Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Metaforms
Studies in the Reception of
Classical Antiquity
Editors-in-Chief
Editorial Board
VOLUME 4
Edited by
Andrew J. Turner
Giulia Torello-Hill
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Cover illustration: Artist unknown; illustration for Eunuchus 5.7 from the edition of Terence by
Jodocus Badius and Johannes Trechsel (Lyon, 1493). Collection of Christchurch Art Gallery Te Puna o
Waiwhetu. Woodcut 72/100. Presented by Gordon H. Brown, 30 October 1972.
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 2212-9405
isbn --0-28880-5 (hardback)
isbn --0-28949-9 (e-book)
...
And for my children Valentina and Sofia, my strength and wisdom.
G.T.-H.
Contents
Prefaceix
List of Abbreviationsxi
List of Contributorsxii
List of Figuresxiv
1 Introduction1
Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-Hill
Part 1
Text and Images
Part 2
Scholarship
Part 3
Text and Performance
Part 4
Readerships
Bibliography251
Index of Papyri and Manuscripts276
Index of Ancient Sources280
Index of Names and Subjects288
Figures
Preface
to thank. Our editors at Brill, initially Caroline van Erp and over the crucial
last twelve months Tessel Jonquire and Pieter te Velde, have been enormously
helpful, and we gratefully acknowledge all their assistance and understand-
ing. We have benefitted greatly from a publication grant from the School of
Historical and Philosophical Studies (generously supported by the Head of
School, Trevor Burnard) and the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne,
and would like to thank too the administrative staff there for their assistance.
In a work which is so dependent on images, we have relied heavily on the
goodwill and professionalism of libraries and librarians, and would like to
acknowledge gratefully the Bodleian Library (Oxford), the Bibliothque natio-
nale de France, the Bibliothque de lArsenal, and the Institut de Recherche et
dHistoire des Textes (Paris), the Bibliothque municipale de Tours, the Royal
Library (Copenhagen), the Universitts- und Landesbibliothek (Darmstadt),
and the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Munich). Special thanks are due to the
Christchurch Fine Art Gallery and their librarian, Tim Jones, for arranging the
cover illustration for this volume.
We would like to express our deep gratitude to Bernard Muir. A prolific
publisher, both in traditional and digital format, and an acknowledged author-
ity on palaeography and manuscripts, he has consistently provided us with
answers to tricky questions, and with straightforward and accurate advice. He
has also been unstinting with his time in proof-reading and correcting errors,
both obvious and subtle, and this book is very much indebted both to his eru-
dition and his constant encouragement. At the University of Queensland, Gary
Ianziti has provided us with encouragement and the solace and inspiration of
conversations on various aspects of the Italian Renaissance.
Finally, we would like to thank our families and friends, who have been
enormously supportive throughout this lengthy processquite simply we
would not have been able to complete this book without them.
G.T.-H.
A.T.
List of Abbreviations
Names of classical authors and their works cited in this volume have been
abbreviated in accordance with abbreviations found in the Oxford Latin
Dictionary, the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, and H.G. Liddell and R. Scott,
A Greek-English Lexicon. Other abbreviations used are as follows:
Chrysanthi Demetriou
is an Adjunct Tutor at the Open University of Cyprus and the University
of Cyprus. She has published on Roman Comedy, primarily on Donatus,
contributing to the Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy (2014).
Gianni Guastella
is Professor of Latin Language and Literature at the University of Siena. He
has published extensively on classical Roman comedy and tragedy, including
the monograph studies Lira e lonore (Palermo, 2001) and Le rinascite della
tragedia (Rome, 2013).
Salvatore Monda
is Professor of Latin Language and Literature at the University of Molise.
He has published extensively on Roman comedy, including an edition of
Plautus Vidularia et deperditarum fabularum fragmenta (Urbino, 2004).
Bernard J. Muir
is a Professorial Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne, where
he taught Medieval literature and manuscript studies for thirty years. His
scholarly editions include The Exeter Anthology and Terences Comedies (with
Andrew Turner).
Giulia Torello-Hill
is a Research Associate at the University of Queensland. She has published
on Greek Old Comedy and on the reception of ancient drama in the Italian
Renaissance.
List Of Contributors xiii
Andrew J. Turner
is a Fellow at the University of Melbourne, where he teaches Latin. He has
published on the reception of Terence and Sallust, and jointly edited a facsimile
edition of an illustrated Terence manuscript with Bernard Muir.
Claudia Villa
is Professor of Italian Literature at the University of Bergamo. Her monograph
study La lectura Terentii. Da Ildemaro a Francesco Petrarca (Padua, 1984) is a
fundamental reference work on the manuscript tradition of Terence.
List of Figures
Introduction
Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-Hill
Publius Terentius Afer, or Terence, was one of the most popular classical Latin
authors of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Some 741 Latin manuscripts of
his six plays are now known,1 and of these 122 or so can be dated to the period
8001200 CE.2 By the end of Late Antiquity he had taken his place alongside
Cicero, Vergil, and Sallust as one of the four standard Latin authors to be stud-
ied in schools, the so-called quadriga of Arusianus Messius. His popularity as
a teaching text persisted throughout the next 1000 years, and in 1486 his play
Eunuchus became one of the earliest classical Latin works to be translated into
a contemporary German dialect, and diffused to mass audiences by means of
the newly invented printing press. The wider dissemination of his plays in fact
determined his return to the stage, first of all in Italy during the last decades of
the fifteenth century.
Terences plays were cited very extensively by Late-Antique grammarians,
and commentaries proliferated from an early stage. As early as the fourth
century, Greek glosses to Terences Latin text were written on a fragmentary
papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (P.Oxy. 2401); there survive fragments of at least
three separate commentaries from Late Antiquity (Euanthius, Donatus, and
Eugraphius). Various authors, including Priscian and Rufinus, wrote treatises
on his metres; and the earliest near-complete manuscript of his works, the
fifth-century Codex Bembinus (Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 3226, or A), has its
own important collection of early commentary notes, the Scholia Bembina.3
Commentary traditions mushroomed in the Carolingian, Scholastic, and
Renaissance periods, and their relationships and influences are as tangled and
enigmatic as they are fascinating.4 These later traditions contain much non-
sense (at least from the perspective of a modern classical philologist), but also
1 For the original catalogue by Claudia Villa, see Villa 1984 295454, and for her addenda to this
list, see the Appendix to her contribution in this volume.
2 Listed in Munk Olsen 19821989, 2.598653; 3.2.1328.
3 Published in Mountford 1934.
4 For brief overviews of these traditions, see Riou 1997 and Villa 2007.
5 For performances in Rome, see Cruciani 1983 and Beacham 1991 202 and 255 n. 4.
6 The success of these performances that took place both in private houses and public theatres
generated suspicion. At the end of December 1508 the Republic of Venice by public decree
prohibited any private and public performance (che de cetero non si fazi pi in questa
terra...recitar comedie, tragedie et egloge. Cited in Padoan 1982 38).
7 Von Reinhardstttner 1886 36.
8 See Smith 1988 1389.
Introduction 3
much of the fine detail relating to this early material remains unknown to the
broader scholarly community. A telling instance comes with the 2012 supple-
ment to Brills New Pauly on the Reception of Classical Literature. In this work
there are extensive articles on Cicero, Vergil, and Sallust, as well as Aristophanes
and Seneca the Youngers dramas, but there is nothing on Terence (or for that
matter, Plautus).9 Some valuable work is in fact now starting to be done, and is
summarised in the survey which follows here, but the reception of Terence has
certainly yet to take its proper place in the modern canon.
How is it that such a situation came about? One work which (paradoxically)
played a key role in stunting discussion of the illustrative tradition throughout
the twentieth century was L.W. Jones and C.R. Morey, The Miniatures of the
Manuscripts of Terence prior to the Thirteenth Century, published by Princeton
in two weighty volumes in 1931.10 The very title of this work already points to a
major omission which has been perpetrated through subsequent scholarship;
namely, it ignores an important group of illustrated manuscripts produced in
Paris in the early fifteenth century which directly descend from these earlier
manuscripts, and likewise the illustrations included in some of the first printed
editions of Terences works. But the stifling effect of Jones and Morey on the
subsequent development of scholarship in this field was most aptly described
by David Wright in an article of 1993, where he stated:
Wright himself has gone some way to rectifying this situation, particularly with
a major edition of C which appeared in 2006 and which located the illustra-
tive traditions firmly within the context of Late-Antique manuscript art,12 but
much work on the other illustrative manuscripts remains to be done, particu-
larly on those manuscripts copied after 1300.
9 This omission should not in any case be ascribed to the editor, Christine Walde, who
explains rather diplomatically how the original scope of her work was limited by scholars
who had promised contributions but then failed to provide them (Walde 2012 xxi).
10 Jones and Morey 1931.
11 Wright 1993 183.
12 Wright 2006.
4 turner and torello-hill
work on this topic went no further than an edition of the accessus or introduc-
tion to Andria.18 Schlees work, on the other hand, has deep structural problems.
It purports to produce a critical edition of the various commentary notes, both
marginal scholia and interlinear glosses, but is extremely selective in what it rep-
licates; for instance, very many of the glosses in C are simply left out. Moreover,
Schlees attempts to classify these notes according to a simplistic system of a
Commentarius Antiquior and Commentarius Recentior led to arbitrary decisions
about what belonged where, which the reviewer Edward Kennard Rand subse-
quently described as futile and disastrous.19
Some gaps in this field are finally beginning to be filled. In 2011 Franz Schorsch
published a new and very detailed edition of the so-called Commentum
Monacense (or Munich commentary).20 The Commentum Monacense, named
simply after the provenance of its main manuscript witness, is one of the three
or four (depending how you classify them) major commentary traditions
to survive from the heyday of the Carolingian educational system (c.800
1200 CE).21 Schorschs edition is somewhat limited by his decision to publish
just three plays of the six (Andria, Heauton timorumenos, Phormio), but it will
be an invaluable resource when studying these comments, which are found
written side by side with the Commentum Brunsianum in the margins of sev-
eral early manuscripts (e.g. Paris, BnF, lat. 7903, and Leiden, UB, LIP 26); what
is particularly required in this field is to establish a proper taxonomy for the
development of these early commentary traditions. From the other end of the
Terence spectrum, the study of the works of Badius by Paul White from 2013 is
18 Riou 1973.
19 Rand 1909 366. Note too the assessment of Villa 1984 67, who describes the work as una
incerta edizione...che, senza alcuna preoccupazione critica si limit ad estrarre indi
scriminatamente, da diversi codici con le commedie, postille e glosse trascritte sui margini
e nelle interlinee; con una operazione arbitraria e del tutto inadeguata alla complessit
del problema.
20 Schorsch 2011. Some comments had already been published by Schlee 1893.
21 The others being the Commentum Brunsianum, the twelfth-century Commentarius Recentior,
and the interlinear glossing tradition, exemplified by the glosses in C. The Commentarius
Recentior (as noted, the name is due to Schlee) remains unpublished and largely unstud-
ied, although it is potentially a rich source for the reception of Terence (for its manu-
scripts and variations see Riou 1997 3643 and Villa 2007 312), and may preserve material
dating back to antiquity (cf. Turner 2010, updated by his contribution in this volume). The
glossing tradition has only been published properly for Phormio (Warren 1901); many of
its glosses were also published by Bruns in his edition, but given the comparatively late
date of his witness their presence there may be due to contamination of the various early
traditions.
6 turner and torello-hill
22 White 2013.
23 On Florence see Ventrone 1993 and on Rome see Cruciani 1983.
24 Besides Coppo 1968 and Rositi 1968 on the Ferrarese revival, see also Padoan 1982 for per-
formances of classical drama in Venice in the early sixteenth century.
25 Discussed in Grafton and Jardine 1986 128; see also Villoresi 1994.
26 Discussed in Torello-Hill 2010 and 2014.
27 In particular, Villa 1984, but see also the more extensive bibliography cited at the end of
this volume.
Introduction 7
the most important new initiatives in this field came in 2007 with collected
conference proceedings contained in the volume Terentius Poeta, offering a
number of contributions on the early Medieval reception of Terence.28 The
2013 Companion to Terence published by Wiley-Blackwell has a section devoted
to reception, including important pieces on the transmission of the text and
earliest scholia, Terence in Late Antiquity, Hrotsvita of Gandersheim, and the
reception and translation of Terence in England (although still hardly any-
thing on the illustrations or the Medieval commentary traditions).29 The 2014
Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy likewise contains important
new contributions on Terences manuscript tradition, on the relationship of
the Carolingian illustrations to earlier mosaics, and on Donatus,30 but unfor-
tunately does not go beyond that time limit. Finally, the other 2014 collection
Terence and Interpretation (Cambridge Scholars Publishing) also provides
important contributions on Donatus as well as the later reception of Andria.31
Another key development in recent years, which is likely to have enormous
consequences for the future development of this field of reception studies,
has been the increasing availability of high-quality digital images of relevant
manuscripts and incunabula on the internet. The benchmark for this process
was set by the Swiss research foundation e-codices, which since 2005 has pro-
gressively made high-resolution images of Medieval manuscripts held in Swiss
libraries available. The Swiss project is the most comprehensive and system-
atic in Europe, but it is now by no means the only one. Some other institu-
tions, such as Oxford University, or the Royal Library in Copenhagen, have
published on-line high resolution images of selected manuscripts from their
collections, while still other important research libraries have made available
a much larger number of images but at lower resolution; these include the
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich and the Biblioteca Medicea Lauren
ziana in Florence. The Vatican Library has also released images of a small per-
centage of its vast collections, principally the Palatine manuscripts. Perhaps
the most exciting development, however, has been occurring since 2010, when
the Bibliothque nationale de France in Paris began making available online
28 See the contributions of Victor, Maltby [Maltby 2007], Villa [Villa 2007], and Jakobi in
Kruschwitz, Ehlers and Felgentreu 2007.
29 See the contributions of Victor [Victor 2013], Cain [Cain 2013], Augoustakis, van Elk, and
Barsby in Augoustakis and Traill 2013.
30 See the contributions of Victor [Victor 2014], Nervegna [Nervegna 2014], and Demetriou
[Demetriou 2014a] in Fontaine and Scafuro 2014.
31 See the contributions of Maltby, Demetriou [Demetriou 2014b], and Brown in
Papaioannou 2014.
8 turner and torello-hill
The papers in this volume are divided into four broadly defined sections: (1) Text
and Images; (2) Scholarship; (3) Text and Performance; and (4) Readerships.
This grouping is not meant to imply that these units are self-contained dis-
cussions which are only of relevance to their own specialist readerships, such
as art or theatre historians, or researchers into commentaries or reception.
Frequently, a contributor will need to refer to several elements of the manu-
scripts, such as illustrations and scholia, simply because they are located on the
same page, side-by-side. Thus the space between two figures which appear in
an eleventh-century fragmentary manuscript, now in the Bibliothque natio-
nale de France in Paris (BnF, lat. 18544), was filled very soon after the text was
written and the illustrations drawn, and it seems to fill every available square
millimetre of the vellum which is not already used (see Figure 6).
The opening section, Text and Images, begins with the contribution of
Bernard Muir on the topic of Terences Comedies: Development, Transmission,
and Transformation. Building on his extensive knowledge of the sources and
composition of the illustrated twelfth-century English manuscript O, Muir
provides a broad overview of the manuscript tradition of Terence, and also
looks at particular problems associated with these works, including how
scripts and drawing techniques changed with the transition from papyrus to
parchment, and how individual manuscripts from the high Middle Ages were
glossed and corrected. He also demonstrates the ways in which the illustrative
tradition was transformed in the early fifteenth century in Parisian workshops,
and again in the earliest printed editions, which were strongly influenced
by Renaissance studies of other classical texts, especially Vitruvius. The next
contribution, Illustrating the Manuscripts of Terence, from Beatrice Radden
Keefe, provides a detailed catalogue of all known illustrated manuscripts of
Terence, a genuine desideratum of Terence scholarship, which for too long
has allowed itself to be uncritically dependent on the 1931 study of Jones and
Morey. As noted earlier, Jones and Moreys book was limited from the start by
their decision not to take the examination of illustrated Terence manuscripts
any further than the twelfth century; it is only when we look at the images
produced in the fifteenth century that we really begin to see the continuities
in illustrative traditions, as well as understand the startling innovations.
Radden Keefes catalogue, which includes some important witnesses, espe-
cially from the fifteenth century, will provide a very important resource for
studies in this area.
The final contribution in this section, Thais Walks the German Streets:
Text, Gloss, and Illustration in Neidharts 1486 German Edition of Terences
Eunuchus, is by James H. Kim On Chong-Gossard. This edition, commissioned
by the mayor of Ulm, Hans Neidhart, contains a translation of Eunuchus into
the Swabian dialect, an extensive commentary on the text, and the earliest
known set of wood-block prints illustrating Terences plays; nevertheless this
very important work has not been discussed outside of German-language pub-
lications, which are largely concerned with the history of printing in Southern
Germany. Chong-Gossards discussion shows how the illustrations (by an
unknown artist) drew on the earlier illustrated traditions, particularly those
in the fifteenth-century Parisian manuscripts, and also how the commentary
10 turner and torello-hill
are exceptional for extant ancient drama in the way they address the audience
about the mechanics of presenting the plays and the literary disputes which
lie behind them, and shows how these aspects were responsible for particu-
lar developments in the later traditions of Terences plays and of Latin drama.
In the illustrative traditions, they affected the way in which the figure of the
Prologus was depicted, while in later Medieval and Renaissance drama, both
in its purely literary and performed versions, they were used as models and
gave rise to a particular concept of the function of the prologue in drama. The
final contribution in this section is that of Giulia Torello-Hill, The Revival of
Classical Roman Comedy in Renaissance Ferrara: From the Scriptorium to the
Stage. In this study, she illustrates the genesis of vernacular stage-scripts used
in the revival performances of Plautus and Terence in Ferrara, which began
in 1486 and continued through to the death of Duke Ercole in 1505. Torello-
Hill demonstrates how Terentian scholarly and illustrative traditions influ-
enced the first performances of Plautus with the incorporation of the figure of
Calliopius into the vernacular adaptations.
The last section in this collection, Readerships, has only one contribution;
namely, that of Claudia Villa, Terences Audience and Readership in the Ninth
to Eleventh Centuries. This paper, coming as it does from the acknowledged
authority on the transmission of Terences plays and scholarship, forms a fitting
climax to this collection. Villa re-examines one of the most pervasive under-
lying assumptions about the surviving manuscripts of Terence, namely that
they were all produced in monastery scriptoria for an audience of monks and
novices learning Latin, and shows in fact that these manuscripts were written
for a vibrant court culture; the fact that they may have been commissioned
from monastery scriptoria and were eventually re-housed in monastery librar-
ies at a later date does not tell us anything about their intended audiences. This
important observation not only has great consequences for our understanding
of the illustrations and scholia in these manuscripts of Terence, but also for
other writers in the classical Latin canon.
Central to many of the discussions in this book are questions of the complex
relationship of text and image both in manuscripts and early printed editions,
and of the evidence this provides for the changing ways in which Terences the-
atre was depicted and received from Late Antiquity to the Early Renaissance.
Illustrations are the most effective way of demonstrating these connections
and developments, but a systematic comparison, along the lines of Jones and
12 turner and torello-hill
CHAPTER 2
Bernard J. Muir
1 Published in Muir and Turner 2011; all the illustrations from O referred to throughout this
article and book can be found in this digital facsimile edition. The translations used here are
from the editors adapted translation of Barsby 2001.
2 C (BAV, Vat. lat. 3868) was probably written 825850 in the Lotharingian area of Northern
France for a wealthy patron associated with the court of Louis the Pious; its illustrations are
full painted, and are by three artists. They are based on Late-Antique models, though no sur-
viving witness predates it. The major study of C and its model is Wright 2006, who argues that
the lost illustrated archetype (Urhandschrift) of C reached Aachen during the reign of Louis
the Pious; Wrights work includes a partial reproduction of the manuscript, a hypothetical
reconstruction of the lost Urhandschrift, plus many images of other related witnesses. See
also the description in the new Vatican Catalogue; Pellegrin et al. 19752010 3.2. 3403. P
(Paris, BnF lat. 7899) was probably written near Reims c.840. P is very closely related to O, and
it seems likely that the parent manuscript of O was copied in the same scriptorium as P and
from the same exemplar. The illustrations in P and O are in outline in brownish ink; those in P
reproduce the Late-Antique style of the exemplar, whereas those in O reflect twelfth-century
style and taste, both in the clothing and in the architecture. The impetus among artists to
modify and modernise the Late-Antique illustrations so as to meet the aesthetic expecta-
tions of a contemporary readership is first witnessed in N (Leiden, UB, VLQ 38), produced no
earlier than the late tenth century (see further below); it also demonstrates that artists (or
masters of the scriptoria) were deriving their new ideas from a fresh reading of the plays and
were not so concerned with slavishly (i.e. faithfully) reproducing their exemplars. It seems
likely that CP transmit the artistic style and conventions of their exemplar(s), since the ethos
of the Carolingian Renaissance was to preserve, emulate, and transmit Classical culture.
Middle Ages, and into early modern times. The extensive scholia in most of
the illustrated manuscripts (as well as in many of those lacking illustrations)
attest, on the other hand, to the intense scholarship focused on the Comedies
from the Carolingian period onwards.3
The paper focuses on three formative aspects of the tradition: development,
transmission and transformation. In a sense the last of these, transformation,
is a subset of transmission; used here it chiefly refers to the modifications in
presentation that the texts and illustrations underwent in late manuscript cul-
ture and into the Age of Print. This transitional period also produced hybrid
textsprinted texts often embellished by hand (so that they too are in this
sense manu-scripts) and others illustrated with woodblocks.
The modern editor of a Classical text is concerned primarily with exam-
ining the relationship between the surviving witnesses, and from a compari-
son of their readings in establishing an authoritative, complete and sensible
text; he or she generally expresses the relationship of the extant witnesses and
hypothetical lost manuscripts by means of a stemma codicum. The manuscript
tradition of Terences Comedies is, however, particularly complex, not only
because of the many stages of transmission and reception it underwent, but
also because of the complexity of the relationship between text and illustra-
tion. There are in fact seven individual stemmas that have to be reconciled in
order to understand fully the transmission of the illustrated Terence manu-
scripts; the various elements which they describe are all present on the first
double opening of Andria in O (ff. 4v5r) [Figure 2]. They are, arguably in order
of the production of this particular opening: the scholia or commentary; the
text itself; the character cues within the text (also in red, except where they
have been inserted by a later correcting hand; these may have been added at
the same time as the character tags above the illustrations); the illuminated
initial (only at the beginning of each play); the illustration proper;4 the char-
acter tags for each illustration in red ink; and lastly, the glosses, whether inter-
linear or marginal. The scholia are written on the same grid as the text proper
and in the same script, but half the size in scale. The small, decorated initial at
the beginning of the scholia would have been added by the rubricator after the
scholia had been transcribed (and perhaps by the same person who added the
character tags and speaker cues in red, and at the same time).
3 Turner discusses aspects of the complex scholiastic tradition in detail in his paper here.
4 In O the scribe usually leaves twelve blank lines to accommodate the illustration and its
accompanying character tags (executed in red ink).
terence s comedies 17
Development
The earliest extant witnesses to the plays survive from the fourth and fifth
centuriesdating papyrus fragments and palimpsest texts precisely is, of
course, challenging. The oldest surviving fragment of the Comedies is on
papyrus; it is from Oxyrhynchus, and probably dates from the fourth century
(P. Oxy. 2401). It is written in Half-Uncials in scriptio continua, that is, with no
spaces between words, as was the custom also in Late-Antique manuscripts,
such as the illustrated Vatican manuscripts of Vergil, BAV lat. 3225 (or Vergilius
Vaticanus) and BAV lat. 3867 (Vergilius Romanus). The earliest surviving
witness to Terence in codex format is the BAV lat. 3226, or Codex Bembinus
(siglumA), which dates from around 500 CE;6 the marginal scholia in a
black minuscule script in the Bembinus were added by a number of hands at
various times in a later period. This witness is a deluxe manuscript, like the two
Vergil manuscripts, although it was never intended to be illustrated; it has an
almost square rather than a rectangular format, generous margins around the
text space, and is written in time- and space-consuming Rustic Capitals, with
each line comprising a single line of verse. Medial pointing has been used to
indicate word separation to facilitate the reading of the text, although such a
visual cue would not have been required by a properly trained lector reciting
it, since the metre itself serves to punctuate the text. An abbreviated title for
each play is written in red ink in the top margin;7 the text itself was written in
a light golden-brown ink, though this is now much darkened and almost looks
black. Even though the manuscript is not illustrated, the names of the charac-
ters in each scene are given in the space before its beginning, where they are
preceded by a single capital Greek letter in red, which is used throughout the
scene to indicate the speaker in abbreviated format.8
In the Utrecht Psalter,9 another deluxe manuscript, also from the Carolingian
period and a near-contemporary of CP, the scriptorium Master has designed the
manuscript so that it would have an antiquated and thus authoritative appear-
ance through its use of Rustic Capitalssurviving evidence indicates that
these were not much used as a principal script after the fifth century, though
Rustic Capitals had a very long afterlife as a display script (and were particu-
larly favoured by 1617c printers for title pages and headers). The Uncial script
used for the opening words of each Psalm had a similar history throughout
the Middle Ages, and the use of three columns of text per folio mimics the lay-
out of texts recorded on papyrus sheets. However, this is compromised by the
use of contemporary decorative techniques in the design of the large initials
7 Unfortunately nearly all of Andria, as well as part of the Prologue to Hecyra and the closing of
Adelphoe, are now wanting.
8 P. Oxy. 2401 lists the characters names in full, but Greek letters are not assigned to the speak-
ers and used to identify them in the text; instead, abbreviated forms of the names themselves
are used, which is the standard practice in Carolingian and later witnesses. Interestingly, the
subdividing of plays into acts and scenes present in these ancient manuscripts later fell out
of general useeach of Shakespeares plays, for example, was originally printed as a continu-
ous unit; see Wells 2006 18.
9 U B Utrecht Hs 32; it contains 166 lively pen illustrations, executed in an unprecedented kinetic
style. There is a complete facsimile in Van der Horst and Engelbregt 198284. The manuscript
was in England between approximately 1000 and 1640, where three copies of it were made:
London, BL MS Harl. 603 (c.1000); Cambridge, Trinity College MS R.17.1 (c.115560); and Paris,
BnF MS lat. 8846 (c.118090). The Harley manuscript most closely replicates the style of the
Utrecht Psalter. For a detailed study of the relationships between these Psalters, see Van der
Horst et al. 1996.
terence s comedies 19
and the introduction of an exciting new kinetic style of drawing with agitated
outlines, not seen again in this innovative way until used in late Romanesque
painting and sculpture (the wet linen look). The Carolingian witnesses (CP)
do not attempt such sleight-of-hand, but are concerned with more or less faith-
fully transmitting their Late-Antique models.
Classical manuscripts often suffered a cruel fate in the early Christian
era. There is a palimpsest fragment of a Terence manuscript in the library of
St Gall monastery (St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 912), which is contemporary
with or slightly earlier than the Oxyrhynchus papyrus fragment and the
damaged Codex Bembinus. At some stage in early modern times a reagent
was painted over the erased text on pp. 299300 and 31314 in order to try to
recover it; this was hardly a scientific process in that after temporarily rais-
ing the profile of the text the reagent dried and obscured it foreverit is now
harder to read than it was before.10 A few words of the text of the Heauton timo-
rumenos are still visible when a scan of the folio is digitally manipulated and
enhanced. The disposition of the earlier text reveals that the original deluxe
Terence manuscript was designed on a grand scale and written in a large Rustic
Capital script,11 but it probably was not illustrated (and thus it was similar to
the Bembinus).12
Transmission
10 See for instance the facsimile of St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 912 p. 300 (www
.e-codices.unifr.ch).
11 The original manuscript folios were cut into quarters in order to produce the present
manuscript, so it was very large indeed.
12 The upper script is a medieval lectionary; the (scarcely) recoverable lower text is of Hau.
85778.
20 muir
is fully illustrated in colour, has generous margins, and is rubricated (in red
ink). It is, however, written as if prose, apart from the Prologue to Andria and
the text on the inserted replacement folio (f. 16), which supplies the missing
text to An. 80453; it is not, however, in Rustic Capitals, as the Late-Antique
manuscript from which it seems to have been copied would have been.13 Its
artwork is clearly derived from a Classical exemplar: the characters are in tra-
ditional Roman robes and the male characters wear dramatic masks. Women
and young men are usually portrayed with natural human faces, though each
character was traditionally assigned a mask in the aedicula (or mask rack in
architectural form) before each play, as for Andria on f. 3r, and also in the
Carolingian Paris witness P (f. 2v) and the twelfth-century witness O (f. 3r).
Artistic realisations of these dramatic masks are found wherever classi-
cal Roman culture was accepted; for instance, the masks from the aediculae
in P bear strong resemblances to mosaics from Pompeii.14 A later reader has
added character tags above each mask, a unique occurrence in the illustrated
manuscript tradition. C and P have the most complete sets of aediculaefive;
in P, the one for Eunuchus has been lost, and the last one, for Phormio, was
originally left unfinished, only to be completed by an artist of inferior ability.
Witness O has just one aedicula (for Andria) and folios left blank for one before
four of the five other plays (there is none for Eunuchus).
In addition, the manuscript illustrations in the earliest witnesses (such
as C and P) repeatedly show the characters making gestures, and we know
from other sources that such gestures were an integral part of theatrical per-
formances in the ancient world, although the question of how the gestures
shown in the illustrated manuscripts relate to those from the ancient stage is
hotly debated.15 Two typical gestures for emotions in witness O are insistence
13 The Codex Bembinus and St Gall palimpsest are both written in Rustic Capitals. There
are also 15 lines of Heauton timorumenos which are found in BnF, lat. 2109: in his review
of Wright, Ganz 2010 133 states: It is worth noting that fifteen verses from the prologue
to the Heauton timoroumenos were copied onto the first leaf of Paris, BnF, Lat. 2109 in a
script which E.K. Rand described as decent rustic capitals. The manuscript, a copy of
Eugippius Excerpta, was copied at St Amand at the same time as BAV, Vat. Lat. 3868. So
there probably was a capitalis exemplar at St Amand which may have been the manu-
script Wright is trying to reconstruct. The additions to BnF, lat. 2109 are dated in Munk
Olsen 19821989 2. 626 to pre-828 CE.
14 A number of images of the mosaic masks at Pompeii (photographed by Frank Sear) are
available in Muir and Turner 2011 under Other Related Images; the aediculae from O and
P are also reproduced there as Comparisons 69.
15 The gestures are also used in the Classical rhetorical tradition, as explained by Quintilian
(Quint. Inst. 11.3.88136). For further discussion of gestures in the rhetorical and dramatic
tradition, see the contribution of Demetriou in this volume.
terence s comedies 21
(f. 79v, Hau. 3.2) and approval (f. 144v, Hec. 4.3).16 C.R. Dodwell rejected earlier
arguments by Jones and Morey that these illustrations are the product of lit-
erary rather than theatrical usage,17 and claimed instead that there are very
clear indications that the original artist did have an awareness of theatrical
practices and traditions,18 substantiating his argument with detailed study of
the gestures made by characters. On art-historical evidence, such as the date
of the hair-styles, Dodwell argued that the illustrative cycle may have origi-
nated in the third century CE, and possibly in Northern Africa. However, his
conclusions were contested by Marshall,19 who pointed to the way in which
strong artistic traditions, as well as the development of gestural language,
functioned independently of the stage.
A cursory examination of the Vatican witness C immediately reveals that it
has been studied and corrected over the centuries. It has been collated with
another witness which occasionally had different character tags; corrections
have been made, for example, to those in the illustration for the characters
Aeschinus and Parmeno on f. 53r.20 The correcting hand uses a light brown ink
to underpoint the original tags for deletion and to add the correct identifica-
tion. A different hand, using black ink, has corrected a speaker cue, AES(chinus),
in the margin of the text itself (left margin, 7 lines from the bottom). Scholia
have been added throughout at a later period, both interlineally and in the
margins.
Lead point underdrawings and cues for the character names are still visible
in nearly all of the illustrations in O. The information they convey is sometimes
central to a discussion of the relationship between manuscripts O and P, in
particular. In O, the lead point prompts for the rubricator often disagree with
the final tags in red ink, suggesting that the rubricator, and of course the art-
ists, had access to at least two exemplars conveying conflicting information.21
Aspects of the underlying sketches are crudely drawn and sometimes contain
16 For major studies of the use of gesture in Classical drama, see Dodwell 2000 (3496 and
accompanying plates for discussion and illustration of individual gestures) and Dutsch
2007 and 2013.
17 Jones and Morey 1931 2.204.
18 Dodwell 2000 22.
19 Marshall 2001.
20 For a reproduction of this image, see Muir and Turner 2011 Introduction 8.3.
21 It can be determined from Medieval library catalogues that there were, for example, six
Terence manuscripts in Canterbury in the 12c and three in nearby Rochester in 1202 (see
Thomson 1985 1.40, Sharpe et al. 1996 519 [B79.183]).
22 muir
details not included in the final illustration; for example, the sash to the right
of Symo in the illustration for An. 3.3 (f. 19r).22
The .ii., written in brown ink below the Chremes tag, also confirms access
to another witness either by a corrector or a later reader. Symo and Chremes
are both old men, but the word SENEX was written by the rubricator only
under Symos name and so .ii. has been added to clarify this point. The correct
form of the tags here (Symo Chremes senes duo, that is, Symo [and] Chremes,
two old men) is in fact found in some witnesses, including P (f. 19v), but in
general this confusion of the relationship between the numeral and accompa-
nying words (such as adulescentes or senes) is characteristic of the illustrated
tradition as a whole, and the consequent errors in the tags are found in most if
not all of the illustrated witnesses.
There are numerous discriminations between the lead point prompts and
the final rubrics in the illustration character labels in O; for example:
On f. 48v, the red tag in Rustic Capitals for the character on the right hand side
originally read CHARINUS. A corrector noted in the margin that it should have
read CHAREA (abbreviated che), to which it was subsequently altered in brown
ink by erasing the original NUS and then altering the I to an E and adding a
final A.
It might be asked why the other illustrated witnesses do not generally show
evidence for preliminary underdrawings. The answer to this is that if they
were executed in lead point, any remaining traces of them were usually erased
after the final inked (and painted) drawings were finished, so the situation in
22 For a reproduction of this image, see Muir and Turner 2011. Note too how crudely the
fingers have been drawn.
terence s comedies 23
23 Paris BnF, lat. 8193 also has a number of visible lead point underdrawings where final min-
iatures have not been added (e.g. ff. 114v, 118r); the finished illustrations are not numer-
ous and occur sporadically throughout this manuscriptthere are none for Phormio, one
each for Andria, Eunuchus, Heauton timorumenos and Hecyra, and ten for Adelphoe.
24 London, BL MS Cotton Claudius B.iv f. 128r; there is a colour reproduction of this folio at
Alexander 1992 44. For a recent study of this manuscript, see Withers 2007.
25 Alexander 1992 66, plate 104 (cf. also plate 103, showing another preliminary sketch of the
same scene).
24 muir
by erasing the original reading, but on sixty-six occasions letters are expunged
(as, for example, in the last line of f. 170v and the third last line of f. 171r, both in
the same word, re[p]perire). The point to be made, however, is that correctors
or subsequent readers have gone through the complete text meticulously.
A detailed examination of the Carolingian Paris witness P has revealed mul-
tiple stages of later revision. In the illustration for An. 1.1 (f. 6r) [Figure 3], the
first stages of interlinear and marginal glossing and scholia have been erased
painstakingly; new scholia have been added in the margins and keyed to the
text using a variety of symbols. Moreover, one of the scholiasts/correctors has
added a second set of character tags at the bottom of most of the illustrations;
the rationale for this is puzzling in that most of the time the second set of tags
(in a Humanist Minuscule script) agrees with the first set above the illustration
(in Rustic Capitals). In the first line of text below the illustration, it can be seen
that the later corrector actually touched up or restored the top of the ascender
of b (of abite), which was inadvertently erased with the original gloss.
A comparison of the illustration for Adelphoe 2.1 in O (f. 100v) and C (f. 53r),26
showing four characters (three male and one [unnamed] female), demon-
strates that even after the adjusting of the character tags in C the readings of
this manuscript still disagree with those in O:
C also lacks the epithets LENO and ADULESCENS present in Owell might we
ask which exemplar the corrector of C had in front of him when making these
alterations. P, however, has the same tags as O (f. 110v). That for Parmeno has
been corrected (the manuscript now reads PARMEN, with the EN over an
erasure and the final O missing), but the original reading was some form of
26 For reproductions of these images, see Muir and Turner 2011 (Introduction 8.3 for the
image from C).
27 Note the misspelling of SEERVVS here. Although he has a character tag, Parmeno does
not speak in this scene. The scholiast in O (f. 101r) assumes that Aeschinus is speaking
to Sannio, which reflects assignment of the character tags in C before they were altered.
Barsby believes that Aeschinus is speaking to the music girl Bacchis in his first speech
(Barsby 2001 2.267).
terence s comedies 25
this name, and there must have been a minor issue with the tag here. This is
Wrights summary of this scene:
extant copy of the Commentum Brunsianum, the scholia are grouped together
at the beginning of each play.31
Transformation
31 The commentary of Eugraphius was later written into the blank spaces left for the illus-
trations (the only completed illustration is the author portrait on f. 41r). The most recent
discussions of the scholia are in Villa 2007 and Victor 2013 35161; see also Turners paper
here.
32 See Figures 2 and 3.
33 The three illustrations are reproduced as Comparison 10 in O and Related Images, Muir
and Turner 2011.
34 It is relevant when considering the relationship between P and O to note that in P the
folios were fully ruled when prepared, even the spaces left for the illustrations, whereas in
O the space left for the illustrations was not ruled (where it looks as if the space is ruled, it
is shine-through from the other side of the foliof. 36v provides a good example of this).
Normally, twelve lines were left blank for the images in each of these witnesses.
terence s comedies 27
the tags for the two women pictured on the far left in the illustration are the
final two in the series of Humanist labels in P on the right, but this may be a
clue to the source for this second, later set of tags; the tag for Pamphilus has in
any case been left out completely. The identification of characters is different
in all three manuscripts. In O, the artist took advantage of vacant space at the
top of f. 17v to stretch out the group destined for the next folio and placed its
two leftmost figures there; thus the long first line of text appears to run into the
top of the illustration; but the opposite is truethe picture has invaded the
already executed text space. A later hand added the names of the two charac-
ters, Gliceriu(m) and lesbia, in the top margin in late Caroline Minuscule rather
than the expected Rustic Capitals.35 This is evidence of an artist intervening in
the transmission of a text and using his own initiative to adapt an illustration
as prompted by the situation.36
In O, moreover, the two women stand inside the building because it is drawn
in perspective, capturing a degree of three-dimensionality; unless the viewer
understands the conventions of Late-Antique painting it might not be clear
that they are also intended to be inside the building in witnesses C and P, by
being placed on the other side of the two-dimensional curtained doorframe.
In P, the characters all wear masks, whereas in C only the old man (Simo) and
the slave (Davus) have masks. The late Medieval Terence manuscript, Paris,
Bibliothque de lArsenal MS 664 (c.1400), illustrates the transformation of the
illustrative tradition well; it has the same character tags as P,37 lacking reference
35 P lacks the labels in Rustic Capitals, which suggests that they were also missing above the
figures on the lost folio in O, since both manuscripts go back to a common ancestor; this
is further suggested by their absence above the two figures on f. 17v of O.
36 A good example of another artist improvising as he worked is found in the famous Anglo-
Saxon poetic codex, Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Junius 11. On p. 77, two spaces were
left by the scribe for illustrations, one at the top and one at the bottom of the folio, with
three lines of text between them. When he came to this folio, the artist chose not to put
an illustration (was it not available in his source?) in the top space, but extended the
upper stories and towers in the lower illustration upwards through the text and into
the blank space above. There is evidence throughout Junius 11 (the so-called Caedmon
Manuscript) of the artist adding details to his illustrations for which their is no textual
authority, clearly seen in the abundance of original detail in the depiction of the creation
of Eve on p. 9the celestial scene and the angel ascending a ladder to heaven (this seems
to have originated in the biblical story of Jacobs ladder in Genesis, which in turn may have
its source in Middle Eastern art and mythology where a ladder was sometimes shown as
one means of ascending into the heavens). See Muir 2004.
37 For discussion of the relationship between the labels in P and Arsenal 664, see Turners
contribution in this volume.
28 muir
O (f. 25v) reproduces the Late-Antique style and composition of C, but moder-
nises the architecture and clothing, as it usually does.
In the illustration for Andria 3.2 there is a very significant departure in N
(f. 14r) from the tradition represented by CPO. The doorway, which in C (f. 11r)
and P (f. 18r) is more elaborate than usual, has been transformed in N into
a turreted building with arches. The reclining mother (Glicerium), nurse
(Archilis), and babe in swaddling clothes are all newly introduced and are
based on details in the text. Lesbia enters the building via a rear door, whereas
she merely stands in front of the building in CPO. Note too the large painted
initial here, decorated with acanthus-style leaves.42
The illustrated tradition usually divides Adelphoe 3.3 into two separate
scenes,43 and the second of these provides a good example of how the rep-
resentation of staging develops from the Carolingian witnesses to the early
printed witnesses. In C (f. 56r) the artist uses the simple traditional doorway
to indicate a house, as also in P (f. 107r); in O (f. 107r), the architecture of the
doorway is narrower than usual, but it has an upper storey with tiled roof and
a Romanesque tower, as is usual in this witness. This simple architectural
element becomes a complete workshop in the late Medieval manuscript of
Terence owned by the Duc de Berry (Paris, BnF lat. 7907a, f. 83r);44 the develop-
ment of the architecture is based on evidence derived from the text. Here four
characters are depicted, not three; the slave Stephanio does not have a speak-
ing part, although he is addressed by Syrus in Ad. 380 [Figure 9].
At the beginning of the scene the servant/slave Syrus enters, coming from
the market accompanied by two slaves carrying baskets of fish. At Ad. 376 Syrus
directs the slave Dromo to go into the house and clean the fish, except for the
live eels, which are not to be killed until just before they are to be prepared
and served; immediately after this, Stephanio is told to go inside and soak the
salted fish in water as part of their preparation. In the early witnesses (CPO),
Syrus stands to the right of the doorway and points backwards at Dromo,
cleaning the fish inside the house, while he is talking to Demea. The eels, still
alive, are pictured swimming in a vessel filled with water. In the Berry manu-
script, Syrus is entering the kitchen and looking backwards outside towards
Demea, to whom he is talking. Dromo is standing at a workbench cleaning the
fish, with the eels in a pan of water in front of him on the floor; Stephanio is
kneeling, stirring a pot with a wooden paddle (apparently washing the salted
42 The illustrations from P and N are reproduced in O and Related Images (Comparison 17),
Muir and Turner 2011.
43 One other scene in Terences plays, Eunuchus 5.4, is also divided into two in the -tradition.
44 For the catalogue description and reproduction of this manuscript, see Gallica 2011a.
30 muir
fish in water). The kitchen has utensils and pots hanging on its wallsthese
details are inferred and are included because they are commonplace and thus
expected by the reader/viewer in the depiction of a kitchen.
As the imagery is transformed in the Renaissance and the Age of Print, this
propensity to include complex architecture is taken even further, and may have
much to relate about the staging practices in the fifteenth century, in addition
to artistic conventions. In the Arsenal witness (MS 664) the artist introduces an
elaborate Romanesque barrel-vaulted building with a clerestory and a tower
into the illustration for Eunuchus 3.1 (f. 57v) [Figure 14], which in C (f. 23v)
and O (f. 45v) have no architectural elements at all. In the illustrations for this
scene in CPO, the slave Parmeno is positioned at the side of the stage where he
overhears what the major characters are saying to each other; in the text they
are not aware of his presence, or at least they never address him directly; for his
part, Parmeno provides a running commentary on their conversation. In the
later Paris witness, the overhearing by Parmeno is depicted as deliberate eaves-
dropping; he is shown on the outside of the building with his ear to the door,
a detail lacking in the other witnesseseavesdropping was indicated by a
particular gesture in Classical rhetoric and drama, which is found, for example,
in the illustration for Hecyra 4.2 in O (f. 143v), where Laches holds his right arm
upwards with his little finger extended. Because the artist of Arsenal 664 has
introduced the architectural features here the classical gesture for eavesdrop-
ping has become irrelevant.
The mob scene in Eunuchus 4.7 has been radically reconfigured in the
Arsenal manuscriptthe characters following Thraso are holding more spe-
cialised weapons (e.g. the long battle-axe and the spiked club) and a two-
storey building has been introduced to represent Thais house [Figure 20].
There is in fact textual evidence for the characters retreating into a building
in this scene, where Chremes says to Thais:
Thais, do you see what hes doing? It was surely a good idea to bolt the
door.
Arsenal 664 depicts three characters within the building, Chremes, Thais, and
a second woman, the servant Pythias, who actually speaks at the end of the
preceding scene (4.6) and also appears in the following one (4.8); they look
down at the mob from the upper storey. Once again, the innovation in the illus-
tration here serves as a link, providing a degree of continuity within the act.
terence s comedies 31
In the illustration for Heauton timorumenos 1.2 (f. 93r) the scene labels
in the Arsenal manuscript introduce an extra name (Clinia) and a number
to indicate there are two young men in this scene (adulescentes duo). The
four figures depicted inside the building are in reality only three in number
because the upper and lower storeys depict two different parts of the same
scene; at the opening of this scene Clitipho addresses Clinia through the door-
way before speaking on stage to Chremes. Although in earlier witnesses non-
speakers are sometimes illustrated, though not identified, Clinia has been left
out of the traditional illustration for this scene.45 A minimal representation of
a towered building to the left in O becomes a complete house with an upper
storey and dormer window in the Arsenal illustration.
The subdividing of an illustration into two scenes happens routinely
throughout the Arsenal witness; it was foreshadowed in the earlier manu-
scripts, where it happens only occasionallyfor example, in Hecyra 5.4 in O
(f. 150v), Pamphilus is represented twice because the artist has similarly depicted
two actions from the one scene.46 This tendency in the Arsenal witness to add
characters is even more pronounced in the next scene of Heauton timorumenos
(2.1), a soliloquy by Clitipho, where the manuscript depicts Clitipho with Clinia
outdoors, encountered by three women and a servant (f. 95r)although none
of these unidentified (and unlabelled) characters appears in this scene, Clinia
and the courtesans are mentioned in his speech. In the illustration in O for
Heauton timorumenos 2.3, the four characters are depicted without a ground
surface or any architectural features (f. 73v), whereas in Arsenal 664, where
the labels are also more detailed, the young men Clitipho and Clinia greet the
servants through a window of a house, which is well-drawn, using rudimentary
perspective (f. 96v). Even though these scenes are in a manuscript witness, the
urge to illustrate the play more fully is apparent and anticipatory of woodblock
illustrations in the print tradition.
Another example of these developments is seen in Adelphoe 3.1, where
Sostrata and Canthara address each other. In O (104v) there is no representa-
tion of a ground surface or stage, nor are there any buildings around them here
or in C (f. 55r) and P (f. 104v). In the Arsenal illustration (f. 137v) the matron
Sostrata and the nurse Canthara are seated facing each other as they speak, the
former braiding wool, while a servant stands beside each of themtwo newly
introduced figures in the illustrative tradition. Unusually here, the two ser-
vants have been added by the artist without textual authority; in fact, Sostrata
remarks that they are alone and have no one to send for a midwife or to fetch
Aeschinus:
Oh dear! Were alone. Geta isnt here, and theres nobody to send for the
midwife or to fetch Aeschinus.
47 The author portraits from C and O are reproduced in O and Related Images (Comparison
4), Muir and Turner 2011.
