The Student's Companion to Latin Authors

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Student's Companion to Latin Authors, by

George Middleton and Thomas R. Mills

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Title: The Student's Companion to Latin Authors

Author: George Middleton

Thomas R. Mills

Release Date: March 25, 2009 [EBook #28413]

Language: English

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STUDENT'S COMPANION LATIN AUTHORS ***

Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Stefan Cramme and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

The Student’s Companion

to Latin Authors

by

GEORGE MIDDLETON, M.A.

LECTURER IN LATIN, ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY; LATE SCHOLAR OF

EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

AND

THOMAS R. MILLS, M.A.

LATE LECTURER IN GREEK, ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY, AND CLASSICAL LECTURER,

OWENS COLLEGE, MANCHESTER; FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF WADHAM COLLEGE, OXFORD

WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE BY

PROF. W. M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D.

ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY

London

Macmillan and Co., Ltd.

New York: The Macmillan Co.

1896

All rights reserved

GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY

ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO.

PREFACE

The object of this book is to give in a convenient form all the facts of importance relating to the lives and works of the principal Latin Authors, with full quotation of original authorities on all the chief points. It appears to us that these facts are not at present readily accessible; for the ordinary histories of literature are compelled to sacrifice much exact information to the demand for a critical appreciation of the authors. The latter aspect does not enter into the plan of this book, which may therefore, with advantage, be used side by side with any work of the kind indicated, the two supplementing one another. The authors have been, as far as possible, illustrated from their own works. Special attention has been paid to the great writers, as the book is meant for use in the upper forms of schools and by students at the Universities. We had collected a considerable amount of matter upon the minor authors, most of which it was thought advisable to omit, so as not to extend the book unduly. An attempt, however, has been made to retain the most important facts about these, whenever they illustrated one of the great authors, or whenever it was thought that they ought to be in the hands of a student. We have attempted no treatment of early Latin as seen in inscriptions and the like, but have started with the first literary author, Livius Andronicus, and have gone down to Tacitus and the younger Pliny, dealing with each author by himself. A section has been added on Suetonius. A sketch of the chief ancient authorities on Roman writers is given at the end of the book, as well as a selected list of editions, which, without being exhaustive, will, we hope, be of service to the average student.

Apart from our own study of the authors, our principal authority has, of course, been the History of Roman Literature by Teuffel and Schwabe (translated by Prof. G. C. W. Warr), and we have made an extensive use of editions and monographs both English and foreign, which are mentioned where necessary. Ennius has been quoted from Vahlen’s edition, Plautus from the new edition of Ritschl, the fragments of the tragedians and comedians from Ribbeck, of Lucilius from L. Müller, and of the minor poets from Bährens, the minor historians from Peter’s Fragmenta, and Suetonius’ fragmentary works from Reifferscheid.

Some of our materials were originally prepared for the Humanity classes in Aberdeen University, and the Latin Literary Club in connexion with the Honours class. We have to thank some of our pupils for help and criticism, particularly Mr. A. Souter, of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, and Mr. A. G. Wright, of St. John’s College, Cambridge, the latter of whom prepared the materials for the article on Tibullus, and gave us some useful suggestions. We are specially indebted to Professor W. M. Ramsay, without whom the book would not have been written. Professor Ramsay has read nearly the whole of the work as it has passed through the press, and has all along given us invaluable assistance and advice. For any errors in the following pages we are, of course, solely responsible.

Aberdeen, September, 1896.

CONTENTS

Chapter I.—Early Poets and Prose Writers, 1

Livius Andronicus, 1; Naevius, 4; Plautus, 7; Ennius, 26; Pacuvius, 34; Caecilius Statius, 37; Terence, 39; Early Minor Authors, 52; Cato, 53; Accius, 55; Lucilius, 58; Atta and Afranius, 64; Minor Poets after Afranius, 65; Authors contemporary with Cicero’s youth, 67.

