Collecting fragments of Cornutus’ commentary on Vergil

4Cornutus’ figure, as Persius’ master, as a teacher who influenced his pupils’ poetry, was always part of the studies on the Roman satirist. The most important editor of Persius in the nineteenth century was Otto Iahn who never missed the opportunity of the evaluation of Cornutus as a critic. Iahn believed that the philosopher had published a work on Vergil focusing on some textual and logical problems:

• 11 O. Iahn (ed.), Auli Persii Flacci Satirarum liber cum scholiis antiquis, Leipzig, typis Breitropeii (...)

eum non uersuum ordinem commentando secutum esse, sed singulas quaestiones tractasse; quamquam difficile est de hac re iudicare.11

He also speculated that Cornutus was a very curious interpretator and critic of Vergil’s work:

• 12 Ibid., pp. XIX–XX.

Inde uidemus, Cornuti curam ad omnia Virgilii carmina pertinuisse, quod etiam e Gellii loco potuit concludi. Videtur autem, quantum ex hisce reliquiis perspici potest, omnibus grammatici officiis diligenter et accurate functus esse, ut de uera lectione disceptaret, singula uerba non sine poetae uituperatione notaret, in historias inquireret ἀπορίας denique solueret, quas in Virgilii carminibus grammaticorum λυτικοὺς illos aemulantium putida saepe subtilitas inuenisse gloriabatur. Quodsi in hisce nimis subtiliter et minus recte disputasse uideri potest Cornutus, non nimium tamen de eius meritis atque fama detrahemus ipsi grammatici.12

• 15 Ibid., p. 125.

Qui omnino uituperandi et cauillandi poetam satis studiosus erat. Abiecta, sordida, indecora eum congessisse et ambitiosius quam prudentius diiudicasse satis multa docent exempla (. . .).15

and also that the philosopher

• 16 Ibid., p. 127.

[n]eque commentando tantum et distinguendo, sed emendando etiam uerborum textui operam ille dedit.16

8Reppe was hoping to give a more general and thorough valuation of Cornutus as a critic than the scholars of the previous generation. According to Reppe:

• 22 Ibid., pp. 31–47.

(. . .) functum esse Cornutum omnibus fere interpretis officiis cognoscimus. Ac primum quidem secundum Alexandrinorum grammaticorum consuetudinem quaestionibus soluendis operam illum dedisse supra uidimus (. . .). Deinde uersatus est in grammaticorum notissimis officiis emendandi et explicandi, cum distinguendi exemplum propter fragmentorum, sicuti arbitror, paucitatem atque lacunas nullum inueniatur. Criticae autem artis, quam parum feliciter exercuisse uidetur Cornutus, exempla tractauimus (. . .). Ac uereor ut felicior fuerit ubi de singulis uocibus et epithetis iudicauit. (. . .) Quanquam hi loci commentatorem satis diligentem neque indoctum criticum produnt.22

12Looking at the two hundred years of scholarship on Cornutus we can see that there were only some general studies on Cornutus as a Vergil-commentator, and there was not any serious attempt to reconstruct his work(s). Modern scholarship seems to have accepted the twenty first century scholars’ views based on the ancient Cornutus-evaluation formulated by Aulus Gellius.

Cornutus’ work(s) on Vergil

Nonnulli grammatici aetatis superioris, in quibus est Cornutus Annaeus, haut sane indocti neque ignobiles, qui commentaria in Vergilium composuerunt, reprehendunt.

In volume IX of his work he also described how Cornutus’ interpretation was criticised by later critics. Gellius also mentioned that Cornutus had been a talented scholar (Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, IX, 10, 5):

Sed Annaeus Cornutus, homo sane pleraque alia non indoctus neque inprudens

who in one of his writings, which had been composed de figuris sententiarum, criticised a passage in Vergil’s Aeneid:

in secundo tamen librorum, quos de figuris sententiarum conposuit, egregiam totius istius uerecundiae laudem insulsa nimis et odiosa scrutatione uiolauit.

