Department of the Classics, Harvard University

Remarks on the Andria of TerenceAuthor(s): Benjamin VictorSource: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 95 (1993), pp. 273-279Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/311386Accessed: 31/10/2009 17:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

REMARKS ON THE ANDRIA OF TERENCE

BENJAMIN VICTOR

N the following I have usually given the Oxford text of Lindsay, Kauer, and Skutsch as the point of departure. In one case, which I

have noted, it has been easier to begin with the text as transmitted. Where an apparatus is given, it is not always that of the Oxford text.

Andria 497-501

Pamphilus loves Glycerium, who is believed foreign. His father Simo wishes him to leave her and take a wife. Glycerium has now borne Pamphilus' child; Simo has heard the birth of the child from the street, but believes that it was staged in order to trick him. His protes- tations give Davus the idea of humoring him in his mistake:

(SI) credon tibi hoc nunc, peperisse hanc e Pamphilo? DA teneo quid erret et quid agam habeo. SI quid taces? DA quid credas? quasi non tibi renuntiata sint haec sic fore. SI mihin quisquam? DA eho an tute intellexti [hoc] adsimularier?

SI irrideor. DA renuntiatumst, nam qui istaec tibi incidit suspicio?

The train of thought is obscure in 500-501 (SI: I am being toyed with. DA: You were told about it, for how [if you were not told] did you come to suspect?). A clearer progression of sense is obtained by a slightly different division of speaking parts:

SI irrideor: renuntiatumst? DA nam qui istaec tibi incidit suspicio?

(SI: I am being toyed with. Told about, was I? DA: How ever did you come to suspect?) This is nam with an interrogative. For nam quis

Benjamin Victor

etc. = quisnam, cf. e.g. An. 612 nam quid ego nunc dicam patri?; Eun. 897 nam quid ita? Whoever made the speaker-assignment mistook it for causal nam. The manuscript assignments of speaking parts in Ter- ence date from late antiquity and are without authority.1

Incidentally, it is simpler to read adsimulari (so most editors) than to bracket hoc in 500.

Andria 575

Simo has told Chremes that Pamphilus is now at odds with Gly- cerium; he has argued that Pamphilus will therefore leave her and marry; Chremes is persuaded in this way to betroth his daughter Phi- lumena to Pamphilus. Chremes then has doubts:

CH sed quid ais? SI quid? CH qui scis eos nunc discordare inter se?

qui ais p

Simo's quid is troublesome. Even given the idiomatic function of quid ais as the equivalent of 'tell me', the question prompted by it should, syntactically, not be quid, and regularly it is not.2 Follow p's hint and read CH sed qui <i>d ais?

Andria 702-5

(PA) quis videor? CH miser, aeque atque ego. DA consilium quaero. PA forti's!

scio quid conere. DA hoc ego tibi profecto effectum reddam. PA iam hoc opus est. DA quin iam habeo. CH quid est? DA

huic, non tibi habeo, ne erres. CH sat habeo. PA quid facies? cedo.

Scio ... conere has customarily been assigned to either Pamphilus or 1 J. Andrieu, Etude critique sur les sigles de personnages et les rubriques de scene

dans les anciennes editions de Terence (Paris, 1940); see also (by the same author) Le dialogue antique (Paris, 1954), 218-224.

2 The questions occasioned by quid ais are: qua de re (An. 184), quid est (P1. Ba. 78, Merc. 448, St. 753), quid vis (PI. As. 371, Ba. 1155), and quid rogas (very frequent: e.g. P1. Epid. 29, Poen. 313).

274

Remarks on the Andria of Terence

Charinus. That is quite absurd, since 704-5 make it clear that these two do not know what Davus has in mind. If scio quid conere means 'I know what your ultimate aim is (but not the specific plan to achieve it),' then it is not absurd, but obscure and a bit fatuous (Donatus: "sensus est: scio quidem quid coneris, sed an efficere possis nescio"). Bentley saw the problem and addressed it by reading CH forti's, I si quid conere. Read coner and assign all of 703 to Davus.

Andria 785-86

In order that Chremes learn of the birth of Pamphilus' child, Davus has caused Glycerium's servant Mysis to argue about the child within Chremes' earshot. Davus now gives Chremes the impression that he did not wish Mysis to be overheard:

DA audistin, obsecro? hem scelera! hanc iam oportet in cruciatum hinc abripi.

in om. G2L2E I hinc om. C1PL2

Some manuscripts of Donatus give the lemma as hinc cruciatum, others as in cruciatum; Donatus' note itself is given variously as nec 'in cru- cem' sed 'in cruciatum' (AV) and nec 'in crucem' sed 'cruciatum' (BTC). The supine should be kept; in will represent a trivialization. Perhaps read hanc oportet iam cruciatum hinc abripi. I have seen oportet iam in a twelfth-century manuscript not used by the editors (Vat. lat. 3305), though such a reading can easily arise fortuitously.

Andria 809-12

The Andrian Crito has come to Athens in order to exercise his rights to property of Chrysis now held by Glycerium. He explains the difficulty of his mission:

semper eius dictast esse haec atque habitast soror; quae illius fuere possidet: nunc me hospitem litis sequi quam id mihi sit facile atque utile aliorum exempla commonent.

810 hospite AG

275

Benjamin Victor

The reading of A and G at 810 has never been given its due. An abla- tive absolute whose subject is named again in the sentence is good Old Latin:3 it is preferable here to the clumsy construction offered by most sources.

