« ForrigeFortsett »
overlooked the fact that Bothe long ago proposed an im amiltis for ani amittis and animă amitlis of the mss on Mil. Glor. 1424, where there seems to be far more reason for the introduction of im than in any of the passages where Birt would supply that form. He would also read indu for in in Mil. Glor. 332 and 351 (where he denies the possibility of making quoiquam trisyll. with Brix), in 421, and in many places (13 in all) in the other plays, where the metre seems to demand the change.
In 368– Pn. To me vidisti? Sc. Atque his quiáem hercle oculis.
PA. Carebis credo. Birt would read corgo (explained by Paul. Fest. as – profecto). But this semi-ironical use of words like credo, opinor, “I am thinking," is quite Plautine : cp. Cas. III. 6. 9, dabo tibi péya kakóv ut opinor. He would introduce the same word, or in some cases probe ego instead of profecto, wherever it occurs, and often instead of hercle and other exclamations, when the metre would be improved by the change. For 481–
Satin abüt ille neque erili negotiobe proposes
Satin abiit ille ? nec hercle suom negotium ; and in 587, 588, he would read
Occisam saepe sapere plus stulto sucm
But this, like nearly all the views which have been propounded about this passage, fails to explain the word saepe (often). I think this word has been neglected universally, except by myself and Mr. Strong, who would read occlusam saepe, "shut in a stye," regarding “a sow shut in a stye," as a natural figure whereby to express a stupid man with contracted experience. But I do not think that saepes would be a natural expression for "a stye."
In 236, ego mi istuc scio, Prof. Palmer objects to ego, and would read ego omne istuc scio, or ego istuc satis scio, which occurs in Terence, Hec. V. 4. 37 (877). In 783
Quoi facetiarum cor corpusque sit plenum et doli the same masterly Plautine emendator would read
Quoi facetiarum corpus usque sit plenum et doli, comparing usque plenis cantharis, Pers. V. 2. 40 (817) (filled to the brim). Usque would have fallen out after corpusque as easily as cor before corpus, and the metre would be vastly improved by the adoption of Prof. Palmer's brilliant emendation.
The following are the most interesting recent suggestions of other Plautine scholars which have been made since the appearance of the 2nd ed.
65. Molestać sunt orant ambiunt exóbsecrant is now read by Studemund, who for molestat compares Most. 504, and for exobsecrant, Asin. 246.
110. For sublinit as illi lenae Leo proposes sublinit oscillum lenar.
The same critic would read, in 360, Dispessis manibus patibulum quom subbites. Sc. Quam nam
ob rem ? 404 should stand thus, according to BergkResipiscis: si aderum haec res prius percrebuerit, peribis.
Io 455, Leo suspects that under the at herus of Seeledrus lies the word Allicis, and would read
Po. Hosticum hoc mihi Domiciliumst, Athenis domus est Atticis. Ego istam domum. The same critic defends verse 675 usually bracketed by presenting it in this improved form
The following new division of the words between the two speakers in 1073 is proposed by Ussing in the emendanda et addenda to Vol. IV., Pt. 1, given in the Preface to Vol. iv., Pt. 2. It greatly improves the sense :-Palaestrio. Quid est? Milphidippa. Vt ludo, nequeo hercle, &c.
For adibit in 1222 and adibone in 1342 Leo would read adbilit and adbitone.
Bergk would print prepositions as one word with the word governed by them, and would introduce the form oenus for unus, quei for qui, scimiam for simiam, on the authority of A.
It is gratifying to observe what progress Plautine studies are making in America. I have already referred to Professor Minton Warren's contributions to a correct text of this play. I take this oppor. tunity of directing the attention of readers of the Miles Gloriosus to a very able and suggestive paper in The American Journal of Philology (Vol. VIII., No. 1), by Prof. Andrew F. West, of Frinceton College. He carefully examines the celebrated passage 219230 (Ribbeck's ed.) viden' hostes tibi adesse ..... nos inimicos profligare posse, and, viewing it in connection with the foregoing allusion to the imprisonment of Naevius, vy. 213-14, draws some interesting inferences, which he thus summarises :The general conclusion at which we arrive is this: the
passage, keeping steadily within the limits so rigidly imposed by Roman stage-censorship, is written from the standpoint of sympathy
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
with the plebs in favour of Scipio's assuming command against Hannibal, and reflects very brightly and completely those fea. tures of the Second Punic War which were prominent and receat in 205 B.C. No other period in the war matches the passage
with any completeness. The passage is one which might naturally be expected because of Plautus' plebeian sympathies, his desire in an early play to win favor with his audiences, and because of the fact that his dramas are loosely Wrought, and are free enough to admit of just such license. They were more like comic operas than formal comedies. The correspondence of this passage in important details with the date of the play otherwise ascertained is an additional consideration in favor of such date, and makes it reasonably cer. tain, as between 206 B.C. and 205 B.C., that 205 B.c. is the true date of the Miles. I taink it quite a reasonable conjecture to say that, taking Naevius' offence as committed in September or November, 206, the expiration of the term of office of the Metelli in February, 205, the plea of Scipio before the Senate in February, 205, the Miles on the stage while Naevius was in prison and Scipio was asking to be sent against Hannibal-that, under these circumstances, the most likely time for Naevius' release was not till after, but probably soon after, M. Metellus went out of practorian office, in February, 205 B.A
In this edition the notes have been revised and cor. rected. In some cases the explanation given in the first edition has been replaced by a new one; but only in a couple of passages, where the former interpretation seemed untenable. I have thought it better to bring together in this Preface any additional matter which I have collected, either in the form of suggestions made by others or of new arguments which have occurred to myself.
LINE 8. Quae misera gestit fartum facere ex hostibus. I am glad to see that Ussing gives up stragem, which has found favour with the editors since Ritschl. In defence of farlum for fratem of the mss., Ussing justly observes that the phrase would have been stragem facere hostium, not ex hostibus. Moreover, the strongly alliterative character of the passage is de