Chapter II.—The Ciceronian Age, 69

Cicero, 69; Q. Cicero, 89; Tiro, 90; Atticus, 90; Varro, 91; Laberius, 97; Bibaculus, 99; Caesar and the Corpus Caesarianum, 100; Pollio, 112; Nepos, 112; Lucretius, 119; Sallust, 125; Catullus, 132; Contemporary Poets (Cinna, Calvus, Varro Atacinus, Publilius Syrus, etc.), 140.

Chapter III.—The Augustan Age, 147

Virgil, 147; Horace, 163; Contemporary Poets, 180; Tibullus, 185; Propertius, 191; Ovid, 200; Manilius, 213; Livy, 215; Contemporaries of Livy, 223; Vitruvius, 224; Seneca the Elder, 226.

Chapter IV.—Post-Augustan Writers, 231

Velleius Paterculus, 231; Valerius Maximus, 234; Celsus, 235; Phaedrus, 237; Seneca the Younger, 240; Curtius Rufus, 256; Columella, 258; Pomponius Mela, 259; Persius, 260; Lucan, 264; Petronius, 272; Calpurnius Siculus, 275; Aetna (Lucilius Iunior), 277; Pliny the Elder, 281; Valerius Flaccus, 286; Silius Italicus, 289; Statius, 291; Martial, 295; Quintilian, 302; Frontinus, 310; Juvenal, 312; Pliny the Younger, 326; Tacitus, 336; Suetonius, 348.

Appendix A., 351

Appendix B., 356

Index of Subjects, 368

Index of Titles, 378

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The authors ask me to write a word of introduction to their book; but an introduction is not needed when the book supplies a want and is trustworthy in what it says. As to the second point, the text will speak for itself. On the first, a word may be permitted about my own experience in lecturing. The young student of Latin Literature requires help in two ways. In the first place, he needs guidance in learning to recognize and appreciate the literary merit of the authors. Mr. Cruttwell’s, and, still better, Mr. Mackail’s book, will serve his purpose well. They are interesting to read, and they tempt him on to study for himself. Mr. Mackail’s book, especially, shows delicate literary feeling, and a remarkably catholic and true sense of literary merit. But, secondly, the student wants a clear statement of the facts, certain or probable, about the life of each author, the chronology of his works, and their relation to the circumstances and personages of the time. Neither of the books which I have named is satisfactory in this respect. Both of them omit a large number of facts and theories which the student ought to have before him: Mr. Cruttwell occasionally even sinks to inaccuracy.

About three years ago I suggested to Mr. Middleton that he should try to fill up this gap with a book, in which he should bring together all the information that a student should have ready to his hand in reading the more familiar classical authors, that he should keep down the size of his book by omitting all that the student does not want, and that he should set before his readers the evidence on which each fact rests, so that they might be led to form opinions and judgments of their own. Teuffel-Schwabe’s great work contains a vast deal that the ordinary student does not want; and it does not contain a certain amount which will, I believe, be found in the present book, the materials for which have been gathered from a wide range of reading.

I am convinced that much can be done to stimulate and invigorate the young student’s feeling for Latin literature by helping him to feel for himself how each author’s words spring from his life, and conversely how facts and circumstances of his life can be elicited from his words. There will always remain doubts as to the facts and dates, e.g., in Horace’s or in Catullus’ life; but any reasoned theory has its interest, and is better for the pupil than no theory. The present book will, as I hope, be found useful as an aid to that method of teaching and of study, provided that both teacher and pupil bear in mind that it is a companion to other books—not a book complete in itself.

W. M. RAMSAY.

COMPANION TO LATIN AUTHORS

CHAPTER I.

EARLY POETS AND PROSE WRITERS.

LIVIUS ANDRONICUS.

(1) LIFE.

L. Livius Andronicus, according to the poet Accius, was taken prisoner at the capture of Tarentum by Q. Fabius Maximus in B.C. 209, and exhibited his first play in B.C. 197.

Cic. Brut. 72-3, ‘Accius a Q. Maximo quintum consule captum Tarenti scripsit Livium annis xxx. postquam eum fabulam docuisse et Atticus scribit et nos in antiquis commentariis invenimus: docuisse autem fabulam annis post xi., C. Cornelio Q. Minucio coss. ludis Iuventatis, quos Salinator Senensi proelio voverat.’

