Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:00:41.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. Plautus and Terence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

The best texts of Plautus are still those edited by Leo (second edition: Berlin, 1895–96; reprinted 1958) and Lindsay (Oxford, 1904-05). The large Teubner edition by Ritschl, Goetz, Loewe and Schoell (Leipzig, 1871–94), remains indispensable, despite an eccentric text, because of the fullness of its critical information; Goetz and Schoell later produced an editio minor (Leipzig, 1892–96: there are later prints with editorial changes) with a briefer apparatus and a more conservative text. The Bude edition is by Ernout (Paris, 1932–40). No complete commentary has been published since that of Ussing (Copenhagen, 1875–92; reprinted 1972); commentaries on individual plays, however, published in the more accessible languages during the last fifty years include: Amphitruo, Sedgwick (Manchester, 1960); Asinaria, Bertini (Genoa, 1968); Curculio, Collari (Paris, 1962); a ‘scenic analysis’ by Monaco (Rome and Palermo, 1963); Epidicus, Duckworth (Princeton, 1940); Menaechmi, Moseley and Hammond (Cambridge, Mass., 1933); Mercator, Enk (Leiden, 1932); Cazzaniga (Milan, 1961): Miles Gloriosus, Hammond, Mack, Moskalew (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1963); Mostellaria, Collart (Paris, 1970); Merrill (London, 1972); Pseudolus, Sturtevant (New Haven, 1933); Rudens, Marx (Leipzig, 1928; reprinted 1958); Stichus, Petersmann (Heidelberg, 1973); Truculentus, Enk (Leiden, 1953). Commentaries in the press or near completion include: Aulularia (Stockert); Bacchides (Lowe); Casina (MacCary and Willcock); Poenulus (Maurach).

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 9: Menander, Plautus, Terence , 1975 , pp. 28 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1975

Access options

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

References

Notes

1. The direction taken by Plautine scholarship after the first World War, largely under the impact of Fraenkel’s seminal Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin, 1922), has meant that earlier commentaries, based on exploded or outmoded views of Plautine techniques, are now often dangerously misleading in the hands of non-experts.

2. Marti, , Lustrum vi (1961), 150 Google Scholar; Zwierlein, , Der Terenzkommentar des Donat im Codex Chigianus H vii 240 (Berlin, 1970).Google Scholar

3. Cic Brut. 71 f.

4. Livy’s comments on the various Games (Apolline, Roman, Plebeian) held in the last fourteen years of the Second Punic War are most conveniently collected and discussed by Lorenzi, De, Cronologia ed evoluzione plautina (Naples, 1972), 37 ffGoogle Scholar.

5. Leo’s chapter on Plautus’ life (Plautinische Forschungen [2nd edition: Berlin, 1912 Google Scholar: reprinted 1966], 63 ff.) is still the most scholarly discussion, although now outmoded in particular details. Cf.Duckworth, , The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952), 49 ffGoogle Scholar. Beare’s account, The Roman Stage (3rd edition: London, 1964), 45 ff.Google Scholar, is less judicious.

6. Gratwick, , CQ xxiii (1973), 78 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with full discussion.

7. De Sen. 50. Venini, , Athenaeum xxxviii (1960), 98 ffGoogle Scholar.

8. The alleged references to historical events have been collected and discussed most recently by Buck, , A Chronology of the Plays of Plautus (Baltimore, 1940)Google Scholar, and Schutter, , (Quibus annis comoediae Plautinae primum actae sint quaeritur (Diss. Groningen, 1952)Google Scholar. Neither work is wholly convincing in its interpretations.

9. Sedgwick, , CR xxxix (1925), 55 ff.Google Scholar; CQ xxiv (1930), 102 ff.; cf. AJP lxx (1949), 376 ff.

10. Hough, , AJP lv (1934), 346 ff.Google Scholar; CPh xxx (1935), 43 ff.; AJP lx (1939), 422 ff.; TAPA lxx (1939), 231 ff.; lxxi (1940), 186 ff.; lxxiii (1942), 108 ff.

11. Cf.Leo, , Hermes xlvi (1911), 292 ff.Google Scholar; Arnott, , Gnomon xxxix (1967), 137 Google Scholar. See also below, section 4.

