Tradition and Originality in Plautus: Studies of the Amatory Motifs in Plautine Comedy 9783666251580, 3525251580, 9783525251584

Citation preview

H Y P O M N E M A T A 62

HYPOMNEMATA U N T E R S U C H U N G E N ZUR ANTIKE U N D ZU I H R E M N A C H L E B E N

Herausgegeben von Albrecht Dihle / Hartmut Erbse / Christian Habicht Hugh Lloyd-Jones / Günther Patzig / Bruno Snell

H E F T 62

V A N D E N H O E C K & R U P R E C H T IN G Ö T T I N G E N

NETTA

ZAGAGI

Tradition and Originality in Plautus Studies of the Amatory Motifs in Plautine Comedy

V A N D E N H O E C K & R U P R E C H T IN G Ö T T I N G E N

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Zagagi, Netta: Tradition and originality in Plautus: studies of the amatory motifs in Plautine comedy / Netta Zagagi. — Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. (Hypomnemata: H. 62) ISBN 3-525-25158-0

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen 1980 — Printed in Germany. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus auf foto- oder akustomechanischem Wege zu vervielfältigen Gesamtherstellung: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

TO GADI AND TO MY PARENTS

Preface This book is a revised version of a thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford in Hilary term 1977. The original text (chapters I—III and the Appendix) has only slightly been altered and the argument was left practically untouched. As the typescript was handed over to the publishers in 1977, no literature published after that date could be taken into account. It gives me great pleasure to record my grateful appreciation to all those people who have given me invaluable help and guidance in the preparation of this book. First and foremost, my thanks are due to my supervisor, Professor Hugh Lloyd-Jones, for his never-failing encouragement and constant stimulation and guidance. I consulted him at virtually every step of my work, and he was never sparing of the time and effort needed to help me. My thanks are also due to Professor R. G. M. Nisbet, who read part of my thesis when it was nearing completion, and to Dr. C. Austin and Mr. P. G. McC. Brown for their helpful criticisms. Great help and moral support were also given me by Mrs. Ε. M. Chilver, Principal of Lady Margaret Hall, Miss. A. Pennigton, Miss L. H. Jeffery, by my teachers at Tel-Aviv University, Prof. S. Perlman, Head of the Dept. of Classics, Prof. D. Weissert, Prof. B. Shimron, and by Prof. Z. Yavetz. I gratefully acknowledge awards from the Anglo-Israel Association, London (The Kenneth Lindsay Scholarship), which not only financed my first three years in Oxford but provided an additional grant in my hour of need; from Tel-Aviv University, including two awards from the Zalman Aran Fund; from the Jowett Trust; from the Craven Committee, for a grant to study Italian in Italy, and for supporting me during the financial difficulties which I experienced towards the end of my stay in Oxford; from Sir Isaiah Berlin; and from Lady Margaret Hall's Emoluments Committee. Special thanks are due to my dear friend Miss Alison Moore, who took a very lively interest in my work and spent many hours on the text. She has patiently guided me through the pitfalls of English idiom, gave attention to technical points, and has done much in general to improve the book.

7

I must also express my appreciation of the efforts of the publishers of the series to have the book both becomingly and accurately printed. Finally, I would like to thank my family for all their encouragement and support, and especially my husband Gadi, without whom this book would never have been completed.

8

Contents List of Abbreviations

10

Introduction

13

Chapter I. Mythological Hyperboles in Plautus: Form and Content 15 I. Hyperboles in Mythological comparisons: the Greek Background . . . A. Literary evidence outside Attic Comedy B. Evidence from Middle and New Comedy II. The Form and Position of Mythological Hyperboles in Greek Tragedy A. Hyperbolic comparisons introduced through a dialogue between a Tragic Character and the Chorus B. Mythological Hyperboles in the Stasima C. Mythological Hyperboles in monologues and speeches III. The Formative Elements of Plautine Hyperboles IV. Notes on the Content of Some of the Plautine Hyperboles Conclusions

Chapter II. The Amatory Cantica of Plautus I. Cist. 2 0 3 - 2 8 : Alcesimarchus' Monody II. Trin. 2 2 3 - 7 5 : Lysiteles' Monody Conclusions

18 18 26 32 33 37 42 46 54 64

68 69 90 105

Chapter III. Plautus' Juridicisation of Amatory Motifs Conclusions

106 130

Epilogue

132

Appendix: Flury's Attribution to the Early Romans of the Concept of the Lover's Surrender of his Soul to the Beloved: Counter-evidence from Greek Sources

134

Bibliography

138

Index Locorum

144

General Index

152

9

List of Abbreviations addenda = E. Fraenkel, Elementi plautini in Plauto (transi, by F. Munari, Firenze, I960), pp. 3 9 9 - 4 4 3 . Austin, CGFPR = C. Austin, Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta in Papyris Reperto (Berolini Se Novi Eboraci, 1973). Burck, Amor = E. Burck, 'Amor bei Plautus und Properz (Plautus, Trinummus 2 2 3 - 2 7 5 ; Properz II, 12)', Arctos, 1 (1954), pp. 3 2 - 6 0 (= Vom Menschenbild in der römischen Literatur, Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. by E. Lefevre (Heidelberg, 1966), pp. 45ff.). CAF = T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1880—8), 3 vols. Daremberg Sc Saglio = Ch. Daremberg & E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines d'après les textes et les monuments (1877—1919). E m o u t = A. Ernout, Plante: Comédies (Paris, 1932—1940), 7 vols. Emout-Meillet = A. Ernout & A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Latine: histoire des mots (4th edn., Paris, 1959). Flury, L. u. Liebesspr. = P. Flury, Liebe und Liebessprache bet Menander, Plautus und Terenz (Heidelberg, 1968). Gomme & Sandbach = A. W. Gomme Sc F. Η. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary (Oxford, 1973). G.-P., HE = A. S. F. Gow & D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge, 1965), 2 vols. Hoelzer, De poesi = V. Hoelzer, De poesi amatoria a comicis atticis exculta, ab elegiacis imitatione expressa (Diss. Marburg, 1899). Kistrup, Die Liebe = I. Kistrup, Die Liebe bei Plautus und den Elegikern (Diss. Kiel, 1963). Leo, Cantica = F. Leo, Die plautinischen Cantica und die hellenistische Lyrik (Berlin, 1897). Leo, Der Monolog = F. Leo, Der Monolog im Drama: Ein Beitrag zur griechischrömischen Poetik (Berlin, 1908). Leo, Pl.F.2 = F. Leo, Plautinische Forschungen (2nd edn., Berlin, 1912). Leo, GRL = F. Leo, Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Berlin, 1913), Vol. I. Lodge, Lex. Plaut. = G . Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum (Lipsiae, 1924—33), 2 vols. L & S = C. T. Lewis Sc C. Short, A Latin Dictionary (1879). LSJ = H. G. Liddell & R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th edn.; repr. 1968, rev. by H. S. Jones & alii with Supplement). Nixon = P. Nixon, Plautus (Loeb Classical Library, 1916—38), 5 vols. Paroem. Gr. - E. L. von Leutsch Sc F. G. Schneidewin, Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum (Goettingae, 1839—51; repr. Hildesheim, 1965), 2 vols. Pl.Pl. = E. Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin, 1922). Preston, Sermo = Κ. Preston, Studies in the Diction of the Sermo Amatorius in Roman Comedy (Diss. Chicago, 1916). Roscher, Lex. = W. H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Leipzig, 1884—1937), 6 vols. RE = A. Pauly Sc G. Wissowa Sc W. Kroll, Real-Encyclopädie d. klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (1893— ).

10

TLL = Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Lipsiae, 1900— ). Ussing = J . L. Ussing, T. Maccit Plauti comoediae (Hauniae, 1875—92), 5 vols. The names of ancient writers and the titles of their works are abbreviated generally as in L & S and LSJ. Periodicals are abbreviated generally as in L'Année Philologique. References of the form .[Author] fr. [ ] K* are to Kock's CAF. Menander's Asp is, Dis Exapaton, Dyskolos, Epitrepontes, Kolax, Heros, Misumenos, Perikeiromene, Samia, Sikyonios, and Pap. Antinoop. 15 are always quoted from the Oxford Classical Text of F. H. Sandbach (Menandri Reliquiae Selectae (1972)). Other Menandrian fragments are quoted from Körte's, Menandri quae supersunt (2nd edn., rev. by A. Thierfelder, Leipzig, 1959). The plays of Plautus are cited from the Oxford Classical Text of W. M. Lindsay (T. Macci Plauti comoediae (2nd edn., 1910)). Those of Terence, from the Oxford Classical Text of R. Kauer & W. M. Lindsay (P. Terenti Afri comoediae (2nd edn., repr. 1965)).

11

Introduction Opinions on the extent of Plautus' dependence, in his adaptations of Greek New Comedy, on his Attic models, have see-sawed between two extremes.1 Nineteenth-century scholarship, of which the main representatives were F. Leo and his followers, emphasised Plautus' indebtedness to his sources, while since the publication of E. Fraenkel's important work, Plautinisches im Plautus (1922), which was a turning-point in that it shifted the emphasis from the Greek models to Plautus himself, modem scholars have gone to the other extreme, stressing the wide scope of Plautus' originality.2 One of the areas in which this new approach to Plautus was applied was that of amatory conventions. While Leo, V. Hoelzer and K. Preston had felt that Plautus drew heavily on his sources when dealing with amatory matters, 3 E. Burck, 4 influenced by Fraenkel's opening chapter, which argues for Plautine originality on the basis of his use of mythological hyperboles,5 attributed a considerable number of amatory themes to Plautus. He elaborated his views on Plautine originality by reference to a monody which even scholars such as Leo, who emphasised Plautus' dependence on his models, considered Plautine (i. e. Lysiteles' monody, Triti. 223—75); 6 comparing his results with his analysis of a Propertian elegy (II. 12), he concluded that Plautus exhibited a far lesser reliance on 1 For modem surveys on Plautine scholarship see H. Marti, Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik bet Plautus und Terenz (Winterthur, 1 9 5 9 ) , pp. Iff.; J . A. Hanson, CW, 5 9 ( 1 9 6 5 - 6 ) , pp. 1 0 3 - 7 , 1 2 6 - 9 , 1 4 1 - 8 ; W. J . Arnott, Menander, Plautus, Terence (G & R, New Surveys in the Classics, No. 9 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) , pp. 28ff.; for further bibliography see J . D. Hughes, A Bibliography of scholarship on Plautus (Amsterdam, 1 9 7 5 ) , pp. 1 - 2 . 2 This extreme is best exemplified by R. Perna, L'originalità di Plauto (Bari, 1 9 5 5 ) . See also Κ. Gaiser, ,Zur Eigenart der römischen Komödie: Plautus und Terenz gegenüber ihren griechischen Vorbildern, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, I 2 (Berlin, 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 1 0 2 7 - 1 1 1 3 passim. To E. Segal (Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus (Cambridge Mass., 1 9 6 8 ) ) the question of Plautus' relation to his models is,

on the other hand, of minor importance. 3 Leo, PI. F.2, pp. 140ff.; for Hoelzer and Preston, see List of Abbreviations. Earlier treatments of the subject, e.g. E. Bertin, De Plautinis et Terentianis adolescentibus amatoribus (Diss. Paris, 1 8 7 9 ) and L. Gurlitt, Erotica Plautina (München, 1 9 2 1 ) are not at all concerned with the question of Plautus' relation to his Attic models. 4 See List of Abbreviations. 5 For Fraenkel's hypothesis see ch. I. 6 For Lysiteles' monody see below, pp. 90ff.

13

his Attic sources than Propertius did vis-à-vis Hellenistic Epigram. 7 His pupil I. Kistrup 8 exceeded him in the wildness of her claims for Plautine inventiveness; extending Burck's research methods to the whole of the Plautine Corpus and relating it to the works of the three Elegists Ovid, Propertius and Tibullus, she considered Plautus the source of their ideas on love, seemingly overlooking the fact that all four gained much of their inspiration from the Greek sources on which they modelled their works. P. Flury 9 too subscribed to the new views on Plautine originality in his portrayals of love and lovers, and attributed to Plautus and Terence the introduction of a specifically Roman conception of love into their drama, while nevertheless admitting that Plautus utilised the Greek and Roman conceptions indiscriminately. 10 Prompted by these widely divergent views and by the newly discovered fragments of Menandrian Comedy, the present study of Plautine amatory convention was undertaken in the hope of clarifying, in this area, Plautus' relation to his Attic models of which many scholars seem to have failed to appreciate the true nature. While the study cannot be claimed to be either an exhaustive or, indeed, even an entirely systematic investigation into the amatory motifs in Plautine Comedy, it nevertheless has a clearly defined and twofold object: not only does it attempt to reassess the extent of Plautus' indebtedness, in his depiction of love, to his Attic models at points where he has hitherto been considered original, but it also aims at modifying modern opinions as to where Plautus' originality does lie, and, while putting it into its proper perspective, at analysing an aspect of his inventiveness hitherto overlooked by Plautine scholars. 7

Amor, p. 65. See List of Abbreviations. 9 See List of Abbreviations. 10 For Flury's hypothesis see Appendix (pp. 134ff.).

8

14

CHAPTER I

Mythological Hyperboles in Plautus: Form and Content More than half a century after its publication in 1922, Fraenkel's book Plautinisches im Plautus, which was the first, and is still the most comprehensive, attempt at identifying and defining those elements in the Comedies which are characteristically Plautine, continues to dominate the field of Plautine studies. Fraenkel's criteria of Plautine originality, especially those put forward in his first four chapters, found widespread acceptance among Plautine scholars, ànd few attempts 1 have been made to subject these criteria to sufficiently searching criticism. A case in point is Fraenkel's claim in his first chapter that all those monologue openings in the Comedies which contain a depreciation of the deeds of a mythological hero as compared with those of the Comic character in question are to be considered as specifically Plautine in origin. 2 Prescott, 3 Law 4 and Tierney 5 each made attempts to re-evaluate Fraenkel's views on this > W. H. Prescott, CPh, 19 (1924), pp. 90ff.; idem, TAPhA, 63 (1932), pp. 103ff.; H. H. Law, AJPh, 47 (1926), pp. 361ff.; J . J . Tierney, PRIA, 40 (1945), pp. 21ff.; J . Chr. D u m o n t , REL, 44 (1966), pp. 182ff. See also I. Lana, RFIC, 90 (1962), pp. 67ff.; U. Reinhardt (see below, nn. 6,38). 2 Fraenkel's view is shared by many Plautine scholars: see A. Klotz, PhW, 1923, pp. 459f.; V. Ussani, RFIC, 52 (1924), pp. 533f.; W. Kroll, Giotto, 14 (1925), p. 283; Brix-Niemeyer-Conrad, Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus. 3 Bd.: Menaechmi (6th edn., Leipzig & Berlin, 1929), p. 14; idem, 1 Bd.: Trinummus (6th edn., Leipzig & Berlin, 1931), p. 20; F. Middelmann, Griechische Welt und Sprache in Plautus' Komödien (Bochum-Langendreer, 1938), pp. 48ff.; E. Paratore, RCCM, 4 (1962), p. 416; Kistrup, Die Liebe, pp. 36, 43, 45, 47, 50; W. R. Chalmers, 'Plautus and his Audience' in Roman Drama, ed. by T. A. Dorey and D. R. Dudley (London, 1965), p. 27; C. Questa, T. Maccius Plautus: Bacchides (Firenze, 1965), pp. 25ff.; Burck, Amor, p. 47; J . Blänsdorf, Archaische Gedankengänge in den Komödien des Plautus (Wiesbaden, 1967), pp. 75, 175; Flury, L. u. Liebesspr., pp. 75, 83; H. Petersmann, T. Maccius Plautus·. Stichus (Heidelberg, 1973), p. 138; H. D. Jocelyn, HSPh, 73 (1969), p. 137. More cautious are: P. J . Enk, Plauti Mercator (Lugduni Batavorum, 1932), n. ad 469; G. E. Duckworth, T. Macci Plauti Epidicus (Princeton, 1940), n. ad 178. See also W. G. Arnott, op. cit. (Introd., n. 1), p. 34. 3 Above, n. 1. 4 Above, n. 1. 5 Above, n. 1.

15

subject, but their criticism remained superficial, and, despite some good observations, made little impact on Plautine studies.6 Fraenkel, himself admitting the need for modification of his original views (in the addenda to the Italian translation of his book (I960)), 7 did not, however, submit this need to any searching analysis und consequently came up with an insignificant and practically unsubstantiated qualification to his theory; reviewers and critics, moreover, for whatever reason, did not react in any way to the proposed modification. 8 It thus appears that Fraenkel's original theory needs to be thoroughly reassessed. The significance, not hitherto fully appreciated, of certain passages from the newly discovered papyri of Menandrian Comedies, combined with the stimulus provided by the lines of research taken by Prescott, Law and Tiemey, have led me to undertake a re-examination of the entire question. In so doing I hope not only to throw new light upon lovers and their conception of love in New Comedy, some of the passages quoted by Fraenkel in illustration of his theory being either spoken by lovers or related to them, 9 but also upon one type of humour exploited by the Greek Comic writers. Fraenkel, in the first chapter of Plautinisches im. Plautus, assembled from the Plautine adaptations a number of passages, notably from monologue openings, in which he perceived a common pattern of thought, couched in an almost stereotyped form and involving the depreciation of a mythological hero or event. 10 This depreciation was expressed in the following terms: firstly, the speaker — usually a lover or a slave — asserts that he has exceeded the mythological personage in question in some respect such as heroic deeds, suffering etc.; secondly, the comparison was usually formulated using verbs denoting superiority (superare, anteire, antidire, antecedere) or such depreciatory expressions as nugae maxumae ... praeut. Elsewhere in his book, 1 1 while dealing with what he considered to be Plautus' methods of expanding the monologues found in his Attic models, he claimed that one of these methods was the introduction of the above-mentioned type 6 See, however, Duckworth, loc. cit.·, Arnott, loc. cit.·, U. Reinhardt, Mythologische Beispiele in der Neuen Komödie (Menander, Plautus, Terenz), Vol. I (Diss. Mainz, 1 9 7 4 ) , pp. 30ff. 7 Elementi Plautini in Plauto (transi, by F. Munari (Firenze, I 9 6 0 ) ) , pp. 4 2 3 f . 8 See, however, Paratore, art. cit., p. 4 2 1 ; also Reinhardt, op. cit., p. 38. 9 i. e. Bacch. fr. X V ; Merc. 4 6 9 - 7 0 ; Men. 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 ; Pers. 1 - 2 ; Cist. 2 0 3 - 5 . »0 Aul. 701 ff.; Bacch. fr. X V ; Merc. 4 6 9 - 7 0 ; Stich. 2 7 4 - 5 , 3 0 5 - 6 ; Bacch. 9 2 5 - 3 0 ; Capt. 998ff.; Men. 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 ; Pers. 1 - 2 ; Epid. 1 7 8 - 9 ; Pi. 1 2 4 4 ; also Rud. 5 0 8 - 9 (Pl.Pl., pp. 76f.). » Pl.Pl., pp. 178ff.

16

of depreciation (which he termed ,Skurrilität')12 into the opening sections of these monologues. That these depreciatory passages were to be accounted Plautine additions to their respective originals he concluded from the apparent absence of any adequate parallel, in the remnants of Attic Comedy and in Terence's adaptations, for either the superlative form of the comparison or the scurrilous pattern of thought involved. He considered that what Plautus sought to achieve in introducing such scurrilous comparisons was the aggrandizement (Glorifizierung) of his characters and their experiences, 13 since 'dem Plautus der reine βίος, das Alltägliche und Typische, gerade das was in seinen feinen Differenzierungen den attischen Dichter immer aufs neue gereizt hat, als unbedeutend und uninteressant erscheint'. {Pl.Pl., p. 390) In Fraenkel's addenda to the Italian translation of Plautinisches im Plautus (1960), a slight modification of his views on Plautine monologue openings containing scurrilous comparisons, whether mythological or otherwise, is set forth, a clear distinction being made between the literary form of these comparisons and their scurrilous content; while continuing to consider the latter as a product of Plautus' imagination, Fraenkel now came to the conclusion that the former must have been derived from the Greek originals: "La mia affermazione (p. 170) 'che tutti questi inizi (di monologhi) sono da considerare libere creazioni di Plauto', è, in questa forma, inesatta, specie a causa dell'espressione 'libere creazioni'. Avrei qui dovuto far tesoro del rilievo che avevo formulato a p. 24; forme che negli originali attici s'incontrano isolatamente, 'una possibilità fra le tante', diventano, nelle mani di Plauto, moduli prediletti; egli non si stanca mai d'adoperarli e — questa è la cosa principale — li trasforma in veicoli di scherzi tipicamente plautini e di fantastiche combinazioni. Quando si parla di determinati tipi letterari di forma — in contrapposizione alla speciale configurazione da essi assunta — il termine 'plautino' non può mai indicare un qualcosa che non sarebbe esistito affatto nella commedia attica e che Plauto avrebbe creato dal nulla. Esso può invece significare solo che i tipi formali in questione sono stati adoperati, variati ed ampliati con grande predilezione da Plauto, mentre nei drammi attici comparivano solo qualche volta e, anche là dove comparivano, avevano importanza molto più limitata che in Plauto. Una volta accortosi che una determinata forma . . . era utile ai suoi scopi, Plauto se ne serviva, nelle sue libere riproduzioni delle comme12

Throughout this book I shall use the terms 'scurrilous' and 'scurrility' in the broad sense implied by Fraenkel's use of the terms.

Pl.Pl., p. 389. 2 Zagagi (Hyp. 62)

17

die attiche, c o n u n a frequenza tale che avrebbe presumibilmente o f f e s o il gusto anche d ' u n m o d e s t o p u b b l i c o ateniese dell'età dei D i a d o c h i " . (pp. 423-4) Fraenkel illustrated his m o d i f i e d a p p r o a c h b y reference to m o n o l o g u e openings o f the t y p e nullam bilem / quam illaec est...

ego me vidisse credo magis anum

(Cist. 6 5 3 f . ; addenda,

excrucia-

p p . 422—3), for which he

f o u n d a relatively large b a c k g r o u n d in G r e e k literature. He m a d e n o a t t e m p t , however, to provide parallels for the m o n o l o g u e openings containing mythological scurrilities o f the t y p e under discussion. T h e first chapter was l e f t practically u n t o u c h e d . It is n o t quite clear, therefore, what f o r m , if any, Fraenkel thought the mythological comparisons might have taken in the originals. In the one case where he was prepared to admit the possibility of a c o m p a r i s o n in the original 1 4 he seems t o have considered the Attic model to have contained a straight c o m p a r i s o n , that is, without the element o f superiority which would represent the experiences o f the C o m i c character as surpassing those of the mythological hero. It seems, therefore, that he would still regard this notion of superiority as falling within the category o f 'scherzi tipicamente plautini' and Plautine 'fantastiche combinazioni'. Hence, despite Fraenkel's m o d i f i e d approach, we are left with precisely the same difficulties with regard t o his conclusions and, as in 1 9 2 2 , the question remains whether these mythological scurrilities were indeed Plautine creations, or whether they were n o t rather reflections o f patterns of thought f o u n d in the Greek models. A comprehensive answer to this question would involve n o t only a search for parallels t o the Plautine t y p e of c o m p a r i s o n b o t h in areas extraneous to Attic C o m e d y and in Attic C o m e d y itself, b u t also a study of the form and position o f this t y p e o f comparison in relation to corresponding phenom e n a in Greek C o m e d y and Tragedy (and, in the case o f the former, in other sources also). Having thus established the G r e e k b a c k g r o u n d o f the p h e n o m e n o n under discussion, I shall p r o c e e d t o e x a m i n e the possibility o f a direct derivation of s o m e o f the m o n o l o g u e openings in question from their respective Greek models. I. Hyperboles in Mythological comparisons: the Greek B a c k g r o u n d A. Literary

evidence

outside

Attic

Comedy

Fraenkel confined his search for parallels to that p h e n o m e n o n in Plautine c o m e d y in which a C o m i c character declares himself superior to a mytholM Pers. 1 - 2 : addenda,

18

p. 4 0 0 (n. ad p. 10, il. 3), quoted below, n. 122.

ogical personage in some respect, to the remains of Attic Comedy, and not finding any therein, deduced from their apparent absence that this was a peculiarly Plautine phenomenon. In thus failing to extend his researches beyond Attic Comedy, he seems to have neglected to consider the possibility of finding comparable phenomena outside the Comic tradition. Such a possibility was first mooted by Prescott, 1 5 but it was not until Law published her brief paper 'Hyperbole in Mythological Comparisons' in 1 9 2 6 1 6 that Prescott's suggestion was thoroughly substantiated. Law's study, which confined itself to Greek and Latin poetry, demonstrated beyond doubt that the extravagant notion of a man's superiority to gods or mythological heroes was not alien to the Greeks' way of thinking, being attested from Homer onwards. 1 7 She concludes as follows: "This form of mythological comparison, to sum up, is not distinctly Plautine, for it is frequently used by other Latin poets. It is not characteristic o f Latin literature rather than Greek literature, as the number of examples from a wide range of Greek literature shows. It is especially characteristic of Hellenistic literature for it appears first, to a great extent, in Euripides, who is a precursor in a certain sense of Hellenistic literature and is commonly supposed to have greatly influenced New Comedy." (p. 372). The last statement calls for some modification. As will be shown below, the type of comparison in question, which we may here designate mythological hyperbole καϋ' ύ π ε ρ ο χ ή μ , 1 8 was a common feature of proverbial expression and, to a lesser extent, of είκ,ασμοί and of certain rhetorical genres. In view of this, it would be extremely unsafe to attri-

»s Art. cit. ( 1 9 2 4 ) , p. 91. 1 6 Above, η. 1. 1 7 From Homer Law only quotes Od. II. 118ff. (art. cit., p. 3 6 2 ) but there are two more examples: II. IX. 3 8 8 - 9 0 und II. XIV. 315ff., for the second of which see R. Oehler, Mythologische exempla in der älteren griechischen Dichtung (Diss. Basel, 1925), pp. 20ff. For further examples of hyperboles in mythological comparisons see J . Egli, Die Hyperbel in den Komödien des Plautus und in Ciceros Briefen an Atticus (Progr., Zug, 1892—4), Part III; W. Headlam, Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (Cambridge, 1 9 2 2 ) , n. ad II. 9 0 ; H. V. Canter, AJPh, 5 4 ( 1 9 3 3 ) , pp. 2 1 3 - 6 , passim. 1 8 A full bibliography on the subject of hyperbole is found in G. Calboli, Comifici Rhetorica ad Herennium (Bologna, 1969), pp. 386f. (n. 2 0 2 ) . The type involving comparisons καιΐ' ύπεροχήν (although not mythological) is specifically referred to by Demetrius in F.loc. 1 2 4 : τριττή δέ έστιν· ή γαρ κ ad' όμοιότητα έκφέρεται, ώς τό "ΰέειν δ' άνέμοισιν όμοιοι", ή καό' ύπεροχήν, ώ ς το "λευκότεροι χιόνος", ή κατά τό άδύνατον, ώς τό "ούρανφ έστήριξε κάρη". Cf. Auct. Her. IV. 33. 4 4 : superlatio ... sumitur separatim aut cum comparatione ... cum comparatione aut praestantia superlatio sumitur. Hyperbole is related to Comedy by Longinus (Περί ϋφους, 3 8 . 5 ) and by Demetrius (Eloc. 126, 161).

