Revue d'histoire des textes

A problem of method in the history of texts and its implications for

the manuscript tradition of Terence
Benjamin Victor

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Victor Benjamin. A problem of method in the history of texts and its implications for the manuscript tradition of Terence. In:
Revue d'histoire des textes, bulletin n°26 (1996), 1996. pp. 269-287;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/rht.1996.1448

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rht_0373-6075_1996_num_26_1996_1448

Fichier pdf généré le 05/04/2018

Résumé
Le présent article cherche à démontrer que, malgré l'existence d'autres modèles (notamment de la «
vulgate » de Pasquali), la méthode stemmatique en histoire de textes reste surutilisée. Plus
spécialement, la transmission de textes classiques pendant l'antiquité même est trop souvent
expliquée par le biais de la descente verticale des témoins, résultat sans doute de l'état incomplet des
données et de la tendance qu'ont les chercheurs à favoriser la méthode stemmatique dans les cas
moins clairs. La transmission de Térence pendant l'antiquité est examinée ici en détail. Il a été d'usage
jusqu'à présent de représenter celle-ci au moyen d'un stemma, mais les erreurs conjonctives utilisées
à cette fin s'avèrent d'un type qui se répand particulièrement vite par des voies horizontales. Cette
observation, qui entraîne le rejet du stemma, est appuyée par des données comparatives extraites de
37 manuscrits des IXe, Xe et XIe siècles.

Abstract
It is here argued that the stemmatic method of studying the history of texts is still overused despite the
existence of other models (in particular the « vulgate » of Pasquali). More precisely, the transmission of
classical texts during antiquity itself is too often explained by reference to vertical descent ; that is so
because evidence is so incomplete and scholars have tended to favour the stemmatic method in
doubtful cases. The transmission of Terence in antiquity is examined in detaiL It has been customary to
draw a stemma of the older witnesses to the Terence-text, but the conjunctive errors adduced for it are
seen to be of a type readily spread horizontally. This observation, which leads to a rejection of the
stemma, is supported by comparative data from 37 manuscripts of centuries IX-XI.
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD IN THE HISTORY OF TEXTS
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF TERENCE

The oldest phases of the manuscript tradition of Terence were

investigated in the early part of this century, and conclusions drawn then continue
to be accepted. I am convinced that revision is needed. Questions of method
are inescapable in this matter; a digression will accordingly be necessary
at the start.

The manners of understanding a textual tradition

In 1934, Giorgio Pasquali articulated a new manner of understanding

the history of texts. In the course of his survey of classical manuscript
traditions Pasquali made innovative observations of a general nature, among them
the first clear description of a phenomenon which he called a vulgate.
He wrote :

« The usual image for a tradition is the one, borrowed from genealogy, of the stemma.
Maas (§21) attempted to substitute a comparison to an underground waterway,
which branches again and again beneath the earth, surfacing here and there in springs
only to disappear again afterward, but not without acquiring substances changing
its colour, which moreover penetrate each branch whenever it appears at the
surface. « The goal of the investigation is to test the genuineness of the colours on the
evidence of the springs ». This entire comparison makes for a very beautiful page
of writing, such as philologists seldom compose... But, while the image is fitting
for a predominantly vertical textual transmission, horizontal transmission of
individual readings, if not of an entire text, is much better compared to a spot of
oil which, beginning in some fixed point, spreads little by little until it covers an
entire surface : noone can foresee with any certainty how far it will go1. »
This picture of how some traditions evolve differs sharply from its rival, the
stemmatic model familiar from Paul Maas's manual 2. In the stemmatic view
of things a corruption, after arising from a copyist's error, only comes to
be present in other manuscripts to the degree that the manuscript in which

1. G. PASQUALI, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (second edition Florence,
1962), p. 141 (p. 140 in the first edition of 1934).
2. Textkritik (third ed. Berlin, 1957; Engl. tr. Oxford, 1958).
270 BENJAMIN VICTOR

it first appeared has served as the direct model for others. The transmission
and evolution of errors, and hence of a text's character, is strictly «
vertical », going from model to copy : the determinant of text-type is ancestry.
In the vulgate-scenario, on the other hand, readings are transmitted through
the comparison of manuscripts with each other to such an extent that the
nature of a manuscript's text is chiefly determined by situation in time and
space3. Corruptions may still arise in the act of copying, but it is the act
of collation which propagates them. The horizontal aspect of transmission
thus becomes the more relevant one, being responsible for the presence,
in a given copy, of more of its corruptions. Philologists profess to have read
Pasquali and taken him to heart, but that sort of profession is often a
superficial act, performed if anything to excuse oneself from the task of reading
a complicated book, seeing all its implications, and re-thinking practices which
have become reflexes. Pasquali's work, though cited at every turn, remains
little appreciated. For certain periods and texts the concept of the vulgate
has a particular lot to offer and has not been applied as it should not even,
we shall see, by Pasquali himself.

How readings spread : the case of the Andria in the early Middle Ages

It will be useful to bring Pasquali's thought more to life with some

concrete data, which I propose to draw from the medieval tradition of the
author under scrutiny. The comedy Andria is selected because I happen
to possess extensive collations of it.
Complete and nearly complete manuscripts of the Andria are available
from the ninth century on. Some classification of them is possible. A group
known as γ comprises C (Vat. lat. 3868) with its apograph Β (Vatican, Arch.
S. Pietro Η 19), Y (Paris, Β. Ν. F, ht. 7900) and Ρ (ibid., ht. 7899), as
well as others4. They are associated by a shared lacuna and numerous
other similarities. Another group known as δ has been defined on the basis
of one external feature (the order in which the six comedies are presented),
of the text and in some cases of colometry (though certain manuscripts are
written as prose). To the δ-group surely belong D (Florence, Med. Lour., 38. 24)
G (Vat. lat. 1640) ρ (Paris, B. N. F., lat. 10304) V (Vienna, Ο. Ν. Β.,

