Roman Comedy 9789004435124, 9004435123

Table of contents :
Contents
Roman Comedy
Abstract
Keywords
1 Introduction
2 Performance Contexts
2.1 Festivals
2.2 Theatre Buildings
2.3 Audiences
2.4 Actors and Staging
3 Editions, Commentaries, and Translations
4 Surveys and Reference Works
5 Fabula palliata
5.1 Themes I: Greek Intertexts, ‘Translation’, and Improvisation
5.2 Themes II: Topicality
5.3 Form I: Dramatic Structures and Techniques
5.4 Form II: Stock Characters
5.5 Form III: Language and Style
5.6 Form IV: Metre and Music
5.7 Authors I: Plautus
5.8 Authors II: Terence
5.9 Authors III: ‘Minor Playwrights’
6 Fabula togata
7 Fabula Atellana
8 Mimus / Planipes
9 Pantomimus
10 Reception of Roman Comedy
11 Conclusions
Bibliography
Editions, Commentaries, Translations
Secondary Literature

Citation preview

Roman Comedy

Classical Poetry Editor-in-Chief Scott McGill (Rice University) Associate Editors Jackie Murray (University of Kentucky) Sophia Papaioannou (University of Athens) Jonathan L. Ready (Indiana University) Catherine Ware (University College Cork)

Volumes published in this Brill Research Perspectives title are listed at brill.com/rpcp

Roman Comedy By

Gesine Manuwald

LEIDEN | BOSTON

This paperback book edition is simultaneously published as issue 1.2 (2019) of Classical Poetry, DOI:10.1163/25892649-12340002. Library Congress Control Number: 2020906028

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISBN 978-90-04-43511-7 (paperback) ISBN 978-90-04-43512-4 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Gesine Manuwald. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect the publication against unauthorized use and to authorize dissemination by means of offprints, legitimate photocopies, microform editions, reprints, translations, and secondary information sources, such as abstracting and indexing services including databases. Requests for commercial re-use, use of parts of the publication, and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Roman Comedy 1 Gesine Manuwald Abstract 1 Keywords 1 1 Introduction 1 2 Performance Contexts 4 2.1 Festivals 5 2.2 Theatre Buildings 5 2.3 Audiences 8 2.4 Actors and Staging 11 3 Editions, Commentaries, and Translations 15 4 Surveys and Reference Works 19 5 Fabula palliata 21 5.1 Themes I: Greek Intertexts, ‘Translation’, and Improvisation 23 5.2 Themes II: Topicality 27 5.3 Form I: Dramatic Structures and Techniques 29 5.4 Form II: Stock Characters 32 5.5 Form III: Language and Style 33 5.6 Form IV: Metre and Music 35 5.7 Authors I: Plautus 36 5.8 Authors II: Terence 39 5.9 Authors III: ‘Minor Playwrights’ 43 6 Fabula togata 46 7 Fabula Atellana 49 8 Mimus / Planipes 51 9 Pantomimus 53 10 Reception of Roman Comedy 55 11 Conclusions 58 Bibliography 59 Editions, Commentaries, Translations 59 Secondary Literature 62

Roman Comedy Gesine Manuwald

Department of Greek and Latin, University College London, UK [email protected]

Abstract This contribution provides an introduction to all varieties of ‘Roman comedy’, including primarily fabula palliata (‘new comedy’, as represented by Plautus and Terence) as well as fabula togata, fabula Atellana, mimus and pantomimus. It examines the major developments in the establishment of these dramatic genres, their main characteristics, the performance contexts for them in Republican Rome, and their reception. The presentation of the key facts is accompanied by a description of the influential turns and recent trends in scholarship on Roman comedy. The essay is designed for scholars, teachers and (graduate) students who have some familiarity with Roman literature and are looking for (further) orientation in the area of Roman comedy.

Keywords Roman drama – Roman comedy – fabula palliata – fabula togata – Plautus – Terence – Caecilius Statius – mime – pantomime

1

Introduction

The term ‘Roman comedy’ is conventionally applied in modern scholarship to a particular form of light drama in Latin, represented today mainly by the extant Republican plays of Plautus and Terence, based on Greek New Comedy. Plautus and Terence call their plays and the dramatic genre to which they belong comoedia (‘comedy’; e.g. Plaut. Amph. 55; 60; 88; 96; 868; 987; Asin. 13; Capt. 1033; Cas. 9; 13; 30; 31; 64; 83; Cist. 787; Poen. 1371; Ter. Haut. 4; Phorm. 25; Hec. 866; Ad. 6) or generically fabula (‘play’; e.g. Plaut. Amph. 94; Capt. 52; 54; Poen. 8; 1370; Ter. An. 3; 16; Eun. 23; 25; 33; Ad. 7; 9; 22). This type of comedy was more specifically named fabula palliata (‘comedy in Greek dress’) by ancient

© Gesine Manuwald, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004435124_002

2

Manuwald

grammarians, to distinguish it from other types of comic or light drama present in Rome (e.g. Diom. Ars 3, Gramm. Lat. 1, pp. 482–91; Euanth. Fab. 4.1–3; Donat. Com. 6.1–2; on Ter. Ad. 7; Lydus, Mag. 1.40; Lib. gloss. 1.2–8; 2.9–11). Since Republican Rome does not have a single form of comedy, the modern term ‘(Roman) comedy’ can be somewhat unspecific, unless it is implicitly meant as an English version of Plautus’ and Terence’s terminology. This is because ‘(Roman) comedy’ can also be a broader generic term and can be applied to the different versions of comic or light drama that existed in ancient Rome, between which late-antique grammarians distinguished. These Latin varieties are fabula palliata (‘comedy in Greek dress’), fabula togata (‘comedy in Roman dress’), fabula Atellana (‘comedy from Atella’), mimus (‘mime’) and pantomimus (‘pantomime’) (on the definitions of these forms, the differences between them, and the characteristics of fabula palliata, see e.g. Pociña Pérez 1996a; 1998). Traditionally, the majority of modern scholarship on Roman comic drama has focused on fabula palliata, mainly for the following reasons: it is the only light dramatic genre of which complete texts survive; there is more contextual information for this genre; and it is regarded as the most sophisticated form. In the last couple of decades there has been a proliferation of scholarship on fabula palliata, taking the study of this genre in new directions or developing underrepresented areas. Recent editions, commentaries, and translations aim to make the ancient plays more accessible for contemporary readers; they also pay attention to issues like performance practices and the social status of characters. In addition, a large number of comprehensive handbooks and informative overviews have appeared, as well as studies of individual plays (mainly in collected volumes) and monographs devoted to new themes: these include the role of women, philosophical problems, and aspects of performance and music. More emphasis is placed on the study of the plays’ reception, in line with general trends in classical scholarship (for an overview of the development of scholarship on Roman comedy in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, see Goldberg 2011). In recent years, the other comic genres have received increased attention. This has been prompted by greater appreciation of fragmentary texts in classical scholarship and by novel approaches that consider writings in their cultural frameworks and take account of the full range of different types of texts in any one literary genre and / or period. In view of these recent developments, this survey will cover all varieties of Latin comic drama. Reflecting the emphasis in existing scholarship and the

Roman Comedy

3

amount of information available, it will provide a more detailed discussion of fabula palliata. The overview will introduce the major points of context, as well as the themes, genres, and representatives of Latin comic drama, along with references to relevant primary sources and secondary literature. As this survey is intended to be an introductory guide for advanced students and scholars, it does not aim at being fully exhaustive and will rather offer starting points for further study; hence it will not list studies on details of individual plays unless they are of more general interest (for literature on individual plays by Plautus and Terence, see e.g. Lowe 2008, 99–112, 125–30). The organisation into thematic sections should facilitate locating information on particular topics, although there are obviously close connections between the areas covered, and clear-cut distinctions are not always possible. Since Latin comic drama in a broad sense came into being and was most productive – as attested by extant texts, fragments, and testimonia – in the middle and late Roman Republic (from c. 240 BCE), this volume will almost exclusively deal with this period (for developments in the imperial period, see Heldmann 2000; Dunbabin 2016). Obviously, even within those centuries of the Republic, there were changes in the political, cultural, and social framework. In addition, new dramatic genres surfaced, and existing ones were developed. Still, a certain continuity of characteristic elements, such as the mixture of themes meaningful to the audience and effective dramatic action, remained throughout (see Jory 1986). By way of preliminaries, some key issues of definition should be highlighted. Modern readers tend to regard (ancient) comedy as a type of literature because it is accessed through surviving scripts. One needs to bear in mind, however, that some varieties of Roman comic drama were unscripted at least initially and that playwrights provided scripts that would be developed for performance by actor-managers and their staff; originally, these scripts were not available for reading by the general public. Reading dramatic scripts and then researching issues connected with them (such as date or authorship) only emerged as an established practice in the late second century BCE, when scripts became more widely accessible. S.M. Goldberg (2005) has argued, therefore, that it was the intellectuals of the late Republic who created ‘Roman literature’ as a concept, rather than the early playwrights. Elsewhere (2007), Goldberg outlines that, as a result of the late Republican reception of early Roman writers, they came to be seen as ‘archaic’ and unaccomplished, but that this is the view of later readers and an inaccurate description of the writers in their time. Thus, Goldberg concludes (2007, 28–9):

4

Manuwald

I have also confined myself to the reception of what became fragmentary authors, excluding Plautus and Terence, whose texts survived in large part, I believe, because no later writers of palliata comedies emerged in subsequent generations to eclipse their achievements. Thus, though the two playwrights also furnished grist for antiquarian mills, they continued to attract attention for their merit as artists, and not just as linguistic curiosities. That final fact should at least remind us that ‘archaic’ does not inevitably mean ‘superseded,’ and that archaic works might be something more than steppingstones to other, possibly better things. Archaic texts can have an integrity and an aesthetic value all their own, and their importance to literary history is definable in other ways than mere chronological sequence. There is more to a beginning than just a start. In line with these considerations, this survey will endeavour to give a neutral, non-judgmental overview of key playwrights, themes, and contexts relevant for Roman comedy, especially in the Republican period. 2

Performance Contexts

Drama in Republican Rome was initially written to be performed rather than to be read. Since the surviving texts only represent one part of the overall performance, the scripts cannot be studied in isolation. Instead, beyond the historical and cultural context, which is of relevance for any text, the performance context for Roman comedy needs to be considered. Relevant aspects include the occasions on which dramas could be performed, i.e., the festivals and their organisation; the venues, i.e., theatre buildings and their forerunners; the composition and interests of audiences; and details of acting and staging. Information on several of these topics was collected almost since the beginnings of modern scholarship. The ancient didascaliae prefixed to most of the extant plays of Terence are a kind of forerunner: they mention the years and the festivals when the respective dramas were first performed, the magistrates in charge, and the actor-managers and musicians involved in bringing the plays to the stage. In more recent times, the gathering of such information was often carried out as an antiquarian exercise, pursued frequently by historians and / or archaeologists and not always connected with the work of literary criticism. Only from the end of the twentieth century, when interdisciplinary methods and new approaches to literature gained more prominence, have literary scholars looked at these aspects. The result has been the fruitful exploration of new avenues for studying dramas as performed in particular settings. There are now works providing background information and discussions

Roman Comedy

5

applying such contextual information to the interpretation of Roman dramatic texts (see Sections 2.1–2.4). 2.1 Festivals Dramatic performances in Republican Rome were not self-contained events that could happen at any time. Instead, they were defined as and limited to ludi scaenici: such games took place in the context of festivals, both regular festivals in honour of particular gods and one-off festivals organised on the occasion of dedications of temples or funerals of important citizens. All of these included religious rituals as well as other entertainments. Initially, there was just one regular festival, Ludi maximi or Romani in honour of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus. From the late third century BCE, several further festivals in honour of various gods were added to the festival calendar, and the amount of days reserved for dramatic performances at each festival increased (on festivals in Rome, see e.g. Scullard 1981; on the development of Roman festivals, see Bernstein 1998). By the time of Augustus, over forty days per year were regularly reserved for dramatic performances. At a time when most plays were newly commissioned for each festival, there must have been a significant demand for dramas, even though it is not known how many plays were performed at each festival or on a single day reserved for ludi scaenici, how many performance slots were available for the different dramatic genres, or whether there were rules or conventions for the distribution of the various dramatic genres (see Taylor 1937). The rhythm of festivals and the corresponding commissions will have determined the demand for plays and, therefore, the production of dramas by each generation of playwrights. Apart from Ludi Florales (see Section 8), no specific connections between particular festivals and certain types of dramas can be established. In any case, the festival setting and atmosphere will have influenced the reception of dramatic performances by the original audiences. Organizing the festivals was the responsibility of magistrates, of the plebeian or curule aediles in most cases: this task included arranging for a venue and a programme of entertainments. Thus in the period when plays were newly written and performed for each festival, the aediles bought scripts from playwrights. It is uncertain how much they knew about a play’s content at that point and to what extent they might have been able to influence its shape in the run-up to its performance at a festival. A passage in Terence suggests that there could be pre-performances for magistrates (Ter. Eun. 19b–22). 2.2 Theatre Buildings Remarkably, there was no permanent stone theatre in Republican Rome until 55 BCE, when the Theatre of Pompey (Cn. Pompeius Magnus) was

6

Manuwald

inaugurated (Cic. Fam. 7.1.1–4; Off. 2.57; Pis. 65; Asc. on Cic. Pis.; Pis. 65 [pp. 1; 15–6 Clark]; Tac. Ann. 14.20.2; Plin. HN 7.158; 8.20; Tert. De spect. 10.5; Cass. Dio 39.38.1–3; Plut. Pomp. 52.5). This theatre was completed at a time when hardly any new fully-fledged dramas were written, although revivals of successful earlier Greek-style and Roman-style comedies continued, and there were performances of new mimes and pantomimes. Therefore, all Latin comedies whose scripts are extant and most of the comic plays documented by testimonia and fragments were first performed on temporary stages in various locations in Rome. Since there is no certain archaeological evidence for the early period of Roman drama, and since an awareness of the physical performance context is important for assessing the impact of a drama and the possibilities of performance, there has been much discussion of the potential location and layout of Roman Republican performance spaces. Inferences can be drawn from the surviving scripts and fragments, later testimonia, vase and wall paintings, and architectural structures from elsewhere or from later periods. The development of Roman theatre architecture, its characteristics in relation to Greek and early Italian theatres, and the relationship between architectural features and stage conventions are reviewed by E. Frézouls (1982; 1983; 1989). J. Blänsdorf (1987) and A.J. Brothers (1989) provide brief overviews of locations, structures, and developments of Roman theatre buildings. From the perspective of a theatre practitioner, R.C. Beacham (1980; 1991; 2007) has attempted to draw conclusions on the development of early Roman stages based mainly on the evidence of later Roman wall paintings (sceptical comments in Marshall 2006, 32). What can be inferred with reasonable certainty is that early Roman stages were influenced by domestic performance practices, as they were common in Italy at the time, and were rather flexible. From late Republican times there were established conventions, as the guidelines of the Augustan architect Vitruvius (Vitr. 5.6–7; also 5.3; 5.5) indicate. Roman theatre designers will have been inspired by (temporary and permanent) theatre buildings erected elsewhere in Italy and in Sicily during the Republican period (Mitens 1988; 1993) and by simple stages of a type known from fourth-century Italy, different from contemporary theatre structures in mainland Greece and depicted on socalled phlyax vases. These vase paintings show low stages supported by posts or columns and occasionally covered by drapery or tablets; sometimes there are steps leading up to the platform. The back of the stage consists of a wall with openings for doors and sometimes windows; it may be covered by a roof (on the differing levels of reliability of theatre elements seen on vase paintings, see Hughes 2003).

Roman Comedy

7

The earliest venues in Rome for setting up stages and presenting dramatic performances seem to have been the Circus, the Forum, or the space in front of the temple of the god of the festival. Theatres in Rome frequently have an architectural connection to a temple, in that the stage is erected in front of it and the steps leading up to the temple function as the auditorium. Such a link between performance space and temple is most clearly attested for Ludi Megalenses, the festival in honour of Magna Mater: Cicero says that the ancestors introduced games to take place on the Palatine Hill in front of the Temple of Magna Mater and ‘directly in the view of Magna Mater’ (Cic. Har. resp. 24). Plautus’ Pseudolus is known to have been performed on the occasion of the dedication of this temple in 191 BCE (Did. on Plaut. Pseud.; see also Cic. Sen. 50); archaeological research has unearthed a simple construction of steps around the altar belonging to that temple. S.M. Goldberg (1998) has explored how Plautus’ Pseudolus might have been performed (to an audience of perhaps about 2,000 people) in a venue where ‘the temple was itself an integral part of the production space’ (1998, 12). He suggests that the small and improvised nature of the performance space may have contributed to an easy and informal relationship with the audience. Another famous example and piece of evidence for the early venues of dramatic performances is the speech of the choragus (‘costume-manager’, ‘supplier of props’) in Plautus’ Curculio (Plaut. Curc. 462–86). The speech refers to a number of sites around the Roman Forum. This is usually interpreted as a sign that the play was performed in a section of the Forum, where, because the stage was not particularly set off, those sites were in view of the audience (Moore 1991; Goldberg 2018). At the same time, the explicit references to the audience’s surroundings suggest the applicability of themes of the stage action to their own lives (see Sections 5.2; 5.3). The arrangement of some performance spaces as structures that have been called ‘theatre temples’, i.e., a temple set above the auditorium opposite the stage, defined dramatic presentations as part of a religious ceremony and allowed a direct connection between cult rites and scenic performances. The peculiar Roman construct of ‘theatre temples’ was surveyed by J.A. Hanson (1959). A close association between temples and theatres can also be observed for stone theatres; it reappears in several descriptions of (potential) theatre buildings. The structure created by Pompey was a huge complex (on its architectural aspects, see Richardson 1987; Gagliardo / Packer 2006; for a discussion of its role in the development of Roman theatre architecture, see Beacham 2007). It included a full theatre and a temple of Venus (Victrix) on top of the auditorium, whose central wedge of seats formed a monumental staircase leading up

8

Manuwald

to the temple. Pompey allegedly said during the dedication ceremony that he had not built a theatre, but rather a temple of Venus whose steps could function as a theatre (Gell. NA 10.1.7; Tert. De spect. 10.5). The transmission of that remark demonstrates the importance of the religious dimension of Roman theatres as well as residual resistance to a permanent theatre building even in the mid first century BCE. Despite that resistance, the Theatre of Pompey was followed by the Theatre of Balbus (13 BCE) and the Theatre of Marcellus (13/11 BCE) in Rome and by theatre buildings all over the Roman empire. F. Sear (2006) provides a comprehensive and up-to-date catalogue of the remains of known Roman theatre buildings with discussion of building conventions and architecture. Prior to Pompey’s building programme, there were several attempts to erect permanent theatres in Rome throughout the second century BCE, the most productive period of Republican drama; all, however, failed. J.A. North (1992) identifies a possible further attempt, in 107 BCE, in addition to the previously recognised initiatives. Opposition in Rome was apparently not to the performances, but rather to the permanence of the physical structures. Modern scholars have proposed various possible reasons for such an attitude. Some suggest that the nobility feared that a permanent structure would enable potentially explosive political assemblies (e.g. Beacham 1991, 66–7; 1999, 30; Sear 2006, 56). Others have seen the expenditure as the reason for temporary stages, since erecting impressive buildings allowed the annually changing organisers to be appreciated for their generosity in how they offered popular entertainment (e.g. Beacham 1999, 30–1). Moreover, the dismantling of those stages prevented the commemoration of any individual at a key site of the political community and ensured that the spaces were returned to their standard political or religious use after each festival (e.g. Bell 2004, 182). Another position is that a permanent theatre would have contradicted the principle that different sets of magistrates had an annually renewed responsibility for dramatic festivals (e.g. Gruen 1992, 209–10). In addition to possible political reasons, there might have been a religious motive: a permanent theatre would have prevented performances in front of the temples of the respective gods of the festivals or in the Forum at the heart of the community (e.g. Bernstein 1998, 297–8; Goldberg 1998; on the religious, cultural, social, and political background of the development of Roman theatre architecture, see Hülsemann 1987). 2.3 Audiences The shape of the performance space and the occasions for dramatic productions will have affected the audience’s experience. For instance, performances took place amid a general festival atmosphere and a range of entertainments.

Roman Comedy

9

In addition, the size and positioning of stage and auditorium in relation to each other and the shape of the stage made an impact. On the one hand, at least in the early performance spaces, audiences were relatively small and placed close to the stage. Such an arrangement might have made the experience more immediate and facilitated interaction with the audience (e.g. by stage characters addressing them [Plaut. Merc. 1–8; Pseud. 584–5; Stich. 446–8; Truc. 482–3]). On the other hand, the stage was located opposite the spectators and separated from them; accordingly, the audience attended as onlookers and watched a story set in a world of its own, presented by professional entertainers (see Section 2.4). Audience members, therefore, were not encouraged to identify directly with the performers. Still, the characters the actors impersonated and the situations they found themselves in offered points of typological comparison with the audience’s experiences and circumstances. Festivals were funded by public money, magistrates, and / or wealthy families; there was no entrance fee. Performances were potentially open to all parts of the population in Rome as well as to visitors. Audiences, therefore, must have been mixed with respect to social class, age, sex, occupation, background, and education. Comic prologues (esp. Plaut. Poen. 5–35; Ter. Hec. 28–48) mention a range of groups in attendance. Because of the humorous context, these portraits of the typical composition of an audience may not be entirely reliable. Still, that they could be envisaged indicates that performances must have been open to diverse audiences. As a result, the expectations of audience members, with their varying degrees of education and varied experience, will have covered a wide spectrum. At the same time, organizing magistrates, playwrights, and actors will have aimed at pleasing as large a portion of the audience as possible. Thus the tastes and interests of audiences and their changes over time must have had an influence on the style and content of the dramas performed; nonetheless, plays can be composed in such a way that they can be enjoyed in various ways and on different levels. Because of a certain amount of banter and crude jokes in Roman comedy, it was once assumed that Roman audiences were less cultivated and less intellectually interested than Greek ones (e.g. some comments in Duckworth 1952, 198, 207). Yet the presence of such banter and jokes does not necessarily point to unsophisticated entertainment overall; it is just an indication that playwrights catered to that dimension. By the time of the first productions of surviving comedies, Roman audiences had some experience of watching drama and had become familiar with dramatic conventions. At that point, audiences (or at least significant parts of them) were obviously able to understand (Greek) mythical or fictional stories, appreciated intertextual and metadramatic allusions, and

10

Manuwald

could be confronted with questions of literary models. Playwrights assumed that audiences were familiar with the standard features and conventions of each dramatic genre. In an overview of theatre audiences in antiquity, H. Kindermann (1979, 137– 84) was sceptical of the level of education and intellectual interests of large parts of Roman audiences; he noted that some spectators had such interests, especially regarding tragedy, but that comic forms of drama were more popular, attractive, and impressive. J.-P. Cèbe (1960) and E.W. Handley (1975) maintained, however, that audiences of Plautus’ plays were more sophisticated than widely thought. More recent studies have developed the tendency to assign intellectual capabilities and interests beyond good entertainment to a sizable portion of the audiences of palliata comedies. These works identify references to scientific or medical issues, reflections of contemporary philosophical discussions, and allusions to financial, political, and military issues in Plautus’ plays (e.g. Sergi 1997; Papaioannou 2012; Fontaine 2018). With respect to the two main comic playwrights, scholars once thought that Plautus was more popular because of his jokes and less complex plots. Yet on the basis of a fresh look at the evidence, H.N. Parker (1996) has argued that all of Terence’s plays were successes, and that Plautus was not more popular than other comic playwrights (on the popularity of comedy, see also Pociña Pérez 1991). While the aspects of the plays that audiences were most interested in or found most enjoyable may have cut across different social classes, the distribution of people across the auditorium was stratified. From early on, spectators, or at least a large part of them, appear to have been seated, although it seems to have been conventional for people of lower classes to stand on occasions when there was not a sufficient number of seats (e.g. Plaut. Amph. 65–6; Capt. 3; 11–12; Poen. 17–23). From the early second century BCE, seating became formally arranged according to social class. While such rules clarified the organisation of performances and may be an indication of the significant political and social role theatre had assumed, their introduction initially was not welcomed, perhaps because there were then fewer seats available for the general population and because people felt that their own sense of decency could regulate seating arrangements (see Moore 1994). In 194 BCE, senators were given special seats in the low semi-circular space between the stage and the rising rows of the auditorium (Cic. Har. resp. 24; Liv. 34.44.5; 34.54.3–8; Asc. on Cic. Corn. [pp. 69–70 Clark]; Val. Max. 2.4.3; on the different traditions in the sources, see von Ungern-Sternberg 1975; Bernstein 1998, 193–5). There were separate entrances for the senators, two vaulted passages (aditus maximi) leading directly to their seating area. Seats of honour (tribunalia) for the presiding

Roman Comedy

11

magistrates were located above the side-entrances. In 67 BCE, a Lex Roscia assigned specific seats to the equestrians, the first fourteen rows of the auditorium, just behind the senatorial seats (Cic. Mur. 40; Phil. 2.44; Att. 2.19.3; Asc. on Cic. Corn. [pp. 78–9 Clark]; Liv. Epit. 99; Hor. Epod. 4.15–6; Epist. 1.1.62; Vell. Pat. 2.32.3; Tac. Ann. 15.32; Juv. 3.159 [and Schol. ad loc.]; 14.322–4; Suet. Aug. 40.1; Plin. HN 7.117; Plut. Cic. 13.2–4; Porph. on Hor. Epod. 4.15–6; Cass. Dio 36.42.1). 2.4 Actors and Staging The surviving texts and fragments of Roman comedy are known by the names of their playwrights, and these men were already referred to as their creators in antiquity. The dramatists, however, merely provided the scripts for dramatic performances: those scripts were bought by the magistrates in charge and handed over to impresarios, actor-managers responsible for bringing the plays on stage. Some of these figures are known by name: for instance, all six plays of Terence were produced by the same impresario, Ambivius Turpio (didascaliae). This continuity suggests some kind of artistic and productive collaboration; the impresario might have liaised with the playwright during the rehearsal process. Strictly speaking, though, once playwrights had produced and sold a script, they had completed their job and no longer had any rights to the play. Commercially, Terence’s Eunuchus was the most successful Republican drama, as it was soon presented in a repeat performance and earned the playwright an unprecedented sum of money, though it is unclear when this fee was determined and paid (Suet. / Donat. Vita Ter. 3; Donat. on Ter. Eun., praef. 1.6*). Impresarios presumably each worked with their own troupes of actors. In contrast to Greece, in Rome there were no restrictions on the number of actors simultaneously on stage; some scenes in Roman drama have more than three speaking actors (four or five) (Diom. Ars 3, Gramm. Lat. 1, pp. 490.27–1.3; 491.20–30; Euanth. Com. 2.2). Still, companies of actors were probably not very large, since then they would have been difficult to organise and costly to maintain. Roles could be doubled up, and some could be played by (mute) extras if required. Various aspects of the acting profession have been studied. C. Garton (1972; 1982) has compiled catalogues of the known Roman actors from Republican and Augustan times. The collected volume edited by P. Easterling and E. Hall (2002) provides an overview of aspects of Greek and Roman acting; it includes a chapter by P.G. McC. Brown (2002) on the situation in the time of Plautus and Terence. The book also features a chapter entitled ‘Female entertainers in late antiquity’ by R. Webb (2002), which was soon followed by a book on actresses by E. Fertl (2005). These publications illustrate the recent interest in gender and in previously neglected groups connected with the theatre.

