{"word_count": 683, "character_count": 4418}
inc. loc., saec. II p. Chr. Referred to as either Statilius Maximus or simply as Maximus, his identification with the T. Statilius Maximus Seuerus (the author of CLE 227) is not sure, even if it is defended by Zetzel (1981: 211), admitted by Pecere (1982: 99), but rejected by Schmidt (in HLL). He is cited as a grammatical authority in some of the sections of Iulius Romanus copied by Charisius, so he may well have been a professional grammarian (Schmidt); this is confirmed by his activity as textual critic, indicated by the verb notare which is often applied to him (Merello 1977: 114), and by his emendatio of Cicero’s speech De lege agraria (Pecere 1982). Although the terminus post quem is deduced (ex silentio) from his not being cited in Suetonius’ De grammaticis (Zetzel 1974: 109), in GRL the proposal is put forward, on similar grounds, that he is later than Gellius, whereas Zetzel (1974: 109) thinks that he was a contemporary of Gellius. The diffuse dating (around the first half of the third century) of his only certain terminus ante quem (Iulius Romanus) can be only tentatively precised by means of some prosopographical evidence (further details in Pecere 1982: 98-99) which invites to fix Statilius’ activity at the end of the second century (Merello 1977: 116; Schmidt). That he checked at least one speech by Cicero is known from a marginal annotation at the end of book I of De lege agraria as transmitted in Vat. Lat. 11458, autograph of Poggio Bracciolini (Pecere 1982: 73). From this annotation we know that he collated six manuscripts.As for the preserved fragments, it is disputed whether they belong to the same work (Froehde 1892: 647, and Zetzel 1974: 115) or, on the contrary (Schmidt, following Bergk 1884: 597-598), we must assume that there existed some notes on Cato’s speeches, and a separate work on rare words used by Cicero: the one cited by Romanus as De singularibus apud Ciceronem quoque positis. With the exception of fr. 20 Zetzel, found in Romanus’ chapter de interiectione, all other citations come from de aduerbio, although it is very likely that Statilius included other partes orationis in his work. An alphabetical organisation is assumed by most of modern scholars, but the fact that Romanus (ap. Char. p.252.28) expressly states that he is going to organise his chapter alphabetically makes it probable that some of the methods he rejects are the ones he had read in his sources (on this issue see further Uría 2012: 234-237).Apart from the interest for rare words (or rather, in this particular case, for rare ‘forms’), which was typical of the time, the fragments show an attention to analogical rules, as can be directly observed in fr. 17 Zetzel, and –maybe– in fr. 5 Zetzel (cf. Zetzel 1974: 112), as well as, indirectly, in the number of adverbs with a productive suffix (–e, -ter, -im) which are commented upon (Uría 2012: 235-236); on similar grounds, comparisons such as Singularie… quasi unice (fr. 16 Zetzel; cf. fr. 14, 15 and –perhaps–8) may have a formal rather than a semantic sense.Bibliographica                                                          EditionesSuringar (1834-1835), i, 63-65, 200-203; Froehde 1892: 645-647; Zetzel, BICS 21 (1974), 110-115; Merello, Studi e Ricerche dell’Istituto di Latino, 1 (1977), 113-136.StudiaPIR¹ iii (1898), S 601; Teuffel–Kroll–Skutsch (1910⁶-1916⁶), iii, 138; Schanz–Hosius–Krüger (1922³), 164-165; P.L. Schmidt, HLL iv (1997), § 445.3; P.L. Schmidt, ‘Statilius ii.6’, BNP.Bergk, Theodor (1884), ‘Anecdoton Parisinum’, in R. Peppmüller (ed.), Kleine philologische Schriften von Theodor Bergk, Halle, i, 580-612.Froehde, Oskar (1892), ‘De C. Iulio Romano Charisii auctore’, Jahrb. f. class. Philol., Suppl. Bd. 18, 645-647.Merello, Margherita (1977), ‘Statilio Massimo’, SRIL 1, 113-136.Pecere, Oronzo (1982), ‘La ‘subscriptio’ di Statilio Massimo e la tradizione delle ‘Agrarie’ di Cicerone’, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 25, 73-123.Suringar, Willem Hendrik Dominicus (1834-1835), Historia Critica Scholiastarum Latinorum, Leiden, i, 63-65; 200-203.Schenkeveld, Dirk M. (2004), A rhetorical grammar. C. Iulius Romanus: Introduction to the liber de adverbio, Leiden-Boston.Uría, Javier (2012), ‘Iulius Romanus and Statilius Maximus (Char. gramm. 252, 14-31): A reappraisal’, MD 69, 225-238.Zetzel, James E. G. (1974), ‘Statilius Maximus and Ciceronian studies in the Antonine age’, BICS 21, 107-123.