
mus Chrysoberges; the South Italian Leonzio Pilato (above, q8f.),
the Tuscan Rinuccio Aretino, and others came to Crete to study
Greek.
60
However, it was only after : that the increasing migra-
tion of refugees from Constantinopleand after :6o from Morea as
welltransformed Crete into the main center of Hellenism in the
old Byzantine world.
61
These emigrs were diplomats, merchants, or
craftsmen; also, many of them were intellectuals and became teach-
ers and copyists. In the fteenth and sixteenth centuries, rich families
and monasteries owned large libraries and the book trade with Venice
was intense. The many manuscripts copied in Crete or by Cretan
hands at that time bear witness to the ability of the copyists to sat-
isfy an increasing demand of Greek manuscripts from the West.
62
The
circulation of books from Crete to the West and vice versa was intense.
Particularly productive was the scriptorium of Michael Apostolis and his
son Arsenios-Aristoboulos in Candia. After some time, however, many
Cretan copyists moved to the West, in particular to Venice, because
founded in the thirteenth century and lasted until the Turkish conquest of Candia
(:66q). In ::, its library contained about three hundred manuscripts, mostly of
Latin ecclesiastical authors; books of Greek philosophers and Church Fathers in Latin
translation, as well as some Latin lexica (Hugutio and Brito) were also included. All
books were in Latin, except for a copy of Gregory the Greats dialogues in Latin and
Greek. See Hofmann :q.; De Gregorio :qq, ::o, :.8; and McKee .ooo, :.of.
59
Contracts from the end of the fourteenth century demonstrate the use of psalters
as the rst reading books for both Greek and Latin (above, 6; see also below, n. 66).
Moreover, in his will from :q, Marco Cavalcante recommends the chancellor of
Candia to have his servant educated to become a priest; the servant will receive his
freedom and a volume containing the glossed works of Prosper, Aesop, and Cato
(above, 68f.); see McKee .ooo, ::q, :.:.
60
See Pertusi :q6o:q6:, 6; Geanakoplos :q6., ; and Panagiotakis :qq, .q:.
On Cydones sojourn and death in Crete, see Ganchou .oo..
61
Geanakoplos :q6., 8. Many studies have been devoted to culture in Crete
under the Venetian rule (the Cretan Renaissance): see Geanakoplos :q6, :q ,
and .oo.; Holton :qq:; De Gregorio :qq; Panagiotakis :qq; Manoussakas :qq8,
6; and McKee .ooo, :68::.
62
See Geanakoplos :q6., o; and Canart :qa, .:.. On Cretan copyists
and manuscripts, see also Sicherl :qq, :q::q. On private and monastic libraries
in Crete from the fteenth to the seventeenth centuries, see Mavromatis :qqo, 6.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .:
overpopulation and a lack of resources, as well as of cultural institu-
tions on the island, made it dicult for them to earn their living.
The transmission of Pyl a is perhaps related to this context. The
Cretan Michael Lygizos made two copies of Pyl a, MSS. A and
O, probably on commission: these copies may have been ordered
from Italy or from Crete. MS. Q, partly copied by Lygizos himself,
certainly belongs to the same environment. Michael Souliardos, the
copyist of another manuscript of the same group, N, was a Cretan, as
was George Gregoropoulos, who wrote R: part of this manuscript was
indeed written in Crete.
63
The Cretan MS. Oxon. Barocci . (O) demonstrates that the hy-
pothesis of a Cretan circulation of Pyl a is plausible. The Greek
glosses between the lines of Planudes translation of Catos Disticha
allow us to consider this manuscript as a product of an environment
where Greek was the language of study.
64
In this environment, several
translations of the manual of elementary Latin could circulate; one of
them, for example, was used by the anonymous author of the Epitome
attributed to Zacharias Calliergis (Pyl d), which was included in the
Oxford manuscript (O) and bound together with other texts for the
study of Greek.
Although Venetian ocers and merchants who settled in Crete
eventually integrated into the Greek population, we may suppose that
Latin and Italian schools existed on the island, especially in towns,
where Westerners were more numerous. For example, a Catholic
(Uniate) school was founded in :6. in Candia, under the patron-
age of Cardinal Bessarion and with the support of the Latin Patri-
archate of Constantinople; Michael Apostolis was the inspirer and
the rst teacher of the school, and other Cretan scholars served as
instructors.
65
From a collection of contracts from Candia concerning
63
Watermarks cannot give us any clue, because Cretan manuscripts were usually
copied on Italian paper: see De Gregorio :qq, :.6f.
64
Several manuscripts containing Planudes translations of Catos Disticha and
Boethius Consolatio were copied in Crete by Michael Lulludes at the beginning of
the fourteenth century. Some of these manuscripts contain both the Greek and Latin
texts, and bear witness to the popularity of both works on the island. Moreover,
the Greek Cato appear together with other grammatical texts in a miscellaneous
schoolbook copied in Crete in the mid-fteenth century, MS. Vat. gr. :8: this fact
conrms the use of Catos Distichs in Cretan schools. See De Gregorio :qq, :o.,
:o, and :8 n. ..6.
65
In his letters, Apostolis often asks Bessarion to support the opening of schools in
Crete and elsewhere (see the passages quoted in Pagliaroli .oo, .86 n. :). The school
.. cn\r+rn rotn
the hiring of private teachers, we learn that Latin and Italian, as well
as ancient and demotic Greek, were taught in Crete, along with arith-
metic and calculus, which were useful for those wanting to become
merchants.
66
So as Venetians needed to learn Greek, Cretans needed
to learn Latin, in order to have access to public oces or have a
career in the administration of the island. Bilingual education, both
in o (Latin and Italian) and o (ancient and modern
Greek), was available on the island: the fteenth-century Cretan poet
Leonardos Dellaportas reveals that, as a child, he attended a school
that provided instruction in Greek and Latin.
67
Many upper-class young men of Crete completed their studies in
Italy; they had to be uent in Latin, which was still the language
of lectures, disputations, and conversation at Italian universities.
68
For
example, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, Cretans
functioned throughout the sixteenth century, but it is dicult to evaluate its impact
on Cretan culture. In fact, according to Panagiotakis (:qq, .q), Bessarions legacy
would not have been looked upon favorably by the Orthodox population, who would
have resented its ties with Rome. See also Cataldi Palau .oo, .qqoo.
66
The eight contracts published by Detorakis (:qq6, 8.) belong to the years
:::6, a relatively late date. However, they show that teachers still used the same
books for elementary education that were used in Byzantium and in the West during
the Middle Ages, such as the Octoechos and the Psalter (see Mavromatis :qqo, ;
and McKee .ooo, ::q). For example, according to contract , teacher Paolo Siligardo
was employed to teach o lo o, u u, j ou i j
(sic); it is not clear if he was to teach in Greek or in Latin. On the other hand, contract
8 concerns the employment of Zorzi Protonotario as a teacher of Zorzi Sevast, the
son of Messer Maneas, for four years. Since, as a notary, he was supposed to be bi-
or trilingual, he would teach o (sic), i.e., Greek and
Italian. The boy had to learn to read and write ( i i o i) in vulgar
(o), i.e., in j, not in ancient Greek and Latin: i r
0 o o o (sic).
The mixture of Greek and Italian makes this text an interesting document showing
the mutual inuence of the two cultures (on the use of Greek, Latin, and Italian in
Cretan bureaucratic acts during Venetian rule, see Gasparis :qq detailed study).
Moreover, the insistence on teaching the vulgar instead of the ancient languages
leads us to infer that Latin and ancient Greek were actually taught in Crete. On the
use of the terms t and o in Greek texts, see Koder .oo., q.
67
Dellaportas poem is quoted by Panagiotakis :q88, :68. The last two lines
(political verses) read:
i t ro0, o , 0 0,
r0 o o o i i,
[Since I was just a child, I have sat at school, learning my letters, both Frankish
and Greek] (translation by Detorakis :q88 [:q:6], .o8).
68
Grendler .oo., ::f.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .
represented the largest group among Greek students (natio ultramarina)
at the university of Padua.
69
Many Cretan students came from the
College of St. Athanasius, founded in Rome by Pope Gregory XIII
(:6), and later also from the College Cottunio in Padua (:6) or
from the college that Paduas alumnus Thomas Flanginis had estab-
lished in Venice (ca. :66.). These institutions probably made up for
the lack of public higher education in Crete: we may assume that,
as late as in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there were no
high schools on the island, or that students could not receive adequate
preparation for advanced studies.
70
In fact, in : the Cretan Maxi-
mos Margounios (:o:6o.), who studied in Padua, complained that
no Greece had been left in Greece and no Athens in Athens: Italy
was crowded with Greeks who have not even learned grammar thor-
oughly; they are unworthy of their origin, or better, they are barbar-
ians (qui ne grammaticam quidem didicerunt, indigni sua origine, ac potius bar-
bari).
71
Apparently, then, little had changed from the gloomy descrip-
tion of Cretan culture that more than one century earlier (:6.) the
Venetian patrician Pietro Perleone had given to his friend Niccol
Sagundino (d. :6), appointed Chancellor of Crete: he would live
ingloriously (ingloriosus) at a place where his extraordinary learning
and eloquence would count for nothing (ubi tuo sublimi ingenio tuaque
praestanti doctrina et facundia dignum ostendisses profecto nihil), and his chil-
dren would lose their good manners and receive a peasants education
(ubi lii tui sine litteris, exuta urbanitate rusticitatem induissent).
72
Probably,
therefore, it was dicult to receive in Crete an education at the same
level as in Italy: young men who wanted to pursue more advanced
studies had no option but to go abroad.
69
See Fabris :q., :.6, :..; Plumidis :q:; and Fedalto .oo:. On the ceiling of
the entrance-hall of the University of Padua, it is still possible to see the coats of arms
that about two hundred students from noble Cretan families had painted between
:. and :688.
70
See Panagiotakis :q88, :8q: except from few cases, it was dicult to nd in
Crete good teachers of Latin and Italian. On the three Greek colleges, see Tsirpanlis
:q8o and :q8, ::.; Callegari .oo:; and Karathanassis .oo..
71
Quoted by Fabris :q., :. Mavromatis (:qqo, ) also mentions a letter by
Martin Crusius, who, in :6, complained about the situation of culture in Crete
during the Venetokratia: there were no academies, scholars or teachers, but only
elementary schools (scholae triviales) for children, who read nothing but the Psalter
(see above, n. 66) and liturgical books.
72
Quoted by King :q86, 8q and n. .8.
. cn\r+rn rotn
As already discussed (above, 8), many bilingual texts have been
handed down from antiquity and the Middle Ages. However, except
for Bacons grammar, no book was specically created for the study
of Greek as a foreign language: Chrysoloras had to create a Greek
grammar for Latins almost ex nihilo. We may suppose that the lack of
specic grammar books also aected the Greeks who wanted to learn
Latin. The most important example of Latin grammar for Greeks,
Dositheus Ars grammatica, apparently remained conned to Western
scriptoria and did not circulate in the Byzantine world.
73
If Greeks had to use the Latin elementary grammar, Ianua, to learn
Latin, they may have needed a bilingual teacher, a literal translation
of the book, or both. Pyl a, the Donatus translatus, may have been cre-
ated to respond to this demand. As we already have noted, the Latin
text on which Pyl a was based is similar to the older versions of the
Latin Ianua rather than to its more recent editions. We may think that
it took some time for the cultural innovations of the center, Venice,
to reach the periphery, Crete, assuming that they ever did. Thus,
while the new, shorter, and easier Ianua had already imposed itself on
the Venetian book market, the Latin schools of Crete continued to use
the old textbook, still in manuscript form and still very Priscianic in
its content. The same can be said about the rst two sections of Pyl
c, based on a Latin text that devoted much more space than Pyl a to
denitions and even contained mnemonic verses.
The manuscripts that have handed down Pyl a show only the
last stage of the evolution of this text into an independent grammar.
Indeed, the attribution to Planudes in MSS. B, O, and R, as well as
73
Dositheus grammar has been handed down in three ninth-century manuscripts
from St. Gall, together with other tools for the study of Greek, the so-called Hermeneu-
mata Pseudodositheana (above, 8 n. 8). Born probably in the Eastern Roman Empire
in the late fourth century, Dositheus followed in his grammar the tradition of Latin
artes grammaticae and equipped the Latin text with a faithful Greek translation. How-
ever, a word-by-word translation appears only up to the end of the chapter on verbs
(:6 Bonnet); in the following chapters, only paradigms and forms are translated
(), whereas the last part is completely in Latin (6). On the style of the
Greek translation, see Bonnets observations, XVIIIf. The lack of a translation of
the last chapterswhich recalls, for example, the case of MS. G (see above, :6)
may be due to the manuscript tradition or may correspond to a deliberate choice by
the author, who probably did not deem the Greek version necessary for students as
they progressed in their study of Latin. As Bonnet remarks in his introduction (XIII),
Dositheus intended audience was composed of Grecs connoissants dj le discours
propre la r j; for example, Dositheus did not include paradigms of
nominal inection because his readers most probably already knew them.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .
Cs title, Erotimata Guerrini, and the fact that the Greek text was
even re-translated into Latin in G, demonstrate that Pyl a was eventu-
ally perceived as a Greek grammar tout court. However, some elements
of the text betray its original nature as an interlinear translation
probably made with the help of a bilingual dictionarywhere the
single word mattered more than the context. The rst is Pyl as faith-
ful respect of Ianuas word order, which has very few exceptions; the
second is Pyl as use of the same Greek term to translate the same
Latin word and the use of the same syntax as the Latin original;
74
and the third is the presence of doublets and gaps corresponding to
terms and forms whose rendering in Greek may have created particu-
lar problems for the translator(s).
75
The language of Pyl a is classical Greek, with occasional echoes
of the lexicon and the morphology of Byzantine Greek; indeed, we
cannot exclude that, in the passage from interlinear translation to a
grammar, the text underwent some process of linguistic normaliza-
tion. In any case, we do not know when or where Pyl a began to
be used as an independent Greek grammar. Before the publication
and the spread of printed editions of Chrysoloras Erotemata, the need
for Greek grammar books may have induced some teachers to adapt
the rough translation of the Latin Ianua to the teaching of Greek.
76
At that time, and for that purpose, expressions such as o i
may have been added to the original of MSS. A, N, O, Q, and R: it
74
For example, the Latin original often inuences the use of cases with prepo-
sitions. At :. qq:oo (j o u o, Lat. praeter propria nomina), the Greek
preposition would require the genitive instead of the accusative; a similar case is at
8. .o (ri j j, Lat. super terram), where ri as upon should be accompanied by
the genitive and not by the accusative. Also, the article, which is common in Greek
but does not exist in Latin, is often omitted: e.g. pr. : u r, .. ::., al.: r
r_ u_, 8. . ii ', etc. Indeed, as Berti remarks
(:q8, ..), in an interlinear translation il traduttore si trova non di rado in dubbio
[] se mettere in rilievo le relazioni sintattiche che intercorrono tra le parole oppure
far prevalere la considerazione degli aspetti morfologici dei singoli vocaboli.
75
Cases of double translation: nominativus = (:. 6, v.l.) o0j j oj; a
vocando = (:. :.) 0 0 u0 j j0; per compositionem = (.
.) o u j u0, etc. See Schmitt :q66, .f. Cases of omission include
several verbal forms (e.g., the future imperative in x) and the Latin pronomina quarti
modi, nostras and vestras, etc., which are left without any corresponding form in Greek,
even if the denition of modus quartus appears in the section on pronouns.
76
On the printing of Greek grammars in the last thirty years of the fteenth
century, see Pertusi :q6., .6.8, and :q8o:q8:, .o; and Stakos :qq8 [:q8q],
::8.
.6 cn\r+rn rotn
is perhaps no accident that such additions do not appear in the
earliest version of Pyl a, contained in MSS. B, C, and G. At any
rate, by sometime between the beginning and middle of the fteenth
century, the text may have reached Venice, the Veneto, and North
Italy. In particular, MS. B circulated within an environment where
both versions of Pyl a were available; that environment was probably
the Venetian area, where the manuscript may have been written.
Over the course of time, Pyl a was probably used in classrooms and
certainly for independent study of Greek (cf. Hyazchas remarks in
MS. Q). At least one copy of the Greek Donatus a reached Florence
from Crete (MS. R). During the Renaissance, cultural relations and
interchanges between Venice and Florence were intense; any Venetian
scholar who went to Florence or any Florentine who went to Venice,
as well as any Cretan copyist who worked in both cities, could have
functioned as a trait dunion.
77
More complex problems arise from the three Donati compositi. Of
the manuscripts that have handed them down, one is generically
Northern Italian (V), two are probably from the Veneto (M and P),
and one is from Venice or Crete, or has at least circulated in Crete (Z,
in O). Thus, considering the data so far available, we may locate the
origin and the circulation of these grammar books in the Northeast of
Italy and, by extension, in Venetian Crete. In particular, part of the
rst section of the Cretan Pyl d represents a return to the practice
of translating the Latin Ianua word by word, as in Pyl a. The other
Donati compositi may have been used in any northeastern Italian school
of Greek. In general, however, with the exception of the rst two
77
Petrus Candidus, who brought MS. R from Crete to Florence (above, :.),
had close contacts with the Venetian cultural environment; see Scapecchi :qq, :q.
Also, in his :q letter to his brother Gregorio, Girolamo Amaseo (above, :f.) says
that a good many Greeks from Greece (complures Graecos ex Graecia) were staying
in Florence at Janus Lascaris home, where they were learning Latin (probably to
become teachers of Greek) and copying Greek manuscripts (see Pozzi :q66, :q).
Janus Lascaris (ca. ::) had learned Latin in Padua, where he had been sent by
his patron, Cardinal Bessarion, from about :6 to :. (see Stakos :qq8 [:q8q], .8).
One of Lascaris students was the Cretan Marcus Musurus, who was in Florence from
:86 to :q before moving to Venice (on Musurus stay in Florence, see Pagliaroli
.oo, ...; and Cataldi Palau .oo, ooq). Lascaris Greek students may have
beneted from a Greek translation of the Latin elementary grammar. Their demands
may have led to a rst word-by-word translation of Ianua, or may have contributed to
bringing Pyl a to Florence, but nothing encourages us to consider these assumptions
more than hypotheses.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .
sections of Pyl c and of some parts of Pyl d, these Donati distance
themselves from the Latin original in various degrees.
The fact that, in Pyl b, some parts of the Latin model have been
replaced with authentic Greek material suggests that a Greek teacher
conceived it as a Greek grammar for his Latin students, using the
Latin Ianua as a model. Pyl bs section on nouns shows, in fact, a
deliberate attempt to simplify further the system of declensions cre-
ated by Chrysoloras and generally used in Greek humanist gram-
mar. Pyl bs four verbal paradigms are a translation of Ianuas verbs,
but with due attention to the Greek forms with no Latin equivalent
and without the extravagant forms so common in Pyl a. Moreover,
the compiler of Pyl b not only knew Greek grammar fairly well, but
also was well versed in the most important Greek grammatical works
or, more probably, had access to that grammatical stock material
of dierent origins that manuscripts like P made available to West-
ern teachers. Similarly, bs and ds initial poem, which also occurs in
other manuscripts, seems to be a standard prologue for schoolbooks of
grammar, circulating together with the other toolscharts, word lists,
etc.used in teaching Greek in Byzantine schools.
As already noted (above, .oof.), the most important testimony to
Pyl b, M, was most probably copied in the rst half of the fteenth
century; the manuscript belonged to the Paduan humanist Ioannes
Calphurnius, who bequeathed it to the library of the monastery of
San Giovanni di Verdara, a little Pantheon of humanists.
78
Greek
became part of the curriculum of the university of Padua only in :6;
however, Greek scholars and books are documented in Padua by the
fourteenth century.
79
Moreover, the presence of Palla Strozzi
80
and his
proteges, John Argyropoulos and Andronicos Callistos,
81
the sojourn
78
Sambin :q.:q, 8:6 (quoting V. Clan).
79
See Pertusi :qqoa [:q:q8], ...
80
Palla di Nofri Strozzi (see above, :oo) was one of the sponsors of Chrysoloras
appointment in Florence and one of his rst students. In :, when Cosimo de
Medici regained power, Palla was exiled because of his hostility to Medicis rule. He
moved to Padua, where he continued his Greek studies and opened his house to
Byzantine scholars in Italy. Palla died in :6. and bequeathed his library to the Bene-
dictine monastery of Santa Giustina: a list of his books (unfortunately incomplete) is
attached to his will in MS. B.P. ..q of the Biblioteca del Museo Civico in Padua,
fols.
r
-
v
(published by Cantoni Alzati :q8, :8:86). Other manuscripts have been
identied by Diller (:q6:, ::) and Sosower (:q8).
81
The Byzantine emigr John Argyropoulos (ca. ::6:8) studied and taught
in Padua from :: to :, when he presumably left for Constantinople. After
.8 cn\r+rn rotn
of some Byzantine scholars,
82
and the possible availability of private
teachers certainly encouraged Greek studies in Padua much before
that date
.
.
83
In fact, several Greek grammatical works were circulating
in the city during the fteenth century. As Bernardinello has observed,
Paduan Greek manuscripts reveal an interest in grammar and, more
importantly, an eort to improve the tools already available for the
teaching of Greek, such as Chrysoloras Erotemata. Pyl b may be a
product of this pedagogical experimentation, which, in turn, was
supported by the availability of Byzantine grammatical text in the
Paduan environment.
84
Like the other Donati compositi and in spite of
its imperfections, Pyl b represent the merging of the Latin and the
Byzantine pedagogical traditions much better than Pyl a.
Byzantiums fall to the Turks, he returned to Italy and taught at the Florentine
Studium (:6::). Argyropoulos spent the last years of his life between Florence
and Rome. Andronicos Callistos, born in Constantinople, taught in Padua, Bologna,
Florence (after Argyropoulos departure), Milan, Paris, and London, where he died in
:8. See Pertusi :q8o:q8:, .6.q; Wilson :qq., 86qo, ::::8; and Stakos :qq8,
:o, :.o.
82
For example, George Trapezuntius (:q:86: see above, ::), born in Crete,
studied at Padua between ::6 and ::; see Monfasani :q6, :o:..
83
Indeed, as Bernardinello remarks (:q, :o:o), it is very unlikely that the
Venetian senate would have established a chair of Greek in :6 if the teaching of
Greek in Padua had stopped with Argyropoulos departure nineteen years before
(:). According to Bernardinello, the gap was lled by the teaching of Pietro da
Montagnana, the author of a revised edition of Ianua (see above, f.) and the
rt Paduan humanist with an interest in public teaching of Greek (:qq, .; my
translation).
84
See Bernardinello :qq, :. Of the eighteen Greek manuscripts dating from
the Renaissance preserved in Padua, nine contain grammars or readings for school
use. Pietro da Montagnana owned four Greek grammars: two anonymous (Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Palatinus gr. :., and Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS.
gr. X. :) and the grammars by Calecas (Marc. gr. X. ) and Scholarios (Padua,
Biblioteca Comunale, MS. C.M. q8). Montagnana translated Scholarios grammar
into Latin, probably for his teaching of Greek (Marc. lat. XIV. :o). Moreover, MS.
Marc. lat. XIII. shows that Montagnana, probably dissatised with Guarinos
abridgment of Chrysoloras Erotemata, supplemented Guarinos Latin translation with
paradigms and examples omitted by Guarino and taken from the longer version
(see above, :.: n. :.). See Bernardinello :q, ::o:.. Most probably, Montagnana
intended to write a new Greek grammar for Latins; also, he may have played a role
in the composition of Latinate Greek grammars like Pyl b.
+nr onrrk nox\+i \xn +nrin cox+rx+ .q
. Using the Donati graeci in Schools:
Reutilization and Superimposition
If my hypothesis about the origin of Pyl a is correct, its use as a gram-
mar book lay outside of its original purpose. Like Planudes transla-
tion of the Disticha Catonis, Pyl a underwent a process of reutiliza-
tion. The publication of Chrysoloras Erotemata with Guarinos Latin
translation solved the problem of an eective textbook for the study
of Greek, whether in classrooms, with private teachers, or by oneself.
However, Pyl a could constitute an option at a time when, and in
areas where, Chrysoloras-Guarinos schoolbook was not available or
was dicult to nd. This may explain why Pyl a continued to be
copied until the beginning of the sixteenth century, when many Greek
grammars had been available on the book market for years.
Compared with humanist grammars, Pylai oered the advantage
of reducing the nominal declensions to ve instead of ten and the
verbal conjugations to four instead of thirteen or nine. Thus, part of
their success may be due to their being a sort of compendia, which
treated the subject matter concisely and briey. Although there is no
document or literary source to inform us of how Pylai were used in the
teaching of elementary Greek, it is possible to draw some conclusions
from the way texts are presented in manuscripts.
Like Ianua, Pylai were probably studied in two stages: per lo testo
e per lo senno, i.e., rst. by simply reading the text, and then by
understanding and memorizing it. All the manuscripts examined so
far contain many devices intended to favor memorization: decorated
initials, often rubricated, help distinguish the sections of the text at a
glance; maniculae with pointing ngers, asterisks, etc. in the margins
signal the most important parts; dots or commas usually divide the
text into shorter units, cola and commata (Lygizos MSS. A and O, for
example, use a very homogeneous system of punctuation); and the
alphabets often found on the yleaves of manuscripts were perhaps
not only probationes pennae, but devices for memorization as well.
Being entirely in Greek, Pylai needed to be taught by bilingual
teachers. Students who decided to learn Greek usually knew Latin
and built up their Greek on the basis of Latin. The translation of
grammatical texts into Latin took place very early in the program.
The wide margins and interlinear spaces (B, C, and G), the front
pages left blank (N), and the layout in columns (A, M, and Q) sug-
gest that, when laying out the text, copyists took it for granted that
.6o cn\r+rn rotn
a translation would be added. In some cases (G and P), the Latin
text was more or less directly incorporated into the Greek. Otherwise,
students like Franciscus Hyazchas (above, :6q) had to rely on a dictio-
nary or other tools to understand the Greek text. In general, unlike
the Greek Cato, there are no Latin glosses for Pylai. Instead of sup-
posing a passive memorization, we may infer that these texts were
explained with the direct or indirect help of the Latin Ianua. Students,
who most probably tackled Greek after Latin, had memorized Ianua
as students of elementary Latin. They already knew the denitions
and the concepts that they found in Greek. In other words, when they
read j i r ri; they knew that it corresponded to Poeta
quae pars est; it was just a matter of expressing the same concepts in a
dierent language, of superimposing the new form on the old and
well-known one. Hyazchas probably needed to add an extensive Latin
translation because, as a non-Italian, he may have learned Latin from
a dierent textbook: Ianua-Pyl may have been completely new to him.
The method of proceeding from the easier to the more complex
and the catechistic form were both taken from Donatus and the tra-
dition of Byzantine ertmata. The simplicity and the fair quantity of
paradigms that Pylai contain may have contributed to their preser-
vation. In any case, the rough and defective Pylai were not deemed
worthy of printed editions, even in a book market like that of Venice,
which was extremely receptive to Greek grammatical texts. Thus, over
the course of time, while the Latin Ianua continued to hold its place
as a privileged instrument for the teaching of Latin, the Greek Pylai
were replaced with other more valid grammars and nally fell into
oblivion.
+rx+
DONATUS GRAECUS A
Siglorum Conspectus
:. Graeca
A Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS. gr. XV ex.
B Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Barberini
gr. :o
XV
B
m
marginalia codicis B a pluribus manibus exarata XVXVI
C Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Conventi Soppressi
:o6
XV
G Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Gaddi :8. XVXVI
N Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, MS. gr. .q XV
O Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Barocci . XV ex.
Q Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Ottoboni
gr. .o6
XV ex.
R Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Redi : XV ex.
x consensus ABB
m
CGNOQ
B
1
, N
1
, O
1
, Q
1
, R
1
manus correctorum codicum B, N, O, Q, R
Schmitt W.O. Schmitt, Maximos Planudes, der lateinische Pseudo-Donatus
(Ianua) und seine bersetzung ins Griechische, diss. Berlin,
Humboldt-Universitt, :q66, :
+
q.
+
(editio princeps).
.6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
.. Latina
D Donatus latinus, consensus quorundam codicum et
editionum
Gl
1
versio Latina inter lineas codicis G XVXVI
Gl
2
textus Latinus cum textu Graeco exaratus codicis G XVXVI
H Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS.
Chigi lat. L.IV.q8
XV
J Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, MS. lat. :q. ca. :.6o:.8o
p Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices (Pesciae, typis
Savonarolae, die XXVIII mensis Septembris :q.)
Ql
1
versio Latina iuxta textus Q exarata XV ex.
Ql
h
adnotationes manu Francisci Hyazchae ::o
S Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Strozzi 8o XIV in.
U Padua, Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile, MS. o :6:
inserenda censui
[ ] delenda censui
*** lacunam statui
u ii t 00r t r00 u r
i i r0 0i rj o0u r
i o r i u. i. 00 i j
t r r ru
o u u. o t 0i ri,
i j 0 o r 0i r
o0 0i i _u rui . u 00r
[0u
i o _ 0j 0t o j.
:. i oou
j i r ri; o r. i r ; i
0i i ii j j o u.
_u o r; r. t; i. r. 00. j
i u.
i i; u. i; 0 0 o.
i i; u. 0 o; ' j j.
i r; '0. i; o 0_u r j i
i 00j 0i. i o.
i r; 0. i; o 0_u r j i i
:o 00j 0i. i j.
Inscr. j o 0 A, j o o -
0t r j u `i j (u B) j `o o 0 i
0 u BOR, EROTIMATA GUERRINI j u 0_u i_ o
'0 0t u C, Libellus Grammatices G, o `-
i j j (cetera non leguntur) N, j o `i
Q
pr. : u ... j om. G om. O om. O | ru] r
BCOR o ... u in marg. add. N
2
6 o] - N, - R _u
ru] o ru BC | om. R | 00r] -j N
. : j] o . BCG | i ... ] i r ri; o GO, cf.
b :. :, d :. : . ] - CG t] i BCG, i N i om. O
0_u] 0j (-j) B, j C, 00 G 8 i om. x | 00j 0i om. G
q 0_u] -0 G | i om. x
Ianua sum rudibus primam cupientibus artem,
nec prae me quisquam rite peritus erit;
nam genus et casum speciem numerumque guram
iis quae ectuntur partibus insinuo.
Pono modum reliquis, quid competat optime pandens,
et quam non doceam dictio nulla manet;
ergo legas studiumque tibi rudis adice lector:
nam celeri studio discere multa potes.
:. De nomine
Poeta quae pars est? Nomen est. Quare est nomen? Quia signicat
substantiam et qualitatem propriam vel communem cum casu.
Nomini quot accidunt? Quinque. Quae? Species, genus, numerus,
gura et casus.
Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur.
Cuius speciei? Derivativae. Unde derivatur? A poesis.
Cuius generis? Masculini. Quare? Quia praeponitur ei in declinatione
unum articulare pronomen, ut hic.
Cuius generis? Feminini. Quare? Quia praeponitur ei in declinatione
:o unum articulare pronomen, ut haec.
pr. adice] adisce Ql
1
.
. : poeta ... Nomen est] poeta que pars orationis est? Nomen Gl
1
.68 nox\+ts on\rcts \
i r; 0r. i; o 0_u r j i
i 00j 0i. i .
i r; 0. i; o 0_u r j i u
00i 0i. i o i j.
: i r; i. i; o 0_u r j i
t 00i 0i. i o i j i .
i r; 'j. i;
0 0, o :i o i ,
0o 0 u u oo uo j i c c
.o r r[]. i i o
.
i r; 'i. i; 0 j i r 00
i _u rr u.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
. i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
i j; `0. i; u r.
i j; 0r. 0 i0; ' 0 0
i i 0 i i0 0.
i j; 0r. i; 0 0 0 i0.
o 0 0 0r o o. o ri rt 0.
0i. 0i.
i u; 'j. i u; '0j
i; ri j 0o r j 0oo
o o *** o o
oj u. o0j u. (B)
ii u oo; . i; 'j. j. j.
ij. j i 0j.
::.8 0r ... 0 om. B :: om. A | 0_u ] -j C :. i om.
x : o] -o O | u om. GO : 00i 0i]
00j 0i O | i post j add. G : i] G |
om. CO :6 i om. x :.: i ... r] genus incertum in genus
promiscuum mutavit R :8(a) om. A :8.:(b) ... r] cf. b :.
::8 .o(a) ] - CG . r 0] 0 0 B
m
OR, r C .q 0
0 0] 0 0 00 R, 0 om. G o o] j CG | o ri]
i r AQ o: 0 ... 0i] 0i om. R, 0u 0u
BCG, o i0 r 0 0o i u. u add. G, cf. .. 66(a)
.(a,b) i ... u] codicum lectiones servavi .(a) oj] o0j
ACGNQ (a,b) o, -] (-) coniecerim, cf. b :. o(b),
d :. .qo et D (p) quia verbum intransitive positum construitur cum nominativo casu 6 ii
u] u ii AQ 68 r ... o0i om. AQ 6 i] i BCG |
oj] o0j BCGNO, o0j j oj R i om. BO
nr xoxixr .6q
Cuius generis? Neutri. Quare? Quia praeponitur ei in declinatione
unum articulare pronomen, ut hoc.
Cuius generis? Communis. Quare? Quia praeponuntur ei in declina-
tione duo articularia pronomina, ut hic et haec.
: Cuius generis? Omnis. Quare? Quia praeponuntur ei in declinatione
tria articularia pronomina, ut hic et haec et hoc.
Cuius generis? Incerti. Quare?
Quia nulla ratione cogente Quia nulla ratio hoc percit,
sed sola auctoritas poetarum sed sola poesis veterum
.o sub diverso genere profert. in versibus secundum genus profert.
Cuius generis? Promiscui. Quare? Quia sub una voce et uno articulo
signicat animalia utriusque sexus.
Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur.
. Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur.
Cuius gurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur.
Cuius gurae? Compositae. Unde componitur? Ex in et iustus com-
ponitur iniustus.
Cuius gurae? Decompositae. Quare? Quia non per se componitur
o sed a composito nomine derivatur, quod est illud: iniustus, iniusti,
iniustitia.
Cuius casus? Nominativi. Cuius casus? Nominativi
Quare? Quia verbum intransitive est: verbum intransitive
positum construitur cum positum construitur cum
nominativo casu. nominativo casu.
Quot sunt casus nominum? Sex. Qui? Nominativus, genitivus, dati-
vus, accusativus, vocativus et ablativus.
:6 articularia pronomina] articularia et pronomina (ut 00i i 0i) Gl
1
:8.o(a) quia ... profert] quia nulla ratione cogente, sed sola auctoritas veterum genere protulit
(sic) Gl
1
, quia ... sub diverso genere protulit Ql
1
. sexus] sensus Gl
1
. ex in] ex
a Gl
1
o: quod ... iniustitia] quod est illud? Iniustus, iniusti, addita cia t iniusticia
Ql
1
(a) quia ... casu] quia est verbum intransitive construitur cum nominativo casu Ql
1
6 quot ... vocativus] quot sunt casus nominum? Duo: nominativus et vocativus Ql
1
.o nox\+ts on\rcts \
ii o0i; u oj i j. ii o;
r j. j. ij i 0j.
o 'j 0 r; ' 0 oo j 0 0 0
j 0 0 ij 0 0 i00 j 0 0
u0 j j0 0j 0 0 0t0.
` oj o j j j 0 0 j j _u j j
ij j j j u o j 0j 0 0 -
0 i 0u j oj l i j j u u
j j t t j ij u o j j u i j
0j 0 u u.
` oj j 0 j j j u j j j u j
ij j 0 j j u 0 j 0j 0 j u
o i 0u j oj l 0 j j u u j
j t u j ij o u j j u 0 j
0j 0 u u.
` oj o j j 0 o j j _u o j
ij o j j u o j 0j 0 0 o
0o 0 r.
` oj o i j j j j 0. j u j
j _u. j u_ j ij . j j j j
u j j 0j 0 0. j u i 0u
j oj l i l j j j u u j j
6o t. t u j ij u. o u j j u
j j 0j 0 u u.
8q om. N 8 i post u add. G o 0 om. x | r om. N : -
] i C . u0 j] t0 j C, u0
j G | 0t0] 0u0 BC u i in marg. add. O | o-
j] 00t ABCGNQ 0 om. B oj] 00t ABCGNQ |
u] u A u u] 0 0 BC 8 oj] 00t
ABCGNQ o oj] 00t ABCGNQ : j ij o u om.
G 0r in marg. add. C | oj] 00t ABCGNQ j i-
j o om. G j j u o om. AQ | j 0j 0 0
o om. G 0o] C 6 oj] 00t ABCGNQ
i post _u supra lineam add. N
2
| i post supra lineam add. N
2
q j
j ... u om. G 8 0. j] j supra lineam add. O, i post 0
supra lineam add. N
2
q oj] 00t ABCNQ | l i l j] l
j i l j AQ, l j i l j i l j
BC 6o t. t u] t om. C, t u i u N, t
u i t u O 6:6 j 0j ... 0 0 i om.
G
nr xoxixr .:
Quot sunt recti? Duo: nominativus et vocativus. Quot sunt obliqui?
Quattuor: genitivus, dativus, accusativus et ablativus.
o Nominativus unde dicitur? A nominando; genitivus a generando; dati-
vus a dando; accusativus ab accusando; vocativus a vocando; ablativus
ab auferendo.
Nominativo hic poeta, genitivo huius poetae, dativo huic poetae,
accusativo hunc poetam, vocativo o poeta, ablativo ab hoc poeta; et
pluraliter: nominativo hi poetae, genitivo horum poetarum, dativo his
poetis, accusativo hos poetas, vocativo o poetae, ablativo ab his poe-
tis.
Nominativo haec musa, genitivo huius musae, dativo huic musae,
accusativo hanc musam, vocativo o musa, ablativo ab hac musa; et
o pluraliter: nominativo hae musae, genitivo harum musarum, dativo
his musis, accusativo has musas, vocativo o musae, ablativo ab his
musis.
Nominativo hoc Pascha, genitivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae,
accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha;
pluralia non habet.
Nominativo hic et haec advena, genitivo huius advenae, dativo huic
advenae, accusativo hunc, hanc advenam, vocativo o advena, abla-
tivo ab hoc, hac advena; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae adve-
nae, genitivo horum, harum advenarum, dativo his advenis, accu-
6o sativo hos, has advenas, vocativo o advenae, ablativo ab his adve-
nis.
o nominativo ... nominando] nominativus dicitur a nominando Ql
1
6 post poetis desinit
Ql
1
incipit Ql
h
: nominativo hoc pasca
.. nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj o 'o j j 0 'o j j _u 'o
j ij 'o j j u 'o j 0j 0 0
'o.
6 ` oj o i j j 0 i j j _u -
i j ij i j j u i j 0j
0 0 i.
` oj o ii j j 0 ii j j _u ii
j ij ii j j u ii j 0j 0 0
o ii.
i i; u. i; u j j rj i i-
0 j o i. i o j 0 0 i j 0
j u.
` oj o u j j 0 i j j _u i_ j
ij u j j u u j 0j 0 0 i
i 0u j oj l u j j u i j j
t i j ij u i j j u u j 0j
0 u i.
` oj o 0 j j 0 00 j j _u 0_u j ij
8o 0 j j u 0r j 0j 0 0 00 i 0u
j oj l 0i j j u 0u j j t 0t j ij
u 0u j j u 0i j 0j 0 u 0u.
` oj i j j 0 i j j _u -
8 i_ j ij i j j u i j 0j 0
0 i i 0u j oj o i j j u
i j j t i j ij o i j j u
i j 0j 0 u i.
6.o ordinem o ii. o i. o 'o praebet R 6. oj]
00t ABCNQ 6 oj] 00t ABCNQ 66 u i] -i C
68 oj] 00t ABCGNQ : u] 0j x, cf. :o, al. | rj om.
ABCNQ, ru O
1
| i] i j R :. i0] 0 G . o
... 0 om. ABCGQ, j 0 B
m
O . i ... u om. x
oj] 00t ABCGNQ 6 oj] 00t ABCGNQ q oj]
00t ABCGNQ 8: oj] 00t ABCGNQ 8 oj] 00t
ABCGNQ 8q ordinem o i. i praebet R 86 oj]
00t ABCGNQ 8 t i] u i G
nr xoxixr .
Nominativo hic Abraham, genitivo huius Abrahae, dativo huic Abra-
hae, accusativo hunc Abraham, vocativo o Abraham, ablativo ab hoc
Abraham.
6 Nominativo hic Priamides, genitivo huius Priamidae vel -dis, dativo
huic Priamidae, accusativo hunc Priamidem vel -da, vocativo o Pria-
mides vel -da, ablativo ab hoc Priamide vel -da.
Nominativo hic Aeneas, genitivo huius Aeneae, dativo huic Aeneae,
accusativo hunc Aeneam vel Aenean, vocativo o Aenea, ablativo ab
o hoc Aenea.
Cuius declinationis? Primae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in
ae diphthongum desinit, ut hic poeta huius poetae et haec musa huius
musae.
Nominativo hic dominus, genitivo huius domini, dativo huic domino,
accusativo hunc dominum, vocativo o domine, ablativo ab hoc do-
mino; et pluraliter: nominativo hi domini, genitivo horum domino-
rum, dativo his dominis, accusativo hos dominos, vocativo o domini,
ablativo ab his dominis.
Nominativo hic deus, genitivo huius dei, dativo huic deo, accusativo
8o hunc deum, vocativo o deus, ablativo ab hoc deo; et pluraliter: nomi-
nativo hi dei vel di, genitivo horum deorum vel deum, dativo his deis
vel diis, accusativo hos deos, vocativo o di vel dii, ablativo ab his deis
vel diis.
Nominativo hoc scamnum, genitivo huius scamni, dativo huic
8 scamno, accusativo hoc scamnum, vocativo o scamnum, ablativo ab
hoc scamno; et pluraliter: nominativo haec scamna, genitivo horum
scamnorum, dativo his scamnis, accusativo haec scamna, vocativo o
scamna, ablativo ab his scamnis.
6 hic Priamides sic in D (J) declinatur, ubi etiam pluraliter invenitur . desinit] nit
secundum Latinos Ql
1
nominativo hic dominus] nominativo o (hic super lineam) chirios et
dominus Gl
1
. nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj o i j j 0 i j j _u i
qo j ij i j j u i j 0j 0
0 i i 0u j oj l i j j
u j j t i j ij u i j
j u i j 0j 0 u .
` oj o i j j 0 i j j _u i_
q j ij i j j u i j 0j 0 0
i.
0 j r oi j 0j oj o i. i
j. u o. j r t o j r i t j-
i . 0 0 j j rj i j
:oo o u o o u 0u o r j r 0
o t I l lr 0o j r ro o u
0 . i ir o u j i oi o-
u i j.
i i; r. i; u j j rj i r-
:o r j o i. i o u 0 i i o 0 0
00.
` oj o j j j 0 j j _u i j
ij r j j u o j 0j 0 0
i 0u j oj l r j j u r j
::o j t o j ij u r j j u r j
0j 0 u r.
8q oj] 00t ABCGNQ q: oj] 00t ABCGNQ | i]
- B q. i] -u BCGNOR | i ] -u N qq6 j
oj ... 0 0 i om. GR q oj] 00t ABCNQ |
i-] 0j- AQ, i- B, j- B
m
O q:o 0 ... j
om. R q i] u i C q8 o] j ANOQ | r om. G
q8qq t j] j u x, corr. Schmitt qq 0] i ABCGNQ,
i B
m
O, corr. Schmitt | ] i AQ :oo o u] o om. O, u bis G |
o r] u r x, corr. Schmitt | ] O :o: I x, del. Schmitt |
l lr] i ABCNOQ, i G, corr. Schmitt | 0o j r scripsi, r r 0
ABCNOQ, r r 0 G, o r r Schmitt :o. u ] u
o ABGQ | j] j C :o scripsi, 0 ABGNOQ,
0 C :o rj om. AQ :o j] j BC | o i om. x
:o:o6 i ... 00 om. x :o i i in marg. add. O | oj] 00t
ABCGNQ :o8 r] - G | j j u o om. AQ :oq oj]
00t ABCGNQ
nr xoxixr .
Nominativo hic magister, genitivo huius magistri, dativo huic magi-
qo stro, accusativo hunc magistrum, vocativo o magister, ablativo ab hoc
magistro; et pluraliter: nominativo hi magistri, genitivo horum magi-
strorum, dativo his magistris, accusativo hos magistros, vocativo o
magistri, ablativo ab his magistris.
Nominativo hic Virgilius, genitivo huius Virgili, dativo huic Virgilio,
q accusativo hunc Virgilium, vocativo o Virgili, ablativo ab hoc Virgilio.
Omnis vocativus similis est suo nominativo, ut hic pater, o pater, prae-
terquam in nominibus secundae declinationis desinentibus in us, quae
faciunt vocativum per mutationem us in e; praeter propria nomina
:oo virorum i habentia; praeter unum appellativum, quod facit ita: lius,
o li; at vero alia reperiuntur contra hanc regulam. Et sciendum quod
nomen proprium desinens in us debet superare suum vocativum una
syllaba.
Cuius declinationis? Secundae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis
:o in i productum desinit, ut hic dominus huius domini, et hic deus huius
dei.
Nominativo hic pater, genitivo huius patris, dativo huic patri, accusa-
tivo hunc patrem, vocativo o pater, ablativo ab hoc patre; et plura-
liter: nominativo hi patres, genitivo horum patrum, dativo his patri-
::o bus, accusativo hos patres, vocativo o patres, ablativo ab his patri-
bus.
q apud Latinos post nominativo add. Gl
1
:o: at vero alia] quidem aliqua alia Gl
1
:o::o et ... syllaba] et notandum quod propria nomina desinentia in us debet superare suum
positivum unam sillabam Gl
1
.6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj j j j j j j j j i j
ij j r j j u j j 0j 0 j
i 0u j oj l r j j u r j
:: j t o j ij o r j j u r j
0j 0 u r.
` oj r j j 0 r j j _u r_ j
ij r j j u r j 0j 0 0 r
i 0u j oj o r j j u r j j
:.o t r j ij o r j j u r j 0j 0
u r.
` oj o i j lu j j 0. j lr j j _u. j
lt j ij . j lr j j u l0 j 0j 0
0. j lr i 0u j oj l i l lt j j
:. u lr j j t. t l0 j ij u. o lt j
j u lt j 0j 0 u lr.
` oj j j j j j j j j
ij j j j u j 0j 0 j
:o i 0u j oj l j j u j j
t j ij o j j u j 0j
0 u .
` oj j 0o j j j 0u j j j 0-
u j ij j 0o j j u 0o j 0-
: j 0 j 0u i 0u j oj l 0u
j j u 0u j j t 0u j ij o
0u j j u 0u j 0j 0 u 0u-
.
::. oj] 00t ABCGNQ :: r] - G | j 0. ... om.
CO :: oj] 00t ABCGNQ | r ] - R :: 0r in
marg. add. C | oj] 00t ABCNQ :::8 om. GR ::q oj]
00t ABCNQ :.. oj] 00t ABCNQ | i j om. NO, j om. C |
j om. NO | _u om. BC | j om. NO :. j om. NO :. j om. CNO |
oj] 00t ABCNQ | i l om. NO :. t om. NO | o om. NO
:.:.6 j j u lt om. ABCOQ :.8 oj] 00t ABCNQ :.q u
] desideratur, cf. tamen .:8 u u et ..6 u :o oj]
00t ABCNQ : oj] 00t ABCNQ : oj] 00t
ABCNQ
nr xoxixr .
Nominativo haec mater, genitivo huius matris, dativo huic matri,
accusativo hanc matrem, vocativo o mater, ablativo ab hac matre; et
pluraliter: nominativo hae matres, genitivo harum matrum, dativo his
:: matribus, accusativo has matres, vocativo o matres, ablativo ab his
matribus.
Nominativo hoc opus, genitivus huius operis, dativo huic operi, accu-
sativo hoc opus, vocativo o opus, ablativo ab hoc opere; et plurali-
ter: nominativo haec opera, genitivo horum operum, dativo his ope-
:.o ribus, accusativo haec opera, vocativo o opera, ablativo ab his operi-
bus.
Nominativo hic et haec sacerdos, genitivo huius sacerdotis, dativo huic
sacerdoti, accusativo hunc et hanc sacerdotem, vocativo o sacerdos,
ablativo ab hoc et hac sacerdote; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et haec
:. sacerdotes, genitivo horum et harum sacerdotum, dativo his sacerdo-
tibus, accusativo hos et has sacerdotes, vocativo o sacerdotes, ablativo
ab his sacerdotibus.
Nominativo haec civitas, genitivo huius civitatis, dativo huic civitati,
accusativo hanc civitatem, vocativo o civitas, ablativo ab hac civi-
:o tate; et pluraliter: nominativo hae civitates, genitivo harum civita-
tum, dativo his civitatibus, accusativo has civitates, vocativo o civitates,
ablativo ab his civitatibus.
Nominativo haec lectio, genitivo huius lectionis, dativo huic lectioni,
accusativo hanc lectionem, vocativo o lectio, ablativo ab hac lectione;
: et pluraliter: nominativo hae lectiones, genitivo harum lectionum,
dativo his lectionibus, accusativo has lectiones, vocativo o lectiones,
ablativo ab his lectionibus.
:: nominativo hoc opus] nominativo hoc ocium Ql
h
.8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj o i j 00 j j 0. j 00u j j
:o _u. j 00u_ j ij . j 00 j j u 00
j 0j 0 0. j 00u i 0u j oj
l i l 00 j j u 00u j j t. t 0-
0u j ij u. o 00u j j u 00 j
0j 0 u 00u.
: ` oj o 0u j j 0 0u j j _u
0u j ij 0u j j u 0u j
0j 0 0 0u i 0u j oj l
0u j j u 0u j j t 0u j
ij u 0u j j u 0u j 0j 0
:o u 0u.
` oj o i j 0r j j 0 i j 0r j
j _u i j 0r_ j ij i j 0r j j
u 0r j 0j 0 0 i j 0r i 0u
j oj l i l 0r j j u 0r j j t
: i t 0r j ij u i o 0r j j u
0r j 0j 0 u 0r.
ouj o ju j j ju j j c -
ju j /j o ju j j c ju j o-
j oo ju i 0c j ouj l ju
:6o j j c uo j j i ju j /j
ju j j c ju j oj oo c uo-
.
` oj o 0. j 0. 0 j j 0 . j o.
0 j j _u i. j o. _u i j ij
:6 o. j 0. 0 j j u 0 i u 0 i u 0
:q oj] 00t ABCGNQ | i j om. x | j om. x :o j om. x |
j om. x :: j om. x | oj] 00t ABCGNQ :. i l om. x |
t om. x : o om. x : oj] 00t ABCNQ ::o om.
R ::6. om. G :6:8 _u 0u ... j j om. O : oj]
00t ABCNQ | l] l BC :8 0u] - BC :: oj] 00t
ABCNQ | o i om. BC, i om. R | 0 i om. BC, i om. R :. _u i om.
BC, i om. R | i om. BC, i om. R : 0 om. N | 0 i om. BC,
i om. R : oj] 00t ABCNQ | l i om. BC, i om. R : i
t om. BC, i om. R | i o om. BC, i om. R ::6. om. x :8 u
rj] rj desideratur, cf. tamen :q8 u 0i :6o rj]
- R :6 oj] 00t ABCGNQ :6..: om. R :6 ] i
G :6:6 j o. 0 ] 0 om. BCG :6 j o. _u
i] _u i om. BCG :6 i u 0 i u 0 om. BCG
nr xoxixr .q
Nominativo hic et haec homo, genitivo huius hominis, dativo huic
:o homini, accusativo hunc et hanc hominem, vocativo o homo, ablativo
ab hoc et hac homine; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae homines,
genitivo horum et harum hominum, dativo his hominibus, accusa-
tivo hos et has homines, vocativo o homines, ablativo ab his homini-
bus.
: Nominativo hic lector, genitivo huius lectoris, dativo huic lectori,
accusativo hunc lectorem, vocativo o lector, ablativo ab hoc lectore;
et pluraliter: nominativo hi lectores, genitivo horum lectorum, dativo
his lectoribus, accusativo hos lectores, vocativo o lectores, ablativo ab
his lectoribus.
:o
Nominativo hic et haec virgo, genitivo huius virginis, dativo huic
virgini, accusativo hunc et hanc virginem, vocativo o virgo, abla-
tivo ab hoc et hac virgine; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae virgi-
nes, genitivo horum et harum virginum, dativo his virginibus, accu-
: sativo hos et has virgines, vocativo o virgines, ablativo ab his virgini-
bus.
Nominativo hic sapiens, genitivo huius sapientis, dativo huic sapienti,
accusativo hunc sapientem, vocativo o sapiens, ablativo ab hoc sa-
piente; et pluraliter: nominativo hi sapientes, genitivo horum sapien-
:6o tium, dativo his sapientibus, accusativo hos sapientes, vocativo o sa-
pientes, ablativo ab his sapientibus.
Nominativo hic et haec omnis et hoc omne, genitivo huius omnis,
dativo huic omni, accusativo hunc et hanc omnem et hoc omne,
:6 vocativo o omnis et o omne, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc omni;
:q nominativo ... homo] nominativo hic demens (0 ut 0) Ql
h
:6 nominativo ...
omne] nominativo hic omnis, hec omnis et hoc omnia Gl
1
:6 vocativo ... omni] vocativo o
omnis, ablativo ab hoc omni et ab hac omne Gl
1
.8o nox\+ts on\rcts \
j 0j 0 0 i 0 j o i 0 0
i 0u j oj l o. l 0. o o j j
u o j j t 0. t o. t 0 j ij u
o. o o. o o j j u o. u 0. u o j
:o 0j 0 u o.
` oj o i i j io i i j j 0
i0. j i0 i 0 i0 j j _u i_u. j i0
i _u i_u j ij i. j io i i
j j u ir i u io i u i j 0j 0
: 0 i0. 0 j i0 i 0 0 i0 i 0u
j oj l ii. l ii. o io j j u iu
j j t it. t it. t it j ij u
iu. o io. o io j j u ii i u ii
i u io j 0j 0 u iu.
:8o ` oj o i. j ir. i j j
0 ir. j ir. 0 ir j j _u i-
r_. j ir. _u ir_ j ij i. j
ir. i j j u i. u ir.
u i j 0j 0 0 ir i 0 j i-
:8 r i 0 0 ir i 0u j oj l
i. l i. o i j j u ir
j j t ir. t ir. t ir j i-
j u ir. o ir. o i j j
u i. u i i u i j 0j 0 u
:qo ir.
:66 i] i om. A | i 0 j ... om. BCG :6 oj]
00t ABCGNQ :68 t o. t 0] t 0 BC, om. G :6q j
j ... o om. ABNOQ :: oj] 00t ABCNQ ::..: om.
G :. i 0 i0] i om. ABCQ, 0 i0 om. BC : i _u i_u]
i om. ABCQ, _u i_u om. BC | i post i add. O | io i] i
om. ABCQ : i u io om. ANQ | i u i om. ABCNQ : 0
j i0] i 0 j i0 NO | 0 j ... i0 om. BC :6 oj]
00t ABCNQ :6: u iu j j om. BC : t it. t
it] t it om. BC :8 o io om. BC :8:q u ... io]
u ii i ii B, u io i ii C, u om. N :8o oj]
00t ABCNQ :8::8 0 ... i om. BC :8 i 0 0] i om.
BC | oj] 00t ABCNQ :8 t ir. t ir] t
ir om. BC :88:8q j j ... i om. O :8q u i
om. C
nr xoxixr .8:
et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae omnes et haec omnia, genitivo
horum et harum et horum omnium, dativo his omnibus, accusativo
hos et has omnes et haec omnia, vocativo o omnes et o omnia,
ablativo ab his omnibus.
:o
Nominativo hic et haec fortis et hoc forte, genitivo huius fortis, dativo
huic forti, accusativo hunc et hanc fortem et hoc forte, vocativo o
fortis et o forte, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc forti; et pluraliter:
nominativo hi et hae fortes et haec fortia, genitivo horum et harum et
: horum fortium, dativo his fortibus, accusativo hos et has fortes et haec
fortia, vocativo o fortes et o fortia, ablativo ab his fortibus.
:8o Nominativo hic et haec fortior et hoc fortius, genitivo huius fortioris,
dativo huic fortiori, accusativo hunc et hanc fortiorem et hoc fortius,
vocativo o fortior et o fortius, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc
fortiore; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae fortiores et haec fortiora,
genitivo horum et harum et horum fortiorum, dativo his fortioribus,
:8 accusativo hos et has fortiores et haec fortiora, vocativo o fortiores et
o fortiora, ablativo ab his fortioribus.
:qo
.8. nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj j j 0 i j j _u i_
j ij j j u j 0j 0 0
i i 0u j oj o j j u -
i j j t i j ij o j j u
:q j 0j 0 u i.
` oj o 0i. j 0i i u j j 0
0i. j 0i. 0 0i j j _u. j 0i
j ij . j 0i. u j j u 0i i u
u j 0j 0 0 0i i 0 j 0i i
.oo 0 0 0i i 0 j oj l 0i. l
0i. o 0i j j u 0 j j t. t
0i j ij u. o 0i. o 0i j j u
0i. u 0i j 0j 0 u 0.
` oj o r j j 0 r j j _u r j
.o ij r j j u r j 0j 0 0 r
i 0u j oj l r j j u j j
j t r j ij u r j j u r j
0j 0 u j.
` oj o . j j. j j 0 0.
.:o j j. 0 0 j j _u _u. j j. _u _u j
ij . j j. j j u r i u
j i u j 0j 0 0 0. 0 j j.
0 0 0 i 0u j oj l i. l i.
o o j j u u j j t t. t t.
.: t t j ij u u. o o. o o j j
u i. u i. u o j 0j 0 u u.
:q: 0r in marg. add. C | oj] 00t BCN :q oj] 0-
0t ABCNQ :q6 oj] 00t ABCNQ :q6:q 0 0i. j
0i] 0. j 0i AQ, 0 0i j 0 BCN :q 0
0i om. ABCQ | _u. j 0i] _u 0i. j 0. _u 0i
N :q8 u om. ABCNQ | u 0i] cf. :8 (nominativus pro vocativo)
:q8:qq i u u om. ABCNQ :qq 0 ... j 0i] 0. j 0i-
AQ, 0 0 0i i j 0 N :qq.oo i 0 0 0i
om. ABCQ .oo oj] 00t ABCNQ .oo.o: l 0i] -
BCN .o: o 0i om. AQ .o u 0i om. ANQ .o oj]
00t ABCNQ .o r] r BC .o6.o8 i 0u ... 0 u
j om. N | i 0u ... 0 0 0 om. BC .o.o8 j 0-
j ... j om. AQ .oq oj] 00t ANQ .:o j j. 0
0] 0 0 om. N | j j. _u _u] _u _u om. N .::
om. N .:..: j 0j ... 0 om. AB
m
NOQ .: oj] 00t
ANQ .:.: t t. t t] t t. o o BCN .:6 u
o om. BC
nr xoxixr .8
Nominativo hoc monile, genitivo huius monilis, dativo huic monili,
accusativo hoc monile, vocativo o monile, ablativo ab hoc monili; et
pluraliter: nominativo haec monilia, genitivo horum monilium, dativo
his monilibus, accusativo haec monilia, vocativo o monilia, ablativo
:q ab his monilibus.
Nominativo hic et haec et hoc felix, genitivo huius felicis, dativo huic
felici, accusativo hunc et hanc felicem et hoc felix, vocativo o felix,
ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc felici; et pluraliter: nominativo
hi et hae felices et haec felicia, genitivo horum et harum et horum
.oo felicium, dativo his felicibus, accusativo hos et has felices et haec
felicia, vocativo o felices et o felicia, ablativo ab his felicibus.
Nominativo hic pauper, genitivo huius pauperis, dativo huic pauperi,
.o accusativo hunc pauperem, vocativo o pauper, ablativo ab hoc pau-
pere; et pluraliter: nominativo hi pauperes, genitivo horum paupe-
rum, dativo his pauperibus, accusativo hos pauperes, vocativo o pau-
peres, ablativo ab his pauperibus.
Nominativo hic et haec et hoc inops, genitivo huius inopis, dativo huic
.:o inopi, accusativo hunc et hanc inopem et hoc inops, vocativo o inops,
ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc inopi; et pluraliter: nominativo
hi et hae inopes et haec inopia, genitivo horum et harum et horum
inopium, dativo his inopibus, accusativo hos et has inopes et haec
inopia, vocativo o inopes et o inopia, ablativo ab his inopibus.
.:
:q: nominativo hoc monile ] nominativo hoc ornamentum id est cosmion Ql
h
.o nominativo
hic pauper] nominativo hic pauper id est penis Ql
h
.oq nominativo ... inops] nominativo hic
inops id est ptocos (sic) Ql
h
.8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj j u j j j o j j j o
j ij j u j j u u j 0j 0 j
o i 0u j oj l o j j u
..o o j j t o j ij o o j j
u o j 0j 0 u o.
i i; i. i; u j j rj i -
r j. i o j 0 i j j j 0o
0 r o i. 0 r 0 I r.
.. ` oj j j j j j j j j ij
j j j u j 0j 0 j i 0-
u j oj l j j u j j t
j ij o j j u j 0j 0 u .
` oj j i j j j j j j i j ij
.o j t j j u i j 0j 0 j i 0-
u j oj l t j j u u j j t i
j ij o t j j u t j 0j 0 u -
u.
` oj o i j j 0 i j j _u i_ j i-
. j i j j u i j 0j 0 0 i i
0u j oj l i j j u i j j t
i j ij u i j j u i j 0j 0 u
i.
` oj r j j 0 r j j _u r j
.o ij r j j u r j 0j 0 0 r
i 0u j oj o r j j u o j
j t r j ij o r j j u r j
0j 0 u o.
.: oj] 00t ABCNQ .:8 u u] u desideratur, cf. tamen
:.q et ..6 .:q oj] 00t ABCNQ ..o t] t BC ... i
i in marg. add. O | ] G, om. ABCGNOQ .. i ... om. x
.... 0o ... r om. R .. oj] 00t ABCGNQ ..6 u ]
desideratur, cf. tamen :.q et .:8 .. oj] 00t ABCNQ | ]
C ..q oj] 00t ABCGNQ .o t] - BGNO .: oj]
00t ABCGNQ .. ordinem r. o i praebet R ..8 om. G
. oj] 00t ABCNQ . j j u i om. AQ .6 oj]
00t ABCNQ .q oj] 00t ABCGNQ .q.o j ij
r] _u ( C) r BC .: oj] 00t ABCGNQ
nr xoxixr .8
Nominativo haec vis, genitivo huius vis, dativo huic vi, accusativo
hanc vim, vocativo o vis, ablativo ab hac vi; et pluraliter: nominativo
hae vires, genitivo harum virium, dativo his viribus, accusativo has
..o vires, vocativo o vires, ablativo ab his viribus.
Cuius declinationis? Tertiae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in
is correptum desinit, ut hic pater huius patris et haec mater huius
matris.
.. Nominativo hic visus, genitivo huius visus, dativo huic visui, accusa-
tivo hunc visum, vocativo o visus, ablativo ab hoc visu; et pluraliter:
nominativo hi visus, genitivo horum visuum, dativo his visibus, accu-
sativo hos visus, vocativo o visus, ablativo ab his visibus.
Nominativo haec manus, genitivo huius manus, dativo huic manui,
.o accusativo hanc manum, vocativo o manus, ablativo ab hac manu;
et pluraliter: nominativo hae manus, genitivo harum manuum, dativo
his manibus, accusativo has manus, vocativo o manus, ablativo ab his
manibus.
Nominativo haec domus, genitivo huius domus, dativo huic domui,
. accusativo hanc domum, vocativo o domus, ablativo ab hac domo;
et pluraliter: nominativo hae domus, genitivo harum domorum vel
domuum, dativo his domibus, accusativo has domos, vocativo o
domus, ablativo ab his domibus.
Nominativo hoc cornu, genitivo huius cornu, dativo huic cornu, accu-
.o sativo hoc cornu, vocativo o cornu, ablativo ab hoc cornu; et plura-
liter: nominativo haec cornua, genitivo horum cornuum, dativo his
cornibus, accusativo haec cornua, vocativo o cornua, ablativo ab his
cornibus.
.: vis] virilitas Ql
h
.:8.:q nominativo hae vires] nominativo hec virilitas id est danamis
(sic) Ql
h
.. sed istud quidem apud Latinos, apud Grecos non habetur post matris praebet
Gl
1
.. nominativo hic visus] nominativo hec facies id est opsis Ql
h
..q nominativo haec
manus] nominativo hec manus id est cheir Ql
h
. nominativo haec domus] nominativo hec
familia et domus id est oicos Ql
h
.q nominativo hoc cornu] nominativo hoc cornu id est cheras
Ql
h
.86 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj j j 0 o j j _u j
. ij j j u j 0j 0 0 o-
i 0u j oj o j j u o
j j t j ij o j j u j
0j 0 u o.
i i; o. i; u j j rj i j
.o i rr j o i. i j j i
r 0 r.
` oj i j j 0 i j j _u i j
ij i j j u i j 0j 0 0 i
i 0u j oj o i j j u iu j j
. t i j ij o i j j u i j 0j 0 u
iu.
` oj 0 j j 0 o j j _u o-
j ij 0 j j u 0 j 0j 0
0 o i 0u j oj o o j j
.6o u o j j t o j ij o o j
j u o j 0j 0 u o.
` oj j jr j j j jr j j j jr j
ij j jr j j u jr j 0j 0 j jr
i 0u j oj l jr j j u ju j j
.6 t jr j ij o jr j j u jr j 0j
0 u ju.
` oj j i j j j i j j j i j
ij j i j j u i j 0j 0 j i.
ouj j i j j j i j j j i j
.o /j j i j j c i j oj oo j i
i 0c j ouj l i j j c i j
j i i j /j o i j j c i j
oj oo c i.
. 0r in marg. add. C | oj] 00t ABCNQ ..8 -
... 0 u o om. GR .6 oj] 00t ABCNQ . j
j u om. A .8 0 om. Q .q o i in marg. add. O |
rj om. ABCNORQ | j om. R .o o i om. BCG, post 0 r
transp. AQ | i om. x .. oj] 00t ABCGNQ . oj]
00t ABCGNQ . 0r in marg. add. C | oj] 00t ABCGNQ
.q oj] 00t ABCGNQ .6. oj] 00t ABCGNQ .6 o-
j] 00t ABCGNQ .6 oj] 00t ABCGNQ .6.68 om. R
.6q. om. x
nr xoxixr .8
Nominativo hoc genu, genitivo huius genu, dativo huic genu, accu-
. sativo hoc genu, vocativo o genu, ablativo ab hoc genu; et plurali-
ter: nominativo haec genua, genitivo horum genuum, dativo his geni-
bus, accusativo haec genua, vocativo o genua, ablativo ab his geni-
bus.
Cuius declinationis? Quartae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis
.o in us vel in u productum desinit, ut hic visus huius visus et hoc cornu
huius cornu.
Nominativo haec species, genitivo huius speciei, dativo huic speciei,
accusativo hanc speciem, vocativo o species, ablativo ab hac specie; et
pluraliter: nominativo hae species, genitivo harum specierum, dativo
. his speciebus, accusativo has species, vocativo o species, ablativo ab
his speciebus.
Nominativo haec res, genitivo huius rei, dativo huic rei, accusativo
hanc rem, vocativo o res, ablativo ab hac re; et pluraliter: nominativo
hae res, genitivo harum rerum, dativo his rebus, accusativo has res,
.6o vocativo o res, ablativo ab his rebus.
Nominativo hic vel haec dies, genitivo huius diei, dativo huic diei,
accusativo hunc vel hanc diem, vocativo o dies, ablativo ab hoc vel
ab hac die; et pluraliter: nominativo hi dies, genitivo horum dierum,
.6 dativo his diebus, accusativo hos dies, vocativo o dies, ablativo ab his
diebus.
Nominativo haec des, genitivo huius dei, dativo huic dei, accusa-
tivo hanc dem, vocativo o des, ablativo ab hac de.
Nominativo haec spes, genitivo huius spei, dativo huic spei, accusativo
.o hanc spem, vocativo o spes, ablativo ab hac spe; et pluraliter: nomina-
tivo hae spes, accusativo has spes, vocativo o spes.
. nominativo hoc genu] nominativo hoc genu id est gonaton Ql
h
.. nominativo haec species]
nominativo hoc species Gl
1
, nominativo hoc eidos id est species Ql
h
. nominativo haec res]
nominativo hoc res Gl
1
, nominativo hoc pragma id est res Ql
h
.8 hanc rem] hoc res Gl
1
.q hae ... harum] hec ... horum Gl
1
| has] hec Gl
1
.6. nominativo ... dies] nominativo hic
dies Gl
1
, nominativo hec imera id est dies Ql
h
.6 nominativo haec des] nominativo hec pistis
id est des Ql
h
.88 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj j i j j j i j j j -
. i j ij j i j j u i j 0j
0 j i.
i i; r. i; u j j rj i -
r o j o i. i i 0 i i
0 0 o.
.8o ii 0i i; t. i; . i
0 0 i r. i r-
. 0 i r.
r. r. r r. -
r. o r. r. r
.8 i r rj r. r. o.
. . o. r. o .
. i r rj u. r. -
o.
'0j. 00r. 00r 00j. 00r. 00o
.qo 00r. 00r. 00r i r rj 00u. 00-
r. 00o.
. i. o j. i. i . t. o-
i r rj u. r. o.
'0. 00u. 00u 00j. 00r. 00o
.q 00. 00u. 00u i r rj 00u. 00-
r. 00o.
, uc, uc uo, u, uo
u, uc, uc i ju uo, u-
, uo.
oo i 0u j oj l u. l u. o u j j u
u j j t i. t i. t i j ij u u. o
u. o u j j u u j 0j 0 u u.
. oj] 00t ABCNQ ..6 om. GR . r i in
marg. add. O | rj om. x | ] G, BO .8 o i om. BCGN
.8.q i ... o om. x .8o.8. post .qq transp. R .8o 0i]
-0 O | i om. R .8: 0] 00 inter lineas et in marg. add. B
m
, cf. b :.
:o. | i] i om. O .8. 0 i r om. A
.8.qq ordinem 00. . r. . r praebet R | r
... r om. O .86 o] -j BCG .8q.q: om. R .q u
om. B | u ... o] r. o G | o] o R
.q.qq om. x oo oj] 00t ABCGNQ o: t i. t i] t
i om. ABCGNQ o. j j u u add. Schmitt
nr xoxixr .8q
Nominativo hic meridies, genitivo huius meridiei, dativo huic meri-
. diei, accusativo humc meridiem, vocativo o meridies, ablativo ab hoc
meridie.
Cuius declinationis? Quintae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis
in ei divisas syllabas desinit, ut haec species huius speciei et haec res
huius rei.
.8o Quot sunt gradus comparationis? Tres. Qui? Positivus, comparativus
et superlativus; positivus ut doctus, comparativus ut doctior, superlati-
vus ut doctissimus.
Doctus, doctior, doctissimus; docta, doctior, doctissima; doctum, doc-
tius, doctissimum; et in adverbio: docte, doctius, doctissime.
.8
Parvus, minor, minimus; parva, minor, minima; parvum, minus, mini-
mum; et in adverbio: parve, minus, minime.
Verus, verior, verissimus; vera, verior, verissima; verum, verius, verissi-
.qo mum; et in adverbio: vere, verius, verissime.
Malus, peior, pessimus; mala, peior, pessima; malum, peius, pessi-
mum; et in adverbio: male, peius, pessime.
Bonus, melior, optimus; bona, melior, optima; bonum, melius, opti-
.q mum; et in adverbio: bene, melius, optime.
Magnus, maior, maximus; magna, maior, maxima; magnum, maius,
maximum; et in adverbio: magne, magis, maxime.
oo Et pluraliter: nominativo hi duo, hae duae et haec duo, genitivo
horum duorum, harum duarum et horum duorum, dativo his duobus,
duabus, duobus, accusativo hos duos vel duo, has duas et haec duo,
vocativo o duo, o duae et o duo, ablativo ab his duobus, duabus,
duobus.
. nominativo hic meridies] nominativo hec mesimbria id est meridies Ql
h
.8 haec species]
hoc species Gl
1
.8: positivus ut doctus] theticos id est positivus; syncriticos id est comparativus;
ypertheticos id est superlativus. Theticos id est positivus, oion id est ut, didagmenos id est doctus
Ql
h
.8 docta, doctior] didagmeni id est docta; didagmenesteri id est doctior, et cetera Ql
h
.86 parvus] micros id est parvus et cetera Ql
h
.8q verus, verior] alithis, alithesteros id est verus,
verior et cetera Ql
h
.q bonus, melior] agathos agathoteros bonus Ql
h
ooo nominativo
... duobus] nominativo hii, hee duo, hec duo, genitivo horum duorum, dativo his duobus, his duabus,
... ablativo ab his duobus Gl
1
.qo nox\+ts on\rcts \
o i 0u j oj l t. l t. o i j j u
u j j t i. t i. t i j ij u. o
t i o i j j u t i u i j 0j 0 u
u.
i 0u j oj l r. l r. o r
:o j j u o j j t. t. t r j ij
u i o r i o r j j u r. u r-
. u r j 0j 0 u o.
i 0u j oj l i. l i. o i j j
u i j j t i. t i. t i j ij
: u i. o i. o i j j u i. u i. u i j
0j 0 u i.
' o o o0uo oou o i o /
o0u 0 i 0.
` oj o 0 j j u 0o j j t 0
.o j ij o 0 j j u 0 j 0j 0 u
0o.
` oj o j j 0 j j _u _ j
ij j j u j 0j 0 0
i 0u j oj l j j u j j
. t j ij u j j u j 0j
0 u .
` oj o o j j 0 o j j _u o-
_ j ij o j j u o j 0j 0
0 o i 0u j oj l o j j u
o o j j t o j ij u o j -
j u o j 0j 0 u o.
o i om. GR | oj] 00t ABCGNQ | l ... i] l i l t i o
i R o6 t ... i ] t. t i ANQ (t inter lineas add. Q
1
), t
... i om. BCG o t om. G oq i om. CGR | oj] 00t
ABCGNQ | l r] - BCG, - Q :o t ... r] t. t om.
BCGQ (t inter lineas add. Q
1
), t om. A | t i t r post j ij
perperam add. A :: u ... r] u o i o r i o
r R | r ] - R :::. u r. u r om. ABCGQ
: oj] 00t ABCNQ ::6 om. R : t ... i om. BC,
t i om. ANQ : o i. o i om. BC | u i. u i om.
ABCQ ::8 om. x :q oj] 00t ABCGQ :q: om. NR
.. oj] 00t ABCGQ ..6 i 0u ... 0 u bis
praebet O . oj] 00t ABCGQ . j j u om. A
. oj] 00t ABCGQ .q oj] 00t ABCGQ
nr xoxixr .q:
o Et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae tres vel tris et haec tria, genitivo
horum et harum et horum trium, dativo his tribus, accusativo hos et
has tres vel tris et haec tria, vocativo o tres vel tris et o tria, ablativo
ab his tribus.
Et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae et haec quattuor, genitivo horum et
:o harum et horum quattuor, dativo his quattuor, accusativo hos et has
et haec quattuor, vocativo o quattuor, ablativo ab his quattuor.
Et pluraliter: nominativo haec milia, genitivo horum milium, dativo
his milibus, accusativo haec milia, vocativo o milia, ablativo ab his
: milibus.
Sciendum est quod omnia nomina numeralia a quattuor usque ad
centum sunt numeri pluralis et indeclinabilia.
Nominativo haec arma, genitivo horum armorum, dativo his armis,
.o accusativo haec arma, vocativo o arma, ablativo ab his armis.
Nominativo hic locus, genitivo huius loci, dativo huic loco, accusativo
hunc locum, vocativo o loce, ablativo ab hoc loco; et pluraliter: nomi-
nativo hic loci et haec loca, genitivo horum locorum, dativo his locis,
. accusativo hos locos et haec loca, vocativo o loci et o loca, ablativo ab
his locis.
Nominativo hic Tartarus, genitivo huius Tartari, dativo huic Tartaro,
accusativo hunc Tartarum, vocativo o Tartare, ablativo ab hoc Tar-
taro; et pluraliter: nominativo haec Tartara, genitivo horum Tartaro-
o rum, dativo his Tartaris, accusativo haec Tartara, vocativo o Tartara,
ablativo ab his Tartaris.
oo nominativo ... o tria] nominativo hii tres, hee tres, hec tria, genitivo horum triorum, ...
accusativo hos has et hec tria, vocativo o tres et o tria Gl
1
oq:: nominativo ... haec quattuor]
nominativo hii quatuor, hee quatuor, hec quatuor, genitivo horum quatuor ... accusativo hos et has
quatuor et hec quatuor Gl
1
: milia] chilioi id est mille Ql
h
:q arma] armata id est arma
Ql
h
.. nominativo hic locus] nominativo hic topos id est locus Ql
h
.qo nominativo
... o Tartara] nominativo hi tartari ... accusativo hos tartaros, vocativo o tartari Gl
1
.q. nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj o 0 j j 0 00 j j _u 0_u
j ij 0 j j u 0r j 0j 0 0
00 i 0u j oj l 0i j j u
0u j j t 0t j ij u 0u j j
u 0i j 0j 0 u 0u.
` oj o j j j 0 r j j _u r j
ij r j j u j j 0j 0 0 r
i 0u j oj l r j j u r j
o j t r j ij u r j j u r j
0j 0 u r.
` oj r j j 0 rr j j _u rr
j ij r j j u r j 0j 0 0
rr i 0u j oj o rr j j u
ro j j t rr j ij o rr j j
u rr j 0j 0 u ro.
` oj j j 0 u j j _u u_
j ij j j u j 0j 0 0
u i 0u j oj o j j u
o u j j t u j ij o j j u
j 0j 0 u u.
. oj] 00t ABCQ .: om. G 6 0 00 ...
0 om. C oj] 00t ABQ oj] 00t ABCQ
q oj] 00t ABCQ . oj] 00t ABCQ oj]
00t ABCQ 6 j j u rr om. AQ oj] 00t
ABCQ q oj] 00t ABCQ
nr xoxixr .q
Nominativo hoc caelum, genitivo huius caeli, dativo huic caelo, accu-
sativo hoc caelum, vocativo o caelum, ablativo ab hoc caelo; et plura-
liter: nominativo hii caeli, genitivo horum caelorum, dativo his caelis,
accusativo hos caelos, vocativo o caeli, ablativo ab his caelis.
Nominativo hic porrus et hoc porrum, genitivo huius porri, dativo huic porro,
accusativo hunc et hoc porrum, vocativo o porre et o porrum, ablativo ab hoc porro;
et pluraliter: nominativo hi porri et haec porra, genitivo horum porrorum, dativo
o his porris, accusativo hos porros et haec porra, vocativo o porri et o porra, ablativo
ab his porris.
Nominativo hoc epulum, genitivo huius epuli, dativo huic epulo,
accusativo hoc epulum, vocativo o epulum, ablativo ab hoc epulo; et
pluraliter: nominativo hae epulae, genitivo harum epularum, dativo
his epulis, accusativo has epulas, vocativo o epulae, ablativo ab his
epulis.
Nominativo hoc caepe, genitivo huius caepis, dativo huic caepi, accu-
sativo hoc caepe, vocativo o caepe, ablativo ab hoc caepi; et pluraliter:
nominativo hae caepae, genitivo harum caeparum, dativo his caepis,
o accusativo has caepas, vocativo o caepae, ablativo ab his caepis.
. nominativo hoc caelum] nominativo hic omios id est qui est unius nature (0 ut o)
Ql
h
nominativo hic porrus] nominativo hic limin id est portus Ql
h
. nominativo
hoc epulum] nominativo hoc digma vel edigma id est morsus (r ut j aut r) Ql
h
nominativo hoc caepe] nominativo hoc cromyon id est cepa Ql
h
.q nox\+ts on\rcts \
.. i pju
'u i r ri; `j ri. i r j; ri
i ri [] ri j o0.
_u j r; 'u. i; r. . r. i.
j. i. 000.
i r; '0. i; i j t r 0
0.
i r; 00. i; i j o i
o 0 0 r0.
i r; 0r. i; i j 0 t r 00
:o 0.
i r; 0. i; i u j 0r r-
i. j rj i 0j.
i r;
'0. '00. (NOR)
: i; i u j i o r i.
i r; 0r i , :-
00. i; r 0. i, o
t _r i t i u i i
.o r 0 0u u o :c
r o 0, i uuj 0c,
r t rj u 0r. i j c :.
i r; 00 i , :
0r. i; 0. i, o
. r r_u o / j 0j
0j i r. i ui.
i r; 0. i , :
:c.
. Inscr. i j AO, 0 j B, r j C : post r add. C
. del. Schmitt i] i ABGQ 000] 00 A i om. G |
] AB
m
RQ, fort. servandum o i om ABCGOQR q:o 0
... 0] 0 t i B
m
O, cf. b .. 8 :o 0] -0 N
::: ordinem r 0. r praebent BG :: i om. A |
0r] - B
m
O :. j ... 0j om. BGR | i post 0j
add. B
m
:(a) 00 ABCGQ, corr. Schmitt : i om. A | o
post i add. B
m
:8(a) i om. O :8(a) r] 0 A .o(a) r]
r C .:(a) r om. BG
nr \rnno .q
.. De verbo
Amo quae pars et? Verbum est. Quare est verbum? Quia cum modis
et temporibus est signicativum agendi vel patiendi.
Verbo quot accidunt? Octo. Quae? Genus, tempus, modus, species,
gura, coniugatio, persona cum numero.
Cuius generis? Activi. Quare? Quia in o desinens facit ex se passivum.
Cuius generis? Passivi. Quare? Quia in or desinens descendit ab
activo.
Cuius generis? Neutri. Quare? Quia in o desinens non facit ex se
:o passivum.
Cuius generis? Communis. Quare? Quia in or naturaliter desinens
utramque retinet signicationem, scilicet activam et passivam.
Cuius generis? Deponentis.
: Quare? Quia in or naturaliter desinens unam maxime retinet signi-
cationem.
Cuius generis? Neutri Cuius generis? Neutro-
passivi. Quare? Quiain passivi. Quare? Quia in
praeteritis et in his quae praeteritis et in his quae
.o formantur ab eis formantur ab eis
habet literaturam passivam, retinet literaturam passivorum,
in ceteris vero neutrorum. in ceteris vero neutrorum.
Cuius generis? Passivi Cuius generis? Neutri
neutri. Quare? Quia passivi. Quare? Quia in o
. in literatura activa desinens passivam
passivam signicationem habet. retinet signicationem.
Cuius generis? Nullius. Cuius generis? Neutri substantivi.
. :qq (amet) inter lineas scripsit Ql
h
:. scilicet ... passivam om. Gl
1
: unam ...
retinet] unam tantum habet Gl
1
:8.:(a) quia ... passivam] quia in preteritis et perfectis ab eis
... litteram passivorum Gl
1
; quia in preteritis perfectis et formatis ab is (sic) habet passivam, et
passivum, Latini dicunt literaturam Ql
h
.q6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
i; r u 0r 0 j u i u i . u 0
o j j i j i o.
i ; 'u. i; ru o ru
ri j o0.
i ; 0. i; o
ru ri j o0.
i ; r. i; i o-
ru ri j o0.
i ; `i. i; r
o ru ri j o0.
o i ; r i i. i; i-
i r o ru ri j o0.
i ; 'u i 0. i; ru i
o ru ri j o0.

