CZANGEMEISTER.-*XIV: Inscr. Latii, ed. HDESSAU.-As Corporis I. L. auctarium has appeared: Exempla scripturae epigraphicae lat. a Caes. dict. morte ad aetatem Iustiniani, ed. EHÜBNER, Berl. 1885.-The inscriptions discovered since the publication of the respective volumes of the CIL. are published in the Ephemeris epigraphica corporis inscr. lat. supplementum, Berl. 1872 sqq.

2. EHÜBNER, Röm. Epigraphik in IwMüller's Handb. d. klass. Altert.-Wiss. 1, 475.-Selections for ordinary use: JCORELLI (inscriptionum lat. selectarum amplissima collectio, Zür. 1828 II; Vol. 3 by WHENZEN 1856) and GWILMANNS (Exempla inscript. latt., Berl. 1873 II.)—ESCHNEIDER, dialectorum ital. aevi vetustioris exempla: I, dialecti lat. priscae et faliscae inscriptt., Lps. 1886.—On the metrical inscriptions see § 31, 4.

3. Collections of the early Christian inscriptions of the city of Rome by JBDEROSSI (I Rome 1861), of Spain and of England by EHÜBNER (Berl. 1871 and 1876), of France by ELEBLANT (Par. 1857, 65 II).

41. From the same motives as historiography and in connection with it, antiquarian learning arose and prospered among the Romans, dealing both with institutions and language. The study of the latter was due to the practical necessity of fixing in writing the developing sounds of the language. But the most distinguished authors and the majority of writers turned their attention to the mos maiorum i.e. the investigation of the customs and institutions of olden times. Such are Cincius Alimentus, Cato, M. Fulvius Nobilior, Cassius Hemina, C. Sempronius Tuditanus, M. Junius Gracchanus. To these studies were added after the 7th century u.c. essays on the older literature and especially elucidations of the poets, partly historical, partly linguistic, (glossographic). Representatives of this tendency are, besides L. Accius and Lucilius, Porcius Licinus, Q. Valerius of Sora, Volcatius Sedigitus, Octavius Lampadio, Sisenna, Sevius Nicanor, Aurelius Opilius, M. Antonius Gnipho, Q. Cosconius, Santra, Octavius Hersennus, and above all L. Aelius Stilo and his son-in-law Ser. Clodius. Crates the Pergamene grammarian, who in the year 595/159 came as ambassador to Rome, excited a lasting interest in linguistic studies. Etymology was attempted by two methods, some always resorting to Greek (Hypsikrates), others endeavouring to explain everything on the basis of Latin (M. Varro and Nigidius Figulus). In the Ciceronian time, when Rome was recognised as the centre of the whole intellectual life of the Empire and contained all helps to research, these studies reached their highest stage of development in Varro, and besides him Nigidius Figulus, Valerius Cato, Ateius Philologus and others. Among the statesmen Caesar

himself wrote de analogia, Appius Claudius (cos. 700/54) and L. Caesar wrote on the augural system. In the Augustan time antiquarian investigation was once more zealously cultivated by Julius Hyginus, Verrius Flaccus, M. Valerius Messala, Sinnius Capito, Scribonius Aphrodisius, L. Crassicius, succeeded by Julius Modestus, Pomponius Marcellus, A. Cornelius Celsus and Asconius Pedianus. Celsus' versatility was even surpassed by that of Pliny the Elder, and even in the 2nd century A.D. Suetonius, Sulpicius Apollinaris, Fronto and Apuleius, exhibit a varied culture and literary activity. But on the whole it may be said that, from the first century of our era, a school-system with its comparatively limited views gained ascendancy, and in this department the grammarians became the most important, while erudition became more and more restricted to one class. Thus we have Q. Remmius Palaemo, M. Valerius Probus of Berytus, Annaeus Cornutus, Caesius Bassus, Aemilius Asper, Flavius Caper, Caesellius Vindex, Urbanus, Velius Longus; in Hadrian's reign, Terentius Scaurus; under M. Aurelius A. Gellius and probably Festus. The later authors subsisted on these earlier productions. Thus in the 3rd century Arruntius Celsus, Helenius Acro, Julius Romanus, Censorinus, Sacerdos, lastly perhaps the lexicographer Nonius Marcellus and Pomponius Porphyrio. After a long interval about the middle of the 4th century we meet again grammarians of more distinction, most of them authors of manuals (artes), such as Cominianus, Marius Victorinus, Aelius Donatus, Charisius, Diomedes; the same Aelius Donatus elucidated Terence, Servius and Claudius Donatus Vergil. In the 5th century we have Macrobius and Agroecius, and at the commencement of the 6th Priscian. In this department, too, the semblance of variety and stir surpasses the reality, since here also preceding labours were copied to a great extent, and often with very little discrimination.

