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 Phormio 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. Simi larly, 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, changes in the titles were coeval with or subsequent to changes in the numerals. On the authors of the Greek originals the only variation in the sources relates to the Hecyra. The later Mss have lost this portion of the Didascalia, but the Bembinus names Menander, while Donatus, apparently with some hesitation, names Apollodorus. Here, it is evident, there has been either an accidental or an arbitrary change. Most scholars accept the authority of Donatus, but both this point and the nature and reason of the change are still a subject of controversy. The only modulator named by the Didascaliae is Flaccus, the slave of Claudius. His name is given by all the sources except the Bembinus for the Phormio, and Donatus for the Adelphoe. The former omission is due to the loss of the major portion of the Didascalia, but Donatus's failure to name the modulator of the Adelphoe cannot be so explained. No one, so far as I have been able to discover, has ever offered any reason for the omission. So far as the manuscript sources give the tibiae for the several plays, they are in agreement, hence the usual belief that this would apply to the Phormio also, if the Bembinus had the Didascalia of this play intact. On this point Donatus is in harmony with the manuscript sources in the Hecyra alone, differing from them in the Eunuchus, Phormio, and Adelphoe. The first attempt to account for these striking differences was by Salmasius, who suggested that in the Adelphoe there may have been a change of tibiae in the course of the performance, and hence that the differences are only apparent, being really due to defective information in each of the sources. The same explanation was advanced. by Boeckh for the Phormio and Adelphoe. This theory, suggested by the Didascalia of the Hautontimorumenos, which, as is now well recognized, had a change of instruments during its performance, cannot be accepted as the true explanation. If the Didascaliae of two or three plays have suffered omissions in the manner suggested, such omissions were no accident, but were designed to exclude what was regarded in each case as the pipes used in a reproduction of the play. But if they were intentional, it ought to have been the second set of pipes in every instance, and not the first, that was omitted. According to this theory, therefore, the sources ought to be in harmony even after the omission. Again, why should such omissions have taken place in the Didascaliae of two or three plays, but have failed in the Hautontimorumenos? For these reasons the theory of Sal masius and Boeckh must be rejected. Before Dziatzko's time so far were scholars from explaining variations in the tibiae as given by the sources that they were at a loss which of the latter to follow. Grysar preferred the pipes named by Donatus for the Eunuchus.1 Wilmanns, admitting his inability to account for the differences, followed Donatus on the Eunuchus and Adelphoe, the yo codices on the Phormio. Both Grysar and Wilmanns reached their decisions entirely upon subjective grounds. Subsequent scholars almost without exception reject the authority of Donatus on the three plays named above, but their reasons for so doing are not satisfactory. Usually they insist that the changes were not made by Donatus, but by some later person. Dziatzko admits both possibilities. Scheidemantel ascribes them to that convenient scapegoat, a magistellus,3 Rabbow, in the Eunuchus and Adelphoe, at least, to one of the two excerptors of the genuine Donatus commentary, or to some one who revised and corrected one of the two sets of excerpts.1 Most scholars connect the variations in the tibiae as given by the paraphrases more or less closely with the discussion of the tibiae in the tractatus de Comoedia, viii, 11 (Wessner). But admitting the close relationship which must exist between the passage named and the remarks on the tibiae in the pracfationes, this proves nothing about the reason for the changes. If, as assumed by Kohl, and, with some hesitation, by Dziatzko, Donatus wrote both the paraphrases and 1 Sitzungsber. d. phil.-hist. Cl. d. kaiserl. Akad. zu Wien, 1855, p. 377. the passage in the tractatus, it is useless to try to explain changes in the former by the latter. Both alike need explanation. Equally open to objection is the theory of those who hold that some one subsequent to Donatus changed the tibiae to suit their characterization in the tractatus. This explanation is based upon the fact that the pipes are characterized in nearly identical language in the tractatus and the praefationes to the Eunuchus and Adelphoe. It disregards the fact that the tibiae of the Phormio paraphrase, without characterization in any way, are not those given by the Mss,1 and (if Reifferscheid and Wessner are right in bracketing Sarranae in the tractatus) are not mentioned at all in the latter. The adherents of this theory assume that the passage in the tractatus was written prior to the remarks in the praefationes. But with equal right one might assume the opposite. Either is a point which cannot be assumed, but must be proved before it can be incorporated in any theory. Whatever views scholars have expressed on the authorship of the changes, all at last fall back upon Dziatzko's explanation, even though its author acknowledged that it did not satisfy him. Dziatzko argued that the characterization of the tibiae was wrong, and this was his principal reason for rejecting the pipes named in the praefationes of the Eunuchus, Phormio, and Adelphoe. With hesitation he offered the theory that Donatus had ideas of his own about the appropriate tibiae for the different plays, and set these forth in the tractatus, afterwards changing the Didascaliae of three plays according to the views he had expressed. This theory was given manifestly only because its author was unable to suggest a better one. It neglected a third possibility which I shall attempt to establish namely, that Donatus, finding the tibiae already changed in his manuscript, was led into errors in both the tractatus and the praefationes. 1 This disagreement goes far toward refuting Rabbow's theory that the Eunuchus and Adelphoe alone had suffered changes in the praefationes. Unable to explain the difference, and unwilling to abandon the theory, he seems to hold that the tibiae named in the paraphrase on the Phormio have some independent authority. |