19

bute to Euripides (or to any other poet) any significant influence on Hellenistic Literature in the matter of the use of hyperboles in mythological comparisons, although Euripides may possibly have inspired the use of these in comparative or superlative form in monologue openings in New Comedy. 19 It is feasible, however, that there may have existed a situation of mutual inspiration between works of literature on the one hand and the colourful images of everyday speech and rhetoric on the other. The following examples of mythological hyperboles καύ' ύπεροχην are taken from non-poetical sources not examined by Law, and serve as a further illustration of the widespread nature of the phenomenon among the Greeks. The first few are culled from Greek proverbial expression, a fertile source of such hyperboles: 20 Αυγκέως όξύτερον βλέπει, bpç.; Φιλοκτήτου τοξικότερος; Κρόνου και Ίαπετοϋ άρχαιότερος; εύΎενέστερος/πρεαβύτερος Κόδρου; ευγενέστερος Κέκροπος; πρεσβύτερος Κρόνου; 'Eneιού δειλότερος; ποικιλώτερος ύ'δρας; Τυφώνος πολυπλοκώτερον; εύμορφότερος Νιρέως; Κόττου Ισχυρότερος και Βριάρεω; άεί Διός κρείσσων; Πήγασου ταχύτερος; ωραιότερος Ύακίνϋου; ούδεν 'Ορέστης προς ήμάς και Πυλάδης.21 These stock phrases 22 clearly demonstrate that comparisons involving the notion of a man's superiority to a mythological figure or god formed part of the colloquial language. Indeed, Tyrt. fr. 12. 3—8 West (cf. Thgn. 699— 718) suggests the existence of a rich proverbial background as early as the seventh century B.C. 2 3 A case in which proverbial expressions of this type would commonly have been used is that of the κολακεύματα of parasites and flatterers24 to their patrons, as the following two passages from Lucian clearly indicate: fj κόΧαξι παραδούς έαυτόν όμνύουσιν, η μην ευμορφότερον μεν Νιρεως είναι αύτόν, εϋγενέστερον δβ του Κέκροπος ή Κόδρου, συνετώτερον δε τοΰ 'Οδυσσέως... (Tim. 23) ι 9 See below, pp. 44ff. Paroem. Gr. Vols I, II, s. vv. 2 1 Below, p. 53. 2 2 See also the proverbial expressions κατα-γηράααις Τιάωνοϋ βαάύτερος and μέγα φρονεί μάλλον η Πηλεύς ètri rf¡ μαχαίρμ (Paroem. Gr., Vol. I, s. υυ.). For similar Latin proverbial expressions see A. Otto, Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer (Leipzig, 1890; repr. Hildesheim, 1964), s. υυ. Lynceus; Lycurgus; Hippolytus; Orestes; Pegasus. » Paroem. Gr., Vol. I, p. 84, n. ad no. 3. 2 4 These types are thoroughly discussed by O. Ribbeck, Kolax: Eine ethologische Studie (Abhandl. d. philol.-hist. Cl. d. königl. sächs. Gesellschaft d. Wiss., 9, Nr. 1. (Leipzig, 1883)). 20

20

Κόδρου

òè είτγενέστερος

λεγόμενος

elvai

και

Νιρέως

καλλίων

και

'Οδυσσέως

συνετώτερος

9.4)

(DMort.

T h e r e are u n f o r t u n a t e l y n o e x t a n t e x a m p l e s in t h e r e m a i n s o f A t t i c C o m e d y o f t h e use b y parasites and

flatterers

o f this t y p e o f c o m p a r i s o n ,

b u t since, j u d g i n g b y t h e a b o v e - q u o t e d passages f r o m L u c i a n , such m y t h o logical c o m p a r i s o n s f o r m e d p a r t o f t h e b a s i c v o c a b u l a r y o f this class, it is n o t u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e y w o u l d also have b e e n a familiar ingredient o f C o m i c κολακεύματα.25

T h i s suggestion is s u p p o r t e d , m o r e o v e r , b y t h e

e x i s t e n c e in Plautus o f an e x a m p l e o f a κολάκευμα G r e e k origin o f w h i c h is highly T h e p o p u l a r p r a c t i c e o f είκάξειν21 h y p e r b o l e s /cat?' υπεροχήν,

o f this t y p e , t h e

probable.26 also involved t h e use o f m y t h o l o g i c a l

as m a y b e illustrated f r o m P l a t o . I n PL

2 1 5 B , A l c i b i a d e s p r o d u c e s t w o m y t h o l o g i c a l εικόνες tes: ψημί yàp

δη όμοιότατον

έpμoyλυφείoις

καδημένοις,

αυτόν

είναι

τοϊς

Smp.

in praise o f Socra-

σιληνοϊς

τούτοις

. . . και ψημί αύ έοικέναι

τοίς

έν

τοίς

τω σ α τ υ ρ ψ τ φ

αυτόν

Μαρσύφ. T h e n , while he is p r o c e e d i n g t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e suitability o f these similitudes, t h e second o f t h e m is developed i n t o a m o r e daring f o r m , involving t h e notion personage

with

ώ ς δε και

τάλλα

whom ëoικaς,

ά λ λ ' ούκ αϋλητής; όρ^άνων

έκηλει

δ' έκείνου τούτον

I n Pl. Tht.

μετά

π ο λ ΰ ye τούς

τοσούτον

τούτο

of Socrates'

he is being

τούτο

διαφέρεις,

ύβριστής

ιώτερος

rf? άπό

to the

mythological

n a m e l y Marsyas ( 2 1 5 B — C ) :

άκουε,

ΰαυμασ

άνόρώπους μόνον

superiority

compared,

τού στόματος

'ότι άνευ

el· ή οϋ;

έκείνου. bpyáνων

...

Ò μεν

'γε δι'

δυνάμει,

. . . σι)

ψιλοΓς

λόyoις

ποιείς. 1 6 9 Α — Β , t h e m y t h o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t is i n t r o d u c e d o n l y i n t o

t h e s e c o n d o f t h e t w o successive εικόνες

in relation t o w h i c h S o c r a t e s '

superiority is later e x p r e s s e d : Οϋ /)ή.δων,

ώ Σώκρατες,

μενον φειν

μη διδόναι

λ&γον,

μοι μη άποδύεσάα

ά λ λ ' èy(ò ι, και

ούχί

συ δέ μοι δ ο κ ε ϊ ς προς τον Σκίρωνα

άρτι

παρελήρησα

ávayKáoeiv μάλλον

καύάπερ τείνειν.

σοι ψάσκων

παρακαϋήσε

Λα/ce Αακεδαιμόνωι

έπιτρέδαιμόνιοι· μέν

Cf. Men. Kolax, fr. 2: 'Αλεξάνδρου πλέον ... πέπωκας. Mil. 11—12 (overlooked by Fraenkel): Mars haud ausit dicere/neque aequiperare suas uirtutes ad tuas. Law, art. cit., p. 369. In the Greek original of Miles Gloriosus this hyperbole was probably expressed using ούδ' άν/ούδ' ei for which formula see Headlam, loc. cit. (above, η. 17). Mythological hyperboles concerning Ares formulated in this way are found in Horn. II. XVII. 398f. and in Aesch. Th. 469. 2 1 For this practice see Fraenkel, Pl.Pl., pp. 169ff.; idem, Aeschylus: Agamemnon (Oxford, 1950), Vol. III, n. ad 1629ff.; G. Monaco, Paragoni burleschi degli antichi (Palermo, 1963). 25 26

21

yàp

άπιέναι

δοκείς

ή άποδύεσάαι

το δράμα

δράν

κελεύουσι,

τον yàp

σι) δε κατ'

προοελϋόντα

Άνταίόντί

ούκ άνίης

μοι

πριν

μάλλον

(àv)

ávayuá-

Socrates, in reply, elaborates the similitudes in much the same manner as Alcibiades does in the abovequoted passage, that is, by introducing the notion of superiority (169B): σης άποδύσας

"Αριατά μέντοι

ye,

ουδέν

ώ Θεόδωρε,

èyòi

εντυχόντες

èv τοίς λóyoις

ταύτα

την νόσον

έκείνων. καρτεροί

τι μάλλον

προσπαλαίσαι.

μύριοι προς

άφίοταμαι

yàp

το λéyειv • οϋτω

μου άπήκασας-

ίσχυρικώτερος

ήδη μοι Ήρακλέες μάλ'

τ ε και

εύ συγκεκόφασιν,

τις ερως

δεινός

ένδέδυκε

άλλ' της

Θησέες εγώ περί

yυμvaσiaς.

In Pl. Euthphr. 1 IC—Ε, only one mythological comparison is involved, and this is initiated by Socrates himself: τοϋ ημετέρου πpoyόvoυ, ώ Εϋ&ύφρων, εοικεν είναι Ααιδάλου τα υπό οοϋ λεyόμεva. (11C). Euthyphro, however, denying the suitability of the comparison as far as he himself is concerned, applies it instead to its initiator: άλλα σύ μοι δοκείς ò Δαίδαλος ( l l D ) . Socrates, for his part, goes on to declare himself an even cleverer artist than Daedalus (11D): Κινδυνεύω à'pa, ώ έταΐρε, έκείνου ο σ ω ò μεν ώς έ'οικε,

τοϋ

άνδρός

τά αυτού και τά

δεινότερος μόνα

έποίει

yεyovέvat ού μένοντα,

την έγώ

τέχνην

δε προς

τοσούτφ, τοις

έμαυτού,

28

άλλότρια.

The manner in which the element of superiority is introduced in all the above-quoted examples is worth pointing out, since it seems to have been a regular technique in such cases: the comparison as it is first introduced is always expressed in terms of the equating of both its elements, and it is only afterwards that the idea of surpassing is introduced, either by the initiator of the comparison or by its subject himself. The evidence from Plato, although scanty, 29 suggests that mythological hyperboles καύ' ύπεροχήν had become at some stage an established constituent of the είκασμοί. It is quite probable, in fact, that they formed a more important element of the είκασμοί than is evident from Plato, since mutual abusing or praising by means of comparisons with mythological personages seems to have been part of the daily parlance of the Athe-

28

Cf. ibid. 15B (Socrates): Θανμάσχ) ούν ταύτα λέγων eàv σοι οι λόγοι φαίνωνται μη μένοντες άλλα βαδίζοντες, και έμέ αΐτιάοη τον Ααίδαλον βαδίζοντας αϋτούς iroieïv, αύτός ών πολύ ye τεχνικώτερος τού Δαιδάλου και κύκλφ περιιόντα ποιών; 2» See also Smp. 219Ε; Lg. 71 IE; Phdr. 230A; Lg. 660E; Phd. 99C; Euthd. 297C (quoted below, p. 57).

22

nians. 30 This practice may have resulted in a more frequent use of mythological hyperboles in the είκασμοί. Turning to Attic Oratory we find very little evidence of the use of mythological hyperboles και?' ύπεροχήν, but this may in the main be due to the fact that hardly any examples of the two rhetorical genres to which this type of comparison seems to be particularly appropriate, that is, Encomium and Vituperation, 31 have survived the centuries (Vituperation in particular has been completely lost). According to Arist. Rh. 1368a. 19ff. however, one of the major precepts for the composition of Encomia and Vituperations was, in fact, the inclusion in these of hyperboles involving comparisons καύ' ύπεροχήν: näv μή καϋ'αύτόν εύπορης, προς άλλους άντιπαραβάλλειν, και

καλόν,

εις

τους

. . . δείδέ

έπαίνους

δώ κ&ν μή προς επείπερ άπασι τίνων ποια

προς

ei σπουδαίων

ένδοξους

βελτίων.

· èv υπεροχή τούς

ή υπεροχή

ένδοξους,

δοκεΐ

τοϊς

λόγοις

ή μεν

μεν

ούν οί

'έπαινοι

δει βλέποντας

μηνύειν

έπαινειν

ydp άλλά

αϋξησις

άρετήν.

ή δ' υπεροχή

τούς ολως

έπιτηδεωτάτη και

άλλους

δεϊ

δε των

κοινών

τοις

λέγονται

ψέγειν,

αυξητικοί'

δ' εύλόγως

έστιν,

προς

και οι ψόγοι και

σύγκρινανπίπτει

έπιδεικτικοϊς

σχεδόν έκ

τίνων

πάντες, τά

yàp

ή

αϋξησις των

καλών

παραβάλλει, ειδών ... και

έκ προς

εγκώμια

Although Aristotle here makes no specific suggestion that mythological exempla could be used in such comparisons, 32 they must have tacitly been assumed to fall, together with historical celebrities, (for would not the surpassing of both in some respect have been held to reveal excellence? ! ) within the category of ένδοξοι and σπουδαίοι, as may be illustrated from Isocrates' Euagoras, which is

γίγνεται

και

τά

όνείδη,

ταϋτ'

εστίν.

3° Prescott, art. cit. (1932), pp. 112ff.; Pl. Smp. 221C: οίος yàp Άχιλλεύς éyévero, dneucáaeiev Üv τις και Βραοίδαν και άλλους, και οίος αύ Περικλής, και Νέστορα και 'Αντήνορα — eiaì δέ και 'έτεροι — και τούς άλλους κατά ταϋτ' ώ> τις άπεικάξοι... Aeschin. Ctesiph. 228. 3» See below; cf. Arist. Rh. Al. 1428a. Iff.; 1426a. 1 8 - 2 0 . According to Arist. Rh. 1413b. 1, imepßoXai were employed especially by the Attic orators. A collection of examples is found in R. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer (2nd edn., Leipzig, 1885; repr. Hildesheim, 1963), pp. 439—42. In encomiastic poetry mythological hyperboles καό' υπεροχήν are attested as early as Simonides, fr. 509 PMG (quoted below, p. 57). See also Oehler, op. cit., p. 57. For the use with the same encomiastic purpose of this type of expression in late declamatory epitaphs see [Mosch.] B. Epit. 3 7 - 4 4 , 5 5 - 6 ; A. P. VII. 218. 5 - 6 (Antip. Sid.); 743. 7 - 8 (Antip. Sid.; quoted below, p. 47); VI. 256 (Antip. Thess.); IX. 5 5 7 . 3 - 4 (Antip. Thess.); 517 (Antip. Thess.); App. Anth. II. 486. 5 - 8 (quoted below, p. 50); 521; 659. 5 - 6 (quoted below, n. 133). 32 For the use in Attic Oratory of mythological exempla see Volkmann, loc. Oehler, op. cit., pp. 3f.; Canter, art. cit., p. 203, nn. 4, 6.

cit.;

23

one of the few surviving Encomia. Here, the unmatched excellence of Euagoras, ruler of Salamis, is asserted by the author to exceed that of the heroes who conquered Troy (65): καίτοι πώς äv τις την άνδρίαν η την φρόνησιν η σύμπασαν την άρετήν την Ebayópov ψανερώτερον έπιδείξειεν ή δια τοιούτων è'pyœv και κινδύνων; ού yàp μόνον φανειται τούς άλλους πολέμους, ά λ λ ά και τον των ηρώων υπερβαλόμενος, τον ύπό πάντων άνϋρώπων υμνούμενον. οι μεν yàp μεΰ' άπάσης της Ελλάδος Τροίας μόνην είλον, ò δέ μίαν πόλιν εχων προς άπασαν την Άσίαν έπολέμησεν· The same topos crops up again in another Isocratean eulogy, the Panegyrikos, this time in connection with the Athenians' forefathers who fought in Asia (83): πώς yàp âv yévoiVTO σύμμετροι τοωύτοις άνδράσιν, οϊ τοσούτον μεν των έπί Τροίαν στρατευσαμένων διήvεyκav, öaov οί μεν περί μίαν πόλιν ετη δέκα διέτριφαν, οί δε την έξ άπάσης της 'Ασίας δύναμιν εν òXiycp χρόvcp κατεπολέμησαν, ob μόνον δε τάς αυτών πατρώας διέσωσαν, άλλα και την σύμπασαν Ελλάδα ήλευ&έρωσαν; That the aggrandization of the Athenians' forefathers, accomplished by the depreciation of the heroes of the Trojan War,33 was a common practice in Attic Oratory is proved by Demosthenes' statement in the Epitaphios (10): και προεΐρηται μεν 6 μέλλω λέyειv υπ' άλλων πρότερον, δει δέ μηδέ νύν τοϋ δικαίου και καλώς έχοντος επαίνου τούς άνδρας εκείνους στερηδήναι· τοσούτίο yàp άμείνους τών έπί Τροίας ατρατευσαμένων νομίξοιντ' &ν εΐκότως, öaov οί μεν έξ άπάσης της Ελλάδος ΰντες άριστεϊς δέκ' έ'τη της 'Ασίας εν χωρίον πολιορκοϋντες μόλις είλον, ούτοι δέ τον έκ πάσης της ήπείρου στόλον έλΰόντα μόνοι, τάλλα πάντα κατεστραμμένον, ού μόνον ήμύναντο, άλλά και τιμωρίαν υπέρ ών τούς άλλους ήδίκουν έπέ&ηκαν. The suggestion that mythological hyperboles καύ' υπεροχήν were used in Encomia is supported by the Busiris, a rhetorical composition in which Isocrates criticises a certain Encomium written by an inexperienced rhetorician. Among the various factors claimed by Isocrates to have contributed to the inadequacy of the piece is the unsuitability of the following comparison to the subject of the eulogy (7): Οϋτω δ' ήμέλησας εί μηδέν òμoλoyoύμεvov έρείς, ώστε ψης μέν αϋτόν [sc. Busiris] την Αιόλου και την Όρφέως ξηλώσαι δόξαν, άποφαίνεις δ' οϋδέν τών αϋτών έκείνοις έπιτηδεύσαντα. Although this comparison involves mytho33

The earliest example of the depreciation of some aspect of the Trojan War in comparison with other wars is found in Hdt. VII. 20.2 (quoted below, p. 53); below, p. 61 with n. 143. See also Thuc. I. 3ff.

24

logical characters in both its terms, this does not exclude it from being considered an example of that general technique which must have been employed by the Attic Orators in composing Encomia. By Lucian's days, mythological hyperboles καά' υπεροχή ν definitely appear to have become an essential element of the Encomia. In his treatise ' Τ π έ ρ τών εικόνων, written in defence of the use of hyperbolic comparisons specifically involving gods and mythological heroes, the author argues that such a representation of the object of the eulogy is required by the very nature of these encomiastic writings (19): έκεΐνο δε σοι φημι, τοιαύτας

ήμϊν

τάς

άφορμάς

τών

έπαινετικών

λάγων

έπαιι>οϋντα

και εΐκόσι

το μέ^ιστόν

έστιν

εύ είκάσαι·

το δε εύ ώ δ ε μάλιστ'

ήν τις τοις

όμοίοις

παραβάλλει

ούδ' ην προς

παράύεσα>,

άλλ'

ήν

και όμοιώσεσι

τούτων

προς

το

προσχρήσάαι,

ύπερεχον

είναι,

και σχεδόν

èv

&ν κρίνοντα,

το υποδεέστερον ώ ς οιόν

ώς χρή

τε

ποιήται

τον

τούτο? ούκ την

προσβιβάζη

το

Despite the fact that Lucían does not here specifically mention that type of mythological comparison involving the superiority of the subject of the eulogy to the mythological hero, it is clear, judging by his introductory example from Simonides (ibid. ) 3 4 that he includes such a type among the comparisons προς το ύπερέχον. Dilating on the Simonidean example, moreover, he goes on to say that the Greeks themselves looked favourably on the hyperbolic comparison in question and showered special honour on the poet for this very poem. ènaiνούμενον.

As for the mythological hyperboles of the vituperative type, only one example has come down to us from Attic Oratory, [And.] Alcib. 22. The reference here is to the fruit of the union of Alcibiades and a Melian captive, a child βς τοσούτος παρανομωτέρως Αί-γίσϋου ^έ^ονεν, ώστ'

έκ τών

αϋτώ

τα έσχατα

άχύίστων τούς

άλλήλοις

πέφυκε,

μεν πεποιηκέναι

τούς

και τών δε

οίκειοτάτων

υπάρχει

πεπονόέναι.35'36

What this investigation into the non-poetical sources has shown is that mythological hyperboles κα&' ύπεροχήν, declaring a mortal to surpass mythological personages in some respect, were a common feature of the Greeks' daily parlance. It demonstrates that such expressions were not restricted to any particular literary tradition, but rather represented a

34

Fr. 509 PMG, quoted below, p. 57. Cf. And. Π ε ρ ί τών μυστηρίων, 129: άλλα γάρ τ φ παώί αύτοϋ τί χρή τοϋνομα ΰέσϋαι; ... τις fw εϊη ούτος; Οιδίπους, η Αίγισθος; f¡ τί χρη αυτόν όνομάσαι; ... 36 The phenomenon under discussion was also cultivated by the Roman orators: see e. g. Cie. Verr. IV. 18.39; IV. 43. 95; V. 56. 146; Phil. II. 27. 67; Pis. 20. 47. 35

25

widespread phenomenon common to both literature and everyday idiom. 37 This reveals a serious limitation in Fraenkel's approach: he regarded them as peculiar to Comedy, failing to recognise how common they were in other kinds of writing. Finding no adequate parallel to the Plautine comparisons either in the Comic fragments or in Terence's adaptations, he was bound to conclude that these were a Plautine element arbitrarily introduced into the Greek originals. This conclusion must be modified in the light of the present study, since the evidence offered by a wide range of literature outside Attic Comedy seems to point in another direction.

B. Evidence from Middle and New Comedy

38

A fundamental objection could be raised to Fraenkel's theory of the Plautine origin of the scurrilous mythological comparisons under discussion if similar phenomena could be produced from the scanty remains of Attic Comedy. Fraenkel claimed that none existed: "Nirgends in den Resten der attischen Komödie, weder in den Fragmenten noch in den jetzt doch beträchtlichen zusammenhängenden Stücken [sc. the fragments from Menander], nirgends bei Terenz begegnet eine einzige vergleichbare Stelle . . . Es fehlt jede Spur von der Skurrilität der superlativischen Verknüpfungen, die für Plautus charakteristisch i s t . . . " (Pl.PL, pp. 12—13). Prescott 39 and Law 4 0 did not question the accuracy of Fraenkel's claim, and so made no attempt to re-examine the extant Comic fragments. J. J. 37

Quint. Inst. VIII. 6. 75: est autem in usu vulgo quoque et inter ineruditos et apud rústicos, videlicet quia natura est omnibus augendi res vel minuendi cupiditas insita nec quisquam vero contentus est: sed ignoscitur, quia non adfirmamus. 38 The significance of the evidence to be discussed below is partly recognised by Reinhardt (op. cit. (above, n. 6)), whose views on the question of the origin of the Plautine mythological hyperboles under discussion appear to be very close to mine: See above, n. 6; below, nn. 44, 45, 46, 51, 52, 54, 59, 61, 63 (vol. II of Reinhardts work, Die mythologischen Beispiele bei Plautus, has not, as far as I know, yet been published). The present study, however, is entirely independent of Reinhardt's book, which reached me as the typescript was going to press. Some of the evidence to be discussed in this section is also quoted by Egli (op. cit. ("above, n. 17), Part II. pp. 17f.; Part III, pp. 25f.). Egli's work was overlooked by both Fraenkel and his critics Law, Prescott and Tierney (but mentioned, on the other hand, by Reinhardt). His study, published many years prior to Fraenkel's Plautinisches im Plautus, contributes very little, however, to the object of our enquiry: it is a mere list of examples of hyperbolic expressions taken from Greek sources and from Plautus and Cicero. No attempt is made to determine the importance of the Greek background of Plautus' hyperboles or to discuss their form. 39 Artt. citt. (above, n. 1). 40 Art. cit. (above, n. 1).

26

Tierney, 41 however, rectified this omission in 1945, but unfortunately provided only inadequate parallels for the phenomenon in question; indeed, in the one case where he did come across an apparently more satisfactory parallel (Alexis, Pyraunos, fr. 201K), 4 2 it was one where the notion of a man's superiority to mythological figures was not explicitly stated but was expressed only indirectly through the medium of a parasite's grotesque preference: έμοί ιταρασιτείν κρείττον ψ τω Πηγάσω, ή τοις Βορεάδαις ή εϊ τι ϋάττον èri τρέχει, ή Αημές. Αάχητος Έτεοβουτάδχι • πετεται yàp ούχ οιον βαδίζει τάς όδοϋς.43 Tierney's results were too indecisive to undermine Fraenkel's hypothesis. In any case, his study made little impact upon the course of Plautine scholarship,44 and even the subsequent discovery of new Menandrian fragments did not provoke a thorough review of the question. 45 Even without relying on the new evidence with which these fragments do in fact provide us, however, a case damaging to Fraenkel's hypothesis can be made out from material found in Middle Comedy hitherto completely overlooked by both Fraenkel and the above-mentioned critics. My first example is a monologue opening from Anaxilas, Neottis 22K). 4 6 The relevant lines run as follows (1—7):

(fr.

