My purpose in this paper is to reassert the traditional view that Athenian women of the classical period regularly had an association with phratries. As part of my argument I adduce an overlooked piece of evidence, a much discussed passage from the Donatus commentary on Terence; for this I provide a new interpretation.There is some evidence that Athenian women were introduced to their fathersphrateresat birth, or to their husbands'phrateresat marriage, or both. The speaker of Isaeus 3 repeatedly asserts that (...) a certain Pyrrhus would have presented his daughter to hisphrateresif she had been legitimate. A scholium on Aristophanes,Acharnians146 may refer to such a practice. Euxitheus calls as witnesses of his mother's citizenshipphrateresfor whom his father celebrated the wedding feast, thegamelia, on her behalf ; celebration of thegameliais regarded as proof of the legitimacy of the speaker's mother at Isaeus 8.19. Neither Demosthenes nor Isaeus says that women were formally registered among thephrateresor even present at the feast; but notices in the lexicographers do connect thegameliawith registration among or introduction to thephrateres. Many scholars have accepted these passages as evidence for normal practice at Athens in the classical period. (shrink)

The spirit of Aelius Donatus must be uneasy of late years; so many scholars have attempted to evoke his ghost. Professor H. J. Thomson professes to see in the additional notes to Servius an image once removed from the true Donatus. ‘The question’, he writes, ‘how far we can assume that the words of Donatus are directly reproduced [in the additions first published by Daniel ] can hardly be satisfactorily answered.’ That Donatus was not the immediate (...) source of D, Thomson endeavours to show from three instances, in two of which we know for certain, either from the Glossaries or from Servius himself, the substance of a part, at least, of the note of Donatus on these passages. In the other the argument rests on the comparative meagreness of the note in the enlarged Servius. In all three cases, according to this theory, we have a rehandling of the D comment. The note on the passage from the Aeneid has already been discussed by Professor Thomson in his study of the Virgil scholia in the Abstrusa glossary. The conclusions reached there are repeated, though perhaps not so positively, in the article under discussion. I hold with Professor Rand that we have in Servius auctus substantially the voice of Donatus, though in a fragmentary form, due to the work of a compiler who, with Servius as a basis, has worked in with more or less success explanatory matter which departed from, or was an addition to, the information supplied by an interpreter who himself derived most of his material from Donatus. (shrink)

Terence was studied, though not so much as Virgil, in monastery-schools. Their magistri bestirred themselves to get aid for pupils. Some famous magister— we know not who—had written, between the lines or in the margins, interpretations of difficult words in at least the three opening plays of the MS. which he used—Andr., Ad., Eun.—if not in all. These interpretations were collected from his MS. and found their way into many monastery-libraries. Goetz has published these glossae collectae of Terence from a (...) tenth century MS. in Vol. V. of his Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, pp. 529–539; Mr. Austin has added more from a Leyden MS. , written apparently in Belgium or Holland, c. 800–815 A.D. . Probably Dr. Theander will add a further batch from a Paris MS. (shrink)

That the Vergilian commentary by Aelius Donatus – one of the most influential late-antique commentaries that have not survived – was extant in the ninth century and available to some Carolingian scholars is still a widespread belief. The evidence in support of this thesis is said to have been provided by the Harvard Servianist J. J. H. Savage in three articles published between 1925 and 1931. In these articles, Savage claimed that a few marginal notes in one of the (...) ninth-century primary witnesses to the DS scholia, the so-called ‘Vergil of Tours’ (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Ms. 165), were drawn almost directly from Donatus’ commentary and that a marginal note in a roughly coeval Servian witness (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Ms. 363) provided information about a place where a copy of the commentary could be found. A re-examination of the two manuscripts shows that the evidence adduced by Savage does not stand scrutiny and that the terminus post quem for the loss of Donatus’ commentary should be antedated by at least one century. (shrink)

In CQ 45 , 547–50, S. J. Harrison and M. Winterbottom propose a series of emendations to the text of the recently discovered passage of Donatus which contains his commentary on Aen. 6.1–157. I offer some further emendations.

