Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:04:04.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Terence and the Familiarisation of Comedy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Elaine Fantham
Elaine Fantham*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access

Extract

Let me start by quoting a paragraph from a century old edition of Terence, which will serve as a reminder of changes in our background knowledge of both comedy and this particular comic playwright:

Of the six extant Terentian comedies the Andria is the most pathetic, the Adelphoe in general more true to human nature than the rest, the Eunuchus the most varied and lively, with the largest number of interesting characters, and the Hecyra the one of least merit. All six are remarkable for the art with which the plot is unfolded through the natural sequence of incidents and play of motives. Striking effects, sharp contrasts and incongruities, which meet us in many plays of Plautus, are almost wholly absent. All is smooth, consistent and moderate, without any of the extravagance of exuberant humour or even creative fancy which characterizes the writing of the older poet. But Terence was essentially an imitative artist and his distinguishing feature was his artistic finish, a fact fully recognized by Horace (Epistle 2.1.59).

There is plenty here to question, if not correct. What does it mean to call Adelphoe more true to human nature? What defines an ‘interesting character’? And do present day readers still find Hecyra the play of least merit? As for the art with which Terence’s plots are unfolded, we still cannot guess how much of this is his own contribution rather than derived from Menander (whose plays were still unknown when this edition was written). However, scholars have used both the evidence given by Terence in the prologues and his commentator Donatus to identify where he has himself innovated in his plots—removing the expository prologues to replace irony with suspense, introducing a second lover and slave into Andria, working a braggart soldier and his parasite into Eunuchus and inserting an abduction scene into the second act of Adelphoe. And yet it was Terence’s immediate predecessor Caecilius whom Varro, most learned of ancient critics, praised for his superior plots. Certainly Terence does not indulge in the extravagance of Plautus, but is this because he is ‘essentially an imitative artist’? On the other hand I would not challenge the editor’s evaluation of his scripts as ‘smooth, consistent and moderate’ or his praise for the playwright’s ‘artistic finish’. Instead I would ask if this is what we want, or ought to want from comedy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 33 , Issue 1-2: Rethinking Terence , 2004 , pp. 20 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 2004

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

A version of this paper was given at a colloquium on Post-Hannibalic Rome at the University of Southern California in April 2005. I would like to thank Tony Boyle, Sander Goldberg, Tom Habinek, Siobhan McElduff and other members of the lively audience for their stimulating contributions and criticisms, which I have tried to answer.

1. Ashmore (1908), italics original. ‘Artistic finish’ corresponds to arte in Horace’s comment uincere Caecilius grauitate, Terentius arte (‘[it is said that] Caecilius gets the prize for seriousness, Terence for art’, Ep. 2.1.59).

2. Varro ap. Nonius 374, in argumentis Caecilius poscit palmam, in ethesi Terentius, in sermonibus Plautus (‘Caecilius claims the prize for plots, Terence for characterisation, and Plautus for dialogue’).

3. This would adopt the alternative MS reading quintum et tricesimum annum in Suetonius’ report of Terence’s final voyage and death (Rostagni line 80).

4. Frank (1933), 269–73.

5. We know that in the last century BCE Roman masters might educate chosen uernae as readers and secretaries, as did Crassus, who personally supervised their training (Plut. Crassus 2.6). But it is more surprising that Terence received a liberal education (in both grammatike and, as I will argue, rhetoric) in this earlier generation.

6. Cicero does in fact call Caecilius, like Pacuvius, male locutus (‘linguistically poor’, Brutus 258) and malus…auctor Latinitatis (‘a bad model for Latin usage’, ad Att. 7.3.10), but Caecilius’ defects are not obvious from the surviving excerpts.

7. Robson (1938), 301–08.

8. Compare Quintilian 10.1.99, licet Terenti scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur, quae sunt in hoc genere [i.e. comoedia] elegantissima (‘even though Terence’s writings, the most tasteful in this genre, are attributed to Scipio Africanus’).

9. Popilius is presumably either the consul of 173 or his brother, consul in 172; Labeo is Fabius Labeo, praetor 189, consul 183, and so more than old enough to be Terence’s father. But the comment only shows the scholar’s lack of realism about Roman society, in which young men would be far more likely to collaborate in devising dialogue or versifying a drama than senior statesmen.

10. Cn. Cornelia Dolabella et M. Fuluio Nobiliore consulibus (‘in the consulship of Cn. Cornelius Dolabella and M. Fulvius Nobilior’).

11. Horsfall (1979).

12. Itaque cum Liuius Andronicus bello Punico secundo scribsisset carmen quod a uirginibus est cantatum, quia prosperius respublica geri coepta est, publice adtributa est [ei] in Auentino aedis Mineruae, in qua liceret scribis histrionibusque consistere ac dona ponere, in honorem Liui quia is et scribebat fabulas et agebat (‘So when Livius Andronicus had composed a hymn that was sung by maidens during the second Punic war, because affairs were going more successfully, the temple of Minerva on the Aventine was officially assigned as a place for scribes and actors to gather and make votive offerings: this was done to honour Livius because he both composed and performed plays’, Festus 446.29 Ly). On this early Collegium and the shadowy Collegium Poetarum see the somewhat negative article of Horsfall (1976).