3. Under comparison must be understood not only the setting of two books side by side,
but also correction from memory, a phenomenon particularly important in the case of school-
authors. See below at note 8.
4. For example, E8 (Escorial, S III 23) and ν (Valenciennes, BM 448). F (Milan, Ambr.
S. P. 4bis, formerly H 75 inf.), another important representative of the group, is not
available for the Andria. A surprisingly late ms. (Oxford, Bodl. Auct. F II 13, twelfth or thirteenth
century) is still recognizable as a gemellus of P. On these mss. see John N. GRANT, Studies
in the textual tradition of Terence (Toronto, 1986), pp. 136-159.
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD 271

lat. 263), Florence, Mea. Lour. 38.27 and most (including the Andria) of
L {Leipzig, Univ., Rep. I 37) ; parts of other manuscripts, too, have
affinities 5. Those manuscripts not clearly of one family or the other are spoken
of as « mixed » ; they include the majority of medieval witnesses. It is likely
that two distinct ancient books ultimately underlie γ and δ ; of the mixed
manuscripts none can be singled out as descended vertically from a third
ancient exemplar, though some of them have been influenced by one 6.
Now with time many variants spread themselves across the entire medieval
Terence-tradition, invading γ-, δ- and mixed manuscripts. Some do so with
particular thoroughness. I have identified within the Andria eight errors which,
though they appear absent from the two main sources of the tradition, become
the reading of a majority of manuscripts by the eleventh century.

(An. 5) nam in prologis scribundis operam abutitur (opera recentiores)

(An. 317) abin hinc in malam rem cum suspicione istac, scelus? (abi recentiores)
(An. 326-327) nunc te per amicitiam et per amorem obsecro, / principio ut
ne ducas. :: dabo equidem operam. :: sed si id non potest... (potes recentiores)
(An. 577) et is mihi suadet nuptias quantum queam ut maturem (persuadet
recentiores)
(An. 663-664) Dauus interturbat? quam ob rem? :: nescio, / nisi mihi deos
satis scio fuisse iratos qui auscultauerim. (ei ausc. vel ausc. ei vel sim. recentiores)
(An. 789) novi omnem rem. est Simo intus? :: est. :: ne me atti(n)gas (rem sed
est recentiores)
(An. 939) ne istam multimodis tuam inueniri gaudeo. :: credo, pater (ne] sane
recentiores)
(An. 940-941) dignus es, / cum tua religione, odium : nodum in scirpo quaeris
(odio recentiores)
The table below shows the reading, at each of these eight places, of every
known Terence-manuscript to the year 11007. In selecting the passages

5. Notably Ν (Leyden, Univ. Voss. lat. Q 38) Pb (Paris, B. N. F, lat. 9345) Pc

(ibid., lat. 7900 A) and Vb (Vienna, 0. Ν. Β. 85) : on these see GRANT (cited above n. 4),
pp. 120-135.
6. To cite the most obvious example, the spurious second ending of the Andria, whose
antiquity is guaranteed by Donatus and Eugraphius, skips all major manuscripts to resurface
at the end of the tenth century.
7. Claudia Villa's excellent census (La « lectura Terentii ». Volume primo : da Ildemaro
a Francesco Petrarca, Padua, 1984, pp. 295-454) served as the basis for my search. As
is usual with monastic schoolbooks, most of the manuscripts must be dated entirely on palaeo-
graphic grounds; the dates accordingly represent my own opinion. I have aimed to be
inclusive, reporting some manuscripts which may well be twelfth-century. In a very few cases
there are some objective criteria for dating : early users of Bodl. Auct. F VI 27 seem to
be identifiable (see VILLA, op. cit., pp. 99-136); and now Veronika von Büren has made
a case for identifying the copyist (a certain Iterius) of Vat. Arch. S. Pietro H 19 with a monk
272 BENJAMIN VICTOR

I have chosen those where the good reading is not limited to either the
γ- or the δ-family but is attested among the best representatives of both.
At An. 327, it should be noted, the error is already in the majority as of
the ninth century, and at An. 941 the good reading is only weakly attested
in δ. I have included those two passages because the true readings seem
to me likely to have been primitive to both Γ and Δ : the reader is invited
to take no account of them if he so wishes.
The character of the errors admits of commentary. Some show the sort
of thing variously named « normalization », « simplification », « banaliza-
tion » or « trivialization » — a textual change replacing the less with the more
familiar. When the unfamiliar feature actually makes the text difficult to
comprehend, its departure is particularly abrupt. Thus odium as a term of
reproach disappears entirely, as does the impersonal potest; ne as an
interjection leaves but a trace.
When the unfamiliar good reading does not impede comprehension, the
same path is followed at a slower pace : so the accusative with abutor, though
giving ground to the ablative, is yet present in a third of the eleventh-century
witnesses : that still represents a marked deterioration from the beginning
of the medieval tradition, for the accusative must have been read by
both Γ and Δ.
The same slower deterioration is seen in another group of passages :
those where the original has been expanded. The error seen at An. 664 has
less to do with familiarity of grammar or usage than with the tendency of
correctors to prefer the longer form of anything to the shorter : confronted
with two variants, they assume that words or other elements missing from
one are missing because of omission. The same holds good of An. 789 and
may have something to do with the success of persuasit at An. 577. (This
is Wettstein's principle of brevior lectio potior. As a corollary texts tend to
grow with time ; especially afflicted are heavily glossed traditions of prose-
writers or of poets, like Terence, whose versification has ceased to be
understood.)
Manuscripts whose vertical descent is discernible participate in the
process alongside the mongrels : Vatican, Arch. S. Pietro Η 19, an apograph