i ; r. i; r o ru
ri j o0.
i ri; `j. i; 0 u0 i u
i .
o i ri; j. i; 0 u0 i -
o i .
i ri; 0j. i; r rj 00
i 0r u r.
i ri; `j. i;
o j om. G | o] i C, om. BG . ri] j ri A
i om. O i om. AQ 8 om. BCGNO i om. A
o om. R o: bis praebet O o i om. O o: i]
O om. AGQ 6 om. A 8 ri] i G |
i om. AQ | 0] -_u desideratur o i om. AQ | 0] -_u desideratur
. r| ri BC, ri G
nr \rnno .q
Quare? Quia in prima persona desinit nec in o nec in or, nec a verbo
o desinenti in o vel in or derivatur.
Cuius temporis? Praesentis. Quare? Quia praesens tempus designat
circa actionem vel passionem.
Cuius temporis? Praeteriti imperfecti. Quare? Quia praeteritum im-
perfectum tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem.
Cuius temporis? Praeteriti perfecti. Quare? Quia praeteritum perfec-
tum tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem.
Cuius temporis? Praeteriti plusquamperfecti. Quare? Quia praeteri-
tum plusquamperfectum tempus designat circa actionem vel passio-
nem.
o Cuius temporis? Praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti. Quare? Quia
praeteritum perfectum et plusquamperfectum tempus designat circa
actionem vel passionem.
Cuius temporis? Praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti. Quare? Quia
praesens et praeteritum imperfectum tempus designat circa actionem
vel passionem.
Cuius temporis? Futuri. Quare? Quia futurum tempus designat circa
actionem vel passionem.
Cuius modi? Indicativi. Quare? Quia eo utimur ad indicandum ali-
quid alicui.
o Cuius modi? Imperativi. Quare? Quia eo utimur ad imperandum
aliquid alicui
Cuius modi? Optativi. Quare? Quia eget adverbio optandi ut perfec-
tum signicet sensum.
Cuius modi? Subiunctivi. Quare? Quia
.q persona] positione Gl
1
| desinit ... or] non determinatur nec in o nec in or et cetera Ql
h
.q8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
r rj j r r u
i0 0_u 0 j o rj 0_ j,
j 0j 0_ j, i j 0 (N).
i 0r u o.
i ri; 'o. i; u i
6o u 00. 0 rr 0 j u.
i i; u. i; 0 0 o.
i i; u. i; 0 o.
i j; `0. i; u r.
i j; 0r.
6 0 i0i; ' j 0o i; i0 r j 0o
0r i 0 u 0r i 0 u
i0 0u. i i 0u. (O)
i j; 0r. i;
r 0 0r o, : o : i0, o oo
o i 0u. 0r 0 pju o,
j o. i u. i i c.
i i; u. i; r r_ u_
ru ri oj r rr 0 j 0
o i. i 0u. 00 i 0u. 00.
i i; r. i; r r_ u_
ru ri oj r rr 0 j 0
o i. i o. o i o. o.
8(a) r... o] locum dubitanter correxi post Schmitt, cf. D (p): quia
egens adverbio vel coniunctione subiungit sibi aliud verbum vel subiungitur alteri verbo ut perfectum
signicet sensum (a) r] ri BCG, r OR (a) r] -
BCG, - O (b) r ... 0] cf. b .. 6(a) i0] 0
AQ, 0 B, 0r G 6(a) 0_u] 0 AQ, rj B
m
O, 0_u rj
R 6(a) 0 j] om. AQ, 0_ j B
m
OR (a) j ... j om. OR, j
om. AQ (a) 0j] 0j B, 0r C (a) 0_ j]
0 j ABCGQ 6o 0 rr] 0o r AQ (corr. Q
1
), 0 o r O |
] BCG 6:6. ordinem i o. i praebet C
6. om. BG | 0 ] 0 0 O 6 i om. ANOQ 6(a) r] 0 R |
0o] o BCG 66(a) 0r om. BCG 6(a) i0] i ABCGNQ
68:(a) om. BG o:(a) 0u ... o om. B
m
CON :(a) u]
0u B
m
, 0i C, i add. N . u in marg. add. O
o i om. BCG | i om. ABCNOQ r in marg. add. O |
om. x 6 ri oj] oj ri x | om. R o
i om. BCG 8o o ... i om. N
nr \rnno .qq
egens adverbio vel coniunctione cum coniunctione
subiungit sibi alterum verbum subiungit se alteri verbo
vel subiungitur alteri verbo ut perciat sensum.
ut perfectum signicet sensum.
Cuius modi? Innitivi. Quare? Quia nec personam denit nec nume-
6o rum, sed egens sola alterius verbi coniunctione.
Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur.
Cuius speciei? Derivativae. Quare? Quia ab aliquo derivatur.
Cuius gurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur.
Cuius gurae? Compositae.
6 Unde componitur? Ex per Quare? Quia componitur ex per
praepositione et lego praepositione et lego
componitur perlego et t perlego.
Cuius gurae? Decompositae. Quare? Quia
a composito derivatur, non per se componitur, sed a
o ut ***, addita ***, composito verbo derivatur,
*** quod est illud: ***.
Cuius coniugationis? Primae. Quare? Quia in secunda persona tem-
poris praesentis indicativi modi habet a productum ante s vel ante ris,
ut amo, amas et amor, amaris.
Cuius coniugationis? Secundae. Quare? Quia in secunda persona
temporis praesentis modi indicativi habet e productum ante s vel ante
ris, ut doceo, doces et doceor, doceris.
(a) egens] eget Gl
1
666(a) ex ... lego] ex a (sic) et lego Gl
1
oo nox\+ts on\rcts \
i i; i. i; i r r_ u_ r-
u ri oj r r 0 j
8o 0 o i. i 0u. 0u i 0u-
. 0u.
i i; o. i; r r_ u_
ru ri oj r rr 0 j 0
o i. i 0u. 0u i 0u. 0u.
8 i i; 00. i; 0u r i 0 r
i.
i u; u. i; i 0 i 0
0.
i u; r. i; i 0 i i o
qo j.
i u; i. i; i 0 i i u
u r i u r 00 i 0 0r i o
00 .
i u; 0 i 000 0. i; 0 o
q 0r. 0. 0o i 0o 00u i
ri.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
'u. 00. 00 jo. jo. jo 0o. 0-
:oo o 00. jr 0r. 0r_. 0r 0-
. 00 0u i 0j.
`j ri ru 0u. 00. 00 i
0u 0u. 00. 0u.
8 i in marg. add. O q om. ABCOQ | 0 ] r 0 ABOQ |
add. Schmitt 8o o i om. ABCGQ | i om. ANQ 8. o
in marg. add. O 8 j ] j i ABCOQ 8 o i om. BCG
86 ] BC, G | i] j i AB
m
NOQ, j
i BCG 8 0 om. N | i om. O | 0] 0 G 88
0] 0 ABCGQ 8qqo i o ... j] i o ... t codd., corr.
Schmitt qq6 0o ... ri] 0o 00u i u ri
N qq8 i ... r om. N q8 i om. AOQ qq 0j u 0_u
0 j add. A, 0j j i u o add. BCOQ | jo jo
jo post 00 add. B
m
, jo jo O :oo 00] 0j ACNOQ,
om. B, 0j G, 0u R | jr] 0j x, 0r R, corr.
Schmitt | 0r] -r Schmitt, codicum tamen lectionem servavi, cf. ::, al. |
0r_. 0r om. N | 0r] -r Schmitt :oo:o: 0 om.
R :o: 00 om. NOR | i om. ABCNORQ | 0j] 0o C |
00 post 0j add. ABCNQ :o. oj ... ru] ru A, om.
BCGNOQ :o 0u] -0 ABCGNQR | 0u] -0 R
nr \rnno o:
Cuius coniugationis? Tertiae. Quare? Quia in secunda persona tem-
poris praesentis modi indicativi habet i correptum ante s vel e ante ris,
8o ut lego, legis et legor, legeris.
Cuius coniugationis? Quartae. Quare? Quia in secunda persona tem-
poris praesentis modi indicativi habet i productum ante s vel ante ris,
ut audio, audis et audior, audiris.
8 Cuius coniugationis? Nullius. Quare? Quia anomalum est et non
sequitur regulam alicuius coniugationis.
Cuius personae? Primae. Quare? Quia signicat rem ut per se ipsam
loquentem.
Cuius personae? Secundae. Quare? Quia signicat rem ut ad quam
qo quidam loquatur.
Cuius personae? Tertiae. Quare? Quia signicat rem ut de qua prima
loquitur ad secundam extra se et illam positam ad quam dirigitur
sermo.
Cuius personae? Nullius et numeri nullius. Quare? Quia omnia in-
q nita, impersonalia, gerundia et supina numeris et personis deciunt.
Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur.
Cuius numeris? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur.
Amo, amas, amat; amavi, amavisti, amavit; ama, amet; amare, ama-
:oo visse; amandi, amando, amandum; amatum, amatu; amans et amaturus.
Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: amo, amas, amat; et pluraliter:
amamus, amatis, amant.
86 alicuius] vel alicuius Gl
1
888 quia ... loquentem] quia cum loquitur de se ipsa pronuntiat
D (p) 8 per se ipsam] de se Gl
1
, a se ipsa Ql
h
8qqo ut ... loquatur] ut in eam
aliquis loquatur Gl
1
, quia secunda persona est ad quam prima loquitur directo sermone D (p)
q: signicat] indicat Ql
h
q:q ut ... sermo] ut qua prima loquitur in secundam extra se
et eam positam in quam (?) dirigit sermonem Gl
1
:oo amandi ... amandum] amandum ...
amandorum praebet Donatus graecus, cf. 6 :o. tam inter quam iuxta lineas usque
ad 8. legitur Ql
h
o. nox\+ts on\rcts \
` jo. jo. jo i 0u ju.
:o j0. jo.
` i jo. jo. jo i 0u j-
j. jj. jj.
` r jj. jj. jj i 0u
jj. jj. jj.
::o ` r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0j-
. 0j. 0j.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
u_ 0o. 0o i 0u 00. 0o.
` r 0 r o u u oo, oo
:: u. i 0c oj,
oo.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 0_u.
0_u. 0_u i 0u i0 0_u. 0_u. 0_u.
:.o ` i i r i0 0j. 0j. 0-
j i 0u i0 0j. 0j. 0j.
` r i0 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u
i0 0j. 0j. 0j.
:. `j ri ru ro 0u. ro 00. ro
00 i 0u ro 0u. ro 00. ro 0u.
:o o om. C, o om. ABGONQ | jo om. A | u post
i add. C | ju] 0- OR :o j0] 0- O :o6 o om. ABGONQ
:o6:o jo ... jj om. A :o jj] jo x :o8 o om.
ABGONQ ::o o om. ABGONQ ::: 0j] - C ::(a) u om.
ABCGQ ::(a) 0o. 0o add. B
m
, cf. ::(b) :: 0_u] -u
BC, -u G ::8 0_u] -0 CG, om. R | 0_u] 0u C :.o:.:
0j ... 0j] j- desideratur, cf. tamen c .. qq8 :.: om.
G :. o om. ABGONQ | i0 om. x :.:. i0 bis om. x :.
ru om. ABCNOQ
nr \rnno o
Praeterito imperfecto: amabam, amabas, amabat; et pluraliter: ama-
:o bamus, amabatis, amabant.
Praeterito perfecto: amavi, amavisti, amavit; et pluraliter: amavimus,
amavistis, amaverunt vel amavere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: amaveram, amaveras, amaverat; et plu-
raliter: amaveramus, amaveratis, amaverant.
::o Futuro: amabo, amabis, amabit; et pluraliter: amabimus, amabitis,
amabunt.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona:
ama, amet; et pluraliter: amate, ament.
Futuro: amato, amato; et pluraliter: amatote, amanto.
::
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
amarem, amares, amaret; et pluraliter: utinam amaremus, amaretis,
amarent.
:.o Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amavissem, amavis-
ses, amavisset; et pluraliter: utinam amavissemus, amavissetis, amavis-
sent.
Futuro: utinam amem, ames, amet; et pluraliter: utinam amemus,
ametis, ament.
:. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum amem, ames, amet; et
pluraliter: cum amemus, ametis, ament.
::. in ... persona] in secundam et terciam personam Gl
1
:: et pluraliter: amemus D
:: futuro non habet (sic) apud Grecos Gl
1
| amato tu, amato ille ... amemus D :: optativo
modo] euchtichios (sic) id est optativi, enchlisios (sic) id est modi Ql
h
:. cum amem] ean id est
cum Ql
h
o nox\+ts on\rcts \
o o jo, o
jo, o jo i
0c o jcu, o
:o j0, o jo.
` i i - iu o jo,
r ro 0j. ro o jo, o jo i
0j. ro 0j i 0c o jju,
0u ro 0j. o jj, o jj.
: ro 0j. ro 0j. o jj,
o jj, o jj i
0c o jju,
o jj, o jj.
` r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0u
:o ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j.
'o ri 00u i u ru i
0 00.
` i i r jr.
` r 0j.
: `j 0 ru 00.
` j0.
` i jo.
` r jo.
` r 00j.
:o j ri ru 0o0.
` r
00j. 0o0. (B
m
NOR)
0j ri ru i 0 i0 0_u.
: ` i i r i0 jo.
` r i0 0j.
`j ri ru ro 00.
:.:(a) 0j ... 0j] codicum lectionem servavi, j- desideratur, cf.
tamen b .. qoq: :: 00u i u] 00t t u AQ, 00t
i u BC, om. NR : jr] 0- ABCQ :8 o ... jo om.
ABCNOQ :.(a) 00j] 00j BC : ... 0
om. ABCNOQ | 0_u] 0j AQ : i0 jo] codicum lectionem
servavi, om. ABC, i0 j Q : 0j] 00i AQ, 00t BCG
:8 ri ... ru om. ABCNOQ, ru om. G | 00] 00j
AORQ, 00t BCG
nr \rnno o
Praeterito imperfecto: cum amarem, amares, amaret; et pluraliter:
cum amaremus, amaretis, amarent.
:o
Praeterito perfecto: cum amaverim, amaveris, amaverit; et pluraliter:
cum amaverimus, amaveritis, amaverint.
: Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum amavissem, amavisses, amavisset;
et pluraliter: cum amavissemus, amavissetis, amavissent.
Futuro: cum amavero, amaveris, amaverit; et pluraliter: cum amaveri-
:o mus, amaveritis, amaverint.
Innitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito
imperfecto: amare.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: amavisse.
Futuro: amatum ire vel amaturum esse.
: Verbum impersonale tempore praesenti: amatur.
Praeterito imperfecto: amabatur.
Praeterito perfecto: amatum est vel fuit.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: amatum erat vel fuerat.
Futuro: amabitur.
:o Imperativo modo tempore praesenti: ametur.
Futuro: amator
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
amaretur.
: Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amatum esset vel
fuisset.
Futuro: utinam ametur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum ametur.
:: numeris et personis] arithmi id est numeri, prosopon id est personarum Ql
h
: hic nitur
verbum activum et incipit verbum impersonale Ql
h
| verbum] rima id est ... Ql
h
o6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` ro 00.
:6o ` i
ro jr j. o jo.
` r
ro jr 0. o jo.
r
:6 ro jr r . o o0j.
'o ri 0o ru i -
0 000.
` i i r
u r. jj0.
:o u o0j0.
o j o oo i 0 0r. 0r_. 0-
r.
`0o o u 0 r.
i rr r u 0 j 0 r0; u.
: i; i. j ri ru i 0. i 0u
rr r. i 0j.
'c o0 o i, ' c c
oj i ouou j j uu /
i 0u.
:8o 'j o0 o i, ' 0-
, l ouo, 0j i ou:.
'u. 00. 00i 'cu, o0, o0
ii. i[], ri 0j jou, jo, jo
00j 00i. oc, oo0 o00,
:8 jj0, o0j0.
:q 00] codicum BCG lectionem (fort. pro j-) servavi, 0u A, 00
B
m
NOR, 0 Q :6:(a) ro jr om. A :6:(a) jr] 0-
BCG, - desideratur, cf. b .. :o8, al. :6:(a) j] i AOQ, i BCGN, corr.
Schmitt :6::6(b) codicis lectionem servavi :6(a) jr] 0- BCG, -
desideratur, cf. b .. :o8, al. :6(a) jr r] 0- BCG, - desideratur,
cf. b .. :o8, al. :66 0o ... 0o] 0r 0
ABCNORQ :6 000] 00j0 x, cf. :o :o om. x :: 0o]
ro G, o O | 0r] -r Schmitt, cf. :oo | 0r_ om. AN :::.
0r] 0 Schmitt, cf. :oo : o u om. x : i] i
BCGOR, i AQ, om. N | j] j AQR ::8: om. x :8.:8 om.
N :8.(a) 0o add. ACOQ :8(a) ri] j BCO, om. G | 0j] j- G
:8(b) 0u] 00 R, corr. Schmitt, sed fort. hic ut al. codicis lectio servanda est
(cf. b .. :., c .. :o) :8(b) jj0] 0- R, corr. Schmitt
nr \rnno o
Praeterito imperfecto: cum amaretur.
:6o Praeterito perfecto: cum amatum sit vel fuerit.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum amatum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: cum amatum erit vel fuerit.
:6
Innitivo modo impersonali, tempore praesenti et praeterito imper-
fecto: amari.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: amatum esse vel fuisse.
:o Futuro: amatum iri.
Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt haec: amandi, amando, aman-
dum.
Supina ***
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Quae? unum,
: quod est temporis praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti, ut amans; aliud
futuri, ut amaturus.
Amans unde trahitur? A prima persona praeteriti imperfecti indicativi
modi, amabam: mutata bam in ns t amans.
:8o Amaturus unde trahitur? A secundo supino, ut amatu: addita rus t
amaturus.
Amor, amaris vel amare, amatur; amatus sum, es, est; amare, ametur;
amari, amatum esse vel fuisse, amatum iri; amatus et amandus.
:8
:66 innitivo ... impersonali] innitivo sine subpositione (ut 0--) Ql
h
:68 amatum
... fuisse] non habet Gl
1
:: gerundia] thetica id est positiva id est dicta pro gerundia
Ql
h
: supina non habet Gl
1
cf. D: supina sunt haec: amatum, amatu : est ...
imperfecti] esti cronu enestotos khai paratatikou hos: est tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto Ql
h
:8.:8 amor ... amandus] amor, amaris, amatus es vel amare, amatus et amandus Gl
1
o8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
`j ri ru 0u. 00. 00
i 0u 0u0. 000. 0u.
` ju. ju. j0 i 0u ju-
0. j00. ju.
:qo ` i jo. jo. jo i 0u j-
j0. jo0. jo.
` r jj. jo. jo i 0u
jj0. jo0. jo.
:q
` r 00j. 00j. 00j i 0-
u 000. 00j0. 00j.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
u_ 0u. 0o0 i 0u 000. 0o0.
.oo u oo, oo0 i 0c oj0,
oo0.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 0_u.
0_u. 0_u i 0u i0 0_u0. 0_u0. 0-
_u.
:86 j 0 in marg, add. N | oj ... ru om. x | 0u]
-0 R :8 0u0] -u0 R :88 ju] om. ABCQ, jo G,
j0 R :qo jo om. BCG :q:q om. G :q jo] - BCO
:q jo] - codd., corr. Schmitt :q 000] j0 A
:qq 0u] 0o ABCGQ, 0o B
m
, 00 NOR, corr. Schmitt, cf. c .. :.
.oo.o: om. x, 0 r o u add. G .oo 0o] 0j R, corr.
Schmitt, fort. tamen servandum, cf. .. et .o 0_u] -_u ABCGQ, -u
B
m
NOR, corr. Schmitt | 0_u] -0 BCG | 0_u0] -00 GR
nr \rnno oq
Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: amor, amaris vel amare, amatur;
et pluraliter: amamur, amamini, amantur.
Praeterito imperfecto: amabar, amabaris vel amabare, amabatur; et
pluraliter: amabamur, amabamini, amabantur.
:qo Praeterito perfecto: amatus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
pluraliter: amati sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt, fuerunt vel
fuere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: amatus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: amati eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel
:q fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
Futuro: amabor, amaberis vel amabere, amabitur; et pluraliter: ama-
bimur, amabimi, amabuntur.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona:
amare, ametur; et pluraliter: amamini, amentur.
.oo Futuro: amator, amator; et pluraliter: amaminor, amantor.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
amarer, amareris vel amarere, amaretur; et pluraliter: utinam amare-
mur, amaremini, amarentur.
:qo:q. praeterito ... fuere] preterito perfecto amatus; et pluraliter amati Gl
1
:q praeterito
plusquamperfecto] plusquamperfecto sub inte..., preterito quamquam non sit scriptum Ql
h
:q8
in ... persona] in secundam et terciam personam Gl
1
:qq et pluraliter: amemur, amemini Gl
1
,
amemur, amamini D .oo amator ... amantor] amator tu, amator ille ... amemur etc. D, non
habet apud Grecos Gl
1
:o nox\+ts on\rcts \
.o iu i -
0 jou, jo-
, jo i 0-
c 0 jju0, jo-
0, jo.
.:o ` r i0 00i, u 0 oiu,
00j. 00j oj, oj
i 0u i0 00- i 0c 0 o-
i0. 00j0, iu0, oj0,
00j. oj.
.: `j ri
ru i 0 c
ro 0u. ro 00. ro 00 i 0u ro 0u-
0. ro 000. ro 0u.
o o jcu.
..o o jc, o j0 i
0c o jcu0,
o j00, o jc.
` i i r iu
ro jo. ro jo. ro jo i 0u ro j-
.. j0. ro jo0. ro jo.
o
jju, o jo, o
jo i 0c o
jju0, o jo0, o
.o jo.
u o o0ju,
o o0j, o o0j-
i 0c o
o0ou0, o o0j-
. 0, o o0j.
.:o(a) 00i] 0i O .:o(b) 0i] 0j R, corr.
Schmitt .::(a) 00j] 0j N, -0- super lineam add. N
1
.::(b) 0-
j. 0j] 0j. 0j R, corr. Schmitt .:..:(a) 00-
i0] 0i0 ANO, -0- super lineam add. N
1
.:.:(a) 00j-
0. 00j] 0j0. 0j N, -0- super lineam add. N
1
..o(b) ju] -0 R, corr. Schmitt ..o(b) j0] -0 R, corr. Schmitt
.... jj0] -u0 ABNOQ, -i0 G .o(b) jo] - R, corr.
Schmitt .:.(b) ro 00j ... 00j] codicis lectionem servavi,
cf. b .. ::
nr \rnno ::
.o Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amatus essem vel
fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam amati
essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
.:o Futuro: utinam amer, ameris vel amere, ametur; et pluraliter: utinam
amemur, amemini, amentur.
.: Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum amer, ameris vel amere,
ametur; et pluraliter: cum amemur, amemini, amentur.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum amarer, amareris vel amarere, amaretur;
..o et pluraliter: cum amaremur, amaremini, amarentur.
Praeterito perfecto: cum amatus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum amati simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
.. vel fuerint.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum amatus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum amati essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
.o
Futuro: cum amatus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum amati erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
.
.:.:6 tempore ... amentur] tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum amarer ... amarentur Gl
1
:. nox\+ts on\rcts \
'o ri 00u i u ru i
0 000.
` i i r jj0.
` r
.o 00j0. 0j0. (G)
o ui : pju 0, :.
i, 'u i o0ou.
'u o0 o i, ' 0-
, l ouo, 0j i ouo.
. '0ou o0 , ' j j j uj
c, l 0u ouo, j / i
ouo.
`j ri ru o. o. o
i 0u o. o. o.
.o ` ri. ri. ri i 0u r-
o. ro. ri.
` i
ri. ri, i. i, i 0
ri i - i i 0- r j r o 0-
. 0u ro- u o, . i ri,
. ro, o. o- ri, ri
ri. . (N) i 0u
(ABCGQ) ro, ro,
ri. (B
m
OR)
.6o ` r ro0. ro0. ro0 i 0u
ro0. ro0. ro0.
` r o. o. o i 0u o. o-
. o.
j ri ru i 0 r r_
.6 i i_ u_ i. r i 0u o.
r.
u i, o i 0c o, o-
.
.8 om. C | jj0] -00 BNO .:. om. x .8 oj ... ru-
om. x .(b) i] - N .(c) i] r R .(c) r j
r om. O .(c) i om. O .6(b) o] i N .6.(b) -
o] i N .6o.6: ro0 ... ro0] ro0 ... ro0
CG, ro ... ro Schmitt, codicum tamen lectionem servavi cf. .q
.q .6 ... 0 om. ABNQ, i 0 om. R .6 -
r om. AQ .6.68 om. x
nr \rnno :
Innitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito
imperfecto: amari.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: amatum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: amatum iri.
.o
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo? Duo. Quae? Amatus
et amandus.
Amatus unde trahitur? A secundo supino, ut amatu, addita s t ama-
tus.
. Amandus unde trahitur? A genitivo sui praesentis participii, ut amans,
amantis, mutata tis in dus t amandus.
Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: doceo, doces, docet; et pluraliter:
docemus, docetis, docent.
.o Praeterito imperfecto: docebam, docebas, docebat; et pluraliter: doce-
bamus, docebatis, docebant.
Praeterito perfecto: docui, docuisti, docuit; et pluraliter: docuimus,
docuistis, docuerunt vel docuere.
.
.6o Praeterito plusquamperfecto: docueram, docueras, docuerat; et plura-
liter: docueramus, docueratis, docuerant.
Futuro: docebo, docebis, docebit; et pluraliter: docebimus, docebitis,
docebunt.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona:
.6 doce, doceat; et pluraliter: docete, doceant.
Futuro: doceto, doceto; et pluraliter: docetote, docento.
.8 doceo] didasco id est doceo Ql
h
.6.6 imperativo ... doceant] innito (sic) modo ... in
secundam et terciam personam ... et pluraliter: doceamus, doceant Gl
1
.6 doceto tu, doceto ille
... doceamus D
: nox\+ts on\rcts \
0j ri ru i 0 i0 o-
.o . o. o i 0u i0 o. o-
. o.
` i i o r ` i i
r 0 o i- r 0
i - r. ` 0 (OR)
. r (N)
i0 o. o. o i 0u i0 o.
o. o.
` r i0 o. o. o i 0u i0 o-
. o. o.
.8o `j ri
ru i 0 c
ro o. ro o. ro o i 0u ro o-
. ro o. ro o.
o o i,
.8 o i, o i
i 0c o o-
u, o o, o
i.
iu o i,
.qo o i, o i i
0c o ou,
o o, o i.
o -
o0, o o0, o
.q o0 i 0c o
o0u, o o0,
o o0.
` r ro o. ro o. ro o i 0u ro
o. ro o. ro o.
oo 'o ri ru i 0 o.
...(c) o ... r] r i i R .8.q
om. N .8..8 ro o ... o om. O .q.q(b) ro ...
ro0] ro ro ... ro Schmitt, sed cf. .6o.6: .q8 o
r ... 0u om. O ooo 0o ... o post praebet R
oo 0o ... o om. ABCNOQ, 0r ro ... o
R
nr \rnno :
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
.o docerem, doceres, doceret; et pluraliter: utinam doceremus, doceretis,
docerent.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam docuissem, docuisses,
docuisset; et pluraliter: utinam docuissemus, docuissetis, docuissent.
.
Futuro: utinam doceam, doceas, doceat; et pluraliter: utinam docea-
mus, doceatis, doceant.
.8o Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum doceam, doceas, doceat;
et pluraliter: cum doceamus, doceatis, doceant.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum docerem, doceres, doceret; et pluraliter:
.8 cum doceremus, doceretis, docerent.
Praeterito perfecto: cum docuerim, docueris, docuerit; et pluraliter:
.qo cum docuerimus, docueritis, docuerint.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum docuissem, docuisses, docuisset; et
pluraliter: cum docuissemus, docuissetis, docuissent.
.q
Futuro: cum docuero, docueris, docuerit; et pluraliter: cum docueri-
mus, docueritis, docuerint.
oo Innitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: docere.
.8o.8: tempore ... doceant] tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum docerem ... docerent Gl
1
:6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
r i i iu i
o.
r u
o.
o `j ri ru o. o. o-
i 0u 0. o0. o.
` r. ro. ro i 0u
r0. ro0. ro.
` i
:o ro0. ro0. ro0 i i. i. -
0u ro0. ro0, i i 0u
ro0. o0. i0,
r ii. (N)
` r ro. ri. ri i 0-
: u ro0. ri0. r j.
` r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u
00. 0j0. 0j.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
.o u_ o. r0 i 0u o0. r-
0.
u i, o0 i 0c o0, o-
0.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 i-
. . o. o i 0u i0 i0. o-
0. o.
` i i r i0 0i. 0i. -
0i i 0u i0 0i. 0i. 0i.
o ` r i0 0i. 0j. 0j i 0-
u i0 0i0. 0j0. 0j.
o oj ... ru om. x o6 o0] - AO, -0 super lineam O
1
,
- BG oq(a) i] O : ro] ro BOR
| ri] ri N, -- supra lineam N
1
| ri] - BCG : r-
j] ro G, om. ABOQ, r desideratur .o r0]
-r AQR .o.: r0] -r R ... o r ... o0-
om. x .. i] o R, corr. Schmitt, fort. tamen servandum, cf. .oo,
al. .. i] - ABCQ . o] o O . o
r 0i in marg. add. N ..8 i0 ... 0u om. G
nr \rnno :
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: docuisse.
Futuro: doctum ire vel docturum esse.
o Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: doceor, doceris vel docere, doce-
tur; et pluraliter: docemur, docemini, docentur.
Praeterito imperfecto: docebar, docebaris vel docebare, docebatur; et
pluraliter: docebamur, docebamini, docebantur.
Praeterito perfecto: doctus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
:o pluraliter: docti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt, fuerunt vel
fuere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: doctus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
: erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: docti eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel
fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
Futuro: docebor, doceberis vel docebere, docebitur; et pluraliter:
docebimur, docebimini, docebuntur.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona:
.o docere, doceatur; et pluraliter: docemini, doceantur.
Futuro: docetor, docetor; et pluraliter: doceminor, docentor.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
. docerer, docereris vel docerere, doceretur; et pluraliter: utinam doce-
remur, doceremini, docerentur.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam doctus essem vel fuis-
sem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam docti esse-
mus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
o Futuro: utinam docear, docearis vel doceare, doceatur; et pluraliter:
utinam doceamur, doceamini, doceantur.
o futuro doctum Gl
1
:q.o in ... doceantur] in secundam et terciam personam ... et
pluraliter: doceamur, doceaminor Gl
1
.o pluraliter: doceamur etc. D .. docetor tu, docetor
ille ... doceamur D
:8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
`j ri
ru i 0 c
ro o. ro o. ro o i 0u ro
u0. ro o0. ro o.
o o -
ou, o o, o
o i 0c
o ou0, o o-
o 0, o o.
` i i r iu o o-
ro 0u. ro 0j. ro 0, o o0, o -
0j i 0u ro o0 i 0c o
0u. ro 0j. ro o0u, o 0,
0u. o o0.
o -
ou, o i, o
i i 0c
o ou0, o i-
o 0, o u j.
` r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i
0u ro 0u0. ro 0j0. ro 0j-
.
'o ri 00u 'u 0o
i u
ru i 0 o0.
` i i r
0j. j0.
` r 0j0.
6o `j ri ru 0u. 0u.
0u i 0u 0u. 0u. 0u-
.
u0] - G | o0] - G | o] - G :(a)
o r 0i in marg. add. N :(a) i]
G (a) i 0u om. N 6(b) ro] ro R, corr.
Schmitt o(b) ri ... ri0] r- R, -- super lineam add.
R
1
o r] r desideratur, sed cf. : : o r ...
0j om. R; codicum ABCOQ lectionem servavi, : 0j]
- G 6 i om. R 6o j 0 in marg. add. C | oj ...
ru om. x
nr \rnno :q
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum docear, docearis vel
doceare, doceatur; et pluraliter: cum doceamur, doceamini, docean-
tur.

Praeterito imperfecto: cum docerer, docereris vel docerere, doceretur;

et pluraliter: cum doceremur, doceremini, docerentur.
o
Praeterito perfecto: cum doctus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum docti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.

Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum doctus essem vel fuissem, esses vel

fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum docti essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
o
Futuro: cum doctus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum docti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
Innitivo modo numeris et personis Innitiva passiva
tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: doceri.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: doctum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: doctum iri.
6o Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: lego, legis, legit; et pluraliter:
legimus, legitis, legunt.
. tempore ... doceantur] tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum docerer ... docerentur
Gl
1
: praeterito .... fuerint] preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: cum doctus; et
pluraliter: cum docti Gl
1
: futuro ... fuerint] futuro: cum doctus; et pluraliter: cum
docti Gl
1
doctum ... fuisse] doctum tantum praebet Gl
1
q doctum iri] doctum
tantum praebet Gl
1
6o incipit tertia coniugatio: anaginosco id est lego Ql
h
.o nox\+ts on\rcts \
` 0i. 0i. 0i i 0-
u 0u. 0u. 0i.
6 ` i 0r. 0r. 0r i 0u
0u. 0u. 0u.
` r 0u. 0u. 0u i 0-
u 0u. 0u. 0u.
u oc, oc, oc i 0c o-
o cu, oc, oc.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
u_ 0i. 0r i 0u 0u. 0-
r.
u oo, oo i 0c oc,
oo.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 0u-
. 0u. 0u i 0u i0 0u-
. 0u. 0u.
iu i 0 ocu, oc,
8o oc. i 0c 0 ocu, oc, o-
c.
u 0 ocu, oc, oc i 0c
0 ocu, oc, oc.
`j ri
8 ru i 0 c
ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u i 0u
ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u.
6 i] CR 66 0u] 0u R 6
r] i C | 0u] -u O 6qo om. x o
0u] -u R om. x 6 om. R | i0 om. NO
q8 om. x
nr \rnno .:
Praeterito imperfecto: legebam, legebas, legebat; et pluraliter: legeba-
mus, legebatis, legebant.
6 Praeterito perfecto: legi, legisti, legit; et pluraliter: legimus, legistis,
legerunt vel legere.
Praeterito plusquamperfo: legeram, legeras, legerat; et pluraliter: lege-
ramus, legeratis, legerant.
Futuro: legam, leges, leget; et pluraliter: legemus, legetis, legent.
o
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: lege,
legat; et pluraliter: legite, legant.
Futuro: legito, legito; et pluraliter: legitote, legunto.

Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam

legerem, legeres, legeret; et pluraliter: utinam legeremus, legeretis,
legerent.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam legissem, legisses,
8o legisset; et pluraliter: utinam legissemus, legissetis, legissent.
Futuro: utinam legam, legas, legat; et pluraliter: utinam legamus,
legatis, legant.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum legam, legas, legat; et
8 pluraliter: cum legamus, legatis, legant.
:. in ... legant] in secundam et terciam personam ... et pluraliter: legamus, legant Gl
1
|
legito tu, legito ille ... legant D 88 tempore ... legant] tempore presenti et preterito
imperfecto: cum legerem ... legerent Gl
1
.. nox\+ts on\rcts \
o o oi-
, o oi, o
qo oi i 0c o
ocu, o oc,
o oi.
iu o o,
o o, o o i
q 0c o ocu, o
oc, o oc.
o
oc, o oc, o
oc i 0c o
oo ocu, o oc, o
oc.
u o oc, o
oc, o oc i
0c o oc-
o u, o oc, o o-
c.
'o ri 00u i u ru i
0 0u.
` i i r 0r.
:o ` r 0u.
`j 0o ru 0u.
` 0u.
` i 0r.
` r 0r.
: ` r 00j.
j ri ru 0r0.
0j ri ru 0u.
` i i r 00i.
.o
` r i0 00j.
o 00u i u om. x oq o om. x | 0r] 0- R :o
0u] 0u BCGNO ::.8 om. R :. om. G | 0u]
0- C : 0r] -0 BCGN : om. C : o r] r
ABCGNQ : i0 desideratur ante 0u, cf. .: :q i0 desideratur
ante 00i, cf. .: .: 00j] -0i A, -0i Q
nr \rnno .
Praeterito imperfecto: cum legerem, legeres, legeret; et pluraliter: cum
legeremus, legeretis, legerent.
qo
Praeterito perfecto: cum legerim, legeris, legerit; et pluraliter: cum
legerimus, legeritis, legerint.
q
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum legissem, legisses, legisset; et plura-
liter: cum legissemus, legissetis, legissent.
oo
Futuro: cum legero, legeris, legerit; et pluraliter: cum legerimus, lege-
ritis, legerint.
o
Innitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito
imperfecto: legere.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: legisse.
:o Futuro: lectum ire vel lecturum esse.
Verbo impersonali tempore praesenti: legitur.
Praeterito imperfecto: legebatur.
Praeterito perfecto: lectum est vel fuit.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: lectum erat vel fuerat.
: Futuro: legetur.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti: legatur.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
legeretur.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam lectum esset vel fuis-
.o set.
Futuro: utinam legatur.
: lectum ... fuit] lectum Gl
1
: post :6 futuro: legitor D
. nox\+ts on\rcts \
`j ri ru ro 0u.
` i ro 00j.
` r ro 00j.
. 'o 0o. ru i 0 0-
u0.
` i i r 00j.
r 00j0
`j ri ru 0u. 0u.
o 0u i 0u 00. 0u0.
0u.
` 0. 0u. 0u i -
0u 00. 0u0. 0u.
` i 0r. 0r. 0r i 0u
0u0. 0r0. 0r.
` r
0u. 0r. 0r oc0, oc0,
i 0u 0u0, oc0 i 0c
o 0r0. 0r. oc0u, oc0,
oc0.
` r 00j. 00j. 00j i -
0u 000. 00j0. 00j.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
u_ 0u. 0r0 i 0u 0u0.
0r0.
u oo, oo0 i 0c oc0,
oo0.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 0-
o i. 0u. 0u i 0u 0i-
0. 0u0. 0u.
. 00j] 0 AQ . 00j] -0 N, ceterorum codicum
lectionem servavi . 0o del. Schmitt . 00j om. A
.8 r om. A .q oj ... ru om. x 00
bis O 0r] -0 BC, -0 G i ... 0r0 om. G
0r] - ABCNOQR 8(a) 0u] -u BO, -u
G 6 0r0] - R 8 om. x 0o]
0u R, corr. Schmitt, fort. tamen servandum, cf. .oo, al. q: om.
G o: i0 desideratur ante 0i0 | 0i0] -0 BC
nr \rnno .
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum legatur.
Praeterito perfecto: cum lectum sit vel fuerit.
Futuro: cum lectum erit vel fuerit.
. Innitivo modo impersonali, tempore praesenti et praeterito imper-
fecto: legi.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: lectum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: lectum iri.
Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: legor, legeris vel legere, legitur; et
o pluraliter: legimur, legimini, leguntur.
Praeterito imperfecto: legebar, legebaris vel legebare, legebatur; et
pluraliter: legebamur, legebamini, legebantur.
Praeterito perfecto: lectus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
pluraliter: lecti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel
fuere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: lectus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: lecti eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel
fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
o
Futuro: legar, legeris vel legere, legetur; et pluraliter: legemur, lege-
mini, legentur.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona:
legere, legatur; et pluraliter: legimini, legantur.
Futuro: legitor, legitor; et pluraliter: legiminor, leguntor.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
o legerer, legereris vel legerere, legeretur; et pluraliter: utinam legere-
mur, legeremini, legerentur.
. post .. praeterito imperfecto: cum legeretur D | perfecto ... fuerit] praeterito imperfecto: cum
legeretur Gl
1
| desinit Gl
1
. post . praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum lectum esset vel
fuisset D .q post .8 gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt hec: legendi, legendo, legendum.
Supina sunt hec: lectum, lectu. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Que? Unum,
quod est temporis preteriti imperfecti, ut legens; aliud futuri, ut lecturus. Et hoc non invenitur
apud Grecos Gl
2
| verbum passivum incipit in marg. Ql
h
pluraliter: legamur etc. D
legitor tu, legitor ille ... legamur D
.6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` i i r i0 00i. 00i-
. 00i i 0u i0 00i. 00i-
. 00i.
` r i0 00i. 00j. 00j
i 0u i0 00i0. 00j0. 0-
0j.
j. oi. j i o
c o ocu,
6o o oc, o oc-
i 0c o
ocu0, o oc-
0, o oc.
`
6 ro 0u. ro 0u, o oou, o o-
ro 0u i 0u c, o oc i
ro 0u0. ro 0u- 0c o oo-
0. ro 0u. u0, o oc0, o
oc.
o ` i i r iu o o-
ro 00u. ro 00j. ro u, o o, o o-
00j i 0u ro i 0c o
00u. ro 00j, ocu0, o o0,
ro 00u. o o.
o o-
c0, o oc0, o
oc0 i 0c
o oc0u, o o-
c0, o oc0.
8o ` r ro 00j. ro 00j. ro 00j-
i 0u ro 00u0. ro 00j0.
ro 00j.
'o ri 00u i u ru i
0 0u0.
8 ` i i r 00j.
` r 00j0.
o r] r x 6 ] -j G :(a) 00u om. AQ
(b) 0r] - R 8o8. codicum AGOQR lectionem servavi 8o o
r] r x
nr \rnno .
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam lectus essem vel fuis-
sem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam lecti esse-
mus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: utinam legar, legaris vel legare, legatur; et pluraliter: utinam
legamur, legamini, legantur.
Subiunctivo modo, similiter. Subiunctivo modo tempore
praesenti: cum legar,
6o legaris vel legare, legatur;
et pluraliter: cum legamur,
legamini, legantur.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum legerer, legereris vel legerere, legeretur; et
6 pluraliter: cum legeremur, legeremini, legerentur.
o Praeterito perfecto: cum lectus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lecti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum lectus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum lecti essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
8o Futuro: cum lectus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum lecti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
Innitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito
imperfecto: legi.
8 Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: lectum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: lectum iri.
6 post q praebet Gl
2
.8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
i rr r u 0 j 0 00; u.
i; i j ri r i i 0 r
o i. 0 r 0 I r.
qo 'u. 0u. 0u j. j. j 0. 0r
0r. 0r_. 0r 0. 0u. 0u.
`j ri ru 0u. 0u. 0u i
0u 0u. 0u. 0u.
` j. j. j i 0u ju.
q ju. j.
` i 0j. 0j, ` i 0 r
0j i 0u 0- j r o 0. i
. 0. 0. j. j. j
i 0u ju,
oo ju. j. (BCGNOR)
` r ju. ju. ju i 0u ju-
. ju. ju.
` r 0u. 0u. 0u i 0u 0u.
0u. 0u.
o j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
u_ 0. 0r i 0u 0u. 0r.
u 0, oo i 0c o:, oo-
.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 0u.
:o 0u. 0u i 0u i0 0u. 0u. 0u.
` i i r i0 0u. 0u. 0u-
i 0u i0 0u. 0u. 0u.
88q om. R 88 i] i ABCGOQ | r] ru G 8q
r om. ABCGNQ qo 0 j in marg. add. ABOQ, i 0 j C
qoq: om. R qo j] - codd., corr. Schmitt q: 0r]
-r corr. Schmitt, cf. tamen :oo | 0r] -r corr. Schmitt, cf. tamen :oo |
0 ... 0u] 0u. 0u Schmitt, sed codicum lectionem servandam
esse censui | 0u] 0o N q. oj ... ru om. x q o
om. A q6q(b) 0 r j r o 0 om. BCGN, r j r om.
B
m
O q(b) i om. BCGNO o:o. ju] - N o 0u]
0u R | 0u] 0u C oo8 om. x oqo 0j ...
0r0 om. C oq i 0 om. ABGNOQ | r u_ i r_
i i_ u_ add. AQ, r r_ i i_ u_ add. BGNO | i0 om.
ABNOQ :o i0 om. ABNOQ :. (sic) 0 in marg. add.
N | i i om. ABGNOQ | i0 om. ABNOQ : i0 om. ABNOQ
nr \rnno .q
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo? Duo. Quae? Unum,
quod est temporis praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti ***
***
qo Audio, audis, audit; audivi, audivisti, audit; audi, audiat; audiendi,
audiendo, audiendum; auditor, auditurus, audiens.
Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: audio, audis, audit; et pluraliter:
audimus, auditis, audiunt.
Praeterito imperfecto: audiebam, audiebas, audiebat; et pluraliter:
q audiebamus, audiebatis, audiebant.
Praeterito perfecto: audivi, audivisti, audivit; et pluraliter: audivimus,
audivistis, audiverunt vel audivere.
oo
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: audiveram, audiveras, audiverat; et plu-
raliter: audiveramus, audiveratis, audiverant.
Futuro: audiam, audies, audiet; et pluraliter: audiemus, audietis,
audient.
o Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona:
audi, audiat; et pluraliter: audite, audiant.
Futuro: audito, audito; et pluraliter: auditote, audiunto.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
:o audirem, audires, audiret; et pluraliter: utinam audiremus, audiretis,
audirent.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam audivissem, audivis-
ses, audivisset; et pluraliter: utinam audivissemus, audivissetis, audivis-
sent.
88 ut lectus; aliud futuri, ut legendus post plusquamperfecti praebet D qo incipit quarta
coniugatio in marg. Ql
h
| audire, audivisse post audiat praebet D qoq: audiendi ...
audiendum] audiendum ... audiendorum leguntur in Donato graeco, quae tamen numquam
in D inveni o6 pluraliter: audiamus, etc. D o audito tu, audito ille ... audiamus D
o nox\+ts on\rcts \
: ` r i0 0u. 0u. 0u i 0u i0
0u. 0u. 0u.
`j oi. `j ri -
ru ro 0u. ro
0u. ro 0u i -
.o 0u ro 0u. ro
0u. ro 0u. (GR)
`
ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u o j, o j, o
i 0u ro 0u. ro j i 0c o
. 0u. ro 0u. j:u, o j:, o
j.
` i i r iu o j,
ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u o j, o j i
i 0u ro 0u. ro 0c o j:u,
o 0u. ro 0u. o j:, o j.
o
j:, o j:, o
j: i 0c
o j:u, o j:-
, o j:.
u o o:, o
o:, o o: i
0c o o:u,
o o:, o o:.
o 'o ri 00u i u ru i
0 0u.
` i i r 0u.
` r 0u.
`j 0o ru 0u.
` ju.
` i j.
` r j.
` r 00j.
..(a) o om. NO o 00u i u] 000 i u post
0 GN, om. ABOQ . 0 0 in marg. add. O
1
|
i r om. A 0u] 0u ABNOQ i j
0u in marg. add. B
m
6q om. R 6 j] -0 O, corr. O
1
j] -0 O, corr. O
1
nr \rnno :
: Futuro: utinam audiam, audias, audiat; et pluraliter: utinam audia-
mus, audiatis, audiant.
Subiunctivo, similiter. Subiunctivo modo tempore
praesenti: cum audiam, audias,
audiat; et pluraliter: cum audiamus,
.o audiatis, audiant.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum audirem, audires, audiret; et pluraliter:
cum audiremus, audiretis, audirent.
.
Praeterito perfecto: cum audiverim, audiveris, audiverit; et pluraliter:
cum audiverimus, audiveritis, audiverint.
o
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum audivissem, audivisses, audivisset;
et pluraliter: cum audivissemus, audivissetis, audivissent.

Futuro: cum audivero, audiveris, audiverit; et pluraliter: cum audive-

rimus, audiveritis, audiverint.
o Innitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito
imperfecto: audire.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: audivisse.
Futuro: auditum ire vel auditurum esse.
Verbo impersonali tempore praesenti: auditur.
Praeterito imperfecto: audiebatur.
Praeterito perfecto: auditum est vel fuit.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: auditum erat vel fuerat.
Futuro: audietur.
.. praeterito ... audivissent] preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: cum audivissem ... audi-
vissent Gl
2
. nox\+ts on\rcts \
j ri ru i 0 0r-
o 0.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 0u.
` i i r i0 00i.
` r
i0 0u. i0 00j. (G)
`j ri ru ro 0u.
` i ro 00j.
'o ri 0o ru i -
6o 0 0u0.
` i i r 00j.
` r 00j0.
o oo i 0 0r. 0r_. 0r.
`0o i 0 0. 00.
6 i rr r u 0 j 0 r0; u.
i; i. j ri ru i 0. i 0u
0 r. i 0.
'u. 0u. 0u ju0. ju0. ju0 0u.
0r0 0u0.
o `j ri ru 0u. 0u. 0u i
0u 00. 0u0. 0u
` j. ju. ju i 0u j-
0. ju0. ju.
` i j. j. j i 0u ju-
0. j0. jr ii.
q i 0 om. ABGNOQ 0 0 in marg. add.
B
m
O
1
| 00i] 00i AB
m
NOQ, 0u0 G, 0i (sic) B 6(a) i0
om. ABCOQ 0u] 0u AQ q ri 0o]
0o ri ANQ 6 0r] -0r BCGN, -r Schmitt,
sed cf. :oo | 0r_] -0r BCGNQ | 0r] -0r ABCGNQ, -r
Schmitt, cf. tamen :oo 6 0. 00] 00u (- N), 000
BCGNO 6 rr] - ANQ 66q u ... 0u] r (
C). t; i ... 0. 0u. 0u. 0u N 668. i ...
0 om. A 66 0u] 00i codd., sed cf. 6. 68 0o
in marg. add. O 6q 0u0 om. N o oj ... ru om. x |
0u ... 0u om. C . ] r R jr
ii om. BCGN
nr \rnno
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti: audiatur.
o
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
audiretur.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam auditum esset vel
fuisset.
Futuro: utinam audiatur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum audiatur.
Praeterito perfecto: cum auditum sit vel fuerit.
Innitivo modo impersonali, tempore praesenti et praeterito imper-
6o fecto: audiri.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: auditum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: auditum iri.
Participialia nomina sunt haec: audiendi, audiendo, audiendum.
Supina sunt haec: auditum, auditu.
6 Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Quae? Unum,
quod est temporis praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti, ut audiens; aliud
futuri, ut auditurus.
Audior, audiris vel audire, auditur; auditus sum, es, est; audire, audia-
tur; audiri.
o Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: audior, audiris vel audire, audi-
tur; et pluraliter: audimur, audimini, audiuntur.
Praeterito imperfecto: audiebar, audiebaris vel audiebare, audiebatur;
et pluraliter: audiebamur, audiebamini, audiebantur.
Praeterito perfecto: auditus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
pluraliter: auditi sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel
fuere.
: post o futuro: auditor D 8 post praeterito imperfecto: cum audiretur D
q post 8 praeteritum plusquamperfectum et futurum praebet D 6 gerundia
vel participialia nomina D | audiendum ... audiendorum praebet Donatus graecus, cf. :oo,
al. 68 passivum verbum in marg. Ql
h
6q auditum esse vel fuisse; auditurus et audiendus
post audiri praebet D
nox\+ts on\rcts \
` r ju. j. j i 0u ju-
0. j0. jr j.
8o ` r 00j. 00j. 00j i 0u
000. 00j0. 00j.
j ri ru i 0 r r_
i i_ u_ 0u. 0r0 i 0u 0u0.
0r0.
8 ` r 0u0. 00j i 0u 0u0. 0-
0j.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 0i-
. 0u. 0u i 0u i0 0i0. 0u0.
0u.
qo ` i i r i0 00i. 00i.
00i i 0u i0 00i. 00i. 0-
0i.
` r i0 0i. 0u. 0u i 0u
i0 0i0. 0u0. 0u.
q j ri
ru i 0 c
ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u i 0u ro 0u-
0. ro 0u0. ro 0u.
o o jou,
6oo o j:, o j: i
0c o jou0,
o j:0, o j:.
` i
ro 00u. ro 00j. ro o ju, o j,
6o 00j i 0u ro o j i 0-
00u. ro 00j. ro c o j:u0, o
00u. j0, o ju /i.
8 jr j] j BCGQ, jr ii NO, cf. 8. i -
0 om. R 8 0u] -o O 8 u post 0u0 add. G |
rt post 00j add. G qo o ... r] o om. ANQ, -
r i i BCGO | i0 om. ABNOQ qq8 0u0] -
G
nr \rnno
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: auditus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: auditi eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel
fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
8o Futuro: audiar, audieris vel audiere, audietur; et pluraliter: audiemur,
audiemini, audientur.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona:
audire, audiatur; et pluraliter: audimini, audiantur.
8 Futuro: auditor, auditor; et pluraliter: audiminor, audiuntor.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
audirer, audireris vel audirere, audiretur; et pluraliter: utinam audire-
mur, audiremini, audirentur.
qo Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam auditus essem vel
fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam auditi
essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: utinam audiar, audiaris vel audiare, audiatur; et pluraliter:
utinam audiamur, audiamini, audiantur.
q Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum audiar, audiaris vel audi-
are, audiatur; et pluraliter: cum audiamur, audiamini, audiantur.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum audirer, audireris vel audirere, audiretur;
6oo et pluraliter: cum audiremur, audiremini, audirentur.
Praeterito perfecto: cum auditus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum auditi simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
6o vel fuerint.
8 pluraliter: audiamur etc. D 8 auditor tu, auditor ille ... audiamur D
6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` r
ro 00u. ro 00j. ro o j:u, o j,
6:o 00j i 0u ro o j i 0c
00u. ro 00j. ro o j:u0, o j0,
00u. o ju j.
u o o0ju,
o o0j, o o0j-
6: i 0c o
o0ou0, o o-
0j0, o o0j.
'o ri 00u i ru i
0 0u0.
6.o ` i i r 00j.
` r 00j0.
i rr r u 0 j 0 00; u.
i; i j ri r i i. i
00i 0 r. i 0.
6. `j ri ru 0r. 0r. 0r i -
0u 0r. 0r. 0r.
` j0. j0. j0 i 0u j0r.
j0r. j0.
` i j0r. j0r, ` i 0
6o j0r i 0u j0j- 0 j0r. j0r,
. j0j. j0j. j0r i 0u
j0j. j0j,
j0r. (BCGOR)
` r r0j. r0j. r0j i 0-
6 u r0j. r0j. r0j.
` r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0j.
0j. 0j.
6o8 oi post r add. N 6:o(a) ro 00j om. B 6:o6:.(a)
i ... 00u om. ABCGO 6.: o om. O 6..6. om. R 6.. rr]
rj ANQ 6. i] i BCGO, om. A | i om. G 6. 00i] ju-
0 ABCNOQ, j G, corr. Schmitt | 0] fort. 00
scribendum, cf. 6 6. 0 j in marg. add. ABCOQ 6.68o ordinem i-
i. 0r praebet R 6. oj ... ru om. x 6.6.8 j0r. j0r]
j0r. j0r codd., corr. Schmitt 6.8 j0] j0 R 6.q6o(b) 0-
0 om. BCGO
nr \rnno
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum auditus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum auditi essemus vel fuissemus,
6:o essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum auditus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum auditi erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
6: fuerint.
Innitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito
imperfecto: audiri.
6.o Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: auditum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: auditum iri.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo? Duo. Quae? Unum,
quod est temporis praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut auditus;
aliud futuri, ut audiendus.
6. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: volo, vis, vult; et pluraliter: volu-
mus, vultis, volunt.
Praeterito imperfecto: volebam, volebas, volebat; et pluraliter: voleba-
mus, volebatis, volebant.
Praeterito perfecto: volui, voluisti, voluit; et pluraliter: voluimus, volui-
6o stis, voluerunt vel voluere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: volueram, volueras, voluerat; et plurali-
6 ter: volueramus, volueratis, voluerant.
Futuro: volam, voles, volet; et pluraliter: volemus, voletis, volent.
6. allo rima id est aliud verbum, volo vis vult Ql
h
8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
0 r 0 r 0r i
0r r j 0r. i j 0j. (N)
6o 0j.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 0r.
0r. 0r i 0u i0 0r. 0r. 0r.
` i i r
i0 0j. 0j, i0 0j. 0j,
6 0j i 0u i0 0j i 0u i0
0j. 0j, 0j. 0j. 0j-
0j. . (BCGNOR)
` r i0 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u i0
0j. 0j. 0j.
6o `j ri ru i 0 ro 0r.
ro 0. ro 0r i 0u ro 0r. ro 0r. ro
0r.
o o j0,
o j0, o j0 i
6 0c o j0u,
o j0, o j0.
iu o j0,
o j0, o j0
i 0c o j0j-
66o u, o j0j, o
j0.
o -
0j, o 0j, o
0j i 0c
66 o 0ju, o 0-
j, o 0j.
` r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0u ro
0j. ro 0j. ro 0j.
'o ri ru i 0 0r.
6o ` i i r 0r.
68(a) r om. O 6:6. 0r ... 0r] 0j ... 0j codd. (cf.
686q), corr. Schmitt 6(b) 0 0 in marg. add. B
m
NO
68 i0 om. ABCNOQ | i0 om. ABCNOQ 6o i 0 in R quoque
legitur, quamvis codex subiunctivum tempore imperfecto separatim postea praebeat
(666) 66:(b) j0r] j0j R 66668 ro 0j om. G
668 0j] - A 6o 0r] 0r OR
nr \rnno q
Imperativo modo caret; habet tamen in compositione: noli et nolite.
6o
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
vellem, velles, vellet; et pluraliter: utinam vellemus, velletis, vellent.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam voluissem, voluisses,
voluisset; et pluraliter: utinam voluissemus, voluissetis, voluissent.
6
Futuro: utinam velim, velis, velit; et pluraliter: utinam velimus, velitis,
velint.
6o Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum velim, velis, velit; et plura-
liter: cum velimus, velitis, velint.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum vellem, velles, vellet; et pluraliter: cum
vellemus, velletis, vellent.
6
Praeterito perfecto: cum voluerim, volueris, voluerit; et pluraliter: cum
voluerimus, volueritis voluerint.
66o
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum voluissem, voluisses, voluisset; et
pluraliter: cum voluissemus, voluissetis, voluissent.
66
Futuro: cum voluero, volueris, voluerit; et pluraliter: cum voluerimus,
volueritis, voluerint.
Innitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: velle.
6o Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: voluisse.
6o6: tempore .... velint] tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum vellem ... vellent Gl
2
o nox\+ts on\rcts \
` r 0j.
`j ri ru ii. i u. 'u i.
ri i 0u rr u i ir u rr u
ii u. r u.
6 ` j. j. j ri i 0u j. j.
j.
` r r. r. r i o j r i 0-
u r0. r0. r.
j ri ru i 0 r r_
68o i i_ u_ r. r i 0u r. r.
`j ri ru u. 0. 0 i
0u u. 0. u.
` ro. ro. ro i 0u ru-
. r0. ro.
68 ` i
o. o, ro. ro,
o i 0u ro i 0u
o. o ro. ro
o. ro. (BCGNOR)
6qo ` r ro. ro. ro i -
0u ro. ro. ro.
` r o. o. o i 0u o-
. o. o.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
6q u_ o. r i 0u o. r.
6.68o om. ABCGQ, post sectionem de coniunctionibus praebet N 6. o-
j ... ru om. B
m
O | u] u i N, om. R | 'u i om. R
6 ri om. B
m
O | i ir u om. R | u om. NR 6 r -
u om. R 6 ri del. Schmitt, sed cf. b .. : 668 om.
R 6q j ri] j r B
m
O | i 0 om.
R 6q68o r ... u_ om. B
m
O 68o r. j ri
ru. . i. r. r. 0o ri-
ru i 0. i i r. r 0
r post u_ add. R | r ... r om. R | 0u] -o B
m
O, om. N |
r] r0 B
m
, r0 NO, sed cf. 68 necnon b. .. .o, c .. , d .. .. 68: 0
in marg. add. AOQ 68 ro] - codd., corr. Schmitt 68 ro]
- ABCGNQ 686(a) o] - A 686(b) 0 0 in
marg. add. N 6qo r] i BC 6qo6q: ro ...
ro] ro ... ro BCGNOR 6q o] - A
6q o ... r] o ... r G
nr \rnno :
Futuro: ***.
Modo indicativo tempore praesenti: sum, es, est; et pluraliter: sumus,
estis, sunt.
6 Praeterito imperfecto: eram, eras, erat; et pluraliter: eramus, eratis,
erant.
Futuro: ero, eris, erit; et pluraliter: erimus, eritis, erunt.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: sis
68o vel es, sit; et pluraliter: sitis vel este, sint.
Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: fero, fers, fert; et pluraliter: feri-
mus, fertis, ferunt.
Praeterito imperfecto: ferebam, ferebas, ferebat; et pluraliter: fereba-
mus, ferebatis, ferebant.
68 Praeterito perfecto: tuli, tulisti, tulit; et pluraliter: tulimus, tulistis,
tulerunt vel tulere.
6qo Praeterito plusquamperfecto: tuleram, tuleras, tulerat; et pluraliter:
tuleramus, tuleratis, tulerant.
Futuro: feram, feres, feret; et pluraliter: feremus, feretis, ferent.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: fer,
6q ferat; et pluraliter: ferte, ferant.
6: futuro caret D 6. post 6: gerundia et participialia nomina sunt hec: volendi, volendo,
volendum. Supinis caret. Habet unum participium, quod est volens Gl
2
| verbum sum post
0u / audio praebet Gl
2
6 post 66 preterito perfecto: fui ... fuerunt vel fuere. Preterito
plusquamperfecto: fueram ... fuerant. Futuro: ero ... erunt. Imperativo modo ad secundam et tertiam
personam: sis ... sunto vel suntote. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam
essem ... essent. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utiman fuissem ... fuissent. Futuro: utinam
sim ... sint. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti cum similiter, et preterito imperfecto: cum essem ...
essent. Preterito perfecto: cum fuerim ... fuerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum fuissem ... fuissent.
Futuro: cum fuero ... fuerint. Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: esse. Preterito
perfecto et plusquamperfecto: fuisse. Futuro caret sicut D praebet Gl
2
68: verbum fero
post 0r / volo praebet Gl
2
| fero, fers, fert; tuli, tulisti, tulit; fert, ferat; ferre, tulisse; ferendi,
ferendo, ferendum; latum, latu; ferens et laturus. Fero ... ferunt Gl
2
| fero ... fert] denso, denseras
(sic), densat Ql
h
6q pluraliter: feramus etc. D
. nox\+ts on\rcts \
` r o. o i 0u o. -
o.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 o-
. o. o i 0u i0 o. o-
oo . o.
` i i r i0 o. o. -
o i 0u i0 o. o. o.
` r i0 o. o. o i 0u i0
o. o. o.
o `j ri
ru i 0 c
ro o. ro o. ro o c, o 0, o
o i 0u ro 0 i 0c o
o. ro o. ro cu, o 0, o
:o o. c.
o o o,
o o, o o i
0c o cu,
o 0, o o.
: ` i i r iu o o-
ro u. ro 0. ro 0 , o o, o o-
i 0u ro u. ro i 0c o -
0. ro u. ou, o oo, o
o.
.o o
o, o o,
o o i 0-
c o ou, o
o, o o-
. .
6q6 o om. O 6q66q om. N 6q6 u post o add. G | rt post
o add. G o:o. o ... o] - desideratur, sed
omnium codicum lectionem servandam esse censui oo i ... o
om. AO | i0 o] i0 om. x o o] - Q :(a)
i] i BC | i r om. G :8(a) u]
0 iterum O .:.(b) ro ... ro] r- desideratur,
sed codicis R lectionem servandam esse censui
nr \rnno
Futuro: ferto, ferto; et pluraliter: fertote, ferunto.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
ferrem, ferres, ferret; et pluraliter: utinam ferremus, ferretis, ferrent.
oo
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam tulissem, tulises, tulis-
set; et pluraliter: utinam tulissemus, tulissetis, tulissent.
Futuro: utinam feram, feras, ferat; et pluraliter: utinam feramus, fera-
tis, ferant.
o Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum feram, feras, ferat; et plu-
raliter: cum feramus, feratis, ferant.
:o
Praeterito imperfecto: cum ferrem, ferres, ferret; et pluraliter: cum
ferremus, ferretis, ferrent.
: Praeterito perfecto: cum tulerim, tuleris, tulerit; et pluraliter: cum
tulerimus, tuleritis, tulerint.
.o Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum tulissem, tulisses, tuliset; et plurali-
ter: cum tulissemus, tulissetis, tulissent.
.
6q6 ferto tu, ferto ille ... feramus D
nox\+ts on\rcts \
` r ro o. ro o. ro o i 0u
ro o. ro o. ro o.
'o ri 000 i u ru i
0 0.
o ` i i r r.
` r o.
`j 0 ru o.
` ro.
` i
o. ro0[]. (BCGNO)
` r ro.
` r 0j.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 o-
.
o ` r i0 0j.
`j ri ru i 0 ro o-
.
` i ro o.
'o ri 00u i u o0.
` i i r o0.
` r 0j0.
o oo i 0 r. r_. r.
0o / o, .
i rr r u 0 j 0 r0; u.
o i; i j ri ru i 0. i o-
0 r. i o.
`j ri ru o. o. o-
i 0u 0. o0. o.
: o r] r x .: om. R (a) o] o-
AQ 6 ro] o BCG, o ANQ o om.
O 8q o] o AQ, o BCG (-o C), o
N : ... 0 om. ABCNOQ i] r
AQ | o] fort. - scribendum, sed codicum lectionem servandam esse
censui o0] - codd., corr. Schmitt o0] o0
BCGNO, - desideratur r ... r] r (-i
O), i. r AOQ (r om. A), i. i_.
t BCG, r. r_. r N (cf. :oo). 8 om. x
q rr] - ANQ o i] t N : o] o codd.,
supra lineam add. O
1
. 0 in marg. add. O | oj ... ru om. x
nr \rnno
Futuro: cum tulero, tuleris, tulerit; et pluraliter: cum tulerimus, tuleri-
tis, tulerint.
Innitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito
imperfecto: ferre.
o Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: tulisse.
Futuro: latum ire vel laturum esse.
Verbo impersonali tempore praesenti: fertur.
Praeterito imperfecto: ferebatur.
Praeterito perfecto: latum est vel fuit.

Praeterito plusquamperfecto: latum erat vel fuerat.

