Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar, vol. 8: Roman comedy, Augustan poetry, historiography 9780905205892, 0905205898

Citation preview

PAPERS OF THE LEEDS INTERNATIONAL LATIN SEMINAR EIGHTH VOLUME

1995

ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs

33

General Editors: Francis Cairns, Robin Seager, Frederick Williams Assistant Editors: Neil Adkin, Sandra Cairns

ISSN 0309-5541

PAPERS OF THE LEEDS INTERNATIONAL LATIN SEMINAR EIGHTH VOLUME

1995

Roman Comedy, Augustan Poetry,

Historiography

Edited by R. Brock and A.J. Woodman

X FRANCIS CAIRNS

Published by Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd C/o The University, LEEDS, LS2 9JT, Great Britain

First published 1995 Copyright © Francis Cairns (Publications) 1995

ΑΙΙ rights reserved. No part of this publication

may be repro-

duced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library

ISBN 0-905205-89-8

Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wilts

CONTENTS

W. GEOFFREY

ARNOTT

Amorous Scenes in Plautus

MALCOLM WILLCOCK Plautus and the Epidicus

19

ROBERT MALTBY The Distribution of Greek Loan-Words in Plautus P.G. McC. BROWN Aeschinus at the Door: Terence, Adelphoe 632-43 and the Traditions of Greco-Roman Comedy FRANCIS CAIRNS Horace's First Roman Ode (3.1) E.L. HARRISON The Metamorphosis of the Ships (Aeneid 9.77-122)

SJ. HEYWORTH Propertius: Division, Transmission, and the Editor’s Task E.J. KENNEY ‘Dear Helen ...": The Pithanotate Prophasis?

R. BROCK Versions, “Inversions” and Evasions: Classical Historiography and the “Published” Speech T.J. LUCE Livy and Dionysius

225

BRENDA DICKINSON & BRIAN HARTLEY Roman Military Activity in First-Century Britain: The Evidence

of Tacitus and Archaeology

241

AJ. WOODMAN A Death in the First Act: Tacitus, Annals 1.6

257

E. KEITEL Plutarch’s Tragedy Tyrants: Galba and Otho

275

R.G. MAYER Graecia Capta: The Roman Reception of Greek Literature

289

FOR RONALD

MARTIN AT 80

γηράσκει δ᾽ αἰεὶ πολλὰ διδασκόμενος

PREFACE Ronald Martin, born in Ireland eighty years ago, has spent most of his life in Yorkshire. Having attended Bradford Grammar School in the twenties and thirties, where he assembled a series of increasingly tricky English-into-Latin sentences which are still being put to good use in at least one university to this day, he progressed

to the

University of Leeds (1934-37), where his name now appears on the Honours

Board in the School of Classics. After taking a second

undergraduate degree at Cambridge he spent the better part of the war at King's College, Newcastle upon Tyne, which was then a constituent element of the University of Durham. While there he worked under the formidable G.B.A. Fletcher, who first directed his attention to Tacitean studies, and met Hilda, who was to become his wife. A brief interlude (1945-46) at the opposite end of the country, in Southampton,

was followed by his return to the University of

Leeds, from which he retired three and half decades later in 1981. When the separate departments of Greek and Latin merged to form the School of Classics in 1978, Ronald was appointed the School's first Chairman:

he had always taught widely in Greek as well as

Latin, and his service on numerous University committees had given ample proof of his talents as diplomat and administrator. His ascent of the academic cursus honorum culminated with his subsequent promotion to a personal Chair in Classics in 1980. Most of Ronald Martin's scholarly endeavours have been devoted

to the two areas of Latin comedy and Tacitus. His commentary on Terence's Phormio, published by Methuen in 1959 and often reprinted, was followed by that on Adelphoefor the series Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics (1976). Articles on Tacitus' uariatio (1953) and changes of style (1967) remain standard points of reference, while an emendation of Histories 2.100.3 (1951) not only elicited a

note of approval from Fraenkel but afterwards received manuscript confirmation. His monograph on Tacitus (1981), widely regarded as

the best introduction to its subject, was reprinted for a second time as

X

PREFACE

recently as 1994. Yet not all of Ronald's research has been directed

towards classical Latin: in 1986, for example, he produced an edition and translation of a fifteenth-century rhetorical treatise by Laurentius Gulielmus Traversagni de Saona. An athlete of distinction in his youth and a vigorous hill-walker for much of his life, Ronald remains an admirable example of scholarly energy to his younger colleagues in his alleged retirement, and is to be seen in the Brotherton Library of the University of Leeds almost every week. In 1989 he returned to Tacitus, co-authoring a commentary on Annals 4 for Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, which is to be followed in 1996 by a similarly co-authored commentary on Annals 3, this time for the series Cambridge

Classical Texts and

Commentaries. The latter is a sequel to the commentary on Annals 1-2 by F.R.D. Goodyear, for whom Ronald was *of all scholars the most deeply versed in the intricacies of Tacitus' style’. R.B. A.J. W. November 1995

PAPERS OF THE LEEDS INTERNATIONAL LATIN SEMINAR 8 (1995) 1-17 Published by Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd (Leeds 1995). Arca 33. ISBN 0-905205-89-8

AMOROUS

SCENES IN PLAUTUS

W. GEOFFREY ARNOTT Ronald Martin has been my valued colleague and good friend for over 25 years now, and it is both a pleasure and a privilege to contribute in celebration of his 80th birthday a paper on Roman

comedy, one of the two major areas in which his scholarship has won deserved recognition throughout the world. The paper will deal with some of the scenes in Plautus which show that the course of true and untrue love in comedy rarely runs smooth, and it will concentrate on the theatrical aspects of those scenes, exploring two major techniques used by Plautus in order to seize and hold the attention of his

audiences.! One of these techniques is to incorporate in the words of his texts

instructions to his actors for types of mimed action or stage-business designed to entertain his audiences visually. Audiences have eyes as well as ears. Ancient dramatic texts, however, were not, so far as we

know, written with an embroidery of stage directions such as we find tacked on to modern plays. The transmitted texts of Plautus are plain texts, assigning parts to speakers and separating individual scenes, but providing no extra-textual information beyond that. There are

no marginal notes describing scene, staged action, tone or method of delivery. Consequently information about such things was written

into the actual texts of the plays themselves, andit is on this textual information that I shall be relying when I attempt to elucidate and explain Plautus' stage business in the scenes that I analyse.? The second technique is that of surprise and variety. Regular theatre-goers quickly become accustomed to the standard fare in theatrical performances. Experience has taught them what to expect. The skilful dramatist, however — and Plautus was a skilful dramatist — knows that he must walk a tightrope between offering traditional

material in a traditional and possibly boring way, and producing the 1

2

W. GEOFFREY ARNOTT

kind of novelty and innovation that might mystify and so defeat a

conservative audience. Plautus walked that tightrope successfully. Controlled variety is the hallmark of those scenes between men and women which introduce sexual advances, caresses, verbal and physical rebuffs. There are nineteen or so such scenes in his extant comedies; Plautus knew, just as modern TV and film producers know, that sex (along with violence) is what most audiences want. No two of these scenes, however, are exactly alike; their variety of

treatment, incident and approach is in fact quite remarkable.? In virtually all of them a lively freshness is combined with one or more touches of the unexpected, although none of the surprises goes beyond what an audience would deem plausible. And of course every one of these scenes is full of humour. Plautus is well aware that people in love often seem comic and absurd to the eyes of an emotionally uninvolved observer.

In the space available here it is of course not possible for me to illustrate the Plautine techniques of variation and vividly mimed action in every single one of those amorous scenes. | must be selective, and choose just a few for detailed comment. None of them

provides an extended romantic duet for the two lovers; this is not the world of Romeo and Juliet, but comedy and farce, where something always intervenes to make straightforward wooing or lovemaking impossible.

ae

Ze" ze

1. Male advances rebuffed

Here

I discuss

two

out of three examples;

a third (Poenulus

1174-1279) is examined elsewhere.* Sexual advances are rebuffed in all three scenes, but the details are varied in so lively a fashion that no impression of stale repetition is given. (Ὁ In Rudens 414—395 Daemones' slave Sceparnio makes a passat

Ampelisca, one of the two girls shipwrecked on the coast at Cyrene, when he opens the door in response to her knocking (413f.). In asides Sceparnio praises Ampelisca's beauty (415 eu edepol specie lepida mulierem, 420ff. pro di immortales, Ueneris effigia haec quidem est./

ut in ocellis hilaritudo est, heia, corpus cuius modi,/ .../ uel papillae cuius modi, tum quae indoles in sauiost.$ His language to Ampelisca is familiar, flattering and seductive right from the start (416 the

diminutive adulescentula in reply to her adulescens, 419 mea lepida,

AMOROUS SCENES IN PLAUTUS

3

hilara, 425 bellam). He provocatively indulges in sexual innuendo (417 accipiam hospitio, si mox uenies, 429 meus quoque hic sapienti ornatus quid uelim indicium facit where the hic implies a physical gesture).

A first attempt to caress Ampelisca is rebuffed by her

immediately with aha, nimium familiariter/ me attrectas (419f.), a second with potin ut me abstineas manum? (424) where Sceparnio's

references to papillae and sauio in 423 probably imply an attempt to fondle her breasts and kiss her lips. When Sceparnio asks in response

to this second rebuff non licet saltem sic placide bellam belle tangere? (425), Ampelisca uses the classic delaying tactic otium ubi erit, tum

tibi operam ludo et deliciae dabo (426). But now she needs to explain why she knocked on Daemones' door in the first place: the priestess

of the temple in which she has taken refuge has sent her with a request to beg some water (430). Sceparnio is quick-witted enough to turn the

situation immediately to his own advantage: Ampelisca will not get so much as a drop of water from him nisi multis blanditiis (433). Accordingly Ampelisca is now obliged to play along with him; she uses the female wheedling amabo? (434), now calls him mea uoluptas and promises fibi ... quae uoles faciam omnia (436).

(li) In Cistellaria 449-64° we have a parallel but varied situation, where it is the free young man Alcesimarchus who is rebuffed by Selenium,

the

meretrix

he

loves,

in

the

presence

of the

bawd

Melaenis. Unfortunately the text here is incomplete; the scene comes in the 600 or so lines of the play missing in the Palatine manuscripts, so that the badly damaged and lacunose Ambrosian palimpsest is the sole authority at this point.? In this scene the young man attempts to coax, embrace and lead Selenium to his house (449-53): 449

Sel. molestus es. Alc. meae issula sua [aede]s egent. ad me (sine ducam]. Sel. aufer manum. Alc. germana mea sororcula — Sel. repudio te fraterculum.

Alc. tum tu igitur, mea matercula. Mel. repudio te puerculum.'? 453

Alc. opsecro te — Sel. ualeas. Alc. Ut sinas — Sel. nil moror.

Alc. expurigare me.

Selenium rejects his advances because she cannot trust his promises; she complains of broken 'agreements' (foedera 460), and Melaenis talks of Alcesimarchus' periuriis (454). Alcesimarchus' assurances of future satisfaction (supplicium polliceri uolo 455) are rejected by Selenium (455f.). The preserved text hereabouts contains only one explicit stage direction (Selenium's aufer manum at 450, indicating at least an attempt by the young man to put his arm around her waist in

4

W. GEOFFREY ARNOTT

the hope that she will come home with him), but this may be due to

the parlous state of the tradition. Despite that, the episode contains one memorable and imaginative touch, when meretrix and bawd successively dismiss Alcesimarchus' wheedling claim that the former is like a sister to him, the latter like a mother. 2. False advances for a purpose

(i) Rudens 436 (see 1.1 above) might be considered a relevant introduction to this group also, since there Ampelisca promises herself to Sceparnio — on a future occasion (quae uoles faciam omnia) — just in order to obtain the water for which she has come. Ironically Sceparnio never reappears in this play to benefit from this promise; at the end of the play it is Trachalio, Sceparnio's fellow-slave, who

hopes to marry Ampelisca (1220)."! (ii) In Casina 228-35'? old Lysidamus, besotted with his young slave girl Casina, feels the need to pretend that he still loves his wife Cleostrata.? She, however, already knows about her husband's infatuation (196). When in this scene Lysidamus catches sight of his

wife he announces in an aside tristem astare aspicio. blande haec mihi mala res appellanda est (228), and in his feeble attempt to deceive her he uses the sweet talk of a young lover, greeting Cleostrata with uxor mea meaque amoenitas (229), playfully referring to her as mea luno

and himself as tuo Ioui (230).'* These words are clearly accompanied by attempts to embrace Cleostrata, which she rejects with abi atque abstine manum

(229) and mitte me (231) as she turns away and

attempts to leave him. Lysidamus falsely protests his love for her (ted amo 232) and adds one final endearment (respice, o mi lepos), but his true feelings are betrayed when his wife smells (a further opportunity

for amusing comic business) the perfume he has put on for his pursuit of Casina (236ff.).'5 (iii) At first sight Menaechmi 602-28'* provides a close parallel to Casina 228-36. The married Menaechmus of Epidamnus has given his wife's palla to his mistress Erotium and is now on his way to a meal with the latter when he is accosted by his wife and his parasite Peniculus, who has told the wife about the theft of the palla (559ff.). Before buttonholing Menaechmus she overhears his own reference to the theft at the end of a canticum he has delivered without being aware of her presence (601a). The encounter begins with the wife angrily accusing her husband of a theft (604) and crimes (605)

without specifically naming the palla. Menaechmus, taken aback by

AMOROUS SCENES IN PLAUTUS

5

this assault, tries to soothe his wife with caresses that are implied by

her rejoinder aufer hinc palpationes"' (607). The husband pretends at first not to understand why his wife is angry (606-08), but then she

utters the one word pallam (609), which produces an involuntary gesture of fear from Menaechmus, again implied by another character's words (Peniculus' quid paues? 609). Menaechmus seeks to bluster his way out of his difficulties by pleading total ignorance of

the alleged crime, always speaking in dulcet tones accompanied by caresses; the tones are implied by Peniculus’ comment bellus blanditur tibi (626), the caresses by the wife's aufer manum (627),

which she must accompany with an angry shove, to judge from Peniculus’ response sic datur at 628, ‘that's the stuff to give him’.!® Like Lysidamus in Casina, Menaechmus intends infidelity to his wife, but differences as well as similarities need to be noted in these two scenes: Lysidamus and his wife are old, Menaechmus and his

wife relatively young; Lysidamus and Cleostrata are alone on stage, but Menaechmus' wife is accompanied and backed up by the

parasite; the Casina scene is enlivened by Lysidamus' identification of his wife as Juno and himself as Jupiter and by the smelling of the old man's perfume, the Menaechmi scene especially by the humorous motif of the wife's reiteration of (non) nugas agis (621-25, at lineend).'? (iv) There is a second example of false advances for a purpose in a later scene of Casina (630--44),?° when Cleostrata's maid Pardalisca pretends that the title figure has turned into a pathological maniac,

threatening her intended husband, the bailiff Olympio, with a knife. In a short canticum (621-29) Pardalisca describes her own terror at

this new development, accompanying the words in all probability with violent gestures of panic, which lead Lysidamus, who overhears the canticum, first to comment on her terror (nam quid est quod haec huc timida atque exanimata exsiluit foras 630) and then to ask her directly quid timida es? (632). At this point Pardalisca pretends to swoon, and asks Lysidamus to support her (ne cadam, amabo, tene me 634, contine pectus,/ face uentum, amabo, pallio 635f., optine auris,

amabo 641). Each request is underlined with a blandishing amabo (see 1.i and n.6), while both contine pectus*' and optine auris would normally imply an amorous advance; holding the ears was, for Plautus' audiences at least, a pleasurable accessory to a passionate

kiss.? Clearly Pardalisca’s pretended panic and swoon are here linked to a parody in word and gesture of an impudent proposition. Lysidamus forcefully rejects the advances (641—45).

6

W. GEOFFREY

(v)

ARNOTT

The conversation in Persa 199-250? between Sophoclidisca,

Lemniselenis’ maid, and Paegnium, a boy slave in the household of

Toxilus' master, includes a further example of an apparent sexual advance that covers or is linked with a non-sexual purpose. Here (as

in Casina 630-44) the flirting links characters not amorously connected, in a way totally unlike the attempts (in Casina 228-35 and Menaechmi)

to

rekindle

warmth

in

the

ashes

of a burnt-out

relationship. Sophoclidisca is carrying an oral message from Lemniselenis to Toxilus (168ff.), Paegnium bears a letter from Toxilus to Lemniselenis (195f.). When the two meet (200), after mutual insults

and chitchat, each asks and fails to learn where the other is going (216ff.), each

asks

whether

the other is carrying anything, and

Paegnium lyingly answers nil equidem (225). Sophoclidisca realises that Paegnium is lying when he refuses to show his left hand (226), and so she begins to caress him, in the attempt presumably to make him disclose what his left hand conceals. Paegnium responds to the fondling, however, as if it were only an unwelcome sexual advance

(ne me attrecta, subigitatrix 227).”* Sophoclidisca then continues with sin te amo? (227), and Paegnium responds that she is wasting her

time. Her final remark in this exchange, praising Paegnium's boyish good looks (note here the use of diminutives, formulam atque aetatulam 229), may suggest that Sophoclidisca's ruse contains an element of wanton lust; the sexual interplay here is brief, but it is

clearly indicated in the words of the two characters and the stage directions that these words contain. 3. Real young love In scenes portraying two young people genuinely in love with each other an audience's love of romance is involved, and possibly also a desire to see how far the love-making is allowed to develop in front of the public gaze. Two passages (Curculio 158-215 and Mostellaria

290-302) are discussed here. They present young people giving way to their passion in a sentimental purity that is relatively untrammelled by complicating counterpoints of (a) humiliation by controlling slaves (such as in Asinaria 585-745) or (b) the need of lovers to conceal their passion because the plot requires them to act out for a

time parts that are not their own (as in Miles Gloriosus 1311-53).?5 (i) Curculio 158-215. After the play's opening two scenes,? in which young Phaedromus and his slave Palinurus succeed in coaxing on to the stage Leaena, the concierge of /eno Cappadox's establish-

AMOROUS SCENES IN PLAUTUS

7

ment, Leaena calls out (158f.) Planesium, the girl whom Phaedromus loves. Planesium enters at line 162, and the love scene is organised as a dialogue (with attendant business) between the two lovers up to the end of the scene (215), with ironic comments and asides from

Palinurus.??

,

The scene is straightforward but imaginatively written, with three

dominant features. First, the talk of the two lovers rises at times to poetic heights (e.g. 162 me conuadatu's Veneriis uadimoniis?* from Planesium, 168-70 sibi sua habeant regna reges, sibi diuitias diuites,/

sibi honores, sibi uirtutes, sibi pugnas, sibi proelia:/ dum mi abstineant inuidere, sibi quisque habeant quod suom est, 211 siquidem hercle mihi regnum detur, numquam id potius persequar, 214 iamne ego relinquor? pulcre,

Palinure,

spirations

add

occidi

from

a welcome

Phaedromus),

variety

and

such

to their more

comic

in-

conventional

sentimentalities (e.g. mel meum 164, est lepida 167 from Phaedromus, anime mi 165, amabo 197 from Planesium). Next, the invitations to caress and kiss come not from Phaedromus but from the trainee meretrix Planesium, coyly at first ([me] procul’? amantem abesse haud consentaneum est 165), later openly (tene me, amplectere ergo 172, tene etiam, prius quam hinc abeo, sauium 210); such remarks obviously double as explicit stage directions. These caresses are presumably intended as a visual accompaniment to the

dialogue, continuing right to the end of the scene and interrupted only by other incompatible pieces of stage business, such as when Phaedromus turns away to strike Palinurus (194f.). Plautus, like

modern scriptwriters for television and the cinema, was well aware that the combination of sex and violence attracts most audiences. Finally, throughout the scene the slave Palinurus acts as a comic deflater of the potentially cloying sentimentalities of the two lovers.?? In comedy, as in real life, the total involvement of lovers in each other

tends to encourage ridicule. Here Palinurus wickedly echoes the remarks of his master (167 Phaed. est lepida. Pal. nimis lepida, 214f.

Phaed. pulcre, Palinure, occidi./ Pal. ego quidem, qui et uapulando et somno pereo), takes Phaedromus down a peg (167 Phaed. sum deus. Pal. immo homo haud magni preti), and generally behaves as an insulting commentator on the embraces (188 uiden ut misere

moliuntur? nequeunt complecti satis, cf. 181f.). This ridicule leads to angry exchanges between the slave and the lovers; Planesium calls Palinurus' presence an odium (190), Palinurus ripostes by calling Planesium propudium (190) and ebriola, persollae nugae (192), to which Phaedromus reacts with words (192f.) and blows ( 194f.). Here

8

W. GEOFFREY

ARNOTT

the instructions for comic business are clearly written into the words spoken by the actors; em tibi male dictis pro istis (195) indicates that

Phaedromus strikes the slave, and the following verses imply that Palinurus seeks cover behind

Planesium

(196), with the girl then

asking her lover.not to beat him (197). Thus the fisticuffs act as a comic counterweight to the love-making, in the same way as the slave's remarks to those of the romantic duo.

(ii) In Mostellaria 161-312?! the situation is basically identical with that in Curculio: a young man (Philolaches) loves and is loved by a young and still chaste meretrix (Philematium), and they meet for caresses on the stage. On this occasion, however, it is who is, for part of the scene at least, accompanied by a own sex (Scapha). The meretrix has been preparing her she meets her lover, but Philolaches was already on

the meretrix slave of her toilet before stage as an

unseen observer of these preparations. Hence from 161ff. the two lovers have been able to voice their love for each other without any direct contact between them, Philolaches in asides (e.g. 161ff. O

Venus uenusta ... mihi Amor et Cupido/ in pectus perpluit meum,?? 206 mulierem lepidam et pudico ingenio) and Philematium in conversation with Scapha (e.g. 167 meo ocello, meo patrono, 181 ego uerum amo). It is noticeable, however, that Philematium's remarks during the toilet

are

less

romantic

than

her lover's; she had

been

set free by

Philolaches, and so feels it also her duty to devote herself to him

(204f.). Yet Plautus realised the potential for dullness if such scenes were to be confined entirely to such romantic twitterings, and so

Scapha is introduced, like Palinurus in Curculio, to provide opportunities for humorously deflating backchat. Thus when Scapha praises Philematium (173), Philolaches in an aside promises Scapha a present (174), but when Scapha goes on to mention only his love for Philematium and Philematium's for Scapha (182), he takes back his

promise, because Scapha has omitted to mention Philematium's love for him (183-85). The similarity here to the Curculio scene, however, must not be overstressed at the expense of one significant variation from it; in Curculio Palinurus is both instigator and instrument of the comic deflations, but in the toilet scene of Mostellaria the slave

Scapha is only the instrument, and the lover Philolaches himself the author, of the undercutting humour. At line 292 Philolaches steps forward out of the shadows, saying nimis diu abstineo manum. At 294 Scapha departs. The two lovers are alone on stage, almost uniquely in extant Greek and Roman

comedy,?

and an audience

is now

likely to anticipate a vivid

AMOROUS SCENES IN PLAUTUS

9

portrayal of their passion, both verbally and visually. Yet although

their conversation

is sprinkled with conventionally affectionate

expressions (uoluptas mea,/ mea Philematium 294f., tu me amas, ego te amo 305 from him, mea uoluptas 296, amabo 298 from her), the two talk mainly about money, and there seem to be no amorous

suggestions until line 308, when Philematium says to her lover age accumbe (308) for the meal they are to enjoy together. At this point,

however, when the cuddling and kissing might be expected to splurge, the arrival of a drunken Callidamates with his girlfriend Delphium interrupts any salacious byplay, just as in Curculiofurther expression of the lovers’ amor ... surrepticius (205) is obliged to stop

when Planesium hears the temple doors begin to creak, giving their warning that Cappadox, her owner, is about to return. 4. Slave lovers

In Plautus, as in Menander and Herodas,^^ slaves may suffer the

pangs of love. The Roman playwright ends two plays with parties that feature amorous slaves. 9 In Persa 763--858" Toxilus' birthday-party (769f.) is celebrated in the absence of his free masters. The participants are Toxilus, his girl-friend the meretrix Lemniselenis, the boy Paegnium, and Sagaristio, a slave belonging to a different household. The relationship between Toxilus and Lemniselenis is stressed at the opening of the scene, with the latter addressing her lover as Toxile mi (763) and

Toxilus asking Lemniselenis amabo, oculus meus, quin lectis? nos actutum commendamus? (765).?? The party begins with two lines that

contain a series of clear stage directions. Lemniselenis asks her boyfriend cur ego sine te sum, cur tu autem sine me es? (763), Toxilus

replies accede ad me atque amplectere sis, Lemniselenis agrees ego uero, and Toxilus comments oh, nihil hoc magis dulcest (all 764). After the introductory embrace Toxilus suggests that they adjourn to the

couches prepared on stage in front of the house?? for the party (765). The party then follows the established conventions of a Greek symposium exactly (hand-washing, bringing in the table 769, crowning

with garlands, appointment of a symposiarchus 770, toasts 773);? the text here is full of stage-directions for the conduct of the party, with one explicit reference to the cuddling (amplecti 774) that may well have been intended to continue throughout the scene. Whether or not that cuddling was intended to burgeon, we do not now know, but (just as in the scenes from Curculio and Mostellaria discussed in 3.1

10

W. GEOFFREY

ARNOTT

and ii) any further raising of the sexual temperature would have been prevented by the arrival of the /eno Dordalus, who is invited to join in

the party (789ff.) and by his presence diverts the action into a different direction, with Paegnium pretending to make homosexual advances to Dordalus (804ff.) but substituting a punch for a caress (809ff.). Thus a celebration of love turns into a brawling victimi-

sation of Dordalus. (ii) In the final act of Stichus (641-745), which has minimal connection with all the preceding action in the play, a slave party is held at Pamphilippus' house (cf. 682) while Pamphilippus is away dining with his brother-in-law Epignomus. Three slaves take part, two of them appearing now for the first time in the play:*! the title figure Stichus (Epignomus' slave), Sangarinus (Pamphilippus' slave) and Stephanium (slave of Pamphilippus' wife); Stephanium throughout the act is presented as the friend of both Sangarinus and Stichus (651, 679, 682, 701, cf. 431), both men apparently being rivals for her

affections (729, cf. 431). In the opening scenes of the act the three slaves make preparations for the party, which celebrates Sangarinus' return home from abroad presumably after a long absence with his master Pamphilippus (652ff.). The party takes place on stage in front of the house, just as in Persa (n.38, above), and the rules of a typical Greek symposium are followed just as scrupulously as in the slaves'

party of Persa: the τραγήματα (snacks for dessert) are listed (690f.), Stichus is appointed symposiarchus (strategum ... huic conuiuio 702, cf. 705) and so decides the strength of the mixture of wine and water that is to be drunk (706f.), and preliminary toasts are drunk (708f.; n.39, above). In these preliminaries a great number of stage directions are incorporated in the text, relating to the provision of food, wine and cups, to the movement of the actors, to the mixing of

the wine with water and to the drinking of the toasts.

During the initial drinking Stephanium is absent off-stage (682741), and the wine seems to have banished thoughts of her from the

two men's minds until 728ff., when Stichus makes a remarkable suggestion that he and Sangarinus should share one cup and one girlfriend (uno cantharo potare, unum scortum ducere) without any

feeling of jealousy (733). Stephanium is accordingly called out with an invitation to dance (735), while the two men vie in amorous flattery of her (mea suauis, amabilis, amoena Stephanium .../ satis mihi

pulchra

es

736f.

from

Stichus,

at

enim

pulcherrima

737,

Stephaniscidium, mel meum with the hypocoristic diminutive 739f. from Sangarinus). Stephanium emerges at 742, addressing both men

AMOROUS SCENES IN PLAUTUS

1

as meae deliciae (742), and in a pretty little speech she explains her

previous absence as due to a desire to make her appearance attractive (742-47). Both men praise her remarks (748) and Stichus confesses to

his pangs (749, 753) of love for Stephanium. She wants to recline with both of the men, for she loves them both (750, 753). These amorous

exchanges are doubtless accompanied by appropriate business in which she distributes her favours to them both, but the petting is interrupted by Stichus' suggestion that Stephanium should dance and his offer to dance along with her (754f., cf. 735).*? As they begin to dance Sangarinus is sexually roused (756) and asks the piper to

play a lepidam et suauem cantionem ... cinaedicam (760), an immodest tune to which doubtless Stichus and Stephanium perform an immodest dance which causes Sangarinus and the audience to ‘feel desire right up to their finger-tips’ (761). At this point Sangarinus offers a further drink to the piper, and during the resultant pause in music and dancing (while the metre changes to iambic senarii, 762-68) Sangarinus now asks Stephanium for a kiss (meus oculus, da mihi sauium 764). Stichus’ description of their embrace, which shows

an observer's disparagement, is also a clear stage direction: the two kiss upright on their feet just as if Stephanium were a common whore (765f.), but whether in consequence Sangarinus and Stephanium then slither down onto the couch in order to continue and heighten the amorous byplay is not obvious from the text. When the piper has

finished his drink Sangarinus asks for a new tune (767f.), and the play ends with Sangarinus, Stichus and possibly also Stephanium involved

in a wildly immodest dance (769) before going off into the stagehouse.

* In spite

of some

clever

but

*

*

misguided

attempts

to prove

the

opposite,*? it still seems wiser to assume that all Plautus' plays are based on Greek models mainly, but not perhaps exclusively, of the New Comedy. It is also clear that in the extant plays and fragments of Menander there are no love scenes remotely similar to the nineteen or so that can be found in Plautus. In fact lovers rarely meet in Menander, and on the one occasion in the Dyskolos when Sostratos is alone on stage with the girl he loves the conversation focuses on the unerotic problem of filling a jar with water (189-202, 211-13). Such sexual encounters as occur are only described, after the event. They range from non-eventful meetings (Dyskolos 671ff.) through un-

12

W. GEOFFREY ARNOTT

desired harassment (Epitrepontes 430f., Perikeiromene 151ff.) to rape (Samia 38ff.; cf. Terence, Eunuchus 550ff., probably following the

Menandrean original closely“), and in descriptions of rape the rapist speaker shamefacedly draws a veil over the crucial action. Much closer in spirit to Plautus' love scenes is the Old Comedy of Aristophanes. Descriptions of sexual pleasure there leave little to the imagination. The vivid description of a rape in Acharnians 276ff. may have been mimed as well as sung. In Lysistrata 845ff. Myrrhine and her husband arrange on stage the preliminaries for intercourse. In Wasps 1345ff. Philokleon describes what he is going to do to the girl he holds, and pets her heavily before the girl is removed by his son. At

Thesmophoriazusae 1172ff. a girl is instructed to use her sexuality to distract an archer policeman, and she dances, disarranges her clothing, has her sandals removed and sits on the archer's knee. At

Ecclesiazusae 938ff. a young man serenades the girl he loves, but is waylaid by one old hag after another before he can join her. It is perhaps unlikely that Plautus knew any of the plays of Old Comedy at first hand, and there is much to be said for the generally held opinion that the Plautine love scenes were at least partly influenced

by improvised Italian performances of his own time such as mime and Atellane farce.* Even so, it is unwise to exclude the possibility that the Aristophanic treatment of sexual encounters may have continued to influence Middle Comedy in the first half of the fourth century B.C., or that Plautus may have occasionally used Middle

Comedy as a source for myth travesties such as the Amphitruo." In that case the question of Plautine sources becomes complex and, in my opinion, much more interesting.

much

more

NOTES The following works will be referred to more than once: Anderson, W.S. (1993). Barbarian Play: Plautus’ Roman Comedy. Toronto

Blase, H. Fantham, Forehand, Fraenkel,

(1896). 'Amabo' ALL 9.485-91 E. (1968). ‘Act IV of the Menaechmi: Plautus and his Original’ CP 63.175-83 W.E. (1973). ‘Plautus’ Casina: an Explication! Arethusa 6.233-56 E. (1960). Elementi plautini in Plauto. Florence (tr. by F. Munari from

Plautinisches im Plautus, Berlin 1922)

Friedrich, W. (1953). Euripides und Diphilos (Zetemata 5). Munich Gaiser, K. (1972) ‘Zur Eigenart der römischen Komödie: Plautus und Terenz gegen über ihren griechischen Vorbildern’ ANRW 1.2.1027-1113 Gratwick, A.S. (1993). Plautus: Menaechmi. Cambridge Konstan, D. (1983). Roman Comedy. Ithaca & London Langen, P. (1886). Plautinische Studien. Berlin . Lefevre, E., Stark, E. & Vogt-Spira, G. (1991). Plautus barbarus: sechs Kapitel zur

Originalität des Plautus (ScriptOralia 25). Tübingen

AMOROUS SCENES IN PLAUTUS

13

Leo, F. (1895-6). Plauti Comoediae. Berlin (reprinted 1958) — (1912). Plautinische Forschungen ed.2. Berlin MacCary, W.T. & Willcock, M.M. (1976). Plautus: Casina. Cambridge Marti, H. (1959). Untersuchungen zur dramatischen (Diss. Zürich). Winterthur

Technik bei Plautus und Terenz

Marx, F. (1928). Plautus, Rudens. Leipzig Petersmann, H. (1973). T. Maccius Plautus. Stichus. Heidelberg Slater, N.W. (1985). Plautus in Performance. Princeton Stürk, E. (1989). Die Menaechmi des Plautus und kein griechisches Original (Script-

Oralia 11). Tübingen Wallochny, B. (1992). Bireitszenen in der griechischen und römischen Komödie (ScriptOralia 44). Tübingen Woytek, E. (1972). *Plautus Persa 228-232’, in R. Hanslik and others (edd.), Antidosis:

Festschrift für Walther Kraus (Vienna), 477-86 1

This study is one of a pair devoted to such scenes in Plautus; the other (titled ‘Love Scenes in Plautus") will appear in the papers of the conference on “The Ancient Theatre and its Traditions' held at the University of Warsaw, 15-16 May

1994.

2

Hitherto this characteristic of ancient dramatic texts has been stressed and discussed mainly in studies of the Greek theatre: see especially. O. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford 1977) and Greek Tragedy in Action (London 1978); D. Bain, Actors and Audience: A Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek Drama (Oxford 1977) and Masters, Servants and Orders in Greek Tragedy

(Manchester

1981); and D.J. Mastronarde, Contact and Discontinuity: Some

Conventions of Speech and Action on the Greek

Tragic Stage (University of

California Publications, Classical Studies, 21: Berkeley 1979). 3

Cf.e.g.theclosing remark in K.C. Ryder, ‘The Senex Amator in Plautus" G&R 31 (1984) 188, ‘It is the variety achieved within one basic situation which makes this such a fascinating study, suggesting as it does that in Plautus there is far more subtlety of approach and execution than that playwright is usually credited with.’

4

In my Warsaw paper (see n.1).

5

My texts here and throughout this study are cited from F. Leo's edition (Leo 1895-6),

with

his

line-numbering;

cf. E.

Fraenkel’s

introduction

to

Leo's

Ausgewählte kleine Schriften 1 (Rome 1960) xiii ff. On this scene of Rudens see especially Friedrich (1953) 230f., Marti (1959) 44, Konstan (1983) 88, 90, and E. Lefevre, Diphilos und Plautus (Abhandlungen Mainz 10, Stuttgart 1984) 13f. 6

Onthe meaning of sauio here (‘lips’) see J.L. Ussing's commentary (Copenhagen 1875-92) on Asin. 791, and Marx (1928) ad loc.

7

Onthis use of amabo ( ‘please, love’ in the idiom of northern England), which is used predominantly in Plautus (84 times out of 91; Persa 765 is one of the exceptions, see n.37 below) and invariably in Terence by women (cf. Donatus on Ter. Hec. 824 haec blandimenta sunt muliebria) to accompany a question or command, see especially Blase (1896) 485ff., and cf. Leo (1896) on Asin. 711, W.

M. Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus (Oxford 1907) 60, MacCary & Willcock (1976) on Casina 917-18, and the various lexica (G. Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum | [Leipzig 1904], TLL, OLD s.v. amo, respectively sub-section 8, VI, 10).

8

There is an outstanding analysis of this play by W. Ludwig, 'Die plautinische Cistellaria und das Verhältnis von Gott und Handlung bei Menander, in E.G. Turner (ed.), Ménandre (Entretiens Hardt 16, Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1960) 43-96 (56, 59ff. on this scene). Ludwig notes that the presence of Selenium here poses a oblem; Alcesimarchus was bidden at 301ff. to see Melaenis, not Selenium; lenium's cool and saucy attitude to Alcesimarchus seems inconsistent with her presentation elsewhere in the play as deeply in love with him; her exit at 462/63 is unmotivated and makes so little impression on her lover that he continues his

14

W. GEOFFREY ARNOTT

conversation with Melaenis just as if nothing had happened. Ludwig wondered whether her presence in the scene might be.a textual error in the tradition (45 If. thus becoming

an exchange between Melaenis and Alcesimarchus alone), but

then suggested the more plausible alternative that Plautus might have introduced Selenium into a scene where she was absent in the Greek original (cf. F.H. Sandbach's comment on the paper, p.97 of the Ménandre volume). See also W. Süss, ‘Zur Cistellaria des Plautus! Rh. Mus. 84 (1935) 173 and ‘Nochmals zur Cistellaria des Plautus" Rh. Mus. 87 (1938) 131ff., V. J. Rosivach, ‘The Stage-

Settings of Plautus' Bacchides, Cistellaria and Epidicus’ Hermes 114 (1956) 435ff., Konstan (1983) 97f., 102 n.10, 103 and W.S. Anderson, ‘Love Plots in Menander

and his Roman adaptors’ Ramus 13 (1984) 128 and id. (1993) 69ff.

In folio 247r of the palimpsest. In the Palatine tradition two quaternions, containing the lines between 228 and 491, have been lost.

Leo's conjecture for A's nonsensical fraterculum, where the scribe has copied again the word at the end of the preceding line. 11 12

Cf. Marti (1959) 44. Fraenkel (1960) 286ff. argues convincingly for considerable Plautine expansion of Diphilus’

Studien

Greek

original hereabouts. Cf. especially E. Lefévre, ‘Plautus-

III: Von der

Tycheherrschaft in Diphilos’ Klerumenoi zum Trium-

matronat der Casina’ Hermes 107 (1979) 311ff., accepting these arguments but

suggesting (323f.) that the idea of Lysidamus reeking of perfume may derive from Diphilus. Useful comments on the scene can be found also in Forehand (1973) 238-41, Slater (1985) 77£., M.P. Schmude, Reden — Sachstreit — Zänkereien:

Untersuchungen zur Form und Funktion verbaler Auseinandersetzungen in den Komódien des Plautus und Terenz (Palingenesia 25, Stuttgart 1988) 17, R. C. Beacham,

The

Roman

Theatre

and

its Audience

(London

1991)

95f.

and

Wallochny (1992) 159f. On confrontations in Plautus between angry wife and guilty husband see Fantham (1968) 176f. 13

Cleostrata is the spelling of the name in virtually all the manuscripts at virtually all points in scene-headings (II. 1, 3, 6, III. 1, 2, 3, V.1, 4) and the text (393, 541 including A, 627), and there is no reason to replace it with Cleustrata (Lindsay)

just because it always scans trisyllabically; synizesis of -eo- may be assumed just as in (e.g.) eosdem. 14

Cf. also 323f., 331ff., 406ff.; Fraenkel (1960) 90, Friedrich (1953) 177f., Forehand (1973) 244, and MacCary & Willcock (1976) 29f. and commentary on v.230.

15

Lysidamus' smells are a running joke, cf. 727ff., 1018; G. Chiarini, ‘In margine a

un'edizione della "Casina"* SIFC 49 (1977) 222f. and ‘Casina o della metamorfosi' Latomus 37 (1978) 118f., and S. O'Bryhim, ‘The Originality of Plautus"

Casina’ AJP 110 (1989) 95.

16

17

On this scene see O. Ribbeck, ‘Bemerkungen zu den Menaechmi des Plautus" Rh. Mus. 37 (1882) S41ff., Langen (1886) 4 f ., Fantham (1968) 175ff.,J. Wright, Dancing in Chains: the Stylistic Unity of the Comoedia Palliata (Pa and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 25, Rome 1975) 173f., Stärk (1989) 90ff., Wallochny (1992) 159ff., Gratwick (1993) on vv.604-67. Fantham believes 609-10, 616-19 to be Plautine additions to his original. I take palpationes here to be used in its literal sense 'strokings/gentle touches’, but the secondary

sense ‘flatteries’ cannot be ruled out, as Gratwick (1993)

observes ad loc. 18

Here Peniculus takes on the role of spectator, commenting on the action as it develops in front of him; cf. Gratwick (1993) on 604.

19

Such sequences, which depend for their humour on the repetition of a single

AMOROUS SCENES IN PLAUTUS

15

word or short phrase, are a common feature in both Plautus

(also Asin. 921ff.,

Cas. 602ff., Men. 941ff., Most. 975ff., Pers. 482ff., Poen. 428ft., 731ff., 1351ff., Rud. 1212ff., 1269ff., Trin. 583ff.) and Greek Old Comedy (Aristophanes Birds 114ff., Ecclesiazusae 221ff., fr. 129 Kassel-Austin, and an (anon.) fr. 76.9ff. in C.

Austin, Comicorum graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta (Berlin 1973). Cf. Marx (1928) on Rud. 1212, J. Blünsdorf, Archaische Gedankengänge Komódien des Plautus (Hermes Einzelschrift 20, Wiesbaden 1967) 61.

in den

On the scene see especially Leo (1912) 133, H.E. Wieand, Deception in Plautus

(Boston 1920) 82, 21

Fraenkel (1960) 330.

This can mean only 'hold my breast"; for pectus — (female) breast cf. e£ Plaut.

Cas. 642, 847 (where Lysidamus believes it is a woman's), Epid. 528, 533, 555, Ter. Eun. 314, Manilius 1.752, Statius Silv. 1.2.271. Inaccurate translations of Cas. 635 abound: e.g. ‘put your hands around my waist’ P. Nixon (Loeb edition, London & New York 1917), ‘soutiens-moi’ A. Ernout (Paris 1957), ‘hold me up’ MacCary-Willcock (1976) ad loc. This type of kiss (Ξ χύτρα in Greek) was characteristically given to children by adults

(Pollux

10.100,

Plut. Mor.

38b, Clem.

Alex.

Strom.

5.652P, Tibullus

2.5.91f.), but enjoyed too by lovers (also Theocritus 5.132f., Lucian Dial. Mer. 3.2, Plaut. Asin. 668). See A.S.F. Gow's commentary on Theocritus 5.133 in his edition (Cambridge 1952), and K.F. Smith's on Tibullus 2.5.92 in his (New York

1913, reprinted Darmstadt 1971). On this passage see especially Woytek (1972) 477ff., including the suggestion that vv.229-30 should be continued to Paegnium, with Sophoclidisca speaking only 231 (tu quidem up to pondo); with this reassignment formulam atque aetatulam in 229 becomes a sarcastic (and no less apposite) reference to Sophoclidisca's age and beauty. Cf. also W. Ludwig's comments in his edition οἱ W. Binder's old translation of Plautus (Munich 1966), p.1378, and Wallochny (1992) 161f. 24

Cf. E. Woytek's commentary ad loc. (SB Wien 385, Vienna 1982). See my Warsaw paper (n.1). On these opening scenes see my

Tradition

des Stegreiftheaters,

contribution to E. Benz (ed.), Plautus und die

forthcoming in ScriptOralia (Tübingen 1995).

See for very different discussions of this scene O. Zwierlein, Zur Kritik und Exegese des Plautus, 1: Poenulus und Curculio (Abhandlungen Mainz 4, Stuttgart 1990) 239ff. (?post-Plautine additions), and Anderson (1993) 72ff.; E. Lefevre in

Lefevre et al. (1991) 71ff. provides a valuable survey of the play and its research background. On this remarkable expression see especially N. Zagagi, Tradition and Originality in Plautus (Hypomnemata 62, Göttingen 1980) 113 and her nn.26, 27. I print Leo's text, with [me] added before procul by an unknown Renaissance scholar; other supplements are C.F.W. Müller's procul [a me], (Rh. Mus. 54 (1899) 388), and Weise s [tam] procul.

E. Fantham, “The Curculio: an Illustration of Plautine Methods in Interpretation" CQ 15 (1965) 94f. (reprinted in German translation in E. Lefévre (ed.), Die rómische Komódie: Plautus und Terenz (Darmstadt 1973) 193f.) suggests that in

the Greek original Palinurus may have been a virtuous paedagogus like Lydus in Bacchides, with Plautus adding the scurrilous jokes and thus altering his presentation.

31

On this scene see especially Fraenkel (1960) 129 n.3 and 211 (1988) 47ff., and E. Stark in Lefévre et al. (1991) 134ff.

n.3, S. Jäkel, Eos 76

l6

W. GEOFFREY ARNOTT

Fraenkel (1960) 168f. and n.3 plausibly suggests that here the form of the identification may indicate Plautine reworking of a less bold image in the Greek el.

33

See my conclusion. In Menander's Heros Daos is deeply in love with Plangon (vv. 1ff.), believing her to be a slave like himself, but (according to the verse hypothesis) she turns out to

be free and is given in marige her; see especially T.B.L.

to Pheidias, the free man who had already raj Webster, Studies in Menander (Manchester !1950,

21960) 26ff. and An Introduction to Menander (Manchester 1974) 146ff., A.W. Gomme and F.H. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary (Oxford 1973) pp. 385, 398f., A. Blanchard, Essai sur la composition des comédies de Ménandre (Paris 1983) 326ff. In Herodas' fifth mimiamb the slave Gastron has been having an

affair with his free mistress; see e.g. W. Headlam's edition of Herodas (ed. A.D. Knox, Cambridge 1922) xlv f., and my paper in G&R 18 (1971) 124ff.

35

. Since 1958 investigations into Plautus' sources for the slave parties in the final acts of Persa and Stichus have been obliged to take account of the riotous frolics both acted and described in the last act of Menander's Dyskolos (see e.g. A. Thierfelder, ‘Knemon — Demea — Micio', in Menandrea: Miscellanea philo-

logica (Genoa 1960) 107ff., A. Schüfer, Menanders Dyskolos: Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik (Meisenheim am Glan 1965) 66ff., and the commentaries of E.W. Handley (London 1965) and A.W. Gomme and F.H. Sandbach (Oxford

1973) ad loc.). Estimates of Plautine alterations and/or originality in the presentation of these parties now need to be based less on what actually happens there, more on such things as the language and number of actors on stage together in the Roman scenes. On the ending of Persa see especially Fraenkel

(1960) 319, Gaiser (1972) 1084 n.273, G. Chiarini, La recita: Plauto, la farsa, la festa (Bologna 1979) 181ff., Woytek (1972) 30ff., Slater (1985) SOff., 173f., W. Hofmann, ‘Plautinisches in Plautus’ Persa' Klio 71

(1989) 401ff., Stark in Lefévre

et al. (1991) 154, although both Langen (1886) 180 and Leo (1912) 168f. are still well worth reading. quin lectis is Camerarius’ correction of the dittography quin inlectis in the transmission.

37

On the male slave's unusual insertion of an amabo herc, sec Blase (1896) 488; in a

sexually explicit context the slave presumably plays on the literal sense of amo as well.

38

Cf. e.g. G.E. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton 1952) 126 and

39

It is remarkable how closely, in the parties of both Persa and Stichus, the items and the sequence in which they occur correspond to those of an Attic symposium in Menander's time, for which the literary evidence is abundant: e.g. Pl. Symp. 176a, Xen. Symp. 2.1, Matron 534.104ff. Lioyd-Jones - Parsons, Plut. Mor. 645d-48a; Ath. 9.408b-09f, 11.462c-63a, 14.639b-43e, 15.665a-d, 692f-93f,

W. Beare, The Roman Stage? (London 1964) 280.

citing Xenophanes fr. 1 West, Achaeus fr. 17, Philoxenus Leuc. Deipn. fr. e Page,

Theophr. fr. 123 Wimmer = 572 Fortenbaugh, Dicaearchus fr. 71 and Philochorus fr. 18 = FHG 2.266, 1.387; from comedy Aristophanes' Wasps 1216, Anaxandrides 2, Antiphanes 172, Alexis 252, Clearchus 4, Dromon 2, Ephippus 8, Philyllius 3, Nicostratus 19, Plato com. 71 (these comic fragments are cited from Kassel-Austin's edition), Men. fr.239 Kórte-Thierfelder). See in RE Mau s.v. Comissatio, 611.7ff., Ganszyniec s.v. Kranz, 1602.18ff. and suppl. iii s.v.

Agathodaimon 40.34ff., M. Blech, Studien zur Kranz bei den Griechen (Berlin & New York

1982) 63ff.

On the final act of Stichus see especially Fraenkel (1960) 220 n.1, 348 n.1, Gaiser (1972)

1084,

Petersmann

(1973) p»:

and commentary

passim, G.

Petrone,

Morale e antimorale nelle commedie di Plauto: Ricerche sullo Stichus (Palermo

AMOROUS SCENES IN PLAUTUS

17

1977) 33, 46f., 60ff., G. Vogt-Spira in Lefévre et al. (1991) 172.

Stichus alone has been seen earlier, conversing with Epignomus in the third act and explaining to him (419ff.) his plans for the party. On the dances see Petersmann (1973) on v.769. Emanating especially from the Freiburg school, inspired by E. Lefevre: e.g. Stärk (1989), Lefevre, Stárk ἃ Vogt-Spira (1991). Cf. F. Leo, Ausgewählte kleine Schriften 1 (Rome 1960) 41f. Cf. Donatus' comment on Eun. 539, bene inuenta persona est cui narret Chaerea,

ne unus diu loquatur ut apud Menandrum, and e.g. W. Ludwig, 'Von Terenz zu Menander' Philologus 103 (1959) 32f. = Die römische Komödie (ed. E. Lefevre, Darmstadt 1973) 395f., J. Barsby, 'Problems of Adaptation in the Eunuchus of Terence' Drama 2 (1993) 170.

45

Yet the previously convincing claims that Aristophanes’ plays were not restaged in Attica after his death or outside Athens (cf. A. Körte, JDAI 8 (1893) 62, A.

Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy! (Oxford 1928) 268, W.

Schmid and O. Stählin, Griechische Literaturegeschichte 1.4 (Munich 1946) 450)

begin now to be challenged by the evidence that scenes from his plays seem to have been painted on Italian vases, some of the early fourth century. See n.47

ow.

This undoubtedly correct opinion is the bedrock on which the arguments of the Freiburg school (see n.43) are based. Here the surveys of A.McN.G. Little, *Plautus and

Popular

Drama’ HSCP

49 (1938) 205ff., P. Frassinetti, Fabula

Atellana: saggio sul teatro popolare latino (Pavia 1953), and W. Beare, ‘The Italian Origins of Latin Drama’ Hermathena 54 (1939) 30ff., remain of value.

47

O. Taplin's recent book Comic Angels (Oxford 1993) has demonstrated that the scenes on many fourth-century Italian vases that were commonly identified as

deriving from native drama in fact portray Attic comedy from the end of the fifth and early fourth centuries; cf. also T.B.L. Webster, 'South Italian Vases and Attic Drama' CQ 42 (1948) 17ff. This testifies to some knowledge of Attic Middle

Comedy in parts of Italy during the fourth century. In the first half of that century myth travesty played a major róle on the Athenian comic stage, but virtually disappeared thereafter (Webster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy (Manchester 53!, 1970?) 16ff., 82ff., H.-G. Nesselrath, Die attische Mittlere omódie (Berlin 1990) 188ff.). Accordingly it seems logical to infer that the original of Plautus' Amphitruo belonged to Middle Comedy (cf. Th. Bergk, Griechische Literaturgeschichte 4 (Berlin 1887) 123), despite attempts to date it later (cf. e.g. P.J. Enk, Handboek der latijnse Letterkunde 2.1 (Zutphen 1937) 139ff., Webster 95ff.).

PAPERS OF THE LEEDS INTERNATIONAL LATIN SEMINAR 8 (1995) 19-29 Published by Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd (Leeds 1995). Arca 33. ISBN 0-905205-89-8

PLAUTUS AND THE EPIDICUS MALCOLM

WILLCOCK

There are fashions in Plautus. Some plays have been popular in this country, in this century; some less so, and not for intrinsic merit. Two connected considerations have affected the choice: preference for plays which would not cause embarrassment or lewd amusement in the sixth form; and availability of suitable editions. A significant factor was the date of composition of most school commentaries,

either at the end of the Victorian age or just after, say from 1890 to 1905, a period when the aim to protect the minds of the young strongly affected classical teaching. (It is an almost incredible fact that Leaf and Bayfield's Macmillan commentary of 1895, regularly reprinted until at least 1962, actually bowdlerised the /liad, cutting

out seven lines in the first half of the epic and one in the second.) The effect with Plautus wasthat the plays which were popular were the relatively safe ones: first Captivi, which Plautus himself says isan

exception to the general pattern through containing nothing improper (55-8, 1029-34); then Aulularia, Mostellaria, Rudens. The background of rape in the first is outside the play, and the young man seems genuinely ashamed; drunken behaviour is acceptable in the second, with the theme of the haunted house providing humour appropriate to upper forms in schools; and in the third, though there

is a leno, he is kept well away from the girls and treated as a stage villain, while the romantic and exotic atmosphere removes the minds

of the readers from the street life of Athens. These four were for long the plays most likely to have been read by students coming from school to university. But there are twenty surviving plays of Plautus. What about the others? Bad news for school editions would in those days be a leno,

except in the special circumstances of Rudens, or a heartless and mercenary meretrix. Schoolboys (and a fortiori schoolgirls) should e"

20

MALCOLM WILLCOCK

not, they would have felt, be introduced to slave prostitution, brothels or call-girls. Consequently the two most powerful plays (because

the most

Plautine) in the whole

canon, Bacchides and

Pseudolus, were little known; and a whole range of attractive compositions was hardly read except by specialists. One of these is Epidicus. In due course it had a chance to become more popular, in that it was one of the first with a full commentary in English in the more relaxed atmosphere of the mid-century, Duckworth's Epidicus (1940)

coming

between

Enk's

Mercator

(1932)

and

Truculentus

(1953). These three plays were new to most readers, as if the editors were trying to widen the scope. But none of the editions was appropriate for reading in school or university; they were rather for scholars, applying to the elucidation of selected plays the vast advances in knowledge of metre and text that derived from the devoted work of German scholars. Duckworth's Epidicus, a work of

piety, bringing to publication the unfinished work of his professor A.L. Wheeler, is severely textual, metrical, linguistic. Dramatic and

literary comment take second place. It would not be easy from this commentary to judge how successful a comedy Duckworth believed Epidicus to be. The social conditions of Greek New Comedy

Roman Comedy, deriving as we know it does from Greek New Comedy, is romantic drama, involving the problems of a young man in love, and the difficulties that stand in his way, such as parental disapproval, shortage of ready cash, inaccessibility of the girl.! During the course of the play these difficulties intensify, and then are miraculously resolved, typically in the fourth act (or what would be

the fourth act if Plautus' plays had been divided into acts), so that the happy ending may be reached. If the girl is marriageable, this means marriage; but marriageability is often the problem. The genre wasat the mercy of the restrictive arrangements at Athens.

In New Comedy there were four social situations for the girl loved by the young, freeborn, Athenian citizen. First, there is the wife, who must, by the marriage laws imposed by Pericles in 451, be of free Athenian citizen birth herself. This is the least common situation in the plots of the plays, for, human nature being what it is, romantic comedy is less likely to be set within an already existing marriage. Secondly, there is the freeborn

Athenian

girl; here the problem

regularly faced by her lover is that she is of different social class,

PLAUTUS AND THE EPIDICUS

21

poor, even destitute. In a society where marriage embraced the assumption of a dowry, the common opinion was that it was unsatisfactory for both parties if there was too wide a financial gap between the families (Aulularia, Trinummusy, parental disapproval could therefore be expected. Thirdly, the girl (woman) might be free,

but non-Athenian; she was, in Greek terms, a hetaira, in Latin a meretrix. This was the underclass of Athens, ladies of pleasure, callgirls. They were free and independent, but by definition not marriageable. The fourth category, straightforward in both societies, is that of slaves; these were in Greek πόρναι owned by a πορνο-

βοσκός, the Latin for which is /eno. The four situations are clearly distinguished in the plays of Plautus and Terence, and, so far as we can tell, were so in the Greek plays which were their models; but it is quite likely that what was for Menander and his contemporaries a representation of society has become a set of repeated conventional situations for the Roman stage. Love in the third and fourth categories could not in principle lead to marriage. Meretrices (ἑταῖραι) were not Athenian citizens, so the young man could not hope to marry the meretrix, however much he loved her; his best hope would be to become her only lover, and

live in a quasi-monogamous situation. Similarly with slaves: here his hope would be to buy the girl outright from her owner, set her free,

and once again arrange quasi-monogamy, at least until his father insisted on his marrying for family reasons. However, in both cases there is a further, in real life remote, possibility, that the girl had through accident got into the wrong classification. Provided she had not been promiscuous (for social assumptions would not accept that), she might be discovered in the recognition scene so loved by

Greek drama to be the long-lost daughter of an Athenian citizen, and so marriageable after all. This happens with heart-warming frequency in the plays. This all seems very exact. However there is some confusion of

terminology. One would expect a Greek writer to be quite clear about the difference between the situations of a ἑταίρα and a πόρνη, and the evidence of the plots of the plays supports the absoluteness of this distinction. It seems however, that even in Greek the word ἑταίρα may very occasionally be used of a slave? and πόρνη as a rude word for ἃ ἑταίρα. The Romans were less class-conscious and less precise in their use of language, and we find meretrix used quite commonly in the plays for slaves as well as free and independent women (compare 213 in this play with 244), and even the rude word scortum used for

22

MALCOLM

meretrices (Men.

