Reference Edition:

Digital edition by Fabio Stok, digilibLT 2018.

The Spangenberg fragment is a bifolium manuscript of commentary notes on some books of the Aeneid (3,561 - 5,638 e 7,710 - 8, 713). It is currently preserved in the Hessische Staatsarchiv di Marburg (Fragment 19 Spangenberg Depositum, Hr Nr. 1). The bifolium was used for collecting the records of the parish of Spangenberg for the years 1660-1694. It was discovered in 1968 by W.F. Echardt, and was recommended to B. Bischoff, who performed a palaeographical analysis of it. E.A. Lowe then compiled and published these data in the supplemental volume of the Codici Latini antiquiores (1971). The text of the commentary was published in 2000 by P.K. Marshall (The Spangenberg Bifolium of Servius: the Manuscript and the Text, in Rivista di Filologia e Istruzione Classica 128, 2000, pp. 190-209).

The bifolium is written in Anglo-Saxon cursive minuscule. It was copied in south-western England at the end of the seventh century or the first quarter of the eighth (it also includes four Anglo-Saxon glosses: at 4.137, 4.239, 5.205 and 5.251). The compilation of the commentary may be traced to the circle of Aldhelm of Malmesbury (639/640-709). The codex was probably brought to Germany in the eighth century, around the time that St. Boniface (Wynfrith) was evangelising and the monastery of Fulda (which lies not far from Spangenberg) was founded (747). The fragment contained on the bifolium is all that remains of this manuscript.

On the basis of B. Bischoff’s findings, Lowe identified the notes as excerpta from Servius’ commentary. In 1975, however, Murgia suggested that they do not derive from Servius, but rather from Servius Danielis (or auctus), that is to say, from Danielis’ enlarged version of Servius’ commentary. Murgia also suggested that the bifolium may have originated in seventh-century Ireland. Yet the text of the fragment cannot be wholly attributed to Servius Danielis, since it contains many notes that do not appear in other commentaries. Having analysed some of these notes, Marshall hypothesised that the fragment derives from a longer version of Servius Danielis than those that have come down to us. More recently, Stok (2019) hypothesised that the compiler of this commentary did not use Servius Danielis as a source, but that he and Danielis shared a source: the lost commentary by Aelius Donatus.

The bifolium was originally part of a quaternion: the remaining notes, limited to Books 3-5 and 7-8 of the Aeneid, suggest that the bifolium formed ff. 2 and 4, and that the quaternion contained, more or less, a commentary on the entire poem. The remaining text does not always reproduce the virgilian lemmata: in many cases, the term under discussion is glossed in the nominative, and not in the inflected form that appears in the poem. It is not clear whether the compiler organised the commentary in this way, or whether the missing lemmata were lost in the course of the transmission. The notes appear in a standard order for Books 3-4 and 7-8, but the order for Book 5 is disrupted: apart from some minor perturbations, its notes appear in two series - the first relating to vv. 13-745, and the second, to vv. 37-651 - that follow each other. This disruption could originate with the compiler, who may have drawn a first selection of notes from a first source, and then added a second selection to this. Some small disruptions may also have affected some of the notes (e.g. 5.745), which may similarly be the result of conflating different sources.

There are, in total, 286 legible (or partially legible) notes, which relate to an identifiable Virgilian verse. 23 of these concern Book 3, 89 concern Book 4, and 10 concern Books 7 and 8. By comparing this text with Servius Danielis, we can see that the compiler was extremely selective in what he adapted, and that he simplified his source considerably. A great part of the commentary consists of exegetical glosses explaining specific Virgilian vocabulary and expressions. In many cases, the notes correspond with those of Danielis, but the compiler has extracted a specific example from Danielis’ broader scholium, particularly in cases where Danielis provided more exegetical possibilities (traces of some more exegetical options can be found in the notes to 4.131, 4.418, 5.718, and 5.745). Furthermore, the compiler generally omits the illustrative citations from Virgil and other authors, which one finds in Danielis. He also usually omits the critical notations on the use of Virgil, which are often in the exegetical tradition (the sole exception is in 4.132).

There is only one case where a Greek term is transmitted, and there the compiler specifies: graecum est (5.267). The exegetical notes are generally brief, with exceptions in the notes for 4.418, 4.543, 4.506, and above all, the long note on 8.429. In about 30 instances, the notes are specifically lexical, providing the meaning of rare and unusual terms. In two cases, that is, 4.132 and 5.651, they concern differentiae verborum. Just over a dozen of the notes concern grammar (e.g., 3.671, 4.422); one (8.561) addresses the different genders that Virgil uses at different times for the city of Praeneste. More than 50 notes concern geography (e.g. 3.687, 7.799), while about 30 relate to divinities and mythical persons (e.g. 3.578, 4.207). There are fewer notes on historical themes, but these tend to be longer (e.g. 8.638, 8.642, 8.646). On the whole, the compiler has extracted notes from a more general commentary, most of them brief, that explain the meaning of Virgilian terms, and the identity of characters and historical and mythical contexts mentioned in the poem. The commentary was probably intended for the educational study of the Aeneid among an Anglo-Saxon readership.