48 Paris, BnF, lat. 16235 (f. 41r).
terence s comedies 33
ence with mimes in the foreground (as in Tur).49 In Arsenal 664 (f. 1v) and the
Duc de Berrys Terence manuscript, BnF 7907A (f. 2v), a whole walled city is
illustratedin the upper register Calliopius is shown reciting before an audi-
ence with masked dancers acting out the play, and in the lower Terence is
depicted presenting his works to Senator Terentius Lucanus [Figure 4].
A few further words must be said in closing about the transformation
Terences Comedies underwent as the dynamic manuscript era gave way to
the Age of Print, and as secular drama re-emerged from a two-dimensional
existence in manuscripts to be performed once again on stage. In the illustra-
tion for Adelphoe 3.3 in Badius edition of 1493, the set comprises a complete
building with curtained doorways representing individual rooms all along its
front; there are labels above the curtains listing the names of the house own-
ers, and other labels indicating major characters in the play [Figure 10]. Syrus
(labelled Si.) and Demea (De.) stand on the stage in the foreground, with the
kitchen behind them; a curtain is drawn aside revealing Dromo (Dro.) and
Stephanio (Ste.) cleaning the fish within. Hegio (He.) is pictured coming out
of the house through a curtained doorway and stepping onto centre stage. This
last detail is an innovation in the depiction of this scene and is inconsistent
with the action of the play; Hegio actually comes back into the play from the
country at the beginning of the next scene (Adelphoe 3.4). He soon begins to
address Demea, whom he has approached (Demea is depicted twice in this
illustration), thus forming a linking device between the two scenes, in a man-
ner fully consistent with the techniques found in Parisian manuscripts.
The characters in Badius edition are in contemporary dress, as in post-
Carolingian Medieval manuscript illustrations. The illustrations, however,
show a real antiquarian interest in details of Roman staging. In the fron-
tispiece, the audience is seated in three tiers, with the aediles in a separate
box; a musician at the front of the stage is shown playing a pipe, recalling details
from the Didascaliae to Terences plays. Moreover, in some of the subsequent
scene illustrations, statues of Bacchus and Phoebus flank the stage, reflecting
the comment of Vitruvius that temples to these two gods are built beside the-
atres (Vitr. 1.7.1: see figure 23). In the Badius frontispiece there are prostitutes
soliciting outside the theatrethe association of the theatre with a disso-
lute lifestyle has a long history50the audience inside is looking towards the
stage. A further transformation occurs in the frontispiece to the Strassbourg
that after shows have been completed prostitutes used to be thrown on the ground there,
Isid. orig. 18.42.2).
51 Vitr. 5.36, and see also Granger 1934 v. 1 plate G, Prestel 1974 plates XLVIIIL, and Sear
2006 6895 for detailed diagrams and description of the structural elements of the Roman
stage.
52 Diagrams of theatres are in fact already found in Fra Giocondos 1511 edition of Vitruvius
(ff. 50v and 52r; see the images provided on-line by the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek), but
they are linear designs, in no way comparable to full-blown illustrations of Cesariano.
Cesarianos edition also had a gestation of over twenty years, thus some of the illustra-
tions may pre-date those of Fra Giocondo.
53 For discussion of the association of the Colosseum with the development of the design of
Renaissance theatres, see Krinsky 1969 223. See also Tosi 1994 (including figs. 1011) and
for a more recent and detailed discussion Torello-Hill 2015.
terence s comedies 35
anxiety about abandoning the familiar for the largely unknown.54 The fron-
tispiece to Johannes Grningers 1496 edition of Terences plays depicts dra-
matic characters in their costumes painted by hand after the text had been
printed. The continuing comparative analysis of illustrated printed editions of
Terences plays will afford a greater understanding of the nature of their trans-
formation and production in the early modern era.55
54 A similar anxiety is being experienced today as the analogue text gives ground to the
digitalit remains to be seen how the digital facsimile editions such as Muir and Turner
2011 will be received and used, and how the traditional editions make room for them.
55 For further discussion see the contribution by Chong-Gossard here.
CHAPTER 3
* I thank Andrew Turner and Giulia Torello-Hill for inviting me to contribute to this volume.
For their help with the catalogue, I would also thank Robert Giel, Erik Petersen, Jos Luis del
Valle Merino, and Gregory de Souza.
1 This manuscript is BAV, Vat. lat. 3868 (see no. 46 in the catalogue below).
2 This is BAV, Archivio di San Pietro, H 19 (no. 38 in the catalogue).
3 Orsini 1570 42.
4 For a discussion of the frontispiece, see Gaunt 1964.
5 Claridge and Herklotz 2012 3740, 262319; Von Berger 1723.
6 Jachmann 1929.
7 Jones and Morey 1931.
8 Morey first wrote on the Vatican Terence in 1926 (Morey 1926a and Morey 1926b).
9 See, for example, Wright 1993; and Wright 2000.
10 Wright 1993 183.
11 See Weston 1903; Jones 1927; and Wright 2006.
12 Jones and Morey 1931 1. 225. These later illustrated Terence manuscripts are: Berlin,
Staatsbibliothek, Phillips 1800; Florence, BML, Plut. 24 sin. 2; Florence, BML, Plut. 38.34;
Escorial, RBME, D IV 4; Paris, Bibliothque de lArsenal, 664; Paris, Bibliothque de
lArsenal, 1135; Paris, BnF, nouv. acq. lat. 458; Paris, BnF, lat. 7907 A; and Paris, BnF, lat. 8193.
38 Radden Keefe
manuscripts, greatly expands on their list, and includes all the illustrated
Terence manuscripts from the ninth to the sixteenth century that I currently
know of. This catalogue reveals a wider, more varied tradition of illustrating
Terences comedies than has previously been considered. It includes some lit-
tle-known manuscripts with quite interesting and unique illustrations, such as
the illustrated Terence in Copenhagen (no. 3 in the catalogue), and two manu-
scripts now in libraries in the United States (nos. 19 and 36).
Previous art-historical consideration has focused on the Vatican Terence
and closely related manuscripts dating from the ninth to the twelfth century.
The catalogue that follows includes witnesses up to the early sixteenth century
and will enable us to explore the different relationships between a larger num-
ber of extant illustrated Terence manuscripts more fully. Further questions to
be asked of this new corpus, spanning 700 years, are how the artists conceived
of the playsas ancient comedies, Medieval romances, or as something else
entirely?and what these illustrations reveal about the particular interests
and understanding of their makers and users.
While manuscripts with only a single author portrait have been listed,
those with figural illustrations obviously unrelated to the text, or simply with
decorated initials and borders, are not.13 Manuscripts with sketches added by
later hands have also been excluded.14 The catalogue is ordered alphabetically
by current location of the manuscript, and includes a short description and
selected bibliography for each.
Catalogue
The Venice manuscript they also name (Bibliotheca S. Michaelis Venetiarum Lat. 79),
now in Oldenburgs Landesbibliothek (9), is not actually illustrated.
13 One example is a Terence manuscript in Messina (Biblioteca Regionale Universitaria
Giacomo Longo, F.V. 15), which has purely decorative figures within an opening initial.
14 Some unillustrated Terence manuscripts with added sketches are: Carpentras, BM, 367;
London, BL, Burney 266; London, BL, Royal 15.B.VIII; Nice, BM, 84; and Oxford, Bodleian
Library, Laud Lat. 76.
Illustrating The Manuscripts Of Terence 39
making pointing gestures; behind the speaker, a man and woman (the actors),
stand within a doorframe and in front of a curtain; they are flanked by two
groups of gesturing figures (probably additional actors), three men on the left,
and two men and two women on the right, wearing aprons. A monochrome
photograph of the miniature on f. 1r before the damage is in Neiiendam 1969.
Antolin, G. 191023. Catlogo de los cdices latinos de la Real biblioteca del Escorial.
Madrid: Imprenta Helnica. Vol. 1. 506.
Riou, Y.-F. 1978. Gloses et commentaires des comdies de Trence dans les
manuscrits de la bibliothque du monastre San Lorenzo el real de lEscorial. In
Lettres latines du moyen ge et de la Renaissance. Ed. G. Cambier, C. Deroux and
J. Praux. Brussels: Latomus. 555 (pp. 389).
Antolin, G. 191023. Catlogo de los cdices latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial.
Madrid: Imprenta Helnica. Vol. 2. 658.
Riou, Y.-F. 1978. Gloses et commentaires des comdies de Trence dans les
manuscrits de la bibliothque du monastre San Lorenzo el real de lEscorial. In
Lettres latines du Moyen ge et de la Renaissance. Ed. G. Cambier, C. Deroux,
J. Praux. Brussels: Latomus. 555 (pp. 3944).
Antolin, G. 191023. Catlogo de los cdices latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial.
Madrid: Imprenta Helnica. Vol. 3. 137.
Riou, Y.-F. 1978. Gloses et commentaires des comdies de Trence dans les
manuscrits de la bibliothque du monastre San Lorenzo el real de lEscorial. In
Lettres latines du moyen ge et de la Renaissance. Ed. G. Cambier, C. Deroux,
J. Praux. Brussels: Latomus. 555 (pp. 457).
Ciardi Dupr, M.G. 1996. I codici miniati di Santa Croce. In Santa Croce nel solco
della storia. Ed. M.G. Rosito. Florence: Edizioni Citt di Vita. 7798 (91).
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 1209.
Munk Olsen, B. 19821989. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe si-
cles. Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 615.
Saenger, P. 1997. Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press. 1989.
de Meyer, K.A. 19731984. Codices Vossiani Latini. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vol. 2. 1013.
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 13051.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 615.
Mann, N. 1975. Petrarch Manuscripts in the British Isles. Censimento dei Codici
Petrarcheschi, 6. Padua: Antenore. 2634.
Illustrating The Manuscripts Of Terence 45
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 10219.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 622.
Wright, D.H. 2006. The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence. Vatican City:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 197201, 20616.
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 6893.
Muir B.J. and A.J. Turner (eds). 2011. Terences Comedies. Bodleian Digital Texts 2.
Oxford. [Digital facsimile of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. F. 2. 13].
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 6234.
50 Radden Keefe
Mann, N. 1975. Petrarch Manuscripts in the British Isles. Censimento dei Codici
Petrarcheschi, 6. Padua: Antenore. 3689.
Hunt, R.W. and A.C. de la Mare. 1970. Duke Humphrey and English Humanism in
the Fifteenth Century. Oxford: Bodleian Library. 32.
Mann, N. 1975. Petrarch Manuscripts in the British Isles. Censimento dei Codici
Petrarcheschi, 6. Padua: Antenore. 4746.
or in late Medieval interiors or townscapes (see Figures 11, 14, 20). The illumina-
tors involved have been identified as the Luon Master, the Bedford Master, the
Cit des Dames Master, the Adelphoe Master, and the Orosius Master. Marie-
Hlne Tesnire and Ins Villela-Petit 2004 have suggested that BnF lat. 7907
A (no. 30 in this catalogue) did not serve as this manuscripts direct model, as
had previously been thought.
Meiss, M. 1974. French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Limbourgs and
their Contemporaries. New York: George Braziller. Vol. 1. 4154, 3369.
Tesnire, M.-H. and I. Villela-Petit. 2004. Terence, uvres. In Paris 1400: Les arts
sous Charles VI. Ed. E. Taburet-Delahaye. Paris: Editions de la Runion des muses
nationaux. 2413.
Meiss, M. 1974. French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Limbourgs and
their Contemporaries. New York: George Braziller. Vol. 1. 4154; fig. 219 (f. 6v).
illustrating the first play Andria. Arms of the Milanese Birago family within the
decoration on f. 1r.
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 5367.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 6267.
Wright, D.H. 2006. The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence. Vatican City:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 192197, 20616.
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 94101.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 6278.
Wright, D.H. 2006. The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence. Vatican City:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 18791, 20616.
Three drawings in brown ink by different hands (ff. 4r, 5v, 36v), with spaces left
for additional illustrations. Simo stands in the arched doorway of a building,
gesturing toward Sosia (mislabelled dauus seruus), who holds a spoon with a
key, and two figures (each labelled seruus), one carrying a jug and birds, the
other a key and fish on a ring, before Andria 1.1 (on f. 4r); Simo, wearing a hat
and holding a trifoliate object in his right hand, gestures with his left hand
toward Davus, who holds a cane, before Andria 1.2 (f. 5v); Chremes, holding a
hoe, points in the direction of Menedemus, holding a mattock, before Heauton
timorumenos 1.1 (f. 36v). Only the illustrator of f. 4r seems to have any obvious
knowledge of the earlier imagery (see nos. 27, 28, and 46 in this catalogue).
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 15562.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 62930.
Saenger, P. 1997. Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading. Stanford, CA:
Stanford UP. 225.
Wright, D.H. 2006. The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence. Vatican City:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 2012.
Hedeman, A.D. 2011. Translating the Past: Laurent de Premierfait and the
Visualization of Antiquity. In Medieval Manuscripts, Their Makers and Users. A
Special Issue of Viator in Honor of Richard and Mary Rouse. Turnhout: Brepols.
2750.
Meiss, M. 1974. French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Limbourgs and
their Contemporaries. New York: George Braziller. Vol. 1. 4154, 34750.
Tesnire, M.-H. and I. Villela-Petit. 2004. Terence, uvres. In Paris 1400: Les arts
sous Charles VI. Ed. E. Taburet-Delahaye. Paris: Editions de la Runion des muses
nationaux. 2414.
from the comedies (ff. 5v, 36v, 68r, 98r, 99r, 100v, 102v, 103v, 104r, 105r, 105v, 107v,
109v, 128v), some with written directions for the artists still visible; several pre-
liminary drawings (ff. 112v, 114r, 114v, 115v, 118r), also with written directions;
and four empty gold frames (ff. 9v, 161v, 176v, 182v). Painted in washes of pale
colours, figures without masks wearing late Medieval clothing styles stand in
empty landscapes, or beside or within simple buildings. Meiss 1974 attributed
the miniatures to an artist he called the Roman Texts Master, also responsible
for a Virgil in Lyon (Bibliothque du Palais des Arts, 27). Marie-Hlne Tesnire
and Ins Villela-Petit 2004 have suggested that BnF lat. 7907 A (no. 30 in this
catalogue) was not a direct model for this manuscript, as had previously been
thought.
Meiss, M. 1974. French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Limbourgs and
their Contemporaries. 2 Vols. New York: George Braziller. 4154, 3501.
Tesnire, M.-H. and I. Villela-Petit. 2004. Terence, uvres. In Paris 1400: Les arts
sous Charles VI. Ed. E. Taburet-Delahaye. Paris: Editions de la Runion des muses
nationaux. 2414.
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 1, fig. 581 bis
(f. 77r); Vol. 2, 1934.
58 Radden Keefe
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 6334.
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 1, fig. 329; Vol. 2,
1524.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 63435.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 635.
brown hat and garment and making a cross-armed gesture, within a penwork
medallion in the lower margin, below the text of Andria 1.1 (f. 2v); Pamphilus,
wearing a tall hat, pulling Glycerium away from the funeral pyre of Chrysis
(illustrating a scene not in the play itself but described by Simo in Andria 1.1),
with four figures and two towers in the background, in the lower left margin,
below the text of Andria 1.1 (f. 4v); a disembodied hand holding a curved sword
cutting at the crowned head of Oedipus, above some marginal commentary
about that king (f. 6v); a head in profile, facing left, of a male figure wearing a
hat, possibly the slave Davus, forming part of the penwork decoration of the
word nil, in Andria 1.2 (f. 7r); Pamphilus, in a tall hat, and Mysis, wearing a veil,
standing in profile, pointing at each other, in the right margin, beside Andria
1.5 (f. 8r). A hardpoint sketch of a man wearing a tall hat (likely Davus) is also
visible in the right margin of f. 7r.
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 17592.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 63839.
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 4652.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 6401.
Von Bren, V. 1994. Note sur le ms. Vaticano Arch. S. Pietro H 19 et son modle
Vaticano lat. 3868: les Trence de Cluny? Scriptorium 48: 28793.
Historiated initial painted in colours and gold (f. 1r): a bust portrait of a bearded
Terence; in the margins, a foliate and floreate border inhabited by birds and an
erased coat of arms.
painted in colours (f. 1r): a bust portrait of Terence, in profile, wearing a hat,
within an initial (Terentius genere exstitit) in the Praefatio Monacensis; in
the margins of this page, floreate and foliate ornament, and an erased coat
of arms.
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 16374.
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 643.
46 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. Lat. 3868 (C, or the Vatican Terence)
Aachen (?)first half of the 9th century. ff. 92; 343 293 (250 220) mm.
An. (f. 3v)Eu. (f. 18v)Hau. (f. 35r)Ad. (f. 50r)Hec. (f. 64v)Ph. (f. 76v).
Copied by Hrodgarius (colophon: f. 92v). Six full-page miniatures painted
in colours (ff. 2r, 3r, 35r, 50v, 65r, 77r), and 144 smaller miniatures illustrating
scenes from the comedies interspersed throughout the text. Figures in the
Vatican Terence wear theatrical masks and have Late-Antique hair and cloth-
ing styles. Frequently set beside or within simple doorframes, these figures
have their hands posed in a set of gestures, and hold items referred to in the
text or else described in the marginal glosses, such as the birds and fish in the
first scene of Andria. This manuscripts four artists (one probably the Adelricus
who added his name to f. 3r) are thought to have carefully and exactly cop-
ied a now lost illustrated manuscript made in Rome around the year 400 (and
known as U).
Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence
Prior to the Thirteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Vol. 2. 2745.
Illustrating The Manuscripts Of Terence 65
Munk Olsen, B. 19829. Ltude des auteurs classiques latins au XIe et XIIe sicles.
Paris: CNRS. Vol. 2: Livius-Vitruvius. 64445.
Wright, D.H. 2006. The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence. Vatican City:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 1837, 20616.
in armour (possibly illustrating a scene from Terences early life), and in the
border of f. 1r a coat of arms, possibly of Alfonso of Calabria, held by putti.
These initials and borders have been attributed to the workshop of Francesco
di Antonio del Chierico.
* The research for this chapter was supported under the Australia Research Councils Discovery
Projects funding scheme, for a project entitled The Transformations of Terence: Ancient
Drama, New Media, and Contemporary Reception (project number DP110101571) awarded
to Prof. Bernard J. Muir and myself at the University of Melbourne as co-chief investigators
from 20112013.
1 I use the standard spelling of these mens names, which in the incunabulum itself are spelled
Hanns Nythart z Ulm and Cnrad Dinckmt.
2 Ulm, Freiburg im Breisgau, Basel and Tbingen are Alpine cities whose local dialects have
traditionally been grouped together as West Upper German, or Alemannic. Other cities in
this dialect group include Strassburg, Stuttgart, and (Bavarian Swabia) Augsburg.
General Overview
Given the implication that Hans Neidhart did not even have a university degree
(gradus), there remains some doubt whether he was in fact the translator and
editor of the Eunuchus, or merely an initiator and financier of the publica-
tion, given the imprecision of the colophon on the final page (N93r [F203])
of the incunabulum: Dise Comedia hat Hanns Nythart z Ulm lassen trucken
den Cnrad Dinckmt (Hans Neidhart of Ulm had Conrad Dinckmut print
this comedy).6 Since it is also known that Neidhart provided financial backing
for the Schwbische Chronik of Thomas Lirer, also published by Dinckmut in
1486, it is unclear whether the phrase hat lassen trucken means any more than
a similar economic involvement in the Eunuchus on Neidharts part. For
this reason, the publication of the Eunuchus is often referred to simply as die
Ulmer-Terenz.7 For the purpose of this study, however, the translator will be
referred to as Neidhart, since no better alternative has ever been suggested.
Neidharts pursuit in translating Terence was clearly the product of the 1470s,
a decade when other German humanists were busy translating Latin classics.
Albrecht von Eyb translated Plautus Menaechmi and Bacchides, Heinrich
Steinhwel translated Aesops Fables (an illustrated edition of the translation
was printed in 1479), and Niklas von Wyle made many German translations of
Latin and Italian verse, including Boccaccio and Petrarch. Niklas von Wyle in
particular had the aim of imposing Latin grammar onto the German language
for the betterment of the latter. Neidhart refrained from this model, yet at the
same time wanted his German reader to be aware of Latin idioms, as evidenced
through some of his glosses.8 For many modern scholars, however, Neidharts
attempt at translation is simply lacking in elegance. Hans Wagener reproduces
Max Herrmanns judgment that, through Neidharts edition, Terence was first
received in the vernacular in a curious combination of stilted German speech
and elegant or comical costume.9 Eric Morralls edition of Niklas von Wyles
German translation of Eurialus and Lucretia by Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini
(later Pope Pius II) also contains a typical assessment. Niklas translated a Latin
passage (100, 2124) that Piccolomini had adapted from Eu. 1936. Morrall com-
pares Niklas translation of the adapted Terence, with Neidharts translation of
the genuine Terence, and concludes that, Niklas literal translation retains the
repetitions and internal rhymes, whereas Neidharts version with its wordy
das-clauses and clumsy substantival expression das dein wollust an mir sye
for me tu oblectes remains prosaically literal.10
No information survives about how many copies of Neidharts book were
originally produced, or how much they sold for. Twenty-seven copies (either
whole or fragmentary) survive today in various libraries in Germany (in
Berlin, Darmstadt, Freiburg, and Munich, to name a few), Vienna, London,
Washington D.C. and New York City; the location of two additional copies is
unknown.11 Physically, a copy measures 290 200 mm (roughly the size of an
A4 page) which was described as opulent by Hermann Fischer in his 1915 tran-
script of Neidharts text.12 The incunabulum is typeset with round Gothic let-
7 Bertelsmeier-Kierst 2013.
8 Fischer 1915 vii; Bidlingmaier 1930 92. Bidlingmaiers doctoral dissertation, as far as I am
aware, remains the only work written on the topic of Neidharts translation.
9 Wagener 1988 10, referencing Herrmann 1893 1820.
10 Morrall 1988 32.
11 A complete list can be read online at MRFH 2013.
12 Fischer 1915 ix.
70 Chong-Gossard
ters with wide margins around the printed text and rubrication added by hand
after printing, imitating the layout of manuscripts. In particular, initial letters
are rubricated, as are page numbers in Roman numerals at the top of the right
hand side of the page only, referring to the page as a unit (recto and verso, as
was customary).
When Neidharts translation was published in 1486, the technology of the
printing press was barely thirty years old, yet this new technology had revolu-
tionized classical learning. New printed editions of Latin texts, both primary
texts and ancient commentaries, were produced rapidly in Italy and Germany.
The fact that Neidharts text was specifically a German translation invites us to
speculate about his target audience, which might include persons with some
knowledge of the classical world, but with an interest in accessing that world
through the vernacular. Neidharts opening statement (Hernach volget etc.)
on the first page gives us some clues:
13 Throughout this chapter I have transcribed faithfully Dinckmuts and , but have
needed to use the characters and to transcribe what Dinckmut prints as an e
superimposed over an o and a respectively.
14 I have translated des gemainen volcks as of the common folk, but the word gemain (like
the Latin vulgus) does have a range of derogatory semantics, including belonging to the
mob and vicious.
Thais Walks the German Streets 71
It is well known that Terence was read in schools throughout the Middle Ages,
and Neidharts emphasis on the didactic value of the Eunuchus implies that
his target audience included young readers. Certainly the abilities to recog-
nize (erkennen) the (presumably untrustworthy) nature of common people,
to protect oneself (htten) against deception, and to beware (bewaren) are
skills one associates needing to be mastered by younger men, as is the gift of
wisdom (wissen). Such ethical concerns with Terences plays also inform the
Donatus commentary (which was widely disseminated in the Renaissance by
means of manuscripts and printed versions, rapidly becoming the chief com-
mentary on Terence) and are therefore not new to Neidhart.15 Also, Neidhart
twice refers to the reading (lesen) and hearing (hren) of Terence, implying
a school setting where students would both read Latin and hear it recited by
their teacher. Of course, the fact that Neidharts edition is not in Latin, but
in German, suggests a range of target audiences. It could indeed be a crib for
students who have been given the task of reading and understanding Terences
Latin; but illustrations would be unnecessary for a crib. Because the text is in
the vernacular, it was accessible to anyone who could read German (or under-
stand German read aloud) and wanted to learn more about antiquity by read-
ing one of its masterpieces. Neidharts very first words about the Eunuchus,
that it is ain Maisterliche und wolgesetzte Comedia, may be an advertisement
to this discerning readership who might have only wanted to read a single
play, the best of the best. Neidharts glosses, as we shall see, presume some
familiarity with classical learning, but on certain subjects (especially ancient
Greek mythology) Neidhart assumes that his audience needs various refer-
ences demystified. In some cases Neidharts explanations end by connecting
an ancient reference to a fifteenth-century custom or proverb, thus demon-
strating the general relevance of classical learning to his contemporary world.
Neidharts opening statement is followed by several pages outlining the
plot, beginning at the top of N aij v (F4) with, Ain blerin schlo au den
Jngling... (a courtesan has locked out the young man...). This continues
at the top of N aiij r (F5) with, Ain Edle Jungkfraw mit namen Pamphilia aus
Athenis geraubet ward gen Rodis gefrt. (A noble young girl with the name
15
Following Victor 2013, I use the term the Donatus commentary to describe the
Commentum Donati, which is clearly a compilation combining the scholia of the fourth-
century CE scholiast Aelius Donatus, and many other related texts. Bidlingmaier 1930
understood Neidharts adoption of the Donatus commentary to be a sign of Neidharts
own didactic purpose in making his translation; this will be discussed below.
72 Chong-Gossard
Pamphilia was stolen from Athens and taken to Rhodes).16 This is a transla-
tion of the Donatus commentary rapta quaedam ex Attica uirgo nobilis atque
aduecta est Rhodum (Don. Ter. Eu. praef. ii.1).
At the end of N aiiij r (F7), Neidhart provides a definition of comedy,
Comedia ist ain gedicht aus mengerlai das gemt und anfechtung mitler per-
son inhaltende (Comedy is a poem of sorts containing the feelings and temp-
tation of the common person). This is another adaptation of the Donatus
commentary, or rather, the portion of Donatus attributed to Evanthius On
Comedy, which begins Comoedia est fabula diuersa instituta continens affec-
tuum ciuilium ac priuatorum (Comedy is a story containing various lessons
about public and private passions, Evanth. de com. v.1). Neidhart includes
Ciceros famous adage: Und spricht Cicero das Comedia menschlichs wesens
ain spiegel seie. und ain pildung der warhait (And Cicero says that comedy
is a mirror of human customs, and a picture of the truth), which is an exact
translation of comoediam esse Cicero ait...speculum consuetudinis, imaginem
ueritatis (Evanth. de com. v.1). Neidhart also summarizes the action of each act
(geschicht) over the course of three pages (N av rN avj r [F911]) and even
indicates the opening words of each act, and on what page of his edition they
occur. The plot summaries themselves are translations of the Donatus com-
mentarys act divisions (Don. Ter. Eu. praef. iii.15).
Neidhart does not translate the Prologue of the Eunuchus, but instead
begins the play with Act 1, Scene 1, line 49 of the Latin (see Figure 8). Each
scene of each act is preceded by a woodblock illustration depicting the action
with costumed characters in the middle of a German street, beneath a head-
ing which names the scene and act and outlines the action that is about to
unfold. There is little evidence that Neidhart had any role in designing and
carving these woodblock illustrations, so the artist is traditionally known as
Der Meister des Ulmer Terenz, who has also been identified as the woodcut
artist for Thomas Lirers Schwbische Chronik, the publication of which (as
noted above) Neidhart financed in the same year and with the same printer
as the Eunuchus.17 There are a total of 28 such woodblocks in Neidharts incu-
nabulum. On the pages where the text of the play is printed, the German trans-
lation of Terences Latin is at the upper left in larger letters, presented in prose
style and without any line numbers. Neidhart does, however, comment in his
16 Throughout this chapter, I will use the spellings of names as they appear in the translation
and illustrations of Neidharts edition (Pamphilia, Phedria, Cherea, Traso, Gnato) instead
of the Latin original (Pamphila, Phaedria, Chaerea, Thraso, Gnatho).
17 Betz 1958 12. Throughout this chapter I shall try to be consistent in calling the artist the
illustrator from Ulm.
Thais Walks the German Streets 73
introductory material that he uses four kinds of punctuation that are, nach
sitt und gewonhait der Poetry oder Poetische gedict (in accordance with the
practice and habit of poetry or poetical verse): a forward slash for a sense
break, a full stop, a question mark, and a parenthesis (N avij v [F14]). To the
right (never to the left) and below are Neidharts glosses. These glosses vary in
size throughout the work, and pages N79v (F176), N80r (F177), and N89v (F196),
all of which come at the end of a scene are short passages with no glosses at all.
The division of the Eunuchus into acts and scenes in Neidharts edition dif-
fers slightly from the Terence manuscript tradition. Although there are still
five acts, Neidharts edition has a total of 28 scenes, whereas Medieval manu-
scripts (which did not indicate act divisions) traditionally illustrated only 27
scenes, and modern editions recognize only 26.18 Furthermore, line 207 of the
Latin is designated by the Donatus commentary as the start of Act 2, Scene 1.
In Neidharts edition, the illustration for this section by the artist from Ulm is
labelled Der dritt tail de ersten underschaids (The third scene of the first
act) at N11r (F39). Confusingly, however, Neidharts own gloss on the follow-
ing page (N11v [F40]) begins, Das ist der ander actus oder geschicht (This
is the second actus or act). And in Neidharts introductory material (Nav v
[F10]), he himself explains that Die ander geschicht vacht an dem. xj. blat an
(The second act begins on the eleventh page). One cannot know for certain
how the final product was assembled, and indeed the precise working rela-
tionship between editor, publisher, and illustrator remains a complicated one
even in todays publishing practices. If we assume that the editor and transla-
tor (whom I presume was Neidhart) was responsible for composing the intro-
ductory material, then he clearly had illustrations in mind for his edition and a
basic vision for their content, since he tells his reader, You also find each per-
sona in each picture (figur)...with clothes (gewand) and features (gestalt),
whereby each persona can be recognized distinctly (underschaidenlich) from
the others (N avij v [F14]).19 Even so, it is probable that Neidhart did not write
the scene headings that accompany each woodblock illustration. Not only do
18 C (BAV, Vat. lat. 3868, dating to the ninth century), for example, has 27 miniatures for
the Eunuchus, but two of them (#21 and #22) show the same characters (Parmeno and
Pythias) and correspond to a single scene in modern editions, Act 5, Scene 4. The illustra-
tor from Ulm follows the Medieval pattern, depicts Parmeno and Pythias twice, but labels
these illustrations as separate scenes, Act 5, Scenes 4 and 5.
19 Amelung 1972 3435 argued that this is evidence for Neidharts own influence on the
design of the woodcuts, one way in which the woodcuts depart significantly from the
illustrated Terence manuscript tradition: The designers hands were tied while design-
ing the personae from the outset. He had to strive to portray them equally in regard to
costume and persona in every scene in which they occurred. Surely Neithart [sic] had
74 Chong-Gossard
the woodblocks and Neidharts glosses use different German translations for
the Latin actus (underschaid versus geschicht), there was also some obvi-
ous miscommunication on where Act 2 should begin. Luckily, the illustrations
which begin Acts 3, 4, and 5 occur on the same pages that were indicated by
Neidhart in his introductory material (N av v [F10]N avj r [F11]). But Neidharts
glosses make no mention of scene numbers, and whereas modern editors
assign nine scenes to Act 5, the Ulm illustrations assign eleven. The illustration
labelled Der sibent tail des fnfften underschaids (The seventh scene of the
fifth act) depicts Parmeno alone in brief soliloquy (Eu. 9971001, assigned by
modern editors to the end of Act 5, Scene 5). As Amelung has noted, it is likely
that Neidhart had seen an unillustrated manuscript now in Munich, BSB, Clm
21275, which originated from Ulm itself in the early 1470s, and is the only man-
uscript known to treat Eu. 9971001 as a separate scene. In Amelungs words,
one must assume that Neithart [sic] was inspired by this MS in this instance
to swim against the current of tradition.20 Thus Act 5 ends up with three more
scenes than the Donatus commentary, yet Neidharts glosses in Act 5 make
no mention where new scenes begin. Naturally, this leads to some confusion
when comparing Neidharts translation to modern Latin editions of Terence.
For better or for worse, I will use the Ulm illustrations numbering system for
acts and scenes.
Neidharts Glosses
Given that scholia and commentary on Greek and Roman drama have a
very long tradition stretching back to antiquity itself, it is not surprising that
Neidhart would supply a commentary to his own German translation of
Terences Eunuchus. What is surprising is that his glosses are not so much a
slavish translation of someone elses, but a unique combination of ancient
scholia and his own erudition, for the benefit of a reader who might have
encountered Terence in Latin, but in fact does not need to know any Latin
in order to appreciate the drama. As a result, on those few occasions when
Neidhart does discuss the Latin original (or indeed, Latin literature in general)
in his glosses, it reads as though Neidhart is showing off his learnedness for the
uninitiated. This is admittedly a stereotypical phenomenon in commentaries,
also discussed with him the characterization of each person and explained to him which
should appear as young or old, and which as members of the upper classes or as servants.
20 Amelung 1972 24. It must be remembered that MS Clm 21275 is unillustrated and cannot
have influenced the artists decisions on how to illustrate this extra scene.
Thais Walks the German Streets 75
apparently would make more sense here. In the end, he tells the reader to
choose whichever he wishes (Nimb welches du wllest.).
In some instances, Neidharts glosses on Latin are an admission of his
inability to find a German equivalent. In Act 2, Scene 1 (N14r [F45]), Gnato in
soliloquy recalls a conversation with a raggedly dressed local man like him-
self. Terences quid istuc...ornatist? (Eu. 237) is translated by Neidhart as
Was zierd ist das? (What adornment is that?, zierd being the equivalent of
Hochdeutsch Zierde). In his gloss he explains that this is said Mockingly. As if
he were saying: How torn-to-pieces you look! But it makes much more sense in
Latin than in German. And in Act 3, Scene 1, Neidhart leaves the phrase beluas
untranslated in Trasos speech about a man he once knew who was in charge
of Indian elephants (Eu. 415), and in his gloss explains that the large stupid
animals (die grossen unvernnfftigen their) that one needs for waging war
are called beluae, and that the word derives from bellum, which means krieg
(N28v [F74]).
On the whole, however, most of Neidharts glosses are his adaptation of
the Donatus commentary on the Eunuchus. Yet he only mentions Donatus
by name once, in Act 3, Scene 2 (N33v [F84]) after the plot has been devel-
oping for some time. Cherea and his brother Phedria and father Laches live
in Athens in a house directly across from the establishment of the courtesan
Thais.24 Phedria has bought two slaves as gifts for Thais, and one slave hap-
pens to be a eunuch. Cherea is smitten with a girl, Pamphilia, whom he sees
passing by on the street and whom he learns is staying in Thais establish-
ment; he learns this from his slave Parmeno, who saw the parasite Gnato bring
Pamphilia to Thais as a gift from another client, the braggart soldier Traso. The
slave Parmeno has casually suggested that Cherea dress up as the eunuch in
order to infiltrate Thais establishment and get at the girl Pamphilia (whom
they both presume is a slave herself), and Cherea takes up Parmenos plan to
disguise himself. When Cherea, now in the eunuchs outfit, is escorted by the
slave Parmeno to the courtesan Thais, Neidhart attributes to Thais the line ego
illum eunuchum, si opus sit, uel sobrius (Eu. 479), which he translates as, Ich
will den Eunuchum kommbt es dar zu, oder nchtern (If it came to it, even
when I was sober, I would that Eunuch..., an example of aposiopesis). Then in
his gloss he explains that Donatus der ber Therentium schrybt (Donatus,
24 Neidhart names the father Laches following the family of Terence manuscripts; the A
family identify him as Demea (Barsby 1999 264). Terences play itself never names the
father, and the Donatus commentary confirms huius senis nomen apud Terentium non est
(Don. Ter. Eu. 971). Furthermore, the play never mentions Athens, but only Attica, yet
Neidhart consistently translates this as Athenis.
Thais Walks the German Streets 77
who writes about Terence) attributed the line to the soldier Traso, who wit-
nesses the arrival of Parmeno and the eunuch etwas zrnigklich (rather
angrily). Elsewhere Neidhart does not mention Donatus name, yet he clearly
owes most of his glosses to him. The Latin text of the Commentum Donati had
first been printed in Venice by the German immigrant Wendelin von Speyer
(alias Vendelino da Spira) in 1472.25 This was only a couple of generations after
a manuscript of the Donatus commentary had been rediscovered in Mainz
in 1433 and sent to Milan for copying. Thus there is every reason to suspect
that printed copies of the Donatus commentary were a hot commodity for
Neidhart and his intellectual circle. Neidharts borrowing of the Donatus com-
mentary into his own glosses is highly selective. In Bidlingmaiers words:
Indeed, Neidhart adapted from the Donatus commentary only what he found
pertinent to the reading of the play in German. There is no mention of the
ancient context of the play, such as the Ludi Megalenses at which the Eunuchus
was originally performed, or the consuls in Terences day, or even the plays
debt to Menander; yet these details are all preserved diligently in Latin scholia
(as at Don. Ter. Eu. praef. i.6). Furthermore, Neidhart does not include any of
the Donatus commentarys glosses on gestures in performance. He also dis-
penses with numerous sections that are concerned with other Latin authors
who use the same Latin words as Terence, and he avoids any section contain-
ing ancient Greek.
Among the examples of Neidharts selectivity in adapting the Donatus com-
mentary is the explanation for the insulting remark, You are yourself a hare,
and you hunt for game! (Eu. 426). The Donatus commentary provides four
explanations for why being called a hare is insulting, the last of which is: uel
quod a physicis dicatur incerti sexus esse, hoc est modo mas modo femina (or
25 Wendelin von Speyer had also printed Terences plays themselves a few years earlier;
there is some debate whether this was in fact the editio princeps of Terence. See Peters
2000 316 n. 22.
26 Bidlingmaier 1930 9192.
78 Chong-Gossard
Hie erscheint das der koch durch den snellen auflauf z gelofen was
gleich wie er sich z seinem geschefft in der kchen z gericht het mit
dem fr tch.
Here it appears that the cook in the hasty commotion has run just as
he had prepared himself in his business in the kitchen, with a kind of a
cloth. (N62r [F141])
Whereas the Donatus commentary never explains what exactly a peniculon is,
the later Medieval commentary tradition of Terence always described it as a
27 Andrew Turner has drawn my attention to a scholion in BnF, lat. 7902 (f. 24r), which he
transcribed. The scholiast explains: notat eum mollem ita ad coitum quod non indiget muli-
ere cum ipse quoque succumbat uiris. et notat eum sodomiticum. uel aliter lepus est duplicis
naturae. mas namque lepus fungitur uice feminae in prolis procreatione. (He censures him
as being so soft that he does not desire a woman for intercourse, since he himself also sub-
mits to men. And he censures him as a sodomite. Or in a different sense, the hare is of a
twofold nature. For the male hare performs the function of the woman in the procreation
of offspring.)
Thais Walks the German Streets 79
sponge.28 Witnesses P (Paris, BnF lat. 7899, mid-ninth century) and O (Oxford,
Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 2. 13, mid-twelfth century) depict the cook Sanga
holding a large round missile that visually could be mistaken for a rock (see
Figure 19 for P). But it is certainly a sponge, since in O immediately beneath
the image the scholion, taken from the Commentum Brunsianum, clearly states
unde et penniculum [sic] gerebat in manu id est spongiam (whence he was even
holding a peniculum in his hand, that is, a sponge).29 Ps blob is more convinc-
ing because of a few dots of ink which suggest the texture of a sponge. In Tur
(Tours BM, 924, dating to around 1100), a sponge-like lump hangs from a strap
held by Sanga, whom I presume is the figure at the far left. Paris, Bibliothque
de lArsenal, 664 (dating to around 1412) depicts something similar on the
edge of a stick, held high (see Figure 20). But Neidhart in his gloss explicitly
adds that the cook emerges with a kind of cloth (tch), and in his transla-
tion of Terence (N62v, F142) he renders peniculon as kuchenpletzlin (kitchen
rag). The illustrator from Ulm (see Figure 21) follows Neidharts clever lead in
replacing the sponge with a cloth, something presumably more familiar in a
fifteenth-century German kitchen than a sponge for cleaning up a mess, and
equally ineffectual in a battle.
Among the many details within the Donatus commentary, it is those on
the ethical nature of comic characters which Neidhart typically reproduces
and expands upon.30 This can be observed in the very first scene. In the Latin,
the first utterance (Eu. 46) is a deliberative subjunctive by Phedria, quid igitur
faciam? Neidhart translates this as, Was thun ich nun? (What do I do now?)
(N1r [F19]). The Donatus commentary on QVID IGITVR FACIAM reads:
28 Indeed, the second-century CE grammarian Sextus Pompeius Festus (at least in the epit-
ome of Paul the Deacon) ascribes the meaning of sponge to peniculus (Paul. Fest. p. 208
[Mueller]).
29 As Turner has kindly reminded me, the scholia were almost certainly written by the prin-
cipal scribe before the artist completed the illustration, and were meant to be read with it.
30 For examples in the Donatus commentary of such details on the th of comic characters
in the Eunuchus itself, see Victor 2013 357.
80 Chong-Gossard
In disem ersten tail Prothesis wirt gezaigt wie gar verirret und ayges wil-
len ungewaltig ain yeglich mensch in blschaft verwickelt ist. und wie
wy der sich dar vor bewaret.
In this first scene, the Prothesis, it is shown how truly lost and not at all
self-willed is every man entangled in love affairs; and how wise is he who
protects himself from it. (N1r [F19])
31 Of course, the twenty-first-century reader is less inclined to read Thais as a villain. See
Christenson 2013 2737 for a reading of Thais as the hooker with a heart (and a house full)
of gold.
Thais Walks the German Streets 81
(N87r [F191]).32 In other cases, Neidhart both translates the Donatus commen-
tary and offers further detail. For instance, in Act 4, Scene 5, Cremes (the girl
Pamphilias long-lost brother) makes the observation sine Cerere et Libero friget
Venus (Without Ceres and Liber/Bacchus, Venus is cold, Eu. 732), which in
the Neidhart edition reads, On cerere unnd [sic] wacho ist venus kalt (N57v
[F132], wacho being a misspelling for bacho). Neidhart reproduces the
Donatus commentary; but whereas Donatus does not need to explain who
Ceres and Liber are, Neidhart decides to add an extra few sentences, explain-
ing that Ceres is the goddess of grain, and Bacchus the god of wine, and that
they are a metaphor for food and wine.33
In other glosses on Greek mythology, Neidhart adds information that is not
found in the Donatus commentary, but which he must have obtained from
another ancient source. In the final scene of the play (labelled in the illustra-
tion as Act 5, Scene 11), the parasite Gnato asks Cherea and Phedria to take him
into their company so he can rid himself of the braggart soldier he hangs on
to, with the words, satis diu hoc iam saxum uorso (I have been rolling this rock
for long enough now!, Eu. 1085). Neidhart translates, Ich weltze yetzo gnug
lang disen felsen (N92v [F202]). Neidhart paraphrases the Donatus commen-
tary (Don. Ter. Eu. 1085.1, 2, and 3) regarding the manner in which the flatterer
pokes fun at the soldier, how the phrase is a proverb, and how Sisyphus rolls
the stone in hell. But then Neidhart provides additional information for his
reader who might be curious why Sisyphus is in hell in the first place, writing:
und verdint nimer kain end seiner arbait. darumb das er diebstal Jupiters
seinem vater bekennet da der Jupiter lieb gehabt hat Eginam die tochter
Exopi.
And he never earns any end to his work, because he bore witness to his
father the abduction committed by Jupiter, that Jupiter had loved Aegina
the daughter of Asopus. (N92v [F202])
32 Neidhart transliterates Latin proper names with the proper case forms demanded by syn-
tax, e.g., the ablative after German prepositions (von Pirreo, vor Athenis), the partitive
genitive (Epirhotarum), or the accusative as direct object (Eginam, see below).
33 Ceres ist ain gtin des korns Bachus ain got des wein. On die das ist on essen und
trincken ist venus kalt (Ceres is a goddess of grain, Bacchus a god of wine. Without
them, that is, without food and drink, Venus is cold.) (N57 [F132]).
82 Chong-Gossard
Pro hoc tamen flagitio tali poena perculsus est, quia Eginam, Asopi filiam,
Iuppiter adamauit eamque custodiae patris furtim subripuit et factum
Sisypho confessus est. Ille humana leuitate quaerenti patri prodidit. Hinc
tali apud inferos poena damnatus est.
Moreover, he (Sisyphus) was struck with such a punishment for the fol-
lowing crime: because Jupiter fell in love with Aegina, the daughter of
Asopus, and abducted her in secret from the custody of her father, and he
confided the deed to Sisyphus. With human fickleness, he made it known
to the searching father. Because of this he was condemned to the under-
world with such a punishment. (Schol. Hor. carm. 2.14.20)
34 Parker 1733 19395. That it was Servius commentary, and not Vergils works themselves,
which was one of the first incunabula in Florence, is in my opinion a testament to the
assumed erudition of the consumer market for Latin printed texts in the 1470s. The
Thais Walks the German Streets 83
tractum autem hoc est ab Hectore et Aiace: nam Hector dedit Aiaci
gladium, quo se Aiax postea interemit; Hector uero balteum accepit ab
Aiace, quo circa muros patriae tractus est postea. inde et illud comicum
natum est di bene uertant quod agas: plerumque enim bona in peius,
mala mutantur in melius.
Moreover this was drawn from Hector and Ajax: for Hector gave Ajax a
sword, with which Ajax later killed himself; and indeed Hector received
a belt from Ajax, with which he was later dragged around the walls of
his country. From this was derived also that comic (phrase), May the
gods make what you are doing turn out well, for in general, good things
change to the worse, bad things change to the better. (Serv. Ecl. 9.6)
This expression (dies Sprichwort) has its origin from Hector and Ajax.
When the Greeks once marched for Troy, there Hector fought them off
with strong hand, without much opposition (from the Greeks), except for
Ajax alone, who resisted him violently. After a long fencing, Hector asked
him who he was. He said, I am Ajax, son of Telamon, born from Hesione
(Exiona). She was the sister of his (Hectors) father, Priam. Then they let
go their hatred and gave gifts, each to the other. Ajax gave Hector a belt.
Hector [gave] Ajax a sword. And both gifts did not turn out well, since
when Hector was killed by Achilles, he was bound at the feet with the
same belt and dragged three times around the city. Ajax stabbed himself
with the gifted sword because Achilles weapons had not come to him.
Because of this, foreigners (die Welhin) accept as a gift no knife or belt;
Florentine printer Bernardo Cennini could take it for granted, after all, that most read-
ers were educated enough to have already memorized Vergils poems at school (they
had been in print only since 1469); what they wanted to purchase instead was a classic
commentary.
84 Chong-Gossard
Neidharts additions and errors are significant. He adds the motive for Ajaxs
suicide, namely, his anger at not receiving Achilles weapons, as was made
famous in Sophocles Ajax, but was perhaps better known to the German
humanists through Book 13 of Ovids Metamorphoses, which was first printed
in 1471. Neidhart also has Ajax reveal his genealogy as Hectors first cousin
which of course he is not (not even Ovid makes that claim). Hectors aunt
Hesione was Ajaxs stepmother, not his mother; and it was Teucer that was
Hesiones son. Neidhart also updates ancient warfare to his contemporary
world; the hand-to-hand combat of Greek warrior heroes now becomes a long
fencing (langen fechten). Finally, Neidhart ends the story with a comment on
the current customs of die Welhina Swabian term for foreigners, but spe-
cifically their non-German neighbours, the Italians and Frenchwhich has
nothing to do with the play itself. But this is the point; to Neidhart, the con-
nection between Terences phrase May the gods make it turn out well, to the
story of Hector and Ajax still has relevance, in his mind, for understanding
the fifteenth-century descendants of the Romans and their weird ways (weird,
at least, to the German mind), in this case, returning a coin when receiving a
knife (messer) as a gift. Even today, one can do a web-search on old wives
tales and discover the adage that, if one is given a present of a knife, one should
give a coin in return to avoid cutting the friendship. Neidhart includes in
this custom the gift of a belt (grtel), most certainly a sword-belt and thus as
dangerous as a knife. As early as 1486 Hans Neidhart, at least, identified this
superstitious exchange of coin for deadly gift as a non-German (and poten-
tially Italian and French) custom derived from classical antiquity.
