NO 
 
 91-80150-2 
 
MICROFILMED 1991 
 
 if 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 States Code ~ concerns the making of photocopies or other 
 reproductions of copyrighted material ... 
 
 Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to 
 accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 WATSON, 
 
 CALVIN 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 THE 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 [S.L.] 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 [19-- 
 
 OFTHE 
 GS TO. 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 87T27 
 
 DW 
 
 Watson, John Calvin 
 
 The relation of the scene-headings to the 
 miniatiires in manuscripts of Terence. cl9— 3 
 
 £553-172 p. 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 1. Terentius Afer, Publius 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE: 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA 
 
 DATE FILMED: 
 
 HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUB 
 
 REDUCTION RATIO: 
 
 // 
 
 yf- 
 
 \L INITIALS JSL 
 
 S.INC WOODBRIDGE.CT 
 
c 
 
 Association for Information and Image Management 
 
 1100 Wayne Avenue. Suite 1100 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 ilmilMMhmlimliMiLiiliiiilimhiMlniilnnliMilmiliii 
 
 nf 
 
 fm 
 
 8 
 
 mini 
 
 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 Miliiiiliiiiliiiihiiiliiiiliiiiliinliiiilimliiiiliiiiliiii 
 
 TT7~rT 
 
 Inches 
 
 1 
 
 TTT 
 
 1.0 
 
 1^ II 2.8 
 
 ■ 50 '"=== 
 ■^ IIIIP-^ 
 
 Ittbu 
 
 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 22 
 
 I.I 
 
 2.0 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 1.25 
 
 I M I I II 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 MflNUFflCTURED TO RUM STRNDRRDS 
 BY fiPPLIED IMAGE, INC. 
 

 f»**:T 
 
 ■• • 
 
 mm 
 
 wo-' 
 
 f*& 
 
 
 mmm 
 
 y-'erfii >!«,';-} J'-. 
 
 tn??a« 
 
 H'fv^ i* 
 
 
 1*. •.■ 
 
 -£iS 
 
 
 .-&2;; 
 
 
 »Sf;.»;: 
 
 VI- 
 
 ii!l«i 
 
 
 
 ■I *''' i 
 
 Pftt 
 
 'ur}t:i.i; 
 
 
 
 fcw-'.-j * 
 
 ^.li 
 
 •','4l*T r. 
 
 ?3l4^S 
 
 ¥ ''.:: ■ ■ 
 
 S-V~ .11 •,» J-.. ,' - 
 
 Si'.K: 
 
 ;V.A 
 
 
 •V 
 
 v«i 
 
 
 •if;.' 
 
 -i^; 
 
 ^> 
 
 ■'.,a:if.t. 
 
 
 '*.■'■ 
 
 ^ . If' 
 
 
 ?J7 
 
 SI V\ 
 
 J>«" 
 
 r^j 
 
 i^tkfev 
 
 V^I 
 
 7'.: -5 
 
 
 111* 
 
 m 
 
 '.■*A 
 
 ^». 
 
 .■*»«^? 
 
 li.f*i 
 
 
 'r'«V\-' 
 
 
 V .; 
 
 ■1* -;'-J, 
 
 
 !!rfi?9^ 
 
 s-i ,.f 
 
 . ;41 
 
 *i4?. 
 
 ■-^1-1 
 
 i •/■: 
 
 
 
 >;-.-..-: 
 
 / 
 
 '.i^-: 
 
 i^^.i- 
 
 ^fr 
 
 
 .*. : ' 
 
 !.V*-'' 
 
 mn 
 
 Itt: 
 
 V; 
 
 :^**T 
 
 
 
 :<^:if^ 
 
 -.v»s 
 
 .-•ji^ 
 
 ^sh; 
 
 '.5'4' 
 
 S&^&^*!tSi 
 
 .4>\ 
 
 •'M 
 
 
 ss* •■ 
 
 
 E-ifei. 
 
 ■ijf^ 
 
 i-K: 
 
 - * i* 
 
 .1 
 
 
 ^< 
 
 '.--*-'. 
 
■ ■lillliiilflf T "JlPilllliilini'' 11 "I ■ ililiuf ■■■I'll" ■ lllliK ■ Sii ' . ■■! null :.. ■ "'« ■■■■iJil 1 ■..: 
 
 % t 
 
 THE LIBRARIES 
 
 • / 
 
 .* .■'»•■■• 
 
 i-i 
 

 3 
 
 
 T 
 
 2 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 
 a> 
 
 «D 
 
 ••— 
 
 1 
 
 
 vo 
 
 aa 
 
 ^ 
 
 UI 
 
 ^ / l(/— f 
 
 ^4> 
 
 :dw 
 
 THE RELATION OF THE SCENE-HEADINGS TO THE 
 MINIATURES IN MANUSCRIPTS OF TERENCE 
 
 By John Calvin Watson 
 
 THE miniatures preserved in certain manuscripts of Terence have 
 long attracted the attention of students of ancient life. On the 
 date of their origin scholars have held widely different views, but since 
 the publication of Leo's investigation of this subject, his conclusion, that 
 their origin must be assigned to a very early period, has been generally 
 accepted.^ It cannot be said, however, that Leo's arguments are 
 entirely convincing, for some scholars still hold to the late origin of the 
 miniatures.2 If it is only within the last twenty years that a subject, in 
 Itself so attractive, has received any measurably adequate treatment, it 
 is not surprising that another subject, somewhat similar in nature, has 
 been comparatively neglected. I refer to the origin of the scene-head- 
 ings, the names of characters, usually with their roles, prefixed to each 
 scene in which the characters named are participants. The reasons for 
 the neglect of this subject are not hard to find. It was not until the 
 publication of Umpfenbach's critical edition of Terence, in 1870, that 
 the material necessary for such a study became available. After the 
 appearance of Umpfenbach's edition, its inaccuracy in many respects 
 may have discouraged consideration of a subject which, it may be 
 added, seemed to offer little promise of any results. 
 
 On the origin of the scene-headings little has been written. As a 
 subject of investigation, however, these have not been entirely neglected 
 by classical scholars. Before the appearance of Umpfenbach's edition 
 of Terence, nothing, so far as I have been able to find, had been written 
 about them, although they are a prominent feature in the mss. both of 
 
 » Cf. M. Mus. XXXVin> pe. '3 z;7t347> especially p. 334 ff. 
 
 * Two writers have expressed this befief : C. Sittl, Die Gebarden der Griechen und 
 R'dmer, p,. 206 1 and K..Klotz^ gnipidzug'e cltfdmischer Metrik, p. 563. Sittl thinks 
 that the originals vjert; nof oltjer ihtn the fourth or fifth century, while Klotz would 
 assign them to the e^gjitlj century., ,, , 
 
<i 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 
 CD 
 
 •0 
 
 *— 
 
 1 
 
 ir-l 
 
 so 
 
 Ol 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ui 
 
 rj' 
 
 ^4) 
 
 ^W^ 
 
 THE RELATION OF THE SCENE-HEADINGS TO THE 
 MINIATURES IN MANUSCRIPTS OF TERENCE 
 
 By John Calvin Watson 
 
 THE miniatures preserved in certain manuscripts of Terence have 
 long attracted the attention of students of ancient life. On the 
 date of their origin scholars have held widely different views, but since 
 the publication of Leo's investigation of this subject, his conclusion, that 
 their origin must be assigned to a very early period, has been generally 
 accepted.^ It cannot be said, however, that Leo's arguments are 
 entirely convincing, for some scholars still hold to the late origin of the 
 miniatures.^ If it is only within the last twenty years that a subject, in 
 itself so attractive, has received any measurably adequate treatment, it 
 is not surprising that another subject, somewhat similar in nature, has 
 been comparatively neglected. I refer to the origin of the scene-head- 
 ings, the names of characters, usually with their roles, prefixed to each 
 scene in which the characters named are participants. The reasons for 
 the neglect of this subject are not hard to find. It was not until the 
 publication of Umpfenbach's critical edition of Terence, in 1870, that 
 the material necessary for such a study became available. After the 
 appearance of Umpfenbach's edition, its inaccuracy in many respects 
 may have discouraged consideration of a subject which, it may be 
 added, seemed to offer little promise of any results. 
 
 On the origin of the scene-headings little has been written. As a 
 subject of investigation, however, these have not been entirely neglected 
 by classical scholars. Before the appearance of Umpfenbach's edition 
 of Terence, nothing, so far as I have been able to find, had been written 
 about them, although they are a prominent feature in the mss. both of 
 
 * Cf. J^A, Mm. XXX Villi P9-'3l,7rS47, especially p. 334 ff. 
 
 * Two writers have expressed tnis befief : C. Sittl, Die Geb'drden der Griechen und 
 R'dmer, p.. 2u6r and R.,klotz^ gzi^ndzitge altfomischer Metrik, p. 563. Sittl thinks 
 that the originals ^er«; noj oltjer th»n ths fourth or fifth century, while Klotz would 
 assign them to the e^gjitli century., ,, , 
 
56 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Pkutus and of Terence. The principle to be employed by a modern 
 editor of Plautus in the division of scenes was discussed by Ritschl,^ 
 who followed Bothe closely in this respect. Since Ritschl, in accord- 
 ance with the principle of scene-division adopted by him, deviated in 
 many places from the tradition of the mss., it is evident that his discus- 
 sion is theoretical. He frequently mentioned the scene-headings in 
 MSS. of Plautus, but it was with reference to the names of characters, 
 or to the abbreviations which are frequently used in certain mss. of this 
 author to distinguish the cantica and the diverbia. In no place, so far 
 as I have found, does he mention the scene-headings as a subject of 
 investigation in themselves. 
 
 The first scholar, therefore, to give any attention to this subject was 
 apparently Umpfenbach.* His remarks are very brief, and are confined 
 to the Bembinus of Terence. In the same year Studemund referred 
 with equal brevity to the scene-headings both in this ms. and in the 
 Ambrosianus of Plautus.' It was not until 1883, however, that any 
 discussion of the subject based upon the more important mss. of both 
 authors appeared. In the year named, Spengel published an article on 
 scene-headings and scene-division, in both, however, referring chiefly 
 to the MSS. of Plautus.* This article was reviewed three years later by 
 Seyffert with such thoroughness that, in some respects, he made a new 
 contribution to the literature on this subject.* Seyffert's discussion, 
 however, like that of Spengel, is confined chiefly to Plautus. The next 
 contribution was made by Schlee, who tried to show that the scene- 
 headings transmitted in the illustrated mss. of Terence had their source 
 in MSS. of the S family.* The latest reference that I have found to the 
 subject is Dr. Prescott's investigation of the source of the names found 
 in the scene-headings in the Palatine mss. of Plautus.'' Single headings 
 and the division of scenes in particular places have sometimes been 
 discussed briefly in the editions. 
 
 * Opmc. Phil, II, pp. 365-368. 
 
 * Praef. ed. crit. p. ix f . . . , • . % 9 
 
 * Commentatio de Vidularia PMuiin0* p-'.l9t «i. 36. , * \ 
 
 * Siizungsber. d. bayr, Akad.^ phil.'Mst'. CL^ l88j, It, 'pp.* '25^-298. 
 
 * Bursian*s jfakresberickt, XlfVtf '(|8^&), ppV9-I4# * 
 ® Scholia Terentiana^ p. 6 f . • . ■ '. * .' I *, / 
 ' Harv. Sttid. in Class. Phil. IX, pp.. 102-108., • ,•• 
 
 u • 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 S7 
 
 Such is the brief list of references that I have found to this subject. 
 Most of the theories that have been advanced on the general subject are 
 based upon the mss. of Plautus rather than on those of Terence. So far 
 as these relate to Terence they will be noticed at the proper place. 
 That many of them are wrong, and that for Terence, at least, the treat- 
 ment of this subject has been wholly inadequate, will be shown in this 
 paper. None of the scholars named seems to have suspected the exist- 
 ence of any relationship between the miniatures in the y mss. of Terence 
 and the scene-headings in mss. of all classes and families.^ Schlee 
 denied the existence of such a relationship even in the illustrated mss., 
 and it has always been assumed without argument that in their origin, 
 at least, the miniatures and the scene-headings were in no way con- 
 nected .* The purpose of this paper is to show that these are so closely 
 related that one of them must owe its origin to the other.* 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • t • 
 
 r 
 
 * The Ambrosianus (F) in its text shows characteristic readings of both families 
 of MSS., but in its miniatures it clearly belongs to the 7 family. 
 
 ' Professor W. M. Lindsay, however, seems to have suspected that some of the 
 names in the scene-headings of mss. of Plautus were derived from pictures. Cf. 
 Harv. Stud, in Class. Phil., IX, p. 108, n. 
 
 • It is proper that a statement should be made of the material upon which this 
 investigation is based. In the study of the miniatures I have used facsimiles and 
 reproductions as far as these have been accessible. For the Phormio the material of 
 this kind has been complete. The photographic reproductions of the Vatican minia- 
 tures, which were published on the occasion of the presentation of this play at 
 Harvard University in 1894, have been constantly at my hand. For the miniatures 
 of this play in the other three important illustrated mss., I am indebted to Mr. K. E. 
 Weston, of Williams College, for permission to use his drawings, which are published 
 in this volume of the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Of imitations of the 
 miniatures only those of the Vatican manuscript made by Cocquelines for his edition 
 of Terence, Rome, 1767, have been accessible. For these I have used the copy of 
 Cocquelines in the library of Cornell University. I am aware that from the time of 
 Wieseler, the faithfulness of these to the originals has been questioned. It has lately 
 been shown by J. W. Basore, Studies in Honor of Basil L. Gilder sleeve, p. 276 f., 
 n. 3, that in a number of places (to which should be added And. 2, 3), Cocquelines* 
 devised pictures of his own. It is true also that he supplied an aedicula personarum 
 for the Eunuchus and changed the figure of the prologus in all the plays. The 
 pictures in a few places were transferred to another part of the scene, but the pic- 
 tures themselves suffered no material alterations. For matters of detail in gestures 
 and dress they are inaccurate. The position of the fingers in gestures is not infre- 
 quently changed. In their general aspect, however, the gestures are true to the 
 
58 
 
 yohn Calvin Watson 
 
 It is recognized that any adequate treatment of the scene-headings 
 in Mss. of Terence must include those also in mss. of Plautus, for these 
 are so similar in content and form that there must be some connection 
 between them. Except in places, however, where the point under 
 discussion can best be illustrated by examples from Plautus, the scene- 
 headings in MSS. of this author will be disregarded. The present paper 
 will be confined to a discussion of the relationship existing between the 
 scene-headings and the miniatures in mss. of Terence. The scene- 
 headings transmitted in codices of Plautus, together with the history of 
 these in both authors, is a subject which the writer proposes to consider 
 in a later paper. 
 
 For convenience in reference the table given on p. 60 has been prepared 
 to show the mss. of Terence used in the preparation of this paper. For 
 each of these the usual classification according to family is given, the 
 usual abbreviation (if one has been assigned it), the century in which it 
 was written, the method in which the text is divided into scenes, and 
 
 originals. Excluding the aedicula of the Eunuchus, the figures of the prologus and 
 the few other pictures supplied by Cocquelines, the imitations faithfully reproduce 
 the general appearance of the originals. The order of characters in a miniature was 
 changed in but one place. This exception, Eun. 3, 2 (v. 454), proves the rule, for 
 the change was necessary in order to reduce the picture to the limits of Cocquelines' 
 page. For my purpose, therefore, the identification of the figures in the miniatures, 
 I have not hesitated to use Cocquelines* edition. In no place, however, have I 
 permitted the interpretation of the miniatures to rest upon this evidence alone. In 
 testing the accuracy of Cocquelines and in determining the order of characters in the 
 Vatican miniatures, I have received most valuable aid from Professor Minton Warren's 
 notes on this manuscript, which have been generously placed at my disposal. In 
 a few places where the identification of figures is difficult, Dr. C. L. Babcock, of 
 Cornell University, has further examined for me the miniatures in this manuscript. To 
 Dr. Donald Cameron, a fellow-student in Classical Philology in Harvard University, 
 now continuing his studies in Europe, I am under obligation for an account of the 
 miniatures and the distribution of scenes in two Paris mss., Nos. 7900 and 7903, and 
 for his careful examination of the order of figures in the miniatures of these mss., of 
 the Dunelmensis (O) , and especially the Parisinus No. 7899 (P) . 
 
 For the scene -headings in the Victorianus (D), Riccardianus (E), and in part of 
 the Ambrosianus (F), and the Parisinus (P), I have used Umpfenbach's edition of 
 Terence. On the Parisinus I owe further information to Mr. Weston, who kindly 
 examined for me every scene in which the headings in either this MS. or the Vati- 
 canus (C) were omitted by the first hand, or have been altered by a later hand. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 59 
 
 \ 
 
 the parts which are lost, or are written by later hands. These items are 
 taken in part from the Preface to Hauler's edition of the Phormio 
 (1898), p. 29. 
 
 Order of Names in the Scene-Headings 
 
 A characteristic feature of the scene-headings is the order in which 
 the names appear. This was noticed, no doubt, long before Umpfen- 
 bach and Studemund, but it was left for these two scholars in the year 
 1870 to record their observation of this fact.^ It was then pointed out 
 for the first time that in the heading of any scene the characters are 
 usually named in the order of their first participation in the dialogue. 
 It was noticed, however, by both the scholars named above, that when 
 two characters having the same role, as servi, senes, adulescentes, ajtcillae, 
 are active in the same scene, their names, without regard to the order 
 of their participation in the dialogue, are usually written together. 
 This was regarded by Umpfenbach as the device of a copyist. Both 
 Umpfenbach and Studemund were occupied chiefly in pointing out 
 
 From Professor Warren's collations of mss. of Terence I have been able to confirm 
 or to correct the scene-headings given by Umpfenbach for the Bembinus (A) , Vati- 
 canus (C), Decurtatus (G), and, in part, the Ambrosianus (F). Through Professor 
 Warren, also, I have secured a copy of the scene-headings in the Dunelmensis (O). 
 For the scene-headings in the important scholia codex Monacensis 14420 (M), I have 
 followed Schlee in the Scholia Terentiana, pp. 17-34. The few scene-headings in 
 the Vienna fragment (V) I have taken from Hauler's account of this MS. published 
 in the IViener Studien, XVIII, p. 84 ff. For part of the Parisinus No. 10304 the 
 scene-headings given by Fritsch in the Philologus, XXXII, p. 446 ff. have been 
 available. Through Mr. G. F. Heffelbower I have secured a complete list of these, 
 and an account of the division of the text into scenes in this MS. I am further 
 indebted to Dr. Cameron for the list of the headings and the distribution of scenes in 
 the Lipsiensis (L). This MS. must be regarded as especially important, since 
 Dr. Kauer in the Zeitschr.f. d. osterreich. Gymn., LII (1901), p. 988, has expressed 
 his belief that this, rather than the Victorianus, is the best representative of the 
 3 family. For the scene -headings and the division of scenes in the commentary 
 preserved under the name of Donatus, I have followed P. Wessner in the preface to 
 Vol. I of his new critical edition of Donatus, p. xlviii f. 
 
 To the friends, named above, who have personally aided me in securing new 
 material, or have given me permission to use their own collections in my investiga- 
 tion of this subject, I here express my gratitude. 
 
 * For the references, see p. 56. 
 
6o 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 E 
 
 • 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 D 
 
 G 
 
 L 
 M 
 
 V 
 
 c 
 o 
 p 
 
 F 
 
 E 
 
 Manuscripts 
 
 Cen. 
 tury 
 
 Division of Scenes 
 is indicated by 
 
 Notes on Contents 
 
 
 Bembinus. 
 
 IV/V 
 
 Scene-headings. 
 
 Lost : And. 1-786 (all) ; 787- 
 888 (almost all); 903-914 
 (almost all); //ec. Prol. I, 
 II, 1-30 (all) ; ^a'. 915-997 
 (almost all) . 
 
 
 Victorianus. 
 
 X 
 
 Scene-headings . 
 
 Lost: £un. Per. 
 
 By later hand: And. 98-179, 
 
 384-453. 846-903; //an/. 
 
 466-517; PAorm, 588-633. 
 
 
 Decurtatus. 
 
 XI 
 
 Scene-headings, or 
 spaces for them. 
 
 Lost: £un. 848-1021; I/au/. 
 Per., I -313, 1049- 1067; 
 Phorm. 779-1055; Hec. i- 
 194, 310-880. 
 
 1' 
 
 Lipsiensis. 
 
 X 
 
 Scene-headings. 
 
 Lost: And. 74-376. 
 
 
 Monacensis. 
 No. 14420. 
 
 XI 
 
 Scene-headings 
 (a few omitted). 
 
 Lost: Scholia on And. 364- 
 427. 
 
 
 Parisinus. 
 No. 10504. 
 
 X 
 
 Scene-headings, or 
 spaces for them. 
 
 Lost : And. Per. , 1-302 ; Phorm, 
 Prol. 1-25; Ad. Prol. 1-12, 
 
 987-997- 
 
 
 Fragm. Vin- 
 dobonense. 
 
 X 
 
 Scene-headings. 
 
 Contains only And. 912-981; 
 Ad, Per., 26-158. 
 
 
 Vaticanus. 
 No. 3868. 
 
 IX/X 
 
 Miniatures with 
 scene-headings. 
 
 Lost: Eun. Per. 
 By later hand: -<4»</. 804-853; 
 Etiu. Prol. 
 
 
 Dunelmensis, 
 orOxoniensis. 
 
 XII 
 
 Miniatures with 
 scene-headings. 
 
 Lost: ^if^. 459-480; 716-742; 
 i?««.495-526; Phorm. ^yj- 
 464, 854-893, 944-1055. 
 
 
 Parisinus. 
 No. 7899. 
 
 IX/X 
 
 Miniatures with 
 scene-headings. 
 
 Lost: Eun. Per. 
 By later hand: And. 804-853; 
 Eun. Prol. 1-30. 
 
 7- 
 
 Parisinus. 
 No. 7900. 
 
 X 
 
 Miniatures iyaAnd, 
 andto£'»it.4,3), 
 or spaces usually 
 for them. Scene- 
 headings from 
 Haui, 4, 4. 
 
 Lost: And. Per., 1-78, 924- 
 
 981; Eun. Per., 1-80. 
 By later hand: ^«^. 797-871. 
 
 I 
 
 Parisinus. 
 No. 7903. 
 
 XI 
 
 Miniatures (for And. 
 1,1; 1,2; //au/. 
 I, 1), or spaces 
 usually for them 
 with scene-head- 
 ings. 
 
 Lost: Eun. Per. 
 Possibly by later hand : Haul. 
 Per. 
 
 
 Ambrosianus. 
 
 X 
 
 Miniatures usually 
 with scene-head- 
 ings. 
 
 Lost: And.; Eun. 1-415 ; 
 Phorm. 832-1055. 
 
 Riccardianus. 
 
 XI 
 
 Scene-headings. 
 
 Lost : Eun. Per. ; Phorm. 900- 
 
 1055- 
 By later hand : And. Per. , 1-39. 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 61 
 
 scene-headings which show some violation of the usual order of names. 
 In the larger number even of these Umpfenbach saw no single cause 
 operating. In two scenes he thought that it was due to the mention of 
 a character before he takes any part in the dialogue.^ This is improb- 
 able, since in several other scenes of this kind the names are given in 
 the usual order. '^ In two other scenes he saw that the disorder in the 
 names might be explained by a different distribution of the notae of 
 characters for which there is manuscript authority.* In these scenes 
 the headings, if measured by the order of notae which assign the 
 dialogue in the Bembinus, have an unusual order of names ; if measured 
 by the distribution of the dialogue in part or all of the later mss., they 
 are perfectly regular. This explanation, as will be shown later, is 
 probably correct. There is no probability, however, in Umpfenbach*s 
 suggestion that in three other headings the disorder might have arisen 
 from a different distribution of the dialogue for which there is no 
 manuscript authority.* In these scenes any deviations from the tradi- 
 tional assignment of the dialogue would be very unnatural. In the 
 remaining three scenes where Umpfenbach found the headings in dis- 
 order, he ascribed this fact to the negligence of a copyist.^ Studemund 
 accounted for all of the ten in this way. It is obvious that such an 
 explanation is to be given only as a last resort. 
 
 Umpfenbach confined his remarks to the Bembinus of Terence, but 
 Studemund added some information about the scene-headings in the 
 Ambrosianus of Plautus. Neither of these scholars mentioned in con- 
 nection with this subject the later mss. of either author. It remained 
 for Spengel to note that in all mss., both of Plautus and of Terence, the 
 characteristic order of names is the same.* In support of this state- 
 
 * Haut. 2, 3 (v. 242) ; 4, 7 (v. 829) . 
 
 « Cf. Haut. 4, I (v. 614); 4, 4 (v. 723); Ad. 3, 4 (v. 447). 
 « Eun. 5, 8 (v. 1031); Phorm. 5, 9 (v. 990). For the first, see p. 90 f.; the 
 second, p. 98. 
 
 * Eun. 3, 2 (v. 454); Phorm. 2, 3 (v. 348); Ad. 5, 2 (v. 776). Umpfenbach 
 gives also Eun. 4, 3 (v. 643), but this is perfectly regular. 
 
 * Haut. 5, 5 (v. 1045); Phorm. 2, i (v. 231); Ad. 2, 4 (v. 265). Umpfenbach 
 gives also Ad. 2, 3 (v. 254), but this, like Ad. 2, i (v. 155), is irregular only in 
 giving the name of a mute character among the interlocutors. 
 
 * Op. cit.y p. 271. 
 
62 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 63 
 
 ment Spengel gave no statistics, and while he recognized the fact that 
 the names are in disorder in some scene-headings, he gave no list of 
 such exceptions in any manuscript. In giving the general rule he was 
 right, but in one statement he was certainly wrong. With regard to 
 the practice in the Bembinus of uniting in a heading characters of the 
 same role, contrary to the order in which they first enter the dialogue, 
 he held that, with the conspicuous exception of this codex, it is found 
 in only the less valuable mss. of either author. Studemund had already 
 alluded to the fact that stlch names are found united in the Ambrosianus 
 of Plautus. In a review of Spengel's article Seyffert pointed out this fact, 
 and gave further information about the later mss. of Plautus, showing 
 that in these also the uniting of such names is not unusual.^ In most 
 of the Palatine mss. this arrangement, so far from being unusual, is found 
 in a majority of headings of this character. The same is true of the later 
 MSS. of Terence. To show the practice in each of these, the table given 
 below has been prepared. The first column gives the number of scenes 
 in each in which characters of the same role are united contrary to the 
 order of their first participation in the dialogue ; the second column 
 gives the number in which they are separated.* 
 
 United Separated 
 
 A 7 I 
 
 D 6 3 
 
 G 3 3 
 
 V V W A M W ^1 4^K 
 
 M 4 4 
 
 Paris. 10304 6 4 
 
 E 2 1 
 
 From this table it is evident that in the better mss. of Terence there 
 is a strong tendency to unite the names of such characters, even in 
 
 ' Op. cii.f p. 9. 
 
 ' The complete list of such scenes is as follows: And.2y i (v. 301); 2,5 (v. 412); 
 5, 2 (v. 842); Haui. 4, 4 (v. 723); £un. 4, 3 (v. 643); 5, 8 (v. 1031) in A5; 
 Fhorm, 3, 2 (v. 485); 4,5 (v.713); 5,3 (v.784) in E; 5.8(v.894); S,9(v.99o); 
 Ad. 2, 4 (v. 265) ; 3, 4 (v. 447). For the arrangement of the figures in the minia- 
 tures at these places, see p. 71 f. On And. 5, 2 (v. 842), see p. 168, n. 5. On 
 Haut. 4, 4 (v. 723), see p. 158 f. On Eun. 5, 8 (v. 1031), see p. 150 f. On 
 Fharm. 5, 3 (v. 784), see p. 151 f. On Phorm. 5, 8 (v. 894) and 5, 9 (v. 990), see 
 p. 97 i' 
 
 71 
 
 violation of the order of their participation in the dialogue. Contrary 
 to Spengel's statement, it is only in the inferior mss. both of Plautus 
 and of Terence that such names are separated in a majority of the 
 scenes of this character. 
 
 For scene-headings which show some violation of the usual order 
 Spengel offered a new explanation. He suggested that in early mss., 
 wherever characters remain on the stage for two successive scenes, they 
 were denoted in the heading of the second by the words eidem or 
 roEM. For these words copyists afterwards supplied the names in one 
 of two ways : either they took them from the heading of the previous 
 scene, or they took them from the text of the scene in the heading of 
 which the abbreviation was used. In the latter case the names were 
 arranged in the usual order. In the former case they reproduced the 
 order of the names in question in the preceding scene. If the charac- 
 ters common to both scenes chanced to speak in a different order in 
 the second, the order of names derived in this manner was unusual. 
 
 Such is Spengel's theory. Seyffert seems rather inclined to accept it. 
 I cannot believe, however, that it is the true explanation of the origin 
 of the unusual order of names in the scene-headings. In any two suc- 
 cessive scenes which have one or more characters in common, it would 
 have been impossible for a copyist, by reference to the heading of the 
 first, to determine the names for which the abbreviation in the second 
 was used, unless aJl the characters active in the first scene remained on 
 the stage for the second. If the names had been supplied in this way, 
 it is obvious that errors would easily have been made. Scarcely an 
 error in the names given by the headings in mss. of Terence can be 
 pointed out. If the copyist was obliged to examine the dialogue of the 
 scene in the heading of which the abbreviation was used, it is not clear 
 why he should have referred to the heading of the first scene at all. 
 
 Another objection to the theory is that Spengel assumes the common 
 use of EIDEM and idem in early mss. No instance of such an abbrevia- 
 tion occurs in the Bembinus of Terence. In the Ambrosian palimpsest 
 of Plautus very few words denoting the roles of characters have survived 
 the erasure of the original writing. The word idem is found twice, and 
 is used, apparently, in place of the names of characters.^ It is almost 
 
 * Pom. 5, 3 (v. 1 120); 5, 5 (v. 1280). 
 

 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Scene- Headings a7id Miniatures in Terence 
 
 65 
 
 certain, however, that the names of characters were usually given in this 
 MS., so that the use of idem in the two places mentioned must be con- 
 sidered rare. In the later mss., where these words are not uncommon, 
 they are very rarely in Plautus, never in Terence, used in place of the 
 names. There is no evidence of any tendency to omit these words in 
 the scene-headings. On the contrary, there is evidence that they have 
 crept into the scene-headings in some of the later mss. of Terence.^ 
 They do not always refer to the characters in the preceding scene, but 
 are found sometimes with names of characters who have just come upon 
 the stage.^ For these reasons I question Spengel's right to assume the 
 use of such abbreviations in early mss. 
 
 The theory can easily be tested in any ms. by the scene-headings 
 which have the names of characters arranged in an unusual order. If 
 it gives the true explanation of the way in which the disorder arose, in 
 every pair of scenes which have some characters in common, the scene- 
 heading of the second, if this is unusual in any way, should present the 
 names in question in the order in which they are found in the first. 
 Of the twelve scene-headings in the Bembinus which have an unusual 
 order of names, every one has at least two characters active in the 
 preceding scene. In every instance it is in the arrangement of the 
 names of such characters that the disorder exists. In five scenes 
 the same order of names is given,* in five it is different,* and in two 
 scenes two names are wrongly in the same relative order, while a third 
 name is in a different and correct position.* The very fact, however, 
 that the third name is in another and correct position is evidence that 
 the other two names were not taken from the preceding heading, for 
 in that case we should expect all the names to stand in the same rela- 
 tive order. Leaving these out of consideration, Spengel's theory can 
 explain the origin of the disorder in only Half the instances. In the 
 other half it fails precisely for the reason that the order is not the same 
 
 \ 
 
 as that in the several scenes immediately preceding. This equal division 
 of the scene-headings when tested by the theory is about the result that 
 would be expected with any incorrect theory. It is probable, therefore, 
 that it is wholly due to chance that the theory does seem to explain the 
 origin of the disorder in half the headings. 
 
 For the reasons which I have given, the explanation proposed by 
 Spengel seems very doubtful. It cannot be applied to the Bembinus. 
 If it is tested by the rest of the mss., the results are much the same. 
 
 So far as I am aware, these are the only theories offered in explana- 
 tion of the unusual order of names in certain scene-headings. Since 
 none of them appears to be satisfactory, the problem deserves further 
 study. The solution is not to be found in the scene-headings them- 
 selves, but must be sought in the miniatures with which a few mss. 
 are illustrated. The evidence which will be presented will make it 
 clear, it is believed, that a very close relationship exists between the 
 order of figures in the miniatures and the order of names in the scene- 
 headings. Before this evidence can be presented, it is necessary to 
 turn for a time from the scene-headings to consider certain questions 
 connected with the miniatures. 
 
 Figures of Characters in the Miniatures 
 
 Students of ancient life have studied the miniatures chiefly with the 
 purpose of discovering, if possible, their place in the history of art, their 
 history, and the evidence which they preserve about the dress, the 
 masks, and the gestures of ancient actors. The relationship existing 
 between the miniatures and the text of Terence is a subject that has 
 scarcely been touched. From the time of Mme. Dacier it has been 
 believed that the pictures are a valuable source of information about the 
 ancient performance of the plays. Wieseler had frequent occasion to 
 remark the artist's acquaintance with the text of the comedies. This is 
 a theme, however, which has yet to receive adequate treatment. In 
 other respects this subject seems to have been neglected. No one, 
 apparently, has ever perceived that the artist adopted a definite prin- 
 ciple in the arrangement of the figures in the miniatures, and in the 
 distribution of the miniatures through the text of the several plays. 
 The first of these two points is properly discussed at this place. The 
 
66 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 second will be considered in connection with the subject of scene- 
 division.* 
 
 Even a cursory examination of the miniatures must convince any one 
 that the artist who first prepared them had studied carefully the text 
 of the plays. Numerous examples from the attitudes and gestures of 
 characters, from objects carried by them, or even from stage accessories 
 might be given in support of this view, but these will be mentioned only 
 when they are necessary in the identification of a figure. The number 
 of characters shown in the miniatures illustrates the intimate knowledge 
 of the text on the part of the artist. The number is almost always that 
 required by the dialogue. In one place, however, the artist was in 
 error. Before Haut. 2, 4 (v. 381), Clitipho is shown, though he is 
 compelled by Syrus in v. 380 to leave the stage. The cause of the 
 error is not apparent, but it might easily have arisen if the author of 
 the miniatures found the nota of Clitipho written fcy mistake in the 
 new scene.* 
 
 Before Hec, 5, 4 (v. 841), the figure of Pamphilus appears twice in 
 the same picture.* No parallel to this exists elsewhere in the miniatures. 
 It has been suggested that the artist sometimes tried to show two stages 
 of the action in one picture, a point which will be mentioned in another 
 place.* It will be shown later that, while there is no direct evidence 
 against the genuineness of the picture in this place, there are some 
 reasons for believing that it has not come down unchanged from the 
 artist's hand.* It has been believed that in two other places the artist 
 represented a character twice in the same picture. The miniatures of Hec, 
 3, 4 (v. 415) show the figures of three slaves and the youth Pamphilus. 
 According to the interpretation of Umpfenbach, the two slaves on the 
 left are Parmeno and Sosia, the two characters on the right, Pamphilus 
 and the same Parmeno." This view is not only unnecessary, but almost 
 certainly wrong. In the period from the opening of the scene to the 
 
 * See p. 133 ff. 
 
 ' A passage in the scene, v. 20 f., is not inappropriate to Clitipho, and, as has 
 been done by Faber, may have been assigned to him by the artist. 
 