12. The examples are collected and discussed by Gaiser, , Aufstieg und Niedergang I. ii (1972), 1073 ff.Google Scholar

13. This view has flourished most vigorously in Plautus’ own country: its most extreme adherent has probably been Perna, , L’originalità di Plauto (Bari, 1955)Google Scholar.

14. This extreme is best exemplified by Marx, in his edition of the Rudens (Berlin, 1928 Google Scholar: reprinted 1959); >cf. Thierfelder’s review, Gnomon viii (1932), 625 ff.cf.+Thierfelder’s+review,+Gnomon+viii+(1932),+625+ff.>Google Scholar

15. Especially vv. 6-11 of the ‘fragmentum dubium’ (Sandbach’s term) of the play: Cf.Handley, , BICS xvi (1969), 88 ffGoogle Scholar.

16. There is a massive bibliography, including two recent monographs ( Braun, , Die Cantica des Plautus [Göttingen, 1970]Google Scholar; Maurach, , Untersuchungen zum Aufbau plautinischer Lieder [Göttingen, 1964])Google Scholar and a welter of papers on individual cantica and metrical systems, the most important of which are listed in Braun’s bibliography, 202 ff.

17. Cf.Leo, , Die plautinischen Cantica und die hellenistische Lyrik (Abh. 1/7, Göttingen 1897)Google Scholar; Immisch, , Zur Frage der plautinischen Cantica (Abh. vii, Heidelberg 1923)Google Scholar; Webster, , Hellenistic Poetry and Art (London, 1964), 268 ff.Google Scholar

18. Cf.Lejay, , Plaute (Paris, 1925), 28 ff.Google Scholar; Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy, 378 ff., citing other literature.

19. It is Fraenkel’s, Plautinisches im Plautus, 321 ff. = Elementi plautini in Plauto, 307 ff. (and 435 ff.).

20. Although the text here has been botched by the mss., Seyffert’s conjecture (ex aqu-aqu-aqua) is certain, and it is a remarkable indication of the humourlessness of much modern scholarship that only Sonnenschein’s text prints the conjecture (but note Beare, CR xliv [1930], 166 f.).

21. Cf. Monaco’s discourse on this monologue in Teatro di Plauto, I: Il Curculio (Rome and Palermo, 1963), 73 ff.Google Scholar, citing earlier discussions, of which perhaps the most accessible is Duckworth’s in Ut pictura poesis: Studia P. J. Enk (Leyden, 1955), 58 ffGoogle Scholar.

22. Cf. Gaiser (n. 12 above), 1089 ff.; and Hanson, , CW lix (1965), 107 and 126Google Scholar; with full bibliographies.

23. especially Cf.Haffter, , SIFC xvii (1940), 97 ffGoogle Scholar.

24. So Wilamowitz in his edition of Eur. Herakles, iii. 226.

25. Especially the first four chapters of Plautinisches im Plautus. 26. Cf.Law, , AJP xlvii (1926), 361 ff.Google Scholar; Prescott, , TAPA lxiii (1932), 103 ff.Google Scholar; Dumont, , REL xliv (1966), 182 ffGoogle Scholar. Law and Dumont, however, exaggerate the importance of the Greek instances.

27. Examples can be found in Menander (e.g. Pk. 277 ff.), but they are comparatively rare.

28. On this passage see especially Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 112 f. = Elementi. 106 f.; and Beare, , CR xliv (1930), 165 ffGoogle Scholar.

29. Basic ischapter VIII in Fraenkel, Plautinisches (= Elementi, with 428 ff.). The relationship between Plautine slaves and their historical and social background is judiciously examined by Spranger, , Historische Untersuchungen zu den Sklavenfiguren des Plautus und Terenz (Mainz, 1960-61)Google Scholar.

30. Cf.Arnott, , Gnomon xlii (1970), 25 Google Scholar, and Leeds University Review xiii (1970), 12 ff.; and Gaiser’s German translation of Men. Asp. ( Menander, , Der Schild oder Die Erbtochter [Zürich and Stuttgart, 1971] ), 17 fGoogle Scholar. Harsh’s earlier survey in TAPA lxxxvi (1955), 135 ff., is still useful, though somewhat outdated by the new papyrus discoveries.

31. Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 61 ff. = Elementi, 57 ff., argues that the whole canticum is a free invention by Plautus; Gaiser, , Philologus cxiv (1970), 72 ff.Google Scholar, suggests more attractively that Plautus may be substantially expanding a Greek core. Jocelyn, , HSCP lxxiii (1969), 134 ff.Google Scholar, has a good analysis of the canticum, but his detailed allegations of post-Plautine workmanship in it are partly unconvincing.

32. Cf. Leo, Gott. Nachr. (1903), 352; Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 62 ff. = Elementi, 59 f.; Jachmann, , Philologus lxxxviii (1933), 455 f.Google Scholar

33. On this passage of Pseud., cf. Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 401 n. 3 = Elementi, 380 n. 1; Klingner, , Hermes lxiv (1929), 124 Google Scholar; Williams, , Hermes lxxxiv (1956), 430 Google Scholar.

34. Cf. Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 193 ff. = Elementi, 183 ff.; Shipp, , WS lxvi (1953), 105 ffGoogle Scholar. For a different view see Hough, , AJP lv (1934), 346 ffGoogle Scholar.

35. Cf. Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 144 ff. = Elementi, 139 ff., with 414; Gaiser (n. 12 above), 1062 ff., with useful bibliography.

36. Cf.Corbett, , Eranos lxvi (1968), 118 ffGoogle Scholar. On the Stichus examples, cf. Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 288 ff. = Elementi, 277 ff.; Amott, , BICS xix (1972), 64 ffGoogle Scholar.

37. Fraenkel’s view (Plautinisches, 262 ff. = Elementi, 253 ff.), that the scene may have been imported into the play from a second Greek model (see sub-section 6 below), is now generally rejected. Cf.Webster, , Studies in Menander (2nd edition: Manchester, 1960), 136 f.Google Scholar; Friedrich, , Euripides und Diphilos (Munich, 1953), 242 ff.Google Scholar; Maurach, , Philologus cviii (1964), 256 n. 1Google Scholar. On Plautus’ courtesans in general, Rambelli, , Comica Graeco-Latina (Pavia, 1957)Google Scholar, has some interesting discussions.

38. Cf.Webster, , Studies in Menander 2, 96 f.Google Scholar; Ludwig, , Entretiens Hardt xvi (1970), 57 fGoogle Scholar.

39. Cf.Leo, , Plautinische Forschungen 2, 207 ff.Google Scholar, and Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Berlin, 1913: reprinted 1967), 127 f. This view about the endings of Diphilus’ and Plautus’ plays seems the most convincing one, but it has been opposed: Cf.Skutsch, F., RKMus. lv (1900), 282 f.Google Scholar; Harsh, , Studies in Dramatic ‘Preparation’ in Roman Comedy (Diss. Chicago, 1935), 52 ff.Google Scholar; Friedrich, , Euripides und Diphilos (Munich, 1953), 178 ff.Google Scholar; Webster, , Studies in Later Greek Comedy (Manchester, 1953), 161 ff.Google Scholar; Marti, , Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik bei Plautus und Terenz (Diss. Zürich, 1959), 111 Google Scholar; MacCary, , Hermes ci (1973), 194 ffGoogle Scholar.

40. See below, section 4.

41. Ad. 6 ff.

42. Cf. Gaiser (n. 12 above), 1068 ff., with full bibliography and discussion; Arnott, , BICS xix (1972), 54 ff.Google Scholar; and Petersmann’s edition of the play (Heidelberg, 1973), 28 ff.

