« PreviousContinue »
sources in the information he gives, and the reason for his failure to give certain information would be evident. The facts, therefore, completely support the theory advanced in
For this reason I venture to believe that the parallel between Donatus and the manuscript sources on different plays is no mere coincidence and without signifi
It rather points clearly to an actual transfer of portions of the Didascaliae of four plays in the manner I have indicated.
This conclusion finds support in a number of considerations general in character. First, the items which were transferred, except in one point, are always found together in the Didascaliae. The exception concerns the place of the Greek writer, who is usually named in the Mss after the tibiae and before the numerals. But the Bembinus is not consistent in this respect. On the Eunuchus and Phormio it seems to agree with the later codices, though the mutilated condition of the Phormio Didascalia may conceal the original order of items. But in the Hautontimorumenos and Adelphoe the Bembinus names the Greek writer immediately after the title, and this holds true also of the Ambrosianus of Plautus in the Didascalia of the Stichus. The proper place of the Greek writer among the other items is a point upon which scholars disagree, but the Ambrosianus and, in part, the Bembinus support the earlier position, and because of their age they have great weight. Moreover, the natural place for this item seems to be next after the title. Possibly the transfer to the later position was due to the common misconception or misunderstanding of the meaning of tota in the item on the tibiae. In the Hautontimorumenos, where tota could not be used, no such transfer had been made before the writing of the Bembinus. It is certainly possible, therefore, not to say probable, that the author of the changes in the Didascaliae, living as he did in the second or third century, found the Greek writers named after the titles in all the plays. If this was the case, the items transferred always stood together, and it is easy to see how a numeral when transferred to another play could have carried with it the adjacent items.
A second argument is found in the fact that it is on only three plays that Donatus differs widely from the.Mss. With these the Hautontimorumenos would doubtless be included if we had the commentary on this play. Save on the Greek writer of the original, Donatus is in almost complete accord with the other sources on the Hecyra, and this exception is easily explained. In the case of the Andria no direct comparison is possible, but it is certain that there would be no disagreement on the number of the play. For the tibiae of the Andria the praefatio is our only source. It is an interest- . ing fact that Donatus's disagreement with the other sources on the pipes of all the plays except the Hecyra has not led any one seriously to challenge his information about the Andria. If he gives its tibiae correctly, we may assume that on the Andria as well as the Hecyra he is trustworthy, just as he is untrustworthy on the other three (or four) plays. What is the reason for the difference? This fact has been observed by others, but no one has ever explained it. By the theory advanced in this paper it is easily accounted for. The numerals of the Andria and Hecyra mark the positions of these two plays in both the chronological and the alphabetical orders, hence both retained their original places when the new order of plays was made. For this reason their Didascaliae were not disturbed. With the remaining four plays the conditions were wholly different. In order to force agreement between the chronology and the alphabetical order, a transfer of numerals was made. In the Phormio this act was needless, for its numeral was already appropriate to both orders. But, as will presently appear, the position of this play in the manuscript followed by the author of the new order caused its numeral to be overlooked, so that it was included with the other three. In the transfer of the numerals, the author of the new order saw fit to include the adjacent items. For this act no satisfactory reason appears, but this is no valid objection to the theory. No one can deny that numerals have been changed on arbitrary grounds, an act which must be ascribed to the gross stupidity or the moral obliquity of the agent. Such a person would not hesitate to include other items with the numerals if this was suggested by convenience. It would increase his guilt only in degree, not in kind. He would not hesitate, therefore, if for any reason, such as the division into lines in the Didascaliae he was using, it seemed easier to transfer the numerals with the preceding items rather than alone.
1 See p. 154.
Lastly, the transfer of items was not executed in haphazard fashion, but in conformity with a definite, though very simple plan. The freedom of the Andria and the Hecyra from such changes was due, as was explained above, to the fact that in the new or alphabetical arrangement these two plays retained the positions they had occupied in the original order. But it is easy to go further and to determine the positions originally occupied by the other four plays. The numerals alone seem to point to a manuscript like the Bembinus, in which the sequence was designed to be purely chronological. But since the numeral of the Phormio paraphrase is open to the gravest suspicion of having had no manuscript basis, the tibiae are a surer source of evidence, and these identify the original order of plays as that found in codices of the y family. To assist in making this point clear, the several ways in which the plays are arranged are given below:
ORDERS OF THE PLAYS OF TERENCE.
