f
PAPERS AND MONOGRAPHS OF THE
AMERICAN ACADEMY IN ROME VOLUME XXV
SBD-FFLCH-Uf
AMERICAN
ACADEMY 1974
IN
ROME
DANCING IN CHAINS: - .— T H E
STYLISTIC
OF THE
COMOEDIA
UNITY
PALLIATA
by JOHN
WRIGHI
University of Rochester
AMERICAN
ACADEMY
1974
,
IN
ROME
I ( L
C # # e r Thc publication of this volume has been aided by I •
from the Faculty Research Fund of the
I University of Rochester
FOREWORD
R e a d i n g is generally a lonely business, and w r i t i n g even m o r e so. But classical p h i l o l o g Y j ^ a c o ^ and even the most monk-like scholar must o w e debts at the conclusion of a project such as the one t h a t follows; I a m certainly no exception. First, to institutions: Indiana University, f o r two University Fellowships w h i c h enabled m e t o pursue m y graduate education there; the American A c a d e m y in R o m e , for two years as a Classical Fellow, d u r i n g which I completed m u c h of the preliminary w o r k for this investigation; and the University of Rochester, f o r a library study and a generous policy regarding stationery, f r a n k i n g , and xeroxing. Second, to individuals: the great Plautine scholars of the past, f r o m Ritschl to Fracnkcl, w h o built an indispensable foundation for further study in R o m a n c o m e d y ; Professor James W . Halporn, w h o directed the dissertation o n w h i c h this b o o k is based and castigated it w i t h an energy that proved n o t only his sense o f scholarly responsibility but his love as w e l l ; Professors W . S. Anderson a n d Palmer Bovie, whose generous a n d helpful c o m m e n t s o n the dissertation encouraged me to proceed w i t h its revis i o n ; Professor Frank B r o w n , who offered c n c o u r a g c m c n t a n d invaluable advice throughout, especially f o r the revised C o n c l u s i o n ; and m y wife a n d eldest daughter, w h o w e r e
viii
inccrc.stcJ anil concerned, and w h o did HJC the h o n o r o f refusing to abandon their o w n interests a n d pursuits while ! was engaged in this project; its results are dedicated to them w i t h my love. R o m e , 14 February 1974
CON
I. Introduction II. Livius Andronicus III. Naevius
.
.
IV. Minor C o m i c Poets V. Caccilius Statius VI. Terence
.
VII. Turpilius . VIII. Conclusion Sclcct Bibliography . Indices
TUX
TS
ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations of periodicals used are those recommended by the American Journal of Archaeology 74 (1970) 1-8. In addition the following abbreviations have been adopted for convenience of reference: Bardon, LLI: H. Bardon, La literature latine inconnue I: ripublieaitte (Paris 1952). Beare, RS:
L'tpoque
W. Bcarc, The Roman Stage ( N e w York 1963 3 ).
Duckworth, NRC: G. E. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman A Study in Popular Entertainment (Princcton 1952).
Comedy:
Faider, PCC: P. Faider, " Lc pocte coniique Cccilius: Sa vie ct son ocuvrc," MusB 12 (1908) 269-341, 13 (1909) 5-35. Fraenkel, EPP: E. Fracnkel, Elementi plautini in Plauto, tr. F. Munari (Florence 1960). Fraenkel, N : E. Fracnkel, " Nacvius," Rl: Suppl. 6 (1935) 622-640. Handlcy, MP: E. W . Handley, Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison (London 1968). Leo, GRL:
F. Leo, Geschichte der romischen Literatur I (Berlin 1913).
Leo, PF: F. Leo, Plautinische Forschungen (Berlin 1912 2 ; repr. D a r m stadt 1966). Marmorale, NP: E. V. Marmorale, Naevius poeta (Florence 1950 2 ). Questa, IMP: C. Questa, Introduzione alia metrica di Plauto (Bologna 1967).
XH Ribbeek, SRP: O. Ribbcck, cd., Scaenicae Romanorum pocsis fragment* (Leipzig 1897-18983). Kitsch), PPT: F. Ritschi, Parcel zu Plautus unci Tereuz (Berlin 1845; rcpr. Amsterdam 1965). R ycli lews lea, TCF: L. Rychlcwska, ed., Tttrpilii comici fragment* (Prace W r c lawskicgo Towarzystwa N a u k o w e g o Ser. A Nr. 76; W a r s a w 1962). Traiua, CAP: 19693).
A. Traina, CoiiiovJm:
Autoload
delta palliiitii (Padua
Ville tie Mirmout, APL: H. do la Ville dc M i r m o n t , Etudes sitr l\mcienne /wfsic Indue (Paris 1903). W a r m i n g t o n , ROL: E. H . Warmington, cd. and tr., Remains of Old Latin, 4 vols. (LCL 1967 2 ).
T h e following abbreviations have been used in the text to identify editions of fragmentary authors, grammarians, ctc.: (i: (i.
(SiM'tz, Corpus yjosuiriorum
latinorum (Leipzig 1888-1923).
K: H . Kcil, Grammatici latini (Leipzig 1855-1880). K: T . K o c k , Comicorum atticorum fragmcnta (Leipzig 1880-1888). K-Tli: A . Koertc, A. Thierfclder, Menandri quae supersunt (Leipzig 19592). L: W . M. Lindsay, Sexti Powpei Festi de verborum significatu qu*e supersunt cunt Pauliepitome (Leipzig 1913; rcpr. Hildcshcim 1965). L: W . /VI. Lindsay, Isidori Hispaletisis episcopi etymologiiuuni sivc originuni Lhrt XX ( O x f o r d 1911). L: f r a g m e n t s o f Plautus as numbered in W . M . Lindsay, T. Mm Planti comocdiae ( O x f o r d 19102). M: F. M a r x , <7. Lucilii carniinum reliquiae (Leipzig 1901-1905).
XIII
M : Mcrccrus' pagination in W . M. Lindsay, Nonii AIa reel I i tie conpemliosa doctrina libros XX (Leipzig 1903). M: W . Morel, Fragmenta poctaritm latinorum epicorum ct lyricorum praetor F.iniiuui ct Lucilium (Stuttgart 1963 2 ). R 3 : O . Ribbcck, 1897-18983).
Scaenicae Ronumornnt poesis fragment a
(Leipzig
V 2 : J. Vallien, Famiac pocsis reliquiae (Leipzig 1928 2 ; ropr. Amster-
dam 1967). W : E. H . W a r m i n g t o n , Remains of Old Latin (LCL 1967 2 ).
I
INTRODUCTION
Exi e culiiia sis foras, mastigia L qui mi inter patinas exhibcs argutias. egrcdcrc, crilis permitics, cx acdibus. ego pol tc ruri, si uiuam, ulciscar probe. <exi,> exi, inquam, nidoricupi, nam quid lates? : : ; quid tibi, malum, hie ante aedis clamitatiost? an ruri censes te esse? apsccde ab acdibus. abi rus, abi dierecte, apscedc ab ianua. (Plautus, Most. 1-8 1 )
The powerful exchange quoted above is very likely to be the first example of Plautine poetry encountered by most beginners in the study of Latin literature. 2 It is an excellent introduction to the works of Rome's greatest playwright. At first sight its most striking characteristic is its naturalism; it sounds, as a colleague of mine once remarked, " like a couple of Italians arguing on a street c o r n e r / ' The 1 Here, as elsewhere in this study, the quotation from Plautus is taken from Lindsay's O.C.T. (Oxford 19102). Quotations from Terence are likewise from the O.C.T., edd. R . Kaucr, W . M. Lindsay, O. Skutsch (Oxford 19583). 2 As it was for me. The reason for this is that the Mostellaria (aside from its high quality and general appeal) is one o f the very few Plautine plays for which an edition annotated in English is currently available; this is the edition of E. A. Sonnenschein (Oxford 19072; repr. 1964), in which I found a portion of the material I have used in my commentary on the eight lines quoted.
"^ ~ ^^fL
i '
simple, staccato sentences (each line is end-stopped), the expletives, mild though they arc (pol, malum), the abusive epithets (niastigia, nidoricupi; 3 there are many more in the rest of the scene) — a reader just arrived f r o m Virgil can hardly believe that the Latin language is capablc of all this. 4 The scene is so vivid that the reader completely forgets that he is being given, in lieu of a formal prologue, introductory information necessary for the comprehension of the play that follows; the two speakers, Grumio and Tranio, are so lifelike and memorable that it is 110 w o n d e r they survived in the back of Shakespeare's mind to give their names to a pair of servants in The Taming of the Shrew. But a closer examination reveals that the impression o£, artless naturalism which these lines give is in fact created by careful and artful poetic composition. T o begin with, tluTlines are hi Verse, and although the~mcter in which they arc composed, the iambic senarius, is considerably freer than the dactylic hexameter, it is still a formal verse form, with an elaborate set ot rules o f its own. 5 Plautus makes effective use here of the senarius form: note h o w cx acdibus (3) at the end of one line is cihoeil by nb aedibus (7) at the end of another. In the rest of the scene note the similar rcpetition, at the end of the line, o(seitex, always spoken by Gru3
—
r
W i J^vvvVfl
1 ^
Nidoricupi is a hapax Lgontcuon coincd by Lindsay, apparently on the analogy o f such words as aucupium and mancupium; see F. Badcr, La formation des composts nominaux du latin (Paris 1962) 63-64, 186. The MSS read tiidore cupinam. Other emendations include nidor e culina (Pylades), nidoricape (Ritschl), nidore, hclluo. nam (Schocll), and nidor, e pupina (Loewe). 4 For Plautus (along with Terence and Cicero in his letters) as representative of ordinary spoken Latin see J. B . Hoffmann, Lateinische Umgangssprache (HeideIber 8 1936 2 ); cf. L. R . Palmer, The Latin Language (London 19612) 74-94 and H. Happ, " Die latcim'sche Umgangssprachc und die Kunstsprache des Plautus Ciotta 45 (1967) 60-104. ~ ~~ 5
O n the iambic senarius see Qucsta, IMP 169-173 i7 passim.
:
'
r
- '- -
•
'
•
'
••
-
.
>
i
i
i .
» XMI. mio (11, 25, 57, 78) and mockingly echocd by Tranioij frutcx (13); also the repetition o f Tranio (16, 18) and bibii y pergraecatninei (22, 64). Line openings, too, are importai: see, f o r example, haecine, hocine, hoccine in three successn lines (25-27). B u t this carefully articulated verse form is not the oii v evidence of artistic manipulation in this passage. Souiic^ words, and ideas are also arranged in patterns which c i , only he deliberate. T h e first w o r d spoken by (irtiinioi,. cxiy a w o r d which contains the gist of his entire five-linipf speech. The preposition ex (e) and the prefixes (ex-, <},JJ formed from it are repeated constantly throughout his linti^ (1, exi> e ailina; 2, cxhibes; 3, egrcderc, cx aedibus; 5, <\v/, c.vi),5/J" The incongruously contrasting w o r d s j p ^ h w and argittias\ifjj set off by honioeoteleutoi^and by their position at the caes%and at the end o f the second line. The growly -er souii^' linritata canes quam homo quam pLtnius (licit: Lucilius fr. 4 r [2 M]) is repeated throughout the third line (cgrederc, eriPl penalties). Tranio's characteristic preposition, corresponding togj Grumio's c.v, is ab (aps-); using this he counters GnimioV* repetitions with repetitions of his own (7, apscede, ab
I
I
first, that the contcnt of the scene was probably taken ovel' 2
I I)1
with very little change from the Greek original of the MostcWaria,6 a n d second, that Plautine scenes written in iambic j scnarii show, as a general ruTe, far less stylization~than d o scenes in trochaic septenarii and other longer verse forms. 7 i ^^Mn Although thTTtyIrzatioi 1 oTTi^tiirelnngiinge has been connnented upon often enough, 8 much less attention has been paid to the phenomenon of the uniformity of this h stylization. 9 A close examination of the eight lines we are MA. considering, taken along with a comparison of the rest of the text of Plautus, will show h o w astonishingly pervasive ^ this stylization is. T h e scene opens with the line Exi c cttlina sis foras, mastigia. C o m p a r e a line which opens a scene in the Riulens (III. iv), generally a play very different from the MostcWaria: Rtid. 706, Exi
c fano, natum quantum
est homintim
sacrilegisswne.
The MostcWaria line ends with mastigia, a Greek term of abuse which refers to the punishment of slaves.10 This word is a favorite with Plautus, appearing thirteen times in the twenty-one plays, in various grammatical cases. In all but one of these thirteen appearances mastigia is f o u n d in the same metrical position, at the end of the line. 11 6 Leo, PF 136-137. H. Hafltcr, Untersiichwtgen zur altlatcinischcn Dichterspracfic (Berlin 1934) 114-125; but cf. j . Marouzcaus review o f this work in RHL 13 (1935) 392-393, 8 For example, by Palmer (supra p. 2, n. 4) and Hafltcr (supra n. 7); sec also Fracnkcl, EPP 355-398 and Duckworth, NRC 331-360. 9 Oil this see F. W . Hall, M Repetitions and Obsessions in Plautus, " C Q 20 (1926) 20-26; N . Terzaghi, " Intorno ai doppioni plautini (Una questione di m e todo), " AttiTor 64 (1930) 95-117; B . - A . Taladoire, Essai sur Ic comique de Plaute (Monaco 1956) 153-155; and, o f course. Fracnkel's entire study (supra n. 8). 10 » O n mastigia see S. Lilja, Terms of Abuse in Roman Comedy (AnnAcFenn ser. B, torn. 141.3; Helsinki 1965) 48, 54; see also the tables o n 108 and 117. 11 Found at the end o f die line in Amph. fr. I L, Cas. 361, Cure. 567, Most. 1, Poen. 390, 3 9 0 ' ; Rul 1022 (all voc.); Cas. 446 (nom. s.); Capt. 600, 659; Poett. 381 (all dat. s.); Trin. 1021 (nom. pi.). The exception is Most. 721- (voc., in a >
7
F
Plautus' second line is qui mi inter patinas exhibes argutias, Similar causal qui clauses appear after insulting epithets in Persa 666-667, di deaeque tc agitant irati, scelusf / qui hanc tion properes destinare, and Aul 628-629, < I ) foras, lumbrice, qui sub terra erepsisti mode, j qui rnodo nusquam comparebas, n/mc £M0M compares peris.12 The w o r d argutiac appears only once elsewhere in Plautus, again in the mouth of a prosaic character w h o is complaining of being mocked by the character he is addressing: Bacch. 127, etiam me aduorsus exordire argutias? Note h o w similar this is in construction a n d metrical arrangement to the Mostellaria line; compare also Merc. 273, rwri uobeis exhibet negotium and Capt. 817, ut sciant alieno ttaso quant cxhibeant molestiam. The third line is egredere, erilis permi ties, ex acdibus. More often than not in Plautus, 13 the abstract noun permities is used, as here, as an abusive epithet; As in. 133, perlecebrac, permities, adulesccntum exitium, and Pseud. 364, permities aduIcscentum, are very similar to our example. For the mockingly elevated use of the adjective tri/w comparc y45jY/. 655, cwsto en7/s, decu popli, thensaurus copiarunt,u T h e phrase ex aedibus w i t h which our line ends is found eleven times in Plautus; it closes the line in eight of these appearances; t w o of the three exceptions are in polymetric cantica.]5 polymetric caniuum). li appears once in Tcrcncc (Ad. 78!), also at the end of a line. This facet of formulaic stylization may have been taken over from Greek comedy, since paa-nyCac, in various grammatical cases, invariably closes iambic trimeters in Aristophanes (Eq. 1228, Lys. 1240, Ran. 501) and Mcnander (Dysc. 473, Epitr. 1113, Perk. 324, Sam. 324). For the syntax of these clauses sec W . M. Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus (Oxford 1907; rcpr. N e w York 1936) 68-71. 13 T h e exception is Cist. 224. M T h e w o r d normally appears only in such standard expressions as erilis films; see Hoffman (supra p. 2, n. 4) 160, Hafftcr (supra p. 4, n. 7) 121-122, n. 4. » Closing the line in Aul. 44, Capt. 533, Cas. 776, Most. 3, Pseud. 656, 730;
6
T h e fourth line is ego pol te ruri, si uiuam, ulciscar probe. The short conditional clause si uiuam is used, along with pol as part of a threat in Persa 786, qtiem pol ego ut noti in cruciatum clique in compedis cogam, si uiuam! Very similar is Pseud. 1325, where ulciscar appears: erit ubi te ulciscar, set uiuo. Probe is joined to the expression in Bacch. 766, uorsabo ego illitnc ho die, si uiuo, probe; compare also Most. 1067, quoins ego liodie ludificabo corium, si uiuo, probe, and AtiL 573, ego te liodie reddatn mcididum, 5/ 1////0, probe. Pol appears with ulciscar in 1043, pol ilium ulciscar liodie Thessalum uenefictim (note the identical openings of this and o u r line); and probe appears as well in Pocn. 1228, nunc pol (go te ulciscar probe, nam faxo—mea eris sponsa, and Persa 756, quia probe sum ultus meum inimicum. The metrical arrangement of the close of o u r line is reproduced in Most. 1179, ibi utrumque, ct hoc et illutl, potcris ulcisci probe. T h e fifth line, according to Lindsay's reading, 16 is (exi,} exi, inquam, nidoricupi, nam quid latest This of course echoes and reiterates the opening line; a very close parallel to both appears in Aul. I. 1, a scene which should he compared in its entirety to this one in the Mo stellarin \17 the opening lines (40-41) are Exi, inquam, age exi: exeundum hercle tibi hinc est form, I circumspcctatrix cum oculis cmissiciis. Besides the obvious verbal echo, note h o w in all three examples the command exi is followed by an insulting epithet, simple in Most. 1, m o r e elaborate in Most. 5 and Aid. 41: a pattern
Trin. 137, True. 8 4 7 ; the exceptions are Most. 698, Trin. 276 (both polymetric cantica) and As in. 632. 16 Lindsay added the first exi hesistantly (dubitanter) for metrical reasons. On tiidoricupi see n. 3 (supra). 17 Cf., e.g., A/ort. 9-11, qur me uerberas? / :: quia ttiuis with Aul. 42-43, nam qur me miseram uerberas? :: ut misera sis / alquc ut te dignam mala malam aetatem exigas.
which also appears in Most, 3, examined above. A n o thi verbal parallel occurs in Cure. 276, /wwj Phaedrome, <\vi, CA e.w, imp mm,
ocius!
Tranio's answer begins w i t h malum, hie ante acdis clainitatiost?
the sixth line, quid
til!
Verbal substantives en e l m
in -io are a v e r y c o m m o n feature of indignant q u e s t i o n s i Plautus; 1 8 a virtually identical example appears later in th same scene: Most. 34, quid tibif malum, curat iost?
C o m p a r e also Trin.
in consilium
hue accessio est?;
accessio acdis est prope
mcd aitt quid ego
ij^a
709, quid tibi interpellate True.
622-623, quid
ai he\s\
tibi
hi
ucntio est? quid tibi hone aditio est? / quid tibi hauc notio
ei
inquatn, amicam meant?
aut pultatio?,
258, quid tibi ad
N o t e h o w p e r f e c t l y clamitatio,
thoug
it is a word f o u n d n o w h e r e else in Latin literature, fits i n t the pattern established by these examples. The idea o f th line is repeated many times in Plautus; f o r example, Trii 1093, Quid hoc hie clamoris audio 727, quinam
maerens?
homo
hie ante aedis
ante acdis mas? nostras
eiulans
and
An
eottqucrin
T h e phrase hie ante aedis is also repeated in Cis
675, Men. 632, and Miles
«
1121.
T h e seventh line has t w o parts: un rttri censes tc esse apscedc ab aedibus.
j
As with t h e previous line, the close)
parallel to the first part of this line appears in this scent Most. 35, an rttri, qtiaeso, non stint quos cures bones?
Similar!
*
urbane challenges are Hung at a countryman in Cas. 1. * (another scene which should be c o m p a r e d to this o n e i J a w h o l e 1 9 ) ; cf. especially Cas. 99-101, quiti rttri es in prat j 18 So Soimcnschcin (supra p. 1, n. 2) 62, who provides more parallels h o
* •
and on p. 67. y 19 Cas. 103, a parallel to Most. 8, will be discussed below. N o t e also ho 1 | in each case the countryman answers the townsman's insults by threatening hif 4 with a punishment particularly appropriate to the country: working in the ml / A [Most. 16-19) and carrying water [Cas. 121-125). ' ^
>
8
jectura
tua? J qitin potius
quod legatum est tibi negotium,
curas atque urbanis rebus te apstines?
/ id
T h e second p a r t of this
line, besides being closely paralleled in line 8 below (apscede oh ianua),
is d u p l i c a t e d cxactly in Most.
atque apscede ab acdibus.
460, fugc,
opsecro,
T h e phrase ab aedibus a p p e a r s nine
times in Plautus, in every ease but one at the end of the line. 20 TLIR final line of o u r passage contains three commands: abi rusy abi dierectc% apscede ab iantta.
A s t r i k i n g l y close paral-
lel to the beginning of this line occurs in the scene f r o m the Casina (I. i) already mentioned, in a line also addressed to a c o u n t r y m a n :
Cas.
103, abi
rus, abi dicrcctus
tuaui
in
prouincianu The phrase is repeated in the Mostcllaria in a line addressed to an obstreperous w a t c h d o g : Most. 850, stl abi, canes, st!
abin dierecta? abin hinc in malain crticem?
The
close of the line, besides echoing the preceding' verse (apscede ab aedibtis), loquere?
is r e p e a t e d
in Most.
: : apscede ab iantta;
hercle tandem
ttxorem
512,
cf. also Men.
abegi ab
quid
tute
127, euax!
tecum iurgio
ianua.
A second look at the entire passage will demonstrate most graphically h o w very conventional its diction is. S t r o n g parallels, in most cases w o r d - f o r - w o r d , exist f o r all w o r d s a n d phrases italicized b e l o w : Exi e culina sis foras, mastigia, qui mi i n t e r patinas exhibes argutias. egrcdere, erilis permities, ex acdibus. ego pol te r u r i , si uiuam,
exi,
: : qtiid tibi,
ulciscar probe.
_
inquaui, nidoricupi, n a m q u i d lates? malum,
hie ante aedis
clamitatiost?
2° At the end o f the line in Amph. 150, 978; Asm. 362, Bacch. 593, Men. 327, A tost. 7, 390, 460; the exception is Aul. 459 (with a change o f speaker at this point).
an ruri censes te esse? apsccde ah acdibtfs. abi rus, abi dicrecte, apscede ab ianua.
This is by no means the most striking example of stylized diction to be found in Plautus, or even in this scene. 21 For example, Grumio's later exclamation (77), pro di inmortalcs, opsecro uostram fidem!, is repeated word-for-word in Most. 530 and Pocn. 967; it appears without the pro in Amph. 455, and in more truncated form in Amph. 1130, Cist. 663, True. 805, and Mai. 999. Conventional repetitions such as these, if they occurred within a single scene, might be the result of an attempt to create a certain aesthetic effect. N o such explanation, however, can account for their continual and pervasive appearance in a long series of plays produced over a period of many years. This procedure would simply n o t be worth the trouble; none of the words and phrases in this brief passage is memorable or witty enough to warrant such an effort. T h e most logical explanation for the phenomena we have f o u n d here is that Plautus was working in a firmly established, traditional dramatic style. This is not a question of oralformulaic composition, as with H o m e r . Plautus did not need such a method; he was composing written poetry. But the conventional nature of what he composed is undeniable. It is conceivable, of course, that he invented and developed this style completely b y himself. Given the popular nature o f the R o m a n theater, however, it seems much more likely that Plautus shared this tradition with his predecessors, con21
Pcrhnps I should add here that this passage was choscn more or less at random; I am convinced that a similar demonstration o f the formulaic nature o f Plautine style could be made using almost any scene in the twenty-one plays of the canon.
10
temporaries, and successors in the comoedia palliata, just as he no doubt shared in the conventions of acting, stage design, and costumes. If this is true, w e should expect to see evidence of similar stylization in the w o r k o f the other playwrights of the palliata. But here, o f course, we immediately r u n up against a serious problem. Aside from the plays of Terence (which, as we shall see later, contrast markedly with the stylized comedies of Plautus), the work of the other R o m a n comic playwrights survives only in fragments, the vast majority of: which arc simply glosses quoted by lexicographers to illustrate peculiar words. It is a rare play f r o m which m o r e than a dozen isolated lines or half-lines survive. The best possible w a y to j u d g e the effect of such a loss is to see w h a t a work which we already know would look like if it had come d o w n to us in this fashion. Had the Plautine scene w e have been examining, the first scene of the Mostellaria, been lost, its remains, as gathered by some assiduous scholar such as Ribbeck, would look like this: N o n . 55. 16-18M: colinam uctercs c o q u i n a m
dixerunt...
Plautus Mostellaria exi e culina, sis, foras, mastigia, qui mi inter patinas exhibes argutias. (cf. N o n . 239. 16-18M) N o n . 81. 18-19M: comest pro comedit... Plautus Mostellaria ne m o d o venire saluum, quem absentem comes. Don. ad Phorm. 710: hara autem, in qua pecora includuntur. Plautus rusticus hircus hara Mostellaria.
Non. 108. 1-2M: exoticum, aduenticium: a graeco.
Piantii,
Mostellaria
11011 onuics possunt olcrc ungenta exotica. (cf. Prise. Inst. 8. 95, 9. •J
N o n 79. 32-33M: bubulcitare... Plautus Mostellaria decet me amare et te bubulcitare.
f (
N o t e the error at the beginning of the second ( r a g m e n (Most. 12), the spelling variation in the f o u r t h (42), and tli mistaken form of the second infinitive—concealing an im portant point of Plautinc style—in the fifth (53). A garble) version of Most. 22-24 is quoted in Fulgentius (Mythol. 1 . 2\ but there it is assigned to the Epidictts; line 46, also i n garbled version, is quoted by t w o grammarians (Scrv. a Buc. 1. 58, Auct. dc dub. mm. 592. 3 K), but neither g i \ c the title. This, then, would be the sum of o u r knowledge o f tli first scene of the Mostcllaruu At first glance the evidence looks thin indeed; much of our most suggestive materia is gone: such formulaic phrases as quid tibi, malum, opseet, ab acdibus, and Grumio's later pro cli inmortales line, j u s t t n a m e a few. Aesthetically, it would be very difficult t imagine the vivacity and verbal violence ot the entire seen/ But the situation would not be entirely hopeless, i clever commentator, using the k n o w l e d g e of R o m a n stncf ing he could glean f r o m the rest of Plautus, could divii| that the first fragment contains the opening lines o f tL scene, since one character is calling another out to get tl* dialogue started. H e could note the stylized formality C the relative clause in this fragment and the formulaic portion of the epithet mastigia. The parallel use of argutiac f
Baccli. 127, coupled with similar scene openings in Aid. I. I and IV. iv, w o u l d suggest that this scene contained a g o o d deal of verbal abuse, and may have included some slapstick. The fourth and fifth fragments would make it clear that a townsman and a countryman were the speakers; this would lead to a comparison with Cos. I. I. Like ex sterculino ecfosse (114) in that scene, the third fragment w o u l d clearly be an insult composed of barnyard epithets, but the fact that it contained three nouns in a row would show that it was a more elaborate, formal insult than the Casina example; if the commentator were t o compare Pcrsa 406410 (which begins o/j, luttim Ictionium, / commixtum caetto sterndimun publicum, / iupure, wlionestey iniure9 etc.), he w o u l d not, as it turns o u t , be very much mistaken. Finally, the second fragment would give the reason for the quarrel between the two speakers—and a fairly good hint f o r reconstructing the plot, if the rest of the play were lost as well. This demonstration should give some indication o f both the possibilities a n d the dangers of w o r k i n g f r o m fragments o f comic authors. Some guesswork is necessarily i n v o l v e d ; some pieces of evidence will necessarily be m o r e conclusive than others. T h e cumulative effect is what counts for proof, as far as proof is possible w i t h such material. In the chapters that follow I shall examine, in chronological order as far as possible, the remains of the w o r k of the twelve 2 2 authors of the palliata w h o survive only i n fragments in an attempt to discover w h a t their relation w a s to the a p p a r e n t l y traditional and established c o m i c style w h i c h permeates t h e plays 22 Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Ennius, Trabea, Atilius, Licinius Imbrex, Juvcntius, Luscius Lanuvinus, Vatronius, Aquilius, Caecilius Statius, and T u r pilius. There is sonic argument about the historical existence of Vatronius and Aquilius; see Chapter IV, 14 Minor Comic P o e t s . "
u of Plautus. (I shall also examine briefly some aspects of the very different plays of Terence). For most of these authors so little material survives that it is difficult to do much more than examine and comment upon their vocabulary, their diction, and occasionally their versification. But I shall also investigate, when the evidence permits, their use of stock characterization, slapstick, traditional staging conventions, and standard jokes, puns, and other verbal tricks. Occasionally it may be possible to go beyond this and to divine something of their attitude toward their audience (particularly in the all-important matter of dramatic clarity) and even toward themselves as comic playwrights. N o aesthetic judgments of their work will be offered; indeed, to try to make any would be both foolish and useless. Because of the accidents of history they exist to b e studied for one main reason: to cast light on the complete Latin comedies that we are fortunate enough to possess. A n d this, ultimately, is the purpose of the study which follows.
II.
LIVIUS
ANDRONICUS
It is generally believed that Latin literature began w i n Livius Andronicus, a Tarentine Greek, adapted and p r o d u c e a Latin version of a Greek play tor the htdi Roman i 240 B.C. 1 Although Livius was a professional actor, 2 a t hence, presumably, well acquainted with the stage, he d o not appear to have been very successful as a comic p h r ' wright. Terence does n o t mention him in his prologue where he names Naevius, Plautus, Ennius, and Caecili Statins as his predecessors. J His name does not appear Volcacius Sedigitus' late-second-century epigram on R o m ; comic playwrights, where ten writiers are listed and evaluated And Cicero, w h o is ordinarily so indulgent in his j u d g m e n of early Latin literature, claimed Ih.it f,ivius' plays w r not worth a second reading (Unit. 18. 71). 1 Till- 210 li.C. dale is a u r p t n l by Duckworth, SliC 40; I KM re, US J II. Mcltc, " D i e romisclic Tragodie mid die Ncnfimtlc zur grid liischcn Traj; die, " Lustrum 9 (1964) 46; E. Fracnkel, " Livius Andronicus, " RE Suppl. 5 (19' 598-599; and all the standard literary histories. The difficulties o f the date * examined briefly at the end o f this chapter. 2 For Livius Andronicus as an actor see Livy 7.2.8-9 and cf. 13. W a m e c " Zuni Leben des-Livius Andronicus," RliM 74 (1925) 232-234. 3 Naevius, Plautus, and Ennius are mentioned by Terence in /1M'. 18 (a elsewhere), Caceilius in Hec. 14; see JJeare, RS 30. Livius Andronicus* coined are never cited by Nonius or Cicero: L. Mueller, cd., Livi Andronici et CM. Na fabularttm reliquiae (Berlin 1895) 46. 4 For the text and a brief discussion o f Volcacius Sedigitus' epigram see Mca RS 117-118; cf. also H. Reich, Dcr Mimus (Berlin 1903) 337-353; Faider, PC 291-297; and Bardon, LLI 128-130.
16 Nor has the manuscript tradition been kind to Livius. O n l y six fragments of his comedies have survived, none over seven words long. Of these six, the authenticity of one has been questioned, the text of another is so corrupt thai only through elaborate emendation can any sense b e made of it, a third has been assigned by some to the author's translation of the Odyssey, and a fourth has been attributed to Nacvius. Thus only two fragments, a total of fourteen words, can be accepted without any question, and even if all six fragments are accepted, we have in all only thirtyt w o words to deal with. Of the six fragments, all but one were selected by the Augustan scholar Vcrritis Flaccus to illustrate his definitions o f rare or obsolete words and their use; they have c o m e d o w n to us through Festus' epitome o f Flaccus' w o r k . W e can therefore be reasonably certain that there was n o stylistic pre-selection involved: for o u r purposes, these six fragments are almost as disinterested a choice as a truly random selection o f six lines w o u l d be. Thus it is all the m o r e striking to see how closely each of these f r a g m e n t s parallels Plautine usage and style. The first fragment comes f r o m a c o m e d y called Gladiolus (Com. 1 W [1 puliccsne an cimiccs an pedes?
respondc m i h i .
5 The text I have cited is in all cases that o f E. H. W a r m i n g t o n , Remains of Old Latin (LCL 1967*; abbr. ROL); Livius Andronicus is in the second volume. This is a g o o d edition, and it is likely to be m o r e readily available to t h e reader than older editions. I have, however, always included additional references to the standard editions: for drama, O . R i b b c c k , ed., Scacnicac Roinanortim poesis fragmcnta (Leipzig 1897-18983; abbr. SRP), a n d for epic, W . M o r e l , ed., Fragmenta jwctarum latinorum cpicorum ct lyricorum p meter Enninm et Luciliutti (Stuttgart !%32).
17
It has been suggested that a speaker is here m o c k i n g the grandiose boasts o f a miles gloriosus, implying that insects— human parasites, to be precise—were all the enemies the soldier ever slaughtered in his wars. 6 This suggestion is supported by the title of the piny (" little sword "), as well as by the possibility of a pun on pedis ("louse") and pedes ("infantryman"). Gloriosi are usually accompanied by sycophants, as in Miles I. i and 1378-1387, but to have someone give them the lie, when it would raise a good laugh, was not impossible; for example, a letio mocks the bombastic list of weapons a miles has threatened him with in Cure. 577-580: at ita me uolscllac, pcctcn, speculum, calamistrum mcum bene me amassint meaque axitia linteumque cxtcrsui, ut ego tua magnufica uerba neque istas tuas magnas minas non pluris facio quam ancillam rneam quae latrinam lauat. It is easy to imagine Livius' line as being, similarly, a mocking list in response to a grandiose list. Since the time of Fcstus (230. 21-23 L) the classic parallel in Plautus t o Livius' line has been Cure. 499-500, item genus est lenonium inter homines meo quidem amino / ut muscae, culices, cimices pedesque pulicesque9 which would be doubly amusing to an alert spectator since it is spoken b y Curculio (" w e e v i l " ) himself. For Festus the parallel was in the use of pedes f o r the more common pediculi9 but of course it goes well beyond this: the alliteration (of p in Livius, of c and p in Plautus), the rhyme produced by homoeoteleuton (~es 6 H. Duentzcr, cd., L. Livii Andronici fragmenta collecta ct inlustrata (diss, licrlin
1835) 53.
18
three times in Livius, four times in Plautus), the polysyndeton (an... an in Livius, -que... -que in Plautus), as well as the whole idea of the list itself, a list recited for the fun o f the words and their sounds, n o t for the information it gives, which has countless parallels in Plautus (cf. Cure. 577-580, quoted above; Pseud. 64-68, a delightfully lascivious example of an erotic list, etc.)— these parallels show clearly that here Livius and Plautus are working in the same tradition. 7 T h e conclusion of Livius' line (responde ntihi) is an example of a Roman comic formula, one even stricter than the ex acdibus and ab acdibus formulas examined in the previous chapter. When the words responde and tnihi are used in this order, they appear only at the end of the line, both in iambic scnarii and trochaic septenarii.8 In most cases the question itself comes after the formula: e.g., Merc. 917-918, responde ntihi, / qua caussa? But three times in Plautus the question precedes the formula, as it does in Andronicus' line: e.g., Merc. 810, iam mater rure rediit? responde mihi.9 Livius' second fragment, quoted (Fcstus 444. 7-12 L) to illustrate the word sccna (an ax used in sacrifices) is from the Ludius (Com. 2 W [ 2 R 3 ] ) : corruit quasi ictus scena, haut multo secus. 7
T h e suggestion o f Ville de Mirmont, APL 183, that Plautus is here imitating Livius* line is unnecessary. For further examination o f the style o f this line see F:. Fraenkel, " Die Vorgcschichte des Versus quadratus," Hermes 62 (1927) 357-370. 8 Men. 288, Merc. 810, Most. 635, 1026; Pseud. 8 (all iambic); Amph. 848, Merc. 917 (both trochaic); Poen. 252* (a polymetric canticum, at the end o f a colon). T h e formula appears twice in Terence: Phorm. 255 (iambic) and 1042 (trochaic). 9 C f . also Amph. 848, where the main question follows, although responde mihi is preceded by quid ais?, and Most. 1026, where the question is missing from the MSS, but clearly followed the formula.
19 It is difficult to be precise about what is going o n in this line. The speaker is evidently describing the way another character (a m a n : ictus) fell over backwards in astonishment at something; as we w o u l d say, he was " poleaxed." Plautus does n o t use corruo or ruo in this figurative sense, b u t such a use is not unparalleled; Cicero, for example, says ego risu corrui in one o f his letters (QFr. 2. 9. 2). Livius' line has a rather triumphant tone, so we might assume that the astonished m a n was o n e of the standard butts of comciiy, a lerio, a sencx, or a miles gloriosus. The speaker m i g h t then be a scrims calli(hisy glorying over his triumphs, as Toxilus docs in the Pcrsa (753-762). Such a scrims perhaps played the title role in Livius' play, since Ludius (" The A c t o r " ) suggests trickery, the m a i n j o b of the scrims cnllidus; if this is true, then Plautus was n o t alone in emphasizing this aspcct of the M'<7.'° T h e expression quasi.... times in P l a u t u s : e.g., Trin. circumstnbdiit
natiem
quasi in popina,
turbines
ban scats;
hatt (or non) scats appears several 835, ita iam quasi canes, ftau sccit\ ucnti\
IWn.
835, bibitur,
Cos. 45-46, cducauit
triay J quasi si csset ex se natay tion multo scats.
J
estur
magna inks—
T h e expression
docs not appear in Terence, nor, apparently, was in classical Latin. 11
it used
JO Oil the title Ludius see Ribbeck, SRP \l 3, and Ville de Mirmont, APL 184-185. On Plautus' expansion o f the role o f the slave see Fraenkel, EPP13— 241. I have not, o f course, exhausted the possibilities o f this line. A messenger speech such as that in Amph. 1053-1130 might have been the source, or a triuin— pliant speech by a meretrix (cf. True. 20V-255); the speaker might even have a senex lepidus, chuckling over the discomfiture of an enemy, as in Pseud. 1238— 1245. Duentzer (supra p. 17, n. 6) 74 suggests that the words are spoken b) amiles gloriosus. 11 The fact that neither the ThLL nor the OLD have yet reached the word secus makes it difficult to be absolutely precise on this point, but as far as Ion tell the phrase was not used by classical Latin writers.
J 4
r Ji " 9 *) . ', ' | J *
" „ j
3
J
)'
20
The text of the next fragment (Com. 3 W [3 R 3 ]) is in a very confused state; the title of the play it comcs f r o m m a y have been Virgo.12 W a r m i n g t o n reads as follows: ornnmcnto incedunt gnobilid ignobiles. Since the time of Scaligcr 1 3 many commentators have believed that ornamcuto in this line means something like " trappings," either in the sense of a stage costume, as in Persa 159-160, TTODEV ornamenta? : : aps chorngo sumilo; j dare debet: praebemia
aediles locauerunt,
o r s i m p l y in the sense
o f an outfit, as in Stick. 172, where a disappointed parasitus says, iwinilis
ego sum
aim
ornamentis
omnibus.
But
Goctz
and Schoell 1 4 have pointed out that the w o r d is never used in the singular w i t h this m e a n i n g , only in the plural. T h e same objection w o u l d apply to Duentzer's suggestion 1? that ortumientum means ars mcrctricia, t h o u g h his interpretation (uetbii de meretrieibiis artibus
qtiibus
dicta uidentur
peritissimae
stmt
quae bltindiendi
amatores
inccmkmt)
et
alliciendi has
the
advantage of explaining the original M S reading of t h e verb, which is incendunt. R i b b e c k ' s suggestion, ormiinentiim uutem Jortitsse me/itula
est,
i n v o l v e s a use of oriuuiientmn
unparalleled (but cf. RihL uatus quid ttclim indicium
429, mat'
facit);
quoquc
w h i c h is
hie snpieuti
or-
i f h e is c o r r e c t , h e h a s c e r -
12 O n the title I'irgo see Ville de M i r m o n t . API II 3 suggests Vcrpus.
185-186; Ribbcck,
SRP
J. J. Scaliger, In Sex. Ponipei Fcsti libros dc vcrborttm signifeationc castigationes ([Heidelberg] 1593) C X I I . If Scaliger's suggestion (which is i m p l i e d in his reading of tlie text rather than stated outright) is correct, then True. 4 6 3 , uosmet iant uidctis ut ornata ineedo, is a close Platnine parallel to Livius* e x p r e s s i o n ; sec S. M a riotti, " Contributi al testo dei f r a m m c n t i scenici di N c v i o , " StudUrb 2 4 (1950) 183. 14 G. Goctz and F. Schoell, c d d . , M. Tercnti Varronis de lingua latino quae 5t
tainly made this the funniest of the surviving fragments of Livius Andronicus. 16 The line is quoted in Festus (182. 12-18 L) to demonstrate that archaic writers used the word nobilis in the sense of . notus, and began the word with a g. Festus himself cites two parallels from Plautine usage, Pseud. 964 and 592, where Plautus uses ignobilis for ignotus; there arc several other examples, e.g. Pseud. 1111-1112, cum his mihi tiec locu nee sermo / commit rteqtie is [umqtiam] nobilis fui. Nobilis never begins with a g in the surviving Plautine MSS (though nosco begins with a g in Poen. 1185), but such spellings may have been lost in transmission, as indeed Festus' were in this very example. The most important stylistic point about the line is the figura etymologica gnobilid ignobiles; such figures arc very characteristic of the Plautine style, 17 and Andronicus' example can be paralleled almost directly in Plautus; cf. Cure. 280, Dale uiaui mihi, noti [atqnc] ignoti, and especially Rud. 1043-1044, quamquam ad ignotum arbitrum me appcllis, si adhibebit jxdem, / etsi ignotust, notus: si mm, notus ignotissumust. O u r next fragment, since it is quoted in Paul us' epitome of Festus, comes without a title (Com. 4 W [4-5 R ; J): adfatim edi bibi lusi. 16 Ribbcck, SRP II 4. He spoils the effect somewhat, h o w e v e r , by rending gnobilcs for gnobilid. Lindsay, in his edition of Festus ([Leipzig 1913; repr. Hildesheim 1965] 182), obelizes the first t w o words of the fragment. Goctz and Schocll (supra p. 20, n. 14) 268 point out that theMS reading o f the author's name is leuius. The line is assigned to Nacvius by Mueller (supra p. 15, n. 3) 29, who reads Nacvius in Lycttrgo for the MS leuius in uirgo; Leo, PF 90, n. 1, agrees with Mueller. This figure is discussed in detail by H. Hafftcr, Unterstiehungm zur nltlnteinischcn Diehterspraehc (Berlin 1934) 10-43.
The preposterous notion that this line is a mistranslation of Od. 15. 373, TWV £<pay6v T5 em6v TS xat at5o£oi~ GL-J ZOOiV.y- (the speaker is Eumacus!), has by n o w been abandoned; 18 the line clearly belongs to one of Livius' comedies. Presumably the speaker had the good fortune to spend an afternoon like that of Menaechmus of Syracuse, w h o afterwards brags to the audience, in language similar to that of o u r f r a g m e n t , prandi,
potaui, scortinn accubui
(Men.
476). It is o f course impossible to claim the triad ederc bibere Ittdere for R o m a n comedy alone. Its origins must be preliterary; recorded instances go back as f i r as the notorious Persian glutton Sardanapalus, who is reported by Athenacus (Deipnosoph. 12. 530 c) to have had inscribed on his tomb ntvs, Trat^e and on another monument 19 £TUOV, fyayov, yj^poSialaaa (12. 529 f ) . There are, of course, many Plautine parallels besides the Menaechmi line just q u o t e d ; e . g . , Bacch. 646, quicutn
ego bibo, quicimi edo ct amoy
a n d Pseud.
scortantur.
1134, edunt,
bibunt,
pears with s o m e e x a m p l e s : Poen. adfatim;
Adfatim
also a p -
867, quod edis, quod antes
Poen. 534, tibi bibas, edas de alieno quantum
ueis usque
ad fatim\ a n d Men. 90-91, dttni tu illi quod edit et quod potet praebeaSy / stto arbilratu
ad fatim cottidie.
T h e s o u n d of t h e
line, with its jingling rhyme, is also very Plautine; compare the following spectacular example f r o m the liacchides (1088): stulti, stolidi, fatui, fungi, singular dedi,
perfects, Bacch.
bardi, blenni, 1080, ditxi,
buccoues, o r , w i t h f i r s t habui scortum,
potaui,
donaui.
18 For the attribution to Livius' translation o f the Odyssey see Ville de Mirliiotit, 112-113. The attribution is rejected by Leo, PF 92, n. 4, Morel (supra p. 16, n. 5) 16, and, implicitly, by W a n n i n g t o n , R O L I I 2 2 and S. Mariotti, Livio Andronico e hi traduzione artistica (Milan 1952) 92-106. 19 Leo, PF 91-92, n. 4 ; Ville dc Mirmont, APL 112-113.
For the next fragment (Com. 5 W [6-7 R 3 ]) ? which also has no title, the M S tradition is very corrupt. W a r m i n g t o n reads: ueeordc et malcfica uacerra. T h e actual reading in Festus (514. 1 L) is the unintelligible ... cordc et malcfica uecordia, but it is cited under the heading uacerra, said to b e (Paulus 513. 6 - 7 L) maledictum...
magtiae
acerbitatis. Even if Warmington's reconstruction is not precisely correct, then, we can at least assume that the q u o tation from Livius included the w o r d uacerra (" s t u m p ") and some form of itecors. Thus the original line, h o w e v e r it read, clearly showed an elaborate alliterative pattern in which not only the beginnings of words, but even the beginnings of their respective syllables, began with the same sound. 20 This pattern is a favorite with Plautus; the f o l l o w ing examples arc from a couple of pages of the Poenttlus, chosen at r a n d o m : et bene et benigne (589), nummos
numeratos
(594), leuiter Icnonibus (622", 639); the intervening vowel need not remain unchanged: cf. 6 IS, lepide liipum. Neither uecors nor uacerra appears in Plautus, t h o u g h hi does use another word, frutex, meaning " s t u m p " or" trunk " 2i (Most. 13) and' suduculum, " little stick " (Persi 419) as insults, and Livius* whole phrase, it W a r m i n g t o n ' : reading is correct, has a Plautine ring to it: cf. Versa 421 perenniserue,
lurcho,
edax, fur ax, fugax
( f r o m a scene
[405-
448] which is v e r y enlightening for^thc study of Plautinuinsults). ^ a 20 Mariotti (supra p. 22, n. 18) 39. 21 E. W . Fay, " Textual Notes and Queries o n Plautus," AJP 18 (189/rd 170, denies frutex in Most. 13 means 44 stump he suggests translating it " greer horn. "
24 The last comic 6 W [8 R •]) raises contains a small but not recognized by
fragment of Livius Andronicus (Com. a number of interesting questions. It important textual difficulty, apparently Warmington, who reads as follows:
lepus tute es; et pulpamentum quacris! (Tl IC alternate reading, accepted by Ribbeck, omits the et; this will be discussed below). The source of this line is the Scriptor Historiae Augustae k n o w n as " Vopiscus"; lie tells the story of h o w Diocletian, after killing the Praetorian Prefect Aper, vaunted over him by quoting AcneiJ 10. 830, Aetteae magni dextra cadis. Such erudition, says Vopiscus, may seem a little peculiar in a military man, but in fact it is a habit o f old soldiers to use old saws f r o m G r e e k and Latin poets, comic and otherwise. Indeed, the comic poets themselves use this habit as part of their characterization of milites (Vop., Car. 13. 5): ipsi deniquc coinici p l c r u m q u c sic milites inducunt, ut cos faciant uctcra dicta usurparc. n a m et 4 lepus tute es: p u l p a m e n t u m quaeris' Liuii Andronici dictum est, niulta alia, quae [aliaqttc Peter 2 ] Plautus Cac
T h e play in w h i c h a miles quotes the uetus dictum w h i c h Vopiscus ascribes to L i v i u s is Terence's Etumchus; to m a k e the p o i n t clear it will b e useful to q u o t e the entire i n t e r change (Eun. 422-429). G n a t h o , a parasitus, is busy playing up to his rex, the miles T h r a s o ; T h r a s o reminisces a b o u t
how he once devastated a young Rhodian with his peerless wit: una in conuiuio erat hie, qucm dico, R h o d i u s adulescentulus. forte habui scortum: coepit ad id adludcrc ct m e inridere. " q u i d a i s " incjuain hoinini " inpudens? l e p u ' tutc's, pulpainentum quaeris?" : : hahahae. : : quid est? : : facete lepide laute nil supra, tuomnc, obsecro te, h o c dictum erat? uetu' credidi. : : audieras? : : saepe, ct fcrtur in primis. : : ineumst. T h e source of this scene, according to Terence, was Menander's Colax (.Eun. 30-34), but the ultimate source of the line we are interested in was clearly a Greek proverb, quoted and explained by Diogcnianus: 2 2 Aaawo^ y.pswv C7UL TGJV reap'
&XXo>V EM£Y)T0UVTA>V a 7cap' EOCUTGW FYOU-
mv. So Donatus understood the line, paraphrasing (ad Eun. 426), quod in tc Itabcs, hoc quaeris in altera. Modern editors and translators have taken their cue from this explanation; Ashmorc 2 3 suggests, A hare art thou thyself, (yet) 9 goest thou in quest o f game? ...which was as m u c h as to say that the Rhodian was more than half a woman himself." Copley 24 translates, " 4 Hey, there, Fancy-pants/ I say, 1 are y o u a bunny, looking for your honeybun? Fraenkel 2 5 found in Livius' line an example of the 22 Corpus paroemiograph. grate., edd. E. L. von Lcutsch and F. G. Schneidewin (Gottingen 1839-1851) IV 12; citcd by D . Magic, tr., The Scriptores Historiae Augusts (LCL 1932) III 436, n. 3. 23 S. G. Ashmore, ed., The Comedies of Terence ( N e w York 19102) 135. 24 F. O. Copley, tr., The Comedies of Terence (Indianapolis 1967) 295. 25 Fraenkel, EVP 41-42. I have, in these Plautine quotations, adopted FracnkeTs method o f punctuating lines o f this sort, in which a colon rather than a comma separates the two elements. It ought to be noted that Fraenkel later had doubts
26
typically Plautine motif which he calls " identification." His examples o f this type include, among others, Merc. 361, muscast meu pater: nil potest clam ilium haberi; Pseud. 747, anguillast: elabitur; and Cas. 360-361, stimulus ego nunc sum tibi: I fodico corcultim. He suggests that the R o m a n playwrights took over this mode o f expression from popular proverbs (which, however, would consist of general observations rather than the particular situations found in the plays), and compares the edifying German adage, " D a s Leben ist cine Huhnc/leiter: es ist von oben bis unten bcschissen." On the strength of the Plautine parallels, Fraenkcl would remove the et (which is not f o u n d in the Bembinus nor in the MSS of Vopiscus) and read lepus tute es: pulpamentum quaeris? The parallel, however, is n o t quite so exact as Fraenkcl would make it out to be. T h e type muscast men pater: nil potest clam ilium haberi consists o f three parts: (a) the subject of the identification (pater), (b) the object, often an animal, with which the subject is identified (inttsca), and (c), the explanation o f the identification, the point which (a) and (b) have in c o m m o n (nil potest clam ilium haberi). T h e point of the joke is that while (a) a n d (b) appear at first to be totally unrelated, (c) provides a sudden, surprising, but perfectly natural (though sometimes a little strained) reason for identifying them with each other. H o w e v e r , if the usual explanation of pulpamentum (" the fleshy part of animals," f o o d prepared mainly from bits o f m e a t " :
about whether the line ought to be ascribed to Livius; cf. the statement in his RE article on Livius (supra p. 15, n. 1) 603: " A u f den Schwindel dcr Historia Augusta hinsichtlich des Verses Tcr. Eun. 426 ... hatte ich ... nicht hincinfallcn durfen." E. Hohl, " Uber den Urspmng dcr Historia Augusta," Hermes 5 5 (1920) 306, n. 1, believes the verse was written by Tcrcncc.
