CR-2006/021

COMPTES RENDUS 1

Giuseppe RAMIRES, Servio. Commento al libro VII dell’Eneide di Virgilio. Con leaggiunte del cosidetto Servio Danielino. Introduzione, bibliografia, edizione criti-ca a cura di G. R., Bologna, Pàtron, 2003 (Testi a manuali per l’insegnamento uni-versitario del latino, 78), 21,5 � 15 cm., CX-143 p., 16 €, ISBN 88-555-2700-2.

In 1996 Giuseppe Ramires published his edition of Servius’ commentary on theIXth book of Vergil’s Aeneid. It has been positively received, particularly by thegrandmaster of the Servian studies, Sebastiano Timpanaro (RPL 21, 1988, p. 195-204), to whose memory Ramires dedicates the present volume. In a review in thisJournal (57, 1998, p. 434-437), H. D. Jocelyn welcomed this “bold initiative”. Theenterprise is indeed not only bold but also timely and overdue. The last full editionof Servius, due to Georg Thilo, appeared in three large volumes in 1881-1887. It wasnot a perfect product, but useful and handy. Thilo made an effort to distinguishbetween Servius and the ampler version, the so-called Servius Danielis or Serviusauctus (indicated by a cursive font). This distinction became the main preoccupationof the editio Harvardiana, grandly conceived, moored for many years, and nowapparently sunk for good. The Harvardiani conducted a through manuscript search,but only two volumes appeared (in 1946 and 1965, containing in Aen. I-II and III-V),with Servius and Servius auctus printed in two separate columns. Eduard Fraenkelimmediately condemned the execution of the project, a work of good paleographersbut deficient as editors and textual critics (JRS 38, 1948, p. 131-143 ; ibid. 39, 1949,p. 145-154). — For his editions, which are ultimately to embrace all the books fromVI to XII, Ramires reviewed again the codices, and arrived at a stemma in someimportant elements different from that advocated by the Harvard editors and by C. E.Murgia (Prolegomena to Servius 5. The Manuscripts, Berkeley, 1975 ; see the stem-mata, p. 5, 82, 91, 114, 132, 168 ; and the list of sigla, p. 186-192). Ramires assignsgreat value to a family of codices (a ; confusingly denoting a different group ofcodices than Harvard’s a), hitherto regarded as secondary but which, he argues, con-tains material directly derived from the archetype, and not present in Harvard’s orMurgia’s main line (respectively s and d). In the new volume he adduces furtherarguments for the high standing of his a group (p. XXXVI-XLVII). He does not providea graphic representation of his classification ; a pity, for such a representation, par-ticularly if set side by side with the stemma (or stemmata) which it is intended toreplace, would be of immediate assistance to the readers ; editors should not assumethat users of a text will spend hours plowing through learned but turgid praefationes.Ramires abandons the “sogno Harvardiano” of producing a separate text of Serviusauctus (but he provides a separate apparatus), and returns to Thilo’s concept of a uni-fied text (printing auctus in bold font). Yet ultimately it appears also impossible toarrive at a completely pure, uncontaminated Servius. Murgia’s warning (p. 4) that“the relationships of the manuscripts shift ... continually”, and that they are “compli-cated by contamination”, still obtains. Also obtains Jocelyn’s wry remark (p. 436) on“arguments ... of the inconclusive sort typical of stemmatic controversy”. — But allthese questions concern only ways and means to the goal, the printed text. How doesthe new text compare to that of Thilo ? Two pages, randomly chosen, must suffice.Thilo, p. 147 (Aen. 262-273) = Ramires, p. 41-42 : in Aen. 266 : declinatur autemetiam haec túrannov becomes (from a) sane apud Graecos hic et haec túrannovdeclinatur (a lectio Thilo adduces in app.) ; 269 : nam ducuntur sortes, et hic a Faunooraculum, non sortes acceperat becomes nam sortes ducuntur, hic autem etc. ; andfurther alia visa intellegamus becomes alia visa significat (noted by Thilo in app.).

2 COMPTES RENDUS

P. 177 (Aen. 653-660) = p. 87-88 : in Aen. 653 : dignus qui becomes hoc est dignusqui (Thilo in app.) ; 657 : et sepultus est morphs into est et sepultus ; at the end of thelemma there is also a major addition of three lines of auctus (relegated by Thilo toapp.) ; 659 : dicendo “Auentini” changes into dicendo Auentinum. All in all rathertrifling alterations, and all recoverable from Thilo’s apparatus, though much easierassessed in the edition of Ramires, who also conveniently indicates in the text itselfwords either omitted by auctus or for which auctus has variae lectiones. — AsFraenkel insisted, an important obligation of a Servian editor is to provide an appa-ratus of testimonia. In this province Ramires vastly surpasses Thilo : in the incrimi-nated pages he supplies thirty three references versus Thilo’s mere eleven. — We arewitnessing a “Servian revival”, comprehensive investigations of Vergilian scholiasts,their idiom, their linguistic doctrine, their philosophy, and their antiquarian learning.A revival recently marked by such important works as S. Timpanaro, Virgilianistiantichi e tradizione indiretta, Firenze, 2002 ; A. Pellizzari, Servio. Storia, cultura eistituzioni nell’opera di un grammatico tardoantico, Firenze, 2003 ; A. Uhl, Serviusals Sprachlehrer : zur Sprachrichtigkeit in der exegetischen Praxis des spätantikenGrammatikerunterrichts, Göttingen, 1998 ; A. Setaioli, La vicenda dell’anima nelcommento di Servio a Virgilio, Frankfurt a.M., 1995 ; and a collection edited by C.Santini and F. Stok, Hinc Italae gentes. Geopolitica ed etnografia dell’Italia nelCommento di Servio all’Eneide, Pisa, 2004. In this revival the editions of Ramiresassume a place of honor. Jerzy LINDERSKI.

CR-2006/021