1. SUET. gramm. 1 grammatica Romae ne in usu quidem olim, nedum in honore ullo erat, rudi scilicet ac bellicosa etiamtum civitate necdum magnopere liberalibus disciplinis vacante. initium quoque eius mediocre extitit, si quidem antiquissimi doctorum, qui iidem et poetae et semigraeci erant (as Livy and Ennius), ... nihil amplius quam Graecos interpretabantur. ib. 2 primus studium grammaticae in urbem intulit Crates Mallotes, Aristarchi aequalis, qui missus ad senatum ab Attalo rege inter secundum ac tertium bellum punicum, sub ipsam Enni mortem, nostris exemplo fuit ad imitandum. On the influence of the Pergamenes on Roman literature-exaggerated of late-AREIFFERSCHEID, ind. lect., Bresl. 1881/82. UvWILAMOWITZ, Antig. v. Karystos 161. 176. IBRZOSKA, de canone decem oratt.

Attic., Bresl. 1883, 75 and esp. EROнDE, RhM. 41, 175; see § 44, 10); hactenus tamen ut carmina parum adhuc divolgata vel defunctorum amicorum, vel si quorum aliorum probassent, diligentius retractarent ac legendo commentandoque et ceteris nota facerent; ut C. Octavius Lampadio, . . . ut postea Q. Vargunteius: instruxerunt auxer

untque ab omni parte grammaticam L. Aelius Lanuvinus generque Aeli Ser. Clodius ... ib. 3 posthac magis ac magis et gratia et cura artis increvit, ut ne clarissimi quidem viri abstinuerint quo minus et ipsi aliquid de ea scriberent utque temporibus quibusdam super viginti celebres scholae fuisse in urbe tradantur, also grammatici were sold at a high price (as slaves), as Lutatius Daphnis (§ 134, 1. 142, 4. 244, 2. Cf. HPETER, JJ. 115, 750) and L. Apuleius. iam in provincias quoque grammatica penetraverat, ac nonnulli de notissimis doctoribus peregre docuerunt, maxime in Gallia togata, inter quos Octavius Teucer et Sescennius (Fesc. the MS., Pescennius Osann) Iacchus (mentioned as the authority for PLIN. NH. b. 32 and 37, and quoted 37, 148) et Oppius Chares (cf. 54, 5).

2. The critical activity of the grammatici comprehended, after the example of their Greek predecessors, emendare, distinguere, adnotare (notas adicere, which notae consisted sometimes in mere signs, sometimes in short notes). SUETON. in the Anecd. Paris. (from Paris. 7350 s. VIII first edited by BERGK, ZfAW. 1845, 85= opusc. 1, 580; and in REIFFERSCHEID's Sueton. 137, KEIL'S GL. 7, 533 and elsewhere), Notae xx1 quae versibus apponi consuerunt : — obelus. ·X asteriscus. —asteriscus cum obelo. simplex ductus. > diple. diple periestigmene. ◊ antisigma. ŋantisigma cum puncto. coronis. >- diple obelismene. ←aversa obelismene.

ceraunion. obelus adpunctus. ·<obelus cum aversa. diple superne obelata. recta et aversa superne obelatae. chi et rho. & fi et ro. Tancora superior. ancora inferior. () alogus. his solis in adnotationibus Ennii, Lucili et historicorum (?) usi sunt Vargunteius (Bergk: Varrus the MS.), Ennius (§ 159, 13), Aelius (Stilo) aeque et postremo Probus (see § 300). Here follows the explanation of the use of the several signs, where it is repeatedly remarked, in accordance with the account of their employment among the Greeks: item Probus et antiqui nostri, similiter (sic et) in nostris auctoribus etc. Cf. ISID. orig. 1, 20. JSTEUP, de Probis 17. According to the explanation these 21 notae, with few exceptions, refer to the emendatio (diópowσis), but Suetonius knew of other notae as well (cf. in the Anecd. Paris. his solis), and some which were employed from the point of view of rhetorical and aesthetic criticism (kplois) are to be found enumerated in the supplement to these Anecd. GL. 7, 536, 16 as notae simplices. An Anecd. Cavense (ap. Reifferscheid, RhM. 23, 127) quotes some such e.g.+lemniscus in acutis. asteriscus in sententiis. Р oraeon in invincibilibus. oraeon cum palma in invincibilibus acutis etc. This list of notes in La Cava is preceded by two epigrams which refer to it, one by Patricius Olybrius (cf. § 436, 7) who belonged to the school of Symmachus, which was occupied with the preservation, careful multiplication and estimation of the early Latin authors. Similar notae were made use of in Christian literature, e.g. by Cassiodorus (see § 483, 12).—To the above-mentioned efforts of Symmachus and his school (§ 425, 9) on behalf of early literature was due the production of a series of copies of authors. These last representatives of the ancient religion, in their struggle with Christianity, sought to make allies of the old authors, for whose multiplication in good texts they were therefore concerned (§ 425, 9). We learn of these undertakings from the so-called subscriptions in MSS. which were customary both in secular and Christian MSS. and, as a rule, appear to prove merely a revision of the copy after the original, but not a scientific and critical examination of the text. These subscriptions begin with an emendavi (legi, recognovi, contuli, etc.) and the name of the reviser, and then at discretion

