Pythian 3.1., Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 109, 2017, 63–82.
Ritschl, Friedrich: Opuscula philologica, 5 vols., Leipzig 1866–1879.
Schäfer, Eckart: Plautus-Philologie im Zeichen des CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim, in: Rolf Hartkamp / Florian Hurka (eds.): Studien zu Plautus’ CistellariaCistellaria, Tübingen 2004, 437–475.
Stärk, Ekkehard: CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ Plautus, in: Rainer Kößling / Günther Wartenberg (eds.): Joachim CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim, Tübingen 2003, 235–248 = Stärk, Ekkehard: Kleine Schriften zur Römischen Philologie, Tübingen 2005, 287–298.
Stockert, Walter: The Rebirth of a Codex: Virtual Work on the Ambrosian Palimpset of Plautus, in: Michael Fontaine / Adele C. Scafuro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Comedy, Oxford 2014, 680–698.
Truhlář, Josef: Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava II., Prague 1894.
Vaculínová, Marta (ed.): Bohuslaus Hassensteinius a Lobkowicz: Opera poetica, Munich 2006.
Vaculínová, Marta: The Incorrect Attribution of Aenea Silvio’s Poem De passione Christi to Bohuslaus of Lobkowicz and HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von and Some Notes on Datation of His Printed Works, Listy Filologické / Folia Philologica 128, 2003, 5–46.
Zangemeister, Karl (ed.): Plautus. Codex Heidelbergensis 1613 Palatinus C. Phototypice editus, Lugduni Batavorum 1900.
The Reception of Plautus’ Fragmentary Plays in the Scholarship of the Fifteenth to Seventeenth Century
Salvatore Monda (Molise)
The question of the authenticity of Plautus’ non-Varronian plays was already in antiquity a critical debate discussed so much that today most of our knowledge of the early Latin grammarians and of the scholarship of Republican Rome is derived from witnesses to the ancient textual criticism of Plautus. In the Middle Ages and at the beginning of Humanism interest in works transmitted in fragments suffered a considerable and general fall, from the sixteenth century it returned to the top of scholars’ interests.
In the Middle Ages Plautus’ plays were not known.1 However, knowledge of his name continued to be widespread, along with that of many other poets who were little known at that time and of whom today there remain only scanty fragments (NaeviusNaevius, EnniusEnnius, PacuviusPacuvius, and many others). This is the case, for instance, of some late-medieval lexica and other scholarly compilations, such as De poetis, De viris illustribus, and similar works.
An interest in the fragments of non-Varronian plays in the modern era would develop only once the corpus of twenty comedies was well known. But the study of fragments is necessarily connected to the cataloguing of the titles of the comedies ascribed to Plautus. When, in the first phase of Humanism, the main activity of scholars consisted in obtaining texts previously unknown, the first step was to compile indices of titles and to realize plans to rediscover and recover a great number of classical Latin manuscripts.2 For an author like Plautus at first there was no difference between titles of Varronian comedies and titles of lost comedies, even though GelliusGellius, who discussed this question, was well known. Let us look at the main stages of this story.
