THE TREATISE DE V E R B 0 ASCRIBED TO MACROBIUS

by Alan Cameron

Macrobius’ De differentiis et societatibus graeci latinique verbi has not survived in i t s entirety, but several manuscripts preserve excerpts from it, namely:

(1) Parisinus 7186 (s. xi), concluding with the words “explicuit defloratio de libro Ambrosii Macrobii Theodosii quam Johannes [ ? Scottus J carpserat, ad discendas graecorum verborum regulas” .

(2) Vindobonensis 16, olim Bobiensis (s. vii-viii), beginning with the dedication “Theodosius Symmacho suo salutem dicit” (Macrobius was known to contemporaries a s Theodosius: cf. my article in JRS 56 (1966) a t pp.26-7).

(3) Laudunensis 444 (s. ix), “exempla barytonorum secundum Macrobium Theodosium”, and “exempla perispomenorum secundum Macrobium Theodosium” .

All these excerpts are expressly ascribed to Macrobius, and i t may be regarded as certain that they all come from the book in question. to include among their number an anonymous treatise “De verbo” found in Vindob. 17 olim Bob. (s.viii): i t i s printed, for example, by Keil in his edition of the fragments of the work in Gramm. Lat. v.599 f., and discussed by Wessner in his standard article on Macrobius in PW (xiv. 174). True, this treatise covers exactly the same ground a s the definitely attested fragments, and has close and obvious affinities with them (most of these parallels are quoted in Jan’s commen- tary, Macrobii Opera i (1848) 229-306), but nevertheless I believe the attribution to Macrobius to be mistaken.

However, for a long time now i t has been customary

The treatise opens as follows: “saepissime tibi requirenti, disertissime studiosorum Severe. . .” (GLK v.634.3 f.). Nothing i s commoner than for a book to open with the claim that the person to whom i t i s dedicated has “often requested” that i t be written. Many examples of the motif are collected by A. Gudeman in the preface to his second edition of Tacitus, Dialogus (1914), p. 41 n. 1. characteristic example from another grammatical work of the period, the Inst. Orat. of Sulpicius Victor: “quod frequenter a me postulabas. . . (Halm, Rhet. lat. min. 313). sentence expressly names the person to whom the treatise i s dedicated, one Severus. I repeat, there can be no doubt that what we have here i s the dedication to, and hence the very beginning of, this treatise.

This i s clearly the very beginning of the work.

Add to these another

Moreover this first

Now i t i s equally clear that Excerpt 2 comes from the very beginning of a work. Only this time the dedicatee i s a Symmachus (not ths famous orator, but a descendant, probably his nephew):

91

cf. J R S 56 (1966) 34). rent dedications.

The same work cannot have had two different beginnings and two diffe-

Furthermore, the language of the dedication i s a t l eas t consistent with the view that Severus (“disertisoime studiosorum”) i s a pupil: which presumably means that the author of i t i s a grammaticus or rhetor. enough - to bracket him with the grammarians of the age, yet he was certainly not a professional schoolmaster. (cf. J R S 56 (1966) 27, cf. p. 34 n. 65). Both Macrobius’ other works, the Saturnalia and commen- tary on the Sornnium Scipionis, are dedicated to his son Eustathius, and the D e D i j j . to his high- born friend Symmachus.

Macrobius was neither. It is indeed customary - and understandable

He was a high ranking imperial official, probably praetorian prefect of Italy

A man in Macrobius’ position would not have had any pupils.

Wessner (PW xiv. 171) toys with the idea that the dedication to Severus i s spurious. This is surely a counsel of despair. The obvious explanation i s quite siniply that the dedication was written by someone other than Macrobius: and consequently that the treatise which i t introduces i s not Macrobius’ D e D i f f . , nor even an excerpt from it. .

Why should anyone have wanted to substitute a spurious preface?

In view of the close simi1arjty the treatise bears to the genuine excerpts of the D e D i f f . , i ts author must presumably have either arawn upon, or been drawn on by, Macrobius. require much detailed study and an expertise in grammatical writings which I do not possess to decide the matter one way or the other - if indeed i t i s possible to do so. I would suggest that the anonymous treatise i s the source of Macrobius.

It would

But provisionally

Eedford C o l l e g e , London

92