3

are mentioned the place, time, circumstances and perhaps the assistance given by some reader. For details see the several authors: e.g. § 196, 2 (Caes.). 231, 9 (Verg.). 240, 6 (Hor.). 256, 11 (Liv.). 279, 9 (Jul. Paris). 296, 3 (Mela.). 302, 5 (Pers.). 322, 8 (Mart.). 325, 12 (Quintil.). 331, 8 (Juv.). 367, 8 (Apul.). 374, 5 (Cic.). 390, 5 (Non.). 432, 6 (Veget.). 436, 5 (Prudent.). 444, 8 (Macr.). 452, 6 (Mart. Cap.). OJAHN, d. Subscriptionen in den Hss. röm. Klass., Lpz. SBer. 1851, 327. FHAASE, de lat. codd. mss. subscriptionibus, Bresl. 1860. AREIFFERSCHEID, de lat. codd. subscriptionibus (in patristic MSS.), Bresl. 1872.

3. The Latin grammatical literature is almost entirely founded on the Greek, hardly possesses any scientific independence, and is chiefly practical in its purpose. -The grammarians, like the early writers in general (see § 37, 4), have no idea of literary property; quite unconcernedly Verrius Flaccus copies out Varro, Probus Verrius, Pliny Probus, Caper Pliny, Julius Romanus Caper, Charisius Julius Romanus, Aphthonius Juba, Marius Victorinus Aphthonius, etc., and this indeed is generally done with but little care. An earlier text-book is altered and recast at discretion, a more detailed one is abbreviated, one for more advanced students is toned down to suit the requirements of beginners, and then brought out as an original work. Sometimes too the first part of a text-book is adapted from one writer, and the second from another, and then possibly the name of the first author is transferred to the whole work, especially if the name was a famous one, such as Probus. Thus in quotations things are attributed to Probus, which elsewhere appear as the property of Sacerdos or Diomedes. The confusion was increased by the text-books of different authors being combined in one MS. and by the old names being left attached to such revisions, in which but little of the original work remained. During the last centuries of antiquity it even became the custom to fill in blank pages in the MSS. of grammatical school-books with other (older) works of similar contents. At the same time the authors often endeavour, even if they have only copied from one or two predecessors, to produce the impression that they have made use of a large number of authorities.

4. ARNOB. adv. nat. 1, 59 quamvis Epicados omnes, Caesellios, Verrios, Scauros teneatis et Nisos. HIERONYM. apol. c. Rufin. 1, 16 (2, 472 Vall.): puto quod puer legeris Aspri in Vergilium et Sallustium commentarios, Vulcacii in orationes Ciceronis (§ 381, 7), Victorini in dialogos eius et in Terentii comoedias praeceptoris mei Donati, aeque in Vergilium et aliorum in alios, Plautum videlicet, Lucretium, Flaccum, Persium atque Lucanum.