475 scortum

accubui,

WILLCOCK

referring to the meretrix

Erotium, Truc. 678 vel amare possum vel iam scortum ducere, to which the meretrix's maid drily says lepide mecastor nuntias).

Another terminological inexactitude arises in the Latin terms /eno and /ena. They do not connote parallel situations. A /eno owns slaves;

a lena does not. She is related to the meretrix, often literally so, because she is her mother. She had been a meretrix herself when younger, and is now the helper, adviser, confidante, more like a

madame in an upper class brothel. In spite of such imprecisions in the ancient terminology, it is preferable to use the Latin terms meretrix for the hetaira figure and leno for the slave-owner when discussing the plays of Plautus and Terence. The modern words often employed, ‘courtesan’, ‘prostitute’, *pimp', risk introducing misunderstanding and distaste. The following table shows the distribution among these four categories of women of the plots of the twenty extant plays of Plautus and the six of Terence. Those who know the plays will understand

why some distinctions have been made: for example, Hecyra is classified as having a problem in relation to a wife, but Phormio in relation to a freeborn Athenian girl, even though the young man in the latter play has already married her. Wives only appear where the

plot of the play is based on the problem of their relationships with their husbands; there are of course other wives among the dramatis

personae,

often

playing

important

roles. The

letter (L) under

‘meretrix’ means that there is a Jena in the plot, under ‘slave’ that there is a /eno. The letter (r) in either column means that the girl is

recognised during the plot of the play to have been wrongly classified as meretrix or slave. If the former, she is a young girl who is in the household of the meretrix, but whose origins were different (the Eunuchus situation); if the latter, she is illegally being held as a slave

by the villainous /eno. In either case any sexual experience she has had is with the young man who loves her. Wife

Freeborn girl

Amphitruo

Ι

-

-

-

Asinaría Aulularia

-

1

IL) -

-

Bacchides Captivi

-

-

2 -

-

Casina Cistellaria

-

-

I(Lyr)

l(r) -

Curculio

-

-

-

Ιχὺ

Epidicus

1

1

Meretrix

1

Slave

KL)

PLAUTUS AND THE EPIDICUS

23

Wife

Freeborn girl

Menaechmi Mercator Miles

-

-

Mostellaria

-

-

Persa Poenulus Pseudolus Rudens Stichus Trinummus Truculentus

2 -

1 1

Adelphi

-

Andria Eunuchus Heauton Hecyra Phormio

-

— Meretrix

-

Slave

1

-

IL)

2(LY2r) KL) AL Ir) -

-

KL)

-

Several things stand out from this table. First, we see at a glance Terence’s predilection for double plots. Apart from Hecyra, where a single young man is involved with both women, there are always two young men in love in his plays, each with a girl in a different category,

either initially or after recognition. Secondly, the distinction between lena and leno is clear from consideration of the relevant plays. The

lena, where she appears, is an adjunct; the /eno is an essential figure in

the plot. Plays with recognition are always more romantic. The girl who

seemed lost (‘Perdita’) to a life of degradation has the unexpected chance of reunion with her loving parents and of marriage to her loving young man; it is the ultimate happy ending. Some charming, but relatively little known, plays fall into this category: Cistellaria, Curculio,

Poenulus.

On

the

other

hand,

among

plays

without

recognition in the meretrix and slave categories, the slave ones are the

more romantic. This is because the aim ofthe young manis

idealistic:

he wishes to buy her from the /eno and set her free, and at least for the immediate future all will be happy (Epidicus, Persa, Pseudolus, Adelphi, Phormio; cf. the soldier's intentions at Epid. 465). Most sordid are meretrix plays without recognition. Arrangements are mercenary; no monogamous relationship is likely or possible; the meretrix herself is of necessity unromantic. Thus the tone of most of these plays (Miles and Mostellaria excepted) is unattractive even in our broader-minded days (Asinaria, Bacchides, Menaechmi, Truculentus, Eunuchus, Heauton). Of them, Bacchides and the two Terentian

24

MALCOLM

WILLCOCK

plays are brilliant, but leave a slightly unpleasant taste at the end; the other three are perhaps the crudest of Plautus' works (in spite of the favour shown to Menaechmi by critics, due to the cleverness of the plot and the Shakespearian connection). Cicero's praise (De sen. 50) quam gaudebat Bello suo Punico Naeuius, quam Truculento Plautus,

quam Pseudolo! rings more true to us for Pseudolus than for Truculentus.* Finally, the Epidicus stands out, with a plot involving a girl or woman in all four categories. In the course of a mere 733 lines, it includes potentially or actually all the romantic complications.

Epidicus The first scene

The play has perhaps the best opening of any, a duet between two slaves, a protatic character Thesprio and the eponymous Epidicus. The situation is formally like that of Mostellaria, which opens with an interchange between the country and town slaves, Grumio and

Tranio. But Mostellaria, like almost all the plays, begins in iambic senarii; whereas here the first lines are trochaic septenarii, and they

develop into a mixtis modis canticum of a peculiarly Plautine nature (of all Plautus and Terence, only three other plays begin with song — Cistellaria, Persa and Stichus). The first line, which makes use of the common convention of the seruus currens, and is a perfectly formed

uersus quadratus,? grabs the attention immediately: EP. Hes, adulescens! / TH. Quis properantem / mé reprehendit / pállio?

The three-times repeated rhythm (in this case monosyllable followed by word of the adulescens shape) reminds one of such very Plautine lines as Pseud. 695 Scís amorem, scís laborem, scís egestatém meam, Epid. 680 Quíd me quaeris? quíd laboras? quíd hunc sollicitas? écce me.

As to the play opening with a call for attention to another character, one is reminded of the opening of Adelphi: Storáx! Non rediit hac nocte a cena Aeschinus,

but the difference also is striking, between Plautine trochaic vigour

and rhythmic enjoyment and Terentian iambic humanity. Thesprio has been away in the army with the young master Stratippocles. His

news is that Stratippocles has fallen in love with a girl captive, part of

PLAUTUS AND THE EPIDICUS

25

the booty in the war (against Thebes), quia fórma lepida et liberali captiuam adulescentulam dé praeda mercatust (43-4),

and has borrowed the money to buy her. (The word liberali indicates

of course that she is essentially a free-born girl, who has lost her freedom only by war; cf. 107 genere prognatam bono.) Epidicus is

appalled at the unexpected news, and makes a good joke (45): EP. Cür eam emit? TH. Ánimi causa. EP. Quöt illic homo animós habet?

For before Stratippocles left he had given Epidicus instructions to buy from a /eno a girl slave with whom he was in love, which he had managed to do, and the girl is currently in the house. We know immediately that we are in another conventional situation, of the seruus fallax who cheats the old master out of improbably large sums on behalf of the young one, as in those most Plautine plays Bacchides and Pseudolus. Now he is under pressure to find another forty minae (52) to pay for the new girl, as well as working out some way of

dealing with the previous one. So Epidicus, like the original of Chrysalus in the original of Bacchides, must become a “Dis exapaton”. The scene ends with a soliloquy by Epidicus after Thesprio’s

departure, reminiscent of the soliloquies of Pseudolus which are such a feature of the play of that name. Both slaves agonise in public about the difficulty of the financial problem imposed on them, Pseudolus

taking the spectators into his confidence (Pseud. 562-73b), Epidicus eventually engaging in a dialogue with himself. The song (81-103) is constructed as follows (I follow Lindsay and Duckworth in reading tete with Seyffert in 97): 4 septenarii; 8 short three-line stanzas, each consisting of cretic | cretic| septenarius; 4 septenarii. The simplicity,

originality and lightness of this scheme (Duckworth ad loc. quotes V.C. Lindstróm as saying that you could not find anything more attractive even in Greek) is comparable to the charming little song of Pardalisca at Cas. 708-18. The internal dialogue comes at 96-9: EP(1)

EP(2)

EP(2)

Néquam

homo es,

pidice. Qui lubidost mále loqui? EP(1) EP(2) Quíd faciam? EP(1) Mén rogas?

Quia tüte tete déseris.

TU quidem antehac aliís solebas dare consilia mütua.

26

MALCOLM WILLCOCK The first deception

Only

gradually

do we get the facts. Indeed the development

is

reminiscent of Terence, in whose Phormio we only hear important

details about the past at the beginning of the fourth act. Here we know from the conversation with Thesprio that before he left for the

army Stratippocles asked Epidicus to get hold of the slave girl he had fallen in love with, and, from

a passing comment

(59), that he

continued to write letters on the subject from the front. Epidicus had managed the matter by a typically ingenious slave deception. He persuaded the old man Periphanes that the girl in question (Acropolistis) was in fact Periphanes' daughter Telestis, the result of an affair with a woman in Epidaurus when he had been a dashing young

soldier in the army. We hear in due course (170-2) that Periphanes, a widower, had been in touch with the mother with the thought of

remarrying; and eventually, at 639-40, that Epidicus had been sent in the past by Periphanes to take birthday presents to Telestis. Somehow the news that Telestis was missing in the chaos of the war at Thebes must have reached the old man. Epidicus had received

thirty minae from Periphanes to pay for his daughter; and had personally handled the negotiation with the /eno who owned Acropolistis. All this took place just two days ago (367). The ex-slave Acropolistis is now in the house, pretending to be the old man's daughter.

The second deception To get the forty minae now required for the beautiful captive Epidicus takes advantage of the fact that Periphanes had heard a (correct at the time) rumour that his son was in love with a slave girl

(191), and wanted to rescue him from such a danger by arranging a marriage for him (189). Epidicus persuades the wealthy old man that

the surest way will be to buy the girl, ostensibly for his own purposes, and get her out of the way before his son returns. Having asked for and obtained fifty minae, an increase on the sum required, he uses a

little of it to hire a music girl (fidicina; she had been a slave but is now a freedwoman — plus iam sum libera quinquennium 498 — and is thus in the meretrix class) to impersonate the slave-girl, but gives most of it to Stratippocles to pay the debt he incurred at Thebes. In some obscure way he pulls the wool over the eyes of Periphanes' old friend

Apoecides, who has gone with him to get the girl, by persuading the leno to agree that he received the purchase price of Acropolistis

(369-70).

PLAUTUS AND THE EPIDICUS

27

After these two deceptions there are now two girls in the house, Acropolistis impersonating Telestis, and the music-girl impersona-

ting Acropolistis. The two soldiers

The miles in the plays is usually the young man's rival for the girl, whether she is slave or meretrix. He has money from the booty of his mercenary soldiering, and to this extent he has the edge on the young man, who is usually short of it. Epidicus uses this conventional figure twice to solve plot problems. To Stratippocles, now encumbered by a

previous flame living in the house, he says (153) that there is a Euboean soldier who will be only too willing to take her off their hands; to Periphanes he says (300) that there is a Rhodian soldier in .

love with the girl that they are buying, who will beonly too willing to take her off their hands. Given the trickiness of the seruus fallax we cannot be sure of the truth of any of this; but in fact a soldier does turn up at 437 looking for Acropolistis. Recognition scenes

Now that the situation has been fully developed, we have two successive scenes unmasking the two girls in the house which are interwoven with two identifying the other two women. First (437) the soldier comes, having heard that Periphanes had bought his girl-

friend Acropolistis, is offered the music-girl for the sum of sixty minae (468), and makes it clear that the girl shown to him is not the one he wants. Then (526) Philippa, Telestis' unhappy mother, turns up, has a touching recognition scene with Periphanes, but is cast into further despair by the discovery that the girl in the house, whom Periphanes claimed to be her daughter, is no such thing. It is abundantly clear now to Periphanes that Epidicus has been cheating him. He has every intention of punishing him brutally, but in the nick of time the beautiful captive is brought in by the Theban money-lender, and Epidicus recognises her as Telestis, Periphanes'

lost daughter. Epidicus is thus able to claim that by his efforts the family is happily reunited.

The solution is not wholly ideal for

Stratippocles, who suddenly discovers that the girl he loves, and whom he has been pestering Epidicus to find a way of buying, is in fact his sister. But not much is made of this. He is a changeable

young man, and, as Epidicus points out, there is still Acropolistis in the house. The play ends, like Pseudolus, with the triumph of the

28

MALCOLM

WILLCOCK

slave, who quite undeservedly gains his freedom as a reward, 732: híc is homo est qui líbertatem málitia invenít sua. Summary This is a charming, dramatic, beautifully written light comedy. Why is it not better appreciated? The answer is undoubtedly the opacity of

the plot. What we have would be consistent with Plautus creating a vehicle for a succession of vivid scenes, almost (but not quite) like a.

pantomime, and not being particularly concerned to clarify the story in between." This would explain why it contains all four of the types of girl/woman found individually or in pairs in other plays — wife, free-born girl, meretrix, slave —

and all these women appear on

stage. Perhaps the play has been reduced and confused by postPlautine retractatio; we have no way of telling. The modern reader,

especially if of scholarly bent, is troubled by unanswered questions: why are two soldiers mentioned, one Euboean, one from Rhodes?

What is the reason for the progressive sums of money involved — thirty minae for Acropolistis, forty needed for Telestis, fifty obtained for her, sixty asked of the soldier?® How do we make sense of lines

352-70,

where

Epidicus

is triumphantly

explaining (and being

complimented on) his cleverness? And why does it take so long for us to receive the essential information about Philippa and her daughter? These obscurities in the plot have a very Terentian feel. In the plays of that author, especially in two of the best of the six, Heauton and

Phormio, the reader or spectator has to pay close attention to passing remarks if he is to understand the plot, and he must put up with prolonged uncertainty before certain essential facts are disclosed, as if these were detective stories not ancient comedies. The reason in Terence's case is well understood to be his removal of the explanatory

prologue assumed to have been there in the Greek originalto inform the audience of the background to the play. Perhaps Plautus did the

same in Epidicus. Leo indeed argued? that the Latin play originally had

such

a prologue,

and

it has been

lost; this however

would

undercut the effectiveness of the opening scene between the two slaves, and I personally would not favour such a solution. The

parallel (in this respect) Mostellaria has no prologue. More probably the Greek original had one; and Plautus, like Terence, introduces a different style of comedy by dispensing with it. He is more concerned with vivid comic scenes than with the antecedents of the plot, or for that matter the future of the characters (cf. Casina). If we accept that

PLAUTUS AND THE EPIDICUS

29

the play is more than usually stamped with his authorial decisions,

we may find it easier to understand the reason for the unique selfpraise of Bacch. 214 Epídicum, quam ego fabulam aeque ac me ipsum amo.

NOTES 1

This

remains

persuaded

true

of the essential

plot

situations,

however

much

we

are

that Plautus had his own additional agenda, whether scurrility

(Fraenkel), anarchy (Segal) or metatheatre (Slater). 2

Diphilus, fr. 43 Koch (= 42 Kassel-Austin), 40 ἑταίρα μεθ᾽ ἑτέρων πορνῶν.

Tam

grateful to Mr Peter Brown for the references in this and the following note. 3 4

Anaxilas, fr. 22 1ff., 22; Python, Agen, fr. 1 3, 18. Truculentus has suffered serious textual damage since Cicero made his judgement (see the comment of Gulielmius quoted by P.J. Enk in Truculentus (Leiden 1953) I 5); this however is not the cause of its unattractiveness.

5

See O. Immisch, Zur Frage der plautinischen Cantica (Heidelberg 1923) 29-33; E. Fraenkel, ‘Die Vorgeschichte des versus quadratus! Hermes 62 (1927) 357-70 (= Kleine Beiträge (Rome 1964) II 11-24).

6

Isce no reason at all to deduce with K. Dziatzko that the Greek original of Epidicus ended with half-brother/half-sister marriage, causing embarrassment to Plautus as such an arrangement was not acceptable at Rome (Κλ. M. 55 (1900) 104 10, on which sec E. Fraenkel, Elementi plautini in Plauto (Florence 1960)

1). 7

ΚΝ. Goldberg, ‘Plautus’ Epidicus and the case of the missing original’ TAPA 108 (1978) 81-91, even argues that the Plautine qualities of the play (vivid comic

scenes, neglect of plot) may be explained by the assumption that this play (uniquely?) had no Greek original, but was Plautus’ own composition. E. Fantham, ‘Plautus in miniature: compression and distortion in the Epidicus’ PLLS 3 (1981) 1-28, disagrees; and the highly allusive state of the play suggests dependence on a Greek model, however modified. See also the next note. 8

This mathematical progression is an unimportant matter, but perhaps reflects a Greek mind, which might enjoy simple mathematical relationships, and indeed any kind of balance. Similarly in Pseudolus sums of twenty minae go round and round in a kind of equation until in the end nobody except the /eno Ballio is any the worse off, and even he will have received payment for the girl stolen from him

by Pseudolus._

9

᾿

F.Leo, Plautinische Forschungen (2nd edn, Berlin 1912) 199-200.

PAPERS OF THE LEEDS INTERNATIONAL LATIN SEMINAR 8 (1995) 31-69 Published by Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd (Leeds 1995). Arca 33. ISBN 0-905205-89-8

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS IN PLAUTUS R. MALTBY 1.

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to examine the distribution of Greek loanwords by plays and by characters in Plautus. To what extent are they used for stylistic effect? Are they more frequent in the mouths of certain individual characters or character-types? Is there any development in Plautus' deployment of Greek as his career progresses? Finally the results for Plautus will be compared with those obtained in a previous study of Greek loan-words in Terence.! Earlier discussions of the subject pointed to the concentration of Greek in the mouths of slaves and characters of low social standing.? J.N. Hough? also tried to show that this method of linguistic characterisation became more frequent in Plautus' later plays. M.E. Gilleland* was the first to put these discussions on a sound statistical basis by relating the number of Greek words used to the total length of a character's role. In this I have followed him, expressing the number

of Greek

words

used in a play or by a character as a

proportion of the total words used in that play or by that character. However, whereas Gilleland restricted his discussion to the distri‘bution of Greek by character types, I have widened his study by giving full references for the usage of each individual character in each play. E One of the main methodological problems faced by any study of this kind is that of determining the degree of ““Greekness” of a particular loan-word. Some, such as poena or triumpho, which were taken over at an early stage of the language,? may have sounded less foreign to Plautus' audience than more recent loan-words such as symbola or patrisso. The amount of deliberate Greek colouring imparted by the second group was probably greater. However, as the 31

32

R. MALTBY

earlier study of Terence revealed little difference in the distribution of these two types, the present paper does not attempt to separate them, but in the interests of completeness and objectivity lists together Greek or Greek-based loan-words from all the following categories, in descending order of ““Greekness”:

1. Pure Greek. By this I refer to words printed in Greek characters by Lindsay, e.g. ἄδικος, ebpetic.’ 2. Straight transliterations of Greek, with or without modification of the ending, e.g. apage, arrabo. This is by farthe most common type. 3. Words which have undergone phonological changes in Latin, e.g. balineae, comissor. 4. Latin derivatives of Greek words, e.g. diabathrarius, thalassicus.

5. Latin and Greek hybrids, e.g. pultiphagus, sandaligerula. 6. Latin words given Greek terminations, e.g. glandionida, hamiota. As in the previous study of Terence, I have omitted from consideration certain categories of words whose occurrence is a necessary part of the plays’ Greek setting and whose presence in or absence from a particular play is dictated by the plot rather than by stylistic considerations.? These are: 1. Greek monetary terms or measures: drachuma, hemina, dimnus, metreta, mina, obolus, talentum, triobolus. 2. Proper names.

me-

3. Oaths derived ultimately from the Greek Κάστωρ, Ἡρακλῆς, Πολυδεύκης,

e.g. ecastor, mehercle, whose distribution is de-

termined to some extent by the sex of the speaker.? 4. Words linked to the plots of particular plays, namely cistella (Rud., Cist.), cistellula (Rud., Amph.), cistula (Rud., Amph.) and

the names of the character-types paedagogus (Bacch.), parasitus (Bacch., Capt., Curc., Men. Mil. Stich.), sycophanta (Trin.). The full material is set out below in the appendices. Appendix I lists

alphabetically all the Plautine Greek loan-words included in the study, together with Plautus' pure Greek. Appendix II gives an analysis of these words by play and by character. Appendix III gives a list of words found in other discussions of the topic but excluded

from the present study on the grounds that their Greek origin is in doubt.

For the sake of simplicity and in the interests of completeness I have analysed all the text as it appears in Lindsay's OCT, leaving

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

33

individual scholars to draw their own conclusions about passages where Plautine authorship may be in doubt. Quotations or impersonations are attributed not to the actual speaker but to the person who is supposed to be speaking (e.g. the words of the letter quoted by Pseudolus at Pseud. 41ff. are attributed to its writer, Phoenicium).

The analysis will be divided into three parts: distribution by plays; distribution by character-types; discussion of individual plays and characters.

2. Distribution by plays From Appendix II it can be seen that Plautus' Greek loan-words, as defined above, are distributed by plays, in ascending order of frequency, as follows (an asterisk indicates plays containing pure Greek): j Cist. 1/308, Merc. Rud. 1/151, *Most. * Bacch. 1/129, Aul. *Mil. 1/107, *Cas. Average frequency:

1/239, 1/147, 1/125, 1/100, 1/143.

Asin. 1/187, *Truc. 1/187, Amph. 1/180, *Poen. 1/142, *Trin. 1/141, Epid. 1/133, *Pers. 1/119, Men. 1/115, *Capt. 1/110, Curc. 1/91, *Stich. 1/73, Pseud. 1/73.

The two plays with the greatest frequency , Stích. and Pseud., can by dated accurately from the didascaliae to 200 B.C. and to 191 B.C. respectively. The two plays which stand out as having a significantly lower

than

average

frequency,

Cist.

and

Merc.,

are

generally

considered to be of an early composition date.!? Otherwise there is little correlation with the tentative chronological classification of Plautus’ plays set out by Duckworth:!! Early period: Asin., Merc., Mil., Cist., Poen. Middle period: Stich. (200 B.C.), Aul., Curc., Amph., Capt., Rud., Trin. Late period: Pseud. (191 B.C.), Bacch., Cas., Pers., Truc.

It is true that three of his early plays, Asin. Merc. and Cist., have the least Greek, but plays from his middle period, particularly Stich., Curc. and Capt., have as much as his later plays and one of his later plays, Truc., has as little as Asin. Plays containing pure Greek tend to come from his middle and late periods. In conclusion it can be said that the use of Greek becomes more frequent in the plays generally considered to come from Plautus' middle and late periods, but the proportion of Greek in any given play depends to some extent on the

size and importance in it of roles spoken by characters who traditionally use it. The high proportion of Greek in Pseud. is a result of its frequent use by the slave Pseudolus and the slave-dealer Ballio,

and in Stich. by the slave Stichus and the parasite Gelasimus. The

34

R. MALTBY

only speaker from this category in Truc. is the soldier Stratophanes, but his role is not important enough to influence the overall total. 3.

Distribution by character-types

Characters are divided into “high” and “low” according to their social status. Of the main character types "high" includes the freeborn citizens senex, adulescens, matrona and uirgo; all the rest are “low”. Greek words are distributed to character-types as follows: (a) male low:

Main roles

cocus 1/55, parasitus 1/91, seruus 1/120, miles 1/133,

leno 1/196 Average 1/119 male high: senex 1/205, adulescens 1/338 Average 1/271 female low: meretrix 1/269, lena 1/288, ancilla 1/295, mulier/puella

1/330, anus 1/467 Average 1/329 female high:

matrona

1/1047, uirgo 0/833

Average 1/1880

(b) Minor roles Under this heading I include characters who do not fit neatly into any of the main categories and whose roles are too short individually for figures to be statistically significant. These are: male low: trapezita, danista, paedagogus, medicus, lorarius, guber-

nator, puer, piscatores, sycophanta, choragus. Average 1/185 male high:

deus, dux, aduocati, mercator, Persa, mortuus.

Average 1/215 female low: fidicina, nutrix. Average 0/267 female high: sacerdos Average 0/112 Overall average for all types 1/563

From this it is clear that Greek is spoken most often by characters who would be most likely to use it in real life. These are men of low

social status whose military service would have brought them into contact with Greek speakers in Southern Italy or slaves, cooks and

other artisans of Greek origin. The Greek found in Plautus is not the pure attic of his originals, but often shows dialect variants of Southern Italian origin.'? It is not the Greek of the intellectuals, but

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

35

the everyday Greek that would have been familiar to the Roman lower classes. Lower class male characters, then, are, as one would expect, the

most frequent users of Greek. Of these, cooks and parasites, whose language is full of references to food, an area where Greek was

supreme, head the list. The concentration of Greek in the mouths of slaves is particularly noticeable with pure Greek (see Appendix I (2)), where of 29 occurrences 15 are spoken by slaves, 7 by parasites, 1

each by a /eno and a sycophanta. Of four occurrences by old men (Cas. 729, Pseud. 488, Bacch.

1162, Trin. 187), the first two are in

conversations with slaves who are using Greek. Typically, pure Greek is never used by women, and the only example by an adulescens, namely εὑρετής by Calidorus at Pseud. 488, occurs in a description of one of Plautus' most frequent users of pure Greek, the

slave Pseudolus. The next most frequent group of Greek users is male characters of

high social status. Here there is a marked difference between the senes, some of whom, as will be seen in the next section, use Greek

almost

as frequently

as slaves, and

the adulescentes

who

are

altogether more restrained. This discrepancy has perhaps more to do

with the role of old men in comedy than with the realities of everyday speech. Old men are more frequently depicted as figures of fun and as such adopt a more informal manner of speech than the more serious adulescentes. The least frequent users are women of both high and low social status. The reason for this, as suggested in the earlier paper on Terence, may have been the natural conservatism of female speech.

There is nevertheless a marked difference in the speech of high and low female characters. Greek is six times more frequent in the mouths of lower class women. However, of the women in this class only the meretrix reaches a level which is more frequent than the high male average.

The pattern of distribution amongst the various character-types in Plautus is basically the same as occurs later in Terence. In both authors the descending order is male low, male high, female low,

female high. The only difference is that in Terence the character miles, whose role is considerably cut back, has no Greek words at all,

whereas that of the ancilla rises well above the average for high male characters. ' The relatively high frequency of Greek loan-words in Plautus’ prologues (1/138) is accounted for mainly, as in Terence, by

36

R. MALTBY

technical theatrical terms for which there is often no Latin equivalent (choragium, comoedia, historicus, poeta, proscaenium, schema, tragicomoedia, tragoedia). These tend to be more common in the six

prologues spoken by a prologus (1/85) than in the seven spoken by a god or character in the play (1/192). 4. Amphitryo.

Individual plays and characters

The most frequent user of Greek in this play is the god

Mercury, in his assumed role of the slave Sosia, cf. prol. 124 ego serui

sumpsi Sosiae mi imaginem.

This is apparent both when

he is

delivering the prologue (1/58) and in the body of the play (1/11). In

fact he uses Greek far more often than the real slave Sosia, whose frequency (1/245) puts him well below the average for slaves (1/120).

Amphitryo himself, as an army general dux, could best be categorised as a “high” male character. His use of Greek (1/194) is slightly above average for this type (1/271). However, six of his eight occurrences are concentrated for stylistic effect in the description of his vain search through the town for Naucrates at 1011-12: nam omnis plateas perreptaui, gymnasia et myropolia; apud emporium atque in macello, in palaestra atque in foro.

The role of the matrona Alcumena is remarkable for its complete absence of Greek.

Asinaria. This is probably an early work in which Greek for the purposes of linguistic characterisation has little role to play. The most noticeable feature is the relatively high proportion of Greek spoken by the comic senex amator Demaenetus, who at 1/99 is well above the average for his character-type (1/205) and outdoes the slaves Libanus (1/208) and Leonida (1/142) and the parasite (1/121).

Aulularia.

The most frequent users of Greek among the main

characters are the cooks Anthrax (1/36) and Congrio (1/42). This is

in keeping with Plautus' normal practice. A comparison of the two old men in the play is instructive. While Euclio at 1/215 is about average for his character-type, the comic senex amator Megadorus, like Demaenetus in Asinaria, is well above average at 1/71. Most of

his Greek is concentrated for comic effect in his list of tradesmen at 508-21. Bacchides. The young man Pistoclerus uses an unusually high proportion of Greek for his character-type (1/58: average 1/338).

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK

LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

v

Over half the occurrences, however, are concentrated in a single short passage. This is his comic description of the brothel, delivered

to the meretrix Bacchis, at 66-73. The slave Chrysalus (1/113) and the paedagogus Lydus (1/70) are both characterised as frequent users 'of Greek. The only pure Greek in the play, however, is spoken by the

old man Philoxenus, significantly while adopting the role of a senex amator (1162): NICOBULUS an amas? PHILOXENUS vai γάρ. Captiei. The character whose language is most coloured by Greek words and phrases in this play is the parasite Ergasilus. At 1/42 he stands out clearly from the next most frequent users, the slave Tyndarus (1/142) and the old man Hegio (1/156). Some of his Greek

is concentrated for comic effect, as in his list of fish names at 850-51 pernulam atque opthalmiam,/ horaeum, scombrum, et trygonum et cetum and in his oaths in pure Greek at 880-83. It is interesting that he swears by the names of Greek towns in Southern Italy. The form of the oaths, introduced by ναί for νή, may be intended to reflect the Doric dialect of that area.'* Ergasilus is the only user of pure Greek in the play. Casina. This is probably a play of late composition date and displays a skilful use of Greek for linguistic characterisation. The most frequent user is the slave Olympio (1/58), followed by the old man Lysidamus (1/90), again, significantly, a senex amator. These are the only two characters to use pure Greek in the play (728-31). The use of the word moechisso by the matrona Myrrhina in her

description

of Lysidamus at 976, dum moechissat Casinam,

is

unusually strong for a woman of her class and at 1/130 she is one of the thrée most frequent users of Greek amongst Plautus' matronae

(the others being Eunomia in Aul. at 1/139 and the unnamed matrona of Men. at 1/135).

Cistellaria. This is perhaps one of the earliest of Plautus' plays and makes little use of Greek for linguistic characterisation. Greek is not employed to colour the language of slaves and no character makes frequent use of it. The pattern of distribution found in later plays is not yet apparent. In fact the young man Alcesimarchus (1/179) has more Greek than the slaves Lampadio (1/738) and Thyniscus (0/153) and the meretrix Gymnasium with a frequency of 1/95 uses

more Greek than any male character.

Curculio.

Greek in this play is concentrated in the mouths of three

male characters of low social status, the soldier Therapontigonus

38

R. MALTBY

(1/38), the parasite Curculio (1/40) and the slave Palinurus (1/118). In the case of Curculio, his Greek is concentrated for comic effect at

285-92 in a running-slave speech which contains a diatribe against Greeks. The uncharacteristically high proportion of Greek spoken by the old slave-woman Leaena (1/15) is accounted for by its accumulation in her drunken speech in praise of wine at 97-101. Epidicus. The language of the eponymous hero is characterised by its high Greek content (1/105). The accumulation at 231-3 in Epidicus' description of women's luxury garments is reminiscent of

Megadorus' speech at Aul. 508-21. It is possible that his use of apolactizo at 678 should be taken as an example of pure Greek

(though it is not printed as such by Lindsay). The apparently high proportion of Greek in the language of the adulescens Stratippocles (1/78) is an accidental result of his frequent use of the word danista as demanded by the plot (5 of his 7 occurrences). Both comic old men Apoecides (1/99) and Periphanes (1/182) have a higher proportion of Greek in their speech than the average (1/205) for their type.

Menaechmi. Contrary to Plautus' usual practice, Greek in this play is less frequent in the mouth of the slave Messenio (1/190) than in that of his master Menaechmus II (Sosicles) (1/113). In fact both Menaechmi brothers use more Greek than the average (1/138) for their character-type: Menaechmus I (1/152), Menaechmus II (1/113).

The cook (1/53) and the parasite Peniculus (1/101) display the normal high frequency. Women's speech in this play appears to have more Greek than usual (Erotium meretrix 1/86, ancilla 1/21, matrona 1/135), but this is accounted for in part by five occurrences

of spinter ‘bracelet’ in their speech (three by ancilla), as a result of the demands of the plot.

Mercator.

This is probably an early play and Greek is not much in

evidence. There is little marked differentiation between the charactertypes. The adulescentes Charinus (1/176) and Eutychus (1/376)

uncharacteristically use more Greek than the old men Demipho (1/307) and Lysidamus (1/553). The roles of the other characters are too small for any firm conclusions to be drawn.

Miles Gloriosus. This is a play with an above average frequency of Greek. It is concentrated in particular in the mouth of the comic old man Periplectomenus (1/86), who uses more Greek than the slaves Palaestrio (1/119) and Scheledrus (1/171). Particularly noteworthy is the accumulation of Greek-based adverbs in the old man's

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

39

description of Palaestrio at 213: eugae! euscheme hercle astitit et dulice et comoedice. The other main character whose language is intentionally coloured by Greek is the soldier Pyrgopolynices (1/109). Among the minor characters the cook Cario (1/21) and the parasite Artotrogus (1/43) are, as usual, the most frequent users. The

women

characters

Philocomasium

(1/268),

Milphidippa

ancilla

(1/151) and, in particular, Acroteleutium meretrix (1/49) have afar

higher proportion of Greek in their language than is normal. The only pure Greek in the play, 437 ἄδικος es tu, non δικαία, is spoken, as expected, by a slave (Sceledrus). Mostellaria. The slave Phaniscus and, unusually, the meretrix Philematium are the most frequent users of Greek in this play (both

with 1/66). Phaniscus is also the only character to use pure Greek, μὰ τὸν ᾿Απόλλω 973. The speech of the other slaves, Grumio (1/86) and

Tranio (1/139), is also characterised by a high proportion of Greek. Tranio, in particular, coins some imaginative Greek-based formations: plagipatida (356), ferritribax (356) and pultiphagus (828) — all hapaxes. The old man Theopropides is particularly fond of Greek-based interjections: apage (436 twice, 816a, 845), eugae (638, 1076) and eu (981), and he outdoes his neighbour Simo in the Greek colour of his speech: Theopropides (1/179), Simo (1/269). Persa. The language of the protagonist, Toxilus, has a higher than usual Greek colouring even for a slave (1/83). He is, however, surpassed by the parasite Saturio (1/52), who is the only character to

use pure Greek, πόθεν (159). The slave Sagaristio's use of Greek at 1/139 is close to the average (1/120) for his character-type. Poenulus.

This play corresponds well to Plautus’ general pattern for

the distribution of Greek. The most frequent users are low male characters: Collybiscus uilicus (1/38), Antamoenides miles (1/112), Lycus /eno (1/123) and the slaves Milphio (1/128) and Syncerastus

(1/130). The only pure Greek is spoken by Milphio at 137. Next come the high male characters: aduocati (1/148), Hanno senex (1/184), Agorastocles adulescens (1/209). The only unusual feature is the

relatively high proportion of Greek in the speech of the girl Adelphasium (1/187), most of which is concentrated in her diatribe against common diobolaris 270.

Pseudolus.

women

at 266-70:

alicarius 266, schoenus 267,

Pseudolus has more pure Greek than any other play and

shares with Stichus the highest frequency of Greek in general (1/73).

—

40

R. MALTBY

The slave Pseudolus lives up to his Greek name by tricking out his language with a higher than average proportion of Greek (1/61), including no less than six pure Greek phrases at 443, 483, 484, 488, 654 and 712. He is closely followed by the comic senex Simo (1/75),

who also uses pure Greek in conversation with Pseudolus at 488. Next comes Ballio /eno (1/101), who utters the pure Greek δύναμιν at ' 211 and, like Tranio in Mostellaria, invents comic Greek-based formations: flagitriba (137) and inanilogista (255) — both hapaxes. It

is a play in which all characters use a higher than normal frequency of Greek. On the whole, however, the various character types preserve

the normal distinctions between one another, with slaves and low

male characters being the most frequent users, followed by senex and adulescens. Only the girl Phoenicium, in her letter quoted by Pseudolus at 4lff., stands outside the regular pattern with a

surprisingly high frequency for a female of 1/48. However, her letter is too short for this figure to be statistically significant.

Rudens.

In this play there is a marked difference between low male

characters and the rest in their use of Greek. The old man Daemones (1/657) and the youth Plesidippus (1/406) use far less Greek than

average for their character-types. The senex Charmides is higher than average with 1/111, but as the business partner of the /eno Labrax he is perhaps closer to the low sycophanta in social standing. The female characters Palaestra (1/795), Ampelisca (1/411) and Ptolemocratia

' (0/112), as one would expect, use little Greek. The slave Sceparnio has an apparently higher than average frequency of Greek (1/62), but most of this occurs in his description of the shipwreck at 163-73 and, apart from the interjections eugae (twice) 163 and eugepae 170, is accounted for by the commonly occurring sea-faring terms scapha 163, 165, 173 and gubernator 166. The song of the fishermen at 290ff.

displays a particularly high proportion of Greek (1/18), but again most of this is concentrated in one line of fish names at 297 echinos, lopadas, ostreas, balanos captamus, conchas. The leno Labrax with 1/111 has slightly more than the 1/196 average for his charactertype, whereas the fisherman Gripus, clearly to be classed as a slave, has slightly less (1/174; average 1/120).

Stichus.

This play shares with Pseudolus the highest proportion of

Greek overall (1/73). The two most frequent users are the slave Stichus (1/20), who also has a long phrase in pure Greek at 707, and Sangarinus (1/36). Unusually the slaves in this play use more Greek than the parasite Gelasimus, who at 1/91 is exactly average for his

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

4

character-type. Trinummus. The slave Stasimus is clearly characterised as the most frequent user of Greek (1/78), well above the average for his type

(1/120). He also uses pure Greek at 419 οἴχεται and 705 πάλιν, and invents the comic ineuscheme 625 and cruricrepida 1021, both hapaxes. There is little differentiation between the three senes Callicles (1/119), Megaronides (1/171) and Charmides (1/171), except that Megaronides is the only one to use pure Greek, παῦσαι 187. The senex Philto at 1/372 is more restricted in his use. The apparently high proportion of Greek used by the sycophanta (1/74) is a product of his six uses of the commonly occurring epistula. There is no attempt by Plautus to use Greek to characterise his language to the same extent as that of Stasimus. Truculentus. Greek colouring is relatively rare in this play and is concentrated in the speech of the soldier Stratophanes (1/63) and of the slave Cyamus (1/83). Both these characters are higher than average users of Greek for their character-types. The slave Truculentus with 1/129 is much closer to the norm. The only pure Greek,

ἔξω 558, is spoken by Cyamus. At 1/144 the language of the maid As aphium contains more Greek than is average for her type (1/295). 5.

Conclusions

The detailed analysis of individual plays has shown that Greek in Plautus is used most often to characterise the language of male characters of low social status. Male characters of all classes are more

frequent users of Greek than female characters of both low and high status. This is basically the pattern found later in Terence, except that there is an increase in the frequency with which Greek is used by the ancilla. The suggestion made above (section 3) that the reason why old men may use more Greek than young men is that their roles are often more comic has been backed up by instances from individual

plays where old men in the role of senex amator were seen to have a significantly higher proportion of Greek in their speech than the rest. The analysis of plays also showed that Greek, particularly in the

mouths of slaves, was often concentrated for stylistic effect in a single short passage. Plays likely to have been composed early in Plautus' career, namely Cistellaria, Mercator, Asinaria, were seen to have a

relatively low Greek content and what Greek there was was not yet

being concentrated in the mouths of slaves and low characters.

42

R. MALTBY

NOTES Reference will be made more than once to R. Maltby, ‘The Distribution of Greek

Loan-words in Terence' CQ 35 (1985) 110-23.

1

Maltby (1985).

2

N.Tuchhaendler, De Vocabulis Graecis in Ling. Lat. Translatis (diss. Berol. 1876) 70; F. Leo, Plautinische Forschungen 2nd edn (Berlin 1912)i. 106; Gesch. der róm.

Lit. (Berlin 1913) 140; cf. Hermes 18 (1883) 566. 3

‘The Use of Greek Words by Plautus’ AJP 55 (1934) 346-64.

4

Linguistic Differentiation of Character Type and Sex in the Comedies of Plautus and Terence (Ph.D. thesis, University of Virginia, Charlottesville 1979).

5

= Maltby (1985) 113.

6

Maltby (1985) 115, 119.

7

The mss are of no help here and different editors adopt different printing conventions.

8

Maltby (1985) 115-18.

9

Maltby (1985) 115 n.28, 116.

10

G. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton 1952) 54-5.

n"

ibid. 55.

12

Cf. e.g. the a for e in forms like choragus, choragium; thylacista from Tarantine θυλακίζω; for ναί in oaths see n.16 below.

13

Maltby (1985) 119 n.35.

14

Maltby (1985) 120.

15

Maltby (1985) 117.

16

For vai in oaths cf. Inscr. Cret. 171, Comic. Adesp. fr. 129.3 vai γε μὰ Δία.

|

APPENDIX 1 Alphabetical List of Greek Loan-Words in Plautus 1. TRANSLITERATED FORMS: aer [ἀήρ] Asin. 99 (Libanus seru.). agoranomus [ἀγορανόμος] Capt. 824 (Hegio sen.), Curc. 285 (Curculio para.), Mil. 727 (Palaestrio seru.). alicarius [ἄλιξ + -arius] Poen. 266 (Adelphasium puella). amomum [dyopov) Truc. 540 (Stratophanes mil.). ampulla [ἀμφορεύς + dim.] Merc. 927 (Charinus ad.), Pers. 124 (Saturio para.), Stich. 230 (Gelasimus para.). ampullarius [ἀμφορεύς + dim. + -arius] Rud. 756 (Trachalio seru.).

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

43

amphora [ἀμφορεύς] Cas. 121 (Olympio seru.), Mil. 824 (Palaestrio seru.). anancaeum [ἀναγκαῖον] Rud. 363 (Trachalio seru.). apage [ἄπαγε] Amph. 310 (Sosia seru.), 580 (Amphitryo dux), Bacch. 73 (bis) (Pistoclerus ad.), 372 (Lydus paed.), Capt. 208 (Philocrates ad.), Cas. 459 (Olympio seru.), Curc. 598 (Cucrulio para.), Epid. 637 (Apoecides sen.), Merc. 144 (Acanthio seru.), Mil. 210 (Periplectomenus sen.), Most. 436 (bis),

816a, 845 (Theopropides sen.), 697 (Simo sen.), Poen. 225 (Adelphasium puella), 856 (Syncerastus seru.), Pseud. 653 (Pseudolus seru.), Rud. 826 (Labrax leno), Trin. 258 (Lysiteles ad.), 525, 537 (Philto sen.), 538 (Stasimus seru., quoting Philto). apolactizo [ἀπολακτίζω] Epid. 678 (Epidicus seru.). [ἀπόλογος] Stich. 538 (Antipho sen.), 541, 544 (Epignomus maritus), 570 (Pamphila uxor). apsinthium [ἀψίνθιον] Trin. 935 (Sycophanta). architecton [ἀρχιτέκτων] Most. 760 (Tranio seru.), Poen. 1110 (Milphio seru.).

architectus [ἀρχιτέκτων) Amph. 45 (prol.), Mil. 901 (Periplectomenus sen.), 902, 915, 919 (Acroteleutium mere.), 1139 (Milphidippa anc.), 1139 (Palacstrio seru.), Truc. 3 (prol).

arrabo [ἀρραβών] Mil. 957 (Palaestrio seru.), Most. 645, 918 (Tranio seru.), 1013 (Theopropides sen.), Poen. 159 (Antamoenides miles), Rud. 46 (Arcturus prol), 555 (Labrax leno), 861 (Plesidippus ad.) Truc. 690 (Astaphium anc.); cf. ‘rabonem’ Truc. 688 (Truculentus seru.), 689 (Astaphium anc. quoting Truc.). artopta [ἀρτόπτης] Au. 400 (Anthrax cocus). athletice [ἀθλητικός] Bacch. 248 (Chrysalus seru.), Epid. 20 (Thesprio seru.). attat [ἀτταταῖ shortened] Amph. 263 (Mercurius deus), Aul. 411 (Congrio cocus), 665, 712 (seru. Lyconidis), Capt. 664 (Hegio sen.), 1007 (Tyndarus seru.), Cas. 434 (Chalinus seru.), 619 (Lysidamus sen.), 723 (Olympio seru.), Cist. 701 (Halisca anc.), Curc. 390 (Curculio para.), 583 (Therapontigonus mil.), Pers. 722 (Dordalus leno), Poen. 821 (Milphio seru.), Truc. 575 (Cyamus seru.). attatae [ἀτταταῖ] Asin. 588 (Leonida seru.), Aul. 406 (Congrio cocus), Cas. 468 (Charinus seru.), 528 (Alcesimus sen.), Epid. 457 (Periphanes sen.), Merc. 365 (Charinus ad.). atticisso [ἀττικίζω) Men. 12 (prol.). aurichalcum [ὀρείχαλκος: aur by assoc. w. aurum^ Curc. 202 (Palinurus seru.), Mil. 658 (Palaestrio seru.), Pseud. 688 (Pseudolus seru.). babae [Bapai] Cas. 906 (Olympio seru.), Pers. 806 (Toxilus seru.), Pseud. 365 (Ballio leno), Stich. 771 (Sangarinus seru.). baccha [βάκχῃη] Amph. 703 (Sosia seru.), Aul. 408 (Congrio cocus) Bacch. 53 (Pistoclerus ad.),

371 (Lydus paed.), Cas. 979 (bis) (Lysidamus sen.), 979

(Cleustrata matr., quoting (Milphidippa anc. ).

Lys.), Merc.

bacchanal [βάκχη + -anal] Aw.

469 (Charinus

ad.), Mil.

1016

408, 411 (Congrio cocus), Bacch. 53

(Pistoclerus ad.), Mil. 858 (Palaestrio seru.). bacchor [βάκχος + —0] Amph. 703 (Sosia seru.), Mil. 856 (Lurcio puer). badizo [βαδίζω] Asin. 706 (Libanus seru.).

44

R. MALTBY

balanus [βάλανος] Rud. 297 (Piscatores). balineae [βαλανεῖον] Asin. 357 (Leonida seru.), Merc. 127 (Acanthio seru.), Most. 756 (Tranio seru.), Pers. 90 (Toxilus seru.), Poen. 976 (Milphio seru. ), Rud. 833 (Trachalio seru. ), Trin. 406 (Stasimus seru.). bal(i)neator [βαλανεῖον -- -ator] Poen. 703 (Lycus leno), Rud. 527 (Labrax leno), Truc. 25 (Diniarchus ad.). . baliaena [φάλλαινα) Rud. 545 (Labrax leno). ballista [βάλλω + -ista] Bacch. 709, 710 (Chrysalus seru.), Capt. 796 (Ergasilus para.), Poen. 201 (Milphio seru.), Trin. 668 (Lysiteles ad.). ballistarium [βάλλω + -ista + -arium] Poen. 202 (Milphio seru.).

barathrum [βάραθρον] Bacch. 149 (Lydus paed.), Curc. 121 (Palinurus seru.), Rud. 570 (Charmides sen.). barbare [βάρβαρος + —e] Asin. 11 (prol), Trin. 19 (Luxuria prol.). barbaria [βάρβαρος + -ia] Poen. 598 (aduocati). barbaricus [βαρβαρικός] Capt. 492 (Ergasilus para.), 884 (Hegio sen.), Cas. 748 (Olympio seru.). barbarus [βάρβαρος] Bacch. 121, 123 (Pistoclerus ad.), Curc. 150 (Phaedromus ad.), Mil. 211 (Periplectomenus sen.), Most. 828 (Tranio seru.), Rud.

583 (Sceparnio seru.), Stich. 193 (Gelasimus para.). basilice [βασιλικός + -e] Epid. 56 (Epidicus seru.), Pers. 29, 462, 806 (Toxilus seru.), Poen. 577 (Agorastocles ad.). basilicus [βασιλικός] Capt. 811 (Hegio sen.), Curc. 359 (Curculio para.), Epid. 232 (Epidicus seru.), Pers. 31 (Toxilus seru.), Pseud. 458 (Simo sen.), Rud. 431 (Sceparnio seru.), Trin. 1030 (Charmides sen.). batioca [βατιάκη] Stich. 694 (Stichus seru.). baxea [πάξ] Men. 391 (Menaechmus II ad.). biclinium [bi- + κλίνιον) Bacch. 720, 754 (Chrysalus seru. ). blennus [βλεννός] Bacch. 1088 (Nicobulus sen.). bliteus [βλίτον + -eus] Cas. 748 (Olympio seru.), Truc. 854 (Phronesium mere.).

blitum [βλίτον] Pseud. 815 (cocus). bolus [βόλος] Curc. 611 (Curculio para.), 612 (Therapontigonus mil.), Poen. 101 (prol), Rud. 360 (Trachalio seru.), Truc. 31 (Dinarchus ad.), 724 (Astaphium anc.), 844 (Callicles sen.). bombax [βομβάξ] Pseud. 365 (Ballio leno).

boo [Bodw} Amph. 232 (Sosia seru.). Ὁ bracchialis [βραχίων + -alis] Poen. 1269 (Hanno Poenus). bracchium [βραχίων] Asin. 696 (Libanus seru.), Men. 886 (Menaechmus II ad.), 910 (medicus), Merc. 883 (Eutychus ad.), Mil. 26, 30 (Artotrogus para.), 27 (Pyrgopolynices mil.), Most. 360 (Tranio seru.), Pseud. 708 (Pseudolus seru.), Truc. 783 (ancilla). calamus [κάλαμος] Pers. 88 (Toxilus seru.), Pseud. 544 (Pseudolus seru.). cadus [káóoc) Amph. 429 (Mercurius deus), Asin. 624 (Libanus seru.), Aul. 571 (Megadorus sen.), Mil. 851, 853, 856 (Lurcio° por Poen. 259 (Milphio

seru.),

Stich. 425 (Epignomus

(Sangarinus seru.).

maritus),

64

21 (Stichus

seru.), 683

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

45

cantharus [κάνθαρος] Asin. 906 (Demaenetus sen.), Bacch. 69 (Pistoclerus ad.) Men. 177 (Peniculus par ara.), 187 (Menaechmus I ad.), Most. 347 (Philematium mere.), Pers. 801b, 821 (Toxilus seru.), Pseud. 957 (Ballio leno), 1051, 1262, 12802 (Pseudouls seru.), Rud. 1319 (Labrax leno), Stich. 693, 705, 712, 730 (Stichus seru.). capparis [κάππαρις) Curc. 90 (Palinurus seru.). casia [κασία] Curc. 101 (Leaena anus). catapulta [kataréA tnc] Capt. 796 (Ergasilus para.) Curc. 394 (Curculio para.), 690 (Therapontigonus mil.), Pers. 28 (Sagaristio seru.). catapultarius [καταπέλτης + -arius] Curc. 689 (Therapontigonus mil.). causea [καυσία] Mil. 1178 (Palaestrio seru.), Pers. 155 (Toxilus seru.). celocla [κέλης + -ox + -ula] Mil. 1006 (Pyropolynices mil.). celox [κέλης + -ox, cf. uelox* Asin. 258 (Libanus seru.), Capt. 874 (Ergasilus para), Mil. 986 (Palaestrio seru.), Pseud. 1306 (Simo sen.). cercurus [«epxob poc] Merc. 87 (Charinus ad.), Stich. 368 (Pinacium puer), 413 (Epignomus maritus). cerinus [κήρινος] Epid. 233 (Epidicus seru.). cetus [κῆτος] Aul. 375 (Euclio sen.), Capt. 851 (Ergasilus para). chlamydatus [χλαμύς + -atus) Poen. 620 (Lycus leno), 644 (aduocati), Pseud. 936, 1139 (Ballio leno), 1143 (Simo sen.), Rud. 315 (Trachalio seru.). chlamys

[χλαμύς] Curc. 611 (Curculio para),

632 (Therapontigonus (Th

mil),

Epid. 436 (Periphanes sen.), Merc. 912, 921 (Charinus ad.), Mil. 1423 (cu u Pee 155 (Toxilus seru.), Pseud. 735 (Pseudolus seru.), 1184 (Ballio eno choragium [χορήγιον] Capt. 61 (prol.). choragus [χορηγός] Pers. 159 (Toxilus seru.), Trin. 858 (Sycophanta). chrysus [χρυσός] Bacch. 240 (Chrysalus seru.). ciecum [κικκός] Rud. 580 (Sceparnio seru.). cinaedicus [κίναιδος + -icus] Stich. 760, 769 (Sangarinus seru.). cinaedus [κίναιδος sin. 627 (Leonida seru.), Aul. 422 (Conngrio cocus), Men. 513 (Menaechmus II ad.), Mil. 668 (Periplectomenus sen.), Pers. 804 (Toxilus seru.), Poen. 1318 (Antamoenides mil.), 1319 (Agorastocles ad . quoting Ant.), Stich. 772 (Sangarinus seru.). Cincinnatus {[κίκιννος + -atus] Capt. 648 (Aristophontes ad.), Mil. 923 (Acroteleutum mere.), Truc. 610 (Stratophanes mil.). cincinnus [κίκιννος] Truc. 287 (Truculentus seru.). cinnamum [κιννάμωμον] Curc. 100 (Leaena anus).

eistellatrix [κίστη + -ella + -atrix] Trin. 253 (Lysiteles ad.). clatratus [κλῇθρα + -atus] Mil. 327 (Sceledrus seru.). cleptes [κλέπτης] Truc. 102 (Astaphium anc.). coclea [xoxAiác] Capt. 80 (Ergasilus para.), Poen. 532 (Agorastocles ad.). colaphus [κόλαφος] Capt. 88 (Ergasilus para. ), Pers. 294 (Sagaristio seru.), 846 (Dordalus leno), Poen. 494 (Antamoenides mil.), Rud. 1007 (Trachalio seru.). collyra [koAAGpa] Pers. 92 (Toxilus seru.). See also pure Greek.

collyricus [κολλθρικός] Pers. 95, 97 (Saturio para.).

46

R. MALTBY

colutea [κολουτέα] Pers. 87 (Toxilus seru.). colyphium [κωλύφιον] Pers. 92 (Toxilus seru.). comarchus [κώμαρχος] Curc. 286 (Curculio para.). comicus [κωμικός] Capt. 61 (prol.), 778 (Ergasilus para. .), Pers. 465 (Sagaristio seru.), Poen. 581 (Collybiscus uilicus), 597 aduocati, Rud. 1249 Gripus (piscator). comissor [κωμάζω] Most. 317, 335 (Callidamates ad.), 989 (Phaniscus, seru.), Pers. 568 (Toxilus seru.), Rud. 1422 (Daemones sen.), Stich. .686 (Sangarinus seru.), 775 (Stichus seru.).

comoedia [κωμῳδία] Amph. 55, 60, 88, 96 (prol. Mercurius), 868 (Iuppiter deus), 987 (Mercurius deus), Asin. 13 (prol. ), Capt. 1033 (caterua), Cas. 9, 13, 30, 31, 64, 83 (prol.), Cist. 787 (caterua), Men. 7 (prol.), Merc. 3 (prol.), Mil. 84, 86 (prol. Palaestrio), Most. 1152 (Tranio seru.), Poen. 51, 53(prol.), 1371 (Lycus leno), Pseud. 1081 (Ballio leno), 1240 (Simo sen.), Trin. 706 (Stasimus seru.), Truc. 11 (prol.).

comoedice [κωμῳδικός + concha [κόγχη] Rud. 297, conchita [*xoyyírnc] Rud. conger [γόγγρος] Aul. 399 Pers. 110 (Saturio para.).

