The name of the author of the Commentarium de ratione metrorum that comes out of the tradition — regardless of the variety of forms for the praenomen (Maximus, Maximinus, Maximianus) — is Victorinus, to which Bede also refers in 121.70 K. The hypothesis is that the uncertainty concerning the author’s name is the result of a progressive corruption of the original Marius Victorinus. Such an attribution, however, seems completely improbable, especially because the Commentary’s teaching presumes 5th-century sources. Rather, the name of the rhetor Victorinus may be inspired by the mention of Cicero at the end of the treatise and the ideal route, from grammar to rhetoric, that is outlined there. The ordo uerborum of the heading, where the genitive Victorini is placed after the commentarium but precedes de ratione metrorum, may in fact make us think that the Commentarium represents a work originating from Marius Victorinus’ Ars grammatica (4th century). This, analogously to the development of the Donatus manuals, could have been enlarged with prosodic-metric materials de ratione metrorum (which then were attributed to Victorinus), to respond to new school requirements. In this case, the praenomen in one part of the manuscript tradition may attest that by the end of Late Antiquity it was deliberately emphasised that the materials of the Commentarium date back to Marius Victorinus, but they are absolutely not from his own work, and they constitute rather an enlargement of his Ars. An anonymous compiler, perhaps an African from the second half of the 5th century, should be credited for the connecting material between the collection’s various sections, and for the basic pedagogical project that animates it, namely, a precise itinerary to follow toward the acquisition of additional expertise, which was itself being lost but was still considered necessary, and which was fundamentally connected to syllabic quantity, and only lato sensu related to rhetoric. [D. Corazza, tr. C. Belanger]