The African grammarian Pompeius, who lived between the fifth and the sixth centuries ad, wrote an ample commentary on Ars maior by Donatus, up to now only available in the fifth volume of Grammatici Latini by Keil (1868, pp. 81–312), a certainly worthy work, but by now showing evident limitations. L. Holtz (‘Tradition et diffusion de l’œuvre grammatical de Pompée, commentateur de Donat’, RPh 97 [1971], 48–83; ‘Prolégomènes à une édition critique du commentaire de Pompée, grammairien africain’, in: I. Taifacos [ed.], The Origins of European Scholarship [2005], pp. 109–19) stated the need for a new critical edition of Pompeius’ work, to take into account the most recent contributions of the manuscript tradition and which would constitute a solid basis for the study of this text, interesting from different points of view: in particular, its language reflects the evolution of Latin, and the conversational approach shows more than other texts the orality of school lessons.
A renewal strategy of textual reconstruction and doctrinal research characterises the work by Z., who has produced the critical edition of the third part of the Commentum in artem Donati by Pompeius, concerning vitia et virtutes orationis. This work is the development of Z.’s doctoral thesis presented at the Scuola Normale of Pisa: it is made up of two volumes, of which the first includes an extensive introduction, the critical edition and a translation into Italian, and the second includes a rich commentary on the text, an appendix of variants and the indexes. Z.’s interest in the third part of the artes is not new, since she has already published a critical edition of the corresponding section of Servius’ commentary on Donatus (‘Vitia et virtutes orationis nel commento di Servio a Donato [GL IV, pp. 443,28–448,17]: edizione critica, traduzione, note di commento’, Latinitas 4 [2016], 93–134).
As Z. observes in the introduction, the sections about vitia and virtutes of speech often have an independent tradition from the work they belong to, because of their unquestionable didactic usefulness as an approach to the study of rhetoric. It is this characteristic link between the course by the grammaticus and the one by the rhetor, which makes these texts particularly interesting and meaningful in order to understand the teaching methods in the ancient school. In particular, as far as Pompeius is concerned, the results of independent research on this section of the Commentum can provide a useful contribution to the study of the whole work. The first volume opens with a ‘Premessa’, in which Z. declares the aim of her work, which consists in offering a contribution to the rediscovery of Pompeius’ work in a wider perspective, both concerning the manuscript tradition and the critical choices and concerning the doctrinal aspect. After an extensive section of bibliographical abbreviations, the introduction offers an articulate and clear presentation of the problems concerning the Commentum by Pompeius. In the first two sections, on the author and the work (pp. xciii–ci), Z. summarises the meagre information about the Africitas by Pompeius, whose work probably dates to the fifth century ad, and points out some characteristics of the Commentum, which is included in the traditional list of commentaries on Donatus, but is different in many respects, first of all because of the conflictual relationship with the auctoritas of reference, that is Donatus. Indeed Pompeius excludes Ars minor from his plan and provides a verbose commentary with no lemmas, coming to conclusions contrasting with those of Donatus. The relationship to Servius is significant, too: Pompeius never explicitly mentions Servius, even if he makes wide use of his commentary, often adopting oversights and inconsistencies.
Subsequently, Z. describes the ample manuscript tradition, which is one of the main innovative aspects of her work (‘La tradizione del testo’, pp. ci–cxlv). While Keil took into account six manuscripts, only four of which include the third part of the Commentum, this edition is based on a recensio of nineteen manuscripts, dating from the eighth–ninth centuries or, with a marked time gap, from the Age of Humanism. Each manuscript is accurately described, with indications of the intersections, of the relationships of dependency, of the errores coniunctivi and disiunctivi; the stemma codicum, partly adapted, with some necessary alterations, from the stemma by Holtz (1971, revised in 2005), illustrates the path of the manuscript tradition.
The outcome of Z.’s ample research is a critical edition greatly renewed compared with Keil's previous edition. The editorial criteria are illustrated in a specific section (pp. cxlvi–cxlix), which is followed by the critical edition, including the text, the critical apparatus, a section on author quotes and a section about the presence of the Commentum in later texts. A section dedicated to the sources, in particular to the grammatical sources, is not included. The critical text is followed by a clear and fluent translation, valuable in that it conveys the traces of orality in Pompeius’ manual.
The second volume includes the ‘Note di commento’, where Z. carefully discusses the textual problems, justifying her choices, illustrates the grammatical sources and separately outlines the features of vitia and virtutes, providing ample documentation drawn from both ancient texts and modern studies. Of course the main source is Donatus; however, as Z. observes, Servius is equally present, even if not explicitly mentioned, with large sections of quotes from his work.
An appendix of variants and an index of quotes and of technical terms conclude the volume. The outcome of Z.’s research is a rigorous and original work, which is undoubtedly going to be useful not only for its unquestionable merit in textual renovation, but also for its approach, which, while focusing on Pompeius’ work, expands into the evolution of the Latin grammatical tradition concerning vitia et virtutes orationis.