Peter Marshall has done what all those concerned with manuscripts dream of doing: he has turned up a substantial lost portion of an ancient text. His discovery is related, with great modesty, in an article in Manuscripta 37 , 3–20, where he prints for the first time Tiberius Claudius Donatus' commentary on Virgil, Aeneid 6.1–157, edited from a gathering written in the sixteenth century and now bound into Vaticanus Latinus 8222 ff. 2r–9v. We offer here some emendations to the (...) text he prints; we are grateful to Prof. M. D. Reeve and Dr S. J. Heyworth for their suggestions, which we have incorporated in what follows. The bold figures represent the lines of Aeneid 6. (shrink)

In the first act of Terence'sAndria, we find a dialogue between the old man Simo and Sosia, the freedman, with the former explaining why he has decided to arrange a false wedding for his young son Pamphilus. He has, in fact, learned that his son, despite being betrothed, has had a relationship with another girl and that—quite a serious matter—the fiancée's father, Chremes, has heard about the clandestine affair. In verses 144–9 Simo reports on the not-altogether friendly meeting he has (...) had with Chremes, who is furious about the complete disrespect that has been shown to his daughter; Simo's only defence is to attempt to deny the truth (146:ego illud sedulo negare factum). (shrink)

(from t.p.) qui continet Historiam Regni Henrici Septimi, Regis Angliae -- Sermones fideles, sive, Interiora rerum -- Tractatum de sapienta veterum -- Dialogum de bello sacro -- Et Novam Atlantidem ... -- in hoc volumine, iterum excusi, includuntur Tractatus de augmentis scientiarum -- Historia ventorum -- Historia vitae [et] mortis.

Based on a new and complete collation of manuscripts and ancient editions, this paper will discuss some stemmatic and textual problems concerning the “Excerpta de comoedia” attributed to Aelius Donatus.

During the fourth century C. E. Donatus borrowed from the Greek tradition the idea of replacing res corporalis with res in the definition of the noun, because of the usual equivalence between pragma and res. This change had important consequences, such as a new distinction between corpus and res, as well as a new meaning proposed for the word res. This new meaning happened to be questioned by later commentators, because masters of grammar seemed to reject the Donatian distinction (...) between corpus and res, and consider that corpus is rather included inside res, before being later accepted by Sedulius and Remigius, perhaps under the influence of the common expression res verbi. However, the word remained poly-semic in spite of Donatus' attempt, as can be seen in the Glosulae in Priscianum (s. XII). (shrink)

Donatus, after enumerating Vergil's early poems, proceeds : ‘Mox cum res Romanas inchoasset, offensus materia, ad Bucolica transiit.’ We have learned to distrust such statements about Vergil's early life, having discovered that an all too literal interpretation of the Bucolics provided a large part of Suetonius' data. The line quoted above may be nothing but an inference from Eclogue VI. 3: cum canerem reges et proelia, Cynthius aurem uellit et admonuit, etc.

The statement of Donatus that Vergil wrote the Culex at the age of sixteen seems to be regarded by most scholars as too good to be true. It is a very long time since it was first suggested that XXVI. should be read for XVI., and the proposal has not yet fallen from favour. The apparent justification of this view is found in a passage of Statius' Genethliacon Lucani , where Calliope is represented as foretelling the literary achievements of (...) Lucan. It is the purpose of the present paper to examine this supposed evidence. (shrink)

1. Implicature: some basic oppositions IMPLICATURE is a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said. What a speaker intends to communicate is characteristically far richer than what she directly expresses; linguistic meaning radically underdetermines the message conveyed and understood. Speaker S tacitly exploits pragmatic principles to bridge this gap and counts on hearer H to invoke the same principles for the purposes of utterance interpretation. (...) The contrast between the said and the meant, and derivatively between the said and the implicated (the meant-but-unsaid), dates back to the fourth century rhetoricians Servius and Donatus, who characterized litotes—the figure of pragmatic understatement—as a figure in which we say less but mean more (“minus dicimus et plus significamus”; see Hoffmann 1987 and Horn 1991a for discussion). In the classical Gricean model, the bridge from what is said (the literal content of the uttered sentence, computed directly from its grammatical structure with the reference of indexicals resolved) to what is communicated is constructed through implicature. As an aspect of speaker meaning, implicatures are by definition distinct from the non-logical inferences that the hearer draws; it is a category mistake to attribute implicatures either to hearers or to sentences (e.g. P and Q) and subsentential expressions (e.g. some). But we can systematically (at least for generalized implicatures; see below) correlate the speaker’s intention to implicate q (in uttering p in context C), the expression p that carries the implicature in C, and the inference of q induced by the speaker’s utterance of p in C. (shrink)

Read audit in artes for the transmitted audet in artes in Gratt. 498. The correction has the effect that the phrase audere (ardere Gronovius) in proelia in Verg. Aen. 2,347 no longer has linguistic support.

