3. Contents![[arrow up]](http://diglib.hab.de/images/arrowup.png)
Sulpitius' Regule grammaticales is a comprehensive work, consisting of various individual treatises covering metrics, stylistics and letter-writing in addition to traditional grammatical topics. The first book opens with a short introduction to the parts of speech, followed by accounts of nominal declension, patronymics, heteroclitic nouns, and the declension of composite pronouns; the second book is devoted to the gender of nouns and their endings according to case and declension, as well as the preterites and supines of verbs; the third book consists of verbal syntax as based on the gender of verbs; the fourth book consists of miscellaneous topics: relative pronouns, interrogative and distributive nouns, comparison and local adverbs; a discussion on the construction of cases, infinitives, comparison, local adverbs, Donatus' figures, lexicographical material, and a treatise on letter writing concludes the work. References to the two works, the 1486 and 1500 editions, are given in the chronological order of their publication.
The first book on the parts of speech is very methodical proceeding by definitions and divisions. Sulpitius' definition of grammar follows the tradition of Quintilian and Isidore of Sevilla, relating grammar with the wider context of study, namely the liberal arts: „Grammatica est recte loquele recteque scripture scientia et origo et fons omnium liberalium artium“ (A ii r). The principles of correct speech are drawn from Quintilian: ‚Grammatica est rectae loquelae recteque scripturae scientia quae usu ratione autoritateque constat‛ (a ii r). The division of grammar into four is based on Priscian's Institutiones grammaticae as are also their definitions: „Grammaticae partes sunt quattuor. Littera syllaba dictio et oratio“ (A ii r/a ii r). However, the letters are now distinguished from ’elements’ (‚elementa‛), that is from their pronunciations (only in the latter version, a ii r). This is probably also based on Priscian. Thus, an attempt is made to solve the ambiguity of the ancient term ‚littera‛, meaning both a written form and a spoken sound. „Litterae in hoc distant ab elementis, quod elementa proprie sunt ipsae litterarum pronunciationes. Litterae vero figurae, sed confunduntur.“ A sentence/speech (‚oratio‛) is said to pertain to both grammar and rhetoric (A ii v/a ii r). After quoting Priscian's definition of the part of speech as signifying an affection of the soul (A ii v/a ii r). „Pars orationis est vox indicans mentis conceptum“), a division of the parts of speech into declinable (‚Nomen, pronomen, verbum, participium‛) and indeclinable (‚praepositio, adverbium, interiectio et coniunctio‛) is given, as was customary in both contemporary and medieval Italian grammar.
The noun section is heavily dependent on Priscian. His definition is quoted in a slightly altered form but maintains its philosophical orientation, the signification of proper and common quality. „Nomen est pars orationis cum casu quae corporis aut rei communem qualitatem propriamve significat“ (A ii v/a ii v). The grammatical accidents are also those of Priscian: ‚species, genus, numerus, figura‛ and ‚casus‛. Proper and common nouns are defined in philosophical terms, as signifying substance, quality and quantity: „Proprium nomen et (est) quod naturaliter uniuscuiusque privatam substantiam et qualitatem significat. Appellativum est quod naturaliter commune est multorum quos eadem substantia sive qualitas sive quantitas generalis et specialis iungit. Generalis, ut animal, corpus, specialis ut homo, lapis.“ (A iii r/a ii v). Nouns are further divided into adjectival and substantival, being identified by the use of the article ‚hic, hec‛ and ‚hoc‛ (A iii v, a ii v). The subsequent medieval division of adjectives into three occurs only in the 1500 edition. The first group is perfect in sound, construction and signification, e.g. ‚foelix‛, and ‚albus, alba, album‛; the second is deficient in sound, like ‚pauper‛; the third in signification, like ‚omnis, nullus, quis‛ (a ii v). Sulpitius has largely adopted Priscian's subtypes of common nouns, many of which are philosophical in origin (‚corporale/incorporale, omoninum, synonymum, ad aliquid, quasi ad aliquid, generale and speciale‛ a ii v - a iii r). The article also finds a place of its own in Sulpitius' exposition (A iii v). Since Antiquity, it had served to distinguish between different genders of nouns and more recently it had been introduced to identify adjectival and substantival nouns: „Articulare est vox sequentem casum et numerum indicans“ (defined only in the later version, a iii v). The remaining ‚accidentia‛, ‚numerus‛ and ‚casus‛, are briefly defined and the five nominal declensions are presented as based on the five genitive endings.