43. See below, section 7.

44. The bibliography is enormous, and even if the theories of the contaminationists are now generally discredited, many of their discussions contain such valuable interpretative insights as make them still worthy of study. See especially, on Amph.: Leo, Gott. Nachr. (1911), 254 ff.; Prescott, , CPh viii (1913), 14 ff.Google Scholar; Stewart, , TAPA lxxxix (1958), 348 ff.Google Scholar; Büchner, , Studien zur römischen Literatur (Wiesbaden), vii (1968), 152 ffGoogle Scholar. Bacch.: Fraenkel, , De media et noua comoedia quaestiones selectae (Diss. Göttingen, 1912), 100 f.Google Scholar: Williams, , Hermes lxxxiv (1957), 446 ffGoogle Scholar. M.G.: Leo, Plautinische Forschungen 2, 178 ff.; Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 253 ff. = Elementi, 245 ff.; Jachmann, , Plautinisches und Attisches (Berlin, 1931), 162 ff.Google Scholar; Duckworth, , CPh xxx (1935), 228 ff.Google Scholar; Tierney, , Proc. R. Irish Acad. xlix/c (1943), 167 ff.Google Scholar; Williams, , Hermes lxxxvi (1958), 79 ff.Google Scholar; Gaiser, , Poetica i (1967), 436 ff.Google Scholar Poen.: Leo, Plautinische Forschungen, 170 ff.; Jachmann, , Χάριτες Leo dargebracht (Berlin, 1911), 249 ff.Google Scholar, and Plautinisches und Attisches, 195 ff.; Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 262 ff. = Elementi, 253 ff.; Maurach, , Philologus cviii (1964), 247 ffGoogle Scholar. Pseud.: Leo, Gott. Nachr. (1903), 347 ff.; Klingner, , Hermes lxiv (1929), 110 ffGoogle Scholar.; Hough, , The Compsition of the Pseudolus of Plautus (Lancaster, 1931)Google Scholar; Jachmann, , Philologus lxxxviii (1933), 443 ff.Google Scholar; Williams, , Hermes lxxxiv (1956), 424 ff.Google Scholar; Önnerfors, , Eranos lxv (1958), 21 ffGoogle Scholar.

45. Cf. Marti (n. 39 above).

46. Cf. the discussions cited in n. 37.

47. Cf. Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 258 ff. = Elementi, 249 ff.; Williams, , Hermes lxxxvi (1958), 96 Google Scholar.

48. Cf.Steidle, , RhMus cxiv (1971), 247 ff.Google Scholar

49. Handley, , Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison (London, 1968)Google Scholar. Cf. also Barigazzi and others Maia xxii (1970), 343 ff.; Gaiser, , Philologus cxiv (1970), 51 ff.Google Scholar; Questa, , Entretiens Hardt xvi (1970), 183 ff.Google Scholar; Corno, Del, Plauto: Bacchides (Turin, 1972)Google Scholar; Pöschl, SB Heidelberg (1973), A bh. 4; (Gomme and) Sandbach, , Menander: A Commentary (Oxford, 1973), 118 ffGoogle Scholar.

50. In a lecture, reprinted in Parerga zu Plautus und Terenz i (Berlin, 1845: again reprinted in 1965), 349 ff.

51. Cf. especially Theuerkauf, , Menanders Dyskolos ah Bühnenspiel und Dichtung (Diss. Göttingen, 1960), 46 ff.Google Scholar; Ludwig, , Phüologus cv (1961), 247 ff.Google Scholar; Amott, , Phoenix xvi (1964), 232 ff.Google Scholar; and Schäfer, , Menanders Dyskolos: Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik (Meisenheim, 1965), 86 ff.Google Scholar (Dysk./Aul.); Görler, , Phüologus cv (1961), 299 ffGoogle Scholar. (Dysk./Eun. ); Arnott, , Atti del III congresso internazionale di studi sul dramma antico, 22-24 maggio 1969 (Rome and Syracuse), 355 ffGoogle Scholar. (Mis./Sik./Poen.).

52. Cf. especially Sandbach, , Entretiens Hardt xvi (1970), 97 fGoogle Scholar.

53. Cf. especially Webster, , Studies in Menander, 141 fGoogle Scholar. (in either edition; also 233 of the second edition: Manchester, 1960); Handley on Men. Dysk. 880 ff.; Questa, , Entretiens Hardt xvi (1970), 183 f.Google Scholar Plaut. Pseud. 573a also contains a character’s address to the piper, but this does not form part of a revelling scene; see, however, Paratore, , RCCM i (1959), 310 ffGoogle Scholar. (a paper more persuasive than d’Anna’s in the same number, 298 ff.).