Aelivs donatvs, the note d grammarian of the fourth century of our era, wrote commentaries on Terence and Virgil. The commentary on Terence has been preserved, though in a curiously heterogeneous form which thus far has defied analysis. The most plausible supposition is that our present text is a conflation of two commentaries, one by Donatus himself, and one by Euanthius, whose work was obviously utilized for part of the introductory note on comedy. But even if this is the (...) right statement of the question, the question remains to be solved. The problem of the commentary on Virgil is, unfortunately, more simple, or at least is universally adjudged more simple. We have extant Donatus's life of Virgil, his dedicatory letter to Lucius Munatius, and his introductory remarks on Bucolic poetry. The commentary itself, save for scattered references in later grammarians, glossaries, and commentaries, has been lost. (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo es observar el tratamiento que se ofrece en la Institutio Oratoria de Quintiliano y en las artes de Donato, Diomedes y Consencio, como también en el comentario de Pompeyo a la obra de Donato, de los ejemplos estándar de singularización de pluralia tantum: scala, scopa, quadriga. El análisis de la ambigüedad de los nombres tantum cobra relevancia desde que trasciende la mera discusión automatizada de un lugar común de las artes grammaticales, convirtiéndose en un problema (...) de descripción lingüística, al plantearse su coherencia para la descripción de toda la lengua. The purpose of this paper is the study of the treatment offered in Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, in the artes of Donatus, Diomedes and Consentius, and in Pompeius's commentary on the work of Donatus, of the standard examples regarding the use of pluralia tantum in singular: scala, scopa, quadriga. The analysis of the ambiguity of the pluralia and singularia tantum gains relevance as it transcends the mere automated discussion of a commonplace of the artes grammaticales, becoming a problem of linguistic description, when the issue of its coherence for the description of the entire language is raised. (shrink)

To those who know little about the Middle Ages, the copying of manuscripts of “the ancients” (whether classical, such as the Roman poet Horace, or Christian, such as Saints Jerome or Augustine) often seems either a laudable act of preserving the past or an unfortunate fixation on repeating the words of others rather than penning new and original compositions. Even scholars of the Middle Ages appear sometimes more interested in new types of works such as fabliaux or courtly romances written (...) in the vernacular; when they study the practice of copying, they often concentrate on identifying prototypes or legacies. Finding old wine in old bottles has been a fairly constant theme in medieval studies; sometimes, we must admit, medievalists have just thrown out the old bottles and moved on to something completely new. In this context, it may seem strange to find a work about medieval Latin manuscript commentaries titled “The Birth of the Author,” responding to Roland Barthes's well-known essay “The Death of the Author,” published in 1984 and cited repeatedly since. What can it mean to see new, self-conscious awareness of the act of personal creation in works that are copies by scribes of other works that themselves comment on yet earlier works, often of a certain age or canonicity? Yet in this intelligent, engaging, and beautifully produced book, art historian Jeffrey Hamburger not only shows how those who wrote commentaries came to suggest that anyone who composes a work (even the scribe who copies it) could be considered a creator of meaning but also that the images in commentaries themselves sometimes make statements—indeed, statements more radical than those in the text—about the author of the work being illustrated. Long known as one of the relatively rare historians of medieval art equipped with a wide knowledge of theology and hence of how images respond to and reflect text, Hamburger here shows himself possessed of a shrewd eye for the image itself. He studies illuminated prefaces to, among other texts, the prose and poetic works of Horace as used in the medieval classroom, copies of the major biblical commentary of the High Middle Ages, the Glossa ordinaria, and Rupert of Deutz's erotically charged commentary on the Song of Songs. Changing the lens through which scholars have usually viewed such texts, Hamburger argues that images of authors of commentaries sometimes go beyond anything in the text to assert the authority not only of the author of the text commented on and of the commentator but occasionally even of the scribe.The Birth of the Author is a work of complicated analysis, and its full power demands close attention. Understanding how images construct claims that go beyond the text involves a good deal of careful looking. Hamburger is a patient and clear guide, but the reader must be prepared to flip back and forth between the magnificent colored images the publisher provides and to follow what are often painstaking arguments from comparison of small visual differences or puzzling identifications of seemingly strange details. The result of doing so is, however, to gain not only the reward of Hamburger's ingenious conclusions but also a lesson in how to look. For example, in a discussion of Gilbert Universalis's commentary on the Lamentations of the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, Hamburger shows how Gilbert not only identifies Jeremiah as a “divine rhetorician” but also assimilates his own act of authorship to Jeremiah's prophetic speech. In the only extant copy of Gilbert's text that has a program of illustrations, the artist constructs both Jeremiah's speech and Gilbert's interpretation as similar acts of creation by framing both authors in parallel architectural images that evoke the Old Testament temple and a Christian church. Or to give a final example of Hamburger's interpretive reach: the book concludes not with yet another medieval preface but with an example of the far less usual manuscript epilogue. Here not only commentator, scribe, and illustrator but even the medieval reader construct themselves. Reception becomes interpretation, illustration becomes construction. In a commentary by the Carolingian figure Sedulius Scotus (fl. 840–60) on the Roman grammarian Donatus (mid-fourth century), the illustrator depicts Donatus as author and scribe (thus assimilating author into copier and vice versa). On the same folio, a later medieval reader constructs himself as reader/author in a charming marginal doodle that seems to entrap Donatus in a sort of hangman's noose. Thus, a bit wryly perhaps, Hamburger—himself teacher, commentator, and consummate scholar—seems to suggest that even frustrated students can construct themselves as interpreters and, yes, authors. Behind the seeming repetition and backward glance of the images in medieval commentaries lies radical and forward-looking self-awareness of the acts of authoring, interpreting, reading, and imagining. In Hamburger's analysis, the most seemingly conventional of medieval genres—the preface to commentaries on the texts of others—is a locus of the birth in illustration of the self-conscious and self-expressive author and reader. (shrink)

