MA S TER NEGA TIVE NO. 92-80498-15 MICROFILMED 1992 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 oth( reproductions of copyrighted material... Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse t accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfilhnent of the would involve violation of the copyright law. AUTHOR: KNAPP, CHARLES TITLE: NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE PLACE: [BALTIMORE] DA TE : [19141 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT Master Negative # BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record HKG/I'UOIJ Hooks hUL/RIC NYCG9?-b 10 1. / / K'ecor d i of - Record' added today ■f ID:NYCG92-BL0i?/ C:C:9668 L-^L I : am CPilTidu PC:s MM!): 040 100 1 245 10 ?60 300 LOG QD RFYPia DCF:? CSC:? INI:? GPC:? REP:? DM: sr:p MOD: BiO:? CPl:? FRN '^iNR o FIC FSl COL 7 * 'V Acquis! tion NYCG-PT M'-- L:enq PD:1914/ OR: POL: DM: RR: NHC{:cNNC Knapp, Charles. Notes on Plautus and 1 erencct ii( micr of or m] . fBal timore , I b The Lord Baltimore Press , }-ci914 J . p. 13-31. ORIG 02-12-92 oz EL: ATC CON ILC EML 797 • • • 7777 AD:02-12-92 UD:02-12-92 II:? GFN: BSE Restrictions on Use: TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA FILM SIZE: ^jT^/h REDUCTION RATIO:„ IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA CuA^ IB IIB DATE FILMED: ^//^/fZ—^ INITIALS TT^^ FILMED BY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGE. CT //A r Association for information and Image Management 1 1 00 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1 1 00 Silver Spring. Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 1 2 3 iiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii mwrnr Inches 1.0 I.I 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 mm iiilMiilM |||i||| |m|liii | liii[liiiili ii|li|iili|iili|iili|ii^^^ 3 4 5 156 mil 3.2 163 I 71 115 ■ 3.6 |40 1.25 1.4 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 MnNUFnCTURED TO fillM STONDPIRDS BY fiPPLIED IMfiGE- INC. IL— NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. Last year Dr. Edmund Hauler, Professor at Vienna, pub- lished, for the second time, a revision of Dziatzko's well known edition of the Phormio of Terence (Teubner, Leipzig). ^ In this revision he aimed to carry out, even more thoroughly than had been done in previous versions of the work, the plan of Dziatzko himself, to cite fully the pertinent literature, to indicate its contents, and to estimate its value. The resultant book is a rich store-house of materials, better far even than its excellent predecessors, set forth in clear and effective fashion for the benefit of the philological neophyte on whom, according to the Preface, Dr. Hauler always kept his eyes fixed ; the title-page proclaims, in Dziatzko's words, that the book has been made"Zur Einfiihrung in die Lektiire der altlateinischen Lustspiele". The introduction abounds in sound statements of facts and in valuable suggestions; the Commentary is packed with useful notes of every sort; the Kritischer Anhang is at once elaborate, of high value, and readable. New matter has been introduced into every part of the book; much old matter has been withdrawn; the old matter which has been allowed to remain has been bettered in many ways ; great improvement has been made in the Com- mentary through the grouping together, in elaborate notes, of short remarks on various phenomena which before had been scattered up and down the book as the phenomena recurred. The new Menander fragments and the literature to which they have given rise have been to some extent pressed into service. Many articles and books which were cited in earlier editions are not named in this, at least in the same con- nections ; in their place appear the titles of newer, and, presumably, more authoritative discussions of the subjects involved. » Dziatzko's two editions appeared in 1874 (or 1875) and 1885; the third edition, by Hauler, came in 1898. NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 13 The book opens (pages VH-XVI) with a Verzeichnis der haufiger gebrauchten Abkiirzungen. In pages 1-82 we have first an Allgemeine Einleitung (1-76), which deals with (i) a brief history of Greek and Roman comedy to Terence's time (pages i-ii), (2) Terence's life and writings (12-25), (3) the history of Terence's text (25-33), (4) Szenisches (33- 41), (5) metre, music, and Bau der Stiicke (41-55), (6) prosody (55-65), (7) Orthographic und Sprache (65-76). Then come special observations on the Phormio (77-82). Text and Commentary occupy pages 85-205, the Kritischer Anhang 206-272, Wort- und Sachverzeichnis 273-288. Then come two plates, of which the first gives photographic repro- ductions of small sections of the text in three manuscripts of Terence (Bembinus A; Victorianus D; Lipsiensis L) ; the second gives, in somewhat reduced size, facsimiles of the minia- tures in Parisinus P and Ambrosianus F illustrating the delicious scene in Phormio 441 ff. in which Demipho's precious advocati darken counsel and make confusion worse con- founded. The imposing list of books and articles given in the Ver- zeichnis as frequently used and the constant citation, in fact, of those books and articles show that the philological neophyte to whom the book is ostensibly addressed is, from an Ameri- can point of view, of proseminar or seminar rather than of undergraduate calibre. In reality the book belongs in a class with Lindsay's edition of the Captivi of Plautus (editio maior : London, Methuen, 1900), rather than with the average edition in English of a play of Plautus or Terence. Its purpose is much like that of Hayley's admirable edition of the Alcestis of Euripides (see the Preface to that book) ; hence the work may be judged in the same way. To seek to review in brief compass a book so rich would do justice neither to the author nor to the reviewer. Merely to praise the work, though agreeable alike to reviewed and reviewer, would in no wise advance the one business of all philologists, as of all other students, the pursuit of truth. Having given above some indication of my appreciation of the great value of the book and of my gratitude to the two distinguished scholars who have had a part in its making, I shall confine my attention, deliberately, to a part of the Introduction, taking up, in the 14 