Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T05:08:09.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Quotations of Republican Drama in Priscian’s Treatise De Metris Fabularum Terentii

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

H.D. Jocelyn
H.D. Jocelyn*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to draw attention to an unnoticed feature of the arrangement of Priscian’s treatise De metris fabularum Terentii and to speculate upon the origin of the quotations of republican drama contained in this treatise.

Priscianus of Caesarea in Mauretania taught Latin at Constantinople during the reign of Anastasius (491-518), a period when literary culture was in steep decline throughout the Latin-speaking Western Mediterranean. The mass of the population of Constantinople was probably Greek, at least in language, from the time of the city’s foundation but Constantine intended its public institutions to be Roman, and the emperors of the fifth and sixth centuries, most of whom either came from Latin-speaking communities or had received their principal education in Latin, jealously preserved the formal links with old Roman tradition. The Latin language remained in regular use in the army and the civil service until the time of Justinian. The latter even published his codification of the law in this language, although he issued most of his nouellae in Greek. Latin maintained itself longest on the coinage. Theodosius II made careful provision for the teaching of Latin grammar and rhetoric when he organized a state university in 425. The royal library, which lost 120,000 volumes in the fire of 475, possessed Latin as well as Greek works. At least three noted Latin grammarians, Euanthius, Charisius and Cledonius, taught at Constantinople before Priscian’s time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 1 , 1967 , pp. 60 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Klingner, F., Vom Geistesleben Roms des ausgehenden Altertums (Halle, 1941;Google Scholar reprinted in Römische Geisteswelt3 [Munich, 1956], pp. 475 ff.); Courcelle, P.Lettres grecques en Occident, de Macrobe à Cassiodore2 (Paris, 1948);Google ScholarMarrou, H.-I.Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique4 (Paris, 1958), pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar

2 See Eusebius, Vit. Const, 4 19 extr.Google Scholar

3 See Johannes Laur. Lyd. De mag. ii 12, iii 29, 42, 68.

4 See Cod. Theod. xiv 9.3 ( = Cod. lust, xi 19.1), xv 1.53.

5 See Zonaras, 14 2.Google Scholar

6 Valens appointed four scribes for Greek works and three for Latin (Cod. Theod. xiv 9.2)

7 See Jerome, Chron., a.358 (H. Usener, RhM xxiii [1868], 492 [=Kl. Schr. 11 173]). On Charisius’ audience see J . Tolkiehn, WKPh xxiv (1907), 1020.

8 The only surviving manuscript of his work gives the title as Ars Cledonii Romani senatoris Costantinopolitani grammatici.

9 In general see Hahn, L.Philologus Suppl. 10 (1907), 701–3,Google Scholar ‘Zum Gebrauch der lateinischen Sprache in Konstantinopel’, in Festgabe für Martin von Schanz (Würzburg, 1912), pp. 173–84; Zilliacus, H.Zum Kampf der Weltsprachen im oströmischen Reich (Helsingfors, 1935);Google ScholarDölger, F.Byzantinische Zeitschrift 34 (1936), 108–17;Google ScholarMarrou, H.-I.Histoirede I’éducation dans antiquité4 (Paris, 1958), pp. 349 ff., 542;Google ScholarJones, A.H.M.The Later Roman Empire 284–602 (Oxford, 1964), pp. 998 ff.Google Scholar

10 See Aulus Gellius xix 9.7. A copy of Livius Andronicus’ version of the Odyssey lay in a library in Patras in the second century A.D. (Gellius xviii 9.5). The Roman colony at Patras dates to 14 B.C. (Jerome, Chron.)

11 12.4 ff.

12 See Maas, P.Byzantinische Zeitschrift 35 (1935), 385–6.Google Scholar

13 See Egger, E.Mimoires d’histoire ancienne et dephilologie (Paris, 1863), pp. 259 ff.;Google ScholarStein, A.Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Ägyptens unter römischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart, 1915),pp. 132 ff.;Google ScholarMoore, C.H.CPh 19 (1924), 317ff.;Google ScholarGerstinger, H.WSt 4 (1937),95 ff.Google Scholar

14 See Suda Z 73, s.v. .

15 See Suda A 3867, s.v. . The verse translation of the Fourth Eclogue in Eusebius’ account of Constantine’s address to the Council of Nicaea (see Kurfess, A. ‘Vergils vierte Ekloge in Kaiser Konstantins Rede an die Heilige Versammlung’, Sokrates 8 [1920], Jahresberichte, 90–96)Google Scholar belongs to the history of religion rather than the history of literature.