known from documents of Cluny of 1020-1029, the recipient with Rainardus, abbot
of S. Pierre-le-Vif at Sens from 979 to 1015 : Note sur le ms. Vaticano Arch. S. Pietro
H 19 et son modèle Vaticano lot. 3868 : les Terence de Cluny?, in Scriptorium, t. 48, 1994,
pp. 287-293). The old arguments for dating and localizing Vat. lat. 3868 stand on shaky
ground : on this whole matter see von Biiren's article. Approximate dates for Leyden, Univ.,
Lips. 26 and Paris, B. N. F., lat. 9345 (early to mid-eleventh century and turn of the mille-
nium, respectively) depend on identification of hands : A. VERHULST in Scriptorium, t. 11,
1957, pp. 37-49; Jean SCHROEDER in Publications de la Section historique de l'Institut
Grand-Ducal de Luxembourg, 91, 1977, pp. 265-266.
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD 273

of C, has lost some of C's good readings; something similar must be

affecting Med. Laur. 38.27 and Paris B. N. F., lat. 10304 — δ-
manuscripts, but without many of the good readings found in D. Under those
conditions the success of our eight errors can hardly be due to any but
horizontal phenomena.
In the case of Terence during the Middle Ages, the processes just
described have been accelerated by another factor as well : Terence's
status as a school-author. The place of certain classical texts in the medieval
curriculum ensured that those writing them knew them very well indeed
— at times almost by heart. The scribe was constantly influenced by variant
forms of the text which he remembered or half-remembered8. And his
memory will not have been friendly to linguistic oddities. The situation for
Terence in late antiquity will have been comparable.
Readings of certain types, then, spread rapidly in our tradition. Given
that fact, it might be possible for somebody, upon looking at one ninth-century
manuscript of Terence and a few eleventh-century ones, to conclude that
the eleventh-century manuscripts form a family, to which the ninth-century
manuscript does not belong. The eight readings whose spread is studied here
would be his conjunctive errors; he would draw his stemma with two
branches, the ninth-century manuscript on one, the eleventh-century ones
on the other. Investigators of medieval tradition do not in fact fall into such
traps ordinarily (though that may be because the evidence is usually better
than in the scenario I have just sketched); nevertheless, let us keep the
theoretical possibility in mind.
Now « normalization » or « simplification » may not at first seem the
best term, since often such readings actually complicate matters from the
grammatical or logical point of view. What is « normalized » is a superficial
feature : a deeper problem may at the same time be created, visible to those
who read the passage attentively. We therefore find ourselves before
something of a paradox : that horizontal transmission at the same time is
hostile to difficulty and propagates difficulty, and, unless we take care to
distinguish types of difficulty, we are apt to lapse into double-talk. When
a difficult good reading is expelled, it is usually that its difficulty consists
in lexical or morphological rarity (interjective ne at An. 939) or that there
is an easy substitution at hand (potes, odio for potest, odium). When on
the other hand difficult bad readings are successful, their difficulty has
more to do with the sense of the sentence or passage as a whole. The

8. Memorial contamination of one passage by another, parallel passage is demonstrable

in Terence : at An. 538 for instance the δ-mss. have been influenced by An. 834 and
Eun. 885, per te becoming per ego te). Memorial contamination of a passage by the same
passage in a different ms. will be no more difficult.
18
274 BENJAMIN VICTOR

data from Andria furnish no good examples, but an excellent one is

available at Eun. 4-6 :

turn siquis est qui dictum in se inclementius

existimavit esse, sic existimet
responsum, non dictum esse, quia laesit prior.
CYp : quia laesit prius D'L1 : quale sit prius cett.

Here almost all eleventh-century and later manuscripts have quale sit prius,
a phrase defying interpretation ; many of these are not far removed stemma-
tically from tenth-century manuscripts having quia laesit prius (or prior), readily
comprehensible and correct. I am reminded also of Juvenal X.81, where
toward the end of the Middle Ages panem et circenses is replaced by Pan
et circenses over large parts of Europe.

The evaluation of manuscrípt traditions

Doubtless, many readers already know what has so far been said; they
may even find me tedious for saying it at such length. Yet misapprehensions
persist and are best dispelled by speaking explicitly of our methods. In a
1981 publication Edward Courtney sought to reduce the capital manuscripts
of Virgil to an archetype by collecting instances of common error9. Here,
in Courtney's words, is why the common errors define an archetype :

« One might therefore argue when we meet our primary sources agreeing in error...
that the appearance of a false reading could be due to contamination and would
therefore tell us nothing about the history of the transmission. There is no logical
counter to these objections, and all that one can do is to attempt to assemble a
collection of instances of sufficient number to make such explanations, if not logically
impossible, at least highly improbable 10. »

The reasoning implied is as follows : horizontal transmission is an

aberration from the norm ; as an aberration, it is uncommon ; therefore, in a
sufficiently large sample of shared errors only a minority will ever be shared
due to horizontal influences ; all we need do, then, to establish some feature
of vertical textual history {e.g., the existence of an archetype) is to gather
a sample of errors sufficiently large. The line of thought is of course falla-

9. The formation of the text of Virgil, in B. I. C. S. 28 (1981), pp. 13-29. I find most
of Courtney's evidence unsatisfactory for reasons which will be clear by now. He may well
have a point with regard to certain passages (especially Aen. VI. 601 and XI. 269) where
the text must be assumed lacunose (though, as he himself admits p. 19, the wording of
whatever was omitted is unknown and may have contained something to trigger independent
omission).
10. Op. cit., p. 16.
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD 275

cious : large numbers of readings may move horizontally in a short time

— in the case of the Andria mentioned earlier I count about one per 116
lines spreading across Europe in a century or two. The origin of the
problem, the assumption that horizontal transmission is abnormal, is deeply sunk
into philological thinking, and « contamination », the usual term for the
horizontal process, makes that process sound especially deviant.
Numbers mean nothing; the questions to ask of a tradition are rather :
1) Are the shared errors fautes à faire (that is, are they of the sort likely
to be independent — haplographic omissions, modernizations of extremely
rare forms, and the like)?
2) Are the shared errors of the sort which readily spread horizontally ? That
is, are they normalizations (of the text's superficial aspect) and suppletions?
3) Is there any error giving superficially obvious nonsense ? Remember that
this must be understood this as something more immediately
incomprehensible than quote sit prius at Ter. Eun. 6.
4) Is there anywhere a shared lacuna11?
If some error fits no category in (1) or (2) and at the same time occasions
an affirmative answer to (3) or (4), then and only then do we have a case
for vertical transmission of that error, and hence are in a position to tell
anything at all of the stemmatic history of the tradition. The fewer such clearly
vertical phenomena are visible to the investigator, the more we must think
rather of Pasquali's vulgate. I believe in fact that late antiquity was a time
of active collation and that the low survival rate of books from the period
has concealed the vertical aspect of transmission from our view. To put it
differently, I know of scarcely an ancient tradition for which a stemma, an
archetype or a hyparchetype can be usefully spoken of12. Yet, when the