 ^ About the miniature at this place in P, Umpfenbach had no information. Like 
 those in the other mss. it has four figures. 
 
 * See p. 73. 
 
 ^ See p. 161 f. • Cf. ad loc, ed. Ter. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Mi^iiatnres in Tereiice 
 
 6y 
 
 sixteenth verse there are at least three slaves on the stage.* WTien 
 Parmeno, in v. 430 of the play, accosts Pamphilus, he turns from the 
 other slaves with whom he came upon the stage. The third slave is not 
 named in the dialogue, but the artist rightly included him in the picture. 
 A similar error, as it seems, has been made by Schlee in the interpre- 
 tation of the miniatures before And. 3, i (v. 459).^ The characters 
 are divided into three groups of two figures each. There can be no 
 doubt that the second figure of the second group represents Lesbia, the 
 obsteirix, Schlee believed that she is shown also with Glycerium in 
 the first group. If the figure with Glycerium must be identified, it is 
 much more probably that of Archylis, who earlier in the play sends 
 Mysis to summon the midwife.* The fact that Lesbia, at her departure 
 in the following scene, leaves Archylis in charge of Glycerium is in favor 
 of this view. Yet it is never easy to distinguish between the figures of 
 female characters.* The appearance, therefore, of the figures in ques- 
 tion is of little weight, but even in this respect the view here presented 
 has quite as much to commend it as that of Schlee. 
 
 If the interpretation of the last two miniatures is correct, it is clear 
 that the artist read the text of Terence carefully, in order to determine 
 the number of characters active in each scene. This is further shown 
 by the rest of the miniatures which contain mute characters. Including 
 the two already mentioned, there are fourteen miniatures of this kind.^ 
 In all of these, except that before And. 3, i (v. 459), the presence of 
 mute characters is easily explained by the dialogue. In one instance, 
 Hec. 4, 2 (v. 577), the scene before which the mute character is shown 
 contains no evidence that this character is on the stage. It is only 
 from the following scene that we learn of his presence. Even in the 
 exception named above, there is no reason to object to the presence of 
 a character with Glycerium that is not mentioned in the dialogue of this 
 scene. The picture would have been less appropriate if Glycerium had 
 
 3 V. 228. 
 
 > Cf. vv. 359, 409, 429. « op. cit., p. 6. 
 
 * Cf, p. 74. 
 
 * The complete list is as follows : And. 1,1 (v. 28) ; i, 4 (v. 228) ; 3, i (v. 459) ; 
 Eun. 2, 2 (V. 232); 3, 2 (v. 454); 3, 3 (v. 507); 3, 4 (v. 539); 4, 7 (v.* 771); 
 Phonn. 2, 3 (v. 348); Hec. 3, 4 (v. 415); 4, 2 (v. 577); 5, 2 (v. 767); Ad. 2, i 
 
 (v. 15s); 3. 3. 10 (v. 364). Eun. 5, 4 (v. 923), as given in the mss., cannot be 
 included. 
 
6S 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 been represented as alone at this place.' If the figure with Glycerium 
 is that of Archylis, we have another proof of the artist's thorough 
 knowledge of this play. In every instance, therefore, where the artist 
 has depicted the figures of mute characters, his action is justified by the 
 text of Terence. In most cases, if he had failed to do this, his pictures 
 would have been inadequate or even inappropriate. 
 
 It is not an invariable rule, however, that the figures of mute charac- 
 ters, known from the dialogue to have been on the stage, are shown in 
 the miniatures. To determine precisely the number of such scenes is 
 difficult, because the evidence is not always clear. It is certain that in 
 six scenes mute characters participated in the action, though their 
 figures do not appear in the pictures. We must suppose that several 
 amillae, said, in one place, perhaps in jest, to have been more than ten, 
 come upon the stage in Haut. 2, 4 (v. 381).* Thais, when about to 
 leave the stage, in Eun, 3, 2, 53 (v. 506), seems to direct two or more 
 ancillae to follow her.* In the same way Bacchis, in Hec, 5, 2 (v. 767), 
 has two ancillae attending her who must have come with her upon the 
 stage in the preceding scene (v. 727).* In these four scenes the 
 ancillae are mute characters throughout the plays in question.* In two 
 scenes characters are known to have been present without participation 
 in the dialogue, though they speak in each case both in the preceding 
 and in the following scene. In Fhorm, 4, 2, 10 (v. 600), the words of 
 Geta show that Demipho and Chremes are still on the stage. In Ad. 
 2, 3 (v. 254), Sannio must have remained on the stage, for in the last 
 verse of the preceding scene he is ordered by Syrus to remain. 
 
 In three other places, under circumstances precisely similar to those 
 in the last two scenes under discussion, there is some reason to think 
 that characters remained on the stage without taking any part in the 
 dialogue, though their figures are not shown in the miniatures. In each 
 instance there is no sign of the departure of the character in question 
 immediately before the new scene, or of his return immediately after it. 
 Since the three scenes are all short, there is no reason to suppose that 
 
 * On the position of Glycerium with reference to the stage, see p. 76. 
 « Cf. vv. 245 f., 451, 744, 751. 
 
 ' Donas, one of the ancillae, returns to the stage in v. 615. 
 
 * Cf . vv. 773 and 793. 
 
 * Donas, in Eun. 3, 2, 53 (v. 506), is later a speaking character. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 69 
 
 the characters referred to left the stage, except the fact that their names 
 do not appear in the scene-headings, or their figures in the miniatures. 
 The text gives no direct evidence, but in one instance it does have 
 some indication of the presence of one of these characters on the stage. 
 In Eun, V. 726, Dorias seems still to have the jewelry mentioned by her 
 in V. 627. If she had entered the house of Thais before 4, 2 (v. 629), 
 it is not likely that she would have brought it out upon the stage again. 
 For Eun. 5, 7 (v. 1025), there is even less evidence, but since only 
 nine verses intervene between those in which Parmeno was a speaker, 
 it is improbable that he left the stage during the short scene in which 
 Gnatho and Thraso were the speakers. In the same way there is no 
 reason to suppose that Syrus left the stage before Ad. 5, 6 (v. 889). 
 If he did so, he must have entered the house of Micio and returned 
 with Aeschinus in v. 899. Since Aeschinus is surprised at finding 
 Demea on the stage, it is improbable that Syrus returned with Aeschi- 
 nus, for he would scarcely have failed to mention Demea's kindness to 
 him. 
 
 These reasons are apparently of little weight, but they give some 
 indication that the characters named remained on the stage. The lack 
 of evidence that they left the stage has greater weight. In the two 
 scenes of the Eunuchus, Dziatzko believed that the characters were on 
 the stage without participating in the dialogue, for he gives their names 
 in the headings of the scenes. About the scene in the Adelphoe he is in 
 doubt.i Fleckeisen added the name in the heading of this scene also 
 in his first edition. In the second he omits all of them. Spengel does 
 not mention the two scenes in the Eunuchus. About the scene in the 
 Adelphoe he expresses some doubt, but inclines to the view that Syrus 
 left the stage.2 His grounds for this belief depend upon the Bembinus. 
 Since this rightly has the name of Sannio in the heading before Ad. 
 2i 3 (v. 254), he regards the omission of Syrus' name in the heading 
 before v. 889 as evidence that he did not remain on the stage. It will 
 be shown later that the scene-headings of the Bembinus have no such 
 independent value. 
 
 Three other scenes require some notice. It was pointed out above 
 that, in Hec. 5, i (v. 727) and 5, 2 (v. 767), Bacchis was accompanied 
 
 * Cf. adn. crit. ad loc. Praef. cd. 1884, p. xl. 
 
 ' Op. cit.y p. 270. 
 
70 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 by two ancillae. After v. 793 she enters the house of Phidippus with 
 them. When she comes out, at v. 806, it is possible that in an actual 
 performance she was still attended, and that the ancillae remained to 
 the end of the play. There is nothing in the dialogue to indicate the 
 presence of these characters, and they are not shown in the miniatures. 
 The third scene referred to is Ad, 3, 3, 10 (v. 364). In this place 
 Syrus addresses two characters who have no part in the dialogue. The 
 language shows that both were assistants in the preparation of the 
 dinner, and it is probable that they returned from market with Syrus. 
 In spite of the fact that they are addressed in about the same manner, 
 the figure of Dromo alone is shown. 
 
 The reasons for the omission of the mute characters in the miniatures 
 of the scenes mentioned above are not always clear, but in some in- 
 stances they can be shown. The doubt as to the presence of such 
 characters in the last six scenes under discussion accounts satisfactorily 
 for the omission. For in Ad, 3, 3, 10 (y. 364), it is exceedmgly 
 doubtful whether the duties of Dromo and Stephanio were performed 
 on the stage.^ In the last two scenes of the Hecyra, even if stage 
 license would not permit the two ancillae of Bacchis to remain behind, 
 when she leaves the house of Phidippus, the artist may be excused for 
 availing himself of such a liberty. If they actually did return to the 
 stage with Bacchis, the number of mute characters at first equalled, or 
 exceeded that of the speaking characters, and there is little excuse for 
 the long monologue of Bacchis, beginning in v. 816. Whatever the 
 Romans permitted in an actual performance, it is certain that the artist 
 in no case painted mute characters in excess of the speakere.^ 
 
 In the remaining six places, where the presence of mute characters 
 on the stage is certain, the omission of their figures in the pictures is 
 more difficult to explain. It is worthy of note, however, that in four of 
 these the mute characters are ancillae, the least important characters 
 in a play. There may be some significance in this. Their presence 
 is much more evident than in several other places where mute 
 characters are shown. It is improbable, therefore, that the artist 
 failed to see that in the scenes referred to they were active, though not 
 speaking. More probably he purposely omitted them. In Eun. 3, 2 
 
 ' See p. 128. 
 
 See, however, p. 160, n. i. 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 71 
 
 (v. 454), the omission can be accounted for otherwise. The ancillae 
 addressed by Thais in the last verse of the scene were not on the stage 
 at the time of the action represented in the miniatures. These show 
 Parmeno presenting for Thais' inspection the eunuch and the Ethiopian 
 slave, and must, therefore, be designed to illustrate v. 471 ff. The 
 picture cannot be intended to show any of the action after v. 492, for 
 it is at this point that Thais leads the eunuch and the Ethiopian woman 
 into the house. From v. 581 it is nearly certain that the ancillae 
 addressed by Thais in v. 506 did not appear on the stage until Thais* 
 return in v. 499. Obviously, they could not be shown in a picture 
 referring to an earlier part of the scene. ^ 
 
 In the two places left, the omission is of characters that are mute 
 only in these scenes. The artist could not have failed to recognize that 
 they remained on the stage. If the omission is to be charged against 
 him, it must be considered an error. It will be shown later that there 
 are grounds for believing that the omission is not due to the artist, but 
 to copyists.^ 
 
 Order of Figures in the Miniatures 
 
 Since there is no instance of the omission of a speaking character in 
 the miniatures, I turn to the consideration of the principle adopted by 
 the artist in arranging the figures in the pictures. It is certain that he 
 had no theories about the distribution of the houses in the rear of the 
 stage. It is equally certain that he was ignorant of, or disregarded, the 
 convention of the Greeks according to which characters from the forum 
 and city entered from the right of the audience, those from the harbor 
 or foreign parts, from the left.* The principle of arrangement, in short, 
 is precisely that found in the scene-headings. Wherever the dialogue 
 does not demand, or at least suggest, some peculiar collocation of 
 figures, these are shown in the order in which the characters they 
 represent participate in the dialogue. In five scenes characters which 
 have the same role, but do not enter the dialogue one immediately after 
 
 * It seems very doubtful whether Pythias was upon the stage before v. 45, but the 
 artist assumed that she came with Thais at the opening of the scene. 
 
 * See p. 160. 
 
 ^ Chiefly upon evidence drawn from Plautus and Terence, the authenticity of this 
 tradition has been challenged by A. Miiller, Philologus^ LIX (1900), p. 9 ff. 
 
J2 
 
 yohn Calvin Watson 
 
 the other, are shown together in the miniatures. In five other scenes 
 of this kind the dialogue does not permit this arrangement, or at least 
 it suggests another.^ E\'en in this respect, therefore, the miniatures 
 show the same tendency as the scene-headings. The characteristic 
 arrangement of names and of figures is the same. Stated in precise 
 terms, this is as follows : The names in the scene-headings and the 
 figures in the miniatures are arranged at the beginning of a scene in 
 the order of the first participation of the characters in the dialogue 
 below, except that where two characters of the same role do not enter 
 the dialogue in succession, these are united, and the group thus formed 
 is given the place which the first of the characters to speak would natur- 
 ally receive. This order of names in the scene-headings, or of figures 
 in the miniatures, I shall call the usual or normal order. 
 
 In the miniatures, as in the scene-headings, instances are not infre- 
 quent where the usual order of characters is not found. It is almost 
 certain that this cannot be charged to the carelessness of copyists, as 
 has been done with the disorder in certain scene-headings. If the 
 order of figures in the miniatures has been changed, it must have been 
 designed, but there is little evidence of intentional changes.^ The 
 artist's motive for any deviation from his usual custom in the collocation 
 of figures must be found in the subject-matter of the scenes where 
 the deviation occurs. He tried to give a picture of the characters as 
 he conceived them to be grouped at some interesting moment in the 
 scene. Usually, there was nothing to deter him from grouping the 
 characters according to the order in which they speak for the first time 
 in the scene. In some places, however, he could not do this and give 
 any reasonably correct picture of the action. In such scenes he aban- 
 doned his usual practice and distributed the characters to suit his 
 interpretation of the text. 
 
 The order of characters depends frequently on the part of the scene 
 selected by the artist for illustration. It is necessary, therefore, in the 
 interpretation of some of the miniatures to determine the passage to 
 which they refer. In scenes, however, which have a small number of 
 
 * On Phorm. 5, 3 (v. 784), see p. 151 f. 
 
 * In the Ambrosianus an example is probably found before Eun. 4, 7 (v. 771). 
 See pp. 87 and 90; for other evidence of changes, see p. 158 ff. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 n 
 
 characters, it frequently is difficult, or even impossible, to do this. In 
 scenes where the number of characters is larger, this is not only possible, 
 but usually it is very easy to do. In most scenes the limits of the 
 passage to which the picture refers are rather narrow. Frequently 
 the very verse which the artist had in mind is obvious. Even where 
 the miniatures cannot be restricted to a single verse, every characteristic 
 mark which they contain can usually be explained by the text in a 
 connected passage of a small number of verses. 
 
 It is possible that in a few scenes the artist painted two stages of the 
 action in a single picture. A stock example of such a miniature is that 
 preserved htioxQ Haut, i, i (v. 58).! Here Chremes is shown trying 
 the weight of the rastri, as he seems to do in v. 92 of the play. But 
 an implement of the same nature is held by the figure of Menedemus, 
 a situation which illustrates v. 88 f. If the repetition of the figure of 
 Pamphilus before ffec. 5, 4 (v. 841) is to be ascribed to the artist, it 
 can be explained only in this way.^ That the artist frequently used this 
 expedient I do not believe.^ If this had been his practice, his rule of 
 never showing characters together who were not engaged on the stage 
 at the same moment would have been needless.* In most pictures the 
 attitudes and gestures of all the figures are in such harmony that they 
 clearly refer to a single passage. 
 
 With these premises I turn to the consideration of the miniatures 
 that have a doubtful or an unusual order of figures. It seems advisable 
 to do this, first, because for most miniatures of this kind the order of 
 characters has never been determined ; secondly, because the determi- 
 nation of the order of characters is preliminary to any comparison of 
 this order with that of names in the scene-headings. The attempt will 
 be made in each case to point out the part, or parts, of the scene 
 
 » The Vatican miniature before this scene was taken from D'Agincourt by 
 Wieseler, Theatergebdude u. Denkm. des Buhnenwes. bet den Griech. u. Rom. Taf. 
 X, 6. It is reproduced also by Schreiber, Kulturhistorisch. Biideratlas, Taf. Ill, 6. 
 In the English edition, edited by Anderson with the title Atlas of Classical Anti- 
 quitiesy it is given in PI. Ill, Fig. 6. 
 
 * See p. 161 f. 
 
 ^ Nearly certain examples are found in the pictures before And, 3, 2 (v. 481); 
 cf. p. -JT, Haul. 5, 2 (v. 954); cf. p. 83. 
 
 * Cf. p. 134 ff. 
 
74 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 75 
 
 chosen by the artist for illustration, the correct order in which the 
 figures are painted, and, in case these are not arranged in the usual 
 manner, the reasons for the deviation. No notice will be taken of 
 scenes where the customary collocation of figures is found, and the 
 identification of the characters is reasonably certain. It has already 
 been shown by Schlee that the names assigned the characters in the 
 miniatures have little authority.* This is especially true in scenes where 
 the order of figures is uncertain' or unusual. The order of names will 
 be given for the several mss., partly because the critical apparatus of 
 Umpfenbach's edition is inadequate for this, and in part for later 
 reference in trying to determine the source and the history of the 
 scene-headings in these mss.* 
 
 • The identification of the figures in the miniatures is in some places 
 exceedingly difficult. A good example of such difficulty is found in the 
 pictures before Eun. 4, 7 (v. 77 1 ), which have been interpreted in three 
 different ways by modern scholars. It must be understood at the out- 
 set, therefore, that a positive identification of the figures is sometimes 
 impossible. This is particularly true of miniatures which have two or 
 more characters of the same role. Nor is it easy to distinguish between 
 two female characters in a picture, unless there is a difference in their 
 dress, as between a free woman and an ancilla. In some pictures also 
 there is little difference in the appearance of free women and young 
 men.* In miniatures containing characters so easily confused, the 
 patience of the copyists was sorely tried, and their errors are numerous. 
 In the discussion of such miniatures these characters have been classed 
 as doubtful, unless reasonably clear signs exist by which the identifica- 
 tion can be made. In the case of characters wearing masks, it is obvious 
 that there is little room for differences of expression or play of features. 
 Nevertheless, there are many ways in which characters easily confused, 
 because of their similar appearance, can be distinguished. The artist's 
 conception is frequently shown by the attitudes or gestures of figures, 
 by their dress, or by objects carried by them. When characters are 
 newly come upon the stage from one of the houses in the rear, they are 
 
 i 
 
 * Op. cit.^ p. 6f. 
 
 * Cf. p. 163 ff. 
 
 ■ CI. the pictures before And, 3, i (v. 459) ; Haut. 4, 4 (v. 723) ; 5, 5 Tv. 1045). 
 
 identified by their proximity to doors shown in the picture. Frequently 
 they can be identified by their proximity to other characters who are 
 known, and with whom they are closely associated. In some places, 
 however, there is nothing to indicate the identity of the figures. This 
 is especially true of scenes in which the characters are two senes. 
 
 After these introductory remarks on the identification of figures in 
 the miniatures, the scenes, in which the order of characters is unusual 
 or in doubt, will be considered. Beginning with the Andria, such 
 scenes will be given in the order of plays in the text edition of Dziatzko 
 and the second edition of Fleckeisen. 
 
 And. 2, I (v. 301). The miniatures illustrate the opening of the 
 scene. Charinus and Byrria are shown on the left with their arms 
 about each other. Byrria is trying to console the dejected youth. 
 Since they do not see Pamphilus before the tenth verse of the scene, it 
 is obvious that the figures of the young men could not be shown together 
 in the usual way. The names are correctly assigned in O, P, but in C 
 the names by the first hand were written in the usual order, thus bring- 
 ing the names of the youths together in the heading. This error of 
 assignment has been later corrected by some one, who, without erasing 
 the original names, interchanged those of Pamphilus and Byrria, writing 
 the new names above the old ones. 
 
 And, 2, 2 (v. 338). The miniatures refer to the beginning of the 
 scene, but there is no satisfactory evidence by which to identify the 
 figures of the two young men on the right. If Charinus is the figure 
 nearer Davus, the characters are in the usual order. If Pamphilus has 
 this position, the collocation is unusual. In C, O, P the names are 
 assigned in the latter order, but there is nothing in either the miniatures 
 or the dialogue that seems to require it. 
 
 And, 2, 5 (v. 412). The passage selected for illustration is v. 7 ff. 
 of the scene. About the first figure on the left, Umpfenbach labored 
 under a misapprehension, for he supposed that it represented Davus. 
 Aside from the fact that there is nothing in the appearance of the 
 figures to support this view, the third verse of the scene caused the 
 artist to show Byrria, not Davus, following Simo. Though Byrria and 
 Simo are the first characters to speak in this scene, the figure of Davus 
 is neither contiguous to that of Byrria, as a character of the same role, 
 nor is it third in order as that of the third speaker in. the scene. The 
 
76 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 artist deviated from his usual custom and painted Pamphilus as the third 
 character, and Davus last of all. The reason for this is evidently because 
 Davus, without the knowledge of Simo, gives advice and encouragement 
 to Pamphilus in the meeting with his father. The names are correctly 
 assigned in C, O, P, but in C they are not by the usual hand, and the 
 first name is written over an erasure. They are probably to be ascribed 
 to the hand which made nearly all the corrections elsewhere in the 
 assignment of names in this ms. 
 
 And, 2, 6 (v. 432). The miniatures cannot be referred with cer- 
 tainty to any definite part of the scene. The two figures are shown in 
 the reverse of the usual order. In scenes of only two speakers this 
 order cannot be explained by the dialogue. It seems probable that in 
 this place the artist has retained from the previous scene the relative 
 positions of Simo and Davus. In C, O, P the assignment of names is 
 correct, but in C this is due to the usual corrector. The names were 
 written by the first hand in the normal order. The corrector erased 
 them imperfectly and reversed the order. 
 
 And, 3, I (v. 459).^ The miniatures cannot be intended to show 
 the stage action at any point after the ninth verse of the scene, for it is 
 here that Mysis and Lesbia enter the house. They seem best suited to 
 V. 6 ff. Of the three groups of characters, Glycerium and the mute 
 character, probably Archylis, on the extreme left and within the house, 
 have already been mentioned.^ The remaining four characters are on 
 the stage. Mysis and Lesbia, who are respectively the first and the 
 fourth speaker of the scene, come upon the stage in conversation, and 
 enter the house without seeing Simo and Davus. They are properly, 
 therefore, shown together in the pictures. On the right, Davus and 
 Simo are correctly shown together, but the artist hardly depended upon 
 the text in fixing the position of Davus. He does not speak in the 
 scene until after Simo does, and his remarks to Simo are of the briefest 
 possible nature, but he is between Simo and the women, and appears to 
 be trying to secure the attention of his master, in order to prevent his 
 hearing the words of Mysis. 
 
 / A photographic reproduction of this miniature in C is given by Beissel, VoH' 
 kanische Miniaturen. 
 * See p. 67. 
 
 •I 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence JJ 
 
 The Dunelmensis ms. has lost this miniature with some of the text. 
 In P no names are assigned the figures, although some later person 
 has written five names below the figures, with no attempt to assign 
 them to the characters. In C six names are found, none of them, 
 except probably that of Mysis, by the usual hand. The rest were added 
 by the corrector after he had erased the original names. Schlee was 
 certainly misinformed when he attributed the names at this place to the 
 usual hand.^ The assignment of the name Pamphilus to the figure of 
 Lesbia was a stupid blunder on the part of the corrector, especially 
 since there is no young man on the stage in this scene. In the 
 miniatures, however, the figures of free women are very similar in 
 appearance to those of young men. The error, therefore, was easily 
 made by a person who paid no regard to the text. The assignment of 
 the name Lesbia to the figure supporting Glycerium is equally without 
 authority. 
 
 And, 3, 2 (v. 481). In this place it is almost certain that the minia- 
 tures illustrate two widely separated portions of the scene. The figure 
 of Lesbia appears on the left at the door of Glycerium. Since Lesbia 
 does not speak after the eighth verse of the scene, and leaves the stage 
 at this point, we must suppose that this part of the picture refers only 
 to the opening verses. The gestures of Davus, however, indicate that 
 he is talking to Simo about Glycerium and her friends, for he is clearly 
 referring to Glycerium's house. It is highly probable, therefore, that 
 the figures of Davus and Simo are intended to show the action in v. 3 1 ff. 
 of the scene. The gestures of Davus, toward the door of Glycerium's 
 house, explain why he is shown second in the picture instead of last, as 
 he would have been in the normal order. The names are correctly 
 assigned in C, O, P. 
 
 ^^^' 3> 3 (v. 533)- There is little in the appearance of the two 
 senes by which to identify them, or to determine the part of the scene 
 to which the miniatures refer. If they are designed to illustrate the 
 first three verses of the scene, Chremes is probably the first figure on 
 the left, but if they are intended to show the action after the fifth verse, 
 this figure is more probably that of Simo. According to the manner in 
 which the scenes are divided at this place, Simo is the first speaker, but 
 
 * Op. ciLy p. 6. 
 
78 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 the place of scene-division is very unusual. Reference will be made to 
 this later, when the distribution of the miniatures is under consideration.^ 
 In C, O, P the names are assigned to the figures in the usual order, the 
 name of Simo being first. 
 
 And, 3, 4 (v. 580). The passage chosen for illustration is not easily 
 determined, but it is probably early in the scene. Davus is the first 
 figure on the left, but the two senes are in the reverse of the usual 
 order. Since Davus and Chremes at no place in the scene address 
 each other, the third figure, shown in conversation with Davus, must 
 represent Simo, though this character is the second in the scene to 
 speak. For this deviation from the usual arrangement the dialogue 
 gives no reason. It must be ascribed to the fancy of the artist. In C, 
 O, P the names are assigned in the regular order and are, therefore, 
 wrong for the last two figures. In P they are by a later hand, since in 
 this scene no names were written by the usual hand. The peculiar 
 grouping of the names and roles, together with the use of duo instead 
 of II, proves that this heading was taken from a manuscript of the h 
 family.2 It is not probable that the person who added this heading 
 made any attempt to assign the names to the figures.* 
 
 And. 5, 3 (v. 872). The miniatures illustrate the first verse of the 
 scene. Simo, with extended right arm and pointing forefinger, is 
 shown addressing Pamphilus, while Chremes is between the father and 
 son, and has his arm around Simo, in an evident attempt to restrain the 
 anger of the latter. This explains the unusual order of the two senes 
 on the right. Pamphilus is shown first on the left, according to the 
 usual rule. In C, O, P the names are assigned to the figures in the usual 
 order, and are wrong, therefore, for the last two. 
 
 And, 5, 4 (v. 904). The pictures refer to some point early in the 
 scene. Pamphilus and Crito are shown on the left, coming from 
 the house of Glycerium. Since Crito, the first speaker, has come at the 
 request of Pamphilus, the fourth speaker, and addresses him in the first 
 two verses of the scene, it is obvious that the usual arrangement of the 
 figures was impossible. By painting Pamphilus first on the left, with 
 Crito second, the author of the miniatures has suggested the relative 
 
 ' See p. 135. 
 
 3 Cf. And. 5, 4 (v. 904). 
 
 » Cf. p. 165 f. 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 79 
 
 1. 
 
 order of these characters in an actual performance of the play. Since 
 Crito is shown in conversation with the fourth figure, and the latter is 
 represented with right arm extended toward Crito in a strong gesture, 
 it is very probable that the fourth figure is that of Simo. If this identi- 
 fication is correct, the miniatures are intended to illustrate the fifth 
 verse of the scene. The position of Chremes between the other two 
 senes, as well as his gesture towards Simo, is perfectly natural, for it is 
 Chremes who makes Crito and Simo known to each other. 
 
 The copyists were uncertain about the assignment of names in this 
 place, for no names were written by the first hands in C, P. In the 
 former, the names now found with the miniature are all by the hand to 
 which most of the corrections in the assignment of names are due. The 
 assignment is right, except that the figures of Chremes and Simo have 
 their names interchanged. In P two headings are found, both probably 
 by later hands. One of these, certainly to be ascribed to a later hand, 
 has no reference to the order of figures, but presents the names in the 
 normal order. This heading was taken from some representative of 
 the S family, as is shown by the use of tres rather than iii, and by the 
 peculiar arrangement of the names and the roles of characters.^ The 
 other heading, not given by Umpfenbach, has the names abbreviated 
 and arranged as follows: 
 
 PAM. 
 
 CRI. 
 
 CRE. 
 
 SIM. 
 
 These names are correctly assigned to the figures. It is possible that 
 they were written by the same hand as the names in other scenes, but 
 this is doubtful. The brownish red of the ink differs from the bright 
 red used by the regular rubricator. More probably some later hand, 
 here as in some other places, has supplied the names/ and, in so doing, 
 has imitated the form of letters written by the usual hand. In O the 
 names are not abbreviated, nor are they due to a later hand, but they 
 are rightly assigned as in P. 
 
 Haut. 2, 3 (v. 242). The miniatures are designed to show the stage 
 action at the opening of the scene, for Dromo, who leaves the stage in 
 the ninth verse of the scene, is one of the characters. The two figures 
 of slaves on the left can be distinguished only by their gestures. Since 
 
 » Cf. p. 165 f. 
 
8o 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 the first appears to be giving instructions to the second, it is highly 
 probable that these figures represent Syrus and Dromo, and are in the 
 normal collocation. The two young men on the right are shown by 
 their attitudes to be in the reverse of the usual order. The reason for 
 this is evident. Clinia is shown nearer the slaves, since he is more 
 interested than Clitipho in the result of the errand from which the 
 slaves are returning. In C, O, P the names are correctly assigned to 
 the figures, but in F the normal order is found. For the figures of the 
 young men, therefore, the assignment is wrong. 
 
 Haut, 3, I (v. 410). The only evidence available in the identifica- 
 tion of the figures is found in the gestures. This seems so uncertain, 
 however, that I see no means of assigning the names with any degree 
 of probability. In the four mss. the names of the old men are in the 
 usual order, but in P they are written in such a way as to suggest that 
 the rubricator avoided any assignment of the names to the figures. 
 
 Haut, 4, I (v. 614). The miniatures show the nutrix^ who leaves 
 the stage after the fifth verse, and must be referred, therefore, to the 
 opening of the scene. The two female characters are on the left, the 
 two male characters on the right. Since Chremes is the second speaker, 
 and the nutrix the third, the picture shows a violation of the usual 
 order. The cause is obvious. The two women enter engaged in 
 conversation, and Sostrata does not see her husband until in the ninth 
 verse. Chremes and Syrus in the meantime have been discussing the 
 actions of the two women. In C, F, O, P the names are correctly 
 assigned to the figures. 
 
 Haut, 4, 4 (v. 723). The five characters are shown in two groups, 
 Bacchis, Phrygia, and Clinia on the left, Dromo and Syrus on the right. 
 The first group of characters enters the house of Menedemus at v. 2 1 of 
 the scene, or immediately after it, and it is at this point that Dromo is 
 called out of the same house. The pictures, therefore, must be referred 
 to this verse. If the figures were arranged in the usual order, this would 
 be as follows : Bacchis, Clinia, Syrus, Dromo, Phrygia. Syrus and Dromo 
 would be shown together, because they have the same role, though 
 Phrygia is the fourth to speak in the scene, Dromo the fifth. The 
 action of the artist in giving Phrygia a place with the first group is due, 
 no doubt, not only to the fact that she is the slave-woman and attendant 
 of Bacchis, but also to the fact that she is naturally one of the group 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 81 
 
 that is about to leave the stage. Bacchis and Phrygia are represented 
 by the first two figures on the left, but there is little to distinguish be- 
 tween them. The gestures seem more appropriate if the first figure is 
 that of Bacchis. Clinia is third in order. The two slaves are shown 
 together, but they are in the reverse of the usual order, Syrus being last 
 on the right. 
 
 Copyists found the identification of the characters in this scene very 
 difficult. In O, P, however, if the two female figures are correctly 
 distinguished above, the names are rightly assigned. In F, not only 
 the names of Bacchis and Phrygia, but also those of the two slaves are 
 interchanged ; while the figure of Clinia is not named at all. In C the 
 third and fifth names are written over an erasure by the usual corrector. 
 That they have been interchanged admits of no doubt. Above the 
 fourth figure the name and numeral dromo ii are found, and show that 
 the name of Syrus, the other slave, was at first assigned to the third 
 figure. It is all but certain, therefore, that the normal order of names 
 was written by the copyist. This assignment was incorrect, except for 
 the first figure. The name of Clinia was given to a female character, 
 and in all probability the name of Phrygia was given to the figure of 
 Davus. The corrector, noting part of the error, attempted to remedy 
 it by interchanging the third and fifth names, each with the role appro- 
 priate to it. The result is that the figures of the slaves are correcdy 
 named, but Clinia is given the name of the slave-girl. The corrector 
 did not notice, apparently, the incongruity either in this assignment or 
 in that of the name of Clinia by the first hand to the second female 
 figure. The errors of both the copyist and the corrector in this scene 
 show how little weight should be given to the assignment of names in 
 this manuscript. 
 
 Haut. 4, 7 (v. 829). The pictures illustrate the third verse of the 
 scene. Chremes, the first speaker, is the first figure on the left. The 
 other two characters are in an unusual collocation, Clitipho being 
 the second, Syrus the third figure. Clitipho seems to be hesitating 
 to take the money offered by Chremes, but Syrus has his hand on the 
 young man's shoulder and urges him on. The dialogue shows that 
 Syrus was in such a position that he could speak to Clitipho without 
 Chremes' knowledge. It is for this reason that he is shown behind 
 Clitipho, instead of between the other two characters. 
 
 / / 
 
82 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 In C, F, O the names are correctly assigned to the figures, but in C 
 the last two names are due to a correction and stand over an erasure. 
 Though there is no direct evidence, there is little doubt that the names 
 assigned to the last two figures by the copyist have been interchanged.* 
 If this supposition is true, the names were written at first in the normal 
 order. In P no names were written by the usual hand, but they have 
 been inserted by some one else and are in the usual order. They are 
 inappropriate to the last two figures, but it is doubtful if any assignment 
 of names was attempted. 
 
 Hant 4, 8 (v. 842). The only evidence upon which any identifica- 
 tion of the two figures can be made is the nature of the gestures. That 
 of the first seems to be one of appeal, of the second, either protest or 
 admonition. I am inclined to prefer the latter interpretation, and to 
 refer the action to v. 20 f., where Chremes warns Menedemus against 
 being too complaisant toward his son. If this interpretation of the 
 gestures is correct, Menedemus is first on the left, and the two senes 
 are in the usual order. The names are assigned to the figures in this 
 order in the manuscripts. 
 
 Haut 5, I (v. 874). The illustrated mss. do not agree in the divi- 
 sion of scenes at this place and before v. 954. F, O, P have four 
 figures in the first of these two scenes,^ but have no miniatures for the 
 second. C has a picture for each scene, the first with two figures, 
 the second with four. Since there are good reasons for believing that 
 this MS. represents the true tradition," the miniatures in F, O, P will be 
 disregarded in discussing this place. In C the same two characters 
 are presented as in the scene last under discussion, and the gestures 
 are again about the only means of identifying them. The evidence is 
 far from clear, however, and does not seem to warrant any conclusion. 
 I am inclined to believe that the more violent gesture of the second 
 figure points to the deep feeling of Chremes, as expressed in vv. 42-75. 
 It seems best, however, not to hazard any identification of the charac- 
 ters in this picture. If the second figure could be shown to be that of 
 
 * Schlee, op. cit.^ p. 7, assigns the names in C to a later hand, but this is an error. 
 Two of the three names written by the copyist have been changed. 
 
 * Schlee, op. cit.^ p. 7, wrongly states that F, P have but two figures at this place. 
 ^ Cf. p. 141. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 83 
 
 Chremes, the order of the two figures would be normal. The names 
 m C are assigned in this order, and the same is true of the names of 
 these two characters in F, O, P, in which the pictures at this place 
 have probably suffered little change, except the addition of two more 
 figures. 
 