16 Cf. Libanius, Or. 1.214, 234, 43.5, 48.22, 49.27, Ep. 951, 955, 977 (see Petit, P., Libanius et la vie municipale á Antioche au IVe; siècle après J.-C. [Paris, 1955], pp. 346 ff.);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. 14.6.

17 Agrippa settled two legions here in 15 B.C. (Jerome, , Chron.; Strabo 16 735)Google Scholar

18 Cf. Suetonius, De gramm. 24 and Jerome, Chron., a.57, on Valerius Probus, M.. Whether, as Leo argued (Plautinische Forschungen2 [Berlin, 1912], p. 28),Google Scholar texts had disappeared entirely from Roman libraries seems doubtful.

19 See Martial iii 2.12. For the general hostility to early republican literature during the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods see Suetonius, De gramm. 16 (on Q . Caecilius Epirota), 23 (on Remmius Palaemon); Seneca, De ira iii 37.5, Epist. 58.5, ap. Gellium xii 2.4; Tacitus, Dial., passim.

20 See Gellius i 15.18, iii 1.5, vi 7.3, ix 9.12, xiii 21.1.

21 Hist. Aug. Hadr. 16.6.

22 He writes of being practically ignorant of them at the age of 22 (Epist. p. 18.18 van den Hout).

23 Epist. pp. 34.14, 50.1, 56.25, 212.22.

24 Gellius’ exact dates are hard to establish; see Castorina, E.GIF 3 (1950), 137–45;Google ScholarMarshall, P.K., CPh 58 (1963), 143–9.Google Scholar

25 Quintilian seems to have sensed the challenge to classical taste; contrast Inst, i 8.8 with x 1.97.

26 The grammarian is often identified with the Nonius Marcellus Herculius of an inscription carved at Thubursicum in Numidia in A.D. 323 (CIL viii 4878). The De compendiosa doctrina libri were compiled some time between the publication of Gellius’ Noctes Atticae and Apuleius’ Ludicra (quoted at p. 68.21) at the earliest and A.D. 402 (see the subscriptio in cod. Montepessulanus 212) at the latest.

27 Authors like Livy and Horace slipped in from lexica and grammars consulted by Nonius. On the structure of the De compendiosa doctrina libri see Lindsay, W.M.Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary of Republican Latin (Oxford, 1901);Google ScholarPhilologus lxiv (1905), 438 ff.

28 Julius Caesar ap. Suet. Vit.Terent. 7. Cf. Servius, in Verg. Aen. i 410 sciendum tamen est Terentium propter solam proprietatem omnibus comicis esse praepositum, quibus est quantum ad cetera spectat inferior.

29 Cf. Messius, ArusianusGramm. Lat. 7 449 ff.Google Scholar (cf. also Cassiodorus, , De inst. 2 25);Google ScholarJerome, , Comm. in Ezechielem, prol. lib. 7;Google Scholar id., Apologia adu. lib. Rufini, i 471–2.

30 E.g. Jerome (see Hagendahl, H.Latin Fathers and the Classics [Göteborg, 1958], pp. 91 ff.).Google Scholar

31 See Norden, E.Ennius und Vergilius: Kriegsbilder aus Roms grosser Zeit (Leipzig, 1915), PP. 78ff.Google Scholar

32 See Macrobius, Sat. i 4.17, vi 1.2, vi 1.5, vi 3.9, vi 9.9.

33 On the practice of Macrobius himself see Jocelyn, H.D.CQ 15 (1964), 280 ff.;CrossRefGoogle Scholar xv (1965), 126 ff.

34 Virgil, Cicero, Sallust, Livy, Lucan (?), Juvenal (see Cavenaille, R.Corpus Papyrorum Latinorum [Wiesbaden, 1958], pp. 7 ff.),Google Scholar and Terence (see Oxyrhynchus Papyri xxiv [1957], pp. n o ff.) have been found on papyri.