The rest of the parts of speech receive much less attention. The verb is defined in accordance with Priscian in a slighlty modified form: „Verbum est pars orationis cum temporibus et modis sine casu actionis vel passionis vel utriusque vel neutrius significativum“ (A iiii r). Then ‚genera, tempora‛ and ‚modi‛ are accounted for by simply listing their subtypes. For instance, ‚genera verborum sunt quinque, activum, passivum, neutrum, commune et deponens‛. Conjugations are introduced by a definition: „Conjugatio est consequens verborum declinatio“ (A iiii v; a iii v): Irregular verbs such as ‚sum‛, which do not follow the rules of conjugation, are called ‚anormala‛. Priscian's definition of the participle open the section on the participle: „Participium est pars orationis quae pro verbo accipitur, a/ex quo derivatur et genus et casum habet ad similitudinem nominis et accidentia ab verbo/verbi absque discretione personarum et modorum“ (A v r; a iii v). Then its accidents are briefly accounted for. Another Priscianic definition opens the account of the pronoun: „Pronomen est pars orationis quae pro nomine proprio uniuscuiusque rei accipitur, personasque finitas recipit“. (A v r/a iii v). Then personal and demonstrative pronouns are described along the lines proposed by Priscian (‚ego, tu, hic, ipse, iste, ille‛) (a iiii r). However, Sulpitius posits four categories of pronouns (calling them ‚modi declinationis‛), according to their declension, as was customary in the late Middle Ages: the first contains ‚ego, tu, sui‛; the second ‚ille, ipse, iste, hic, et is‛; the third ‚meus tuus, suis, noster‛ and ‚vester‛; and the fourth ‚nostras‛ and ‚vestras‛. The two first types are primitive, the latter two are derived. The indeclinable parts (preposition, adverb, interjection and conjunction) are briefly defined and the entire parts of speech section occupies five pages (a iiii r) and less than nine in the 1486 edition. Before concluding this book, he advices his pupils Camillus and Marcellus to resort to the grammars of Donatus and Priscian for further information. The book concludes with: „finit Sulpitii Verulani examen“. The later version concludes this section with Carmen iuvenile de moribus puerorum (a iiii r – a v v).
In the 1486 edition, the next section opens with a poem criticizing the Doctrinale (A vi rv) (see Context and Classification), whereas the 1500 copy begins with (a v v) a dedication to Falco Sinibaldus, the papal treasurer. A detailed section on noun declension (A vi v) follows, focusing on the endings of each case form in all the five declensions. Starting from the first declension nominative, all possible endings are listed, taking into account also gender. This approach is familiar from ancient grammar, but the amount of Greek and Hebrew as well as irregular names has radically increased. For instance, the account of the third declension covering more than five full pages contains the following items pertaining to the ancient world: ‚Dido, Calisto, Hannibal, Iuno, Apollo, Pallas, Hector, Meno, Lacoon, titan, gigas, sarpedon, adamas, Chremes, laches, dares, Ceres, Achillis, Simo‛. In this section Sulpitius refers to the authority of Valla, Servius, Priscianus, Pomponius Laetus, and a large number of Classical authors. The section on patronymics also naturally involves many Greek names.
The next very methodical section is devoted to heteroclite nouns (B v v – C i v/ b iiii v), opening with a definition: „Heteroclisis est varia nominum declinatio quae quidem sit in casu numero genere declinatione et voce“ (B, v v, b v r). The tools of analysis are common usage (‚communis usus‛), authority (‚auctoritas‛), law of grammar (‚lex grammatica‛) and ‚analogia‛. We are informed that the heteroclites are a point of controversy among grammarians; Sulpitius may have Priscian's and Diomedes' differing ideas on monoptota in mind. He makes it explicit that he has gathered his material from other grammarians. Part one concludes with a section exploring the declension of composite pronouns (‚tute, sese, meapte, hicce, illanccine, eccum‛) (b viii r-v).
After the preface (C ii r- iiir), the second part opens with a book on the gender of nouns (C iii r-) (dedicated to Falco Sinibaldus in b) (b viii v), and on the names of trees and rivers as well as numerals (c i r). Another treatment of nominal declensions follows, classified by their nominative endings and gender in an alphabetical order, starting from a. For instance, most of the words ending in -a are feminine, e.g. ‚haec candela‛ (C iii v - C vi r/c i r – c iii v), but then a long list of exceptions follows, which are of masculine gender: ‚hic poeta, planeta, cometa, lanista, popa, nauta, cytharista, pincerna, sophista, collega, scurra, lixa, assecla, scriba, perfuga, transfuga, turca, scyta, getha, sarmata, talpa, damna, charta, cera, amphora, panthera, margarita, catapulta, (verso) manna, mammona, polenta, advena, convena, auriga, conviva, verna, agricola, christicola, graiugena, alienigena, verbigena, parricida, homicida, patricida‛. The second book ends here (c iii v). A number of topics related to verbs follow (C vi, r; c iii v); on the preterites and supines as well as various irregularities in the conjugations. The 1486 edition ends here (D iii r).