1 1 . This test is generally a good one, though it can give misleading results in the case
of poets subject to scholiastic athetesis.
12. When sufficient evidence for the history of a text during antiquity is available, it
is a vulgate which is seen : this has been generally recognized with regard to the Historia
ecclesiastica of Eusebius, Virgil, the Biblia Vulgata, and now the Greek New Testament, for
which no more than the vaguest grouping of sources by region is possible (Kurt & Barbara
ALAND, The text of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1987, pp. 48-71) despite the
evidence for editorial activity by Hesychius and Lucian (Jerome, Praef. in quattuor evangelio,
P. L XXIX, 527). The ancient tradition of Plautus is generally analyzed stemmatically ;
I hope soon to publish a dissenting view.
With the Septuagint it is in fact possible to use the term « hyparchetype » in an
informative way, though it is a special case and our actual knowledge of the hyparchetypes is
imprecise. In Jerome's time the Septuagint circulated in three different forms, each bearing the
name of an editor (Origen, Lucian, Hesychius) and each officially sanctioned in a certain
region (see esp. Praef in lib. paralip., P. L. XXVIII, 1324-1325). The Septuagint in late
antiquity is therefore on the boundary of what can be called, for the purpose of studying
the transmission, a single work : Jerome seems to have regarded the situation as one of three
276 BENJAMIN VICTOR

ancient transmission of Terence is discussed, such things are spoken of. The
case will now be made for using other terms.

The older phases of the Terence-tradition

First, an overview. An ancient copy is extant in Vat. lot., 3226, the famous
codex Bembinus13. It carries the siglum A in printed editions. Of the
medieval tradition the two major strains, γ and δ, have been introduced above;
the ancestors reconstructed for them go by Γ and Δ. Now Γ and Δ appear
to resemble each other more than either does the Bembinus. They have
therefore been placed together under a hyparchetype Σ, which in turn is
made a stemmatic equal to the Bembinus under the archetype (Φ) :

This scheme, elaborated by Giinther Jachmann in 1924, continues to be

endorsed14. It is in fact unsound.

separate traditions from three separate archetypes, identical in each case with the author's
(= the editor's) autograph. In any event, even the three forms of the late-antique Septuagint
contaminated each other : H. DORRIE, Zur Geschichte der Septnaginta im Jahrhundert
Konstantins, in Zeitschrifi fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschafi, t. 39, 1940, pp. 57-110.
The prospect of reconstructing a hyparchetype seems best for the LXX-text of Origen's Hexapla
because a Syriac version is available, but the purity assumed for this version cannot really
be tested. The evidence of patristic quotations is difficult to assess. To cite the most puzzling
case, Origen's own scriptural quotations agree only very imperfectly with what we otherwise
know of the LXX-text in his Hexapla (A. RAHLFS, Septuaginta-Studien, Gottingen, 1904,
vol. 1, pp. 63-103) : it is usually assumed that Origen did not always use the text which
he had himself established. That the Septuagint even approximates the stemmatic model at
one point in its history is due to the unparalleled conscious control which it received.
13. Facsimile by S. PRETE, // códice di Terenzio Vaticano fotino 3226, Vatican, 1970.
Fragments of three other ancient Terences are conserved (Sanktgallen, Stifisbibl. 912; Vienna,
Papyrussammlung der Nationalbibl. L. 103; P. Oxy. 2401); they are too brief for their
agreements and disagreements with other witnesses to be significant.
14. G. JACHMANN, Die Geschichte des Terenztextes im Altertum, Rektoratsprogram Basel,
1924; most recently echoed in Terenzio, Andria. Introduzione, edizione cntica e traduzione
a cura di Maria Rosa Posani, Bologna, 1990, pp. 46-71. See also Michael REEVE in
L. D. REYNOLDS, éd., Texts and transmission : a survey of the Latin classics, Oxford, 1983,
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD 277

To a one the common errors of γ and δ against the Bembinus or against

some indirect source are normalizations, or at the limit they are indifferent
variants comparable to suadet/persuadet at An. 577. Not a single one is at
all unlikely to be transmitted horizontally. Any sample of the Terence-text
will illustrate this point; accordingly I give the errors common to δ and γ
in the first 200 lines of Eunuchus. The reader is invited to scan the
apparatus of the Budé or OCT in other places : he will not find anything different
in kind.

(Eun. 5) turn siquis est qui dictum in se inclementíus / existimauit esse, sic
existimet (existimetj existimet sciat praesumat γδ)
{Eun. 35-37) quod si personis isdem huic uti non licet / qui magis licet curren-
tem seruum scribere, / bonas matronas faceré, meretrices malas (35 huic uti] uti
aliis γδ 36 currentis seruos γδ)
|

(Eun. 58) quae res in se ñeque consilium ñeque modum / habet ullum, earn
consilio regere non potest (potes γδ)
(Eun. 70) [se. meretrix] te ultro acusabit, et dabis / ultro supplicium (dabis ei
ultro γδ)
(Eun. 89) haec mihi patent semper fores (hae γδ)
(Eun. 104) finctum est] fictum est γδ
(Eun. 108) ... ibi turn matri paruulam / puellam dono quidam mercator dédit
(turn ibi γδ)
(Eun. 149) cupio aliquos parère amicos beneficio meo (parare γδ

