« PreviousContinue »
Hecyra, could not have been the second in order of production, if the Hecyru was the fifth. Unable to change the numeral of the Adelphoe alone, and unequal to the task of correcting the chronology of all the plays, yet he clearly expressed his suspicion in the words Hanc dicunt ex Terentianis secundo loco actain. The same scruple appears in every reference to the Greek writer of the Hecyra. In the praefatio to this play he gives information in harmony with a number of passages in the commentary in which Apollodorus is mentioned as the author of the Greek original. Why, then, does he speak with hesitation both in the praefatio and in the Auctarium to the life?1 In all probability he found the play assigned to Menander in the Didascalia, as it is in the Bembinus. Forced to choose between the Didascalia and the sources of the commentary, he rejected the former, but with a feeling of doubt which appears every time he mentions this subject. It seems certain, therefore, that the new order of plays and the changes in the Didascaliae were prior to Donatus. The commentator was so unfortunate as to use a manuscript of this sort, and through his adherence to it was led into gross blunders on many points. This is particularly true of the tibiae, which, as given by his manuscript, he had no reason to doubt. As a consequence, his attempt to characterize the different kinds of tibiae according to the plays in which they were used was marked by inevitable errors. For these he should not be too severely censured, for the material at his disposal precluded any accurate results. In general, judging from the paraphrases alone, Donatus was not a man of much learning, but he used faithfully the material at his command, and deviated from his sources with misgivings, and only when no other course was possible. He surely does not deserve the oft-repeated charge that he made reckless and arbitrary changes because of preconceived ideas.
1 As Fischer, De Terentio ... quaestiones selectae, p. 18 f., remarks, a further reflection of Donatus's hesitation on this point appears in the praefatio to the Phormio. The words manifestum est indicate Donatus's feeling of relief at finding a play assigned to Apollodorus both in the Didascalia and in citations of the Greek original by older commentators.
If the changes in the Didascaliae were made before Donatus's time, we can scarcely doubt his authorship of the paraphrases. However widely the information given by him varies from the other sources, it is so completely explained by the theory of a transfer of items as to forbid the thought that its origin was due to different persons, or to some one later than Donatus. For many years it has been the fashion to deny that the commentator wrote parts, or in some cases, any part, of certain works which have come down under his name. This view may be justified in the first of the two treatises, that usually entitled de Fabula, which preserves strong evidence of its origin, in part at least, from Euanthius. It is possible also, or even probable, that the commentary, conceded to be in its present form a compilation of two sets of excerpts from the original Donatus commentary, may have matter added by the excerptors, the compilers, and possibly others. But it is easy for one to go too far in refusing to credit Donatus with other works besides that entitled de Fabula, or in applying the theory of a compilation of two sets of excerpts. There is no adequate reason for doubting that Donatus wrote at least the essential and substantial portions of most of the works under his name. Even if it is difficult to distinguish the true work of Donatus from that of others in the commentary, this is not necessarily true of the other works. Both of these remarks apply especially to the life and the Auctarium. They stand in the same relation to the commentary on Terence as the life of Virgil did to the commentary on this author. Without any evidence against them, we must suppose that both are in substantially the form in which they were left by Donatus.
The same I believe to be true of the praefationes. Rabbow, it is true, does try to show that those of the Eunuchus and Adelphoe had a different source from those of the other three plays, holding, apparently, that one set of excerpts was the source of the two praefationes, the other of the remaining three. This theory is based in part on Donatus's variations from the Mss in the paraphrases. But in these, as I have shown, the Phormio must be included with the Eunu
chus and Adelphoe, not with the Andria and Hecyra. If this is done, Rabbow's theory breaks down. Whatever the vicissitudes through which the praefationes have passed, there is no evidence of any serious changes. It is clear that none were made in the paraphrases. Even the many instances of language in the praefationes similar to that in the treatise de Comoedia, the life, or the Auctarium are not necessarily due to insertion from these sources by later hands. More probably Donatus wrote the language in question in both places. The best example of this is perhaps the references to the Greek author of the Hecyra explained above, but there is no reason to doubt that most of the other instances are to be accounted for in the same way. A similar parallel between the praefationes of the Eunuchus and Adelphoe and the Ars of Donatus is pointed out by Smutny."
