No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Scene Division in the Manuscript Tradition of Terence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Extract
The text of the comedies of Terence has been transmitted to us in two families of manuscripts, known as the Bembine (A) and the Calliopian (ω). The sole representative of the first is Vaticanus latinus 3226, IV-V century, in Rustic Capitals. The second family is composed of a number of manuscripts of Carolingian times and after; these have been subdivided into two groups (γ, δ) according to several characteristics which permit such a distinction, among them illustrations and lacunae. The indication of a new scene in the two families of manuscripts follows a method which seems to be diverse, and it is the purpose of this study to examine the principles involved. The investigation will not be limited to the manuscripts alone but will consider other sources of the Terentian tradition which help to clear up certain obscurities.
- Type
- Miscellany
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Fordham University Press
References
1 Some scholars designate the Calliopian family as Σ, others as σ. Here, as in our edition of Terence (P. Terenti Afri comoediae [Heidelberg 1954]), the sign adopted (ω) is that proposed by Fehl, P., Die interpolierte Recension des Terenztextes (Berlin 1938) 11 n. 1.Google Scholar
2 The bibliography on this question is extensive. The works most frequently used in this investigation are: Spengel, A., ‘Scenentitel und Scenenabtheilung in der lateinischen Komödie,’ Sb. Akad. Munich (1883) 257–298; Lindsay, W. M. The Ancient Editions of Plautus (St. Andrews University Publications 3; Oxford 1905) 80–108 (ch. vii, ‘The Scenes and Scene-headings,’ is devoted to the problem of scene titles); Jachmann, G. Die Geschichte des Terenztextes im Altertum (Basel 1924) 45–71 (the second chapter discusses the scene division in the two familes of Terentian manuscripts); Andrieu, J., Étude critique sur les sigles de personnages et les rubriques de scène dans les anciennes éditions de Térence (Paris 1940) 85–98 and Le dialogue antique: Structure et présentation (Collection d’études latines 29; Paris 1954) 89–138 (Andrieu's conclusions are, in general, correct but his interpretation of some of the rubrics in Plautus and Terence seems to be in error; see our discussion of the second work of Andrieu in Gnomon 29 [1957] 296–298).Google Scholar
3 That is, Menedemus and Chremes are ‘senes duo.’ Google Scholar
4 Changes in the order of the persons in the title of a scene are due also, at times, to a distraction of the scribe; this occurs, particularly when the number of persons is increased, in both A and the Calliopians; cf. for example, Eun. 1031; Htm. 732. Google Scholar
5 One might conjecture another step between (a) and (b) with the following title: syrvs servi dromo II; (c) would then be a correction by a scribe who considered it an error to attach a plural to a singular noun.Google Scholar
6 This is not the place to discuss at length the problem of the history of the text of Terence, which we have already treated elsewhere (‘La tradizione del testo di Terenzio nell’ antichità,’ Studi italiani di filologia classica, N.S. 25 [1951] 111–134), nor the validity of the transmission of the scene titles in the manuscripts of Terence. In our opinion, however, the scene titles in the two groups of manuscripts (A and w) are further proof of the derivation of these manuscripts from one archetype, as Jachmann, op. cit. 72ff., has shown. The theory of Jachmann has been questioned by Andrieu (Le dialogue antique 98 and in previous works, cited in the author's edition of Terence, p. 34). Andrieu denies that there are true common errors shared by A and w and, consequently, rejects a common archetype. Reluctantly, it seems, he is practically forced to admit (op. cit. 121 n. 2) that the titles of scenes contain common errors; he adds, however, that the errors of A and w ‘sont communes par le place, mais non par leur nature’ (ibid.). This admission, in our opinion, is enough to establish Jachmann's theory. Google Scholar
7 Le dialogue antique 127; his interpretation of the scene title of Phorm. 179 appears to be correct.Google Scholar
8 Commentum Terenti (ed. Wessner, P.) II (Leipzig 1905) 4–5.Google Scholar
9 Id. I (Leipzig 1902) 30. Google Scholar
10 On the meaning of this passage cf. Ritschl, F. W., Canticum und Deverbium bei Plautus (Opusc. III [1–54 and especially 46]).Google Scholar
11 On the meaning and use of these letters cf. Ritschl, op. cit. 46. Google Scholar
12 Hecyra IV 2 (verses 577–606).Google Scholar
13 The scene is written in Iambic Octonarii. Google Scholar
14 We have discussed this point in ‘I Cantica di Terenzio,’ Studi pubblicati dall’ Istituto di filologia classica dell’ Università di Bologna 1 (1948) 71–107.Google Scholar
15
It is not intended here to discuss, even superficially, the question of the scene titles in Plautus. We propose, however, an interpretation of one passage, Pseudolus 1063, that might be considered the most difficult. This place has been examined recently by Andrieu (Le dialogue antique 130), who describes the title as ‘mysterious.’ In the Codex Basilicanus of Plautus we read this title:
Andrieu proposes a strange interpretation; he writes: ‘… le copiste a été embarassé: EIDEM ne représente qu'un seul personnage: Ballion; E est la sigle tiré de EIDEM. C et Ie second S ne sont pas explicables. Peut-être n'y a-t-il là que des essais de plume?’ It is difficult to understand how the second ‘S’ can be a probatio pennae. Nor will this explain the letter ‘C.’ By analogy with other titles in the Plautine manuscripts, the original title may have had the following form: 
Google Scholar