L&S s,v. pulpamentuin) is accepted — an explanation which Fraenkel w o u l d appear to follow, since he cites 26 the Greek proverb quoted above — Livius' line does not conform to this pattern. It is natural for a Hy to get into everything. It is not natural for a hare to look for meat: this is the w h o l e point of the proverb, and o f Livius* joke. T h e translations, then, by Ash more and Copley which ! have quoted above are perfectly correct; 1 cannot see where the translations quoted and criticized by Fraenkel (e.g., " du bist selbst ein Hasc u n d suchst nach W i l d p r c t " ) go wrong. Fracnkcl's 41 own paraphrase (in English, you hunt for pulpanicntinn like a hare ") simply docs n o t make any sense. The context in which Terence quotes this line in the Eitnitchus makes it clear that it was meant to be an old, hackneyed j o k e — but even old, hackneyed j o k e s must make sense, and, when properly presented (as Terence has presented this one), they can still be very funny. A t the proper time, for example, 44 you can't get there from here " is a hilarious line. W h a t we have, then, in Icpus tutc vs: pulpaincnttnn quarts is a line that resembles, though not so closely as Fraenkel would wish, a mode of expression very c o m m o n in Plautus. The fact that the subject is identified with an animal, and the pattern of the line as a whole: its w o r d order, its asyn- J deton (for I, along with all m o d e r n editors except Warmington, w o u l d join Fraenkel in rejecting the at, if only on th( strength o f the M S evidence) — all these arc typically Plautine. T h e r e is a slight difference in the way the line concludc and the j o k e is made, but this only goes to show that perhap * the tradition was a little richer than Fraenkel imagined. I t 26 Fraenkel, EPP 42, 11. 1; for the translations Fraenkel criticizes see 41, n.' f I for his o w n paraphrase see 41.
28 These six lines are all that remains of the comedies of Livius Andronicus. It would be extremely hazardous to make any guesses about the f o r m his comedies took as a whole, particularly when the surviving opera of one playwright, Plautus, can range all the way from the trimly constructed Menaechmi to the totally disjointed Stichus, and from the high-minded Captiui to the scurrilous farce Casitia. Likewise it is difficult to say very much about the metrical form of Livius' comedies; two lines, however, appear to be complete enough to t h r o w at least a little light 011 this subject. Com. 2 W (2 R 3 ), if the commonly accepted reading is correct, is an iambic senarius: corrtiit quas(i) Ictus scena, liaut nudto secus. A breve is treated as an anceps in the seventh element, the principal caesura is in its usual position, and all the laws of Latin dramatic verse are followed. T h e line includes a rare but by n o means unique example of hiatus in caesura. It would not be legitimate to generalize about Livius' metrical technique from a single example, but this is not necessary: the surviving tragic fragments p r o v e that the Greek trimeter has become, in Livius, a full-fledged iambic senarius. 27 Com. 1 W (1 R 3 ) is a perfect example of the trochaic septenarius: pulicesn(e) cm amices an pedes? responde mild. (The first syllabic of pedes is long. 28 ) As in the previous example, Greek brcvia have b e c o m e Latin ancipitia, and, as usual, the diaeresis appears after the eighth element, and all the regular laws arc followed. It is highly unlikely that 27 Qucsta, IMP 169, 124, 171; Mcttc (supra p. 15, 11. 1) 47; Leo, GRL 68. Here and elsewhere, purely for typographical convenience, I have used " ictus marks to indicate scansion. 2fl Mueller (supra p. 15. n. 3) 45.
Livius was the inventor of the trochaic septeuarias, but it is undeniable that in his handling of this meter, as with tlie senarius, he does not deviate f r o m the norms w e extrapolate f r o m Plautine usage. 29 There is n o evidence that Livius was responsible for the introduction of lyric meters into Latin comedy. There is a nice set o f cretics among the tragic fragments (Trag. 20-22 W [20-22 R 3 ], f r o m the Equos Troimms): dd mild / hdsc(e) opes qitds peto, qitcis precox! porrige, j opitidd! These are very reminiscent of Plautus in one of his higher-minded moods; cf. Cure. 147-154, especially 148, uos amoy tios nolo, uos peto atque opsecro. But it must be admitted that they arc very possibly Naevius' work, not Livius', 30 and o f course they prove nothing about Livius* metrical habits in comcdy. The comparison made in the paragraph above demonstrates clearly the danger involved in using Livius' tragic (and epic) fragments to prove anything about the style of R o m a n comedy. When Plautus uses the tragic style,31 he is always producing a parody; thus it is of course very much to his advantage to make his style sound as m u c h like that of standard tragedy as possible. Therefore it is n o t surprising that w e can discover all sorts of parallels to Livius' tragic
29 Qucsta. IMP 131; Fraenkel (supra p. IB, n. 7) 357-370. 30 So Fraenkel, N 634. The scansion I have used is that of Mcttc (supra p. 15, n. 1) 48; the lines are scanned somewhat differently, though still as cretics, by Fraenkel, EPP 328. W . B. Sedgwick, 44 The Origin and Development of Roman Comic Metres, " ClMcd 10 (1949) 180, and J. H. Waszink, " Tradition and Personal Achievement in Early-Latin Literature," Mn 13 (1960) 23, suggest that cretics were especially suited to the Italian dance called the tripudiuni. For further discussion see Fraenkel, EPP 307-353, and cf. P. W. Harsh's bibliography, 44 Early Latin Meter and Prosody 1935-1955," Lustrum 3 (1958) 215-250. 31 For discussion and examples o f Plautus' use o f the tragic style see Leo, PF 132-137, and A. Thierfelder, 44 Plautus und romische Tragodic," Hermes 74 (1939) 155-166.
30
style in Plautus, nor w o u l d it be very enlightening if we were to list them. Furthermore, the tragic, and particularly the epic fragments of Livius Andronicus have already been studied at great length, 3 2 and, of course, they lie outside the scope of this investigation. B u t it is difficult to resist taking a ijnick look at o n e or t w o examples, which the possibility of direct comparison with the original or with another Latin version o f the same w o r k makes especially interesting. W h e t h e r or not Livius* tragedy Aegis thus was a direct source for Seneca's Agamemnon,33 there is o n e point in particular where the t w o plays offer a very interesting example of h o w poets from t w o different periods handle the same material. The fragment from Livius (Trag. 2-4 W [2-4 R3j) appears to come f r o m a messenger speech describing the return of the Greeks f r o m T r o y : nam ut Pergania aciensa et praeda per participes acquitcr partita est. T h e opening lines of Eurybates* speech in Seneca 421422) are very similar: ut Perganunn omtic Dorica cecidit face, / I/W/*«/ i>i,n(lii O'/, titarii! jnojunintes jutiint. Modi SCIMV i and 32 Studies of Livius' tragedy and epic, besides those already cited, include L:. Hickel, " Die Skyrier des Euripides und dcr Achilles des Livius Andronicus," RUM 86 (1937) 1-22, I. Bonelli, L'Odyssia di Livio Andromco (Koine 1951), H. Fraenkel, 44 Griechische Bildung in altromischcn Epen: 1 Livius Andronicus als ^Uberscczcr," Hermes 67 (1932) 303-308, R M. Sanford, ' ' T h e Tragedies ofLjvms 18 I (1222^1923) 274-285. and M. Verrusio, Livio Androtiico e In sun traduzione dcW'Qdissca omerica (Naples 1952). For a recent discussion of the meter used by Livius in his translation of the Odyssey, see T . Cole, " T h e Saturuiau Verse," YCS 21 (1969) 1-73, which includes a full account of* earlier theories. 33 O. Ribbcck, Die romischc Tragodie im Zeitalter dcr Rcpublik (Leipzig 1875; repr. I lildoshcim 1968) 28-31; Villc de Mirmont, APL 147.
31 Livius use alliteration here (indeed, Seneca sometimes overdoes it, as in 960, nisi forte fallor, feminas ferritin deeet). But it is interesting to note how Livius, hut not; Seneca, has taken advantage of the possibility for a figura ctymologica: pet participes... partita. T h e similarity in sound of the first two syllables of the opening and closing words of Livius* second line (aecensa ... actjuitcr) is also noteworthy; the pattern repeated in the opening line of Livius* translation of tin Odyssey (Od. 1 W [1 M]): ttirtim inihi, Ctwiena, iuscci uersutum,34 The longest single fragment ot Livius' Odyssey (OJ 23-26 W [20 M]), n a m que nullum pcius macerat humanum quamde marc saeuum; uires cui sunt magnae topper confrigent inportunae undac, is an expanded t(
version of Od. 8.138-139,
) f j j j . u JlaA'/aavj^ j
Mpa
ye
n
d
v:
ptdXa xaprep&s clvj. Leo 35 argues that Livius* amplificatior (which he notes were suggested by other verses in tli same Homeric passage) add nothing to the poetry of tli original. Mariotti, 3 6 however, believes that they heightc the p.illioN ol the d o t lipiioii. poi <»m pui|ui\e\ wh.it most noteworthy is the way one of them, iiiporttun undae, adds an onomatopoetic assonance not found i Homer's lines. Expansion for similar reasons is found Od. 18 W (16 M ) : igitur d e m u m Ulixi cor frixit prae pauore, 34 Marioiti (supra p. 22, n. 18) 35-41. 35 Leo, />/• 91. 36 Mariocci (supra p. 22, n. 18) 47-48.
32 a version of Od. 5. 297, xal 'OSUCKT/JOS XTKO ywivata xal 9CX0V ^rop. N o t e Ulixi ... frixit and the alliteration in f / w p a u o r e v These examples from Livius' tragic and epic poetry suggest that the sound figures which are so c o m m o n in Plautine comcdy, and w h i c h we found in Livius' six comic fragments as well, were, e v e n at this early date, a firmly established feature of Latin literary style. Livius Andronicus is c o m m o n l y honored by literary historians as the founder o f Latin literature, but recent research has shown that the date usually assigned to his first dramatic production, 240 B . C . , m a y be 110 m o r e than the result of a chronological confusion dating back to the first century B.C.* 8 It is entirely possible, then, that Livius was not a pioneer, though the question o f his precise date can hardly be called settled at the m o m e n t . O u r immediate task, however, is to p r o v i d e a descriptive rather than a genetic account o f the R o m a n comic style. F r o m this point o f view Livius Andronicus remains highly significant w h a t ever his place in history. O n l y six f r a g m e n t s o f his comedies survive, hut these six p r o v i d e a h o s t of parallels to Plautine usage in diction, sound-effects, m e t e r , and perhaps even characterization. These s t r o n g resemblances m a k e a striking prima Jacic case for the stylistic u n i t y of the comocdia palliata.
37 Mariotti (supra p. 22, n. 1 8 ) 41 (and 4 1 , n. 1). 38
For the difficulties o f the 2 4 0 B . C . date see H. B. Mattingly, M T h e Date o f Livius Andronicus," C Q N . S . 7 (1957) 1 5 9 - 1 6 3 , G. Marconi, " L a cronologia di Livio A n d r o n i c o / ' McmLinc Scr. 8 a 1 2 . 2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) 125-213, and Mattingly's review o f Marconi in Gnomon 43 (1971) 6 8 0 - 6 8 7 ; see a l s o F. Stossl, " Darstcllungsprobleme dcr antiken Litcraturgeschichtc," VVS 76 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 109-123. For a g o o d statement o f the traditional j u d g m e n t o f L i v i u s , see P. Grimal, 14 La signification historique dc Pocuvrc cpique de Livius A n d r o n i c u s , " REL 31 (1953) 32-33.
Ill
NAEVIUS
" In Cn. Naevius we have a man of strong, vivicl and passionate temperament. He is tlie earliest Italian w h o m we feel w e know as a human being." Such sentiments arc shared by m a n y commentators on R o m e ' s second playwright. 1 Naevius' biography, with its stories of violent and outspoken literary and political polemics, is fascinating, and the attention that has been devoted to it is inevitable and justifiable. 2 But it is also seductive, and, as w e shall see, it can be misleading when allowed to interfere w i t h the main object of philological research, the explication of the text of w h a t survives of Naevius' epic and dramatic poetry. Naevius probably began his artistic activity in 235 B.C., five years after Livius Andronicus' first production, though this date is open to question. 3 As a dramatist he concentrated 1 Beare, RS 33. Similarly Leo, GRL 92; S. Sabbadini, Pocti la/itii: Ncvio (Udinc 1935) 11-12; Duckworth, NRC 40; and Warmington, ROL II xiv. 2 An imaginative and fascinating reconstruction o f the life and times of Nacvius appears in Marmorale, NP 15-143; this must be read, however, in conjunction withO^Skutsch's review in CR N^S-jjl351.ll7A-177.. See further 1.1. Hartman, " D e versu notissimo naeviano," Mn 48 (1920) 152-153; G. Jachmann, 14 Nacvius und die Meteller," Antidoron: Festschrift J. Wackcrnagel (Gottingen 1923) 181-189; T . Frank, " Naevius and Free Speech," AJP 48 (1927) 105-110; W . Kroll, "Der Tod des Nacvius," Hermes 66 (1931) 469-472; Sabbadini (supra n. 1) 7-34; Fraenkel, N 622-626; H. T. Rowell, " T h e ' Campanian ' Origin o f C . Nacvius and its Literary Attestation/' MAAk 19 (1949) 15-34; H. B. Mattingly, "Nacvius and the Metclli," Historic 9 (1960) 414-439; and H. D. Jocclyn, " T h e Poet Cn. Nacvius, P. Cornelius Scipio and Q. Caecilius Mctellus," Antichthon 3 (1969) 32-47. 3 The sourcc for the date is Gcllius (17.21.44-45), w h o says Nacvius put on
47
mainly on comedy: we have the titles of about thirty plays, of winch over 130 lines survive. Though almost none of these fragments were chosen because of their style, as a group they show a very close affinity in language, subject matter, and poetic technique to the comedies of Plautus. There even seems to have been a certain amount of confusion between the t w o playwrights a m o n g the scholars of antiquity. The question o f how the canons o f the R o m a n comic playwrights were established is one that I shall examine in detail in the next chapter; here, however, it is worth noting that four titles (Carbonaria, Colax, Fretilin, and Ncrttolaria) were assigned to both playwrights, one (Colax) as far back as the time of Terence. 4 T h o u g h this may only be evidence of collaboration o r of a Plautine retractio of Nacvius' work, 5 an equally likely explanation is that the ancients found it difficult to tell the difference between the t w o playwrights at times. It is possible to make reasonably reliable guesses about the contents o f many of Nacvius' comedies, but with one play we are particularly fortunate. This is the Tarentilla; enough fragments of it survive to allow us to outline most of the p b t in some detail; it also happens to be the source of the longest comic fragment o f Naevius, and another fragment of it illustrates the dangers of allowing Naevius' biography to have an undue influence 011 the interpretation his first plays in A . U . C . 519. This is usually interpreted as 235 B.C., but it may have been 231 B.C., depending on what chronology Gellius was using. Cf. Gell. 4.3.2, and see O. Leiize, " Das synchronistische Kapitel ties Gellius (Noct. Att. XVII 21)," RhM 66 (1911) 237-274 and G. D'Anna, 44 Contribute) alia cronologia dei poeti Iatini arcaici III: Quando csordl Cn. Nevio? " RendlstLomb 88 (1955) 301-310. 4 Eun. 25, Colacctn esse Naeui, et Plauti ueterem fabulam. See L. Mueller, cd., Livi Andronici et Cn. Naevi fabularum reliquiae (Berlin 1885) 61-62, 64. 5 So Beare, RS 37, and W. B. Sedgwick, " T h e Origin and Development of Roman Comic Metres," ClMed 10 (1949) 176; see Gell. 3.3.13.
35 of his text. For these reasons I shall begin with an examination of all the surviving fragments of the Tarcntilla, at the same time pointing out the many parallels with Plautine comic technique which this play affords. The title of the play apparently means " the little girl from Tarentum," 6 a meretrix w h o is the central figure in the comedy. She is described in the following lines (Cm. 74-79 W [75-79 I V ] ) : 7 quasi pila in choro ludens datatim dat se et communcm facit. alii adnutat, alii adnictat, alium amat, alium tenet, alibi manus est occupata, alii pcrucllit pedem; anulum dat alii spectandum, a labris alium inuocat, cum alio cantat, at tamen alii suo dat digito litteras. A fragment from Antiphanes, a Middle-Comedy poet, describing a ball game, offers an interesting opportunity for comparing the style of a Greek and a R o m a n comic playwriglit as they deal with somewhat similar material (234 Kj:
1 J
o^aipav Xapojv TC») FX&V STSOU; £/<XLP£, T&V TOU 8' i^ixpouos, xXayxTaZat
I^SLTF' 5(IA,
TOV 8' aviar/JAEV
7iaXiv,
cpoyj<xl$
(Jiaxpav, nocp1 < X U T 6 V , U R A P A U T ^ V , xaTO), &vco, Ppa£c£av arc68oaiv eYxaTacrTP^(Pe'6 44 Hut Tarcntilla m a y be a personal n a m e M : W a r m i n g t o n , ROL II 98, :i,t 7 Isidore o f Seville, w h o quotes this passage (Orig. 1 . 2 6 . 2 L), assigns it to Emim;
g
h o w e v e r , since o n e o f the lines (76) is also q u o t e d b y the more reliable Paului (26.14-15 L) and ascribed b y h i m to Naevius, scholars have generally agreedilil Naevius was the author o f the w h o l e passage. T h e problem is discussed supersunt versus ennianis
by
M.
Galdi,
14
rcliquis ascribendi
See W a r m i n g t o n , ROL Num
qui
dc
Tarcntilla
sunt," Athenaeum
II 99, U comdii
5 (1927) 6^1
I ,
36
Marmorale is surely mistaken when, in comparing the two, he speaks of the greater " freshness " a n d " vivacity " of the Naevian passage. 8 Antiphanes' lines are quoted by Athenaeus (Dciptiosoph. 1.15) for their description of the ball game k n o w n as phninituh — a favorite of his, says Athenaeus — a n d the passage ccrtainly gives a very clear picture of this game: we can see the player making his various feints w i t h the ball and hear him shouting out his deceptive calls. Language per se is secondary: fyoupe and ^ e u y ' can scarcely be called word play, and the TCT> PLV . . . TOV 8 ' . . . TOU 8* ... succession is relatively unobtrusive. Naevius' lines, b y contrast, are quoted by Isidore of Seville (1.26 L) more for their style than their c o n t e n t : though ostensibly, like Athenaeus, Isidore is using a quotation f r o m a c o m e d y in order to illustrate a certain kind o f physical activity (finger signals: notac digiform), only the last line o f the quotation has a n y t h i n g to do with this. Like a g o o d Latin writer, Isidore seems more interested in the words themselves than in w h a t they portray. And this is understandable, since the words themselves are certainly w h a t interested N a c v i u s most as he c o m p o s e d these lines. This concentration o n l a n g u a g e as an object^ o f interest in itself, a m a j o r f c a t u r e ~ o f T ^ t m ^ c a n best be iUiistratcd~by^citnig sonic of t h e many stylistic parallels t o this passage w h i c h can be f o u n d in Plautus. M a r m o r a l e s suggestion t h a t Plautus i m i t a t e d the passage is misleading, but the parallels he cites are e n l i g h t e n i n g ; 9 t h e y include 8 Marmorale, N P 220. 9 Marmorale, NP 220-221 (I a m i n d e b t e d to Marmorale f o r several o f t h e parallels cited in t h e remainder o f this chapter); A. E r n o u t ^ e i i ^ i ^ ^ ^ latins archaiqucs (Paris 19572) 144, suggests AS a pafallcTtHe w h o l e passage f r o m the Asinaria (775-786).
37 Cure. 296, turn isti qui hidunt datatim serui scurrarum in uia; Asin. 784, neque ilia ulli homini nutet, nictet, adnuat and 778, spectandum ne quoii anulum det neque rogct; and Merc. 407, contcmpknty conspiciatrt oinnes, nutent, nictent, sibilenL Rather than imitation, w h a t we have here is c o m m o n phraseology (iludere datatim), c o m m o n subject-matter (giving a ring as a love-token), and a c o m m o n fascination w i t h words which have a similar sound and a roughly similar meaning. The common subject-matter is probably due to a c o m m o n source, the Nea; the other similarities belong to the R o m a n comic style. O n e fact is particularly n o t e w o r t h y : all the examples cited, both Naevius' and Plautus', occur in a negative context: Curculio is listing various trouble-makers w h o m he would like to sec done away with, the t w o lines f r o m the Asinaria are f r o m a " contract " which stipulates w h a t the speaker's mistress is not to do, in the Mercator the speaker is outlining the annoyances suffered by a respectable matron who has a pretty maidservant, and Naevius' lines describe a girl of w h o m the speaker thoroughly disapproves (dc quadani inpudica, as Isidore says). But in each case the playwright has allowed his love of language to run away with him to such an extent that it is the sparkling merriment of the words, rather than the moral disapproval they arc intended to convey, which sticks in the reader's m i n d . The most notable stylistic feature of Naevius' lines is the repetition of various forms of alius at the beginning and after the diaeresis of each septenarius; Fraenkel 1 0 aptly compares the similar anaphora, this time with quanta, in Capt. 903-905: quanta pernis pestis ueniet, quanta labes larido, /
10 Fraenkel, N 630, to whom I am indebted for a number o f the remaining \ Plautine parallels.
38 quanta sumini apsumedo, quanta callo calamitas, / quanta laniis lassitudo, jKtffita porcinariisl Here, too, Plautus has joined pairs of words together primarily for the sake of their echoing sound (pernis pestis, labes larido, etc.), a procedure perhaps paralleled in Naevius* perplexing peruellit pedem.n Repetitions of alius forms are also found in Plautus: for example, Trin. 535-536, alii exsulatum abierunt, alii cmortui, / alii se suspendcrc. This passage and the other surviving fragments allow us to reconstruct the plot of the Tarentilla with a reasonable degree of certainty. T w o young men are having a happy (and high-priced) time in a foreign city (80-81 W), no doubt Tarentum, and no doubt with the Tarentilla, the little girl f r o m Tarentum herself, who is surely the subject of the description we have been examining above. There was at least one scene of frolicsome conviviality on the stage (72, 84-85 W). Unfortunately, all this is cut short by the appearance of the young men's fathers (80-81 W ) , w h o come to 41 rescue 99 them f r o m their dissipated life. Fathers and sons have a thoroughly unpleasant confrontation (82, 83, 86-87 W ) , and the young men are subjected to some weighty moralizing (90-91 W ) . Precisely h o w the play ends is a subject I shall discuss later, A banqueting scene is suggested by Com. 72 W (81 R 3 ) : utrubi cenaturi estis, hicine an i n triclinio? The plural w o u l d indicate that b o t h young men are being addressed. Parallel expressions in Plautus include Stick. 750, utrubi accumbo? :: utrubi tu uis? and Merc. 750, n On this phrase sec A. Traina, 44 Pcrvcllit pedem (Nacv. com. 78 Ribb.3)," Miscellanea oritxea Tewtrter (Leipzig 1965) II 343-3149.
52
non estis cenaturi? T h e word triclinium does n o t occur m Plautus — a reminder of the standard street-front stage set of the N e w C o m e d y and the incongruities, such as outdoor feasting, that this sometimes led to, as in the Stichus, thf Mostellaria, and the Persa. In Naevius' line, then, hicin probably means " in front o f the house." T h e Tarentill herself may have been the speaker; compare a similar invito tion from a Plautine rncrctrix (True. 359): salue. hicinc hodi cenas, saluos quom aducnis? At least one of the young men seems to have emerge^ f r o m the banquet somewhat the worse for wear, judging f r o m the following fragment (Com. 84-85 W [82 R 3 ] ) : atattatae! caue cadas amabo! Ribbcck 12 cites an exchange in Plautus between the drunk* Callidamates and his mistress D e l p h i u m : Most. 324, dtice i* amabo. :: caue [HC] cadast asta\ this illustrates clearly enoujl what is going on in Naevius' line. Since amabo " is u?( only by women in Plautus ... or by men in address'1! w o m e n , " Warmington's suggestion that the line is address b y one o f the y o u n g men to the other is incorrect: b speaker is again probably the Tarentilla. 13 Such scenes^ drunkenness were a favorite with Plautus. The scene ft1 the Mostellaria already cited is the locus classicus; cf. ^ Pseud. V. i-ii, w i t h a line (1296-7) which reminds us< 12 Ribbeck, SRP II 23. On die strength o f the Plautine parallel he fl caue (tie) cadas amabo, w h i l e Lindsay brackets the rte in the Plautine line causa: app. crit.). 13 E. A. Sonnenschein, ed.f T. Macci Plauti Mostellaria (Oxford 19072) 8M Warmington, ROL II 101. Exceptions to the amabo rule occur only whe!' speaker or the person addressed is literally or figuratively playing the part 0 woman: c f . Cas. 917-918 and Asirt. 707.
•10 Naevius': molliter sis tent me, caue ne cadant: non uides me at madide madeam?, and the concluding scenes of the Versa and the Sticluis. Other verbal parallels include Bacch. 44, id, amaho te, huic caueas and Cas. 634, ne cadam, amabo, tene me. T h e symposium of the two young men and the Tarentilla may have taken place in the triclinium; if it did, this would offer a beautiful opportunity for a dramatic entrance by their fathers: the sons g o in to carouse, leaving an empty stage, and then their two stern fathers arrive in a rage. At any rate, it is clear f r o m the following fragment that the sons arc not o n the stage when their fathers first appear {Com. 80-81 W [83-84 R*]): ubi isti d u o adulescentes habent qui hie ante parta patria peregre prodigunt? Note that these lines are i n senarii, and therefore a capella, while the Tarentilla's invitation (72 W ) was in septenarii, accompanied by flute m u s i c : a most effective use of music, and the lack of it, to indicate a change in m o o d ; Plautus, too, o f t e n uses this technique. 1 4 T h e use of habere for habitare is of course c o m m o n in P l a u t u s ; Trin. 193, ubi nunc adulescens habet?, provides a close parallel t o Naevius' expression. For the strong alliteration in N a e v i u s ' second line compare Trin. 1146, atque eum [a] me lege populi patrium posceret. T h e meter switches b a c k to septenarii w h e n the fathers and sons meet, as the f o l l o w i n g words o f greeting show (Com. 82 W [86 R^]): salui et fortunati sitis d u o d u u m nostrum patres! Illustrated in the Captiui b y W . M . Lindsay, cd.. The Captiui of Plautus (London 1900; repr. Cambridge 1961) 212, 273. On the importance, and autonomy, of the individual scene in Plautus see Fraenkel, EPP 307-309.
41
A very close Plautine parallel, both in the words used and in their position in the line, appears in Aul 182, also in septenarii, saluos atque fortunatus, Euclto, semper sies\ compare also Foeru 623, fortunati omnes sitis. T h e sons' nervous bravado, n o t surprisingly, fails to impress their fathers, one of w h o m says (Cow. 83 [87 R 3 ]): ei ei! etiamne audent m e c u m una apparere? There are n o direct parallels in Plautus to the diction of this line, though of course the use of alliteration is familiar, and the phrase mecum una appears a number of times (e.g., Cure. 653, hunc seruaui semper mecum una anulum). T h e fathers apparently leave after this confrontation; one of the sons expresses his regret at his daring, perhaps in a soliloquy (Com. 86-87 W [88-89 R 3 ] ) : qua, p r o ! confidentia ausus uerbum cum eo fuerim facere rursus? W a r m i n g t o n ' s assertion that one of the fathers is the speaker here is incorrect, and his translation (" ...what self-assurance, d a m n it, m a d e me bold enough to have a w o r d with him again?") is inaccurate. 15 T h e exclamation pro expresses " w o n d e r or lamentation " (L&S s.v. pro); therefore Marmorale's translation, 44 ohime," is more accurate, and Mueller's suggestion that a son is speaking is correct. 16 There are n o examples of pro used independently in Plautus; otherwise Naevius' diction is reproduced v e r y closely in Persa 39-40, qua conjidentia rogare tu a med argenti tantum audes, / inpudens? 15 Warmington, ROL II 103. » 16 Marmorale, NP 222; Mueller (supra p. 34. n. 4) 67.
-Ji-
lt is difficult to tell w h o is the speaker in the next fragment (Com. 88-89 W
[90-91 K 3 ]):
n u m q u a m quisquam amico amanti arnicanimis fiet fidelis, nec nimis erit morigera et "{"nota| quisquam. Despite the textual problem in the second line, the general meaning is clear enough. But the implications of the words, more important than their literal meaning, depend on who the speaker is. One commentator 1 7 has suggested that a Ictui is here lecturing a young meretrix, who, with foolish obstinacy, insists on remaining faithful to one man. A parallel situation occurs in Most. 188-190, where Scapha warns Philematium: tu ecastor crras quae quitlem ilium exspectes umitn atque illi / morem praecipue sic geras atque alios asperneris. j matronac, non mcretricium est unum inseruire arnantem. Similar sentiments are expressed by the lena in Cist. 78-81. Given the description of the meretrix in the first fragment we examined (74-79 W ) , however, this interpretation seems improbable — though we must allow f o r prejudice on the part of the speaker of that fragment, w h o was probably one of the fathers. W a r m i n g t o n maintains that the lines are the 44 warning of a f a t h e r " ; 1 8 N e w C o m e d y fathers, however, are generally m o r e worried about their sons' wasting money than breaking their hearts over an unfaithful mistress. Mueller's explanation, verba Tarentillae desertae,19 is most appealing: it w o u l d give an attractive tough-mindedness to the Tarentilla, w h o would then stand out as the heroine of the piece, blithely indifferent both to the blustering fathers and to their timid sons. 17 M. Ziciri, " Schcdae sex/' Philologus 102 (1958) 154. 18 Warmington, ROL II 103. Mueller (supra p. 34, n. 4) 67.
43 The word-play, repetition, and alliteration in this f r a g ment are of course typically Plautine, particularly i n the first line. Parallels include Men. 447, numquam quicqiwn jacinus feci; Bacch. 194, aniniast arnica amanti: si abest, mlius est; Pseud. 673, hie argentum, hie arnica amanti erili filio; 239, nam ecastor numquam sati dedit suae quisquatn aniicae aviator; Persa 55, nam numquam quisquatn meoruni maiown juit; and many more. The implication that a w o m a n shoidu be morigera to her husband or lover is typically R o n n n ; i Cas. 897-8, satin morigera est?; Amph. 842, til)i nioripra dtque ut munijica sim bonis; and Men. 202, quaudo una lints ttteis morigera moribus.20 A possible ending to the play is suggested by the following fragment, spoken by o n e of the fathers (Com. 90-91 ^ [92-93 R 3 ] ) : p r i n i u m ad uirtutem ut redeatis, abeatis ab ignauia, d o m o s patris patriam ut colatis potius quam peregri protja.
j
Ribbeck reads domi in the second line instead of dots;
j
Fraenkel agrees, remarking that the emendation strengths the domi: peregri contrast; this is paralleled, for exaniffc, in Amph. 352, bene facit: quia nos eramus peregri, tutatustU1 Almost universally, commentators agree that these lies show that the two young scapegraces return to the patbf virtue under the guidance of their fathers. 2 2 A siitf
^
) ) p i
20 G. Williams, " IRS 48 (1958) 19-20, 21 Ribbeck, SRP 22 Ribbeck, SRP
Some Aspects o f Roman Marriage Ceremonies and Ida 28-29. II 25; Fraenkel, N 630. II 21; Marmorale, NP 170; Warmington, AOL Mi
^ 9
£
by his headings and arrangement o f the fragments, w o u l d seem to i n d i c a t e & he shares this belief; Sabbadini (supra p. 33, n. 1) 65 believes that there was"uo ^ probability" that fathers and sons were reconciled. Mueller (supra p. 34,J.) 65 hedges: patres advcncrc ad rcducctidos donnmt Jilios. £
44
warning, in this ease followed by die adulcscens addressed, i> found isi Din. 650, cape sis uirtutan animo ct conic cxpcllc desidiam tuo. But we should also compare the (surviving) opening scene o f the Bacchides, where Pistoclerus, after some resistance, succumbs to the blandishments of the mcretrices. if Charisius5 quotation (221. 11 K) of line 85, rapidus fiutiius est hie, non hac teniere transiri potest, and Donatus' quotation (ad Ad. 470) o f lines 87-88, quiet istoc inlecebrosius / Jieri nil potest: nox, mulier, uinuin homini adulescentulo, were all that survived of this scene, we might be convinced that Pistoclerus resisted temptation, and that here, too, as M a r m o r a l c says of Naevius' lines, " domina una sana morale." 23 B u t of course we k n o w that Pistoclerus does fall, and n o t only that, hut his friend and both their righteous fathers fall to the Bacrhis sisters as well. I cannot, therefore, share the commentators' certainty that the fathers in Naevius w o n out (and of course, being of the Devil's — and the T a r e n tilla's — party, I rather hope they did not). As for the style of the passage, Fraenkel 2 4 n o t e s h o w the two cola o f the second septenarius f o r m a contrasting pair, with potins quam joining t h e m ; Plautus also follows this scheme, as in Asin. 192, quia nobis lucro fuisti potius quam dccori tibi. T o FracnkcTs examples can be added Cas. 268, ut enim Jrtigi seruo detur potius quam seruo inprobo; Most. 846-7, quidquid est, errabo potius quam perductet quispiam (see also Rud. 621 and Cist. 533); like Naevius' line, all these arc septenarii. The last substantial f r a g m e n t o f the Tarentilla is its m o s t puzzling (Com. 69-71 W [72-74 R 3 ] ) :
23 Marmoralc, NP 2 4 Fraenkel, N 630.
43.
45
quae ego in theatro hie meis probaui plausibus, ca noil audcrc quemquam regeni rumperc, qua 11 to libertatem hanc hie superat scruitus. The political interpretation usually assigned to these lines; conceals a tacit — and unwarranted —- assumption that Nae-j vius is here somehow speaking in propria persona; the speaker,^ however, is probably a puer or an ancilla in the Tarcntilla'sj household, and the butt of the speech is no d o u b t one or1 the aduksccntes who arc making fools of themselves over the meretrix. If this is correct, the general import of the lines would be, " W h e n I say something no one can make m e change my mind, but m y mistress can w r a p this socalled * free ' man around her little finger." I have tried elsewhere 25 to demonstrate in detail that the conjmoii assumptiorTlHatlKe speech contains a conccaic^d_complaint a g a i n s t prior censorship in the R o m a n theater has no basis in fact. Overcm^TasTs'^l)iograpKy, especially the j u b i o u s jjjory^of Nacvius' imprisonment for insulting R o m a n leaders o . in his plays (Gell. 3.3.15]>, has caused commentators to misconstrue the lines, which arc n o more than a typicaLcxaniple o f a comic slave's boasting. Nacvius is here using regent (line 7 0 j in the usuahPhrnfuic way, as a hyperbolic metaphor f o r a v e r y i m p o r t a n t m a n ; cf. Stich. 287, si rex opstabit regem ipstnn priu
obitiam,
peruortito.26
25 J. Wright, M Nacvius, Tarcntilla Fr. I (72-74 R J ) " R h M 115 (1972) 239242; a bibliography o f the problem is included in the notes to this article; the comments o f W. Suerbaum, Untcrsuclmngen zur Selbstdarstcllutig dlterer romischer Dichtcr (Hildcshcim 1968) 29-31, were especially useful. C. Dziatzko, "Zur Kritik utul Exegese tier griechischen und lateinischcn Komikcrfraginente," R/i/Vf
JJ II j |
31 (1876) 376-377, l o n g ago objected to the standard explanation o f the fragment. \ 26 Fraenkel, EPP 178-187, maintains that rex was not used in this way at Athens in the time o f the Nta, and that dierefore these passages do not derive
|
46
The most interesting stylistic feature of this fragment is the fact that there is alliteration of the final words in three successive lines. Plautus accomplished this tour de force m a n y times, 27 but he really outdid himself in Cist. 150-157, w h e r e such alliteration continues, with only one interruption, through eight lines: satin uix relicjuit deo quod loqueretur loci, ita properauit de puellae proloqui suppositione. q u o d si tacuisset, tamen ego eram dicturus, d e u , qui poteram planius. nam mihi Auxilio est nomcn. n u n c opcram date, ut ego argumentum hoc uobis plane pcrputem. fuere Sicyoni iam diu Dionysia. mcrcator uenit h u e ad ludos Lemnius... Three brief scraps of the Tarcntilla also survive. Com. 73 W (85 R 3 ) , uereor serio, might have been spoken by o n e of the sons, nervous at the thought o f his father's arrival, or perhaps b y one o f the fathers, w o r r y i n g about what his son was doing to his reputation; cf. Trin. 738-739, uerum hoc ego uereor tie istaec pollicitatio / te in crimen populo ponat atque mfamiam. Serio does not appear w i t h uereor in Plautus, though it is coupled with tnetuo in Rud. 1045-1046, serio edepol ... metuo. Corn. 92 W (80 R 3 ) , jacete et defricate, is difficult to understand, since defricate is a hapax legomenon; Warmington 28 translates it " j c a t h i n g l y " on t h e strength of Hor., Sat. 1.10.3-4 ([Lucilius] sale multo urbcm defricuit), from die Greek originals; counter-arguments are offered by P. W . Harsh, " P o s sible Greek Background for the Word Rex as U s e d in Plautus and T e r e n c e / ' CP 31 (1936) 62-68. 27
See Baceh. 815-817; Persa 135-137; Pseud. 889-991, 1089-1091; Rud. 109; Trin. 77-79; and True. 352-354. 28 Warmington, ROL II 103 and n. b.
107-
47
which would suggest that the phrase describes a tonguelashing (presumably by one of the fathers); however, the adverb facete in Plautus is always connected with clever, and unscrupulous, speaking ability, as in Persa 455, hnc ego rem exorsus sum facete et callide, and Miles 1141, nim facete nimique facunde malas. Hence it w o u l d seem more likely that a speech b y a mcretrix or a seruits is being described. Finally, pallucidum (or pcllucidum, Catal. p. 597 W [933 R3]) may mean 44 diaphanous," thereby giving us one more interesting glimpse of the Tarentilla; appealing though this is, however, it must be admitted that the w o r d is no more than an unlikely conjecture based in the M S S ' pacui dtufl.2g The remaining fragments of Naevius 1 comedies are too sparse and scattered to permit the detailed investigation t h t is possible for the Tarentilla. A good deal of additional information about Naevius* style and dramatic technique, however, can be gathered from w h a t survives. As I have already mentioned in the previous chapter, Fraenkel 30 recognized in the strengthening of the rolcof the slave a feature characteristic of Plautine comcdy. Naevius likewise showed this predilection: this is demonstrated b y his use of slave names f o r the titles of t w o comedies, h e Lampadio and the Stalagmus (both used as names of i v e s / in Plautus: Lampadio in the Cistellaria and Stalagmw i r t / the Captiui). O t h e r titles suggest trickery, the t r a d f c a ! province, of course, of the scrims callidus (Dolus, Tcckm) , I or slave-punishment (Stigmatias). But titles alone d o o t | complete the picture, when we recall that two of Plrnus* most memorable sertti callidi, Chrysalus a n d Tranio, x . in plays whose titles give no indication o f their rok'tlxc:/ -
29 Skutsch (supra p. 33, n. 2) 176. 3° Fraenkel, EPP 223-241; on Naevius see Fraenkel, N 631.
*
48 liacchides and the Mostellim. Therefore it is not surprising to find in Naevius' Triphallus (die title o f which may suggest a good deal, but certainly not a scrims callidus) the following passage (Com. 94-96 W [96-98 R 3 ] ) : umquani si quicquam filium resciuero argentum amoris causa sumpse inutuum, cxtemplo te illo ducam ubi non despuas. The words arc clearly those of a senex to his slave (as the threat of punishment in the last line shows) regarding his son (filium: 94). 31 W i t h a son in love, an irate and stingy father, and a clever slave, w e can immediately imagine the whole plot of the play, so c o m m o n in Plautus, the Pscudolus being the classic example. T h e only tiling we d o not k n o w is what trick the scrims used to get the money f r o m the old man, though surely the play's title has something to d o with it. The situation o f Plautus9 S i m o in the Pscudolus is identical; forewarned about his son's situation, he confidently says to Pscudolus (504-506): quid nunc agetis? nam hinc quidctn a me non potest / argentum auferri, qui praesertim senscrim. / ne quisquam credat minimum iant edicam omnibus. T h e efforts of Nacvius* senex w e r e no d o u b t equally ineffectual. Likewise another Naevian title, the Agitatoria, contains no hint of the senilis callidus w h o undoubtedly f i g u r e d in it, as two fragments show. In the first, the slave w h o is certainly the speaker challenges his master with a t h o r o u g h l y Plautine arrogance (Com. 7 W [14 R 3 ] ) : 32 sccus si u m q u a n i q u i c q u a m feci, carnificem c e d o . n As Marmoralc, N1* 224 suggests. 32 Sabbadini (supra p. 33, n. 1) 61-62 claims diat this and the following two fragments refer to Nacvius* imprisonment and his battle for free spcech; this is an cxrcllent example o f the misuse of biographical tradition.
49
This self-assurance reminds us of the professional swindler Simia, w h o brags to Pscudolits (Pseud. 950), nisi ecjecero, cruciabiliter
carnufex
me accipito.
" T h e uncommonly
large
number of references to the punishment of slaves [in the plays of Plautus]/' says one critic, 33 " is a significant Plautine characteristic, without real precedent in New C o m e d y and virtually absent in the plays of Terence." This fragment, along with the one that follows, shows that this " Plautine " preoccupation was shared by Naevius as well. Again, a slave is the speaker (Com. 8 W (13 R 3 ] ) : nimio arte colligor.
cur re inquacsita colligor?
Skutsch has offered an attractive emendation for this line; he would read nimio arte collor: cur re inquacsita colligor? Widi this reading, as he says, " T h e first sentence makes a playfully vague proposition, which is explained in the question/' 34 Such joking on the part of a slave w h o is bound and shackled on the stage appears to have been an inescapable tradition; for example, Epidicus insists o n being tightly bound (Epid. 694) and then assails his master with insults. W h e n the master, Periphanes, demands (710), quae haec, malum, inpudentiast?, the slave replies (711), etiam inclamitor quasi scruos? Similar impudence is shown b y Chrysalus (Bacch. 799 ff.) and Tranio (Most. 1041 ff.); the latter, however, manages to escape the threatened binding by retreating to a nearby altar. T h e tradition of j o k i n g during a binding scene was so strong that it even invaded the selfconsciously high-minded Captiui} in a scene (III. v) which according to Lindsay " has m o r e of the tragic than the 33 E. Segal, Roman Laughter:
The Comedy cf Plautus (Cambridge, Mass.
1968) 137. 34 O . Skutsch, " T w o Notes on Naevius," CR N . S . 1 (1951) 147.
50 comic style." 35 Tyndarus responds to his handcuffing with a pun (660-663): 36 quid hoc est negoti? quid ego deliqui? :: rogas, sator sartorque scclcrum et messor maxume? :: non occatorem dicere audebas prius? nam semper occant priu' quam sariunt rustici. And, as he is being dragged off to the quarries, his last line is an alliterative wisecrack (750): uis haec quidctn hercle est, et train et trudi simuL The theme of slave-punishment also appears in t w o unassigned Nacvian fragments. T h e first refers to the mills (Inc. 15 W [114 R 3 ] ) : tantum ibi molae crepitum faciebant, tintinnabant compedes. Many Plautine parallels could be cited; for example, a list o f standard punishments appears in the song of a serutis fritgi (Men. 974-976): uerbera, compedes, / molae, [magna] lassitudo, fames, frigu' durum, / haec pretia stmt ignauiae. T h e second fragment refers to beatings, o r rather to their result (Inc. 16 W (115 R 3 ] ) : utrum scapulae plus an collus calli habeat nescio. Such a line may have come f r o m a speech in which a slave boasts about h o w much punishment he can take, as in the following Plautine example, which contains an even longer list of slave-punishments than the lines from the Menaechmi quoted above (Asin. 545-557): 35 Lindsay (supra p. 40, n. 14) 273. 36 On this passage see R. G. Tanner, (1962) 270-272.
41
Plautus Captivi
659-666/' Mn
15
51 Perhdiae la udcs gratiasque habemus nicrito magnus, quoin nostris sycophantiis, dolis astutiisque, scapularum confidentia, uirtutc ulnorurn freti> — qui aduorsum stimulos, lamminas cruccsquc compedcsquc, ncruos, catenas, carccrcs, nuniellas, pedicas, boias, inductoresque acerrumos gnarosque nostri tcrgi, qui saepe ante in nostras scaplas cicatrices indiderunt, — eae nunc legiones, copiae excrcitusque eorum ui pugnando, peiiuriis nostris fugac potiti. id uirtute huiius collegai meaque comitate factumst. qui mest uir fortior ad sufferundas plagas? Unlike Agitatoria and Triplnillus, the title StMgmus does suggest that a slave played the central role; the one fragment of this play that survives was evidently spoken by the slave Stalagmus himself (Com. 68 W [70 R 3 ]): 37 fnisaj" deo meo propitio incus h o m o est. i A close parallel occurs in Pseud. 381, where Pscudolus say: o f the j u s t - d e p a r t e d leno Ballio, il lie homo mens est, nisi ontnc di me atque homines
deserimt;
cf. also Miles 3 3 4 , also spokei
b y a senilis eallidus, mens illie homo est, deturbabo iam ego illttn -
de pugnaeulis. F r o m these parallels we can easily deduo that the homo in Naevius' line is one of the standard villain r o f R o m a n c o m e d y , a leno, a miles gloriosus,
o r a senex.
13u^
more important than the stylistic parallel is the typicall y " Plautine " jauntiness of the line, and especially its impli cation that the gods arc on the side of the scheming slav< It has been said that " Plautine slaves ... breathe freely i 37
So Fraenkel, N 630, w h o cites (629) the parallel from the Pscudolus (.* docs O. Ribbeck, Scaaiicae Romanorum pocsis fragment a II [Leipzig 1873 2 ; rcf T Hildcshcim 1962] Corollarium XVII).
rarificd Olympian a i r " ; 3 8 this would appear to be true of Nacvian slaves as well. Though it appears unlikely at first glance, the title J Glaucoma m a y also point to a central slave role. " A troublesome slave is like a sore eye " was a standard simile; cf. Bacch. 913-915, where Nicobulus, after an encounter with his slave Chrysalus, says: lippi illic oculi seruos est simil'limns: / si non est, nolis esse neque desideres; / si est, apstinere quin attingas non queas; and the very similar expression used by a slave in Persa 10-12: ego neque lubenter scruio neque satx sum ero ex sententia, / sed quasi lippo oculo me eru mens ntamitn apstinere hau quit tamen / quin mi imperet, quin me suis negotiis j praefulciat. But even more striking is the metaphorical I use of the word glaucoma itself by a seruus callidus w h o is I describing the plot of the Miles gloriosus (147-149): ei nos ' facetis fabricis et doctis dolis / glaucumant ob oculos obiciemus eutnque ita / faciemits ut quid uiderit non uiderit. N o w glaucoma (outside of technical treatises) is a very rare w o r d in Latin; this is Plautus' only use of it, and it does not appear again metaphorically in any author until the time o f Prudentius (Ham. 90). It is therefore entirely possible that Plautus' lines might contain a graceful and subtle tribute to Naevius: a young playwright's recognition of his elder's achievement in his (recently presented?) play of trickery, the Glaucoma. If the usual interpretation o f Miles 210-212 is correct, 3 9 Naevius was in jail at the t i m e the Miles gloriosus was produced, and could n o d o u b t use all the recognition h e could get.
38 Scgnl (supra p. 49, n. 33) 136. 39 Frank (supra p. 33, n. 2) 105-110 supports the standard interpretation o f the os colunmatum lines; Mattingly (supra p. 33, n. 2) 422-426 opposes it. For the technical meaning o f the phrase see F. D . Allen, " O n *os columnatum (Plaut. M.G. 211) and Ancient Instruments o f Confinement," HSCP 7 (1896) 37-64.