In the late Middle Ages many scholars compiled works in which they attempt to outline the biography of the Latin authors.3 Plautus is mentioned in the Speculum historiale by the Dominican Friar Vincent de BeauvaisBeauvais, Vincent de, which contains a chapter entitled De Plauto poeta comico et dictis eius,4 with scanty biographical information derived from GelliusGellius and a collection of sayings from the AululariaAulularia. The lemma Plaucius (later corrected to Plautus in the printed editions) that we find in the Liber de vita et moribus philosophorumBurley, WalterLiber de vita et moribus philosophorum by the scholastic philosopher Walter BurleyBurley, Walter5 certainly depends on Vincent de BeauvaisBeauvais, Vincent de. BurleyBurley, Walter’s work, which had an enormous fortuna, as witnessed by a very high number of manuscripts, is full of wrong attributions and gross chronological errors.6 On Plaucius BurleyBurley, Walter begins as follows: poeta comicus, Tulli discipulus, Rome claruit. From Gellius he draws the report that slavery for debts forced the poet to write and sell comedies. These data, however, will then be taken up, corrected, and supplemented by some Italian scholars of the Veronese and Paduan prehumanism,7 starting with Giovanni ColonnaColonna, Giovanni and his De viris illustribusColonna, GiovanniDe viris illustribus and Mare historiarumColonna, GiovanniMare historiarum.8 The chapter De Plauto comico poeta of the Liber de viris illustribus repeats almost word for word the passage of BurleyBurley, Walter, while in the Mare historiarum (De Ennio, Pacubio, Plauto et Nevio atque Possidonio qui per ea tempora in Italia claruerunt) ColonnaColonna, Giovanni also quotes Plautus’ epitaph. However, none of these works mentions Plautine titles or recalls the question of the uncertain attribution of some plays, at least not in terms of the problem raised by GelliusGellius. The first scholar to focus widely on the works of the authors he quotes is Guglielmo da PastrengoPastrengo, Guglielmo da,9 jurist and literatus from Verona, also known for his friendship and correspondence with Francesco PetrarcaPetrarca, Francesco. His De viris illustribus10 is structured according to the alphabetical order used already by BurleyBurley, Walter. He mentions some titles of Plautus’ comedies (p. 180–181 Bottari):
Plautus, poeta comicus, post secundum bellum Punicum non multum ultra annos XV, ut refert Agelius, in scena florens, scripsit comedias: Captivos, Cassinam, Deiphebum, Cistellariam, Pseudodoneam, Rudentem, Gurgilionem, Menechos, Bachides, Mustelariam, Asinariam, Truculentum, Militem gloriosum, Aululariam, Penulum, De natura deorum, Epidicum, Menegnos, Vidulariam, Amphidrionem, Persas, Merchatorem, Lenones, Calceolum, Astrabam, Bacariam.
The main source is PriscianPriscian (NoniusNonius Marcellus was not yet known to the scholars of Verona and for Festus we must wait for the recovery of the codex Farnesianus). Eighteen of the twenty-one extant plays of Plautus are cited (PseudolusPseudolus, StichusStichus, and TrinummusTrinummus are missing). The presence of the Deiphebus (sic) should be explained by the confusion of Plautus’ nomen, which was then thought to be AcciusAccius; the title is in fact also present among Accius’ tragedies (p. 14, 8 Bottari), who, again because of the same mistake, is called poeta comicus by GuglielmoPastrengo, Guglielmo da.11 VarroVarro’s Menippean satire Pseudodonea (for Pseudaeneas) and CiceroCicero’s De natura deorumCiceronat. deor. are errors due to the praenomen Marcus assigned to Plautus too.12 Menechos and Menegnos are of course the MenaechmiMenaechmi. The last four are non-Varronian plays: Lenones quoted by Priscian, Calceolus by MacrobiusMacrobius, Astraba by GelliusGellius, and Bacaria again by Macrobius. Other non-Varronian plays, together with StichusStichus and TrinummusTrinummus, appear under the entry dedicated to PacuviusPacuvius (p. 179 Bottari).
Compared to these first attempts at a bio-bibliographic arrangement of the material, the next generation of Renaissance humanists takes a major step forward, thanks, above all, to their very careful and intelligent use of ancient sources. As regards Plautus an example is the erudite work of Sicco PolentonPolenton, Sicco.13 In the second of his Scriptorum illustrium Latinae linguae libri XVIIIPolenton, SiccoScriptores illustrium Latinae linguae the section on comic poets is inspired by the canon of Volcacius SedigitusSedigitus, Volcacius (considered, as often happens among the humanists, to be Nigidius Figulus). The second poet is Plautus (pp. 53–55 Ullman). Sicco PolentonPolenton, Sicco provides essential information on Plautus’ life and art, also recalling the poet’s self-epitaph. He is the first scholar to deal with the number of the comedies (he uses Gell. 3, 3 and Serv. praef. in Aen. p. 4, 15 Thilo-Hagen):
Comoedias vero edidit Plautus multas […] quales autem et quot