 Haut. 5, 2 (v. 954). The picture at this place deserves special 
 mention, both because it is extant only in C, and because it affords an 
 almost certain example of two stages of a scene illustrated in a single 
 picture. The characters, in the usual order, are shown in two groups. 
 On the left, Clitipho and Menedemus are conversing as they do only in 
 the first seven verses of the scene. On the right, Chremes and Syrus 
 are engaged in conversation. Since they nowhere address each other 
 except in vv. 20-25, and since the action portrayed is manifestly 
 appropriate to this passage, this part of the picture cannot present the 
 action at the same point of time as the first part. The artist was led to 
 paint the picture in this way, doubtless because Menedemus does not 
 speak after the seventh verse, nor Syrus before the seventeenth verse of 
 the scene. 
 
 Haut, 5, 5 (v. 1045). The miniatures illustrate the first half of the 
 scene, where Chremes is the object of the arguments and entreaties of 
 the other three characters. The gestures and attitudes show with 
 certainty that the two senes on the left are painted in the usual order. 
 The two characters on the right are Clitipho and his mother, Sostrata. 
 Though they play roles so dissimilar, the figures representing them have 
 a striking similarity. The third figure seems to be that of Sostrata, so 
 that Clitipho is last on the right. This identification rests entirely upon 
 differences in the dress of the two figures. The dress of the third is 
 somewhat longer than that of the others, and the right fore-arm is not 
 covered, but bare, both of which are frequent signs of female characters 
 m the miniatures. If this identification is correct, the figures are 
 painted in the usual order, and the assignment of names in the mss. is 
 correct. 
 
 Eun. 3, 2 (v. 454). The artist chose for the picture the dramatic 
 moment when Chaerea, disguised as the eunuch, is presented by 
 Parmeno to Bacchis (v. 19 ff.). In this scene, more almost than in 
 any other, he was forced to disregard the order in which characters 
 participate in the dialogue. The normal order of the five speaking 
 
w 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 characters would have been as follows: Thais, Thraso, Parmeno, 
 Gnatho, Pythias. The picture would not have been appropriate if 
 Paraieno, in his moment of triumph over Thraso and Gnatho, had been 
 shown between these characters. The presentation scene demanded 
 room for Parmeno and his presents, and that neither Thraso nor Gnatho 
 should be in a position to intervene. The artist solved the problem by 
 painting Gnatho first on the left, then Thraso next to Thais, who is 
 in the third position. Chaerea naturally appears next, followed by 
 Parmeno, who is leading the second mute character, the Ethiopian 
 slave-girl. The only figure painted in the usual position is that of 
 Pythias on the extreme right. The picture, with this collocation of the 
 characters, is entirely appropriate to illustrate the passage named. 
 
 The peculiar order of figures seems to have puzzled the copyists, who 
 in C, P assigned no names, this having been done by later hands. In 
 C the assignment is correct, except that to Chaerea, in his disguise as 
 eunuch, the name Antipho was given, though there is no character of 
 this name in the play. The error was noticed still later by some one, 
 who corrected it by superscribing the words cherea pro evnvcho. 
 The same hand may have erased the name or the role written, probably 
 by the first corrector, above the figure of the Ethiopian slave. In P the 
 same hand that we have noticed before,* either the first hand at a later 
 period, or more probably a later hand imitating the first, has written 
 abbreviations of the correct names. The order is right, save that the 
 names of Parmeno and Chaerea are interchanged. In O the names of 
 the speaking characters only are found. They are in the correct order 
 of the figures. In F, according to Umpfenbach, a space is found with 
 no picture, but with names by a later hand. It is certain that a picture 
 was painted as usual at this place, but it is nearly hidden by the inser- 
 tion of a piece of parchment. On the right there is still visible part of 
 a doorway with part of the head of a figure, very much as Pythias is 
 shown in the rest of the mss. As to any names of characters at this 
 place I have no informarion. 
 
 Eun, 3, 5 (v. 549). Antipho and Chaerea, the latter still in the 
 dress of the eunuch, are shown on the stage in the order of these 
 names. The reversal of the usual arrangement is to be explained, not 
 
 ' Cf. p. 79 on And. 5, 4 (v. 904). 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 85 
 
 by the dialogue, but by the miniatures of the preceding scene. Before 
 V. 539 the same two characters are pictured in the same order. In that 
 scene Chaerea is a mute character. That he was upon the stage during 
 part of the scene is shown by v. 545 ff. The interval of time between 
 the two passages, selected by the artist for illustration, is so brief that 
 he felt obliged to retain the same order of figures for the second scene. 
 In C the usual order of names was written at first, but this has been 
 corrected by a later hand. The copyist may have merely reproduced 
 the order of names before v. 539, where they were originally incorrectly 
 assigned in an unusual order, but were later changed by the same cor- 
 rector. In P the name of Antipho alone, rightly assigned to the first 
 figure, is given in each scene. The same is true of O before v. 539. 
 In the second scene the names are wrongly assigned in the usual order. 
 Since they are written in black ink in this place, the error is probably 
 to be ascribed to a corrector. In F alone the names are rightly assigned 
 in both scenes. 
 
 Eun. 4, 3 (v. 643). There is nothing to show cleariy the part of 
 the scene to which the pictures refer. These are unusual, since the 
 two ancillae are not shown together, though there is nothing in the 
 dialogue that seems opposed to the usual arrangement. The miniatures 
 are peculiar in another respect. The attitudes of the figures show that 
 the first is that of Dorias, while the third represents Pythias. The three 
 figures are pictured in exactiy the. reverse of the order in which they 
 severally speak for the first time in the scene. In the mss. the names 
 of the ancillae are wrongly assigned, and are in part in the usual order. 
 In C this is due to a correction, for the normal order of names was 
 written by the copyist, thus incorrectiy assigning the names to all the 
 figures. The corrector imperfectly erased the last two names with 
 the accompanying roles, and interchanged them. 
 
 Eun. 4, 4 (v. 668). The artist selected the first verse of the scene 
 for his illustration. The words of Phaedria show that the eunuch, 
 Dorus, is unwilling to come out of the house upon the stage. The 
 artist was unable, therefore, to picture Phaedria first on the left. This 
 position he gave to the eunuch, who is seen within the door, while 
 Phaedria is shown in the second place, immediately outside the door. 
 The identification of the two ancillae is uncertain. Disregarding these 
 two characters, F is the only manuscript that has the names of Donis 
 
 \ 
 
86 
 
 Jokn Calvin Watson 
 
 and Phaedria correctly assigned.* In C, O, P the names are in the 
 normal order, and, as Umpfenbach noted, are wrongly assigned to the 
 first two figures. 
 
 Eun, 4, 7 (v. 771). The Vatican miniature, preserved at the head 
 of this scene, has several times been reproduced First published by 
 D'Agincourt, it has appeared successively among the illustrations of 
 the ancient theatre, given by Wieseler,^ Baumeister,' and Schreiber. 
 Partly for this reason, partly because the identification of the figures is 
 difficult, this picture, more than any other, has aroused discussion. 
 
 The dialogue shows that eight characters are active on the stage, all 
 of whom are pictured in the miniatures. The five speakers appear in 
 the dialogue in the following order : Thraso, Gnatho, Sanga, Chremes, 
 Thais. The first three come with the three mute characters to storm 
 the house of Thais, who with Chremes awaits the attack. Thais is not 
 the last figure on the right, but is between the attacking party and the 
 young man. The artist's reason for giving this unusual order is found 
 in the closing verses of the previous scene, where the timidity of Chre- 
 mes is such as to cause Thais to exclaim that her defender was himself 
 in need of a protector. 
 
 As regards the identification of the first six figures, opinions have 
 varied widely. Wieseler was the first scholar in modem times who 
 seriously attempted the task.* To the figures in the attacking party he 
 assigned names in the following order : Syriscus, Sanga, Thraso, Donax, 
 Simalio, Gnatho. The correctness of this assignment was challenged by 
 Leo, who believed that the first two figures represent Simalio and Syris- 
 cus, the fifth, Sanga.* The difference in Wieseler's and Leo's conclusions 
 rests upon their disagreement in the identification of objects carried by 
 the second and fifth figures. The first of these, with uplifted right arm, 
 has in his hand an object somewhat oval in shape.** The fifth carries 
 in his left hand a light club, apparently, to the end of which some 
 
 * Instead of the name of Dorus his role is given. 
 
 * For the references to Wieseler (Taf. X, 5), and Schreiber (Taf. Ill, 5), see p. 73. 
 ^ Denkmaler des Klassischen AUerthurns^ II, p. 831. Abb. 914. 
 
 * Op, cit.^ p. 65 ff. Cocquelines, however, had changed, in part correctly, the 
 assignment which he found for five figures in C. 
 
 » Op. ciL, p. 339 f. 
 
 * Such is its appearance in the reproduction of the Vatican miniature by D'Agin- 
 court. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 87 
 
 flexible material is attached. The object in the hand of the second 
 jigure was regarded by Wieseler as the pefiiculus, which is carried by 
 Sanga, as the seventh verse of the scene shows. Rejecting this inter- 
 pretation, Leo held that the object carried by the fifth figure is the 
 peniculus. Wieseler explained the object in the hand of this figure as 
 a lash or scourge, while Leo thought that the second figure is represented 
 as hurling a stone. The dialogue shows cleariy that Sanga brings a peni- 
 culus, but it gives no evidence that either a lash or a stone was carried 
 by any of the characters. From the language of the fifth verse, where 
 Syriscus and Simalio are ordered to take positions on the right and left 
 wings respectively, Wieseler named the first figure Syriscus, the fifth 
 Simalio. Leo paid no regard to this evidence and was unable to 
 distinguish between the first two figures. Wieseler's interpretation was 
 adopted by Arnold,^ but Bemhardi and Anderson have followed Leo.* 
 
 A somewhat different assignment of names has recently been pro- 
 posed by Dr. Basore, who suggests that the first figure is that of Gnatho, 
 the sixth representing Syriscus.^ This assignment, save in the inter- 
 change of names between the first and the sixth figure, agrees with that 
 of Wieseler. For the Vatican miniature, at least, I do not believe that 
 it is correct. The dress of the sixth figure is that of a citizen, while 
 the first in this respect closely resembles the fourth and fifth, of which 
 one, at least, represents a mute character. It is possible that copyists 
 have altered the appearance of the figures. As an example of this, Leo 
 points to the attitude of the sixth figure in this place, which is painted 
 as if facing the attacking party, and apparently belongs on the side of 
 Thais and Chremes. Basore does not object to this attitude, but shows 
 that in the miniatures for this scene the attitudes and gestures, and in 
 the Ambrosianus, the order of two characters have marked differences. 
 It does not appear, however, that this is true of the first and sixth 
 figures except in the gestures. The atritude and dress of these two 
 in the several pictures are in close agreement. The attitude of the 
 
 * Cf. Baumeister, Denkmaler^ etc., II, p. 831 ff. Later, writing on Schauspieler 
 und Schauspieler kunst^ III, p. 1580, Arnold refers to Leo's discussion with no further 
 expression of opinion. 
 
 * Bernhardi, Textbuch zu Th. Schreiber* s Kulturhist. Bilderatlas, p. 41; Ander- 
 son, Schreiber's Atlas of Classical Antiquities, p. 6. 
 
 3 Studies in Honor of Basil L, Gildersleezcy p. 283 f . 
 
 \ 
 
88 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 sixth can be explained by the dialogue. The dress of both character 
 is strongly opposed to Basore's assignment. 
 
 These are the conflicting views about the miniatures at this place. 
 The correct explanation, in my opinion, was given by Wieseler. Leo 
 and Basore did not, indeed, disregard the evidence of the text, but they 
 failed to appreciate its value in the interpretation. The discussion of 
 the miniatures in this investigation shows with certainty that the artist 
 had studied the several plays with the greatest care. The text, there- 
 fore, of the several scenes is the basis upon which any adequate inter- 
 pretation of the miniatures must rest. In view of the artists' faithfulness 
 to the text in other scenes, it cannot lightly be assumed that he dis- 
 regarded it in this place. 
 
 The correct interpretation of the miniatures, in part that of Wieseler, 
 in part based on other evidence, is believed to be as follows : The pas- 
 sage in w. 11-15 of the scene was chosen by the artist for illustration. 
 Syriscus is shown first on the left because he is ordered by Thraso 
 in the fifth verse to proceed to the right wing. From the point of 
 view of Thraso this is the position he holds. He is shown with no 
 weapon, because none is mentioned in the text. The second character 
 represents Sanga with the sponge ready to wipe away the blood of the 
 wounded. The shortness of his dress, which in this respect resembles 
 that of the captain himself, is explained by Thraso's calling him a 
 centurion. The third figure is Thraso, who is, as he himself states 
 in v. II, post principia. The fourth is Donax with the crowbar. His 
 position in F is fifth, but this is probably a change by a copyist. In the 
 fourth verse he is ordered by Thraso in medium agmen, and this is 
 appropriate to the fourth rather than to the fifth place. The fifth 
 figure in C, O, P is Simalio, who is ordered by Thraso in the fifth 
 verse to take his position on the left wing. From the point of view 
 of Thraso, this is his position. In representing him as a lorarius with a 
 lash, the artist drew upon his imagination. Any explanation of the 
 object carried by him as a penicuius is open to several objections. The 
 artist would have been stupid indeed, if he had painted at the head of 
 the little band a character armed with a sponge or even a whisk.^ 
 
 ' Leo does not give a German equivalent for the noun penicuius. Those who 
 follow him in believing that the penicuius is carried by the fifth figure, explain this 
 as a Borsiwisch (Bemhardi), or whisk (Anderson and Basore). 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 89 
 
 Though the object in question differs somewhat in appearance in the 
 miniatures, it seems rather unsuited to the purpose for which Sanga 
 brings the penicuius. Lastly, even if the object does resemble a 
 whisk, it is not clear that a whisk is appropriate for wiping blood 
 away from a wound. Terence may have used the word in this 
 meaning to heighten the comic effect, but the artist was not obliged 
 to interpret it so. For these reasons I hold that the fifth figure is 
 Simalio, whom the artist was pleased to regard as Thraso's lorarius, 
 Gnatho is the sixth of the attacking party. His position is explained 
 by V. II, where some one who is not named is directed by Thraso to 
 array part of the little army. The artist thought that the person 
 addressed was Gnatho, and he was probably right. In the mss. the 
 speaker after Thraso is Gnatho, and in the Bembinus the same character 
 precedes Thraso in the tenth verse. The rest of the mss. give the nota 
 of Sanga in this verse.^ Whatever the correct distribution of the dia- 
 logue may be, it seems rather unnatural to suppose that Thraso orders 
 Sanga with the penicuius to command the left wing. These words are 
 more probably addressed to Gnatho and were so understood by the 
 artist. The attitude of Gnatho, if this assignment is correct, is perfectly 
 natural. He is turned facing Donax and Simalio whom he has been 
 directed to command. The fact that in P he seizes, with his right hand, 
 the object carried by Simalio is doubtless due to a copyist. For such 
 an action no reasonable ground can be given. In C his hand is raised 
 in a gesture of command, which is in every respect appropriate to his 
 office. His proximity to Thais and Chremes in C, O, P is due to a 
 change by a copyist. In F a door is shown between Gnatho and the 
 last two figures, and they are not in close proximity, for Thais and 
 Chremes are shown, not on the stage at all, but in the house.^ The 
 door was omitted by a copyist probably in order to reduce the width of 
 the picture. If this is true, Leo's objection to the attitude of Gnatho 
 has no basis of fact. It is the strongest evidence that the copyist, in 
 spite of other changes, kept the attitude of Gnatho true to the original. 
 The copyists were subjected to the same doubts and difficulties as 
 modem scholars in assigning names to the figures. In all the mss. the 
 
 * In F, however, the nota SA is written over an erasure by a corrector, 
 assignment in this ms. was probably to Gnatho. 
 
 The 
 
 Cf. Basore, op. cit.j p. 284. 
 
90 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 names were written by the usual hands, and have not been subject to 
 correction in order. In all of them the names are correctly assigned 
 to the figures of Thais and Chremes. In C none of the rest of the 
 figures are rightly named, and in F, which has the positions of Donax 
 and Simalio interchanged, these figures alone have the correct names. 
 In both MSS. the names of Thraso and Gnatho, the first two speakers in 
 the scene, are given to the first two figures. In F the name of Sanga, 
 the third to speak, is intended for the third figure, though it is not 
 written in the space above this figure. In C this name is given to 
 Gnatho in sixth place. In both mss., therefore, the first three names of 
 speakers are in the usual order. In € the names of the mute charac> 
 ters, Donax, Simalio, and Syriscus, follow in succession in the third, 
 fourth, and fifth places, and are designed for the figures denoted by 
 these numbers, though the exigencies of space prevented the copyist 
 from keeping the names in proximity to the figures. In F, Gnatho is 
 given the name of Syriscus. 
 
 In O, P, as frequently occurs, the assignment is more carefully made. 
 In both MSS. the names are in the precise order suggested by Basore for 
 the order of figures. If the interpretation of the miniatures given above 
 is correct, this assignment is right except for the interchange between 
 the first and sixth figures. 
 
 Eun, 5, 8 (v. 103 1 ). The pictures seem best suited to illustrate 
 some point early in the scene. Chaerea and Parmeno are shown in 
 the usual order on the left, the former in exultation over his good for- 
 tune. Thraso is pictured in the third figure, Gnatho in the fourth. 
 Measured by the distribution of the dialogue in the Bembinus and the 
 most of the later mss., these characters are in the reverse of the usual 
 order. There is nothing in the text that suggests such an arrangement, 
 nor can it be explained by the order in the previous scene, for there 
 Gnatho is first on the left. The explanation is found, as Umpfenbach 
 saw to be true of the order of names in the Bembine heading at this 
 place, in a different assignment of the dialogue in the seventh verse of 
 the scene, the first in which either Gnatho or Thraso speaks. The Vati- 
 canus (C) has the nota of Thraso written by the regular hand.^ The 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 91 
 
 ' Since Umpfenbach says nothing about C in this place, he implies that the nota 
 of Gnatho is given, but he is in error. 
 
 same is true of the -Parisinus (P), but above the nota of Thraso a later 
 hand has superscribed the nota of Gnatho. The Ambrosianus (F) has 
 the nota of Gnatho, but it is written over an erasure. The archetype of 
 the illustrated mss. made Thraso the first of these two characters to 
 speak. If the collocation of figures could be accounted for in any 
 other way, this variation would have little weight. There can be little 
 doubt that Thraso is shown third in the miniatures because the artist 
 found that in his manuscript Thraso was the third speaker. The names 
 are correctly assigned in the manuscripts. 
 
 Eun, 5, 9 (v. 1049). The miniatures are designed to show the 
 stage action at some point after v. 20 (v. 1068 of the play). Gnatho 
 is pictured between Thraso and the young men, and he is plainly 
 addressing the latter with respect to Thraso. His position before 
 Thraso, contrary to the order in which they speak in this scene, is 
 explained by v. 20, where, entreated by the soldier to intercede in his 
 behalf, he bids the latter withdraw a little way. Any distinction between 
 the figures of the young men on the left is difficult, but the attitude of 
 the first figure, which is half turned away from the rest of the party, 
 suggests Phaedria, for he does not readily make any concessions to 
 Thraso. Furthermore, it is Chaerea, rather than Phaedria, who not 
 only is willing to hear Gnatho's plea, but also assists him in the negotia- 
 tions. The second position, therefore, seems best suited to Chaerea. 
 If this explanation of the attitude and position of the two young men is 
 correct, they are shown in the usual order. In the mss. the names are 
 correctly associated with the figures, but the last two in C are due to 
 the usual corrector. Since these names are written over an erasure, it 
 is highly probable that their position has been interchanged. If such is 
 the case, the copyist of C wrote the names in the normal order. 
 
 Phorm, I, 4 (v. 179). The miniatures refer most probably to v. 20 
 of the scene, where Geta reports that he has just seen Antipho's father 
 at the harbor. Except in their gestures there is little difference in 
 the appearance of the two young men. The gesture of the first is 
 rather one of command, and is suited to Antipho's order in the verse 
 named. Moreover, Antipho, more deeply than Phaedria, is concerned 
 with the news brought by Geta, and more appropriately would have the 
 position next to the slave. Antipho, then, is probably represented by 
 the second of the three figures, Phaedria by the last. This is the order 
 
2^2 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 . f 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 ! 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 in which they speak for the first time in the scene, and in which the 
 names are assigned in the mss. 
 
 Morm, 2, I (v. 231). The pictures are intended to illustrate v. 56 ff. 
 of the scene, where Demipho for the first time addresses Geta. If the 
 usual order of figures had been given, Geta would be shown between 
 Demipho and Phaedria. His position behind Phaedria is easily ex- 
 plained by the text. At the close of the previous scene, Geta directs 
 Phaedria to accost Demipho, while he himself remains in ambush ready 
 to go to his aid. Until the very verse in which he addresses Demipho, 
 Geta is in such a position that he can speak to Phaedria, or utter com- 
 ments aside, without attracting Demipho's attention. In the mss. the 
 assignment of names is correct, but in C this is in part due to the usual 
 corrector. Since the last two names are written over an erasure, it is 
 nearly certain that the normal order of names was written by the copyist. 
 
 Pkorm, 2, 3 (V. 348). The passage selected for illustration depends 
 upon the identification of the first and third figures. These have always 
 been believed to represent respectively Demipho and Phormio, but that 
 this view is correct I do not believe. From the appearance of the two 
 figures an interchange of names is at least permissible. The evidence 
 of the text, and the practice of the artist elsewhere, makes it almost 
 necessary. 
 
 The pictures show on the left the three speakere, and on the right 
 the three a^wa/r' required by the text. The appearance of the first 
 figure may give some reason for the belief that this is Demipho. If 
 this identification could be proved, it would be necessarv to regard the 
 third as intended to represent Phormio. In C, however, there is a 
 striking resemblance between the third and the fifth figure, the latter 
 picturing the aihocatus, Cratinus. In the rest of the mss. the attitudes 
 and gestures of these two figures are veiy similar, but in other respects 
 the likeness is not so close. Such a resemblance between Demipho 
 and Cratinus would not be unnatural, for the latter, to judge from the 
 prominence given him in the following scene, was probably also a 
 senex. Between Phormio and Cratinus, however, such a resemblance 
 seems unnatural, and it is very improbable that any likeness between 
 these two characters was designed by the artist. If this view is correct, 
 one must doubt either the integrity of the miniatures or the identifica- 
 tion of the third figure as Phormio. Another ground for rejecting the 
 
 I 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 93 
 
 accepted view is that the collocation of figures which it requires is 
 
 inconsistent with the text. Wieseler, believing the first to represent 
 
 Demipho, was unable to explain his separation from his advocati> 
 
 Twice in the opening of the scene he bids them follow him and support 
 
 him in the encounter with Phormio. If Demipho is the first on the 
 
 left, not only are two characters between him and his advocati, but 
 
 the latter actually seem to be supporting his adversary. That the artist 
 
 was capable of such a blunder is abundantly disproved by the rest of his 
 
 work. A third objection to the usual identification of figures in this 
 
 place is the impossibility of finding a passage to which the miniatures 
 
 refer. Presumably it would be near the end of the scene,^ for it is here 
 
 alone that Phormio pretends a depth of feeling, such as the gesture of 
 
 the third figure indicates. Moreover, it is Demipho, not Phormio, who 
 
 is the excited and indignant character in this scene. The almost passive 
 
 attitude of the first figure is ill suited to suggest any depth of feeling. 
 
 The position of Geta also is important. He is shown addressing, or 
 
 trying to address, the third character. If this is Phormio, Demipho 
 
 could not have failed to observe this action. But Geta at no place 
 
 permits Demipho to see or overhear him addressing Phormio. If 
 
 Demipho is represented by the third figure, the position of Geta is 
 
 appropriate to v. 28 ff. of the scene. Here he attempts to set forth to 
 
 his master the insulting language of Phormio. As must have happened 
 
 in an actual performance, he is in a position to withdraw to the rear of 
 
 Phormio as the quarrel continues. That he does this is certain, since, 
 
 without the knowledge of Demipho, he several times addresses Phormio.* 
 
 For the reasons given I reject the traditional interpretation of the 
 
 miniatures at this place. The true explanation I conceive to be as 
 
 follows : The artist, as usual, selected the most dramatic moment of the 
 
 scene, when in v. 31 ff. Demipho first assails Phormio. The parasite is 
 
 the first character on the left, and is shown awaiting the onset. Geta 
 
 is deceitfully trying to catch his master's attention, that he may tell his 
 
 story of Phormio's impudence. Demipho is the third figure. In high 
 
 feeling, and with a gesture appropriate to him, he is addressing Phormio. 
 
 His advocati follow him as they have been directed to do, and the 
 
 ' Op. cit.y p. 69. 
 
 ■ Cf. Wieseler, p. 69. 
 
 ' Cf. w. 42, 82, 93. 
 
94 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 nearest seems about to lay his hand upon Demipho's shoulder in token 
 of his support. 
 
 The speaking characters are not shown in the usual collocation, 
 because the nature of the scene does not permit it. It was impossible 
 for the artist to present a true picture if he separated Demipho from his 
 advocati, or if he presented the latter between Demipho and Phormio. 
 By painting the figures of the three speakers in exactly the opposite of 
 the usual order, he has given a picture appropriate to the scene. 
 
 The identification of figures hitherto accepted has rested upon the 
 assignment of names in C, for the picture with the names has several 
 times been reproduced from this manuscript.^ As there has been 
 frequent occasion to point out, the assignment in C has little authority. 
 In the rest of the mss., and particularly O, P, the assignment has 
 greater authority, since it has been made by persons of sharper vision 
 and better knowledge of the text. In this place, however, F, O agree 
 with C in having the normal order of names. The evidence of P is not 
 clear. The names at present are all written over erasures, except the 
 first and the last. The first hand erased at least the fourth and fifth 
 names and wrote others in their places. It seems probable, or at least 
 not improbable, that the erasures of the second and third names were 
 also made by the copyist, for, in addition to the erasures in the fourth 
 and fifth places, he assigned no name to the first figure. The changes 
 in the assignment and the failure to write any name for the first figure, 
 or, more probably, for the first three figures, were with little doubt due 
 to his uncertainty about their true order.* As early, therefore, as 
 the ninth or tenth century, the identificarion of the first character as 
 Demipho, the third as Phormio, seems to have been questioned. It 
 was rejected by the person who later supplied the first three names in 
 dark ink, for these are correctly assigned, if the interpretation given 
 above is right.* 
 
 Phorm. 2, 4 (v. 441). The artist selected for iUustration w. 6-9 of 
 
 » Cf. Wieseler, op. ciL, Taf. X. 7; Schreiber, op, cit., Taf. Ill, 7. It was first 
 published by D'Agincourt. 
 
 ■ Cf. p. 163. 
 
 » The manner in which Umpfenbach gives the heading in P seems to indicate that 
 the names are arranged in two lines, but this is an error. See PI. 37, accompanying 
 Mr. Weston's article in this volume of the Harvard Studies. 
 
 Scene-Headings a^id Miniatures in Terence 
 
 95 
 
 the scene. If the interpretation of the preceding picture is correct, the 
 five characters remaining after the departure of Phormio are shown in 
 the same relative order, except that the first two of the advocaH have 
 exchanged places. Geta, though the second speaker, is seen departing 
 on the left, because he has been directed by Demipho to see if Antipho 
 is at home. Demipho then appears in consultation with his advocaH, 
 who are speakers in this scene. The interchange of posirion between 
 Hegio and Cratinus, contrary to the order in which they speak, rests 
 upon the unwillingness of Hegio, in the seventh verse, to be first to 
 give his advice. In C, F, P the names are correctly assigned, but in C 
 the first two are written over an erasure by the usual corrector. There 
 is no reason to doubt that these two names were written in the usual 
 order by the copyist. 
 
 Phorm, 3, 2 (v. 485). The miniatures refer most probably to the 
 end of the scene, where Dorio makes his final offer to sell the citharistria 
 to Phaedria, provided he is the first to get the money. The attitude 
 and gesture of Dorio are appropriate to this place. The figures of the 
 young men are not to be distinguished by their appearance, but the 
 dialogue requires that the second be identified as Antipho. He is not 
 seen by Phaedria until in v. 18 of the scene. It is not until v. 30 that 
 he appeals to the Icjio in Phaedria's behalf. Since the young men are 
 shown not conversing, but facing Dorio, the passage illustrated must 
 follow the verse named, and there can be little doubt that the second 
 figure was intended to represent Antipho. The collocation, therefore, 
 is normal in every way. Though the young men are the first and third 
 speakers in the scene, as characters having the same role they have 
 contiguous positions on the left. This leaves Dorio and Geta in correct 
 order on the right. In the mss. the assignment of names is correct. 
 
 Phorm. 4, I (v. 567). Since the appearance and gestures of the 
 two series are very similar, it seems impossible to identify them, or to 
 determine the part of the scene selected for illustration. In the mss. 
 they are named in the usual order, in F by a later hand. 
 
 Pfiorm, 4, 3 (v. 606). The miniatures illustrate v. 59 ff. of the 
 scene, where Demipho discusses with Geta the amount necessary to 
 buy off Phormio. The first two characters, Antipho and Geta, are 
 shown in the usual order, but the two senes occupy each the place which 
 the other would normaUy receive. The reason for this change of order 
 
 .1 
 
96 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 lies in the fact that it is Demipho rather than Chremes who tries to 
 make the bargain with Geta. It may also be due in part to the 
 language of v. 600, for at the time of this verse Demipho was between 
 Geta and Chremes. In C, O, P the names are assigned correctly. 
 The later hand in F has given the usual order of names, and has erred, 
 therefore, in naming the figures of the senes, 
 
 Phorm, 4, 5 (v. 713). The opening of the scene seems to be 
 pictured in the miniatures. The second figure is shown with the bag 
 of money, and is thereby identified as Demipho, the first speaker in 
 the scene. The first figure must be Chremes, the third speaker. 
 Demipho addresses both Chremes and Geta and is best placed between 
 them. Geta could not be shown between the two senes, because he 
 twice in the scene speaks aside. For these reasons the artist was 
 obliged to vary from his usual rule in the collocation of characters. 
 The two characters of the same r61e are brought together in the picture 
 contrary to the order of their first participation in the dialogue. In F, 
 O, P the figures are named correctly, in F by a late hand. In C the 
 names are in the usual order and are wrong for the first two characters. 
 
 Phorm, 5, 3 (v. 784). In this scene the miniatures have a distribu- 
 tion of characters not only inexplicable by means of the text, but 
 entirely opposed to it. Since Chremes is shown on the right, just as 
 he is coming from the house of Demipho, the picture seems to illustrate 
 V. 12 f . of the scene (v. 795 f. of the play). The picture is unsuited 
 to show the action at this place. Chremes, at his entrance, does not at 
 once see his wife, but begins to converse with Demipho. To illustrate 
 the verse named, therefore, Demipho should be between Nausistrata 
 and Chremes, but in the pictures Nausistrata is between the other two 
 characters. Moreover, in v. 22 (v. 805 of the play) Chremes seems to 
 speak to Demipho in such a way as to prevent his wife from hearing 
 him. If this is true, it is obvious that whatever the collocation was in 
 V. 12, at this point Nausistrata could not have occupied the position 
 in which she is pictured. The miniatures are inappropriate, therefore, 
 to show the arrangement of the characters on the stage. The reason 
 for this will be shown later.^ In the mss. the names are correctly 
 assigned, in F by a late hand. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 97 
 
 ' See p. 151 f. 
 
 Phorm, 5,8 (v. 894). The artist, true to his usual rule in the selec- 
 tion of a passage, has presented Demipho and Chremes struggling with 
 Phormio in the attempt to drag him away and prevent him from calling 
 Nausistrata out of the house. Phormio is properly shown between the 
 other two characters, whose separation, contrary to the usual arrange- 
 ment, is required. The only ground upon which to base an identifica- 
 tion of the figures of Demipho and Chremes is the evident fact that 
 the figure on the right is trying not only to drag Phormio away, but 
 also, by placing his hand over Phormio's mouth, to prevent his crying 
 out. The activity of this figure, greater than that of the first, suggests 
 Chremes, whose interests are much more at stake, and who in v. 93 
 sees the necessity of stopping Phormio's mouth. The position of 
 Demipho on the left shows in all probability that in the manuscript 
 used by the artist as in our mss. he was the first speaker in the scene. 
 With regard to the order in which Phormio and Chremes enter the 
 dialogue, positive evidence is precluded by the exigencies of the picture. 
 In the artist's manuscript the verse transmitted as the twelfth in all our 
 MSS. may either have had this position, or it may have been the third, 
 the position to which it is restored by Fleckeisen. It could scarcely 
 have come first of all, a restoration proposed by Bothe. 
 
 Of the MSS. F and O have lost this part of the Phormio. In P the 
 names are correctly assigned, if the distinction made above between the 
 figures of the two senes is accepted.^ In C the copyist wrote the names 
 of Demipho and Chremes together on the left, of Phormio on the right. 
 For the last two figures the assignment was wrong. Some one, other 
 than the usual corrector, observed the error and changed the last two 
 names by writing the correct names over the incorrect ones. 
 
 Phorm, 5, 9 (v. 990). In the miniatures last under discussion, the 
 last four verses of the scene are illustrated. In the present scene the 
 first verse was chosen by the artist for the picture. The brief interval 
 of time elapsing between the two illustrations suggested to the artist 
 the necessity of keeping Demipho and Chremes in the same relative 
 order in both. It is very probable, therefore, that Demipho is the first 
 of the two senesy Chremes the second. Nausistrata is first on the left. 
 
 * Schlee, op. cit.^ p. 7, was in error in supposing that the order of names in P has 
 been changed by a later hand. 
 
98 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Phormio last on the right. The order in which the characters speak in 
 the scene is in doubt. In the Bembinus the first verse is assigned to 
 Nausistrata, Phormio being the second speaker, followed in turn by 
 Chremes and Demipho. If this is the right distribution of the parts, 
 the collocation of figures is very unusual, for Phormio, though his posi- 
 tion seems entirely natural, might with equal propriety have been shown 
 between Nausistrata and the other characters. The artist's reason for 
 showing him last of all is explained by the distribution of the notae in 
 the later mss. In all of these the interjection hem in the first verse is 
 assigned to Chremes,^ so that Phormio is the third to speak, and 
 Demipho the last. There can be little doubt that this was the order in 
 which the characters entered the dialogue in the artist's manuscript 
 According to the practice elsewhere, those of the same role are given 
 contiguous positions in the place which the first of them to speak would 
 naturally receive, so that Phormio perforce is shown last of all. In C, 
 P the names are assigned correctly, if the identification of Demipho 
 and Chremes, given above, is right. 
 
 Hec. 2, 2 (v. 243). The miniatures are designed to show the action 
 in V. 29, where Laches turns to Sostrata, believing that she is the cause 
 of Philumena's unwillingness to return to Pamphilus. The gesture of 
 the first figure is appropriate to the words of Phidippus immediately 
 preceding. That this is Phidippus is shown also by the door behind 
 him, for he enters the stage from his own house. The figures are 
 arranged in the normal order. In C, O, P, the names are correctly 
 assigned. On the names in F, written throughout this play by a later 
 hand, I have no information. 
 