όστις άνϋρώπων έταίραν ήγάπησε πώποτε, οϋ yévoç τις άν δύναιτο παρανομώτερον φράσαι; τις yàp τ) δράκαιν' ϋμικτος, ή Χίμαιρα πύρπνοος, ή Χάρυβδις, ή τρίκρανος Σκύλλα, ποτ νια κύων, Art. cit. (above, n. 1), pp. 23ff. Art. cit., pp. 25f. 4 3 The formulation of this passage, however, and the grotesque pattern of thought underlying it, are comparable to Plaut. Pers. 3—5, regarded as unquestionably Plautine by Leo (PI. F2, p. 154) and by Fraenkel (Pl.PL, p. 11): nam cum leone, cum excetra, cum cervo, cum apro Aetolico,/ cum avibus Stymphalicis, cum Antaeo deluctari mavelim/quam cum Amore ... See below, pp. 55, 59ff. A similar grotesque preference involving mythological content is found in Luc. Fug. 23 (και μην äßetVOV f¡V, ώ πάτερ, την κάπρον έκκαΰάραι αύάις την Aùyéov η τούτοις [sc. the Sophists] σνμπλέκεσάαι. άπίωμεν δ' όμως. (Herakles to Zeus)) and possibly also in Alciphr. IV. 12.3 (έμβλέψαιΧιμαφίδι βούλομαι ή μετά της άλύσεως και τών περισκελίδων . . . ) , if we accept the conjecture proposed by A. P. Benner and by F. H. Fobes in the Loeb edition. 4 4 See Reinhardt, op. cit., pp. 33—5. 4 5 See, however, Lana, art. cit. (above, n. 1), p. 70 and esp. Reinhardt (above, n. 38). 4 6 Reinhardt, op. cit., pp. 213f.; also below, n. 51. 41 42

27

ΣφίγΙ-,

ϋδρα,

e ¿ς ύπερβολήν οϋκ

è'veaò',

λέαιν',

έ ' χ ι δ ν α , -πτηνά

άφίκται αύται

του

δ ' άπάντων

καταπτύ

Άρπυιών στον

ϋπερέχουσι

γένη, γένους;

τών

κακών.

Here all the peculiarities regarded by Fraenkel as specifically Plautine are to be observed: a monologue beginning with a scurrilous comparison where a mortal — in this case the γένος έταιρικόν as a whole — is declared to surpass mythological figures in some respect. The comparison, introduced by rhetorical question (lines 2—6), is completed using a verb denoting superiority (line 7: ύπερέχουσι).47 The significance of the form in which this comparison is expressed should be emphasised. Fraenkel constantly claimed that Plautus' use of verbs denoting superiority to express the hyperbolic comparisons in question had no equivalent whatsoever in the remains of Attic Comedy. 48 Since, therefore, the usage in question seemed to him to appear not only frequently but exclusively in Plautine hyperboles, Fraenkel deduced that all scurrilous passages couched in this form — whether mythological or non-mythological — were Plautine additions; 49 hence, he was using the appearance of the formula as a criterion of Plautine intercalation. This prima facie safe criterion has now been proved, in the light of the evidence offered by Anaxilas, Neottis, fr. 22. 7, to be unreliable: the use here of ϋπερεχειν in the figurative sense of 'surpass' corresponds exactly to the Plautine use of superare, antidire, anteire, antecedere, in similar contexts. 5 0 The remarkable accumulation of mythological material exhibited by this passage and, indeed, by the monologue as a whole, should also be pointed out, since Fraenkel argues elsewhere in his book that such a practice is characteristically Plautine. 51 My next example from Middle Comedy is a beginning of a speech or of a monologue from Eubulus, Amaltheia (fr. 7K), where the importance 47 Contrast with the manner in which this very hyperbolic comparison is expressed in lines 30—1: συντβμόντι δ ' ούδέ èV / èoâ' έταίρας όσα rteρ eon όηρί' εξωλέστερον (in comparative form). « ΡI. PL, pp. 12f. •» PIPI, pp. 14ff. so For the use in Attic Comedy of verbs denoting superiority in non-mythological hyperbolic comparisons see Ar. Av. 363: ύπερακοντίξεις συ y' ήδη Hucixw ταϊς μηχαναϊς.; Phryn. Monotropos, fr. 22Κ: άλλ' ύπερβέβληκ e πολύ TOP ΝTKIAV/ στραττγγίας πλήΰβι re κάξευρήμασιι>.·, Antiph. Misoponeros, fr. 159.7Κ; and especially Philetaer. Atalante, fr. 3K (quoted below, η. 139); see also Anaxandr. Pharmakomantis, fr. 49K; Austin, CGFPR, fr. 257. 37 (Adesp. Nov. P. Sorb. 72r.). si Pl.Pl., pp. 75ff.; below, n. 62. See also Reinhardt, op. cit., pp. 162, 206f., 213.

28

of conquering Troy is depreciated compared with certain gastronomical considerations. The speaker, according to Athenaeus II. 63d, is Herakles: ΰερμότβρον η κραυρότβρον i) μέαως è'xov, τοϋτ' έ'σϋ' έκώατφ μεϊξον τ) Τροίαν èXelv.52 The analogy between this passage and Plaut. Bacch. 925—930 s3 is evident. Just as in Plautus, the Trojan War is presented as relatively unimportant compared with some every-day triviality; in this passage also the comparison — here formulated using the comparative degree — is placed at the beginning of a speech. Passing to the newly-discovered papyri of Menandrian Comedy, we find two other valuable examples. The first is taken from the entrance monologue of Knemon in the Dyskolos (153ff.), the opening section of which is taken up by allusions to Perseus' two famous attributes — the winged sandals and the Gorgon's head. 54 With regard to the latter attribute Knemon expresses the following wish (157—9): one ρ è poi νυνί yévoir'· ουδέν •yap άφάονώτβρον λιΰίνων yèvoiτ' Ανδριάντων πανταχού. Handley's comments on these lines 55 are worth quoting in full: "When Knemon implies that he would outdo Perseus in turning people into stone, an element of hyperbole is introduced which recalls one of Plautus' favourite forms of monologue opening; e.g. Bacch. 925ff., where the pattern is 'they say the Atreidae did a great deed in storming Troy: this was nothing to the way I shall carry my master by storm'. On the very different and typically Plautine style of these passages, see Fraenkel .. ," 5 6 The passage, it is true, differs greatly, in style and in the degree of the explicitness of the notion of superiority, from the Plautine monologue openings in question, which is why it has been taken by some scholars as a kind of confirmation of Fraenkel's hypothesis. 57 Any attempt, s2

Reinhardt, op. cit., p. 201, 213f. These lines are a direct adaptation of Eur. An dr. 369 (quoted below, p. 44). See below, p. 62. That they are the opening lines of Herakles' speech or at least form part of its opening section is suggested not only by their gnomic character, but also by the very position of the Euripidean passage upon which they are modelled. » Pl.Pl., p. 10. See below, pp. 61ff. 54 Reinhardt, op. cit., pp. 5 7 - 6 6 ; below, n. 59. 55 The Dyskolos of Menander (London, 1965), p. 159. 56 See also Chalmers, art. cit. (above, n. 2), p. 48, n. 22: 'It is interesting to note that the mythological passage . . . is almost "Plautine" by Fraenkel's criteria.' s ? See e.g. Jocelyn, art. cit. (above, n. 2), p. 137, n. 19.

29

however, t o read t o o much into the dissimilarities between this and the Plautine monologue openings should be avoided, for we have n o reason to believe that Plautus might have changed the content and the structure of Greek monologue openings to the extent suggested by Fraenkel elsewhere in his b o o k . 5 8 It would be safer to regard the manner in which the mythological material is treated in Knemon's monologue opening as coincidentally unattested in Plautus, without using its variant characteristics as backing for Fraenkel's criterion of Plautine originality. What is relevant to our study is the attestation here of the introduction of elements akin to the type of mythological hyperbole found in Plautus into New Comedy monologue openings. 5 9 The second example is taken from a dialogue 6 0 in Menander's Samia, where Moschion, Demeas' adopted son, it declared by Nikeratos, his would-be father-in-law, to be a much worse sinner than the most notorious incestuous figures in mythology for allegedly having lain with Chrysis, Demeas' mistress, and fathered an illegitimate child on her (495—7): 6 1 ώ πάνδανον è'pyov• ώ τα Τηρέωςτλέχη Οίδίπου τ€ καί Θυέστου καί τά των άλλων, οσα yeyovoâ' ήμϊν έστ' άκοϋσαι, μικρά ποιήσας—62 58

Pl.Pl., ρ. 54, η. 2 (with regard to Antiph. Neaniskoe, fr. 166K): 'Das Ganze geht aus von der Idee der Versteinerung, etwa so wie Plaut. Merc. 469sq. von der des diripi. Aber Plautus würde die Beziehung viel unmittelbarer machen, indem er entweder, mit der komparativischen Verknüpfung, sagte „das Schicksal der von der Gorgo Versteinerten ist gar nichts gegen meines" oder, identifizierend, etwa so "vorhin auf dem Markte bin ich zu Polydektes geworden" und dann die Erklärung nachschickte. Der griechische Dichter deutet auf den Mythos nur hin: "die Geschichte ist doch glaubhaft: wenn ich auf den Markt komme, geht es mir ebenso wie denen in der Sage.'"Here, the basis for Fraenkel's argument is tenuous in the extreme. 59 The analogy between Dysc. 153ff. and the Plautine monologue openings in question recognized by Handley, is totally rejected by Reinhardt, op. cit., p. 65, n. 3. See, however, ibid., p. 60, n. 1. 60 Fraenkel illustrated his theory by quoting passages not only f r o m monologue openings but in several instances also f r o m dialogues: Epid. 178f.; Men. 199—201 (Pl.Pl., pp. 10, 11); also Rud. 508f. (quoted below, n. 62; Pl.Pl., p p . 76f.). 61 Reinhardt, op. cit., pp. 156—64, esp. 162; 213f. also above, n. 51. 62 Cf. the combination of the name Thyestes with Tereus, attested in this passage, with that found in Plaut. Rud. 508—9 (also in the context of a hyperbolic comparison): scelestiorem cenam cenavi tuam/quam quae Thyestae quondam aut posita est Tereo. This combination was regarded as Plautine by Fraenkel, who not only considered the practice of accumulating mythological material as specifically Plautine but also used it as criterion of Plautine intercalations (see above, pp. 28 with n. 51): ' . . . zum mindesten aber ist die pointenlose Duplizität dem Diphilos abzusprechen.' (Pl.Pl., p. 77). For text of line 497 see Gomme & Sandbach, η. ad loc.

30

This example provides a more satisfactory parallel to the Plautine comparisons under discussion, since here, just as in Plautus, the idea of sur passing mythological personages is explicitly expressed. The formulation of this passage is comparable to that of Plaut. Merc. 469—70, where the depreciation of the mythological events in question is also emphasised in an extreme form: Pentheum diripuisse aiiunt Bacchas: nugas maxumas fuisse credo, praeut quo pacto ego divorsus distrahor. The evidence here presented of the existence in Middle and New Comedy of passages containing hyperboles in mythological comparisons must inevitably affect our assessment of Fraenkel's conclusion that this form of comparison provides, wherever it occurs in Plautine Comedy, proof of the interpolation by Plautus of original material at these points. On the contrary, the analogy between these Plautine passages and others in Attic Comedy having been demonstrated, it is no longer possible to regard such passages as definitely Plautine elements. The main results of our investigation into the Comic fragments may be summarized as follows: a) That pattern of thought which we have designated mythological hyperbole καô' νπεροχην is shown to be attested in the fragments of both Middle and New Comedy. 63 b) The use of verbs denoting superiority to express such comparisons, which was not only considered by Fraenkel to be specifically Plautine but also regarded by him as indicative of Plautine intercalations, is shown to have its counterpart in Attic Comedy. c) The appearance of the phenomenon in a number of Greek monologue openings has been established, which seems to suggest that Plautus, rather than expanding the monologues of his Greek models by introducing into their opening sections mythological scurrilities of his own invention, as claimed by Fraenkel, may actually have been adhering to the originals when employing mythological hyperboles in this position. We will return to this hypothesis after discussing the form and position of this type of 63

That Old Comedy was also familiar with this type of comparison is proved by its use in Ar. Pl. 210 (βλέποντ' αποδείξω ο' όξύτερον τον Λιτγκέως.); Av. 1103f. (ό'σ' àyàâ' ... träow αντοϊς δώσομεν, / ώστε κρείττω δώρα πολλώ 'Αλεξάνδρου λαβείν.) and in Cratin. fr. 460K (Έπειού δειλότερος). For hyperbolic mythological comparisons in Middle Comedy see also Antiph. fr. 122.15K; Phryn. fr. 52K. Reinhardt, op. cit., p. 206, n. 3.

31

comparison in Greek Tragedy. The main significance of this study lies in the possibility of its placing within a wider context, that of Greek drama, those phenomena considered by Fraenkel t o be specifically Plautine.

II. The Form and Position of Mythological Hyperboles in Greek Tragedy That pattern of thought presenting the situation on stage as surpassing in some respect a mythological event is attested in the works of all three great Tragedians. 6 4 It seems, however, that it was characteristic only of Euripidean Drama, for Euripides not only appears to have used it to a far greater extent than his predecessors, but, unlike the latter, who seem to have used it almost exclusively in lyrical sections, also employed it in lyrical and non-lyrical sections alike. In fact, apart from Plautine Comedy it is only in Euripidean Drama that we meet an extensive use of this type of comparison in monologues and long speeches although one should always bear in mind the scantiness of the evidence for Middle and New Comedy. However, before presenting the evidence from Tragedy, certain preliminary observations should be made. Tragedy — unlike New Comedy, which imitates everyday situations — presents us with characters and events drawn from Greek mythology. While in the world of Tragedy comparisons between past and present events are necessarily culled from the same mythological background, Comedy, on the other hand, is able to make the most of the evident discrepancy between everyday reality and the prodigious events of myth. Thus, when Tragedy distinguishes between different mythological events, declaring one to have surpassed the other in horror, misfortune etc., such cases should be considered mythological hyperboles, notwithstanding the fact that both parts of the comparison — owing to the specific conditions of the literary genre — are taken from the same mythological sphere. These comparisons exhibit a pattern of thought identical to that of those hyperboles which involve a comparison between everyday trivialities or characters and mythological occurrences, except that the former are less 'hyper-

64

The list of examples assembled from Tragedy by Law (art. cit., pp. 363f.) is not only incomplete as far as Aeschylus and Euripides are concerned (from Aeschylus she quotes only Th. 428, 469, from Euripides - Cyc. 2 7 3 - 4 , 3 2 0 - 1 ; Tr. 357, 948ff., 9 7 6 - 8 ; Supp. 504; Med. 543, 1 3 4 2 - 3 ) but also fails to include any parallel from Sophocles, who as the present study will show, was by no means unfamiliar with the phenomenon under discussion.

32

bolic', since both parts of the comparison are of no common order and therefore contain an element of truth. It would therefore be justifiable to make the form and position of these Tragic hyperboles serve us as literary precedents for the possible comparable form and position of Comic hyperboles when we come to discuss the appearance of these in monologue openings. The present study, however, is not restricted to mythological hyperboles in monologues and speeches in Tragedy, but discusses also those in the stasima as well as those in other lyrical passages, the Chorus also being regarded here as a character in the play and the parts which it sings as being comparable — mutatis mutandis — to parts spoken by other personae. That the Tragic Chorus has no adequate counterpart in New Comedy is of no real consequence: mythological hyperboles, especially in Euripidean Drama, were by no means confined to purely poetical expressions; in any case, the possibility that the Comic writers might occasionally have adopted a literary forni found in the lyrical passages cannot be excluded.

A. Hyperbolic comparisons introduced through a dialogue between a Tragic Character and the Chorus The first set of examples involves a group of hyperboles formed by a lyrical dialogue between the Chorus and the Tragic character: the Chorus recalls a former mythological event, appropriate, in its view, to the present situation on stage, with the intention of comforting the Tragic character in his distress; the latter, however, contests the suitability of the exemplum by demonstrating that his own situation has surpassed in misery, misfortune etc., the unhappy events of the myth in question. It goes without saying that the position of these hyperboles is in most cases irrelevant to the object of our enquiry; what must be considered is the manner in which they are expressed. 1) Aesch. Ag. 1 1 4 0 - 9 : 6 5 the Chorus compares the wailing Cassandra to Procne, Tereus' wife, who, having slain her own son Itys, became an άηδών and lamented him ever after (1140—5). 66 It is clearly apparent from Cassandra's reply that she, at least, does not consider the exemplum to be entirely appropriate to her own situation, since it is neither a metamor65

Oehler, op. cit., p. 92. For the use of the myth of Procne as an exemplum pp. 90ff. 66

3 Zagagi (Hyp. 62)

in Tragedy see Oehler, op. cit.,

33

phosis nor γλυκύf τ' àycòva61 κλαυμάτων ärep, which befell Procne, that she foresees for herself, but rather a cruel death by the sword (1146— 9). Cassandra, in presenting the audience with the main facts on both sides, merely brings out the contrast between the two cases. It is left to the audience to draw the most obvious conclusion from her presentation of the facts, that is, that her own misery has by far surpassed Procne's sad fate and that the latter's is not, therefore, to be compared with hers. As far as Cassandra herself is concerned, however, no attempt is made to express this notion in explicit terms e.g. by introducing into her reasoning a clause containing the comparative or a verb denoting superiority. Hence, from the point of view of form (and position) this example proves irrelevant to our study. The same applies to the two following examples from Sophocles and Euripides respectively. 2) Soph. El. 837—49: 68 the Chorus mentions the case of Amphiaraus in order to comfort Electra, who has given up all hope of avenging Agamemnon's death now that Orestes is reported to be dead: like Agamemnon, Amphiaraus died as a result of his wife's wickedness, and yet he is greatly honoured among the dead (837—45). From the point of view of Electra, however, the exemplum seems to fall short of the tragic situation on stage. Like Cassandra, Electra immediately seizes upon the difference between the two cases, pointing out that Amphiaraus was eventually avenged, whereas Agamemnon — Orestes being dead — will remain unavenged (846—9).69 Here too, merely by bringing out a point of contrast, Electra has clearly demonstrated that Agamemnon's misfortunes, and consequently her own (έφάνη yàp μελέτωρ άμφί τον èv -névûei· έμοί 8' ού'τις er' €σϋ'), have surpassed those of Amphiaraus. 3) A variant technique is exemplified in Eur. Hyps. fr. 1, cols III and IV (Bond, pp. 28—9): the Chorus attempts to comfort Hypsipyle by referring to a series of mythological events which, in its view, resemble her case. These are, in all probability, rejected by the heroine, 70 who anyway substantiates her point of view regarding the incomparable nature of her suffering by contrasting her situation with mythological exempla of her own choosing (rà δ' έμά πάάε[α ... Col. IV. 5ff.). 67

Page (Aeschyli septem quae supersunt tragoediae (Oxford, 1972)) prints αιώνα, but see Η. Lloyd-Jones, CR, 26 (1976), p. 8 (in defence of the reading followed by Murray). 68 Oehler, op. cit., p. 95. 6» Oehler, op. cit., pp. 96f. 70 The end of col. Ill which must have contained the end of the last strophe sung by the Chorus as well as the beginning of Hypsipyle's reply is lost.

34

4) In the above-quoted examples, the element of hyperbole under discussion was always introduced by the Tragic character through points of contrast between the exemplum and the current situation. Having thus indicated the superiority in some respect of his case to that described in the exemplum, no attempt is made on the part of the Tragic character to establish the relation of the one case to the other e.g. by using grammatical constructions consisting of the comparative or of verbs denoting superiority. In Eur. Hel. 375—85, 71 however, a new element has been introduced into this pattern. 7 2 The two mythological comparisons in this passage each demonstrate a different method of introducing the element of hyperbole. In the first (375—80), Helen compares Callisto's fate to that of Leda: the former was metamorphosed into a bear as a result of her relationship with Zeus. Yet, despite her dreadful fate, she is to be considered more fortunate than Leda, Helen's mother and likewise a former mistress of Zeus. Helen does not go into the details of Leda's final fate, but the audience may easily infer from the information given in lines 133—6 that she is referring here to Leda's having committed suicide through shame at her daughter's conduct: ώ μάκαρ 'Αρκάδι*? ποτέ παρΰέι>€ Κάλλιστοι, Διός ά λβχέων έπέβας τβτραβάμοσι γυώις, ώ ς πολύ ματρός εμάς έλαχες πλέον,13 à μορφή, ύηρών λαχν(τγυίων — ό'μματι δ ' άβρω σχήμα λεαίνεις —74 βξαλλάξασ' άχϋβα λύπης· Here, in contrast with the above-quoted examples, we have a hyperbolic comparison with a mythological character formulated using the comparative form. The comparison is couched in plain terms: Leda's un71

Oehler, op. cit., p. 98. While the two comparisons contained in this passage are not expressed, as in former examples, through a dialogue between Chorus and heroine, but are restricted to one strophe sung by the latter (a development already foreshadowed in the abovequoted example from Hypsipyle, where the heroine applies the hyperbolic comparison to exempla suggested by herself), they fall nevertheless within the same category as those quoted above, owing to their position within the framework of the scene: they constitute the final strophe of a lyrical dialogue between the Chorus and the heroine. 73 The MSS reading is μρος έμάς. Could it be that the comparison here actually is between Helen and Callisto? See R. Kannicht, Euripides: Helena (Heidelberg, 1969), 72

Vol. II, p. 119 (advocating the text ώς πολύ μοίρας τάσδ' ελαχες

πλέον).

74

Murray's text, which, as Dale has rightly observed (Euripides: Helen (Oxford, 1967), p. 92), gives 'a touch of pathetic realism not wanted here'.

35

happier lot, rather than tween the two cases — explicitly stated by the in the next comparison

being inferred from the points of contrast beher fate is not specified here by Helen — is heroine. The previous method is reverted to (381—5):

äv τέ ποτ' "Αρτεμις έ&χορεύσατο χρυαοκέρατ' eXcupov Μέροπος Τιτανίδα κούρα ν καλλοσύνας è'veicev · το δ ' έμόν δέμας CòXeaev òòXeoe népyapa Δαρδανίας όλομένους τ' 'Αχαιούς. Like all previous comparisons of the same type, the situation of the Tragic heroine is here contrasted with the main outlines of the myth in question. This is intended to show in logical terms that the latter should be regarded as a happy lot in comparison with the present case. Yet, despite the clarity of the representation of the facts on both sides, the relation of the one case to the other remains somewhat loose and obscure, in contrast with the case of the comparison between Callisto and Leda. Ignoring the Tragic content and Tragic spirit, which are conditioned by the literary genre itself, Eur. Hel. 375—80 is significant for our study in two respects: a) This hyperbolic comparison, like that quoted above from Eub. Amaitheia, fr. 7K (above, p. 29), is formulated using a phrase containing the comparative. Although the comparative form appears to have been more characteristic of Greek mythological hyperboles than of those of Plautus 75 — the latter often being expressed by verbs denoting superiority — the form is nonetheless attested among Plautine hyperboles, 76 and was moreover considered by Fraenkel, when used to express the scurrilous pattern of thought in question, to fall within the same category as that involving verbs denoting superiority. 77 b) It occurs at the beginning of the strophe. While the case does not entirely correspond to hyperboles in monologue openings, it nevertheless presents us with a clear instance of a strophe beginning with a new train of thought with a mythological hyperbole couched in the comparative form. •κ See below, pp. 5 I f f . 76 Epid. 179: ñeque sexta aerumna acerbior Herculi quam illa mihi Rud. 508 (quoted above, n. 62). Pl.Pl., pp. 11, 178ff.

36

obiectast.;

Β. Mythological Hyperboles in the

Stasima

The second group of examples exhibits a different technique, which may be defined as 'technique of isolation'. The Chorus singles out the situation on stage as the most dreadful and unfortunate case known to it. The case may have had an equally horrifying precedent in mythology, but eventually it proves to have surpassed that as well. Here, both the position and the form of most of the examples are worth our attention. 1) Soph. Ph. 676—85: 78 The Chorus is only able to recall the torturing of Ixion by Zeus as the sole exemplum that may approximate to Philoctetes' sufferings. Yet, it seems to regard even the sufferings of Ixion as unable to match those of Philoctetes: too much emphasis is laid by the Chorus upon the fact that it does not speak about Ixion's case as an eyewitness (in contrast with the case of Philoctetes), but relies upon λόγος (676). Similar introductory phrases that point to the λόγος as the speaker's main source of knowledge about the mythological exemplum were relatively common in Lyric poetry as well as in Tragedy. 79 Their main function was to lend credibility (πιΦανότης) to the speaker by establishing an authority for the story in question. 80 In our passage, however, the emphatic combination \óyc¿> μεν έξήκουσ', ό'πωπα δ' ού μάλα (676) 81 unparalleled elsewhere in similar contexts, gives an air of uncertainty to the whole story, and consequently the myth of Ixion too is put in the shade by the present agony of Philoctetes. The position of the comparison with Ixion at the very beginning of the stasimon should be emphasised. Significant also is the application of the comparative form in lines 6 8 0 - 2 : άλλον δ' οϋτιν' — y' οιδα κλύων ονδ' έσώών ßoipq. τοϋδ' εχόίονι συντυχόντα ΰνατών

...