A second result of the conclusion reached in this paper is the removal of nearly all uncertainty about the text of the Didascaliae. The evidence of Donatus, if rightly viewed, so far from differing from the other sources, really confirms them. It seems certain that the latest common ancestor of all the sources made the Adelphoe the sixth, not the second of the plays in order of composition. In view of the hesitation with which Donatus refers to this point, it is strange that so many scholars have accepted his statement and have wasted their ingenuity in attempting to defend it. Incidentally it has also been made clear, I think, that the archetype ascribed the Greek original of the Hecyra to Menander, not to Apollodorus. This, of course, does not prove the Mss right and Donatus wrong. More probably Donatus gives the correct information, though he rejected the Didascalia and gave the preference to the sources of his commentary. The naming of Menander in the archetype may have been due to an early copyist, who, under the influence of the preceding plays, mechanically wrote the name of the same Greek author. Lastly, the variations in the tibiae, which have always baffled explanation, are now fully accounted for. It is true that scarcely any one since the publication of
1 Diss. Phil. Vindob. VI, p. 104 f.
Dziatzko's papers has followed Donatus on the tibiae, but so long as his variations remained unexplained, grounds for the preference accorded to the manuscript readings were not entirely convincing.
A third, and perhaps the most important, result achieved in this paper is the discovery of new evidence about the history of the text of Terence. From this study of the paraphrases and Didascaliae, it appears that the new or alphabetical order of plays was based upon a y order, and so presumably upon a y codex; that the d order is not the original alphabetical order, but has suffered an interchange of position between the last two plays; that the family has derived its Didascaliae not from a manuscript similar to that used by Donatus, but from a manuscript of the y family ; and that, in part at least, the y recension was the basis of the d recension, not vice versa, and is, therefore, the older of the two. All these points are more or less directly opposed to the theories set forth by Leo and Dziatzko, who agreed in substance, though differing in details. I have elsewhere expressed the conviction that these theories are opposed to the facts, and are, therefore, utterly untenable. This view is confirmed by the results reached in this paper. But since limitations of space prevent any adequate presentation of this subject here, for the present I content myself with pointing out above the most general application of my results to the question of the manuscript tradition. At some time in the future I hope to return to this subject, and, in connection with this and other sources of evidence, to indicate what I conceive to be the true history of the text of Terence.
1 Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XIV, p. 171 f.
VIII.- Plautine Synisesis. A Study of the Phenomena
of Brevis Coalescens. 1
By Prof. ROBERT S. RADFORD,
The purpose of the present paper is, first, assuming the real existence of Plautine synizesis, to indicate more clearly, through a discussion of syllable values, its probable nature; secondly, to establish the fact of its actual existence, if possible, to the exclusion of any other hypothesis ; thirdly, to investigate the laws and limitations to which it is subject. In view of the doubts which have prevailed in some quarters upon the subject of early Latin synizesis, this may seem to some too large an undertaking, but, fortunately, it will not be necessary for me to discuss these questions in reliance upon my own unaided resources. Many Plautine scholars have made just and careful observations upon this general subject, and even those who have advocated erroneous views, notably Müller and Skutsch, have often contributed something of real value to the discussion. Hence it will be my task chiefly to collect and to harmonize the important single facts which my predecessors in this field have already pointed out.2
1 D. M. et perpetuae memoriae GUILELMI ELISHAE PETERS, praeceptoris sui carissimi in Universitate Virginiensi, viri in fabulis Plautinis maxime versati sacrum esse voluit pientissimus auctor.
Bibliography: : Ritschl, Proleg. cap. xii; Spengel, Einleitung zu Andria, § 8; C. F. W. Müller, Plaut. Pros. 456 ff.; L. Müller, Res Metr.2 lib. iv (279 ff.); Leppermann, De correptione iamb. ap. Pl., Münster, 1890 (unfortunately, L.'s statistics upon synizesis and non-synizesis forms are in part extremely inaccurate); Bömer, De correptione iamb. Terent., Münster, 1891 (a careful dissertation); Abraham, Stud. Plaut., Neue Jahrb. f. Phil. XIV, 204 f.; Nilsson, Çuomodo pronomina, quae cum subst. coniunguntur, ap. Pl. collocentur, Lund, 1901 ; Leo, Plaut. Forsch. 323; Havet, De Saturnio, 32, 79 f.; Gleditsch, Metr.3 258, 295; Skutsch, Sat. Viadr. 135 ff. ; Audouin, De Plaut. anapaestis, Paris, 1898, p. 69 f., 121, 228; Ahlberg, De proceleusmaticis antiquae poesis Lat. 1, 85 ff. ; Lindsay, Introduction to the Captivi, 26 ff.; Neue, 113, 366 ff., 377 ff., etc.; Thurneysen, K.2. XXX, 499 f. ; Bronisch, Die oskischen i- und e- Vocale,