I have used the term “Late Antique” of Virgilian commentators of the fourth century; Aelius Donatus, Tiberius Claudius Donatus, Macrobius and Servius. La Cerda’s commentary draws upon each of these authors in varying degrees in different sections of his work. This chapter seeks to outline his use of each of them.
Aelius Donatus, Tiberius Claudius Donatus, Macrobius
Though these authors are used extensively throughout the Elogia, comparatively little
acknowledged use is made of them in the body of La Cerda’s commentary proper. TheIndex
Rerum et Verborumlists only a single entry for (Aelius) Donatus under “Donatus refellitur”
atEclogues7.53. note 2; no entry at all for Tiberius Claudius Donatus and seven entries over
three volumes for Macrobius.113 These entries are striking for two reasons; first, in a commentary on this scale, little use is made of these authors; and second, what mention there is is entirely critical. Yet, despite being conspicuously absent from the commentary itself, each of these authors is listed in the syllabus auctorum at the end of the Prooemium at
volume one as a source from which La Cerda has drawn material to construct his seven chapters of Elogia. Indeed, La Cerda makes selective rather than critical use of the
biographical and literary critical material contained in these authors.114It is interesting to note that he appears to regard deployment of their material as useful for hisElogiabut the ancient
authorities are of little use once his commentary is underway.115
113These comprise of “Macrobii lapsus”, “Macrobius carpitur”, “Macrobius refellitur”, “Macrobii error” and
“Macrobii ineptae”.
114SeeProoemiumand accompanying notes below for La Cerda’s deployment of this material. 115See p232 for the influence of Scaliger on La Cerda’s hostility towards Macrobius.
Servius
By contrast, rather more use is made of Servius’ commentary on Virgil. TheIndexto Volume
1 lists nine entries, Volume 2 ten entries and Volume 3 nine entries concerned with his work. Again, however, these statistics must be considered in relation to the overall size of La Cerda’s endeavour and, once again, it is clear that La Cerda makes comparatively little use of the most famous and widely read Virgilian commentary of the time. These references to Servius are, as with the previous fourth-century commentators, almost entirely critical, even hostile.116 Interestingly, further hostility to Servius is betrayed beyond those faults listed in the Indices. This is most easily detected in La Cerda’sArgumentumbeginning book 4:
Continet hic liber amores Didonis erga Aeneam, sed modestissime, ut decet Vatem Parthenium. Neque obtrudant Critici sumptum Apollonium ad imitationem. Hoc scilicet Graeculi. Nihil habet Virgilius commune cum Apollonio, nisi tantum describi a Graeco amores Medeae erga Iasonem, a Latino Didonis erga Aenean. In reliquo longe dissimiles. Apollonius mera est umbra, merae nugae, mera insipientia si cum Virgilio conferatur. Sed omitto hic crisin et pergo ad argumentum libri huius.
[This book contains Dido’s passion for Aeneas, though in a most temperate manner, as befits the Parthenian Bard. Critics should not simply thrust upon us that Apollonius has been taken up in imitation. This is what little Greeks maintain. But Virgil has nothing in common with Apollonius, unless perhaps those passions of Medea, described by the Greek author Euripides, for Jason, or those by the Latin one, of Dido for Aeneas. In what remains, he is greatly dissimilar. Apollonius is nothing more than a shadow, nothing more than mere trifles, nothing more than stupidity if he is compared with Virgil. But, at this point, I abandon literary judgement and move on to the theme of this particular book.]
116 Volume 1 lists five entries under “Servii error” and single entries under “Servius carpitur” and “Servius
reprehenditur”. Two entries bear the title “Servius defenditur”. Volume 2 is similar, listing nine entries under “Servii error” and a single entry under “Servius defenditur”. Volume 3 is arguably more dismissive listing a further nine entries of what are now termed “Servii nugae”.
In this candid discussion of what was a controversial book for some Jesuits, La Cerda holds that Virgil remains the traditional paragon of moral virtue: ut decet Vatem Parthenium. For
La Cerda Virgil is saved from the censure of critics who suggest that he has simply copied the Dido episode from Apollonius’ Medea in theArgonautica. The “critics” whom La Cerda
characterises as “thrusting upon us” (Critici obtrudant) appear to be those commentators on
Virgil who accept without question the received wisdom of Servius who states the following at the start of his commentary onAeneid4:
Apollonius Argonautica scripsit, ubi inducit amantem Medeam. Inde totus hic liber
translatus est de tertio Apollonii.
[Apollonius wrote the Argonauticawhere he introduced the lover Medea. Hence this whole book has been copied from the third book of Apollonius.]
Comment of this type offered at this point by La Cerda is not to be found in any of the other elevenArgumentaintroducing the individual books of theAeneid.117