12

Manuwald

Another chapter in the volume, by E. Fantham (2002), examines the relationship between orator and actor, an ancient comparison (e.g. Quint. Inst. 11.3.4–5; 11.3.72–4; 11.3.88–91; 11.3.111–12; 11.3.178–83), and reviews acting styles and conventions in comparison to oratorical techniques. Actors occupied a low social position in ancient Rome since Romans looked down upon acting for a living. Accordingly, actors were active as professionals and not chosen from the citizen body; instead, they were mostly foreigners and / or came from lower social classes, including slaves. The social position of the majority of actors is probably the reason why they were denied the political and civic rights of ordinary citizens. As a result, there was not only a physical divide between actors and audiences, but also a social one. Still, successful actors, especially in the late Republican period, could become wellliked stars and earn a fortune (e.g. Q. Roscius Gallus and Clodius Aesopus in Cicero’s time). Because the low social standing of performers in what was an important feature of Roman cultural and social life is striking, the status of actors has attracted attention for some time. J.E. Spruit (1966) produced the first detailed study, from the perspective of ancient law, followed by a catalogue of actors (1969). M. Ducos (1990) added further discussion of actors’ legal and social position, while H. Leppin (1992) approached matters from a historical perspective. The volume edited by C. Hugoniot, F. Hurlet, and S. Milanezi (2004) further explores the social status of actors in the ancient world. Separately, J.-C. Dumont (1983) looks at the origin of actors, specifically the fact that many of them came from municipal towns. F. Dupont’s L’acteur-roi ou le théâtre dans la Rome antique (1985) starts from the premise that dramatic performances staged by actors were equally important in ancient Rome as other types of shows; it then goes beyond the focus on actors and offers an introduction to Roman theatre (context, organisation, main genres, and representatives), seeing it as part of a wider performance culture. Despite their low social status, actors and writers were assigned the Temple of Minerva, the goddess of arts and crafts, on the Aventine as a meeting space and place for sacrifices soon after 207 BCE, mainly in recognition of the accomplishments of Rome’s first poet, L. Livius Andronicus (c. 280/70–200 BCE) (Fest., pp. 446–8 L.). While the reasons for and aims of this step are uncertain, it indicates public appreciation and increasing recognition of writers and actors as an important group in Rome. There is no evidence that the granting of a meeting place included the formation of a guild, or that organisational structures were developed from the contemporary guilds of Artists of Dionysos (for discussion, see e.g. Jory 1970; Gruen 1990, 88–9, 105–6; on the Hellenistic groups of Artists of Dionysos, see Le Guen 2001; Aneziri 2003). For the period

Roman Comedy

13

of the last Republican tragedian, L. Accius (170–c. 80 BCE), there are references to a collegium poetarum (Val. Max. 3.7.11). But there is not enough evidence to establish whether and in what way this collegium might be linked to the earlier arrangement (on the history and character of the two and the possible relationship between them, with different solutions, see e.g. Dolç 1971; Crowther 1973; Horsfall 1976; Romano 1990). Roman dramatists did not compose the music for their plays; this was contributed by professional musicians (Cic. De or. 3.102; Donat. Com. 8.9). The musical element was essential in Republican drama; a great number of lines were accompanied by music (see Section 5.6). The various metres used in the scripts indicate the kind and amount of music needed. The musician, called tibicen after the instrument, the tibia, was probably the composer as well as the performer of the music (on musicians, see Wilson 2002). A musician called Flaccus, belonging to a Claudius, provided the music for all of Terence’s plays (didascaliae); he might therefore have been part of a collaborating team around the impresario. A passage in Plautus’ Stichus illustrates the role and impact of the musician: during a drinking-party with dialogue in accompanied verse, the musician is given a drink; the metre changes to the spoken verse of iambic senarius for a few lines while the musician has the drink (Plaut. Stich. 715–24; 758–68), only to continue in accompanied verse afterwards. What was presented in the Roman theatre was not a perfect illusionary world. On the contrary, spectators had to be knowledgeable about dramatic conventions and to accept that some operated without scenic support. The sophistication of the surviving scripts suggests that Roman audiences soon became literate in engaging with those conventions. For instance, in Republican Rome all plays were initially performed on a simple stage with a generic set (more elaborate and specific scenery was developed only later). The stage was low and deep and represented outside space; behind the stage were three doors, marking the entrances to buildings (see also Dumont 2000). Dramatists were aware that the unchanged layout of the stage could represent different locations in different plays (Plaut. Men. 72–6); it could even be stated that for a particular play the poet ‘wished’ to identify the stage with a certain town or setting (Plaut. Men. 7–12; Rud. 32–3a; Truc. 1–3; 10–11). The buildings marked by the doors and their inhabitants would be identified early in the play. J.C.B. Lowe (2016) points out that in several cases, Roman fabulae palliatae evidently use three stage-houses (represented by the three doors), while there are only two in the Greek versions, with a third one off-stage. Such changes would be in line with the tendency of Roman playwrights to create more exciting stage action, and they show a considerable degree of creative appropriation. In the Roman setting, all stage action must be

14

Manuwald

envisaged as happening in public. Important events taking place elsewhere or inside the houses could be included by the device of so-called messenger speeches, i.e., speeches by individuals who were present at those events and who come on stage and report them. New entering characters were often announced by others already on stage, or they introduced themselves, so that their identification was straightforward. As more than three speaking actors could be on stage simultaneously, supplemented by mute characters, it was possible to have people overhearing others or to present two parallel, potentially intertwined conversations. This may mean that characters do not hear what is clear to the audience, since characters on stage are supposed to hear only what is meant for them. Although no law of unity of time and place in drama is known for the Republican period, the stage action tends to be condensed into a single significant day, emphasised by frequent references to that day and its relevance as an important juncture in the action (e.g. Plaut. Merc. 586–7a; Pers. 34–4a; Pseud. 58b–60a; 177–9a; 372–5; Ter. Eun. 1047). Evidence in the plays for costumes is limited, because clothing is typically mentioned only when such references have a function in the plot (e.g. someone dressed as a foreigner). Written sources on actors’ attire are preserved from late-antique times: Donatus (Donat. Com. 8.4–7) and Pollux (Poll. 4.115–20) enumerate a range of costumes for various types of characters. Since for the Republican period practical considerations suggest that actors had to be able to change costumes quickly, and since costumes, especially elaborate ones, were regarded as expensive (Plaut. Amph. 85; Curc. 464–6; Pers. 157–60; Pseud. 1184–6; Trin. 857–9), suppliers of props (choragus; Plaut. Curc. 464; Pers. 159; Trin. 857–8) might have tried to make do with a limited number of costumes representing a few types. Ancient sources on masks in the Roman theatre are ambiguous (Cic. De or. 3.221; Diom. Ars 3, Gramm. Lat. 1, p. 489.11–13; Donat. Com. 6.3; on Ter. Eun., praef. 1.6; Ad., praef. 1.6; Fest., p. 238 L.). On balance, the existence of masks in the Roman theatre and their exploitation for comic effects from early times is likely. For actors in Atellanae plays (see Section 7), there may have been particular conventions; one source, at least, says that they could not be forced to lay down their masks, as could happen to actors in plays of other dramatic genres (Fest., p. 238.17–20 L.). From later periods, lists of the standard types of tragic and comic masks survive, indicating the most common stock characters (Poll. 4.133–42; 4.142–54; for visual examples illustrating costumes and masks of New Comedy, see Webster / Green / Seeberg 1995; on actors’ costumes and masks, see e.g. Duckworth 1952, 88–94; Beare 1964, 184–95; Petrone 1992, 371–402).

Roman Comedy

15

Brief overviews of Roman staging conventions appear in the comprehensive works of G. Duckworth (1952) and W. Beare (1964). Their attention to these matters demonstrates that these have long been felt to be part of the study of Roman drama, even if less emphasis was placed on the implications for the interpretation of plays and for understanding Roman theatre business. Such a connection was only explored more systematically in the comprehensive study of C.W. Marshall (2006). Marshall aims to infer from dramatic scripts and testimonia as much about performance conventions and practical aspects of performance as possible, and he looks at the organisation of performance in the Roman theatre and the potentially resulting constraints for bringing scripts on stage; thus his study can suggest staging and interpretative options for existing texts on the basis of how they could have been performed. In addition, B. Le Guen and S. Milanezi (2013) address questions of scenery, props, and stage machines in Greece and Rome. Calabretta (2015) considers aspects of staging, the use of props, and masks, as well as the movement of actors on stage for a single comedy (Plaut. Rud.). 3

Editions, Commentaries, and Translations

The texts of Roman comedies were originally composed and written down as scripts by the playwrights. Once a script was finished and accepted by the organising magistrates, its single version would be handed over to the impresario, who would bring it to stage. At that point, the poet virtually lost control over the manuscript; the impresario had someone add music, arranged the play for performance, and may have adjusted the text where necessary according to the needs of the actors and the constraints of the venue. After a play’s first performance, the script probably remained with the impresario and might have been handed down to future generations of impresarios for repeat performances. Further changes could be introduced for those performances; for instance, the prologue to Plautus’ Casina written for a revival has supplanted the original one. Actors may have made adjustments in individual places by adding, deleting, or adapting lines, which are sometimes identified in extant texts as ‘actors’ interpolations’. This means that the texts at the start of the manuscript transmission may not be the authors’ original scripts, but rather versions that included later revisions. Modern editions reconstruct and make accessible what is in the manuscripts; to what extent these texts should be regarded as genuine is a question for all scholars and readers of Roman comedy. The most recent edition of the texts of Plautus’ comedies is the five-volume edition, with English translation, by W. de Melo (2011–2013) in the Loeb

16

Manuwald

Classical Library. This edition provides an updated Latin text and a modern English translation. The latest full critical edition of all of Plautus’ plays is the Oxford Classical Text version in two volumes produced by W.M. Lindsay (1904/05), which is generally regarded as the standard reference edition. The older complete edition by F. Leo (1895/6) is still used as well because of its more thorough study of the textual transmission and its more detailed critical apparatus (Tarrant 1983 [302] remarks that ‘Leo’s edition is on the whole the most useful’). These comprehensive editions are supplemented by those in the series Editio Plautina Sarsinatis (overseen by C. Questa and R. Raffaelli), which is producing individual editions of single plays (since 2001), as well as the collected volumes Lecturae Plautinae Sarsinates (edited by R. Raffaelli and A. Tontini, 1998–2017) on each play in alphabetical order. The editio princeps of Plautus’ comedies was published by G. Merula in Venice in 1472. The modern division of the plays into acts and scenes is based on the edition of J.B. Pius published in Milan in 1500. The tradition of modern critical editions was started by F.W. Ritschl in the middle of the nineteenth century (1st ed. in four volumes: Bonn 1848–1854). In addition to what can be found in the introductions to critical editions, an overview of the textual transmission of Plautus is provided by R.J. Tarrant (1983). M. Deufert (2002) discusses the development of the text and its reception in antiquity. A.S. Gratwick (2000) reviews the transmission of the text, existing editions, and the potential need for a new one; this article was soon followed by the first volume in the series Editio Plautina Sarsinatis. The plays of Plautus have all received individual scholarly commentaries (written in different modern languages and aimed at diverse audiences). Beyond providing answers to points of detail, these works explore the predominant questions in Plautine scholarship and address broader questions concerning the structure, meaning, and context of Plautine comedy. A different, more discursive guide to individual plays is provided by the recently established series Bloomsbury Ancient Comedy Companions: so far Plautus’ Casina and Terence’s Andria have been covered (Christenson 2019; Goldberg 2019). Plautus’ comedies have frequently been translated into a range of modern languages. In English, there are translations of all plays (in addition to the volumes in the Loeb Classical Library) as well as translations of individual plays or groups of plays in different styles and with different aims. A two-volume edition by G.E. Duckworth (1942) assembles translations of all extant Roman dramatic scripts, along with substantial introductions, although many of the translations featured are now dated. D.R. Slavitt and P. Bovie (1995) also collect translations of all of Plautus’ plays by different translators. P.L. Smith (1991)

Roman Comedy

17

and E. Segal (1996 / 2008) have turned some of the plays into English free verse. A fairly liberal translation, based on and intended for performance, is that of J. Tatum (1983). Most adventurous is A. Richlin’s (2005) selection of plays dealing with foreigners translated into modern American English and with references to current events, with even the titles changed; this is a contemporary rendition for performance, setting the plays in a specific cultural and linguistic context. Over the last decade, D. Christenson (2008 [Casina, Amphitryon, Captivi, Pseudolus]; 2010 [Menaechmi, Rudens, Truculentus; Adelphoe, Eunuchus]; 2015 [Casina; Hecyra]) has published a series of selections of ancient comedies translated into prose, printed line by line, to preserve fidelity to the Latin text. That the latest volume assembles ‘comedies about women’ seems to reflect an increasing interest in gender issues. Terence benefits from a fairly recent two-volume edition in the Loeb Classical Library produced by J. Barsby (2001), with a fresh English prose translation. The standard full critical edition is the Oxford Classical Text version by R. Kauer and W.M. Lindsay, with additions by O. Skutsch (1958). The editio princeps of Terence was published by Johannes Mentelin in Strasbourg in 1470 or by Vindelinus de Spira in Venice in 1469 (see Peters 2000, 316–7). The textual tradition is surveyed by M.D. Reeve (1983, who notes [p. 420] that ‘[a] new edition, properly constituted and more critical than the OCT, is badly needed’) and studied in greater detail by J.N. Grant (1986). Since Terence has been widely read for a long time and became a school author at an early stage, there is an extensive manuscript tradition. Unusually for the transmission of ancient authors, some of the manuscripts from the early medieval period include illustrations, which are thought to go back to a late-antique model (for an overview of the manuscripts with illustrations, reproductions of key scenes, and some discussion, see Jones / Morey 1931; for an attempt at reconstructing the basis for the extant illustrated manuscripts, see Wright 2006; for an interpretation of their typology, see Varwig 1990). Terence’s comedies, like Plautus’, have been frequently translated into modern languages. In addition to the edition in the Loeb Classical Library, a recent English prose translation of Terence’s plays is that of P. Brown (2006), published in Oxford’s World Classics (based on the Latin text of the Oxford Classical Text). F.W. Clayton (2006) has produced a translation in rhyming couplets of all the comedies. Older translations are available in G.E. Duckworth’s (1942) comprehensive edition of all Roman dramas in English. Accessible translations of a selection of both Terence’s and Plautus’ plays are available in D. Berg and D. Parker (1999). In addition, a range of commentaries on the individual plays are at hand.

18

Manuwald

The works of all other Roman comic playwrights have been preserved in fragments. The only edition offering the Latin text is still the second volume of O. Ribbeck’s comprehensive edition of all dramatic fragments in Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta from the nineteenth century (Vol. II. Comicorum Romanorum praeter Plautum et Terentium fragmenta). The second edition of this volume appeared in 1873 and a third edition in 1898, with a reduced critical apparatus and some changes in text and apparatus as a result of ‘third thoughts’ (quoted with sigla ‘R.2’ and ‘R.3’, after name of playwright, identification of dramatic genre [e.g. Pall. or Tog.], and fragment number). The fragments of Caecilius Statius, the best documented palliata poet after Plautus and Terence, have been edited separately by T. Guardì (1974), with commentary and Italian translation. The Latin text with English translation can be found in the first volume (1935) of E.H. Warmington’s Remains of Old Latin in the Loeb Classical Library (quoted with editor’s initial ‘W.’ after fragment number). Turpilius, the last Republican palliata poet, has received a separate critical edition in the Teubner series, by L. Rychlewska (1971). The few fragments of comedies from Livius Andronicus, Naevius, and Ennius are found with English translation in the first two volumes of E.H. Warmington’s Remains of Old Latin (1935; 1936), in addition to separate editions of these authors. (Ennius has now been re-edited in the Loeb Classical Library by S.M. Goldberg and G. Manuwald, 2018.) For the fragments of the fabula togata, I.H. Neukirch (1833) produced an early edition, attached to the study of that dramatic genre. More recently, the fragments have been edited by A. Daviault (1981) with a French translation (critical reviews by A.S. Gratwick, Gnomon 54, 1982, 725–33; H.D. Jocelyn, CR 32, 1982, 154–7), by A. López López (1983) with a Spanish translation, and by T. Guardì (1985) with an Italian translation. The fragments of the fabula Atellana have been edited, with an Italian translation and notes, by D. Romano (1953; critical review by O. Skutsch, Gnomon 26, 1954, 57–9) and P. Frassinetti (1967; somewhat critical review by A.S. Gratwick, CR 20, 1970, 34–6). The texts of the mimus have been edited by M. Bonaria (1965). C. Panayotakis (2010) has produced a critical edition of the fragments of the mimographer Decimus Laberius; this comprehensive work, with translation and commentary, now serves as an introduction to the poet and the dramatic genre. The other mimographer, Publilius Syrus, is best known for the sententiae attributed to him; these can be found in the edition (with a translation into German) of H. Beckby (1969). V. Rotolo (1957) edited the fragments of the pantomimus as the second part of a study on the genre. An anthology of key testimonia in the original language

Roman Comedy

19

and in an English translation appears as an appendix to the volume edited by E. Hall and R. Wyles (2008, 378–419). 4

Surveys and Reference Works

Because fabulae palliatae have long been a standard element of school and university curricula, there are a number of accessible introductions to them in several modern European languages, in addition to relevant entries in literary histories (e.g. Gratwick in Kenney and Clausen 1982; sections in Conte 1994; entries in Harrison 2005). Introductory overviews of ancient or Roman comedy in English include those of W.G. Arnott (1975), F.H. Sandbach (1977), R.L. Hunter (1985), N.J. Lowe (2008), and T.J. Moore (2012b). The collections edited by E. Lefèvre (1973) and E. Segal (2001) gather reprints of important articles on Plautus and Terence and thus offer insight into what were regarded as key questions or landmark studies in different periods; they include contributions on the relationship to Greek models, comic language, plot construction, interaction with the audience, and metatheatre. M. Bieber (1961) offers an illustrated overview of the development of Greek and Roman theatre from an archaeological perspective. H. Denard (2007) attempts to survey ‘lost theatre and performance traditions’. Modern introductions to ancient theatre and comedy in other languages include the German books of G. Maurach (2005), charting the history of ancient comedy, and B. Seidensticker (2010), covering theatre organisation in Greece and Rome; the French introductions to Roman theatre of P. Grimal (1975) and F. Dupont and P. Letessier (2011); and the Italian surveys of Roman theatre of E. Paratore (1957), G. Petrone (1992), and G. Chiarini (2004). In Spanish, C. González Vázquez (2004; 2016) produced ‘dictionaries’ of the Roman theatre and of the characters of ancient comedy, where information on all relevant aspects within these fields is organised in alphabetical entries. On a different scale (again in English) is G.E. Duckworth’s The Nature of Roman Comedy. A Study in Popular Entertainment (1952; re-issued 1994). This book goes beyond an introductory volume and includes detailed discussion of Greek and Italian forerunners of Roman fabula palliata; staging; themes and characters; methods of composition; style, language, and metre; and reception. It thus anticipates many themes studied more extensively in recent scholarship and is still a much-used reference work. Another book that takes a comprehensive approach, though of a different kind, is J. Wright’s Dancing in Chains: The Stylistic Unity of the Comoedia Palliata (1974): this is the only monograph surveying all the main known palliata poets, not just those whose

20

Manuwald

plays survive in full. Wright argues that there is a coherent tradition for almost all palliata poets, from which Terence deviates; this theory has been supported by some scholars and refuted by others (see Section 5.8). Some overviews and handbooks cover all varieties of Roman drama as well as performance contexts in the Republican period; since in the history of scholarship there has been less interest in types of comedy other than fabula palliata, there are fewer studies dealing with aspects relating to those genres. A long-standing reference work, covering the development of drama in Italy, the major dramatic genres and playwrights, and performance conventions is W. Beare’s The Roman Stage (3rd ed., 1964), although it is now out of date in some of its approaches. A more recent volume, with similar coverage and more emphasis on the fragmentary playwrights and their texts, is G. Manuwald’s Roman Republican Theatre (2011). Detailed overviews of all comic genres from a literary point of view appear in a volume on Roman drama (in German) edited by E. Lefèvre (1978). It includes an article by J. Blänsdorf (1978a) on the context of Roman drama, discussing preliterary forms that influenced literary versions, Rome’s interaction with Greece, audiences in Rome, and the organisation of the theatre business. Research on all authors of the Roman Republican period has been facilitated by the publication of the first volume of Handbuch der Lateinischen Literatur der Antike, edited by W. Suerbaum (2001). Its individual entries for each literary genre and author provide detailed information on the biography, output, and characteristics of individuals, along with extensive references to testimonia and bibliography. As in other areas of classical scholarship, there has been an increase in the number of companions and handbooks available for Roman comedy; such works assemble contributions from a range of experts on key themes and on developments in research. There is now a companion to Greek and Roman theatre edited by M. McDonald and J.M. Walton (2007), mainly dealing with performance and material aspects, and devoting more space to Greece; a companion to Terence edited by A. Augoustakis and A. Traill (2013); a companion to Roman comedy edited by M.T. Dinter (2019); and a companion to Plautus edited G.F. Franko and D. Dutsch (2020). The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, edited by M. Fontaine and A.C. Scafuro (2014), collects articles on individual playwrights, comic metre, language and style, performance context, and the transmission and reception of the main playwrights. A selection of sources (in English translation) on theatre organisation and performance is presented in E. Csapo and W.J. Slater’s The Context of Ancient Drama (1995). Some testimonia and an anthology of dramatic texts of various

Roman Comedy

21

genres (in the original and in English translation) appear in G. Manuwald’s Roman Drama: A Reader (2010). 5

Fabula palliata

Fabula palliata is the best-documented and best-represented Roman comic genre: a number of plays by Plautus and Terence are fully extant, and a substantial amount of fragments from other writers and of testimonia survives. What has been preserved includes twenty-one (more or less complete) comedies by Plautus (Amphitruo, Asinaria, Aulularia, Bacchides, Captivi, Casina, Cistellaria, Curculio, Epidicus, Menaechmi, Mercator, Miles gloriosus, Mostellaria, Persa, Poenulus, Pseudolus, Rudens, Stichus, Trinummus, Truculentus, Vidularia) and six comedies by Terence (Andria, Heautontimorumenos, Eunuchus, Phormio, Hecyra, Adelphoe). This dramatic form was called comoedia by Republican playwrights; under the influence of ancient grammarians it came to be known as fabula palliata, to distinguish it from other types of comic drama that had established themselves at Rome (see Section 1). The term palliata with reference to drama is first attested in the writings of the polymath Varro in the first century BCE (Varro, F 306 Funaioli, ap. Diom. Ars 3, Gramm. Lat. 1, p. 489.18), where it is applied to all (serious and light) varieties of dramas of Greek type. In the works of late-antique grammarians and commentators the term refers to Greek-style comedy. Roman comedies of the fabula palliata type are based on plays of Greek New Comedy, i.e., dramas set in a domestic environment and written by playwrights such as Menander, Diphilus, Philemon, Poseidippus, Apollodorus, and Alexis. In addition, Republican playwrights in Rome must have been influenced by domestic performance traditions, such as Etruscan spectacles of dance and music or Italic farcical and impromptu shows (the relevance of the latter is emphasised by scholars associated with the ‘Freiburg school’: see Section 5.1). From comments, particularly in extant prologues, by Roman playwrights, it can be inferred that there was an unwritten convention only to touch Greek plays or scenes of Greek plays for transposition into Latin and to present the result as a ‘new comedy’ when no other Roman playwright had previously used them (e.g. Ter. Haut. 7; Eun. 25–34; Phorm. 24–9; Hec. 1–8; Ad. 6–14; on Terence and ‘plagiarism’, see McGill 2012, 115–45). Because of the essential sameness of comic plots, it was possible to include individual scenes from other plays in the Latin version of the main model (Ter. An. 9–21; Haut. 16–21). This process has

22

Manuwald

become known as contaminatio in modern scholarship, a term developed from the verb contaminare used in Terence (Ter. Haut. 17). Since the early playwrights were not native Romans, but rather came from other areas of Italy and from the Mediterranean more widely, where they would have been in touch with Greek and other contemporary cultures, they were in a good position to transpose Greek comedies into Latin versions. According to ancient tradition, fabula palliata was introduced to Rome by her first poet, L. Livius Andronicus (c. 280/70–200 BCE), in about 240 BCE (e.g. Cassiod. Chron., p. 128 MGH AA 11.2 [on 239 BCE]; Lib. gloss. 1.7; 2.11). The dates of the known poets suggest that the genre flourished until the late second century BCE. There were then revival performances of successful plays from the middle of the second century BCE. The didascaliae to Terence’s comedies point to repeat performances of some of these plays a few decades after the first performances, and the extant prologue to Plautus’ Casina dates to a revival about a generation after the original performance (Plaut. Cas. 5–20). Comments in Cicero indicate performances in his time of Plautus’ Pseudolus (Cic. Q Rosc. 20), Caecilius Statius’ Synephebi (Cic. Rosc. Am. 47), Terence’s Adelphoe (Cic. Sen. 65), and Turpilius’ Demiurgus (Cic. Fam. 9.22.1). Although there are numerous variations and deviations, the majority of palliata comedies are based on a standard plot: they typically involve a young man in love with a young woman, who is in the possession of a pimp and / or desired by rivals. Therefore, the young man needs finances to secure the woman for himself; he is assisted by a clever slave in developing an intrigue to achieve that goal. These initiatives have to be kept secret from the father of the young man, because he would not approve of a relationship between his son and a woman of unsuitable status and / or because he might have other marriage plans for his son. It is often discovered at the right moment that the young woman is the (lost) daughter of a citizen, which makes a proper marriage with the parents’ approval possible and leads to a happy ending. This typical plot structure encourages the presentation of certain topics. Plays explore the relationship between family members, between different generations, and between men and women; in addition, they may address the role of slaves or questions of education. Social issues and political problems can be alluded to, such as the consequences of war, the treatment of conquered peoples and foreigners, encounters between different ethnic groups, the position of soldiers, and aspects of agrarian and mercantile economies. There is a religious dimension, in that the plays were performed in the context of a festival in honour of a deity and include references to gods and myths (Dunsch 2009; see Section 2.1).

Roman Comedy

23

In the early period, the beginning of a performance was announced by a herald (e.g. Plaut. Poen. 1–15), and the end was marked by a brief address to the audience by one of the actors or the group of actors, asking for the spectators’ applause (e.g. Plaut. Amph. 1146; Asin. 947; Curc. 729; Poen. 1422; Hor. Ars P. 154–5). As for their internal structure, fabulae palliatae did not adopt the Greek model of acts separated by choral odes: Roman comedies usually do not have a chorus, and there are no act-divisions marked by choral interludes. Instead, divisions between scenes are indicated by entrances and / or exits of characters and / or by an alternation of dialogue and monologue. Throughout, it was vital to retain the audience’s attention. Ancient scholars connected features like the elimination of choral interludes and the increase in stage action to the aim of maintaining suspense (Donat. on Ter. Ad., praef. 1.4*; Eun., praef. 1.5*; Euanth. Fab. 3.1). While in fabula palliata the overall Greek setting was kept, Latin playwrights selected plays that would be of interest to Roman audiences and adapted them in ways that would make them comprehensible: such interventions range from replacing the names of Greek institutions, magistracies, and places by the corresponding Roman ones (e.g. Plaut. Capt. 90; 489; 877b–85a; Ter. Eun. 255–9) to explaining customs common in Greece, but not in Rome (e.g. Plaut. Cas. 68– 78; Stich. 446–8a). These elements of ‘Romanisation’ within a Greek framework created a hybrid, fantasy world, yet one that addressed themes and modes of behaviour relevant for the life of Roman audiences (Blänsdorf 1983). It has been suggested that the movement towards a more serious form of comedy from the second century BCE onwards led to the decline of this dramatic genre at the end of the Republican period, since it then no longer met the demands of diverse audiences (Pociña Pérez 1996b; see also Goldberg 1993). 5.1 Themes I: Greek Intertexts, ‘Translation’, and Improvisation While it is clear, mainly from references in prologues, that Plautus and Terence consciously (and explicitly) adapted Greek plays for the Roman stage, the nature and effect of this process have long been major topics in scholarship. The question became connected with a search for ‘lost Greek originals’, since it used to be thought that the Roman plays enable inferences about the plots and messages of the lost Greek plays that form the basis for the works of Roman playwrights. Discussions of the relationship between Greek and Roman comedies have been influenced by scholarly views on the creativity, originality, and abilities of Roman playwrights and of Plautus in particular, the role of domestic dramatic traditions, and the interests of Roman audiences.