53
Besides the seruus callidus, w e have already (in the Tarentilla) seen h o w traditional stock characters like the adulescens, the meretrix, and the senex figured in Naevius' comedy. H e also used the miles gloriosus and the parasitus; we are explicitly told by Terence (Eun. 23-26, 30-31) that such characters appeared i n Naevius' Colax, and a line referring to a parasitus has been preserved from his Gymnasticus (Com. 57 W [60 R 3 ] ) : pol haut parasitorum aliorum simile est! A letto, concentrating, of course, on profit, appears to be the speaker of the following lines from the Corollaria (Com. 37-39 W [36-38 R 3 ] ) : nolo ego hanc adeo efflictim amare; diu uiuat uolo ut mihi prodesse possit. T h e viciousncss of his words reminds us of the Plautine — and R o m a n — tendency to imagine a bordello whenever res lettottiae are mentioned. 40 Thievery, the standard activity o f a cocus (cf. Pseud. 851-852), is described in Inc. 30 a-c W (121-1212 R 3 ) ; cocus edit N e p t u n u m Cererem et Venerem expertam Vulcanom Liberumque absorbuit pariter. For a similar mock-epic use of the gods' names, cf. Rud. 761, Volcanum adducam, is Venerist aduorsarins. T h e fragments as they stand are complete e n o u g h to show that many of the situations and cliches, as well as the 40 Fraenkel, EPP 140-141.
stock characters, o f Plaudne comedy are also found in Naevius. For example, the rivalry between a youth and an old man (generally his father) for a y o u n g girl's love, which forms the basis of the plots of Plautus' Casina and Mercator. seems also to have been the theme of an unidentified Naevian play from which the following fragment survives (Inc. 7-8 W [126-127 R 3 ] ) : uei quae sperat se nupturam uiridulo adolesccntulo ea licet senile tractet retritum rutabulum? Though the situation which produced this line no doubt came f r o m the Greek original, there is a saltiness in the words themselves which smacks m o r e of R o m a n comedy than the Nia. According to Festus (318. 32-34 L), Rutabulum est, quo rustici in proruendo igne, panis coquendi gratia [;utuntur]; compare the barnyard language used to describe a phallus in the Casina (909-914): dum gladium quaero ne habeat, arripio capulum. sed q u o m cogito, non habuit gladium, nam esset frigidus. : : eloquere. : : at pudet. : : n u i n radix fuit? : : n o n fuit. : : n u m cucumis? : : profecto hercle n o n fuit quicquam holerum, nisi, quidquid crat, calamitas profecto attigcrat n u m q u a m . ita, quidquid erat, grande erat. Naevius also shared Plautus' fascination w i t h the habits, linguistic and otherwise, o f the people of Pracncste, as a fragment f r o m the Ariolus shows (Com. 22-26 W [21-24 R 3 ] ) : quis heri a p u d te? : : Praenestini et Lanuuini hospites. : : suopte utrosque decuit acceptos'cibo,
55
J
alteris inancm uoluulam madidam dari, alteris nuces in procliui profundier. Leo believed that dicse lines prove that the Ariolus was set in Latium, and that the comedy was therefore a togata rather than a palliata; Sabbadini and W a r m i n g t o n agree. Beare, pointing to the description of R o m e in Plautus* Curculio (462-486), a play which is set in Epidaurus, disagrees.41 If he is right, then Naevius could be as careless about&cg&raphj c a l realism as Plautus was. Plautine jokes about Praeneste and its people are found in Capt. 882, vat T<XV npai4 V£OTT)V; Trin. 609, tam modeinqtiit Praenestinus; Bacch. 12 (fr. VIIIL), Praenestinum opino esse, ita e r ^ r ^ J W u m ^ ; True. 690-691, 1 a9 facio lucri, / ut Praenestinis 1 conea* est ciconia. (Nixon's translation of this last example is inspired: " T h e 4 i n 9 ' s savings for me, same as Praeneste folks calling a woodpecker a pecker." 42) Evidently the bare mention o f Praeneste was enough to raise a laugh in the R e m a n theater, as used to be the case w i t h Brooklyn in American comedy. j Jokes about Praeneste are of course just for fun, but it. m a y well be (as it is generally maintained) that Naevius at times engaged in more serious bantering about Roman politics and politicians. As I have already tried to show, h o w e v e r , in m y discussion of fr. 69-71 W of the Tarentillc, i t is possible to overdo the search for political double enten- r / dres in the comedy of Naevius. T h e Tarentilla fragment X is not the only allegedly political passage for which a per| Leo, GRL 92; Sabbadini 81, n. a; Beare, RS 36 n., 39. m a y be true, but that it is not 4 2 P. Nixon, tr., Plautus V
(supra p. 33, n. 1) 77-79; Warmington, H O U Fraenkel, N 631-632 believes Leo's explanatio: necessary; see also Fraenkel, EPP 383,. n. 1. (LCL 1938) 295.
J
56 fectly innocuous explanation can be given. For example, the following, from an unidentified play (Inc. 2 7 W [113 IV])[:
^
libera lingua loquemur ludis Liberalibus, i
I lias been interpreted by at least one scholar as a bold decla| ration of Naevius* " right t o free speech." 43 But several 1 Plautine parallels suggest that Naevius' line is n o more than ; a conventional boast of a confident slave; for example, i compare Versa 29, basilice agito eleutheria; True. 211-212, nunc quidetn meo arbitratu \ loquar libere quae uolani et quae lubebit; and Stick. 421-422, nunc kunc diem unutn ex illis multis rniseriis j nolo tne eleutheria cajwre aduenientem domuni. Another example: Gcllius says that his predecessors were ^Ifnost unanimous (propemodum constitisse: 7. 8.J5) in their belief tKat the T o l l o v ^ g ^ ' f a m ^ s f r a g m e n t was aimed at Scipio Africanus (Inc. 1 - 3 W [108-110 R 3 ] ) : ctiam qui res magnas m a n u saepe gessit gloriose, cuius facta uiua n u n c u i g e n t , qui a p u d gentes solus praestat, cum suus pater c u m p a l l i o d u n o d ab arnica abduxit. B u t if so, one wonders, w h a t was the R o m a n Scipio doing ill a pallium? M a r m o r a l e speaks o f " verniciatura greca " lightly covering t h e R o m a n material of t h e passage, but this appears questionable, particularly w h e n one considers that the situation described in the last line is a commonplace Jghich goes back t o B a c c h y l i d e s It is equally possible, as Beare suggests, that t h e lines d o no m o r e than describe some miles gloriosus.44 T h e thesis, t h e n , that Naevius 43
L. Robinson, " C e n s o r s h i p in Republican Drama, M CJ 4 2 (1946-1947) 147; similarly Sabbadini (supra p . 3 3 , n. 1) 5 9 - 6 0 . 44 O n the passage ( a n d its a n t e c e d e n t s ) see Marmorale, NP 162; Leo, GRL 77-78; B. Warnccke, " A d N a e v i u m et B a c c h y l i d e m / ' Philologus 71 (1912) 5 6 7 -
57 was a political playwright, unlike the generally apolitical j Plautus, 45 seems rather m o r e questionable than is usually I assumed. In their use of music a n d lyric, also, Naevius and Plautus do n o t seem to have been too widely separated. Whether or not Livius Andronicus was responsible for introducing lyric cantica into R o m a n comedy, such songs w e r e definitely found in Naevius' plays, as the following cretic trimeter shows (Com. 103 W [25 R. 3 ]): hdc sibf pr6spic(a), hac despici. Note h o w the adjectives tend to fdl one cretic each; Fraenk e l 4 6 compares similar phonetic figures in Plautus: Bacch. 644, compuli ct perpuli mi omnia ut crederet; Capt. 222, nam doli non doli sunt, ni(si> astu colas; and Rud. 672, reppulitf propulit perquam indignis modis. This is the only certain example of lyric he finds in Naevius' comedies; Mariotti, however, has called attention to Com. 13-14 W (11-12 R.3), usually printed as senarii: eho, an uicimus? : : uicistis. : : uolup est. quo modo? : : dicam tibi. T h e est in the second line, Mariotti reminds us, is not in the MSS; it is a conjectural emendation originally supplied by Bothc. If the M S reading is restored, the lines can be read as bacchaics (catalectic): eh(o) i n uicimus? : : uicistis. : : uolup! quo modo? : : d i c i m tibf. 568; A. Garzya, " Varia.philologa," Emcrita 21 (1953) 119-120; Bearc, RS 40; and Jocclyn (supra p. 33, n. 2) 39-41. 45 For a recent attempt to find political comment in a Plautine play sec G. K. Galinsky, " Scipionic Themes in Plautus' Amphitruo" TAP A 97 (1966) 203-235. JJ 46 Fraenkel, EPP 323-327; N 632-637.
58
The lines are f r o m the Agitatoria, in which racehorses were a prominent element; it is pleasant to imagine a lengthy canticum describing die horse race after these words. 4 7 As for the usual meters of spoken verse, Naevius' distribution of the various types is roughly comparable to Plautus': there are about twenty-seven fragments in iambic senarii, twenty-one in trochaic septenarii, and twelve in other meters (iambic septenarii, and iambic and trochaic octonarii). Plautus* figures are (approximately) 8,800 trochaic septenarii, 8,200 iambic senarii, 2,000 other spoken meters, and 3,000 in lyric meters. 48 It would appear, then, that Plautus relied more heavily on the scptcnarius and lyric meters than Naevius did, though o f course the fact that Naevius' comedy survives only in fragments makes it impossible to be very precise about such ratios. T h e parallels between Naevius and Plautus which I have outlined in the previous pages, parallels in language, style, and dramatic and poetic technique, are clear and unmistakable. Nor have I exhausted the possibilities for comparison. 49 But by n o w I believe that it has been ade-
47 F. H. Bothe, cd., Poetae scenici Latinorum (Leipzig 1834) V 11; S. Mariotti, Contributi al testo dci framnienti scenici di Ncvio," StUrb 24 (1950) 180-181. Militating against Mariotti s suggestion is the fact that the dicam tibi formula appears only in trochaic septenarii in Plautus, where it invariably closes the line (Capt. 646, Cist. 249, Epid. 708, Miles 296). Likewise ego dicam tibit which appears in iambic senarii (Cist. 603; Cure. 437; Most. 757, 1026b; Pseud. 801; Trin. 1099) and trochaic septenarii (Merc. 638, Pseud. 336), always at the end of the line (with a single exception: Rud. 388). 44
The Nacvian figures are approximate because o f uncertain readings, lines that arc too fragmentary to be scanned, etc. For die Plautine statistics see Beare, RS 327-330, and Duckworth, NRC 370. 49 In N 628-632, Fraenkel provides a long list of parallels, most of them stylistic, remarking (628), u Dcr * plautinische ' Sprachstil ist bcreits v o n N[aevius] voll ausgebildet worden."
59 quately demonstrated that these playwrights, and in all probability Livius Andronicus before them, were w o r k i n g in a well-established, conventional comic style. It remains to be seen what their contemporaries and successors d i d with this tradition. J s J J )
J J
s' 1 7* j«
,) * <
r
i
/<.
:!
IV.
MINOR
COMIC
POETS
Ea tempestate jios poetarum fuity / qui nunc abicrwit hinc in communem locum, reads die prologue of the Casina, a prologue re-written for a revival of the play after Plautus' death (Cas. 18-19).1 These touching and expressive lines are a sobering reminder of the extent of our ignorance of the history of the R o m a n stage. The twenty-seven plays of Plautus and Terence arc the only examples of R o m a n comedy which we really know. 13ut Ribbcck lists at least ninety-nine palliatae written by other playwrights. 2 Elsewhere (Gcll. 3. 3. 11) we are told that about 130 plays survived under Plautus1 name. No doubt there would be a certain amount of duplication in the two lists, but a total of some two hundred plays would still be a very conservative estimate. Further, Ribbeck lists twenty playwrights who worked in this genre; about most of them nothing is known
* The generally accepted dates are about 185 for the original production and 150 for die revival; see Ritschl, PPT 180-238; F. Skutsch, " Ein Prolog des D i philos und einc Komodic des Plautus," RhM 55 (1900) 272-285; Leo, C R L 212217; W . B. Scdgwick, " T h e Dating of Plautus* Ways. Postscript: The Casina Prologue," CQ 24 (1930) 106; T . Frank, " On the Dates o f Plautus' Casina and its Revival," AJP 54 (1933) 368-372; H. Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson, " T h e Prologue to the Casina of Plautus" CR 47 (1933) 52-54; W. Bearc, " T h e Date o f the Casina," CR 48 (1934) 123-124; H. Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson, " N u m m u s , " AJP 56 (1935) 225-231; Duckworth, NRC 66; H. B. Mattingly, " T h e First Period o f Plautine Revival," Latomus 19 (1960) 230-252; and E. Paratore, Plauto (Florence 1962) 39. 2 Ribbeck, SRP II 388-390.
62 beyond their names. 3 As we have seen in the case of Naevius, ancient biographical information can be misleading, but reasonably reliable floruit dates for these playwrights, such as we have for Plautus and Terence, would be interesting and useful. T w o facts can comfort us as we confront these huge gaps in our knowledge. First, virtually all the R o m a n comedies were based on the Nca, a genre of which w e can now claim a fairly respectable understanding. 4 T h e critical usefulness of this fact of c o m m o n origin is limited, as a comparison of Plautus' Bacchides and Terence's Add phi, both based on Menandrian originals and yet so different, will show. But it still provides us with a useful framework in which to fit such small scraps of evidence as w e have. Second, as I hope to show in the following pages, the minor playwrights of the ptilluita were firmly entrenched in the established tradition of the R o m a n comic stage. It may seem strange to include Quintus Ennius in a chapter on minor poets, but in fact the " Father of R o m a n Poetry " was not very important as a comic playwright. 5 Whether this was because he lacked talent in this direction, or simply because his prodigious efforts in epic and tragedy left him little time to concentrate on comedy, is difficult 3 Ribbcck, SR1> II 386. See also Bardon, LLl 13-14. Some of Naevius* and Plautus* plays may have been based on the Middle Comedy; sec Fraenkel, N 628 and Duckworth, NRC 23-25. 5 The bibliography on Ennius is very large, but almost no work has been done on the comic fragments. The standard edition of the complete works remains that of J. Vahlen, Eunianae pocsis reliquiae (Leipzig 192H2; rcpr. Amsterdam 1967). On Ennius' drama see A. Grilli, Studi enniani (Brescia 1965) 160-222; H. D. Jocelyn, The Tragedies of Ennius: The Fragments Edited with an Introduction and Commentary (Cambridge 1967); O. Skutsch, Studia enniana (London 1968) 157193; and H. D. Jocelyn. "Ennius as a Dramatic Poet," Fondation Hardt, Entretiens stir I'antiquM classique XVII: Ennius (Geneva 1972) 39-88 (discussion, 89-95). 4
) 63 ? j
to say.6 V o lead us Sedigitus (ap. Gdl. 15. 24) places him 11 tenth on his list of R o m a n comic poets, including him ^ only, as he says, causa antiquitatis (pictatis causa, w e mjcrlit say). This would seem to imply an adverse j u d g m e n t on the quality of Ennius' comedies, though another possible reason could be the low quantity of his output in this genre. T w o titles survive. From one, the Caupuncula, we have only a brief and unenlightening fragment (Fab 3 8 1 ? [5c. 372 V 2 ], Imic est animus propitiubihs). For the scconJ / the Pancratiastcs, the situation is somewhat better. Though there are only three fragments, they offer a surprising large amount of information about the content and form of the play and show quite clearly how it fits in to the ROM comic tradition.
1
The first fragment contains a bit of dialogue (Fab. 382 ff / [Sc. 373 V 2 j ) : / quo n u n c me ducis? : : ubi molarum strcpitum audit maximum, a
The meaning of the line makes it clear that the first spalcr is a slave, while the second is his master, no doubt a siw iratus. The slave has been misbehaving so flagrantly fk his master threatens him with immediate transportation to the mills; he must, therefore, have played a major role HI this play, and the strengthening of the role of the $k as we have already seen in our examination o f Naeviuu an important characteristic of traditional R o m a n com A It is tempting, in fact, to assign to this slave the title ri, '
>
-1
>
6 Warmington, ROL I xxvii, suggests that Caecilius Statias chosc toi» ccntratc on comedy in order to avoid challenging his friend Ennius in tad and cpic; if the converse were true, this might explain w h y Ennius did work in comedy.
^ d
f '
K
' J
if
*
« /
M a n d !cc him he the " All-Round C h a m p i o n " 7 w h o is the h e r o of the play, as Plautus' Pscudolus and Nacvius' Stalagmus (Com. 68 W [70 R 3 )) arc in the plays that bear their names. Both in style and situation there are many parallels to Ennuis' line in Plautus. Bacch. 406, quo ihicis nunc mepractically duplicates Ennuis' first four words. For similar content and style compare also Asiiu 31, nunt me illttc dttcis tibi lapis lapidem tcrit? and Capt. 721-722, ducite / ubi pondcrosas, crassas capiat compcdis. Mueller 8 compares a line from an u n k n o w n comedy of Nacvius' (Inc. 15 W [114R3]), tautum ibi molac crepitum facicbant, tintinnabant cotnpedes. It is n o t e w o r t h y that both Plautus and Nacvius, in these examples, seem to take great j o y in imitating the grinding o f mills and the clanking of chains with the sounds of their words; Ennius' language, though clearly in the same tradition, seems a little tame in comparison. Perhaps this explains w h y he was not very successful in comedy. A very c o m m o n comic situation is the source of the next fragment of the Pancratiastes (Fab. 383 W [5c. 374 V 2 ] ) : quis est qui nostris foribus t a m proteruiter? Pounding on doors was evidently a favorite piece of comic miming. An u n n a m e d parasitus in the Bacchides criticizes his servant's timid door-knocking; h e tells h i m to stop and then shows him h o w an " expert " handles this task (Bacch. 579-583): recede hinc dierecte. ut pulsat p r o p u d i u m ! comesse p a n e m tris pedes latum potes, 1 The translation o f the title is Lhat of Warmington, ROL I 363. L. Mueller, ed., Ltvi Andronici ct Cn. Nacvi fabulartim reliquiae (Berlin 1885) 69. 8
65
fores pultare nescis. ecquis in aedibust? heus, ecquis hie est? ecquis hoc apcrit ostium? ecquis exit? which produces a gratifyingly infuriated reaction from the young man w h o answers the door (583-586): Quid istuc? quae istaec est pulsatio? quae te <male> mala crux agitat, qui ad istunc m o d u m alicno uiris tuas cxtcntes ostio? fores paene ccfrcgisti. quid nunc uis tibi? This scene provides one of the most memorable parallels in Plautus to the situation in Ennius 9 play. R i b b c c k 0 cites two further passages which show a close verbal similarity: Rud. 414, Quis est qui nostris tarn proterue Joribus facit iniuriam? and True. 256, Quis illic est qui tam proterue nostras aedis arietat? As Traina 10 notes, the second example, with the hapax arietat9 suggests a deliberate attempt o n Plautus' part to avoid a cliche: though to give Emiius his due, he m a y have been trying to do the same thing by using the equally rare proteruiter and by letting his speaker be interrupted before he could utter the (hackneyed) verb (unless, of course, the verb was simply lost in transmission). T h e final fragment comes f r o m a narrative portion of the play (Fab. 384 W [Sc. 375 V 2]): c u m desubito me orat mulier lacrimansque ad genua accidit. 9 Ribbcck, SRP II 5; c o m pare also Stick. 326-326 Quisnam, opsccro, has frangit fores? ubist? / tun haec fad'? tun mihi hue hosti' uemsa delayed reaction to an earlier door-knocking passage which occupied seven lines (308-314). 10 Traina, CAP 94, n. 1.
66
Similar lines in Plautus arc not lacking (cf. Cist. 567, anus ei aniplexa est genua plorans, opsecrans), but, as Traina 11 notes, the closest parallel is to be found in Terence, Hec. 378-379; mater conscquitur: iatn tit limen exirem, tf^ accidit j la~ crumans misera; miscritumst. This might lead us to believe that Ennius anticipated the sentimental humanitas of Terence, a quality generally lacking in Plautus and, as far as we can tell, in Naevius. But note h o w Terence loads the dice in his narrative with affective words (misera and miseritumst); Ennius' description, on the other hand, is completely neutral. Without the context, we simply cannot know what its implications were. Compare Plautus' Miles 1031-1033, lamentari j ait illam, miseram crucian et lacrumantem se adjlictare, / quia tis egeat, quia te careat. O n the face of it, these lines seem to describe an exceedingly touching demonstration of unrequited love. But of course we k n o w from the rest of the play that they are part of a hilarious and thoroughly unsentimental scene of deception. T h e same may have been true of Ennius' line. O n e more Ennian comic fragment, f r o m an unnamed play, is paralleled in both Naevius and Plautus (Fab. 428 W [Sc. 423 V 2 ]: illic est nugator, nil, non nauci h o m o . Festus (166. 20-24 L), w h o is responsible f o r the survival o f this line, quotes similar examples f r o m Plautus (True. 611, liominetn mm nauci) and Naevius (Com. 102 W [105 II 3 ], eitis noctem nauco ducerc). Plautus w a s evidently fascinated b y the expression; he plays with it at length in Most. 1041-1042, Qui homo timidus erit in rebus dubiis, nauci non erit; / atque n Traina, CAP 94, n. 1.
57 equidcm quid id esse dicam uerbutn uauci tiescio. 429 W (Sc. 421 V2).
Finally, Fab.
uocibus concide; fac iam musset obrutus, suggests a flagitatio scene like that in Pseud. 357-369; for the content and style cf. Pseud. 359, iam ego te dijferam dicth meis and Poen. 13-14, exerce uocem quam per tiiuisque et colis. I nam nisi clamabis, taciturn te obrepet fames. These parallels, along with those previously cited, clearly show that Ennius, even if he was not very successful as a comic playwright, was nevertheless firmly committed to the traditions of the palliata. Little is k n o w n about Trabea, the next playwright on o u r list. Sedigitus assigned h i m eighth place among tie R o m a n comedians; he gives no reason for this unfavorable j u d g m e n t (Trabea octauum optinet: ap. Cell. 15.24). Vano believed that Trabea's strength lay m o r e in stirring tie emotions than in creating character (ap. Charis. 241. 2" 29 K): 7), ut ait Varro de Latino sermone libro V, nullis alt seruare conuenit, inquit, quam Titinio Terentio Attae\xl aero Trabea, inquit, Atilius Caecilius facile mouerunt. Sir; Terence is the only poet in this list whose works survfa it would be pointless to try to j u d g e the validity of Varw j u d g m e n t . More important is the suggestion implicit i i i I order of the names (Trabea Atilius Caecilius) that T r a l came earlier than Caecilius Statius. 13 H e would t h u s , parently, be part o f the Jlos poetarum mentioned in the Can
Titinius and Atta were composers o f togatae. For an explanation c f l terminology here see Leo, GRL 220-221, n. 2. 13 W . Kroll, "Trabea," RE 62 (1937) 1862; Leo, GRL 213-214; B a i l LU 37-38.
Oo prologue (Cas. 18, quote J above) w h o graced the R o m a n stage during the time of Plautus. Two fragments of Trabea's w o r k survive. W e owe the first (1-5 R 3 ) to Cicero (Tusc. 4. 31. 67): Icna delenita argento n u t u m obscruabit incum, quid uelim, quid studeam. adueniens digito inpellam ianuam: fores patcbunt. de inprouiso Chrysis ubi me aspexerit, alacris obuiam mihi ucniet complexuni exoptans incum, milli se dedet: Fortunam ipsam anteibo fortunis nieis. Tlic speaker of these lines is clcarly an adulescens w h o plans to bribe his way into close contact with his cloistered girl friend. The last triumphant line of the monologue is an excellent example of the sort o f exaggerated comparison which Fraenkel argues is o n e of t h e basic stylistic indicators of original Plautine composition. A faintly personified abstraction is the basis o f the comparison; Fraenkers first Plautine example is Cos. 225, munditiis Munditiam antideo; he cites a n u m b e r of others (Cas. 128-129, Pseud. 669, Asin. 268, Pocn. 846), 14 to which can be added Cist. 644, o Solute tnea salus salubrior. For the situation, T r a i n a 1 5 compares Asin. 241-242, where a y o u n g m a n complains, port[it]orum siniilhnnae sunt ianuae lenotiiae: / si adfers, turn potent, si non est quod des, aedes non patent. Diniarchits, a y o u n g man in the Truculentus, has been m o r e successful w i t h his mistress (or so he believes). His t r i u m p h a n t speech (True. 699-710) 14 Fraenkel, EPP 13. Fracnkel's arguments about the hyperbolic comparison (7-20) are disputed by H. H. Law, 11 Hyperbole in Mythological Comparisons," AJP 47 (1926) 361-372. Traina. CAP 148.
69
is similar in m a n y respects to that of Trabea's adulcsccus; it opens as follows (699-705): Neque gnatust neque progignetur neque potest rcperirier quoi ego n u n c dictum aut factum melius quam Veneri uclim. di magni, ut ego laetus sum et laetitia diffcror! ita ad me magna nuntiauit Cyamus hodie gaudia: mea dona deamata acceptaque habita esse apud Phronesium; quom hoc iam uolup est, turn iliac nimio magnac mellinae mihi, militis odiosa ingrataque habita. totus gaudeo. Note especially the hyperbolic comparison with which the monologue opens. Throughly different in tone, but likewise n o t unparalleled in Plautus, is the second surviving fragment o f Trabea ( 6 R >): ego uoluptatem animi nimiam summum esse errorem arbitror. This very R o m a n idea is repeated in a song of Alcumcna's in the Amphitruo (633-653), a passage which shows many signs of original Plautine composition. Compare the opening lines (633-636): Satin parua res est uoluptatum in uita atque in aetatc agunda praequam quod molestum est? ita quoiq* comparatuni est in actate h o m i n u m ; ita dis est placitum, uoluptatem ut maeror comes consequatur:
70 ijuin i n c o m m o d i plus m a i i q u e llico adsit, boni si optigit
quid. Alanncna, of course, is a unique character; it is much more likely that the speaker of Trabea \s line is an aduleseetis involved in an unhappy love affair, such as Charinus in the Mcrcator, w h o enumerates some of the miseries o f love (Mere. 25, insomnia, tierumun, error, [et] terror et fttgn—the list continues for a half-dozen lines), o r perhaps a high-minded paedagogtts like Lydus, who counts Voluptas among the di damnosissumi his corrupt pupil is worshipping (Bnceh. 115-117). Very little is known about o u r next comic poet, Atilius.16 Besides his comedies, he apparently was also responsible for a translation of Sophocles' Electra.l7 Cicero thought very little o f this tragedy, though he did suggest that an educated R o m a n ought to have read it (Fin. 1. 2. 5); portions of it were recited at the funeral of Julius Caesar (Suet., Inl. 84. 2). T h e second-century literary critic Porcius Licinius called Atilius ferreus scriptor (ap. Cic., Fin. 1- 2. 5); Cicero echoed this judgment in a letter to Atticus (14. 20. 3: Atilius, poetu dttrissiinus). If the argument regarding Varro's list (Trab en... Atilius Caecilitts) which we applied above to Trabea is correct, it would appear that Atilius, like Trabea, was an early playwright, the date of whose activity would I.ill Miinewh.il before thai of ( i l i u s St.iims. O f Atilius' comedies the only title which survives is the Misogynos; Cicero (Tusc. 4. 11. 25), not very surprisingly, tells us that it portrayed odium mulierum. Its source 16
For a brief discussion see F. Marx, " Atilius," RE 2 (1896) 2076. The identification o f the Atilius w h o translated the Elcctra w i t h the comic playwright is accepted by Leo, GRL 214; Bardon, LU 38; and D . R . Shackleton Uailcy, id., Ciccro's Letters to Atticus VI (Cambridge 1967) 239. 17
iVKiy have been Menaiidcr** Misogynes, a problem piccc com paring the good and bad to be had from marriage, winch the Atticist Phrynichus called the best of all Menander's comedies (Epit. 417). The three actual fragments which survive have no mlcsT h e first (1 R 3 ) is quoted as an e.xemplum by Cicero (.-Iff14. 20. 3): suam cjiioique sponsam, tnihi m e a m : suum q u o k j u o amorem, mihi m e u m - ' y Non scitc, Cicero comments (ibid.), hoc cnim Arilitis, poet a diirissinius. As Shaklcton Bailey suggests, this j u d g m e n t puzzling: 41 it is just possible that Orelli was right [viz., i ^ e / his emendation: non scitc? hoc tauten Atilius, poeta durissi-jg urns]. " 18 I would agree that t h i s well-balanced line, w i t h u its repetitions and alliteration, is definitely scitits; or if it is J y not, then Plautus was definitely clumsy in several p a s s a g e s ^ where he follows the same pattern, both in form and content- 1 */ Traina 19 compares Stich. 133, placet illc mens mihi mendicity \oY suo9 re.x regime placet. O t h e r examples include Capt. -l^nci (where I legio is speaking o f his son), men1 mihi, suo' (/f/<}J-tVv que est cuius; Stich. 693-694, suom quoique decet: quibti1 tine domi sunt, scaphio et cantharis, / batiocis bihunt, <7f uos nostro Samiolo poterio\ and, most elaborately, the following c x u k W (ant Npmli by a young lovri ((.'///•. 17«i I NO): sibi sua habeant regna reges, sibi diuitias diuites, sibi honores, sibi uirtutes, sibi pugnas, sibi proelia: duni mi apstineant inuidere, sibi quisque habeant qiiod 0 f suom
cst.^ f
) 18 Shacklcton Dailcy (supra 11. 17) 239. Traina, CAP 148.
«
Atilius' sccond fragment is quoted by Varro {Ling. 7. 106) in a disc ussion of the origin of the word delicuus (2-3 R 3 ): per lactitiam licjuitur animus. Liqui in a nonliteral sense is a rare word: Plautus uses it only once, in Trin. 212-243 (cited by R i b b e c k 2 0 ) : nam qui amat quod amat quoin cxtcmplo sauiis sagittatis perculsust, / ilico res foras labitur, liquit.ur. Here the lover's property, rather than his soul, is " melting away," but the parallel is still clear. In both cases what suggested the w o r d liquitur was n o doubt a search for alliteration: with lactitiam for Atilius, with labitur for Plautus. A similarly violent metaphor for the cfleets of love appears in True. 701, ut ego laettis sum et laetitia diffcror! Compare also Stick. 274-287, a senilis currens monologue which opens with a typically Plautine exaggerated comparison 21 and then develops at length a metaphor almost identical to that used by Atilius (274-279): Mcrcurius, Ioui' qui nuntius pcrhibetur, n u m q u a m aeque patri suo
nuntium
lepidum
attulit quam
ego nunc mcac crac nuntiabo: itaque onustum pectus p o r t o laetitia lubentiaque neque lubet nisi gloriosse quicquam p r o l o q u i profecto. ainocnitatcs o m n i u m ucticrum ct ucnustatuni adfero ripisque superat m i atque abundat pectus laetitia meuni. Atilius' final f r a g m e n t is a string o f alliterative imperatives (4 W ) : cape cacdc, Lytic, c o m e condc. 20 Ribbeck. SRP H 37. 21 Fmnikcl, UPP 8.
-
Plautus would probably have been proud of this line, though he never achieved quite such a tongue-twister. Miles 226, reperi, comminiscere, cedo calidum consilium cito, is, however, almost as impressive in its alliteration; cf. also Triti. 289-90, rape, trahe, fngc, late. O u r next poet is Licinius Imbrex, 2 2 called actus conwediarum scriptor by Gellius (13. 23. 16). Scdigitus gave him fourth place among the Latin comic playwrights, though one would infer from his language that after placing Cnccilius, Plautus, and Naevius lie did not care very much in what order he put the remaining playwrights: si crit, quod quarto detur, dabitur Licinio (ap. Gell. 15. 24). B y Paulus' time Licinius was almost forgotten (97. 4 L): Imbrex ttotnen cuiusdam comic!). H e has been identified with P. Licinius Tegula, w h o composed a state hymn in 200 B . C . , as Livius Andronicus had done before him (Livy 31. 12. 9-10). Leo denied the identification, but Fraenkel argued that it was not impossible: Tegula would have been Licinius' real cognomen, and Imbrex a j o k e for the comic stage. 2 3 If this is true, then Licinius, along with the other playwrights we have discussed so far in this chapter, was definitely one of the jlos poetarum of the Casina prologue. A single fragment, which we owe to Gellius' antiquarian interests (13. 23. 16), survives (1-2 R 3 ) : nolo ego Neaeram te uocent, scd Ncricncm, c u m quidem Mauorti es in conubium data.
22 r , n i e l l i , " Lit iuius Imbrex" RE 13 (1926) 371. 23 Leo, CRL 58, n. 2, joined by Bardon, LL1 35; answered by Iraenkel, EPP 29, n. 1. Fracnkel's note has a good summary of the learned controversy on this question, which goes back (as do most Plautine questions) to RitschI, PPT 196-197.
74 Together with these linos Cellius quotes Plautus, True 515. Mars pcregre adtienietis salutat Nerienem uxorem sitcim. The parallel in thought shows that Plautus was working in the same tradition (it is unlikely that there is any deliberate imitation here, pace Traina 24), and the fact that Nerio was a Sabine deity 25 proves that both passages are the original creations of the two R o m a n playwrights. The speaker in each case is a miles gloriosus (or perhaps, in Licinius, the parasitus of a miles 2o). But even more important than the Nerio-Mars parallel is the wonderfully clear example Licinius' fragment gives of the standard " Plautine " stylistic motifs of transformation and identification. 27 Licinius adheres to the usual pattern: y o u r name should not be x, but y "—followed by a bizarre comic explanation. A good Plautine example is Amplu 304-307, where Sosia, terrified by Mercury's threats, says: formido male nc ego hie nomen mcum c o m m u t e m et Quintus fiam e Sosia; quattuor uiros sopori se dedisse hie autumat: metuo nc n u m c r u m augcam ilium. This was a favorite sort of joke for the Romans, particularly when a similarity of sound was involved; Fraenkel 2 8 quotes Cicero, Phil. 3. 9. 22, en cur magister eitis ex oratorc arator /actus sit. 24 Traina, CAP 150. 25 I;. Mar bach, " N e r i o , " R/j .17 (1936) 32-35. 2* R i b b c c k , SUP
II 3 9 .
27 fraenkel, EPP 29-30. For critiques o f this and other touchstones Fraenkel uses to determine Plautine originality, see H. W . Prescott, " Criteria o f Originality in Plautus," TAPA 63 (1932) 103-125 and P. W . Harsh, 44 Certain Features o f Technique Found in Both Greek and Roman Drama," AJP 58 (1937) 282-293. 28 Fraenkel, EPP 21, n. 1.
The name ol Licinius* play was /YCWCM, winch is also title of comedies by Ti modes and Philemon. 2 4 Neaera w a s an historical figure, a courtesan of fourth-century A t h e n s the details of her checkered career, which is described in speech in the Demosthenean canon ([Dem.] 59), parallel i n a number of enlightening ways the standard mcretrix sitUwitions of the N e w Comedy (suppositious children, pretendiii S to be an Athenian citizen, etc.). One wonders what r e l c v a n c r c such a person could have had to the experience o f the R o m a 11 audience. Perhaps Licinius Imbrex exaggerated her r a p a c i t y and faithlessness in order to transform her into a largcr-tha n life comic figure like Plautus' Phroncsium in the Truailoitus.
,
i /
There is no biographical information whatever c o n c c r t i - 1 ing our next palliata playwright, Juventius. 3 0 He docs n o t appear on Sedigitus or Varro's lists. O n e title survives, tlic Anagnorizomenc—unparalleled, oddly enough, a m o n g the extant titles of the Nc<7, though it describes a standard N e w Comedy situation (" the [foundling] girl recognized W e have one line, an impressive linguistic tour de f o r c e , t from tliis play (1 R 3 ) : \ ) V
quod potes, sile cela occulta tege tace nutssa m a n e . \jr) Plautus likewise managed to compose a string o f seven j j consecutive imperatives in Vsvutl. 138-139, rape, elepe, trn<\ / rk) i' harpaga, bibc, cs, fugc\ for the tautological content o f J u v e n SU f ilis* line cf. Pocn. 3, silctcquc ct tacctc atquc animum aduortitc , i (probably a parody of or a quotation from a tragedy 3 I ). A»29 Ribbcck, SRP II 39. 30 E. Diehl, 44 Iuventius," RE 10 (1917) 1362; Bardon, LLl 49-50. 31 Discusscd by H. D.Jocelyn, 44 Imperator histricus" YCS 21 (1969) 104-105, 110-111.
J J 4
A
J
[i t
76
other parallel is the line from Atilius ( 4 R 3 ) discussed above: cape caede, Lyric, conic conde. A few fragments f r o m unnamed plays survive, of which the first is the most interesting (2-4 R 3 ) : gaudia sua si omnes homines conferant unum in locum, tamcn mea cxsupcrct laetitia. T h e hyperbolic comparison which these lines contain is of course one of Fraenk
77 T h e first is praised by Gellius (18. 12. 2) for its elegant turn o f phrase (5-6 R 3 ) : pallium n o n facio flocci ut splendeat. Flocci facerc is of course a standard comic expression: cf. Cure. 713, non ego te flocci facio (duplicated in True. 606); Epid. 348, tneum tergum flocci facio; Men. 423, neque ego ilium maneo neque flocci facio. T h e second fragment contains a violent threat (7 R 3 ) : caput ei tcstatim diffrcgcro. Traina cites a number of instances where Plautus uses similar adverbs in tim; 34 all of them offer parallels to the violence of Juventius' line; see True. 613, iam hercle ego te hie hac offatim conficiatn; Epid. 488, em istic homo te articulatim concidit; Cure. 576, iam ego te faciam ut hie formicae frustillatim differant; Men. 858-859, securim capiam ancipitem atque hunc senem / osse flni dedolabo assulatim uiscera; cf. also True. 621, 626, and Capt. 832. Most of Plautus' -tim adverbs are hapax legomena and appear to be original coinages. The same is probably true of Juventius' tcstatim: its only other appearance is in a fragment of Pomponius, who wrote Atcllan farce in the early first century B.C. (178 R \ iam istam caluam conminuissem colafs tcstatim tibi). Since Pomponius was more a literary than a popular playwright, it seems likely that he is here deliberately imitating the style and diction of the early R o m a n comic stage.
34 Traina, CAP 151; on adverbs in -im see W. M. Lindsay, The Latin Language (Oxford 1894) 548.
78 Luscius Lanuvinus was an elder contemporary and adversary of Terence. Were it not for the running battle which Terence carried on with him in his prologues, we would k n o w almost nothing about Lanuvinus; 35 however, he does appear in Sedigitus' canon, where he is awarded the dubious distinction of ninth place. Sedigitus apparently thought very little of h i m : at any rate, he claims to have had no difficulty in making this unfavorable judgment: ;/(>//<> loco esse facile focio Lusciutn (ap. Gell. 15. 24). It is difficult to penetrate the polemic and rhetoric 36 which color Terence's portrait of his enemy. O n the one hand, Luscius is accused of being pedantically literal in his adaptations from the N e w Comedy (An. 21, obsctmwt diligentiam); on the other, he is blamed for stock characters, such as a seruus currens (Heaut. 31-32), and stock situations, such as a young man's mad scene (Phorm. 6-8), as if he were personally responsible for introducing them. 3 7 Donatus gives a little more information: first, that Luscius Lanuvinus was in fact the unnamed playwright with w h o m Terence was feuding (ad Hun. 4); further, that Lanuvinus translated Menander's Phasnta (ad linn. 9) and Thesaurus (ad Hun. 10). 35 As W . B. Sedgwick, "Plautine Chronology," AJP 70 (1949) 381, n. 7, speaking of " the scantiness o f our knowledge o f ancient literature," reminds us. 36 T he rhetorical structure o f Terence's prologues has been explored by F. Leo, 44 Analccta plautina: de figuris sermonis II," Ausgewahlte kleinc Schriftcn ( R o m e 1960) I 123-162; W . Suss, " Z w e i Bermerkungen zur Technik dcr Komodie, 1: Dcr tcrcnzische Prolog," RhM 65 (1910) 442-450; and M . Pohlcnz, " Der Prolog des Tercnz," Stltal 27-28 (1956) 434-443. 37 For some attempts at defining Lanuvinus as a playwright, see M. R . Posani, 41 La figura di Luscio Lanuvino c la sua polcmica con Tcrcnzio," RcndAccIt 7.4 (1943) 151-162; Bardon, LU 47-49; E. Paratore, "Studi sulla palliata, 1: ad Ter. Eun. 7-13," RivCCM 1 (1959) 44-63; M. R . Posani, 4< Osservazioni su alcuni passi dci prologhi terenziani," Stltal 37 (1965) 85-113; and C. Garton, 44 The Tlu 'saurus: A Comedy o f Luscius Lanuvinus," AJP 92 (1971) 17-37.
. o T)
j
He even (ibid.) gives plot outlines of the Phasma and the Thesaurus (the second adapted from a metrical argumcntuui •!> but, although these are useful for the study of Menandcr, they tell us little about Lanuvinus' art. Donatus also gives n s (ad Hun. 10) one direct quotation from the Thesaurus; it is , . the opening of a courtroom speech in which a sencx deteuds his retention of a treasure trove which rightfully belongs to the young hero of tlie play (1-2 R 3 ) : Athenienses, bellum cum Rhodiensibus quod fuerit quid ego hie pracdicem?
in ^
Bcare professes to find evidence in these lines that Lanuvinus* style was 4< pompous and turgid," }i) but all that I can ) see in them is an example of standard rhetorical praetcritio; by themselves they tell us very little about Lanuvinus' style. Since it is clear that Terence deliberately rejected most of the traditions of the R o m a n comic stage, 40 m o r e information concerning the attitudes and techniques of his adversary would be most welcome, particularly for the' purposes of this study. Did Lanuvinus see himself as a defender of the inheritance o f Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Mmtus, and the rest? O r was his attack on Terence based more on personal pique and politics? In view of the fragmentary and contradictory nature of the surviving evidence, a judicious application of the ars ncsccudi seems the best metlioJ to follow—though also the most disappointing. O n the strength o f a gloss of pseudo-Placidus ( C G I i j i y 38 F. Leo, " D i e Uebcrlieferungsgcscliichtc Jcr tcrcuzischcu Koiuodtciiid* der Commentar des Donatus," RhM 38 (1883) 322. 39 B e a r c , R S 115. 40
/
This view is defended in Chapter VI, "Tcrcnce," below.
r i J
so 51 G, Burrae Vatroniac, fatuae ac stupidae, <7 fabuia quadam Vatroni auctoris, quant Burra inscripsit, nc/ <1 mcretrice Bttrra), BucchcJer 41 argued for die existence of a comic poet named Vatronius, passed over in the lists of Varro and Sedigitus; he would, presumably, have been responsible for translating the Pyrrlta of Diphilus. Ribbcck accepted this argument, and included Vatronius in his Index poetarum fabulae palliatae.42 But later Lindsay pointed out that hurra means something like " red-faced/' and argued that for die last three words of pscudo-Placidus' gloss we must understand a nierctrice hurra <cui Vatronia nomen erat.y" So burrae Vatroniac would thus be an expression like doctae Sulpiciac or castac Lticretiac, a n d the existence of the comic poet Vatronius becomes, as Lindsay concluded, " very doubtful indeed." 4 3 O u r next playwright, Aquilius, embodies in a number of ways most o f the problems with which we have been concerncd in this chapter. 4 4 He is a shadowy figure; he docs n o t appear in the lists of Sedigitus and Varro, and n o biographical information survives. He may, in fict, have never existed: Aquilius might be n o more than an M S corruption of the name of Atilius, the ferreus scriptor examined above. 4 5
41 F. B[ucchcler], 44 Pocta latimis ignobilis," RhM 33 (1878) 309-310. 42 Ribbeck, SRP II 131, 386. 43 W . M. Lindsay, 11 The Comedian Vatronius," CQ 23 (1929) 31-32; counterarguments are offered by Bardon, LLI 50. 44 G. Wissown, 44 Acjuilius," RE 2 (1896) 323; Bardon, LLI 36-37. 45 The Gellius MSS (3.3.4) read aqli, with i added above the q; Varro's reference to 44 Aquilius " (Ling. 6.89) actually rends quani co[in](oycdiam alii esse diennt; Tumcbus changcd alii to Aquilii. See Ritschl, PPT 123-124 and T. Mantcro, 44 II pocta drninmatico Atilio," Tetraonyma: Miscellanea graeco-roinarta a L. de Rrgihus, P. Mitigazzini, A. Neppi Modem, E. Turolla dicata (Gcnova 1966) 181-209.
81
T w o fragments survive under the n a m e of Aquilius, both from a play callcd the Bocotia. The second (1U R 3 , ubi pritnum accensus clamarat meridian) is brief a n d of little importance, but the first, quoted by Geliius (3. 3. 5), is particularly interesting, both in itself and in the reasons Geliius gives for quoting it (1-9 R * ) : ut ilium di perdant, primus qui horas repperit, quique adeo primus statuit hie solarium! qui mihi comminuit misero articulatim diem, nam m e puero uenter crat solarium multo o m n i u m istorum o p t u m u m et ucrissumum: ubiuis monebat esse, nisi quom nil erat. nunc etiam q u o m est, n o n estur, nisi soli lubct. itaque adeo iam opplctum oppidumst solariis, maior pars populi aridi reptant fame. T h e chapter of Noctes atticae in which Geliius quotes this passage (3.3) is our main source of information on the establishment of the Plautine canon in antiquity. 46 W e l l trained scholars, says Geliius, when called upon to identify plays as Plautine, d o not trust the various lists made by the earlier grammarians but rather Plautus himself and his style and diction (3. 3. 1, ipsiPlauto moribusque ittgeni atque linguae eius). Varro himself, who established the list of twenty-one plays which by universal consent w e r e Plautine, followed this method. He was certain that the Bocotia, for example, was by Plautus, despite the fact that it was ascribed to Aquilius. Geliius agrees, and quotes our fragment to demonstrate the Plautine style of the play. 46 The canon is discussed by Ritschl, PPT 71-245; Leo, PF 1-62; W . M. Lindsay, The Ancient Editions of Plautus (Oxford 1904); and H. T. Rowcll, " Accius and the Facncratrix of Plautus," AJP 73 (1952) 268-280.
Further, Gellius recalls that, when he was reading the Neruolaria to his teacher, Favorinus, and came to the line scrattac, scnippedae, strittabillae, sordidae (fr. 97 L), Favorinus exclaimed that this verse alone was enough to convince a reader that the play was by Plautus. Likewise a recent reading of the non-canonical Frctum had proven to Gellius himself that the play was the most genuine of all the works o f Plautus. Yet its authenticity had been denied by earlier scholars. Gellius then goes on to suggest t w o reasons w h y plays not by P! tutus were ascribed to him. First, there was another playwright, named Plautius; his name in the genitive w o u l d be identical to that o f Plautus, and this would explain some o f the confusion (Varro was the author of this theory). Second, Plautus undoubtedly reworked and revised a n u m b e r o f plays by earlier playwrights, thus leaving on them the characteristic marks of his style; this explains w h y there are about one hundred and thirty comedies circulating under Plautus' name. Gellius finishes his chapter w i t h some biographical remarks about Plautus which have been fully explored b y Leo 47 and need n o t concern us here. A number of c o n clusions about the Plautine canon, however, can be d r a w n f r o m Gellius' material—conclusions w h i c h arc highly relevant t o this whole study. First, w e can be morally certain that the twenty-one Plautine plays w e possess are the t w e n t y - o n e Varroniatiae mentioned by Gellius: the prestige of Varro's name, and the principle of O c k h a m ' s razor, make any alternate explanation untenable. 48 Second, the Varroniatiae,
47 Leo, PF 63-86. 48 So Ritschl, PPT 73; C. Knapp's skepticism (" Notes on Plautus and T e -
83
strictly speaking, are not Varro's choice. He simply took a poll among his grammarian predecessors, eliminating all plays rejected by any of them (consensu omnium: 3.3.3), and when he was finished there were twenty-one plays left. (Thus Jocelyn's 49 intriguing suggestion that there was some superstitious reason for settling on the figure twenty-one must be abandoned). Third, it is highly unlikely that Varro's predecessors had access to any independent historical evidence, such as didascaliae, aediles' records, and the like, since lost to us, on which to base their decision. O r , if such information existed, they do not seem to have made any use of it. Less than a generation after the death of Plautus T e r ence explicitly ascribed the Commorientes to him (Ad. 7); Terence had clearly read the script carefully (Ad. 8-10). Yet this play does not appear among the Varronianae. Lucius Accius, w h o flourished less than a century after Plautus' death, explicitly rejected the Boeotia (Gell. 3. 3. 9); he could not have advanced any convincing scientific reason for this opinion, since, as w e have seen, neither Varro nor Gellius felt any compunction about ascribing this play to Plautus. Ancient producers, clearly banking on Plautus' p o p u larity, were very free about attaching his name to all sorts o f comedies. Later scholars were reduced to ridiculous ^ explanations such as Varro's " Plautius " or Accius' distinction 4 14 50 f between a " Titus Maccius " and a Plautus " to clarify % the confusion that confronted them. Their o w n sense of style was their only guide in attacking the problem. We ) ' , . correctness rcncc," AJP 35 [1914] 20, "... these are .inferences only, and their must remain beyond scientific demonstration until Varro's list of 21, vouched for by good ancient authority, is recovered for us ") is uncalled for. 4* Jocelyn (supra p. 75, n. 31) 97, n. 1. 50 Gellius 3.3.10; Leo, PF 34, n. 1; Bardon, LLI 36.
) $
t
A l f
84 need not subscribe to Jocelyn's belief that only " the woolliest of aesthetic arguments " were used in this dispute to agree with him that " there are no good positive reasons for thinking that the twenty-one [ Varronian' plays] all came f r o m the same hand " 51 W h a t w e can, perhaps, blame the grammarians f o r is their belief (not unparalleled among modern scholars investigating similar questions) that the problem was susceptible to solution in the first place. For, as w e have seen, the style of R o m a n comedy was so unified, so tied to tradition, that any attempt to separate the productions of its various practitioners was, in the absence of any reliable external evidence, doomed t o almost certain failure. From the lengthy quotation from the play which we possess it is easy enough to see w h y Varro and Geliius believed that Plautus wrote the Boeotia. B u t it will also be easy for us to see why it might have been written by any other poet o f the palliata—even, perhaps, the questionable Aquilius. T h e opening lines, for example, echo a standard Plautine m o t i f ; 5 2 cf. Aul 785-786, ut illunt di imnortales omncs dcaeque quantum est perduint, / qtiem propter hodie auri tantmn perdidi injelix, miser; Men. 451-452, qui ilium di omncs perduint quei primus (hoc) commentus est, / contionem habere, qui homines occupatos occupat/; a n d Poeti. 449-451, Di illunt infclicent omncs qui post hunc diem / leno ullant Veneri urnquam immolarit hostiam / quiue ullum turis granum sacruficaucrit. B u t the -same m o t i f also appears i n Naevius (Com. 18-19 W [19 R 3 ] ) : ut ilium di perdanty qui primum holitor protulit / caepam! T h e r e are m a n y Plautine parallels to line 3 (qui
51 Jocelyn (supra p. 75, n. 31) 97, n. 1. 52 Leo, PF 168-169; Fraenkel, N 629; Traina, CAP
39.
m mihi cowmimiit miscro artiadatim diem); for example, cf. Epid. 488, istic homo te artiadatim concidit. But as we have seen earlier in this chapter, Juventius wrote in a very similar style (7 R 3 , caput ei testatim diffregero). Other parallels from Plautus could be drawn: the personification of dies 53 and uenter is especially characteristic; cf. Stick 435-436 and Capt. 468. But the point is clear enough. T h o u g h the ascription of the Boeotia to Aquilius (or Atilius) was an old and strong tradition, some of the best literary critics of ancient R o m e believed that the style of this play was close enough to that of Plautus to outweigh this tradition. It is no strange thing that they felt this similarity; it would, in fact, have been much more surprising if they had not. 5 4 53 Fraenkel, EPP 102, 238. 54 Ribbeck's Index (SRP II386) includes a number o f other authors of palliatae; all of them, however, come well after the period with which we arc concerned. Quintipor Clodius was a comic playwright of Varro's time, sine ulla ... musa, according to Varro (Sa/. fr. 59 B). Aristius Fuscus was a friend of Horace's (Ep. 1.10 is addressed to him), as was Fundanius, the narrator of Sat. 2.8 (also addressed in Sat. 1.10.42). Vergilius Romanus wrote comedies in Pliny the Younger's time (Plin., Ep. 6.21) and M. Pomponius Bassulus in Hadrian's; the epitaph of the latter survives (C/L IX 1164).
