Constructing Authority in Latin Scholarship

In the Roman school system, the authority of Latin poets served as a pedagogical tool encompassing both aspects of grammatical instruction, namely, the science of correct expression (recte loquendi scientia) and the exposition of poets (poetarum enarratio). This dissertation inspects the dynamics of poetic authority in both branches of ancient Roman scholarship: how this principle engages with the specific purpose of three commentaries (Part 1: “Poetic auctoritas in Latin literary commentaries”), and how it unfolds in an equal number of grammatical works of late antiquity (Part 2: “The scholarly principle of auctoritas in Latin lexicography”). When browsing through ancient commentaries on classical Latin texts, it is common to encounter citations from disparate sources distinct from the text under examination. The cited passage serves, leveraging the authoritative standing of its originating author, various purposes within the exegetical discourse: it may affirm a linguistic usage, convey historical or geographical information, elucidate moral principles embedded in the text under scrutiny, or, albeit infrequently, offer critiques thereof. The first part of my dissertation delves into the ways in which poetic citations fulfil distinct objectives within the frameworks of three commentaries: firstly, the annotations accompanying Lucan’s De Bello Ciuili, whose foundational elements likely took shape in the fifth century CE; secondly, the rhetorical commentary on the Aeneid authored by the fifth-century rhetorician Tiberius Claudius Donatus; and thirdly, the collection of glosses appended to Cicero’s speeches against Verres, inscribed in the margins of the Verrines manuscripts and usually attributed to a pseudo-Asconius. The first chapter provides a snapshot of Juvenal’s role in late antique and early medieval commentaries on Lucan. I show that the satiric poet comes to the aid of Lucan’s commentator as linguistic, moral, antiquarian, and especially historical model: his Satires are a particularly important referent for Roman history. The purpose of citing Juvenal is mainly to state a comparison between the Bellum ciuile and the Satires; less often, the scholiast inserts a citation to support the explanation of a given Lucan passage, as is especially the case of comments on language, where Juvenal lends the effect of final and irrevocable ratification. The second chapter discusses Terence’s role as idoneus auctor in Tiberius Claudius Donatus’ rhetorical commentary on Virgil, the Interpretationes Vergilianae. It suggests that the Virgilian commentator exploits Terence’s authority in a manner commensurate with the priority of his pedagogical tasks, that is, primarily the (eulogistic) interpretation of the Aeneid and, when strictly necessary, the teaching of grammar. Terence is a ‘living voice’ for the author of the Interpretationes: his name is considered a guarantee of quality in rhetorical and moral teaching, and his authority resides especially within his aphoristic-sounding locutions. The third chapter examines the Virgilian presence in pseudo Asconius’ commentary on Cicero’s Diuinatio in Caecilium and on part of the Verrines, showing that the anonymous commentator most often uses Virgilian quotations to bear support to his linguistic and stylistic explanations. Poetic authority takes on different forms in the narrow circumstances of Latin instruction, specifically when the objective is to elucidate language and grammar rather than interpret a literary text. The fourth and final chapter of my dissertation focuses on poetic auctoritas outside exegetical works: in particular, it analyses how this principle changes when someone is writing to explain language rather than poetry. Nonius Marcellus’ De compendiosa doctrina and Arusianus Messius’ Exempla elocutionum have revealed a “forward-looking” auctoritas, that does not provide exegetical help (Virgil does not explain Plautus, Sallust does not explain Sisenna, and so on), but rather offers a justification for a pattern of speech that is not commonly used. Based on the principle of authority, these two lexicographers may endorse or recognize certain linguistic innovations, idiomatic expressions, or colloquialisms as legitimate additions to the language; conversely, they may use citations to caution against usage that deviates from accepted norms or is considered incorrect. Although the focus is functionally exclusive on language, the authoritative principle achieves different results in Festus-Paul’s abridged version of Verrius Flaccus’ dictionary. While literary auctoritas in Nonius is mostly oriented towards the future, for it is focused entirely on linguistic instruction and is not concerned with textual interpretation, literary citations in the De uerborum significatu look backward; however, they do not aim at the explanation of texts, but rather at language. Festus-Paul are not engaged in a program of revising, changing, and expanding the language, and auctoritas in their versions of Verrius Flaccus’ dictionary responds to an antiquarian interest in the Latin words.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.