This list should provoke a sense of déjà vu. Eun. 58 shows the same error
as An. 327, which we have seen earlier as one of our rapidly spreading errors.
Likewise Eun. 70 recalls An. 664. Not only are these readings of the same
type as our readings likely to move horizontally, they are sometimes the same
readings. Only Eun. 35 calls for some explanation, there being a stage
hidden from view. At one time a large number of manuscripts must have
read huic uti ut (or uti) aliis — an intrusion of material typical of spreading
error. Then the progeny of those manuscripts omitted one of the uti/uts, quite
possibly independently.
Δ and Γ, so far as they are reconstructible, had no similarity but a
superficial one, chiefly in trivializing readings15. This suggests two books not
necessarily of any ultimate relation, but produced in close geographic or
temporal proximity.

pp. 412-420; GRANT (cited above n. 4), pp. 3-17, 160-176; The only rival theory has been
that of Marouzeau, who believed the agreements between the medieval mss. and the
Bembinus to be cases of independent error (Revue des études latines, t. 12, 1934, pp. 49-51).
That is of course not the likely alternative.
15. Also in two external features : the form of the didascaliae and the subscription of
a certain Calliopius.
278 BENJAMIN VICTOR

Now what of the relation among γ, δ, and A? Jachmann took the

existence of a Σ-hyparchetype as self-evident, but defended in detail his
concept of an archetype for Σ and A (« Φ »). The evidence adduced for
it is quite as unacceptable, and for the same reason. Again, I give the first
two hundred lines of Eunuchus as a random sample :

(Eun. 95) ne crucia te, obsecro, anime mi mi Phaedria (Donatas : mi semel librí)
(Eun. 112-113) patriam et signa cetera / ñeque scibat ñeque per aetatem etiam
potis erat. (Bentley : potuerat librí)
(Eun. 116-117) mater ubi accepit, coepit studiose omnia I docere, educere, ita
uti si esset filia (edd. : educare librí)
(Eun. 197) me miseram, forsan hic mihi paruam habeat fidem (edd. : forsitan
librí)
The similarity to my eight errors in the Anana is evident16.
Certain complex problems are treated by Jachmann at length.

(Ht. 1014 in A) subditum se suspicatur :: 'subditum' ain tu? :: certe sic erit;
(in the others) subditum se suspicatur :: 'subditum' ain tu? :: certe inquam.

Certe should be bracketed : it was originally a gloss on sic erit, the future
expressing supposition (cf. Eun. 732 verbum hercle hoc uerum erit) not being
well understood; it then provoked a further change now found in the
Σ-manuscripts. But certe hardly need have intruded into the archetype : it
is precisely the sort of addition which tends to spread 17.

Ph. 642-644 : Cedo quid postulat?

:: quid? nimium quantum. :: (quantum?) die. :: si quis daret
talentum magnum.

The manuscripts have quid? nimium quantum libuit (licuit A) :: die :: si

quis daret... in 643. Arruntius Celsus apud Charis. 207. 13K. read the
line with one quantum but without libuit; Le Paulmier's restoration of
quantum is therefore highly likely. Jachmann believed that the haplography
which left only one quantum in the text occurred once at some time after
Probus, and that we can therefore date the supplement and the archetype
to a time after Celsus. But such haplographies occur independently all the
time, and that someone's supplement, originally metrically motivated,
was copied into various unrelated manuscripts, is entirely natural18. In

16. I have omitted Eun. 98, where exclusif was adduced by Jachmann as an instance
of archetypal error, but the true reading exclusti has since been reported from medieval
manuscripts.
17. Jachmann (cited above, n. 14), pp. 78-79.
18. Ibid., pp. 79-80.
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD 279

discussing Ht. 168-169 and Eun. 95 Jachmann ascribes similar easy

haplographies to the archetype, quite misunderstanding the process of
such errors19.
Jachmann treats Ht. 997 at some length. He believed 996-998 to be
given thus by the first hand in A :

sat recte hoc mihi

in mentem uenit, namq(ue) adulescens maxume huic uana haec suspicio
erit, tarn facillume patris pacem in leges conficiet suas;

and thus by the Σ-manuscripts :

sat recte hoc mihi

in mentem uenit, namque adulescens quam in minima spe situs
erit, tarn facillime patris pacem in leges conficiet suas.

The speech is in iambic octonarii. 997 is too long in A's version, but sense
and meter can be restored by bracketing adulescens and reading nam quam.
The Σ-version will then have come about when the second half of the line
was rewritten to accommodate adulescens. Jachmann took this to indicate
that A and « Σ » both derive from a manuscript which had corrupted
quam to que and intruded adulescens; A has reproduced the model more
faithfully20. Even if his premises be accepted (the reading uana is very
doubtful), he is right only insofar as the interpolated form of 997 now found
in the Σ-manuscripts will have originated in a manuscript related to A.
But this manuscript need not be an ancestor of Σ, nor need it be at all
genetically related to the Σ-archetype (if there was such a thing). Once made,
such an interpolation will spread, even to manuscripts in which the line is
not corrupt to begin with.
Other agreements of Σ and A in error are treated briefly by Jachmann.
Those I have not dealt with above are : Ph. 181 (the line is interpolated);
243 (Cicero has it differently) ; 249 (most editors prefer usque to esse with
Donatus); Ht. 168-169 (tempust omitted through mechanical haplography) ;
601 (Jachmann prefers cui to huic with Arusian); 645 (quanto tuns est
animus natu grauior, ignoscentior : the asyndeton bimembre and lack of a
correlative for quanto have provoked suspicion) ; 798 (the line is unmetri-
cal); 818 (unmetrical; information added by abisti seems unnecessary);
835 (of two readings transmitted, one offers an inelegant repetition, the
other is hapax legomenon); Eun. 267 (the manuscripts have Thaidis for
Thainis, the form read by Donatus); 312 (Jachmann dislikes si); 319 (un-