V. CAECILIUS
STATIUS
Caecilius Statius 1 was an Insubrian Gaul w h o was b r o u g h t to R o m e as a slave early in the second century B . C . a n c i there freed, apparendy by an otherwise u n k n o w n C a e c i l i u s i (Hier. s. a. A b r . 1838; Gell. 4.20.13). He became a p l a y wright, devoting himself exclusively to the fabula palliata His plays were highly regarded b y later readers and c r i t i c s : Volcacius Sedigitus (ap. Gell. 15.24) ranked h i m first a m o n g R o m a n comic playwrights. F r o m Cicero we can i n f e r that this was the communis opinio (De opt. gen. orat. 1.2, itaqut licet diccrc et Ennium summum epicum poetam ... et Caeciliun Jortasse comicutn). Further statements by Velleius P a t e r c u l u : and Quintilian support this opinion. 2 Caecilius died i n 16i (Hier. ibid.); if we follow J e r o m e in assigning his fiomi/ to 179, this would place him, in time, squarely b e t w e c i Plautus and Terence in the history of R o m a n c o m e d y . Since the time of Ritschl the scholarly consensus ha ) < 1 F. Skutsch. "Caecilius Statius" - R £ 3 (1887) 1189-1192 gives refercno for the testimonia. Sec fiirther Faider, PCC 277-287, and D . O . R o b s o n , " 1 1 Nationality o f the Poet Caecilius Statius," AJP 59 (1938) 301-308. 2 Indeed Velleius maintains that the period of Caecilius and Terence represcn the Golden A g e o f Latin comcdy (1.17.1, dulccsque Latini leporis facetiae per Caeciliu Terentiumque et Afratiium subpari aetate nituerunt); here he is perhaps rcflcctii the anti-Plautine reaction of Horace (ArsP. 270-274); sec F. W . Shipley, cd. ai tr., Velleius Paterculus (LCL 1924) 42-43, n. b. Quintilian, o f course, does n o t ha a very high opinion o f R o m a n comcdy, but his reference to Caecilius rnafc it clear that here he is consciously opposing received wisdom (10.1.99, licet G cilium ueteres laudibus ferant).
}
{
i
QO been tliat Caccilius stood between Plautus and Terence n o t only in time, but in artistic outlook and dramatic style as well. 3 He is usually seen as a " transitional figure " w h o " apparently aimed at a more Hellenic type of comedy than had Nacvius and Plautus " 4 — and, we should add, than had Livius Andronicus and the minor comic playwrights w h o went together to make up the R o m a n comic tradition. Attractive though this position is, there is something a little suspect in its very attractiveness. Such a literaryhistorical schema is too neat, and, when we consider the fragmentary nature o f most o f our evidence, too comforting. It depends too m u c h oil the ccntrality of Plautus and T e r ence in our imaginations. Plautus and Terence are central to us for one reason only: they survive. And the contrasts between the two (as we shall see in the following chapter) arc striking and clcar. H o w convenient for our picture of the historical development o f Latin literature it would be if we could use a fragmentary author to bridge the enormous g a p between the t w o survivors of the palliatol O n the other hand, as with m o s t examples of received wisdom, so this one, it must be admitted, is likely to contain a good deal o f truth. W h a t I propose to do in this chapter is to examine it critically, in the hope of discovering more about the style and artistic purpose of Caccilius Statius than would be pos3 RitschI, PPT 145; followed by Leo, GRL 220-221; H. Oppennann, " Caccilius unci die Entwicklung der romischen Komodie," FuF 15 (1939) 196-197; Duckworth, NRC 46-49; and Bardon, LLI 39, 43. Basing his argument on an ingenious interpretation o f the tcstimonia, Faider, PCC 289-313, attempts to show that Caccilius was no m o r e than a translator o f Greek comedy, as was, in his opinion, Tcrcncc. But this theory collapses when confronted by the evidence provided by Aulus Gcllius, as we shall see below. * Duckworth, NRC
49, 46.
89 bible if I were simply to report the c o m m o n opinion about this playwright and let it g o at that. Five major arguments have been advanced for the belief that Caecilius was a Heilenizing playwright: first, the large proportion of Greek titles in the surviving part of his w o r k ; second, the lack o f R o m a n allusions in his plays; third, his alleged establishment of the rule against contamination fourth, the apparent historical fact that he, like Terence, initially had difficulty in getting his work accepted by the R o m a n audience; and finally, his heavy dependence on Menander, as opposed to other, presumably livelier, authors o f the Nta, for material to rework into his comedies. I shall examine each of these arguments in order and in detail. The suggestion that the large number of Greek titles used by Caecilius is an indication of the Heilenizing tendency of his work was first made by Ritschl. 5 O n the face of it it looks very convincing. This is one of the first differences one notices between Plautus and Terence, and certainly many Greek titles appear in the Caecilian corpus. Detailed comparison, however, is not such a simple matter. First, it is impossible to list a playwright's titles under the unambiguous headings " Latin " and " G r e e k / ' For the analysis which follows I have found it necessary to use five categories: (1) purely Latin titles (either c o m m o n or proper nouns); (2) titles consisting of Greek c o m m o n nouns; (3) titles consisting of Greek proper nouns (i.e., the name, which in R o m a n comedy will almost always be Greek, of the character or characters playing the title role); (4) tides consisting of Greek loan-words which had, as far as we can tell, come to be accepted as naturalized Latin by the second century 5 Ritschl, PPT
144-145.
»*-* ' <• r'-.-^trjr&i 'B' *f
% \ ! /
o
V'
n*
1
90 B.C.; and (5) comedies cited under two titles, one Greek and one Latin. W i t h this arrangement the forty-two surviving titles 6 of the comedies of Caecilius Statius break d o w n as follows: (1) eight pure Latin (.Demandati, Exul, Fallacia, Meretrix, Portitor, Pugil, Triumphus, Venator); (2) twenty Greek c o m mon nouns (Aethrio, Androgynos, Aiotai, Chalcia, Epicleros, Epistatbnos, Exhautuhestos, Gatnos, Harpazomenc, Hypobolimaetis Aeschinus, Karine, Nauclcrus, Nothus Nicasio, Philumena, Plocium, Polumeni, Progatnos, Synaristosae, Syncphebi, Titthe); (3) ten Greek proper nouns (Andria, Chrysium [or Cluysion\ the f o r m of the citation is ambiguous], Dardanus [or Dtfft/awoi], Drt/ws [or Dtft/05], Ephesio, Hymnis, Imbrii, Kratinus [sic Warmington, 7 f o r no apparent reason; Priscian (J/itf. 6. 96) reads IH Crtf/m?], Pausimachus, Syracusii); (4) t w o naturalized Greek loan-words (Epistula, a w o r d which appears over forty times in Plautus, and Symboluin, accepted as naturalized Latin b y Cato [De sumptu suo 173.16]); and (5) t w o plays with alternate titles (Faerierator, also cited as Obolostates, and Hypobolintaeus, k n o w n also as Subditiuos or — a hybrid — Hypobolimacus Rastraria). Before discussing the Caecilian evidence and my reasons for adopting the categories used above, I should like to cite for comparison the evidence from Plautus and from Nacvius (the only earlier playwright for w h o m enough titles survive to be statistically significant). Out o f the twenty-one traditionally accepted titles o f the Plautine canon, fourteen are purely Latin (Arm., Ctfpf., Cist., Cure., Merc., Mi7es, Most., Persa [which m i g h t be regarded as a naturalized 6 For purposes o f this analysis I have accepted the titles given by Warmington, KOL I 468-545. Other edd. vary slightly. 7 Warmington, £ O L I 506.
91
Greek loan~word] v PoettiW., TritiTrue., FiW); the o r h c seven are Greek proper nouns (Atnph.y Bacch., Gis., Epfti. Pseud., Stick), O u t of ehe twenty-nine titles w h l c l survive f r o m Naevius, 8 fourteen are purely Latin (Agitator ie Ariolus, Carbonaria, Corollaria, Dcmcntes, Do/i/S, Figulus, N^H toe, Pcllex, Personata, Proiectus, Quadrigetnini, Testicularia, Tu nicularia); eight are Greek c o m m o n nouns (^awfteowtrw!; Agrypmtntes, Colax, Glaucoma, Gymnasticus, Stigmatias, Tcch nictisy Triphallus); six are Greek proper nouns (/!/)/>*•/ [better Demetrius, Lampadio, Leo//, Stalagmus, T f rentilla); and one is unique: a Greek common noun w i f ' the Latin -Arm ending, used for comic titles: Clatnidari The above categorization makes it clear that the e v i d e n t for Hellenism on the part of Caecilius Statius is b y no m e a so overwhelming as it appears at first glance; in fact, if r t w o plays with alternate titles are included on the noGreek side, his plays for which no knowledge of Greek; 1 required in order to understand the title (i.e., purely L a f titles, proper names, and naturalized loan-words) s l i g h t o u t n u m b e r the ones for which Greek is required ( t w e n r t w o to twenty). O n the other hand, the addition of t evidence f r o m Naevius, with his eight titles which depc) for their effect on a knowledge of Greek, consideraV weakens the case for a steady Latin-to-Greek historic $ 1 development. But several important questions remain. For exampi h o w important is a Greek — or a Latin — title as evidcr. 4 J ' f o r the fidelity of a R o m a n playwright to his Greek origitjt y * Plautus' Mercator, with its Latin title, is generally regard f ( I 8 Again, I use the titles accepted b y Warmington, ROL II 74-107, for" list. His plays ambigui tituli include one more Greek title, Tribacelus (p. 108)d| and one more Latin, Ludus (p. 110; cf. 110, n. a).
* j
•* f
« /
;
92 either with approval or disapproval, as the most purely Hellenic of the twenty-one plays in the canon. 9 While his Pseudolus, surely one of his most original and characteristic creations, 10 has a title which, though technically a proper noun, would lose all of its comic flavor if the audience were ignorant of the meaning of the Greek
ifei w
93 (3.3.6) and attributed to Plautus' Nerwlam docs not appear in our text of the Stichus.12 In the face of this confusion, it seems appropriate to examine carefully the internal evidence, such as it is, for the tides of Plautus' comedies. The play w i t h the strongest contemporary attestation of its title is the Epidicus; this is part of a typically Plautine self-deprecating joke (probably spoken by the v e r y actor who was its butt) in Bacch. 214-215, ctiam Epidicum, quam ego fabulam aeque ac me ipsutn amo, / nullam aequo inuitus spectoy si agit Pellio. Even this evidence, however, has come under attack as a post-Plautine interpolation. 13 The traditional titles of four other plays are supported by their use in the prologues: the Asiuaria (10-12): huic nomcn graccc Onagost fabulac; Demophilus scripsit, Maccus uortit barbare; Asinariam uolt esse, si per uos licet. the Mercator (9-10): graece haec uocatur E m p o r o s Philemonis, eadem Latine Mercator Macci Titi. the Trinumtnus
(18-21):
huic Graece nomen est Thensauro fabulae: Philcmo scripsit, Plautus uortit barbare, 12 For these variations in Plautine titles sec G. E. Duckworth, 44 The Unnamed Characters in the Plays of Plautus," CP 33 (1938) 276; E. Fraenkel, 44 Das Original der Cistellaria des Plautus," Philologus 87 (1932) 118; E. A. Sonnenschein, ed., T. Macci Plouti Mostcllaria (Oxford 19072) 146; W. B. Sedgwick, 44 The Composition of the Stichus" CR 39 (1925) 60; and W. B. Sedgwick, 44 T h e Origin and Development of Roman Comic Metres," ClMcd 10 (1949) 176, 11. 12. A. Ernout, ed., Plaute V (Paris 19612) 13, n. 2, suggests that tlie title Phasma is the result of 44 une 4 helldnisation' postdrieure i Plaute." 13 H. B. Mattingly, 44 The Plautine 4 Didascaliae,'" Athenaeum N.S. 35 (1957) 83.
94 nomen T r i i i u m m o fecit, nunc h o c uos rogat ut liceat possidere hanc n o m e n fabulam. and the Vidularia (6-7, Studemund's restoration): Schedo<edia> poeta, hanc noster f<ecit> Vm. N o t e that in the case of die Mercator Plautus seems simply t o be giving the Latin equivalent of the Greek title; for the other three, he apparently is insisting, however diffidently, o n his own title f o r the play. Three other prologues give titles which differ, in t w o cases substantially, f r o m the traditional titles of the canon. First, the Miles gloriosus (86-87): A ' X<x£<*>v Graece huic nomen est comoediae, id nos Latine * gloriosum' dicimus. Here, even more than with the Mercator, the Latin " title " appears to be no m o r e than a translation of the Greek; these lines suggest that Plautus thought o f the play we call the Miles gloriosus as the 'AXa^cov. T h e M S evidence for the Poenulus is confusing; Lindsay reads (53-55): KotpxT)86vio<; uocatur haec comoedia; latine Plautus 4 Patruos' Pultiphagonides. nomen iam habetis. If this reading is correct, Plautus' original title, Patruus, for the play w e call the Poenulus f o r some reason did n o t become canonical. 14 14
F. Leo, ed., Plauti Comoediae II (Berlin 1896) 181, positing a lacuna between lines 53 and 54, would read: Carchedonius uocatur haec comoedia / / latine Plautus patruus pultiphagonides (in his apparatus), thus preserving the canonical title.
95 The prologue of the Casina was written, in whole or in part, for a later revival o f the p l a y ; 1 5 the lines in which the title is given read as follows (30-34): comoediai nomen dare uobis uolo. KXyjpoufievot uocatur haec comoedia gracce, la tine Sortientes. Diphilus hanc graece scripsit, postid rusuni denuo latine Plautus cum latranti nomine. It is difficult to tell whether these lines belong to the original prologue or the later redaction. 16 Plautus could very well have been responsible for the joke o n his o w n n a m e : he had already done something of the sort in his Asinaria (Asin. 11). The important facts to note are, first, that while the R o m a n comic theater was still a living enterprise, this play evidently was not k n o w n as the Casina, and second, that (as with mcrcator and gloriosus) the Latin sortientes is presented more as a translation of the Greek than as an original, independent title. Here, too, Plautus and the R o m a n audience may well have referred to this play, which is surely one of the most thoroughly R o m a n of Plautus* creations, by its Greek title. There is, then, internal evidence for eight titles out of the twenty-one Plautine plays. O f these, the evidence directly contradicts the canonical titles o f two plays (Cas., Poen.); a truncated version of the usual title is offered by another (Miles — if indeed Gloriosus is the intended title of the play); one is dependent o n conjectural restoration (Vid.); and t w o others (Epid. t Merc.) are open to argument. 15 For the literature on the revival see Chapter IV, 41 Minor Comic Poets," n. 1. Leo, PF 207-208, n. 2, argues that the lines I have quoted are Plautine and that Plautus called the play Sortientes, while Casina w a s the title for the revival.
96
Only t w o Plautine titles remain wliich are incontrovertably supported by internal evidence. The difficulties 1 have described above cast a good deal of doubt o n the authenticity o f the remaining fifteen Plautine titles, to say nothing of the titles of comedies which survive only in fragments. Hence it becomes increasingly questionable whether Greek titles alone can be used to support the theory of the Hellenism of Caccilius Statius. T h e second major argument for Caccilius' Hcllcnizing is the scarcity of direct R o m a n allusions in his plays. Duckworth and Beare mistakenly say there arc none; Skutsch finds three: 1 7 a reference to R o m a n political organization in 16 W (15 R 3 ) : mcritissiino hie m e ciccit ex hac dccuria! a metaphor (the style o f which will be discussed later) taken f r o m gladiatorial c o m b a t (34-35 W [37-38 R 3 ] ) : hacc catcrua plane gladiatoria cum suum sibi alius socius socium sauciat. and a reference to R o m a n funeral customs (120 W 123 R 3 ] ) :
[122-
credidi silicernium eius m e esse esurum. T h i s final suggestion is unacceptable: the funeral feast was certainly not u n k n o w n to the Greeks (cf. Demosth. 18.288); h e n c e there is n o p r o o f that Caecilius' line is anything m o r e t h a n a direct translation of his Greek original, however m u c h the Greek and R o m a n banquets may h a v e differed in detail. Several m o r e c o n v i n c i n g examples, however, can be 17 Duckworth, NRC
4 6 ; Bearc, RS
87; Skutsch (supra p. 87, n. 1) 1191
07 added to Skutsch's list. The first is the title of the play Triumphus (218-220 W [228-229 R 3 ]), which clearly refers t o a R o m a n institution and has interesting implications f o r the traditional nature of Caecilius' w o r k w h i c h will be examined later. T h e second is a reference (also with interesting stylistic implications) to Roman military organization; it comes f r o m the same play (219-220 W [229 R 3 ] ) : nunc mcae militiae Astutia opus est. subcenturia! Festus (400.27-34 L) quotes Caecilius' line in order to explain subcenturiare, which, as he explains, means explcndae caituriae gratia supplcrc, subicere. The third R o m a n allusion is f r o m an unknown play (250 W [269 R 3 ] ) : aduehitur c u m iligna corona et chlamyde. di uostram fidem! Though crowns of all materials can be found in both Greece and Rome, 1 8 and though this very line also mentions the purely Greek chlamys, the allusion here is still R o m a n , as is proven by the fact that Aulus Geliius quotes Caecilius' line in order to show that at one time the R o m a n " civic c r o w n " was made of leaves of the h o l m oak (5.6.11-12). Hence w e have five reasonably certain R o m a n allusions out of the approximately 190 surviving fragments of Caecilius' w o r k . W e should imagine that this w o u l d represent a high percentage of the original total, since R o m a n allusions in any comedy would be likely to contain rare words, items of antiquarian interest, etc., and therefore would stand a good chance of being glossed. The ratio o f 18 See DarSag s.v. corona.
glossed allusions, however, may well have been rather lower than w e might expect. There is a total of eighty-four Roman allusions in the plays of Plautus, according to the study of J. N. Hough (who very properly eliminates Roman allusions found in the prologues, where of course they could be included w i t h o u t any incongruity). 19 O f these, twenty-six (approximately thirty-one per cent) appear in glosses.20 Furthermore, though it seems probable that the two playwrights wrote approximately the same number of plays, Plautus is cited by the grammarians at least five times as often as Caecilius. 21 W h i l e it would be preposterous to use these ratios for a mathematical proof (if the appropriate multiplication is done we end up with seventyfive R o m a n allusions for Caecilius, almost equal to Plautus* eighty-four), still, they d o suggest that if w e had the complete opus of Caccilius Statius we would be able to find many more R o m a n allusions in it than the five we n o w possess. It remains to be asked, however, how important R o m a n allusions are as indications of h o w R o m a n the contents of
19 J. N. Hough, " Miscellanea Plautina: Vulgarity, Extra-Dramatic Speeches, Roman Allusions," TAPA 71 (1940) 186-198. Hough's criteria for determining Roman allusions arc on pp. 195-197; his list is on p. 197, n. 20. Following Hough's example, I have eliminated Caccilius 134-135 W (181-182 R3), insamtm attspiciumI oliter histrionium est / atque ut rnngistrattis public? cum auspicant, since it is clearly part of a prologue. 20 Asin. 199; Aul. 325, 566; Bacch. 12 (fr. VIIIL), 1088; Capt. 489; Cas. 524; Cure. 70, 269, 474; Men. 183; Miles 211-212, 359, 648; Most. 22, 2 2 6 ; Persa 748; Rud. 535, 1382; Trin. 345, 545, 609; True. 144, 213 (which could not have been recovered as a fragment, however, if w e did not possess Plautus' text), 495, 690-691. 21 Lindsay has fifty-three Plautine titles (including the canonical twenty-one) in his edition; Warmington ( R O L I) has forty-two Caecilian titles. There are approximately 190 citations o f Plautus in Festus, compared to ca. thirty of Caccilius; in Nonius, ca. 540 for Plautus, ca. 100 for Caecilius. Short Plautine plays like Capt. and Men. arc glossed more than fifty times each, while o n l y rarely do more than ten fragments of a Caccilian play survive.
) § 3
99
a jabnh palliata are. At one time they seemed to be vital; for example, Westaway's entire analysis of Plautine originality was based on this sort of evidence. But since Fraenkel proved that many apparently Greek allusions can in fact be original R o m a n contributions (for example, his study opens with a demonstration that a reference to the Nemean and O l y m p i c games in Cas. 759 is an original Plautine contribution to this play), R o m a n allusions seem considerably less important as criteria for Roman originality. 2 2 The nature and very existence o f what modern critics call coiitaininatio (die word is not used as a literary term in antiquity) has been a matter of intense (and barren) controversy for decades. 23 Leo, w h o defined contaniinatio as the combination of two Greek plays into a single Latin play or the introduction into a Latin version of o n e Greek play of material from a second, suggested that Caecilius Statius was the first to abandon this practice. 24 If this is true, and if Leo's premise is correct, it would certainly be a strong argument for the theory of Caccilius , deliberate Hellenism. Leo based his position on the prologue of Terence's Andria\ here Terence admits that he has used material f r o m Mcnandcr's
vv<; lie
'j ^ ^ ItC iCly
1-
s r
22 Wcstaway (supra p. 92, n. 9); for criticisms see H o u g h (supra p. 98, n . 19) 196, n. 18.
.
r
o
i
aii,
O n Cas. 759, see Fraenkel, EPP 1.
23 For a short summary, with bibliography, o f the question of contaniinatio see Duckworth, NRC 202-208 (for Duckworth's o w n conclusions see 387-388).
.
1 ?
For some o f the vicissitudes o f the problem see Leo, PF 169-187, supported by Fraenkel, EPP 243-306 (but cf. Fraenkel's palinode, 431-433); G. Jachmann,
in* ;
Plautinisches und Attischcs (Berlin 1931; rcpr. R o m e 1966) 142-194, attacked by G. E. Duckworth, Bearc, RS
41
The Structure o f the Miles Gloriasus"
310-313, attacked by W . R . Chalmers,
7 (1957) 12-14; defended: W . Bearc,
44
41
CP 30 (1935) 22&-246;
C o n t a n i i n a t i o C R N.S. 9 (1959) 7-11.
24 Leo, PF 100 (on contaminatio in general see 169-187). mann,
14
|
Contamination C R N.S. ^
See also H. Opper-
Zur Entwicklung dcr Fabula Palliata," Hermes 74 (1939) 119.
* v
\
100 Perinthia for his version of the same playwright s Andria; the prologue continues (An. 15-21): id isti uituperant factum atque in co disputant contaminari n o n decere fabulas. faciuntne intellegendo ut nil intellegant? qui quoin luinc accusant, Naeuium Plautum Ennium accusant quos hie noster auctores habct, q u o r u m aemulari exoptat neglegentiam potius quam istorum obscuram diligentiam. Terence here defends himself by citing Naevius, Plautus, and E n n i u s as his models for the practice of contaminatio. Since Caecilius, an h o n o r e d predecessor of Terence (cf. Hec. 14) had recently died (168; the date of the Andria is 166), Leo argues that Terence certainly would have mentioned h i m as an auctor for contaminatio. Since he did not, we may conclude that Caccilius d i d not " contaminate In fact, Caecilius seems to have m a d e a point of n o t contaminating: An. 16, contaminari non dcccrc fabulas, was probably a stated rule, quoted by Terence's detractors f r o m one of Caecilius' prologues. 2 5 T h i s is an optimistic piece o f deduction, full of the positivistic spirit of R i t s c h l ' s nil tarn difficilest quin quaerendo inuestigari possiet. B u t i t is completely unacceptable. Its greatest weakness, as Skutsch indicated shortly after it was first p r o p o u n d e d , is t h a t it is based o n a blatant argumentum ex silentio: that T e r e n c e d i d not h a p p e n t o mention Caecilius a l o n g with the other three p l a y w r i g h t s proves nothing. L e o s later reply is u n c o n v i n c i n g . 2 6 T o Skutsch's d a m n i n g 25 L e o . GRL 2 2 0 . 26 skutsch (supra p. 87, n. 1) 1191; Leo, GRL
220, n. 1.
101 argument I w o u l d add t w o points: first, it is not certain that Terence is here claiming that Naevius, Plautus, and Ennius necessarily practiced contaminatio; all he is saying is that he would rather emulate their neglegentia than his critics' obscura diligentia (An. 20-21). 27 Second, it should hardly be necessary to point o u t that Terence's prologues are rhetorical; their purpose is to ensure a fair hearing for his plays, n o t t o provide us w i t h a history of the R o m a n stage. There are all sorts of reasons why Terence m a y have omitted Caecilius. Perhaps he liked the bounce of die triad Naeuium Plautum Ennium. Perhaps the late Caecilius had been an e n e m y of the same critics w h o were attacking Terence; hence there would be little point in calling him as a witness f o r the defense here. Perhaps Terence believed that the trio he names had m o r e auctoritas than Caecilius, Naevius a n d Plautus because they had been dead for a generation o r more, Ennius because of his work in tragedy and epic. The same caveat must be applied to the argument that since Caecilius, like Terence, had trouble getting his plays accepted by the R o m a n audience early in his career, so, like Terence, he must have been an anti-traditional, Heilenizing playwright. 28 This argument also is based on a single Tercntian prologue (Hec. 14-15, in is quas primwn Caccili didici nouas / partim sum earum exactu', partim uix steti), where again Terence (speaking through the persona of his producer Ambivius) had an obvious motive for exaggerating an incident or series of incidents which may have taken place for any number of reasons. We may decide that the reason the Heeyra lost o u t to the tightrope-walker (Hec. 4-5) was 27 Bearc, AS 311. 28 Leo, GRL 218-219; the theory is strongly supported by Faidcr, PCC 282284, 289-290.
10? that it was too Hellenized for the current R o m a n taste: w e have n o right to conclude that this was the reason for Caccilius' difficulty (whatever it was) several decades earlier. Likewise the argument that Caecilius* apparent preference for originals f r o m Menander shows that he was moving toward a " more refined, more Hellenic type o f R o m a n comedy " 29 does n o t in itself carry much weight. It is true that out of forty-two plays by Caecilius, sixteen had Mcnandrian prototypes, compared to three or f o u r out of twenty-one for Plautus. 30 But Menander himself was capable o f great variety; there is no guarantee that all of his plays were " r e f i n e d " ; compare the startlingly different treatments of a situation which opens on approximately the same premises in Menander's Dis Exapaton and the second Adelphoi. Furthermore, there is no way of predicting f r o m a Greek original h o w a R o m a n playwright will handle it. Plautus' Cistellaria, based o n Menander's Synaristosacy is one of his most sentimental plays. W e can probably assume that Plautus chose to follow his original quite closely here, though the fragmentary condition of the play makes judgment difficult Contrast the Bacchides, also based on a Menandrian original (the Dis Exapaton). Here w e may guess (at least to judge from the title) that Plautus strengthened — and coarsened — the role of the twin mcretriccs. W e can be morally certain that he enlarged the role of the scheming slave w h o m he renamed Chrysalus. 31 And w e can n o w prove without question that he eliminated a pair of psychologically and sentimentally oriented scenes between a father 29 Duckworth, NRC 48; Faider, PCC 318, w h o does not mention the Plautine comedies that were based on Menandrian originals. 30 Leo, GRL 219. 31 Fraenkel, EPP 57-70, 226-231.
> •) y !:)V
lytf
and his rcpcntent prodigal son. 32 Thus the flavor o f tl) 1 original was changed completely. It is entirely possibL that the same sort of thing happened in Caecilius' adapt? tions o f Menandrian plays (and in fact some of the evidence we shall examine later suggests that it did). The predominance of Menandrian originals, then, is not in itself sufficiciY. evidence for Caccilius' Hellenism. j W e have seen that external evidence — Greek titles lack o f R o m a n allusions, and historical and biographic?/ considerations — is unsatisfactory for the determination o* Caccilius Statins' relation to the tradition of Roman comedy: In the following pages I shall examine the internal e v i d e n t ^ — the text — from the point o f v i e w o f characterization comic situations, and style, in the hope of discovering mous precisely what Caecilius' relation to this tradition was. T b u usual caveats apply: we arc, as always, dealing with frac^ * ments — a little over 250 lines o f a playwright whose total output must have been more than 40,000. But, again ;fV usual, the grammarians' selection is disinterested as far £> the subject of our investigation is conccrned. Most —indeed, probably all — o f the traditional characte 10> of R o m a n comedy are Greek in origin. The parasitus, fo example, whose very name is Greek, seems to go back as $ far as Epicharmus, and perhaps the miles gloriosus, f b> belongs to the Hellenistic w o r l d rather than the sccona century R o m a n republic, did as well. 3 3 Recent investig: H* tion suggests that even so Plautine a figure as the scrup^, * currens had a Hellenic prototype. 3 4
B u t a comparison be
i
41
pev 32 Handley, MP 13-14. 33 Duckworth, NRC 19.
1|
. *
34 W . S. Anderson, " A N e w Menandrian Prototype fur the Scrvus Currev*
|
o f R o m a n C o m e d y , " Phoenix 24 (1970) 229-236.
J
;in
vV(J
j
itC »us Zj ^
: 0 an T ^y
n
104 twccn Plautus. on die one hand, and Menander and Tcrcnce on the other, shows that the traditional R o m a n comic playwrights made these Greek characters their o w n by sharpening their outlines, concentrating on their characteristic traits, and setting them apart, as far as possible, f r o m the " natural " development of the story line of the play — in short, by making instantly recognizable stock characters out of them. O n e of the simplest ways to accomplish this was by the expansion of monologues. 3 5 C o m p a r e the first lines of (wo monologues by jwrt5i7//5-figurc$, each of which opens a play; first, Copt. 69-70: Iuuentus n o n i c n indidit ' Scorto ' m i h i , co quia inuocatus soleo esse in conuiuio.
^
v
then, Men. 77-78: Iuuentus n o i n c n fecit Pcniculo mihi, idco quia mcnsani q u a n d o c d o detergco.
wj^•*•-? V^-v,*
W i t h the first t w o lines, almost w i t h the first t w o words, the audience w o u l d k n o w immediately w h o the character was and why a n d h o w h e was g o i n g to be funny. There is n o t h i n g like this in w h a t survives of the Nca, even if the prototypes for s u c h figures can b e f o u n d there. B u t this is not evidence o f Plautus' laziness or the stupidity of the R o m a n audicncc. It is a n essential facet o f all sorts o f traditional popular c o m e d y , f r o m , t h e conimedia dell9arte to the Ptdcinella s h o w o n a street in c o n t e m p o r a r y Italy. As w e shall see in the f o l l o w i n g chapter, T e r e n c e chose to a b a n d o n it. W h a t use, if a n y , d i d Caccilius Statius m a k e o f t h e stock characters of t h e R o m a n stage? 35
See Fraenkel, EPP
135-201, for the expansion o f monologues in Plautus.
105 The most important, and the most Roman, of these characters is the seruus callidus. W e have already found h i m in Naevius and Ennius, and it is with this character — notably Chrysalus, Tranio, and Pseudolus — that Plautus m o s t nearly approaches Aristophanes' level of high comic fantasy. 36 Terence avoided the character; his only trickster J is Phormio, a freeman and a personable and believable charac- j ' ter, But certainly not a comic hero in the mould of Pseudolus. ' W c have good evidence, however, that Caecilius Statins did use the scrims callidus. The title of one of his plays is Triumphus: this purely R o m a n term is used metaphorically f o r a slave's successful intrigue several times by Plautus; cf. Asm. 269 (spoken by the seruus callidus Lconida): vnixumam pracdm ct triumphum is adfero oducntu mcot and Pseud. 1051, ite hac, triumphc! ad cautharum recta uia. The convention was well enough established for Plautus to mock it in Bacch. 1068-1075: hoc est incepta efficere pulchre: ueluti mi euenit ut ouans praeda onustus cederem; salute nostra atque urbe capta per dolum domuin redduco < iam > integrum omncm cxercitum. scd, spcctatores, uos nunc ne mircmini quod non triumpho: peruolgatum est, nil m o r o r ; ucrum tamcn accipicntur mulso inilitcs. nunc hanc praedam omncm iam ad quacstorcm dcfcram. The name Triumphus by itself would not be enough to prove 36 For the seruus callidus as a primarily R o m a n invention see Fraenkel, EPP 223-241, and P. P. Spranger, Historische Untersuchungen zu den Sklavenfiguren des Plautus und Terenz (Wiesbaden 1961) 116; for a differing view sec J. C. Dumont, 41 La strangle de Tesclave plautinien," REL 44 (1966) 182-203. For n e w proof that Plautus was fully conscious of the value of his work with this figure see Handley, MP 9.
P,
* 5 ?
-7
* 1
vj
'
106
that Cacci!ius , play featured a scrims callidus. But the supposition becomes a certainty when we consider one ot the two surviving fragments of the play (219-220 W [229 R 3 ] ) : nunc meae militiae Astutia opus est. subcenturia! This is a clear example of the standard Plautine identification o f a seruus callidus witli a successful general; the rest of the sympathetic characters in the play m a k e up his army. The passage just quoted from the Bacchides is an excellent example of this metaphor; further Plautine parallels appear in Pseud. 572, dutn conccnturio in corde sycophantias, and Miles 815, si centuriati bene sunt manuplarcs mei\ both are spoken by serai callidi. The titles of two other plays by Caecilius, the Ephesio and the Dauos (or Dauus) suggest slave names and hence serui callidi in the title roles; their fragments, however, give no evidence relevant to this problem. For the Dauos, cf. Horace, ArsP. 237-239: tit nihil inter sit, Dauusne loquatnr et attdax / Pythias, emuncto lucrata Sitnone talentum, / au custos famulttsque dei Silcnus alumni.*1 I have already discussed h o w the R o m a n playwrights strengthened the stock figure of the parasitus. This character evidently appeared in Caecilius* Asotus (the main plot of which dealt with the career of a prodigal young man). Fr. 11 W (13 R 3 ) seems to refer to the parasitus: iamdudurn depopulat macellum. Depopulo means " to plunder, pillage " (cf. Auct. BHisp. 42.6); similar military metaphors for the activity of a para37 H . D. Jocclyn, " Chrysalus and the Fall o f T r o y (Plautus, Baccltidcs 9 2 5 978)," HSCP 73 (1969) 143, n. 46.
107 situs appear in Plautus 9 Capt. 152-153, eheu, luiic illud dokt, — j quia nunc remissns est edctuli exercicus, and Pirsa 112, scd quid cessamus proclium committcrc? At some point in the play Caecilius' character suffered the c o m m o n fate of comic parasiti: lie was refused a tree meal (cf., e.g., Peniculus in Men. and Gelasimus in Stick.). T w o fragments refer to this: the first is f r o m the very m o m e n t of discovery (14 W [16 R 3 ]j: nihilnc nihil libi esse ijuod cdim? This line appears to contain a pun on the identical infinitive? of the verbs cdo and sum, a p u n which, if I am not mistaken was also used by the playwright Atjuilius (discussed in the previous chapter), in a passage also spoken b y a parasitus (6 R 3 ) : ubiuis monebat esse, nisi quoin nil mtf. 38 The second fragment in which this parasitus bemoan.' his expulsion has been discussed earlier in this chapter (16 W [15 R 3 ] ) : mcritissimo hie m c ciccit e x hac decuria! Besides the R o m a n allusion contained in the word decuria, the affinity of this line to the R o m a n comic tradition i* proven b y several Plautine parallels: cf. Persa 142-143, spoken to a parasitus: atque nisi gnatam tecum hue iam quantum potest / adducis, exigant hercle ego te ex hac decuria, and Asiti. 737/ meritissumo eiius quae uolet facienius. * Another traditional figure of t h e R o m a n comic stage* is the cocus. This character appears in seven of Plautus' plays (Aul., Cas., Cure., Men., Merc., Miles and Pseud.) and at least one of Naevius' (the Apella, where 18-19 W [19 R 3 ] , ut ilium di perdant, qui primuni holitor protulit j caepdni! seems * i 38 See Bardon, LLI 37, on this pun.
J
108
to have been spoken by a cook o r at least argues the presence of one); it docs not appear in Terence. Occasionally the character is organic, as in Merc. 741-782, where a thickheaded cocus accidentally betrays the senex Lysimachus to his wife, or in Miles 1394-1437, where the cook's knife is essential to the discomfiture of Pyrgopolyniccs, b u t more often the character is basically inorganic, introduced simply to provide material for comic banter and sometimes (as in Cure. 251-279 3y ) to give an actor playing t w o different roles time to change costume. T h o u g h the c o o k was of course n o t a R o m a n invention, 4 0 such long, totally inorganic cook-scenes as Pseud. 790-892, whicfiTIs l u l l "ol typically Plautine stylistic. elements,' 41 p r o v e that strengthening and heightening this character was a feature o f traditional R o m a n comic style. A cook appears in Caecilius* Chrysion, where h e makes the f o l l o w i n g complaint (19-21 W [21-23 R 3 ] ) : q u a m q u a m e g o m c r c e d c hue conductus tua a d u c n i o , n c tibi m c esse o b earn r e m o b n o x i u m rcare; audibis male si m a l e dicis mihi.
O n the cocus in the Curculio sec C . C . Conrad, " The R o l e o f the Cook in Plautus' Curculio " CP 13 (1918) 3 8 9 - 4 0 0 ; H. W . Prescott. 44 Inorganic Roles in R o m a n C o m e d y , " CP 15 (1920) 2 6 6 ; G. Williams, 44 Evidence for Plautus' Workmanship in the Miles Gloriosus: A p p e n d i x o n the Curculio," Hermes 86 (1958) 103-105; E. Fantham, 44 T h e Curculio o f Plautus: An Illustration of Plautine Methods in Adaptation," C Q N . S . 15 ( 1 9 6 5 ) 84-100. 40 D u c k w o r t h , NRC 196-197. For a rccent discussion o f cook-scencs (inter alia) in Menander see E. \ V . Handley, " T h e Conventions o f the Comic Stage and their Exploitation by Menander," Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur I'antiquitt classitjue XVI: Mfitandre (Geneva 1970) 1 - 2 6 (discussion, 27-42; note Handley's
comment? p. 32). 41 C f . the typical motif w h i c h o p e n s the scene {Pseud. 790-791): Forum co(juinwn qui uocant stultc uocant, / nam non coquinwn est, iieruni furinwn est forum; see Fraenkel, EPP 6 4 .
109
These lines remind us of the main comic function of the cocuSy viz., to be insulted by the person who has hired him and occasionally to answer back with insults o f his own. Caecilius' cook may have been replying to an insult like the following, from Plautus' Casina (720-722, referring to the cook's assistants): Vide, fur, ut sends sub signis ducas! :: qui uero hi sunt scntcs? :: quid quod tetigere, ilico rapiunt, si eas crcptum, ilico scindunt: ita quoquo adueniunt, ubi ubi sunt, duplici damno dominos multant. Chytrio, the cook in this scene, can answer only with a heia! (723), but other Plautine cooks in similar situations come up with longer replies that are reminiscent of Caecilius' lines; for example, compare Aul 456-457, heus, senex, pro uapulando hercle ego aps te mereedem petam. j coctum ego, tion uapulatum, dudum conductus fui. For the general tone 42 of Caecilius' cook's speech, Traina aptly compares the speech of the unnamed aduoeati in Poen. 515-528; sec especially 518-519, nee tibi nos obnoxii istuc quid tu ames aut oderis: j quom argentum pro capite dedimus, nostrum dedimus, non tuom. Caecilius' last line is of course a commonplace; it goes back at least as far as Euripides (Ale. 704-705) and can be found in Terence (Phorm. 359, si erum insimulabi malitiae male audies'j cf. An. 920) as well as Plautus (Pseud. 1173, contumeliam si dices9 audi'es). T h e senex iratus is a firmly established character of traTraina, CAP 103. I am further endebted to Traina for several of the other Plautine parallels cited on the following pages.
ditional R o m a n comedy; lie appears in many Plautine plays (Theopropides in Most, is perhaps the best example), as well as in Naevius (see Com. 94-96 W , 105 W ) and probably Ennius (Fab. 382 W ) . His standard role is dual: he makes life miserable for the adulescens and serves as a butt for the trickery of the seruus callidus. Quite a few Caecilian lines refer t o or are spoken by senes,43 but the following fragment, quoted by Cicero (Am. 26,99) f r o m an unnamed play of Caecilius', is most enlightening, both for its style and for the attitude toward the character which it demonstrates (236-237 W [243-244 R 3 ] ) : ut me hodie ante omnes comicos stultos senes uersaris atque inluseris lautissime" The lines are n o doubt addressed to a seruus callidus, and could therefore be added to the evidence cited above for the importance of such a character in Caecilius. B u t more important is the way the speaker practically confesses that he is in a comcdy and that he is a stock character, a sencx stultus. This sort of thing is never done by Terence, but it is a favorite trick of Plautus' ; compare, for example, Capt. 778-779, mine certa res est, eodem pacto ut comici scrui solent, j coniciam in collum pallium; Bacch. 772 (spoken by the slave Chrysalus), saluos sum, iratus est senex; Pseud. 1080-1083, quid ait? quid narrat? quaeso, quid dicit tibi? : : nugas theatri, uerba quae in comoediis
43
T h e following arc some o f the fragments of Caecilius which refer to or are spoken b y senes, w i t h Plautine parallels: 25-26 W ; 65 W : Most. 275; 224-235 W : True. 603 (cf. Leo, GKL 224), Cist. 685, Cas. 117, Amph. 1085.
•
-V":
r
•
• v ?
" ' r
: \ ,
. " V.
\ !
'
/
:
.
v
o f J IV
solent lenoni d i d , quae pueri sciunt; m a l u m et scelestum et peiiurum aibat esse me.
7
Hit
and Pseud. 1239-1240 (an example in which the illusion o * 1 reality is completely shattered), untie mi cerium est alio pact./ Pseudolo insidias dare / quam in aliis comoediis fit. Verbal!'/ and stylistically there are a n u m b e r of Plautine parallels a ^ well; c o m p a r e Epid. 706-707, quomodo me ludos fecisti do ilia conducticia / fidicina!; Miles 1161-1162, militem lepidc ct facete, laute ludificarier j nolo; a n d Most. 1039-1040, eademqiu opera (ego} haec tibi narrauero, / quis med exemplis hodi eludifxeatus est. T w o final examples will clarify the rational flt. behind Caecilius* lines and demonstrate a f u r t h e r link bq l s f tween h i m and Plautus: Most. 1149-1151, y
quid e g o nunc faciam? :: si amicus Diphilo aut P h i l c m o n i es, dicito is quo pacto t u o ' te seruos ludificauerit: o p t u m a s frustrationes dederis in comoediis.
^
and Bacch. 1087-1089, Q u i q u o m q u c ubi sunt, qui fuerunt quique futuri sunt postha^' stulti, stolidi, fatui, f u n g i , bardi, blenni, buccones, solus ego omnis longc antidco stultitia et moribuPo indoctis^ T h e references to the stage i n these t w o passages (DiphiL > aut Philcmoni, in comoediis, buccones), along w i t h the super > latives e m p l o y e d in each" s h o w that what Plautus is basi cally d o i n g here is boasting about his art: " T h i s coined^ outdoes a n y t h i n g ever seen o n the stage." 44 Caecilius, w i t h ^ 44
The aemulatio was not only w i t h Roman playwrights but with G r e c l c e as well; see Bacch. 649-650 and Handley, MP 9.
112
the words ante omnes comicos stultos senes7 is doing just the same thing. His attitude toward the stage and the hyperbolic comparison in which he expresses it are both typical of Plautine, and hence traditional R o m a n , comic style. N o t only traditional characters, but also traditional situations and methods of staging appear in Caecilius Statius. 1 j For example, the following brief fragment shows the same I concern for dramatic clarity that has always been considered j characteristic o f Plautus (217 W [227 R 3 ] ) : j h u e dum abit, hue concesscro.
|
I I
Precisely the same explicit description o f the speakers o w n actions is found i n the Vidularia, w h e r e the fisherman Cacistus, after b e m o a n i n g the loss of his treasure trove, concludes his short m o n o l o g u e with the words (Vid. 68), hie astabo atque opseruabo, si quern attiicum conspicer. Similarly Pseudolus, after predicting his f u t u r e triumphs in a monologue, finishes up w i t h (Pseud. 414) nunc hue concedam unde horum sermonem legatn. A f u r t h e r e x a m p l e f r o m the same play shows that such lines w e r e meant to do m o r e than simply clarify the plot (Pseud. 571-573'): concedere aliquantisper h i n c m i intro lubet, d u m c o n c e n t u r i o in c o r d e jycophantias. <scd m o x > c x i b o , non e r o uobis morae; tibicen u o s interibi hie delectauerit.
r
W i t h the last t w o lines the speaker both enlightens t h e a u d i e n c e a n d d r a w s it closer t o h i m , by taking it into his c o n f i d e n c e a n d a l l o w i n g it t o share, so to speak, in the d i r e c t i o n o f t h e play. 4 5
^
4 5 O n dramatic clarity in Plautus s e c , e.g., Handley, MP 17 and 21, n. 16; cf. t h e extraordinarily e x p l i c i t explanation in Stick 673-675, Mirum uideri nemini
f t
113 In our examination of Naevius a n d of minor comic poets we have already seen that slave punishment is a characteristic feature of traditional R o m a n c o m e d y . Three f r a g m e n t s survive w h i c h prove that Caecilius Statius shared this feature. O n e appears to be taken f r o m a sccnc w h i c h directly portrayed such punishment (79 W [90 R. 3 ]): ere, obsecro, hercle, desine, m a n e ; coepiam. A good parallel is provided b y a line from the Aulularia, spoken by the slave of Lyconides (Aul. 820): ere, mane, eloquar iam, ausculta. T h e second Caecilian example apparently comes f r o m a threat of punishment (47 W [50 R 3 ] ) : ossiculatim P a r m e n o n e m de uia liceat legant. W e have seen in the previous chapter h o w traditional this language is; c o m p a r e the similar expressions used by J u v e n tius (7 R 3 ) , caput ei testatim diffregero, and Aquilius (3 R 3 ) , qui mihi comminuit
misero articulatim
diem, a n d t h e P l a u t i n e
parallels already cited. Finally, the typically devil-may-care attitude o f the scruus callidus to such punishment is revealed in the following fragment (264 W [278 R 3 ] ) : n a m q u e m a l u m in m u n d o s t ,
ere.
This is paralleled often in Plautus: f o r example, Asin. 263-264, certe hercle ego quantum
ex augurio
mihi in mundo sunt uirgae aut atriensi
eiius pici intellego,
j aut
Saureae.