But ancient evidence is unanimous that he was the first literary writer of Rome, and this is confirmed by his archaic language. Hence the statement of Cicero ibid., that Livius produced his first play in B.C. 240, must be accepted.

‘Atque hic Livius, qui primus fabulam, C. Claudio Caeci filio et M. Tuditano coss., docuit anno ipso antequam natus est Ennius; post Romam conditam autem quarto decimo et quingentesimo ... In quo tantus error Acci fuit, ut his consulibus xl. annos natus Ennius fuerit: cui si aequalis fuerit Livius, minor fuit aliquanto is, qui primus fabulam dedit, quam ei, qui multas docuerant ante hos consules, et Plautus et Naevius.’

Cf. Cic. Tusc. i. 3, and Gell. xvii. 21, 42.

Probably Accius, finding in his authorities that Livius was taken prisoner at the capture of Tarentum (i.e. in B.C. 272), wrongly thought of the second capture by Fabius. In spite of Cicero’s correction, the error of Accius was, we may infer, reproduced by Suetonius, and thus penetrated into Jerome, who says, yr. Abr. 1830 = B.C. 187, ‘T. [an error] Livius tragoediarum scriptor clarus habetur, qui ob ingenii meritum a Livio Salinatore, cuius liberos erudiebat, libertate donatus est.’

It is probable that Livius was the slave of C. Livius Salinator, the father of the victor of Sena (M. Livius Salinator), and taught the latter; for he must have been set free before B.C. 240, and the victor of Sena could hardly have been born earlier than B.C. 258. This connexion made M. Livius Salinator when consul, B.C. 207, select Livius Andronicus to prepare a hymn of expiation to the Aventine Juno, and, probably in the same year, to compose a hymn of thanksgiving for the success of Rome in the Hannibalic War. For his services the privileges of a guild were assigned to writers and actors.

Livy xxvii. 37, ‘Decrevere pontifices ut virgines ter novenae per urbem euntes carmen canerent ... conditum ab Livio poeta ... Carmen in Iunonem reginam canentes ibant illa tempestate forsitan laudabile rudibus ingeniis, nunc abhorrens et inconditum, si referatur.’

Fest. p. 333, ‘Cum Livius Andronicus bello Punico secundo scripsisset carmen quod a virginibus est cantatum, quia prosperius res publica populi Romani geri coepta est, publice attributa est ei in Aventino aedis Minervae, in qua liceret scribis histrionibusque consistere ac dona ponere, in honorem Livi, quia is et scribebat fabulas et agebat.’

Livius had a twofold reason for writing, (a) To assist him in his profession as a schoolmaster he published a translation of the Odyssey; (b) as an actor, he wrote the plays he acted, and afterwards published them.

Sueton. Gramm. 1, ‘Livium et Ennium ... quos utraque lingua domi forisque docuisse adnotatum est.’

Livy vii. 2, 8, ‘Livius ... qui ab saturis ausus est primus argumento fabulam serere, idem scilicet, id quod omnes tum erant, suorum carminum actor.’

(2) WORKS.

1. Tragedies.—From the scanty fragments extant and from the titles (Achilles, Aegisthus, and six others are known) we see that these were close imitations of Greek plays. Thus l. 38 (Ribbeck),

‘Quem ego nefrendem alui lacteam immulgens opem,’

is, according to Conington, a rendering of Aesch. Choeph. 883-4,

μαστὸν πρὸς ᾧ σὺ πολλὰ δὴ βρίζων ἅμα

οὔλοισιν ἐξήμελξας εὐτραφὲς γάλα.

2. Comedies.—Slight fragments of three of these are extant.

3. A translation of the Odyssey in Saturnians.[1] This, though rough and incorrect, long remained a school-book. So Hor. Ep. ii. I, 69 sqq.,

‘Non equidem insector delendave carmina Livi

esse reor, memini quae plagosum mihi parvo

Orbilium dictare: sed emendata videri

pulchraque et exactis minimum distantia miror.’

