Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:26:30.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Actors and Act-Divisions: Some Questions of Adaptation in Roman Comedy1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

J.A. Barsby
J.A. Barsby*
Affiliation:
University of Otago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In enunciating what may be called the ‘five-act rule’ and the ‘three-actor rule’ Horace was prescribing for budding dramatists rather than describing any existing body of drama. Nevertheless the Menander discoveries of the past twenty-five years make it probable that both of these ‘rules’ were in practice observed by the writers of Greek New Comedy, in contrast to the writers of Roman comedy, who observed neither. That the Romans should have abandoned what appears to have been the Greek practice in these two respects is an interesting fact of theatrical history; more importantly it provides us with new avenues for exploring the old question of how much the Romans adapted their Greek originals and for assessing the original contributions of Plautus and Terence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 16 , 1982 , pp. 77 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See especially Gaiser, K.‘Zur Eigenart der römischen Komödie: Plautus und Terenz gegenüber ihren griechischen Vorbildern’ in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. Temporini, 1.2 (Berlin 1972), 1027–113 (esp. 1037-41, 1073–9).Google Scholar

3 See Gomme-Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary (Oxford 1973), 19–21;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWebster, T.B.L.An Introduction to Menander (Manchester 1974), 70–9;Google ScholarSandbach, F.H.The Comic Theatre of Greece and Rome (London 1977), 80–2.Google Scholar

4 On the Mytilene mosaics see Charitonidis, S., Kahil, L., Ginouvès, R.Les mosaiques de la maison du Ménandre à Mytilène (Berne 1970).Google Scholar

5 See Beare, W.The Roman Stage3 (London1964), 196–218;Google ScholarDuckworth, G.E.The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton 1952), 98–101 (but note that both are out of date on Menander).Google Scholar

6 See Questa, C.RCCM 4 (1962), 209–30.Google Scholar

7 Donatus, praef. Ad. 1.4,praef. Eun. 1.5; Evanthius, De Fab. 3.1.

8 On the one flute-interlude guaranteed by the text (Pseud. 573), which is a case of the exception proving the rule, and on alleged traces of a chorus in Roman comedy see Questa, C. in Ménandre, ed. Turner (Entretiens Hardt 16, Geneva 1969), 210–15.Google Scholar

9 See Martin, R.H.Terence: Adelphoe (Cambridge 1976), 219–20;Google Scholar cf. Webster (above, n. 3), 116, who does not see an act-break in Menander at this point.

10 Aristotle, Poetics 1449 a 16, 1449 b 5 ; Diomedes, GLK pp. 490–1 ; Tzetzes, Prol, de Com. 16.

11 On the Delphic Soteria see Sifakis, G.M.Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama (London 1967), 71–5.Google Scholar

12 For a general discussion see Pickard-Cambridge, A.W.The Dramatic Festivals of Athens 2 (Oxford 1968), 135–56.Google Scholar

13 On Aristophanes see Dearden, C.W.The Stage of Aristophanes (London 1976), 86–100.Google Scholar

14 For an illuminating discussion of this whole question (with relation to Aristophanes) see Lowe, J.C.B.BICS 9 (1962), 27–42.Google Scholar

15 For a judicious summary see Sandbach (above, n. 3), 78–80; cf. Gomme-Sandbach (above,n.3),16–19(and notes on Dysk 215,300,Epitr. 1120ff.,Mis. 269,Perik. 481, 1006 ff., Sik. 280 ff.), Webster (above, n. 3), 82–4.

16 See Goold, G.P.Phoenix 13 (1959), 144–50;Google ScholarGriffith, J.G.CQ 10 (1960), 113–17;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHandley, E.W.The Dyskolos of Menander (London 1965), 25–30.Google Scholar

17 See Duckworth (above, n. 5), 94–8.

18 Cf. Diomedes (above, n. 10): ‘at Latini scriptores complures personas in fabulas introduxerunt’.

19 Notably by Fraenkel, E.Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin 1922),Google Scholar repr. in Italian with addenda as Elementi Plautini in Plauto (Florence 1960). References are to the latter.

20 For discussion see Handley, E.W.Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison (London 1968);Google Scholar Questa (above, n. 8), 191–204; Gaiser, K.Philologus 114(1970),51–87;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sandbach (above, n. 3), 128–34; Gentili, B.Theatrical Performances in the Ancient World (Amsterdam 1979), 54–61 ;Google ScholarBain, D. in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, edd. West-Woodman (Cambridge 1979), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 The Menander passages (Asp. 245–8,Dysk. 230–2,Epitr. 169–71,Perik. 191–2), all of which refer to an approaching crowd, support the emendation ‘nesciocui turbae quae’ at Bacch. 107 ; for discussion of text and interpretation see Questa, C.T. Maccius Plautus: Bacchides 2 (Florence 1975), 30–3.Google Scholar

22 For the Roman plays as evidence for the three-actor rule in Menander see Sandbach, F.H. in Le monde grec: Hommages à Claire Préaux, edd. Bingen-Cambier-Nachtergael (Brussels 1975), 197–204.Google Scholar

23 So Webster, T.B.L.Studies in Menander (Manchester 1950), 131.Google Scholar

24 Fraenkel (above, n. 19), 68–70.

25 See the excellent discussion by Gaiser (above, n. 2), 1040-1, 1074–5.

26 Fraenkel (above, n. 19), 319.

27 The three-actor rule does not appear to be considered by Schaaf, L.Der Miles gloriosus des Plautus und sein griechisches Original: Ein Beitrag zur Kontaminationsfrage (Munich 1977).Google Scholar

28 The point is not considered in Martin’s commentary (above, n. 9). For discussion see Sandbach (above, n. 22), 202-4, and BICS 25 (1978), 123–45; Webster (above, n. 3), 116, less probably proposes to delete Syrus from Menander’s final scenes.