It is obvious that—according to Aulus Gellius—the grammarian Annaeus Cornutus interpreted and criticised passages from all the poems written by Vergil in two works, a commentary and the de figuris sententiarum (comprising almost three volumes). Gellius first listed three critical remarks of the earlier generation of grammarians which Cornutus had also belonged to, and then another critique on Vergil’s Aeneid from a grammatical work. Gellius did not make it clear in the first passage whether all three critiques belonged to Cornutus, or only the first one, and the other two were of other grammarians. The only thing that seems certain is that Cornutus was critical towards the Vergilian word choice:

reprehendunt quasi incuriose et abiecte uerbum positum, and egregiam totius istius uerecundiae laudem insulsa nimis et odiosa scrutatione uiolauit. Nam cum genus hoc figurae probasset et satis circumspecte factos esse uersus dixisset: “‛membra’ tamen,” inquit, “paulo incautius nominauit.”

This critical attitude towards Vergil’s poetry can also be confirmed by some other fragments of Cornutus’ works which were quoted by late antique grammarians. Servius, Servius Danielis and the author of Scholia Veronensia quote Cornutus’ commentary several times, and there are three other fragments which survived in Charisius’ work and in Macrobius’ Saturnalia. It is unclear, whether the late antique commentators were familiar with Cornutus’ writings or if they used an excerpted version of them, still these fragments could serve as a source for reconstruction.

14As regards the fragments of Cornutus’ lost work or works they make it obvious that the philosopher did not publish a regular commentary but, more likely, a collection of grammatical and other critical remarks and questions, a so called commentationes—a common practice for grammarians. It is very likely that each book of comments focused on a different topic and was published with a different title. If this is the case, then the work de figuris sententiarum can be a part of the lost work. Furthermore, we can suppose that the late ancient scholarship on Vergil knew only a few of Cornutus’ commentationes.

Cornutus’ critical Attitude

15Aulus Gellius and the ancient commentators on Vergil often described Cornutus’ attitude towards Vergil’s texts. The author of the Noctes Atticae uses very sharp expressions about it, such as reprehendit, culpauerat, and uiolauit insulsa nimis et odiosa scrutatione. These verbs express an exaggeration; reflect Gellius’ amplification more than the exact nature of Cornutus’ critical attitude. The later commentaries and commentators are not so categorical about Cornutus; they usually use the verb adnotare and its variations: adnotationem eius modi adposuit, adnotat, legit et adnotauit, or expressions which can be interpreted as a form of adnotation: uetat aspirationem addendam, dicit, uere et melius sensit dicens, putat. The only exception which might coincide with Gellius’ vocabulary choice is the verb inprobat.

16As there was not any connection found between the fragments of Noctes Atticae and the commentaries on Vergil (the scholia of commentaries are based either on Cornutus’ original work or on another source, different from that of Gellius), it is very likely that both parts of tradition describe the same attitude, but the commentaries at the same time lack Gellius’ critical tone. Judging Cornutus’ remarks from the point of view of the commentators it becomes obvious that their expressions more clearly reflect the nature of Cornutus’ critical thinking. His remarks were originally adnotationes to the text, and they were not so extremely critical as those of Gellius. Still there existed a source which might have been more critical towards Cornutus, and its influence can be detected in some cases.

17According to the Servius’ commentary on the Aeneid, the Vergiliomastix, a pamphlet with harsh critique on the poet, criticised the verb in verse 521 in Book V: culpat. This verb is used in the same meaning twice in the commentary, and both interpretations can be associated with the group of critics: in the remark written to verse VIII, 291 Servius says that sane critici frustra culpant Vergilium and to the unde critici culpant hoc loco Vergilium (dicentes incongruum esse figmentum). The verbs critici can be found ten times in the commentary on Aeneid. The verb notant can be associated with the critics eight times. As a result the noun criticus and the verb (ad)notare are tightly linked, and adnotation could have been interpreted as culpare, if it had elements of a sharper critique. From this perspective Cornutus was rather a criticus than a grammaticus or a commentator.

18If we take a closer look at the fragments which were formulated by critics, we can find evidence verifying that these critics were familiar with Cornutus’ point of view.

19To the 65th line of the 2nd eclogue there is a scholion containing a critique about the contradiction between the person and the sentence formulated by him:

trahit sua quemque voluptas notatur a criticis, quod hanc sententiam dederit rustico supra bucolici carminis legem aut possibilitatem.