For examples of translation, of. Gell, xviii. 9, 5, ‘Offendi ... librum ... Livi Andronici, qui inscriptus est Odyssea, in quo erat versus primus ...,

Virúm mihí Caména | ínsecé versútum,

factus ex illo Homeri versu,

Ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον.’

Fragments 2 and 3,

‘Meá puer, quid vérbi | éx tuo óre súpera

fugít?

        neque ením te oblítus | Lértié, sum, nóster,’

represent Od. i. 64,

τέκνον ἐμὸν, ποῖόν σε ἔπος φύγεν ἕρκος ὀδόντων;

πῶς ἂν ἔπειτ’ Ὀδυσῆος ἐγὼ θείοιο λαθοίμην;

NAEVIUS.

(1) LIFE.

Cn. Naevius’ dates can only be given approximately as B.C. 269-199. As he served in the First Punic War, he cannot in any case have been born later than B.C. 257. He was a Campanian by birth.

Gell. i. 24, 2, ‘Epigramma Naevi plenum superbiae Campanae, quod testimonium esse iustum potuisset, nisi ab ipso dictum esset,

"Inmortales mortales si foret fas flere,

flerent divae Camenae Naevium poetam.

Itaque postquam est Orci traditus thesauro,

obliti sunt Romae loquier lingua Latina."’

Naevius’ first play was produced B.C. 235; the fact that he served as a soldier shows that he was not an actor.

Gell. xvii. 21, 45, ‘Eodem anno (A.U.C. Dxix.) Cn. Naevius poeta fabulas apud populum dedit, quem M. Varro in libris de poetis primo stipendia fecisse ait bello Poenico primo, idque ipsum Naevium dicere in eo carmine, quod de eodem bello scripsit.’

In his plays he attacked the senatorial party, particularly the Metelli, and was imprisoned, but afterwards released.

Gell. iii. 3, 15, ‘Sicuti de Naevio quoque accepimus, fabulas eum in carcere duas scripsisse, Hariolum et Leontem, cum ob assiduam maledicentiam et probra in principes civitatis de Graecorum poetarum more dicta in vincula Romae a triumviris coniectus esset. Unde post a tribunis plebis exemptus est, cum in his, quas supra dixi, fabulis delicta sua et petulantias dictorum, quibus multos ante laeserat, diluisset.’

Pseud.-Asconius on Cic. in Verr. act. prior, 29. ‘Dictum facete et contumeliose in Metellos antiquum Naevii est, Fato Metelli Romai fiunt consules, cui tunc Metellus consul (B.C. 206) iratus versu responderat ..., Dabunt malum Metelli Naevio poetae.’

Cf. the contemporary reference in Plaut. Mil. 212,

‘Nam os columnatum poetae esse indaudivi barbaro,[2]

quoi bini custodes semper totis horis occubant.’

For Naevius’ freedom of speech cf. his comedies, l. 113 (Ribbeck),

‘Libera lingua loquemur ludis Liberalibus’;

l. 108 (on Scipio),

‘Etiam qui res magnas manu saepe gessit gloriose,

cuius facta viva nunc vigent, qui apud gentes solus praestat,

eum suus pater cum palliod unod ab amica abduxit.’

Naevius was banished and went to Utica, where he died, probably about B.C. 199. It must have been after peace was concluded (B.C. 202), as otherwise he could have reached Utica only by deserting to the enemy.[3] Jerome gives B.C. 201, Cicero B.C. 204, although he says Varro put the date later. The verses on Scipio quoted above could hardly have been written before the battle of Zama.

Jerome yr. Abr. 1816 = B.C. 201, ‘Naevius comicus Uticae moritur, pulsus Roma factione nobilium, ac praecipue Metelli.’

Cic. Brut. 60, ‘His consulibus (B.C. 204), ut in veteribus commentariis scriptum est, Naevius est mortuus; quamquam Varro noster, diligentissimus investigator antiquitatis, putat in hoc erratum vitamque Naevi producit longius.’