Professor Linsay has called my attention to the need for an examination of these compounds, with a view to ascertaining whether they are ever used in the Singular by Latin writers, or always in the Plural. From a scholium, probably by Donatus, on Aen. X. 173: insula inexhaustis Chalybum generosa metallis, has come a gloss which appears in the Ansileubus Glossary in two forms: FR 205 Frofra : insula Tirreno mari in quo ferrifodina exercentur, RU 77 Rufa: insula Tirreni (...) maris in qua ferrifodina exercetur. (shrink)

The traces of real, that is, ancient, rival versions of Terence's lines are not so pronounced as of Plautus' lines. Professor Lindsay has drawn attention to a possible instance at Hec. 468 . Another seems to be Andr. 532 , if I am right in supposing that the text used by Donatus had ipsum Chremem. A trace of the variant survives in the unmetrical δ-setting ipsum obuiam Chremem DGL. The text of the other minuscule MSS. has ipsum obuiam. A (...) is not in evidence for this part of Andria. Had it too ipsum Chremem ? (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:ISTO VILIVS (Suetonius fr. 112, Terence Ad. 981)A. S. GratwickA corrupt passage in Charisius, quoted below, preserves the bare bones of an anecdote, attributed to Suetonius, which is meant to illuminate the obscure expression isto uilius, "more meanly than" or "more meanly by that." The phrase occurs elsewhere only in Terence (Ad. 981), with a quite different sort of explanation in Donatus' note. The passage in Suetonius ought (...) somehow to relate to the one in Terence, but it is unclear what the relationship may be, and though Bentley (1725 ad loc.) took the story to explain the Terence passage, the problem has been neglected by most of Terence's subsequent commentators.My aims here are first to examine the two contexts separately, next to propose a new solution of the problem in Charisius, and lastly, putting both passages together, to suggest that it is the passage in Terence which gives a witty point to the story in Suetonius, rather than the other way around.1We begin with Terence. "Marry the elderly Sostrata, reward Hegio, free Syrus—oh, and free Phrygia too to be his wife, and, of course, give them a helping hand": in the finale of Terence's Adelphoe (924-97), Demea well and truly gets his own back on Micio. Terence makes Demea use the same stratagem five times over, balancing the mechanical aspect of the repetitions with variation of the scale and wording.1 But each time essentially the same three things happen: Demea's apparently generous suggestion elicits a wary or grudging reaction from Micio; Aeschinus' admiration of Demea grows; and Micio gives way when it is pointed out by Demea or indicated by the young man himself that he [End Page 79] oh, so wants Micio to say yes. For us the audience, the reversal of the roles of manipulator and manipulated makes excellent farce; the timing is superb, Micio's bewilderment and consternation are comic, and against our expectation they cumulatively alter our earlier perception of him as a cool philosophe. His gravitas is undermined, and mockery is made of his educational principles, which are made to seem nothing but easygoing indulgence of Aeschinus' every selfish whim; and this all leads swiftly to the startling Terentian conclusion that Demea, not Micio, is the true father for all seasons (Ad. 984-97).This is all done with technical bravura, but in debatable taste, and the debate is of long standing; here, however, we wish only to recall the context, not to add to the debate. When we probe the detail of Terence's presentation, the broad consideration that this is the Terentian, not the Menandrian conclusion to the play2 is relevant in that it should prevent us from wondering about any close Menandrian equivalents in Terence's choice of words or expression.MICIO. Syre, processisti hodie pulchre.DEMEA. siquidem porro, Micio, tu tuom officium facies atque huic aliquid paullum prae manu dederis unde utatur; reddet tibi cito.MICIO. istoc uilius.AESCH. frugi homost.SYRUS. reddam hercle, da modo.AESCH. age pater!MICIO. post consulam.DEMEA. faciet.SYRUS. o uir optume!AESCH. o pater mi festiuissume!