As the fragments we can associate with Cornutus’ lost work with certainty would reveal the philosopher was also interested in the harmony between the behaviour, the words or habits of the fictitious characters, as his critique on Vergil confirmed. Similar scholia, which mention a group of critics, can be found among them.

pilumno quos ipsa decus dedit orithyia ait Horatius in arte poetica “nec quodcumque uelit poscat sibi fabula credi.” Vnde critici culpant hoc loco Vergilium, dicentes incongruum esse figmentum. Namque Orithyia cum Atheniensis fuerit, filia terrigenae, et a Borea in Thraciam rapta sit, quemadmodum potuit Pilumno, qui erat in Italia, equos dare?

It seems very likely that Cornutus’ critical behaviour influenced the critiques directed to fictitious details in literature, and we can suppose that these fragments can be related to the philosopher.

et multi hoc loco culpant Vergilium, quod in unum coegit quattuor librorum propositionem (. . .) quod ideo non est reprehendendum (. . .).

Although Aulus Gellius’ words seem more radical concerning the judgement on Cornutus, the passage above confirms that culpare and reprehendere are very similar. Moreover, wherever Servius used the verb reprehendere, we can suppose that it was meant to signal a critical annotation. In my opinion not all fragments of this type carry the mark of Cornutus’ critical aspects, but some have familiar elements with them. Let’s see, for instance, the scholion written to verse 92 of Book I:

reprehenditur sane hoc loco Vergilius, quod improprie hos uersus Homeri transtulerit καὶ τότ᾽ Ὀδυσσῆος λύτο γούνατα, καὶ φίλον ἦτορ, ὀχθήσας δ᾽ ἄρα εἶπε πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα θυμόν. Nam “soluuntur frigore membra” longe aliud est, quam λύτο γούνατα: et “duplices tendens ad sidera palmas talia uoce refert” molle, cum illud magis altum et heroicae personae πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα θυμόν. Praeterea quis interdiu manus ad sidera tollit, aut quis ad caelum manum tendens non aliud precatur potius quam dicit “O terque quaterque beati”?

As another Cornutus fragment confirms he was interested in the Homer—Vergil interactions and intertextual connections, especially in the translations, and he criticized the cases, in which he could find any incongruences, just like in this case. The adjective improprie was part of Cornutus’ critical vocabulary and he used it frequently, and the same elements can be found in the scholion written to verse 275 of Book I:

fulvo tegmine id est pelle lupae, qua utebatur more pastorum. Sed hoc multi reprehendunt, cur nutricis tegmine usus sit.

22Other instances of criticism in the commentary on Vergil’s work are such critical adverbs as incongrue, indecore, abiecte, etc. In the commentary of Servius and Servius Danielis there are more similar expressions, like the very often used humiliter or superfluo, but there is a lack of other indications to attribute these scholia to Cornutus.

[III, 343] avunculus quidam “auunculus” humiliter in heroico carmine dictum accipiunt.

[VIII, 404] ea verba locutus quidam humiliter dictum accipiunt.

[VIII, 428] deicit quibusdam uidetur humiliter dictum. Alii “de” pro “ualde” accipiunt, sicut dicimus “deamo” pro “ualde amo.”

[VIII, 731] attollens umero famamque et facta nepotum si “fata” legeris, hoc est, quae nepotes fataliter fecerunt. Hunc uersum notant critici quasi superfluo et humiliter additum nec conuenientem grauitati eius: namque est [eius] magis neotericus. famamque gloriam. nepotum posterorum.

[VIII, 411] ligno quidam humiliter dictum accipiunt.

[VIII, 483] cum pellis quidam “pellis” humiliter dictum accipiunt.

[XI, 914] tingvat equos quidam “tinguat” humiliter dictum accipiunt.

[XII, 767] venerabile lignum antiquam arborem uoluit exprimere: seu truncus fuerit iam et aridus ob uetustatem. Et ideo “lignum” humiliter dictum accipiunt, ornauit tamen “uenerabile” dicendo.

[XII, 775] prendere cursu quidam humiliter “prendere” dictum accipiunt.

23Cornutus also uses another method in his annotations. Some of his remarks are given in question forms, for example cur . . . ?, num . . . ?, utrum . . . ? They express the uncertainty of the interpreter, and at the same time refine the edge of criticism. Vergil’s critics used to apply this method frequently. There are many scholia in the late antique commentaries on Vergil which contain such questions. The form of these questions, however, is not specific enough to be easily attributed to a single critic of Vergil. A question like the one written to verse 127 of Book I:

placidum caput quaerunt multi quemadmodum “placidum caput,” si “grauiter commotus”?