-e] Mil. 213 (Periplectomenus sen.). 304 (piscatores), 704 (bis) (Trachalio seru.). 310 (piscatores). (Anthrax cocus), Mil. 760 (Periplectomenus sen.),

contechnor [con + τέχνη + -o] Pseud. 1096 (Simo sen.). contor [κοντός + -o) Cas. 571 (Lysidamus sen.). corcotarius [κροκωτός + -arius] Aul. 521 (Megadorus sen.). coriandrum [Kopiavvov] Pseud. 814 (cocus). corolla [κορώνη + -1a] Bacch. 70 (Pistoclerus ad.), Pseud. 1265 (Pseudolus seru.), 1299 (Simo sen.). corona [κορώνη] 4mph. 999 (Mercurius deus), Asin. 803, 879 (parasitus), Aul. 25 (prol. Lar) 385 (Euclio (b sen.), Cas. 767 (Pardalisca anc.), 796 (Lysidamus sen.), Men. 463 (Peniculus para.), 555 (Menaechmus II ad.), 563, 565 (matrona), 629 (peniculus para.), 941 (Menaechmus I ad.), Pseud. 1287 (Pseudolus seru.), Trin. 39, M (Callicles sen.). cottabus (xotcafoc] Trin. 1011 (Stasimus seru.). crapula [κραϊπάλῃ] Most. 1122 (Callidamates ad), Pseud. 1282 (Pseudolus seru.), Rud. 586

(Charmides sen.).

crapularius [κραϊπάλη + -arius] Stich. 227 (Gelasimus para.). crepidula (acc. κρηπίς + -ula] Pers. 464 (Toxilus seru.). crocinum [κρόκινος] Curc. 101 (Leaena anus). crocotula [xpokotóc + -ula] Epid. 231 (Epidicus seru.). cruricrepida [crus + crepito < κρηπίς] Trin. 1021 (Stasimus seru.).

cumatilis [κῦμα + -atilis] Epid. 233 (Epidicus seru.). cunila [KoviAn] Trin. 935 (sycophanta). cyathisso [κυαθίζω] Men. 303 (Cylindrus cocus), 305 (Menaechmus II ad. quoting Cylindr.). cyathus [κύαθος] Pers. 771 (Lemniselenis mere.), 772 (Toxilus seru.), 794

(Paegnium puer), Poen. 274 (Milphio seru.), Pseud. 957 (Ballio leno), Rud. 1319 (Labrax leno), Stich. 706 (Sangarinus seru.).

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

47

cynice [κυνικός + —e] Stich. 704 (Sangarinus seru.). cynicus [κυνικός] Pers. 123 (Saturio para.). danista [δανειστής] Epid. 53, 55 (Thesprio seru.), 115, 142, 607, 621, 646 (Stratippocles ad.), 252, 347 (Epidicus seru.), Most. 537, 626, 917 (Tranio seru.), Pseud. 287 (Ballio leno). danisticus [δανειστικός] Most. 658 (Tranio seru.). dapino [δαπανάω) Capt. 897 (Hegio sen.). dapsilis [δαψιλής] Aul. 167 (Megadorus sen.), Most, 982 (Phaniscus seru.), Pseud. 396, 1266 (Pseudolus seru.) . demarchus [δήμαρχος] Curc. 286 (Curculio para.), Poen. 1060 (Hanno poenus). diabathrarius [διάβαθρον + -arius] Aul. 513 (Megadorus sen.). dica [δίκη] Au). 760 (Euclio sen.), Poen. 800 (Agorastocles ad.). diobolaris [διώβολον + -aris] Cist. 407 (Gymnasium mere.), Poen. 270 (Adelphasium puella). discus [δίσκος] Bacch. 67 (Pistoclerus ad.), 428 (Lydus paed.), Most. 152 (Philolaches ad.). drachumisso [δραχμή + -150] Pseud. 808 (cocus). drapeta [δραπέτης] Curc. 290 (Curculio para.). dulice [δουλικός + -e] Mil. 21 Periplectomenus (sen.). echinus [£yivoc] Rud. 297 (piscatores). elegeum [ἐλεγεῖον] Merc. 409 (Demipho sen.). elephantus [ἐλέφας Curc. 424 (Lyco trapezita), Mil. 25, 30 (Artotrogus para.), 235 (Palaestrio seru.), Stich. 168 (Gelasimus para.). eleutheria [τὰ ἐλευθέρια] Pers. 29a (Toxilus seru.), Stich.422 (Stichus seru.). elleborosus [ἐλλέβορος + -osus] Most. 952 (Phaniscus seru.), Rud. 1006 (Trachalio seru.). . elleborum [ἐλλέβορος] Men. 913, 950 (medicus), Pseud. 1158 (Harpax cacula).

emporium [ἐμπόριον] Amph. 1012 (Amphitryo dux). ephebus [ἔφηβος] Merc. 40, 61 (Charinus ad. prol.). epichysis [ἐπίχυσις] Rud. 1319 (Labrax leno). epicrocum [ἐπίκροκον] Pers. 96 (Saturio para.). epitheca [ἐπιθήκη]) (apotheca codd.) Trin. 1025 (Stasimus seru.). epistula [ἐπιστολή] Asin. 761, 762 (parasitus), Bacch. 176, 1006 (Chrysalus seru.), 561 (Mnesilochus ad.), Epid. 58, 134, 254 (Epidicus seru.), Mil. 1225

(Acroteleutium

mere.), Pers.

694 (Persa), Poen. 836 (Syncerastus seru.),

Pseud. 647, 1202 (Harpax cacula), 670, 690, 691, 716 (Pseudolus seru.), 983, 993, 997, 1001, 1008 (Simia sycophanta), 998, 1011 (Polymachaeroplagides uoted by Ballio), 1002, 1097, 1203, 1208 (Ballio leno), Trin. 774, 816

(Megaronides sen.), 788 (Callicles sen.), 848, 875, 894, 898, 949 (sycophanta), 896, 951, 986, 1002 (Charmides sen.), Truc. 397 (Phronesium mere.). epityrum [ἐπίτυρον] Mil. 24 (Artotrogus para.). eu [εὖ Epid. 72 (Epidicus seru.), Men. 160, 174, 175 (Peniculus para.), 316 (Messenio seru.), 731 (Menaechmus II ad.), 872 (senex), 908 (Menaechmus I ad.), Merc. 601 (Eutychus ad.), Mil. 394, 899 (Palaestrio seru.), 1056

48

R. MALTBY

(Pyrgopolynices mil.), 1062, 1066 (Milphidippa anc.), 1146 (Pleusicles ad.), Most. 393 (Callidamates ad.), 586 (Tranio seru.), 981 (Theopropides sen.), Pers. 156 (Saturio para.), 668 (Toxilus seru.), 706 (Dordalus leno), Poen. 283 (Anterastilis puella), 603 (Collybiscus uilicus), 1107 (Milphio seru.), Rud. 415 (Sceparnio em) Stich. 243 (Crocotium anc.), Truc. 7 (prol.), 695 (Trucu-

entus seru.).

euax ["εὐάξ] Bacch. 247 (Nicobulus sen.), 724 (Chrysalus seru.), Cas. 835 (Lysidamus sen.), Curc. 97 (Leaena anus), Men. 127 (Menaechmus I ad.). eug(a)e [εὖγε] Amph. 802 (Sosia seru.), Aul. 677 bis (seru. Lycoridis), Bacch. 991, 1105 (Nicobulus sen.), Cas. 386 (Lysidamus sen.), Epid. 9 (Epidicus seru.), 356 (Stratippocles ad.), 493 bis (Periphanes sen.), Merc. 283 (Lysimachus sen.), Mil. 21, 241 bis (Periplectomenus sen.), 967 (Pyrgopolynices mil.), Most. 260, 311 (Philolaches ad.), 587, 686, (Tranio seru.), 638,

1076 (Theoproopides sen.), Pers. 90 (Saturio para .), 462 bis, 557 (Toxilus seru.), Poen. 576 (Agorastocles ad.), Pseud. 323 (Calidorus ad.), 692, 712 (Pseudolus seru.), Rud. 164 bis (Sceparnio seru.), 1037 (Gripus piscator), Stich. 660, 766 bis (Stichus seru.), Trin. 705 (Stasimus seru.), Truc. 186 (Dinarchus ad.), 503 (Stratophanes mil.). eugepae [εὖγε + (pa)pae] Amph. 1018 (Amphitruo dux), Capt. 274 (Tyndarus seru.), 823 (Hegio sen.), Epid. 9 (Epidicus seru.), Merc. 626 (Charinus ad.), Pseud. 692, 7433 (Pseudolus. seru.), Rud. 170 (Sceparnio seru.), Stich. 381 (Gelasimus para.). euhoe [boi] Men. 835 (Menaechmus II ad.). euscheme [εὔσχημος = -e] Mil. 213 (Periplectomenus sen.). exagoga [ἐξαγωγή] Rud. 631 (Trachalio seru.), Truc. 552 (Cyamus seru.), 716 (Astaphium anc.). exanclo [ex + ἀντλῶ] Stich. 273 (Gelasimus para.). exballisto [ex + βάλλω + -isto] Pseud. 585 (Pseudolus seru.). exentero [ex + Évcepov + —o] Epid. 185 (Epidicus seru.), 320 (Stratippocles ad.), 511, 672 (Periphanes sen.).

exoticus [ἐξωτικός] Epid. 232 (Epidicus seru.), Men. 236 (Messenio seru.), Most. 42 (Grumio seru.). ferritribax [ferrum + τρίβω + -ax] Most. 356 (Tranio seru.). flagritriba [flagrum = τρίβω] Pseud. 17 (Ballio leno). flemina [φλεγμονή] Epid. 670 (Apoecides sen.). fucus [φῦκος] Capt. 521 (Tyndarus seru.), Most. 275 (Scapha anc.). galea [γαλέη] Bacch. 70 (Pistoclerus ad.), Rud. 801 (Labrax leno), Trin. 596 (Stasimus seru.).

gaulus [γαυλός} Rud. 1319 (Labrax leno).

geuma [γεῦμα] Poen. 701 (Lycus leno). glandionida [glandium + -(5nc) Men. 210 (Menaechmus I ad.). glaucoma [γλαύκωμα] Mil. 148 (Palaestrio seru. prol.). graecisso [graecus + -iCo] Men. 11 (prol). graphice [ypagixéc + -e] Pers. 306 (Sagaristio seru.), 464, 843 (Toxilus seru.), Trin. 767 (Megaronides sen.). graphicus [γραφικός] Epid. 410 (Apoecides sen.), Pseud. 519 (Callipho sen.), 00 (Calidorus ad.), Stich. 570 (Pamphilippus frater), Trim. 936, 1024 (Cha ides sen.).

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

49

deus), Mil. 1181 (Palaestrio seru.)., Rud. 166 (Sceparnio seru.), 1014 (Gripus

piscator). guberno [κυβερνῶ] Mil. 1091 (Palaestrio seru.). gymnasium [γυμνάσιον] Amph. 1011 (Amphitryo dux), Asin. 297 (Leonida seru.), Aul. 410 (Congrio cocus), Bacch. 425 (Lydus paed.), Epid. 198 (Epidicus seru.).

gymnasticus [ro vaotucóc] Most. 151 (Philolaches ad.), Rud. 296 (piscatores). gynaeceum [γυναικεῖον] Most. 755, 759, 908 (Tranio seru.). hamiota [hamus + -ὦτης] Rud. 310 (Trachalio seru.). hapalopsis [ἀπαλός + ὄψον] Pseud. 836 (cocus). harpago, -onis [ἁρπάγη] Trin. 239 (Lysiteles ad.). harpago, -are [ἁρπάγη + -o] Aul. 201 (Euclio sen.), Bacch. 656 (Chrysalus seru.), Pseud. 139, 957 (Ballio leno). heia eia [εἴα] Amph. 901 (Iuppiter deus), Asin. 744 (Argyrippus ad.), Aul. 153 (Eunomia matr.), 220 (Euclio sen.), Bacch. 76 (Bacchis mere.), 408 (Philoxenus sen.), 630 (Pistoclerus ad.), Capt. 963 (Stalagmus seru.), Cas. 230 (Lysidamus sen.), 723 (Chytrio cocus), Cist. 42 (lena), Epid. 262 (Periphanes sen), Men. 381 (Erotium mere.), Merc. 950 (Eutychus ad.), 998 (Demipho sen.), Mil. 1141 (acroteleutium mere.), Pers. 212 (Paegnium puer), Poen. 572 (Agorastocles ad.), Pseud. 275 (Pseudolus seru.), Rud. 339 (Trachalio seru.), (A 22 (Sceparnio seru.), Truc. 193, 509 (Astaphium anc. ), 371 (Diniarchus ad.), 321 (Stratophanes mil.). hepatarius [ἧπαρ + -arius] Curc. 239 (Palinurus seru.). hilare [ἱλαρός + —e] Men. 149 (Peniculus para.), Merc. 99 (prol. Charinus), Poen. 1367 (Agorastocles ad.).

hilaris [[λαρός] Most. 318 (Callidamates ad.). hilaritudo Cape + -tudo] Cist. 54 (Gymnasium mere.), Rud. 420 (Sceparnio seru.), Mil. 677 (Periplectomenus sen.). hilarus [[λαρός] Amph. 961 (Sosia seru.), Asin. 837, 850 (Demaenetus seru.), ἢ id. 413 (Apoecides sen.), Mil. 666 (Periplectomenus sen.), Mil. 1199 aestrio seru.), Most. 567 (Tranio seru.), Pers. 760 (Toxilus seru.), Stich. oe (bis) (Stichus seru.). mus [ἰππόδρομος] Bacch. 431 (Lydus paed.), Cist. 549 (Lampadio seru.), 552 Melaenis (lena). historia [ἱστορία] Bacch. 158 (Pistoclerus ad.), Men. 248 (Messenio seru.), Trin. 381 (Philto sen.). historicus [lotopi«óc] Poen. 4, 44 (prol.).

horaeus [ὡραῖος] Capt. 851 (Ergasilus para.). hymnen [ὑμήν] Cas. 800 (bis), 808 (bis) (Olympio seru.), 800 (bis), 808 (bis) (Lysidamus sen.). hymenaeus [Ypévatoc] Cas. 799, 800, 806, 808 (Olympio seru.), 800, 808 (Lysidamus sen.). inanilogista [inanis + λογιστής] Pseud. 255 (Ballio leno). ineuscheme [in + εὔσχημος + -e] Trin. 625 (Stasimus seru.). lagoena [Adyovoc] Curc. 78 (Palinurus seru.). lampas [λαμπάς] Cas. 796 (Lysidamus sen.), Cas. 840 (Olympio seru.), Men. 841 (Menaechmus II ad.).

50

mien

tus seru.).

R. MALTBY

sterine [λατομίαι] Capt. 723 (Hegio sen.), Poen. 827 (Synceras-

latro [λάτρων] Mil. 74, 76, 949 (Pyrgopolynices mil.), Poen. 663 (aduocati), 666 (Callibiscus uilicus), Stich. 135 (Antipho sen.).

latrocinor [Aátpov + -or] Mil. 499 (Periplectomenus sen.), Poen. 704 (Lycus leno), Trin. 599 (Stasimus seru.). lembus [λέμβος] Bacch. 279, 286, 305, 958 (Chrysalus seru.), 281 (Nicobulus m) Men. 442 (Messenio seru.), Merc. 193 (Acanthio seru.), 259 (Demipho sen.). lemniscus [λημνίσκος] Pseud. 1265 (Pseudolus seru.). leo [λέων] Men. 864 (Menaechmus II ad.), Pers. 3 (Toxilus seru.). leoninus [λέων = -inus] Men. 159 (Menaechmus I ad.). lepus/lopas [λεπάς λοπάς] Cas. 493 (Lysidamus sen.), Rud. 297 (piscatores). logus [λόγος] Bacch. 519 (Mnesilochus ad.), Men. 779 (senex), Pers. 394 (Saturio para.), Stich. 221, 383, 393, 455 (Gelasimus para.). macellum [μάκελλον] Amph. 1012 (Amphitryo dux), Aul. 264 (Megadorus sen.), 373 (Euclio sen.), Pseud. 169 (Ballio leno), Rud. 979 (Gripus piscator). machaera [μάχαιρα] Bacch. 68 (Pistoclerus ad.), 887 (Chrysalus seru.), Curc. 424 (Lyco trapezita), 567, 574, 632 (Therapontigonus mil.), Merc. 926 (Charinus ad.), Mil. 5 (Pyrgopolynices mil.), 53 (Artotrogus para.), 459, 463, (Palaestrio seru.), 469 (Sceledrus seru.), 1423 (Cario cocus), Pseud. 593, 735 (Pseudolus seru.), 1181 (Harpax cacula), 1185 (Simo sen.), Rud. 315 (Trachalio seru.), Truc. 506, 927 (Stratophanes rnil.), 627 (Cyamus seru.). machina [μαχανά] Bacch.232 (Chrysalus seru.), Mil. 138, 813 (Palaestrio seru.), Pers. 785 (Dordalus leno), Pseud. 550 (Pseudolus seru.). machinor [μαχανά + —or] Bacch. 232 (Chrysalus seru.), Capt. 530, 531 (Tyndarus seru.), Cas. 277 (Lysidamus sen.), 301 (Chalinus seru.). maena [paívn] Poen. 1312 (Antamoenides mil.). magydaris [μαγύδαρις] Rud. 633 (Trachalio seru.). malacisso [μαλακίζω] Bacch. 73 (Bacchis mere.).

malacus [μαλακός] Bacch. 71 (Pistoclerus ad.), 355 (Chrysalus seru.), Cas. 843 (Olympio seru.), Mil. 668 (Periplectomenus sen.), Stich. 227 (Gelasimus para.), Truc. 610 (Stratophanes mil.). malum [μᾶλον] Amph. 723 (Sosia seru.). mammium [μαμμίον] Pseud. 180 (Ballio leno), 1261 (Pseudolus seru.). marsuppium [μαρσύππιον] Cas. 490 (Lysidamus sen.), Epid. 185 (Epidicus seru.), 511 (Periphanes sen.), Men. 254, 384, 1036 (Messenio seru.), 265, 386, 701 (Menaechmus II ad.), 1043 (Menaechmus I ad.), Pers. 125 (Saturio para.), Poen. 782 (aduocati), 784 (Agorastocles ad.), Rud. 547 (Charmides sen.), 1313 (Labrax leno). massa [μᾶζα] Mil. 1065 (Palaestrio seru.). mastigia [μαστιγίας] Capt. 600 (Aristophontes ad.), 659 (Hegio sen.). Cas. 361, 446 (Chalinus seru.), Curc. 567 (Therapontigonus mil.), Most. 1 (Grumio seru.), Poen. 381, 390 (Agorastocles ad.), Rud. 1022 (Trachalio seru.), Zrin. 1021 (Stasimus seru.). moechisso [μοιχός + o] Cas. 976 (Myrrhina matr.). moechus [μοιχός] Amph. 135 (prol. Mercurius), Bacch. 918 (Nicobulus sen.),

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

Mil. 775 (Palaestrio seru.), 924 (Acroteleutium

mere.),

51

1131 (Palaestrio

seru.), 1390 (puer), 1398 (Cario cocus), 1436 bis (Pyrgopolynices mil.), Poen.

862 (Syncerastus seru.), Truc. 610 (Stratophanes seru.). molocinarius [μολόχινος + -arius] Au/. 514 (Megadorus sen,). monotropus [μονότροπος] Stich. 689 (Stichus seru.). morologus [μωρολόγος] Pers. 49 (Toxilus seru.), Pseud. 1264 (Pseudolus seru.).

morus [uo. Men. 571 (Menaechmus I ad.), Mil. 370 (Philocomasium mulier), 672 (Periplectomenmus sen.), 1367 (Palaestrio seru.), Stich. 641 (Stichus seru.), Trin. 669 (Lysiteles ad.). murena [μύραινα] Amph. 319 (Sosia seru.), Aul. 399 (Anthrax cocus), Pers. 110 (Saturio para.), Pseud. 382 (Pseudolus seru.). murra [μύρρα] Asin. 929 (Demaenetus sen.).

murtetum [μύρτος + -etum] Rud. 732 (Daemones sen.). musice [μουσικός + -e] Most. 729 (Simo sen.). mussito [μύζω + -ito] Cas. 665 (Pardalisca anc.), Mil. 311 (Sceledrus seru.), 477 (Palaestrio seru.), 714 (Periplectomenus sen.), Pseud. 501 (Simo sen.), Rud. 1029 (Griripus piscator), c. 312 (Truculentus seru.), 491 (Stratophanes mil.), 723 (Astaphium anc.). musso [μύζω] Aul. 131 (Eunomia matr.), Merc. 49 (prol. Charinus).

mrrepola [μυροπώλης] Cas. 226, 238 (Lysidamus sen.), Trin. 408 (Stasimus seru myropolium [μυροπώλιον] Amph. 1011 (Amphitryo dux), Epid. 199 (Epidicus seru.). nardinum [vápówoc] Mil. 824 (Palaestrio seru.). nauclericus [ναυκληρικός] Asin. 69 (Demaenetus sen.), Mil. 1177 (Palaestrio seru.). nauclerus [ναύκληρος] Mil. 1109, 1283 (Palaestrio seru.). nausea [vavoin] Merc. 389 (Demipho sen.). nauseo [vaucín + -o] Amph. 329 (Sosia seru.). nauta/nauita [ναύτης] Men. 226 (Menaechmus II ad.), Mil. 1335 (Pyrgopolynices mil.), 1430 (Sceledrus seru.). nautea [ναυτία] Asin. 894 (Demaenetus sen.), Cas. 1018 (Chalinus seru. ) Curc. 99 (Leaena anus). oenopolium [olvonóAiov] Asin. 200 (Cleareta lena).

offacia [ob + φῦκος + -ia] Capt. 656 (Hegio sen.), Most. 246 (Philematium mere.).

ophthalmias [ὀφθαλμίας] Capt. 850 (Ergasilus para).

opsonator [ὀψωνέω + -ator] Mil. 667 (Periplectomenus sen.). opsonatus [ὀψωνέω = -tus] Cas. 719 (Lysidamus sen.), Men. (Cylindrus cocus), Truc. 740 (Diniarchus ad.).

277, 288

opsonium [ὀψώνιον] Aul. 282, 291, 352 (Strobilus seru.) 560 (Euclio sen.), Bacch. 96 (Bacchis mere.), 131 (Pistoclerus ad.), Men. 220 (Erotium mere.), Merc. 582 (Demipho sen.), 780 (cocus), Mil. 107 (prol. Palaestrio), Most. 363 (Philolaches ad.), Stich. 440, 451 (Stichus seru.), Truc. 561 (Cyamus seru.), 747 (Diniarchus ad.).

52

R. MALTBY

gpsono() [Syeovéw) Aul. 280 (Strobilus seru.), 295 (Anthrax cocus), Bacch. 96 (Bacchis mere.), 97 (Pistoclerus ad.), 143 Lydus (paed.), Capt. 474 (Ergasilus para.), Cas. 441, 491, 501 (Lysidamus sen.), Men. 209 (Menaechmus I ad.), 273, 320 (Cy lindrus, cocus), Merc. 695 (Lysimachus sen.), 754

cocus), Mil. 738, A 736 (Periplectomenus sen. .), 750 (Pleusicles ad.), Most. 4 (Grumio seru.), Poen. | 5 (Antamoenides mil.), Stich. 440, 451 (Stichus seru.), 681 (Stephanium anc.), Truc. 445 (Diniarchus ad.). orgia [ὄργια] Pseud. 67a (Pseudolus seru. quoting letter). ostrea [ὄστρειον] Rud. 297 (piscatores). ostreatus [ὄστρειον + -atus] Poen. 398 (Milphio seru.). paenula [ψαινόλης] Most. 991 (Phaniscus seru.). palaestra [παλαίστρα] Amph. 1012 (Amphitryo dux), Bacch. 66 (Pistoclerus ad.), 424, 431 (Lydus paed4) (Amp

palaestricus (onc

rpecóz] Rud. 296 (piscatores).

pancratice ["παγκρατικός + -e, cf. παγκράτιον] Bacch.

248 (Chrysalus

Seru.).

pantherinus [κάνθηρ + -inus] Epid. 18 (Epidicus seru.). pantopolium [παντοπώλιον] Pseud. 742 (Charinus ad.). papae [παπαῖ] Bacch. 207 (Chrysalus seru.), Cas. 906 (Olympio seru.), Epid. 4 (Epidicus seru.), Men. 918 (senex), Rud. 1320 (Gripus piscator), Stich. 425 (Stichus seru.), 771 (Sangarinus seru.), Truc. 507 (Stratophanes mil.). parasitatio [παράσιτος — -atio] 4mph. 521 (Mercurius deus). — [παρασιτικός] Capt. 467 (Ergasilus para.), Stich. 229 (Gelasimus

para.).

parasitor [παράσιτος + -or) Pers. 56 (Saturio para.), Stich. 637 (Gelasimus para.).

paratragoedo [1apatpayqoóéo] Pseud. 707 (Charinus ad.). pasceolus [φάσκωλος] Rud. 1314 (Labrax leno).

patellarius [πατάνη + dim. + -arius) Cist. 522 (Alcesimarchus ad.). patina [πατάνη] Capt. 846 (Ergasilus para.), Mil. 759 (Periplectomenus [in quotation] sen.), Most. 2 (Grumio seru.), Pseud. 811, 831, 840 (cocus). patinarius [πατάνη + -arius] Asin. 180 (Cleareta lena), Men. 102 (Peniculus

para.). patrisso ["πατρίζω cf. umtpito] Most. 639 (Theopropides sen.), Pseud. 442 (Callipho sen. : pausa [παῦσις] Pers. 818 (Toxilus seru.), Poen. 459 (Lycus leno), Rud. 1205 (Daemones sen.), Truc. 731 (Astaphium anc.).

pax [πάξ] Mil. 808 (Palaestrio seru.), Stich. 771 (Stichus seru.), Trin. 891 (Charmides sen.). pephus [πέπλος] Merc. 67 (prol. Charinus).

peratus [πήρα + -atus] Epid. 351 (Epidicus seru.). pergraphicus [per + γραφικός] Trin. 1139 (Charmides sen.). “eA [περίστρωμα] Pseud. 146 (Ballio leno), Stich. 378 (Pinacium

puer).

pernonida [perna + -i6nc] Men. 210 (Menaechmus I ad.). perula [πήρα + -ula] Truc. 535 (Stratophanes mil.).

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

53

pessulus [πάσσ ] Aul. 104 (Euclio sen.), Cist. 649 (Alcesimarchus ad.), Curc. 147 (bis), 153, 157 (Phaedromus ad.), Truc. 351 (Diniarchus ad.). petamas [πέτασος] Amp mph. 143, 145 (prol. Mercurius), 443 (Sosia seru.), Pseud. 35 (Pseudolus seru.), 1186 (Ballio leno). pharetra [φαρέτρα] Trin. 725 (Stasimus seru.). philosophor [φιλόσοφος + -or] Capt. 284 (Tyndarus seru.), Merc. 147 (Acanthio seru.), Pseud. 687, 974 (Pseudolus seru.).

philosophus [φιλόσοφος] Rud. 986 (Gripus piscator). phronesis [φρόνησις] Truc. 78a (Diniarchus ad.). phrygio [Φρύξ + —o] Aul. 508 (Me dorus sen.), Men. 426, 681 (Erotium mere.), 469, 618 (Peniculus para.), 563 (matrona). phylaca [φυλακή] Capt. 751 (Hegio sen.). pithecium [πιθήκιον] Truc. 477 (Phronesium mere.). plagipatida [plaga + patior + -{5n¢] Capt. 472 (Ergasilus para.), Most. 356 (Tranio seru.). platea [πλατεῖα] Amph. 1011 (Amphitruo dux), Aul. 407 (Congrio cocus), Capt. 795 (Ergas us para. .), Cas. 799 (Olympio seru.), Cist. 534 (Alcesimarchus ad.), a. 278 (Palinurus seru.), Men. 881 (Menaechmus II ad.), Mil. 609 (Palaestrio seru.), Trin. 840, 1006 (Charmides sen.). [ποδάγρα + -osus] Merc. 595 (Charinus ad.), Poen. 532 (Agorastocles ad.). poema [ποήμα] Asin. 174 (Cleareta lena). poena [ποινή] 4mph. 1002 (Mercurius deus), Asin 483 (mercator), Bacch. 425 (Lydus paed.), Capt. 695 (Tyndarus seru.), Cist. 202 (prol. Auxilium). poeniceus/puniceus [poıvixeos] Men. 917 (Menaechmus I ad.), Pseud. 229 (Ballio leno), Rud. 998 (Gripus piscator), 1000 (Tranio seru.). poeta [ποιητής] Asin. 748 (Diabolus ad.), Capt. 1033 (caterua), Cas. 18 rol.), 861 (Myrrhina matr.), Curc. 591 (Curculto ara.), Men. 7(prol.), Mil. 11 (Periplectomenus sen.), Pseud. 401 (prol.), (Pseudolus seru.). polypus [πουλύπους] Aul. 198 (Euclio sen.), Rud. 1010 (Gripus piscator). pompa [πομπή] Bacch. 114 (Lydus paed.), Capr. 771 (Er Pali para.), Cas. 19 (Lysidamus sen.), Cist. 90 (Selenium mere.), Curc. 2 (Palinurus seru.), Mil. 67 (Artotrogus para.), Poen. 1012 (Milphio seru.), Stich 683 (Sangarinus seru.), Truc. 549 (Stratophanes mil.). poterium [ποτήριον] Stich. 694 (Stichus seru.), Trin. 1017 (Stasimus seru.). propino [προπίνω] Asin. 772 (parasitus), Curc. 359 (Curculio para.), Stich. 425 (Epignomus frater), 468 (Gelasimus para.), 712 (Stichus seru.). propola [προπώλης] Aul. 512 (Megadorus sen.). proreta [1pxopátnc] Rud. 1014 (Gripus piscator). a (br ἐπροσκήνιον) Amph. 91 (prol. Mercurius), Poen. 17, 57 (prol.),

ro

prothyme [προθύμως] Pseud. 1268 (Pseudolus seru.). prothymia [προθυμία] Stich. 636 (Stichus seru.), 659 (Gelasimus para.). pultiphagus [puls + -payoc] Most. 828 (Tranio seru.). purpura [xo^n Aul. 168, 500 (Megadorus sen.), Men. 121 (Menaechmus I ad.), Most. 6 (Philematium mere.), Poen. 304 (Adelphasium puella), Stich.

54

R. MALTBY

376 (Pinacium puer), Truc. 539 (Stratophanes mil.). purpuratus [πορφύρα + -atus] Most. 289 (Philematium mere.). purpurissatus [πορφυρίζον + -atus] Truc. 290 (Truculentus seru.). purpurissum [πορφυρίζον] Most. 261 (Philematium mere.). pyelus [πυέλος] Stich. 568 (Antipho sen.). rapacida [rapax + -iönc] Aul. 370 (Pythodicus sen.). resina [ῥητίνη] Merc. 139 (Charinus ad.). sacciperium [σακκοπήρα] Rud.548 (Charmides sen.). saccus [σάκκος] Capt. 90 (Ergasilus para.). sambuca [cau okn] Stich. 381 (Pinacium puer).

sandaligerula [σανδάλιον + -gerula] Trin. 252 (Lysiteles ad.). scapha [σκάφη] Rud. 75 (prol Arcturus), 163, 165, 173 (Sceparnio seru.), 201 (Palaestra mulier), 366, 368 (Ampelisca mulier). scaphium [σκάφιον] Bacch. 70 (Pistoclerus ad.), Pers. 124 (Saturio para.), Stich. 693 (Stichus seru.). schema [σχῆμα] Amph. 117 (prol. Mercurius), Pers. 463 (Toxilus seru.). Schoenus [σχοῖνος] Poen. 267 (Adelphasium puella). scomber [σκόμβρος] Capt. 851 (Ergasilus para.). scyphus [σκύφος] Asin. 444 (Leonida seru.). sepia [σηπία] Rud. 659 (Trachalio seru.). sepiola [σηπία + -ola] Cas. 493 (Lysidamus sen.). sesuma [onoáym] Poen. 326 (Milphio seru.). sicilicissito [Sicilia + -Io = -to] Men. 12 (prol.). sinapis [σίναπι] Pseud. 817 (cocus), Truc. 315 (Astaphium anc.). soracus [cópakoc] Pers. (Saturio para.). spinter [σφιγκτήρ] Men. 527, 530, 534 (anc.), 540 (Menaechmus II ad.), 682 (Erotium mere.), 807 (matrona), 1061 (Menaechmus I ad.). spinturnicium [> spinturnix, > σπινθαρίς] Mil. 989 (Palaestrio seru.). sportula [> sporta, > σπυρίς] Curc. 289 (Curculio para.), Men. 219 (Erotium mere.), Stich. 289 (Gelasimus para.). stacta [στακτή] Curc. 100 (Leaena anus), Most. 309 (Philolaches ad.), Truc. 476 (Phronesium mere.). stalagmium [*otaAáypiov] Men. 542 (ancilla). stega [στέγη] Bacch. 278 (Chrysalus seru.), Stich. 413 (Epignomus frater). stomachus [στόμαχος] Asin. 423 (Leonida seru.). strategos [στρατηγός] Curc. 285 (Curculio para.), Stich. 702, 705 (Sangarinus seru.). stratioticus [στρατιωτικός] Mil. 1359 (Palaestrio seru.), Pseud. 603 (Pseudolus seru.), 918 (Simia sycophanta). strophiarius [στρόφιον + -arius] Au/. 516 (Megadorus sen.). strutheum [στρούθειϊος] Pers. 87 (Toxilus seru.). subbasilicanus [sub + βασιλική + -anus] Capt. 815 (Ergasilus para.). subparasitor [sub + παράσιτος + —or] Amph. 515, 993 (Mercurius deus), Mil.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

55

348 (Sceledrus seru.). sycophantia [(cuxo ta] Asin. 71 (Demaenetus sen.), Asin. 546 (Libanus sen), Aul. 649 (Euclio sen.), Bacch. 740, 764 (Chrysalus seru.), 806 (Nicobulus sen.), Capt. 521 (Tyndarus seru.), Mil. 767 (Palaestrio seru.), Pers. 325 (Toxilus seru.), Poen. 425 (Milphio seru.), 654 (Collybiscus uilicus), Pseud. 485 (Simo sen.), 527, 572, 672 (Pseudolus seru.), Trin. 867 (sycophanta).

sycophantiose [συκοφαντία + -osus] Pseud. 1211 (Harpax cacula). syeophantor [συκοφάντης + —or) Trin. 787 (Callicles sen.), 958 (Charmides

sen.). syllaba [συλλαβή] Bacch. 433 (Lydus paed.), Epid. 123 (Stratippocles ad.).

symbola [συμβολή] Curc. 474 (Choragus), Epid. 125 (Epidicus seru.), Stich. 42, 438 (Stichus seru.). symbolus [σύμβολον] Bacch. 263, 266 (Chrysalus seru.), Bacch. 265 (Nicobulus sen.), Pseud. 55, 57 (Pseudolus seru. quoting letter), 598, 648, 652, 1117, 1201 (Harpax cacula), 716, 753 (Pseudolus seru.), 717 (Calidorus ad.), 1001 (Simia sycophanta), 1092, 1217 (Ballio leno). syngraphus [σύγγραφος] Asin. 238 (Cleareta lena), 746, 802 (Diabolus ad.) Capt. 450, 506 (Hegio sen.), 450 (Tyndarus seru.). tappetia [ταπήτιον] Pseud. 147 (Ballio leno), Stich. 378 (Pinacium puer). tarpezita [ end Asin. 438 (Libanus seru.), Capt. 193, 449 (Hegio sen.), Curc. 341, 345, 416, 420 (Curculio para. ) 559, 721 ( appadox leno) 618, 712 (Therapontigonus miles). techina [τέχνη] Bacch. 392 (Mnesilochus ad.), Capt. 642 (Hegio sen.), Most. 550 (Tranio seru.), Poen. 817 (Milphio seru.). telinum [τήλινον] Curc. 101 (Leaena anus). tessera [*tcocapáyovoc] Cist. 503 (Melaenis lena), Poen. 958, 1047, 1052 (Hanno Poenus). thalassicus [θάλασσα + -icus] Mil. 1179 (Palaestrio seru.), 1282 (Pyrgopolynices mil.).

theatrum [θέατρον] Pseud. 1081 (Ballio leno). thensaurarius [θησαυρός + -arius] Aul. 395 (Euclio sen.). the(n)saurus [θησαυρός] Asin. 277 (Libanus seru.), Asin. 655 (Argyrippus ad.), Aul. 7, 12, 26 (prol.), 240 (Euclio sen.), Curc. 676 (Therapontigonus

mil.), Merc. 163, 641 (Charinus ad.), Mil. 1064 (Palaestrio seru.), Poen. 625 (aduocati), Pseud. 84 (Calidorus ad.), 628 (Harpax cacula), Trin. 150, 175, 180, 750, 1100, 1145 (Callicles sen.), Trin. 783, 786, 798 (Megaronides sen. ), Truc. 245, 725 (Astaphium anc.). thermopolium [θερμοπώλιον] Curc. 292 (Curculio para), Trin. 1013 (Stasimus seru.).

thermopoto [θερμοπότης + -o] Trin. 1014 (Stasimus seru.). thylacista [θυλακίζω + -ista] Aul. 518 (Megadorus sen.). tiara [31$ po] Pers. 463 (Toxilus seru.). toxicum [τοξικόν] Cist. 298 (Gymnasium mere.), Merc. 472 (Charinus ad.). tragicomoedia [1paytkóc + κωμῳδία] Amph. 59, 63 (prol.). tragicus [τῥραγικός] Pers. 465 (Sagaristio seru.). tragoedia [τραγῳδία] Amph. 41, 51, 52, 54, 93 (prol.), Capt. 62 (prol). Curc.

56

R. MALTBY

591 (Curculio para.), Poen. 2 (prol.). tragoedus [τραγῳδός] Poen. 581 (Collybiscus uilicus). triumpho [θρίαμβος + —o] Bacch. 972, 1073 (Chrysalus seru.). pim [θρίαμβος] Asin. 269 (Leonida seru.), Pseud. 1051 (Pseudolus seru.). trygonus [1póyov] Capt. 851 (Ergasilus para.). tus [θύος] Amph. 740 (Sosia seru.), Aul. 24 (prol. Lar), Poen. 451 (Lycus leno), Trin. 934 (sycophanta), Truc. 540 (Stratophanes mil.) tusculum [8606 + -culum] Au/. 385 (Euclio sen.). tympanotriba [τύμπανον + τρίβω] Truc. 611 (Stratophanes mil.). : tympanum [τύμπανον] Poen 1317 (Antamoenides mil.). yranıns [τύραννος] Curc. 285 (Curculio para.), Pseud. 703 (Pseudolus seru.).

ulmitriba [ulmus + -τρίβης] Pers: 278b (Paegnium puer). zamia [Gapía] Aul. 197 (Euclio sen.). zona [ζώνη] Curc. 220 (Cappadox leno), Merc. 925 (Charinus ad.), Pers. 155 (Toxilus seru.), Truc. 954 (Stratophanes mil.), 955 (Strabax ad.). zee [ζώνη + -arius] Aul. 516 (Megadorus sen.), Trin. 862 (Charmides sen.). 2. Forms printed by Lindsay in Greek: ἄδικος es tu, non δικαία Mil. 437 (Sceledrus seru.). αἱ δὲ κολλῦραι λύραι Poen. 137 (Milphio seru.). «ἅρπαξ Pseud. 654 (Pseudolus seru.), 1010 (Simia sycophanta). . δύναμιν domi habent maxumam Pseud. 211 (Ballio leno). ἔξω Truc. 558 (Cyamus seru.). ᾿ εὑρετής mihist Pseud. 700 (Calidorus ad.). fj πέντ᾽ fj τρία xiv ἢ μὴ τέτταρα Stich. 707 (Stichus seru.). καὶ τοῦτο ναί Pseud. 488 (Simo sen.), 488 (Pseudolus seru.). καὶ τοῦτο ναί γάρ Pseud. 484 (Pseudolus seru.).

μὰ τὸν ᾿Απόλλω Capt. 880 (Ergasilus para.), Most. 973 (Phaniscus seru.). μέγα κακόν Cas. 729 (Lysidamus sen.). vai yáp Bacch. 1162 (Philoxenus sen.), Pseud. 483 (Pseudolus seru.). vai τὰν Kópav Capi. 881 (Ergasilus para.). vai τὰν Πραινέστην Capt. 882 (Ergasilus para.). val τὰν Σιγνέαν Capt. 882 (Ergasilus para.). vai t&v Φρουσινῶνα Capt. 883 (Ergasilus para.).

val τὸν 'AAátpiov Capi. 883 (Ergasilus para.). οἴχεται Trin. 419 (Stasimus seru). πάλιν Trin. 705 (Stasimus seru.). παῦσαι Trin. 187 (Megaronides sen.). πόθεν Pers. 159 (Saturio para.).

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

57

πράγματά μοι παρέχεις Cas. 728 (Olympio seru.). χάριν τούτῳ ποιῶ Pseud. 712 (Pseudolus seru.). ᾧ Ζεῦ Cas. 731 (Olympio seru.), Pseud. 443 (Pseudolus seru.).

APPENDIX II The Distribution of Greek Loan-Words by Plays and Characters AMPHITRYO 48/8632 [1 in 180] prologus (Mercurius) 17/990 [1 in 58] tragoedia 41, 51, 52, 54, 93, architectus 45, comoedia 55, 60, 88, 96, pay

ocdia 59, 63, proscaenium 91, schema 117, moechus 135, petasus

Sosia (seruus) 11/2699 fl in 245] boo 232, apage 310, murena 319, nauseo 329, petasus 443, baccha 703, bacchor 703, malum 723, tus 740, eugae 802, hilarus 961. Mercurius (deus) 8/728 [1in 11] attat 263, cadus 429, subparasitor 515, 993, parasitatio 521, comoedia 987,

corona 999, poena 1002. Amphitruo (dux) 8/1553 apage

580,

[1 in 194]

platea 1011, gymnasium

1011,

myropolium

1011, emporium

1012, macellum 1012, palaestra 1012, eugepae 1018.

Iuppiter (deus) 4/953

[1 in 238]

comoedia 868, heia 901, gubernator 950, 967. Bromia (ancilla) 0/470 Alcumena (matrona) 0/1208 Blepharo (gubernator) 0/31

ASINARIA 38/7118 prologus 1/100 comoedia

[1 in 187]

[1 in 100]

13.

Demaenetus (senex) 7/692 [1 in 99] nauclericus 69, sycophantia 71, hilarus 837, 850, nautea 894, cantharus 906, murra

Libanus (seruus) 8/1664 — [1 in 208] aer 99, celox 258, thensaurus 277, tarpezita 438, sycophantia 546, cadus 624, bracchium 696, badizo 706.

Cleareta (lena) 4/717

[1 in 179],

poema 174, patinarius 180, oenopolium 200, syngraphus 238. Leonida (seruus) 7/996 [1 in 142] triumphus 269, gynasium 297, balineum 357, stomachus 423, scyphus 444, attatae 588, cinaedus 627. mercator 1/326 [1 in 326] poena 483. Argyrippus (adulescens) 2/1173 [1 in 586] thensaurus 655, heia 744. Diabolus (adulescens) 3/180 [1 in 60] syngraphus 746, 802, poeta 748.

58

R. MALTBY

parasitus 5/607 [1 in 121] epistula 761, 762, propino 772, corona 803, 879. Philaenium (meretrix) 0/356 Artemona (matrona) 0/307

AULULARIA 52/6497 prologus (Lar) 5/270

[1 in 125] [1 in 54]

thensaurus 7, 12, 26, tus 24, corona 25.

Euclio (senex) 12/2581

[1 in 215]

pessulus 104, zamia 197, polypus 198, harpago 201, heia 220, macellum 373, cus

ica

37

corona 385, thensaurarius 395, opsonium 560, sycophantia 649,

Eunomia (matrona) 2/279 musso 131, heia 153.

T in 139]

Megadorus (senex) 13/929

[1 in 71]

daps ilis 167, purpura

diabathrarius 513,

168, 500, macellum 264, phry: go

molocinarius 514, strophiarius 516,

508, propola 512,

zonarius 516, thyla-

cista 518, corcotarius 521, cadus 571. Strobilus (seruus) 4/363 [1 in 91] opsono 280, opsonium 282, 291, 352.

Anthrax (cocus) 4/145

[1 in 36]

opsono 295, conger 399, murena 399, artopta 400.

Congrio (cocus) 8/340 [1 in 42] attatae 406, platea 407, baccha 408, bacchanal 408, 411, gymnasium 410, attat 411, cinaedus 422.

seruus Lyconidis 3/673

[1 in 224]

attat 665, 712, eugae (bis) 677. Pythodicus (seruus) 1/56 [1 in 56] rapacida 370. Lyconides (adulescens) 0/608 Staphyla (anus) 0/249 Phaedria (uirgo) 0/11 matrona 0/29

BACCHIDES 75/9707

[1 in 129]

Pistoclerus (adulescens) 18/1038

[1 in 58]

baccha 53, bacchanal 53, palaestra 66, discus 67, machaera 68, cantharus 69, galea 70, scaphium 70, corolla 70, malacus 71, apage (bis) 73, opsono 97,

arbarus 121, 123, opsonium 131, historia 158, heia 630. Bacchis (meretrix) 4/660 [1 in 165] malacisso 73, heia 76, opsono %, opsonium 96.

Lydus (paedagogos) 13/912

[1 in 70]

pompa 114, 444, opsono 143, barathrum 149, baccha 371, apage 372, palaestra 424, 431, gymnasium 425, poena 425, discus 428, hippodromos

431, syllaba 433.

Chrysalus (seruus) 27/3060 — [1 in 113] epistula 176, 1006, papae 207, machinor 232, machina 232, chrysus 240, ancratice 248, athletice 248, symbolus 263, 266, stega 278, lembus 279, 286,

05, 958, malacus 355, harpago | 656, ballista 709, 710, biclinium 720, 754,

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

59

euax 724, sycophantia 740, 764, machaera 887, triumpho 972, 1073.

Nicobulus (senex) 7/1749

[] in 250]

euax 247, symbolus 265, sycophantia 806, moechus 918, eugae 991, 1105, blennus 1088.

Mhnesilochus (adulescens) 3/1400 — (1 in 467] techina 392, logus 519, epistula 561. Philoxenus (senex) 3/420

[1 in 140]

heia 408, ναί γάρ 1162.

Bacchidis soror (meretrix) 0/165

Cleomachus (miles) 0/121 parasitus 0/144

grex 0/38 CAPTIVI 75/8261 prologus 4/432

[1 in 110] [1 in 108]

poeta 18, comicus 61, choragium 61, tragoedia 62. Ergasilus (parasitus) 39/1631 [1 in 42 coclea 80, colaphus 88, saccus 90, parasiticus 469, plagipatida 472, opsono

474, 491, barbaricus 492, pompa 771, comicus 778, platea 795, ballista 796, catapulta 796, subbasilicanus 815, patina 846, ophthalmias 850, horaeus 851, scomber 851, trygonus 851, cetus 851, celox 874, μὰ τὸν ᾿Απόλλω 880, vai τὰν Kópav 881, vai τὰν Πραινέστην 882, val τὰν Σιγνέαν 882, vai τὸν Φρουσινῶνα 883, ναὶ τὸν 'AAátpiov 883.

Hegio (senex) 15/2346 [1 in 156] t ita 193, 449, syngraphus 450, 506, techina 642, offucia 656, mastigia 659,

attat

664,

latomiae

723, phylaca

751, basilicus

811, eugepae

823,

agoranomus 824, barbaricus 884, dapino 897. Philocrates (adulescens) 1/1586 — [1 in 1,586] apage 208. Tyndarus (seruus) 9/1286 — [1 in 142] eugepae 274, philosophor 284, syngraphus 450, sycophantia 521, fucus 521, machinor 530, 531, poena 695, attat 1007.

Aristophontes (adulescens) 2/522 — [1 in 261] mastigia 600, cincinnatus 648.

puer 2/107

[1 in 53]

parasitus 910 (bis).

Stalagmus (seruus) 1/150

[1 in 150]

heia 963. caterua 2/61 [1 in 30] poeta 1033, comoedia 1033. Philopolemus (adulescens) 0/58 lorarius 0/137 Colaphus (seruus) 0/3

CASINA 71/7081 prologus 7/532

[1 in 100] [1 in 76]

comoedia 9, 13, 30, 31, 64, 83, poeta 18.

Olympio (seraus) 23/1346

[1 in 58]

R. MALTBY

:

60

amphora 121, apage 459, attat 723, πράγματά μοι παρέχεις 728, ὦ Ζεῦ 73i. barbaricus 748, bliteus 748, hymenaeus 799, 800, 806, 808, platea 799, hymen 808 (bis), 808 (bis), lampas 840, malacus 843, babae 906, papae 906a.

[1 in 90]

Lysidamus (senex) 28/2529

. myropola 226, 238, heia 230, machinor 277, eugae 386, opsono 441, 491, 501,

marsuppium 490, sepiola 493, lepas 493, contor 571, attat 619, opsonatus

719, pompa 719, μέγα κακόν 729, corona 796, lampas 796, hymen 800 (bis), 808 (bis), hymneaeus, 800, 808, euax 835, baccha (bis) 979.

: [1 in 117] Chalinus (seruus) 6/701 1018. nautea 468, attatae 434, attat 446, 361, machinor 301, mastigia Alcesimus (senex) 1/265 — (1 in 265] attatae 528. Pardalisca (ancilla) 2/610 [1 in 305] mussito 665, corona 767. Chytrio (cocus) 1/6 [1 in 6] heia 723. Myrrhina (matrona) 2/261 [1 in 130] poeta 861, moechisso 976. [1 in 831] Cleustrata (matrona) 1/831 baccha 979 (quoting Lysidamus).

CISTELLARIA 14/4317 lena 1/583

[1 in 308]

[1 in 583]

heia 42.

Gymnasium (meretrix) 3/285

[1 in 95]

hilaritudo 54, toxicum 298, diobolaris 407. Selenium (meretrix) 1/461 — (1 in 461] pompa 90. [1 in 343] prologus (Auxilium) 1/343 poena 202. Melaenis (lena) 2/202 [1 in 101] tessera 503, hippodromus 552. Alcesimarchus (adulescens) 3/538 — [1 in 179] patellarius 522, platea 534, pessulus 649. [1 in 738] Lampadio (seruus) 1/738 hippodromus 549. [1 in 521] Halisca (ancilla) 1/521 attat 701. caterua 1/44 [1 in 44] comoedia 787.

Demipho (senex) 0/45 senex 0/155 Thyniscus (seruus) 0/153 Phanostrata (matrona) 0/249

CURCULIO 57/5179

[1 in 91]

Palinurus (seruus) 7/829 [1 in 118] 90, barathrum capparis 78, lagoena pompa 2,

121, aurichalcum

202,

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

61

hepatarius 239, platea 278.

Leaena (anus) 7/109 [1 in 15] euax 97, nautea 99, stacta 100, cinnamum telinum 101.

Phaedromus (adulescens) 5/1081

100, crocinum 101, casia 101,

[1 in 216]

pessulus 147 (bis), 153, 157, barbarus 150.

Curculio strategus

asitus) 21/851

[1 in 40]

285, „ggannus 285, agoranomus 285, demarchus 286, comarchus

286, sportula

289, drapeta 290, thermopolium 292, tarpezita 341, 345, 406,

420, basilicus 359, propino 395, attat 390, catapulta 394, poeta 591, tragoedia 591, apage 598, bolus 611, chlamys 611. Lyco (trapezita) 2/629 [1 in 314] elephantus 424, machaera 424.

choragus 1/195

[1 in 195]

symbola 474.

Cappadox (leno) 2/676 — [1 in 338] tarpezita 559, 721. Therapontigonus (miles) 12/459

[1 in 38]

machaera 567, 574, 632, mastigia 567, attat 583, bolus 612, tarpezita 618,

712, chlamys 632, thensaurus cocus 0/87 Planesium (uirgo) 0/263

EPIDICUS 45/5989

676, catapultarius 689, catapulta 690.

[1 in 133]

Epidicus (seruus) 24/2557 eugac 9, pantherinus 18,

[lin 106]

-

papae 54, basilice 56, epistula 58, 134, 254, eu 72,

syllaba 123, symbola 125, tarpezita 143, exentero 185, marsuppium 185, gymnasium 198, myropolium 199, crocotula 231, basilicus 232, exoticus 232, cumatilis 233, cerinus 233, danista 252, 347, peratus 351, apolactizo 678.

Thesprio athletice

(seruus) 3/316

[1 in 105]

20, danista 53, 55.

Stratippocles (adulescens) 7/544 [1 in 78] danista 115, 142, 607, 621, 646, exentero 320, eugae 356. Periphanes (senex) 7/1277 [1 in 182] heia 262, chlamys 436, attatae 457, eugae 493, exentero 511, 672, marsuppium 511.

Apoecides (senex) 4/398

[1 in 99]

graphicus 410, hilarus 413, apage 637, flemina 670. Philippa (mulier) 0/291

Acropolistis (fidicina) 0/108 fidicina 0/76 Chaeribulus (adulescens) 0/136 seruus 0/2

miles 0/197 Telestis (uirgo) 0/47 danista 0/24 grex 0/16

62

R. MALTBY

MENAECHMI 76/8782 [lin 115] prologus 5/453 [1 in 91]

poeta 7, comoedia 7, graecisso 11, atticisso 12, sicilicissito 12. Peniculus (parasitus) 11/1107

[1 in 101]

patinarius 102, heia 149, eu 160, 174, 175, cantharus 177, corona 463, 629,

632, phrygio 469. 618. Menaechmus I (adulescens) 13/1983 [1 in 152] purpura 121, euax 127, leoninus 159, cantharus 187, opsono 209, glandionida 210, perronida 210, morus 571, eu 908, puniceus 917, corona 941, marsuppium

Erotium sportula

1043, spinter 1061.

(meretrix) 6/514

[1 in 86

219, opsonium 220, heia 381, phrygio 426, 681, spinter 682.

Menaechmus II (adulescens) 15/1703 nauta 226, marsuppium

[1 in 113]

265, 386, 701, cyathisso 305 (quoting Cylindr.),

baxea 391, cinaedus 513, spinter 540, corona 555, eu 731, euhoe

835, lampas

841, leo 864, platea 881, bracchium 886.

Messenio erin)

exoticus

7/1334

[1 in 190]

236, historia 248, marsuppium 254, 384, 1036, eu 316, lembus 442.

Cylindrus (cocus) 5/266 [1 in 53] opsono 273, 320, opsonatus 277, 288, cyathisso 303. ancilla 4/84 [1 in 21] spinter 527, 530, 534, stalagmium 542. matrona 4/539 [1 in 135] phrygio 563, corona 563, 565, spinter 807. senex 3/773 [1 in 258] logus 779, eu 872, papae 918. medicus 3/24 [1l in 8] bracchium 910, elleborum 913, 950.

lorarius 0/2 MERCATOR 34/8136 [1 in 239] prologus (Charinus) 6/712 [1 in 119] comoedia 3, ephebus 40, 61, musso 49, peplus 67, heia 99. Charinus (adulescens) 13/2291 [1 in 176] cercurus 87, resina 139, thensaurus 163, 641, attatae 365, baccha 469, toxicum 472, podagrosus 595, eugepae 626, chlamys 912, 921, ampulla 927, machaera 962. Acanthio (seruus) 3/506 — [1 in 169] apage 144, philosophor 147, lembus 193.

Demipho (senex) 5/1536 [1 in 307] . lembus 259, nausea 389, elegeum 409, opsonium 582, heia 998. Lysimachus (senex) 2/1107 [1 in 553] eugae 283, opsono 695. Eutychus (adulescens) 3/1129 [1 in 376] eu 601, bracchium 883, heia 950. cocus 2/189 [1 in 94] opsono 754, opsonium 780. senex 0/15

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

63

seruus 0/2 Syra (anus) 0/203 Pasicompsa (meretrix) 0/166 Dorippa (matrona) 0/280 MILES GLORIOSUS 108/ 11567 [1 in 107] nices (miles) 12/1304 [1 in 109] machaera 5, bracchium 27, latro 74, 76, 949, eugae 967, celocla 1006, eu 1056, thalassicus 1282, nauta 1335, moechus (bis) 1436.

Artotrogus (parasitus) 7/300 [1 in 43] epityrum 24, elephantus 25, 30, bracchium 26, 30, machaera 53, pompa 67.

prologus (Palaestrio) 3/502

[1 in 167]

᾿

comoedia 84, 86, opsonium 107. Palaestrio (seruus) 34/4037 [1 in 119] machina 138, 813, glaucoma 148, elephantus 235, eu 394, 899, machaera 459,

463, mussito 477, platea 609, aurichalcum 658, sycophantia 767, moechus 715, agoranomus 727, pax 808, nardinum 824, amphora 824, bacchanal 858,

arrabo 957, celox 986, spinturnicium 989, thensaurus 1064, guberno 1091, nauclerus

1109,

1283, moechus

1131, architectus

1139, nauclericus

1177,

causea 1178, thalassicus 1179, gubernator 1182, hilarus 1199, stratioticus 1359, morus 1367. Periplectomenus (senex) 23/1971 [] in 86] apage 210, poeta 211, barbarus 211, eugae 213, 241 (bis), euscheme 213, dulice 213, comoedice 213, latrocinor 499, hilarus 666, opsonator 667, cinaedus 668, malacus 668, morus 672, hilaritudo 677, mussito 714, opsono

738, 749, 756, patina (in quote) 759, conger 760, architectus 901. Sceledrus (seruus) 7/1196 [1 in 171] mussito

311,

subparasitor

348,

clatratus

379,

ἄδικος

437,

δικαία

437,

machaera 469, nauta 1430. Philocomasium (mulier) 1/268 [1 in 268] morus 370. Pleusicles (adulescens) 2/477 [1 in 238] opsono 750, eu 1146. Lurcio (puer) 4/398 (1 in 99] cadus 851, 853, 856, bacchor 856.