24

Manuwald

Because of the limited material available, scholars have often based comparisons between the Latin versions and the underlying Greek sources on assumptions about Greek and Roman plays: logical plots, a subtle and humane tone, and morally edifying messages were posited as characteristics of Greek comedies. Some critics assumed that Plautus was not concerned with efficient and internally consistent plot-construction; therefore, passages containing farcical humour, conversations not advancing the action, bantering slaves, or similar characteristics were thought to originate with Plautus, who focused primarily on the comic impact of individual scenes. Such views gave rise to discussions of whether Roman playwrights basically transposed the Greek models (often adding a few comic effects) or could be seen as more original poets. Early scholarship regarded Roman playwrights essentially as ‘translators’, sometimes even assuming that the ‘originals’ became worse in the transposition; an influential piece promoting that opinion was G. Jachmann’s article on Terence in RE (1934; also Jachmann 1931). An alternative view began to develop in the early twentieth century, prompted by the works of F. Leo (1912; 1913) and E. Fraenkel (1922; English translation 2007), who assigned a certain amount of individuality and originality to Plautus and granted that he was able to create his own plays on the basis of Greek models and native influences. W. Ludwig (1968) reviews and surveys the different tendencies in scholarship in an article on the range of scholarly views on Terence’s originality and independence; he suggests that Terence carefully selected models and adjusted them, but limited himself to minor adaptations of well-structured Greek models. This approach informs a strand of scholarship that tries to distinguish between ‘Roman’ and ‘Greek’ features in Latin plays. Thus K. Gaiser (1972) attempts to define what is characteristic of Plautus and Terence in relation to Greek models and to other Roman Republican playwrights. A. Traina (1974) analyses Roman comedies as poetic translations and studies them in comparison with models, alongside examples taken from other genres of Republican Roman poetry. E. Fantham (1977) also explores how Roman comedy adapts Greek models, while N. Zagagi (1980) shows for amatory motifs in Roman comedy that they, though adjusted to the Roman context, ultimately developed from Greek comedy; Zagagi is prepared, therefore, to assume a greater farcical element in Greek comedy than many scholars concede. In line with the assumption of greater independence from Greek models, scholars have stressed the influence of native traditions, especially farce and impromptu drama, and have even seen these as more important than the Greek tradition. This perspective is particularly evident in works produced in the context of the ‘Freiburg school’. E. Lefèvre, E. Stärk and G. Vogt-Spira

Roman Comedy

25

(1991), for instance, demonstrate for six selected plays that Plautus creatively exploited conventions of domestic unscripted drama and might not even have always followed a Greek model (see also contributions in Benz / Stärk / Vogt-Spira 1995). By contrast, in a series of systematic studies of Plautus’ plays, O. Zwierlein (1990–1992) argues that they were initially fairly faithful to their Greek models and that the original text of Plautus was heavily interpolated within antiquity, which created the deviations from the assumed structure of Greek New Comedy. He thus explains some open threads or jokes unnecessary for the plot as the result of interpolation, whereas the ‘Freiburg school’ sees these as characteristics of Plautus’ Romanisation of Greek models and his reuse of conventions of impromptu drama. The significance of improvisation, or rather the appearance of improvised drama, to Plautine plot construction has also been noted by other scholars – for instance, in studies of performance (e.g. Slater 1985; Barsby 1995; Marshall 2006, 245–79). Nowadays, more evidence is available as a basis for conclusions on the relationship between Greek and Roman comedy. The most telling document is a papyrus fragment discovered and identified only in the twentieth century, which contains a Greek text that must come from Menander’s Dis exapaton (P.Oxy. LXIV 4407); this can be compared with a passage from Plautus’ Bacchides (Plaut. Bacch. 494–562), which is Plautus’ version of that section of the play. E. Handley (1968) and then D. Bain (1979) compare the passages, discuss the implications of such a juxtaposition, and highlight Plautine features, thus confirming earlier theories on Plautus’ methods of composition put forward without access to sufficient comparative material. The comparison of the two extracts shows that the manner of transposition cannot be described in a simple and straightforward way, but rather turns out to be multi-layered: Plautus can be shown to have followed the sense and the main course of action as displayed in the Greek play, while he has changed the dramatic form, both on the micro-level of language and metre and on the macro-level of the organisation of scenes. For instance, the style appears more pompous and burlesque; common names have been altered to speaking names on the basis of Greek words (e.g. the slave’s name Syros has been turned into Chrysalus); the act-break and the choral interlude have been removed, in line with the conventions of Roman drama; and some scenes and speeches have been omitted, while others have been enlarged and / or have been given a different position. As a result, suspense is prolonged, dramatic irony is exploited further, and moral aspects are underlined. On the whole, the sequence is more effective theatrically: there is play on dramatic conventions, and a discussion of the nature of friendship is added, full of dramatic irony.

26

Manuwald

That all these elements can be observed in the space of a fairly brief passage indicates that Plautus was capable of employing a range of approaches to transposition, with different degrees of deviation, and that he could choose and rapidly switch between them. The poet appears to have regarded his method of composition as creative and to have felt that it at least occasionally surpassed Greek paradigms, if what is put in the mouth of a scheming slave in another play can be interpreted as a general, metaliterary statement (Plaut. Mostell. 1149–51). Moreover, Terence seems to identify a method of rather free transposition for Plautus, as well as for Naevius and Ennius (Ter. An. 18–21). Also enabling comparison between a Roman and Greek play is a passage in Aulus Gellius (Gell. NA 2.23) where he quotes fragments of Caecilius Statius’ Plocium and the corresponding sections from Menander’s homonymous play. While the fragmentary nature of this example does not allow for assessment in all respects, it still provides another case study for actual comparison and illustrates the procedures of another Roman playwright (on the two versions of Plocium, see Riedweg 1993). Here too the Roman dramatist has kept the general plot, but has changed the style and the presentation of the characters. Thus one may infer that similar principles of transposition were employed by more than a single Roman playwright. Further, in view of the large number of Greek plays for Roman poets to choose from, it is generally agreed that the selection of appropriate pieces was the first step in a creative transposition of Greek plays (on the ancient reception of Menander, see Nervegna 2013; on Roman encounters with Menander, see Fantham 1984). These operations suggest that Roman poets adapted Greek plays not only according to the requirements of the Latin language and Roman dramatic conventions (i.e., they implemented the necessary technical and formal changes), but also according to the interests of contemporary audiences and the contexts of production. Since differences between the Greek and the Roman versions were already recognised by ancient writers such as Gellius (Gell. NA 2.23), and since Cicero considered the Latin versions of dramas as worth reading in their own right (Cic. Fin. 1.4–5; Acad. 1.10; Opt. gen. 18), it seems unlikely that they were understood to be mere verbatim translations. That the poets employed different strategies of transposition for different scenes or plays shows that they approached the composition of their comedies as independent poets. The long-standing discussion of the relationship between Roman comedies and the underlying Greek plays continues. Yet the issue has become less dominant in scholarship than it used to be. This development is the result of a more critical attitude towards the method of source criticism (especially when the sources are not or not fully extant), the evaluation of the Roman plays as works of literature in the form in which they survive, and the rise of interest

Roman Comedy

27

in a number of other aspects related to the plays. If the question is addressed in modern scholarship, it tends to be considered within more comprehensive frameworks, not only due to the shifting assessment of Roman playwrights. The transposition of Greek comedies, including the selection and adaptation of themes relevant to Roman audiences, is now seen as an element in the cultural interactions between the two peoples (see Gruen 1990; 1992; Vogt-Spira 1996; Feeney 2016) and included in broader discussions of translation and the relationship between Greek and Roman literature, based on modern translation theory and categories of intertextuality. E.S. Gruen (1990; 1992) has studied cultural interactions between Greece and Rome in Republican times and sees the Roman playwrights of that period operating in this context. He argues (1990, 124–57) that Plautus was aware of contemporary conditions and illuminated the tensions created by Roman interactions with the Greek world in his plays with respect to military, political, juridical, and cultural issues. D. Gilula (1989a) looks at the adaptation of Greek plays as an element of cultural transposition, which required adjustments to the specific organisation of the theatre business at Rome and the altered linguistic and cultural context. S. McElduff follows an earlier study on Terence (2004) with a general exploration of translation practices (2013), where she aims to define what Romans understood by ‘translation’ in comparison to modern western notions and views in previous scholarship. R. Danese (2002) surveys recent approaches and methodological issues in identifying and assessing the relationship between Roman plays and their models, warning against extreme and simplistic positions and calling for readers to consider the extant plays in their cultural context. J.W. Halporn (1993) provides an overview of earlier studies and argues against looking at Plautus as a reproduction of Menander. J. Barsby (2002) discusses Terence and his Greek models. S. Papaioannou (2010) highlights the inventiveness of Roman playwrights in appropriating Greek models, which turns the reconstruction of those Greek plays into an arduous task. In another contribution, Papaioannou (2015) calls for a re-examination of Menander’s role in the history of (New) Comedy and of the Roman poets’ relationship to the model of Menander and other Greek playwrights: she argues that Menander may not have been as typical as some scholars think and may have deliberately selected a particular type of language and clear style, facilitating his subsequent popularity, while Plautus may not have felt that it was a suitable model for his aims. 5.2 Themes II: Topicality While the organising magistrates and the commissioned playwrights are thought to have wished to present plays that would go down well with

28

Manuwald

audiences at festivals, it is less clear what turned plays into effective drama. Contributing factors might have included the number of jokes and their nature; the presentation of the characters; a play’s dramatic impressiveness; the force of individual scenes; a play’s overall message; or a combination of some or all of these. One element assumed to have been relevant is a play’s link to its contemporary situation, considered by scholars from two different angles: since the precise dates of the composition and the first performances of most comedies are unknown, texts are sometimes searched for possible references to contemporary events to support theories on dating; at the same time, potential references are interpreted as indications of issues important in the period of the first performance and as signs of successful adaptation by Roman playwrights. The question is made more complex because explicit references, especially critical ones, to living individuals in public life were discouraged on the Roman stage (on freedom of speech and the level of critical remarks in Roman comic dramatic genres, see Garelli 2015) and because, especially in fabula palliata, Greek and Roman elements are blurred, and potential specific references have to be excerpted from a fantasy world. In any case, Republican drama engaged with a range of topics relevant to contemporary society in one way or another. Plays present human relationships among immediate family members, neighbours, and friends, but also within the community at large, within government, or between representatives of different peoples. Even if significant questions are exemplified by characters detached from the real lives of audiences and situated in fictitious surroundings, both in plays based on Greek models and in those set in Roman contexts, the dramatic characters and actions can showcase exemplary paradigms. Cicero identifies characters in both tragedy and comedy as paradigmatic and as models for real-life individuals. And Plautus has a character say that comic poets teach, although he is self-consciously uncertain about the lasting effect (Plaut. Rud. 1249–53; see also Capt. 1033–4). M. Leigh (2004) situates Roman comedies in their age by examining the themes of selected plays; his study looks at Roman comedy in the light of history and Roman history in the light of comedy and shows that themes raised in the plays, such as the legal status of prisoners of war or the role of mercantile and agrarian economies, were relevant for society at the time. A forerunner to this study is the work by D. Konstan (1983): he discusses eight plays by Plautus and Terence and combines literary analysis with attention to contemporary social conditions. He argues that the plays address potentially disruptive tensions and tend to resolve them in ways affirming traditional values. Konstan then links the observed characteristics to the question of how far

Roman Comedy

29

the Saturnalian fantasy world of Roman comedy mirrors everyday life and is bound by its norms. Various other works have investigated the integration of various spheres of life into the structures and messages of palliata plays. The contributions in the volume edited by I. David and N. Lhostis (2016) and an article by P. Letessier (2017) explore the kinds of moral norms displayed in fabula palliata and the ways in which these are represented. E. Sergi (1997) analyses Plautus’ portrayal of the relationship of humans to food, animals, wealth, and other material objects. A. Wessels (2012) looks at the presentation of doctors in Plautus’ Menaechmi and its effect on the audience. A.C. Scafuro (1997) compares the settling of legal disputes in the Attic orators and in Greek and Roman New Comedy, as a way both to contribute to cultural studies and to define the Greek, Roman, and mixed elements in New Comedy. L. Pellecchi (2012; 2013) examines Plautus’ Rudens from the perspective of the role of law and shows that the juridical dimension is an important facet of the structure and literary texture of the play within its social setting. S. Lape (2017) considers the presentation and role of compassion, empathy, and violence within society, using the example of Terence’s Heautontimorumenos, where these issues are conspicuous. Finally, A. Richlin (2017) argues that slaves in Republican Rome went to the theatre and that palliata comedies addressed their living conditions as well as the political and social circumstances affecting them. It is therefore ever more apparent that fabulae palliatae are set in a Greek-inspired fantasy world (including some Romanisation), yet engage closely with the realities of everyday Roman life. Hence, they could present issues of direct relevance to contemporary audiences. 5.3 Form I: Dramatic Structures and Techniques Because complete examples of fabula palliata survive from Republican Rome, large-scale dramatic structure and techniques can be analysed for this genre. Overall, Roman fabulae palliatae consist of standard elements similar to those of other ancient dramas, such as prologues, monologues, and dialogues (though usually without a chorus). Monologues, as a structural format in which characters can reveal their feelings or plans, have been studied with respect to their thematic and dramatic functions, most recently by F. Stürner (2011 [Plautus]) and A. Mileo (2013 [Terence]). Scholars who examine prologues have been particularly interested in what the passages reveal about the playwrights’ attitudes to Greek plays; their principles of composition; standard plots and figures; conventions of the Roman stage; the relationship to the audience; expectations about the

30

Manuwald

composition of the audience; conversations about poetic principles among playwrights; the adoption of oratorical techniques; and Terence’s role and self-presentation within contemporary theatre business (Fabia 1888; Klose 1966; Gelhaus 1972; Goldberg 1983; Ehrmann 1985; Gilula 1989b; Slater 1992b; Lada-Richards 2004; McGill 2012, 115–45; Hurka 2013; Hollmann 2016). Prologues, but also other parts of the dramas, show that Roman playwrights were fully aware of the motifs of Greek comedy they adopted and played with the recurrent sameness of the conventions (Thierfelder 1936). Such conventions could be in place because most fabulae palliatae are based on similar plot structures, including complex intrigues by which some characters aim to gain an advantage over others; their typical strategies and functions in the dramas have been studied (Dieterle 1980). In this context, B. Victor (2012) argues that Terence’s penchant for rhetoric was so dominant that it can explain the structure of the plays and changes in relation to the Greek original. Prologues, with their discussions of the play to be performed, are examples of the metatheatrical dimension, i.e. of passages in which the illusion of the presentation of a self-contained story with its own set of rules is broken, and comments about the play and the performance are inserted. Such features are less intrusive in prologues, since these preliminary sections are separated from the actual plots, but they also appear, especially in Plautus, in the body of the plays. Obvious metatheatre is more prominent in comedy than in tragedy (on aspects of metatheatre in comedy, see Kraus 1934; Barchiesi 1969; Slater 1990; 1992a; Frangoulidis 1997; González Vázquez 2000; 2001; Knorr 2007; Gonçalves 2015). A particular group of metatheatrical comments consists of those reminding audiences that they are watching a play performed by actors, thus disrupting the dramatic illusion (Euanth. Fab. 3.8). A further aspect of metatheatre could be described as ‘improvisation in performance’: characters, typically scheming slaves, reflect upon their situation in front of the audience, acquaint the spectators with their problems in finding solutions, and announce further actions. F. Muecke (1986) describes the use of disguise in Plautus as an element of metatheatre. W. Görler (1973) observes that ancient playwrights did not create complete illusion and instead operated with certain fixed conventions, with which they expected audiences to be familiar, although this did not prevent empathy with the characters on stage. Related to metatheatre is performance, including an awareness of the importance of dramatic production and reflections in the texts of aspects of performance. Obvious examples of performative elements in the scripts appear when utterances of characters function as stage directions. For instance, characters onstage describe movements and gestures, announce the arrival of others, or declare their intention to leave in a certain direction or for the

Roman Comedy

31

purpose of conducting specific business. In performance, monologues and dialogues will have been accompanied by gestures, especially at moments of great emotion. Complex scenes sometimes include figures overhearing others and commenting in asides for the benefit of the spectators only; thoughts and deeds can be shared with audiences in monologues. The dramatic action may exhibit elements of (stylised) improvisation, bantering dialogue, role-playing, or a play within a play. While the impact of an ancient drama in performance can no longer be recovered, scholarship based on a performance approach recognises features of performance in the script and takes account of them in interpretation. This kind of research has gained prominence since the end of the twentieth century, when the focus shifted from analysing the scripts in relation to assumed Greek models and examining textual issues to looking at the plays holistically and realising that the script is just one item of what originally constituted the drama. A ground-breaking study for the performance approach to Roman comedy was that of N.W. Slater (1st ed.: 1985; 2nd ed.: 2000), appropriately entitled Plautus in Performance: it was the first work to analyse a selection of Plautine comedies systematically as performances. A bit later, T.J. Moore (1998a) studied the manipulation of the actor-audience relationship, a particular aspect of performance (on the practical elements of performance, see Marshall 2006). Another element of dramatic technique is the interaction with other dramatic genres. From Plautus onwards there was specialisation among Roman playwrights, in the sense that each of them focused on serious or light drama exclusively (rather than being versatile and cultivating both forms, like the pioneers). Yet poets remained aware of developments in other dramatic genres and could fuse characteristics of more than one genre into a single play for serious or humorous purposes. The most inventive Roman dramatist with respect to cross-generic features is Plautus. Although he was the first Roman playwright to concentrate on a single dramatic genre, he included numerous comments on and elements of tragedy in his plays and even wrote a piece (Amphitruo) he described as ‘tragicomedy’ (on Plautus’ tragicomedy, see e.g. Moore 1995; Bond 1999; Schmidt 2003). The prologue to Plautus’ Poenulus starts by implying that a tragedy is about to be performed and reveals only at the end of the fourth line that it is a joke and that the play is going to be a comedy (Plaut. Poen. 1–4). In Captivi, Plautus assures the audience that, although the plot and the setting are slightly unusual for New Comedy, battles, appropriate for tragedy, will not feature (Plaut. Capt. 55–62; 1029–36). While in these cases Plautus plays with the notion that the comedy might turn into a tragedy and then announces the contrary, in other contexts he inserts into comedies brief passages

32

Manuwald

reminiscent of tragedy, which stand out as ‘paratragedy’ (on paratragedy, see Bianco 2007; on the uses of tragic elements in Plautine comedy, see Delignon 2011). ‘Paratragedy’ is linked to parody. Yet parody more obviously ridicules its object and is not limited in Plautus to tragedy. There are examples of parody of other aspects of literature and of public life in Plautus’ plays (Blänsdorf 1993; 1996; Cèbe 1966). The sophisticated presence of such features in dramatic performances indicates that playwrights were self-aware and highly accomplished in employing these techniques, and that they expected audiences to engage with them. 5.4 Form II: Stock Characters Fabula palliata is characterised by the presence of a number of stock characters, as recognised already by Roman playwrights (e.g. Plaut. Amph. 50–63; Capt. 55–62; Capt. 1029–36; Ter. Haut. 37–40; Eun. 35–41). These characters include the young man in love, the harsh father, the cunning slave, the rich and stupid soldier, the matron, and the courtesan. Despite the continued reappearance of the same groups of stock figures, there is considerable variety in their characterisation and their specific roles in the plots. Scholars have explored a number of these stock characters individually and looked at consistent and varying characteristics, as well as at their roles within the plots and the relationship to their positions in contemporary society. These characters include slaves (McCarthy 2000; McCarthy in Boyle 2004; Stewart 2012; Richlin 2017); courtesans (Auhagen 2009; on women and gender issues more broadly, see Rei 1998; contributions in Dutsch / James / Konstan 2015); cooks (Lowe 1985); and parasites (Lowe 1989; Antonsen-Resch 2004). J.C.B. Lowe (2009) shows that the running-slave routine is a convention developed by Roman playwrights, probably influenced by Italian improvised drama, while E. Csapo (1989) highlights the Greek roots of the feature. Lowe (1985) also demonstrates that Plautine cooks combine Greek and Italian traditions and represent a new literary creation introduced for the purposes of the plot and for generating effective scenes. Recently, character types have been studied not only as literary elements with respect to their roles in the plot and their status in Greek and Roman traditions, but also as reflections of the contemporary historical, social and cultural context. R. Stewart (2012) looks at how Plautus’ plays engage with contemporary discourse on slaves, illustrating social relationships and the position of slaves. A. Richlin (2017) argues that Plautine comedy can be regarded as ‘slave theatre’, in that the experiences of slaves on and off the stage are an important factor determining the structure and effect of the plays. Beyond slave characters, D. Dutsch (2012) explores how the non-realised threats of suicide

Roman Comedy

33

by men and women in comedy, while a source of humour, reflect especially badly on the men, in that they show them to be unheroic, particularly in comparison with the use of the motif in serious drama. 5.5 Form III: Language and Style The language of Roman comedy has been explored from a variety of angles. Since the texts of fabulae palliatae present the most extensive corpus of Latin poetry from the late third and the second centuries BCE, they have been analysed from a linguistic perspective as examples of ‘early Latin’, to establish characteristics of the language of this period in comparison with classical Latin. With respect to the structure of the extant plays, language and style, like metre, have been scrutinised to establish patterns of composition and as an aid for solving textual problems. More recently, language and style have been studied with respect to the broader questions of how they characterise speakers, demonstrate the plays’ poetic character, illustrate the learning of poets, and contribute to marking structural elements. While all Republican comic playwrights employ a variety of ‘early Latin’ and use a refined form of colloquial language to represent conversations between ordinary people, small differences in linguistic level, choice of vocabulary, and stylistic shape can be observed between the different comic genres and between playwrights active in the same dramatic genre. Cicero records that people recognised individual styles of playwrights of a single dramatic genre and had different preferences (Cic. Orat. 36). Extant lines and plays corroborate distinctive styles of individual poets. For instance, Terence’s language tends to be more restrained than that of his predecessors in the genre of fabula palliata (e.g. less alliteration and assonance, fewer bold similes, allusions, digressions, neologisms, and comic long words) and was therefore praised as ‘pure’ (Suet. / Donat. Vita Ter. 7). In fabula palliata, the only dramatic genre for which there is a sufficient number of lines clearly attributed to individual speakers, basic linguistic differentiations can be observed, for instance, between male and female speakers. Such differentiating qualities of language use are receiving increased interest from literary scholars (e.g. Dutsch 2008). H. Haffter (1934) describes characteristic features of ‘early Latin’ poetic language, while J. Blänsdorf (1967) studies ‘archaic’ structures of argumentation. M.P. Schmude (1988) identifies different forms and structures of verbal arguments and quarrels, depending on the role of the opposing characters and the preferred style of the playwright. Since comedy consists of informal spoken dialogue, it has been investigated as a potential source of information about colloquial Latin, for which, obviously, there are hardly any records (see e.g. Bagordo 2001). Thus R. Müller (1997) and P. Barrios-Lech (2016) apply modern

34

Manuwald

sociolinguistic studies and explore the use of standard markers of conversation within the literary context of comedy, such as ways to make requests, to ask questions, to gain attention, or to strengthen or soften a remark. They demonstrate how common elements of spoken language, as they can be inferred, have been adapted, and how linguistic variation characterises the various figures and their relationship to their interlocutors. The use and function of specific words in the works of particular playwrights is analysed by H. Perdicoyianni-Paléologou (2013) and G. Pezzini (2015). A broader discussion of the status of Terence in the history of fabula palliata, begun by J. Wright (1974), includes the topic of language, because Wright argued inter alia that Terence’s plays are stylistically distinct from the mainstream tradition of the fabula palliata, togata, and Atellana, as represented by Plautus and the fragmentary playwrights. In a linguistic study, E. Karakasis (2005) supports and reinforces this view. The modern appreciation of Roman playwrights as educated poets rather than as mere ‘translators’ has had an effect on linguistically oriented studies or led to the combination of linguistic and literary criticism. In a study of jokes, puns, and other forms of wordplay, M. Fontaine (2009) describes the kinds of humour found in the plays and notes that some are designed for Roman audiences to recognise Greek and Latin etymologies. A similar approach characterises more recent studies of the use of Greek words in Plautus, some of which demonstrate a sophisticated insertion of such terms intended for an educated public (Maltby 1995; Zagagi 2012). The assumption of learned poets underlies the analysis of rhetorical features in Roman comedy. F. Iurescia (2016) describes the application of rhetorical techniques of persuasion, with an eye to provoking negative emotions. B. Dunsch (2015) explores ways of using rhetorical strategies to irritate and unsettle an interlocutor, mainly in the context of intrigues to support deceit. Connected with recent interest in the study of emotions is the work of R.R. Caston (2016), on ways of expressing joy in Roman comedy, its potential juxtaposition with sorrow and pain, and its role in the plot and the depiction of social interaction. Other elements of the plays’ linguistic and dramatic structure have been studied individually. For instance, a volume on the dramatic ploy of asides (David 2014; Filoche 2014; Letessier 2014) includes contributions on Roman comedy, dealing with the definition, identification, notation, and versions of this feature. Those studies build on the earlier investigation of D. Bain (1977). Beyond the spoken word, C. Panayotakis (2005b) analyses non-verbal communication as another way of conveying meaning to other characters and audiences. S.A. Jeppesen (2015) notes that there are no explicit lexical obscenities

Roman Comedy

35

in the texts of Plautus, but argues that there must have been suggestive gestures; he assumes that such aspects offered relaxation in a carnival atmosphere to a society confronted by military pressures. 5.6 Form IV: Metre and Music In its metre and music Roman comedy differs from the corresponding Greek dramatic form. Roman comedies usually do not have a chorus, and there are no choral interludes between separate acts, which turns the action into a continuous performance. Instead of choral songs, a large proportion of the actors’ utterances take the form of what might be called monodies, recitatives, or arias in modern terminology, i.e., words are not spoken, but rather delivered to musical accompaniment. While the music (contributed by professional musicians; see Section 2.4) has been lost, the distribution of metres points to the musical structure, especially in the case of the completely preserved texts of fabulae palliatae. Only lines in iambic senarii, seen by ancient authorities as the metre closest to ordinary speech, would be spoken (e.g. Cic. Orat. 184; Hor. Ars P. 79– 82; Sat. 1.4.45–62). The iambic senarius differs from the corresponding Greek trimeter by allowing more resolutions, so that in principle every metrical position except the penultimate can consist of one long or two short syllables (Hor. Ars P. 251–62). All other metres would be accompanied. ‘Sung’ parts can consist of longer iambic or trochaic verses, such as trochaic septenarius (versus quadratus), iambic septenarius (comicus quadratus), trochaic octonarius, and iambic octonarius, as well as various other metres, including lyric ones, such as anapaest, cretic, and bacchiac. The key distinction is therefore between ‘unaccompanied’ and ‘accompanied’, i.e., whether lines were spoken or recited to music by the piper (tibicen). In the terminology of later scholars and also in manuscripts of Plautus and Terence, there is a distinction between ‘spoken / unaccompanied part’ (DV: diverbium) and ‘sung / accompanied part’ (C: canticum), while cantica employing various types of melody and rhythm might be marked as ‘arias with changing rhythm / polymetric songs’ (MMC: mutatis modis cantica). The ‘sung’ or accompanied parts can be either stichic or polymetric; the latter tend to be rhythmically more complex. The proportions of the different metres vary; in many plays less than half of the text would be spoken. Plautus, who was famous for his ‘countless rhythms’ (numeri innumeri: Gell. NA 1.24.3), employed the widest variety of metres and the largest amount of accompanied sections among those poets from whom a sizable number of verses remain. Metrical analysis reveals common patterns in the distribution of metres across plays, often also in relation to the different stock characters. The most common accompanied metre is the trochaic septenarius; any change to the