78

Oehler, op. cit., pp. 8If. For Lyric poetry see Oehler, op. cit., p. 70. For Tragedy, ibid., p. 109. Euripides is particularly fond of this practice: see G. W. Bond, Euripides: Hypsipyle (Oxford, 1963), p. 73. 80 W. Kranz, Stasimon: Untersuchungen zu Form und Gehalt der griechischen Tragödie (Berlin, 1933), pp. 260f. 81 Contrast with Aesch. Pr. 425—7: f μόνον δή irpôadev άλλον èv πόνοις / δαμέντ' άκαμαντοδέτοις / Tirara λύμαις είσώόμαν, Oeòv / "Ατλανϋ' ... (Murray). For the question of the authenticity of these lines see U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aischylos: Interpretationen (Berlin, 1914), pp. 161f.; Oehler, op. cit., p. 99. 19

37

2) Eur. Med. 1282—90 82 exhibits a clearer tendency to divorce the dreadful event on stage from its only counterpart in mythology. The Chorus realises immediately that the story of Ino is not entirely analogous to Medea's murder of her children. This must be considered far more cruel and dreadful, as the points of contrast implied by the Chorus clearly show (1286—9). As far as the form and position are concerned, this example does not contribute to the object of our enquiry. The two remaining examples, however, taken from Aeschylus and Euripides respectively, are far more instructive. 3) In Aesch. Ch. 586ff. 8 3 the Chorus demonstrates the destructive power of ϋηλυκρατης άπέρωτος έρως by three mythological exempla. The first two (Althaea and Scylla, 602—622) merely pave the way for the mentioning of the murder of Agamemnon by his wife Clytemnestra — a type of crime which in the Chorus' eyes is worse than all other crimes. The Chorus, however, soon grows uneasy at openly discussing the private affairs of the royal house 8 4 (623—30) and, therefore, it evasively resorts to the third exemplum — το Αήμνιον κακόν (631—8), a legend traditionally regarded as the crown of all legendary evils, or, as the Chorus puts it, κακών δέ πρεσβεύεται, το Λήμμων/λό^γω • (631—2) — which illustrates exactly the same type of crime as that of Clytemnestra. It is not so much the position of this hyperbolic comparison at the very beginning of the anti-strophe (although this too is worthy of attention) as the manner in which it is expressed, that is, by using a verb denoting superiority, that deserves our notice. Here, in πρεσβεύεται 'takes the first rank among', we find for the first time the use of a verb denoting superiority to formulate a hyperbole in mythological comparisons. It may be argued that the construction of πρεσβεύεσϋαι with Genitive Partitive (κακών) corresponds neither in meaning nor in form to the use of superare, anteire etc. with the Accusative of a specific object, so common in Plautine Comedy. And yet, while this point of dissimilarity virtually rules out Aesch. Ch. 631—2 as a possible background for the later quasi-idiomatic use of verbs denoting superiority in mythological hyperboles, both in Greek and Latin literature (see below), nevertheless, the appearance of πρεσβεύεσύαι here is a valuable indication that modes of

« Oehler, op. cit., p. 87. 83 Oehler, op. cit., pp. 78ff. 84 Wilamowitz, op. cit., pp. 2 5 3 f .

38

expression akin to those found in Plautus and elsewhere were used in Tragedy as early as Aeschylus to formulate mythological hyperboles. 4) The opening lines of the Euripidean stasimon sung by the Chorus after the murder by Herakles of his own children (HF. 1016—20) offer us another example of hyperbolic comparison formulated using verbs denoting superiority which may throw further light on the form and position of Plautine mythological hyperboles: ò φόνος ήν öv Άργολίς έχει πέτρα τότε μεν περισαμότατος και άπιστος Ε λ λ ά δ ι τών Ααναοϋ παίδων τάδε δ' νπερέβαλε, έδραμε τα τότε κακά ... τάλανι διχτγενεΐ

παρ — κόρψ.

Here we have an ode where the pattern of thought under discussion is found at the very beginning, as is usually the case in the Plautine monologue openings in question (cf. Soph. Ph. 676ff.; above, p. 37). The manner in which this pattern of thought is formulated, moreover, is identical to that used by Plautus: the notion of the superiority of the one case to the other is explicitly expressed, using verbs denoting superiority (νπερέβαλε, παρέδραμε)8S, with a defined object in the Accusative case (τά τότε κακά ...): cf. Plaut. Bacch. fr. XV. 3; Pers. 2; Ps. 1244. The same is true of the structural pattern of this passage, to which some of the Plautine monologue openings in question may be compared. The passage is distinguished by the following characteristics: a) The mythological exemplum that forms the beginning of the stasimon occupies the entire opening sentence. The mood is Indicative (a declarative sentence): ò φόνος ήν öv Άρ*γολίς έχει πέτρα ... τών Ααναοϋ παίδων b) Similarly, the next sentence, also in Indicative mood, is dominated by the hyperbolic comparison between the situation on stage and the mythological exemplum·, the hyperbole is formulated using verbs denoting superiority: τάδε δ' νπερέβαλε, παρέδραμε τά τότε κακά. Thus, the exemplum and the hyperbole occupy two successive declarative sentences juxtaposed to each other antithetically (μεν . . . δ'). c) The exemplum is qualified by the superlative of an adjective (περισαμότατος), with the intention of further exaggerating the hyperbolic element in the comparison. 85

Note the pleonastic use of two verbs denoting superiority to express the hyperbole. Cf. Plaut. Cist. 205: qui omnis homines supero, antideo cruciabilitatibus animi. (Fraenkel, PIPI, p. 11). See below, pp. 71f.

39

All these characteristics appear in Bacch. fr. XV: Ulixem audivi86 fuisse aerumnosissumum, quia annos viginti errans a patria afuit; verum hic adulescens multo Ulixem anteit (fide), qui ilico errat intra muros cívicos. The exemplum (lines 1—2): first declarative sentence; superlative of an adjective qualifying the exemplum: aerumnosissumum. The hyperbole (lines 3—4): second declarative sentence; verbs denoting superiority: anteit·, antithetic conjunction: verum. Two of the characteristics indicated above also appear in Bacch. 925ff., where the exemplum (925—8), qualified by the superlative of an adjective (maxumum), together with the hyperbole (929—30) extend over two declarative sentences: Atridae duo fratres cluent fecisse facinus maxumum, 87 quom Priami patriam Pergamum divina moenitum manu armis, equis, exercitu atque eximiis bellatoribus milli cum numero navium decumo anno post subegerunt. non pedibus termento fuit praeut ego erum expugnabo meum sine classe sineque exercitu et tanto numero militum. In Merc. 469—70, the manner in which the exemplum and the hyperbole are expressed in two separate sentences is also comparable to HF. 1016-20:

Pentheum diripuisse aiiunt Bacchas: nugas maxumas fuisse credo, praeut quo pacto ego divorsus distrahor. (Note also the use of the superlative maxumus to further depreciate the mythological event.) 86 The manner in which the mythological exemplum is here introduced, that is, by a verb denoting hearing, is worth noting. A number of the Plautine monologue openings in question contain similar explanatory verbs of hearing, seeing and saying which serve to indicate the speaker's source of knowledge for the exemplum (Merc. 469 (aiiunt)·, Bacch. 925 (cluent)·, Capt. 998 (vidi); Most. 775 (aiunt)). This usage is far from being a stylistic peculiarity of Plautus, since such explanatory verbs together with their adverbial equivalents were employed recurrently throughout Greek literature for introducing mythological exempta and allusions. For Lyric poetry and Tragedy see above, n. 79. For Comedy, see Eub. Astytoe, fr. 14.3K; Men. Sam. 497, 5 8 9 - 9 0 ; Ter. Heaut. 1036; Eun. 585. Reinhardt, op. cit., pp. 197, 212. 87 Cf. Most. 775ff. (Pl.Pl., p. 16): Alexandrum magnum atque Agathoclem aiunt maxumas/ duo res gessisse: quid mihi fiet tertio, / qui solus fació facinora immortalia?

40

By way of contrast one may compare the above-quoted examples with the following Plautine comparisons in which the exemplum and the hyperbole are interwoven into one sentence·. Mercurius, Iovi' qui nuntius perhibetur, numquam aeque patri suo nuntium lepidum attulit quam ego nunc meae erae nuntiabo . . . (Stich. 2 7 4 - 5 ) contundam facta Talthubi contemnamque omnis nuntios . . . (Stich. 305) qui amans egens ingressus est princeps in Amoris vias superávit aerumnis suis aerumnas HercuKe>i. (Pers. 1—2) nimio ego hanc periculo surrupui hodie. meo quidem animo ab Hippolyta subcingulum haud Hercules aeque magno umquam apstulit periculo. (Men. 199—201) superávit dolum Troiánum atque'.Ulixem Pseudolus. (Ps. 1244) The above-presented analysis of Eur. HF. 1016—20 88 has shown that many Plautine peculiarities, such as the hyperbolic comparison with a mythological event at the beginning of a speech; the use of verbs denoting superiority to express the comparison; the juxtaposition of the mythological exemplum with the hyperbole and the use of a qualifying superlative in the exemplum have been found in the Euripidean passage. Should this be attributed to mere coincidence? Euripides is commonly supposed to have had a great influence on the writers of New Comedy, particularly on Menander, 89 and this is supported to some extent by the newly-dis88

The hyperbolic comparison with the daughters of Dañaos is followed by another involving Procne (1021—4). Here, however, the superiority of Herakles' crime to that of Procne is brought out through points of contrast between the two cases. It seems that juxtaposition of mythological hyperboles differing from each other in the manner in which they are expressed was characteristic of Euripides: cf. Hel. 375— 85; above, pp. 35f. β' See Leo, GRL, Vol. I,.pp. 99ff.; idem, Der Monolog, pp. 38îf.; idem, Pl. F.2, pp. 113ff„ 157ff.; Satyros, βίος Εϋριπίδον, P. Oxy. IX, no. 1176, fr. 39, col. VII; Quint. Inst. X. 1. 69. The picture presented by Leo (and by his followers) of Euripidean influence upon New Comedy, must be modified, however, it the light of the studies of W. Süss, RhM, 65 (1910), pp. 450ff.; H. W. Prescott, CPh, 13 (1918), pp. 113ff.; idem, CPh, 14 (1919), pp. 108ff.; and F. Wehrli, Motivsiudien zur griechischen Komödie (Zürich Sc Leipzig, 1936). See also T. B. L. Webster, Studies in Menander (2nd edn., Manchester, 1960), pp. 153ff.; idem, An Introduction to Menander (Manchester, 1974), pp. 56ff.; G. E. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment (Princeton, 1952; repr. 1971), pp. 33ff.

41

covered papyri of Menandrian Comedy. 9 0 Indeed, the monologue openings which show the greatest resemblance in structure as well as in stylistic features to the Euripidean passage (i.e. Bacch. 925ff. and especially Bacch. fr. XV) are those taken from a play which was adapted by Plautus from Menander (Dis Exapaton). Is it not therefore possible that in that play Menander exploited for comic purposes a structural pattern derived from Euripides? Bacch. fr. XV, at least, seems to support such a suggestion. However, even without assuming a direct influence of Euripides upon Menander here, the fact remains that Euripidean Drama exhibits familiarity with phenomena corresponding to those found in Plautus, and this, combined with the evidence offered by Eur. Hel. 375ff.; Soph. Ph. 676ff.; Aesch. Ch. 63If., and by the Comic fragments, must render uncertain the hypothesis that the form and position of Plautine hyperboles are of specifically Plautine inspiration. Indeed, as the following examination of the Tragic monologues and speeches containing the phenomenon under discussion will show, the position of the hyperboles, at least, must be representative of a common practice in Greek, or at least in Euripidean, Drama.

C. Mythological

hyperboles

in monologues

and

speeches

Judging by the evidence at our disposal, mythological hyperboles in monologues or long speeches appear to have been characteristic only of Euripidean Drama. The Tragedies of Aeschylus have provided us with only two examples, 9 1 both insignificant from the point of view of the present discussion. As for Sophocles, the single example which we find in his plays 9 2 is of special interest for our enquiry, not only from the point of view of its position but also from that of its form. This is a speech opening from the Trachiniae where the dying Herakles belittles his past experiences in comparison with his present distress (1046ff.):

9 0 See Gomme & Sandbach, nn. ad Mis. A 1 - A 1 6 (p. 442); Mis. 2 1 0 - 1 5 (p. 450); Asp. 15 (p. 64); Sam. 674 (p. 624); Sik. 176f. (pp. 6 5 0 - 1 ) ; Sam. 498 (p. 599). The newly discovered fragments of Menandrian Comedy also reveal a greater interest in mythology on Menander's part than Fraenkel assumed (Pl.Pl., pp. 12f.): see Dysk. 153ff.; 6 8 3 - 4 ; Sam. 4 9 5 - 9 . « Th. 4 2 7 - 3 1 , 4 6 8 - 9 ; Law, art. cit., p. 363. « Cf. however, P. Oxy. XXVII (1962), no. 2452, fr. 3. lOff. (= R. Carden, The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles (Berlin & New York, 1974), no. 5, p. 119).

42

ώ πολλά δη και ϋβρμά και93 λόγω κακά και χβρσί και νώτοισι μοχϋήσας èyù · κοϋπω τοιούτον οϋτ' ά'κοιτις ή Διός πρού&ηκβν οϋ&' ò στυγνός Εùpvoûeùç έμοί οίον τόδ' τ} δολώπις ΟΙνέως κόρη κα&ήψεν ώμοις τοϊς έμοϊς Έρινύων ύφαντόν άμφίβληοτρον, φ δώλλυμαι. There is some element of truth in what the hero says here, since he is going to die as a result of Deineira's gift. Yet nevertheless the passage falls into the category of that familiar pattern of thought in which the present occurence on stage is declared to have surpassed former mythological events (even though these events were also personal experiences of Herakles). As far as the form is concerned, moreover, this passage exemplifies the same structural pattern as that found in Capt. 998ff., which is one of the Plautine monologue openings in question: Vidi ego multa saepe picta, quae Accherunti fierent cruciamenta, verum enim vero nulla adaeque est Accheruns atque ubi ego fui, in lapicidinis. Fraenkel showed, in a brief paper 'Eine Anfangsformel attischer Reden', Glotta, 39 (1961), pp. Iff., that formulae where πολλά or πολλοί are used to set off the ideas or situation under discussion were commonly employed in speech openings in both Attic Oratory and Drama (New Comedy included). Recognising, moreover, the analogy between these and the one found in the Captivi, he considered the latter to be derived from Plautus' Greek models, continuing, however, to regard the content of the passage as Plautine: "Plautus ist jedoch nicht dabei stehengeblieben die πολλά-Formel da, wo er sie in seinen griechischen Vorbildern vorfand, zu übernehmen und auszuschmücken, vielmehr hat er sie, wie das überhaupt seine Art war, dann auch von sich aus vor Reden geschoben, deren Originalen sie fremd war. Das ist unverkennbar der Fall bei dem Monolog des Tyndarus, Capt. 998ff. . . . " (p. 5). It has already been demonstrated in this study that this opinion may be erroneous. 94 93

κ αί λόγω κακά, the Mss. reading rejected by Jebb and other editors, is convincingly explained and defended by P. Mazon, Sophocle (Collection Bude, Paris, 1955), vol. I, p. 52, n. 2. 94 See also Law, art. cit., p. 369. Fraenkel's attribution of the conception of Acheruns as a torturing place to Plautus is based almost exclusively on evidence derived from Plautus himself (Pl.Pl., pp. 17ff.), which makes it dangerous to follow.

43

It is in the Tragedies of Euripides that mythological hyperboles tend to occur most frequently in monologues and long speeches. These generally take the form of a brief comparison, compressed into a phrase containing the comparative of an adjective or of an adverb. We have already seen a representative of this group in Eur. Hel. 375ff. To this the following examples may be added: λέαιναν, οι) γυναίκα, της Τυρσηνίδος Σκύλλης έ'χουααν άγριωτέραν φύσιν.

(Med. 1342—3)

e Γη δ' εμοιγε μήτε χρυσός έν δόμοις μήτ' Όρφέως κάλλιον ύμνησαι μέλος

... (Med. 542—3)

ev δ' ίσι?', ότου τις τυγχάνει χρείαν £χων, τοϋτ εκάστη μείζον i) Τ ρ ο ί α ν ελεΐν.

(Andr. 368—9)95

et 7àp 'έστι Λοξίας, 'Ελένης γαμείμε δυσχερέστερον γάμον ò των 'Αχαιών κλεινός 'Αγαμέμνων άναξ. (Tr. 3 5 6 - 8 ) ώ Παλλάς, ώ δέσποινα Δωγενες ϋεά, νυν νυν άρηξον- κρείσσονας γαρ Ιλίου •πόνους άφίγμαι κάπί κινδύνου βάάρα. (Cyc. 350—2) Ζηνός δ' έγώ κεραννόν οι) φρίσσω, ξένε, ούδ' οίδ' ό' τι Ζευς έστ' έμοϋ κρείσσων

ϋεός.

(Cyc. 320—1)

την ΰεόν κόλαζε και Διός κρείσσων γενού, 8ς των μέν άλλων δαιμόνων έχει κράτος, κείνης δέ δοϋλός έστι· (Tr. 948—50) του yàp ουνεκ' àv ôeà Ήρα τοσούτον εσχ έρωτα καλλονής; πότερον άμείνον' ώς λάβη Διός πόσιν, ή' νυν φρονεϊν

άμεινσν

(Tr. 976—8)

έξαύχει Διός ... (Supp. 504)

ώ ταυρόμορφον ομμα Κηφισού πατρός, οιαν εχιδναν τήνδ' εφυσας ή πυρός δράκοντ' άναβλέποντα φοινίαν φλόγα, fi τόλμα πάσ' έ'νεστιν, ob δ' ησσων εφυ Γοργούς σταλαγμών, οίς έ'μελλέ με κτενείν. (Ion, 1261—5) 96 See above, n. 5 2 ; below, p. 62. The comparison here is closely connected with the plot. I take the litotes 'ούδ' ησσων' in this context to mean 'even more (hurtful) than . . . ' . 95

96

44

The position of some of these hyperboles is also instructive: in Eur. Andr. 368—9, the hyperbole follows the opening sentence of Menelaus' speech; in Eur. Cyc. 350—2, it follows the first sentence of Odysseus' prayer to Athena, which constitutes a new train of thought within the monologue; in Ion, 1264—5 (an entrance speech), it occupies the final clause of the opening sentence. In Eur. Cyc. 320—1 and Tr. 356—8, the hyperbolic comparison is also near the beginning of the speech. It is also worth mentioning here Cyc. 273—4 ( . . . έ'γωγε τωδε τοϋ 'ΡαδαμάνdνοςIμάλλον πέποιϋα και δικαιότβρον λε'γω.), which forms the beginning of one of the Cyclops' replies in the course of a dialogue. In Tragedy, these typical constructions with the comparative appear to have been characteristic only of Euripidean hyperboles. The Tragedies of Aeschylus do not furnish a single example of corresponding means of expressing the hyperbole, and in Sophocles there is only one (above, p. 37). The apparently individual character of Euripides' hyperboles within Tragic Drama becomes less significant, however, in the light of the literary evidence external to Tragedy. For as it can clearly be deduced from the above-quoted parallels from Greek literature in general and proverbial expressions in particular, 97 the construction involving adjectival or adverbial comparatives was the most common. From an historical point of view, therefore, it is not so much in their form that the significance of the Euripidean hyperboles lies, but rather in the fact that Euripides was apparently the first to use this form to any great extent in Tragedy. It seems that Aeschylus and Sophocles preferred using structural forms of a more allusive and disjointed character, whereas Euripides sought modes of expression that would enable him to bring out as clearly as possible the element of hyperbole underlying such comparisons. This suggestion is partly supported by the fact that such hyperboles were not only a widespread phenomenon in Greek literature but also apparently formed part of the colloquial language, as can be deduced from their frequency among proverbial expressions, and this was bound to have had some effect upon any creative imagination attracted to expressions of this type. These considerations, combined with the fact that Euripidean hyperboles tend to occur following the opening lines of monologues or long speeches and are also found at the beginning of a strophe (Hel. 375ff.) or of a 97 Above, pp. 2Off. See also Law, art. cit., passim; A. P. V. 236. 1 - 2 (Paul Sil.); Alciphr. I. 15.5; Charito, II. 9; Philostr. Ep. 37; Nie. Eug. IV. 188; VI. 6 3 1 - 2 . For Latin literature see Prescott, art. cit. (1932), p. 105.

45

stasimon (HF. 1016—20), seem to have established a special link between Euripidean Drama and New Comedy as it is known to us through Plautine adaptations and through the Comic fragments. The occasional practice of introducing hyperbolic comparisons involving mythological events into the beginnings of speeches and monologues is first met in Euripidean Drama. 98 In most cases the comparison has been compressed into a brief phrase containing the comparative form, but we have also found a clear instance of a hyperbole formulated using verbs denoting superiority, placed, moreover, at the beginning of a stasimon (HF. 1016—20)." These remarkable points of similarity between Euripidean Drama and Plautine Comedy on the one hand, and the Comic fragments on the other, may be explained by the strong Euripidean influence upon New Comedy, of which we here seem to have found a further example. Euripides was presumably a dominant factor in the introduction of such hyperboles into New Comedy. In any case, the use of mythological hyperboles in Euripidean monologue openings, combined with the evidence offered by Middle and New Comedy, seems to have established a plausible background within Attic Drama itself for the corresponding phenomenon in Plautus. 100

III. The Formative Elements of Plautine Hyperboles Many Plautine hyperbolic comparisons are formulated, as Fraenkel rightly observed, using verbs denoting superiority such as superare, anteire, antecedere, antidire, etc. Since Fraenkel found no adequate parallel in the remains of Attic Comedy for this formula, he came to the conclusion that these 'superlativische Verknüpfungen' were part of the Plautine idiom and consequently regarded them as a reliable indication of Plautus' divergence from his Attic models. 101 On the strength of this, Fraenkel has thus attributed 98 With the exception of Soph. Tr. 1046ff. (above, pp. 42f.). » See also below, n. 107. 100 It is worth noting that the declamatory Tragedies of Seneca also exhibit familiarity with the practice of introducing into monologue and speech openings mythological hyperboles Kad' ύπβροχήν: see Phoen. 363—70; Here. Oet. 233—6 (cf. 2 8 4 - 5 ) ; Octav. 5 - 9 , 5 7 - 9 , 762ff. While Seneca's Tragedies are adapted too freely for us to be able to use them as a source of information about the nature of the phenomenon in question in Greek Tragedy, the appearance of the phenomenon here is nonetheless indicative of a corresponding practice in Roman Tragedy. Thus, even within the context of Roman drama the technique in question cannot be regarded as specifically Plautine, «o» Pl.Pl., pp. 13ff.

46

to Plautus a considerable number of passages of mythological as well as non-mythological content, which all happen to exhibit this quasi-idiomatic usage. Fraenkel's methods and conclusions were attacked in 1924 and again in 1932 by Prescott, 1 0 2 who expressed a strong scepticism regarding the reliability of Fraenkel's linguistic criteria in general. Although Prescott's criticism of Fraenkel here would seem to me to be correct, the examples which he furnished 1 0 3 (mostly taken from Law's 1926 paper) 1 0 4 of corresponding usages in Greek and Latin literature were too meagre and generally unsatisfactory to undermine Fraenkel's theory, and seem to me to require further illustration, which I shall endeavour to supply in this section. I have already made attempts in this direction in the course of the previous discussion; 105 here I shall provide additional evidence which may shed further light on the possible Greek background for these supposedly Plautine idioms. The theory advanced by Fraenkel in the first chapter of his book has posed a two-fold question: 1) is the formula in question an element entirely of Plautine origin? 2) if not, does the almost stereotyped form of most Plautine hyperboles reflect the situation in the Greek models? The first of these questions may be answered by examining Greek and Latin literature for the possible existence of corresponding formulae. Eur. HF. 1019 and Anaxil. Neottis, fr. 22.7K quoted above 1 0 6 have already proved the existence o f such formulae in Tragedy and Comedy respectively. The same can also be demonstrated for other Greek sources, external to Tragedy and Comedy, as well as for Latin sources. Prescott and Law have called attention to the existence among Hellenistic epigrams of two hyperbolic comparisons formulated using the verb νικάν in the sense of 'surpass': φαμί ποτ' èv μύϋοις vináaeiv

τάν evkaXov

αύτάς τ ά ς Χάριτας

Ήλιοδώραν χάρισιν.