(2) WORKS.

1. Tragedies.—There are extant seven titles and a very few fragments.

2. Comedies.—There are titles of about thirty-four palliatae,[4] and upwards of one hundred and thirty lines extant.

Naevius seems to have adopted contaminatio[5] in his plays. Ter. Andr. prol. 15,

‘Id isti vituperant factum atque in eo disputant

contaminari non decere fabulas ...

qui quom hunc accusant, Naevium Plautum Ennium

accusant.’

3. Praetextae.—Tragedies on Roman subjects, ‘Clastidium’ and ‘Romulus.’ The praetexta was invented by Naevius.

4. Bellum Punicum, an epic poem in Saturnians, divided later into seven Books. About seventy-four lines are extant.

Sueton. Gramm. 2, ‘C. Octavius Lampadio Naevii Punicum bellum, uno volumine et continenti scriptura expositum, divisit in septem libros.’

Books i. and ii. contained the mythical origin of Rome and Carthage, Aeneas’ flight from Troy and his sojourn at the court of Dido in Carthage. In Book iii. the history of the First Punic War commenced. The work was imitated by Ennius and Virgil, sometimes closely by the latter. Cf. Servius on Aen. i. 198-207, ‘O socii,’ etc. ‘Et totus hic locus de Naevio belli Punici libro translatus est.’ Ibid. i. 273, ‘Naevius et Ennius Aeneae ex filia nepotem Romulum conditorem urbis tradunt.’

Macrob. Saturn. vi. 2, 31, ‘In principio Aeneidos tempestas describitur et Venus apud Iovem queritur.... Hic locus totus sumptus a Naevio est ex primo libro belli Punici.’

PLAUTUS

(1) LIFE.

Plautus’ full name, T. Maccius Plautus, was discovered by Ritschl in the Ambrosian (Milan) palimpsest, which gives, e.g. after the two plays named: ‘T. Macci Plauti Casina explicit’: ‘Macci Plauti Epidicus explicit.’ In Plaut. Merc. l. 6, the MS. reading Mactici was emended by Ritschl to Macci Titi; and in Asin. prol. l. 11, Maccius is the right reading. The MSS. read Maccus, which Bücheler (Rhein. Mus. 41, 12) takes to mean ‘buffoon,’ or ‘writer of comedies,’ from which Plautus took his family name, Maccius, on becoming a Roman citizen. ‘M. Accius,’ formerly supposed to be the name, is found in no MS., but ‘Accius’ is found in Epitome Festi, p. 239, which gives us the poet’s birthplace, Sarsina in Umbria, and suggests another derivation for his name: ‘Ploti appellantur, qui sunt planis pedibus, unde et poeta Accius, quia Umber Sarsinas erat, a pedum planitie initio Plotus, postea Plautus est dictus.’

In the corresponding passage of Festus, we have only ‘...us poeta, quia Umber,’ etc. The name of the poet is lost, and the epitomizer has doubtless made a mistake.

Sarsina is mentioned once by Plautus, Mostell. 770,

‘Quid? Sarsinatis ecquast, si Umbram non habes?’

The year of his birth can only be conjectured; he died B.C. 184.

Cic. Brut. 60, ‘Plautus P. Claudio L. Porcio coss. mortuus est.’

Jerome erroneously assigns Plautus’ death to yr. Abr. 1817 = B.C. 200, ‘Plautus ex Umbria Sarsinas Romae moritur, qui propter annonae difficultatem ad molas manuarias pistori se locaverat; ibi quotiens ab opere vacaret, scribere fabulas et vendere sollicitius consueverat.’

From this notice, and from the passage of Gellius below, we learn that Plautus lost in foreign trade the money he had made as an assistant to scenic artists, and had to work for his living in a flour mill at Rome, during which time he wrote plays, and continued to do so afterwards.