36

Manuwald

spoken metre of the iambic senarius or other accompanied metres is marked. In particular, prologues tend to be in spoken metre, presumably to ensure that the majority of the audience understands the essential information. Units can be set off from each other by changes from accompanied to unaccompanied or vice versa; musical parallels can highlight similar or contrasting moments in the plot. Individual figures or actions may be associated with particular metrical shapes; the characters of women and young men tend to have more lines accompanied by music. The role and the distribution of music in Roman drama have not received much interest from scholars until recently, probably because of the unexpressed view that most of it has been lost and little can be said, or because it was only recognised as an important area when scholarship stopped focusing on the texts and considered dramatic performances more holistically. Music in Roman drama has now been explored by T.J. Moore in a series of articles on individual aspects (Moore 1998b; 1999; 2007; 2008) and in a book on the topic (Moore 2012a; see also Moore’s website: http://romancomedy.wulib.wustl. edu). Moore demonstrates that playwrights use the alternation of spoken passages (in iambic senarii) and those accompanied by music as one of the means of structuring plays. Absence of music can help to highlight important information or particularly emotional situations; repetition of musical structures may lead to the establishment of ‘character tunes’ or mark recurrent patterns in the plot. The metre of Roman comedy has long been investigated, originally in order to identify principles of metrical structure and as an aid to solving textual problems, and more recently to establish patterns and to explore metre as a means of expression. A standard reference work on the notoriously flexible early Latin verse is W.M. Lindsay’s book on early Latin verse (1922). In the twentieth century, the metre and the rhythm of the plays of Plautus and Terence, including the cantica, have been studied particularly by C. Questa, with an introduction to Plautine metre (1967), an edition of the cantica with metrical analysis (1995), and discussions mainly of cantica and studies of their transmission (1984; 2007). B.W. Fortson (2008) now combines approaches drawn from various aspects of linguistics and applies them to the investigation of metrics and prosody in his analysis of Plautine metre. 5.7 Authors I: Plautus Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 250–184 BCE) was the first Roman playwright to concentrate on a single dramatic genre; he is the earliest Roman dramatist from whom complete plays exist and the Roman writer with the greatest number of extant dramas. Thus, it is only from Plautus onwards that a more specific

Roman Comedy

37

notion of fabula palliata emerges, although it is assumed that Plautus developed features found in Naevius, and it is recognised that the characteristics of an individual representative cannot necessarily be regarded as standard elements of the genre. Plautus’ main period of activity falls in the time of and just after the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE; cf. Gell. NA 17.21.46–7), although only few of the extant dramas can be dated precisely. Plautus was a prolific poet; additionally, many plays were later attributed to him. Because of uncertainties over the authorship of comedies circulating under his name, Plautus became an object of scholarly discussion early on, when ancient critics tried to distinguish genuine from spurious plays. Various attempts were made until in the first century BCE Varro identified a core of 21 comedies that were generally accepted as genuine (Gell. NA 3.3). It is virtually certain that the extant 21 (almost complete) Plautine comedies are the fabulae Varronianae. In addition to these 21 comedies, 34 further titles with 88 fragments and another 82 fragments from unknown comedies attributed to Plautus survive. Although Plautus developed a distinctive style, the starting point for his plays were works of Greek New Comedy by poets such as Menander, Diphilus, and Philemon, and perhaps occasionally works of Middle Comedy (Hunter 1987). In some prologues, Plautus has the speaker identify the author and / or title of the underlying Greek play and sometimes note that Plautus turned the play into ‘Latin’ (Plaut. Cas. 31–4; Poen. 53–4) or ‘barbarian’ (Plaut. Asin. 11; Trin. 19). The extent, character, and effect of Plautus’ adaptation of Greek plays for the Roman stage have long been major topics in Plautine scholarship (see Section 5.1). Important works in this area include those of F. Leo (1912; 1913), E. Fraenkel (1922; English translation 2007), D. Wiles (1988), E. Lefèvre, E. Stärk, and G. Vogt-Spira (1991), W.S. Anderson (1993), and R.M. Danese (2002). The question is connected to the issue of the development of the text during the early period of Plautine revival (on this period, see Mattingly 1957; 1960) and to the potential for so-called actors’ interpolations from different periods to enter the transmission (see Deufert 2002). Over the last few decades, the perspective has shifted: scholars are increasingly looking at Roman plays in their transmitted form and aiming to identify typical characteristics of Plautus and / or Roman comedy without a specific emphasis on source criticism. In line with this modified approach, Plautus’ comedies are more and more seen as a type of Roman poetry in their own right and as multi-faceted texts engaging in a creative dialogue with contemporary intellectual and cultural issues, as well as with the Hellenistic tradition. Already a few decades ago, G. Gasparro (1973) noted that contemporary Anglo-Saxon scholarship had moved away from a perspective focused on comparing Roman

38

Manuwald

comedies to their supposed Greek originals, promoted mainly by German scholars, and that this approach accepted the plays in their surviving form and introduced other questions into the discussion; at that point, though, this critical approach was only just developing. Plautus’ plays are characterised by drastic and vivid comic effects, linguistic exuberance and inventiveness, and metrical variety (see Sections 5.5; 5.6). In the construction of the plot, the distribution of information is tightly controlled, and (seemingly) unexpected turns and additional twists happen at the right time and are put to clever use. Such features indicate that Plautus did not transpose any plot according to a uniform method, but rather selected models and adapted them according to his own poetic agenda for a particular play. This procedure implies that he did not create scenes and characters only for the benefit of their immediate comic effect without considering the coherence of the plot. Plautus’ awareness of the creative process of bringing a drama on stage and its existence as a performed construct is further indicated by the deployment of metatheatrical elements, i.e., interruptions of the dramatic illusion, actors’ utterances that reveal their status as actors in a drama, play with or comment on standard comic conventions, and addresses to the audience outside of the prologues (see Section 5.3). The plots of Plautus’ comedies present conflicts arising from love affairs within society and comment on different forms of love, social customs, justice and punishment, morally correct behaviour, faithfulness, and loyalty. There are almost no direct topical statements, and it is hard to determine the playwright’s point of view. But the issues discussed are relevant to contemporary Roman society: for instance, references to appropriate behaviour towards foreigners, the importance of moral values, and the need to fulfil one’s duties reflect and respond to a time of war and expansion of the Roman empire. The contrast between stern morality and extravagant, debauched living, the criticism of luxury, and questions regarding education and ‘philosophical’ thought are appropriate to a period characterised by an influx of Greek culture. In order to display situations illustrating such themes on stage, Plautus exploited the freedom afforded by an imprecise and stylised Greek setting; he thus tackled serious issues within a comic framework. Overviews of scholarship appear in (older) bibliographies on Plautus, with different levels of coverage and detail: M. Barchiesi (1957) (on trends and developments in Plautine scholarship); J.A. Hanson (1965/6) (on the period since 1950); W.A. Laidlaw / M.M. Willcock / M. Coffey (1968) (on twentiethcentury scholarship); F. Bertini (1971) (on 1950–1970); J.D. Hughes (1975) (general); D. Fogazza (1976) [1978] (on 1935–1975); E. Segal (1981) (on 1965–1976);

Roman Comedy

39

and F. Bubel (1992) (on 1976–1989). Summaries of scholarship can also be found in the studies of K. Gaiser (1972), who aims to identify what is distinctive about Plautus (and Terence) in relation to Greek models and other Roman Republican playwrights, G. Gasparro (1973), W.G. Arnott (1975), and D. Wiles (1988). In addition to introductory works on (Greek and Roman) New Comedy, further introductions to Plautus come from G. Chiarini (1991), G.F. Franko (2001), and R. Raffaelli / C. Questa (2014; see also Raffaelli’s 2009 collection of some of his studies on Plautus). Recent edited volumes reveal issues that occupy contemporary scholarship: they include those of I.N. Perysinakis and E. Karakasis (2014) and of G.F. Franko and D. Dutsch (2020), which cover plot construction, language use, themes, stock characters, and reception. The view that Plautus’ plays are intended to entertain and are the product of sophisticated construction, with complex plot structures and exploitation of learned sources, is becoming more widespread; still, these aspects are often studied individually. W.G. Arnott (1977) considers Plautus primarily as an entertainer; G. Chiarini (1979), E. Segal (1987), and E. Lefèvre (1988) comment on the Saturnalian atmosphere underlying the plays; and G. Sander-Pieper (2007) tries to define what is ‘comic’ about Plautus, using the example of the play Menaechmi and exploring the kinds of methods deployed to create comic effects and their use in structuring the comedy. G. Petrone (1983) examines the elaborate structure of Plautine intrigues, looking at generic features, specific examples, and potential parallels in the works of other ancient dramatists. More recently, A. Sharrock (2009) investigates the comedies as texts that are artificial, often self-referential literary constructs. E. Gunderson (2015) analyses the mechanisms of various kinds of jokes and other features creating humour, with a focus on the plays’ social dimensions and the audience’s response. R.T. Gonçalves (2015) explores Plautus’ plays in relation to Sophistic philosophy and examines translation practice in archaic literature as a process depending upon the power of performance. 5.8 Authors II: Terence Publius Terentius Afer (c. 195/4–159 BCE) is the only Republican dramatist for whom there is an extant ancient biography (by Suetonius, transmitted by Donatus; available in Wessner 1902), whose output seems to have been preserved in its entirety, and for whom there are surviving production notices (didascaliae) containing information about the dates and occasions of the plays’ first performances and about the individuals involved. On the basis of the magistrates mentioned, the following chronology of the first performances of Terence’s six comedies can be established: Andria 166 (Ludi Megalenses);

40

Manuwald

Hecyra I 165 (Ludi Megalenses); Heautontimorumenos 163 (Ludi Megalenses); Eunuchus 161 (Ludi Megalenses); Phormio 161 (probably Ludi Romani); Hecyra II and Adelphoe 160 (Ludi funebres for L. Aemilius Paul(l)us); Hecyra III 160 BCE (Ludi Romani). The actor-manager Ambivius Turpio produced all six plays, and Flaccus, belonging to a Claudius, provided the music. Four of the six comedies (Andria, Heautontimorumenos, Eunuchus, Adelphoe) are based on plays of Menander, and the other two (Hecyra, Phormio) on those of Apollodorus of Carystus. According to the playwright himself, three plays exhibit contaminatio (i.e., scenes or characters from a second play have been included): Andria contains elements of Menander’s Perinthia; Eunuchus of Menander’s Colax; and Adelphoe of Diphilus’ Synapothneskontes (Ter. An. 9–14; Eun. 30–3a; Ad. 6–11). Terence’s plays lie within the standard framework of New Comedy. They are set in a private context; apart from characters going on business trips and running similar errands, there is little impact from the outside world. Issues raised consist of human problems, presented within a bourgeois environment. The plays cover a limited spectrum of experience: they focus on moral and emotional aspects of human relationships, particularly young people in love and the obstacles they are confronted with, their relationships to their parents, the challenges of growing up, and education. There are no fantastic incidents and far-fetched turns of the plot, and overtly ‘metatheatrical’ features in the body of the plays are reduced. Therefore, modern scholars tend to regard Terence as having pursued a more sober, ‘Hellenised’ style of comedy and as having avoided the comic exuberance and fantasy world of Plautus. The language in Terence’s comedies is more restrained than in those of his Roman predecessors (see Section 5.5). Metre and rhythm are closer to everyday speech, as there are fewer accompanied lines (see Section 5.6). B. Victor (2012; 2017) argues that Terence also stands out from his predecessors and Greek models because he avoids blurring indoor and outdoor spaces and privileges rhetorical features. In contrast to other Greek and Roman comic playwrights, who use prologues to provide an overview of the plot and the background story, Terence abandons expository prologues in the conventional sense (though Gowers 2004 argues that his prologues are not as detached as usually thought and rather indirectly indicate the plays’ plots and themes); he therefore moves the introduction of the characters and the explanation of the situation to the first few scenes (e.g. Lefèvre 1969). Instead of expository prologues, Terence has oratorical, literary prologues in which the speakers (like speakers for the defence in a trial; see Ter. Haut. 11–15; Hec. 9) defend the playwright’s poetic principles against allegations by unnamed opponents, who must be other dramatists and whose main representative is identified as Luscius Lanuvinus by ancient commentators (see Dér 1989; Stein 2003; on prologues see Section 5.3). The charges answered

Roman Comedy

41

cover a variety of areas, such as the use of inappropriate sources, weaknesses in composition and style, and a lack of poetic creativity. Terence’s dramatic principles, as they can be inferred from the prologues, contain the following elements: he insists that his comedies are new plays written independently from other Romans. In addition, he employs contaminatio and uses Greek models freely as it suits him; he requests more from poets than just translation, in line with his own independent treatment of Greek plays; and he seeks the creation of original meaningful and logical plots without unrealistic exaggeration. Terence is also aware of the significant role of stock figures in comedy and acknowledges their continued use; yet while he introduces what seem to be such stock figures, some of them are endowed with slightly unusual characteristics. Terence’s prologues are the first instances of literary criticism in Latin and are regularly adduced as evidence in discussions of the translation practices of Roman playwrights. Recently, S. McElduff (2004) has argued that literary translation did not mean literal translation in the Roman context, and that Terence, in line with Roman views of translation, aims to adapt and outdo his models. Since Terence did not immediately become as popular as Plautus, and since it took several attempts before his play Hecyra could be performed successfully in full (Ter. Hec. 1–57), he was long considered to be the playwright who was too Greek and too refined for Roman audiences and who did not produce to the same extent that Plautus did the kind of comedy that audiences liked. Yet some scholars have challenged this view, noting that the first performances of Hecyra failed not because the people watching the play did not like it or were not interested in it and therefore left, but rather because, as a result of a rumour, other people stormed in and disrupted the performance (Gilula 1978; 1981; Sandbach 1982), and that Terence’s Eunuchus was the most popular play ever in view of the payment received (Suet. / Donat. Vita Ter. 3; Donat. on Ter. Eun., praef. 1.6*). Moreover, Terence was in touch with noblemen and intellectuals of his period, to such an extent that he was accused of having received help from them in composing his plays; A. Umbrico (2010) reviews the key passages relevant to this controversy. Overall, Terence seems to have developed fabula palliata as established by his predecessors by creating particular characteristics for his plays (e.g. logical and straightforward plot construction, plausible character development beyond the presentation of stock figures, and few standard comic effects). Therefore, it might be problematic to say that Terence was the exception to a coherent palliata tradition without qualification (as argued by Wright 1974). It is still true, however, that although some of Terence’s comedies were popular, the ‘death of comedy’ (see the title of Goldberg 1993) happened a few decades

42

Manuwald

after Terence’s time, as the genre ceased to be productive at the end of the second century BCE. It has been suggested that Terence may have contributed to this development by creating a more serious form of comedy with less turbulent stage action; this may have been an element in reducing opportunities for the genre’s further evolution and modifications as a form attractive to Roman audiences (Goldberg 1993; see also Pociña 1996b). Overviews of scholarship appear in (older) bibliographies on Terence, offering different levels of detail and varying in their coverage: H. Marti (1961/3) (on 1909–1959); L. Perelli (1979) (on 1968–1978); S.M. Goldberg (1981) (on 1959– 1980); G. Cupaiuolo (1984, 1992b) (on 1470–1983); and M. Lentano (1997 / 1998) (on 1979–1993). Summaries of scholarship are also included in the studies of K. Gaiser (1972) and W.G. Arnott (1975). H. Juhnke (1978), W.E. Forehand (1985), T.J. Moore (2001), and P. Kruschwitz (2004) provide introductory overviews of Terentian comedy. The companion edited by A. Augoustakis and A. Traill (2013) offers a survey of key information on Terence and of the main topics of scholarly discussion. Seminal works for the interpretation of Terence’s comedies are those of K. Büchner (1974) and S.M. Goldberg (1986); the latter was one of the first to move away from source criticism and analyse the plays as dramas in their own right. H. Haffter (1953) and K. Gaiser (1972) aim to describe what is distinctive about Terence (and Plautus) in relation to Greek models and other Roman Republican playwrights. One feature is the so-called ‘duality method’, i.e., employing two situations or characters in parallel that influence each other and thus the plot (Norwood 1923, 145–147; Duckworth 1952, 184–90; Gilula 1991). G. Cupaiuolo (1991) studies the plays’ relationship to their social context. Recent monographs and collected volumes may apply modern literary theory to Terence’s comedies. The contributions to the special journal issue edited by A.J. Boyle (2004) look at the plays within their literary and cultural contexts and in their interaction with the contemporary world, re-examining issues such as the presentation of family relationships, economic and social issues, translation, plot construction, and the author’s self-presentation. The volume edited by P. Kruschwitz, W.-W. Ehlers, and F. Felgentreu (2007) brings together contributions on transmission, metre, music, language, and dramaturgy. The essays in the volume edited by S. Papaioannou (2014) explore how Terence engaged with previous and contemporary writers and literary traditions and how later (primarily, ancient) authors reacted to his comedies. R. Germany (2016) studies what he calls ‘mimetic contagion’ by reading a painting described in Terence’s Eunuchus as a figure for mimetic representation; Germany then discusses the phenomenon as a widespread discursive pattern, with particular focus on the second century BCE.

Roman Comedy

43

5.9 Authors III: ‘Minor Playwrights’ The major writers of fabula palliata (besides Plautus and Terence) who are known by name and for whom fragments and / or testimonia survive are L. Livius Andronicus, Cn. Naevius, Q. Ennius, Caecilius Statius, Luscius Lanuvinus, Sex. Turpilius, Licinius Imbrex, Atilius, and Trabea (for details on biography, output, testimonia and bibliography, see relevant entries in Suerbaum 2002; on Ennius, see also Suerbaum 2003). All these (apart from Livius Andronicus) are mentioned in Volcacius Sedigitus’ list of the ten best comic poets (Volcacius Sedigitus, F 1 FPL3 = 1 Funaioli, cf. Gell. NA 15.24). In his ranking, Volcacius Sedigitus puts Caecilius Statius (c. 230/20– 168/7 BCE) first. The playwright is also praised as a comic poet by Cicero (Cic. Opt. gen. 2), though his language is criticised (Cic. Brut. 258), and Quintilian reports that the ancients extolled Caecilius (Quint. Inst. 10.1.99). This early appreciation may be the reason why Caecilius is the best documented fragmentary palliata poet: 42 titles of comedies and almost 300 (partly incomplete) lines survive. Since Caecilius was active between Plautus and Terence, he is most often discussed with reference to his place in the development of Roman comedy (on this playwright, see Oppermann 1939a; 1939b; Wright 1974, 87–126; Riedweg 1993; Boscherini 1999). Caecilius seems to have mainly followed the Plautine tradition with regard to language and metre, such as the use of colourful phrasing, other linguistic effects, puns, and the application of metrical variety (see e.g. Boscherini 1999). In other respects, such as the selection of models, the choice of themes, and the engagement with the literary tradition, he looks forward to Terence. Most of the titles transmitted for Caecilius are attested in Greek New Comedy, especially among the works of Menander. Caecilius’ plays seem to have been based on the standard plot of the genre, but appear also to have included variations and deviations. For instance, Caecilius was apparently known for a specific type of comic father (Cic. Cael. 37–8; Quint. Inst. 11.1.39). In one of the fragments (from Synephebi), a son in love complains because his father does not offer him the opportunity of cheating him out of money (Caec. Pall. 199–209 R.3 = 189–99 W.) and thus of doing what young men in comedy usually do. In the same play, the common behaviour of a courtesan (meretrix) is reversed, because she does not want to take money from her lover (Caec. Pall. 213–4 R.3 = 203–4 W.). And in Caecilius’ play Fallacia. a character believes that he will be undone if he does not make haste and squander all his wealth (Caec. Pall. 46 R.3 = 42 W.), in contrast to what usually happens. Even before the discovery of new Menander texts on papyrus in the twentieth century, Caecilius’ techniques of transposition could be explored, and the style and character of sections of a play analysed, in comparison with

44

Manuwald

corresponding material in Menander: the antiquarian Gellius transmits extracts from Caecilius’ Plocium (‘Necklace’) along with the underlying verses from Menander’s version and comments on Caecilius’ adaptation of the model (Gell. NA 2.23; see Riedweg 1993; see Section 5.1). Since Gellius has selected extracts conducive to his argumentative aim, this material does not enable conclusions about the play as a whole. (With regard to Caecilius’ overall dramatic structure, it is noteworthy that another ancient scholar, Varro, reports that he excelled through the dramatic quality of his plots [Varro, Sat. Men. 399 B.].) While Gellius’ views (largely critical of the way in which Caecilius has adjusted and modified the Greek version) are an interesting document of reception, they do not need to be regarded as authoritative. It is clear in any case that Caecilius has not only made linguistic, stylistic, and metrical changes, but has also created a different portrait of the characters and shifted the thematic focus: while the protagonists in the Latin version, such as the old man cheated out of a beautiful maidservant by his ugly wife, describe their situation in general terms, as in the Greek model, they outline their problems more drastically, consider the consequences of actions for themselves, are more conscious of their relationship to society, and express their feelings in a more personal manner. Such details might confirm another statement by Varro, namely that Caecilius was among the Roman comic playwrights who easily moved the emotions (Varro, F 40 Funaioli, ap. Charisius, Gramm. Lat. 1, p. 241.27–9). Despite this later appreciation of him, Caecilius apparently had difficulties in having his plays staged at the start of his career. At any rate, Terence has the prologue speaker in Hecyra, to be identified with the impresario Ambivius Turpio, say that what Terence is experiencing happened to Caecilius previously: his plays were driven off the stage at their first productions, but Ambivius Turpio encouraged and supported the poet and had his dramas staged again with success (Ter. Hec. 10–27). A section of one of Caecilius’ plays may be preserved on a papyrus found in Herculaneum; K. Kleve (1996; 2001) identifies a section of Caecilius’ Obolostates sive Faenerator (‘Usurer or Money-lender’) in PHerc. 78. This would be a unique situation for Roman comedy, since dramatic fragments are usually transmitted in the secondary tradition by means of quotations in the works of later authors. Subsequent to Kleve, however, scholars have expressed doubt about his readings and attribution and have been more cautious in the deciphering, identification, and interpretation of the papyrus text (see Carosi 2007; Calboli 2015). Luscius Lanuvinus mainly gets mentioned in discussions of Roman comedy and studies on Terence because ancient commentators on Terence (Donat. on Ter. An. 7[6]; Eun. 10[2]; Eugr. on Ter. An. prol.; Phorm. prol.; Phorm. 1; Haut.

Roman Comedy

45

22; Schol. on Ter. Eun. 4 [p. 95 Schlee]) identify him as the opponent who is referred to, but not named, in Terence’s prologues (Ter. An. 6–7; Haut. 22; Eun. 6–26; Phorm. 1; see Section 5.8). Since Luscius is not known from other sources, except for a mention in ninth place in Volcacius Sedigitus’ list, the impression of him is biased and negative. Luscius is likely to have been an older contemporary of Terence as a writer of palliatae (on this poet, see Garton 1972, 73–139, 294–302; Dér 1989; Suerbaum 2002). If Terence’s portrait has some truth to it, Luscius’ views on the appropriate way of transposing Greek plays into Latin versions and the best writing style differed from those of Terence. The controversy between the two playwrights indicates that poets at the time were reflecting on issues of composition, that different practices seem to have coexisted, and that it was assumed that audiences (at least some of them) were interested in such discussions. Cn. Naevius (c. 280/60–200 BCE) is prominently included in most surveys of (Republican) Roman literature because of his position among the pioneers of Latin literature, and he is featured in histories of Roman comedy because he is the first palliata poet of whom some characteristics can be inferred (as only scanty remains survive from his predecessor Livius Andronicus). He thus provides a point of comparison for later comic poets whose work survives, especially Plautus (for bibliography on Naevius, see Suerbaum 2000). Naevius not only produced comedies and tragedies by transposing Greek models, but also inaugurated the dramatic genre of fabula praetexta (Roman history plays) and composed an epic on a topic from Roman history, the First Punic War (Bellum Poenicum). Titles of about 35 comedies and about 140 (partly incomplete) comic verses survive. In antiquity, Naevius was mainly regarded as a writer of comedies (Gell. NA 15.24; Hieron. Ab Abr. 1816, 201 BCE [p. 135g Helm]). Naevius’ comedies take Greek New Comedy plays as their starting points. According to the prologue to Terence’s Eunuchus, Naevius’ Colax was based on Menander’s play of the same title (Ter. Eun. 23–34). The prologue to Terence’s Andria claims that Naevius (like Plautus and Ennius) was among the Roman playwrights who employed contaminatio (Ter. An. 15–21; see Section 5.8). The reference to the ‘carelessness’ (neglegentia) of Naevius, Plautus, and Ennius in the same context suggests a rather free treatment of Greek sources. The epitaph transmitted in Gellius presents Naevius as a ‘poet’ (poeta) who has close associations with the Muses and has elevated the Latin language to a more sophisticated level (Gell. NA 1.24.2: Naev. Var. 3–6 W.). A remarkable characteristic of Naevius’ poetry is the fact that he went beyond inserting isolated references to Roman elements (e.g. names of places or official roles), as other playwrights did, and seems to have aimed for topical

46

Manuwald

political effects. Specific allusions to contemporary events and figures, however, cannot be identified; therefore, the notion, widespread among scholars, of a politically outspoken (and partisan) Naevius, who enjoyed protection from some families but opposed others and got into trouble with the authorities, has been challenged (e.g. Gruen 1990, 92–106; for comments on the earlier view see e.g. Suerbaum 2000, 319–20). Nevertheless, it is significant that a relatively large number of Naevius’ verses can be interpreted as statements on political, social, or moral issues, and that this sort of biographical gossip attached itself to Naevius. Thus Naevius may have been a rather independent poet, prominently taking up issues relevant to contemporary society even without any direct allusions. Such engagement results in a Romanisation of the plays beyond the necessary linguistic and formal adaptation of Greek models. Sextus Turpilius is the last known writer of fabulae palliatae in the Republican period; he died in old age in Sinuessa in 104/3 BCE (Hieron. Ab Abr. 1914, 104 BCE [p. 148d Helm]). Thirteen titles and just over 200 (partly incomplete) lines of Turpilius’ comedies have been preserved. The fragments indicate the presence of the usual figures and motifs of fa­ bula palliata. In addition, characters such as sailors and fishermen as well as comments on conditions at sea seem to feature fairly frequently (Turp. Pall. 21–2; 23; 48–9; 139–41; 214–6 R.3; Leucadia). The appearance of these elements suggests that aspects of everyday life were also represented. Some fragments have the format of sayings and often a (popular) philosophical touch, commenting on issues such as wisdom, modesty, frugality, and wealth (e.g. Turp. Pall. 9–10; 28; 40; 142–4; 213 R.3). Turpilius, therefore, may have continued the tendency towards a more learned style of drama while ensuring the attractiveness of his plays by including effective comic scenes in the Plautine tradition. Since Turpilius was the last active representative of fabula palliata, there is no productive reception of his work by subsequent playwrights. 6

Fabula togata

Fabula togata is named after the quintessential Roman garment, the toga, and denotes the Roman equivalent of fabula palliata, i.e., domestic comedy set in Italy and featuring local characters. In some grammatical systems (Diom. Ars 3, Gramm. Lat. 1, pp. 489.14–90.7; Euanth. Fab. 4.1) fabula togata is the term for all Roman forms of drama; Roman comedy is then called fabula tabernaria (after taberna, ‘wooden hut’); yet this terminology has not gained widespread

Roman Comedy

47

usage. Fabulae togatae are inspired in form by Greek comic drama, but have not been developed directly from Greek models; they therefore show a more obvious degree of independent composition on the part of Roman playwrights (Hor. Ars P. 285–8). The term togata referring to drama is attested from late Republican times onwards. Yet this dramatic genre apparently came into existence earlier, although the precise date of its creation is uncertain. After lengthy scholarly discussions, it is now thought that fabula togata emerged in the first half of the second or even in the late third century BCE. Its earliest securely attested writer is Titinius, who probably lived before Terence; Titinius was followed by L. Afranius and T. Quinctius Atta. Of these playwrights, Afranius is regarded as the most important and is the best documented in ancient sources. In total, about seventy titles and almost 650 lines of fragments survive from fabula togata. That fabula togata still looked to works of Greek comedy or pieces written in the style of Greek comedy as examples can be inferred from fragments of Afranius: in one of them, the speaker (identified as Afranius by the quoting author) proclaims that he freely borrowed whatever suited him from Menander or anybody else, even Latin poets (Macrob. Sat. 6.1.4: Afr. Tog. 25–8 R.3; on this fragment see Degl’Innocenti Pierini 1991). In another fragment, there is a reference to Terence (Afr. Tog. 29 R.3); the ancient biography of Terence interprets this as reflecting Afranius’ esteem for Terence as an outstanding and incomparable comic writer (Suet. / Donat. Vita Ter. 7). According to Horace, people regarded Afranius as comparable with Menander (Hor. Epist. 2.1.57); Cicero confirms that Afranius borrowed from Menander (Cic. Fin. 1.7). Since there seems to have been a certain similarity in plot outline and social standing of the main characters between fabula palliata and fabula togata, the Roman version was apparently able to adopt elements from the corresponding Greek-style form. At the same time, J.T. Welsh (2010) suggests that Quintilian (Quint. Inst. 10.1.100) found the love affairs depicted in fabula togata (comparable to fabula palliata) inappropriate in a Roman dramatic genre. Still, fabulae togatae were not simply Roman varieties of Plautine comedy. Instead, they displayed less fanciful surroundings and characters closer to contemporary real-life individuals. For instance, the names of characters, places, and institutions are Roman or Italian, apart from a few personal names for slaves and courtesans likely to be envisaged as ethnic Greeks (in accordance with what was common at the time in real life). Moreover, fabulae togatae apparently presented a more serious and sober framework than fabulae palliatae, in line with the depiction of (fictionalised) Roman reality. The late-antique