19. Ibid., p. 80.

20. Ibid., pp. 77-78.
280 BENJAMIN VICTOR

metrical : perhaps ipsus should be read for ipse) ; 351 (noui is interpolated) ;
376 (the manuscripts have dixisti for dixti); 499 (abiprae, curre ut sint domi
parata : cura is often printed); 560 (hominis is syntactically difficult);
591 (Jachmann dislikes the hiatus); 625 (exc^mat is interpolated); 733
(hiatus : multon should perhaps be read for multo)', Ph. 175 (for amare amit-
tere Jachmann prefers an a te amittere with Brugmann); Hec. 201
(metrically difficult) ; 543 (omnibus is interpolated) ; 746 (amicum is interpolated) ;
937 (in ius is interpolated); Ad. 56 (Jachmann dislikes out); 350 (accedo
ut melius dicas is unmetrical : cedo should be read with Bentley)21.
There is nothing here not explained simply and naturally by the
horizontal spread of interpolations and normalizations, or by independent
mechanical error. At times Jachmann is inconsistent : why, for instance, should
Ph. 181 appear in different places in γ and Αδ if it was interpolated into
the archetype ? Elsewhere he worries innocent passages ; and, again, all the
readings rejected are such as we have seen to move horizontally.

The evidence of sigla personarum

Jachmann makes much of four cases where the Σ-manuscripts have

corruptions resulting from the misunderstanding of letters used as sigla
personarum22 :

(Ht. 611 in A1) non emo. quid agis? Β optata loquere A qui? B non est opus,
(in the others) non emo. quid agis? SY optata loquere CHR atqui (-in CP) non
est opus.

A is A's siglum for Chrêmes in this scene, Β for Syrus.

(Ht. 631 in Α) Θ peri! quid ego feci? A rogitas? Θ siquid peccaui, mi Chrêmes;
(in the others) SO perii! quid ego feci? CHR at rogitas? SO si peccaui, mi
Chrêmes.

A is A's siglum for Chrêmes, Θ for Sophrona.

(Ph. 742-743 in A) quid? non obsecro es /quem semper te esse dictitasti?

Ε st. Θ quid has metuis foras?
(in γ) quid? non obsecro es / quem semper te esse dictitasti ? CHR est. SO
quid has metuis foras?
The δ-manuscripts have sit rather than est. Ε is A's siglum for Chrêmes,
Θ for Sophrona.

21. Ibid., pp. 73-84.

22. Ibid., pp. 82-83.
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD 281

(Ph. 850 in A1) A uapula. Β id quidem tibi iam fiet, nisi restitis, uerbero.
(in d) GE uapulabis. ANT id quidem tibi fiet, nisi resistís, uerbero.

C2P2 have uapulabo; the first hands have uapula. A and Β are A's sigla
for Geta and Antipho, respectively.
These four intrusions of speaker-sigla are indeed suggestive. They show
that the system of sigla in A was widespread in late antiquity and was
certainly used in some manuscripts which influenced Γ and Δ. But the
evidence that A and the Σ-manuscripts are mutually independent in the matter
of speaker-assignment is overwhelming and greatly outweighs anything that
these four errors seem to indicate about an archetype.
Jean Andrieu analysed the speaker-assignment of the Terence
transmission at length, finding that Terence originally was not equipped with sigla
personarum but that these are inorganic additions to the text23. He rightly
emphasized that in almost all places where the medieval manuscripts
(« Σ ») and A offer different distributions each is at least conceivable,
and in many each is equally plausible24. At An. 933, for example, the
assignment of the two exclamations quid ais ? and quid tu ais ? is a matter
of indifference :

CH certe mea est. CR (vel SI) quid ais? SI {vel CRI) quid tu ais? PA arrige
auris, Pamphile.
Andrieu concludes :

« En effet, on ne peut imaginer que les copistes, s'ils avaient hérité de Térence
même la disposition authentique des sigles, auraient eu l'initiative de changer
presque à tout coup la leçon reçue. En effet, il n'y a aucun avantage pour le sens
à opérer cette substitution. Rien dans le texte ne vient solliciter l'action du critique ;
dans ces conditions, il est inexplicable que nos deux familles soient si souvent en
désaccord. Au contraire, tout devient intelligible si l'on envisage dans la tradition
térentienne un état analogue à celui du papyrus de Ménandre ou du palimpseste
de Plaute25. »

23. J. ANDRIEU, Étude critique sur les sigles de personnages et les rubriques de scène dans
les anciennes éditions de Térence (Collection d'études latines, 19), Paris, 1940; see also (by
the same author) he dialogue antique, Paris, 1954, pp. 218-224.
24. An. 929, 933, 950; Hi. 336, 404, 458, 522-3,581, 852-853, 1056-8; Eun. 326,
644, 734-735, 803-804 (sed corr. A*), 1066-1068, 1083, 1085-1086, 1087-1088;
Phor. 54-57, 72-79, 195, 198, 214-216, 486, 616-617, 618, 811, 871, 877, 1004, 1011 ;
Hec. 787; Ad. 169, 275, 548, 754, 966, 982.
25. ANDRIEU (cited in n. 23, above), p. 53. Andrieu was misinformed about the Ambro-
sian palimpsest of Plautus, which had sigla (now mostly illegible). In his later work, Andrieu
adduced further evidence from Donatus (cited in n. 23 above, pp. 219-220). When
discussing the assignment of speakers, Donatus does not argue from manuscript authority
282 BENJAMIN VICTOR

The medieval manuscripts, then, represent an assignment of speakers

independent from that of A26. The errors shared at Ht. 611, Ht. 631, Ph. 743
and Ph. 850 were not made in an archetype or pre-archetype because an
archetype or pre-archetype cannot have had sigla personarum.

The evidence of didascaliae

In one other matter, Jachmann's scheme seems at first to offer much.

