Dancing in chains: The stylistic unity of the comoedia palliata (Papers and monographs of the American Academy in Rome)

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 ,

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,

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(

/• 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«

,) *
*•/ [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 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/ 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
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 }

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 cv 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 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> ^ 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 Mc,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., 3hly, 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): 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 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