The third part is devoted to verbal syntax (D iii r; c viii v). Verbs are first divided into personal and impersonal, which was customary in medieval grammars. Then somewhat unexpectedly three rules of concord are stated: the first describes the relationship between a verb and and a noun, the second between an adjective and its headword, the third between a relative (of substance) and its antecedent. These three rules of concord can also be found in Guarinus' Regule and several other humanist grammars (see Luhtala 2014: 62) and Luhtala, 2018: 54-62. Personal verbs are then divided into the five ‚genera‛, each of which (with the exception of ‚verba communia‛) is then further divided into six subtypes, according to their syntactical constructions; the order of the rules is slightly different in the two editions. The medieval idea of a natural or logical word order is implied in the expressions before (‚ante se‛) and after the verb (‚post se‛); only two of the constructions are labelled.
- 1 An active verb ends in ‚-o‛ and exhibits passive forms in all three persons and its action is naturally transferred to a person in the first or second person, as in ‚ego amo Galateam‛ (D iiii r/d i r). In the later version, these verbs are called simple active verbs. Synonyms or near synonyms are given, e.g. ‚diligo‛ signifying less than ‚amo‛ whereas ‚colo‛ in addition to signifying the same as ‚amo‛, also has the meanings of ornate, respect and inhabit. Thus, lexicographical elements are also incorporated into syntactical description in the 1500 edition and the Italian vernacular is occasionally used in translating the Latin verbs, for instance, ‚tango gis tetigi tactum pro ‚toccare‛‛.
- 2 The second subtype of active verbs is construed with the dative patient in addition to the accusative after it, such as ‚tu das librum Ambrosio‛ (D iiii v) = type 3 in the 1500 edition, being called acquisitive (d i r).
- 3 The third subtype of active verbs is construed with the dative patient in addition to the accusative ‚a parte post‛, such as ‚ego doceo te astrologiam‛ (D iiii v); they are called transitive in the 1500 edition (d ii r), with vernacular translation, ‚doceo es cui ctum per ‚insegnare‛‛.
- 4 The fourth subtype of active verbs (D iiii v) is construed with the ablative without a preposition in addition to the accusative after them, such as ‚spolio te veste‛ = The fifth subtype in the 1500 edition (d ii r), being called material or instrumental.
- 5 The fifth subtype (D iiii v- vr) of active verbs is construed with the genitive or ablative in addition to the accusative after it, for instance, ‚impleo cadum vini et vino‛. These are called (somewhat inadequately) possessive = the second subtype in the 1500 edition (d i r).
- 6 Some active verbs are construed with the ablative with a preposition in addition to the accusative after it, such as ‚Verulani audiunt lectionem a me‛ or ‚ex me‛ (D v v) = the second subtype in the 1500 edition (d ii v).
There is only one type of passive verbs; they are all derived from the active by adding the ending in ‚or‛ and they all require a nominative ‚ante‛ and an ablative with the preposition ‚a/ab‛ or dative ‚post se‛, e.g. ‚Galatea amatur a me vel mihi‛ (D v r/d iii r). They exhibit transition from the first or second person to a rational animal. The verbs of common gender are also restricted to one type, such as ‚ego interpretor Perseum, a me interpraetatur Perseus‛ (D vii r/d v v). The six subtypes of neuter and deponent verbs largely follow a similar classification as the active. In the later version more technical terms occur, e.g. ‚acquisitiva‛ and ‚transitiva‛. The medieval term ‚regere‛ occurs twice (d iii r and vii r), one subtype is known as ‚effectiva‛ (d v and vi).