Futuro: feretur.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
ferretur.
o Futuro: utinam feratur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum feratur.
Praeterito perfecto: cum latum sit vel fuerit.
Innitivo modo numeris et personis: ferri.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: latum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: latum iri.
Participialia nomina sunt haec: ferendi, ferendo, ferendum.
Supina sunt haec: latum, latu.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Quae? Unum
o quod est temporis praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti, ut ferens; aliud
futuri, ut laturus.
Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: feror, ferris vel ferre, fertur; et
pluraliter: ferimur, ferimini, feruntur.
8 post imperativum praesentem et futurum praebet D o post q optati-
vum perfectum et plusquamperfectum praebet D : post q praeterito imperfecto:
cum ferretur D tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto post personis praebet D |
post preterito plusquamperfecto: cum latum esset vel fuisset. Futuro caret Gl
2
gerundia
vel participialia nomina D
6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` r. ro. ro i 0-
u r0. ro0. ro.
` i ro0. ro0. ro0 i 0-
u ro0. ro0. ro0.
` r r0j. ro0. ro0 i -
6o 0u r0j0. ro0. ro0.
` r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0-
u 00. 0j0. 0j.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
6 u_ o. r0 i 0u o0. r-
0.
u o0, 0j i 0c o0,
0j.
:j i o c i 0 -
o iu, 0j, 0j i 0c 0 0-
iu0, 0j0, 0j.
iu i 0 0i, 0i,
0i i 0c 0 0iu, 0i, -
0i.
u 0 0iu, 0j, 0j i
0c 0 0iu0, 0j0, 0j.
j i o c o ou, o o-
, o o i 0c o cu0, o o-
0, o o.
8o o o ou, o o, o o i
0c o ou0, o o0, o o.
iu o o0, o o0, o o0 i
0c o o0u, o o0, o o0.
q ro0] ro0 codd., corr. Schmitt | ro0] ro ABC-
GNOR, ro Q, corr. Schmitt 6o ro0] - G 6. 0j
om. G 6 00 ... 0j] 0u. 0j. -
0u x 6 r0] -r codd., corr. Schmitt 666 r0]
-r R 6q om. x 6q: i ... 0j] i
... o desiderantur, sed codicis R lectionem servavi
nr \rnno
Praeterito imperfecto: ferebar, ferebaris vel ferebare, ferebatur; et plu-
raliter: ferebamur, ferebamini, ferebantur.
Praeterito perfecto: latus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
pluraliter: lati sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel
fuere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: latus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
6o erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: lati eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fuera-
tis, erant vel fuerant.
Futuro: ferar, fereris vel ferere, feretur; et pluraliter: feremur, feremini,
ferentur.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona:
6 ferre, feratur; et pluraliter: ferimini, ferantur.
Futuro: fertor, fertor; et pluraliter: feraminor, feruntor.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
o ferrer, ferreris vel ferrere, ferretur; et pluraliter: utinam ferremur, fer-
remini, ferrentur.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam latus essem vel fuis-
sem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam lati essemus
vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: utinam ferar, feraris vel ferare, feratur; et pluraliter: utinam
feramur, feramini, ferantur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum ferar, feraris vel ferare,
feratur; et pluraliter: cum feramur, feramini, ferantur.
8o Praeterito imperfecto: cum ferrer, ferreris vel ferrere, ferretur; et plu-
raliter: cum ferremur, ferremini, ferrentur.
Praeterito perfecto: cum latus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lati simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
6 pluraliter: feramur etc. D 6 fertor tu, fertor ille ... feramur D
8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
8 o 0ju, o o0, o -
o0 i 0c o 0ju0, o o00,
o o0.
u o 0ju, o 0j, o 0j
i 0c o 0cu, o 0j, o 0c.
qo
'uo i o c i o-
0.
iu i 0j.
u 0j0.
q `j ri ru r0i. r0i. r0i i -
0u r0i. r0i. r0i.
` j0. j0. j0 i 0u j0i. j0i-
. j0.
` i r. r. r i 0u ro.
8oo ro. ro.
oui.
` r o. o. o i 0u o. o.
o.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
8o u_ o. r i 0u o. r.
:j i o c i 0 ou,
o, o i 0c 0 ou, o, o.
iu i 0 ou, o, o i
8:o 0c 0 ou, o, o.
u 0 ou, o, o i 0c 0 ou,
o, o.
j i o c o 0i, o 0i, o
0i i 0c o 0iu, o 0i, o 0i.
8: o o j0, o j0, o j0 i 0c
o j0iu, o j0i, o j0.
888q 0j ... 0u] codicis R lectionem servavi, quamvis futu-
rum cum aoristo in personis pluralibus perperam mutatum esse videretur q
0j] -0j0 R, cf. q q 0 in marg. add. AQ | oj ... ru-
om. x q6q8 r0i ... j0i om. G qq r] - codd. | ro]
- A 8oo ro] - codd., corr. Schmitt 8o: om. x 8o.8o om. N
8o68. om. x
nr \rnno q
8 Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum latus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum lati essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum latus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum lati erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
qo fuerint.
Innitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: ferri.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: latum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: latum iri.
q Indicativo modo, tempore praesenti: edo, es, est; et pluraliter: edimus,
editis, edunt.
Praeterito imperfecto: edebam, edebas, edebat; et pluraliter: edeba-
mus, edebatis, edebant.
Praeterito perfecto: edi, edisti, edit; et pluraliter: edimus, edistis, ede-
8oo runt vel edere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: ***
Futuro: edam, edes, edet; et pluraliter: edemus, edetis, edent.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: ede,
8o edat; et pluraliter: edite, edant.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
ederem, ederes, ederet; et pluraliter: utinam ederemus, ederetis, ede-
rent.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam edissem, edisses,
8:o edisset; et pluraliter: utinam edissemus, edissetis, edissent.
Futuro: utinam edam, edas, edat; et pluraliter: utinam edamus, edatis,
edant.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum edam, edas, edat; et plura-
liter: cum edamus, edatis, edant.
8: Praeterito imperfecto: cum ederem, ederes, ederet; et pluraliter: cum
ederemus, ederetis, ederent.
q edo ... est] comedo, is, it Ql
h
8o: ederam ... ederant D 8o pluraliter: edamus etc. D |
post 8o imperativum futurum praebet D
o nox\+ts on\rcts \
iu o i, o i, o i i 0c
o ou, o o, o o.
oui.
8.o u o o, o o, o o i 0c o
ou, o o, o o.
'uo i o c i 0i.
iu i 0.
u i.
8. `j ri ru i. i. i i -
0u 0. i0. i.
` r. ri. ri i 0u r0.
ri0. ri.
iu j0, j0, j0 i 0c j-
8o 0u, j0, j0.
` r r j. j. j i 0u -
r j. j. j.
8 ` r j. j. j i 0u 0.
j0. j.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
u_ i. r0 i 0u i0. r0.
u j0, 0j i 0c j0, 0j-
8o .
0j ri ru i 0 i0 j.
j. j i 0u i0 j. j. j-
.
` i i r i0 r i. i. i
8 i 0u i0 r i. i. i.
8.8, qoq6 ordinem i. i praebet R 8. oj ... ru
om. x | i] i BCG 8.6 0] - codd., corr. Schmitt 8. ri]
rr- R | r0] r- R 8.q8o om. x 8. r] - A | j]
i AB
m
NOQR, i BCG, corr. Schmitt | j. j] i. i codd., corr. Schmitt
8 j. j. j] i. i. i codd., corr. Schmitt 88 r0] -
BCGR | r0] - GR 8q8o om. x 8:8. i ... j] r
r_ i i_ u_ j N 8 r ... i] i. i.
i codd., corr. Schmitt 8 r] rr R | i] i BCGO
nr \rnno :
Praeterito perfecto: cum ederim, ederis, ederit; et pluraliter: cum
ederimus, ederitis, ederint.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: ***
8.o Futuro: cum edero, ederis, ederit; et pluraliter: cum ederimus, ederitis,
ederint.
Innitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: edere.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: edisse.
Futuro: esum ire vel esurum esse.
8. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: o, s, t; et pluraliter: mus,
tis, unt.
Praeterito imperfecto: ebam, ebas, ebat; et pluraliter: ebamus,
ebatis, ebant.
Praeterito perfecto: factus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
8o pluraliter: facti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel
fuere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: factus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: facti eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel
fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
8 Futuro: am, es, et; et pluraliter: emus, etis, ent.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: ,
at; et pluraliter: te, ant.
Futuro: to, to; et pluraliter: tote, unto.
8o
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
erem, eres, eret; et pluraliter: utinam eremus, eretis, erent.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam factus essem vel fuis-
8 sem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam facti esse-
mus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
8:q cum edissem ... edissent D 8. post 8. gerundia, supina, participia et coniu-
gationem impersonalem verbi edo sicut D praebet Gl
2
, cf. Appendicem latinam a |
o] ginome id est o et cetera Ql
h
88 pluraliter: amus D 8q to tu, to ille ... amus D
. nox\+ts on\rcts \
` r i0 j. j. j i 0u i0
0. j0. j.
`j ri
8o ru i 0 c
ro i. ro i. ro i i 0u ro u0. ro
i0. ro i.
o o ou,
o i, o i i
8 0c o ou0,
o i0, o i.
iu o j0,
o j0, o j0 i
0c o j0u, o
86o j0, o j0.
o u
j, j, j i 0c o
u ju, j, j.
` r ro j. ro j. ro j i 0u
86 ro u0. ro j0. ro j.
'o ri ru i 0 i0.
` i i r 0j.
` r j0.
8o o j o oo i 0 r. r_. r.
`0o 0 r.
i rr r u 0 j 0 0r; i
j ri 0 ***.
u. u. u i 0u 0. u-
8 0. u.
888 i0 j ... j] i ... j desiderantur, codi-
cum tamen lectionem servavi 8: i] i BCGN | i] - BCGN
| i 0u om. AQ 86.(b) j. j. j] i. i. i R, corr. Schmitt
86(b) j. j. j] i. i. i R, corr. Schmitt 86 o r] r-
x 8686 j ... j] codicum ABOQ lectionem servavi
86 j] - N 868 o ... r] r i -
i ANOQ, r i r B, o i i j r
C 86q om. G | o r] r ABCNOQ 8o8 om. R 8o 0-
o] o BCO, o (sic) G | r] -r AQ (-i O) | r_ om. A
8: 0o] o C 8. rr] - codd., corr. Schmitt | 0r-
] r G 8 ru i ante 0 suppleverim 8qo om.
R
nr \rnno
Futuro: utinam as, as, at; et pluraliter: utinam amus, atis, ant.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum am, as, at; et plurali-
8o ter: cum amus, atis, ant.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum erem, eres, eret; et pluraliter: cum
eremus, eretis, erent.
8
Praeterito perfecto: cum factus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum facti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
86o
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum factus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum facti essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum factus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
86 pluraliter: cum facti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
Innitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: eri.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: factum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: factum iri.
8o Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt haec: endi, endo, endum.
Supina ***
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo neutro ***? Unum, quod
est temporis *** praeteriti imperfecti ***
Eo, is, it: et pluraliter: imus, itis, eunt.
8
8: supina sunt haec: factum, factu D 8. neutro passivo D 8.8 quod est temporis
praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti, ut ens; aliud praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut factus; aliud
futuri, ut facturus D
nox\+ts on\rcts \
` r. ru. ru i 0u
r0. ru0. ru.
` i
. . ru0. ru0. r-
88o i 0u u0, u0 i 0u
[]0. []. ru0. ru0,
ru0. (BCGNO)
` r r0j. r0j. r0j i -
0u r0j. r0j. r0j.
88 ` r 0u. 0j. 0j i 0u 0u-
. 0j. 0u.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
u_ u. r0 i 0u u0. r0-
.
8qo r u0. 0j i 0u u0. -
0j.
0j ri ru i 0 i0 -
0i. u0. u0 i 0u i0 0i0
u00. u0.
8q ` i i r i0 0u. 0j. -
0j i 0u i0 0u0. 0j0. 0u.
` r i0 0i. 0j. 0j i -
0u i0 0i0. 0j0. 0j.
`j ri ru i 0 ro u-
qoo . ro u. ro u i 0u ro u0.
ro u0. ro u.
86 o om. ABCGNQ | r] - G 8q(b) 0 0
in marg. add. B
m
N 88 r] i BCG 888
r0] -r BCG 8qo u0] u0 BO, 0j C, 0j u
G | rt post 0j add. G | i 0u om. A | 0j0 add.
BCG | u0] 0j0 BGG, om. N, u0 O 8qo8q: 0j-
] 0j BCG, om. N, u O 8q. i 0 om. A |
r u_ i r_ i i_ u_ post 0 add. AB
m
CNOQ, r -
r_ i i_ u_ add. BG 8q.8q 0i ... u0] -
desideratur et corr. Schmitt, sed codicum lectionem servandam esse censui 8q.8q
0i] 0i AGNQ, 0j BCO, -i Schmnitt 8q u-
0] -0j AQ, -0j BCG, -0i NO, - Schmitt | u0] -0i
ANOQ, -0j BCG, - Schmitt | i0 om. ABCNOQ 8q 0u] -
N | 0j om. G 8q6 i0 om. ABCNOQ 8q o r] r A, r-
BCGNOQ | 0i] - codd., corr. Schmitt qoo u bis
scripsit O
nr \rnno
Praeterito imperfecto: ibam, ibas, ibat; et pluraliter: ibamus, ibatis,
ibant.
Praeterito perfecto: ivi, ivisti, ivit; et pluraliter: ivimus, ivistis, iverunt
vel ivere.
88o
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: iveram, iveras, iverat; et pluraliter: ive-
ramus, iveratis, iverant.
88 Futuro: ibo, ibis, ibit; et pluraliter: ibimus, ibitis, ibunt.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: i,
eat; et pluraliter: ite, eant.
8qo Futuro: ito, ito; et pluraliter: itote, eunto.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
irem, ires, iret; et pluraliter: utinam iremus, iretis, irent.
8q Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam ivissem, ivisses, ivis-
set; et pluraliter: utinam ivissemus, ivissetis, ivissent.
Futuro: utinam eam, eas, eat; et pluraliter: utinam eamus, eatis, eant.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum eam, eas, eat; et pluraliter:
qoo cum eamus, eatis, eant.
888 pluraliter: eamus etc. D 8qo ito tu, ito ille ... eamus D qoo post praesens
praeteritum imperfectum, perfectum et plusquamperfectum praebet D
6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
r ro 0u. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0u
ro 0u. ro 0j. ro 0u.
`j ri ru i. i. i i
qo 0u 0. i0. i.
` r. ri. ri i 0u r-
0. ri0. ri.
` i ro. ro. ro i 0u ro.
ro. ro.
q:o
` r rj. rj. rj i 0u
rj. rj. rj.
` r u. t. t i 0u 0. t.
q: 0.
j ri ru r r_ i i_ -
u_ i. r0 i 0u i0. r0.
u i, 0 i 0c i0, 0.
0j ri ru i 0
q.o i0 _u. _u. _u i 0 ju, j,
0u i0 _u, j i 0c
_u. _u. 0 ju, j,
j.
` i i r i0 j. j. j
q. i 0u i0 j. j. j.
` r i0 j. j. j i 0u i0
j. j. j.
qo 0 in marg. add. A | oj ... ru om. x qo8 0 0 -
in marg. add. B
m
NO q::q:. rj ... rj] r- desidera-
tur, codicum tamen lectionem servavi q: o r om. ANO | t] -t C |
0] -u R q:6 i 0 post ru add. N q: i]
t R q:8 om. x q.o(a) _u om. C q.q. j ... j]
- desideratur, codicum tamen lectionen servavi q. o r] r x |
j] - O | i0 om. ABNQ
nr \rnno
Futuro: cum ivero, iveris, iverit; et pluraliter: cum iverimus, iveritis,
iverint.
Modo indicativo tempore praesenti: gaudeo, gaudes, gaudet; et plura-
qo liter: gaudemus, gaudetis, gaudent.
Praeterito imperfecto: gaudebam, gaudebas, gaudebat; et pluraliter:
gaudebamus, gaudebatis, gaudebant.
Praeterito perfecto: gavisus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
pluraliter: gavisi sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel
q:o fuere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: gavisus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: gavisi eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel
fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
Futuro: gaudebo, gaudebis, gaudebit; et pluraliter: gaudebimus, gau-
q: debitis, gaudebunt.
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona:
gaude, gaudeat; et pluraliter: gaudete, gaudeant.
Futuro: gaudeto, gaudeto; et pluraliter: gaudetote, gaudento.
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam
q.o gauderem, gauderes, gauderet; et pluraliter: utinam gauderemus, gau-
deretis, gauderent.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam gavisus essem vel
q. fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam gavisi
essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: utinam gaudeam, gaudeas, gaudeat; et pluraliter: utinam gau-
deamus, gaudeatis, gaudeant.
qo gaudeo] chairome id est gaudeo Ql
h
qo post qo alia de coniugatione verbi eo
praebet Gl
2
, cf. Appendicem latinam b q: pluraliter: gaudeamus etc. D q:8 gaudeto
tu, gaudeto ille ... gaudeamus D
8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
`j ri
qo ru i 0 c
ro u. ro j. ro j o iu, o i,
i 0u ro u, o i i 0-
ro j. ro u. c o ou0, o
i0, o i.
q o o ou,
o i, o i i
0c o ou0,
o i0, o i.
` i i r iu o o,
qo ro j. ro j. ro o o, o o i
j i 0u ro 0c o ou,
j. ro j, o o, o o.
ro j.
o j-
q , o j, o -
j i 0c o
ju, o j,
o j.
u o c, o -
qo j, o j i 0-
c o cu, o j,
o c.
'o ri ru i 0 t.
iu i .
q u j0.
o oo i 0 r. r_. r.
qq(a) o i i om. AN qoq(b) j ... j] -
desideratur, codicum tamen lectionen servavi qq8(b) rj ... rj]
codicis R lectionem servavi, cf. q::q:. qq om. x q r] -
desideratur, sed codicis R lectionem servavi q6 o ... r om. R |
r] -r AQ | r_ om. A
nr \rnno q
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum gaudeam, gaudeas, gau-
qo deat; et pluraliter: cum gaudeamus. gaudeatis, gaudeant.
q Praeterito imperfecto: cum gauderem, gauderes, gauderet; et plurali-
ter: cum gauderemus, gauderetis, gauderent.
Praeterito perfecto: cum gavisus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
qo fuerit; et pluraliter: cum gavisi simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum gavisus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
q fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum gavisi essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum gavisus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
qo pluraliter: cum gavisi erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
Innitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: gaudere.
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: gavisum esse vel fuisse.
q Futuro: gavisum ire vel gavisurum esse.
Participialia nomina sunt haec: gaudendi, gaudendo, gaudendum.
q6 gerundia vel participialia nomina D | post q6 alia de coniugatione verbi gaudeo nec-
non coniugationem verborum memini et decet praebet Gl
2
, de quibus vide Appendicem
latinam c
6o nox\+ts on\rcts \
. i uj
'u i r ri; j r. i r j; r
o o i r j. o o 0 0 o
r i u. 0 r 0 j i i. r 0-
r 00 i j.
j j r; . i; r. u. . i.
00 i j.
i r; i. i; I ri rt _u -
. o u. i r r 0 t t 00o
0i. i o i j i .
:o i u; 'j i c, 'uj.
ri j 0o i, o pju ouo
o o oj o uo o0j
u. c.
i ; 'u i 0. i; 0 j
: j i j i o i ru i 0
ri.
i ; r i i. i; 0
j j i i i i i i i i .
j ri 0u j o i . r i
.o i ri.
i ; r. i; 0 j j o
i i i i r ri.
i i; 'j. i; 0 r0 j
o. o ri rt 0u. 00.
. : i j add. B
m
NO, 0 j add. BC | 0u] - BCO
00] -u BCG i] i ABCGOQR i] BCG 8
] - AOQ, -u BCGN, -u R, corr. Schmitt 8 r-
] ri j i BCGOR | t om. x q i om. x :o(a) oj]
00i ABCGNQ ::(a) i post ri add. A | 0o] 0o BCGN
:.(a) o] - ANQ : o i om. BCG :6 om.
x :8 i i om. R | ] x, corr. Schmitt | i ] ABNOQ
(Lat. in us), i C, r G, corr. Schmitt :q j] o x | 0u] -
codd., corr. Schmitt | j] o ri B
m
(del.), i x | ] ACQ
| r] 0 G .:.. o i om. R .. i ... ] i
(r G) i i x | ] Schmitt . i om. O
nr r\n+icirio 6:
. De participio
Legens quae pars est? Participium est. Quare est participium? Quia
partem capit nominis partemque verbi. Recipit enim a nomine genera
et casus, a verbo autem tempora et signicationes, ab utroque nume-
rum et guram.
Participio quot accidunt? Sex. Quae? Genus, casus, tempus, signica-
tio, numerus et gura.
Cuius generis? Omnis. Quare? Quia sic est illud cui adhaeret, quod
signicat, et habet habitudinem accipiendi tria articularia pronomina,
ut hic et haec et hoc.
:o Cuius casus? Nominativi est: Cuius casus? Nominativi. Quare?
verbum intransitivum construitur Quia verbum intransitive
cum nominativo casu. construitur cum nominativo casu.
Cuius temporis? Praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti. Quare? Quia
: omne participium desinens in ans vel in ens praesentis et praeteriti
imperfecti temporis est.
Cuius temporis? Praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti. Quare? Quia
omne participium desinens in tus vel in sus vel in xus, et unum in uus,
quod est mortuus, praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti temporis est.
.o
Cuius temporis? Futuri. Quare? Quia omne participium desinens in
dus et in rus futuri temporis est.
Cuius signicationis? Activae. Quare? Quia ab activo verbo derivatur,
quod est illud: amo, amas.
6. nox\+ts on\rcts \
. i i; 0j. i; 0 00 j o-
. o ri rt 0u. 00.
i i; j. i; 0 0 j o.
o ri rt ri. ri.
i i; 0r. i; 0 0r j o-
o . o ri rt u. u.
i i; 'j. i; 0 00 j-
o. o ri rt u. u.
i i; 0r 0j. i; r 0r 0-
0 j o. o ri rt i. i.
i i; 00. i; 0 0 j o.
o ri rt u. u.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
i j; `0. i; u r.
o i j; 0r. i; r 0 0 i0.
i ju, 0. i, o : o : i0,
o oo 0 pju o, l oc, c-
, c.
` oj o 0u. j 0u. 0u j
j 0 0u. j 0u. 0 0u
j j _u 0u. j 0u. _u 0u j
ij 0u. j 0u. 0u j
j u 0u. u 0u. u 0u j 0-
j 0 0 0u. 0 j 0u. 0 0 0-
o u.
. 00 j bis scripsit N . ordinem signicationum 0r
- 0r 0j - j - 0j praebet R . i om. A
.q j om. CGO : 0j] -j AQ, -j BCGR,
cf. c . .6 | 0 om. BCG | 00] -0 AQ, -0 BCGR
i om. O 0r 00] 0r 0j BG
j om. x 6 om. R j o] o j O
om. ABCQ | i om. B
m
O 8 i om. O q i om. O | r]
- R o om. ABCGNQR : om. x oj] 00t ABCGNQ
| o i j i add. O | o ... 0u] o i j i 0u BCGQ, o
0u. j 0u inter lineas add. Q
1
j ... 0u] om.
BQ (j 0u add. Q
1
), 0 0u om. AB
m
CGNQ 6 j
... 0u] om. BCGQ (j 0u add. Q
1
), _u 0u om.
AB
m
NQ ... 0u] i j i 0u O, i
j i ( G) 0u. 0u. 0u BCG 8 u
0u] u om. ABCGNQ, 0u G | u 0u om. BCGN
q 0 j 0u] 0 om. ABCGNQ | i post 0u add.
B
m
O qo 0 0 0u om. ANQ
nr r\n+icirio 6
. Cuius signicationis? Passivae. Quare? Quia a passivo verbo derivatur,
quod est illud: amor, amaris.
Cuius signicationis? Communis. Quare? Quia a communi verbo
derivatur, quod est illud: criminor, criminaris.
Cuius signicationis? Neutralis. Quare? Quia a neutrali verbo deriva-
o tur, quod est illud: eo, is.
Cuius signicationis? Deponentis. Quare? Quia a deponenti verbo
derivatur, quod est illud: sequor, sequeris.
Cuius signicationis? Neutralis passivae. Quare? Quia a neutro pas-
sivo verbo derivatur, quod est illud: gaudeo, gaudes.
Cuius signicationis? Nullius. Quare? Quia a nullius generis verbo deri-
vatur, quod est illud: possum, potes.
Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur.
Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur.
Cuius gurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur.
o Cuius gurae? Compositae. Quare? Quia a simplici componitur.
Cuius gurae? Decompositae. Quare? Quia non per se componitur,
sed a composito verbo derivatur, ut lego, perlego, a quo perlegens.
Nominativo hic et haec et hoc legens, genitivo huius legentis, dativo
huic legenti, accusativo hunc et hanc legentem et hoc legens, vocativo
o legens, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac legente vel legenti.
o
6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj o r. j r. r j j 0 r. j
u j j _u r. j u j ij r. j
r. r j j u r. r. r
i 0u j oj l i 0c j ouj
r. l r. o r l oc, l oc-
j j u j j , o oc j
t r. t u. t j c oo
r j ij u r, j j i oc,
o u. o r j j i o:, i
6o u r. u r. u r oc j /j
j 0j 0 u . oc, o
o:, o oc-
j j c oc-
, c oc, c
6 oc j oj
oo c oo.
` oj o 0u. j 0u. 0u j j
0 0u. j 0o. 0 0u j j _u
0u. j 0o. _u 0u j ij 0u-
o . j 0u. 0u j j u 0u. u
0u. u 0u j 0j 0 0 0u. 0
j 0o. 0 0 0u i 0u j o-
j l 0u. l 0u. o 0u j j u
0o j j t 0u. t 0o. t 0-
u j ij u 0u. o 0o. o 0u-
j j u 0u. u 0u. u 0u j
0j 0 u 0o.
: om. ABCGOQR, sed j oj (00t B
m
) o r. j r i r
praebent B
m
O : oj] 00t N (a) oj] 00t ABCGNQ,
om. O (a) t u om. BCGQ, add. Q
1
8(a) t r om.
ABCGNQ 6o(a) u r om. BCG, u om. N 6o(a) u r om. BCG,
u om. N 6 oj] 00t ABCGNQ 68 0o] -u BCGR,
-0() B
m
| 0 0u om. ABCGNQ 6q 0o] -u BCGR,
-0() B
m
| _u 0u om. ABCGNQ o j ... 0u om. BCG |
0u] - R o: u ... 0u] u ... i u ... i u ... AQ |
u 0u. u 0u om. BCG : 0u] - R :. 0 j
... 0u om. BCG, 0 0 0u om. ANQ . oj]
00t ABCGNQ l ... 0u] l ... i l ... AQ | l ... 0u
om. BC, o 0u om. ANQ t 0o] i 0u BCG,
t 0 O, t 0u R t 0u] om. AN, t
0u BCG 6 o ... 0u om. BCG, o 0u om. AOQ
6 j j ... 0u om. N | u ... 0u] u ... i u ... i u ... O |
0u] om. BCG, - R | u 0u om. ABCGQ
nr r\n+icirio 6
Nominativo hic et haec et hoc legens, genitivo huius legentis, dativo
huic legenti, accusativo hunc et hanc legentem et hoc legens, vocativo
o legens, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac legente vel legenti.
Et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae legentes et haec legentia, genitivo
horum et harum legentium vel legentum, dativo his legentibus, accu-
sativo hos et has legentes et haec legentia, vocativo o legentes et o
legentia, ablativo ab his legentibus.
6o
6
Nominativo lectus lecta lectum, genitivo lecti lectae lecti, dativo lecto
lectae lecto, accusativo lectum lectam lectum, vocativo o lecte lecta
lectum, ablativo a lecto lecta lecto; et pluraliter: nominativo lecti lec-
o tae lecta, genitivo lectorum lectarum lectorum, dativo lectis, accusa-
tivo lectos lectas lecta, vocativo o lecti lectae lecta, ablativo a lectis.

66 nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj o 0u. j 0u. 0u j -
j 0 0u. j 0u. 0 0u j -
8o j _u 0u. j 0u. _u 0u j ij
0u. j 0u. 0uj j u 0u-
. u 0u. u 0u j 0j 0 0 0u-
. 0 j 0u. 0 0 0u i 0u
j oj l 0u. l 0u. o 0u j
8 j u 0. u 0u. u 0 j
j t 0u. t 0u. t 0u j i-
j u 0u. o 0u.o 0u j -
j u 0u. u 0u. u 0u j 0j
0 u 0. 0 u 0u. 0 u 0-
qo .
ouj o oou, j ou, o oo-
u j j ou, j ou, o-
u j j c ou, j ou, c o-
u j /j o oou, j ou,
q o oou j j c oou, c ou,
c oou j oj oo ou, oo j
ou, oo ou i 0c j o-
uj l oou, l oou, o oou
j j c ou j j i ou,
8:o om. AQ 8 oj] 00t BCGN | o] o i j i O, o i j
BCG | 0u] -u N | i j 0u B
m
O | j ... 0u om.
BCG, 0u om. B
m
O q 0 0u] 0. j 0u BCG,
- NR | j 0u] i j 0. B
m
O, om. BCG | 0 0u
om. BCGNO 8o _u 0u] _u. j 0u BCG, - R | j
0u] i j 0. B
m
O, om. BCG | _u 0u om. BCGNO 8o8:
0u] . j 0. BCO, - N, u 0u G 8: j
0u] i j 0. B
m
O, om. BCG, - N | 0u om. BCGO
8:8. u 0u] u 0u BCG 8. u 0u om. BCGNO
8.8 0 0 0u] 0 0. j . BCG 8 0 j 0u] i
0 j . B
m
O, om. BCG | 0 0 0u om. BCGNO 8 oj]
00t BCGN | l 0u] l (o BC) i l 0. BCG | l 0u] i
l 0. O (i l B
m
), om. BCG | o 0u om. BCGNO, - R 8 u
0u. u 0 om. BCGNO 86 t 0u] t. t
0. BCG | t 0u] i t B
m
, i 0. O, om. BCG | t 0u
om. BCGNO 8 u 0u] u. o 0u BCG, - R |
o 0u] i o B
m
, i 0u O, om. BCG | o 0u
om. BCGNO, - R 88 u 0u] - R | u 0u] i u
0. O ( u B
m
), om. BCG | u 0u om. BCGNO, - R 8qqo 0
u 0u. 0 u 0 om. BCGNO q::o om. x
nr r\n+icirio 6
Nominativo lecturus lectura lecturum, genitivo lecturi lecturae lecturi,
dativo lecturo lecturae lecturo, accusativo lecturum lecturam lectu-
8o rum, vocativo o lecture lectura lecturum, ablativo a lecturo lectura
lecturo; et pluraliter: nominativo lecturi lecturae lectura, genitivo lec-
turorum lecturarum lecturorum, dativo lecturis, accusativo lecturos
lecturas lectura, vocativo o lecturi lecturae lectura, ablativo a lectu-
ris.
8
qo
Nominativo legendus legenda legendum, genitivo legendi legendae
legendi, dativo legendo legendae legendo, accusativo legendum legen-
dam legendum, vocativo o legende legenda legendum, ablativo a
legendo legenda legendo; et pluraliter: nominativo legendi legendae
q legenda, genitivo legendorum legendarum legendorum, dativo legen-
dis, accusativo legendos legendas legenda, vocativo o legendi legendae
legenda, ablativo a legendis.
68 nox\+ts on\rcts \
:oo i ou, i ou j /j o-
u, o ou, o oou j j c
oou, c oou, c oou j o-
j oo c ou.
i i; u i i i, i. i,
:o r r r 00 o : j j j /
u. r r 00 u j o
i 0r r. i, l o oc
oc i i
i ui j /
::o j / /i i
i l i ui
/ c i .
i, o j j c -
c j / i / , l
:: oc, j o-
o, oc.
. i oui
'u i r ri; 'i ri. i r 0i; t-
r _ ii o i u j r i .
j 0i r; . i; i. r. 00. j.
i u.
i r; i. 0 r i r; i
_u _u _ 0 j 0 o 00. 0-
j 0r. i; I 0 j 0r. 0u r
ri rt _u . o i j j.
ri. (B
m
R)
:o:o6(a) 00 u] 0 00 u AQ, j u 00 (00
G) BCG :oq(b) j] - R, corr. Schmitt ::::6(b) 0o] -u
R, corr. Schmitt
. : i 0i add. BCGO . u ... ] i (dub.) r 0_
i u u B
m
, cf. b . . r om. AQ | i] i ABCGOQR
om. G (a) i] ABCGQ (b) r 0_ add. B
m
8(b) cf. b. . 8 (a) j 0r om. A (a) I] 0 A 8(a)
] -u ACG, -u BNOQ, corr. Schmitt
nr rnoxoxixr 6q
:oo
Cuius declinationis? Primae et Cuius declinationis? Tertiae.
:o secundae: ex parte feminini Quare? Quia eius genitivus
primae, ex parte masculini singularis in is correptum
et neutri secundae. desinit, ut legens legentis; et sic
alia participia desinentia in
ans vel in ens sunt declinatio-
::o nis tertiae. Alia vero participia
sunt primae et secundae.
Quare? Quia genitivus
singularis desinit in ae et in i,
ut lecti, lectae, lecti.
::
. De pronomine
Ego quae pars est? Pronomen est. Quare est pronomen? Quia ponitur
loco proprii nominis et certam signicat personam.
Pronomini quot accidunt? Sex. Quae? Species, genus, numerus, -
gura, persona et casus.
Cuius generis? Omnis, sed in hoc Cuius generis? Omnis:
loco masculini vel feminini vel secundum locum masculini,
neutri. Quare? Quia sic est feminini vel neutri, sicut est
illud cui adhaeret, quod demonstrat. subiectum literaturae.
o nox\+ts on\rcts \
:o i , :. i, o o :o o.
i , c. i, o oo o.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
i j; `0. i; u r.
: i ju, 0. o0 i0, ' c 0-
u.
i u; u. i; i c, c j
i 0 i 00 j i. i,
r. o o o oou i l
.o i u; r. i; oui /i i c-
i 0. i i , j j c, j i
0 j. c, i j :, j i
i u; i. i; , i c c
o o o i l 0- c c ,
. i ii i u. j /i c .
j ru. j ri u. i u,
j ri r. i u r-
0 0u.
i u; 'j ri i c, 'uj.
o j 0o i, o i pju ou-
o oj u. o o uo o0j
c.
` oj ru j j r0 j j ri j ij rr j
0j 0 r0 i 0u j oj jt j j
ju j j jt j ij j0 j 0j 0 ju.
` oj u j j 0 j j i j ij r j j
u u j 0j 0 0 i 0u j oj t
j j u j j t j ij 0 j j u t j
0j 0 u.
:o:: om. x ::6 om. x | 0r] -r R, corr. Schmitt :.(b)
i ... r] cf. b . :.: :8(a) om. O .:(a) i ] i j
NQ .6(a) j ... u om. G .(a) r] -r G ..8(a) u
r] t r codd., corr. Schmitt .q:(a) i ... u]
codicum lectionem servavi, sed o post addiderim (ut Lat.
construitur) .q.(b) i ... u] codicis lectionem servavi, sed
post o addiderim (ut Lat. positum) o(a) 0o] 0o BCG
o.(b) ... u] cf. :. .(a) :(a) oj] o0j ABCGNQ,
cf. :(b) oj] 00t ABCGNQ 0u 0 r R |
oj] 00t ABCGNQ j j u jt post j0 add. A 6q j
oj ... 0 u om. AQ 6 oj] 00t BCGN oj]
00t BCGN
nr rnoxoxixr :
:o Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur.
Cuius speciei? Derivativae. Quare? Quia ab aliquo derivatur.
Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur.
Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur.
Cuius gurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur.
: Cuius gurae? Compositae. Unde componitur? A suis componenti-
bus.
Cuius personae? Primae. Quare? Cuius personae? Primae vel se-
Quia signicat rem ut per se ipsam cundae vel tertiae. Quare? Quia
loquatur. omnia nomina et pronomina
.o Cuius personae? Secundae. Quare? sunt tertiarum personarum,
Quia signicat rem ut ad aliquem exceptis ego, quod est primae,
alius loquatur. et tu, quod est secundae, et
Cuius personae? Tertiae. Quare? vocativis casibus aliorum, qui
Quia omnia nomina et pronomina sunt personae secundae.
. sunt tertiarum personarum, exceptis
ego, quod est primae, et tu, quod est
secundae, et derivatis ab illis.
Cuius casus? Nominativi est: Cuius casus? Nominativi.
o verbum intransitive construitur Quare? Quia est verbum
cum nominativo casu intransitive positum construitur
cum nominativo casu.
Nominativo ego, genitivo mei vel mis, dativo mihi, accusativo me,
ablativo a me; et pluraliter: nominativo nos, genitivo nostrum vel
nostri, dativo nobis, accusativo nos, ablativo a nobis.
Nominativo tu, genitivo tui vel tis, dativo tibi, accusativo te, vocativo
o tu, ablativo a te; et pluraliter: nominativo vos, genitivo vestrum vel
verstri, dativo vobis, accusativo vos, vocativo o vos, ablativo a vobis.
. nox\+ts on\rcts \
o ` oj 0 ` j 00 j
j j 00 j j 0_u j j l
j j 0_u j ij 0 j /j i
j ij 0 j 0j 0 00 j oj o
j 0j 0 00 i 0u i 0c
i 0u j j ru j ouj i
j oj 0i j j rt j j
j j 0u j ij ru j j i
j j 0t j 0j 0 0u. j /j
j ij 0u (BCG) j oj oo
o j 0j 0 0u. [c] .
(AB
m
NOQ)
i 0i; u.
u 0i ri i, o : j j
u j j i j i j / j / i j j
i j j i u j / : j o i-
o i. i ru. r0. ri , l c u, ui :,
u. 0. i , i , l,
0. 00. 0_u, r0, r_u,
(AB
m
NOQ) (BCG)
6o o 0 t o 0 j i r r u_
_u _ t 0i. i ru. u,
0. (AB
m
NOQ) r0. (BCG) .
` oj rt. ri. rt j j ri. ri. ri
j j ri_. ri. ri_ j ij rt. ri. rt j
6 0j 0 ri. 0 ri. 0 ri i 0u j
oj rt. rt. rt j j ri j j ri.
ri. ri j ij ri. ri. rt j 0j
0 ri.
o(a) oj] 00t AQ 6(a) j oj 0i om. AN . u]
u BCGNO (a) u] j B
m
N (a) i ] om. G, j NO
(a) i om. G (a) i om. BCGO 6(a) o i om. ABCGQ
8(a) 0 ... 0_u] 00. 0_u om. N 6o o] R | ] i A, NO |
j] j G, r R | r] -ri AQ, -r BCOR, -r
G 6: _u _] _u u_ G 6 oj] 00t ABCGNQ | ri.
ri] ri om. ABCGQ 6 ri om. C | ri_] rt A, om. C |
rt] - x 6 0 ri. 0 ri om. C 66 oj] 00t ABCGNQ
666 j j ... rt om. G 6 ri. ri] ri om. BC
nr rnoxoxixr
o Genitivo sui, dativo sibi, accusativo se, ablativo a se; et pluraliter:
genitivo sui, dativo sibi, accusativo se, ablativo a se.

o
Cuius modi pronominis? Primi.
Primus modus pronominis est Quare? Quia eius genitivus
cuius genitivus in is vel in i singularis in i vel in is et dativus in
et dativus in i naturaliter desinit, i naturaliter desinit, ut ego,
ut ego, mei vel mis, mihi; mei vel mis, mihi; tu, tui vel tis,
tu, tui vel tis, tibi; sui, sibi, tibi; sui, sibi,
6o quod non facit sis causa dierentiae sis verbi; et continentur in hoc
modo tria pronomina primitiva, scilicet ego, tu, sui.
Nominativo ille illa illud, genitivo illius, dativo illi, accusativo illum
illam illud, ablativo ab illo ab illa ab illo; et pluraliter: nominativo illi
6 illae illa, genitivo illorum illarum illorum, dativo illis, accusativo illos
illas illa, ablativo ab illis.
6: sui] aftos id est sui Ql
h
nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj u. I. 0 j j u. u. u
o j j u_. u. u_ j ij 0. u. 0 j
0j 0 u. 0 u. 0 u. i 0u j
oj u. u. 0 j j u j j u.
u. u j ij u. u. 0 j 0j 0
u.
` oj 0. 0j. 0 ouj o, j,
j j 00. 0j. 00 o j j , j,
j j 0_u. 0j. 0_u j j c, j,
j ij 0. 0j. 0 c j /j o,
j 0j 0 00. 0 0j, j, o j oj o
8o 0 00 i 0u , o j, o -
j oj 0i. 0i. 0o i 0c j ou-
j j 0u j j 0t, j i, i, o
0t. 0t j ij 0u, j j c j j -
0o. 0o j 0j i, i, i j /-
8 0 0u. j :, o, o j
oj o c.
` oj o. j. j j 0. j. 0 j j _u. j. _u j
ij . j. j 0j 0 0. j. 0 i 0u
j oj l. l. o j j u j j t. t. t j ij
qo u. o. o j 0j 0 u.
i 0i; r. i; u j j rj
i i j j i u j o i. i rt.
ri. ri_ u. u. u_ 0, 00. 0_u r.
r0. r_u o. 0. _u.
o u. u_ om. G | 0] - x : 0 u. 0 u om. BCGNO,
0 u om. R . oj] 00t BCGN, om. AQ | 0] 0 BCG
(sic) . u. u] u om. AO u] 0 A, 0 BCG,
u B
m
| 0] 0 BG, 0 C (a) oj] 00t ABCGNQ
8(a) 0j om. G 8(a) 0] - ABCNOQ, om. G q8o(b) 0 r0]
0 r. R, corr. Schmitt 8o8:(b) 0 r0] 0 r. R, corr. Schmitt 8(a) 0t.
0t] 0t om. BCG, 0o O 8 oj] 00t ABCGNQ | j. ] j i
R 8q oj] 00t ABCGNQ | t. t] t om. BCG q:q post
:o praebet x, sed cf. D (p), qui Cuius modi pronominis? Secundi post is (o) praebet
q: 0i om. x | rj om. AB
m
NOQ q. ] x | j j] j om. x
q u ... u_] u. u_ om. x, post _u transp. R | 00. 0_u om. R |
0_u] -u N | 0 post 0_u add. AOQ qq r ... r_u] 0. 00.
0_u x q post _u add. AOQ
nr rnoxoxixr
Nominativo iste ista istud, genitivo istius, dativo isti, accusativo istum
o istam istud, ablativo ab isto ab ista ab isto; et pluraliter: nominativo
isti istae ista, genitivo istorum istarum istorum, dativo istis, accusativo
istos istas ista, ablativo ab istis.
Nominativo ipse ipsa ipsum, genitivo ipsius, dativo ipsi, accusativo
ipsum ipsam ipsum, ablativo ab ipso ab ipsa ab ipso; et pluraliter:
nominativo ipsi ipsae ipsa, genitivo ipsorum ipsarum ipsorum, dativo
ipsis, accusativo ipsos ipsas ipsa, ablativo ab ipsis.
8o
8
Nominativo hic et haec et hoc, genitivo huius, dativo huic, accusativo
hunc et hanc et hoc, ablativo ab hoc ab hac ab hoc; et pluraliter:
nominativo hi hae haec, genitivo horum harum horum, dativo his,
qo accusativo hos has haec, ablativo ab his.
Cuius modi pronominis? Secundi. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singu-
laris in ius et dativus in i naturaliter desinit, ut ille, illius, illi; ipse,
ipsius, ipsi; iste, istius, isti; is, eius, ei; hic, huius, huic.
qo post qo declinationem pronominis is ea id praebet D
6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
q ` oj i. i. r j j r. 0. r j j ri. 0.
ri j ij r. i. r j j u i. i. r j 0j 0
0 r. j 0. 0 r.
` oj o. o. o j j o. o. o j j o_.
o. o_ j ij o. o. o j j u o. u o. u o
:oo j 0j 0 0 o. j o. 0 o i 0u j
oj l o. l o. o o j j u o j j t
o. t o. t o j ij u o. o o. o o j
j u o. u o. u o j 0j 0 u o.
ouj j , j, j j , j, j
:o j c, j, c j /j , j, j oj
o , o j, o i 0c j ouj ,
, 0 j j c j j l, l, l j
/j i, 0, 0 j oj o c.
` oj o r. j rj. r j j 0 r0. j rj. 0
::o r0 j j _u r_u. j rj. _u r_u j ij r. j rj.
r j j u rr. u rj. u r j 0j 0 0 r0.
j rj. 0 r0 i 0u j oj l ri. l ri. o
ro j j u ru j j t rt. t rt. t rt j
ij u ru. o ro. o ro j 0j 0 u ru.
:: ` oj o . j j. j j 0 0. j j. 0
0 j j _u _u. j j. _u _u j ij . j j.
j 0j 0 0 0. j j. 0 0 i 0u j
oj l i. l i. o o j j u u j j t t.
q oj] 00t ABCGNQ | i om. G | i] j i G | 0. r] r om.
ABCGNQ q6 r] - BCG | i] i ABCO q6q 0 ... r] 0 r.
0. r R, 0 r. 0 0. 0 r desideratur, sed cf. :oo 0 0 o ...
q 0. 0 r] 0 r om. ABCGNQ q8 oj] 00t ABCGNQ |
o. o] o om. ABCGNQ qq o. o_] o_ om. ABCGNQ | o. o]
o om. ABCGNQ | o] - R | u o. u o] ordinem u o. u o praebent
ANQ :oo j 0j ... o om. R :o: oj] 00t ABCGNQ |
l .. o] o. o. o R | u om. R :o::o. t ... o] o. o. o
R, t ... o om. BCG, t o om. N :o. u ... o] o. o. o R,
o o om. C :o 0 u o] 0 o R :o:o8 om. x :o6 0
j. 0 u] codicis R lectionem servavi, fort. tamen 0 j et 0 u scribenda
:o8 I ... 0 u] codicis R lectionem servavi, fort. tamen I. 0. 0
et 0 u scribenda :oq oj] 00t ABCGNQ :oq::o j rj.
0 r0 om. BCGNO ::o j rj. _u r_u om. B
m
O ::: j j ... r om.
GR, u rr. u rj om. BCNO ::. oj] 00t ABCGNQ | l ri om.
O :: t ... rt] t rt om. BCG :: oj] 00t ABCGNQ
::::6 j j. 0 0] 0 0 om. BCGO ::6 j j ... _u _u om. BCG
nr rnoxoxixr
q Nominativo unus una unum, genitivo unius, dativo uni, accusativo
unum unam unum, vocativo o une una unum, ablativo ab uno ab una
ab uno.
Nominativo totus tota totum, genitivo totius, dativo toti, accusativo
totum totam totum, vocativo o tote tota totum, ablativo a toto a
:oo tota a toto; et pluraliter: nominativo toti totae tota, genitivo totorum
totarum totorum, dativo totis, accusativo totos totas tota, vocativo o
toti o totae o tota, ablativo a totis.
Nominativo quis vel qui, quae, quod vel quid, genitivo cuius, dativo
:o cui, accusativo quem quam quod vel quid, ablativo a quo vel a qui, a
qua, a quo vel a qui; et pluraliter: nominativo qui quae quae, genitivo
quorum quarum quorum, dativo quis vel quibus, accusativo quos quas
quae, ablativo a quis vel a quibus.
Nominativo meus mea meum, genitivo mei meae mei, dativo meo
::o meae meo, accusativo meum meam meum, vocativo o mi mea meum,
ablativo a meo mea meo; et pluraliter: nominativo mei meae mea,
genitivo meorum mearum meorum, dativo meis, accusativo meos
meas mea, vocativo o mei meae mea, ablativo a meis.
:: Nominativo tuus tua tuum, genitivo tui tuae tui, dativo tuo tuae tuo,
accusativo tuum tuam tuum, ablativo a tuo tua tuo; et pluraliter:
nominativo tui tuae tua, genitivo tuorum tuarum tuorum, dativo tuis,
accusativo tuos tuas tua, vocativo o tui tuae tua, ablativo a tuis.
q nominativo is ea id perperam Ql
h
(qui fort. i ut is legit intellexitque)
8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
t t. t t j ij u u. o o. o o j 0j
:.o 0 u u.
` oj o, ` 00t o, ouj o , j j, o
u. i. r u j. o [] j j , j
(B
m
O) (BCG) j, j j c c, j
j, c c j /j o ,
:. j j, o [] j o-
j o , o j, o i
0c j ou-
j l , l , o 0 j -
j c c j j i
:o l, i l, i l j /-
j i, o 0, o
0 j /j o c.
` oj o jr. j jr. jr j j 0 jr-
. j jr. 0 jr j j _u jr_. j jr. _u
: jr_ j ij jr. j jr. jr j -
j u jr. u jr. u jr j 0j 0 0 jr.
0 j jr. 0 0 jr i 0u j oj l
jr. l jr. o jr j j u jr j j t
jr. t jr. t jr j ij u jr.
:o o jr. o jr j j u jr. u jr. u jr
j 0j 0 u jr.
::q t t. t t] t t om. BCG :.::. om. ANQ :..(b) j] j CG
::: j oj ... 0 u jr bis praebet A : oj] 00t
ABCGNQ : j jr. 0 jr] 0 jr om. BCG :: j
jr. _u jr_] _u jr_ om. BCG :6 u jr. u jr] jr.
jr ABCNQ :6: j 0j ... jr om. C : 0 j ...
jr] j jr. 0 jr ( jr BC) ABCNOQ | oj]
00t ABCGNQ :q t jr. t jr] t jr om. BCG
:o u jr. u jr] jr. jr ABCNQ :: j 0j ...
jr om. ABCNOQ
nr rnoxoxixr q
:.o
Nominativo suus sua suum, genitivo sui suae sui, dativo suo suae suo,
accusativo suum suam suum, ablativo a suo sua suo; et pluraliter:
nominativo sui suae sua, genitivo suorum suarum suorum, dativo suis,
accusativo suos suas sua, vocativo o sui suae sua, ablativo a suis.
:.
:o
Nominativo noster nostra nostrum, genitivo nostri nostrae nostri,
dativo nostro nostrae nostro, accusativo nostrum nostram nostrum,
: vocativo o noster nostra nostrum, ablativo a nostro a nostra a nostro;
et pluraliter: nominativo nostri nostrae nostra, genitivo nostrorum
nostrarum nostrorum, dativo nostris, accusativo nostros nostras no-
stra, vocativo o nostri nostrae nostra, ablativo a nostris.
:o
8o nox\+ts on\rcts \
` oj o r. j r. r j j 0 r-
. j r. 0 r j j _u r_. j r. _u
r_ j ij r. j r. r j j
: u r. u r. u r j 0j 0 0 r. j
r. 0 r i 0u j oj l r. l
r. o r j j u r j j t r.
t r. t r j ij u r. o r.
o r j j u r. u r. u r j 0j
:o 0 u r.
i 0i; i. i;
o o 00t o i o
i u oo. oui i
0 i o
: i i u
ouo c i
i.
i 0i; o. i; 00t i o-
o i i.
:6o ii o o u 0 r o /i oui c
0i u o i; :ui i c o
i. ou i i, oc
ro o. i ru, o i o o-
u. r0. rt. 0. u . o l c,
:6 o i r. . o. jr :, , i, o, o, ipse
i r, ***. i o l
uo, o, , ju i
u, o i
o.
:.:o r post denitionem tertii modi (:::) praebent ABCNOQ, om. G
:. oj] 00t ABCNQ : j jr. 0 r] 0 r
om. BC : j ij ... r om. R : u r. u r]
r. r ABCNQ ::6 j ... r] r. r ABCOQ,
om. N :6 oj] 00t ABCNQ : j j t r] t
r om. A :8 t ... r] t r om. ABCGNQ :q j
j ... r om. R | u r. u r om. ABCNQ :: i]
- x, corr. Schmitt :(a) u] j u AB
m
NOQ, j u BCG, corr.
Schmitt :(b) i] i R :8 post : j oj o j ... et j
oj ... con. Schmitt, cf. D: hic nostras ... hic vestras :8:q om.
R :8 o] - x, corr. Schmitt :6o:6(a) om. AQ :6o(a) o o]
0i G :66(a) j i post r add. Schmitt
nr rnoxoxixr 8:
Nominativo vester vestra vestrum, genitivo vestri vestrae vestri, dativo
vestro vestrae vestro, accusativo vestrum vestram vestrum, vocativo o
vester vestra vestrum, ablativo a vestro a vestra a vestro; et pluraliter:
: nominativo vestri vestrae vestra, genitivo vestrorum vestrarum vestro-
rum, dativo vestris, accusativo vestros vestras vestra, vocativo o vestri
vestrae vestra, ablativo a vestris.
:o
Cuius modi pronominis? Tertii. Quare?
Quia per omnia sequitur Quia tertius modus pronominis
declinationem mobilium est qui in omnibus sequitur
nominum. declinationem mobilium
: nominum primae et secundae
declinationis.
Cuius modi pronominis? Quarti. Quare? Quia sequitur declinationem
nominum tertiae declinationis.
:6o Quot sunt pronomina de quibus nulla dubitatio est? Quindecim, octo
primitiva et septem derivativa. Primitiva ut ego, tu, sui, ille, ipse, iste,
hic et is; derivativa ut meus, tuus, suus, noster et vester, nostras et
vestras.
:6
:6 post :6 declinationem pronominum nostras et vestras praebet D
8. nox\+ts on\rcts \
:o ii u 0u; r u. u. i
i r.
. i 0
i i r ri; 0i r. i r 0; i0
t 0 r 0 r _ o u j u0 j
r0. r o o r0. r o0 j u o
u0. r o i0.
j 0r r; . i; u .
u; u. i; ij i 0j.
i i u u; ij. 0r ij u
i. . . o. u_. ru. 0i. r. r. u. i.
r ri. o. o. o. o. r. ro. u0. r. r-
:o .
' i u u; 'j. 0r 0j u-
0. u. ru. o0. r. r. ru. i. 0. i.
' i u u; 'r j rr. 0r 0-
r u r. . ro i o.
: ii 0r i 0 i i j r 0r; .
i; . . . . i .
:o ii om. R | r] o ANQ, BC, o G, om. B
m
O, corr.
Schmitt :: i om. BCGOR
. : i 0r add. NO, - B | i] r ABCNOQ, 0 G o
r0 ... u0 om. R ] R, post r transp. A 6 i] i BCG,
om. ARQ i u] i 0 AB
m
NOQ, i u BCG | ij]
j ij AQ, ij BCG, ij NO | 0r] 0 AB
m
NOQ,
- BCG 8 i] r x q r] o AQ :: 0] ABCNOQ, (sic) G |
i] i AGQ, j BC, i B
m
O | u] u x | 0j] j j AQ |
0r] 0 AB
m
NOQ, - BCG : r] ABCNOQ, G | u]
u BCG | 0r] -r codd., corr. Schmitt | j rr om. R |
0r] 0 ANOQ, - BCG :: 0r] rr x :6 i]
i BCG, om. R | om. x | i ] i B
nr rn\rrosi+ioxr 8
:o Quot sunt modi pronominis? Quattuor: primus, secundus, tertius et
quartus.
. De praepositione
Ad quae pars est? Praepositio est. Quare est praepositio? Quia prae-
ponitur aliis partibus orationis in oratione per appositionem vel per
compositionem; per appositionem, id est per regimen casuum; per
compositionem, id est quando componitur.
Praepositioni quot accidunt? Unum. Quod? Casus tantum.
Quot casus? Duo. Qui? Accusativus et ablativus.
Ad cui casui servit? Accusativo. Da praepositiones accusativi casus:
ad, apud, ante, adversum vel adversus, circum, circa, contra, extra,
intra, inter, iuxta, ob, per, prope, secundum, post, ultra, supra, circiter,
:o usque, penes.
Ab cui casui servit? Ablativo. Da praepositiones ablativi casus: a, cum,
coram, clam, e, ex, prae, palam, sine, absque.
In cui casui servit? Utrique. Da praepositiones utriuque casus: in, sub,
super et subter.
: Quot sunt praepositiones quae non inveniuntur nisi in compositione?
Sex. Quae? Di, dis, re, se, an, con.
. 8:o ad, apud, ante, adversum vel adversus, citra, circum, circa, contra, erga, extra, inter,
intra, infra, iuxta, ob, pone, per, prope, propter, secundum, post, trans, ultra, praeter, supra, circiter,
usque, secus, penes D :::. a, ab, abs, cum, coram, clam, de, e, ex, pro, prae, palam, sine,
absque, tenus D
8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
6. i ju
0 i r r; 'io r. i r ri; t
ru 0 j i 0i r j.
_u rj r; i. i; i. i i j.
i i; u. i; 0 0 o.
i i; u. i; 0 o.
i i; . i ui, j.
. i j. 0r, o j, l ju,
0. i. u. 0, , i, 0.
. i r0o. rt, o j, l 0o,
:o r. rt0. r j r, i, i j i, i,
r j r. i0, o j o.
r0. i i. i, o j, i i, i,
o o. i.
0j. i
: i0. 0, ouj.
j. i u.
0o. i 0. 0i. 0j, o oj, l :, :,
0u. :i, :j, :uc.
0r. i i. i. i.
.o o j ou. i 0i o j j lo j.
. i
u. u. r. c, c, ci,
0. u. u. c i c.
. : i rj inter lineas add. BCO | t] o i ANQ,
o 0 i BCGO, sed cf. D: quia instat iuxta verbum . i ... j om. G |
r] rr B, rr C i] i ABCGRQ i ... o om. x
6(a) ] j G (a) ] j G q(a) i om. O :o r]
ru BCG :o r om. A :. ordinem atque nomina signicationum 0-
j. . . i. o. i. j. u.
000. rj. o. ou. 0r. 0j. ou. -
j. u. iu. 00i. i. rj praebet R :q i om.
ANOQR, cf. c 6. :o .o o j ou] ou N | lo om. R .(a) 0-
] 0 AO, u G, cf. D: pulchre
nr \n\rnnio 8
6. De adverbio
Nunc quae pars est? Adverbium est. Quare est adverbium? Quia stat
iuxta verbum et semper nititur verbo.
Adverbio quot accidunt? Tria. Quae? Species, signicatio et gura.
Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur.
Cuius speciei? Derivativae. Quare? Quia ab aliquo derivatur.
Cuius signicationis? Temporis. Cuius signicationis? Temporalis.
Da temporis, ut hodie, heri, Da temporalis, ut hodie, heri,
nunc, nuper, cras. nunc, nuper, modo.
Da loci, ut hic, illuc, intra, Da localis, ut hic, illuc, intro
:o inde, intro vel foras, intus vel vel foras, intra, inde, intus vel
foris. foris.
Da interrogandi, ut cur, quare, quamobrem.
Da optandi, ut utinam, amen.
:
Da vocandi, ut o.
Da negandi, ut non, haud, minime, nequaquam.
Da adrmandi, ut profecto, quippe, videlicet.
.o Da iurandi, ut edepol.
Da qualitatis, ut
bene, male, docte, pulchre, bene, docte, pulchre, fortiter
fortiter, suaviter. et suaviter.
. hodie ... cras] hodie, heri, nunc, nuper, cras, aliquando, olim, tunc, quondam, iam et semper
D (p, pa) q:: hic ... foris] hic vel ibi, illuc vel inde, longe et procul, intro vel foras, intus
vel foris D (p, pa) :6 heus, o D : non ... nequaquam] non, nihil, nec, neque, haud,
minime, nequaquam D :q profecto ... videlicet] profecto, quippe, videlicet, quidni D (p) |
profecto] etiam Ql
h
.o edepol] edepol, castor, hercle, medius dius D
86 nox\+ts on\rcts \
. i u. oi. . o. 0t.
. 0. i o o, l
i. o. .
00i. i o0. 0. 0.
ou. i
u. I. 0u. c, i, 0c, 0o.
o i. i t. j. r. o.
0i. i iu.
i. i
i. /:, .
rj. i o.
000. i 0. i. i. o. o. o. oo.
i. i ii. ii. u.
o o, l o0, 0,
o, i, i.
o j, l uo.
o o c, l j,
o.
o :, l
0, , , i.
o /:, l /c,
/.
i j; `0. i; u r.
i ju, 0
i0 o
i0.
o i ju, 0-
. i, o oo 0
oou o, l
oi.
. u] -u BCGNO .(a) i om. AQ . 0] i AQR, 0 BC,
0i GNO, corr. Schmitt 6 ii] i BCG 8(b) i ... i
deleverim, perperam e :.:(b) repetita 6 om. AQ
nr \n\rnnio 8
Da quantitatis, ut multum, parum, valde, maxime, satis.
. Da dubitandi, ut forsan, fortassis et fortasse.
Da congregandi, ut simul, una, pariter.
Da similitudinis, ut sic, velut, veluti.
o Da comparandi, ut magis, minus, plus, quam.
Da respondendi, ut heu.
Da demonstrandi, ut en, ecce.
Da eligendi, ut potius.
Da numeri, ut semel, bis, ter, quater, millies, totiens, quotiens.
Da discretivi, ut secus, seorsum, multifariam.
Da ordinandi, ut inde, deinde, deinceps, propterea.
Da remissivi, ut vix.
o Da conrmandi, ut profecto, videlicet.
Da hortandi, ut age, agite, eia.
Da intentivi, ut valde, nimium.

Cuius gurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur.

Cuius gurae? Compositae: componitur a quo componitur.
o Cuius gurae? Decompositae. Quare? Quia a composito nomine deri-
vatur, ut iniuste.
. multum ... satis] multum, parum, minimum, modicum, maxime et satis D . forsan ...
fortasse] forsan, forsitan, fortassis et fortasse D o quam] quantum Ql
h
: respondendi]
ornandi (sic) Ql
h
. en] et Ql
h
potius] potius, immo magis D 6 discretivi] separandi
Ql
h
| secus ... multifariam] secus, seorsum, separatim, secreto, sigillatim, trifariam et multifariam
D (p) | seorsum] separatim Ql
h
inde ... propterea] inde, deinde, deinceps, continuo, protinus,
interea et propterea D q vix] vix, paulatim, pedetemptim, fere et ferme D (p) o profecto,
videlicet a :q (adrmandi) repetita videntur valde, nimium] valde, prorsus, nimium,
penitus et omnino D (p)
88 nox\+ts on\rcts \
. i r0r
0 i r ri; 'o0i r. i r ro0;
ri0 t 0 r 0 r _.
j r0r r; . i; i .
i i; 'j. 0j. i
i. 0i. 0. 0 . :i, u.
o 0uj, l i,
.
o j, l 0 0.
8. i r
i i r ri; u r. i r u; r
o rj r 0 r _.
_u r_ r; i i. j i o.
i i; 0. r o r 0
r o j. i i. . r. r. i 0o.
r o o j t ii o
0. i i r0. j ur.
'0 j j i r o r o ro
ir o j io 0 0r. i .
:o i. u i i i j i 00 ri
t i j i ru.
. : i 0r inter lineas add. N | 0 ... ro0i r] 0r
AOQ | r ro0] r r0r Q om. AQ | i] -i BCGO
| ] - BCGO, - NR, corr. Schmitt 0j om. AQ (a) t
om. ABCGQ | 0i om. ABCGNQ | 0 om. AOQ | 0 om. ANQ 68(b)
om. x.
. : i r add. B
m
CO i om. ABCNOQ 0] -u
B
m
NOR j] j R | ] o A | r. i. 0o] 0o. r x, cf. c 8. q 6
ante add. ACQ, j B, j B
m
,
G, 0 N, u O | ] om. AQ,
G | o] j BCG | o] o r AB
m
NOQR, o
i C, j (sic) BG, corr. Schmitt, cf. D: quae adiungitur verbis subiunctivis |
t] -u CG, -j BR r0] - ANOQ | ur] ur BCG
8 00 ... i] 00j (00j G) j j j ij BCGNO,
00j post ij add. O | o] j BCGNO | o] i C :o i
i] i add. Schmitt :o:: i ... ru] i i
j i 00 ri i (j i ... ri om. BG, i om. BCGNOR)
j i 00 (0 BCG) i (om. BCGNR) ij (i- BG, ij
C, i- OR) t i j i ru codd., corr. Schmitt cf. D:
Cicero solum Catilinam sua sapientia domuit; solum igitur Cicero patriam servavit
nr coxitxc+ioxr 8q
. De interiectione
Heu quae pars est? Interiectio est. Quare est interiectio? Quia interia-
cet aliis partibus orationis in oratione.
Interiectioni quot accidunt? Unum. Quid? Signicatio tantum.
Cuius signicationis? Dolentis. Da dolentis, ut papae, vae, heu, heu
mihi.
Da mirantis, ut papae, heu.
Da expavescentis, ut at at.
8. De coniunctione
Et quae pars est? Coniunctio est. Quare est coniunctio? Quia coniun-
git ceteras partes orationis in oratione.
Coniunctioni quot accidunt? Tria: species, gura et ordo.
Cuius speciei? Copulativae. Copulativa est quae copulat tam sensum
quam verba, ut et, que, quidem, autem et vero.
Adiunctiva est quae adiungitur verbis subiunctivis proprie cum dubi-
tatione, ut: si venias, faciam ut prosit.
Collectiva vel rationalis vel illativa est quae colligit supradicta cum
ratione vel infertur aliis praepositis, ut ergo, igitur, itaque, ut: Cicero
:o solus Catilinam sua sapientia domuit; solus igitur Cicero patriam
servavit.
. : interiectio] afectandi (scil. adverbium) Ql
h
. : coniunctio] interiectio Ql
h
, passim :. coniungit] interiacet Ql
h
nota quod
verbi ...tur interiacet debet ... coniungit in marg. inf. add. Ql
h
6 adiunctiva ... quae]
continuativus est qui (coniunctio ut u, m., passim) Ql
h
8 collectiva vel rationalis]
congregativus vel (cetera non leguntur) Ql
h
qo nox\+ts on\rcts \
r o u o o i 0u0 o
o. i i 0. 0. i i t. t.
i ii ri o 0r o_u j i
: 0 ju. i r ii. 0r.
r o i i r r. r u. i
0 0 i i 0 j i i. i j jr ri j
u.
` r o ii i u o o-
.o rj. i o j r ri j j. jr ri. i o
t. t.
r o 0r o_u j i rr
r ii. i 0r. r ii.
i r o r t 0r i rr. r
. rt u. i u 0r i j .
' r o o [0]u i . i i.
i. 0o. i ru u ruo . 0o r i
i [i ru 0u. u r 0 i o r 0
i i i 0 0].
o ' r o 0i i. i 0o .
r o r j r 00 -
i 0i i0. i ro i ii r j 0j.
' r 0j.
` r o i. i i 0 ui
0 r. oi o.
:. o] j BCG | o] o G : ii] -i G | o] j
BCG :6 r] u A, u BCGNOQ : i ... i om. G
:q ] - BG, - CNO, R | ii ...
u] it (it C) i u codd., corr. Schmitt cf. D: causam
subcontinuationis ostendit .o rj] ru BCGNOR, u AQ, corr. Schmitt,
cf. D: consequentem cum rerum essentia | o om. x | o] o x, o R, cf. Priscianum, GL
. q subcontinuationis quia ambulat movetur .. om. BCG | 0r]
- O ... rr r] rr r r BG . ] o BCNOR,
cf. Priscianum, GL . q eectionis movetur, ambulat enim . t] u AB
m
CNOQR,
r BG . u add. Schmitt, cf. D: alterum refutare ostendit .6 post
i transp. ABCGQ .6. i ... 0o om. A, i om. N . u] j
GR ..8 r i i] r u AQ, r i BCGNOR, r
i rr i Schmitt .8.q i ... 0 om. AQ, del. Schmitt .8 i ru]
i ru R | o] 0 Schmitt | r] - BC .q i] j BCG | i]
r G o r j post add. AQ : o] o G | j r] jr
G 0j] om. BCG, 0u B
m
OR ] - codd.,
corr. Schmitt | i om. G r] r ABCNOQ, cf. D: bis(s)antem |
o] 0 o AQ | o] - codd., corr. Schmitt cf. D: denarium
nr coxitxc+ioxr q:
Continuativa est quae demonstrat ordinem rerum in consequentia
cum dubitatione, ut: si stertit dormit, et: si ambulat movetur.
Causalis proprie est quae adiuncta indicativo verbo signicat rem
: antecedentem, ut doctus sum, quia legi.
Disiunctiva est quae, quamvis voces coniungat, sensum disiungit, et
alteram rem esse et alteram non esse signicat, ut: aut dies est aut
nox.
Subcontinuativa est quae causam continuationis ostendit cum rebus
.o essentia, ut: quando sol est super terram dies est, et: quia ambulat,
movetur.
Eectiva est quae adiuncta indicativo verbo signicat eectum e
causa, ut: legi, nam doctus sum.
Discretiva est quae de duobus praepositis unum eligere et aliud refu-
. tare ostendit, ut: dives volo esse quam pauper.
Adversativa est quae adversum convenienti solum signicat, ut si, etsi,
tamen, ut: ego multo tempore servivi tibi, tu tamen habes in me
odium.
o Dubitativa est quae dubitationem notat, ut an.
Completiva est quae causa ornatus vel metri nulla signicationis ne-
cessitate ponitur, ut si dicam: Aeneas quidem fuit pius, Iulianus vero
impius.
Diminutiva est quae diminutionem notat, ut: si non potes mihi dare
bisantium, *** accommoda mihi denarium.
:. continuativa] signicativus Ql
h
: causalis] armativus Ql
h
:q subcontinuativa]
subparticipativus Ql
h
.. eectiva] rationalis Ql
h
. discretiva] equativus est (i
ut i-) Ql
h
.6 adversativa] -us Ql
h
: completiva] -us Ql
h
diminutiva] -us Ql
h
saltem accommoda mihi denarium D
q. nox\+ts on\rcts \
i ju, . i, o 0c .
i j; 0r. 0 i0; 0 0 r
r r l 0i i. i.
ii o u r; t. i; 0r. 0-
o r i j.
i o; 0r. i; 0i i0 r j o 0
.
i o; `0r. i; 0i i0 r j o 0
.
i o; j. i; u 0j i 0j
r j o 0 .
ii u 0r o; i.
o /i :u 0u o, l i / j.
Appendix
i r ; o r r ro u -
r o j o j j ii r j
t j r o. i 00. ii i i
j o i r. ii i j 'o-
. 00j o.
i r i o; o r 0 0i i -
.
0 i ; o r. i. i i -
0r 0 . o 00 0 0i i .
:o i r j; `jo r r . o o i
ri ri ri j o0.
6 i ... r om. x 8 i om. BCG q. post 6 transp. x
q ] t codd. : o] o ABCNOQ o] o
ABCNOQ | i] r C, GO | post r u 0_u i_ 0
o 0 o (0i O) 0 o i AOQ, r u 0_u
i_ 0 o i B, r 0 o N, 8 om. x | post 8 r
00 u i i 0 u o i 0u R
app. Appendicem praebent codices CG . j o om. C | r] -r
CG, corr. Schmitt t] i CG, corr. Schmitt | 00 om. G
o om. codd., add. Schmitt cf. Priscianum, GL .. arithmetica Nicomachi
6 ] - G | post des. C 8q i ... om. G :o ]
0 G (cf. ., al.) corr. Schmitt | o] G, corr. Schmitt :: ri]
ri G, del. Schmitt, cf. D: signicativum agendi vel patiendi
\rrrxnix q
Cuius gurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur.
Cuius gurae? Compositae. Unde componitur? ***
Quot sunt ordines coniunctionum? Tres. Qui? Praepositivus, supposi-
o tivus et communis.
Cuius ordinis? Praepositivi. Quare? Quia semper praeponitur in or-
dine orationis.
Cuius ordinis? Suppositivi. Quare? Quia semper supponitur in ordine
orationis.
Cuius ordinis? Communis. Quare? Quia potest praeponi et supponi
in ordine orationis.
Quot sunt coniunctiones praepositivi ordinis? Quindecim.
Quot sunt coniunctiones suppositivi ordinis? Sex; aliae vero sunt com-
munis.
Appendix
Quid est nomen? Nomen est pars orationis declinabilis uniuscuiusque
subiectorum corporum seu rerum communem vel propriam qualita-
tem distribuens vel signicans: communem corporum ut homo, pro-
priam ut Virgilius; communem qualitatem rerum ut ars, propriam ut
grammatica Aristarchi, arithmetica Nicomachi.
Quid est proprium nominis? Proprium nominis est signicare substan-
tiam et qualitatem.
Unde dicitur nomen? A r, tribuendo, t noma et adiecta o ,
eo quod per ipsum notamus substantiam vel qualitatem.
:o Quid est verbum? Verbum est pars orationis declinabilis, quae cum
temporibus et modis est signicativa agendi vel patiendi.
qo suppositivus] subiunctivus D, subprepositivus Ql
h
suppositivi] subiunctivi D |
supponitur] subiungitur D quindecim] quinque et decem Ql
h
| post nis compositionis
Donati magni gramatici id est literati in Latinum Ql
h
8 suppositivi] subiunctivi D
q nox\+ts on\rcts \
i r i j; j r i rr j o0.
0 i j; o u. r o r i u.
: u.
i r j; j r r o j
0r i r 00 u o r i u r i
oi o. 0 _u j.
0 i j o i; ' r i j. o.
.o o. r o o i r j.
i r 0i; 'i ri r . o i_
o i0 i u i .
0 i 0i; ' o i. 0 r r
0i 0r i u. o i0 r _ ii o.
. i r 0; 0i r r 0 0r t
0 r 0 r 0r j r r0r.
i r i 0r; 0r ri r -
i00 t r. u r 0 o u r
u. o o u j r.
o 0 i 0; ' 0 0r. i0 t
0 r 0 r _.
i r ri; 'io r r 0. o i i t
j i0 0 o 0 j o j ri0
0r 0t o.