48

Manuwald

commentator Donatus famously says that in fabulae togatae (in contrast to fabulae palliatae), slaves were commonly not allowed to be cleverer than their masters (Donat. on Ter. Eun. 57). As the fragments reveal, fabulae togatae include figures familiar from fabulae palliatae, such as slaves, parasites, pimps, courtesans, nurses, and twins. At the same time, the fragments feature wives and their husbands, and there are mentions of marriage, dowry, and divorce. There are also references to members of the extended family, such as sisters, aunts, stepmothers, stepchildren, daughters-in-law, mothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law. This evidence suggests that relationships between men and women do not revolve mainly around potentially illicit and extramarital affairs, but rather take place within a family setting. The shift from love affairs between young men and mistresses in fabulae palliatae to a focus on marriages and their consequences in fabulae togatae means that the human situations presented are closer to real-life experiences and observe established moral conventions in Rome. Another group of characters prominent in fabulae togatae, and distinguishing them from fabulae palliatae, comprises representatives of various professions or craftsmen, such as fullers and hairdressers. The presence of such figures also contributes to locating plots in everyday life. Like most Roman dramatic genres, fabula togata was first systematically studied in an edition: I.H. Neukirch (1833) edited and discussed the fragments, although he understood fabula togata as a generic term and included fabula praetexta (a use of the term not taken up by later scholarship). Another study from the nineteenth century is the dissertation by E. Courbaud (1899), covering the definition, origin, main representatives, key characteristics, and development of the genre. There was then a long gap in scholarship (except for the discussion of G. Przychocki 1922, on the date of Titinius, a recurrent theme, since this question is important for understanding the origin of the dramatic genre). It was only in the 1970s that more studies began to appear. The renewed interest in fabula togata is perhaps best exemplified by the appearance of a Budé edition by A. Daviault (1981), the first Budé volume entirely devoted to Latin fragments, as well as overviews of research carried out since the nineteenth century by A. Pasquazi Bagnolini (1974; 1975). R. Tabacco (1975) considers how to define the dramatic genre in relation to similar ones and sees this endeavour as the continuation of avenues opened up by the scholars of the nineteenth century. A. López (1982: 1970–1980; 1994: 1980–1990) provides surveys of more recent research. Further works from the 1970s and 1980s, addressing various issues of detail, include E. Vereecke (1968; 1971 [date of Titinius and thus origin of dramatic genre]), M. Cacciaglia (1972), T. Dénes (1973), A. Pociña Pérez (1975a; 1975b [origin and development]), A. López López

Roman Comedy

49

(1977 [terminology]), A. Pasquazi Bagnolini (1977 [language of Afranius]), M. Martina (1978 [date of Titinius]), A. Daviault (1979 [comparison of fabula palliata and togata]), and L. Stankiewicz (1984 [date of Titinius]). T. Guardì (1985) has not only edited the fragments of Titinius and Atta, with translation and commentary, soon after the Budé edition (1981), but has also produced a series of articles (Guardì 1978, 1981, 1991, 1993, 2009) on terminology, form, language, date, and development of the genre of fabula togata. Since the 1990s, scholars have broadened their approach, moving beyond long-standing questions of date and definition to look at other issues, such as transmission and reception. This wave of studies includes contributions by H.D. Jocelyn (1991 [transmission]), L. Stankiewicz (1991 [terminology and definition in ancient sources and modern scholarship], 1996 [ancient sources on Afranius and his plays]), A. Minarini (1997 [language]), and A. Pociña and A. López (2001 [definition, date, and relationship to fabula palliata]). Currently, the most productive student of fabula togata is J.T. Welsh, who has published a series of articles on the genre in general and on Afranius in particular (Welsh 2010a; 2010b; 2016). 7

Fabula Atellana

Fabula Atellana is a form of comic drama named after the Oscan town of Atella in Campania, where it was first performed (Diom. Ars 3, Gramm. Lat. 1, pp. 489.14–90.7; Euanth. Fab. 4.1). Atellana was apparently a kind of burlesque popular farce, regarded as crude, rustic, and old-fashioned by intellectuals in antiquity. It is assumed that Atellanae developed among the Oscans from preliterary origins and then came to Rome, probably in the third century BCE. The genre’s simple stock characters were known as ‘Oscan characters’ (Oscae personae: Diom. Ars 3, Gramm. Lat. 1, p. 490.18–20). Some Oscan features must have been sufficiently obvious, or people must have been sufficiently aware that this dramatic genre was taken over from the Oscans, for it to be named after its origin. All Atellanae fragments known from Rome (about 300 lines) are written in Latin and exhibit nothing particularly ‘Oscan’. In the systems of lateantique grammarians, fabula Atellana is seen as corresponding to Greek satyrplay, since the two are regarded as similar in plot, words, and jests (Diom. Ars 3, Gramm. Lat. 1, pp. 489.14–90.7; 490.18–20; Mar. Victor., Gramm. Lat. 6, p. 82.10). Despite a preceding (non-literary) tradition, Pomponius is credited with being the inventor of the dramatic genre (Vell. Pat. 2.9.6). Pomponius was a contemporary of Novius: these two writers represent the literary fabula Atellana of the early first century BCE. The position assigned to Pomponius suggests a

50

Manuwald

significant change in this period, presumably a turn towards a more literary type of fabula Atellana; at this time, fabula palliata and fabula togata were declining in productivity, and fabula Atellana might have filled the emerging gap in comic entertainment. Fabulae Atellanae seem to have had coherent plots (Varro, Sat. Men. 198 B.). Their protagonists were based on a fixed repertoire of stock characters. Extant titles and fragments of literary fabulae Atellanae as well as testimonia point to at least four of these: Maccus, the fool and stupid clown; Bucco, the foolish braggart; Pappus, the foolish old man; and Dossennus, the cunning trickster and / or glutton. Corresponding to the stupidity and foolishness of the characters, the language in surviving fabula Atellana fragments is often rather unsophisticated, though typical stylistic features of early Latin as well as a significant amount of wordplay and puns can be observed. The preserved titles and fragments of literary Atellanae display a certain variety and thus indicate the possibility of different variants of plot types and related themes: a significant portion of known plays seems to be based on the ‘Oscan characters’. These could evidently appear in various guises and situations: they could be shown foolishly unable to cope with particular circumstances, or a drastic contrast between their characteristics and those actually required could be highlighted. Many plays are set in an everyday environment and feature ordinary activities; some represent family affairs, rural life, and a primitive rustic atmosphere. At the same time, there are plays bearing titles reminiscent of tragedy; these may be travesties of mythological stories or parodies of tragedies. A further group consists of pieces with Greek titles similar to those of fabulae palliatae. These may be adaptations or, again, parodic reactions. Still another variety seems to have been concerned with popular philosophy and literary criticism. Notes in ancient authors suggest that the performers of fabulae Atellanae were not professional actors, but rather free young men: they could not be forced to lay down their masks on stage and thus reveal their identities, in contrast to actors of plays of other dramatic genres (Fest., p. 238.17–20 L.), and they were allowed to do military service and were not removed from their tribes (Liv. 7.2.11–12; Val. Max. 2.4.4). Thus, fabulae Atellanae might have retained an element of non-professional, impromptu drama. Since fabulae Atellanae have long been regarded as a manifestation of preliterary drama in Italy, the genre has attracted scholarly attention as a possible point of comparison and influence for fabula palliata. Yet like all ‘minor’ comic genres, fabula Atellana has received little interest in and of itself. In the nineteenth century, the fragments were edited and analysed (E. Munk 1840). But only fairly recently has there been more scholarly activity; for instance,

Roman Comedy

51

volumes have appeared that cover the literary and the preliterary forms of the genre, including its sources and its relationship to Greek and Etruscan theatre, as well as themes, language, style, titles, transmission, and the relationship to palliata comedy (Raffaelli / Tontini 2010; 2013). These volumes were anticipated by an earlier study of various details by one of the editors (Raffaelli 1987). Key information about fabula Atellana and the state of research are provided in the surveys of R. Rieks (1978), E. Fantham (1989a), and C. Panayotakis (2005a). An earlier work dedicated to fabula Atellana is the study by J.G. Szilágyi (1941); since it is in Hungarian (with a summary in Italian), it has had little impact. P. Frassinetti’s slightly later study (1953, in Italian) is more accessible; it covers the origin, name, and development of the genre as well as its key characteristics and major representatives. The origin and the development of the literary fabula Atellana as a variety of popular theatre are discussed by A. Marzullo (1973) in a multi-faceted exploration that covers various authors in the Republican and imperial period. More specific investigations into the character of the dramatic genre were carried out by B. Höttemann (1993), who suggests that fabula Atellana and the so-called phlyax plays in Italy developed largely independently, rather than the latter influencing the former, and by H. Petersmann (1989), who calls attention to the vital role of the non-literary and improvised fabula Atellana and its long survival alongside the emergence of literary forms. 8

Mimus / Planipes

According to the categories of ancient grammarians, the Roman equivalent of the Greek mimus was planipes, named after the bare feet of the performers or the humbleness of the plot and characters or its performance in the area that would be called orchestra in a Greek theatre. Both words for the Roman version of this dramatic genre occur in Latin texts: mimus seems to be the more common term and planipes to be chosen mainly in technical contexts. Mimes provided a combination of erotic farce and serious content, including references to contemporary circumstances. Mime appears to have been one of the last Republican dramatic genres to have become literary; this happened at the very end of the Republic. The figures connected with this process are the two poets Decimus Laberius and Publilius Syrus, the representatives of Latin literary mime in the Republican period. The dates of these poets are consistent with Cicero’s comment in a letter of 46 BCE that mimes, in place of fabulae Atellanae, were now given as ‘after-pieces’ after performances of other types of dramas (Cic. Fam. 9.16.7). Cicero’s observation

52

Manuwald

implies that mimes were gaining increasing recognition and prominence. The information that the dictator Sulla was fond of mime (e.g. Plut. Sull. 36.1–2), however, indicates that the dramatic genre was known earlier in Rome. Assessments of mime by later ancient writers are mainly critical, since they regarded the genre as low and vulgar, and they looked down upon its crude and frivolous aspects (e.g. Cic. Fam. 7.1.1; Rab. post. 35; Ov. Tr. 2.497–500; Gell. NA 2.23.12; Macrob. Sat. 2.1.9). Performances of mime were considered obscene, both because women played the female roles and because mime actresses could appear naked or strip nude at the end of performances (e.g. Lactant. Div. inst. 1.20.10; 6.20.30; cf. also Ov. Tr. 2.503–4; on the place and presentation of women in mime, see Panayotakis 2006). Mimes were particularly shown at Ludi Florales; the dramatic genre became associated with that festival. Despite its reputation as a simple and unrefined dramatic genre, mime (at least in its literary version) seems to have been versatile and multi-faceted. Topical comments, moral edification, literary parody, philosophical burlesque (see Ath. Deip. 1: 20c–d), and mythological travesties can be inferred for literary mime. The preserved sententiae of Publilius Syrus confirm the writer’s engagement with popular-philosophical, sententious content. The surviving titles and fragments of mimes (about 45 titles and about 150 lines, mainly by Decimus Laberius) point to frequent comic characters and themes. Wives, courtesans, slaves, and masters appear; plots are based on relationships and conflicts within families; and issues alluded to include marriages, festivals, inheritance, and prodigal sons. Plays also refer to fools as well as tradesmen and farm animals. Later testimonia mention masters, slaves, innkeepers, flatterers, young men in love, angry rivals, adulterers, clever women, stupid fools, and impersonations of mythical figures as characters in mimes. A Roman setting is indicated by references to Roman gods and festivals as well as places in Italy. The most notorious incidents connected with mime are the contests between Decimus Laberius and Publilius Syrus in 47/6 BCE, when C. Iulius Caesar challenged the equestrian Laberius to appear on stage in his own mimes (Sen. Controv. 7.3.9; Gell. NA 8.15; Macrob. Sat. 2.3.10; 2.7.2–5), and Publilius Syrus challenged all contemporary people active for the stage to contend with him in a poetic contest (Macrob. Sat. 2.7.7–9; also Cic. Fam. 12.18.2; Gell. NA 17.14.2). Mime has never been a major focus of scholarship both because it was regarded as a less sophisticated comic genre and because little material survives. Moreover, the remains can be complex to interpret, and there are fewer options for comparison with Greek versions and later texts. Still, there has been

Roman Comedy

53

a steady stream of individual publications, especially more recently, due to a renewed interest in fragments, changes in approach to traces of performative literature, and a new appreciation of sub-literary literature. Early in the twentieth century, H. Reich (1903) made an attempt to sketch the development of both Greek and Roman mime. A recent, comprehensive overview can be found in the introduction to C. Panayotakis’ edition (2010) of the fragments of Decimus Laberius. This publication was preceded by articles by Panayotakis on this dramatic genre (2005b) and the role of women in it (2006). Earlier surveys are given by R. Rieks (1978), F. Dupont (1985, 296–306), and G.F. Gianotti (1993, 47–55, covering developments into the imperial period). E. Fantham (1989a; 1989b) discusses mime in the context of the history of Roman comedy and literature more generally. C. Panayotakis (2010) provides a commentary on all the fragments surviving from Decimus Laberius, including a discussion of the incident involving Caesar. The other mime writer, Publilius Syrus, has been studied by E. Schweitzer (1968). E.J. Jory (1988) looks at the contest Publilius Syrus initiated, thus exemplifying scholars’ increased attention to individual performers and to the heightened competitive atmosphere in the theatre of the late Republic. Aspects of the genre (including its origins, different types, performance venues, and actors) have been explored by F. Giancotti (1967) and L. Cicu (1988). More recently, K. Dunbabin (2004) examines the iconographic evidence for mime actors. A large number of figures have been identified as representations of them; yet the flexible nature of the genre makes broad generalisations difficult. In any case, there exist for this dramatic genre literary and epigraphic sources that preserve information on the organisation of actors’ troupes and performance conventions. 9

Pantomimus

The Roman pantomimus has both a ‘serious’ and a ‘comic’ variety. It is a type of dance by an actor (pantomimus or histrio), accompanied by music and a choir. Dancing, singing, and instrumental music are distributed over several performers (Hieron. Ab Abr. 1995, 22 BCE [p. 165c Helm]), so that the dancer is able to concentrate on representing character and emotions with movements and gestures. Since music and dance are central to performances of pantomimus, little linguistic knowledge is necessary to follow the story (Lucian, Salt. 64). It is thought that this may have contributed to the popularity of the dramatic genre and its spread across the empire. Nevertheless, pantomimus

54

Manuwald

performances presented stories and included the representation of famous mythical characters and their fates, based on tragedies (Macrob. Sat. 2.7.13–17; Suet. Calig. 57.4; Arn. Adv. nat. 7.33.3). Although there were Greek forerunners and earlier simple forms in Italy, ancient writers date the introduction of pantomimus in Rome to 22 BCE (Hieron. Ab Abr. 1995, 22 BCE [p. 165c Helm]; Macrob. Sat. 2.7.12; 2.7.18; Zos. 1.6.1). This view is in line with the traditional date assigned to a change from pantomimic dances, already present in Rome, to pantomimus proper. Pylades from Cilicia (who wrote a treatise on pantomimus) and Bathyllos from Alexandria are credited in ancient sources with ‘developing the Italian style of dance’. The former represents the solemn and serious ‘tragic’ variety and the latter the light-hearted ‘comic’ variety (Ath. Deip. 20d–e). Despite the conventional date of 22 BCE, pantomimus was present in Rome earlier; according to Lucian, it reached a more developed stage in about the time of Augustus (Lucian, Salt. 34). Modern scholarship has inferred that pantomime in Rome might go back to the late 40s BCE. At any rate, this dramatic form was not a completely novel creation, but rather a development and new combination of existing varieties within Italic performance traditions (Jory 2003; also 1988). Apart from the studies and the edition by V. Rotolo (1957), until recently most research on pantomimus was carried out in a series of articles by E.J. Jory (1981; 1996; 2003; 2008). Pantomimus was given more scholarly attention when the first collected volume on it, edited by E. Hall and R. Wyles, appeared in 2008: this book offers studies of practical aspects, material evidence, potential traces of pantomime libretti, and the role of the dancer; it also includes an anthology of key testimonia in an appendix (2008, 378–419). The introduction to the volume and its adapted version in Hall (2013) provide an overview of the genre, its definitions, the available evidence for it, its geographical spread, and its evaluation. M.-H. Garelli (2006; 2007) looks at the origins of pantomimus, the sources, the terminology, and the development of the form, especially in the imperial period. By analysing evidence in Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 1.54.2), H. Leppin (1996) confirms that pantomimus was known in Rome earlier and became institutionalised in the 20s BCE as a result of the activities of Bathyllus and Pylades. W. Weismann (2004) explores the reception history of mimus and pantomimus from late antiquity until the early modern period. Pantomimus is covered in surveys of the ‘minor’ Roman comic genres (e.g. Gianotti 1993, 55–69, including developments into the imperial period) and briefly in most histories of Roman literature or drama.

Roman Comedy

10

55

Reception of Roman Comedy

Almost all playwrights of Roman comedy enjoyed some kind of reception in antiquity. For Plautus and Terence, this is most obvious through documented reperformances (some of which have resulted in changes to the transmitted text) and through references to them in the plays of other dramatists (e.g. Terence referring to Naevius, Ennius, and Plautus; Afranius referring to Terence) and then by authors of other literary genres, like Cicero (on references to Terence in antiquity, see Marti 1974; on references to Plautus, see Dunsch 2013; on the discussion of comedy in the late Republic, see Blänsdorf 1974; Jocelyn 1995; on Cicero’s comments on drama, see e.g. Zillinger 1911; Wright 1931). The transmission of the text in antiquity is different for drama than for other literary genres because dramas were written as scripts, which stayed with impresarios and actors. Moreover, because the attribution of scripts to famous playwrights was uncertain, scholarly work on Roman comic drama started with discussions on authenticity in late Republican times. The history of the text in this period has been surveyed (for Plautus, see Deufert 2002 [influenced by Zwierlein’s views on authenticity]; for Terence, see Grant 1986, in addition to studies on the text mentioned in Section 3). The contributions in the volume edited by A. Turner and G. Torello-Hill (2015) look at the early reception of Terence, especially at manuscripts and ancient commentaries. Terence quickly became a school author in antiquity because his style was regarded as more refined and his plays were seen as less bawdy than those of Plautus. Terence’s status as a school author means that he, like Vergil, received commentaries in the ancient world. Some of these survive, in particular the commentary by the fourth-century author Aelius Donatus (discovered in 1437; edited by P. Wessner in two volumes in 1902/5; see also the recent edition of the commentary on Andria by C. Cioffi in 2017; for discussions of Donatus, see Grant 1986, 60–96 [particularly on his role for establishing the transmission of Terence’s text]; Jakobi 1996; and Bureau 2011 [on what Donatus regards as Terence’s sententiae, thus showing a philosophical dimension]). There is also a commentary by Eugraphius (included in Wessner’s edition) and scholia (edited by Schlee 1893; Mountford 1934). The medieval commentary called Commentum Monacense has recently been re-edited by F. Schorsch (2011) and E. San Juan Manso (2015). Republican Roman drama, especially comedy, was criticised by the Church Fathers and other early Christian writers for its immorality and disrespectful treatment of the gods (e.g. Hieron. Ep. 52.2; Tert. De spect. 17.2; Lactant. Div. inst. 6.20.30; Arn. Adv. nat. 7.33.5–7). Tertullian wrote an entire treatise

56

Manuwald

De spectaculis against pagan spectacles, including performances in the theatre (edition in Turcan 1986; English translation in Glover 1931). Still, Roman comedies, especially Terence, continued to be read as part of the standard educational curriculum for linguistic reasons. The early Christian reception of Roman drama is studied by H. Hagendahl (1958; 1967), H. Jürgens (1972), and D. Dox (2004). The only Latin drama to survive from late antiquity, and the only fully extant ancient comedy in Latin apart from the works of Plautus and Terence, is the anonymous Querolus (also called Aulularia in the prologue). This play takes up a number of motifs from Republican comedy, particularly Plautus’ Aulularia, as well as elements of language and style. But the metres of Plautine comedy are not fully observed, there are no love affairs, and many scenes have an extended popular-philosophical dimension (modern edition in Ranstrand 1951; English translation in Duckworth 1942, vol. 2: 896–952; French translation with Latin text in Jacquemard-Le Saos 1994). In the tenth century the German nun Hrotsvit of Gandersheim wrote six plays (in prose) in Terentian style, to replace his comedies by others with a suitably Christian content (modern edition in Berschin 2001; English translation with Latin text in Bonfante 2013; for scholarship, see Brown / Wailes 2013). Naturally, the authors whose work has survived in fragmentary form have had limited reception beyond their respective periods of activity. There was some reception in the ancient world, insofar as lines from their dramas were quoted (that is how what are now ‘fragments’ has been preserved), but there was hardly any productive influence on other literary genres or engagement with them in the period after antiquity. By contrast, the plays by Plautus and Terence have had a lasting influence on European literature (on aspects of the reception of Terence in ancient and modern times, see Cupaiuolo 2014). Terence’s comedies were first printed in England in individual editions between 1495 and 1497 by Richard Pynson and as a collected edition by Wynkyn de Worde in 1504; the latter edition includes the commentary of Jodocus Badius Ascensius / Josse Bade (first published at Lyon in 1493). The availability of texts contributed to Terence’s popularity and influence. As for Plautus, until the end of the Middle Ages only the first eight plays were known (Plaut. Amph.; Asin.; Aul.; Capt.; Curc.; Cas.; Cist.; Epid.). In 1429, Nicholas of Kues discovered a manuscript that included, in addition to some of the known comedies, Plautus’ other twelve plays (Plaut. Bacch. and Merc. to Truc.). This rediscovery and the arrival of the printing press soon afterwards prompted performances of the comedies at courts, schools, and universities; encouraged attempts to produce supplements to incomplete plays and to write original pieces in the style of Roman comedy, first in Latin and then in the vernacular languages (for

Roman Comedy

57

a recent edition of Neo-Latin plays by Johannes Burmeister based on Plautus, see Fontaine 2015); generated a wave of Renaissance editions and commentaries, which emphasised improvements to the text or comments useful for education (Gehl 2015); and invigorated a debate about the nature of comedy, with contributions from scholars such as Daniel Heinsius and Justus Lipsius (Hardin 2007; 2017). As a result, Plautus became more highly regarded than Terence. At the same time, there were concerns in the educational context about the content of the plays, so that some tutors only offered a selection of comedies or expurgated versions, while others regarded them as good stylistic models and not dangerous if presented in the appropriate way (McPherson 1981). Terence was edited by humanists and famous printers of classical works, such as Robert Estienne (1526; 1529), Philip Melanchthon (1516) and Erasmus of Rotterdam (1532). From the early modern period, Roman comedy, which was the only version of domestic comedy surviving from antiquity and was more easily transferable than Athenian Old Comedy, shaped the development of European drama, first through comedies written in Latin and then through transfer into the vernaculars. A nineteenth-century study by K. von Reinhardstoettner (1886) provides a detailed overview of later pieces responding to each of Plautus’ plays. Yet the influence of classical comedy on modern literature was not much studied systematically as a subject in its own right until more recently, when reception studies (for a brief introduction, see Hardwick 2003) and interdisciplinary approaches became more prominent in classical scholarship. Most handbooks and companions today, as well as collected volumes on Roman comedy, Plautus, or Terence include a section on ‘reception’ (e.g. Augoustakis / Traill 2013; Olson 2013; Fontaine / Scafuro 2014; Dinter 2019; Franko / Dutsch 2020; on the reception of Plautus and Terence in discussions, translations, reperformances, and adaptations in the nineteenth century, see Kes 1988; on the revival of ancient drama in early modern England, see Smith 1988; on the interplay with the developing printing press, see Peters 2000). Roman comedy has influenced such well-known writers as William Shakespeare (e.g. The Comedy of Errors [early 1590s]; see Arkins 2012; Riehle 1990; Miola 1994), Jean de Rotrou (Les Ménechmes [1636]; Les Sosies [1638]; Les captifs [1638]), Molière (e.g. Amphitryon [1668]; L’Avare ou l’École du mensonge [1668]), John Dryden (e.g. Amphitryon; or The Two Sosias [1690]), Heinrich von Kleist (Amphitryon [1807]) and, more recently, Jean Giraudoux (Amphitryon 38 [1929]; on the history of the Amphitruo theme, see Ferry 2011, with a list of works taking up the myth and detailed discussion of major works), Thornton Wilder (The Woman of Andros [1930]; on this work in relation to its Terentian model, see Goldberg 1977), and David Williamson (Flatfoot [2004]). What is regarded

58

Manuwald

as the first regular English comedy, Nicholas Udall’s (1504–1556) Roister Doister (1552), is based on Plautus’ Miles gloriosus and Terence’s Eunuchus. The (early) modern playwrights adapted the model provided by the Roman comedies in different ways according to their own intentions, the assumed interests of their audiences, and contemporary conventions. Thus, effective motifs (such as doubling up and confusion between two identical or almost identical characters), stock figures (e.g. the clever slave), and puns were maintained, while other details were changed; for instance, later authors might eliminate some of the references to contemporary institutions and more outrageous jokes, in line with the sensibilities of Christian audiences in certain periods. Roman comedies are still performed or adapted, since they continue to offer entertainment and to present issues of relevance to society. The Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama at Oxford (http://www.apgrd .ox.ac.uk) provides information on modern performances of Greek and Roman drama and on performance issues connected with ancient drama. 11

Conclusions

Roman comedy in the broad sense bears testimony to the cultural interaction between Greece and Rome in the Republican period and to the creation of a vernacular literature in Latin inspired by Greek precedent. It is only in recent scholarship that the development of the different types of comic drama on the basis of Greek models and domestic traditions is viewed not as a mere textual and literary process, but rather as part of a broader cultural phenomenon, influenced by discussions of the emergence of ‘Latin literature’ (e.g. Goldberg 2005; Feeney 2016). As a result, the focus of scholarship has shifted from philological and textual questions and issues of source criticism to looking at the plays as literature in their own right, as texts in their cultural context, and as reflections of contemporary values and the plays’ social, historical, cultural, and political framework. These developments are accompanied by greater appreciation that the surviving scripts are elements of performance, which draws its effectiveness from the overall theatre experience and provides the playwrights with a set of conventions. Increased interest in and enhanced methodological awareness of the role of fragmentary texts has led to better availability of the remains of the Roman comic playwrights other than Plautus and Terence through new editions; this has enriched discussions of comedy in Rome. While scholars and modern poets have engaged with Roman comedy for centuries, and while this dramatic genre has had an influential role in the

Roman Comedy

59

development of European drama, the emergence of new approaches leads to constant innovation and generates new questions and perspectives through which Roman comedy remains to be explored. Bibliography Editions, Commentaries, Translations

Barsby, John, ed. and trans. 2001. Terence. 2 vols. Cambridge (MA) / London (Loeb Classical Library 22, 23): Harvard University Press [https://www.loebclassics.com]. Beckby, Hermann, ed. 1969. Die Sprüche des Publilius Syrus. Lateinisch – Deutsch. Munich: Ernst Heimeran Verlag. Berg, Deena, and Douglass Parker, trans. 1999. Plautus & Terence. Five Comedies. Translated, with Introductions. Indianapolis / Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. Berschin, Walter, ed. 2013. Hrotsvit. Opera omnia. München / Leipzig: K.G. Saur. Bonaria, Mario, ed. 1965. Romani Mimi. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo (Poetarum Latinorum reliquiae: Aetas rei publicae VI 2); orig.: Mario Bonaria (ed.), Mimorum Romanorum fragmenta. Collegit, disposuit, recensuit. 2 vols. Genova: Università di Genova, Istituto di Filologia Classica 1955/6 (Università di Genova, Facoltà di Lettere, Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Filologia Classica 5/9). Bonfante, Larissa, trans. 2013. The Plays of Hrotswitha of Gandersheim. Bilingual Edition. Edited by Robert Chipok. Mundelein: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. Brown, Peter, trans. 2006. Terence. The Comedies. Translated with Introduction and Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford World’s Classics). Christenson, David, trans. 2008. Plautus: Four Plays. Casina, Amphitryon, Captivi, Pseudolus. Newburyport (MA): Focus (The Focus Classical Library). Christenson, David, trans. 2010. Roman Comedy. Five Plays by Plautus and Terence. Translated with Introduction and Notes. Newburyport (MA): Focus (The Focus Classical Library). Christenson, David, trans. 2015. Hysterical Laughter. Four Ancient Comedies About Women. Lysistrata, Samia, Casina, Hecyra. Translation, Introduction, and Notes. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cioffi, Carmela. 2017. Aeli Donati quod fertur Commentum ad Andriam Terenti. Edidit et apparatu critico instruxit. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana). Clayton, Frederick W., trans. 2006. The Comedies of Terence, translated by F.W. C., introduced by Matthew Leigh. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Daviault, André, ed. 1981. Comoedia Togata. Fragments. Texte établi, traduit et annoté. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (CUF lat.).