Gell. iii. 3, 14, ‘Saturionem et Addictum et tertiam quamdam, cuius nunc mihi nomen non subpetit, in pistrino eum scripsisse, Varro et plerique alii memoriae tradiderunt cum, pecunia omni, quam in operis artificum scaenicorum pepererat, in mercatibus perdita inops Romam redisset et ob quaerendum victum ad circumagendas molas, quae trusatiles appellantur, operam pistori locasset.’

We conclude from these varied employments that Plautus can hardly have been less than thirty years old when he began to write plays. His intimacy with the Scipios (Cic. de Rep. iv., apud Augustin. Civ. D. ii. 9), who fell in Spain B.C. 212, leads to the conclusion that he must have been well established as an author by that date, though none of his plays can be proved to have been written so early. If we suppose that his career as a playwright commenced at thirty, and that his acquaintance with the Scipios lasted ten years, the year of his birth must have been about B.C. 254. This view is supported (1) by the notice in Cic. Brut. 73, that Plautus had produced many plays by B.C. 197; (2) by Cic. Cato maior, 50, ‘quam gaudebat ... Truculento Plautus, quam Pseudolo,’ where Plautus is said to have written these plays as senex. Now the Pseudolus was written B.C. 191; and therefore, as a man could not be called senex till he was at least sixty, his birth must have been not later than B.C. 251.

Plautus is said to have written his own epitaph.

Gell. i. 24, 3, ‘Epigramma Plauti, quod dubitassemus an Plauti foret, nisi a M. Varrone positum esset in libro de poetis primo:

"Postquam est mortem aptus Plautus, Comoedia luget,

Scaena est deserta, ac dein Risus, Ludus Iocusque,

et Numeri innumeri simul omnes conlacrimarunt."’

(2) WORKS.

Plautus’ plays were early criticized as to their genuineness. Gell. iii. 3, 1-3, after mentioning the canons of Aelius Stilo, Sedigitus, etc., says that Varro admitted twenty-one plays which were given by all the canons, and added some more. ‘Nam praeter illas unam et viginti, quae Varronianae vocantur, quas idcirco a ceteris segregavit, quoniam dubiosae non erant, set consensu omnium Plauti esse censebantur, quasdam item alias probavit adductus filo atque facetia sermonis Plauto congruentis easque iam nominibus aliorum occupatas Plauto vindicavit.’

About one hundred and thirty plays were current under the name of Plautus; the theory of Varro (Gell. iii. 3, 10) that these were written by a certain Plautius is improbable.

Gell. iii. 3, 11, ‘Feruntur sub Plauti nomine comoediae circiter centum atque triginta.’

There is little doubt that the ‘fabulae Varronianae’ are those which have come down to us with the addition of the Vidularia, which was lost between the sixth and the eleventh centuries. The number of Varro’s second class, consisting of those pieces that stood in most of the indices and exhibited Plautine features, Ritschl has fixed at nineteen, from citations in Varro de lingua Latina. Besides the genuine plays the names of thirty-two others are known.

The extant plays[6] are as follows:

1. Amphitruo, a tragicomoedia, the only play of Plautus of the kind. Prol. 59,

‘Faciam ut conmixta sit haec tragicomoedia.’

The original and the date are unknown. The play shows the features of the Sicilian Rhinthonica.[7] About three hundred lines have been lost after Act. iv., Scene 2. The scene is Thebes, which, with Roman carelessness or ignorance, is made a harbour; cf. ll. 629 sqq.

2. Asinaria (sc. fabula), from the ᾽Οναγός of Demophilus, supposed to have been a writer of the New Comedy. Prol. 10-12,

‘Huic nomen Graece Onagost fabulae;

Demophilus scripsit, Maccius vortit barbare.

Asinariam volt esse, si per vos licet.’

Authorities assign the play to about B.C. 194. The scene is Athens.

3. Aulularia (from aulula, ‘a little pot.’)—Neither the original nor the exact time of composition is known. From Megadorus’ tirade against the luxury of women, ll. 478 sqq., it has been inferred that the play was written after the repeal of the Oppian Law in B.C. 195. The end of the play is lost. The scene is Athens.

