Reference editions: 

Prologus: A. Zago, The (new) prologue to Pompeius’ Commentum, «Rationes Rerum» 14 (2019), 157-162. Partes I-II: Grammatici Latini, V. Artium Scriptores minores. Cledonius Pompeius Iulianus etc., ex recensione H. Keilii, Hildesheim 1961, 95-283 (reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe, Leipzig 1868). Pars III: (GLK 5.283-312): A. Zago, Pompeii Commentum in artis Donati partem tertiam, Hildesheim 2017, 2 voll. (Collectanea Grammatica Latina 15.1 e 15.2).  

The Commentum artis Donati is a long commentary on the work of the grammarian Donatus, written by a magister in Africa during the fifth or sixth century. The title given by Heinrich Keil, in consideration of a number of lessons in the manuscripts, reflects the title already given by Friedrich Lindemann in the editio princeps (Leipzig 1820) and clearly situates the treatise in the vast tradition of artes inspired by Donatus. The Commentum accompanies and explains the Ars maior, using a tripartite structure: the first part examines the fundamental notions of the grammar (GLK 5.95.1-134.2, corresponding to Book 1 of the Ars maior); the second part examines at length the partes orationis (GLK 5.134.3-282.35, corresponding to Book 2 of the Ars maior); the final section addresses uitia et uirtutes orationis (GLK 5.283.1-312.16, corresponding to Book 3 of the Ars maior) and offers a tradition that is partially independent from the rest of the work (Zago 2017, CIV-CVI).

The incipit of the commentary represents a large philological problem: it is absent from the editio princeps and from Keil’s edition, since it was only rediscovered and edited by Holtz 1971, 58-64 (and more recently by Zago 2019, who reconsiders the available witnesses). Thus it is important for studying the work’s manuscript tradition, which divides into two branches, ‘Italian’ and ‘insular’. Pompeius’ Commentum is also damaged at the end: it stops suddenly while discussing homoeosis, while the entries on icon, parable and paradigma are missing, which conclude the analogous section in Donatus’ work. Overall, the work has a substantial manuscript tradition (about 30 codices), which testifies to the circulation of Pompeius’ text in Spain during the seventh century, and later, in Bobbio, Montecassino, in the main Carolingian scriptoria, and in British Isles (Holtz 1971; Holtz 2005).

Although Pompeius explicitly follows Donato (whom he cites by name fifty times), he is most indebted to Servius’ similar commentary (GLK 4,405-448). Although Servius is never explicitly named, it is evident that Pompeius had access to his work, and used it with some misinterpretation and approximation (Kaster 1988, 140-150). Donatus’ Ars maior is often only visible ‘in filigree’ in the Commentum, since the absence of headwords and the redundant organisation befog the reference work’s otherwise clear and formulaic structure, whose excessive succinctness Pompeius sometimes complains about (e.g. in GLK 5.288.6-8 = 17.12-15 Zago 2017).

The most innovative and interesting element of the work, which is not otherwise particularly original from a doctrinal perspective, is the oral style, which undoubtedly arises from the extemporary lessons of a dynamic (and verbose) magisterin front of his class. It is not easy to establish, on the basis of the elements in our possession, whether Pompeius’ Commentum was composed for an audience of grammar students or future teachers, to whom some uncommon didactic and methodological notes were addressed (Holtz 1981, 236 -237; Kaster 1988, 158-168; De Nonno 2010, 176; Zago 2010). Pompeius’ unusual oral performance has been variously studied, both from a linguistic perspective (Pontani 2007; Adams 1991; Adams 2013, 471-481) and in connection to the history of didactic techniques and teaching in Antiquity (De Nonno 2010; Munzi 2011; Zago 2010; Zago 2018).

The linguistic peculiarities of Pompeius’ Latin render it an important source for historical-linguistic studies on Latin in Africa, and more generally, on the evolution of Latin in Romance languages (e.g. Adams 2007; Fanciullo 1992; Loporcaro 2007, 113-114; Mancini 1994; Mancini 2001; Mancini 2015; Schmitt 2003; Zago 2013). [A. Zago; tr. C. Belanger]