Bothe F.H. Poetarum Latii scenicorum fragmenta 1834 Vol 5.2 Leipzig
Danese R.M. Titus Maccius Plautus: Asinaria 2004 Sarsina/Urbino
Daviault A. Comoedia togata: Fragments 1981 Paris
Guardì T. Titinio e Atta: Fabula togata, i frammenti 1984 Milan
Hahn E.A. " Ilicet, scilicet, videlicet " TAPhA 1948 Vol 79 308 337
Jocelyn H.D. "Review of Guardì 1984" Gnomon 1986 Vol 58 608 611
Lindsay W.M. Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary of Republican Latin 1901 Oxford
Lindsay W.M. Early Latin Verse 1922 Oxford
López López A. Fabularum togatarum fragmenta: edición crítica 1983 Salamanca
Neukirch J.H. De fabula togata Romanorum: accedunt fabularum togatarum reliquiae 1833 Leipzig
Onions J.H. Nonius Marcellus: De conpendiosa doctrina I-III 1895 Oxford
Questa C. La metrica di Plauto e di Terenzio 2007 Urbino
Ribbeck O. Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta Vol 2 Leipzig
White D.C. " The Method of Composition and Sources of Nonius Marcellus " Studi Noniani 1980 Vol 8 111 211
FN1 1)Ribbeck 1855, 118; 1873, 137; 1898, 162. Earlier editors (e.g., Neukirch 1833, 107; Bothe 1834, 61) treated the verse in the same way. I am grateful to the journal’s referee for helpful suggestions and corrections.
FN2 2)This is the law of Bentley-Luchs, which prohibits the sequence D a B/ c Dwhere c Dis a disyllabic word at the end of iambic verses and of the trochaic septenarius, and, as here, before the mid-line break in the long iambic verses (prohibiting, therefore, Ribbeck’s setting of dĭu lĭcet). For the law, see Questa 2007, 371-83. Questa (2007, 374) notes several long verses (esp. Pl. As. 419, 658) that offend against this law in the first hemistich, but the text is in each case suspect (cf. Danese 2004, ad Pl. As. 64).
FN3 3)cf. Pl. Aul.fr. 4 nec noctu nec diu quietus umquam eram: nunc dormiam, Cas. 820 noctuque et diu ut uiro subdola sis; Mer. 862-3 non concedam neque quiescam usquam noctu neque dius| prius profecto quam aut amicam aut mortem inuestigauero. Certainty about the scansion of Titin. 13 noctu diusque(= Iulius Romanus apud Charisium p. 268.24 Barwick) is beyond reach. Lindsay (1922, 63) scanned diuas a monosyllable, but it is now widely accepted that it is to be scanned as a pyrrhic, with iambic shortening (see Questa 2007, 175 n. 3).
FN4 4)Daviault 1981, 96 and 99 n. 3; López López 1983, 71.
FN5 5)Guardì 1984, 117.
FN6 6)For the orthodoxy on Nonius’ sources, see Lindsay 1901, White 1980. The four fragments quoted against the title Fulloniaare Titin. 17 (= Nonius p. 153.22), 21 (= p. 469.34), 28-9 (= p. 245.36), 32-3 (= p. 111.7).
FN7 7)The two uncertain cases are Titin. 30-1 (at p. 217.20 the quotation of Titin. 30 certainly comes from source 1, while at p. 366.16 the source for the full quotation is uncertain, but is probably either source 1 or source 18, as a marginal annotation in the copy of Sallust), and Titin. 26 (= Nonius p. 483.18), where Lindsay (1901, 25) thought that the leading quotations in the entries on mansuetemand quaestiwere the citations of Pl. As. 145 and of Aul. 83, both of which he referred to source 2 (“Plautus i”). Lindsay was generally reluctant to assign quotations of Plautus to source 1 if he could avoid so doing, but several difficulties in the ordering of entries on Nonius pp. 483.8-486.31 would be removed by assuming that the source for at least some of that material was “Gloss. i” rather than “Plautus i”, and I am inclined to think that Titin. 26 comes from the same glossarial source.
FN8 8)It is a reasonably secure assumption that we are dealing with one play to which had attached variant forms of the title; both components of its plot that we can now trace (a clash of weavers and fullers, and simultaneously one between an unhappy husband and wife) are attested in the Fulloniaand Fullonesquotations. Some editors (e.g., Neukirch 1833, 110-1, Daviault 1981, 96-7 n. 1) tried to explain away the attributions to Fulloniaas textual corruptions, but Lindsay’s (1901, 112) view that the disparity reflects the origin of those citations in different sources is better.
FN9 9)Lindsay 1901, 101. Similar are the cases of source 35 (“Gloss. iv”), divided into two parts (coming in the order 34, 35A, 36, 35 b, 37) and of source 38 (also divided into two parts, occuring in the order 38 a, 39, 40, 38 b).
FN10 10)Lindsay 1901, 101 n. d.
FN11 11)In seven instances Nonius has taken words or opinions of Nigidius from sources 27 and 28, while material attributed to Nigidius deriving from other sources is found only at p. 21.18 (with a quotation of Lucilius 6) and at p. 35.32 (between quotations of Lucilius 30 and 29, and so certainly as a marginal note). Rather different is the Nigidian material descending via Gellius (source 32), at Nonius p. 51.16 (= Gel. 9.12.6), p. 379.1 (= Gel. 4.9.3-6), and p. 441.11 (= Gel. 11.11).
FN12 12)Lindsay 1901, 112; Jocelyn 1986, 609. The sigla are those of Onions 1895.
FN13 13)Voss’ tergo ĭbus( tergibusOQJ) at Lucr. 2.88, if correct, does not guarantee an earlier pyrrhic ibus.
FN14 14)The material that Nonius took from source 28 is generally although not exclusively quoted in metrically complete units, and what partial verses are quoted are mostly introduced in quotations longer than one metrical unit (the entries on pp. 513.20-516.23 furnish a good sample). That tendency makes it extremely difficult to disturb the arrangement of what is otherwise plainly a complete iambic septenarius, to produce, for example, two partial senarii.
FN15 15) licetwith the subjunctive shows an elevated tone in Pl. As. 718, Epid. 471, Mer. 989. See further Hahn 1948, 316-27; Karakasis 2005, 191. For the scene, cf. Titin. 26 ni nos texamus, nil siet, fullones, uobis quaesti.
FN16 16)It is worth mentioning that noctuin the resulting verse does not violate Meyer’s Law (which otherwise prohibits word-end at this position when it is approached CD/ or ccD/), since noctu necconstitutes a clearly defined exception to the rule, where the potential offender is followed by a monosyllabic word (see Questa 2007, 388).