54. POxy. 2654 (ed. Turner, , vol. xxxiii [1968])Google Scholar. Cf. also Questa (n. 53 above), 187 ff.; Arnott, , RhMus cii (1959), 252 ff.Google Scholar, and Atti (n. 51 above), 355 ff.

55. Charitonidis, , Kahil, and Ginouvés, , Les mosaïques de la maison du Ménandre à Mytilène (Berne, 1970), 41 ff.Google Scholar

56. Questa, , Per la storia del testo di Plauto nell’ umanesimo, 1: La ‘recensio’ di Poggio Bracciolini (Rome, 1968)Google Scholar.

57. Cf.Andrieu, , Le dialogue antique: structure et présentation (Paris, 1954)Google Scholar; Questa, , RCCM iv (1962), 209 ff.Google Scholar; Bader, , Szenentitel und Szeneneinteilung bei Plautus (Diss. Tübingen, 1970)Google Scholar.

58. Books on specialist topics published since the war include, in addition to those cited in n. 16: Harsh, , Iambic Words and Regard for Accent in Plautus (Stanford, 1949)Google Scholar; Drexler, , ‘Lizenzen’am Versanfang bei Plautus (Munich, 1965)Google Scholar, and lambenkurzung (Hildesheim, 1969); and Questa, , Due cantica delle Bacchides (Rome, 1967)Google Scholar. Questa’s, Introduzione alla metrica di Plauto (Bologna, 1967)Google Scholar, is now (even with the reservations expressed in Drexler’s important review, Gnomon xi [1968], 455 ff.Google Scholar) the standard general work; cf. also the same author’s Metrica latina arcaica, in Introduzione allo studio della cultura classica (Milan, undated), 477 ff., with invaluable bibliographies. Beare’s Latin Verse and European Song (London, 1957 Google Scholar) is now largely outdated.

59. Luck, , Über einige Interjektionen der lateinischen Umgangssprache (Heidelberg, 1964)Google Scholar; and Blänsdorf, , Archaische Gedankengänge in den Komödien des Plautus (Wiesbaden, 1967 Google Scholar). A bibliography of earlier work will be found in Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy, 460 f.; cf. also Miniconi, , REL xxxvi (1958), 159 ffGoogle Scholar. (insults), and Hommages à Jean Bayet (Brussels, 1964), 495 ff. (vocabulary of drink and drunkenness); Earl, , Historia ix (1960), 235 ffGoogle Scholar. (political terminology); Corbe«, , Éranos lxii (1964), 52 ffGoogle Scholar. (figurative verbs).

60. Cf. Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 80 ff. = Elementi, 75 ff.

61. Cf. the discussions cited in n. 28 above.

62. Cf.Arnott, , BICS xix (1972), 64 ffGoogle Scholar.

63. The more recent discussions are Jachmann, , Plautinisches und Attisches (Berlin, 1931), 128 ff.Google Scholar; Enk, , Mnemosyne ii (1935), 281 ff.Google Scholar; de Ruyt, , Et. Class, xxix (1961), 375 ff.Google Scholar; Klingner, , SIFC xxvii-xxviii (1956), 157 ff.Google Scholar; Ludwig, , Phüologus cv (1961), 55 ff.Google Scholar; Lehmann, , Gymnasium lxvii (1970), 73 ffGoogle Scholar.

64. Cf. especially Minar, , CJ xlii (1947), 271 ff.Google Scholar; de Ruyt, loc. cit. in n. 63; Schäfer, , Menanders Dyskolos: Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik (Meisenheim, 1965), 103 ffGoogle Scholar.

65. For this information about stylistic differentiation in Plaut. Aul. I am indebted to a paper by Stockert, still in the press.

66. Cf.Arnott, , BICS xix (1972), 54 ffGoogle Scholar.

67. Segal, E., Roman Laughter (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 7.Google Scholar

68. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy, 305 ff., has some good remarks; and Cèbe, , La caricature et la parodie dans le monde romain antique des origines à Juvenal (Paris, 1966)Google Scholar, is useful within its specified field. Taladoire, , Essai sur le comique de Piaute (Monaco, 1956)Google Scholar, includes some useful discussion of comic action and gesture, but is too obsessed with its author’s doctrine of mouvements, over and above general carelessness in details.

