« PreviousContinue »
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 Salmasius 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. Wilmanns, admitting his inability to account for the differences, followed Donatus on the Eunuchus and Adelphoe, the yo codices on the Phormio.2 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."
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, ii (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. su 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,' 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.
The last item to consider is the numerals, which usually appear in both the Didascaliae and the praefationes, and purport to give the chronological order of the several plays. But before any comparison of Donatus with the manuscript sources is possible, certain differences in the latter require explanation. Are these due to accidental or arbitrary changes by scribes, or do they represent independent traditions, and therefore possess ancient authority ? Much depends upon the answer to this question, for any error on this point will lead to other and more serious mistakes. The differences involve directly only the Hautontimorumenos, for which not only the Bembinus, but also the best representatives of the y family, and at least one important & codex, Paris. 10304, give III (or TERTIA). But the numeral II (or SECVNDA) is the reading of the Lipsiensis (L), pronounced by Kauer the best of the d family, the Paris. 7903, a tenth century y codex, the Riccardianus (E), a so-called mixed manuscript of the eleventh century, and a considerable number of later and inferior codices. Lastly the Victorianus (D), a 8 manuscript of the tenth century and one of the best of its class, has the numeral IV.
On the origin of the numerals II and IV in the Didascalia of the Hautontimorumenos scholars are not agreed. Dziatzko argued strongly in support of the ancient origin of both. Karsten and Rabbow, apparently without further investigation, accept his conclusions. Hence one or the other of the two numerals is assigned to the Hautontimorumenos in three of the five chronologies which Karsten believed to have ancient authority, and the numeral IV is the basis of an argument by Rabbow in support of his theory of the twofold origin of the praefationes. Most editors of this play give the numeral II in the Didascalia, usually justifying this act by an appeal to the reading of E, L, Paris. 7903. Fabia and Torchiana are about the only scholars who have rejected the independent origin of both numerals. Torchiana seems to regard them as merely variants of the reading given by the great majority of better codices.' Fabia holds the same opinion about the numeral IV, but follows Dziatzko's earlier suggestion that II (or SECVNDA) is a correction more or less ancient designed to harmonize the numerical order with the order of consulships. Such divergent views show that the arguments thus far adduced are not decisive. After reviewing these arguments, therefore, I propose to bring forward new evidence in the hope of ending the controversy.
1 Zeitschr. f. d. österreich. Gymn., LII, p. 988. 2 Rhein. Mus., XXXIX, p. 339 ff. 3 Mnemosyne, XXII, p. 179 f. * Neue Jahrbücher f. Phil. u. Paed., CLV, p. 331.
Dziatzko, the first to write on this subject, held that II (or SECVNDA) was read in the archetype of the d family, its source being some ancient manuscript independent of our codices. Neither of these positions can be proved correct. Evidence, not conclusive, it is true, but still very strong, indicates that both are incorrect. The first seems to be supported by L, which is alone of the better d codices in this respect. It is opposed by Paris. 10304, which has III, and by D, which has IV, a reading which, if corrupt, came almost certainly from III, not from II. Dziatzko did indeed appeal to the evidence of E, but this was due to his erroneous belief in the close relationship of this manuscript with the & family. In the order of plays, the division of scenes, and usually in its text, E clearly betrays its origin from the y family. limited extent it has been under the influence of d codices, but this does not warrant the conclusion that it is essentially a d codex itself. Since it can throw no light on the archetype of the d family, Dziatzko's conclusion rests upon L alone, and this is overbalanced by other valuable manuscripts of the same family.
But even if the archetype of the 8 family, in common with the other classes of Mss, did make the Hautontimorumenos the third of the plays, is it not still possible that the readings II and IV have come down from ancient times through independent recensions? Such a theory is extremely improbable. Dziatzko was not disturbed by the fact that these numerals are assigned to other plays in the same manuscripts, but
1 Quo tempore P. Terenti fabulae primum actae sint, p. 35, adn. 1.