Slapstick i n general, not necessarily related
to slave
uostrum uolot spectators, / quid ego hinc quae illic habito exeam: faciam uos certiores, c.q.s. J. N . Hough, " The Understanding o f Intrigue: A Study in Plautine Chronology," AJP 60 (1939) 422-435, argues that explanations of this sort became less and less frequent as Plautus developed as a dramatist.
punishment, also appears in Caccilius; cf (183-184 W [193-194 R 3 ] ) :
the following
turn inter laudandum h u n c timidum tremulis palpebris percutere nictu; hie gaudere et mirarier. T h e longest scene o f slapstick in Plautus is Amph. Li, t h o u g h m a n y others (e.g., Asin. Il.iv, Miles V.i, Most. I.i, Persa V.ii) occur; verbal parallels for Caecilius' lines are f o u n d in Amph. 526, timidarn palpo pcrcutit, and Merc. 153, palpo percutis. Further lines which suggest the use o f slapstick in Caecilius include 48 W (49 R 3 ) , nisi quidem qui sese malit pugnitus pessutn dari, and 99 W (103 R 3 ) , entente ita ore grundibat miser. T h e traditional seruus currcris is apparently described in the following lines (117-118 W [132-133 R 3 ] ) : uolat exsanguis, simul anhelat peniculamentum ex pallio datur. For similarly violent language in a seruus currens scene, see Merc. I.ii, especially 114, simul enicat suspiritus (inix sufjero hercle anhelitum), and 138, tua cciussa rupi reunites, iam dudurn sputo sanguinem. O f t e n closely connected with the seruus currens is the c o m i c convention w h e r e b y a character, usually a slave, pretends n o t to hear or deliberately ignores another character w h o is calling h i m ; the following fragment shows Caecilius using this highly artificial convention (186 W [196 R 3 ] ) : audire ignoti cjuom imperant soleo n o n auscultare. Plautine examples of this convention include Most. 885-887, Pseud. 243-251, Trin. 1059-1070, and True. 116-122 (note the length of these scenes). The sauciness o f a slave t o w a r d
a treeman w h o is n o t his master is echoed etnere oportet, quern tibi oboedire uclis. Finally, m i n o r staging conventions are three further fragments. In the first, a purse objcct in the palliata) is placed o n the back (111 W [116 R 3 ] ) :
in Ptrsa , represente (a rather ) of a char
habes, uide; tibi tradidi; in tuo collo est. decolles T h e last t w o words obviously contain a pun, thougl precise nature is in dispute, since it is unclear w h e t h e r * lare means " to behead," " t o rob,'' or " to fail." 46 similar Plautine situations, cf. Asiti. 657, hie pone, hie colloea cruminam in collo plane (Argyrippus finally gc, . .. . purse in 739), and Persa 691-692, age, accipe hoc sis. : r ifl collum, nisi piget, / impone. :: uero fiat. A character's ph S^A/<3su. appearance is mocked by identifying h i m with an oi in 249 W (270 R 3 ) : pro di inmortales! u n d e prorepsit truo? W e k n o w f r o m Paulus (504. 21-22 L) that the spei here inridens magnitudinem nasi. The line is clearly ar tification o f Fraenkel's muscast metis pater t y p e ; 47 examples, based o n a character's physical appearanc be found in Poen. 975, sed quae illaec auis est quae h tunicis aduenit? and Cure. 191, tun etiam cum noctuini * odium ' me uocas? (where a girl's eye make-up app; reminds the speaker o f an o w l 48 ). A similar identif 4<S See F. Leo, Ausgcwafdte Itlcitic Schriftcn ( K o i n e 1960) I 152, n. 5, Lindsay, ed., The Captivi of Plautus ( L o n d o n 1900; repr. Cambridge J1 Traina, CAP 102. 47 Fraenkel, EPP 35-38. 48 On * *-tini oculi see A . Traina, " N o t e esegetiche, II: Noctuini o
129 this time based on a character's actions, appears in AuL 628, ( I ) Joras9 lumbrice, qui sub terra erepsisti mode. Finally, doors, as always, come in for their share of attention in 18 W (20 R 3 ) : num quidnam fores fecere soniti? Note the alliteration, and for the diction compare Miles 1377, scd, settst, lime soniturn fcceruut fores. In style, as well as in characterization and staging, there arc many parallels to Plautine usage in Caccilius; what follows is only a selection of s o m e of the most striking examples. 49 O n e fragment has already been cited (supra, p. 96) as an example o f a R o m a n allusion (34-35 W [3738R3J); haec caterua plane gladiatoria cum s u u m sibi alius socius socium sauciat.
if
^ ^ V \ t T^T
Fraenkel quotes it as a clear instance o f the traditionally R o m a n motif o f identification a n d transformation, and aptly compares a line from Naevius w h i c h likewise contains a R o m a n allusion (Inc. 11-12 W [129 R 3 ] ) : haec quidetn inchercle opifior pracjxca est, nam mortuum / collaudat.50 Military language also appears in a n o t h e r Caecilian line (24 W [27 R 3 J ) : Cure. 191)," Main N . S . 12 ( 1 9 6 0 ) 224-227; F. Tandoi, " Noctuini oculi," Stltal 33 (1961) 219-241; A . Traina, " N o t e plautine," Athenaeum 40 (1962) 345-355. 49 Many m o r e parallels c o u l d be a d d e d ; compare the f o l l o w i n g examples (taken, to save space, only f r o m those p l a y s for w h i c h the titles survive; I o w e s o m e o f the parallels to Traina a n d W a r m i n g t o n ) : 27 W : Capt. 4 3 9 ; 42 W : Asin. 243-244, Merc. 4 6 8 ; 56 W : Miles 1383; 5 9 - 6 0 W : Cas. 922, Men. 9 8 8 ; 81-82 W : Bacck 540-542; 8 6 W : Aul 3 3 6 , Cist. 3 0 4 ; 8 8 W : Asin. 159; 98 W : Capt. 8 2 4 ; 121-123 W : Bacch. 128, True. 781; 1 6 7 - 1 6 9 W : Men. 753-760; 182 W : Epid. 105, Most. 352; 1 8 9 - 1 9 9 W : Pseud. 603, Persa 785; 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 W : Merc. 611. 50 Fraenkel, EPP 44-45.
m
117 si umquam quisqjuam uidit q u e m catapulta aut balista icerit. This is clearly a metaphor, since the situation described can hardly have occurred in a fabtda palliata; similar military imagery is used in Bacch. 710-711, ca ballista si peruortam turrim ct propugnacula, / recta porta inuadatn extemplo in oppidum antiquom et actus, and Capt. 796, nam meumst ballista pugnum, cubitus catapultast mihi; comparc also Livius Andronicus, Cow. 2 W (2 R 3 ) , corruit quasi ictus sccnay haut multo secus. Military language is applied to a lover in 62-63 W (66-67 R 3 ) : sine blanditic nihil agit in amore inermus. Such metaphors are found in Cist. 300, caue sis cum Amore tu umquam bellum sumpseris and (re amatores) Pseud. 181, maniplatim mihi munerigeruli facite ante aedis iam hie adsint. The diminutives which are also characteristic o f erotic language are found in 90 W (99 R 3 ) : resupina obstipo capitulo sibi ucntum facere tunicula. jf Traina 51 compares Poen. 375, sine te exorem, sine prehendam auriculis, sine dem sauium, and a cloying example f r o m the Pseudolus (67-68): teneris labellis molles morsiunculae, nostr[or]um orgiorum # -iunculae, papillarum horridularum oppressiunculae. Heightened erotic language also appears in the following 51 Traina, CAP 102.
118 line, which W a r m i n g t o n 52 suggests describes the dress of a courtesan (127 W [138 R 3 ] ) : carbasina molochina ampelina. Note the rhyme and the recherche words (the last t w o are hapax legomena), and compare the list o f w o m e n ' s clothing in t h e Epidicus (230-234), which begins tunicam rallam, tunicatn spissam, linteolum caesicium, / indusiatam„ patagiatam, etc, 5 3 C o m m o n e r w o r d s also supply stylistic parallels. A versus quadratus of w h i c h Plautus would h a v e been proud is f o u n d in 80 W (91 R 3 ) ; q u o d prolubium, quae uoluptas, quae te lactat largitas? C o m p a r e Epid. 680, quid me quaeris? quid laboras? quid hutic sollicitas? ecce me, and Trin. 871, quid, aduleseens, quaeris? quid uis? quid istas pultas? : : heus senex.u A string of adjectives, 55 w h i c h may describe a parasitust appears in 104-105 W (108-109 R 3 ) : modo fit obsequens hilarus comis communis concordis, d u m id quod petit potitur. This figure is c o m m o n i n Plautus; c o m p a r e Pseud. 974-975, 52 Wrrmington, ROL I 515. 53 T h e comparison is suggested by Leo, GRL 224, n. 3; for an analysis o f the language of the Plautine passage see G. E. Duckworth, ed., T. Macci Plauti Epidiats (Princeton 1940) 239-247. 54 O n lines o f this type see Leo (supra p. 115, n. 46) 181-182, H. Roppenecker, 44 Voni Bau der plautinischcn C a n t i c a P h i l o l o g u s 84 (1929) 306-307, and D u c k worth (supra n. 53) 241. Warmington, ROL I 498, compares Terence, Ad. 985, quod prolubium? quae istaec subitast largitas? iidicarn tibi. Although this is an evident imitation, in tribute to Caecilius Statius (see S. G. Ashmore, ed., The Comedies of Terence [New York 1910] 318-319), it still lacks the full flavor o f the traditional uersus quadratus. 55 Faider, PCC 12-13.
110
J hominem ego hie quaero malum, j legerupam, inpium, peiiumnrr atque inprobum. Finally, an explosive formula for a curs or (109 W [114 R 3 ] ) : c j) ut tc di omnes infeliccnt c u m male monita memorial )il( Purely by chance (presumably) this is one of the most wide spread of the traditional comic formulas we have f o u n c ^ It occurs i n Naevius (Com. 18-19 W [19 R 3 ], ut ilium £ perdant, qui primum holitor protulit / caepam), in Aquiliu* (1 R 3 , ut ilium di perdant, primus qui horas repperit), and o r course in Plautus, whose most forceful example is Aul 786, p ut ilium di inmortales omnes deaeque quantum est perduint. The above quotations, as I have noted, are a selection 1 o f some of the most impressive and instructive examples c , n traditional comic usage in Caecilius. But similar evidenc can be found almost anywhere in w h a t has been preserved o f his work. O u t o f the first twenty fragments in W a r mington, for example, we have already seen the t r a d i t i o n a l nature of five (11 W , 14 W , 16 W , 18 W , and 19-21 W } . \ A few of the remaining fifteen, of course, offer little c47 nothing of interest, e.g. 6 W (6 R 3 ) , eondueit nauem putidatw B u t a stylized line opening is found in 8 W (8 R 3 ) , sed egp stolidus; gratulatum med oportebat prius (cf Cas. 878, sed egat insipiens noua nunc facio; Men. 443, sed ego inscitus qui... anu 904, sed ego stultus sum, qui...). P u n s and other plays o.5 words occur in 22 W (25 R 3 ) , nihil Spei credo: omtiis n spissas facit; 1 W (3 R 3 ), oram reperire nullam qua expedic queo;56 and 23 W (26 R 3 ), ea turn compressa parit huic puc%t rum, sibi probrum. Elaborate alliteration is employed in 2 W
For the pun on ora see Faider, PCC 26.
120 (1 R 3 ), dc nocte cid p orturn sum proucctus prosumia; 3 W (4 R 3 ), cum Mercuric capit consilium postquam scntinat satis; and 9 W (9-10 R3) t nam ego duabtts uigiliis transacts duco desubito dotnum. Note also the asyndeton and balanced phrasing in 10 W (14 R 3 ) , tu iattt callebis, ille festus desidet, and, along with honJoeoteleuton, in the highly stylized 4 W (5 R 3 ) , actutum, uoltis, cmpta est; noltis, non empta est. It is clear from the above examples that traditional elements in staging, stock characters, and style appear tin oughout the work of Caccilius. But the brevity and isolation of the fragments we have been examining make it difficult to tell how much w e i g h t these elements had in his comedies. W e are therefore very fortunate in possessing a number o f relatively lengthy selections f r o m a single play, the Plocium, which Aulas Gcllius (2. 23) quoted and
compared to their Menandrian originals.
If the stylistic
elements we"Have~found in the shorter fragments are truly characteristic o f Caecilius Statius, we should expect to find them represented extensively i n these Plocium selections, and in fact it has long been recognized that we d o . 5 7 Since until very recently these passages provided the only extended examples of the pollinta and t h e Nfa available f o r direct comparison, t h e literature on t h e m is large, and it is hard to come up w i t h any original observations concerning them. Hence I shall only c o m m e n t briefly on t w o o f the most characteristic passages, both spoken by a setiex maritus w h o
57
O n the Plocium fragments see Faider, PCC 308-310, 3 2 0 - 3 2 9 ; Leo, GRL 221-224; Fraenkel, EPP 151-152, 223, 3 6 9 - 3 7 0 ; R . Argenio, " l! 1 P l o c i u m ' di Cccilio Stazio," MCI 1 (1937) 359-368; Duckworth, NRC 4 7 - 4 8 ; Bcarc, RS 87-89; A . Traina, " Sul vertere di Cecilio Stazio," AttiVen 116 (1957-1958) 385393; and L. Gamberale, " L mizio proverbialc di Menandro fr. 3 3 3 K.-Th. t " RwFC 9 5 (1967) 162-164.
/ i is complaining about his aged—and wealthy—wife. first is a monologue (136-150 W [143457 R 3 ] ) : i
121 The
Is d e m u m miser est qui aerumnam suam nesciat occultare foris; ita me uxor forma et factis facit, si taceam, tamers indicium, quae nisi dotem omnia quae noiis habet. qui sapiet de me discet, qui quasi f a d hostisf captus liber seruio salua urbe atque arce. quae mihi quidquid placet eo priuatum it me seruatam uclim? d u m ego eius mortem inhio, egomet inter uiuos uiuo mortuus. ea m e clam se cum mea ancilla ait consuetum; id me arguit, ita plorando orando instando atque obiurgando me optudit earn uti ucndcrcm. nunc credo inter suas aequalis cognatas sermonem serit: 4 quis uostrarum fuit integra aetatula quae hoc idem a uiro impetrarit suo, quod ego anus m o d o efFeci, paelice ut meum priuarem u i r u m ? ' haec erunt concilia hocedie; diflferar sermone misere. Mcnander's original version
58
follows:
iiMfpizepa. vuv i) ^TclxXrjpo; fj XOXY)
piXXei xa^cuSY)osiv. xaTclpyaaTat (jiyx xal
7reptp6r)Tov gpyov*
£x
olxlac;
58 For consistency and typographical convcnicncc I give, here and below, the versions of Menander s text found in Warmington, R O L I 518 and 522. There are several minor variations in the Thierfelder-Koerte versions (fr. 333, 334).
j i f i T T r r ^ -—naasa
L^lpoXs TY]V XurcoGcrocv r^v ipoiXero, iv* aTTopx^wfft 7tavTe<; el; T6 Kpo>poX7]<; 7rp6acoTuov -f] t ' eSyvoociTtx; oua' SfcrTcoiva4 xal T?JV yjv IxryjaaTo ev 7CI^xoi<; TGUTO STJ T4 Xeyiixevov £cmv. atouav pouXo(xat TYJV vuxxa rijv TCOXXCOV xaxcov APXV)Y6V. ot[xoi KPCOPUX-QV Xa(klv £xxa£8exoc TaXavTa 7rpolxa xal tJ]v (Jiv* gxooaav TT/JX^?' ^^ (PPUAYH-A rcax; U7R6
T6V 'OXifjLTCLov xal -rijv 'AJhqvav, ouSajjico;. KaiSiaxapiov &£pa7teuri>t&v 8k Sec X6you
c yj.
ra/iov a7ray£or^at "}"... The actual differences between these two versions d o n o t interest us so m u c h as the way Caecilius' changes b r i n g
5 t r
^ l l Z ^
\
H S .
^
^
his version closer to t h e traditions of the R o m a n comic stage. First, he has changed Menander's iambic-trimeter speech i n t o a mutatis modis canticim, in anapests, trochaic septenarii, Eacchiacs, and cretics. His sencx opens liis song with a sentetitia, n o t found i n Menandcr, w h i c h lie then illustrates T ) y r e l a t i n g his o w n experience. 5 9 H e is very self-conscious a b o u t this procedure; cf. 138 W , qui sapiet deme discet. T h e m o t i f of a speaker's using h i m s e l f a s evidence f o r the t r u t h o f his o w n sententia is very c o m m o n i n traditional R o m a n c o m e d y ; s o m e Plautine examples include Cas. 563, Poen. 1338, Rud. 290, Trin. 23, and Vid. 17. The alliterative f o r m u l a in the second line {forma ct factis facit) is closely paralNote the tendentious wording o f Faider's comment, PCC 329, on another, equally sententious fragment o f the Plocium (163-166 W ) : " C&ilius a cidl au go&t de scs contemporains pour le style lapidaire et concentrd que le gdnie de la lang u e latine sere i mervcille [italics mine]."
,y V
H.
t * W* •v .
C
123 leled three times m the Miles aione: 57, uiriute ct forma er jactis inuictissumis; 1021, hie astabo tantisper cum hac forma et factis [s/c] frustra?; and 1042, hominem tarn ptilchrum et praeclarum uirtute et forma, factis. (Note that there is no alliteration at all in the Mcnandrian original). T h e traditional latinity of the military image in the fourth line (quasi... enptui liber seruio saluaurUe atque arce) is demonstrated by the following fetial formula found by Fracnkcl: 6 0 si sciens folio, tum6 me Dicspitcr salua urbc arccque bonis c trial, ut ego liunc lapiJcm; I Plautine parallels to the line include Men. 1101, tarn quasi I me emeris argento, liber seruibo tibi and Bacch. 1070, saluk nostra atque urbe capta per dolum. T h e m o t i f of 141 W , dun' ego eius mortem inhio} which docs not appear in Menander* is a c o m m o n source of amusement in Plautus; cf. Cas. 227 sed uxor me excruciat} quia uiuit; Cist. 175, ea [sc. uxor] diem suom obiit,facta morigera est uiro; and Trin. 51, quid agit tuh uxor? ut ualet? : : plus quam ego uolo (here the joking continues along similar lines until verse 66, where it ends w i t h ' that signature of Plautinisches, aufcr ridicularia). The whee ~ dling rhyming gerunds o f 143 W , ita plorando orando iustando atque obiurgatido, arc cchocd in Asia. 222-223, bene salutaiuk„ consuescunt, compellando blanditer, / osculando, and, ill different 1 form, in Men. 114, mc retinesy reuocas, rogitas. The d i m i n u t i v e aetatula (in 146 W ) does not appear in Tercncc, but is oftci u . used i n such contexts b y Plautus; cf. Most. 216-217, si illur^ inseruibis solum \ dum tibist nunc liaec aetatula, in senecta malr querere; Rud. 893-894, iarn clientas repperi, / atque ambasformo„ scitula atque aetatula, etc. Likewise the w o r d paelex (149 W)l not used by Terence, is often found in Plautus in c o n t c x $ similar to this; cf. Merc. 689-690, i hac mecum, ut uideas st 60 Fracnkcl, EPP
223.
124 mul { turn Ahmtenam paelicem, Iuno mea; Rud. 1046-1047, —fixer... J quae me paelrces adduxe iicet ante oculos suos, etc.; it is also the title of a c o m e d y by Naeviiis (Com. 64 W [66 R*]). Finally, the concluding words, with their recognition (literally) of the power o f language, and their reminder of the R o m a n custom of Jlagitatio,61 are paralleled in Aul. 446, pipulo tc hie diffcram ante aedis; Epid. 118, quiti edepol egornet clamore differor, dijflagitor; Pseud. 359, iam ego te diffcram dictis meis; and Ennius, Fab. 429 W (Sc. 421V 2 ), uocibus concide; fac iam mussct obrutus. T h e second selection continues the same subject, this t i m e w i t h another senex (Gell. 2. 23. 12) as interlocutor (151-155 W [158-162 R 3 ] ) : scd tua morosane u x o r quaeso est? : : ua! rogas? : : q u i tandem? : : taedet mentionis quae mihi ubi d o m u m adueni, adsedi, extemplo sauium dat iciuna anima. : : nil peccat de sauio; ut d c u o m a s uult q u o d foris potaucris. M e n a n d e r ' s version is completely different: (A) lyu) 8' ijrCxXYjpov Aifitav* oox ETPY]X<£ aot 1 CIT' Sp OUXT; xuplav TYJ<; otxtocc; xal -roiv &YP£>v xal TCOV <XTC<£VTCA>V &vrixpu<;
TOUT',
"AtcoT^ov,
ax;
^a^wv
xaXfic&raTOv,
&7raY<XTPL. (A)
( B ) 7CPAY^ ^ A ^ O V Ijkyzu;.
ol8<x.
W h e t h e r o r n o t w e agree w i t h Gellius (2. 23. 13) that —
61
O n Jlagitatio
see A . W . Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford 1968)
125 Cdecilius uero hoc in loco ridiculus tnagis quam personae isti quam tractabcit aptus atque conuenicns uideri mnluit, it is clear that here he has reworked Menander's text profoundly. 6 2 Menander's conversation is a perfectly natural, if somewhat violent, interchange. B u t Caecilius, in the vaudeville style so characteristic of the palliata, sets up his comic situation with a traditional, and artificial, ua! rogas? (151 W ; cf. Ptrsa 107, uah, rogas?) and finishes it off with a punning and unsavory bit of vulgarity that is paralleled several times in Plautine c o m e d y ; 6 3 see, for example, Asin. 893-895: edepol animam suauiorem aliquanto q u a m uxoris meae. : : die amabo, an foetet anima uxoris tuae? : : nauteam bibere malim, si necessum sit, quam illam oscularier. These passages f r o m the Plocium—a play, it should be remembered, which has a Greek title and was based on a Menandrian original—along with the parallels wc have observed in the fragments of other comedies, prove that stylistically, at any rate, Caecilius stands squarely in the
62 Faider, who elsewhere (vide supra p. 88, n. 3) is so willing to trust the testimony o f the ancients regarding the style of Caecilius, is forced by his theory o f Caecilius1 Hellenism to ignore almost completely the comments o f Aulus G e l lius on these passages, although Gellim' essay is the most thoughtful extended example of ancient literary criticism of the palliata that we possess; he says, for example, PCC 328, " Lc m o t mimica [Gell. 2.23.12] designe certaincinent les amplifications comiques que j e viens de signaler, mais ce serait trahir, rappelons-le, la pens^c d'Aulu-Gelle lui m c m e , que dc lui donner, avee Reich, une trop grande port£e." He is correct, however, in his observation (both here and on pp. 294296) that H. Reich, Der Mimus (Berlin 1903) 337-353, placed far t o o much w e i g h t . o n the word mimieus in this explanation o f the classification o f Volcacius Sedigitus. The lesson of all tliis is that primary material is far more trustworthy than secondary opinions, ancient or modem. Some o f the parallels are noted by Skutsch (supra p. 87, n. 1) 1191 and / I f 1 Leo, CRL 222.
:: - m .
126 Plautine, and hence the R o m a n tradition.*54 I believe I have also shown that he adhered to die standard conventions in comic characterization and staging as well. T h e text proves that the theory, suggested by Caecilius' Greek titles and his alleged attitude toward contaminatio, that he was a transitional or Hellenizing figure in the history of the palliata is misleading. The complete break with the traditions of the R o m a n comic stage was not to come until the time of Terencc. 64 So Leo, GRL
224.
VI.
TERENCE
A n y reader who is at all familiar with R o m a n c o m e d y will agree at once that Terence is not part of the unified R o m a n comic tradition which I have been describing i n the foregoing chapters. 1 In style, structure, characterization, and moral outlook Plautus (along with, I would argue, all the other R o m a n playwrights discussed thus far) and Terence are about as different as t w o poets working in the same genre can be. T h o u g h Terence appeared at least a full generation after most of the playwrights we have been examining (his pla-ys - w e r e produced from 166 to 160 B.C. 2 ), the great contrast between his w o r k and that of his predecessors is clearly a c t a simple accident of historical development. It is the result, rather, of Terence's deliberate choice. H e does, of course, pay lip service to earlier playwrights as part of the captatia bcnctiolentiae of his prologues; for example, in the Andria (18-21): qui q u o m hunc accusant, N a e u i u m Plautum.Ennium accusant quos hie noster auctores habet, .— ~ q u o r u m aemulari exoptat neglegentiam potius quam istorum obscuram diligentiam.
, 1 For a critical bibliography covering most o f the work done on Tercnc^> in this century see H. Marti, "Terenz 1909-1959," Lustrum 6 (1961) 114-238, (1963) 5-101, 244-264. 2 Duckworth, NRC 60. For the literature see Marti (supra n. 1) 15-16, 20-23
128 or in the Heauton (20-21). Unlet honor um exempt urn quo exempt mi j liccre [/J] jacere quod illi fecerunl putai. But fai m o r e often, and in far more convincing language, he explicitly rejects the traditions and conventions of the Romanstage; 3 f o r example, its stock characters (Etm. 36-41): qui m a g e licet currcntcm scruom scribcrc, bonas matronas facerc, mcretrices malas, parasitum edacem, gloriosum militem, p u e r u m supponi, falli per seruom senem, amare odisse suspicare? denique nullumst i a m dictum quod non dictum sit prius. Contrast t h e p r o u d way in which Plautus lists his " circus animals " in Men. 74-76: sicut f a m i l i a e quoque solent mutarier: m o d o hie h a b i t a t leno, modo adulescens, m o d o senex, p a u p e r , m e n d i c u s , rex, parasitus, hariolus. 4 E v e n in t h e o n e prologue where Plautus does reject these characters, he a d d s a joke to keep his audience f r o m taki n g him t o o seriously (Capt. 57-60): 5 hie n e q u e peiiurus leno est nee meretrix mala 3
M. P o h l e n z , 44 D c r Prolog des Terenz," Stltal 27-28 (1956) 434. J. N . H o u g h , " T h e Development of Plautus1 Art," C P 30 (1935) 50, n. 14, suggests ( w r o n g l y , I think) that Plautus is here " referring to the work of Ennius or Naevius ** rather than to his o w n stock characters. 5 I d o n o t b e l i e v e that the Captiui creates as much difficulty for m y position as it may a p p e a r t o at first glance, though it would take a separate study to demonstrate t h i s in d e t a i l . Briefly, it is my contention that Plautus adapted the original o f t h i s play t o the traditions and expectations of the Roman comic theater b y (1) s t r e n g t h e n i n g the role of the parasitus to such an extent that this character becomes a l m o s t c c n t r a l to the play and (2) changing, as far as possible, Tyndarus into a seruus callidus a n d Hcgio into a senex iratus and (3) cutting short the recognition s c e n e at t h e e n d . 4
129 neque miles gloriosus; ne uereamini quia bellum Aetolis esse dixi cum Aleis: foris illi extra scaenam ficrit proelia. Terence also proudly rejects some of the standard situations of R o m a n c o m e d y ; for example, a mad scene by a y o u n g man (Phorm. 6-8): quia nusquam insanum scripsit adulescentulum ceruam uidere fugere et sectari canes et earn plorare, orare ut subueniat sibi. (And could he be mocking the traditional homoeoteleuton w i t h his plorare, orare jingle in the last line of this example?) Compare Plautus' obvious joy in elaborating scenes of this sort in the Mercator (V. N) and the Mcnaechmi (V. II).6 Again, Terence rejects the seruus currens scene; cf. Euti. 36, quoted above, and Heaut. 30-32: ne ille pro se dictum existumet qui nuper fecit seruo currenti in uia decesse p o p u l u m : quor insano seruiat? while for Plautus, of course, the seruus currens is a favorite dramatic convention. 7 In the course of his plays, as well as in his prologues, Terence often explicidy or implicitly criticizes the traditional comic conventions, especially the convention that had so much of the action taking place on the public thoroughfare, 6 On Plautus' additions to the latter scene sec IE. Fantham, " Act IV o f the Mcnaechmi: Plautus and His Original" CP 63 (1968) 175-183. 7 See G. E. Duckworth, " The Dramatic Function o f the Servus Currens in Roman C o m c d y , " Classical Studies Presented to Edward Capps on His Seventieth Birthday (Princeton 1936) 93-102.
130 as in Ax 490491, non impmbat coram quid opu facto essct puerpcrae? / sed postquam egressast, illis quae sunt intu clamat de tiia;8 cf. P/jorm. 818, Eun. 894-895", and Hec. 866-867. There is an interesting contrast also in Terence's attitude toward his audience as expressed in his prologues; f o r example, he speaks with contempt o f the populus stupidus in Hcc 4, whose rowdiness he would just as soon d o without (Hcc. 39-43): q u o m intcrea rumor ucnit datum iri gladiatores, populu* conuolat, tumultuantur clamant, pugnant de loco: ego interea m e u m non potui tutari locum, nunc turba nulla est: otium et silentiumst... M a n y modern scholars share this contempt; Sedgwick, f o r example, castigates an " unnecessary and repetitive scene " in the Amphitruo which is " clearly added... for the benefit o f an inattentive R o m a n audience/' 9 while H o u g h speaks o f " the proverbially obtuse R o m a n audience/' 1 0 The accuracy of such judgments is questionable. It must be remembered that b y 194 B.C. there were seventeen days per year available for dramatic performances in R o m e , 8 Fraenkel, EPP 137, believes Menander is responsible for this line; G. N o r w o o d , The Art of Terence (Oxford 1923) 29-30, assigns it to Terence. For a discussion see A. W . G o m m e , Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford 1937) 260, n. 1. S> W . B. Sedgwick, ed., Amphitruo (Manchester 1960) 117. Admittedly there is a good deal o f repetition in the Amphitruo, m o r e than in any other Plautine comedy. I would suggest that the reason for the continual prologue-like prediction by Mercury and Jupiter in this play is to keep the audience on the side o f die gods, by making them more friendly and " human." Without this inrimacy the gods would b e c o m e impersonal powers, and the play w o u l d be in danger o f turning into a painful tragedy. 10 J. N . Hough, " T h e Understanding o f Intrigue: A Study in Plautine C h r o n o l o g y / ' AJP 60 (1939) 422.
131 m o r e than were open to the fifth-century Athenian d r a m atists. 11 O n e w o u l d assume, therefore, that the R o m a n audience was reasonably sophisticated and experienced. It was no doubt noisy at the start, as is any large outdoor audience. Plautus, in contrast to Terence, accepted the inevitable fact of this unruliness and turned it to his o w n advantage, capturing his audience's attention and sympathy w i t h jokes and wisecracks in his prologues: particularly good examples are the prologues to the Amphitruo and t h e Poenulus.12 Even in the course of the play itself he w o u l d create comic material out of his audience's restlessness; cf. Pseud. 388, nolo bis iterari, sat sic longae Jiunt fabulae, a n d Poeti. 1224, in pauca confer: sitiunt qui scdcnt. (In a situation similar to this last example, Terence of course does n o t mention the audience: An. 705-706, dies [hie] mi ut satx sit uereor / ad agendum: tie uacuom esse me nunc ad narranditm eredas). A close comparison of two scenes which are identical in content will demonstrate clearly the tremendous contrast' between Plautus and Terence in dramatic technique. In b o t h " of the following scenes a young m a n , accompanied b y his : servant, catches sight of his beloved. Here is Terence's version (Eun. 81-90; the speakers are Thais, Phaedria, and Parmeno): T H . Miseram me, uereor ne illud grauiu' Phaedria i l l R . Taylor, " T h e Opportunities for Dramatic Performances in the Time o f Plautus and Terence," TAP A 68 (1937) 291, 302. For further discussion o f the R o m a n audience, see J.-P. Cfcbe, " Le niveau culturcl du public plautinien," REL 38 (1960) 101-106. 12 See W . Kraus, " 1 A d spectators9 in der romischen Komodie," WS 52 (1934) 66-83; for an examination o f the language and style of the Poetiulus prologue see H. D . Jocelyn, " Imperator histricusYCS 21 (1969) 95-124. 10
132 tuicrit ncue aliorsum atque ego feci accepcrit, quod lieri intro inissu n o n est. PH. totus, Parmeno, tremo horreoque, postquam aspexi hanc. PA, bono animo es: accede ad ignem hunc, i a m calesces plus satis. T H . quis hie loquitur? chem tun hie eras, m i Phacdria? quid h i e stabas? quor n o n recta intro ibas? P A . ceterum dc exclusionc ucrbum nullum? T H . quid taces? P H . sane quia ucro hacc mihi patent semper fores aut quia sum apud te p r i m u \ T H . missa istaec face. T h e situation is standard N e w C o m e d y : a beautiful meretrix, an adi tieseen s beside himself with love, and an unsympathetic servant w h o jokes about his master's plight. But note the absence o f alliteration, the run-on lines, and the speeches w h i c h begin in t h e middle of a metrical line. 13 N o t e also the brevity of T h a i s ' opening monologue (short e n o u g h f o r us to believe t h a t it was addressed to an unseen character indoors), the realistic w a y Thais overhears the c o n v e r s a t i o n of Phaedria a n d P a r m e n o and then ignores P a r m c n o ' s interruption, a n d the speed w i t h which the p l a y w r i g h t gets d o w n to t h e business of the plot. C o n t r a s t Plautus' h a n d l i n g of the identical material in the Poentilus. As in T e r e n c e , the encounter which we are e x a m i n i n g is preceded b y a n exchange in w h i c h the young m a n a n d his servant discuss his love problems (Poen. 129197; Eun. 46-80). Plautus* y o u n g m a n t h e n goes indoors. His g i r l - f r i e n d , h e r sister, a n d their m a i d arrive; their arrival 13 For t h e literature o n the s t y l e o f Terence see Marti (supra p,127,n. 1) 6-14; sec also L. R . Palmer, The Latin Language (London 19612) 74-94 (an excellent short c o m p a r i s o n between the styles of Plautus and Terence) and J. Blansdorf, Archaische Gedankengange in den Koinodien des Plautus (Wiesbaden 1967) 250-274.
is carefully announced to the audience by the servant, Milphio (203-204): 14 sed Adelphasium eccam exit atque Anterastilis. haec est prior quae m e u m erum dementem facit. Milphio formally summons the y o u n g man, Agorastocles, so that h e may view the entrancing spectacle (205-209): sed cuocabo. heus, i foras, Agorastocles, si uis uidere ludos iucundissumos. : : quid istuc tumultist, Milphio? : : cm amores tuos, si uis spectare. : : o multa tibi di dent bona, q u o m hoc m i optulisti tam lepidum spectaculum! The ensuing scene is too long to quote in full. For 120 lines the t w o girls sing a duet, mainly about h o w elegantly they are dressed, while the t w o men carry on a running commentary in asides, consisting of the young man's extravagant praise of his girl-friend, balanced by his servant's puns and jokes. For example, w h e n the y o u n g man exclaims (325), opsecro hercle, ut mtilsa loquitur /, his servant replies (325-326), nil nisi latcrculos, / sesumam papaucremquc, triticum ct frictas nuces. Such exchanges occur six times in the course of the scene. Finally the t w o girls decide to move on, a decision to which a full line of dialogue is devoted (329): earnus, mea gemma. : : age sis, ut lubet. : : scquere hac. : : sequor. T h e servant Milphio reports their departure (330: eunt hac); the young m a n suggests they go up and greet them (quid si adeamus?); and Milphio agrees (adeas). The young man t h e n presents careful, formal (though of course comic) On Plautus* explicit handling of such situations sec Gomme (supra p. 130, n. 8) 254-261.
a.
0 a ? ft a
M
i
134
greetings to each of the t w o sisters and to their maidservant (330-3:2): p r i m u m prima salua sis, et secunda tu insecundo salue in pretio; tertia salue extra pretium. (Note the commercial imagery, the j o k e in each of the three greetings, and the word play in the first two). The nearly thirty lines of dialogue which follow consist of a great deal of comic bantering coupled with a tiny bit of exposition; Plautus finally gets down t o the business of the plot in 359-364, w h e n the young m a n s girl berates him for failing to provide money for her freedom; this again is followed by m o r e than forty lines of joking, whereupon the girls leave (407). 15 T h e structural and stylistic contrast between these t w o scenes could not be greater. Terence's whole interchange takes less than ten lines. Any joking o r comic characterization which the passage contains is strictly subordinated to the requirements o f the plot and to psychological a n d , verbal realism. Content, rather than style, is paramount. T h e meter is iambic senarii, without musical accompaniment. Plautus' scene, on the other hand, begins with an elaborate canticum (210-260), in predominately bacchaic r h y t h m ; the remainder o f the scene is in lively trochaic septenarii,' accompanied by flute music. Content is subordinate to the sound of words; note, for example, 221, poliri, expoliri, pingi, fingi, and 229, ornantury lauantur, tergcntur, poliuntur. So unrealistic and stylized is the characterization and dialogue that the 15 This scene o f the Poenulus is examined by Fraenkel, EPP 208-211; n o t surprisingly, he maintains that most of the elements I have singled out for c o m ment arc Plautinc additions.
characters twice speak of themselves as, literally, comedians; see 280, enirn ttero, ere, facis delicias. : : de teqtiidem hciec didici omnia, and 296, enim uero, ere, tnco me lacessis ludo et delicias facis (note the formulaic opening of these t w o lines); and, at the beginning, they each refer to the ensuing scene as a stage production (206, ludos iucutidissumos; 209, tarn lepiduth spectaculum). The whole scene takes almost t w o hundrec lines, and the plot is scarcely advanced at all. These two passages also provide a good illustration of the contrast in characterization between the t w o playwrights. Plautus' characters, w h e n they are n o t speaking extra Jabulam to gather laughs, are strictly stock; his adulescens, fo^ example, is the standard y o u n g man in love: foolish (261r quid hie, malum, astans opstipuisti? : : sine amem, ne opturbc ac taee) and prodigal (328, namque edepol lucrum amare nullum amatorem addecet)—traits Plautine adulescentes seem almost proud o f (cf. Pseud. 238, non iucundumst nisi amans facit stultc)r Terence's adulescens, in the remainder o f Eun. I. n, prove* to be a real individual, truly in love with Thais; he strug gles to believe her peculiar story (175-177): utinam istuc u e r b u m ex animo ac uere diceres " potius quam te inimicum habeam " ! si istuc crederer sincere dici, quiduis possem perpeti. But he succeeds only in half accepting it; cf. 187-188, ri ibo: ibi hoc me macerabo biduorn. / ita Jacere certumst: mos g rundust Thaidi. T h u s it seems perfectly natural that 1 should later give up his resolution a n d return (IV. ii). Plautus and Terence also offer a striking contrast moral outlook. It is n o great surprise that Heaut. 77, hot sum: humani nil a me alietiutn puto (though spoken in ironic context) should have been singled out by mod<
136 commentators as the hallmark of Terentian humanism, while Plautus' lupus est homo homini (Asin. 495, likewise an ironic context) is cited to support the somber message of Freud's Civilization and its Discontents,16 Some of this contrast, o f course, is due to the Greek originals Plautus and Tcrcncc chose to work w i t h ; however, it must not be f o r g o t t e n that the R o m a n playwrights were responsible for this choice. Thus it was Terence w h o chose Menanders second Adclphoi, with its amusing yet thoughtful examination o f different educational philosophies, while Plautus p i c k e d M a r a u d e r ' s Dis Exapaton, which, while opening w i t h a similar comparison between strictly and leniently e d u c a t e d y o u n g men, soon shifts its focus, first to trickcry a n d finally to a cynical demonstration o f the alluring power o f a pair o f ineretricesf the Bacchis sisters, after w h o m Plautus n a m e d his play. But m u c h of this contrast is the w o r k o f P l a u t u s and Tcrcncc themselves. Terence, Donatus tells us [ad An. 301), 17 liked happy endings: this is w h y he p r o v i d e s a h u s b a n d f o r Philumela at the end of the Andria, t h o u g h h e r final fate was ignored in the original. T h e miles gloriosus w h o crept into the Ewwcluts from the fabula actus o f Plautus and Nacvius (Eun. 25-26) is included in the g e n e r a l reconciliation at the end o f this play. Contrast P l a u t u s * Miles gloriostts, w h e r e the soldier is thoroughly 16 S. Freud, Complete Psychological Works, tr. J. Strachcy (London 1961) X X I 1 1 1 ; t h e p h r a s e is adapted, or slightly misquoted: homo homini lupus. For the lit e r a t u r e o n Terence's line sec Marti (supra p. 127, n. 1) 91-93. E. A. Sonnenschein, T . Macci Plauti Mostellaria ( O x f o r d 19072) 125, points out that humanus in t h e e t h i c a l sense ' h u m a n e ' , considerate w h i l e very rare in Plautus {Most. 8 1 4 , Miles 1 0 4 4 only) is " c o m m o n e n o u g h " in Tcrcncc; he citcs An. 113, 236; Hcc. 5 5 3 , Heaut. 99. 17 P . W . Harsh, A Handbook of Classical Drama (Stanford 1944) 382. Beare, 9 8 , a r g u e s diat this change w a s made m o r e to enrich the plot than to provide a h a p p y ending.
137 beaten in the last scene and is iucky not to be sent off, as Plautus puts it, " intestate 55 (1416). A Terentian adulescens w h o needs to have his father out of the w a y for a time wishes only that he were too tired to get out of bed (Ad. 519-520): quod cum salute eius fiat, ita se defetigarit uelim j ut triduo hoc perpetuo prorsum e lecto nequeat surgere. Contrast the y o u n g men in similar situations in Naevius and Plautus, w h o frankly wish that their parents w o u l d die: Naevius, Com. 105 W (95 R 3 ) , deos quaeso ut adimant et patrem ct matrem nteos; Plautus, Most. 233-234, utinam metis nunc mortuos pater ad me mmtietur, / ut ego exheredem me meis bonis Jaciatn atque haec sit heres; cf. Donatus, ad Ad. 521. 18 A Plautine meretrixy unless she is uttiuira, is grasping and selfish above all: sec the first and last scenes of the Dacchides, for example. Terence's Bacchis, on the other hand, is noble and generous; as she herself tells us (Hec. 833-834, haec tot propter me gaudia illi contigisse laetor: / etsi hoc mere trices aliae nolunt), she is not like other meretrices. And finally, compare the t w o playwrights' use of the all-important R o m a n concept of pietas. In Plautus this term is, almost without exception, used cynically, as an excuse for a shocking joke; Terence, on the other hand, always uses it seriously. A good example is the young man in the Hecyra w h o actually states that if his mother and his w i f e cannot get along he is willing, for reasons of pietas, to give up his wife (480-481): segrcganda aut mater a me est, Phidippe, aut Philuntena. / nunc me pietas matn potui commodum suadet sequi. (He has other reasons f o r making this statement, of course, b u t there is still n o denying the sincerity of his feeling here). Compare Plautus'
18 Duckworth, N R C 41, n. 4; E. Segal, Roman Plautus (Cambridge, Mass. 1968) 19.
Laughter: The Comedy of
138 adulescens, who, when warned by his slave that it may be necessary to cheat his father, exclaims (Pseud. 121-122): di te mi semper seruent! uerum, si potest, / pietatis caussa—uel etiam matrem quoque.19 These examples, I believe, demonstrate clearly that T e r ence deliberately rejected the traditions and conventions of R o m a n comedy. But it is hard to guarantee that such a selection of examples will be completely disinterested. A fairer method would be to take a single dramatic situation, ethically and stylistically neutral in itself, and trace it throughout the canon of Plautus and Terence and then see if the contrast between the t w o still holds. For reasons which will become clear shortly, the situation I have chosen for examination is the returning traveller in Plautus and Terence. A recent papyrus discovery offers a unique advantage for such a study. W e n o w possess a substantial portion of the Dis Exapaton, the Menandrian original o f Plautus' Bacchides; 20 the parallel Plautine text is Bacch. 494-562, a passage w h i c h contains, a m o n g many other elements, a returning traveller. Thanks to the parallel Greek text we can , n o w state, with more certainty than was ever before possible, precisely what Plautus added to and subtracted f r o m Menander in creating his version o f the play. 21 19
G. Williams, " Some Problems in the Construction o f Plautus' Pseudolus," Hermes 84 (1956) 426, believes diat " the tasteless joke about his mother is out o f place in the mouth o f the tragic [sicj Calidorus." 20 Handley, MP 22, 24; see further J.-H. Jacques, " Mdnandre M<: la Double fourberie et la Samienne," BBudt 4c sdr. 2-3 (1968) 213-222; C . Qucsta, review o f Handley's paper in KiVFC 96 (1968) 502-503; G. Arnott, "Menander: D i s c o v eries Since the DyskolusArethusa 3 (1970) 51-52; and C . Questa, " Alcunc strutture sccniche di Plauto e Menandro," Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur l'antiquit^ classique XVI: Mtnandre (Genova 1970) 181-215 (discussion 216-228). 21 Unless, of course, Plautus was using an interpolated text; see Handley, MP 18; T. B . L. Webster, Hellenistic Poetry and Art ( N e w York 1964) 263.
139 T h e situation in Plautus is this: a y o u n g man, Mnesilochus, has just returned home to Athens, only to learn (he thinks) that his mistress has been deceiving him with his best friend. His slave, Chrysalus, had already arranged to chcat his father out of the money needed to buy the mistress' freedom, but Mnesilochus is n o w convinced that this trick was a waste of time. Here is the conclusion of his angry monologue (Bacch. 515-525): numquam edepol uiua me inridebit. nam mihi decretumst renumerare iam o m n e aurum patri. igitur m i inani atque inopi subblandibitur turn q u o m mihi nihilo pluris [blandiri] referet, quam si ad scpulcrum mortuo narrct logos. 22 profecto stabilest me patri aurum reddere. eadem exorabo Chrysalo caussa mea pnter ne noccat ncu quid ei susccnseat mca caussa de auro quod cum ludificatus est; nam illi aequomst me consulere, qui caussa mca mcndacium ei dixit, uos me sequimini.—
, / ^ ^
Mnesilochus then goes inside to return the money to his father and arrange a pardon for Chrysalus. In Menander, the young man's n a m e is Sostratos; hi monologue concludes as follows (col. n. 25-30): 2 3 eyoi fi.aXtaO-\ Y) 8*
xev&v
aufATreiaaTG>
l^OVRA H.Y]8£V*TCOCVATTOSAXJCI) TG>L n a r p l
c; 22 I have omitted lines 519a-519c, which are, as Handley says (MP 14), " pa 1 tently an alternative version o f 512-514." " 4 w 1 • ^ 23 For the reader's sake I have given Hundley's text without the usual Leydcn marks; had I attempted to reproduce the complete apparatus, the text would been illegible. T h e reader should be warned, however, that much of die £lz\\ f Menandrian quotation is based on conjecturc; see Handley's text and his defend * ^ of it: MP 12-13, 22. ~ &
i
$ '
I
140
TO ypuatov m&aveuofiiv?) -yap -jrauaeTat 6xav
7TOT'
vsxpcot. XO)P£TV
aia{bp:at,
TO
r9j<; 7tapoL{iia<;,
>iyouax JJW&OV aXA' YJ$Y) SsI e7r' excivov. aXX* op& y^P TOUTOVL
Sostratos then meets his father and confesses to him the trick a b o u t the money; they leave the stage together to collect it. The two texts offer many interesting contrasts, but the o n e that is germane to our discussion is contained in the last words o f Plautus* monologue, ties mc scquimmi (525), w h i c h show that Plautus' y o u n g m a n , unlike Menander's, w a s accompanied b y a train of baggage-porters when he arrived on the scene after his trip abroad. 2 4 1 shall hold o f f any suggestions as to w h y Plautus made this change u n t i l we have e x a m i n e d a second pair of parallel passages. In Plautus' play, Mnesilochus returns the money to his f a t h e r o f f s t a g e ; he then reappears, a n n o u n c i n g what he has d o n e in a short m o n o l o g u e , w h e r e u p o n he catches sight of Pistoclerus, the f r i e n d he t h i n k s has betrayed him (Bacch. 530-538): R c d d i d i patri o m n e a u r u n i . n u n c ego illam mc uclim conueiiire, postcjuain i n a n i s s u m , coiitcinptricem nieain. scd ueniam m i q u a m g r a u a t e p a t e r dedit de Chrysalo! uerum p o s t r e m o i m p c t r a u i ut n e quid ei suscenseat. : : estnc hie n i c u sodalis? : : cstne hie hostis qucm i t
: : certe is est. : : is est. — : : saluos sis, M n e s i l o c h e .
J-
m
aspicio meus? a d i b o contra et contollam gradum. : : salue. : : saluos quom peregre aduenis,
24 On the puzzling e x p l a n a t i o n o f this l i n e offered by Handlcy, MP W r i g h t , " Plautus, Bacchus, 5 2 5 , " C Q N . S . 21 (1971) 440-441.
15, sec
141
cena detur. : n o n placet mi cena quae bilem m o u e t . : : numquae aduenienti aegritudo obiccta est? : : atque acerruma, Menander's Sostratos handles most of the negotiations with his father o n stage (though their discussion is interrupted b y an act-division); when his father leaves, Sostratos delivers a twelve-line monologue, realistically depicting his confuscd and disillusioned state of mind. Then his friend, whose name in Mcnandcr is Moschos, enters and they greet one another (col. hi. 102-107): MO. CIT' <Jxou<7a<; elvat fie, 7cou y?j<; £cm; yjxlpe, EdxrrpaTe. SO. xal au. MO. xaTY]<pr)<; xal axu#pa)7t6<;7 etak {JLOI, xat PXE^OC TOD^' u7c68axpu; vewTCpov xaitiv xaTetX7)<pa^ TL TWV evTao&a; Zfi. val. MO. ZIK\ ou Xiyets; ^ o v F-Pi qxIXei, Mtaye. MO. ttcTk;; Here again, there are plenty of noteworthy differences between the t w o texts; the one which I would particularly like to emphasize is the fact that Plautus* Pistoclcrus offers his newly-arrived friend a welcome-home dinner, an invitation which Mnesilochus indignantly rejects, while there is no such exchange in Mcnandcr. Readers of Plautus will recognize these additions, the baggage-porters and the dinner invitation (along with its introductory clause, saluos quorn peregre aduenis)y as elements of the standard formula for depicting a returning traveller o n the Plautine stage. 25 The ideal formula, not f u l l y realized 25 A convenient (but not exhaustive) collection o f references to travel, porters, greetings, etc., in Roman comedy has been published by C. Knapp, " Travel in Ancient Times as Seen in Plautus and Terence," CP 2 (1907) 1-24, 281-304.
rt3
3
fO C.
n ^ Hi A* itl * * i (P
V
P!
£
142 ID any single play, has four elements. T h e traveller arrives on stage, accompanied by a train of baggage-porters. H e offers a prayer of thanksgiving for his safe return, usually to Neptune. He is greeted by a friend, who rejoices that he has arrived safely and invites him to dinner. Finally he enters his house, ordering his porters to follow. All but one of the elements of this formula are included in Mnesilochus' arrival in the Bacchides; w e now k n o w that they were all original Plautine additions. All that is missing is the prayer of thanksgiving. Mnesilochus does have an entrance monologue, but it is a meditation on friendship (Bacch. 385-404). T h e opportunity for a prayer has been pre-empted by Mnesilochus' slave Chrysalus, who arrives on the scene before his master, saluting Athens and his " neighbor A p o l l o " (170-177): Erilis patria, saluc, quam ego biennio, postquam hinc in Ephcsum abiui, conspicio lubens. saluto te, uicine Apollo, qui aedibus propinquos nostris accolis, uencroque te nc Nicobulum m e sinas nostrum sencm priu' conuenire quam sodalem uiderim Mnesilochi Pistoclerum, quem ad epistulam Mnesilochus misit super arnica Bacchide. Another slave, Sangarinus in the Stichus, makes a very similar speech w h e n he arrives on the scene after a trip abroad (Stick. 649-654): Saluete, Athenae, quae nutriccs Graeciae, , terra erilis patria, te uideo lubens. sed arnica m e a et conserua quid agat Stephanium curaest, ut ualeat. n a m Sticho mandaueram
143 „ J
salutem ut nuntiaret atque ei ut diceret me hodie ucnturum, ut cenam coqucret temperi.