A section on the construction of impersonal verbs follows, being divided into active, such as ‚tedet, miseret‛, and passive, such as ‚amatur‛ (D vii v, d vii r). Their construction with the ablative, dative or accusative and infinitive respectively are discussed. Concerning the syntax of infinitives (D viii v, d vii v) it is stated that they demand the accusative before and after them the case demanded by each individual verb. Interestingly, the examples (e.g. ‚me amare virtutem bonum est‛ and ‚me amare Galateam bonum est‛) are embedded constructions (the accusative with infinitive construction). It is further stated that the infinitive ‚esse‛, like the infinitives of other copulative verbs, want (‚vult‛) the same case both before and after them, as in ‚ego volo esse doctus‛ and ‚mihi placet esse docto‛. Concerning this latter construction, he refers to Valla (d vii v), according to whom it is also possible to have a nominative here (‚mihi placet esse doctus‛), although it is rare. Then the construction of the gerunds, supines and participles are discussed, each of which demands the same case after them as the verb from which they are derived. This section also includes a discussion on the four ways in which a participle can be turned into nouns, by its construction, e.g. when a participle is construed differently from the verb it is derived from, as in ‚amans virtutis‛; by comparison, because a participle cannot take the form ‚doctior‛ in ‚ego sum magis doctus quam tu‛; by composition, e.g. ‚indoctus‛, since you cannot say ‚indoceo‛; by losing its tempus, ut ‚amandus‛, id est ‚amari dignus‛, for its does not show tense. A similar account with differing examples can be found in Guarinus' Regule. The ablative absolute is discussed under the title ‚De participiorum consequentia‛ (E ii r; e i v).
The fourth part opens with a discussion of the relative pronoun (E ii r; e i v), which is first defined („Relatio est antelatae rei representatio“) and then divided into two using the philosophical distinction between substance and accidents. The former are those pronouns which are referred to by an antecedent noun (‚qui/quae/quod, suus, ille, is, ipse, idem, alius, reliquus, simul, ambo, caetera, uterque‛) as in ‚Petrus/Ascreus qui amat disputat et idem legit‛; the latter is the relative whose antedecent is an adjective, as in ‚ego sum doctus qualis es tu‛. To this medieval division Sulpitius adds another one, that between the relative of identity and difference, according to whether the relative (e.g. ‚idem‛) refers to the same or a different thing (‚alter, alius, reliquus‛) as the antecedent. Then the interrogative nouns (E iii r, e ii r) are defined („Interrogativum nomen est rei dubiae vel tanquam dubiae postulativum“), being similarly divided into interrogatives of substance (e.g. ‚quis, quae, quod, quid, uter, quid‛) and accidents (‚qualis, quantus, cuius, cuias, quotennis, quot quotus, quotuplex‛) respectively. Then the construction of the distributive words (E iii r; e ii v) with the genitive or ablative are accounted for, being divided into negative (‚nullus, nemo‛) and affirmative (‚ambo, quisque, omnis, uterque‛). The partitive nouns (E iii v; e ii v) (‚quilibet, alius, aliquis, quicumque, quis, quidam‛) are construed with a genitive and they must agree in gender, e.g. ‚scriptorum aliquis est brevis, aliquis profusus‛.
(E iii v – iiii r; e ii r - iii r) After a definition of comparison („Comparatio es rei ad rem assimulatio“), its three stages of comparison are introduced together with their construction and formation. The nouns undergoing comparison are defined in accordance with Priscian as signifying accidents, which can be diminished or increased, e.g. ‚sum ditior Creso vel quam Cresus‛, with the verb ‚sit‛ implied. In his discussion on the superlative, Sulpitius has adopted the more archaic of the ancient conceptions of the superlative (E iiii v; e iii v), according to which the superlative compares nouns to many of the same kind (‚sui generis‛), e.g. ‚Maro est poetarum pulcherrimus‛. This takes place in two ways, relatively and absolutely; the former is the case when it is determined, e.g. ‚Hercules fuit fortissimus hominum‛, and can be resolved into ‚valde‛ or ‚multo‛ and comparative or rather with ‚validissime‛ or ‚maxime‛ and comparative. Here Sulpitius takes an opportunity to criticize Valla. „For what could Valla have said more absurd than that while we resolve comparative into another comparative, we resolve superlative into positive?“ (E iiii v; e iii v). A brief discussion on local adverbs follows (E v r; e iiii r), also taking into account their construction. This section has been elaborated with vernacular translations, e.g. ‚Ubi ‚dove‛, ubilibet ‚dove te piace‛, ubinam ‚dove mo‛, ubique ‚in ogni logo‛, ubi ‚ubi‛, ubicunque ‚in cioche logo‛‛. After an account of the interrogative adverbs (E v r; e iiii r), this section concludes with the traditional figures of construction (E v v; e iiii v) (‚evocatio, appositio, conceptio, prolepsis, zeugma, synthesis, sinedoche/synechdoche, antiptosis‛), familiar from several earlier Italian grammars (e.g. Guarinus).