(Ad. 979-83)AE. frugi homo est Σ: DE. frugi homo est Lindsay and Kauer (OCT)In focusing on the fifth and last of Demea's sallies, we are not looking at a passage like, say, Heauton Timorumenos 61-66, where we have external evidence that Terence was specifically translating his model, but at one of which Terence himself is the author. In seeking an explanation for istoc uilius, the idioms and proverbs of New Comedy [End Page 80] and other Hellenistic Greek literature do not in fact help, but that is scarcely surprising in a purely Terentian Latin context.Micio's reaction (981, istoc uilius) to the suggestion that he should subsidize Syrus corresponds in the earlier episodes to the rejections me ducere autem? (934), de te largitor puer! (940), paullum id autemst? (950), istunc liberum? (960), and ob eam rem? (977), all of which express protest, surprise, reluctance. Here he has had enough and, instead of just protesting, refuses straight out—but immediately... (shrink)

Gellius, in N. A. 6. 20, claims to have read ‘in quodam commentario’ that theoriginal text had been not ora but Nola; ‘postea Vergilium petisse a Nolanis, aquam uti duceret in propincum rus, Nolanos beneficium petitum non fecisse, poetam offensum nomen urbis eorum, quasi ex hominum memoria, sic excarmine suo derasisse oramque pro Nola mutasse’. It may be from this passagethat by way of Donatus this story reached the expanded Servius: ‘et hocemendauit ipse, quia Nolam posuerat; nam postea offensus (...) a Nolanis, qui eidemaquam negauerant, “ora” pro “Nola” posuit.’. (shrink)

While restating the correct interpretation of the prologue to the Hecyra of Terence in CQ 32 , 134 F. H. Sandbach has this to say: ‘Possibly the widespread view which the translators and I reject has been encouraged by disbelief that the theatre could be used for gladiatorial combat. It is true that there is no reliable evidence for such use at Rome, for Donatus' statement “hoc abhorret a nostra consuetudine uerumtamen apud antiquos gladiatores in theatro spectabantur” may be (...) no more than inference from Terence's text.’ There is, in fact, a certain amount of evidence for gladiatorial combats in the theatres at Rome, that is at venues where ludi scaenici were performed, which it is difficult to regard as unreliable and which is consistent with what we know of the relationship between the theatre and gladiatorial games. (shrink)

Caper in his section on the preposition ex cited Ennius, Ann. 309:nauibus explebant sese terrasque replebant,and declared that Virgil used the verb with this antique sense in Aen. 6, 545:discedam; explebo numerum reddarque tenebris,i.e. ‘minuam vestrum numerum.’This we are told in Servius' note, which begins: Ut diximus supra, explebo est minuam. Thilo gives no reference to any such previous words of Servius, and I have failed to find them. Can it be that Servius has carelessly transcribed a note of (...) class='Hi'>Donatus, and that Donatus had discussed ex minuens at Geo. 2, 65, or 4, 145? Donatus' note on Terence, Hec. 755, is Explere exinanire Terentianum est; the passage of Terence is:eas ad mulieres huc intro atque istuc iusiurandum idempolliceare illis: exple animum îs teque hoc crimine expedi,i.e., relieve their mind of suspicion against Pamphilus and free yourself from this charge. The phrase recurs in the next Scene :illis modo explete animum.i atque exple animum îs, coge ut credant. (shrink)