A second example is Neidharts gloss on Jupiter and Danae at N43r (F103). In
Act 3, Scene 5, Cherea (dressed as the eunuch) comes out of Thais establish-
ment into the street, meets his mate Antipho, and narrates how he got lucky
with Pamphilia. As becomes clear later, it was an act of rape, and by the end
of the play Pamphilia is revealed to be a free-born Athenian girl (in Neidharts
words at aiij v, ain Edle Burgerin von Athenis, itself a translation of the Donatus
commentarys ciuis et nobilis at Don. Ter. Eu. praef. ii.1). Cherea describes how
he was ordered to look after the girl Pamphilia (after all, he was disguised as the
eunuch) and saw a painting on the wall of Thais establishment depicting the
god Jupiter sitting in the lap of Danae. The Donatus commentary is fixated on
how this is the most appropriate picture in a brothel since it offers an example
of love that is neither gratis nor promised for a small amount, but sold for
Thais Walks the German Streets 85
gold flowing into her lap, whereby the commentator asks rhetorically, Doesnt
it seem that a courtesan teaches young men that part of their body has been
gilded, as it were, at the instigation of Jove? (Don. Ter. Eu. 585.1). But Neidhart
has the following to say:
And Danae in truth was won over with gold by a king (ward mit gold von
ainem knig berwunden); she was so pretty and so chaste, he wanted
her to be his. And she was guarded by her father, since she was the daugh-
ter of Acrisius, who was a king in Greece. And he loved her so much for
the sake of her beauty that he locked her away in a high tower so that no
man could come to her. But love, through a certain procurer belonging to
it, that is bribes and gifts (miet und gab), opened the tower so that the
man who loved her came to her and impregnated her. When the father
heard this, he locked her in a chest and cast her into the sea, whereupon
she bore Perseus. And she floated with the child, up into Italy where now
Rome lies. There fishers found them, and (she) was brought by them to
the king. And he took her to wife because of her beauty. From their lin-
eage was born Saturnus, who led the great war against Aeneas when he
came as a fugitive from Troy to possess his own land. And Vergil touches
upon (it) in the seventh book of the Aeneid, at the 37th verse. Back to
Acrisius. The true history is changed into the story of how the god Jupiter
turned himself into a golden shower which fell in through the smoke-
holes. Then she also eagerly received him in her lap. And then he let him-
self be seen in the form of a young man. The Poet touches upon this in the
text. And in the words of women, lasciviousness is prodded (Und wrt in
den worten der frawen geitikait gestupfft.) And the vulgar saying: It is a
stony heart that bribes and gifts do not soften (Es ist ain staini hertz das
miet und gab nit erwaichet. N43r [F103])
Neidhart is once again keen to display his erudition, but his section on Saturnus
and the Aeneid is slightly mixed up. Vergil does indeed mention Saturnus in
the Aeneid, but as an ancestor of Turnus; Saturnus himself does not lead any
war. At Aeneid 7.372, Turnus is described as having Acrisius as an ancestor. Did
Neidhart intend to say the 372nd verse, instead of 37th? Neidhart once again
relies on Servius, who explains Danaes arrival in Italy as follows:
quem illic enixa fuerat, et oblata regi, qui eam sibi fecit uxorem, cum qua
etiam Ardeam condidit: a quibus Turnum uult originem ducere.
After Danae, the daughter of king Acrisius, was raped by Jupiter, her
father cast her into the sea after she was shut into a trunk; after she was
carried away to Italy, she was found by a fisherman with Perseus, whom
she had given birth to inside; and she was brought to the king, who made
her his wife, with whom he also founded Ardea; from them, she (Amata)
wants Turnus to reckon his origin. (Serv. A. 7.372)35
Neidhart again updates the ancient narrative to suit his times. For him, Jupiter
fell in through the smoke-holes (die rauchlcher), the fifteenth-century
equivalent of the impluuium, which Cherea mentions at Eu. 589.36 He also
engages in some metaphorical explanations of the story; for him, Danaes lover
was no god, merely some king who opened the tower through bribes.37 Then
he ends his whole mythological narrative with two more mundane observa-
tions: one, the reminder that it is womens words that prod lasciviousness;
and two, that the Danae story is the origin of another common proverb about
bribes softening all but the stoniest heart. Once again, he tries to show the
relevance of ancient legends to his modern readerespecially legends with a
moral lesson to teach.
35 Modern Hellenists might be surprised to learn of the tradition that Danae and Perseus
landed in Italy; according to the more familiar version of Euripides fragmentary Danae
and Dictys, Pseudo-Apollodorus Bibliotheca, and Hyginus Fabulae, Danae and Perseus
landed on the island of Seriphos. Donatus himself makes no mention of either tradition.
But Medieval and Renaissance scholars were surely aware of the Italian tradition, not
only through Servius, but also through the Mythographi Vaticani, who repeat Servius
comments on Italy and Ardea almost verbatim at Mythogr. 1, 154 and 2, 133 (Kulscrs
numbering).
36 Technically, as noted by Barsby 2001 379 n. 30, Cherea means not the impluuium, which
was a basin, but the compluuium, the opening in a Roman roof.
37 Nor was Jupiters use of bribes an invention of Neidhart, since the tradition goes as far
back as Euripides Danae fr. 324, a tirade against gold () in which Acrisius claims
that Danae feels countless passions because the goddess of love has a look like gold in her
eyes. Furthermore, Mythogr. 1, 154, after quoting Eu. 5889, adds Ideo autem in aureum
imbrem mutatus dicitur quia auro custodes corrupit et sic cum ea concubuit (For this rea-
son moreover he is said to have changed into a golden shower, that he bribed her guards
with gold and lay with her).
Thais Walks the German Streets 87
The Illustrations
The illustrator from Ulms choice to depict the action of the Eunuchus in a city
street could be a significant one, since 1486 was a momentous year in the history
of staging ancient drama. On 25 January 1486 in Ferrara, Plautus Menaechmi
was publicly performed for the first time in centuries, and included in the
stage design was a city landscape painted on a backdrop.41 Some scholars have
38 For example, the illustration of Eunuchus Act 4, Scene 5 in Arsenal 664 includes Thais at
the right, even though she does not appear in the scene; her entrance actually initiates the
next scene.
39 Schreiber 19101911, no. 5330.
40 Fischer 1915 viii.
41 See Torello-Hills chapter in this collection.
88 Chong-Gossard
discounted any connection between the Ferrara performance and the illustra-
tor from Ulm, including Helmut Schiemann, who wrote in 1954 in his com-
ments to his edition of the work of Max Herrmann (my translation):
More recently, Julie Stone Peters has concurred, writing that the illustrator
from Ulm shows a typical urban scene, the figures labelled and ranged in rela-
tion to a perspective of a street, but without any indication that the artist had
a performance in mind.43
Even if the Eunuchus woodblocks have not been regarded as masterpieces,
they nevertheless complement Neidharts translation by similarly refashioning
the Medieval tradition for a new German readership. Just as Neidhart had com-
bined the traditional form of a Latin manuscript of Terence (text and glosses,
many of them from the Donatus commentary) with a contemporary focus
(a vernacular text with notes revealing the origin of fifteenth-century customs
and proverbs), so the illustrator merged bodily stances and gestures traditional
to the Medieval illustrations of the Terence manuscripts with contemporary
costume and architecture. All the characters in the woodblocks are dressed
in late fifteenth-century northern European clothing and accessories, includ-
ing feathered hats, rosaries, and stylish Burgundian shoes with varying point
lengths, purely contemporary with Neidharts audience. None of the char-
acters wears a classical mask. The eunuchs costume is the most distinctive,
being that of a court jester (including pointed ears with bells on the ends),
42 Herrmann 1954 2.23. Although Schiemann was of the view that the performances of
Plautus in Ferrara included decorated scenes of houses and streets, I do not share that
view.
43 Peters 2000 97.
Thais Walks the German Streets 89
a sign of his difference from the elite (see Figure 18). A sword is also part of
the eunuchs costume, probably an allusion to his duty as a bodyguard for the
maiden Pamphilia; but it is a flat sword, rather than the long swords worn by
the youth Phedria and the soldier Traso, a further sign of the eunuchs lower
status (and, I suspect, his assumed blunted virility).44 This is the illustrator
from Ulms innovation, since in Terences manuscript tradition the eunuch is
not shown with a sword. Furthermore the illustrator from Ulm has drawn the
action as happening in the middle of the street, with characters coming in and
out of houses, or (more often) lingering around doorways. This liminality (to
borrow Culls description) is exactly what happens in the fiction of the play. To
quote John Cull,
I would add further that the illustrator does not so much focus on the thresh-
old of Thais establishment (as Terences text does), as on the threshold of the
anywhere. Only Thais house occasionally looks distinguishable because of
its big door, or because identifiable characters lean out of it. Beyond that, the
street really does look different in every woodblock, and the space between the
houses is one that morphs from scene to scene, as if the characters are wander-
ing aimlessly through some vast Medieval metropolis. If the figures can be said
to be liminal, it is because they are on the threshold of a space that has not yet
defined itself, and they are forever waiting for it to take a recognizable shape.
This makes the action take place anywhere and yet nowhere, lending it a bleak
fantasy element that is almost twenty-first-century in feeling.
The use of contemporary dress and architecture in illustrating Terence is
not in itself unique to the illustrator from Ulm, since (as observed by Helmut
Schiemann in the quotation above) the miniatures of French codices of Terence
from the early fifteenth century also depicted the characters in contemporary
clothing and in front of contemporary houses. Two examples of such codices
of Terence are the Duc de Berrys manuscript (Paris, BnF, lat. 7907a), produced
around 1400 (see Figure 9), and the Trence des Ducs (Arsenal 664), produced
44 The sword could also represent a standard part of the jesters costume. In Renaissance
England, at least, the jesters costume could include a wooden sword, club, dagger, or
imitation sceptre (Southworth 1998 4).
45 Cull 2010 146.
90 Chong-Gossard
around 1412 (see Figures 4, 11, 14, and 20). The similarities between the artwork
in Arsenal 664 and that by the illustrator from Ulm with respect to the archi-
tecture of the buildings in Act 1, Scene 1, and Act 4, Scene 7 are striking, espe-
cially the frame of the house and the shape of the door and square windows
(cf. Figures 8 and 11, and Figures 20 and 21). Also similar is the frame of the
illustrations themselves. The illustrator from Ulm uses a simple border of par-
allel solid lines, which is essentially how the French artists drew the frames
of their square miniatures before filling in the empty space with golden ink.
But though the frames are similar, the aesthetics are quite different by virtue
of the technology that produced the illustrations. In the new medium of the
woodblock, the final image would consist of lines (and occasional solid masses
to indicate empty windows or open doorways) created by black ink pressed
by the woodblock on paper, rather than many colours of ink applied painstak-
ingly on parchment. Whereas the French artists covered every square inch of
their miniatures with some colour, the woodblock artist relied on the contrast
between black line and empty white space to convey his vision. Some surviv-
ing copies of Neidharts Eunuchus are, in fact, coloured (see Figure 21 for an
example), but there is no evidence that the colour was applied before the book
was sold; there is every reason to believe that colouring was added later at the
request of the customer, or by the customer himself. The experience of the
printer Lienhart Holle, also from Ulm, whose first book was a 1482 edition of
Ptolemys Cosmographia with all copies beautifully coloured, is instructive; the
whole process, which even involved blue colours using lapis lazuli, drove him
into debt, and he closed his business within a year.46 If Dinckmut did colour
the surviving coloured editions of Neidharts Eunuchus, they must have been
one-offs for customers who were willing to pay handsomely for it.
Yet, in other important ways, the illustrator from Ulm maintains elements
traditional to the Medieval illustrated Terence manuscripts, as though his
readers expected his illustrations to adhere to that tradition. However, scholars
have sought in vain for a single Medieval manuscript that the artist from Ulm
used as a model. Bidlingmaier argued that a manuscript from the branch of F
could have been a model, based on identical arrangements of personae.47 But
Oskar Lenz in his 1922 dissertation on the changes in illustrations of Terence
over time had noted several variations and concluded that there was nothing
of the previous Terence illustrations that was of influence, even if such (an
influence) is even to be assumed. In no case is it a copy, nor is there even a
46 For the full story of Holles disastrous publishing venture, see Tedeschi 1991.
47 Bidlingmaier 1930 202.
Thais Walks the German Streets 91
Der dritt tail de ersten underschaids. Redt der jngling und der knecht
mit ainander. Und sicht Parmeno das Gnato ain jungkfrawen frt der
Thais zeschencken. als im enpfolhen was der selben Thais ain mrin und
ain verschniten zeschencken.
The third scene of the first act. The youth and the slave speak with each
other. And Parmeno sees that Gnato is leading a girl to Thais as a gift.
Then he is ordered to give to the same Thais a mooress and a eunuch as
gifts. (N11r [F39]).
Neidharts summaries are his own work and do not appear to be derived from
any other source. But even the inclusion of such summaries is consistent with
the tradition of illustrating Terence. For example, Arsenal 664 and O also
contain plot summaries for each scene accompanying the miniature illustra-
tion (the summaries in O are from the Commentum Brunsianum). In Arsenal
664, the summary precedes the miniature, even spilling over from the previ-
ous page; in the case of O, the summary is immediately under the illustration
(rather than over it) and leads directly to the text.
The other illustrative tradition that the artist from Ulm appears to maintain
is the conventions for hand and body gestures. Contrary to Lenz assessment
of the other (or at least one foot cocked), always the opposite to Gnato; and he
has a sword slung around him (in Neidhart, the sword dangles rather alarm-
ingly between his legs). Finally, in all four illustrations the costume of the sol-
dier Traso is more elaborate than the others; he wears a crown or a colourful
hat, in Tur he wears a cloak fastened at the neck, and in Arsenal 664 he wears
hose of different colours. In Neidhart, Traso wears the only coat that has but-
tons, and the tips of his shoes are the longestboth of which were fifteenth-
century signs of status.
For Act 3, Scene 2: Figure 16 is from O, Figure 17 is from Tur, and Figure 18
is from Neidhart. Cherea, dressed as the eunuch, and the Ethiopian slave girl
are escorted by Parmeno as gifts for Thais, while Traso and Gnato watch on.
Cherea and the Ethiopian girl are led inside Thais establishment, and the
handmaiden Pythias follows shortly after, until Thais herself departs and the
scene ends. Both O and Tur suggest movement into a building by showing a
body in a doorway, and Arsenal 664 (not figured here) suggests movement by
showing Thais twice. But the illustrator from Ulm suggests movement instead
by placing the characters facing each other in a city square outside Thais
door (a framing with architecture). The illustrator from Ulm has labelled the
eunuch Dorus E(u)nuchus, even though it is not actually Dorus, but Cherea
in disguise; but Thais thinks he is Dorus, and actually addresses him as Dorus.
In Tur and Arsenal 664, neither Chereas nor Dorus names are tagged (even
though a person in a eunuch costume is clearly depicted). The illustrator from
Ulm is the only artist to tag the Ethiopian girl (Mrin). Interestingly, neither
the illustrator from Ulm nor Tur depicts and tags the handmaiden Pythias, who
has only one line in the scene; yet she appears in O and Arsenal 664.53
Once again there is a striking similarity of gestures and stance. In Neidhart,
the parasite Gnato raises his right hand and extends his thumb and first two
fingers; his body is at an angle, so it is a little difficult to see, but the same
gesture is present in O. In Tur as well, Gnatos right hand is raised but behind
Trasos body. The gesture with the index and middle finger stretched out is
analogous to Dutschs statement and interpellation gesture (2007 62). This
matches well the parasites role in this scene, which is to burst into hysteri-
cal laughter, possibly at the slave Parmenos insult to the soldier Traso; Gnato
quickly covers up his laughter by pretending he is remembering a joke Traso
told earlier. In Neidhart, the soldier Traso bends his left elbow and extends
53 Amelung 1972 35 also noted that an innovation for which there is no precedent in the
tradition of Terence illustration is the consistent representation of all personae occurring
in a scene, even if they remain silent and do not intervene in the action. Even personae
whose approach will be announced at the end of a scene appear in the picture.
94 Chong-Gossard
his left hand outward pointing with his forefinger, curling his bottom fingers
back; his right elbow is also bent, and his right hand fully open upwards. This
same gesture is in O, and with the opposite hands in Tur. The gesture with the
elbow bent and the fingers stretched out is equivalent to Dodwells surprise,
amazement (2000 80) and Dutschs astonishment and anxiety (2007 67). This
certainly corresponds with Trasos reaction to the arrival of the eunuch and
Ethiopian slave girl as gifts from Thais rival client. In Neidhart, Traso has his
two feet quite close together, as does Traso in O. As for Thais, in Neidhart she
makes a signal with her left hand, moving her forefinger and thumb towards
touching each other, similar to Tur; in O it is her right hand that makes the
gesture, and forefinger and thumb actually meet. Dodwell calls this approval
(2000 63, which includes a description of this very scene). Neidharts Thais uses
her right hand to tug at her skirt, as she does in Tur and Arsenal 664.
The most climactic scene in the Eunuchus is Act 4, Scene 7, when the soldier
Traso and his ruffians take up arms and try to besiege the establishment of the
courtesan Thais. Figure 19 is from P, Figure 20 is from Arsenal 664, and Figure 21
is from Neidhart. Traso calls out to his minions by nameSimalio, Donax
(Neidharts Dorax), Syriscus (Neidharts Siristus), and Sangaand inspects
their weaponry, including a crowbar (Latin vectis, Swabian rigel). Sanga has
a couple of lines comically explaining why he is fighting with a peniculon. The
illustrations of this scene show the greatest variety in terms of artistic choices,
yet the illustrator from Ulm preserves clear continuities with the tradition.
His Traso bends his right elbow and with his right forefinger points towards
Thais and her establishment; this is the same as in P and O, where he gestures
with his left elbow and hand. His other hand is open and his arm extended
(although in P and O his arm is bent downwards, giving the comical impression
that he is stroking Donaxs crowbar). Traso in Tur has the same right elbow and
forefinger gesture, but his left hand holds his hip; it is, in fact, the same stance
Traso has in Act 3, Scene 2 of Tur.
As for Gnato, in Neidhart he faces Traso, bends both elbows and raises both
his hands and, uniquely, has his back to the reader.54 Gnato has this same ges-
ture (bent elbows and raised hands) in Tur, in P and O (where his hands wring
54 Amelung 1972 35 uses the placement of Traso and Gnato to illustrate the low emotion
(die geringe Bewegtheit) of the woodcuts: Clearly no great store was set by impressive
gestures and moving facial expressions, even though the personae are drawn with great
care. Even in a scene that is as moving as its text as Act 4, Scene 7, where Traso advances
with his followers to storm the house of Thais, the illustration looks almost serene. Traso
and Gnato stand quite apathetically on the left side as if the spectacle on the right does
not concern them.
Thais Walks the German Streets 95
some drapery, and he stands off to the far left), and even Arsenal 664 (where
he holds up a weapon in one hand, and is not so much facing Traso as leaning
his head towards him). In all these illustrations, Traso and his minions are at
the left, and Thais and Cremes (who has learned that he is in fact Pamphilias
brother) are at the right. The illustrator from Ulm follows the lead of Arsenal
664 in showing Thais, Cremes, and the handmaiden Pythias inside a house,
looking through square windows (whereas the other manuscripts omit Pythias
and a house); he even adds a fourth head at the window, that of the hand-
maiden Dorias. He enjoys this scene so much that he illustrates it twice, using
it as the picture for the previous scene (Act 4, Scene 6) even before the ruffians
have arrived! And in both illustrations, the artist from Ulm follows Neidharts
lead (as mentioned earlier in this chapter) in updating Sangas peniculon from
a sponge to a cloth or dishrag (or as Neidhart translated it, kuchenpletzlin).55
What this brief comparison demonstrates is not simply that the illustra-
tor from Ulm was using these gestures as a model for his own work, nor even
that he was merely replicating the gestures; instead, we can say with confi-
dence that he studied the gestures thoroughly enough to understand their
semantics.56 We have no knowledge of whether the illustrator from Ulm would
have described them in the same terms as modern scholars do, or theorized
about their origin, in the way that both Dodwell and Dutsch have discussed
parallels between the gestures and both Quintilians writings and ancient
Greco-Roman art. But we can observe that, even for scenes where the illustrator
from Ulm does not replicate any Medieval manuscript exactly, he nonetheless
substitutes gestures that have a meaning appropriate to the action, exercising
the same degree of variation as artists before him. In Act 3, Scene 4, Chereas
mate Antipho arrives outside Thais establishment, having left the Piraeus to
come searching for him. Cherea steps out of Thais door, and Antipho is aston-
ished to see him dressed in the eunuchs costume. In both O and Tur, Antipho
lifts his arm and points to the emerging Cherea (whose entrance, interest-
ingly, ends this scene, since his first lines begin the next scene). In O, Cherea is
55 Amelung 1972 35 argues that Sanga in the Ulm illustration holds an apron (Kchenschrze).
Lenz 1922 104 recognized it as a kitchen rag (Kchenlappen) and also observed that the
Ulm artist followed Neidharts translation, not the Latin original.
56 Even though, as stated above, no single manuscript has ever been identified as a model,
all scholars who have studied the artist from Ulms woodblocks agree that his grammar
of hand gestures simply did not appear ex nihilo. Weil 1923 77 postulated a lost model
that the artist from Ulm surely had studied. Amelung 1972 34 considered such a suppo-
sition disastrous, and instead attributed the artist from Ulms design to directions from
Neidhart himself; Amelung neither supposed nor refuted the Ulm artists familiarity with
the Terence illustrated manuscript tradition.
96 Chong-Gossard
coming out of a building and does not so much gesture as he holds onto a pillar;
in Tur, Cherea bends both elbows and raises both hands, all fingers extended
upwards, looking comically like a bank teller being robbed. The illustrator from
Ulm follows neither of these presentations, but instead chooses gestures that
are equally appropriate for the dramatic situation. His Cherea emerges from
Thais doorway with his right hand steadying his sword, but with his left elbow
bent and left hand held up in a gesture analogous to Dutschs pleading and
modesty (2007 63), the same gesture that he earlier gave to Gnato (who used
his right hand) in Act 3, Scene 1 (Figure 15). Meanwhile Antipho bends his right
elbow and holds his hand at waist height in a cup-shape (palm facing upwards)
with his fingers moving towards his thumb but not touching them. This is a
gesture of surprise, or what Dutsch calls astonishment (2007 67), and in her
description of folio 13 of P, she gives it these characteristics: the right arm
is bent at the elbow, its upper part close to the body. The palm, held slightly
above the waist, points to the right; all fingers are stretched out and, except
for the thumb, held together.57 Both of the gestures chosen by the illustra-
tor from Ulm fit the dramatic action. Chereas gesture, associated with Gnato
already once in the play, invokes the pleading and flattery that anyone would
need when discovered in a ridiculous outfit by ones best mate. Antiphos ges-
ture is a clever variant on the manuscripts, since the gesture with the palm
above the waist suggests astonishment just as well as raising the arm up high
and pointing does; and whereas pointing (as in the manuscripts) might overtly
draw attention to ones surprise, the gesture with the palm above the waist (to
my mind, at least) indicates a more internal puzzlement (and after all, Antipho
is talking to himself in soliloquy).
Thus, one should give full credit to the illustrator from Ulm and those who
imitated him (see below) for their place in the history of illustrating Terence.
The full longevity of these dramatic gestures is well worth appreciating; they
were repeated faithfully, albeit with a great deal of variation, over the genera-
tions in subsequent illustrations of Terences plays, from the Carolingian man-
uscripts right up to the very end of the fifteenth century.
Reception
How successful was this entire venture of translation, glosses, and illustrations,
rubricated by hand after printing, and all bound into a luxurious edition? Since
we do not know how many copies of Neidharts book were originally produced,
or how well they sold, our best evidence for how well it was received comes
from two sources: the imitation of the artist from Ulms illustrations by other
woodcut artists in the 1490s, and the adoption of Neidharts translation and
commentary into Grningers 1499 German edition of Terences plays.
The German humanist Sebastian Brandt and the Basel printer Johann
Amerbach had intended to produce a new illustrated Latin edition of Terences
plays in 1493. The preliminary illustrations for this editionover a hundred and
forty pen and ink drawings on white-ground woodblockssurvive and have
been attributed to Albrecht Drer, who would have completed them around
1492, when he was about twenty-one years old, a mere six years after Neidharts
book was printed. Brandt and Amerbach abandoned their project, and the vast
majority of the woodblocks of the illustrations were never cut. The year 1493
was also the year that Badius and Treschels illustrated edition of Terences
plays was printed in Lyon, and it has been the general speculation that Brandt
and Amerbach dropped their project because the Lyons edition had already
cornered the market.58 In any case, the Terence illustrations attributed to the
young Drer are indebted to Neidharts Eunuchus. In the opinion of Willi Kurth,
Drers training as an apprentice in Nuremberg from 1486 to 1490 undoubtedly
shaped his artistic style, and a close resemblance in style to the Ulm Master
of the Lirar Chronicle and the Eunuch of Terence to the style of Nuremberg
book illustration from 1488 onwards has been universally recognized.59 What
is striking, however, is just how extensively the artist employed by Brandt and
Amerlach reproduces the illustrations from Neidharts edition when creating
his own drawings. Thomas Wilhelmi, in his study of what remains of the text
of Brandts intended Terence edition, argues that although it is possible Brandt
and Amerbach had borrowed a Terence manuscript from outside Basel, there
is not enough similarity between Brandts edition and the manuscript tradi-
tion, or even to Neidharts translation of the Eunuchus, to pinpoint Brandts
sources.60 What Wilhelmi does not comment on, however, are the sources
for Brandt and Amerbachs illustrator (for sake of simplicity, henceforth to be
denoted Drer). Portions from all six of Terences plays are represented in the
surviving drawings, in which Drer copied not only the artist from Ulms pre-
sentation of characters in late fifteenth-century clothing using Medieval ges-
tures, but also his use of architectural space to surround the characters. Drers
innovation was to add an imaginary landscape of stony paths, hilly terrain
and shrubbery as a foreground for far-off city buildings and bridges; but even
the buildings, with their slit-windows and rounded doorways in solid black,
invoke the schematic architecture of Ulm in Neidharts Eunuchus. It could be
argued that Drer (following the illustrator from Ulms example) had access to
a manuscript of Terence and replicated the traditional gestures for all six plays;
but for my purposes, it seems incontrovertible that for his Eunuchus drawings,
Drer copied the illustrator from Ulm. Although it is not possible to repro-
duce the pictures here, there are correspondences with regard to the charac-
ters clothing (down to identical hats and accessories, like Laches rosary) and
stance (including the hand gestures). Even Parmeno holds his hat the same
way in both artists illustrations of Act 1, Scene 1.
In 1496 in Strassburg, Johann Grninger printed his illustrated Latin edition
of Terences plays, admittedly dependent on Badius and Trechsels Lyons edi-
tion three years earlier.61 The illustrations, however, are quite innovative for
the time, whereby the printer used factotum blocks or woodcut stamps, each
representing a character or background image (like a building or tree or land-
scape), and set them together to create a composite image. Grninger reused
the same factotum blocks in his March 1499 German edition of Terence, which
is credited as the first printed German translation of all six plays of Terence.
Apparent in the design of the factotum blocks (which unfortunately cannot be
reproduced here) are not only Drers use of natural landscape as background,
but also the illustrator from Ulms use of height and sharp architectural lines
as surround. The characters wear northern European clothing, but this is the
next generation. The slave Parmeno is much more dressed up now (how he has
come up in the world!) and wears a feathered hat like his master Phedria did
in Neidharts edition. The eunuchs costume is once again that of a jester carry-
ing a mock sword, comically looking rather more like a broom. The characters
even gesture with their hands and arms in poses reminiscent of Neidhart and
the Terence manuscripts; but because the blocks are reused throughout the
play, each character is frozen into a gesture that runs the risk of ill-suiting the
scene they are meant to illustrate.
Even more interesting is that Grninger in his German edition mentions
Neidhart in his introductory comments, giving credit to, den ersammen und
wysen Hansen Nythart Burger z Ulm das er die andern Comedi Eunuchum
vor iaren gettscht hat (the honourable and wise Hans Neidhart, citizen
61 Interestingly, it was Strassburg which produced the editio princeps of Terence (at least, by
most accounts) in 1470 by Johannes Mentelin, who also printed the first German transla-
tion of the Bible in 1466.
Thais Walks the German Streets 99
of Ulm, that he put into German the second comedy, Eunuchus).62 And to
top it off, Grningers section on the Eunuchus (37v to 84v) is a reprint of
Neidharts 1486 translation and commentary, rather than an entirely new prod-
uct. Neidharts words are occasionally rephrased or respelled, but in all other
respects, Grninger repeats Neidharts text verbatim. For example, the very
first lines of Neidharts translation are spoken by Phedria:
Was thun ich nun? wird ich auch noch nit gan. so ich unbegerend bin
berieffet? oder will ich mich allso stellen das ich der bulerin schmachait
nit verdulde?
Grninger reprints this with the following minor spelling changes, but no
change in meaning:
Was wurd ich nun tn. wrd ich ouch noch nit gon. so ich unbegere(nd)
byn berfft. oder wil ich mich also stellen das ich deren blerin schmach-
heyt nit verdulde.
Grninger, like Neidhart, does not translate the prologue to the Eunuchus, nor
indeed the prologue to any of Terences plays. Grninger also reprints most of
Neidharts glosses. Although there was not enough room for Neidharts gloss
on Hector and Ajax, nonetheless the gloss on Danae and Perseus arrival in
Italy (including the erroneous reference to the 37th verse of the seventh book
of Vergils Aeneid) is reprinted on Grninger 1499 64v, and Neidharts gloss on
Sisyphus is reprinted on Grninger 1499 83v.
Yet another publication that arguably has its roots in Neidharts Eunuchus
is the 1499 illustrated edition of the Spanish playwright Fernando de Rojas
Celestina, printed in Burgos. The Spanish play itself is modeled on Terence, and
John Cull makes a compelling argument that the illustrations to Celestina, with
their emphasis on characters lingering around doorways in an urban land-
scape, owe their ultimate inspiration to the illustrator from Ulm. The Spanish
62 This is the first (and only) testimony in Neidharts lifetime that he authored the transla-
tion of the Eunuchus; yet, given that Grninger elsewhere made mistaken attributions,
some scholars doubt whether even this constitutes proof of Neidharts authorship. See
Bertelsmeier-Kierst 2013.
100 Chong-Gossard
characters also gesture with their hands and arms, but not with the precision
of the Ulm artists Terentian cast. Cull notes how other scholars have pointed
to the 1493 Badius and Treschel and the 1496 Grninger illustrated editions of
Terence as models for the Burgos Celestina, but he argues that Neidharts edi-
tion has been overlooked as an even earlier model. He is mindful that book
production in Spain at the end of the fifteenth century was dominated by Swiss
and German immigrants, and concludes:
Conclusion
CHAPTER 5
Salvatore Monda*
* This paper deals with the indirect tradition of Terences six plays. Terences lines are often
quoted in works with literary and scholarly content, in antiquarian studies, textual inter-
pretations and linguistic inquiries. I will only discuss the quotations from Terence in Latin
grammarians and I will rule out in principle glossaries, commentaries and works of erudition
(though I will mention a few of these in the course of the work). A study of the grammatical
tradition and Terences text deserves a more detailed analysis, devoted to each grammar-
ian or, at least, classified by types of artigraphical tradition (i.e. the traditions of artes gram
maticae). I limit myself here to a few general considerations. On the role and function of the
quotations from Latin poets and writers in grammatical treatises the essential starting point
is the work of Mario De Nonno, especially the paper Le citazioni dei grammatici (De Nonno
1990b), but also essential are other studies, which employ rigorous methodology, such as De
Nonno 1990c, 1998, 2010, De Paolis 2000, and Munzi 2011. Finally I would like to thank Andrew
Turner and Giulia Torello-Hill for accepting this chapter for publication.
1 Fragments of Varros epistles (the so-called Quaestiones epistolicarum) are edited by Semi
1965 2.927. See also Rocca 1978 21315.
2 It is a variant of gargarizare or gargarissare, a form mentioned by Varro again in De lingua
Latina 6.96, as a lexical Graecism (from ).
In his lexicon Nonius is citing Varro who, in turn, is citing Terence. However,
Varros epistle is quoted by Nonius two other times. In one case, the lemma
is noenum pro non (p. 209 [L.]): Varro epistula ad Fufium: si hodie noenum
uenis, cras quidem, sis, ueneris meridie die natalis Fortis Fortunae.3 In another
instance, on the difference between fors and Fortuna, Nonius (p. 687 [L.])
writes: Varro epistula ad Fufium: di quaeso Fors Fortuna, quantis commoditati
bus hunc diem!4
It has been argued that Nonius owned a manuscript of Terence,5 but he was
definitely not able to quote directly from Varros Epistula ad Fufium. The three
references he makes to this epistle could indeed derive from different sources;
the last of these, in addition to mangling the passage of Varro, could also have
changed the verse quoted from Phormio, giving a quotation that is more exten-
sive, including words from the next line, but is also reduced by omissions.
On the distinction between fors and Fortuna he could have directly recalled
Terence without using a second-hand quotation from Varro, but this is Nonius
way of working: he is following a lexicographical source here,6 and does not
seem to know or remember that the passage comes from Terence. Moreover,
there always remains the doubt that quite different citations of the same line
may have been produced by neither Nonius nor his sources, but by the copyists
who transmitted the text to us.
There is also another question. Ph. 8412 is delivered by the slave Geta: why
then does Varro say Antipho fies? The name Antipho is an emendation by Franz
Buecheler, but the correction seems quite reliable.7 It does happen sometimes
that a quotation by a commentator or grammarian is introduced with the name
of the character who speaks the verses, rather than with the title of the play,8
but in Terences Phormio we cannot assign the lines to the adulescens Antipho,
who is in fact mentioned in them, and are obliged to attribute the speech to
the slave Geta. We may infer that Varro possessed a manuscript of Terence with
scene-divisions and scene-headings, from which he took the wrong name of
3 Riese 1865 106 joins this fragment of the epistle ad Fufium to the one mentioned above.
4 This is the reading of the manuscripts of Nonius. Lindsay 1903 prefers to emend di quaeso to
dices o, and prints dices: O Fors Fortuna as in the quotation on p. 168.
5 See Lindsay 1901.
6 Lindsay 1901 10 [no. 35A] attributes the quotation of Varros epistles by Nonius possibly to a
Glossary drawn mainly from Varro, which he denotes Gloss. iv (see below).
7 Antipho fies ac for ant foriae ac in Nonius manuscripts (fies ac was conjectured by Alexander
Riese). In the apparatus to Nonius, Lindsay hesitantly suggests Antiphoni haec.
8 So, e.g., Fulgentius when he introduces a quotation with Plautus in Cacisto or Plautus in
Crisalo, to refer, respectively, to the Vidularia and the Bacchides, or even Servius when he
writes Plautus in Pirgopolinice in order to quote the Miles gloriosus.
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 107
the character (in the scene, in addition to Antipho and Geta, Phormio is also
present), but this argument is rather weak.
The uncertainty in this discussion extends to Clodius Quintipor9 too. At
first glance it may appear that he was a comic actor ridiculed by Varro because
he had mispronounced that verse during a stage performance of Terences
Phormio (poemata eius meaning Terences verses), but it is more likely that he
was an author of comedies and in one of his plays a character called Antipho
that probably gave the play its titledelivered the speech O Fortuna, o Fors
Fortuna, remodeling Terences line (if so, poemata eius could mean his own
verses).10 Varro in fact mentions Clodius Quintipor on another occasion, in the
Menippean satire Bimarcus (fr. 59 [Ast.] = 52 [Cbe]): cum Quintipor Clodius tot
comoedias sine ulla fecerit Musa, ego unum libellum non edolem ut ait Ennius?
(while Quintipor Clodius wrote so many comedies without any inspiration of
the Muse, how could I not finish, as Ennius says, a single little book?).11 From
this fragment it seems that Clodius Quintipor was a playwright, rather than
a comic actor who staged old comedies by Terence. His literary output must
have been incredibly prolific, for Varro to compare the vastness of Clodius pro-
duction to his own single little book.12 If so, in this case, Nonius would be cit-
ing Varro, who is citing Clodius Quintipor who, in turn, is alluding to Terence.
Moreover, the phrase O Fortuna, o Fors Fortuna is a widely used formula, which
also appears at the beginning of the second scene of Querolus (16), when
Querolus exclaims: O fortuna, o fors fortuna, o fatum sceleratum atque impium!
(O fortune, o lucky fortune, o wicked and impious fate!).
This inextricable interlacing of quotations and imitations is not an isolated
case in the transmission of classical texts, and anyone dealing with the so-called
indirect tradition frequently encounters this situation. But for a text like that of
Terence, which at some point in its long history left the theatre stage to appear
with even greater success on the shelves of libraries and in school teachers
9 This form of the name may be preferable to Quintipor Clodius, as he is commonly called,
since it is possible that nomen gentilicium and cognomen are here reversed: this practice,
originally poetic (see Pl. Merc. 10 Macci Titi), is common in Ciceros epistles and in first-
century AD prose (e.g. Tac. dial. 1.1 Iuste Fabi): see e.g. Echavarren 2013. For discussion of
this personage, see also Schuster 1963.
10 But there remains the problem of the third quotation by Nonius (p. 687 [L.]), which adds
(from Terence) quantis commoditatibus hunc diem: has Clodius Quintipor imitated, by
remodeling them, both verses of Terence?
11 This fragment of Varro also comes from Nonius (p. 719 [L.]), but in this case we can be sure
that the lexicographer was able to read the text of the satire (see Lindsay 1901 20, 119).
12 The context is unknown to us (see the commentary by Cbe 1974 232), but here Varro
could be being ironic towards himself, since he was aware that his production exceeded
that of any other Roman writer.
108 Monda
lectures, we cannot expect that Ph. 841 ceased to be quoted after Varro. In fact
the line resurfaces in the grammarians, being quoted by Donatus in his com-
mentary on Hec. 386, and by Priscian in his Institutiones (GL 2.188). In the former
the meaning of the formula is explained; in the latter the line is only cited to
illustrate the declension of fors. We are faced with two grammatical quotations
of a different nature, representing the two main school activities of an ancient
grammarian, as described by Quintilian in Inst. 1.4.2: haec igitur professio, cum
breuissime in duas partes diuidatur, recte loquendi scientiam et poetarum enar
rationem, plus habet in recessu quam fronte promittit (this profession, that can
be briefly divided into two parts, the art of speaking correctly and the exege-
sis of the poets, has more beneath the surface than it outwardly promises).13
Terence is well represented in both of these distinct branches into which the
profession of the grammarian is divided, that is, the art of speaking correctly,
and the exegesis of the poets. Two continuous commentaries have come
down to us, those of Aelius Donatus (fourth century) and Eugraphius (fifth/
sixth century), and also a number of other late ancient and Medieval scholia,
beginning with those in the margins of the Codex Bembinus.14 As for the purely
grammatical uses, the study of Terences text in antiquity is evidenced by an
impressive number of quotations, making him an auctor of outstanding sig-
nificance in the obseruatio of linguistic phenomena and in the transmission of
grammatical knowledge.
Terence is the last poet of the fabula palliata to experience great success on
the stage. After his death, fewer and fewer new authors of comedies entered the
limelight and the Roman theatres saw in particular revivals of the best known
older plays.15 Besides, the preference of the audience was beginning to turn
to easier dramatic genres, aimed at a public of lower pretensions and with a
less refined palate. Although the six comedies continued to be performed even
after his death, Terence started to gain another kind of fame, among a read-
ing audience rather than spectators.16 This was not a truly literary famethe
modes of production, circulation and diffusion of books in the ancient world
prevent us from talking about bestsellers in a modern sense17but rather a
familiarity mainly due to school teaching: Terence soon became one of the
authors most widely read by schoolboys.18
Terence quickly became an authority on language on account of the purity
of his Latin style, as attested by a passage of Cicero. In an epistle to Atticus (Cic.
Att. 7.3.10) the orator invokes the authority of the playwright, whose comedies
were even believed to have been written by Gaius LaeliusCicero says
because of their elegance.19 The reason for referring to Terence is the incorrect
use of the preposition with the names of towns:
from Suniumif we are going to say that Demes are towns, then Sunium
is as much a town as Piraeus. But since you have turned schoolmaster,
perhaps you will once for all solve my problem for me and take a big load
off my mind. (trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey).
so-called Calliopiana recensio itself is divided into two classes, and ; their
relationship is attested by common errors, but there are also differences that
separate them.29
The two branches, A and , descend independently from a single archetype,
designated by Jachmann, which is the source of the entire manuscript tradi-
tion, as confirmed by a number of errors and similar scene-divisions and scene-
headings.30 This is still the prevailing hypothesis, despite some opinions to the
contrary.31 The ancestor does not belong to an epoch close to that of the
author. While there may at first have been some scripts for use by theatre com-
panies, the texts that have survived can hardly depend on manuscripts whose
circulation was meagre and limited to theatre troupes.32 We must assume that
our texts date back to very ancient ekdoseis, edited by grammarians and adher-
ing to philological criteria. From an edition of this kind, which was used to fix
and preserve the text, derived the commercial editions such as .
Jachmann argues that was copied between the second and third centu-
ries and derives from an edition by Probus in the first century AD:33 compared
to this oldest edition, has some errors, reconstructible by agreements of
and A, which a grammarian like Probus would not have committed. The errors
are often metrical and, while later grammarians may have had difficulty rec-
ognizing the verses of the archaic comedies, it seems unlikely that someone
in the first century AD could not identify and correct inaccuracies of this kind.
Giorgio Pasquali, in the long chapter of his Storia della tradizione devoted to
Terence,34 accepts in general the findings of Jachmann, but prefers to date to
the third century, and more precisely to the period of cultural decline between
251 and 284 AD.35 Despite the views of these scholars, we cannot state with
29 Some scholars believe also in the existence of a third class of codices mixti (): Webb 1911;
Jachmann 1924 1334. Contra Marti 1961 1447.
30 Jachmann 1924 5371, 7785. See also Pasquali 1952 3556; Reeve 1983b 413; Questa and
Raffaelli 1990 17994.
31 Marouzeau thinks of full independence between the two branches of the tradition: see
Marouzeau 1934 49, and also the preface of the first volume of his edition (Marouzeau
19421949) 8994; Andrieu 1940 1122 and 1954 98, and Rubio 19571966 are of the same
opinion. Victor 1996 also raises doubts about the existence of a common archetype
because of the extreme contamination of the manuscripts.
32 Questa and Raffaelli 1990 1445.
33 Jachmann 1924 726, 834; 1934 64750.
34 Pasquali 1952 35473.
35 Pasquali 1952 361.
112 Monda
certainty that the model of was really an edition by Probus:36 though Probus
did comment on Terence, there is no evidence that he also published an edi-
tion or that, if he did, his edition stands at the head of our tradition.37 Velaza
cautiously suggests that the edition from which Terences tradition derives
could be that of Aemilius Asper in the period of Nero or the Flavians, or that of
Sulpicius Apollinaris, the author of the periochae, in the age of the Antonines.38
The assumptionbased on the colometric evidencethat the oldest edition
is earlier than Probus and dates back to the intense grammatical activity that
unfolded between the second and first century BC, should not be neglected.39
In fact, with regard to colometrythough this aspect has a very limited contri-
bution to make, compared to its role in the text of Plautusthe two branches
of the Terence tradition still preserve traces of the oldest edition.40 In this case
may reflect the very oldest edition through the intermediacy of a manuscript
of the second century AD, which added, between the didascaliae and the pro-
logues, Sulpicius periochae.
For the study of the indirect tradition of Terence, as we shall see, an impor-
tant issue is the dating of . The appearance of this recensio is perhaps due
to the work of some scholar or grammariannot everyone agrees he is to
be identified with the Calliopius41 mentioned in the subscriptionswho
tried to rearrange a visibly faulty text and to make it suitable for students reading.
This must have occurred at a rather late period, given the metrical inaccuracy
of many readings. In many instances the manuscripts show a text trivialized
and normalized without respect for the prosody, and this often happens in the
passages in which the text of A, and probably that of their common source, is
corrupt or hard to understand.
Jachmann believed that the -class was the direct descendant of , and that
the -class, which has more corruptions, was created by a Late-Antique revi-
sion. Twelve descendants of are illustrated and the drawings depend on a
common source, which is generally agreed to be the work of an illustrator who
did not attend ancient performances but inferred the scenes from the text.42
Jachmann argues for the date of to be taken as a terminus ante quem for the
chronology of , locating it between the fourth and fifth centuries, the period
in which (in his opinion) the miniatures were created (assuming also that the
illustrations were created specifically for the text of ).43 The ancestor of ,
according to Jachmann, would thus be earlier than the Bembinus and datable
to the fourth century. In his view would belong to the third or fourth century,
and Calliopius subscription was added later, in the fifth century: would have
been created before Calliopius. Pasquali, however, on the basis of the typology
of the illustrations, believes that the model of should be dated to the fifth or
sixth century:44 so the Calliopian recensio would date back at the earliest to
the fifth century.45 These kinds of subscriptiones (as Jachmann also well knew)
always date to the fifth century AD, and Pasqualis dating has the advantage
of reassociating Calliopius with the recensio which goes under his name. The
-class, with a text mostly better than the -class, has been held to be the ear-
lier of the two classes,46 but Grant separates the illustrations (which he claims
were created for a non-Calliopian manuscript) from the text of ,47 which
would have existed separately from the illuminated manuscript, and argues
that the miniatures are not useful for dating .48
Lindsays interpretation is different again from the others. In his opinion,
was created during a period subsequent to the Roman grammarians.49 He
argues that at the origin of stands the activity of a pupil of Calliopius who
42 See Jones and Morey 1931 2.195212; Varwig 1990 and Nervegna 2014 72731. For other per-
spectives and further bibliography see Dodwell 2000; Demetriou 2014a 78994 and her
extensive discussion in this volume.
43 Jachmann 1924 98119.
44 Pasquali 1952 3638. Marti 1961 1201 suggests the beginning of the fifth century.
45 Pasquali 1952 365.
46 Jachmann 1924 12730.
47 Grant 1986 1859.
48 Dodwell 2000 421 dates the miniatures to the third century AD, chiefly on art-historical
evidence.
49 Lindsay 1925a.
114 Monda
provided the constitutio textus using a manuscript of his teacher which was
close to A, but, by interpreting the interlinear glosses as teachers variants, he
decisively contributed to the introduction of errors, trivializations, and inter-
polations.50 He would date this pupil-edition to the end of the fifth century.