i r i rj; rj r ru 0 j
i00 0 0 00 0r i r u0.
i r ro0; 'o0i r r 0. o ri-
0 t 0 r 0 r _.
o i r i r0r; r0r ri ri00 t
0 r 0 r _.
i r u; u r r 0 u
0 u 0 . i i u j o. i ro
j. t.
:. i] - G, corr. Schmitt ..8 i00 ... r om. G, add. Schmitt
.8 u] om. G, u Schmitt, sed cf. Priscianum GL .. 6 coniunctim
.q o] - G . o] u G, corr. Schmitt 6 r ru 0 j om.
G, add. Schmitt, cf. D: est iuxta verbum poni 0 0] o r G, corr. Schmitt,
cf. D: nec sine eo o ri00] r0r G, corr. Schmitt, cf. D: est interiacere
aliis partibus orationis i] j G, corr. Schmitt | i] - G,
corr. Schmitt
\rrrxnix q
Quid est proprium verbi? Proprium verbi est signicare actionem vel
passionem.
Unde dicitur verbum? A verbero, verberas.
:
Quid est participium? Participium est pars orationis declinabilis pro
verbo posita et ab eo naturaliter derivatur; genus et casus habet ad
similitudinem nominis et alia accidentia verbo.
Unde dicitur participium? Ex parte et capio, capis, quia partem capit
.o nominis partemque verbi.
Quid est pronomen? Pronomen est pars orationis declinabilis, quae
pro proprio nomine ponitur et certam signicat personam.
Unde dicitur pronomen? Ex pro praepositione et nomen, quia poni-
tur loco proprii nominis.
. Quid est praepositio? Praepositio est pars orationis indeclinabilis
praeposita aliis partibus orationis in compositione vel in appositione.
Quid est proprium praepositionis? Proprium praepositionis est sepa-
ratim praeponi casualibus dictionibus, coniunctim vero tam cum ha-
bentibus casum quam cum non habentibus.
o Unde dicitur praepositio? A praeponendo, quia praeponitur aliis par-
tibus orationis in oratione.
Quid est adverbium? Adverbium est pars orationis indeclinabilis,
quae ad signicationem verbis adicitur; hoc enim faciunt triplicis
generis nomina, scilicet adiectiva, adiectione cum substantivis nomi-
nibus.
Quid est proprium adverbii? Proprium adverbii est iuxta verbum poni
nec sine eo perfectam sententiam habere posse.
Quid est interiectio? Interiectio est pars orationis indeclinabilis quae
interiacet aliis partibus orationis in oratione.
o Quid est proprium interiectionis? Proprium interiectionis est interia-
cere aliis partibus orationis in oratione.
Quid est coniunctio? Coniunctio est pars orationis indeclinabilis con-
iunctiva aliarum partium orationis, quibus consignicat vim vel ordi-
nationem, ut: si ambulat movetur.
q6 nox\+ts on\rcts \
i r i r; r ri j u o
o j u o j j oi o r r _.
0 i u; ' 0 r. o t o rj r
0 .
6 j] rj G, corr. Schmitt | _] o G 8 r] -i
G, corr. Schmitt q post 0 des. G
\rrrxnix q
Quid est proprium coniunctionis? Proprium coniunctionis est coniun-
gere duo diversa nomina vel duo diversa verba vel quascumque dic-
tiones causales in oratione.
Unde dicitur coniunctio? A coniungendo, quia coniungit ceteras par-
tes orationis.
q8 nox\+ts on\rcts \
Appendix Latina
a) Gl
2
, fols. o
r
-o
v
Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt hec: edendi, edendo, edendum.
Supina sunt hec: esum, esu.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo neutro? Duo. Que? Unum, quod est
temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti, ut edens; aliud futuri, ut esurus.
Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: editur.
Preterito imperfecto: edebatur.
Preterito perfecto: esum est vel fuit.
Preterito plusquamperfectum: esum erat vel fuerat.
:o Futuro: edetur.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti: edatur.
Futuro: editor.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam ederetur.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam esum esset vel fuisset.
: Futuro: utinam edatur et cetera.
b) Gl
2
, fol. .
r
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: ire.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: ivisse.
Futuro: itum ire vel iturum esse.
.o Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt hec: eundi, eundo, eundum.
Supina sunt hec: itum, itu.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo? Duo. Que? Unum, quod est temporis
presentis et preteriti imperfecti, ut iens; aliud futuri, ut iturus.
Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: itur.
. Preterito imperfecto: ibatur.
Preterito perfecto: itum est vel fuit.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: itum erat vel fuerat.
Futuro: ibitur.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti: eatur.
o Futuro: itor.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam iretur.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam itum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: utinam eatur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti: cum eatur.
Preterito imperfecto: cum iretur.
Preterito perfecto: cum itum sit vel fuerit.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum itum esset vel fuisset.
\rrrxnix r\+ix\ qq
Futuro et reliqua.
c) Gl
2
, fols.
v
-
r
o Supina sunt hec: gavisum, gavisu.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo neutro passivo? Tria. Que? Unum, quod
est temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti, ut gaudens; aliud futuri, ut gavisurus;
aliud preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut gavisus.
Memini, meministi, meminit; et pluraliter: meminimus, meministis, meminerunt vel
meminere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: memineram, memineras, meminerat; et pluraliter: me-
mineramus, memineratis, meminerant.
Futuro caret.
Imperativo modo caret.
o Futuro: memento; et pluraliter: mementote.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto caret.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam meminissem, meminisses, meminisset;
et pluraliter: utinam meminissemus, meminissetis, meminissent.
Futuro caret.
Subiunctivo modo tempore preterito imperfecto: caret.
Preterito perfecto: cum meminerim, memineris, meminerit; et pluraliter: cum memi-
nerimus, memineritis, meminerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum meminissem, meminisses, meminisset; et pluraliter:
cum meminissemus, meminissetis, meminissent.
6o Futuro: cum meminero, memineris, meminerit; et pluraliter: cum meminerimus,
memineritis, meminerint.
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: caret.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: meminisse.
Futuro caret.
6 Decet me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decet nos, vos, illos.
Preterito imperfecto: decebat me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decebat nos, vos, illos.
Preterito perfecto: decuit me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decuit nos, vos, illos.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: decuerat me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decuerat nos, vos,
illos.
o Futuro: decebit me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decebit nos, vos, illos.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti: deceat me, te, illum; et pluraliter: deceat nos,
vos, illos.
Futuro caret.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam deceret.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam decuisset.
Futuro: utinam deceat.
oo nox\+ts on\rcts \
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti: cum similiter.
Et preterito imperfecto: cum deceret.
Preterito perfecto cum decuerit.
8o Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum decuisset.
Futuro: cum decuerit.
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: decere.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: et reliqua.
(desinit Gl
2
)
DONATUS GRAECUS B
Siglorum Conspectus
M Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. X. q XV in.
V Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. gr.
:88
XV
M
1
, V
1
manus correctorum codicum M, V
In apparatu etiam memorantur:
D Donatus latinus, consensus quorundam codicum et editionum
p Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices (Pesciae, typis Savonarolae, die
XXVIII mensis Septembris :q.)
inserenda censui
[ ] delenda censui
*** lacunam statui
u 0j j j o 0 0r
o0u 0t i 0r,
o 0u u ri r,
r u 0r i i .
u. 00. i. j i r
_u _u 0 r0
i i o r
I o r u o 0.
:. i oou
j i r ri; ' r. i r o-
; i 0i j ii j j.
_u o r; r. t; i. r. 00. j
i u.
i i; u. i; 0 0 o.
i i; u. 0 o; ' 0 u.
i r; '0. i; o 0_u r j 00i
00 o.
i r; 0. i; o 0_u r j 00i
:o 00 j.
i r; 0r. i; o 0_u r j 00i
00 .
Inscr. 'j o (-o cod.) o, et in marg. j o-
0t `i V, om. B.
pr. :8 u ... 0 om. V, ubi Latinum carmen Ianua ... potes legitur cum
Graeca interpretatione inter lineas (cf. a pr. :q): u ii t 00r u t
r00 r / 0 i r0 o0u r r. / i o r
i u. i. 00 i j / i 0 i r u. / i0
t t. r 0i u / i j 0 o r 0i
ri. / 0i j 00j 0. u 0u / i
o o j 0t o u. 00] -u M
. : om. V | ri om. M | o] M, cf. a :. : 6 0 j
j inter lineas add. V
1
, cf. a. :. 6 00i] i inter lineas add. V
1
, cf. a :.
8 00 o] o 00 V
o nox\+ts on\rcts n
i r; 0. i; o 0_u r j 00i
o 00 i j.
: i r; i. i; o 0_u r j 00i
00 o i j i .
i r; 'u. i; 0i t 0. 0o
j i u u r t i o r r.
i r; 'i. i; o 0 j i r 00
.o i _u 0r 0.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
***
i j; 0r. 0 i0; ' 0 i o-
. r0 0i. i 0 u r u0
. 0i.
i j; 0r. i; ***.
i u; '0j i 00i.
j 0o j 0o
o o0 j u j u
j o0j i 00i. (M) j o0j i 00i. (V)
` o0j i 00t o j j j 0 0 j j _u j
j ij j j j u o i j 0j 0 0
0 i 0u j 00t l i j j u u j
j t t j ij u o j j u i i
j 0j 0 u u.
` o0j i 00t o r j j 0 r j j _u r
j ij r j j u r i j 0j 0 0
r i 0u j 00t l r j j u u j
o j t r j ij u r j j u r i
j 0j 0 u u.
` o0j i 00t u j j 0 u j j _u u_ j
ij u j j u u i j 0j 0 0 u
i 0u j 00t o u j j u u j j t
u j ij o u j j u u i j 0j 0 u
u.
::8 cf. a :. :8.:(b) :8 r] - M .: r] - M
.. r] - M . oi] 0 emendaverim, cf. d :. . ..6 i
... 0i fort. a denitione gurae decompositae (j u0, .), cf. d. :.
.6.8 . om. M 8 r] r M, v.l. q j 00t] j o0j i 00t M
nr xoxixr o
i i; u. i; j j 00 i i0
j. u j 0. u u. u u.
` o0j i 00t o i j j 0 i j j _u i
o j ij i j j u i i j 0j 0 0
i i 0u j 00t l i j j u io
j j t i j ij u i j j u i i
j 0j 0 u io.
` o0j i 00t j u j j j u j j j u
j ij j u j j u u i j 0j 0 j
u i 0u j 00t l u j j u 0o
j j t u j ij o u j j u u i
j 0j 0 u 0o.
i i; r. i; j j u ru 00 i
6o j. u i i. u u. j j. . ju
jr.
` o0j i 00t j 0 j j j u j j j u
j ij j 0 j j u 0 i j 0j 0 j
u i 0u j 00t l 0 j j u u j
6 j t u j ij o u j j u 0 i j
0j 0 u u.
` o0j i 00t j i j j j i j j j i j
ij j i j j u i i j 0j 0 j i
i 0u j 00t l i j j u u j j t
o i j ij o i j j u i i j 0j 0
u u.
` o0j i 00t j j j j j j j j j j j
ij j j j j u j i j 0j 0 j j
i 0u j 00t l i j j u u j j t
t j ij o o j j u i i j 0j 0
u u.
i i; i. i; r r j j u ru r-
u o j j . u u u. i i. j
j.
8o ` o0j i 00t j t j j j i j j j i j
ij j t j j u t i j 0j 0 j i
i 0u j 00t l t j j u u j j t
o i] i V, v.l., cf. Theod. Alex. Can., GG .:, u] u M
6 i ... u om. M 6 i om. M o i om. M
o6 nox\+ts on\rcts n
i j ij o i j j u t i j 0j 0
u u.
8 ` o0j i 00t j `r j j j `r j j j `r j
ij j `r j j u `r i j 0j 0 j `r.
i i; o. i; j j 00 r ru
o j j . u t i. `r `r. u u.
` o0j i 00t o 'o j j 0 'o j j _u '-
qo o j ij 'o j j u 'o i j 0j 0
0 'o.
` o0j i 00t o 'o j j 0 'o j j _u 'o j
ij 'o j j u 'o i j 0j 0 0 'o.
` o0j i 00t o u j j 0 u j j _u u j
q ij u j j u u i j 0j 0 0 u.
` o0j i 00t o 'u j j 0 'u j j _u 'u
j ij 'u j j u 'u i j 0j 0 0
'u.
i i; r. i; 0 l u i0
:oo j 00i. u 'o 'o. 'o 'o. u u. 'u
'u.
u u u; t. 0. i 0-
0 u r. u r. 0-
u r.
:o r. r. r r. -
r. o r. r. r-
i r _u rj r. r. -
o.
u. . u u. r. i u. -
::o . u i r _u rj u. r. i.
u. i. t j. i. i u. t. t-
i r _u rj u. . o.
0j. 0r. 0r 0j. 0r. 0-
o 0r. 0r. 0r i r _u rj 0-
:: u. 0r. 0o.
8 i om. M 86 o o u o r j j u ru
i in marg. inf. add. V
1
8q '-] `- V q i om. M :o
u] u om. M | r] u codd. (- M),
cf. :o et a. :. .8:.8. ::. ] t[] emendaverim | o ] i
. V, cf. c :. :o
nr \rnno o
0i. 0r. 0r 0i. 0-
r. 0o u. 0r. 0r
i r _u rj 0. 0r. 0o.
. . j. r. o .
:.o . i r _u rj r. rr.
o.
.. i pju
'u i r ri; `j r. i r j;
o ri i i rr j o0.
_u j r; 'u. t; r. . r. i.
j. i. i 00.
i r; '0. i; i j t r 0
0.
i r; 00. i; i j 0j t
i.
i r; 0r. i; i j 0 t
:o i.
i r; 0. i; i j u j t
i.
i r; 0 00. i; i j r-
j i r.
: i r; 0r 00. i; i j 0-
j i r.
i r; 0. i; r _u u_ 0r u i u
i j.
i ; 'u. i; o ru j i
.o rr i o0.
i ; 0. i; o j
i rr i o0.
i ; r. i; o i j
i rr i o0.
::6:: 0i ... 0o om. M, in marg. sup. praebet V :: u
... 0r om. M
. : om. V | j r] r om. M :: rj] 0j M
:q.o om. M .. i om. M .. om. V
o8 nox\+ts on\rcts n
. i ; 'i. i; o 0 j i rr-
i o0.
i ; r. i; o r j i rr-
i o0.
i ri; `j. i; oi 0 o j r j j
o j r.
i ri; j. i; o 0 o
j r j j j r.
i ri; 0j. i; ***
i ri; `j. i; r u o-
rj 0_ j i u t 0.
i ri; 'o. i; u u i-
u 00 r. 0o 0_ j r.
i i; u. i; r _u r_ u_ 0
ru j oj ri r ru 0
o i . i 0u 00. 0u 00.
i i; r. i; r _u r_ u_ 0
ru j oj rj ri r ru
i r _u r_ u_ j 0j ru . i
o o. o o r r. r r.
i i; i. i; i r _u r_ u_ 0 r-
u j oj ri r j o i i0 r-
r i 0 i . i u.
t 0. t.
i i; o. i; r _u u_ u_ 0
o ru j oj rj ri r rr j
j i r _u u_ u_ j 0j j . u
i0 i0. i i. i i. u u.
i i; 00. i; 0 r o 0 i
o j i. 0o ii.
i u; u. i; i r
.
i u; r. i; i o r-
.
:. om. M cf. a. .. (b) i ... om. M rj
0_] r 0 M r] r V i ... ru om.
V ] codd. 8 u. t. 0. t inter lineas
V 8 t] -t M : u_ om. M 00] 0 codd., cf. 6:
j om. M ] 0 V, cf. a .. 8
nr \rnno oq
i u; i. i; i i rr 0
6o 0.
i u; 0 i 000 0. i; o o
0r i u ii i 00u. 0o j i ri.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
6 'u. 00. 00 jo. jo. jo 0o. 0-
o 00. 0j 0r 0u.
'u. 00. 00 i 0u 0u. 00. 0-
u.
jo. jo. jo i 0u ju.
o j0. jo.
i jo. jo. jo i 0u jj-
. jj. jj.
' jo. jo. jo i 0u jj.
jj. jo.
r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0j.
0j. 0j.
j r. ru u i i -
0o. 0o i 0u 00. 0o.
r 0 0o . 0o rt i 0u
8o 0j. 0o.
0j r. ru i i0 0_u. 0-
_u. 0_u i 0u i0 0_u. 0_u. 0_u.
' i0 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u i0
0j. 0j. 0j.
8 r i0 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u i0
0j. 0j. 0j.
`j r. ru i ro 0u. ro
00. ro 00 i 0u ro 0u. ro 00. ro
0u.
qo i ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0-
u ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j.
q 0 om. V 6. ri] - M 6 0o] j- V 66 0u] -0
M : jo] - V . jj] jo V, cf. 0j
om. V 6 0j] - M 8 0o] j- V q 0o] 0j
M | 0o] 00 M 8: ... ] ru i
0 V, cf. a .. ::, al. | 0_u] 0u M 8:8. 0_u] 00 M
qoq: 0j ... 0j] j- desideratur, cf. tamen a .. :.:(a)
:o nox\+ts on\rcts n
' ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0u
ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j.
'r r. ru i 00.
q ' 0j.
r 0j.
`j j 0 ur . ru 00.
j0.
i jo.
:oo ' jj0.
r 00j.
j r. ru 0o0.
r 0 0o0[].
0j r. ru i i0 0_u.
:o ' i0 0j.
r i0 0j.
`j r. ru i ro 00.
i jr ro j.
' ro 0j.
::o r ro 00j.
i i 0 u 0 j; u. t; i o
ru. o 0u. i 0 o r. o 0j.
'u. 00. 00 i 0u 0u0. 000.
0u.
:: ju. ju. j0 i 0u ju-
0. j00. ju.
i jo. jo. jo i 0u jj-
0. jo0. jo.
' jj0. jj0. jj0 i 0u jj0-
:.o . jj0. jj0.
r 00j. 00j. 00j i 0u
000. 00j0. 00j.
j r. ru i . u
i i 0u. 0o0 i 0u 000.
:. 0o0.
q j om. V qq8 ... ] ru i V
:o 0j] - M :o8 jr] -r desideratur, sed cf. :qq necnon
a .. :6.(a) et al. ::o om. V, codicis M lectionem servavi ::. i om. M
:: 00] -u M :. 0u] -0 codd., fort. servandum (cf. a .. :8(b), c ..
:o)
nr \rnno ::
r 0 0oi . 0o0 rt i 0u
0j0. 0o0.
0j r. ru i i0 0_u.
0_u. 0_u i 0u i0 0_u0. 0_u0. 0-
:o _u.
' i0 0i. 0j. 0j i 0u
i0 0i0. 0j0. 0j.
r i0 0i. 0j. 0j i 0u
i0 0i0. 0j0. 0j.
: `j r. ru ro 0u. ro 00. ro
00 i 0u ro 0u0. ro 000. ro 0-
u.
0 r.
i jr ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
:o jr ro u. ro j. ro u.
' ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0-
u ro 0u0. ro 0j0. ro 0j.
r ro 00j. ro 00j. ro 00j i
0u ro 000. ro 00j0. ro 00j-
: .
'r r. ru i 000.
' 00j.
r 00j0.
i i 0 u 0 00 j; u. t;
:o i i. jr 0 r. 00.
'u ru j j. i i i r
o 0u. j 0r. 0u i o j oi
u i i l 0 i.
o. o. o i. i, i o-
: . o r o o. o. o.
o. o. o i 0u o. o.
o.
:.q 0_u] 0t M, 0_u V : 0j] - V :o jr]
-r M :: codicis V lectionem servavi, cf. a ...:.(b) : 0-
0j] 0j M (cf. ::) | 00j] -0j M : 00-
0] 00u0 M, 0u0 V (cf. :.) | 00j0] -0j0 M
:: 00j] -0j M :6 ] -u M, -0 V :q 0-
0 om. V :o i] j M :.: 0u ... i] cf. c .. :::
: l om. M : i] i V | i om. V | i. r
post i addiderim
:. nox\+ts on\rcts n
ri. ri. ri i 0u ro-
. ro. ri.
:6o i i. i. i i 0u o-
. o. o.
' ri. ri. ri i 0u ro.
ro. ri.
r o. o. o i 0u o. o-
:6 . o.
j r. ru i u
i i i. r i 0u o.
r.
r 0 i . o rt i 0u o-
:o . o.
0j r. ru i i0 o.
o. o i 0u i0 o. o. -
o.
' i0 o. o. o i 0u i0 o-
: . o. o.
r i0 o. o. o i 0u i0 o-
. o. o.
`j r. ru i ro o.
ro o. ro o i 0u ro o. ro o-
:8o . ro o.
i 0 ro o.
' ro o. ro o. ro o i 0u ro
o. ro o. ro o.
r 0 r.
:8 'r r. ru i o.
' o.
r o.
`j j 0 ur . ru o.
ro.
:qo i i.
' ro0.
r 0j.
j r r0.
:8: ro o om. M, o emendaverim secundum :6o:6: (-), sed
cf. c .. .o. :8 r om. V :q j r] V
nr \rnno :
r r o0.
:q 0j r. ru i i0 o.
' i0 o.
r i0 o.
`j r. ru i ro o.
i r ro j.
.oo ' ro 0j.
r ro 0j.
'r r. ru i o0.
' o0.
r 0j0.
.o i i 0 u 0 j; u o ru. o-
. i o r. o.
o. o. o i 0u 0. o-
0. o.
r. ro. ro i 0u
.:o r0. ro0. ro.
i i. i. i i 0u -
o0. i0. r ii i 'u o.
' ro0. ro0. ro0 i 0u ro0-
. ro0. ro0.
.: r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u -
00. 0j0. 0j.
j r. ru i o. -
r0 i 0u o0. r0.
r 0 ii . o0 rt i 0u
..o o0. o0.
0j r. ru i i0 i.
o. o i 0u i0 i0. o-
0. o.
' i0 i. o. o i 0u i0
.. i0. o0. o.
r i0 i. o. o i 0u i0
i0. o0. o.
:qq r] -r desideratur, sed cf. :o8 et al. .o: 0j] codicum
lectionem servavi .o om. M .:. i0] -0 codd. ..6 o om.
M
: nox\+ts on\rcts n
`j r. ru i ro o.
ro o. ro o i 0u ro u0. ro
.o o0. ro o.
i r ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
r ro u. ro j. ro u.
' ro 0u. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0u
ro 0u. ro 0j. ro 0u.
. r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i -
0u ro 0u0. ro 0j0. ro 0j.
'r r. ru i o0.
' o0.
r o0.
.o i i 0 u 0 00 j; u. t;
i o ru i . o i 0 o r. o
.
r. r. r r. r. r r r. r r
r. r. r r. r. r rr0 r0 -
. .
r. r. r i 0u r. r. r.
r. r. r i 0u rr. rr.
r.
i r. r. r i 0u r.
.o r. r.
' r. r. r i 0u rr. rr.
r.
r r. r. r i 0u r. r. r.
j r. ru i r. r
. i 0u r. r.
r 0 r u. o rt i 0u r.
o.
0j r. ru i i0 r. r.
r i 0u i0 r. r. r.
..q ro o bis M . ro 0u ... 0u om. M ..6 ro
0j ... 0j] codicis M lectionem servavi, ro 0j ...
0u om. V .6 0u0] -0 V | 0j0] -0j0
V .: o r] o om. M . r. r] - M | r post r fort.
scribendum . r om. M | r om. V .. r ... om.
M .o r] - V . r] r V, cf. .6 | i ... r om. M
.6 o] i M .q i0 om. M
nr \rnno :
.6o ' i0 r. r. r i 0u i0 r.
r. r.
r i0 r. r. r i 0u i0 r.
r. r.
`j r. ru i ro r. ro
.6 r. ro r i 0u ro r. ro r. ro r.
i ro r. ro r. ro r i 0u
ro r. ro r. ro r.
' ro r. ro r. ro r i 0u ro r.
ro r. ro r.
.o r 0 r.
'r r. ru r.
' r.
r r.
`j j 0 ur . ru r.
. rr.
i r.
' rr0.
oi r 0j.
j r. ru i r0.
.8o r o0.
0j r i0 r.
' i0 r.
r i0 0j.
`j r. ru i ro r.
.8 i r ro j.
' ro r.
r ro 0j.
'r r. ru r0.
' r0.
.qo r r0.
i i 0 u 0 j 0 r0; u.
t; ru. r. i o r. r.
.6: r om. M .66 i] u M .o r] r
V, rectius, ut videtur, sed cf. :8 et al. .8 oi r om. M | 0j]
- codd. .8 r] -r desideratur, sed cf. :o8 et al. | j] j V
.8 0j] codicum lectionem servavi .q. r] r M
:6 nox\+ts on\rcts n
r. r. r i 0u 0. r0. r.
r. rr. rr i 0u r0.
.q rr0. rr.
i r. r. r i 0u r0.
r0. r ii i 'u r.
' rr0. rr0. rr0 i 0u rr0. rr-
0. rr0.
oo r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0-
0. 0j0. 0j.
j r. ru i r. r-
0 i 0u r0. r0.
r r u. o0 rt i 0u r0. o-
o 0
0j r. ru i i0 i. r-
. r i 0u i0 i0. r0. r.
' i0 i. r. r i 0u i0 i-
0. r0. r.
:o r i0 i. r. r i 0u i0 i-
0. r0. r.
`j r. ru i ro r. ro
r. ro r i 0u ro u0. ro r0. ro
r.
: i r ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u -
r ro u. ro j. ro u.
' ro r. ro r. ro r i 0u ro
u0. ro r0. ro r.
r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0-
.o u ro 0u0. ro 0j0. ro 0j.
'r r r0.
' r0.
r 0j0 j r0.
i i 0 u 0 00 j; u. t;
. ` ru . . i o r. 0 j .
'u. 0u. 0u i 0u 0u. 0u. 0u-
.
o r0. r0] r0. o0 M, cf. oo o r u.
o0] r u. o V :: i ... r om. M :q.o codicis V
lectionem servavi, 0j ... 0j. 00 ... M . r0]
-0 M
nr \rnno :
j. j. j i 0u ju. ju-
. j.
o i 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0.
0. 0.
' j. j. j i 0u ju.
ju. j.
r 0u. 0u. 0u i 0u 0u.
0u. 0u.
j r. ru i 0. 0-
r i 0u 0u. 0r.
r 0 . 0o rt i 0u 0u.
0u. 0o.
o 0j r. ru i i0 0u. 0u-
. 0u i 0u i0 0u. 0u. 0u.
' i0 0u. 0u. 0u i 0u i0
0u. 0u. 0u.
r i0 0u. 0u. 0u i 0u i0
0u. 0u. 0u.
`j r. ru i ro 0u. ro
0u. ro 0u i 0u ro 0u. ro 0u. ro
0u.
i ro 0. ro 0. ro 0 i 0u
o ro 0. ro 0. ro 0.
' ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u i 0u ro
0u. ro 0u. ro 0u.
r 0 r.
'r r. ru i 0u.
' 00.
r 0u.
`j j 0 ur 0u.
ju.
i j.
6o ' ju0.
r 00j.
j r. ru i 0r0.
o 0j] - V 8 0o] -r M | 0u praebet M, cf. D (p):
audiamus r] r V, rectius, ut videtur, sed cf. :8 et al.
0u] - M 0u] - codd. 6: 00j] - codd.
:8 nox\+ts on\rcts n
r 0o0.
0j r. ru i i0 0u.
6 ' i0 0u.
r i0 0u.
`j r. ru i ro 0u.
i jr ro j.
' ro 0u.
o r ro 00j.
'r r 0u0.
' 0u0.
r 00j0 j 0u0.
i i 0 u 0 j; u. o ru
i o r o 0 i 00 j 0.
'u. 0u. 0u i 0u 00. 0u0.
0u.
j. ju. ju i 0u j-
0. ju0. ju.
8o i j. j. j i 0u ju-
0. j0. jr ii i 'u 0.
' ju0. ju0. ju0 i 0u ju0-
. ju0. ju0.
r 00j. 00j. 00j i 0u
8 000. 00j0. 00j.
j r ru i 0u. 0r-
0 i 0u 0u0. 0r0.
r 0 0i . 0o0 rt i 0u
0u0. 0o0.
qo 0j r. ru i i0 0i.
0u. 0u i 0u i0 0i0. 0u0.
0u.
' i0 0i. 0u. 0u i 0u
0i0. 0u0. 0u.
q r i0 0i. 0u. 0u i 0u i0
0i0. 0u0. 0u.
6 i0 om. M 68 jr] -r M o 00j] -0j M,
codicis V lectionem servavi 6 0u om. M 6 00 ... 0u]
j- V, cf. 8q 8q om. V 8: 0] - codd. 8 i ...
0u0 om. M 88 0] 0u M q 0u] - M
nr r\n+icirio :q
`j r. ru i ro 0u.
ro 0u. ro 0u i 0u ro 0u0. ro 0u-
0. ro 0u.
oo i jr ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
jr ro u. ro j. ro u.
' ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u i 0-
u ro 0u0. ro 0u0. ro 0u.
r ro 00j. ro 00j. ro 00j i
o 0u ro 00u0. ro 00j0. ro 00j-
.
'r r. ru i 0u0.
' 0u0.
r 00j0 j 0u0.
:o i i 0 u 0 00 j; u. t;
i o ru i 0 o r o 0 i 00-
j 0.
ii. i u. 'u i. u ri. ri i 0u rr
u i ir u. rr. ii u. r u.
: j. j. j o. ri i 0u j. j.
j.
r r. r. r i o j r i 0u
r0. r0. r.
j r. ru i r. r i
.o 0u r. r.
. i uj
r i r ri; j r. i r j; t
r 0 o i r 0 j. i 0 r 0 o
r r i u. 0 r 0 j i o0. i r
0r 00 i j.
j r; . t; r. u. . o0.
00 i j.
q8 ro 0u] ro om. M oo6 codicis V lectionem servavi, 00j
... -0, -0, - M oq om. B : ri] r M :q.o r ...
r. r] r0 ... r0. r0 codd., fort. servanda, cf. a .. 6q68o, c .. .
, d .. .:...
. : om. M | j r] r om. M 6 00 i j] 00u
j M
.o nox\+ts on\rcts n
i r; i 00 j 00 j 0r. o j
0i 0 0 i j o j j.
i u; '0j i 00i u ru r r i i
:o o 0 u o i 0 .
i ; 'u i 0. i; 0 o
ru i i j. i 0u. o-
. r.
i ; r i 0i. i; 0 o
: i i 0 j j j rj i i i
j o r i i , i u o r 0 i
. i o.
i ; r. i; 0 o r j r-
j j i j o 0 u u 0t r-
.o r. i u. j.
i r; '0. i; 0 r0 j -
o. t ri rt; 'u. 00. i o 0u.
i 0r; 0j. i; 0 j 00 -
o. t ri rt; 'u. 00. i r 0u-
. .
i r; 0r. i; 0 0r j o-
. i r rt; o0. i r 0j.
i r; 0. i; 0 0 j o. i
r rt; i. i r .
o i r; 0. i; 0 0 j -
o. i r rt; u. i r .
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
` r. j r. r 0 r. j u. 0 r-
_u r. j u. _u r r. j r.
r u r. u r i 0u l r. l r.
o r u . u u. u t r.
t u. t r u r. o u. o r u
r. u r. u r.
o] i o M 8 j o om. M ::6 i i ... i om.
M .:.. o] r M .. t] i M | i o] i
u M . r] - M r] - M j o0j
i 00t ante o r add. M 6 r om. M 6 u r om. M, in
marg. add. V 8 t ... r om. M
nr rnoxoxixr .:
o ` r. j r. r 0 r. j -
r. 0 r _u r_. j r. _u r_
r. j r. r u r. u r.
u r i 0u l r. l r. o -
r u r t r. t r. t r-
u r. o r. o r u r. u
r. u r.
. i oui
'u i r ri; 'i ri. i r 0i;
t r _ ii o i u u .
j 0i r; . t; i. r. 00. j.
i u.
i i; u. i; 0 0 o.
i i; u. 0 o; ***
i r; i. o 00 j 00 j 0-
r. 0u r i j j.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
:o i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
i j; `0. i; u r.
i u; u. i; o o o i 0
l 0i ii i u. i 0 ru. o ri u.
i 0 u. o ri r. i u u u i u r
: 0u r.
i u; '0j i 00i r j 0o -
j 00i u.
` o0j i 00t ru j j r0 j j ri j ij rr
j j 0 r i 0u j 00t jr. jt j j
.o jr. ju j j jt j ij jr. j0 j j 0 r
i j 0j 0 ju.
` o0j i 00t u j j 0 j j i j ij r j
j u i j 0j 0 0 i 0u j 00t r.
. r] -r V (cf. d . ), om. M | u r om. M t ...
r om. M u r om. M
. : 0i ri] ri om. M . ii om. V t om. M 8 i
... j] cf. a . 8(b) q r] - M :o r] - M
:: r] - M :.: cf. a . :.(b) :: r 0u] r 00 M
:6: cf. :. .q:(b) : u] j u M ... om. M
.. nox\+ts on\rcts n
t j j r. u j j t j ij r. 0 j
. j t i j 0j 0 u.
` o0j i 00t i. i r 0 i j j 00 u
i j j i i j ij i r j j j 0 r
i 0u t. u. t. 0. i i ri i
u i o 0 00 rt. i r j ij
o 00 rr r j.
i 0 u u 0 0 u u u o i. j -
r. i i 0 0 u r u o i. j
r. i. ' r 0 r i u 0 i
o 0i. i jo i r. i o
o 0 i o 0 rr.
i 0 u 0u 0 0 jt. u . o jr-
. j jr i jr i 0 0 t. 0 i
u. o r. j r i r i 0 0 rr. r.
i u ru ij u u u. r. i
o r. 0 i i i r r. rj. r
. j. r. rj. r.
i i r 0i. t r i 0 0 o-
r 0u. i r. 0u i rt. ri. rt u.
I. 0 0. 0j. 0.
ii 0 l 0i; o. ' u ii
r ru. u. i. rt. u. 0 o ou r. . o. o
i. o i i o r, o jr i o r i
u0 t r. i .
` o0j i 00t rt. ri. rt j j ri. ri.
o ri j j ri_. ri. ri_ j ij rt. ri.
rt i j 0j 0 ri. 0 ri. 0 ri i -
0u j 00t rt. rt. rt j j ri j j
ri. ri. ri j ij ri. ri. rt i j
0j 0 ri.
` o0j i 00t u. I. 0 j j u. u. u
j j u_. u. u_ j ij 0. u. 0 i j
0j 0 u. 0 u. 0 u i 0u j
00t u. u. 0 j j u j j u. u.
u j ij u. u. 0 j 0j 0 u.
. i om. M .8 t] t M .88 i i ... i 0 om. V
o i] u M 6 0] - V 0 u. 0 u om.
M
nr rn\rrosi+ioxr .
6o ` o0j i 00t 0. 0j. 0 j j 00. 0j. 00 j
j 0_u. 0j. 0_u j ij 0. 0j. 0 i j 0-
j 0 00. 0 0j. 0 00 i 0u j 00t 0i.
0i. 0o j j 0u j j 0t. 0t. 0t j ij
0u. 0o. 0o i j 0j 0 0u.
6 ` o0j i 00t r. rj. r j j r0. rj. r0 j j
r_u. rj. r_u j ij r. rj. r i j 0j 0 r0.
0 rj. 0 r0 i 0u j 00t ri. ri. ro j j
ru j j rt. rt. rt j ij ru. ro. ro i j
0j 0 ru.
o ` o0j i 00t . j. j j 0. j. 0 j j _u.
j. _u j ij . j. i j 0j 0 0. 0 j.
0 0 i 0u j 00t i. i. o j j u j j
t. t. t j ij u. o. o i j 0j 0 u.
` o0j i 00t o. j. o[] j j u. j. u j j _u. j. _u j
ij o. j. o[] i 0u j 00t i. i. 0 j j u j
j i. i. i j ij I. 0. 0.
. i 0
' i r ri; 0r. i r 0;
i0 o u 0 u r 0r i o.
0r; u r j j. _u r r_ ri-
. ` o 0i i j i 0 i. u i `j_
0u i i.
' u ii u r j r. j i, j r. j u. j i j
u r u i r j 0o. j o. j o. j o. j o.
j 0i. j 0i. j ri. j i. j 0. j i j r.
'r r o j r 0 0i o j o. i r _u
:o 0_u. r j j. r 0 o j i j o r 'u
0j o j. i r . j o r _u _ 0
.
Hom. Il. 8. 8
6q 0 ru] 0 ju codd., cf. d . 8q . j 00t om. M | i. o] i.
i V j 00t om. M
. : om. V 0] _u 0_u M 0u] 0 i
M 8 j 0i om. M | j i om. V, in marg. add. M q post o desinit
V :o 'u] -j M :: j] j perperam M
. nox\+ts on\rcts n
` i i o 0i o ij. i i j . i
t. i j 0o. j i j o r i I 'j
: 0j o j. i i . j o i 0
.
` r. j i r r. 0i o j o. i r r0.
r 0 00.
` u o 0i o j. i u u.
.o ` . o 0i j o t. o j o. u
0i r ,
0i o 0 . `i o j i o ri t.
u 0j j o. 0i 0j j o 0o j
i o t 0i 0 ru. u
. 0u o. 0u 00u,
0i 0 ru u 0u i u 00u. r t 0i j
u 0r. o o j. u _u u-
0 i _u u 0. 0i 0 u _u u0. `i-
o o j o ru t. u r j
o j i r t i. 0i 0 ru j j i u
u. r t 0i j i 0r. o o i-
j. u ri t oi i o t
i. u r 0j j o i o j .
` 0i o j o. i 0 ***
*** 0 j . r r o j. i
r0 r. j u0 ru o 0 oi r i o o
t. u o u ***. i r t i. o
ij. u j o o u 0r r _u
oi i o r j r 0 rr. u o j
o 0o 0 i. j r j 00. `i o j i
o r0 t. i o 0 u.
.: Jo. Damasc. Can. in Theoph. 6 (PG q6, 6.8 A) . Hom. Il. :. q o Ev. Jo.
.o. :. Ev. Jo. :. : q Hebr. 8. , cf. Ex. .. o : cf. Phil. . : o
u
: ij] j perperam M : 'j] fort. 'u emendandum, cf. :o
: j] -0 M ..8 _u u0] . M .8 _u u] . M |
_u u0] . M ] u j 0r emendaverim, cf. Ev.
Luc. 8. u j 0r o 0 0 8 0r] 0r emendaverim,
cf. Hebr. 8. q rr] rr M
nr rn\rrosi+ioxr .
` o o o j i ij o j o
0i t. i o 0 0 u j0. u o
ij o t ii. i o r j rr r 0.
` o o o j i ij o j o
t r. u j r0 r r _u i_ o
ij o i t. u o 0o j j.
i o j i. o r _u j i o j. 0i
j u r[], u o t r. 0i u u.
o ` o r. o t 0i j 0. o o j. u
j j0o o i. j 0 [0] i. r r
u r. o o ij. u o
o. 0i 0 r 0 oi o ij i o 0i
j i t. u o j0. 0i 0 i r oi o
ij i o 0i j o o. u o j i
j r iu_. i o j i. r 0i j r. o
j o. u o i 0 j . 0i 0 r i.
`i i o t. u o _u t o0. 0i
0 i.
6o ` 0i 0i o j o. u 0i 00u u ri.
r. _u r u `i. t r j r i. j r r-
i. i 0i. i. i 0i. o r
r 0i0 `j_ t i0. I i ri
r0. u 0i0.
6 ` ri. o i o j j o. o
o j. u ri 0 t i oi i o j
ro o i r t. u o ri o . j
ro o oi i o t r0. u i t ri
u 0t. j r0 u. r i
o i, o ij. i ri j 0r oi o
ij o 0i j o 0r t. u j r
rr 0u. j r0. o o j o
i j r r. u ri _u 0i_ u 0
i u _u l o i l o oi o
Ps. :o(:o6). u j0. u 6 Ev. Luc. .. q cf. Hom. Il. :o. 6.
o t : Ps. :.o(:.:). . 6 cf. Ex. :. :: o j o j r j
iu_ 6 cf. Rom. q. o u ri o . Ps. .:(..). : cf. Eph.
.. .o r0r ri _u 0i_ u 0 i u
] fort. ri scribendum, cf. Greg. Cor. Synt. , p. .o: Donnet :q6 6
] M
.6 nox\+ts on\rcts n
j i o i ii. u 0j ri i ri _u
t uj0. i rt. r _u o;
` i. o i r. o o j. u o-
i u r j. r r r
j u_ r. o o ij. u i j
8o ru l r oi i o 0i j i t. u
i i rr 0 r j; `i i o 0j
t. u i 0 i. r r u-
r0 r. o o j. u r i
0_u o_. `j_.
8 ` 0i oi ri o o j i. o i o ij
o.
` 0 o 0i o j. i 0 r0. 0 0. 0
ri.
` o o j i j i ij o -
qo j r o r r u o . u jj0
0 r l u0 o j r o 0i j r 0r t-
. u i u u . 0i 0 r i i o
ij o t j o r. u o o
0j.
q ` r. o t r. o o j. i r 0
o. 0i 0 r 0 oi o j i o t 0.
u r r o0. j t. o ij. u
r u o 0.
6. i ju
0 i r ri; 'j. i r ri;
o j r j rr j.
r t rj i i j.
o r o 0u ii . o r o. i o r o.
i o. o r u0. i .
6 Ev. Matth. .6. o 8 cf. Hom. Il. :o. .o r r i 0_u o_
0j] 0i M | _u] M 8: 0] u_ M 8. i] ri M q. i]
0 M
nr \n\rnnio .
u o rj; u. o o i.
i 0. . u0. . . r. r. i. ji. 0.
r. r.
0 o. i j. u. 0r. o i r0r
:o r.
. i u. u.
. i i. i. o.
. i . 0.
o. i 0. o. r. r. . ru. .
: i. r0. r0. rr. o. u u r ii t
j r _. j i . j r . i i. i. i0.
0j o. i i0. i0. u.
o. i i. 0. t.
0o. i 0u. u.
.o j j ou. i u. u. 0o. 0o. j0.
j0.
i0. i i. o. .
o. i rj. rj.
00i. i 0. 0.
. u. i 0. r. 0. i. 0. i0.
i. i 0. j.
rj. i 0. 0. i. u.
ro. i . r. i. 0.
0r. i j. j0. o. 0j.
o 0o. i 0r. r.
0o. i o.
o. i j.
00. i 0t. 00.
o r rj i 0 o u u 0 0 0
o. u 0 0 . i 0 j. u 0 0
i. 0 0 j. u 0 0 ro. rr
0 00. u 0 0 j. j. 0i 0 r00 0 0i.
u 0 0 u. I 0 0r. u 0 0 0o. 0 0
. 6 j] i M :: ] r M :. ] M, cf.
:: : 0j o] 0o M .o.: j0. j0] j. r M, cf. c 6.
.o o 0o] o M :. 0o ... j] j ro i j M,
emendavi ex Dion. Th. Ars gramm :q. ., p. Lallot 0t. 00] u. l. u. 0 M
8 0 0 0o] 0o M
.8 nox\+ts on\rcts n
rj. u 0 0 ru. rr i 0 r. u
o 0 0 r i 0 u i 0 . 0. 0i 0 0 r
u j 0i 0 i 00u.
: desinit M
DONATUS GRAECUS C
Siglorum Conspectus
:. Graeca
P Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Palatinus gr.
.
XV
P
1
manus correctoris codicis P
.. Latina
D Donatus latinus, consensus quorundam codicum et
editionum
J Paris, Bibliothque Nationale, MS. lat. :q. ca. :.6o:.8o
p Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices (Pesciae, typis
Savonarolae, die XXVIII mensis Septembris :q.)
pa Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices (Paviae, apud
Franciscum Girardengum, 8 Nov. :8:)
Pl versio Latina inter lineas codicis P
S Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Strozzi 8o XIV in.
inserenda censui
[ ] delenda censui
*** lacunam statui
:. i oou
declinabilis
i subiectus
i signicat
i proprium
i. r dicitur
0r adiecta
0 r() a tribuendo
_u o eo quod
r. r noto, notas
:o notamen
0i substantia
, - qualitas, -tatis
o preponitur
i declinatio
: 0 simplex
u simpliciter
r profertur
i0 componitur
o derivatur
.o 0o intransitive
constructum, contractum
00t nominativus
0j ablativus
o j hic poeta
. 0 hec musa
j anima
j advena
o hoc Pasqua
. : ] - P 8 _u] P
nr xoxixr :
o 0 aquila
o o r hic saturatus
u, - hoc epulum
o o. o pluraliter: hec arma, armorum
tantum
j desinit
magnitudo
j 00 hec cardo, cardonis
j u hec virtus
t hoc plus
t, -, - pluraliter: hi et he plures et
o hec plura
0i, - felix
o 0. j 0, omnis, omnis,
0 omnis, hic et hec et hoc
0 , -i omnis, omni
o, -. 0 omnem, ***
l o, -, - omnes, omnia
o. 0 omnium, omnibus
u o omnes
t o ***
o o o ***
i, -o, - hic et hec et hoc fortis
i, -, - hic et hec et hoc fortior
iu0 solebant
0 modernus
pulvis
0. 0j limus, aer
o viscus
i0j. 0[] ether, sal
i. i. r unus, -na, -num
6o j . 0j visus, auditus
o . hoc partus, -ti
r, - hoc cornu, cornu
0, - res, rei
o, - glacies, -ei
o r] -r P | saturatus fort. pro satur 6 hec pro hic omnis pro
omne o] i fort. scribendum 6: partus -ti pro partus -tus
. nox\+ts on\rcts c
6 i r versus continentur
r, -, - divisus, -sa, -sum
pluraliter u indeclinabilis preter dativo
dativo i duobus
pluraliter t. i tres
o genitivo u, dativo i trium, tribus
pluraliter r. o quattuor, genitivo
r dativo
pluraliter r quinque, indeclinabilis
, -j. bonus, -na, -num
0, -j. 0 boni, bone, boni
00, -, - bonus, melior, optimus
. i. o ***
j. i. i ***
. o, - ***
8o u. i. i ***
. i, - malus, peior, pessimus
j. i, - mala, peior, pessima
. i, - malum, peius, pessimum
u. i, - male, peius, pessime in
8 adverbio
0i, -. felix, felicior, felicissimus
0i, -, -o felix, felicior, felicissima
u, -, - felix, felicius, felicissimum
0, -r, -o feliciter, felicius, felicissime
qo in adverbio
0j, -, - pius, magis pius, piissimus
0j, -r, -o pia, magis pia, piissima
0r, -, - pium, magis pium, piissimum
0u, -r, -o pie, magis pie, piissime in
q adverbio
i, -. fortis, fortior, fortissimus
ij, -r, -o fortis, fortior, fortissima
i, -, - forte, fortius, fortissimum
6 i fort. pro i | versus fort. pro versibus 8o ... i in
marg. add. P q ij pro io
nr xoxixr
iu, -r, -o forte, fortius, fortissime in
:oo adverbio
0. r. t multus, magis multus,
plurimus
0. r. i multa, magis multa, plurima
0. r. t multum, plus, plurimum
:o o[]. o. r multe vel multo, plus,
plurimum, plurimo,
adverbio.
:o6 plurimum bis scripsit Pl
nox\+ts on\rcts c
.. i pju
'u i r ri; `jo r. i r j; r-
i i . 0 u. ri j o0 ri -
.
i r i 0 j; 0 j r i
ri i o0 j o 0 ri i .
0 r j; `j r 0 0 u. r. j 0 0
r 0r. _u o r j 0 0 0r
r j j r _u r o 0 r 0 .
_u j r; 'u. t; 0r. . ri.
:o i. j. i. i 00i.
i 0r; 'j. i; i j u j
o r 0_ _u _u_. o j 0i r
u_ i r_ u_.
i 0r; 0j. i; t 0i0 i o
: j 0 . i i 0i .
i 0r; 0r. i; i j 0 u j-
o.
i 0r; j. i; i u j 0r
r i. r rj i 0j.
.o i 0r; '0j. i; i0 i i
i r 0 r0 r i0 0j i r rr-
.
i 0r; 0r 0j. i; r t _r-
i t r 0 0u r j 0u. r
. t rj r u 0r i i r j 0r 0o.
u i
i u i. i0 o0 u. r
r. o. 00_u 0r 0o iu.
. ] 0 P j o 0 in marg. scr. P _u] P, cf. :. 8
8 r] u P, sed sepius Pl et frequentius Prisc. Inst. gramm. 8. : (GL ., 6q)
:. r ... _u_] i 0 _u desiderantur :q i] i P . 0u] -0 P
nr \rnno
.. De verbo
Amo que pars orationis est? Verbum est. Quare est verbum? Quia
cum modis et temporibus, sine casu, agendi vel patiendi est signicati-
vum.
Quid est proprium verbi? Proprium verbi est signicare actionem vel
passionem sive utramque cum modis et temporibus.
Unde dicitur verbum? Verbum dicitur a verbero vel a verberatu aeris,
eo quod in perferendo verbi aerem saepius verberamus quam in
perferendo alias partes orationis.
Verbo quot accidunt? Octo. Que? Genera, tempora, modi, species,
:o gure, coniugationes, persone et numeri.
Cuius generis? Activi. Quare? Quia in o desinens potest facere tran-
sitionem in alio rationali animali, unde possit eri conversa locutio in
prima vel secunda persona.
Cuius generis? Passivi. Quare? Quia facit oppositionem in o per
: assumptionem r ut sit conversa locutio.
Cuius generis? Neutri. Quare? Quia in o desinens non potest facere
transitionem.
Cuius generis? Communis. Quare? Quia in or naturaliter desinens
utramque retinet signicationem, scilicet activam in passivam.
.o Cuius generis? Deponentis. Quare? Quia deponit unam signicatio-
nem et alteram per se retinet; deponit passivam et retinet activam.
Cuius generis? Neutri passivi. Quare? Quia in preteritis perfectis et
in his que derivantur ab eo retinet literaturam passivorum, in ceteris
. autem neutrorum. Et sunt quinque verba neutra passiva, sicut dictum
est:
gaudeo cum o, soleo simul audeo, do:
quinque, puer, numero neutra passiva tibi do.
. sive utramque in marg. add. Pl verbi pro verbum :. in ... animali pro ad aliud
rationale animal ut in D (J, S, pa) :q in ab i P . eo ab 0_u P, sed cf. D (pa): que
derivantur ab eis (scil. praeteritis perfectis) ..8 gaudeo ... do] cf. Alex. de Villa Dei, Doctr.
q6q: audeo cum soleo, o quoque, gaudeo, do, / quinque, puer, numero neutropassiva tibi do
6 nox\+ts on\rcts c
i 0r; 0r 0j. i; r 0r -
o j 0j r i i i r j 0r
0o. j r. r. i. 0.
i 0r; 00. i; u i u i j.
0r o 0 j j i j i .
i ; 'u. i; ru i i
ri j o0.
[i ; 'u.]
i ; 0.
i ; r.
i ; `i.
o i ; r.
i ; 'u i 0.
i ; r i i.
i ri; `j. i; u 0 i j -
r j r r0.
i ri; j. i; o 0 i j
r j r r0.
i ri; 0j. i; r rj 00
i r i r.
i ri; `j. i; o 0_u 0 j
o j o 0 j i r i r.
i ri; 'o. i; u u 0-
0 oi. 0o r rr 0 r.
i i; u. i; 0 0 o.
i i; u. 0 o; 0 0u.
i j; `0. i; u r.
i j; 0r. 0 i0; ' j o 0r
i 0 0u i0 u.
i j; 0r. i; 0 0 r0 i0-
. 0o 0 0j j o. t ri rt[]; -
6o u r0 rr u.
i i; 00. i; 0u r i 0 0-
0t rr u i i r ii. 0. 0r i
r0i.
i] ru aut alia praepositio desideratur, cf. a. .. . 6 delevi ut e
repetita q 0_u 0] 0 0_ P 0 0 0u in marg. scr. P
nr \rnno
Cuius generis? Neutri passivi. Quare? Quia in neutrali literatura pas-
o sivam retinet signicationem. Et sunt quattuor verba neutra passiva,
id est vapulo, veneo, exulo, nubo.
Cuius generis? Nullius. Quare? Quia neque in o neque in or desinit,
nec descendit a verbo desinenti in o vel in or.
Cuius temporis? Presentis. Quare? Quia presens tempus signicat
extra actionem vel passionem.
Cuius temporis? Presentis.
Cuius temporis? Preteriti perfecti.
Cuius temporis? Preteriti imperfecti.
Cuius temporis? Preteriti plusquamperfecti.
o Cuius temporis? Futuri.
Cuius temporis? Presentis et preteriti perfecti.
Cuius temporis? Preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti.
Cuius modi? Indicativi. Quare? Quia indicat rem esse vel fuisse vel
futuram esse.
Cuius modi? Imperativi. Quare? Quia imperat rem esse vel fuisse vel
futuram esse.
Cuius modi? Optativi. Quare? Quia eget adverbio optativo ut perfec-
tum signicet sensum.
Cuius modi? Subiunctivi. Quare? Quia subiungit sibi aliud verbum
o vel subiungitur alteri verbo ut perfectum ***.
Cuius modi? Innitivi. Quare? Quia neque personam neque nume-
rum dinit, sed eget sola alterius verbi coniunctione.
Cuius speciei? Primitive. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur.
Cuius speciei? Derivative. Unde derivatur? ***
Cuius gure? Simplicis. *** Quia simpliciter profertur.
Cuius gure? Composite. Unde componitur? Ex per prepositione et
amo componitur peramo.
Cuius gure? Decomposite. Quare? Quia non per se componitur,
sed a composito verbo derivatur. Quod est illud? Peramo; inde venit
6o peramasco.
Cuius coniugationis? Nullius. Quare? Quia anomalum est et non
sequitur regulam aliarum coniugationum; et sunt quattuor: sum, fero,
volo et edo.
extra pro circa, cf. D (p): circa actionem vel passionem . dinit etiam in D (p) legitur
8 nox\+ts on\rcts c
i u; u. u r 0 u o
6 i r0 r.
i u; r. u r u u
o r o0_u _.
i u; i. i r i u u
o i u r r0. i 0 0r r _u o
o o00.
i u; 0 i 000 0. i; o o
0r. 0. 0o i 0o 00u i u-
rj r.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
'u. 00. 00 jo. jo. jo 0o. 0-
o 00. 0j 0r 0u.
'u. 00. 00 i 0u 0u. 00. 0u-
.
8o jo. jo. jo i 0u ju.
j0. jo.
i jo. jo. jo i 0u jj-
. jj. jo.
`r jj. jj. jj i 0u
8 jj. jj. jj.
r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0j.
0j. 0j.
j r. ru u i i -
0o. 0o i 0u 00. 0o.
qo r 0o . 0o rt i 0u 0j-
. 0o.
0j r. ru i 0 i0 0_u.
0_u. 0_u i 0u i0 0_u. 0_u. 0_u.
q ' i0 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u i0
0j. 0j. 0j.
`r i0 0j. 0j. 0j i 0-
u i0 0j. 0j. 0j.
6 i r0] rj P, sed de se ipsa Pl et D 66 u dubitanter servavi, i o
coniecerim, cf. ad quam D 6q r _u] i o emendaverim, cf. ad quam (quem cod.) Pl
rj] -r P 6 jo] - P qq8 0j ... 0j] j-
desideratur, cf. tamen a .. :.o:.:
nr \rnno q
Cuius persone? Prime. Prima persona est cum que loquitur de se ipsa
6 pronunciat.
Cuius persone? Secunde. Secunda persona est de qua prima loquitur
in directo sermone.
Cuius persone? Tertie. Tertia persona est ad quam prima loquitur ad
secundam ex se et illam positam ad quem sermo dirigitur.
o
Cuius persone? Nullius et numeri nullius. Quare? Quia omnia in-
nita, impersonalia, gerundia et sup[p]ina numeris et personis de-
ciunt.
Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur.
Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur.
Amo, amas amat; amavi, amavisti, amavit; ama, amet; amare, ama-
visse, ***.
Amo, amas, amat; et pluraliter: amamus, amatis, amant.
8o Preterito imperfecto: amabam, amabas, amabat; et pluraliter: amaba-
mus, amabatis, amabant.
Preterito perfecto: amavi, amavisti, amavit; et pluraliter: amavimus,
amavistis, amaverunt.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: amaveram, amaveras, amaverat; et plura-
8 liter: amaveramus, amaveratis, amaverant.
Futuro: amabo, amabis, amabit; et pluraliter: amabimus, amabitis,
amabunt.
Imperativo modo temporis presentis ad secundam et tertiam perso-
nam: ama, amet; et pluraliter: amatote, amanto.
qo Futuro: amato tu, amato ille; et pluraliter: amatote, amanto.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam ama-
rem, amares, amaret; et pluraliter: utinam amaremus, amaretis, ama-
rent.
q Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amavissem, amavisses,
amavisset; et pluraliter: utinam amavissemus, amavissetis, amavissent.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam amavissem, amavisses, amavisset;
et pluraliter: utinam amavissemus, amavissetis, amavissent.
6 cum que pro que cum, sed 0 u P 66 de qua pro ad quam, sed u P 68 ad
quam pro de qua 6q quem pro quam 8q amatote, amanto pro amate, ament, cf. qo
o nox\+ts on\rcts c
r i0 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u i0
:oo 0j. 0j. 0j.
`j r. ru i ro 0u. 0-
0. 00 i 0u ro 0u. 0j. 0u.
i ro 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u ro
0j. 0j. 0j.
:o r ro 0j, -, - i 0u ro 0j.
ro 0j. ro 0j.
'r r. ru i 00.
' 0j.
r 0j.
::o i i 0 u 0 j; u. t; i o
ru. o 0u 0 o r. o 0j.
`j 0 j 0 ur . ru
[i ] 00.
j0.
:: ' jo.
r 00j.
j r. ru 0o0.
0j r. ru i i0 0_u.
' i0 0j.
:.o r i0 0j.
`j r. ru i ro 00.
i jr ro j.
' ro 0j.
:. i i 0 u 0 j; u. t; i o
ru. o 0u. i 0 r. o 0j.
'u. 00. 00 i 0u 0u0. 000.
0u.
ju. ju. j0 i 0u ju-
:o 0. j00. ju.
:o: 0u] 0j P, cf. qq :o::o. 00. 00 in 0j. 0j
perperam mutavit P
1
:o. 0u] -j P, -j P
1
| 00 (-j P),
0u in 0j. 0j perperam mutavit P
1
:o:o 0j ...
0j] j- desideratur, cf. tamen a .. :::(a) :o:o6 i ... 0j
in marg. add. P; codicis lectionem servavi :: ] i P, cf. ::
::6 0 supra lineam add. P :. jr] -r desideratur, sed cf.
a .. :6:(a), al. :. 00] -0 P, fort. servandum, cf. . .o :.q ju (-
cod.) supra lineam add. P
1
nr \rnno :
Futurum: utinam amem, ames, amet; et pluraliter: utinam amemus,
:oo ametis, ament.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum amo,
amas, amat; et pluraliter: cum amamus, amatis, amant.
Preterito perfecto: cum amavissem, amavisses, amavisset; et pluraliter:
cum amavissemus, amavissetis, amavissent.
:o ***
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: amare.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: amavisse.
Futuro: amatum *** vel amaturum ***.
::o Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo? Duo. Que? Unum presentis
et preteriti imperfecti, ut amans; aliud futuri, ut amaturus.
Verbum impersonale signicans ***, temporis presentis et preteriti
imperfecti: amatur.
Preterito perfecto: amabatur.
:: Preterito plusquamperfecto: amatum erat vel fuerat.
Futuro: amabitur.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti: ametur.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti perfecti: utinam ***
***
:.o ***
Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum
amaretur.
Preterito perfecto: cum amabatur.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum amatum ***.
:. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo? Duo. Que? Unum presens,
amans; al[l]iud futurum, ut amaturus.
Amor, amaris vel amare, amatur; et pluraliter: amamur, amamini,
amantur.
Preterito imperfecto: amabar, amabaris vel amabare, amabatur; et
:o pluraliter: amabamur, amabamini, amabantur.
:o::o. amo ... amant pro amem ... ament :: perfecto a i P :. amabatur
pro amatum sit vel fuerit
. nox\+ts on\rcts c
i jo. jo. jo i 0u jj-
0. jo0. jo.
' jj0. jj0. jj0 i 0u jj0-
: . jj0. jj0.
r 00j. 00j. 00j i 0u
000. 00j0. 00j.
j r. ru i u
:o i i 0u. 0o0 i 0u 0u0.
000. 0o0.
r 0oi . 0o0 rt i 0u 0-
u0. 0j0. 0o0.
0j r. ru i i0 0_u. 0-
: _u. 0_u i 0u i0 0_u0. 0_u0. 0-
_u.
' i0 jr i. jr i. jr i i
0u jr i. jr i. jr i.
:o
r i0 00i. 00j. 00j i -
0u i0 00i0. 00j0. 00j.
`j r. ru ro 0u. 00. 00
i 0u ro 0u0. ro 000. ro 0u.
: 0 r
i jr ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
jr ro u. ro j. ro u.
' ro jj0. jj0. jj0 i 0u ro
:6o jj0. jj0. jj0.
r ro jr r. jr r. jr r
i 0u ro jr r0. r0. r.
:6 'r r. ru i 000.
:: jo] jj0 P, corr. P
1
:o 0u] -0 P, cf. a .. :8(b), al. |
0u0 om. P, in marg. add. P
1
:.: 0u0 om. P, in marg. add. P
1
: 00] -0 P, cf. :. :6.:6 ro ... r] codicis lectionem servavi
nr \rnno
Preterito perfecto: amatus sum vel fui, amatus es vel fuisti, amatus est
vel fuit; et pluraliter: amati sumus vel fuimus, amati estis vel fuistis,
amati sunt vel fuerunt.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: amatus eram vel fueram, amatus eras
: vel fueras, amatus erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: amati eramus vel
fueramus, amati eratis vel fueratis, amati erant vel fuerant.
Futuro; amabor, ***, amabitur; pluraliter: amabimur, amabimini,
amabuntur.
Imperativo modo, tempus presens *** ad secundam et tertiam per-
:o sonam: amare, ametur; et pluraliter: amemur, amemini, amentur.
Futuro: amator tu, amator ille; et pluraliter: amemur, amaminor,
amantor.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam ama-
: rer, amareris vel amarere, amaretur; et pluraliter: utinam amaremur,
amaremini, amarentur.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amatus essem vel fuis-
sem, amatus esses vel fuisses, amatus esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter:
amati essemus vel fuissemus, amati essetis vel fuissetis, amati essent vel
:o fuissent.
Futuro: utinam amer, ameris vel amere, ametur; et pluraliter: utinam
amemur, amemini, amentur.
Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis: cum amer, ameris vel amere,
ametur; et pluraliter: cum amemur, cum amemini, cum amentur.
: Preterito imperfecto: non habet.
Preterito perfecto: cum amatus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum amati simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum amatus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
:6o fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum amati essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum amatus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum amati erimus vel fuerimus, amati eritis vel fueritis,
amati erunt vel fuerint.
:6 Innitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: amari.
:o amemur in marg. add. P
1
:. amemur in marg. add. P
1
nox\+ts on\rcts c
' jj0.
r 00j0.
i i 0 u 0 j; u. t; i
i. jr. 0 r. 00.
:o
'u ru j j. i i i r
o 0u. j 0r. 0u i o j oi
u i i l 0 i.
o. o. o i. i. i o-
: r o o. o. o i -
0j.
o. o. o i 0u o. o.
o.
ri. ri. ri i 0u ro-
:8o . ro. ri.
i ri. ri. ri i 0u ro-
. ro. ro.
' ri. ri. ri i 0u ro.
ro. ri.
:8 r o. o. o i 0u o. o-
. o.
j r. ru i u
i i i. r i 0u o.
r.
:qo r i . o rt i 0u o. -
o.
0j r. ru i i0 o.
o. o i 0u i0 o. o. -
o.
:q ' i0 o. o. o i 0u i0 o-
. o. o.
r i0 o. o. o i 0u i0 o-
. o[]. o.
`j r. ru i ro o.
.oo ro o. ro o i 0u ro o. ro o-
. ro o.
:8::8. ri ... ro] i ... o desiderantur :8 ri]
- P :86 o] o P, corr. P
1
:q o] o bis
scripsit P :q6 o] - P :q o] - P
nr \rnno
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: amatum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: amatum iri.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo? Duo. Que? Unum
quod est temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut ama-
:o tus, aliud futuri, ut amaturus.
Amatus ***
***
***
Doceo, doces, docet; docui, docuisti, docuit; doctus; docuisse; docendi,
: docendo, docendum; docens et docturus ***
Doceo, doces, docet; et pluraliter: docemus, docetis, docent.
Preterito imperfecto: docebam, docebas, docebat; et pluraliter: doce-
:8o bamus, docebatis, docebant.
Preterito perfecto: docui, docuisti, docuit; et pluraliter: docuimus,
docuistis, docuerunt vel -re.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: docueram, docueras, docuerat; et plurali-
ter: docueramus, docueratis, docuerant.
:8 Futuro: docebo, docebis, docebit; et pluraliter: docebimus, docebitis,
docebunt.
Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti ad secun-
dam et tertiam personam: doce, doceat; et pluraliter: docete, doceant.
:qo Futuro: doceto tu, doceto ille; et pluraliter: docetote, docento.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam do-
cerem, doceres, doceret; et pluraliter: utinam doceremus, doceretis,
docerent.
:q Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam docuissem, docuisses, docuisset;
et pluraliter: utinam docuissemus, docuissetis, docuissent.
Futuro: utinam doceam, doceas, doceat; et pluraliter: utinam docea-
mus, doceatis, doceant.
Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum do-
.oo ceam, doceas, doceat; et pluraliter: cum doceamus, doceatis, doceant.
6 nox\+ts on\rcts c
i 0 ro o.
' ro ri. ro ri. ro ri i 0u ro
ro. ro ro. ro ri.
.o r ro o. ro o. ro o i 0u ro
o. ro o. ro o.
'r r. ru i o.
' o.
r o.
.:o i i 0 u 0 j; u o ru. o-
. i o r. o.
`j 0 j 0 ur . ru
o.
ro.
.: i i.
' ro0.
r 0j.
r0.
r o0.
..o 0j r. ru i i0 o.
' i0 o.
r i0 o.
.. `j r. ru i ro o.
i r ro j.
' ro 0j.
r ro 0j.
.o 'r r. ru i o0.
' o0.
r 0j0.
o. o. o i 0u 0. o-
0. o.
. r. ro. ro i 0u r-
0. ro0. ro.
i i. i. i i 0u -
o0. i0. r ii i 'u o.
.o. i ... o] cf. b .. :8: .o ri] - P .:. j supra
lineam add. P
1
... o] - P .. r] r desideratur
..q ro 0j] codicis lectionem servavi
nr \rnno
Preterito perfecto: ***
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum docuissem, docuisses, docuisset; et
pluraliter: cum docuissemus, docuissetis, docuissent.
.o Futuro: cum docuero, docueris, docuerit; et pluraliter: cum docueri-
mus, docueritis, docuerint.
Innitivo modo, tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: docere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: docuisse.
Futuro: doctum ire vel docturum esse.
.:o Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo? Duo: presens, docens, et
futurum, docturus.
Verbo impersonali temporis presentis: docetur.
Preterito imperfecto: docebatur.
.: Preterito perfecto: doctum est vel fuit.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: doctum erat vel fuerat.
Futuro: docebitur.
Imperativo: doceatur.
Futuro: docetor.
..o Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam do-
ceretur.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam doctum esset vel fuis-
set.
Futuro: utinam doceatur.
.. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum do-
ceatur.
Preterito perfecto: cum doceretur.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum doctum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: cum doctum erit vel fuerit.
.o Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: doceri.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: doctum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: doctum iri.
Doceor, doceris vel docere, docetur; et pluraliter: docemur, docemini,
docentur.
. Preterito imperfecto: docebar, docebaris vel docebare, docebatur; et
pluraliter: docebamur, docebamini, docebantur.
Preterito perfecto: doctus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
pluraliter: docti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt, fuerunt vel
fuere.
.. doceretur pro doctum sit vel fuerit
8 nox\+ts on\rcts c
.o ' ro0. ro0. ro0 i 0u ro0-
. ro0. ro0.
r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u -
00. 0j0. 0j.
. j r. ru i o. -
or0 i 0u o0. r0.
r ii . o0 rt i 0u o0.
o0.
0j r. ru i i0 i.
.o o. o i 0u i0 i0. o-
0. o.
' i0 i. o. o i 0u i0
i0. o0. o.
. r i0 i. o. o i 0u i0
i0. o0. o.
`j r. ru i ro o.
ro o. ro o i 0u ro u0. ro
o0. ro o.
.6o i r ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
r ro u. ro j. ro u.
' ro 0u. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0u
ro 0u. ro 0j. ro 0u.
.6
r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i -
0u ro 0u0. ro 0j0. ro 0j.
'r r. ru i o0.
.o ' o0.
r o0.
i i 0 u 0 00 j; u. t;
i o ru i . o 0 o r. o
.
.66.6 ro ... 0j] 0j ... 0j in marg. P, codicis
lectionem servavi
nr \rnno q
.o Preterito plusquamperfecto: doctus eram vel fueram, doctus eras vel
fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: docti eramus vel fueramus,
era[ra]tis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
Futuro: docebor, doceberis vel docebere, docebitur; et pluraliter: do-
cebimur, docebimini, docebuntur.
. Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: docere,
doceatur; et pluraliter: doceamur, doceamini, doceantur.
Futuro: docetor tu, docetor ille; et pluraliter: doceamur, doceminor,
docentor.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam do-
.o cerer, docereris vel docerere, doceretur; et pluraliter: utinam docere-
mur, doceremini, docerentur.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam doctus essem vel fuissem, esses
vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam docti essemus vel
fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
. Futuro: utinam docear, docearis vel doceare, doceatur; et pluraliter:
utinam doceamur, doceamini, doceantur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum do-
cerer, docereris vel docerere, doceretur; et pluraliter: cum doceremur,
doceremini, docerentur.
.6o Preterito perfecto: cum doctus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum docti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum doctus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum docti essemus vel fuissemus,
.6 essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum doctus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum docti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: doceri.
.o Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: doctum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: doctum iri.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo verbo? Duo. Que? Unum
quod est temporis preteriti perfecti, ut doctus; aliud futuri, ut docen-
dus.
.6 doceamini pro docemini
o nox\+ts on\rcts c
. r. r. r r. r. r r r r r
r r. r. r. r rr0 r0 i .
r. r. r i 0u r. r. r.
r. r. r i 0u rr. rr.
r.
.8o i r. r. r i 0u r.
r. r.
' r. r. r i 0u rr. rr.
r.
r r. r. r i 0u r. r. r.
.8 j r. ru i r. r
i 0u r. r.
r r u. o rt i 0u r. o.
0j r. ru i i0 r. r.
r i 0u i0 r. r. r.
.qo
' i0 r. r. r i 0u i0 r.
r. r.
r i0 r. r. r i 0u i0 r.
r. r.
.q `j r. ru i ro r. ro
r. ro r i 0u ro r. ro r. ro r.
i ro r. ro r. ro r i 0u
ro r. ro r. ro r.
' ro r, ***.
oo r ***.
'r r. ru r.
' r.
r r.
`j j 0 ur . ru r.
o rr.
i r.
' rr0.
r 0j.
j r. ru i r0.
.8o.8: r ... r] - P .8 r] r P, cf. .8 o r]
r P, cf. o: o8 0j] 0j bis scripsit P
nr \rnno :
. Lego, legis, legit; legi, legisti, legit; lege; legat, legere, legisse; legendi,
legendo, legendum; lectum, lectu; legens, lectus et lecturus. ***
Lego, legis, legit; et pluraliter: legimus, legitis, legunt.
Preterito imperfecto: legeram, legeras, legerat; et pluraliter: legimus, legitis,
legunt.
.8o Preterito perfecto: legi, legisti, legit; et pluraliter: legimus, legistis,
legerunt vel legere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: legebam, legebas, legebat; et pluraliter: legeba-
mus, legebatis, legebant.
Futuro: legam, leges, leget; et pluraliter: legemus, legetis, legent.
.8 Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: lege, legat;
et pluraliter: legamus, legite, legant.
Futuro: lege tu, legat ille; et pluraliter: legamus, legitote, legunto.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam lege-
rem, legeres, legeret; et pluraliter: utinam legeremus, legeretis, lege-
.qo rent.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam legissem, legisses, legisset; et plu-
raliter: utinam legissemus, legissetis, legissent.
Futuro: utinam legem, leges, leget; et pluraliter: utinam legemus, legetis,
legant.
.q Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum
legem, leges, leget; et pluraliter: cum legeremus, cum legeretis, legerent.
Preterito perfecto: cum legerim, legeris, legerit; et pluraliter: cum
legerimus, legeritis, legerint.
***
oo Futuro ***.
Innitivo modo tempore presenti: legere.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: legisse.
Futuro: lectum ire vel lecturum esse.
Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: legitur.
o Preterito imperfecto: legebatur.
Preterito perfecto: lectum est vel fuit.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: lectum erat vel fuerat.
Futuro: legetur.
Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: legatur.
.8.q legeram ... legunt pro legebam ... legebant, cf. .8. .8..8 legebam ... legebant
pro legeram ... legerant, cf. .8 .8 lege ... legat pro legito ..., legito, cf. .8 .q legem
... legetis pro legam ... legatis, cf. .q6 .q6 legem ... legerent pro legam ... legant (cf. .q) aut
legerem ... legerent
. nox\+ts on\rcts c
:o r o0.
0j r. ru i i0 r.
' i0 r.
r i0 0j.
: `j r. ru i ro r.
i r ro j.
' ro r.
r ro 0j.
.o 'r r. ru r0.
' r0.
r r0.
i i 0 u 0 j 0 r0; u.
t; ru. r. i o r. r.
. r. r. r i 0u 0. r0. r.
r. rr. rr i 0u r0.
rr0. rr.
i r. r. r i 0u r0.
o r0. r ii i 'u r.
' rr0. rr0. rr0 i 0u rr0. rr-
0. rr0.
r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0-
0. 0j0. 0j.
j r. ru i r. r-
0 i 0u r0. r0.
r r u. o0 rt i 0u r0. o-
o 0.
0j r. ru i i0 i. r-
. r i 0u i0 i0. r0. r.
' i0 i. r. r i 0u i0 i-
0. r0. r.
: r] r desideratur :q ro 0j] codicis lectionem servavi
.o r0] r0 P, cf. oq o ii] j P q r ... o0| r
... o P, cf. .8 :. r] r P, cf. .88
nr \rnno
:o Futuro: legitor.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam lege-
retur.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam lectum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: utinam legatur.
: Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum lega-
tur.
Preterito imperfecto: cum legeretur.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum lectum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: cum lectum erit vel fuerit.
.o Innitivo modo tempore presenti: legi.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: lectum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: lectum iri.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Que? Unum
temporis presentis, ut legens; aliud futuri, ut lecturus.
. Legor, legeris vel legere, legitur; et pluraliter: legimur, legimini, legun-
tur.
Preterito imperfecto: legebar, legebaris vel legebare, legebatur; et plu-
raliter: legebamur, legebamini, legebantur.
Preterito perfecto: lectus sum vel fui, lectus es vel fuisti, lectus est vel
o fuit; et pluraliter: lecti sumus vel fuimus, lecti estis vel fuistis, lecti sunt
vel fuerunt, et ionice ***.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: lectus eram vel fueram, lectus eras vel
fueras, lectus erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: lecti eramus vel fueramus,
eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
Futuro: legar, legeris vel legere, legetur; et pluraliter: legemur, lege-
mini, legentur.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: legere,
legatur; et pluraliter: legamur, legamini, legantur.
Futuro: legitor tu, legitor ille; et pluraliter: legamur, legiminor, leguntor.
o
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam lege-
rer, legereris vel legerere, legeretur; et pluraliter: utinam legeremur,
legeremini, legerentur.
Preterito perfecto vel plusquamperfecto: utinam lectus essem vel fuis-
sem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam lecti esse-
mus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
: preterito ... legeretur pro preterito perfecto: cum lectum sit vel fuerit 8 legamini pro
legimini
nox\+ts on\rcts c
r i0 i. r, r i 0u i0 i-
0. r0. r.
`j r. ru i ro r. ro
o r. ro r i 0u ro u0. ro r0. ro
r.
i r ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u -
r ro u. ro j. ro u.
' ro r. ro r. ro r i 0u ro
u0. ro r0. ro r.
r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0-
u ro 0u0. ro 0j0. ro 0j.
6o
'r r. ru i r0.
' r0.
r 0j0 j r0.
i i 0 u 0 00 j; u. t;
6 ` ru . . i o r. 0 j .
'u. 0u. 0u i 0u 0u. 0u. 0u-
.
j. j. j i 0u ju. ju-
o . j.
i 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0.
0. 0.
' j. j. j i 0u ju.
ju. j.
r 0u. 0u. 0u i 0u 0u.
0u. 0u.
j r. ru i 0. 0-
r i 0u 0u. 0r.
r 0 . 0o rt i 0u 0u.
8o 0o.
0j r. ru i i0 0u. 0u-
. 0u i 0u i0 0u. 0u. 0u.
8q ro 0j ... 0j] codicis lectionem servavi : 0j]
- P j] - P
nr \rnno
Futuro: utinam legar, legaris vel legare, legatur; et pluraliter: utinam
legamur, legamini, legantur.
Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum lege-
o rer, legereris vel legerere, legeretur; et pluraliter: cum legeremur, lege-
remini, legerentur.
Preterito perfecto: cum lectus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lecti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum lectus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum lecti essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum lectus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum lecti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
6o fuerint.
Innitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: legi.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: lectum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: lectum iri.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo verbo? Duo. Que? Unum
6 quod est temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti et preteriti plusquamperfecti, ut
lectus; aliud futuri, ut legendus.
Audio, audis, audit; et pluraliter: audimus, auditis, audiunt.
Preterito imperfecto: audiebam, audiebas, audiebat; et pluraliter:
o audiebamus, audiebatis, audiebant.
Preterito perfecto: audivi, audivisti, audivit; et pluraliter: audivimus,
audivistis, audiverunt vel audivere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: audiveram, audiveras, audiverat; et plu-
raliter: audiveramus -tis rant, audiveratis, audiverant.
Futuro: audiam, audies, audiet; et pluraliter: audiemus, audietis, audi-
ent.
Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: audi,
audiat; et pluraliter: audiamus, audiatis, audiant.
Futuro: audito tu, audito ille; et pluraliter: audiamus, auditote, audi-
8o unto.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam audi-
rem, audires, audiret; et pluraliter: utinam audiremus, audiretis, audi-
rent.
simus sitis sint] fuimus fuistis fuerunt Pl, corr. P
1
8 audiatis pro audite
6 nox\+ts on\rcts c
' i0 0u. 0u. 0u[] i 0u i0
8 0u. 0u. 0u.
r i0 0u. 0u. 0u i 0u i0
0u. 0u. 0u.
`j r. ru i ro 0u. ro
0u. ro 0u i 0u ro 0u. ro 0u. ro
qo 0u.
i ro 0. ro 0. ro 0 i 0u
ro 0. ro 0. ro 0.
' ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u i 0u ro
0u. ro 0u. ro 0u.
q r ***.
'r r. ru i 0u.
' 00.
r 0u.
i i 0 u 0 r0 j; u o
oo ru i o r. o 0u i o 0.
`j j 0 ur 0u.
ju.
i j.
' ju0.
o r 00j.
j r. ru i 0r0.
r 0o0.
0j r. ru i i0 0u.
:o ' i0 0u.
r i0 0u.
`j r. ru i ro 0u.
: i jr ro j.
' ro 0u.
r ro 00j.
'r r. ru i 0u0.
' 0u0.
.o r 00j0 j 0u0.
o 00j] - P : jr] -r desideratur : ro
00j] codicis lectionem servavi
nr \rnno
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam audivissem, audivisses,
8 audivisset; et pluraliter: utinam audivissemus, audivissetis, audivissent.
Futuro: utinam audiam, audias, audiat; et pluraliter: utinam audia-
mus, audiatis, audiant.
Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum
audirem, audires, audiret; et pluraliter: cum audiremus, audiretis,
qo audirent.
Preterito perfecto: cum audiverim, audiveris, audiverit; et pluraliter:
cum audiverimus, audiveritis, audiverint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum ***.
q ***
Innitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: audire.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: audivisse.
Futuro: auditum ire vel auditurum esse.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc activo verbo? Duo: unum quod est
oo temporis presentis, aliud futuri: audiens et auditurus.
Verbo impersonali: auditur.
Preterito imperfecto: audiebatur.
Preterito perfecto: auditum est vel fuit.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: auditum erat vel fuerat.
o Futuro: audietur.
Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: audiatur.
Futuro: aud***.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam audi-
retur.
:o Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam auditum esset vel fuis-
set.
Futuro: utinam audiatur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum
audiatur.
: Preterito perfecto: cum audiretur.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum auditum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: cum auditum erit.
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: audiri.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: auditum esse vel fuisse.
.o Futuro: auditum iri.
o aud (sic) pro auditor :q vel esse add. P
1
8 nox\+ts on\rcts c
'u. 0u. 0u i 0u 00. 0u0.
0u.
j. j. j i 0u ju-
0. j0. jr ii i 'u 0.
. i 0u. 0u. 0u i 0u 0-
0. 0u0. 0u.
' ju0. ju0. ju0 i 0u ju0-
. ju0. ju0.
o r 00j. 00j. 00j i 0u
000. 00j0. 00j.
j r. ru i 0u. 0-
r0 i 0u 0u0. 0r0.
r 0i . 0o0 rt i 0u 0u0.
0o0.
0j r. ru i i0 0i.
0u. 0u i 0u i0 0i0. 0u0.
0u.
' i0 0i. 0u. 0u i 0u i0
o 0i0. 0u0. 0u.
r i0 0i. 0u. 0u i 0u i0
0i0. 0u0. 0u.
`j r. ru i ro 0u.
ro 0u. ro 0u i 0u ro 0u0. ro 0u-
0. ro 0u.
i jr ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
jr ro u. ro j. ro u.
o ' ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u i 0-
u ro 0u0. ro 0u0. ro 0u.
r ro 00j. ro 00j. ro 00j i
0u ro 00u0. ro 00j0. ro 00j-
.
.. codicis lectionem servavi, sed post lacunam statuerim atque
i e . transposuerim ..6 0u ... 0u] codicis lectio-
nem servavi, sed haec delenda esse censeo ut e .:.. repetita. 8 jr]
0- P ro 00j ... 00j] codicis lectionem servavi
nr \rnno q
Audior, audiris vel audire, auditur; et pluraliter: audimur, audimini,
audiuntur.
Preterito imperfecto: audiebar, audiebaris vel audiebare, audiebatur; et plurali-
ter: audiebamur, audiebamini, audiebantur, et ionice ***.
. Preterito perfecto: auditus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter:
auditi sumus vel fuimus, auditi estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel fuere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: auditus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: auditi eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel
fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
o Futuro: audiar, audieris vel audiere, audietur; et pluraliter: audiemur,
audiemini, audientur.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: audiere,
audiatur; et pluraliter: audiamur, audiamini, audiantur.
Futuro: auditor tu, auditor ille; et pluraliter: audiamur, audiminor,
audiuntor.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam audi-
rer, audireris vel audirere, audiretur; et pluraliter: utinam audiremur,
audiremini, audirentur.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam auditus essem vel fuis-
o sem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam auditi esse-
mus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: utinam audiar, audiaris vel audiare, audiatur; et pluraliter:
utinam audiamur, audiamini, audiantur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum
audirer, audireris vel -re, audiretur; et pluraliter: cum audiremur,
audiremini, audirentur.
Preterito perfecto: cum auditus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum auditi simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
o Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum auditus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum auditi essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum auditus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum auditi erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
. audiere pro audire audiamini pro audimini
6o nox\+ts on\rcts c
'r r. ru i 0u0.
' 0u0.
r 00j0 j 0u0.
i i 0 u 0 00 j; u. t;
6o i o ru i 0 o r o 0 i 00-
j 0.
ii. i. i 'u. u ri. ri i 0u rr. rr.
ii.
j. j. j i 0u j. j. j.
6
i j. j. j i 0u j-
. j. j.
' j. j. j i 0u j. -
j. j.
o r r. r. r i 0u r0. r0. r-
.
j r. ru i r. r i
0u r. r.
r r0 u. r0 rt i 0u ru0. r00.
r.
0j r. ru i i0 i. i. i
i 0u i. i. i.
` i0 o. o. o i 0u i0
o. o. o.
8o r i0 ri. r. r i 0u i0 ri0.
r0. r.
`j r. ru i ro u. ro j.
ro j i 0u ro u. ro j. ro u.
i ro o. ro o. ro o i 0u
8 ro o. ro o. ro o.
' ro j. j. j i 0u ro j-
. ro j. ro j.
r ro r. ro r. ro r i 0u ro ru-
0. ro r0. ro r.
qo 'r r ru i i.
6. ri] r. i P 6 j] -o P o r] cf. :6. necnon a .. 6,
b .. :, d .. :q . r ... r. r] r0 ... r0. r0 P, cf. a ..
6q6qo, b .. :q.o, d .. .:.. codicis lectionem servavi 88
imperfectum cum aoristo et vice versa mutavit P 868q codicis lectionem servavi
nr \rnno 6:
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: audiri.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: auditum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: auditum iri.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo verbo? Duo. Que? Unum
6o quod est temporis presentis, aliud futuri: auditus et audiendus.
Sum, es, est attice, ionice es, est; et pluraliter: sumus, estis, sunt.
Preterito imperfecto: eram, eras, erat; et pluraliter: eramus, eratis,
6 erant.
Preterito perfecto: fui, fuisti, fuit; et pluraliter: fuimus, fuistis, fuerunt
vel fuere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: fueram, fueras, fuerat; et pluraliter: fue-
ramus, fueratis, fuerant.
o Futuro: ero, eris, erit; et pluraliter: erimus, eritis, erunt.
Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: sit vel es,
sit; et pluraliter: este, sint.
Futuro: esto tu, esto ille; et pluraliter: simus, estote, sumpto vel sumptote.

Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam es-

sem, esses, esset; et pluraliter: utinam essemus, essetis, essent.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam fuissem, fuisses, fuis-
set; et pluraliter: utinam fuissemus, fuissetis, fuissent.
8o Futuro: utinam sim, sis, sit; et pluraliter: utinam simus, sitis, sint.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum es-
sem, esses, esset; et pluraliter: cum essemus, essetis, essent.
Preterito perfecto: cum fuerim, fueris, fuerit; et pluraliter: cum fueri-
8 mus, fueritis, fuerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum fuissem, fuisses, fuisset; et pluraliter:
cum fuissemus, fuissetis, fuissent.
Futuro: cum fuero, fueris, fuerit; et pluraliter: cum fuerimus, fueritis,
fuerint.
qo Innitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: esse.
. sit pro sis sumpto, sumptote pro sunto, suntote
6. nox\+ts on\rcts c
' o.
r 0 r.
r. 0r. 0r i 0u 0r. 0r. 0r.
j0. j0. j0 i 0u j0r. j0r-
q . j0.
i j0r. j0r. j0r i 0u j0j-
. j0j. j0r.
' 0r. 0r. 0r i 0u 0j-
. 0j. 0j.
oo r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0j. 0j-
. 0j.
j 0 r.
0j r. ru i i0 0r. 0r.
0r i 0u i0 0r. 0r. 0r.
o ' i0 0j. 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u
i0 0j. 0j. 0j.
r i0 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u i0 0j-
. 0j. 0j.
:o `j r ro 0r. ro 0. ro 0r i 0u
ro 0r. ro 0r. ro 0r.
ro j0. ro j0. ro j0 i 0u ro
j0r. ro j0r. ro j0.
i ro j0r. ro j0r. ro j0r i 0-
: u ro j0j. ro j0j. ro j0r.
' ro 0r. ro 0r. ro 0r i 0u
ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j.
r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0u ro
0j. ro 0j. ro 0j.
.o 'r r. ru i 0r.
' 0j.
r 0 r.
o. o. o i 0u o. o-
. o.
q6qq aoristum cum perfecto et vice versa mutavit P, cf. :: ooo:
0j ... 0j] -, -, - P o 0j delendum esse
censeo, sed cf. Pl, ubi voluissem bis legitur o8oq codicis lectionem servavi,
0j ... 0j desiderantur :. j0] - P :: perfectum cum
aoristo et vice versa mutavit P, cf. q6qq
nr \rnno 6
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: fuisse.
Futuro caret.
Volo, vis, vult; et pluraliter: volumus, velitis, volunt.
Preterito imperfecto: volebam, volebas, volebat; et pluraliter: voleba-
q mus, volebatis, volebant.
Preterito perfecto: volui, voluisti, voluit; et pluraliter: voluimus, volui-
stis, voluerunt vel voluere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: volueram, volueras, voluerat; et plurali-
ter: volueramus, volueratis, voluerant.
oo Futuro: volam, voles, volet; et pluraliter: volemus, voletis, volent.
Imperativo caret.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam velim,
velis, velit; et pluraliter: utinam velimus, velitis, velint.
o Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam voluissem, voluissem,
voluisses, voluisset; et pluraliter: utinam voluissemus, voluissetis, volu-
issent.
Futuro: utinam velem, veles, velet; et pluraliter: utinam volemus, voletis,
velent.
:o Subiunctivo modo: cum velim, velis, velit; et pluraliter: cum velimus,
velitis, velint.
Preterito imperfecto: cum velim, velis, velit; et pluraliter: cum velimus,
velitis, velint.
Preterito perfecto: cum voluerim, volueris, voluerit; et pluraliter: cum
: voluerimus, volueritis, voluerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum voluissem, voluisses, voluisset; et plu-
raliter: cum voluissemus, voluissetis, voluissent.
Futuro: cum voluero, volueris, voluerit; et pluraliter: cum voluerimus,
volueritis, voluerint.
.o Innitivo modo temporis presenti et preteriti imperfecti: vele.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: voluisse.
Futuro caret.
Fero, fers, fert; et pluraliter: ferimus, feritis, ferunt.
q velitis pro vultis oo velim ... velint pro vellem ... vellent o8oq velem ....
velent pro velim ... velint :.: velim ... velint pro vellem ... vellent .o vele pro velle
. feritis pro fertis
6 nox\+ts on\rcts c
. ro. ro. ro i 0u r-
o. ro. ro.
i ro. ro. ro i 0u r-
o. ro. ro.
' o. o. o i 0u -
o o. o. o.
r o. o. o i 0u o.
o. o.
j r. ru u i i -
o. r i 0u o. r.
r o . o rt i 0u o.
o.
0j r. ru i i0 o.
o. o i 0u i0 o. o.
o.
o ' i0 o. o. o i 0u i0
o. o. o.
r i0 o. o. o i 0u i0
o. o. o.
`j r. ru oi i ro -
o. ro o. ro o i 0u ro o.
ro o. ro o.
i ro ro. ro ro. ro ro i -
0u ro ro. ro ro. ro ro.
' ro o. ro o. ro o i 0-
o u ro o. ro o. ro o.
r ro o. ro o. ro o i 0u
ro o. ro o. ro o.
'r r ru i o.
' o.
r o.
`j o j 0 ur . ru
o.
ro.
.o aoristum cum perfecto et vice versa mutavit P, codicis tamen lectionem
servavi, cf. q6qq, o o] o P, cf. 8 q
o ... o] o ... o P, cf. . o
... o] o ... o P, corr. P
1
o cf. .o ro
ro] ro bis scripsit P 6 j ... o sub linea add. P
1
nr \rnno 6
. Preterito imperfecto: ferebam, ferebas, ferebat; et pluraliter: fereba-
mus, ferebatis, ferebant.
Preterito perfecto: tuli, tulisti, tulit; et pluraliter: tulerimus, tuleritis, tule-
runt vel tulere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: tuleram, tuleras, tulerat; et pluraliter: tu-
o leramus, tuleratis, tulerant.
Futuro: feram, feres, feret; et pluraliter: feremus, feretis, ferent.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti ad secundam et tertiam perso-
nam: fere, ferat; et pluraliter: feramus, ferete, ferant.
Futuro: ferto tu, ferto ille; et pluraliter: feramus, fertote, ferunto.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam fer-
rem, ferres, ferret; et pluraliter: utinam ferremus, ferretis, ferrent.
o Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam tulissem, tulisses, tulis-
set; et pluraliter: utinam tulissemus, tulissetis, tulissent.
Futuro: utinam feram, feras, ferat; et pluraliter: utinam feramus, fera-
tis, ferant.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti cum similiter; preterito imper-
fecto: cum ferrem, ferres, ferret; et pluraliter: cum ferremus, ferretis,
ferrent.
Preterito perfecto: cum tulerim, tuleris, tulerit; et pluraliter: cum tule-
rimus, tuleritis, tulerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum tulissem, tulisses, tulisset; et plurali-
o ter: cum tulissemus, tulissetis, tulissent.
Futuro: cum tulero, tuleris, tulerit; et pluraliter: cum tulerimus, tuleri-
tis, tulerint.
Innitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: ferre.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: tulisse.
Futuro: latum ire vel laturum esse.
Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: fertur.
Preterito imperfecto: ferebatur.
. tulerimus, tuleritis pro tulimus, tulistis fere pro fer | ferete pro ferte
66 nox\+ts on\rcts c
i o.
6o ' ro0.
r 0j.
j r. ru i r0.
r 0j.
0j r. ru i i0 o.
6
' i0 o.
r i0 0j.
`j r. ru i ro o.
o i r ro j[].
' ro o.
r ro 0j.
o. o. o i 0u 0. -
o0. o.
r. ro. ro i 0u
r0. ro0. ro.
i o. o. o i 0-
u o0. o0. r ii.
8o ' ro0. ro0. ro0 i 0u r-
o0. ro0. ro0.
r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0-
u 00. 0j0. 0j.
8 j r. ru i o. -
r0 i 0u o0. r0.
r o . o rt i 0u o.
o0.
0j r. ru i i0 i.
qo o. o i 0u i0 i0. o-
0. o.
' i0 i. o. o i 0u
i0 i0. o0. o.
6: 0j] - P 68 o] - P, cf. : o r]
r desideratur, cf. tamen 6oo . codicis lectionem servavi 8 ii]
j P 888 codicis lectionem servavi 8qqo i. o]
i. o P (cf. q), corr. P
1
nr \rnno 6
Preterito perfecto: latum est vel fuit.
6o Preterito plusquamperfecto: latum erat vel fuerat.
Futuro: feretur.
Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: feratur.
Futuro: ferto.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam fer-
6 retur.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam latum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: utinam feratur.
Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum fera-
tur.
o Preterito perfecto: cum latum sit vel fuerit.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum latum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: cum latum erit vel fuerit.
Feror, ferris vel ferre, fertur; et pluraliter: ferimur, ferimini, feruntur.
Preterito imperfecto: ferebar, ferebaris vel ferebare, ferebatur; et plu-
raliter: ferebamur, ferebamini, ferebantur.
Preterito perfecto: latus sum vel fui, latus es vel fuisti, latus est vel fuit;
et pluraliter: lati sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel
fuere.
8o Preterito plusquamperfecto: latus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: lati eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fuera-
tis, erant vel fuerant.
Futuro: ferar, fereris vel ferere, feretur; et pluraliter: feremur, feremini,
ferentur.
8 Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: ferre, fera-
tur; et pluraliter: feramur, ferimini, ferantur.
Futuro: fertor tu, fertor ille; et pluraliter: feramur, feraminor, feruntor.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam fer-
qo rer, ferreris vel ferrere, ferretur; et pluraliter: utinam ferremur, ferre-
mini, ferrentur.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam latus essem vel fuis-
sem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam lati essemus
vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
6 ferto pro fertor, cf. 8
68 nox\+ts on\rcts c
q r i0 i. o. o i 0u
i0 i0. o0. o.
`j r. ru i ro o.
ro o. ro o i 0u ro u0. ro
o0. ro o.
6oo i r ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
r ro u. ro j. ro u.
' ro o. ro o. ro o i 0-
u ro u0. ro o0. ro o.
6o
r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i
0u ro 0u0. ro 0j0. ro -
0j.
'r r ru i o0.
6:o ' o0.
r 0j0 j o0.
i i 0 u 0 00 j; u. t;
` ru . o . i o r. j
0.
6: '0i. r0i. r0i i 0u r0i. r0i. r0i.
j0. j0. j0 i 0u j0i. j0i-
. j0.
i j0i. r0i. r0i i 0u r0o-
. r0o. r0o.
6.o ' r0i. r0i. r0i i 0u r0o.
r0o. r0o.
r r0o. r0o. r0o i 0u r0o.
r0o. r0o.
j r. ru u i i -
6. r0. r0r i 0u r0i. r0r.
r r0r . r0r rt i 0u r0i. r0o-
.
6oo r] r desideratur, cf. tamen o 6o: r]
r desideratur 6o66o8 codicis lectionem servavi 6:86.: aoristum
cum perfecto et vice versa mutavit P, cf. etiam 666q 6:86:q codicis lectionem
servavi 6.o6.: codicis lectionem servavi 6. r0] j0- P 6.6 r0] j0-
P 6.66. r0o] codicis lectionem servavi, sed fort. r0r ut in 6.
scribendum
nr \rnno 6q
q Futuro: utinam ferar, feraris vel ferare, feratur; et pluraliter: utinam
feramur, feramini, ferantur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum ferer,
fereris vel ferere, feretur; et pluraliter: cum feremur, feremini, ferentur.
6oo Preterito perfecto: cum latus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit;
et pluraliter: cum lati simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel
fuerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum latus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum lati essemus vel fuissemus,
6o essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum latus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum lati erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: ferri.
6:o Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: latum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: latum iri.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo verbo? Duo. Que? Unum
quod est temporis preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut latus; aliud futuri, ut
ferendus.
6: Edo, es, est; et pluraliter: edimus, editis, edunt.
Preterito imperfecto: edebam, edebas, edebat; et pluraliter: edebamus,
edebatis, edebant.
Preterito perfecto: edi, edisti, edit; et pluraliter: edimus, edistis, ede-
runt vel edere.
6.o Preterito plusquamperfecto: ederam, ederas, ederat; et pluraliter: ede-
ramus, ederatis, ederant.
Futuro: edam, edes, edet; et pluraliter: edemus, edetis, edunt.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti ad secundam et tertiam perso-
6. nam: ede, edat; et pluraliter: edamus, edite, edant.
Futuro: edito tu, edito ille; et pluraliter: edamus, editote, edunto.
qq8 ferer ... ferentur pro ferrer ... ferrentur 6.. edunt pro edent.
o nox\+ts on\rcts c
0j r. ru i i0 r0i. r0i-
. r0i i 0u i0 r0i. r0i. r0i.
6o ' i0 r0o. r0o. r0o[] i 0u
r0o. r0o. r0o.
r i0 r0i. r0i. r0i i 0u i0 r0o-
. r0o. r0o.
`j r. ru i ro r0i. r0i-
6 . r0i i 0u ro r0i. r0i. r0i.
i ro r0o. r0o0. r0o0 i 0u
ro r0o0. r0o0. r0o0.
' ro r0i. r0i. r0i i 0u ro r0o-
. r0o. r0o.
6o r ro r0o. r0o. r0o i 0u ro r0o-
. ro r0o. ro r0o.
'r r. ru i r0i.
' r00.
r r0o.
6 `j 0. ru r00.
j0i.
i j0i.
' j0o0.
r r00j.
6o j r. ru i r0r.
r r0o.
0j r. ru i i0 r0i.
' i0 r0o.
6 r i0 r0o.
`j r. ru i ro r0i.
i ro r0r j.
' ro r0o.
66o r ro r00j.
'r r. ru i r0i0.
6.6 codicis lectionem servavi 6. r0i. r0i r0i fort. a 6.86.q
repetita 666q aoristum cum perfecto et vice versa mutavit P, cf. 6:86.:; codicis
lectionem servavi, sed textus valde corruptus videtur 6 r00] - P, cf. 6
6 codicis lectionem servavi 6q r00j] - P, cf. 66o 68 codicis
lectionem servavi 66o codicis lectionem servavi
nr \rnno :
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam ede-
rem, ederes, ederet; et pluraliter: utinam ederemus, ederetis, ederent.
6o Preterito perfecto: utinam edissem, edisses, edisset; et pluraliter: uti-
nam edissemus, edissetis, edissent.
Futuro: utinam edam, edas, edat; et pluraliter: utinam edamus, edatis,
edant.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum ede-
6 rem, ederes, ederet; et pluraliter: cum ederemus, ederetis, ederent.
Preterito perfecto: cum ederim, ederis, ederit; et pluraliter: cum ede-
rimus, ederitis, ederint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum edissem, edisses, edisset; et plurali-
ter: cum edissemus, edissetis, edissent.
6o Futuro: cum edero, ederis, ederit; et pluraliter: cum ederimus, ederitis,
ederint.
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: edere.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: edisse.
Futuro: esum ire vel esurum esse.
6 Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: editur.
Preterito imperfecto: edebatur.
Preterito perfecto: esum est vel fuit.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: esum erat vel fuerat.
Futuro: editor.
6o Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: edatur.
Futuro: editor.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam ede-
retur.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam esum esset vel fuisset.
6 Futuro: utinam edatur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum ede-
retur.
Preterito perfecto: cum esum sit vel fuerit.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum esum esset vel fuisset.
66o Futuro: cum esum erit vel fuerit.
Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: edi.
6q editor pro edetur, cf. 6:
. nox\+ts on\rcts c
' r0o0.
r r0o0.
i i 0 u 0 0r j; u. t;
66 i o ru i . o r0i. i 0 o r. o r0-
.
i. i. i i 0u 0. i0. i-
.
r. ri. ri i 0u r-
6o 0. ri0. ri.
i r. r. r i 0u o-
0. r0. r ii.
' ro. ro. ro i 0u ro. ro.
6 ro.
r j. j. j i 0u 0.
j0. j.
j r. ru i i. r-
68o 0 i 0u i0. r0.
r j u. j rt i 0u j0.
o0.
0j r. ru i i0 i.
i. i i 0u i0 i0. i0. i-
68 .
' i0 i. i. i i 0u i0 -
i0. i0. i.
r i0 i. i. i i 0u i0 i-
6qo 0. i0. i.
`j r. ru i ro i.
ro i. ro i i 0u ro u0. i0.
i.
i ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u -
6q ro u. ro j. ro u.
66 i] i P, fort. servandum, cf. . o 68o i0. r0] i-
. r P, cf. .:, ubi genus activum cum medio in imperativo modo simi-
liter confunditur 68:68. codicis lectionem servavi 6q6q codicis lectionem
servavi, cf. , ubi praesens participium pro perfecto invenitur
nr \rnno
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: esum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: esum iri.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc neutro verbo? Duo. Que? Unum
66 quod est temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti, ut edens; aliud futuri,
ut esurus.
Gaudeo, gaudes, gaudet; et pluraliter: gaudemus, gaudetis, gaudent.
Preterito imperfecto: gaudebam, gaudebas, gaudebat; et pluraliter:
6o gaudebamus, gaudebatis, gaudebant.
Preterito perfecto: gavisus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
pluraliter: gavisi sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt
vel fuere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: gavissus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
6 erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: gavisi eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel
fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
Futuro: gaudebo, gaudebis, gaudebit; et pluraliter: gaudebimus, gau-
debitis, gaudebunt.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: gaude,
68o gaudeat; et pluraliter: gaudeamus, gaudete, gaudeant.
Futuro: gaudeto tu, gaudeto ille; et pluraliter: gaudeamus, gaudetote,
gaudento.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam gau-
derem, gauderes, gauderet; et pluraliter: utinam gauderemus, gaude-
68 retis, gauderent.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam gavissus essem vel fuis-
sem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam gavissi esse-
mus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: utinam gaudeam, gaudeas, gaudeat; et pluraliter: utinam gau-
6qo deamus, gaudeatis, gaudeant.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum gau-
derem, gauderes, gauderet; et pluraliter: cum gauderemus, gauderetis,
gauderent.
Preterito perfecto: cum gavisus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
6q fuerit; et pluraliter: cum gavisi simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
6 gavissus pro gavisus 686 gavissus pro gavisus 68 gavissi pro gavisi 6q. gauderet
bis scripsit Pl
nox\+ts on\rcts c
' ro i. ro i. ro i i 0u ro
u0. ro i0. ro i.
oo r ro j. ro j. ro j i 0u
ro u0. ro j0. ro j.
'r r. ru i0.
' j0.
o r j0.
i i 0 u 0 00 0r j;
u. t; ` ru i . i o
r. .
u. u. u i 0u 0. u-
:o 0. u.
r. ru. ru i 0u r-
0. ru0. ru.
i . . i 0u
u0. 0. r ii.
: ' ru0. ru0. ru0 i 0u ru-
0. ru0. ru0.
r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u
00. 0j0. 0j.
j r. ru i u. -
.o r0 i 0u u0. r0.
r i . o0 rt i 0u u-
0. o0.
0j r. ru i i0 i.
u. u i 0u i0 i0. u0.
. u.
' i0 i. u. u i 0-
u i0 i0. u0. u.
r i0 i. u. u i 0u
i0 i0. u0. u.
o `j r. ru i ro u-
. u. u i 0u ro u0. u0.
u.
ooo: codicis lectionem servavi .: ... o0] . -
o P, cf. 68o
nr \rnno
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum gavisus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum gavisi essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
oo Futuro: cum gavisus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum gavisi erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
Innitivo modo tempore presenti: gaudere.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: gavisum esse vel fuisse.
o Futuro: gavisurum esse.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo neutro verbo? Duo. Que?
Presentis temporis et preteriti imperfecti, gavisus; futuri, gavisurus.
Eo, is, it: et pluraliter: imus, itis, eunt.
:o
Preterito imperfecto: ibam, ibas, ibat; et pluraliter: ibamus, ibatis,
ibant.
Preterito perfecto: ivi, ivisti, ivit; et pluraliter: ivimus, ivistis, iverunt
vel ivere.
: Preterito plusquamperfecto: iveram, iveras, iverat; et pluraliter: ivera-
mus, iveratis, iverant.
Futuro: ibo, ibis, ibit; et pluraliter: ibimus, ibitis, ibunt.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: i, eat; et
.o pluraliter: eamus, ite, eant.
Futuro: ito tu, ito ille; et pluraliter: eamus, itote, eunto.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam irem,
ires, iret; et pluraliter: utinam iremus, iretis, irent.
.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam ivissem, ivisses, ivisset;
et pluraliter: utinam ivissemus, ivissetis, ivissent.
Futuro: utinam eam, eas, eat; et pluraliter: utinam eamus, eatis, eant.
o Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum
irem, ires, iret; et pluraliter: cum iremus, iretis, irent.
6 nox\+ts on\rcts c
i ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
ro u. ro j. ro u.
' ro u. ro u. ro u i 0-
u ro u0. ro u0. ro u.
r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i
0u ro 0u0. ro 0j0. ro 0j-
.
o 'r r. ru i u0.
' u0.
r u0.
i i 0 u 0 0r j; u. t;
i o ru i . o . i 0 o r, o
0.
`j j 0 ur u.
ru.
i .
' ru0.
o r 0j.
j r. ru r0.
r o0.
0j r. ru i i0 u.
' i0 u.
r i0 u.
`j r. ru i ro u.
i r ro j.
6o ' ro u.
r ro 0j.
'r r. ru i u0.
' u0.
r 0j0.
6 r. r. r i 0u r. r. r.
r. r. r i 0u rr. rr-
. r.
... u] codicis lectionem servavi, cf. 6q6q, ubi praesens
participium pro perfecto invenitur q codicis lectionem servavi 8
] u0 P, cf. 6. 6 u] -0 P q r]
codicis lectionem servavi, r desideratur 6: codicis lectionem servavi
nr \rnno
Preterito perfecto: *** iverim, iveris, iverit; et pluraliter: *** iveri-
mus, iveritis, iverint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum ivissem, ivisses, ivisset; et pluraliter:
cum ivissemus, ivissetis, ivissent.
Futuro: cum ivero, iveris, iverit; et pluraliter: cum iverimus, iveritis,
iverint.
o Innitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: ire.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: ivisse.
Futuro: itum ire vel iturum esse.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc neutro verbo? Duo. Que? Unum
quod est temporis presenti et preteriti imperfecti, ut ens, et aliud futuri, ut
iturus.
Verbo ***: itur.
Preterito imperfecto: ibatur.
Preterito perfecto: itum est vel fuit.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: itum erat vel fuerat.
o Futuro: ibitur.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti: eatur.
Futuro: itor.
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam ire-
tur.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam itum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: utinam eatur.
Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum
eatur.
Preterito perfecto: cum itum sit vel fuerit.
6o Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum itum esset vel fuisset.
Futuro: cum itum erit vel fuerit.
Innitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: ire.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: itum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: itum iri.
6 Fero, fers, fert; et pluraliter: ferimus, feritis, ferunt.
Preterito imperfecto: ferebam, ferebas, ferebat; et pluraliter: fereba-
mus, ferebatis, ferebant.
ens pro iens 6 feritis pro fertis, cf. .
8 nox\+ts on\rcts c
i r. r. r i 0u r.
r. r.
o ' r. r. r i 0u rr, ***
r[].
r r. r. r i 0u r. r. r-
.
i o rj u o o 0 0u i 0 00
00.
i. i. i i 0u 0. i0. i.
r. rr. rr i 0u r0.
rr0. rr.
i r. r. r i 0u .
8o . .
' r. r. r i 0u r.
r. r.
8 r j. j. j i 0u 0
j 00. 0j0. 0j.
j r. ru i i. r0
i 0u i0. r0.
r j u. o rt i 0u j0.
qo o***.
0j r. ru i i0 i. r-
. r i 0u i0 i0. r0. r.
' i0 i. r. r i 0u i0 i-
0. r0. r.
q
r i0 i. r. r i 0u i0 i-
0. r0. r.
`j r. ru i ro r. ro
r. ro r i 0u ro u0. ro r0. ro
8oo r.
. codicis lectionem servavi quamvis a 6 repetita videretur, u. t ...
0 emendaverim 6 i] i P 8.8 r ... r]
codicis lectionem servavi, quamvis a q8o orta esse videretur, r. r-
. r desiderantur 886 codicis lectionem servavi 8 r0]
- P 88 r0] - P 8qqo codicis lectionem servavi, rt -
o (sic) in marg. praebet P
nr \rnno q
Preterito perfecto: tuli, tulisti, tulit; et pluraliter: tuleramus, tuleratis,
tulerunt vel tulere.
o Preterito plusquamperfecto: tuleram, tuleras, tulerat; et pluraliter: tu-
leramus, tuleratis, tulerant.
Futuro: feram, feres, feret; et pluraliter: feremus, feretis, ferent.
Et cetera sicut fero cum impersonali et passivo eius.

Fio, s, t; et pluraliter: mus, tis, unt.

Preterito imperfecto: ebam, ebas, ebat; et pluraliter: ebamus,
ebatis, ebant.
Preterito perfecto: factus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et
8o pluraliter: facti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel
fuere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: factus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras,
erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: cum facti eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel
fueratis, erant vel fuerant.
8 Futuro: am, es, et; et pluraliter: emus, etis, ent.
Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: , at; et
pluraliter: amus, te, ant.
Futuro: to tu, to ille; et pluraliter: amus, tote, unto.
qo
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam e-
rem, eres, eret; et pluraliter: utinam eremus, eretis, erent.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam factus essem vel fuis-
sem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam facti esse-
q mus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: utinam as, as, at; et pluraliter: utinam amus, atis, ant.
Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum am,
as, at; et pluraliter: cum amus, atis, ant.
8oo
68 tuleramus, tuleratis pro tulimus, tulistis, cf. o: q8qq am ... ant pro erem
... erent (arem ... arent inepte corr. P
1
)
8o nox\+ts on\rcts c
i r ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
r ro u. j. u.
' ro j. ro j. ro j i 0u
8o ro u0. ro r0. ro r.
r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0-
u ro 0u0. ro 0j0. ro 0j.
8:o 'r r ru i i0.
' i0.
r 0j0.
i i 0 u 0 00 0r j;
u. t; i o ru . o . i 0 o r.
8: j 0.
r. r. r i 0u j0. r0.
r.
' rj. rj. rj i 0u rj-
rj. rj.
8.o r 0 r.
j 0 r. r j0, *** 0j.
0j r. ru i 0 r.
' i0 0i. 0i. 0i i 0u i0
0i. 0i. 0i.
8.
r 0 r.
`j r ru 0 r.
0 r.
i ro j. ro j[], ro j i -
8o 0u ro u0. ro j0. ro j.
' rj. rj. rj i 0u rj-
. rj. rj.
r 0u. 0j. 0j i 0u 0u. -
0j. 0u.
8o j. j. j] codicis lectionem servavi, r. r. r
desiderantur 8o8o8 codicis lectionem servavi 8:: i0] codicis lectionem
servavi, r0 desideratur 8:88:q rj ... rj] rj. rr-
... rr desiderantur 8.o r P, - 0 r add. P
1
8.. 0 r
add. P
1
8.8. 0i ... 0i] 0j- P 8. j ... r
add. P
1
nr \rnno 8:
Preterito perfecto: cum factus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel
fuerit; et pluraliter: cum facti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint
vel fuerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum factus essem vel fuissem, esses vel
8o fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum facti essemus vel fuissemus,
essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum factus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et
pluraliter: cum facti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel
fuerint.
8:o Innitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: eri.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: factum esse vel fuisse.
Futuro: factum iri.
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo *** verbo? Duo. Que?
Unum temporis presentis, ut ens; aliud futuri preteriti perfecti et plusquam-
8: perfecti, ut endus; aliud futuri, ut facturus.
Memini, meministi, meminit; et pluraliter: meminimus, meministis,
meminerunt vel meminere.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: memineram, memineras, meminerat; et
pluraliter: memineramus, memineratis, meminerant.
8.o Futuro caret.
Imperativo caret. Futuro: memento, mementote ***.
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti caret.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam meminissem, memi-
nisses, meminisset; et pluraliter: utinam meminissemus, meminissetis,
8. meminissent.
Futuro caret.
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti caret.
Preterito imperfecto caret.
Preterito perfecto: cum meminerim, memineris, meminerit; et plurali-
8o ter: cum meminerimus, memineritis, meminerint.
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum meminissem, meminisses, meminis-
set; et pluraliter: meminissemus, meminissetis, meminissent.
Futuro: meminero, memineris, meminerit; et pluraliter: memineri-
mus, memineritis, meminerint.
8: temporis bis praebet P
8. nox\+ts on\rcts c
8 'r r. ru i 0 r.
0j.
r 0 r.
. i uj
'u i r ri; j r. i r j;
r o o i r j o r 0 0
o r i u. 0 r 0 j i i.
r 0r 00 i j.
i r i j; j ri o j 0j i 0
00 u o0.
0 r j; j r 0 0 r i 0 o.
o, _u o r o i r j.
j j r; . t; r. u. . i.
:o 00 i j.
i r; . i; i0 0_u r j i 00
0o o i j i .
i u; 00i r j 0o *** o 00i u-
.
: i ; i o rj.
i i; 'j. i; 0 r0 j
o. t ri rt[]; 'u. 00. i o 0-
u.
i 0r; 0j. i; 0 j 00
.o o. t ri rt[]; 'u. 00. i r 0-
u.
i i; 0r. 0 0r j o.
t ri rt[]; o0. o0. i r 0j.
i i; j. 0 0 j o. t
. ri rt[]; '[]i. r[]i. i r r[].
i i; 'j. i; 0 00
j o. t ri rt[]; '0u. 00t. i
r 00j.
. 0j] 0r P, cf. Pl poni : o vel inter
0o et o addiderim, cf. Pl construitur necnon . ::8, a :. (a,b), al.;
b. :. .q:(a,b), al.; d :. .qo, al. .o 00] -o P, cf. .. :. . r[]i]
- P
nr r\n+icirio 8
8 Innitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti caret.
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: meminisse.
Futuro caret.
. De participio
Legens que pars est? Participium est. Quare est participium? Quia
partem capit nominis que partem verbi; recipit enim a nomine genera et
casus, a verbo autem tempora et signicationes, ab utroque numerum
et guram.
Quid est proprium participi? Proprium participi est pro verbo poni et
ab eo naturaliter derivari.
Unde dicitur participium? Participium dicitur ex parte et capio, capis,
eo quod partem nominis et partem verbi.
Participio quot accidunt? Sex. Que? Genus, casus, tempus, signica-
:o tio, numerus et gura.
Cuius generis? Omnis. Quare? Quia preponuntur ei in declinatione
articula pronominalia hic hec hoc.
Cuius casus? Nominativi; est verbum intransitivum, construitur cum
nominativo casu.
: Cuius temporis? Et cetera.
Cuius signicationis? Active. Quare? Quia ab activo verbo derivatur.
Quod est illud? Amo, amas, *** amans.
Cuius signicationis? Passive. Quare? Quia a verbo passivo derivatur.
.o Quod est illud? Amor, amaris, et t amandus.
Cuius signicationis? Neutralis, quia a neutrali verbo derivatur. Quod
est illud? Sedeo, sederes, et t sedens.
Cuius signicationis? Communis, quia a communi verbo derivatur.
. Quod est illud? Largior, largiris, et t largiens.
Cuius signicationis? Deponentalis. Quare? Quia a deponenti verbo
derivatur. Quod est illud? Sequor, sequeris, et t secutus.
. . que partem pro partemque 8 capit post partem desideratur, cf. . .o t pro factum
est, sed t invenitur in Donato latino (pa) | amandus pro amatus . sederes pro sedes |
t pro factum est, sed t invenitur in Donato latino (pa) . t pro factum est, sed t
invenitur in Donato latino (pa) . t pro factum est, sed t invenitur in Donato latino
(pa)
8 nox\+ts on\rcts c
i i; 0r 0j. i; 0 0r
o 00 j o. t ri rt[]; i. i.
i r i.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
. i oui
'u i r ri; 'i ri. i r 0i;
t r _ ii o i u i .
j 0i r; . t; i. r. 00. j.
i u.
i i; u. i; 0 0 o.
i r; . 0 r _u _u _ 00 j 00 j
0r. i; 0 ri rt o u. t ri
rt[]; r. r j o.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
:o i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
i j; 0r. 0 i0; ' j 0i 0r
i 0 o.
i u; u. i; o o o i l 0-
i ii i u. i 0 ru. o ri u. i 0
: u. o ri r. i u u u i u r 0u
r.
i u; '0j i 00i r j 0o -
j 00i u.
. i 0
i r ri; 0i r. i; i0 t 0
r 0 r 0r j r 0r. r o j o
j u. i r r 0r. r o i0.
i 00j.
o i] - P, cf. .. 66
. :: i0] 0r P, fort. r0 scribendum, sed cf. a. :. ., al.; b :.
., al., etc.
nr rn\rrosi+ioxr 8
Cuius signicationis? Neutralis passive. Quare? Quia a neutro passivo
o verbo derivatur. Quod est illud? Gaudeo, gaudes, et t gaudens.
Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur.
Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur.
. De pronomine
Ego que pars est? Pronomen est. Quare est pronomen? Quia ponitur
in loco proprii nominis et certam signicat personam.
Pronomini quot accidunt? Sex. Que? Species, genus, numerus, gura,
persona et casus.
Cuius speciei? Primitive. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur.
Cuius generis? Omnis, sed in hoc loco masculini aut feminini aut
neutri. Quare? Quia hoc est illud quod demostrat. Quod est illud?
Bertus, Berta aut mancipium.
Cuius numeri? Singulari. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur.
:o Cuius numeri? Plurali. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur.
Cuius gurae? Composite. Unde componitur? A pro ***
Cuius persone? Prime. Quare? Quia omnia nomina et pronomina
sunt tertiarum personarum, exceptis ego, quod est prime, et tu, quod est
: secunde, et vocativorum casuum et in iis que derivantur ab eis que sunt
persone prime.
Cuius casus? Nominativi: est verbum intransitivum, construitur cum
nominativo casu.
. De praepositione
Ad que pars est? Prepositio est. Quare? Quia preponitur aliis partibus
orationis in adpositione vel compositione ***
o t pro factum est, sed t invenitur in Donato latino (pa)
. demostrat pro demonstrat : vocativorum casuum pro vocativis casibus
86 nox\+ts on\rcts c
i u u; ij. o 0r ij u-
. i. . o. u_. i. 0i. r. r. r. u.
i. o. r, [r], o. o. r. ro. 0. r.
o.
o 0r 0j u 0. o. ru. o0.
:o i. r. r. . i. 0. i. i.
o 0r 0r u r. . ri. o.
6. i rj
0 i r ri; 'io r. i; i ru j
i 0i rr j.
j. i j. u. 0r. 0, semper, 0i. i. r.
. . 0. o. j. o.
' 0 . i u. rt. rt. r00. r. r. r.
r. ru. . r0. r0.
' rj. i i. i. o o.
j 0u. i j.
j 0j. i 0. 0r. u. 0i. 0u. 0 j.
:o 0r. i i. i. i.
0o. i o. j.
0o. i i0. u.
j . i u. u. r. iu i l-
u.
: j 0r. i . u.
j . i o. oo.
0 i0. i i. o. .
00i. i 0. 0. o0.
j r. i ii. ii.
.o j ou. i u. u. I. 0o. 0o. j0. j0.
j o. i rj. rj. 0.
j ro. i i. . o. o.
j i. i 0. j. r. o. .
u 00u, i 0. i. i. o. o i oo.
. j j. i 0. i.
. :o 0] 0 P
. i] i P 0 add. P
1
u] o P . o] u P
. i] fort. a . o (u P) derivatum
nr \n\rnnio 8
Ad cui casui servit? Accusativo. Da prepositiones accusativi casus: ad,
apud, ante, adversum vel adversus, cis, citra, circum, circa, contra,
extra, inter, intus, intra, iuxta, penes, per, prope, propter, secundum,
post, ultra, super, circiter, usque, secus, penes.
Da prepositiones ablativi casus: a, ab, abs, cum, coram, clam, de, e, ex,
:o pro, pre, palam, sine, absque, tenus.
Da prepositiones ablativorum casuum: in, sub, super, subter.
6. De adverbio
Nunc que pars? Adverbium est. Quare? Quia stat iuxta verbum et
semper nititur verbo.
Da temporis, ut hodie, cras, eri, nunc, semper, nuper, aliquando, olim,
tunc, iamdiu, quondam, iam, semper.
Da loci, ut hic, ibi, illuc, inde, intus, foras, intra, foras, sentialiter,
secreto, hinc, iluc.
Da interrogandi, ut cur, quare, quamobrem.
Da prohibendi, ut ne.
Da negandi, ut non, nihil, nec, neque, minime, nequaquam.
:o Da armandi, ut profecto, quippe, ***.
Da iurandi, ut ***.
Da optandi, ut utinam, utinam.
Da qualitatis, ut bene, male, docte, fortiter et suaviter.
: Da remissivi, ut vix, paulatim.
Da quantitatis, ut multum, parum.
Da dubitandi, ut forsitan, fortassis, fortasse.
Da congregandi, ut simul, una, pariter.
Da discretivi, ut seorsum, secus.
.o Da similitudinis, ut sicut, quasi, ceu, sic, sicuti, velut, uti, ita.
Da ordinis, ut inde, deinde, deinceps.
Da intentivi, ut valde, nimium, penitus, omnino.
Da comparandi, ut magis, minus, plus, tam, quam.
Da numeri, ut semel, bis, ter, quater, totiens et quotiens.
. Da diminutivi, ut clanculo, belle.
. :: ablativorum casuum pro utriusque casus
. eri pro heri iamdiu add. P
1
sentialiter pro presentialiter 6 iluc pro illuc
. clanculo pro clanculum
88 nox\+ts on\rcts c
j j. i u
0j. i i0.
o o. i i.
. i u
0 rio r. i; ri0 t 0-
r 0 .
i r i 0 0 rj; r j
j r0.
8. i u
i i r ri; u. i; r o 0 r 0
o j i j ri 0 i
i 0 0 t. t.
u r; 'u l r o i i. l r
i. l r i. l r i. l r ii.
l r 0[]i. l r i. l r i.
i ii i; j ri r 0 rr
0. ii r i r. r. . i. 0o. jr. jr. 0o. 0o.
:o j. r 0.
i ii i; j r o 0. 0 r o-
i 0 u. ii r i j. j. jr. i j r jr
j u r j r j j r 00j.
i ii i; I r 0 0. i r
: 00i i o. ii r i i. i. ij. ij. i i
0. 0. i i t. t.
i ii i; o i o 0.
ii r i ri. ri. rj. rj. i ri j ri r
j. jr ri.
. . 0] t emendaverim, sed cf. d. 8. :o r 0] 0 P
:.: i ... 00j in marg. add. P
1
::6 i ... t in marg. add. P
1
:6 t] j P
1
, cf. a 8. : :8:q i ... ri in marg. add. P
1
:q j] j
emendaverim, sed cf. P
l
super terram necnon a 8. .o ri j j
nr coxitxc+ioxr 8q
Da vocandi, ut o.
*** respondendi, ut en.
Da demonstrandi, ut en ecce.
. De interiectione
Heu querelatum adverbium est. Quare? Quia interiacet alliis partibus
orationis.
Quid est proprium interiectionis adverbii? Est abscondita voce pro-
fer***.
8. De coniunctione
Et que pars est? Coniunctio est. Quare? Quia coniungit alias partes
orationis ordo coniunctiva et erminie separatim adimplens, et t a coniun-
gere, ligare.
Quot modi coniunctionum? Octo: quidam enim sunt copulative, que-
dam autem coniunctive, quedam continuative, quedam autem sub-
continuative, quedam autem causales, quedam autem ***.
***
*** Sunt autem hee: quidem, autem, que, et sed, at, ast, nec, neque,
at, etiam, vero.
:o
*** disiunctive? Quot quidem dictamen ***, a autem rei in rem
distant. Sunt autem hee: sicut, ut, ut, ut, ut: aut est dies aut nox est;
vel est sanus vel est eger.
*** continuative? Quot habentiam enim demonstrant, signant autem
: consequentiam et ordinem. Sunt autem hee: si, siquidem, ***, ***
ut: si stertit dormit, et: si ambulat movetur.
*** subcontinuative? Quot cum essentiam et ordinem demonstrant.
Sunt autem hee: quia, ***, ut: quia sol est super terram, dies est.
. : alliis pro aliis profer pro proferri
. . ordo coniunctiva pro ordine coniunctivo | erminie ut ri P quidam pro
quedam :: a ... rei pro ab ... re :.: ut ... eger in marg. add. P
1
: signant pro
signicant :6 ut ... movetur in marg. add. P
1
: essentiam pro essentia :8 ut ... est in
marg. add. P
1
qo nox\+ts on\rcts c
.o i ii ii; r 0 ii r o-
. ii r i i. . o. r. I. o. 0. 0.
0 i . o t 0. 0 l i j.
i ii 0[]i; r0 iu0 j0.
ii r i 0. 0. u.
. i ii i; o ro i j
u 0i ro. ii r i 0. 0o. 0o j. i.
o. 0.
i ii i; r j r -
o. ii r i j. o. uo i u o. 0 u
o iu. i. 0j. 0. j. . . j. 0. u. u. . .
i ii ri; l 0 ri j o 0
o. i r. o.
'r o i u l 0i ri u r. u o
0o i i .
.o r delendum censeo, cf. .8.q r o o j]
j o P : r r 0r i ri ante i addiderim, ut in
Moschopouli aliorumque grammaticorum artibus legitur . o 0 i
i inter i et addiderim, ut legitur in Moschopuli
arte grammatica quae Erotemata vocatur.
nr coxitxc+ioxr q:
.o *** causales? *** in acceptionem cause propter reccepiuntur. Sunt
autem hee: ut, ut, ut, propter, propter, quapropter, enim, quamobrem,
quamobrem, ***, quia, quia a modernis, que veteres separabant.
*** dubitative? Quot dubitantes soliti sumus utere. Sunt autem hee:
an, ne, sine.
. *** Quot ***
*** sed *** unquam ***
o
***
***
.o reccepiuntur pro recipiuntur . utere pro uti . sine pro sin
DONATUS GRAECUS D
Siglorum Conspectus
Z Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Barocci . XVXVI
Z
1
manus correctoris codicis Z
In apparatu etiam memoratur:
D Donatus latinus, consensus quorundam codicum et editionum
inserenda censui
[ ] delenda censui
*** lacunam statui
u 0j j j o 0 0r
o0u 0t i 0r
o 0u u ri r,
r u 0r i i .
u. 00. i. j i r
_u _u 0 r0
i i o r
I o r u o 0.
:. i oou
j i r ri; ' r. i r o;
i 0i i ii j j o u.
_u o r; r. t; i. r. 00. j
i u.
i i; u. i; 0 0 o.
i i; u. 0 o; ' 0 u.
i r; '0. i; o 0_u r j 0i
o 00.
i r; 0. i; o 0_u r j 00i
:o 00 j.
i r; 0r. i; o 0_u r j 00i
00 .
i r; 0. i; o 0_u r j 00i u
00 00 o i j.
: i r; i. i; o 0_u r j 00i
i 00 o i j i .
i r; 'i. i; o 0 j i r 00
i _u 0r 0.
Inscr. i j rj i 0 r Z
pr. . 0r] 0r Z 8 0] 0 emendaverim, cf. b pr.
8
q6 nox\+ts on\rcts n
i r; 'u. i; 0i t 0. 0o
.o j i u u r t i o r r.
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
i j; `0. i; u r.
i j; 0r. 0 i0; ' 0 i o-
. r0 0.
i j; 0r. i; 0r i0 [0]
***, 0o 0 0 0r o o r -
u0 . 0i.
i u; '0j i 00i r j 0o -
o j u o0j i 00i.
` o0j i 00t o j j j 0 0 j j _u j
j ij j j j u j i j 0j 0 0
0 i 0u j 00t l i j j u u j
j t t j ij u o j j u i i
j 0j 0 u u.
` o0j i 00t j 0 j j j u j j j u
j ij j 0 j j u 0 i j 0j 0 j
u j 00t u 0u l 0 j j u u j
j t u j ij o u j j u 0 i j
o 0j 0 u u.
` o0j i 00t o r i j r j j 0 r i j
r j j _u r_ i j r j ij r i j
r j j u r i u r i j 0j 0 0 r
i 0u j 00t l r i l r j j u r i
u j j t r i r j ij u r i r
j j u r i u r i j 0j 0 u r.
` o0j i 00t o j j 0 o j j _u o
j ij o j j u o i j 0j 0 0
o.
o i i; u. i; j j 00 i i0
j u j 0. u u. r r.
` o0j i 00t o u j j 0 i j j _u i_
j ij u j j u u i j 0j 0 0
i i 0u j 00t l u j j u i j
. .6. 0 r0 post i0 addiderim, cf. a :. .q et D: quia non per se
componitur . j] o desideratur, cf. a :. , b :.
nr xoxixr q
j t i j ij u i j j u u i j
0j 0 u i.
` o0j i 00t o 0 j j 0 00 j j _u 0_u j
ij 0 j j u 0r i j 0j 0 0 00
i 0u j 00t l 0i j j u 0u j j t
6o 0t j ij u 0u j j u 0i i j 0j 0
u 0u.
` o0j i 00t o o j j 0 o j j
_u o_ j ij o j j u o
i j 0j 0 0 o i 0u j 00t l
6 o j j u o j j t o j
ij u o j j u o i j 0j
0 u o.
` o0j i 00t o 0 j j 0 0 j j _u 0_
j ij 0 j j u 0 i j 0j 0 0
o 0 i 0u j 00t l 0 j j u 0 j
j t 0 j ij 0 0 j j u 0 i j
0j 0 u 0.
i i; r. i; j j u ru 00 j
i . u u 0 i. 0 00. o o-
i 0 0.
` o0j i 00t o j j j 0 r i j j
_u r i i j ij r j j u o i j
0j 0 0 i 0u j 00t l r j
j u u i r j j t o j ij u
8o r j j u r i j 0j 0 u r i
u.
` o0j i 00t j j j j j r i j j
j r i i j ij j r[] i j j j u
j i j 0j 0 j i 0u j 00t l
8 r j j u r i u j j t r i
o j ij o r j j u r i j 0j
0 u u i r.
` o0j i 00t o 00 i j 00 j j 0 00u-
i j 00u j j _u 00u_ i j 00u_ j i-
qo j 00 i j 00 j j u 00 i j
8 lineas 6 (0 u i) 6. (o -) post 0j iterum scripsit Z, delevit
Z
1
8o u r post j iterum scripsit Z, delevit Z
1
8 r] codicis
lectionem dubitanter servavi, r emendaverim
q8 nox\+ts on\rcts n
0j 0 0 00u i 0 j 00u i 0-
u j 00t l 00 i l 00 j j u 00u j
j t 00u i t 00u j ij u 00u
i o 00u j j u 00 i j 0j 0 u
q 00u.
` o0j i 00t o 0 i j 0 i 0 j j 0
0 j j _u 0 i o i 0 j ij
0 i 0 i 0 j j u 0 i u 0 i u
0 i j 0j 0 0 0 i o i 0u
:oo j 00t l 0 i 0 i 0 j j u o i
u i o j j t 0 j ij u 0 i
o i 0 j j u 0 i u 0 i u 0
i j 0j 0 u o i u.
i i; i. i; r r j j u ru r-
:o u o j j . u 0 u. i i.
` o0j i 00t j i j j j j j j i j
ij j t j j u i i j 0j 0 j
i 0u j 00t l t j j u u j j t
i j ij o t j j u t i j 0j 0
::o u u.
` o0j i 00t r j j 0 r j j _u r
j ij r j j u r i j 0j 0 0
r i 0u j 00t o r j j u o
j j t r j ij o r j j u r i j
:: 0j 0 u o.
` o0j i 00t r j j 0 r j j _u
r j ij r j j u r i j 0j
0 0 r i 0u j 00t 0 r j j
u o j j t r j ij o r j
:.o j u r i j 0j 0 u o.
` o0j i 00t u ru o 0u j j 0 0u j
j _u 0u j ij 0u j j u 0u
i j 0j 0 0 0u j 00t u 0u l
0u j j u 0 j j t 0u j ij
:. u 0u j j u 0u i j 0j 0 u
0.
q lineas qoq (u 00 ... j j) post j j iterum scripsit Z :o8
t] t Z :oq t] t Z :.. u 0u] 00 desideratur, cf.
tamen . (u r)
nr \rnno qq
i i; o. i; j j 00 r ru
i j j . u i i. o o.
.
:o ` o0j i 00t j jr j j j jr j j j jr
j ij j jr j j u jr i j 0j 0 j
jr i 0u j 00t l jr j j u ju j
j t jr j ij o jr j j u jr i j
0j 0 u ju.
: ` o0j i 00t j i j j j i j j j
i j ij j i j j u i i j
0j 0 j i i 0u j 00t l -
i j j u u j j t i j i-
j o i j j u i i j 0j 0 u
:o u.
` o0j i 00t o u j j 0 r j j _u
t j ij r j j u u i j 0j
0 0 r i 0u j 00t l t j j u
r j j t 0 j ij u t j j
: u t i j 0j 0 u r.
` o0j i 00t i j j 0 i j j _u i j
ij i j j u i i j 0j 0 0 i
i 0u j 00t o i j j u iu j j t
i j ij o i j j u i i j 0j 0 u
:o iu.
i i; r. i; j j 0j r ru
o j j. u jr jr. i i.
.. i pju
***
r i0 0i. 0u. 0u i 0u
i0 0i0. 0u0. 0u.
`j r. ru i ro 0u.
ro 0u. ro 0u i 0u ro 0u0. ro 0u-
0. ro 0u.
:. u u] 0 desideratur :q i] i Z
. . 0u] - Z, fort. servandum, cf. ., q., al.
oo nox\+ts on\rcts n
i jr ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u
jr ro u. ro j. ro u.
` 0 ro 0u. ro 0u. ro 0u i 0-
:o u ro 0u0. ro 0u0. ro 0u.
` r ro 00j. ro 00j. ro 00j i
0u ro 00u0. ro 00j0. ro 00j-
.
'r r. ru i 0u0.
: ` 0 0u0.
` r 00j0.
ii. i. ri i 0u rr. rr. ii.
j. j. j i 0u j. j. j.
r r. r. r i r i 0u r0. r-
.o 0. r.
j r. ru i r. r i
0u r. r.
0j r. ru i. i. i i 0u
i. i. i i i.
. r ri. r. r i 0u ri0. r0,
r.
`j r ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u ro u.
ro j. ro u.
o j l i r t 0t
o r j.
'r r. ru i.
r r0.
r. 0r. 0r i 0u 0r. 0r. 0r.
i o j0. j0. j0 i 0u j0r.
j0r. j0.
i 0r. 0r. 0r i 0u 0-
j. 0j. 0j.
' j0r. j0r. j0r i 0u j0j.
j0j. j0r.
8 jr] 0- Z ::: codicis lectionem servavi :. lineas :o (ro 0u-
0) - :. (0u) post 0u iterum scripsit Z : 0u0] -0
Z .:.. r. r... r. r] r. r0 ... r0. r0 Z, fort. servanda,
cf. a .. 6q68o, b .. :q.o, c .. . . r] r Z, fort. servandum, cf.
., q., al. .q 0t] 0 emendandum esse censeo
nr \rnno o:
o r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0j. 0j-
. 0j.
j r 0r. 0r i 0u 0r. 0r-
.
0j r. ru 0r. 0r. 0r i 0-
u 0r. 0r. 0r.
' 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0j.
0j. 0j.
r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u 0j,
0j. 0j.
o `j r. ru ro 0r. ro 0r. ro 0r
i 0u ro 0r. ro 0r. ro 0r.
' ro j0r. ro r0r, *** i 0u ro
j0j. ro j0j. ro j0r.
r ro 0j. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0u ro
0j. ro 0j. ro 0j.
'r r. ru 0r.
i r.
r 0.
o o 0 r t `t.
6o r 0 i; ' 0 u u 0 ru.
0 0r. i j j o 0r.
r. r. r i 0u r. r. r.
` r. r. r i 0u rr.
rr. r.
6 l 0 0.
r i. i. i i 0u i. i. i.
j r. ru r. r i 0u
r. r.
0j r. ru r. r. r i 0-
o u r. r. r.
`j r. ru ro r. ro r. ro r
i 0u ro r. ro r. ro r.
r ro i. ro i. ro i i 0u ro i.
ro i. ro i.
'r r. ru r.
r i0.
: ro 0r bis scripsit Z
o. nox\+ts on\rcts n
`j j r . ru ***
i i 0 u 0 j; u. t; ` r
i o .
8o r 0 i; ' 0 u u 0 r-
0 i 00 ru r. i j j o r r.
i j j o .
r. r. r i 0u 0. r0. r-
.
8 r. rr. rr i 0u r0.
rr0. rr.
r i. i. i i 0u i0. i0.
i.
j r. ru i r _u r_
qo i i_ u_ r. r0 i 0u r0. r-
0.
0j r. ru i0 i. r. r i
0u i0 i0. r0. r.
'0i. r0i. r0i i 0u r0i. r0i. r0i.
q j0. j0. j0 i 0u j0i. j0i-
. j0.
r r0o. r0o. r0o i 0u r0o.
r0o. r0o j r0i.
j r. ru r0. r0r i 0u
:oo r0i. r0r.
0j r. ru r0i. r0i. r0i i 0-
u r0i. r0i. r0i.
`j r. ru ro i0u. ro i00. ro i00
i 0u ro i0u. ro i00. ro i0u.
:o i i ***.
u. u. u i 0u 0. u-
0. u.
r. ru. ru i 0u r-
0. ru0. ru.
88 i] i Z q. r] r Z, fort. servandum, cf. ., ., al.
q r0i] r0i Z qq8 codicis lectionem servavi :o:o i0u ...
i0u] codicis lectionem servavi
nr \rnno o
::o i . . i 0u
u0. 0. ***.
' ru0. ru0. ru0 i 0u ru-
0. ru0. ru0.
r 0j. 0j. 0j i 0u
:: 00. 0j0. 0j.
j r. ru u. r0 i -
0u u0. r0.
r u0. 0j i 0u u0. 0j-
.
:.o `j r. ru ro u. ro u. ro
u i 0u ro u0. ro u0. ro
u.
r ro 0u. ro 0j. ro 0j i 0u
ro 0u. ro 0j. ro 0u.
:. 'r r. ru u0.
' 0j.
` r r 0j0.
i i 0 u 0 j; u. t; ` -
u i o .
:o i. i. i i 0u i. i. i.
r. r. r i 0u ri.
ri. r.
i o. o, o i 0u
j. j. j.
: r u. t. t i 0u 0. t. -
0.
j r. ru t. r i 0u
i. r.
0j r. ru i. i. i i 0-
:o u i. i. i.
0 r l 0.
r j. j, *** j. j.
::: 0] u0 Z, cf. a .. 88:(a) | ***] r Z (fort.
pro -u), aut r ii scripserim, cf. a. .. 88:(a), c .. :
::6 i post ru (- cod.) scripsit delevitque Z :.:. codicis
lectionem servavi :. ro 0u post 0j iterum scripsit Z ::
o ... j] - Z : o] - Z : 0] -u
Z, cf. :6 ::6 0 ] -u Z, cf. :
o nox\+ts on\rcts n
`j r. ru ro i. ro i. ro i
i 0u ro i. ro i. ro i.
: 0 r l 0.
r ro u. ro j. ro j i 0u ro u.
ro j. ro u.
'r r. ru i i.
' i0.
:o r j.
i i 0 u 0 j 0 0r 0-
0; t i i ***.
i 0 i; ' 0 u u 0 r-
0. 0 i. i j j o i.
: 0 i; ' 0 u u 0 0-
0. 0 i. i j j o .
i. i. i i 0u 0. i0. i.
i r. r. r i 0u j-
0. r0. r.
:6o ' rj0. rj0. rj0 i 0u rj0.
rj0. rj0.
`r rj, *** rj i 0u rr-
. rj. rr.
r j. j. j i 0u 0.
:6 j0. j.
j r. ru i i. r0
i 0u i0. r0.
0j r. ru i i0 i. r-
. r i 0u i0 i0. r0. r.
:o i i0 j. j. j i 0-
u i0 j. j. j.
`j r. ru i ro i.
ro i. ro i i 0u ro u0. ro i0. ro
i.
:q codicis lectionem dubitanter servavi :o codicis lectionem dubitanter servavi
:. t] i Z, cf. D: tria (participia) :8 r ... r] codicis lectionem
servavi, r. r. r desiderantur (cf. :6.:6 rr. rr-
) :6.:6 codicis lectionem servavi :66 r0] - Z, cf. c .. 8
:6 r0] - Z, cf. c .. 88 :o j. j] i. i-
Z, supra lineam add. Z
1
: lineas :66 (j ...) -: (... i)
post i iterum scripsit Z
nr r\n+icirio o
: r ro j. ro j. ro j i 0u
ro 0. ro j0. ro j.
'r r. ru i ***
r 0j0.
i i 0 u 0 j 0 00; ***
:8o r ***
r. r, r i 0u j0. r-
0. r.
i i rj. rr. rr i
0u rj0. rr0. rr.
:8 l 0 rr.
j r i. r i 0u i. r-
.
0j r. ru i0 i. i. i i
0u i0 j0. i0. i.
:qo l 0 0 r.
. i uj
r i r ri; j r. i r j;
t r 0 o i r 0 j. i 0 r 0
o r r i u. 0 r 0 j i o0-
. i r 0r 00 i j.
j r; . t; r. u. . o0.
00 i j.
i r; i 00 j 00 j 0r. o j
0i 0 0 i j o j j.
i u; '0j i 00i u ru r r i i
:o o 0 u o i 0 .
i ; 'u i 0. i; 0 o
ru i i j. i 0u. o-
. r.
i ; r i 0i. i; 0 o
: i i 0 j j 0 r0 i i i
::6 codicis lectionem servavi :8 rj] rr Z, cf. :8: :88:8q
codicis lectionem servavi, fort. i- scribendum, sed textus valde corruptus videtur
. : j] j desideratur, sed cf. . : 0r et 6. : rj q
r] -o Z, cf. b . q
o6 nox\+ts on\rcts n
j o r i i , i u. o r 0 i
. i o.
i ; r. i; 0 o r j r-
j j i j o 0 u u 0t r-
.o r. i u. j.
i r; '0. i; 0 r0 j
o. t ri rt; 'u. 00. i o 0u.
i 0r; 0j. i; 0 j 00
o. t ri rt[]; 'u. i r 0u.
. i r; 0r. i; 0 0r j o-
. t ri rt; o0. i r 0j.
i r; 0. i; 0 0 j o. i
r rt; i. i r .
i r; 0. i; 0 0 j
o o. i r rt[]; u. i r .
i 000; `0. i; ru r.
i 000; 00. i; 0u r.
i j; `0. i; u r.
i j; 0r. i; 0r r.
` o0j i 00t u ru o r. j r. r 0 r-
. j u. 0 r _u r. j u. _u r
r. j r. r u r i u r. u r
i 0u l r, l r. o r u .
u u. u t r. t u, t r
o u r. o u, o r u r. u r. u r-
.
` o0j i 00t u ru o r. j r. r-
0 r. j r. 0 r _u r_. j
r. _u r_ r. j r. r-
u r. u r. u r i 0u l -
r. l r. o r u r t r.
t r t r u r. o r. o
r u r. u r. u r.
:8 r] r Z .o r] r Z, cf. b . .o r] -r Z, cf.
b . .
nr rnoxoxixr o
. i oui
'u i r ri; 'i ri. i r 0i;
t r _ o i u u .
'i r; . t; i. r. 00. j.
i u.
i r; i. o 00 j 00 j -
r. 0u r i j j.
i i; u. i; 0 0 o.
i i; u. 0 o; ' j r 0r-
.
:o i 000; `0. i; ***
*** u r.
i u; i. i; o o o i l 0-
i ii i u. i 0 ru. o ri u. i 0
u. o ri r. i u u u i u r 0u
: r.
` o0j i 00t ru j j r0 j j ri j ij rr
j j 0 r i 0u j 00t jr. jt j j
jr. ju j j jt j ij jr. j0 j j 0 r
i j 0j 0 ju.
.o ` o0j i 00t u j j 0 j j i j ij r j
j u i j 0j 0 0 [j] i 0u j 00t
r. t j j r. u j j t j ij r.
0 j j u r. t i j 0j 0 u.
` o0j i 00t i. i r 0 i j j 00 u i
. j j i i j ij i r j j j 0 r i
0u t. u. i. 0.
` o0j i j 00t rt. ri. rt j j ri. ri.
ri j j ri_. ri. ri_ j ij rt. ri.
rt i j 0j 0 ri. 0 ri. 0 ri i -
o 0u j 00t rt. rt. rt j j ri j j
ri j ij ri, ri. rt i j 0j 0
ri.
` o0j i 00t u. I. 0 j j u. u. u-
j j u_. u. u_ j ij 0. u. 0[]
. :: inter et u lacunam statui, cf. b . q:: :.: l 0i] o
0i Z, cf. b . :, c . :: ..6 i ... 0 emendavi secundum b . .6.8
. i. i r] i i r Z
o8 nox\+ts on\rcts n
j 0j 0 u. 0 u. 0 u i 0u
j 00t u. u. 0 j j u j j u. u-
. u j ij u. u. 0 i j 0j 0
u.
` o0j i 00t 0. 0j. 0 j j 00. 0j. 00 j
o j 0_u. 0j. 0_u j 0j 0. 0j. 0 i j 0-
j 0 00. 0 0j. 0 00 i 0u j 00t 0i.
0i. 0o j j 0u j j 0t. 0t. 0t j ij
0u. 0o. 0o i j 0j 0 0u.
i 0 0 i ***.
` o0j i 00t r. rj. r j j r0. rj. r0 j j
r_u. rj. r_u j ij r. rj. r j 0j 0 r0. 0
rj. 0 r0 i 0u j 00t ri. ri. ro j j
ru j j rt j ij ru. ro. ro i j 0j 0
ru.
o ` o0j i 00t . j. j j 0. j. 0 j j _u.
j. _u j ij . j. i j 0j 0 0. 0 j.
0 0 i 0u j 00t i. i. o j j u j j
t. t. t j ij u. o. o i j 0j 0 u.
` 00t o. j. o[] j j u. j. u j j _u. j. _u j ij
o. j. o[] i 0u j 00t i. i. 0 j j u j j
i. i. i j ij I. 0. 0.
` o0j i 00t o jr. j jr. jr j j 0
jr. j jr. 0 jr j j _u jr_. j jr.
_u jr_ j ij jr. j jr. jr i j
6o 0j 0 0 jr. 0 j jr. 0 0 jr i
0u j 00t l jr. l jr. o jr j j
u jr j j t jr. t jr. t jr j
ij u jr. o jr. o jr ***.
` o0j i 00t o r. j r. r j j 0
6 r j j _u r_. j r. _u r_ j ij
*** i j 0j 0 0 r. 0 j r. 0 0
r i 0u l r. l r, *** u r-
. o r. o r ***.
8 rt. rt om. Z fort. ex D meis, quod est trium generum (cf. tamen . t
t t pro tuis) 8q 0 ru] 0 ju Z, cf. b . 6q . o] i Z
668 verba u r ... o r a linea 66 transposui, ubi pro accusativo
singulari leguntur
nr rn\rrosi+ioxr oq
` o0j i 00t u ru o r. j r. r j
o j 0 r. j r. 0 r j j _u r-
_. j r. _u r_ j ij r. j r.
r j j u r. u r i u r i j 0-
j 0 0 r. 0 j r i 0u j 00t
l r. l r. o r j j u r j j
t r. t r. t r j ij u r-
. o r. o r j j u r. u r [i
u r] i u r i j 0j 0 u r.
` o0j i 00t u ru o r. j r. r j
j 0 r. j r. 0 r j j _u r_.
8o j r. _u r_ j ij r. j r. r-
j j u r. u r. u r j 00t u -
0u l r. l r. o r j j u r
j j t r. t r. t r j ij u
r. o r. o r j j u r. u r.
8 u r i j 0j 0 u r.
. i 0
. i. u. i r ri; 0r ri. i r
0 [ri]; i0 o u 0 u r
0r i o r r j 0r i 0o. io. r r
j o i ri j 'j. o j 'j.
t u t; ij. ' j 0r t
ij u . u. . o. ro. i. o. i. r.
r. r. o. o. ru, [0], o. i. r. o. o.
rr. r[], o. 0. i. r. o. 0.
' t u t; 'j. ' j 0r t
:o 0j u 0. r. ri. r. 0u, u. 0. r. r.
ru. u. 0o, u, i. r.
' t u t; `r. ' j 0r t
rr u r. . ri i r.
0r ii i 0 r i j r 0j; .
88 cf. 668, sed r ut vestras pronomen Latinum videtur scripsisse Z
. o] 0r iterum Z
:o nox\+ts on\rcts n
6. i ju
0 i r ri; 'j r. i r rj-
; i r _ j j r j.
_u rj r; i. t; i. 0r i j-
.
i 0r; j. i j. r0r. 0. 0. u.
r. o. . r0 o. j. . 0i. oi.
, i u j r00. rt. r0. r. r. r. r0.
o0.
o, i r00, [0,] . rj. u.
:o u. 0i. _u. r [_u] u_.
. i u. u. []u. ui. 0i. jr-
.
. i i. oi. u. u. o, *** 0. u.
I.
: 000. i 0. i. i. o. o. o.
o.
i. i 0. j. r. u i 0i.
i. i 0 0. o. ii. i. ii. u. i.
. u. u i u.
.o 0u. i o i o r.
0o. i 0. u. 0r. j. u. 0i. ro. 0-
u.
0i. i 0. o0. oi. 0[].
u. i j.
. 0r. i . o . o. . li.
ou. i ui j ui. ji. 0o. 0o. uu-
. i.
rj. i . i. .
i0. i o. . i. i i o.
o r. i 0. 0 r 0.
u. i i. 0. 0.
i. i r j iu.
i j; `0. i o o.
. in marg. add. Z .o r] r Z, super lineam
add. Z
1
.6. uu] uu Z : 0] 0 legitur, sed cf. D: agite
nr coxitxc+ioxr ::
. i uj ju
i i r ri; j rj. i j
r rj; ***.
i i; j iu. i0.
0o i. 0.
8. i u
i i r ri; u. i r u; t
o 0 r 0 i o o o i j ri
0 i i 0 0 t. t.
i i; 0. i i o r o
r. i i. . i. r. 0o. r. 0o. 0o.
l r i *** i. ro.
i i ***.
ii ***
*** j ***
:o i ***
`i ***
'[]i ***
'i ***
'j ***
: *** i ***
i j i ***
*** t. 0.
*** u ***
['i] 0. j.
.o [i]
`i 0. 0.
i o; ***
ui i j o; . t; . j. o
u o. r. r. . jr.
. 0] t emendaverim, cf. tamen c 8. . 6 l r] jr Z . ]
Z | t] t Z . Deo gratias expl. Z
NOTES
*
Donatus graecus a
pr. o : the translator probably confused the Latin verb
pono with the preposition pone, in the rear of, behind. Cf. b pr.
(V): i0 .
:. .: an intransitive verb can only take the nominative, unlike
a transitive verb, which takes the accusative; cf. Planudes, Dial. de
gramm., p. 8q, 6 Bachmann, about the distinction between a nom-
inative and an accusative neuter: o r 0o j
0r o, [the neuter] 00t ri o r -
u, ij rj i 0 j 0o r, 00i o-
, u r, i. The Latin quia verbum intransitive positum
construitur cum nominativo casu would require, in Greek, a participle, e.g.,
0r or ; in fact, appears in b :. .
and d :. .. A marginal note in B (fol. .
r
): ri j 0o()
i () (sic) o oj (u), justies this interpre-
tation; it also shows that the compilers of Pylai tried to correct texts
that they considered to be corrupted.
:. oj: see above, :8: n. :
:. 8. j 0 / haec musa: in Donatus Ars minor (., p. 8 Holtz)
musa is quoted as an example of a feminine noun.
:. 6.6 'o: Hebrew names are indeclinable in Greek (cf. b :.
8q.) and are usually considered indeclinable in Latin as well. Cf.,
e.g., Charisius, Inst, gramm :. :, GL :, ::8: Adam o o
monoptoton est, proin Latine ut et Graece. Abraham [] monoptoton esse censeto.
*
See Introduction, p. XXIIf. n. .. On manuscripts and editions list of abbrevi-
ations, see above, p. o n. 8q and pp. .6f., o:, .q, and q.
: xo+rs
Jeromes version of the Bible (the Vulgate), however, shows a very
free usage: Abraham is either declined (e.g., Gal. . lii Abrahae; .
8 praenuntiavit Abrahae, etc.) or left unchanged (Mt. :. : lii Abraham;
Gal. . q cum deli Abraham; etc.).
:. 888 i: this term is a borrowing from Latin and means
stool or footstool, bench (cf. mod. Gr. i). Cf., e.g., Jo.
Mosch Prat. 6:, PG 8., .q:; and Const. Porphyr. De Cer., App. ad l. I,
p. q.q Reiske (Bonn :8.q).
:. 8qq o i / hic magister: the declension of magister is also in
Donatus Ars minor (., p. 86 Holtz). Pyl a translates the term with the
Latin borrowing i, used in tenth-century Byzantine texts (cf.
Sophokles, s.v. i).
:. q:o 0 j j: Gl
1
, the Latin version in G,
reads: omnis vocativus est similis suo nominativo apud Latinos ut pater, preter-
quam in nominibus secunde declinationis desinentibus in us que faciunt vocativum
per mutationem us in e, preter propria nomina virorum habentia ***; preter
unum appellativum, quod facit ***; quidem alia reperiuntur contra hanc regu-
lam. Et notandum, quod propria nomina desinentia in us debent superare suum
positivum unam syllabam. Schmitt (:q66, 6 n. q) also notes that a
similar excursus appears in the grammar written by Pietro da Isolella
in the thirteenth century (see Fierville :886, f. and :): vocativus
est similis suo nominativo, ut satur, o satur, et scampnum, o scampnum. Preter
desinentia in us, que faciunt vocativum per mutationem us in e, ut dominus, us
in e, t domine. Preter propria nomina virorum habentia i ante us, que faciunt
vocativum per abstractionem us, ut Virgilius, o Virgili, et Laurencius, o Laurenci;
preter unum appellativum, quod est lius, quod facit tam in e quam in i, ut lie vel
li. Si que inveniuntur contra hanc regulam facientia, dicatur quod nominativus sit
positus pro vocativo, ut Deus, o Deus, etc.
Gl
1
suggests some corrections in the Greek text, such as t j-
instead of the transmitted j u (Gl
1
: in nominibus secunde
declinationis desinentibus in us). Schmitt changed the relative pronouns
i (ABCGNQ) and i (B
m
O) into 0, which agrees with
the neuter t o (Gl
1
: in nominibus que), and changed u
r into o r, which refers to o u o (Gl
1
: preter
propria nomina virorum habentia etc.). The text of x, j r -
0 o t I i (i G) r r 0o (0 G) ro
o u 0 , only partially coincides with Gl
1
s preter unum
xo+rs :
appellativum quod facit []; quidem aliqua alia reperiuntur contra hanc regu-
lam. Schmitts hypothesis that i (or i) originated from a distortion of
lr due to iotacism is certainly persuasive, but his conjecture o r
r [0o] ro ... fails to convey the adversative tone of
the Latin original (indeed, other nouns can be found against this
rule; for ro as to be numbered, counted, see LSJ, s.v. r-
o). In fact, 0o must be retained. Gs reading 0 suggests that
it could be taken as 0, other (nouns), explaining or correcting
r, and therefore misplaced in the sentence, which certainly could
not start with r. The text was perhaps 0o j r ro
o u 0 : the exchange / is frequent in Western
manuscripts.
:. :o.:o i ir j: And it must be known that a
proper name ending in -us must exceed its positive with respect to one
syllable: a simple change of 0 (positive) into (voca-
tive) may restore the original sense of the sentence. The vocative of
the proper names in -ius, in fact, ends in -i, i.e., is e shorter than the
nominative by one syllabl: cf. Phocas, Ars de nomine et de verbo, GL ,
.q: Omnium nominum, cuiuscumque sit declinationis, vocativus singularis sim-
ilis est nominativo eiusdem numeri [] exceptis nominibus secundae declinationis,
quorum vocativus diversis modis exprimitur. Propria igitur nomina quae in nomi-
nativo casu singulari us syllaba terminantur i vocali praeposita vocativum adempta
novissima syllaba faciunt, ut hic Vergilius o Vergili, hic Terentius o Terenti, etc.;
and Priscian, Inst. gramm. . :8, GL ., o:: In us vero terminantia [nomina],
si sint propria, i ante us habentia, abiecta us faciunt vocativum, ut hic Virgilius
o Virgili; . :q, o: Omnis enim vocativus in i desinens una syllaba minor esse
debet suo nominativo, ut Sallustius o Sallusti, Virgilius o Virgili.
Pyl as short sentence probably reects a debate that arose in late
antique grammar. In the second century, Terentius Scaurus asserted
that these vocatives should be written with two is (e.g., o Vergilii), in
order to keep unaltered the number of syllables of the nominative
(Ver-gi-li-us, Ver-gi-li-i); cf. De orthographia, GL , ..: Ego etiam vocativos
horum [i.e., of the names in -ius] per duo i, non, ut consuetudo usurpavit,
per unum putem esse scribendos, quia non debeat vocativus minorem numerum
syllabarum habere quam nominativum. Two centuries later, however, Chari-
sius defended common usage (o Vergili), on grounds that a two-i ending
could lead to confusion with the genitive singular (huius Vergilii: cf. Inst.
gramm. :. :o, GL :, ., and :, GL :, 8).
:6 xo+rs
:. :..:.6 o i j lu, etc. and :::6 o i j 0r, etc.: in B,
a later reader deleted i and the feminine articles in the declension of
lu, knowing that this noun is masculine only. Conversely, 0r
in B and C is originally treated as feminine only, and the masculine
articles are added later (e.g., by B
m
). In the dative and accusative
plural, B confuses endings and articles and has t 0r and
u 0r.
:. :.q u : the use of the nominative instead of the vocative is at-
tested in Greek since Homer. Moreover, in this case as well as in the
other frequent cases of confusion between vocative and nominative
(e.g., :8 u rj, :q8 u 0i, .:8 u u, etc.), the anony-
mous author(s) of Pyl a may have been inuenced by Latin vocatives
of third-declension nouns, which coincide with the nominative.
:. :::q o i i j io i i, etc.: the presence of
i between the forms is suggested by the Latin text, which in most
Ianuae reads hic et hec fortis et hoc forte; as in other cases, I have adopted
the Greek reading that more closely corresponds to the (standard) text
of Ianua. At any rate, the lack of i suggests that, in the originals of
our manuscripts, forms could also be presented in charts or columns.
:. :q::q / hoc monile: for as ornament, cf. PLG
and Sophokles, s.v. The declension of monile is in J (fol. ::
v
) and S
(fol.
v
).
:. .oq.:6 hic inops, etc.: the adjective inops, which appears in H, is
preferable to Schmitts egens, which seems unknown to Ianua.
:. .: huius vis huic vi: for the rare genitive vis, see Priscian, Inst.
gramm. 6. 6, GL ., .q, etc. The dative vi is attested in inscriptions
and in literary texts close to the sermo cotidianus: e.g., B. Afr. 6q. .; cf.
OLD, s.v.
:. .q.o quia in u productum desinit: according to Priscian and to
most Latin grammarians, the ending of the genitive singular of the
fourth declension is in us (. 88, GL ., 6). The genitive in u for
u-stem neuter nouns probably originated from a misinterpretation
of compounds like cornububulum, a sterr with horns, as a genititive
phrase; see Sihler :qq, ..
xo+rs :
:. .8o.8. 0 r / positivus doctissimus: the
same formula appears in Dositheus (., p. 6 Bonnet), who, however,
does not give the Greek translation of doctus; r as a perfect
participle of o survives in modern Greek.
:. .8 r / docte: on r (which also occurs in 6. ..(a),
b :. :o, and c 6. :, whereas d 6. .o has r), see above,
p. .:6. Docte is quoted by Donatus, Ars minor , , p. q6 Holtz, and Ars
maior .. :, p. 6. Holtz.
:. :q:: I have not found any comparable list of declined irregular
nouns in any Ianua that I have examined. The list includes a plurale
tantum, arma, and some heteroclite nouns: locus (masculine in the sin-
gular and masculine or neuter in the plural), Tartarus (masculine and
neuter), caelum (neuter and masculine), porrus or porrum (both mascu-
line and neuter, here confused with portus, hence the Greek j),
epulum and cepe (neuter and feminine; for another form of cepe, cepa -ae,
cf. Prisc. Inst. gramm. 6. ::, GL ., .o). The same examples often occur
in Latin grammatical treatises: cf., e.g., Charisius, Inst. gramm. :. ::,
GL :, (arma); :. :., GL :, (locus, porrus, Tartarus); and Diomedes,
Ars gramm. :, GL :, . (Tartarus, locus, porrum, caelum, epulum, caepe);
etc.
.. ..8(b) 0r 0u / neutri substantivi: H contains the def-
inition of signicatio substantiva, which applies to sum: Cuius signicationis?
Substantivi. Quare? Quia nec in o nec in or desinens neque a verbo desinente in
o aut in or descendens nec actionem nec passionem sed in um terminatum solam
substantiam signicat ut sum. This denition is taken from Priscian, Inst.
gramm. 8. :, GL .. :: excepto sum verbo, quod o Graeci vocant,
quod nos possumus substantivum nominare.
.. 8 and o 0 u0: for o with accusative instead of
dative, see Sophokles, s.v.
.. 6: i j; u: Ianuae oer many dier-
ent examples of verbal gura composita and decomposita. Cf. Prisc. Inst.
gramm. 8. 8:, GL ., : Figura quoque accidit verbo []. Alia enim verborum
sunt simplicia, ut cupio taceo, alia composita, ut concupio conticeo, alia decom-
posita, id est a compositis derivata, ut concupisco conticesco. In Ianua texts, the
examples usually quoted range from Priscians cupio-concupio-concupisco
:8 xo+rs
to amo-peramo-peramasco. With the sequence u0u
u, the translator(s) of Pyl a may have chosen an example
that did not correspond to the Latin original but could be understood
by Greek readers; moreover, the corresponding Latin verbs lego and
perlego occur in in the chapter on participles of most Ianuae (cf. . .
). For 0u, read through, cf. LSJ, s.v.
.. 8qqo i j: we can partly explain this awkward clause,
which probably hides a textual problem, with Priscians corresponding
passage, Inst. gramm. 8. :o:, GL ., 8: secunda [persona est] ad quam
[prima] loquitur de ipsa vel sola vel cum aliis. The Greek pronoun may
have originated with the lack of a subject in the Latin text. Conversely,
printed Ianuae specify that the subject is prima [persona]; cf., e.g., v: quia
secunda persona est ad quam loquitur prima directo sermone. See also below,
the note on c. .. 66, pp. f.
.. q:q cuius personae? sermo: the original of as denition certainly
coincided almost ad verbum with Us (fol. q
r
): Cuius persone? Tercie. Quare?
Quia signicat rem ut de qua prima loquitur ad secundam extra se et illam positam
ad quam dirigit sermonem.
.. :oo 0r, 0r_, 0r: since Ianua usually gives
gerunds in the genitive, dative, and accusative singular, Schmitts cor-
rections (0r and 0r instead of 0r and 0-
r) would restore the probable original sequence of genitive-dative-
accusative, as it occurs, for example, at (r, r_,
r) and 8o (r, r_, r). I have adopted the
readings attested in all manuscripts because they probably reect the
way in which verbal adjectives were learned in Greek. In fact, the
same sequence is repeated on :: and occurs on 6 for 0u (0-
r, 0r_, 0r). These discrepancies hint at the di-
culties that the anonymous translator(s) of Pyl a had to face when
adapting the Greek verbal system to the Latin one and vice-versa.
.. :o. oj ri and :o o : in Ianua, moods
and tenses are indicated in the ablative. Pyl a generally uses the
genitive for moods and the nominative for tenses. In my edition, I
have maintained this inconsistency because it seems to correspond to
the translators choice rather than to the manuscript tradition.
xo+rs :q
.. :o 0u: the correct reading for the rst person plural ap-
pears in O only, whereas all the other manuscripts have 00.
For the confusion between contracted verbs in - and -, typical of
late Greek, see Dieterich :8q8, ..q.
.. :o jj: xs reading jo was caused by a confusion
between the endings of the perfect and the aorist. This phenomenon
is attested already in the second century B.C.E.: see Dieterich :8q8,
.f.
.. :.:(a) ro 0j 0j: on the lack of reduplication
in late Greek perfect, see Dieterich :8q8, .f. The fact that ro
0j ... appear in b and c also urges not to correct as text.
.. :q:o o r ro 0j: in Pyl a, as in the other
Donati graeci, there is no consistency in the Greek translation of the
Latin future subjunctive: manuscripts oer either an aorist subjunctive
or a future indicative preceded by ro. Following common sense (in
dubio conserva) and suspending my judgment, here and elsewhere I
have edited the text trying not to change the transmitted readings.
I have usually adopted the readings of the z-branch of the tradition
(AB
m
NOQ: see above, p. :q).
.. :: innitivo personis: the same formula appears in Donatus, Ars
minor , p. q Holtz.
.. :6:(a) jr: in most cases, both in a and in the other Greek
Donati, manuscripts have a masculine participle instead of the neuter
requested by the impersonal voice. Cases of confusion between the
third and the rst person singular are also frequent: probably, trans-
lator(s) had diculty with impersonal verbs, which were not distin-
guished as a separate category in Greek grammar.
.. : rr: Schmitt (:q66, .o.) considers rr or rr
(often written rr- in manuscripts; see also :, :8o, .:, ., etc.) as
forms of the perfect indicative passive of rr, but ro (-u)
is also possible.
.. .oo 0o: in MS. R, which is the only testimony to the future
imperative (see above, :86), the ending - usually replaces - in the
.o xo+rs
second person singular of the passive, probably because of the inu-
ence exerted by the ending of the same person in the present. Cf. :qq
0u (00 R; see above, note on .. :o) and .oo 0j R
(instead of 0o); .o o and .. o R (instead of i-
); 0u and 0u R (instead of 0o);
etc.
.. .6o.6: o r ro0: the same confusion
between the pluperfect indicative, which is rare in Greek, and the
aorist indicative passive can be observed at 8:(b), where 0-
u0 etc. are given as pluperfect indicative passive. This confusion
was perhaps encouraged by the rst-person endings, -(0) and -()
or -(), which contained the same i-sound in the spoken language.
.. .6 i 0: in this insertion, we may suppose a direct
inuence of Greek grammar, where past (aorist and perfect) forms
of imperative exist, whereas the Latin imperative has a present and a
future only; cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. o, GL ., o6: imperativus vero
praesens et futurum naturali quadam necessitate videtur posse accipere [ ] Nec
solum enim illi, qui nondum coepit, imperantes utimur praesenti tempore, sed etiam
illi, qui coepit et in ipso actu est, ut permaneat in eodem; and :, ibid.: apud
Graecos etiam praeteriti temporis sunt imperativa, quamvis ipsa quoque ad futuri
temporis sensum pertineant. The Latin Ianua has tempore presenti. Since the
expression ru i 0 (Lat. tempore praesenti et
praeterito imperfecto) occurs frequently regarding other moods, it is likely
that i 0 was inserted automatically.
.. 6.6.8 j0r j0: all manuscripts have j0r and
j0r, and R has j0 for the third person plural. On the confu-
sion between imperfect and aorist in late Greek, see Dieterich :8q8,
.:.
.. 6.6 ii u: this detailed list of forms indicates that
as conjugation of ii was added to the Latinate section on verbs from
a Greek grammar; see also b .. :: and c .. 6.6.
.. 6 j: later form for j0; see also b .. :, c. .. 6, and d .. :8.
.. 6 r: Ionic-epic form of r; see also b .. :, c .. o, and d
.. :q.
xo+rs .:
.. 68o r r: r, which probably comes from Homers r
(Il. :. q., . :., etc.), is used as an imperative in late antique and
Byzantine texts: cf., e.g., Acta Ioannis .6. 8 0 0 r 0;
Sent. Pythag. . : 0 r o 0; Liban. Decl. 6. .. 8.
u j ii r j; etc. Hesychius glosses i0, the regular
imperative of ii, with r (s.v. i0, iota q.:). See also b .. :q, c ..
., and d .. .:.
.. 68: u: the form o (cf. LSJ, s.v.), lift up, bear, car-
ry, etc, is classical and used mostly in poetry. The verbal stem is
- (fut. o, aor. ro). Later, forms originating from
- prevailed (fur. o, aor. ro, pf. m.p. j-
, etc.); these forms eventually were used in prose also, along with
neologisms such as j, transport (John Lydus, De magistrati-
bus :. :), , lifting, carrying, and o, porter
(John Malalas, Chron. ::, p. .6; :8, p. ed. L. Dindorf, Bonn
:8:); see PGL and Sophokles, ss.vv. Modern Greek has u and
o, m. 0 and r, but the aorist (o and
o, o) and the perfect (r or r)
still show the original variety of stems. Pyl a uses and confuses both
stems.
.. 8.. i: late form of i (cf. 0-u for -u),
still used in modern Greek.
.. 8. r j: for j, later form for j, see Plut. V. Alex.
6. and, in the New Testament, Mt. .. 6, Mc. :. q, Jo. ::. :,
etc.
.. 8 r i: the readings i, i, i, trans-
mitted by all manuscripts, repeat the present indicative of line 8..
.. 8. u: considered as equivalent to the Latin eo, to go,
this verb properly means to be driven or to be carried (active
u, to make to go, carry); cf. mod. Gr. u, to go, walk,
march.
.. qo. i: unlike d, both a and c acknowledge only the middle
voice of i, even if its conjugation mixes active, middle, and pas-
sive voices. Pyl a uses - as a present-stem; for the other tenses, a
.. xo+rs
uses the stem ()- (regularly written - in manuscripts), which is
more common in late Greek.
. . u / certam personam: see also app. .. and
c . .. For u as certus, cf. the compounds r, -
r, i (mod. Gr. u, i), to speak appro-
priately, to use words in their proper sense (see PGL, ss.vv.).
r is most probably a gloss inserted into as text.
. i 0r: on as treatment of prepositions and its relationship
with Pylai c and d, see above, p. :q, and below, note on d . .,
pp. qf.
6. :q i, i, i: on i (Lat. sane) and i (Lat. sane hercle),
see Apollonius Dyscolus, De adverbiis, GG .. :, :6.. .8, .oq. .o. i
seems to have been created on the model of other adverbs in -, such
as i, or 0; cf. Apoll. Dysc., ibid., :6 and :q.
8. : and :6 r: used as a grammatical term also in the Scholia
Marciana on Dionysius Thrax (GG :. , p. 6).
8. .o rj: when translating essentia, essence, substance, Pyl as
anonymous author may have considered the idea of steadiness and
rmness implied by the adjective r, capable of holding, strong
or habitual.
8. .6 o [0]u i: according to Priscian (Inst. gramm.
:6. :o, GL , qq), adversative conjuctions indicate something in oppo-
sition to what is agreed (adversum convenienti signicant). The translator,
however, took adversum as a prepositioninstead of an adjective used
as a nounand disregarded the fact that in Latin it should take the
accusative instead of the dative.
8. qo 0r / suppositivus, and 0r / supposi-
tivi, i0 / supponitur: the original of Pyl a preserved Priscians
wording (Inst. gramm. :6. ::6, GL , :o:o): coniunctiones pleraeque
tam praeponi quam supponi possunt. Sunt tamen quaedam quae semper praepo-
nuntur, [] aliae quae semper supponuntur [] Aliae paene omnes indierenter
et praeponi et supponi possunt. Conversely, in most Ianua texts praepositivus
and praeponi are changed into Donatus subiunctivus and subiungi.
xo+rs .
8. 8 l i: the feminine is used instead of the masculine l
i (cf. Lat. aliae); see above, p. . n. o
app. 8 r: for r, later form of r, see Sophokles, s.v.
Donatus graecus b
:. ::: Pyl bs denitions of the noun and its properties are modeled
on Ianua, even if b oers a reduced version of the original Latin text.
The language is slightly dierent from Pyl a; for example, in the
denition of r ri, b :. .o has i _u 0r
0, whereas a :. . has i _u rr u. Both texts
seem to correspond to Ianuas signicat animalia utriusque sexus, but bs
original may have replaced sexus with sensus. Conversely, bs paradigms
are independent from the Latin model.
:. :. i r; : cf. a :. :. and George Scholarios,
Gramm. :. :: 0, u o o j rj 00t
o 0 r, u o oi j 0r r, u o-
uu .
:. : o r: according to the Canons of Theodosius of Alexan-
dria (GG . :, 6, .o), r belongs to the fourth masculine canons,
together with u u (cf. 8).
:. .6: u belongs to Theodosius fourth neuter canons (GG . :,
).
:. 8: the merging of the Latin and Greek traditions is exemplied
by the juxtaposition of Ianuas rst paradigm, j / poeta, to two
nouns taken from Theodosius Canons.
:. q: i is Theodosius rst masculine canon (GG . :, ).
:. 8 u: cf. Theod. Alex. Can., GG . :, .8.q (the fth canon
of feminine nouns).
. xo+rs
:. 6o: j: can. : neuter (Theod. Alex. Can. GG . :, .); :
can. 8 masc. (ibid., :o::; the genitive is either or ); ju:
can. :: masc. (ibid., :).
:. 6.66 0: this noun is the second of Ianuas examples for the
rst Latin declension (musa) and represents the rst of Theodosius
feminine canons (GG . :, ..6), together with j t (which b
declines at 8o8), j t, j i (declined at 6:), and j 0.
This canon includes the rst-declension feminine nouns ending both
in pure (gen. sing. -) and in impure (gen. sing. -), which Pyl b
keeps as distinct.
:. .6: j is mentioned in Theodosius second feminine canon, j
j, together with j (GG . :, .6).
:. 8qq: 'o and q.q 'o: Choeroboscus (GG . :, :: and .
., :q) mentions 'o and 'o as barbarian names.
:. qq l0: for this technical term (have the same ending
as), see Michael Syncellus, De constr. :, p. :: Donnet :q8..
:. :o:.:: the adjectives 0j, u, and 0i may have
originated from Ianua longas pius, primus (U) and felix (J, S); for 0j
and 0i, cf. c :. 86q. It is worth noticing that b obtains
adverbial comparatives and superlatives by adding the suxes -r
and -o to the positive (which b calls 0 on :o, whereas a
uses 0 on :. .8o and .8:). On line ::., I have preserved both
the transmitted comparative and the superlative o,
mostly, very often, instead of t, for which see c :. :o. The
feminine j (::q) is an Ionic form that still exists in modern Greek.
The comparative adverb r (:.o) is used by Hippocrates and
Antiphon in the form r (cf. LSJ, s.v.).
:. :oq::.: u, rst, foremost, is already a superlative. Pyl b
supplies a comparative, which is actually derived from the
preposition and a superlative, the poetic adjective u,
the very rst, principal (cf. LSJ, ss.vv.).
.. :q, .:, ., ., . o j i rr i o0: cf. Ianuas
tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem. The translator has probably
xo+rs .
confused the Latin designat (cf. a .. :, , etc. o r-
u ri j o0) with desinit (Gr. j). Moreover, he may
have considered tempus, which in Latin is neuter, as the verbs subject
instead of object.
.. 6o i 0: the denitions of the second and third per-
sons echo Dionysius Thrax, Ars gramm. :. :6, p. 6 Lallot:
i. u r 0' u o , u r o o , i
r i u o .
.. :: ro 00j 00j: see the note on a
.. :q:o (above, p. :q). Here, as in other cases, I have adopted
Vs text only because V usually oers more correct readings than
M.
.. .8 oi r: cf. Choeroboscus (quoted in GG .. , 8):
l '0t i 0 [ r] t i r i
oi r. Priscian (Inst. gramm. 8. 8, GL ., .) explains: Graeci
futurum quoque diviserunt in quibusdam verbis in futurum innitum, ut :u,
et paulo post futurum, quod et atticum dicunt, ut :u. Thus, b considers
0j as a future perfect (*r).
.. 8 0u: in addition to the pronouns u and rt after
the rst and the second persons singular, 0u (created from the
stem of the aorist imperative, 0-) is another example of Latin
inuence: Latin and Greek imperatives do not have a rst person
plural, but Ianua always mentions it.
. 8 o j j: according to the requirement of the
meaning and to the structure of the text; for o, position
or construction, see Apoll. Dysc. De adv., GG .. :, :..
. :8o j o0j r j: the declensions of ru and u represent
interesting cases of the merging of Greek and Latin grammar that is
typical of the Donati compositi: on the one hand, these pronouns have
an ablative, and on the other hand Greek literary and poetic forms
are listed in the plural. Conversely, the lack of an ablative in the
paradigm of the third-person reexive pronoun suggests that it was
taken from a Greek grammar.
.6 xo+rs
. .6.8 i: the third-person-singular reexive pronoun is very rare in
the nominative (cf. Apoll. Dysc. De pron., GG .. :, p. :o. , al., and
LSJ, s.v.). The genitive u and the dative i may have been omit-
ted because of confusion with the endings of the words preceding
them (00 and j), read according to the iotacistic pronunci-
ation.
. .88 i i 0: this passage is completely indepen-
dent from Ianua and may have been inserted from a Greek grammati-
cal work; it can be read in MS. M only. The fact that Vs long lacuna
includes the section on dual pronouns and adjectives (:) seems to
conrm the Western origin of this testimony of the b-text.
. 0 r rr: Ms text is not entirely clear, but can
be explained through a passage of Apollonius Dyscolus treatise on
pronouns (GG ..:, :o.. :o:.): the enclitic third-person-singular form,
r, was considered as too weak to allow the formation of a pro-
noun; moreover, r would have been easily confused with
another pronoun, r.
. i 0r: this section is similar to the chapter on prepositions
in Moschopoulos Erotemata, as well as to that of Theodore Gazas
grammar. The common source seems to be the anonymous schedog-
raphy attributed to Basil the Great (i j i, ed.
Lutetiae :8). The many quoted examples also appear in Gregory of
Corinths treatise on syntax, as well as in George Scholarios gram-
mar.
. :o 'u: I have corrected Ms 0j considering Demetrius
Chalcondyles passage (i o u 0r, Basileae :6,
:): j r r 0i j r i_, r 0_u i j r 'u,
r j j, i r ...
. ::6: cf. Dem. Chalcond., loc. cit: j i, j i r r, ij
o i 0o, i ri o r 't
i j ru, u i j r, i i i ...
. . 0j j o: cf. Georg. Schol. Gramm. :, p. :6 Jugie:
0 i 0j j o, 0i 0 r 0 0 i
r 0j j o.
xo+rs .
. ..8 u0: the same quotation occurs in Scho-
larios grammar, loc. cit.
. .q: r u: cf. Greg. Cor. De constr. 6, p. .o Donnet
:q6.
. qq: o i; cf. Greg. Cor. De constr. o, p. :qq Donnet
:q6.
. : 0 ( M): the accusative and the genitive are
equivalent: cf. Herodian 6. . 8 u o 0.
. . j o 0: in an anonymous treatise on prepositions
contained in MS. Vaticanus Urbinas gr. ::, in fol. .
v
, we nd a
treatment of o similar to bs: j o 0 o j j ij
o i o j r o i 0i i rr,
i o u 0 u i ju []. o ij
r o i ii, i [] o 00 r.
. oq j o i: this section is very similar to Gregory of
Corinths De constr. , pp. :qq.oo Donnet :q6. The example o
_u t o0 also occurs in Mich. Sync. De constr. :6, p. :
Donnet :q8., and in Georg. Schol. Gramm. :, p. .o Jugie.
. 6o6 j 0i 0i0: cf. Mich. Sync. De constr. :, p. :
Donnet :q8.: j 0i i r r t 0r j r i, j
r ri, i 0i0 u `j_ (Il. :. .6) 0i
i0, 0i 0i 0 i, 0i r i 0i
o ri i i r i o 0i0 i r
_u _u ri, u 0i0 . For r0 (6),
cf. PLG, s.v.
. 66 ri : this is a simplied variation of Gregory of Cor-
inths example ri u 0 'i i (De constr. , p. .o
Donnet :q6).
. o i 0r: cf. Greg. Cor. , p. .o. Donnet :q6:
o r i i, [o] o ij. In the example
quoted, ri j 0r, the verb varies Gregory of Corinths
0r.
.8 xo+rs
. ri _u 0i_ o: George Scholarios chose the
same example in Gramm. : p. .o Jugie.
. 8 o j: cf. Greg. Cor, De constr. q, p. .o Donnet
:q6.
. 88o o r: cf. Greg. Cor., De constr., ibid.: o r t
ri j u_ i, o ij o, u i j
l r, 0i 0 u_ j .
. 8:8 i o_: the same examples occur in Greg. Cor. De
constr., loc. cit.
. qoq: jj0 u0: cf. Greg. Cor. De constr. 6, p. .o:
Donnet :q6: jj0 u `i l u0.
. q r o0: cf. Greg. Cor. De constr. , p. .o: Donnet :q6:
r r o0.
. q8 r 0: this example results from a contamination
between two examples quoted by Gregory of Corinth, De constr. ,
p. .o:. Donnet :q6: r o 0, i r u
o u.
6. i rj: Pyl bs last section is similar to the chapter on
adverbs in Moschopoulos Erotemata, as well as to its source, Dionysius
Thraxs r. The same text can be read in MS. P (see above, p.
.of.).
6. :. i j: cf. Dion. Th., Ars gramm. :q. ., p. .o Lallot:
rio r r 0, o j j r-
j.
6. o r : the same denition appears in Dion. Th.
:q. , p. .o Lallot.
6. 6 u u: this question marks the beginning of
Moschopoulos sections on adverbs.
xo+rs .q
6. : (or o ): this adverb, which means in soli-
tude, is frequent in monastic texts; cf. c 6. 6 and PGL s.v. .
6. :8 o: these adverbs are equivalent to the interjection.
Their inclusion among adverbs suggests that Pyl b omitted this part
of speech. See above, p. .., and below, the note on c , p. :.
6. .q 0r: both Dionysius Thrax and Moschopoulos mention
a category of adverbs of conrmation (u). Pyl b replaces
the term i with o0, which indicates the deposition un-
der oath (cf. Sophokles, s.v.). The presence of legal terminology sug-
gests a connection between grammarians (teachers) and public no-
taries, as was the rule, for example, in Northeastern Italy and in Crete.
Donatus graecus c
:. : proprium: Pyl c probably began with a question simi-
lar to as appendix, :, which, in turn, takes up Priscian, Inst. gramm.
.. ., GL ., 6: Quid est nomen? Nomen est pars orationis declinabilis (::
) uniuscuiusque subiectorum (.: i) corporum seu rerum
communem vel propriam qualitatem distribuens vel signicans (: i):
communem corporum ut homo, propriam ut Virgilius; communem qualitatem rerum
ut ars, propriam ut grammaticam Aristarchi, arithmetica Nicomachi. Quid est
proprium (: i) nominis? Proprium nominis est signicare substantiam et
qualitatem. This passage concludes the section on nouns in J, fol. ::
r
.
:. :. i qualitas: see above, p. .:. In line q, Pyl c confuses
r, to distribute, with noto, to mark, dene. The denition of
nomen as notamen (:o: note, sign, or signature: cf. GMIL and
GLL, s.v.) occurs in other grammatical works both earlier and later
than Priscians, e.g., [Sergius], Explan. in Don. ., GL , : nomen quasi
notamen; Alcuin, Gramm., PL :o:, 8qB: est nomen dictum quasi notamen, eo
quod hoc notamus singulas substantias. To my knowledge, is not
attested elsewhere.
:. :: o declinatio: in all Ianua texts, the denition
of gender reads: Cuius generis? Masculini. Quare? Quia preponitur (::
o) ei in declinatione (:: i) unum articulare pronomen, hic;
etc. Cf. a :. :..
o xo+rs
:. ::q 0 derivatur: Ianua c probably oered the formulaic
denition of j, gura: Cuius gure? Simplicis (:: 0). Quare?
Quia simpliciter profertur (:6:: u r). Cuius gure? Com-
posite. Quomodo componitur (:8: i0)? etc. Cuius gure? Decomposite.
Quare? Quia non per se componitur (:8), sed a composito nomine derivatur
(:q: o), etc. Cf. a :. .6:.
:. .o. 0o ablativus: Ianua c on cases: Cuius casus? Nomi-
nativi. Quare? Quia verbum intransitive constructum (.o.:: 0o
) construitur cum nominativo casu. Quot sunt casus nominum?
Sex. Qui? Nominativus (..: 00t), genitivus, dativus, accusativus, vocativus
et ablativus (.: 0j). Cf. a :. ..
:. ..8 o j Pasqua: the rst declension; see above, p. .:6.
Poeta, musa, advena, and Pascha occur in most Ianua texts, as well as in
Pyl a :. 6:. The Italian form Pasqua instead of the Latin Pascha
may oer a clue about the origin of the translator or the environment
where he worked.
:. .q o 0 / aquila: this noun is declined in full in J (fol. ::o
r
),
whereas both S (fol. :
v
) and U (fol. :
v
) mention it as an example of
a noun of mixed gender (Lat. promiscuum).
:. o o r / hic saturatus: the declension of the adjective
satur, satura, saturum in H concludes the list of paradigms of the sec-
ond declension. Satur also appears in Pietro da Isolellas passage on
second-declension vocatives, quoted above in the note on a :. q:o
(p. :).
:. : u / hoc epulum: heteroclite noun; cf. S, fol.
v
: Quot sunt
nomina que in singulari nominativo sunt neutri generis, in plurali vero feminini?
Quat(t)uor. Que? Balneum, epulum, cepe et vesper. Cf. U, fol.
v
. Pyl a (:.
.6) uses r for epulum.
:. . o o / hec arma: declined in J (fol. ::6
r
) and U (fol.
r
). Cf. a :.
:q.:: 0.
:. j / desinit: this verb occurs in the formula that concludes
the exposition of each declension, in this case probably the second:
xo+rs :
Cuius declinationis? Secunde. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in i productum
desinit (j), etc. Cf. a :. :o:o6.
:. 6 j 00 / hec cardo: the third declension. Cardo, cardonis, mas-
culine, in medieval Latin is often used as carduus, -i, thistle; cardi
or cardones also indicated the iron instruments, similar to combs, used
for carding wool, as well as comb-shaped instruments of torture (cf.
GMIL, ss.vv. cardi and cardo). The Greek term 00, thorn, is
often used as a metonymy for any kind of thorny or prickly plant,
including thistles: see LSJ, s.v. Grammarians usually mention carduus
for its being written with two us: cf., e.g., Charisius, Inst. gramm. :. :,
GL :, : carduus trium syllabarum est, ut arduus fatuus mortuus, ideoque
similiter declinandum est, huius cardui et huic carduo, pluraliter hi cardui car-
duorum carduis. See also Ars Bernensis, GL 8, :o: item per duo u hic car-
duus strenuus nominativus indicativus imperativus et reliqua. It is also possible,
however, that cardo, cardonis / 00 resulted from a misreading of an
original cardo, cardinis, hinge, pole, chief circumstance, etc. In
fact, Priscian mentions cardo as a noun of uncertain gender (masculine
and feminine: Inst. gramm. . ., GL ., :6q; 6. :, GL ., .o6). As such,
it might have been included in some Ianua longa.
:. j u / hec virtus: the declension of virtus, gen. virtutis, appears
in J (fol. ::.
r
) and H. The closest equivalent to the Greek u,
however, is vis, declined in S (fol.
r
); Js fortitudo (fol. ::
r
) is also
possible. For u, see a :. .:..:.
:. 8o t plura: the translator confused the superlative t-
(which should correspond to plurimi) with the Latin comparative
plures. The complete declension of plus appears in J (fol. ::
r
) and S
(fol. 6
r
).
:. :. 0i fortior: the declensions of felix, omnis, and fortis
with its comparative fortior occur in all editions of Ianua. Cf. a :. :6
:qo (0, i, and i) and :q6.o (0i).
:. 0 / modernus: cf. U, fol.
r
: Hec sunt illa nomina que tantum
singulariter declinantur apud modernos (0): lux, sitis et labes, mors, vita
fames quoque, tabes, etc.
. xo+rs
:. / pulvis: the declension of pulver (or pulvis: see Priscian,
Inst. gramm. 6. 6, GL ., .q), gen. pulveris, is in S (fol.
v
).
:. 6 0 aer: aer, gen. aeris, is declined in H. Limus is probably
a misunderstanding of litus, litoris, which, however, does not occur in
any of the editions of Ianua that I have examined so far.
:. o / viscus: the Latin viscus, or viscum, gen. visci, mistletoe,
corresponds to the Greek i, from which the transmitted o
may have been easily derived. However, the presence of other r-stems
nearby suggests an original viscus, gen. visceris, entrails.
:. 8 0[] / sal: sal, gen. salis, is declined in J (fol. :::
r
).
:. q i / unus: the numeral adjective and pronoun unus, una, unum is
usually included among the pronouns in Ianua. However, U treats at
length rst/second declension adjectives, including pronominal adjec-
tives, after the fth nominal declension (fols. 6
r