Acroteleutium (meretrix) 7/342

[1 in 49]

architectus 902, 915, 919, cincinnatus 923, moechus 924, heia 1141, epistula

1225.

mE

Milphidippa (ancilla) 4/604 [1 in 151] baccha 1016, eu 1062, 1066, architectus 1139. puer 1/99 [1 in 99] moechus 1390. Cario (cocus) 3/64 [1 in 21] moechus 1398, chlamys 1423, machaera 1423.

lorarias 0/5 MOSTELLARIA 60/8816

[1 in 147]

Grumio (seruus) 4/344 [1 in 86] mastigia 1, patina 2, opsono 24, exoticus 42.

64

R. MALTBY

Philolaches (adulescens) 6/1177

(1 in 196]

gymnasticus 151, discus 152, eugae 260, 311, stacta 309, opsonium 363. Philematium (meretrix) 5/329 [1 in 66] purpurissum 261, offucia 264, purpura 286, purpuratus 289, cantharus 347. Scapha (ancilla) 1/538. (1 in 538] fucus 275.

Callidamates (adulescens) 5/366

[1 in 73)

comissor 317, 335, hilaris 318, eu 339, crapula 1122.

Tranio (seruus) 21/2928 [1 in 139] ferritribax 356, plagipatida 356, bracchium 360, danista 537, 626, 917, techina 550, hilarus 567, eu 586, eugae 587, 686, arrabo 645, 918, gynaeceum 755, 759, 908, danisticus 658, architecton 760, pultiphagus 828, barbarus 828, comoedia 1152.

Theopropides (senex) 9/1610

[1 in 179]

apage (bis) 436, 816a, 845, eugae 638, 1076, patrisso 639, eu 981, arrabo 1013. Simo (senex) 2/538 [1 in 269] apage 697, musice 729. Phaniscus (seruus) 7/464 [1 in 66] slieborosus 952, μὰ τὸν ᾿Απόλλω 973, dapsilis 982, comissor 989, pacnula

1

Delphium (meretrix) 0/77 Sphaerio (seruus) 0/14 Pinacium (seruus) 0/152

lorarius 0/17 Misargyrides (danista) 0/210 mortuus (quoted by Tranio) 0/52

PERSA 60/7121

[1 in 119]

Toxilus (seruus) 31/2562

[1 in 83]

leo 3, basilice 29, 462, 806, eleutheria 29a, basilicus 31, morologus 49, colutea 87, collyra 92, collyphium 92, chlamys 155, causea 155, choragus 159, sycophantia 325, eugae 462(bis), 557, tiara 463, schema 463, crepidula 464, graphice 464, 843, comissor 568, eu 668, hilarus 760, cyathus 772, cantharus

801b, 821, cinaedus 804, babae 806, pausa 818.

Sagaristio (seruus) 6/696 [1 in 139] catapulta 28, colaphus 294, graphice 306, tragicus 465, comicus 465.

Saturio (parasitus) 15/774 parasitor 56, Ree

[1 in 52]

90, collyricus 95, 97, epicrocum 96, murena 110, conger

110, cynicus 123, ampulla 124, scaphium πόθεν 159, soracus 392, logus 394.

Paegnium

(puer) (seru.) 3/624

124, marsuppium

[1 in 208]

heia 212, ulmitriba 278b, cyathus 794.

Persa (impersonated by Sagaristio) 1/230 epistula 694.

Dordalus (leno) 4/1234

[1 in 230]

[1 in 308]

eu 706, attat 722, machina 785, colaphus 846. Lemniselenis (meretrix) 1/111 [lin 111] cyathus 771.

125, eu 1

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

65

Sophoclidisca (ancilla) 0/378 uirgo 0/512 POENULUS 74/10532 [1 in 142] 8/793 [1 in 99] tragoedia 2, historicus 4, 44, proscaenium 17,57, comoedia 51, 53, bolus 101. Milphio (seruus) 16/2051 — [1 in 128] αἱ δὲ κολλῦραι λύραι 137, ballista 201, ballistarium 202, cadus 259, cyathus

274, sesuma 326, ostreatus 398, sycophantia 425, techina 817, attat 821,

pompa

1012, eu 1107, architecton

1110.

Adelphasium (puella) 5/935 [1 in 187] apage 225, alicarius 266, schoenus 267, diobolaris 270, purpura 304. Anterastilis (puella) 1/309 [1 in 309] eu 283. ) Agorastocles (adulescens) 11/2296 — [1 in 209] j mastigia 381, 390, coclea 532, grosus 52, heia 572, eugae 576, basilice 577, marsuppium 784, dica 800, cinaedus 1319 (quoting Ant.), heia 1367. Lycus (leno) 8/983 [1 in 123] tus 451, pausa 459, chlamydatus 620, thensaurus 625, geuma 701, balineator 703, latrocinor 704, comoedia 1371. Antamoenides (miles) 5/558 [1 in 112] colaphus 494, opsono 1295, maena 1312, cinaedus 1318, arrabo 1359. Collybiscus (uilicus) (seru.) 5/189 — [1 in 38] tragicus 581, comicus 581, eu 603, sycophantia 654, latro 666. aduocati 6/887 [1 in 148] comicus 597, barbaria 598, thensaurus 625, chlamydatus 644, latro 663, marsuppium 782. Syncerastus (seruus) 4/521 — [1 in 130] lautumiae 827, epistula 836, apage 856, moechus 862. Hanno (senex) 5/919 [1 in 184] tessera 958, 1047, 1052, demarchus 1060, bracchialis 1269.

Giddenis (nutrix) 0/83 ancilla 0/8 PSEUDOLUS 138/10033 Phoenicium (mulier) 3/143

[1 in 73] [1 in 48]

(in letter quoted by Pseudolus) symbolus 55, 57, orgia 67a. Calidorus (adulescens) 5/744 [1 in 148] thensaurus 84, eugae 323, graphicus 700, εὑρετής 700, symbolus 717.

Ballio (leno) 27/2723

[1 in 101]

flagritriba 137, harpago 139, 957, peristroma

169, mammium

180,

146, tappetia 147, macellum

δύναμιν 211, poeniceus 229, inanilogista 255, danista

287, babae 365, bombax 365, cyathus 957, cantharus 957, chlamydatus 963,

epistula

1002,

1097, 1203, 1208, comoedia

1081, 1139, theatrum

1081,

symbolus 1092, 1217, chlamys 1184, petasus 1186. Pseudolus (seruus) 57/3498 [1 in 61] heia 275, murena 382, dapsilis 396, 1266, poeta 401, 404, & Ζεῦ 443, vai γὰρ 483, καὶ τοῦτο ναὶ γάρ 48 , καὶ τοῦτο ναί 488, sycophantia 527, 572, 672, machina 550, exballisto 585, machaera 593, 735, stratioticus 603, apage 653,

66

R. MALTBY

ἅρπαξ 654, epistula 670, 690, 691, 716, philosophor 687, 974, aurichalcum 8, eugae 692, 712, bracchium 708, χάριν τούτῳ ποιῶ 712, symbolus 716, 753, chlamys 735, petasus 735, eugepae 743, tarpezita 757, triumphus 1051, cantharus 1051, 1262, 1280a, mammium 1261, morologus 1264, lemniscus

1265, corolla 1265, prothyme 1268, crapula 1282, corona 1287. Callipho (senex) 2/238 [1 in 119]

patrisso 442, graphicus 519.

Simo (senex) 12/902

[1 in 75]

basilicus 458, sycophantia 485, καὶ τοῦτο ναί 488, mussito 501, contechnor 1088, chlamydatus 1143, machaera 1185, comoedia

Harpax (cacula) (seru.) 11/761

1240, corolla 1299, celox

(1 in 69]

symbolus 598, 648, 652, thensaurus 628, epistula 647, 1202, machaera 1181,

symbolus 1117, 1201, elleborum 1185, sycophantiose 1211. Charinus (adulescens) 2/161

[1 in 80]

paratragoedo 707, pántopolium 742. cocus 8/370 [1 in 46]

drachumisso 808, patina 811, 831, 840, coriandrum 814, blitum 815, sinapis

817, hapalopsis 836.

Simia (sycophanta) (seru.) 9/280

[1 in 31]

stratioticus 918, epistula 983, 990, 993, 997,

ἅρπαξ 1010.

1001,

1008, symbolus

1001,

Polymachaeroplagides (miles) 2/48 [1 in 24] (in letter quoted by Ballio) epistula 998, 1011. puer 0/165 .

RUDENS 73/11064

[1 in 151]

prologus (Arcturus) 2/517 [1 in 258] arrabo 46, scapha 75. Sceparnio (seruus) 13/809 [1 in 62] scapha 163, 165, 173, eugae (bis) 164, gubernator 166, eugepae 170, eu 415, hilaritudo 420, heia 422, basilicus 431, ciccum 580, barbarus 583.

Palaestra (mulier) 1/795 scapha 201.

[1 in 795)

piscatores 9/162 [1 in 18] gymnasticus 296, palaestricus 296, echinus 297, lopas 297, ostrea 297, balanus 297, concha 297, 304, conchita 310. Trachalio (seruus) 16/2014 [1 in 126] hamiota

310,

chlamydatus

315,

machaera

315,

heia

339,

bolus

360,

anancacum 363, exagoga 631, magydaris 633, sepia 659, concha (bis) 704, ampullarius 756, puniceus 1000, elleborosus 1006, colaphus 1007, mastigia 1022. Ampelisca (mulier) 2/823 scapha 366, 368.

Labrax (leno) 11/1220

[1 in 411]

[1 in 111]

balineator 527, ballaena 545, arrabo 555, galea 801, apage 826, marsuppium 1313, pasceolus 1314, cantharus 1319, epichysis 1319, gaulus 1319, cyathus

1319.

Charmides (senex) 4/450 [1 in 112] marsuppium 547, sacciperium 548, barathrum 570, crapula 586.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

67

Daemones (senex) 3/1970 — [1 in 657]

murtetum 723, pausa 1205, comissor 1422.

Plesidippus (adulescems) 1/406 [1 in 406] arrabo 861. Gripus (piscator) (seru.) 10/1747 (1 in 175] macellum 979, philosophus 986, puniceus 998, polypus 1010, proreta 1014, gubernator 1014, mussito 1029, eugae 1037, comicus

lorarius 0/39 — Ptolemocratia (sacerdos) 0/112

STICHUS 81/5920 [1 in 73] Gelasimus (parasitus) 16/1457

1249, papae

1320.

[1 in 91

elephantus 168, barbarus 193, logus 221, 383, 393, 455, malacus 227, crapularius 227, parasiticus 229, ampulla 230, exanclo 273, sportula 289, eugepae 381, propino 468, parasitor 637, prothymia 659.

Crocotium (ancilla) 1/104

[1 in 104]

eu 243. Pinacium (puer) (seru.) 5/642 (1 in 128] cercurus 368, purpura 376, peristroma 378, tappetia 378, sambuca 381. Epignomus (maritus) (ad.) 6/534 — [1 in 89]

cercurus 413, stega 413, cadus 425, propino 425, apologus 541, 544. Stichus (seruus) 36/728 [1 in 20]

eleutheria 422, papae 425, symbola 432, 438, opsono 440, 451, opsonium 440, 451, prothymia 636, morus 641, cadus 647, 721, eugae , 766, monotropus 689, scaphium 693, cantharus 693, 705, 712, 730, batioca 694, poterium 694, fj πέντ᾽ ἢ τρία riv ἢ μὴ τέτταρα 707, propino 712, hilarus 736 (bis), tatae 771, pax 771, comissor 775.

Antipho (senex) 2/768 — [1 in 384] apologus 538, pyelus 568. Pamphilippus (maritus) (ad.) 2/216 [] in 108] graphicus 570, apologus 570. Stephanium (ancilla) 1/152. [1 in 152] opsono 681. pompa

(seraus) 12/437 [1 in 36] 683, cadus 683, comissor 686, strategus 702, 705, cyathus 706,

cinaedicus 760, 769, cynice 704, babae 771, papae 771, cinaedus 772.

Panegyris (matrona) 0/502 Pamphila (matrona) 0/380

TRINUMMMUS 67/9443 Callicles corona

(senex) 9/1074

[I in 141] [1 in 119]

39, 84, thensaurus

sycophantor 787. Megaronides (senex) 7/1195

150,

175,

180, 750,

1100,

1145, epistula 788,

[1 in 171]

παῦσαι 187, graphice 767, epistula 774, 816, thensaurus 783, 786, 798. Lysiteles (adulescens) 6/1485

[1 in 247]

harpago, onis 239, sandaligerula 252, cistellatrix 253, apage 258, ballista 668,

morus

6 9.

Philto (senex) 3/1118

.

(1 in 372]

68

R. MALTBY

historia 381, apage 525, 537.

Stasimus (seruus) 19/1484

[1 in 78]

myropola 408, οἴχεται 419, tarpezita 425, apage 538 (quoting Philto), galea 596, latrocinor 599, ineuscheme 625, eugae 705 (bis), πάλιν 705, comoedia 706, pharetra 725, cottabus 1011, thermopolium 1013, thermopoto 1014, poterium 1017, cruricrepida 1021, mastigia2 1021, epitheca 1025. Charmides (senex) 12/1474 [1 in 123] platea 840, 1006, pax 891, epistula 896, 951, 986, 1002, graphicus 936, 1024,

sycophantor 958, basilicus 1030, pergraphicus 19.

sycophanta 11/815 [1 in 74] epistula 848, 875, 894, 896, 898, 949 choragus 858, sycophantia 867, tus 934,

apsinthium 935, cunila 935.

Lesbonicus (adulescens) 0/642 prologus (Luxuria) 0/149 prologus (Inopia) 0/7

TRUCULENTUS 53/9917 prologus 4/140

[1 in 187]

[] in 35]

architectus 3, eu 7, proscaenium

10, comoedia

11.

Diniarchus (adulescens) 9/2078 [1 in 230] bolus 31, phronesis 78a, eugae 186, pessulus 51, balneator 325, heia 371,

opsono 445, opsonatus 740, opsonium 747. Astaphium (ancilla) 11/1589 [1 in 144]

cleptes 102, heia 193, 509, thensaurus 245, 725, sinapis 315, arrabo 690,

exagoga 716, mussito 723, bolus 724, pausa 731. Truculentus (seruus) 4/515 — [1 in 129] cincinnus 287, purpurissatus 290, mussito 312, eu 695. Diniarchus (adulescens) 1/2078 [1 in 2,078] balneator 325.

Phronesium (meretrix) 4/1410

[1 in 352

epistula 397, stacta 476, pithecium 477, bliteus 854.

Stratophanes (miles) 14/885 [1 in 63] ᾿ mussito 491, eugae 503, machaera 506, 927, papae 507, heia 521, perula 535, purpura 539, tus 540, amomum 540, pompa 549, moechus 610, malacus 610, cincinnatus 610. Cyamus (seruus) 5/414 [1 in 83]

exagoga 552, ἔξω 558, opsonium 561, attat 575, machaera 627. Callicles (senex) 1/402 bolus 844.

ancilla 1/27.

[1 in 402]

[1in27]

bracchium 783.

Strabax (adulescens) 0/276 Sura (ancilla) 0/103

THE DISTRIBUTION OF GREEK LOAN-WORDS

IN PLAUTUS

69

APPENDIX III Words found in other studies but excluded here because of doubts about

their Greek origin: illa, astus, astutia, astutus, bardus, boia, calamistratus, calamistrum, calix, calx, caltula, cantherinus, carcer, carinus, carinarius, casteria, cataractria, charmidor, cera, cereus, ceriarius, cero, cerussa, cicimandrum, circus, colubra, colubrinus, columba, columbar, columbus, combardus, condalium, congerro, congraecor, corium, creta, crumilla, crumina, culleus, deruncino, emussitatus, fidelia, fides, fidicina, funda, funginus, fungus, eo, ganeum, halagora, hallex, indusiarius, indusiatus, lacruma, lacrumo,

actes, lanterna, limax,

laserpicium, lena, leno, lenocinium,

littera, maccis,

mantiscinor,

murobatharius,

lenonius, lenullus, ne, nenia, nummus,

oculicrepida, olea, olearius, oleum, oliua, oliuum, paelex, palla, palliatus, palliolatim, palliolum, pallium, pallula, atagiarius, patagiatus, patera, patricus, pergraecor, phy, plaga, plagiger,p. lagigerulus, plagusia, plumatilis, recharmido, rosa, sarrapis, scaena, saucaptis, sampsa, scrofa, scrofipascus, sirpe, soccus

PAPERS OF THE LEEDS INTERNATIONAL LATIN SEMINAR 8 (1995) 71-89 Published by Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd (Leeds 1995). Arca 33. ISBN 0-905205-89-8

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR: TERENCE ADELPHOE 632-43 AND THE TRADITIONS OF GRECO-ROMAN COMEDY P.G. McC. BROWN I.

Introduction

There has been much discussion of whether characters in Greek and Roman comedy knocked on the door from the inside before coming out of a house. Rather less attention has been paid to the circumstances in which they knocked at a door from the outside,

either to gain admission to the house or to summon a character to appear. In a general way, it is well known that such door-knocking scenes are part of the Greco-Roman comic tradition. But I do not know of a detailed study of what they contribute to the plays in which they occur or of the ways in which the playwrights strive to make a familiar routine fresh and entertaining for their audiences.! Scenes of this kind are prominent in our first surviving Greek comedy (Aristophanes' Acharnians) and our last (Menander's Dyskolos). On

another occasion I hope to trace the development of door-knocking scenes between these two plays.? In this paper I start (in section II) with our last surviving Roman comedy, Terence's Adelphoe, and with the one scene in Terence's six plays where it is explicit that a character on stage knocks at the door of one of the houses (Ad. 632-43); in

section III I examine other scenes in Terence where door-knocking may have taken place, and in IV I discuss some scenes in Menander, Plautus

and Terence where

it is not found; sections V-VII

are

devoted to door-knocking scenes in Menander and Plautus. It is Plutarch (Publicola 20) who records the belief (based on the

evidence of comedy) that the doors of Greek houses had once opened outwards and that it had been necessary to knock on them from the inside to warn those in the street outside that the door was about to be opened; few people now believe this.? 71

n

P.G. McC. BROWN

In another context (Mor. 516E) Plutarch remarks that ‘it is not the done thing to walk into someone else's house without at least first knocking at the door’.‘ Yet the comedies of Menander, Plautus and Terence regularly show characters walking into other people's houses without knocking. This is not surprising: in plays which include so much movement in and out of houses it would clearly be an irritating distraction for the audience if the characters had to knock every time they wanted to enter someone's house. In nearly all cases it is also realistic: there are good reasons why these characters go into these houses without knocking (see section IV). In fact Ad.

632-43 is a case where we might have expected the character who knocks to go straight indoors. I shall suggest that Terence has chosen to make him knock in order to build up our expectations for the scene that follows, and I shall try to show that door-knocking scenes regularly have this function in Menander and Plautus, where they are

more frequent. II.

Adelphoe 632-43

One of the main themes of Adelphoe is the question of what the relationship should be between a father and his adolescent son, and the door-knocking at Ad. 632-43 is the prelude to one of its most important scenes, the one scene in the play where a father and son are on stage together on their own and have a heart-to-heart conversation — though it starts with some teasing of the son by his father. It is the son, Aeschinus, who knocks at the door; the house is that

of Pamphila, the girl he loves and who has just given birth to his son. Aeschinus has been planning to marry Pamphila once the baby is born, but he has not yet got round to discussing this matter with his

adoptive father, Micio. When Aeschinus came on stage at 610, he had just learnt that Pamphila and her mother Sostrata now think — wrongly, but not without reason — that he has abandoned her; he resolves to explain the true situation to them. What he does not know is that Micio is now inside Pamphila's house; Micio has learnt about the baby and has also been able to explain to Sostrata that Aeschinus has not abandoned her daughter. The scene develops as follows (629—43):5 AE. haec adeo mea culpa fateor fieri: non me hanc rem patri, utut erat gesta, indicasse! exorassem ut eam ducerem. cessatum usque adhuc est: iam porro, Aeschine, expergiscere!

630

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR

᾿

73

nunc hoc primumst: ad illas ibo ut purgem me; accedam ad fores. perii! horresco semper ubi pultare hasce occipio miser. heus heus Aeschinus ego sum: apetite aliquis actutum ostium.

prodit nescioquis: concedam huc. MI. Ita uti dixi, Sostrata, 635 facite; ego Aeschinum conueniam, ut quomodo acta haec sunt sciat. sed quis ostium hic pultauit? AE. pater hercle est: perii. MI. Aeschine!

AE. quid huic hic negotist? MI. tune has pepulisti fores? (tacet. quor non ludo hunc aliquantisper? melius est, quandoquidem hoc numquam mihi ipse uoluit credere.)

640

nil mihi respondes? AE. non equidem istas, quod sciam. MI. ita; nam mirabar quid hic negoti esset tibi. (erubuit: salua res est.) AESCHINUS [in monologue]: I must admit, this is all my fault: I should have told my father about this affair, however bad it was; I should have persuaded him to let me marry her. So far I've just been putting it off —

Aeschinus, it's time to wake up! Now this is the first thing I must do: I'll go to the women to clear my name; I'll go up to the door. [Does so, but hesitates.] Oh dear! I always start shaking when I begin to knock here, damn it! [Finally starts knocking, and calling to those inside.] Hey! Hey! It's me, Aeschinus! Someone come and open the door quickly! [The door starts to open.] Someone's coming out! I'll move over here. [ Withdraws to

one side, as MICIO comes out of the house.] MICIO [speaking back into the house]: You do as I've said, Sostrata. I'll go and find Aeschinus and bring him up to date with what we've arranged. — But who knocked at the door here? [Looks round.) AESCHINUS [aside]: Oh god, it's my father! I've had it! MICIO [catching sight of him]: Aeschinus! AESCHINUS [aside]: What's he up to here? MICIO: Didst thou strike this door? [Aside] No reply. Why don't I tease him a little? That's a good idea; after all, he wasn't prepared to tell me about this himself. [To Aeschinus] Aren't you going to answer me? AESCHINUS: What, me? That door? Not as far as I know! MICIO [with mild irony]: Of course not; I did wonder what you could be

up to here. [Aside] He's blushing; it's all right. This is one of Terence's more self-consciously theatrical moments. Aeschinus has been visiting Pamphila's house every day (cf. 293-4), and it is not clear why he should start shaking every time he knocks at

the door. We may even wonder why he knocks at the door at all: at 757 Micio is able to walk into this house without further ado, and Aeschinus is much better known there than his father is. (There is no

sign that the door is locked; Hegio and Micio have just walked straight in at 609.) And how can he tell that the person who opens the

74

P. G. McC. BROWN

door at 635 is not this is surely that coming dialogue traditional comic

doing so in answer to his knock? The reason for all Terence wants to build up our expectations for the between father and son; he does so by exploiting devices that it did not suit his purposes to use

elsewhere. For Aeschinus' hesitation before knocking, cf. Aristo-

phanes Clouds 131; for his alarm when someone comes to open the door, Menander Dysk. 465 (in this case made all the more entertaining because Aeschinus' cowering by the door shows the instant collapse of his resolve to come clean about what has been going on); and door-knocking scenes altogether are part of the Greco-Roman comic tradition, as I have said.

In one respect, Terence has evoked the Roman rather than the Greek tradition, since Aeschinus' monologue at 610ff. is one of only three passages in his plays to be written in metres other than iambic and trochaic (the others being the bacchiacs of An. 481-4 and Charinus' speech at An. 625-41, both in his first play); as in some

cantica by Plautus, a distraught young man gives vent to his emotions in repetitive

and

ornate

phrases,

and

'The

lyric metres of this

canticum may reasonably be held to reflect the agitation of Aeschinus' (Martin (1976) 193). The whole sequence of scenes from 517 to 637 will have had musical accompaniment; this stops at 638 (more or less

the point at which Aeschinus and Micio first make contact) and resumes at 679, the point at which Micio's teasing of Aeschinus is over, when he asks ‘What are you crying for?’, and the scene suddenly becomes much more moving. The teasing itself, and the shadowboxing in which neither of them reveals his knowledge of the true

state of affairs (in spite of Aeschinus' realisation at 629ff. that he ought to have admitted the truth to Micio!), is marked off by being spoken in iambic senarii. Its first line is marked by a curious raising

of the stylistic level, if Donatus is to be believed, in Micio's question tune has pepulisti fores? (‘Didst thou strike this door?"). Unlike pultare in the previous line, pellere is not at all commonly used of knocking at a door; and Donatus comments: *Note that pepulisti is a high-flown word, better suited to the tragic buskin than to the language of comedy’ (noia ‘pepulisti’ elatum uerbum et tragico coturno magis quam loquelae comicae accommodatum). This, like the door-knocking

itself, seems to establish a certain self-conscious

artificiality at the start of the scene in which Micio puts on an act in front of Aeschinus."

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR

HI.

75

Other scenes in Terence

Knocking may have played a small part on Terence's plays, without contributing so scene as in Adelphoe. Although there is no may reasonably suppose that Chremes at

a few further occasions in much to the effect of the explicit reference to it, we Eun. 530-1 knocks at the

door of Thais’ house while calling out ‘Hey! Hey! Anyone in? It's me,

Chremes! (heus heus, ecquis hic?/ ego sum Chremes).* Chremes is not on close terms with Thais, and we should not expect him to enter her

house without knocking. There are also two cases where it is possible that a character

was

seen to knock, although

the text is quite

inexplicit (perhaps both in passages where Terence has made changes to his Greek

original: see Lowe

(1983) 448-51).

At Heaut.

170

Chremes perhaps knocks at the door of his neighbour Phania's house, as suggested by the stage instruction in Brothers (1988) 57: *He walks across to the third house and knocks. When the door is opened, a brief feigned conversation takes place with someone inside, after which the door is closed and Chremes returns to centre stage.' (In a similar context at 502 it is generally believed that

Chremes goes off at the side of the stage, returning from there at 508.) And at Hec. 719-20 Laches orders a slave to visit Bacchis and summon her out to see him. As Ireland says in his note,? the slave ‘must appear, cross to Bacchis’ house, enter, deliver his message, and

presumably return before 727’; there is no way of telling whether he knocks before entering Bacchis' house. Finally, there is a reference to

knocking at a door in the narrative of off-stage events at Heaut. 275 ff; and at Heaut. 410 Chremes plans to knock at Menedemus’ door, in

order to give him a piece of news, but Menedemus himself comes out of doors and saves him the trouble of knocking.'? IV.

Some scenes where knocking does not take place

But it is normal for characters in Terence (and also in Menander and Plautus) to enter other people's houses without knocking. Gomme-

Sandbach (1973) 175 suggest the following rule: ‘in New Comedy only close relations walk uninvited into other people's houses; others knock on the door, as doubtless in real life.' This requires some

modification, but it is generally true that a plausible reason can be given when a character in one of these plays walks uninvited into another character's house. In Menander, it is no doubt realistic that the slave Syros and his

76

P. G. McC. BROWN

wife can walk straight into the house of their master Chairestratos at Epitr. 405 and 418 although they do not live there;!! and it is no surprise that Theron rushes into Smikrines' house to fetch Stratophanes in the excitement of Sik. 367.? At Dysk. 908, when either Sikon" or Getas!^ goes into Knemon's house, that is a deliberate effect, made possible by the fact that they know Knemon to be injured;'5 Getas and Sikon had both met with a violent reaction when they had knocked at Knemon's door in Act III (see below, section

VI). In Plautus, it is perhaps implausible (in terms of social convention) that the parasite walks straight into Demaenetus' house at Asin. 827;'¢ and there is implausibility of a different kind at Au/. 203 (and again at 242) when Euclio is able to walk into the house he had been

so careful to have locked up at 103-4," and at Men. 1048 when Menaechmus I walks into the house that had been locked against him at 698. But in general Plautus keeps within the bounds of plausibility when he shows characters walking into other people’s houses, if we

can accept (for example) that it is normally plausible for characters known to the establishment to walk freely into the house of a lena (Asin. 809) or meretrix (Bacch. 169, 228, 572 etc.),'® or for the parasite Peniculus to walk straight into a house where he is known at Men. 521. - In Terence too we can accept the plausibility of such cases, if we extend Gomme-Sandbach's category of ‘close relations’ to include close friends (An. 879, where Chremes enters Simo's house in a fury), or a lover entering the house of his beloved (An. 708,901,979), or the lover’s slave entering the same house (An. 715, 819). Also, the

circumstances of the plot make it entirely plausible that Syrus and Clitipho can walk into Menedemus' house at Heaut. 834 and Syrus can take refuge there at 1002 to avoid meeting his master Chremes on stage. I need not list all the cases, but, since this paper is particularly concerned with Terence, it may be worth discussing some in a little

more detail. ' At Eunuchus 283 the parasite Gnatho goes into Thais' house to hand over a gift from his patron and invite her to dinner; a brief monologue by Parmeno covers his time indoors, and he reappears at 286. Parmeno comments that Gnatho has opened the door ‘with just

one tiny finger' (uno digitulo, 284), which I take to mean that he has simply pushed it open;? Gnatho's patron is having an affair with Thais, and Gnatho wishes to show Parmeno that he can come and go as he pleases. There is no need to suppose (as P. Fabia does in his

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR

7

commentary on the play (Paris 1895)) that he knocked and had the door opened to him at 281-2. At Eun. 996 Chaerea's father bursts into Thais' house in a fury, believing that his son is in danger inside; the interpolated gloss at 1010a refers to him ‘knocking, as old men do’ (pulsantem ut senes

solent), but he surely does not waste time on the formality of knocking at the door. At Phormio 310 it is unclear whether Phaedria goes off at the side of the stage or slips unobtrusively into the house of the /eno Dorio on stage (cf. Lowe (1983) 450); if the latter, he clearly does not knock. The girl he loves is owned by Dorio, and Phaedria is well known to

him. It would not be surprising if he were to enter such a house without knocking. (If there is any awkwardness here, it perhaps results from changes made by Terence to his Greek original, as Lowe suggests.)

At Hecyra 326 Pamphilus enters the house of his father-in-law Phidippus in great agitation. Previously his mother had been refused admission (189, 237, 329, 339), but it is not surprising that he is able to rush in amidst the general turmoil caused inside by the fact that his wife has started to give birth — and it is surely no breach of decorum on his part that he goes to visit his wife in her father's house without knocking on his return from abroad. At 314 he had ordered his slave Parmeno to go in to announce his return (abi, Parmeno, intro ac me uenisse nuntia), apparently taking it for granted that Parmeno would be able to walk in; dramatic tension was then created, not by a doorknocking scene, but by the fact that both characters listened at the

door to the noises they could hear within. V. When

Door-knocking scenes in Menander (other than Dyskolos) Aeschinus knocks at Pamphila's door at Ad. 634, he pre-

sumably plans this to be a prelude to entering her house. Similarly, Chremes presumably expects to be let in to visit Thais at Eun. 530-1.

Terence does not use door-knocking scenes in order to summon a character to appear from indoors.? In Menander, door-knocking scenes are more frequent and serve a variety of purposes. Of his better-preserved plays, only Samia and Sikyonios have no reference to knocking ata door from the outside. Knocking takes place at Aspis 499, Dyskolos 459-64, 498-9 (cf. 911-12, 921), Epitrepontes 1076-7, Misoumenos 206, Perikeiromene 184—190. There are also three cases

where a character announces his intention to knock at a door but is

78

P. G. McC. BROWN

either forestalled

(as at Heaut.

410ff.) by the emergence

of the

character he seeks from the house (Aspis 162ff.) or interrupted before he can knock by another character already on stage (Dysk. 266 ff, Perik. 372-3)?! Pride of place must go to the door-knocking scenes in Act III of Dyskolos, but before discussing those I shall go through the

other scenes in order. 1. At Aspis 162-3 Smikrines plans to knock at his brother's door and call out the slave Daos, but Daos himself appears from the house

before Smikrines can knock. Like Micio at Ad. 635, Daos enters speaking back into the house before contact is made. Smikrines had wished to call Daos out to speak to him on his own, and perhaps this is why he did not propose simply to walk into his brother's house and find Daos there. This passage and Misoum. 206-7 are discussed by Frost (1988) 9 as ‘cases of door-knocking which are for various

reasons and at various stages broken off before completion'; he suggests that Menander may have wished 'to avoid the comic associations of the device’ in these two cases. But Smikrines did not have to make it explicit that he was planning to knock at the door,” and it may be worth asking why Menander has introduced the mention of knocking at all. We should not expect there to be one straightforward explanation, but perhaps the forestalling of the knocking just is a mildly comic effect in itself; or perhaps the fact that

Daos appears on his own initiative, and not in answer to Smikrines' knock, shows which of them will really be in control of events.

2. Aspis 491ff. is fragmentary, but we can say something about the effect of the scene. Kleostratos returning from abroad knocks at his uncle's door at 499, and his slave Daos shouts answers from inside. Kleostratos might have expected to find the door unlocked during the day; it is presumably locked as part of the pretence that his uncle

has died, and that is why Daos does not open it in response to his knock. There is a moment of anguish for Kleostratos when he learns (as he thinks) that his uncle has died (500-5), followed by a moment of delighted astonishment for Daos, who had believed Kleostratos

himself to be dead and now discovers that he is not. Kleostratos' return makes it unnecessary to pretend any longer that his uncle is dead, and Daos was doubtless quick to set his mind at rest. This is

one of those bitter-sweet scenes so characteristic of Menander: Daos had genuinely believed Kleostratos to be dead, and Kleostratos genuinely

(but briefly) believes

his uncle to have died; but the

spectators already know that neither is the case, and also that Daos is behind the pretence about the uncle. This adds irony to the

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR

79

spectators' reception of the expressions of grief, since they know that the truth must shortly come out, but it need not greatly dilute their sympathy with the characters. The reunion of Daos and Kleostratos

is an emotional highpoint ofthe piay, and it is all the more intense for having been preceded by Kleostratos' grief at the report of his uncle's death; without this, the emotional balance of the reunion would have been more one-sided, since only Daos had previously been grieving over an assumed death. It is the locked door (and Daos' refusal to

open it immediately) that makes this intensification possible. There is no artificiality in Kleostratos' having to knock (except inasmuch as Daos' entire plot is artificial), but the door-knocking leads to an important revelation, just as it does ultimately in Adelphoe when

Aeschinus learns that Micio knows the full truth and will allow him to marry Pamphila. 3. At Dysk. 266-8 Sostratos plans to knock at Knemon's door in order to talk to him. Were he to do so, the audience must expect the worst, since it has been well established by now how unapproachable

Knemon is. Perhaps their expectation has been further heightened by the (unfortunately fragmentary) dialogue at 247-9, where Daos says, perhaps in response to an instruction to knock at Knemon's door, ‘If he catches me approaching his door, he'll string me up at once!”. Fortunately for Sostratos, Gorgias is on stage and intervenes to stop him; Sostratos' ultimate success depends crucially on his failing to

make contact with Knemon at this point of the play.? But Menander uses the possibility of his knocking to create a moment of tension, and also to build up our expectations for the following act, where characters do knock on the door and meet with a predictably violent response. 4. Epitr. 1076-7. At 161-3 Smikrines was able simply to walk into his married daughter's house; at 1075-7 he finds it locked against him and has to knock to get it opened. His knock is answered by the slave Onesimos (*Who's that knocking on the door?’, 1078), who proceeds to mock Smikrines at some length before revealing to him that his daughter has given birth. Gomme-Sandbach (1973) note on 1075: *Normally a door was not bolted in the daytime ... Menander may not have expected anyone to speculate on the reasons for the door's being

bolted. The dramatic purpose is to allow the following scene to take place in sight of the audience; Smikrines would otherwise have walked into his daughter's house without knocking, just as he did at 163.' But Menander could easily have made Onesimos come out for

some other reason, if his aim had been simply to show the following

80

P. G. McC. BROWN

dialogue on stage. Rather, as Frost (1988) 78 notes, *The door

sequence begins the farcical discomfiture of the old man'. As in Adelphoe, the traditional comic motif of knocking at the door is the prelude to a scene of teasing; as in Adelphoe (cf. above on Aspis 491ff.), the teasing leads to a more serious revelation for its victim — in this case, Smikrines' discovery that he is a grandfather. In both cases, we may suspect, the only reason for the knocking is to create an

entertaining start to the scene that follows. (Admittedly, much of Epitrepontes is missing, and it is always possible that some explanation for the bolting of the door had been given earlier. But it will still be true that Menander has thereby created an opportunity to make Smikrines knock at the door at this point in the play.) 5. Misoum. 206-7 is closest to Ad. 632ff. in that the character who knocks withdraws immediately on noticing that someone is coming out of the house. Again we must ask how he knows that the door is not being opened in answer to his knock, and again the knocking is the prelude to an emotional scene, the scene of reunion between Demeas and his daughter Krateia, which starts in high-flown style.” The preceding lines are not preserved intact, but it seems that already at 188 Demeas was asking an old woman to knock at the door and she was refusing. Whatever the reason for this, the result is a build-up of nearly twenty lines towards the knock, and E.G. Turner was surely

right to remark that ‘(t]he scene is drawn out to heighten the tension’.?? These points are well discussed by Frost (1988) 83-4 (but see also above on Aspis 162-3). 6. At Perik. 184 the slave Doris announces her intention of knocking at the house next door, presumably to ask if her mistress

can move in there. She explains 'T'll knock at the door, since none of them is out of doors', perhaps implying a certain nervousness about her mission, and she continues ‘I’m sorry for any woman who sets up

house with a soldier: they're all thugs; you can't trust them an inch. Oh, madam, what mistreatment you're suffering! Boys!’ (185-8).?$ At 188 (*Boys!’) she calls to the slaves within to open the door, as is

usual.?’ Had she already knocked at 185 (after ‘since none of them is out of doors")? If so, she then commented aside while waiting and shouted out at 188 when her knock had not been answered.? But it is unusual for the knock not to be accompanied by a shout,” so perhaps her comments filled the gap between her deciding to knock and actually doing so. At 190 she says ‘Boy, please tell —’, perhaps an indication that her knock has been answered at that point, and there is then a gap in the

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR

81

text. Between 188 (*Boys!") and 190 (Boy, ..." there is a further aside.

I believe that Doris is the speaker here,” although Lamagna (1994) follows some others in giving the lines (68-70 in his numbering) to Sosias. Since the following scene is missing, we cannot say what the doorknocking contributed to its effect. But there does not seem to be anything artificial or comic about its use here.

7. At Perik. 372 Sosias plans to knock at Myrrhine's door and remonstrate with her but is interrupted before he can do so by Daos, who is already on stage. There ensues a lively argument between the two slaves, of a kind that could easily have followed from a knock at the door if Daos had happened to be indoors and not standing outside at the time?! Here the prevention of the knock (with the words ‘Are you crazy? What do you want? Where are you rushing off to?’) adds to the liveliness at the start of their encounter. VI.

Door-knocking in Dyskolos

Menander's most sustained use of door-knocking comes in Act III of Dyskolos, where first the slave Getas and then the cook Sikon knock at Knemon's door (cf. n.8) and ask to borrow a stewing-pot, so that

they can boil up the meat that is left over from their sacrifice at the shrine next door; but Knemon drives both away. This scene is far

more boisterous than those discussed above: Getas in particular spends six lines knocking at the door and calling for the slave boys he

imagines to be inside to come and answer (459-64); he has just - concluded that there is no one at home when he finally hears a rather alarming noise inside as Knemon runs to the door, bursts out of the

house ("What are you touching my door for? Tell me that, you miserable wretch!’, 466-7), seems on the point of biting Getas, and in fact threatens to eat him alive (468).

When the spectators see Getas knocking at the door, they already know more than he does about Knemon. They know that there are no male slaves in his household, that he hates all forms of human contact, and that he tends to react with violence or abuse if someone tries to make contact with him, or if he sees someone standing outside

his house. They also know (from lines 444-53) that he is particularly hostile to people who come to sacrifice in the shrine next door and

who turn their sacrifice to the gods into a feast for themselves. While Getas spends six lines knocking at the door, the audience are kept on tenterhooks wondering what can be in store for him; nor are they

82

P. G. McC. BROWN

disappointed when Knemon rushes out and threatens to eat him. When he has driven Getas away, Knemon utters a great threat

against anyone who dares to approach his door again, and he goes back indoors (482-6). No one was present to hear him, so obviously we now expect someone else to knock at his door, so that we can see his threat being carried out. Again we are not disappointed: this time it is Sikon who comes out of the shrine, abusing Getas for his lack of skill in asking for things, and boasting of his own expertise — with the inevitable result that we then see him failing every bit as ignominiously as Getas had. Sikon's confident boasting sets us up to see Knemon reacting even more violently than last time. With Getas it was the length of his knocking and shouting that kept us on tenterhooks; with Sikon it is the length of his boasting (some 12 lines (487-98) before he himself knocks at the door).

This scene comes exactly in the middle of the play, and it forms a major part of the presentation of Knemon. Furthermore, in Act V Getas and Sikon get their revenge on Knemon in a scene that explicitly echoes and refers back to it. By that stage he is crippled after an accident; one of them carries him out of his house, and they then take turns in knocking at his door, shouting to slaves they pretend to think are indoors, and asking to borrow an outrageous

and unrealistic string of items. Finally they force Knemon to join the sacrificial party in the shrine: the man who was introduced in the Prologue as a ‘hater of crowds’ (7; cf. 932) is forced to join the crowd

next door. That scene thus marks the climax of the play,*? and once again the motif of knocking at Knemon's door and asking to borrow

things is central to his presentation.” VII.

Door-knocking scenes in Plautus

In the case of Plautus, I must be more selective in the discussion of

details. He has seven scenes in which the text makes it explicit that a knock at the door is answered directly,?* and a further five in which

(with varying degrees of probability) a shout at the door may well have been accompanied by a knock.?5 There is also Curc. 75-95, where instead of knocking Phaedromus pours wine over the doorway to lure out the doorkeeper, and 147-57 where he sings an incantation to the door-bolts to get them to release his beloved.

In three scenes knocking is forestalled by the emergence of a character from the house;?® in five more something else happens to prevent it. Six further cases are similar to these, except that

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR

83

knocking is not explicitly mentioned.?* Also, at Miles 1250-9, as part of the deception of Pyrgopolynices, the possibility of knocking is discussed but rejected as unnecessary. It is thus clear that the Greek tradition of door-knocking scenes

was well known at Rome before the time of Terence.? Plautus also has seven scenes of a new kind, in which knocking does take place but the door is not answered; instead a character on stage intervenes. At

Most. 444-531 and 898-992 those indoors are under instructions not to answer, and at Miles 1296-1305 Palaestrio goes inside so soon

after the knock that we scarcely have time to remark on the failure of those inside to answer it. We cannot account for their failure in the other four cases.“ But, apart from this element of improbability,

these scenes can be regarded as similar to those in which knocking is forestalled by a character on stage.

Plautus often emphasises the violence with which the door has been assaulted," thus keeping alive a motif that can be traced back to Aristophanes, and sometimes personifies the door as needing protection from this violence.* For the most part, his door-knocking scenes are livelier than those of Menander." But, as in Menander and Terence, they often precede important scenes, and in some cases the

self-conscious stylisation of this is enhanced by the fact that the knocking (or proposal to knock) comes at the end of a set-piece entrance monologue in the mouth of a slave or parasite, sometimes

with explicit references to the spectators or to theatrical performances either in the monologue or in the following scene.” A similar sequence is found at Amph. 984-1034, which starts with

Mercury's parody of a “running slave" entry at 984-96 (with an explicit reference to the behaviour of slaves in comedies at 986-9), . after which Mercury tells us at 997-1008 that he plans to appear on the roof as the drunken Sosia and keep Amphitryo out of the house. Amphitryo at 1018 is surprised to find his door locked when he tries to enter his house during the day.* He knocks and shouts, expecting the door to be opened by a slave such as Sosia; to his astonishment, a figure appears on the roof of the house who looks like Sosia but is in fact Mercury in disguise ("Who's at the door?’, 1021). Mercury

pretends to be drunk and tells Amphitryo off for knocking so hard at the door. This and other rudeness is all part of the build-up to what must have been one of the comic highlights of the play, the scene (now almost entirely lost) in which Amphitryo finally met Jupiter on

stage and discovered that he had a double. As in Epitrepontes, the knocking (made necessary by the fact that the door is locked) is the

—

84

:

P.G.McC. BROWN

prelude to a scene of rudeness which is itself the prelude to an important revelation. In Epitrepontes (as in several other such

scenes)" the door is opened by a rude slave; here in Amphitryo we have instead a rude god,** pretending to be a slave, pretending to be drunk, and appearing on the roof.? We may note also the high-flown pepulissem (cf. Ad. 638) in fr. xi Lindsay, which seems to belong somewhere in the missing scenes that followed. The following Plautine scenes are also worth mentioning for their similarity to some discussed above. Scenes similar to Act III of Dyskolos are Merc. 130-4, Sti. 308-14

with their protracted knocking, and Truc. 253ff. with the brusque response of the title character to Astaphium's knock at the door, and

his threat at 268 to trample her underfoot. At Bacch. 1117-48 the aggressive knocking of the old man Nicobulus leads to a scene in which he and his friend Philoxenus are teased at some length.5! As in Act V of Epitrepontes, this teasing is the prelude to the ultimate resolution of the plot. Trin. 868ff. is another scene in which knocking precedes teasing (cf. 896 ludam hominem probe, 'T'll have some fun and games with him’). Knocking leads

directly to the reunion of Giddenis and Hanno at Poen. 1118-19; shouting (perhaps accompanied by knocking) leads directly to the meeting of Lesbonicus and his father at Trin. 1174-6. Finally, the knocking at Capt. 830-2 is the prelude to a long scene which culminates at 872-6 in the news that Hegio's son has returned;*? Hegio suspects at 877 that he is being teased (/udis me), just as Aeschinus suspects that Micio is still teasing him at Ad. 697 (obsecro, nunc ludis tu me?) when Micio tells him that he can marry Pamphila. VIII.

Conclusion

Terence was at the peak of his career when Adelphoe wasfirst put on, the leading comic playwright of his day. The year before, his Eunuchus had had a success unprecedented on the Roman stage. Now, Adelphoe was one of two plays by Terence commissioned for performance at the funeral games of L. Aemilius Paulus, one of Rome's leading statesmen. Eunuchus has often been seen as the most “Plautine” of his plays, the liveliest in its plot and in its importation of the stock characters of the soldier and parasite from Menander's Kolax. Terence also imported a lively scene into Adelphoe, Act II scene i, from Diphilus’ Synapothneskontes; and the endings of both plays are marked by strong comic effects, certainly different in detail

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR

85

from their Greek originals and perhaps also (but perhaps not) in spirit. R. Maltby has shown how Terence became more Plautine in his use of Greek loan-words as his career progressed (reaching a peak in Eunuchus), using them ‘to characterise the language of slaves and other male characters of low social standing’.°* It is consistent with this pattern of development that Terence's last play was his first to give prominence to the traditional motif of knocking at the door.5* How many more such scenes might he have written if he had lived longer?

᾿

ΝΟΤΕΒ I first met Ronald Martin twenty years ago, when he was putting the finishing touches to his commentary on Adelphoe. This note would have been better if Ihad been able to discuss it with him before publication. References to Menander use the line-numbers of the Oxford Classical Text (ed. F.H.

Sandbach, 2nd edn 1990), unless otherwise specified. The following works will be referred to more than once: Bader, B. (197 1). ‘The ψόφος of the House-Door in Greek New Comedy’ Antichthon Brothers, A.J. (1988). Terence, The Self-Tormentor. Warminster Brown,

P.G.McC.

(1990).

‘The

Bodmer

codex

of Menander

and the endings

Terence's Eunuchus and other Roman comedies’ in E. Handley and A.

of

Hurst

(edd.), Relire Ménandre, 37-61. Geneva

Dover, K. (1993). Aristophanes, Frogs. Oxford Frost, K.B. (1988). Exits and Entrances in Menander. Oxford

Gomme, A.W. and Sandbach, F.H. (1973). Menander, A Commentary. Oxford Lamagna, M. (1994). Menandro, La Fanciulla Tosata [= Periketromene]. Naples Lowe 1 CB. £1983). *Terentian originality in the “Phormio” and “Hecyra”’ Hermes Martin, R.H. (1976). Terence, Adelphoe. Cambridge Mooney, W.W. (1914). The house-door on the ancient stage. Diss. Baltimore Wallochny,

B.

(1992).

Streitszenen

in der griechischen

und römischen

Komödie.

übingen Wright, J. (1974). Dancing in Chains: the Stylistic Unity of the Comoedia Palliata. American Academy in Rome Zwierlein, O. (1992). Zur Kritik und Exegese des Plautus IV. Mainz 1

Mooney (1914) provides the fullest list of relevant material but has little to say about the effect of the scenes. There are brief surveys of scenes in Aristophanes in J.M. Bremer and E.W. Handley (edd.), Aristophane (Vandoeuvres-Gentve 1993) by T. Gelzer (p.64) and E.W. Handley (pp.113-14, including Dyskolos). Similar surveys alr in J. Martin, Ménandre, ? Atrabilaire (Paris 1961) 99, and J. Lanowski, in F. Zucker (ed.), Menanders Dyskolos als Zeugnis seiner Epoche (Berlin

1965)

171-2.

For

tragedy,

now

see

D.J.

Mastronarde,

Euripides,

Phoenissae (Cambridge 1994) 447-8. Knocking is explicitly referred to in tragedy only at Ae. Choeph. 653 and (pace O. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford 1977) 340-1) Eurip. 7.T. 1308 and Hypsipyle fr.1.i (p.25 Bond); but cf. n.8 below. 2

This traditional element has been somewhat

neglected in much of the most

influential scholarly writing about Dyskolos; I discuss that play briefly in section

P.G.McC. BROWN

VI. See Bader (1971), H. Petersmann, 'Philologische Untersuchungen zur antiken

Bühnentür' Wiener Studien N.F. 5 (1971) 91-109. Neither believes in knocking

from the inside, but Petersmann (unlike Bader) argues that doors on the stage di open outwards. καίτοι μὴ κόψαντά γε θύραν εἰς οἰκίαν ἀλλοτρίαν οὐ νομίζεται παρελθεῖν. Cf. Plut. Kimon 17.1. The same ef tmplied by Ar. Lys. 1065-70. I reproduce Martin's text (with minor changes of punctuation), except that I follow A.S. Gratwick, Terence, The Brothers (Warminster 1987) 172 at the beginning of 642 in not making ita a question. (Gratwick gives the whole of 638 to Micio, making him say ‘What business has he here?’ aside, with irony, because of the similar (and similarly ironic) expression in Micio's mouth at 642. But the irony is effective at 642 because Micio is addressing Aeschinus directly; Micio knows very well what brings Aeschinus to Pamphila’s house, and irony would be pointless in an aside.) : For a metrical analysis of 44. 610-17 see C. Questa, Numeri innumeri (Rome 1984) 399—415, revising his earlier views. Cf. Martin (1976) on 788, and H.D. Jocelyn's review of Martin in Proceedings of the African Classical Association 14 (1978) 38-9.

Mooney (1914) 19 makes the general point that in ancient drama ‘the calling may have been accompanied by knocking, even when the text says nothing of the latter’. In Men. Dysk. it is clear from lines 466, 476-8, 482 that Getas has knocked at 459-64, but the text does not make it explicit at that point; we can scarcely doubt that Sikon knocks at 498-9, though the text does not say so; in Act V, 899 gives us the clue to the action at 911-12. For Plautus, cf. n.35 below. But shouting into a house need not be accompanied by knocking in other circumstances, as at An. 579, 860, 871; Heaut. 743 (though Brothers (1988) suggests knocking here); Eun. 469; Ph. 152, 986; Hec. 719-20; and at about 25 places in Plautus. For Menander, see Frost (1988) 9-10, 56. S. Ireland, Terence, The Mother in Law (Warminster 1990) 150.

10

As in similar cases in Menander and Plautus, discussed below in sections V and VII, the mere mention of a plan to knock perhaps helps to alert us to the importance of the ensuing scene in the design of the play, but it is a passing mention. .

1

Cf. Syros’ instruction to his wife at 376-80.

12

So Frost (1988) 124. R. Kassel, Menandri Sicyonius (Berlin 1965) 26 makes Theron go into Stratophanes' house, but his failure to reappear when he does not

find Stratophanes there would be strange.

:

13

So Frost (1988) 62-3.

14

So C. Dedoussi, BICS 35 (1988) 80.

15

This is true even if we accept Getas' claim at 881 that he has been sent to look after Knemon, as we probably should: see Gomme-Sandbach (1973) on 881, arguing strongly against Handley's suggestion that Getas is making it up. For the intermediate position that Getas ‘neither tells lies nor the whole truth’, sec S. Dworacki, Eos 73 (1985) 62-3.

16

Perhaps this should be linked with J.C.B. Lowe's persuasive arguments at CQ 42 (1992) 170—3 that the immediately following lines have been added by Plautus.

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR

87

17

Cf. W. Stockert, T. Maccius Plautus, Aulularia (Stuttgart 1983) on 104 (though he concludes that Euclio's order to lock up the house cannot have been carried out). Menander is more careful at Dysk. 453-4, where Knemon has to call to Simiche to open the door which he had instructed her to lock at 427-9.

18

Cf. Men. 676 qur ante aedis astas?; Truc. 663-7.

19

Cf. Trabea 2ff. R: adueniens digito inpellam ianuam, / fores patebunt; de inprouiso Chrysis ubi me aspexerit,/ alacris obuiam mihi ueniet...

Cf. n.8 for cases where shouting alone is enough for this purpose.

BONS

At Dysk. 820 Sostratos would perhaps again (as at 266ff.) have made to knock on Knemon's door before being forestalled by Gorgias, but this is not explicit in the text; cf. the Plautine cases in n.38 below. All the passages listed above are discussed briefly by Frost (1988) 9, except Perik. 372-3, but I have come to feel that his distinction between ‘comic’ and ‘serious’ scenes does not do justice to the variety of effects that we find.

Cf. nn.21, 38. Cf. ZPE 94 (1992) 17-19.

"S0?

Cf. Gomme-Sandbach (1973) on 210-15.

BICS Suppl. 17 (1965) 12. 184-90: κόψω τὴν θύραν' οὐδεὶς γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐςτιν ἔξω. δυοτυχής, ἥτις στρατιώτην ἔλαβεν ἄνδρα. παράνομοι ἅπαντες, οὐδὲν πιοτόν. ᾧ κεκτημένη, ὡς ἄδικα πάρχεις. παΐδεο. εὐφρανθήσεται κλάουςαν αὐτὴν πυθόμενος viv: τοῦτο γὰρ ἐβούλετ᾽ αὐτός. παιδίον, κέλευέ μοι

185

190

Cf. Gomme-Sandbach (1973) ad loc. Cf. Dysk. 459-63 for a similar interlarding of shouts and comments. Cf. Frost (1988) 24 n.11. Cf. Frost (1988) 90 n.5. This is well discussed by Lamagna (1994), compares Asin. 381-5, Pseud. 604-6 (where 1296, Most. 445-6, Pseud. 1136-40 (where the Plautus where a character on stage intervenes below, nn.37, 40.

on v.183 in his numbering. He the knocking is prevented), Miles knocking takes place) as scenes in in similar circumstances. See also

32

Not everyone agrees; but I have argued for this view in Brown (1990) 42-3.

33

These scenes are discussed in more detail by Wallochny (1992) 37-40 (on Act V), 45-8 (on Act III), but without particular emphasis on the door-knocking itself (which is mentioned onn p-34). e also discusses some other scenes I discuss, e.g. pp.40-1 on Epitr. 1076ff. Amph. 1018-27; Bacch. 308-27; Truc. 253-8.

35

577-86,

1117-20; Poen.

1118-20; Rud. 413-14; Sti.

Aul. 350; Men. 673-5; Pseud. 1284-5; Trin. 1174-6; Truc. 663-8. (Cf. Mooney (1914) 19, and n.8 above.)

P.G. McC. BROWN

36

Men. 176-81 (where I think it most likely that the parasite does not knock); Most. 674-89; Poen. 728-42 (in a passage deleted as an interpolation by Zwierlein (1992) 344 n.751).

37

Amph. 449-62, Asin. 381-91; Cist. 637-52; Men. 987-1002; Pseud. 604-6 (cf. pea on Perik. 184-5; Pseudolus must surely prevent Harpax from knocking ere).

38

Three cases where a character emerges from the house: Cas. 162-3; Merc. 559-61; Trin. 400-1; three cases where the character sought is already on stage: Cas. 591-3; Epid. 437-49; Pseud. 960-80.