Another issue that may touch on the text of Terence used by the gram-
marians is that of the arrangement of the plays in the different classes of the
tradition.51 The Codex Bembinus or A follows the chronological order: Andria,
Eunuchus, Heautontimorumenos, Phormio, Hecyra, Adelphoe. The arrange-
ment of the -class is based on the alphabetical sequence: Andria, Adelphoe,
Eunuchus, Phormio,52 Heautontimorumenos, Hecyra. In the -class the plays
could be arranged by the authorship of the Greek originals53 (the first four com-
edies derive from Menander, and the last two from Apollodorus of Carystus):
Andria, Eunuchus, Heautontimorumenos, Adelphoe, Hecyra, Phormio. However,
Grants assumption is perhaps preferable: he suggests that
at some time there was a two-volume edition of Terence which was based
on a manuscript which contained the plays in the traditional order. In
the second volume, however, the order PhormioHecyraAdelphoe was
changed so that these plays could appear in alphabetical sequence,
which by chance was the order of the plays in the first volume. Since
the Terentian corpus is hardly large enough to require two volumes, the
most likely occasion for such a division would have been the production
of a de luxe illustrated editioneither or ' or the first illustrated
manuscript.54
50 Marti 1961 124 offers a useful comparison of the principal stemmata codicum that have
been proposed, inclusive of Lindsays.
51 Other kinds of arrangement are, of course, taken into account: see below, p. 118, on the
manuscript employed by Nonius Marcellus. Manuscripts of Donatus offer the following
sequence of Terences plays: Andria, Eunuchus, Adelphoe, Hecyra, Phormio (the commen-
tary on Heautontimorumenos is lost), but manuscripts AK have only Andria and Adelphoe,
which could attest an alphabetical sequence. Eugraphius commentary has different
orders in its manuscripts. On the question, see Velaza 2007a 6778. Add the inventory of
eighth century preserved in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, MS Diez
66, which mentions the presence in Charlemagnes library of a manuscript that contained
the comedies in this order: Andria, Eunuchus, Hecyra, Heautontimorumenos: cf. Reeve
1983b 416 n. 32, and Villa 1984 13.
52 The position of the Phormio is probably due to the spelling Formio, or even to the title of
the Greek model, Epidicazomenos.
53 Leo 1883 319.
54 Grant 1973 103. Grant argues that the illustrated cycle in the -class derives from an earlier
manuscript, which he denotes .
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 115
Grants conclusions are fascinating, but cannot be proven. At the least, the
Bembinus and the -class follow the same order for the first three plays, though
the latter has reversed the order of the last three comedies. Even if the order of
plays is not enough to establish the branch to which a manuscript belongs, my
view is that both A and derive from an edition (Jachmanns ) in two codices,
each containing three plays.55 In this archetype the plays were arranged in
chronological order: the Bembinus retained the original sequence, while
the -class reversed only the arrangement of the second volume in favour of
an alphabetical order. The -class, however, preferred a stricter alphabetical
sequence of the six plays.56
As can be seen, the direct tradition of Terence was characterized by uncer-
tainty from its earliest stages. Consequently, the indirect tradition also holds
many uncertainties and raises questions to which it is often difficult to give a
definite answer. The scholars who have dealt with it have often sought in the
grammarians quotations possible confirmation of their assumptions about
the transmission of the text, or have interpreted the origin and nature of the
quotations on the basis of their beliefs about the direct tradition. Before deal-
ing with that issue, however, it is necessary to consider the problem of the
number and provenance of the indirect accounts.
The writers immediately following Terence are not very generous with quo-
tations from his plays. Cicero and Quintilian are exceptions: the former quotes
Terence 39 times,57 and the latter, who is more likely to draw examples from
other genres and other poets, nonetheless cites Terence 9 times, a quite signifi-
cant figure.58 If we examine Varro the results change considerably: there are
at least 400 quotations from ancient writers and poets in the surviving part
of the De lingua Latina, but only 4 from Terence;59 furthermore, only one of
these is from Book Seven, which, uniquely, is usually richer in quotations with
etymologies drawn from a list of poetic citations.
Purely on the basis of the quotation of Ad. 117 in Varro ling. 7.84, Giorgio
Pasquali argued that the text of Terence was fixed already in ancient times in
an edition that became the common one, and which replaced the oldest vari-
ants. One of these variants, widely considered genuine, is found in this passage
of Varro, who quotes Terence as follows: scortatur, potat, olet unguenta de meo
(he is out with the girls and goes drinking and smells of perfume),60 with
scortatur given in place of the received opsonat. Pasqualis reconstruction rep-
resents the common opinion among scholars, both before and after him.61 The
verb scortatur in Varro is the lemma to be explained, which ought to make his
quotation more reliable.62 However, the explanation has been called into ques-
tion by the observation of Lindsay and Kauer in the apparatus of their Oxford
edition. These scholars doubt the reading scortatur, noting the presence of
this verb just above, at the beginning of Ad. 102 (scortari), from which Varro
would have derived it by mistake: not surprisingly, at Ad. 117 they prefer to print
opsonat and not scortatur. Lindsay and Kauers observation seems to me quite
convincing, while it should also be remembered that this is the only quota-
tion from Terence in Varros seventh book: this may mean that he is quoting
Terence at second hand.63 In this case his quotation becomes less reliable than
it appears at first sight and scortatur could be reduced to a simple explanatory
gloss rather than a reading.
Initially Terence does not seem to have enjoyed special status compared to
the other Latin dramatists: in the canon of the poet and literary critic Volcacius
Sedigitus (second century BC, fr. 1 [Blnsdorf] preserved by Gellius 15.24) he is
only ranked sixth after Caecilius Statius, Plautus, Naevius, Licinius, and Atilius,
and before Turpilius, Trabea, Luscius Lanuvinus, and Ennius. In Seneca there
is a single quotation from Terence, in Epist. 95.53, without attribution and
with a slightly altered text, of the well known line Hau. 77: homo sum: humani
nihil a me alienum puto (Im a man: I regard no human affairs as not affecting
me).64 Of course, we must take into account the small number of plays
written by Terence, compared to Plautus and Caecilius; but, even adjusting
65 The number of citations in Festus for each comedy is: Adelphoe: 2; Andria: 2; Eunuchus:
0; Heautontimorumenos: 1; Hecyra: 1; Phormio: 6. I calculated the occurrences in Festus
epitome by Paul the Deacon only for the missing parts of the Farnese codex (Festus De
uerborum significatione survives in a manuscript, the so-called Farnesianus [Napoli, Bibl.
Naz. IV A 3, s. XI], the half part of which is lost: we know the missing passages thanks to
the epitome written by Paul the Deacon in the eighth century).
66 Hau. 287, Ph. 889, 172.
67 Ad. 331 and Ph. 470 at Fronto p. 115,23 [v.d.H.]; Eu. 476 at Fronto p. 175,7 [v.d.H.].
68 Although Macrobius in his Saturnalia never mentions Terence, he twice remodels An.
205 (Macr. Sat. 1.5.4 and 2.1.4), in both cases as a formula to introduce an intervention of
Praetextatus. Macrobius is more interested in other kinds of texts and even from Plautus
the quotations number only nine.
69 Cf. Auson. 8.5860 [Green]; Aug. Conf. 1.16; Hier. In Eccles. 9.10 (CCSL 72, p. 2567
[Adriaen]); Adv. Rufin. 1.16 (CCSL 79, p. 15 [Lardet]); Sidon. Epist. 2.2.2. For Terence in late
Latin literature see Cain 2013 38794.
118 Monda
archaizing movement was still alive in peripheral areas such as Africa: accord-
ing to common consensus this is the time of Nonius Marcellus activity as
grammarian70 and author of an encyclopedic dictionary, the De compendiosa
doctrina, in twenty books.71 Nonius owned a manuscript with the six plays of
Terence, as has now been established thanks to Lindsays elucidation of Nonius
working method. Lindsay identified the books (41 in total) which Nonius used
during the composition of the De compendiosa doctrina, and he also recon-
structed the order in which these books were used and the relative sequence
of the citations from each of them.72 Nonius reproduces with mechanical fidel-
ity the title-headings of the editions that he used. He draws up the items to
be explained from the 41 books in his possession and, following the order in
which he excerpted the entries, puts them in the different sections of his dic-
tionary or in the letters that make up the three alphabetically arranged books
(IIIV); this applies both to the primary quotation that gave rise to the lemma,
and to secondary ones that are sometimes offered in addition. Using Lindsays
terminology, we can divide the quotations that illustrate a lemma into direct
quotations and indirect quotations; furthermore, the item may have a first
quotation, which has given rise to a lemma, and other secondary ones, the so-
called extra quotations.73 The Terence manuscript is no. 23 on the list.74 The
arrangement of Terences plays in the edition employed by Nonius is: Andria,
70 The chronology of Nonius is doubtful, although the terminus post quem of the second
century AD is secure (Nonius uses Gellius though without naming him), as well as the
terminus ante quem of the fifth-sixth century (Nonius is a source of Priscian). His native
country is definitely Thubursicum in Numidia, as he himself testifies in the inscriptio
of the Compendiosa doctrina (Nonius Marcellus Peripateticus Thubursicensis). A Nonius
Marcellus Herculius appears in an inscription of Thubursicum dated to 323 (CIL 8.4878),
but he could also be a descendant. Keyser 1994 and 1996 suggests backdating him to the
age of Severi (specifically, to about 205220). Contra Deufert 2001, who refutes above all
the linguistic evidence of Keyser and prefers to confirm the traditional chronology, in the
fourth century.
71 Books IXII are those more properly grammatical; Books XIIIXX are miscellaneous.
Only Books II, III, and IV are arranged alphabetically (per litteras).
72 See Lindsay 1901. After Lindsay, others have dealt with Nonius method: Strzelecki 1932
1933 and 1936, Della Corte 1954 and 1980, Churchill White 1980, Llorente 1996, Gatti 2004,
De Seta 2005, Velaza 2007b.
73 On these latter see above all Lindsay 1905.
74 On Nonius and Terence see Klotz 1864, Umpfenbach 1870 lvilviii, Bartels 1884, Craig 1929,
De Seta 2005, Velaza 2007c.
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 119
75 See Lindsay 1901 120, who wonders if the position of the Phormio in this alphabetical
arrangement is due to the spelling Formio. But the final position of the Eunuchus is also
outside the alphabetical order.
76 Distributed as follows: Adelphoe: 34; Andria: 52; Eunuchus: 43; Heautontimorumenos: 32;
Hecyra: 17; Phormio: 42.
77 See Umpfenbach 1870 xxxviixxxviii, Wessner 1905 1233, Buffa 1977. Probus fragments
ex commentario Terentiano are edited by Aistermann 1910 frr. 4352, and Velaza 2005 frr.
4453.
78 This is the distribution: Adelphoe: 35; Andria: 51; Eunuchus: 47: Heautontimorumenos: 31;
Hecyra: 14; Phormio: 23. The data are drawn from Mountford and Schultz 1930. See also
Craig 1930b, and 1931. I do not distinguish between Servius and Servius Auctus, but in the
data offered by Lloyd 1961 31823 there are 137 references to Terence in Servius and 85 in
Servius Auctus (Lloyd counts also the cases in which the poet is cited by both of them).
79 Citations: Adelphoe: 2; Andria: 1; Eunuchus: 9; Heautontimorumenos: 3; Hecyra: 2;
Phormio: 3.
80 Exceptions: references to Eu. 469 in Porph. Hor. Serm. 2.3.262 (totus hic locus de Eunocho
Terentii est), and Ph. 342 in Serm. 2.2.77 (Terentius in Formione). But Eu. 732 is introduced
without the authors name in Porph. Hor. carm. 3.18.67.
81 Citations: Adelphoe: 9; Andria: 11; Eunuchus: 15; Heautontimorumenos: 5; Hecyra: 5;
Phormio: 6.
82 Lloyd 1961 3256.
120 Monda
my view the rise in Terences fortune had begun before Servius generation and
is already manifest in grammatical treatises (for instance that of Sacerdos). At
the end of the fourth century AD, with the grammarian Arusianus Messius,
the poet officially became part of the so-called quadriga, together with Cicero,
Sallust and Virgil, as an important author for school teaching, but the use
of the six comedies in schools is a process which began even before the end
of the fourth century. The rise in the fortune of Terence must be mainly sought
in the artigraphical tradition (that is, the tradition of grammatical works
known as artes grammaticae) and in the sources used by the grammarians
who frequently quote from Terence, i.e. normative grammars that served as
reference aids in learning Latin and reflected the current grammatical norms,
providing reliable information about the correct use of the language.
For an author as universally known as Terence, who was constantly read
during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, in principle it is not correct to
ask whether a grammarian may have had access to a manuscript containing
his plays, because the answer would inevitably be positive. Instead, it may be
asked whether, alongside quotations made at first hand, the grammarian has
also drawn quotations from other sources, and especially whether the text pos-
sessed by the grammarian was or was not accompanied by a commentary.
The following table contains the number of quotations from Terence in the
Latin grammarians. To count them I used Keils edition, except in cases where
there is a newer, more reliable edition:83
Charisius 21 7 23 2 3 18 74
Diomedes 11 8 10 6 6 8 49
Ars Bobiensis 1 2 0 0 1 1 5
Prisciani inst. 86 144 121 27 12 77 467
Prisciani fig. num. 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Prisciani metr. Ter. 2 8 2 2 2 2 18
Prisciani praeex. 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Prisciani inst. nom. 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
83 In the Appendix I provide a list of editions of the Latin grammarians who cite passages
from Terences plays. I have counted the number of citations and therefore also those pas-
sages which are cited more than once. Given the high number of occurrences, I must take
into account the possibility of errors.
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 121
84 See e.g. Marrou 1964 vol. 2 4952; Jones 1964 vol. 2 9981002.
85 De Nonno 1990b 641.
86 On Diomedes see Kaster 1988 2702 and Schmidt 1989 1326.
87 It is the chapter that deals with the consecutio temporum.
88 In Terences text the line, an iambic octonarius, is: iam depecisci morte cupio: tu conicito
cetera, but here only the close of the line is included, because the quotation (anepigraphic,
after all) is: ego quod res est ita dico, tu conicito cetera. The text may have been modified to
make it clearer that this is an example of the present tense followed by imperative.
89 Of particular importance is the last example on the use of the present tense with the
imperfect subjunctive (GL 1.390): reperimus apud ueteres instans finitiuorum iungi etiam
inperfecto subiunctiuorum, quod raro fit, cuius exempli prodendi gratia uel sola Tulliana
sufficit auctoritas. ait enim in Rosciana sic et cetera.
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 123
most of the quotations appear only here,90 except the last two (Verg. A. 2.12
and Cic. S. Rosc. 21)91 which are also found in the chapter of Charisius that
corresponds to that of Diomedes (Book III.viii de qualitatibus Latini sermonis
et temporibus, pp. 3479 [Barwick]). Charisius and Diomedes definitely have a
shared source,92 which they do not share with other now extant grammarians,
at least with regard to the subject matter. Charisius makes more cuts in this
source; from all the examples cited here he mentions only Verg. A. 2.12 and
Cic. S. Rosc. 21. Everythingincluding the significant presence of Cicero
suggests that the source is Flavius Caper, whose De Latinitate is often recog-
nized as a model for both Charisius and Diomedes Book I de uerbo.93
Charisius main source, besides Caper,94 is the grammarian Iulius Romanus
(third century), specifically the Aphormai, from which he excerpts whole chap-
ters, remaining quite faithful to the original.95 Sometimes the quotations from
Terence appear to cluster together in a section of text. For instance, chapter 16
of Book II (de interiectione) contains many examples from the authors of the
Republican period (e.g. Naevius, Plautus, Ennius) and, towards the end, it pres-
ents a group of contiguous quotations from Terence: Ad. 111, Eu. 656, Ad. 111,
127, and Eu. 84 (p. 315 [Barwick]). Judging by Charisius citations from Terence,
which are predominantly from Adelphoe, Eunuchus and Phormio, and are more
scarce for the other three plays, one might assume that his main source owned
a single papyrus roll containing these three plays in alphabetical order: this
would be consistent with other similar instances from Iulius Romanus which
reveal the use and circulation of small collections of dramatic texts arranged
90 Even Verg. A. 2.7056 is quoted only here. Exceptions: Ad. 1445 cited by Diomedes also in
his chapter de aduerbio (GL 1.406); Cic. S. Rosc. 1 just below is taken up twice (GL 1.393 and
395); An. 1756 receives some attention in treatises on metrics and prosody (Rufin. p. 12
[DAlessandro] and Prisc. Metr. Ter. pp. 256 [Passalacqua]).
91 Charisius words correspond almost perfectly with Diomedes: Char. pp. 3489 [Barwick]:
reperimus apud ueteres instans finitiuorum iungi etiam inperfecto subiunctiuorum, quod
raro fit. eius exempli prodendi gratia uel sola Ciceronis sufficiat auctoritas pro Sexto Roscio,
uelut et cetera. Diom. GL 1.391: reperimus apud ueteres instans finitiuorum iungi etiam
inperfecto subiunctiuorum, quod raro fit. cuius exempli prodendi gratia uel sola Tulliana
sufficit auctoritas. ait enim in Rosciana sic et cetera.
92 Cf. Barwick in the apparatus of his edition of Charisius, p. 348.
93 See Barwick 1922 191215, and De Nonno 1990b 6406, with other bibliography. See also
Schmidt 1989 1234 on Cominianus as a possible common source.
94 For Arruntius Celsus and Helenius Acro, see Velaza 2007a 602. More generally on
Charisius see Kaster 1988 3924 and Schmidt 1989 12531.
95 I refer to the precise synthesis of De Nonno 1990b 6412. On Iulius Romanus see also
Froehde 1892, Barwick 1922 636, 197, Kaster 1988 4246, and Schenkeveld 2004.
124 Monda
alphabetically.96 But there are no other examples of this order and, ultimately,
it is not easy, for a grammarian like Charisius who uses multiple sources, to
reconstruct the order of the plays. Therefore, we should think in terms of indi-
vidual sections.
If we look at the long chapter 15 of Book I (de extremitatibus nominum et
diuersis quaestionibus, pp. 61143 [Barwick], still from Caper), we observe that
the distribution of the quotations is as follows (in order of quantity): Eunuchus:
5, Adelphoe: 2, Andria: 2, Heautontimorumenos: 1, Phormio 1, Hecyra: 0. The ele-
ments at our disposal are too few to assume an order, even if the larger number
of examples from Andria, Adelphoe, and Eunuchus may correspond to the same
sequence as we find in -class. It should also be noted that on p. 75 [Barwick]
compluria, which appears in Ph. 611, is quoted as Terentius in Adelphis, but that
in the same section on p. 93 [Barwick], which likewise derives from Caper,
Charisius provides the correct attribution to Phormio.97 For a similar case,
which also involves Phormio, Javier Velaza has suggested, though cautiously,
a variant of transmission:98 Ph. 95 is quoted by Charisius as in Hecura, then
in Phormione.99 Velaza passed over the previous example unnoticed: they are
attribution errorsoften harmlesswhich are quite common in the indirect
tradition. In addition, the passage in question involves Arruntius Celsus, one
of the commentators on Terence.100 This leads me to suggest that sometimes
the confusion which results in erroneous attributions might be attributable
to a grammarian citing from a text with a commentary: the gloss of Arruntius
Celsus could belong to his commentary on the Hecyra and precisely to Hec.
71920, where the phrase hanc / uicinam might have been compared to the
adverbial usage hic uiciniae in Ph. 95. This could also have been the origin of
the oversight by Charisius, who assigned the passage of Phormio to Hecyra.
Priscian shares the same sources as Charisius and Diomedes, but also cites
many texts at first hand. In addition he reveals his debt to Nonius101 and to
102 On Priscian see Kaster 1988 3468. See also the papers collected by Baratin, Colombat and
Holtz 2009, and especially the article of De Nonno, who has studied the various stages of
composition of the work, noting that the original title of the Institutiones is Ars gram
matica (De Nonno 2009 2509).
103 Also Velaza 2007a 6970 ascribes to Priscian a purely alphabetical order (see above
n. 51), but does not provide evidence for this hypothesis. Maybe he rightly extends to
Institutiones what Jocelyn 1967 66 has observed with regard to the alphabetical arrange-
ment in the short treatise De metris fabularum Terentii.
104 See the fundamental analysis of Barwick 1922 14758, 1647; see also De Nonno 1990b
62933.
105 For the identification and the features of this type of grammatical work cf. Law 1987, and
De Nonno 1990b 63340.
106 On Marius Plotius Sacerdos see Kaster 1988 3523 and Schmidt 1989 11216.
107 Distributed as follows: Adelphoe: 6; Andria: 12; Eunuchus: 5; Heautontimorumenos: 8;
Hecyra: 6; Phormio: 3.
126 Monda
108 They are: An. 206 (GL 6.446; also quoted in Prisc. GL 3.1034 [Book XVI de coniunctione];
Metr. Ter. p. 26 [Passalacqua]; Rufinus p. 12 [DAlessandro]); An. 249 (GL 6.445 and 446):
An. 693: (GL 6.446); Eu. 696 (GL 6.445; Sacerdos quotes the line with regard to the use of
quando as adverb of time, while Prisc. GL 3.81 [Book XV de aduerbio] quotes the line in
reference to modo, omitted in the quotation of Sacerdos); Eu. 829 (GL 6.445); Hau. 53 (GL
6.445); Hau. 51415 (GL 6.445, slightly altered); Hau. 614 (GL 6.445); Hec. 198 (GL 6.445); Hec.
733 (GL 6.446); Ph. 62 (GL 6.446); Ph. 405 (GL 6.445).
109 See Holtz 1981 257. On Donatus see also Kaster 1988 2758, and Schmidt 1989 1548.
110 Ad. 185 (p. 661, 5 [Holtz]), 537 (p. 673, 4 [Holtz]), An. 218 (p. 665, 8 [Holtz]), 933 (p. 658, 12
[Holtz]), Eu. 732 (p. 668, 16 [Holtz]), Ph. 77 (p. 673, 3 [Holtz]), 101 (p. 661, 8 [Holtz]).
111 See Holtz 1981 10921, especially p. 113 and the overall table of quotations on p. 118.
112 See Holtz 1977 and 1981. See also Kaster 1988 13968, 3436 on Pompeius, and 2556 on
Cledonius.
113 See Kaster 1988 278; De Nonno 1990b 631 n. 111.
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 127
quoted only five times: barring Ph. 623 quoted in GL 7.426 (= p. 89 [Tolkiehn]),
a very common line in grammatical texts,114 and Ad. 584 quoted in GL 7.395
(= p. 37 [Tolkiehn]), which is often found in Charisius,115 there are four
quotations from the Hecyra that are found only in the ars of Dositheus, con-
centrated, as in Sacerdos, in a single chapter (de coniunctione) dealing with the
use of si.116 But unlike Sacerdos, we cannot state that this chapter was prob-
ably composed by Dositheus: generally this grammarianin the manner of
Donatuscites his auctores without specifying the name of author and work
(except for a few rare cases), but in this chapter the name of the author is
always specified (except for the long series from Virgil at the end) along with
the title of their works (e.g. Terentius in Hecyra). Furthermore, Dositheus usu-
ally provides the rules of correct elocutio, while in our case he cites Terence as
an exception to the norm (sed Terentius hanc regulam non est secutus), as was
done also in the lost treatises of Caper and Pliny the Elder. It seems possible,
then, that Dositheus source for this chapter de coniunctione could have drawn
his inspiration from these two grammarians.
Even in the works of the regulae-type there is no extensive use of examples
and the reference point is always poetry, but the main characteristic of this
group is to widen the field of quotable authors, following the model of Flavius
Caper and his lost de Latinitate. In this work the grammarian had taken care
to collect a large amount of linguistic material: he was particularly attentive
to the use of ueteres, but he was not unwilling to use also some more recent
authors (iuniores). Even though in the second book of the ars of Sacerdos (GL
6.47195), which should be ascribed to this artigraphical type, the number of
authors cited (usually by name) is quite large,117 the quotations from Terence
number only six.118 The so-called Catholica Probi, however, which partly repre-
sent a different edition of the second book of Sacerdos, offer a greater number
of quotations from Terence (19 in all). It should be noted that the small ars
of Priscian Institutio de nomine et pronomine et uerbo, which belongs to the
regulae-type, does not provide any quotations, apart from Verg. Aen. 10.421
114 It is also found in Diomedes (GL 1.311); Prisc. Inst. (GL 3.217 and 293); Prisc. Part. Aen.
pp. 90, 116 [Passalacqua]; Ps. Probus Inst. art. (GL 4.142); Cledonius (GL 5.72); Arusianus
p. 41 [Di Stefano].
115 Pp. 42, 92, 197 [Barwick]. It is quoted also in the so-called ars Bobiensis, GL 1.535 (= p. 5
[De Nonno]). Except in Char. on p. 42 [Barwick], in all other cases, the line of Terence is
mentioned together with Plaut. Rud. 1156.
116 Hec. 767 in GL 7.420 (= p. 78 [Tolkiehn]); Hec. 5701 in GL 7.419 (= p. 77 [Tolkiehn]); Hec. 765
in GL 7.419 (= p. 78 [Tolkiehn]); Hec. 775 in GL 7.419 (= p. 78 [Tolkiehn]).
117 Cf. De Nonno 1990b 6367.
118 Adelphoe: 2; Andria: 1; Eunuchus: 1; Heautontimorumenos: 1; Hecyra: 1; Phormio: 0.
128 Monda
and 3.621,119 and a small group of quotations from Terence followed by two
passages of Sallust, which are concentrated in a chapter devoted to the pas-
sive imperatives.120 The names of Virgil and Terence are also associated in the
explanation of the vocative in -i of the names in -ius.121
Finally, a separate type, although sometimes incorporated in the larger
artes grammaticae, is represented by the treatises that deal with metrics and
prosody.122 These grammarians prefer Virgilian examples for their rules, and
avoid the Latin dramatists. Thus in the third book of Sacerdos, devoted to
metre (GL 6.496546), An. 28 is the only line of Terence to be quoted (twice, at
GL 6.523 and 545).123 As well, only two quotations from Terence are present in
the so-called Auctor ad Caelestinum,124 a datum of some importance because
it is a work that, despite being relatively short compared to the great artes,
is rich in over 640 citations. But overall, the position occupied by Terence in
this kind of treatise is of particular prominence: in fact, the transition from
the stage to the libraries had led to the loss of knowledge relating to the the-
atrical performance and also concerning verse composition (and delivery).125
This must have happened soon enough if, as early as the end of the fourth
century, the grammarian Rufinus wrote a Commentarium in metra Terentiana
with the intention of demonstrating that the ancient playwrights composed in
verse.126 At the beginning the treatise is based on the authority of some excel-
lent sources, such as Euanthius, Asper, Diomedes, Varro, Charisius, Caesius
Bassus, and others. Rufinus quotes Terence 19 times, of which 9 lines are from
the Andria. Priscians De metris fabularum Terentii, written at the beginning of
119 Quoted, without any indication of the author and the work, on pp. 19 and 35 [Passalacqua].
120 P. 38 [Passalacqua], citing Ter. Ph. 54950 and 210, Eu. 506, Sall. Cat. 52.5 and Iug. 10.8.
121 P. 18 [Passalacqua]: hic Virgilius o Virgili hic Terentius o Terenti.
122 See De Nonno 1990b 61826 and 1990c.
123 Among the other metrical treatises the line is mentioned, together with the next one,
by Rufinus p. 12 [DAlessandro], with regard to the iambic trimeter, and Prisc. Metr. Ter.
p. 24 [Passalacqua]. But it is also quoted by Prisc. Inst. GL 3.119; 3.331; and Part. Aen. p. 111
[Passalacqua].
124 See De Nonno 1990a.
125 On the poor sensitivity of the grammarians to metrical phenomena, see De Nonno 1990c:
he observes the substantial indifference of the grammarians towards accepting unmetri-
cal examples from the poets. See also Questa and Raffaelli 1990 178 n. 70.
126 Rufinus was also the author of a commentarium on the clausulae of the orators. Both
texts are lost and what remains of them is a collection due to an early Medieval excerptor
(Commentarius in metra Terentiana, GL 6.55465 and Commentarius de numeris oratorum,
GL 6.56578): see Cybulla 1907; Wessner 1931; Kaster 1988 3512; DAlessandro 1994. The
latest edition is that of Paolo DAlessandro (see the Appendix).
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 129
the sixth century, also has the same function;127 Priscian admits to using and
adapting the work of other grammarians.128 The treatise offers 18 quotations
from Terence, 8 of which are from the Andria.
A different attitude among grammarians began to emerge at the beginning
of the fifth century. There was no longer an exclusive interest in issues related
to the choice of words and to lexical usus, for which examples were sought pre-
dominantly from the poets. Now a greater attention to syntax took root, which
would find its highest development in Priscians Institutiones, and examples in
these works were drawn mainly from the prose-writers.129 In this new frame-
work, however, a work appeared in which we can recognize an independent
position compared to the earlier models of grammatical traditions described
so far: the Exempla elocutionum or examples of constructions by Arusianus
Messius (fourth/fifth century). This work leads the reader to the correct use of
Latin by means of four models, the so-called quadriga Messii, according to the
formula employed by Cassiodorus, Inst. 1.15.7, which may suggest a possible
alternative title for the work. Terence passages quoted by Arusianus number
176 in all and these alone represent 16.87% of our quotations from grammati-
cal texts. The Heautontimorumenos and the Hecyra are otherwise infrequently
quoted by grammarians, but Arusianus Messius represents a major exception
to this tendency, although his highest number of citations comes in fact from
the Eunuchus.130 As for the Hecyra, Arusianus is the grammarian who gives us
the highest number of citations (26, followed by Priscians Institutiones with
only 12 occurrences).
A comprehensive evaluation of Terences quotations in the grammarians is
still waiting to be carried out, even though there is no lack of more limited
studies on the topic. A good starting point is the collection of quotations
and testimonia by Franz Umpfenbach in the Praefatio of his Terence edition,131
although the collations on which he bases his conclusions are not always com-
pletely reliable. At the beginning of the section relating to the indirect tradition
Umpfenbach argues that we can not trust the extant grammarians, for which
we might expect that they have been careful in preserving the original readings
127 Edited by M. Passalacqua (see the Appendix). See also Jocelyn 1967.
128 P. 19 [Passalacqua] (= GL 3.418). See Jocelyn 1967 657.
129 Cf. Baratin 1989, Munzi 2011.
130 Of course, it can be observed that most of the quotations from the Heautontimorumenos
come from Priscians Institutiones, but in this grammarian, in relation to the total of his
Terence citations, the frequency of those which come from this play is lower: 5.78 % as
opposed to 13.06 % in Arusianus.
131 Umpfenbach 1870 xxxviilxix.
130 Monda
of the poet, since they rarely resorted to ancient manuscripts of Terence, while
it is clear that they were used to copying the quotations from each other.132
More than fifty years later there appeared the detailed work of Peter Josef
Hubert Mller, which provides a useful summary of the citations in the gram-
marians, with the aim of explaining how many differences from the direct
tradition of Terence can often be interpreted as banalizations and normal-
ization of the text due to school teachers work.133 But the greatest contribu-
tion to the study of the indirect tradition of Terence is that offered by a pupil
of Lindsay in the 1920s and 1930s, J.D. Craig, the author of a volume entitled
Ancient Editions of Terence.134 Craig examined the indirect tradition of Terence
from the beginning, but he focused mainly on Donatus, Nonius, and Arusianus
Messius. Afterwards he published a series of articles concerned with quota-
tions of Terence in Priscian, in Servius, and in Servius Auctus, and with Terence
and Donatus.135 After Craig, attention has been paid to the grammatical tradi-
tion by scholars who have dealt with the transmission of the text of Terence:
by Prete and Pasquali, for instance, and, more recently, Grant, Ceccarelli, and
Velaza.136 Besides, we must not forget those who, like Mario De Nonno, despite
not having published works devoted specifically to Terence, have also dealt
with the Latin dramatist in their studies on citations by grammarians.137
Often scholars who have studied the indirect tradition of Terence have tried
to identify the relationships that exist with the direct tradition, in order to
reconstruct the various stages of the transmission of the text. Some works have
also focused on the exegesis of individual passages, including those which, by
examining unexplored manuscripts, both of Terence and the grammarians,
have been able to shed new light on controversial passages. I will give here a
few instances of this kind of work.
The fifth chapter of Ceccarellis study of the Medieval tradition of Terence138
is entitled Contatti con la tradizione indiretta. Ceccarellis first example
132 Umpfenbach 1870 l: De fide grammaticorum, quorum quidem libri extant, quos etiam in
singulis uerbis et litteris de potae manu conseruanda et recuperanda religiose sollicitos
fuisse expectes, ideo derogandum esse constat, quod uix ullum ad ueteres Terenti libros
recurrisse, immo alium ex alio exempla transcripsisse apparet.
133 Mller 1926.
134 Craig 1929; his title echoes that of the more famous book by Lindsay on Plautus, The
Ancient Editions of Plautus, Oxford, 1904.
135 Craig 1930a, 1930b, 1931, and 1936.
136 Prete 1951, and his edition (1954) 367; Pasquali 1952; Grant 1986; Ceccarelli 1992; and
Velaza 2007a.
137 See e.g. De Nonno 1990c.
138 Ceccarelli 1992 5561.
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 131
shows how assumptions about the indirect tradition of Terence will never be
secure until we have access to more reliable collations, including of the wit-
nesses used in the most recent editions: the attribution of readings to manu-
scripts must be carefully checked. In An. 912 Lindsay-Kauers apparatus assigns
the true reading (lactas) to P and to Donatus, whereas Ceccarelli observes
that in reality even P has the incorrect iactas and the manuscripts Fl and M,139
ignored by the editors, preserve the right reading;140 it is likely that Donatus
commentary has influenced the choice in the two manuscripts.
De Nonno has studied a Beneventan manuscript of Priscian not used by
Martin Hertz for his edition published in Keils Grammatici Latini. This manu-
script, BAV, Vat. lat. 3313 (ninth century), which De Nonno proposed to des-
ignate by the letter Z, provides a text that in several places is better than the
other witnesses of Priscian and which in more than one case reveals itself to
be useful for the text of the archaic authors quoted.141 In An. 287 Z quotes this
line with the true reading (utraeque): the apparatus of critical editions that
assign to Priscian the wrong reading utraeque res need to be corrected.142 We
also find this wrong reading in manuscripts DGEv of Terence (see Lindsay-
Kauers apparatus ad loc.), so perhaps this tradition has negatively influenced
the other manuscripts of Priscian.
The study of the indirect tradition of Terence presents many obstacles,
mainly due to the large number of grammatical citations and to the fact that
the material has a heterogeneous origin, which does not allow common and
unique lines of interpretation. It is difficult in some cases to judge the correct-
ness of readings which completely disagree with the extant manuscript wit-
nesses, and also hard to understand the nature and origin of these quotations.
Last but not least there is the question of which Terence text was employed
by grammarians as the source of their quotations. On all these issues many
scholars have expressed views, often differing sharply from those of their pre-
decessors. In Craigs opinion the grammarians, since they share many readings
with the Bembinus against the Calliopians, employed manuscripts closer to
A. Craig agrees with Lindsays assumption that was created during a period
subsequent to the Roman grammarians, at the end of the fifth century. Sesto
139 Fl = Florence, BML, Conv. Soppr. 510; M = Munich, BSB, Clm 14420.
140 Ceccarelli 1992 55 and n. 1. Andrew Turner points out to me per litteras that lactas occurs
in another manuscript of Terence, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 231, and he
rightly suspects that it may be found in other witnesses too.
141 De Nonno 1977 and 1982.
142 De Nonno 1982 57 n. 1.
132 Monda
nam ego quae dico uera an falsa audierim iam sciri potest.
as for what Im telling you, it could find out now whether everything Ive
heard is true or false.
Priscians citation of the line agrees with against A in reading dixi and audieris
in place of dico and audierim, and even agrees with CP in omitting ego. Craig
observed that the quotation is transmitted only by the Priscian manuscripts
RD, and is bracketed by Hertz as a later edition, so its authority vanishes.150
However, the quotation and the whole additamentum entitled Proprietates
Latinorum are also in the good manuscript Z ignored by Hertz,151 and in P,
BnF, lat. 7530 (eighth century), the famous grammatical miscellany compiled
at Montecassino that has only a few excerpts from Priscians Institutiones. De
Nonno explains the additamenta which are found in part of the manuscript
tradition, like this, as notes made on the status of attached annotations, and
relates them to the layered nature of the material collected by Priscian and his
pupils for the compilation of the ars.152 This confirms that the line was indeed
cited by Priscian, who did not quote it loosely but employed a text that agrees
with . That scribes are not responsible for this misquotation is proved by the
fact that Priscians reading dixi represents the lemma that the grammarian was
illustrating.
Ph. 889 is quoted three times by Priscian, in the Institutiones (GL 3.26 and
3.109) and in the Partitiones (p. 127 [Passalacqua]). The standard text of the
lines is as follows:
149 Craig 1930a 72 provides no examples of Priscians accord with A, but believes it is enough
to refer to Umpfenbachs collection of passages (lixlxii).
150 Craig 1930a 701.
151 F. 281v. Unlike the manuscripts RD, where the long additamentum follows the incipit of
the Book XVII, in Z it is found after the explicit of Book XVI without any sign of division.
152 De Nonno 2009 26978.
134 Monda
just there, opposite the school where she had her lessons, there was a
barbers shop.
The issue here is the reading ilico (A), for which , Iouiales, and Priscian read
ei loco (loco in manuscripts of Gellius 6.7.4). Priscian in the Institutiones twice
quotes line 88 with ei loco, while in the Partitiones he omits ei loco (or ilico); the
phrase is redundant here, since Priscian cites the verse to illustrate the com-
pound adverb exaduersum. In Institutiones Book XIV (de praepositione), which
deals with the adverbs joined to cases (aduerbia quae solent casibus adiungi),
and which Roman grammarians have included among prepositions (Romani
artium scriptores inter praepositiones posuerunt), Priscian first recalls the use
of aduersum as a preposition in the sense of , through the example of An.
42 (loosely quoted), and then mentions the adverbial usage in the sense of
with our example from Ph. 889 (GL 3.26). The first line is quoted with
the transposition ei loco exaduersum.153 In Institutiones Book XVII (de construc
tione) the quotation is restricted to exaduersum ei loco (without transposition)
as an example of a compound of aduersum (GL 3.109).154 Craigs discussion is
unclear, and is complicated by the fact that he assumes the possibilitywhich
he fortunately decides to discardthat exaduersum is a preposition with the
dative ei loco.155 Even in the truncated citations of GL 3.26 and 3.109 ei loco is
redundant, and exaduersum would be enough to illustrate the adverb used
absolutely. It is hence possible that ei loco is a scribes interpolation introduced
from manuscripts of Terence (with an accidental transposition of ei loco exa
duersum, in place of s exaduersum ei loco, in GL 3.26). In this example, unlike
the previous one discussed above, the agreement between Priscian and the
Calliopians could therefore be due to scribal interference.156
Another example occurs in Priscians use of Ph. 7589, the commonly
accepted text of which reads:
153 Manuscript Z, f. 249r, has (ante corr.): ei loco aduersum tonstrina erat quaedam.
154 Ms. Z, f. 283r, has exaduersom ei loco.
155 Craig 1930a 71.
156 But it should be noted that, in the view of Jocelyn 1967 634, in Books XVII and XVIII
Priscian himself seems to have selected the Latin illustrations of the grammatical rules,
rather than deriving them directly from another grammarian he used as a source: so, exa
duersum ei loco (without transposition) in GL 3.109 (from the Book XVII) could even be
due to the grammarian.
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 135
offendi adueniens
quicum uolebam et ut uolebam conlocatam amari.
coming home, I found her given in marriage to the man I wanted and in
the way I wanted her to be loved.
Priscians Institutiones (GL 2.574) agrees with in giving the unmetrical con
locatam filiam157 against the reading conlocatam amari found in A.158 And,
finally, another error that Priscian shares with and the corrector of A is found
in the quotation of Ad. 608 ipsis coram at GL 3.226,159 in place of the original
reading in A of ipsi coram. Such examples show that there is little evidence that
Priscian used a text which was similar to that represented by the Bembinus.
Patterns of quotation from Terence in each grammar suggest that the ancient
scholars had access to a large selection of sources. The parallels come either
from their own reading or from some earlier grammarian or commentator. It
is possible that a grammarian took the words in an inaccurate form from his
authorities. Besides, scribal errors would explain a good many of the misquota-
tions. It thus requires great care to connect the Terence manuscript owned by
each grammarian to one of the two branches of the tradition. I still agree with
Umpfenbach when he says that none of the witnesses seem to agree with one
or the other branch of the manuscripts of Terence to such an extent that we
could argue a clear dependence on A or .160
The notable progress that has been achieved in the study of Terences manu-
script transmission has not succeeded in solving the problems caused by the
lack of a new critical edition founded on a larger number of manuscripts and
on more accurate collations. However, some improvement in editing Terences
text can be achieved by studying the indirect transmission: today we have a
better knowledge of the manuscript transmission of the grammarians, scholi-
157 So also Z, f. 224v. On the same folio the manuscript presents a different ending of
chapter 11. It is a second ending, separated from the first one by a simple Exp l. Our line is
cited a second time without variants: in both cases reads collocatam and the title is omit-
ted (in formione is always added supra lineam by the second hand). This ending, absent
from Hertzs edition, is published by De Nonno 1977 387 n. 4.
158 The verse is a iambic septenary (some editors adopt Faernus conjecture conlocatam
gnatam).
159 Confirmed by Z, f. 334r.
160 Umpfenbach 1870 lxviii: nullum autem ex testibus apparuit ita cum una uel altera familia
codicum Terentianorum conspirare ut ab eius auctoritate pendere dici possit.
136 Monda
asts and lexicographers and of their ways of citing archaic poetry. On the other
hand, it is impossible to include the Terence manuscripts employed by gram-
marians in a stemmatic analysis of the witnesses to the text of Terence. For
the purposes of textual criticism, it is more fruitful to turn to the quotations
when the direct tradition is not satisfactory, or when a quotation has a reading
in many respects better than that of A and : this is what we generally expect
from the indirect tradition and it is better not to ask any more of the ancient
grammarians.
Appendix
161 Volume numbers and pages refer to Grammatici Latini (GL) edited by H. Keil, the ordering
of which I reproduce in this list. When there are more recent editions, these are men-
tioned immediately after Keils.
Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians 137
Andrew J. Turner
I am Davus, not Oedipus. With these words, the slave Davus in Andria
expresses his perplexity at remarks by his elderly master, Simo, equating him
with the Sphinx and implying that his statements are just as enigmatic as hers.1
Simo is trying to have his son Pamphilus married off to the noble girl next door,
and so bring an end to his scandalous relationship with the woman whom he
believes to be a prostitute; Davus, on the other hand, is fiercely devoted to
Pamphilus, and is trying desperately to postpone the unwanted marriage by
any means. With statements such as this he pleads his ignorance of the true
state of affairs to the old man, while trying desperately to come up with a solu-
tion to this problem.
As long as a general knowledge of basic Greek myths could be assumed,
Late-Antique commentators on Terence had no need to explicate this remark
in terms of who Oedipus was. The surviving version of the commentary of
Aelius Donatus, who wrote some time in the fourth century AD, focuses rather
on the hidden meaning of this line, its rhetoric, and a grammatical point. In
one of the most important early manuscripts of Terence, Paris, BnF, lat. 7899,
or P, probably written in the second half of the ninth century,2 a portion of
Donatus commentary on Andria was included by an early scholiast; on f. 8r
this commentary states with regard to this line:
1 For a similar usage of the myth of Oedipus and the Sphinx in Plautus, see Pl. Poen. 4434.
2 For the date, see Wright 2006 192 (well along in the second half of the ninth century),
although the detailed description by the Bibliothque nationale provided on the Gallica
website also notes that the issue of an accurate date is pineuse, citing arguments both for
the period of Louis the Pious (i.e. before 840) and the end of the ninth century; see Gallica
2012a.
A compound insult; for he could have said that the old man is just like
the Sphinx (that is, ugly and similar to a monster); he could also, by
mentioning Oedipus, be promising that he would be an avenger and the
destroyer of the old mans cleverness. I am Davus, not Oedipus. Wittily he
denies that he is Oedipus, so that he might confirm that the old man is
the Sphinx. There are two kinds of mockery; necessity introduces some
words, intention introduces others. Not Oedipus. If you should say it the
Latin way, the genitive will come out as Oedipi; if Greek, Oedipodis.
3 The text in P is substantially that found in the edition of Wessner 1902, with the omission of
a short, repetitive phrase (potest etiam inhumanum et ferum ut sphinx) in line 2. It has long
been recognized that the surviving text of Donatus commentary is garbled, most probably
due to the transmission of the work; see Zetzel 1975 33940; Victor 2013 3538.
4 I discuss this problematic text in detail in a forthcoming article, The Ghent Manuscript of
Terence and its Intellectual Environment.
5 In Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 3868, or C, it is found on f. 6v (although not reported in Schlee
1893); this gloss also occurs in Z (Paris, BnF, lat. 7903) on f. 6r, v (Valenciennes, BM 448) on
f. 5v, and Ld (Leiden, UB, LIP 26) on f. 5v. Bruns 1811 printed alias mendacissimus (40).
The same gloss appears as well in the other main glossing tradition from this period, the
Commentum Monacense, or CM; for the complex relationship of this commentary to the CB
and other collections of scholia and glosses, see Schorsch 2011 2032.
140 Turner
6 The manuscript pages were trimmed in the sixteenth century to 261 by 215 mm, and the
text of Terence is written in a block of 25 lines per page, measuring on average 173 139 mm
(Wright 2006 192; Gallica 2012a). The top margin on each page is generally reserved for run-
ning titles, and the left margin for rubricated character tags, but the outer margins on each
recto provide roughly 65 to 80 mm of blank space, while the bottom margin usually provides
around 50 to 55 mm.
7 For the date, see Munk Olsen 19821989, 2.627. The description in Gallica dates these glosses
to the tenth century; see Gallica 2012a.
8 These added comments are partially edited in Kauer 1911.
9 Discussed at length in Turner 2010.
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 141
particular line which appear in various Medieval witnesses,10 but it also looks
at these glosses in P in the context of detailed Carolingian and later French
scholarship. In doing so, it will attempt to demonstrate how scholars studied
this deluxe manuscript of Terence at different periods of its existence, and
drew on a whole array of material, some of which accurately preserved the
intellectual traditions of Late Antiquity.
dipus filius lay et iocaste [four or five words illegible] expostus est,
propterea quod layus pater eius in responsis audierat se a suo filio inter-
ficiendum. inuentus autem a pastoribus | ad polibum regem delatus est,
qui carens herede eum tamquam filium nutriuit. qui postquam adultus
est patrem suum occidit, cum matre concubuit, ex qua et duos | filios
ethioclem et polinicem genuit, oculos sibi eruit, solutoque ante proble-
mate spinga de rupe deiecit.
Oedipus the son of Laius and Iocasta...was exposed, for the reason that
his father Laius had heard in oracular responses that he had to be killed
by his own son. However, he was found by shepherds and brought to
King Polybus, who lacking an heir raised him as if he were a son. After he
became an adult he killed his own father, he slept with his mother, from
whom he also fathered two sons, Eteocles and Polynices, he plucked out
his eyes, and previously having solved the riddle he cast the sphinx down
from the cliff.