4. Captivi, a piece without active interest (stataria), without female characters, and claiming a moral purpose; l. 1029,

‘Spectatores, ad pudicos mores facta haec fabulast.’

Some authorities think that the parasite (Ergasilus) is an addition to the original play, which may have belonged to the New Comedy. The scene is in Aetolia.

5. Curculio, so called from the name of the parasite. The Greek original is unknown; but ll. 462-86 contain a speech from the Choragus, in the style of the παράβασις of the Old Comedy. In l. 509,

‘Rogitationes plurumas propter vos populus scivit

quas vos rogatas rumpitis,’

there is probably an allusion to the Lex Sempronia de pecunia credita, B.C. 193. The scene is Epidaurus.

6. Casina, so called from a slave-girl introduced. The original was the Κληρούμενοι of Diphilus. Prol. 31,

‘Clerumenoe vocatur haec comoedia

Graece, Latine Sortientes. Deiphilus

hanc Graece scripsit.’

The inference from l. 979, ‘Nam ecastor nunc Bacchae nullae ludunt,’ that the play was written after the S.C. de Bacchanalibus in B.C. 186, is improbable; the words rather show, as Mommsen[8] believes, an anterior date, when it was not yet dangerous to speak of the Bacchanalia. Some authorities find support for the latter date in the words of the prologue, ll. 9-20 (written after the poet’s death). The text of the play has suffered greatly. The scene is Athens.

7. Cistellaria.—This play contains a reference to the war against Hannibal then going on; ll. 197 sqq.,

               ‘Bene valete, et vincite

virtute vera, quod fecistis antidhac, ...

ut vobis victi Poeni poenas sufferant.’

According to Ritschl, about 600 verses have been lost. The scene is Sicyon.

8. Epidicus.—This play is referred to in the Bacchides, ll. 213-5 (spoken by Chrysalus), where the unpopularity of the play is attributed to the acting of Pellio.

‘Non res, sed actor mihi cor odio sauciat.

Etiam Epidicum, quam ego fabulam aeque ac me ipsum amo,

nullam aeque invitus specto, si agit Pellio.’

Epid. 222,

‘Sed vestita, aurata, ornata ut lepide! ut concinne! ut nove!’ etc.,

shows that the piece was written after the repeal of the Lex Oppia Sumptuaria, B.C. 195. The plot is complicated, and contaminatio is assumed by some authorities. The play contains only seven hundred and thirty-three lines, and some believe it to be a stage edition. The scene is Athens.

9. Bacchides.—The first part of this play, along with the last part of the Aulularia,[9] has been lost, as also the prefaces of the grammarians, so that we do not know what was in the first part. The original was probably Menander’s Δὶς ἐξαπατῶν. Plautus appears to refer to this twice, l. 1090,

‘Perii: pudet. Hocine me aetatis ludos bis factum esse indigne’;

l. 1128,

‘Pol hodie altera iam bis detonsa certost.’

The line, ὃν οἱ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν, ἀποθνῄσκει νέος, which belongs to the same play (Stobaeus, Serm. 120, 8) is translated in ll. 816-7,

   ‘quem di diligunt

adulescens moritur.’

The date is pretty well fixed by l. 1073,

‘Quod non triumpho: pervolgatumst, nil moror.’

Now, triumphs were not frequent till after the Second Punic War, and were especially frequent from B.C. 197 to 187. The play probably refers to the four triumphs of B.C. 189, and may have been brought out in that or the following year. The scene is Athens.

10. Mostellaria (sc. fabula, ‘a play dealing with a ghost,’ from mostellum, dim. of monstrum).—The play is quoted by Festus, p. 166, as ‘Mostellaria’; pp. 162 and 305, as ‘Phasma.’ According to Ritschl, the Φάσμα of Philemon was Plautus’ model. The reference to unguenta exotica (l. 42) points to a late date, when Asiatic luxury was growing common. The play is imitated in Ben Jonson’s Alchemist. The scene is Athens.