Cornutus and Probus: a controversy?

24Among the Cornutus’ scholia associated with Vergil’s works one can read the following names as well: Valerius Probus and Annaeus Cornutus. The inclusion of the two names might point to an earlier literary controversy. Therefore, we will try to outline the possible debate with the help of the related scholia.

28The late antique grammarian Servius quotes their interpretations about the name Orcus:

• 46 Servius, Commentarii in Vergilii Georgicon lib., I, 277. For a detailed discussion see S. Timparano (...)

pallidvs orcvs quia pallidos facit: nam ipse niger est. Probus “Orchus” legit, Cornutus uetat aspirationem addendam.46

Not regarding the whole scholion and supposing that there is a chronology of the interpretations as well, it seems obvious that Cornutus rejected the pronunciation of the word preferred by Probus. The verb used by Servius (uetat) resembles the sharp critique of Cornutus on Probus’ solution.

• 48 Servius, Commentarii in Vergilii Bucolicon lib., VI, 76.

“uexasse rates” autem per tapinosin dictum est; nam non uexauit, sed euertit. Quod Probus uult hac ratione defendere, dicens “uexasse” uenire ab eo, quod est “ueho, uecto, uexo,” ut “uexasse” sit portasse et sine dubio pro arbitrio suo euertisse48

and the compilator of Servius Danielis’ commentary mentions more reasons for defending Vergil:

• 49 Ibid.

“uexasse” est enim uis quaedam alieni arbitrii, non enim sui potens est, qui uehitur. Bene ergo inclinatum uerbum est; nam qui fertur et raptatur et huc atque illuc distrahitur “uexari” proprie dicitur: Cato in oratione de Achaeis “cumque Hannibal terram Italiam laceraret atque uexaret,” Cicero in Verrinis “sed ut a barbaris praedonibus uexata esset,” item “di ablati, fana uexata, direptae urbes reperiuntur.”49

30Cornutus was probably the first to criticize this passage, and Probus later wanted to defend the original text version. His interpretation was accepted by Servius, and the author of Commentary of Servius Danielis confirmed Probus’ defence using similar expressions: pro arbitrio suo, and uis quaedam alieni arbitrii.

• 51 Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, IX, 10, pr. 5–6.

Sed Annaeus Cornutus, homo sane pleraque alia non indoctus neque inprudens, in secundo tamen librorum, quos de figuris sententiarum conposuit, egregiam totius istius uerecundiae laudem insulsa nimis et odiosa scrutatione uiolauit. Nam cum genus hoc figurae probasset et satis circumspecte factos esse uersus dixisset: “‛membra’ tamen,” inquit, “paulo incautius nominauit.”51

According to Gellius, Cornutus accepted the line with the participium infusus:

• 52 Ibid., IX, 10, pr. 2.

placidumque petiuit coniugis infusus gremio per membra soporem.52

Connecting the word infusus to Vulcan, it is clear that the expression permembra was connected to Venus by him. According to Servius there was another variation of this line:

• 53 Servius, Commentarii in Vergilii Aeneidos lib., VIII, 406.

conivgis infvsvs gremio hoc est ante concubuit et sic quieuit. Probus uero et Carminius propter sensum cacenphaton “infusum” legunt, ut sit sensus: dormiit cum coniuge dormiente, id est petiit soporem, infusum etiam coniugis gremio.53

Although Gellius did not know, Cornutus might have known the text variation: infusum, because the author of the Servius Danielis Commentary writes:

• 54 Ibid.

alii “infusus” legunt, ut significetur coisse illos et sic sopitos, et uolunt esse emphasin coitus: nam “infusum gremio soporem” nihil esse dicunt.54

It can be explained as Cornutus’ interpretation, but the late antique commentator knows more than Gellius; he mentions that the grammarians (Cornutus himself among them) rejected the version infusum as unreasonable: nihil esse. Thereafter the author of the Servius Danielis Commentary quotes Probus’ and Carminius’ interpretation:

• 55 Ibid.