Following iocaste in the first line, there are five or six words which are difficult
to decipher, especially given the loss of any abbreviation marks or suspensions;
the first two may possibly be a matre; the next two may perhaps be in quadam;
there is a word of five or so letters which appears to be struck through; then
finally another word of four or five letters beginning with f or s, just possibly
silua.12 The form expostus has been conjectured here, for while there is no
descender visible for the s, a form of expono seems to be required because of
the context of this passage and the other stubs of letters which are now just
visible. There are no traces extant of the extra minim which would be required
to give expositus, although it may possibly have been squeezed in above the
level of the other letters. If the reading expostus is correct it may have some
significance for the literary aspirations or sources of this writer, who also uses
the Greek accusative Sphinga instead of the Latinised form Sphingem; expostus
is rare and literary in its usage, appearing in works by Cato the Elder, Vergil,
Silius Italicus, Statius, and Fronto.13
With regard to possible sources for this note, Villa has already noted in her
survey of manuscript annotations on this line how the early scholiasts attrib-
uted their knowledge of this story to their reading of Seneca and Statius,14 but
it is also apparent that scholiasts drew on earlier stages of commentary tradi-
tions, both on Terence and other classical authors, for their information. Thus
the wording of the phrases cum matre concubuit, ex qua et duos filios ethioclem
et polinicem genuit has affinities with a scholion in the extensive series of addi-
tions to Servius commentary on Vergil known as Servius Danielis or Servius
Auctus; referring to Vergils description of the madness of Pentheus, Servius
Danielis comments:
We can assume then either that the scholiast or his model compiled this note
incorporating text from Servius Danielis as well as other sources, or that both
the P-scholiast and Servius Danielis owe their notes to a mutual source. With
respect to the latter, modern criticism has established that the additions in
Servius Danielis demonstrate a far more learned level of literary criticism than
Servius (whose work in any case was aimed at the education of the young), and
that the most probable source for these additional comments is the lost com-
mentary on Vergil by Donatus himself.15 A lengthy gloss in another Terence
manuscript dating from the eleventh century, Ld (Leiden, UB, LIP 26), which
recounts the legends of Danae and Perseus, contains wording which has many
parallels to Servius Danielis as well as other Late-Antique sources, and this sug-
gests strongly that materials deriving from Donatus were still circulating in this
period and being used by scholiasts on Terence.16
Another possible source for the scholion, the lost argumentum to Book 1
of the collection of scholia on Statius, edited probably in the fourth or fifth
century by Lactantius Placidus, will be discussed later in this chapter in the
context of a fifteenth-century account of the Oedipus legend. In any case, if
the gloss in P derives from this lost part of the Statius commentary, or else a
mutual source to that of Servius Danielis, it should transmit data from a phase
of literary scholarship when there was good access to ancient literary tradi-
tions since lost.
A key aspect of the Oedipus scholion in P is the statement at the conclusion
that Oedipus killed the Sphinx by casting her down from her cliff (spinga de
rupe deiecit). This statement contradicts the version of the myth widely known
today, which has the Sphinx throwing herself down from a cliff or the acro
polis of Thebes, once Oedipus solves the riddle. Detailed Greek versions of
this latter story appear in the first-century BC encyclopaedist Diodorus Siculus
and the Bibliotheca falsely attributed to Apollodorus, which dates to the first
15 For a comparison of the treatment of Roman republican authors in both Servius and
Servius Danielis, and the evidence this provides for the lost Donatus commentary, see
Lloyd 1961; for evidence for linguistic usage in Servius Danielis (and thus Donatus) Maltby
2005.
16 This comment and its affinities both to Servius and the Mythographi Vaticani will be
treated in depth in my forthcoming article (see n. 4 above).
144 Turner
or second century AD.17 In Latin the story appears in the Fabulae attributed
to Hyginus (Oedipus Lai filius uenit et carmen est interpretatus: illa se praecipi
tauit, Oedipus the son of Laius came and interpreted the riddle, and she cast
herself down; Hyg. Fab. 57.5), dating to either the first century BC or second
century AD.18
But earlier Greek versions of the myth, which appear at first to have
recounted simply how Oedipus freed the Boeotian countryside from the ter-
ror of the Sphinx, without any reference to the riddle,19 also provided variants
which described how Oedipus first solved the riddle, then slew the monster.
Euripides, for instance, states:
,
(E. Ph. 15047)
Our extant classical Latin literary sources dealing with this story are at best
unclear about whether the Sphinx was killed by Oedipus, or whether she killed
herself.20 Nevertheless, throughout the Medieval period the predominant
view for Latin writers must have been that the Sphinx killed herself, since in
De ciuitate Dei, a central work in almost every monastery collection, Augustine
states that Oedipus soluto...quaestione suo praecipitio perire compulerit (hav-
ing solved the question, forced her to perish from her precipice, Aug. Civ. 18.13).
The other variant storynamely that Oedipus killed the Sphinxdoes indeed
appear in both versions of the Mythographi Vaticani, composed between the
ninth and eleventh centuries,21 although it is uncertain how widely these
works circulated, being known now from only two manuscripts predating
the fifteenth century.22 Moreover, both versions of the Mythographi change
the gender of the Sphinx from feminine to masculine,23 and so it is uncertain
whether the scribes might have taken other liberties with the story, and inde-
pendently have reinstated the rle of Oedipus as a monster-slayer.24
The comment in P about Oedipus killing the Sphinx may similarly be an
inspired conjecture by a late commentator with no real detailed knowledge of
the classical world. But if it does in fact derive ultimately from a source such as
Donatus, it could also preserve accurately the original tradition as presented
by an earlier scholar who had access to a whole range of archaic sources, both
Latin and Greek.25 The following section will attempt to shed more light on
this problem, by looking at the questions of the date and script of the gloss,
then the broader questions of its relationship to the other glosses in P, their
sources, and glosses in other manuscripts.
any reference to Iocasta (iussit exponi; Hyg. Fab. 66.1). Unfortunately, the uncertainty about
readings in the first line of the Oedipus scholion caused by cropping prevents us from
being conclusive on this point.
26 See Gallica 2012a; Wright 2006 197.
27 See Turner 2010 41; Gallica 2012a (au Xe s.?).
28 Catch-words were written by the corrector at the bottom of the illustration on f. 52v, just
above the patch, and directing the reader to text for Eu. 64351 supplied on the oppo-
site folio (f. 53r). It appears that a further reference mark was later squeezed above these
catch-words by B, who then wrote a scene heading just above the supplied text on f. 53r.
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 147
interlinear and marginal notes. The first may be of the tenth century; the sec-
ond, whose script inclines to the cursive, probably belongs to the eleventh, or
even a later century.29 By the first, Jones and Morey clearly meant D, and in
order to illustrate the second, they specifically cited the scholion on f. 8 (the
top of margin).30
Jones and Morey also drew attention to a series of labels for characters in the
illustrations of this manuscript, which often duplicate the contents of the origi-
nal character labels provided by the rubricator in the ninth century, and which
were in fact written by B; they state that: Extra labels (by a hand resembling
that of the second scholiast) are frequently set down under the miniatures in
slate brown minuscules.31 Although they did not give a specific date for these
labels, other than their general statement that the second scholiast on f. 8r
belonged to the eleventh century or later, it is nevertheless a fundamental
part of their argument concerning the origins of the illustrated Terence manu-
script Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. F. 2. 13, or O, that many of the labels
in O were copied directly from the minuscule labels in P.32 Consequently, they
must have assumed that the labels of B were written before the labels in O,
which can be dated to the twelfth century, most probably to its second half.33
The argument of Jones and Morey that the twelfth-century labels in O must
to an extent be copies of those of B is flawed for a number of reasons. In our
digital edition of O, which had access to far better quality images than any
available to Jones and Morey, Bernard Muir and I were able to show that the
illustrations and the character labels in O were made on top of rough, pre-
liminary sketches drawn in lead point; the labels in O cited by Jones and Morey
are those written by the rubricator, largely on top of these earlier labels, in
the final stages of preparation of the manuscript. In fact, where they can be
read, the original labels in O correspond closely in terms of their spelling to
the Carolingian majuscule labels in P (as well those in other early members of
the illustrated -manuscripts of Terence), rather than to the minuscule labels
of B.34 The fact that the rubricator ignored these prompts before him may be
evidence that he deliberately set out to modernise the spellings of the names
of the characters, but it is still not proof that he copied the minuscule labels
in P, since the alternative spellings he used are found also in the scholia in O
taken from the CB, which were written by the main scribe as part of the first
stage of copying the manuscript,35 and which must have been taken from a
manuscript other than P.36 The argument that the rubricator of O took his
spellings from those in B is in fact based on an underlying assumption that
O was copied directly from P, and so is not conclusive evidence that this is the
truth of the matter; rather, there are a whole range of arguments, already used
by other critics, to show that O was in fact copied from another deluxe manu-
script of Terence denoted .37
In recent discussions, a much later dating has been given to B. David
Wright drew attention to a fifteenth-century ex libris in the bottom margin of
folio 41r indicating ownership by the Benedictine abbey of Saint-Denis, and
continued:
35 Thus Bachis, Traso, and Eschinus are cited by Jones and Morey 1931 2.83 as evidence for
O copying from B (in place of Bacchis, Thraso, and Aeschinus), but each of these vari-
ants is already found in the scholia in O (cf. ff. 76v, 54v, 101r). For discussion of the various
stages of production for O, see Muir and Turner 2011 Introduction 1.4.
36 There are in fact strong affinities between the scholia in O and a series of scholia copied
into Ld, which was produced and glossed at St Peters, Ghent, in the eleventh century;
these will be discussed in my forthcoming article on the subject (see n. 4 above).
37 For a detailed discussion of the history of this argument and evaluation of the evidence,
see Muir and Turner 2011 Introduction 5.3.
38 Wright 2006 197.
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 149
on f. 167v, and proposes that these glosses may have been written by a scholar
working in the circle of Guillaume Fichet (14331480/90), whose press pro-
duced an edition of Terence in 1472; this scholar is likely to have collated one
or more other manuscripts of Terence in order to produce his comments.39
These recent descriptions represent a substantial shift in dating the work
of B from the opinions of Jones and Morey,40 although this does not imply
that the commentators work has no connection with Late-Antique or Early
Medieval scholarship on Terence; in fact the subsequent discussion will show
that the opposite seems to be the case. As a first step, though, it is necessary to
look at the question of the relationship of the Oedipus scholion to B, picking
up on Jones and Moreys assumption that they were roughly contemporary;
any wide discrepancy in dating would naturally suggest that they have no con-
nection with each other in terms of their intellectual content.41
The Oedipus scholion is written in a darker ink and with a thinner nib than
B, but many, if not all, of the abbreviations and letter forms are identical in
the two scripts. Particularly striking is the form of the encliticque in solu
toque in line 3; this is formed from two elements and is separated from the first
part of the word by a space, and precisely the same form is found in B (good
examples occur on ff. 25r and 96v).42 B uses the same abbreviations as the
Oedipus scholion in line 1 for propterea (e.g. f. 134r), and in line 2 for tamquam
(f. 126r) and patrem (f. 160r). Besides the more common contractions and sus-
pensions, the Insular 9 abbreviation for cum/con in line 2 of the Oedipus scho-
lion is also found in B (f. 30r contendit, contradixit, and on f. 160r cum potius),
the same form of pro in line 3 (probleumate) occurs on f. 30r (prologo), while
the contraction for re which appears in line 2 in herede also occurs throughout
B (cf. reprehendens on f. 160r). With regard to individual letter forms, both
the Oedipus scholion and B distinguish between initial and medial s on the
39 Gallica 2012a.
40 In my previous discussion of the B scholia (Turner 2010) I in fact followed Jones and
Morey for issues relating to dating; I first came across the more accurate description of
Gallica 2012a in the Bibliothque nationale in January 2011, when it was only available on
an internal server in the library.
41 The description of Gallica 2012a in fact attributed the Oedipus scholion to the twelfth
century, stating: plusieurs glossateurs (au moins deux) sont intervenus entre les Xe (pour
le glossateur principal) et XIIe s. (cf. marge sup. au f. 8). This may, however, have been a
simple error, uncorrected because the text was only intended for in-house publication; in
the subsequent discussion there is another similar error when discussing additional text
on f. 53r, which is dated both to the fifteenth and tenth centuries.
42 Readers interested in comparing these details are recommended to consult the high-
quality images of P available in Gallica 2012a.
150 Turner
one hand, and final s on the other, using very similar forms of the latter; in
both hands initial and medial s sometimes have a tail, and sometimes just
a plain shaft. The letters t and x are formed similarly, while d always has a
slanting ascender. In short, when the differences caused by nib and ink colour
are taken into account, it becomes hard to argue anything else than that both
the Oedipus scholion and B were written in hands from the same period and
perhaps the same scribal school, if indeed they are not the work of the same
scribe, writing perhaps in a less formal hand at the top of f. 8r.
If we accept that these comments are the work of the same scribe, or at least
part of the same phase of glossing P, is it also possible to narrow down their
date with any greater certainty? The Gallica description, while suggesting that
the comments of B may have emanated from the circle of Guillaume Fichet
c.1470, also admits that comparison with Fichets autograph manuscripts does
not allow definite identification of him as the scholar at work here.43 Further
palaeographical work may indeed succeed in identifying this hand with greater
certainty, particularly as more materials become available online, but what can
already be demonstrated is that the character labels of B bear strong resem-
blances to those from a somewhat earlier phase of Terence scholarship than
that of Fichet and his circle, namely the production at the beginning of the fif-
teenth century of a new group of illustrated manuscripts of Terence in artistic
workshops in Paris, especially the lavishly illustrated witnesses Paris BnF, lat.
7907A and Bibliothque de lArsenal 664 (or the Trence des ducs).44
BnF 7907A appears to have been written and illustrated between 1400 and
1407,45 and was presented to Duc Jean de Berry at New Year 1408, while Arsenal
664 seems to have been written and illustrated a few years later,46 although it
is uncertain to what extent it may be a copy of BnF 7907A, as has been argued.47
In BnF 7907A labels were at first written inside the illustration frames in gold
43 [S]i la comparaison avec les mss. autographes de celui-ci ne permet pas de lui attribuer
de manire certaine ces interventions, Gallica 2012a.
44 For attribution of the manuscripts to workshops in Paris, see Meiss 1974 1.412, Avril 1975
45, Sterling 19871990 1.324.
45 Gallica 2011a (14001407); Meiss 1974 1.43 (a year or two before 1408).
46 Meiss 1974 1.43 dated it on art-historical considerations to well after Berrys Terence
[i.e. BnF 7907A], although in fact his discussion in the preceding pages suggested a date
of around 141012 (1.412), and this rough date is also accepted by Bozzolo (14111412
Bozzolo 1984 97 [=2004 149]). Tesnire and Villela-Petit 2004 2412 first discuss BnF 7907A,
then date Arsenal 664 to environ trois ans plus tard (i.e. c.1410/11).
47 Meiss 1974 1.41 argued that it was a direct copy, but his conclusions have been drawn into
question, since Arsenal 664 contains illustrations for scenes left blank in BnF 7907A; see
Tesnire and Villela-Petit 2004 242, Gallica 2011a.
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 151
lettering and above the relevant character, merely giving his or her name, but
beginning with the illustration to An. 5.4 on f. 23r an additional rubric is writ-
ten beneath the picture giving the names of the characters as well as epithets,
and these rubrics continue in a haphazard fashion throughout the manu-
script (they are missing for most of Eunuchus and the first part of Heauton
timorumenos). In Arsenal 664 the labels are written as rubrics at the foot of
each scene illustration. The character labels could have been added in each
manuscript in the last stages of compilationthey are noticeably absent in
the third extant member of this group of early fifteenth-century manuscripts,
BnF, lat. 8193, in which the text was written in full before the illustrations were
only partially sketched.48 However, many of them are also found in a fourth
witness, BnF lat. 7907, copied c.1440 and intended for illustration, although this
was never started (blank spaces were left at the start of each scene throughout
the manuscript).49
As can be seen from Appendix 1, the wording of the character labels in
BnF 7907A and Arsenal 664 at times coincides almost exactly with that of B,
although it is not found in this precise format in the majuscule labels in P or
indeed in other extant illustrated manuscripts of Terence, including O. Thus
the label for An. 5.4 reads Crito chremes symo senes tres pamphilus adulescens
in all three sources, with minor variations in spelling (BnF 7907A reads adule
scens, whereas both B and Arsenal 664 read adolescens).50 In two scenes in
Eunuchus which have a large number of characters B and Arsenal 664 both
give labels in an identical order and with the same epithets which contrast with
the majuscule labels in P,51 while other lists of characters in B and Arsenal 664
frequently show identical epithets, which again contrast with the majuscule
labels.52 Although, as already mentioned, character labels are missing in large
parts of BnF 7907A, when they do appear they occasionally approximate better
48 Although Meiss 1974 1.48 also noted that brief directions in French for the illustrator were
written above the figures in BnF 8193, corresponding also to directions in BnF 7907A
which can be read using ultra-violet.
49 For description and dating, see Bozzolo 1984 99102 [2004 1514].
50 By way of comparison, the scene label for An. 5.4 in O on f. 30v reads PAMPHILVS CRITO
CHREMES SIMO.
51 See Appendix 1 for the labels for Eu. 3.2 and 4.7. In P the majuscule labels for Eu. 3.2 (f. 47r)
appear to be later in date than other majuscule character labels; they are abbreviated, and
written in a black ink (see Jones and Morey 1931 2.83). Nevertheless, the minuscule labels
here in P also contrast with the order of the characters in the illustration, conforming
instead to the order of speakers in this scene.
52 E.g. Ad. 1.2 (demea micio fratres senes [majuscule: DEMEA MICIO SENES II]).
152 Turner
the label in B than does Arsenal 664.53 There are also many minor agreements
in the spelling of proper names in all three sources (e.g. Simo, Traso, Bachis,
Frigia), although as the previous discussion has already intimated, these spell-
ings go back much further than the fifteenth century, and indeed were instru-
mental in misleading Jones and Morey to suppose that the labels in O were a
direct copy of B.
Despite omissions and variants, there is enough firm evidence to show that
the labels in BnF 7907A and Arsenal 664, as well as those in BnF 7907, derive
independently from the same immediate source.54 As well, this group of labels
corresponds at times quite precisely with the B labels in P, although these
labels are also absent for parts of this manuscript, notably in Ad. 3.35.555 and
Ph. 5.25.9, where they are present in the three other witnesses.
The relationship of the B labels to those in the fifteenth-century witnesses
becomes all the more significant when we consider that they are all illustrated
manuscripts. Millard Meiss made important initial observations from a careful
examination of the composition and the imagery of the pictures in BnF 7907A
and Arsenal 664, concluding that the artwork in the fifteenth-century witnesses
(regardless of their relationship with each other) had a definite relationship to
the Carolingian illustrated traditions,56 and whereas the texts of Terence and
commentaries contained in them may have been quite independent,57 there
are some elements in the fifteenth-century cycle of illustration which seem
to have been strongly influenced by the earlier tradition. The two slaves who
53 Thus for Hec. 5.1 both B and BnF 7907A give the correct bachis meretrix laches senex,
whereas Arsenal 664 has only Bachis meretrix; for Ph. 1.3 B has antipho et phedria ado
lescentes, Arsenal 664 has Antipho. Phedria. adolescens [sic] duo, while BnF 7907A has
antipho phedria adulescentes duo.
54 In BnF 7907 the commentary of Laurent de Premierfait is copied into the body of the text
up to Eu. 1.1 on f. 55r, and for the same part of the manuscript the labels of BnF 7907A and
Arsenal 664 are found written as complete sentences; thus the rubric for An. 5.4 on f. 47r
reads Scena quinta [sic] sequitur in qua Crhito Crhemes Simo senes tres et Pamphilus ado
lescens collocuntur. However, it can also be noted that after this point, the commentary of
Laurent is no longer included, and the copyist reverts to the forms of the labels as they are
found in the earlier illustrated manuscripts, agreeing sometimes with Arsenal 664 (e.g.,
for Eu 3.2 on f. 65r, omitted in BnF 7907A), and once with BnF 7907A against Arsenal 664
(for Ad. 5.4 on f. 152r).
55 Only three scenes in this part of P have labels by B, one of them incomplete.
56 Meiss 1974 1.467.
57 The commentaries in BnF 7907A and Arsenal 664 at any rate are independent of the com-
mentary notes in P, and derive in part from the Commentum Laurentii, written by the
French humanist scholar Laurent de Premierfait (c.1360/701418); see Villa 1981b, Bozzolo
1984 [2004], and Riou 1997 445.
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 153
assist Sosia with wedding preparations in An. 1.1 are not mentioned in the
text of Terence, but they appear in all the Carolingian witnesses and also the
two later manuscripts,58 while there are also elements in both BnF 7907A and
Arsenal 664 which recall the pictures in P strongly.59 Moreover, the Carolingian
manuscripts also pioneered a technique whereby a character could be shown
twice in the same illustration, in positions which reflected his role at two dif-
ferent moments of the same scene; this technique occurs twice in the original
Carolingian cycle of illustrations, at Hec. 3.4 and 5.4.60 In the fifteenth century
manuscripts it is used very frequently (just in Andria it occurs six times in both
BnF 7907A and Arsenal 664);61 nevertheless, given the apparent dependence of
the fifteenth-century manuscripts on earlier illustrated versions of Terence, it
seems possible that this technique was adapted from them, following a careful
study of all the images.
Illustrated manuscripts of Terence were comparatively rare, particularly
those which included a full cycle of illustrations,62 and if there is any one can-
didate among our extant witnesses for being studied by artists working in Paris
in the early fifteenth century, it must be P itself, which was at the monastery
library of Saint-Denis at precisely this time.63 Of course, P need not have been
Donatus and the Oedipus scholion in P are by no means the only Late-Antique
or Medieval sources which comment on An. 194. In BnF, lat. 7902, an eleventh-
century manuscript which may possibly have been written and glossed in
Fleury,64 a scholion with very close similarities in wording to that in P (marked
with italics), appears on f. 4v:
(-suo, cod.?) in Francia (f. 41r). For the suggestion that the classical influences in the
series of illustrations in these manuscripts may be due to the influence of a connais-
seur particulirement averti des ressources des bibliothques monastiques de la rgion
parisienne et de la valle de la Loire, see Avril 1975 46. This scholar has been identified
tentatively as Laurent de Premierfait, the author of the commentary in both BnF 7907A
and Arsenal 664; see Bozzolo 1984 1256; Tesnire and Villela-Petit 2004 241.
64 Munk Olsen 19821989, 2.629; Vernet 1959 356.
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 155
edipus fuit filius laii et iocaste nutritusque a polipo rege patrem suum
occidit, cum matre sua concubuit, occulos sibimet effodit solutoque antea
probleumate spinga monstrum de rupe proiecit.
Oedipus was the son of Laius and Iocasta and raised by King Polybus he
killed his own father, he slept with his mother, he plucked out his eyes,
and previously having solved the riddle he threw the monstrous sphinx
down from the cliff.
The scholia in BnF 7902 are written in a Late Caroline minuscule hand roughly
contemporary to the main hand of the text, and seem to come from a variety of
sources. In the margins of f. 1v there are extracts from the Excerpta de comoe
dia, a work which circulated as part of the prefatory materials to Donatus com-
mentary on Terence, and other comments deriving from Donatus are included
in the margins,65 while the opening scholion on An. 1.1 on f. 2v is modelled on
the Commentum Brunsianum. After f. 5v the commentary becomes relatively
sparse, and marginal comments cease altogether at the beginning of Hau. 3.2
on f. 37r (the manuscript has 80 folios in total). At the opening of Eunuchus on
f. 17v, however, the scholiast copied two synopses of the lost Greek play The
saurus mentioned by Terence in Eu. 10. The first of these has a number of
verbal similarities to a synopsis of the same play in P written by B, which is
closely related to an account found in the twelfth-century commentary usually
known as the Commentarius recentior.66
The same gloss on Oedipus from BnF 7902 was identified by Villa in two
Italian manuscripts of the eleventh or twelfth century now in Florence, BML
Conv. Soppr. 510 (f. 3v), and BML San Marco 244 (f. 5v);67 the only significant
addition to the text in either is the word reginae in apposition to iocastae in the
opening line. However, both manuscripts then provide short accounts of the
65 E.g. the commentary note on An. 245 on f. 5v (inuenustus dicitur ille cui displicens obicitur,
infelix cui placens negatur).
66 The scholion in P was first discussed in Turner 2010, but see also below in this chapter. BnF
7902 (f. 17v) reads in part homo quidam parcus fuit habens filium nimis largum...omnem
fere substantiam in sepulchro abscondit precepitque filio ut in decimo anno sibi cibum
attulisset in sepulcro, while B (f. 30r) has senex quidam habens filium prodigum in agro
suo fodit sepulchrum; ibique deposuit thesaurum. moriens praecepit filio ut in octauo anno
sepulchrum effunderet et sibi sacrificaret. Despite the substitution of synonyms and the
difference in the period of years, there are sufficient parallels here to show a common
source for the two glosses.
67 Villa 1981a 49. For descriptions, see Munk Olsen 19821989, 2.608 and 60910; he dates the
glosses in San Marco 244 to the twelfth century.
156 Turner
Sphinxs riddle which differ in terms of their structure but not their contents;
the version in Conv. Soppr. 510 is unfortunately illegible in part, possibly due to
water damage, but the version of San Marco 244 reads as follows:
68 Of the recentiores listed by Villa 2007 312, I have examined versions in Bern,
Brgerbibliothek, 411 (f. 165r), Copenhagen, KB, GKS 1995 (f. 2v), and Brussels, KBB,
532829 (f. 25v); only Copenhagen, KB, GKS 1995 describes him as Edippus pater ethio
clis et pollinicis. The later commentary of Laurent de Premierfait (see Bozzolo 1984 1212
[=2004 1723]) merely supplies the information that Oedipus was the son of Laius, and in
addition it concludes its account of the solution of the riddle by stating that the Sphinx
allowed Oedipus to depart unharmed (Edippum incolumen permisit abire; BnF 7907 f. 11v).
69 Described in Kulcsr 1987 viiiix. This manuscript, with the siglum V, belongs to the col-
lection MV II, which Heinze 2013 dates between the ninth and eleventh century.
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 157
Laius king of Thebes had a wife by the name of Iocasta, whom he ordered
to kill all sons fathered by him, for he had heard that he had to be slain by
his own children. She, giving birth to a boy, had the soles of his feet bored
through, and ordered him to be carried into a forest. In the same forest
Polybus the king of Phocis had been busy with a hunt, and hearing the
wailing of the boy and ordering him to be carried away he raised him as
if he was his own, and called him Oedipus...and when he arrived [at the
temple], his father, of decrepit old age, encountered him, and when he
saw him, not knowing he was his father he killed him, and enjoyed both
his realm and his other possessions. He came to the mountain where
the monstrous Sphinx was, proposing this riddle to all passers bywhat
walks first on 4 feet, then 3, then 2, then 3, then 4?on the condition that
whoever solved it, could cut the wings off her, but who did not, would be
decapitated. Oedipus solved this and killed the monster. Returning there
from Thebes unknowingly he took his mother Iocasta as his wife, and
fathered from her Polynices and Eteocles and two daughters, Antigone
and Ismene. And when this man one day was putting on his boots, his
mother saw the scars made on him and recognizing him groaned wretch-
edly. And he, stirred up by grief, plucked out his eyes, and brought an end
to his life in an underground chamber.
70 The standard formulation of this riddle (first four feet, then two, then three) is found
in Apollodorus (Apollod. Bibliotheca 3.5.8), although even in Greek accounts there is
some variation; thus Diodorus Siculus phrases the riddle as , ,
(what is the same thing with two feet and three and four?; D.S. 4.64.3). The
version which appears in the Vatican manuscript has in any case parallels in earlier Latin
scholia; thus a scholion in the twelfth-century manuscript Brussels, KBB, 532829 reads:
quid esset quod primum esset quadrupes, postea tripes, postea bipes, et iterum tripes, et
postea quadrupes? (f. 25v).
71 indulgentem tenebris imaeque recessu sedis inaspectos caelo radiisque penates seruantem,
keeping to the shadows and the cavern of his deep hall, maintaining a household unseen
by heaven and the rays of the sun, Stat. Theb. 1.4951.
72 Schol. Stat. Theb. 1.61; see Edmunds 1976 141.
73 Schol. Stat. Theb. 1.64. For attribution of the origin of this error in both sources to a mis-
reading of Statius line, which refers in part to Polybus and in part to Laius death in
Phocis, see Edmunds 1976 1467.
74 Edmunds 1976 142.
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 159
Turning now to the other B scholia in P, it can be remarked first that these
notes are necessarily incomplete; although isolated examples are found in the
first 9 folios (including the Oedipus scholion and some character labels), the
densely written work of the D scholiast did not leave very much room at all
for comments by anyone else. Moreover, the B scholia cease altogether from
Phormio 5.2 onwards,79 suggesting that the glossator finally gave up at this
point. Like the Oedipus gloss, these notes often present great difficulty to the
reader, since they are highly abbreviated and degenerate sometimes into illeg-
ible scrawls. What is really required (but far beyond the scope of this book) is
a complete edition of them, allowing a proper and detailed comparison with
other glossed manuscripts of Terence. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the follow-
ing survey will point out some broad tendencies in the glosses by B, showing
their affiliations with some glossing traditions, as well as (at times) a strong
degree of originality in their wording.
Throughout the manuscript the B scholiast duplicated comments or anno-
tations which were already present in P. The character labels have already
79 The final intervention by B is an interlinear gloss on f. 168v to Ph. 768 (line 3 of Ph. 5.2).
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 161
80 See the tabulation of selected labels in Appendix 1. Isolated labels for Adelphoe occur for
Ad. 3.4 (f. 109r) and 5.1 (f. 118r).
81 For his dates see Elvers 2013.
82 See Muir and Turner 2011 Introduction 5.2.
83 For listings of tenth to twelfth-century witnesses, see Munk Olsen 19821989, 2.590 (#66),
and for fifteenth-century witnesses from the BnF and Berlin, Geppert 1852 35.
162 Turner
84 For a description of Royal 15.A. xii, which belonged to the priory of Dover, see Munk Olsen
19821989, 2.61920; for a listing of the French witnesses, Geppert 1852 41.
85 For Phormio, BnF 7907 and 7907A similarly first give an anonymous argumentum found
in other fifteenth-century manuscripts (see Geppert 1852 43), and follow it with that of
Sulpicius prefixed with the words aliud argumentum. The same anonymous argumentum,
as well as the words aliud argumentum prefixing that of Sulpicius, are found in another
twelfth-century witness, London, BL, Harley 2656 (described in Munk Olsen 19821989,
2.617).
86 E.g. Sulp. Apoll. perioch. Ter. Hec. 7, where B (f. 126r) reads reuertitur for reuenit in the
majuscule text on f. 125v; reuenit is found in other -witnesses besides P, while reuertitur
is attested in mixed manuscripts, including F (see the collations in Marouzeau 19421949,
Kauer and Lindsay 1926).
87 On f. 66v for Sulp. Apoll. perioch. Ter. Hau. 8 B reads factum (=AD1p1) for fictum in P and
other -witnesses; on f. 96v for Sulp. Apoll. perioch. Ter. Ad. 10 B omits et (=AC). On f. 96v
B agrees with the other Medieval witnesses in giving 3 lines in place of the single line in
A (Sulp. Apoll. perioch. Ter. Ad. 12), but agrees with A in giving the accusative form cithas
triam after potitur in place of the ablative cithastria found in other witnesses. On f. 126r for
Sulp. Apoll. perioch. Ter. Hec. 12 B reads the present form accipit in place of the present
recipit (A) and perfect recepit in other manuscripts. On f. 148v for Sulp. Apoll. perioch. Ter.
Ph. 3 B reads habebat clam in place of clam habebat in other manuscripts; however, A
omits clam altogether.
88 On four occasions the D scholiast copied the act summary opposite the wrong illus-
tration; the misplaced summaries are Ad. 5 (f. 118v), Hec. 5 (f. 145v), Ph. 3 (f. 137v), Ph. 5
(f. 168v).
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 163
Adelphoe, the B scholiast also provided duplicate copies of the five act sum-
maries on the same page as the D scholiast, and often immediately adjacent
to them, so there can be no question that he was unaware of their existence
there.89 These B doublets do provide a few variant readings of interest to the
text of the manuscripts used by Paul Wessner in his edition, particularly some
additions which expand somewhat on the terse summaries which have come
down to us,90 but their value as evidence for the text of the Donatus tradition
is hard to determine; prior to the 1430s and -40s, when two copies of Donatus
commentary were brought to Italy and it began to be widely copied and dis-
seminated, the work was relatively rare, and the relationship of the few surviv-
ing early manuscripts remains a matter of conjecture.91
The other scholia by B (i.e. those which do not duplicate material already
written in P) can be divided into three broad classes; (a) scene headings,
(b) interlinear glosses, and (c) full commentary notes written in the margins.
Scene headings are short summaries of the situation of the main characters
in each scene at the outset of the action, and are usually found at the foot of
the illustration in P; thus for An. 1.2 on f. 7r B writes Sosia liberto recedente,
incipit simo istud loqui de dauo et subito uidet illum exire de alia domo, immo de
propria (as the freedman Sosia departs, Simo begins to make that statement
about Davus, and suddenly sees him coming out of another house, in fact out
of his own). Scene headings are found throughout the manuscript, although
not consistently; there are only five in Andria (which has 24 scenes in P), 13 in
Eunuchus (from 27), 16 in Heauton timorumenos (from 22), 16 in Hecyra (from
18), and 13 in Phormio (from 23); in Andria, Eunuchus, and Phormio they are
notably absent from the final act of each play, finishing altogether at Phormio
5.1. Adelphoe provides a special case, since there is only one scene heading
found in P for this play (for Ad. 5.4 on f. 120v). Given that the Donatus sum-
maries are duplicated by B for this play alone, it may have been the case that
the scribe decided for some reason to change to Donatus here, or else that the
source used by him was somehow defective for this play; certainly character
labels are also absent for much of the second part of this play (see above),
although it should also be noted that interlinear and marginal glosses written
by B continue throughout Adelphoe.
89 B also copied the summary for Ad. 5 adjacent to the misplaced D summary on f. 118v.
90 Thus for post eiusdem et Demeae iurgium (Don. Ad. praef. 3.1) B (f. 97v) reads postea
eiusdem et demee super uita eschini iurgium; for quod sibi rapuerit eschinus meretricem
(Don. Ad. praef. 3.3) B (f. 104v) reads quod spreta et derelicta filia sua eschinus nouam sibi
amasiam fecerit et meretricem a lenone eripuerit.
91 For discussion, see Reeve 1983a; for the unsatisfactory state of the surviving text, see also
Victor 2013 356.
164 Turner
The old man Menedemus, torturing himself by constant labor in the field
with a hoe on account of grief for his son, whom he had driven away from
himself, is addressed by Chremes, another old man, reproaching him about
such immoderate labor.
With a number of small variants, the first part of this statement is found in v,
Z, and the CM, but additional phrases and clauses occur in B (marked in ital-
ics), and so may be either late additions to the text or else perhaps preserve an
earlier version of it. This process of elaboration in the scene headings, as well
as the substitution of variants (often quite subtle) can be observed through-
out P,93 although until a full survey of relevant manuscripts is made it will be
impossible to say whether these texts by B are in fact variants which originate
with the scribe.
Similarly, interlinear glosses by B in P are reasonably common, but until a
full critical edition of the type referred to above is produced, it will be impos-
sible to determine their relationship to earlier traditions even in very broad
terms. Frequently they consist of one or two words which aid the reader by pro-
viding rudimentary dramatic context, clarifying to whom a pronoun may refer,
supplying synonyms to rare or obsolete words, and also explaining archaic
grammatical constructions; many of them (but by no means all) are identical
to, or contain the same information in, glosses belonging to the CB and CM.94 At
times they form complete sentences which give additional background to par-
ticular dramatic actions, and they often spill out into the margins, occasionally
approaching in length the more developed marginal notes.
Full commentary notes by B, providing literary or historical context to par-
ticular phrases or ideas of Terence, are found in the margins of P, although much
less frequently than the types of gloss already described. The most extensive
marginal commentary occurs on f. 30r, and includes two lengthy arguments
for plays by (or attributed to) Menander, which as already noted find interest-
ing parallels in the highly fragmentary ancient sources. These notes can now
be identified as transmitting the same text as is found in the Commentarius
Recentior, the earliest manuscripts of which date back to the twelfth century;95
indeed, a version of these same notes was copied between 1400 and 1410 in a
deluxe manuscript of Terence, BnF lat. 7917, by Nicole Garbet, the secretary to
Duc Louis dOrlans and Latin tutor of his sons.96 Garbets version was thus
produced for the same social and intellectual milieu as BnF 7907A and Arsenal
664, and presumably in the same period that B was working. Despite a large
number of variants, there are a sufficient number of similarities between the
accounts of B and BnF 7917 and against the earliest extant version of these
texts in Bern, Burgerbibliothek 411 to suggest that the two French texts derive
from a common intermediate ancestor,97 although given a few other variants
94 Good examples of these types of scholia may be seen on ff. 71v72r, glossing the text of
Hau. 16199. Typical glosses on f. 71v are festa liberi patris written above Dionysia in Hau.
162 (=CB, CM), secum above lacrimas in Hau. 167 (=CM), and menedemi above eius in Hau.
168; on f. 72r compare cum quo above quicum in Hau. 178, (=CB) and facias above faxis in
Hau. 187 (=CB, CM).
95 See the convenient listing in Villa 2007 31.
96 For identification of the scribe and dating, see Gallica 2011b.
97 Most strikingly, in the epitome to Thesaurus found in Bern 411 the duration set by the
father for his prodigal son to return to his tomb and sacrifice is set at seven years, not eight
(see Turner 2010 46 for discussion of this point).
166 Turner
shared by B with the Bern manuscript and against BnF lat. 7917 it is also
apparent that B cannot be a descendant of the latter.98
Some other marginal notes by B are related to those in the CB, the CM, or
closely related manuscripts. Thus the first marginal note to An. 370 on f. 14r
reads non es liberatus meo studio sed casu cadente (you were not freed by my
efforts but by chance intervening), while the corresponding note in the CB
(see e.g. Z f. 9r) reads minime liberatus es meo studio sed causa ita euenit. On
f. 47r, glossing suauium (kiss) in Eu. 455, B cites a short poem in hexameters:
Basia are given to spouses, but oscula to friends. Suauia are mingled
together, pleasing to lewd lips.
ira est praesens animi motio et ex causa nascitur, iracundia autem est
uitium naturale et perpetuum.
98 Thus P begins its epitome to Thesaurus with the phrase senex quidam habens filium, Bern
411 with senex quidam filium habens, and BnF 7917 with senex filium habens. Likewise P
later reads post mortem patris male rebus dispensatis copiae filius egens, Bern 411 has post
mortem autem eius filius re male gesta cepit egere, and BnF 7917 post mortem uero patris
cepit filius egere.
99 Isid. Diff. 1.398.
100 In line 1 the CM (Munich, BSB Clm. 14420 f. 98r), Z (f. 25r), and v (f. 27r) all read sed et in
place of uerum.
101 For the relevant text of De proprietate sermonum et rerum, see Uhlfelder 1954 51 (no. 24).
Additions in P are marked in italics. For discussion of the origins of such Differentiae
in earlier antique grammatical and philosophical theory, with particular reference
to Isidore, see Codoer 1985, who notes the dating by Uhlfelder of De proprietate sermo
num to the fourth or fifth century, but who excludes this text as an influence on Isidore
(217 n. 57).
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 167
Anger [ira] is an instant emotion of the soul and is born of a reason, but
irascibility [iracundia] is a natural and permanent vice.
The note then continues with an elaboration of this text in relation to the spe-
cific readings iratus and iracundus in Terence.102
On f. 83r B provides an interesting note on a statement by Sostrata in
Heauton timorumenos that she recognizes the ring which was left with her
daughter when she was exposed (Hau. 61415):
The note does not have any parallels in any witnesses of the CB, CM, or recentio
res which I have examined, but its contents suggest it derives ultimately from
a commentator concerned to expound social issues in Terence, and that he
wrote for a society where infanticide was uncommon, if not outlawed.
Terence is in general a writer who makes few references to pagan deities or
mythological figures, but besides the Oedipus scholion B provides two sub-
stantial notes on them. The first occurs in Eunuchus, where the soldier Thraso,
declaring his intention to become a slave to the prostitute Thais, exclaims: qui
minu quam Hercules servivit Omphalae? (Why would I be any less a slave to
Thais than Hercules was to Omphale?; Eu. 1027); B then explains:
omphale regina fuit egipti quam cum amaret hercules nichil seruilis
obsequii recusauit ut eius amplexibus potiretur. itaque nentem illum et
102 B continues: et ex hoc collige inter iratum et iracundum quid distet. iratus est ille qui pro
tempore concitatur, iracundus uero qui frequenter irascitur et leuiter et qui accenso san
guine in furorem compellitur; and from this learn what difference lies between the iratus
and the iracundus. The iratus is one who is roused for one period of time, but the iracun
dus is one who is frequently angry and for slight reason, and who is driven to rage by his
blood set alight.
168 Turner
Omphale was the queen of Egypt. Because he loved her, Hercules refused
no sort of debased obedience in order that he might obtain her embraces.
And so we read about him spinning and dividing up the wool. This is
imagined for the reason that they call the navel, where the wanton desire
of women is located, Omphale. For although Hercules mastered all other
vices, he was mastered by a womans wantonness alone, and reduced into
slavery.
Both the CB and CM also begin their notes on this line with incorrect state-
ments that Omphale was the Queen of Egypt (rather than Lydia), and continue
their narrative with brief summaries of how Omphale humiliated Hercules by
persuading him to dress as a woman and take part in womens weaving; the ver-
sion in the CM is closer in terms of verbal parallels,103 although neither of them
makes the statement that we read about these deeds. As well, neither of them
contains the next element in the B note, an aetiology of the Omphale myth
through an association with the Greek noun (navel) with the idea
of sexual desire; instead, this aetiology is known in Latin through the sixth-
century mythographer Fulgentius, whose account of Hercules and Omphale
contains some direct parallels with the text of B, suggesting that either the B
account is derived in part from Fulgentius, whose interpretation of the myth is
influenced by Christian moral perspectives,104 or else from a common source.
The second of these notes occurs in Hecyra on f. 134r; with regard to a prayer
for good health to the god Aesculapius (quod te, Aesculapi...nequid sit huius
oro, I pray to you, Aesculapius, let that be nothing of this kind; Hec. 338) B
explains:
103 Thus Munich, BSB Clm. 14420 f. 104v reads: omphale regina egypti fuit quam adamauit
hercules, quae cum noluisset eum ad suos admittere amplexus nisi promitteret se quicquid
illa petisset facturum, in tantum delusit eum ut etiam filare fecisset et colum tenere more
feminarum (parallels in bold font).
104 Cf. Fulg. Myth. 2.2 [74]: Et tamen a libidine superatur; onfalon enim Grece umbilicum dici
tur; libido enim in umbilico dominatur mulieribus, sicut lex diuina dicit: Non est praecisus
umbilicius tuus [Vulg. Ezech. 16.4], quasi si diceret: peccatum tuum non est amputatum.
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 169
Aesculapius, the god of medicine, was the son of Apollo and Coronis,
which is why he is called Coronides by the poets. He was considered the
god of medicine for the reason that he cured Hippolytus. However, after-
wards he was struck by lightning by Jupiter.
Neither the CB nor the CM provides any more information here than brief
glosses stating that Aesculapius is the deus medicinae (god of medicine);
representatives of the recentiores add the detail that he is filius Apollonis (the
son of Apollo).105 Ovid in fact is the only extant classical poet to call the god
Coronides (Ov. Fast. 6.746; Met. 15.624), and the full story of Aesculapius and
Hippolytus, including Jupiters casting of the lightning bolt, is recounted by
him in Fasti 6.73362,106 so it seems highly likely that the ultimate source of
this note by B is this same account in Ovid.
Conclusions
105 E.g. Bern, Brgerbibliothek, 411 f. 178v; BnF 7917 f. 170r; Copenhagen, KB, GKS 1995 f. 14v.
106 Greek versions were apparently available in the lost epic Naupactiaca as well as works by
the fifth-century BC lyric poets Telestes and Cinesias; see Philodemus De pietate B 6736
[Obbink], PMG 8067.
170 Turner
group of materials assembled in the fifteenth century by the scribe, and used
by him in magpie fashion, but from the same source, whether it was a manu-
script of Terence glossed with a single commentary, or indeed a lost commen-
tary written as a separate document like the CM, and (presumably) the first
version of the CB.107
With regard to the first question, I have argued that despite some immedi-
ate differences with regard to ink-colour and nib-size, the forms of the letters
and abbreviations in both scripts have a number of strong similarities which
make it highly likely that the notes are in fact the work of the same scribe. With
regard to the second, it can be observed that the B glosses in fact function in
two separate ways: they elucidate various points in the text of Terence, but they
also correct it, providing alternative versions of the character labels, of the run-
ning titles, of the verse introductions of Sulpicius Apollinaris, and of Donatus
act summaries to Adelphoe. It has been shown that there are strong parallels
between the character labels in this manuscript and those in the deluxe illus-
trated manuscripts of Terence being produced in Paris at roughly the same
time, and so the B glossing in P may in fact have formed part of a detailed
study of this manuscript, in connection with the preparation of other deluxe
texts which were meant to supersede it.108 Such factors as the consistency of
the character labels of B with those in these other manuscripts, and the simi-
larity of alternative readings in the verse introductions of Sulpicius to readings
from the or classes, point to a single manuscript being used for this part of
the correction process, although they are by no means conclusive proof for it.
The way in which the scene headings of B and other notes copied by him
contain phrases and sometimes whole clauses not found in parallel sources,
like the CM or Donatus, points to an earlier scholar reorganising and rewriting
material from disparate sources, but without any earlier manuscripts which
directly parallel the scholia in P, it is very difficult to say when this occurred; it
may conceivably have been a product of an intense period of literary scholar-
ship which preceded the creation of the deluxe illustrated fifteenth-century
manuscripts, or it could likewise have been a chance survival from a much
earlier period, used in the study of P as a preliminary step in the creation of
these late masterpieces. What is particularly striking, however, is the accu-
racy of many of these comments compared to other Medieval commentary
107 For discussion of the original form of this work, see Muir and Turner 2011 Introduction 6.2.
108 Although their dating differs from the one proposed here, the same idea was in fact pro-
posed by the authors of Gallica 2012a (with regard to the 1472 printed edition of Terence
produced by the circle of Guillaume Fichet).
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions 171
traditions such as the CB, which contain many absurdities.109 The scholia of
B show on the other hand a level of detailed knowledge when dealing with
aspects of the ancient world, whether mythological, literary, or social, which in
some respects is comparable to the surviving Late-Antique commentary tradi-
tions on literary authors like Vergil, Horace, or Juvenal.
Looked at in a slightly different way, the scribal activity of B in P matches
closely many of the intellectual tendencies of the early fifteenth century,
which strove to preserve the records of the distant past and present them in
a new setting. As Carla Bozzolo remarked with regard to the commentary of
Laurent Premierfait, such works provide evidence of [l]histoire complexe des
commentaires humanistes Trence, troitement lie celle, non moins com-
plexe, des commentaires qui se sont forms lpoque carolingienne [the com-
plex history of the humanist commentaries on Terence, closely linked to that,
no less complex, of the commentaries which developed in the Carolingian
period].110 In this respect, these commentary notes are yet another reason, in
addition to its very important text and illustrations, why we should continue to
regard P as one of the most important manuscript witnesses for the traditions
of Terence.