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. main, only those matters wherein it seems possible to supple- ment or to correct what we find in the book before us.' In the Preface (page V) Dr. Hauler states that he sought to take account especially of contributions by American schol- ars I should say that the greatest weakness of the book, in the Einleitung, at least, is the editor's failure to take proper account of American scholarly work within his field. Evidence of this weakness will be found throughout this paper. Some more may be grouped here. Professor Morgan's excellent translation of the Phormio, made in connection with the admirable performance of this play at Harvard University in 1894, is not mentioned in the bibliography on pages 219-220. Yet this book deserved special mention, because in it for the first time miniatures in the Vatican MSS of Terence were adequately reproduced, in 26 plates, " from photographs taken in the Vatican Library expressly for the Classical Department of Harvard University " . See the title-page and the obverse of page loi of the book, which was published in Cambridge, m 1894. No mention is made in the Verzeichnis or m the note on 448 ff. of Harvard Studies 14 (1903). which contams 94 plates giving pen and ink reproductions of miniatures from four MSS of Terence. In the same volume of Harvard Studies is an account of the miniatures, by K. E. Weston ; this, too, is apparently unnoticed.^ Twice, then, in America parts of the miniatures had been made easily accessible before the publica- tion of the facsimile of the Codex Ambrosianus of Terence, in 1903, by SitjhofT, under the supervision of E. Bethe. For the sake of completeness mention may be made here also of T Van Wageningen's Album Terentianum (Noordhoff, Gron- ingen, 1907), and of the article by Dr. J. W. Basore, The Scenic Value of the Miniatures in the Manuscripts of Terence, in Studies in Honour of Basil L. Gildersleeve (1902), 273- 285 One might have expected also to find in the Verzeich- nis Professor Capps's edition of Menander (1910) and Professor Catharine Saunders's Costume in Roman Comedy -The book may rightly be treated in this way, since, as the latest general discussion of the themes of which it treats, it .s sure to attract much attention. *• t k„ t r ^'On page XVI. however, there is a reference to an article, by J. ^. Watson, in Harvard Studies 14. NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 15 (1909). But matters of costume receive practically no atten- tion in this book (see p. 40). On page 5 Hauler well remarks that, though the New Attic Comedy, in many ways, as compared with the Old, shows retrogression, it had one marked advantage over the Old, in "die Befreiung von jeder ortlichen Eigenart, wahrend selbst die Dramen eines Aristophanes nur fiir die mit den damaligen Verhaltnissen Athens Vertrauten vollig verstandlich sind". It was this cosmopolitan character, he continues, not merely the fact that the New Comedy stood closest in time to the beginnings of Latin literature that led the Roman comic poets to take their material (almost) exclusively from the New Comedy. It might have been added that, just because the Roman playwrights developed still further this cosmopolitan character, their plays rather than the Greek originals have survived. I have never seen the cosmopolitan character of Roman comedy so well put as it will be in an article which is to appear shortly in The Classical Weekly 7, by Professor W. A. Oldfather, on Roman Comedy. On page 5, again. Dr. Hauler credits the early Romans, as well as the other early Italians and the Italians of today, with " natiirliche Anlage und Neigung fiir den Kunstzweig der Komodie ". He holds, nevertheless, that they had not gone beyond "dialogische Stegreifsticheleien (versus Fescennini) und derbe Anfange des dramatischen Spiels ". There is no reference to the dramatic satura ; Hauler concedes less than was granted by Schanz (see A. J. P. XXXIII 146-148). Hauler's silence is the more noteworthy since in his previous version of Dziatzko's book (1898) he had, on pages 5-6, men- tioned the dramatic satura, in a discussion of Livy y. 2 (of this passage nothing is said in the present edition).^ *This silence supplies further justification, if such be needed, of the space given recently in various American journals to this important subject: see A. J. P. XXIX 469; XXXIII 125-127. and P. A. P. A. 43. 125. Two new articles of importance on this general subject may be noted : Satura and Satire, by Professor B. L. Ullman, Classical Phil- ology 8. 172-194, which gives an excellent account of the use of the word satura, and presents the keen suggestion, approved by Leo, Geschichte der Romischen Literatur (1913). i. 423, Anm. i, that satura was originally a neuter plural adjective which was later transformed i6 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. On page 6 it is stated that Livius Andronicus " war um 284 V. Chr. zu Tarent geboren ". For Tarentum as Livius's birthplace not a shred of evidence, however, is cited (none is forthcoming). An editor of Terence might surely be expected to remember how tantalizing, spite of its apparent definiteness, is the Afer part of his own author's name. Schanz^ (§23, p. 56) had noted that it is by no means fair to infer Livius's Tarentine birth from the fact that he came to Rome as a prisoner from Tarentum. He referred to Leo, Plautinische Forschungen 71, n. i (81, n. i, in edition 2), a three-line note doubting Livius's Tarentine origin, on the ground that the Romans did not trouble themselves about the birthplace of slaves.^ Why make any statement about Livius's birthplace? He might have been born in any of the towns of Magna Graecia ; indeed, since Pyrrhus and his troops participated in this war, he might even have been born outside of Italy. His birthplace is of small importance; but it is important that scholars should refrain from ex cathedra statements about matters concerning which we have not a jot of evidence. Nor does Hauler support in any way his date for the birth into a feminine singular noun; and Dramatic "Satura", also by Pro- fessor Ullman, in Classical Philology 9. 