Notes On The Text Of Terence’s Heautontimorumenos

The article proposes and defends a series of emendations to problematic passages in Terence’s Heautontimorumenos (Heaut.). Some of the proposals have already been conjectured by former scholars, but most of them are original. These include: the old genitive adulescentulum at Heaut. 2; inpellerem at Heaut. 165; amantis animum at Heaut. 570 (already proposed by Paumier); fi ignoscentior at Heaut. 645 (already proposed by Palmer); opinor ad me idem ego hodie at Heaut. 678; fort(e) at Heaut. 715; pro alimentis at Heaut. 836; namque adulescens hinc quam in minima spe situs at Heaut. 997. In addition, I propose to consider corrupt the clause mille nummum poscit at line 606 (printing daturam and et poscet in the same line, and assigning ego sic putaui to Chremes at line 607) and accept the character-division of medieval manuscripts at lines 852-853 (CHR. Et istaec quidem quae apud te est Clitiphonis est | amica. ME. Ita aiunt. CHR. Et tu credis omnia). A methodological assumption underlying several of these proposals is that the Bembinus (A) is much less reliable than it has often been considered to be.