109 For the CB see Muir and Turner 2011 Introduction 6.3; Victor 2013 3601.
110 Bozzolo 1984 93 [=2004 145].
172
Scene BnF lat. 7899 (majuscule labels) (miniscule labels) BnF lat. 7907A (rubrics) Arsenal MS 664 (rubrics)
An. 5.4 32r [PAM CRI CRE SIM] Crito chremes Symo senes 23r Crito chremes 41v Crito Chremes symo
tres pamphilus adolescens symo senes tres senes tres phamphilus
pamphilus adolescens
adulescens
An. 5.5 34r CHARINVS PAMPHILVS 24v Carinus 43v Carinus pamphilus
DAVVS pamphilus adolescentes duo
adolescentes duo
Eu. 1.2 37r THAIS PHAEDRIA 27v Thais meretrix 48v Thais meretrix phedria
PARMENO phedria adulescens adolescens parmeno
parmeno seruus seruus
Eu. 2.1 40r PHAEDRIA ADVLESCENS 30r Phedria adulescens 51v Phedria adolescens
PARMENO SERVVS parmeno seruus parmeno seruus
Eu. 3.2 47r [GNA TRA THA PAR thais meretrix 35r 59v Thais meretrix Traso
EVNVCVS-CHEREA VIRGO] traso miles miles parmeno seruus
parmeno seruus gnato Gnato parasitus pithias
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions
Scene BnF lat. 7899 (majuscule labels) (miniscule labels) BnF lat. 7907A (rubrics) Arsenal MS 664 (rubrics)
Eu. 4.7 56v GNATO PARASITUS traso miles gnato 43r 73v Traso miles Gnato
SANGA THRASO MILES parasitus sanga simallio parasitus Sanga
DONAX LOBAR SIMALIO siriscus dorax locaris simallio siriscus dorax
SIRISCVS THAIS serui chremes adolescens locaris serui chremes
MERETRIX CHREMES thais meretrix adolescens thais
ADVLESCENS meretrix
Hau. 1.2 71v CLITIPHO ADVLESCENS clitipho adolescens 54v 93r Clitifo Clinia
CHREMES SENEX Chremes senex adulescentes duo,
Chremes senex
Hau. 2.3 74v SYRVS DROMO SERVI II Sirus dromo serui duo 56r 96v Syrus dromo serui duo
CLINIA CLITIPHO clinia clitipho clitipho clinia
ADVLESCENTES II adolescentes duo adulescentes duo
Hau. 4.4 85v BACCHIS MERETRIX bachis meretrix clinia 66r 111v Bachis Clinia Syrus
PHRIGIA ANCILLA adolescens frigia ancilla frigia dromo
CLINIA ADVLESCENS dromo sirus serui duo
DROMO SYRVS SERVI
Ad. 1.2 99r DEMEA MICIO SENES II demea micio fratres 76r 129v Demea Mitio fratres
senes senes
Ad. 2.1 100v PARMENO SERVVS SANNIO parmeno seruus sannio 77v 131v Sannio leno Eschinus
LENO AESCHINVS leno eschinus adolescens adulescens
ADVLESCENS
Turner
Scene BnF lat. 7899 (majuscule labels) (miniscule labels) BnF lat. 7907A (rubrics) Arsenal MS 664 (rubrics)
Ad. 2.2 102r SYRVS SERVVS SANNIO 78v Syrus seruus Sannio 133v Syrus seruus Sannio
LENO leno leno
Ad. 2.4 103v AESCHINVS CTESIPHO eschinus adolescens 80r Eschinus Sannio 136r Eschinus Sannio
ADVLESCENTES II cthesipho adolescens Ctesipho Syrus Tesipho Syrus
SYRVS SANNIO EIDEM II Sirus seruus
Sannio leno
Ad. 3.3 107r DROMO SYRVS SERVVS 83r Syrus seruus 141v Syrus seruus demea
DEMEA SENEX Demea senex senex
Ad. 3.4 109r HEGIO SENEX GETA SERVVS hegio senex geta seruus 84v Hegio Geta Demea 144r hegio Geta Demea
DEMEA SENEX demea senex
Ad. 5.1 117v SYRVS SERVVS DEMEA 92r Syrus demea 156r Syrus Demea
SENEX
Ad. 5.3 118v MICIO DEMEA SENES II 92v 158r Mitio Demea senes duo
fratres
Ad. 5.4 120r DEMEA SENEX SYRVS 94r demea senex 160r Demea senex Sirus
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions
SERVVS seruus
Ad. 5.7 121v AESCHINVS ADVLESCENS eschinus demea Geta 95r 161v Eschinus Demea Syrus
DEMEA SENEX GETA Sirus Geta
SERVVS SYRVS SERVVS
Hec. 2.2 131v PHIDIPPVS LACHES phidippus senex laches 103r Phidippus 215r Phidippus laches senes
SENES II SOSTRATA MVLIER senex Sostrata mulier laches senes duo duo Sostrata anus
175
Sostrata anus
(cont.)
176
Scene BnF lat. 7899 (majuscule labels) (miniscule labels) BnF lat. 7907A (rubrics) Arsenal MS 664 (rubrics)
Hec. 3.1 132v PAMPHILVS pamphilus adolescens 104v 218v mirrina pamphilus
ADVLESCENS PARMENO mirina parmeno seruus parmeno
SERVVS
Hec. 3.5 137r LACHES PHIDIPPVS laches senex phidippus 108r Laches 224r laches phidippus senes
SENES II PAMPHILVS senex pamphilus phidippus senes duo pamphilus
ADVLESCENS adolescens duo pamphilus adulescens
adulescens
Hec. 5.1 143v BACCHIS MERETRIX bachis meretrix laches 114r Bachis meretrix 233v Bachis meretrix
LACHES SENEX senex laches senex
Ph. 1.3 152v ANTIPHO PHEDRIA antipho et phedria 121v antipho phedria 171v Antipho Phedria
ADVLESCENTES II adolescentes adulescentes adolescens [sic] duo
duo
Ph. 1.4 153v GETA SERVVS ANTIPHO Geta antipho phedria 122r Geta antipho 173r Geta Antipho Phedria
EIDEM PHEDRIA phedria
Ph. 2.1 154v DEMIPHO SENEX PHEDRIA demipho phedria geta 123r demipho Geta 175r Demipho senex Geta
ADVLESCENS GETA SERVVS seruus Phedria
adulescens
Ph. 2.4 159v GETA SERVVS DEMIPHO demipho Geta hegio 127v demipho Geta 181v Demipho Geta Hegio
SENEX CRATINVS HEGIO III cratinus crito hegio Cratinus crito Cratinus Crito
CRITO DU ADVOCATI
Turner
Scene BnF lat. 7899 (majuscule labels) (miniscule labels) BnF lat. 7907A (rubrics) Arsenal MS 664 (rubrics)
Ph. 3.2 161r PHEDRIA ADVLESCENS phedria dorio antipho 128v phedria dorio 183v phedria dorio Antipho
ANTIPHO II geta antipho geta Geta
DORIO LENO GETA SERVVS
Ph. 4.1 163r DEMIPHO CHREMES demiphon chremes 130v demipho chremes 187r Demipho Chremes
SENES II fratres senes duo fratres senes duo fratres
Ph. 4.4 166r ANTIPHO ADVLESCENS antipho Geta 133r antipho 191r Antipho adulescens
GETA SERVVS adulescens Geta seruus
Geta seruus
Ph. 4.5 167v CHREMES DEMIPHO SENES demipho geta chremes 133v Demipho geta 192v Demipho Geta
GETA SERVVS chremes Chremes
Ph. 5.1 168v SOPHONA ANVS CHREMES Sophrona anus chremes 134r Sophrana anus 193v Sophrona Chremes
SENEX senex chremes senex
Ph. 5.2 171r DEMIPHO SENEX GETA 135r demipho senex 195r Demipho senex Geta
SERVVS geta seruus seruus
h. 5.6 GETA SERVVS ANTIPHO 137r Geta Antipho 200r Geta Antipho phormio
Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions
CHAPTER 7
Chrysanthi Demetriou
by Taladoire 1951 4952, who argues for their use in teaching. Madyda 1953 also produces
a detailed categorisation of the scholia, pointing to their rhetorical rather than histrionic
background. Thomadaki 1989, quoting several categories of Donatus scholia on delivery
manner, argues for the commentators interest in theatrical representation. Finally, a brief
overview of the various stances towards the origins of performance scholia is given in
Jakobi 1996 1014, who argues that such scholia mainly derive from a close reading of the
text. On the connection of delivery scholia with the scope of Donatus work and the com-
position of his audience, see Demetriou 2014a.
6 E.g. Basore 1908 410 points to the stage value of several scholia, especially in regard to
the scholia on certain gestures found also in Quintilian and the illustrated manuscripts.
Basore rightly also points to the fact that such correspondences indicate that the stage
and the rostrum had much in common (p. 10).
7 On the evidence of performances of Terence up until the fourth century CE, see the refer-
ences gathered by Cain 2013 3812.
8 The correspondences between Quintilian, the manuscript illustrations, and Donatus
were already pointed out by Leo 1883 33741.
9 For an overview of various arguments on the origin of these manuscripts and their pos-
sible connections with the stage, see Demetriou 2014a 7912 and n. 13 below.
10 On the dating of the common prototype of the Medieval illustrated manuscripts, see
Wright 2006 20911. On the origin of the illustrations, see also Muir and Turner 2011
Introduction 1.3.
11 This was pointed out as early as the seventeenth century in the work of Anne Dacier, who
produced an edition of Terence accompanied by reproductions of some manuscript illus-
trations; see Herklotz 2012 768. The correspondence between the text and the gestures
made by the figures was again pointed out in nineteenth century by Sroux d Agincourt,
an art historian; see Herklotz 2012 83.
12 See for instance Csapo and Slater 1995 778, who nevertheless observe that costumes
and gestures are to some extent influenced by the iconographic tradition of theater
Donatus Commentary 183
and Late-Antique stage practices can still be drawn.13 And even if the illustra-
tor of this lost original did not depict a theatrical staging of Terence, he defi-
nitely represented stereotypical iconography of stage performances.14
Furthermore, both Donatus comments and the figures in these illustrations
also present parallels with theoretical sources for oratory, most notably the tes-
timony by Quintilian.15 Quintilians chapter on oratorical gesture (Quint. Inst.
11.3) is a significant source for spatial movement on stage, as this was received
or witnessed in the first century CE. The rhetorician, instructing the students
on the proper bodily movement employed when delivering their speeches,
finds the opportunity to note what is suitable for the stage (rather than the
courts), or what is common to both rhetoric and theatre.16 Quintilians testi-
mony, apart from being a valuable source for education practices and curricu-
lum in the first century CE, has also long been recognized as an important aid
to the study of Donatus references to character gestures.17
illustration(p. 78). Nervegna 2014 7289 points to the close correspondences between the
illustrators figures and the list of characters written before each scene in the Bembinus,
and argues that the miniatures do not follow earlier models but are instead invented
according to some basic principles (p. 729).
13 Dodwells argument that the illustrations depicted stage performances of Terence (2000
86100) probably went too far. Wright 2006, although arguing for the illustrators lack of
familiarity with actual performances of Terence and for the illustrations being the artists
inventions (pp. 21214), accepts influences on the depiction of gestures from the tradi-
tion of stage performances, in this era presumably from mime (p. 216; see also p. 218 for
the origin in mime of costumes for eunuchs). On the connection of the illustrations with
theatrical performances, see also Aldrete 1999 57.
14 Dodwells study (Dodwell 2000, mainly 3486), despite its problems, certainly demon-
strates that the illustrations follow some certain patterns in the representation of stock
gestures; see also Dutsch 2007 47.
15 On parallels between Quintilian and the manuscript illustrations see Dutsch 2007, who
concludes that the correspondences between the two sources suggest that the illus-
trations were in fact influenced by revivals of drama in antiquity. Correspondences
between Quintilians gestures and the manuscript illustrations have long been noted; for
an overview see Maier-Eichhorn 1989, 149, who is more sceptical about the validity of
such parallels, given that gestures considered by Quintilian as common are not found in
the illustrations. Yet although a direct connection seems improbable, Dutschs work has
emphasised the common background of these two sources, Quintilians descriptions and
the manuscript illustrations.
16 On Quintilians remarks and their connection with stage practices, see Graf 1991 as well as
Dutsch 2007.
17 Already from Basore 1908.
184 demetriou
This paper will develop arguments that the gestures described by Donatus
in his commentary on Terences plays may have been influenced both by rhe-
torical practice and by aspects of contemporary performances. While there is
no firm evidence that the plays of Terence were still performed in the fourth
century, we know that many other dramatic genres were flourishing at the time
of Donatus which may have influenced his comments. More importantly, they
demonstrate a common concept of performance conventions that stretched
from the early Empire to Late Antiquity.
In a recent study, Dorota Dutsch has examined references from the three
sources (Donatus, Quintilian, miniatures) in an attempt to outline the devel-
opment of Roman theatre performance principles,18 and has shown how cor-
respondences between the three sources throw light on certain performance
trends that, by the time of Donatus, become standard practices in both rhet-
oric and theatre. This paper, which focuses on Donatus commentary, will
examine further parallels, based on specific descriptions of gestures found in
it, in an effort to identify the principles governing Donatus observations on
performance,19 and to explore possible stage influences on it, direct or indi-
rect. The commentator may not have been a witness of a Late-Antique staging
of Terence, and may have simply reflected other modes of performance (see
below on popular spectacles in the fourth century), but his scholia demon-
strate a strong preoccupation with visual representation.
Let us start our examination with the most evident element connecting
Quintilian and Donatus: the use of literary texts in rhetorical training. The
practice of reading comic poets aloud at schools is in fact attested in Quintilian
(Quint. Inst. 1.11.1214), and so it should be easy to find parallels between some
of Quintilians observations and Donatus instructions on performing Terences
plays which, as already noted, were employed as a tool in the delivery exer-
cises. Even when comments in Donatus relating to performance do not find
easy parallels in Quintilians work, which was written with the express purpose
of educating elite Roman males on how to speak with appropriate gravitas, it
can still provide valuable illustrations of other aspects of theatrical presenta-
tion when it discusses how not to speak or comport oneself. Thus in 11.3.89 he
explicitly states that mimetic gestures should be avoided by the orators, since
abesse...plurimum a saltatore debet orator, ut sit gestus ad sensus magis quam
ad verba accomodatus (an orator has to be very different from a dancer; he
must adapt his gesture to his sense more than to his words).
A good example of the usefulness of Quintilian for understanding Donatus
comments occurs with regard to the servile gesture.20 Donatus assigns the
gestus servilis (i.e. a servile gesture) to comic slaves of Terence in several
instances (scholia on An. 183.1 and 184.4, Eu. 274.5, Ad. 567.2),21 but does not
give a description of such a posture. However, the servile gesture is defined
by Quintilian in Inst. 11.3.83, where he states: Umerorum raro decens adlevatio
atque contractio est: breviatur enim cervix et gestum quendam humilem atque
servilem et quasi fraudulentum facit (rarely is it becoming to shrug or hunch
the shoulders, because this shortens the neck and produces a gesture of humil-
iation and servility, suggesting hypocrisy).22 Another factor to consider here is
that Quintilians description itself is clearly influenced by theatrical practices.
It finds close parallels in the manuscript illustrations, in which slaves are often
depicted shrugging their shoulders and shortened necks,23 and indeed in the
archaeological record, since a servile posture similar to that found in the man-
uscript illustrations appears in statuettes and other iconography representing
slaves from comedy.24 Thus Hellenistic statuettes present standing or sitting
slaves shrugging their shoulders,25 while a first-century fresco from Pompeii
illustrates the conventional slave stance: legs straddled, shoulders raised, but-
tocks and stomach extended.26
A key link between the two works comes from the use of gestus, or gesture,
in close connection with speaking. Just as Quintilian elaborates on the way
a good orator should make use of gestures appropriate for each eventuality,
so Donatus often provides a detailed description of specific hand gestures,
with emphasis on the use of fingers. For instance in the commentary on the
Adelphoe Donatus notes: Et hoc tibi et tu pronuntiandum est intento digito et
20 On gestus servilis in Donatus, Quintilian and the manuscripts, see Basore 1908 378. On
the importance of these correspondences in revealing the commentators (traditional)
sources and staging interests, see Demetriou 2014a 7904.
21 On Donatus interpretation of the stereotyped performance of comic slaves, see also
Demetriou 2014b 2324.
22 Text and translations of Quintilian are taken from Russell 2001.
23 See for instance the discussion by Dutsch 2007 62, on the depiction of Sosias posture in
the first act of the Andria in BnF, lat. 7899, f. 6.
24 See Dodwell 2000 30. Dutsch 2007 62 also points to parallel archaeological evidence.
25 Bieber 1961 1045, figs. 404, 405, 406, 407, 411.
26 Wiles 1991 206. The painting is found in Bieber 1961 103, fig. 395.
186 demetriou
infestis in Micionem oculis; nam hoc agi stomacho aduersum dissimulatores solet
(and this tibi and tu must be delivered with an extended finger and hostile eyes
against Micio; for this is usually performed with irritation against dissemblers;
Don. Ter. Ad. 97.2).27 In the particular line to which the scholium refers, Demea
addresses Micio, saying explicitly that he regards him as the main cause for
Aeschinus moral corruption and unrestrained behaviour (Ter. Ad. 967).28
It is particularly interesting that Donatus assigns to Demeaor, to be more
precise, to the reader enacting Demeaa specific hand gesture: the use of the
extended finger, presumably denoting a demonstrative gesture. Moreover, the
commentator justifies his suggestion by adding that the specific gesture is used
to express irritation towards dissemblers. Such a general remark seems to be
placing the commentators choice into a framework of tradition, pointing per-
haps to a known, acceptable gesture. Quintilians remark in Inst. 11.3.94 might
be a good parallel for the use of a similar hand gesture in oratory:
At cum tres contracti pollice premuntur, tum digitus ille quo usum
optime Crassum Cicero dicit explicari solet. Is in exprobrando et indi-
cando (unde ei nomen est) valet
when three fingers are doubled under the thumb, the finger which Cicero
says Crassus used so well is extended. This finger is important in reproach
and in indication (which is why it has its name, i.e. index).
27 Basore 1908 24 points to the parallel between Donatus and Quintilians notes, further sug-
gesting that, in both sources, solet indicates a conventional use of the gesture.
28 Jakobi 1996 162 classifies the scholium as a hypokrisis-scholium in accordance with the
commentators interest in the consistency of Demeas characterisation. Thomadaki 1989
369 quotes the scholium in a group of examples that indicate characters sentiments.
29 For the presence of this gesture in the illustrations depicting scenes of the Andria, see
Dutsch 2007 64. On Quintilians passage, see also the commentary by Maier-Eichhorn
1989 723.
30 See Jones and Morey 1931 nos. 460463: BnF, lat. 7899 (= P) f. 99r, BAV, lat. 3868 (= C)
f. 52r, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 2.13 (= O) f. 99r; see also Wright 2006 99. The point-
Donatus Commentary 187
A parallel reference to gesture is found in the scholium to An. 333: [2] hic
: quasi efficaciorem ostendit. [3] Ergo ad comparationem alterius refer-
tur (hic [functions] demonstratively: as if he points out the more efficient
one. Therefore he is represented in comparison with the other). In the line
discussed by the scholium, Pamphilus refers to the slave Byrria who is seen
on stage along with his master, Charinus, but the scholium draws a specific
comparison between the two. More importantly, the commentator describes
the delivery of hic with the Greek adverb . Therefore Donatus com-
ment suggests that the speaker accompanies his delivery with a demonstrative
gesture,31 pointing to the slave Byrria.
In the manuscript illustrations of this scene, Pamphilus is indeed shown with
a pointing gesture.32 Furthermore, the hand gesture adopted by Pamphilus in
the manuscripts, with the index and middle fingers extended, appears in a very
similar manner in a description by Quintilian in Inst. 11.3.9899.33 This gesture
(in one of its variations) is used when the speaker wants to make a distinc-
tion in his speech (habilem demonstrando in latus aut distinguendis quae dici-
mus, useful for pointing to one side or marking breaks in what we are saying.
11.3.99).34 Pamphilus is in fact doing precisely this in the above instance, point-
ing out both Charinus and Byrria (aut tu aut hic Byrria, either you or Byrria
here; An. 333). Thus, given the evidence from both manuscript illustrations
and Quintilians description of the deictic gesture, it becomes plausible that
Donatus note of demonstratively is associated with a similar demonstrative
hand gesture.
Another interesting comment showing this close connection between
words and appropriate gestures employed is found in the commentary on Ad.
377: [1]...nam istum quod ait est; uidetur enim ostendere digito, quem
dicat (for the istum, which he says, is demonstrative; for he seems to be point-
ing to whom he is talking about with his finger). In this instance, the slave
ing gesture with the use of the extended index is most prominent in Tours, BM 924, f. 41v
(no.464), although this manuscript is of a much later date than the Carolingian witnesses.
31 On as a designation of a demonstrative gesture in Donatus, see Taladoire
1951 49.
32 See for instance BnF, lat. 7899 (= P) f. 11v (Jones and Morey 1931 no. 49). Dutsch 2007 623
analyses this gesture with special emphasis on the Andria (mainly in P), naming it the
prologue gesture. The presence of this gesture in the manuscripts suggests that it is asso-
ciated with a gesture used by a character when addressing a future speaking character.
33 Dutsch 2007 63 makes the connection between Quintilians description and the depiction
of this gesture in the illustrations. On the other hand, Basore 1908 24 pointed to a parallel
between Donatus and Quintilians notes.
34 See also the commentary by Maier-Eichhorn 1989 815.
188 demetriou
Syrus gives orders to one of the slaves (or a cook) regarding the cooking prepa-
rations, instructing him to leave a big eel in the water for a while (Ad. 3778).
Donatus comments on Syrus instructions, stating that istum is a demonstra-
tive word and adding that the speaker points to the object with his finger. What
is more, it is noteworthy that Syrus is also shown with a pointing gesture in the
manuscript illustrations.35 Once more, both sources follow the same principle
in representing the same action.
In all these instances, the illustrative tradition in the manuscripts provides
another important strand of evidence for the association of gestures with
words in Late Antiquity. Based on the fact that the manuscript figures present
a set of recognizable gestures, Dutsch in fact argues that the manuscripts sug-
gest that by the late fourth and early fifth century the tendency to associate
gestures with certain phrases took the form of a meticulous set of rules.36 In
the case of Donatus commentary, as seen in the previous examples, this ten-
dency to associate certain phrases with specific gestures is particularly evident
in the visualization of demonstrative gestures.37
The commentator refers to a gesture associated with admiratio in the scho-
lium on Eu. 403, where the soldier Thraso is boasting about his close relation-
ship with the king, and his parasite Gnatho expresses his apparent admiration
by exclaiming mirum! (amazing!). Donatus comments here with regard to
this word: [3] potest etiam simpliciter pro admirantis gestu accipi (it can be
also understood simply to take the place of a gesture of admiration). Thus,
in Donatus view, Gnathos reaction could have been simply expressed by the
gestus admirantis, a gesture showing his admiration and wonder.38
Similar comments, elaborating on a characters intention as expressed in
his gesture, can be found elsewhere. For instance in Andria 1.1 Simo narrates to
Sosia the details of his investigation into the behaviour of his son, Pamphilus,
and reports the dialogue he had with the slaves belonging to his sons friends.
35 See Jones and Morey 1931 nos. 500502, on Adelphoe 3.3: P f. 107r, C f. 56r, O f. 107r; on C,
see also Wright 2006 108. The only case in which the finger is not extended is in Milan,
Biblioteca Ambrosiana, H. 75 inf. [S.P. 4 bis] (= F), f. 64r (Jones and Morey 1931 no. 503). The
correspondence between the illustrations and Donatus comment is indicated by Basore
1908 24, who draws a further connection with Quintilians description in Inst. 11.3.94.
36 Dutsch 2013 425.
37 For Donatus notes on demonstrative gestures, see e.g. Don. Ter. An. 506.2, 855.2, 890.3;
Hec. 75; Ph. 145.1.
38 Blundell 1987 11415 regards this passage as problematic, due to the commentators sug-
gestion that mirum can be replaced by a gesture. He suggests that there is possibly a con-
flation of two ideas, which might have been expressed cum admirantis gestu pronuntiari
and pro admirantis interiectione accipi.
Donatus Commentary 189
When Simo stresses that his son only attended the dinner (cenavit), Donatus
makes the following comment on An. 88: [3] cetera in gestu sunt quaerentis,
quid dicat de Pamphilo, nec inuenientis (as regards his gestures, they are of
someone seeking to learn what he might say about Pamphilus, and not find-
ing out). According to Donatus interpretation, Simo accompanies his words
with the gestus quaerentis nec inuenientis, that is the action or, more precisely,
gesture of someone asking and not finding what he is looking for.39 Such an
observation is consistent with the fact that Simo is reporting a long series of
anxious questions about his sons behaviour to Sosia. However, what is par-
ticularly important is that the commentator refers to a gesture. Needless to say,
there is no indication in Terences text of the use of a particular type of gesticu-
lation or a note of a change in Simos movement. In this regard comparison
of the figures in the illustrated manuscripts of Terence might again be useful,
since they elsewhere present Simo adopting a gesture that seems to parallel
that which Donatus attributes to him in this instance.40
Donatus references to symbolic gestures sometimes reveal the state of the
character. A well-known case occurs in the scholium on An. 110, where Donatus
refers to a gesture used by Simo:
and if he said hoc cogitabam, he should just told us the gist of his delib-
erations; but because he said sic cogitabam, he exhibits the very gesture
of someone in thought. It is therefore imitation.41
In this passage the old man Simo accompanies his thought with a gesture
of someone in thought (gestus cogitantis). Although the commentator does
not describe the exact position of the hands, a gesture demonstrating pon-
dering seems to be stereotyped in the illustrated manuscripts as well as in
other sources: its basic characteristic is the touching of ones chin.42 Simo
is depicted having an appropriate gesture in Andria 1.2, right after the situa-
tion discussed in Donatus scholium cited above,43 and as well Simos gesture
resembles the description of Quintilian in Inst. 11.3.103. As Dutsch rightly sug-
gests, the instances in which this gesture is employed in the illustrations rep-
resent moments in which both wonder and thinking could be possible states
of the characters.44 As in the cases examined above, the commentator seems
to imply that the performer employs a certain, recognizable gesture. What
is more, he again makes an observation based on the principle that certain
phrases are delivered accompanied by particular gestures.45
The examples we have considered so far in Donatus commentary deal with
the relationship of gestures to particular words or ideas, but it is also true that
several other of his references to gestus may be better described as relating
to the broader dramatic action of Terences plays. In these cases, the close
dependence of gesture upon the text often extends beyond the designation
of (demonstrative) hand or finger gestures. A reference to a gesture signify-
ing a rather specific attitude is found in the scholium on Ph. 52: [4] praeuenit
petitionem dicendo accipe. et hoc cum gestu offerentis dicitur (he prevents the
request by saying accipe. And this is said with the gesture of offering). The line
is delivered by Davus, who is addressing Geta and offering him money. Donatus
suggests that the line is delivered accompanied with the gestus offerentis, an
observation easily inferred from Davus words. But it is also interesting that in
the manuscript illustrations Davus is shown extending his hand towards Geta,
offering him a sack, which obviously contains the money.46
42 For instance in the gesture of Demea, in P, f. 107r (Adelphoe 3.3; see Jones and Morey 1931
no. 500) and in O f. 107r (Jones and Morey 1931 no. 502). Wright 2006 107, on C f. 56r, adds
that Demea is inclining his head slightly to express his distress. On this gesture and its
presence in the illustrated manuscripts, see also Dodwell 2000 856. Cf. Pl. Mil. 20015, in
which there is a description of Palaestrios gesture when in deep thought. Among other
gestures, Plautus refers to an os columnatum, usually interpreted as his face supported by
his hand (Hammond, Mack and Moskalew 1997 96).
43 For Simos gesture of touching his chin, see for instance P, f. 7r (Jones and Morey 1931 no.
24); on Simos gesture, see also Dodwell 2000 856.
44 Dutsch 2007 67 gives further examples of the usage of the gesture outlined by Quintilian.
45 Dutsch 2013 4259 examines this instance as the basic case study to demonstrate the par-
allels between Donatus, Quintilian, and the illustrations, and a basic principle in Late-
Antique performance of various kinds: the use of certain gestures along with certain
phrases (in this case the adverb sic).
46 See Jones and Morey 1931 nos. 690693: P f. 150r, C f. 78r, O f. 154v, F f. 105v; see also Wright
2006 1523. The depiction of Davus in the manuscripts is also mentioned by Basore 1908
40, yet without references to specific manuscripts.
Donatus Commentary 191
47 Cf. O f. 16v (Jones and Morey 1931 no. 72). Basore 1908 41 briefly mentions the parallel
depiction in the manuscript illustrations. Parmeno in Eunuchus is presented in a simi-
lar posture, for instance in P, f. 41r (Eunuchus 2.2; Jones and Morey 1931 no. 185). On C
f. 9v, Wright 2006 18 notes that Byrrias posture shows the anxiety with which he comes
to listen.
48 Cf. C f. 15v (Jones and Morey 1931 no. 138); see also Wright 2006 30, on Davus posture:
this presumably expresses his anxiety and his consequent decision to go into Glyceriums
house rather than go home.
49 See also the examples discussed by Dodwell 2000 224; it is noteworthy that Dodwell
considers the gesture for eavesdropping (p. 23) as a mere stage gesture.
50 Phrase taken from Dutsch 2007 47.
51 For different categories of gestures used by the illustrator as well as subcategories of sym-
bolic gestures, see the discussion in Dutsch 2007 of examples of illustrations of the Andria
(especially 6271).
192 demetriou
52 In his discussion of Donatus observations of this type, Basore 1908 considers the parallels
with Quintilian and the manuscript illustrations as a possible evidence of Donatus refer-
ence to conventional codes. He further briefly suggests that the nature of Donatus notes
makes it possible that the commentator refers to recognized types, stressing the com-
mentators tendency in presenting stock expressions (pp. 367). Basores remarks were
often inconclusive, but certainly opened up the ground for further research and analysis.
53 On the difference between gestures expected in theatre and natural gestures, see the anal-
ysis from a theatre-historical perspective by Hughes 1991 912, who notes that whereas
psychology does not prove that certain gestures express specific emotions, ancient acting
styles followed standard gestures for expressing both emotions and stock situations.
54 On the use of the thumb in Roman culture, see Corbeill 2004 4166.
55 For examples of gestures changing their meaning across time as well as the importance of
the audiences perception of a gesture, see the overview by Corbeill 2004 111.
56 Dutsch 2013 41112, writing on Quintilian, Cicero, and the rhetorical tradition surrounding
their views, points to the fact that Quintilian and Cicero reflect the view (also evident in
earlier sources) that gestures showing emotional states are innate and can stand in the
place of words, eventually forming a universally accepted language.
57 See Aldrete 1999 57 on the arrangement of the characters and the background of the illus-
trations, which suggest a lack of familiarity with a stage performance of Terence. Wright
2006 216, in discussing the gesture of overhearing in the illustrations, points out that it
Donatus Commentary 193
context, quoting scholia on the comic parasites gesture (cf. Don. Ter. Eu. 232.3
and 274.3), Jakobi briefly expressed the possibility that Donatus has in mind
contemporary mime performances.58 The possible influence of mime in the
commentary formed a part of the debate on the interpretation of Donatus
comment on An. 716 and the enactment of female roles by female performers.59
In fact, Donatus in some cases might make indirect references to pantomimic
terms, both in his terminology (e.g. in the use of the terms saltatiodancing,
and gesticulatiogesticulation)60 and his descriptions (e.g. Don. Ter. An. 186
and Hec. 267, where he assigns the questioning old men a hand gesture of
pointing to ones ear, thus outlining a clear connection between the characters
words and his gestures).61 It seems then that a brief overview of the perfor-
mance popular trends of Donatus time might help us in the interpretation of
the way Terences staging is envisaged in the commentary.
Undoubtedly the landscape of stage spectacles in the fourth century CE, when
Donatus composed his commentary, had changed dramatically since the first
performances of Terences comedies in the second century BCE.62 Even by the
probably comes from the tradition of stage performances, in this era presumably from
mime.
58 Jakobi 1996 171. He interestingly makes a connection with the representation of masks in
the manuscript illustrations: both Donatus and the illustrator might have had theatrical
monuments in mind.
59 For instance, Jakobi 1996 12 regards Donatus reference as a reflection of contemporary
mime performance practices, while Kragelund 2012 41820 argues that Donatus refers
to contemporary performances of Terence. Webb 2002 282 accepts the possibility that
Donatus comment on An. 716 reveals that female performers enacted literary drama and
comedy in particular, while at the same time she points to the popularity of mime, which
also employed female performers.
60 See for instance the scholium on Ad. 265 [3], in which the commentator assigns the pimp
Sannio a certain gesticulatio and subsaltatio. The comment simply suggests that Sannio
responds in a vivid gesture. However, saltatio is usually used to denote dancing (e.g. Quint.
Inst. 1.11.18 and 11.3.66), while gesticulatio is a common term for a mimetic performance,
see OLD s.v. gesticulatio.
61 On the two passages see also Basore 1908 1516, who traces a common gesture evident also
in other sources.
62 Beacham 1991 127 notes that from the second century BCE no new comedies were com-
posed but, during the empire, there were revivals on stage; he takes Donatus comment
on An. 716 as evidence for these revivals. On p. 152 he notes that in the fourth century the
194 demetriou
time of Quintilian there were significant changes, notably with the advent of
recitatio. Recitatio, the action of reading aloud a piece of literature, provides a
broader context to Donatus use of Terences works.63 In fact there is evidence
that from the first century the reading of a piece of literature was often turned
into a performative spectacle that employed non-verbal effects.64 On the other
hand, over this period playwrights began not just to offer their works for a reci-
tatio in order to get useful feedback on their composition, but gradually devel-
oped a new genre, writing pieces intended exclusively for recitation.65 Thus the
development of recitatio made drama recitation a distinctive form, a perfor-
mance genre blending the theatrical and rhetorical traditions.66 Accordingly,
we can assume that the reading of Terences comedies in Donatus school was
conducted in a more performative context, perhaps even reflecting amateur
productions of Terence.67
With regard to theatre performed by professional actors to a public audi-
ence during Donatus day, although revivals of traditional drama seem to be
attested, pantomime was in fact the most popular type of performance in
imperial Rome.68 We have an idea of how pantomime performances were
staged: there was an actor (a dancer), who enacted all roles of a myth, the
story of which was sung in the form of a libretto.69 The centre of a pantomime
performance was the solo actors movement,70 and the dancer simply repre-
sented the sung story by means of gestures. As the closest performative genre
pantomime continued to flourish all over the empire. However, although pantomime
and mime were extremely popular in late antiquity, there were still stage performances of
literary drama (e.g. tragedy). We certainly have evidence from Constantinople in the sixth
century; see Jones 2012 30910.
63 Similarly, Dutsch 2013 427, in discussing Donatus comment on An. 110, suggests that the
commentator may refer to the reading of a recitator.
64 Dupont 1997, 512.
65 Hollingsworth 2001, 136.
66 Dutsch 2013 425.
67 See Dutsch 2007, 54 on school performances of Terence.
68 Jory 2002, 238. For an overview of the emergence of pantomime, the type of performance,
and its popularity from Augustan Rome for about five hundred years, see pp. 2401.
Pantomime was popular until the sixth century in the West, see Lada-Richards 2007 24;
on the diversity of performance genres, see p. 120.
69 However, this picture is not complete or definite. On pantomime performance, see Jory
1998 and Hall 2008 3. Lada-Richards 2007 38 refers to the fact that there is not one spe-
cific way pantomime was performed or staged; on standard pantomime form, see also
pp.402; on variety even among the members of the same school, p. 46.
70 Hall 2008 4 notes: at the heart of all pantomime performance was the notion that a story
could be told through a dancers silent, rhythmical movements, poses and gestures.
Donatus Commentary 195
71 Csapo and Slater 1995 369 note that the two main spectacles in imperial times were
mime and pantomime. Beacham 1991 135 notes that there was rich stylistic interchange
between comedy and mime and that mime movements seem to have influenced actors
acting. For mimes in the third and the fourth centuries, see pp. 1378.
72 On the connection between mime and pantomime, their differences and similarities, see
Webb 2002 2867. On the differences, see also Hall 2008 24 and Hall 2013 466.
73 Lada-Richards 2007 2930 (29). Beacham 1991 130 notes on mime performers that:
their grimacing, gesticulation, and general expressiveness were an essential part of the
performance.
74 Petrides 2013 4405 discusses the neutral mask of pantomime and he argues that its
form favoured body rather than facial performance.
75 Jory 1998 217. Also, Beacham 1991 141.
76 On the synchronization between words (the story sung) and gestures as well as the close
connection between words and gestures in pantomime, see Lada-Richards 2007 412.
77 On the symbolic use of pantomime gesture, see Lucian Salt. 69; on both mimetic and
symbolic dimensions of pantomime movement, see Lada-Richards 2007 445.
78 On Lucian Salt. 67, see also Lada-Richards 2007 512. Zimmermann 2008 224 observes:
as one can infer from Lucian, On Dancing 67, and the anonymous epigram On the
Pantomime in the Latin Anthology, the danced reproduction of psychological impulses is
an essential characteristic of the fabula saltata.
196 demetriou
that you can understand the story the actor is enacting even if you do not hear
the libretto (Inst. 11.3.66).79 Although it is certainly difficult to apply a universal
language to all pantomime performances in every place and period, it seems
that some sort of gesture code was in use in order for the audience to under-
stand the action.80
The need for both symbolic and imitative gestures inevitably led to the
creation of stereotypes in performers movement, which, to some extent, pre-
supposed the audiences familiarity.81 Besides, it is certainly plausible that in
a spectacle strictly focused on movement such as pantomimes, a recognizable
set of gestures is essential in order to achieve the audiences understanding
and participation. However, standard gestures used in pantomime spectacles
would be based, at least to a certain extent, upon everyday non-verbal behav-
ior, in order to secure their maximum effect upon the participating audience.
In the same manner, Donatus might have a similar system in mindif
not a universally accepted one, at least a code developed in his school. The
gestures described in Donatus scholia had to be constructed in such a way
that they would be recognized by the audience of his commentary; thus, they
would reflect common concepts of non-verbal communication. In this way the
instructions for a recitator would be clear. On the other hand, given his audi-
ences familiarity with contemporary performances, varying from literary com-
edy to mime and pantomime, his references to specific gestures could imply
a well-known style of performance. I do not of course argue that Donatus is
composing his commentary according to set rules of pantomime performance,
but the performance style of such a popular spectacle, certainly not detached
82 The case of Senecas drama is probably a good parallel for the impact of pantomime on
other dramatic genres. Zimmermann 2008 21920 interprets descriptions of action found
in Senecas tragedies as influences by the contemporary popular performance of panto-
mime. On the influence of pantomimes popularity upon Senecas drama, see also Zanobi
2008 227 and 252.
83 Quintilian often points to the boundaries between oratory and pantomime in regard to
the use of gesture (Inst. 11.3.184, 1.11.1519, 1.12.14); on the references, see also Lada-Richards
2007 11617.
84 Most notably in Cic. de Orat. 3.220, discussed in Dutsch 2013 422. On Quintilian and
Cicero, see also Lada-Richards 2007 46 and Graf 1991 43.
85 On pantomime and declamation, see Lada-Richards 2007 114.
86 See Lada-Richards 2007 115, quoting Choricius.
87 Lada-Richards 2007 29.
88 Lada-Richards 2007 50.
198 demetriou
Conclusion
Scholars have so far argued for various influences on Donatus, either from
stage revivals of literary comedy or contemporary performances (e.g. mime).
It is quite clear that Donatus is influenced by some traditions, reflecting the
genre blend of his time. It is impossible, however, to trace Donatus influences
exactly; what we can describe are rather contemporary stage conventions, evi-
dent in the commentary as well as other literary and iconographic sources.
In this framework, the trends of Donatus time are certainly of great impor-
tance in interpreting his stage conventions. The second sophistic favoured a
tendency towards the construction of types and the performance of roles and
its powerful influence was still being felt in Donatus time. In rhetorical edu-
cation, exercises of ethopoiia played a central role, leading to a certain sort of
performance in the framework of declamation.89
As well, aesthetics at the time of Donatus might have formed a solid back-
ground for the interpretation of the context of his scholia. Art in late antiquity
(both iconography and literature) favoured the expression of the universal
against the individual. The plastic arts of this period also favour schematisa-
tion: figures move away from naturalism towards a uniform representation,
often in static movement.90 This context might have served as the framework
in which the manuscript figures were produced, representing stereotypical
gestures and appearances.
On the other hand, the preference for universal representations is also evi-
dent in Donatus scholia on movement:91 the commentator understands the
employment of certain gestures in a specified manner. We should not forget
that Donatus work is meaningless without the interaction and participation
of his audience. When Donatus refers to specific gestures without providing a
description, he obviously considers them to be recognizable by his audience.
Although some of them might have been known through tradition (e.g. the
representation of comic slaves), others, not connected with characters but
mainly concerned with the expression of an emotional status, presuppose a
common understanding and expectation. In fact a common ground, in this
89 On role-playing in second sophistic, see Gyselinck and Demoen 2008 956.
90 Roberts 1989 69, 81.
91 On Donatus assigning a uniform style of performance to stock characters, see Demetriou
2014b.
Donatus Commentary 199
92 On the vital role of preestablished patterns or schemata that are central in the rep-
resentation of art, see Roberts 1989 119: the artist in fact presupposes a similar visual
sense...on the part of his audience.
CHAPTER 8
Gianni Guastella*
Foreword
* I wish to thank Giulia Torello-Hill and Andrew Turner for inviting me to contribute to this
volume. My warmest thanks to Chiara Felici for her useful suggestions and to my sister
Manuela for her help in translating this paper into English.
1 In this discussion, the italicised Latin form Prologus will be used to denote this specific char-
acter when he appears in Terences plays, while prologue refers to other uses, including the
actual text.
PROLOGO
2 For a full survey of all known illustrated manuscripts of Terence, see the contribution of
Radden Keefe in this volume.
3 I quote from Leoncavallo 1893 78.
202 guastella
PROLOGUE
Tonio in the costume of Taddeo in the play, coming through the curtain
Excuse me! (bowing) Ladies and gentlemen, excuse me for being the one
who introduces himself.I am the Prologue. Since the author is putting
on the stage again characters from the past, he would like to revive some
of the old customs and so sends me out again to you. But not to say, as
before, The tears we shed are feigned! Do not worry about our sufferings
and our torments! No. The author instead has attempted to portray a
glimpse of life. His only principle is that the artist is a man and it is for
men that he must write. Real life was his inspiration.
Tonio manages everything by himself: begs the audiences pardon, greets them,
attracts their attention, introduces himself and...proclaims himself to be the
Prologue. He then describes the authors aims and his poetics: the wish to revive
an ancient theatrical tradition, while renewing it in a realistic way. In fact, in
1892 the prologue was one of the old customs that no one practised any longer,
although its function had been vital during the rebirth of modern theatre.
According to Aristotle (Rhet. iii. 1414b), in ancient plays, the prologue had
the same role as a preamble in an oration or a prelude in music:
, .
for all these are beginnings, and as it were a paving the way for what fol-
lows (transl. J.H. Freese)
4 , []
[...] ,
Ornatu prologi 203
These three functions recur in the prologues of Plautus. Besides either telling
what happened before the story that is to be represented, or giving information
about the characters that are going to enter the stage, he typically concludes
his prologues by inviting his listeners to pay attention (sometimes he asks
them to remain silent) and be well-disposed.7
Although the informative function is central to the majority of the pro-
logues that survive in classical drama, the structurally vital aspects in all the
ancient prologues of archaic Roman Comedy appear to be the other two func-
tions, which are always present in the actors appeal to the audience. We real-
ize this as we consider the allocutive markers used by the actor in the text of
the prologues of Plautus and Terence (especially at the beginning and at the
end). When addressing the listeners in the second person plural, the actor is
usually requesting their attention and benevolence.8 As we shall see at the end
of this paper, this characteristic of the prologue is constant in all texts written
for the comic stage.
Terentian Prologues
7 Menander had already structured some of his prologues in a similar way: cf. Sisti 1987
30310, Belardinelli 1994 1057 and 118, Raffaelli 2009 1068.
8 Cf. the prologue of Plautuss Asinaria, simply devoted to introduce the title of the com-
edy and its model (Diphiluss Onagos) 13: Hoc agite sultis, spectatores, nunciam, / quae
quidem mihi atque vobis res vortat bene/ gregique huic et dominis atque conductoribus and
1415: date benigne operam mihi / ut vos, ut alias, pariter nunc Mars adiuvet. Greek tragic
poets never address the audience using the second person plural like this. In the few
extant texts, Menander and the other playwrights of New Comedy make a limited use of
the same allocutive devices: see Bain 1977 1869, Bruzzese 2011 1267.
9 Some (anonymous) Medieval scholars strongly objected to such modification to the func-
tion of the prologue: see Villa 1984 923.
10 A standard format also characterises the beginning of most Senecan tragedies, whose
prologues have a mainly informative function. In seven out of ten cases such prologues
Ornatu prologi 205
respect, arch dramatos, the liminal stage, where audience and author, as it
were, start a negotiation on the fiction about to be staged. The first person to
enter the Terentian stage was always a specific character called Prologus in our
manuscripts;11 some centuries later, as we shall see, this character would also
be given the name Calliopius.12
The prologue is a part of a play in which communications among author,
characters and audience13 have not yet taken a definite shape. The actor deliv-
ering the prologue addresses his listeners in the second person plural and, leav-
ing aside the informative function typical of Plautine prologues, acts mainly
as the authors spokesman (and occasionally as his real advocate),14 while
also inviting the audience to be quiet, pay attention and show benevolence
towards the poet and the actors. At this stage, he is not conversing with the
other characters, as he will be for the rest of his performance; he is speaking to
After this dont expect an outline of the plot. The old men who come on
first will in part explain it and in part reveal it in the course of the action.
See that you give the play a fair hearing and encourage the author to con-
tinue with the task of writing. (transl. J. Barsby)
Ornatu prologi
Let us go back to the first line of the second prologue to Hecyra (9):
How would the Prologus have looked when entering the stage?20 As I have
said, no ancient evidence is available, since no mention of this appears even
in the commentaries of Donatus and Eugraphius. Only the prologue of the
Heautontimorumenos seems to suggest that such a role was usually entrusted
to younger actors (partis...adulescentium; Hau. 12).21
Towards the end of the ninteenth century Philippe Fabia proposed
an interesting hypothesis.22 On the basis of the miniatures of the famous
Carolingian manuscripts C, P, and F, he imagined that originally the role of
the Prologus ought to have been attributed to the mask of an adulescens. In
his opinion, the character, wearing a chlamys, could be easily recognised by
a specific identifying symbol: an olive branch covered with ribbons, which
was typical of a suppliant. Fabia was well aware that he was going beyond the
evidence. Actually, among the five figures of a Prologus found in Carolingian
20 For the meaning of ornatus cf. Plaut. Amph. 11617, 119: Nunc ne hunc ornatum vos meum
admiremini,/ quod ego huc processi sic cum servili schema...propterea ornatus in novom
incessi modum; As. 69: nauclerico...ornatu (cf. also Miles 1177 and 1282); Cas. 932: hoc
ornatu quo vides (cf. also 974); Poen. 123: Ego ibo, ornabor; vos aequo animo noscite (the
prologus is leaving the stage, and is supposed to come back later on, wearing a different
costume). See Fabia 1888 1567, Raffaelli 2009 534.
21 See Gilula 1989 97.
22 Fabia 1888 15575.
208 guastella
miniatures,23 only one (in Phormio) portrays an adulescens, and only in the
Vatican manuscript C is the adulescens holding a small branch (f. 77v). As
we shall see shortly, the Prologi of other comedies wear either the costume
of a servus (Andria) or of a senex (Heautontimorumenos, Adelphoe, Hecyra).24
In short, Fabias hypothesis, while both ingenious and attractive, overinter-
preted the evidence at our disposal, as many critics have pointed out.25
What, then, are the main characteristics of the pictures of the Prologus we
find in Carolingian manuscripts? Let us firstly consider the images themselves.
In two of these manuscripts, C and P, (in F the folios containing Andria have
been lost) the Prologus to Andria wears the mask of a servus.26 P makes it clear
that a slave is meant by a somewhat enigmatic caption (lirodo.servus cre) sur-
rounding the picture (f. 3r; see Figure 22). Since the beginning of Eunuchus was
damaged at some point in the course of this branch of the manuscript tradi-
tion, both the aedicula and the Prologus are missing. We must next move on
to the beginning of Heautontimorumenos, whose Prologus wears the mask of a
senex in the three manuscripts: the same applies to Adelphoe (whose Prologus
also holds an elongated branch)27 as well as Hecyra.28 Finally, in Phormio we
find the image of an adulescens, who is pictured holding a branch in his left
hand only in the Vatican manuscript.