1-23. It may be allowable here to notice one remark in the latter article (18, n. I) : "If Knapp merely insists that the elements of a drama existed at Rome before Andronicus introduced the Greek fabulae, then we are all agreed, for even Hendrickson, I am sure, is willing to grant this ". With the private opinions of scholars one can hardly be expected to reckon ; it is difficult enough to keep abreast of published opinions. In the interests of accuracy in general and of fair play to myself I ask those interested to read my remarks in P. A. P. A. 43. 140. ^They did not trouble themselves about the birthplace of a Naevius. In his Geschichte der Romischen Literatur, i. 53, Leo says, without argument, *'Aus Tarent stammte auch Andronicus". He then spec- ulates on the education Andronicus may have received at Tarentum. On p. 55 he writes: *'Es steht nicht fest. dass Andronicus Tarentiner war, aber es ist wahrscheinlich ". In a footnote, he supports this as- sertion by the strange argument that "der falsche Ansatz des Accius auf die Eroberung von Tarent im Jahre 209 scheint zur Voraussetzung zu haben, dass ihm die tarentinische Herkunft des Andronicus bezeugt war". How can an error about the date of the capture of Tarentum at which Livius himself became a captive throw any light on his birth- place? NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 17 of Livius. On his view Livius was 12 years old when he came to Rome ; Ribbeck, Romische Tragodie, 22, had supposed that he was six years old in 272. Neither scholar noticed that on his hypothesis Livius would hardly have figured as semi- graecus ( Suetonius, De Grammaticis i ) or as a teacher of the Greek language, or even as interpreter of that language. In a new environment, where only a different language was normally spoken, the boy of six or twelve, in 272 b. c. follow- ing, would have lost his native Greek speech long before he would have been old enough to figure as teacher at all. Either we must deny or ignore the ancient statements that Livius was a teacher * or we must put the date of his birth as far back, at the least, as 290 b. c. This will make him long-lived, since he was alive in 207. H we must cite parallels for the longevity of men of letters in ancient times, compare e. g. Cicero, Cato Maior 13, 2^, and the Nomenclator Senum in Professor F. G. Moore's edition of the Cato Maior, pages 50-52.2 To Andronicus's translation of the Odyssey only four lines of text and a footnote of one line are given (6) . This comment is, however, commendable, since it is non-committal in char- acter ; such restraint is far wiser than was Mommsen's severe arraignment of Andronicus's renderings and paraphrases.^ ' See Jerome, under 187 b. c; Suetonius. De Grammaticis i. 'Leo, Geschichte, etc., i, 55. holds it ** sicher, dass er in jungen Jahren nach Rom kam"; on page 58 he thinks of Livius as 15 years old when he came to Rome. 'See his History. English translation by Dickson (1883), 2. 497-500. For other harsh judgments of Livius Andronicus, largely influenced, I think, by Mommsen's positive statements, see Schanz', § 23; Ribbeck, Romische Dichtung*. i. 16; Cruttwell, 37-38. Even Sellar. Roman Poets of the Republic, 52. hardly has a good word for Livius's Odyssey. Duff, A Literary History of Rome. 122-124, mixes up good comment with bad in a very curious way. He is so dead to the two points I note above in connection with the first line of Livius's Odyssey that he actually writes (124) : "The extant specimens prove that he can posi- tively mistranslate, and that he does not maintain the fidelity of the familiar opening words : — Virum mihi, Camena, insece uersutum. The number of fragments whose place is uncertain is the best proof of inexact translation ". But who knows yet whether Livius sought to translate or to paraphrase? Clear knowledge on that point is needed before we can pass sure judgments on our few fragments. Whoever seeks to compare a Latin version by any Roman author of a Greek i8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY, In the footnote Dr. Hauler writes merely : " Der Anf angsvers lautetc : Virum mihi, Camena, insece vorsutum '\ As I com- pare this verse with the Greek original,*Av8pa /lo cVvcttc, Movaa, iroAvVpoTTov, I see two noteworthy things, on which no one, so far as I know, has commented in print, (i) vorsutum is plainly a good rendering of nok^rponov, both etymologically and spiritually. If proof must be given, we may remark that passages like Cicero De Natura Deorum 3. 25 homo versutus et callidus (versutos eos appello quorum celeriter mens ver- satur), Plautus Epid. 371 vorsutior es quam rota figularis, and Capt. 368-370 utroque vorsum rectumst ingenium meum, ad ted atque ilium ; pro rota me uti licet ; vel ego hue vel iUuc vortar, quo imperabitis, show just that mixture of good and bad connotation which ^oAvt^ottos in the Odyssey and its con- geners in the Iliad (iroXvixrjrt^:, 7ro\vpwv, TToXvfirjxavo^:, TrotKtAo/xiyTis) convey. Vorsutus, in any event, is a better rendering of no\vTpo7ro<: than Horace made much later (assuming that Horace was trying to translate) in Epp. i. 2. 19: see e. g. Wilkins ad loc. The excellence of this part of Livius^s line is self-evident. But (2) it is not so transparent that in insece, too, we have an exact— an even more exact— etymological equivalent of the Greek original. To be sure, Aulus Gellius 18. 9 connected insece and the rare noun insectio with inse- quor, taking the verb as = ' pursue '. But it has long been held that insece shows the same root as cwcttc, the root seen in sagen and in say. See e. g. Merry-Riddell on Od. i. i (1886) ; Walde, Lateinisches Etymologisches Worterbuch ^ (1910), s. v. inquam ; L. Miiller, Quintus Ennius : Eine Einleitung in das Studium der Romischen Poesie (1884), 206. Now, it seems original with that original would do well to read and ponder Gellius 2. 23. Caecilius is described commonly as having been faithful to his Greek originals; yet, if we did not have Gellius's word for it in 2. 23, we should not dream of connecting the verses of Caecilius cited there by Gellius with the Greek passages with which Gellius connects them. See further my remarks in A. J. P. XXXII 22. n. i. For juster views of Livius's Odyssey see Wordsworth, Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin, 569; Conington, Miscellaneous Writings I 298-301 ; Leo, Plautinische Forschungen' 88 ff. ; Leo, Die Onginalitat der Romischen Litteratur (Gottingen. 