35 On this point see Jeep, L.Philologus 68 (1909), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 The works were all dedicated to residents of old Rome, the Institutio to Iulianus, ‘consul ac patricius’ (identified by some with the name in the subscriptio in the codex Puteanus of Statius’ Thebaid; see Vollmer, F.RhM 51 [1896], 27),Google Scholar the minor ones to Q,. Aurelius Memmius Symmachus, consul of 485.

37 See Cassiodorus, , De orthog., in Gramm. Lat. 7 207.13.Google Scholar

38 See Hertz, M.Prisciani Institutionum grammaticarum libri XVIII, Vol. 1 (Gramm. Lat. ii, Leipzig, 1855), pp. Viiii ff.;Google ScholarManitius, M.Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, Vol. 1 (Munich, 1911), index, p. 755.Google Scholar

39 This notion may have been aided not only by ignorance and incompetence but also by a well-known remark of Cicero’s: at comicorum senarii propter similitudinem sermonis sic saepe sunt abiecti ut non numquam uix in eis numerus et uersus intellegi possit (Oral. 184).

40 See Pasquali, G.Storia della tradizione e critica del testo2 (Florence, 1952), p. 355.Google Scholar

41 See Helm, R., RE XXII 2 (1954), 2330 ff.Google Scholar

42 See Gramm. Lat. ii 129.7 ff., 188.22 ff., 194.9 ff.

43 Most significant are coincidences with blocks of quotations in the works of Festus and Aulus Gellius.

44 ii 351.25. At ii 379.14 Priscian is probably referring to the books of grammarians.

45 ii 188.22; cf. ii 354.9. On Caper see Osann, F.De Flauio Capro et Agroecio grammaticis (Giessen, 1849);Google ScholarChrist, W.Philologus 18 (1862), 165–l70;CrossRefGoogle ScholarKirchner, J. , ‘De Seruii auctoribus grammaticis quos ipse laudauit’, NJbb Suppl. 8 (1875/76), 469 ff.;Google ScholarKeil, G.De Flauio Capro grammatico quaestionum capita II (Diss. Halle, 1889);Google ScholarGoetting, F.De Flauio Capro Consentiifonte (Diss. Königsberg, 1899);Google ScholarGoetz, G.RE 3 (1899), 1506, s.v. Caper;Google Scholar H. Karbaum, ‘De origine exemplorum quae ex Ciceronis scriptis a Charisio, Diomede, Arusiano Messio, Prisciano Caesariensi, aliis grammaticis allata sunt’, Progr. Wernigerode, 1889; Jeep, L.Zur Geschichte der Lehre von den Redetheilen bei den lateinischen Grammatikem (Leipzig, 1893);Google Scholar id., ‘Priscianus. Beiträge zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der römischen Literatur’, Philologuslxvii (1908), 12 ff., lxviii (1909), 1 ff., lxxi (1912), 491 ff.; Froehde, O. ‘Die griechische und romische Quellen der Institutiones des Priscianus,’ NJbb 151 (1895), 279 ff.;Google ScholarWischnewski, O.De Prisciani institutionum grammaticarum compositions (Diss. Konigsberg, 1909);Google ScholarHoeltermann, A.De Flauio Capro grammatico (Diss. Bonn, 1913);Google ScholarBarwick, K.Remmius Palaemon und die romische Arsgrammatica [Philologus Suppl. 15 2 [1922]), pp. 191 ff.;Google ScholarStrzelecki, W.De Flauio Capro Nonii auctore (Kraków, 1936).Google Scholar There is dispute as to whether Priscian drew on C. Plinius Secundus or M. Valerius Probus. On the former see Schottmuller, A.De Plinii libris grammaticis particula prima (Diss. Bonn, 1858);Google ScholarNeumann, H.De Plinii dubii sermonis libris Charisii et Prisciani fontibus (Diss. Kiel, 1881);Google Scholar A. Schlitte ‘De Plinii studiis grammaticis‘, Progr. Nordhausen, 1883; Froehde, O. ‘Valerii Probi de nominibus libellum Plinii secundi doctrinam continere demonstratur’, NJbb Suppl. 19 (1893), 159;Google ScholarBeck, J.W.C. Plinii Secundi librorum dubii sermonis VIII reliquiae (Leipzig, 1894);Google ScholarBolte, F. ‘Beiträge zur Rekonstruktion von Plinius libri dubii sermonis’, Festschr. des Goethegymnasiums in Frankfurt a.M., 1897;Google ScholarAly, W., RE XXI 1 (1951), 294–9,Google Scholar s.v. C. Plinius Secundus der Altere, Dubii sermonis libri VIII. On the latter see Steup, J., De Probis grammaticis (Diss. Jena, 1871);Google ScholarAistermann, J.De M. Valerio Probo Berytio capita quattuor (Bonn, 1910);Google ScholarHanslik, R.RE i 8 (1955), 195,Google Scholar s.v. Valerius Probus; Scivoletto, N. ‘La «filologia» di Valerio Probo di Berito’, GIF 7 (1959), 97 ff.;Google ScholarBiichner, K. in Geschichte der Textuberlieferung I (Zurich, 1961), 335 ff.Google Scholar