39

Cf. Wright (1974) 64-5 on Ennius Sc. 374 V?. No doubt such scenes were also characteristic of unscripted popular comedy, as suggested by E. Romagnoli, SIFC 13 (1905) 179; there are no strict dividing lines to be drawn between “popular” and “literary” comedy. Capt. 830-6; Merc. 130-5; Pseud. 1131-42; Trin. 868-79. (At Sti. 308-14 ae knocks; Gelasimus intervenes at 315; but Panegyris does finally answer at

41

.

Wright (1974) 64—5 refers to Bacch. 579—86; Rud. 414; Truc. 256. Cf. also Amph.

1021-7; Capt. 832; Merc. 130; Most. 453, 456, 939; Sti. 311, 326-7 (and Asin. 384,

where the 42

knocking does not actually take place).

Cf. Dover (1993) on Frogs 39. Sec Asin. 381-91; Most. 899-900; Pseud. 606; Sti. 329; and cf. E. Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin 1922) 105 nn.6, 7 [= Elementi plautini in Plauto (Florence 1960) 99 n.7, 100 n.1] and O. Weinreich, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien (Darmstadt 1968) 39, 209-33 on the personification of the door at Curc. 147-57, Sti. 312 and elsewhere. But note, in addition to Act ΠῚ of Dyskolos, P.Köln 203 fr. C col. I, which may be studied on pp. 256 and 267-9 of R. Nünlist, 'P.Mich.inv. 6950 (unpublizicrt), P.Kéin 203 und 243: Szenen aus Menanders Dis Exapaton" ZPE 99 (1993) 245-78. This is presumably from New Comedy, even if Nünlist's attribution to Dis Exapaton (the original of Bacchides) is rather daring. The liveliness of Plautus' scenes is of course well known: see e.g. G. Duckworth, The nature of Roman comedy (Princeton 1952) 117, 324.

45

Capt. 768-832 (a "running parasite" bringing important news, who compares himself with slaves in comedy at 778); Men. 89 (a slave boasting of his loyalty); Merc. 111-33 (a “running slave" bringing important news, with a reference to the spectators at 160); Sti. 274-314 (a "running slave" bringing important news).

Cf. above on Epitr. 1076-7, and Bader (1971) 45-6; also Ar. Lys. 1063-71. (Mercury did not say explicitly that he would lock the door, but clearly he has one so.) 47

Ar. Clouds 133 (cf. S.D. Olson, CQ 42 (1992) 310 n.25); Frogs 465-78 (cf. Dover (1993) 50-5); Plaut. Rud. 414; Truc. 256-314. Similar confrontations at Eur. Helen 437-82; Plato, Protag. 314D-E (cf. R. Brock, in E. Craik (ed.), Owis to Athens. Essays on Classical Subjects for Sir Kenneth Dover (Oxford 1990) 47). Cf. Hermes in Ar. Peace 180-233.

49

This scene is discussed by Wallochny (1992) 79-80. Note also the similarity of 259 sat mihi est tuae salutis. nil moror. non salveo to Dysk. 512-13.

AESCHINUS AT THE DOOR

89

51

But lines 1122-41 are deleted by Zwierlein (1992) 90-106.

$2

Cf. n.45. Lines 837-57 are deleted by O. Zwierlein, Zur Kritik und Exegese des Plautus 11] (Mainz 1991) 205 n.468.

53

Cf. Brown (1990).

54

‘The distribution of Greek loan-words in Terence’ CQ 35 (1985) 110-23, at p.123.

55

Contrast Menander: Dyskolos was one of his earliest plays.

PAPERS OF THE LEEDS INTERNATIONAL LATIN SEMINAR 8 (1995) 91-142 Published by Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd (Leeds 1995). Arca 33. ISBN 0-905205-8 9-8

HORACE’S FIRST ROMAN ODE (3.1) FRANCIS CAIRNS *On the Roman Odes mountains of literature have been piled.' So wrote Eduard Fraenkel in 1957.! In the interval the mountains have grown higher, with the highest piled over Odes 3.1 — unsurprisingly,

since it is the prologue to the Roman Odes and problematic both in content and in structure. Despite its mountain, however, Odes 3.1 still presents numerous

unresolved difficulties. That, if anything,

may justify adding the present paper to the pile. Ι Odi profanum uulgus et arceo. fauete linguis: carmina non prius audita Musarum sacerdos

uirginibus puerisque canto. 2 regum timendorum in proprios greges, reges in ipsos imperium est Iouis, clari Giganteo triumpho, cuncta supercilio mouentis.

5

3 est ut uiro uir latius ordinet arbusta sulcis, hic generosior

descendat in campum petitor, moribus hic meliorque fama

10

4 contendat, illi turba clientium

sit maior: aequa lege Necessitas sortitur insignis et imos,

omne capax mouet urna nomen.

15

5 destrictus ensis cui super impia ceruice pendet, non Siculae dapes dulcem elaborabunt saporem, non auium citharaeque cantus

20 91

92

FRANCIS CAIRNS

6 somnum reducent: somnus agrestium lenis uirorum non humilis domos fastidit umbrosamque ripam, non Zephyris agitata tempe. 7 desiderantem tumultuosum nec saeuus impetus

quod satis est neque sollicitat mare Arcturi cadentis aut orientis Haedi,

25

8 non uerberatae grandine uineae fundusque mendax, arbore nunc aquas

30

culpante, nunc torrentia agros sidera, nunc hiemes iniquas.

9 contracta pisces aequora sentiunt iactis in altum molibus: huc frequens caementa demittit redemptor cum famulis dominusque terrae

35

10 fastidiosus; sed Timor et Minae scandunt eodem quo dominus, neque decedit aerata triremi et . post equitem sedet atra Cura.

40

dd quodsi dolentem nec Phrygius lapis nec purpurarum sidere clarior delenit usus nec Falerna uitis Achaemeniumque costum,

12 cur inuidendis postibus et nouo

45

sublime ritu moliar atrium? cur ualle permutem Sabina diuitias operosiores?

1.

The first stanza: Greek ethos and Latin logic

Stanza 1 is now generally? regarded as prefacing not just Odes 3.1 but all the Roman Odes. Commentators? note the influence of Greek

mystery formulae such as ἑκὰς ἑκὰς ὅστις ἀλιτρός (‘be off, be off anyone who is unpurified’), εὐφημεῖτε (‘keep silence’), and q0£yEoyan olg θέμις ἐστί (‘I shall speak to those to whom it is lawful’), and the exclusion of the βέβηλοι (‘uninitiated’) from the ritual; they

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

93

may go so far as to speak of stanza | asa κήρυγμα μυστικόν (‘mystic

proclamation").* But equally significant antecedents from hellenistic and earlier Greek programmatic poetry (on which see section 6) receive much less attention, while certain further linguistic echoes of Greek are not mentioned at all in commentaries. Among the last are arceo at the end of line 1, which surely recalled its Greek (near)-

homophone? ἀρκέω of identical meaning, and Odi at the beginning of line 1, which may have brought to mind Greek ᾧδή (carmen, *ode"), especially in view of the simultaneous presence of its Latin

“translation” carmina in line 2.5 The presence of these Greek-Latin (near)-homophones can hardly be a coincidence. The incipit of an ancient poetry book was always a

highly significant location; and such allusiveness between the two languages in incipits can easily be paralleled in Augustan poetry, e.g. © in Arma at Aeneid 1.1 or in Ibis at Horace Epode 1.1." Additionally, from around 70 B.C. onwards various learned Greeks had been

propagating in Italy the theory that Latin was a form of.Greek, closest to the Aeolic dialect.* The attractions of such "comparative philology" for hellenised Roman poetae docti and their readers, as for their Greek instructors, are obvious.? Augustan poets can show their awareness of this theorising by employing bilingual (near)-

homophones with different meanings, such as Odi,'? or by giving Latin words the meanings of their Greek (near)-homophones, e.g.

antrum and ferae at Propertius 1.1.11 and 1.1.12 respectively.'' The employment by Horace of a word such as arceo with identical senses in Greek and Latin alludes to the same theorising. Bilingual (near)homophones of identical meaning are in general infrequent and many of them are everyday and unremarkable terms to do with

family relationships and livestock. Varro at De Lingua Latina 6.96 assembles

some

less common

alleged examples;

but arceo is not

among them. Whether Horace himself recognised arceo as a further such (near)-homophone or found it in another etymological text, he

may have felt some satisfaction at his learned inuentio (‘discovery’). On the whole Augustan poets who use bilingual (near)-homophones in the ways discussed above seem to have adhered to the theory that Latin was a Greek dialect and to be offering proofs" of it, as Horace

apparently does here.'? Might there be a precise reference in Horace's evocation of ᾧδή through Odi at the beginning of line 1 and in his use of the bilingual (near)-homophone dépxéw/arceo at its end? One obvióus suspicion is

that Horace is rendering or alluding to a lost Greck lyric original in

94

FRANCIS CAIRNS

his typical “‘motto” fashion. Some comfort for this notion comes

from the invocation of ἀοιδά at Pindar Nemean 5.2 and the mention of ‘song’ near the beginning of a number of other early Greek lyrics." . The use of ἀρκέω by Pindar and Simonides is again of interest.'4 Nothing here is decisive; but it is at least encouraging. The first stanza is, then, intensely hellenising, combining Greek

cultic echoes, linguistic plays on Greek, more of which will be brought forward in sections 2 and 3, and the Callimachean and earlier Greek programmatic reminiscences which will be discussed in section 6. But the thought-pattern of stanza 1 does not emerge from Horace's hellenism; and indeed the stanza might at first seem unified

conceptually only by the appropriateness of its commands and statements to its hierophantic speaker, Horace, priest of the Muses. ‘However, a firm internal logic is present, and, paradoxically in view of the stanza's heavy Greek content, it is Latin-based. It relies on ancient Latin "etymology" (ie. often pseudo-etymology), now increasingly recognised as an important ingredient of professional Latin poetry (as Greek “etymology” is of professional Greek

poetry). odium was equated by its ancient etymologist with oris repudium, and Varro De Lingua Latina 6.54 derived profanus from fari; cf. Maltby (1991) s.vv. Thus both Odi and the -fanus element of profanus are linked with ‘speaking’. Varro loc. cit. further interpreted the pro- of profanum as ante: profanum, quod est ante fanum coniunctum fano. Hence Horace may well be implying, on the basis of

Varro's definition, that the uulgus is standing 'infront of' the temple. Under this more vivid scenario Horace is not simply dismissing the uulgus in the abstract, but, as priest of the Muses, he faces the uulgus

as they stand before the shrine of the Muses and keeps them away from it. Again, Varro's derivations of profanum from pro — ante and fari (to speak) would create an antonymic relationship between profanum (‘speaking in front of’) and fauete linguis (‘keep silent"). But there is an even more interesting etymological possibility. Varro's understanding of pro as ante is philologically incorrect: Wagenvoort, who was not concerned with this passage of Odes 3.1, argued (following Wackernagel) that the pro- element in such Latin words means ‘away with’ (German *weg")." Horace could perfectly well have known this: as Wagenvoort pointed out, Festus p.256 L

interpreted the pro- in profundus correctly: profundum dicitur id quod altum est ac fundum longe habet — cf. also Maltby (1991) s.v. profanus, citing Charisius' definition of profanus: porro a fano positus. This alternative (and presumably non-Varronian) tradition which

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN

ODE

95

regarded pro- as ‘away with’ already surfaces in Aulus Gellius in a passage referring directly to Odes 3.1.1-4 which links profestus with profanus and expands profanum as a ludo musico diuersum:'* Atque etiam, quo sit quorundam male doctorum hominum scaeuitas et inuidentia irritatior, mutuabor ex Aristophanae choro anapaesta pauca et quam ille homo festiuissimus fabulae suae spectandae legem dedit, eandem ego commentariis his legendis dabo, ut ea ne attingat neue adeat profestum et profanum uulgus a ludo musico diuersum. Versus legis datae hi sunt: εὐφημεῖν χρὴ κἀξίστασθαι τοῖς ἡμετέροισι χοροῖσιν, ὅστις ἄπειρος τοιῶνδε λόγων fj γνώμῃ μὴ καθαρεύει fj γενναίων ὄργια Μουσῶν μήτ᾽ εἶδεν μήτ᾽ ἐχόρευσεν τούτοις αὐδῶ, καὖθις ἀπαυδῶ καὖθις τὸ τρίτον μάλ᾽ ἀπαυδῶ ἐξίστασθαι μύσταισι χοροῖς" ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἀνεγείρετε μολπὴν καὶ παννυχίδας τὰς ἡμετέρας, al τῇδε πρέπουσιν ἑορτῇ. (All must be silent and give place to our choruses All unversed in these utterances or impure in spirit Or who have neither known nor danced the mysteries of the noble Muses ... To them I say, and again I say, and I say again for the third

time Give way to the choruses of mystics! And you, raise your song, Your night-long celebrations that befit this feast.) Noctes Atticae praef. 20

Here Gellius is applying to his own work lines from the beginning and end of a run of anapaests from Aristophanes' Frogs (354—6, 369-71). In them Aristophanes had described his Frogs as *mysteries of the Muses’ (ὄργια Μουσῶν, 356) and ‘mystic choruses’ (μύσταισι

χοροῖς, 370); those who are ignorant, impure, and uninitiated in drama were told to be silent dramatic chorus was told performance. When Gellius audience, he alludes to Odes

and give way to ‘our choruses’, while the (or told itself?) to get on with the turns to his own Attic Nights and their 3.1; his words ut ea ne attingat neue adeat

profestum et profanum uulgus a ludo musico diuersum, along with his quotation from Aristophanes, show that he had in mind, and was

interpreting, not just the first line of Odes 3.1 but — and this will emerge more clearly below — the entire first stanza and setting of

Odes 3.1. If, like Gellius, Horace knew the correct sense of pro- in profanum but still wanted -fanum to derive from fari, he will have seen profanum (‘away with speech'?) as a virtual synonym of fauete linguis. It should be emphasised, of course, that Horace probably had

96

FRANCIS CAIRNS

several etymologies of profanus in mind, in line with normal etymological practice in antiquity, when different, and even contradictory, derivations of the same word could be regarded as simultaneously true, and as revealing divergent aspects of the word's meaning. Poets in particular seem to have exploited this attitude in —

order to transform such problematic etymologies into a rich source of semantic possibilities.'? So the entire etymological complex surrounding profanus may be in play: the uulgus is barred physically by Horace from the fanum before which it stands because it is profanum, and it must, again because it is profanum, remain silent. Pseudo-Acron ad loc. declares: profani dicebantur sacris non initiati, qui fanum intrare non poterant. 'This scholion, which again implies a correct understanding of pro-, makes profanum ('excluded from the shrine’) a reinforcement of arceo; and it confirms that at least one

ancient reader was prepared to see in stanza 1 a catholic approach to etymology on Horace's part.

The

etymologies

of profanum,

then, offer a conceptual sub-

structure for the first two lines. Horace goes on to describe himself in line 3 as Musarum sacerdos. The commentators do not stress the significant fact that Horace is not claiming here to be a uates, despite

the popularity of that role among Augustan poets, Horace included.” His opting for sacerdos is all the more manifestly deliberate because uateshasa Varronian etymology which Horace could have exploited, but did not: antiquos poetas uates appellabant a uersibus uiendis (Varro De Lingua Latina 7.36). Horace's choice, sacerdos, recalls, of

course, the ‘Priest of the Muses’ of the Alexandrian Museum, as well as echoing parallel claims by hellenistic and earlier Greek poets (cf. section 6). But Isidore Origines 7.12.17 may reveal an additional important reason why Horace selected sacerdos, not uates: sacerdos ... nomen habet compositum ex Graeco et Latino, quasi sacrum dans. If

this etymology — i.e. Latin sacerdos derives from Latin sacer- and Greek -5wg — goes back to the classical period, then sacerdos would sum up what Horace is doing in stanza 1 by encapsulating Horace's

blending of Greek and Roman language and culture. For the pattern of referring to Greek words begun by Horace in Odi and arceo would continue in the -δως of sacerdos, and likewise the sacer- of sacerdos would highlight the Latin etymologies which underpin the logic of the stanza. Finally, if the curious derivation of Greek αὐδή (‘voice’, ‘sound’, ‘song’) from Latin audire (ab auditu)?! is not a late chimaera,

then audita (3) would reinforce this pattern.

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN

ODE

97

2. Genre(s)" The function of the last clause of stanza 1 — from carmina to canto — is to explain why Horace is barring the uulgus and enjoining them to

silence: in his capacity as 'Priest of the Muses' heis about to initiate a sacred rite. As in Propertius 4.6,? the sacred rite is the poetic performance itself — an equivalence eased by the fact that ancient rituals often involved sung or chanted metrical utterances, so that Horace's carmina are doubly appropriate to his role as priest-poet. Horace's

status as sacerdos, the fanum

element

in profanum,

the

presence of pure boys and girls,?? and the sacral context and ritual injunctions of stanza 1 all combine to make us anticipate that Horace's carmina (including Odes 3.1) will be hymnic.^^ But as a whole Odes 3.1 seems not to fall immediately into the category “hymn”, It certainly treats of various “gods” (Jupiter, the common deified personification Necessitas, and the much rarer Timor, Minae and Cura, on which see below); and stanza 2 meditates on Jupiter's

control of the universe, while in stanza 4 Necessitas arbitrates human destiny, and everywhere in the ode men's ambitions are subject to

higher forces. But Odes 3.1 contains no prayers or intercessions and it

lacks standard hymnische Stil-Elemente. However these deficiencies do not in themselves debar Odes 3.1 from classification as a hymn.?? Among the hymn-types described in the first treatise attributed to Menander Rhetor?$ *euktic hymns” by definition contain prayers, and prayers are also found in some of Menander's ‘mixed hymns’; but the other types of hymn described by him do not necessarily

involve prayers. As for hymnische Stil-Elemente, many of these are closely associated with prayer; hence, if a hymn lacks prayer, it may lack them too (see also below). On the positive side twoof Menander's hymn types?’ help towards classifying Odes 3.1 as a hymn and also offer some unexpected new

insights into it. The first is Menander's 'scientific hymns' (φυσικοὶ ὕμνοι, 333.12-14; 336.25-337.32), which, according to his general initial definition, ‘expound the nature of Apollo or Zeus’ (τίς ἡ τοῦ . Ἀπόλλωνος φύσις, τίς ἡ τοῦ Διός, παρατιθέμενοι, 333.13-14). In Menander's more detailed subsequent account of scientific hymns, it becomes clear that this amounts to identifying a god with some

natural element. The examples given are the identification of Apollo with the sun, of Hera with air, and of Zeus with fire (337.1—4). Plato's

designation in Phaedrus of Eros as a ‘passion of the soul’ (πάθος ... τῆς ψυχῆς) is also mentioned by Menander as another example

98

FRANCIS CAIRNS

(337.7-9). This approach, and Menander's exemplifications of it,

seem at first to proceed on a narrower front than his initial definition. But

when

Menander

inaccurately

claims

that

in

Critias

Plato

. described his Timaeus asa ‘hymn to the universe’ (ὕμνος τοῦ Παντός, 337.22-4), he may be returning to a broader view of scientific hymns. _ Within scientific hymns Menander admits of different degrees of elaboration

(337.9-13)

and

overtness

(337.14-17);

indeed

some

scientific hymns are said to ‘proceed by enigmas' (κατ᾽ αἰνίγματα, 337.14-15). Again, Menander implies that some scientific hymns are

instructive (διδασκαλικοί, 337.21). Apart from some points of contact between these remarks and Odes 3.1 (especially enigma and instruction), various firm statements of Menander about scientific hymns make a rapprochement between the ode and this class of hymn even more attractive. Menander insists that scientific hymns are stylistically elevated: ‘their style almost

approaches the dithyramb; there is little difference; for man cannot speak on more august topics’

(Ἑρμηνεία δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὸν διθύραμβον

ἀνελθεῖν’ μικρὸν «δὴ; διαφέρει" οὐγάρ ἐστιν ὑπὲρ ὧν σεμνοτέρων «ἂν» ἄνθρωπος φθέγξαιτο, 337.30--2);25 this is an accurate characterisation of the style of much of Odes 3.1. Equally interesting in view

of the lack of prayer and prayer formulae in Odes 3.1 is another of Menander's assertions: ‘In these hymns there is no need of prayer at

all' (εὐχῆς δὲ οὐδέν τι πάνυ χρὴ ἐπὶ τούτων, 337.25-6). Finally,

Menander writes of scientific hymns: ἐπιτηρεῖν δὲ χρὴ kal μὴ εἰς τὸν πολὺν ὄχλον καὶ δῆμον ἐκφέρειν τοὺς τοιούτους ὕμνους" ἀπιθανώτεροι γὰρ καὶ καταγελαστικῴώτεροι τοῖς πολλοῖς φαίνονται. (You must watch out and not make such hymns public before the great multitude of common people; for to the masses they seem rather implausible and laughable.)

The

prohibition

of the

uulgus

in

Odes

3.1.1

is already

well-

understood as multi-dimensional;? here is yet another dimension.

A sceptic might, however, continue to challenge the notion of regarding Odes 3.1 as (at least in part) a Menandrian scientific hymn. He might concede that the concentration of stanza 2 on Jupiter is reminiscent of part of Menander's initial general definition — i.e. a scientific hymn ‘expounds the nature of ... Zeus’ (τίς ἡ τοῦ Διός «φύσις», 333.14); but he might then object that Odes 3.1 does not

conform with Menander's subsequent account of the scientific hymn since it fails to identify Jupiter with fire or with any other physical element. However, as was noted, this subsequent account broadens

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN

ODE

99

when Menander introduces the notion of Timaeus as a ‘hymn to the universe’; and in some ways Odes 3.1 too begins to approximate to a ὕμνος τοῦ IIavtóc, with its survey of the universe ranging from the sway of Jupiter, victor of the Gigantomachy, and of earthly kings (stanza 2) to the diverse ambitions and life-styles of men throughout the Roman world (stanzas 3-10) — themes continued in the other five Roman Odes. Again, as will emerge more clearly in section 5, Odes 3.1 implicitly equates Jupiter and Necessitas — an equation

already explicit

by Horace’s

day

in orthodox

Stoicism.?? This

equation at once brings Odes 3.1 into closer conformity with Menander's definitions of scientific hymns; and it also hints at a second, more elusive, possible identification — of Jupiter with the

Stoic ‘world-soul’, unfolds in the ode.

As a

permeating

and

informing

the world

which

scientific hymn Odes 3.1 can be compared usefully with

Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus = 54] Long-Sedley (1987). There Cleanthes ‘expounds the nature of ... Zeus’ in cosmic fashion before moving on to men's wickedness: ὧδε yap εἰς ἕν πάντα συνήρμοκας ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν ὦσθ᾽ ἕνα γίγνεσθαι πάντων λόγον αἰὲν ἑόντα᾽ ὃν φεύγοντες ἐῶσιν ὅσοι θνητῶν κακοί εἰσιν, δύσμοροι, οἵ t ἀγαθῶν μὲν ἀεὶ κτῆσιν ποθέοντες οὔτ᾽ ἐσορῶσι θεοῦ κοινὸν νόμον οὔτε κλύουσιν, ᾧ κεν πειθόμενοι σὺν νῷ βίον ἐσθλὸν ἔχοιεν" αὐτοὶ δ᾽ αὖθ᾽ ὁρμῶσιν ἄνοι κακὸν ἄλλος én’ ἄλλο, oi μὲν ὑπὲρ δόξης σπουδὴν δυσέριστον ἔχοντες, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ κερδοσύνας τετραμμένοι οὐδενὶ κόσμῳ, ἄλλοι δ᾽ εἰς ἄνεσιν καὶ σώματος ἡδέα ἔργα Lon > én’ ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἄλλα φέρονται, σπεύδοντες μάλα πάμπαν ἐναντία τῶνδε γενέσθαι.

20

25

30

(For you have so harmonised into a single whole all things good and bad that of all there is created a single everlasting reason. It is shunned and neglected by the bad among mortal men, the wretched, who ever yearn for the possession of good things yet neither see nor hear god's universal law, by obeying which with intelligence they could lead a good life. Instead, devoid of intelligence, they rush into this evil or that, some in their divisive quest for fame, others with an unbridled

bent for acquisition, others for idleness and the pleasurable acts of the body ... «But all that they achieve is evils,> despite rushing now for this now for that in eager quest of the opposite.) (Translation of Long-Sedley (1987) 11.327, adapted)

Interestingly in view of the triple Horatian structure of wickedness which will later emerge in Odes 3.1 (section 4 iii), Cleanthes too

adopts a tripartite division. His three classes of wicked men (27-9) do

100

FRANCIS CAIRNS

not correspond with those of Horace; but Cleanthes" earlier hint at line 23 that greed underlies all wrongdoing is close to Horace's

position (below, section 4 iii). Other overlaps appear in Cleanthes' assertion (29f. —

recoverable

despite the lacuna in 30) that evil-

doers, far from achieving their goals, achieve only evil for themselves, and also in the association established later in the Hymn to Zeus at

line 35 between Zeus and justice (below, section 4 iii). One marked difference between the Hymn to Zeus and Odes 3.1 is that Cleanthes invokes Zeus in second person Du-Stil throughout and in the process introduces many standard hymnic style-elements. But the absence of

Du-Stil from

Odes 3.1 is as unproblematic as the lack of such

elements (see above): elsewhere I have discussed the exclusive use in hymns of third-person Er-Stil, noting that it is exemplified in the

hymn to Zeus at Aeschylus Agamemnon 160-83 and also in Horace Odes 1.21, a choric hymn to Apollo, Diana and Latona.?!

As regards the “deities” other than Jupiter who appear in Odes 3.1, Necessitas, as an established deified abstraction, requires no justification or explanation. But what of Timor, Minae and Cura? Here a second Menandrian hymn category comes into its own — *fictitious hymns' (πεπλασμένοι ὕμνοι, 333.21-4, 340.31-342.20). In

fictitious hymns writers either invent powers or relationships for known, but not major, gods or they personify abstractions as deities. Menander's examples of the latter procedure include personifications of ‘Terror and Fear’ (341.13-14) — cf. Horace’s Timor. Menander has a number of warnings for would-be composers of fictitious hymns: they should inter alia avoid excessive length (342.5-10), found fictions on truth (341.28-9) and preserve consistency (341.30342.2). With the inevitable exception of Necessitas, Horace's personifications in Odes 3.1 form a duly consistent group. Odes 3.1 will then be, in the technical terminology of Menander, a ‘mixed ’ (333.7-8, cf. 343.27-30). Curiously Menander classed Socrates' speech in the Symposium as in effect a mixed hymn with the same ingredients, ‘coming nearest to the scientific type, but through fiction, since he invents the figures of Means and Poverty' (ἃ δ᾽ αὖ

Σωκράτης, αὐτὸ τοῦτο κατὰ πλάσιν (πλάττει yàp Πενίας), ἐγγυτάτω τοῦ φυσιολογικοῦ, 334.14--16).

Πόρους

kai

So far the rapprochement made between Odes 3.1 and Menander's two classes of hymn has permitted the ode to be classified as a hymn and so has integrated it with its own sacral context of stanza 1; it

has also illuminated some of the ode's content. In section 3 this

classification will enable the question who is or are the speaker(s)

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

101

of Odes 3.1 to be raised and an answer to be proposed. 3.

Speaker(s)

Raising the topic of hymnic speakers involves entering an area of great scholarly contention. Rather than repeat arguments assembled elsewhere at length, I refer to Cairns (1984) and (1992) for discussions

and bibliography and simply restate positions arrived at there in the hope that the resultant brevity may excuse dogmatism. Thus it will be assumed that, like all lyric hymns of a public character, Odes 3.1 has

as its speaker (historically or/and

in the poet's imagination) a

chorus, but one functioning as Dornseiff, Bundy, Slater and others

have specified, i.e. as a conglomerate "*Eyó-figure" (‘I-figure’), a blend of poet, chorus, chorus-leader, and Muse," from which the

poet's own voice emerges most frequently at the beginning and end of a poem. How, then, can Odes 3.1 be read as a public hymn ‘performed’ by such an £yó-figure chorus? The first requirement is careful attention to stanza 1. As noted, Horace opens the ode as priest-poet, bars the uulgus, and then announces his sacred rite (i.e. the ode itself) in

uirginibus puerisque canto. This last declaration raises various related questions: what becomes of those others who are addressed in lines 1-2? Can Horace's new?) carmina really be for the ears of uirgines and

pueri alone? And if not, what broader audience was there for the Roman Odes? At first sight it might seem that Horace's barring of the uulgus, together with the phrase uirginibus puerisque canto taken literally, would designate the latter as his sole audience; and they are

certainly part of his audience, as is confirmed by the first lines of Odes 3.2: Angustam

amice pauperiem pati/ robustus acri militia puer/

condiscat (1-3). Thus those commentators’* who explain uirginibus puerisque canto by noting that young people are more open to moral teaching, that they are the future of Rome, and that they are innocent

of the sins of the past are correct. But much of the moral instruction given by Horace in the Roman Odes is neither appropriate for nor adapted to a congregation consisting exclusively of young persons;

rather it demands as its audience the populus Romanus.» That the Roman people are indeed the audience of the Roman Odes is not something immediately obvious to a modern reader. But it emerges from stanza 1, and it does so more easily in the light of Aristophanes' lines quoted above (section 1). Horace first bars the profanum uulgus and then enjoins silence; Aristophanes first called

102

FRANCIS CAIRNS

for silence and then told the ‘uninitiated’ and ‘impure’ to give way. In both cases the writers tacitly assume that among those hearing their words will be many (or most) who do not class themselves as

profanum uulgus, uninitiated, and impure and who will, therefore remain as a congregation during the rite. Horace, therefore, is not imagining his rite as being performed with no audience apart from the boys and girls; rather Horace's audience consists of those left after the profanum uulgus has been excluded, i.e. the better elements of the populus Romanus. Why, then, it might be asked, are the boys

and girls mentioned specifically? Perhaps with such a query in mind Plessis (1924) on lines 1-4 declared: ‘on doit croire que le tour Virginibus puerisque lui a été inspiré par la pensée des choeurs de jeunes gens et de jeunes filles qui figuraient dans les cérémonies du

culte. They were presumably pointed in this direction by the Horatian MSS, a majority of which head Odes 3.1 with ad chorum(os) uirginum et puerorum. They will also have known that, from the early seventeenth century on, some commentators” had interpreted this

heading to mean that in Odes 3.1 Horace is teaching the Roman Odes to a choir of uirgines puerique who would perform them on a subsequent occasion. This interpretation is seemingly the one which Orelli (1843) ad loc. attacks, and it disappeared from subsequent commentaries.*” In fact, neither Plessis nor the older commentators hit the mark precisely. But they point the way to a correct understanding of uirginibus puerisque canto. j A simple question illuminates that path: why did Horace write

uirginibus puerisque and not puellis puerisque? It goes without saying that metrical considerations are not the explanation. Nor is it the case that puella in Horace without qualification cannot imply an innocent young girl: in a not dissimilar context, Carmen Saeculare 34—6

supplices audi pueros, Apollo;/ siderum regina bicornis, audi,/ Luna, puellas picks up the earlier uirgines lectas puerosque castos (6). A better approach is to extrapolate from Horace's strong tendency to Greek linguistic allusion in stanza 1: in these terms puella would have suggested Greek κόρη, whereas uirgo brings to mind παρθένος, as puer similarly recalls παῖς. Might it be, then, that in uirginibus

puerisque Horace is alluding to the so-called “partheneia” and “paidika” of early Greek lyric, pieces sung by choirs of girls and boys respectively? Little is known about paidika.** This is perhaps unsurprising: female choirs seem to have been more frequent than

male choirs,’ so that paidika may have taken their ethos from partheneia; and, in any case, choirs were fairly often of mixed sex.

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

103

But a number of theoretical texts about partheneia have survived. They, along with those fragments identified by ancient and modern scholarship as parthenaic, have been studied extensively by Calame

(1977) esp. 11.147-77;*! and they throw light on uirginibus puerisque canto. A scholion to Aristophanes Birds 919 White proffers the following “information”:* ἀντὶ τοῦ *& al παρθένοι ἤδον᾽ ... προπερισπωμένως δὲ τὸ ὄνομα ‘td

παρθενεῖα᾽" ἔστι δὲ τὰ εἰς παρθένους ἀδόμενα.

Partheneia are said here to be either songs sung by maidens (8 αἱ παρθένοι ἦδον) or songs sung to (i.e in honour of) maidens (τὰ εἰς παρθένους ἀδόμενα). The scholion clearly refers to a controversy

about how to define partheneion. Subsequently Proclus Chrestomathia 68 Severyns offered a third definition possibly attempting to reconcile the first two: τὰ δὲ λεγόμενα παρθένια χοροῖς παρθένων ἐνεγράφετο, which seems to mean ‘partheneia are written for choirs

of maidens' — although ἐνεγράφετο is an odd way of expressing this and may be corrupt.

Horace was a “learned” poet influenced by the Callimachean tradition, to which he alludes in this same stanza (cf. section 6); and,

on the reasonable presumption (cf. n.42) that the controversy about

the definition of partheneion is hellenistic in origin, it was precisely the sort of topic to attract a Roman poeta doctus of the first century B.C. I suggest, then, that in uirginibus puerisque canto Horace is glancing at the problem of definition; he is thinking in the same terms as the Aristophanes scholion and he exploits them for paradoxical

effect. Horace says that he is singing to the girls and boys, which of course he is, since his individual voice emerges at this point from the choric Eyó-figure; but he is also designating the girls and boys as the chorus which sings Odes 3.1, and indeed all the Roman Odes.*? This could be another reason why Horace enjoins silence on the profanum uulgus but not on the girls and boys! Horace may also be implying that this ode is a partheneion (see below).

To clarify beyond doubt the interpretation being proposed: the girls and boys are the chorus — not a chorus being trained to sing Odes 3.1 and the other Roman Odes in the future, but the chorus

imagined as singing Odes 3.1 now, i.e. on the very occasion dramatically evoked by the ode. Might there also have been a real premiére when

Odes 3.1 (and the other Roman Odes?) were first

performed in public by a mixed choir of girls and boys? There is no evidence for such a performance, but it is not an impossibility. A choir of 27 boys and 27 girls later performed Horace's Carmen

104

FRANCIS CAIRNS

Saeculare publicly in Rome on the Palatine and on the Capitol in 17

B.C. at the time of the Saecular Games.“ On the other hand the Carmen Saeculare is a cult-hymn and Odes 3.1 is not. Various further, somewhat technical implications of identifying the chorus as the boys and girls of line 4 can be mentioned briefly: to

begin with, just as Horace's voice emerges from the &y&-figure in stanza 1, so Horace, not unexpectedly, once more speaks propria persona in the final two stanzas (41-8). Again, Odes 3.1 can be said to

exemplify

choric self-reference in the sense that when

Horace,

speaking through the chorus, says uirginibus puerisque canto, the

chorus refers to itself. Yet again, the commentators' stress on the moral innocence of the girls and boys becomes even more relevant now that they have been identified as the performing chorus: they are innocent “performers”, as well as hearers, of the Roman Odes. Finally, since the girls and boys are 'performing' the ode, the implication of lines 1-2, i.e. that there is a also wider audience, is

strengthened, since such a performance intrinsically implies such an audience. The hypothesis that Odes 3.1 exemplifies these choric conventions first found in early Greek lyric should cause no surprise. Choric

performances continued to take place throughout antiquity; indeed the unimpeachable epigraphic evidence for the performance of Horace's Carmen Saeculare by a choir who refer to themselves as uirgines lectas puerosque castos (5) has already been noted (above and n.44). Such performances meant that the conventions of choric lyric

remained in vigour. Hence, even where particular pieces may not have been performed — as many scholars judge Callimachus" Hymns to have been purely literary — they may nevertheless incorporate

those conventions.‘ Horace's awareness of choric conventions can be assured in various ways. Being a cult hymn, the Carmen Saeculare

suppresses the mention and presence of Horace himself and so is of limited value in showing Horace's understanding of the choric ἐγώfigure and its uses. However, its non-cultic doublet, Odes 4.6,*' fills

the gap. In it Horace again specifies that there is a mixed chorus of girls and boys — uirginum primae puerique claris/ patribus orti (31-2)

— but his own voice begins to be heard at line 29-30. Then he addresses the girls and boys at lines 31ff., gives them instructions about the performance of this same ode (cf. esp. Lesbium seruate pedem, 35). At the end of Odes 4.6 Horace once more emerges in his persona as poet (43-4), introducing his own name into a sphragis involving choric self-reference.* Odes 1.21, yet another Horatian

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

105

choric hymn sung by boys and girls, shows Horace's consciousness of other choric conventions: the chorus (either divided by sex into two

sections or speaking as a whole) indulges throughout in self-address and self-injunction.*? A pendant to this discussion: might Horace, as well as thinking of Odes 3.1 in terms of hymn categories such as those later distinguished by Menander, have regarded it as also, in some sense, a partheneion?

Raising this question immediately introduces numerous further problems. Was partheneion ever a genre of content and, if so, when? Or does the term simply denote the performance by young girls of

works belonging to any suitable genre of content? And if partheneion can ever refer to content, which, if any, of the works categorised by

the Alexandrians as partheneia are partheneia by virtue of their content? The solutions offered by Calame?? of these questions are persuasive: he points out that early Greek lyric partheneia cannot usefully be considered as members of a genre of content;*! and that the Alexandrians,

in creating the classification partheneion, were

referring primarily to the choruses of girls who performed them.*? This explains the apparent overlap under certain circumstances between partheneion and daphnephorikon? and the apparent kinship of partheneion and yet other types.* It is nevertheless likely that this situation changed once the class

partheneion had been formalised by the Alexandrians and once the hellenistic editions of Alcman's and Pindar's partheneia had begun

to circulate. An impression could then have been created that a partheneion might also have some standard content, especially since

the

circulation

of such collections

would

have stimulated

the

identification as parthenaic of the themes common to the pieces included in them. This does not mean, however, that every choric piece performed by girls or/and boys was necessarily parthenaic (or paidic). For example, Odes 1.21, with its mixed boy-girl chorus, is ' generically a straightforward euktic hymn (perhaps even a cult-

hymn), and it would be otiose to speak of it in other terms. But it is not impossible that Horace regarded the partheneion as a genre of content^* and that he allowed this consideration to influence Odes 3.1, although any attempt to demonstrate this encounters yet another

obstacle. This is that among the extant fragments which can with security be classed as parthenaic, i.e. as having been included in Alexandrian collections so entitled, Alcman fr. 1 PMGF inevitably looms larger than it should. Hence it is hard to evaluate the true

significance of the resemblances between it and Odes 3.1, i.e. whether

106

FRANCIS CAIRNS

they are due to direct imitation, generic content, or both. The beginning of Alcman fr. 1 PMGF is lost; but its earliest surviving

mutilated lines seem

to deal with the sins and punishments of

offenders against the gods. Then follow precepts: men must know

their place and not aspire to the status and marriages of the gods (16-21). Some subsequent lines (22-34) probably described a Gigantomachy. A conclusion: *they suffered unforgettable punish-

ments for the evil they did' (34-5) is followed by the asyndetic summarising line ἔστι τις σιῶν τίσις (‘the vengeance of the gods exists', 36).

The second stanza of Odes 3.1 presents analogies: it expounds the order of the universe, divinely established Giganteo triumpho (7), i.e. through Jupiter's defeat and punishment of the giants.’’ Again, the moral core of Odes 3.1 has long, and rightly, been seen to lie in line 25: desiderantem quod satis est.5* Such moderation in desires is close to knowing your status in the universe, which is what Alcman fr. 1 PMGEF starts off by recommending and what Odes 3.1 urges implicitly throughout. Yet again, Odes 3.1.17-21 allude to the sword of Damocles. Damocles' situation is strangely reminiscent of the punishment of some sinners in Hades, especially that of Tantalus in

the version which suspended a huge rock over his head?? — and it is possible (although there are alternative possibilities) that the sufferings of sinners in Hades are the subject of Alcman fr. 1.31-5 PMGEF. Finally, both Alcman and Horace make a transition from the divine order of the universe to the happy life for man. Alcman's

girls say that the ὄλβιος (‘happy man’) is he who ‘with cheerful mind unwinds portrays

his day tearless’ (37-9). Similarly Horace in Odes 3.1 the correct choice of life as resulting in freedom from

sleeplessness, worries, fears and cares.

A middle path is preferable when interpreting these resemblances. It would be rash to suggest that Odes 3.1 draws specifically on

Alcman fr. 1 PMGF. But it would be minimalist to hold that the two poets, just because they were writing choric works for performance — real or imaginary— by a choir of girls and a choir of boys and girls respectively, quite independently exploited the modest and youthful characters of their virgin speakers to put into their mouths such similar apt moral precepts, viz. commendations of moderate aspirations and behaviour® and warnings against the results of over-

weening pride and excessive greed. Horace's professed aspiration to be enrolled among the /yrici (Odes 1.1.35), and the fact that he undoubtedly knew a corpus of early Greek poetry transmitted by the

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

107

Alexandrians under the heading "partheneia" suggest rather that he regarded Odes 3.1 as in some sense a partheneion — an interpretation which further supports the conclusions reached about the speaker(s)

of Odes 3.1. 4.

The principal themes and the conceptual structure

The conceptual structure of many short ancient poems can be grasped easily: ring-composition or parallel-composition is often patent! with a poem's themes presenting a clear and obvious symmetry. In such cases minor divergences between the analyses offered by different scholars are unimportant, serving merely to remind us that the complexity of poetic thought-processes will inevitably defy simplistic attempts at straitjacketing. Odes 3.1,

however, has been surprisingly resistant to such thematic analysis: a number of structures have recently been proposed for it which reflect fundamental interpretational differences.” Under these circumstances, rather than starting with a new thematic schema, this section will work towards its proposals by studying under three subheadings parallel passages which incorporate more straightforward versions of conceptual patterns present in Odes 3.1. Most of them have not hitherto been linked with Odes 3.1; the first has on occasion been cited as a parallel to stanza 2 of Odes 3.19? but without proper appreciation of its interpretational value.

(i)

. ἐμοῦ γάρ ἔστι κύριος «μὲν» εἷς ἀνήρ, τούτου ἑτέρων δοῦλοι ὁ θεὸς ἕτερων

δὲ καὶ σοῦ μυρίων τ᾽ ἄλλων νόμος, τύραννος, τῶν τυραννούντων φόβος᾽ βασιλέων εἰσίν, ὁ βασιλεὺς θεῶν, ἀνάγκης. πάντα δ᾽, ἂν σκοπῇς, ὅλως πέφυκεν fittov’’ ὧν δὲ μείζονα.

5

τούτοις ἀνάγκη ταῦτα δουλεύειν ἀεί Philemon fr. 31 Kassel-Austin

The speaker is a slave; he says that he hasa

single man as his *master'

(κύριος, 1). His addressee, on the other hand, is obviously a free

citizen of a free city: as such, he and all in the same position have as their master νόμος (‘law’, 2). Others (i.e. citizens of non-free cities)

have a ‘tyrant’ (τύραννος)as their master (3). So far, a slave, two classes of ‘free’ individuals, and a ‘tyrant’ have appeared. Line 3 then declares that tyrants have as their master ‘fear’ (φόβος). Finally, at line 4, a third classof (paradoxically) ‘free’ citizens appears. These

are the subjects of ‘kings’ (plural) and they are ‘slaves’. Philemon's

108

FRANCIS CAIRNS

dates are approximately 364-264 B.C.; so he could be referring to

Persian “Great Kings’ or to the successors of Alexander. The ‘king’ (singular) is then said to be the slave of the gods (4), and 'god' (singular, 5) the slave of ᾿Ανάγκη — lowercase in Kassel-Austin, but

surely better upper, as the equivalent of Necessitas. Close rendering of the final lines (5-7) depends on how ὧν (6) is interpreted and how line 6 is punctuated (cf. Kassel-Austin ad loc.). But in any case it is

clear that in these lines the speaker generalises the hierarchy of subjection and domination and emphasises that ‘necessity’ (lower

case ἀνάγκη — a pun on the earlier use of the same term) underpins it. The pseudo-etymology ἄναξἀνάγκη (‘king/necessity’) presumably lies somewhere in the background.™

Even in the 1980s°° Horatian scholars were still assuming without argument that Necessitas in line 14 is Necessitas leti (‘Death the Leveller’), even though Silk (1952) and (1973), amplifying his few

predecessors, had argued convincingly — although without citing Philemon no place regarding basis of

— that Necessitas is the Greek ᾿Ανάγκη, and that there is in Odes 3.1 for ‘Death the Leveller'. Since the error of Necessitas as Death fundamentally distorts the conceptual Odes 3.1, it must be stressed here that this passage of

Philemon renders that identification untenable. The Philemon fragment has further value in that it provides some useful commentary on the second stanza of Odes 3.1. In Philemon line 3 we find the essentially Platonic notion that φόβος (‘fear’) is master of the tyrant,

the

worst

kind

of

ruler.

Horace

too

has

a

chain

of

subjection,*’ but in it kings (again plural, 5, cf. 6) must be ‘feared’ by their own peoples. Thus in Horace's second stanza fear plays a more benevolent

role than in Philemon,

although (cf. below) fear re-

appears in Odes 3.1 in a less amiable guise. Stanza 2 of Odes 3.1 also stresses that Jupiter has imperium over kings (6). This accords with

Philemon line 4;5* but, and strikingly, Necessitas, which stands at the apex of Philemon's chain, has no place in Horace's second stanza. In

all this Philemon is again in essence Platonic, while Horace takes a Stoic position, first proclaiming Jupiter as the unchallenged master of all (6—8) and then introducing Necessitas as the dominant force in

human affairs (14) and so virtually identifying the pair. However the status given to Necessitas by Horace remains reminiscent of the — second appearance of 'necessity' in Philemon line 7 as the underpinning of his entire structure of domination. Both Philemon and Horace seem to be creating their own variants on standard views of the ‘chain of being’. As noted, Philemon's

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

109

speaker makes a specifically Platonic comment when he names φόβος as the master of tyrants; and his triple distinction between democracy, tyranny and kingship shows him to be a man of his time. His philosophic position is thus close to common culture and influenced by Plato. Horace advances a Stoic and thoroughly Augustan political view. He envisages only one kind of constitution,

kingship; and the importance of kingship, both in early imperial political thought and in the literature of the 30s and 20s B.C., is now better appreciated.9 The chain of being, with Jupiter over kings, kings over peoples, and Necessitas a full-time administrator of the hierarchy

upon

earth,

resembles

scenarios

found

elsewhere

in

Horace and Virgil; and Gigantomachy, also prominent in stanza 2, was an integral part of the world picture of the Augustan principate, as it had been earlier of the hellenistic successor kingdoms.’® In the context of the Philemon parallel a few words on the language of stanza 2 of Odes 3.1 may be appropriate. Some scholars have regarded greges (5) as odd,"! claiming that, whereas the notion

of kings as “shepherds” is standard, it is uncommon and possibly derogatory to refer to subjects as “flocks”. This terminology may

have originated in accounts of the relationship between the Great King (and the successor kings) and their δοῦλοι (‘slaves’),”? such as that found in Philemon. But even if it did, Horace draws attention to

greges through the assonance greges (end of 5) / reges (beginning of 6y; and he highlights greges further through the chiastic structure of lines 5-6. Why has he done so? He may (although Maltby (1991) s. vy.

offers no comfort for this supposition) be continuing his etymologising from stanza 1: (g)rex must have been tempting to any reader of Varro's De Lingua Latina. Alternatively or additionally the words

may have had some further association. This question needs more exploration than it can be given here; but in the interim it is worth noting that collocations of grex with rex and its cognates in non-

derogatory contexts are sufficiently frequent in classical and silver Latin poetry to challenge the idea that it is necessarily odd or

derogatory in Odes 3.1.5-6.? With the similar attempt by scholars to find something odd in supercilio (8)’* greater surety can be achieved: that attempt rests on

the mistaken notion that Jupiter's ‘nod’ normally involved him nodding his head, so that there would be something strange in him moving his eyebrow only. But ih fact the gestures referred to by such terms as ἀνανεύω, κατανεύω, annuo, and nutus could involve (as they still can in Mediterranean lands) movements of the eyebrows only,

110

FRANCIS CAIRNS

not of the whole

head.

Cf.

Pliny, Natural History

11.138 with

Ernout-Pépin (1947) ad loc.: in assensu eius [i.e. frontis] supercilia homini et pariter et alterna

mobilia. et in his pars animi: negamus , annuimus; haec maxime indicant fastum, superbiam. aliubi conceptaculum sed hic sedem habet: in corde nascitur, huc subit, hic pendet. nihil altius simul abruptiusque inuenit in corpore ubi solitaria esset.

fastum F? Gel.; factum cett.

huc Gel.; hoc codd.

This passage, already cited by Lambinus (1566) ad loc., also helps to underline the fact that two concepts of stanza 2 turn up again later in

Odes 3.1 in a vicious context which

contrasts with their right

functioning in stanza 2. fastus, first implied by supercilio (8), reappears in the dominus (κύριος) who, terrae fastidiosus (35-6), is

engaged in ambitious projects to extend his buildings into the sea." Similarly fear (timendorum, 5) anticipates Timor (37), who heads a

metonymic group consisting of himself, Minae and Cura as assiduous attendants upon that very dominus. (ii)

Another passage helps to clarify the run of thought through

stanzas 2, 3 and 4 of Odes 3.1: ac duabus eis personis, quas supra dixi, tertia adiungitur, quam casus aliqui aut tempus imponit: quarta etiam, quam nobismet ipsi iudicio nostro accommodamus. nam regna imperia, nobilitas honores, diuitiae opes eaque, quae sunt his contraria, in casu sita temporibus gubernantur: ipsi autem gerere quam personam uelimus, a nostra uoluntate proficiscitur. itaque se alii ad philosophiam, alii ad ius ciuile, alii ad eloquentiam applicant, ipsarumque uirtutum in alia alius mauult excellere.

Cicero, De Officiis 1.115-16

Cicero's classification of activities here is six-fold, since, as Holden (1899) ad loc. notes with supporting evidence: ‘these words «i.e. regna imperia, nobilitas honores, diuitiae opes?

must

be taken in

pairs, according to a common fashion in Cicero’: i. regna imperia ii. nobilitas honores ii. diuitiae opes

iv. philosophia v. ius ciuile

vi. eloquentia Horace presents his activities in almost the same order as Cicero,

inverting only ii and iii, although (see below) he also conflates the last two Ciceronian categories. Stanza 2 deals with i: regna imperia. In

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN

ODE

Horace's contemporary

ni

situation, as opposed to that of Cicero,

rulership was an aspiration open to one man only; hence the permissive est ut does not appear until stanza 3. There, and in stanza 4, the remaining categories emerge. First comes iii: divitiae opes,

expressed in Roman fashion in terms of ownership of land (9-10). Next comes ii: nobilitas honores, expressed through electioneering (10-11), and next again iv: philosophia, represented, as Romans most naturally thought of it, as moral philosophy and its beneficial effects (12-13). Last in Horace comes the accumulation of clientes (13-14).

In the first century B.C. powerful Romans could acquire clientelae in many ways, including foreign conquest, influence within regions of Italy and the provinces, and legal services. But however clientes were acquired, an important factor in the maintenance of the relationship

was the provision by the patron to the cliens of legal advice and advocacy in the courts. This invoved v: ius ciuile and vi: eloquentia. Two conclusions can be drawn from the positive side of this collocation. The first is that Cicero's classification confirms that only one of the individuals mentioned in stanzas 3 and 4 of Odes 3.1 is an electoral candidate — the hic ... petitor of lines 10-11. This conclusion contradicts the view of some earlier scholars? who have been misled by contendat (13) into thinking that all the men are

political candidates. contendat in fact refers only to those who seek reputation through virtue. If there is a further implication, it is only that all walks of life involve competition and (cf. lines 14-15) different degrees of achievement. But in each case the competition is internal, men who pursue each separate walk of life competing with their fellows in that walk only — as Horace had implied right at the beginning: est ut uiro uir latius... (9). The second conclusion to be drawn is that all the occupations mentioned in stanzas 3 and 4 are praiseworthy, as is the competition within each occupation. The

phrase uiro uir underlines this point; and Woodman (1984) 86-7,91 had already argued on other grounds for the virtuousness of the men

in these stanzas, although he regarded all of them as candidates for political office. His position was attacked by Mader (1987) esp. 13-15, who, picking up a hint from Witke (1983) 35, devoted some

attention to a ““priamel” aspect of Odes 3.1. Citing for information on the priamel works by Dornseiff, Króhling and Race," none of whom handled Odes 3.1.9-16, and concentrating on stanzas 3 and 4, Mader claimed that the ‘apex’ of its priamel (i.e. aequa lege etc., 14)

shows that ‘Horace’s attitude towards the activities in 9-14a is not as unreservedly enthusiastic as Woodman has proposed" (15).

112

FRANCIS CAIRNS

However a further important work on the priamel not cited by Mader, namely Schmid (1964), had already treated several priamel aspects of Odes 3.1 at considerable length (76-80). Schmid correctly

classified the ode as belonging to his ‘Die dritte Priamelgruppe’, which he characterised as follows: *Es handelt sich diesmal um eine positive Antithese von Beispielreihung und Hóchstwert ...' (51). Other Horatian examples discussed by Schmid under the same wellrepresented?! class include Odes 1.1, 1.7, 1.31, 2.18, and 4.3. Such priamels, in which all the items mentioned are on an equal footing, are the literary equivalent of that variety of the rhetorical progymnasma σύγκρισις (comparatio) in which items of equal value are

compared." Mader's reference to the priamel aspect of stanzas 3 and 4 therefore provides no support for his attack on Woodman. Indeed Schmid's analysis of these stanzas further guarantees that the four Romans in them are virtuous and that, whether they pursue office,

wealth, moral philosophy or legal practice, they contrast with the unvirtuous stereotypes which will appear in the succeeding stanzas. So much for the points of similarity between Cicero and Horace. But, just as Horace differed from Philemon's speaker on the chain of being, so Cicero and Horace differ significantly on occupations. Cicero thinks of occupations i-iii as mutually exclusive, and he views occupations iv-vi similarly; but he does not regard the two groups as

incompatible, so that, for example a ruler might also be a philosopher. This is because Cicero claims that only his first three occupations (rulership, office, and wealth) are subject to chance and circumstance (quam casus aliqui aut tempus imponit ... in casu sita temporibus gubernantur), while the latter three depend on ourselves

(quam nobismet ipsi iudicio nostro accommodamus ... a nostra uoluntate proficiscitur). Not so Horace: all his occupations (except v and vi) are mutually exclusive; and all, according to Horace, are

subject to the lot of Necessitas.*? Such differences merit emphasis because Horace is often seen as a purveyor of commonplaces, an

impression strengthened by the many “parallels” which can be cited for most of his statements. In fact, when Horace's “commonplaces”

are examined carefully and such divergences are taken into account, they often turn out to. be original Horatian variations upon commonplaces.

They

are usually

so subtle that one suspects a

compositional strategy on Horace's part, i.e. that he intended his work

to be read on different

levels by different readers.

Thus

pedestrian minds would grasp at Horace's apparent commonplaces and be content to imagine they had found them, while more

-

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN

ODE

discriminating readers would pursue his divergences commonplace and so come closer to his real thoughts.

113

from

the

(iii) A third set of parallel passages has more complex implications for Odes 3.1. They interact with the most fundamental question

about the ode: what is its subject? To pose this qüestion is not to suggest that Odes 3.1 embodies only one major concept: already two significant themes have been encountered, the chain of being with its

acceptable inequalities, and the rightness of some sorts of competitive endeavour within that scheme of things. In the rest of the ode further dominant concepts can be perceived: the happiness of the .virtuously contented, the contrasting unhappiness of those who pursue the wrong goals, and Horace's enrollment in the former group. But one can nevertheless still wonder what underlies all these themes. One approach — not incorrect but less than fully adequate — might see Odes 3.1 as preaching the need for willing submission to Necessitas. This, of course, is a central Stoic attitude, the “good

man's" “following” of Fate; and, after Horace’s exposition of a Stoic

world-order in stanzas 2-4, the rest of Odes 3.1 could be seen as delineating first the “piety” and happiness of those who submit to Fate and then the “impiety” and misery of those such as the tyrant and the extravagant builder who decline to do so, before ending with

Horace's own

willing acceptance of his station in life. Such an

interpretation would also permit Odes 3.1 to offer a sensible contemporary political message, with the rankings of Roman society under Augustus slotted into the overall world-order and receiving their moral justification from that order. This thought-complex is undeniably immanent in Odes 3.1. But a fuller specification of the ode's subject-matter is available. Silk (1973) wrote: *the subject of IIT.

Lis justice uersusinjustice' (144). But no one has believed him, mainly because of his own reticence. Silk imagined that the only proof needed lay in Horace's first exemplum, that of Damocles. He claimed: ‘By Cicero's time ... Dionysius appears to have become the symbol of injustice' (144), offering no support for this assertion but

doubtless relying on Tusculans 5.57, where Dionysius is described as iniustus — persuasive nition of rooted in

but among a great many other characterisations. More arguments are needed; and a pseudo-Aristotelian defijustice contemporary with or earlier than Horace and Platonism offers a starting point:

᾿Αδικίας δέ ἐστιν εἴδη tpía: ἀσέβεια, πλεονεξία, ὕβρις.