 Hec, 3, 4 (v. 415). It has already been shown that the figure of 
 Parmeno does not appear twice in the miniatures at this place.* 
 
 Mn A a noia appropriate to none of the characters in this scene was written 
 before the word hem by a corrector of the fifth or sixth century. (On the time of 
 this hand, Umpfenbach's corrector recens^ see Hauler's revision of Dziatzko's edition 
 of the Pkormioy p. 184 f., and Kauer, Wiener Studien^ XX, 1898, p. 252-276.) 
 The interjection seems too apposite to Nausistrata to suppose that in A the nota of 
 Chremes before the word in question, and that of Nausistrata following it, have been 
 lost by accident. On the other hand, we should expect an exclamation from Chremes 
 at this point, and the order of figures in the miniatures shows that with little doubt 
 the assignment of hem to Chremes is at least as old as the artist's time. 
 
 " See p. 66 f. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 99 
 
 C 
 
 The miniatures refer to v. 16 ff., where Pamphilus, the third speaker, 
 is trying to get Parmeno, the first speaker, away from Phidippus' door. 
 These characters, necessarily shown together, are painted on the right. 
 Of the two slaves on the left, one is Sosia, the other, a mute character. 
 In C, O, P, the regular order of names is found, so that the figure of 
 Pamphilus is rightly named. The first of the slaves is wrongly called 
 Parmeno, while the true Parmeno, on the extreme right, is without 
 assignment. 
 
 ^^^' 3> 5 (v. 451)' The pictures are probably designed to present 
 the action during w. 43-45, the last that were spoken while Pamphilus 
 was on the stage. The attitude of the second figure, who is half turned 
 towards Pamphilus, and the gesture suggest the words of Phidippus in 
 V. 43. The sharper gesture of the first is appropriate to the strong 
 admonition of Laches in this and the following verse. The collocation 
 is normal in every way, and this is the order in which the names are 
 assigned in C, O, P. 
 
 Hec. 4, 4 (v. 623). The miniatures illustrate v. 46 f., where Laches, 
 in answer to Phidippus' question about the disposition of the child, 
 replies that it must be restored to Pamphilus. The second of the two 
 senes on the left is conversing with the first, but he is partly turned and 
 is pointing toward Pamphilus. The figures are arranged in the usual 
 order, and the assignment in C, O, P is correct. 
 
 Hec, 5, 2 (v. 767). The first five verses of the scene appear to have 
 been chosen for the illustration. The nutrix, who must be supposed to 
 enter the house of Phidippus after the third verse, is first on the left. 
 For this reason it is necessary to regard the second figure, the first of 
 the senes, as designed to represent Phidippus, though there is little in 
 his appearance to distinguish him from Laches. The gesture of the 
 third character, who is pointing to Bacchis, is equally suitable to Phi- 
 dippus' question Haecine east? and Laches' answer Haec est. Dis- 
 regarding the nutrixy who is a mute character, the figures are in the 
 usual order, and this is the order of the names in C, O, P. 
 
 Ad, I, 2 (v. 81). It is equally difficult to determine the passage 
 selected by the artist, and to identify the two senes. From the 
 more violent gesture of the first, together with some appearance of 
 anger, it is probable that this figure represents Demea. If this is true, 
 the arrangement is the usual one. In C, O, P, the names are assigned 
 in this order, but in F the order is reversed. 
 
lOO 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Ad, 2,4 (v. 265). The artist chose w. 7-1 1 for his illustration. 
 Of the two young men shown on the left, the first is Aeschinus, 
 chiding Ctesipho for the rash course he was about to pursue. That the 
 first figure represents Aeschinus, who has just come upon the stage, is 
 shown also by the door on the extreme left of the picture. The second 
 figure, Ctesipho, in a passive attitude, is listening to Aeschinus. Of the 
 two on the right, Syrus has his right hand on Ctesipho's shoulder, whDe 
 with his left he holds Sannio by the wrist. This conception and the 
 unusual order of these two figures are explained by the opening verses 
 of the scene. Since at the entrance of Aeschinus Sannio sees that he 
 has come without the money, and has reason to fear further violence 
 from him, it is natural that he should avoid the youth as far as possible, 
 or even attempt to leave the stage. For this reason Sannio, though he 
 is the second speaker, is shown last on the right. The young men are 
 given contiguous positions in spite of the fact that Ctesipho is the third 
 speaker in the scene. The names are correctly assigned in the mss. 
 
 Ad, 3, 2 (v. 299). The miniatures are best referred to some point 
 before v. 22, where Sostrata first accosts Geta. The slave is the first on 
 the left, as the first speaker in the scene. He is shown in a state of 
 great excitement, as is denoted by his gestures with both arms. Of the 
 two women on the right, the first seems to be pointing to Geta while 
 addressing the other. The last figure, with outstretched arm, is advanc- 
 ing toward Geta, apparently with the purpose of addressing him. There 
 can be little doubt that this is Sostrata, the figure in the middle repre- 
 senting Canthara. For this unusual collocation the dialogue gives no 
 explanation, and it must be ascribed to the fancy of the artist. Since 
 Canthara speaks but a few words in the scene, the artist may have 
 chosen to represent her between the other two, that she might seem to 
 be a more active participant in the action and dialogue. If this identi- 
 fication is right, the names in the mss. are inconectly assigned to the 
 last two figures. 
 
 Ad. 3, 4 (v. 447). Since the miniatures show Geta appealing to 
 Hegio in behalf of Sostrata and her daughter, they must be referred 
 to w. 9-12. Hegio does not see Demea until v. 15 is reached. For 
 this reason the two senes could not be shown together in the usual order. 
 By painting Hegio on the left, Demea on the right, with Geta between 
 them, the artist has produced a picture suitable to illustrate the passage 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 10 1 
 
 named. Though the order is unusual, it is that in which the characters 
 speak for the first time in the scene. The names are correctly assigned 
 in the mss. 
 
 Ad, 4, 2 (v. 540). The miniatures present the action on the stage 
 as it appeared in an actual performance at v. 13 ff. At this point 
 Ctesipho leaves the stage. His gesture toward the door on the right 
 is accounted for by his words before his departure. Syrus, in an atti- 
 tude of dejection,! is advancing to a place where Demea can see him, 
 as he does in v. 14. Demea, as the first speaker, is first on the left, but 
 Ctesipho, the second speaker, is last on the right. He could not be 
 painted between Demea and Syrus, because he is shown by his own 
 words to be avoiding Demea. The assignment of names in the mss. is 
 correct. 
 
 Ad, 4, 3 (v. 592). The miniatures are best regarded as illustrating 
 V. 7 ff. of the scene. The second of the senes, half turned from the 
 first, is making a gesture, apparently of direction, toward his left. This 
 figure probably represents Hegio as he asks Micio to go with him to see 
 Sostrata. If this identification is correct, the figures are in the usual 
 order. This is the manner in which the names are assigned in the mss. 
 
 Ad. 4, 7 (v. 719)- The passage illustrated is hard to determine, and 
 might with equal probability be any one of several places. The order 
 of characters is not in doubt. The proximity of the first to a door on 
 the left shows that this is Micio, who enters from his own house at the 
 beginning of the scene. This evidence is confirmed by the more violent 
 gesture of the second, which is appropriate to the anger of Demea. 
 The figures, therefore, are arranged in the usual order. The names are 
 correctly assigned in the mss. 
 
 ^^- 5» 3 (v. 787). The part of the scene selected for illustration 
 and the assignment of names to the two senes are very doubtful. At the 
 same moment Micio comes out of the house of Sostrata, and Demea out 
 of the house of Micio. Sjnce we cannot be sure whose door is shown 
 on the left of the picture, this gives no aid in identifying the figures. 
 The gestures too are difficult of interpretation. The pictures could be 
 assigned to any of several places in the text with varying "identification 
 
 * It might be thought that Syrus is pointing to his lip, which he pretends in v. 20 
 has been injured by a blow from Ctesipho, but the hand lifted toward the face is 
 almost invariably a sign of dejection. 
 
I02 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 of the figures, but the evidence is too uncertain to warrant any decision. 
 In the Mss. the names are assigned in the usual order. 
 
 Ad, 5, 7 (v. 899).* The pictures are intended to show the stage 
 action at v. 19 ff. Demea has sent Synis away on an errand, where- 
 upon he is thanked by Geta for his kindness to Sostrata and her 
 daughter. Geta, though the fourth speaker, is the third figure, while 
 Syms, the third speaker, is seen leaving the stage on the right. Aeschi- 
 nus and Demea are in the usual order on the left. In C, O, P the 
 names are correctly assigned, but F has the usual order, so that the 
 figures of Geta and Syrus have their names interchanged. 
 
 Ad. 5, 8 (v. 924). The verses to which the miniatures are to be 
 referred, and the identification of the first two figures are very uncertain. 
 If the opening of the scene is illustrated, Micio is probably the first on 
 the left. If the artist had in mind v. 10 ff., where Micio is urged to 
 marry Sostrata, it would be more fitting for him to be between the other 
 two characters. The evidence seems inadequate to establish even a 
 probability. In the mss. the names are assigned in the usual order. 
 
 Ad. 5, 9 (v. 958). The miniatures illustrate w. 25, 26, the last two 
 in which Syrus speaks, after which he probably leaves the stage. The 
 four figures are in two groups. On the left Syrus and Demea are seen, 
 the latter felicitating or addressing Syrus on his good fortune. On the 
 right Aeschinus is probably appealing to Micio in behalf of Syrus, though 
 he may be thanking him for his bounty, as he does in v. 26. The figures 
 are in the usual order, except that on the right, Micio and Aeschinus, 
 respectively the third and fourth speakers, have been interchanged. 
 The reason for this deviation is found in the dialogue. Micio is un- 
 willing to give freedom, first to Syrus, then to Phrygia, the wife of Syrus, 
 and finally to give them something with which to begin their new life, 
 but he is persuaded by Demea and Aeschinus to concede these favors 
 one after another. In his belief that Syrus has not merited such rewards, 
 it is natural that he should be represented as far as possible from Syrus 
 and Demea. 
 
 In C, O the names are correctly assigned. In F they are in the nor- 
 mal order, and are wrong for the last two figures. The copyist of P was 
 
 * Facsimiles of the Vatican miniatures at this place and before v. 889 are given 
 by Silvestre, PaUog. Univ. II, near the end. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 103 
 
 uncertain about the interpretation of the picture, probably because he 
 thought that the first two figures might represent Micio formally giving 
 Syrus his freedom.^ After correctly assigning the first two names, he 
 omitted the last two. 
 
 Such is the list of miniatures in which the order of figures either is 
 unusual, or seems subject to serious doubt. In all others the evidence 
 is reasonably clear that the collocation was determined entirely by the 
 order in which the characters speak in the several scenes. To give a 
 summary of the 53 scenes which have been considered in this paper, 
 twelve appear to have a normal order of figures, seven are in such 
 doubt as to make any decision inadvisable, while the rest certainly 
 have an unusual collocation. These are 34 in number, and may be 
 further classified. In Eun. 5, 8 (v. 103 1) the deviation is only appar- 
 ent, and is explained by a variation in the distribution of the dialogue. 
 In Phorm. 5,9 (v. 990) part of the apparent disorder is accounted for 
 in the same way. The unusual arrangement of the rest of the figures at 
 this place is explained by the order of the same characters in the pre- 
 vious scene. Two other miniatures are best accounted for wholly in 
 this way.* In three scenes where there is nothing in the text that 
 suggests the collocation, the artist depended entirely on his fancy.* 
 The same is true in part in two other miniatures, the unusual order of the 
 rest of the figures being evidently due to the dialogue.* In 24 scenes 
 the artist followed closely the evidence of the text. In only one instance 
 is the picture inappropriate to illustrate the scene, and in this case there 
 is reason to doubt its genuineness.* 
 
 Comparison of the Order of Names with the Order of Figures 
 
 The discussion now reverts to the scene-headings. It was shown 
 above that the unusual order of names found in a few of the Bem- 
 bine headings has never been satisfactorily explained. The lists of such 
 scenes given by Umpfenbach and Studemund are defective, chiefly be- 
 
 > Cf. V. 13. 
 
 « And. 2, 6 (v. 432); Eun. 3, 5 (v. 549). 
 
 * And. 3,4 (v. 580); Eun. 4, 3 (v. 643); Ad. 3, 2 (v. 299). 
 
 * And. 3, I (v. 459); Haut. 4, 4 (v. 723). On this place, see further p. 158 f. 
 
 * Phorm. 5, 3 (v. 784); cf. p. 151 f. 
 
I04 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 cause these scholars had not accurately detennined the characteristic 
 arrangement of names. For the later mss. no one, apparently, has ever 
 given any statistics. To supply this want, and to facilitate the compari- 
 son of the several mss. included in this investigation, the table given on 
 p. 105 has been prepared. Because of certain differences in the illus- 
 trated MSS., it has seemed best to select one of them for the statistics 
 about the order of figures. I have chosen the Vaticanus (C) because 
 of my conviction that for the miniatures, at least, it has most faithfully 
 preserved the tradition of its family.* In both the headings and the 
 miniatures mute characters have been disregarded, since their position 
 was not determined in the same way as that of speakers. The scenes 
 are classified according to the number of speaking characters they con- 
 tain. Under each manuscript the first column gives the several num- 
 bers of scenes in which the usual order of names, or of figures in C, is 
 found, the second column, the numbers of those which have some 
 unusual order. Under C the third column includes those in which the 
 order of figures is in doubt. 
 
 The total number of scene-headings with an unusual order of names 
 varies between 12 in A and 22 in E, M. In C an unusual order of 
 figures is found in 34 miniatures, with seven in doubt. In the case of 
 these seven, it must be remembered, the want of evidence upon which 
 to base a decision is the only reason for considering them doubtful. 
 Since in scenes having two or three characters a large majority of the 
 miniatures have the normal collocation, it is probable that nearly all, 
 possibly all of the seven were intended by the artist to be regular in 
 every respect. Even if this is true, exceptions to the usual rule are 
 found in the miniatures more frequently than in the headings. The 
 difference, however, is not so great as the several numbers seem to 
 indicate. Of the total number of scenes classified under each manu- 
 script in the first table, the percentage that have an unusual arrange- 
 ment of characters is 12 in A, 14 in L, 17 in D, Paris. 10304, 20 in E, 
 M, 21 in G, not less than 27 or more than 33 in C, and 43 in the later 
 portions of D. Between the miniatures and the scene-headings in 
 
 * Cf. p. 141. Since writing the above I am pleased to find that Mr. Weston on 
 different grounds has reached the same conclusion. See p. 43 of this volume of the 
 Harvard Studies, 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 105 
 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 injjqnoQ 
 
 w^« 000 
 
 r% 
 
 IBnsnufi 
 
 
 
 [Bnsa 
 
 Tf It »i^ 
 
 00 
 
 » 
 
 IBnsnufi 
 
 14 
 
 
 IBUS/l 
 
 "^vo 0\ 
 
 8, 
 
 m 
 
 jBnsnufi 
 
 00 00 N 
 
 00 
 
 IBnsn 
 
 N »^vO i-i 
 
 10 W 
 
 VO 
 00 
 
 :§ 
 
 jBnsnufi 
 
 vO ON"^ N 
 
 
 IBnsn 
 
 ror^oo m 
 
 *•* 
 
 a 
 
 fBnsnufi 
 
 •-< VO t^ N 
 
 
 IBnsn 
 
 ON N 00 
 »0 fO 
 
 8^ 
 
 
 
 IBnsnufi 
 
 cnt^vo N 
 
 00 
 
 14 
 
 IBnsn 
 
 N ts.00 i-i 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 [Bnsnun 
 
 *^ N 
 
 fO 
 
 IBnsn 
 
 mi-i 000 
 
 ""l- 
 
 Q 
 
 IBHsnun 
 
 HH 00 t^ fn 
 
 On 
 
 IBnsn 
 
 vo o\ t^ 
 
 ON 
 
 < 
 
 IBnsnun 
 
 Tf IT) M M 
 
 
 IBnsn 
 
 
 ON 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 Two characters .... 
 Three " .... 
 Four " .... 
 Five " .... 
 Six " .... 
 
 It 
 
 1 
 
 
 en 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 iS 
 
 Pi 
 
 •c 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 03 en 
 O 
 
 c ^ 
 
 tn »E3 
 
 O en 
 ■*-> 
 
 a 
 
 B 
 
 G 
 
 <U 
 
 X! 
 
 O 
 en 
 
 (1> 
 
 G 
 O 
 
 en 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 en 
 
 ^3 
 
 -g o 
 
 0) en 
 
 C u 
 
 •" c3 
 
 en 7? 
 
 o; VM 
 
 B S 
 
 a S 
 
 ^ G 
 
 ^ "^ 
 
 .0 ■*-» 
 
 ^ 4a* 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 (—1 
 
 en 
 
 2 P 
 
 n3 
 
 u 
 
 run . • On N 
 N 1-1 • • 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 N N ONN fON 
 
 
 s 
 
 m On N 00 VO N 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 lO N w^ N VO 
 
 HI M M 
 >4 
 
 
 
 VO >- 1-1 ir> ^ fo 
 00 i-« f" to 
 
 
 l^ « 
 
 Q 
 
 "-« "* CO '♦OO 
 
 14 
 
 < 
 
 14 vO t^vO 
 
 o 
 
 > a 
 
 I « ^ 
 I- U en 
 
 o;g o 
 
 s 
 o 
 
 c > 
 
 CA CA 
 
 C C 
 
 ej u 
 
 C/3C/2 
 
 V h< 1) QJ, 
 f <l> ■fcJ w 
 
 4) jn g ** 
 
 t/3 
 
 c 
 
 0) 4> ?^ C« 
 
io6 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 E, G, M the differences are little greater than those between the scene- 
 headings in the several mss. of the h family. 
 
 The statistics given above demonstrate that in the great majority of 
 scenes the headings and the miniatures have the characters arranged 
 according to the same principle. In scenes ako where the arrangement 
 of characters is unusual, evidence of the same principle is found, for in 
 nearly all of these the deviation from the usual order is confined to a 
 part of the names or figures. The first speaker is usually the first of 
 the speaking characters to be named or painted on the left. To this 
 rule there is one exception in A, two in L, three in D, four in Paris. 
 10304, five in E, ten in G, twelve in M, and only twelve certain excep- 
 tions in C* It is further true that the unusual arrangement is produced 
 in most instances by the position given a single name or figure, or by 
 an exchange of position between two names or figures. By changing 
 the position of one name, or by interchanging two names, most headings 
 of four or more characters can be reduced to the normal order. The 
 exceptions are one each in A, D, L, Paris. 10304, two in E, and three 
 each in G, M. If the same test is applied to the miniatures, the figures 
 in aU but five can be reduced to the normal collocation.'* In scenes of 
 three characters the reverse of the usual order is very rare. There is 
 only one instance each in C, D, L, and two in G.* 
 
 In both the headings and the miniatures the tendency toward an 
 unusual order increases rapidly with every addition to the number of 
 
 > And. 2, 6 (v. 432), C, E. M; 3, i (v. 459), C, M; 5, i (v. 820), D, E, G, 
 L, M; 5, 4 (v. 904), C, E, G, M; Haul. 2, 2 (v. 230), M; 4, i (v. 614), G, M; 
 Eun, 3, 2 (v. 454), C, G; 3. 5 (v. 549), C, M; 4, 3 (v. 643), C, Paris. 10304; 
 4, 4(v.668),C,M; 4»7(v-770.C; 5» 4. 21 (v. 943), M; /%<?rw. i, 3 (v. 153), 
 E, M; I, 4 (v. 179), G; 2, 1 (v. 231), G; 2, 3 (v. 348), C; 2, 4 (v. 441), C; 
 
 4. 5 (v- 713)* C; 5, 3, 12 (v. 795), A, D, L, M, Paris. 10304; Hec. 2, 2 (v. 243), 
 D, G, M, Paris. 10304; 3, 4 (v. 415), C; Ad, 3, 2 (v. 299), Paris. 10304; 4, i 
 (v. 517), E; 5, I (v. 763), G; 5, 3 (v. 787), G; 5, 8 (v. 924), G. On Phorm, 
 
 5, 3, 12 (v. 795), see p. 151 f. On Ad. 5, 8 (v. 924), see p. 153 f. 
 
 • And. 3. I (v. 459), C, E, M; 5, 4 (v. 904), E, G, M; Haui. 4, i (v. 614), 
 G, M; 4, 4 (v. 723). C; ^««. 3» 2 (v. 454), C, G; 4. 7 (v. 770, C; 5, 8 (v. 
 1031), D, L, Paris. 10304; Phorm. 2, 3 (v. 348), A; 2, 4 (v. 441), C. On Haut, 
 4» 4 (v. 723)* see p. 158 f. On Eun. 5, 8 (v. 1031), see p. 150 f. On Phorm, 2, 
 3 (v. 348), see p. 114. 
 
 3 Phorm. I, 4 (v. 179), G; 2, i (v. 231), G; 2, 3 (v. 348). C; 5, 3, 12 (v. 
 795), D, L. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 107 
 
 characters. In nearly every scene which has two speakers, these are 
 named or painted in the usual order. Of scenes with three speakers, 
 the percentage that have some deviation from the normal arrangement 
 is 13 in A, 16 in L, 22 in D, 23 in Paris. 10304, 25 in M, 29 in G, 32 
 in E, and 37 in C. For scenes with four or more characters the per- 
 centage is 39 in M, 40 in E, 47 in G, 50 in A, 53 in L, 59 in D, Paris. 
 
 10304, and 77 in C. 
 
 From this general comparison of the scene-headings and the minia- 
 tures with reference to the order of characters, it is clear that every 
 mark of the one is found in the other. This can scarcely be due to 
 chance, but indicates the existence of a very close relationship between 
 the two. Wherever the regular arrangement both of the names and of 
 the figures is found— and this is true of the great majority of scenes— 
 there is nothing in the order of characters to show the nature of the 
 relationship. In such places the order of names might have been 
 determined by the order of figures, or the artist might have painted the 
 figures in the order of the names in the headings, or both the headings 
 and the miniatures might have been produced by the artist at the same 
 time. Without evidence other than the order of characters in such 
 scenes, these theories seem equally possible. The evidence to decide 
 the relationship must be sought, first, in scenes where either the head- 
 ings or the miniatures, or both, have an unusual order of characters ; 
 secondly, in scenes where either the headings or the miniatures, or 
 both, contain mute characters ; thirdly, in the role-words in the scene- 
 headings. 
 
 Before the evidence from these sources is presented, it seems advis- 
 able to mention the little that has been written about the origin of the 
 scene-headings, or about the existence of some relationship between 
 the headings and the miniatures. References to these subjects are few, 
 and on the history of the headings relate to Plautus more frequently 
 than to Terence. Spengel, depending chiefly on the mss. of Plautus, 
 held that originaUy the roles alone made up the headings, the names 
 being a later addition.^ His argument seems to imply a belief that the 
 headings made up of roles must be assigned to classical times, if not to 
 the authors themselves. On somewhat different grounds, but with equal 
 
 > Sitzungsber. d. bayr. Akad. phiL-hist. CL, 1883, II, p. 257 ff. 
 
io8 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 confidence, Seyffert supports Spengel's view about the priority of the 
 rdles.^ In regard to the time of their origin Seyffert says nothing, but 
 he does conjecture that it was only in the later period of the empire 
 that the names were added in the headings. The source of the names 
 Seyffert finds in the text. This conclusion rests upon errors of different 
 kinds found in the names both in the text and in the headings. 
 
 Such is the view that appears to prevail at the present time. A some- 
 what different theory has lately been proposed by Prescott and approved 
 by Lindsay.^ They suggest that in the archetype of the Palatine mss. 
 of Plautus the names were in some way omitted, leaving only the roles 
 in the headings, and that the names have been supplied by copyists 
 from the text of the plays. In stating his conclusion, Prescott assumes 
 that not only the names in the Ambrosianus, but the roles in all mss. 
 have come down from Plautus himself. 
 
 On the origin of the headings transmitted in the mss. of Terence, 
 Dziatzko is the only scholar, so far as I know, who has expressed an 
 opinion. In the second edition of the Phormio he assigns the headings 
 to the second half of the second century b.c, or shortly thereafter.* 
 This is retained in Hauler's revision of Dziatzko's edition.* For this 
 view no evidence is adduced or arguments given, except that in the 
 period mentioned, Terence, together with other writers, was the subject 
 of the study and research of Roman scholars. The assignment of the 
 headings to the writers themselves, or even to a very eariy period, rests 
 if not on theory, at least on very slight evidence. To such an extent 
 has it been accepted that the traditional orthography in the headings 
 has been changed to that employed in the text of the plays. 
 
 Leo and Schlee are the only scholars who have discussed the possi- 
 bility of some connection between the miniatures and the scene-headings. 
 Leo barely referred to it, only to deny the existence of such a relation.* 
 He reached this conclusion chiefly on the ground of differences in 
 scene-division, but also in part because of the omission of the names of 
 
 » Burnan's Jahresbericht, XLVII (1886), p. 10 f. 
 
 » Cf. Prescott, Harv, Stud. IX, p. 102; Lindsay, Ed. CapHvi, Introd., p. 8. and 
 Am. Jour. Phil. XXI, p. 29. 
 ^ Einidiung, p. 19. 
 
 * Allgem. EinL^ p. 26. 
 
 * Rh. Mm. XXXVIII, p. 346. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 109 
 
 mute characters in headings where their figures are shown in the pic- 
 tures. Schlee went even further and tried to prove that the headings 
 transmitted with the miniatures in the illustrated mss. did not come 
 from the original manuscript adorned with pictures, but from some 
 member of the 8 family.^ Leo had compared the mss. chiefly of the y 
 and 8 families. Schlee pointed out a number of places where mute 
 characters are shown in the miniatures, but are not named in the Bem- 
 bine headings, or where these mss. are at variance in the distribution of 
 the scenes. On these grounds he denied the existence of any relation- 
 ship between the miniatures and the Bembine headings. 
 
 The evidence used by Leo and Schlee was wholly inadequate, and 
 has, in fact, led them to precisely the wrong conclusion. It has already 
 been shown in this paper that the normal arrangement of names is 
 identical with that of the figures. This alone indicates that the headings 
 and the miniatures are in some way connected. It remains, by a careful 
 analysis of the evidence, to show that the relationship is so close that 
 one must owe its origin to the other. This evidence will lead to the 
 conclusions that the miniatures were prior to the headings ; that the 
 headings are not due to the artist, but to some later person who took 
 the names from the text and applied them to the figures in the minia- 
 tures ; that the names and the roles in the headings are due to the same 
 person and have been transmitted together. 
 
 In subsequent comparisons of the headings and the miniatures, all 
 scenes are disregarded in which both the order of names and the collo- 
 cation of figures are normal. For scenes in which the order of names 
 in the several mss. is unusual, the miniatures are classified in the 
 table given on p. no. 
 
 The first two columns in this table show that in every manuscript the 
 majority of headings with an unusual order of names are found in scenes 
 where the miniatures have an unusual collocation of figures. The per- 
 centage of such headings is 55 in M, 56 in G, 58 in D, 59 in E, 63 in 
 L, 67 in A, D2, and 72 in Paris. 10304. Moreover, a comparison of 
 the order of names with the order of figures in places where they are 
 both unusual, shows that they are identical four times each in A, L, 
 Paris. 10304, three times each in D, G, twice in the later portions of D, 
 
 * Scholia Terentiana^ p. 6 ff. 
 
1 
 
 1 
 
 III I 
 
 I lO 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Classification of the Miniatures in Places where the Order of 
 
 Names is Unusual 
 
 
 Ordkr of Figu 
 
 RKS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Differences 
 
 Miniatures 
 
 Total 
 Headings 
 
 
 
 
 in Scene. 
 Division 
 
 Lost with 
 Tcxt» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unusual 
 
 Usual 
 
 Doubtful 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 D 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 19 
 
 D« 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l 
 
 G 
 
 10 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 iS 
 
 L 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 M 
 
 12 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 22 
 
 Paris. 10304 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 iS 
 
 E 
 
 13 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 22 
 
 and six times each in E, M.* In these scenes the headings exactly 
 reproduce the unusual order of characters found in the miniatures. 
 For the violation of the usual collocation of figures the explanation is 
 obvious. For the unusual arrangement of names no satisfactory expla- 
 nation has hitherto been offered. In the scenes named it seems certain 
 that the order of figures has determined the order of names. 
 
 Of the rest of the headings which have an unusual order of names in 
 scenes where the collocation of figures is unusual, nearly all preserve 
 unmistakable signs that the order of names at one time was identical 
 with the order of figures, or was intended to be so. To make this clear, 
 scenes where such headings are found are discussed in the order of 
 plays in Dziatzko's edition. 
 
 > The two scenes are And. 5, i (v. %io) and 5, 2 (v. 842). Miniatures for 
 these places are found in the Dunelmensis, but there is some reason to doubt their 
 genuineness. On this see p. 168 f. 
 
 * The scenes are: And. 2, i (v. 301), E; 2, 5 (v. 412), D*, E; 2, 6 (v. 432), 
 E, M; 3, 2 (v. 481), E, M; Haut. 2, 3 (v. 242), A; 4, 7 (v. 829), A; Eun. 3, 
 5 (v- 549), M; 4» 4(v. 668), M; 5, 8 (v. 1031), G; Phorm. 2, i (v. 231), A, D, 
 L, Paris. 10304; 4, 3 (v. 606), D*, L; 5, 3 (v. 784), E; Ad. 2, 4 (v. 265), A, 
 Paris. 10304 (roles); 3, 4 (v. 447), D, E, G, L, M, Paris. 10304; 4, 2 (v. 540), 
 D, G, L, M, Paris. 10304. 
 
 To this list must be added the headings preserved before And. 2, i (v. 301), in 
 two Mss. of the so-called Donatus commentary. See P. Wessner's edition, Vol. I, 
 1902, Praef.^ p. xlvii. 
 
 Sce7ie-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 III 
 
 And. 3, I (v. 459). The headings in D, E, G, L, M, Paris. 10304 
 give the names of the two women on the left, and of the two men on 
 the right,^ in this corresponding with the miniatures. Moreover, in E, M 
 Davus is named between Simo and the women, thus preserving the 
 order of figures. In these two mss. Glycerium is named because she is 
 shown in the pictures. In M, Lesbia is named first because the figure 
 supporting Glycerium was thought to be this character.^ 
 
 And. 5, 4 (v. 904). As in the miniatures, Pamphilus is the first 
 character in E, G, M. Except for the last two senes^ who can easily 
 be confused, the headings in these mss. reproduce the order of figures. 
 That this was true also of the copies from which D, L, Paris. 10304 are 
 derived, scarcely admits of doubt. These still preserve the order of the 
 senes found in G, M, of the same family, and examples are found in 
 every manuscript where the first name was displaced, if it was not that 
 of the first speaker.^ 
 
 * In Paris. 10304 Simo is the second character named, Lesbia, the third, but this 
 is shown by the roles obstetrix in second place and senex in third to be a change. 
 
 ^ A heading which must have come from one like that in M is preserved in Pari- 
 sinus A of the Donatus commentary. Davus and Simo are named in the same order 
 as in M, Glycerium is not mentioned, while the name of Lesbia according to the 
 usual practice was transferred from the first place to the last. 
 
 ^ Changes of this nature are pointed out in the discussion of individual scenes, 
 but it seems advisable to give complete statistics. According to the theory here 
 presented, the names originally coincided, or were intended to coincide with the 
 figures. In about 24 places, either from the correct identification of figures which 
 cannot easily be confused, or from errors in identifying figures which can easily be 
 confused, the first name written on the left was not that of the first speaker. Wher- 
 ever this unusual order of names was found, the analogy of regular headings must 
 have prompted copyists to alter the arrangement, in order to give the name of the 
 first speaker its usual place. In Hec. 2, 2 (v. 243), D, G, M, Paris. 10304, the 
 original assignment still remains. In Eun. 3, 2 (v. 454), A, G, and Phorm. 2, 4 
 (v. 441), D, E, L, the names have in part been reduced to the normal order. In 
 five scenes which have but two characters each, any change produced the usual 
 order. The original assignment at these places is still found in And. 2, 6 (v. 432), 
 E, M; Haut. 2, 2 (v. 230), M; Eun. 3, 5 (v. 549), M (?); Phorm. I, 3 (v. 153), 
 E, M; Ad. 5, 3 (v. 787), G. In the remaining thirteen scenes, names now found 
 in one or more mss. on the right were originally in all probability first on the left. 
 These are: And. 3, i (v. 459), Don., cf. M; 5, 4 (v. 904), D, L, Paris. 10304, cf. 
 E, G, M; Haut. 4, I (v. 614), D, G, M, Paris. 10304; 4, 4 (v. 723), D, G, M; 
 Eun. 4, 4 (v. 668), E, cf. M; 4, 7 (v. 771), E; Phorm. 2, 3 (v. 348), A, D, M; 
 
112 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 HauL 4, I (v. 614). The figures of the two women were confused 
 so that the role of the nutrix appeared first on the left, the name of 
 Sostrata second. That some one has taken liberties with the Bembine 
 heading is shown by the fact that the nutrix is called Canthara, though 
 she is nowhere named in the text.^ It is not unlikely that the names 
 were reduced by this person to the usual order. In other mss. the role 
 nutrix was removed from the first to the last place, producing the order 
 of characters still found in D, Paris. 10304. In G, M, also, the nutrix 
 is still named last of all, but in some way the names of Sostrata and 
 Chremes have been interchanged. 
 
 Haut. 4, 4 (v. 723). The first figure was given the name of Phrygia, 
 the second, Bacchis. In order that the name of Bacchis might be first 
 as usual, some one removed the name of Phrygia to the last place in the 
 heading. This gives the order of names preserved in D, an order that 
 still reproduces the relative positions of Clinia and the two slaves in the 
 picture. The same order is found also in G, M, save that the names of 
 Clinia and Dromo have been interchanged. 
 
 Eun, 3, 1 (v. 454). The last two figures on the right in the minia- 
 tures are Parmeno and Phrygia. In the headings at this place in A, G 
 their names still occupy this position. Gnatho, who would be named 
 fourth in the normal order, is the first in the miniatures. Such was 
 probably the position of his name in manuscripts from which A, G 
 are derived.* The interchange of the first and third names in the Bem- 
 
 3, 2 (v. 485), A, E, M; 3, 3 (v. 534), E; 4, 5 (v. 713), E; Hec, 3, 5 (v. 451), 
 E; 4, 4 (v. 623), E, L; Ad, 5, 2 (v. 776), A, D, E, L, M, Paris. 10304. To 
 these should probably be added three scenes in which mute characters, whose figures 
 are painted first on the left, are named last on the right: Hec, 5, 2 (v. 767), A; 
 Ad. 2, I (v. 15s), A, D, G, L, M, V; 3, 3 (v. 355), A. 
 
 * This is found in the Bembine heading alone. In Eun. 5, 5 (v. 971), the same 
 manuscript gives Demea as the name of the senexy while in the later mss. he is called 
 Laches. In Ad, 2, i (v. 155), the Bembinus gives the name of the meretrix as 
 Bacchis. Since none of these names are found in the text of the plays named, they 
 are equally without authority. They must be ascribed to copyists, who supplied 
 them from characters of the same r61e and name in other plays. Cf. Haupt, Opusc, 
 III, p. 457, and Spengel, op. cit.y p. 258 ff. 
 
 On the name Dromo, Ad. 5, 2 (v. 776), see p. 118, n. i. 
 