69. Cf. n. 20 above.

70. Cf.Bradshaw, , CQ xxiii (1973), 275 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71. Cf.Watson, , Zeitschr. d. Savigny-Stiftung lxxix (1962), 329 ff.Google Scholar; Gratwick, , CR xxiii (1973), 123.Google Scholar

72. On Plautus’ relation to his audiences, Cf. Chalmers in Dudley and Dorey (edd.), Roman Drama (London, 1965), 21 ff.Google Scholar; Segal, Roman Laughter. 73. A. Gellius ii. 23 cites three extracts from Menander’s Plokion (its. 333-35 Körte) together with Caecilius’ versions of them. Cf.Leo, , Geschichte der römischen Literatur, (Berlin, 1913 Google Scholar; reprinted 1967), 217 ff.; Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy, 46 ff.

74. The sanest modern discussion is in Duckworth (n. 73 above), 56 ff., with references to earlier work on the subject. Cf. also Jachmann, , RE s.v. Terentius 36 (1934), 598 ff.Google Scholar; Beare, , Hermathena lix (1942), 20 ff.Google Scholar, and The Roman Stage, (3rd edition), 91 ff.; Prete, CWVN (1961), 112 ff. Carney’s edition of the Hecyra (1963) includes a text and a good historically oriented commentary on the Suetonius Vita Terentii; cf. also Terzaghi, , Prolegomeni a Terenzio (Turin, 1931 Google Scholar; reprinted 1965), 21 ff.; Frank, , AJP liv (1933), 269 ff.Google Scholar; Rostagni, , Suetonio: De poetis, e biografi minori (Turin, 1944), 26 ff.Google Scholar; d’Anna, , Rend. 1st. Lomb. lxxxix (1956), 31 ff.Google Scholar

75. Cf.Lindsay, , CQ xxii (1928), 119 Google Scholar; Duckworth (n. 73 above), 56 ff.; Astin, , Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), 294 ffGoogle Scholar.

76. Cic. Att. vii. 3.10, De Amie. 89; Quint, x.1.99; Donatus on Ad. 15.

77. Santra, a contemporary of Cicero.

78. Arnaldi, , DaPlauto a Terenzio ii (Naples, 1947), 103 ffGoogle Scholar. jMarti, , Lustrum viii (1963), 15 ff.Google Scholar; and Duckworth (n. 73 above), 60 f., give clear pictures of the problems which hamper the dating of Terence’s plays. The most effective case against acceptance of the didascalie dates is made by Mattingly, , Athenaeum xxxvii (1959), 148 ff.Google Scholar, and RCCM v (1963), 12 ff., although his own solutions seem unsatisfactory. The most thorough defence of the didascalie chronology is now to be found in Klose, , Die Didaskalten und Prologe des Terenz (Diss. Freiburg, 1966)Google Scholar.

79. Cf.Ludgwig, , GRBS ix (1968), 170 ffGoogle Scholar.

80. Jachmann, , RE s.v. Terentius 36, 598 ff.Google Scholar; Croce, , La Critica xxxiv (1936), 401 ffGoogle Scholar. = Poesia antica e moderne (2nd edition: Bari, 1943), 1 ff. In Britain and America the Original genius’ theory has been adopted by Norwood, , The Art of Terence (Oxford, 1923 Google Scholar: reprinted 1965) and Piautus and Terence (New York and London, 1931: reprinted 1963); and in Germany by Reitzenstein, E., Terenz als Dichter (Leipzig, 1940)Google Scholar.

81. A useful account of the scholarly squabblings is provided by Ludwig, , GRBS ix (1968), 169 ffGoogle Scholar.

82. Scrappy fragments have turned up, however, of two of Terence’s secondary sources (Menander’s Perinthia and Kolax), but not from any passages in those secondary sources directly exploited by Terence.

83. See below, section 8.

84. The best account of Luscius Lanuvinus is now to be found in Garton, , Personal Aspects of the Roman Theatre (Toronto, 1972), 41 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Terzaghi, , Prolegomeni a Terenzio (Turin, 1931 Google Scholar; reprinted 1965), 45 ff.; Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy, 61 ff.