1904). 8. by implication, and Geschichte der Romischen Literatur i. 59 ff. NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 19 to be accounted a virtue in Vergil that at times he attaches to a name an epithet etymologically akin to the name : see the editors on novae . . . Carthaginis, Aen. i. 298; pluvias . . . Hyadasy i. 744; Plemyrium undosum, 3. 693. Livius Andro- nicus should receive credit, therefore, at least for his vorsutus. Though we hold that the etymological kinship of insece to cvvcTTc was a mere coincidence, and not the result of real knowledge, merit should none the less be imputed to Livius for insece, since he reproduced a rare word of the Greek by a rare Latin word. On page 10 occurs an extraordinary statement : " Unter der ganzen Masse der schliesslich als Plautinisch umlaufenden Stucke (etwa 130 an der Zahl) schied M. Terentius Varro, der Zeitgenosse Ciceros, nebst 19 wahrscheinlich echten fol- gende 21 entschieden echte aus^: Amphitruo . . . Truculentus und Vidularia. Diese sind uns mit Ausnahme des letzten Stiickes erhalten .,..'* Anmerkung 2 runs as follows: " Ritschl, Parerga S. 71 if." But RitschI makes no such state- ment as Dr. Hauler makes, for he wrote (1845) • "Ein und zwanzig Stucke, erzahlen uns alle Litterarhistoriker nach Gellius III, 3, schied Varro aus der grossen Masse soge- nannter Plautinischer Komodien als acht aus ; — ein und zwan- zig batten sich in die Jahrhunderte des Mittelalters und mit einem zufalligen Verlust bis auf unsere Zeit erhalten ; — was war natiirlicher, als dass man eben diese erhaltenen 21 f iir die 21 Varronischen nahm?" Dr. Hauler thus misrepresents both Ritschl and Gellius 3. 3. 3-4 (our main ancient authority in this matter) : Nam praeter illas unam et viginti, quae Var- ronianae vocantur, quas idcirco a ceteris segregavit quoniam dubiosae non erant, set consensu omnium Plauti esse cense- bantur, quasdam item alias probavit adductus filo atque facetia sermonis Plauto congruentis easque iam nominibus aliorum occupatas Plauto vindicavit, sicuti istam, quam nuperrime legebamus, cui est nomen Boeotia. Nam cum in illis una et viginti non sit et esse Aquili dicatur, nihil tamen Varro dubi- tavit quin Plauti foret . . . How can any one overlook the fact that Gellius does not name the Varronian plays ? It is of course a natural assumption that Varro's approval of any collection of 21 plays would give to the plays so selected special importance and a better chance for life. It is, also, as 20 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY, Ritschl noted, a natural assumption that the 21 plays which have come down to us are the plays approved by Varro. But these are inferences only, and their correctness must remam beyond scientific demonstration until Varro's list of 21, vouched for by good ancient authority, is recovered for us. Philological neophytes surely should have better guidance into right methods of searching for the truth than a misinterpreta- tion of an ancient passage fortified by a misinterpretation of a modern scholar's statements. No scholar, then, has the right to assert, without qualifica- tion, as so many have done,^ that the plays of Plautus that have come down to us are the plays selected by Varro as un- doubtedly genuine. But Dr. Hauler's statement contains another misrepresentation, equally widespread, to the effect that Varro selected a second group of 19 as probably genuine. This statement is the result of a German ' Combination ' of Gellius's simple words quasdam item alias probavit (see above) and the words used by Servius in his prefatory note on Aeneid i : Plautum alii dicunt unam et viginti fabulas scrip- sisse, alii quadraginta, alii centum. There is no mention of 19 in Gellius, no mention of Varro in Servius. On pages lo-ii Ennius's life and work are discussed. In the bibliography on p. n, n. i, reference might have been made, profitably, I hope, to my article, Vahlen's Ennius, \ J. P. XXXII 1-35. On page 12, especially in Anm. 2, Dr. Hauler departs from the views held in the preceding edition concerning the date of Terence's birth. There he gave the date as 190 b. c. Now, he puts it as 195 B. c, holding that the best MSS of the Vita Terenti read Post editas comoedias . . . nondum quintutn atque tricesimum . . . egressus annum— egressus est neque amplius rediit. But Wessner, in his Donatus i, p. 7 (1902), gives in his text nondum quintum atque vicesimum. Hauler is thus at variance with our best authority on Donatus's text. Dr. Hauler notes that in the preceding version of Dziatzko's » It is not necessary to enumerate these scholars here. I note rather that Leo's statement. Geschichte, etc.. i. 94, "Diese 21 sind in spaterer Zeit um 100 n. Chr.. in einer Ausgabe vereinigt worden. und so sind sie uns erhalten". is less exact than it ought to be. for it imphes that we know what plays Varro's list contained. NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 21 book he had himself sought to support the 'old' reading vicesimum by pointing out that between original composition and adaptation of Greek originals there is a difference, a dif- ference which would make Terence's literary output possible to a young man of twenty-five. Probably Dr. Hauler does not mean that he alone had made this suggestion ; at any rate Sellar made it long ago in his Roman Poets of the Republic, 208.^ On page 14 Dr. Hauler writes excellently of the jealousy which Luscius Lanuvinus and others felt towards Terence: " Dem engeren Kreise der Dichter Roms, die zunftmassig zusammenhielten, scheint er fern geblieben zu sein. Deshalb lautet der Vorwurf eines Gegners (Haut. Prol. 23 f.) Auch der besonders von dem vetus poeta, Luscius Lanuvinus, und wohl auch von anderen Berufsgenossen gehegte und geschiirte Neid und Hass, unter dem Terenz bei seinem Auftreten zu leiden hatte, kann zu einem guten Teil auf seine Abschliessung gegen jene zuriickgehen. Zufrieden mit dem Beifall, den er in dem Kreise hochgestellter Manner fand, kiimmerte er sich wenig um das Wohlwollen einer engherzigen Dichterclique " . In this envy of contemporary poets Dr. Hauler (ibid.) finds the source of the ancient stories that parts at least of the plays current under Terence's name had been written rather by his noble patrons. In this connection reference might have been made with