11. Menaechmi.—If ll. 409 sqq., ‘Syracusis ... ubi rex ... nunc Hierost,’ were written independently by Plautus, the date must be before B.C. 215; but the reference may only mean that the Greek original was composed between 275 and 215 B.C. It has been conjectured that a comedy by Posidippus (possibly called Δίδυμοι) was the original, from Athenaeus, xiv. p. 658, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν εὕροι τις ὑμῶν δοῦλόν τινα μάγειρον ἐν κωμῳδίᾳ πλὴν παρὰ Ποσειδίππῳ μόνῳ. Now, the Menaechmi is the only play of Plautus where a cook is a house-slave, Cylindrus being the slave of Erotium; in his other plays cooks are hired from the Forum. The scene is Epidamnus.

12. Miles Gloriosus.—In ll. 211-2 (the only personal allusion in Plautus),

‘Nam os columnatum poetae esse indaudivi barbaro,

quoi bini custodes semper totis horis occubant,’

we have a reference to the imprisonment of Naevius, which shows that the play was written before his banishment, probably B.C. 206-5 (see under ‘Naevius’). Line 1016, ‘Cedo signum, si harum Baccharum es,’ shows that the play is anterior to B.C. 186.

The original is the Ἀλαζών of some Greek poet. Cf. ll. 86-7,

‘Alazon Graece huic nomen est comoediae:

id nos Latine gloriosum dicimus.’

The play, however, exhibits contaminatio. Two distinct actions, the cheating of Sceledrus (Act i.) and the cheating of the Miles (Acts ii. and iii.), are united rather loosely; and it has been conjectured that Menander’s Κόλαξ, or (according to Ritschl) Diphilus’ Αἱρησιτείχης, was the play used. Ritschl’s view is perhaps supported by the word urbicape in l. 1055. The play is the longest palliata preserved. The scene is Ephesus.

13. Mercator.—The original is Philemon’s Ἔμπορος; ll. 5-6,

‘Graece haec vocatur Emporos Philemonis;

eadem Latine Mercator Macci Titi.’

Some light is thrown on the date by ll. 524-6.

‘L. Ovem tibi eccillam dabo, natam annos sexaginta,

peculiarem. P. Mei senex, tam vetulam? L. Generis Graeci est.

Eam sei curabeis, perbonast; tondetur nimium scite.’

This could not have been written before B.C. 196, the date of the settlement of Greece. The play shows traces of two distinct editions. The scene is Athens.

14. Pseudolus.—The Greek original is unknown. The date of production (B.C. 191) is got from the didascalia, as restored by Ritschl, ‘M. Iunio M. fil. pr. urb. acta Megalesiis.’ The Megalesian games were held in that year in honour of the dedication of the temple which had been vowed to Cybele, B.C. 204 (Livy, xxxvi. 36). ‘Pseudolus’ = Ψευδύλος, but is connected by popular etymology with dolus. Cf. the puns in l. 1205,

‘Edepol hominem verberonem Pseudolum, ut docte dolum

commentust’;

l. 1244,

‘Superavit dolum Troianum atque Ulixem Pseudolus.’

Several references to the play are found in Cicero: Cato Maior, 50 (quoted p. 9); Phil. ii. 15; pro Rosc. Com. 20. The scene is Athens.

15. Poenulus.—The original was a Greek play, Καρχηδόνιος, the author of which is unknown, as the fragments of Menander’s Καρχηδόνιος do not fit in with Plautus’ play. The play was called by Plautus ‘Patruus,’ but posterity went back to the older name ‘Poenulus.’ Prol. 53,

‘Carchedonius vocatur haec comoedia

Graece, Latine Patruus Pultiphagonidae.’[10]

Authorities assign the play to B.C. 189. The play is considerably interpolated, one ending being at l. 1371, another at l. 1422, whence some authorities have considered ll. 1372-1422 as spurious. Ritschl thinks that the two endings are about the same age, and compares the double ending of the Andria of Terence. The play is noted for the two Carthaginian renderings of the soliloquy of Hanno, ll. 930-9, and ll. 940-9. The scene is