Comedies

PREFACE

of plays, or rather parts of plays (Bacch. 35-80, 570-650, 810-900, Pers., Poen., Pseud. 730-end, Rud. beginning-790), in which the readings of the lost manuscript of Turnebus (T) recently found in the Bodleian Library provide an older testimony of this recension, for from the agreement of manuscript T with the other manuscripts, we can trace the readings of that very proarchetype the immediate parent manuscript (P^A); whence it happens that by the siglum P (or 'cod.') in these plays, not only the readings of the archetype the original manuscript source (whence BCDEVJO and the corrections B³) but also those of the proarchetype (whence also T) are denoted.

If anyone requires a fuller account of the readings and conjectures, let them turn to the larger editions, either the one prepared by Leo (Weidmann, Berlin, 1895-6) or the one by Goetz, Loewe, and Schoell (Teubner, Leipzig, 1881-94). For in this annotation, I have given no place to scene titles1 (the greatest part of which clearly cannot be very ancient), nor to the speaker labels (which have vanished in manuscript A, and are often recklessly arranged in the others), nor to the divisions of lyric verses (except in AT), nor to those lighter discrepancies which pertain solely to orthography (such as oppinor for opinor, etquis for ecquis, philopolemeus for Philopolemus). Nor could I accept all citations of Plautus among the grammarians, but only those which seemed to bring something new and valuable.2

1: Leo (Plaut. Forsch. 14 n.) has explained how often scene divisions and titles bring more trouble to readers (e.g., Men. V. iii, iv) than convenience; in his own edition, he presented the text as continuous through individual acts. I would gladly have done this in this edition had another format of the book not been prescribed for me.

2: One must certainly take care not to attribute too much faith to reckless citations among the grammarians. Nevertheless, I would have liked, if permitted, to admit more of those which simultaneously confirm our manuscripts and the text of this edition; for the agreement of a certain grammarian with either recension has almost as much authority as the agreement of two recensions (AP) and ought not to be despised without serious cause (e.g., Men. 98).