profit to Professor Sihler's excellent article, The Collegium Poet arum at Rome, A. J. P. XXVI 1-2 1, especially 8-17. Professor Sihler there anticipated Dr. Hauler com- pletely. It may be noted that in Vergil's failure to join the *Leo, Geschichte der Romischen Literatur, i. 233, writes in his text: "Auch sein Geburtsjahr kannte man nicht". In Anm. 3 he adds: '* Die in der Vita (7, 8) angesetzten 25 Jahre Lebenszeit, also Geburt a. 185, erkennt Nepos an (3, 14 aequales onines fuisse), aber Fenestella, der einzige der diese Dinge mit kritischem Blick untersucht hat. nicht (ib. utroque maiorem natu fuisse)". It will be seen that Dr. Hauler does not refer to Fenestella's view. Leo names no date. Nor does he enter into a discussion of Donatus's text. He holds that the Prologues of Terence "stellen einen jungen Mann vor Augen". In this he is in sharp opposition to Dziatzko, whose view is cited by Hauler (p. 12, n. 3) with approval, as making for a date earlier than 185 b. c. Leo cites, from classical times, examples of literary performances of excellence by young men. 22 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY, Collegium Poeiarum, Professor Sihler (17 ff) finds the explanation of the criticism to which Vergil was subjected. In the course of a good discussion of Terence's life and work, Hauler rightly notes (p. 22) that, thanks to Terence's art, we should not be able to prove that there was ' contami- nation ' in his plays did we not have his own authority and that of Donatus for such * contamination '. In discussions of Terence's art, sufficient emphasis has seldom, if ever, been laid on this point ; here he stands in sharpest contrast to Plautus. ^ In 1907, in a paper on Travel in Ancient Times as Seen in Plautus and Terence, Classical Philology, 2, I found, as one by-product of the main investigation, another proof of the care with which Terence worked out his plays, even in minute details. Plautus's geography is often Italian. Terence's is always Greek: see especially 5» i^- i- On page 22, again. Dr. Hauler says : "Weiter durchbrach er die Illusion nicht wie Plautus und (nach den Bruchstucken) gelegentlich auch die attischen Dichter dadurch, dass er mit den Zuschauern innerhalb eines Lustspieles in unmittelbaren Verkehr trat " . The phrase " nach den Bruchstucken " seems to show that Dr. Hauler was confining his attention to the New Attic Comedy. Plautus, of course, had so good a prede- cessor as Aristophanes in this matter ^ : cf . e. g., for addresses quite apart from parabasis-passages, Aves 30 flf. (with Van Leeuwen's note), Nubes 44 ff- (with Humphreys's note), 1437. On page 24 Hauler discusses the absence of vis comica in Terence. One sentence is interesting : " Diesen Mittelton ta- delten die Gegner, wenn sie iibertreibend den Vorwurf erhoben (Phor. Prol. 5), seine Stiicke seien ienui oratione et scripi^ra levL Auch Caesar beklagt es, dass mit den lenia scripta des Dichters nicht vis verbunden sei". When one turns to the commentary on Prol. 5, he finds no note at all on tenut . . . oratione, and only the following on scriptura levi: " vgl. Nepos »For recent American discussions of 'contamination* in Plautus see H W. Prescott, The Amphitruo of Plautus. Classical Philology 8. 14- 22 (against Leo's theory that there was contamination in the play), and Dr. Cornelia C Coulter, Composition of the " Rudens " of Plautus. ibid. 57-64 (an argument that there was contamination in this play). 'For Plautus's practice see my paper in P. A. P. A. 41. 1-li- NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 23 Praef . § i qui hoc genus scripturae leve et non satis dignum summorum virorum personis iudicent, ' seichte, gehaltlose Dar- stellung ' mit Betonung der Diirf tigkeit des Inhalts " . This is marked as a new note ; in edition 3 both tenui oratione and scriptura levi were left without comment. I can see no connection between Prol. 5 and the vis comica matter. Nor can I feel that tenui . . . oratione and scriptura levi in this con- text, on any natural interpretation, connote the same thing as Caesar's expression, lenia scripta, so clearly defined by its con- text. Tenuis and ievis are not, in any case, lenis. Professor Elmer and Messrs. Bond and Sloman (following Colman's translation) took oratione as 'portrayal of character', an im- possible interpretation, I think. Why not interpret simply of * feeble language' and 'trivial style '?^ See the next three verses, with Professor Elmer's notes. I agree, then, with Dr. Hauler's remarks in his note on Prol. 5, especially his citation of Nepos, rather than with his statements in the Introduction, 24. In a discussion of the vis comica matter reference should surely be made to Professor Sihler's paper on The Collegium Poetarum at Rome, A. J. P. XXVI 16-17. ^^ I turn now to section 4 of the Introduction, " Szenisches . On page 34 we find the oft-repeated statement that originally at Rome plays were performed " in der Nahe des Tempels derienigen Gottheit . . . der das Fest gait; seit der Ernchtung des ersten Schaugebaudes in Rom, des circus Flamimus, im J. 221 V. Chr. wurde wohl auch dieser hierfiir verwendet . In support of these statements practically no proof is afforded by the citations in foot-notes i and 2. Lucilius 146 (Marx), Romanis ludis forus olim ornatus lucemis, cited in note i, does not in itself prove absolutely even that the ludi Romam were celebrated in the Forum or that they were confined to the Forum. In ancient, as in modern times, one may suppose (since guessing in these matters is fashionable), decorations, if attempted at all, extended beyond the actual scene of the celebration proper. However that may be, one who is writing primarily about theatrical matters needs to ask himself what connection there can be between ornatus lucerms and plays. »This view I have held for many years. Professor G J. Laing in his edition (1908), renders by ''are (marked) by feeble phrasing and a flimsy style ". 24 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. Such testimony as we have for the time of Roman dramatic performances points to the dayhght hours, at least in the time of Plautus and Terence (see Hauler, 37 ; below, p. 30). Marx, in his note on Lucilius, 1. c, says : " Aguntur ludi noctu more maiorum: conf. acta ludorum saecularium u. 100 (Ephem. epigr. VIII p. 231. 