>y cn
T h e stylistic formality of these two monologues, together J w i t h the elaborate way each of them clarifies the dramatic O situation, is probably enough to convince us that they are ^ largely Plautus* o w n work. W e can be more certain, h o w - Q j ever, with another prayer of thanksgiving, spoken (or rather sung) by the newly arrived Charm ides in the Tritiummus, which opens as follows (820-827): Salsipotenti et niultipotenti Ioui' fratri et Neri N e p t u n o laetu* lubens laudis ago et gratis gratiasque habeo et fluctibu' salsis, J quos penes mei * potestas, bonis mis quid forct et meae uitae, quom suis med ex locis in patriam urbis f c u m m a m f reducem faciunt. atque ego, Neptune, tibi ante alios deos gratias ago atquc habeo summas; nam te omnes saeuomque seuerumque atquc auidis m o r i b u , cominemorant, spurcificum, inmanem, intolerandum, uesanum: contra opera expertus, nam pol placido te et d e m e n t i m e o usque modo, ut uolui, usu' sum in alto. Fraenkel has shown h o w a number o f phrases in this prayer, w h i c h continues f o r another dozen lines, reproduce the " formulas of R o m a n religious language: for example, laetu lubens laudis ago (821). 26 The style (e.g., the rhyme in 820,"f} salsipotenti et niultipotenti, the list of adjectives in 826) andtic -
€
26 Fraenkel, EPP 175.
) •
€
the meter (anapestic) would also suggest Plautine authorship. But what clinches the case in m y opinion is Charm ides' complaint nearly 250 lines later (1087-1089), which contradicts completely the content of his opening prayer: ego niiscrrumeis periclis sum per maria maxuma uectus, capitali periclo per pracdoncs plurunios me seruaui, saluos rcdii. T h e dangerous journey here described is m u c h more appropriate to the plot than is the smooth and pleasant one for which Charniidcs thanked Neptune in his earlier prayer. Charmides has just managed to escape the sea and its perils, only to find ruin and betrayal where he least cxpectcd it, in his supposedly safe home. The complaint quoted above, then, came from the Greek original (Philemon's Thcsauros), while the earlier prayer is completely the w o r k of Plautus. Thus we have substantial reasons for believing that the various elements of the formula of arrival were by and large a R o m a n contribution to the N e w Comedy. We must n o w determine w h y Plautus made these additions and h o w he uses them in his comedy. T h e main reason lor introducing the train ol baggageporters seems simply to increase the statclincss and ceremony o f the staging of a comedy. So the porters w h o arrive with A m p h i t r u o and Sosia in Amph. 551 d o n o t h i n g more than stand around the stage for 302 verses, until they are finally ushered inside by Sosia (853-854). Menacchmus of Syracuse's nauales pedes arc told to watch the baggage (Men. 350); later Mcssenio takes them off to a tabcrna (436, 445). O f t e n , however, the porters arc used to increase the comedy of the scene in w h i c h they appear. Theopropides' porters in the MosteUaria are told to touch the earth by
145
Tranio (468-469); apparently at this point they run off in terror at the false ghost story, since there is n o further reference to them in the text. Hanno's Carthaginian porters in the Poenulus are the object of a series of insulting jokes (978-981); later one of them is rewarded by finding his long-lost mother, though this recognition scene is also the occasion for a joke (1141-1146). Plautus added Mnesilochus' porters to the Bacchides for a more subtle reason. Tlicy are mentioned only at the very end of the scene (525), when Mnesilochus finally goes inside; they have presumably been on the stage with him since his arrival (385). At first gl ance they seem to add cmbarassing difficulties to the ensuing scene (405-450) in which Mnesilochus eavesdrops on the conversation between the tutor Lydus and the senex Philoxcnus: how could he hope to avoid being seen w h e n he had a whole train of baggageporters behind him? 27 But in fact they add to the humor of the scene: Lydus is so wrapped up in his long-winded moralizings that he fails to notice not just a single man but a whole parade o f them for a space o f almost fifty lines. T h e traveller's prayer of thanksgiving, likewise, has a variety of uses. C h a r m ides' prayer in the Trinuintnus (820839, quoted in part and discussed above) is mainly no more t h a n a vehicle for a magnificent piccc of comic verse. H a n n o ' s prayer in the Poenulus (930-960) allows Plautus to s h o w his knowledge, real or pretended, of the Punic lang u a g e ; 2 8 it also demonstrates Hanno's pietas and tells the audience w h o he is and why he has come. Epignomus in t h e Stichus (402-407) adds Mercury t o the usual list of 27 Handlcy, MP 20, n. 11. 28 O n this passage see, m o s t recently, A. S. Gratwick, " Hanno's Punic Speech in t h e Poenulus o f Plautus," Hemes 99 (1971) 25-45.
146 gods lie thanks, since he has quadrupled his property on his trading voyage. Theopropides' prayer in the Mostellaria (431-437) establishes his character as a crotchety old man and gives Tranio an opportunity for some amusing asides (438-443). Finally, Sosia's realization that he has forgotten to offer a thanksgiving prayer, and therefore deserves to be beaten, is the basis o f a good aside b y Mercury (Aniph. 180-185). 29 A good example of the standard formula of greeting for a returned traveller is Bacch. 456, saluos sis, Mnesiloche, saluotn te aduenire gaudeo. T h e phrase is repeated almost verbatim in Most. 448, 805, 1128-1129; Epid. 7, and Cure. 306-307. B u t Plautus makes more use of the expectation of the formula than of the formula itself. It m a y be interrupted, thus underscoring the new arrival's impatience, as in True. 503-504, salue ecastor, Stratophanes. j [uenire] saluotn
29 Knapp (supra p. 141, n. 25) 301, n. 1; see also Knapp's note on these lines in CR 7 (1893) 21-22. 30 Knapp (supra p. 141, n. 25) 301 very astutely points out that the speaker in Stich. v05-507, actually a sertex, is " virtually a parasitus " w h e n he addresses his sons-in-law.
V .
147
,
foreign visitor, ripe for fleecing, but the audience knows that the " stranger " is really a slave in disguise and that it is the leno w h o will lose out in the end. Closely connected with the greeting formula is the invitation to dinner which is usually offered to the returning traveller. True. 127 gives the formula: peregre quantum aducniSy ccnetur, but this is the only example I have been able to find in which the formula is not subject to some sort of comic variation. Such a twist may come in the invitation itself, as in Cure. 561-562, Therapontigotie Platagidorey saltte; salttos qttom adueuis / in Epidaurutny hie hodie aptid me — numquam dclinges salem\ cf Most. 1004-1005 and Stich. 470-1. O r it may come in the answer, as in True. 359-360, saltie. hicine hodie ccnas, saluos quom adueuis? / : : promisi. : : ubi cenabis? : : ubi tu iusseris; cf. Most. 11291133. Variations on the formula are themselves such a commonplace that in one case a straight answer to an invitation becomes a joke: Epid. 7-8, ticnire saluom gaudeo. :: quid ceterum? : : quod eo adsolet: / cena tibi dabitur. :: spondeo — :: quid? :: me accepturum9 si dabis. From these parallels it should be clear that the lines from the Baechides (536-537) which w e examined earlier (saluos sis, Mnesiloche. :: salue. :: saluos quom peregrc aduenis} j cena detur. :: non placet mi cena quae bilem mouet) are one more example of a comic 1 variation on the greeting and invitation formula. Plautus | clearly added them for the sake o f the rather bitter joke f in 537 — a joke, by the way, which is perfectly a p p r o p r i a t e ^ both to the situation and to the characters, showing that incongruity per se is not a trustworthy criterion for Plautine g j ' authorship. There is another passage in the same play which ^ f provides one further example of the comic use Plautus | could m a k e of the whole arrival formula (Bacch. 183-189):
&
^
o Pistoclere, salue. :: salue, Chrysale. :: compcndi ucrba multa iam faciam tibi. ucnire tu me gaudes: ego credo tibi; hospitium et cenam poliicere, ut conuenit percgre aduenienti: ego autem uenturum adnno. salutem tibi ab sodali solidam nuntio: rogabis m e ubi sit: uiuit. N o t h i n g could better typify the way Plautus creates comedy by keeping both his audience and his characters safely aloof from the plot, from their own words, and from the very conventions on which his own plays depend. There arc n number of returning travellers in the plays of Tcrence, and it is instructive to see h o w differently Tcrcnce, in handling this dramatic situation, uses the four elements of the returning-traveller formula which we have extrapolated f r o m the plays of Plautus. First, the train of baggage-porters. These figures appear only once in Terence, in the Hccyra. Pamphilus, the new arrival in this play, first comes o n stage in verse 281, engrossed in conversation with his slave Parmcno. Later (359-360) ParmeiK) is sent back to the port to get Pamphilus* baggage. Soon he returns (415), with Sosia and the other porters. A short but realistic conversation about the rigors of seatravel follows, and in 429, without a formal dismissal, the porters go indoors. Though this interchange docs not contribute to the development of the plot, it adds a small but memorable note o f naturalism to the scene, and to the play as a whole — a naturalism entirely lacking in Plautus' treatment of portcr-sccnes, even in the single case where one o f his porters has a speaking part (Poen. 1141-1146, where a porter discovers his mother). Otherwise Terence
110
avoids using porters: new arrivals like C n t o (An. 796), Tliraso (Eun. 391), D e m i p h o (Phorm. 231), and Chrcmcs (Phorm. 567) are not accompanied by servants. Chremes, in fact, could have used some help, since he is bringing back rent money from his wife's estates, but Terence economically elects to have him carry it himself (Phorm. 679). There are no examples of a new arrival's prayer of thanksgiving being offered on the stage in Tcrencc. In fact, D e m i p h o (Phorm. 311-312) specifically states that this is a formality he will take care of when lie goes inside his house. Instead of a prayer, w e get, in this scene, a short soliloquy on the problems of a man w h o returns f r o m a trip abroad (239-246): the speech is entirely appropriate both to the character and to the situation. The formula of greeting, on the other hand, is used fairly often. 3 1 It appears in full in Phorm. 286, ere, salue: saluom te aducnisse gaitdeo; see also Phorm. 610 and Hcc. 353 (likewise straightforward applications of the formula, though the w o r d i n g differs slightly). It is interrupted by an impatient scttcx in Phorm. 255: saluom ucnirc.. :: credo; hoc rcspondc tnihi. It is, however, avoided in a number o f places where Plautus probably would have used it. T h e plot of the Andria, f o r example, is m o v i n g too fast w h e n the foreigner Crito arrives (796) to allow time for the usual formalities. N o greetings arc exchanged when the newly arrived Tliraso meets Thais (Eun. 455); note Parmeno's disdainful comment here on the unseemly haste with which the miles asks Thais 31 I have not been able to examine M. Forbcrg's De salutandi formulis Planttis et TcretUiattis (diss. Leipzig 1913; however, Marti (supra p. 127, n. 1) 10 states that the value o f this work (among others) " ist heute darauf beschrankt, a!s Materialsammlungcn zu dienen."
110
h o w she liked his gift (Enti. 457-458, quam uamstc! quod it I vriiicipium adueniens!). (This is the closest Terence conies to a comic twist 011 the greeting formula.) Finally, when the plot demands it, Tcrcncc can substitute a much more elaborate speech o f welcome, in which the formula of greeting is so thoroughly concealed that it almost disappears: Hcc. 456-457, bene factum te adttenisse, Pamphile, / atque adeoy id quod maxumumst, saluom atque ualidum. T h e formulaic invitation to dinner (ccna detur, etc.) never appears in Terence. In two plays, however, dinner is given to returning travellers. In the Heauton, the young man Clmia has already arrived from abroad when the play has b e g u n ; his friend Clitipho is entertaining him at home with a banquet when the play opens, as he explains to his Either (Heaut. 182-184, aducnientem, e naui cgredientem ilico / abduxi ad cenam: nam mihi cum eo iam inde usque a pueritia / fuit semper fcimiliaritas). In the Eunuchus, after some illmannered coaxing f r o m the parasitus Gnatho, Thais invites the newly arrived Thraso to dinner, though without using the standard formula (Emu 459-460, GN. ramus ergo ad cenani. quid stas? PA. em alteram: / ex homiue lumc natum dicas? TH. ubi uis, turn moror). In both cases the invitation to dinner is an integral part of the plot and characterization of the play. It is unnecessary to belabor the obvious contrast b e tween Plautus and Terence which this comparison of their methods of handling a single dramatic situation demonstrates. Plautus, following, as far as we can tell, the traditions of the R o m a n comic stage, is interested primarily in comedy and spectacle. Even his departures f r o m the expectations of the tradition presuppose the existence of the tradition and depend o n it f o r their effectiveness. For Terence, plot,
5
characterization, and realism arc all-important. 3 2 He v/ritri, by and large, as it the comic tradition at R o m e never existed. His deliberate rejection of the tradition is 110 doubt the primary reason for the difficulties he experienced with the R o m a n audicncc. fn judging these difficulties, however, it must be remembered that Terence's career was very short, and that despite his revolt from the accepted standards o f R o m a n comedy he had already h a d one noteworthy success in the Etiiiuclms (Suetonius, Vita Tcr. 2) ? 3 3 a play w h i c h , as the many references made t o it above show, can hardly be called traditional (even though Terence introduced into it a miles and a parasitus). The flexibility and sophistication of the R o m a n audience, therefore, should not be underestimated. All the evidence suggests that, had Terence lived to continue his dramatic activity, his theatrical career m i g h t well have been as successful a n d memorable as that of Plautus.
> }
J
J )
J J J
32 The aiusc of the difference in Tcrenee's handling of this situation is irrelevant to my discussion; I am inclined to believe that in many cases, including this one, its source is simply Terence's greater fidelity to his (ircck originals. The opening m cne ol the Ainhiii, liowrvrr (tliu'liwil luielly in (IN following chapter), shows that these elements were characteristic of Tcrcncc vvlien lie was working o n his own as well. 33 Jleare, RS 165; H. li. Mattingly, " T h e Tcrcntian 1 >idascaliae,M Athenaeum t ) \1 ( I W ) IfiH-lfi'), argues against Suetonius' statement thai T e r m e r was paid s ) 8 0 0 0 sesterces li>r the I'tmmhus.
sJ
'&
3> *
) ' i
VII
TURPI LI US
Turpilius — there is no ancient authority for the praenomcn " Sextus" 1 — died, according to Jerome, at an advanced age in 103 B.C. (Hier. ad ami. Abr. 1914: Turpilius comicus senex admodum Sinuessae moritur). Jerome's note is the only biographical information w e have about this playwright. His dramatic activity is often dated to the second half of the second century B.C.; Bardon, for example, puts him " dans la periodc qui va des Gracqucs i Marius." 2 This would place him well after Tcrencc, w h o died in 159 B.C. (Hier. ad aitn. Abr. 1859), and thus would have important implications for the relationship between the two poets. But in fact there is nothing in Jerome's statement to keep us from believing that Turpilius and Terence were contemporaries; senex admodum could mean that Turpilius was eighty years old or more when he died, thus making him about twenty-five at the time of Terence's death. Similarities between the two could therefore have been caused by Terence's imitating Turpilius rather than the other way
1 Rychlewska, TCF 7. As Rychlewska notes (7, n. 1), P. Grautoff, Turpilianarum comoediarum reliquiae (diss. Bonn 1853) 1, long ago warned that the only authority for the practiomctt was the Italian humanist Pctrus Crinitus — a warning apparently ignored b y many scholars, who continued to refer to the playwright as " S e x t u s Turpilius"; e.g., Ribbeck, SRP II 98, and £ . Bigott, "Sextus Turpilius," RE 72 (1948) 1428-1430. 2 Bardon, LLI 132. Likewise Duckworth, NRC latter part o f the sccond century."
68, places hiin " in the
110
around, and indeed with one fragment (to be discussed below) we shall see that there is reason to believe that this is exactly what happened. 3 But biographical arguments, particularly when based on such slender evidence as this, are relatively unimportant to the central issue of this investigation. Through an examination o f internal evidence we have seen that Terence consciously and deliberately rejected the R o m a n comic tradition. The question is, did Turpilius follow him in this? Several scholars believe that he did; Beare, for instance, argues that " among Latin dramatists Turpilius seems to have been in the line of Terence." 4 The arguments for this position are essentially identical to those used for Caccilius Statius: Turpilius 9 titles arc Greek, his fragments contain no R o m a n allusions, and lie depended heavily on Menandcr for his originals. 5 Some attempts have been made to show that Turpiliis practiced coiitaminatio in his plays, though n o one has tried to use this as evidence for or against his Hellenism. 6 W e have seen the weakness of such arguments in our examination of Caccilius Statius in Chapter V ; it must be admitted, however, that in the case of Turpilius these facts
3 Bigott (supra p. 153, n. 1) 1429; Rychlcwska, TCF 9-10; the fragment is 147 R 3 . ^ lkare, KS 116. 5 Duckworth, NRC 68 (by his statement that 44 the fragments o f Turpilius sound like close translations from the Greek " Duckworth apparently means that they contain no R o m a n allusions); for Menandcr sec Bigott (supra p. 153, n. 1) 1428. The reader must judge for himself in the course o f reading this chapter liow true the statements o f Beare, RS 116, regarding Turpilius* language are ("The tone of the fragments seems Mcnandrian; there is a lack o f farcical or violent scenes, of r o u g h jests, o f inflated language..."). * A. Pastorino, " Turpilio fr. 213 R3," Maia N . S. 7 (1955) 43-45; Rychlcwska, TCF 13-14; see the remarks o f W . G. Arnott in his review o f Rychlcwska's edition, Gnomon 40 (1968) 32.
•
'
\
••
• -
15£T
J'
arc better established. There are no recognizable R o m a n , allusions in the 140 surviving fragments, and the thirteen titles, seven of w h i c h arc c o m m o n nouns, are all Greek. B u t it is difficult to estimate h o w m u c h significance this has, J Turpilius* plots, furthermore, like those of Terence, / appear to have stressed the sentimental rather more than is c o m m o n in Plautus. T h o u g h the state of the fragments does not permit such elaborate reconstructions as those attempted by R i b b e c k , many lines s h o w that love-interest w a s quite strong in at least nine of the plays.7 O n e fac\ J m u s t not be forgotten, however: although clever slaves, ) braggart warriors, h u n g r y parasites, a n d the like may b< > s o m e of Plautus 9 m o s t memorable characters and may take, part in his most m e m o r a b l e scenes, t h e adventures of starcrossed lovers still m a k e up a vital element in a majority o f his plays, and as a result there arc many examples o* J sentimental m o n o l o g u e s and dialogues in Plautus. 8 However m u c h weight one wishes to attach to these V apparent differences (many of w h i c h may be due to n o * m o r e than the accident of the loss o f most of T u r p i l i u s ^ f w o r k ) , the surviving fragments make it clear that Turpilius' )• 7 For these reconstructions see Ribbeck, SRP II 100, 104, 106, 111, 113, 118,.*. f 121, 124-125. " [Ribbeck's] attempts to supply missing plots from a h a n d f u l * o f vague frs. were too often triumphs of fancy o v e r discretion Arnoit (supr. I n. 6) 33. Lines suggesting love-interest include Demetrius 19-20 I U (|V), 32 R 3 * ' * (XIII); Detniurgus 41 R 3 (III; the title is also evidence); Epickrus 56-57 R 3 (£V) f Hetaera 72-74 R 3 (I), 75-76 R 3 (II), 77-78 R 3 (III); Leucadia 100-101 R 3 (I), 109-"* £ 110 R 3 (VIII), 112 R 3 (X), 115-120 R 3 (XII), 126 I U (XVI); Paedium 157 I U (V), / 163 I U (IX), 164 R 3 (X), 166 I U (XII); htralrmsa 173 IU (V); Philopntor 179 I U « i (III); and Thrasyleon 211 I U (X). 8 Cf. Amph. 633-653; Aul. 682-700; Bacch. 5 0 0 - 5 2 5 ; Cist. 203-229, 449-464. ^ Cure. 158-215; Mere. 1-110, 335-363; Trin. 223-275. L o v e is an important element | in Amph., Aul, Bacch., Cas., Cist., Cure., Epid., Mere., Miles, Poen., Pseud., Rud.,.J . and Trin. i
was much closet to the Roman comic tradition than was Tcrencc. Whether this should be attributed to deliberate archaism 9 on Turpilius' part is impossible to tell, since the question of the date of his floruit remains unsettled. Whatever the reason, there are clear parallels between Turpilius and the earlier playwrights of the palliata in characterization, staging, and style. Throughout this study we have seen that the scrutis callidits is one of the most important and most typical of the stock characters of traditional R o m a n comedy. A number of fragments suggest that this figure appeared in several Turpilian comedies; these fragments at the same time offer interesting stylistic parallels to standard Plautinc usage. Fr. 205-206 R J (Thras. VI) reads: non est mcdiocris res, neque <est> uulgaria fallacia hacc. This appears to be an example of the common motif in which a scrims cnllidtis (and, by implication, the playwright himself) boasts about the uniqueness o f the tricks h e is playing: compare Cas. 860-861,10 in which the word fallacia is also used: ucc fallnciam astutioran ullu fccit / pacta atquc ut hacc est fabre facta ab nobis. T h e m o t i f , which, it will be recalled, we also encountered in Caccilius Statius, 236-237 W (243-244 R 3 ) , ut me Iwdic ante omnes comicos stultos scncs / ucrsaris atquc inluseris lautissimc, appears in another Turpilian play, in a line perhaps spoken by a clever slave (8 R 3 [Bocth. VI]): 9 Bigott (supra p. 153, n. 1) 1429 argues for archaism; Bardon, LLI 138, suggests that 44 si Tcrcncc rcpr&ente le latin dont usaicnt les amis de Scipion, Turpilius nous offre unc i m a g e plus fiddle du langagc ordinaire." 10
Spoken by a matrona w h o is, so to speak, playing the role o f a scrutis caWidus.
157 non ago hoc per sagam pretio conductam, ut uulgo solcnt. T h e trick being described here may have been similar t o that used in the last two acts of the Miles gloriosus;11 f o r the phrasing of Turpilius* line compare Pseud. 849-850, uerum pro pretio facio ut opera apparcat \ men quo conductus uenio and Amph. 185, facit ille quod uolgo haw solent, ut quid se sit digmitn sciat. W e can get a hint of the mechanism of another fallacia f r o m the following fragment (136-138 R 3 [Lind. II]): consilium h o c cepi: litteras misi ad senem nostrum, proccsse nobis ex sententia mcrcaturam. These words are clearly spoken by a scrims callidus, since the phrase senex noster (or nostcr senex) is used almost exclusively by such characters in Plautus; 1 2 one example gives an idea of the sort of trick which might have been involved with Turpilius' play (Bacch. 229-233): ncgotium hoc ad me attinet aurariuin. mille et duccntos Philippum attulimus aurcos Epheso, quos hospes debuit nostro seni. inde ego hodie aliquam machinabor machinam, unde a u r u m ecficiam amanti erili filio. For the phrasing of the first line o f Turpilius' passage com11 R.ychlewska, TCF 59; I am likewise indebted to Rychlcwska for many of the observations and parallel rcfcrcnccs cited in the following pages. 12 Cf. Asm. 458; Bacck 174, 231, 945, 957; Most. 747; Pseud. 407; the only exceptions are Cas. 762, where the speaker is an aneilla ( w h o is, however, playing the part o f a seruus callidus) and Most. 78, addressed by a serutts frugi to a senilis callidus.
110
pare the following (all spoken by semi callidi): Poen. 1099, nunc hoc consilium capio et hetne fabricam paro; Bacch. 300, capimus consilium continuo; and Most. 1049, capio consilium ut senatum congerrotiem conuocem; also Bacch. 389-390, ex Epheso hue ad Pistoclcrum meum sodalem litteras j mist. A stylistic parallel t o the second line also casts some light on the situation in Turpilius' play (Merc. 92-94): his sic confectis nauim soluimus. j Rhodutn uenimtis, ubi quas mercis uexeram j omnis ut uolui tiendidi ex scntetiiia. T h e phrase ex sen ten tin is strongly formulaic in the comoedia palliata\ it appears thirteen times in Plautus, almost always at the end of a line. 13 Another Turpilian line appears to describe a seruus callidus, or at least an insolent slave (102 R 3 [Lcuc. II]): uiden tu Phrugis incessum? quam est confidens! di istunc perduint. Phrux is clearly a slave n a m e (the feminine appears in Aul 333); according to Tcrtullian the cowardice of Phrygian slaves was a standard j o k e in comedy (De an. 20.3, comici Phrygas timidos inludunt), a commonplace that goes back at least as far as Euripides (Orest. 1369-1379).14 But Turpilius* slave, o f course, is bold: this may be a deliberate comic reversal of the cliche. Explosive comments, similar to T u r pilius', o n the posture or gait of insolent slaves arc c o m m o n in Plautus; compare Most. 1172, uiden ut restat furcifer?; Pseud. 458, statum uide hominis, Callipho, quam basilicum! The phrase ex sententia occurs at the end o f a line in Plautus eleven times: Capt. 347, 447; Cist. 126 (in a passage bracketed by Lindsay); Men. 1151; Merc. 94, 370; Miles 947 (ex suppl. Ital.); Versa 10; Pseud. 762; Rud. 1365; True. 961; the two exceptions to this rule are Persa 18 (where the phrase appears before a change o f speaker) and Aid. 589. 14 Ribbeck, SRP II 143; I am also indebted to Ribbeck for several other observations and parallels.
110
and 911 (spoken of the sycophanta Simia), sed eccutn uideo^ uerbeream statuam: ut it, ut magnuftce infert sescl; and Capt. i. 664, at (tat} ut confidenter mihi contra astitit! For the second, y part of Turpilius , line compare Most. 38 (also spoken o f n r an insolent slave), quam conjidenter loquitur [fue]! The third ^ part is of course very c o m m o n , and almost duplicated in ^ Most. 668-669, di istum perduint — / (immo istunc potius). The theme of conjidentia is taken up in another frag- ^J ment (80 R * [Het. V ] ) : u nam quid illoc homine uiuit confidentius?
1
There is n o way of proving conclusively that this line refers^ to a seruus callidus; however, like our o w n expression " c o n fidence man," the Latin words cotijidcns, conjidentia, etc., often appear in R o m a n comedy in contexts describing trick- j ery and fast talking. W e have seen several examples in o u ^ r examination of the previous fragment; to these may be^ added Men. 615, nihil hoc confidentius: quin quae uides c
' f
Similar words are spoken by an angry master to his slave i , w ' Most. 1132, tterbcro, etiam itirides?; cf. also Persa 850, moaTi Ignauia, tu nunc me inrides? The concluding v o c a t i v e ^ ( though Plautine in their pleonasm, are not directly paralleled | in Plautus* plays; the term sacerrumus, however, is applie'u ^ i% i
I ?
•
J
110
to a clcvcr slave in Most. 983-984, iwus istic scruos est sacerrumus, I Tronic, and sneer is used by a senilis callidus to describe himself in a boasting speech in Bacch. 783-784, men criminatust? optumcst: ego sum mains, / ego sum sacer, scelcstus. In another fragment from the same Turpilian play an adu~ lescais appears to be taking credit for a trick played on his father (35-36 R 3 [Demet. XVI]): at ctiam incptus incus m i est iratus pater, quia so tnlento argenti tctigi uetcri cxempio amantium.
^
N o t e Turpilius' pride in his loyalty to the comic tradition, implied in the w o r d s uetcri cxempio amantium; contrast Ter-r cncc's disdainful attitude toward such traditional situations, as shown in the examples quoted in the opening pages of the previous chapter. The construction with tctigi is paralleled in a fragment from an u n k n o w n comic playwright (Com. inc. 45 R 3 : sentin scum esse factum triginta minis?) and several times in Plautus: e.g., lipid 705, is te fort'f tctigi triginta minis; cf. Poen. 101, 1286; Pseud 120-122. T h e same construction appears in a fragment describing a m o r e venial form of comic cheating (129-131 R 3 [Lcue. XVIII]): hoc quacro, ignosccre istic solcntnc eas minoris noxias, erum si forte, quasi alias, uini tae;o?
f• Such a situation is portrayed at length in Miles 818-866. T h o u g h the f o l l o w i n g lines are spoken b y a senilis, it is difficult to tell precisely what sort he is (69-70 R 3 [Epicl. XII J):
f$ currcndum sic est, sic datur, n i n i i u m ubi sopori scruias i j
i i
161
potius quam domino, et ubi seuero imperio quae impcrata sunt. T h e speaker may have been a seruus frugi, the opposite of the seruus callidus, and the rest of his speech may have continued in the same vein as the stylized monologues spoken by the serui frugi Phaniscus (Most. 858-884), Messenio (Men. 966-989), and Harpax (Pseud. 1103-1115); the convention is mocked by Sagaristio (Persa 7-12). A line spoken by Sosia, another seruus Jntgi, provides a stylistic parallel: Amph. 622, non soleo ego sotnniculose eri imperia persequi; cf. also Pseud. 155, em sic datur, si quis erutn seruos spernit. Turpilius' speech also shares in the characteristics of the seruus currens monologue; compare two lines from one such speech: Mere. 118-119, ita tres simitu res ageitdae sunt, quando imam occeperis: / et ettrrendum et pugnandum et autem iitrigandum est in uia (like Turpilius' lines, these are iambic octonarii). The style of the speech is strongly traditional; note the repetition of sic9 the alliteration (sopori sennas), and the figura etymologica (imperio... impcrata).15 T h e leno, traditional enemy of the seruus callidus, nlso appeared in at least one of Turpilius' plays, as the following lines, perhaps from a prologue, show (133-135 R 3 [Lind. I]): abhinc triennium saccrrimum domicilium hoc quidam contulit leno. T h e leno in traditional R o m a n comedy is looked upon as automatically wicked, without any need of an objective correlative (cf. the ritualistic insults in Persa Ill.iii); hence it is no surprise to find the adjective sacer (in its meaning 15 Sec discussion by Rychlcwska, TCF 41-42.
110
of " accurscd '*) applied to this character (just as it is to the seruus callidus by his enemies); compare Poen. 89-90, homini, s* leno est homo, j quantum hominum terra sustinet sacerrumo, and Rwrf. 158 (the subject is a leno), utinam is sit quern ego quaero, tiir sacemmus. For the opening expression compare Bacch. 388, hoc factumst ferine abhinc hiennium; Stick 137, qui abhinc iam abierunt trienniutn; and Ter., An. 69-70, interea mulier quaedam abhinc trienniutn / ex Andro comtnigrauit hue uiciniae. A parasitus is probably described in 1-2 R 3 (Boeth. I): 1 6 Melesia! intus cessas? tuburcinatur.
credo hercle helluo
For the situation compare Capt. IV.iv, a monologue in which a puer describes the gluttonous activities of Ergasilus, who is within. T h e rare verb tuburcinari (= raptim manducare: Nonius 179.18 M) also appears in Persa 122, in a passage which concerns a pcirasitus: tuburcinari de suo, si quid domist. The noun helluo does not appear in Plautus, unless Schoell's reading (in the ed. maior) of Most. 5 is correct: exi irtquam tiidore, helluo. nam quid lates?; it appears once in Terence (.Heaut. 1033-1034, gcrro iners fraus helluo / ganeos damnosu). The meretrix, o f course, also appeared in Turpilius' work, and the following fragment suggests that he, like Plautus, was not very sentimental in his handling of such figures (37-39 R 3 [Demi. I]): ergo edepol docta dico: quae mulier uolet sibi suum amicum esse indulgentum et diutinum, modice atque parce eius seruiat cupidines. M Suggested by Arnott (supra p. 154, n. 6) 34, to whom I am also indebted for further observations and parallels.
Plautus* ironically named Fhronesium would have a p p r c ^ r ated the nice touch ot cynicism in her " s i s t e r ' s " huhIm. atquc parce here; cf. her monologue in True ILv, w h i c includes the line (453) ego prima de me, domo docta, dico, osn Adelphasium's statement in the Poenulus (216), atque hese ut loquor, nunc domo docta dico. A law expresses s c n t i m c x ? similar to those of Turpilius' meretrix in Cist. 95-97: o t r t Selenium, / adsintulare amare oportet. nam si attics, extempulo melius illi multo quern ames consulas quam rei tuae. Compel also the advice given by Scaplia to Philematium in JUTo and Naevius, Com. 88-89 W (90-91 R 3 ) , ntwtqttc quisquam amico amanti arnica nimis fet Jidelis, / tiec nimis e morigera et fnotaj[ quisquam. Another stylistic parallel — f r o a more ingenuous speech than these — is provided by P t ? i 346, tnodice et modeste meliust uitam uiticre. The Turpilian meretrix whose speech we have just e x a i ined is perhaps the subject of a trochaic septenarius q u o t from the same play (42 R 3 [Dt'f/ii. IV]): mulier meretrix, quae me quaesti causa cognouit
s
The style is traditional t h r o u g h o u t : note the s t r o diaereses, which break the line into three parts, e m p h a s i s by alliteration and assonance [mulier meretrix, quae quae causa cognouit). T h e first phrase, mulier meretrix, a p p e in Stick. 746 a n d Merc. 685; for the last phrase, cf Po 95, sui quaesti caussa. O n e would naturally expect the senex to a p p e a r Turpilius' plays; at least one f r a g m e n t suggests that T u r lius may have carried on the tradition of exaggerating irascibility of this stock character (167-168 R 3 [Para. 17 Cf. Leo, PF 146-157. 12
110
cum nntchac uidebam stare tristis, turbido uultti, stibductis cum superciliis series. N o t e the alliteration in both lines and compare Rud. 318, also describing a senex: tortis sttpereiliis, contracta fr'cntcy fraudulentum. Another fragment is spoken by a scnex (175176 R 3 [Phil. I]): miserum puto, si etiam istuc ad malam aetatem accessit mali. N o t e the play on malum and mala aetas\ Nonius (1.10 M ) compares Men. 758, ut actas mala est! tners mala ergost; other examples include Aul. 42-43, nam qur me miscram uerberas? :: ut misera sis j atque ut tc dignam mala malam aetatem exigas and Rud. 337, quid agis tit? :: aetatem hau malam mate. But stock characterization was n o t the only tradition of the palliata which Turpilius followed. Priscian (De metris Ter. 425.5-10 K) has preserved for us the opening lines 1 8 o f Turpilius* Epiclerus (50-53 R 3 ) : ST. Quacso cdepol, quo ante lucem te subito rapis, ere, cum uno puero? PH. ncqueo esse intus, Stephanio. ST. quid ita? P H . ut solcnt, me curac somno segregant forasque noctis excitant silcntio. T h e speakers are Stephanio, a slave, and a young man w i t h a name beginning w i t h P/i, e.g., Phaedria. It is generally agreed that this scene is an adaptation of the opening o f Menander's Epicleros, the first lines o f which fortunately survive in a f r a g m e n t (152 K.-Th.): 19 ip}
Iml
7cdvT6>v aypu7rvta XaXtararov;
18 F. StocssI, 44 Prologos," RE 23.2 (1959) 2414; Arnott (supra p. 154, n. 6) 34. 19 Ribbcck. SRP II 106; StocssI (supra n. 18) 2414; Rychlewska T C P 18.
110
Ifik youv dvaanrjaacra Seupl rcpodtycTat XaXetv
a'.TT1
ccpx?)^ 7tivra
T&V
ifxaurou j3(ov.
Turpilius has o f course changed Menander's monologue into a dialogue, introducing the slave Stephanio, w h o was perhaps a protatic character; this procedure immediately reminds us of Terence, w h o , as w e know f r o m Donatus (ad An. 14), did the same thing in An. Li. But in fact T u r pilius' lines bear a much closer resemblance to the first scene of Plautus5 Curcuiio.20 Compare b o t h scenes; first Terence (An. 28-34): Vos istaec intro auferte: abite. — Sosia, ades d u m : paucis tc uolo. :: dictum puta: ncmpc ut curcntur recte haec? :: imino aliud. :: quid est quod tibi m e a ars efficere h o c possit amplius? :: nil istac opus est arte ad hanc rem quam paro, scd eis quas semper in tc intcllexi sitas, fide et taciturnitatc. :: exspccto quid uclis. then Plautus (Cure
1-6):
Q u o ted h o c noctis dicam proficisci foras cum istoc ornatu cumque hac pompa, Phaedronie? :: quo Venu > Cupidoque imperat, suadetque A m o r : si media n o x est siue est p r i m a uespera, si statu, condictus cum hoste intercedit dies, tamen est eundum quo imperant ingratiis. In Terence w e as audience seem to be eavesdroppers w h o have suddenly come upon a real conversation. In the very first line the bearers are first addressed, then Sosia. W e have 20 Bcarc, RS
116; Kychlewska, TCP 18.
110
no idea what the play is about or who is speaking, it is difficult to divine the relationship between the two speakers. Sosia9 s mea ars is confusing; the LCL translator (for the benefit of an inattentive English audience?) feels constrained to expand the phrase to " a cook's a r t " in his translation. 2 ' 4 W e do not k n o w where we are, what time of day it is, or what the problem is that the two speakers are about to discuss. Contrast the formality and clarity of Plautus' opening. The scene must have begun with Phaedromus and his pompa entering from a house door, followed by Palinurus. Before the first line is over w e know that it is nighttime (hoc twctis) and w e can be quite certain that Phaedromus has come o u t of his own house (proficisci foras). By the second line w e k n o w that the mute characters are Phaedromus' attendants (cumque hac pompa). And the style and content of the third line make it immediately clear that Phaedromus is an adulescens atrians; we can now settle d o w n to enjoy the problems and solution which we k n o w will inevitably come. Turpilius is, if anything, even more solicitous o f his audience than is Plautus. His opening words, quaeso edepol, are no m o r e than padding; if the audience misses them it will make n o difference (cf. Amph. 753; Most. 376, 1026). As with Plautus, the first line tells us the time of the action (ante lucem; cf. Amph. 602, 639, 699; Cas. 487; Poen. 318; Trin. 885; n o t in Terence); the second line clarifies' t h e relationship between the t w o speakers (ere) and identifies the mute character (cum uno puero). T h e third line makes it quite clear that the cause o f the master's insomnia is love, since cura is often used in an erotic sense in c o m e d y ; cf. 21 J. Sargcaunt, tr., Terence (LCL
1912) I 9.
110
Epid. 135, illam amabam olim, nunc font alia cura [viz., miifftjJ impendet pectori; Mere. 18-19, nam amoretn haec cuncta tiitiat sectari soleni, / aegritudo nimiaque elegantia and 870 ( t h e : comites [869] of an unhappy lover), cura, miseria, aegritudo, lacrimae, lamentatio. The use of an abstract subject w i t h a transitive verb, as in Turpilius* last sentence, is a h a l l m a r k : of Plautine style; 2 2 for a similar example cf. Pseud. 2 1 * ^imc me miseria et cura contabefacit. Traina 23 notes h o w Tur— pilius uses what Geilius, in his discussion of Caecilius' Plocium, called uerba tragici tumoris (2.23.21) in the phrase me somno segreganty his version of Menander's simple aypurcvCa ; contrast Terence's straightforward noctu te adiget horstmi insomnia (Eun. 219). Turpilius' concern for dramatic clarity is also indicated by another fragment from the same play (66-67 R 3 [Epicl. X ] ) : set quis est qui interrumpit sermoncm obitu suo?
meum
These words possibly come f r o m the end of a m o n o l o g u e : they serve as a formal announcement that a new character has come on the scene; in Plautus such lines are alway! followed by an identification of t h e newcomer or b y z clear indication that the audience is not expected to knov\ who he is. The following examples illustrate both the style of these lines and the dramatic technique they e m b o d y Cist. 534, sed quis hie est qui recta platea cursum hue contendii suom?; Asin. 265, sed quid illuc quod exanimatus currit hut Leonida?; Pseud. 592, sed hunc quern tiideo quis hie est qu 22 Rychlewska, TCF 43; H. HafTter, Unttrsuchungen zur altlateinischen Dick tersprache (Berlin 1934) 86-100, 112-113. 23 A. Traina, " Ramcnta philologa de vertendi ratione poctarum latinorum,' MmAcPat 74 (1961-1962) 111-113.
110
oralis mcis ohuiatn ivnobilis obicitur?:" 788-789.7 sed comprimenda O i est tu ill i uox at que oratio: j ems ecctmi recipit se domutn et duck coquotn; Cas. 574-575, sed uxorent ante aedis eccam. ci misero mihil j wetuo ne non sit surda atque haec audiuerit. A similar technical device appears in fr. 212 R 3 (Thras. XI): cesso occupare et me in colloquium conferre horum? There are many parallel passages in Plautus, in which a character reads aloud, so to speak, his own stage directions, m o r e for the audience's benefit than for his o w n ; cf. Epid. 100-101, sed ego cesso ire obuiani / adulcscenti, tit quid negoti sit sciam; Miles 896, cesso ego illis obuim ire; Most. 931, nunc ego me ilhic per posticum ad congerrones conferam (note the similar alliteration); a n d Rtul. 677, cesso ego has consolari. Another very important parallel in dramatic technique is suggested by the following fragment (145 R 3 [Lind. V]): compcrcc ucrbis uelitarc: ad rem rcdi. Nonius (3.4-7 M ) cites t w o Plautine lines along with this; the metaphor o f Men. 778, nescioquid uos uelitati estis inter iios duos, is similar, but a much more interesting parallel is Asin. 307, uerbiuelitationem fieri compendi nolo. This line puts an end to a long string of insults which do not advance the plot of the Asinaria and are almost entirely Plautus' o w n work. 2 4 Turpilius' line also ended a word-battle which interrupted the plot (this is indicated by ad rem redi); it seems very likely, then, that this was a similar signature. There are m a n y other examples of this in Plautus; compare Capt. 125, sed sati' uerboruinst. cura quae iussi atque abi; 964, tandem istaec aufer, die quod fcrs, ut feras hinc quod petis; Cure. 245, 24 Fracnkcl, EPP
136 (and n. 3).
110
aufer istaec, quaeso, atque hoc responde quod rogo; Epid. 39, supersede istis rebu9 tarn; and Trin. 66-67, sed hoc animum aduorte atque aufer ridicularia; / nam ego dedita opera hue ad te [adjuenio. The next fragment shows that Turpilius was not above using slapstick in his comedies (147 R 3 [Lind. VII]): misero mihi mitigabat sandalio caput. A fairly close Plautine parallel, also f r o m a scene of slapstick, is Miles 1424, uerberon etiam, an iam mittis? :: mitis sum cquident fustibus. But, as Ribbeck notes, 25 the most striking parallel to this line is from Terence, Eun. 1028, utinam tibi comnitigari uideam sandalio caput! One line certainly appears to be a reminiscence of the other, but there is n o way of telling for sure whether Turpilius is following Terence here or vice versa. Rychlewska argues that the line was originally Turpilius', o n the ground that it is more likely that a statement of wish, like Terence's, would have been adapted f r o m a simple narrative sentence than the other way around. 2 6 Whether or not this is true, it is clear enough from the moods of the two lines that Turpilius was, in this case, closer to the violently farcical world of traditional R o m a n comedy than was Terence. Note also that despite the similarity between the t w o examples the alliteration in Turpilius' line is much stronger than in Terence's. Further examples of similar lines in Plautus include Aul. 454, temperi, postquam impleuisti fustifssorum caput; Men. 303-304, ei mihi, / quom nihil est qui illic homini dimminuam caput! (cf. Most. 266); Poen. 494, colaphis quidem hercle tuom iam dilidam caput; Rud. 1117-1118, 25 Ribbeck, SRP II 120. 26 Rychlewska, TCF 9-10.
110
si praeterhac j
...
w .
J
It was probably mocked in A similar fashion in a lost S C C I K from the first act of the Bacchidcs; there a pttcr, r e a d i n g off a list of contract stipulations between a miles and a meretri: »> (as in Asin. 751-809), says (RKT/I. 14-15, fr. X L), ncc a quo- ' quam acciperes alio mcrcedem annttam, / msi r/t iwc ami* quiquam limares caput. The fact that in the same a r t i c l e (333.36-334.1-15 M, s.v. limare) Nonius also quotes, froriP 7 the same lost portion of the Bacchidcs, the phrase limace1uiri (Bacch. 16, fr. XI L) would indicate that, as in the Poctiu * lus} someone here made a pun on this unusual use o f the word limare. Ladewig long ago suggested that in the Poenulus example Plautus was making f u n of an outdated expres-^ sion; 27 the same seems to have been true in the BacchideWr Whether or n o t Turpilius was doing the same thing is impos sible to tell, but his use of such a time-honored phrase a good indication of the traditional character of his diction- -4. However Turpilius used this line, it clearly had some- r thing to do with the unhappy love story on which the plot * of the Leucadia was based. 28 Many other fragments of thL play have clear Plautine parallels which together suggeso? that Turpilius reworked a sentimental Menandrian originaiai into a standard R o m a n comedy, much as Caccilius Statiufw did with the Plocium and Plautus with the Bacchides. R a t h e r - ( than go through all the remaining fragments of Turpilius | 27 T. Ladewig, Analecta scenica (Ncustrelitz 1848) 14; Ville de Mirmonr / 172. ( 28 Pace Ribbcck, SRP II 113; Beare, RS 115-116; and Rychlewska, TCF Tflte) the Leucadia had nothing to do with the legend o f Sappho's Phaon; it had a per-j. I fcctly ordinary N e w - C o m e d y plot, though its setting, like that o f the Rudetis, was somewhat exotic; see P.-E. Lcgrand, " Pour l'histoire de la com
172 picking out stylistic examples of traditional R o m a n usage at random (a procedure which would be tedious and perhaps tendentious), it seems preferable to concentrate o n the remains of the J^eucadia alone, in the hope of discovering m o r e about Turpilius* methods of composition, as wrell as his diction and style. W e have already seen h o w t w o quotations f r o m this play (102 R 3 [Leuc. II], uiden tu Phrugis incessum? quam est coufdens! di istimc perduint and 129-131 R 3 [Leuc. XVIII], hoc quam, ignoscere / istic solentnc eas minoris uoxias, / erum si forte, quasi alias, uitii tago?) indicate the presence in it of an insolent slave; perhaps Turpilius expanded this role, as Plautus did with Chrysalus in the Bacchides. Another fragment describes the misfortunes o f the heroine (100-101 R3 [Leuc. I]): q u e m olim oderat, sectatur u l t r o ac detinet; illc insolens autem ut fastidit carnifcx! T h e phrase ultro sectari is used in erotic contexts in Miles 91, ait sese ultro omnis mulieres sectarier a n d 778, itaque omnis se ultro sectari in Epheso mcmorat mulieres, and sectari by itself in a more perverse context in Cas. 466, solet hie barbatos sane sectari scnex. For t h e second line, w h i c h apparently describes a young m a n w h o has jilted the heroine, compare Cure. 633. ut fastidit gloriosus!; A sin. 892, perii misera, ut osculatur carnufcx, capuli decus!; and Bacch. 876, ut subblanditur carnufex! T h e contexts o f these Plautine examples show that the phrasing Turpilius uses here was associated w i t h m o c k e r y a n d comic situations; hence it appears that this speaker, at a n y rate, d i d n o t take the plight o f the heroine of the Leucadia very seriously. T w o o t h e r f r a g m e n t s o f the p l a y are closely comiected
§!
fib
173 stylistically with this one; the first is perhaps spoken by the heroine (103 R 3 [Leuc. Ill]): uiden ut fastidit mei? Besides the examples quoted in the previous paragraph, Plautine parallels includc Most. 887, ttide ut fastidit simia! and Aul 244-5, fastidit mei. In another fragment the girl is apparently getting her revenge (104 R 3 [Leuc. IV]): ei perii! uiden ut osculatur caricm? num hilum ilia haec pudet? The closest parallel is the line f r o m the Asinaria already quoted (892, perii misera, ut osculatur carnufex, capuli decus!)] for the opening compare Aniph. 668, ei perii miser. The phrase uiden ut appears four times in the Curctdio alone (93, 160, 188, 311), twice, as here, introducing a comic metaphor: Cure. 160, uiden ut anus tremula medicinam facit? and 188, uiden ut misere moliuntur? For the situation portrayed compare Poenl 1296-1306, especially (for the last part of Turpilius' line) 1301, non pudet puellam amplexari baiiolum in media uia? Another fragment suggests that (as one might expect) the situation eventually reversed itself, with the girl now rejecting her lover (though a different man and girl may have been the protagonists in this scene: 106-107 R 3 [Leuc. VI]): ne me attigas! apage aufer m a n u m . :: heia quam ferocula est! Ribbeck compares Cas. 852, opsecro, ut ualentulast /, where a similar diminutive is used w i t h excellent comic results. Fraenkel compares Rud. H.iv; see especially 424, non ego sum pollucta pago. potin ut me apstineas manum? Rychlewska compares Men. 627, aufer manum, and Cas. 229-230, abi atque
110
apstitie manum. j :: heia, mea luno, mm deed esse ic tarn tristem iuo lout; note die heia with which the man's answer begins, both here and in Turpilius. 29 An equally close parallel is Cist. 450-453: meac issula sua
i 175 1
sc Donatus is commenting reads quid ais, ueticfica?; for similar insults see Cas. 644. excetra tu and Pseud. 218, ain, excetra ay tu? For the phrasing o f the entire line, and for an indication of the sort o f joke that might have been involved, compare Cure, 597-598, ut emn eriperet, tnanum arripuit mordicus, / jams me abripui atque ecfugi. apage istanc eaniculam!; cf. 4 ^ also 194-5, nam si amabas, wwi oportebat nassum abreptum mordicus, and Naevius, Com. 47 W (43 R 3 ), utinam tiasum abstulisset mordicus. r In another fragment one of the lovers speaks (109-110 p R 3 [Leuc. VIII]): '
1
intercapedine interficior, desiderio differor: ca tu cs mihi cupiditas, suauitudo ct mci animi e x p e c t a t i o n ,
s i
Stylization o f language is particularly evident h e r e : T r a i n a ^ : / notes the t w o parallel hemistichs with alliteration of noun and verb in each; Rychlewska the piling up o f a b s t r a c t ^ nouns. 31 For the language cf. Bacch. 17-18 (fr. XII L), cor ». meum, spes rnea, / mel meutn, suauitudo, c/bns, gaudiutn; Poen. ^ 156-157, differor / cupidine eiius; True. 701, di niagni, ut ego (laete) laetus sum ct laetitia differor!; and Ci'rt. 59-60, misera ^ excrucior, wed Gymnasium: male mihi est, male tttaceror; \ v doleo ab animo, dfc oculis, doleo ab aegritudine. In all these
{
# .
1
110
miseram terrent m e omnia: maris scopuli, sonitus, solitudo, sanctitudo Apollonis. T h e obvious parallel to this scene is the first act of the Rudens; Fraenkel 3 2 singles out the following lines: 215, algor, error, pauort me omnia tenent; 205, ita hie sola solis locis compotita; and 227, neque magi1 solac terrae solae sunt quam haec loca atque hae rcgiones. In Turpilius' second line Traina 33 notes the quadruple alliteration in s~ and the homoeoteleuton in -udo; cf. Atnph. 1062, strepitus, crepitus, sonitus, tonitrus. Cicero (Tusc. 4.34.72-73) has preserved a number of lines f r o m a speech which is apparently connected with the same scene (115-120 R 3 [Leuc. XII]): si quidem sit quisquam dcus, cuii ego sim curae... heu m e infelicem! :: sanusne es, qui temere lamentare?... te, Apollo sancte, fcr o p c m , teque, omnipotens Neptune, inuoco, uosquc adeo, uenti!... ... nam quid ego te appellem, Venus? T h e speaker is probably the hero, the interlocutor a friend o r servant of his. W h a t is particularly noteworthy about this passage is the c o m m e n t Cicero interjects after quoting the line ending in lamentare: Tusc. 4.34.73, hie itisanus uidetur ctiam sttis. at quas tragoedias cfficitl T h i s sounds almost like a paraphrase of the Plautine tag (Pseud. 707), ut paratragoedat cartiufex /, uttered b y an adulescens after the following effusion b y Pseudolus (702-706): 32
Fraenkel, EPP 106-107, n. 3; he believes the similarities may be due to similar Greek originals. 33 Traina, CAP 156.