114

FRANCIS CAIRNS

(There are three forms of injustice: impiety, greed, pride.) Ps.-Aristotle Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ κακῶν

(‘On Virtues and Vices’) 1251a.30!!

This simple triple division of injustice corresponds, in order as well as in content, with the subject matter of the central portion of Odes 3.1;

and, just as Horace offered linguistic clues to his hellenising in stanza 1, so he now

offers verbal pointers to these three divisions of

injustice. These pointers are very discreet but, once they are perceived, it is hard to deny their function as conceptual markers. They are heralded not just by the Damocles exemplum, but by another verbal clue, the association established obliquely between

Necessitas and justice in aequa lege (14): this phrase refers literally to the impartiality of Necessitas’ sortition but it also hints that Necessitas is the force ensuring the influence of Aequitas (Aixn) upon earth.

᾿

The three verbal pointers which link the ode’s three classes of

wrongdoers to the three divisions of 'Aótía are:

.

1) impia/ ceruice (17-18) = impiety. The tyrant (for Dionysius temporarily substituted Damocles for himself) is impious since he defies the divine order of the universe as expounded in stanza 2.

2) desiderantem quod satis est (25). This behaviour is the opposite of greed, and thus is the Latin equivalent of an invented Greek virtue opposite to n\eove&ia.®? Horace goes out of his way to emphasise

that the merchant of stanza 7 and the farmer of stanza 8 are both greedy men seeking great riches rather than anxious unfortunates. The merchant is avaricious because he sails outside the sailing season in the stormy winter months (cf. Epistles 1.16.71); and the farmer is

no simple peasant but a major landowner producing wine and olive-

oil, the easily transportable, high-value, cash crops of antiquity,*? whose greed causes him to be pained by the loss of his profits. 3) fastidiosus (37) = pride, fastidium being synonymous with pride. This is shown conclusively by Horace Epistles 2.1.215: spectatoris

fastidia ferre superbi and by the parallels assembled by Brink (1982) ad loc.

Naturally this schematic outline does not exhaust the subtleties of Horace's argumentation. There are cross-references within the scheme: e.g. the dominus ... terrae/ fastidiosus, with his attendants Timor, Minae and Cura (36-7), is not only, in his breach of the

boundaries of land and sea, a ὑβριστής (‘arrogant’).™ He is also an ἀσεβής ('impious'),** and probably a πλεονέκτης (‘greedy’) too.*6 The other sinners also incorporate aspects of injustice additional to

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

115

the one which particularly identifies them, although not so markedly, In this way the essential indivisibility of injustice is implicitly

asserted. Another text of the same period propounding the same division of injustice as Ps.-Aristotle Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ κακῶν starts off with the ultimately Platonic concept that the unity of injustice is based on greed: ᾿Αδικία δέ ἔστι κακία ψυχῆς καθ᾽ ἣν πλεονεκτικοὶ γίνονται κέρδους

αἰσχροῦ. εἴδη δὲ αὐτῆς τρία ἀσέβεια, πλεονεξία, ὕβρις. (Injustice is an evil οὗ thesoul which causes men to become excessively grasping of base gain. There are three kinds of injustice: impiety, greed and arrogance.)

Pseudo-Andronicus of Rhodes, Περὶ πάθων (*On Emotions") 16.1-2

κέρδους αἰσχροῦ is comparable to, although different from, the concluding words

of Odes 3.1 (diuitias operosiores, 48) in which

Horace sums up and rejects "injustice". Odes 3.1, then, is structured around the three classes of unjust

man: the impious, the greedy and the arrogant. It offers snapshots of these three characters, and of the sorts of punishments which await

them in this life. The impious man loses his sleep, in contrast with the “pious”®” rustics in their humble houses whom sleep does not fastidit (23), a witty anticipation of fastidiosus (37).** The greedy man is troubled by seas and winds and by the assaults of weather and season. The arrogant man has his gaggle of attendants, Fear, Threats and Care. All these men in one way or another lead, or aspire to lead, the life of luxury. Paradoxically this is stated least explicitly of the

man who is the antithesis to the desiderantem quod satis est, precisely because he is specifically the greedy man, of whom it need not be said

so clearly. But all suffer despite their luxury: the impious man gets no pleasure from elaborate banquets, the greedy man is anxious because

nature threatens his profits, and the arrogant man has no release from cares and fear in his expensive building operations and extensive journeyings.

Such is the core of the poem: but it must be stressed yet again (see above, section 4 ii ad fin.) that the ode is no mere string of ethical commonplaces. To begin with, its lessons are conveyed through

vignettes of great vividness rather than through ethical sententiae: the sword of Damocles,? the country folk asleep in a locus amoenus, the detailed sufferings of the greedy man on sea ghoulish travelling companions of the arrogant the three types of unjust man are placed within a only sensible but Roman. Horace is not offering

and land, and the builder. In addition context which is not a picture of an ideal

116

FRANCIS CAIRNS

society but a prescription for his contemporary society. Like that

society, Horace is not egalitarian: stanza 2 describes a chain of being with clear hierarchical rankings. Again, stanzas 3-4 stress that ownership of land, nobility (and hence political opportunities), ethical merit and reputation, as well as number of clientes, may legitimately vary, because Necessitas determines men's rankings in the universe, and she does so aequa lege.” The phrase insignes et imos

(15) is a polar expression meaning ‘everyone’; so it has no direct

bearing on the rankings of stanzas 3-4, since those who are not successful in the competitive activities described there will nevertheless clearly not be of the lowest rank.?! The right order of the

universe, then, permits inequality; only ἀδικία, as represented by the three classes of sinners who follow, is to be condemned. Considerations such as these go far towards negating the view sometimes

advanced that Horace has no sensible comment to make on contemporary situations.?? In fact, as illustrated, Horace's formulations, if correctly understood, have precise and intelligent content. There are further clues to Horace's thinking in Odes 3.1 in thetwo

pseudo-Aristotelian philosophical works already cited, which describe first the three kinds of injustice and then the effects of injustice in virtually identical language. The text of the second reads as follows: ᾿Ασέβεια μὲν ἡ περὶ θεοὺς πλημμέλεια «καὶ περὶ Saipovac> καὶ πρὸς κατοιχομένους καὶ γονεῖς καὶ πατρίδα. Πλεονεξία δὲ ἡ περὶ τὰ συμβόλαια παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν αἱρουμένη τὸ διάφορον. ᾿ "Y Bot; δὲ καθ᾽ ἣν τὰς ἡδονὰς αὑτοῖς παρασκευάζουσιν εἰς ὄνειδος

ἄγοντες ἑτέρους, ὅθεν Εὔηνος περὶ αὐτῆς λέγει’ “Ἤ τις κερδαίνουσ᾽ οὐδὲν ὅμως ἀδικεῖ᾽". Ἔργα δὲ τῆς ἀδικίας" τὸ παραβαίνειν τὰ πάτρια ἔθη «καὶ τὰ νόμιμα», τὸ ἀπειθεῖν τοῖς νόμοις καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσι, τὸ ψεύδεσθαι, τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν, τὸ παραβαίνειν τὰς ὁμολογίας καὶ τὰς πίστεις. ᾿Ακο-

λουθεῖ δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ [καὶ] συκοφαντία, [καὶ] ἀλαζονεία, ἀφιλανθρωπία, κακοήθεια, πανουργία. (Impiety is an offence against the gods «and spirits? and against the dead and one's parents and one's country. Greed is choosing what is advantageous contrary to right and in contravention of agreements. Arrogance is what causes men to procure pleasures for themselves

while insulting others, which is why Euenos says of it: ‘It gains nothing but nevertheless it is injustice". The acts of injustice are: to contravene the ancestral customs and the established norms, to disobey the laws and the rulers, to lie, to forswear, and to contravene agreements and pledges of faith. Injustice

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN

ODE

117

is accompanied by false accusation, false pretence, lack of philanthropy, lack of morals and general rascality.) Pseudo-Andronicus of Rhodes Περὶ πάθων 16.1-2 Glibert-Thirry (7 Pseudo-Aristotle Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ κακῶν 1251a.31-b3)

These passages reflect many of the cross-references already noted in Odes 3.1; and, with their emphasis on the public sphere, they go far

towards satisfying scholarly questions about what the ode has to do with the Augustan ethical programme and with Horace's public

support for that programme in the Roman Odes.?? Finally, a third pseudo-Aristotelian text offers a thought-sequence which almost transects Odes 3.1. Περὶ κόσμου (‘On the Universe’) begins with an account of the natural universe and then turns to ‘God’. God is creator, preserver and controller of the universe (397b.13-398a.6). Next the mode of action of God is compared with that of earthly rulers and especially that of the Great King as he was in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. (398a6-b6). Further reflections on the omnipotence of God and the harmony of the universe lead into a discussion of the many names of the one God (4012.12). Conventional cult titles of Zeus (401a.14ff.) are followed by Orphic

hexameters containing other attributes (401a.28-b.7). The text then continues: οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τὴν ᾿Ανάγκην οὐκ ἄλλο τι λέγεσθαι πλὴν τοῦτον, οἱονεὶ ἀνίκητον αἰτίαν ὄντα ... (I think too that Necessity is nothing but another name for him, as

being a cause that cannot be defeated ...)?° Περὶ Κόσμου 401b.8-9

Following this identification οὗ ᾿Ανάγκη

(Necessitas) with God

comes a series of further such identifications — with Εἱμαρμένη (Destiny), Πεπρωμένη (Fate) and many other similar concepts (401b.9-23). These equations are summed up in ταῦτα δὲ πάντα ἐστιν οὐκ ἄλλο τι πλὴν ὁ θεός ('all these are nothing other than

God") and they are capped by two quotations about God from Plato's Laws, the first of which ends with: τῷ δὲ ἀεὶ ξυνέπεται δίκη, τῶν ἀπολειπομένων

τοῦ θείου νόμου

τιμωρός (and Justice always accompanies him, taking vengeance on thosethat

fall short of the divine law) Περὶ Κόσμου 401b.27-8 = Laws 716a.2-3

Now that Odes 3.1. has been in part reinterpreted in the light of these passages, a thematic scheme can finally be proposed:”*

118

FRANCIS CAIRNS

ΑἹ Stanza 1: Horace, as 'priest of the Muses', and so set apart from the profanum uulgus, sings ‘new songs’ to/through the virgin choir. B1 Stanzas 2-4: “Justice”: The proper order of the universe: Jupiter rules, Necessitas regulates aequa lege 2: regna imperia: Jupiter — kings — subjects 3-4: diuitiae opes| nobilitas honores| philosophia| eloquentia (^ ius ciuile) C Stanzas 5-10:

“Injustice”: the three types and their consequences el 5-6: like Damocles playing the tyrant, the impious suffer loss d

of enjoyment and sleeplessness while virtuous rustics sleep easily 7-8: the non-greedy do not suffer the worries of the greedy merchant and landowner

€29-10: the proud have Fear, Threats and Care always with them B2 Stanza 11: power and wealth do not reduce the unhappiness of the “unjust” A2 Stanza 12: Horace personally rejects injustice in summarising fashion (note: nouo

ritu) Some

remarks

on the contents

of stanzas 11-12 may now be

appropriate: in stanza 11 Horace picks up the theme of diuitiae opes from stanza 3 in Falerna uitis and Achaemeniumque costum (43-4), and stanza 12 then reiterates this motif (esp. diuitias, 48). The other theme of stanza 3 — nobilitas honores — is also resumed in stanza 11 if, as Quinn (1980) ad loc. suggested, purpurarum sidere clarior/ ... usus (42-3) refers to the senatorial laticlave. Quinn's suggestion is attractive, since Horace's Lucretian model (De Rerum Natura 2.52:

nec clarum uestis splendorem purpureai) also plausibly alludes to the senate and since clarus is a word associated with senators.?? But what then of Phrygius lapis (41)? As a reference to wealth it would now stand somewhat isolated. However, Phrygius lapis too may refer to the senate and specifically to the marble facing of Augustus' new Curia lulia. Of that building there now remains no trace, since Diocletian's reconstruction of the curia was fundamental; but Diocletian followed in every detail Augustus’ building plan,?* and in Diocletian's curia Phrygian marble (pavonazzeto) was used liberally

as facing.” Pavonazzeto also formed the broad border around the central intaglio floor and was particularly prominent near the speakers’ platform.'™ It is at least likely, then, that Augustus made similar lavish use for his Curia Iulia of Phrygian marble, the ‘purple’

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

119

veining of which would have matched in colour the 'purple' of the

senators' laticlaves. If the suspicion that Horace alludes to the Curia Iulia has some foundation, then the limits of his verbal playfulness may be enlarged. The assonance of Cura (40) and cur (45 and 47) would in isolation

rightly be deemed mere accident. But if Curia is implied by 41f., then its two rival etymologies (for which, cf. Maltby (1991) s.v. curia)

demand notice: from cura (cf. 40) and from Sabine Curis (cf. Sabina, 47!). Similarly the senators of 41f. now follow hard on the heels of the

equitem of 40. The etymological links between atra (40) and atrium (46), for which cf. Maltby (1991) s.v. atrium, also demand attention.

The etymological complex discovered at the beginning of Odes 3.1 (above, section 1) makes it harder to dismiss all these features of its

final lines as fortuitous. The last two stanzas of Odes 3.1 constitute an epilogue to the ode;

introduced by quodsi (41), they function somewhat as a Pindaric Abbruchsformel does. Contrary to the perception of Heinze (1938) 227, their highly personal tone in no way detracts from the solemnity of Odes 3.1. A standard device with rhetorical parallels is in use

here.!?! The speaker ends a poem (or speech) by talking about himself. He does so in order to demonstrate his sincerity, since mention of his individual concerns shows that his subject-matter has

a real impact on his own life. The most striking Horatian analogue is Odes 3.14, where an anticipation of the official public welcome to Augustus on his return from the Spanish wars quickly modulates (13ff.) into an account of Horace's own feelings and intended celebrations. Horace's rejection of rank and wealth in the last two stanzas of Odes 3.1 is not absolute; so there is no contradiction between stanzas 3-4 and 11-12. Horace's point is that a 'sufferer', i.e. abad man, will

not derive happiness from rank and wealth, a notion which summarises themes dealt with earlier in stanzas 5-10. The qualification that only a “bad man” is under attack here further underlines Horace's realism and freedom from commonplaces. In stanza 12 Horace concludes that there is no reason for him to be ‘arrogant’ like

the dominus of lines 36-8 and to build an extravagant house. Underlying his rejection of this aspiration is the assumption that such grand mansions are only suitable for nobiles.!°? The phrase nouo ritu is said by commentators to mean *in the new style’, and this may be

so. However, it is also reminiscent of Horace's priestly ritual of stanza 1 with its ‘new songs’, and so might also refer to the rites

120

FRANCIS CAIRNS

performed when foundations were laid for Roman buildings. Its "novelty" would then reflect the extravagance of such projects —

unknown in earlier times; and its irreligious religiosity hints at the “impious” man, the first category of the unjust". Horace ends by declaring (47f.) that he will not (like the greedy opposite of the

desiderantem quod satis est of line 25) seek excessive wealth at the expense of troubles. The ethical content of the last two stanzas does not exclude a

return in them to the archaic Greek lyric flavour of stanza I: the dolentem of line 41 is reminiscent by contrast of the happy man of Alcman fr. 1.37-9: ὁ δ᾽ ὄλβιος ὅστις εὔφρων, ἁμέραν [δι]απλέκει, ἄκλαυτος (‘Happy is he who cheerfully weaves his day to its end

unweeping’). Again, the luxuries which fail to relieve pain in stanza 11 are the purple Phrygius lapis, the wearing of the purple laticlave sidere clarior, expensive wine and unguent. All these have archaic associations; and Horace returns to the fore as poet in the final

stanza, as archaic lyric poets can do in their choric pieces.!?? Like them he appears as the guardian and exponent of what is right and proper, showing himself as one who desires quod satis est and rejects the troublesome attractions of discontent and the injustice which it causes. A final aspect of the last stanza is not specifically archaic,

although it does not clash with this ethos: Horace mentions his contentment with his ‘Sabine valley’ and so alludes to his patron,

Maecenas, to whom he owed it.! This is an apt feature for a prologue, although not achievable more directly in view of the choric nature of the ode. 5.

Further philosophic reflections

In section 4 a Platonising passage of Philemon, a section of Cicero's De Officiis rooted in Panaetian Stoicism and various pseudoAristotelian works of partly Platonic inspiration were used to help unravel the conceptual structure of Odes 3.1. However, prior to Lebek (1981) most scholars regarded the philosophic content of Odes 3.1 as thoroughly Epicurean. The situation was not as black and white as Lebek claimed.'95 For example Torrentius (1608) ad loc. was already hinting at,the Stoic nature of Necessitas, while Doering

(1831) 120 began his introduction to Odes 3.1 with 'Praeceptum illud e philosophia Stoica depromtum’ (sic), referring to the concept that only the conduct recommended in the ode can bring happiness. Again Kiessling-Heinze (1930) on lines 9-14 declared that ‘so ist für

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

121

H. die Necessitas und Juppiter identisch, wie für den Stoiker Θεός und Elpappuévn';'?$ and Solmsen (1947) 349 n.45 protested against the description by Pasquali (1920) 651f. of Odes 3.1 as Epicurean.

Later stanza 2 was designated a ‘Prelude stoicien' by André (1969) 35; and

Nadeau

(1983)

307

wrote:

‘Animadvertimus

praeterea

Horatium coniunxisse Epicuri doctrinam de vita beata (particulatim de Lucretio tractam) cum Stoica imagine Iovis mundi imperio induti.’ Admittedly, however, the mass of secondary literature — cf.

e.g. Pasquali (1920) 651f., Fenik (1962) and Syndikus (1973) 7-23 — has dubbed Odes 3.1 Epicurean and has identified numerous parallels in Lucretius, in Epicurean portions of Virgil's Georgics,'?" and in the works of Epicurus himself. Lebek (1981) took a firm stand against this trend, arguing that Odes 3.1 lacks elements essential to a

full Epicurean position, and that much of its alleged Epicurean material can be paralleled equally from other philosophical schools, and indeed from non-philosophical sources. Lebek's findings require brief comment, particularly in the light of

the philosophical parallels discussed above in section 4. His detailed refutation of the thesis that Odes 3.1 is uniquely and consistently Epicurean in a full and technical sense is surely unshakable; and the

additional material assembled in section 4 adds further weight to it. But a nagging impression nevertheless persists that Horace's original audience may have detected specific philosophical “flavours” in Odes 3.1, among them an Epicurean flavour in many passages and a

Stoic flavour in stanza 2. After all, numerous modern scholars have felt these presences; and Mader (1987) 16-17 continues to argue in the face of Lebek (1981) for an Epicurean reading of the ode, citing yet another precept of Epicurus in illustration of stanza 3.!9* It is hard to believe that the ode's contemporary audience would have been less

sensitive. And, if we were surer about what passed for Peripatetic in Horace's day, similar assertions might possibly be made (albeit with less confidence, see below) about Peripatetic flavours in the ode. Doubtless scholarly opinions will continue to differ; but a new

consensus may be possible on a basis implied by section 4, namely that Odes 3.1 exemplifies philosophical “eclecticism” of a characteristically Horatian and Augustan type.!® Needless to say, such Augustan eclecticism does not imply philosophical ignorance or indifference on Horace's part; and it does not rule out the possibility that Horace elsewhere in his work enunciated consistent, unitary, philosophical positions, particularly where he signals explicitly his concern with a single school. Rather

122

FRANCIS CAIRNS

Horace's Augustan eclecticism needs to be understood as a product of its cultural circumstances. These include the well-known reluctance of many Romans either to be identified with a single philosophical school!'? or to study the technicalities of logic, physics, or metaphysics.!!! As is equally well-known, this resulted in most Roman consumers of philosophy concentrating on its moral sphere, where they attempted to reconcile Greek philosophical teachings with the Roman mos maiorum.'"? Historically eclecticism was encouraged by the approximation, and sometimes cross-fertilisation, of different schools in the second and first centuries B.C., notably at Alex-

andria.!?

This in tum promoted

the dissemination of moral-

philosophical teaching at a popular level. At the higher level eclecticism was also furthered by a growing interest in the history of philosophy, a principal concern earlier of the Platonist Eudorus of Alexandria, and in Augustan Rome of the Stoic Areius Didymus. I have suggested elsewhere!!* that the activities of Areius in the imperial circle influenced writers around Augustus and indeed that they help to explain how Virgil, who was associated with the Epicureans Philodemus and Siro in the 40s B.C. and who was prominently Epicurean in his Georgics in the 30s, subsequently showed himself so markedly eclectic in his Aeneid. Horace's Augustan eclecticism in Odes 3.1 thus involves presenting

precepts which most of his readers would have recognised as generally “philosophical” and in which many would have perceived the flavour of particular philosophical schools. It is unlikely, however, that Horace intended controversies between different schools to surface in the mind of a hearer of Odes 3.1,!'5 since that would have been inappropriate in a choric ode addressing the entire Roman people. Rather Horace's eclecticism implies that different . schools share a common position supportive of the mos maiorum. This reconciliatory tendency appears more clearly in the succeeding ode in the famous sententia: dulce et decorum est pro patria mori (Odes

3.2.13). Here, as has been recognised, Horace combines the key concepts of Stoics and Epicureans with the prime imperative of the mos maiorum: he declares that it is both dulce, i.e. Epicurean ἡδύ, and

decorum, i.e. Panaetian Stoic πρέπον, to die pro patria, i.e. to show pietas, the ultimate virtue of the Augustan state and of its mythical

ancestor. Incidentally, this sententia warns by its proximity to Odes 3.1 against denying specific philosophical flavours to Odes 3.1. Sucha denial would, in any case, have little historical basis, since a

large volume of works in Latin on philosophical topics was in general

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

123

circulation in the first century B.C.!" Again, a philosophical education up to a certain level was standard for young republican and Augustan Romans of the educated classes. It could, as in Horace's case, involve a period abroad in a centre of philosophic

activity such as Athens, and attendance there at the specialist lectures of the different schools. Furthermore, teachers of philosophy (both

Greeks and Romans) were present in some numbers in Rome from early in the first century B.C. Their services were certainly available to the upper classes and perhaps more widely.!!* Finally, the presence (already referred to) at Rome within the imperial circle of philo-

sophical teachers, notably Areius Didymus and Athenodorus of Tarsus, makes a “philistine” interpretation of Augustan philosophical poetry and its readership even more implausible. In sum, then, Horace's eclecticism in Odes 3.1 should allow philosophical elements from different schools to. retain the flavour of their identity while

contributing to an overall moral message of wide public acceptability. But

exactly

what

philosophical

elements

of Odes

3.1

would

genuinely have had the flavour of a specific school for Horace's audience? Material of ultimately Platonic origin would almost certainly have lost its identity as such by Horace's day; and, as noted, the pseudo-Aristotelian elements may not have been seen by Horace

as specifically Peripatetic. In its earliest incarnation Aristotelianism was not a system of the Stoic or Epicurean type; it first received systematic form at the hands of Andronicus of Rhodes around the middle of the first century B.C." The question whether Horace would have come into contact with (revived) Peripatetic influences cannot be answered with security. There is evidence that even before Andronicus Aristotle attracted some interest in Italy.'2° Again, the library of Apellicon of Teos, which contained some books which had once belonged to Aristotle and Theophrastus, came to Italy in 86 B.C. in the aftermath of Sulla's sack of Athens; and it subsequently formed part of the library of the dictator's son Faustus, where the

polymath Tyrannion had access to the Peripatetic section.'?! Furthermore,

it is at least possible that Horace

encountered (new)

Peripatetics during his period of study in Athens (the mid 40s B.C.). The (converted) Peripatetic Cratippus, a close associate of Cicero and tutor to his son Marcus, was teaching in Athens at exactly this time.!?? But for all this, although the division of injustice underlying Odes 3.1 is found in pseudo-Aristotelian texts probably going back to the mid first century B.C., the ode itself starts off as fundamentally Stoic and in some senses continues so. Its identification of Jupiter

124

FRANCIS CAIRNS

and Necessitas, its account of the right order of the universe, and its implied injunctions to submit to that order and be content with one's

lot cannot be anything else; and the high level of cosmic interest shown by Augustan poets (cf. above, sections 2-3) will have kept the

philosophical roots of such ideas in the forefront of their contemporaries’ minds. This Stoic position blends into Epicureanism in the concept that contentment is the key to happiness because for Epicureans contentment was a more pleasurable feeling and it did not generate painful, unfulfilled desires. The inclusion of so much Epicurean material in Odes 3.1 had several motivations: Horace's literary respect for Lucretius, who had given Epicurus' ideas their Latin poetic formulation; Horace's recognition that, after Stoicism, Epicureanism, more than any other system, provided a philosophical basis for the moral life of contemporary Romans; and finally Horace's wish to gratify Maecenas (see below). It is precisely because

Lucretius is so prominent in Odes 3.1 that its Epicurean content would have retained its flavour for Horace's readers, despite the

ode's failure to argue a full Epicurean position and despite those overlaps between its Epicurean material and other philosophical and

poetic standpoints which Lebek (1981) illustrated. The influence on Odes 3.1 of its implied dedicatee, Maecenas, who is allusively introduced in ualle Sabina (47, cf. above), should not be underestimated. Although a ciuis Romanus, Maecenas was a conspicuous

Etruscan; he was an equally conspicuous and dedicated Epicurean of a type disapproved of by many Romans.!? Reinforcement of the compliment to Maecenas at line 47 by references in the body of the ode to the works of Epicurus and his two principal Roman poetic followers, Lucretius and Virgil in his Georgics (a poem also dedicated to Maecenas), would certainly not have come amiss.

6.

The Ode as a prologue and its literary programme

Surprisingly, given the volume of secondary literature on Odes 3.1 and current interest in “programmatic” prologues, little seems extant on the ode as prologue to Odes Book 3 or on its literary

programme. Commentators have perhaps been reluctant to explore meta-poetic layers of meaning in an ode already overloaded with significance; and more recent critics may have shied away from such investigations, possibly reflecting that the volume of programmatic interpretations of ancient poems currently appearing risks

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN

ODE

125

trivialising ancient poetry by reducing its subject-matter to itself. On the other hand,

Horace

can

hardly

have

been innocent of the

programmatic nuances of his prologue to Odes 3, a piece beginning with that blatant pointer to the Callimachean tradition, Odi. This section will study Odes 3.1 briefly!?* as a programmatic prologue. First, a word on methodology: it would have been possible to crossreference Odes 3.1 systematically with proem schemata such as those of Engel (1910) 7 (covering epic, didactic works, and history)!” or Herkommer (1968) 22-174 (history).'?’ Inevitably, however, blanks would have been drawn on some of their topoi. Concentration on prooemion topoi actually present in Odes 3.1 seems preferable. Some

have already been mentioned, especially the implied dedication of Odes Book 3 to Horace’s patron, Maecenas, in Sabina (47, above, section 4 ad fin. and section 5 ad fin.). Other programmatic material

(which is picked up by commentaries and so need not be detailed here) consists of anticipations of themes which reappear in the other

Roman Odes or later in Book 3. Further proem topoi derive (as noted, above and section 1) through the literary programmes of Callimachus and other hellenistic writers from their Greek lyric antecedents.!?* Thus Odi (1) relates to Callimachus Epigram 28 Pfeiffer — AP 12.43 Ξ 2 Gow-Page, beginning Ἐχθαίρω τὸ ποίημα τὸ κυκλικόν (‘I hate the cyclic poem’, 1) and continuing σικχαίνω πάντα τὰ δημόσια (‘I detest all that is common’, 4), and to others of his literary statements,'? all of which

are indebted to his lyric predecessors; uulgus (1) is linked with hellenistic and archaic rejection of a non-elite audience:'”° non prius/ audita (2f.) to the novelty topos of hellenistic programmes;!?! and uirginibus puerisque (4) to the purity aspiration of archaic and hellenistic poetics.!?? Again the figure of the priest-poet (1-4) has its ultimate origins in Greek lyric in the antecedents of such selfdescriptions as Pindar's ἀοίδιμον Πιερίδων προφάταν (‘tuneful

spokesman of the Muses’, Paean 6.6),'?? and it has its more proximate ancestor in the ‘priest of the Muses’ who headed the Alexandrian Museum. On a broader front the scenario of Odes 3.1 stanza 1 (i.e. Horace as

poetic priest standing in front of a shrine, about to initiate a sacred rite with possible mystery overtones!?? and accompanied by a virgin choir with its implications of ritual purity!?5) has several analogues in Augustan literature which point to hellenistic sources. Their relevance increases if Odes 3.1’s status as an internal prologue, i.e. as

prologue to a book other than the first book of Horace's three-book

126

FRANCIS CAIRNS

collection, is kept in mind. The nearest analogue is Propertius 4.6,

which comes half-way through Book 4. Here too the poet (uates, 1) performs a sacred rite, a sacrifice equivalent to his elegy ( 1f.), calls for holy silence (1), issues other ritual commands (3-8), bars undesirable

elements (9), and emphasises the ritual purity of his *new path*: pura nouum uati laurea mollit iter (10). The Muse is invoked (11), as is

Jupiter (14). Then again, at the beginning of Georgic 3 Virgil represents himself metaphorically as a future temple builder (13-39), triumphant victor (8-25, esp. 9, 17, 21f.)— cf. Odes 3.1.7, and holder

of games (17-20);?? Virgil also declines certain well-worn subjects (cetera .../ omnia iam uulgata, 3-4) — possibly (and paradoxically)

regarding these as Callimachean (cf. below); and he declares that he will be the ‘first’ to bring the Muses to Mantua from Helicon (10-11). Analogous too (although the relationship of Book 3 to a published collection of Propertius’ work is hardly worth considering) is

Propertius 3.1, where at 1-4 the poet is a sacerdos coming ‘first’ from a ‘pure spring’ (3) and asking to be admitted to a grove sacred to the heroised Callimachus and Philetas (1-2). Propertius’ individual

Muse then appears at line 10 in a poetic triumph scene and the Muses at lines 14 and 19.

The Muses who surface at Odes 3.1.3 are, of course, a standard prologue commonplace; and the prominence of Jupiter in stanza 2 confirms their prooemic relevance. The proem to Hesiod’s Theogony, where

Zeus and the Muses occupy the limelight for many lines,

latterly in connection with kings (80-96, cf. Odes 3.1.5-6), greatly influenced hellenistic poetry, and helped to confirm the conventionality of such beginnings. Thus, for example, Callimachus' first hymn is to Zeus,!?? while his Aetia refer quickly to ‘the Muse’ (fr. 1.2, 24 Pfeiffer) and to Zeus (fr. 1.20 Pfeiffer); Theocritus 7dyll 16 starts with the Muses, described as daughters of Zeus (1-4); and the first line of Idyll 17 is: Ἔκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα καὶ ἐς Δία λήγετε Moioat

(‘With Zeus let us begin and end, Muses’). The same emphases appear in Propertius 2.1, where the Titanomachy theme (rejected) surfaces at lines 19f. and 39f. The latter couplet mentions Jupiter, while Propertius! Calliope at 3).

Muse

has already emerged

at line 35 (as had

The body of Odes 3.1 evokes the “lives” of a number of Roman stereotypes.

In this, and

in its elaborate “comparison

of lives"

(σύγκρισις βίων, comparatio uitarum) — or rather series of such comparisons — it resembles two other Horatian prologues, Odes 1.1 and Satires 1.1. Such stress on lives, and most strongly on the poet's

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

127

own, is a recurrent feature of Augustan prologues, with Propertius 1.1, 2.1.41-78, and 3.1 offering sustained examples and Tibullus 1.1 and 2.1 introducing elements of σύγκρισις (comparatio) between the

poet's life and that of his patron, Messalla.!^ Horace’s choice of life in Odes 3.1 introduces a further proem topos, the antithesis of wealth and

poverty,

which

usually

involves

rejection

of wealth/major

poetry and espousal of poverty/minor poetry.!^' Here again Tibullus 1.1

is comparable,

as

it is in

another

respect

too,

viz.

long

descriptions of country life: in Odes 3.1 these comprise stanzas 6-8; and (like Tibullus) Horace chooses a country life by opting for his Sabine valley (47); cf. Tibullus' choice of life in 1.1 and 2.1, and in general the role of simple, unaffected, country living in hellenistic

poetic self-imaging.!*? The final stanza of Odes 3.1 introduces further prologue topoi, some of which raise questions about the relationship between the ode's programme and the Callimachean literary manifesto. Horace's rejection of inuidendis postibus (45) easily squares with the ideals of Callimachus, whose opponents were, in his eyes, motivated by φθόνος (inuidia). Horace is also, as noted, Callimachean in declining

diuitiae (48).'*

But

Horace

also describes diuitiae as

operosiores, seemingly thereby rejecting növoc/labor, another Callimachean ideal. Similarly Horace withholds approval from whatever is implied by nouo ritu (see above section 4 iii), even though earlier he had apparently endorsed Callimachus' aspiration to originality in non prius/ audita (2f.). Finally, sublime ... atrium (46)

could be seen simply as pro-Callimachus in that it attacks the largescale. But such imagery is used by Propertius in connection with his own work at 3.2.19-20: nam neque pyramidum sumptus ad sidera ducti/ nec Iouis Elei caelum imitata domus — cf. also quo me Fama

leuat terra sublimis (3.1.9) — and by Horace himself when writing about his three books of odes in the epilogue to Book 3 (regalique situ pyramidum altius, 3.30.2). It is true, of course, that Odes 3.30 and

Propertius 3.2 introduce lofty buildings in part-contrast to the poets’ works: the monuments will survive less well. But the comparisons are not altogether in deterius. It could then be argued that Horace's attack on a sublime... atrium is anti-Callimachean. It is hard, however, to be sure what (if anything) Horace's apparent deviations from Callimacheanism imply, particularly since the modesty topos, and the captatio beneuolentiae which was its

object, are also characteristic of prologues — cf. the schemata of Engel (1910) and Herkommer (1968) at nn.126 and 127. But it is at

128

FRANCIS CAIRNS

least worth considering whether Horace may be setting out (like

Virgil at the beginning of Georgics 3, cf. above) to modify the Callimachean programme. After ail, Callimachus for the most part composed in hexameters and elegiac couplets and his programme related to these forms. Horace could have felt that it needed refining before it could be applied properly to Acolic lyric. Horace was more aware than we can ever be of the early Greek sources of his own (and

Callimachus") manifestos; and he could have found in early lyric a self-image as slighter, less sublime, and possibly even less laborious than hexameter poetry. If Horace is indeed redefining Callimachus' programme discreetly, he may have felt that he was bringing Callimachus back into tune with the lyric sources of both their poetics. The message would then be: "new songs but old poetics” (i.e.

carmina non prius/ audita but not novo ritu) — an antithesis both witty and apt since Horace (for the first time, so he claims) was introducing early Greek modes into Latin to represent the archaic mos maiorum in contemporary terms.

Appendix: The “Roman Odes" and poem-division in the Odes

For practical reasons this paper has discussed Odes 3.1 with as little reference as possible to the other Roman Odes. However, Dr Alan

Griffiths, in unpublished oral presentations referred to by Heyworth (1993) 96 n.40 with Dr Griffiths' permission, has advanced a view of poem divisions in Horace's Odes which, if correct, would radically alter our perceptions of the Roman Odes; namely that poem divisions always coincide with changes of metre. The consequences (as spelled out by Heyworth /oc. cit.) are as follows: Odes Book 1 reduces to 35 odes (with 16-17, 26-27, and

34435), Book 2 to 17 (with 13+14+15 and 194-20), Book 3 (with the six Roman Odes as a single poem and 24425) to 24, and Book 4 (with 14-5 ‘with less confidence’ — so Heyworth) to 14. Dr Griffiths’

view is helpful in that it removes the anomalous total of 38 poems for Odes Book 1; to date only despairing guesses (e.g. there might have

been 38 pieces in the first book of Alcaeus’ lyrics in the hellenistic edition) have come to mind as an explanation. But elsewhere the

consequences are less welcome. 17 (Book 2) is reminiscent of the Epodes of Horace (and the Jambi of Callimachus?), but no reason presents itself. Similarly 24 (Book 3) and 14 (Book 4) do not impress.

The hypothesis that Odes 3.1-6 is a single piece (already implicit in Porphyrio) coheres with perceptions of the six odes as closely linked

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

129

and of the first three as thematically almost continuous.'* It should not be ruled out for mechanical reasons: a lyric ode of over 300 lines would not have been unreadable as such — nor unperformable. But it would still have had internal divisions (for interludes in a

performance?); and these presumably would have been the six odes. If Dr Griffiths’ hypothesis ultimately wins acceptance, the conclusions of this paper should be applied mutatis mutandisto Odes 3.1

considered as the first part of the compound ode 3.1-6.

NOTES Works referred to once in the text or more than once overall appear in full here and abbreviated elsewhere. Works referred to once only in the notes appear there in full. Amundsen, L. (1942). ‘The ‘Roman Odes’ of Horace. A lecture’, in Serta Eitremiana.

Opuscula Philologica S. Eitrem Septuagenario XXVIII. Dec. MCMXLII oblata (Oslo), 1-24 André, J.-M. (1969). ‘Les Odes romaines: mission divine, otium et apothéose du chef Coll. Latomus 101 (Homm ἃ Marcel Renard ἢ) 31-46 Bartoli, A. (1963). Curia senatus: lo scavo eil restauro (IMonumenti Romani 3). Rome

Bremer, J.M. (1981). ‘Greek hymns’, in H. Versnel (ed.) Faith, hope and worship. Aspects of religious mentality in the ancient world (Leiden), 193-215 Brink, C.O. (1982). Horace on poetry, III: Epistles Book II: the letters to Augustus and Florus. Cambridge Cairns, F. (1971). ‘Five religious odes of Horace (1,10: 1,21 and IV ‚6: 1,30: I,15)' AJPh 92.433-52 — (1972). Generic coi ition in Greek and Roman poetry. Edinburgh — (1979). Tibullus: a Hellenistic poet at Rome. Cambridge — (1984). ‘Propertius and the Battle of Actium (4.6)’, in T. Woodman and D. West (edd.) Poetry and politics in the age of Augustus (Cambridge), 129-68 and 229-36 — (1989). Virgil’s Augustan epic. Cambridge _ ( 00). *Theocritus Idyll 26' Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society —

.

(1992a). ‘The power of implication: Horace's invitation to Maecenas (Odes 1.20)’,

in T. Woodman and J. Powell (edd.) Author and audience in Latin literature (Cambridge) 84-109, 236-241 Calame, C. (1977). Les choeurs de jeunes filles en Gréce archalque. | Morphologie fonction religieuse et sociale. ΠῚ Alcman. (Filologia e critica 20-21). Rome

Doblhofer, E. (1966). Die Augustuspanegyrik des Horaz in formalhistorischer Sicht (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften n.f. 2. Reihe, 16). Heidelberg Doering, F.G. (1831). (ed.) Q. Horatii Flacci Opera. 4th edn, Oxford Engel, G. (1910). De Antiquorum Epicorum Didacticorum Historicorum Prooemiis. Diss. Marburg.

Emout, A., and Pépin, R. (1947). (edd.) Pline l'ancien. Histoire naturelle livre XT. Paris Falter, O. (1934). Der Dichter und Sein Gott bei den Griechen und Rómern. Würzburg

Fatouros, G. (1966). Index Verborum zur frühgriechischen Lyrik. Heidelber Fenik, B. (1962). ‘Horace’s first and sixth Roman Odes and the second rgic’ Hermes 90.72-96 Fraenkel, E. (1957). Horace. Oxford Gottschalk, H.B. (1987). *Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD' ANRW 2.36.2.1079-1174 Hardie, P.R. (1986). Virgil's Aeneid: cosmos and imperium. Oxford Heinze, R. (1938). ‘Der Zyklus der Rómeroden', in Erich Burck (ed.) Vom Geist des

Rómertums. Ausgewählte Aufsätze (Leipzig and Berlin), 213-94 Herkommer, E. (1968). Die Topoi in den Proómien der römischen Geschichtswerke. Diss. Tübingen

130

FRANCIS CAIRNS

Heyworth, Dis (1993). *Horace's Ibis: on the title, unity and contents of the Epodes’ .85-96 Keller, O. and Holder, A. (1899). (edd.) ©. Horati Flacci Opera l. Carminum libri IIIT. Epodon Liber. Carmen saeculare. 2nd edn, Leipzig Kiessling, A. (1930) and Heinze, R. Q. Horatius Flaccus Oden und Epoden. Berlin (repr. Hildesheim and Zurich 1984) Lambinus, D. (1566). (ed.) Q. Horatius Flaccus ex fide et auctoritate decem librorum manuscriptorum opera Dionysii Lambini Monstroliensis emendatus: ab eodemque Commentariys copiosis illustratus. Venice (Paulus Manutius) Lebek, W.D. (1981).

*Horaz und die Philosophie: die 'Oden' ' ANRW2.31.3.2031-92

Long, A.A. and Sedley, D.N. (1987). The Heilenistic philosophers. 2 volumes, Cambridge Mader, G.J. (1987). ‘Poetry and politics in Horace's first Roman Ode: a reconsideration’ Acta Classica 30.1 1-10 Maltby, R. (1991).

4 lexicon of ancient Latin etymologies (ARCA

25). Leeds

— (1993). ‘Varro’s attitude to Latin derivations from Greek’ PLLS 7.47-60 — (1993a). ‘The limits of etymologising’ Aevum Antiquum 6.257-75 Mauch, H. (1986). O laborum dulce lenimen. Funktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur rómischen Dichtung zwischen Republik und Prinzipat am Beispiel der ersten Odensammlung des Horaz (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 29). Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York McKeown, J.C. (1987). Ovid Amores: Text, prolegomena and commentary in four volumes. | Text and prolegomena (ARCA 20). Liverpool Nadeau, Y. (1983). ‘Eloquentes structurae. Speaking structures (pars secunda). Horace, Odes, 3.1-3.6' Latomus 42.303-31 Newman, J.K. (1967). Augustus and the new poetry (Coll. Latomus 88). Brusselsrchem Nielsen, R.M. and Solomon, R.H. (1985). *Horace and Hopkins: the point of balance

in Odes 3.1' Ramus 14.1-15 Nisbet, R.G.M. and Hubbard, M. (1970). Oxford Orelli, I.C. (1843).

Amsterdam

A commentary on Horace, Odes Book I.

(ed.) Q. Horatius Flaccus.

2 vols, 2nd edn, Zurich-London-

Pasquali, G. (1920). Orazio lirico: studi. Florence

Plessis, F., Lejay, P. and Galletier, E. (1924). (edd.) Oeuvres d Horace. Odes, Épodes et Chant séculaire. Paris Quinn, K. (1980). Horace: the Odes. London

Rawson, E. (1985). Intellectual life in the late Roman republic. London Russell, D.A. and Wilson, N.G. (1981). (edd.) Menander Rhetor. Oxford Schmid, U. (1964). Die Priamel der Werte im Griechischen von Homer bis Paulus. Wiesbaden Silk, E.T. (1952). ‘Notes on Cicero and the Odes of Horace’ YCS 13.145-58 —

(1973). ‘Towards a fresh interpretation of Horace Carm HI. 1’ YCS 23 (Studiesin

Latin language and literature) 131-45 ' Solmsen, F. (1947). *Horace's first Roman Ode’ AJPh 68.337-52 Syndikus, H.P. (1973). Die Lyrik des Horaz: Eine Interpretation der Oden Il. Darmstadt Torrentius, L. (1608). Q. Horatius Flaccus, cum erudito Laevini Torrentii Commentario, nunc primum in lucem edito, item Petri Nannii Alcmariani in Artem Poeticam. Antwerp (Ioannis Moretus) Ussani, V. (1927). (ed.) Le liriche di Orazio. 2 vols, 2nd edn, Torino Wardman, A. (1976). Rome's debt to Greece. London Williams, F. (1978). Callimachus: Hymn to Apollo: a commentary. Oxford

Witke, C. (1983). Horace's Roman Odes. A critical examination (Mnemosyne suppl. 77). Leiden Woodman, T. (1984). ‘Horace’s first Roman Ode’, in T. Woodman and D. West (edd.) Poetry and politics in the age of Augustus (Cambridge), 83-94, 212-14 1

Fraenkel (1957) 260. Among items specifically devoted to 3.1

[have learned most

from Silk (1973) and (although often in dissent) from Woodman (1984). Because

so many articles and monographs treat or touch on 3.1, citations have been

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

131

restricted to matters of significant indebtedness and divergence, with more recent works being cited more frequently, inter alia as guides to earlier bibliography. Commentaries have been handled similarly except for Torrentius (1608) — the sthumous work of the scholar and neo-Latin poet Laevinus Torrentius (Lievin anderbecken) — which anticipates embryonically some useful modern approaches to 3.1.

Exceptions are Woodman (1984) 84-5 and Mauch (1986) 246-52. The latter professes to challenge almost every accepted conclusion about the "Roman

Odes". See also Appendix. For the details, cf., e Syndikus (1973) 13-14.

Ussani (1927) ad loc.; Kiessling-Heinze (1930) ad loc.;

Cf. Amundsen (1942) 5, and, for the concept, E. Norden, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Leipzig-Berlin 1913) 5-7; AJ. Festugere, *Hermetica' HTR 31 (1938) 1-20, 3-5.

The formulation ''(ncar)-homophone" has been adopted because: 1) there can be no certainty that Greek-speaking Romans pronounced even e.g. arceo/ápx£o and οὐῴδή identically, much less that Greeks and Romans, speaking their own language, did; 2) some examples, e.g. memorem/yfjvıv (below n. 10), involve only words more or (as in this case) less approximate in sound. Cf. Dionys. Hal. Ant. 1.31: tag μὲν yàp ᾧδὰς καλοῦσι Ῥωμαῖοι κάρμινα and TLL s.v. 1. carmen ad init. The same complex allusive procedure is found at Verg. Aen. 1.1, where Arma echoes the sound of Ἄνδρα (Hom. Od. 1.1) while uirum reflects its sense; cf. Cairns (1989) 191, citing M. Lausberg, ‘Iliadisches im ersten Buch der Aeneis’ Gymnas. 90 (1983) 203-39, 211. The“A Arma assonance is in mentioned by J. Higgins, 'Arma v cano: a note' CW 88,1 "res

1994) 41-2 with the claim: ‘It seems that it has never been noticed’

On Verg. Aen. 1.1 cf. above, n.6. On Ibisat Hor. Epod. 1.1. cf. Heyworth (1993) 85-6, who also discusses some Ovidian examples. For details of this trend, its ramifications, and the opposition to it, cf., most

recently, Maltby (1993) with bibliography. Le. for Romans a share in the prestige of Greek culture; for Greeks the consolation that they had not been conquered by βάρβαροι (‘non-Greeks’) and 80 were akin to the race now ruling the world. Cf. Maltby (1993) 49.

10

M

F. Cairns, ‘Love at the Seaside: Propertius (1,11), Cynthia, and Baiae' The University of Leeds Review 32 (1989/90) 1-16, 11 proposed (without supporting material) that in Prop. 1.11.7 (am te nescio quis simulatis ignibus hostis) hostis is a (pear) homophone of Greek ὅστις, the sense of which reappears in nescio quis. two passages can now be regarded as closely parallel. For the less exact parallels at Verg. Aen. 1.1 (above, n.6) and at Aen. 1.4; memorem ... iram, where memorem recalls Hom. 71. 1.1's Μῆνιν, translated in iram, cf. Cairns (1989) 191, 202. On a further possible echo of Μῆνιν in Juno's first words men' incepto (Aen. 1.37) — but with no “translation” — cf. W. Levitan, *Give up the beginning?: Juno's mindful wrath (Aeneid 1.37) LCM 18 (1993) 14. Ibis at Hor. Epod. 1.1(cf. above and n.7) is another less complete parallel, since it too lacks a "translation". For antrum in the sense of ἄντρον, cf. P. Fedeli, Sesto Properzio. Il primo libro delle elegie. Introduzione, testo critico e commento (Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere «La Colombaria»: Studi 53, Florence 1980) ad /oc., referringto rs; for feras = Greek φῆρας (i.e. centaurs), an interpretation not yet absorbed by the Propertian commentators, cf. F. Cairns, 'Some Observations on Propertius 1.1 CQ 24 (1974) 94-110, 97-8 and ‘The Milanion/Atalanta

FRANCIS CAIRNS

132

ex in Propertius 1,1: videre feras (12) and Greek Models’, in Hommages à Jozef Veremans edd. F. Decreus and C. Deroux (Coll. Latomus 193, Brussels 1986) 29-38, 32, 34. The negative "gut" reaction of many scholars to such suggestions when they involve differences of quantity is groundless, since ancient etymologists and poets ignore such differences: cf. E. Wölfflin, ‘Die Etymologieen der lateinischen Grammatiker' Archiv für Lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893) 421-40, 563-85.

12

The theory was not, however, enthusiast, cf. Maltby (1993).

13

Cf. Fatouros (1966) s.vv. ἀοιδή, φδή.

14

Cf. Fatouros (1966) s.v.

15

Horace's linguistic plays with Greek add up to a technique of labelling his content verbally. A similar practice will be seen again below (section 4 iii) when moral-philosophical themes are again so labelled.

16

For this developing realisation, cf., e.g., Cairns (1979) 90-9; J.M. Snyder, Puns and poetry in Lucretius De rerum natura (Amsterdam 1980); S. Koster, Tessera. Sechs Beiträge zur Poesie und poetischen Theorie der Antike (Erlanger Forschungen: Reihe A Geisteswissenschaften 30, Erlan 1983) Ch.4, with bibliography at 48-9 nn.6-9; D. Porte, L'étiologie religieuse dans les Fastes d'Ovide (Paris 1985) 197-264; McKeown (1987) 45-62; Maltby (1991), (1993), (1993a) — the latter two with further bibliography; J.J. O'Hara, True Names: Virgil and the Alexandrian tradition of etymological wordplay (Michigan forth-

unopposed,

Varro

himself being no blind

coming).

17

H. Wagenvoort, Pietas. Selected studies in Roman religion (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 1, Leiden 1980) 25-38. Ussani (1927) ad loc. had interpreted profanum as 'non ammesso al tempio' on the analogy of pro-festus and pro-fundus — without reference to any authority, but possibly relying on the scholion quoted below.

This passage of Gellius, already cited by Torrentius (1608), reap) as late as Keller and Holder (1899) 145 but does not seem to have been followed up by subsequent commentators. 19

For examples of poets’ decisions about the etymology of a word, of their acceptance at different places of different etymologies of the same word, and of their simultaneous acceptance of divergent etymologies, cf. Cairns (1979) 90-9;

McKeown (1987) 45-62; Maltby (1993a) 259-60, 271-5.

Cf. Newman (1967) Ch.4; J.K. Newman, The Concept of Vates in Augustan Poetry (Coll. Latomus 89, Brussels-Berchem

1967).

21

For tlie details, cf. Maltby (1991) s.v. auris.

22

Cf. Cairns (1984) 141. Cf. E. Fehrle, Die kultische Keuschheit im Altertum (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 6, Giessen 1910) 112ff. The standard caveat that "hymn" is not a "genre of content" (for which cf. Cairns (1972) 91-2), should be taken as implied throughout this discussion, which runs contrary to the declaration of Syndikus (1973) 14 that Od. 3.1 is ‘kein Götterhymnus’ and ‘eigentlich keine heilige Kunde gibt’. The common assumption that hymns must contain prayers finds expression in the definition of “hymn” at Bremer (1981) 193: ‘A hymn is a sung prayer’.

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN ODE

26

27

133

For the two treatises so attributed, cf. now Russell- Wilson (1981); in the sages of Menander quoted below their text accords with that of L. Spengel (ed), Rhetores Graeci 3 (Leipzig 1856) — with one exception (337.30); cf. below, n.28. The claim of Russell- Wilson (1981) that ‘This classification may well be in lar,

part original’ (230) is weakened by their simultaneous admission that 338.2ff. implies predecessors’. For further such implications, cf. 333.24ff., sounding defensive and perhaps hinting at earlier controversy, and esp. 343. 17ff., where,

despite the textual difficulties at 18-19 perceived by Russell- Wilson

ier theoretical discussion (either by "theorists" or attested. The value of the hymn section of Treatise I as earlier poetic hymns rests, of course, not so much on such the fact that '"Menander's" hymn classifications equate ancient hymn going back to the earliest period of Greek

ad loc.,

by "writers") seems a commentary upon considerations as on with actual types of literature.

28

Russell-Wilson (1981) emend Ἑρμηνεία (337.30) to ἙἭ ρμηνείαν, creating an accusative and infinitive (14 and ad /oc.), and translating: ‘As to the style, it is quite acceptable for it to approach the heights of dithyramb, for there is no more solemn theme than these on which a human tongue may give utterance' (15). I have retained "Epunvela, repunctuated, and supplied δή between μικρόν and διαφέρει. The sense is little different.

29

For the religious dimension, cf. above, section 1; for literary programmatic implications, cf. below, section 6; and for alleged and genuine philosophical (and rhetorical) appropriateness, cf. (already) Torrentius (1608) ad loc.; Lebek (1981) 2067; Woodman

(1984) 92.

30

Given the cosmic nature of stanza 2, the attempts of some commentators — most recently Nadeau (1983) 305-6 — to equate Jupiter with Augustus here appear excessive (for all that the equation is not uncommon in Augustan poetry). Rather stanza 2’s references to ‘kings’ can (once any notion of greges being odd has been dispelled — cf. below and n.71) allude by implication to Augustus as the current vice-regent of Jupiter: for this theme cf. esp. Od. 1.12.49-52; 3.5.1-4; O. Weinreich, *Religionswissenschaftliche und literaturgeschichtliche Beiträge zu Horaz’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 61 (1942) 33-74, 33-6; Doblhofer (1966) 109-21; M.S. Santirocco, Unity and design in Horace's Odes (Chapel HillLondon 1986) 118-22. . ‘

31

Cf. Cairns (1992) 3.

32

Cairns (1984) 144-8 suggested that the Muse be recognised explicitly as part of the &y&-figure. Cairns (1992) 28 n.76 explained why recent controversies about the choric or monodic nature of Pindaric epinicia are irrelevant to questions about the choric or monodic status of hellenistic poetry. A fortiori they are irrelevant to discussions of Horatian odes.

33

Silk (1973) 131-8 claimed that non prius audita (2f.) means, not ‘new’, but (in effect) ‘not heeded before’, i.e. that Horace had written such poetry before but no one had taken it to heart. This claim is untenable: audire can, of course, mean *hearken to' but it can equally well simply mean ‘hear’ — as indeed it does in some of the other passages where Silk asserts that it means ‘hearken to’. Moreover, the frequency with which inauditus is combined with novus (esp. by Cicero — cf. TLL s.v. 1. inauditus 2b) speaks conclusively against Silk.

34

E.g. Plessis (1924) on lines 1-4; Ussani (1927) on line 4.

35

Cf.Syndikus (1973) 3, comparing the language of the Roman Odes with that of other Horatian pieces addressing this audience.

36

Theessence of this interpretation goes back at least as far as Torrentius (1608) ad

134

FRANCIS CAIRNS

loc.; and it was still being advanced as late as F.G. Doering (ed.), ©. Horati Flacci Opera (2nd edn, Oxford-London 1831). 37

The matter is not absolutely clear because Orelli's attack is compressed: *Recentiores interpretes explicaverunt de puerorum virginumque choro, qui sacerdotem cingat laudesque deorum canat.' His objection: ‘cum in toto hoc carmine γνωμικῷ καὶ ἠθικῷ nihil plane insit, quod a choris cani possit' is, of course, baseless, since gnomic and ethical content is a strong characteristic of performance poetry.

38

That little concerns the flute music accompanying them; cf. Calame (1977) Cf. Calame (1977) 1.62-3. Cf. Calame (1977) 1.62, 108-15.

41

42

Cf. also H. Färber, Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Antike (Munich 1936) 19

AO, 11.545. Calame (1977) I1.152-6 refutes various erroneous conclusions

of

Farber.

For further details, cf. Calame (1977) IT. 152-5. Calame is surely right to conclude that only one sort of poem is in question in these texts. But his “reconciliatory” description of the “partheneion”, which combines all three ancient definitions

(11.155), should not obscure the existence of controversy in antiquity. The

development of the Aristophanes scholia is traced by J.W. White, The Scholia on

the Aves of Aristophanes (Boston-London 1914) Introduction ix-Ixxxv. Unattributed scholia such as this cannot be dated beyond doubt. But Calame is again doubtless correct to treat this scholion as hellenistic; the spurious dispute about accentuation mentioned in the scholion has no bearing on the definition problem, cf. already White (1914) ad loc.