It is difficult to explain the variety of these costumes. It seems clear that a
specific mask had not been assigned to the Prologus in the Carolingian min-
iatures. For instance, in the aedicula for Andria in the Parisian manuscript P
23 The prologue to Eunuchus is missing. Fabia 1888 165 wrongly maintained that in BAV, Vat.
lat. 3868 a servus appeared as a prologue at the beginning of this comedy too (the same
mistake is in Saunders 1909 36).
24 See Wright 2006 217. Fabia was well aware of this (see Fabia 1888 165).
25 See Saunders 1909 309, Duckworth 1994 92, Beare 1964 1945 (who assumed that the
prologue entered the stage wearing the usual tunic, pallium and slippers, but no mask).
26 Since all the prologue characters in the miniatures of the Carolingian manuscripts of
Terence are depicted in the same stance, Dutsch 2007 623 calls it Prologue gesture
(with his arm pointing to the right, stretched out and almost horizontal: the index and
middle fingers [...] stretched out and the thumb [...] folded).
27 Beare 1964 195 maintained that it had to be a cypress branch (since the play had been
produced [...] at the funeral games for L. Aemilius Paulus), following an old suggestion
by Mme. Dacier (cf. Fabia 1888 164 n. 2 and Saunders 1909 35).
28 According to Wright 2006 217 only the Prologus for Adelphoe is dressed as the character
of a senex: For Heautontimorumenos and for Hecyra the speaker is Lucius Ambivius, who
produced Terences plays; he is depicted as a senex with his cloak draped tightly [...] in
the dignified manner of the Herculaneum Aeschines and the Lateran Sophocles. In any
case, each figure is labelled as Prologus.
Ornatu prologi 209
(f. 2v), where an abbreviated identification has been added above each mask,
there is no specific mask for the Prologus. Nor is it possible to identify with
certainty the picture of the Prologus on f. 3r with any of the masks for the
slaves.29
It is not even possible to identify the Prologus mask on the basis of the first
appearances of the various characters on stage. None of the characters illus-
trated in the miniatures immediately following the prologue shows the fea-
tures of the actor who recites the prologue. We cannot therefore conclude that
the mask given to the Prologus corresponds to that of one of the actors due to
enter the stage first. Finally, there is no correspondence between the Prologuss
mask and the mask of the actor to whom, according to Donatus, the primae
partes (the chief role) were assigned. In short, we can only say that on the
basis of Carolingian illuminations, the Prologus wore different masks, assigned
on the basis of unknown criteria.30
In some later traditions, depictions of the Prologus appear to have been con-
sidered unnecessary. In the beautiful illuminations of the Parisian manuscript
BnF lat. 7907A (presented by Martin Gouge to the Duke Jean de Berry at the
beginning of 1408), which re-interpret the illustrative tradition of Terence, or
in the famous Terence des Ducs (Paris, Bibliothque de lArsenal, 664), there
are no depictions of the Prologus. The vignettes found in the Carolingian man-
uscripts at the beginning of each comedy (both the aediculae and the Prologus
images) have been discarded.
29 It must be remembered that the way in which characters of the Andria are identified
in the aedicula of P is not correct, as we can argue on the basis of the rule by which the
disposition of the masks follows their order of appearance on stage. In any case, since the
number of masks represented and sigla used is the same, we can exclude the presence of
a specific mask for the Prologus. A mask for the Prologus is absent also from the aedicula
of Andria in the Vatican manuscript C: see Wright 2006 8, 11, and colour plates 2 and 3. In
the aediculae of the other manuscripts a mask of the Prologus does never appear.
30 In the manuscript BnF lat. 7900 (Y) (middle ninth century) the beginnings of Andria
and Eunuchus are missing, but a blank space was left, presumably for the representation
of the Prologus, at the incipit of the other four comedies (f. 16r, Heautontimorumenos.;
25r, Adelphoe; 39v, Hecyra; 40v, Phormio), although as it happens all illustrations cease at
f.11v. In the manuscript BnF lat. 7903 (eleventh century) the spaces left blank could have
included a picture of the prologue only at f. 50r (Adelphoe) and 74r (Phormio). An isolated
representation of the prologue is in BAV, Vat. lat. 3305 (end of eleventh century), at f.9r
(Andria), wearing a costume that could still be that of a slave, but with no mask. The
character is represented in the typical gesture of the crossed arms (see Jones and Morey
1931 2.167). On the miniatures of this manuscript see Wright 1993, in particular 193.
210 guastella
After Antiquity
The forms of classical drama came to life again only towards the end of the
fifteenth century, after various experimental phases during which many stage
conventions from ancient Roman plays had to be adapted to the new literary
and theatrical taste. At an early stage, between the eleventh and the thirteenth
century, comical plots resurfaced in different kinds of literary productions
intended for literary readers only (especially in the so called elegiac comedy).
But from the beginning of the fourteenth century, a gradual rediscovery of clas-
sical plays led to new forms of composition. This happened in some literary
texts imitating the style of writers such as Seneca or Plautus. Later on, vari-
ous theatrical experiments led to a true revival of the ancient texts, either in
an academic-antiquarian form (and therefore in Latin), in Rome, or in a new
31 We find a character specifically named Calliopius delivering the epilogue in other con-
texts too: for example in Ariostos Isis, staged in 1444 (see below, n.49).
Ornatu prologi 211
32 For a comprehensive overview of this revival of ancient plays see Guastella 2007 82116.
33 Pacem quietemque a vobis, spectatores, noster sermo poeticus rogat, qui Graecorum dis-
ciplinas ore narrat barbaro et Latinorum vetusta vestro recolit tempore. Praeterea preca-
tur et sperat non inhumana voce, ut qui vobis laborem indulsit, vestram referat gratiam.
Aululariam hodie sumus acturi, non veterem at rudem, investigatam et inventam Plauti per
vestigia. Fabella haec est eqs. (Querol. 78 [p. 5 Jacquemard-Le Saos]).
34 Another, somewhat innovative, form of introduction can be found in Donisiuss Comedia
Pamphile (twelfth century), which begins with an Epistula loco prologi (a dedication in
verse, which includes the traditional description of a poetic investiture), followed by an
Argumentum (see Langosch 1979 413).
35 Discussed by Pittaluga 2002 1016.
36 See Bertini 1980 184.
212 guastella
but at one point he uses the vocative when trying to excuse the unavoidable
lasciva verba of his pages (ll. 2627).37
More complex is the beginning of Lidia, a short poem (late twelfth cen-
tury), possibly attributable to Arnulf of Orlans. In this case, we also find
two different prefatory sections, called Argumentum and Prologus respec-
tively in one of the two main manuscripts (F). This time the story of the
poetic inspiration is told in the first section, while the second appears as
a bitter attack against an envious rival (mainly referred to in the second
person singular).38
Humanistic comedy drew decidedly closer to the forms of performed drama,
and in this context the prologue regained many of its ancient characteristics.39
Already in his Paulus (ca. 1390), Pietro Paolo Vergerio had restored the three
roles of author, prologue-speaker and audience upon which the communica-
tion mechanism hinged in Terences prologues:40
In the very first lines the speaker describes himself as an actor who has received
a specific message from the poeta.41 A few lines further we find the traditional
address to the audience (ll. 1013):
37 See Bertini 1998 4850. An address to the lector in the second person singular can be
found only in the first line of De more medicorum (thirteenth century): Si cupias, lector,
medicorum noscere morem/ carminibus variis notificabo tibi (quoted from Gatti 1998 398)
Cf. also the beginning of Babio (twelfth century): Ut manifestius intelligatur quid isti versus
volunt dicere, quandam notitiam legentibus prepono, in primis ostendendo quid velint agere
et de quo et qualiter (quoted from Dess Fulgheri 1980 242).
38 See Gualandri and Orlandi 1998 2068.
39 Oddly enough, goliardic comedies such as Janus sacerdos, which were written for the
stage, do not have direct addresses to the audience at their beginning. See the texts
collected in Pandolfi and Artese 1965.
40 Quoted from Grund 2005 2.
41 About the meaning of recensere see Stuble 1968 18991, Rizzo 1973 2779, Raffaelli
200293.
Ornatu prologi 213
So lend an ear to me and pay attention to the play that the poet has com-
posed, in the course of which he uses an ancient genre of writing to con-
demn modern moralsnot the moral of tragic figures, but of heedless
ones (transl. G.R. Grund)
42 Suffice it to consider the last line of Pauluss prologue, where servi infidi, sodales devii,
parentes creduli are mentioned.
43 See the text in Beutler 1927, reproduced in Pandolfi and Artese 1965 4468.
44 Cesarini Martinelli 1977 1449. See also Pittaluga 2002 20910.
214 guastella
which would have been recited by one of his pupils. Let us consider the open-
ing speech of Corallaria:45
Ne cui vestrum mirum sit, qui sim et cur venerim paucis dabo, et simul
eloquar nomen meum. Praeceptor huc me misit meus. Oratorem voluit
esse, non prologum. Nomen Hieronymus est mihi. Nunc attendite aequo
animo. Neque vos moveat oratio malevolum, qui ita dictitant: non licere
novas dare fabulas: satis esse graece scriptitatas et conversas latine. Sint
fuerintque graecae et latinae multae. Qua gratia ab studio et industria
hominem student reicere?
In case you wonder who I am and why I came here, I will explain it in few
words, and at the same time I will tell you my name. My schoolmaster sent
me here. He wanted me to be his spokesman, not a Prologue. My name
is Hieronymus. Now pay attention with an impartial mind. Do not listen
to the arguments of malicious people who claim that he is not allowed to
stage new plays, since so many have already been written in Greek and
translated into Latin. Its true, many Greek and Latin plays already exist and
have existed, but why do they want to turn a man away from zealous effort?
45 Previt-Orton 1932 5.
46 See supra, n. 14.
47 Nunc virtutem et aequanimitatem expeto vestram, vosque quaeso et obtestor: aequo animo
attendite dum huiusce fabulae argumentum eloquor.
48 See especially the prologue of Oratoria, a downright collage of Terentian motifs and word-
ings, which goes through the various moments of the controversy between Frulovisi and
his detractors (Cocco 2010 68).
49 Particularly interesting, in its redundancy, is the beginning of Isis, a dramatic elegy staged
by Francesco Ariosto Peregrino for Leonello dEste on 20th January 1444 (Stendardo 1936
11422). In the prologue, opened by a deferential greeting to Leonello as well as to the
Ornatu prologi 215
Finally, let us focus on the twenty-five year period between 1485 and 1510,
during which both modern versions of ancient tragedies and comedies and
original Greek and Roman fabulae themselves were staged in the classical
forms of vernacular drama. All the plays produced during this period include a
prologue,50 with its traditional request for silence, attention and benevolence.
It is delivered either personally by the poet,51 or by a god,52 or even by a classi-
cal author.53 It is important to emphasize that the distinction between tragic
and comic prologues starts to blur in this period. In the prologues of tragedies
we can usually find addresses to the audience, which in ancient texts were
unheard of for that genre; on the other hand, ghosts, typical of Senecan trage-
dies, may also appear in comic prologues.54 The prologue became a distinctive
feature for plays in any dramatic genre.55
In this cultural climate, the events that initiated the rebirth of modern
comic theatre were the theatrical performances organized in Ferrara by Ercole
spectatores optimi, the speaker introduces himself as Caliopius, and explains why the
author asked him to stage the play (about the character of Calliopius, see Stuble 1968
18991 and Raffaelli 2002 93 and 958). A final appeal to the audiences attention and
benevolence is also included. The prologue is followed by an argumentum, which ends
with an analogous request and a final call to the praeco Misenus, invited to command
silence. With a clear allusion to Plaut. Asin. 45 Ariosto also lets the crier recite his cue:
Spectatores elingues vos omnis paulisper: auritos / vero maxime, atque oculatos iubet esse
Caliopius.
50 Sometimes it is called Argumentum. Nonetheless, the distinguishing features of these
opening passages are clearly typical of prologues. In such plays the usual sequence of
prologue and argumentum is often found as well.
51 E.g. in Baldassare Taccones Comedia di Danae (1496) or in Galeotto del Carrettos Timone
(1497).
52 E.g. Mercury Annunziatore della festa in Polizianos Orfeo (ca. 1481). Cf. also the Prologue
of Galeotto del Carrettos Noze di Psiche e Cupidineca. 1502who introduces himself
as a nunzio (messenger) and Auxilium, who recites the epilogue of Boiardos Timone
(ca.1490).
53 E.g. Lucian in Boiardos Timone, moral Seneca in Cammellis tragedy Panfila (1499); see
also the appearance of Caecilius Statius in Gasparo Viscontis Pasitea (ca. 1495).
54 E.g. Caecilius Statiuss ghost in Gasparo Viscontis Pasitea.
55 The most interesting theme of these prologues is the discussion of the genre of the per-
formed plays (favola, tragedia, comedia), as was natural in the strongly experimental
stage of such productions. See e.g. the end of the Argumento of Niccol da Correggios
Fabula de Cefalo (1487): Non vi do questa gi per comeda,/ ch in tuto non se observa il
modo loro,/ n voglio la credati trageda,/ se ben de ninfe ge vedreti il coro: / fabula o isto-
ria, quale ella se sia,/ io vi la dono, e non per precio doro (ll. 4956 in Tissoni Benvenuti
and Mussini Sacchi 1983 210).
216 guastella
of Este, first on January 25th 1486, in which vernacular versions of Plautine and
Terentian comedies were staged. As is well known, this revival soon led to the
development of the original production of Italian comedies (beginning with
Ariostos Cassaria, staged in Ferrara on March 6th 1508). In all the texts written
for these theatrical productions there are prologues with traditional requests
for silence and attention.
In the vernacular versions, the original text of Plautuss comedies often
underwent considerable revisions, aimed at making the prologues informa-
tive and conative functions more effective. Pandolfo Collenuccios vernacular
adaptation of Plautuss Amphitruo, for example, has a prologue56 delivered
by Mercury, as it was in the original; but the long and complex speech of the
Roman god (152 lines) has been reduced to one third of its original length, and
the elaborate, ironical remarks made by Mercury about the nature of comedy
and tragedy have been abandoned in favour of a speech which is predomi-
nantly concerned with providing background information.57 Likewise, the
prologue of the anonymous version of Menaechmi (Menechini, in vernacular
Italian),58 spoken by a Caliopio annunciatore (announcer),59 has been revised
considerably, although it remains quite close to the original,60 in both length61
and content.
56 It is called Argumento in the 1530 edition (Venezia: Zoppino). The text of this edition is
almost certainly the same as that performed on the occasion of the wedding of Lucrezia
dEste and Annibale Bentivoglio, on 25th January 1487.
57 In the prose text of the vernacular version of Plautuss Poenulus (Penolo, Venezia:
Francesco di Alessandro Bindoni and Mapheo Pasini, 1526), the long prologue of the
original (128 lines) is simply reduced to a very short Argomento. An analogous reduction
(22lines as opposed to the 88 of the original) can be found in Girolamo Berardos vernac-
ular version of Casina (Cassina, Venezia, Zoppino 1530: possibly the same text staged on
February 8th 1502, on the occasion of the wedding of Alfonso dEste and Lucrezia Borgia).
58 Almost certainly this is the same text performed during the first Plautine performance
staged by Ercole dEste, on 25th January 1486.
59 Caliopio annunciatore proferisse largumento according to the text of the manu-
script Modena, Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, It. 836 (.H.6.1), f. 85r (see also Tissoni
Benvenuti and Mussini Sacchi 1983 88); Caliopio anuntia la Comedia in questo modo
[...] according to the text of the manuscript Roma, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale,
Sessoriano 413, f. 34r (see also the edition of Menechini in Uberti 1985 75). See also the
contribution of Torello-Hill in this volume.
60 See Guastella 2007 11921. A very close translation can be found only in the vernacular
version of Asinaria (Venezia: Girolamo Pentio 1528).
61 A shorter version is in the manuscript Roma, BNC, Sessoriano 413, whose text seems to
be the result of various cuts, if compared to the text of both the manuscript Modena,
Ornatu prologi 217
Whenever the Plautine text featured prologues that provided limited back-
ground information, the translators made even more drastic revisions and
composed speeches that would adequately carry out the introductory func-
tions deemed essential for the success of a theatrical performance. In time the
prologue developed highly distinctive features.62 For example, in Girolamo
Berardos translation of Mostellaria (Mustellaria)63 we find a substantial pro-
logue, whereas the model play has none at all;64 likewise, the anonymous
vernacular version of Pseudolus (Pseudolo),65 staged on 8 February 1512 at the
Morosini Palace in Venice, has 33 lines of Terentian prologue, delivered by
thePoet (El Poeta),66 while the original has an enigmatic fragment of just
twolines.
In these prologues both Plautine and Terentian elements are commonly
mixed together, within the usual frame of appeals for the audiences attention.
Usually this kind of theatrical performance did not leave much room for a gen-
eral discussion of poetics, which is almost always replaced by remarks of a
more encomiastic tone, such as on the novelty of the revival. A good example of
this is the prologue to an anonymous Ferrarese vernacular version of Terences
Phormio (Formione), ascribed with no compelling argument to Ludovico
Ariosto by Guido Mazzoni in 1906.67 In this case the original Terentian text
Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, It. 836 (.H.6.1) and the manuscript Venezia, Biblioteca
Nazionale Marciana, It. IX 368 (7170).
62 See for example the prologue of Giraldi Cinzios Orbecche (1541), delivered by a character
who acts as a spokesman of the tragic Poet (ll. 19): Essere non vi dee di maraviglia,/
Spettatori, che qui venuti sia/ Prima dognun, col prologo diviso/ Da le parti che son ne la
Tragedia,/ A ragionar con voi, fuor del costume/ De le Tragedie e de Poeti antichi:/ Perch
non altro che piet di voi/ Mi ha fatto, fuor del consueto stile,/ Qui comparir, di maraviglia
pieno (quoted from the edition of Cremante 1988 28992).
63 Venezia: Zoppino 1530 (possibly the same text that was staged in Ferrara on 21th February
1503).
64 Also at the beginning of the vernacular version of Plautuss Stichus in the manuscript
Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, It. IX 368 (7170) is a long Argumento (actually a
prologue), in stanzas of seven syllable lines (settenari) and of five (quinari) (see the edi-
tion of Rossetto 1996 15153), whereas the original has no prologue.
65 Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, ms. It. IX 368 (7170), cc. 150r182r.
66 See Rossetto 1996 912.
67 Mazzoni 1906 (from the manuscript Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 1616, f. 37r38v). At
the beginning of the vernacular versions included in the printed edition of all the com-
edies of Terence (Venezia: Iacob da Borgo Franco 1538) the characteristics of the original
text have completely been transformed, and the prologues have been reduced to short
introductions. See for example the prologue to Hecyra (116rv): Questa Comedia, quale
havete hoggi vedere, si chiama ECIRA: il che tanto significa, quanto Socera: percioche
218 guastella
has been totally replaced by a long prologue that explains Ercole d Estes aim
in bringing the ancient plays back to the stage, before revealing the comedys
plot:
Therefore Hercules now acts like someone who, fond of a righteous way
of life, wants to revive ancient customs [...]. He has these plays trans-
lated, so that learned and ignorant men alike, and everyone may learn
here the ancient examples. Therefore pay attention to the comedies, so
that you will gain such solace from them, and in the end you will leave
happy from here.
In the guise of a Terentian prologue the specific remarks of the African play-
wright about poetics have been totally replaced by the praise of novelty
brought about by the Ferrarese performances. What represented the main
focus of Terences prologues, as well as the characterisation of the Prologue we
observed in the Terentian manuscripts, underwent all manner of transforma-
tion. Not so the prologues enunciative structure, which, although subject to a
long series of modifications, kept its communicative function largely intact.
tratta di due Socere, come hor hora intenderete. Essendomi data facult di rappresen-
tarla, et voi di ornare i giuochi scenici, fate che vostra authorita mi sia fautrice et adiu-
trice, tale chio la possi far con silentio: ondio reputo di guadagnarassai, quandio mi
faccia cosa, che di piacere vi sia. Fate silentio adunque tutti. In two cases only (Andria
and Heautontimorumenos) a weak trace of the original Terentian contents has been pre-
served. See for example the prologue to Andria (2r): Qui siamo per farvi spettatori duna
Comedia chiamata ANDRIA, quale gia compose il Poeta ad imitatione di Menandro, tratta
buona parte dalla Perinthia di quello, onde fu da malevoli molto et indegnamente calon
niato: ma accusando lui, accusano Nevio, Plauto, Ennio, i quali ha questo nostro Poeta per
authori. Stati adunque attenti, prestandoci benigna udienza: et intenderete apertamente
quanto si contiene in quella: et quanto si habbia sperar dallaltre sue Comedie.
CHAPTER 9
On the 3rd February 1501 Isabella dEste Gonzaga reports to her husband
Francesco Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua, details of the performance of
Eunucho, a vernacular adaptation of Terences Eunuchus, in Ferrara:
Et questa sira hano facto lo Eunucho, le quale se ben sono state piene de
parole vane et de qualche erubescentia, per chi la timesse, tuttavia sono
state multo dilectevole et de riso et piacere assai, maxime per le voce
accomodate et optimi gesti.1
And tonight they staged Eunucho which, although it was full of pomp-
ous words and of some moments of embarrassment, as some might have
feared, nevertheless, it was very delectable, humorous and enjoyable, par-
ticularly thanks to the well modulated voices and the superb gestures.2
* I wish to thank Andrew Turner and Bernard Muir who read earlier drafts of this paper, provid-
ing invaluable criticism. I also owe thanks to Grazia Maria Fachechi who personally provided
me with a copy of her 2002 work on Plautus illustrated manuscripts, Silvia Castelli (Biblioteca
Riccardiana) and Susy Marcon (Biblioteca Marciana) for their assistance. Lastly, I whole-
heartedly thank my father Franco Torello and Claudio Risso at the Biblioteca Universitaria of
Genoa for providing me with copies of several Italian articles and monographs.
1 This letter is preserved by the Archivio di Stato di Modena (F.II.9, b 2993 lib. 13). Stefani 1979;
Bertini 1991 1627.
2 All translations are my own.
3 See, in particular, Demetrious contribution to this volume.
Text
4 Herrmann 1954 24 mentions a visit of Badius to Ferrara in 14912, but does not acknowledge
his sources. Lebel 1988 3 talks about Badius extended permanence in Ferrara from 1480 to
1488. White 2013 1516 mentions his studying in Ferrara in the 1480s, and confirms this by cit-
ing a prefatory dedication to Antonio Clava, who according to Badius prompted him to enrol
at the University of Ferrara.
5 Animum advortite, pay attention; Plaut. Men. 5.
6 Ercole dEste is presented as the educator of this people in the introductory chapter of
Pellegrino Priscianis Spectacula and in the encomiastic prologue to Terences Formione
preserved in manuscript Ricc. 1616 in Florence (see below). See Torello-Hill 2015.
Revival of Classical Roman Comedy in Renaissance Ferrara 221
It. IX 368 (7170), in part the autograph of Marin Sanudo.7 It. IX 368 (7170)
records the dates of the performances of Asinaria (12 August 1512 [f. 3r]),
Pseudolo (8February 1512 [f. 150r, repeated at f. 185r]) and Miles Gloriosus (car-
nival of 1514 [f. 193r]).8 The text of Menechini is preserved also in two other
manuscripts, in Modena, Biblioteca Estense, it. 836 ( H 6, 1) and in Rome, BNC,
Sessoriano 413. These anonymous scripts may relate to performances staged
in Ferrara and will be discussed in detail. As well, between 1520 and 1532 there
was a proliferation of vernacular printed editions of Plautus.9 This popular-
ity was, however, short-lived and destined to succumb to the development of
Renaissance vernacular theatre in Italy.
The situation with Terence is more problematic. Although his works
enjoyed an uninterrupted popularity throughout the Middle Ages and well
into the Renaissance, vernacular versions of his plays first appeared in print
in the 1530s, when the season of revival had already phased out. The edition
of Eunucho was published in 1532, while the first documented full edition of
Terences comedies appeared in 1533, perhaps preceded two or three years
earlier by an edition which is now lost.10 Anonymous vernacular adaptations
of Andria (second and fourth acts) and Eunuchus, which were previously
unknown, have recently been identified and published by Matteo Favaretto.11
7 Rossetto 1996 15 dates the manuscript more specifically to the second or third decade of
the sixteenth century. On Sanudo and performance of classical drama in Venice in the
early Renaissance see Padoan 1978.
8 Rossetto 1996 11. On the 1512 Venetian performance of Asinaria see also Bertini 1991.
9 For an overview of vernacular editions of Plautus and Terence in the Cinquecento see
Orlando 1940. Orlando does not include the editions of Sticho, Pseudolo, and Penolo
(the latter is the only extant vernacular adaptation in prose). Asinaria was the first text to
be printed in Venice (1514). Sticho and Pseudolo were printed by Zoppino in 1520 and again
in 1530 and 1532, and by Francesco di Alessandro Bindoni and Mapheo Pasini in 1526.
Menechini was printed by Girolamo Penco da Lecco in 1528 and appeared in the more
comprehensive 1530 edition by Zoppino. This edition included Amphitriona, Cassina,
and Mustellaria, along with Asinaria, Penolo, Menechini, Sticho and Pseudolo. Plautus
Menechini is available in two modern editions by Tissoni Benvenuti 1983 and Uberti 1985.
Sticho and Pseudolo have been edited by Rossetto 1996.
10 Orlando 1940 578.
11 A critical analysis of the two extant acts of Andria, which is preserved in Venice,
Biblioteca Marciana, It. ix 453 (6498), ff. 90r112v, is in Favaretto 2010; the actual text was
edited in Favaretto 2011a. The text of Eunucho, preserved in a single manuscript, Florence
BNC, Magliabechiano VII 1304 (=Med. Pal. 377) appears in an annotated critical edition
(Favaretto 2011b). Tissoni Benvenuti 1983 77 n. 2 mentions in passing that lost translations
of Terences Andria and Eunuchus were attributed to Ariosto by the sixteenth-century
dramatist Giraldi Cinthio.
222 Torello-Hill
12 Favaretto 2010 82. Pietro Zorzanello in a descriptive card compiled in the early 1950s at the
Marciana library, catalogued the manuscript as fifteenth or sixteenth century.
13 According to Favaretto 2011b: xxxviixli.
14 Favaretto 2011b: xvi. The ownership note reads Dato/Al Magnifico Lore(n)zo/ De medicj.
Favaretto identifies this person with the grandson of Lorenzo il Magnifico, Lorenzo di
Piero de Medici (14921519), since the death of Lorenzo il Magnifico in 1492 predates the
first performance of Eunucho in Ferrara (1499). I must argue that this does not necessarily
exclude that vernacular texts were exchanged between the Ferrarese and the Medicean
courts prior to the revival in Ferrara.
15 Florence, Ms Ricc. 1616 f. 37r90v. For a detailed description see Castelli 1998 16. I owe my
thanks to Silvia Castelli for providing me with details of this manuscript. The prologue of
Formione is discussed in Guastella 2007 878.
16 Guastella 2007 99.
Revival of Classical Roman Comedy in Renaissance Ferrara 223
into vernacular prose, before turning them into poetry, continued throughout
the revival and beyond.17
A letter written by Duke Ercole I to his son-in-law Francesco Gonzaga on
5 February 149618 in response to his request for some of the vernacular stage-
scripts indicates that texts written for the stage were disposed of at the end
of each performance. It also confirms the existence of this official translation
into prose.19 In the letter, Ercole apologised to his son-in-law for being unable
to satisfy his request. The actors involved in the production had retained their
parts and it would have been impossible to get them back. He instead offered
to send some of the translations in prose:
17 Favaretto 2010 86 has demonstrated that the two acts of the vernacular adaptation of
Terences Andria share many linguistic and stylistic features with an anonymous prose
version, which was printed by Bernardino Vidale in 1533.
18 Modena, Archivio di Stato, Fondo Cancelleria Ducale, Carteggio Principi Estensi, cassetta
1501/12, mazzo XI, c. 38. Quoted in Guastella 2007 99100.
19 A catalogue of the ducal library compiled in 1495, lists a vernacular edition of Plautus,
presumably in prose, which could have served as the official model for the composition
of stage-scripts (Bertoni 1903 249 n. 400: Plauto in vulgare coperto de brasilio rosso stam-
pato). See also Guastella 2007 102.
224 Torello-Hill
should let us know which ones, and we will be pleased to take it immedi-
ately from our book and send them to Your Excellency.
As some of the plays of Plautus and Terence were staged repeatedly on various
festival occasions both in and outside Ferrara, it would seem a logical infer-
ence that it was uneconomical for the producers to dispose of the scripts and
produce new ones each time. Duke Ercoles remarks become less surprising,
however, given the ephemeral nature of these stage productions. At the end
of each performance the temporary wooden bleachers and stage designs were
dismantled and disposed of, and so too was the stage-script.
Documentary sources indicate that various neighbouring courts showed
great interest in these performances. In 1493 a series of Plautine plays were
staged in Pavia upon the invitation of Lodovico il Moro. In Mantua, private
correspondence between Isabella dEste Gonzaga and various intellectuals of
the Ferrarese court reveals her repeated requests for vernacular stage-scripts.
At the court of Mantua, vernacular performances of Roman comedy were
inaugurated in 1496 with a staging of Plautus Captivi; the stage-script had
been obtained from the Ferrarese court.20 In 1508, three years after the death
of Ercole I, Menechini was staged in Venice.21 The stage manager and director
of this performance was Francesco de Nobili, an actor from Lucca who had
participated in the Ferrarese revival. De Nobili used the stage-scripts taken
from the court of Ferrara to present them for the first time to an enthusiastic
Venetian audience.22
The fact that vernacular editions of Plautus were being printed in Venice
in the first half of the sixteenth century indicates that adaptations of classi-
cal plays had gained the status of independent texts.23 We have no evidence
to ascertain whether or not at some stage an official stage-script was adopted
for subsequent performances. There is a possibility that ad hoc adaptations
continued to be written throughout the period of the revival. The story of
the importation of the Ferrarese vernacular scripts to Venice by Francesco
deNobili seems to indicate that an official copy was deposited in the ducal
archives, at some stage, perhaps towards the end of the revival.24
Among the scripts imported to Venice, there must have been several plays of
Plautus and, most likely, Terences Eunuchus, since deNobili earned the nick-
name Chaerea from his performance of the Terentian character. That multiple
copies of the vernacular texts were produced over time is corroborated by the
unique case of Menechini.25
Menechini survives in three manuscripts and two printed editions. Two
of the extant manuscripts, Modena, Biblioteca Estense It. 836 (.H.6.1), at
ff. 85r118r and Venice, Biblioteca Marciana It. IX 368 (7170), ff. 48147, pre-
serve texts that agree in most of their readings. The third manuscript, Rome,
BNC, Sessoriano 413 ff. 34r57v (henceforth the Codex Sessorianus), contains
an abridged version of the play, which shortens the text and even omits cer-
tain scenes. Both Tissoni Benvenuti and Uberti identified the Estense and the
Marcianus manuscripts as deriving from a common archetype, and based their
editions on these two witnesses.26 Tissoni Benvenuti also integrated into her
edition the stage directions that are unique to the Codex Sessorianus.
Uberti takes the Codex Sessorianus as an early adaptation of the text, which
was later integrated and extended in order to provide a closer translation to
the Latin original.27 However, the absence of concrete evidence hampers any
attempt to ascribe the texts surviving in the manuscripts to any particular per-
formance of Menechini.
For the present discussion, which focuses on the performativity of the
extant vernacular adaptations, the Codex Sessorianus is of particular interest.
Although it contains an abridged version of the text, its stage directions make
this manuscript the witness that more closely resembles a stage-script.28 The
names of the speakers always appear centered to make them clearly visible to
a reader (or an actor). The prologue (ff. 34rv), which is spoken by Calliopius,
is divided into stanzas singled out by the word segue (there follows),
possibly to mark the pauses of the actor who is singing the lines.29 This
24 The vernacular adaptations have been preserved, for instance, in the transcriptions that
Sanudo made for his own library. See Uberti 1985 30 n. 11 and Padoan 1978 6893.
25 The play was performed five times at the Ferrara court: in 1486, 1491, 1493, 1501 and 1503.
26 Tissoni Benvenuti 1983 87; Uberti 1985 23.
27 Uberti 1985 26.
28 Uberti 1985 44. There is insufficient evidence to support Ubertis view that the Codex
Sessorianus was the stage-script of the 1486 inaugural performance of Menechini. The
Sessorianus could just as well relate to a later performance of the play.
29 Contemporary chronicler Caleffini comments on the performance of Menechini in 1486
in rima vulgariter in canto disseno tuti li versi de la dicta comedia (in verse, that is
226 Torello-Hill
by singing, they spoke all the lines of the already mentioned comedy). See Ventrone
2007380.
30 Mogliera is a typically North Italian spelling. Cf. Favaretto 2010 85 n. 1.
31 Other spelling inconsistencies are the names of Irotium, which is spelt mostly as Yrotia,
but appears as Irotia at 48rv, that of the wife, which appears as mogliera at 35r, but in the
modern form moglie from 46r onwards.
32 As discussed in Tontini 1999.
Revival of Classical Roman Comedy in Renaissance Ferrara 227
There are only two such instances, both in the first act. At the plays open-
ing, Menechinos wife enters the stage and, having spotted her husband in the
act of concealing something under his cloak, addresses him indignantly. The
presence of Menechinos wife on stage is a departure from the Plautine origi-
nal and reflects her different characterisation in the vernacular stage-script. A
note at f. 35v which introduces Menechinos reply reads Menichino adirato,
(angered Menechino). At f. 37r when Peniculo and Menechino are in front of
Yrotias door, Menechino instructs Penicolo to knock gently (batti piano) on
her door. Penicolo replies laughing (ridendo).
To sum up, the Codex Sessorianus provides fundamental insights into the
mise-en-scene of the Ferrarese vernacular adaptations of ancient plays. The
extensive stage directions indicate beyond doubt that this text served as a
stage-script for one of the many performances of the play at the court of Ercole
dEste. Given the limited use of the apparatus set up for each performance, I
am reluctant to agree with Uberti that the actual stage-script was refashioned
over time to reflect better the Latin original. It seems more likely that different
stage-scripts of various lengths were written to suit individual performances.
Illustration
In the last quarter of the fifteenth century, the first printed editions of Terence
with illustrations were produced. A German translation of Terences Eunuchus
was published in Ulm in 1486, while complete Latin editions of Terences plays
were published in Lyon by Trechsel in 1493 and by Grninger in Strassburg
in 1496.33 The 1493 Trechsel edition is of particular interest in relation to the
Ferrarese revival of Terence; this is because its editor, Jodocus Badius Ascensius,
was in Ferrara at the very time of the staging of classical Roman comedy at the
court of Ercole I dEste.
Like the miniatures in manuscripts of Terence, the woodcut illustrations of
the Trechsel Terence show a deep understanding of theatrical performance.
Badius understanding of theatre practice is apparent in the depiction of stage
entrances. Characters entering the stage are depicted pulling the doors curtain
aside and taking their first step onto the stage (see Figure 25).34
33 For the German translation of Eunuchus, see the contribution of Chong-Gossard in this
volume. For the Trechsel/Badius and Grninger editions, see also Herrmann 1954 2355.
34 E.g. Parmenos entrance in Eunuchus 2.1; Chaerea in 3.5; Pythias in 5.4 and 5.6; Chaerea
just peeping through the curtain in 5.8.
228 Torello-Hill
35 The practice of illustrating simultaneously more than one scene can be traced back to
some of the illustrated Carolingian witnesses of Terence, as indicated by Muir and Turner
in their contributions to this volume.
36 This technique is also adopted in later editions of Terence, such as that published in 1568
in Frankfurt. In the Frankfurt Terence, illustrations depict more than two scenes simulta-
neously. The interaction among characters is represented through vectors. As Peters 2000
181 remarks, the illustration at the opening of Terences Andria represent at once a struc-
ture of status relationships, narrative events, and scenic interactions, the vectors seem
also to be attempting to represent the motion of the drama in the still image.
37 For the argument that this is all they are, see Lawrenson and Purkis 1965, who denied any
relation between the illustrations in Badius edition and contemporary theatre practice.
38 Carrick 1980 89 (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Revival of Classical Roman Comedy in Renaissance Ferrara 229
39 Fachechi 2000 22. Fachechi 2002 has provided a catalogue of six manuscripts. The manu-
scripts are BAV, Ottob. lat. 2005; Florence, BML Plut. 36.41; London, BL Burney 227; Madrid,
BN Vitr. 22.5; Paris, BnF, lat. 7890 and BnF, lat. 16234.
40 Fachechi 2000 23.
41 A detailed description of BAV, Ottob. lat. 2005 is in Tontini 2002 33732. See also Danese
and Fachechi 1996 427.
42 De la Mere suggested that it could have been written in Padua due to the correspondences
between one of the two scribes and the hand of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Canon.
Misc. 554, as specified in the detailed description of the manuscript available from the
British Library website (British Library 2005). See also Fachechi 2000 23.
43 Scriptum Ferrarie anno domini nostri ihesu Christi MCCCC sexagesimo octavo. Fachechi
2002 181 argues that the manuscript was written by two hands, but within a short chrono-
logical span, and that folios 61107 were written in 1468, as indicated by the colophon. See
also Tontini 2002.
44 Fachechi 2002 17984.
45 Fachechi 2002 18891. On Giraldi see Mariani Canova 1995.
230 Torello-Hill
Performance
Calliopius Recitator
In a discussion of Renaissance stage practice, the question of whether or not
Renaissance performances featured an individual recitator, with the other
actors miming their part, is one that must be addressed. The belief that in
ancient Rome it was the playwrights themselves (poetae comoedi et tragoedi)
who sang the texts (canentes), while mute actors acted them out through
gestures and masks, originated from the Late-Antique grammarian Isidore of
Seville.49 This notion became widespread throughout the Middle Ages and well
into the Early Renaissance; it can be found, for instance, in Nicholas Trevets
influential commentary on Seneca, which was written between 1314 and 1317.50
A recitator features also in some illuminated manuscripts of Terence and
Seneca.51 In a twelfth-century manuscript of Terences plays, Tours, BM 924
(f. 13v, see Figure 24), the recitator could possibly be identified with Terence
himself. He is also represented in the frontispiece of a slightly earlier wit-
ness, BAV, Vat. lat. 3305 (f. 8v).52 In this manuscript the figures stand within
an architectural frame and are identified by name tags. Terence sits on the far
left while Terences adversarii (detractors) are represented by two characters,
one of whom is identified as Luscius Lanuvinus.53 The figure in the middle is
Calliopius, who reads from a book on a lectern. As Wright remarks,54 the fron-
tispiece presents an entirely original iconography, independent of the illus-
trative tradition found in other early manuscripts of Terence. This illustration
seems likely to reflect a Medieval understanding of ancient performances.55
The notion of a recitator is also present in Angelo Decembrios De politia
litteraria.56 This work was written in Ferrara under the patronage of Leonello
dEste, brother and predecessor of Ercole I. Under Leonello dEste, and with
the guidance of Guarino of Verona, ancient comedy and in particular the plays
of Terence became an essential part of the school curriculum.57 Decembrios
brief discussion of the ancient staging of dramatic plays is pivotal, as it
reflects the understanding of his contemporaries. Decembrio remarks that
Terence was the first one to introduce the recitator as a character (persona)
in its own rights.58 He clearly sets apart the recitator from the histriones. The
recitator introduces the audience to the play and invites their attention and
benevolence:
of the tradition. Currently the only full edition, with translation in German, is that of
Witten 2002. An excerpted edition of De politia literaria, edited by Anthony Grafton and
Christopher Celenza, is due to appear as part of I Tatti Renaissance Library. Celenza
kindly informed me that the forthcoming edition would not include chapter 21.
57 For an excellent overview of the importance of classical Roman comedy in the Ferrarese
school curriculum and the opposition of religious authority to its alleged immorality see
Villoresi 1994.
58 For a discussion of the Prologus as a character in its own right already in some of Plautus
plays see Guastellas contribution to this volume.
59 I have printed here the variant comoedias preserved by the Vatican manuscript (V). Witten
prefers the reading fabulas that appears in the printed editions. However, fabula may be
referred to both tragedies and comedies and it seems to me that Decembrio is fully aware
of the features of different genres. Indeed, earlier in this chapter he paraphrases a passage
from Ciceros De officiis 1.114 in which the author comments on the fact that actors would
choose to impersonate characters that suit their talents. He concludes by saying that this
applies only to tragic roles (eae autem sunt tragoediae, but these are tragedies.).
Revival of Classical Roman Comedy in Renaissance Ferrara 233
In 1502 on the occasion of the lavish celebrations for the wedding of Alfonso
dEste, son of Duke Ercole, to Lucrezia Borgia, Niccol Cagnolo, who was part
of the retinue of the Ambassador of Milan, reports as follows:
Around midnight five comic plays were staged with all of their masked
characters set to perform the plays. And there in front of illustrious
ambassadors and gentlemen one of them named Plautus spoke the argu-
menta only of these plays.
This excerpt provides us with a rare insight into the staging of classical plays in
Ferrara. Cagnolo remarks that only one actor spoke, introducing the argumen-
tum, the plot, of five Plautine comedies. A letter of Isabella dEste confirms that
this introduction to the Plautine plays was spoken by an actor in the guise of
Plautus (da uno in persona de Plauto).65 It is tempting to present the hypoth-
esis that the plays were spoken by a recitator and mimed by the other actors;
but later in the letter Nicol reported that when a full play was performed,
that is Plautus Epidico, the characters appeared to be engaged in a dialogue
(tra loro parlando.)66 The fact that each character spoke his or her own part
is in any case incontestably proven by a letter of Francesco Bagnacavallo to
Sigismondo dEste relating the performance of Eunucho in 1499. The premiere
of 1499 did not attract the same enthusiastic reviews; apparently the perfor-
mance was not a success due to the fact that some of the actors had forgotten
their lines.67
These testimonies uncontestably prove that the role of the recitator is limited
to introducing the play, presenting the argumentum to the audience. Certainly
this must have been a practical and necessary provision in Ferrara where the
staging of classical drama was accompanied by intermezzi that acted as divid-
ers between acts, segmenting the dramatic action and bringing the duration
of each performance to a staggering four to five hours. In Renaissance Ferrara,
Calliopius becomes the embodiment of the Prologue itselfhe is the one who
introduces the play to the audience. This process of assimilation stems from
Conclusion
Early but influential scholarly views have branded the vernacular adaptations
of Roman comedy at the court of Ercole I in Ferrara as mediocre products of
the humanists painstaking attempt to emulate the classical world.68 But when
the Ferrarese intellectuals engaged in turning the plays of Plautus and Terence
into vernacular verse, they specifically attempted to produce adaptations that
would suit a Ferrarese contemporary readership and audience. In a letter of
18 February 1479 Battista Guarino addresses the Duke Ercoles criticism of his
too liberal translations of classical plays. Guarino defended his adaptation of
Plautus Aulularia stating:
The scant information that can be gleaned from contemporary chronicles and
epistolary correspondence allows us to reconstruct only a fragmentary pic-
ture. These sparse references nevertheless are a testimony to the importance
accorded by Ferrarese intellectuals to the mise-en-scene. In the attempt to
revive these classical texts for the stage, the rich illustrative tradition of Terence,
made more accessible through the printed editions, must have become
an important point of reference, as the North Italian production of illustrated
manuscripts of Plautus seems to indicate. Noteworthy also is the progressive
importance accorded to the vernacular text which is at first an ad hoc product
disposable after each performance but eventually becomes a play in its own
right. This gradual independence from the Latin original no doubt represents
a fundamental stepping-stone towards the development of modern theatre.
68 See, in particular, the highly negative judgment of Sanesi, Rossi and DAmico mentioned
by Rossetto 1996 7 n. 2.
69 Modena, Biblioteca Estense, cod. It. 834.
part 4
Readerships
CHAPTER 10
Claudia Villa
1 Ward 2013 5.
manuscripts that preserve their works and then the commissioners of these
books and their owners, whenever that may be established with relative cer-
tainty, allows one to identify book collections and cultural centres.
The extremely high standards of production of the illuminated manuscripts
of Terence that have survived immediately compel one to identify an audi-
ence which was the beneficiary and user of them. Drawing some initial con-
clusions about an author whose conspicuous presence in Medieval libraries
is unquestionable,2 we can consider how the comic playwright offered to his
readership six comedies of secular content, originally written for the Roman
stage, according to criteria that Medieval readers knew very well. The accessus
and commentaries provided accurate information about theatrical representa-
tion in the ancient period, to the point of specifying the models for the actors
costumes, or the custom of setting up on stage two altars for the gods.3 In con-
trast to a common scholarly assumption, the Medieval era was not unaware
of the intrinsic purpose of theatrical texts and continued to maintain the cus-
tom of staging dramatic scenes during festivals (ludi) in which a recitator read
aloud the verses while actors mimed them.
We are able to identify the readership of Terence since, as it is well known,
the first explicit mention of his plays in the early Carolingian period can be
found in the book catalogue contained in manuscript Berlin, Staatsbibl. Diez
B 66 (end of the eighth century), which has long been considered a product of
Charlemagnes library.4 The codex, which is written in part by an Italian copyist,
includes many and diverse materials, including a grammar book that uses for
its examples Italian geographical names, as well as the poetic correspondence
between Charlemagne and Peter of Pisa, an exchange that occurred when the
old grammar teacher resided in Italy. Other elements, such as the inclusion of
a eulogy for the victory of King Pepin over the Avars, and similarities with vari-
ous traditions which can be linked to Bobbio and Verona, seem to indicate that
the entire manuscript was written and used in Northern Italy, possibly within
the itinerant court (moving between Pavia and Verona) of Pepin, the son of
Charlemagne whose death in 810 antedated that of his father.5 The Terence
listed in that book catalogue was most likely a Late-Antique codex, without
running titles and apparently with Terences plays presented in a sequence not
documented elsewhere.6
It is therefore worth noting that Terences plays continued to circulate in the
Carolingian courts, as is vouched by the magnificent Vaticanus Latinus 3868,
an illustrated copy of an Antique model. This manuscript was long attributed
to Corbie since the names of both the copyist and the artist of the miniatures
appear on a list of monks who moved from Corbie to the newly founded Corvey
in Saxony in 822.7 The manuscript, however, was probably written by two lay-
men (as the absence of a title that relates them to any ecclesiastic hierarchy or
monastic order indicates), the copyist Hrodgarius (Hrodgarius scripsit, f. 92r)
and the artist Aldericus (Adelricus me fecit, f. 3r).8 The quality of the illustra-
tions has led scholars to associate this manuscript with the court of Aachen
in the third decade of the ninth century, following the authoritative views of
Bernhard Bischoff and Florentine Mtherich. From my part, I can only add
that the names of an Aldricus comes and that of a Hrotgarius vassallus appear
in documents that relate to the chancery of Emperor Lothair around the mid-
dle of the century.9
Some doubts could in fact be raised about an attribution of the manuscript
to the royal library of the elderly Louis the Pious. The emperor, according to his
biographer Thegan, soon abandoned the reading of classical texts that he had
enthusiastically embraced in his youth: Poetica carmina gentilia, que in iuven-
tute didicerat, respuit, nec legere, nec audire, nec docere voluit (He despised the
poetic verses of the pagans, which he had studied in his youth, and wished
neither to read them, nor hear them, nor teach them).10 In any case, his
other biographer Astronomus opened his Vita Hludowici with the quote ne
quid nimis from Terences Andria (Nam id arbitror adprime in vita esse utile, ut
nequid nimis, I believe that the best principle in life is nothing in excess, An.