r
). According to
Priscian (Inst. de nom. , GL , qo), in fact, the nine pronom-
inal adjectives, or nomina mobilia, should be considered as adjectives
rather than as pronouns.
:. 6o6. j cornu: the fourth declension: auditus, gen. auditus,
is declined in H and in several Ianuae breves, whereas visus and cornu
occur in all Ianua texts; cf. a :. ....8 (), .q. (r). Partus
is mentioned in S (fol. 8
r
) among the fourth-declension nouns whose
dative plural ends in -ibus.
:. 6 i continentur: after the declension of mare, gen. maris, S
(fol.
v
) contains four mnemonic verses, the second of which reads: ista
sunt nomina maris que in hiis versibus continentur (i r).
:. 66 r / divisus: in all Ianua texts, the denition of the
fth declension reads: Cuius declinationis? Quinte. Quare? Quia eius genitivus
singularis in ei divisas (r) syllabas desinit, etc. Cf. a :. ..q.
:. 6 pluraliter indeclinabilis: for numerals, see a :. oo:8.
:. :o adverbio: cs presentation of adjectives and adverbs
and their degrees of comparison reects the standard model of Ianua;
xo+rs
cf. a :. .8o.qq. Whereas bonus and malus are common to all Ianua
texts and pius also appears frequently, only the Ianuae longae J, S, and U
have fortis; multus occurs in S and U and felix in J and S. Also, S oers
the full declensions of fortis, fortior, and fortissimus (fol. 6
r
) as well as felix
(6
v
). Ianua c shares with S the confusion between forte and fortiter (qq
forte; conversely, J and U have fortiter) and the masculine and feminine
comparative of multus as magis multus and multa (:o:, :o: cf. S, fol.
r
).
For o as a superlative of multum, cf. b :. ::..
:. 8o i: the mention of the genitive singu-
lar of / bonus suggests that cs original could have a section
on adjectives similar to Us (see above, note on :. q, p. .); how-
ever, c confuses with 00. The complete declension of pul-
cher, which corresponds to , occurs in J, fol. ::
r
. The omission
of reduplicated consonants in Greek in c may be due to the inu-
ence of spoken Greek, as well as of a Northeastern Italian vernacu-
lar.
.. 68 0 / unde orationis: cf. Prisc. Inst. gramm. 8.
:, GL ., 6q: Verbum autem, quamvis a verberatu aeris dicatur, tamen
praecipue in hac dictione quasi proprium eius accipitur, quia frequentius utimur
in omni oratione. Licet tamen pro omnibus dictionibus dicere verba, etc. For
r used as an adverb, see, e.g., Apoll. Dysc. De pron. 8. C,
GG .. :, 6.
.. r 0 0 / in perferendo verbi: the genitive verbi (instead
of verbo or verbum, required by the gerundive) is clearly inuenced by
the Greek : this is a sign that the translator translated word by
word.
.. :6: i o / cuius transitionem: c preserves only the
rst part of Ianuas traditional denition of genus neutrum, which in most
texts reads: Cuius generis? Neutri. Quare? Quia in o desinens non potest facere
transitionem ad aliquod rationale animal unde possit eri conversa locutio (see
lines :::).
.. ..8 i u / gaudeo do: the same lines, but in a
reverse order, appear in S (fol. q
v
). On the function of these mnemonic
verses in the study of elementary grammar, see above, p. 6o.
xo+rs
.. o: i i 0 / et sunt nubo: cf. Prisc. Inst.
gramm. 8. :., GL ., : quaedam vero ex eisdem neutralibus passivam [habent
signicationem], ut vapulo a te o a te exulo a te veneo a te nubo tibi. Ianua
c omitted o, perhaps because the same verb is mentioned above, at
l. .. In classical Greek, the verb r meant both to skin, ay and
to beat, thrash; the latter meaning was preserved in the modern
Greek r. The Latin veneo, to be sold, was obviously confused
with venio and translated with r. The verb i (j- cod.)
is modeled on the stem - of the second perfect and aorist pas-
sive of i (cf. mod. Gr. i) and preserves the same meaning
of throwing out, casting away. Finally, 0, which meant
to be crowned in classical Greek, oers an interesting reference to
the Orthodox wedding ceremony, the o (cf. mod. Gr. -
u, to marry); see PGL s.v. , 6.
.. , 8 0r / perfectiimperfecti: the Latin
translator apparently confused the two Greek terms here and below,
:.
.. , 6o u / peramo, peramasco: LSJ gives a sixth-century papy-
rus as the only source for the verb u. In any case, Pyl c uses
-0u as a calque of the Latin per-amo, to be very fond of, to
show a great liking for (at line , the Greek word is written with a
Latin g instead of a gamma). Peramo is varia lectio in Statius (Silv. . .
.), but Cicero uses peramans in his letters to Atticus (. 8a. ). The
inchoative variant peramasco is not attested elsewhere. However, peramo
and peramasco occur in U and in the p-edition of Ianua as examples of
gura composita and decomposita, respectively (pa has adamo and adamasco).
.. 6. 0 / fero: the translator considered the Greek 0, to lead,
etc., as equivalent to the Latin fero. However, Pyl c translates fero into
o on lines .. (whereas Pyl a has u) and r on 6.
(like Pyl d).
.. 66 u r / prima pronunciat: the original
Latin text was probably: prima persona est que cum loquitur de se ipsa
pronuntiat (cf. J, fol. ::8
r
; S, fol. ::
r
, etc.; Prisc. Inst. gramm. 8. :o:, GL
., 8: prima est quae de se loquitur vel sola vel cum aliis). Ps translator
probably transposed quae and cum and made a preposition of cum
and Pls cum que reproduces this misunderstanding. In the transmitted
xo+rs
reading rj, to herself, the feminine gender certainly is due to
the inuence of the Latin term persona (whereas the Greek
is neuter). The dative could appear as a variant in Ianua c or, more
probably, was required by the verb r, a calque of the
Latin pro-nuntio, attested in late Greek (cf., e.g., [Jo. Chrys.] In catenas
Sancti Petri .. .. 8, ed. by E. Batareikh, Rome :qo8; Anna Comn.
Alex. :. ::. ; Georg. Pachym. i li, Mich. Palaeol. 6o.
, ed. by A. Failler and V. Laurent, Paris :q8; etc.). In any case, the
fact that the Latin translator wrote de se ipsa instead of sibi ipsi suggests
that such a denition of rst person had become formulaic.
.. 6 0u 0u: in the list of the principal parts of the
verb 0u, Pyl c gives the Greek perfect jo (with the second
person singular in -, as in later Greek) as corresponding to the Latin
perfect amavi, but confuses the perfect with the aorist jo in the
conjugation (8.8). On the use of the Greek perfect and aorist in
Donati compositi, see above, :q8.
.. qq8 0 0j / preterito perfecto amavissent: the
translator acknowledges the existence of an aorist optative in Greek
(0) and gives the Greek perfect optative as equivalent to the
Latin pluperfect (r); cf. a .. :.o:.:. In the other verbs,
however, the aorist (which may be either an aorist or a perfect)
corresponds to the Latin perfect and pluperfect optative, and there
is no supplementary pluperfect.
.. ::o::: 0j: these lines are repeated below, :.
:.6, at the end of the impersonal conjugation of 0u. In Pyl b, the
mention of 0us active participles conclude the same section (b ..
:::::.); therefore, lines ::o::: may be regarded as an interpolation.
Apparently, however, the occurrence of such remarks is not consistent
in the Greek Donati: since participles are the object of a separate
chapter, their mention in the section on verbs is usually incomplete.
.. :q:6 0 r / preterito vel fuerint: here and else-
where, c uses the same method as a (R) in replacing nonexistent Greek
tenses of the subjunctive with ro and indicative.
.. ..8 j o0 / imperativo doceantur:
the Latin text includes the rst persons plural of both tenses of the
6 xo+rs
imperative (doceamur), which are regularly present in Ianua but absent
from Greek imperatives. Pls frequent cases of mechanical repetition
of Latin verbal sequences that do not correspond to the Greek text
(see also .. ..6, the principal parts of r) show that the author
often relied on his memory: his model was probably an Ianua that he
had memorized when learning Latin.
.. . and .8o.8: r ...: for this articial form of the perfect
of r, see, e.g., Theod. Alex. Can., GG , , 8.
.. 666 / quot legendus: the Latin interlinear
translation, which denes lectus as a present, imperfect, and pluperfect
participle, accounts for the Greek participle (, present and
imperfect) as well as for the Latin participle (lectus, perfect and plu-
perfect). A dierent case occurs, e.g., at .. 6o, where temporis presentis
applies correctly to 0, a present, and incorrectly to auditus,
a perfect. Thus, Pl probably reects the authors diculties in coping
with the dierent participial systems of Greek and Latin.
.. oo 0 / auditurus: the middle voice replaces 0u,
the rare active future participle of 0u.
.. ..6 0u / preterito imperfecto vel fuere:
in this tormented passage, the perfect (j, etc.) may have been
confused with the imperfect (), which is not unusual in
Pyl c. As for the perfect, i (.), the copyist wrote the
present, probably confused by lines .:... Pl mechanically wrote
the Latin imperfect between the lines, making j (I have been
heard) correspond to audiebar (I was being heard), etc.
.. 666q i j / preterito perfecto fuerant: unlike
the other Greek Donati and like late Greek, c uses o to supple-
ment the tenses of ii that cannot be formed with the ()-stem. In
this case, however, we see the usual confusion of tenses: the perfect
is actually an aorist, and the aorist an imperfect.
.. r0 r / esto sumptote: this is the only occur-
rence of a future imperative of ii in the four Greek Donati as well as,
to my knowledge, in the whole Greek grammar. On the one hand, we
can explain the rst two persons as calques from the Latin esto tu and
xo+rs
esto ille. On the other hand, c seems to make up for the second and
third persons plural by creating a sort of future subjunctive, i.e., a
future indicative with a lengthened sux (such as
*
r, from r-
). Therefore, the second person plural r00 should probably be
corrected into r0; however, I have preserved the transmitted read-
ing, because I believe to be methodologically incorrect to replace a
form somehow attested with a nonexistent form.
.. 88q i ro r / preterito perfecto fuerint:
three cases of confusion between tenses: the perfect subjunctive is
an aorist, the future subjunctive a future indicative with lengthened
suxes, while the aorist is an imperfect with - instead of -. I have
preserved the transmitted text: see my considerations in the previous
note.
.. q6qq i 0j / preterito perfecto volueram
and :: i 0j / preterito perfecto voluissent:
two more cases of confusion between aorist and perfect. For 0r,
instead of -, c uses the - augment that became general in late Greek.
.. o 0j, 0j / voluissem, voluissem: the fact that both
forms are translated into Latin suggests that both P and Pl considered
0j and 0j to be acceptable and interchangeable.
.. . o / fero: see note on a .. 68: (above, p. .:).
.. o o / tulerant: the transmitted reading o
(confused with an aorist) shows the loss of the ending - in the
late Greek perfect in favor of -, which is the ending of the aorist
third person plural; this phenomenon may have favored the confusion
between perfect and aorist. See above, note on a .. :o, p. :q.
.. 6:. r0i / edo: unlike Pyl a, c forms the past and future tenses
of r0i from a verb *r0o, probably confused with ro, which
means to feast and, therefore, to eat (cf. mod. Greek r,
restaurant).
.. 6:6 i r ii / preterito perfecto vel
fuere: for the perfect, c uses the poetic form r instead of o-
.
8 xo+rs
.. 68o i0, r0 / gaudete, gaudeant: since c uses only the
middle and passive voices of the verb i, the original readings
i and r may have been inuenced by forms common
in the spoken language, such as i, hail, welcome, still used
in modern Greek for greetings.
.. 68:68. r o0 / futuro gaudento: the second
and third persons singular and the second plural may be just future
indicatives (if j = j: see 6). Conversely, o0
may be an aorist middle from an *ro (instead of the regular but
rare ri), based on the -stem, which prevails in late Greek
(cf. fut. 0 in Septuagint, Zach. . :o, pf. o, aor. p.
ro).
.. .: o0: in Greek, the active is often attested
in place of the middle-passive (see Sophokles, s.v. u); however,
c apparently knew the middle imperative and used it regularly at
. (o0). For this reason, I have corrected Ps and
o into the corresponding middle forms.
.. ro u: I have preserved the transmitted
and mainly because the loss of the redu-
plication, typical of late perfects, may have favored the confusion
between the present and the perfect participle r. A sim-
ilar confusion can be found at 6q6q, where and -
are used for r and r. On the other hand,
a non-reduplicated perfect participle r occurs at ; also,
is clearly dened as a present and imperfect participle,
corresponding to the Latin iens.
.. 6 r / fero: a doublet of o, probably inserted in the c-
text through collating another exemplar of Pyl where, as in Pyl d, the
active voice of the Latin fero was translated with r (cf. ).
.. 68 i r: three tenses are created from the
-stem. Indeed, r occurs in John Moschus, Prat. :o, PG 8,
oo A (cf. PGL and Sophokles, s.v. r). Also, the -stem was
productive in j: cf. mod. Gr. r or r, aor. r, part.
r. Pyl cs future was probably a contracted future (u, etc.),
here confused with the present.
xo+rs q
.. 86 0j: the imperfect is a second
aorist, whereas the aorist is actually a pluperfect. Also, the future
results from a contamination between the middle and the (rare) pas-
sive voices of i.
.. 8qqo r o***: Pyl c has created an aorist imper-
ative on a *-stem, perhaps under the inuence of the regular verb
o, to beget, bring forth. In fact, i() was considered as
the passive of i, which has the same meaning as o.
.. q:q 0j r: the present and the future optative
coincide and are actually aorist optative of i(). The aorist, in
turn, is created from the -stem by simply adding the sux of the
aorist (a similar case is the modern Greek aorist r).
.. 8:6. r / memini: in the conjugation of this verb, forms of
the present j (in the non-reduplicated form, -) are often
confused with the perfect, which is regularly used in Greek (like the
Latin memini) as a present.
. : 0u / legens: cf. a . :.
. 8 _u o / eo quod: cf. :. 8
. : i o rj / et cetera: this chapter was probably conceived
as a general introduction to participles: in addition to eliminating
paradigms, the anonymous grammarian has reduced denitions to the
essentials.
. :6, .., ., .6 i, :q 0r / signicationis: like b and d,
c uses both i and o0 to render the Latin signicatio (here
equivalent to voice), whereas a uses i only.
. i 0i / de pronomine: as is the case with the third section,
on participles, c oers only a brief introduction with denitions of the
part of speech and all its properties, but no paradigms.
. :. ru / ego personam: c repeats Ianuas standard
denition of the pronoun: cf. a . :. and app. .:...
o xo+rs
. 8 r, r j o / Bertus, Berta aut mancipium: for
o as mancipium, slave, see Sophokles, s.v. Bertus and Berta
may be libertus and liberta and, therefore, may refer to a juridical
context, like other words used in Pyl c (see below, note on 6. ); the
three terms occur frequently together, e.g., in Book 6 of the Corpus
Iuris Iustiniani. On the other hand, Berta is used as an example of a
feminine noun in medieval grammars. It occurs, e.g., in the chapters
on pronouns of J (fol. :.6
v
: homo, Berta, celum) and S (fol. .
v
: magister,
Berta, scamnum), as well as in Ks section on participles (fol. :
v
: Cicero,
Berta vel mancipium). Similarly, in the thirteenth-century Ars dictaminis
by Guido Faba (q6, p. : ed. A. Gaudenzi in Il Propugnatore , :6
: [:8qo]), Berta and mancipium are quoted to explain the agreement
between nouns and predicate adjectives in Latin: Berta est alba, manci-
pium, vir et mulier sunt albi.
. :: i0 / componitur: Ps 0r is probably derived from
the adjective u0, Lat. compositus (cf. mod. Gr. 0r). On the
other hand, i0 occurs in all other corresponding passages of
the Greek Donati.
. :: o / ad subter: Pyl cs classication of prepo-
sitions makes sense only by considering their Latin equivalents: see
below, pp. qf.
6. i rj / de adverbio: c took its twenty-three categories of
adverbs and the examples quoted for each of them from a Latin Ianua:
see above, pp. ..of.
6. : ru j / iuxta verbum: ru is properly an adverb, but here
it is constructed as a preposition with the accusative.
6. semper: the insertion of the Latin word in the Greek text suggests
that the same hand wrote both the Greek text (P) and the Latin
translation (Pl).
6. ru / sentialiter: presentialiter = coram, prope, face to face
(cf. GLL, s.v.), occurs in some medieval literary texts (e.g., Carnina
Burana inc. Omnia sol temperat), and more frequently in ocial doc-
uments related to the making of payments in person. For exam-
ple, a contract from Vimercate (North Italy) dating from May .:,
xo+rs :
::, reads: [] que suprascripta Adelaxia ibi presentialiter recepit (text in
cdlm.unipv.it /Milano/Vimercate/carte/vimer::-o-.:.html; other
references in GMIL., s.v.). The Greek ru, which has the same
meaning, is also a term of the legal language and occurs in contracts
on papyri (e.g., P. Tebtynis :. :. :, from :: B.C.E.). The use of legal
terms suggests that Pyl c was the work of a notary (see above, p. ..
n. 66).
6. :o i i: see above, note on a 6. :q, p. ...
6. : r: see above, note on a :. .8, p. :.
6. . o / tam: * (u P) = o, equivalent to o or j,
Lat. quam (not tam): cf. Sophokles, s.v.
6. . 0, i / clanculo, belle: even if *0 = 0 o (like
o above, .., and i o, which Apollonius Dyscolus lists among the
adverbs in his De adverbiis, GG .. :, :q8), it is still not clear what it
has to do with diminutive adverbs in general, and with the Latin
clanculum (or clanculo) in particular. Conversely, i seems to be a
diminutive of o, as the sux - suggests. It has no relationship
to the Latin belle, but it may be an attempt to make up for the lack of
a Greek equivalent of belle with another diminutive adverb of dierent
meaning. It should be noted that c oers the only case of diminutive
adverbs in a Greek Donatus: translators omitted this category because
diminutive adverbs cannot be properly translated into Greek. See
Priscian, Inst. gramm. :. . (GL , q) and especially 8 (GL , 88):
inveniuntur praeterea apud nos adverbia diminutiva, quae apud Graecos non sunt,
ut clam clanculum, bene belle, bellissime.
i 0 / de interiectione: Pyl c follows Greek grammar in
considering interjections as adverbs (ri) and Latin grammar
in making them an independent part of speech. On , see
above, p. ...
. r j j / abscondita voce: absconditus probably
means profound (cf. OLD, s.v. abscondite).
8. i r / de coniunctione: this section of Pyl c, modeled on
Moschopoulos treatment of conjunctions, shows many similarities to
. xo+rs
George Scholarios corresponding chapter and to Scholarios source,
Pseudo-Basil the Great. However, the examples quoted at lines :.:,
::6, and :8:q show that cs compiler collated the Greek text with
an Ianua.
8. : t / quia ligare: cf. Dion. Th. Ars gramm. .o,
p. 6 Lallot: u r r r o o o
i j ri 0, the conjunction is a word
that connects concepts in order and explains the gap in the mean-
ing. Pyl cs participle 0 occurs in d 8. also and is proba-
bly taken from Apollonius Dyscolus (Synt. . :., ed. J. Lallot, Paris
:qq), who uses 00 j ri as to ll the
meanings lacuna (see LSJ, s.v. o). The verb r is a later
form of u, to fetter, put in chains, bind; both forms were
used in Byzantine Greek (see LSJ, PLG, and Sophokles, ss.vv.). As for
the Latin translation, ordo coniunctiva demonstrates that the translator
considered ordo as an ablative feminine, like the corresponding Greek
o. Moreover, Pls simple transliteration of the Greek ri into
erminie is probably due to the translators ignorance of the correspond-
ing term in Latin; ri occurs again at line 8, but is not translated,
together with the entire denition of the copulative conjunctions (u-
i).
8. : r: see above, note on a 8. : and :6, p. ...
8. l r l r / quidam quedam: another case of confusion
between the Greek u, masculine, and the Latin coniunctio,
feminine.
8. 6 i i: Pyl cs list of eight cat-
egories of conjunctions follows the arrangement current in Greek
grammar from Dionysius Thrax onward (.o, pp. 666 Lallot): see
above, p. ... However, c adds a ninth category, the u r-
i, adversative conjunctions (:.). The Latin translation
is incomplete and sometimes contradictory; for example, the -
i are rst called coniunctivae () and then, correctly, disiunctivae (::).
8. :. u / distant: on the late verb o, which replaces
Dionysius i (0: .o. ., p. 6 Lallot), see Sophokles, s.v.
xo+rs
8. :.: j r jr j u r: this example also occurs in Apol-
lonius Dyscolus, De coniunct. .:6. 8q and .:. . (= pp. o and . ed.
by C. Dalimier, Paris .oo:). Cf. a 8. ::8, where the sentence reads j
jr ri j u.
8. : I / habentiam: I properly corresponds to existentia,
subsistentia (cf. : o = cum essentiam, sic). However, Pl may
have interpreted the impersonal form o with dative as equiv-
alent to to have, and o o as meaning goods, riches,
possessions, etc.
8. ::6 i 0, 0 / si stertit, dormit: cf. a. 8. : i 0,
0, quoted as an example of u , coniunctio
continuativa. The verb *o was created from r (or r),
to snore: see Charisius . :, GL :, .: stertio stertis stertui r. In
turn, o was probably derived from the late , used, e.g.,
by Clement of Alexandria (see Sophokles, s.v.). The verb u, to
wheeze, is used, e.g., by Soranus of Ephesus (see LSJ, s.v.).
8. :8:q ri j jr ri: / quia sol dies est: the same exam-
ple describes the u i (coniunctiones subcontinuativae)
in a 8. .o: o j r ri j j, jr ri. Both cs r and
as ri require the genitive but take the accusative, probably because
of the inuence exerted by the Latin super terram.
8. .o r 0 / in acceptionem: in Byzantine Greek, 0
means denition, description, interpretation. In Latin, accep-
tiotaking, so reception, perceptionis quite rare; however,
the term is used in later philosophical language to indicate the accep-
tance, i.e., the granting of a proposition (see OLD, s.v.).
8. . sine: certainly for sin, but if, and what if, used, e.g., by
Plautus (Pers. .. .. , etc.).
8. o 0: epic form of 0.
8. :. ri: according to Manuel Moschopoulos, some
(r) grammarians added the adversative conjunctions to the tradi-
tional categories. Pyl cs text is closely modeled on Moschopoulos
passage: (Erotemata, Basileae :o, p. :) r r 0r i
xo+rs
ru. i ii ri; l 0 ri
j o 0 o, i r, o.
8. . r: Ionic form for r, nevertheless, however.
Donatus graecus d
pr. and :. :o: both the initial poem and the descriptive parts of Pyl
ds rst chapter coincide almost ad verbum with bs pr. and :. ::.
:. ::.: on ds ve declensions, see above, pp. .:. Pyl d system-
atization of the Greek declensions is similar to bs. However, ds anony-
mous grammarian apparently attempted to reconcile Greek grammar
with the paradigms of the original Ianua; this attempt was only par-
tially successful. On the one hand, the distinguishing feature of the
rst declension, the genitive in -diphthong (as in b :. 8),
applies to the examples quoted along with the denition (d :. o
:: j, u, r), but corresponds to only two of the four
nouns declined (j and r). We can observe the same discrep-
ancies in the third declension (in -, like bs, cf. b :. q) and in
the fth (in -, whereas in b it includes indeclinable names, cf. b :.
qq:o:). On the other hand, ds denitions and paradigms coincide
in the second and fourth declensions: all nouns of the second Greek
declension correspond to Latin second-declension nouns and have the
genitive in long - (d :. : cf. Lat. i productum), while all those of
the fourth declension have the genitive in - in Greek (d :. :.:.q)
and in -us (or -u) in Latin. Moreover, unlike the other Greek Donati,
d lacks a sub-section on comparative and superlative adjectives and
adverbs; this part may have been lost with the beginning of the sec-
tion on verbs or with the last part of the chapter on conjunctions if, as
in some early Ianuae (e.g., J), it was put at the end of the grammar.
:. 68. 0: this noun is probably equivalent to i and
translates the Latin scamnum.
:. 68 j, j: together with the Attic forms, d also mentions
the full-grade forms of j and j, more common in late and
modern Greek (o r, j r) but attested already in Homer
(e.g., Il. . r, .. 6 r r). For j (8),
xo+rs
which also means uterus, see Etymologicum Gudianum, s.v. (q): j-
, 0 0 j, r, r, i o j j. The
transmitted reading r occurs in late antique and Byzantine
popular texts instead of r (e.g., Romanos the Melodist, Cant.
dub. . 6. . bis. ::; George Sphrantzes, Chron. . 6; and the Histo-
ria Alexandri Magni, many times; see Dieterich :8q8, :q). At 8, the
transmitted dative plural r (for r?) is vox nihili; it may be
corrected into r, which occurs, with the more common o,
in Theodosius Canons (GG . .. o.) and Choeroboschus commen-
tary (GG . .. ).
:. ::: u: the translator almost certainly confused the Latin
res, gen. rei, mentioned by many Ianuae among the paradigms of the
fth declension, with rex, gen. regis, which is not frequent and, in any
case, belongs to the third declension; rex occurs, for example, in J
(fol. ::.
r
). It should be noted that, in Byzantine Greek, u is the
ocial title of the Emperor (Lat. imperator).
:. :q i: i Z. In late Greek, - often replaces -() as the
ending of dative plural in third-declension nouns: see Dieterich :8q8,
:6..
. i j: a comparison with the other Greek Donati shows
that ds lacuna concerns the introductory parts, the complete rst
three conjugations, as well as the active, the impersonal, and part
of the passive voice of 0u. The order of the irregular verbs in d
corresponds to that of c, except that u and i (instead
of cs i) are reversed and d has r only for the Latin fero.
Also, Pyl ds treatment of verbs resembles cs in the distinctionand
confusionbetween perfect and aorist. As already noted (above, p.
.:8), the section on verbs of Pylai b, c, and d was probably derived
from three versions of the same essay on verbs, which, in turn, was
the translation of the section on verbs of a Latin Ianua.
.. . 0u: for - instead of -, cf. a. .. .::(b), etc.
.. :. ii: in d, this verb immediately follows the four regular conju-
gations as in b, c, and as R. Unlike the other Greek Donati, however,
d does not account for variants in the conjugation. Also, d follows b in
limiting the conjugation of ii to the present and future tenses.
6 xo+rs
.. .q 0t: the transmitted text reads: Consider that the
other tenses (scil. of ii) will not be found used in the plural. Perhaps
the grammarian wanted to warn his readers that ii is not used in the
past tenses. Therefore, it is not clear what plural means in this con-
text; the copyist probably misunderstood an abbreviation and took,
e.g., 0, past (Lat. praeteritis) for 0t. Dionysius
Thrax, in fact, uses 0 as a temporal category, to which four
verbal tenses belong: (imperfect), i (perfect),
r (pluperfect), and 0 (aorist). The plural -
0 occurs as past tenses in [Theod. Alex.] De gramm, GG ,
. :., :. . and o, etc. The verb ii has an imperfect, but other
verbs, such as i or o (cf. c .. 66, etc.), supply the tenses
that cannot be created from the r()-stem.
.. r: this perfect innitive is actually a vox nihili: the
regular perfect innitive of u, which is synonymous with 0r
and means to wish, want, is j0. Pyl a has 0r (..
6o), whereas c uses the aorist 0j (.. .:).
.. 6o, 8o etc. 0 i: Lat. unde trahitur, a typical formula of
Ianua. At 8o, the copyist wrote i rst, and then changed it to the
more technical term i. Pyl a has 0 rr (.. :, etc.;
see the note ad l., p. :q).
.. 6.. r: unlike c, which uses - for the aorist and the future
(cf. c .. 6), d gives only the present and the future tenses of this
verb and forms the future with the stem i-.
.. q8 r0o j r0i: a third person plural like *r0o
would be logically required. On r0i / *r0o, see above, note on
c .. 6:., p. .
.. :q:o 0 j: i0, actually a present inni-
tive, is probably a varia lectio originally written along the present active
i, while j was the aorist (cf. the regular second aorist pas-
sive ro). However, since, at :6:, the future subjunctive is
ro u, it is highly probable that the anonymous grammarian con-
sidered j as a future.
xo+rs
.. :::. 0r 00 : for i / i
as a neuter passive (= semideponent, corresponding to the Latin
gaudeo), cf. a . and c .. ..8, . .q:. Zs reading i (see
apparatus) is probably due to the inuence of the Latin original text,
where participia is neuter. The third participle of i, missing in d,
could be , as in c .. o8.
.. :8:q r r: the confusion between active and
(middle-)passive endings is frequent in all the Greek Donati. Perfect
active forms of i()in particular, the participle u
appear in late Greek and are easily confused with the perfect active of
o, whose meaning they take.
.. :6.:6 r rr: this is one of the few cases
of pluperfect in d and, in general, in the Donati compositi. The
pluperfect middle-passive of i(), rj, etc., is actually
used only in the third person by classical and classicizing authors.
Thus, ds only correct form is the third person plural, rr.
In the singular, the anonymous grammarian has used the pluperfect
stem with the endings of a pluperfect active (- or -), whereas,
in the plural, a confusion with the singular endings of the perfect
middle-passive has occurred; those endings were probably added in
the margin of Zs original in order to correct line :8.
.. :o:: i0 j j: the perfect optative is mod-
eled on the late perfect r (see above, note on :8:q).
.. :86:8 i r: although the perfect imperative r-
, j0, etc., is rather common, d confuses the conjuga-
tion of r with that of i, to remain, stay, await, which
is active. It is possible to correct i into j; however, the
active imperative of j, to remind, is rare and attested only
in compounds (e.g., 0j and j).
.. :88:8q i0 i i: by inserting the sux --, it
would be possible to obtain the correct present optative of j:
i, j, etc. However, this present optative appar-
ently has been created from the verb i, like the imperative (see
8 xo+rs
the previous note); thus, we may suppose that ds original form was
i, i, i, etc.
. i j: Pyl ds section on participles is very similar to bs;
the presence of common mistakes (such as the omission of i at :6)
suggests that both texts were based on the same original. However, d
is less accurate than b and probably represents an earlier version of
the text.
. i 0i: in this section, d mostly coincides with b, although
there are dierences in the order of properties and paradigms. The
Latin model still inuences d: the repetition of the declension of r-
(88) is perhaps an attempt to translate into Greek vestras,
which in Ianua is given for the fourth pronominal mode (quartus modus,
r ). Vestras, except for the rare , has no corre-
sponding pronoun in Greek; see above, p. :q n. :o. If this is true,
we can infer either that d mirrors an earlier stage of the tradition
of the Donati compositi, where the links with the Latin Ianua are still
very tight (whereas b represents a later attempt to make the Greek
Donatus a real Greek grammar), or that d reects a contamination of
the Greek text with the Latin Ianua, with the purpose of making it
suitable for Latins learning Greek. Indeed, ds treatment of pronouns
shows the same combination of Greek and Latin grammar as that of
nouns.
. 8q 0 0r: this sentence, missing in b, corresponds to
the Latin a suis componentibus, which can be read, e.g., in the p-edition
of Ianua. Cf. a . ::6 r u r0 0r.
. :6.6 j o0j 0: see above, note on b . :8o, p. ..
. i 0 i: this sentence, although incomplete, is
an interesting clue to ds attempt to make its grammar suitable for
Westerners who wanted to learn Greek.
. 8q 0 ru: both Z and bs M have 0 ju, a common
mistake that may reinforce the hypothesis of a common origin.
. i 0r: although modeled on Ianuas chapter on preposi-
tions, a, c, and d show several dierences in the terminology used in
xo+rs q
the introductory parts, as well as in the translation of the single prepo-
sitions into Greek.
. t t: u, to serve, takes the dative in classical
Greek and the accusative in modern Greek. Cf. c . i u
u;
. .: like Pyl c, d roughly respects the order and the meanings of
Ianuas Latin prepositions, as is clear from the following charts:
a. Latin prepositions with the accusative:
Ianua a c d
ad i
apud i u
ante
adversus o o o
cis ro
citer
citra (ro, i)
circum u_ u_ i
circa ru i
contra 0i 0i o
erga i
extra r r r
inter u u
intra r r, r r, r
infra o
iuxta i i
ob r ri
pone
per o o o
prope o r ru, i
propter r
secundum o o o
post o o o
trans rr
ultra r r r
praeter o
supra ro ro 0
circiter 0 0 i
usque r r r
secus 0
penes r o o
o xo+rs
b). Latin prepositions with the ablative:
Ianua a c d
a 0 0 0
ab r
abs
cum u o u
coram ru ru 0u
clam o0 o0 u
de i 0
e r r r
ex r r r
pro 0o
prae ru ri, ru
palam i i u
sine 0 0 i
absque i i, i (i)
tenus r
c). Latin prepositions with the accusative and the ablative:
Ianua a c d
in r r r
sub
super ro ri ri
subter o o r
This chart shows that a and c agree in many cases, and that c and
d are independent from each other in the translation of the Latin
prepositions. As is the case with a, both c and d confuse prepositions,
adverbs, and nouns. In the second group, d also includes ri and r,
which seem to refer to the third group.
. 6 ro and 8 rr: ro, on this side and rr,
on that side, beyond were used as adverbs or prepositions with
the genitive in late Greek prose (see, e.g., Damascius, In Parm. ... :.,
:, etc.). Thus, they correspond to the Latin cis, citra and trans, ultra,
respectively.
. :: r: this is properly a noun and means end, border. This and
other cases (e.g., 8: 0, which is an adverb and means otherwise,
xo+rs :
in another way) suggest that d translated mechanically, with the help
of a dictionary.
. : ri i r: given as translations of super and subter, these
prepositions are not attested in Greek. However, they occur in com-
pounds, such as r--i, display in, or r--t, sub-
sist in (see LSJ, ss.vv.).
6. . j: the adverb does not stay in place of a verb
(cf. the denition of the pronoun, . .: t r _ o). This
denition is modeled after b. 6. . (o j r j rr
j) and c 6. :. (i ru j). The verb rr probably
corresponds to adicio, as in Priscians denition (Inst. gramm. :. :,
GL , 6o): adverbium est pars orationis indeclinabilis, cuius signicatio verbis
adicitur.
6. .: Pyl ds nineteen categories of meaning, as well as the examples
quoted to describe each of them, basically correspond to those of the
Latin Ianua: temporis, loci, ordinis, qualitatis, quantitatis, adrmandi, numeri,
comparandi, discretivi, superlativi, negandi, congregandi, prohibendi, similitudi-
nis, interrogandi, dubitandi, eligendi, hortandi, and demonstrandi. Often, more
than one translation is given for an adverb, whereas frequent repeti-
tions of the same adverb show that, unlike a and c, d tries to give a
translation of each of the Latin examples.
6. 6 j oi: here is a clear example of ds transla-
tion method. Ianuas adverbs of time are usually hodie, heri, nunc, nuper,
cras, aliquando, olim, tunc, quondam, iam, and semper (cf., e.g., p). Pyl d
translates aliquando with r and r0 o and semper with -
(late form for o ) and 0i, and uses o for both olim
and quondam. The adverb oi, added to the sequence, is a rel-
ative adverb (at what time) or a conjunction (when): see LSJ,
s.v.
6. 8 j o0: u j r00 should correspond to the
Latin hic vel ibi, but r00 actually means hence (Lat. illinc).
6. q:o j o r [_u] u_: Pyl d translates Ianuas
adverbia ordinandi (o instead of o) quite faithfully: the
Greek adverbs reproduce inde, deinde, deinceps, continuo, protinus, interea
. xo+rs
et propterea, with u and u for continuo and the last two
adverbs in a reverse order. The participle is common as an
adverb in modern Greek.
6. : j i 0i: cf. Ianua (p): Da comparandi, ut magis,
minus, plus, tam et quam. For 0i as than, after comparatives, see LSJ,
s.v.
6. :8:q j i u: see Ianua (p): da discretivi, ut secus
(0 0, probably for secum), seorsum (o), separatim (i, ii),
secreto (u), singillatim (), trifariam et multifariam (u
i u), to which Priscian adds divise (or divisim: i) and other
texts bifariam (u).
6. .o o r: o is required by Ianuas doctissime.
6. . 0[]: probably equivalent to o 0, together
(cf. LSJ, s.v. 0).
6. .6 ji: to my knowledge, this adverb (which is derived from
the adjective ji, as big as, as old as) is attested only in the
fourteenth-century verse Chronicle by Ephraem, :. and 6: (ed. by
I. Bekker, CSHB, Bonn :8o).
6. .6. uu, i: Zs uu was perhaps due to a confusion
with Septuagint, Jos. :. ::: ui uu. If i, yes, Lat. sic, is
listed among the adverbs of similitude because d confused it with
sic so, we would have another piece of evidence for the use of a
dictionary in the translation.
6. . j i i: cf. Ianua (p): Da demonstrandi, ut en, ecce. The
Greek r is a transcription of the Latin adverb.
. j rj: the translator probably understood interiec-
tio as adverb of insertion, according to the common denition of
this part of speech: cf. Ianua (p): interiectio quia interiacet aliis partibus
orationis; see also c . :..
8. i r: of ds section on conjunctions, only few lines re-
main. Repetitions suggest that the anonymous grammarian was at-
xo+rs
tempting a collatio of dierent texts. The eleven categories listed by d
correspond to those of Ianua (cf. a 8).
8. q j: an adverb (plainly, of course, Lat. videlicet, scilicet, pro-
fecto). In modern Greek, j is used as that is to say or in other
colloquial expressions, such as so, then, in brief. Therefore, d may
have listed it among the 00i j i j ii conjunc-
tions (Lat. collectivae vel rationales vel illativae), which correspond to the
Latin ergo, igitur, itaque.
8. :o:: i, i: Lat. disiunctivae (cf. a 8. :6),
subdisiunctivae. The second category is mentioned by Choeroboscus,
Epimerismi in Psalmos o. .6 (ed. by T. Gaisford, Oxford :8.) and
by Suda in connection with conjunction j (eta . 6, ed. A. Adler,
Leipzig :q.8:q). Both Choeroboscus and Suda remark the dier-
ence between u i, which relate two terms with
opposite meaning (o o ri r j o u, i jr
j u, or: j r j ), and u i, which
connect dierent terms but do not establish any opposition (o o-
o 0i i r r r j ij u, i
j 0 j i0 i). Cf. Ianua (p): Disiunctiva est que,
quamvis voces coniungat, sensum tamen disiungit, et alteram quidem rem esse,
alteram vero non esse signicat []. Subdisiunctiva est que, quamvis voces disi-
unctivarum habeat, utrumque tamen esse signicat in eodem vel in diverso tempore.
\rrrxnix i
COMPARING THE FOUR DONATI GRAECI
A. Nouns and Adjectives
1
:. First declension
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
j j j j
0 r u 0
o u j r
j j o
'o o
i oo
ii
.. Second declension
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
u i u u
0 u 0
i o
i 0
i
1
I have indicated in Italics the nouns and adjectives that appear in MS. R only,
as well as the words that were probably either declined or simply mentioned in Pyl
cs lost rst chapter.
6 \rrrxnix i
. Third declension
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
j 0 00 j
j i :u j
r j : 00
lu :iu 0
0
0o /o
00 /o
0u o
0r :
ju oj
0 oo
i /0j
i 0

0i
r

u
. Fourth declension
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
t o i
i `r oj r
i r
r 0u

. Fifth declension
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
i o 0u jr
0 o o i
jr u u
i u i
i
i
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci
6. Irregular Nouns
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
0 cu

o
0
j
r

. Degrees of Comparison
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
r r o
u o0o
00j u o
0j :iu
00 0i :j
u /o
:
B. Verbs
2
8. a. oo
a) active Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 0u 0u 0u
imperfect jo jo jo
perfect jo jo jo
pluperfect jj jj
aorist jo
future 0j 0j 0j
Imperative
present 0o 0o 0o
future oo 0o 0o
2
Forms occurring in MS. R only have been italicized.
8 \rrrxnix i
Optative
pres./imperf. 0_u 0_u 0_u
perf./pluperf. 0j 0j
aorist 0j 0j
future 0j 0j 0j
Subjunctive
present 0u
imperfect jo
pres./imperf. 0u 0u
perfect jo 0j 0j
pluperfect jj
perf./pluperf. 0j
aorist 0j
future 0j 0j
Innitive
present 00 00 00
perfect jr
aorist 0j 0j
future 0j 0j 0j
8. b. oo
b) impersonal Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 00 00 00
imperfect j0 j0 j0
perfect jo jo jo
pluperfect jo
aorist jj0
future 00j 00j 00j
Imperative
present 0o0 0o0 0o0
future 00j 0o0
0o0
Optative
pres./imperf. 0_u 0_u 0_u
perf./pluperf. jo
aorist 0j 0j
future 0j 0j 0j
Subjunctive
present 00
imperfect 00
pres./imperf. 00 00
perfect jr j jr j jr j
jo
pluperfect j-r 0-
/
jo
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci q
perf./pluperf. 0j
aorist 0j 0j
future j-r r 00j
o0j
Innitive
present 000
perfect jj0
aorist
future o0j0
Participle
pres./imperf. 0u 0u 0u
future 0j 0j 0j
Gerund 0r
Supine
8. c. oo
c) passive Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 0u 0u 0u
imperfect ju ju ju
perfect jo jo jo
pluperfect jj
aorist jj0 jj0
future 00j 00j 00j
Imperative
present 0u 0u 0u
future oo 0o 0o
Optative
pres./imperf. 0_u 0_u 0_u
perf./pluperf. jou
aorist 0i jr
i
future 00i 0i 00i
oiu
Subjunctive
present ocu 0u 0u
imperfect jcu
pres./imperf. 0u
perfect jou jr u jr u
pluperfect jju
perf./pluperf. jo
aorist 0j jj0
future o0ju 00j jr
r
6o \rrrxnix i
Innitive
present 000 000 000
perfect jj0
aorist 00j jj0
future 00j0 00j0 00j0
Participle
perfect ju jr jr
future o0- 00- 00-

q. a. o
a) active Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present o o o
imperfect ri ri ri
perfect ri i ri
i
pluperfect ro0
aorist ri ri ri
future o o o
Imperative
present i i i
future i i i
Optative
pres./imperf. o o o
perf./pluperf. o
aorist o o o
future o o o
Subjunctive
present o
imperfect i
pres./imperf. o o o
perfect i (o) (o)
pluperfect o0
perf./pluperf.
aorist o ri
future o o
Innitive
present o o o
perfect o

aorist o o
future o o o
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci 6:
q. b. o
b) impersonal Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present o o
imperfect ro ro
perfect i i
pluperfect
aorist ro0 ro0
future 0j 0j
Imperative
present r0 r0
future o0 o0
Optative
pres./imperf. o o
perf./pluperf.
aorist o o
future o o
Subjunctive
present
imperfect
pres./imperf. o o
perfect r j r j
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist 0j 0j
future 0j 0j
Innitive
present o0 o0
perfect
aorist o0 o0
future 0j0 0j0
Participle
pres./imperf. o o
future o o
Gerund
Supine
6. \rrrxnix i
q. c. o
c) passive Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present o o o
imperfect r r r
perfect ro0 i i
i
pluperfect ro
aorist ro0 ro0
future 0j 0j 0j
Imperative
present o o o
future i i i
Optative
pres./imperf. i i i
perf./pluperf. 0i
aorist i i
future 0i i i
Subjunctive
present ou
imperfect ou
pres./imperf. o o o
perfect o0 r u r u
pluperfect ou
perf./pluperf. 0u
aorist 0u 0u
future 0j 0j 0j
Innitive
present o0 o0 o0
perfect 0j
j0
aorist o0 o0
future 0j0 o0 o0
Participle
pres./imperf.
perfect
future
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci 6
:o. a. oc /
a) active Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 0u r r
imperfect 0i r r
perfect 0r r r
pluperfect 0u
aorist r r
future oc r r
Imperative
present 0i r r
future oo r r
Optative
pres./imperf. 0u r r
perf./pluperf. ocu
aorist r r
future ocu r r
Subjunctive
present oc
imperfect oi
pres./imperf. 0u r r
perfect o r r
pluperfect oc
perf./pluperf.
aorist r r
future oc
Innitive
present 0u r r
perfect 0r
aorist r r
future 0u r r
:o. b. oc /
b) impersonal Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 0u r r
imperfect 0u rr rr
perfect 0r r r
pluperfect 0r
aorist rr0 rr0
future 00j- 0j 0j

6 \rrrxnix i
Imperative
present 0r0 r0 r0
future o0 o0
Optative
pres./imperf. 0u r r
perf./pluperf. 00i
aorist r r
future 00j- 0j 0j

Subjunctive
present 0u
imperfect
pres./imperf. r r
perfect 00j r j r j
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist r r
future 0- 0j 0j
0j
Innitive
present 0u- r0 r0
0
perfect 00j
aorist r0 r0
future 0- r0 r0
0j0
Participle
pres./imperf. r r
future r r
Gerund
Supine
:o. c. oc /
c) passive Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 0u r r
imperfect 0 r r
perfect 0r r r
pluperfect 0u
oc0
aorist rr0 rr0
future -0j 0j 0j
Imperative
present 0u r r
future oo r r
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci 6
Optative
pres./imperf. 0- i i
i
perf./pluperf. 00i
aorist i i
future -0i i i
Subjunctive
present ocu
imperfect 0u-
,
0ou
pres./imperf. r r
perfect ou r u r u
pluperfect oc0
perf./pluperf. 00u
aorist r r
future 00j- 0j 0j

Innitive
present 0u- r0 r0
0
perfect 00j
aorist r0 r0
future 00j- 0j0 j 0j0 j
0
r0 r0
Participle
pres./imperf.
perfect
future 0 0
j j
::. a. o:
a) active Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 0u 0u 0u
imperfect j j j
perfect 0j 0j 0j
pluperfect ju
aorist j j j
future 0u 0u 0u
Imperative
present 0 0 0
future 0 0 0
Optative
pres./imperf. 0u 0u 0u
perf./pluperf. 0u
66 \rrrxnix i
aorist 0u 0u
future 0u 0u 0u
Subjunctive
present 0u
imperfect 0u
j
pres./imperf. 0u 0u
perfect j 0 0
pluperfect j:
perf./pluperf. 0u
aorist 0u 0u
future o:
Innitive
present 0u 0u 0u
perfect 00
aorist 00 00
future 0u 0u 0u
::. b. o:
b) impersonal Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 0u 0u 0u
imperfect ju ju ju
perfect j j j
pluperfect j
aorist ju0 ju0
future 00j 00j 00j
Imperative
present 0r0 0r0 0r0
future 0o0 0o0
Optative
pres./imperf. 0u 0u 0u
perf./pluperf. 00i
aorist 0u 0u
future 0u 0u 0u
00j
Subjunctive
present 0u
imperfect
pres./imperf. 0u 0u
perfect 00j jr j jr j
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist 0u 0u
future 00j 00j
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci 6
Innitive
present 0u0 0u0 0u0
perfect 00j
aorist 0u0 0u0
future 00j0 00j0 00j0
j 0u0 j 0u0
Participle
pres./imperf. 0u 0 0u
future 0 00- 0

j 0
Gerund 0r
Supine 0
::. c. o:
c) passive Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 0u 0u 0u
imperfect j j j
perfect j j 0u
pluperfect ju
aorist ju0 ju0
future 00j 00j 00j
Imperative
present 0u 0u 0u
future 0u0 0 0
Optative
pres./imperf. 0i 0i 0i
perf./pluperf. 00i
aorist 0i 0i
future 0i 0i 0i 0i
Subjunctive
present o:u
imperfect jou
pres./imperf. 0u 0u 0u 0u
perfect ju jr u jr u jr u
pluperfect j:u
perf./pluperf. 00u
aorist 0u 0u 0u
future 00j 00j 00j 00j
Innitive
present 0u0 0u0 0u0 0u0
perfect 00j
aorist 0u0 0u0 0u0
68 \rrrxnix i
future 00j0 00j0 00j0 00j0
j 0u0 j 0u0
Participle
pres./imperf. 0 0
perf./pluperf. 00i
future 0 00- 00-

j 0 j 0
:.. /ui
active Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present ii ii ii ii
imperfect j j j j
perfect j
pluperfect
aorist j
future r r r r
Imperative
present r r r r
future r0
Optative
pres./imperf. i i
perf./pluperf.
aorist o
future ri ri
Subjunctive
present u
imperfect
pres./imperf. u
perfect o
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist j
future r
Innitive
present i i
perfect
aorist o
future r0
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci 6q
:. 0
active Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present 0r 0r 0r
imperfect j0 j0 j0
perfect j0r j0r 0r
pluperfect r0j
aorist j0r 0r j0r
future 0j 0j 0j
Imperative
present (j) 0r 0r
future
Optative
pres./imperf. 0r 0r 0r
perf./pluperf. 0j
0j
aorist 0j 0j
future 0j 0j 0j
Subjunctive
present 0r 0r
imperfect j0 j0
pres./imperf. 0r
perfect j0 j0r
pluperfect 0j
perf./pluperf.
aorist 0r j0r
future 0j 0j 0j
Innitive
present 0r 0r 0r
perfect 0r r
aorist 0j
future 0j
:. a. o, c
a) active Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present u o
imperfect ro ro
perfect o ro
ro
pluperfect ro
aorist o
future o o
o \rrrxnix i
Imperative
present o o
future o o
Optative
pres./imperf. o o
perf./pluperf. o
aorist o
future o o
Subjunctive
present c o
imperfect o
pres./imperf. o
perfect o ro
pluperfect o
perf./pluperf. u
aorist o
future o o
Innitive
present 0 o
perfect r
aorist o
future o o
:. b. o, c
b) impersonal Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present o o
imperfect ro ro
perfect o o
ro0
pluperfect ro
aorist ro0
future 0j 0j
Imperative
present r0
future 0j
Optative
pres./imperf. o o
perf./pluperf.
aorist o
future 0j 0j
Subjunctive
present
imperfect
pres./imperf. o o
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci :
perfect o r j
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist o
future 0j
Innitive
present o0
perfect o0
aorist
future 0j-
0
Participle
pres./ imperf. o
future o
Gerund r
Supine o
:. c. o, c
c) passive Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present o o
imperfect r r
perfect ro0 o
pluperfect r0j
aorist ro0
future 0j 0j
Imperative
present o o
future o0 o
Optative
pres./imperf. iu i
perf./pluperf. 0i
aorist i
future 0- i
iu
Subjunctive
present ou
imperfect ou
pres./imperf. o
perfect o0 r u
pluperfect 0ju
perf./pluperf.
aorist o
future 0ju 0j
. \rrrxnix i
Innitive
present o0 o0
perfect 0j
aorist o0
future 0j- 0j-
0 0
j o0
Participle
pres./imperf.
perfect
future j
0-

:. a.
a) active Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present r r
imperfect r r
perfect r
pluperfect
aorist r
future r i
Imperative
present r
future
Optative
pres./imperf. r
perf./pluperf.
aorist
future
Subjunctive
present r
imperfect
pres./imperf.
perfect
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist
future i
Innitive
present r
perfect
aorist
future i0
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci
Participle
pres./ imperf. r

future
:. b.
b) passive Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present r
imperfect r
perfect
pluperfect
aorist
future i
Imperative
present r
future
Optative
pres./imperf. i
perf./pluperf.
aorist
future
Subjunctive
present
imperfect
pres./imperf.
perfect
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist
future
Innitive
present
perfect
aorist
future
\rrrxnix i
:6. a. 0i
a) active Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present r0i r0i r0i
imperfect j0 j0 j0
perfect r j0i
pluperfect (oi)
aorist r0i
future o r0o r0o
Imperative
present o r0 r0
future r0
Optative
pres./imperf. ou r0i r0i
perf./pluperf. ou
aorist r0o
future ou r0o
Subjunctive
present 0i r0i i0u
imperfect j0
pres./imperf.
perfect i r0o
pluperfect (oui)
perf./pluperf.
aorist r0i
future o r0o
Innitive
present 0i r0i
perfect 0
aorist r00
future i r0o
:6. b. 0i
b) impersonal Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present r00
imperfect j0i
perfect j0i
pluperfect
aorist j0o0
future r00j
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci
Imperative
present r0r
future r0o
Optative
pres./imperf. r0i
perf./pluperf.
aorist r0o
future r0o
Subjunctive
present
imperfect
pres./imperf. r0i
perfect r0r j
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist r0o
future r00j
Innitive
present r0i0
perfect
aorist r0o0
future r0o0
Participle
pres./imperf. r0i
future r0
Gerund
Supine
:. iu
Indicative Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
present i i i
imperfect r r
perfect j0 r r
pluperfect r rj
j
aorist r rj0
future j j j
Imperative
present i i i
future j0 j
Optative
pres./imperf. j i i
perf./pluperf. r j
i
6 \rrrxnix i
aorist i
future j i
Subjunctive
present iu
imperfect ou
pres./imperf. i r i
perfect j0
pluperfect u j r u
perf./pluperf.
aorist j
future j 0j j
Innitive
present i0 i0
perfect 0j
aorist i0
future j0 0j0 0j0
Participle
pres./ imperf.
future j
0
Gerund r
Supine
:8. a. :u
a) middle Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present u u u
imperfect r r r
perfect
ru0
pluperfect r0j
aorist ru0 ru0
future 0u 0j 0j
Imperative
present u u u
future u0 u0
Optative
pres./imperf. 0i i
perf./pluperf. 0u
aorist i
future 0i i
Subjunctive
present u
imperfect
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci
pres./imperf. u u
perfect u
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist u
future 0u 0j 0u
Innitive
present u0 u0
perfect
aorist u0 0j
future u0 0j0
:8. b. :u
b) impersonal Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present u
imperfect ru
perfect
pluperfect
aorist ru0
future 0j
Imperative
present r0
future o0
Optative
pres./imperf. u
perf./pluperf.
aorist u
future u
Subjunctive
present
imperfect
pres./imperf. u
perfect r j
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist u
future 0j
Innitive
present u0
perfect
aorist u0
future 0j0
8 \rrrxnix i
Participle
pres./ imperf. u

future 0-

Gerund
Supine
:q. i, iu
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present i i i
imperfect r r r
perfect ro r o
pluperfect rj
aorist ro
future u j u
Imperative
present i i t
future i j
Optative
pres./imperf. _u i i
ju
perf./pluperf. j
aorist i
future j i j
Subjunctive
present iu i
imperfect ou
pres./imperf. u i
perfect o u
pluperfect j
perf./pluperf. j
aorist i
future c j u
Innitive
present t i0 i
perfect
aorist j0 i0
future j0 j0 j
Participle
pres./ imperf. i

future
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci q
Gerund r
Supine
.o. uuu
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
Indicative
present r r
imperfect rj
perfect
pluperfect
aorist rj
future
Imperative
present i
future j0
Optative
pres./imperf. i
perf./pluperf.
aorist 0i
future
Subjunctive
present
imperfect
pres./imperf.
perfect j
pluperfect
perf./pluperf.
aorist rj
future 0u
Innitive
present
perfect
aorist 0j
future
8o \rrrxnix i
C. Other Parts of Speech
3
.:. Participles
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
0u r r
r
0u r r
0u
oou
... Pronouns
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
ru ru ru
u u u
0 i i

rt rt rt
u u u
0 0 0
o
o r r
i
o o o
j jr
r r
r
o r
jr
r
3
For prepositions, see above, qf.
coxr\nixo +nr rotn nox\+i on\rci 8:
.. Adverbs
Pyl a (x) Pyl a (R) Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
j j j
j 0
r0 oj rj o
0j o 0u
j o 0j
0o i o 0r 000
0r o 0j 0o i
ou i o 0o i
j 0o 00u
c j j 0r 0o
ou
0 o0u i0 0i
00i j o i0 u
ou o 00i 00i 0r
i ouc u r ou
0i 0 i ou rj
i :j rj o i0
rj ouc ro ro r
000 j 0r i u
i : 0o 00u i
/: 0o j
o0i o j
i 00 0j
j o
.. Interjections
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
0j j
0uj 0o
j _ _
8. \rrrxnix i
.. Conjunctions
Pyl a Pyl b Pyl c Pyl d
_ i i
_ i i
00 _ i i
j
j i
_ i ii
i _ ii i
_ 0i i
_ i 0i
_ - ri
i
i _ ri 0j
r _ i
j i
0 _ i
- _