(E vi r; e v) The next book presents an epitome of the medieval interpretation of Priscian's theory of transitivity, paying much more attention to nominal phrases than was customary in contemporary works. It is opened by Priscian's definition of a sentence (‚oratio‛), in which Priscian's ‚oratio‛ is replaced by ‚constructio‛. ‚Constructio est congrua dictionum ordinatio congrua perfectamque sententiam demonstrans‛. Then constructions are divided into two, one being well-formed both in meaning and form, eg. ‚Virgilius scripsit bucolica‛, and the other only in form, ‚populus currunt‛; yet another one is well-formed in form but not in meaning, ‚Verulae sunt longa urbs‛. Another division of constructions into transitive and intransitive follows. In a transitive construction the action or undergoing of action of the verb is shown to be transferred from one person to another, e.g. ‚Sulpitius amat Galatheam‛ and ‚Galathea amatur a Sulpitio‛. In an intransitive construction neither action nor undergoing of actions is shown to be transferred from one person to another, nor is the same person shown to act and undergo action; the example given here ‚deus est (sub)iustus‛ is unusual. Of transitive constructions, some are reflexive and others retransitive; in the former the same person is signified as acting and being acted upon, e.g. ‚ego diligo me, tu diligis te‛. In the latter two transitions take place, e.g. ‚Hera rogat te, ut ames sese‛. The discussion continues with the syntax of individual cases, starting from the nominative and covering also the syntax of noun phrases (e iiiii v). This exposition leans heavily on the eighteenth book of Priscian's’s Institutiones grammaticae. The terminology is generally Priscianic, but the medieval term ’to govern’ (‚regere‛) surfaces here and there. After discussing the construction of adverbs and interjections (F i r), Sulpitius offers an epilogue on construction (F i r; e vii recto), in which he summarizes the main features of the syntactical theory, starting from personal verbs, followed by the division of verbs into active, passive, deponent and common, summarizing what we have already found in the six subdivisions of the various genders of the verb (see above). Then impersonal verbs both active and passive are touched upon, and the construction of infinitives, supines, gerunds and participles (vii v). Then he turns to the construction of comparatives, superlatives, and local adverbs.
This is where the paths of the two copies differ (D iii r; c viii r). In the 1486 edition, treatises on metrics follow (‚De versuum scansione‛ F ii r- F iii r, ‚De quantitate syllabarum‛ F iii r – G viii r and ‚De metris‛ G viii r – I i v; I II r - M vi v), followed by a lexicon explaining various names and terms used in the treatise (e.g. ‚poeta, scriba, musa, polenta, Anchises, Egina‛) as well as a register. In the 1500 edition (e viii recto – f ii verso) Donatus' treatise on style (e viii r – f ii v) grammatical errors, tropes and figures (f iii g ii v) is followed by lexicographical material organized according to the nominal declensions. The work is concluded with a treatise on letter-writing dedicated to Philippus Gentile Plavicinum (‚de componendis et ornandis epistolis ad Philippum Gentilem Plavicinum patricium Geneuensem opusculum‛, g iii r- h v r) and a short treatise on the metrical scansion and the quantity of syllables (‚epithome tyronibus‛) (h vi r – h viii r).
4. Context and Classification
In the poem accompanying the preface to his compendium, Sulpitius says that his textbook is designed to be studied after the elementary course based on Donatus. This would seem to indicate that his grammar was designed to be used at the secondary or intermediate level of education. Elsewhere he recommends that his pupil learn more about the parts of speech in the works of Donatus and Priscian. However, this does not necessarily imply that the works of Donatus and Priscian were studied in their own right; the authoritative names may serve as a recommendation, reflecting the ideals of the humanist reform. The humanists proclaimed that they wanted to study Donatus and Priscian in their authentic form, but it is difficult to know to what extent their works were used in their own right in Italian schools. Sulpitius' Compendium is so comprehensive that it was probably used as a reference work at an advanced level of study; the complete absence of pedagogical devices would seem to support this idea. Sulpitius uses neither the catechetical nor the parsing method and he expressly states that he has excluded vernacular translations from his syntactical treatise. Unlike many of his predecessors, such as Guarinus, Sulpitius makes direct use of Priscian's Institutiones grammaticae. and Quintilian's newly rediscovered Institutio oratoria, both of which were among the favourite works of the humanists.