In the didascalia to Eunuchus, the Σ-manuscripts name the musician and
his instrument in the third and second lines from the last, respectively; they
are followed only by the consular date :

ACTA LVDIS MEGALENSIBUS

L. POSTVMIO ALBINO
L. CORNELIO MERVLA
AEDILIBVS CVRVLIBVS EGERE
L. AMBIVIVS TVRPIO

(« legitur et » vel sim.), but from the logic of the dramatic situation : he seems to have known
that the sigla were inorganic; perhaps texts without them were still current in his time.
So, for instance, at Eun. 307, Donatus declares that the division of the line between Chaerea
and Parmeno depends on whether em or hem is read ; how he has seen it divided does not
matter.
26. It is possible to go further : the medieval manuscripts themselves derive their speaker-
assignment from several essentially independent (though doubtless mutually contaminated)
ancient sources. Andrieu gives the impression of considerable unity in « Σ ». He collects
thirteen « doubles répliques parallèles », or instances in which two different characters make
exclamations or other brief remarks in succession (1940, cited in n. 23 above, p. 53), it
being of little importance to which character each part is assigned (an example is An. 933,
cited above). Andrieu claims that Σ and A are in opposition in twelve of the thirteen
passages (1940, p. 53 : agreement at Eun. 1087-1088; disagreement at An. 929, 933,
945, 950; Ht. 336, 654-655; Eun. 1083, 1085-1086; Ph. 198, 510-511, 616-617, 1004).
That is disingenuous, since in three (An. 945, Ht. 654-655, Ph. 510-511) part of Σ does
in fact read with A; and in three others (An. 929, 950, Eun. 1085-1086) A does not assign
the parts differently, but merges them (in An. 928-929 A has made one speech of at least
three), leaving a less readable text : the non- A reading would naturally spread horizontally
in these passages. As in the text, Σ is less unitary than it appears. In fact, the Σ-manuscripts
are often divided in the matter of speaker assignment, usually where more than one
arrangement is plausible — that is, in such a way as to suggest scholarly work on the text. As in
the text proper, a split between the γ- and 8-classes is common, but many passages show
more complex splits, or a small number of manuscripts diverging from Σ. It is likely that
many of these represent not medieval innovation but survival of ancient readings, since the
aberrant Σ-manuscripts share them with A or other ancient sources. That occurs in the
Mowing passages : An. 945, 980; Eun. 110, 186, 776, 1066; Ph. 308, 510, 519, 712,
724-725, 869, 987, 993; Hec. 441, 549-550, 791; Ad. 336, 997. Where other ancient
sources are available, they sometimes offer a divergent distribution of parts (e. g. Don. ad
An. 933, 950; P. Oxy. 2401 [« Ilb »J at An. 926) : there must have been as many
arrangements as there were ancient students of Terence.
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD 283

L. ATILIVS PRAENESTINVS
GRAECA MENANDRI
ACTA SECVNDA
MODVLAVIT FLACCVS CLAVDI
TIBIIS DVABVS DEXTRIS
M. VALERIO C. [MVMMIO] FANNIO COSS.
I have reproduced the layout of C. The other Σ-manuscripts give the
information in the same sequence ; the variants in the text are not of interest.
The order of the elements is not the usual one for didascaliae in Σ :
normally the musician and his instrument come immediately after the actors.
A has the Eunuchus-didascaHa as follows :

INCIPIT EVNVCHVS TERENTII

ACTA LVDIS ROMANIS M IVNIO
LVCIO IVLIO AEDILIB(VS) CVRVLIB(VS) EGIT
LVCIVS AMBIVIVS LVCIVS HATILIVS PRAEN[ESTINVS
TIBIIS DVABVS DEXTRIS GRAECA
MENANDRV FACTA SECVNDA
MODOS FECIT FLACCVS MARC[O
VALER FAN COS

Tibiis duabus dextris, which ought to follow modos fecit Flaccus (line 7), is
oddly in line 5. Jachmann believed that modos fecit Flaccus stood before
tibiis duabus dextris in the pre-archetypal stage, was displaced in Φ, and
the incongruity corrected in the Σ-hyparchetype by moving modulauit
Flaccus Claudi to the third position from the last27. That explanation cannot
be accepted. The information in A's didascaliae follows no particular order,
except that the title of the play always comes first : the sequence in A, and
therefore in its sources, was arbitrary. Therefore, if the didascaliae in A and
Σ have a common source, then the regularization of sequence would have
to occur between Φ and Σ. It is self-contradictory then to argue that a
disturbance of order in Φ resulted in an unusual order in Σ, for Σ, in a
stemmatic view of the transmission, must reflect a systematic re-arrangement
of Φ'β material. Furthermore, it is not correct to claim that the sequence
in Σ is completely regular : note the position of the Greek author in the
didascalia of Adelphoe and the absence of actors from that of Hecyra. The
oddity in the Eunuchus-didascaHa points to an accident in « Σ » or to some
phenomenon involving horizontal transmission.

Closing remarks
I have to this point dwelt upon the weaknesses attending a stemmatic
view of the ancient transmission. But is the alternative, a vulgate in Pasquali's
27. Jachmann (cited above n. 14), pp. 86-87.
284 BENJAMIN VICTOR