13. On the rhetorical power of the prologues see Leo (1960), 134–49, esp. 136: Terentius…succinctas et oratorias et ex arte compositas atque controuersiis etiam iudicialibus similes fabulis praemittit…haec quidem ipsius Terenti poemata sunt ac nulla Graeco poeta praeeunte concepta (‘Terence prefaced his plays with concise speeches artistically composed, rhetorical and like those in private lawsuits…for these are compositions by Terence himself, not following the model of any Greek poet’).

14. This argument for some rhetorical education in the first half of the second century seems to go against the evidence of Cicero in De Oratore 1.14. He lists a sequence of three stages in the acquisition of rhetorical skills at Rome without attaching them to a specific generation: first after hearing Greek envoys (auditis oratoribus Graecis), as they did with the three leaders of the Athenian schools in 155 BCE, then from acquaintance with Greek texts (cognitis eorum litteris), and finally in the employment of Greek teachers (adhibitisque doctoribus).

15. Suet. Gramm. 25.1 calls the acceptance of both grammar and rhetoric at Rome belated (sero) but notes that rhetoric met more resistance, quoting the proposal of the praetor M. Pomponius and consular decree of 161 BCE. Raster (1992) stresses the scanty information available to Suetonius, which we might contrast with the abundant earlier discussions available to him of Terence’s career as a poet.

16. Plautus Ps. 401–04: sed quasi poeta, tabulas quom cepit sibi,/quaerit quod nusquamst gentium, reperit tamen,/facit illud ueri simile quod mendaciumst,/nunc ego poeta fiam (‘but just as a poet, when he has taken up his writing tablets, seeks something that does not exist, yet finds it, making a fiction/lie plausible, so I shall now become a poet’).

17. These gaps invite speculation. Did Terence take two years to compose Hautontimorumenos and Eunuchus, or did he offer them to producers in 164 and 162 and find no takers? This might make business sense after Hecyra in 164, but would be most unlikely in the case of Eunuchus.

18. In fact Plautus himself tells us that he has eliminated from his action the young son of the family and his love for the unrecognised citizen Casina.

19. In two plays, Trinummus and Miles, the young lover does not need to deceive a father. Pleusicles in Miles is independent of any parent and regains his girl-friend by trickery from the rascally soldier who has kidnapped her, while Lysiteles in Trinummus has his father’s support in his desire to marry the sister of the impoverished Lesbonicus.

20. On Caecilius the only detailed study since that of Leo (1913), 217–26, is the chapter by Wright (1974), 87–126.

21. Gellius’ citations of Caecilius’ Plokion are perhaps the best evidence for the way in which translation can be viewed simultaneously as faithful and divergent. On Terence’s views of his own and others’ ‘translations’, see McElduff in this volume, with which I am basically in agreement. But I would see Terence as distinguishing between faithful translation and literal translation. Luscius may have been a clumsy and literal translator, or, as McElduff argues, Terence may be exploiting a stock accusation against his opponent. Thus while Terence accuses Luscius of literal translation, he also blames him in Eun. 10–13 and Phorm. 6–8 for inept presentation of the action in his Phasma and Thesaurus that can only have arisen from radical changes within the action of his model.

22. Pro Caelio 37 runs through four excerpts from unnamed plays; cf. Quintilian 11.1.39.

23. Caecilius 228–35 W, in Warmington’s translation. Note especially the emphasis in the last two lines on extravagance and the need to preserve inherited income for the rest of life: si egebis, tibi dolebit, mihi sat est/qui aetatis quod reliquom est oblectem meae.

24. There are significant quotations in Cic. Rose. Am., Varro R.R. 2.2, and evidence for Menander’s play at Quint. 1.10.18. This refers to a scene where the father demands the return of his son from the old townsman who has been educating him, and in return the townsman asks for reimbursement on his expenses for teaching geometry and lyre playing—presumably the young man has abused his time in the city in extravagance and debauchery. It would be interesting to know how Caecilius adapted this speech!

25. See however Kleve (1996). I owe information about this play to Gualtiero Calboli, who kindly showed me an advance copy of his forthcoming article associating this play with the faenerator Alfius of Horace, Epode 2. For the role of the moneylender, compare Plautus’ Mostellaria.

26. Dunkin (1946).

27. On Chremes’ bad judgment but ultimate recovery of good sense see Fantham (1971). Terence represents him as boasting of his misdeeds to his son, something Plutarch disapproves of strongly in fathers (cf. Bettini [1991], 12).