110
io! io te, te, turanne, te, te ego, qui imperitas Pseudolo, quaero quoi ter trina triplicia, tribu' modis tria gaudia, artibus tribu' tris demeritas dem laetitias, de tribus fraude partas per malitiam, per dolum et fallacias; in libello hoc opsignato ad te attuli pauxillulo. O f course Plautus is here deliberately parodying tragedy, and Cicero's comment o n Turpilius is by n o means disinterested (he quotes the passage to illustrate his nttack on amor... qui nihil absit aut non multum ab insania [Tusc. 4.34.72]). But similar tragic language is used throughout the Plautine canon b y unhappy lovers; compare, for example, the following extracts f r o m a series of speeches by Charinus in the fifth act of the Mcrcator: 830-831: Limen superum inferumque, salue, simul autem uale: hunc hodie postremum extollo mea domopatria pedem. 834-835: di penates m e u m parentum, familiai Lar pater, uobis mando m e u m parentum rem bene ut tutcmini. 854-856: o Cupido, quantus es! nam tu quemuis confidentem facile tuis factis facis, eundem ex confidente actutum diffidentcm denuo. 864-865: inuoco uos, Lares uiales, ut me bene tutetis. A n d as Charinus' apparent madness continues to increase, his friend twice makes comments similar to that made by
178 the interlocutor in Turpilius' scene: Merc. 932, sanus non es and 950-951, hew! quae mi somnias! j hie homo non sanust. In b o t h playwrights the result is the same: exaggerated language makes the unhappy lover a figure of fun rather than an object of pity and fear. Rychlewska 34 scans line 117 of Turpilius' fragment as an iambic septenarius and line 118 as an iambic octonarius; this w o u l d suggest that Turpilius here created a mutatis modis canticum composed of mixed iambic meters, as Plautus did in Versa 1-12, 19-25; Pseud. 146-160; and True. 213-227, 231-255. Lindsay (ap. Non. 534.5 M) also discovered anapests in another line o f this play, a line which seems to describe the rescue of the heroine (123-124 R 3 [Leuc, XIV], retaining the MS w o r d order and reading as one line: hSrtarl nostros coep[i) tlic(o) ut celerent lembum); but, as Amott says, this scansion i s " doubtful, to say the least." 35 Ribbeck 36 found more convincing cretics in 66-67 R 3 (Epicl. X ) : sit quis fot qti(t) Intermmplt sermSntm tneum / obitu su6? For anapests see also 207 R 3 (Thras. VII); for anapests and bacchaics see 87-88 R 3 (Het. XI). 37 It is possible, then, that in the Leucadia and elsewhere Turpilius continued to com- ' pose the sort of musical comedy which was typical of Plautus but had been abandoned by Terence; certainty about such a question, however, is impossible when dealing with fragments: one could easily be misled, for example, by lines 127-137 of the Asinaria; though these are cretic tetrameters, the rest of the play is written in ordinary stichic meters.
34 Rychlcwska, TCF 80. 35 Arnott (supra p. 154, n. 6) 32. 36 Ribbeck, SFLP II 108. 37 O n the meters of Turpilius see Rychlewska, TCF criticisms o f Arnott (supra p. 154, n. 6) 32.
19-24; compare the
•
179^7 T h e heroine of the Lcttcadfa is finally rescued, as the tJ(f following fragment shows (125 R 3 [Leuc, XV]): utinamnuncapudignern aliquern m a g n u m adsidam!^ This is a flat line, and Fraenkcl 38 quite properly points out , the difference between it and Plautus' expression of the same idea in Rud. 531-534: ut fortunati sunt fabri ferrarii qui apud carbones adsident! semper calent. :: utinam fortuna n u n c anetina uterer, ut q u o m exiissem ex aqua, arerem tamen.
' J
B u t Plautus' leno and his setiex friend make much more natural subjects for this sort of banter than does Turpilius* heroine. For the opening o f Turpilius' line cf. Asin. 418, ^ utinam nunc stimulus in manu mihi sit. ur7 Humanum amarest, humanum autcm ignoscere est, says P l a u - a a tus (Merc. 319); this rule appears to have been followed in b U : the Leucadia, if we may j u d g e from a fragment which probably also gives us the name of the heroine (126 R 3 - ' , [Leuc. XVI]): ^ ante facta ignosco: mitte tristitatem, Dorcium. esc T h e w o r d tristitas is not recorded before Turpilius, and may A be his o w n coinage; 39 for the rest of the line cf. Most. 840, | age, iam mitto, ignosco. I The Leucadia evidently ended w i t h a revel, in which U, ~ slaves seem to have taken part; earlier w e examined a frag-; e a" m e n t (129-131 R 3 [Leuc. XVIII]) in which a slave was planning to steal some wine from his master. Another fragI 38 Fraenkcl, EPP 106, n. 3. 39 Rychlewska, TCP 37, 81. 12
C I
incut suggests that at leant one guest (not surprisingly) had a little too much to drink at this feast (132 R 3 [Late. XIX]): inuitauit plusculum hie se in prandio. Nonius, to whom w c owe this and most of our other fragments of Turpilius, offers (321.19 M) a striking Plautine parallel: Amph. 283, fiiira sunt nisi inuitauit sese in ccna pluscult tin; for the diminutive in such contexts cf. Most. 967, atque ibi ampliusculc quam sat? fuerit bibcris. Another quotation from the same passage in Nonius shows Turpilius, in the traditional Plautine manner, as imitator sui: 71 R> (Epic!. XIII), iii/ion inuitat plusculum sese, ut solet? This detailed examination of the Leucadia demonstrates h o w very closely Turpilius adhered to the traditional forms o f the comocdia palliata. Once again, Greek titles and an absence of R o m a n allusions have proven to be a false guide f o r predicting the style of a R o m a n playwright. It has been suggested that historically Turpilius* style represents a reaction against t h e Icctus sermo of Terence, a reaction which would also be e v i d e n t in the revival of Plautus' Casina.40 Whether o r not this is true, it is clcar that the traditional fabttln palliata c o n t i n u e d to be popular on the R o m a n stage. Turpilius' Demiurgiis was a w e l l - k n o w n vehicle for the great comedian Roscius in Cicero's time (Cic., Fam. 9.22.1), as was Plautus' Pscudoltts (QRosc. 7.20). But after Turpilius' death n o n e w p l a y w r i g h t s of the palliata appeared. Various explanations h a v e b e e n offered for the demise o f this f o r m of d r a m a , n o n e o f t h e m too convincing. Leo argued that the comocdia palliata h a d been driven o u t by the native togata; as Bcarc notes, h o w e v e r , the two dramatic 40
I3igott (supra p. 153, n. 1) 1429.
181
forms had earlier coexisted for some time. 41 Frank suggested that " the free manumission of slaves [in the time of the Gracchi] was creating a polyglot proletariat incapable of following the complexities of the palliata.42 Livius A n d r o nicus5 Caccilius Statius, and Terence, all manumitted slaves w h o (along with Plautus and Ennius) learned Latin as a second language, w o u l d 110 doubt have found this explanation amusing. T h e increasing popularity of the jnbula Atcllana and the m i m e suggests a growing importance of actors, as opposed to playwrights; but whether this is a symptom or a cause of the decline of the palliata is impossible to tell. Perhaps it would be safest simply to conclude that the mechanism of talent and genius is always something of a mystery; for some reason the lode of the palliata had run out, and literary artists in the last century of the R o m a n republic turned their attention to other things. 43
41 Leo, GRL 258, 369-384; Iteare, RS 129. 42 T . Frank, Life and Literature in the Roman Republic (Jlcrkclcy 1930) 125. 43 I should note that the most valuable tool (outside o f the texts themselves) that I have used during this entire investigation is G. Lodge's monumental Lcxicon plantinttm (Leipzig 1904-1933).
i!
VIII. CONCLUSION
,lt) iei
Postquam poeta sensit scripturam suam ab iniquis obseruari, et aduorsarios rapere in peiorem partem quam acturi sumus, indicio de se ipse erit, uos critis iudices laudin an uitio duci factum oporteat. (Ad. 1-5)
j
For all o f Terence's friendship with homines nobilis ... qui uobis uniuorsis et populo placent (Ad. 15, 19), we are left with the feeling after reading his prologues that they are ^ the work of a man w h o was very much an outsider. This is n o t just a question o f a simple personal feud with Luscius Lanuvinus; the maleuolus tietus poeta o f An. 6-7 becomes lt> plural in the same prologue (15-16): id isti uituperant factum atque in eo disputant / contaminari non dccere Jabulas. In Hec. ^ 46-47, Terence has Ambivius Turpio beg the audience, nolitc sincre per uos artem musicam / recidcre ad paticos, and, in Phortn. 16-17, Terence says for himself, is sibi responsum hoc habeaty in medio omnibus / palmam esse positam qui artetriW I tractent musicam. It appears to be a g r o u p that is opposing fU» \ Terence, a group that he believes has a monopoly on theat^ i rical production in R o m e . It has been suggested very - f plausibly that this group was the Collegium poetarum} an I | r/j*
4
1 L. Mueller, Quintus Eiinius: Eitte Einleitung in das Stadium dcr romischensty Poesie (St. Petersburg 1884) 30-33, 41-43; E. G. Sillier, "The Collegium Poetar u m at R o m e , " AJP 26 (1905) 1-21; E. L. Minar, Jr., "Terence and the Poets' G u i l d / ' TAP A 76 (1945) xxxvi-xxxvii.
^
f
1 i i
184
association that m a y provide one key for understanding the strength o f the R o m a n comic tradition we have been investigating in the previous chapters. Our k n o w l e d g e of this guild is very scanty. From Fcstus (446.32-448.1-4 L) w e have the following notice: publico adtributa est ci [Livius Andronicus] in Auentino acdis Mineruae, i n qua liceret scribis histrionibuscjue consistere ac d o n a ponere; in h o noreni Liui, quia is et scribebat fabuias et agebat. From Livy (27.37.7) w e c a n date this event to 207 B . C . ; Waltzing correctly emphasizes t h a t what is involved here is the g r o u p ' s recognition b y the state, not its formation. 2 The scribae and histrioncs w e r e n o w permitted to m e e t and make offerings at the T e m p l e o f Minerva; some sort of organization, t h e n , already existed, a n d may have existed for many years previous to this. T h e title of the g r o u p , and a vivid glimpse o f it, is f o u n d in Valerius M a x i m u s (3.7.11), w h o records a n e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n a R o m a n n o b l e m a n and a leading l i g h t of the Collegium in the first c e n t u r y B . C . : is [the p o e t Accius] I u l i o Cacsari amplissimo ac florentissimo uiro in c o n l e g i u m p o e t a r u m uenienti n u m q u a m a d s u r r e x i t , n o n maiestatis eius i n m e m o r , scd q u o d in c o n p a r a t i o n e c o m m u n i u m s t u d i o r u m a l i q u a n t o se s u p e r i o r e m esse confideret. q u a p r o p t e r i n s o l e n t i a e c r i m i n e caruit, quia ibi u o l u m i n u m , n o n i m a g i n u m certamina e x e r c e bantur. 2 J.-P. Waltzing, £tudc historiquc sur les corporations profcssionncUes chez les Rotna'ms depuis les origines jusquh la chute de I'Empire ^Occident (Louvainc 1895V 1900) 1.82, 4.39-40.
185 From these two accounts w e can draw several important conclusions. The Collegium poetarum, or something resembling it, existed at R o m e almost from the start of the comoedia palliata. It was recognized and honored by the state. Both actors and writers were members. Though the incident reported by Valerius comes well after otir period, there is nothing time-bound about its suggestion that the members of the Collegium spent their meetings in reading their works to one another (communium studiorum, uoluminum ... ccrtamina) and that they had a very proud, closc-knit sense of their own w o r t h . In Rome, or anywhere else for that matter, a guild of this sort would tend to be conservative, and Terence's prologues would suggest that they w e r e quick to close ranks against any radical innovation on the R o m a n stage. If these deductions are correct, the Collegium poetarum was a major force in creating, developing, and maintaining the R o m a n comic style. It was in honor of Livius Andronicus, and his work in composing a state hymn, that the Collegium was recognized by R o m e . And Livius Andronicus, the founder of the palliata, was a Greek, who came to R o m e f r o m the South Italian city of Tarentuin. Though comedy in m a n y forms had been popular throughout the Greek cities of South Italy and Sicily for centuries, anecdotes that have come d o w n to us w o u l d suggest that in Tarentum enthusiasm for the theater amounted almost to a mania. W e are told that in 282 B.C. the Tarentines were sitting in the theater w h e n a ship carrying a R o m a n envoy arrived in their harbor; they w e r e so drunk that they rushed o u t to attack it without even k n o w i n g whose it was (Dio Cass. fr. 39.5). Later, when another R o m a n delegation w a s addressing them in the theater, the Tarentines treated t h e m as clowns, laughing
186
at their togas and their foreign accents (Dio Cass. fr. 39,6). One Tarentine received a huge round of applause when he tripped the R o m a n envoy Postuinius—or, according to another source, made him the butt of a considerably more scatological bit of slapstick (Dion. Hal, Ant. Rom. 19.5). When the Tarentines were discussing the idea of sending for Pyrrhus of Epirus to help them against the Romans, a citizen named Meton paraded into the theater, decked in garlands and accompanied by a flute-girl. The audience fell silent, expecting a song, and Meton declared that h e had made this impressive entrance to show them what they had to lose if they welcomed Pyrrhus and his garrison into the town (Dion. Hah, Ant. Rom. 19.5; Plut., Pyrrh. 13.3-4). But Pyrrhus was invited, and the closing of the theater was first on the list of the austerity measures he enacted (Plut., Pyrrh. 16.2; Zonar. 8.2.370).3 These stories may be apocryphal, but they give a clear indication of h o w important the theater was in Livius' birthplace. O f the many forms of theatrical activity enjoyed by the Tarentines, and other citizens of Magna Graecia, one of the most interesting f r o m our point of view are the farcical scenes depicted on the phlyax vases of South Italy. 4 Though none of these vases can be dated later than 300 B.C., their tradition appears to have been continued in Tarentum with the Gnathia vases during the third century. 5 Besides 3 Bcare, RS 16; Duckworth, NRC 40; M. Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater (Princeton 19612) 137. 4 B i e b f (supra n. 3) 129-146; A. D . Trendail, Phlyax Vases (BICS Suppl. 19; London 1967 2 ); L. M. Catccruccia, Pitture vascolare italiote di soggetto teatrale comico (Rome 1951). 5 A. McN. G. Little, " Plautus and Popular Drama, M HSCP 49 (1938) 2 1 4 ; H. Bulle, " V o n griechischen Schauspielern und Vasenmalern," Festschrift for James Loeb (Munich 1930) 33-37.
r-n.
187
i
comic travesties of myth and. heroic legend, the phlyax vase paintings include depictions of a father and son fighting over a woman, t w o slaves sharing the attentions of a single woman, slave revelry, slave punishment, deception o f an old man, and a running slave. 6 All o f these, of course, can be paralleled m a n y times in traditional R o m a n comedy c The phlyax farce, like the mime, was^ largely an improvised art; hence our textual evidence, except in the case o f later literary recreations, is almost nonexistent, making it very difficult to assess w h a t influence South Italian comedy m i g h t have had oh the verbal style of the palliata.1 But a particularly fascinating interchange does survive from Epicharmus, the fifth-century Sicilian w h o m Plato (Theaet. 152 e) called the best of the comic playwrights ( 1 4 9 K ) :
1 ;
J j
l
'J
A. ti ^ctti; B. STjXaS/] -rptTtoiK;. A. t£ (jlav 7r6Saq reTopag; ofoc £cmv Tp(7C0i><;, dcXX* <£ ot|i.ai TeTpa-rcou<;. B. £OTIV 8vojx' AUTWT TPFAOUS, TIROPAC; y<x A. OlSfaou<; TOIVUVTCOT'9)V atviyfia TOI voei*;.
J
J-
v -
In its meter — the trochaic tetrameter, forerunner o f the septenarius —, in its clear insistence on t h e j o k e f o r the joke's sake, and in its riddle form and use of mythology, thiis Brief fragment would suggest that the stock situations / and slapstick of the phlyax farces w e r e not all that Magna.y Graecia had to teach the playwrights o f the palliata. W h a t j ever the precise meaning o f Horace's statement that Plautus I ad exemplar Siculi properare Epicharmi (Ep. 2.1.58), the R o mans would appear to o w e m u c h t o the Western G r e e k s for their style as well. a1 «
ffi * 6 See Bieber (supra p. 186, n. 3) figs. 504, 505, 511-514, 526. 7 For texts see A. Olivieri, ed., Frammenti delta commedia greca e del mimo uetk Sicilia e nclla Magna Grecia I, II (Naples 1946, 19472).
;
•0 O
J
188 Livius Andronicus* successor, Naevius, came from Campania,8 a territory which also gave birth to die Oscan dramatic form k n o w n as the Atellan farce, another possible foreign contributor to the palliata,9 Its early popularity in R o m e is attested by Livy (7.2). The surviving fragments arc all from literary adaptations which postdate the high point of the palliata and hence are not legitimate evidence for a stylistic connection between the Atellana and the R o m a n comic tradition. One characteristic, however, of this drama is firmly established: it was based on a series of stock masks, all of which have important connections with Plautine comcdy. Bucco, perhaps a foolish glutton, is mentioned in Bacch. 1088, sttdti, stolidi, fatui, fungi, bardi, blenni, buccones. Manducus, whose main characteristic seems to have been a huge j a w , is the subject of a j o k e in Rud. 535-536, quid si aliquo ad ludos me pro manduco locem? / :: quapropter? :: quia pol dare crepito dentibus. T h e n a m e of Pappus, the stupid old man, does not occur in Plautus, but it has been plausibly suggested that in using n o n a m e but senex for the " hero " of the Casina Plautus w a s creating a similar sort of stock character. 10 Dossenus ( w h o m a y be an alter ego of Mand u c u s n ) , if w e can trust the apparently proverbial phrase preserved by Seneca (Ep. 89.7, hospes resiste et sophian Dossenni R From Capua, specifically, according to the arguments o f H. T . Rowell, The 'Campanian' Origin o f C . Nacvius and its Literary Attestation," MAAR 19 (1949) 15-34. 9 Little (supra p. 186, n. 5) 215-216; W . Beare, " Plautus and the Fabula AtellanaCR 4 4 (1930) 165-168; A. Nicoll, Masks Mimes and Miracles (London 1931) 65-79; P. Frassinctti, Fabula atellana: Saggio sul teatro popolare latino (Pubblicaziom dcll'lstituto di filologia classica 4 ; Ccnova 1953) 84-93. For texts o f the literary Atellana see D. R o m a n o , Atellana fabula (Palermo 1953). M
10 G. D u c k w o r t h , 33 (1938) 279-282. 11
44
The U n n a m e d Characters in the Plays o f Plautus," C P
O n the weakness o f this identification sec Duckworth, NRC
12, n. 24.
189 lege), was clcvcr and witty, in contrast to the other characters of the Atcllana; hence he would be a perfect prototype for the serui callidi of Plautine and other traditional Roman comedy. Maccus seems to have been the most foolish and blundering character of the whole set; it was w i t h typically ironic self-deprecation that " Titus Maccius P l a u t u s " nicknamed himself after this character and " signed " at least one play with his name (Asin. 11, Maccus uortit barbare; cf. Merc. 10 and app. crit.).12 The speeches spoken by these stock farcical characters, both in their Oscan and their pre-literary Latin stages, are irretrievably lost. But if, as Beare has suggested, the original MS reading of Quint. 6.3.47, in primis ex amphibolia tieque ilia obsctira [rather than Teuffel's obscena], quae Atellani e more captant, is retained, this would suggest that much of the Atellan dialogue consisted of riddles and puns — certainly a prominent feature of the palliata. As Beare concludes, 44 Farcical humor, vigorous by-play, paronomasia, and the tendency to reduce the varieties of personality to a few simple types — are not these also among the main features of Plautus [and the traditional palliata], as contrasted either with his Greek originals or with Terence?" 1 3 It was long ago suggested that Plautus was ail actor in Atellan farce; 1 4 Livius Andronicus was of course an actor, and a singer, id quod omties turn erant (Livy 7.2.8). All this brings us to the final source for the R o m a n comic tradition, the R o m a n theater itself. T h e fact that actors were members of the Collegium poetarum shows how closely they and the Bcnrc (supra p. 188, n. 9) 167; A. S. Gratwick, " Titus Maccius Plautus*/' CQ N . S. 23 (1973) 78-84. 13 Beare (supra p. 188, n. 9) 168. H Leo, GRL 93.
110
playwrights worked together- C h r y s a W insulting remark about the actor T. Publilius Pellio in Bacck 214-215, etiam Epidictm, quam ego fabulam aeque ac me ipsum amo, / nullam aeque inuitus specto, si agit Pellio, far from being an indication of a quarrel between Plautus and his chief actor, is a clear example of the kind o f bantering that would go o n constantly in such a close-knit group. The actors would naturally have their own talents, preferences, and expectations, all of which would strongly influence the style of the plays they enacted. It is certain that as a group they had been working in R o m e long before Livius Andronicus put on his first play. For one fact emerges clearly from the confused and confusing accounts o f the origins of R o m a n drama which Livy (7.2.), Horace (Ep. 2.1.139-163), and Valerius Maximus (2.4.4) have left us. Theatrical performances, and especially performances featuring song and dance, had been popular with the R o m a n s from time immemorial — though it is doubtful that w e will ever be able to sort out the relative importance o f the contributions made by Etruscan histriones, Fescennine verses, and the dramatic satura.15 And it is the element o f song and dance that forms one of the greatest differences between the Nta and the traditional palliata: not just " festal 99 scenes, which can be paralleled in Menander, but a continuous, all-permeating music and dance, such that m a n y Plautine comedies end u p more like a mysterious reincarnation o f an Aristophanes extravaganza than a Menandrian comedy of manners. But actors and their professional background are only one half of the theater. The other half is the R o m a n au-
15 For a discussion of the problem, with bibliography, see Duckworth,
3-17.
NRC
110
dience, Widely travelled (many would have seen some of a b t the best Greek theater of the day during military service in Sicily and South Italy), self-confident, sophisticated, thor- oughly accustomed, thanks to their experiences in forum, court, and comitium, to every facet of artistic verbal ritual, a y the Romans clearly made u p one of the great theatrical audiences of all time. Like a modern opera audience, they 3 e c were conservative and knew what they wanted (as Terence found out to his cost), and their expectations would have been a major force in shaping the R o m a n comic tradition. Outside of the prologues of Plautus (where they arc addressed , r with a bantering directness that suggests an almost unpar- m f allcled unity of purpose between playwright, actor, and lie( audience), the most memorable picture of the R o m a n theatrical audience that has come d o w n to us is the following anecdote, datable to the late third century B.C. and preserved by Servius (ad Aert. 8.110): y
denique curn ludi circenses Apollini celebrarentur et Hannibal nuntiatus esset circa portam Collinam urbi ingruere, omnes raptis armis concurrerunt. reuersi postea cum piaculum formidarent, inuenerunt saltantem in circo senem quendam. qui cum interrogatus dixisset se non interrupisse saltationem, dictum est hoc prouerbium % salua res est, saltat senex.'
u
w
iU[i
y
The details are of course confused; it was certainly not Hannibal at the gates this time (cf. Festus 436.31-438.27 L). But the portrait could not be more instructive: the serious _ attention to theatrical spectacle as part of the state religion, the rush o f the citizen-soldiers to defend their walls (and their success, o f course, is taken f o r granted), the unflurried return I I I
110
to ritual and entertainment, and finally the expression of the lesson o f the event distilled to a single, lapidary, pithy, paratactic, alliterative apothegm. This, then, was the audience for whom the traditional palliata was written. As w e have seen in the preceding chapters, this .comedy featured a conventional verbal style, ranging all the way f r o m the simplest and most unobtrusive formulaic phrases to some of the most elaborately stylized light verse ever composed. It utilized an immediately recognizable, strongly stereotyped set of stock characters. It employed an extensive series of staging conventions which increased the humor of the plays and clarified the progress of their plots. In many eases it transformed a spoken and essentially realistic form of drama into a musical extravaganza by introducing flute music and lyrical song. Its origins are shadowy, and if we accepted nothing but direct textual evidence w e would be reduced to claiming that it sprang into being full-grown with the creation of the first fabuln palliiUa by Livius Andronicus. But this is patently absurd. W e k n o w that the Ncci provided the plots, the germ of the stock characters, and perhaps some of the staging c o n ventions as well.16 T o g e t h e r , probably, with other Hellenistic Greek poetry it also provided the prototypes of the meters employed in the palliata, though the details of m u c h of this transformation remain obscure. 17 Many of the characteristics of its verbal style probably stem from the
16
For the-relationship o f o n e staging convention to the Nia see W . S. Anderson, " A N e w Mcnandrian Prototype for the Scrutis Current of R o m a n C o m e d y , " Phoenix 24 (1970) 229-236. 17 M u c h o f the extensive literature on this subject has been cited earlier in this study; for a summary see D u c k w o r t h , NRC 361-383; for a bibliography see P. W . Harsh, "Early Latin M e t e r and Prosody," Lustrum 3 (1958) 215-250.
193 nature of the Latin language itself, especially the phonetic independence of the Latin word and the importance of the initial syllable in Latin. 18 These were the ingredients used by the palliata playwrights, who were not native R o m a n s but were born, according to tradition, literally from oneend of Italy to the other. Strongly influenced by the comic styles of their Oscan- and Greek-speaking neighbors, working in a close-knit, self-conscious, exclusive group of actors and playwrights, they created for a demanding, experienced audicncc die traditional R o m a n comedy which has been the object of this study. In our examination of this comedy we have had to deal almost exclusively with authors whose work survives only in fragments. As one scholar has said, " il y a toujours un certain charmc a se promcner parmi des ruines, et a ramasser au milieu des decombres une pierre qui fut rosace ou qui fut fleuron."19 W e have done more than amble among the ruins, and a historical reconstruction of the R o m a n theater needs n o aesthetic justification. B u t for the literary critic, the student of later European literature, and the common reader, the most important aspect of the discoveries we have made will be their effect on the evaluation of literature that has survived intact. As we have defined and explored the R o m a n comic tradition, we have, at the same time, come to sec h o w intimately Plautus was connected with it. H o w will the stylistic unity of the fabula pulliata influence our view o f the twenty surviving comedies of Plautus? »8 See Hcarc, RS 14-15; J. Marouzcau, Traill dc stylistiquc appliqudc au latin (Paris 1935) 42-43; and A. W . dc Groot, " Lc mot phonctique ct les formes lit— t&raires du latin," REL 12 (1934) 117-139. 19 Faidcr, P C C 10.
110
Literary criticism of Plautine comedy has never been a simple task. It was complicated f r o m the beginning by the difficult question of the relationship between Plautus and his Greek originals. M o d e r n classical philologists have been successful in exploring this question, but the bulk of their literature is huge, their discoveries have nowhere been adequately summarized, 20 and too often they can be justly accused o f an ill-concealed contempt for the playwright whose w o r k s they are investigating. As a result the c o m m o n practice among literary critics is to open their studies of Plautus by paying tribute to the discoveries of scholarship, only t o ignore them as they go on to produce literary and dramatic analyses — usually idiosyncratic and often impressionistic — of the Plautine plays.21 But this approach is misleading. T h e relationship between Plautus and his originals is not a simple question of Quellenforschung but rather the essence of his entire dramatic activity. O r , more accurately, it is one half of the essencc. For, as w e have seen, Plautus was working in a severely conventional comic tradition, which, like the was not of his o w n creation, and this provides the other half. T o take 20 The summary by D u c k w o r t h , N R C 384-385 (cf. also 206) of the discoveries o f Fraenkel is grossly unfair and inadequate; there is a much better, though very brief, summary by W . R . Chalmers, " Plautus and His Audience," Roman Drama, cdd. T. A. Dorey a n d . D . R . Dudley (London 1965) 26-28. 21 For example, see B.-A. Taladoire, Essai sur le comique Ae Plaute (Monaco 1956); cf. the reviews by G. Williams, JRS 48 (1958) 232 and C. Questa, RiVCCM 1 (1959) 415-416; F. della Corte, Da Sarsina a Roma (Florence 19672); cf. O . Skutsch, CR N . S. 4 (1954) 299-300; R . Perna, L'originalitl di Plauto (Bari 1955); cf. J. N . Hough, CP 52 (1957) 192-194; E . Segal, Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus (Cambridge, Mass. 1968); cf. J. W . Halporn, CJ 65 (1969-1970) 234-236. It must be admitted, however, that philologists often betray a basic lack o f sympathy toward such ventures; cf., e.g., Skutsch's statement (300): " I gave u p reading at or near this point. The t w o chapters I read are f o l l o w e d by a third ..., w h i c h seems to consist o f fairly harmless summaries and evaluations o f the plays."
19b
this tradition properly into consideration places an addiru tional heavy burden oil the Plautine critic, but he cannot avoid it. He must realize that adherence to the comic tradition was an inescapable and conscious part of Plautus' art. T h e words used by Nietzsche to describe Greek artists "IV apply equally well to Plautus and the other traditional playitr wrights of the palliata: " Es fehlte ihnen all Angst vor der W Konvention; durch diese hingen sie ja mit ihrem Publikum zusammen. Konventionen sind namlich die f u r das VerstandI nis der Zuhorer eroberten Kunstmittel, die miihvoll erlernte gemeinsame Sprache, mit welcher der Kiinstler sich wirklich if J mitteilen kann ... ' In Ketten tanzen \ es sich schwer machen 'CS und dann die Tauschung der Leichtigkeit dariiberbreiter — das ist das Kunststuck, welches sic uns zcigen wollcn." 22 Above all, the critic must resist the temptation to judge Plautus by h o w well or how poorly he appears to escape the tradition. Such statements as " the Two Baccltides ... opens as a splendid Menandrean comedy of character but soon hastens off into the usual stereotyped play of intrigue " 2 3 or " that the fairly stock Ballio should be [considered] a prize example of character portrayal in the same category as the Miles is rather surprising . . . " 24 betray a serious lack of understanding of w h a t it is Plautus is doing. T h e error in the latter example is especially clear, since we k n o w f r o m Cicero (QRosc. 7.20) that " the fairly stock Ballio " was a classic character of the R o m a n theater m o r e than a century after Plautus' death. T h e critic, if he is to avoid such mistakes, must train himself to recognize the " hackneyed , **1 22 F. Nietzschc, Menschliches, Allzumcnschliches (ed. K. Schlechta, Darmstadt 1954) 2.2.122 and 140 (vol. I, P P . 925 and 932). 23 p. W . Harsh, A Handbook of Classical Drama (Stanford 1944) 345. 24 J. N. Hough, review o f della Corte (supra p. 194, n. 21) in CP 5 0 (1955) 159. 14
.
i
.
I \
l 0
he
1
|
196 stereotypes " of the palliata as effects deliberately sought after by the playwright and treasured and enjoyed by the R o m a n audience. W h e t h e r or not the critic can enjoy them too depends on the depth and extent of his o w n imagination, sympathy, and good will. But he will get as much assistance as is humanly possible from the comic genius of Titus Maccius Plautus.
SELECT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
N o t e : For Plautus, the text quoted throughout is W . M. Lindsay's O . C . T . (Oxford 19102); for Terence, R . Kauer, W . ML Lindsay, and O . Skutsch's O . C . T . (Oxford 1958 3 ). O t h e r texts arc listed below. The abbreviations used arc those recommended by the editors of the American Journal of Archaeology; see A]A 74 (1970) 1-8. Allen, F. D., " O n 1 os cohmnatum' (Plaut. M . G . 211) and Ancient Instruments of Confinement," HSCP 7 (1896) 37-64. Anderson, W . S., " A N e w Menandrian Prototype for the Seruus Currens of R o m a n Comedy," Phoenix 24 (1970) 229-236. Argenio, R . , " II ' P l o c i u m ' di Cecilio Stazio," MCl 7 (1937) 359-368. Aruott, W . G., 4< Menander: Discoveries Since the DyskolusJ' Arethusa 3 (1970) 49-70. —, review of Rychlcwska, Turpilii comici fragmenta, Gnomon 40 (1968) 31-35. Ashmore, S. G., ed., The Comedies of Terence (New York 19102). Bader, F., La formation des composts nominaux du latin (Paris 1962). Bardon, H., La literature latine inconnue I: L'fpoqtie republicaine (Paris 1952). Beare, W . , " Contamination CR N.S. 9 (1959) 7-11. 44 The Date of the Casina" CR 48 (1934) 123-124. "Plautus and the Fabula Atellana" CR 44 (1930) 165-168. —, The Roman Stage (New York 1963*). Bickel, E., " Die Skyrier des Euripides und der Achilles des Livius Andronicus," RhM 86 (1937) 1-22. Bieber, M., The History of the Greek and Roman Theater (Princeton 19612).
110
Bigot*, E., 44 Sextus Turpilius," RE SuppL (1948) 1429-1430. Blansdorf, J., Archaische Gedankengftige in den Komodien des Plautus (Wiesbaden 1967). Bonelli, I., L'Odyssia di Livio Andronico (Rome 1951). Bothe, E H., ed., Poetae scenici Latinorum (Leipzig 1834). Buechcler, F., 44 Poeta latinus ignobilis," RhM 33 (1878) 309-310. Bulle, H., " Von griechischen Schauspielern und Vasenmalern," Festschrift fur James Loeb (Munich 1930) 5-43. Catteruccia, L. M., Pitture vascolari italiote di soogetto teatrale (Rome 1951). Cfebe, J.-P., " Le niveau culturel d u public plautinien," REL 38 (1960) 101-106. —, La caricature et la parodie dans le monde romaiti antique (Paris 1966). Chalmers, W . R . , 44 Contaminatio," CR N.S. 7 (1957) 12-14. Cole, T., 44 T h e Saturnian Verse," YCS 21 (1969) 1-73. Conrad, C. C., " T h e R o l e of the Cook in Plautus' Curculio," CP 13 (1918) 389-400. Copley, F. O., tr., The Comedies of Terence (Indianapolis 1967). Coppola, G., 44 La commedia di Difilo," AeR 5 (1924) 185-204. Correa, J. A., 44 Plautus, sui imitator? " Estudios de literatura latina (Cuadernos de la 44 Fundacion Pastor " 15; Madrid 1969) 43-68. Corte, F. dclla, Da Sarsina a Roma (Florcncc 19672). D'Anna, G., 41 Contributo alia cronologia dei poeti latini arcaici III: Quando esordi Cn. Nevio? " RendlstLomb 88 (1955) 301-310. Diehl, E., 44 Iuventius," RE 10 (1919) 1362. " Licinius Imbrex," RE 13 (1926) 371. Dorey, T. A., and D. R . Dudley, edd., Roman Drama (London 1965). Duckworth, G. E., 44 T h e Dramatic Function of the Servus Currens in Roman C o m e d y , " Classical Studies Presented to Edward Capps on His Seventieth Birthday (Princeton 1936) 93-102. —, The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton 1952). 44 The Structure of the Miles Gloriosus," C P 30 (1935) 228-246. —, ed., T. Macci Plauti Epidicus (Princeton 1940). —, 44 The Unnamed Characters in the Plays of Plautus," CP 3 3 (1938) 267-282.
Duentzcr, H . , ed., L. Livii Andronici Jragmenta coliecta et iniustrata (diss. Berlin 1835). Dumont, j . C., " L a strategic de l'esclave piautinien," REL 44 (1966) 182-203. Dziatzko, C . , " Z u r Kritik und Exegese der griechischen und latcinischen Komikerfragmente," RhM 31 (1876) 370-380.
nr tr at
Ernout, A., ed., Plaute I-VII (Paris 1961-19672). —, cd., Recueil de textes latins archaiques (Paris 1957 2 ).
> ^ 1
1
ar Faider, P., " Le poitc comique Cccilius: Sa vie et son oeuvre, en MusB 12 (1908) 269-341, 13 (1909) 5-35. Fantham, E., " Act IV of the Menaechmi: Plautus and His Original," CP 63 (1968) 175-183. — t " T h e Curcitlio of Plautus: A n Illustration of Plautine Methods in Adaptation," C Q N.S. 15 (1965) 84-100. Fay, E. W . , "Textual Notes and Queries on Plautus," AJP 18 j u , (1897) 168-188. e$c Fraenkel, E., Elementi plautini in Plauto, tr. F. Munari (Florence 1960). " Livius Andronicus," RE Suppl. 5 (1931) 598-607. " Naevius," RE Suppl. 6 (1935) 622-640. —, " Das Original der Cistellaria des Plautus," Philologus 87 (1932) -' 117-120. " D i e Vorgeschichte des Versus quadratus," Hermes 62 (1927) op.
357-370.
s
j
:
Fraenkel, H . , " Griechische Bildung in altromischen Epen: 1 Livius r Andronicus als tfbersctzer," Hemes 67 (1932) 303-308. lJk 1 Frank, T., Life and Literature in the Roman Republic (Berkeley 1930). " Naevius and Free Speech," AJP 48 (1927) 105-110. { I —, " O n the Dates of Plautus' Casina and its Revival," AJP 54 - r f (1933) 368-372. , / . Frassinetti, P., Fabula atellana: Saggio sul teatro popolare latino (Pub- n r j blicazioni delllstituto di filologia classica 4; Genova 1953). |f Freud, S., Complete Psychological Works XXI, tr. J. Strachey (London k 1961). ^
f
Galdi, M . , " N u m qui de Tarentilla comoedia supersunt versus 5- _ ennianis reliquis ascribendi sunt," Athenaeum 5 (1927) 64-69.
200 Galinsky, G. K., " Scipionic Themes in Plautus' Amphitruo" TAP A 97 (1966) 203-235. Ganiberale, L., " L'inizio proverbiale di Menandro fr. 333 K.-Th., Rit'FC 95 (1967) 162-164. Garton, C., " T h e Thesaurus: ArComedy of Luscius Lanuvinus," AJP 92 (1971) 17-37. Garzya, A., " Varia philologa," Emerita 21 (1953) 111-122. Goctz, G., and F. Schocll, edd., M. Tcreiiti Varronis dc lingua latino quae supersunt (Leipzig 1910; rcpr. Amsterdam 1964). Gommc, A. W . , Essays in Creek History and Literature (Oxford 1937). Gratwidc, A. S., " Hanno's Punic Specc'n in the Poenulus of Plautus," Hermes 99 (1971) 25-45. " 'Titus Maccius Plautus,' " C Q N.S. 23 (1973) 78-84. Grautoff, P., Turpilianarum comoediarwn reliquiae (diss. Bonn 1853). Grilli, A., Studi enuiani (Brescia 1965). Grimal, P., " La signification historiqnc dc l'ocuvrc clique dc Livius Andronicus," REL 31 (1953) 32-33. Groot, A. W . d e , " Lc m o t phonctique et les f o r m e s litteraires du latin," REL 12 (1934) 117-139. HafFtcr, H., Untersuclningen 1934).
zur altlatcinischen Dichtersprache (Berlin
Hall, F. W . , " Repetitions and Obsessions in Plautus," CQ 20 (1926)
20-26.
Halporn, J. W . , review o f Segal, Roman Laughter, CJ 65 (19691970) 234-236. Halporn, J. W . , M . O s t w a l d , and T . G. Rosenmeyer, The Meters of Greek and Latin Poetry (Indianapolis 1963).
Handlcy, E. W . , " The Conventions of the Comic Stage and their Exploitation b y M c n a n d e r , " Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur I'antiquitt classique X V I : Menandre (Geneva 1970) 1-26. —, Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison (London 1968). Hanson, J. A., " Scholarship on Plautus Since 1950," CIV 59 (19651966) 103-107, 126-129, 141-148. H a p p , H . , " D i e lateinische Umgangssprache und die Kunstsprache
des Plautus," Glotta 45 (1967) 60-104.
201
Harsh, P. W . , " Certain Features o f Technique Found in B o t h Greek a?id R o m a n D r a m a / ' AJP 58 (1937) 282-293. —, " Early Latin Meter and Prosody 1935-1955/' Lustrum 3 (1958) 215-250. —, A Handbook of Classical Drama (Stanford 1944). , " Possible Greek Background for the W o r d Rex as Used i n Plautus and T c r e n c e / ' CP 31 (1936) 62-68. Hartman, I. L, 14 De versu notissimo n a e v i a n o / ' M n 48 (1920) 1 5 2 - 1 5 3 . Hoffmann, J. B., Lateinisehe Umgangssprache (Heidelberg 1 9 3 6 2 ) . Hohl, E., " Ober den Ursprung dcr Historia Augusta/' Hermes 55* (1920) 296-310. Hough, J. N., " The Development of Plautus' Art," C P 30 ( 1 9 3 5 ) 43-57. —, " Miscellanea Plautina: Vulgarity, Extra-Dramatic S p e e c h e s , Roman Allusions/' TAPA 71 (1940) 186-198. —, review of della Corte, Da Sarsina a Roma, CP 50 (1955) 1 5 8 - 1 5 9 . —, review of Perna, V originalita, CP 52 (1957) 192-194. —, " The Understanding of Intrigue: A Study in Plautine C h r o n o l o g y " AJP 60 (1939) 422-435. Jachmann, G., " Naevius und die Meteller," Antidoron: Festschrift J. Wackernagel (Gottingen 1923) 181-189. —, Plautinisches und Attisches (Berlin 1931; repr. R o m e 1 9 6 6 ) . Jacques, J.-H., M M<5nandrc in£dit: la Double fourberie ct la Samieunc" BBudf 4e ser. 2-3 (1968) 213-222. Jenkins, E. B., Index verborum terentianus (Chapel Hill 1932; r c p r . Hildesheim 1962). Jocelyn, H . D., " Chrysalus and the Fall of Troy (Plautus, Bacchides 925-978)," HSCP 73 (1969) 135-152. —", " Ennius as a Dramatic Poet," Fondation Hardt, Entretiens -
stir
?antiquitt classique XVII: Ennius (Geneva 1972) 39-88.
" Imperator histricus" YCS 21 (1969) 95-124. —, " The Poet C n . Naevius, P. Cornelius Scipio and Q . Caecilius Metellus," Antichthon 3 (1969) 32-47. —, ed., The Tragedies of Ennius: The Fragments Edited with an Introduction and Commentary (Cambridge 1967).
202 Knapp, C., " Notes on Plautus and Terence/" AJP 35 (1914) 12-31. " Plautus, Amph. I, i, 26-30 " CR 7 (1893) 21-22. —, Trave* in Ancient Times as Seen in Plautus and Terence/' CP 2 (1907) 1-24, 281-304. Kraus, W\, " 'Ad spectatores' in der romischen Komodie," WS 52 (1934) 66-83. Kroil, W . , M Der Tod des Nacvius," Hermes 66 (1931) 469-472. " Trabea," RE 6* (1937) 1862. Ladewig, T., Analecta scenica (Neustrelitz 1848). Law, H. H., 14 Hyperbole in Mythological Comparisons/' AJP 47 (1926) 361-372. Legrand, P.-E., " P o u r Thistoire de la cornedie nouvelle," REG 17 (1904) 311-328. Leo, F., Ausgewahlte kleine Schriften (Rome 1960). —f Geschichte der rdmischcn Literatur I (Berlin 1913). —, ed., Plauti Comoediae I, II (Berlin 1895-1896). —, Plautinische Forschungen (Berlin 19122; repr. Darmstadt 1966). —, 41 Die Ueberlieferungsgeschichte der terenzischen Komodien und der Commentar des D o n a t u s / ' RhM 38 (1883) 317-347. Leuze, O . , " Das synchronistische Kapitel des Gellius (Noct. Att. XVII 21)," RhM 66 (1911) 237-274. Lilja, S., Terms of Abuse in Roman Comedy (AnnAcFenn ser. B torn. 141.3; Helsinki 1965). Lindsay, W . M., The Ancient Editions of Plautus (Oxford 1904). —, ed., The Captivi of Plautus (London 1900; repr. Cambridge 1961). 4< The Comedian Vatronius," C Q 23 (1929) 31-32. —, Early Latin Verse (Oxford 1922). . —, The Latin Language (Oxford 1894). —, ed., Nonii Marcelli de conpendiosa doctrina libros XX (Leipzig 1903). —, ed., Sexti Pompei Festi de verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome (Leipzig 1913; repr. Hildesheim 1965). —, Syntax of Plautus (Oxford 1907; repr. N e w York 1936). Lintott, A. W . , Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford 1968). Litde, A. M c N . G., 44 Plautus and Popular D r a m a / ' HSCP 4 9 (1938) 205-228.
; • '
'
*'
• .
.
" ' AM• ...
. ;
^ \
3
Lodge, G. ? Lexicon plautinum (Leipzig 1904-1933). Magic, D., tr., The Scriptores Historiae Augustael-lll ( L C L 1922-1932). Mantero, T., 44 II poeta drammatico Atilio," Tetraonyma: Miscellanea graeco-romana a L. de Regibus, P. Mingazzini, A. Modem E Turolta dicata (Genoa 1966) 181-209. Marbach, E., 44 Nerio," R E 17 (1936) 32-35. Marconi, G., 44 La cronologia di Livio Andronico," MemLinc Scr, 8 a 12.2 (1966) 125-213. Mariotti, S., 44 Contributi al testo dei frammenti scenici di Nevio," StudUrb 24 (1950) 174-190. j —, Livio Andronico e la traduzione artistica (Milan 1952). Marmorale, E. V., Naevius poeta (Florence 1950 2 ). Marouzeau, J., review of Haffter, Untersuchungen, REL 13 (1935) 392-393. —, Traitt de stylistique appliqute an latin (Paris 1935). Marti, H . , " T c r e n z 1909-1959/' Lustrum 6 (1961) 114-238, 8 (1963) 5-101, 244-264. J Marx, F., 44 Atilius," RE 2 (1896) 2076. Mattingly, H. B., 44 The Date of Livius Andronicus," C Q N.S. 7 (1957) 159-163. —, 41 T h e First Period of Plautine Revival," Latomus 19 (1960) 230-252. 44 J Naevius and the M e t e l l i H i s t o r i a 9 (1960) 414-439. \ 44 4 —, T h e Plautine Didascaliae,' " Athenaeum 35 (1957) 78-88. j 4 —, review of Marconi, Cronologia, in Gnomon 4 3 (1971) 680-687. —, 44 T h e Terentian Didascaliae," Athenaeum 37 (1959) 148-173. * Mattingly, H. B., and E. S. G. Robinson, 44 N u m m u s , " AJP 56 (1935) 225-231. 44
T h e Prologue to the Casina of Plautus," C R 47 (1933) 52-54.
Mette, H . ,
44
i
Die romischc Tragodic und die N e u f u n d c zur griecli-
ischen Tragodie," Lustrum 9 (1964) 5-211.
I " |
Minar, E. L., Jr., 44 Terence a n d the Poets' Guild," TAP A 76 (1945) J xxxvi-xxxvii. Morel, W . , ed., Fragmenta poetarum latitiorum epicorum et lyricorunf j I praeter Ennium et Lucilium (Stuttgart 1963 2 ). . |
110
Mueller, L., ed., Livi Androtiici et Cn. Naevi (Berlin 1895).
fabularum reliquiae
—, Quintus Emms: Ewe Eitileitung in das Stadium der romischen Poesie (St. Petersburg 1884). Nicoll, A., Masks Mimes and Miracles (London 1931). Nietzsche, F., Menschliches, Allzumenscltliches, ed. K. (Darmstadt 1954). Nixon, P., tr., Plautus I-V (LCL 1916-1938). Norwood, G., The Art of Terence (Oxford 1923). —, Plautus and Terence (New York 1932).
Schlechta
Olivicri, A., ed., Franunenti della comniedia greca e del mitno nella Sicilia e nella Magna Grecia I, II (Naples 1946, 19472). Oppcrmann, H. f " Caccilius und die Entwicklung der romischcn K o m o d i c " FuV 15 (1939) 196-197. —, " Zur Entwicklung der Fabula Palliata," Hermes 74 (1939) 113-129. Palmer, L. R . , The Latin Language (London 19612). Paratore, E., Plauto (Florcncc 1962). —, 11 Studia sulla palliata, 1: ad T e r . E u n . 7-13,1" RivCCM 44-63.
1 (1959)
Pastorino, A. ; " T u r p i l i o fr. 213 R \ " Maia N.S. 7 (1955) 43-45. Pcrna, R . , L* original ita di Plauto (Bari 1955). Pohlenz, M., " l)cr P r o l o g des T c r c n z , " Stltal 27-28 (1956) 434-443. Posani, M. R . , M La figura di Luscio Lanuvino e la sua polcmica con Tcrcnzio," RendAccIt 7.4 (1943) 151-162. —. " Osservazioni su alcuni passi dci proloehi terenziani," Stltal 37 (1965) 85-113. Prcscott, H . W . , 44 Criteria o f O r i g i n a l i t y in Plautus," TAPA 63 (1932) 103-125. —, " Inorganic R o l e s in R o m a n C o m e d y , " C P 15 (1920) 245-281.
I1' -4
,
• • 44
t v '
Questa, C., A l c u n e strutture sceniche di Plauto e M e n a n d r o , " Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur Yantiquiti classique X V I : Mtnandre (Geneva 1970) 181-215.
II i t
205
—, Introduzioue alia metrica di Plauto (Bologna 1967). review of Taladoire, Essai, RivCCM 1 (1959) 415-416. review of Handley, Menanier and Plautus, RivFC 96 (1968) 502-503. Ramsey, W., ed., The Mostellaria of Plautus (London 1869). Rand, E. K., " The Art of Terence's Eimuchus" TAP A 63 (1932) 54-72. Reich, H., Der Mimus (Berlin 1903). Ribbeck, O., Die romische Tr ago die im Zeitaltcr der Repttblik (Leipzig 1875; repr. Hildcshciin 1968). —, ed., Scaeuicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta (Leipzig 1871-1873 2 ; repr. Hildesheim 1962). —, ed., Scaenicae Rotnanorutn poesis fragmenta (Leipzig 1897-1898 3 ). Ritschl, F., Parerga zu Plautus und Tcrcnz (Berlin 1845; rcpr. Amsterdam 1965). Ritschl, F., G. Locwc, G. Goetz, F. Schocll, edd., T. Macci Plauti Comoediae I-IV (Leipzig 1881-1890). Robinson, L., 44 Censorship in Republican D r a m a , " CJ 42 (19461947) 147-150. Robson, D. O., " The Nationality of the Poet Caecilius Statius," AJP 59 (1938) 301-308. R o m a n o , D., Atellana fabulc (Palermo 1953). Roppcnccker, H., 14 Vom Ban der plautinischcn Cantica," Philologus 84 (1929) 301-319, 430-463; 85 (1930) 65-84. Rowcll, H. T., 44 Accius and the Faeneratrix of Plautus," AJP 73 (1952) 268-280. —,
44
The 4 Campanian' Origin of C. Nacvius and its Literary Attestation," MAAR 19 (1949) 15-34.
Rychlewska, L., ed., Turpilii comici fragmenta (Prace Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego Ser. A N r . 76; W a r s a w 1962). Sabbadini, S., Poeti latini: Nevio (Udine 1935). Sanford, E. M., 44 The Tragedies of Livius Andronicus," CJ 18 (1922-1923) 274-285. Sargeaunt, J., tr., Terence I-II (LCL 1912).