 ' In one of the mss. containing the Donatus commentary a heading is preserved 
 in which the order of names is identical with that in the Bembinus. Cf. P. Wess- 
 ner's edition, Fratf.^ Vol. I, p. xlviii. 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 113 
 
 bine heading gives the exact order of the five speakers in the pictures. 
 The same result can be produced in G by changing Gnatho's name from 
 third to first place. Thraso, not Thais, is named first in the heading in 
 this manuscript. The failure to give the first name the usual position, is 
 probably due to a copyist's confusing the notae of the characters named. 
 
 Eun. 4, 3 (v. 643). In the headings in E, G, as in the miniatures, 
 Phaedria appears between the two ancillae. The order of names is 
 probably due to an error in the identification of the ancillae, for if the 
 names of these were interchanged, the headings would reproduce the 
 order of figures. In Paris. 10304 Phaedria is named first, followed by 
 Pythias and Dorias in this order. This heading has probably been pro- 
 duced by removing the name of one ancilla from the first place. If it 
 was the name of Pythias, the order was originally that now found in 
 E, G ; if it was Dorias, the original heading reproduced the order of 
 figures. 
 
 Eun, 4, 4 (v. ddZ), If the r61e of Doras were written first instead 
 of last in the heading in E, this would illustrate the order of figures, 
 including probably that of the two ancillae. That Dorus was named 
 first in some manuscript from which E is derived is neariy certain, since 
 M, to which E is in some way related,^ still has the name of Dorus in 
 this position. 
 
 Eun, 4, 7 (v. 771) . If the name of Sanga were written first on the 
 left instead of last on the right, the heading in E would give the precise 
 order of speaking-characters, according to the interpretation of Wieseler 
 approved in this paper. The first four names, in other words, still pre- 
 serve the order of the last four figures of speakers. 
 
 Eun, 5, 8 (v. 1 031). The scene-headings at this place afford a good 
 illustration of the manner in which differences in the mss. have obscured 
 the relationship existing between the headings and the miniatures. The 
 differences in scene-division at v. 1049 were cited by Leo in support of 
 his argument against such a relationship. ^ There can be little doubt, 
 however, that at one time all mss. had a new scene beginning at the 
 verse named.* The name of Phaedria, who enters at this place, was 
 
 » These two mss. agree against all others in And. 2, 2 (v. 338) ; 2, 6 (v. 432) ; 
 3, 2 (v. 481); Phorm. i, 3 (v. 153). They are also in close agreement in And. 
 3> I (v. 459) and Phorm. 3, 2 (v. 485). 
 
 « Cf. p. 108. 3 Seep. isof. 
 
114 
 
 John Calvin Waisan 
 
 M 
 
 inserted in the previous heading when the two scenes were united in A 
 and the 8 mss. One proof of this is the fact that if the name of Phae- 
 dria is dropped from the headings in A, D, L, Paris. 10304 before 
 V. 1 03 1, the remaining four names reproduce the order of figures in the 
 pictures. This order, it has been pointed out,* depends not upon the 
 dialogue, but upon a distribution of the dialogue preserved only in the 
 illustrated mss. 
 
 Phorm, 2, I (v. 231). There is no doubt that in G the name of 
 Demipho was accidentally displaced, and added after the other two 
 names. These names still show the order of Phaedria and Geta. If 
 Demipho is restored to the first place in the heading, G will agree with 
 D, L, Paris. 10304, which belong to the same family, in preserving the 
 order of all the figures. 
 
 Phorm. 2, 3 (v. 348). The headings give evidence strongly con- 
 firming my interpretation of the miniatures at this place.^ If this 
 was correct, the order of figures is as follows : Phormio, Geta, Demipho, 
 Hegio, Cratinus, Crito. Since Demipho is the first speaker, some 
 change was necessary in a heading originating from a correct assign- 
 ment of names to the figures. The change was made by removing to 
 the end of the heading the first two names, the relative order of which 
 was preserved. The result is the peculiar arrangement of names pre- 
 served in A. If the names of the advocati are omitted, the same order 
 is found in D, M.* In the Bembinus, therefore, the advocati, as 
 Umpfenbach observed,* cling closely to Demipho, and the heading is 
 strong evidence that as early at least as the fourth or fifth century, the 
 first figure was identified as Phormio. 
 
 Phorm, 2, 4 (v. 441). The headings in D, E, L still have the order 
 of the advocati pictured in the miniatures. For this reason it can hardly 
 be doubted that the names of Demipho and Geta have been inter- 
 changed. 
 
 Phorm. 4, 5 (v. 713). The order of names in E arose from a cor- 
 rect assignment to the figures. The name of Chremes, the third 
 speaker, was not permitted to remain first on the left, but was dis- 
 placed and written last in the heading. 
 
 ' See p. 90 f. 
 
 ^ For the heading preserved at this place in L, see p. 124. 
 
 * Ed. crit. Prae/.y p. x. 
 
 * See p. 92 ff. 
 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 115 
 
 Phorm. 5, 9 (v. 990). The position of Phormio, who is named last 
 in the headings in A, Paris. 10304, is explained by the pictures. This 
 is another instance of an order of names in the Bembinus opposed to 
 the distribution of the dialogue preserved in this manuscript. 
 
 Such is the list of scenes where the names do not reproduce the pre- 
 cise order of figures, but do contain indubitable evidence that in eariier 
 MSS. they did so, or were intended to do so. The number of headings 
 thus explained is four each in A, L, five in M, six in Paris. 10304, and 
 seven each in D, E, G. To these may be added those which exactly 
 preserve the unusual order of figures, thus giving the totals for scenes 
 where both the miniatures and the headings have an unusual order of 
 characters, and the headings preserve the evidence of their origin from 
 the pictures. Scenes of this nature are eight each in A, L, ten each in 
 D, G, Paris. 10304, two in D^, eleven in M, and thirteen in E. In such 
 scenes the number of headings that contain some violation of the usual 
 arrangement, and yet have no clear indication of their origin from the 
 miniatures is one each in D, M, two in L, and three in Paris. 10304.^ 
 There are none whatever in A, E, G. In part of the exceptions noted 
 in the other mss. it is probable that changes in the order of names have 
 been such that they can no longer be traced. 
 
 The next class of scene-headings to require notice are those with an 
 unusual order of names in scenes where the collocation of figures is per- 
 fectly regular. Headings of this nature vary from three each in A, L, 
 Paris. 10304 to seven each in E, M. It is here that the theory advanced 
 in this paper ought to break down if it is incorrect. Instead of break- 
 ing down, it receives from this source some of its strongest support. In 
 nearly all such scenes the unusual order of names originated in errors in 
 the assignment of names to the figures.^ Except in five instances, the 
 
 * These places are Haut. 4, 4 (v. 723), Paris. 10304; Eun. 5, 8 (v. 103 1), M; 
 Phorm. s, 9 (v. 990), L; Ad. 3, 2 (v. 299), Paris. 10304; 5, 7 (v. 899), D, L, 
 Paris. 10304. On the heading in L before Phorm. 5, 9 (v. 990) see further p. 152 f. 
 On Ad. 3, 2 (v. 299), see p. 143, n. 2. 
 
 « The exceptions are And. 2, 4 (v. 404), D«; Haut. 3, 3 (v. 562), D; Eun. 
 5, 4, 21 (v. 943), M; Ad. 4, I (v. 517), E; 5, i (v. 763), G. The heading 
 referred to in M, has come, not from the miniatures, but from a late change in the 
 division of scenes. On this see p. 142. The other four must be ascribed to accident, 
 or to the carelessness of copyists. 
 
ii6 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 headings contain characters whose figures in the miniatures are easily 
 confused, and it is in the names of these that the unusual order is found.^ 
 The original assignment still remains once each in A, L, twice each in 
 E, G, Paris. 10304,^ three times in D, and four times in M.* In some 
 scenes having three or four characters, figures having the same role are 
 placed first on the left in the miniatures. The error in the assignment 
 caused the name of a character, who is not the first speaker, to be written 
 first on the left at these places. Some of these still remain, but in other 
 cases the first name was displaced in order to give the name of the first 
 speaker its usual position. In the class of headings under consideration 
 this has happened once each in D, G, Paris. 10304, twice each in A, L, 
 M, and four times in E.* 
 
 Of scenes with headings of this class, three are important enough to 
 deserve special mention. 
 
 Haut 5, 5 (v. 1045). This is the place where it is difficult to dis- 
 tinguish between the two figures on the right in the miniatures. These 
 two figures represent Sostrata and her son Clitipho. The identification 
 given in the discussion of this place rests entirely upon the dress of the 
 two characters.*^ Since the difference in this respect is small, an error 
 in the assignment was easy. That such an error was made, is probable, 
 since the headings at this place in A, D have Clitipho's name third, 
 Sostrata's last on the right. This was probably also true of the manu- 
 script from which G was copied, for in the heading in G, Sostrata is 
 
 > Of the twelve scenes with a total of 29 headings of this nature, eleven scenes 
 with a total of 26 headings have characters of the same r81e. 
 
 * In the heading preserved in G before Phorm. 1,4 (v. 179) the name of Geta 
 was displaced, probably by accident, and written last of all. Cf . p. 1 14 on Phorm, 
 
 2, I (v. 231). 
 
 » The places are And, 4, 2 (v. 684), D, L, Paris. 10304; Haui. 2, 2 (v. 230), 
 M; Haut. 5, 5 (v. 1045), A, D; Phorm. i, 3 (v. 153), E, M; i, 4 (v. 179), E, 
 G, M; Hec. 2, 2 (v. 243), D, G, M, Paris. 10304; Ad. 5, 3 (v. 787), G. 
 
 * The places are Phorm. 3, 2 (v. 485), A, M; 3, 3 (v. 534), E; Hec. 3, 5 (v. 
 451), E; 4, 4 (v. 623), E, L; Ad. 5, 2 (v. 776), A, D, E, L, M, Paris. 10304. 
 
 * The difficulty which copyists found in distinguishing between the figures of 
 women and young men is well illustrated by the miniatures before And. 3, i (v. 459) 
 and Haut. 4, 4 (v. 723) . In the first of these the corrector in C failed to recognize 
 that the fourth figure represents a female character. In the second both the copyist 
 and the conector confused the figures of male and female characters. 
 
 A 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 117 
 
 named in second place, and this is best explained as an unsuccessful 
 attempt to reduce the names to the normal order. 
 
 Fhorm. 3, 2 (v. 485). The appearance of the two young men on 
 the left is so similar that they can be distinguished only with the aid of 
 the text. This source of evidence makes it very probable that Phaedria 
 is the first and Antipho the second figure. In early mss., however, the 
 names were assigned in the opposite order. Since Phaedria is the first 
 speaker in the scene, a change was natural in order to give his name the 
 usual position. To effect this the name of Antipho was transferred to 
 the third place, apparently, where it is now found in A, E, M, thus 
 giving the only example of a separation of two characters of the same 
 role in the Bembine headings. The position of Antipho's name may 
 have been determined by the fact that he is the third speaker, but there 
 is no satisfactory explanation of the failure to name him, either next 
 after Phaedria, or last of all.^ 
 
 Ad. 5, 2 (v. 776). The miniatures present two slaves on the left 
 and Demea on the right. The two slaves, typical of their class, can be 
 distinguished only with the aid of the text. The first of them is shown 
 
 * Since Geta is not named in the heading preserved in E, as a result of which the 
 name of Antipho is last on the right, it might be supposed that this gives the key to 
 the problem. It is true that in the majority of defective headings the names omitted 
 are those of characters who not only have unimportant parts, but who also speak 
 very few words in the scenes in question. Headings of this nature are as follows : 
 Haut. 4, I (v. 614), E, L; 4, 4 (v. 723), E, L; Eun. 3, 2 (v. 454), (D), E, L, 
 Paris. 10304; 4, 7 (v. 771), D, L; Phorm. 3, 2 (r. 485), E; Hec. 2, 2 (v. 243), 
 E; Ad. 3, 2 (v. 299), E; 5, 7 (v. 899), E, G; 5, 8 (v. 924), E. These places 
 afford no evidence that in the names of speakers, at least, the original headings were 
 defective. Such a theory is disproved by the fact that in the Bembinus no names of 
 speakers are omitted, and by the close connection between the headings in all classes 
 of MSS. It may be considered certain that where the names of speakers are omitted, 
 this is due to copyists in the transmission of the mss. 
 
 Defective headings, not included above, are of several classes. In five headings 
 which omit the names of important characters, the defect was made by late changes 
 in the distribution of scenes. These ^xq .Eun. 5, 8 (v. 1031), E; Phorm. 5, 8 
 (v. 894), D; 5, 9 (v. 990), M; Ad. 5, 8 (v. 924), L, Paris. 10304. On the first 
 see p. 150 f., the second and third, p. 152 f., the fourth, p. 153 f. 
 
 Two headings have become defective by the accidental omission of names : And. 
 2, I Cv. 301), G; 4, I (v. 625), M. 
 
 In nine headings Ita G, all in the Phormio, the names were all omitted except 
 those of the first, or of the first and second speakers. 
 
 < » 
 
ii8 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 with a strong gesture in the direction of the other two characters ; the 
 second is holding the end of Demea's pallium. Since the dialogue in 
 V. 5 ff. indicates that Syras makes some attempt to prevent Demea from 
 entering the house, toward the door of which the figure of Demea is 
 turned, there can be little doubt that the figure holding Demea's /tf///«»i 
 is Syrus. The collocation, therefore, is normal. Since there is little or 
 nothing in the manner in whfch Syrus is holding the pallium that indi- 
 cates his purpose, and since the gesture of the other slave might easily 
 be thought to be directed toward Demea, the person who made up the 
 headings erred in his interpretation. To the first figure he gave the 
 name Syrus, to the second, the m\t puer and possibly the name Dromo.^ 
 The role puer in the headings at this place is inexplicable on any other 
 grounds.^ Since the character thus denoted is the first speaker, the 
 usual change was made in order to give his name (or role) the first 
 place. The name of Syrus was transferred to the end of the heading, 
 where it still remains in A, D, E, L, M, Paris. 10304. In G the head- 
 ing was never written. With this single exception, the non-illustrated 
 Mss. give the name Dromo next before Demea, an order that betrays 
 the misinterpretation of the miniatures by the author of the scene- 
 headings. 
 
 This concludes the list of scenes in which the collocation of figures 
 is normal, and the order of names is unusual. Of thirty-four headings 
 of this nature, all but five can easily be explained as arising from errors 
 in naming characters pictured in the miniatures. 
 
 The third class of headings in the table on p. 1 10 covers those found 
 in places where the order of figures is in doubt. The only examples of 
 such headings are those in E, G, M, before And, 2, 2 (v. 338). These 
 are to be explained as representing one of the two possible interpreta- 
 tions of the miniatures. 
 
 * Though Dromo is the name of a mute character in v. 376, there is no ground 
 for believing that it is the name of the first speaker in the scene under consideration. 
 The name Stephanio would be quite as appropriate, but, like the name Dromo, it 
 would be another example of an arbitrary assignment. The headings in mss. of all 
 classes give the name Dromo, showing that it has come down from an early period, 
 but it is doubtful whether it is to be ascribed to the author of the headings. In the 
 other three places where arbitrary names are found — see p. 112, n. i — differences 
 in the mss. show in all probabiUty that they are due to copyists. 
 
 ■ Sec p. 132 f. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 119 
 
 To the remaining two classes of headings which have an unusual 
 order of names, a peculiar interest attaches. The first class includes 
 only those found before And. 5, i (v. 820) and 5, 2 (v. 842), at both 
 of which places an ancestor of C, P had lost the miniatures with about 
 fifty verses of the text. The second class consists first, of headings in 
 A, S in or before Phorni, 5, 3, 12 (v. 795), secondly, of a heading in G 
 before Ad, 5, 8 (v. 924). In the first of these, the illustrated mss. have 
 no miniatures, in the second, they have miniatures, but the number of 
 characters pictured is not that named in G, because the division of 
 scenes in v. 958 is involved. Since the headings in neither of these 
 classes can be compared with the miniatures in C, P, they will be dis- 
 regarded for the present. The first will be considered in discussing 
 the relationship existing among the several illustrated mss.,^ the second 
 in connection with the subject of scene-division.^ 
 
 In the table given on p. no the miniatures are classified for each of 
 the scenes in the several mss. where the order of names is unusual. 
 Similarly for the thirty-four scenes where the collocation of figures is 
 unusual, the headings are classified in the following table : 
 
 Classification of the Scene-Headings in Places where the 
 
 Order of Figures is Unusual 
 
 
 Order of Names 
 
 Headings 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Differences 
 
 Headings 
 
 
 
 
 
 in Scene- 
 Division 
 
 Lost with 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Text 
 
 
 Unusual 
 
 Usual 
 
 Defective 
 
 Omitted 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 9. 
 
 D 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 D« 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 10 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 L 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 M 
 
 12 
 
 IS 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 Paris. 10304 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 £ 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 In the table above the first class of scenes is identical with the first 
 class on p. no, and has been fully considered. The second class of 
 
 > See p. 168 f. 
 
 * See p. 154. 
 
I20 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 headings includes all in the thirty-four scenes under discussion that 
 have the normal order of names. If the theory here advanced is 
 correct, in these scenes also the names were originally arranged, or were 
 intended to be arranged in the peculiar order of the figures. The fact 
 that they are now in the normal order is easily explained. In the great 
 majority of scenes the correct assignment of names to the figures gave 
 the usual arrangement in the headings. It was inevitable that, on the 
 analogy of these, some of the others should be reduced to the normal 
 order. The evidence that changes of this nature have been made, is 
 presented in the following pages. 
 
 The tendency to reduce an unusual order of names to one that is 
 perfectly normal, is well illustrated in headings where the arrangement 
 of characters is unusual, but not identical with the collocation of figures. 
 In nearly all of these, as was shown above, some of the names preserve 
 the order of the figures, while the rest have been changed either to the 
 normal order, or to one that more nearly approaches it. 
 
 That changes have been made in the order of names, is shown by the 
 Mss. of the S family. With but few exceptions the headings in these 
 are descended from a common original, as is proved by their occasional 
 agreement in a peculiar order of names,^ and by certain characteristic 
 marks in the role-words and in the arrangement of the names and roles.' 
 Notwithstanding their origin from a common source, the headings in 
 MSS. of this family are now at variance in the order of names in thirty- 
 five scenes. In two of these the loss of the miniatures,' and in two 
 others differences in scene-division* prevent any comparison of the 
 order of names with the order of figures. In four places the peculiar 
 order of names must be ascribed to the carelessness of copyists.* In 
 seventeen scenes it reproduces in whole or in part the unusual colloca- 
 
 * Cf. Ad. 3, 4 (v, 447); 4, 2 (v. 540); 5, 2 (v. 776). Cf. also Hec. 2, 2 
 (v. 243), D, G, M, Paris. 10304, and the position of the name Nausistrata, Phorm, 
 5, 3, 12 (v. 795). 
 
 * See p. 165 ff. This test cannot be applied to the Lipsiensis, in which the rSles 
 are usually omitted. 
 
 » And. 5, I (v. 820); 5, 2 (v. 842). 
 
 * Phorm. 5, 3, 12 (v. 795); Ad. 5, 8 (v. 924). 
 
 * Haut. 3, 3 (v. 562), D; Ad. 3, 2 (v. 299), Paris. 10304; 5, i (v. 763), G; 
 5. 7 (v. 899), D, L, Paris. 10304. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miiiiatiires in Terence 
 
 121 
 
 1/ 
 
 tion of figures,^ in another place it represents one assignment to the 
 doubtful order of figures,^ while in nine it can easily be explained as 
 arising from errors in the assignment of names to a normal collocation 
 of figures.* -In twenty-seven scenes, therefore, a peculiar order of 
 names, having, apparently, some connection with the order of figures, 
 is preserved in part of the mss. of the 8 family, while other members of 
 the same family transmit either the normal order of names, or one that 
 in some degree approaches it. 
 
 From this comparison of the several mss. of the 8 family, it is obvious 
 that changes have been made in the order of names. The direction in 
 which the changes were made is of the utmost importance in determin- 
 ing the history both of the headings and of the miniatures. If, as has 
 previously been assumed, these were in no way connected in origin, 
 they could scarcely have been brought together in a manuscript without 
 some attempt to adapt the names to the figures. On the ground that 
 the copyist of D had more space than he could conveniently use, 
 Dziatzko conjectured that the manuscript of which D is a copy was 
 illustrated.* This suggests the theory that the varying order of names 
 is the result of changes from the normal order to, or in the direction of 
 the real or the supposed order of figures. Such a theory cannot be 
 accepted. The unusual order of names is not confined to any manu- 
 script of the 8 family, but is found in all. This disposes of Dziatzko's 
 conjecture, which had reference to D alone, for there is not the slightest 
 evidence that in the headings in this manuscript, more than in the others, 
 an attempt was made to adapt the names to the order of the figures. 
 It may be suggested that the representatives of the 8 family from which 
 our MSB. are derived, were illustrated, and that the adaptation of the 
 
 » And. 2, 6 (v. 432), M; 3, I (v. 459) » D» G, L, M, Paris. 10304; 3, 2 (v. 481), 
 M; 5, 4 (v. 904), G, M; Haut. 4, i (v. 614), D, Paris. 10304; 4, 4 (v. 723), D; 
 Eun. 3, 2 (v. 454), G; 3, 5 (v. 549), M; 4, 3 (v. 643), G, Paris. 10304; 4, 4 
 (v. 668), M; 5, 8 (v. 1031) D, G, L, Paris. 10304; Phorm. 2, i (v. 231), D, G, 
 L, Paris. 10304; 2, 3 (v. 348) D, L, M; 2, 4 (v. 441), D, L; 4, 3 (v. 606), L; 
 5, 9 (v. 990), Paris. 10304; Ad. 2, 4 (v. 265), Paris. 10304 (roles). 
 
 * And. 2, 2 (v. 338), G, M. 
 
 * And. 4, 2 (v. 684), D, L, Paris. 10304; Haut. 2, 2 (v. 230), M; 5, 5 (v. 
 1045), D; Phorm. i, 3 (v. 153), M; i, 4 (v. 179), M; 3, 2 (v. 485), M; Hec, 
 2, 2 (v. 243), D, G, M, Paris. 10304; 4» 4 (v. 623), L; Ad. 5, 3 (v. 787), G. 
 
 * Rh. Mus. XLVII, p. 638. 
 
122 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 names to the figures went on independently in the several mss., precisely 
 as we see it in C, F, O, P. This might account for the differences in 
 the several mss., for in the places under examination no two of them 
 agree very closely in the order of names.* A closer scrutiny shows 
 insuperable objections. Such a theory would require the belief that 
 there were stages in the adaptation of the names to the figures, and 
 that the miniatures were lost when the work was but half completed ; 
 that to figures difficult to identify, names were assigned more readily 
 than to those which cannot be confused; or that egregious blunders 
 were made in the identification of figures.* If the theory were correct, 
 it would be inconceivable that the mss. of this family should agree in 
 only two scenes in giving the names in an order appropriate to the 
 unusual collocation of figures ;' it would be equally impossible that in a 
 third place they should agree in an order entirely unsuited to the normal 
 collocation.* 
 
 For these reasons such a theory seems utterly untenable. In contrast 
 with it, the hypothesis that the change was from the real or the supposed 
 order of figures to, or in the direction of the normal order, leads to an 
 archetype, finds in the analogy of regular headings the grounds which 
 suggested changes, and discovers the principles according to which the 
 changes were made. 
 
 In a few places where headings in mss. of this family have the normal 
 order of names, the r61es preserve evidence that changes have been 
 made. Before And, 2, i (v. 301) the repetition of adulescens with 
 the name of Famphilus in D is easily explained, if both the name and 
 the role have been transferred to this position from the last place on 
 the right, the position which the figure of Famphilus occupies in the 
 miniatures. Similarly the omission of a numeral in D, Fans. 10304 
 before And, 2, 2 (v. 338) is probably due to a change in the position 
 given the names of the young men, the earlier order being still preserved 
 in G. Another instance of the repetition of the role adulescens is found 
 
 * The MSS. may be divided into two groups, for D, L, Paris. 10304 are several 
 times opposed to G, M. 
 
 * Among the places where the order of names is inexplicable by such a theory are 
 And, 3, 1 (v. 459); 5, 4 (v. 904); Phorm. 2, 4 (v. 441). 
 
 » Ad. 3, 4 (v. 447); 4, 2 (v. 540). 
 
 * ^^.5,2 (v. 776). 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 123 
 
 in G, M, before And, 4, 2 (v. 684).^ This alone indicates that the 
 archetype of the family named the young men in the reverse of the 
 usual order, the original assignment being still found in D, L, Faris. 
 10304. The omission of a numeral in D before Haut, 2, 2 (v. 230) 
 points to an order of names in the archetype like that transmitted in M. 
 Evidence of the same nature in the headings preserved in D, M before 
 Eun, 4, 3 (v. 643) points to an arrangement of names in the archetype 
 like that in G. Finally the omission of a numeral in D, M before Eun, 
 4, 4 (v. 668) seems to show that the order of names assigned the two 
 ancillae was reversed in the archetype.^ 
 
 In these six places the roles indicate that the archetype of the family 
 had an unusual order of names, which, in the process of transmission, 
 has been reduced to the normal arrangement. In four of them evidence 
 from this source leads to an order of names still preserved in one or 
 more of the members of this family.* 
 
 In two scenes the position given mute characters is all but decisive 
 evidence that the normal headings at these places are due to changes in 
 the order of names. Before Eun, 4, 7 (v. 771) the five mss. of the 
 8 family have the speakers named in the regular order, except that in 
 D, L, Sanga is omitted. In all of them except G, mute characters are 
 named, and in every instance this is in the middle of the heading on 
 the extreme right of the names of the attacking party. The headings, 
 therefore, agree with the miniatures so closely in this respect as to pre- 
 clude the thought of chance. Moreover, it is possible to determine the 
 original order with reasonable certainty. It is probably no accident 
 that the names of Syrus and Sanga are omitted in D, L.* Since their 
 
 * The heading in G, which Umpfenbach gives as defective, is in fact complete 
 and resembles that found in M. 
 
 ' The numeral is omitted also in And. 2, 2, (v. 338), G; Phorm. i, 4 (v. 179), 
 G; Ad. 4, 3 (v. 592), M. The role is repeated in And. 4, i (v. 625), G; Eun, 
 3, 5 (v. 549), M. One or two of these, and especially the last, may give evidence 
 that a normal order of names was adapted to the order, or the supposed order of 
 figures, but the headings transmitted in G, M have too many variations to give very 
 satisfactory evidence. 
 
 ' Evidence from this source is scanty, because it is restricted to scenes in which 
 two characters of the same role participate, and because in about half of the headings 
 in G, M, and in nearly all of those in L, the roles are omitted. 
 
 * Cf. p. 117, n. I. According to P. Wessner, Praef. to his edition of Donatus, 
 
124 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 ' 
 
 figures are first on the left in the miniatures, the omission of their names 
 was probably the device of a copyist to restore the name of Thraso, the 
 first speaker, to its usual position. If the first figure was named Syrus, 
 the sixth was necessarily given the name of Gnatho. In the headings 
 Donax is named in this place. An interchange of position between 
 these two names will give the exact order of the last four figures of the 
 attacking party as interpreted by Wieseler. There is no reason, there- 
 fore, to doubt that the headings at this place have suffered changes in 
 the order of names, and that the order was formerly that of the figures 
 in the miniatures.^ In interpreting the intent of the artist, the person 
 who created the headings reached the same conclusion as Wieseler. 
 
 The second scene is Fhorm, 2, 3 (v. 348), where the heading in L is 
 as follows : 
 
 DEMIPHO HEGIO CRITO CRATINVS GETA PHORMIO 
 
 The rest of the mss. of this femily omit the names of the three advocaH, 
 who are mute characters for this scene. The normal order of speakers 
 in L must be due to changes, for D, M still have Phormio and Geta 
 named in the relative order of their figures in the pictures. Moreover, 
 in L, as in A, the advocati, though in a somewhat different order, follow 
 immediately after the name of Demipho. This similarity, together with 
 the evidence of D, M, makes it probable that the archetype of this 
 family had the names, both of the speaking characters and of the advo- 
 cati, in exact accord either with the collocation of figures, or with the 
 order of names transmitted in A. 
 
 The evidence from these various sources leads to the conclusion that 
 in nearly every scene where the 8 codices are at variance, the unusual 
 Older of names is either that which existed in the archetype, or it has 
 arisen from it. In such places a normal order of names, or one in any 
 degree approaching it, is the result of changes due to the analogy of 
 headings with the usual arrangement. Of the thirty-one scenes, there- 
 fore, where a comparison of the varying order of names with the collo- 
 cation of figures is possible, in twenty-seven the original order of names 
 
 Vol. I, p. xlix, the name of Sanga is omitted also in a heading preserved in one of 
 the MSS. which contain the commentary. 
 
 * On the r61e lorarius at this place in D, M see p. 132. 
 
 il 
 
 ' 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 125 
 
 cither reproduced the order of figures, or was intended to do so. This 
 conclusion is not weakened by the seventeen scenes where the order of 
 figures is unusual, but no variations occur in the order of names. In 
 four of these any comparison is precluded by differences in the division 
 of scenes.^ In two the headings, without exception, give the collocation 
 of figures.* In And, 2, i (v. 301) the roles in D give evidence that 
 the original heading had the names in the order of the figures. In 
 Eun, 4, 7 (v. 771) the position of mute characters in the headings is 
 inexplicable upon any other theory. In seven scenes any error in 
 assigning names to figures which might easily be confused would result 
 in the normal order.' Out of thirty-four scenes, therefore, but two 
 remain in which it is necessary to suppose that the reduction of the 
 names to the normal order has left no traces of the change.* 
 
 In the Bembinus fourteen scenes in which the collocation is unusual 
 have the usual arrangement of names. It is not necessary to hold that 
 the headings in all of these places do not have the original order of 
 names, for in six an error in assignment would have given the order 
 transmitted in A.* In the remaining eight scenes, according to the 
 theory advanced in this paper, changes have been made. The headings 
 are so regular in every way that not more than one or two preserve any 
 evidence of such changes. Reference has been made to Haut, 4, i 
 (v. 614), where the Bembinus alone gives a name for the nutrix^ 
 Since she is nowhere named in the play, this designation was wholly 
 arbitrary. It gives no direct evidence that the order of names at this 
 place has been changed, but it is improbable that a copyist who would 
 venture to supply a name unwarranted by the text would hesitate to 
 reduce the names to the normal order. 
 
 Before Ad, 3, 4 (v. 447) an almost certain trace of a change in order 
 remains. Though two senes are active in the scene, and according to 
 
 > Haut. 4, 7 (v. 829) ; Eun. 5, 9 (v. 1049) » Phorm. 5, 3 (v. 784) ; Ad. 5, 9 
 
 (v.958)- 
 
 « Ad. 3, 4 (v. 447); 4, 2 (v. 540). 
 
 » And. 3, 4 (v. 580) ; 5, 3 (v. 872) ; Haut. 2, 3 (v. 242) ; Phorm. 4, 5 (v. 713); 
 
 Hec. 3, 4 (v. 415); Ad. 2,^ (v. 299); 5, 7 (v. 899). 
 
 * And. 2, 5 (v. 412); Phorm. 5, 8 (v. 894). 
 
 » Eun. 3, 5 (v. 549) ; P^rm. 4, 3 (v. 606) ; 4, 5 (v. 713) ; Hec. 3, 4 (v. 415) ; 
 Ad, 3, 2 (v. 299); 5, 7 (v. 899). 
 
 • Seep. 112. 
 
126 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 the usual practice are named together in the heading, the r61e of the 
 first is in the singular. This is surely no mere coincidence. In 31 
 scenes A agrees with the miniatures in having characters of the same 
 role in contiguous positions. In the headings of all of these the role is 
 written in the plural, and is followed by 11 or in. In only three places 
 are the figures of such characters separated in the pictures. In A they 
 are named together as usual, and it is in one of these that the role is 
 found in the singular. This points in all probability to a heading in 
 which the two senes were separated, as they are, not only in the minia- 
 tures, but also in the headings preserved in the later mss. When the 
 names were reduced to the normal order, the numeral 11 was substituted 
 for the role senex, which must have been written with the name of 
 Demea. Through oversight the singular of the same role with the 
 name of Hegio was left unchanged.^ 
 
 In nearly every instance where mute characters are named in the 
 Bembine headings, they are best explained as due to the figures of such 
 characters in the miniatures. In Phorm, 2, 3 (v. 348) the advocati 
 occupy the same position relative to Demipho that they do in the 
 pictures. It is true that according to the distribution of scenes in 
 A they are not mute, but there is strong reason to believe that the 
 copyist omitted a heading before v. 441, and thereby combined the 
 two scenes.^ If this is true, the naming of the advocati in the Bembinus 
 is accounted for by the miniatures. 
 
 Hec, 5, 2 (v. 767). In both the Bembine heading and the minia- 
 tures the speakers are in the regular order. The nutrix, a mute 
 character, is painted first on the left in the pictures, but in A her 
 role is last on the right. The recognition of her presence on the 
 Stage is more noteworthy, because neither the heading nor the minia- 
 tures contain a hint of the two anciliae of Bacchis, though these remain 
 on the stage much longer than does the nutrix. The agreement of the 
 heading with the miniatures in the number of characters can hardly be 
 due to chance. The original order of names was probably in accord 
 
 * The six scenes in which the order of names was altered without leaving any 
 traces of the change are Haut. 4, 4 (v. 723); Eun. 4, 3 (v. 643),- 4, 4 (v. 668); 
 4. 7 (v. 771); Phorm, 5, 8 (v. 894); Ad, 4, 2 (v. 540). 
 
 * See p. 155, n. i. 
 
 : 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 127 
 
 with the collocation of figures, but the role nutrix was displaced in order 
 to give the name of the first speaker its usual position. 
 
 Ad. 2, I (v. 155). For the illustration the artist chose the opening 
 of the scene.^ Parmeno, who is probably a mute character,^ is shown 
 first on the left in altercation with Sannio. Between Aeschinus, the 
 second speaker, who is painted last on the right, and Sannio, the second 
 figure, the meretrix is represented. Sannio has seized her right wrist, 
 while Aeschinus has his right hand on her shoulder. This order of 
 characters is preserved in A, except that Parmeno is named last instead 
 of first. There can be little doubt that, according to the usual practice, 
 his name was displaced, in order to give Sannio the first position. The 
 role of the meretrix, to whom the name of Bacchis has been arbitrarily 
 assigned, was not disturbed, because it did not stand before the name of 
 the first speaker. In naming her between Sannio and Aeschinus, the 
 Bembinus preserves a trace of the struggle pictured in the miniatures. 
 
 ^^' Zi Z (v. 355). The name of Dromo in the Bembine heading at 
 this place and the omission of the name of Stephanio have never been 
 satisfactorily explained. Spengel suggested that Dromo is named 
 because a cocus is not an ordinary attendant on the stage.* The 
 objection to this, as Dziatzko had pointed out,* is that Stephanio 
 
 
 * The miniature at this place in the Parisinus, considerably reduced in size, is 
 given in a reproduction by Fabia in his edition of the Adelphoe^ 1892, p. 94. 
 
 * The assignment of the words Em serva; omitte mulierem in v. 18 is somewhat 
 in doubt. In A the first two are given to Aeschinus, the second two to Parmeno. 
 The first two are definitely assigned to Aeschinus by Donatus. All the four words 
 are given to Aeschinus by C, E, G, P, by a corrector in D, and probably by the 
 first hand in L, but to Parmeno by D, F (in D the nota B was doubtless an error for 
 P), and by later hands in C, E, L, P. In addition to the weight of manuscript 
 evidence, the sense requires that the words em serva be spoken by Aeschinus. In 
 view of the fact that Parmeno is directed to watch for a nod from Aeschinus as his 
 warrant for striking the leno^ the last two words also seem more appropriate if they 
 are spoken by Aeschinus. With the only possible assignment by which Parmeno 
 can be a speaker, and with a nota personae for Parmeno in the heading, the Bem- 
 binus represents one ancient interpretation. This is accepted by Umpfenbach 
 and Kauer. Another interpretation, probably equally ancient, and usually fol- 
 lowed by modern editors, is preserved in mss. which leave Parmeno a mute 
 character. The third interpretation seems relatively late. 
 