46 Cf. iii 278.9. See Matthias, T. ‘Zu alten Grammatikern: I Apollonius als Hauptquelle Priscians’, NJbb Suppl. 15 (1887), 593–609;Google ScholarLuscher, A.De Prisciani studiis Graecis (Diss. Breslau, 1911), p. 22;Google Scholar id., Breslauer phil. Abh. xliv (1912), pp. 80 ff.

47 Editors are perhaps wrong to attribute to Ennius the verse quoted at iii 205.20, 0 genitor noster Saturnie maxime diuum (Ann. 456 V2); it is a literal translation of Homer Il. , a verse used by Apollonius in the section which Priscian is adapting (De constr. 3.9). The verse quoted at iii 234.20, aio te Aeacida Romanos uincere posse (Ann. 179 V2), occurs frequently in the grammarians (Donatus iv 369.2, Diomedes i 450.3 et al.). Not all the manuscripts attach Ennius’ name to the verse quoted at iii 192.15, optima caelicolum Satumia magna dearum (Ann. 491 V2), but Ennian provenance should not be denied. Priscian may have picked the verse up from his reading of Caper.

48 iii 122.16 in Poenulo … in Menaechmis. Cf. ii 595.14.

49 Terence, Virgil, Cicero and Sallust formed the ‘quadriga’ of Arusianus Messius (see Cassiodorus, , De inst. 2 25).Google Scholar St Jerome, when discussing the character of commentarii (Apologia adu. lib. Rufini i 471̵2) lists certain works on these authors as among the principal commentarii of his day. Ancient commentaries on Lucan, Horace, Persius and Statius survive to the present day. The grammars of Sacerdos, Donatus, Diomedes and Charisius do not quote Juvenal or Statius and quote Lucan only rarely. Servius (in his commentary on Virgil) however quotes the three copiously (see Wessner, P.PhW 49 [1929], 296 ff, 328).Google ScholarWischnewski, O.De Prisciani inst. gramm. comp., p. 97,Google Scholar is quite wrong to make Caper the general source of the quotations in Priscian xvii and xviii.

50 E.g. Vahlen, J.Ennianae poesis reliquiae2 (Leipzig, 1903), p. 126;Google ScholarSchultze, G.De Prisciani locis Plautinis (Diss. Jena, 1910), pp. 4 ff.;Google ScholarTimpanaro, S.SIFC 21 (1946) , 51.Google Scholar

51 Besides the testimonia quoted by the editors cf. Catullus 64.1–7, 171–2, 177–81, 250, Lucretius iv 1048, Horace, Epod. 16.57–8, Virgil, Ecl. 4.34–5, 8.47–8, Phaedrus, iv 7.6–16.

52 Cf. Poeta incertus ap. Gell. xix 11.4, Apuleius, Met. iv 32. Orosius i 12.10 need not be taken as a first-hand allusion.