43

Pind. fr. 118 Sn.-Mae. βούλομαι παίδεσσιν Ἑλλάνων ... is sometimes advanced as a parallel for Hor. Od. 3.1.4; but it is misleading, since it refers to adults: cf., e.g., Pind. Ol. 13.14; Isth. 3.18; 4.36; fr. 77.1 Sn.-Mae. Kiessling-Heinze (1930) 469-70 recording

reproduce part of the text of the inscription

these events (CIL 6.32323). On its discovery and other circumstances

surrounding the performance of the Carmen Saeculare, cf. Fraenkel (1957) Ch.7. 45

Bremer (1981) surveys the evidence about ancient performances of hymns with surprisingly rich results. Cf. also M. Von Albrecht, ‘Musik und Dichtung bei Horaz', in Atti del convegno di Venosa. 8-15 novembre 1992 (Venosa 1993) 75-100, 77 n.7 for some Roman examples; and below, n.49. Cf. E.L. Bundy, ‘The “Quarrel between Kallimachos and Apollonios" Part 1 The Epilogue of Kallimachos's Hymn to Apollo! CSCA 5 (1972) 39-94; Cairns (1979) 121-6; (1992) 10-11. Bremer (1981) 212 classes them among ‘hymns which had never been in actual use in Greek cults’. This is not to say, however, that they

may not have been performed in other contexts. 47

Cf. Cairns (1971) 443-4. The implication of this view is that Od. 4.6.41-4 is self-referential rather than referring to the Carmen Saeculare.

49

Cf. Cairns (1971) 440-3, amplifying the views of U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos (Berlin 1924) I1.290-1. For useful material on choric performances, cf. Nisbet-Hubbard (1970) 253-61, esp. 253-4 (introd. to Od. 1.21).

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN

ODE

135

50

Calame (1977) esp. 11.147-77: ‘Appendice: Le parthénée comme genre littéraire".

51

Calame (1977) 11.152-75. Cf. Calame (1977) 1.18-20. Cf. Calame (1977) 11.167-70. Cf. Calame (1977) 11.163-5. Such “partheneia” wouid thus be analogous generically to specialised hymntypes such as “paean” and "dithyramb", which, in virtue of their standard subject-matter, are "genres of content”, although “hymn” is not. On these res cf., most recently, L. Kappel, Paian. Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung (Untersuchungen zur antiken Titeratur und Geschichte 37, Berlin-New York 1992) and B. Zimmermann, Dithyrambos. Geschichte einer Gattung (Hypomnemata 98, Góttingen

1992).

For these, cf. Calame (1977) II. 167-74. For interpretations of details of Alem. fr.

1 PMGF, cf. now also the annotations in PMGF.

57

For the same theme in the Roman Odes, cf. Odes 3.4. Syndikus (1973) II.16 denies that world order is involved, cf. below, n.67.

58

For this theme in Od. 3.1, cf. below section 4 iii. According to © Pind. Ol. 1.9]a (= Alcm. fr. 79 PMGF and Alc. fr. 365 v) both

Alcacus and Alcman treated this version of the Tantalus myth; cf. also Archil. fr. 1.14 W. These themes are also prominent in Pind. fr. 94b. Calame (1977) IT. 167-9 warns that only fr. 94d definitely formed part of an Alexandrian book of Pindaric partheneia, whereas fr. 94b, among others, is daphnephoric; but Calame simultaneously classifies daphnephorika as a specialised form of partheneion.

61

Cf. Cairns (1979) Ch.8 and, for earlier bibliography, 194-5 n.4.

62

Notably (and with varying degrees of formality and informality) by H. Oppermann, 'Zum Aufbau der Römeroden’ G . 66 (1959) 204-17, 205-7; Nadeau (1983) 304-8; Witke (1983) Ch.3, Woodman (1984); Nielsen and Solomon (1985); Mauch (1986) 253.

63

E.g., it is referred to, and even partly quoted, by Orelli (1843) on lines 4-6 and Kiessling-Heinze (1930) on lines 9-14. Orelli (1843) on lines 4-6, KiesslingHeinze (1930) on line 5 and Keller-Holder (1899) on line 5 follow Torrentius (1608) in quoting Suet. Diu. Iul. 6.2 (from Julius Caesar's funeral oration for his aunt Julia): est in genere et sanctitas regum, qui plurimum inter homines pollent, et caerimonia deorum, quorum ipsi in potestate sunt reges, without doubt a genuine passage of Caesar’s published version of the specch — cf. J. Gascou, Suétone istorien (Bibliotheque des

Ecoles francaises d'Athénes et de Rome 255, Rome

1984) 548. Its closeness to the second stanza of Od. 3.1 and the lack of further equally close parallels inevitably raise the question whether such a formulation was traditional in the Julian family and was known to Horace as such.

This suggestion is already made in Torrentius (1608) ad loc.

65

Le. Woodman (1984) 86, paraphrasing the run of thought as: ‘Kings rule their subjects, but kings themselves are ruled by Jupiter: one man is superior to another, but death is superior to all’, and speaking throughout of ‘death’; Mauch

(1986) esp. 254; and Mader

(1987)

14. The

first two do not

mention Silk, the last dismisses his view in a footnote (26 n.12). Silk's position

136

FRANCIS CAIRNS

was reasserted by V. Cremona, La poesia civile di Orazio (Milan 1982) 180-1 and Witke (1983) 21. The long-standing confusion over this matter may be due partly to the self-contradictory statements of Kiessling-Heinze (1930): at one point (on Od. 3.1.9-14) they assert that Necessitas equates with Jupiter, and at another (on Od. 3.1.14-15) that Necessitas is Necessitas leti. Horace's own phrase necessitas/ leti (Od. 1.3.32-3) has also rated confusion, as has the appearance of Necessitas in association with, but not as synonymous with, death at Od. 3.24.5-8: si figit adamantinos/ summis verticibus dira Necessitas/ clavos, non animum metu,/ non mortis laqueis expedies caput — where the context similarly involves excessive building activity (Od. 3.24.1-4). Cf., however, also Od.

1.35.17ff., where there is no association between Necessitas and death.

Silk (1973) 139 and nn.9-10 specified these as Orelli — referring to his 1802 edition — and W. Medway in J.G. Skemp and G.W. pine (edd.), Interpretations of Horace by the late William Medway M.A. (Oxford 1910) 102. In fact Necessitas was already understood correctly by Lambinus (1566) ad loc.

67

The position taken throughout this paper is that stanza 2 presents an essentially Stoic world-order as the basis for and preliminary to Horace's moral recommendations. This position was denied outright by Syndikus (1973), claiming that the stanza contains: ‘von hierarchischer oder gerechter Weltordnung kein Wort’ (16, cf. also 16.59). Such a contradiction is probably unresolvable by argument; cf. however, subsequent to Syndikus, Hardie (1986) and Cairns (1989)

Ch.1 for

expositions of the underlying world-picture of the Augustan age (and earlier). Philemon line 4 has singular ‘king’ and plural 'gods', but these variations are probably not significant. Cf. Doblhofer (1966); Cairns (1989) esp. Chh.1-3. 70

On these topics, cf. esp. Hardie (1986).

71

Cf. Woodman (1984) 85, noting his predecessors at 212 n.4; cf., later, Nielsen and Solomon (1985) 4: ‘The collocation of reges-greges-regum makes the lines sound bathetically humorous’. : As hinted by H.T. Plüss, Horazstudien. Alte und neue Aufsütze über Horazische Lyrik (Leipzig 1882) 187. LE Tib. 1.5.28-9; Manil. Astron. 2.227-8; Val. Flacc. Argon. 5.67; Stat. Theb. 3.533-4; Achil. 1.56-7. I hope to examine this question in more detail elsewhere.

74

E.g. Quinn (1980) ad loc.: ‘H.’s ironic rephrasing’; Woodman (1984) 85: ‘the surrealism of supercilio combined with mouentis’.

75

Cf. Woodman (1984) for useful remarks on most of the verbal echoes and correspondences in the ode. D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Profile of Horace (London 1982) 92-3 objects on a number of grounds to the transmitted text of lines 34-5, and proposes instead for lines 34-8: ... huc frequens/ caementa demittit redemptor./ tum famuli dominusque terrae/ fastidiosus sed Timor et Minae/ scandunt eodem quo dominus ..., taking scandunt ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with all the subjects of his new sentence. For reasons which I hope to expand on elsewhere I am not persuaded by these emendations.

76 77

Woodman

j

.

(1984) 86-7 exempts the landowner from political ambitions but

continues to regard the latter three men as candidates.

Le. F. Dornseiff, Die archaische Myıhenerzählung. Folgerungen aus dem homerischen Apollonhymnos (Berlin-Leipzig 1933) — for his definition of priamel, cf. 3; W. Króhling, Die Priamel (Beispielreihung) als Stilmittel in der griechischrömischen Dichtung (Greifswalder Beiträge für Literatur- und Stilforschung 10,

HORACE'S FIRST ROMAN

ODE

137

Greifswald 1935); W.H. Race, The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius (Leiden 1982). 78

The exampics of this class treated by Schmid (1964) 51-104 range

on the Greek

side from Homer to Synesios and on the Latin side derive from Tibullus as well as Horace; doubtless more could be added. For refinements and rectifications of Schmid’s hypotheses cf. T. Krischer, ‘Die logischen Formen der Priamel’ Grazer Beitrdge 2 (1974) 79-91.

Cf. Aphthonius ed. Rabe p.31.9-11: Set δὲ συγκρίνοντας

χρηστοῖς ἢ φαῦλα φαῦλοις 1 χρηστὰ πονηροῖς ἢ μικρὰ

ἢ καλὰ παραθεῖναι

παραθεῖναι to

oat. καὶ ὅλως ἡ σύγκρισις διπλοῦν ἐγκώμιόν ἐστιν ἢ ψόγος «fi λόγος» & γκωμίου καὶ ψόγου συγκείμενος. ("Those performing "comparisons" shoi compare good things with good or bad with bad or good with bad or small with great. In general a "comparison" is either a double encomium or disparagement or more likely that Tiberius and Livia ... had speeded the slaughter of a suspected and resented young man’. This is of course a quite regular construction,?* but in the interests of innuendo Tacitus has delayed our realisation that he has used it.?* Thus, since the allegation introduced by propius uero is immediately denied by Tiberius himself, and since his denial is subsequently demonstrated to have been genuine, it follows that the articulation of

the passage is this: people at the time thought it more likely that Tiberius

was

guilty

but

[adversative

asyndeton]

in convincing

circumstances he denied having ordered the murder. Though this articulation becomes clear only in retrospect and does not coincide

with what the majority of scholars believe Tacitus to be saying, a much more interesting scenario results from Tiberius' innocence than from his guilt. We now have a moment of high farce, in which a lowly centurion not only takes it for granted that the first act of the

new emperor has been to order the death of a threatening relative but also dutifully confronts the emperor with his supposed act. Yet not only has Tiberius not ordered the murder but, as is clear from his

requiring a senatorial hearing, he has no idea whatsoever who did issue the order. Despite having just become the most powerful man in the world, he is shown to be pitifully ignorant. III Now we know from the start of the episode that Tiberius did not carry through his demand for a senatorial hearing. It therefore follows not only that Livia passed on Sallustius' warning to her son but also that Tiberius took the warning to heart and acted upon it. It also follows that Tiberius' silence in the senate, about which we were

told at the very start of the episode, is chronologically subsequent to Sallustius! advice to Livia, which occurs in the narrative last of all. Yet this is exactly the opposite of the scenario outlined by Shotter, who maintains that 'Tiberius' first reaction after the murder was ... to

blame Augustus' and that *his second was ... to have the blame

publicly shifted to Sallustius.) Such remarks show the danger of assuming that a narrative, especially a Tacitean narrative, should always be read sequentially. The true chronological order of events,

as presented by Tacitus, is indicated by bracketed letters in the text above (section II). Contrary to what Shotter says, Tiberius’ first reaction after the murder was to require a senatorial hearing; his

second, after the interventions of Sallustius and Livia, was to say

A DEATH IN THE FIRST ACT: TACITUS, ANNALS 1.6

265

nothing in the senate; only then did he let someone else take the blame, and the victim was not Sallustius but Augustus. As will be seen from the set of italicisations in the text, the first half of the narrative illustrates ring composition: centurio ... confecit at the end

of the first sentence (6.1) is picked up by nuntianti centurioni ... factum esse below (6.3), the latter returning us to the point in the narrative

which we left at the end of the first sentence. What intervenes between these two points is displaced material, which seems to have been inserted solely to cast suspicion on Tiberius by means of a detailed exoneration of Augustus. Tiberius is seemingly accused but in fact excused within

the same

passage, an early and excellent

example of Tacitus’ classic technique of having his cake and eating it. It may be thought that this detailed and complicated analysis has resulted merely in the straightforward conclusion that in Tacitus'

opinion Sallustius and Livia between them ordered the murder of Postumus. This is, after all, a variant on thesecond of the hypotheses advanced by Suetonius, and it is also what some modern scholars believe actually to have happened “in real life".?* Yet Tacitus’ narrative has been deliberately deceptive, and, as we have seen, the

majority of modern scholars has been duly deceived by it: regardless of what they think actually happened, they have believed that Tacitus

presents as guilty the emperor whom he in fact presents as innocent.?? IV If the above conclusions are correct, it is worth asking whether they affect the significance of this opening episode, a matter on which there has hitherto

been general agreement (above, section II and

nn.9-14). If Tiberius is being presented as guilty, as most readers seem to have assumed, the emperor's imputation of murder to Augustus is simply a cynical and perhaps desperate attempt at selfexculpation which has the effect of compounding his own guilt. But,

if Tiberius is being presented as innocent, the pretence of orders from his father takes on a different perspective. When Tiberius discovered from Livia the truth about the murder,

he was placed in an impossible position. He could hardly go ahead and admit that his mother was responsible, for that would be to

accuse her of ‘sacrilege of the highest order'.*? Nor could Tiberius say that he was himself responsible, since the responsibility was not his. He was therefore compelled to give the impression that the responsibility lay with Augustus,*' who, being now dead, was beyond

266

A.J. WOODMAN

any indictment. That was the only available option; yet it involved

Tiberius in being forced to begin his reign by slandering the memory of a man who will be deified a few chapters later (1.8.1, 11.3) and

whose good example Tiberius will invoke many times throughout his reign.*? Indeed Tiberius’ contemporaries may well have regarded his present behaviour as an early (if ruthless) demonstration of such filial devotion,” since the princeps appeared to have sanctioned orders

which he had the power to countermand; but the reader of Tacitus knows that Tiberius had been compelled to pretend the existence of the orders in the first place, and by this pretence, which he steadfastly maintained (simulabat at 6.1 is imperfect), he effectively repudiated

the virtue of pietas even before he had a chance to lay claim to it.“ ‘These ironies Tacitus delicately underlines by his choice of the word

patris rather than Augusti at the start of the episode.“ It will therefore be clear that, so far from being presented as a guilty perpetrator, Tiberius is being presented as an innocent victim. The episode as a whole is indeed significant, as scholars have believed; yet the reason is not that it portrays the first of Tiberius’ many murders but that it shows how crucial actions, including murder, are from the very start carried out by powers behind the

throne and in spite of Tiberius himself. The opening of Annals 13 (Prima nouo principatu mors ... ignaro Nerone per dolum Agrippinae paratur), which has been invoked in order to emphasise by contrast Tiberius’ guilt here in Book

1 (above and n.11), turns out instead to

provide a parallel rather than a contrast. At the opening of Book 13 we are told specifically that the first death in the new principate was arranged by Nero's mother and without Nero's knowledge, an exact repetition of the events of Book 1; the difference is that, whereas Nero's ignorance and his mother's guilt are clearly stated at 13.1.1,

noui principatus at 1.6.1 is an ambiguous genitive and is seen in

retrospect to be the first of the successive deceptions which, as we have

noted,

Tacitus

practises

upon

his readers

throughout

the

paragraph. And his modern readers have been duly deceived by it (above, section IT).

Livia's role in our episode harmonises perfectly with the narrative

which precedes and which itself foreshadows the end of Book 12.* In the preceding section, the second of those announced by Tacitus in his preface (above, section I), we have been given a comprehensive picture of Livia’s methods of working. Before Augustus’ death people dreaded her impotentia (1.4.5); she was rumoured to be responsible for Augustus’ death (1.5.1); and she was instrumental in

A DEATH IN THE FIRST ACT: TACITUS, ANNALS 1.6

267

ensuring Tiberius’ succession (1.5.3-4). The present episode shows that people's fears concerning her were amply borne out in the very first act of the new principate: she was pulling the strings, and Tiberius knew nothing about it. This is a theme which will resurface later in the narrative, when

his mother's

habitual interventions

constitute one of the alleged reasons why Tiberius at last decides to retire to Capri (4.57.3 traditur etiam matris impotentia extrusum, quam dominationis sociam aspernabatur neque depellere poterat). Yet Livia did not act alone: Tiberius is also the victim of Sallustius Crispus. Shotter, starting out from the presumption that Tacitus

makes Tiberius guilty, alleged that the emperor is ‘trying to have the blame publicly shifted to Sallustius; but nothing could be further from the text: it is Sallustius who, in a successful effort at saving his own skin, at the same time extricates Tiberius from the embarrass-

ment of a senatorial hearing. Sallustius' role is underlined by the set of capitalised words in the text (above, section II), which indicates

the

ironical

relationship

between

Tiberius'

exchange

with

the

centurion and Sallustius' approach to Livia. In the former Tiberius insists that he has issued no command (neque imperasse sese) and that an account of the murder must be rendered in the senate (rationem

facti reddendam apud senatum); in the latter Sallustius in effect tells Livia that Tiberius knows neither how to behave as ‘commander’ or imperator (eam condicionem esse imperandi...) nor to whom an account should really be rendered (ut ... ratio ... uni reddatur).“ The

picture is that of an out-of-touch ruler, who is ignorant of the realities of power and compelled to rely on the advice of an influential adviser.*? This picture too is in harmony with the rest of the Tiberian narrative. We next meet Sallustius in Book 2, where Tiberius is exercised by the sudden appearance of a false Agrippa Postumus (39-40). By now, of course, three years have passed and in the interval Tiberius has learned something about how to behave as

imperator. The emperor handed the matter over to Sallustius Crispus (2.40.2 dat negotium Sallustio Crispo): Tacitus makes no further comment but surely relishes the irony of the situation and the

cynicism with which Tiberius acted. Sallustius for his part arranged for the man to be arrested, and the impostor, like the real Postumus before him, was murdered. Yet, if the episode in Book 2 shows that

Tiberius has learned the lessons of command, subsequent events were to show that his education had not proceeded far enough. The

princeps! manipulation

by Sallustius in the first episode of the

268

A.J. WOODMAN

Tiberian narrative is exactly mirrored in his manipulation by Sejanus in Book 4. The only machinations result in farcical confrontation almost destroy him.

difference is that, whereas Sallustius’ secret nothing more dangerous for Tiberius than his with the centurion, those of Sejanus would Thus the significance of the episode of

Postumus’ death is that it portrays Tiberius as dependent on others and influenced by them, a portrait which re-emerges in his obituary at the end of Book 6 (51.3), closing the frame of the Tiberian narrative.°° V Although the significance of Postumus' death is enhanced by its being

placed

at the start of Tacitus' Tiberian

narrative (above,

section II), this placement involves a final problem of interpretation. In his note on the words At Romae, with which the next episode

begins (1.7.1), Goodyear Ronald Martin:?!

quotes

the following

observations of

At Romae is a common form of transition in Tacitus when heswitches from events abroad (or outside Rome), but here there is an additional

point. If its normal function is to make a switch from one locale to another, with what docs it contrast here? Not with anything in ch. 6, but with ch. 5 (events at Nola). Ch. 6 is thus structurally indicated as a

digression from the main narrative. Sir Ronald Syme agrees: chapter 6 is ‘a digression, as shown by the phrase “At Romae" (7,1), which looks back to 5,4’.5? Yet how can chapter 6, which is proved by Tacitus' own preface to be the start of

the Tiberian narrative (above, section I), be at the same time 'a digression from the main narrative’? The remarks of Martin and Syme seem to imply that the events of chapter 6, like those of chapter 7, take place in Rome. But this is not the case with the very first sentence of chapter 6: the murder of Postumus presumably took place on the island of Planasia, where, as we have already been told (1.3.4), he was living in exile. Now it is precisely after this first sentence, as we have seen (section III), that

the chronological disruption of the narrative occurs. The next two sentences, designated [e] and [f] in the text above (section II), are the result of the actions described in sentence [d], which occurs at the end

of the chapter. In other words, all but the first sentence of chapter6 is framed by references to Tiberius' not discussing Postumus' murder in the senate (1 nihil de ea re Tiberius apud senatum disseruit : : 3 neue

A DEATH IN THE FIRST ACT: TACITUS, ANNALS 1.6

269

Tiberius ... ad senatum uocando).

Now the earliest opportunity discussed the murder in the senate senatus die. But that meeting seems the events of chapter 7, not least by

on which Tiberius could have does not occur until 1.8.1 primo to be preceded in time by many of the edict through which Tiberius

called the senators to that meeting (1.7.3). In other words, the non-

discussion of the murder in the senate is a flash forwards across the events of chapter 7 to the first sentence of chapter 8. And, since the topic of Tiberius' silence frames all except the first sentence of chapter 6 (see above), it would seem to follow from the presence of this frame that the greater part of chapter 6 is a digression from the

main chronological narrative of events. This chronology may be illustrated schematically as follows:

1) 1.6.1 Primum facinus noui principatus fuit Postumi Agrippae caedes

2) 3) 4) 5)

1.7.1 1.7.3 1.8.1 1.6.1

At Romae edictum ... Nihil primo nihil de ea disseruit

ruere in seruitium consules, patres, eques quo patres in curiam uocabat senatus die agi passus nisi de supremis Augusti re [sc. Postumi caede] Tiberius apud senatum

The reaction of the consuls, senators and knights (1.7.1) is not unnaturally introduced by the phrase At Rornae, since it contrasts with the murder of Postumus, which took place on Planasia. And not

only is the but Primum of Tiberius programme

murder of Postumus ‘the first act of the new principate’ facinus noui principatus is also where the main narrative begins — which is exactly what we should expect after the which Tacitus set out in the very first chapter of his

work.

NOTES Ronald

Martin will, I trust, relish the appositeness of my dedicating to him this

particular paper, of which he has read and commented on more drafts than he will care to remember. The following works will be referred to more than once: Detweiler, R

0270.

*Historical perspectives on the death of Agrippa Postumus'

Goodyear, F.R.D. (1972). The Annals of Tacitus. Vol. 1. Cambridge

Hohl, E. (1935). ‘Primum facinus novi principatus! Hermes 70.350-5 Kehoe, D. (1984/85). ‘Tacitus and Sallustius Crispus’ CJ 80.247-54

Koestermann, E. (1961). ‘Der Eingang der Annalen des Tacitus’ Historia 10.330-55

270

A.J. WOODMAN

Levick, B. (1976). Tiberius the politician. London Martin, R.H. (1955). ‘Tacitus and the death of Augustus’ CQ 5.123-8 — (1981). Tacitus. London (repr. 1989, 1994) Seager, R. (1972). Tiberius. London Shotter, D.C.A. (1965). ‘Three problems in Tacitus’ Annals 1’ Mnem. Syme, R. (1958). Tacitus. Oxford

18.359-61

Woodman, A. J. and Martin, R.H. (forthcoming). The Annals of Tacitus: Book 3. Cambridge References, unless otherwise stated, will be to Tacitus’ Annals. 1

Thus Goodyear (1972) has no relevant note on 1.1.3 and, like many other scholars, misleadingly treats 1.5-6 as a unit (125). M.M. Sage says ‘It is best to take the first three chapters as a preface’ (“Tacitus’ historical works: a survey and appraisal’ ANRW 2.33.2 (1990) 970): that would mean that the main narrative begins at 1.4.1 (Igitur uerso ciuitatis statu...), which seems unlikely. The correct

scheme may be found in A.D. Leeman, 'Structure and meaning in the prologues of Tacitus’ YCS 23 (1973) 188-9. See also below, n.46.

2

= See e.g. Levick (1976) 245 n.66, W. Suerbaum, ‘Zweiundvierzig Jahre Tacitus-

Forschung: 1980’ ANRW

Systematische

Gesamtbibliographie

zu Tacitus' Annalen

1939-

2.33.2 (1990) 1180. A summary of earlier views, going back to 1903,

may be found in Detweiler (1970) 292-4. 3 4

Theletters in square brackets will be explained in due course. Theother accounts of the death are Suet. Tib. 22 and Dio 57.3.5-6. For the

pointedness of starting with Postumus (Primum :: Postumi) cf. Cic. Mur. 57 respondebo igitur Postumo primum: | owe this reference (not to be found in H.

Holst, Die Wortspiele in Ciceros Reden (Oslo 1925)) to Dr C.S. Kraus. There isa

comparable double point in the preface of Tacitus' Histories, where he begins a new section with Nero's death, which he calls an ‘end’ (H. 1.4.2 Finis Neronis...). 5

Fora

similar case see 3.33.1 Seuerus Caecina, where a transposed cognomen

alludes to Cato the Elder: see Woodman

and Martin (forthcoming) ad loc. and

note Goodyear (1972) on 1.38.2. 6

This point is made also by J. Henderson, 'Tacitus/the world in pieces’, in A.J.

Boyle (ed.), The imperial Muse: Flavian epicist to Claudian (Victoria 1990) 202-3 n.72.

7

Secfurther R. Maltby, A lexicon of ancient Latin etymologies (Leeds 1991) 20, M. Bettini, Anthropology and Roman culture (Baltimore-London 1991) 293-4.

8

Forother plays on names in Tacitus see Woodman and Martin (forthcoming) on 3.75.1.

9

Goodyear (1972) 133.

10

Martin (1955) 127.

11

Martin (1981) 162.

12

Detweiler (1970) 291 responsible.

13

Levick (1976) 65.

14

See below and n.21.

and

294-5, adding

that Tacitus makes

Livia jointly

A DEATH IN THE FIRST ACT: TACITUS, ANNALS 1.6

15

So Dio 57.3.6.

16

Seager (1972) 50.

17

Levick (1976) 65 with n.69.

18

19

271

It seems far more likely that ‘No official statement was ever published’ (Syme

(1958) 399).

Seager (1972) 48 says that Tacitus “is chiefly concerned to exculpate. Augustus’ (though I disagree with ‘chiefly’). See also below, n.35. G.H. Walther (Halle 1831), G.A. Ruperti (Hanover 1834), F. Ritter (CambridgeLondon 1848), J.C. Orelli (Zurich ?1859), W. Pfitzner (Gotha 1892), H. Furneaux (Oxford 71896), K. Nipperdey and G. Andresen (Berlin !!1915).

21

Hohl (1935) 351, Shotter (1965) 360, J.D. Lewis, ‘Primum facinus novi principatus?', in B.F. Harris (ed.), Auckland classical essays ented to E.M. Blaiklock (Auckland 1970) 166-7, 180, Martin (1981) 162, M. Baar. Das Bild des Kaisers Tiberius bei Tacitus, Sueton und Cassius Dio (Stuttgart 1990) 93. Goodyear (1972) 135 and n.1.

Kehoe (1984/85) 253, explaining (n.19) that his reference is to Koestermann’s 1960 Teubner text, to which Goodyear (above) must also have been referring. E. Koestermann,

Cornelius Tacitus: Annalen Buch

1-3 (Heidelberg 1963) 83.

Earlier Koestermann (1961) 335 was not altogether clear on this point, although he there states that in Tacitus’ opinion both Sallustius and Livia were responsible.

Kehoe (1984/85) 248 and 253. Goodyear (1972) 135 n.1. I owe this point to Ronald Martin. Cf. Liv. 4.37.1 quod propius uero est, 8.37.5 fortuna Samnitium ... propius ut sit uero facit non Apulis ab Samnitibus arma inlata, 9.36.4 sed propius est uero praecipuum aliquid fuisse in eo qui se tam audaci simulatione hostibus inmiscuerit, 40.50.7 propius uero est serius in prouinciam peruenisse, Ov. F. 4.801—2 num tamen est uero propius, cum condita Roma est,/ transferri iussos in noua tecta Lares ...?. Some examples of false denials are given by Kehoe (1984/85) 250 n.12.

Seager (1972) 49-50, referring to Hohl (1935); see also Detweiler (1970) 292-3. Cf. Suet. Tib. 22 Tiberius renuntianti tribuno factum esse quod imperasset, neque imperasse se et redditurum eum senatui rationem respondit, inuidiam scilicet in praesentia uitans: nam mox silentio rem obliterauit.

32 33

Sallustius' role is rightly stressed, but for different reasons, by Kehoe (1984/85). Contrast e.g. 2.59.3 dominationis arcana. Livia's

propensity to authorise action is

a key element in the tradition about her: cf. 3.64.2,

Dio 57.12.2; N. Purcell, ‘Livia

and the womanhood of Rome' PCPS 32 (1986) 88, 90-1. Note esp. 2.43.4, her advice to Plancina about Agrippina (and perhaps Germanicus too), an intervention which, given the outcome, our passage may foreshadow. See e.g.

R. Kühner and C. Stegmann, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen

Sprache: II Satzlehre (repr. Hannover 1971) 2.536 Anm. 1, where is noted the

272

A.J. WOODMAN

frequency

with

which

an affirmative verb of saying or thinking is to be

understood from a preceding negative(d) verb (cf. also 563).

35

Tacitus’ successive sentences are decreasingly authorial (see also above, p.261): he moves from durauit to neque... credibile erat (contrast credibile est et Agr. 11.3, G. 28.1) to propius uero [sc. esse]. | am grateful to Professor J.G.F. Powell for discussion of this and related points.

Shotter (1965) 360. 37

Since working this out, I have discovered that a similar scheme, also designated

by letters, is presented by E. Löfstedt, Roman literary portraits (Oxford 1958) 168-70. Löfstedt, however, works inwards to Tacitus’ narrative from “what must have happened", uses his scheme in order to make an entirely different point,

and

does

not

make

it clear whether

represented by Tacitus as guilty or not.

38

in his view

Tiberius

is being

Suet. Tib. 22 quos codicillos dubium fuit ... an nomine Augusti Liuia et ea conscio Tiberio an ignaro dictasset. See the survey of scholarly views by Detweiler (1970)

292-4.

See above, pp.259-61. Syme (1958) 485 believed that Tacitus’ narrative offers ‘no plain answer’. Me phrase is that of S. Jameson, ‘Augustus and Agrippa Postumus' Historia 24 (1975) 314. But it will be remembered conveyed (above, n.15).

that we do not know how this impression was |

42

For this familiar theme see e.g. Seager (1972) 174-7.

43

As Dr C.S. Kraus has observed; see also Hohl (1935) 354.

Such "double focalisation" is typical of Tacitus: thus at 1.8.6 prouisis etiam heredum in rem publicam opibus, where Goodyear (1972) 152-3 has a long

discussion on whether in = ‘against’ or ‘for’, the answer will depend upon the implied point of view. The same issue arises at 3.24.2, where see Woodman and Martin (forthcoming) ad loc.

45

Hohl (1935) 354 n.3 suggested as part of his argument that with patris we should understand, not Tiberii, but Postumi. (In either case the reference isto Augustus, who adopted both men together on 26 July A.D. 4.) For this see e.g. Martin (1955) 123-4. Since 1.5 foreshadows 12.66-8, whereas

1.6.1 foreshadows 13.1.1, this is another argument in favour of the view (above, Section I p.257) that a new section starts at 1.6.1 in the same way as a new book starts at 13.1.1.

47

Shotter (1965) 360.

See also Koestermann

(1961) 339. There is a theoretical possibility that

Sallustius" words eam condicionem ... imperandi could, if taken by themselves,

refer to a specific command of Tiberius (that Postumus be murdered) and hence that they confirm Tiberius' guilt; but this possibility seems precluded by the context. Indeed it might be argued that on such an interpretation the rest of Sallustius" advice (..: ut non aliter ratio constet quam si uni reddatur) would be

redundant, since the centurion had indeed reported to Tiberius. (Note that Tacitus makes Sallustius use a metaphor appropriate to a man famous for his wealth.)

07

A DEATH IN THE FIRST ACT: TACITUS, ANNALS 1.6

4

50

273

Dr T.E.J. Wiedemann reminds me that the theme of the “evil adviser" seems to be standard in descriptions of tyrants. For this interpretation of the obituary see A.J. Woodman, ‘Tacitus’ obituary of

Tiberius’ CQ 39 (1989) 197-205.

51

Goodyear (1972) 137.

52

Roman papers (Oxford 1984) 3.1024 n.37.

53

It has to be admitted, however, that the closing of the frame at sentence [d] is anterior in time to its opening at sentence [6] and that [d] is subsequent in time to [b], which, though within the digressive frame, is the earliest event in the chapter apart from Postumus' murder ([a]) and is therefore of critical importance. From the very use of the phrase At Romae at 1.7.1 it might be argued that [b}-[d] are to be envisaged as taking place elsewhere than at Rome: if that is the case, the only alternative locale is the journey of Augustus’ cortége, accompanied by Tiberius and (presumably) Livia, from Nola to Rome. But this hypothesis presupposes that the cortége had not yet reached Rome in the time it took both news of Augustus' death to travel from Nola to Planasia and the centurion's news of Postumus' death to travel back from Planasia to Tiberius. Such a scenario, though perhaps possible (as emphasised to me by Mr J.M. Carter), nevertheless involves a tight scheduling of events which are themselves uncertain and controversial (see Martin (1981) 254 n.18), and on the whole I prefer to suppose that everything in chapter 6, apart from Postumus’ murder in the first sentence, is imagined as taking place at Rome.

PAPERS OF THE LEEDS INTERNATIONAL LATIN SEMINAR 8 (1995) 275-88 Published by Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd (Leeds 1995). Arca 33. ISBN 0-905205-89-8

PLUTARCH'S TRAGEDY TYRANTS: GALBA AND OTHO

.

E. KEITEL Plutarch's lives of Galba and Otho have received scant and not entirely appreciative scholarly attention for the past hundred years. Scholars since Mommsen have pronounced them less biographies and more chunks of history somewhat awkwardly divided into two Lives. Plutarch does indeed suggest at Galba 2.5 that he is not writing conventional biographies as he closes a survey of the destruction wrought by the Roman armies in A.D. 68-69: tà μὲν οὖν καθ᾽ Exacta τῶν γενομένων ἀπαγγέλλειν ἀκριβῶς τῆς πραγματικῆς ἱστορίας ἐστίν, ὅσα δ᾽ ἄξια λόγου τοῖς τῶν Καισάρων ἔργοις καὶ πάθεσι συμπέπτωκεν, οὐδ᾽ ἐμοὶ προσήκει παρελθεῖν. (Now

the accurate and circumstantial

narration

of these events

belongs to formal history; but it is my duty also not to omit such incidents as are worthy of mention in the deeds and fates of the Caesars.)!

It should be clear from this passage, as Hardy long ago noted, that Plutarch is not writing conventional bioi but the reigns of each man.”

Recent attempts to align the Galba and Otho, sole survivors of a series of imperial biographies, with the great mature series of Lives have focussed on Plutarch's interest in ethical themes. Jones and Braun have argued that, in keeping with this interest, Plutarch

presents Galba and Otho more favourably than do Suetonius and Tacitus.’ Braun, moreover, assails Plutarch's inconsistent charac-

terisation ofthe two principes. Because he has omitted Galba's earlier life, Plutarch cannot explain satisfactorily, to Braun at least, the

peculiar mixture of indolence and cruelty that marked his reign. In the Otho, Braun argues, Plutarch has only intensified the contrast between the emperor's life and death, which takes up about one-fifth

of the biography. In keeping with his morally didactic purpose, 275

276

E. KEITEL

according to Braun, Plutarch has not removed all Galba's and Otho's warts, but has definitely smoothed them over, even if the whole picture does not hang together.* To achieve this conclusion,

which is not without merit, Braun abandons the comparative method when it suits him. For perhaps the greatest interest these two lives have is that they can profitably be compared with Suetonius and with

the first book and a half of Tacitus' Histories, since all three drew on a

common source.* Rather than criticising Plutarch for something he did not intend to do, we should turn to the first chapter of the Galba, where, as so often, Plutarch lays out the precepts by which he wishes the

protagonist to be judged. Georgiadou points out these precepts, about the danger of a disobedient army, and argues that they apply much more aptly to the extensive military narrative of the Otho than

to the Galba.® But the preface also contains the criteria by which the reader is to judge not only Galba and Otho but alsothe Roman armies (G. 1.3-4): ὁ δὲ Πλάτων, οὐδὲν ἔργον ὁρῶν ἄρχοντος ἀγαθοῦ xal στρατηγοῦ στρατιᾶς μὴ σωφρονούσης μηδ᾽ ὁμοπαθούσης, ἀλλὰ τὴν πειθαρχικὴν ἀρετὴν ὁμοίως τῇ βασιλικῇ νομίζων φύσεώς τε γενναίας καὶ τροφῆς φιλοσόφου δεῖσθαι, μάλιστα τῷ πράῳ καὶ φιλανθρώπῳ τὸ θυμοειδὲς καὶ δραστήριον ἐμμελῶς ἀνακεραννυμένης, ἄλλα τε πάθη πολλὰ καὶ τὰ Ῥωμαίοις συμπεσόντα μετὰ τὴν Νέρωνος

τελευτὴν ἔχει μαρτύρια καὶ παραδείγματα τοῦ μηδὲν εἶναι φοβερώτερον

ἀπαιδεύτοις

χρωμένης

καὶ

ἀλόγοις

ὁρμαῖς

ἐν ἡγεμονίᾳ

στρατιωτικῆς δυνάμεως. (Moreover, Plato sees that a good commander or general can do

nothing unless his army is amenable and loyal; and he thinks that the quality of obedience, like the quality characteristic of a king, requires a noble nature and a philosophic training, which, above all things, blends harmoniously the qualities of gentleness and humanity with those of high courage and aggressiveness. Many dire events, and particularly those which befell the Romans after the death of Nero, bear witness to this, and show plainly that an empire has nothing more fearful to show than a military force given over to untrained and unreasoning impulses.)

Interestingly, there is no Platonic passage which corresponds exactly to this observation, and one wonders whether Plutarch has not conflated several passages to stress the symbiotic relationship of

rulers and soldiers which was so disastrous in A.D. 69." For it is by these Platonic qualities that Plutarch judges both principes and armies in these biographies. Finally, at the end of the first chapter(G.

1.7-9), Plutarch compares the four emperors of A.D. 68-69 to

PLUTARCH'S TRAGEDY

TYRANTS: GALBA

AND OTHO

277

Alexander of Pherae, who ruled Thessaly for only ten months. Dionysius had called him a ‘tragedy tyrant’ (τὸν τραγικὸν ...

τύραννον), but the principes of 68-69 reigned even more briefly and were ushered on and off the stage by the soldiery, ‘as in a play’

(ὥσπερ διὰ σκηνῆς). Thus by the end of the first chapter Plutarch has laid out the criteria by which the reader may judge the success or failure of Galba and Otho as rulers. Let us examine in what respects Galba and Otho succeed and fail according to these criteria. There are traces in all our sources of the idea that Galba appeared fit to rule, but

in the event

was

not.

This

was

couched

most

memorably by Tacitus in his obituary: capax imperii nisi imperasset (Hist. 1.49.4).* Plutarch shapes his portrait of Galba around the qualities of a good king, as he recalls them from Plato, plus Galba's own

reflections on his own

ancestry. While he grants Galba the

requisite ‘gentleness and humanity’, at least early in his reign, Plutarch clearly portrays the princeps as lacking in the Platonic ‘high courage and aggressiveness’. This lack of aggressiveness accords with what Plutarch says of Galba’s aristocratic lineage and outlook. When introducing Galba, Plutarch notes his high connections. Although the noble house of the Servii gave him great prestige, Galba took more pride in his kinship to Catulus, ‘who was the foremost man in his time in virtue and reputation (ἀρετῇ kai δόξῃ), even if he gladly left to others the

exercise of greater power’ (G. 3.1).? Not coincidentally, this meshes exactly with Galba’s obituary (G. 29.2): πέντε «δ᾽» αὐτοκρατόρων ἡγεμονίαις ἐμβιώσαντα μετὰ τιμῆς Kai

δόξης, dote τῇ δόξῃ μᾶλλον ἢ τῇ δυνάμει καθελὼν Νέρωνα... (During the reigns of five emperors he lived with honour and high repute, so that overthrowing Nero by his high repute, rather than by his military power ...).

Plutarch continues by observing that by simply lending his name to the ‘bold measures’ of Vindex, ‘he gave to his revolt ... the character of civil war because it acquired a man who was worthy to rule' (G.

29.2). In the next sentence, Plutarch recapitulates why Galba failed: *Wherefore, in the belief that he was not seizing the conduct of affairs for himself, but rather giving himself for the conduct of affairs, he set out with the idea of commanding the petted creatures of Tigellinus

and Nymphidius as Scipio and Fabricius and Camillus used to command the Romans of their time' (G. 29.4). While all the sources

278

E. KEITEL

agree that Galba should have checked the greed of his advisors, which ruined him, Plutarch alone makes reference to Scipio et a1.^

Alas, Galba makes a fatal error when he repeats Nero's mistake of

putting himself in the hands of ‘his most insatiate favourites' (G. 29.5), thus destroying his cherished reputation and leaving no one

behind who regretted the end of his rule, though many pitied his death (G. 29.5). By bracketing his account of Galba's life with these

observations, Plutarch anchors Galba's passivity at inappropriate moments to his self-conception as an old-fashioned aristocrat. By this reading, Plutarch's repeated references to the mildness of Galba's character and to episodes which reveal his lack of aggressiveness do less to whitewash him than to explain why he failed as a leader despite his excellent reputation. Only Plutarch states that Nero did not fear sending Galba to govern Spain because he *was

thought to have a gentle nature' (ἐκείνῳ δὲ καὶ φύσει δοκοῦντι πράῳ γεγονέναι, G. 3.5). Moreover, Plutarch has the seditious Nymphidius describe Galba as 'a well-meaning and moderate old man', though

completely under the control of Vinius and others (G. 13.2). Later, disgusted with the soldier's abuse of Galba's severed head, Plutarch calls him ‘an aged man who had been a temperate ruler’ (G. 27.4).!! Taking little or no action earlier in Spain had redounded to

Galba's credit when he did not repress rude verses circulating against Nero

(G.

4.2).

Likewise,

Galba

does nothing when

he receives

seditious letters from Vindex, unlike other provincial governors whose tergiversation ruined them with both Nero and Vindex (G. 4.4). Suetonius, on the other hand, records no hesitation when Vindex invites Galba to take the principate (Suet. G. 9.2). Clearly, then, sometimes Galba's inactivity is judicious and

politic; sometimes it reflects a certain ambivalence about taking decisive action.!? According to Plutarch, Galba has to be goaded by Vinius into letting himself be declared princeps (G. 4.6-7), a scene absent from Suetonius.'> When he learns that Verginius has defeated Vindex

and

that

Vindex

has committed

suicide,

the

Plutarchan

Galba is frightened, writes to Verginius inviting him to join in efforts to preserve the empire and freedom, and then retires to Clunia. Here

he spends his time ‘repenting of what he had done and in longing for his habítual and wonted freedom from care, rather than in taking any of the steps now made necessary' (G. 6.6). Suetonius makes no such

observation; his Galba is panic-stricken to the point of contemplating suicide (Suet. G. 11.1).'^

From this rather detached attitude it is not a big step for the aged

PLUTARCH'S TRAGEDY

TYRANTS: GALBA AND OTHO

279

emperor to entrust control of his affairs to his apparently loyal associates, especially Titus Vinius, the praetorian prefect.'5 At first

the new princeps, en route to Rome, receives a deputation from the Senate in a kind and unassuming manner which echoes Plato's ideal king (παρεῖχεν ... συνουσίας αὐτοῖς φιλανθρώπους καὶ δημοτικὰς, G. 11.2).5 But Vinius soon persuades him that such lack of pretension is inappropriate and urges him to make use of Nero's riches and ‘in his receptions not to shrink from a regal wealth of outlay' (τῆς βασιλικῆς πολυτελείας, G. 11.3). Vinius' actions, when he controlled Galba, are described by Plutarch in the next chapter as

*partly a cause and partly a pretext for tragic events and great calamities’ (τραγικῶν παθῶν καὶ συμφορῶν μεγάλων toig μὲν αἰτίαν, τοῖς δὲ πρόφασιν παρέσχεν, G. 12.5). Although the ancient sources are uniformly hostile to Vinius, only Plutarch uses the language of kingship and tragedy to describe his role.!? As Galba nears Rome, again Plutarch alone begins explicitly characterising his actions as those of a tyrant, though clearly the common source contained references to Galba's tyrannical acts.!* Galba's execution of the rebellious Nymphidius' associates, while just, was judged 'illegal and despotic' (G. 15.1). Likewise, when

Galba scandalously lets Nero's henchman Tigellinus live, though the people are demanding his death, he asks them to let Tigellinus' illness carry him off and not to exasperate the government ‘or force it to be tyrannical' (G. 17.5). Moreover, Plutarch uses some of the subsidiary characters to enhance Galba's unhappy transition from liberator to tyrant.'? The

most important subsidiary character in both Lives is the late tyrant Nero, who hovers around both principes and the minor characters like an unwanted guest, as he must have done in the common source.?? The rebellious praetorian prefect Nymphidius Sabinus is an

obvious foil to Galba. The preposterously large bribe he offers the praetorians to support Galba is *impossible to raise without inflicting ten thousand times more evils upon the world than those inflicted by Nero' (G. 2.2). Nymphidius begins acting in a tyrannical fashion before he has even claimed the throne. The flattery of the Senate

raises Nymphidius to a still higher pitch of boldness so that even his flatterers begin to fear him (G. 8.4). Nymphidius allows the crowd to murder any follower of Nero who falls into their hands (G. 8.6). In the next chapter, Nymphidius takes Nero's male concubine Sporus as

his “wife” and now tries to gain imperial rule for himself (G. 9.4). This all contrasts with the mild and civil behaviour of Galba before

280

E. KEITEL

he reaches Rome. Indeed Vinius, when exhorting Galba to reach for

power, warns him that if he rejects the friendship of Vindex, then he must denounce him and make war against him ‘because he wishes the

Romans to have you as their emperor rather than Nero as their tyrant’ (G. 4.7). Galba, who had at first seemed a relief from the tyranny of Nero, has Nymphidius’ followers executed and takes the opportunity to remove the troublesome provincial governors, Clodius Macer and Fonteius Capito (G. 15.3).?! Moreover, Galba’s slaughter of the classiarii outside the city, even though some had drawn their swords,

makes the Roman populace cease despising him as a weak old man; now all regarded him with ‘shuddering fear’ (G. 15.9). Juxtaposed with the suicides and murders of the guilty or suspect is the senseless killing of the consular Petronius Turpilianus who offered no threat whatsoever to Galba, except that he had been loyal to Nero (G.

15.4): ‘But there was no reason why Turpilianus, a

helpless old man and unarmed, should not have a chance to defend himself, if the emperor was really going to observe that moderation in his dealings which he promised.'? Only Plutarch expatiates thus on Turpilianus' death, using a phrase with which he later describes the death of Galba himself.?^* The contemporary reader would have realised that a reversal worthy of tragedy lay in wait for Galba.

Verginius Rufus, on the other hand, illustrates the choices Galba does not make, the road he might have taken. Verginius persistently refuses to take the throne which his own soldiers, then Otho's, offer him (G. 6.3; 10.1-3; O. 18.4-6). Verginius, moreover, docs not join in

' the general rush to Galba and will not support anyone whom the Senate has not elected (G. 6.3). His loyalty to the state in chapter 10 is juxtaposed with Nymphidius' Neronian posturings with Sporus and

his imperial ambitions in the chapter before. But Galba never really fears Nymphidius, while he has a healthy

repect for Verginius (G. 10.2): *For no man's name was greater than that of Verginius, and no man had a reputation equal to his, since he had exercised the greatest influence in ridding the Roman state alike of a grievous tyrant and of Gallic wars.' Vinius' jealousy precludes Verginius from any further involvement with Galba, thus sparing him further miseries and 'bringing him into a calm haven of life and

an old age full of peace and quiet' (G. 10.7). Thus Verginius, like Galba's ancestor Catulus, prefers to rest on his distinguished reputation and leave the exercise of greater power to others.2 Plutarch's portrayal of Galba makes it clear that he should have

PLUTARCH'S TRAGEDY

TYRANTS: GALBA

AND OTHO

a

made the same choice. Galba’s obituary closes with a reminder that he ends up offering the Romans little better than Nero (G. 29.5). Plutarch alone mentions Nero at this point: Οὐινίῳ δὲ καὶ Λάκωνι καὶ τοῖς ἀπελευθέροις πάντα τὰ πράγματα πωλοῦσι παρέχων ἑαυτόν, οἷον Νέρων παρεῖχε τοῖς ἀπληστοτάτοις, οὐδένα ποθοῦντα τὴν ἀρχήν, οἰκτίραντας δὲ τοὺς πολλοὺς τὸν θάνατον ἀπέλιπεν. (But just as Nero put himself in the hands of his most insatiate favourites, so Galba put himself in the hands of Vinius and Laco and their freedmen, and they made merchandise of everything, so that he left behind him no one who wished him still in power, but very many who were moved to pity at his death.)

Galba does, however, outshine Nero in one respect, the manner of his

dying. Plutarch enhances Galba's death by giving only the most favourable version of his last words whereby Galba offers to die if it will benefit the state (G. 27.1). Suetonius and Tacitus also report less attractive alternatives (Suet. G. 20.1; Tac. Hist. 1.41.2). All agree, however, that Galba offered his neck to the assassins, the traditional

gesture of resolute acceptance of the inevitable. Plutarch's Otho accords in its broad outlines and in many details with the other ancient accounts. Suetonius, Tacitus and Plutarch record in various ways the surprise Otho's brave and selfless death

produced after such a dissipated life.2° All three introduce Otho by describing his dangerous friendship with Nero, founded on their common hedonism and extravagance (Plut. G. 19.2-3; Suet.O. 2.1-2; Tac. Hist. 1.13.3), but only Plutarch envelops his entire account with

references to Nero. Romans are greatly relieved in the early days of Otho's reign when he not only does not avenge Nero's death (O. 1.3)

but also finally drives the odious Neronian Tigellinus to a well deserved end (O. 2). Finally, Otho gives up the practice of referring to

himself in diplomata as ‘Nero’ when it gives offence to the aristocracy (0. 3.2).?” The other ancient sources recount these and other gestures

toward the memory of Nero, but only Plutarch mentions Nero in his obituary of Otho (O. 18.3): ᾿Απέθανε δ᾽ Ὅθων Eryn μὲν ἑπτὰ kal τριάκοντα βιώσας, ἄρξας δὲ τρεῖς μῆνας, ἀπολιπὼν δὲ μὴ χείρονας μηδ᾽ ἐλάττους τῶν τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ ψεγόντων τοὺς ἐπαινοῦντας τὸν θάνατον. Βιώσας γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐπιεἰκέστερον Νέρωνος, ἀπέθανεν εὐγενέστερον. (Otho died at the age of thirty-seven years, but he had ruled only three months, and when he was gone, those who applauded his death were

no fewer or less illustrious than those who blamed his life. For though

22

E. KEITEL he lived no more decently than Nero, he died more nobly.)

Thus Otho begins his reign with the fear that he will be another Nero, but ends it bravely, in a quite un-Neronian manner. Plutarch

follows the general viewpoint of the common source that Otho appeared to be more a stock tyrant than he actually was. The cynical, such as Tacitus, point out that Otho did not live long enough to reveal his true nature as a leader. Nevertheless, the common source must have recorded the mild beginning of Otho's reign as a pleasant

surprise.?® How does Plutarch’s Otho resemble or differ from the Platonic king of the Galba preface? Otho is repeatedly described as acting in a kindly manner before and after he seizes power. En route to Rome with Galba, Otho, unlike Vinius, is φιλάνθρωπος, accessible to all

and generous to petitioners (G. 20.5). When he comes to power, Otho behaves in the same way, to the general relief. On the day after the coup, he receives Marius Celsus kindly, spares him (O. 1.1), and speaks to the Senate in a kindly strain and like a popular leader (£v δὲ

συγκλήτῳ πολλὰ δημοτικὰ καὶ φιλάνθρωπα διαλεχθείς, O. 1.3). Braun is rather severe with Plutarch in the matter of Otho's characterisation. He takes our biographer to task for producing an

even less convincing account of the paradoxes of Otho's behaviour than does Suetonius. No despair or fear seems to motivate Otho's choice of suicide, though Plutarch has intensified Otho's fear earlier, at the sacrifice with Galba in the Palace (G. 24.3), and when he sees

how few soldiers greet him en route to the camp (O. 25.1).? But Tacitus, who emphasises Otho's fear and excessive haste throughout,

also accords him a tranquil death, unmotivated by fear.?! Perhaps what seems anomalous to Braun makes better sense in the

light of the Platonic criteria for kingship. Otho's courage and aggressiveness are questionable throughout, until he chooses to die. Indeed, although Plutarch reports the source's mot that Otho's mind was not soft like his body, he diminishes its effect in the very telling (G. 25.1-2): "EvtatOa τοὺς πρώτους ἐκδεξαμένους αὐτὸν καὶ προσειπόντας αὐτοκράτορά φασι μὴ πλείους τριῶν καὶ εἴκοσι γενέσθαι. διό,

καίπερ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος μαλακίαν καὶ θηλύτητα τῇ ψυχῇ διατεθρυμμένος, ἀπεδειλίασεν.

ἀλλ᾽

ἱταμὸς

dv

πρὸς

τὰ

δεινὰ

καὶ ἄτρεπτος,

(Here, as we are told, the soldiers who first welcomed him and saluted him as emperor were no more than twenty-three. Therefore, although he was not sunken in spirit to match the weakness and effeminacy of

PLUTARCH'S TRAGEDY TYRANTS: GALBA

AND OTHO

283

his body, but was bold and adventurous in the presence of danger, he

began to be afraid.)

Tacitus separates the mot from his observation about Otho's fear on this occasion.?? Plutarch regards Otho as fundamentally effeminate, dissipated and unused to command (G. 19.2; O. 4.5; 9.2 and 5). But when it comes to choosing and arranging his own death, Otho is firm and

decisive. Plutarch's account follows closely that of the common source, if we are to judge by Tacitus. One small point, however, recalls the Platonic criteria by which Plutarch judges his man. When his soldiers threaten the senators departing from his camp, Otho rebukes them. No longer gentle (πρᾶος), but stern and angry, he

makes them go away in fear(O. 16.6). Tacitus reports the episode but in a less emphatic manner (Hist. 2.49.1).? That Plutarch wishes to

emphasise the nobility of Otho's suicide is not inconsistent with his negative portrayal of Otho in the bulk of the narrative. When it comes to the moment in which he can win posterity's verdict as a good man, Otho has the requisite resoluteness of the good king.* As Braun himself acknowledges, Plutarch generally does not feel bound to explain a change in a man's character from bad to good. A final, brief word about Plutarch's depiction of the army in these Lives. Plutarch has announced in the first chapter of the Galba that

no commander can control an army which is not amenable and loyal. Both he and Tacitus seem to follow closely the common source in

portraying the armies as key players in the year of the four emperors. Though they differ on motivation in certain scenes, both remark on

the army's irrational behaviour, especially during the revolt early in Otho's reign. As Heubner long ago noted, Tacitus builds up the

irrational to a greater extent, especially in the Othonian narrative.

Moreover,

he often supplements greed with fear and guilt as

dominating motives for rebellion and mutiny.?$ While Plutarch gives credence to the rumour that the Othonians and Vitellians actually hesitated to fight before Bedriacum and contemplated turning to the Senate for a new ruler, Tacitus dismisses this as implausible (O.

9.3-5; Tac. Hist. 2.37-8).? In keeping with his opening image of the army whisking tragedy tyrants on and off the stage, Plutarch alone remarks apropos of the passionate devotion of Otho's troops even in defeat (O. 17.11): ‘it

would seem that no king or tyrant was ever possessed by so dire and frenzied a passion for ruling as was that of these soldiers for being ruled and commanded by Otho.' This observation neatly encapsulates

284

E. KEITEL

the inversion of roles that characterised the year of successive revolts: the troops are the true rulers even if they cannot control themselves.

This observation belongs to Plutarch alone, although the common source, to judge by Tacitus, also recorded the troops' fanatical loyalty to Otho which then turned into hatred for Vitellius. Rather than criticising Plutarch for restricting himself largely to the events of the reigns of Galba and Otho and thus eliminating earlier material which might have made the reversals of their reigns more plausible, I have tried to show that the biographer has not sacrificed much in plausibility or consistency. Extrapolating from Plato's remarks on the qualities of a good guardian, Plutarch has

provided criteria by which both rulers and ruled in A.D. 69 should be judged. He has most likely added the image of the tragedy tyrant to the account of the common source to give his own version coherence, to stress why Galba and Otho failed as rulers and to underline the all

but inexplicable vicissitudes of 68 and 69.

