The Comedies of Plautus, Vol. I (T. Macci Plauti Comoediae)

or rather those parts of the plays (Bacchides 35-80, 570-650, 810-900, Persa, Poenulus, Pseudolus 730-end, Rudens start-790) in which the readings of the lost manuscript of Turnebus (T), recently discovered in the Bodleian Library, are available, we have an older testimony of this recension. For from the agreement of codex T with the other manuscripts, we can investigate the readings of that very pro-archetype (P^A); whence it happens that by the siglum P (or 'cod.') in these plays, not only the readings of the archetype (whence BCDEVJO and the corrections B³) but also of the pro-archetype (whence also T) are denoted.

If, however, anyone requires a fuller account of readings and conjectures, let them turn to the larger editions, whether the one prepared by Leo (pub. Weidmann, Berlin, 1895-6) or the one by Goetz, Loewe, and Schoell (pub. Teubner, Leipzig, 1881-94). For in this annotation, I have not given space to the titles of the scenes1 How often the divisions and titles of scenes bring more inconvenience than convenience to readers (e.g., Menæchmi V. iii, iv) was explained by Leo (Plaut. Forsch. 14 n.), who in his own edition presented the text as continuous through individual acts. I would have gladly done this in this edition had another format for the book not been prescribed for me. (the greatest part of which clearly cannot be very ancient), nor to the marks of the speakers (which have vanished in codex A and are often rashly arranged in the others), nor to the divisions of lyrical verses (unless in AT), nor to those lighter discrepancies that pertain solely to orthography (such as oppinor for opinor, etquis for ecquis, philopolemeus for Philopolemus). Nor could I include all the citations of Plautus found among the grammarians, but only those that seemed to bring something new and valuable.2 One must certainly be careful not to attribute too much faith to rash citations in the grammarians. Nevertheless, I would have liked, if permitted, to admit more of those that simultaneously confirm our manuscripts and the text of this edition; for the agreement of a certain grammarian with one or the other recension has almost as much authority as the agreement of two recensions (AP) and ought not to be ignored without grave cause (e.g., Menæchmi 98).