_
\rrrxnix ii
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF IANUA
(BLACK 2001, 373378)
manuscript Ianua Disticha date
London, British Library,
Harley .6 :
r
:
v
no XII
2
Paris, Bibliothque Nationale,
lat. :q. :oq
r
:o
r
no ca. :.6o:.8o
Udine, Archivio di Stato,
Frammenti : :
r
.
v
no XIII
Udine, Archivio di Stato,
Frammenti :6 :
r
:
v
:
v
XIII
Udine, Archivio di Stato,
Frammenti :8o :
r
:
v
no XIIIXIV
Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana,
Strozzi 8o :
r
.q
v
.q
v

v
XIV in.
Udine, Archivio di Stato,
Frammenti .. :
r
:
v
no XIV
2
XV
1
Udine, Archivio di Stato,
Frammenti :: :
r
:
v
no XV
1
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale,
Magliabechi I. :
r
:
v
:
v
.:
r
XV
Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana,
:.8 :
r
.
v

r
q
v
XV
2
Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana,
B.vi.:8 :
r
:6
v
:68
r
:.
v
XV med.
Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana,
Med. Palat. 6 :
r
..
v
..
v
.8
v
XV
2
Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,
lat. qu. . (Phillips .q.8) :
r
:
v
:
r
.o
v
XV
2
Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana,
.:6
r
.
r

r
o
r
:q
8 \rrrxnix ii
Modena, Biblioteca Estense,
Alpha U. . : (lat. .qo) :
r
:
v
:
r
:q
v
XV
1
Modena, Biblioteca Estense,
Alpha O. 6. . (lat. :) :
r
:8
r
:q
r
.
v
XV
1
?
Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense
:. :
r
:
v
:
r
.o
r
:6
Vatican City, Bibl. Apostolica,
Ottoboni lat. :q6 :
r
.:
v
..
r
.
v
XVI
Montecassino, Bibl. dellAbbazia,
... TT pp. :q:6 no XV
Venice, Biblioteca Marciana,
lat. q8 (XIII. 8) :
r
:
v
:
r
.o
v
XV
Venice, Biblioteca Marciana,
lat. :q: (Z 88) :
r
:6
r
:6
r
:
v
XV
1
Vatican City, Bibl. Apostolica,
Chigi L.IV.q8 :
r

v
no XV
2/4
New York, Columbia University,
Plimpton :8 :
r
:
r
:
r
..
v
XV
Vienna, sterr. Nationalbibl.
.: :
r
.
r
.
r
o
v
XV
2
Vienna, sterr. Nationalbibl.
: :
r
:
v
:
v
:8
r
XV
2
Madrid, Bibl. de El Escorial,
S. III. q q
r
:o6
v
:o
r
::.
r
:o/8o
Oxford, Bodleian Library,
Can. misc. .6 :
r

v
no XV med.
Oxford, Bodleian Library,
Can. misc. .8 :
r
:
r
:
v
..
v
XV
2
Padua, Bibl. del Sem. Vescovile,
o :
r
o
v
o
v
6
v
:6:
Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria,
:. 8
r
6
v
6
v

v
XV
2
Paris, Bibliothque Nationale,
lat. :. :88 no XV
2
Paris, Bibliothque Nationale,
lat. ::.8 :
r
.
r
.
r
q
r
XV
2
+nr x\xtscnir+s or i\xt\ 8
New Haven, Yale University,
Marston o :
r
::
r
::
r
:
v
XV med.
Florence, Archivio di Stato,
Carte Bardi :q
v
.6
r
.
r
8
v
XV
2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aerts :q8: W.J. Aerts, The Knowledge of Greek in Western Europe at the
Time of Theophano and the Greek Grammar Fragment in ms. Vindobo-
nensis ::, in V.D. van Aalst, K.N. Ciggaar (eds.), Byzantium and the Low
Countries in the Tenth Century. Aspects of Art and History in the Ottonian Era, Her-
nen: Brediusstichting, 8:o.
Agazzi :q8:: Aldo Agazzi, Lesperienza della Ca Giocosa, in Nella Gian-
netto (ed.), Vittorino da Feltre e la sua scuola: umanesimo, pedagogia, arti, Firenze:
Olschki, q.
Angold :q8q: Michael Angold, Greeks and Latins after :.o: The Perspec-
tive of Exile, in Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton et al. (eds.), Latin and
Greeks in the Easter Mediterranean after .:o, London: Frank Cass, 686.
Ars memorativa :qq: Jrg J. Berns, Wolfgang Neuber (ed.), Ars memorativa. Zur
kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Gedchtniskunst .oo.,o, Tbingen: Max
Niemeyer.
Asztalos :q8q: Monika Asztalos, Jan berg, Astrid Stedje, Birgit Stolt, Die
Seligenstdter Lateinpdagogik. Eine illustrierte Lateingrammtik aus dem deutschen
Frhhumanismus, . vols., Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.
Avesani :q6: Rino Avesani, Il primo ritmo per la morte del grammatico
Ambrogio e il cosiddetto Liber Catonianus, Studi Medievali s. , 6..,
88.
, :q6: Rino Avesani, Quattro miscellanee medioevali e umanistiche. Contributi
alla tradizione del Geta, degli Auctores octo, dei Libri minores e di altra
letteratura scolastica medievale, Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
Ax .oo:: Wolfram Ax, Lorenzo Valla (:o:), Elegantiarum linguae Latinae
libri sex (:q), in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. Lateinische
Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock (Wolfenbtteler Forschungen
q), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, .q.
Bachmann: Anecdota graeca e codicibus manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisinorum
descripsit Ludovicus Bachmannus, vol. ., Lipsiae: sumptibus J.C. Hinrichs,
:8.8 (repr. Hildesheim: Holms, :q6).
Baebler :88: Johan J. Baebler, Beitrge zu einer Geschichte der lateinischen Gram-
matik im Mittelalter, Halle (repr. Hildesheim: Gesternberg, :q:).
Baldassarri .oo: Stefano U. Baldassarri, Umanesimo e traduzione da Petrarca a
Manetti, Cassino: Universit di Cassino.
Balestracci .oo: Duccio Balestracci, Cilastro che sapeva leggere. Alfabetizzazione
e istruzione nelle campagne toscane alla ne del Medioevo (XIVXVI secolo), Pisa:
Pacini.
Bancroft-Markus :q8.:q8: Rosemary E. Bancroft-Markus, Literary Cryp-
tograms and the Cretan Academies, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 8,
6.
88 ninrioon\rnv
Baratin :q8: Marc Baratin, Grammaticalit et intelligibilit chez Priscien,
in Sylvain Auroux, Michel Glatigny et al. (eds.), Matriaux pour une histoire
des thories linguistiques, Lille: Universit de Lille III, ::6..
Barberi-Cerulli :q.: Francesco Barberi, Emidio Cerulli, Le edizioni greche
in Gymnasio mediceo ad Caballinum montem, in Atti del Convegno di
Studi su Angelo Colocci (Jesi, .. settembre ., Palazzo della Signoria), Jesi:
Amministrazione Comunale di Jesi, 6:6.
Barker :qq.
2
: Nicholas Barker, Aldus Manutius and the Development of Greek Script
and Type in the Fifteenth Century, New York: Fordham University Press (rst
edition: :q8)
Baron :q68: Hans Baron, From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni. Studies in Humanistic
and Political Literature, ChicagoLondon: University of Chicago Press.
Barwick :q..: Karl Barwick, Remmius Palaemon und die rmische Ars grammatica
(Philologus Supplementband :..), Leipzig: Dieterische Verlag.
Beaton :qq6
2
: Roderick Beaton, The Medieval Greek Romance, LondonNew
York: Routledge (rst edition: :q8q).
Beck :qq: Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen
Reich, Mnchen: Beck.
Benakis .oo: Linos G. Benakis, Latin Literature in Byzantium: the Meeting
Point of Two Cultures, in Evangelos Chrysos, Paschalis M. Kitromilides
et al. (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History. Conference Proceedings,
vol. :, Athens: National and Capodistrian University of Athens, :
:o.
Bernardinello :q::q.: Silvio Bernardinello, La grammatica di Manuele
Caleca, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici n.s. 8q, .o.:8.
, :q: Silvio Bernardinello, Gli studi propedeutici di greco del gram-
matico padovano Pietro da Montagnana, Quaderni per la storia dellUniver-
sit di Padova q:o, :o:.8.
, :qq: Silvio Bernardinello, Oriente e Occidente in tre momenti di
cultura bizantina a Padova, in Byzance et les Slaves. tudes de Civilization.
Mlanges Ivan Dujcev, Paris: Association des Amis des tudes Archologi-
ques des Mondes Byzantino-Slaves, :8.
Berschin :q88 [:q8o]: Walter Berschin, Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages.
From Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa, revised and expanded edition. English transl.
by J.C. Frakes, Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America
Press (original edition: BernMnchen :q8o).
, :qq: Walter Berschin, Statt eines Vorworts: Rom und Heidelberg,
in Walter Berschin (ed.), Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae V: Pala-
tina Studien, (Studi e Testi 6), Citt del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana, :6.
Berti :q8: Ernesto Berti, Uno scriba greco-latino: il codice Vat. Urb. gr. :.:
e la prima versione del Caronte di Luciano, Rivista di lologia e istruzione
classica ::, :6.
, :q8: Ernesto Berti, Alla scuola di Manuele Crisolora. Lettura e
commento di Luciano, Rinascimento ser. ., ., .
, :qq8: Ernesto Berti, Manuele Crisolora, Plutarco e lavviamento
delle traduzioni umanistiche, Fontes :, qqq.
ninrioon\rnv 8q
Bianca .oo6: Concetta Bianca, LAdriatico greco degli Umanisti, in Luisa
Avellini, Nicola DAntuono (eds.), Custodi della tradizione e avanguardie del
nuovo sulle sponde dellAdriatico. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Pescara,
::8 maggio :oo), Bologna: CLUEB, :.
Bianchi-Rizzo .ooo: Rossella Bianchi, Silvia Rizzo, Manoscritti e opere
grammaticali nella Roma di Niccol V, in Mario De Nonno, Paolo De
Paolis et al. (eds.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity
to the Renaissance. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Erice. .: October .,, at
the ..th Course of the International School for the Study of Written Records, vol. .,
Cassino: Edizioni dellUniversit degli Studi, 86.
Bianconi .oo: Daniele Bianconi, Le traduzioni in greco di testi latini, in
Guglielmo Cavallo (ed.) Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo, . Le culture circostanti,
vol. :: La cultura bizantina, Roma: Salerno, :q68.
Biedl :q: A. Biedl, Beitrge zur Geschichte der Codices Palatini Graeci,
Byzantinisches Zeitschrift , :8:.
Bilingualism .oo.: J.N. Adams, Marc James et al. (ed.), Bilingualism in Ancient
Society. Language Contact and the Written Text, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bischo :q6 (:q6:): Bernhard Bischo, The Study of Foreign Languages
in the Middle Ages, Speculum 6 (:q6:), .oq.. = Mittelalterliche Studien,
vol. ., Stuttgart: Hiesermann :q6, ... (expanded version).
Bischo-Lapidge :qq: Bernhard Bischo, Michael Lapidge, Biblical Commen-
taries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Black :qq:: Robert Black, An Unknown Thirteenth-Century Manuscript of
Ianua, in Ian Wood, G.A. Loud (eds.), Church and Chronicle in the Middle
Ages. Essays Presented to John Taylor, London: Hambledon Press, :o:::.
, :qq:a: Robert Black, Italian Renaissance Education: Changing Per-
spectives and Continuing Controversies, Journal of the History of Ideas .,
:.
, :qq:b: Robert Black, The Curriculum of Italian Elementary and
Grammar Schools, :o:oo, in Donald R. Kelley, Richard H. Popkin
(eds.), The Shapes of Knowledge from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Dor-
drecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ::6
, :qq6: Robert Black, Ianua and Elementary Education in Italy and Northern
Europe in the Later Middle Ages, in Mirko Tavoni (ed.), Italia ed Europa nella
linguistica del Rinascimento: confronti e relazioni, Atti del Convegno internazionale
(Ferrara, Palazzo Paradiso, :o: marzo ..), vol. .: LItalia e lEuropa non
romanza. Le lingue orientali, Ferrara: Franco Cosimo Panini, ...
, :qq6a: Robert Black, The Vernacular and the Teaching of Latin in
Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Italy, Studi Medievali s. III, , o
:.
, .oo:: Robert Black, Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance
Italy. Tradition and Innovation in Latin Schools from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth
Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
, .oo: Robert Black, Education and the Emergence of a Literate
Society, in John A. Davis (ed.), The Short Oxford History of Italy: John
qo ninrioon\rnv
M. Najemy (ed.), Italy in the Age of the Renaissance, .oo.o, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, :86.
Blanchet-Ganchou .oo: Marie-Hlne Blanchet, Thierry Ganchou, Les
frquentations byzantines de Lodisio de Tabriz, dominicain de Pra
(:): Grgios Scholarios, Ianns Chrysolras et Thodros Kalkas,
Byzantion , o:o.
Blum .oo: Paul R. Blum, Philosophieren in der Renaissance, Stittgart: Kohlham-
mer.
Boas :q:: M. Boas, De librorum Catonianorum historia atque composi-
tione, Mnemosyne n.s. ., :6.
, :q:: M. Boas, Planudes Metaphrasis der sogenannten Disticha Cato-
nis, Byzantinische Zeitschrift :, .:..
Bolgar :q: R.R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and Its Beneciaries, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bonner :q: Stanley F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome. From the Elder Cato to
the Younger Pliny, BerkeleyLos Angeles: University of California Press.
Bonnet: Dosithe, Grammaire latine, texte tabli, traduit et comment par Guil-
laume Bonnet, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, .oo.
Botley .oo.: Paul Botley, Learning Greek in Western Europe, :6::6,
in Catherine Holmes, Judith Waring (eds.), Literacy, Education and Manuscript
transmission in Byzantium and Beyond, LeidenBoston-Kln: Brill, :qq...
, .oo: Paul Botley, Latin Translations in the Renaissance: The Theory and
Practice of Leonardo Bruni, Giannozzo Manetti, Erasmus, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Branca :q: Vittore Branca, Lauro Quirini e il commercio librario a
Venezia e Firenze, in Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manoussakas et al.
(eds.), Venezia centro di mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (secoli XVXVI). Aspetti
e problemi, vol. :, Firenze: Olschki, 6q.
, :q8: Vittore Branca, Poliziano e lUmanesimo della parola, Torino: Ein-
audi.
Briquet: C.M. Briquet, Les Filigranes. Dictionnaire Historique des marques du papier
ds leur apparition vers .:8: jusquen .oo. A facsimile of the :qo edition ed.
by Allan Stevenson, vols., Amsterdam: Paper Publications Society, :q68.
Brock :qq: Sebastian Brock, Aspects of Translation Techniques in Antiq-
uity, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies .o, 6q8.
Brown :8q:: Horatio F. Brown, The Venetian Printing Press. An Historical Study
Based upon Documents for the Most Part Hitherto Unpublished, London: John
C. Nimmo.
Browning :q6: Robert Browning, Il codice Marciano gr. XI. : e la sche-
dograa bizantina, in Miscellanea Marciana di Studi Bessarionei (a coronamento
del V Centenario della Donazione Nicena), Padova: Antenore, .:.
, :q8: Robert Browning, Literacy in the Byzantine World, Byzantine
and Modern Greek Studies , q.
Brugnoli :q6: Giorgio Brugnoli, Donato e Girolamo, Vetera Christianorum
., :q:q.
Buck :qq: August Buck, Die Studia Humanitatis und ihre Methode, Biblio-
thque dHumanisme et Renaissance .:, ..qo.
ninrioon\rnv q:
Burckhardt :qqo [:86o]: Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in
Italy, English transl. by S.G.C. Middlemore, London: Penguin :qqo (New
York :q; rst edition: Basel :86o).
Burke .oo: [:qqq
2
]: Peter Burke, Cultura e societ nellItalia del Rinascimento, trad.
di Giuseppe Balestrino, Bologna: Il Mulino (original edition: Culture and
Society in Italy, Cambridge :qqq
2
; rst edition: :q86).
, .oo: Peter Burke, Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bursill-Hall :q:: G.L. Bursill-Hall, Speculative grammars of the Middle Ages. The
Doctrine of the Partes Orationis of the Modistae (Approaches to Semiotics ::),
The Hague: Mouton.
, :q: G.L. Bursill-Hall, The Middle Ages, in Thomas A. Sebeok
(ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. :: Historiography of Linguistics, The
HagueParis: Mouton, :q.o.
, :q8:: G.L. Bursill-Hall, A Census of Medieval Latin Grammatical Manu-
scripts (Grammatica Speculativa ), Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
Callegari .oo:: Marco Callegari, Il Collegio Cottunio e la sua biblioteca,
in Francesco Piovan, Luciana Sitran Rea (eds.), Studenti, universit, citt nella
storia padovana. Atti del Convegno (Padova, 8 febbraio .8), Trieste: Lint,
6q.
Cameron :q66: Alan Cameron, The Date and Identity of Macrobius,
Journal of Roman Studies 6, .8.
, :qq: Alan Cameron, The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Canart :q: Paul Canart, Identication et direnciacion de mains lpo-
que de la Renaissance, in La palographie grecque et byzantine. Paris :.:. octo-
bre .,, Paris: CNRS (Colloques Internationaux du CNRS q), 66q.
, :qa: Paul Canart, Jean Nathanal et le commerce des manuscripts
grecs Venise au XIV
e
sicle, in Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manous-
sakas et al. (eds.), Venezia centro di mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (secoli XV
XVI). Aspetti e problemi, vol. ., Firenze: Olschki, ::.
, :q:qq: Paul Canart, Dmtrius Damilas, alias le Librarius Flo-
rentinus, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici ::6, .8..
Canfora .oo: Luciano Canfora, La Biblioteca Palatina di Heidelberg e una
lettera dimenticata di Leone Allacci, Byzantinische Zeitschrift q6, q66.
Caniato-Baldissin Molli :q8: Luciano Caniato, Giovanna Baldissin Molli,
Conegliano: storia e itinerari, Treviso: Canova.
Cantoni Alzati :q8: Giovanna Cantoni Alzati, La biblioteca di S. Giustina a
Padova. Libri e cultura presso i benedettini padovani in et umanistica, Padova:
Antenore.
Carruthers :qqo: Mary J. Carruthers, The Book of Memory. A Study of Memory in
Medieval Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cataldi Palau .oo: Annaclara Cataldi Palau, La vita di Marco Musuro alla
luce di documenti e manoscritti, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica , .q6q.
Cavallo :q8o: Guglielmo Cavallo, La trasmissione scritta della cultura greca
antica in Calabria e in Sicilia tra i secoli XXV. Consistenza, tipologia,
fruizione, Scrittura e civilt , :..
q. ninrioon\rnv
, :qqo: Guglielmo Cavallo, La circolazione dei testi greci nellEuropa
dellAlto Medioevo, in Jacqueline Hamesse, Marta Fattori (eds.), Rencon-
tres de cultures dans la philosophie mdivale. Traductions et traducteurs de lantiquit
tardive au XIVe sicle. Actes du colloque international de Cassino .., juin .8,
Louvain-La-NeuveCassino: Institut dtudes Mdivales de lUniversit
Catholique de Louvain, 6.
, .oo
2
: Guglielmo Cavallo, Leggere a Bisanzio, Milano: Bonnard (rst
edition: Lire Byzance, Paris .oo6)
CCCM: Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis, Turnhout: Brepols.
Celenza .oo: Christopher S. Celenza, The Lost Italian Renaissance, Baltimore
London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
, .ooa: Christopher S. Celenza, Creating Canons in Fifteenth-Cen-
tury Ferrara: Angelo Decembrios De politia litteraria, :. :o, Renaissance
Quarterly , q8.
Cesarini Martinelli :qq.: Lucia Cesarini Martinelli, Grammatiche greche
e bizantine nello scrittoio del Poliziano, in Mariarosa Cortesi, Enrico V.
Maltese (eds.), Dotti bizantini e libri greci nellItalia del secolo XV, Atti del Convegno
Internazionale (Trento, ::: ottobre .o), Napoli: DAuria, ..qo.
CFHB: Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Berlin: De Gruyter, :q6
CGL: Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum a Gustavo Loewe inchoatum, etc., recensuit,
edidit Georgius Goetz, Lipsiae: Teubner, :888:q., repr. Amsterdam:
Hakkert, :q6.
Charlet :qq.: Jean-Louis Charlet, Proccupations pdagogiques dans les
Rudimenta grammatices de Niccol Perotti, in Luisa Rotondi Secchi Tarugi
(ed.), Leducazione e la formazione intellettuale nellet dellUmanesimo. Atti del II
Convegno Internazionale, .o, Milano: Guerini e Associati, .o.:.
, .oo: Jean-Louis Charlet, Les instruments de lexicographie latine
de lpoque humaniste, in Giorgio Bernardi Perini (ed.), Il latino nellet
dellUmanesimo. Atti del Convegno (Mantova, ::, ottobre :oo.), Firenze: Olsch-
ki, :6:q.
Chiesa :q8: Paolo Chiesa, Ad verbum o ad sensum? Modelli e coscienza
metodologica della traduzione tra tarda antichit e alto medioevo, Medio-
evo e Rinascimento :, :.
, :q8q: Paolo Chiesa, Traduzioni e traduttori dal greco nel IX secolo:
sviluppi di una tecnica, in Giovanni Scoto e il suo tempo. Lorganizzazione del
sapere in et carolingia. Atti del XXIV Convegno Storico Internazionale (Todi, ...
ottobre .8,), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sullAlto Medioevo, ::.oo.
Ciccolella .oo: Federica Ciccolella, Donatus graecus: Learning Greek from
Antiquity to the Renassance, dissertation Columbia University (unpub-
lished)
, .oo: Federica Ciccolella, The Greek Donatus and the Study of
Greek in the Renaissance, International Journal of the Classical Tradition :.. :,
:..
Colombo Timelli :qq6: Maria Colombo Timelli, Traductions franaises de lArs
Minor de Donat au Moyen ge (XIIIeXVe sicles), Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Colombat :qqq: Bernard Colombat, La grammaire latine en France la Renais-
sance et lge classique. Thories et pdagogie, Grenoble: ELLUG, :qqq.
ninrioon\rnv q
Connell :q.: Susan Connell, Books and Their Owners in Venice, :
:8o, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes , :6:86.
Constantinides :q8.: Costas N. Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium
in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (.:o ca. ..o), Nicosia:
Zavallis.
Contreni :q86 (:qq.): John J. Contreni, The Irish Contribution to the Euro-
pean Classroom, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Celtic
Studies, qqo = Carolingian Learning, Masters and Manuscripts, X, Hamp-
shireBrookeld, VE: Ashgate :qq..
Cortelazzo :qo: Manlio Cortelazzo, Linusso linguistico greco a Venezia, Bolog-
na: Ptron.
Cortesi :qq: Mariarosa Cortesi, Il Vocabularium greco di Giovanni Tor-
telli, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica .., q8.
, :q8o: Mariarosa Cortesi, Libri e vicende di Vittorino da Feltre, Italia
Medioevale e Umanistica ., ::.
, :q86: Mariarosa Cortesi, Aspetti linguistici della cultura greca di
Francesco Filelfo, in Francesco Filelfo nel quinto centenario della morte. Atti del
XVII Convegno di Studi Maceratesi (Tolentino, :,o settembre .8.), Padova:
Antenore, :6.o6.
, :qq: Mariarosa Cortesi, La tecnica del tradurre presso gli umanisti,
in Claudio Leonardi, Birger Munk Olsen (eds.), The Classical Tradition in the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Proceedings of the rst European Science Foundation
Workshop on The Reception of Classical Texts (Florence, Certosa del Galluzzo,
::, June .:), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sullAlto Medioevo,
::68.
, .ooo: Mariarosa Cortesi, Libri greci letti e scritti alla scuola di
Vittorino da Feltre: tra mito e realt, in Giancarlo Prato (ed.), I manoscritti
greci tra riessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleograa
Greca (Cremona, .o ottobre .8), I (Papyrologica Florentina :), Firenze:
Gonnelli, o::6.
Cosenza :q6.: Mario Emilio Cosenza, Biographical and Bibliographical Dictionary
of the Italian Humanists and of the World of Classial Scholarship in Italy, .oo
.8oo, vols. :, Boston: Halle &Co.
Courcelle :q8: Pierre Courcelle, Les lettres grecques en Occident. De Macrobe
Cassiodore, Paris: De Boccard.
Cox .oo: Virginia Cox, Rhetoric and Humanism in Quattrocento Venice,
Renaissance Quarterly 6, 6.6q.
Cribiore :qq6: Raaella Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman
Egypt, Atlanta: Scholars Press.
, .oo:: Raaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in
Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, PrincetonOxford: Princeton University Press.
, .oo: Raaella Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch,
PrincetonOxford: Princeton University Press.
Cupane :qq: Carolina Cupane, Romanzi cavallereschi bizantini, Torino: UTET.
DAmico :q8: John F. DAmico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome. Human-
ists and Churchmen in the Eve of Reformation, BaltimoreLondon: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
q ninrioon\rnv
Davies :qqq
2
: Martin Davies, Aldus Manutius Printer and Publisher of Renaissance
Venice, Tempe, AR: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies
(rst edition: London :qq).
Debiasi :q::q.: Ada Debiasi Gonzato, Osservazioni ad alcuni esercizi
schedograci del cod. Marciano gr. XI, :6, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e
Neoellenici n.s. 8q, :oq:..
Debrunner :q6q [:q]: Albert Debrunner, Storia della lingua greca, vol. .: Il
greco post-classico, seconda edizione rifatta da Anton Scherer, trad. di Fabio
Bonino, Napoli: Macchiaroli (original edition: Berlin :q).
Debut :q8: Janine Debut, Les Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana: une mthode
dapprentissage des langues pour grands dbutants, i 8, 6:
8.
De Gregorio :qq: Giuseppe De Gregorio, Per uno studio della cultura
scritta a Creta sotto il dominio veneziano: i codici greco-latini del secolo
XIV, Scrittura e Civilt :, :o.o:.
Dekkers :q: E. Dekkers, Les traductions grecques des crits patristiques
latins, Sacris erudiri , :q..
De La Mare :q: Albinia C. De La Mare, The Handwriting of Italian Human-
ists, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
, :qa: Albinia C. De La Mare, The Shop of a Florentine Cartolaio
in :.6, in Berta Maracchi Biagiarelli, Dennis E. Rhodes (eds.), Studi
oerti a Roberto Ridol, direttore de La Bibliolia, Firenze: Olschki, .
.8.
Deligiannis .oo6: Ioannis Deligianni, Fifteenth-Century Latin Translations of Lu-
cians Essay On Slander, PisaRoma: Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale.
De Luna .oo: Maria Elena De Luna, La comunicazione linguistica fra alloglotti
nel mondo greco. Da Omero a Senofonte, Pisa: ETS.
De Mas :q.: Alfredo De Mas, Conegliano. Arte, storia e vita, Conegliano:
Studium Coneglianense.
De Nicol :q8: Paolo De Nicol, Prolo storico della Biblioteca Vaticana,
in AA.VV., Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Firenze: Nardini, :6.
De Nolhac :88: Pierre De Nolhac, La bibliothque de Fulvio Orsini. Contributions
lhistoire des collections dItalie et ltude de la Renaissance, Paris: Vieweg.
De Paolis :qqo: Macrobii Theodosii De verborum graeci et latini dierentiis vel societat-
ibus excerpta, a cura di Paolo De Paolis, Urbino: Quattro Venti.
, .ooo: Le Explanationes in Donatum (GL IV 866) e il loro pi antico
testimone manoscritto, in Mario De Nonno, Paolo De Paolis et al. (eds.),
Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance.
Proceedings of a Conference Held at Erice, .: October .,, at the ..th Course of
the International School for the Study of Written Records, vol. :, Cassino: Edizioni
dellUniversit degli Studi, :..:.
Detorakis :qq [:q86]: Theocharis E. Detorakis, History of Crete, transl. by
John C. Davis, Iraklion: Detorakis (original edition: Athens :q86, repr.
Iraklion :qqo).
, :qq6: Theocharis E. Detorakis, r i r -
o j r j, in o uju (.,.
.), Iraklion: j i i 0j, .
ninrioon\rnv q
De Torraca .oo6: Umberto De Torraca, Linsegnamento del greco e le
grammatiche pubblicate a Napoli nel Settecento, Vichiana s. , 8, .:
.6.
Devreesse :q6: Robert Devreesse, Les fonds grec de la Bibliothque Vaticane
des origines Paul V (Studi e Testi :), Citta del Vaticano: Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana.
Di Benedetto :q8: Vincenzo Di Benedetto, Dionisio il Trace e la Techne a
lui attribuita (I), Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa s. ., ., :6q.:o.
, :qq: Vincenzo Di Benedetto, Dionisio il Trace e la Techne a lui
attribuita (II), Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa s. ., .8, 8::8.
, :q: Vincenzo Di Benedetto, La Techne spuria, Annali della Scuola
Normale Superiore di Pisa s. , , q68:.
Dieterich :8q8: Karl Dieterich, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen
Sprache von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zum .o. Jahrhundert n.Chr., Leipzig: Teub-
ner.
Diller :q6:: Aubrey Diller, The Greek Codices of Palla Strozzi and Guarino
Veronese, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes ., :.:.
Dionisotti :q8.: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, From Ausonius Schooldays? A
Schoolbook and Its Relatives, Journal of Roman Studies ., 8:..
, :q8.a: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, On Bede, Grammars, and Greek,
Revue Bndictine q., :::::.
, :q8: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, Latin Grammar for Greeks and Goths,
Journal of Roman Studies , .o..o8.
, :q88: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, Greek Grammars and Dictionaries in
Carolingian Europe, in Michael W. Herren, Shirley A. Brown (eds.), The
Sacred Nectar of the Greeks: the Study of Greek in the West and in the Early Middle
Ages, London: Kings College London Medieval Studies, :6.
, :q88a: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, On the Greek Studies of Robert
Grosseteste, in A. Carlotta Dionisotti, Anthony Grafton et al. (eds.), The
Uses of Greek and Latin. Historical Essays (Warburg Institute Surveys and
Texts :6), London: The Warburg Institute, :qq.
, :qq: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, Hellenismus, in Olga Weijers (ed.),
Vocabulary of Teaching and Research Between Middle Ages and Renaissance. Proceed-
ings of the Colloquium, London, Warburg Institute, ...: March ., (Civicima.
tudes sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du Moyen ge 8), Turnhout: Bre-
pols, 8.
Dionisotti C. :q6: Carlo Dionisotti, Geograa e storia della letteratura italiana,
Torino: Einaudi.
, :qq: Carlo Dionisotti, Aldo Manuzio umanista e editore, Milano: Il Poli-
lo.
Donnet :q6: Le Trait i o o de Grgoire de Corinthe, tude de
la traduction manuscrite, dition, traduction et commmentaire par Daniel
Donnet, BruxellesRome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome, :q6.
, :qq: Daniel Donnet, Thodore de Gaza, Introduction la Gram-
maire, livre IV: la rcherche des sources byzantines, Byzantion q, :
:.
, :q8.: Le Trait de la construction de la phrase de Michel le Syncelle de Jrusalem,
q6 ninrioon\rnv
histoire du texte, dition, traduction et commentaire par Daniel Donnet,
BruxellesRome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome, :q8..
Droz :q6: Eugnie Droz, Les Regule de Remigius, Mnster en West-
phalie :86, in Studi di bibliograa e di storia in onore di Tammaro de Marinis,
vol. ., Roma: [s. e.], .6.8o.
Dursteler .oo6: Eric R. Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity, and
Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Efthymiadis .oo: Stephanos Efthymiadis, Lenseignement secondaire
Constantinople pendant les XI
e
et XII
e
sicles: modle ducatif pour la
Terre dOtrante au XIII
e
sicle, cu ., .q..
Fabris :q.: Giovanni Fabris, Professori e scolari greci allUniversit di
Padova, Archivio Veneto s. , ., :.::6.
Fanelli :qq (:q6:): Vittorio Fanelli, Il ginnasio greco di Leone X a Roma,
Studi Romani q (:q6:), qq; repr. in Ricerche su Angelo Colocci e sulla Roma
cinquecentesca (Studi e Testi .8), Citta del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana, :qq, q:::o.
Fava :q.: Domenico Fava, Documenti artistici della educazione dei prin-
cipi nella corte sforzesca di Milano, Accademie e biblioteche dItalia .o, .o.
Fedalto .oo:: Giorgio Fedalto, La nazione ultramarina, in Francesco Pio-
van, Luciana Sitran Rea (eds.), Studenti, universit, citt nella storia padovana.
Atti del Convegno (Padova, 8 febbraio .8), Trieste: Lint, .q.
Fedeli :q8q: Paolo Fedeli, I sistemi di produzione e diusione, in Gugliel-
mo Cavallo, Paolo Fedeli et al. (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. .:
La circolazione del testo, Roma: Salerno, 8.
Ferrari .ooo: Monica Ferrari, Per non manchare in tuto del debito mio. Leducazione
dei bambini Sforza nel Quattrocento, Milano: Franco Angeli.
, .oo: Monica Ferrari, Essere e dover essere nelleducazione del
principe in Francia e in Italia tra oo e 6oo: alcune categorie metas-
toriche, in Paolo Carile (ed.): La formazione del principe in Europa dal Quattro-
cento al Seicento. Un tema al crocevia di diverse storie, Roma: Aracne, 8::.
Ferreri .oo.: Luigi Ferreri, Alla scuola di Emanuele Crisolora. La teoria
di Aristarco sullorigine della scrittura sullo sfondo della Vita Homeri di
Pier Candido Decembrio, Medioevo e Rinascimento :6 / n.s. :, :o::::.
Festa :qo: Nicola Festa, Note preliminari su Longibardus, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift :6, :.
Fierville :886: Ch. Fierville, Une grammaire latine indite de XIIIe sicle, extraite
des manuscrits n de Laon et n .: (fonds latin) de la Bibliothque Nationale,
Paris: Imprimrie Nationale.
Fisher :q8.: Elizabeth A. Fisher, Greek Translations of Latin Literature in
the Fourth Century A.D., in John J. Winkler, Gordon Williams (eds.),
Yale Classical Studies, vol. .: Later Greek Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, :.:.
, :qqo: Elizabeth A. Fisher, Planudes Greek Translation of Ovids Metamor-
phoses, New YorkLondon: Garland.
, .oo./: Elizabeth A. Fisher, Planoudes, Holobolos, and the Motiva-
tion for Translation, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies , :o.
ninrioon\rnv q
Folena :qq:: Gianfranco Folena, Volgarizzare e tradurre, Torino: Einaudi.
Ford .oo6: Philip Ford, Homer in the French Renaissance, Renaissance
Quarterly q, :.8.
Frstel :qq.: Christian Frstel, Les grammaires grecques du XVe sicle:
tude sur les ouvrages de Manuel Chrysoloras, Thodore Gaza et Con-
stantin Lascaris, Thse prsente pour lobtention du diplme darchi-
viste palographe, . vols., Paris: cole des Chartes.
Fryde .ooo: Edmund Fryde, The Early Palaeologan Renaissance (.:.c. .o),
LeidenBoston: Brill.
Fyrigos .oo. Antonis Fyrigos, Leonzio Pilato e il fondamento bizantino
del preumanesimo italiano, in Riccardo Maisano, Antonio Rollo (eds.),
Manuele Crisolora e il ritorno del greco in Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale
(Napoli, :: giugno .,), Napoli: [s.e.], :q.q.
Gallavotti :q8: Carlo Gallavotti, Nota sulla schedograa di Moscopulo e
suoi precedenti no a Teodoro Prodromo, Bollettino dei Classici s. , ,
.
Gallina .oo [:q8o]: Mario Gallina, Consenso e opposizione durante il
regno di Manuele Comneno. Orientamente ideologici e sviluppi politico-
sociali, Quaderni medievali q (giugno :q8o), .; :o (dicembre :q8o), :
qq = Conitti e coesistenza nel Mediterraneo medievale: mondo bizantino e Occidente
latino, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sullAlto Medioevo, .oo, ::::.
Gamillscheg :q: Ernst Gamillscheg, Zur handschriftlichen berlieferung
byzantinischer Schulbcher, Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik .6,
.::.o.
Gamillscheg-Harlnger: Ernst Gamillscheg, Dieter Harlnger, Repertorium der
griechischen Kopisten 8oo.oo, vols., Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, :q8::qq.
Ganchou .oo.: Thierry Ganchou, Dmtrios Kydns, les frres Chryso-
bergs et la Crte (:q:o:). De noveaux documents, in Chryssa A.
Maltezou, Peter Schreiner (eds.), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco
(XIIIXV secolo) / o, i i o o ou (.
. /c). Atti del Colloquio Internazionale organizzato nel centenario della
nascita di Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, o.p. (Venezia, .: dicembre :ooo), Venezia:
Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini, 8.
Garca y Garca .oo: Laurentino Garca y Garca, Alunni, maestri e scuole a
Pompei, Roma: Bardi.
Gargan :q6: Luciano Gargan, Giovanni Conversini e la cultura letteraria
a Treviso nella seconda met del Trecento, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 8,
8:q.
Garin :qq: Eugenio Garin, Leducazione umanistica in Italia, Bari: Laterza.
, :q8: Eugenio Garin, Il pensiero pedagogico dello Umanesimo, Firenze:
Giuntine-Sansoni.
, :q6: Eugenio Garin, Ritratti di Umanisti, Firenze: Sansoni.
, :q6
2
: Eugenio Garin, Leducazione in Europa (.oo.oo). Problemi e
programmi, Bari: Laterza (rst edition: :q).
Garzya :q:: Antonio Garzya, Literarische und rhetorische Polemiken der
Kommenenzeit, berarbeiteter Text eines Gastvortrages and der ster-
q8 ninrioon\rnv
reichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft (Wien :8. V. :q:) = Storia e inter-
pretazione di testi bizantini. Saggi e ricerche, London: Variorum, :q, VII.
, :q: Antonio Garzya, Sur la production philologique au dbut
du XIV
e
sicle Byzance, in M. Berza, E. Stanescu (eds.), Actes du
XIVe Congrs International des tudes Byzantines (Bucarest, .: septembre .,.),
vol. ., Bucarest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romnia, qq
:o..
, :qq: Antonio Garzya, Appunti sulle Erotapokriseis, in Antonio Gar-
zya, Percorsi e tramiti di cultura. Saggi sulla civilt letteraria tardoantica e bizantina
con una giunta sulla tradizione degli studi classici, Napoli: DAuria, ::..
, .ooo: Antonio Garzya, Per lerudizione scolastica a Bisanzio, in
Byzantino-Sicula III. Miscellanea di scritti in onore di Bruno Lavagnini, Palermo:
Istituto Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, ::.
, .oo: Antonio Garzya, Sul latino a Bisanzio nei secoli XIII e XIV,
in Mariarosa Cortesi (ed.), Padri greci e latini a confronto (secoli XIIIXV).
Atti del Convegno di studi della Societ Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo
Latino (SISMEL) (Certosa del Galluzzo, Firenze, .:o ottobre :oo.), Firenze:
SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo, ::..
Gasparis :qq: Charalambos Gasparis, ` u j j -
i. ` 0o0 j i `j u j -
j j, :uu q, :::6.
Geanakoplos :q6.: Deno J. Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars in Venice. Studies in the
Dissemination of Greek Learning from Byzantium to Western Europe, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
, :q: Deno J. Geanakoplos, The Discourse of Demetrius Chal-
condyles on the Inauguration of Greek Studies at the University of Padua
in :6, Studies in the Renaissance .:, ::8:.
, :q6: Deno J. Geanakoplos, Interaction of the Sibling Byzantine and West-
ern Cultures in the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (o.oo), New Haven
London: Yale University Press.
, :q8: Deno J. Geanakoplos, Byzantium. Church, Society, and Civilization
Seen through Contemporary Eyes, ChicagoLondon: University of Chicago
Press.
, :q88: Deno J. Geanakoplos, Italian Humanism and the Byzantine
migr Scholars, in Renaissance Humanism, vol. :, o8:.
Gehl :q8q: Paul F. Gehl, Latin Readers in Fourteenth-Century Florence.
Schoolkids and Their Books, Scrittura e Civilt :, 8o.
, :qq: Pau lF. Gehl, A Moral Art: Grammar, Society, and Culture in Trecento
Florence, IthacaLondon: Cornell University Press.
GG: Grammatici Graeci recogniti et apparatu critico instructi edd. G. Uhlig, A. Hil-
gard et al., vols., Lipsiae: Teubner, :86:qo:, repr. Hildesheim: Olms,
:q6.
Gherardi :88:: Alessandro Gherardi, Statuti della Universit e Studio Fiorentino
dellanno MCCCLXXXVII, Firenze: Cellini.
Gianola :q8o: Giovanna M. Gianola, Il greco di Dante; ricerche sulle dottrine
grammaticali del Medioevo, Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e
Arti.
ninrioon\rnv qq
Gianotti :q8q: Gian Franco Gianotti, I testi nella scuola, in Guglielmo
Cavallo, Paolo Fedeli et al. (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. .: La
circolazione del testo, Roma: Salerno, .:66.
Gigante :q6.: Marcello Gigante, La cultura latina a Bisanzio nel secolo
XIII, La Parola del Passato :, .:.
, :q6.a: Marcello Gigante, Massimo Planude interprete di Cicerone,
Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Ciceroniani, vol. ., Roma: Centro di
Studi Ciceroniani, .o..6.
Gionta .oo: Daniela Gionta, Le postille a Epitteto nel manoscritto Lauren-
ziano Redi :, in Francesco Bausi, Vincenzo Fera (eds.), Laurentia laurus.
Per Mario Martelli, Messina: Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Umanis-
tici, ...6.
GL: Grammatici Latini ex recensione H. Keilii, vols., Lipsiae: Teubner, :8
:88o, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, :q6:.
GLL: A Glossary of Later Latin to oo A.D., compiled by Alexander Souter,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, :qq6
2
(rst edition: :qq).
Glycofrydi-Leontsini .oo: Athanassia Glycofrydi-Leontsini, Demetrius Cy-
dones as a Translator of Latin Texts, in Charalambos Dendrinos, Jon-
athan Harris et al. (eds.), Porphyrogenita. Essays on the History and Literature
of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honor of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot:
Ashgate, ::8.
GMIL: Glossarium Mediae et Inmae Latinitatis conditum a Carolo Du Fresne domino
Du Cange, editio nova, etc., :o vols., Niort: Leopold Favre, :88:88, repr.
Graz: Akademische DruckU. Verlagsanstalt, :q.
Graecogermania :q8q: Graeogermania. Griechischstudien deutscher Humanisten. Die Edi-
tionsttigkeit der Griechen in der italienischen Renaissance (..:) (Ausstellung
im Zeughaus der herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbttel vom ... April
bis q. Juli :q8q), unter Leitung von Dieter Harlnger, bearb. v. Reinhardt
Barm, Weinheim: VCH.
Granger :qq: Christine M. Granger, Beitrge zur Geschichte der Bibliotheca
Vaticana (Studi e Testi ), Citt del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vati-
cana.
Grafton :q: Anthony Grafton, On the Scholarship of Politian and its
Context, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes o, :o:88.
, :q8:: Anthony Grafton, Teacher, Text and Pupil in the Renaissance
Class-Room: A Case Study from a Parisian College, History of Universities
: (Continuity and Change in Early Modern Universities), o.
, :q88: Anthony Grafton, Quattrocento Humanism and Classical
Scholarship, in Albert Rabil, Jr. (ed.), Renaissance Humanism. Foundations,
Forms, and Legacy, vol. ; Humanism and the Disciplines, Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press, .66.
, .oo:: Anthony Grafton, Germanograecia: lo spazio del greco nel sis-
tema distruzione, in Salvatore Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, soci-
et, vol. : I Greci oltre la Grecia, Torino: Einaudi, :.6:.86.
Grafton-Jardine :q8.: Anthony Grafton, Lisa Jardine, Humanism and the
School of Guarino: a Problem of Evaluation, Past and Present q6, :8o.
, :q86: Anthony Grafton, Lisa Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities.
6oo ninrioon\rnv
Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe, London:
Duckworth.
Grendler :q8: Paul F. Grendler, Aldus Manutius Humanist, Teacher, and
Printer, Providence: John Carter Brown Library = Books and Schools in the
Italian Renaissance, AldershotBrookeld, VT: Variorum :qq, III.
, :q8: Paul F. Grendler, The Teaching of Latin in Sixteenth-Century
Venetian Schools, in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Bononiensis. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Bologna, : August to . Septem-
ber .,) (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies ), Binghamton,
NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, .8.6.
, :q8a: Paul F. Grendler, The Organization of Primary and Sec-
ondary Education in the Italian Renaissance, Catholic Historical Review :,
:8.o = Books and Schools in the Italian Renaissance, AldershotBrookeld,
VT: Variorum :qq, VI.
, :q8q: Paul F. Grendler, Schooling in Renaissance Italy. Literacy and Learning,
.oo.oo, BaltimoreLondon: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
, :qqo: Paul F. Grendler, Schooling in Western Europe, Renaissance
Quarterly , 8 = Books and Schools in the Italian Renaissance, Aldershot
Brookeld, VT: Variorum, :qq, V.
, :qq:: Paul F. Grendler, Reply to Robert Black, Journal of the History
of Ideas ., .
, .oo.: Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance, Balti-
moreLondon: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Grendler-Grendler :q8: Paul F. Grendler, Marcella Grendler, The Erasmus
Holdings of Roman and Vatican Libraries, Erasmus in English :, ..q
= Books and Schools in the Italian Renaissance, AldershotBrookeld, VT:
Variorum :qq, IV.
Gualdo Rosa :q8: Lucia Gualdo Rosa, Le traduzioni dal greco nella prima
met del oo: alle radici del classicismo europeo, in Marcel Renard,
Pierre Laurens (eds.), Hommages Henry Bardon, publis sous les auspices de
lInstitut de Latin de lUniversit de Poitiers, Bruxelles: Latomus, ::q.
Guida :qqq: Antonio Guida, Sui lessici sintattici di Planude e Armenopulo,
con edizione della lettera A di Armenopulo, Prometheus ., :.
Gundersheimer :q6: Werner L. Gundersheimer, The Italian Renaissance,
Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
, :q: Werner L. Gundersheimer, Ferrara. The Style of a Renaissance
Despotism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
GW: Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, herausgegeben von der Kommission fr
den Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, :: vols., Leipzig: Hiersemann, :q.
Hankins .oo:: James Hankins, Lo studio del greco nellOccidente latino,
in Salvatore Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, societ, vol. : I Greci oltre
la Grecia, Torino: Einaudi, :.:.6..
, .oo.: James Hankins, Chrysoloras and the Greek Studies of Leonar-
do Bruni, in Riccardo Maisano, Antonio Rollo (eds.), Manuele Crisolora e il
ritorno del greco in Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Napoli, :: giugno
.,), Napoli: [s.e.], ::q.
Harlnger :q: Dieter Harlnger, Zu griechischen Kopisten und Schrift-
ninrioon\rnv 6o:
stilen des :. und :6. Jahrhunderts, in La palographie grecque et byzan-
tine. Paris :.:. octobre .,, Paris: CNRS (Colloques Internationaux du
CNRS q), .6..
Harris J. :qq: Jonathan Harris, Greek migrs in the West .oo.:o, Camber-
ley, Surrey: Poprhyrogenitus.
Harris W. :q8q: William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy, Cambridge, MA.: Harvard
University Press.
Hazelton :q: Richard Hazelton, The Christianization of Cato: The
Disticha Catonis in the Light of Late Mediaeval Commentaries, Mediaeval
Studies :q, ::.
Heimann-Seelbach :qq6: Sabine Heimann-Seelbach, Diagrammatik und
Gedchtniskunst. Zur Bedeutung der Schrift fr die Ars memorativa im .
Jahrhundert, in Martin Kintzinger, Snke Lorenz et al. (eds.), Schule und
Schler im Mittelalter. Beitrge zur europischen Bildungsgeschichte des . bis ..
Jahrhunderts, KlnWeimar-Wien: Bhlau, 8:o.
Hetherington :qq.: Paul Hetherington, Vecchi, e non antichi. Diering Re-
sponses to Byzantine Culture in Fifteenth-Century Tuscany, Rinascimento
s. ., ., .o.::.
Hexter :qq8: Ralph Hexter, Aldus, Greek, and the Shape of the Classical
Corpus, in David S. Zeidberg (ed.), Aldus Manutius and Renaissance Culture.
Essays in Memory of Franklin D. Murphy. Acts of an International Conference (Venice
and Florence, .., June .), Firenze: Olschki, ::6o.
Hofmann :q.: Giorgio Homann, La biblioteca scientica del monastero
di S. Francesco di Candia nel Medioevo, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 8,
:6o.
Holton :qq:: David Holton, The Cretan Renaissance, in Literature and
Society in Renaissance Crete, edited by David Holton, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, ::6
Holtz: Donat et la tradition de lenseignement grammatical. tude sur lArs Donati et
sa diusion (IVeIXe sicle), dition critique par Louis Holtz, Paris: CNRS,
:q8:.
, :q: Louis Holtz, Grammairiens irlandais au temps de Jean Scot:
quelques aspects de leur pdagogie, in Jean Scot rigne et lhistoire de la
philosophie. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientique
n/ . (Laon ,.: juillet .,), Paris: CNRS, 6q8.
, :qa: Louis Holtz, La typologie des manuscrits grammaticaux la-
tins, Revue dhistoire des textes , ..6.
, :q8:: see Holtz.
, :q8q: Louis Holtz, Lenseignement de la grammaire au temps de
Charles le Chauve, in Giovanni Scoto e il suo tempo. Lorganizzazione del sapere
in et carolingia. Atti del XXIV Convegno Storico Internazionale (Todi, ... ottobre
.8,), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sullAlto Medioevo, ::6q.
, :q8q:qqo: Louis Holtz, Les nouvelles tendances de la pdagogie
grammaticale au X
e
sicle, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch ./., :6:.
, .ooo: Louis Holtz, Priscien dans la pdagogie dAlcuin, in Mario
De Nonno, Paolo De Paolis et al. (eds.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Gram-
matical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Proceedings of a Conference Held
6o. ninrioon\rnv
at Erice, .: October .,, at the ..th Course of the International School for the
Study of Written Records, vol. :, Cassino: Edizioni dellUniversit degli Studi,
.8q.6.
, .oo: Louis Holtz, Aelius Donatus (um die Mitte des . Jahrhunderts
n. Chr.), in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Lateinische Lehrer Europas, KlnWeimar-
Wien: Bhlau, :oq::.
Horrocks :qq: Georey Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and Its
Speakers, LondonNew York: Longman.
Houston :q88: Rav A. Houston, Literacy in Early Modern Europe. Culture and
Education, .oo.8oo, New YorkLondon: Longman.
Hunger :q6q:qo: Herbert Hunger, On the Imitatio (i) of Antiquity
in Byzantine Literature, Dumbarton Oaks Papers .., :8.
, :q8: Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprahliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner
(Byzantinisches Handbuch ), . vols., Mnchen: Beck.
, :q8: Herbert Hunger, Graeculus perdus, ' i. Il senso dellal-
terit nei rapporti greco-romani ed italo-bizantini, Roma: Unione Internazionale
degli Istituti di Archeologia, Storia e Storia dellArte in Roma.
, :q8q: Herbert Hunger, Schreiben und Lesen in Byzanz. Die byzantinische
Buchkultur, Mnchen: Beck.
Huntsman :q8: Jereys A. Huntsman, Grammar, in David L. Wagner
(ed.), The Seven LIberal Arts in the Middle Ages, Bloomington: Indiana Univer-
sity Press, 8q.
Huygens: Accessus ad auctores. Bernard dUtrecht. Conrad dHirsau, Dialogus super
auctores, dition critique entirement revue et augmente par R.B.C. Huy-
gens, Leiden: Brill, :qo.
Irigoin .oo [:q]: Jean Irigoin, Quelques rexions sur le concept dar-
chtipe, Revue dHistoire des textes , .. = La tradition des textes grecques.
Pour une critique historique, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, .oo, o.
Irvine :qq: Martin Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture. Grammatica and
Literary Theory, o..oo, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ising :qo: Erika Ising, Die Herausbildung der Grammatik der Volkssprachen in
Mittel- und Osteuropa. Studien ber den Einu der lateinischen Elementargram-
matik des Aelius Donatus De octo partibus orationis ars minor, Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag.
Ives :q.: Samuel A. Ives, Corrigenda and Addenda to the Description of
the Plimpton Manuscripts in the De Ricci Census, Speculum :, q.
James :q:o: M.R. James, A Graeco-Latin Lexicon of the Thirteenth Cen-
tury, in Mlanges oerts a M. mile Chatelain, Paris: Champion, q6::.
Jeauneau :q:q8: douard Jeauneau, Jean Scot rigne et le grec,
Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi :, o.
Jensen :qq8: Kristian Jensen, The Latin Grammar of Aldus Manutius and
Its Fortuna, in in David S. Zeidberg (ed.), Aldus Manutius and Renais-
sance Culture. Essays in Memory of Franklin D. Murphy. Acts of an Interna-
tional Conference (Venice and Florence, .., June .), Firenze: Olschki, .
.8.
, .oo:: Kristian Jensen, Elementary Latin Grammars Printed in the
Fifteenth Century: Patterns of Continuity and of Change, in Wolfram
ninrioon\rnv 6o
Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. Lateinische Grammatik und Stilistik in Renais-
sance und Barock (Wolfenbtteler Forschungen q), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz,
:o:..
Jugie: M. Jugie, L. Petit, X.A. Siderides, Oueuvres compltes de Georges (Gennadios)
Scholarios, vol. 8, Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, :q6.
Kaczynski :q88: Bernice M. Kaczynski, Greek in the Carolingian Age. The St. Gall
Manuscripts, Cambridge, MA.: The Medieval Academy of America.
Kaklamanis-Lambakis .oo: Stephanos Kaklamanis, Stelios Lambakis, -
j o o o .o.:. 0j, o,
uj, Iraklion: i j 0j.
Kallendorf :q8q: Craig W. Kallendorf, In Praise of Aeneas: Virgil and Epideictic
Rhetoric in the Early Italian Renaissance, HanoverLondon: University Press of
New England.
, .oo.: Craig W. Kallendorf, Humanist Educational Treatises (I Tatti Re-
naissance Library ) Cambridge, MALondon: Harvard University Press.
Karathanassis .oo.: Athanassios E. Karathanassis, Il Collegio Flanginis, in
Maria Francesca Tiepolo, Eurigio Tonetti (eds.), I Greci a Venezia. Atti del
Convegno Internazionale di Studio (Venezia, , novembre .8), Venezia: Istituto
Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, :q.o.
Kaster :q8: Robert A. Kaster, Notes on Primary and Secondary Schools
in Late Antiquity, Transactions of the American Philological Association ::, .
6.
, :q88: Robert A. Kaster, Guardians of Language. The Grammarian and Soci-
ety in Late Antiquity, BerkeleyLos AngelesLondon: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Kazhdan-Epstein :q8: Aleksandr P. Kazhdan, Ann Wharton Epstein,
Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, BerkeleyLos
AngelesLondon: University of California Press.
Keaney :q:: John J. Keaney, Moschopulea, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 6, o
.:.
Kianka :q8o: Frances Kianka, The Apology of Demetrius Cydones: A Four-
teenth-Century Autobiographical Source, Byzantine Studies , :.
Kibre :q6: Pearl Kibre, The Library of Pico della Mirandola, New York: Colum-
bia University Press.
King :q86: Margaret L. King, Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Domi-
nance, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Koder .oo.: Johannes Koder, Latinoi. The Image of the Other Accord-
ing to Greek Sources, in Chryssa A. Maltezou, Peter Schreiner (eds.),
Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIIIXV secolo) / o, i
i o o ou (.. /c). Atti del Colloquio Inter-
nazionale organizzato nel centenario della nascita di Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, o.p.
(Venezia, .: dicembre :ooo), Venezia: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e
Postbizantini, .q.
Kohl :q88: Benjamin G. Kohl, Humanism and Education, in Albert Rabil
Jr. (ed.), Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. : Human-
ism and the Disciplines, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ...
Kolbaba :qq: Tia M. Kolbaba, Conversion from Greek Orthodoxy to
6o ninrioon\rnv
Roman Catholicism in the Fourteenth Century, Byzantine and Modern Greek
Studies :q, :.o:.
, .ooo: Tia M. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins, Chicago
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Korhonen :qq6: Kalle Korhonen, On the Composition of the Hermeneumata
Language Manuals, Arctos o, :o:::q.
Kramer :qq6: Johannes Kramer, I glossari tardo-antichi di tradizione papi-
racea, in Jacqueline Hamesse (ed.), Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de
lantiquit tardive la n du Moyen ge. Actes du Colloque International organis
par le Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientic Culture (Erice :o septembre .)
(Textes et tudes du Moyen ge ), Louvain-la-Neuve: Fderation Inter-
nationale des Instituts dtudes Mdivales, .
Kristeller :q66: Paul O. Kristeller, Umanesimo italiano e Bisanzio, in
Agostino Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e lOriente tra Tardo Medioevo e Rinascimento
(Civilt europea e civilt veneziana. Aspetti e problemi ), Firenze: San-
soni, :q.
, :qq [:q]: Paul O. Kristeller, The Classic and Renaissance Thought,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, :q = Michael Mooney (ed.),
Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, New York: Columbia University Press,
:qq, :8:.
, :q88: Paul O. Kristeller, Renaissance Humanism and Classical An-
tiquity, in Renaissance Humanism, vol. :, :6.
Krumbacher :8q
2
: Karl Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur von
Justinian bis zur Ende des ostrmischen Reiches (:,.) (Handbuch der klas-
sischen Altertumswissenschaft q. :), zweite Auage bearbeitet von A. Ehr-
hardt und H. Geltzer, Mnchen: Beck (rst edition: :8qo).
Labowsky :qq: Lotte Labowsky, Bessarions Library and the Biblioteca Marciana.
Six Early Inventories (Sussidi eruditi :), Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letter-
atura.
Lallot: La grammaire de Denys le Thrace traduite et annote par Jean Lallot, .
e
dition revue et augmente, Paris: CNRS, :qq8.
Lapidge :q88: Michael Lapidge, The Study of Greek at the School of
Canterbury in the Seventh Century, in Michael W. Herren (ed.), The
Sacred Nectar of the Greeks: the Study of Greek in the West and in the Early Middle
Ages, London: Kings College London Medieval Studies, :6q:q.
Law :q8: Vivien Law, Irish Symptoms and the Provenance of Sixth- and
Seventh-Century Latin Grammars, in Sylvain Auroux, Michel Glatigny
et al. (eds.), Matriaux pour une histoire des thories linguistiques, Lille: Universit
de Lille III, 8.
, :q86: Vivien Law, When is Donatus not Donatus? Versions, Variants
and New Texts, Peritia , ..6:.
, :qq: Vivien Law, The Sources of the Ars Donati quam Paulus Diaconus
exposuit, Filologia Mediolatina :, :8o.
, :qqa: Vivien Law, The Study of Grammar, in Rosamond McKit-
terick (ed.), Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 88::o.
, :qq6: Vivien Law, The Mnemonic Structure of Ancient Grammati-
ninrioon\rnv 6o
cal Doctrine, in Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters (eds.), Ancient Grammar:
Content and Context, LeuvenParis: Peeters, ..
, :qq: Vivien Law, Grammar and Grammarians in the Early Middle Ages,
LondonNew York: Longman.
, .ooo: Vivien Law, Memory and the Structure of Grammars in
Antiquity and the Middle Ages, in Mario de Nonno, Paolo De Paolis
et al. (eds.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texas from Antiquity to the
Renaissance, Proceedings of a Conference Held at Erice, .: October .,, as the
..th Course of International School for the Study of Written Records, vol. :, Cassino:
Edizioni dellUniversit degli Studi, q8.
Law-Sluiter :qq8
2
: Vivien Law, Ineke Sluiter (eds.), Dionysius Thrax and the
Techne Grammatike, Mnster: Nodus Publikationen (rst edition: :qq).
Lemerle :q:: Paul Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur
enseignement et culture Byzance des origines au Xe sicle, Paris: Presse Universi-
taire de France.
, :q: Paul Lemerle, Cinq tudes sur le XIe sicle byzantin, Paris: CNRS.
Lemke :qq: Antje Lemke, Aldus Manutius and His Thesaurus Cornucopiae of
., Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Lepori :q8o: Fernando Lepori, La scuola di Rialto dalla fondazione alla
met del Cinquecento, in Girolamo Arnaldi, Manlio Pastore Stocchi
(eds.), Storia della cultura veneta, vol. : Dal primo Quattrocento al Concilio di
Trento, Vicenza: Neri Pozza, .. q6o.
Loach .oo6: Judi Loach, Revolutionary Pedagogues? How Jesuits Used
Education to Change Society, in John W. OMalley, Gauvin A. Bayley
et al. (eds.), The Jesuits II: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts .o.,,, Toronto-
Bualo-London: University of Toronto Press, 668.
Lobel :q: Edgar Lobel, The Greek Manuscripts of Aristotles Poetics, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Logan :q.: Oliver Logan, Culture and Society in Venice, .,o.,o. The Renais-
sance and its Heritage, New York: Charles Scribners Sons.
Lomanto :q8: Valeria Lomanto, Grammatici greci, in Francesco Della
Corte (ed.), Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini, vol. ., Milano: Marzorati,
::o::.o.
Lovito .oo.: Giovanni Lovito, Lopera e i tempi di Pomponio Leto, Salerno:
Laveglia.
, .oo: Giovanni Lovito, Pomponio Leto politico e civile, Salerno: Laveglia.
Lowry :qq: Martin Lowry, The World of Aldus Manutius. Business and Scholarship
in Renaissance Venice, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Louisides :q6: Louisos L. Louisides, l `i o u -
u u o 0 `i i j 0 u j r _u
`i_ j 0 i, o 8, .o6..:.
LSJ: A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott,
revised and augmented throughout by Henry S. Jones, etc., Oxford: Clar-
endon Press, :qo
9
, repr. :qqo.
Maas :q [:qo]: Paul Maas, Der byzantinische Zwlfsilber, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift :. (:qo), .8. = Wolfgang Buchwald (ed.), Kleine Schriften,
Mnchen: Beck, :q, ...88.
6o6 ninrioon\rnv
Maltese .oo:: Enrico V. Maltese, Atene e Bisanzio. Appunti su scuola e
cultura letteraria nel Medioevo greco, in Massimo Vetta (ed.), La civilt
dei Greci. Forme, luoghi, contesti, Roma: Carocci, 8.
, .oo: Enrico V. Maltese, Massimo Planude interprete del De Trinitate
di Agostino, in Mariarosa Cortesi (ed.), Padri greci e latini a confronto (secoli
XIIIXV). Atti del Convegno di studi della Societ Internazionale per lo Studio del
Medioevo Latino (SISMEL) (Certosa del Galluzzo, Firenze, .:o ottobre :oo.),
Firenze: SISMELEdizioni del Galluzzo, .o.:q.
Maltezou :qq:: Chryssa Maltezou, The Historical and Social Context, in
David Holton (ed.), Literature and Society in Renaissance Crete, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, :.
Manoussakas :q6: Manoussos Manoussakas, ` o 0 'o
o u u 0u 0 `0 i j `u
o r , j :, :6::..
, :qq8: Manoussos Manoussakas, Cultura e letteratura greca nella
Creta veneziana, in Gherardo Ortalli (ed.), Venezia e Creta. Atti del Convegno
Internazionale di Studi (Iraklion-Chania, o settembre ottobre .,), Venezia:
Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, 8.
Marcucci .oo.: Silvia Marcucci, La scuola tra XIII e XV secolo. Figure esemplari
di maestri, PisaRoma: Istituti Editoriali Poligraci Internazionali.
Margaritis :q8: Stephen Margaritis, Crete and the Ionian Islands under the Vene-
tians, Athens: Leontiadis.
Mariani Canova :q8:: Giordana Mariani Canova, La personalita di Vit-
torino da Feltre nel rapporto con le arti visive e il tema delleducazione
nel linguaggio gurativo del Quattrocento, in Nella Giannetto (ed.), Vit-
torino da Feltre e la sua scuola: umanesimo, pedagogia, arti, Firenze: Olschki, :qq
.:..
Markopoulos .oo6: Athanasios Markopoulos, De la structure de lcole
byzantine. Le matre, les livres et le process educatif, in Brigitte Mon-
drain (ed.), Lire et crire Byzance, Paris: Association des Amis du Centre
dHistoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 8q6.
Marrou :q6 [:q8]: Henri I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity,
transl. by George Lamb, New York: Sheed and Ward (original edition:
Paris :q8).
Marsh :qq8: David Marsh, Lucian and the Latins. Humor and Humanism in the
Early Renaissance, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Marshall :q6q: J.H. Marshall, The Donatz Proensals of Uc Faidit, London:
Oxford University Press.
Martellotti :q8 [:qq]: Guido Martellotti, Osservazioni sul carattere orale
del primo insegnamento del greco nellItalia umanistica, Annali dellIstituto
Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Sezione Linguistica : (:qq), q6 = Dante
e Boccaccio e altri scrittori dallUmanesimo al Romanticismo (Saggi di Lettere
Italiane :), Firenze: Olschki, :q8, .:.8.
Martnez Manzano :qq: Teresa Martnez Manzano, Konstantinos Laskaris
Humanist, Philologe, Lehrer, Kopist (Meletemata ), diss. Hamburg Uni-
versitt.
, :qq8: Teresa Martnez Manzano, Constantno Lscaris. Semblanza de un
ninrioon\rnv 6o
humanista bizantino (Nueva Roma ), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investi-
gaciones Cientcas.
Mavromatis :qqo: Giannis Mavromatis, ` 0j i j j -
i j j j r (:6),iu .o, 8qq.
McCormick :q: Michael McCormick, Byzantiums Role in the Formation
of Early Medieval Civilization: Approaches and Problems, Illinois Classical
Studies :., .o..o.
McKee .ooo: Sally McKee, Uncommon Dominion. Venetian Crete and the Myth of
Ethnic Purity, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mead :qq:qo: H.R. Mead, Fifteenth-Century Schoolbooks, The Hunt-
ington Library Quarterly , ..
Melandri :qqq: Eleonora Melandri, Giorgio Gregoropulo e il MS. Laur.
C.S. :6, in Vincenzo Fera, Augusto Guida (eds.), Vetustatis indagator. Scritti
oerti a Filippo Di Benedetto, Messina: Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi
Umanistici, :::.8.
Menzer .oo: Melinda J. Menzer, lfrics English Grammar, Journal of
English and Germanic Philology :o, :o6:..
Mercati :q:: Silvio G. Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele
Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota e altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della
letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV (Studi e Testi 6), Citt del Vaticano:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.
, :q:: Silvio G. Mercati, Giambi di Giovanni Tzetze contro una
donna schedografa, Byzantinische Zeitschrift , :6:8.
Mercer :qq: R.G.G. Mercer, The Teaching of Gasparino Barzizza with Special
Reference to His Place in Paduan Humanism, London: The Modern Humani-
ties Research Association.
Mercken :qqq: H. Paul F. Mercken, Robert Grossetestes Method of Trans-
lating: a Medieval Word Processing Programme?, in Rita Beyers, Jozef
Brams et al. (eds.), Tradition et traduction. Les textes philosophiques et scientiques
grecs au Moyen Age Latin. Hommage a Fernand Bossier, Leuven: Leuven Univer-
sity Press, .o.
Mergiali :qq6: Sophia Mergiali, Lenseignement et les lettrs pendant lpoque des
Palologues (.:..), Athens: `i u i 0 0.
Merrilees :q8: Brian Merrilees, Teaching Latin in French: Adaptations of
Donatus Ars Minor, Fifteenth-Century Studies :., 8q8.
, :qqo: Brian Merrilees, LArt Mineur franais et le curriculum gram-
matical, Histoire pistmologie Langage :., :.q.
Miller .oo: Timothy S. Miller, Two teaching Texts from the Twelfth-
Century Orphanotropheion, in John W. Nesbitt (ed.), Byzantine Author.
Literary Activities and Preoccupations. Texts and Translations Dedicated to the Mem-
ory of Nicolas Oikonomides, LeidenBoston: Brill, q.o.
Minerva :q8q: Nadia Minerva, Storie di manuali. La didattica delle lingue
straniere in Italia nell Arte di insegnare la lingua francese e nel Matre italien,
in Carla Pellandra (ed.), Grammatiche, grammatici, grammatisti. Per una storia
dellinsegnamento delle lingue in Italia dal Cinquecento al Settecento, Pisa: Editrice
Libreria Goliardica, ::.
Mioni :q: Elpidio Mioni, Calliergi (Callergi), Zaccaria, in Dizionario bio-
6o8 ninrioon\rnv
graco degli Italiani, vol. :6, Roma: Istituto dellEnciclopedia Italiana, o
.
, :q6: Elpidio Mioni, Bessarione scriba e alcuni suoi collaboratori,
in Miscellanea Marciana di Studi Bessarionei (a coronamento del V Centenario della
donazione nicena), Padova: Antenore, .6:8.
Moatt :qq: Ann Moatt, Early Byzantine School Curricula and a Lib-
eral Education, in Byzance et les Slaves. tudes de Civilization. Mlanges Ivan
Dujcev, Paris: Association des Amis des tudes Archologiques des Mondes
Byzantino-Slaves, ..88.
Momigliano :q: Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Helleniza-
tion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, :q.
Mondrain :qq.: Brigitte Mondrain, Ltude du grec en Italie la n du
XV
e
sicle, vue travers lexperience dhumanistes allemands, in Mari-
arosa Cortesi, Enrico V. Maltese (eds.), Dotti bizantini e libri greci nellItalia del
secolo XV. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Trento, ::: ottobre .o), Napoli:
DAuria, oq:q.
, .ooo: Brigitte Mondrain, Janus Lascaris copiste et ses livres, in
Giancarlo Prato (ed.), I manoscritti greci tra riessione e dibattito. Atti del V Col-
loquio Internazionale di paleograa greca (Cremona, .o ottobre .8), I (Papyro-
logica Florentina :), Firenze: Gonnelli, :.6.
Monfasani :q6: John Monfasani, George of Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of
His Rhetoric and Logic, Leiden: Brill.
, :qqo: John Monfasani, Linsegnamento universitario e la cultura
bizantina in Italia nel Quattrocento, in Luisa Avellini, Angela de Bene-
dictis et al. (eds.), Sapere e/ potere. Discipline, dispute e professioni nelluniversit
medievale e moderna: il caso bolognese a confronto. Atti del / Convegno (Bologna,
.. aprile .8), Bologna: Istituto per la Storia di Bologna, 6 =
Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and Other Emigrs,
AldershotBrookeld, VT: Variorum :qq, XII.
, .oo.: John Monfasani, Greek Renaissance Migrations, Italian His-
tory and Culture 8, :: = Greeks and Latins in Renaissance Italy: Studies on
Humanism and Philosophy in the .th Century (Variorum Collected Studies
Series, 8o:), AldershotBurlington, VT: Ashgate, .oo.
Montanari .oo: Elio Montanari, La critica del testo secondo Paul Maas. Testo e
commento, Firenze: SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo.
Montanari F. :q8: Franco Montanari, Grammatici greci, in Francesco
Della Corte (ed.), Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini, vol. ., Milano: Marzo-
rati, :oq::o.
Morgan :qq8: Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman
Worlds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Mller :qq: Gregor Mller, Bildung und Erziehung im Humanismus der italienis-
chen Renaissance. Grundlagen, Motive, Quellen, Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Mller :q8: Gregor Mller, Mensch und Bildung im italienischen Renaissance-
Humanismus. Vittorino da Feltre und die humanistischen Erziehungsdenker (Saecula
Spiritalia q), BadenBaden: Koerner.
Mllner :8qq: Karl Mllner, Reden und Briefe italienischer Humanisten. Ein Beitrag
zur Geschichte der Pdagogik des Humanismus, Wien: Hlder.
ninrioon\rnv 6oq
Munzi .ooo: Luigi Munzi, Testi grammaticali e renovatio studiorum carolin-
gia, in Mario De Nonno, Paolo De Paolis et al. (eds.), Manuscripts and
Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Proceedings of a
Conference Held at Erice, .: October .,, at the ..th Course of the International
School for the Study of Written Records, vol. :, Cassino: Edizioni dellUniversit
degli Studi, :88.
, .oo: Luigi Munzi, Multiplex Latinitas. Testi grammaticali latini dellAlto
Medioevo (Annali dellUniversit di Napoli LOrientale, Quaderni q), Na-
poli: Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Murphy :q: James J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. A History of the
Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance, BerkeleyLos Angeles:
University of California Press, :q, repr. Tempe, AR: Arizona Center for
Medieval and Renaissance Studies, .oo:.
, :q8o: James J. Murphy, The Teaching of Latin as a Second Language
in the :.th Century, Historiographia Linguistica , :q:.
Nardi :q: [:q]: Bruno Nardi, Letteratura e cultura veneziana del Quat-
trocento, in La civilt veneziana del Quattrocento, Firenze: Sansoni :q, :o:
: = Paolo Mazzantini (ed.), Saggi sulla cultura veneta del Quattro e Cinquecento
(Medioevo e Umanesimo :.), Padova: Antenore, :q:, .
Nicol :qqo [:q88]: Donald M. Nicol, Venezia e Bisanzio, Milano: Rusconi
(original edition: Cambridge :q88).
Nikitas .oo:: Dimitrios Z. Nikitas, Traduzioni greche di opere latine, in
Salvatore Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, societ, vol. : I Greci oltre la
Grecia, Torino: Einaudi, :o:o:.
Oikonomides :q.: Nicolas Oikonomides, Les listes de prsance byzantines des
IXe et Xe sicles, Paris: CNRS.
OLD: Oxford Latin Dictionary, edited by P.G. Glare, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
:q8. (combined edition).
OMalley :qq: John W. OMalley, The First Jesuits, Cambridge, MALondon:
Harvard University Press.
Omont :88:: Henri Omont, Grammaire grecque du IX
e
sicle, Bibliothque
de lcole des Chartes ., :.6:..
Opelt :q86: Ilona Opelt, Pseudo Cato und Planudes, i :o, ::q:.
Orbis latinus: Johann Graesse et al., Orbis latinus. Lexicon lateinischer geographischer
Namen des Mittlelalters und der Neuzeit, vols., Braunschweig: Klinkhardt-
Biermann :q..
Orme .oo6: Nicholas Orme, Medieval Schools from Roman Britain to Renaissance
England, New HavenLondon: Yale University Press.
Ortalli :qq6: Gherardo Ortalli, Scuole e maestri tra Medioevo e Rinascimento. Il caso
veneziano, Bologna: Il Mulino.
, :qq8: Gherardo Ortalli, Venezia e Creta: fortune e contraccolpi di
una conquista, in Gherardo Ortalli (ed.), Venezia e Creta. Atti del Convegno
Internazionale di Studi (Iraklion-Chani, o settembre ottobre .,), Venezia:
Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, q:.
, .oo.: Gherardo Ortalli, Venezia mediterranea e grecit medievale,
in Gino Benzoni (ed.), Leredit greca e lellenismo veneziano, Firenze: Olschki,
.
6:o ninrioon\rnv
Ortoleva :q8q: Vincenzo Ortoleva, Massimo Planude e i Disticha Catonis,
Sileno :, :o:6.
, :qq:: Vincenzo Ortoleva, La traduzione di Massimo Planude dei
Disticha Catonis: dalla divulgazione del latino a Bisanzio alla didassi del
greco in Occidente, Audus , q:o:.
, :qq:a: Vincenzo Ortoleva, Gli scholia alla traduzione planudea dei
Disticha Catonis, Siculorum Gymnasium n.s. , ..8o.
, :qq.: Maximus Planudes, Disticha Catonis in graecum translata edidit
Vincentius Ortoleva, Roma: Edizioni dellAteneo.
, :qq.a: Vincenzo Ortoleva, Glosse in 0u alla traduzione
planudea dei Disticha Catonis, Eikasmos , .6.6.
, :qq: Vincenzo Ortoleva, La parafrasi della traduzione planudea dei
Disticha Catonis nel cod. Barocc. :, Byzantion , 8qq.
Ostrogorsky :q6q
2
[:q6
3
]: George (Georgije) Ostrogorsky, History of the Byz-
antine State, transl. by Joan Hussey, New Brusnwick: Rutgers University
Press, :q6q
2
(original edition: Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, Mnchen
:q6
3
), repr. :qqo.
Padley :q6: G. Arthur Padley, Grammatical Theory in Western Europe, .oo.,oo.
The Latin Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
, :q8:q88: G. Arthur Padley, Grammatical Theory in Western Europe,
.oo.,oo. Trends in Vernacular Grammar, . vols., Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pagliaroli .oo: Stefano Pagliaroli, Giano Lascari e il Ginnasio greco, Studi
medievali e umanistici ., .:.q.
Panagiotakis :q88: Nikolaos M. Panagiotakis, ` i o j -
i, in Nikolaos M. Panagiotakis (ed.), j: li i uo,
Iraklion: i j 0j, :6:q.
, :qq: Nikolaos M. Panagiotakis, The Italian Background of Early
Cretan Literature, Dumbarton Oaks Papers q, .8:..
Papadopulos :q: Stylianos G. Papadopulos, Thomas in Byzanz. Thomas-
Rezeption und Thomas-Kritik in Byzanz zwischen : und :, The-
ologie und Philosophie q, .o.
Pastore Stocchi :q8o:q8:: Manlio Pastore Stocchi, Scuola e cultura uman-
istica fra due secoli, in Girolamo Arnaldi, Manlio Pastore Stocchi (eds.),
Storia della cultura veneta, vol. : Dal primo Quattrocento al Concilio di Trento,
Vicenza: Neri Pozza, :. q:.:
Pellandra :q8q: Carla Pellandra, Einseigner le franais en milie aux XVII
e
et XVIII
e
sicles, in Carla Pellandra (ed.), Grammatiche, grammatici, gramma-
tisti. Per una storia dellinsegnamento delle lingue in Italia dal Cinquecento al Sette-
cento, Pisa: Editrice Libreria Goliardica, ::.
Percival :q.: W. Keith Percival, The Historical Sources of Guarinos Regu-
lae Grammaticales: a Reconsideration of Sabbadinis Evidence, in Giovan-
nangiola Tarugi (ed.), Civilta dellUmanesimo. Atti del VI, VII, VIII Convegno
Internazionale del Centro di Studi Umanistici (Montepulciano, Palazzo Tarugi, .,
.,o, .,.), Firenze: Olschki, .6.8.
, :q: W. Keith Percival, The Grammatical Tradition and the Rise
of the Vernaculars, in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguis-
ninrioon\rnv 6::
tics, vol. :: Historiography of Linguistics, The HagueParis: Mouton, .:
..
, :q8:: W. Keith Percival, The Place of the Rudimenta Grammatices in the
History of Latin Grammar, Res publica litterarum , ..6
, :q88: W. Keith Percival, Renaissance Grammar, in Albert Rabil Jr.
(ed.), Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. : Human-
ism and the Disciplines, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 6
8.
, :qq: W. Keith Percival, A Working Edition of the Carmina Dieren-
tialia by Guarino Veronese, Res Publica Litterarum :, ::.
, .oo.: W. Keith Percival, Greek Pedagogy in the Renaissance, in
Werner Hllen, Friedericke Klippel (eds.), Heilige und profane SprachenHoly
and Profane Languages. Die Anfnge des Frendsprachenunterrichts im Westlischen
EuropaThe Beginnings of Foreign Language Teaching in Western Europe (Wolfen-
btteler Forschungen q8), Wolfenbttel: Herzog August Bibliothek, q
:oq.
Pertusi :q6::q6.: Agostino Pertusi, Leonzio Pilato a Creta prima del :8
:q: scuole e cultura a Creta durante il secolo XIV, o o
::6, 68:.
, :q6.: Agostino Pertusi, j. Per la storia e le fonti delle
prime grammatiche greche a stampa, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica , .:
:.
, :q6: Agostino Pertusi, Leonzio Pilato fra Petrarca e Boccaccio. Le sue versioni
omeriche negli autogra di Venezia e la cultura greca del primo Umanesimo, Venezia
Roma: Istituto per la Collaborazione Culturale.
, :q8o:q8:: Agostino Pertusi, Lumanesimo greco dalla ne del secolo
XIV agli inizi del secolo XVI, in Girolamo Arnaldi, Manlio Pastore
Stocchi (eds.), Storia della cultura veneta, vol. : Dal primo Quattrocento al Concilio
di Trento, Vicenza: Neri Pozza, :. :.6.
, :qqo
2
: Agostino Pertusi, La caduta di Costantinopoli, vol. :: Le testimonianze
dei contemporanei; vol. .: Leco nel mondo, Milano: Mondadori (rst edition:
:q6).
, :qqoa [:q:q8]: Agostino Pertusi, Venezia, la cultura greca e
il Boccaccio, Studi sul Boccaccio :o (:q:q8), .:. = Saggi veneto-
bizantini, a cura di Giovan Battista Parente, Firenze: Olschki, :qqo, .q
..
Pesenti :q., :q.: Giovanni Pesenti, Vittorino da Feltre e gli inizi della
scuola di greco in Italia, Athenaeum n.s. ., .:.6o (part :); , ::6 (part .).
PG: Patrologiae cursus completus, etc., series Graeca, accurante J.P. Migne, :6: vols.,
Lutetiae: apud J.P. Migne editorem, :8:qo.
PGL: A Patristic Greek Lexicon, edited by G.W.H. Lampe, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, :q6:.
Piacente .oo.: Battista Guarini, La didattica del greco e del latino. De ordine docendi
ac studendi e altri scritti, a cura di Luigi Piacente, Bari: Edipuglia.
Piccard: Gerhard Piccard, Die Wasserzeichenkartei Piccard im Hauptsstaatsarchiv
Stuttgart, : vols., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, :q6:
Picciarelli .oo: Massimiliano Picciarelli, Les rexions sur les cas chez
6:. ninrioon\rnv
les grammairiens byzantins, in Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters (eds.),
Syntax in Antiquity, (Orbis/Supplementa .), LeuvenParis-Dudley, MA:
Peeters.
Pinborg :q: Jan Pinborg, Classical Antiquity: Greece, in Thomas A. Se-
beok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. :: Historiography of Linguistics,
The HagueParis: Mouton, 6q:.6.
, :q8.: Jan Pinborg, Remigius, Schleswig .8. A Latin Grammar in Facsimile
Edition with a Postscript (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab
Historisk-lososke Meddelelser o:), Kbenhavn: Munksgaard.
PL: Patrologiae cursus completus, etc., series Latina, accurante J.P. Migne, ... vols.,
Lutetiae: apud J.P. Migne editorem, :8:qo.
Plebani :qq: Tiziana Plebani, Omaggio ad Aldo grammatico: origine e
tradizione degli insegnanti-stampatori, in Susy Marcon, Marino Zorzi
(eds.), Aldo Manuzio e lambiente veneziano, ..., Venezia: Il Cardo,
:oo.
Plumidis :q:: Giorgio (Georgios) Plumidis, Gli scolari greci nello studio di
Padova, Quaderni per la Storia dellUniversit di Padova , :.::.
Podskalsky :q: Gerhard Podskalsky, Die Rezeption der thomistischen
Theologie bei Gennadios II. Scholarios (ca. :o:.), Theologie und
Philosophie q, o..
, :q: Gerhard Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz (Byzantini-
sches Archiv :), Mnchen: Beck.
Polara :qq:: Giovanni Polara, Generi letterari e criteri ecdotici: a proposito
di testi grammaticali e pseudogrammaticali, Schede medievali .o.:, :o:
::.
Politi .ooo: Maria L. Politi, ` o i o 0-
0u , in Stefanos Kaklamanis, Athanasios Markopoulos et
al. (eds.), '0:u o . o, Iraklion: -
r ' ji j 0j `i, 6:q
6.q.
Pontani :qq6: Anna Pontani, Sullo studio del greco in Occidente nel sec.
XV: lesempio di Michele Apostolis, in Mirko Tavoni (ed.), Italia ed Europa
nella linguistica del Rinascimento: confronti e relazioni, Atti del Convegno Inter-
nazionale (Ferrara, Palazzo Paradiso, :o: marzo ..), vol. :: LItalia e il mondo
romanzo, Ferrara: Franco Cosimo Panini, ::o.
, :qqq: Anna Pontani, Manuele Crisolora: libri e scrittura (con un cen-
no su Giovanni Crisolora), in Santo Luc, Lidia Perria (eds.), 'c.
Studi in onore di mgr. Paul Canart per il LXX compleanno, vol. = Bollettino della
Badia greca di Grottaferrata n.s. , ..8.
Porro :88: Giulio Porro, Catalogo dei codici manoscritti della Trivulziana, Torino:
Bocca.
Pozzi :q66: Giovanni Pozzi, Da Padova a Firenze nel :q, Italia Medioevale
e Umanistica q, :q:...
Proctor :qoo: Robert Proctor, The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century,
London: The Biographical Society, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, :q66.
Pu :qq6: Helmut Pu, Exercitium grammaticale puerorum. Eine Studie zur
Verhltniss von pdagogischer Innovation und Buchdruck um :oo, in
ninrioon\rnv 6:
Martin Kitzinger, Snke Lorenz et al. (eds.), Schule und Schler im Mittelalter.
Beitrge zur europischen Bildungsgeschichte des . bis .. Jahrhunderts, Kln:
Bhlau, ::q.
Radt: Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta edidit Stefan L. Radt, vol. : Sophocles,
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, :q.
Rabil :q88: Albert Rabil, Jr., The Signicance of Civic Humanism in
the Interpretation of the Italian Renaissance, in Albert Rabil, Jr. (ed.),
Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. :, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, :::.
Ravegnani :qq8: Giorgio Ravegnani, La conquista veneziana di Creta e la
prima organizzazione militare dellisola, in Gherardo Ortalli (ed.), Venezia
e Creta. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Iraklion-Chania, o settembre
ottobre .,), Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, ..
Renaissance Humanism: Albert Rabil, Jr. (ed.), Renaissance Humanism. Foundations,
Forms, and Legacy, vols., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
:q88.
Resnick :qqo: Irven M. Resnick, Lingua Dei, lingua hominis: Sacred Language
and Medieval Texts, Viator .:, :.
Reynolds S. :qq6: Suzanne Reynolds, Medieval Reading; Grammar, Rhetoric and
the Classical Texts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds-Wilson :qq:
3
: Leighton D. Reynolds, Nigel G. Wilson, Scribes and
Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford:
Clarendon Press (rst edition: :q68).
Richard :q8q: Jean Richard, The Establishment of the Latin Church in
the Empire of Constantinople (:.o:..), in Benjamin Arbel, Bernard
Hamilton et al. (eds.), Latin and Greeks in the Easter Mediterranean After .:o,
London: Frank Cass, 6..
Rich :q6 [:q6.
3
]: Pierre Rich, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West,
Sixth through Eighth Centuries, transl. by John J. Contreni, Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press (original edition: Paris :q6.
3
).
, :q8: Pierre Rich, Le rle de la mmoire dans lenseignement
mdival in Paul Zumthor, Bruno Roy (eds.), Jeux de mmoire. Aspects de
la mnmotechnie mdival, Paris: Presses de lUniversit de Montral, :
:8 = ducation et culture dans lOccident mdival, LondonBookeld, VT:
Variorum, :qq, XII.
Rizzo :q: Silvia Rizzo, Il lessico lologico degli umanisti (Sussidi eruditi .6),
Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
, :qqo: Silvia Rizzo, Petrarca, il latino e il volgare, Studi petrarcheschi ,
o.
, :qq: Silvia Rizzo, Sulla terminologia dellinsegnamento grmmati-
cale nelle scuole umanistiche, in Olga Weijers (ed.), Vocabulary of Teaching
and Research Between Middle Ages and Renaissance. Proceedings of the Colloquium,
London, Warburg Institute, ...: March . (Civicima. tudes sur le vocabu-
laire intellectuel du Moyen ge 8), Turnhout: Brepols, .q.
, :qq6: Silvia Rizzo, Linsegnamento del latino nelle scuole umanis-
tiche, in Mirko Tavoni (ed.), Italia ed Europa nella linguistica del Rinascimento:
confronti e relazioni, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Ferrara, Palazzo Paradiso,
6: ninrioon\rnv
:o: marzo ..), vol. :: LItalia e il mondo romanzo, Ferrara: Franco Cosimo
Panini, .q.
, :qq8: Silvia Rizzo, Omero, lingua volgare e lingua grammaticale: rif-
lessioni in margine a luoghi di Pier Candido Decembrio, Angelo Decem-
brio, Annio di Viterbo, Rinascimento s. ., 8, .
, .oo: Silvia Rizzo, I latini dellUmanesimo, in Giorgio Bernardi
Perini (ed.), Il latino nellet dellUmanesimo. Atti del Convegno (Mantova, ::,
ottobre :oo.), Firenze: Olschki, :q.
Robins :q:: Robert H. Robins, Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory in
Europe, with Particular Reference to Modern Linguistic Doctrine, London: Bell.
, :q8: Robert H. Robins, Ex Oriente lux: A Contribution of the Byzan-
tine Grammarians, in Sylvain Auroux, Michel Glatigny et al. (eds.),
Matriaux pour une histoire des thories linguistiques, Lille: Universit de Lille III,
.:...
, :q88: Robert H. Robins, Text and Textual Interpretation in Ancient
Greek Linguistics, Semiotica o, :.
, :qq: Robert H. Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians. Their Place in
History (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs o), BerlinNew
York: MoutonDe Gruyter.
, :qq6: Robert H. Robins, The Initial Section of the Tkhne Gram-
matik, in Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters (eds.), Ancient Grammar: Content
and Context, LeuvenParis: Peeters, :.
, .ooo: Robert H. Robins, Greek Linguistics in the Byzantine Period,
in Sylvain Auroux, E.F.K. Koerner et al. (eds.), History of the Language
Sciences, vol. :, BerlinNew York: de Gruyter, :..
Rochette :qq: Bruno Rochette, Le latin das le monde grec. Recherches sur la
diusion de la langue et des lettres latins dans les provinces hellnophones de lEmpire
romain (Collection Latomus .), Bruxelles: Latomus.
, :qqq: Bruno Rochette, crire en deux langues. Remarques sur le
mixage des critures grecque et latine daprs les papyrus littraires bi-
lingues dauteurs classiques, Scriptorium , ..
Rollo .oo:: Antonio Rollo, La grammatica greca di Urbano Bolzanio,
in Paolo Pellegrini (ed.), Umanisti bellunesi fra Quattro e Cinquecento. Atti del
Convegno di Belluno ( novembre .), Firenze: Olschki, :.oq.
, .oo.: Antonio Rollo, Titoli bilingui e la biblioteca di Manuele
Crisolora, Byzantinische Zeitschrift q, q::o:.
, .oo: Antonio Rollo, Tra Salutati e Crisolora: il trattato Sugli spiriti.
Con nuove testimonianze sul greco alla scuola di Guarino, Studi medievali
e umanistici :, ::..
Roos :q8: Paolo Roos, Sentenza e proverbio nellantichit e i Distici di Catone. Il
testo latino e i vogarizzamenti italiani, Brescia: Morcelliana.
Ross :q6: James B. Ross, Venetian Schools and Teachers, Fourteenth to
Early Sixteenth Century: a Survey and a Study of Giovanni Battista
Egnazio, Renaissance Quarterly .q, .:.
Rothstein .oo6: Marian Rothstein, Homer for the Court of Franois I,
Renaissance Quarterly q, .6.
Rowland :qq8: Ingrid D. Rowland, The Culture of the High Renaissance. Ancients
ninrioon\rnv 6:
and Moderns in Sixteenth-Century Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Russell .oo:: Quintilian, The Orators Education, Books :., edited and trans-
lated by Donald A. Russell (Loeb Classical Library :.), Cambridge, MA
London: Harvard University Press.
Ruysschaert :q: Jos Ruysschaert, Les manuels de grammaire latine com-
poss par Pomponio Leto, Scriptorium 8, q8:o.
, :q6:: Jos Ruysschaert, A propos des trois premires grammaires
latines de Pomponio Leto, Scriptorium :, 68.
Sabbadini :8q6: Remigio Sabbadini, La scuola e gli studi di Guarino Guarini
veronese, Catania: Galati.
, :qo:qo: Remigio Sabbadini, Frammento di grammatica latino-
bergamasca, Studi Medievali :, .8:.q..
, :qo6: Remigio Sabbadini, Elementi nazionali nella teoria grammati-
cale dei Romani, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica :, :::..
, :q..: Remigio Sabbadini, Il metodo degli Umanisti, Firenze: Le Monnier.
Saenger :qq: Paul Saenger, Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Readings,
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Saladin .oo
2
: Jean-Christophe Saladin, La bataille de grec la Renaissance,
Paris: Les Belles Lettres (rst edition: Paris .ooo).
Sambin :q6: Paolo Sambin, La formazione quattrocentesca della bib-
lioteca di S. Giovanni di Verdara in Padova, Atti dellIstituto Veneto di
Scienze, Lettere ed Arti. Classe di Scienze Morali e Lettere ::, .6.8o.
, :q.:q: Paolo Sambin, Per la biograa di Pietro da Montagnana,
grammatico e bibliolo del sec. XV, Atti dellIstituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere
e Arti ::, q8..
Sanchi .oo6: Luigi Alberto Sanchi, Les Commentaires de la langue grecque de
Guillaume Bud. Loeuvre, ses sources, sa prparation, Genve: Droz.
Sandy .oo: Gerald N. Sandy, Greek Teachers in the Latin West, Studi
umanistici piceni ., :8::q:.
Sandys :q8
3
: John E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, vols., New
York: Hafner (rst edition: Cambridge :qo:qo8).
Sani :qqq: Roberto Sani, Educazione e istituzioni scolastiche nellItalia moderna
(secoli XVXIX). Testi e documenti, Milano: I.S.U. Universit Cattolica.
Santoro :q6.: Caterina Santoro, I tesori della Trivulziana. La storia del libro dal
secolo VIII al secolo XVIII, Milano: Comune di Milano.
, :q6: Caterina Santoro, I codici medievali della Biblioteca Trivulziana.
Catalogo, Milano: Comune di Milano.
Scapecchi :qq: Pietro Scapecchi, Manoscritti ed edizioni a stampa appar-
tenenti alla raccolta libraria del Camaldolese Pietro da Portico, in Luci-
ana Bigliazzi, Angela Dillon Bussi et al. (eds.), Aldo Manuzio tipografo .
... Catalogo (Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, ., giugnoo luglio .),
Firenze: Octavo, Franco Cantini Editore, :q:q6.
Schmidt :qq
2
: Peter L. Schmidt, Dicta Catonis, in Konrat Ziegler, Walther
Sontheimer (eds.), Der kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike auf der Grundlage von
Paulys Realencyclopdie, Mnchen: Deutsche Taschenbuch Verlag (rst edi-
tion: Mnchen :q), vol. ., :..
6:6 ninrioon\rnv
Schmitt :q66: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Maximos Planudes, der lateinische
Pseudo-Donatus (Ianua) und seine bersetzung ins Griechische, unpub-
lished dissertation Humboldt Universitt, Berlin (unpublished).
, :q66a: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Zum (alt)preussischen Donatus des
Wilhelm von Modena, Helikon 6, 8q..
, :q6: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Cato in Byzanz, Klio 8, ..
, :q68: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Lateinische Literatur in Byzanz. Die
bersetzungen des Maximos Planudes und die moderne Forschung,
Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft :, :.:.
, :q6q: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Die Ianua (Donatus). Ein Beitrag zur
lateinishen Schulgrammatik des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Bei-
trge zur Inkunabelkunde , 8o.
, :q:: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Eine unbekannte Rede zum Lob der
griechischen Sprache und Literatur. Zur literarischen Biographie des Hu-
manisten Andronikos Kontoblakes, Philologus ::, .6..
, :q: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Donati Graeci. Zum Griechischstudium
der italienischen Humanisten, Actes de la XIIe Confrence Internationale dtu-
des Classiques Eirene, Clj-Napoca, :, octobre .,:, BucurestiAmsterdam:
Editura Academei Republicii Socialiste Romnia-Hakkert, .o.:.
, :q: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Bemerkungen zum Codex Baroccianus
., fol. o6
r
oq
v
. Ein Beitrag zur berlieferungsgeschichte der von Max-
imos Planudes ins Griechische bersetzen Dicta Catonis, Helikon :, .6
.8..
, :qa: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Einige Bemerkungen zur griechischen
Elementargrammatik Cod. Vat. Graec. :88, fol. qq., in Kurt Treu,
Jrgen Dunner et al. (edd.), Studia Codicologica (Texte und Untersuchun-
gen zur Geschichte der altchristlischen Literatur :.), Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, .:.
, :qq: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, Lateinischer und griechischer Donatus.
Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Griechischstudien im lateinischer Mittelal-
ter, Philologus :., q:o8.
Schneider :qqq: Jean Schneider, Les traits orthographiques grecs antiques et byzan-
tines (Corpus Christianorum, Lingua Patrum ), Turnhout: Brepols.
Segre-Marti :qq: Cesare Segre, Mario Marti, La letteratura italiana: storia e
testi, vol. : La prosa del Duecento, MilanoNapoli: Ricciardi.
Setton :q6: Kenneth M. Setton, The Byzantine Background to the Ital-
ian Renaissance, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association :oo, :
6.