60

Manuwald

de Melo, Wolfgang, ed. and trans. 2011–2013. Plautus. 5 vols. Cambridge (MA) / London: Harvard University Press (Loeb Classical Library 60, 61, 163, 260, 328) [https://www .loebclassics.com]. Duckworth, George E., ed. 1942. The Complete Roman Drama. All the extant comedies of Plautus and Terence, and the tragedies of Seneca, in a variety of translations. Edited, and with an introduction. 2 vols. New York: Random House. Fontaine, Michael, ed. and trans. 2015. Johannes Burmeister, Aulularia and other Inversions of Plautus. Edited, translated and introduced. Leuven: Leuven University Press (Bibliotheca Latinitatis Novae). Frassinetti, Paolo, ed. 1967. Atellanae fabulae. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo (Poetarum Latinorum reliquiae: Aetas rei publicae, vol. VI 1); orig.: Paolo Frassinetti (ed.), Fabularum Atellanarum fragmenta. Torino / Milano / Padua / Firenze / Pescara / Roma / Napoli / Catania / Palermo: In aedibus Io. Bapt. Paraviae 1955 (Corpus scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum) [without translation and separate commentary]. Glover, T.R., and Gerald H. Rendall, eds. 1931. Tertullian, Apology, De spectaculis, with an English translation by T.R. G.; Minucius Felix, with an English translation by G.H. R., Cambridge (MA) / London: Harvard University Press (Loeb Classical Library 250) [https://www.loebclassics.com]. Goldberg, Sander M., and Gesine Manuwald, eds. 2018. Fragmentary Republican Latin. I. Ennius: Testimonia, Epic Fragments (Loeb Classical Library 294) / Fragmentary Republican Latin. II. Ennius: Dramatic Fragments, Minor Works (Loeb Classical Library 538). Cambridge (MA) / London [https://www.loebclassics.com]. Guardì, Tommaso, ed. 1974. Cecilio Stazio. I frammenti. Palermo: Palumbo Editore (Hermes 9). Guardì, Tommaso, ed. 1985. Titinio e Atta. Fabula togata. I frammenti. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento. Milano: Editoriale Jaca Book (Líthoi 2; Le Edizioni Universitarie Jaca 6). Jacquemard-Le Saos, Catherine, ed. and trans. 1994. Querolus (Aulularia). Le grincheux (Comédie de la petite marmite). Paris: Les Belles Lettres (CUF lat. 319). Kauer, Robert, and Wallace M. Lindsay, eds. 1958. P. Terenti Afri comoediae, recognove­ runt brevique adnotatione critica instruxerunt R. K. et W. M. L. Supplementa apparatus curavit Otto Skutsch. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis). Leo, Friedrich, ed. 1895/6. Plauti comoediae. 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmann [https://archive .org/details/comoediaerecens00plaugoog]. Lindsay, Wallace M., ed. 1904/5. T. Macci Plauti comoediae, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis). [https://archive.org/details/ tmacciplauticomo01plauuoft].

Roman Comedy

61

López López, Aurora, ed. 1983. Fabularum togatarum fragmenta (edicion critica). Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca (Acta Salmanticensia 141). Mountford, J.F., ed. 1934. The Scholia Bembina. Edited with annotations. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Neukirch, Ioannes Henricus, ed. 1833. De fabula togata Romanorum. Accedunt fabularum togatarum reliquiae. Scripsit et edidit. Leipzig: Weidmann [https://archive.org/ details/defabulatogataro00neuk]. Panayotakis, Costas, ed. 2010. Decimus Laberius. The Fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 46). Ranstrand, Gunnar, ed. 1951. Querolus sive Aulularia. Incerti auctoris comoedia una cum indice verborum. Göteborg: Wettergren & Kerbers Förlag (Acta Universitatis Gotoburgensis LVII, 1951:1). Ribbeck, Otto, ed. [R.2] 1871. Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta. Vol. I. Tragicorum Romanorum fragmenta, secundis curis rec. Leipzig: Teubner (repr. Hildesheim 1962). Ribbeck, Otto, ed. [R.2] 1873. Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta. Vol. II. Comicorum Romanorum praeter Plautum et Terentium fragmenta, secundis curis rec. Leipzig: Teubner [Google Books]. Ribbeck, Otto, ed. [R.3] 1897. Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta. Vol. I. Tragicorum Romanorum fragmenta, tertiis curis rec. Leipzig: Teubner [https://archive.org/ details/scaenicaeromano06ribbgoog]. Ribbeck, Otto, ed. [R.3] 1898. Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta. Vol. II. Comicorum Romanorum praeter Plautum et Syri quae feruntur sententias fragmenta, tertiis curis rec. Leipzig: Teubner [https://archive.org/details/scaenicaeromanor02ribbuoft]. Richlin, Amy, trans. 2005. Rome and the Mysterious Orient. Three Plays by Plautus. Translated with Introductions and Notes. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London: University of California Press. Romano, Domenico, ed. 1953. Atellana fabula. Palermo: Palumbo Editore (Testi antichi e medievali per esercitazioni universitarie 7). Rychlewska, Ludwika, ed. 1971. Turpilii comici fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana). Schlee, Fridericus, ed. 1893. Scholia Terentiana. Collegit et disposuit. Leipzig: Teubner [https://archive.org/details/scholiaterentian00schluoft]. Segal, Erich, trans. 1996 / 2008. Plautus. Four Comedies. The Braggart Soldier. The Brothers Menaechmus. The Haunted House. The Pot of Gold. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press (The World’s Classics). Slavitt, David R., and Palmer Bovie, ed. 1995. Plautus. The comedies. 4 vols. Baltimore / London: Johns Hopkins University Press (Complete Roman Drama in Translation).

62

Manuwald

Smith, Peter L., trans. 1991. Plautus. Three Comedies: Miles gloriosus, Pseudolus, Rudens. Translated and with an Introduction. Ithaca (NY) / London: Cornell University Press (Masters of Latin Literature). Tatum, James, trans. 1983. The Darker Comedies. Bacchides, Casina, and Truculentus. Translated from the Latin, with Introduction and Notes. Baltimore / London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Turcan, Marie, ed. 1986. Tertullien. Les spectacles (De spectaculis). Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf (Sources Chretiennes 332). Warmington, E.H., ed. [W.] 1935. Remains of Old Latin. Newly ed. and transl. Vol. I. Ennius and Caecilius. London / Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press (Loeb Classical Library 294) [https://www.loebclassics.com]. Warmington, E.H., ed. [W.] 1936. Remains of Old Latin. Newly ed. and transl. Vol. II. Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Pacuvius and Accius. London / Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press (Loeb Classical Library 314) [https://www.loebclassics.com]. Wessner, Paulus, ed. 1902/5. Aeli Donati quod fertur commentum Terenti, accedunt Eugraphi commentum et scholia Bembina, rec. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana) [https://archive.org/details/ quodferturcommen01donauoft].



Secondary Literature

Anderson, William S. 1993. Barbarian Play: Plautus’ Roman Comedy. Toronto / Buffalo / London: University of Toronto Press (The Robson Classical Lectures). Aneziri, Sophia. 2003. Die Vereine der dionysischen Techniten im Kontext der hellenistischen Gesellschaft. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Organisation und Wirkung der hellenistischen Technitenvereine. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (Historia, Einzelschriften 163). Antonsen‐Resch, Andrea. 2004. Von Gnathon bis Saturio. Die Parasitenfigur und das Verhältnis der römischen Komödie zur griechischen. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter (UaLG 74). Arkins, Brian. 2012. What Shakespeare stole from Rome. Dublin: Carysfort Press. Arnott, W. Geoffrey. 1975. Menander, Plautus, Terence. Oxford: Oxford University Press (New Surveys in the Classics 9). Augoustakis, Antony / Traill, Ariana (Associate Editor: John Thorburn), eds. 2013. A Companion to Terence, Chichester / Malden (MA): Wiley-Blackwell. Auhagen, Ulrike. 2009. Die Hetäre in der griechischen und römischen Komödie. München: C.H. Beck (Zetemata 135). Bagordo, Andreas. 2001. Beobachtungen zur Sprache des Terenz, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der umgangssprachlichen Elemente. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck

Roman Comedy

63

& Ruprecht (Hypomnemata 132) [http://digi20.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/ object/display/bsb00040394_00001.html]. Bain, David. 1977. Actors & Audience. A Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bain, David. 1979. “Plautus vortit barbare: Plautus, Bacchides 526–61 and Menander, Dis exapaton 102–12.” In Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, ed. by D. West and T. Woodman, 17–34. Cambridge / London / New York / Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Barchiesi, Marino. 1957. “Problematica e poesia in Plauto.” Maia 9: 163–203. Barchiesi, Marino. 1969. “Plauto e il ‘metateatro’ antico.” Il Verri 31: 113–30. Barrios-Lech, Peter. 2016. Linguistic interaction in Roman comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barsby, John. 1995. “Plautus’ Pseudolus as Improvisatory Drama.” In Plautus und die Tradition des Stegreifspiels. Festgabe für Eckard Lefèvre zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Lore Benz, Ekkehard Stärk, and Gregor Vogt-Spira, 55–70. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag (ScriptOralia 75, Reihe A: Altertumswiss. Reihe, Band 19). Barsby, John. 2002. “Terence and his Greek models.” In Due seminari Plautine. La tradizione del testo – I modelli, ed. by Cesare Questa and Renato Raffaelli. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti (Ludus philologiae 11): 251–77. Beacham, Richard C. 1980. “The development of the Roman stage: a missing link Restored.” Theatre Research International 5: 37–45. Beacham, Richard C. 1991. The Roman Theatre and its Audience. London: Routledge. Beacham, Richard C. 1999. Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome. New Haven / London: Yale University Press. Beare, William. 1964. The Roman Stage. A Short History of Latin Drama in the Time of the Republic. 3rd ed. London: Methuen & Co. Bell, Andrew. 2004. Spectacular power in the Greek and Roman City. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benz, Lore, Ekkehard Stärk, and Gregor Vogt-Spira, eds. 1995. Plautus und die Tradition des Stegreifspiels. Festgabe für Eckard Lefèvre zum 60. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag (ScriptOralia 75, Reihe A: Altertumswiss. Reihe, Bd. 19). Bernstein, Frank. 1998. Ludi publici. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der öffentlichen Spiele im republikanischen Rom. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (Historia, Einzelschriften 119). Bertini, Ferruccio. 1971. “Vent’ anni di studi plautini in Italia (1950–1970).” BStudLat 1: 23–41; repr. in: Ferruccio Bertini, Plauto e dintorni, 18–27. Bari: Editori Laterza, 1997. Bianco, Maurizio M. 2007. Interdum vocem comoedia tollit. Paratragedia ‘al femminile’ nella commedia plautina. Bologna: Patròn Editore (Testi e manuali per l’insegnamento universitario del latino 93).

64

Manuwald

Bieber, Margarete. 1961. The History of the Greek and Roman Theater, 2nd ed., revised and enlarged. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press (4th print.: 1971; 1st ed.: 1939) [https://archive.org/details/historyofgreek00marg]. Blänsdorf, Jürgen. 1967. Archaische Gedankengänge in den Komödien des Plautus. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag (Hermes, Einzelschriften 20). Blänsdorf, Jürgen. 1974. “Das Bild der Komödie in der späten Republik.” In Musa iocosa. Arbeiten über Humor und Witz, Komik und Komödie der Antike. Andreas Thierfelder zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 15. Juni 1973, ed. by Udo Reinhardt, Klaus Sallmann, and Karl Heinz Chelius, 141–57. Hildesheim / New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Blänsdorf, Jürgen. 1978a. “Voraussetzungen und Entstehung der römischen Komödie.” In Das römische Drama, ed. by Eckard Lefèvre, 91–134. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Grundriß der Literaturgeschichten nach Gattungen). Blänsdorf, Jürgen. 1978b. “Plautus.” In Das römische Drama, ed. by Eckard Lefèvre, 135–222. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Grundriß der Literatur geschichten nach Gattungen). Blänsdorf, Jürgen. 1983. “Die Palliata als Spiegel des Lebens?” In Hommages à Robert Schilling, ed. by Hubert Zehnacker and Gustave Hentz, 233–48. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (Collection d’études latines, Serie scientifique XXXVII) [https://gallica.bnf .fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3321929r.texteImage]. Blänsdorf, Jürgen. 1987. “Antike Theaterbauten und ihre Funktion.” In Theaterwesen und dramatische Literatur. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Theaters, ed. by Günter Holtus, 75–107. Tübingen: Francke Verlag (Mainzer Forschungen zu Drama und Theater 1). Blänsdorf, Jürgen. 1993. “Plautus, Amphitruo und Rudens – oder wieviel literarische Parodie verträgt eine populäre Komödie?” In Literaturparodie in Antike und Mittelalter, ed. by Wolfram Ax and Reinhold F. Glei, 57–74. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (BAC 15). Blänsdorf, Jürgen. 1996. “Un trait original de la comédie de Plaute: le goût de la parodie.” In Panorama du théâtre antique. D’Eschyle aux dramaturges d’Amérique latine, ed. by A. Moreau, CGITA 9: 133–51. Bond, R.P. 1999. “Plautus’ Amphitryo as tragi-comedy.” G&R 46: 203–20. Boscherini, Silvano. 1999. “Norma e parola nelle commedie di Cecilio Stazio.” SIFC Ser. 3, 17: 99–115. Boyle, A.J., ed. 2004. Rethinking Terence, Ramus 33.1–2. Brothers, A.J. 1989. “Buildings for entertainment.” In Roman Public Buildings, ed. by Ian M. Barton, 97–125. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press (Exeter Studies in History 20). Brown, Peter G. McC. 2002. “Actors and actor-managers at Rome in the time of Plautus and Terence.” In Greek and Roman Actors. Aspects of an Ancient Profession, ed. by Pat Easterling and Edith Hall, 225–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roman Comedy

65

Brown, Phyllis R., and Stephen L. Wailes, eds. 2013. A Companion to Hrotsvit of Gandersheim ( fl. 960). Contextual and Interpretive Approaches. Leiden / Boston: Brill (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 34). Bubel, Frank. 1992. Bibliographie zu Plautus 1976–1989. Bonn: Habelt Verlag. Büchner, Karl. 1974. Das Theater des Terenz. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, Neue Folge, 1. Reihe, Band 4). Bureau, Bruno. 2011. “Térence moralisé: les sententiae de Térence selon le commentaire attribué à Donate.” In Les maximes théâtrales en Grèce et à Rome: transferts, réécritures, remplois. Actes du colloque organisé les 11–13 juin 2009 par l’Université Jean Moulin – Lyon 3 et l’ENS de Lyon, ed. by Christine Mauduit and Pascale Paré-Rey, 157–75. Paris: Éditions de Boccard (Collection du CEROR 37). Bureau, Bruno, and Christian Nicolas. 2014. “Hoc enim apud se: la conscience de l’aparté et de ses potentialités comique chez Donat commentateur de Térence.” In L’aparté dans le théȃtre antique. Un procédé dramatique à redécouvrir, ed. by Pascale Paré-Rey, 251–94. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes (Théȃtres du monde). Cacciaglia, M. 1972. “Ricerche sulla fabula togata.” RCCM 14: 207–45. Calabretta, Marianna. 2015. La Rudens di Plauto in teatro. Tra filologia e messa in scena. Hildesheim / Zürich / New York: Georg Olms Verlag (Spudasmata 165). Calboli, Gualtiero. 2015. “To conquer a papyrus as a castle through an adverb: Linguistic traces of Caecilius Statius in a burnt papyrus from Herculanum and Horace.” Journal of Latin Linguistics 14: 1–16. Carosi, Giulia. 2007. Cecilio Stazio e il PHerc. 78. Obolostates sive Faenerator. PhD diss. Università di Bologna [http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/189/]. Caston, Ruth R. 2016. “The Irrepressiblity of Joy in Roman Comedy.” In Hope, Joy, and Affection in the Classical World, ed. by Ruth. R. Caston and Robert A. Kaster, 95–122. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press (Emotions of the past). Cèbe, Jean-Pierre. 1960. “Le niveau culturel du public plautinien.” REL 38: 101–6. Cèbe, Jean-Pierre. 1966. La caricature et la parodie, dans le monde romain antique des origines a Juvénal. Paris: Éditions de Boccard. Chiarini, Gioachino. 1979. La recita. Plauto, la farsa, la festa. Bologna: Pàtron Editore (Edizioni e saggi universitari di filologia classica 25). Chiarini, Gioachino. 2004. Introduzione al teatro latino. Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. Christenson, David M. 2019. Plautus, Casina. London / New York: Bloomsbury Academic (Bloomsbury Ancient Comedy Companions). Cicu, Luciano. 1988. Problemi e strutture del mimo a Roma. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi (Pubblicazioni di «Sandalion», Università degli Studi di Sassari 3). Conte, Gian Biago. 1994. Latin Literature. A History. Translated by Joseph B. Solodow. Revised by Don Fowler and Glenn W. Most. Baltimore / London: The Johns Hopkins

66

Manuwald

University Press; translated from: Letteratura latina. Manuale storico dalle origini alla fine dell’impero romano. Firenze: Casa Editrice Felice Le Monnier, 1987. Courbaud, Edmond. 1899. De comoedia togata, PhD diss. Université de Paris. Paris: Apud A. Fontemoing, Editorem. Crowther, N.B. 1973. “The collegium poetarum at Rome: fact and conjecture.” Latomus 32: 575–80. Csapo, Eric. 1989. “Plautine elements in the running-slave entrance monologues?” CQ 39: 148–63. Csapo, Eric, and William J. Slater. 1995. The Context of Ancient Drama. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press. Cupaiuolo, Giovanni. 1984. Bibliografia terenziana (1470–1983). Napoli: Società editrice Napoletana (Studi e testi dell’antichità 16). Cupaiuolo, Giovanni. 1991. Terenzio. Teatro e società. Napoli: Loffredo Editore (Studi Latini 5). Cupaiuolo, Giovanni. 1992b. “Supplementum Terentianum.” BStudLat 22: 32–57. Cupaiuolo, Giovanni. 2014. L’ombra lunga di Terenzio. Napoli: Paolo Loffredo, Iniziative editoriali (Studi Latini n.s. 86). Danese, Roberto M. 2002. “Modelli letterari e modelli culturali del teatro Plautino. Qualche problema di metodo.” In Due seminari plautini: La tradizione del testo; I modelli, ed. by Cesare Questa and Renato Raffelli, 133–53. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti (Ludus philologiae 11). Daviault, André. 1979. “Togata et Palliata.” BAGB: 422–30. David, Isabelle. 2014. “L’aparté chez Plaute, à propos d’un passage d’Amphitryon (v. 153– 340).” In L’aparté dans le théȃtre antique. Un procédé dramatique à redécouvrir, ed. by Pascale Paré-Rey, 227–47. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes (Théȃtres du monde). David, Isabelle, and Nathalie Lhostis, eds. 2016. Codes dramaturgiques et normes morales dans la Comédie Nouvelle de Ménandre et de Plaute. Paris: Éditions de Boccard (Chorégie 2). Degl’Innocenti Pierini, Rita. 1991. “Un prologo polemico di Afranio: Compitalia 25–28 R.3.” Prometheus 17: 242–6. Delignon, Bénédicte. 2011. “Les maximes tragiques dans l’Amphitryon et les Captifs de Plaute: enjeux d’un transfert.” In Les maximes théâtrales en Grèce et à Rome: transferts, réécritures, remplois. Actes du colloque organisé les 11–13 juin 2009 par l’Université Jean Moulin – Lyon 3 et l’ENS de Lyon, ed. by Christine Mauduit and Pascale Paré-Rey, 119–39. Paris: Éditions de Boccard (Collection du CEROR 37). Denard, Hugh. 2007. “Lost theatre and performance traditions in Greece and Italy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Theatre, ed. by Marianne McDonald and J. Michael Walton, 139–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dénes, Tibor. 1973. “Quelques problèmes de la « Fabula togata ».” BAGB: 187–201.

Roman Comedy

67

Dér, K. 1989. “Terence and Luscius Lanuvinus.” AAntHung 32: 283–97. Deufert, Marcus. 2002. Textgeschichte und Rezeption der plautinischen Komödien im Altertum. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter (UaLG 62). Dieterle, Arnulf. 1980. Die Strukturelemente der Intrige in der griechisch-römischen Komödie. Amsterdam: Verlag B.R. Grüner BV (Heuremata 6). Dinter, Martin T., ed. 2019. The Cambridge Companion to Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dolç, M. 1971. “El collegium poetarum: discrepancias y tensiones en la poesia Latina.” Emerita 39: 265–92. Dox, Donnalee. 2004. The Idea of the Theater in Latin Christian Thought. Augustine to the Fourteenth Century. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press. Duckworth, George E. 1952. The Nature of Roman Comedy. A Study in Popular Entertainment. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; Second Edition. With a Foreword and Bibliographical Appendix by R. Hunter. Norman / Bristol: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994. Ducos, Michèle. 1990. “La condition des acteurs à Rome. Données juridiques et sociales.” In Theater und Gesellschaft im Imperium Romanum / Théâtre et société dans l’empire romain, ed. by Jürgen Blänsdorf, Jean-Marie André, and Nicole Fick, 19–33. Tübingen: Francke Verlag (Mainzer Forschungen zu Drama und Theater 4). Dumont, Jean-Christian. 1983. “Les gens de théâtre originaires des municipes.” In Les « bourgeoisies » municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier siècles av. J.-C. Centre Jean Bérard. Institut Français de Naples, 7–10 décembre 1981, 333–45. Paris / Napoli: Bibliothèque de l’Institut Français (Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique N. 609 sciences humaines). Dumont, Jean Christian. 2000. “L’espace plautinien: de la place publique à la ville.” Pallas 54: 103–12. Dunbabin, Katherine. 2004. “Problems in the Iconography of Roman Mime.” In Le statut de l’acteur dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine (Actes du colloque qui s’est tenu à Tours les 3 et 4 mai 2002), ed. by Christophe Hugoniot, Frédéric Hurlet, and Silvia Milanezi, 161–81. Tours: Presses Universitaires François-Rabelais (Collection Perspectives Historiques 9) [https://books.openedition.org/pufr/8575]. Dunbabin, Katherine M.D. 2016. Theater and spectacle in the art of the Roman Empire. Ithaca: Cornell University Press (Townsend Lectures / Cornell Studies in Classical Philology). Dunsch, Boris. 2009. “Religion in der römischen Komödie: Einige programmatische Überlegungen.” In Römische Religion im historischen Wandel. Diskursentwicklung von Plautus bis Ovid, ed. by Andreas Bendlin and Jörg Rüpke, 17–56. München (PAwB 17). Dunsch, Boris. 2013. “Die plautinische Komödie in republikanischer und kaiserzeitlicher Literaturkritik.” In Epos, Lyrik, Drama. Genese und Ausformung der literarischen

68

Manuwald

Gattungen. Festschrift für Ernst-Richard Schwinge zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by Boris Dunsch, Arbogast Schmitt, and Thomas A. Schmitz, 237–300. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, Neue Folge, 2. Reihe, Band 139). Dunsch, Boris. 2015. “Labefactio paulatim. Zur Rhetorik der Verunsicherung in der römischen Komödie.” In Irritationen. Rhetorische und poetische Verfahren der Verunsicherung, ed. by Ramona Früh, Therese Fuhrer, Marcel Humar, and Martin Vöhler, 207–38. Berlin: De Gruyter (Philologus Supplemente 2). Dupont, Florence. 1985. L’acteur-roi ou le théâtre dans la Rome antique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (Realia). Dupont, Florence, and Pierre Letessier. 2011. Le théâtre latin. Paris: Armand Colin (previous editions by Florence Dupont – 1st ed.: Paris: Armand Colin, 1988; Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée: Paris: Armand Colin, 1999 [Collection Cursus, Lettres, Série Littérature]). Dutsch, Dorota M. 2008. Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy. On Echoes and Voices. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford Studies in Classical Literature and Gender Theory). Dutsch, Dorota. 2012. “Genre, Gender, and Suicide Threats in Roman Comedy.” CW 105: 187–98. Dutsch, Dorota, Sharon L. James, and David Konstan, eds. 2015. Women in Roman Republican Drama. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press (Wisconsin Studies in Classics). Ehrman, R.K. 1985. “Terentian Prologues and the Parabases of Old Comedy.” Latomus 44: 370–6. Fabia, Philippe. 1888. Les prologues de Térence. Paris: Ernest Thorin / Avignon: J. Roumanille [http://scans.library.utoronto.ca/pdf/1/32/lesprologuesdet00fabiuoft/ lesprologuesdet00fabiuoft.pdf]. Fantham, Elaine. 1977. “Adaptation and survival: a genre study of Roman comedy in relation to its Greek sources.” In Versions of Medieval Comedy. Edited and with an Introduction by Paul G. Ruggiers, 19–49. Norman (OK): University of Oklahoma Press. Fantham, Elaine. 1984. “Roman experience of Menander in the late Republic and early Empire.” TAPhA 114: 299–310. Fantham, Elaine. 1989a. “The earliest comic theatre at Rome: Atellan farce, comedy and mime as antecedents of the commedia dell’arte.” In The Science of Buffoonery. Theory and History of the Commedia dell’Arte, ed. by Domenico Pietropaolo, 23–32. Ottawa: Dovehouse Editions (University of Toronto Italian Studies 3). Fantham, R. Elaine. 1989b. “Mime: The Missing Link in Roman Literary History.” CW 82: 153–63.