multi autem cacenphaton accipiunt, ne duo epitheta uideantur, “placidum” et “infusum”55

and mentions a third interpretation:

• 56 Ibid.

alii figurate accipiunt “placidum per membra” pro eo quod est placidum membris.56

At the end there is the consequence of the two different ways of interpretation:

• 57 Ibid.

per membra potest ambiguum uideri, Vulcani an Veneris.57

32The difference between the opinions of the two grammarians confirms our hypothesis that the works of Cornutus and Probus were in interaction. Probus might have published his interpretations of the Vergilian texts earlier, and Cornutus provided some answers in his work and broadened the critique. After Cornutus’ banishment from the court and his death, Valerius Probus continued the discourse with Cornutus’ interpretations, and some details of that discourse reached Aulus Gellius. Their polemics were followed by the grammarians of the next generations as for example Aemilius Asper’s fragmentary remarks demonstrate. This billowy discourse lasted among the grammarians until the late antiquity as Servius’ critique on Donatus’ interpretations testify. If we suppose that Jerome connected the zenith of Probus’ activity with the publication of the Commentationes mentioned by Gellius, it seems very likely that Cornutus published his answer in the early sixties, probably after the death of his beloved pupil and friend Persius. It elucidates why he dedicated his work to Silius Italicus, a member of Nero’s literary circle.

Cornutus’ critique on Vergil and its political connotations

33We have one important source about Cornutus’ life and social relations at our disposal, the so-called Vita Persii de commentario probi Valeri sublata, the biography of the satire poet Persius. This writing gives several pieces of information on Cornutus’ position in the Roman world. On the basis of this source we learned that in about year 50 AD. Cornutus became Persius’ teacher. The young poet was sixteen years old that time, and the Vita Persii also reported that later on the poet Lucan, Seneca’s nephew, became his student as well. Cornutus’ name, however, the nomen gentile, Annaeus, shows that he was a member of the gens Annaea, Seneca’s family, and Cornutus was a freedman of the younger brother of the philosopher, of M. Annaeus Mela.

34The history of this period and the fates of both poets are well known. Persius died at the end of year 62 because of a serious disease, but Lucan and Seneca were fallen victims of the massacre after the Pisonian conspiracy. The nephew died at the end of April, the philosopher died in May. As I mentioned before, the Vita Persii provides us with a good image of Cornutus’ position in the literary and political life of his time. As Persius’ friend, Cornutus gained access to the circle of the Stoic opposition, whose prominent figure was one of Persius’ relatives, Thrasea Paetus, the politician. In addition to this we know exactly that Lucan, the poet of the Pharsalia was a member of Nero’s literary circle from year 59. It is also known that he even recited the praise Lobdichtung for Nero the next year, on the feast of the first Neronia.

35After the praefectus praetorio’s, Afranius Burrus’ death, Seneca’s political alliance was broken. The political situation changed in Rome completely after Nero’s wife, Octavia’s exile and death, and after Nero’s marriage to Poppaea Sabina. Seneca had to leave the palace, and his former friend, the poet Lucan became the greatest enemy of the emperor. After the Pisonian conspiracy, all important family members were killed in Seneca’s household: after Lucan and Seneca his elderly brother Gallio and his younger brother, Mela were also murdered.

38There are four fragments and all of these fragments have an important similarity. All of them have some connection to Aeneas’ figure. I will only focus on two of them in this paper.

39I would like to quote Servius’ comment about a famous episode of the Aeneid, that is when Aeneas visiting Carthage sees the images of the temple, and he also sees himself:

• 62 Servius, Commentarii in Vergilii Aeneidos lib., I, 488.

se qvoqve principibvs permixtvm agnovit achivis aut latenter proditionem tangit, ut supra diximus: ut excusatur ab ipso in secundo “iliaci cineres” et cetera: aut uirtutem eius uult ostendere; nimiae enim fortitudinis est inter hostium tela uersari, ut Sallustius “Catilina longe a suis inter hostilia cadauera repertus est.” Cornutus tamen dicit uersu isto “uadimus inmixti Danais” hoc esse soluendum.62

40The other fragment from Cornutus’ work on Vergil belongs to Book IX of the epic poem. The Trojans have already arrived in Italy and they have built a warehouse, a castra. Aeneas has to leave this place at that time because he went out. In this episode two younger Trojans guard the gate of the camp.