601 [trans. J. Barsby]). The saying that was available in the Vat. Lat. 3868 must
have been very familiar to the emperor as it described the lifestyle that he had
imposed on himself:
of the Codex Diez transcribed under dictation, while the text was read aloud with a
modern Greek pronunciation.
6 The reconstruction of the order of the plays in this lost manuscript (Andria, Eunuchus,
Hecyra, Heautontimorumenos) is discussed at Villa 1984 1. For discussion of the order of
the plays in the earliest codices, see also the contribution of Monda in this volume.
7 As argued in Jones and Morey 1931 1.335.
8 For the illustrations I refer the reader to the accounts of Wright 1996c and Wright 2006.
For a more recent bibliography see Pellegrin et al. 19752010 3.2 3403.
9 Schieffer 1966 234 and 291.
10 Tremp 1995 200 and 265.
242 villa
Quid enim eius sobrietate sobrius que alio nomine frugalitas sive tem-
perantia nominantur. Ita enim ea usus est, ut illud vetustissimum pro-
verbium et ad coelum usque celebratum ei fuerit familiarissimum, quo
dicitur Ne quid nimis.11
What, indeed, was more sober than his sobriety, which is otherwise called
thriftiness or moderation. Indeed he was accustomed to it, as he was very
familiar with that very old and widely celebrated proverb that says: noth-
ing in excess.
14 For the scholia, see Wessner 1921. The letter written by Loup of Ferrires to Pope Benedict
III requesting various works, including Donatus commentary, is dated between 855 and
858 and is reproduced in Levillain 1964 2.1205.
15 Bethe 1903.
16 Bischoff 2004 156 does not ascribe it to a specifically identified scriptorium and remarks:
Wohl unter Reimser Einfluss, X. Jh., gegen Mitte.
17 Hoffmann 2000 194. On Gerberts innovative approach towards the reading of classical
authors see Villa 2000 1612, and now Villa 2009 1737.
18 Gerberts seventh letter and his knowledge of Eugraphius were already noted by Lesne
1938 260. I have studied the Milanese manuscript and advanced the hypothesis that the
Ambrosian Terence could be related to the school of Gerbert in Villa and Petoletti 2007.
19 The folio that bears the subscription rege theosopho is quoted in Bezzola 1958 308 n. 2.
244 villa
close connection with the reigning dynasties and the high offices that he held
in the chanceries, he was said by his detractors to make and unmake kings.20
The copying of the codex with Eugraphius supplement can be placed in the
crucial decades in which the need to provide commentaries for the classical
texts which were destined for the school curriculum became more pressing.
This led to a re-elaboration and re-utilisation of materials from these ancient
traditions, to make them more current and to put forward a different exegetical
approach that focused on the stylistic and standard features of literary works.21
And not only did Gerbert renew the school curriculum at Rheims, where a
member of the Frankish high aristocracy was educated, namely the future
king Robert the Pious, but the Vergil Paris, BnF, lat. 8069, a codex produced in
the area of Rheims with materials that can be related to the local school, has
preserved a text of unique relevance to the tradition of Terence. This manu-
script contains an important dialogue known as Terentius et Delusor. Terence
and Delusor are engaged in a discussion over the quality and the reading of
Terences plays.
This dispute is undeniably an exercise of great interest; it appears to be tai-
lored for an audience who can appreciate the many elements of criticism that
the Delusor raises against Terence, who has been characterised as an old man.
The Delusor criticises the complexity of Terences metre and the idleness of his
comedies, which are tiresome and therefore unable to provide enjoyment. The
Delusor freely uses the categories of delectatio and utilitas;22 one must insist on
the idea that Terences plays were meant to entertain the audience. Indeed the
scholia to Terences comedies reaffirm these very qualities when stating,
20 A rich series of anecdotes is related in Havet 1889 xix; for the commissioning of Eugraphius
commentary, see idem 56.
21 For some observations concerning manuscripts originally produced as luxury commodi-
ties and subsequently adopted to school teaching with the insertion of glosses, as well
as the modern teachers desire to bring the exegetic apparatus up to date, see Villa 2003
702.
22 I studied the Parisian Vergil, BnF, lat. 8069 and its interrelations with the area of Rheims,
where the dialogue Terentius et Delusor could have possibly be written, in Villa 1984 6798.
The dialogue has been recently edited with a translation and a commentary by Giovini
2007.
Terence s Audience and Readership in the 9th to 11th centuries 245
I do not believe that the dialogue Terentius et Delusor was intended for an audi-
ence of monks within a school that catered for their education, as it is too
easily argued. In a cultural environment which it is possible to redefine, as far
as Terences fortune between the ninth and tenth centuries is concerned, it is
difficult to locate this scholastic exercise, preoccupied as it is with the formal
features of ancient plays, in a monastic environment.
The Parisian codex of Terentius et Delusor contains a list of books owned
by a certain Domnus F. and which were well known to Fulbert of Chartres, a
pupil of Gerbert dAurillac. This codex is also linked through a series of texts to
the Parisian manuscript of Vergil, BnF, lat. 7930, which mentions the name of
Gerbert in the formula Gerberti laudem replicat liber iste per orbem, quem solus
nostriis contulit armariis (That book repeats the praises of Gerbert through-
out the world, which he himself presented to our library) and preserves the
anonymous Altercatio nani et leporis, which is considered an epic parody with
an animal featuring as the protagonist.24 I have suggested that the school of
Gerbert and the Delusor dialogue could be related. To complete the analysis
that I have presented and on the basis of the works rhetoric of contrast and its
different levels of comicality, I advance the hypothesis that its audience should
be identified with the secular high aristocracy which was keen to entrust the
education of its offspring to officials and intellectuals like Gerbert so that they
could receive a thorough education in the liberal arts.
During the same decades as a branch of the Terentian tradition complete
with illustrations was being utilised in Rheims, the comic playwright also
enjoyed extraordinary popularity across the Rhine among the members of the
Those scurrilous and farcical jokes which are told in comedies and trag-
edies by various characters, which some people would shout out, bend-
ing over with unrestrained laughter, he himself always read aloud with a
serious composure; he had very little consideration for the subject mat-
ter, but a lot for the authority of the literary composition.
The interest in stylistic features seems to have been predominant in this period
and to have had a specific pedagogic aim, if Ruotger and Richer, who were so
attentive to the lessons of their teachers, deemed it important to mention it
in their respective biographies. The chancellor Bruno, according to Ruotger,
used always to take his library with him; and it is also interesting to note that
in the tenth century saddlebag manuscripts of Terence were characterised by
a reduced format and the absence of commentaries.26
In documenting the reading of Terence within these aristocratic circles, I
would like to point out how family relations can also explain cultural affinity
and even circulation of books and ideas. Bruno of Cologne not only was the
chancellor of the empire and the brother of the Emperor Otto I of Saxony.
25 I have discussed in detail this manuscript and its female audience in Villa 1984 99118; see
also Giovini 2003.
26 For example, the Terence manuscript from Oxford, Brasenose College MS 18, which is a
travel book, easy to handle and suited for a gentlemans leisurely reading. Villa 1984 38990.
Terence s Audience and Readership in the 9th to 11th centuries 247
He was also Duke of Lorraine, and took part in the complex French dynastic
quarrels; he was related by marriage to both Carolingians and Capetians on
his sisters side. One of them, Edwig, was the mother of Hugh Capet, who was
in turn the father of Robert the Pious, one of Gerberts pupils. Bruno died in
Rheims in 965, after achieving reconciliation between his nephews Lothair,
King of France, and Hugh Capet in the treaty of Compigne.27
The rhetorical-stylistic readings of Terence, so often practised in the tenth
century, certainly focused attention on the comic stylistic register, within
which one could include erotic subject matter. This observation is corrobo-
rated by Servius commentary on Vergils Aeneid, where the grammarian states
that the fourth book of the poem is in comic style because it deals with the love
that blossoms between Aeneas and Dido: Totus in consiliis et subtilitatibus est;
nam paene comicus stilus est: nec mirum, ubi de amore tractatur (The whole
[book] is about plans and subtleties; indeed it is in almost comic style, which
is hardly surprising since it deals with love; Serv. Aen. 4.1); the dramatic ending
to this love story, with the queen of Carthage committing suicide and curs-
ing Aeneas, does not seem to affect this concise statement. Thus the Terence
manuscript Valenciennes, BM 448 (eleventh century), owned by the library of
Saint-Amand Abbey, includes the lovers lament from Eunuchus 2927 as an
adventitious text with neumatic notation (f. 116v).28
We can ascribe the manuscript London, BL, Harley 2750 (eleventh century)
to a courtly environment with a higher degree of certainty. In this witness the
love declaration from Andria 6947 (f. 13r) is accompanied by neumatic nota-
tion, exactly as in the manuscript Wien, sterreichisches Nationalbibliothek
85, f. 68, a South German witness complete with High German glosses that are
characterised by a Bavarian or South German dialect patina.29 The copyist of
the Harleian codex might have been a chancery officer, since he shows himself
to be conversant with the principles of cryptography, which was sometimes
used in the writing of secret correspondence. Indeed he expresses his labour
in the writing of the manuscript using the key learnt from Martin of Laon: Quk
pbtfr fs cpsmk lbus skt tkbk m brgknf lkbrk, or Qui pater es cosmi laus sit tibi mar-
gine libri (to you who are the father of the cosmos may be praise in this books
margins). It is also worth noting that the Harleian Terence, which is related
to other manuscripts of German origin,30 preserves among the adventitious
texts on folio 94v, the line Las, qui n(on) sun sparuir astur (Oh to be a
27 The biography of Bruno of Cologne was written by his collaborator Ruotger. It was edited
by Ott 1951.
28 Villa 1984 423.
29 Villa 1984 441.
30 Villa 1984 4, 2931.
248 villa
31 These lines have been edited by Bischoff 1984 2668. This short text suddenly became
part of the canon of the first examples of the new literature; see Asperti 2006 2345 and
25860, Di Girolamo 2010 744 (with earlier bibliography).
32 Meneghetti 1997 18993; Lazzerini 2010 30.
Terence s Audience and Readership in the 9th to 11th centuries 249
736. Kln, Historisches Archiv der Stadtbibliothek, Kasten A N 3: 13th century; An.
333373; 643688; Ad. 442500; 542749.
738. Padova, Biblioteca del Capitolo dei canonici del Duomo di Padova C 30: 12th cen-
tury; An. 584636; 833878.
Bifolium used as flyleaf.
739. Pamplona, Biblioteca de la Catedral, s.n.: 11th century; Hec. 303330; 336357.
Bifolium used as the flyleaf of a later document Privilegio de la Mesta, 1481.
740. Pistoia, Biblioteca Leoniana 86: 15th century; Andria, Eunuchus, Heauton timuro-
menos, Adelphoe.
Manuscript of Italian provenance with illegible coat of arms.
Murano, G., G. Savino and S. Zamponi (eds.) 1998. I manoscritti medievali della
provincia di Pistoia. Florence: SISMEL: Edizioni del Galluzzo. 10910 (no. 237).
1996. Gli autori classici illustrati in Francia dal XIII al XV secolo. In Buonocore
1996. 8798.
Bain, D. 1977. Actors and Audience. A Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek
Drama. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Baratin, M. 1989. La naissance de la syntaxe Rome. Paris: Minuit.
Baratin, M., B. Colombat, and L. Holtz (eds.) 2009. Priscien: transmission et refondation
de la grammaire, de lAntiquit aux Modernes. tat des recherches la suite du collo-
que international de Lyon, ENS Lettres et Sciences humaines, 1014 octobre 2006.
Turnhout: Brepols.
Barsby, J. (ed.) 1999. Terence: Eunuchus. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
2000. Donatus on Terence: The Eunuchus Commentary. In Dramatische
Wldchen: Festschrift fr Eckard Lefvre zum 65. Geburtstag. Eds. E. Strk and
G.Vogt-Spira. Hildesheim: Olms. 491513.
(ed.) 2001. Terence. 2 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.
Bartels, E. 1884. De Terentii memoria apud Nonium seruata. Diss. Straburg:
K.J.Truebner.
Barwick, K. 1922. Remmius Palaemon und die rmische Ars grammatica. Leipzig: Dieterich.
1925. Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis grammaticae libri V. Leipzig: Teubner.
Basore, J.W. 1908. The Scholia on Hypokrisis in the Commentary of Donatus. Baltimore
MD: J.H. Furst.
Beacham, R.C. 1991. The Roman Theatre and its Audience. London: Routledge.
Beare, W. 1964. The Roman Stage. A Short History of Latin Drama in the Time of the
Republic. 3rd edition. London: Methuen.
Belardinelli, A.M. (ed.) 1994. Menandro, Sicioni (Introduzione, testo e commento a cura
di A.M. Belardinelli). Studi e commenti 11. Bari: Adriatica.
Bernardinello, S. 1991. Terenzio nellumanesimo padovano: nuovo frammento capito-
lare. In Ethos e cultura. Studi in onore di E. Riondato. Vol. 2. Padua: Antenore.
Bertelsmeier-Kierst, C. 2013. Hans Neidhart: Leben und Werk. Marburger Repertorium
zur bersetzungsliteratur im deutschen Frhhumanismus. Permanent Link mrfh.
de/0020. Version from 23. 02. 2013.
Bertini, F. 1975. Nonio e Prisciano. In Studi Noniani 3. Genoa: Istituto di filologia clas-
sica e medievale. 5796.
(ed.) 1980. Vitale di Blois: Geta. In Commedie latine del XII e XIII secolo 3.
Genoa: DA.R.FI.CL.ET. 139242.
1991. Un volgarizzamento rinascimentale dellAsinaria di Plauto. In Studi di
filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco. Vol. 4. Palermo: Universit di Palermo.
162540.
(ed.) 1998. Guglielmo di Blois: Alda. In Commedie latine del XII e XIII secolo 6.
Genoa: DA.R.FI.CL.ET. 11109.
Bertoni, G. 1903. La biblioteca estense e la cultura ferrarese ai tempi del duca Ercole I
(14711505). Turin: Loescher.
Bibliography 253
1990c. Ruolo e funzione della metrica nei grammatici latini. In Metrica clas-
sica e linguistica. Atti del Colloquio (Urbino 36 ottobre 1988). Eds. R.M. Danese,
F.Gori, and C. Questa. Urbino: QuattroVenti. 45394.
1998. Grammatici latini. In Enciclopedia Oraziana. Vol. 3. Rome: Istituto della
Enciclopedia Italiana. 319.
2009. Ars Prisciani Caesariensis: problemi di tipologia e di composizione. In
Baratin, Colombat, and Holtz 2009 24978.
2010. I grammatici e la tradizione dellAtellana letteraria. In LAtellana letter-
aria. Atti della prima giornata di studi sullAtellana. Succivo (Ce) 30 ottobre 2009. Eds.
R. Raffaelli and A. Tontini. Urbino: QuattroVenti. 3767.
De Paolis, P. (ed.) 1990. Macrobii Theodosii de verborum Graeci et Latini differentiis vel
societatibus excerpta. Urbino: QuattroVenti.
2000. Cicerone nei grammatici tardoantichi e altomedievali. In Ciceroniana.
Atti dellXI Colloquium Tullianum. CassinoMontecassino, 2628 aprile 1999. Rome:
Centro di Studi Ciceroniani. 3767.
2013. Le letture alla scuola del grammatico. Paideia 68: 46587.
De Seta, M.L. 2005. Il testo di Terenzio nelle citazioni di Nonio. In Prolegomena
Noniana 4. Genoa: D.AR.FI.CL.ET. 532.
Dess Fulgheri, A. (ed.) 1980. Babio. In Commedie latine del XII e XIII secolo vol. 2.
Genoa: DA.R.FI.CL.ET. 129301.
Deufert, M. 2001. Zur Datierung des Nonius Marcellus. Philologus 145: 13749.
2002. Textgeschichte und Rezeption der plautinischen Komdien im Altertum.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Di Girolamo, C. 2010. Un testimone siciliano di Reis glorios e una riflessione sulla tra-
dizione stravagante. Cultura Neolatina 70: 744.
Di Napoli, M. (ed.) 2011. Velii Longi De orthographia. Hildesheim: Weidmann.
Di Stefano, A. (ed.) 2011. Arusiani Messi Exempla elocutionum. Hildesheim: Weidmann.
Dodwell, C.R. 2000. Anglo-Saxon Gestures and the Roman Stage. Ed. T. Graham.
Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 28. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Dorange, J.A. 1875. Catalogue descriptif et raisonn des manuscrits de la Bibliothque de
Tours. Tours: Jules Bouserez.
Duckworth, G.E. 1994. The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment.
2nd edition. (foreword and bibliographical appendix by R. Hunter). Norman OK:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Dupont, F. 1997. Recitatio and the Reorganization of the Space of Public Discourse. In
The Roman Cultural Revolution. Eds. T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP. 4459.
Dutsch, D. 2007. Gestures in the manuscripts of Terence and late revivals of literary
drama. Gesture 7.1: 3971.
258 bibliography
2012a. P. Terentius Afer. [facsimile of BNF lat. 7899; Gallica online date
05/03/2012] Gallica: Bibliothque numrique, Bibliothque nationale de France.
6 March 2013. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84525513.r=terenti.langEN.
2012b. Publius Terentius Afer. [facsimile of Arsenal 664; Gallica online date
8/5/2012] Gallica: Bibliothque numrique, Bibliothque nationale de France. 30
December 2013. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8458135g.r=terence.langEN.
Ganz, D. 2010. Review article: The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence. Early
Medieval Europe 18: 1313.
Gatti, P. (ed.) 1998. De more medicorum. In Commedie latine del XII e XIII secolo 6.
Genoa: DA.R.FI.CL.ET. 379427.
2004. Introduzione a Nonio Marcello. In Prolegomena Noniana 3. Genoa:
D.AR.FI.CL.ET. 520.
Gaunt, D.M. 1964. Siparium in Quintilian and the Frontispiece of the Vatican Terence.
CR 14: 1335.
Gelhaus, H. 1972. Die Prologe des Terenz. Eine Erklrung nach den Lehren von der inven-
tio und dispositio. Heidelberg: Winter.
Genette, G. 1997. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Translated J.E. Lewin.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Geppert, C.E. 1852. Zur Geschichte der Terentianischen Texteskritik. Archiv fr
Philologie und Pdagogik 18: 2887.
Gianotti, G.F. 1989. I testi nella scuola. In Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica. Vol. 2. La
circolazione del testo. Eds. G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, and A. Giardina. Rome: Salerno
Editrice. 42166.
Gilula, D. 1989. The First Realistic Roles in European Theatre: Terences Prologues,
QUCC (n. s.) 33.3: 95106.
Giovini, M. 2003. Rosvita e limitari dictando terenziano. Genoa: D.AR.FI.CL.ET.
(ed.) 2007. Un conflictus terenziano del X secolo: Il Delusor. Milan: Arcipelago
Edizioni.
Glorie, F. (ed.). 1968. Variae collectiones aenigmatum merovingicae aetatis. De dubiis
nominibus anonymus. CCSL 133A. Turnhout: Brepols.
Graf, F. 1991. Gestures and Conventions: The Gestures of Roman Actors and Orators.
In A Cultural History of Gesture: From Antiquity to the Present Day. Eds. J. Bremmer
and H. Roodenburg. Cambridge: Polity Press. 3658.
Grafton, A. and L. Jardine. 1986. From Humanism to the Humanities: Education and
Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe. London: Duckworth.
Granger, F. (ed.) 1934. Vitruvius on Architecture. 2 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.
Grant, J.N. 1973. and the Miniatures of Terence. CQ N.S. 23: 88103.
1986. Studies in the Textual Tradition of Terence. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Grund, G.R. (ed.) 2005. Humanist Comedies. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.
260 bibliography
Gualandri, I. and G. Orlandi (eds.) 1998. Arnolfo di Orleans: Lidia. In Commedie latine
del XII e XIII secolo 6. Genoa: DA.R.FI.CL.ET. 111318.
Guastella, G. 2007. Menaechmi e Menechini: Plauto ritorna sulla scena. In Lecturae
Plautinae Sarsinates X: Menaechmi. Eds. R. Raffaelli and A. Tontini. Urbino:
QuattroVenti. 69150.
Gyselinck, W. and K. Demoen 2008. Author and Narrator: Fiction and Metafiction in
Philostratus Vita Apollonii. In Theios Sophistes: Essays on Flavius Philostratus Vita
Apollonii. Eds. K. Demoen and D. Praet. Leiden: Brill. 95127.
Hall, E. 2008. Introduction: Pantomime, a Lost Chord of Ancient Culture. In New
Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Eds. E. Hall and R. Wyles. Oxford: Oxford UP. 140.
2013. Pantomime: Visualising Myth in the Roman Empire. In Performance in
Greek and Roman Theatre. Eds. George W.M. Harrison and Vayos Liapis. Leiden:
Brill. 45173.
Hammond, M., A.M. Mack, and W. Moskalew 1997. Miles gloriosus T. Macci Plauti:
Edited with an Introduction and Notes. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.
Harris, W.V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.
Havet, J. (ed.) 1889. Lettres de Gerbert (983997). Paris: Alphonse Picard.
Hedeman, A.D. 2011. Translating the Past: Laurent de Premierfait and the Visualization
of Antiquity. In Medieval Manuscripts, Their Makers and Users. A Special Issue of
Viator in Honor of Richard and Mary Rouse. Turnhout: Brepols. 2750.
Heinze, T. 2013. Mythographi Vaticani. Brills New Pauly: Brill Online. 20 March 2013.
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/entries/brill-s-new-
pauly/mythographi-vaticani-e815100.
Herklotz, I. 2012. Late Antique Manuscripts in Early Modern Study: Critics, Antiquaries
and the History of Art. In Classical Manuscript Illustrations. Eds. A. Claridge and
I.Herklotz. London: Royal Collection in association with Harvey Miller. 5189.
Hermann, H.J. 19301933. Die Handschriften und Inkunabeln der italienischen Renaissance.
4 parts. Die illuminierten Handschriften und Inkunabeln der Nationalbibliothek in
Wien, Vol. 6. Leipzig: Hiersemann.
Herrmann, M. 1893. Terenz in Deutschland bis zum Ausgang des 16. Jahrhunderts. Berlin:
C.F. Mller.
1954. Forschungen zur Deutschen Theatergeschichte des Mittelalters und der
Renaissance. Ed. H. Schiemann from 1914 version. 2 vols. Dresden: VEB Mitteldeutsche
Kunstanstalt Heidenau.
Hilger, M.J. 1970. The Rhetoric of Comedy: Comic Theory in the Terentian Commentary of
Aelius Donatus. Diss. University of Nebraska.
Hoeing, C. 1900. The Codex Dunelmensis of Terence. AJA 4: 31038.
Hoffmann, H. (ed.) 2000. Richer von Saint-Remi: Historiae. MGH: Scriptores (in folio) 38.
Hannover: Hansche Buchhandlung.
Bibliography 261
Llorente, A.L. 1996. The Lemmatic Arrangement of the Fourth Book of the Compen
diosa doctrina of Nonius Marcellus according to its Manuscript Tradition. In
Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de lAntiquit tardive la fin du Moyen ge.
Actes du Colloque international organis par le Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific
Culture (Erice, 2330 septembre 1994). Ed. J. Hamesse. Louvain-La-Neuve: Fdration
internationale des instituts dtudes mdivales. 93100.
Lloyd, R.B. 1961. Republican Authors in Servius and the Scholia Danielis. HSCP 65:
291341.
Madyda, W. 1953. De Donato histrionum praeceptore. Wrocaw: Zakad im. Ossoliskich.
Maier-Eichhorn, U. 1989. Die Gestikulation in Quintilians Rhetorik. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
Malcovati, E. 1943. Cicerone e la poesia. Pavia: Tipografia del libro.
Maltby, R. 2005. Donatus and Terence in Servius and Servius Danielis. In Antike
Fachtexte: Ancient Technical Texts. Ed. T. Fgen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 20720.
2007. Donat ber die Stegreifelemente in Terenz Phormio. In Terentius Poeta.
Eds. P. Kruschwitz, W.-W. Ehlers, and F. Felgentreu. Munich: C.H. Beck. 1528.
Mann, N. 1975. Petrarch Manuscripts in the British Isles. Censimento dei Codici
Petrarcheschi, 6. Padua: Antenore.
Mariani Canova, G. 1995. Guglielmo Giraldi miniatore estense. Modena: Panini.
Mariotti, S. 1984. Il fragmentum Bobiense de nomine (Gramm. Lat. VII 540544 Keil).
In Il libro e il testo. Ed. C. Questa and R. Raffaelli. Urbino: Pubblicazioni dell
Universit di Urbino.
2000. Scritti di filologia classica. Roma: Salerno Editrice.
Marouzeau, J. 1934. Notes de critique trentienne. REL 12: 4951.
(ed.) 19421949. Trence Comdies. I: Andrienne. Eunuque. II: Heautonti
moroumenos. Phormion. III: HcyreAdelphes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Marrou, H.-I. 1964. Histoire de lducation dans lAntiquit. 2 vols. Paris: Le Seuil.
Marshall, C.W. 2001. Review article: Anglo-Saxon Gestures and the Roman Stage.
Mouseion 45: 3658.
Marti, H. 1961. Terenz 19091959. Lustrum 6: 114238.
1974. Zeugnisse zur Nachwirkung des Dichters Terenz im Altertum. In Musa
iocosa. Arbeiten ber Humor und Witz, Komik und Komdie der Antike. Andreas
Thierfelder zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Eds. U. Reinhardt and K. Sallmann.
Hildesheim: Georg Olms. 15878.
Martin, H. 18851892. Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothque de lArsenal. 6 vols.
Paris: Plon.
Martorelli, L. 2011. Ps. Aurelii Augustini regulae. Hildesheim: Weidmann.
May, R. 2008. The Metamorphosis of Pantomime: Apuleius Judgement of Paris (Met.
10.3034). In New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Eds. E. Hall and R. Wyles.
Oxford: Oxford UP. 33862.
Bibliography 265
Murano, G., G. Savino and S. Zamponi (eds.) 1998. I manoscritti medievali della provin-
cia di Pistoia. Florence: SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo.
Mtherich, F. 1990. Book Illumination at the Court of Louis the Pious. In Charlemagnes
Heir, New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814840). Ed. P. Godman and
R. Collins. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 593604.
Neiiendam, K. 1969. Le Thtre de la Renaissance Rome (1480 environ 1530). ARID
5: 10397.
Nervegna, S. 2014. Graphic Comedy: Menandrian Mosaics and Terentian Miniatures.
In The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy. Eds. M. Fontaine and
A.Scafuro. Oxford: Oxford UP. 71734.
Neue, F. and C. Wagener 1902. Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache. 2nd edition.
Leipzig: Reisland.
Niedermann, M. 1937. Consentii Ars de barbarismis et metaplasmis; Victorini fragmen-
tum de soloecismo et barbarismo. Neuchtel: Recueil de travaux publis par la
Facult des lettres.
Omont, H. 1907. Comdies de Trence. Reproductions des 151 dessins du manuscrit latin
7899 de la Bibliothque Nationale. Paris: Berthaud frres.
Orlando, V. 1940. Le edizioni rinascimentali dei volgarizzamenti di Plauto e di
Terenzio. Aevum 14.4: 57381.
Orsini, F. 1570. Imagines et elogia virorum illustrium et eruditorum ex antiquis lapidibus
et nomismatibus expressa cum annotationibus ex bibliotheca Fulvi Ursini. Rome:
Lafrry.
Ott, I. 1951. Ruotgers Lebenbeschreibung des Erzbischofs Bruno von Kln. MGH: Scriptores
rerum Germanicarum, nova series 10. Weimar: Hermann Bhlaus Nachfolger.
Pcht, O.E. and J.J.G. Alexander. 19661973. Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian
Library, Oxford: An annotated catalogue. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Padoan, G. 1978. Momenti del Rinascimento veneto. Padua: Antenore.
1982. La Commedia rinascimentale veneta (14331565). Vicenza: Neri Pozza.
Pandolfi, V. and E. Artese (eds.) 1965. Teatro goliardico dellUmanesimo, Milan:
Lerici.
Papaioannou, S. (ed.) 2014. Terence and Interpretation. Pierides IV. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Parker, S. 1733. General History of Printing: From the First Invention of it in the City
of Mentz, to its Propagation & Progress thro Most of the Kingdoms of Europe.
London: Bettesworth.
Pasquali, G. 1952. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo. 2nd edition. Florence: Le
Monnier.
Passalacqua, M. 1984. Tre testi grammaticali bobbiesi (GL V 555566; 634654; IV 207216
Keil). Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura.
19871999. Prisciani Caesariensis Opuscula. 2 vols. Rome: Edizioni di storia e
letteratura.
Bibliography 267
Tesnire, M.-H. and I. Villela-Petit. 2004. Terence, uvres. In Paris 1400: Les arts sous
Charles VI. Ed. E. Taburet-Delahaye. Paris: Editions de la Runion des muses
nationaux. 2414.
Thomadaki, M. 1989. La mise en scne du theatre de Terence dans le commentaire de
Donat. Dioniso 59: 36572.
Thomson, R.M. 1985. Manuscripts from St Albans Abbey 10661235, 2 vols (revised
edition). Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer.
Timpanaro, S. 1986. Per la storia della filologia virgiliana antica. Rome: Salerno Editrice.
2001. Virgilianisti antichi e tradizione indiretta. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.
Tissoni Benvenuti, A. and M.P. Mussini Sacchi (eds.) 1983. Teatro del Quattrocento. Le
corti padane. Turin: UTET.
Toesca, I. 1969. In margine al Maestro delle Vitae Imperatorum. Paragone 20/237: 737.
Tolkiehn, J. (ed.) 1913. Dosithei Ars grammatica. Leipzig: Dieterich.
Tontini, A. 1999. Notazione di regia in un Plauto della met del XV sec. Res Publica
Litterarum 22: 3350.
2002. Censimento critico dei manoscritti plautini, vol. 1, Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Torello-Hill, G. 2010. Gli Spectacula di Pellegrino Prisciani ed il revival del teatro clas-
sico alla corte di Ercole I a Ferrara. Rivista di Engramma 85: 411.
2015. The Exegesis of Vitruvius and the Creation of Functional Theatrical
Spaces in Renaissance Ferrara. Renaissance Studies 29.2: 22746. doi: 10.1111/
rest.12068.
Tosi, G. 1994. Il significato dei disegni planimetrici Vitruviani relativi al teatro antico.
In Le projet de Vitruve: Objet, destinataires et rception du de Architectura. Rome:
cole franaise de Rome. 17085.
Tremp, E. (ed.) 1995. Thegan: Die Taten Kaiser Ludwigs. Astronomus: Das Leben Kaiser
Ludwigs. MGH: Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum seperatim
editi 64. Hannover: Hansche Buchhandlung.
Turner, A.J. 2010. Unnoticed Latin hypotheses to two plays mentioned by Terence: The
Phasma of Menander and the Thesaurus. Hermes 138: 3847.
Uberti, M.L. (ed.) 1985. I Menechini di Plauto. Volgarizzamenti rinascimentali. Ravenna:
Longo.
Uhlfelder, M.L. 1954. De Proprietate Sermonum vel Rerum. Papers and Monographs of
the American Academy in Rome xv. Rome: American Academy.
Umpfenbach, F. (ed.) 1870. P. Terenti comoediae. Berlin: Weidmann.
Van der Horst, K. and J.H.A. Engelbregt (eds.) 19821984. Utrecht-Psalter: Vollstndige
Faksimile-Ausgabe im Originalformat der Handschrift 32 aus dem Besitz der
Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht. 2 vols. Codices selecti phototypice
impressi 75. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.
272 bibliography
Van der Horst, K., W. Noel, and W.C.M. Wstefeld (eds.) 1996. The Utrecht Psalter in
Medieval Art: Picturing the Psalms of David. t Goy: HES Publishers.
Van de Woestijne, P. 1950. Les scholies la Thbade de Stace: Remarques et sugges-
tions. AC 19: 14963.
Varwig, F.R. 1990. Die antiken Terenzillustrationen. In Hermeneumata. Festschrift fr
Hadwig Hrner zum 60. Geburtstag. Ed. H. Eisenberger, Heidelberg: Winter.
257305.
Velaza, J. 2002. Terentius Pompelonensis (C): un bifolio terenciano en la Biblioteca de
la Catedral de Pamplona. RHT 32: 28789.
2005. M. Valeri Probi Beryti Fragmenta. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions de la
Universitat.
2007a. La historia del texto de Terencio en la Antigedad. Barcelona: Universitat
de Barcelona.
2007b. La lex Lindsay y el mtodo de trabajo de Nonio Marcelo: Hacia una
formulacin flexible. Emerita 75: 22554.
2007c. Nonio Marcelo y la historia del texto de Terencio. RELat 7: 2138.
Ventrone, P. 1993. Gli araldi della commedia. Teatro a Firenze nel Rinascimento.
Ospedaletto, Pisa: Pacini Editore.
2007. Between Acting and Literacy: Origin of Vernacular Italian Comedy.
Journal de la Renaissance 5: 37182.
Verhulst, A. 1957. Lactivit et la calligraphie du scriptorium de labbaye Saint-Pierre-au-
Mont-Blandin de Gand lpoque de labb Wichard (+1058). Scriptorium 11: 3749.
Vernet, M.-Th. 1959. Notes de Dom Andr Wilmart sur quelques manuscrits latins
anciennes de la Bibliothque nationale de Paris (fin). Bulletin dinformation de
lInstitut de recherche et dhistoire des textes. 8: 746.
Victor, B. 1996. A Problem of Method in the History of Texts and its Implications for
the Manuscript Tradition of Terence. RHT 26: 26987.
2003. Simultaneous Copying of Classical Texts 8001000: Techniques and their
Consequences. In La collaboration dans la production de lcrit mdival, actes du
XIIIe colloque du Comit international de palographie latine (Weingarten, 2225 sep-
tembre 2000). Ed. H. Spilling. Paris: cole des Chartes. 34958.
2007. New Manuscript Sources of the Terence-Text. In Terentius Poeta. Ed.
P.Kruschwitz, W.-W. Ehlers, and F. Felgentreu. Munich: C.H. Beck. 114.
2013. History of the Text and Scholia. In A Companion to Terence. Ed.
A.Augoustakis and A. Traill. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 34362.
2014. The Transmission of Terence. In The Oxford Handbook of Greek and
Roman Comedy. Eds. M. Fontaine and A. Scafuro. Oxford: Oxford UP. 699716.
Victor, B. and B. Quesnel. 1999. The Colometric Evidence for the History of the Terence
Text in the Early Middle Ages. RHT 29: 14168.
Villa, C. 1981a. Unipotesi per lepistola a Cangrande. IMU 24: 1863.
Bibliography 273
Webb, R.H. 1911. An Attempt to Restore the Archetype of Terence Manuscripts. HSPh
22: 55110.
Weil, E. 1923. Der Ulmer Holzschnitt im 15. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Mauritius-Verlag.
Wells, S. 2006 Shakespeare & Co: Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Dekker, Ben Jonson,
Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, and the Other Players in His Story. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Wessner, P. (ed.) 1902. Aeli Donati Commentum Terentii. Accedunt Eugraphi commen-
tum et Scholia Bembina. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.
1905. Aemilius Asper. Ein Beitrag zur rmischen Literaturgeschichte. Halle:
Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses.
1921. Die Donatscholien des Codex Parisinus 7899 (=P) des Terenz. Philo
logische Wochenschrift. 41: 42832, 44955.
1931. Rufinus [39]. Rufinus von Antiochia. In RE Suppl. 5: 8423.
Weston, K.E. 1903. The Illustrated Terence Manuscripts. HSPh 14: 3754.
White, P. 2013. Jodocus Badius Ascensius: Commentary, Commerce, and Print in the
Renaissance. Oxford: The British Academy and Oxford UP.
Wiles, D. 1991. The Masks of Menander: Sign and Meaning in Greek and Roman
Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Wilhelmi, T. (ed.) 2002. Zur Entstehung des Narrenschiffs und der illustrierten Terenz-
Aufgabe. In Sebastian Brant: Forschungsbeitrge zu seinem Leben, zum Narrenschiff
und zum brigen Werk. Ed. T. Wilhelmi. Basel: Schwabe. 10324.
Withers, B.C. 2007. The Illustrated Old English Hexateuch, Cotton Claudius B.iv: The
Frontier of Seeing and Reading in Anglo-Saxon England. Toronto: The British Library
and University of Toronto Press.
Witten, N. (ed.) 2002. Angelo Camillo Decembrio. De Politia litteraria. Munich and
Leipzig: K.G. Saur.
Wolff, E. 2010. Retour sur la datation et lorigine de Lactantius Placidus, commentateur
de Stace. Phoenix 64: 4239.
Wright, D.H. 1993. The Forgotten Early Romanesque Illustrations of Terence in Vat.
lat. 3305, Zeitschrift fr Kunstgeschichte 56.2: 183206.
1996a. Virgilio, Opere. In Buonocore 1996. 1429 (n. 1).
1996b. Virgilio, Opere. In Buonocore 1996. 1506 (n. 2).
1996c. Terenzio, Commedie. In Buonocore 1996. 16876 (n. 8).
2000. An Abandoned Early Humanist Plan to Illustrate Terence. In Miscellanea
Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 7. Studi e testi 396. Vatican City: Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana. 481500.
2006. The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence. Documenti e riproduzioni 6.
Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.
Zanobi, A. 2008. The Influence of Pantomime on Senecas Tragedies. In New Directions
in Ancient Pantomime. Eds. E. Hall and R. Wyles. Oxford: Oxford UP. 22757.
Bibliography 275
Zetzel, J.E.G. 1975. On the History of Latin Scholia. HSCP 79: 33554.
1981. Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity. New York: Arno Press.
Zillinger, W. 1911. Cicero und die altrmischen Dichter. Diss. Univ. Erlangen. Wrzburg:
Franz Staudenraus.
Zimmermann, B. 2008. Seneca and Pantomime. In New Directions in Ancient
Pantomime. Eds. E. Hall and R. Wyles. Oxford: Oxford UP. 21826.
Index of Papyri and Manuscripts
1 Papyri
2 Manuscripts
NB Selected sigla for Terence manuscripts are given in curved brackets following the shelf mark;
e.g. Plut. 38.24 (D). When a siglum is given for another authorial tradition, this is indicated in
full; e.g. Vat. lat. 3313 (Priscian Z). Numbers in square brackets following the page references
indicate entry numbers in the catalogues of Radden Keefe and Villa contained in this volume.
De officiis (off.)
Augustine (Aug.) 1.30 116 n.64
1.114 232 n.59
Confessiones (Conf.)
1.16 117 n.69 De Oratore (de Orat.)
2.3235 203 n.6
De civitate Dei (Civ.) 3.220 197 n.84
18.13 145
In Catilinam (Catil.)
1.21 122
Institutiones (Inst.)
1.15.7 129
Index Of Ancient Sources 281
De Saltatione (Salt.)
Fulgentius (Fulg.) 36 195
62 195, 197
Mythologiae (Myth.) 64 195
2.2 [74] 168 n.104 65 197
67 195
Gellius
Macrobius (Macr.)
Noctes Atticae
6.7.4 134 Saturnalia (Sat.)
15.24 116 1.5.4 117 n.68
2.1.4 117 n.68
Hyginus (Hyg.)
Mythographi Vaticani (Mythogr.)
Fabulae (Fab.)
57.5 144 1.154 86 nn.35 and 37
66.1 146 n.25 1.166 145 n.23
2.133 86 n.35
2.166 145 n.23
Isidore of Seville (Isid.)
Querolus (Querol.)
Sallust (Sall.)
78 211 n.33
16 107 Catilina (Cat.)
52.5 128 n.120
Servius (Serv.)
Rhetorica ad Herennium
Commentary on Vergils Eclogues (Ecl.)
1.6 203 9.6 83
1.78 203 n.6
Commentary on Vergils Georgics (G.)
1.19 159 n.77
Rufinus
Commentary on Vergils Aeneid (A.)
Commentarii in metra Terentiana 4.1 247
p. 12 [DAlessandro] 123 n.90, 126 n.108, 4.472 142
128 n.123 7.372 856
Index Of Ancient Sources 285
Vitruvius (Vitr.)
1.7.1 33
5.36 34
Index of Names and Subjects
Education5, 122, 143, 1834, 198, 2435, 248 Gellius, Aulus11617, 118 n.70
Edwig247 Genoa61
Ennius107, 116, 123 Gerbert of Aurillac2435, 247
Epidico (Italian adaptation)234 Gestures4, 10, 201 and n.16, 28, 30, 3940,
Epitaphium Terentii39, 41, 45, 65 47, 49, 535, 57, 59, 64, 77, 88, 918, 100,
Ercole I (see dEste, Ercole I) 18199, 208 n.26, 209 n.30, 219, 228, 231
Erinys144 Ghent43, 148 n.36
Este, Alfonso d216 n.57, 234 Giraldi, Giovanni Battista (Cinzio,
Este, Ercole I d2, 6, 11, 215, 216 n.58, 218, Cinthio)217 n.62, 221 n.11
220 and n.6, 2224, 227, 232, 2345 Giraldi, Guglielmo229 and n.45
Este, Isabella d219, 224, 234 Gonzaga, Francesco219, 2234
Este, Leonello d213, 214 n.49, 2312 Grammarians1, 8, 10, 79 n.28, 10536, 161,
Este, Lucrezia d216 n.56 231, 233, 247
Este, Niccol III d6 Grammatical traditions1201, 1256,
Este, Sigismondo d234 1289
Eteocles1413, 157 Grninger, Johannes10, 345, 97100, 227
Euanthius (Evanthius)1, 72, 119, 128 Guarino, Battista235
Eugraphius1, 4, 26 n.31, 108 and n.14,
114 n.51, 205 n.14, 207, 2434 Hector824, 99
Eunucho (Italian adaptation)219, 221, Hecuba2045 n.10
221 n.11, 222, 234 Helenius Acro119, 123 n.94
Eunuchs768, 82, 84, 89, 91, 934, 183 n.13 Helgaud of Fleury243
Euripides86 nn. 35 and 37, 144 Hellanicus78
Eutyches121 Henry III, Emperor248
Eve27 n.36, 31 n.46 Hera230
Hercules1678, 2045 n.10, 218, 230
Fabri, Felix68 Hesione834
Ferrara2, 6, 11, 40, 50, 878, 211, 213, 21516, Hippolytus169, 2045 n.10
217 n.63, 21922, 224, 225 n.25, 22731, Holle, Lienhart90
2335 Horace82, 119, 171, 239
Festus, Sextus Pompeius79 n.28, 117 and Hrodgarius64, 241
n.65 Hugh Capet243, 247
Fichet, Guillaume14950 Hyginus, Gaius Julius86 n.35, 144, 145 n.25
Flanders2, 161
Fleury28, 43, 154, 243 Illustrator from Ulm72 n.17, 73 n.18, 79,
Florence2, 6, 42, 48, 65, 82, 222, 229 8790, 936, 98100
Formione (Italian adaptation)217, 220 n.6, Incunabula7, 679, 72, 82, 100
222 Isidore of Seville33 n.50, 166, 231
Franconia248 Ismene157, 159
Freiburg im Breisgau67 n.2, 689 Iterius60
Fronto, Marcus Cornelius117, 142
Frulovisi, Tito Livio de21314 Jean, Duc de Berry29, 33, 89, 150, 154, 209
Fufius105 Jocaste (Iocasta)1412, 145 n.25, 1557
Fulbert of Chartres245 Johannes (copyist)39
Fulgentius106 n.8, 168 Julius (Iulius) Romanus123 and n.95,
124 nn.96 and 97
Galin, Pietro (Petrus Garinus)58 Juno (Iuno)2045 n.10
Garbet, Nicole165 Jupiter812, 846, 169
Index Of Names And Subjects 291
Labels22, 25, 27 and n.35, 28, 313, 55, 578, Mercury215 n.52, 216, 230
734, 81, 88, 93, 1478, 1502, 154, 1601, Metrical treatises128 n.123
163, 170, 1727, 208 Milan2, 46, 523, 77, 82, 234
Lactantius Placidus143, 15860, 169 Mime10, 183 n.13, 1923, 1934 n.62, 1956,
Laelius, Gaius109 198
Laetus, Julius Pomponius2 Minuscules17, 24, 267, 110, 1478, 151 n.51,
Laius141, 1434, 145 n.25, 1557, 158 n.73 155, 161
Lamy, Peronet62 Misquotations133, 135
Lecco, Girolamo (Penco) da216 n.60, Monaco, Lorenzo42
221 n.9 Monfaut, J.56
Leoncavallo, Ruggero201 Montecassino133
Leuven2 Montreuil, Jean de230 and n.47
Lexicographers1056, 107 n.11, 116 n.64, Moses23
117, 135
Licinius116 Naevius116, 123
Liminality89, 201, 205 Neidhart, Hans910, 6788, 90101
Lirer, Thomas68, 72 Nero112
London2, 69 Neumatic annotation239, 247
Lorraine243, 247 Nicias of Cos109
Lothair, Emperor2412 Nobili, Francesco de2, 2245
Lothair, King of France247 Nonius Marcellus1057, 114 n.51, 118 and
Louis, Duc dOrlans165 n.70, 119, 124, 130, 132
Louis the Pious15 n.2, 138 n.2, 2412 Nuremberg97
Lucian195, 196 nn.79 and 80, 197, 215 n.53
Luon Master52 Octavia2045 n.10
Lupus (Loup) of Ferrires242, 243 n.14 Oedipus59, 13846, 14950, 15460, 167,
Luscius Lanuvinus116, 231 and n.53 169, 2045 n.10
Lyon (Lyons)2, 57, 978, 210, 220, 227 Omphale80, 1679
Orosius Master52, 55
Macrobius117 n.68, 121 Orsini, Fulvio36
Mainz77 Otto I of Saxony246
Majuscules17, 147, 151, 161, 162 n.86 Ovid75, 82, 84, 169
Mantua2, 219, 224, 22930 Oxford2, 7
Manuscript illustrations4, 20, 33, 88, 92, Oxyrhynchus papyri1, 17, 19
182 nn.8 and 11, 183 n.15, 185, 1878,
1902, 193 n.58 Padua229 n.42
Masks20, 268, 33, 36, 47, 49, 534, 60, 64, Palimpsests17, 19, 20 n.13, 110
88, 101, 193 n.58, 195, 196 n.81, 2079, Pantomime192, 1923 n.57, 1947
231, 242 Papyrus1, 9, 1719, 34, 110, 115, 123, 124 n.96,
Master of Flavius Josephus55 140
Master of the Apocrypha Drawings49 Paris3, 7, 512, 556, 150 and n.44, 153, 170
Master of the Vitae Imperatorum467, 61 Pasini, Mapheo216 n.57, 221 n.9
Medea2045 n.10 Paul the Deacon79 n.28, 117 n.65
Medici, Lorenzo de2, 222 n.14 Pavia50, 58, 224, 240
Menander77, 114, 140, 165, 204 Pentheus142
Menechini (Italian adaptation)2, 216, Pepin (son of Charlemagne)240
2202, 2245, 233 Performances2, 4, 6, 1011, 20, 36, 39, 63,
Mentelin, Johannes98 n.61 67, 77, 88, 101, 107, 113, 128, 1824,
292 Index Of Names And Subjects
Figure 1 Collection of Christchurch Art Gallery Te Puna o Waiwhetu. Woodcut 72/100 (Eu. 5.7).
Figure 2 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. F. 2. 13, ff. 4v5r (An. 1.1).
Figure 3 Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, f. 6r (An. 1.1).
Figure 4 Paris, Bibliothque de lArsenal, ms 664, f. 1v.
Figure 5 Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, Gl.Kgl.S 1994 4, f. 1r.
Figure 6 Paris, BnF, lat. 18544, f. 34v (Hec. 1.1).