 ' Sitzungsber. d. bayr. Akad. phil.-hist. Cl.y 1883, II, p. 269. 
 
 * Ed. Adelphoe^ 1881, KriL-Exeg. Anh., v. 380, p. 103. 
 
128 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 has an equal right to appear, for the two slaves are addressed by Syms 
 in vv. 376 and 380 in about the same terms. Spengel gave as a second 
 reason that Dromo's name at this place is due to his being a speaker 
 later in the play. This explanation must be rejected, first, because it is 
 doubtful whether the author of the headings assigned the name Dromo 
 to the first speaker in v. 776*; secondly, because in the headings before 
 the verse named the role puer^ not cocus, is used. There is no evidence, 
 therefore, to show that the characters in the two places were regarded 
 as identical. Unable to explain why Dromo is named in the Bembine 
 heading before v. 355, while Stephanio is passed over in silence, Dziatzko 
 questioned the authority of the scene-headings. With the aid of the 
 pictures, the inconsistency is easily accounted for. In v. 364, at which 
 place all the later mss. institute a new scene, the miniatures have the 
 figure of Dromo, but have none of Stephanio.' Dromo is shown in the 
 house on the left, engaged, as the dialogue demands, in cleaning fish. 
 The artist, in harmony with his practice elsewhere, omitted Stephanio 
 because he was unable, relying on the text alone, to represent him in 
 some active capacity. The Bembine heading, in omitting the name of 
 one character and giving the name of the other, merely follows the 
 authority of the miniatures. 
 
 In two scenes the Bembine headings name mute characters whose 
 figures do not appear in the illustrations.* In these places it is neces- 
 sary to suppose either that the miniatures have suffered alterations, or 
 that names have been inserted in the headings by later hands. Since 
 there is no evidence of the latter, these places will be considered in 
 connection with the integrity of the miniatures. 
 
 With the exception of the two places just mentioned, the names of 
 mute characters both in A and in the I family are found only in scenes 
 where the pictures contain their figures.* It is not true conversely that 
 
 ' Cf. p. 118, n I. 
 
 * Facsimiles of the miniatures at this place in the Parisinus and the Ambrosianus 
 are given by E. Chatelain, Paiecfgr. des class, lat.^ PI. VII and VIII. 
 
 =» Phorm. 4, 2 (v. 591); Ad, 2, 3 (v. 254). On these see p. 160 f. 
 
 ♦ This is not true of places where speaking characters, because of late changes in 
 scene -division, have been made mute for particular scenes. Examples are Haut. 2, 2 
 (v. 230), E; 4, 6 (v. 80s), L; Phorm, i, i (v. 35), L, M; Hec, 5, i (v. 727), M. 
 And. 5, 5 (v. 957), D, L, M, V, is probably not to be included with these places. 
 On this see p. 147 If. 
 
 '''IR- 
 
 i 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 129 
 
 the names of such characters are given wherever their figures are painted. 
 It was upon these places, quite as much as upon differences in scene- 
 division, that Schlee denied #ie existence of any relationship between 
 the Bembine headings and the miniatures.^ There is indeed no direct 
 evidence that the copyist of A omitted any names of mute characters, 
 but there is no room to doubt that this has happened several times in 
 the S family .2 That such names were ever arbitrarily inserted in the 
 headings, there is very little reason to believe. The tendency was rather 
 to omit names already given. It is very doubtful, therefore, whether 
 any single manuscript contains all the names of mute characters written 
 in the original headings. It is not necessary, however, to suppose that 
 the author of the headings assigned a name, or even a role, to every 
 figure of a mute character in the miniatures. In several instances such 
 characters are nowhere named in the text.' In a few places some of 
 the headings do not have the names of speakers to whom only a few un- 
 important words are assigned. This is certain evidence either that the 
 author of the headings failed to assign names to all the figures, or that 
 some of the names, originally given in the headings, have been omitted 
 by copyists. Both may have been true, but the omission was probably 
 much more frequent than the failure to name speaking characters.* If 
 these have sometimes been omitted, it cannot be doubted that the same 
 thing has happened in the case of mute characters. In spite of the 
 fact, therefore, that no speakers are omitted in the Bembine headings, 
 the tendency to omit the names of mute or unimportant characters, is so 
 well illustrated in the later mss. that we may reasonably suppose that 
 the Bembinus was no exception. 
 
 This conclusion is necessary in view of the relationship existing 
 between the headings preserved in the different classes of mss. Not- 
 withstanding certain differences in these,* they have without question 
 come down from a common original. This is proved by the fact that 
 
 ' Scholia Terentiana, P* 7 ^' 
 
 « Cf. And. 5, 5 (v. 957), G, Paris. 10304; Eun. 4, 7 (v. 771), G; Phorvi. 2, 3 
 (v. 348), D, M, Paris. 10304; Ad. 2, i (v. 155), Paris. 10304. 
 
 =» And. I, I (v. 28), two slaves; Eun. 3, 2 (v. 454), slave-girl; Hec. 3, 4 
 (v. 415), slave; 5, 2 (v. 767), nutrix; Ad. 2, i (v. 155), meretrix. 
 
 * See p. 117, n. 
 
 * The most important of these will be noticed on p. 165 ff. 
 
I30 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 |iiiiiii| 
 
 r 
 
 in the best representatives of each class they have the same form,^ the 
 same inaccuracy in the use of certain roles,^ and occasionally in A, 8 
 the same unusual order of names arising, from errors in identifying the 
 figures.* Any differences must be regarded as due to changes made 
 either by design or by accident in the'process of transmission. Since, 
 therefore, the headings have a common origin, the name of a mute 
 character, even in a single heading, is strong evidence that it was given 
 in the original. This warrants the conclusion that in at least six places 
 where the figures of mute characters appear, they were assigned either 
 names or roles, or both, by the author of the headings. For the 
 remaining eight places the evidence is negative. The loss of names in 
 some places in all but one or two mss., suggests that in other places such 
 names may have perished altogether. Whatever the truth may be, it is 
 submitted that, even apart from other evidence, the omission of the 
 names of mute characters in scenes where their figures are shown, is no 
 sufficient test of the relationship existing between the headings and the 
 miniatures. 
 
 The Source of the Roles 
 
 This concludes the comparison of the miniatures and the scene- 
 headings with reference to the number of characters they contain, and 
 the order in which these are arranged. Before we pass to the subject 
 of scene-division, the roles, to which reference has several times been 
 made, require some attention. In selecting these the author of the 
 headings did not rely upon the text alone, but used the evidence also 
 of the pictures. It is true that in the majority of scenes the appella- 
 tions found with the names are appropriate to the text of the several 
 plays, but for characters of most frequent occurrence, as seneSy servi^ 
 adulescenteSy even if the text had been wholly disregarded, no other 
 roles would have been possible. It is in scenes where the roles are 
 either inaccurate, or inexplicable by means of the text, that the influence 
 of the miniatures is evident. 
 
 I 
 
 * In the archetype of the 5 family the names and r3Ies may have been inverted in 
 order. On this see p. 165. 
 
 • Full consideration of this point follows at once. 
 
 ' These places are Ilaut. 5, 5 (v. 1045), A, D, (G); Phorm. 3, 2 (v. 485), A, 
 M; Ad. 5, 2 (v. 776), A, D, L, M, Paris. 10304. On these see p. 116 ff. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 131 
 
 Inaccuracy in the choice of roles is found chiefly in scenes which 
 have female characters. In several miniatures the identification of 
 such characters is not easy. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the 
 sixteen scenes where married women are on the stage, they are never 
 given the appellation matrona, though they are so designated by the 
 poet himself.^ In mss. of every class, the role, so far as it is preserved, 
 is mutter. The use of the general instead of the specific appellation is 
 best explained as due to the miniatures. 
 
 The same inaccuracy is found in six scenes where nurses are on the 
 stage.^ In all of these the word nutrix is found in the text, the word 
 anus occurring in but one.* The proper designation for such characters 
 is nutrix, not the indefinite anus. Between the two roles the Bembine 
 headings are equally divided. In mss. of the y family four headings 
 have nutrix, one has anus, while one has both.* In the Victorianus 
 nutrix is once used, anus appears in two headings, and as in the y family 
 one heading has both.^ In the rest of the mss. of the 8 family, wherever 
 the role is preserved, it is invariably nutrix.^ This inconsistency, found 
 in all classes of mss., is probably due to the dependence of the author of 
 the headings on the pictures rather than on the text. 
 
 The appellation anus, as used above, is open also to the objection 
 that it does not distinguish a nurse from such a character as Syra in the 
 first two scenes of the Hecyra. The proper designation of Syra is not 
 very clear. In all classes of mss. the role anus is assigned to her, while 
 in C, D, and apparently in the original of Paris. 10304, she is also called 
 a lena. From the evidence of the text the former is at least permissible, 
 but the propriety of assigning to her the role lena is in doubt. Since it 
 
 ^ Eun. Prol. v. 37. 
 
 « Haut. 4, I (v. 614); Eun, 5, 3 (v. 910); Phorm, 5, i (v. 728); Hec, 5, 2 
 (v. 767); Ad. 3, I (v. 288); 3, 2 (v. 299). 
 
 ^ Phorm. 5, I, 5 (v. 732). The word nutrix is not found in Ad. 3, 2 (v. 299), 
 but the two scenes in this play form a single passage. 
 
 * Haut, 4, I (v. 614). There can be little doubt that the role nutrix in the 
 original heading of this scene has been displaced in the Bembinus by the arbitrary 
 name Canthara. 
 
 * In Hec. 5, 2 (v. 767) no headings are found because of differences in scene- 
 division. In Ad. 3, 2 (v. 299) the roles are omitted. 
 
 * This is true of five scenes in Paris. 10304. 
 
132 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 is not found in the Bembinus, its origin is a question for the solution of 
 which the data are insufficient 
 
 Another instance of inaccuracy in the use of the r61es is the assign- 
 ment of corns to Dromo in the Bembine heading before Ad, 3, 3 
 (v. 355). Dziatzko insisted that this character is not a cook, but at 
 most is only a kitchen-boy.* The idle is easily accounted for by means 
 of the miniatures, for in these Dromo is shown engaged in cleaning fish. 
 
 In three places r61es are used for which no explanation can be found 
 in the text of the plays. The appellation assigned to Antiphila in the 
 original headings before HauL 2, 4 (v. 381), is in doubt. In the Bem- 
 binus, by means of a numeral, she is classed with Bacchis as a meretrix. 
 In the later mss- she is given the r61e mulier^ which elsewhere is reserved 
 for married women. Both are wrong, for it is certain from the context 
 that virgo is the proper appellation. 
 
 Before Eun, 4, 7 (v. 771) the r61e hrarius, for which no justification 
 whatever exists in the dialogue, is of the greatest importance in deter- 
 mining the source of the roles. In D, M, as well as in the illustrated 
 MSS., it must be due to the object carried by the fifth figiure in the party 
 of Thraso. In D, as in C, it is significant that the role is found with 
 the name of Simalio, whose figure is fifth in the miniatures.* In M, as 
 in F, P, it is given with the name of Donax, the error in all of these 
 being due, probably, to changes in the order of names. As early, there- 
 fore, as the origin of the scene-headings, the fifth figure, from the object 
 he is shown carrying in his hand, was believed to represent the lorarius 
 of Thraso. 
 
 Before Ad. 5, 2 (v. 776) the r61e puer^ transmitted with the name 
 Dromo in all classes of mss., is suggested neither by the scene, nor by 
 anything in the play. It is not found elsewhere m the headings. With 
 little doubt the first speaker in this scene, quite as much as Syrus, is a 
 tjrpical slave. Such is his appearance in the miniatures. Since the 
 author of the headings, according to the evidence presented above,* 
 confused the figures of the slaves, it is obvious that he did not under- 
 stand why the second is shown holding the end of Demea*s pallium. 
 
 * Ed. Adelpkoe, 1881, Krit,-Ex€g. AnA., v. 380, p. 103. 
 
 * In F, the figure of Simalio is fourth. See p. 88. 
 ' See p. 118. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 133 
 
 Believing this character to be the first speaker, h^ found the evidence 
 with reference to the proper role wholly negative. Adopting his usual 
 expedient of interpreting the pictures, he seems to have regarded the 
 second figure as the personal attendant of Demea, and to have chosen 
 the designation///^/- in order to distinguish him from the ordinary slave. 
 
 The Distribution of the Scene-Headings and the Miniatures 
 
 In the discussion thus far, all places have been disregarded in which 
 any comparison of the scene-headings with the miniatures is precluded 
 by diiferences in their distribution. These places now require some 
 notice. If the headings originated in the miniatures, there must 
 obviously have been a time when their distribution was identical, and 
 the variations which are found at 26 places in the mss. are to be 
 explained as due to changes, either designed or accidental, made by 
 copyists. These variations are doubtless the chief basis for the assump- 
 tion that in origin, at least, the miniatures and the headings are in no 
 way connected. To Leo and Schlee, who argued against the existence 
 of any relationship between the two, differences in the division of 
 scenes seemed to be decisive evidence.^ Neither of these scholars 
 recognized the possibility of changes in this respect, and in discussions 
 about the principles followed in the distribution of scenes, the tradition 
 of the MSS. has usually been accepted without question.^ While it is 
 impossible to find direct evidence at every place where variations occur, 
 enough is preserved, it is believed, to indicate that at one time the dis- 
 tribution of the headings and the miniatures was identical. 
 
 The differences between the mss. in scene-division are indeed impor- 
 tant, but they have been accorded undue weight. No one, apparently, 
 has remarked the absolute agreement of all classes of mss. in 124 places, 
 or nearly Z^i per cent, of the total number of places where either headings 
 
 * For the references see p. 108 f. 
 
 * See Dziatzko's 2d edition of the Phormio, p. 32 f., retained essentially unchanged 
 in Hauler's revision, p. 47 f.; Dziatzko's edition of the Adelphoe, 1881, on v. 958, 
 retained by Kauer in his revision, 1903. See also Hauler in the Krit. Anh. on 
 Phorm, 2, 4 (v. 441 ) . That changes have been made in scene-division was suggested 
 by Spengel, Sitzungsber. d. bayr. Akad., phil.-hist. CL, 1883, II, p. 284. See also 
 critical notes by Spengel and Fairclough in their editions of the Andria, on v. 965, 
 and by Dziatzko, Tauchnitz edition of the plays, 1884, on Ad. 924. 
 
J^r 
 
 John Calvin Watsan 
 
 or miniatures are found. In view of this close agreement, it is diffi- 
 cult to believe that the distribution was made by two persons working 
 independently. 
 
 Since the miniatures and the headings are usually found at the same 
 places, it is natural that they should betray the same principles of distri- 
 bution. In the illustrated mss. the text is divided in such a way that, 
 with probably but two exceptions,* no scene contains characters who 
 are not on the stage at the same time. It is this principle that makes 
 it possible for the miniatures to present all the speaking characters 
 active in each scene, and to give an appropriate picture of the action 
 at the most important or dramatic moment. It is manifest that the 
 artist could property have adopted no other principle of distribution. 
 Except in the same two places as in the illustrated mss., and in a third 
 place where the variation is easily explained,* the headings follow the 
 same principle. The fact that they are subject to restrictions which are 
 necessary in the miniatures, points to their origin in illustrated mss. 
 
 The adoption of the principle of distribution described above did not 
 determine the position of the miniatures, for the artist might have 
 painted these in immediate proximity to the passages selected for illus- 
 tration. If he seems frequently to have done so, it is only because in 
 many places the passages, to which the illustrations refer, closely follow 
 a change of characters. His second principle, in short, was that the 
 text should be divided only at points where characters enter or leave 
 the stage. The distribution of the headings was made according to 
 precisely the same principle. In all classes of mss. alike new scenes 
 almost invariably begin with the words of the first speaker after the 
 change of characters. That this is no mere coincidence is shown by 
 scenes where the text is divided at some unusual point. In four places 
 of this nature new scenes are found in only a part of the codices,* so 
 that any comparison of the position of the headings with that of the 
 miniatures is impossible. In two places, however, all classes of mss. 
 
 * In Haut. 4, 4, 21 (v. 743) it seems probable that three characters enter the 
 house o( Menedemus before Dromo is called out; cf. pp. 80 and 158 £. The second 
 scene is Eun, 3, 2 (v. 454), on which see p. 71. 
 
 * Eun. 5, 8 (v. 1031); cf. p. 150!. 
 
 a Haut. 3, 3, 32 (v. 593), F; cf. p. 139 f.; 5. 2. 27 (v. 980), 5; cf. p. 155 f.; 
 Eun, 5, 4, 21 (v. 943), 7; cf. p. 150; JViorm. 5, 3, 12 (v. 795), A, 5; cf. p. 151 f. 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 135 
 
 agree in a peculiar division of the text. In each place the first speaker 
 is not the character entering, but one remaining on the stage from the 
 previous scene. Thus at And. 3, 3 (v. 533) the new scene includes 
 the entire verse, so that Simo is the first to speak. Properly it should 
 begin within the verse with the first words of Chremes. This exception 
 to the rule is more striking, since at Ad, i, 2 (v. 81), under circum- 
 stances exactly similar, the words of Demea within the verse rightly 
 mark the beginning of the new scene. The second place to which 
 reference was made is Eun, 5, 3 (v. 910). After v. 909 Thais and 
 Chaerea withdraw from the stage, but Pythias remains, and, until the 
 entrance of Chremes with Sostrata in v. 912, is the only character on 
 the stage. Her words are relatively unimportant, and have nothing to 
 do with the purpose for which Chremes and Sostrata are brought upon 
 the stage. The codices of Terence contain no parallels to the division 
 of the text before v. 910.^ The practice elsewhere shows that the 
 point of division should not be at this place, but within v. 912. Under 
 conditions precisely similar, no headings are found at Phorm. 219, but 
 
 * And. I, 2 (v. 172) would be a parallel, were it not probable that Simo enters his 
 house after v. 171, leaving the stage empty for a moment. If he does so, a new 
 scene necessarily begins with his return. That he leaves the stage after v. 171 is the 
 view of Wagner and Spengel. That he remains on the stage, a view as old as Dona- 
 tus, was held by Bentley, who is followed by most recent editors. The arguments in 
 favor of this position are given by Fairclough in critical and exegetical notes on w. 
 171 and 173. But there is no evidence that the approaching wedding is announced 
 by Simo to the members of his family before the end of the first scene. Simo's 
 language in v. 47 does not necessarily, or even probably, refer to any one except 
 Sosia. That Davus was regarded with suspicion by Simo, is clear from v. 159 ff., 
 but Davus' own words in v. 211 f. show that Simo had this feeling previous to his 
 announcement of the wedding. Moreover, several circumstances indicate that 
 the announcement was made after the first scene. When in v. 161 Simo refers to 
 the activity of Davus, he uses the future tense. Sosia's duty, as described in v. 165 f., 
 is to frighten Davus and keep watch on Pamphilus. This requires that Sosia should 
 be brought to the house before the announcement, for Simo aims to catch Davus and 
 Pamphilus off their guard (cf . vv. 180 ff . and 360) . It is certain that the wedding was 
 not announced to Pamphilus until after v. 205 (cf. vv. 227, 238 f. and 253 ff.). 
 If Davus knew about the wedding before the first scene, his delay in attempting 
 to apprise Pamphilus of it is strange. For these reasons, it is probable that Simo 
 leaves the stage after v. 171. If this is true, the correct reading in v. 171 is sequor, 
 as given by Priscian, and, apparently, by C. Modo in v. 173 refers to the interval 
 between w. 171 and 172, a parallel to which is found in Haut. 563. 
 
136 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 a new scene rightly begins with the entrance of Demipho at v. 231. 
 In the two places, therefore, where any comparision is possible, the 
 miniatures and the headings alike have the same unusual position. 
 That this is due to chance is inconceivable. 
 
 Though the headings and the miniatures, with rare exceptions, are 
 found only at places where changes of characters occur, it is not true, 
 conversely, that such changes are always the occasion of new scenes. 
 In all families of mss. alike, places are disregarded in which only a few 
 verses intervene between changes of characters. The shortest scene 
 occasioned by the entrance of characters has six verses ; the shortest 
 caused by their exit has seven verses. Disregarding changes which 
 occur within these limits,^ there are about 46 places where the entrance 
 of some characters coincides with the exit of others, about 96 places 
 where the only change is the entrance of additional characters, and 
 about 42 places where the change consists of the exit of part of the 
 characters active on the stage.* Since these three classes of places 
 exhibit wide variations in scene-division, they must be considered 
 separately. 
 
 In the 46 places where the entrance of some characters coincides 
 with the exit of others, the text is regularly divided in A, 8. In y, E, 
 division is found in all of these except one, where the failure to divide 
 can easily be explained.? 
 
 In 73 of the 96 places where the number of characters on the stage 
 is increased by the entrance of others, the text is divided in all families 
 of MSS. In seventeen, new scenes are instituted in part of the codices. 
 The failure to divide the text, though most frequent in the 8 mss., is not 
 confined to any family, the instances of such failure numbering three 
 each in y, G, M, five in A, six each in L, Paris. 10304, seven in E, and 
 eleven in D.* In the remaining six places new scenes are not found in 
 
 * Whether these limits were always observed may well be doubted. See p. 157 ff. 
 
 * Since the points at which characters enter or leave the stage are sometimes in 
 doubt, the numbers given are only approximately correct. 
 
 * ^^. 3. 5 (v- 5"); cf. p. 156. On Haut. 4, 4, 21 (v. 743), which is excluded 
 by the limit of six verses, see p. 158 f. 
 
 * All places where variations occur, with a classification of the MSS. at each, are 
 given in the table on p. 140. 
 
 Sce7ie-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 137 
 
 /l 
 
 any manuscript.^ This is the more surprising, since in nearly all of 
 these the grounds for division are as good as at many other points 
 where codices of all families agree in having it. 
 
 Where the only change consists in the exit of part of the characters 
 active on the stage, scene-division is not the rule, but the exception. 
 In only seven of the 42 places of this nature are the mss. a unit in 
 instituting new scenes.* In four of these the metrical structure re- 
 mains the same, while in three it changes. In eight instances where 
 characters leave the stage, the mss. are at variance with respect to divi- 
 sion. In these also the failure to divide the text is peculiar to no family 
 of codices, the instances numbering one in G,' three each in A, D, four 
 in Paris. 10304, and five each in y, E, L, M. In three of these places 
 the metrical structure remains the same, while in five it is changed. The 
 remaining 27 passages show no traces of division preserved in any 
 manuscript, though in several of them it would be quite as appropriate 
 for new scenes to begin as in some other places where the mss. are in 
 accord in having division. In four of them the metrical structure 
 changes with the exit of characters,* but in the remaining 23 it con- 
 tinues unchanged. 
 
 From the statistics presented above it is evident that places of the 
 third class are in striking contrast with those of the first, and usually 
 with those of the second class. If the tradition of the mss. be accepted, 
 a mere exit of characters was insufficient to cause scene-division, but 
 the manner in which this was determined is far from clear. The length 
 of the passage intervening before the entrance of new characters was 
 probably one element in the decision. Of the fifteen scenes set off in 
 part or all of the mss. at the exit of characters, only five have fewer 
 
 » And. 4, 3, 7 (v. 722); S, 2, 20 (v. 861); Eun. 3, 3, 25 (v. 531); Hec. 3, 2, 
 l8 (v. 353); 4, I, 7 (v. 522); 5, 3, 10 (v. 808). On And. 722, see p. 157. On 
 the rest, see p. 160 f. Haut. 3, i, li (v. 420) is not included, because it is possible 
 that Menedemus is on the stage from the opening of the scene. 
 
 * And. 2, 6 (v. 432); 4, 3 (v. 716); Haut. 2, i (v. 213); 4, 2 (v. 668); Eun, 
 5» 3 (v- 910); Phorm. 4, 4 (v. 682); Hec. 2, 3 (v. 274). 
 
 ^ The apparent superiority of G is due to the l6ss of two passages where the text 
 is not divided in the rest of the codices of this family. 
 
 * And. 3, 2, 44 (v. 524); Hec. 3, i, 47 (v. 327); 4, i, 51 (v. 566); Ad, 2, I, 
 42 (v. 196). 
 
138 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 than 20 verses, but of the 27 points at which no division is found, only 
 three are as many as 20 verses before the entrance of new characters. 
 There was a strong tendency also to divide the text where the exit of 
 characters is immediately followed by some essential turn or change in 
 the progress of the play. Changes of this nature usually coincide with 
 changes in the metrical structure of the verse. Since in eight of the 
 fifteen places where scene-division is found, the metrical structure 
 changes, while this is true of only four of the 27 points where no division 
 is found, it is evident that the content of the several passages was of 
 influence in determining the question of division. Spengel's theory 
 that at the exit of characters new scenes properly begin only when the 
 metrical structure changes,^ is untenable. Spengel himself recognized 
 a few exceptions in part of the mss. at points where such changes occur, 
 but he mentioned none of the four places where all mss. are opposed to 
 his theory. Similarly at points where the metrical structure remains 
 unchanged, he recognized a few exceptions in mss. of Plautus, but he 
 mentioned none of the four places of this nature in Terence. Against 
 not only these exceptions, but also others in which the mss. are at vari- 
 ance, Spengel's theory cannot stand. Changes in the metrical structure 
 of the verse and division of the text depended in part on the content 
 of the several passages, but there is no evidence that the division of 
 the text was ever determined by the metrical structure alone.^ 
 
 In spite of certain differences in the distribution of the miniatures 
 and the scene-headings, the principles of distribution are identical in 
 both. The three classes into which the scenes are naturally grouped 
 \ff the entrance or the exit of characters, or by a coincidence of 
 entrance and exit, are the same in all families of mss. Moreover, 
 the exceptions to the usual principles of distribution are about the 
 same in number in all classes of codices, and are frequently found in 
 the same places. Some of these exceptions are so peculiar as to pre- 
 clude the thought of accidental agreement. In view of this evidence, 
 it seems impossible that the distribution of the miniatures and the 
 scene-headings should have been made by two persons working inde- 
 
 * SiizMngsber. d. bayr. Akad. phil.-hist, C/., 1883, p. 273. 
 
 * The unusual position of the scene-headings in 8 codices at Haut. 980, and of 
 the miniatures at Eun. 943 may be due to changes in the metrical structure in these 
 places. 
 
 '' 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 139 
 
 pendently. In all probability the distribution of the one was determined 
 solely by the distribution of the other. 
 
 If scene-headings originated in illustrated mss., the differences in the 
 division of scenes must be due to changes in the process of transmission. 
 That such changes in 26 places are entirely possible is shown by a 
 comparison of the mss. of the S family, which clearly have come from 
 a single archetype. These are at variance in scene-division in no fewer 
 than sixteen places. Codices of the y family are twice in disagreement. 
 The distribution of scenes in the archetypes of these two families must 
 be determined before any comparison of the several families is possible. 
 
 For convenience in reference a complete list of passages where varia- 
 tions in scene-division occur is given on p. 140.^ For each place it is 
 stated whether the occasion of the new scene is the entrance or the 
 exit of characters, and the mss. are classified according as they have 
 or do not have new scenes, or have lost the passage. The letters y and 
 8 denote the archetypes of these two families. Wherever the evidence, 
 presently to be considered, shows that mss. of either of these families 
 have varied from the archetype, they are included within parentheses. 
 
 In the illustrated mss. scene-division is indicated either by miniatures 
 or by spaces left for their insertion. Scene-headings are usually trans- 
 mitted with the miniatures, or in the spaces left for pictures, but it 
 seems certain that the transmission of the headings in these codices has 
 been different from that of the miniatures. '^ The pictures, therefore, or 
 spaces designed for pictures, are the only certain indications of scene- 
 division in the y family of mss. Evidence of this nature shows that the 
 y codices are twice at variance in the distribution of scenes. Before 
 Haut, 3, 3, 32 (v. 593), where no sign of division is found in any other 
 manuscript, a picture is given in F.^ The evidence shows that it is a 
 late addition either in this manuscript, or in some manuscript from 
 which F is descended. It is painted two verses after the exit of 
 Clitipho, the only occasion for a new scene. Though the author of 
 
 * A few places are omitted in which the Paris mss. Nos. 7900 and 7903 have varied 
 from the archetype of their family. 
 
 * See p. 163 ff. 
 
 ^ This is reproduced by Cardinal Mai in M. Acci Plauti Fragtn. inedita, item ad 
 P. Terentium Commentt. et Pidurae ineditacy p. 47. It is also given by Wieseler, 
 Theatergebaude etc., Taf. X, 9. 
 
I40 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 < 
 
 > 
 
 p 
 
 § 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 U 
 
 no 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 en 
 u 
 
 
 o J« 
 MS 
 
 c c 
 
 CO OB 
 
 uu 
 
 y<?A« Calvin Watson 
 
 o* 
 
 J 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 oo" 
 
 ooo 
 
 
 1*1 
 
 •< *o •© 
 
 ^5 
 
 o - 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 I 
 
 •I 
 
 
 
 s^K> ?* •< ?.W ?*•< 
 
 <e *o 
 
 o 
 
 S J" 
 p " 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 «k 
 
 o 
 
 c5 
 
 s 
 
 •k 
 #1 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 'W W 
 
 W pq W «o «o 
 
 en 
 O 
 
 •J 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 
 K a 
 
 M 00 
 
 ^ S ctf S ^ fo 
 
 .TS ■^ -^ ^ .Ti *^ 
 
 ^k PMI ^^i fBfl 1^1 P"# 
 
 M [x4 H U M H 
 
 
 c a 
 
 8 
 
 8 8 8 
 
 8 
 
 A .1m .'*■ 4-t .2 4_> .^ ^ 
 
 PM ^> tn PW IM ^* ^ P"4 
 
 8 
 
 X a X 
 
 MUM 
 
 8W 8 8 8 
 
 g^ I I I 
 
 ■ta ."^ ^a s a 
 
 a X a a a 
 
 in 
 
 
 ■ -^' - ON ^ 
 
 o\ 2^ Tf . « 
 
 
 On On 
 
 >0 '-'•^fnO^>N00_ 
 s_^ ►* tTk ^ tr)irks_/oo 00 On 
 
 N • • • t^ • 
 ro > > > N > 
 
 > > 
 
 rovO ro m t^ N « •* 
 i-T in co^«i?minin 
 
 »£l NO •* 
 
 ON t-« vO 
 
 On nOnO> >«-ii-tQO»'» 
 
 fOt>»^>-> s-'»nt^oo ON 
 
 > N« „ > > > > 
 
 > 2 > > > 
 
 C4 > > > > 
 
 ^ On N -^ fn f* fo "^ P^ On 
 
 \rtiri M M ro ^ in V) tn in 
 
 po PI tn 
 f*iin in 
 
 erjinrxm On 
 
 fofo^inin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 141 
 
 the pictures was not free from blunders of this nature,^ the unusual 
 position of a miniature preserved in a single manuscript is strong 
 evidence against its authenticity. Decisive evidence is found in the 
 dress and gestures of the figures, which are out of harmony with those 
 in the rest of the miniatures. This was noticed by Wieseler,* though he 
 does not seem to have challenged the authenticity of the picture. 
 Gestures with the left hand alone are not found elsewhere in the 
 miniatures, but here both characters use the left hand only. This 
 alone is sufficient to stamp the picture as a late addition, due, 
 very probably, to the copyist of F. The second place where the y 
 codices disagree in scene-division is before Haut, 5, 2 (v. 954).* At 
 this point the miniature preserved in C pictures two different parts of 
 the scene, but this is no valid ground for objection, as the grouping of 
 the figures is entirely appropriate to the passages chosen for illustration. 
 Against the grouping of the figures in F, O, P before v. 874, little can 
 be said, but it is noteworthy that Clitipho and Syrus do not address 
 each other in the presence of the two senes. The names in these three 
 manuscripts before v. 954 are difficult to explain, but they may indicate 
 that earlier mss. had spaces or pictures for this scene. The omission of 
 the roles in O, P at both places is evidence that changes of some kind 
 have been made. In C, on the contrary, the roles are regular at both 
 places. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the tradition is cor- 
 rectly preserved in C. The grounds for the change are evident. 
 According to the method of division in C, and in all of the non- 
 illustrated MSS. except D, Menedemus and Chremes are the speakers 
 in two successive scenes (v. 842 and v. 874). As a result, the minia- 
 tures in C are very similar, and the headings in most mss. are identical. 
 To produce a difference in the miniatures at the second place, the 
 figures of Clitipho and Syrus, who enter at v. 954, were transferred to 
 the picture before v. 874, and the picture at v. 954 was omitted. 
 
 In the non-illustrated mss. scene-division is indicated either by scene- 
 headings or by spaces left by the copyist for their insertion. According 
 to evidence drawn from both these sources, the mss. of the S family are 
 at variance in the distribution of scenes in sixteen places. At each of 
 
 * Cf. p. 150. * Op, cit.f p. 73. 
 
 ^ The pictures at this place and at v. S74 are discussed above, p. 82 f. 
 
t 
 
 142 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Ir 
 
 i 
 
 these it is evident that part of the codices do not preserve the distribu- 
 tion of scenes which existed in the archetype. In the process of trans- 
 mission either headings have been dropped from some of the mss., or 
 they have been inserted in others. In most cases it is not difficult to 
 determine which of these changes has been made. Irregularities of any 
 kind at such places give evidence of changes by copyists. Such irregu- 
 larities are of several varieties. Headings for which no spaces had been 
 left by the copyist are given in G, one in the margin adjacent to Eun, 
 5, 9 (v. 1049), another between the lines before Phorm, i, 2 (v. 51). 
 A space smaller than usual was left for the heading in Paris. 10304 
 before Haut. 5, 4 (v. 1024). The name of Clitipho is omitted in L 
 before HauL 4, 7 (v. 829), the name of Chremes in M before Phorm, 
 5, 9 (v. 990). Menedemus is named instead of Chremes in G before 
 Haut 5, 4 (v. 1024), Parmeno instead of Chaerea in the margin of the 
 same manuscript at Eun, 5, 9 (v. 1049). The order of names is 
 unusual in M before Eun, 5, 4, 21 (v. 943), and in L before Phorm, 
 5, 9 (v. 990). The entrance of Chremes before Haut 4, 7 (v. 829) is 
 marked in L by a heading which names Chremes with Syrus, but it is 
 to be noted that Chremes is named also in the preceding scene, where 
 he is not on the stage at all. Under circumstances precisely similar the 
 name of Geta is repeated in L, M before Phorm. i, 2 (v. 51), and the 
 name of Phidippus in M before Hec. 5, 2 (v. 767). Though no head- 
 ing is found in Paris. 10304 at Ad. 3, 3, 10 (v. 364), and though Syrus, 
 who enters at this place, is named with Demea before v. 355, the full 
 name Syrus^ instead of the usual abbreviation, is given as the nota per- 
 sonae in v. 364. The word idem in D before Phorm. 5, 6 (v. 841) 
 indicates that in some manuscript from which D is derived, Phormio 
 was named before Antipho,^ but this order is not found before v. 820, 
 and could have come only from a heading before v. 829, where the text 
 is not divided in D. That a similar change has been made in the order 
 of the names, Demea and Micio, in D before Ad. 4, 6 (v. 713), is 
 shown by the unusual order of the role and numeral, dvo senes. The 
 original order could have been derived only from a heading before v. 7 19, 
 where no signs of division are preserved in D. Before Phorm. i, 2 
 (v. 51) the peculiar role faber seems to be assigned to Davus in 
 
 * See p. 167. 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 143 
 
 Paris. 10304.^ The roles, which are regularly given elsewhere in the 
 plays referred to, are omitted in D before Haut 4, 3 (v. 679) and 
 Phorm. 3, 3 (v. 5 34), 2 and in M before Eun. 5, 4, 21 (v. 943) and 
 Hec. 5, 2 (v. 767). 
 