268) ' ludique noctu sacrificio confecto sunt commissi in scaena quoi theatrum adiectum non fuit nullis positis sedilibus ' : ornatur forum ab aedilibus (Liu. IX 40, 16) 'signis et luminibus ' (Cic. de nat. deor. I 9, 22: in Verr. act. II lib. I 141 'ludis ipsis Romanis, foro ornato') cuius rei testimonium Lucilii est uersus uetustissimum ".^ The date referred to in the words cited from the Acta Ludorum Saecu- larium is too late to throw light on the point Hauler is seeking to make. Nor is our author more successful in Anm. 2. He admits that in Plant. Mil. Glor. 991 lamst ante aedis circus, ubi sunt ludi faciundi mihi, the word circus is used figuratively, yet he seeks to infer from its use that dramatic performances were held in the Circus Flaminius. The passage cited from Varro L. L. 5. 153 is even less valuable, since it is wholly without context.2 On page 34, again, Dr. Hauler, in his discussion of the theater-structure, departs widely from the position taken in the third edition, in holding that as early as 200 b. c. a cavea of wood, " Zuschauerraum mit Sitzreihen ", was added to " holzerne Buhne ". This view is supported by reference to Fabia, Les theatres de Rome au temps de Plaute et de Ter- ence, in Revue de Philologie 21. 11 flf., and F. Bauer, Quaes- tiones Scaenicae Plautinae, a Strassburg dissertation of 1902. *So Becker-Goll, Gallus i. 136. 'This whole question of the place (s) of dramatic performances was well discussed by Professor Catharine Saunders, of Vassar College, in a paper entitled The Site of Dramatic Performances at Rome in the Times of Plautus and Terence, read at the meeting of The American Philological Association, at Cambridge, December, 1913. Professor Saunders summarized carefully what is known on this subject, and then sought by lines of inquiry not before properly employed to throw fresh light upon it. Her conclusions were not essentially different from those current since the publication of Hahn's Scaenicae Quaestiones Plautinae (1867), but they were better supported. It is probable that the paper will appear in full in T. A. P. A. 44. NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 25 If finally substantiated, it will have important bearing on the question of the genuineness of the Prologues to the plays of Plautus ; it will then no longer be possible to hold, as Ritschl did, that a prologue is non-Plautine, in whole or in part, because it contains reference to definite seats. The theory adopted now by Hauler gives a better explanation of the innovation introduced in 194 b. c, by which, according to Livy 34. 54, ludos Romanos primum senatus a populo secretus spec- tavit praebuitque sermones : cf. Livy 34. 44 (o^ the same year) censores . . . gratiam quoque ingentem apud eum ordi- nem pepererunt quod ludis Romanis aedilibus curulibus im- perarunt ut loca senatoria secernerent a populo, nam antea in promiscuo spectabant. We get now substance for the innova- tion itself and a better explanation of the popular dissatis- faction.^ Hauler agrees (34, Anm. 4: a new note) with F. Bauer, Quaestiones Scaenicae Plautinae 36 f., that as early as 179 b. c. near the temple of Apollo were built a theatrum et proscae- nium of stone, " wohl aber nur f iir die ludi Apollinares und von beschrankter Grosse". He rejects Ritschl's view, Par- erga 217, Anm., "dass jene nur aus steinernen Umfassungs- schranken ohne Stuf en bestanden habe ". This view, too, is important, for the theory that as early as 179 b. c. the passion for the theatre had made such progress as to force, against *I have long had. among my notes on the Roman theatre, a query concerning the statement, repeatedly made without hesitation, that L. Mummius in 146 b. c. had built a complete (wooden) theatre, with con- centric rings of seats for spectators. Our knowledge of what Mummius really did, and of the contrast between this and what had preceded, de- pends on Tacitus, Annales 14. 20-21. In chapter 21 Tacitus tells us that it was urged, in certain connections, that possessa Achaia Asiaque ludos curatius editos, nee quemquam Romae honesto loco ortum ad theatrales artes degeneravisse, ducentis iam annis a L. Mummii triumpho, qui primus id genus spectaculi in urbe praebuerit. It is to be noted that nothing whatever is said of the structure in which Mummius gave his spectacle. The clause qui . . . praebuerit is troublesome, in that it is difficult, on any natural interpretation of the words (Tacitus is plainly talking of the theatre), to reconcile the clause with what we know from other sources about the theatre. Tacitus is giving public gossip, and, as often, is writing too vaguely to be of real service in a scientific inquiry. How vague his words are may be seen by an ex- amination of the editors ad ioc. (e. g. Drager, Nipperdey. Furneaux) and a glance at Ritschl, Parerga 228. 26 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY, NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 27 the deep-seated governmental objection, the building of a complete stone theatre, of whatever size, gives more point to the reactionary legislation of P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica.^ On page 35 Dr. Hauler asserts that the reactionary legisla- tion of Nasica was soon disregarded, since in 145 Mummius "errichtete . . . wieder ein voUstandiges Theater mit Sitz- reihen, aber nur von Holz und bloss f iir seine Spiele ". How little real warranty there is for such definite statements has been shown above, p. 25, n. i. Dr. Hauler cites Tac. Ann. 14. 20 and Vitruv. 5. 5. 7, which help not at all.^ He does not meet the comment of Livy, Epitome 48, on the results of Nasica's legislation : populusque aliquamdiu stans ludos spec- iavit. Ritschl, however, Parerga 228, who made Mummius builder of a fully developed theatre, thought an interval of 8 years long enough to justify Livy's aliquamdiu. An interesting new remark is that on page 35, to the effect that the extent to which the ancients lived out of doors made it seem less unnatural to them than it would to us that the stage represented a public street. On page 36, there are interesting observations, in Anm. 2, on the pains taken by the Roman playwrights (as well as by their Greek forbears) to observe the unities of time and place. Over against these observations, however, must be set Professor Prescott's view, »For Nasica's legislation see Livy, Epitome 48; Valerius Maximus 2. 