Sev cenko :q6:: Ihor

Sev cenko, The Decline of Byzantium Seen Through
the Eyes of Its Intellectuals, Dumbarton Oaks Papers :, :6q:8o.
Sewter :q6q: The Alexiad of Anna Comnena, translated from the Greek by
E.R.A. Sewter, London: Penguin.
Sicherl :qq: Martin Sicherl, Griechische Erstausgabe des Aldus Manutius. Druckvor-
lagen, Stellenwert, kultureller Hintergrund (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur
des Altertums :o), Paderborn: Schningh.
Sihler :qq: Andrew L. Sihler, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin,
New YorkOxford: Oxford University Press.
ninrioon\rnv 6:
Sirinian .oo: Anna Sirinian, Una riuscita operazione culturale: la versione
armena della Grammatica di Dionisio Trace, in Vincenzo Ruggeri, Luca
Pieralli (eds.) :ui. Studi miscellanei per il , di Vincenzo Poggi S.J.,
Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino, :8.
Skutsch :q8: Otto Skutsch, The Annals of Quintus Ennius, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Smyth: Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, revised by Gordon Messing, Bos-
ton, MA: Harvard University Press, :q8
3
(rst edition: :q.o).
Sophokles: Evangelinus Apostolides Sophokles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and
Byzantine Periods (from B.C. . to A.D. ..oo), Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University PressLeipzig: Harrassowitz, :q:
2
, repr. Hildesheim: Olms,
.oo.
Sosower :q8: Mark L. Sosower, Seven Manuscripts Palla Strozzi Gave to
the S. Giustina Library, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes ,
:qo:q:.
Sowerby :qq: Robin Sowerby, Early Humanist Failure with Homer (I),
International Journal of the Classical Tradition , 6.
Speranzi .oo6: David Speranzi, Tra Creta e Firenze: Aristobulo Apostolis,
Marco Musuro e il Riccardiano , Segno e Testo , :q:.:o.
, .oo: David Speranzi, Marco Musuro. Libri e scrittura, dissertation
Universit degli Studi di Cassino (unpublished).
Spiazzi :q6: Giancarlo Spiazzi, Barozzi, Francesco, in Dizionario biograco
degli Italiani vol. 6, Roma: Istituto dellEnciclopedia Italiana, qqq.
Stadter :q: Philip A. Stadter, Planudes, Plutarch, and Pace of Ferrara,
Italia Medioevale e Umanistica :6, ::6..
Stakos :qq8 [:q8q]: Konstantinos S. Stakos, Charta of Greek Printing. The
Contribution of Greek Editors, Printers and Publishers to the Renaissance in Italy and
the West, vol. :: Fifteenth Century, transl. by Timothy Cullen, Kln: Dinter
(original edition: Athens :q8q).
Stevens :qo: Linton C. Stevens, How the French Humanists of the Renais-
sance Learned Greek, Publications of the Modern Language Association of Amer-
ica 6, .o.8.
Stinger :q: Charles L. Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers. Ambrogio
Traversari (.8.) and the Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance,
Albany: State University of New York Press.
, :q8: Charles L. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, Bloomington: Indi-
ana University Press.
, :q88: Charles L. Stinger, Humanism in Florence, in Renaissance
Humanism, vol. :, :.o8.
Stolt :qq: Birgit Stolt, Das Werk eines pdagogischen Genies: die Ars minor
des Donat im Codex Ups. C 68, Daphnis 8, oq.o.
Stotz :q8:: Peter Stotz, Dichten als Schulfach. Aspekte mittelalterlischer
Schuldichtung, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch :6, ::6.
Swiggers .oo:: Pierre Swiggers, Les Institutiones grammaticae Latinae de Nicolas
Clnard (:8), in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. Lateinische
Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock (Wolfenbtteler Forschungen
q), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, ::68.
6:8 ninrioon\rnv
Swiggers-Wouters .ooo: Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters, Grammaires
grecques (et latines) sur papyrus, in Mario De Nonno, Paolo De Pao-
lis et al. (ed.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to
the Renaissance. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Erice, .: October .,, at
the ..th Course of the International School for the Study of Written Records, vol. :,
Cassino: Edizioni dellUniversit degli Studi, q88.
, .oo: Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters, Rexions propos de (lab-
sence de?) la syntaxe dans la grammaire grco-latine, in Peter Swiggers,
Alfons Wouters (eds.), Syntax in Antiquity (Orbis/Supplementa .), Leuven
Paris: Peeters, .:.
Taylor :qq
4
: Henry O. Taylor, The Mediaeval Mind. A History of the Development
of Thought and Emotion in the Middle Ages, . vols., Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, :qq
4
(rst edition: :q::).
Thiermann :qq6: Peter Thiermann, I dizionari greco-latini fra Medioevo e
Umanesimo, in Jacqueline Hamesse (ed.), Les manuscrits des lexiques et glos-
saires de lantiquit tardive la n du Moyen ge. Actes du Colloque international
organis par le Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientic Culture (Erice, :o septem-
bre .), Louvain-la Neuve: Fderation Internationale des Instituts des
tudes Mdivales, 66.
Thomson :q6: Ian Thomson, Some Notes on the Content of Guarinos
Library, Renaissance Quarterly .q, :6q:.
Thomson-Perraud :qqo: Ian Thomson, Louis Perraud, Ten Latin Schooltexts
of the Later Middle Ages. Translated Selection, Lewinston: The Edwin Mellen
Press.
Thurot :86q: Charles Thurot, Notices et extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour sevir
lhistoire des doctrines grammaticales au Moyen ge, Paris :86q, repr. Frankfurt
am Main: Minerva, :q6.
Titone :q68: Renzo Titone, Teaching Foreign Languages: An Historical Sketch,
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
, :q8o: Renzo Titone, Glottodidattica: un prolo storico, Bergamo: Minerva
Italica.
TLO: Totius Latinitatis, etc., Onomasticon, opera et studio docti Vincenti De-Vit
lucubratum, Prati, typis Aldinianis :868.
Trapp :q: J.B. Trapp, The Conformity of Greek with the Vernacular:
the History of a Renaissance Theory of Languages, in D.F. McKen-
zie (ed.), Words: Wai-te-ata Studies in Literature, IV (In Honour of Ian Alis-
tair Gordon), Wellington: Wai-te-ata Press, 8.o = Essays on the Renais-
sance and the Classical Traditon, AldershotBrookeld, VT: Variorum, :qqo,
I.
Traube :8q:: Ludwig Traube, O Roma nobilis. Philologische Untersuchun-
gen aus dem Mittelalter, (aus der Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften I. Cl., XIX Bd. II. Abt.), Mnchen: Verlag der Aka-
demie.
Treu :8q: M. Treu, Ein byzantinisches Schulgesprch, Byzantinische Zeit-
shrift ., q6:o.
, :8q6: M. Treu, Manuel Holobolos, Byzantinische Zeitschrift , 8
q.
ninrioon\rnv 6:q
Trovato :qq8: Paolo Trovato, Lordine dei tipogra. Lettori, stampatori, correttori tra
Quattro e Cinquecento, Roma: Bulzoni.
Tsirpanlis :q8o: Zacharias N. Tsirpanlis, o o j cu
i l u0 (.,.,oo), Thessalica: u -
u.
, :q8: Zacharias N. Tsirpanlis, Il primo e il secondo collegio greco,
Il Veltro ., o.:.
Turyn :q:q: Alexander Turyn, Michael Lulludes (or Luludes), a Scribe
of the Palaeologan Era, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici .o.:,
:.
Ullman :q: B.L. Ullman, Studies in the Italian Renaissance, Roma: Edizioni di
Storia e Letteratura.
Vasoli :q8:: Cesare Vasoli, Vittorino da Feltre e la formazione umanistica
delluomo, in Nella Giannetto (ed.), Vittorino da Feltre e la sua scuola: umanes-
imo, pedagogia, arti, Firenze: Olschki, :.
Vassis :qq:qq: Ioannis Vassis, Graeca sunt, non leguntur. Zu den schedo-
graphischen Spielereien des Theodoros Prodromos, Byzantinische Zeitschrift
868, ::q.
Vendruscolo :qq: Fabio Vendruscolo, Lorenzo Loredan/ r -
o copista e possessore di codici greci, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica
8, 6.
Viljamaa :q6: Toivo Viljamaa, The Renaissance Reform of Latin Grammar (Tu-
run Yliopiston Julkaisuja :.), Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
Vitali :q8.: Maria Cristina Vitali, La biblioteca del convento padovano di
S. Giovanni di Verdara, Archivio Veneto s. , ::q, ..
Vogel-Gardthausen: Marie Vogel, Viktor E. Gardthausen, Die griechische
Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Leipzig: Harrrassowitz :qoq, repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, :q66.
Vogt-Spira .oo:: Gregor Vogt-Spira, Franciscus Sanctius Minerva seu de
causis linguae Latinae (:8), in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei.
Lateinische Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock (Wolfenbtteler
Forschungen q), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, :6q:8.
Waquet :qq8: Franoise Waquet, Le latin ou lempire dun signe. XVIeXXe sicle,
Paris: Albin Michel.
Walter .ooo: Helmut G. Walter, Learned Jurists and Their Prot for Society.
Some Aspects of the Development of Legal Studies at Italian and German
Universities in the Late Middle Ages, in William J. Courtenay, Jrgen
Mietke (eds.), Universities and Schooling in Medieval Society, LeidenBoston-
Kln: Brill, :oo:.6.
Webb :qq: Ruth Webb, A Slavish Art? Language and Grammar in Late
Byzantine Education and Society, Dialogos :, 8::o.
Weijers :q8q: Olga Weijers, Lexicography in the Middle Ages, Viator .o,
:q:.
Weiss :q: Roberto (Robert) Weiss, Gli inizi dello studio del greco a Firen-
ze, in Medieval and Humanist Greek. Collected Essays, Padova: Antenore, ..
..
, :q [:q:]: Roberto (Robert) Weiss, The Study of Greek in England
6.o ninrioon\rnv
During the Fourteenth Century, Rinascimento . (:q:), .oq.q = Medieval
and Humanist Greek. Collected Essays, Padova: Antenore, 8o:o
Wendel :qo: Carl Wendel, Planudes, Maximos, in G. Wissowa, W. Kroll
et al. (eds.), Paulys Real-Encyklopdie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, neue
Bearbeitung, vol. .o/., Stuttgart: Metzler, ..o....
Wilson :q: Nigel G. Wilson, The Books Trade in Venice, ca. :oo::,
in Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manoussakas et al. (eds.), Venezia centro
di mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (secoli XVXVI). Aspetti e problemi, vol. .,
Firenze: Olschki, 8:q.
, :qq.: Nigel G. Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy. Greek Studies in the Italian
Renaissance, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
, :qq.a: Nigel G. Wilson, Some Remarks on Greek Philology in the
Milieu of Aldus Manutius, in Mariarosa Cortesi, Enrico V. Maltese (eds.),
Dotti bizantini e libri greci nellItalia del secolo XV. Atti del Convegno internazionale
(Trento, ::: ottobre .o), Napoli: DAuria, .q6.
, :qq6
2
: Nigel G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, revised edition, London:
Duckworth (rst edition: :q8).
Witt :q8: Ronald G. Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads: The Life, Works, and
Thought of Coluccio Salutati, Durham, NC: Durham University Press.
, :q88: Ronald G. Witt, Medieval Italian Culture and the Origins
of Humanism as a Stylistic Ideal, in Renaissance Humanism, vol. :, .q
o.
, :qq: Ronald G. Witt, Still the Matter of the Two Giovannis: A Note
on Malpaghini and Conversino, Rinascimento s. ., , :q:qq.
, :qqa: Ronald G. Witt, What Did Giovannino Read and Write? Lit-
eracy in Early Renaissance Florence, I Tatti Studies. Essays in the Renaissance
6, 8::.
, .ooo: Ronald G. Witt, In the Footsteps of the Ancients: The Origins
of Humanism from Lovato to Bruni (Studies in Medieval and Reformation
Thought LXXIV), LeidenBoston-Kln: Brill.
Wittek :q: Martin Wittek, Manuscrits et codicologie, Scriptorium , .
.q.
Woodward :q6
5
: William H. Woodward, Vittorino da Feltre and Other Humanist
Educators (Classics in Education :8), New York: Teachers College Press
(rst edition: Cambridge :8q).
, :q6
4
: William H. Woodward, Studies in Education During the Age of
the Renaissance, .oo.oo (Classics in Education .), New York: Teachers
College Press (rst edition: Cambridge :qo6).
Worstbrock .oo:: Franz Josef Worstbrock, Niccol Perottis Rudimenta
grammatices. ber Konzeption und Methode einer humanistischen
Grammatik, in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. Lateinische
Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock (Wolfenbtteler Forschungen
q), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, q8.
Wouters :qq: Alfons Wouters, The Grammatical Papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt.
Contributions to the Study of the Ars Grammatica in Antiquity, Brussel: Konin-
klijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van
Belgi.
ninrioon\rnv 6.:
Young .oo; Philip H. Young, The Printed Homer: A ,ooo Year Publishing and
Translation History of the Iliad and the Odyssey, Jeerson, NCLondon: Mc
Farland and Company.
Zabughin :qoq: Vladimiro Zabughin, Giulio Pomponio Leto. Saggio critico, . vols.,
Roma: La Vita Letteraria.
INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES
Greek and Latin names have been generally listed under the last element
of the name (e.g., Laertius, Diogenes instead of Diogenes Laertius). The
index includes the modern scholars whose statements are quoted directly
and/or discussed in the text and in the footnotes.
Accursius, Bonus, :.., :.n
Achates, Leonardo, .6n
Acropolites, George, :o
Adhelm of Malmesbury, 8qn
Adramythenos, Manuel, :n
lfric of Eynsham, , qn
Aeneas, :qn
Aeschylus, ::n
Aesop, 6qn, 8n, ::, :, :n,
.oo, .:, .6n, .on
Agapetus, .oo, .o:n
Agroecius, 8, 8qn
Alain of Lille, 68n
Alberti, Leon Battista, 6:n, :
Alcman, 8:
Alcuin of York, :n, :, .q
Aleandro, Girolamo, :6
Alexander of Hales, 86
Alexander of Villedieu, :, :q, .n,
., 6o, 6.n, 66, :.8, .:, .:8n
Alexander the Great, .oo
Alexius I Comnenus, Byzantine
Emperor, .
Alighieri, Dante, :o.n
Allatius, Leo (Leone Allacci), .on
Alopa, Lorenzo de, :n
Altemps, Giovanni Angelo, .
Amaseo, Girolamo, :, :, :6q,
.6n
Amaseo, Gregorio, :, .68n
Ambergau, Adam von, :.o
Ambrosius, grammarian, o
Anastasius the Librarian, q.n
Andronicus II Palaeologus, Byzan-
tine Emperor, ..n, .8, .q
Andronicus, Livius,
Angeli, Jacopo, qq, ::qn
Anglicus, Waltherius (Galterus), 6qn
Anselm of Canterbury, Saint, ..,
.
Antiphon, .
Apollonius Dyscolus, :o8, :.n, :,
:qn, .o8n, ..on, .., .., .6,
..n, .., ., .6, , :,
.,
Apostolis, Arsenios (Aristoboulos),
:n, :, .o
Apostolis, Michael, XV, :n, :
:q, :6o, :o, ::, :., .o, .:
Apuleius, 8.
Aquinas, Thomas, see Thomas
Aquinas
Aragazzi, Bartolomeo, :o.n
Aratus, .:
Arethas of Caesarea, :o6, .6n
Aretino, Rinuccio, :, .o, .o
Argyropoulos, John, :n, ., .8n
Aristarchus, :on, :o6, :.
Aristides, ..6
Aristophanes, ::qn, :, :, :.,
::, :, .:
Aristotle, 6, 6on, :, n, n, :o,
:., :6., .o., .on, .:8, .on
Arrianus, 8n
Asper, :.
Audax,
Augustine of Hippo, Saint, :., :,
68n, 88, q.n, .., .6n,
.qn
Augustus, Roman Emperor, 8n
6. ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs
Aurispa, Giovanni, :, .o
Ausonius, 8
Avianus, 68, 6q
Bacon, Roger, XVI, .:n, qq6, q,
::q, :, .
Baophoros, George, ::n
Balbi, Giovanni (John of Genoa),
.n, 66n, 68
Baldini, Giovanni di Michele, .qn,
qn
Bancaria, Franciscus de, .qn
Bandini, Domenico, 68n
Barbaro, Ermolao the Younger,
:.n
Barbaro, Francesco, :on, ::
Barbieri, Domenico, 6n
Bardas, :on
Barlaam of Calabria, q8, qqn, .n
Barocci (Barozzi), Francesco, :66,
:6
Barocci (Barozzi), Jacopo, :6
Barzizza, Gasparino, :qn, ::
Basil II, Byzantine Emperor, .o
Basil the Great (Basil of Caesarea),
Saint, 8qn, :.qn, :qn, ..:, .6,
.
Basing, Joannes de, see John of
Basingstoke
Bathe, William, ..n
Bede, 8, :o, :, :8, 8qn, q., :.n
Bembo, Marco, .qn
Bembo, Pietro, .n
Benedict XIV, Pope, :qn
Bernardinello, Silvio, .8
Berschin, Walter, 86, q:
Berti, Ernesto, :8n, .n
Bessarion, Cardinal, :n, :, :,
.n, .6n, .qn, .6, ., .:,
..n, .6n
Bianconi, Daniele, .on
Bischo, Bernhard, n
Bitzimanos, Thomas, ::
Black, Robert, XIVn, XX, ., .,
.6, qn, 6:, 6., 6n, 6n, 6, 66,
6qn
Blemmydes, Nicephorus, :o
Boas, M., 8.
Bobbio, .8
Boccaccio, Giovanni, q8, qq, :o:,
:o.n, :n
Boethius, Severinus, :on, 68, o, 8,
..6, .., ., .n, ., .6n,
.q, .on, .:n
Bolzanio, Urbano, , :.
Bongiari, Marco Antonio, 6n
Bonhomme, Mathias, :, .n
Boniface, :.
Bonisoli, Ognibene, 666n
Bonnet, Guillaume, .n
Bonvesin de la Riva, 8n
Borfoni, Folchino dei, 6n
Botley, Paul, :.6
Bracciolini, Poggio, :o
Britannicus, Ludovicus,
Brito, Guillelmus, 86, q, .on
Brocense, el, see Snchez de la
Brozas, Francisco
Bruni, Leonardo, XV, 6n, :o:n,
:o.n, :, :8, :qn
Bud, Guillaume, :, :6
Burckhardt, Jacob, XI, XII, :
Burke, Peter, XIVn
Bursill-Hall, G.L., ., ., q
Buti, Francesco da, 6
Caesar, :q, o, .on
Calecas, Manuel, XX, ::o, ::8, ::q,
:., :, .., ., .o, .8n
Calliergis, Zacharias, XIX, :, :6,
:8, :6, .o.o8, .::n, ., .:
Callimachus, 8:
Callistos, Andronicos, ., .8n
Calphurmius, Ioannes, .o:, .
Camers, Varinus Favorinus, :o,
:, :8
Canart, Paul, ::n, .o.n, .o6n
Candidus, Petrus (Pietro da Portico),
:::., .6n
Capella, Martianus, 8.
Caper, 8, 8qn
Carbone, Ludovico, :on
Carteromachus, Scipio (Scipione
Forteguerri), :.n, .n
ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs 6.
Cassiodorus, :o, 8
Pseudo-Cassiodorus, see
Sergius
Castiglione, Francesco da, see,
Francesco da Castiglione
Cato, Marcus Porcius the Elder, .,
6, ....6
Disticha (Pseudo-Cato), .n, .,
., 8, ., , 8, 6, 6,
68, 6q, o, :, 8., 8, 8, 86,
:., ..6, ., .n, ., .6n,
.on
Greek translation (see also,
Planudes, Maximus), XVIII,
:.n, :6, :6, :6, :68, ::,
.oo, .o, .o6, ....8, .n,
.q, .on, .., .:, .q, .6o
Catochopo, Basil, .qn
Catochopo, Emmanuel, .qn
Catullus,
Cavallo, Guglielmo, 8, 86
Cavalcante, Marco, .on
Celenza, Christopher, n
Cesarini Martinelli, Lucia, :n
Chalcondyles, Demetrius, XX, ::o,
:., :, .on, .6n, .n, .6
Charax, John, :oqn
Charisius, :, , ::, :, :6n, 8qn, ..,
:, :, :, :,
Charlemagne, Holy Roman
Emperor, XI, :6, 8q
Charles the Bald, Holy Roman
Emperor, q., q
Chigi, Agostino, .o
Choeroboscus, George, :o8, :oq,
:::, ::, :6, .o8, ., ., ,

Chomsky, Noam,
Choniates, Nicetas, .:
Chortasmenos, John, :n
Christina, Queen of Sweden, :68n
Christopher of Mytilene, ::
Chrysoberges, Maximus, .o
Chrysocephalos, Macarios, ..
Chrysococces, George, :n
Chrysoloras, John, :.6n, :n
Chrysoloras, Manuel, XIV, XV,
XVI, XVII, XX , , :oo:o.,
:o, ::o, ::8, ::q:.o, :.:, :..,
:., :., :., :.6, :.q, :o, :,
:, :6, :8, :o, :., :, ::,
:6., :q8, .on, .o8n, .oq, .:on,
.:, ..n, .., ..8, ., .6 .,
., ., .8, .q
Chrysostom, John,
Churchill, Winston, qn
Cicero, 6, qn, 6on, 6q, o, :, ,
q, 8:n, 88, :.:, :.n, :6n, :o,
:., :n, ., .q, .on,
Claudian, 68, 6q, o
Cledonius, :o, :6n
Clement VIII, Pope, .o.n
Clement of Alexandria, 8qn, :o,

Clenardus (Nicolaas Cleynaerts),

:.q, :n
Colocci, Angelo, :
Comenius, Johan Amos, ..n
Comnena, Anna, Byzantine
Princess, :on, ::o, ::, ::6,

Conrad of Hirsau, :
Consentius, ::
Constantine VI, Byzantine Emper-
or, 8q
Constantine IX Porphyrogenitus,
Byzantine Emperor, :
Constantine XI Palaeologus,
Byzantine Emperor, :n
Contarini, Agostino, 6n
Contarini, Jacopo, 6n
Contarini, Marco, 6n
Contoblachas, Andronicos, 6n
Conversini, Giovanni, :qn, :6q
Coppola, Francesco, :.n
Corbinelli, Angelo, :o:n
Cordier, Mathurin, n
Corinna, 8:
Cornutus, Annaeus, :66
Correr, Gregorio, ::
Cortesi, Mariarosa, XVn, :, .o.n
Cox, Virginia, .n
Crassus, 8n
Crastone, Giovanni, :.., :o
6.6 ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs
Cribiore, Raaella, 8:n
Crusius, Martin, .n
Cydones, Demetrius, :..n, .:, ..,
., ., .n, .8, .qn, .o
Cydones, Prochorus, .., .n, .8
Cyprian, ..
Cyril of Alexandria, .o
Damascius, o
Damilas, Antonios, ::
Damilas, Demetrios, :..n, ::n
Decembrio, Angelo, :
Decembrio, Pier Candido, :8
Dee, John, .6n
Dekkers, E., .8n
Dellaportas, Leonardos, ..
Democritus, :o
Demosthenes, q, ::, :, :o, :.,
:n, :6., .oo
De Nolhac, Pierre, .o
De Paolis, Paolo, 8.n
Despauterius, Joannes (Ian de
Spauter), 66n
Diassorinos, Nilos, ::8
Di Benedetto, Vincenzo, :o6n
Didymus, Claudius, 8.n
Diocletian, Roman Emperor, 8:n,
.o
Diomedes, , , ::, :6n, :, 66, 8qn,
:
Dionisotti, A. Carlotta, XVIIIn,
:6n, 8, qn
Dionysius Cato, .
see Cato, Marcus Porcius the
Elder
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 8:
Dionysius the Areopagite, 88, q.
Dionysius Thrax, , , .n, 8n,
n, 8:n, 8., :on, :o6, :o, :o8,
:oq, :::, ::.n, :., :., :, :.,
:8:n, :8, :8n, .on, .oq, ..o,
..:, ..., .., .., .., .., .,
.8, .q, ., 6
Diophantus, .:
Dominici, Giovanni, :qn
Donato, Bernardino da Verona,
6.n
Donatus, Aelius, XVIII, :., .8n,
.q, :, , n, o, :, ., , ,
6, 8, q, :, , , 6, qn, 6,
66, 6q, ., 8on, 86, qo, q:, :o,
:oq, :.o, :.., :.8, :., :, :6.,
:, :8n, :88n, :8qn, ., .6o,
:, :, :, :q, ..
Donos, Andreas, :6
Dositheus, n, :., n, 88, 8qn, qo,
q:, ..., .., ., :
Droz, Eugnie, .n
Ducas, Demetrius, :
Dubois, Jacques, 6
Dyscolus, Apollonius, see Apollo-
nius Dyscolus
Eberhard (Evrard) of Bthune, :q,
.n, 6o, 66, 86
Eirene, Byzantine Empress, 8q
Elianus, Victorius, , 6n
Elissaeus, 8q
Ephraem, chronicler, .
Ephraem Syrus, .::n
Epictetus, :o, ::
Epirota, Quintus Caecilius, 6qn
Erasmus, , :.., :.8n, :, :6
Eratosthenes, :o, :.
Eriugena, John Scottus, :6, 88,
q.q
Este, Beatrice d, Duchess of Milan,
.6
Este, Borso d, Duke of Ferrara, :
Este, Leonello d, Marquis of
Ferrara, :, :o
Este, Niccol d, Marquis of
Ferrara, :o
Estienne (Stephanus), see Stephani
Euclid, q, .:
Eugenianos, Nicetas, ::
Eunapius, :66
Euripides, q8
Eusebius of Caesarea, 6on
Eustathius, ::, ::6n
Eutyches, :., :6n, 8.n, 8, 88, :n
Faba, Guido, o
Facchettus, Antonius, , 6n, 6n
ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs 6.
Faidit, Uc (Ugo Faiditus), 6
Favorinus, .on
Feriolo, Graziadei,
Festus, :n
Ficino, Marsilio, :8
Filelfo, Francesco, XV, n, :.6,
:, ::n, :q8
Fisher, Elizabeth, .on, .n, .,
.on
Flanginis, Thomas, .
Fontaneto, Guilelmus de,
Frstel, Christian, ::qn, :.on, :.:,
:..n, :.n
Forteguerri, Scipione, see Cartero-
machus, Scipio
Foscari, Jacopo, :on
Francesco da Castiglione, ::n
Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor,
6
Frederick V, Elector Palatine, .on
Fromund, q:
Fryde, Edmund, .n
Fugger, Ulrich, .on
Fulgentius of Ruspe, 8n
Gabalas, Manuel, ..
Gaddi, Angiolo de, :6
Galen, q
Garin, Eugenio, XIIIn, .n
Garzoni, Tommaso, .on
Gaspare da Verona, 66n, :
Gaza, Theodore, XVII, XX, ::,
:.::., :., :.q, :, ::, :n,
:q, :68, .o8n, .on, .6
Geanakoplos, Deno J., .on, ..n,
.8n.6.n
Gehl, Paul, 6n, qn
Gellius, 66
Genesius, Joseph, :q:n
Gentile of Arezzo, .qn
Gerard of Huy, qn
Gian Pietro da Lucca, ::n,
.on
Gigante, Marcello, .6n, .on
Giovanni da Reno, .6n
Giovanni da San Miniato, :qn
Girard of Patras, :.n, .o.
Girardonius, Iacobus, 6n
Giunta, Benedetto (Benedictus
Iunta), n
Giunta, Lucantonio (Lucas Anto-
nius Junta),
Glycas, Michael, .
Glykys, John, :o, :.n
Gobbus, Curtius,
Gonzaga, Cecilia, :.
Gonzaga, Gianfrancesco, Marquis
of Mantua, ::
Goro dArezzo, 6.n, 68n
Gottschalk of Fulda, 68n
Grafton, Anthony, XIVn, n, :.qn,
:
Gregoras, Nicephorus, .:, ..
Gregoropoulos, George, ::, .:
Gregoropoulos, John, :, .on
Gregory XIII, Pope, .
Gregory of Corinth (Gregory
Pardos), ::, :.n, .oq, .6,
., .8
Gregory (George) of Cyprus, :o,
.8
Gregory of Nazianzus, :.n, :6,
.::n
Gregory of Nyssa, q., ..n
Gregory the Great, :o, 8, .on
Grendler, Paul, XIVn, .8n, .q, ,
8, 6, :, .6
Gretser, Jacob, :n
Grolier, Jean, :.8
Grosseteste, Robert, q, q, q,
:.
Gryphius, Joannes, , :.8n
Gualdo Rosa, Lucia, :8n
Guarini, Battista, n, :n, :.6,
:o:, :o, :q
Guarini, Guarino, .n, ., .n, ,
n, 8n, 66n, 6, o, :, 6n,
:o:, :o.n, ::q, :.o, :., :.6, :.q,
:o, ::, :, :6n, :q, :o, ::,
:., :, ::, :6., :, .q, .6,
.8n, .q
Guarini, Niccol, o
Guidi, Giovanni Francesco, .on
Gutenberg, Johannes, .q
6.8 ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs
Habrecht, Isaac, ..n
Hadrian, monk, 88n, 8qn, :.
Hadrian, Roman Emperor, 8n
Hankins, James, 6, :6n
Harris, Jonathan, 86n
Hazelton, Richard, , n
Helias, Peter, .n, 8n
Henry II, King of England, 6qn
Henry of Settimello, 68n
Hephaestion, :66
Heracles, :66
Herbert, William, Earl of Pem-
broke, :6
Hermogenes, .:
Hermonymos, George, :6
Herodian, Aelius, :o8, :::, :., :.,
:66, .
Herodotus, :, :
Hesiod, 8o, :.n, :n, :, :.,
.n
Hesychius, .:
Hierius, 8
Hilduin, 88, q.
Hippocrates, q, .
Holobolos, Manuel, :o, .., .
., .8
Holtz, Louis, .n, , :qn, :n, :,
.n, qn, n, :
Homer, XI, n, q, 8o, 8, 8, q8n,
qqn, :n, :, :o, :., :n,
:, ::, .:6n, ..6, .n, :6,
.:,
Hongulardis, Bartholomaeus de,
.qn
Horace, 6, :, 6qn, o, , 8n,
:n, :
Horrocks, Georey, :n
Houston, Rav A., 8n
Hrotrud, Frankish Princess, 8q
Hugh of St. Victor,
Hugutio of Pisa, 68, 86, q, .on
Hunger, Herbert, ::6n, ..6n
Hyginus, 8n
Ibycus, 8:
Ickelsamer, Valentin, 6 n
Irvine, Martin, q
Isidore of Kiev, :n
Isidore of Seville, :o, :, :
Ising, Erika, 6o, :.
Isocrates, :.n, :, :., :n
Iunilius, 8qn
Jardine, Lisa, XIVn, :.qn, :
Jeauneau, douard, :o6n
Jerome, Saint, :, , 8., q.n, ..,
:
John I Tzimisces, Byzantine
Emperor, qo
John VI, Byzantine Emperor, .n
John of Basingstoke, q, :.:
John of Garland, 68n, 6qn, 86
John of Genoa, see Balbi, Giovanni
Julian of Toledo, :o
Julian the Apostate, Roman
Emperor, :qn
Junta, see Giunta
Justinian, Byzantine Emperor, 8
Juvenal, 6, o, qn, ., .q, .on
Kallendorf, Craig, :n
Kramer, Johannes, 8
Kristeller, Paul Oskar, XIIIn, ::8
Krumbacher, Karl, ::6n, :on,
:n, .6n, .
Lachmann, Karl, ::, :q
Lactantius, q.n
Laertius, Diogenes, ::
Lallot, Jean, ::.n, ..on
Lampridio, Benedetto, :
Landino, Cristoforo, :n
Lascaris, Constantine, XVII, XX,
::, :.::., :., :., :.q, :,
:n, :6., :6, ..., .6n
Lascaris, Janus, :, :, .o.n, .6n
Law, Vivien, qn, :q,
Leno, Francesco de, 6n
Leo X de Medici, Pope, :.:
Lepori, Fernando, .n
Leto, Giulio Pomponio, .,
Libanius, 8, :66, .oo, .:
Livy, o, :, q8n
Logothetes, George, .8n
ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs 6.q
Lomanto, Valeria, .n
London, .6qn
Longibardos, ::o, ::6
Longhi, Gioseo, 6n
Loredan, Lorenzo (Laurentius
Lauretanus), :6.n, :.
Lorenzi (Lorenzano), Lorenzo, :6.
Loschi, Antonio, qqn
Louis the Pious, Holy Roman
Emperor, q.
Lucan, 6, :, 6q, o, .on
Lucian, :, :6
Ludovico il Moro (Sforza), Duke of
Milan, .6
Lulludes, Michael, .:n
Luther, Martin, qn
Lycophron, 8:, q8n
Lydus, John, 8, .:
Lygizos, Michael, :6o, :6, :68, :o,
:6, :8, .:, .q
Macrobius, :n, 8:8., 88, ..n,
., .q, .on
Magister, Thomas, .on
Malalas, John, .:
Malpaghini, Giovanni, qqn
Manasses, Constantine, ::
Mancinelli, Antonio, o, 8:, .,
, 6, 6.
Mancinelli, Pindarus, 8
Mancinelli, Quintus, 8
Mancinelli, Sextus, 8
Manni, Giuseppe, 6n
Manuel I Comnenus, Byzantine
Emperor, .o
Manuel II Palaeologus, Byzantine
Emperor, :oon
Manutius, Aldus, :q, 6:n, n, :..,
:., :.6:.8, :n, .on, ..8,
.
Manutius Andreas, n
Marcanova, Giovanni, .o:n
Marcellus, Nonius, :
Margounios, Maximos, .
Markopoulos, Athanasios, :on
Maro, Virgilius, grammarian, ::
Marrou, Henri, , 8n
Martial, :, o
Martire de Mantegatiis, Pietro, 6n
Mascardi, Vitale, , 6n
Matthew of Vendme, 68n
Mattia (owner of MS. Vat. Pal. gr.
.), .o, .on
Mauropous, John, ::
Maurus, Hrabanus, .:n, 68n
Mavromatis, Giannis, .n
Maximianus, 68
Maximilian I, Duke of Bavaria,
.on
Maximus the Confessor, q.
Maximus, Valerius, o, 8n
Mazarin, Cardinal, :n
McCormick, Michael, 86n
McKee, Sally, .8n
Meda, Hieronimus de, n
Meda, Valerius de, n
Medici, Cosimo de, .n
Medici, Lorenzo de (the Magni-
cent), :.
Melanchthon, Philip, :.q
Melissenos, Gregory, :n
Menander, XI
Menzer, Melinda J., n
Merlo, Bortolamio, 6n
Merrilees, Brian, 6:n
Metochites, George, .qn
Metochites, Theodore, ..
Michael II, Byzantine Emperor, q.
Michael VIII Palaeologus, Byzan-
tine Emperor, .:, ..n, .8
Michael Syncellus, :.n, :6, .oq,
., .
Mignault, Claude (Claudius Minos),
:8n
Mithridates, 8n
Moatt, Ann, :on
Moiranus, Barptolomaeus, n
Monaci, Lorenzo de, .n
Monfasani, John, XIVn
Monferrato de Sustreno de Bonelli,
Manfredo de, 6n
Montefeltro, Federigo da, Duke of
Urbino, ::
Morgan, Teresa, 8n
6o ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs
Morozzo della Rocca, Raimondo,
.qn
Moschopoulos, Manuel, XVII, :o,
:o, ::, ::, ::, ::n, ::q, :.,
:., :n, :, :68, .oo, .on,
.o8n, .oq, ..o, .:, .6, .8,
.q, :,
Moschus, John, :, 8
Murethach, :
Murphy, James, 8
Musurus, Marcus, :.8, :, :,
.on, .8n, .6n
Narnia, Pietro di, .qn
Natalis, Hervaeus, see Ndlec,
Herv
Nebrija, Antonio de, :q, 6.n, 66n,
:, .n
Ndlec, Herv (Hervaeus Natalis),
..
Niccoli, Niccol, :oo, :o:n, :o.n
Nicholas V, Pope, :n, :.:, :8
Nicholas of Cues, XIn
Nicholas the Greek, qn
Nicocles, .oo
Nicolaus, Magister, see Nicholas the
Greek
Notaras, Anna, .o
Oldenburg, Johannes, 6on
Omont, Henri, q:
Origen, 8qn
Orsini, Fulvio, Cardinal, .o.
Ortoleva, Vincenzo, ..6n, ..n,
.8n
Orus, :o8
Osbern of Gloucester, 68
Ostrogorsky, George (Georgije),
..qn
Otloh of St. Emmeran, n
Ottenrich, Count Palatine, .on
Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor, qo
Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor, qo
Ottoboni, Pietro, Cardinal (Pope
Alexander VIII), :68n
Ovid, ., :, 6q, o, 8n, :., :6n,
:, ., .q, .on
Pace of Ferrara, q
Pachel, Leonardo, 6n
Pachymeres, George, .., .n,
Padley, G. Arthur, XIIIn, 6n
Paganello, Francesco,
Palaemon, Remmius, .n, , 8, :n,
:n, :o6
Palaeologus, Thomas, :n
Palaephatus, :66
Palladas, :66
Palmieri, Matteo, :
Panagiotakis, Nikolaos M., .8n,
..n, .n
Pandarus, Iosephus,
Pannartz, Arnold, .q
Papias, 8., 86, q
Paravisinus, Dionysius, :..
Parisiensis, Matthaeus (Matthew
Paris), :.
Pasquali, Giorgio, :6n
Pasquatus, Laurentius,
Passionei, Domenico, Cardinal,
:qn
Paul, Saint,
Epistles, :6n
Paul the Deacon, :
Pedhione, Michael, .qn
Percival, W. Keith, 8n, :6:
Perleone, Pietro, .
Perotti, Niccol, 6n, :q, .on, 66n,
8:n, :.8
Persius, 6q
Pertusi, Agostino, ::on, ::qn, :.on,
:, :6, .on, .6n, .qn
Peter of Pisa, :, :6
Peter of Poitiers, ..
Peter of Spain, ., .on
Peter the Cretan, :.n
Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca), XIII,
, 6, qn, q, q8, qqn, :o.n,
:n, :6q
Petronius, qn
Phagiannis, Nicholas, .o:
Philarges, Petrus (Pope Alexander
V), .q
Philip of Pera, .
Philostratus, ::, ::
ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs 6:
Phocas, :., .:, :
Phocylides, :.6n, :., ::
Photius, :o
Phrynicus, .on
Piccolomini, Enea Silvio (Pope Pius
II), XIn, :on, :n
Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni,
:.6n, :.n, :
Pietro da Asolo, :6q
Pietro dAbano, qn
Pietro da Isolella, 66n, :, o
Pietro da Montagnana, .8, 8,
.o:n, .8n
Pilato, Leonzio, q8qq, :oo, :o:n,
.o
Pinborg, Jan, .n
Pindar, XI, 8:, :, :., :n, :n,
.on
Pio, Alberto, Prince of Carpi, :.6n
Pio, Alberto (jr.), :.6n
Pio, Lionello, :.6n
Pirondolo, Niccol, 6n
Pius II, Pope, see, Piccolomini,
Enea Silvio
Planudes, Maximus, XVIII, XIX,
qn, :o, :o, ::o, ::, :.on,
:.:, :..n, :.n, :, :on, :n,
:n, ::, .oo, .on, .o, ..,
....8, ..q, .., ., .,
., .6n, .., .:, .q,
:
Platina, Bartolomeo, ::n, :.n
Plato, 6, :, q., :o, :8, :., :6.,
.:
Plato, Franciscus Hyazchas, :68,
:6q, :o, .6, .6o
Plautus, ,
Plethon, George Gemistos, XIV,
:o, ::
Pliny the Elder, 8n, 88, q8n, :
Plutarch, :::, :, ::, :., :o, .o.,
..6, .:, .:
Polara, Giovanni, XXIn
Politian (Angelo Poliziano), XV,
6n, n, :.n, :6, :, :,
::n, :.n
Pompeius, :on, :
Pontani, Anna, XVn, :on
Porcari, Stefano de, :
Pore, Gilbert de la, .
Porphyry, .o8n
Pozzo, Daniele dal, 6n
Prendilacqua, Francesco, ::n
Priscian, :, 8, :o, ::, :., :, :, :6,
:, :q, .o, ., ., :, ., , n,
n, n, 8n, q, o, :, ., ,
, 6, , 8n, qn, o, :, qn,
66, 6n, :, ., n, 8.n, 8, 88,
8qn, q.n, :o, :o8, ::, :., :n,
:8n, :86n, :88n, :8q, :q, :qn,
.:.n, .:, .:, .., .., .n,
.., :, :6, :, :8, .o, ..,
., .q, :, ., , , :,
:, .
Priscianese, Francesco, 6n
Probus, :, 8, ::
Proclus, ..n
Procopius of Gaza, 8
Prodicus, :o
Prodromos, Theodore, ::, ::6,
::n, :6, .oo, .o, .o
Prosper of Aquitaine, .n, 6qn, o,
8, .6:
Protagoras, :o
Prudentius, 6qn
Psellus, Michael, :o6, ::, :.qn, :6
Ptolemy, q, :o, :o, :., .:
Pythagoras, :.6n, :.
Quintilian, , 6, :n, :n, 8, q,
6on, ., , q, 8o, 8, :.6, :o,
::, :on, ::, ..., ..n
Quirini, Lauro, .q
Remigius of Auxerre, :, ., n
Renanus, Beatus, :6
Renner, Giovanni, see Giovanni da
Reno
Reuchlin, Johannes, :6
Reynolds, Suzanne, n
Rich, Pierre, qn
Ricoldo da Monte Croce, ..
Righettini, Francesco, 6n
Righettini, Girolamo, 6n
6. ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs
Rizzon, Martino, 8n
Robins, Robert, 6n, :o.n, :o,
:.on, ..n
Rocca, Angelo, :qn
Rochette, Bruno, 8n, 8.n
Rodriguez de Fonseca, Juan, :
Romanus the Melodist,
Rossi, MarcAntonio, 6n
Rossi, Roberto, :oon, :o.n, ::qn
Runus, 8.
Rusconibus, Georgius de, 6n
Sabbadini, Remigio, .o, .n, 8n,
, .o, .
Sacerdos, :
Sareys, Henri D., :6n
Sagundino, Niccol, .
Sallust, 6, 6q, o, :, 8n
Salutati, Coluccio, XIV, o, qq, :oo,
::qn, :.on, :, :qn
Sambin, Paolo, .n
Sanctius, Franciscus (Francisco
Snchez de la Brozas), .
Sandys, John E., :o
Sani, Roberto, :qn
Sappho, 8o
Sassolo da Prato, ::n, :.n
Scaliger, Joseph Justus, .n, ..8
Scaurus, Terentius, :., :
Schmitt, Wolfgang Oskar, XIX, q,
., ., ::, :, :6, :, :6:,
:., :n, :n, :8, :88, :qn,
:q, :qn, :q6, .on, .o8n, ...n,
..n, ..6n, .n, .., :, :,
:8, :q
Scholarios, George Gennadios,
:n, .oq, ..:n, ..n, ., .6n,
.on, .8n, ., .6, ., .8,
.
Scottus, Sedulius, :, :6, :
Sedigitus, Volcacius, on
Seneca, 6q, o, , :.
Sergius, qn, :o, .q
Servius, 6, q, :o, :, on, :
Sessa, Giovanni Battista, on
Sessa, Melchiore, 6n
Setton, Kenneth M., .on
Sevast, Maneas, ..n
Sevast, Zorzi, ..n
Sforza, Ascanio, Cardinal, :qn
Sforza, Francesco, Duke of Milan,
:..
Sforza, Ippolita, :..
Sforza, Massimiliano Ercole, Earl of
Pavia, .6, .n, qn
Sigeros, Nicholas, q8n
Siligardo, Paolo, ..n
Silvestri, Domenico, q8
Simonides of Ceos, 6on
Simplicius, .on
Sinaites, Anastasius, :6, .::n
Sirleto, Cardinal, :68n
Smaragdus, :
Socrates, .oo
Solomon,
Sophianos, Nicholas, .o8n
Sophocles, :6n, ..on
Sophronius of Jerusalem, :oq
Soranus of Ephesus,
Sphrantzes, George,
Souliardos, Michael, :6, .:
Stakos, Konstantinos, :8n
Statius, 6, 68, 6q, o, 8o, 8:n,
Stephani (Henri and Robert
Estienne), :, :6
Stesichorus, 8:
Stevens, Linton C., :.qn, :n
Stevenson, Henry, .o
Stinger, Charles, ::n
Strabo, :o
Strozzi, Palla, :oo, :, .
Stylianos, ::, ::6n
Suetonius, , :, o
Symmachus, 8:n
Syncellus, Michael, see Michael
Syncellus
Syrus, Publilius,
Sweynheym, Konrad, .q
Tacuinus, Ioannes, 8n, 6n
Tatwine, :.
Tebaldo, .n
Terence, 6, :, :, 6q, o, , :n
Tertullian, 8.
ixnrx or rrnsox\r x\xrs 6
Theobaldus, 6qn
Theocritus, :.6n, :.n, :, :.,
:, .on, ..8, .:
Theodore of Tarsus, 88n, 8qn, :.
Theodosius of Alexandria, q6, :o8
:oq, ::o, :::, :, :6, :68, :86,
:8, .o, .:, ., ., 6, ,
6
Theodulus, 68, 6q
Theognis, :, .o.
Theophanes the Confessor, 8q
Theophano, Byzantine Princess, qo
Thomas Aquinas, .., ., .
Thomaeus, Nicolaus Leonicus,
:6qn
Thrax, Dionysius, see Dionysius
Thrax
Thucydides, :, :, .:
Tiphernas, Gregorius, :on, :,
:6
Tornices, George, :on
Torresano, Andrea, :.8n
Tortelli, Giovanni, :o, :, .o
Tortis, Battista de, .n
Toscanella, Orazio, n, 6n
Trapezuntius, George (George of
Trebizond), ::, :n, .8n
Traversari, Ambrogio, :., :n,
:., :, .6n
Triclinius, Demetrius, :o, :o, ..
Tryphon, :66
Tzetzes, John, q8n, ::n, ::, ::6n,
:on, :6
Ulysses, :qn
Usuard of St. Germain, :6
Valiero, Agostino, :on
Valla, Giorgio, :.n
Valla, Lorenzo, :q, .on, :, ., n,
::, :, :68:6q, .o, .:
Varro, , :, :q, ., q, :o6
Vergara, Franciscus, :.q
Vergerio, Pier Paolo, XIIn, :on
Vespasiano da Bisticci, :o.n
Virgil, n, 6, :o::, :, :, ., 8n,
6q, o, , 8n, q, 8:n, qn, q8n,
:., :o, :., :n, .on
Virunius, Ponticus, :
Visconti, Gian Galeazzo, Duke of
Milan, :oon
Vitale, Filippo, :qn
Vitalian, Pope, 88n
Vittorino da Feltre, :, :q, :o,
:::., .o.
Vives, Jean Louis, :.n
Vlastos, Nicholas, :, .o
Waquet, Franoise, 6.n
Webb, Ruth, :on, :o8n, ::
Wendel, Carl, :n, .q
William of Modena, n
Wilson, Nigel G., :.n, :6n, .on,
.on
Witt, Ronald G., XIIIn
Xenophon, qn, :n, :
Young, Douglas, .o.n
Zaltieri, Bolognino, n
Zenobius, 8n
Zorzi, protonotario, ..n
INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS
The index does not include the manuscripts quoted in Appendix II (8
8).
Athos, Iviron Monastery
:q ..
Bern, Brgerbibliothek
lat. .o :.n
gr. :6 ::n
Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana
B vi 8 .:n
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale
Magliabechi I
.:n, .8n
Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana
:, :q :n
8, : q8n
6o, .: .o.n
6q, : .o.
Conventi Soppressi :o6 (C)
::, :, :, :6, :8,
:6::6., :6, :6, :,
:.:q, :8.n, :8n,
:86, :88n, :q, :qn,
:q8, ..., .., ., .6,
.q, :, :6
Gaddi :8. (G)
:, :6, :8, :6:,
:6:6, :6, :.:q,
:8.n, :86, :88n, :qn,
:q, :qn, :q8, .o6,
.:., ..., .., .n,
., .6, .q, .6o, :,
:
Redi : (R) XXIIn, :, :6, :q,
:6o, :6, :, :o:.,
:.:q, :8:, :8.n,
:8n, :86n, :88, :8q,
:qo, :q:, :q., :q,
:qn, :q, :q6, :q,
.o6n, .o, .o8, .oq,
.:., .:, .:q, .o, ...,
.., ., .:, ., .,
.6, :q.o, , ,
,
Strozzi 8o (S)
., .8, on, .n, n,
n, 6n, qn, :n,
:8.n, .:6n, .:, .:8,
..:, :6, ., o, :,
., , o
Grottaferrata, Biblioteca dellAbbazia
. : ::on, :::n
. . . :::n
Laon, Bibliothque Municipale
q.
London, British Library
Harley .8
68n
Harley .6
.:, ., .6, .8, 6n
Harley q.
8qn, q.
Harley 6: 68n
London, College of Arms
Arundel q qn
Madrid, Biblioteca Nacionl
6.6 ::on
66 ixnrx or x\xtscnir+s
Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana
A q inf :on
C :.6 inf q
I q8 inf q8n
M q sup 8qn
P sup :.8n
S o sup.
Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana
.:6 qn
.:6 .6
Modena, Biblioteca Estense
T 8. .o..on
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
gr. : ..6n
Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale
lat. : 8.n
New York, Columbia University Library
Plimpton :8 (K)
., on, .n, n, n,
6n, :n, o
Plimpton :
.n
Oxford, Bodleian Library
Barocci : ..
Barocci . (O, Z)
:, :6, :8, :q, :6:,
:6, :66:68, :.:q,
:8:n, :8.n, :86n, :8n,
:88n, :q:n, :q, :qn,
.o6.o8, .::, ..., ..,
.., ., .:, ., .,
.6, .q, :, :q, ,
, 8, .
lat. misc. e. .
6n
Oxford, Corpus Christi College
:8 q
Padua, Biblioteca Comunale
C.M. q8 .8n
Padua, Biblioteca del Museo Civico
B.P. ..q .n
Padua, Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile
o (U) .8, on, n, n, 6n,
8n, :n, n, :8n,
:8, ., o, :, .,
,
Paris, Bibliothque Nationale
gr. . :
gr. q.
gr. .qo :..n
gr. .q: :..n
gr. .q (N) :6, :q, :6:, :6
:66, :6n, :.:q,
:8.n, :8n, :86n, :8n,
:88n, :qon, :q:n, :q,
:qn, .::, ..., ..,
.:, ., .q, :, :q
gr. oq6 :6
lat. .8 qon
lat. o :n
lat. q. .n
lat. o qn
lat. 88o.: qqn
lat. :q. (J) .6, .8, :8.n, :8n,
.:6n, :6, ., .q,
o, :, ., , ,
o, ,
Rome, Biblioteca Angelica
gr. (A) :, :6, :8, :q
:6o, :6:, :6, :6n,
:68, :.:q, :8:n,
:8.n, :8n, :86n, :8n,
:88n, :q:n, :q, :qn,
., .n, .:, .,
.q, :, :q
Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense
lat. :. .
Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana
. D. : .o8n
ixnrx or x\xtscnir+s 6
Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale
gr. 6 ::on
Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana
.o (F 68) ::n
F 8 :::
Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine
gr. :6: .o8n
St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek
8 q.n
88 q.n
qo. q.n
Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale
C. II. .: .o8n
I. III. :. q8n
Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek
C 68 qn, 6on, :.n
Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana
Barberini gr. :o (B)
:, :6, :8, :6o:6:,
:6, :.:q, :8.n,
:8n, :86, :88n, :q:n,
:qn, :q, :qn, ...,
.., ., ., .6, .q,
:, :, :6, :q
Chigi lat. L. VI. q8 (H)
.8, :6, :, o, :,
.
Ottoboni gr. 8q
.o
Ottoboni gr. :
.o8n
Ottoboni gr. .o6 (Q)
:6, :q, :6:, :6,
:68:o, :.:q,
:8:n, :8.n, :8n,
:86n, :8n, :88n,
:q:n, :q.n, :q, :qn,
..., .., .n, .:,
., .6, .q, :,
:q
Ottoboni lat. :q6
.
Palatinus gr. ::6
::8, .:on
Palatinus gr. :.
.8n
Palatinus gr. . (P)
:.n, :6, :, :8,
:qqn, .oo, .o.o6,
.oq, .., .6, ., .6o,
.8, , 6, , 8,
o, .,
Reginensis lat. :
6n
Reginensis lat. :8:8
.n
Urbinas gr. :.:
:6
Urbinas gr. ::
.oqn, .
Vaticanus gr. 8
:6n
Vaticanus gr. .q
.oqn
Vaticanus gr. 68
.::
Vaticanus gr. 88
:.n
Vaticanus gr. :88 (V)
:n, :6, :, .o.
.o, .oq.::, ..:...,
.6, ., .6
Vaticanus gr. :8
.:n
Vaticanus gr. :.
:
Vaticanus lat. q.q
.8,
Venice, Biblioteca Marciana
gr. 8 ..
gr. 8 :::n
gr. IX.: ::
gr. X. .8n
gr. X.q (M) :6, :, .oo.o:, .o.,
.o8n, .oq.::, ..o,
..:..., .., .6, .,
68 ixnrx or x\xtscnir+s
.q, ., .6, .,
8
gr. X. : .8n
gr. XI.:6 ::
gr. XI.: ::n
lat. XIII. .8n
lat. XIV.:o .8n
Vienna, sterreichische Nationalbibliothek
lat. :: (philol. lat. :oq)
q:
philol. gr. :q
:o
theol. gr. :
..
theol. gr. .
:on
Wolfenbttel, Herzog August Bibliothek
: .: Aug.
:.
Gudianus ::.
:::
Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition publishes monographs by members of the
Columbia University faculty and by former Columbia students. Its subjects are the fol-
lowing: Greek and Latin literature, ancient philosophy, Greek and Roman history,
classical archaeology, and the classical tradition in its medieval, Renaissance and
modern manifestations.
1. MONFASANI, J. Georg of Trebizond. A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and
Logic. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04370 5
2. COULTER, J. The Literary Microcosm. Theories of Interpretation of the Later
Neoplatonists. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04489 2
3. RIGINOS, A.S. Platonica. The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings of
Plato. ISBN 90 04 04565 1
4. BAGNALL, R.S. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. 1976.
ISBN 90 04 04490 6
5. KEULS, E. Plato and Greek Painting. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05395 6
6. SCHEIN, S.L. The Iambic Trimeter in Aeschylus and Sophocles. A Study in Metrical
Form. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05949 0
7. OSULLIVAN, T.D. The De Excidio of Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date. 1978.
ISBN 90 04 05793 5
8. COHEN, S.J.D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a
Historian. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05922 9
9. TARN, S.L. The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram. 1979.
ISBN 90 04 05957 1
10. CAMERON, A.V. & J. HERRIN (eds.). Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: the
Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai. Introduction, Translation and Commentary. In con-
junction with Al. Cameron, R. Cormack and Ch. Rouech. 1984.
ISBN 90 04 07010 9
11. BRUNO, V.J. Hellenistic Painting Techniques. The Evidence of the Delos Fragments.
1985. ISBN 90 04 07159 8
12. WOOD, S. Roman Portrait Sculpture 217-260 A.D. The Transformation of an Artistic
Tradition. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07282 9
13. BAGNALL, R.S. & W.V. HARRIS (eds.). Studies in Roman Law in Memory of
A. Arthur Schiller. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07568 2
14. SACKS, R. The Traditional Phrase in Homer. Two Studies in Form, Meaning and
Interpretation. 1987. ISBN 90 04 07862 2
15. BROWN, R.D. (ed.). Lucretius on Love and Sex. A Commentary on De Rerum Natura
IV, 1030-1287 with Prolegomena, Text and Translation. 1987.
ISBN 90 04 08512 2
16. KNOX, D. Ironia. Medieval and Renaissance Ideas about Irony. 1990.
ISBN 90 04 08965 9
17. HANKINS, J. Plato in the Italian Renaissance. Reprint 1994. ISBN 90 04 10095 4
18. SCHWARTZ, S. Josephus and Judaean Politics. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09230 7
19. BARTMAN, E. Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09532 2
20. DORCEY, P.F. The Cult of Silvanus. A Study in Roman Folk Religion. 1992.
ISBN 90 04 09601 9
21. AUBERT, J.-J. Business Managers in Ancient Rome. A Social and Economic Study of
Institores, 200 B.C.-A.D. 250. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10038 5
22. BILLOWS, R.A. Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism. 1994.
ISBN 90 04 10177 2
23. ROTH, J.P. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. - A.D. 235). 1999. ISBN
90 04 11275 1
24. PHANG, S.E. The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B.C. - A.D. 235). Law and Family in
the Imperial Army. 2001 ISBN 90 04 12155 2
25. MARCONI, C. (ed.). Greek Vases: Images, Contexts and Controversies. Proceedings of the Con-
ference sponsored by The Center for the Ancient Mediterranean at Columbia University,
2324 March 2002. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13802 1
26. HARRIS, W.V. & G. RUFFINI (eds.). Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece. 2005.
ISBN 90 04 14105 7
27. HARRIS, W.V. (ed.). The Spread of Christianity in the First Four Centuries. Essays in Explana-
tion. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14717 9
28. VOLK, K. & G.D. WILLIAMS (eds.). Seeing Seneca Whole. Perspectives on Philosophy,
Poetry and Politics. 2006. ISBN-10: 90 04 15078 1, ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15078 2
29. HOLLANDER, D.B. Money in the Late Roman Republic. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 15649 4
30. MARZANO, A. Roman Villas in Central Italy. A Social and Economic History. 2007.
ISBN 978 90 04 16037 8
31. BAROLINI, T. & H. WAYNE STOREY (eds.). Petrarch and the Textual Origins of Interpretation.
2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16322 5
32. CICCOLELLA, F. Donati Graeci. Learning Greek in the Renaissance. 2008.
ISBN 978 90 04 16352 2
33. HARRIS, W.V. & B. HOLMES (eds.). Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods. 2008.
ISBN 978 90 04 17204 3
www.brill.nl/csct