• 64 Servius, Commentarii in Vergilii Aeneidos lib., IX, 672.

Dvcis imperio commissa aut quae eis fuerat commissa imperio absentis Aeneae: aut, quod est melius, quae imperio Aeneae fuerat “commissa” id est clausa: (. . .) unde apparet quia hunc locum male intellexit Donatus, dicens, commissam portam, id est creditam, Pandaro et Bitiae: qui duces non erant. Cornutus uere et melius sensit, dicens, portam quae ducis imperio commissa fuerat, hoc est clausa, eam aperuerunt. Cornutus uere et melius sensit, dicens, portam quae ducis imperio commissa fuerat, hoc est clausa, eam aperuerunt. (. . .) Ergo melius est ut commissam dicamus clausam, quam creditam Pandaro et Bitiae64.

Cornutus’ question focuses on the meaning of the word commissa. Some critics thought that the word commissa meant cedet but Cornutus believes that it means the gates were closed. What is the difference between the two interpretations? It is explained by the subsequent events: the two young guards open the gate, and they make an attack, and the Rutuls, the original inhabitants of Italy attack the Trojans thereafter, and many people are killed, finally the young Pandarus also dies. In the light of these later events, it is striking that Aeneas’ liability for them is not of the same quality. If he had closed the gates, and he had given a command that they should not be opened, then he would have been innocent, because the young men disregarded his command. On the contrary, if he had given the decision about opening the gates or not over to the two young Trojans, he would have been a careless military leader, who should not have given over his own responsibilities. Cornutus’ explanation of the meaning of the given word thus defends Aeneas, but the other interpretations judge the hero guilty.

41In the first fragment quoted here, Cornutus defended the hero Aeneas against the charge of treason, and he described the forefather of the Roman nation until the fall of Troy as a fighting hero who tirelessly fights in a hopeless situation. In the other fragment mentioned here Cornutus’ statement claims that Aeneas was an excellent and diligent, attentive military leader and strategist. To sum up: Cornutus criticizes Vergil, as Sebastiano Timpanaro said aspramente, but he defends his hero Aeneas. He is a critic of Vergil and a defender of his hero, Vergil’s Aeneas! As I said, Cornutus worked as a literary critic by the years 65 or 66 in the circle of the emperor. And if we take into account that he was living in the society of the last emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and in his works he defended the forefather of the Roman people and the dynasty of the Caesar against the criticism, the traces of which can be noticed in the Vergilian epic poem, it becomes obvious that Cornutus was one of the “house critics” of his time. The figure of the emperor and the patriarch of Rome were closely linked in the minds of their people. As the famous epigram about Nero also claims (Suetonius, Vita Neronis, 39):

Quis negat Aeneae magna de gente Neronem?
Sustulit hic matrem, sustulit ille patrem.

42Cornutus’ literary-critical activity and the fact that his criticism on the poet was hostile, but was friendly to the ancestor of the imperial dynasty, it becomes crystal clear that politics played a key role in the aesthetic verdict of Nero’s time, and it had a special impact on Cornutus’ judgements. When we remember that Cornutus’ critical work on Vergil was dedicated to Nero’ friend and the last consul of his reign, to Silius Italicus, and that the political aura was changed to the Annaei after year 62, it seems very likely that Cornutus tried to strengthen his position by his work. Additionally the fact that he changed a verse in the first satire of Persius, because—according to the ancient biography—he was afraid that the verse with the name of King Midas can be misleading, is also strongly related to the above assumption:

• 65 Probus, Vita Persii, 56.

Cuius uersus in Neronem cum ita se haberet «auriculas asini Mida rex habet», in eum modum a Cornuto ipso tantum nomine mutato est emendatus «auriculas asini quis non habet?» ne hoc in se Nero dictum arbitraretur.65

43According to the ancient testimonies Cornutus seems to have been a literary critic as well who had admission to the imperial palace, and probably to the court of Emperor Nero. His critiques on Vergil show that he was deeply influenced not only by the Stoic aesthetics but by the politics and ideology of the Neronian age. To defend Aeneas meant to defend the Caesar who had written his own version of the Trojan War and who aimed to compose a new national epic. Without baring this political and ideological background in mind we would not be able to understand Cornutus’ criticism of Vergil.