4. 2 senatus consulto cautum est ne quis in urbe propiusve passus mille subsellia posuisse sedensve ludos spectare vellet, ut scilicet remis- sioni animorum iuncta nach dem Marktplatze und ins Innere der Stadt, links nach dem Hafen und in die Fremde zu fuhren". In Anm. 2 support for this statement is given in a reference to Vitruvius 5. 6 (7). 8, and Reisch, Theater 256. Why was not * It is so much the fashion to emphasize Plautus's indifference to considerations of art (for a very recent utterance of that sort see Professor Prescott, Classical Philology 8. 18, 20), that I cannot resist the temptation to insert here a note on the Menaechmi. I use Lindsay's text. In Men. 317-318 Culindrus, supposing that he is talking of the Epi- damnian Menaechmus, says Solet iocari saepe mecum illoc modo: quamvis ridiculus est — ubi uxor non adest. These clear-cut words give more importance than they might otherwise possess to the following passages, all said with reference to the Epidamnian Menaechmus : 396 (Erotium speaks) Qui lubet ludibrio habere me atque ire infitias mihi facta quae sunt?; 405 (Erotium speaks) desinef ludos facere atque i hac mecum semul; 746 (the wife speaks) Si me derides, at pol ilium non potes, patrem meum qui hue advenit ; 824-825 MATRONA. Pro- fecto ludit te hie. Non tu tenes? SENEX. lam vero, Menaechme. satis iocatus. Nunc banc rem gere. In these passages Plautus, it seems to me. is seeking to picture the Epidamnian Menaechmus as a chronic practical joker, and thereby to give an air of plausibility to the continued mystification of his friends, who must have known the story of the two brothers, and so. when they saw signs of the peregrinitas of the one Menaechmus. ought to have guessed the truth. If it be urged that these allusions to Menaechmus's joking propensities belong rather to the Greek original, Plautus none the less deserves credit for retaining them. They make less troublesome the difficuUies felt about the cos- tume of the Syracusan brother: see e. g. my remarks in Classical Philology 2. 298. 28 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY, reference made directly to passages in the plays which throw light on the matter ? Why was not reference made to Lorenz, Introductions to editions of the Mostellaria (1883), 4 and the Miles Gloriosus ( 1886), 8-9 ? In a paper presented in December, 1909, at the meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, I discussed the matter in some detail. The paper will be finished soon, I hope, and published in full : for an abstract of it see American Journal of Archaeology, Second Series, 14. 88-89. At present I wish to make only one or two remarks on Hauler^s treatment of the subject. The passage of Vitruvius referred to by him gives no authority for the view he supports. Here is the passage, in Krohn's text ( 1912) : Secundum ea loca < = the 7r€pLaKToi> versurae sunt procur rentes, quae efficiunt una a foro altera a peregre aditus in scaenam. Vitruvius does indeed attach special significance to the side-entrances, but he does not state which wing led to the forum, which led peregre. Yet scholar after scholar has cited this Vitruvius passage in support of the view set forth by Hauler. We need light from other sources to supplement Vitruvius. That light has been supplied for thirty years by Lorenz (see above) : yet editor after editor of Plautus has ignored Lorenz's statement of evidence, or has misused Vitruvius. The treatment in Dorpf eld-Reisch, Das Griechische Theater 256, the only other authority referred to by Hauler, is in some ways strange. There is a fundamental error, in the assump- tion that the arrangements of the Greek and the Roman theatre were precisely the same.^ As a result of this erroneous assumption an attempt is made to determine the significance of the side-entrances to the Greek stage by means of passages in Latin plays ! Three passages from Latin plays are referred to, Am. 333, Men. 551, Mer. 879: they are not, however, dis- cussed, though it is extremely difficult to derive from one of them, at least, Mer. 879, any sure evidence. The conclusions reached are correct for the Roman theatre, but at variance with those stated for the Greek theatre, e. g. by Haigh, The Attic Theatre ^ 194.' *Cf. Rees, A. J. P. XXXII 401. n. i. 'Dorpfeld-Reisch also hold that the same arrangements obtamed in the Greek theatre of the fifth century b. c. as in the days of the New NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 29 It is strange that Dr. Hauler, a student of Terence, failed to cite as evidence the excellent testimony afforded by the Andria. At 721 Davus enters carrying the new born child of Pamphilus and Glycerium (722). He begs Mysis, who has been on the stage since 684, to aid him in a scheme to further the interests of Pamphilus. But seeing Chremes, whose daughter Simo would fain make Pamphilus marry, enter, he rejects his original plan, and cries to Mysis (733-734)» Ego quoque hinc ab dextera venire me adsimulabo. Chremes, then, is entering from the right. In 740-742 he addresses a ques- tion to Mysis,^ but before she can answer, Davus enters (744)» a dextera, of course, crying loudly, Di vostram fidem ! quid turbaest apud forum! quid illi hominum litigant! Tum annona carast. Quid dicam aliud nescio. Both Chremes and Davus, then, had entered from the right, from the forum side. From whose right ? At 722 ff. both Davus and Mysis, as they prepared to lay the child ante ianuam, would naturally have faced somewhat away from the spectators (i. e., much as the spectators themselves faced). Since, after Davus's departure, the eyes of Mysis would naturally be more or less steadily on the child lying before Simo's door, since the child is seen at once by Chremes (741 ff.), since Davus's eyes, as he entered again, would naturally be on the group (Mysis, Chremes and the child), we conclude that all three actors are facing some- what away from the audience, toward the house: hence motion a dextera, which brought Davus from the forum, is motion from the right of the spectators.