206
Scaliger, J. J,, In Sex. Pompci Festi libros de verborum signijicatione castigationes ([Heidelberg] 1593). Sedgwick, W . B., ed.9 Amphitruo (Manchester 1960). 16 The Composition of the Stichus" CR 39 (1925) 59-60. " The Dating of Plautus' Plays," CQ 24 (1930) 102-106, The Origin and Development of R o m a n Comic Metres," ClMed 10 (1949) 171-181. " Plautine Chronology," AJP 70 (1949) 376-383. Segal, E., Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus (Cambridge, Mass. 1968). Shacklcton Bailey, D. R . , cd., Cicero's Letters to Atticus I-VI (Cambridge 1965-1968). Shipley, F. W . , ed. and tr., Velleius Paterculus (LCL 1924). Sihler, E. G., " The Collegium Poetarum at R o m e , " AJP 26 (1905)
1-21. Skutsch, F., 44 Caccilius Statius," RE 3 (1897) 1189-1192. —, 44 Ein Prolog des Diphilos und eine Komodie des Plautus," RhM 55 (1900) 272-285. Skutsch, O., review of della Corte, Da Sarsina a Roma, CR N.S. 4 (1954) 299-300. —, review of Marmoralc, Naevius poeta, CR N.S. 1 (1951) 174-177. —, Studia etitiiana (London 1968). - , 44 T w o Notes on Naevius," CR N.S. 1 (1951) 146-147. Sonnenschcin, E. A., ed., T. Macci PlautiMostellaria (Oxford 1907 2 ; repr. 1964). Sprangcr, P. P., Historische Untersuchiwgen zu den Sklavenfiguren des Plautus und Terenz (Wiesbaden 1961). Stossl, F., 44 Darstellungsprobleme der antiken Literaturgeschichte," WS 76 (1963) 109-123. ,4 Prologos," RE 23.2 (1959) 2312-2440. Suerbaum, W . , Untersuchungen zur Selbstdarstellung dlterer romischer Dichter (Hildesheim 1968). Suss, W . , 44 Z w e i Bermerkungen zur Technik der Komodie, 1: Der tercnzische Prolog," RhM 65 (1910) 442-450. Taladoire, B.-A., Essai sur le comique de Plaute (Monaco 1956). Tandoi, V., " Noctuini oculi," Stltal 33 (1961) 219-241. *
207 Tanner, R„ G.,
208
Waszink, J. H . " T r a d i t i o n and Personal Achievement in Early Latin Literature," Mn 13 scr. IV (1960) 16-33. Webster, T . 13. L., Hellenistic Poetry and Art (New York 1964). —, Studies in Menander (Manchester I960 2 ). Wcstaway, K . M., The Original Element in Plautus (Cambridge 1917). Wilainowitz-Moelleiulorf, U. v o n , Sappho tnut Simoniiles (Berlin
1913; repr. Dublin 1966). Williams. G . W „ " Eviclcncc f o r Plautus' Workmanship in the Miles Gloriosiis," Hermes 86 (1958) 79-105. review o f Taladoirc, Essai, JRS 48 (1958) 232. , " S o n i c Aspects o f Roman Marriage Ceremonies ami Meals, JRS -18 (1958) 16-29. —. " Some Problems in the C o n s t r u c t i o n of Plautus' Pscudolus, Hermes 84 (1956) 424-455. Wissowa, G., " Aquilius," RE 2 (1896) 233. Wright, J., " Nacvius, Tarcntilla Fr. I (72-74 R*)," R h M 115 (1972) 239-242. - , " Plautus, Bacchidcs, 525," C Q N . S . 21 (1971) 440-441. Zic.ari, M., " Scheciac sex," Philolo^us
102 (1958) 154-157.
GENERAL
INDEX
Accius, 83, 184.
136n., 151n.f 154, 165n., 171n., 180,
actors, 15, 108, 181, 185, 189-190, 193.
181n., 186n., 188n., 189, 193n., 197.
Allen, F. D „ 52n., 197.
Bickcl, E., 30n., 197.
alliteration, 17, 23, 31, 32, 38. 40, 41. 43, 46, 50, 71, 72,
116, 119, 122,
132,161.163, 164, 169,175,176,192. Ambivius Turpio, 101, 183.
UielxT, M , IH6n.f I87n., 197. Bigott, E , 153n., 154n., 156n., 180n., 198. Blansdorf, J., 132n., 198.
anaphora, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 37-38, 43, 71, 161. Anderson, W . S., vii, 103n., 192n., 197.
Bonclli, I., 30n„ 198. Bothe, F. H., 57, 198. Bovie, V., vii.
Antiphancs, 35-36. Aquilius, 12n., 80-81,
84-85, 107, 113,
B r o w n , F. E., vii. Bucchclcr, F., 80, 198.
119.
Bulle, !!., I8611., 198.
Argcnio, R., 120n., 197. Aristius Fuscns, 8Sn. Aristophanes 5n., Amott,
Caccilius Statius, 12n.,
105, 190.
W . G., 138n., 154n„
155n.,
162n., 164n., 171n., 174n., 178, 197.
15, 24, 62n.,
67, 70, 73, #7-/2(5, 154, 156, 170, 171, 181.
Ashmorc, S. G., 25, 27, llftn., 197
Cato, 90.
assonancc, 31, 32, 163.
Cnltcniccia, L. M., 186n., |«JH.
asyndeton, 27, 119.
C£l>c,J.-l\, 131n., 198.
Atellan farcc, 77, 181, 188-189.
Chalmers, W .
Athenaeus, 22, 36.
Charisius, 44.
Atilius, 12n.t 67,
70-7J, 76, 80, 85.
Acta, 67.
R.. 99n.,
194n., 198.
Cicero, 2n., 15, 19, 68, 70. 71, 74, 87, 110, 176, 177, 180, 195. Cole, T., 30n., 198.
Bacchylidcs, 56.
Collegium poetamm,
Bader, F., 2n., 197.
Conrad, C. C., 108n., 198.
Bardon, H., xi, 15n., 62n., 67n., 70n.,
contaminatio, 89, 99-101, 126, 154.
183-185, 189.
73n., 78n., 80n., 83n., 88n., 107n.,
Copley, F. O., 25, 27, 198.
153, 156n., 197.
Coppola, G., 171n., 198.
Bcare, W . , xi, 15n., 33n., 34n., 55, 56, 58n., 61 n., 79, 96, 99n., 101n., 120n.,
Cortc, F. del la, 194n., 195n., 198, 201. Crinitus, P., 153n.
110
D'Anna, G., 34u., 198,
97, 98n., 184, 191.
Hemophilus, 93,
figura etymologica, 21, 31, 161.
Demosthenes, 75, 96.
Jlagitatio, 67, 124.
Dichl, E., 73n., 75n., 198.
Forberg, M., 149n.
D i o Cassius, 185, 186.
formulaic pliruscs, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 58n., 118-119, 123, 135, 143, 146-
Diocletian, 24.
148, 149-150, 158, 170-171, 173, 192.
Diogenianus, 25.
Fraenkcl, E., vii, xi, 4n., 15n., 18n.,
Dionysius Halicarnassensis, 186. Diphilus, 80, 111, 171n.
19n., 25, 26, 27, 29n., 33n., 37, 40n.,
Donatus, 10, 25, 44, 78, 79, 136, 137,
43, 44, 45n., 47, 51n., 53n., 55n., 57, 58n., 62n„ 68, 72n., 73, 74, 76,
165, 174, 175.
85n., 93n., 99, 102n., 104n., 105n.,
door-knocking, 64-65, 116. D o r c y , T. A., 194n., 198.
108n., 115, 116, 120n., 123, 130n.,
dramatic clarity, 112, 165-168, 192.
134n., 143, 168n., 171n., 173, 174n.,
Duckworth, G. I:., xi, 4n., 15n., 33n., 5Hn., 61 ii., 62n„
88n., 92n.,
93n.,
176, 1?;, 194n., 199. Fraenkcl, II., 30n., 1'
96, 99n., l(«2n., 103n., IO811., 118n.,
Prank, T., 33n., 52n., 61n., 181, 199.
120n.,
127n.,
129n.,
137n.,
153n.,
Frassinetti, P., 188n., 199.
I54n.,
186n.,
188n.,
190n.,
192n.,
194n., 198.
Freud, S., 136, 199. Fulgentius, 11.
Dudley, D. R., 194n., 198.
Fuiulanius, 85n.
Dticntzcr, II., 17n., 19n., 20, 199.
Duroont, J. C., 105n., 199.
Galdi, M., 35n., 199. Galinsky, G. K., 57n., 200.
Dziatzko, C., 45n., 199.
Gamberalc, L., 120n., 200. IZimius, 12n., 15, 35n., 62-67, 87, 100,
Gar ton, G., 78n., 200.
101, 105, 110, 124, 127, 128n., 181.
Garzya, A., 57n., 200.
Epichannus, 103, 187.
Gellius, 33n., 34n., 45, 56, 61, 63, 67, 73, 77, 78, 81-85, 87, 88n., 92-93,
Ernout, A., 36a., 93n., 199. crotica,
18, 20-21, 48,
54,
117-118,
155, 166-167, 170-171, 172.
97, 120-125, 167. Gnnthia vases, 186.
Luripidcs, 109, 158.
Goctz, G., xii, 20, 21n., 200, 205.
Faider, P., xi, 15n., 87n., 88n., 101n.,
Gratwick, A. S., 145n., 189n., 200.
Gomme, A. W . , 102n.,
118n.,
119n.,
120n.,
122n.,
125n., 193n., 199.
130n., 133n., 200.
GrautofF, P., 153n., 200. Grilli, A., 62n., 200.
Fanthain, E., 108n., 129n., 199.
Grimal, P., 32n., 200.
Favorinus, 82.
Groot, A. W . de, 193n., 200.
Fay, E. W „ 23n., 199. Festus, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 54, 66, 92,
Hadrian, 85n.
Hafttcr, H., 4n„ 5n., 21n., 167n., 200 203.
Kraus, W., t31n., 202. Kroll, W., 33n., 67n., 202.
Hall, F. W., 4n , 200, Halporn, J. W . , vii, 194n., 2(X). Handley, E. W., xi, 103n., 105n., !08n., llln.,
112 n.,
138n.,
139n.,
145n.,
200, 205.
Ladewig, T., 171, 202.
1 1
Law, H. H „ 6ttn., 202.
,
Legrand, P.-E., 171n., 202. Leo, F., xi, 4n., 2ln., 22n., 28n., 29n.,
Hanson, J. A., 200.
31, 33n., 55, 56n., 61 n„ 67n., 70
Happ, H., 2n., 200.
73, 79n., 81 ii., 82, 83n., 84n., 88r
Harsh, P. W., 29n., 46n., 74n., 136n.,
94n.,
192n., 195n., 201.
95n.,
118u.,
Hartman, I. I., 33n., 201.
99-101,
120n.,
102nM
125n.,
163n.,
115»«.> IF
181u., 189n., 202.
Hoffmann, J. B., 2n., 5n., 201.
Leutsch, E. L. von, 25n.
Hohl, E. 26n., 201.
I.euze, O., 34n., 21)2.
Homer, 9, 22, 31.
I.u'inius Imbrex, I2n., 7J-75.
Iiomorotclcutoii, 3, 17-18, 22, 119, 123, 129, 134, 143, 176.
j
I.icinius Tegula, P., 73. Lilja, S., 4n. f 202.
Horace, 46, 85n., 87n., 106, 187, 190.
Lindsay, W . M., xii, In., 2n., 5n., 6
Hough, J. N., 98, 99n., 113n., 128n.,
2in., 39n., 40n., 49, 50n., 77nM 8u,
130, 194n., 195n., 201.
Bin., 94, 98n., Il5n., 178, 197, 20:
hyperbolic comparison, 68-69, 72, 75,
110-112.
Lintott, A. W., 124n., 202. lists, 17, 18, 50-51, 70, 118, 143, 175. Little, A. McN. G., 186n., 188n., 20?
identification motif, 26-27, 74, 115, 116. insults, 4, 5, 6, 12, 23,109, 161-162, 168. Isidore, 35n., 36, 37.
Livius Andronicus,
12n.,
15-32, 33.
*
57, 73, 79, 88, 117, 170, 181, 184, 185, 188, 189, 190, 192. Livy, 15n., 73, 184, 188, 189, 190.
Jachmann, G., 33n., 99n., 201.
Lodge, G., 181 n., 203.
Jacques, J.-H., 138n., 201.
Locvve, P. G., 2n., 205.
Jerome, 87, 153. Jocclyn, H. D., 33n., 57n., 62n., 75n., 83, 84, 106n., 131n., 201.
Lucilius, 3. Luscius Lanuvillus, I2n., 18-7'), 183.
Magic, D., 25n., 203. Kaucr, R., In., 197.
Marbach, E., 74n., 203.
Knapp, C ,
Marconi, G. f 32n., 203.
IS
—
|
Mantcro, T., 80n., 203.
Keil, H., xii. Kock, T., xii.
I
mad scenes, 78, 129, 146, 176-178.
Juventius, 12n., 75-77, 84, 113.
Kocrte, A., xii, 121n.
V
y:
Julius Caesar, 70.
82n., 141n., 146n.,
r
202.
^\
Mariotti, S., 20n., 22n., 23n., 31, 32n., 57, 203.
x
')
Marmoialc, E. V., xi, 33n., 3<», 41, 4311., 44, 4 8 n , 56, 203. M.irouA-an,
Ostwald, M , 200.
4n., !93n., 203.
Marti, II.. 127n., 132n., !36n., 149n., 203. II. 13.. 32n., 33n.,
133, 134, 164, 171. 52n.,
6In., 93n., 151n.. 203. Mcnandcr, 5n., 25, 62, 71, 79, 89, 99, 102-103, 104, 108n., 120-125, 136, W-J4/. 154,164-167. 171,190,192n., 195. Mcrccru.s, xiii. 57-58,
Paratorc, H., 61n„ 78n., 204. Pastorino, A., I54n., 204. Paul us, 21, 23, 35n., 73, 115. Pcllio, T. Publilius, 93, 190. Pcma, R. 194n., 201, 204. Philemon, 75. 93, 111, 144 l>hly
meter, 2, 4, 5, 611., 18n., 28-29, 30n., 40, 4 4 ,
Palmer, L. R . , 2n., 4n., 132n„ 204. paronomasia, 50, 107, 115, 119, 125,
Marx, F., xii, 70n., 203. Mattingly.
Orclli, j, K., 7l.
122,
134, 144,
163,
178, IS7, 192.
Phrynidius, 71. Plato, 187. Plnutus: attitude toward theater, 49-50,
Metre, I ! . . 1 Sit.. 28n.. 2 % . . 203.
93, 110-111, 112, 128, 129, 131, 148,
military i l i n g e r ) , 97, 105, IK,-117, 123.
156, 176-178, 189, 190, 191, 195-1%;
Minar, Li. L... Jr., 183n., 203.
canon, establishment of, 81-85; titles,
Morel, W . , xiii, 16n., 22n., 203.
90-96; quoted and discusscd passim
Mueller, L., 15n., 21 n . , 28n., 3 4 n . , 41.
(see Index locornnt); for extended dis-
42, 43M., 64, IK3n.. 204.
cussions of individual passages and
M u n a r i , F\. xi, 199. music, 4(>, 57-58. 122, 133, 134,
plays see 1-9, 102-103, 128n., 132178,
190. 192.
135, 138-142, 165-166. Pliny, 85n. Plutarch, 186.
Nacvius. I2n.. 15. 16. 21t».. J3-59. 62. 63. 64. 66, 73. 79, 84, 88, 90, 91. 100, 101, 105, 107, 110, 113, 116. 119. 124, 127, 128n„ 136, 137, 163, 175, 188.
Nieoll, A., IHHn., 204. Niet/.u lie. l\, 195. 204. Nixon, I*., 55, 204. Nonius, 10. 11, 15n.. 98n., 162, 164, 168, 171, 180. Norwood, G., 92n., 130n.. 204.
Pohlctiz, M., 78n., I28n., 204. Pomponius, 77. Pomponius lhssulus, M., 85n. Porcius Licinius, 70. Posani, M. R . , 78n., 204. Piaeneste, 51-55. Priscian, II, 90. 164. Prcscott, H. W . , 74n., 108n., 204. Prudcntius, 52. pscudo-Placidus, 79-80. punishment
o f slaves, 4, 7n., 47-51,
63-64, 113, 187.
Olivicri. A., 187n., 204. Oppcrmnnn, H.. 88n., 99n.. 204.
Pyladcs, 2n. Pyrrhus, 186.
m Qucsta, C., xi, 2n., 28»., 29n., 138n., I94n., 20-1-2*15.
Scipio Africanus, 56. Sedgwick,
Quintilian, 87, 189.
W.
H., 2%., 3-1n.t 61n.,
78n., 93n., 130, 206.
Quintipor Clodius, 85n.
Segal, E.,49n. f 52n., 137n., 194n., 200,
Ramsey, W „ 205.
Seneca, 30-31, 188.
Rand, E. K., 92n., 205.
Servius, 11, 191.
Rcich, H., 15n., 125n., 216.
Shacklcton Bailey, D . R . , 7 0 n . , 71, 206.
revels, 28-40, 179-180, 187, 190.
Shakespeare, 2.
Ribbeck, O., xii, xiii, 10, 16n., 19n.,
Shipley, F. W . , 87n., 206.
206.
20, 21n., 24, 30n., 39, 43, 51n., 61,
Sihler, E. G., 183n., 206.
62n., 65, 72, 75n., 76n., 80, 85n. f
Skutsch, T., 61 n., 87n., %, 97,
153n., 155, 158n., 164n., 169, 17ln.. 173, 174n., 178 , 205.
ion.
I25n., 206. Skutsch, O., In., 33n., 47n., 19, 62n..
Ritschl, F., vii, xii, 2n., 6Jn., 73n., 80n., Bin., 82n., 87,88n., 89,100, 205. Robinson, H. S. C., 6!u.. 203.
194n., 197, 206. slapstick. 12. 113-114, 169-170,187, 18'J. SouneuH'lu'in,
Robinson, I.., 56n., 205.
136n., 206.
Kobson, D . O., 87, 205.
Sophocles, 70.
R o m a n allusions, 54-57, 73-74, 89, 9699, 103, 105, 107, 116, 154, 155, 180. R o m a n audiemv, 89, 101-102, 104, 112,
1:.. A.,
In., 7n., 39n..
Sprangcr, P. P., 105n., 206. stock charactcrs, 13, 19, 47-53, 63-64, 75, 78, 102, 103-112, 128-129,
135-
138, 188-189, 192, 195; M o a n s , 3 8 -
130-131, 151, 190-192, 196.
44, 45, 53, 68, 69-70, 71, 110, 132.
R o m a n o , D., 188n., 205. Roppcncckcr, H., 118n., 205.
135, 137, 138, 160, 166, 176,
Roscius, 180.
aticilh, 45. 157n., 174; coats, 53, 107-
177;
Roscmneyer, T. CI., 200.
109, 166; Ir/irt, 42, 68, 163; Into, 17.
Rowell, 1-1. T., 33n., HIn., 18Kn., 205.
19, 51, .53, 146-147,
Rychlcwska, L., xii, 153n., 154n., 157n.,
nmtronu, 120, 156n.; mrrcfrix, 19n.,
161n., 164n., 165n., 167n., 169, 171n„
35 , 39, 42, 44, 45, 47, 53, 75, 102,
173, 174n., 175, 178, 179n., 197, 205. Sabbadini,
S., 33n., 43n., 4Hn.,
55,
56n., 205.
161-162^ J 7 9 ;
132, 136, 137, 162-163,
171;
17, 19, 24-25, 51, 53,
74,
136, 149,
151, 155,
J-
miles
tloriosiis, 103,
\ . f%
171;
jmrasitus, 20, 24-25, 53, 64, 74, 103,
Sanford, E. M., 30n.t 205.
104, 106-107, 118, 128n., 146, 150,
Sappho, 171n.
151, 155, 162; pucr, 45, 162, 171;
Sargeaunt, J., I66n., 205.
I snwx anians, 54, 108, 187; senrx trains,
Scaligcr, J. J.. 20, 205.
| |i; f 40, 40, 44, 48. 51. 53, 63, 70,
Schneidcwin, F. G., 25n.
109-112, 128n., 145, 146, 149, 159.
,
Schoell, F., 2n., 20, 21n., 205, 206.
163-164,
\
179; senex
lejiu/us.
19n.:
214 « 5cucx martins 120-125; scrims callidus,
Trendall, A. D . , 186n., 207.
19747" 52, 63-64, 102, 105-106, 110,
Turnebus, 80n.
\ 13, 128n., 155, 156-161, 162, 172,
Turpilius, 12n.,
15J-IM.
189; scruus (uncus, 72, 78, 103, 114, 129, 160-161, 187, 192n., scruus jmgi 50, 157n., .61.
Vahlen, J., xiii, 62n., 207. Valerius Maximus, 184-185, 190.
Stossl, F., 32n., 164n., 206.
Varro, 67, 71, 75, 8 0 , 8 1 , 8 2 , 8 3 , 8 4 , 8 5 n .
Studcmund, W, : 94.
Vatronius, 12n., 79-80.
Suerbaum, W., 45n., 206.
Velleius Paterculus, 87.
Suss, W . , 78n., 206.
Vergilius Romanus, 85n.
Suetonius, 70, 151.
Verrius Flaccus, 16. Vcrrusio, M., 30n., 207.
Tal a do ire, U.-A., 4 n , 194u., 205, 206. Tandoi, F., 116n., 206.
Ville de Mirmont, H. de la, xii, 18n., 19n., 20n.,
22n., 30n.,
171n., 207.
Tanner, R . G., 50n., 207.
Virgil, 24.
Tarcntuin, 38, 185-186.
Volcacius Sedigitus, 15, 63, 67, 73, 75,
Taylor, L. R., 131n., 207. Terence, 2n., 5n.,
10, 15, 18n., 19,
78, 80, 87, 125n. Vopiscus, 24.
24-27, 34, 53, 61, 62, 66, 67, 7Gn., 78-79,
83, 87, 88, 89, 92, 99, 100,
101, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 118n.,
Waltzing, J.-P., 184, 207. Warmington,
E. H., xii, xiii,
16n.,
127-151, 153,154,155, 156, 160, 162,
22n., 23, 24, 27, 33n.f 35n., 39, 4 1 ,
165-166, 167, 169, 174-175, 178, 180,
42, 43n., 46, 95, 63n., 64n., 90, 91n.,
181, 183, 185, 189, 191.
98n., 116n. ( 118, 118n., 119, 121n.,
Tcrtullian, 158.
207.
Tcrzaghi, N , 4n., 207.
Warnecke, B . , 15n., 56n., 207.
Teutfel, W., 189.
Waszink, J. H . , 29n., 208.
Thicrfeldcr, A., xii, 29n., 121 n , 207.
Webster, T . B . L., 138n., 171n., 208.
Timocles, 75.
Westaway, K . M., 92n., 99, 208.
Titinius, 67.
Wilamowitz-Moellcndorf,
titles, Greek vs. Latin, 89-96, 103, 126, 154, 155,180. toj>atae, 55, 67n., 180-181. Trabca, 12n.,
67-70.
tragic style, 29-30, 75, 176-178.
U.
von,
171n., 208. Williams, G. W . , 43n., 92n., 108n., 138n., 194n., 208. Wissowa, G., 80n., 208. Wright, J., 45n., 140n., 208.
Traina, A., xii, 38n., 65, 66, 68, 71, 74, 77, 84n., 109, 115n., 116n. f 117,
Z i d r i , M., 42n., 208.
12()ii„ 167n„ 175, 176, 207.
Zonaras, 186.
110
)
J
J J INDEX
LOCORUM
Antiphanes 234 K: 35-36
18 W (20 R 3 ) :
Aquilius 1 R 3 : 119
19-21 W (21-23 R 3 ) :
1-9 R 3 : 81,
116
•
8
-
108-109
84-85
3 R 3 : 113
22 W (25 R 3 ) : 119
6 R 3 : 107
23 W (26 R 3 ) : 119 24 W (27 R 3 }:
3
10 R : 81
116-
111
Aristophanes Eq. 1228 : 5n.
25-26 W (28-29 R J ) :
Lys. 1240 : 5M.
110».
R<m. 501: 5M.
5l
27 W (30 R3) : I Mm.
Athenacus Deipttosoph. 1.15: 35 12.5529 f: 22 12.530c: 22
V
3
34-35 W (37-38 R ) : -
,
96, 116 42 W (46 R 3 ) : 11 On.
Atilius 1 R 3 : 71 2-3 R 3 : 72
47 W (50 R 3 ) : 113
4 R * : 72, 73, 75
48 W (49 R 3 ) : 114
Auct. BHisp. 42.6: 10£
56 W (61 W):
Auct. De Jnb. nam. 592.3 K: 1/
59-60 W (64-65 R 3 ) :
Bacchylides fr. 19 S: 5 6
62-63 W (66-67 R 3 ) :
Caccilius Statius 1 W ( 3 R 3 ) : 119
65 W (72 R>): llfhi.
) ,
116n. '» J
116n. 111 2 W (1 R 3 ) : 119
79 W (90 R 3 ) : 113
3 W (4 R ) : 120
80 W (91 R 3 ) : 118
4 W (5 R 3 ) : 120
81-82 W (79-80 R 3 ) :
3
6 W (6 R 3 ) : IIP 8 W (8 R 3 ) : 119 9 W
11 6h.
_
86 W (83-84
J R3):
tl6n.
(9-10)3; 3
3
10 W (14 R ) : 120
88 W (92 R ) :
11 W (13 R3): 106-
90 W (99 R 3 ) : 117
3
14 W (16 R ) : 107 107
(15 R 3 ) :
96,
) . j
tt6n.
98 W (101-102 R 3 ):
107 16 W
U"
U6n. 99 W (103 R 3 ) : //•/ 104-105 W (108-109
JA
W):
264 W (278 IV): 115
118
109 W (114 \V):
119
111 W (116 IV): 115 117-118 W (132-133 RJ): 114
1?() W (!22~1?3 IV): %
Cato Dc smiif'tii sue 173.16: 90 Charisius 221.11 K : 44
241.27-29 K: 67 Ciccro Am. 26.99: 110 Alt. 14.20.3 : 70, 71 linn. 18.71: 15
! 21 -12.3 W (I ?f j- 128 R3): lUm. 127 W (138 IV): 117 130-131 W (139-140 Ri): 170 134-135 W (IKI-1H2 IV): 9Sn. 136-150 W (143-157 R3): 727-/2? 151-155 W (15H-U»2 IV):
124-125
163-166 W (169-172 R3): 722». 167-169 W (173-175 IV): 116n. 182 W (192 IV): 116tt.
183-184 W (193-194 R*): I/-/ 186 W (196 IV): 114 189-199 W (199-209 IV):
Dc opt. £('"• will. 1-2: 87 9.22.1: 180 Fin. 1.2.5: 70 Phil. 3.9.22: 74 (jl r. 2.9.2: IV QR(»c. 7.20: Wh 795 Tmr. 4.11.25: 70 4.31.67: 68 4.34.72: 177 4.34.73: 176 inc. 45 I V : 160 Fant.
Com.
Demosthenes 18.288: 96 [Demosthenes] 59: 75 Dio Cassius fr. 3 9 . 5 : 185 fr. 39.6: 186
Dionystus Hnlicnrnasscnsis Ant. Rom 19.5: 186 Donatus od Ad. 4 7 0 : 44 5 2 1 : 1)7 ad An. 14: 765
11 On,
203-204 W (213-214 R3): 776n. 217 W (227 IV): 219-220 W (229 R1): 5>7, 70£ 224-235 W (230-242
3 0 1 : 156 ad Emi.
4:
78
9 : 78 10: IS 4 2 6 : 25 8 2 5 : 174 ad Pltorm.
710: 10
RJ): HOf/.
236-237 W (243-244 RJ): 770, 15*5 249 W (270 IV): 115 250 W (269 \V): 91
Ennius V
382 W (373V2):63, 110
217 383 W (374 V2): 3 8 4 W (375
V1):
64-65
17.21.44-45: 33//.
65-66
18.12.2: 76'
428 W (423 V 2 ) '
66-67
429 W (421 V^):
67,124
Homer, 0
Epicharmus i49 K: 187
15.373: 22
Euripides Ale. 704-705: 109 Orcst, 1369-1379: 755
Moracc A.c/>. 237-239: 106 270-274: 57//. lip. 1.10: 55//.
Fcstus 158.33 L: 92
2.1.58: 187
166.20-24 L: 66
2.1.139-163: 190
168.18 L: 92
Stit. 1.10.3-4: 46
182.12-18 L: 21 214.35 L: 92
1.10.42 : 85n.
230.21-23 L: 17
2.8: 55//.
318.32-34 L: 54 Isidore Or/?. 1.26 L: 36 1.26.2 L: .15M.
390.8 L: 92 394.18 L. 92 400.27-34 L: 97 436.31-438.27 L: 191
Jerome iid aim. Abr. 1838: 87 1859: 153
444.7-12 L: IS 446.32-448.1-4 L:
1914: 153
184-185
480.23 L: 92
juventius 1 l O : 75-76 2-4 W : 76
514.1 L: 23
5 - 6 I U : 77
Fulgcntius Mythol. 1.2: 11
7 R*: 77, 55, 7 / 3 Gcllius 2.23: 120
8 - 9 R J : 76„. 10 R \
2.23.12: 124, 125n.
76//.
2.23.13: 124 2.23.21: 167
Licinius Imbrex 1-2 P J : 73-7-*
3.3: 81-85
Livius Andronicus Com. 1 W ( 1 R J ) :
3.3.5: 81
16-18, 28
3.3.6: 92
2 W(2R>): 75-/9, 25,
3.3.11: 61
117
3.3.13: 34n.
3 W (3 R 3 ) :
3.3.15: 45 4.3.2:
34n.
4.20.13: 5 7
_
20-2/ W
(4-5
5.6.11-12: 97
R1):
27-
7.8.5: 56
22
13.23.16: 73
4
5
W
(6-7
218 R 3 ) : 25 6 W ( 8 R3):
01
24-27 W {!
I
M):
18 W ( 1 6 M ) : 57-32 23-26 W (20 M): 3/ TR<7£. 2-4 W (24 R3): 30-31 20-22 W (20-22 R 3 ) : 29 25-26 W (28-29 R 3 ): 770
7.2.8: 189 7.2.8-9: 75«. 27.37.7: 184 31.12.9-10: 73
Lticilitw 4 W (2 M): J Luscius Lanuvinus 1-2 RL; 72 Mcnandcr
DM
Exapaton
2S-30: 739-
J40 102-107: 141 \
I > c . 473 : 5n.
EPIC/. 152 K.-Th.:
Epitr. 1113: 5n. _ PFFNV. 324: 5«.
P/oc. 333 K.-Th.:
120ti.t
121-122
Sam.
334 K.-Th.: 324 : 5n.
48-49
:
8 W (13 R*): 49-50
13-14 W (11-12 PV3):
31
Livy 7.2: JM, 190
Com. 7 W (14 R 3 )
124-125
57-58
18-19 W (19 R3): 707. 119 22-26 W (21-24 R 3 ): 54-55 37-39 W (36-38 R 3 ): 53 47 W (43 R3): 175 57 W (60 R 3 ): 53 64 W (66 R 3 ): 724 68 W (70 R 3 ): 51-52, 64 69-71 W (72-74 R 3 ): 44-4*, 55-56 72 W (81 R 3 ): 38-39 73 W (85 R3): 46 74-79 W (75-79 R 3 ): 35-38 80-81 W (83-84 R 3 ): 40 82 W (86 R 3 ): 40-41 83 W (87 R3): 41 84-85 W (82 R 3 ): 3940 86-87 W (88-89 R 3 ): 41 88-89 W (90-91 R 3 ): 42-43, 7 6 ? 90-91 W (92-93 R 3 ): 43-44 9 2 W (80 R 3 ): 46-47 94-96 W (96-98 R 3 ): 48, 110 102 W (105 R 3 ) : 66
103 W (25 R ) : 5 7 105 W (95 R ) : 770, 3
3
Nacvius Grta/. p. 597 W (93 R ) : 4 7 3
3
137
21
Inc. 1-3 W (108-110 R ): 56 7-8 W (126-127 Rs): 54 11-12 W (129 R3): 116 15 W (114 R3) 50, 3
:
16 W (115 R3): 50-51 27 W (113 R3) 56 30a-c W (121-121 R ): :
2
3
53
Nonius 1.10 M: 164 3.4-7 M: Itf 55.16-18 M: 10 79.32-33 M: 11 81.18-19 M: 108.1-2 M: 11 179.18 M: 152 239.16-18 M: 10 321.19 M: ISO 333.36-334.1-15 M: 171 534.5 M: 178 Paulus 26.14-15 L: 35n. 97.4 L: 73 504.21-22 L: 115 513.6-7 L: 23 Phrynichus Epit. 417: 70 Plato Theaet. 152c: 187 Plaucus Amph. 1-152: 131 150: 8rt. 153-462: 114 180-185: 146 185: 157 283: 180 304-307 : 74 352: 43 455: ? 526: 551: 144 602:
622: 161
Asm.
633-636 : 69-10 633-653: 155a. 639: 166 668: 173 699: 166 753: /(to 842: 45 848: 18n. 853-854: 144 978: 8n. 1043: 6 1053-1130: 19ti. 1062: 176 1085: UOti. 1130: 9 fr. I L: 4n. 10-12: 93 11: 95, 189 31: 64 127-137: 178 133: 5 159: J16i. 192: 44 199: 98n. 222-223: 12J 241-242 : 68 243-244: M&i. 263-264: 113 265: 167 268: 68
269: 105 307: 318-319: 76 362: 407-503: 114 418: 179 458: 157n. 495: 136 545-557 : 50-5 632: 6n.
655: 5
85: 44
657: 115
87-88: 44
707: 3%.
115-117: 70
737: 707
127: 5, 72 128: 116n.
739: J/5 751-809:
170-177: H 2
lit
174: 15/11.
778: .?7 784: 37
183-189:
892: 772, 775
194: 43
893-895: 725
214-215: 93, 190
40-41: 6
229-233: 757
40-78: 72
231: 151n.
42-43: 6/J., 7<S4
300: 758
44: 5//.
385: 745
182: 41
385-404: 742
244-5: 775
388: 162
325: 98n.
389-390: 158
333: 158
405-450: 145
336: 77
406: 64
446: 124
456: 146
454:
494-562:
456-457:
500-525: J55/i.
109
459: #//.
515-525:
147-148
\38-142 139-140
566: M/r.
5l9a-519c:
573: 6
525: 740, 745
589:
530-538:
628: 116
536-537: 747
628-629: 5
540-542:
1l6n.
628-660: 12
579-583:
64-65
682-700: 755h.
583-586: 65
727: 7
593: 8n.
785:
644 : 57
119
13%. 140-141
785-786:
646: 22
820: H i
649-650: 777».
12 (fr. V I I I L): 55,
766: 6
98tt.
14-15 (fr. X L): 171 16 (fr. X I
L):
171
17-18 (fr. X I I L ) : 175 44: 40
710-711: 777 7 7 2 : 710 783-784: 160 799ff.: 49 815-817: 46".
30-34: 95
876: 172
Capt.
913-915: 52
45-46; 19
945: 157/1.
99-101: 7
957: 157M.
103: 7«„
1068-1075: 105
114: 12
1070: 123
117: 1/0//.
1080: 22
121-125: 7m.
1087-1089: 76,
128-129: 68
til
1088: 22, Mm.,
225: 65
57-60: 125-129
227: 123
69-70: 104
229-230: 175
125: 168
268: 44
152-153: 107
360-361: 26
222: 57
361: 4n.
347: 155/1.
446: 4/i.
400: 71
466: 172
439: Itfii.
487: 166
447: 158n.
524: 95//.
468: 55
563: 122
489: 98n.
574-575: 168
533: 5/i.
634: 40
600: 4//.
644: 175
646: 55//.
720-723: 10V
659: 4n.
759:
659-666 : 50»i.
762: 157//.
660-663 : 50
776: 5//.
664: /59
852: 175
721-722: 64
860-861: 156
750: 50
878: 119
778-779: 110
897-8: 43
796: 117
909-914: 54
817: 5
9 1 7 - 9 1 8 : 39//.
824:
922: 116n.
U6n.
832: 77
Cas.
8
Cist.
5 9 - 6 0 : 175
882: 55
7 8 - 8 1 : 42
903-905 : 37
9 5 - 9 7 : 163
909-921: 1*2
126: 155//.
964: 16S
150-157: 46
18: 65 18-19: 61
175: 123 203-229: 155n.
224: 5n.
633: 172
249 : 58ft.
653: 4! 713: 77
300: 117 304:
1l6n.
449-464:
Cure.
Epil
7: 146
7-8:
155n.
147
450-453: 174
39: 169
533 : 44
100-101: 165
534: 167
105: 116«.
567: 66
118: 124
603: 58n.
128: 146
644: 68
135: 167
663: 9
230-234: 118
675: 7
348: 77
685:
1l0n.
395: 146
M:
165-166
488: 77, 55
70: 95*.
680: 115
93: 173
694: 49
148: 29
705: 160
158-215: 155n.
706-707: 111
160: 175
708: 55m. 710-711: 49
178-180: 71 188: 173
Mm.
74-76: 125
191: 115
77-78: 104
245: 168
90-91: 22
251-279: 108
114: 123
269: 98n.
127: 5
276: 7
183: 98n.
280: 21
194-5: 175
296: 3 7
202: 43
306-307: 146
288: 18n.
311: 173
303-304: 16*
437 : 55*.
3 2 7 : 5«.
462-486: 5 5
3 5 0 : 144
474: 98n.
423: 77
499-500: 17
4 3 6 : 144
561-562: 147
4 4 3 : 119
567:
4 4 5 : 144
576: 7 7
4 4 7 : 45
577-580: 17, 15 597-598: 175
451-452: 54 4 7 6 : 22
,/ 223 615: 159 627: 173 632: 7 755-760: 753-875: 758: 164 778: 168 858-859: 904: 119 966-989: 974-976:
' . :;f
y'k
810: 18
U6n. 129
77 161 50
988: il6n.
Merc.
W:
999: 9 1101: 123 1151: 158n. 1-110: \55t\. 9-10: 93 10: 189 18-19: 161 25: 70 92-94: 158 94: 158n. 114: 114 118-119: 161 138: 114 153: 114 273: 5 319: 119 335-363: 155n.
361: 26 370: 407 : 468: 537:
158n. 37 lltfw. 110
611: M&. 638: 58n. 685: 16J 689-690: 125 741-782: 108 750: 3*
Miles
830-831: 177 834-835: 177 842-956: 129 854-856; 177 864-865: 177 869: 167 870: 167 917: 18rt. 917-918: IS 932: 118 947-950: 146 950-951: 178 1-78: 17 57: 12J 86-87: 94 91: 112 147-149: 52 189-189a: 159 210-212: 52 211: 52ti.
211-212: 226: 73 296: 334: 51 359 : 98n. 648: 98rt. 778: 172 815: 106 818-866: 160 896: 16* 947: 158n. 1021: 123 1031-1033: 66 1042: 123 1044: 136n. 1121: 7 1141: 47 1161-1162: 111 1377: 116
J
J ) j.) I'
»
Most.
1378-J 387: 17
352:
1383: 1l6ti.
376: 166
1394-1437: 108, 114
390: 8n.
1416: 137
431-437: 146
1424: 169
438-443; 146
1: 4//.
448: 146
1-8:
1-10
460 :
8
1-83: 114
468-469: 145
3 : 5».
512: 8
5: 162
530: 9
7: 8n.
635: 15f/.
9 - 1 1 : 611.
668-669: 159
11: 3
698:
12: 11
721a: 4II.
13: 3, 25
747: 757«.
16: J
757 : 55//.
16-19: 7/i.
805: 146
18: 3
814:
22: 3, 98ti.
840: 179
136n.
22-24: 11
846-7: 44
25: J
850: 5
25-27: 3
858-884: 161
34: 7
885-887: 114
35: 7
887: 173
3 8 : 159
931: 168
4 2 : 11
967:
4 6 : 11
9 8 3 - 9 8 4 : 160
5 3 : 11
1004-1005: 147
57: J
1026: 18n
64: J
1026b: 55».
77: 9
1039-1040: 111
7 8 : J, 157«.
1041 ff.: 49
157-312: 163
1041-1042: 66
188-190: 4 2
1049: 155
216-217: 123
1067: 6
2 2 6 : 95r/.
1128-1129: 146
233-234: 137
1129-1133: 147
266: MP
1132: 159
2 7 5 : UOfi.
1149-1151: 111
324: 39
1 1 7 2 : 158
110
Versa
Pocn.
1179: 6
156-157: 175
1-12: 178
203-204: 153
7 4 2 : 161
205-209: 133
10: 158n.
206: 155
10-12: 52
209: 135
18: 158n.
216: 163
19-25: 178
221: 154
29: 56
229: 134
39-40: 41
252a: 18n.
55: 43
261: 135
107: 125
280: 155
112: 107
292-295: 170
122: 162
296: 135
135-137: 46M.
3 1 8 : 166
142-143: 107
325-326: 135
159-160: 20
328: 135
273: 115
329: 133
346: 163
330: 133
405-448: 23, 161
330-332: 134
406-410: 12
359-364: 134
419: 23
375: 117
421: 25
381:
455: 47
390 : 4n.
666-667: 5
390a: 4n.
691-692: 115
407: 134
748: 98n.
449-451: #4
753-762: IP
494: 169
756: 6
518-519: 109
777-858: 114
534: 22
785: ll&i.
589: 23
786: 6 "
594: 23
850: 159
622a; 2 3
1-128: 131 3 : 75 13-14: 67 53-55: 94 89-90: 162 9 5 : 163
101: 160 129-197: 152
•r••:"
623: 41 639: 2 3 648: 23
—
686: 146 835: 19 846: 68 867: 2 2 930-960: 145
Pseud.
967: 9
702-706: 176-177
975: 115
707: 176
978-981: 145
730: J«.
1099: 158
747: 26
1141-1146: 145, 145
762: 158n.
1185: 21
788-789: 165
1224: 131
790-791: 108ti.
1228: 6
790-892: 105
1286:
801: 55h.
MO
1301: 173
849-850: 157
1338: 122
851-852: 53
8 : 18ti.
889-991: 46M.
21: M7
911: 159
64-68: 18
950: 49
67-68: J / 7
964: 2/
120-122: 160
974-975: 118
121-122: 155
1051: 105
138-139: 75
1080-1083: 111
146-160: 178
1089-1091: 46M.
161
1103-1115: 161
155:
181: 117
1111-1112: 21
218: 175
1134: 22
238: 155
1173: 109
243-251: 114
1238-1245: 19n.
336: 55M.
1239-1240: 110
359: 67, 124
1296-7: 39
364: 5
1325: 6
381: 51
Rud. 107-109 : 46m.
388: 151
158: 162
407: 157«.
205: 176
414: 112
215: 176
458: 158
227: 176
504-506: 48
290: 122
571-573a: 112
318: 164
572: 106
337: 164
592 : 21, 167
388: 55n.
603: 116«.
414: 65
656: 5n.
424: 173
669:
429: 20
673: 43
531-534: 179
1 3 7 .
535: 98n. 535-536: 188
Stick
621; 44
2 2 3 - 2 7 5 :
155M.
672: 57
2 4 2 - 2 4 3 :
7 2
677: 168
2 7 6 :
6m.
706 : 4
289-90: 73
761: 53
345: SWri.
893-894: 123
535-536: 35
1022: 4n.
545: 98n.
1043-1044: 21
609: 55, 5>Sn.
1045-1046 : 46
650: 44
1046-1047: 12-/
709 : 7
1117-1118: 169
738-739:
1365: 158ti.
769-770: 159
1382: 98n.
820-827: 143-144
133: 11
820-839: 145
137: 162
835: 19
172 : 20
-
871: 118
"
274-279 : 72
885: 166
287:45
991-992: 146
308-314:
1021:
326-326*: 65n.
1059-1070: 114
4M.
402-407: 145
1073: 146
421-422: 56
1087-1089: 144
435-436: 85
1093: 7
465-467: 146
1099: 58n. 1146: 40
470-1: 147 True.
505-507: 583-586: 146
Trin.
6M.
193: 40
116-122: 114 127: 147
649-654: 142-145
144 : 98tt.
673-675: 112M.
209-255: 19r«.
693-694: 71
211-212: 56
746: 163
213:
750: 38
213-227: 175
18-21:
j ; •" 93-94
98n.
231-255: 178
23: 122
239: 43
51: 123
256: 65
66: 123
258: 7
66-67: 1 6 ?
352-354: 46m.
77-79:
46n.
359: 39
228 359-360: 147
Scncca A$. 421-422: 30-31
453: 163
960: 5 /
463: 20M.
lip.
495: 98n.
Servius
503-504: 146
ad Buc.
515: 74
1.58: 77
Suetonius Iul. 84.2: 70
11Oil
603:
89.7: 755 ^en. 8.110: 191-192
Vita Tcr. 2 : 757
606: 77
611: 66
Tcrcncc
1-5: 755
613: 77
7-10: 83
621: 77
15: 183
622 -623: 7
19: 755
626: 77
519-520: 137
690-691: 55, 95/i.
7 8 1 : 5n.
699-705:
985: 118n.
701: 72, / 7 5
Vid.
fr.
An.
15-16: 183
805: 9
1 5 - 2 ! : 100
847: 6».
18: 75/i.
961: 158n.
1 8 - 2 1 : 727
6-7: 94
2 0 - 2 1 : 101
17: 722
2 1 : 75
68: 7 / 2
2 8 - 3 4 : 165-166
97 L: 76//., 82
6 9 - 7 0 : 762
112 L: 770
1 1 3 : 736/1.
Pliny Bp. 6.21: 55/1. l'ltatnrch /yrr/i.
6 - 7 : 755
781: //6m.
2 3 6 : 136n.
13.3-4: 186
m
-
4 9 0 - 4 9 1 : 130
16.2: 756
7 0 5 - 7 0 6 : /37
Pomponius 178 1 U : 77
7 9 6 : 749
Porcius Licinius np. Cic. F/'/i. 1.2.5: 70
9 2 0 : 70?
Priscian Dc mctris
9 5 7 - 9 6 1 : 76//.
Tcr. 425.5-10
K:
164
Ehm.
Inst. 6.96: 90
2 3 - 2 6 : 55 2 5 : 54//.
8.95: 77
2 5 - 2 6 : 136
9.43: 77
3 0 - 3 1 : 53
Prudentius Ham.
90: 52
pscudo-Placidtis CGL
5.51 G :
3 0 - 3 4 : 25 79-80
36:
129
3 6 - 4 1 : 725 Quintilian 6 . 3 . 4 7 : 759 10.1.99: 57//.
4 6 - 8 0 : 132 8 1 - 9 0 : 757-752
229 175-177: 135
239-246: 149
187-188: 135
255: 15//., 1 4 ?
219: 167
286: 149
391: 149
311-312: 14.9
422-429: 24-27
359: 109
455: 149
567: 149
457-458: 150
610: 149
459-460: 150
679: 149
549-556: 76n.
818: 130 1042: J5/i.
629-642: 135 825: 175
Tcrtullian De
an. 20.3: 155
894-895: 130
Trabca 1-5 l O : 65-69 6 l O : 69-70
1028: 169
Heaut. 20-21: 125
Turpilius 1-2 R 3 (J3ot//i. I): 162 156-157
30-32: 129
8 R * (Bort/i. V I ) :
31-32: 75
1 9 - 2 0 R 3 (Dcmct.
77: 155-136
25 R 3 (Demrt. VIII): 1 5 9 -
155n.
IV):
160
99: 436H. 182-184: 150
32 R 3 (Danct.
1033-1034: 1 6 2
35-36 K*(Demet.
XVI):
37-39 R 1 (Demi.
I):
tfec. 4: 130 4-5: 101
155n.
XIII):
160
162-163
41 JO (Demi. HI): 155//. 100
14: 15//.,
42 R 3 (Demi. IV): 163
14-15: 101
50-53 R 3 (Epicl.
39-43: 130
56-57 R 3 (Epic/. IV): 1 5 5 « .
46-47: 153
66-67 IU [lipid
281: 145
168t 178
353: 149
69-70 R.3 (lipid
359-360:
148
I) :
164-167
X):
M7-
XII): 1 6 0 -
161
378-379: 66
71 R 3 (£/>/Vf. XIII): 1S0
415: 148
72-74 RJ (//cr. I): 155«.
429: 145
75-76 R 3 (Het.
456-457: 1 5 0
77-78 R 3 (f/rt. Ill): 155/1.
II): 155#i.
480-481: 137
80 R3 (Het.
553: 136//.
87-88 R 3 (Het.
833-834: 137
100-101 R 3 (Leuc. I): 155/*.,
866-867: 130 Phonn. 6-8: 75, 1 2 9 16-17: 183 231: 14?
V): 15? XI): 1 7 5
172 102 R 3 (Leuc. II): 155-155?, 172 103 R 3 (Leuc.
Ill):
173
230 104 R 3 (Leuc. IV): 173
166 R3 (Paed.
106-107
167-168 R3 (Para. I): 163-
RJ
(Leuc.
VI):
XII): 155n.
164
173-174 108 R J (Leuc. VII): 174-173
173 R3 (Para. V): 155n.
109-110 R3 (Leuc.
175-176 R 3 (Phil. I); 164
155n.t
VIII):
179 R3 (Phil. I l l ) : 155n.
175
112 R 3 ( L f w . X ) :
155u.
170-171 113-114
155n.,
(Thras.
VI):
156 IO
(Leuc.
XI):
R3 (Leuc.
XII):
175-176 115-120
205-206 RJ
176-178
207 R3 (Thras. VII): 178 211 R 3 (Thras. X): 155n. 212 R 3 (Thras. XI): 168 213 R3 (Inc. I): 154n.
123-124 R* (Leuc.
XIV):
178
Valerius Maximus
125 R3 (JLm. X V ) : 17* 126 R3 (Leuc. X V I ) : 155n.y 179 129-131 R 3 (Laic.
XVIII):
160, 172, 779
2.4.4: 3.7.11:
190 184-185
Varro ap. Charis. 241.27-29 K: 67 Ling. 6.89: 80,i. 7.106: 72
132 R3 (L^/c. X I X ) :
180
133-135 R3 (Lind. I) : 161-
162
Sat. (r. 59 B : 85n. Vellcius Paterculus 1.17.1: 87n.
136-138 R3 (Lind. II): 757
Virgil Aen. 10.830 : 24
145 RJ (Lind. V):
Volcacius Scdigitus ap. Gcll.
147 R3(LiW. Vll):
169-170
157 R3 (Paed. V ) : U5/i.
63, 61, 73, 78, 87 Vopiscus Car. 13.5: 24
163 R3 (Paed. I X ) : 155n. 164 R3 (Paed. X ) : 155fi.
Zonaras 8.2.370: 186
15.24:
