Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:06:52.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SOME TEXTUAL PROBLEMS IN AELIUS DONATUS’ COMMENTARY ON TERENCE*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

Carmela Cioffi
Carmela Cioffi*
Affiliation:
University of Halle
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the first act of Terence's Andria, we find a dialogue between the old man Simo and Sosia, the freedman, with the former explaining why he has decided to arrange a false wedding for his young son Pamphilus. He has, in fact, learned that his son, despite being betrothed, has had a relationship with another girl and that—quite a serious matter—the fiancée's father, Chremes, has heard about the clandestine affair. In verses 144–9 Simo reports on the not-altogether friendly meeting he has had with Chremes, who is furious about the complete disrespect that has been shown to his daughter; Simo's only defence is to attempt to deny the truth (146: ego illud sedulo negare factum).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , May 2017 , pp. 263 - 269
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2017 

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank CQ’s anonymous referee, B. Gibson and R. Jakobi for their invaluable comments and observations.

References

1 The first and the third textual instances below provide the reader with the text and apparatus criticus of the edition of the Commentum to Andria edited by me, followed by the text printed by Wessner, P., Aeli Donati quod fertur Commentum, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1902)Google Scholar. For the textual transmission, cf. Reeve, M.D., ‘Commentary on Terence’, in Reynolds, L.D. (ed.), Texts and Transmission. A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), 153–6Google Scholar; id., ‘The textual tradition of Donatus's commentary on Terence’, CPh 74 (1979), 310–26Google Scholar; Cioffi, C., ‘Un problema stemmatico’, MD 73 (2014), 113–36Google Scholar; ead. ‘Riconoscere la contaminazione’, Hermes 143 (2015), 356–78Google Scholar.

2 Non. p. 37.27 L, Serv. auct. Aen. 2.374, Isid. Orig. 10.244, 10.247.

3 Cf. n. 1.

4 The particle an is very indicative in this respect (cf. Don. Ad. 32, 217.2).

5 Kauer, R., ‘Zu Donat’, WS 33 (1911), 144–54Google Scholar and 323–35.

6 Cf. Schlee, F., Scholia Terentiana (Leipzig, 1893), 133Google Scholar and 139.

7 In addition, it would not be merely the scholiasts’ over-interpretation; sedulo may also carry the meanings ‘carefully’, ‘zealously’, ‘diligently’; cf. OLD s.v. 2b. And Donatus himself would have been well aware of this assumption, as shown at Ad. 413.3. Another fact worth bearing in mind is what has been said in the immediately preceding scholium (119.3): ego illvd sedvlo quanto affectu pater factum quod uiderat negabat! With the phrase quanto affectu one anticipates the interpretation of sedulo = studiose.

8 It should be admitted, however, that id est simpliciter would fit in very well with the rationale of the scholium if it were placed just after the first sedulo: quomodo sedulo, id est simpliciter, si negabat?

9 Another way to retain id est simpliciter would be to create a new lemma with sedulo. But such a gloss would only make explicit a semantic fact that has already been accepted with the question quomodo–negabat.

10 Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, ed. Goetz, G., vol. 7 (Leipzig, 1901)Google Scholar.

11 Cf. Men. Sam. 474 with Sommerstein's commentary (Cambridge, 2013), ad loc.

12 Cf. Eur. Phoen. 631 with Mastronarde, D., Phoenissae (Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar, ad loc.

13 For a short summary, cf. Körte, A., Menandri quae supersunt (Leipzig, 1959)Google Scholar, loc. cit.

14 Cf. Meineke, A., Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum (Berlin, 1847)Google Scholar; Dziatzko, C., ‘Die Andria des Menander’, RhM 31 (1876), 243–53Google Scholar. Regarding fr. 40 (= 44 K.–A.) Körte writes: ‘quamquam e Donato 7 et Servio verba ἀπὸ Λοξίου σὺ μυρρίνας satis certo restituta sunt, tamen miramur, quod Dona. 1 Apollinem non Λοξίαν sed Ἀγυιαῖον appellat—hoc cognomen in corruptis litteris latere perspexit Mein.’. Cf. Clericus, J., Menandri et Philemonis reliquiae (Amsterdam, 1709)Google Scholar; Kock, T., Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1880–1888)Google Scholar; Saekel, A., Quaestiones comicae de Terenti exemplaribus Graecis (Berlin, 1914)Google Scholar; Kassel, R. and Austin, C., Poetae comici graeci, vol. 6.2, Menander. Testimonia et fragmenta apud scriptores servata (Berlin, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Γ and Σ are the main branches of the tradition of Donatus’ commentary on Andria; for more information about manuscripts and their relationship, cf. n. 1.

16 Meineke's reading seems to be close to the text by A (and, to a lesser extent, to the text by B); we should note, however, that transcriptions of Greek by Latin copyists are subject to corruptions that are often not possible to reconstruct, so the reading closest to the corrupted letters might not be the right one. Cf. Ronconi, F., La traslitterazione dei testi greci (Spoleto, 2003), 75–123 Google Scholar.

17 Cf. Serv. Aen. 6.89 (under the entry Λοξίας in the apparatus criticus); for the confusion created by X/Λ, cf. Ronconi (n. 16), 82.

18 See Adams, J.N., ‘The lexicon: suppletion and the verb “go”’, in Social Variations and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2013), 792–820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Cf. Don. An. 625.5, where I believe the restoration of id<em> is virtually certain.