(Α. P. V. 148 (Meleager) = 4 2 4 2 - 3 G.-P., HE) ϊ δ ' , ώ ς νίκημι

δικαίως

παισι re και γλώσσ^ σώφρονι Τανταλίδα. (Α. P. VII. 743. 7 - 8 (Antip. Sid.)) Artt. citt. (above, η. 1). "» Art. cit. (1924), p. 91; art. cit. (1932), pp. 105f. $ee below. 104 Art. cit., p. 370. See below. i°s Above, pp. 27f., 38ff. >°e See above, n. 105. 102

47

To these one may add the following: εις aè ϋαλασσαίη τούτο φέρει ΐΐαφίη, κάλλεϊ νικηΰεϊσα τεού χροός ίμερόεντος, το πριν έπ' äyXaty ϋάρσος άπωσαμένη. (Α. P. V. 301. 6 - 8 (Paul. Sil.)) Ούτε Χίμαιρα τοιούτον έ'πνει κακόν η καύ' "Ομηρον, οϋκ ά*γέλη ταύρων, ώς ò λόγος, πνρίπνονς, οι) Αήμνος σύμπασα και Άρπυιών τα περισσά, οΰδ' όΦιλοκτήτου πους άποσηπόμενος, ώστε σε παμψηφεί νικαν, Τελέσιλλα, Χίμαιρας, σηπεδόνας, ταύρους, Öpvea, Αημνιάδας. {Α. P. XI. 239 (Lucillius)) The verb vincere, the Latin equivalent of νικαν, is used with the same sense and purpose in Prop. III. 12.38 and in [Sen.] Octav. 544—6, 621—3, as Law rightly observed. Examples of the same type are also found in Hor. Epod. 15.22 ( f o r m a q u e vincas Nirea); Sen. Hippol. 757 (non vinces rígidas Hipp oly ti comas.)·, [Sen.\Octav. 7—9 (atque aequoreas vince Alcyonas,/ vince et volucres Pandionias;/ gravior namque his fortuna tua est.)·, Sen. Agam. 23ff. (reputemus omnes quos ob infandas manus/quaesitor urna Gnosius versat reos:/ vine am Thy estes sceleribus cunctos mets.); Sen. Thy est. 18f. (iam nostra subit/e stirpe turba quae suum ν in cat genus/ac me innocentem faciat et inausa audeat.)·, [Sen.] Octav. 775 ( v i n c e t vultus haec Tyndaridos); App. Met. VI.30 (Pegasi vincebas celeritatem). It should be noted, however, that the use of νικαν107 and of vincere in the sense of 'surpass' involves a notion of 'contest', 'competition', which appears to be absent from the Plautine verbs of superiority. In this respect they do not provide very satisfactory parallels to the Plautine formula. Parallels which may be quoted as possible equivalents of the Plautine form are not, however, restricted to comparisons formulated using the verbs νικαν and vincere, which were almost the only ones quoted by Law and Prescott. 108 An examination of the literary evidence at our disposal reveals a variety of verbs and expressions denoting superiority which were used by Greek and Latin authors alike for expressing hyperboles in mythological comparisons, as can be seen from the above-quoted examples from Euripides and Anaxilas combined with the following quotations. Attic Oratory of the fourth 1 0 7 See also Eur. Hec. 658—60 (a speech opening!): -γυναίκες, 'Εκάβη πού noâ' ή παναόλία, / ή πάντα νικώα' άνδρα και άήλυν σποραν / κακοίσιν; 108

48

See below, n. 109.

century offers us three valuable examples, two of which come from Isocrates: ot τοσούτον μέν των έπί Ύροίαν στρατευσαμένων δ ιή veynav, όσον οϊ μέν ... (Panegyr. 83; above, p. 24) . . . πώς äv τις την άνδρίαν ... την Εύα-γόρου φανερώτερον έπώείξειεν ή διά τοιούτων 'έρ^ων . . . οι) yàρ μόνον φανε'ιται τούς άλλους πολέμους, άλλα και τον των ηρώων ύπερβαλόμενος ... 109 (Euagor. 6 5 ; above, p. 24) άρ' ούκ αν οΐόμεδα όράν Αεωσϋένη δεξιουμένους και ϋαυμάξοντας των t διηγημένων και ύμνουμένων t roi)ς έπί Ύροίαν στρατεύσαντας, ών ούτος άδελφάς πράξεις ένστησάμενος τοσούτον διήνεηκε, ώστε οι μέν . . . (Hyp. Epit. 35) Later writers, particularly Lucían, also show familiarity with this form: άνήει εις την Κópivùov τά Ηρακλέους δοκών ύπερβεβλήσάαι110 πάντα. (Luc. Νer. 3; the reference is to Nero's musical performance in Greece); in preference to the comparative, Lucían often uses the construction υπέρ plus Accusative in the sense of 'above . . . ', 'exceeding . . . ' : τούτο μέν ήδη και υπέρ αυτόν Ααίδαλον εφησ&α, et' 7e προς τοις άλλοις έλελήϋεις ημάς ίέραξ τις ή κολοώς εξ άνύρώπου γενόμενος. (Icar. 2) Συ μέν, είπεν, υπέρ τον Πρωτέα κειν. (Dem. Ene. 25)

μηχανή την Ιμην άκρόασιν άποδιδράσ-

Θαυμάσιος την τέχνην, ώς εφασκον οί έμπλέοντες, και τά ϋαλάττια σοφός ύπέρ τον Π ρωτέα. (Ναν. 6) . . . σι) δέ ύπέρ τόν Λυγκβα ημιν δέδορκας ...

(Herrn. 20)

προσδοκήσης δέ μηδέν τοιούτον ϋψεσΰαι οίον τ ώδε τ) τ ώδε παραβαλείν, άλλ' ε'ί τις ή Ύιτυός η Ώτος η 'Εφιάλτης, υπέρ έκείνους πολύ φανεΐταΐ σοι το πράγμα ύπερφυές και τεράστνον- (Rh. Pr. 13) ... τούτο yáp ύπέρ τά Κροίσου τάλαντα εΐ σωφρονείν οΐσόα. (Mere. Cond. 20)

και

τον Μίδου

πλούτον,

The same construction is used by Charito (II. 6): . . . και άνέπλαττον έμαυτω βίον μακάριο ν ύπέρ Μενέλεων τον της Αακεδαιμονίας γυναικός · ούδέ yáp την Ελένη ν εϋμορφον οϋτως ύπολαμβάνω yeyovevai. 1 0 9 For the use in hyperbolic comparisons of ύπερβάλλεσύαι see Philetaer. fr. 3K (quoted below, n. 139); Eur. HF. 1019; Call. ap. Str. IX. 438 (totally misinterpreted by Law, art. cit., p. 370). »0 See above, n. 109.

4

Zagagi (Hyp. 6 2 )

49

In Luc. Herrn. 73, this construction is almost equivalent to the present participle of a verb denoting superiority: . . . και σι) δή μυϋοποωύ τίνος άκουσας ώς ëori τις yvvr¡ ύπερψυής το κάλλος, υπέρ τάς Χάριτας αύτάς f j την Ούρανίαν [είναι] ... Another instructive example is found in App. Anth. II. 486. 5ff. (an epitaph): Ένύάδε δέ [μνι έχ]βι και 'Ολυμπιάς ίμερόεσσα ή πάσας παράμεινε φιλάνδρους ήρωίνας, "Αλκηστιν πινυτχι, μορφχι δ' έρατώπιδα Αήδην.

...

Early and Classical Latin literature offer no other parallels to the formula in Plautus than those quoted above with the verb vincere in the sense of 'surpass'. 111 Statius, a comparatively late writer, however, shows a considerable familiarity with this type of expression, which appears to have been particularly appropriate to the encomiastic poetry that he wrote: illic et Siculi superassem dona sepulcri et Nemees lucum et Pelopis sollemnia trunci (Silv. V. 3. 5If.; cf. the Plautine superare!) ora supergressus Pylii senis oraque regis Dulichii specieque comam subnexus utraque. (ibid. 114-15) dignus et Aonium Pyladen praecedere fama Cecropiamque fidem [sc. Theseus] (Silv. II.6.54—5; cf. the Plautine antecederei) vidi ego et immiti cupidum decurrere campo Hippomenen, nec sic meta pallebat in ipsa. vidi et Abydeni iuvenis [sc. Leander] certantia remis bracchia laudavique manus et saepe natanti praeluxi: minor ille calor quo saeva tepebant aequora: tu [se. Stella] veteres, iuvenis, transgressus amores. (Silv. I. 2. 8 5 - 9 0 )

111 For the use of superare in the sense of „surpass" in non-mythological hyperbolic comparisons in early and classical Latin literature, however, see Trabea, fr. 5 R (Pl.PL, p. 15); Catull. 51.2 (briefly dismissed by Fraenkel, Pl.PL, p. 15, n. 2. See Law, art. cit., p. 370; Prescott, art. cit. (1932), p. 105); Lucr. III. 1 0 4 2 - 4 ; ipse Epicurus obit decurso lumine vitae, / qui genus humanum ingenio superávit et omnis / restinxit ...

50

These few parallels from Statius suggest that the formula attested in Plautus was not an isolated phenomenon in Latin literature, as it reappears under much the same form in a relatively late writer. The general picture derived from the above-presented literary evidence does not appear to be entirely reconcilable with Fraenkel's conclusions. The formula in Plautus, it now seems, could equally well be interpreted as typical of the Greek models as of Plautus himself. Moreover, Plautus was apparently not alone among Latin writers in his employment of such formulae to express hyperbolic comparisons, and therefore they cannot be called typically Plautine even within a Latin context. That this formula may reflect corresponding formulae in Plautus' Greek models seems increasingly likely considering their existence in Middle Comedy and elsewhere in fourth century Greek literature. In any case, its appearance in the Plautine passages in question can scarcely continue to be considered indicative of Plautus' divergence from his originals as Fraenkel asserted, since neither the pattern of thought nor the form in which it is expressed is exclusively Plautine. Assuming that Plautus was indeed rendering in the passages in question patterns of thought taken from his Attic models, does the appearance of verbs denoting superiority in Plautus' adaptations in every case reflect a corresponding use in the model? In other words, does the almost stereotyped form of most of the Plautine hyperboles represent the situation in the Greek models? The answer to this question appears to lie in the relative frequency in Greek literature of the two forms of hyperbolic comparison under discussion, i.e. hyperboles expressed by the comparative and those expressed by verbs denoting superiority. Judging by the literary evidence at our disposal, mythological hyperboles constructed with verbs denoting superiority seem to represent the less common type of expression in Greek.112 This is clearly demonstrated in the plays of Euripides, where, of a considerable number of mythological hyperboles, only one (HF. 1016—20) was formulated using verbs denoting superiority, whereas the rest were expressed by the comparative. That the typical Greek manner of expressing hyperboles in mythological comparisons was indeed that involving a brief phrase containing the comparative degree of an adjective or an adverb is suggested by the very employment of comparisons formulated in this manner in proverbial expressions and βίκασμοί, all of which formed part of the colloquial language. In Plautus the situation is reversed: although the Roman 112

Cf. above, p. 45 (with n. 97).

51

adapter betrays familiarity with the commoner Greek form ( E p i d . 179; Rud.

5 0 8 f . ) , 1 1 3 he nevertheless seems to have preferred the relatively un-

common construction with verbs denoting superiority. The commoner form is, furthermore, totally absent from the monologue openings in question. In other words, the relatively uncommon form in Greek became a favourite form in the Plautine adaptations. Such a development lends colour to the suggestion that hyperbolic comparisons couched in the originals in brief phrases using the comparative were often transformed by Plautus into comparisons formulated using verbs denoting superiority. For, judging by the literary evidence at our disposal, Plautine comedy attests a shift in emphasis between the two forms in question compared with the probable situation in the Greek models. This shift in emphasis can be attributed to definite artistic preferences on the part of the Roman adapter: compared with the relative mildness of comparisons involving the comparative, the constructions employing verbs denoting superiority convey an extreme form of exaggeration, in other words, a type of expression entirely in keeping with the poet's general tendency to aggrandize his characters and their experiences. Beyond these occasional alterations of the form, however, it would be extremely unwise to assume any substantial contribution on Plautus' part to the Greek originals: mythological hyperboles at the beginning of monologues, odes and long speeches have been shown to be found in Greek Drama. In all likelihood, Plautus did not here differ much in his usage from his Greek models, although the possibility of the occasional expansion of a particular monologue by the introduction of a comparison of this type cannot be ruled out. The postulation of such a practice on Plautus' part would possibly help to explain the relative frequency of such hyperboles in his Comedies. 1 1 4 In any case, the shift in emphasis referred to above is in my view the only respect in which Plautus has demonstrably diverged from his Greek models, and even this can hardly be described as the introduction of an entirely new element into the latter, since the form involving verbs denoting superiority is attested in several Greek authors. Hence, Fraenkel's use of the quasi-stereotyped form of the Plautine hyperboles as an indication of a substantial interference on Plautus' part with his Greek models 1 1 5 cannot be vindicated. The originality

113 Quoted above, nn. 62, 76. '14 Cf. Fraenkel, addenda, p. 424. » s Pl.Pl., pp. 13f.

52

of Plautus rather consists in the following: the extensive use by the poet of that type of formulation of hyperbolic comparisons which is less common in the Greek originals. To use Fraenkel's own words in the addenda: "forme che negli originali attici s'incontrano isolatamente, 'una possibilità fra le tante', diventano, nelle mani di Plauto, moduli prediletti." (p. 423) Before concluding this section, some observations should be added concerning the formulation of the mythological hyperbole found in Merc. 469—470, also regarded by Fraenkel as Plautine. The passage runs as follows: Pentheum diripuisse aiiunt Bacchas: nugas maxumas fuisse credo, praeut quo pacto ego divorsus distrahor. Here we find the hyperbolic comparison between the Comic hero and the mythological character or event expressed in terms not of the superiority of the former to the latter, but rather of the utter inferiority or trivialisation of the latter in relation to the former (cf. Plaut. Bacch. 929). Several depreciations of mythological events and personages comparable in spirit and form are found in Greek literature, and these should be noted in connection with the Plautine passage. The comparison in Men. Sam. 495—7 has already been mentioned. 116 To this we may now add the following examples: στόλων

ημείς 'ΐδμεν πολλώ δη μέγιστος ούτος éyévero

7 à p των

o f X e r x e s ] , ώστε μηδένα τον

μήτε

φαίνεσδαι

Άτρειδέων

τον μήτε

Aapeiov

τον έπί

τον Σκυδικόν

éç "Ιλιον μήτε τον Μυσών

Σκύ&ας

. . . μήτε re και

παρά κατά

[sc. that τούτον

τα

Τευκρών ...

λεγόμενα

(Hdt.

VII.20.2) ώ Μίδα και Κροίσε και τα έν Αελφοϊς άναόήματα, ώ ς π ρ ο ς Τίμωνα και τον Τ ί μ ω ν ο ς πλοϋτον, Περσών

ίσος.117

( L u c . Tim.

ώς ούδεν dpa ήτε ψ γε ούδε ò βασιλεύς

42)

(The same formula occurs, quite significantly, among Greek proverbial expressions: ουδέν 'Ορέστης π ρ ο ς η μ ά ς και Πυλάδης ( P a r o e m . Gr. Vol. II, p. 590, no. 54).)

Ίβ Above, pp. 3Of. This passage is taken from a dialogue supposedly greatly indebted to Greek Comic traditions (see W. Schmid, RhM, 102 (1959), pp. 157ff.). The possibility of this comparison reflecting a pattern of thought drawn from Attic Comedy cannot therefore be excluded. 117

53

όπόταν δβ και το καλόν έκεϊνο fây, και μάλιστα προς την κιάάραν, τότε δη τότε ώρα μέν σιωπάν ταϊς άλκυόσι και τέττιζι και τοις κύκνοις· άμουσα yάρ ώς προς έκείνην άπαντα· κάν την Πανδώνος βΐπβς, Ιδιώτις κάκείνη και άτεχνος, εί και πολνηχέα την φωνην άφίησιν. (Luc. Im. 13) . . . οι) aeΊο μέλαύρά με δέξεται- οι) yàp é'yooye βήσομαι ύμετέρη yaorpi φυλαξόμενος · εί δέ ποτ' èç τεόν οϊκον έλεύσομαι, οι) μéy' άνυσσεν Ααρτιάδης Σκύλλης χάσμασιν άντιάσας· άλλ' έ'σομαι πολύτλας τις έγώ πλέον, ε'ί σε περήσω Κύκλωπος κρυεροϋ μηδέν έλαφρότερον. (Α.Ρ. XI. 379 (Agathias; (a satirical epigram about a glutton)) 118 άϋλα μέν Ήρακλήος, δν ηροσεν άάάνατος Ζενς ... ούτιδανός πόνος ήεν όρίτροφος· è'pya δε Βάκχου ... (Nonn. Dion. XXV.242ff. (a depreciatory comparison between Herakles and Bacchus)) M0i?of το Σειρήνειον ¿ufi' οϋ τό σον πρόσωπον

έννοώ μέλος, είδον, παρϋένε. (Nie. Eug. 11.202—3)

ΜύΦος δοκε'ιμοι νέκταρ η ύεών πόσις προς σον yλυκaσμόv, κρυσταλόατερνε ξένη. (Nie. Eug. IV. 119 119—20) Although most of the above-quoted parallels are from relatively late sources, they are found, nevertheless, among authors who are supposedly greatly influenced by Hellenistic traditions. It is not at all unlikely, therefore, that the type of expression attested in Merc. 469—70 (and in Bacch. 929) has its background in Plautus' Greek models.

IV. Notes on the Content of Some of the Plautine Hyperboles Our investigation into Plautine mythological hyperboles would remain incomplete, were nothing mentioned about the obvious indebtedness of some of these to Greek traditions. In this section, therefore, I shall discuss their specific content in relation to these traditions with the aim of establishing their direct derivation from their respective Greek models.

Quoted by Law, art. cit., p. 366. 119 See also Clearchus ap. Ath. XIV. 619c.

1,8

54

A.) Pers. 1 - 5 ; Men. 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 ; Epid. 1 7 8 - 9 : references to Herakles in hyperbolic comparisons καύ' ύπεροχήν. Leo, in Plautinische Forschungen2, page 154, attributed the lengthy list of Herakles' labours in Pers. 3—5 to Plautus. 120 As for lines 1—2, however, Leo believed that they were derived from the Greek model. Fraenkel, accepting Leo's view regarding lines 3—5, nevertheless disagreed with him as regards lines 1—2: 'Nur der Gedanke von Vers 1 entspricht dem Beginn des attischen Gedichts', he maintained, 'Herakles kam dort überhaupt nicht vor' (Pl. Pl., p. 11). In the addenda to the Italian translation (I960), 1 2 1 however, Fraenkel, modifying his view, was prepared to admit the possibility that the opening lines of the Greek original of Persa may have contained at least a general comparison between the πόνοι of the lover and the άάλα of Herakles. 122 Unfortunately, Fraenkel was not specific about the form and the nature of the comparison he had in mind. Since, however, he continued to adhere to the main points of his original theory and introduced no further modifications into his view of the rest of the passages quoted in 1922 (even though two of these also involved a comparison with Herakles (i.e. Men. 199—201; Epid. 178—9)), we are entitled to assume that he must have been thinking in terms of a straight comparison, that is, without the element of superiority. The view may now be put forward that the comparison in the original of Persa (and in that of the Menaechmi and that of Epidicus) took the same form as that in Plautus rather than the milder form suggested by Fraenkel. Herakles was a stock figure in Attic Comedy. 123 Numerous fragments from Old, Middle and New Comedy as well as from Satyr plays present us with the picture of a Herakles whose character has been drawn in a strongly satirical manner: he is mostly a glutton, a brute and a libertine. That the famous labours of Herakles and his various legendary adventures have also 120 On account of the mistake made in line 3 in the reference to the boar (Aetolicus instead of Erymanthius). Prescott (ari. cit. (1932), p. 113, η. 7) and Tierney (art. cit., pp. 28f.), however, have both pointed out that similar lapsus memoriae are to be found among Greek Comic writers and therefore, passages containing such mistakes need not inevitably be attributed to the Roman adapter. See below, pp. 59ff. 121 P. 400 (n. ad p. 10, n. 3). 122 Ibid.: 'Ritengo ora possibile che un generico paragone fra i πόνοι dell' innamorato e gli άόλα di Eracle ci fosse già nell' originale.' 1 2 3 For Herakles the Comic hero see G. Κ. Galinsky, The Herakles Theme: The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature from Homer to the Twentieth Century (Oxford, 1972), pp. 81 ff.; R. Hosek, 'Herakles auf der Bühne der alten Komödie' in ΓΕΡΑΣ: Studies Presented to George Thomson on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, ed. by L. Varel & R. F. Willetts (Prague, 1963), pp. 119ff.

55

been subjected to satirical treatment is suggested by the titles of many Comedies and Satyr plays. 124 The fragments of these plays, however, are too scanty to present us with a clear picture of their nature. One of these plays, which may be relevant to the discussion in hand, is Menander's Pseudherakles.125 Plutarch {Mor. 59C) tells us that the character who was impersonating Herakles appeared on the stage βόπαλον ot) στφαρόν κομίζων ούδ' ίσχυρόν άλλά χαύνόν τι πλάσμα και διάκενον. The fellow may have been a braggart soldier 126 who believed himself to be a ere ροζ Ηρακλής 1 2 7 in strength and bravery. It is not unlikely that in the course of the play this impostor boastfully declared himself to have surpassed the mythological hero. Such a statement would have been entirely in keeping with the type of the braggart soldier. Antiphanes, Boeotis, fr. 58K (cf. Eriphus, fr. 2K) further supports the suggestion that characters in Attic Comedy, just as in Plautus, occasionally described the ordinary occurrences on stage in terms of Herakles' labours. The fragment in question is a dialogue between an unknown character (A), possibly a lover, and a παρΰένος (Β) who is admiring a gift of three apples presented to her by him: άλλα ταυτί λάμβανε, παρύένε, τά μήλα. Β. καλά ye. Α. καλά δήτ\ ώ ϋεοί · νεωστί γαρ το σπέρμα τοΰτ' άφι^μένον εις τάς Άάήνας έστί trapa τοϋ βασιλέως. Β. π α ρ ' 'Εσπερίδων, φμην ye. Α. νή την Φ ω α φ ό ρ ο ν , φησίν τα χρυσά μήλα ταύτ' είναι ... The passage reminds one of Plaut. Men. 199ff., where a labour of Herakles is also alluded to in the context of a gift. However, the depreciatory aspect in the representation of Herakles' labours as found in Plautus has no parallel in the remains of Attic Comedy, although the possibility of similar treatment of the Heraklean labours among Satyr plays and Comedies which concentrated upon this theme is^ certainly one to be reckoned with. It is only by turning to literature outside Comedy that we find that the Plautine 124

e.g. Ηρακλής έπί Taipápc¡) (Soph.); Ήσιόνη (Galinsky, op. cit., pp. 82f.); ' Η ρ α κ λ ή ς ô παρά Φόλφ (Epich.); 'Αλκύων (Epich.); ' Η ρ α κ λ ή ς ó èiriròv ζωστήρα (Epich.);Βούσειρις (Cratin., Ephipp., Antiph.,Mnesim.); Γηρυόνης (Ephipp.); 'Ανταίος (Antiph.); Κ έ κ ρ ω π ε ς (Eub., Hermipp., Plat., Menipp.). 125 A play with this title was also written by Pherecrates. 126 j . M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy (Leiden, 1961), Vol. HIB, p. 759, n.b.; Galinsky, op. cit., p. 94. 127 Ephipp. fr. 17K.

56

conception of Herakles and his labours was far from alien to the Greek view of this hero. The earliest indication of the existence of such a view among the Greeks is found in Simonides, fr. 509 PMG, in which the famous athlete Glaucus is claimed by the poet to be a better boxer than both the Dioscuri and Herakles: ούδέ Πολνδενκεος βία χείρας άντείναιτό ούδε σώάρεον

κ' έναντίον

'Αλκμάνας

αύτώι,

τέκος.

Lucian, who quotes the passage in order to demonstrate that such hyperboles were widely accepted in Greece (Pr. Im. 19. Above, p. 25), stresses the fact that the poet Simonides was especially honoured for this very poem. T w o other illuminating examples are found in Plato. The first is Euthd. 297C: Socrates jestingly compares the difficulties which he experiences in arguing with two interlocutors at the same time to those of Herakles when he was facing the multi-headed Hydra; Herakles finally turned to Iolaos for help, just as Socrates will now turn to Patroclus: ό δ' έμός Ί ο λ ε ω ς [Πατροκλής] εί ελάοι,

he claims, πλέον àv ΰάτερον

ποιήσειεν.

Although this hyperbolic comparison refers to Iolaos rather than to Herakles, it is, none the less, indicative of the fourth century light attitude to Herakles and to the monstrous labours attributed to him. 128 The second example is Tht. 169B (above, pp. 21f.): Socrates' interlocutor characterises Socrates' passion for arguments by comparing him to Antaios. Socrates approves of this analogy and even goes as far as to declare himself a better wrestler than Antaios: μύριοι yàp ήδη μοι Ήρακλέβς re και Θηοέες έντυχόντες

καρτεροί

προς το λέγειν

έγώ ούδέν τι μάλλον άφίσταμαι·οϋτω ταύτα γυμνασίας.

μάλ' εύ σιτγκεκόφαοιν,

τις έ ρ ω ς δεινός ένδέδυκε της

άλλ' περί

In this metaphorical image the situation of the myth

has been fundamentally changed; Socrates is an invincible Antaios, whereas his many opponents, thousands of Herakleses and Theseuses, have proved utterly helpless against him. In other words, Socrates declares himself here stronger than any Herakles (and any Theseus). It is not inconceivable that it is popular είκασμοί

of this type that are reflected in the simpler

comparisons found in the Plautine adaptations, as they could easily have found their way into Attic Comedy. 128

For the proverbial background of this hyperbolic comparison see Paroem.

Gr.,

V o l . I, p. 141, n. ad no. 49.

57

Late sources provide further examples of this attitude towards Herakles. A clear parallel to the formula in Plautus is found in Luc. Νer. 3 (quoted above, p. 49; the comparison rings proverbial). In Nonn. Dion. XXV.242ff. (above, p. 54) the άΰλα of Herakles are referred to as ούτώανός πόνος όρίτροφος as compared with those of Bacchus. Nonnus was steeped in Hellenistic literature, so that the depreciatory attitude towards Herakles found in this passage may reflect some earlier Hellenistic tradition. 129 Another valuable example is offered by the ΓΡΤΛΛΟΣ papyrus (i.e. P. Oxy. 2331, thus designated by P. Maas 130 on account of the three drawings transmitted in that text, to which the word γρύλλψ ('caricature') attested in the first line probably refers). The subject of at least two of the drawings found therein, like that of the poetical dialogue to which they are related, is the first labour of Herakles — the Nemean lion. The speakers include an unnamed person who challenges Herakles and the hero himself: Col. ii. The Challenger:131 Aéye παΐ Ζηνός 'Ολυμπίου, φράσον μοι, ποίον πρώτον t οπεποιηκας αΰλον ehov, κάμοϋ μάνϋαν' δ πρώτον t βπβπονηκα. Col. iii. Herakles: Έ[γό] πρώτον Νεμέχι λέοντα [-κρατεραϊς χε(ί)ρεσί μου ταύταις

άπέ[κταν.