28. See Goldberg (1998).

29. It is significant that the exceptional act of T. Manlius Torquatus (consul 165) in demanding his right as paterfamilias to try his own son for a public offence of embezzlement while commanding in Macedonia must have occurred during the years of Terence’s productions. (He condemned his son, who then killed himself out of shame). I owe this reference to Bettini (1991), 10f., citing the detailed summary of Val. Max. 5.8.3.

30. Rhet. Her. 4.25 (the ‘double maxim with a reason’): qui adulescentium peccatis ignosci putant oportere falluntur, propterea quod aetas ilia non est impedimenta bonis studiis. at ii sapienter faciunt qui adulescentes maxime castigant, ut quibus uirtutibus omnem tueri uitam possint eas in aetate maturissima uelint comparare (‘Those who think we should pardon the sins óf youth are mistaken, because that age is no obstacle to good pursuits. But men act wisely in severely punishing young men, so that they will want to acquire as soon as possible the virtues with which they will be able to protect their entire life’). On special theatre seating for youths cf. Suet. Diu. Aug. 44.2, praetextatis cuneum suum et proximum paedagogis (‘[he assigned] the young boys their own section, and one next to it to their attendants’).

31. The definitive study on shame is now Kaster (1997); compare his comment that pudor is the test-quality of the adult elite male (12) and definition of pudor as ‘a displeasure with oneself caused by vulnerability to just criticism of a socially diminishing sort…generated from within’ (4f.). Kaster sees pudor as the counterpart of reuerentia for another, citing what is surely another Roman father from Varro’s Menippea 449 (non te tui saltern pudet, si nil mei reuereatur?, ‘aren’t you even ashamed on your own account, if you feel no respect for me?’).

32. Cf. And. 871 (age Pamphile, exi Pamphile, ecquid te pudet?, ‘Come, Pamphilus, come on out, aren’t you ashamed?’); 877f. (num cogitat quid dicat? num facti piget?/uide num eius color pudoris signum usquam indicat, ‘Is he thinking about what he is saying? Is he discontent with his actions? See whether his complexion shows any sign of shame’); and Hec. 231 (cum puella suscepisse inimicitias non pudet?, ‘Aren’t you ashamed to qaurrel with a young girl?’). On this type of question, common in Roman comedy and oratory from Plautus on, see Kaster (1997), 11f. The dénouement of Phormio offers a nice contrast between Demipho’s indignation at his son’s marriage (nee meum imperium, ac mitto imperium, non simultatem meam/reuereri saltern! non pudere! o facinus audax!, ‘And he does not even respect my authority, or let alone my authority, my resentment! To feel no shame! What impudent behaviour!’, 233f.) and his wife’s reaction to his adultery: udeone indignum hoc tibi uidetur, filius/homo adulescens ut habeat unam amicam, tu uxores duas?/nil pudere? quo ore illum obiurgabis? responde mihi (‘Does it seem so improper to you that your young son has one girl-friend, when you have two wives? Have you no shame? How will you have the nerve to scold him? Answer me!’, 1041–43).

33. And. 878, quoted n.32 above. Donatus draws special attention to this moment: paterno animo dicit, namque patribus uelle erubescere filios pudentesque esse familiare est. cui contrarium est [Ad. 643] erubescit: salua res est. hoc ergo dicit nee timet inquit neque eum paenitet nee pudet (‘He is speaking in a fatherly spirit, for it is natural for fathers to want their sons to blush and feel proper shame. The opposite is “He’s blushing: it’s going to be all right.” So this is what he is saying: “He isn’t afraid nor discontented nor ashamed.’”).

34. HT 1041–44: CH: non mihi per fallacias adducere ante oculos—pudet/dicere hoc praesente uerbum turpe; at te id nulla modo/facere puduit. CL: eheu quam nunc totus displiceo mihi/quam pudet. But Chremes has already shown that his own sense of shame is superficial and misplaced at 576 and 581.

35. Hec. 866f.: non placet fieri hoc item ut in comoediis/omnia omnes ubi resciscunt. Donatus on 825 notes breuitati consuluit Terentius, nam in Graeca haec aguntur non narrantur (‘Terence has shown concern to keep things short, for in the Greek play these things are performed, and not reported’). But what is haec? The dialogue between the girl’s mother Myrrhina and the meretrix Bacchis? If so there is no reason to assume that Pamphilus ever has to account for his actions.

36. See Fantham (1975), 68–71, on the probable difference in emotional and moral impact between Terence’s comedy and his Greek original.

37. As late as 662 Laches is still pontificating; censen te posse reperire ullam mulierem/quae careat culpa? ‘do you think you can find any woman free of blame?’

38. De Inuentione 1.27, De Oratore 2.326–28. (cf. also 2.172 citing Terence for an argumentum e minore).

39. Quint. 11.1.39 for the comic fathers; 8.3.35 and 8.5.4 for Andr. 68, obsequium amicos ueri-tas odium parit (‘obsequiousness gains friends, truth enemies’); 9.2.11, 9.3.16, 9.4.46 and 11.3.182 for Eun. 46, or 46–48.

40. Goldberg (1985), 192.