Andria 825-27

Chremes complains that Simo has been importunate. The manu- scripts have:

vide quam iniquus sis prae studio: dum id efficias quod cupis neque modum benignitatis neque quid me ores cogitas; nam si cogites, remittas iam me onerare iniuriis.

Cupis is read by the medieval manuscripts, by A (a shred of which sur- vives here), and by Priscian GLK III. 50 (citing the line for prae). Donatus ad loc., as transmitted:

DVM ID EFFICIAS QVOD VELIS legitur et iubes iubes BTV: iubet A: C non legitur

Here is evidence of two additional variants: velis and whatever is to be written for iubesliubet. Umpfenbach saw lubet behind the transmitted text of Donatus. Lindsay printed lubet in Terence; the other editors have preferred cupis. The situation would be better clarified by assum- ing that velis and cupis are glosses on something really odd. Restore lubes to Donatus and Terence. Personal forms of lubeo with the sense 'desire' are attested directly at P1. Aul. 491 (lubeant B 1, iubeant cett.). Trin. 211 (lubeant A, lubeat P), and, I believe, at Ter. Ht. 643, where A has lubent but the editors have not read it. Old Latin sometimes shows personal forms of verbs which later were strictly impersonal: PI. Cas. 877 ita nunc pudeo; Pac. 31 nunc paenitebant (-bunt Quicherat).4 The personal forms tend to be regularized in transmission, as at An. 481, where oportent survives by a thread, and An. 638, where all manuscripts have pudet but the meter suggests pudent.

3 Kihner II. 1. 786-787; Bennett II. 371-372; cf. e.g. Ht. 913, PI. Rud. 712, Most. 230.

4 See further Kiihner I. 831-32.

276

Remarks on the Andria of Terence

Andria 849-50

(SI) etiam tu hoc respondes quid istic tibi negotist? DA mihin? SI ita.

DA mihin? SI tibi ergo. DA modo introii. SI quasi ego quam dudum rogem.

ego modo introii suppletor codicis D

How does Lindsay scan what he prints in 850? Bentley's modo ego introivi is metrical, but ego is furnished only by a late source (the fifteenth-century hand that wrote parts of D), and probably arose as a variant of ergo (these two words were confused constantly). Read ivi modo intro.

Andria 908-11

Simo has learned that Crito is in Athens, claiming Glycerium to be Athenian. Crito then presents himself:

CR Simo... SI men quaeris? eho tu, Glycerium hinc civem esse ais?

CR tu negas? SI itane huc paratus advenis? CR qua re? SI rogas?

tune inpune haec facias? tune hic homines adulescentulos inperitos rerum, eductos libere, in fraudem inlicis?

909 AC p lp: qua de re cett.

Qua re is not a suitable reply to itane huc paratus advenis? Qua re by itself cannot mean "why do you ask that?" That is what we need Crito to say, and we can have him say it without changing a word of the text. Read CR qua re rogas? Qua de re, given by the majority of manuscripts, is an attempt to meet the difficulty.

Andria 935-37

Chremes tells how his daughter was taken from Athens by his brother:

CH is bellum hinc fugiens meque in Asiam persequens pro- ficiscitur:

277

Benjamin Victor

tum illam relinquere hic est veritus tpostilla nunc primum audio

quid illo sit factum.

At 936 est veritus is followed in A by posillahunc [, corrected by a later hand to postillanunc [. Ib (P. Oxy. 2401) has estveritu [...... ].illa., fol- lowed by line division, a lacuna of uncertain length, then ..mumaudio. The other manuscripts give line 936 as above.

The second half of 936 is unmetrical as printed above. Postilla has been suspected (Lachmann conjectured postibi, Fr. Skutsch poste), but it is blameless, being an unusual word normally used for long stretches of time as here (cf. PI. Capt. 118, Cur. 529). Kauer thought he saw a hint in the reading of A and printed hoc for nunc in his school edition.5 Better to read hinc. Hinc with reference to a person is perfectly good Old Latin, and subject to correction: at Hec. 246, for example (atque eccum Phidippum optume video: hinc iam scibo hoc quid sit), all

manuscripts but A have replaced hinc by ex hoc.

Andria 943-45

Crito recalls that Glycerium had a different name when she first arrived at Andros, but he has difficulty remembering what it was:

(CH) numquid meministi? CR id quaero. PA egon huius memoriam patiar meae

voluptati obstare, quom ego possim in hac re medicari mihi? heus, Chreme, quod quaeris, Pasibulast. CH ipsa <ea>st. CR

east. 945 A: non patiar heus cett. (Ib non legitur) I CH ... CR

AIlbDIL: CR ... CH cett.

As will be seen from the apparatus, the manuscripts present line 945 in two different forms, namely with and without non patiar. Neither the

longer nor the shorter form is without difficulty. We are here amid a run of iambic octonarii; the longer form of 945 is a normal iambic octonarius if Pasibula is scanned with the first syllable falsely short; non patiar therefore looks like an inexpert attempt to normalize the meter. The solution, then, will proceed from the reading of A. The

5 P. Terentius Afer, Andria (Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1930).

278

Remarks on the Andria of Terence

emendation seen above, originated by Umpfenbach, is not it, for it violates the law of Bentley and Luchs (an iambic word ending a line may not be preceded by iambic word-end).6 Read CR (or CH) ipsa est. CH (or CR) <ipsa> ea est.

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

6 The sequences prohibited by the law of Bentley and Luchs include iambic word (or word-end)-prodelided monosyllable-iamb: see H. Drexler, Plautinische Akzent- studien (Breslau, 1932) II. 26-46, esp. 34.

279