The Challenger: Έ γ ό δύοληπ(τ)ον έ[λ]ώ χα[μαι]λέοντα προσπνίζας άλο'γως venpòv τέι?[εικα. Although only a small part of the dialogue has survived, it is probable that the dialogue continued in a similar vein, that is, using analogies depreciating the labours of Herakles in comparison with the trivial deeds of the Challenger; Maas also considers that 'it seems likely that in the eleven remaining Labours the Challenger proved his superiority by jokes of a similar quality' {art. cit., p. 173). The above-presented evidence, 132 although scanty, and some of it late in date, has demonstrated that patterns of thought regarding Herakles 129

See also Nonn. Dion. XXIX. 2 4 0 - 2 (quoted by Law, art. cit., pp. 366f.). 130 G & R, 5 (1958), pp. I 71ff. See also D. L. Page, CR, 7 (1957), pp. 189ff. 131 The text is that printed by Maas, art. cit., p. 172. 132 For further depreciations of Herakles in Hellenistic traditions see Luc. DMort. 14.6 (Alexander): Où ταύτα φροροϋσtv οί άνόρωποι irepi έμού, άλλά Ήρακλεϊ και

58

akin to those found in Plautine Comedy were familiar to the Greeks over a wide timespan. The notion of the surpassing of Herakles by a mortal is first met in the encomiastic poetry of Simonides. That comparisons of the Simonidean type may have been used as a common laudatory motif in relation to athletes is suggested by their reappearance in later sources. 1 3 3 Judging by the two examples from Plato, moreover, similar notions were also made use of in the popular είκασμοί. T h e proverbial expression ούδβ Η ρ α κ λ ή ς προς δύο134 should also be mentioned in this connection. It is quite possible that Greek Comic writers also made use of these ideas regarding Herakles and, adapting them to the Comic idiom, made their character claim to surpass Herakles in deeds, suffering etc. Such a practice would be entirely in keeping with the general attitude o f Attic Comedy towards Herakles. 1 3 5 Pers. 1—5 seems particularly likely to have been adapted from the Greek model. The gist of these lines is that the πόνοι of love are harder to endure than the άάλα of Herakles. Amor, the god of love, emerges from the grotesque comparison in lines 3—5 as an extremely formidable wrestler, so that fighting against the monsters once vanquished by Herakles appears to be preferable to fighting against Amor. This passage brings to mind several Erotic motifs which seem to indicate its possible Greek origin: a) The identification of love or the toils o f love with labores Herculis: this is found in Prop. II. 23. 7—8 (deinde, ubi pertuleris, quos dicit fama 136 and in Luc. Am. labores/Herculis, ut scribat 'Muneris ecquid habes? 2 (διάδοχοι έρωτες άλλήλων και πριν ή λήξαι τους προτέρους, άρχονται, δεύτεροι, κάρηνα Αερνάϊα της παλιμφυοϋς "Τδρας πολυπλοκώτερα μηδ'

Διονύοφ ένάμμιλον τιϋέασί με. καίτοι την "Κορνον έκείνην, ουδετέρου

έκείνων

λαβόντος, έ γ ώ μόνος έχειρωσάμην. These ideas were probably taken over by the Romans: see Lucr. V. 22ff.; Verg. A en. VI. 801ff. (Law, art. cit., p. 3 6 6 ) ; Mart. IX. 1 0 1 ; V. 65; Stat. Silv. II. 1. 1 2 4 - 5 . 133 Theoc. Id. IV. 8—9: φαντί vw Ήρακληι βίην και κ άρτος έρίσδειν. :: κήμ' εφαό' à μάτηρ Πολυδεύκεος ήμεν άμείνω. (Law, art. cit., p. 364). See App. Anth. II. 659. 5—6: φασίν δ' Ήρακλέα δύο και δέκα άάλα τελέσσαι· / ταύτα δ' èyòj τελέσας τρισκαώέκατον τέλος εοχον.

Paroem. Gr., Vol. I, p. 140, no. 49. Attic Comic influence may be responsible for the grotesque analogies involving Herakles in A.P. V. 152. 7 - 8 (Meleager); G.-P., HE, Vol. II, n. ad 4 1 8 0 f . ) and in A.P. XI. 95 (Lucillius). For New Comedy's influence upon Meleager see A. Wifstrand, Studien zur griechischen Anthologie (Lunds Univers. Arsskrift., 23, Nr. 3 (Lund & c, 1 9 2 6 ) ) , pp. 63f. 13« Briefly dismissed by Fraenkel, PIPI., p. 11, η. 3. Cf. Prop. II. 24A. 25ff.; Stat. Silv. 1.2. 38f. 134

135

59

Ίόλεωι> βοηάόν exe ι ν δυνάμενα·). Closely connected with this motif is the representation of the πόνοι of love of Herakles himself as the hardest o f all his âd-λα:

S e n . Here.

Oet.

4 7 4 : amorque

summits

fiet

Alcidae

labor.

103: 'Ήρακλες, πού σοι πτόρΰος μέγας η re Νεμειος / χλαίνα και ή τόξων έμπλεος Ιοδόκη; / . . . άχύχι γυμνωθείς ΰπΧων σέο. τις 5é ο' ènepaev; -/"ònrepóeις, 0ντως είς βαρύς αόλος, "Ερως." 1 3 7

A. PL

One should also mention the recurrent theme in Hellenistic art of Herakles conquered by Eros, for which see G.-P., HE, Vol. II, p. 627 (n. ad 4180); Roscher, Lex., Vol. I, s.v. Hercules, cols 2248—9; s.v. Eros, col. 1368. See also A. PL 103; 104; 214.6; 215.4; Ov. Her. IX. 2 4 - 5 ( q u e m non mille ferae,

quem

non Stheneleius

hostis,/

non potuit

Iuno

vincere,

vincit

Amor.).138

b) Eros, the mighty boxer: this representation of Eros is as old as Anacr. fr. 38.4 Gentili (= 396 PMG). He is also a wrestler in Theoc. Id. 1.97f. and in A.P. XII. 48 (Meleager). See G.-P., HE, Vol. II, n. ad 4078; Gow, n. ad Theoc. Id. VII. 125; Ach. Tat. II.4. c) With reference to Pers. 3—5, it is further worth pointing out that Eros is occasionally presented as a tamer of wild beasts. See e.g. Tib. III. 6. 1 3 — \ 1 \ A . P . IX. 221. 5—6 (Marcus Argentarius): φρίσσω τον βροτολοιγόν · ò yàp και ϋήρα δαμάξων / ivypvov ούδ' όλίγων ψβίσβται άμβρίων. Hoelzer, De poesi, p. 13; Roscher, Lex., Vol. I, s.v. Eros, col. 1367. The complex of ideas and metaphors presented above strongly suggests that the Greek model of Persa may have contained a hyperbolic comparison of the type found in lines 1—2139 as well as the grotesque preference expressed in lines 3—5.140 The representation of the Comic lover as re137 Cf. A.Pl. 92. 1 3 - 1 4 : το τρισκαώέκατον roto ν Xvypòv ëaxev âed\ov / μουνονυχί πεντήκοντα ξυνβλέξατο κούραις. 138 It is worth noting that Herakles' year of servitude to Omphale was commonly used by the Alexandrians and their imitators as an exemplum of servitium amoris: see e.g. Musae. 149ff. For Comedy, Ter. Eun. 1027f.; F. O. Copley, TAPkA, 78 (1947), pp. 285ff. 139 This is supported by the fact that line 1 is modelled upon the motif of the εύρετής; Leo, PI. F.2, p. 15Iff. Fraenkel's claim (Pl.Pl., p. 11, n.3) that "gerade auch aus der Konkurrenz dieses εύρετής—Motivs mit dem superlativischen (superávit aerumnis suis eqs.) scheint mir hervorzugehen, daß nicht beide nebeneinander den originalen Monolog eröffnet haben" is incomprehensible. See also Leo, Der Monolog, p. 77; below, pp. 73f. With the expression superávit aerumnis suis compare Philetaer. Atalante, fr. 3K: καν δέη, τροχάξω στάδια πλείω Σωτάδον, / τον Ταυρέαν δέ τοϊς πόνοις υπερβάλω, / τον Κτησίαν re τφ φα-γείν ύπερδραμώ. 140 For this, see above, n. 43.

60

garding his πόνοι and his struggle with the god of love as surpassing the άύΧα of Herakles would accord both with the general trend in the Hellenistic period to present a Herakles inferior in strength to Eros and with the notion that love was his hardest labour. B.) Bacch. 9 2 5 - 3 0 1 4 1 (cf. Ps. 1244): references to the Trojan War in hyperbolic comparisons καϋ' ύπβροχήν. In this passage, Chrysalus, a serous callidus, disparages the conquest of Troy by Agamemnon and Menelaus in comparison with his own 'military' intrigues. That such a depreciation of the Trojan War may have been derived from Menander, whose Dis Exapaton is here adapted by Plautus, is suggested by its appearance elsewhere in Greek literature. The cases in Attic Oratory, where this appears to have been a common practice, especially whenever a glorification of the victories achieved by the Athenians' forefathers over their enemies seems to have been required, have already been mentioned. 142 Here it should be added that even the manner in which Chrysalus presents the case on both sides resembles that of the Attic Orators on similar occasions. The Atreidae conquered Troy armis, equis, exercitu atque eximiis bellatoribus / milli cum numero nauium (927f.), whereas he, he emphasises, is about to achieve his military aims sine classe sineque exercitu et tanto numero militum (930). Similarly, Demosthenes, dilating on the glorious victories of the Athenians during the Persian Wars, claims that the Athenians' forefathers τοσούτψ yàp άμβίνους των έπί Τροίαν στρατβυσαμένων νομίξοιντ' àv είκότως, οσον ol μέν è£ άπάσης της Ελλάδος 0ντβς άριστεις δέκ' 'έτη της 'Ασίας ëv χωρίον πολιορκοϋντες μόλις eiXov, ούτοιòè τον έκ πάσης της ήπβί'ρου στόλον έλύόντα μόνοι, τάλλα πάντα κατεστραμμένον, οι) μόνον ημύναντο, άλλα . . . (Epit. 10—11; cf. Isoc. Euagor. 65 (above, p. 24)). It is not at all unlikely that rhetorical formulae of this type, to which the Athenian public had become accustomed, were exploited by the Greek Comic writers for comic purposes, and that it is an example of this practice that we have here in the Bacchides.143 141 Pl.PL, p. 10; Chrysalus' monody as a whole {Bacch. 925—78) has been regarded by Fraenkel as an entirely original creation of Plautus (Pl.Pl., pp. 61 ff.). Fraenkel's view is shared by many Plautine scholars: see e.g. G. Williams, Hermes, 84 (1956), p. 4 5 2 ; Questa, op. cit. (above, n. 2), pp. 25ff. See, however, K. Gaiser, Philologus, 114 (1970), pp. 72ff.; also F. H. Sandbach, The Comic Theatre of Greece and Rome (London, 1977), p. 127. Above, p. 24. 1 4 3 See also Hdt. VII. 20.2 (quoted above, p. 53), the earliest extant example of this motif, for which the influence of Attic Oratory may also be responsible.

61

Two further instances of the depreciation of the Trojan War are found in Euripides. The first is Cyc. 350—2 (quoted above, p. 44). As is to be expected from a Satyr play, the comparison has a comic ring. The second is Andr. 368—9 (quoted above, p. 44 (at the beginning of the speech!)). The comparison has a gnomic air, which lends colour to the suggestion that it might have a background in Greek proverbial expressions. These lines were certainly parodied by Eubulus in Amaltheia, fr. 7. 1—2K, (quoted above, p. 29). It appears from these passages, as well as from those quoted above from Attic Oratory, that the notion of μεϊξον ή Ύροίαν è\eiv was not only familiar to the Greeks but also applicable to a variety of circumstances, ranging from serious matters to the sheer triviality in Amaltheia, fr. 7K. The Trojan War, in other words, was a frame of reference among the Greeks, in relation to which any hyperbolic comparison καΰ' ύπεροχήν could easily have been expressed. Bacch. 925—30 conforms very readily to this pattern. In any case, from the point of view of content, it can hardly be regarded as definitely Plautine. Ovid, A mores, II. 12 should also be mentioned in this context. Here the poet's successful attempt at seducing Corinna is also depicted in terms of a single-handed military operation. The relevant lines run as follows (9—14): Pergama cum caderent bello superata bilustri ex tot in Atridis pars quota laudis erat? at mea seposita est et ab omni milite dissors gloria, nec titulum muneris alter habet. me duce ad hanc voti finem, me milite veni·, ipse eques, ipse pedes, signifer ipse fui.144 The analogy between this passage and Bacch. 925ff. is evident. 145 Features held in common include: the boastful, triumphant mood; the description of the intrigue in military terms; 146 the exploitation of the glories of the conquest of Troy as a background against which a hyperbolic representation of an everyday occurrence may be set; and above all, the emphatic Another significant example is found in Plut. Per. 28.5: άανμαστόν Sé τι και μέγα φρονησοι καταπολεμήσαντα τούς Σαμίους φηαίν αύτόν [sc. Pericles] ό "ίων, ώς τον μέν 'Αγαμέμνονος έ'τεοι δέκα βάρβαρον πάλιν, αύτον δέ μησίν èwéa τονς πρώτονς και δννατωτάτονς Ιώνων έλόντος. ι«* Cf. Plaut. Merc. 8 5 2 - 4 . Fraenkel, Pl.Pl, p. 70. 145 Already recognised by P. Brandt, P. Ovidi Nasonis Amorum libri tres (Leipzig, 1911 ; repr. Hildesheim, 1963), p. 118. 146 For the history of the military metaphors concerning love in both Greek and Latin literature, see A. Spies, Militât omnis amans: Ein Beitrag zur Bildersprache der antiken Erotik (Diss. Tübingen, 1930).

62

stressing of the single-handed nature of the operation described, in contrast with the multitude (tot) who aided the Atridae in conquering Troy. It is possible that Ovid found a hyperbolic comparison of this type in Alexandrian poetry, but we have found no indication of it either among the surviving pieces of the Alexandrians or among the Erotic writings of their imitators. 147 The points of similarity in spirit and content between Ovid's poem and the Plautine passage, however, suggest that consideration should also be given to New Comedy as a possible source of influence. 148 If this is the case, then we may assume, with due caution, that New Comedy employed a variety of hyperbolic comparisons involving the Trojan War, and that some of these were occasionally applied to erotic situations. 149 C.) Bacch. fr. XV: 150 the motif of πολυτλας 'Οδυσσεύς in hyperbolic comparisons καϋ' ύπβροχήν. This is found in A.P. XI. 379.5—10 (Agathias; quoted above, p. 54; Law, art. cit., p. 369) and in Prop. II. 14.3ff.: nec sic errore exacto laetatus Ulixes ... quanta ego praeterita collegi gaudia nocte.151 Comparisons καό' όμοιότητα with the much-suffering Odysseus are as early as Thgn. 1123ff.: Μή μβ κακών μίμνησκε· πέπονϋά toi olà τ' 'Οδυσσεύς / ό'στ' Άι'δεω μεγα δώμ' tfXvdev έξαναδύς ... D.) Ps. 1244: the motif of πολύμητις 'Οδυσσεύς in hyperbolic comparisons καό' ύπβροχήν. Odysseus was proverbial for his craftiness among the Greeks: see Paroem. Gr. Vol. II, p. 191, n. ad no. 20. Hyperbolic comparisons κα&' ύπεροχήν involving Odysseus were a regular element of the conventional κοΧακβύ — ματα, as it appears from Luc. Tim. 23 and Luc. DMort. 9.4 (quoted above, pp. 20f.) and of eulogies, as it appears from Tib. IV. 1.81 (Panegyric of Mesalla) and from Stat. Silv. V.3.114—15 (quoted above, p. 50). Judging moreover by the proverbial background of the rest of the κ,οΧακβύματα mentioned 147 With the possible exception of Prop. II. 14. Iff. For the theme of Troy in amatory context see Hor. Epod. 14. 1 3 - 6 ; Prop. II. 22.34; Ον. Α. A. I. 3 6 3 - 4 ; Aristaenet. Ep. I. 17; A. P. V. 138 (Dioscorides); Anacreont. 26. 148 For the possibility of New Comedy having directly influenced the Latin Elegists, particularly Ovid, see Th. Gollnisch, Quaestiones elegiacae (Diss. Vratislaviae, 1905), pp. 19ff.; A. A. Day, The Origins of Latin Love Elegy (Oxford, 1938), pp. 85ff.; A. L. Wheeler, CPh, 5 (1910), pp. 440ff.; idem, CPh, 6 (1911), pp. 56ff. 149 It is not inconceivable, however, that Ovid should have read Plautus' Bacchides himself and got the idea for the comparison in question directly from there. is" Pl.Pl., p. 9; above, pp. 40ff. 151 For the motif of labores Ulixis in Propertian poetry see Prop. III. 12. 23—38; II. 26A. 37.

63

by Lucían in the above-quoted passages, it is not at all improbable that the phrase 'Οδυσσέως συνετώτερος was also a proverbial expression: see Paroem. Gr., loc. cit. It may possible be this very expression that is adapted in Ps. 1244 by Plautus, who in that case replaced the construction with the comparative by one with a verb denoting superiorty: superávit dolum Troianum atque Ulixem Pseudolus. For the use of verbs denoting superiority in hyperboles involving Odysseus cf. Stat. Silv. V.3.114 (quoted above, p. 50).

Conclusions The present study has shown that the pattern of thought underlying the mythological comparisons quoted by Fraenkel in the first chapter of his book cannot be regarded as definitely Plautine in origin, since corresponding notions are amply attested in Greek literature, including Attic Comedy. Nor can the form of this pattern of thought nor its position in monologue openings be used as criteria in distinguishing Plautine elements in the adaptations, since these too have their counterpart in Greek Drama (and the former is additionally paralleled in other Greek sources). Moreover, the possibility of a direct derivation from the respective Attic models seems to have been established in the case of some of the hyperbolic comparisons in question, which demonstrate indebtedness to Greek, and particularly to Hellenistic, ideas. That Plautus was engaged in adapting a literary form found in his Greek models to the farcical type of drama that he was writing, rather than introducing new elements, is a hypothesis that cannot be ignored in view of the above-presented evidence in this study. However, Plautus must be credited with a certain amount of independence in dealing with these mythological hyperboles. A case in point is his occasional transformation of comparisons which in the originals were probably compressed into a brief phrase containing the comparative degree of an adjective or adverb into comparisons constructed with verbs denoting superiority. 152 This latter construction seems more conducive to the production of comic effects, and is, furthermore, entirely in keeping with the poet's fondness for exaggerated expressions and with his general tendency to inflate his characters and their experiences. It should nevertheless be repeated that 1S2

64

See also below, pp. 7If.

constructions involving verbs denoting superiority are not Plautine elements in Fraenkel's sense, since they have their counterparts in Greek and Latin literature alike, including one example in Attic Comedy. It is, therefore, not impossible that in some cases Plautus was utilising forms already present in his models. One cannot exclude the possibility, moreover, of Plautus' occasional expansion of the original monologues by the introduction into their opening section of mythological hyperboles either of his own invention or culled from other Greek plays, considering the relative frequency o f these in the adaptations compared with their apparent rarity in Attic Comedy. But here again one must insist that this technique of which Plautus may have availed himself was already developed in the Greek models, which is to say that even if Plautus had introduced original mythological hyperboles, in so doing he would still have remained in the spirit of Attic Comedy. The introduction of mythological hyperboles into Plautine Comedy would necessarily presuppose a modicum of knowledge of mythology (and a considerable interest in it) among the Roman audience. For one can hardly explain the remarkable frequency of mythological allusions in Plautine Comedy, unless one assumes that the audience had a fairly good idea of at least the outlines of these myths. 1 S 3 It is probable that the Romans had already become acquainted long before Plautus with at least the principal Greek legends, for example, those of the Trojan War and Odysseus' adventures, through the medium of Etruscan art and the continuous dramatic tradition in Southern Italy, whereas the Tragedies of Naevius and Ennius, as well as the translation of the Odyssey by Livius Andronicus, provided them with an easy means of access to the less familiar stories. Plautus himself must have assimilated Greek legendary ideas and characters to such an extent that he was enabled to draw grotesque analogies between them and his comic characters, and to produce mythological scurrilities of his own invention. Yet it is hardly conceivable that this practice originated with Plautus, as one might have concluded from Fraenkel's observations in the first and the third chapters of his book, since mythological scurrilities ranging over a variety of topics had always been a feature o f Attic Comedy. 1 5 4 At any rate, as far as the type of See Pl.Pl., pp. 87ff.; F. Middelmann, op. cit. (above, n. 2), pp. 48ff. T. Frank, Life and Literature in the Roman Republic (Berkeley, 1930), pp. 73ff.; W. R. Chalmers, art. cit. (above, n. 2), pp. 27, 42f.; Sandbach, op. cit. (above, n. 141), pp. 124t. 154 Tierney, art. cit., pp. 23ff. 5 Zagagi (Hyp. 62)

65

scurrility analysed by Fraenkel in his first chapter is concerned, this has been shown to have had a considerable background in Greek literature. One important aspect of the vea which the present study seems to have brought out, b u t which has not greatly manifested itself so far in the extant Comic fragments, is the element of ye\oïov. We have often been told that the véa was on the whole a drama of a rather serious character, demonstrating a deep interest in various manifestations of human life, and in which the element of ye\oiov, so prominent in Old Comedy, has gradually been suppressed. 1 5 5 Fraenkel, indeed, regarded Plautus as responsible for the re-introduction into New Comedy of this element, an important aspect of which he considered to be Plautus' use of hyperboles in mythological comparisons. 1 5 6 This picture of the véa must be modified in the light of the present study: that Knemon, who comes on stage uttering a grotesque wish to possess Perseus' attributes, with the implication that he would then outdo the hero in utilising them; 1 5 7 that Nikeratos who denounces his future son-in-law as worse than the most notorious incestuous legendary sinners; that anonymous Middle Comedy character who declares the greedy hetaerae to outdo all mythological monsters — all seem to have sprung from the same creative imagination that produced those tormented lovers in Merc. 469—70 and Pers. 1—2, who regard themselves as surpassing Pentheus and Herakles respectively in suffering and hardship, or that invented the boastful exaggerations in Men. 199—201 and in Bacch. 925—30. In all these cases there is b u t one pattern of thought, albeit expressed in different ways, and that is, that originally cultivated by the Greeks, namely, hyperbole in mythological comparisons καΰ' υπεροχή v.15& The especial significance of this study in relation to our enquiry, is that it seems to have replaced in its proper context — that of New Comedy — a convention of speech which is of special interest both for the characterisation of the lovers in New Comedy and for their concept of love in general. The lovers in New Comedy tend to aggrandize their ordinary experiences and sufferings by drawing grotesque analogies between the famous heroes of mythology and themselves, which demonstrate their own surpassing of the former. That this process of amatory exaggeration is Greek and by no

iss See e.g. Fraenkel, Pl.Pl., pp. 383f.

is« Pl.Pl., pp. 390ff. 157 Reinhardt's claim (op. cit., p. 65) that "tatsächlich wirkt es [sc. the knemonexample] freilich nur als άπροσδόκητον, nicht als yeXoiov" is hardly justified, iss See also Lana, art. cit. (above, n. 1), p. 71.

66

means specifically Plautine is proved b y the reappearance o f the tradition in Alexandrian p o e t r y and in its imitators, L a t i n L o v e Elegy i n c l u d e d . 1 5 9 In all probability, in this as in m a n y o t h e r respects, N e w C o m e d y was a forerunner o f Hellenistic love p o e t r y . 1 6 0 1 5 9 Law, art. cit., passim; Canter, art. cit. (above, n. 17), pp. 213—15, passim; Hoelzer, De poesi, pp. 55f.; below, ch. II, η. 43. See especially A. P. V. 236 (Paul Sii.): Nat τάχα Ύανταλέης Άχερόντνα πήματα ποίνης / ημετέρων άχέων εστίν έλαφρότερα. Ιού γαρ, ιδών σέο κάλλος, άπείργβτο χείλεα μιξαι / χείλεϊ σφ ροδέων άβροτέρφ καλύκων, / Τάνταλος άκριτόδακρυς· ύπερτέλλοντα δέ ττέτρον / δείδιεν, άλλα ϋανείν δεύτερον ού δύναται.. / αύτάρ éy¿o ξωός μεν εών κατατήκομαι οϊοτρω, / έκ δ' όλι*γοδρανίης και μόρον έγγύς έχω. Cf. Α. P. V. 246 (Paul Sil.); Ach. Tat. V. 21; II. 35; Luc. Am. 53; Nie. Eug. VI. 6 2 7 - 8 . For hyperbolic ideas concerning the suffering of Tantalus in Comedy see D. L. Page, Greek Literary Papyri (London, 1942), Vol. I, fr. 6 7 . 2 3 - 4 (p. 316). 1 6 0 For aspects of New Comedy's influence upon Alexandrian poetry see Leo, PLF.2, 140ff.; A. A. Day, loc. cit.; Hoelzer, De poesi; Wheeler, artt. citt.