53 See above, n.27.

54 See Priscian, Gramm. ii 512.4.

55 See Ribbeck, O., Die römische Tragödie im zeitalter der Republik (Leipzig, 1875), p. 557.Google Scholar

56 See Festus, pp. 208.31, 334.12, 462.11.

57 Priscian seems to have believed Cicero to be the author of the rhetorical treatise addressed to Herennius; see Gramm. ii 95.15 et al.

58 Cf. G. Keil, in app., Gramm. iii 424.9; L. Mueller, De Acciifabulis disputatio (Berlin, 1890), p. 40; Marx, F., Progr. Greifswald 1891, 10 ff.;Google Scholar id., in app., Incerti auctoris de ratione dicendi ad C. Herennium libri (Leipzig, 1894), ii 34; L. Jeep, Philologus lxviii (1909), 16, n. 27; Wessner, P. in Teuffel, W.S. — Kroll, W. — Skutsch, F., Geschichte der rümischen Literatur6 iii (Leipzig, 1913), p. 491;Google ScholarNorden, E., Ennius und Vergilius, p. 82;Google ScholarPease, A.S., in app., M. Tullii Ciceronis de natura deorum libri secundus et tertius (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), ii 89, p. 770.Google Scholar

59 Gramm. iii 418,10.

60 See Terentianus 2240, Firmianus (L. Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius) ad Probum ap. Rufin. Gramm. vi 564.7, Victorinus, Marius, Gramm. vi 78.19 ff.,Google Scholar 81.1 ff. Cf. Horace, Ars 258 ff.

61 Gramm. vi 558.7 ff.

62 On Juba see Hense, O., ‘De Iuba artigrapho,’ Acta Societatis Philologae Lipsiensis iv (1875), 3 ff.; Schultz, G., Quibus auctoribus Aphthonius usus sit (Diss. Breslau, 1885)Google Scholar

63 The Vidularia could have been missing or set earlier in the edition (Bidularia ?).

64 The Miles has no prologue standing apart from the action.

65 On reverse sequences of quotations see Jocelyn, H.D., CQ xiv (1964), 291;Google Scholar I was unaware at the time of writing of Strzelecki, W., ‘Ein Beitrag zur Quellenbenutzung des Nonius’, in Irmscher, J.et al., Aus der altertumsivissenschaftlichen Arbeit Volkspolens (Berlin, 1959), pp. 81.Google Scholar

66 See Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U.von, Einteitung in die griechische Tragödie (Berlin, 1889), pp. 173f.Google Scholar Athenaeus quotes five comedies of Eubulus in alphabetical order at x 417 c-d.

67 Cf. Varro, Ling, vii 107 (eleven plays of Naevius); Festus, pp. 164.7 (Plautus in Artemone … Curculione … et in Casino), 166.17 (Plautus in Parasito pigro … item in Mostellaria [ = Phasmate] … et in Truculento); Nonius Marcellus, passim (the comedies of Plautus and Turpilius [see Lindsay, Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary, p. 117], the Atellane farces of Pomponius, four Menippean satires of Varro [see Delia Corte, F., Varrone il terzo gran lume Romano (Genoa, 1954), p. 373]).Google Scholar

68 The arranger failed to notice that Andria 178 is a trochaic verse. Rufinus, Comm. in metra Terentiana, Gramm. vi 558.12–24, seems to be an abbreviation of Priscian, Gramm. iii 422.22-423.34. Cybulla, K., De Rufini Antiochensis Commentariis (Diss. Königsberg, 1907), pp. 60–4,Google Scholar effectively refutes Keil’s view that Priscian copied Rufinus, but does not prove his own view that a common source lies behind Priscian and Rufinus. There seems to be no way of establishing Rufinu’s date, although scholars generally put him in the fifth century.