sense, at all stronger? I believe that positive evidence exists for the view
that Γ, Δ, and A belong to a patternless array of contaminated manuscripts.
I have in mind the indirect tradition, which greatly undermines the stemma
built from the direct witnesses. Nonius' citations of Terence share errors
with γδ (Non. 32 = Eun. 558; 249 = Ph. 477; probably also 256 =
Eun. 681 : I believe that nee is to be read there and quidem taken with
hie) and with Αδ (304 = Eun. 684); he also shares rather trivial errors
with A (325 = Hec. 417; 372 = Ad. 433-434 [+ GF]). Arusianus Messius
is in error with γ (GL 7. 453 = An. 639 [+ IIb]; 7; 472 = Ad. 786),
with δ (7. 488 = Eun. 883; 7. 508 = Hec. 199), with γδ (7. 481 =
Ad. 320; 7. 497 = Hec. 393; 7. 511 = Ad. 316), and possibly with A
(7. 503 = Eun. 300). Priscian shares errors with A (GL 3. 376 =
Eun. 750 [cf. G]), with Αγ and part of δ (GL 3.50 = Eun. 98), with γ
(GL 2. 344 = An. 923; 3. 34, 115 = Eun. 468 [+ L]), with δ (GL 2. 152,
335 = Ph. 17; 2. 244 = An. 361; 3. 119 = Ad. 706; 3. 191 =
Ph. 621 [+ γ pier.]; 3. 375 = Ph. 351; 3. 445 = Ph. 229) and with γδ
(GL 2. 70 = Ad. 585; 2. 247 = Ht. 1065[ ?]; 2. 574 = Ph. 759;
3. 98 = Ph. 989; 3. 107 = An. 922; 3. 139 = Ph. 148; 3. 338 =
Eun. 145)28.
The situation in which certain sources form a group with shared
characteristics can be explained either stemmatically or by reference
to a vulgate : the sharing can be due to descent or to temporal and
geographic proximity. With Terence in the Middle Ages the matter was
judged correctly : nobody made a family of the eleventh-century
manuscripts because they had some bad readings in common. It is otherwise
with the same author in antiquity : there the vulgate was not considered.
The data themselves are remarkably similar; the only difference lies in the
number of witnesses. Remember, of Lachmann and Pasquali, who came
first. Lachmann's characteristic method was on the scene earlier, was
codified in handbooks, and became thought of as the norm. It had the
further advantage of neat, objective rules for the philologist to follow. Those
who knew of the vulgate process thought of it as the second alternative, to
be brought in when stemmatics had failed.
Paradoxically, Pasquali himself did not use his own contribution to the
study of traditions — the concept of the vulgate — as the equal of
stemmatics : when confronted with an ambiguous case, he chose the stemmatic
solution. Pasquali endorsed Jachmann's theory of the Terence-tradition in the

28. A point which I have made in CPh 84 (1989), pp. 265-266. The relation of
indirect to direct sources was attempted by J. D. CRAIG, Ancient Editions of Terence, St. Andrews,
1929. Craig's work suffers of many flaws, chief of them the assumption that extant families
of manuscripts represent text-types going far back into antiquity.
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD 285

main, taking exception only to details such as the dating of Σ 29. He knew
quite well that this went against his principles :

« Jachmann does not hesitate to speak of an « archetype »... An ancient «

archetype »? I dislike that concept for reasons well known to anyone patient enough to
have read my book thus far30.
Benjamin VICTOR.
Université de Montréal.

APPENDIX

DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED ERRORS IN MANUSCRIPTS

OF THE ANDRIA TO THE YEAR 1100
Only the reading before correction is recorded;
the question-mark indicates that such reading admits of doubt.
Τ = reads in truth ; Ε = has the error discussed above ; * = the first hand is deficient

An. An. An. An. An. An. An. An.

5 317 327 577 664 789 939 941
Ninth century
Paris B.N. lat. 7899 ETETTTTT
« Ρ »
Paris Β. Ν. lat. 7900 *TETTT* *
« Y »
Vat. lat. 3868 TTTTTTTT
« C »
Late ninth or early tenth century
Leiden Univ., B. P. L. 109 * Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε
Paris Β. Ν. lat. 7900A ΤΕΕΕΕΤΕΕ

Tenth century
Einsiedeln 362 I *EE*T***
& Sankt Gallen 1394 2
« η »
Einsiedeln 362 II ********

29. Pasquali2 (cited above n. 1), pp. 331-373.

30. Ibid., p. 340.
 286 BENJAMIN VICTOR

An. An. An. An. An. An. An. An.

5 317 327 577 664 789 939 941
Tenth century
Escorial S III 23 Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε
« Es »
Flor. Med. Laur. 38, 24 Τ Τ Τ Τ Τ Τ Ε Ε
« D »
Flor. Rice. 528 * Ε Τ Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε
« Ε »
Leipzig Univ. Rep. I 37 Ε * * Τ Ε Τ * Τ
« L »
Leyden Univ. Τ Ε Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε
Voss. lat. Q 34 II
Ox. Bodl. Auct. F VI 27 Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε
Ibid., lat. 9345 Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε
« pb >»
Vat. lat. 1640 Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε
« G »
Vienna NB 263 * * * * * * Ε Ε
«V»
Eleventh century
Brussels BR 9705 Τ Ε Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε
Cologny-Genève Ε * Ε * Ε Τ * *
Bodmer 158
Flor. Med. Laur. 38.27 Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε Ε Ε
Halle Marienbibl. 65 Ε(?) Ε Ε Ε Τ Τ Ε Ε
Leyden Univ. Lips. 26 Τ Ε Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε
Ibid. Voss. lat. Q. 38 Ε Ε Τ Τ Ε Ε Ε Ε
« Ν »
Madrid Β. Ν. V. 5-4 * Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε
Milan Ambr. G 130 inf. * * * * Ε Ε ΓιΙ ζ Ι Ε
Montpellier Univ. Ε Ε Ε Ε * Ε Ε Ε
Fac. de médecine 227
Ox. Brasenose Coll. 18 Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε
Paris, Β. Ν., lat. 7901 Ε Ε Τ Ε Τ Τ Ε Ε
Ibid., lat. 7902 Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε Ε Ε
Ibid., lat. 7903 Τ Ε Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε
Ibid., lat. 10304 * Ε Τ Τ Ε Ε Τ Ε
« ρ »
Ibid., lat. 14755 Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε
 A PROBLEM OF METHOD 287

An. An. An. An. An. An. An. An.

5 317 327 577 664 789 939 941
Eleventh century, cont.
Ibid., lat. 16235 Τ Ε Τ Τ Τ Τ Ε Ε
Ibid., lat. 18544 τ Ε Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε
Valenciennes BM 448 Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Τ Ε Ε
« ν »
Vat. Arch. S. Pietro H 19 Τ Ε Ε Τ Τ Τ Ε Ε
« Β »
Vat. lat. 3305 Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε
Vienna NB 85 Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε Ε
« vb »>