William of Ockham’s discussion of which grammatical categories are relevant for describing the syntax of mental language occurs in two short and closely related passages: Quodlibeta V, 8 and Summa logicae I, 3. In the present paper, I discuss four riddles that are raised by these two texts: (1) I point to an apparent anomaly in the structure of Summa logicae I, 3 and I propose an amendment to the St. Bonaventure edition in this regard; (2) I argue that Ockham’s (...) main grammatical source in the two passages is the Latin grammarian Donatus rather than Priscian (as might have been thought) and I show why this is relevant; (3) I clarify what problem Ockham has in mind when saying that there is a special difficulty about whether distinctions of “quality” (qualitas) are found among mental names as they are among spoken names; (4) I explain what Ockham means by the “figure” (figura) of names and verbs and why he thinks that this grammatical category is of no relevance for the analysis of mental language. (shrink)

The manuscript Chisianus VII 240 (K) is an important witness for A. Donatus’ Commentum on Terence, unfortunately discovered only after the editorial work of P. Wessner. K was demonstrated to follow different sources in different sections of the Commentary, but, for the section containing the commentary on Andria, it derives from the Carnotensis, a codex deperditus with a good Donatian text. In this paper I pay attention to significant errors that join the Chisianus VII 240 with Λ, a group (...) of manuscripts that come from the Maguntinus, in order to demostrate that the most probable way of explaining these Bindefehler is the assumption of a deep process of contamination, probably due to Λ. (shrink)

One of the gains to be reckoned from the study of nomenclature in the sepulchral inscriptions of the early empire is the gradual abandonment of attempts to distinguish between slave and freeborn on the basis of personal name or cognomen alone, especially when this is of Latin derivation. Nevertheless, one still finds personal cognomina in undated inscriptions adduced as sole evidence for the origin or status of individuals below senatorial rank. Thus in a standard work on freedmen in the early (...) empire, recently reprinted, names such as Agilis, Amandus, Auctus, Communis, Donatus, Faustus, Felix, etc., are said to be commonly servile, but others such as Aquila, Bassus, Capito, Cams, Celer, Crescens, etc., are taken as ingenuous. The criteria used in making such a distinction are subjective and arbitrary and the statistics based on them are largely valueless. It is the purpose of this note to consider briefly on this question the evidence of the personal nomenclature of the Imperial slaves and freedmen. In this group, the Familia Caesaris, no problem of status arises, and the fact that the majority of their inscriptions can be dated, at least approximately, makes it possible to trace the chronological development of the use of cognomina ingenua by one important group of servile origin from the first to the early third century A.D. Moreover, such a development is useful evidence for change in the social structure of the early empire. (shrink)

In the period between Constantine's reunification of the Empire in 324 and the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 M. Valerius Probus enjoyed a large reputation as master of all areas of the ars grammatica. The commentary on Terence attributed to Donatus and the commentary of Servius on Virgil cite him more often than they do any other ancient authority. His fame persisted through the Dark Ages. Eugenius of Toledo set him with Varius and Tucca against Aristarchus, the greatest (...) of the Alexandrian students of Homer. Modern writers on the history of Roman scholarship have estimated in widely different ways his quality as a textual critic, the level of his reputation during the century after his death and the influence which his activities had on the transmission of the Latin classics. That he ‘annotated’ at least some of these in the manner of an Aristarchus is not in dispute, but everything about the nature of his ‘annotation’ is. This paper will treat afresh a famous statement about Probus in Suetonius' De grammaticis, two lists of notae associated with Probus’ name in a late eighth-century manuscript from Monte Cassino, cod. Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 7530, two references to such notae which have been detected in Virgilian scholia and a number of statements in these scholia which appear to give Probus’ reasons for affixing notae. The results of my study are largely negative but may help to control general discussion of the history of a number of Latin texts. (shrink)