Roman Comedy

69

Fantham, Elaine. 2002. “Orator and / et actor”, in Greek and Roman Actors. Aspects of an Ancient Profession, ed. by Pat Easterling and Edith Hall, 362–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Faure-Ribreau, Marion. 2012. Pour la beauté du jeu. La construction des personnages dans la comédie romaine (Plaute, Térence), Paris: Les Belles Lettres (Collection d’études anciennes 75, Série latine). Feeney, Denis. 2016. Beyond Greek. The Beginnings of Latin Literature. Cambridge (MA) / London: Harvard University Press. Ferry, Ariane. 2011. Amphitryon, un mythe théâtral. Plaute, Rotrou, Molière, Dryden, Kleist. Essai. Grenoble: Université Stendhal (Ateliers de l’imaginaire). Fertl, Evelyn. 2005. Von Musen, Miminnen und leichten Mädchen. Die Schauspielerin in der römischen Antike. Wien: Braumüller (Blickpunkte IX). Filoche, Christina. 2014. “Les apartés chez Plaute: définition et corpus critique.” In L’aparté dans le théȃtre antique. Un procédé dramatique à redecouvrir, ed. by Pascale Paré-Rey, 181–226. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes (Théȃtres du monde). Fogazza, Donatella. 1976 (1978). “Plauto 1935–1975.” Lustrum 19: 79–296. Fontaine, Michael. 2009. Funny words in Plautine comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fontaine, Michael. 2018. “A Cute Illness in Epidaurus: Eight sick jokes in Plautus’ Gorgylio (Curculio).” In Quasi Labor Intus: Ambiguity in Latin Literature. Papers in honor of Reginald Thomas Foster, OCD, ed. by Michael Fontaine, Charles J. McNamara, and William Michael Scott, 27–53. New York: Paideia Institute Press. Fontaine, Michael, and Adele C. Scafuro, eds. 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. Forehand, Walter E. 1985. Terence. Boston: Twayne Publishers (Twayne’s World Authors Series 745, Latin Literature). Fortson IV, Benjamin W. 2008. Language and Rhythm in Plautus. Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter (Sozomena 3). Fraenkel, Eduard. 2007. Plautine Elements in Plautus (Plautinisches im Plautus). Translated by Tomas Drevikovsky and Frances Muecke. Oxford: Oxford University Press; German original: Plautinisches im Plautus. Berlin: Weidmann, 1922 (Philologische Untersuchungen 28); Italian translation (by Franco Munari; with Addenda by the author): Elementi Plautini in Plauto (Plautinisches im Plautus). Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1960 (Il pensiero storico 41). Frangoulidis, Stravros A. 1997. Handlung und Nebenhandlung. Theater, Metatheater und Gattungsbewußtsein in der römischen Komödie. Stuttgart: M&P Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung (Drama Beiheft 6) [in English].

70

Manuwald

Frangoulidis, Stravros, Stephen J. Harrison, and Gesine Manuwald, eds. 2016. Roman Drama and its Contexts. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter (Trends in Classics – Suppl. Vol. 34). Franko, George Fredric. 2001. “Plautus and Roman New Comedy.” In Greek and Roman Comedy. Translations and Interpretations of Four Representative Plays, ed. by Shawn O’Bryhim, 147–88. Austin (Texas): University of Texas Press. Franko, George Fredric, and Dorota Dutsch, eds. 2020. A Companion to Plautus. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Frassinetti, Paolo. 1953. Fabula Atellana. Saggio sul teatro popolare latino. Pavia: Università di Genova Istituto di filologia classica (Università di Genova, Facoltà di lettere, Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di filologia classica 4). Frézouls, Edmond. 1982. “Aspects de l’histoire architecturale du théâtre romain.” ANRW II.12.1: 343–441. Frézouls, Edmond. 1983. “La construction du theatrum lapideum et son contexte politique.” In Théâtre et spectacles dans l’antiquité. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 5–7 novembre 1981, ed. by Hubert Zehnacker, 193–214. Leiden: Brill (Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de Recherches sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce Antiques 7). Frézouls, Edmond. 1989. “Architecture théâtrale et mise en scène.” Dioniso 59: 313–44. Gagliardo, Maria C. / Packer, James E. 2006. “A New Look at Pompey’s Theater: History, Documentation, and Recent Excavation.” AJA 110: 93–122. Gaiser, Konrad. 1972. “Zur Eigenart der römischen Komödie: Plautus und Terenz gegenüber ihren griechischen Vorbildern.” ANRW I.2: 1027–113. Garelli, Marie-Hélène. 2006. “Pantomime, tragédie et patrimoine littéraire sous l’Empire.” In De la tablette à la scène. Actes du Colloque de Paris X Nanterre, 31 octobre–1er novembre 2004, ed. by Jean-Christian Dumont, Pallas 71: 113–25. Garelli, Marie-Hélène. 2007. Danser le mythe. La pantomime et sa réception dans la culture antique. Louvain / Paris / Dudley (MA): Éditions Peeters (Bibliothèque d’études classiques 51). Garelli, Marie-Hélène. 2015. “Liberté de parole et scène comique à Rome au Ier siècle avant J.-C.” In Carnaval et comédie. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’équipe PLH-CRATA, 9–10 décembre 2009, Université de Toulouse Le Mirail, ed. by Malika Bastin Hammou and Charalampos Orfanos, 179–95. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Garton, Charles. 1972. Personal Aspects of the Roman Theatre. Toronto: Hakkert. Garton, Charles. 1982. “A Revised Register of Augustan Actors.” ANRW II.30.1: 580–609. Gasparro, Graziella. 1973. “La questione plautina nella critica anglosassone contemporanea.” RCCM 15: 87–133.

Roman Comedy

71

Gehl, Paul F. 2015. “Selling Terence in Renaissance Italy. The Marketing Power of Commentary.” In Classical commentaries. Explorations in a scholarly genre ed. by Christina S. Kraus and Christopher Stray, 253–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gelhaus, Hermann. 1972. Die Prologe des Terenz. Eine Erklärung nach den Lehren von der inventio und dispositio. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, Neue Folge, 2. Reihe, Band 43). Germany, Robert. 2016. Mimetic Contagion. Art and Artifice in Terence’s Eunuch. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation). Giancotti, Francesco. 1967. Mimo e gnome. Studio su Decimo Laberio e Publilio Siro. Messina / Firenze: Case Editrice G. D’Anna (Biblioteca di cultura contemporanea XCVIII). Gianotti, G.F. 1993. “Histriones, mimi et saltatores: per una storia degli spettacoli ‘leggeri’ d’età imperiale.” In Incontri del Dipartimento VI. Vitae mimus. Forme e funzione del teatro comico greco e latino. Pavia, 18 marzo 1993, 45–77. Como: Edizioni New Press. Gilula, Dwora. 1978. “Where Did the Audience Go?” SCI 4: 45–9. Gilula, Dwora. 1981. “Who’s afraid of rope-walkers and gladiators? (Ter. Hec. 1–57).” Athenaeum 59: 29–37. Gilula, Dwora. 1989a. “Greek drama in Rome: some aspects of cultural transposition.” In The Play Out of Context. Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture, ed. by Hanna Scolnicov and Peter Holland, 99–109. Cambridge / New York / New Rochelle / Melbourne / Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Gilula, Dwora. 1989b. “The first realistic roles in European theatre: Terence’s prologues.” QUCC 62 (n.s. 33): 95–106. Gilula, Dwora. 1991. “Plots are not stories: the so-called ‘duality method’ of Terence.” In Reading Plays. Interpretation and Reception, ed. by Hanna Scolnicov and Peter Holland, 81–93. Cambridge / New York / Port Chester / Melbourne / Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Goldberg, Sander M. 1977. “The Woman of Andros: Terence Made Wilder.” Helios 5.1: 11–9. Goldberg, Sander M. 1981. “Scholarship on Terence and the fragments of Roman comedy (1959–1980).” CW 75: 77–115. Goldberg, Sander M. 1983. “Terence, Cato, and the Rhetorical Prologue.” CPh 78: 198–211. Goldberg, Sander M. 1986. Understanding Terence. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. Goldberg, Sander M. 1993. “Terence and the Death of Comedy.” In Drama and the Classical Heritage. Comparative and Critical Essays, ed. by Clifford Davidson, Rand Johnson, and John H. Stroupe, 52–64. New York: AMS Press, Inc. (AMS Ancient and Classical Studies 1).

72

Manuwald

Goldberg, Sander M. 1998. “Plautus on the Palatine.” JRS 88: 1–20. Goldberg, Sander M. 2005. Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic. Poetry and its Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldberg, Sander M. 2007. “Antiquity’s antiquity.” In Latinitas Perennis. Volume I. The Continuity of Latin Literature, ed. by Wim Verbaal, Yanick Maes, and Jan Papy, 17–29. Leiden / Boston: Brill (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 144). Goldberg, Sander M. 2011. “Roman Comedy Gets Back to Basics.” JRS 101: 206–21. Goldberg, Sander M. 2018. “Theater without Theaters: Seeing plays the Roman Way.” TAPhA 148: 139–72. Goldberg, Sander M. 2019. Terence, Andria. London / New York: Bloomsbury Academic (Bloomsbury Ancient Comedy Companions). Gonçalves, Rodrigo Tadeu. 2015. Performative Plautus: Sophistics, Metatheater and Translation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. González Vázquez, Carmen. 2000. “La escena imaginaria del espectador plautino.” Pallas 54: 239–47. González Vázquez, Carmen. 2001. “La comédie « métathéâtrale » chez Plaute.” In D’un « genre » à l’autre, ed. by Marie-Hélène Garelli-François, Pierre Sauzeau, and M.-P. Noël, CGITA 14: 101–14. González Vázquez, Carmen. 2004. Diccionario del teatro latino. Léxico, dramaturgia, escenografía. Madrid: Ediciones Clasicas. González Vázquez, Carmen, ed. 2016. Diccionario de personajes de comedia antigua. Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico. Görler, Woldemar. 1973. “Über die Illusion in der antiken Komödie.” A&A 18: 41–57. Gowers, Emily. 2004. “The plot thickens: hidden outlines in Terence’s prologues.” In Rethinking Terence, ed. by A.J. Boyle, Ramus 33.1–2: 150–66. Grant, John N. 1986. Studies in the Textual Tradition of Terence. Toronto / Buffalo / London: University of Toronto Press (Phoenix Suppl. Vol. XX). Gratwick, A.S. 1982. “5. Drama.” In The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. II. Latin Literature, ed. by E.J. Kenney and W.V. Clausen, 77–137. Cambridge / London / New York / New Rochelle / Melbourne / Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Gratwick, Adrian S. 2000. “Brauchen wir einen neuen Plautus?” In Dramatische Wäldchen. Festschrift für Eckard Lefèvre zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Ekkehard Stärk and Gregor Vogt-Spira, 321–44. Hildesheim / Zürich / New York: Georg Olms Verlag (Spudasmata 80). Grimal, Pierre. 1975. “Le théâtre à Rome.” In Association Guillaume Budé. Actes du IXe Congrès (Rome, 13–18 avril 1973). Tome I, 249–305. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Gruen, Erich S. 1990. Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden / New York / København / Köln: Brill (Cincinnati Classical Studies. New Series. Vol. VII). Gruen, Erich S. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology LII).

Roman Comedy

73

Guardì, Tommaso. 1978. “I fullones e la commedia romana.” Pan 6: 37–45. Guardì, Tommaso. 1981. “Note sulla lingua di Titinio.” Pan 7: 145–65. Guardì, Tommaso. 1991. “La togata.” Dioniso 61: 209–20. Guardì, Tommaso. 1993. “La fabula togata: moduli formali ed evoluzione del genere.” In Cultura e lingue classiche. 3o Convegno di aggiornamento e di didattica. Palermo, 29 ottobre–1 novembre 1989, ed. by B. Amata, 271–7. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Guardì, Tommaso. 2009. “La Fabula Togata: forme e limiti di un genere teatrale.” In La commedia latina: modelli, forme, ideologia, fortuna. Giornate siracusane sul teatro antico, Siracusa, 21 aprile 2008, ed. by Mario Blancato and Gianfranco Nuzzo, 41–53. Palermo: Istituto Nazionale del Dramma Antico. Gunderson, Erik. 2015. Laughing Awry. Plautus and Tragicomedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haffter, Heinz. 1934. Untersuchungen zur altlateinischen Dichtersprache. Berlin: Weidmann (Problemata 10). Haffter, Heinz. 1953. “Terenz und seine künstlerische Eigenart.” MH 10: 1–20, 73– 102; repr. as a monograph: Terenz und seine künstlerische Eigenart. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967; translated into Italian: Terenzio e la sua personalità artistica. Roma: Edizione dell’Ateneo, 1969. Hagendahl, Harald. 1958. Latin fathers and the Classics. A study on the Apologists, Jerome and other Christian writers. Göteborg: Almqvist & Wiksell (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia VI / Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis LXIV.2). Hagendahl, Harald. 1967. Augustine and the Latin Classics. 2 vols. Göteborg: Almqvist & Wiksell (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia XX / Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis). Hall, Edith. 2013. “Pantomime: Visualising Myth in the Roman Empire.” In Performance in Greek and Roman Theatre, ed. by George W.M. Harrison and Vayos Liapis, 451–73. Leiden / Boston: Brill (Mnemosyne Suppl. 353). Hall, Edith, and Rosie Wyles. eds. 2008. New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halporn, James. 1993. “Roman comedy and Greek models.” In Theater and Society in the Classical World, ed. by Ruth Scodel, 191–213. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press. Handley, E.W. 1968. Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison. An Inaugural Lecture Delivered at University College London 5 February 1968. London: H.K. Lewis & Co Ltd. Handley, E.W. 1975. “Plautus and his public: some thoughts on new comedy in Latin.” Dioniso 46: 117–32. Hanson, J.A. 1959. Roman Theater-Temples, PhD diss. Princeton University, Princeton (NJ) [https://archive.org/details/romanthe00hans]. Hanson, J.A. 1965/6. “Scholarship on Plautus since 1950.” CW 59: 103–7, 126–9, 141–8.

74

Manuwald

Hardin, Richard F. 2007. “Encountering Plautus in the Renaissance: A Humanist Debate on Comedy.” Renaissance Quarterly 60: 789–818. Hardin, Richard F. 2017. Plautus and the English Renaissance of Comedy. Lanham: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Hardwick, Lorna. 2003. Reception Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Greece & Rome, New Surveys in the Classics No. 33). Harrison, Stephen, ed. 2005. A Companion to Latin Literature. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Heldmann, G. 2000. “Die griechische und lateinische Tragödie und Komödie in der Kaiserzeit.” WJA 24: 185–205. Hollmann, Elisabeth. 2016. Die plautinischen Prologe und ihre Funktion. Zur Konstruk­ tion von Spannung und Komik in den Komödien des Plautus. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter (Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft, Beihefte 7). Horsfall, N. 1976. “The collegium poetarum.” BICS 23: 79–95. Höttemann, Barbara. 1993. “Phlyakenposse und Atellane.” In Beiträge zur mündlichen Kultur der Römer, ed. by Gregor Vogt-Spira, 89–112. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag (ScriptOralia 47; Reihe A: Altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe, Bd. 11). Hughes, Alan. 2003. “Comedy in Paestan vase painting.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22: 281–301. Hughes, J. David. 1975. A Bibliography of Scholarship on Plautus. Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert. Hugoniot, Christophe, Frédéric Hurlet, and Silvia Milanezi, eds. 2004. Le statut de l’acteur dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine (Actes du colloque qui s’est tenu à Tours les 3 et 4 mai 2002). Tours: Presses Universitaires François-Rabelais (Collection Perspectives Historiques 9) [https://books.openedition.org/pufr/8560?lang=en]. Hülsemann, Matthias. 1987. Theater, Kult und bürgerlicher Widerstand im antiken Rom. Die Entstehung der architektonischen Struktur des römischen Theaters im Rahmen der gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung zur Zeit der Republik. Frankfurt a.M. / Bern / New York: Peter Lang (European University Studies, Series III: History and Allied Studies, Vol. 307). Hunter, Richard L. 1985. The New Comedy of Greece and Rome. Cambridge / London / New York / New Rochelle / Melbourne / Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Hunter, Richard L. 1987. “Middle Comedy and the Amphitruo of Plautus.” Dioniso 57: 281–98. Hurka, Florian. 2013. “Plautus und die Erschaffung des Zuschauers: Publikumsnormie­ rung und narrative Perspektivensteuerung im Prolog des Poenulus.” In Form und Bedeutung im lateinischen Drama / Form and Meaning in Latin Drama, ed. by Timothy J. Moore and Wolfgang Polleichtner. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag (Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 95), 33–51.

Roman Comedy

75

Iurescia, Federica. 2016. “Strategies of persuasion in provoked quarrels in Plautus: A pragmatic perspective.” In Emotion and Persuasion in Classical Antiquity, ed. by Ed Sanders and Matthew Johncock, 281–94. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Jachmann, Günther. 1931. Plautinisches und Attisches. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung (Problemata 3). Jachmann, Günther. 1934. “Terentius (36).” RE V A 1: 598–650. Jakobi, Rainer. 1996. Die Kunst der Exegese im Terenzkommentar des Donat. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter (UaLG 47). Jeppesen, Seth A. 2015. “Obscenity and Performance on the Plautine Stage.” In Ancient obscenities. Their nature and use in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, ed. by Dorota Dutsch and Ann Suter, 175–90. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Jocelyn, Henry David. 1991. “The status of the ‘fabula togata’ in the Roman theatre and the fortune of the scripts.” Dioniso 61: 277–81. Jocelyn, Henry David. 1995. “Horace and the reputation of Plautus in the late first century BC.” In Homage to Horace. A Bimillenary Celebration, ed. by Stephen J. Harrison, 228–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jones, Leslie Webber, and C.R. Morey. 1931. The miniatures of the manuscripts of Terence prior to the thirteenth century. Princeton / London / Leipzig: Princeton University Press / Oxford University Press / Karl Hiersemann Verlag (Illuminated Manuscripts of the Middle Ages). Jory, Edward John. 1970. “Associations of actors at Rome.” Hermes 98: 224–53. Jory, Edward John. 1981. “The literary evidence for the beginnings of imperial pantomime.” BICS 28: 147–61. Jory, E.J. 1986. “Continuity and change in the Roman theatre.” In Studies in Honour of T.B.L. Webster. Volume One, ed. by J.H. Betts, J.T. Hooker & J.R. Green, 143–52. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Jory, E.J. 1988. “Publilius Syrus and the Element of Competition in the Theatre of the Republic.” In Vir bonus discendi peritus. Studies in celebration of Otto Skutsch’s eightieth birthday, ed. Nicholas Horsfall, 73–81. London: Institute of Classical Studies (BICS Suppl. 51). Jory, E.J. 1996. “The Drama of the Dance: Prolegomena to an Iconography of Imperial Pantomime.” In Roman Theater and Society, 1–27, ed. by William J. Slater. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press (E. Togo Salmon Papers I). Jory, E.J. 2003. “The Achievement of Pylades and Bathyllus.” In Theatres of Action. Papers for Chris Dearden, ed. by John Davidson and Arthur Pomeroy, 187–93, Auckland: Polygraphia Ltd (Prudentia Suppl.). Jory, Edward John. 2008. “The Pantomime Dancer and his Libretto.” In New Directions in Ancient Pantomime, ed. by Edith Hall and Rosie Wyles, 159–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

76

Manuwald

Juhnke, Herbert. 1978. “Terenz.” In Das römische Drama, ed. by E. Lefèvre, 223–307. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Grundriß der Literaturgeschichten nach Gattungen). Jürgens, Heiko. 1972. Pompa diaboli. Die lateinischen Kirchenväter und das antike Theater. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer (Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 46). Karakasis, Evangelos. 2005. Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Classical Studies). Kes, Barbara R. 1988. Die Rezeption der Komödien des Plautus und Terenz im 19. Jahrhundert. Theorie – Bearbeitung – Bühne. Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner Publishing Co. Kindermann, Heinz. 1979. Das Theaterpublikum der Antike. Salzburg: Otto Müller Verlag. Kleve, K. 1996. “How to read an illegible papyrus. Towards an edition of PHerc. 78, Caecilius Statius, Obolostates sive Faenerator.” CErc 26: 5–14. Kleve, K. 2001. “Caecilius Statius, The Money-lender (PHerc. 78).” In Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia. Firenze, 23–29 agosto 1998. 2 vols, ed. by Isabella Andorlini, Guido Bastianini, Manfredo Manfredi, and Giovanna Menci 2.725. Firenze: Istituto Papirologico G. Vitelli. Klose, Dietrich. 1966. Die Didaskalien und Prologe des Terenz, PhD diss. Universität Freiburg. Freiburg. Knorr, Ortwin. 2007. “Metatheatrical humor in the comedies of Terence.” In Terentius Poeta, ed. by Peter Kruschwitz, Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers, and Fritz Felgentreu, 167–74. München: C.H. Beck (Zetemata 127). Konstan, David. 1983. Roman Comedy. Ithaca (NY) / London: Cornell University Press. Kraus, Walther. 1934. “ ‘Ad spectatores’ in der römischen Komödie.” WS 52: 66–83. Kruschwitz, Peter. 2004. Terenz. Hildesheim / Zürich / New York: Georg Olms Verlag (Studienbücher Antike 12). Kruschwitz, Peter, Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers, and Fritz Felgentreu, eds. 2007. Terentius Poeta. München: C.H. Beck (Zetemata 127). Lada-Richards, Ismene. 2004. “Authorial voice and theatrical self-definition in Terence and beyond: the Hecyra prologues in ancient and modern contexts.” G&R 51: 55–82. Laidlaw, W.A., M.M. Willcock, and Michal Coffey. 1968. “Roman drama.” In Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship. Being Fifty Year of Classical Scholarship Revised with Appendices, ed. by Maurice Platnauer, 292–344, Oxford: Blackwell. Lape, Susan. 2017. “Compassion and violence in Hellenistic New Comedy. The case of Terence’s Self-Tormentor.” In Cultural Perceptions of Violence in the Hellenistic World, ed. by Michael Champion and Lara O’Sullivan, 116–36, London / New York: Routledge. Lefèvre, Eckard. 1969. Die Expositionstechnik in den Komödien des Terenz. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Libelli 303).

Roman Comedy

77

Lefèvre, Eckard, ed. 1973. Die römische Komödie: Plautus und Terenz. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Wege der Forschung CCXXXVI). Lefèvre, Eckard, ed. 1978. Das römische Drama. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Grundriß der Literaturgeschichten nach Gattungen). Lefèvre, Eckard. 1988. “Saturnalien und Palliata.” Poetica 20: 32–46. Lefèvre, Eckard, Ekkehard Stärk, and Gregor Vogt-Spira. 1991. Plautus barbarus. Sechs Kapitel zur Originalität des Plautus. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag (ScriptOralia 25, Reihe A: Altertumswiss. Reihe, Bd. 8). Le Guen, Brigitte. 2001. Les associations de technites dionysiaques à l’époque hellénistique. 2 vols. Nancy: Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche sur l’Antiquité (Études d’archéologie classique 11). Le Guen, Brigitte, and Silvia Milanezi, eds. 2013. L’appareil scénique dans les spectacles de l’antiquité. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes (Théâtres du monde). Leigh, Matthew. 2004. Comedy and the Rise of Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lentano, Mario. 1997. “Quindici anni di studi terenziani. Parte prima: studi sulle commedie (1979–1993).” BStudLat 27: 497–564. Lentano, Mario. 1998. “Quindici anni di studi terenziani. Parte seconda: tradizione manoscritta ed esegesi antica (1979–1993).” BStudLat 28: 78–104. Leo, Friedrich. 1912. Plautinische Forschungen. Zur Kritik und Geschichte der Komödie, 2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmann [https://archive.org/details/aht6371.0001.001.umich .edu]. Leo, Friedrich. 1913. Geschichte der römischen Literatur. Erster Band. Die Archaische Literatur. Berlin: Weidmann [https://archive.org/details/geschichtederr01leofuoft]. Leppin, Hartmut. 1992. Histrionen. Untersuchungen zur sozialen Stellung von Bühnenkünstlern im Westen des Römischen Reiches zur Zeit der Republik und des Principats. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt (Antiquitas, Reihe 1, Bd. 41). Leppin, Hartmut. 1996. “Tacitus und die Anfänge des kaiserzeitlichen Pantomimus.” RhM 139: 33–40 [http://www.rhm.uni-koeln.de/139/Leppin.pdf]. Letessier, Pierre. 2014. “La notation des apartés dans les éditions modernes et contemporaines de Plaute: un piège herméneutique.” In: L’aparté dans le théȃtre antique. Un procédé dramatique à redécouvrir, ed. by Pascale Paré-Rey, 295–314. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes (Théȃtres du monde). Letessier, Pierre. 2017. “Le jeu des normes dans la palliata: la surprise comme horizon d’attente.” In La norme sous la République romain et le Haut-Empire. Élaboration, diffusion et contournements, ed. by Tanja Itgenshorst and Philippe Le Doze. Bordeaux: Ausonius éditions (Scripta antiqua 96). Lindsay, Wallace Martin. 1922. Early Latin verse. Oxford: Oxford University Press [https://archive.org/details/earlylatinverse00linduoft]. López, Aurora. 1977. “El adjetivo «Togatus» y la comedia «Togata».” Helmantica 28: 331– 42; repr. in Estudios sobre comedia romana, ed. by Aurora López and Andrés Pociña,

78

Manuwald

341–53. Frankfurt a.M. / Berlin / Bern / Bruxelles / New York / Wien: Peter Lang, 2000 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 119). López, A. 1982. “Los estudios sobre fabula togata en el decenio 1970–80.” In Actas del I Congreso Andaluz de Estudios Clásicos. Jaén, 9–12 diciembre, año 1981, ed. by Juan Higueras Maldonado, 255–9. Jaén: Instituto de Estudios Giennenses; repr. in Estudios sobre comedia romana, ed. by Aurora López and Andrés Pociña, 377–83. Frankfurt a.M. / Berlin / Bern / Bruxelles / New York / Wien: Peter Lang, 2000 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 119). López, Aurora. 1994. “Los estudios sobre fabula togata en el decenio 1980–90.” In Actas del VIII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos (Madrid, 23 al 28 de septiembre de 1991), vol. II, 719–24. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas; repr. in Estudios sobre comedia romana, ed. by Aurora López and Andrés Pociña, 385–93. Frankfurt a.M. / Berlin / Bern / Bruxelles / New York / Wien: Peter Lang, 2000 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 119). Lowe, J.C.B. 1985. “Cooks in Plautus.” ClAnt 4: 72–102. Lowe, J.C.B. 1989. “Plautus’ Parasites and the Atellana.” In Studien zur vorliterarischen Periode im frühen Rom, ed. by Gregor Vogt-Spira, 161–9. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag (ScriptOralia 12, Reihe A: Altertumswiss. Reihe 2). Lowe, J.C.B. 1990. “Plautus’ choruses.” RhM 130: 274–97 [http://www.rhm.uni-koeln .de/133/Lowe.pdf]. Lowe, J.C.B. 2009. “Terence and the Running-Slave Routine.” RhM 152: 225–34 [http:// www.rhm.uni-koeln.de/152/Lowe.pdf]. Lowe, J.C.B. 2016. “The Third Stage-house in Plautus and Terence.” Hermes 144: 171–7. Lowe, Nick J. 2008. Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Greece & Rome, New Surveys in the Classics 37, 2007). Ludwig, Walther. 1968. “The Originality of Terence and his Greek models.” GRBS 9: 169–82; repr. in: Eckard Lefèvre, ed. Die römische Komödie: Plautus und Terenz, 424–42. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973 (WdF CCXXXVI) (in German, with additions of 1971). Maltby, Robert. 1995. “The Distribution of Greek Loan-Words in Plautus.” Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 8: 31–69. Manuwald, Gesine. 2010. Roman Drama: A Reader. London: Duckworth. Manuwald, Gesine. 2011. Roman Republican Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marshall, C.W. 2006. The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marti, Heinrich. 1961/3. “Terenz 1909–1959.” Lustrum 6: 114–238 / 8: 5–101. Marti, Heinrich. 1974. “Zeugnisse zur Nachwirkung des Dichters Terenz im Altertum.” In Musa iocosa. Arbeiten über Humor und Witz, Komik und Komödie der Antike. Andreas Thierfelder zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 15. Juni 1973, ed. by Udo Reinhardt, Klaus

Roman Comedy

79

Sallmann, and Karl Heinz Chelius, 158–78. Hildesheim / New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Martina, Mario. 1978. “Sulla cronologia di Titinio.” QFC 1: 5–25. Marzullo, Antonio. 1956. “Le origini italiche e lo sviluppo letterario delle Atellane: Nuove richerche su Novio.” Atti e Memorie, Accademia di Scienze, Lettere e Arti di Modena, Serie V, vol. XIV: 160–84. Marzullo, Antonio. 1973. Dalla satira al teatro popolare latino. Richerche varie. Milano: Casa Editrice Ceschina. Mattingly, H.B. 1957. “The Plautine ‘Didascaliae’.” Athenaeum 35: 78–88. Mattingly, H.B. 1960. “The first period of Plautine revival.” Latomus 19: 230–52. Maurach, Gregor. 2005. Kleine Geschichte der antiken Komödie. Darmstadt: Wissen­ schaftliche Buchgesellschaft. McCarthy, Kathleen. 2000. Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy. Princeton / Oxford: Princeton University Press. McDonald, Marianne, and J. Michael Walton, eds. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McElduff, Siobhan. 2004. “More than Menander’s acolyte: Terence on translation.” In Rethinking Terence, ed. by A.J. Boyle, Ramus 33.1–2: 120–9. McElduff, Siobhan. 2013. Roman Theories of Translation. Surpassing the Source. New York: Routlege (Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies). McGill, Scott. 2012. Plagiarism in Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McPherson, David. 1981. “Roman Comedy in Renaissance Education: The Moral Question.” Sixteenth Century Journal 12.1: 19–30. Mileo, Antonio. 2013. Struttura e funzione del monologo nel teatro terenziano. Roma: Aracne Editrice (Meridionalia 7). Minarini, Alessandra. 1997. “Il linguaggio della togata fra innovazione e tradizione: considerazioni sullo stile.” BStudLat 27: 34–55. Miola, Robert S. 1994. Shakespeare and Classical Comedy. The Influence of Plautus and Terence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mitens, Karina. 1988. Teatri greci e teatri ispirati all’architettura greca in Sicilia e nell’Italia meridionale c. 350–50 a.C. Un catalogo. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici Suppl. XIII). Mitens, Karina. 1993. “Theatre architecture in central Italy: reception and resistance.” In Aspects of Hellenism in Italy: Towards a Cultural Unity?, ed. by Pia Guldager Bilde, Inge Nielsen, and Marjatta Nielsen, ActaHyp 5: 91–106. Moore, Timothy J. 1991. “Palliata Togata: Plautus, Curculio 462–86.” AJPh 112: 343–62. Moore, Timothy J. 1994. “Seats and social status in the Plautine theatre.” CJ 90: 113–23. Moore, Timothy J. 1995. “How is it played? Tragicomedy as a running joke: Plautus’ Amphitruo in performance.” Didaskalia Suppl. 1 [www.didaskalia.net/issues/ supplement1/moore.html].