5. In a cod. Bonon. s. XI (HKEIL, de gramm. inf. aet., Erl. 1868, 27. HHAGEN, anecd. Helv. p. CL) are the following notices, incorrect in many respects: In Roma fuerunt Donatus, Priscianus, Victorinus (as the author of the ars. gramm.), Fothicius (i.e. Euticius, § 482, 1), Flavianus et Cominianus. in Spania Caper et Ogretius (Agroecius). in Carthagine Pompeius, Hisidorus, Sergius tractator (expl. in Donat.) et Augustinus. in Sicilia Honoratus et alter Sergius (de litt. syll. etc.) Maximus (lib. de rat. metr.) et Metrorius (de final. syll.). HKEIL, quaest. gramm. 2, vIII. More correctly at the end of the cod. Bern. 243 the marginal note by PDaniel (from an early MS.): De Roma, de Sicilia, de Italia, de Africa, de Ispania venerunt ad nos libri grammatici: de Roma quatuor libri Donati (cf. HAGEN 1.1.). de Sicilia IIII discipulorum eius, i.e. Honorati et Sergii et Maximi et Metrorii. de Italia duo libri Consentii de nomine et verbo et de barbarismo, et libri Prisciani XX, et Eutitii duo, et Sergii novem de littera et de barbarismo, et Asperi et Flaviani libri IIII. de Africa vero Cominiani et Pompeii. de Ispania Isodori et Capri et Agroeci et analogia (Orthography) Papperini et Victorini. HHAGEN, anecd. Helvet. p. CXLIX.-Petri grammatici (s. VIII/IX) excerpta in HHAGEN's anecd. Helvet. 159.

6. Best edition of the grammatici latini by HKEIL, Lps. 1856-79 VII. As a supplement to this by HHAGEN, anecdota helvetica quae ad grammaticam latinam spectant, Lps. 1870.-EICHENFELD and ENDLICHER, analecta grammatica, Wien 1837.

LLERSCH,

7. SURINGAR, historia crit. scholiastaram latt., Leid. 1834 sq. III. d. Sprachphilos. der Alten, Bonn 1838-41 III. VAN HEUSDE, de L. Aelio Stilone (1839) p. 17. GRÄFENHAN, Gesch. d. klass. Philologie im Altertum, Bonn 1843 sqq. (esp. b. 4). HSTEINTHAL, Gesch. d. Sprachwissensch. bei d. Gr. u. R., Berl. 1863. EJULLIEN, les professeurs de littérature dans l'ancienne Rome, jusqu'à la mort d'Auguste, Par. 1886.

42. The same deterioration is noticeable in the separate departments. Whereas in Republican times historical research had made progress, especially in subjects of political interest such as the sacred antiquities, in the Imperial period these were left to the jurists, and study was restricted to grammar, including orthography, synonymy, and lexicography, and to prosody; this was chiefly compilation, and rarely done with any systematic thoroughness. The writers on prosody, among whom the most important are Caesius Bassus and Juba, are entirely dependent on their Greek predecessors. After grammatical studies had ceased for more than a hundred years, an effort was made, in the 4th century, to produce comprehensive abridgments, which gradually became more and more meagre, limited and wanting in independence. The old mythology is almost the only subject of technical study. At the end of the 5th century the barbarian element begins to mingle with scholarship.

1. Writers on the augural system, haruspicia and cognate subjects: Varro, Nigidius Figulus, Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 100, 54), L. Caesar, Tarquitius Priscus, Caecina, Caesius, Veranius, Granius Flaccus, Aufustius, Clodius Tuscus, Umbricius Melior, Julius Aquila, the grammarian Ennius (§ 159, 13), Cornelius Labeo. RMERKEL'S Prolegg. to Ovid's Fasti (1841). OMÜLLER, Etrusk. 22, 19. GSCHMEISSER, de etrusca disciplina, Bresl. 1872; die etr. Disziplin vom Bundesgenossenkrieg bis z. Untergang des Heidentums, Liegn. 1881; Beiträge sur Kenntn. der Techn. der Haruspices, Schwerin a/W. 1884. Cf. below § 77. On Vicellius and Fonteius see § 170, 9.

2. Scriptores latini rei metricae; ed. THGAISFORD, Oxon. 1837, now specially in the sixth volume of KEIL'S Grammatici. Division of writers on prosody into two classes, according as, like Varro, they consider the hexameter and iambic trimeter as metra principalia, from which all other metres are to be derived (merely metra derivata, παραγωγά), or divide the metres by the πρωτότυπα. A few others (as in the fragm. bobiense and the centrimetrum) began with the iambus and trochaeus, but the majority (no doubt for practical reasons) with the dactylus. Cf. esp. RWESTPHAL, griech. Metrik 12, 105. 138. 203. 214. HWENTZEL, Symb. crit. ad hist. scriptorum rei metr. lat., Bresl. 1858. HKEIL, quaest. grammaticae, Lps. 1860. JCAESAR, de nonnullis metricorum latt. locis, Marb. 1874. OHENSE, de Iuba artigrapho in Ritschl's acta Lips. 4 (1875), 37.