85. Cf. Accius A treus fr. viii Ribbeck; Cicero Dom. 35; Livy iv. 1.1.

86. The dispute over the meaning of contaminare has produced a large bibliography ( Cf.Marti, , Lustrum viii [1963], 23 ff.Google Scholar; Simon, , Helicon ii [1962], 487 ff.Google Scholar; Kujore, , CPh lxix [1974], 39 ff.Google Scholar); the first scholar to defend the meaning ‘spoil’ with sound arguments was Schwering, , Neue Jahrb. xxxvii (1916), 167 ff.Google Scholar; Cf.Körte, , B. phil. Woch. xxxvi (1916), 979 ffGoogle Scholar.

87. Cf.Chalmers, , CR vii (1957), 12 ffGoogle Scholar.

88. And much discussed: cf. the bibliographical discussions of Marti, , Lustrum viii (1963), 28 ff.Google Scholar; and Gaiser, Aufstieg und Niedergang I.ii (1972), 1063 ff. Ludwig’s recent brief survey of the modern position, in GRBS ix (1968), 169 ff., is outstanding.

89. Cf. especially Drexler, , Die Komposition von Terenz’ Adelphen und Plautus’ Rudens, Philologus Supp. Band xxvi.2 (1934), 1 ffGoogle Scholar.; Webster, Studies in Menander, 86 ff.; Rieth, (ed. Gaiser, ), Die Kunst Menanders in den ‘Adelphen’ des Terenz (Hildesheim, 1964), 52 ff.Google Scholar, cf. 136 ff.; Fantham, , Philologus cxii (1968), 196 ffGoogle Scholar.

90. Ludwig, , Philologus ciii (1959), 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with details of earlier discussions. It needs now to be supplemented especially by Brothers, , CQ xix (1969), 314 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Steidle, , RhMus cxvi (1973), 326 ffGoogle Scholar.

91. Cf. Gaiser (n. 88 above), 1064 f., with full references to previous discussions; Lloyd-Jones, , CQ xxiii (1973), 283 f.Google Scholar; Steidle, , RhMus cxvi (1973), 342 ffGoogle Scholar. My interpretation here follows that of Ludwig, , GRBS ix (1968), 172 fGoogle Scholar.

92. Bibliographical discussions in Marti, , Lustrum ix (1963), 55 ff.Google Scholar; and Gaiser (n. 91 above), 1063 f. Cf. also Gorier, , Poetica v (1972), 171 ff.Google Scholar; Steidle, , RhMus cxvi (1973), 303 ffGoogle Scholar.

93. Cf. especially Haffter, , Terenz und seine künstlerische Eigenart (Darmstadt, 1967 = MusHelv x [1953], 1 ff.Google Scholar, 73 ff.), 18 ff.; Ludwig, , GRBS ix (1968), 175 ffGoogle Scholar.

94. Cf. especially Jachmann, RE s.v. Terentius 36, 613 ff.; Haffter (n. 93 above), 80 ff.; Webster, , Bull. Rylands Libr. xlv (1962), 240 f.Google Scholar; Ludwig, , GRBS ix (1968), 175 ffGoogle Scholar. and 178 f. n. 29; Gaiser (n. 88 above), 1085 ff.

95. The fullest recent discussion is Lefévre, , Die Expositionstechnik in den Komödien des Terenz (Darmstadt, 1969)Google Scholar, with a pendant article by the same author in MusHelv xxviii (1971), 21 ff.; for different assessments of this monograph, see Ludwig, , Gnomon xliv (1972), 825 ff.Google Scholar, and Brown, , JRS lxiii (1973), 301 fGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Haffter, 15 ff.; Ludwig, 177 ff.; and Gaiser, 1050 ff. (all in n. 94 above); Gaiser has useful references to much earlier work.

96. Cf. especially Sewart, , Hermes cii (1974), 247 ffGoogle Scholar.

97. Cf. especially Glücklich, , Aussparung und Athetese: Studien zur terenzischen Komödie (Diss. Heidelberg, 1966), 195 f.Google Scholar; Arnott, , G & R xvii (1970), 39 f.Google Scholar; Gaiser (n. 88 above), 1053 f.