By dropping Donatus' name, Sulpitius may simply have wanted to dissociate himself from the grammatical tradition based on the study of the Doctrinale, which was the book recommended by Guarinus and his son Battista. Sulpitius is one of those humanists who became famous for loudly condemning the use of the Doctrinale, thus initiating − together with Perottus − the second phase of humanist grammar (Percival 1975: 244-245), characterized by hostility towards medieval textbooks. In one of the introductory poems Sulpitius criticizes the Doctrinale for being too short and unclear, missing out some rules and incorporating others which are flawed; in many things, however, he is ingenious; yet children should not waste their time studying the Doctrinale (quoted by Reichling 1893:LXXXVI) „(...) /te, quicumque puer grammata nostra leges, /nolo in Alexandro perdes tua tempora frustra; /est brevis ille nimis, fuscus et ille nimis, /multaque praeteriit praeceptaque /multa coegit falsa, sed in multis ingeniosus erat“. Here the Doctrinale was even given some credit whereas in his treatise on the gender of nouns Sulpitius laments that his predecessors should not have undertaken to compile new textbooks instead of teaching the absurdities and errors of the Doctrinale. „Oh, unhappy children! I would like to weep and cry out! Despise this work, throw it away! In a short time, Alexander will be totally suppressed and driven into his own barbarious land and the people of Italy will learn their Latin from Latin-speaking people rather than the Barbarians.“
Medieval influence is nevertheless discernible throughout Sulpitius' compendium. Its very structure bears medieval traces; it consists of various treatises focusing on the same topics as we can find in most Italian grammars in the preceding centuries, designed to supplement the study of the Doctrinale. However, Sulpitius treats most of these topics much more thoroughly than the secondary level grammars of his predecessors integrating into them many more details especially concerning the Greco-Roman world. The organization of the syntactical rules, as based on the gender of verbs, also reflects medieval practices, but the rules are deprived of their medieval labels. Sulpitius generally avoids using medieval technical terms, such as subject (‚suppositum‛) and predicate (‚appositum‛), and the labels used in describing the various subdivisions of verbs (e.g. ‚ex vi causae materialis, instrumenti‛ and so forth), but the medieval term ‚regere‛ ’to govern’ surfaces here and there. Medieval influence is discernible in the division of the relative pronouns into substance and accidents.
One of the focal points of Sulpitius' grammatical works is syntax, and the most innovative part of his syntactical theory is the discussion on noun phrases, ignored in even the most educated treatises, as Sulpitius points out. In the preface to his treatise on syntax (D iii v, quoted in Percival 1983;320 n. 42 = 2004, II), Sulpitius points out the shortcomings of the other treatises available, some of them being too short and failing to give a sufficient number of rules, others too long, arid or inaccurate and containing errors. His aim has been to present the rules in a concise form, but doing so that the conciseness does not result in obscurity and so accurately that no necessary points are omitted; he also wanted to avoid the errors made by others. He has expressly wanted to exclude the vernacular translations of verbs found in many other contemporary works. His motivation for compiling this treatise arises, as he explains, from his wish that the two nephews of his patron, Philippus and Iheronymus, should not be deluded by the oversimplified doctrine found is some existing works, hoping that they would profit more from the reading of his treatise than that of others.
Sulpitius divides the contents of grammar into four parts in accordance with Priscian, which was customary in Italian medieval grammars of Latin. He has integrated a large amount of Priscianic doctrine into the framework of his compendium; for instance, the theory of transitivity, his definitions of the parts of speech and the subtypes of common nouns (e.g. ‚generalia, specialia, ad aliquid‛), many of which are philosophical in origin. He has adopted Priscian's’s technical terms, including such philosophical concepts as substance, accidents and quality. In this and other respects, Sulpitius' method differs radically from Guarinus'. Definitions, largely avoided by Guarinus, are the backbone of Sulpitius' method; this may also have to do with the fact that Sulpitius' grammar was intended to be studied at a more advanced level than Guarinus' Regule. Although Sulpitius' professed aim is to be concise, most of the treatises are extremely detailed and specialized. The traditional topics are extended to include a large amount of information on the ancient world, concerning places, gods, heroes, authors and so forth. Knowledge of the ancient world is also provided by the examples drawn from Classical literature. By incorporating into his compendium treatises on style and letter-writing Sulpitius adheres to the humanist principle, according to which the study of grammar should prepare the pupils for their future careers in public life. He also promotes the humanist ideals by offering moral teaching in the introductory material attached to the various books.