69 Euripides’ opened with very different words (Pap. Mediol. 1) but this play is not necessarily Accius’ model.

70 Menander’s seems to have begun with a monologue of similar content (Theon, Progymn. p. 92.16 = fr. 152 Körte).

71 The words transmitted do not make a bacchiac pattern but neither do they make sense.

72 Cf. Athenaeus x 417 d Priscian, Gramm. ii 321.25 Accius de Hercule dicens.

73 Asmonius addressed his work to a ‘Constantius imperator’ (perhaps Constantius III; see Jeep, L., Philologus lxvii [1908], 19).Google Scholar

74 Cybulla (see n.68) argued that the Neronian poet-scholar Caesius Bassus provided the ultimate source of Priscian and Rufinus of Antioch.

75 Aulus Gellius almost certainly consulted the Plocium of Caecilius (ii 23.5 ff., iii 16.4) and at least one tragedy of Pacuvius (xiv 1.34).

76 Our text of Priscian’s quotations is not very good. Priscian’s copyists are doubtless to blame in some cases. They seem to have lost a quotation of the opening verses of the first scene of Heauton timoroumenus at p. 423.9. Priscian’s manuscripts of Ennius, Accius and Turpilius on the other hand could well have been themselves faulty or hard to read. The quotation of the Medea is clearly astray in at least four places. The second Lindia quotation (p. 426.2–4) is hopelessly corrupt. The opening verses of the Argonautae are not quoted and those which are are dislocated; nevertheless in three places a text superior to that of Cicero, Nat.deor. ii 89 is provided (spiritu ~ strepitu; reflat <–> prqfluit; undanti infracto [sic] ~ undantes ueniant freto).

77 Cf. Leo, Plaut. Forsch.2, p. 212, n. 6; F. Stoessl, RE XXIII ii (1959), s.v. Prologos (Nachträge),2369, 2414.

78 Ap. Charis. p. 273.13 (Barwick).

79 Vv. 41–4. For attempts to identify these tragedies see Ladewig, T., NJbb 99 (1869), 473 ff.;Google ScholarSkutsch, O., HSCP 71 (1966), 125 ff.Google Scholar

80 This is not to say that one of the human characters of the action could not, as in Plautus’ Mercator and Miles, have made an expository speech to the audience.

81 So Mercerus: sit codd.

82 So Mercerus: elimina/eliminat codd.

83 Hermes lxvii (1932), 355–6. Cf. Maas, P., ibid., 243–5.Google Scholar

84 For an interpretation of eliminas as a resultative present see Monaco, G., SIFC 24 (1950), 249–53.Google Scholar Fraenkel did not reprint his article in Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie (Rome, 1964).

85 Fragmenta poetarum ueterum Latinorum … a Rob. Stephano … congesta … ab Henrico Stephano eiusfilio digesta (Geneva, 1564); see Addenda, p. 428.

86 Lindsay has shown (see work cited above, n.27) that Nonius drew all his quotations of the Medea except that at p. 467.21 from a volume of Accius’ plays. Cf. also Schmidt, P., De Nonii Marcelli auctoribus grammaticis (Leipzig, 1868).Google Scholar

87 Syntagma tragoediae Latinae(Antwerp, 1593).

88 Collectanea ueterum tragicorum (Leiden, 1620).

89 Poetae scenici Latinorum, Vol. v (Leipzig, 1834).

90 Gf.Manutius, P. on Cicero, Fam. 6 6Google Scholar (Vol. vi of A. Manutius’ edition of Cicero, Venice, 1578); Vossius, G.I., Castigationes et notae, in Scriverius’ Collectanea, p. 160.Google Scholar

91 RhM v (1837), 259.

92 Die griechische Tragödien tnit Rücksicht auf den epischen Cyclus, Vol. i (Bonn, 1839), p. 51.

93 Tragicorum Romanorum fragmenta (Leipzig, 18521, 18712, 18973).

94 In app., Gramm. iii 424.9.

95 Remains of Old Latin, Vol. ii (London, 1936).

96 Scaenicorum Romanorum fragmenta, Vol. i (Munich, 1953).

97 Cf. Aeschylus’ Plautus’ Caecus uel Praedones, Accius’ Stasiastae uel Tropaeum, Aeneadae uel Decius. Priscian is more likely than a scribe to be responsible for the omission.

98 Snell’s, Cf. B.theory concerning the tradition of the ‘alphabetical’ plays of Euripides (Hermes 70 [1935], 119).Google Scholar