« PreviousContinue »
pauses are used to divide the thought into units sufficiently short to be easily apprehended by the minds of those for whom they were composed, by the sense of hearing alone, and without the necessity for repetition as in the case of poems which are meant to be read. The burden of the narrative comes first in a whole verse, or a half-verse, or four feet. Then may follow in a whole verse, or the second halfverse, or the last two feet, the unessential but picturesque or explanatory part, without which, as Professor Seymour has observed, we should have prose, not poetry,' By the use of decided pauses in the sense at these (and other) metrical stops in varying combinations monotony was avoided.
VII. — Donatus's Version of the Terence Didascaliae.
BY DR. JOHN C. WATSON,
THOUGH forty years have now elapsed since Dziatzko first wrote on the Terence Didascaliae,1 his treatise is still the most accurate and complete on this subject. Later writers have done little more than point out his errors in minor points, some of which he admitted. But the great value of his discussion should not blind us to the fact that our knowledge of the Didascaliae is still unsatisfactory in certain respects. It is my conviction that Dziatzko, both in his original papers and in his later writings, committed certain errors which have never been clearly recognized. Moreover, he himself admitted the existence of certain difficulties for which he could find no satisfactory explanation.
The following paper, therefore, has been written partly to controvert certain views still generally accepted on the authority of Dziatzko, but chiefly to explain, at least in part, the difficulties for which no one as yet has been able to account.
The Didascaliae are found in three well-defined recensions : first, the famous Bembine manuscript of Terence, containing Didascaliae for all the plays except the Andria ; secondly, the whole body of later, or yd Mss, which also have lost the Didascalia of the Andria ; and, thirdly, in paraphrases by the early commentator Donatus, such paraphrases forming part of the praefationes to the commentaries which exist for all the plays except the Hautontimorumenos. In form, and usually in content, these three sources are in such close agreement as to demonstrate their ultimate common origin. Material differences, however, in the information given by the three recensions render it difficult to determine with certainty
1 Rhein. Mus., XX (1865), pp. 570-598; XXI (1866), pp. 64-92.
2 The writer accepts the paraphrases as the work of Donatus and believes them free from serious changes by later hands. See p. 155 f.
the readings of the latest common original. The study devoted to this subject by a long line of scholars has produced a text which is doubtless correct in most respects, but the origin and significance of many of the points of difference have never been understood. The need of a satisfactory explanation is obvious, for almost without exception the basis of every appeal from the accepted text has been the discrepant information given by the different sources.
Differences in the three recensions can be sharply classified according as they are due, or are not due, to the repetition of plays. From statements in the life drawn from the Didascalia of the Eunuchus, it is known that the original Didascaliae were more complete than they are in any of our
Other evidence shows that they contained information not only about the first performances of the several plays, but also, to some extent, at least, about subsequent repetitions. In the process of transmission, ancient scribes, like modern editors, tried to drop references to any reproductions of the plays, and to preserve those relating to their first appearance. This tendency was not always strong enough to reduce the Didascaliae to items about single perform
It failed almost completely in the Hecyra, doubtless because of the peculiar history of this play. Perhaps the best example of information about more than one performance is found in the names of four aediles given by Donatus for the Andria. The name of a third aedile in the praefatio to the Hecyra is sometimes similarly explained. This is also the easiest way in which to account for the name Mummius, a third consul, apparently, given for the Eunuchus by all the later Mss. Finally, it is only by the theory of the repetition of plays that we can understand why two domini gregum are named instead of one. In attempting to restrict the Didascaliae to information about the original performance, scribes failed to see that one dominus gregis was in charge of a later repetition. Believing that the second name represented an actor (possibly the prologus) in the original troupe, they retained both names.
In several instances it is apparent that scribes blundered,
excluding information about the first performances, and keeping that about later presentations. Thus the Bembinus gives the ludi ot the Eunuchus as the Romani, and both the Bembinus and Donatus give the ludi of the Phorinio as the Megalenses. The same is true of the information given by the Bembinus about the aediles for the Eunuchus, both consuls for the Phormio, and one consul for the Hautontimorumenos. In this way also we can account for the fact that all sources name two domini gregum each for the Eunuchus and Adelphoe, but no two of the sources agree in both names. At least three domini gregum, it is believed, were named in the original Didascaliae of these two plays.
The theory sketched above accounts for all differences in the ludi, or festivals at which plays were presented, the aediles or others under whose auspices the plays were given, the dominus gregis, or head of the troupe of actors, and the consuls, whose names served the usual purpose of dating the performances. But these are only four of the nine items of information found in any complete Didascalia. In sharp contrast with these are the remaining five items, variations in which cannot be explained by the theory of later repetitions. These items are the titles, in which the poet and his plays are named in a varying order, the modulator, or composer of the music, the tibiae, or pipes used in accompanying the cantica, the author of the Greek original, and the numeral denoting the chronological place of each play in the series. There is no obvious reason why the reproduction of a play should have changed the order in which the poet and the play were named. Nor can such a theory account for Donatus's omission of the modulator of the Adelphoe, or for his naming Apollodorus instead of Menander as the Greek writer of the Hecyra. It is true that attempts have been made to extend the theory of repetitions to differences in the tibiae and the numerals, but this is an error. The intimate connection between the instruments and the general character of a play, a connection to which the united testimony of the ancients bears witness, forbids the thought that the pipes were changed in different performances. Similarly, the numerical place of each play was fixed by its first performance, and it is difficult to see how it could have been affected by any number of repetitions. For these reasons the extension of the theory of later reproductions to differences in the tibiae and the numerals is rightly rejected by most scholars.
How then are variations in the five items named above to be explained? There have been numerous attempts to answer this question, but in general no one has suggested anything better than arbitrary changes. Such an explanation is satisfactory only in case we can find some motive for the changes. A motive does appear in the case of the numerals and the relative order of the names in the titles, but none has yet been found for changes in the other three items. Even in the two items where we can see some reason for the changes, not all scholars accept the explanation. It is manifest, therefore, that in the three items where no such reason presents itself there is room for much wider differences of opinion.
Variations in the order in which the poet and the play are named are found only in the Bembinus and the praefationes, the later codices throwing little or no light on the controversy about the pronuntiatio tituli. In this respect Donatus differs from the Bembinus in the Adelphoe and Eunuchus, and this would doubtless be true of the Hautontimorumenos also, if we had the commentary on this play. On the Andria, Phormio, and Hecyra they were presumably in accord. Whether one accepts or rejects the tradition about the pronuntiatio tituli, he must admit that in the titles there have been arbitrary changes. Most scholars, accepting the Bembine chronology as essentially correct, insist that the changes were made by Donatus or a predecessor. The few scholars who with Donatus make the Adelphoe the second of the plays must regard the copyist of the Bembinus or a predecessor as responsible for the precedence of the poet's name in the Didascalia of this play. Probably all would admit that differences in this respect are dependent upon differences in the chronology of the plays. In other words,