^ Comedy. But Niejahr, in an article entitled Commentatio Scenica, printed in a Ha!le Programme of 1888, held that the tradition about the meaning of the side-entrances did not apply at all to fifth century Greek drama, which had no local setting; for the early drama the con- ventional arrangement would only have been confusing. On the other hand the conventional rule fitted perfectly. Niejahr held, the New Comedy, with its conventional stereotyped scene. See Kelley Rees. in The Classical Weekly i. 189. Professor Rees worked out the whole matter anew in a paper entitled The Significance of the Parodoi in the Greek Theatre, A. J. P. XXXII (1911). 377-402. Pages 400-402 deal with the parodoi of the Roman theatre. * From his words, even without the clear evidence of 745. we should infer that he had come from the city. Indeed, all his movement in the play is between the stage and the city. 'Interesting light on the question of the value of the miniatures in 30 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. On page ^y, Anm. 3, in support of the statement that plays began early in the morning and stopped before the cena, ref- erence is made to Am. Prol. 149 and 272 ff. Neither passage is cited. 149-150 run as follows : sed Amphitruonis illi est servos Sosia: a portu illic nunc cum lanterna advenit. In 2^2 ff. we have : credo ego hac noctu Nocturnum obdormivisse ebrium. Nam neque se Septentriones quoquam in caelo com- movent, neque se Luna quoquam niutat atque uti exorta est semel, neque lugulae neque Vesperugo neque Vergiliae occi- dunt. Ita statim stant signa neque nox quoquam concedit die. How do these passages throw light on the time of dramatic performances? If they do, then from Heaut. 410 ff., Luciscit hoc iam, compared with 449-463, we must infer that the performance of that play began on one day, was interrupted by a night, and resumed on the following morning. And, by parity of reasoning, we should be obliged to suppose from Am. 2y2 ff. that the moon and various constellations were somehow in the stage setting. Would the references to the vv^ fiaKpd in the Greek original of the Amphitruo prove that at Athens plays were given at night ? Would references to night in an Elizabethan play prove that plays were performed then at night ? Would a reference to the morning in a contem- porary American play show that plays are now performed in the morning? So, too, Rud. 1418 and Mo. 651 will not prove that the dramatic performances stopped before the cena.^ On page 40 is a discussion of the number of actors used in Roman plays. Only external considerations, such as cost, it is held, limited their number. The new suggestion is made that the practice of contamination would enlarge the number of personages in a play, and so of itself force a departure from the Greek custom. There should be a reference here to the dissertation by Professor Kelley Rees, The Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama (Chicago, 1908), in which the ' rule of the three actors ' is vigorously challenged ; the Terentian MSS may be got by examining the miniatures which accompany this scene of the Andria. Jacob Van Wageningen, in his Album Terentianum (Noordhoff. Groningen, 1907), gives two pictures (Numbers 20, 21) from Codex Parisinus 7899: these illustrate Andria 721 and 747. In both the characters all face the spectators. * For a better view of such passages see Leo, Geschichte, etc., 106-107. NOTES ON PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 31 " the three-actor law, if it ever existed, had no application to the classical drama "(17). Diomedes I. 490. 27 ff., which figures first in Hauler's footnote, is discussed by Professor Rees (23). On page 41 there is a brief discussion of the use of masks. Reference should have been made to Professor Saunders's paper. The Introduction of Masks on the Roman Stage, A. J. P. XXXII (191 1). 58-73. in particular to the careful discussion of Phormio 209 ff., which Hauler cites as proof that masks were introduced upon the Roman stage after Terence's time. Charles Knapp. THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS OK BALXIIVlORE; American Journal of Insanity. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume LXX in progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign postage 50 cents.) American Journal of Mathematics. Fraxk Moplev. Editor. Quar- terly. 4to. Volume XXXVI in progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign postage 50 cents.) American Journal of Philology. B. L. Gilder sleeve, Editor. Quar- terly. 8vo. Volume XXXV in progress. $3 per volume. (Foreign postage 50 cents.) Beitrage zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Paul Haupt and^FKiEDRiCH Delitzsch, Editors. Volume X in progress. Hesperia: Schriften zur germanischen Philologie. H. Collitz. Editor. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. Alonthly. 4tn. Volume XXV in progress. $2 per year. (Foreign postage 50 cents.) Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume XVII in progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign postage 50 cents.) Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science. 8vo. VohuTie XXXI in progress. $3 per volume. Johns Hopkins University Circular. Including the Annual Report of the President; University Register; Medical Department Cata- logue. T. R. Ball, Editor. Monthly. 8vo. $1 per year. Memoirs from the Biological laboratory. Five volumes have appeared. Modern Language Notes. Edited hy E. C Armstrong, J. W. Bright, B J. Vos. :ind C. C. Marden (Managing Editor). Eight numbers. 4to. Volume XXIX in progress. $2 per volume. (Foreign postage 25 cents.) Reprint of Economic Tracts. J. H. Hollander, Editor. Third series in progress. $2. Reports of the Maryland Geological Survey. Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity. L. A. Bauer, Editor. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XIX in progress. $3 per volupie. (Foreign postage 25 cents.) STUDIES IN HONOR OF PROFESSOR GILDERSLEEVE This volume contains 527 pages together with a photogravure of Professor Gildersleeve It includes 44 separate papers. The volume is dedicated to Professor Gildersleeve in commemora- tion of the Seventieth Anniversary of his birth by his pupils. Most of the edition of the volume was subscribed for in advance of issue. The few copies remaiiiing will be sold at the price of $6.go (six dollars) each. Orders may be addressed to The Johns Hopkins Press Baltimore, Maryland.