Andria, Eunuchus, Eunuchus,
Adelphoe, Hauton., Hauton., Eunuchus,
Eunuchus, Phormio, Adelphoe, Formio,
Phormio, Hecyra, Hecyra, Hecyra,
Hauton., Adelphoe. Phormio.
The fourth of the methods of arranging the plays, that of the d family, is given only for completeness and later refer
In spite of the different positions it gives two plays, it betrays the same origin as the Donatus order. The latter, as is shown by the exemption of the Hecyra paraphrase from the scheme of transfers, is the original alphabetical order. In seeking for the basis of this order, the arrangement found in 8 codices may be disregarded. Turning to the Bembinus and they codices, to discover which of these two methods of arrangement served as the basis of the new order, it is necessary only to see how the transfers of items were made. The Andria is first in all orders, and since its numeral was appropriate to this position, it retained its place in the new order. The same was true of the Hecyra in the fifth place. The Adelphoe was advanced to the second position in the alphabetical order, and to make it appear to have been the second also in order of composition, the numeral from the Eunuchus with the adjacent items was inserted in its Didascalia. Similarly the Eunuchus was made the third play, and its Didascalia was filled out with items from the Hautontimorumenos. In both the Adelphoe and the Eunuchus, the Didascaliae received items from the plays which occupied corresponding positions in the manuscript serving as the basis of the new order. Thus far this manuscript had the order of plays found both in the Bembinus and in the y family. The fourth play determines which of these orders was used. If a manuscript like the Bembinus had been used by the author of the transfers, he would have made no changes in the Phormio, which in the Bembinus already occupies the fourth place. When we find, therefore, that the Phormio in the new order received items from the Adelphoe, we can hardly doubt that the latter play was fourth in the original order. But this is the position it occupies in the y codices. The Hautontimorumenos, as the sixth play in the new arrangement, had its Didascalia completed by the insertion of items from the Phormio, the sixth play in the original. Since the Adelphoe in the fourth place and the Phormio in the sixth are found only in y codices, it seems clear that a member of this family was the basis upon which the new order was made. The author of the new order must have regarded the arrangement of plays in his manuscript as chronological, as indeed it is intended to be in all but two plays. His failure to note the exception in the Phormio and Adelphoe was most natural, especially if the Didascalia of the latter play had no numeral, leaving the Didascalia of the Phormio as his only means of discovering the truth. Since the Phormio was sixth in his manuscript, he might easily at first have overlooked its numeral. After finding it, or even if he observed it at first, he may have doubted its authenticity.
All these peculiar conditions attaching to the groups of items give evidence completely in harmony with that derived from a comparison of the separate items in the different sources. I maintain, therefore, that the manuscript followed by Donatus had suffered a series of interchanges in the Didascaliae of four plays. To explain these the theory of chance is utterly untenable. A conscious hand, working in accord with a definite plan, must be recognized.
The conclusion stated above and the facts brought out in the discussion have an important bearing on a number of interesting questions. First, from this source we get new light on the work of Donatus. It is necessary to acquit the commentator of all responsibility for the changes in the Didascaliae, a charge often brought against him because he happens to preserve them. With a single exception these changes are due to one person, in all probability the person who first reduced the plays to an alphabetical order. After this order was established there was no reason for such extensive and radical emendations. That Donatus was not the author of the new order and the consequent changes in the Didascaliae is shown by the fact that he sometimes questioned the information given by his manuscript. He did not indeed reject the numeral SECVNDA in the Didascalia of the Adelphoe, but it is clear that he doubted its accuracy. It has been suggested that he found no numeral in the Didascalia of this play, or that he had another source of information, but both suggestions are needless. The plan followed in altering the Didascaliae to suit the new order of plays required that every play should have a numeral. Without any other source of information Donatus had the best of reasons for suspecting the numeral of the Adelphoe, and would have been very stupid if he had not seen that this play, brought out at the second attempted performance of the