« PreviousContinue »
of scribes to restrict the Didascaliae to information about first performances. Now whether one reads PRIMVM with the Bembinus, or PRIMO with the 8 codices, the two sets of tibiae seem to refer to different performances of the play rather than to different parts of the same performance. The latter, or true explanation, was first recognized by Salmasius, but was first given definite expression by Boeckh less than one hundred years ago. But if the erroneous view was held by a long line of Terentian scholars in modern times, it is altogether probable that it was held also by early editors and copyists. One of these, very likely the person responsible for the rest of the changes, believing the second set of tibiae to represent a reproduction of the play, omitted this part of the item. It is significant that it was the second set of tibiae, not the first, that was dropped. The omission probably explains also Donatus's failure to use the word tota in the paraphrase on the Eunuchus. This word was manifestly impossible in a Didascalia referring to two sets of pipes. After the omission of one set and the transfer of the other, there was no reason to insert a word the use of which elsewhere was not understood. It is true that the Mss also fail to give the word tota in the Didascalia of the Eunuchus, but evidence of this, as will be shown below, seems to be found in the paraphrase on another play. Except in one
1 It seems strange that all editors of Terence and writers on the Didascaliae have followed the Bembinus on this point, disregarding Prima, the reading of the y family, and the only one which is not ambiguous or even misleading. With it obviously is to be understood fabula, of which it is a modifier in the common idiomatic partitive sense. Terence himself has an exact parallel in Ad. prol. v. 9, in prima fabula, and possibly another in Hec. prol. II, v. 31, primo actu placeo. Kohl, Didasc. Ter. explic., p. 35, explains PRIMA as a correction of PRIMVM by some one who recognized the meaning of the item and tried to remove the ambiguity to which it was subject because of the reading PRIMVM. But there is no evidence that the item was understood until in modern times. Much more probably prima is the original and correct reading. Even with it, the item was sometimes supposed to refer to different performances, not to different parts of the same performance. Some one with this view emended PRIMA tO PRIMVM, the version given by the Bembinus; another person changed it to PRIMO, the reading of the 8 Mss. 2 Historiae Augustae Scriptores VI, vol. II, p. 827. Heidelberger Jahrbücher, III (1810), p. 168.
possible point, therefore, Donatus's paraphrase for the Eunuchus was based on a Didascalia identical for the items in question with that given by the Mss for the Hautontimorumenos. Moreover, the possible exception, the omission of one set of tibiae, is easily explained.
We now come to a still more striking parallel. Assuming that in Donatus's manuscript a transfer of three items had been made from the Hautontimorumenos to the Eunuchus, what was the fate of those which had lost their rightful place in the latter play? The numeral belonging to the Eunuchus in the manuscript sources is assigned to the Adelphoe by Donatus. That this result was produced by an actual transfer, and not by a simple change of the numeral, seems to be shown by the tibiae, those named by Donatus for the Adelphoe being named by the Mss for the Eunuchus. Equally significant is Donatus's failure to give certain information. The Mss have the word tota in the Didascalia of the Adelphoe, and name the composer of the music. Donatus has nothing on either point.
His failure to use the word tota is easily explained by the omission of this word in the manuscript version of the Eunuchus Didascalia, an omission referred to above. His failure to name the composer of the music was for a different reason. I have already described the blunder of some early copyist by which the composer of the music for the Eunuchus lost his usual place in the Didascalia, and was named after the numeral and before the consuls. Donatus has no trace of this in the paraphrase on the Eunuchus, but does in that on the Adelphoe. The transfer of items from one play to another was made solely to change the chronology, and never included anything following the numeral. Adhering to his usual practice, the author of the changes did not include the modulator in the transfer from the Eunuchus to the Adelphoe. Donatus, finding no information on this point, naturally gives none for the Adelphoe. On coming to the tibiae, the case of which he elsewhere construes with his paraphrase of the words MODOS FECIT, he found it necessary to add a verb in order to give them grammatical construction. The word chosen - modulata est, evidently a true passive,
not a deponent- is at variance with his own usage in the Hecyra. The fact that he names the modulator of the Eunuchus in the usual place, and fails to give that of the Adelphoe, shows that the modulator was usually included in the transfer. In most cases this could be done without leaving any traces of the change, but if it be admitted that it happened in one case, it can scarcely be doubted that it was the intention in all. Every point, therefore, in which Donatus varies from the Didascalia of the Adelphoe is explained by the Didascalia of the Eunuchus.