 The peculiarities enumerated above can scarcely be found except in 
 places where the S codices are at variance in scene-division. They are 
 confined to no single manuscript or group of manuscripts, the instances 
 numbering three each in G, L, Paris. 10304, and four each in D, M. 
 This source of evidence, available for twelve of the sixteen places under 
 consideration, reduces the members of the 8 family to agreement in four 
 scenes, and indicates with reasonable certainty the direction of the 
 change in eight other scenes, in any one of which all variations from 
 the archetype must have been in the same direction. 
 
 In the remaining four places no peculiarities or other direct indica- 
 tions of changes are preserved. At Haut 5, 2 (v. 954) it seems im- 
 possible to determine whether D has followed the archetype, or has 
 varied from it, but in the other three scenes there can be little doubt 
 that the headings transmitted in part of the mss. have come down from 
 the archetype. So far as they can be tested by the roles in D, Paris. 
 10304, they are perfectly regular. The incorrect division of the text 
 before Haut 5, 2, 27 (v. 980), instead of before v. 978, precludes the 
 thought that the agreement of D, G, Paris. 10304 is accidental. The 
 loss of division in G, M before Phorm. 4, 2 (v. 591) is probably an 
 accident, since no provision is made for Geta, who enters at this point. 
 The common original of these mss. very probably contained only the 
 name Geta, the role, as elsewhere in this play, being omitted. Single 
 names written in the line with the text were easily confused with the 
 abbreviation of the same name employed as a nota personae, and were 
 peculiarly subject to erasure or omission.^ The omission in L, M before 
 
 • It is to be noted also that the alternate arrangement of the names and rSles is 
 found in but four other places in Paris. 10304. 
 
 * In the only other scene where the roles are omitted in D — Ad. 3, 2 (v. 299) 
 
 they are also omitted in G, M, and the order of names is unusual in Paris. 10304. It 
 is not improbable that the archetype of the family was without division of the text at 
 this point. 
 
 ^ Cf. Spengel, Siizungsberichte, etc., p. 284. The omission of headings is prob- 
 ably to be explained in this way at Ad. 1, i (v. 26), G, M; 4, 4 (v. 610), M; 4, 6 
 
 \ 
 
 I 
 
^^ 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 -fl5r^. 3, 3 (v. 361) might be explained in the same way, but it was more 
 probably designed. Since the occasion of the new scene is the depart- 
 ure of two of the three characters from the stage, the headings here, as 
 before Haut 5, 2, 27 (v. 980), could have been dropped by the copy- 
 ists without other changes.^ 
 
 From this discussion of the places where the S codices disagree in 
 icene-division, it seems reasonably certain that in six the headings and 
 division of the text preserved in part of the mss. are derived from the 
 archetype of the family. In nine of the remaining ten scenes they were 
 not contained in the archetype, but are later additions by copyists. The 
 tenth scene is in doubt. 
 
 Since the distribution of scenes in the archetypes of the y and the 8 
 families has been determined,* we may proceed to a comparison of the 
 several families of mss. in this respect. In doing this it is convenient to 
 divide the places where variations occur into two classes, the first con- 
 sisting only of those where characters enter, the second only of those 
 where characters leave the stage. The addition or omission of headings 
 or miniatures in places of the first class required the omission or addition 
 of names or figures of characters at the previous point of division, if all 
 the characters were pictured or named in the usual way. At places 
 of the second class, headings or miniatures could have been added or 
 omitted without other changes. Changes in the first class were more 
 difficult than in the second. This is particularly true of the miniatures. 
 
 Variations in scene-division are found in seventeen places where 
 characters enter. Since in every instance the failure to divide the 
 text violates the principles of distribution, it is probable, or at least 
 not improbable, that new scenes originally began at all of these places 
 in all classes of mss. Modem editors have felt the inconsistencies of the 
 MSS., and usually institute new scenes at these points.' The failure to 
 divide the text is peculiar to no family of codices, the instances num- 
 bering three in y, five in A, seven in E, and fourteen in S codices. 
 
 (v. 713), M. At Hec, 2, 3 (v. 274) the heading in D is written in the margin. At 
 ^^<^' 3i 3 (v- 361) a name has been erased in E, and none is transmitted in L, M. 
 
 * Seep. 155 f. 
 
 * On the archetype of the h family at Ad. 5, 9 (v. 958), see p. 153 f. 
 
 * In both editions Fleckeisen omitted division at Eun. 943 and Ad. 364. In addi- 
 tion to these, Dadatzko has no new scene at And, 965. 
 
 1 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 145 
 
 including at least eight in the archetype. The small number of instances 
 in A and the y codices is strong evidence that variations in division are 
 due chiefly, if not wholly, to the omission rather than to the addition of 
 headings and miniatures. The Bembinus and the y codices, as com- 
 pared with S, E, must be supposed to preserve, with fewer changes, the 
 original distribution of scenes, the Bembinus, because of its great superi- 
 ority in age, the y codices, because the difficulty of altering the minia- 
 tures must have discouraged any changes in division. 
 
 Another source of evidence is found in the part of a play in which 
 the failure to divide the text most frequently occurs. Of the seventeen 
 scenes under consideration, all but two are within the second half of a 
 play, eleven are found within the fifth act, and nine within the last 125 
 verses of a play. This fact not only indicates that scene-headings and 
 miniatures have been dropped from the text, but it also suggests the 
 ground for this action. As copyists drew near the end of the several 
 plays, they seem occasionally to have been constrained to omit headings 
 or miniatures in order to save space, or to finish the rest of the play 
 within a certain limit of space. In choosing places at which to drop 
 the miniatures or headings, some discretion was used. In most cases 
 these are separated from either the preceding or the following points of 
 division by a small number of verses. In seven places, however, the 
 nearest point of division is at least nineteen verses distant. All of these 
 unusual exceptions to the general principles of distribution are found 
 within the fifth act, and four of them are at the last entrance of charac- 
 ters in their respective plays. 
 
 An important source of evidence is available in the explanationes 
 praeambulae transmitted among the scholia in the later codices.^ These 
 are introductions to the several scenes, the purpose of which is to show 
 the connection of one scene with another, and to describe the circum- 
 stances under which the first, or, rarely, the first two characters speak. 
 The date of their origin is uncertain. Wolfflin refers to their relatively 
 good Latinity, and to their freedom from expressions peculiar to church 
 writers, and seems to believe that they were comparatively early in 
 
 * A collection from C, D, E, G, M is given by Schlee, Scholia Terentiana^ pp. 
 79-162. Selections from F are given by Cardinal Mai; for the reference, see p. 139. 
 
I 
 
 146 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 origin.^ That they were written by one person is shown by their dic- 
 tion and content.^ Where the mss. are in accord in having scene- 
 division, they are usually found, there being but seven exceptions.® It 
 is highly probable that they were written for these scenes also, but have 
 been lost, for in several others they seem to have been transmitted in a 
 single manuscript.* It is true, moreover, that the scholia are usually 
 wanting at points where changes of characters are not marked by new 
 scenes in any famOy of codices.^ In nine places where the mss. are at 
 variance in scene-division, no introductory scholia are found. That is, 
 of the 26 places where division is found in part of the codices, the 
 number that have no scholia is relatively six times as great as at points 
 where the text is divided in all classes of codices. This justifies Schlee's 
 remark that whenever the explanationes praeambulae are not found, this 
 fact usually indicates that at such points new scenes were not instituted 
 in the manuscript for which they were written. If this is true, it should 
 be possible, by a comparison of the several families of mss., to deter- 
 mine which one was used by the author of the introductory scholia. It 
 is certain that this was not a manuscript resembling the Bembinus, for 
 in the two places where new scenes are instituted in A alone, no scholia 
 are found, while in the two places where A is the only manuscript with- 
 out division, the scholia are transmitted as usual. The inquiry must, 
 therefore, be restricted to the y and the 8 families of codices. Dis- 
 regarding variations in individual manuscripts, the archetypes of these 
 families were at variance in fifteen instances.* At all of the nine places 
 where the y family have new scenes, the explanationes praeambulae are 
 found, while they are given at only three of the six places where the 8 
 archetype had new scenes. Moreover, at one of the three points where 
 
 > Archiv f. latein. Lexik. u. Gram., VIII (1893), P- 415- On p. 414 n., Wolf- 
 flin expresses the opinion that the oldest portions of the scholia included by Schlee under 
 the title Commentarius Antiquior might go back to the fourth century. 
 
 « Cf. Schlee, p. 48; Wolfflin, p. 414 f. 
 
 3 And. I, I (v. 28); 5, 5 (v. 957); Phorm. 5, 8 (v. 894); Hec. 2, 3 (v. 274); 
 Ad. 4, 2 (v. 540); 5, 3 (v. 787); 5, 7 (v. 899). 
 
 * Cf. And. 2, 4 (v. 404), C; 2, 5 (v. 412), C; 2, 6 (v. 432), M; Haut. 4, 2 
 (v. 668), E; Eun. 5, 2, (v. 840), E; Phorm. 4, 3 (v. 606), M; Hec. 5, i (v. 727), M. 
 
 * Cf. pp. 158 f. and 162. 
 
 * At Haut. 5, 2 (v. 954), where the archetype of the 3 family is in doubt, a scho- 
 Uum seems to be preserved in F alone. 
 
 I 
 
 147 
 
 such scholia are transmitted, it is almost certain that miniatures at one 
 time existed.^ At the other two, pictures could have been dropped 
 without other changes.'* 
 
 In view of the evidence given above, it is more than probable that 
 the introductions to scenes were written for an illustrated manuscript. 
 To attack this conclusion, one must contend that they were written for 
 8 codices which had new scenes in the nine places referred to above, 
 thus admitting the former agreement of the mss. at points where they 
 are now at variance. The chief ground for Schlee's conclusion that the 
 mass of scholia in the later mss. was based on a 8 codex, is the fact that 
 they are best transmitted in members of this family.' Wolfiiin has 
 shown that in all probability they were based upon a manuscript in 
 which the order of plays was not that characteristic of the S family.* 
 In his argument, Wolfflin seems to imply that the order of plays was 
 that found in the Bembinus, but aside from the fact that there is little 
 or no evidence of any connection between the scholia and the Bem- 
 binus, his argument is even better suited to show that the order of 
 plays followed by the author of the scholia was that transmitted in the 
 y family. 
 
 We now turn to the consideration of passages where, on the entrance 
 of new characters, new scenes are instituted in part of the mss., and 
 evidence of changes is preserved. 
 
 And, 5, 6 (v. 965). In the 8 codices alone the text at this place is 
 divided, the headings being regular in every respect, except that they 
 name the same three characters that are named before v. 957. Since 
 such a repetition of names elsewhere in this family is accompanied by 
 unquestionable evidence that headings have been added,* the regularity 
 of the headings at this place indicates their genuineness. It cannot be 
 proved that miniatures ever were painted before v. 965, but there is 
 little room to doubt that they once existed before v. 963. The ancient 
 commentary preserved under the name of Donatus gives as a lemma the 
 
 > And. 5, 6 (v. 963 or 965) . This will be considered at once. 
 « And. I, 3 (v. 206); Ad. 3, 5 (v. 511). On these, see p. 156. 
 ® Op, cit.y pp. 38, 48, 49 f. 
 * Archivy VIII, p. 418. 
 
 » See p. 142 on Haui. 4, 7 (v. 829), L; Phorm. i, 2 (v. 51), L, M; and Hec, 
 5, 2 (v. 767), M. 
 
148 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 first words of this verse, Quid illud gaudii est? and adds the note In 
 aliis Davi persona infertur} The meaning of these words is that in 
 the time of Donatus some codices assigned to Davus the question 
 given in the lemma. In all our mss. it is assigned to Charinus. 
 But if some codices in Donatus' time gave the nota of Davus 
 before v. 963, this place rather than two verses below was the proper 
 point of division in these codices. The explanaiio praeambula trans- 
 mitted at V. 965 is almost conclusive evidence that the text for which 
 it was written was divided before v. 963. This note, regular in every 
 respect, is as follows : Davus solutus a Chremete incipit ire ad dominum 
 Pamphiium, et dum secum loquitur, Pamphilus vidit eum venientem et 
 ait. This scholium cannot have been written with reference to v. 965, 
 but confirms the remark of Donatus about the nota of Davus before 
 V. 963. The clause dum secum loquitur clearly refers to the question 
 Quid illud gaudi est, and the words Pamphilus vidit eum venientem et 
 ait, can have reference only to Davom video spoken by Pamphilus in 
 V. 963. The testimony of Donatus, supported by the introductory 
 scholium, makes it reasonably certain that in some early codices a new 
 scene began with v. 963. If the introductory scholia were based upon 
 an illustrated manuscript, miniatures were painted before the verse 
 named. Although this cannot be demonstrated, it is in the highest 
 degree probable. The fact that the y codices agree in giving the nota 
 of Charinus before v. 963, is not a strong objection, for the same is true 
 of all the rest of the mss. The Bembinus, which was written in the rime of 
 Donatus, or not much later, has the nota of Charinus. The remark 
 of Donatus shows that this was true also of the codices upon which he 
 usually relied. Since it is generally agreed that the 8 family best repre- 
 sents the codices used by Donatus, we have left only iQustrated mss. to 
 which the notes given by Donatus and the commentarius antiquior can 
 apply. It is probable, therefore, that the nota of Davus which once 
 existed before v. 963 in the y mss. has been changed in the process of 
 transmission. That this might easily have happened is shown by the 
 changes in Eun, 1037, to which allusion has been made before.* 
 
 ' The copyist of D had observed this note, for he writes in aliis libris Davi persona 
 Me infertur scd. Don. Cf. Schlce, Sehol. Terentiana^ p. 68. 
 * See p. 90 f . 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 149 
 
 It can scarcely be doubted, therefore, that in the time of Donatus, or 
 earlier, illustrated manuscripts had miniatures painted before v. 963. 
 If this is true, changes in the distribution of scenes have been made in 
 the y family, and probably also in the S family of codices. The nature 
 of these changes is easy to discover. The naming of Davus in the 8 
 headings before both vv. 957 and 965 is evidence that his figure appeared 
 in the miniatures before both scenes. His appearance in the minia- 
 tures at the first place is easily explained, for the artist, who regarded 
 him as the first speaker in v. 963, must have supposed that he 
 is on the stage and overhears Pamphilus in v. 961. Under similar 
 circumstances in other places the figure of a character is painted in 
 the miniatures of the scene preceding that in which he takes part in the 
 dialogue.^ Since the same three figures appeared before v. 963 as 
 before v. 957, the omission of the miniatures in the later passage 
 required no change in those at the earlier, and was an easy means of 
 saving space in copying the remaining seventeen verses of the play. 
 The order of names in the 8 headings before v. 965 very probably gives 
 the collocation of figures which existed before v. 963. The S codices 
 give the nota of Davus first before v. 965, but it was easy to transfer 
 the heading, together with the explanaiio praeambula, from v. 963 to 
 this place. The miniatures before v. 957 have come down essentially 
 unchanged.^ At first glance the two young men appear to be engaged 
 in conversation, but the second is not facing the first. The first figure 
 represents Charinus in close observation of Pamphilus, who, in exuber- 
 ance of good feeling, is addressing the audience. Davus, in a crouching 
 attitude characteristic of him elsewhere in this play,'* grasps his scarf 
 with both hands, and avoiding being seen by Pamphilus, is narrowly 
 observing him, to discover, if possible, the cause of his elation. 
 
 Haut, 5, 2 (v. 954). The distribution of scenes at this place in the 
 archetype of the S family is uncertain. Whether like D it did not have 
 division, or whether the failure to divide the text is due to the copyist 
 of D, there can be little doubt that, as in F, O, P, a heading was omitted 
 
 > Cf. Eun. 3, 4 (v. 539) ; 5, 4 (v. 923) ; Phorm. 2, 4 (v. 441) ; Hec. 4, 2 (v. 577). 
 • A facsimile of the miniature at this place in P is given by Silvestre, Paleog. Univ., 
 Tome II, near the end. 
 
 » Cf. And. 2, 5 (v. 412), and 4, 5 (v. 796). 
 
ISO 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 151 
 
 at this point, in order to add two names before v. 874, thus avoiding 
 a heading for the latter scene identical with that before v. 842. 
 
 Eun, 5, 4, 21 (v. 943). The division of scenes at this place is very 
 peculiar, since it is found in the midst of the four verses spoken by 
 Pythias. The miniatures may have been intended to mark the point at 
 which Pythias speaks openly in the presence of Parmeno, the change 
 being denoted also by a variation in the metrical structure of the verse. 
 But since such a position is without precedent in the plays of Terence, it 
 is probably to be regarded as an error, the proper place of division being 
 before v. 941. Against the genuineness of the miniatures nothing can 
 be said. The long explanatio praeambula^ introducing the words of 
 Pythias in v. 943, shows that the miniatures were found at this place by 
 the writer of the introductory scholia. If the pictures were intended 
 for v. 941, the figure of Pythias in the miniatures before v. 923 repre- 
 sents a mute character, but she is properly shown on the stage in this 
 scene. Though she enters the house of Thais after v. 922, it is certain 
 from her words in v. 941 f. that she returns to the stage in time to hear 
 the boastful soliloquy of Parmeno. Except in Donatus and in M, 
 which has varied from the archetype of its family, there is no direct 
 evidence that headings alone ever existed before v. 943,* but they could 
 easily have been omitted, for they must have contained the same names 
 as the headings before v. 923. 
 
 Eun, 5, 9 (v. 1049). The ^^t scene of the play, which marks the 
 entrance of Phaedria, begins at this point in the y codices, but in A, 8, 
 Ej.the text is not divided. Because of this difference, the non-illustrated 
 Mss. usually have the names of five characters before v. 103 1, where 
 the miniatures have the figures of but four. At one time, however, all 
 cksses of MSS. must have had division at both places, with the same 
 number of characters in the miniatures and the headings. This is the 
 only certain scene where characters who are not on the stage at the 
 same moment are named together in the headings.* Parmeno leaves the 
 stage after v. 1042 in quest of Phaedria, and there is no indication of 
 
 ' In the codices of the Donatus commentary, a new scene begins at this place. See 
 the edition by P. Weasner, vol. I, Praef. p. XLIX. 
 
 2 On Haui. 4, 4 (v. 723), see p. 158 f. On Eun. 3, 2 (v. 454), see p. 71, n. i. 
 
 his return with Phaedria in v. 1049.^ The fact that the names of 
 Phaedria and Parmeno are united in the headings before v. 103 1, is 
 evidence that some change has been made. If the name of Phaedria 
 be omitted from the headings transmitted in A, D, L, Paris. 10304, the 
 remaining four names stand in the peculiar order of figures in the minia- 
 tures, an order which rests upon a distribution of notae preserved in 
 illustrated mss. alone. We must suppose, therefore, that the name of 
 Phaedria has been inserted in the headings before v. 1031 by later 
 hands. Evidence to this effect is still found in 8, E. Though the 
 names of the young men are given together as usual in the Bembinus, 
 and Phaedria, the f^fth speaker, is the second named, he is third in M, 
 fourth in D, L, and fifth in Paris. 10304. His name is not given in E, 
 G at all. Though the archetype of the 8 family had no division of the 
 text within v. 1049, no provision had been made for the name of 
 Phaedria, which has been inserted by different copyists in the headings 
 before v. 1031. For the several reasons given, the former division of 
 the text in all classes of mss. within v. 1049 is well established. 
 
 Phorm, 5, 3, 12 (v. 795). The entrance of Chremes is the occasion 
 of a new scene in A, 8, but there is no sign of division in y, E. Before 
 V. 784 the miniatures picture three characters, and the heading in E 
 names three, but the headings in A, 8 name but two. There is reason 
 to believe that the illustrated mss. originally had the figures of two 
 characters before v. 784, and miniatures with three figures before v. 795. 
 In the discussion of the miniatures transmitted before v. 784, it was 
 shown that they have not only an unusual collocation of characters, but 
 also one that was impossible in an actual performance of the play. The 
 latter circumstance is so unusual in the miniatures as to arouse suspicion 
 about the authenticity of the pictures. It is further to be noted that 
 this is the only place where the miniatures show two doors in one 
 picture.* Turning to the headings preserved in A, 8 before or within 
 V. 795, we find that these also are very unusual, for Nausistrata, who 
 would be the third speaker according to the usual method of division, 
 
 ' It is possible, not to say probable, that in an actual performance of the play Par- 
 meno returned with Phaedria, but the practice of the headings elsewhere is in question. 
 These never name characters of whose presence <^here is no indication in the text. 
 
 * Cf. Wieseler, Theatergebdude, etc., pp. 66. 
 
152 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 is the first to be named. This is explained by the position of the Bem- 
 bine heading, which does not divide v. 795, but precedes it, a method 
 of division which makes Nausistrata the first speaker. Since the head- 
 ings in 8 codices divide the verse named, it is probable that this was 
 true of the archetype, but the fact that in these mss. also Nausistrata's 
 name is first, is proof of the origin of the family from some manuscript 
 which had the peculiar division of scenes preserved in A. The headings 
 in all of these mss. are perfectly regular, and their genuineness is beyond 
 question. In view of the inappropriateness of the miniatures before 
 V. 784, and of the agreement of all classes of mss. in peculiar division 
 at two other places,^ the conjecture is more than probable that minia- 
 tures at one time existed before v. 795, and that when these were 
 omitted, the figure of Chremes was transferred to the picture before 
 V. 784. In this way the unusual and unsuitable collocation of figures 
 in the miniatures at v. 784 can be explained. If the figure of Chremes 
 with the door on the right be dropped from the miniatures, the remain- 
 ing two figures, with the door on the left, probably represent in all 
 essential respects the conception of the artist. When the figure of 
 Chremes was transferred, it was altered, in all probability, in neither 
 attitude nor gesture. In the picture before v. 795, which must have 
 been intended to illustrate the opening of the new scene, Naustrata was 
 the first character. The positions of the other two are given by the 
 headings in D, L, which still name Demipho second, and Chremes 
 third. In A, M, Paris. 10304 the names of the two senes have been 
 reduced to the normal order, but the peculiar place of division still 
 preserved in A, and once found in all classes of mss., has caused the 
 name of Nausistrata to retain its position. The collocation of figures 
 to which the headings in D, L bear witness, was appropriate to represent 
 the opening of the new scene. The grouping was such that for a 
 moment after his efitrance, Chremes might easily fail to notice his wife's 
 presence on the stage. After catching sight of her, he could speak aside 
 to Demipho, as he seems to do in v. 805 . 
 
 Phomi, 5,9 (v. 990). The unusual order of names in L, together 
 with the omission of the name of Chremes in M, is almost certain evi- 
 
 J I 
 
 * See p. 134 ff. 
 
 Scene- Headings aiid Miniatures in Terence 153 
 
 dence that the archetype of this family, like D,^ had no new scene 
 beginning with the entrance of Nausistrata. If this is true, Nausistrata 
 should have been named with the other characters before v. 894, but 
 this is done neither in D, nor in any other member of this family.^ The 
 omission of her name is sufficient evidence that this was true of the 
 archetype. As happened in the Eunuchus, when the last two scenes of 
 the play were united, no provision was made in the heading of the pre- 
 ceding scene for the character entering at the point where the heading 
 was dropped. 
 
 ^^- 3» 3» 10 (v. 364). In all the later codices except Paris. 10304, 
 which has varied from the archetype of its family, the entrance of Syrus 
 in V. 364 is marked by a new scene. The Bembinus has no sign of 
 division, but gives the names of Syrus and Dromo with Demea in the 
 heading before v. 355, where the later codices (except Paris. 10304) 
 name only Demea. Some manuscript from which the Bembinus is de- 
 scended must have had the name of Demea alone before v. 355, with 
 a new scene beginning within v. 364. The naming of Dromo in the 
 Bembine heading, and the omission of Stephanio are inexplicable in any 
 other way.* 
 
 ^^' 5> 9 (v. 958)- With the entrance of Syrus within v. 958 a new 
 scene begins in y, E, but the 8 codices have neither headings nor divi- 
 sion of the text at this point. According to Umpfenbach and Kauer, 
 the lacerated margins of the Bembinus give evidence that in this manu- 
 script also the text was not divided.* Whatever may have been true of 
 the Bembinus, it is very probable that the archetype of the 8 family had a 
 new scene beginning within v. 958. This was the conclusion of Dziatzko, 
 
 / 
 
 * The Victorianus has, apparently, a heading written in the margin and intended for 
 V. 986, the point at which Phormio first tries to call Nausistrata out of the house. The 
 impossibility of this point of division, together with the peculiar features of the heading 
 itself, proves that it does not rest on the authority of any manuscript. 
 
 * It is possible that Nausistrata was at one time named at v. 894 either in M, or in a 
 manuscript from which it is derived. The manner in which Schlee gives the heading 
 at this place seems to indicate that a space is found between the last two names. 
 
 ^ See p. 127 f. 
 
 * Since the Bembine headings elsewhere never omit the name of a speaking charac- 
 ter, it is very probable that the heading before v. 924 named Syrus, but no part of this 
 heading is preserved, and Kauer is not justified in stating this as a certainty. See his 
 note ad loc. in his revision of Dziatzko's Adelpkoe. 
 
154 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 who called attention to the use of the Latin letter S, instead of a Greek 
 letter, as the mta of Syrus in the heading transmitted in D before 
 V. 924, and to the unusual position of the name of Syras, which is found 
 first of all in the heading in G at this place.* These facts were held by 
 Dziatzko to indicate that the name of Syrus was not given in the arche- 
 type before v. 924, thus requiring that a new scene should begin with 
 the entrance of Syrus in v. 958. Dziatzko*s conclusion is confirmed by 
 L, Paris. 10304, neither of which gives the name of Syrus before v. 924. 
 Furthermore, the loss of the first half of v. 958 in L is best explained as 
 happening when the heading was dropped. But the most important 
 evidence of all is the fact that the unusual order of names found in G 
 before v. 924 exactly reproduces the peculiar order of figures in the 
 miniatures at v. 958. This proves that the heading in G was formerly 
 given at V. 95 8. When the two scenes were combined, it was transferred 
 to V. 924, where it displaced the rightful heading. It is certain, there- 
 fore, that the archetype of the family did not name Syrus before v. 924, 
 but had a new scene beginning at his entrance within v. 958.* 
 
 In the discussion thus far the codices have been reduced to agreement 
 in six of the seventeen passages where at the entrance of characters, they 
 seem to be at variance in scene-division. Excluding E, which has de- 
 rived its distribution of scenes chiefly from illustrated mss., but has to 
 some extent been under the influence of 8 codices, the number of scenes 
 in which all variations have been explained is eight. In the remaining 
 nine passages, the failure to divide the text occurs once in y, three times 
 in A,^d six times in 8. In spite of the want of direct evidence of 
 
 ' Tauchnitz edition, 1884, adn. crit. on v. 924. Dziatzko strangely misunderstood 
 the heading made up by Umpfenbach at v. 924, for he seemed to believe that it was 
 the heading preserved in the Bembinus. 
 
 ' In the separate edition of the Adelphoe Dziatzko has no new scene at v. 958. In 
 a note he held that the failure to divide the text at this place in A, D, G, was according to 
 the usual practice when a slave is sent on a brief errand into one of the houses in the 
 rear of the stage, and returns to find the same characters on the stage. Since Dziatzko 
 abandoned this position in the 1884 edition of the collected plays, it would not be neces- 
 sary to mention his earlier note, were it not for the fact that Kauer wrongly keeps it. 
 At the return of Syrus in v. 958, he does not find on the stage the same characters that 
 he left at his exit in v. 916. The passages dted from the Eunuchus are not parallels, 
 for in these there is no entrance of a new character between the exit and the return of 
 the character who momentarily leaves the stage. 
 
 Scene-Headings ajid Miniatures in Terence 
 
 iSS 
 
 changes, it is very probable that new scenes were originally instituted in 
 all of these places. The naming of Davus before And. 5,5 (v. 95 7) made 
 it easy for the copyist of the Bembinus to omit the heading at v. 965 (or 
 V. 963). Similarly, the naming of Pythias before Eun, 5, 4 (v. 923) sug- 
 gested the omission of the headings before v. 943, Apart from these 
 two scenes, the instances of failure to introduce new scenes when new 
 characters enter, number one each in A, y, and five in S. With reference 
 to the passage in the Bembinus, Ad. 5,9 (v. 958), it must be remembered 
 that the total loss of the heading at v. 924, and the almost complete 
 loss of the text after v. 914 have removed any possible evidence of 
 changes. The passage in the y codices is Ad. 5, 5 (v. 882). Except 
 at Haui. 5, 2 (v. 954), where F, O, P have varied from the archetype, 
 no instance of a failure to begin a new scene in these codices is so 
 unusual. If miniatures have been omitted at v. 882, those transmitted 
 before v. 855 are the result of changes, for there is no reason for the 
 appearance of the same characters in both pictures. At v. 855 Demea 
 and Syrus are painted in the usual order. The attitude of Syrus, who 
 seems to be stroking Demea's face, is very unusual. According to the 
 dialogue in v. 886 f., this attitude would be better suited to Demea. 
 While it seems probable that some change has been made, due, in all 
 probability, to the omission of a miniature at v. 882, it appears impossi- 
 ble to determine the nature of the change. For the five places at 
 which the text is not divided in the S codices, there is a total lack of 
 direct evidence. In every instance the names of the new characters are 
 given in the correct order at the preceding point of division. 
 
 In eight places where characters leave the stage, the mss. disagree in 
 scene-division. In all of these but one, recent editors usually indicate 
 new scenes.* Since in any instance the characters remaining on the 
 stage were named or painted at the previous point of division, it was 
 
 * Haut. 3, 3, 32 (v. 593). Haui. 978, not v. 980, properly begms the new scene 
 in the editions of Dziatzko and Fleckeisen (second). At Phorm. 2, 4 (v. 441), 
 Dziatzko recognized that the failure of the Bembinus to have a new scene is a 
 deviation from the usual rule, so he divided the text. Cf. Tauchnitz edition, 1884, 
 adn. crit. ad loc. ; also the separate edition of the Phormio^ Einleitung, p. 32, n. 4. 
 Hauler retained Dziatzko's note — Cf. AUgem. Einl.^ p. 47, n. 5 — but chose to follow 
 the Bembinus. The grounds for division at this point are as strong as at w. 534 and 
 682 of the same play. 
 
IS6 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 very easy to drop the miniatures and headings, and when this was done, 
 no traces of the change remained. Excluding HauL 3, 3, 32 (v. 593) 
 and Hec, 3, 3 (v. 361), where the codices have already been brought 
 into agreement, the failure to institute new scenes is found twice each in 
 A, S, and four times each in y, E. The superiority of A, due to its age, 
 is again evident. The miniatures could be omitted without other 
 changes, and as a result the number of omissions is in striking con- 
 trast with the number at points where characters enter. Except at And, 
 I, 3 (v. 206), where a note resembling an explanatio praeambula points 
 to the former existence of miniatures, there is no direct evidence that 
 cither headings or miniatures have been omitted before passages in this 
 class. But if the repetition of the figure of Davus at And, 963 caused 
 the omission of the miniatures, or if both miniatures and headings have 
 been omitted in some instances where the omission required the transfer 
 of the figures or of the names of characters to the preceding point of 
 division, it is more than probable that both headings and miniatures 
 have sometimes been dropped where no further changes were necessary. 
 The existence of division in one class of mss. is strong evidence of its 
 existence in the original from which the several classes have drawn 
 their system of scene-division. 
 
 ^d, 3, 5 (v. 511), where the return of Hegio follows the exit of 
 Demea, properly belongs to the class just discussed. Hegio is active in 
 the previous scene, so that his figure at v. 5 1 1 in the y codices, and 
 his name in E could easily have been omitted. Since an explanatio 
 praeambula is preserved at this place, the former existence of minia- 
 tures can scarcely be doubted. 
 
 The fact that in seven passages scene-division is preserved in a single 
 codex or family of codices, suggests that in some instances it may have 
 been lost altogether. The commentary of Donatus bears witness to the 
 institution of new scenes at a number of places where the text is not 
 divided in any of our mss. In some of these there is no reason to 
 doubt the evidence of the commentator, for in two passages, in harmony 
 with his usual practice, he wrote notes on the content of the new 
 scenes, and in one passage the Donatus mss. preserve an appropriate 
 heading. At And, i, 2 (v. 175) the chief character of the play enters 
 and the lyric measures begin. According to the practice elsewhere, a 
 new scene should begin at this point. The miniatures at v. 172 repre- 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 157 
 
 f 
 
 sent the two characters in the usual order, Davus being seen as he 
 enters from a door on the right. Against the pictures there seems to 
 be no valid ground of objection. Since Davus enters in v. 174, the 
 miniatures at v. 172 may always have contained his figure, and new 
 miniatures, with the same two characters in the reverse order, may 
 originally have been prepared for v. 175. Examples of such a repeti- 
 tion still exist in the illustrated mss., and there is reason to believe that 
 this was the cause of the omission of miniatures at And, 963. Another 
 place where Donatus found a new scene is And, 4, 3, 7 (v. 722). The 
 miniatures before v. 716 clearly illustrate v. 721, and rightly contain 
 the figure of Davus, who enters before this verse. An explanatio 
 praeambula, typical in every respect, describes the circumstances under 
 which Mysis first addresses Davus in v. 721. This fact seems to indi- 
 cate the former existence of miniatures prepared for a new scene 
 beginning with the words mi homo in v. 721. This point of division, 
 though very unusual, is precisely similar to that at And. 3, 3 (v. 533). 
 It is probable, therefore, that some copyist transferred from v. 721 to 
 V. 716 the miniatures transmitted before the latter verse, and that he 
 omitted a picture containing only the figure of Mysis. In the codices 
 used by Donatus, the point of division had been changed so that the 
 new scene began with the first words of Davus in v. 722. That a similar 
 change had been made at And, 963 seems beyond question. The third 
 place referred to is And, 2, 3 (v. 375), where the occasion of the 
 division is the exit of Charinus. Since the characters remaining on the 
 stage are both pictured and named before v. 338, the miniatures and 
 headings at this point could serve for both scenes. 
 
 At these three points it is probable that both miniatures and headings 
 existed originally, but that these have been dropped by various copyists 
 until the codices have lost all traces of them. Since the failure to 
 divide the text at each of these points is very unusual, it is surely 
 possible that new scenes were at one time instituted in other passages 
 where the regular principles of distribution now seem to be violated. 
 If the entrance of Davus m And. i, 2, 4 (v. 175) was the occasion of a 
 new scene, the preceding scene had but three verses. For this reason 
 the limits to the length of scenes noticed above will be disregarded in 
 the following pages. 
 