98. Cf. especially Marti, , Lustrum viii (1963), 72 ff.Google Scholar, with bibliography of earlier discussions; Rieth, (ed. Gaiser, ), Die Kunst Menanders in den ‘Adelphen’ des Terenz (Hildesheim, 1964), 14 ff.Google Scholar, cf. 135 ff.; Fantham, , Philologus cxii (1968), 196 ff.Google Scholar; Gaiser (n. 88 above), 1054 ff.

99. Cf.Ludwig, , GRBS ix (1968), 177 fGoogle Scholar.

100. Cf. especially Fraenkel, , MusHelv xxv (1968), 235 ff.Google Scholar, a paper of great methodological importance. Most scholars, however, continue to accept Donatus’ note at face value (and they may be right!): e.g. Williams, , Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968), 290 f.Google Scholar; Denzler, , Der Monolog bei Terenz (Diss. Zürich, 1968), 128 ff.Google Scholar; Steidle, , RhMus cxvi (1973), 340 Google Scholar.

101. Sewart, , The Hecyra of Terence in Relation to its Greek Original (Diss. Leeds, 1971 Google Scholar: unpublished); his discussion of Bacchis’ monologue will appear in a forthcoming number of Hermes. For different interpretations, see now especially Ludwig, , Gnomon xxxvi (1964), 156 fGoogle Scholar. (following Nencini); and Lefèvre (n. 95 above), 73 ff.

102. It has achieved a massive bibliography: Cf.Marti, , Lustrum viii (1963), 77 f.Google Scholar; Gaiser (n. 88 above), 1100 ff. The most important recent contribution is undoubtedly Rieth’s Die Kunst Menanders in den ‘Adelphen’ des Terenz (Hildesheim, 1964)Google Scholar, edited with additional material by Gaiser; but cf. also Johnson, , California Studies in Class. Ant i (1968), 171 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fantham, , Latomus xxx (1971), 970 ff.Google Scholar; Grant, , GRBS xii (1971), 205 ff.Google Scholar; Trankle, , MusHelv xxix (1972), 241 ff.Google Scholar; Lloyd-Jones, , CQ xxiii (1973), 279 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103. Cf.Arnott, , Gnomon xxxvii (1965), 261 n. 2Google Scholar.

104. Cf. especially Grant, , GRBS xii (1971), 205 ffGoogle Scholar.

105. Prete, , Il codice di Terenzio Vaticano Latino 3226: Saggio critico e riproduzione del manoscritto (Vatican City, 1970)Google Scholar; Bader, , RhMus cxvi (1973), 54 ffGoogle Scholar. A full account of studies on the text of Terence between 1909 and 1959 appears in Marti, , Lustrum vi (1961), 117 ffGoogle Scholar.

106. Cf. especially Flury, , Liebe und Liebessprache bei Menander, Plautus und Terenz (Heidelberg, 1968)Google Scholar; and Fantham, , Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery (Toronto, 1972)Google Scholar.

107. Cf.Arnott, , G & R xvii (1970), 32 ffGoogle Scholar.

108. Rieth, E.g. (edited Gaiser, ), Die Kunst Menanders in den ‘Adelphen’ des Terenz (Hildesheim, 1964)Google Scholar, on Ad.; Steidle, , RhMus cxvii (1974), 247 ff.Google Scholar, on H.T.; Posani, , Atene e Roma xlii (1940), 225 ff.Google Scholar, on Hec. One exception to this general claim, however, is Ludwig’s valuably brief assessment in GRBS ix (1968), 169 ff., often cited in these pages.

109. Cf. Flury (n. 106 above), 13 ff.

110. Cf.Marti, , Lustrum viii (1963), 91 ff.Google Scholar, with especial reference to H.T. 77.

111. Two important books appeared after this survey was completed: Webster, , An Introduction to Menander (Manchester, 1974)Google Scholar; and Büchner, , Das Theater des Terenz (Heidelberg, 1974).Google Scholar