67

CHAPTER II

The Amatory Cantica of Plautus While the mythological hyperboles καύ' ύπβροχήν in Plautine comedy apparently reflect a phenomenon already found in the νέα, this does not seem to be the case where the Plautine cantica are concerned. Here, Plautus' divergence from his Attic models, in most cases probably by the substitution of polymetric songs for the iambic monologues found in the originals, seems to be almost beyond doubt. 1 Few attempts have been made to analyse individual cantica in order to establish Plautus' relation to his Attic models in these passages, although Leo and Fraenkel did make notable contributions in this field. 2 Burck is the only scholar to single out the amatory cantica when assessing the correspondence between the Plautine versions and the originals; 3 Flury and Kistrup concentrated on Plautus' conception of love and his methods of describing emotions when they were treating these particular cantica, since the question of what matter may have originated in the models was of minor interest to them. 4 In this chapter I propose to analyse two Plautine cantica rich in amatory themes, namely Cist. 203—28 (Alcesimarchus' monody) and Trin. 223—75 (Lysiteles' monody), the latter of which was considered definitely Plautine by the above-mentioned scholars. 5 These analyses, combined with that 1

For the question of the origin of Plautine cantica see U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 'Des Mädchens Klage: Eine alexandrinische Arie', Nachr. d. Κ. Gesell, d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, philol.-hist. Kl., 3 (1896), pp. 231f.; O. Crusius, Philologus, 55 (1896), p. 384; Leo, Cantica, pp. 3ff., 76ff., 11 Iff.; idem, GRL, pp. 121ff.; Fraenkel, Pl.Pl., pp. 321ff.; O. Immisch, Zur Frage der plautinischen Cantica (Sitzungsber., Heidelberger Akad. d. Wiss., philos.-hist. Kl, 7 Abhandl. (Heidelberg, 1923)); P. Lejay, Piaute (Paris, 1925), pp. 28ff.; F. Marx, Plautus: Rudens (Leipzig, 1928; repr. Amsterdam, 1959), pp. 254ff.; M. Gigante, PP, 2 (1947), pp. 300ff. For further bibliography see Duckworth, op. cit. (above, ch. I, η. 89), pp. 375ff.; also Gaiser, art. cit. (above, Introd., n. 2), pp. 1042f.; Arnott, op. cit. (above, Introd., η. 1), pp. 32f. 2 Leo, Der Monolog, pp. 75ff.; Fraenkel, Pl.Pl., pp. 60ff., 144ff., and passim. 3 Amor, pp. 46ff. 4 Kistrup, Die Liebe, pp. 35ff.; Flury, L. u. Liebesspr., pp. 28, 74ff. 5 See below, nn. 93, 94.

68

of Pers. 1—5 in Chapter I, 6 should make it possible to demonstrate Plautus' dependence upon his models or upon general Greek Erotic traditions in the cantica, where his originality is not usually questioned. This would enable us to formulate a fundamental objection to modern views on Plautus' inventiveness in his treatment of love in general, and to outline one of the most important aspects of his creativeness as a playwright.

I. Cist. 2 0 3 - 2 8 : Alcesimarchus' Monody 7 (adapted from Menander's Synaristosae) Logically and metrically the monody may be divided into six sections: 8 Section 1 11. 203—5: the Introduction a) 1. 203: the introductory theme: Amor was the first to invent the'carnuficina. b) 11. 204—5: application of this general statement to the particular case of the speaker: hanc ego de me coniecturam domi facto, ni foris quaeramjqui omnis homines supero, antideo cruciabilitatibus animi. (3An. Oct. Cat.) Section II II. 206—10: illustration of the introductory theme: Alcesimarchus is being tortured upon the wheel of love. (An. Oct. + An. Oct. Cat.) The following representations of Alcesimarchus' torments at the hands of Amor are not connected with the introductory theme: 9 6

Above, pp. 59ff. The text I am using here is that of Lindsay, except for lines 208 and 217 for which I accepted the emendations proposed by Leo in RhM, 38 (1883), p. 12. Cf. L. Braun, Die Cantica des Plautus (Göttingen, 1970), p. 89, η. 4. See also below, n. 17. 8 The monody has been variously divided by Plautine scholars: F. Crusius' division (Die Responsion in den plautinischen Cantica (Leipzig, 1929), pp. 91—3) is totally misleading. That of Burck (Amor, p. 47, n. 12) is by and large too rigid. The same applies to the division proposed by Braun, op. cit., pp. 88f. (cf. Leo, Plauti comoediae (Berolini, 1895), Vol. I, p. 282; idem, Cantica, pp. 26f.) which is nevertheless more acceptable than the one proposed by Burck. See below, n. 11; p. 71. H. Reis' division (Die Vorstellung von den geistig-seelischen Vorgängen und ihrer körperlichen Lokalisation im Altlatein (München, 1962), pp. 237f.), followed by Flury (L. u. Liebesspr., p. 76) is based in the main upon a misinterpretation of the function of ita at the beginning of lines 210, 213, 215. For this explanatory ita which always refers to what precedes, see J . Blänsdorf, op. cit. (above, ch. I, n. 2), pp. 90ff. 7

9

Crusius, op. cit., p. 92 (cf. Burck, ibid.; Braun, op. cit., p. 89) is not justified in saying that 'die drei Strophen [sc. 2 0 4 - 1 0 ; 2 1 1 - 2 0 ; 2 2 1 - 2 8 ] sind die „Durchführ u n g " der einzigen Satzes der Proode' [sc. 203].

69

Section III 11. 211—15: the animus is separated from the lover: a state of complete bewilderment. 10 (An. Oct. Cat. + An. Oct.) Section IV 11. 216—20: Amor ludificator. (An. Oct. + An. Oct. Cat.) Section V 11. 221—24: the vessel of the soul is sunk by Amor. 11 (An. Oct. Cat. + An. Oct.) Section VI 11. 225—28: a brief expository section, providing the specific reason for Alcesimarchus' emotional situation. (2An. Oct. (?) + An. Tetr.) The metrical structure of Sections II—V betrays a remarkable chiastic arrangement: catalectic verses mark the end of Sections II and IV as well as the beginning of Sections III and V. Equally remarkable is the manner in which Section II is related to Section IV. Section II is, in fact, the logical counterpart of Section IV: both contain an accumulation of asyndetic verbs depicting the torments of Alcesimarchus at the hands of Amor. But whereas in Section II the action is presented in the Passive Voice with Alcesimarchus as the grammatical subject, in Section IV Amor himself emerges as the logical subject of an action presented in the Active Voice. 12 Similarly, quod lubet, non lubet iam id continuo in Section III (214) has also its logical counterpart in modo quod suasit, (id) dissuadet,/ quod dissuasit id ostentat in Section IV (219—20). 13 Sections III and IV are each characterised by three antitheses ( 2 1 1 - 1 2 , 214; 2 1 7 - 1 8 ; 219-20). The interlinking between the sections in which the torments of Alcesimarchus are depicted is also worth pointing out: the expression cruciabilitatibus animi at the end of Section I (205) is reflected by various expressions in Section II (crucior (206); exanimor (208); nubilam mentem animi (210)). Similarly, the concluding remarks of Sections II and III respectively (ita nubilam mentem animi habeo (210); ita me Amor lassum animi ludificat (215)) are elaborated in Sections III and IV. Section V alone is not foreshadowed in any way by what precedes and in this respect stands in sharp contrast to the others.

Below, pp. 78f. Leo, Braun and Burck (above, n. 8), following their respective criteria, have all failed to recognise that lines 221—4 constitute one unit. n Cf. Crusius, op. cit., p. 92; Braun, op. cit., p. 89. 13 Both statements refer to the same emotional situation, but in the first statement it is presented from Alcesimarchus' point of view, whereas in the second it is from that of Amor. 11

70

All sections except I and IV contain explanatory sentences, introduced by ita, referring to the content of the respective preceding lines.14 These zíü-sentences mark the end of Sections II 15 and III and the beginning of Section VI. In Section III, as the textual analysis will show,16 both itasentences are concerned with the identical state of mind of Alcesimarchus, but whereas the first (213) merely defines it in metaphorical terms, the second (215) states the objective reason for it (Amor ... ludificat). Hence, lines 211 — 15 should be regarded as one unit 17 and must not be divided between the preceding and the following sections, as suggested by the analyses of Burck and Braun. 18 Textual

Analysis19

Section I (11. 2 0 3 - 5 ) : Credo ego Amorem primum apud homines carnuficinam commentum. hanc ego de me coniecturam domi fació, ni foris quaeram, qui omnis homines supero, antideo cruciabilitatibus animi. Fraenkel has quoted these lines in support of the theory advanced by him in the chapter 'Komparativische Gesprächsanfänge', considering the entire passage to be a Plautine addition to the corresponding Menandrian monologue.20 The fallibility of Fraenkel's theory has already been amply demonstrated in the previous chapter. Here it will suffice to point out that the scanty evidence from Middle and New Comedy has shown that the Greek Comic writers, Menander included, not only employed comparisons of the type noted by Fraenkel but occasionally also introduced them into the opening sections of their monologues.21 Moreover, it has been suggested22 that Plautus occasionally transformed hyperbolic comparisons expressed in the originals by a phrase containing 14 Above, n. 8. 15 In addition to the catalexis. 16 Below, pp. 78ff. 17 I suggest a full stop after ludificat (215). 18 Above, n. 8. 19 Brief discussions of Alcesimarchus' monody are found in Kistrup, Die Liebe, pp. 47f. and Flury, L. u. Liebesspr., pp. 74ff. Kistrup barely touches on the question of Plautus' relation to his Attic model. As for Flury, his treatment of the question is, despite some good observations, on the whole far from satisfactory. Like Burck (Amor, p. 47), he considered the monody to be mainly Plautine. 20 Ρl.Pl., p. 11. Fraenkel's view is shared by Burck, ibid, and Kistrup, Die Liebe, pp. 47, 50, 52. Flury, L. u. Liebesspr., p. 75 is more cautious. 21 Above, pp. 26ff. 2 2 Above, pp. 51ff., 64. 71

the comparative degree into comparisons formulated using verbs denoting superiority. That this may be the case in the present monologue opening is suggested by the manner in which the hyperbolic comparison is expressed in the following Menandrian monologue openings (which are also delivered by young men in love): &p' άλλον23 άνϋρώπων ην' άάλιώτερον έόρακας; dp' έρώντα δυσποτμώτβρον; (Mis. Α 4—5) πολλών yeyονότων άύλίων κατά τον χρόνον τον νϋν ... ούδένα νομίζω των τοσούτων άΰλιον άνϋρωπον οϋτως ώς έμαυτόν ζην έγώ. 2 4 (Perik. 532—6) SeivÓTepá τις πέπονάβ των èv τήί πόλβι έμοϋ-, μα την Δήμητρα και τον Ούρανόν. ([Men.]. Pap. 15. 1 - 2 )

Antinoop.

The notion underlying these monologue openings is basically the same as that expressed in Cist. 205. 25 But while in Menander the comparison is expressed mostly by the comparative degree of an adjective 26 (only once does he use the correlatives όντως/ώς), in Plautus it is formulated using verbs denoting superiority. In any case, line 205 can hardly be regarded as a Plautine addition to Menander, since from the point of view of content it is an element typical of Menandrian monologue openings. 27 But it is not just line 205 that may be a reflection of the Menandrian model. Rather, the entire introductory section may very possibly be a relatively faithful translation of the Menandrian monologue opening. This has already been convincingly demonstrated by Leo 2 8 through a comparative study of those Plautine monody and monologue openings which begin with a general statement followed by an illustration from 23

See Gomme & Sandbach, p. 744. Gomme & Sandbach, n. ad loc. 25 See also Sam. 12, 90; Asp. 284—7; C. Austin, Menandri Aspis et Samia (Berlin, 1970), Vol. II, n. ad Asp. 287; Ter. Hec. 281f.; Plaut. Merc. 335f. 2 * Cf. Sam. 12, 90. 27 It should be noted that the adjective ¿ίιίλιος occurs quite frequently in the examples quoted above (Mis. A4; Perik. 532—6; Sam. 12, 90). This might support the suggestion that in the Menandrian Synaristosae the notion of unmatched misery was also expressed by means of the comparative degree of this adjective. If this is the case, then Plautus has replaced this adjective by a more powerful expression, that is, supero, antideo cruciabilitatibus animi. In any case, cruciabilitatibus animi is probably a Plautine expression: Flury, L. u. Liebesspr., p. 75, n. 24. 2 ® Der Monolog, p. 77. See ibid., pp. 75ff.; also Fraenkel, Ρl.Pl., pp. 158ff. 24

72

the speaker's own experiences. Leo's opinion as regards Cist. 203ff. seems all the more justified, since line 203 is a variation on a common motif in Greek literature, including Attic Comedy, which is that of the βύρβτής. 29 This in itself, it is true, does not prove that the notion of Amor being the inventor of carnuficina is Menandrian, since, as in the case of the mythological hyperboles, the possibility of Plautus having here invested the familiar Greek pattern of thought with mythological scurrility of his own invention must be allowed for, especially since emotional experiences, love included, are often conceived in terms of slave torture in Plautine Comedy, 30 while this is never the case in Menander. While it is clear that the motif in question had a special appeal for the Greek Comic writers, 31 there is little in Plautine Comedy to suggest that this applied to the Roman adapter. The motif of the βύρβτης occurs only three times in his adaptations 32 — a surprisingly small number of cases compared with those of the mythological hyperboles — and in at least one case 33 there seems to be good reason to suppose that Plautus was following the Attic model. Moreover, the analogy between the torments of love and slave torture does also occur in Greek literature (and in Latin Love Elegy), although rarely. 34 That it is not to be found among the extant fragments of Menander may in the main be due to 29

As Fraenkel has already observed: Pl.Pl, p. 11. For this motif see Leo, Pl.F.2, pp. 151ff. See also above, ch. I, n. 139. 30 Below, nn. 37, 38; pp. 114f. n. 28. On the whole, expressions pertaining to hanging and slave-punishment occur frequently in Plautine Comedy: see Aug. O. Fr. Lorenz, Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus 4 Bd.: Pseudolus (Berlin, 1876), pp. 5 2 - 4 ; idem, 2 Bd.: Mostellaria (2nd edn., Berlin, 1883), pp. 28f. Note in particular the use of carnufex, crux as terms of abuse and the stock phrases (ab)i in malam crucem; (ab)i in malum cruciatum; (cum) cruciatu pertre/dicere etc. Lodge, Lex. Plaut., s. vv. crux, cruciatus, carnufex. 31 The motif recurs many times among the extant Comic fragments: Leo, PI.F.2, pp. 152ff. Menander himself provides two examples: fr. 14; fr. 142. 32 i.e. Cist. 203; Pers. 1 \ Men. 4 5 1 - 2 . 33 Pers. 1; above, pp. 59ff. 34 Below, pp. 74ff.; Luc. Am. 3: τών ye μην έρωτικών Ιμέρων και αύτό το βασανίξον εύψραίνει... Charito, VI. 2: βασανιξόμενον yáp με κατέχεις καίήδέως κολαξόμενον όρφς; Ach. Tat. I. 11: και όέλω μέν σοι δικάσω, πάτερ, άλλ' άντίδικον 'έχω χαλεπώτερον [se. Eros], βασανίζει τον δικαστήν, έστηκε μετά βελών, κρίνει μετά πυρός. Α slave torture is also alluded to in A.P. XII. 80. 5—6 (Meleager): αντίκα yáp, λήôapyε κακών, [sc. ψυχή] πάλιν εϊ σε ίξφ Κΰπριδος όφϋαλμοί βλέμματα χρνόμενοι, ήρπάσατ' άλλον ερωτ' ... όπτάσϋ' έν κάλλει, τύφεοΰ' ύποκαόμενοι νϋν, άκρος έπεί ψυχής έστι μάγειρος "Ερως. {Α. P. XII. 92 (Meleager) = 4620-7 G.-P., HE)

the p o e m proceeds, we, together with the protagonist, gradually become convinced that this suffering is due to no other than Eros. This is especially conveyed b y the adjective

δΰσερως

in line 6.

87

Most of the above quoted examples, it is true, are taken from Meleager, 87 but other examples may have occurred in the lost literature of the period. Indeed, judging by Meleager's noticeable tendency to display his skill in dealing with themes already treated by others, it is not at all unlikely that his own variations on the theme were conceived against the background of literary traditions since lost. This argument is supported by the fact that two of the above quoted epigrams, that is, A. P. XII. 92 and A. P. XII. 80, betray the influences of epigrams by two of his predecessors, Callimachus and Poly stratus respectively (i.e. A. P. XII. 73; 91 (both quoted above); G.-P., HE, n. ad 4087; p. 668 (Pref. to Mel. CXVI)). 8 8 The Callimachean epigram particularly should warn us against crediting Meleager with having played a prominent role in the development of this theme in Hellenistic poetry. This epigram is the earliest poem about the ψυχή tormented by Eros that has come down to us and, as far as we know, it is the only representative of its kind in early Hellenistic poetry. (It is not until Meleager that we meet elaborate variations on this theme). 8 9 Nothing, however, compels us to believe that this was the only epigram composed on the subject before Meleager. Rather, such a view would hardly be in keeping with all that we know of the competitive spirit of the early Alexandrians and of the nature of Hellenistic Epigram as a whole. Moreover, it is not impossible, and indeed it is quite probable, that Callimachus' poem was an object of imitation among the Hellenistic poets just as it was among the poetae novi in Rome. 9 0 These considerations lend force to the suggestion that Meleager's variations are representative of a wider literary tradition in Hellenistic poetry that dealt with Eros's tormenting of the ψνχή. It is against the background of this tradition that the introduction by Plautus of the theme of Amor-cruciabilitates animi into the Menandrian 87

Wifstrand (op. cit. (above, ch. I, n. 135), p. 49, n. 1) suggested that Meleager's frequent use of the word ψυχή (in contrast to other Hellenistic poets) may be due to Semitic influence, but such conclusions are based in the main upon fragmentary material. 88 Apart from the literary tradition, Hellenistic art probably also influenced Meleager: Roscher, Lex., Vol. I, s.v. Eros, col. 1371; H. Beckby, Anthologia Graeca (München, 1958), Vol. IV, n. ad XII. 132.2 (Meleager). 89 It is important to note that Callimachus was apparently not the one who introduced the theme in question into Hellenistic poetry, since Asclepiades had previously mentioned the poor state of his ψνχή as a result of constant attacks by the Erotes (quoted above, p. 86). It is not improbable that these very lines of Asclepiades were in Callimachus' mind when he wrote the opening lines of his poem. See G.-P., HE, n. ad 1057f. (Vol. II, p. 158). 90 Callimachus' epigram was adapted by Q. Lutatius Catulus (fr. 1 Morel).

88

monologue should be considered and his originality appreciated. 91 Were we to consider the possibility of Plautus having been influenced by New Comedy in this matter, we would find nothing in the extant Comic fragments to suggest that either Plautus or the Hellenistic poets could have drawn their inspiration for the theme in question from this source. Indeed, although there is a danger in arguing ex silentio, the absence of evidence for similar representations of ψυχή tormented by Eros in preHellenistic literature in general does not appear in this case to be due to mere accident. On the other hand, it is feasible that Hellenistic representations of Eros-ψυχή relationships could have become known to Plautus through the minor dramatic forms in Southern Italy or through other Greek sources. 92 My analysis has shown that this monody contains relatively few elements that need be regarded as specifically Roman or specifically Plautine. It ftas also established that Plautus, despite his additions to the monologue, abode on the whole by its original framework. Plautus' contribution to Menander consists in the main in the intercalation of lines 211—24 and of the introduction of the theme Amor-cruciabilitates animi that runs through the monody. Furthermore, he elaborated the Menandrian image vorsor in amori' rota in Section II. But the most important conclusion of this analysis is that the scope of Plautus' originality, as far as can be judged from the above-mentioned additions, fell mainly within the confines of Greek Erotic traditions, especially those of the Hellenistic period. Most of these traditions probably became known to Plautus through New Comedy, although it would be rash to assume that this was his only source, since in one case at least — the introduction of the theme Amorcruciabilitates animi — there seems to be good reason to suppose that Hellenistic poetry may also have influenced Plautus, albeit indirectly. 91

When one comes to assess Plautus' originality in Section III, one should particularly bear in mind Callimachus' epigram about the runaway ψυχή (i.e. A.P. XII. 73, quoted above, p. 86) and the possibility that other variations on the subject may have been composed. For although that section has been recognised by us to be an original contribution of Plautus to Menander, a certain degree of Hellenistic influence must, nonetheless, be allowed for (see Appendix, p. 134—7). Similarly, the allusion to slave torture in A. P. XII. 80. 6 (Meleager; quoted above, p. 87) must not be overlooked in discussing Section II. As for Section V, no epigram depicting the sinking of the ψυχή by Eros has come down to us, but in view of the prominent role played by maritime metaphors in Hellenistic love poetry (above, n. 69), it is not at all unlikely that the Hellenistic poets or their predecessors may have touched upon this theme. See esp. A.P. XII. 157. 1 - 2 ; V. 235.4 (quoted above, n. 69). 92 For the minor dramatic forms in Southern Italy and their possible influence on Plautine Comedy, see Duckworth, op. cit. (above, ch. I, n. 89), pp. 3ff. esp. pp. 16f.

89

II. Tritt. 2 2 3 - 7 5 : Lysiteles' Monody (adapted from Philemons' Thesauros) While no Plautine scholar ever went so far as to claim the whole of Alcesimarchus' monody as Plautine in origin, the same cannot be said of that of Lysiteles. For quite apart from the scholars who consider Lysiteles' monody to be original in the main, 9 3 there are several — namely Leo, Burck and Kistrup — who attribute the entire passage to Plautus. 9 4 Burck's study of the monody is in the form of a detailed textual analysis, much of which is, however, dependent on certain hypotheses set forth in his preliminary observations. His discussion opens with his main argument for considering the entire monody Plautine: "Lysiteles tritt am Beginn des zweiten Aktes zum ersten Mal auf und legt sich die Frage vor, ob es besser sei, der Liebe oder dem Erwerb von Vermögen zu folgen. Der Zuschauer vermutet, daß diese Überlegung durch das persönliche Erleben des Lysiteles ausgelöst sei, d.h. daß er in eine mehr oder minder kostspielige Liebesaffaire verwickelt sei. Erst in der nächsten Scene erfährt der Hörer aus dem Gespräch des Lysiteles mit seinem Vater Philto, daß Lysiteles die Schwester seines Freundes Lesbonicus heiraten will, und zwar ohne Mitgift. Er will hierdurch dem Freunde in seiner bedrängten finanziellen Lage helfen, in die dieser durch seine Liebesabenteuer und seinen leichten, verschwenderischen Lebenswandel geraten ist (374ff.). Es handelt sich hierbei also am eine absolute Verstandesheirat. Die eingehenden Erwägungen des Lysiteles treffen demnach auf seine persönliche Situation in keiner Weise zu und hängen bei Plautus dramatischkompositionell in der Luft. Sie müssen bei Philemon, dessen Thesauros ja die Vorlage des Trinummus war, aus einer Betrachtung des Lysiteles über die nahezu verzweifelte Lage seines Freundes erwachsen sein, der das väterliche Vermögen während der Abwesenheit des Vaters seiner Liebe und seinem Leichtsinn geopfert hatte. Es ist wahrscheinlich, daß Lysiteles seine prüfende Erwägung über die Vorteile von amor und res im Original 93 See e.g. Fraenkel, Pl. Pl., pp. 56, 140; also pp. 169, 349; Α. Thierfelder, De rationibus interpolationum Plautinarum (Lipsiae, 1929), p. 24; Brix-Niemeyer-Conrad, Trinummus, p. 72; F. Zucker, Freundschaftsbewährung in der neuen attischen Komödie: Ein Kapitel hellenistischer Ethik und Humanität (Berichte über die Verhandl. d. sächs. Akad. d. fc. zu Leipzig, 98, I (1950)), p. 14. See however, T. Β. L. Webster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy (2nd edn. Manchester, 1970), pp. 136f., 141. ** Leo, GRL, pp. 116f.; Burck, Amor, pp. 46ff.; Kistrup, Die Liebe, pp. 35ff. See also Gaiser, art. cit. (above, Introd., n. 2), pp. 1097f. Kistrup's views on this subject mainly follow those of Burck. As for Flury, he too seems to subscribe to Burck's opinion: see L. u. Liebesspr., pp. 12, 28.

90

damit abgeschlossen hatte, daß er seinen Willen zur Hilfe für den Freund durch die Eheschließung mit seiner Schwester kundtat. Er wird außerdem seine Absicht ausgedrückt haben, mit seinem Vater diese Fragen zu besprechen und zu klären, wie es dann j a in der folgenden Scene geschieht. Die kritische Betrachtung der Haltung und der Lage des Lesbonicus durch Lysiteles dürfte im Original wesentlich kürzer und situationsgebundener gewesen sein. Sie hat jedenfalls kaum Anlaß dazu gegeben, auf die artes Amoris näher einzugehen, wie dies Plautus in aller Ausführlichkeit tut. Plautus hat hier offenbar seiner Phantasie und seiner Kritik an der Liebe die Zügel locker gelassen, wie dies auch schon F. Leo und Ed. Fraenkel betont haben." (Amor, pp. 47f.) 9 5 Burck, in drawing attention to the irrelevance of the question with which Lysiteles is here preoccupied — that is, the choice between amor and res — to his situation in the rest of the play, has put his finger on the most obvious difficulty concerning this monody. Nevertheless, it is dangerous to conclude that the irrelevant nature of the subject-matter of the monody necessitates either its attribution in entirety to Plautus, or, indeed, that postulation of a completely different monologue in Philemon which Burck makes here. 96 Before proposing an alterntive hypothesis on this point, however, the construction of the monody should be examined. The monody clearly falls into three major sections, the first two of which are further subdivided:97 Section I 11. 223—36: the

Introduction

a) 11. 223—32: the mooting of the question: amorin med, an rei potiu' par sit.

opsequi

b) 11. 233—6: outlining of the method of enquiry to be used: a proposal to consider the nature of amor and res, starting with the former. Section II 11. 237—55: Amoris

artes,

a) 11. 2 3 7 - 4 1 : the nature of Amor. b) 11. 2 4 2 - 5 5 : the fate of the amator.