The fate of the items dislodged from the Adelphoe is next to be considered. From the analogy of the plays already examined, it might be supposed that this play, the sixth according to the Bembinus, gave part of its Didascalia to the Hautontimorumenos, which Donatus seems to have regarded as the sixth of the plays. The want of the commentary on the Hautontimorumenos prevents any direct test of this theory, but other evidence indicates that it is incorrect. The true test is rather to be found in the tibiae. Those given by the Mss for the Adelphoe are the Sarranae, a kind assigned by Donatus only to the Phormio. Why, then, does the commentator, in common with the Mss, make the Phormio the fourth, not the sixth of the plays, as the theory of a transfer of items seems to require? The agreement, I hold, is accidental. Scholars have always made the mistake of attaching undue importance to Donatus's remarks on the chronological order of certain of the plays, while rejecting his evidence about others. No one trusts the commentator in regarding the Hautontimorumenos as the last of the plays, and few accept him in assigning the second place to the Adelphoe. Scarcely any one, however, has ventured to deny his authority when, in harmony with the conventional chronology, he names the Eunuchus as the third of the plays. In point of fact Donatus possesses no more authority on the Eunuchus than on the other two plays named above. There is no ground for believing that he possessed an independent source of information about the chronology of the plays. Rather he depended upon the numerals in the Didascaliae, but in his manuscript these had been changed to suit the position occupied by each play in an alphabetical sequence. If the commentator was grossly deceived about these plays, we have a right to demand evidence that his information about the Phormio had a sounder basis. No such evidence exists, for his apparent agreement with the Mss and the conventional chronology is due solely to the accident which makes this play, with the orthography Formio, the fourth in the alphabetical series. Whatever the numeral may originally have been, therefore, the result was bound to be the same. It is very doubtful, however, whether any numeral was included in the transfer of items from the Adelphoe to the Phormio. Since both the y and the d families of Mss have the word FACTA, but have no numeral, we may assume that the archetype had the same defect. Since the separation of these two recensions took place in early times, all authorities agreeing that it came in the period between the third and the fifth centuries, the loss of the numeral must have been very early. It may well have occurred before the alphabetical order of plays was made. If this was true, the author of the transfer of items from one play to another found none in the Adelphoe, and could have felt no prickings of conscience in arbitrarily adding one for the Phormio to suit his general plan.
It remains to consider the disposition of the items ousted from the Didascalia of the Phormio. Since the manuscript sources have a numeral for this play, it is obvious that in the transfer to another play a change in the numeral was necessary. No evidence, therefore, can be gained from this source. Nor can positive evidence be found in the tibiae, for it is clear that the praefationes to neither the Andria nor the Hecyra contain the tibiae dislodged from the Phormio. There remains but one play, the Hautontimorumenos, which had lost to the Eunuchus part of its Didascalia. The theory suggests itself that the deficiency was made good by inserting the corresponding items from the Phormio, with an arbitrary emendation of the numeral IIII to VI to suit the place of the Hautontimorumenos in the new order. If this was done, the circle of transfers is complete. In the lack of a commentary on the Hautontimorumenos, direct evidence in confirmation of this suggestion is impossible, but indirect evidence presently to be cited indicates that it is correct.
The results of the foregoing discussion may briefly be summarized. The sources have been compared with reference to their agreement or disagreement on the modulator, the tibiae, the use of the word tota, and the numerals of the plays. In three praefationes, therefore, there are twelve points on which to compare Donatus with the Mss. Out of these twelve points Donatus gives no information on three, he differs from the Mss on five, and he apparently agrees with them on four. By the theory here proposed, four of the five points of difference are fully explained, and in the exception, the tibiae of the Eunuchus paraphrase, the difference is partly explained, and is otherwise easily accounted for. Again, by the theory of a transfer of items we can understand why Donatus omitted two of the three points of information which he fails to give. Here, too, the exception, the failure to use tota in the Eunuchus paraphrase, is in no way opposed to the theory. Lastly, three of the four points of apparent agreement between Donatus and the other sources on the same plays contain evidence neither for nor against the theory, since the information is identical in different plays. The fourth point is the numeral of the Phormio, which, as was shown above, is not an instance of real agreement, but is either an arbitrary emendation or, more likely, an arbitrary addition. In seven, therefore, of the twelve points of comparison, the theory is fully supported by Donatus's information or by his failure to give any information, and it is not opposed by the other five. In other words, if we should transfer Donatus's paraphrases on the four points in question back to the plays to which they seem originally to have belonged, the commentator would differ from the Mss only in naming one set of pipes for the Hautontimorumenos, and in making the Adelphoe the fourth of the plays.
Both exceptions have been fully accounted for. In every other point he would agree with the other