NOTES The following works are referred to by author's surname and date: Aalders, G.J.D. (1982). Plutarch's Political Thought. Amsterdam Braun, L. (1992). ‘Galba und Otho bei Plutarch und Sueton' Hermes 120.90-102

Chilver, G.E.F. (1979). A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’ Histories land II. Oxford Fabia, Ph. (1893). Les sources de Tacite. Paris

Georgiadou, A (1988). ‘The Lives of the Caesars and Plutarch's Other Lives’ ICCS Hardy, E.G. (1890). Plutarch's Lives of Galba and Otho. London Heubner, H. (1935). Studien zur Darstellungskunst des Tacitus Hist. I. 12.-11.51. Würzburg Jones, C.P. (1971). Plutarch and Rome. Oxford Mommsen, Th. (1870). ‘Cornelius Tacitus und Cluvius Rufus’ Hermes 4.295-325 Perrin, B. (1926). Plutarch's Lives, XI. Loeb edn. Cambridge, MA Syme, R. (1958). Tacitus. Oxford Wardman, A. (1974). Plutarch's Lives. London 1

| Mommsen (1870) 297, Wardman (1974) 8, R. Syme, *Biographers of the Caesars’ MH 37 (1980) 104, Braun (1992) 90. The text cited herein is the Teubner (1973) of K. Ziegler. The translation is that of Perrin (1926). The text cited of Suetonius is Ihm’s Teubner (1908); of Tacitus, Heubner’s Teubner (1978).

2

Hardy (1890) xii.

3

Jones (1971) 73 and Braun (1992) 97-8 and 102.

4

Plutarch plays down instances of Galba's cruelty (so Braun (1992) 92) and intensifies Otho's noble demeanour (ibid. 97). On the failure of these Lives to cohere, ibid. 94 and 102.

PLUTARCH'S TRAGEDY

TYRANTS: GALBA AND OTHO

It is generally agreed that Suetonius, Plutarch and source. Mommsen (1870) argued that this source Cluvius Rufus. Fabia (1893) argued for Pliny. For arguments, see S. Borzsák, 'P. Cornelius Tacitus' RE

285

Tacitus all used a common was the consular historian a summary of the various Suppl.-Band X1(1968) col.

449-53, Syme (1958) 674-6, and R. Martin, Tacitus (Berkeley 1981) 189-90. The introduction in Hardy (1890) contains a useful collection of parallel and

divergent passages in Suetonius, Plutarch and Tacitus. Jones (1971) 74-8 argues that Tacitus used Plutarch. Georgiadou (1988) 351. Sec also 351 n.12 for other examples of moralising prefaces in the Lives. As she notes (351-3), Plutarch's preface to the first life in a pair applies no less to the second member, and, while the Galba and Otho were not written as a pair, they are very strongly interlocked. Braun (1992) 102 on the other hand calls these ‘purely historical reflections’, not a preface to a biography. Hardy (1890) 86-7. He believes Plutarch may have had in mind Rep. 375c and 375e. In the former passage, the guardian must combine the opposite qualities of gentleness and spirit; in the latter, the dog stands as an exemplary embodiment of these qualities; they are extremely gentle (πρᾳοτάτους) to those they know and

the opposite to those they do not. It is a

given that the guardian has a spirited

nature (πρὸς τῷ θυμοειδεῖ). Perrin (1926) points to Rep. 376c, where the guardian of the state again must be θυμοειδής. On the importance to Plutarch of

the harmonious blending of opposing qualities in a good leader, see Wardman

(1974) 57-60.

Cf. Suet. G. 14.1: maiore adeo et fauore et auctoritate adeptus est quam gessit imperium, quamquam multa documenta egregii principis daret; sed nequaquam tam grata erant, quam inuisa quae secus fierent. Suet. G. 2: Neroni Galba successit nullo gradu contingens Caesarum domum, sed haud dubie nobilissimus magnaque et uetere prosapia, ut qui statuarum titulis

pronepotem se Quinti Catuli Capitolini semper ascripserit, imperator uero etiam Stemma in atrio proposuerit, quo paternam originem ad Iouem, maternam ad Pasiphaam Minonis uxorem referret. 10

Plutarch mentions Vinius' greed at G. 12.1. For the manipulation of Galba by

greedy and unscrupulous advisors, see Tac. H. 1.6.1; 13.2;

13.1; 37.5 and 47. For

acitus' obituary of Vinius, see H. 1.48.2-4. Cf. Suet. G. 14.2: Regebatur trium arbitrio, quos una et intra Palatium habitantis nec umquam non adhaerentis paedagogos uolgo uocabant. ii erant T. Vinius legatus eius in Hispania, cupiditatis immensae; Cornelius Laco ex assessore praefectus praetorii, arrogantia socordiaque intolerabilis... his diuerso uitiorum genere grassantibus adeo se abutendum

permisit et tradidit, ut uix sibi ipse constaret, modo acerbior parciorque, modo remissior ac neglegentior quam conueniret principi electo atque illud aetatis. Syme (1958) 182 believes the evocation of Scipio et al. was the work of the common source. i

Braun (1992) 93 sees this as an example of Plutarch's trying for a favourable

picture of Galba, even in details.

12

Suet. G. 9.1 reports that Galba deliberately did little in Spain lest he arouse the jealousy of Nero.

13

Tacitus, who begins the Histories months after Galba's accession, shifts Vinius'

bon mot to Mucianus" speech exhorting *nam qui deliberant, desciverunt'. Cf.

Vespasian to seize power (H. 2.77.3): H. Heubner P. Cornelius Tacitus, Die

Historien, Kommentar I] (Heidelberg 1968) 272-3.

14

Braun (1992) 93.

15

Plutarch repeatedly adverts to Galba's old age in connection with his passivity

E. KEITEL

once he becomes princeps. Vinius takes advantage of Galba's age and feebleness (G. 16.5); ὁ δὲ Οὐίνιος ὁρῶν ἀσθενῆ xal γέροντα τὸν Γάλβαν, ἐνεπίμπλατο τῆς τύχης, ὡς ἅμα μὲν ἀρχομένης, ἅμα δὲ φθινούσης. This is juxtaposed with Vinius' poor administration of affairs (G. 17) which eventually brings αἱ Galba's

measures into disrepute (G. 18.1). Nymphidius tries to grab power for himselfat Rome, mistakenly thinking Galba too feeble to rule (G. 8.1).

16

On the significance of philanthropia for Plutarch, see H. Martin Jr., ‘The concept of philanthropia in Plutarch's Lives’ AJP 82 (1961) 164-75. Aalders (1982) 46

echoes Martin. 17

Hardy (1890) 136 notes that Plutarch creates an antithesis in this chapter between

the comic upshot of Vinius' purloining a silver cup from a banquet of Claudius and the tragic consequences of his actions under Galba. To be sure, Suetonius mentions that Galba's double reputation for auaritía and saeuitia preceded him to Rome and his decimation of the classiarii only confirmed it (Suet. G. 12.1). Tacitus restricts allusions to tyranny to Otho's highly tendentious appeal to the praetorians to desert Galba for him (H. 1.37-8). Cf. especially 1.37.4-5: ‘quae usquam prouincia, quae castra sunt nisi cruenta et maculata aut, ut ipse praedicat, emendata et correcta? nam quae alii scelera, hic remedia uocat, dum falsis nominibus seueritatem pro saeuitia, parsimoniam auaritia, supplicia et contumelias uestras disciplinam appellat'. On the greed of Galba's associates cf. 1.37.5; 38.1. See also E. Keitel, "The Structure and Function of Speeches in Tacitus’ Histories I-III’ ANRW 2.33.4 (Berlin 1991) 2778-80. For these qualities as topoi of the stock tyrant see 1.8. Dunkle, "The

Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography: Sallust, Livy and Tacitus’ (1971) 18. On Plutarch's use of such topoi, see Aalders (1982) 34-5. 19

CW 65

Braun (1992) 102, on the other hand, believes Plutarch judges the Nebenfiguren in the Galba solely on the basis of their loyalty to the princeps. All of the contenders for power in A.D. 68-69 had received their provincial commands under Nero (Tac. H. 1.9.2; 10.5; 13.4). Galba declines to adopt Otho

because he regards him as another Nero (H. 1.13.2): credo et rei publicae curam subisse, frustra a Nerone translatae, si apud Othonem relinqueretur. Vitellius too

was a crony of Nero and accompanied him on his singing tours, Juxu et saginae mancipatus emptusque (H. 2.71.1). Vitellius holds obsequies for Nero, and in a scant four months his freedmen equal the excesses of Nero's (H. 2.95.1-2).

21

Plutarch is harder on Galba here than even Tacitus who (H.

unequivocally

1.7.1) states

that Galba ordered the execution of Macer who had been making

trouble in Africa, while Capito had been executed in Germany without orders from Galba and perhaps on a trumped-up charge. Galba had approved the deed either because he was by nature indecisive or because he could not undo it. Suetonius contains only a sweeping accusation that Galba indiscriminately condemned men of the senatorial and equestrian orders without a trial (Suet. G.

14.3). 22

On this episode, sec also Tac. H. 1.6.2 and 1.37.2; Suet. G. 12.2 and Chilver (1979) 52.4.

23

On Petronius Turpilianus, see also Tac. H. 1.6.1, who also states that he and Cingonius Varro were put to death inauditi atque indefensi tamquam innocentes.

24

Plut. G.

15.4: Τουρπιλιανὸν

δὲ γέροντα γυμνὸν καὶ ἄνοπλον;

Plut. O. 6.1:

Vitellian troops taunt the Othonians at Placentia because they are proud ἐπὶ τῷ γέροντος ἀνόπλου κεφαλὴν ἀποτεμεῖν. 25

For the career of Verginius Rufus, see R. Syme, ‘Verginius Rufus’ Roman vol. VII (Oxford

1991) 512-20.

Papers

For Tacitus' view of Verginius, see D.C.A.

PLUTARCH'S TRAGEDY TYRANTS:

GALBA AND OTHO

Shotter, ‘Tacitus and Verginius Rufus’ CQ

26

287

17 (1967) 370-81.

For the shocking contrast between Otho's life and death see Suet. O. 12.1-2; Tac. H.

2.31.1:

sane

ante utriusque

exitum,

quo egregiam

Otho famam,

flagitiosissimam meruere, minus Vitellii ignauae uoluptates quam grantissimae libidines timebantur... . 27

Vitellius

Othonis fla-

Plut. O. 1.3: ‘Wherefore the citizens of highest birth and greatest influence, who before this had felt a shuddering fear that it was not a man, but some genius of retribution or avenging spirit, that had suddenly fallen upon the state, became more cheerful in their hopes for a government which wore a face so smiling.’ According to Hardy (1890) 210-11, Plutarch ‘has no doubt given the rein here somewhat to his Greek imagination'. Hardy believes Plutarch developed this from a comment in the common source preserved at Tac. H. 1.50.1 that Otho and Vitellius were duos omnium mortalium impudicitia ignauia luxuria deterrimos uelut

ad perdendum imperium fataliter electos... . In all three accounts, Otho allows statues of Nero to be put up and for the crowd to hail him as ‘Nero’ (Plut. O. 3.1; Suet. O. 7.1; Tac. Hist. 1.78.2).

28

See Tac. Hist. 2.31.1., quoted above n.26. Tac. Hist. 1.71.1: Otho interim contra spem omnium non deliciis neque desidia torpescere: dilatae uoluptates, dissimulata luxuria et cuncta ad decorem imperii composita, eoque plus formidinis

adferebant

falsae uirtutes et uitia reditura. Hardy compares this with Plut. O 4.1: Tad@ oi μὲν ἀγαπῶντες ἤδη τὴν μεταβολὴν καὶ πιστεύοντες ἐθαύμαζον, οἱ δ᾽ ἀναγκαῖα πολιτεύματα πρὸς

τὸν καιρὸν ἡγοῦντο δημαγωγοῦντος αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸν πόλεμον.

("Those who were already fond of Otho and put confidence in him admired this change in his behaviour, but others thought it a policy forced upon him by the

situation, wherein he courted popular favour because of the war.") On Otho's lifelong

/uxus and love of pleasure, see Plut. G. 19.2. Both Plutarch and Tacitus

(Hist. 1.74.1) report that Vitellius and Otho tried negotiating through letters in which they descended to charging each other with the faults of which both were guilty. Plutarch (O. 4.6) states that both were guilty of ‘prodigality, effeminacy,

inexperience in war and multiplicity of debts...‘. licentiousness, see also Plut. O. 9.5.

For Otho’s luxury and

Plutarch here seems to suggest that Otho is more demagogue than tyrant. For his

views on both as a perversion of the good ruler, see

Wardman (1974) 52-6.

Tacitus describes Otho resolved on death placidus ore, intrepidus uerbis, intempestiuas suorum lacrimas coercens (Hist. 2.48.1). Suetonius, relying on the eyewitness account of his father, states that Otho cried out that he could no longer endanger the lives of such brave men and so resolved to take his own life (Suet. O. 10.1). In both Tacitus and Suetonius Otho carries out this act with composure and bravery and concern for the safety of those around him (Suet.O. 10.2-11; Tac. Hist. 2.48-9).

31

For examples of Otho's haste in Tacitus' account, see 1.89.3 and the preparations for the battle at Bedriacum (2.32-40). When urging Vespasian to seek the rincipate, Mucianus says that Otho was conquered not by any military skill of

itellius but by praepropera ipsius desperatione (Tac. Hist. 2.76.4). Suetonius also adverts to the rashness of Otho's campaign (Suet. O. 8.3; 9.1).

32

Fabia (1893) 23 argued that Plutarch's version follows the common source which Tacitus has altered. Tacitus has made the change to build up Otho's resolution to

take power. See F. Klingner, ‘Die Geschichte Kaiser Othos bei Tacitus’, in V. Póschl (ed.), Tacitus (Wege der Forschung 97, Darmstadt 1969), and E. Keitel, *Otho's Exhortations in Tacitus’ Histories’ G&R 34 (1987) 73-82.

33

H. Martin, Jr., "The Concept

concludes ‘that for Plutarch

of Präot2s in Plutarch's Lives GRBS 3 (1960) 73,

präot2s is essentially a self-restraint which avoids

excess of every kind ... but which is out of place in circumstances demanding

E. KEITEL

intensity of feeling or severity of action.’ The speech of Marius Celsus to the officers after Bedriacum prepares the reader nicely for Otho's decision to die rather than

prolong the civil war (Plut. O. 13.3):

*In view of so great a calamity, he said, and theslaughter of so many citizens, not even Otho himself, if he were a good man, would wish to make further trial of his fortune ...’. Hardy (1890) 261-2 believed that Tacitus shifted these sentiments to

Otho's speech in an attempt to idealise him.

35

Braun (1992) 99 n.14.

Heubner (1935), echoed by F.R.D. Goodycar, Tacitus (G&R New Surveys in the

Classics 4, Oxford 1970) 27. 37

Tacitus shifts the discussion of possible peace away from the council scene, where

it made more sense. See Fabia (1893) 64-5 and Heubner (1935) 34.

PAPERS OF THE LEEDS INTERNATIONAL LATIN SEMINAR 8 (1995) 289-307 Published by Francis Cairns (Publications) Ltd (Leeds 1995). Arca 33. ISBN 0-905205-89-8

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN RECEPTION OF GREEK LITERATURE R.G. MAYER During the second Punic war, according to Porcius Licinus, the Muse betook herself with winged step to the wild and warlike race of Romulus.' The prudent travel light, and a Muse is nothing if not

prudent. Without excess luggage she touched down in Latium, carrying only the essentials of the Greek literary heritage, the “canonized” authors as by then established, edited, and commented upon. With these she captivated the Romans. Certain implications of this cultural reception, if not altogether unremarked, have nonetheless proved hard for modern students of Roman literature to

swallow. The aim of this essay is to show whyit wasthat the Romans received Greek literature in the way they did, and why their response to it was so unadventurous (to our way of thinking). As concerns the last point, the reception of a foreign aesthetic ideal (especially a literary ideal), it is only fair to give warning that behind my observations lies a hidden agenda. Why did the Romans receive the Greek literary canon in the way that they did? The answer is straightforward. Two of the earliest and so most influential producers of Latin literature, Livius Andronicus and Ennius, were not Roman to start with, but Italian Greeks.? They

were not perhaps even primarily poets, at least in the eyes of their contemporaries, but teachers of literature, and there was then but one literature to teach, Greek. This literary heritage was sufficiently

varied that it could provide without strain works to please a still unsophisticated audience: Livius Andronicus has often been praised for adapting into Latin saturnians Homer's Odyssey rather than the austere Iliad. It is unlikely that it would have entered the heads of

Livius or Ennius to stray beyond the canon, since these early teachers of Greek and, perhaps only incidentally, writers of Latin were as 289

290

R.G. MAYER

much a part of the Hellenic literary tradition as their contemporaries Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus of Samothrace; indeed recent research suggests that they were very aware of the advances of contemporary scholarship.? They stuck as devotedly to the canon as did Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the later first century B.C. and Dio Chrysostom yet later still. To Dio we now turn; he offers a vital clue

to the attitude of Greek men of letters to their literary inheritance. In his eighteenth oration (sometimes deemed spurious, though that

does not bear upon the present argument) Dio found himself in much the same position as Quintilian when he was writing the Institutio Oratoria. Dio had been asked by one of riper years, who decided to go into public life, to advise on what he should read to help him form his prose style. Dio's proceedure is like Quintilian's. He starts with the poets and finds Menander, Euripides and of course Homer most salutary. (Dio however is less demanding than Quintilian in that he lets his friend off lyric, elegy, iambic and dithyramb, unless he has the

time for them.) The writers of prose follow, and their style is briefly characterized, so that the student knows what particular quality to imitate. It is refreshing to find at the end of the recital that Dio, far

from being daunted by the past, also recommends for imitation some more recent writers, who lived ‘a bit before our time’ (12).* Dio thus adheres to the courteous (and prudent) practice, established by the later Alexandrian critics,? of not assessing one's immediate contemporaries. Yet he gives a reason for recommending the study of them:

their capacities are, he says, helpful to us in this respect, that we do not come to them with our judgment enslaved, as we do to the ancients: δεδουλωμένοι τὴν γνώμην, ὥσπερ toic παλαιοῖς. This is strong language. And it must be emphasized that it is a Greek

speaking of his own cultural heritage. So far as concerns the literary monuments revered by tradition, Dio suggests that his liberty to assess them must be checked. An educated Greek felt devotion, mingled with awe, before the canon. Now this was no suppression of the critical urge because one was both entitled to preferences within

the canon (as we find in Quintilian) and found plenty of scope for the exercise of critical faculties on contemporary or, at any rate, recent authors. They are fair game. But the past is a garden enclosed; one is

encouraged to enter, even to pick the flowers. But we must not disturb the beds; they are planted, not with tender annuals, but with a perennial border of hardy growths. To return to Livius and Ennius,

we may presume that they saw their task as no different from Dio's; they were mediators of the great tradition.

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN

RECEPTION OF GREEK LITERATURE

291

It is also important to keep in mind the context of their mediation, the school or lecture room. The canon was there for use, not for ornament. (But Ennius' version of Archestratus' Heduphagetica was

surely more ornamental than useful.) It is chiefly in educational contexts that we find the canonical lists that have come down to us. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Quintilian and Dio are all identifying

models for their students to imitate in the formation of a prose style. The canon embraces only the model writers. This needs to be stressed, since recent discussion of the formation of the canon has to

a degree lost sight of this basic function. Glenn Most, for instance, nowhere emphasizes in his suggestive essay on the canon that it wasa tool for educating writers. Gregory Nagy has spoken of it as a body

of works ‘to be preserved’.’ This suggests that critics foresaw the ultimate wreck of their literary culture and so constructed an ark in

which to convey the most precious works to the barbarians. It may have been so, but in the meanwhile the canon was first and foremost

an educational device. It provided approved models of composition by the masters of linguistic craft. That presumably was why Livius and Ennius exploited it in the days of newly awakened literary

interest in Rome. We are bound to wonder why the canon, a late creation of professional critics, was so unquestioningly accepted in Greek centres of culture. (This also bears on what Quintilian has to say when he lists the Greek masters.) It perhaps lies in the Greek belief

that a fair judgment only arises out of consensus, a broad agreement about quality; to this may be added the respect, above all seen in Aristotle's ethical studies, accorded any widely held opinion. In. Greek-speaking lands a poet performed his works to win a prize, and his success was determined not by a body of professional critics, but

by judges chosen from the lay audience; indeed their response is known to have influenced awards.* John Herington retells the story of the failure of Dionysius of Syracuse to convince an audience at Olympia of his poetic merits, despite vast expenditure on singers and

gear;

the audience

was

unimpressed,

indeed

became

riotous.?

Aristotle justifies the practice of relying upon the judgment of the uninstructed audience thus: ‘the many judge better both in music and

in poetry, for different men judge different portions, but all judge the whole.' Later on he says more generally that a crowd is a better judge than an individual (Politics III 1281B7, 1286A30). Those who composed in the grander forms designed for public performance —

epic, some forms of lyric, drama and oratory — knew that they

292

R.G. MAYER

would succeed or fail on just these terms. To be sure, there could be differences of opinion or mistakes. The Certamen records the result of an imaginary contest between Homer and Hesiod: the popular vote is for Homer, but it is overruled by the king who prefers the

pacific virtues of Hesiod.!? Vitruvius has an anecdote about an error of the judges at a contest which only serves to confirm the preeminence of popular approval; the whole people made it clear to

the judges whom they wanted to win, until Aristophanes of Byzantium pointed out that the proposed winner wasa plagiarist (De Architectura 7 praef. 4-7). As a principle of evaluation popular approval is accepted for oratory by the younger Pliny, who justifies his view with an anecdote about Pomponius Secundus (Ep. 7.17.1011): a friend criticized a line in one of his tragedies, but Pomponius refused to alter it before submitting the whole to the censure of an

audience (ad populum prouoco); their response would expose serious faults. This is similar to the observation of the somewhat surprised Cicero, who says that painters, sculptors, and even poets submit their work to the censure of the mass of people (Off. 1.147). Even the

severe Horace is forced to admit that the audience sometimes knows its stuff.!! Ovid perhaps echoed the sentiment of Theognis, who was confident

of his renown

among

all men, even though

he did not

please every individual citizen: dummodo sic placeam, dum toto canter in orbe,/ qui uolet, impugnent unus et alter opus. The odd carper is nothing to a universal approval. This view finds a classic theological statement in St Augustine's phrase: securus iudicat orbis terrarum.'?

These instances demonstrate the ancient view that the reception accorded a work of art by its audience determined its quality. Some

of the authority with which consensus on matters of art

criticism was invested must be owed to the sense that the evaluation of a work of art is a matter of opinion, not knowledge. The quality of a work of art exists only as an impression collectively formed by an audience;it has no objective character that can be demonstrated. For a similar reason Aristotle did not, in studying ethical behaviour,

present himself as an authoritative guide but chose instead to interpret prevailing opinion. In his view, what most men think must

be accepted; anyone who denies this is talking nonsense.'* His approach to ethical questions. is also valid in the study of literary opinions; in both cases the issues boil down to what the majority of people believe to be good or beautiful. The literary critic of antiquity, like the philosopher, could clarify issues, cut away confusion, and offer reasons for the consensus which the average person might not

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN

RECEPTION OF GREEK LITERATURE

293

hit on at once but recognizes as valid when shown them. But swimming against the tide by denigrating what had been generally admired or praising what had long ago failed to please was seen asa waste of time. It is therefore worth restating the critical practice of the Greeks in the form of a general principle of aesthetics: no work of art is good or bad really and in itself, since it aims at pleasure, and we ascribe

goodness to what has given us pleasure. Literary quality will be assessed upon the degree of the pleasure it produces in the audience, a view Plato regretfully allows to be the common one.? We have to remind ourselves of this in our own time, just because the principle has been disregarded by artists and professional critics alike; the

audience's opinion has been neglected, as our works of art have become ever more restricted in their appeal. Judgment accordingly has been left to informed critics. But so long as Greeks composed for public competitions, they necessarily regarded the audience as arbiter of excellence. (It would here be appropriate to mention the questionable anecdote about Antimachus'

reading to Plato alone,

after the rest of his audience had slipped away; Cicero makes it clear when he telis the story that it is only right that an abstruse poem

should secure limited approval. It might also be suggested that Antimachus was a poor executant, unlike Virgil, and that is why he lost his audience.) The Greeks’ attitude to the “value” of literary art differs not at all

from their view of the value of money and their concept of linguistic currency. Aristotle reckoned that money, as a medium of exchange, had no value absolutely (E. N. V 5.11, 15; Pol.

19.11). Money only has

value by agreement which provides a single standard. Hence the Greeks called their money nomisma because its value was the result of an act of reckoning. This value (as we well know) changes, even

disappears, depending on how the consensus chooses to view it. Language was compared to money. Teachers advised their pupils to

favour "current" words, and to avoid the unusual. The way to discover the “current coin" of linguistic usage was to listen to the native speakers. It is not surprising then that current language and current coin are compared, say, by Ovid: munda, sed e medio

consuetaque uerba, puellae,/ scribite: sermonis publica forma placet." Decisions about the currency of money and of language were not in

antiquity left to professional economists or critics, but to popular agreement. There is a good anecdote in Suetonius to this effect, though a somewhat different metaphor is employed to indicate the

294

R.G. MAYER

notion of currency. The fawning philologist L. Ateius Capito had said that if an unusual word Tiberius used in a speech was not Latin it

would be henceforth. To this M. Pomponius Marcellus replied that the emperor could confer citizenship on men but not ona word (Suet. Gramm. 22.2). Professionals were sometimes impressed by the reliability of the

average speaker as an assessor of usage. It is a critical principle with Dionysius of Halicarnassus that the idiotes and the technites agree about what is excellent in a canonical author.!* Cicero concurs: the

vulgar show a nice discrimination by a tacitus sensus, and agree with the cultivated.

This

he finds surprising, given

their inability to

perform, but art, as a product of nature, must either delight naturally or fail (De Orat. 3.195, 197). Since, as we have seen, the Greek canon

was formed of works that had initially secured some sort of popular approval, the sense among both later critics and among artists themselves of the people's competence to judge can only have reinforced the respect for the canon as a guide to literary success. It will be remembered that Sophocles never won third prize and was for that reason reckoned a more perfect tragedian than his rivals by professional critics (an opinion shared of course by the Romans).'? Much, however, that pleases at first hearing fails either to maintain its charm or only succeeds with a limited audience. An initial consensus had better be confirmed in the course of time and endorsed

by an audience different from that which first gave its approval. “Overseas” currency became therefore a criterion of value, noticed quite early in Greece. The first expression of this view seems to occur in Theognis when he promises Cyrnus a lasting reputation not just on

the mainland but overseas and on the islands.? Good songs are export wares. Catullus and Horace pick up the notion and agree with Theognis. Catullus prophesies that Cinna's Zmyrna will cross the sea from Italy to Cyprus, but that the faulty Annales of Volusius will die in their provincial birthplace in North Italy (95). Horace too speaks

of transmarine repute as a goal to aim for, as he does himself.?! The currency of literary works will be further enlarged and consolidated when they are imitated by those creating fresh works of art. It is here

that the educative purpose of the canon was paramount in antiquity. What perhaps prompted the formation and use of a canon so as to shape

literary

style

was

the conviction

that what

had

secured

approval in the past would be likely to do so in the future. In short, the principle of imitation was central to the concept of the canon. This need not be dwelt upon here in detail, for the role of imitation is

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN

RECEPTION OF GREEK

LITERATURE

295

sufficiently well known. But it needs to be said that it was this practice of following literary models that validated the continuing use of the canonic authors. They paved the way for the student, and

made it easier for him to master the technicalities of his craft (always under the guidance of critics who, by exercise of a iudicium honed by study, could point to the stylistic flaws even in model texts). So modern discussions of the canon which focus on the preservation of texts or exclusion of the inferior or on literature as cultural icon rather obscure the main purpose. The canon served an educational function as the seed bed of literary art, and so long asit produced new

growth (as it did in the opinion of a Quintilian or a Dio), then there was no need to change its soil.

My first question has now been answered. The earliest Romans accepted the Greek canon because they were, culturally considered,

themselves Greek

and held to the traditions of their calling as

teachers. Yet it is clearly felt among those who review the critical

practice of later Romans that some measure of independence might have been expected after the maturing process had enabled them to stand on their own feet. There is an expectation that in the face of

Greek literature the Roman ought to have been more independent and original. The whipping boy is here Quintilian, to whom we now turn.

In the tenth book of his Institutio Oratoria Quintilian reviewed for

the use of the budding orator the classic authors of Greece. He speaks of them in a way markedly different from his discussion of the Roman models. When assessing the Romans Quintilian offers his own opinion about merit (always, to be sure, keeping within the bounds of the canonical authors), but on the Greeks he makes no

secret of the fact that his opinions are at second-hand. He always appeals, in various phrases, to a consensus (though for him it is a consensus of the learned Greeks).? He is not thanked for his candour. On the contrary his lack of originality is generally faulted.

Let me first refer to an old and once influential history of Roman literature, that of G. Bernhardy;? he reckons that we are justified in

missing an independent knowledge of the Greeks and, though some criticisms he finds appropriate, others are distorted. Closer to home,

Henry Nettleship said that Quintilian's carelessness of talking at second-hand, his indolent repetition of scholastic conventionalities is

a great blot on his work.?* J. Wight Duff too finds that the traditional element in Quintilian's opinions lessens his claim to originality; this practically echoes the view of W. Peterson, the English editor of the

296

R.G. MAYER

tenth book, who reckoned that for modern readers the degree of originality is the question of greatest interest.2° J. W.H. Atkins draws attention

to

the

derivative

character

of Quintilian's

criticism;

G.M.A. Grube deems his Greek list highly traditional and so devoid of intrinsic interest.?" It must, however, be stressed that it is a purely modern

assumption that Quintilian ought to be independent and

original when treating of a foreign literature. All of the scholars just referred to expect that an ancient critic should aspire, like his modern

counterpart, to offer original opinion. But Quintilian must be absolved from particular censure once he has been placed into the Roman tradition of judging Greek literature. What we shall find on

an enlarged

view is that no Roman

ever expressed an opinion

independent of Greek sanction, and that Quintilian does no more or

less than adopt the established critical posture of his own people towards the Greeks. Asa matter of principle or of good manners or even of prudence no

Roman

disagreed with the Greeks' assessment of the particular

merits of their own literary masterworks. This is seen above all in the

writers chosen

as models

for imitation.

From

the start poets

generally chose the models deemed best in their own genres: for instance, Ennius saw himself as another Homer, and both Terence

and Afranius ‘followed’ Menander.? (But especially in the early days and among dramatists the range of models was more extensive than later, when the restrictive practices of the classicist prevailed.??) Catullus, when he cannot compose an elegy, translates Callimachus instead. Horace aspires to be ranked among the lyrists of Greece;

Alcaeus is his favoured model. For Cicero, Demosthenes provides the best range of styles to imitate. Sallust and Tacitus were unmistakably Thucydidean. Perhaps more instructive is a Roman's fault-finding. Cicero, for instance, thinks it silly to compose forensic oratory after the fashion of Thucydides' speeches; he clinches his argument by saying that no Greek rhetorician recommends the historian for this use (Or. 30-2). When Catullus applies to Anti-

machus the epithet tumidus he deliberately allies himself in censure to his idol Callimachus;?? despite partisan dissent Antimachus was no less canonic a writer, for he appears in the lists of Quintilian and Dionysius. To return to approval, when Cicero lauded Nicander or Aratus, he made it clear that his opinion derived from the learned: constat inter doctos — these must be Greeks (De Orat. 1.69). Yet this

crucial admission, a pre-echo of Quintilian's, was neglected by Nettleship, by Franz Susemihl and by Enrica Malcovati. Susemihl

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN

RECEPTION OF GREEK LITERATURE

297

vilified Nicander for poetic incompetence, and hauled poor Cicero over the coals as well for liking so uninspired a poet.?! Malcovati said that Cicero himself found Aratus' verses most elegant.? It must therefore be noted that even a Cicero formed all his judgments of Greek literary art on Greek authority, not from the exercise of his

own very considerable discrimination.?? The nicest Roman observations of stylistic judgment upon the Greeks are borrowed too. Leaving Quintilian to one side, since his views appear to derive from Dionysius, let us consider Velleius Paterculus, when

he speaks

of the gentle sweetness of Hesiodic

poetry. “Sweetness” in a literary production is a subjective concept, and here if anywhere we might hope to catch a Roman offering a personal appraisal. But can we forget that it was this sweetness that Callimachus praised in the Hesiodic poem of Aratus?* Velleius had been told by his grammatici that this was the special quality he should expect to find in Hesiod, and find it he duly did. Indeed, the Romans seem to have extended their acceptance of Greek standards to the assessment of quality in their own writers. There can, for example, be

no doubt that Tibullus was generally regarded in antiquity as the best

elegist Rome produced.” Quintilian accepts the mainstream opinion, and makes it plain that the reason for it is that Tibullus, and perhaps Propertius as well, embody elegance of style. Now that was just what Greek criticism demanded of elegy. We learn this from the life of

Aeschylus in which it is recorded that he was defeated by Simonides in the commission for the elegiac couplets commemorating the dead at Marathon. The biographer says that elegy demands λεπτότης *delicacy', which unfortunately Aeschylus lacked (8). (Not sur-

prisingly Quintilian finds the style of Simonides tenuis [10.1.64].) The Romans tamely borrowed this demand for refinement, and looked

for it in their own elegists; Tibullus filled the bill preeminently. So, wherever Greek

literature is discussed by Romans or serves as a

model for their standards are all his stance is that they not reassess

own productions, it is clear that their views and second-hand. Quintilian is therefore no exception, of all other Romans. But why, we may still ask, did the merits of Greek literature in the light of their

own culture? It is this question that calls now for an answer.

In the Roman world Greek literature was a living tradition. If you wanted to learn Greek and study its literature you went to a native Greek speaker for help (a Livius or an Ennius, say). A well-to-do student would procure a personal tutor to advise him on what to read and imitate; if, like Virgil's, your tutor were a Parthenius, then your

298

R.G. MAYER

literary interests might take an unusual direction.’ But the reins are always firmly in Greek hands. Now learning Greek in such an environment is a far cry from fifteenth-century Florence or twentiethcentury Berkeley. We are no longer in contact with a living tradition.

We can hope to engraft a painstakingly nurtured branch on to our decidedly alien stock. For a Roman on the other hand there was only one developed literary culture and it was very much alive. Thanks to

the accident that the first practitioners of a native Latin literature were formed in the Greek mould, Roman literature became an offshoot of Hellenic stock, and avowedly remained so (with the

exception of that one native growth, satire). So the Roman necessarily absorbed and reiterated the Greeks’ view of what was good or bad in

their own literature. He did not assume that his being a newcomer to the tradition entitled him to an independent posture.

Yet this underlying principle of Roman unappreciated. Quintilian again provides the model Greek historians he leaps from (in itself this is a useful reminder that the

critical practice remains an example. When listing Clitarchus to Timagenes canon — assuming there

was such a thing as a canon of prose writing in his day — wasalways

growing). Peterson asked why there was no mention of Timaeus, or of Polybius, or of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. R. Laqueur echoed

this surprise and threw in the name of Hieronymus of Cardia for good measure. The answer is plain: none of them met with the approval of a consensus of Greek readers; if anything, censure, at

least so far as style was concerned.?* Quintilian of course omitted writers of doubtful stylistic quality (however reliable as historians). But suppose a Roman, perhaps animated by nationalistic pride, had felt entitled to enlarge the number of approved Greek historians. Can

it not besurmised how his assessment would have been greeted by the custodians of the Greek literary heritage, the grammatici? Would

they not have remönstrated that, however admirable as sifters of historical fact, these writers could not be elevated to the rank of

models? If a Roman had persisted in flouting the Greek consensus, he

would simply have confirmed his status as barbaros. It was

not

that

the

Roman

was

cowed

by

Greek

cultural

superiority and exclusiveness. Rather he showed a courtesy in his self-restraint. As a foreign language Greek was seen to have its own characteristics, that might best be felt only by native speakers.

Seneca, for example, finds the overcharged lecturing style of Serapio unsuitable in a philosopher (Ep. 40.11). But he pulls himself up with the reflection that different peoples do things differently because they

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN

RECEPTION OF GREEK LITERATURE

299

have not the same standards of propriety. This caution must lie behind all refusal to judge a foreign idiom; a Roman, though he rule the world, could not legislate for the use of the Greek language. It is

not therefore surprising that no Roman became a scholar of Greek literature. It was not just that there were enough Greeks for the job; rather, the Roman felt himself unfit for the task, not having the language in his bones.

The compliment of self-restraint was returned by some of the Greeks who troubled to learn Latin. Plutarch declines to compare Demosthenes with Cicero: To appreciate the graceful and ready pronunciation of the Roman tongue, to understand

the various figures and connection of words

and such other ornaments in which the beauty of speaking consists, is, I doubt not, an admirable and delightful accomplishment; but it requires a degree of practice and study which is not easy, and will better suit those who have more leisure, and time enough yet before

them for the occupation. And so in this fifth book of my Parallel Lives, in giving an account of Demosthenes and Cicero, my comparison of

their natural dispositions and their characters will be formed upon their actions and their lives as statesmen, and I shall not pretend to criticise their orations one against the other, to show which of the two

was the more charming or the more powerful speaker. (Demosth. 2-3. 846-7, Clough's translation).

Plutarch goes to the heart of the matter. ‘Charm’ and ‘power’ are subjective impressions of style, and, unless one is a professional critic, it proves hard to explain them; they are not entities to be demonstrated to those who have not the language in their bones. So

he faults Caecilius of Calacte for impudence in undertaking just such an assessment. But it may be said in Caecilius’ defence that he so far

agrees with Plutarch in accepting the Roman view — and Cicero’s own — that he was their best orator, able to stand up tothe ablest Greece had to offer. No less polite is Longinus, who also declines to compare in detail these two orators, for he reckons it doubtful that a Greek can claim to have an opinion on Latin composition; Romans will better decide

Cicero’s literary merits (Sub/. 12.4). We might see the same principle activating the earliest scholarship on Roman literary texts, if only we

knew more about it. In this department the flexible Greeks applied themselves before the Romans and undertook to edit the works of

Ennius and Lucilius.? We cannot know what their verbal criticism may have been like, but so far as concerns the choice of authors to study it hardly seems probable that they exercised an independent

300

R.G. MAYER

judgment. Indeed, they would have laboured in vain unless they were guided by the taste of their Roman masters and only worked on authors who were in everyone's hands. From all this it is fair to conclude that the Greeks and the Romans saw two checks restricting their critical freedom. The fundamental barrier was linguistic. The prudent did not trespass upon foreign ground: sacer est locus, extra meiite. The other bar was tradition, embodied in the canons established upon an enduring and widespread consensus. Once again the prudent declined to buck received opinion. The only reason we have heard of Zoilus, the scourge of Homer, or of the mad design of Caligula to ban Virgil and Livy from Rome's libraries is that they were so wrong-headed (Suet. (αἱ. 34.2).

The tradition embodied in the canon of authors became selfvalidating over time. For example, the younger Pliny does not trouble to list the authors suitable for improving style, adeo notum probatumque est ut demonstratione non egeat (Ep. 7.9.15-16). The canon is again at work, and its role is unquestioned. The individual

voice counted for so much less in antiquity. It is time to draw a conclusion from these observations. The study of Latin literary history is fascinating not least because it is unique. Nowhere else do we find a people who set about creating a national

literature for themselves through the imitation of a foreign model. But, more than that, the foreign model was in no way reassessed to

take account of local taste and interests. It is almost as if there had

been no taste to accommodate. The Romans accepted Greek literature on all points as it was handed over to them by its representatives, the grammatici. Now it might have been supposed that a Roman would have responded rather differently to canonical authors, or have preferred other writers to those of the canon, or

have ignored some who were uncongenial, albeit in the canon. But the surprising and, perhaps, chastening fact is that the Romans entirely conformed their sensibility in aesthetic matters to the foreign standard, at least so far as concerned the value of Greek literature

itself. Let their view of Aratus serve as an example. What amazes us is not so much that the Greeks admired Aratus, as

that the Romans

did as well, to the extent of producing

three

translations of his poem down the ages: one by the young Cicero, another by Germanicus, and the last by Avienus. Cinna, the admired

of Catullus and Virgil, sent a friend a copy ofthe Greek original from Bithynia, inscribed upon bast (fr. 1 Morel). (The current attitude to the Phaenomena is perhaps fairly represented by A.W. Bulloch, who

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN

RECEPTION OF GREEK LITERATURE

301

ranks Aratus among minor Hellenistic figures and candidly admits that the ancient taste for him is difficult to appreciate.*?) It is hard to

believe that these Romans came by their interest in Aratus thanks to an instinctive attraction. Training and a readiness to conform to the

accepted standard ought to have been the shaping forces. The Romans were prepared to like Aratus because the Greeks did. The same is true of their reception of Apollonius of Rhodes, who was translated by Varro of Atax in the first century B.C. and later imitated by Virgil. The appeal of Apollonius is, to besure, nowadays somewhat enlarged, but the Romans showed no reluctance to open their aesthetic sensibility so as to receive him. Indeed there seems to have been no writer, however difficult or forbidding or even, perhaps, undemanding (like Bacchylides), whom

the Romans were

not prepared to accept, so long as he bore the seal of approval of his own people. This consideration brings me to my hidden agenda: why is it that we are so much less adaptable than the Romans? If they could conform their literary aesthetic to an alien model, why cannot

we? One answer is that the literary traditions of the later European vernaculars were by comparison so much better developed than was the Roman when Greek literature first came to be available to either

culture. The modern vernaculars have been fed by so many different tributaries and diverted into such various channels, that we have never been faced with the straightforward choice between Greek literature and nothing. We have not been obliged to accept one

developed and superior literary culture as a model. We have therefore come by our critical freedom fairly and mean to exercise it, especially since there is no living consensus to oppose us or put us in

our place with its own scorn or neglect. Since the Renaissance critics have dealt pretty freely with the literary monuments of antiquity. Julius Caesar Scaliger, for instance, had no hesitation in promoting Virgil at the expense of Homer, an assessment Quintilian himself would have boggled at." There being then no brake upon the formation and publishing of heterodox judgments, we do it, without

a thought of the consequences. Another approach to explaining our reluctance to remould our

expectations of what literature can be is that we have not the same practical end in view as did the Greeks and Romans when they gradually built up a canon. Ancient critics were above all interested in the analysis and description of style (though they did not neglect

larger issues like organisation of matter). The production of sound prose was their goal. Thus the subject matter of a work was less

302

R.G. MAYER

important than it is for the critics of today. (When Menalcas in Virgil’s fifth Eclogue praises the song of Mopsus, it is the harmony of the verses he focusses upon, not the lament itself.) Quintilian deplores the paederasty in the Atellan farces of Afranius, but keeps him nonetheless in the canon because the plays were universally admired (10.1.100). It is clear from this that you did not so much have to like an

author

as acknowledge

that he was a master in his

department of literature. Given the emphasis of ancient critics on verbal craftsmanship we again bump up against the reason why the Greeks and Romans declined to assess quality in a foreign idiom: it needed a feel for language which only a native could claim. So when Greek grammatici told their Roman pupils that Aratus was a model of such and such a style, the Romans duly believed them and, if they wanted that style for themselves, set about transferring it to their own

idiom as best they could. (It is worth remembering here that Quintilian despaired of Latin as a medium of comedy because he felt it lacked the grace of Attic Greek (10.1.100).)

Our rashness in setting ourselves up as authorities on a foreign literary idiom was politely exposed by Henri Weil in his review of Wilamowitz’s monumental commentary on the Herakles of Euri-

pides.*? Though allowing for the range and depth of his learning and taste, Weil was troubled at his presumption in assessing Euripides’ use of his native language;

for Wilamowitz would now deem it

Obscure or far-fetched, now finicky, now inflated. Weil objected that a feel for nuance and balance was something that practice could achieve for one's native tongue; it was however risky to assume that one could secure the same feel in another language, even a living one.

All the more rash, then, to set one's self up as judge over a Greek poet

who employed a language now dead. Weil admits that criticism goes hand in hand with our effort to comprehend antiquity, but he insists that we

must

be discreet in the face of our vast ignorance.

He

concludes that our knowledge of such matters, slight as it is, still surpasses our power to feel them. This is an admirable caution that should be extended from the fine details of linguistic usage to larger issues such as the reception of literary works into a canon. We can never know precisely why certain works appealed; all we can know is

that they did, and with that fact of literary history we would do well to start our investigation of taste in antiquity.

This same point was made by Leslie Stephen at the beginning of the century in an essay which aimed to rehabilitate the literature of our own eighteenth century. He urged that criticism must be

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN

RECEPTION OF GREEK LITERATURE

303

inductive and start from experience, not from our experience, but

that of readers before us. First, ask impartially what pleased them, then enquire why. He saw no point in dogmatically deciding that a work ought to have pleased or displeased on the simple ground that it is or is not congenial to ourselves. As a principle of literary research

this should be unarguable, if our goals are knowledge and the understanding of foreign cultures. It may be that we will never achieve appreciation of them. But one thing we may be sure of, and that is that appreciation is impossible without knowledge. The Romans appear to have followed Stephen's principle instinctively. They did not, so faras can be seen, choose for themselves what to like in Greek. Rather, they accepted what the Greeks themselves liked on

the assumption that they knew best. The issue, after all, is that of our relation to the Greeks and their literature. In essence and despite all superficial differences, we are in

much the same relation to them as were the Romans. We too are students of Greek literature, not in the sense that we set out to imitate

it, but because

it is the object of our chosen study. We

aim to

understand and explain Greek culture as it appears in their literature. That is the traditional purpose of humanist philology. To criticise, on the other hand, will always come naturally, but, as Weil argued in the face of Wilamowitz,

this is an urge to be repressed, or rather (to

follow Dio's advice) it should be limited to a field where it is more validly employed, say twentieth-century literature in English. What, when all is said and done, is the point of denying to Aratus or

Xenophon or Lucian the respect they enjoyed both among their own people and, at least in the case of the first two, among the Romans as well (all of them have recently been given a rough time)?^ There is no imminent risk of their serving as models of style, so we need not fear that our own use of English will be corrupted if we train ourselves to admire them. Nor, if we were to try to understand the ancient

admiration felt for Aratus and Nicander, should we worry that, asa consequence, there might be another outbreak of English didactic poetry.

Looking at the issue from another angle, our self-validated licence

to reassess the merit of these and other authors erects yet one more barrier between antiquity and ourselves. The Greek and the modern

sensibility are undeniably very different. What sympathy after all are we

likely

to have

with a culture that owned

slaves, enclosed

its

womenfolk and openly practised paederasty? As if such practices were not difficult enough to understand, we but add to them by

304

R.G. MAYER

assuming that our literary sensibility is a sure guide to theirs. And yet we unwittingly round upon the audiences of antiquity because they admired what we have no taste for. We are in effect saying that they had no right to enjoy what, as a matter of historical fact, we know

they delighted in. When we make free with critical assessments that are completely at odds with the consensus of antiquity, we not only restrict what we are prepared to read and enjoy, but also forfeit all

hope of acquiring a sympathetic understanding of the literary life of Greece and Rome. We set our own judgment above that of, say, a Callimachus (he liked Aratus) and implicitly assume that the Greeks were ill-fitted to assess the merit of the works composed to amuse

them. But different people find different things amusing. If we have taken it upon ourselves to understand the Greeks and the Romans,

then our first duty as students of antiquity ought to be self-restraint, an uprooting of prejudice so that we become open to fresh impressions. If, on the other hand, we insist upon our right to judge

as we fancy, then we not only risk failing to connect with the object of our study, but we mislead others. This has clearly happened where Quintilian is concerned. He is felt to be a mere parrot, where an opinion on Greek authors is given; but no-one has noticed that he is first and foremost a Roman and so subordinated his judgment, as all

other Romans did, to the opinion of the Greeks. When Horace said that captive Greece captivated her rough victor

(Ep. 2.1.156), he may not have intended that his metaphor should be pressed. But it can be pressed. If you choose not to kill your captive you enslave him instead. And that is what befell the Romans when they came into contact with the power and beauty of the artistic products of Greece: they were enslaved. They permitted themselves

no independent opinion about merit. In this they were little different from either the scholars of the Alexandrian age, who more or less

accepted the authors approved by earlier times, or from Dio, who admitted that the judgment of his own day was “‘enslaved” so far as concerned the authors of the past. That the Romans felt this way especially about the verbal arts of Greece is no cause for surprise. The words of our native language communicate and express our most

deeply felt responses to experience. Indeed words are often the cause of our most moving experiences. Our language also identifies us with

our society and culture. If that culture has an old and distinguished literature then our language will also be freighted with national

pride. So those who are not born to a particular language must tread warily in assessing its uses and value. Criticism of a foreign idiom is a

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN

RECEPTION OF GREEK LITERATURE

305

delicate business. The Roman rightly felt safe only with Latin, and

left to the Greeks the judgment of what was sound in their own literature. The Roman position has much to. recommend it to the student of antiquity as a model for imitation. It is modest and unpretending. Above all, the Romans by setting out to mould their literary sensibility in conformity with the Greek penetrated to the heart of the Greek aesthetic experience.

NOTES Works cited more than once: Easterling, P.E. and Knox, B.M.W. (edd.) (1985). The Cambridge history of classical

literature. Cambridge Malcovati, E. (1943). Cicerone e la poesia. Pavia Nettleship, H. (1891). Lectures and Essays II. Oxford

Peterson, H. (ed.) (1891). Quintilian Institutio Oratoria X. Oxford

Susemikl, F. (1891). Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit. pzig. 1

Fr. 1 Morel: Poenico bello secundo Musa pinnato gradu/ intulit se bellicosam in Romuli gentem feram.

2

Suet. Gramm. 1.2: initium quoque eius [grammaticae] mediocre exstitit, siquidem antiquissimi doctorum qui idem et poetae et semigraeci erant — Liuium et Ennium dico quos utraque lingua domi forisque docuisse adnotatum est — nihil amplius quam Graecos interpretabantur, aut siquid ipsi Latine conposuissent praelegebant.

3

For Livius see G.A. Sheets, ‘The dialect gloss, Hellenistic poetics and Livius

Andronicus’ AJP 102 (1981) 58-78; for Ennius, J.E.G. Zetzel, ‘Ennian experiments’ AJP 95 (1974) 137-40. 4

_ This practice is not so uncommon where oratory is concerned; Gorgias of Athens cites a number of models later than Demetrius of Phalerum, and Hermogenes too approves of more recent authors. The canon of poetry is undeniable, but for prose, especially for oratory, altogether more problematic; see A.E. Douglas,

*Cicero, Quintilian, and the canon of ten Attic orators’ Mnem.* 9 (1956) 30-40. 5

Cf. Quint.

Aristarchus

10.1.54 Apollonius in ordinem a grammaticis datum non uenit, quia

atque Aristophanes,

poetarum

iudices,

neminem

sui temporis in

numerum redegerunt, and his own silence about contemporary, but meritorious

writers at 2.5.25-6; Velleius Paterculus justifies this practice at 2.36.3: uiuorum ut magna admiratio, ita censura difficilis est. 6

‘Canon fathers’, Arion? 1 (1990) 35-60.

7

G.A.

8

Kennedy

(ed.), The Cambridge history of literary criticism (Cambridge

1989) 1 Classical criticism 1, 68.

G.Lafaye, De poetarum et oratorum certaminibus apud veteres (Diss. Paris 1884);

A.W. Pickard-Cambridge, The dramatic festivals of Athens (2nd edn, Oxford 1988) 97-8, 277; P.M. Fraser, Prolemaic Alexandria (Oxford

9

Poetry into drama (Berkeley 1985) 63.

1972) 1 313.

R.G. MAYER

Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi, ed. T.W. Allen, 205-10. Ep. 2.1.63 interdum uolgus rectum uidet; see also C.O. Brink, Horace on Poetry: € Ars Poetica (Cambridge 1971) on 113, 341-6. Theog. 22-6, Ov. Rem. 363-4. Contra litteras Parmeniani 3.25 = Opera (Bassani 1797) XII 92E.

See D.J. Allan, The philosophy of Aristotle (London 1952) 164-6 and cf. ΕΝ. 10.2, 1172B36-1173A1; Dr M.B. Trapp kindly supplied this reference.

Cf. Leges 11 655C-D, 668A, III 700A-701B, esp. 700E. Brut. 191, with Kroll’s note; see also B. Wyss, Antimachi Colophonii Reliquiae (Berlin 1936) XL-LVI, who is less critical than Kroll of the anecdote.

A.A. 3.479-80 and cf. Hor. A.P. 59, Quint. 1.6.3, Sext. Emp. Adv. Gramm. 146-240, esp. 178 for the analogy with coinage.

18

19

Thuc. 4 = | 329.24-330.4; C. Damon, ‘Aesthetic response and technical analysis in the rhetorical writings of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Mus. Helv. 48 (1991) 33-58, especially 45-9. In the Vita Aeschyli 14 he is styled τελεώτερος; Roman writers always exalt

Sophocles, cf. Cic. Fin. 5.3 for the enthusiasm

Virg. Ecl. 8.10 Sophocleo ... cothurno.

for him of Quintus Cicero, and

Theog. 237-54; Professor P.E. Easterling kindly supplied this reference.

21

A.P. 345—6: hic (liber) et mare transit/ et longum noto scriptori prorogat aeuum; C.

2.20.17-20; Epist. 1.20.13.

See Peterson (1891) on 10.1.53 grammaticorum consensus, W. Heydenreich, De Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Libro X, de Dionysi Halicarnassensis de imitatione Libro II, de canone, qui dicitur, Alexandrino (Diss. Erlangen

1900).

Grundriss der rómischen Litteratur (5th edn, Brunswick 1872) 857-8. *Literary criticism in antiquity', Nettleship (1891) 84. A literary history of Rome in the Silver Age (2nd edn, London

1960) 321.

Peterson (1891) xxviii. Literary criticism in antiquity (London 1934, 1952) II 290; The Greek and Roman critics (London 1965) 299. Cic. Fin. 1.7 locos quidem quosdam ... transferam ... ut ab Homero Ennius, Afranius

a Menandro solet. For evidence on drama see H.D. Jocelyn, The tragedies of Ennius (Cambridge

1969) 7-11.

:

95.8; fr. 398 Pfeiffer; see also D. W.T. Vessey, ‘The reputation of Antimachus of Colophon' Hermes 99 (1971) 1-10 and P. Knox, who believes that Callimachus" low opinion of the Lyde was isolated, ‘Wine, water and Callimachean polemics’

ASCP 89 (1985) 113. 31

Cf. Nettleship (1891) 56-7; Susemihl (1891) I 304-5 n.117.

GRAECIA CAPTA: THE ROMAN

RECEPTION OF GREEK LITERATURE

307

32

Malcovati (1943) 82.

33

Malcovati (1943) 40-1; E. Lange, Quid cum de ingenio et litteris tum de poetis Graecorum Cicero senserit (Diss. philolog. Halenses IV 2, 1880).

34

Velleius 1.7.1 Hesiodus... uir perelegantis ingeni et mollissima dulcedine carminum memorabilis, Callimachus Epig. 27.2-3 τὸ μελιχρότατον τῶν Ex£ov.

35

The testimonia are still most conveniently found in E. Hiller's Leipzig edition of

36

W.V. Clausen, ‘Callimachus and Latin poetry' GRBS 5 (1964) 181-96.

37

See the former's note on 10.1.75 and RE 2 VI 1065.3-10.

38

Longinus saw much frigidity in Timaeus (Subl. 4.1), and Hieronymus’ style may have been unappetising (Susemihl (1891) 1 562-3); for Polybius see K. Ziegler,RE XXI 1569-70.

39

S.F. Bonner, Education ín ancient Rome (London

1885.

Easterling

and

Knox

(1985)

1977) 53, 62.

I 599; for this Bulloch

was

not

unreasonably

criticised in CP 82 (1987) 262. See also W. Sale, “The popularity of Aratus' CJ61 (1965-6) 160-4.

In chapters two and three of the fifth book of the Poetices libri septem (Lyons 1561, repr. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt

1964).

42

Études sur le drame antique (Paris 1897) 208-9.

43

English literature and society in the XVIII century (London 1904) 5. For lack of enthusiasm for Xenophon see J.K. Anderson, Xenophon (London 1974) 3 *perhaps he does not really deserve to be called the Attic Muse’; that ‘really’ assumes that there is a reality, rather than an opinion, behind approval.

On Lucian see G. Bowersock in Easterling and Knox (1985) I 603. 45

This essay was delivered in much its present form at a seminar on the formation of the Greek literary canon held at the Institute of Classical Studies, London, in

November, 1991. I am Grateful to those who organized the seminar, Professor PE. Easterling, Mr A. Griffiths, and Dr N. Lowe for offering me a platform, and to all who contributed advice or criticism.