I 
 
 158 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 To the rale that new scenes begin at points where there is both an 
 entrance and an exit of characters, the only exception, where none of 
 the Mss. indicate a new scene, is at Haut 4, 4, 21 (v. 743). The com- 
 mentary of Donatus on this play is lost, and no explanatio praeambula 
 is transmitted at the point named, so that any traces of changes 
 must be sought in the headings or the miniatures before v. 723. The 
 5 codices preserve clear evidence that their headings at this place 
 were derived from the miniatures in their present form. If changes 
 have been made, the miniatures alone can betray this fact. Since 
 these represent Dromo on the stage with Bacchis, Phrygia and Clinia, 
 it was assumed in the interpretation that they were intended to illus- 
 trate V. 743, but it is very doubtful whether this is true. In picturing 
 together on the stage characters who are not on the stage at the same 
 time, they are without precedent, for it seems to be after the exit 
 of the other three characters, not before it, that Dromo enters. More- 
 over, the gestures of part of the figures are unsuitable, if they refer 
 to V. 743, but they are entirely appropriate to an earlier passage. 
 Bacchis and Phrygia, who scarcely address each other after v. 735, 
 appear in conversation on the left. The gesture of Bacchis is best 
 regarded as accompanying her instructions to Phrygia. Clinia's hand is 
 extended toward the two slaves, and he seems to be speaking to them, 
 but he does not address Dromo at all, and speaks to Syrus only in 
 V. 729. Syrus has his hand lifted to his face in an attitude which else- 
 where denotes dejection or serious thought, an attitude which he can 
 assume only early in the scene, when he hears the threats of Bacchis. 
 The position of Dromo's arm, which is uplifted and extended backward, 
 has no resemblance to a gesture. The position of the fingers is open to 
 the same objection. For three reasons, therefore, the miniatures trans- 
 mitted before v. 723 are such as to arouse suspicion. The fact that the 
 gestures and attitudes of four figures refer to a passage earlier in the 
 scene indicates that the figure of Dromo is a later addition. If this is 
 true, there must have been a new picture where he enters, at v. 743, 
 the new scene containing only Dromo and Syrus. Dromo, as the new 
 character, very probably was painted on the left When the miniature 
 at this place was dropped, the figure of Dromo was inserted in the 
 picture before v. 723, space for it being made by separating the figures 
 of Clinia and Syrus. This explains the unusual order of Dromo and 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 159 
 
 Syrus in the miniatures. In other places where figures have been trans- 
 ferred from one picture to another, there was little change, apparently, 
 in their attitudes. If this is true of Dromo, we must suppos-^ that he 
 was represented at v. 743 as half within a door, for in this way the 
 peculiar position of his arm and fingers is easily explained. 
 
 At points where characters enter, the rules of distribution are 
 violated six times, but if changes occurring within the limit of six 
 verses be included, the number will be increased to. twelve. At two of 
 these, as described above, Donatus preserves evidence of the former 
 division of the text. In the remaining ten places neither Donatus nor 
 the writer of the explanationes praeambulae gives any indication of 
 scene-division. If miniatures and headings have been dropped at these 
 pomts, the change was before Donatus' time. Since changes of this 
 nature required the transfer of names or figures, the headings and 
 miniatures at the preceding points of division are the only source of 
 evidence. Except at And, 5, 2 (v. 842), where the headings are in 
 some disorder, and the miniatures are lost,^ both have a normal order 
 of characters. The headings in but one instance preserve any evidence 
 of changes in scene-division. Against most of the miniatures also there 
 are no grounds for objection. Those before And, 4, 4 (v. 740) illus- 
 trate w. 3-5, including the entrance of Davus in the latter verse. 
 Before Eun, 5, 3 (v. 910) they present the opening of the scene, and 
 show Chremes and Sophrona as they enter in v. 3. The passage to 
 which the miniatures before Emu 3, i (v. 391) refer, is not clear, but 
 the entrance of Parmeno scarcely needed to be indicated by a new 
 scene, for it occurs after Thraso and Gnatho have spoken little more 
 than three verses, and Parmeno has a very unimportant part in the scene. 
 Similarly, the miniatures before Haut. 5, i (v. 874) are difficult to 
 interpret. While there is no evidence of changes, it is to be noted that 
 if the entrance of Chremes in v. 6 was the occasion of a new scene, the 
 picture could have been transferred to the position before v. 874, for 
 any distinction between the figures of the two senes seems impossible. 
 In these four passages the small number of verses in a scene which a 
 division of the text would have caused, may excuse the apparent viola- 
 tion of the usual principles of distribution. For the remaining five places 
 
 * See p. 168 £. 
 
i6o 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 no such reason can be given, and in all of them probable evidence of 
 changes is preserved. The miniatures transmitted before Eun. 3, 3 
 (v. 507) represent Dorias entering from the house of Thais, and seem 
 to refer to the last verse of the scene (v. 538). But there is no evi- 
 dence that she actually enters at this point, and we must suppose that 
 she enters with Pythias in v. 531. Sostrata and Parmeno see Pamphilus 
 at his entrance in Hec, 3, 2, 18 (v. 353), but in the miniatures trans- 
 mitted before v. 336 they appear in earnest conversation, and neither 
 o! them pays the slightest regard to Pamphilus, who is shown coming 
 from the door of Phidippus on the right. In the miniatures before 
 Hec. 4, I (v. 516), Myrrina*s gesture with both hands is more appropri- 
 ate to her excited language at the opening of the scene, than to her 
 forced composure after the entrance of Phidippus in v. 522. In the 
 pictures before Hec, 5, 3 (v. 799), the attitude of Parmeno is not that 
 of a person conversing with Bacchis, but is appropriate to his soliloquy 
 in the opening verses of the scene, before he catches sight of Bacchis in 
 V. 806. The miniatures before Ad, 2, 3 (v. 254) show Syrus addressing 
 Ctesipho, and pointing to the house of Micio, from which he has just 
 come. The figure of Syrus clearly refers to his words Ellum, te expectat 
 domi, spoken after his entrance in v. 7. The picture seems appropriate 
 in every respect, but not only the Bembine heading for this scene, but 
 also the headings in the later codices before the following scene, show 
 in all probability that the figure of Sannio was painted at one time in 
 the miniatures before v. 254.^ If the Bembine heading may be trusted, 
 Sannio was shown between the other two characters. For this position 
 no reason whatever can be found in the text. It is not improbable, 
 therefore, that the original picture before v. 254 contained only the 
 figures of Ctesipho and Sannio, and that a new picture containing three 
 figures was prepared for the entrance of Syrus in v. 260. The brevity 
 of the two scenes prompted a copyist to combine them. To do 
 this, the picture at v. 260 was dropped, and the figure of Syrus was 
 transferred to the third place in the miniatures before v. 254. At 
 
 * See p. 166 f. on the uses of eidem and idem. If the combined evidence of the 
 Bembine heading at Ad. 254, and of the headings in the later codices at v. 265, show 
 that the figure of Sannio once appeared in the miniatures at v. 254, the Bembine head- 
 ing alone at Phorm. 4, 2 (v. 591) is strong evidence that the figures of Demipho and 
 Chremes were formerly painted in the miniatures before this scene. 
 
 \[ 
 ii 1' 
 
 I I 
 If 
 
 / 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 161 
 
 a still later period the figure of Sannio, who is a mute character, was 
 omitted. 
 
 Another probable instance of the combination of two scenes, with a 
 change in the miniatures preceding the first, is found in the last scene 
 of the Hecyra, As has been shown above,^ the only miniatures that 
 contain two figures of one character are those transmitted before Hec, 
 841. It is possible to explain this as an attempt to present two stages 
 of the action in a single picture, for while three characters seem to be 
 on the stage, Pamphilus converses only with Parmeno in the first four- 
 teen verses, and only with Bacchis in the following eighteen, after which 
 Bacchis seems to leave the stage. In the miniatures, Pamphilus, the 
 first figure on the left, is shown stroking the face of Parmeno. This 
 part of the picture refers to v. 849 ff., where the youth, elated by the 
 message conveyed through Parmeno, expresses his eagerness to reward 
 him. The third figure represents Pamphilus in conversation with 
 Bacchis, this part of the illustration referring to w. 855-872. The 
 miniatures seem appropriate, therefore, to present two parts of the scene. 
 But miniatures of this kind are very rare, and never elsewhere have two 
 figures for one character. More probably one of the two figures repre- 
 senting Pamphilus is due to a copyist. That the tendency to combine 
 scenes increased toward the end of a play, is beyond question. More- 
 over, if the conclusions stated above are correct, the Hecyra has suffered 
 changes of this nature in three other places. Finally, it is easy to 
 account for the division of the text in what is now the last scene of 
 the play. Bacchis seems to remain on the stage after v. 840, but the 
 evidence that she does so is not decisive. As in three other very similar 
 scenes,* the artist decided that Bacchis leaves the stage after v. 840, and 
 returns before v. 854. Holding this view, he was required by his prin- 
 ciple of distribution to prepare a picture for a new scene beginning 
 with the first words of Bacchis in v. 855. Moreover, in his belief that 
 Bacchis enters after v. 853, it is possible tiiat the artist represented her 
 in the original picture before v. 841. If he did so, the picture at 
 V. 855 could have been omitted without any transfer of figures. What- 
 ever may be true of the figure of Bacchis in the miniatures before 
 V. 841, it is not probable that the second figure of Pamphilus was taken 
 from the picture at v. 855, for it is strikingly similar in attitude to the 
 
 * See p. 66, 
 
 ' See p. 68 f. 
 
l62 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 first. The slight change in gesture could easily have been made by a 
 copyist. 
 
 In 27 places where the exit of characters occurs seven verses or more 
 from any extant point of division, new scenes are not found in any 
 manuscript. If the limit of seven verses be disregarded, the number 
 will be increased to about 64, of which 50 are separated by not fewer 
 than five verses from the nearest place of division. In but one of these 
 is it possible to find in Donatus any evidence of the former division of 
 the text. This is at And, 2, 3 (v. 375), which has been discussed 
 above. Notes resembling explanationes praeambulae are preserved at 
 but four of the entire number of passages.* In all the rest of the pas- 
 sages the silence both of Donatus and of the writer of the introductory 
 scholia is positive evidence that they did not find new scenes. On any 
 changes which may have been made before the time of the commenta- 
 tors, there is a total lack of evidence. It seems probable, however, 
 that miniatures, and possibly headings, have been omitted in some of 
 the places under discussion. At points where characters leave the 
 stage, the codices are at variance in scene-division with relatively 
 greater frequency than at points where they enter. This is especially 
 true in illustrated mss. If both miniatures and headings have been 
 dropped at places where this action involved the transfer of figures and 
 names of characters, it is a probable conjecture that they have been 
 dropped at some places where no such changes were necessary. Whether 
 the artist painted miniatures for all of the 50 passages referred to, or even 
 for all of the 2 7, may well be doubted. Passages at which division is pre- 
 served in part or all of the mss. indicate that the decision depended in 
 part upon the length of the scenes, in part upon essential turns or 
 changes in the course of the play. According to these criteria, the 
 passages at which Donatus and the explanationes praeambulae transmit 
 evidence of the former division of the text, were suitable places in which 
 to institute new scenes. Beyond this point it is difficult to go, but it is 
 not improbable that new scenes at one time were instituted in places 
 where the metrical structure changes with the exit of characters.* 
 
 » And. 3, 2, 9 (v. 489) ; Haut. i, i, 115 (v. 1 67); 4» 7f 7 (v. 835); Run, 2, I, 
 19 (v. 225). The notes at And, 3, 2, 44 (v. 524) and HatU. 5, 2, 43 (v. 996) are 
 too brief to be identified as introductory scholia. At Haui. 3, i, 93 (v. 502), where 
 Chremes temporarily leaves the stage, a typical explanado praeambula is preserved. 
 
 ' These are given on p. 137, n. 4. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 163 
 
 The Source and the History of the Scene-Headings in 
 
 Illustrated Manuscripts 
 
 Until recently it has always been assumed that the scene-headings in 
 the y codices have had about the same history as the miniatures, and 
 hence that they possess some measure of authority. This misconception 
 has more than once led to the misinterpretation of certain of the minia- 
 tures. That the names are not always correctly assigned to the figures 
 was recognized by Wieseler, and still earlier by Cocquelines, but neither 
 of these scholars seriously questioned the traditional assignment. In 
 1893 the theory that the pictures and the headings were derived from 
 different sources was advanced by Schlee.^ So far as this theory relates 
 to the transmission, it is beyond question correct. Since Schlee, in 
 support of his position, cited only a few scenes in which no names are 
 assigned to mute characters, or the assignment to speakers is incorrect, 
 it seems advisable to give more complete evidence. The omission of 
 names by the copyists of C, P occurs almost invariably in scenes 
 where the order of figures is in some way unusual, or is difficult to 
 determine.* Errors in the assignment are found chiefly in scenes where 
 the collocation of figures is unusual. This is true of seven scenes in P, 
 of eight each in F, O, and originally of twenty-three scenes in C.^ In 
 addition to these, there is one scene each in F, O, P, and six in C, in 
 
 * Scholia Terentiana, p. 6 f. 
 
 2 The complete list of such scenes is as follows: And. i, i (v. 28), C; 2, 5 
 (v. 412), C, (so Paris. 7903); 3, i (v. 459), P, (so Paris. 7903); 3, 4 (v. 580), P; 
 4, 4 (v. 740), C, P, (so Paris. 7903); 5» 4 (v. 904)5 C, P; Haut. 4, 7 (v. 829), P; 
 Run. 3, 2 (v. 454), C, P, (so Paris. 7903); 3,. 5 (v. 549), P; Phorm. 2, 3 (v. 348), 
 P; Hec. I, I (v. 58), P; i, 2 (v. 76), P; Ad. 5, 9 (v. 958), P. Except in P at 
 And. 4, 4 (v. 740), Run. 3, 5 (v. 549), and Ad. 5, 9 (v. 958), and in Paris. 7903, 
 names have been added at these places by later hands. The names of mute characters 
 are frequently omitted. 
 
 3 And 2, I (v. 301), C; 2, 6 (v. 432), C; 3, i (v. 459), C; 3, 4 (v. 580), C, 
 O; 5» 3 (v. 872), C, O, P; Haut. 2, 3 (v. 242), F; 4, 4 (v. 723), C, F; 4, 7 
 (v. 829), C; Run. 2, 2 (v. 232), C, P; 3, 3 (v. 507), C; 3, 4 (v. 539), C; 3, S 
 (v. 549) » C; 4, 3 (v. 643), C, F, O, P; 4, 4 (v. 668), C, O, P; 4, 7 (v. 771), C, 
 F, O, P; 5, 9 (v. 1049), C; Phorm. 2, i (v. 231), C; 2, 3 (v. 348), C, F, O; 2, 
 4 (v. 441), C; 4. 5 (v. 713). C; 5, 8 (v. 894), C; Hec. 3, 4 (v. 415), C, O, P; 
 Ad. 2, I (v. 15s), C; 3, 2 (v. 299), C, F, O, P; 5, 7 (v. 899), F; 5, 9 (v. 958), F. 
 
1 64 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 which later hands have added the names, or have changed the order, in 
 either case with a wrong assignment.* This does not include three 
 scenes in P where apparently no attempt was made to adapt the 
 names to the order of figures.* Where the collocation of figures is 
 normal, errors in the assignment of names are rare, there being but one 
 instance each in C, F.* This striking contrast suggests that the disa- 
 greement between the names and the figures is due to the normal order 
 of names. This is true of four scenes in P, of five each in F, O, and 
 was originally true of sixteen scenes in C. With these should be 
 included Eun. 3, 5 (v. 549), O, and Phorm, 4, 3 (v. 606), F, where 
 names have been added by later hands. Moreover, in Eun, 4, 3 
 (v. 643), F, O, P, and 4, 7 (v. 771), C, the incorrect assignment of 
 port of the names is explained in the same way. This is true also of 
 Haut. 4, 4 (v. 723), Eun. 4, 3 (v. 643), and Ad, 2, i (v. 155), where 
 the names, written in the normal order by the copyist of C, have been 
 subjected to changes by later hands. In the rest of the instances, the 
 error is usually due to the figures of mute characters in the mmiatures. 
 Rarely can more than a single scene be found in any manuscript in 
 which the error in the assignment is not clearly due to the arrangement 
 of the names in the usual order. 
 
 From the evidence presented above, it is a necessary conclusion that 
 the miniatures and the headings in illustrated mss. have come from 
 different sources. If this is true, it is important to determine the family 
 to which the headings belong. Schlee seems to hold that they came 
 from 8 codices, and in support of this view he cites certain scenes in 
 which the headings in the two families are very similar. In reply it 
 may be said that the resemblance is accounted for by the close relation- 
 ship existing between the headings in all classes of codices. The 
 headings in F may have come from 8 codices, but this cannot be true 
 of those in the rest of the illustrated mss. Against such a view, nega- 
 
 » And, 3, I (v. 459), C; 5, 4 (v. 904), C; Haui, 4, 4 (v. 723), C; Eun. 3, 2 
 (▼. 454), P; 3, 3 (v. 507), C; 3, 5 (v. 549), O; 4» 3 (v- 643), C; Phorm. 4, 3 
 (v. 606), F; Ad. 2, I (v. 155), C. 
 
 * And. 3, 1 (v. 459); 3, 4 (v. 580); Haut. 4, 7 (v. 829). Cf. also one heading 
 at And. 5, 4 (v. 904). 
 
 » Phorm. 5, 6 (v. 841), C; Ad. i, 2 (v. 81), F. 
 
 ( 
 
 n 
 
 r 
 
 " 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 165 
 
 tive, but apparently decisive evidence is found in certain differences in 
 the headings.* 
 
 In members of the 8 family the roles, either in the same line, or in 
 different lines, sometimes precede the names. This inversion of the 
 usual order occurs in part of one heading in V, in six headings in G, in 
 eight in D, in fourteen in M, and in fifty- three in Paris. 10304. Disre- 
 garding the heading in V, a total of 56 scenes are found in which at 
 least one manuscript of the 8 family gives the roles before the names. 
 Though Paris. 10304 includes most of the instances in the rest of the 
 codices, the members of the family never agree in even a single scene. 
 These facts make it certain that changes have been from the peculiar 
 order, not towards it. It is more than probable that in some places 
 such changes have taken place in all the mss., for in three scenes where 
 the names are written in the first line, the roles in the second, the 
 Greek letters — notae personarum — are not given with the names, but 
 with the roles.'^ It is a probable conjecture, therefore, that the earliest 
 8 codices had the roles before the names in every scene. Of this 
 peculiar order there is not a trace in the illustrated mss.'* 
 
 Another mark of distinction is the form of the numeral in scenes 
 which have characters of the same role. The form written by the 
 copyists of the Bembinus and the y manuscripts is invariably 11 and iii, 
 never the words dvo and tres. In 8, F, both are used, the words 
 instead of the arithmetical symbols appearing in one out of eight in- 
 stances in G, in one out of three in V, in three out of nine in M, in 
 three out of five in F, in fourteen out of thirty-five in D, and in twenty- 
 eight out of thirty-six in Paris. 10304. The 8 headings are frequently 
 at variance in this respect, a result that is obviously due to changes. 
 
 * Since this test depends entirely on the roles, which are seldom preserved m L, it is 
 obvious that it cannot be applied to this manuscript. 
 
 * And. 2, 2 (v. 338), Paris. 10304; 3, 2 (v. 481), Paris. 10304; Ad. 3, 4 
 (v. 447), D. 
 
 3 In a number of 5 headings written in one line, the roles do not alternate with the 
 names, but either precede or follow the names in a body. This is true of 1 1 headings 
 in D, of 23 in G, of 24 in Paris. 10304, and of 28 in M. In a few scenes, characters of 
 the same role are named together, followed by the role and numeral, after which the 
 rest of the names appear. Of these peailiar methods of arranging the names and roles, 
 the first is never found in 7 codices, the second, only at And. 3, 4 (v. 580), and 5, 4 
 (v. 904) , where headings have been supplied in P by later hands. 
 
1 66 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 There can be little doubt that in the form of the numeral, as well as in 
 the arrangement of the names and r61es, Paris. 10304 best represents 
 the archetype of its family. It is very probable, therefore, that the 
 words Dvo and tres alone were employed in the earliest representatives 
 of this family. The variation in F, which may indicate the source of 
 the headings in this manuscript, is natural in a codex which has been 
 under the influence of S codices. 
 
 A third distinguishing mark of the S headings is the use of the 
 abbreviation idem. In the illustrated manuscripts the form is seven 
 times EiDEM, and only once idem.^ In three instances it is used with 
 characters of the same role, while in all of the eight scenes it appears 
 with the first of two or more names of characters who remain on the stage 
 from the preceding scene. In the illustrated codices, therefore, these 
 forms are invariably plural, and denote an identity of two or more 
 characters in successive scenes. In the S family, on the other hand, the 
 form is idem in all of the eight scenes where the word is found.'^ In all 
 of these, except Ad, 2, 4 (v. 265), it is not used with the first, but with 
 the second of two names. In six scenes the characters referred to have 
 the same role, while in two they have different roles. In three scenes 
 neither of the characters remains on the stage, in one scene one of them 
 remains, and in four scenes both of them remain. In the 8 codices, 
 therefore, the word idem has two distinct uses. In four scenes it is 
 singular in number, and denotes an identity of roles of characters in the 
 heading where it is used. In two other scenes it may have this 
 meaning, or it may be plural and refer to two characters in the pre- 
 ceding scene.' If the latter alternative is correct, the names, with the 
 accompanying roles, have been changed from the order of figures to 
 
 * ElDBM is used in And. 3, 4 (v. 580), C, Paris. 7903; Phorm, I, 4 (v. 179), C, 
 P; 5» 9 (v. 990) » C, P; Ad, 2, 4 (v. 265), P, Paris. 7900; 3, 2 (v. 299), C, P, 
 Paris. 7900; 5, 8 (v. 924), C, P, Paris. 79CX); 5, 9 (v. 958), C, P. Idem is used 
 in Ad. 5, 2 (v. 776), O, P, Paris. 7900. 
 
 * Haut. 2, 3 (v. 242), D; Phorm. 4, 3 (v. 606), Paris. IO304; 4, 5 (v. 713), D; 
 5, 3, 12 (v. 795), D; 5, 6 (v. 841), D; Hec. 2, 2 (v. 243), D, G, M, Paris. 10304; 
 3, 4 (v. 415), D, M, Paris. 10304; Ad. 2, 4 (v. 265), D, G, M, Paris. 10304. In 
 the place last named, the orthographical variant item is found in G, M. In Phorm, 
 S» 8, 93 (v. 986), IDEM is given in a heading in D, but the heading probably has no 
 manuscript authority. Cf. p. 153, n. i. 
 
 ^ Haut. 2, 3 (v. 242); Phorm. 4, 3 (v. 606). 
 
 
 K 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 167 
 
 the normal order. Before Phorm, 5, 6 (v. 841) and Ad, 2, 4 (v. 265), 
 IDEM can only be plural, and refer to an identity of characters in suc- 
 cessive scenes. In the first of these two places the position of the 
 word must be due to a change in the order of the last two names. The 
 second place is noteworthy as the only one where both eidem and idem 
 are found. Both are plural, and afford positive evidence that, as in the 
 Bembinus, all headings at v. 254 formerly contained the name of Sannio. 
 
 Since the headings transmitted in y codices have no traces whatever 
 of the three characteristic marks of the 8 headings, the theory proposed 
 by Schlee must be rejected. The source of the y headings is to be 
 sought in the family of which the Bembinus is the only survivor. Except 
 in the order of names, which has been adapted in part to the collocation 
 of figures, the headings in C, P differ from those in A only in the use 
 of EIDEM (once idem) among the roles. All other differences are trivial, 
 and are easily explained. Whether eidem was employed in the original 
 headings is a question to which I see no answer. 
 
 The history of the headings in illustrated mss., and through them the 
 relationship existing between the codices, can be determined with reason- 
 able certainty. The latest common ancestor of our illustrated codices 
 had no scene-headings. From it two copies were made, through one of 
 which F is descended, through the other, the rest of the members of 
 the family. At some point in the transmission, headings were inserted 
 in each of these subdivisions. Those preserved in F, and drawn prob- 
 ably from S codices, may have been inserted in the first four plays only, 
 with the exception of a few in the Phormio, These headings can have 
 no connection with those found in C, O, P, and the two Paris, mss., 
 Nos. 7900 and 7903. The archetype of the latter subdivision was sup- 
 plied with headings from a codex resembling the Bembinus. Though 
 some attempt at a correct assignment may have been made, the order of 
 names, with few exceptions, was normal. In scenes where this order 
 was not appropriate to the collocation of figures, various hands 
 attempted to correct the assignment. The fewest changes were made 
 in the codices from which C is descended, the most in those of which 
 P is a representative.^ Though these two manuscripts were written at 
 
 * Both in the miniatures, therefore, and in the scene-headings, the Vaticanus best 
 represents the archetype of the family. Except in the distinctio versuum, it may well 
 be doubted whether the Parisinus deserves the prominence usually accorded it. 
 
1 68 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 about the same time, the headings disprove the common assumption 
 that they are copies of the same original. The two Paris codices, 
 Nos. 7900 and 7903, with rare exceptions, agree with C not only in the 
 omission of the headings in certain scenes, but also in the order of 
 names. Where the names written by the copyist of C have been erased 
 or changed, the original order can be recovered from these two manu- 
 scripts.* It is possible that Paris. 7903 is a copy of C, but this cannot 
 be true of Paris. 7900. The latter, and probably both, are copies either 
 of the same original as C, or of a very closely related manuscript. The 
 Dunelmensis, on the other hand, must be classed with P, with which it 
 almost invariably agrees in the order of names. That it is not a copy 
 of P, is shown by the fact that it has readings not found in the Parisi- 
 nus, but given by other members of the family.* It must be regarded, 
 therefore, as a descendant, and probably a copy, of the same manu- 
 script as P. Any other conclusion is precluded by the close agreement 
 of the two codices in the assignment of names.* If this is true, there 
 are strong grounds for suspecting the genuineness of the miniatures 
 transmitted in O alone before And. 5, i (v. 820), and 5, 2 (v. 842). 
 These were accepted by Hoeing without question, and influenced him 
 greatly in his attempt to define the position of O among the illustrated 
 codices.* In the two scenes referred to, it is surely possible that, like 
 Cocquelines, the copyist of O, or of some earlier manuscript, invented 
 pictures of his own. If the headings in 8 codices came from miniatures, 
 these offer an easy means of testing the two pictures. It is significant 
 that in neither scene is the order of names consistent with the order of 
 figures.'^ Before v. 820 this fact might be due to the confusing of the 
 
 * The only exceptions are Morm. 2, I (v. 231) and Ad. 2, i (v. 155), where 
 ris. 7903 gives the names in the corrected order. 
 
 * Cf. Hoeing, Am, your. AreheoL, Second Series, Vol. IV, p. 321 f. 
 
 * The most notable example is at Eun. 4, 7 (v. 771). This place alone is sufficient 
 to establish the dose relationship of O to P. 
 
 * Op. cii., pp. 321 and 328. 
 
 * The only manuscript giving the normal order of names at v. 820 is Paris. 10304. 
 In this respect it is opposed to D, E, G, L, M, and to Paris. A of Donatus. At v. 842 
 the normal order depends upon the r61e of Dromo, which in D, Paris. 10304, is lorariusj 
 in G, servus. The former two codices give the normal order with the name of Dromo 
 last of all. With them agree L and Paris. A of Donatus. But G also, with which E, 
 M agree, gives the normal order, naming Dromo second. 
 
 Scene-Headings and Miniatures in Terence 
 
 169 
 
 two figures of senes, but no such objection can be made to the com- 
 parison in the second scene. The repetition of the role servus in G, 
 and the use of a Latin letter in D, Paris. 10304, instead of the usual 
 Greek nota personae, are surely traces of some change in the name of 
 Dromo. In all probability this name formerly stood first on the left, 
 with that of Davus second. In some codices, like E, G, M, the two 
 names were interchanged in order to give the first speaker his usual 
 position. In others, like D, L, Paris. 10304, the same result was pro- 
 duced by transferring the name of Dromo to the end of the heading. 
 According to the evidence of the headings, the miniatures represented 
 Dromo and Davus in contiguous positions, not, as in O, as far apart as 
 possible. It is obvious that they should have been represented together, 
 for Dromo is on the stage little longer than suffices to speak five verses. 
 Moreover, the artist, in harmony with his usual practice, would scarcely 
 have failed to show Dromo engaged in binding Davus, or carrying him 
 away. For these reasons, it is probable that the two pictures under 
 discussion are to be ascribed to the copyist of O. In seeking for the 
 latest common ancestor of O and P, therefore, it is not necessary to 
 look farther back than the original of the Parisinus. 
 
 1 
 
 ) 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 It has been shown in this paper that the scene-headings and the 
 miniatures usually have the same normal order of characters, and that, 
 with rare exceptions, an unusual order of names coincides with an 
 unusual order of figures, or preserves evidence that it formerly did so, 
 or was intended to do so. Moreover, in scenes where the order of 
 names is normal, and the collocation of figures is unusual, the headings 
 in 8 codices usually, in the Bembinus less often, preserve traces of 
 changes in the order of names. In a large number of places in this 
 group the normal order of names could easily have arisen from errors in 
 identifying figures. Lastly, evidence has been presented to show that 
 differences in scene-division are due once to the addition of a picture 
 by a copyist, nine times to the omission of either headings or miniatures. 
 There remain but one heading each in E, G, L, and the later portions 
 of D, and two each in D, Paris. 10304,^ in which an unusual order of 
 
 * See p. 115, nn. i and 2. 
 
I JO 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 H 
 
 names cannot be explained either by the collocation of figures, or by 
 changes in scene-division. There are no exceptions whatever in A, M. 
 The impossibility of explaining the eight headings referred to in the rest 
 of the codices, or of finding direct evidence of the omission of headings 
 or miniatures in sixteen places, affords no adequate ground for rejecting 
 the theor>^ here presented. I hold, therefore, that the scene-headings 
 originated from miniatures, and that their distribution was originally 
 identical. Errors in identifying figures show that the artist was not also 
 the author of the headings. These were later made up by some one 
 who sought out the names in the text and assigned them, with the roles, 
 to the figures in the miniatures. Wherever characters not named in the 
 text appear in the pictures, the roles alone were assigned.^ To some 
 of these, later hands have prefixed arbitrary names. For Terence, at 
 least, this explanation removes the chief ground upon which Spengel and 
 Seyffert denied the •imultaneous origin of the names and roles. There 
 is no force in their further argument that in a heading like Apoecides, 
 Feriphanes, senes duo, the roles could not, according to classical usage, 
 have been in apposition to the names, and hence that the roles were 
 prior to the names. In headings containing characters of different 
 roles, each name originally was read with the appropriate role below 
 it and in apposition to it. Wherever several names are found, any 
 other explanation is impossible. In the heading given above, which 
 is an example of one in which characters have the same role, the 
 words senes duo are only a briefer form of senex, senex. That the 
 latter form was the original one in some cases can scarcely be 
 doubted.* There is no evidence, therefore, that the names and the 
 roles originated at different times. Since both clearly betray the 
 influence of the miniatures, they must be ascribed to a single hand. 
 In the scene-headings we find the most important, though hitherto 
 unrecognized evidence about the date at which the miniatures originated. 
 Since the headings in manuscripts of Plautus must be included in any 
 
 * The word prologus, found in illustrated and non-illustrated codices alike, is prob- 
 ably only a role originally assigned to the figure of the character who speaks the pro- 
 logue. Cf. Havet, \i'6\^\xi'% Archiv, II, p. 613. 
 
 « Cf. And. 2, I (v. 301), D; Ad. 3, 4 (v. 447), A. On the last named passage, 
 see p. 125 f. It is very probable that this was the original form also in And. 2, 5 
 (v. 412), Eun. 4, 3 (v. 643), and Phorm, 5, 8 (v. 894). 
 
 Scene- Headings and Miniatures in Terence 171 
 
 discussion of this subject, a more thorough analysis of the evidence is 
 postponed to a later paper. It may briefly be pointed out, however, 
 that the presence of headings in the Bembinus, and the fact that they 
 were used in Donatus' time,^ fixes the origin of the headings as not 
 later than the fourth century. In all probability they are older than 
 the 8 family of codices, which at the time of its origin, not later than 
 the third century, must have been supplied with headings. A reason- 
 able allowance of time will assign the approximate date of the headings 
 to the second century, and of the miniatures to the first century, or 
 even to the second half of the first century b.c, the earliest date 
 suggested by Leo. 
 
 In the total absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must sup- 
 pose that the y codices are the best representatives of the manuscript 
 used by the artist. But if Leo and Schlee are to be believed, the text 
 of the earliest illustrated editions of Terence has utterly perished. The 
 belief of these scholars that the y family is only a later recension based 
 upon a 8 codex, constrained them to invent a codex of unknown family, 
 and of the best period, which gave to the new recension only the minia- 
 tures and the order of plays.^ This unwarranted assumption illustrates 
 the weakness of their widely accepted views about the relationship 
 existing between the several classes of manuscripts. It seems not too 
 much to say that this old manuscript is wholly mythical and imaginary, 
 for there is no evidence whatever of its existence. The certainty of 
 the origin of the headings in illustrated mss. removes even the slight 
 grounds upon which Leo and Schlee relied. Moreover, any suggestion 
 that the earliest 8 codices were illustrated, would be open to serious 
 objection, for the archetype of the family clearly did not have new scenes 
 in a number of places where the illustrated manuscripts have miniatures. 
 Lastly, there is some evidence that the y family does represent the text 
 followed by the artist, for at Eun, 5, 8 (v. 1031), the order of figures 
 is almost certainly due to a distribution of the dialogue found only in y 
 codices. 
 
 I conclude, therefore, that whatever changes may have been made 
 
 * Cf . Praef. to the Adelphoe. 
 
 » A protest against this theory is made by Pease in the Transact, of the Am, Phil, 
 AssoCi 1887, p. 40. 
 
u'r -n" 
 
 'TJ^?'* 
 
 172 
 
 John Calvin Watson 
 
 n y cod.ces, the text and the miniatures have been transmitted 
 together. For some time after the origin of the headings, they must 
 have existed m illustrated codices alone. Afterwards, either by recen- 
 s.ons based upon a member of the y family, or less probably, by a trans- 
 fer from one family to another, the headings came to be used alone. 
 Smce m copymg an illustrated manuscript, the headings were inserted 
 ast of all, .t IS not surprising that they were omitted at some point in 
 «ie transm.ss.on, only to be restored later from a codex closely resem- 
 bhng the Bembinus. Beginning probably even before their separation, 
 the m,n,atures and the scene-headings, both in themselves and in thei^ 
 distribution, suffered changes, either designed or accidental, until the 
 relattonship existing between them was obscured. 
 
 I 
 
 t\ 
 
 
 W\ 
 
 >fl 
 
 ■ ,:V 
 
 <JI1 
 
 H ^ 
 
 rffl 
 
 H ^i> 
 
 'i 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^vik f 
 
 
 ^Hi. '' ^ 
 
 m 
 
 ■ • 
 
 n 
 
 
 *;^- 
 
 ■••v£ * 
 
 
 >' 
 
 Mil; 
 
 i-v%;*-;'v3f' 
 
 3' 
 
 ■*>r- • i^:-*< 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 m 
 
 S 
 
 MT\ll 
 
 L 
 
 F 
 
 f «4 
 
 i4-r vZu 
 
 'Ml 
 
 •ai 
 
 .A 
 
 
 i!«l 
 
 ■.■' 1.1 
 
 
 i.l* *?'<-;. 
 
 >^''%lfj 
 
 » C 
 
 ;i,.ii 
 
 !*«§«*« 
 
 ^ 
 
 JM..