The bifolium is noticeably deteriorated, reflecting its use for the binding of Spangenberg’s parish acts, and the text is illegible in some parts of the parchment (particularly f. 2r). Marshall published it in a continuous form, noting the lines of the manuscript and assessing the illegible parts (and also occasionally indicating the number of illegible characters). He conjectured on the text of many of the illegible parts (basing this largely on Servius Danielis). These conjectures are marked by angled brackets, and sometimes accompanied by a question mark. He uses [sic] to indicate errors and to show where the text is distinct from the Servius’. He also uses square parentheses to indicate the interlinear corrections that appear in the manuscript, the Virgilian verses to which the commentary refers, and occasionally, the variations in manuscript F of Servius Danielis. He underlines the parts of the commentary that are absent from the Servian corpus, and spaces out those which correspond only to Danielis, and not Servius.

Here, the text of the fragment is published in a lemmatic form. The relevant Virgilian verse is indicated at the outset of each comment. Where the manuscript features interlinear corrections, this edition reproduces the correct form, without indicating the correction. Lacunae are generally indicated by square brackets, without commenting on the length of the missing text. Isolated passages that cannot be securely connected to a Virgilian verse are omitted.

In the following cases, the present edition corrects the evident errors preserved by Marshall (where the word as it occurs in the manuscript is marked between parentheses): 3.687 Lilybeum (libeum); procedit (procedi); 3.703 parte (partae); 3.707 Drepani me (Drepamine); 4.132 Mauritania (maritania); odorisecum (odoris secum); 4.179 Coeo Enceladoque (Coeonceladoque); 4.262 vagina (uaginia); 4.377 qua (quo); 4.426 ante (antea); 4.427 Diei (dei); 4.453 vidit turicremis (Uidi turieremis); 4.506 a pariete (ariete); 4.507 cupressus (conpraessus); 4.511 Echaten (Hechaten); 4.590 Iuppiter (Ioppiter); 5,13 quianam (quinam); 5.144 praecipites (praepicites); 5.198 aerea (Aeria); 5.446 ultro (ultra); 5.595 et Rhodum (ethrodum); 5.620 Itmari Dorychilyrii (It maridory chilyrii); 5.646 Roetheo (roethea); 5.744 Pergameumque Larem (Pergameamque. uarem); 5.744 canae Vestae (Canae uestrae); 5.37 fera (ferra); 5.116 prora (rora); 5.745 arcula (accula); 5.163 adluitur (luitur); 8.344 Pannos (ponnos); 8.429 toto (tota); habunt (habun); 8.435 horriferram (horriferra); proprie (propie); 8.435 concitatae (concite); 8.437 angues (anges); Gorgonis (gorgone); 8.454 Eoliis (Eolegis); 8.458 Tusca (tuscia); 8.460 demissa (dimisum); 8.564 Campaniae (campania); 8.638 pacabat (pucabat); 8.638 mire (mere); Antemnates (autemnates); Crustumini (crustumum); triginta (trigenta); 8.642 defecit (deficit); morte (morti); 8.663 celebrarentur (celebraraentur); 8.677 Leucaten (Leocaten); 8.677 expressum (expresum); 8.678 Actium (Actiuum); Epiri (piri); Augusto (agusto); 8.680 Augustus (Augustos); 8.681 aperitur (Appara et); 8.686 Erythreo (erytheo); 8.688 Bactrianos (bachatrianos); 8.693 <turr>itis (<turr>ites); 8.713 Nili origo nascitur (nilioro lonescitur).

To Marshall’s proposed additions where the text is illegible, the following are added here: 3.587 h<oc est obscura>; 3.670 <adfectare>; 3.680 e<celsae>; 3.687 <extremitatibus>; <Pachinum>; 3.689 <a Syracusis>; 4.506 <ligat>; 4.507 <funerea>; 4.538 <quiane>; 4.585 <vitae in>; 5.295 prim<a aeta>te; 7.714: prop<e>; 7.796 <Labici>; 7.799 Anxy<rus>; 8.139 Mercur<ium est enixa>. The following suggestion differs from Marshall’s: 5.199 A<nhe>litus: dicunt, <anim>um proferunt (Marshall hypothesised that the note concerned v. 198, and suggested: <procumb>unt pro fer<i>unt). At 4.585 Marshall wavers between two possible interpretations, Servius’ suggestion of <leuauit> and Danielis’ of <rapuit>, but the latter is certainly preferable. Marshall hypothesises that the final note of Book 5, which discusses the differentia between aeger and aegrotus, concerns either 5.432 (aeger) or 468 (aegra); it is, however, likelier to refer to 5.651 (aegram), since the preceding note addresses 5.638 (in Danielis, the differentia is proposed in the scholium ad Aen. 4.35).

The text of the bifolium contains many omissions as well as copyist errors. Some of these are evinced by lemmata that lack an explicative note. In two instances, the gloss can be conjectured on the basis of Danielis’ text: 5.204 <preminentibus>; 5.306 <nitido>. The absence of a note for  5.37 Lybistidis ursae may point to an error in the positioning of the lemma, since a subsequent note (feram pro fera posuit etc.) could be connected to these words. Other omissions can be hypothesised for 4.132 <odorum>, 8.638 <Sabini> and 8.642 <apud>. In the note to 8.646, the present edition makes the correction stuprum (ms.: stupro) and trims the words a quibus (ms.: a quibus regno privatus est). [F. Stok, tr. C. Belanger]