80

Manuwald

Moore, Timothy J. 1998a. The Theater of Plautus. Playing to the Audience. Austin (Texas): University of Texas Press. Moore, Timothy J. 1998b. “Music and structure in Roman comedy.” AJPh 119: 245–73. Moore, Timothy J. 1999. “Facing the music: character and musical accompaniment in Roman comedy.” In Crossing the Stages: The Production, Performance and Reception of Ancient Theater. Selected Papers Presented at a Conference Held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on 22–25 October, 1997, ed. by John Porter, Eric Csapo, C.W. Marshall, and Robert C. Ketterer, SyllClass 10: 130–53. Moore, Timothy J. 2001. “Terence and Roman New Comedy.” In Greek and Roman Comedy. Translations and Interpretations of Four Representative Plays, ed. by Shawn O’Bryhim, 241–65. Austin (Texas): University of Texas Press. Moore, Timothy J. 2007. “Terence as musical innovator.” In Terentius Poeta, ed. by Peter Kruschwitz, Widu-Wolfgang Ehlers, and Fritz Felgentreu, 93–109. München: C.H. Beck (Zetemata 127). Moore, Timothy J. 2008. “When did the tibicen play? Meter and musical accompaniment in Roman comedy.” TAPhA 138: 3–46. Moore, Timothy J. 2012a. Music in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moore, Timothy J. 2012b. Roman Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Greece & Rome: Texts and Contexts). Muecke, Frances. 1986. “Plautus and the Theater of Disguise.” ClAnt 5: 216–29. Müller, Roman. 1997. Sprechen und Sprache. Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswis­ senschaften, Neue Folge, 2. Reihe, Band 99). Munk, Eduardus. 1840. De fabulis Atellanis scripsit fragmentaque Atellanarum poetarum adiecit. Leipzig: K.F. Köhler [https://archive.org/details/defabulis atella00munkgoog]. Nervegna, Sebastiana. 2013. Menander in Antiquity: The Contexts of Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. North, John A. 1992. “Deconstructing stone Theatres.” In Apodosis. Essays presented to Dr W.W. Cruikshank to mark his eightieth birthday. St Paul’s School: 75–83. Norwood, Gilbert. 1923. The Art of Terence. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Olson, S. Douglas, ed. 2013. Ancient Comedy and Reception. Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Henderson. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter. Oppermann, Hans. 1939a. “Caecilius und die Entwicklung der römischen Komödie.” Forschungen und Fortschritte 15: 196–7. Oppermann, Hans. 1939b. “Zur Entwicklung der fabula palliata.” Hermes 74: 113–29. Panayotakis, Costas. 2005a. “Comedy, Atellane farce and mime.” In A Companion to Latin Literature, ed. by Stephen Harrison, 130–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World).

Roman Comedy

81

Panayotakis, Costas. 2005b. “Nonverbal behaviour on the Roman comic stage.” In Body Language in the Greek and Roman Worlds, ed. by Douglas Cairns, 175–93. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Panayotakis, Costas. 2006. “Women in the Greco-Roman Mime of the Roman Republic and the Early Empire.” Ordia Prima 5: 121–38. Papaioannou, Sophia. 2010. “Postclassical Comedy and the Composition of Roman Comedy.” In New Perspectives on Postclassical Comedy, ed. by Antonis K. Petrides and Sophia Papaioannou, 146–75. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing (Pierides II). Papaioannou, S., ed. 2014. Terence and Interpretation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing (Pierides IV). Papaioannou, Sophia. 2015. “New Comedy and Roman Comedy: With and Without Menander.” In Stereotyped Thinking in Classics: Literary Ages and Genres Re-Considered, ed. by Christine Walde, Thersites 2: 52–80 [http://www.thersites .uni-mainz.de/index.php/thr/article/view/19]. Paratore, Ettore. 1957. Storia del teatro latino. Milano 1957: Casa editrice Dr Francesco Vallardi (Estratto dalla Storia del teatro diretta a Mario Praz); repr.: Ettore Paratore, Storia del teatro latino, con un’Appendice di scritti sul teatro latino arcaico e un inedito autobiografico, a cura di Leopoldo Gamberale and Antonio Marchetta. Venosa: Osanna Edizioni, 2005. Parker, Holt N. 1996. “Plautus vs. Terence: audience and popularity re-examined.” AJPh 117: 585–617. Parker, Holt N. 1999. “The observed of all observers: spectacle, applause, and cultural poetics in the Roman theater audience.” In The Art of Ancient Spectacle, ed by. Bettina Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon, 163–79. New Haven (CT) / London: Yale University Press (Studies in the History of Art 56, Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, Symposium Papers XXXIV). Pasquazi Bagnolini, Anna. 1974. “Sulla fabula togata.” C&S 52: 70–9. Pasquazi Bagnolini, Anna. 1975. “Sulla fabula togata. II.” C&S 56: 39–47. Pasquazi Bagnolini, Anna. 1977. Note sulla lingua di Afranio. Firenze: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore (Bibliotechina del Saggiatore 41). Pellecchi, Luigi. 2012. Per una lettura giuridica della Rudens di Plauto. Parma: Casanova. Editore. Pellecchi, Luigi. 2013. “Per una lettura guiridica della Rudens di Plauto.” Athenaeum 101: 103–62. Perdicoyianni-Paléologou, Hélène. 2013. Anaphore, cataphore et deixis chez Plaute. Les emplois de is, hic, iste, ille. Leuven / Paris / Walpole (MA): Peeters (Orbis Supplementa 38). Perelli, Luciano. 1973. Il teatro rivoluzionario di Terenzio. Firenze: La Nuova Italia (Biblioteca di cultura 112) (repr. 1976).

82

Manuwald

Perelli, Luciano. 1979. “Rassegna di studi terenziani (1968–1978).” BStudLat 9: 281–315. Perysinakis, Ioannis N. / Karakasis, Evangelos, eds. 2014. Plautine Trends. Studies in Plautine Comedy and its Reception. Festschrift in honour of Prof. D.K. Raios. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter (Trends in Classics Suppl. Vol. 29). Peters, Julie Stone. 2000. Theatre of the Book 1480–1880. Print, Text, and Performance in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Petersmann, Hubert. 1989. “Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in der Atellane.” In Studien zur vorliterarischen Periode im frühen Rom, ed. by Gregor Vogt-Spira, 135–59. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag (ScriptOralia 12, Reihe A: Altertumswiss. Reihe 2). Petrone, Gianna. 1983. Teatro antico e inganno: Finzione plautine. Palermo: Palumbo Editore (Letteratura classica 10). Petrone, Gianna. 1992. “I Romani.” In Umberto Albini and Gianna Petrone, Storia del teatro. I Greci – I Romani, 339–684. Milano: Garzanti Editore. Petrone, Gianna, and Maurizio Massimo Bianco, eds. 2006. La commedia di Plauto e la parodia. Il lato comico dei paradigmi tragici. Palermo: Flaccovio (Leuconoe: L’invenzione dei classici 9). Pezzini, Giuseppe. 2015. Terence and the Verb “To Be” in Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford Classical Monographs). Pociña Pérez, Andrés. 1975a. “Naissance et originalité de la comédie « togata ».” AC 44: 79–88 [https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1975_num_44_1_1765]; repr. in Spanish as “Nacimiento y originalidad de la comedia togata” in Estudios sobre comedia romana, ed. by Aurora López and Andrés Pociña, 355–65. Frankfurt a.M. / Berlin / Bern / Bruxelles / New York / Wien: Peter Lang, 2000 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 119). Pociña Pérez, Andrés. 1975b. “Lucio Afranio y la evolución de la fabula togata.” Habis 6: 99–107; repr. in Estudios sobre comedia romana, ed. by Aurora López and Andrés Pociña, 367–76. Frankfurt a.M. / Berlin / Bern / Bruxelles / New York / Wien: Peter Lang, 2000 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 119). Pociña Pérez, Andrés. 1980. “El comediógrafo Cecilio Estacio.” Sodalitas 1: 211–31 = EClás 25 (1981–83): 64–78; repr. in Estudios sobre comedia romana, ed. by Aurora López and Andrés Pociña, 289–99. Frankfurt a.M. / Berlin / Bern / Bruxelles / New York / Wien: Peter Lang, 2000 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 119). Pociña Pérez, Andrés. 1991. “Popularidad de la comedia latina en los siglos III–II a.C.” In Excerpta Philologica Antonio Holgado Redondo sacra, 637–48. Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz; repr. in Estudios sobre comedia romana, ed. by Aurora López and Andrés Pociña, 97–113. Frankfurt a.M. / Berlin / Bern / Bruxelles / New York / Wien: Peter Lang, 2000 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 119). Pociña Pérez, Andrés. 1996a. “La comedia latina: definición, clases, nacimiento.” In Géneros literarios romanos (Aproximación a su estudio), ed. by Dulce Estefanía and Andrés Pociña, 1–26. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.

Roman Comedy

83

Pociña, Andrés. 1996b. “L’évolution vers le ménandrisme. De la perte progressive d’originalité dans la comédie latine.” In Panorama du théâtre antique. D’Eschyle aux dramaturges d’Amérique latine, ed. by Alain Moreau, CGITA 9: 119–31. Pociña Pérez, Andrés. 1998. “La comedia latina: notas definidoras de la palliata.” In Géneros literarios poéticos grecolatinos, ed. by Dulce Estefanía, Manuela Domínguez, and M. Teresa Amado, 209–19. Madrid / Santiago de Compostela: Sociedad de Estudios Clásicos (Cuadernos de literatura griega y latina II). Pociña, Andrés, and Aurora López. 2001. “Pour une vision globale de la comédie togata.” In D’un « genre » à l’autre, ed. by Marie-Hélène Garelli-François, Pierre Sauzeau, and M.-P. Noël, CGITA 14: 177–99. Przychocki, Gustaw. 1922. “De Titinii aetate.” In Charisteria Casimiro de Morawski septuagenario oblata ab amicis, collegis, discipulis, 180–88. Kraków: Krakowska Spółka Wydawnicza. Questa, Cesare. 1967. Introduzione alla metrica di Plauto. Bologna: Casa Editrice Prof. Riccardo Pàtron (Testi e manuali per l’insegnamento universitario del latino 4). Questa, Cesare. 1984. Numeri innumeri. Ricerche sui cantica e la tradizione manoscritta di Plauto. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo (Ricerche di storia della lingua Latina 18). Questa, Cesare, ed. 1995. Titi Macci Plauti cantica, edidit apparatu metrico instruxit. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti (Ludus philologiae 5). Questa, Cesare. 2007. La metrica di Plauto e di Terenzio. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti (Ludus philologiae 16). Raffaelli, Renato. 1987. “Pomponio e l’Atellana (spunti di analisi stilistiche e tematiche).” In Cispadana e letteratura antica. Atti del Convegno di studi tenuto ad Imola nel maggio 1986, con il concorso della Provincia di Bologna e del Comune di Imola, ed. by Dipartimento di Storia antica dell’Università di Bologna, 115–33. Bologna: La Deputazione di Storia Patria. Raffaelli, Renato. 2009. Esercizi plautini. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti (Letteratura e antropologia 10). Raffaelli, Renato, ed. 2014. Tuttoplauto. Un profilo dell’autore e delle commedie. Scritti di Cesare Questa e Renato Raffaelli. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti (Letteratura e antropologia 13). Raffaelli, Renato, and Alba Tontini. 1998–2017. Lecturae Plautinae Sarsinates. 19 vols. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti. Raffaelli, Renato, and Alba Tontini, eds. 2010. L’Atellana letteraria. Atti della Prima Giornata di Studi sull’Atellana. Succivo (Ce) 30 ottobre 2009. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti (Letteratura e antropologia 11). Raffaelli, Renato, and Alba Tontini, eds. 2013. L’Atellana preletteraria. Atti della Seconda Giornata di Studi sull’Atellana. Casapuzzano di Orta di Atella (Ce) 12 novembre 2011. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti (Letteratura e antropologia 12).

84

Manuwald

Reeve, Michael D. 1983. “Terence.” In Texts and Transmission. A Survey of the Latin Classics, ed. by Leighton D. Reynolds, 412–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press (repr. with corr. 1986, repr. 1990). Rei, Annalisa. 1998. “Villains, wives, and slaves in the comedies of Plautus.” In Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture. Differential Equations. Ed. by Sandra R. Joshel and Sheila Murnaghan, 92–108. London / New York: Routledge. Reich, Hermann. 1903 Der Mimus. Ein litterar-entwickelungsgeschichtlicher Versuch. Berlin: Weidmann (repr. Hildesheim 1974, 2005) [https://archive.org/details/ reichdermimusei00reicgoog]. von Reinhardstoettner, Karl. 1886. Plautus. Spätere Bearbeitungen plautinischer Lustspiele. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig: Wilhelm Friedrich (Die klassischen Schriftsteller des Altertums in ihrem Einflusse auf die späteren Litteraturen. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte. Erster Band) [https://archive.org/details/plautusspterebe00reingoog]. Richardson, L., Jr. 1987. “A note on the architecture of the Theatrum Pompei in Rome.” AJA 91: 123–6. Richlin, Amy. 2017. Slave Theater in the Roman Republic. Plautus and Popular Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Riedweg, Christoph. 1993. “Menander in Rom – Beobachtungen zu Caecilius Statius Plocium fr. I (136–53 Guardì).” Drama 2: 133–59. Riehle, Wolfgang. 1990. Shakespeare, Plautus and the Humanist Tradition. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Rieks, Rudolf. 1978. “Mimus und Atellane.” In Das römische Drama, ed. by Eckard Lefèvre, 348–77. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Grundriß der Literaturgeschichten nach Gattungen). Romano, Angela. 1990. Il «collegium scribarum». Aspetti sociali e giuridici della produzione letteraria tra III e II secolo A.C. Napoli: Jovene (Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di diritto romano e storia della scienza romanistica dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli «Federico II» III). Rotolo, Vincenzo. 1957. Il pantomimo. Studi e testi. Palermo: L’Accademia (Quaderni dell’Istituto di Filologia Greca della Università di Palermo 1). Sandbach, F.H. 1977. The Comic Theatre of Greece and Rome. London: Norton (Ancient Culture and Society). Sandbach, F.H. 1982. “How Terence’s Hecyra failed.” CQ 32: 134–5. Sander-Pieper, Gudrun. 2007. Das Komische bei Plautus. Eine Analyse zur plautinischen Poetik. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter (BzA 244). San Juan Manso, Enara. 2015. El Commentum Monacense a Terencio. Vitoria / Gasteiz: Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (Anejos de Veleia, Series minor 31).

Roman Comedy

85

Scafuro, Adele C. 1997. The Forensic Stage. Settling Disputes in Graeco-Roman New Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, Ernst A. 2003. “Die Tragikomödie Amphitruo des Plautus als Komödie und Tragödie.” MH 60: 80–104. Schmude, Michael P. 1988. Reden – Sachstreit – Zänkereien. Untersuchungen zu Form und Funktion verbaler Auseinandersetzungen in den Komödien des Plautus und Terenz. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (Palingenesia 25). Schorsch, Franz. 2011. Das commentum Monacense zu den Komödien des Terenz. Eine Erstedition des Kommentars zu ‚Andria‛, ‚Heautontimorumenos‛ und ‚Phormio‛. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag (Leipziger Studien zur Klassischen Philologie 8). Schweitzer, Eveline. 1968. Studien zu Publilius Syrus, PhD diss. Universität Wien. Wien. Scullard, Howard Hayes. 1981. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life). Sear, Frank. 2006. Roman Theatres. An Architectural Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Segal, Erich. 1981. “Scholarship on Plautus 1965–1976.” CW 74: 353–433. Segal, Erich. 1987. Roman Laughter. The Comedy of Plautus. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press [1st ed.: Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1968; chapter “Is the Captivi Plautine?”, pp. 191–214, also in Studi di filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco. Palermo: Università di Palermo, Facoltà di lettere e filosofia, Istituto di filologia greca, Istituto di filologia Latina, 1991: 2.553–68]. Segal, Erich, ed. 2001. Oxford Readings in Menander, Plautus and Terence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidensticker, Bernd. 2010. Das antike Theater. München: C.H. Beck (Wissen in der Beck’schen Reihe). Sergi, Emilia. 1997. Patrimonio e scambi commerciali: metafore e teatro in Plauto. Messina: Edizioni Dr. Antonino Sfameni (Lessico & Cultura 1). Sharrock, Alison. 2009. Reading Roman Comedy. Poetics and Playfulness in Plautus and Terence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (The W.B. Stanford Memorial Lectures). Slater, Niall W. 1985 / 2000. Plautus in Performance. The Theatre of the Mind. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1985; 2nd ed.: Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000 (Greek and Roman Theatre Archive 2). Slater, Niall W. 1990. “Amphitruo, Bacchae, and Metatheatre.” Lexis 5–6: 101–25; repr. in: Niall W. Slater 2000, 181–202. Slater, Niall W. 1992a. “Two Republican Poets on Drama: Terence and Accius.” in Antike Dramentheorien und ihre Rezeption, ed. by Bernhard Zimmermann, 85–103. Stuttgart: M&P Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung (Drama 1). Slater, Niall W. 1992b. “Plautine negotiations: the Poenulus prologue unpacked.” YClS 29: 131–46; repr. in: Niall W. Slater 2000, 149–62.

86

Manuwald

Smith, Bruce R. 1988. Ancient scripts & modern experience on the English stage 1500– 1700. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Spruit, J.E. 1966. De juridische en sociale positie van de romeinse acteurs [La condition juridique et sociale des acteurs romains, suivi d’un résumé en français], PhD diss. Universiteit Utrecht. Assen: Van Gorcum. Spruit, J.E. 1969. “Catalogus van romeinse acteurs.” MNIR 34: 59–95 [http://resources. huygens.knaw.nl/retroboeken/knir/#page=59&accessor=toc1&source=34&view=]. Stankiewicz, Lucyna. 1984. “Źródła antyczne o Titiniuszu – przyczynek do chronologii togaty (= De tempore quo Titinius togatarum scriptor vixerit).” Meander 39: 207–12. Stankiewicz, Lucyna. 1991. “Sources anciennes au sujet de togata. Essaie d’interprétation.” Eos 79: 33–44. Stankiewicz, Lucyna. 1996. “La fabula togata de Lucius Afranius vue par les anciens.” Eos 84: 319–23. Stein, Markus. 2003. “Der Dichter und sein Kritiker. Interpretationsprobleme im Prolog des Terenzischen Eunuchus.” RhM 146: 184–217 [http://www.rhm.uni-koeln.de/146/ Stein.pdf]. Stewart, Roberta. 2012. Plautus and Roman Slavery. Malden (MA) / Oxford / Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Stürner, Ferdinand. 2011. Monologe bei Plautus. Ein Beitrag zur Dramaturgie der hellenistisch-römischen Komödie. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (Hermes, Einzelschriften 103). Suerbaum, Werner. 2000. “Naevius comicus. Der Komödiendichter Naevius in der neueren Forschung.” in Dramatische Wäldchen. Festschrift für Eckard Lefèvre zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Ekkehard Stärk and Gregor Vogt-Spira, 301–20. Hildesheim / Zürich / New York: Georg Olms Verlag (Spudasmata 80). Suerbaum, Werner, ed. 2002. Handbuch der Lateinischen Literatur der Antike. Erster Band. Die Archaische Literatur. Von den Anfängen bis Sullas Tod. Die vorliterarische Periode und die Zeit von 240 bis 78 v. Chr. (HLL 1). München: C.H. Beck (HbdA VIII.1). Suerbaum, Werner. 2003. Ennius in der Forschung des 20. Jahrhunderts. Eine kommentierte Bibliographie für 1900–1999 mit systematischen Hinweisen nebst einer Kurzdarstellung des Q. Ennius (239–169 v. Chr.). Hildesheim / Zürich / New York: Georg Olms Verlag (Bibliographien zur Klassischen Philologie 1). Szilágyi, János György. 1941. Atellana. Tanulmányok az antik színjatszásról – Studi sull’arte scenica antica. Budapest: Tipográfiai Műintézet [summary in Italian]. Tabacco, Raffaella. 1975. “Il problema della togata nella critica moderna.” BStudLat 5: 33–57. Tarrant, Richard J. 1983. “Plautus.” In Texts and Transmission. A Survey of the Latin Classics, ed. by Leighton D. Reynolds, 302–7. Oxford: Oxford University Press (repr. with corr. 1986, repr. 1990).

Roman Comedy

87

Taylor, Lily Ross. 1937. “The opportunities for dramatic performances in the time of Plautus and Terence.” TAPhA 68: 284–304. Thierfelder, Andreas. 1936. “Die Motive der griechischen Komödie im Bewußtsein ihrer Dichter.” Hermes 71: 320–37. Traina, Alfonso. 1974. Vortit barbare. Le traduzioni poetiche da Livio Andronico a Cicerone. Seconda edizione riveduta e aggiornata. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo (Ricerche di storia della lingua latina 7) (1st ed.: Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo 1970). Turner, Andrew J., and Giulia Torello-Hill, eds. 2015. Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing. Illustration, Commentary and Performance. Leiden / Boston: Brill (Metaforms 4). Umbrico, Alessio. 2010. Terenzio e i suoi nobiles. Invenzione e realtà di un controverso legame. Pisa: Edizioni ETS (Testi e studi di cultura classica 44). von Ungern-Sternberg, Jürgen. 1975. “Die Einführung spezieller Sitze für die Senatoren bei den Spielen (194 v. Chr.).” Chiron 5: 157–63. Varwig, Freyr Roland. 1990. “Die antiken Terenzillustrationen. Eine Ikonologie naturalistisch inszenierter ‚quaestiones morales‘.” In EPMHNEYMATA. Festschrift für Hadwig Hörner zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, ed. by Herbert Eisenberger, 257–305. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, Neue Folge, 2. Reihe, Band 79). Vereecke, Edmond. 1968. “Titinius, témoin de son époque.” Recherches de Philologie et de Linguistique, 2e série (Travaux de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’Université catholique de Louvain – III, Section de philologie classique – II): 63–92. Vereecke, Edmond. 1971. “Titinius, Plaute et les origines de la « fabula togata ».” AC 40: 156–85 [https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1971_num_40_1_1617]. Victor, Benjamin. 2012. “Terentius orator an poeta. The endings of Eunuchus and Adelphoe.” CQ 62: 671–91. Victor, Benjamin. 2017. “Indoor and Outdoor: Observations on the Originals of Terence’s Andria and Hecyra.” CQ 67: 118–31. Vogt-Spira, Gregor. 1996. “Die Kulturbegegnung Roms mit den Griechen.” In Die Begegnung mit dem Fremden. Wertungen und Wirkungen in Hochkulturen vom Altertum bis zur Gegenwart, ed. by Meinhard Schuster, 11–33. Stuttgart / Leipzig: Teubner (Colloquium Rauricum 4). Webster, T.B.L., J.R. Green, and A. Seeberg. 1995. Monuments Illustrating New Comedy. Third edition revised and enlarged by J.R. Green and A. Seeberg. 2 vols. London: Institute of Classical Studies (BICS Suppl. 50). Weismann, Werner. 2004. “Antiquarisches Interesse für den Mimus und Pantomimus.” In: Theater, Theaterpraxis, Theaterkritik im kaiserzeitlichen Rom. Kolloqium anlässlich des 70. Geburtstages von Prof. Dr. Peter Lebrecht Schmidt 24. / 25. Juli 2003 Universität Konstanz, ed. by Joachim Fugmann, Markus Janka, Ulrich Schmitzer, and Helmut Seng, 175–92. München / Leipzig: K.G. Saur.

88

Manuwald

Welsh, Jarrett T. 2010. “Quintilian’s judgement of Afranius.” CQ 60: 118–26. Welsh, Jarrett. 2016. “The Charms of an Older Lover: Afranius 378–82 Ribbeck3.” In Roman Literary Cultures: Domestic Politics, Revolutionary Poetics, Civic Spectacle, ed. by Alison Keith and Jonathan Edmondson, 203–20. Toronto / Buffalo / London: Toronto University Press (Phoenix Suppl. LV). Wessels, Antje. 2012. “Gescheit(ert)e Strategien der Vermittlung von Wissen? Zur Arztszene in Plautus’ Menaechmi (876–965).” In Performanz von Wissen. Strategien der Wissensvermittlung in der Vormorderne, ed. by Therese Fuhrer and Almut-Barbara Renger, 55–70. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften 134, Neue Folge, 2. Reihe, Band 134). Wiles, David. 1988. “Taking farce seriously: recent critical approaches to Plautus.” In Farce, ed. by James Redmond, 261–71. Cambridge / New York / New Rochelle / Melbourne / Sydney: Cambridge University Press (Themes in Drama 10). Wiles, David. 1991. The Masks of Menander. Sign and Meaning in Greek and Roman Performance. Cambridge / New York / Port Chester / Melbourne / Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, Peter. 2002. “The musicians among the actors.” In Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, ed. by Pat Easterling and Edith Hall, 39–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, David H. 2006. The lost late antique illustrated Terence. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Documenti e riproduzioni 6). Wright, Frederick Warren. 1931. Cicero and the Theater. Northampton (MA): Smith College (Smith College Classical Studies 11). Wright, John. 1974. Dancing in Chains: the Stylistic Unity of the Comoedia Palliata. Roma: American Academy in Rome (Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome XXV). Zagagi, Netta. 1980. Tradition and Originality in Plautus. Studies of the Amatory Motifs in Plautine Comedy. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (Hypomnemata 62). Zagagi, Netta. 2012. “What do Greek Words do in Plautus?” In: Greek into Latin from Antiquity until the Nineteenth Century, ed. by John Glucker and Charles Burnett, 19–36. London / Torino: The Warburg Institute / Nino Aragno Editore (Warburg Institute Colloquia 18). Zillinger, Wilhelm. 1911. Cicero und die altrömischen Dichter, PhD diss. Universität Erlangen. Würzburg: F. Staudenraus. Zwierlein, Otto. 1990–1992. Zur Kritik und Exegese des Plautus. 4 vols. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1990, 4 / 1991, 3 / 14 / 1992, 4).