For Leo's and Fraenkel's views see above, nn. 9 3 , 94. Cf. Kistrup, Die Liebe, p. 37. Leo too considered the corresponding monologue of Philemon to refer directly to Lesbonicus: see GRL, p. 117. 9 7 Cf. Braun, op. cit. (above, η. 7), p. 187. For a detailed metrical analysis of this monody see Braun, op. cit., pp. 187ff.; Plautine scholars are unanimous in dividing this canticum into three sections: see Leo, Cantica, pp. 89f.; Brix-Niemeyer-Conrad, Trinummus, pp. 72ff.; Burck, Amor, pp. 49f.; Kistrup, Die Liebe, p. 35. 95

96

91

Section III II. 256—75: Lysiteles' rejection of Amor and subsequent choice of the way of life involving the pursuit of res. It is clear from this analysis that the argument concerning the irrelevance of the amor-res conflict to Lysiteles' situation is applicable only to Sections I and III, since only in these two is the conflict discussed by Lysiteles in personal terms. Indeed, were we to remove Sections I and III from the monody, we would be left with a discussion about Amoris artes which is entirely impersonal in character and could therefore be delivered by almost any of the characters in the Trinummus, regardless of their personal situation. Similar discussions of the nature of the god of Love and of that of lovers are found among the extant Comic fragments. 98 Men. Thesauros, fr. 198 is particularly relevant to the present analysis, since it also discusses Eros from the point of view of the financial consequences of falling in love: elr' οι) μέγιστος έστι των άεών "Ερως και ημιώτατός ye των πάντων πολύ; ουδβίς yàp όντως έστί φειδωλός σφόδρα άνΰρωπος ούδ' ούτως άκρφής τους τρόπους, βς ούχί τούτος μερίδα τώ de ω νέμει της ούσίας · οσοις μέν ούν πράως έχει, νέοις ετ' ούοι τούτο προστάττει ποιείνοί δ' βίς τό γήρας άναβολάς ποιούμενοι ούτοι προσαποτίνουσι τον χρόνον τόκους. Such discussions were not peculiar to Comedy, but, according to Lasserr e , " apparently formed part of a wider literary tradition, that of the έρωτικοί λόγοι, 100 a genre developed by the Sophists in the fifth century B.C., of which we may have an example in the λόγος of Lysias in the Phaedros, and possible imitations in Plato's Symposion. Lasserre, who demonstrated the possibility of the έρωτικοί λόγοι having inspired writers of Middle and New Comedy, not only in the ways in which they depicted Eros but also in the very introduction of such depictions into their 98

See Alex. Phaedros, fr. 245K; Apokoptomenos, fr. 20K; Eub. Kampylion, fr. 41K; Aristophon, Pythagoristes, fr. 11K; Men. Thesauros, fr. 198; Alex. Traumatias, fr. 234K; fr. 289K; Anaxandr. fr. 61K; Men. Synaristosae, fr. 383; fr. 569; Anepsioe, fr. 53; Her. fr. 2; Ter. Eun. 59ff.; Plaut. Merc. 18ff. 99 F. Lasserre, La figure d'Eros dans la poésie grecque (Thèse Lausanne, 1946), pp. II Off. 100 For the έρωτικοί λόγοι see Lasserre, ΜΗ, 1 (1944), pp. 169ff.

92

work, recognised that Lysíteles' monody fell within this tradition. 101 In discussing the monody he comments: "Dans son canticum, on reconnaît la tradition grecque de la description fantaisiste d'Eros, dont le caractère digressif accentue l'origine étrangère (w. 235—75): omnium primum Amoris artis eloquar . . . " (ibid.) A similar view is expressed by Leo (!) in Plautinische Forschungen2, page 131, while dealing with Merc. 18ff.: " . . . die notatio des Liebenden im vielathetirten Prolog des Mercator (18sq.) ist ganz attisch, ó yàp εραστής τοιούτος τις έατίν οίος — vgl. Trin. 236sq . . . " 1 0 2 Is it not Burck's failure to recognise the literary framework within which the description of Amoris artes in Section II of Lysiteles' monody should undoubtedly be seen that has led him to the belief that that description is Plautine in origin and could not possibly represent the form taken by Philemon's original monologue? 103 The analogy between Lysiteles' monody and both the Comic passages referred to above and the έρωτικοί λόγοι must surely suggest that any attribution of the whole of the monologue to Plautus and any postulation that Philemon's monologue referred directly to Lesbonicus' situation is quite unnecessary. The possibility that Section II is derived from Philemon becomes increasingly likely when the content of the lines in question is examined: a) 11. 237—8a: numquam Amor quemquam nisi cupidum hominem postulat se in plagas conicere: eos petit, eos sectatur; subdole blanditur, ab re consulit . . . Burck regarded the conception of love underlying these lines as specifically Plautine, 104 emphasising the difference between it and that shared by Hellenistic Epigram and Latin Love Elegy: "Die Voraussetzung für den 101 Op. cit., p. 125. Lasserre, however, is totally mistaken in claiming that 'le héros, Lysitélès, a été ruiné par sa passion' (ibid.). κ» See also Pl. F.2, p. 154, η. 4! Unfortunately, Leo failed to take into account his own observations in Plautinische Forschungen when he stated his views on Lysiteles' monody in his later work, GRL. 103 Other Plautine scholars, namely Leo (GRL, p. 116, n. 2) and Kistrup (Die Liebe, p. 37), have fallen into the same error. For Leo's view, however, see above, n. 102. Amor, pp. 50f. (except for the metaphor in plagas conicere, the Greek origin of which he does recognise: Amor, p. 51, n. 23). Burck's opinion is shared by Flury, L. u. Liebesspr., p. 28 and by Kistrup, ibid.

93

Zugriff des Gottes sieht Plautus hier in dem Verlangen des Menschen nach Liebe (237). Kein Wort also — wie es die hellenistische Epigrammatik und die augusteische Liebeselegie übereinstimmend betonen — von der unbedingten Preisgabe des Menschen an den Gott, der nach eigener Wahl plötzlich jeden überfallen und sofort zu seinem Opfer machen kann. Im Gegensatz dazu hebt Plautus die berechnende Behutsamkeit hervor, mit der sich Amor an sein Opfer heranmacht und es schmeichlerisch umwirbt (238f.)." (ibid.). That this opinion is unsound can be demonstrated by reference to Men. fr. 568, where an unknown character ponders the question of what makes one fall in love with a specific person. Having rejected various possible answers to the question, he comes to the conclusion that καιρός èaTLV ή νόσος/ψυχής ... (11. 7—8). Plutarch, quoting this passage in his treatise Π ε ρ ί έρωτος (fr. 134), gives a very illuminating commentary on these lines: ev και όρΰώς. δεί yàp άμα τού πάσχοντος είς ταϋτό και τοϋ ποιοϋντος άπάντησιν yevéa&at, προς άλληλά πως εχόντων- ώ ς άκυρον είς την τοϋ τέλους toepyaaiav ή δραστική δύναμις, àv μή παάητική διάΰεσις ή. τούτο δ' ευστοχίας έστί καφοϋ τω παϋβΐν βτοίμω συνάπτοντας èv άκμχι το ποιεϊν πεφυκός. Thus, both he and the Menandrian character hold the view that Love is only able to act upon a man who is ready to come under Love's influence, which is precisely the thesis put forward by Lysiteles at the beginning of his discussion of Amoris artes.105 A similar notion of man's 'Verlangen nach Liebe' independent of divine intervention was held by the Hellenistic poets and their imitators: Άηφΰήσεί· -nepipevye, Μενέκρατες' είπα ΤΙανήμου εΐκάδί, και Αώου τη — τίνι; τχι δεκάτη ήλάεν ò βούς ύπ' άροτρον εκούσιος. (Α. P. XII. 149 (Callimachus) = 1087-9 G.-P., HE) ϊσταμαι αϋτοκέλευστος έ γ ώ σκοπός ... (Nonn. Dion. XV. 331) Moreover, they did not consider this concept to be incompatible with that of love as a divine force which imposes itself upon man from the outside, as is evident from the following examples, where the two notions are found in juxtaposition: "Αστρα φίλα και πότνια Νι)ξ συνερώσά μοι παράπεμφον έτι με νϋν προς ον Κύπρις 105

Cf. Χ. Eph. I. 1 : "Ερωτά ye μην ούδέ ένόμιξεν είναι âeôv, άλλα πάρτη έζέβαλεν ούδέν ηγούμενος, λέ-γων ώς ούκ αν ποτέ τις έρασάεΐη ούδέ vnorayeùq τώ dec¡) μή άέλων 94

έ'κδοτον

dyei

μβ

χώ

π ο λ ύ ς " Ε ρ ω ς παραλαβών

...

δέξαι,μ'·

ξηλώ

[se. K ú p t e ] βύδοκώ

δουλεύειν.

(Fr. Grenf. l l f f . Powell) 106 Σοι μβ λάτριν ταϋρον αύτοΰβλή, αίτήσοντα

Ύλυκύδωρος

νποξεύξας πάνδουλον, πικρήν

"Ερως

εις

πόϋον

παρέδωκε, αυτόμολο

έκονσιον, μήποτ'

έλευόερίην

Βοώπι, ν, αύτοκέλευστον, ...

(Α.Ρ. V. 22 (Rufinus)) 107 11. 239—41: blandiloquentulus, harpago, mendax, cuppes, avarus, elegans, despol[i]ator, latebricolarum hominum corruptor blandus, inops celatum indagai or. 1 0 8 The attribution of various traits of character to Eros, enumerated at length and differing in type according to the outlook of the person who is discussing the nature of the god, appears to have been a common practice among the writers of έρωτικοί λόγοι whose literary form may be reflected in our monody. 1 0 9 Hellenistic poets also employed this stylistic feature in similar circumstances. 110 The long list of adjectives which is here used to illustrate the nature of Amor is therefore part of a tradition, and the supposition by Burck that Plautus was lengthily extending a small element of the Philemonian original is unncessary, 111 although some elaboration must be allowed for. 1 1 2 The probability of such 106 F o r the notion of èdeXoòovXeia, conveying b o t h the lover's total surrender to his beloved one and his active pursuit of love independently of divine intervention, see also PI. Phdr. 252A; Smp. 183A, 184C; Xen. Smp. IV. 14; Aristaenet. Ep. II.2. 11; A. P. V. 249. 3 - 4 (Irenaeus); Hör. Od. I. 33. 14; IV. 11. 2 3 - 4 . i° 7 See above, n. 106. 108 For the Plautine authorship of these lines see Thierfelder, op. cit., p. 62. " » See PI. Smp. 1 7 8 B - C , 1 8 0 B - 1 8 1 B , 1 8 5 B - C , 1 8 6 A - B , 1 8 7 D - E , 1 8 8 C - D , 193B, 193D, esp. 1 9 5 A - 1 9 7 A , 2 0 3 C - 2 0 4 B . For Comedy, see above, n. 9 8 , passim. See also Soph. fr. 941 Pearson; Eur. fr. 897N; fr. 898N. »0 See e.g. Mosch. I. I f f . ; P. V. 180 (Meleager); 177 (Meleager). See also Thgn. 1353. 111 Amor, p. 51. In discussing Lysiteles' monody, Burck occasionally claims (pp. 51—3, passim), inconsistently with his preliminary observations (see Amor, pp. 47—9), that Plautus is elaborating or adapting elements derived from the Philemonian monologue, without, however, attempting to provide any substantiation for his assertions. It is strange that he does not attempt to relate these claims to his preliminary remarks on the question of the relation of Plautus' Lysitelian monologue to the Attic model. See also below, p. 99; n. 154. " 2 See below, n. 120.

95

a long list of Eros's traits having existed in the Thesauros is supported by the presence of a lengthy catalogue of the vitia amoris early in the Mercator (18ff.) — an adaptation of Philemon's Emporos — which Leo and Preston considered to be of Greek origin. 113 It would thus appear that it was Philemon himself who was in the habit of dilating upon the nature of love, since in the whole of the extant Plautine Comedy it is only in the Trinummus and the Mercator that we find such extremely detailed discussions of the subject. On the other hand, similar discussions are to be found among the extant Greek Comic fragments (and in Terence), 114 which shows that Philemon was not alone among Greek Comic poets in employing this stylistic device. Many of the traits of character with which Amor is credited in this passage, moreover, are indicative of Greek origin, since Eros also is often depicted as a flatterer,115 a liar, 116 as poor 1 1 7 and rapacious, 118 and as being in pursuit of man's possessions.119»120 b) 11. 242—3:

nam qui amat quod amat quom extemplo saviis sagittatis perculsust, ilico res foras labitur, 121 liquitur.

The idea underlying these lines is identical to that found in Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 11, which strongly suggests that Plautus must have culled this notion from Philemon himself: Ώ τλήμον . . . και τί âv o ï e ι ira&eïv καλόν φιλήσας; äp' ούκ âv αύτίκα μάλα δούλος μέν elvai άντ' èXevûépov, π ο λ λ ά δ έ δαπανάν elq βλαβεράς ήδονάς ...;

»3 Leo, Pl. F.2, p. 131 (quoted above, p. 93); Preston, Sermo, pp. 5ff. For a detailed discussion of this passage see Kistrup, Die Liebe, pp. 3ff. 114 See above, n. 98. 115 See above, n. 67. ne See below, ch. III, η. 83. u? Pl. Smp. 2 0 3 C - D ; Phüostr. Ep. 7 (cf. Ον. Am. I. 10.15). ne Thgn. 1353 (ώρπαλέος); A. P. V. 309 (Diophanes). Eur. fr. 322N; fr. 895N; Soph. Ant. 782; Men. Thesauros, fr. 198; A. P. V. 309 (Diophanes); Plut. fr. 136 ("Οτι ού κρίσις ô è'pcoç); Tib. II. 1. 73f.; Prop. II. 12. 3-4. 120 For elegans (cf. cuppes), cf. Eur. fr. 322.2N: έρως . . . I φιXet κάτοπτρα και κόμης ξορκίσματα . . . I could not find any Greek parallel for latebricolarum hominum corruptor (240). See, however, Eur. fr. 524N; Eub. fr. 67. 1, 8K; A.P. VII. 51.2 (Adaeus). 121 Cf. Lucr. IV. 1123: labitur interea res et Babylonica fiunt ...

96

11. 244—6:

'da mihi hoc, mei meum, si me amas, si audes.' ibi ille cuculus: 'ocelle mi, fiat: et istuc et si amplius vis dari, dabitur.'

This dialogue is probably a Plautine elaboration of an expression attributed to the type of the hetaera in Philemon, as is suggested by the 'da mihi' atque

'adfer

mihi'

i n T e r . Heaut.

223, and by

t h e u s e o f κόκκυξ

as

a

term of abuse in Ar. Ach. 598, which corresponds directly to the Plautine cuculus.122

11. 247—9:

ibi illa pendentem ferit: iam amplius orat; non satis id est mali, ni etiam amplius, quod ebibit, quod comest, quod facit sumpti.

The concept of the slave-lover tortured by his mistress in various ways is one of the commonest features of servitium amoris in Latin Love 123 124 Elegy, and is also found in Greek Erotic traditions. Its use here in the context of the financial demands imposed on the lover by the meretrix (247) is unique, but this is by no means inconsistent with a Philemonian origin. The subsequent description of the insatiability of the meretrix may, however, be Plautine. 11. 250—4: nox datur: ducitur familia tota, vestipica, unctor, auri custos, flabelliferae, sandaligerulae, cantrices, cistellatrices, nuntii, renuntii, raptores pañis et peni; Fraenkel regarded this passage, along with several others in Plautine Comedy in which female extravagance and luxury are depicted at length, as Plautine additions to their respective originals. 125 Tierney demonstrated quite convincingly that this view may be erroneous, 126 and commented as 122

Brix-Niemeyer-Conrad, n. ad Triti. 2 4 5 . C o p l e y , art. cit. (above, ch. I, n. 1 3 8 ) , p. 2 9 6 . I see n o reason t o regard line 2 4 7 as a later interpolation, as suggested b y Burck (Amor, p. 5 1 , n. 2 7 ) . A s f o r Kistrup, her interpretation o f the m e t a p h o r under consideration is entirely misleading: Die Liebe, p. 1 8 5 , n. 1; p. 38. 124 See A.P. V. 2 5 4 . 7 - 8 (Paul. Sil.): . . . μηδέ μ€ μ ά σ π ξ , / πότνα, καταομύξχι και σέο και μακάρων.; Nie. Eug. VI. 4 1 2 : Ο ih ω τυραννεϊς ο ν κρεμώμενον λάβης,Ι οντε προς αύτήν yr\v ένεχϋήναι όεΚεκ . . . In view o f the above q u o t e d e x a m p l e s , c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e Plautine passage, Copley's claim (art. cit., p . 2 9 9 ) , that 'the slavish p u n i s h m e n t s . . . are associated w i t h servitium amoris o n l y b y the R o m a n s [sc. the Elegists]' is quite unjustified. S e e also b e l o w , ch. III, η. 12. 125 Pl. Pl., pp. 1 3 4 f f . Fraenkel's view is shared b y Burck, Amor, p. 51 w i t h n. 2 8 . 12 6 Art. cit. (above, ch. I, η. 1), pp. 3 4 f f . I disagree, h o w e v e r , w i t h Tierney's c o n c l u s i o n s as regards Epid. 226—8 (art. cit., p. 3 7 ) , w h i c h I f o l l o w Fraenkel in considering Plautine: see b e l o w , pp. 1 2 5 f . 123

7 Zagagi (Hyp. 62)

97

follows on the passage in question: " . . . Trin. 250—5 just gives a list of the personal attendants of the greedy courtesan who waste the substance of the lover. The thought is identical with that of many passages of Old, Middle and New Comedy reminding one particularly of the Hawk song (Epicrates 2—3K) the only one known to courtesans." {art. cit., p. 41) 127 One must nevertheless allow for the possibility of some Plautine elaboration in this passage: nuntii-renuntii and raptores pañis et peni, for example, are almost certainly attributable to Plautus. The above analysis clearly demonstrates that a Philemonian origin for Section II is not at all improbable, although Plautine additions must be postulated at several points. Plautus' adaptation of this section contrasts notably in style with the preceding and the following sections, being neither repetitive in thought nor emotional in character as they so evidently are; 128 indeed, Burck clearly demonstrated the inconsistencies and poor construction of Section III in comparison with the coherent structure and ideas of the middle section. 129 These differences between Sections I and III and the second section, when taken together with the above-mentioned logical arguments concerning Lysiteles' personal involvement with the amor-res conflict, are sufficiently striking to suggest that they are of distinct origin, the middle section being attributable to Philemon and the other two to Plautus, 130 especially as repetitiousness is one of the most distinctive features of Plautus' style. 131 There is very little in the content of these two sections, moreover, which need be considered inconsistent with a Plautine origin. This seems especially true of Section I, where, in addition to the Plautine elements already noted by Fraenkel and Burck, 132 one should also consider the following: a) That part of Section I in which the question is mooted as to whether amor or res should be followed (227—33) begins and ends with an almost identical phrase: sed hoc non liquet ne c satis cogitatumst (227); cf. de hac re Tierney quotes Ar. Pl. 149ff.; Anaxil. fr. 22K. See also Ter. Heaut. 449ff., 751ff.; Ath. XIII, passim. 128 All cases of repetitiousness in these two sections are enumerated by Langen, op. cit. (above, n. 35), pp. 80f.; for the emotional character of Sections I and III see Burck, Amor, pp. 50, 52f.; cf. Kistrup, Die Liebe, p. 36. >» Amor, pp. 52ff. 130 Burck's attribution of the difference in artistic quality between Sections II and III to Plautus' lack of 'Ruhe, Geduld und logischer Kraft zur konsequenten Durchführung der anfangs aufgestellten Disposition' (Amor, p. 54) is hardly acceptable. 131 Langen, op. cit., pp. Iff.; Blänsdorf, op. cit. (above, ch. I, η. 2), passim. »32 Fraenkel, Pl. Pl., pp. 56, 349; Burck, Amor, p. 50.

98

mihi satis hau liquet (233). This semi-repetition is precisely the device which Fraenkel has long recognised as being Plautus' manner of indicating the beginning and end of his additions, both in the monologues and elsewhere in his plays. 133 Moreover, non liquet is a Roman juridical expression, 134 and it should be noted that juridical expressions, of which we have a further example in line 234 of this section (iudex sim reu 'que ad earn rem.), formed an integral part of the sermo plautinus, which, judging by the extant Comic fragments, was far from being the case with the Greek Comic writers. 135 Reference to the opening section of Mnesilochus* monologue (Bacch. 500ff.) and the corresponding passage of the Dis Exapaton (18ff.) shows that the former has been expanded by the introduction of a deliberative question which reflects, nevertheless, one of the themes of the Dis Exapaton: Inimiciorem nunc utrum credam magis sodalemne esse an Bacchidem incertum admodumst. This evidence for the practice of introducing into the opening section of a monologue, in emphatic form, a theme which is further treated in the same play, supports the idea of the similar introduction of the amor-res conflict into Lysiteles' monologue, which would seem to cast doubt on Burck and Kistrup's attribution of this conflict to the original Philemonian monologue. 136 Once again, however, the conflict in question is closely connected with the plot as a whole: it would seem that Plautus, rather than superimposing new ideas onto his models, was merely elaborating and clarifying ideas already embedded in the play. 137

133 Pi />/., pp. 11 i f f . , 146 and passim. 13" L & S, s.v. liqueo, III. B. That this is a Roman juridical expression is not pointed out, however, by modern interpreters. 135 See below, ch. III. 136 Burck, Amor, pp. 48 (quoted above, p. 90), 50; Kistrup, Die Liebe, p. 37. Neither Burck nor Kistrup were specific about the form they imagined the conflict to have taken in the type of Philemonian monologue which Burck (followed by Kistrup) proposed. For the question of Plautus' relation to Menander in those parts of the Bacchides of which we possess the original Menandrian version, see Handley, Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison (London, 1968); V. Pöschl, Die neuen Menanderpapyri und die Originalität des Plautus (Sitzungsber. Heidelberger Akad. d. Wtsi. (Heidelberg, 1973)); Sandbach, op. cit. (above, ch. I, η. 141), pp. 128ff. 137 Plautus was not alone among Roman writers in introducing conflicts into his Greek models: see Q. Lutatius Catulus, fr. 1 Morel (an adaptation of A.P. XII. 73 (Callimachus)).

99

b) Burck has already pointed out the evident discrepancy between Lysiteles' statement in lines 233—6 (Section lb) that he will consider the way of life involved in both amor and res, starting with amor, and his subsequent failure to analyse the nature of res:138 in fact, Lysiteles decides to follow res immediately after dismissing Amor (270ff.), and only subsequently does he initiate a short discussion of the way of life involving res.139 This inconsistency not only seems to give a further indication of the Plautine origin of Section I (and III) but also points to the likelihood of a Philemonian origin for Section II, since the latter section gives an elaborate description of the nature of amor, following which the representation of the nature of res in the closing lines of Section III is scanty in the extreme. Passing to Section III, we once again find that the passage, the gist of which concerns Lysiteles' rejection of Amor (258—69), begins and ends with an almost identical expression (apage te, Amor, non places ... (258); cf. apage te, Amor, tuas res tibi habeto ... (266)), is characterised by repetitiousness, and contains an obviously intercalated Roman juridical element — tuas res tibi habeto — the Roman formula of divorce, which serves to indicate Lysiteles' final renunciation of Amor. The juridical joke is unmistakably Plautine, and its recurrence here, when seen in conjunction with the points made above and with the views of Burck and Kistrup on these lines, 140 is sufficient to suggest that much of Lysiteles' rejection of Amor is to be attributed to Plautus. The use of the Greek expression apage (äiraye) here should also be pointed out, since Plautus tends to use it in a quasi-stereotyped way when he is attempting to convey a firm rejection of an idea, person or event previously referred to. 1 4 1 Besides Trin. 258 and 266, the formula is used by Plautus in connection with the demi-monde (here represented by Amor) in two other passages, 142 one of which Fraenkel has shown to be Plautine. 143 There is no evidence that Greek Comic writers used the expression to the same extent as Plautus, 144 whereas Terence uses it only twice. 145 In other words, 138

Amor, p. 52; cf. Kistrup, Die Liebe, p. 35. 139 Burck, Amor, pp. 53f. 140 Burck, Amor, pp. 52f.; Kistrup, Die Liebe, p. 36. 141 Lodge, Lex. Plaut., s.v. For further examples of Plautus' use oí apage in monologues , and cantica see Most. 436, 697; Cure. 598; Bacch. 372; Poen. 225; Trin. 838. i « ßacch. 73, 372. 1« i.e. Bacch. 372: Pl. Pl., pp. 152f. 144 "Απαγε in the sense used by Plautus ('begone'! 'away'!) occurs only twice in the extant Comic fragments: Theophil. fr. 4. 4K; Austin, CGFPR, fr. 253.12 (Adesp. Nov. P. Oxy. 10). 1« Eun. 756, 904.

100

although Lysiteles' formula for expressing rejection of Amor is originally Greek, it is nevertheless first and foremost a characteristically Plautine usage, conveying the stereotyped behavior-pattern of a typical Plautine character. The combination of apage te with the Roman juridical expression tuas res tibi habeto (266) is, therefore, strongly suggestive of a Plautine origin for Lysiteles' renunciation of Amor. The same can be said of line 258, where apage te is combined with non places, a formula frequently used by Plautus in similar contexts. 1 4 6 Also of Greek origin is the notion of 'bitter-sweet Amor' found in lines 259—60, 1 4 7 but once again it is unnecessary to attribute the idea specifically to Philemon: the number and variety of examples of this motif in Plautine Comedy 148 surely demonstrates that Plautus had assimilated it so thoroughly that he could use it independently of his Attic models. Burck is probably correct in observing that the occurrence of the motif here would not be exactly what the audience would expect to follow Lysiteles' first rejection of Amor in line 258: "Darum ist es verständlich, daß Lysiteles seinem jähen Entscheid eine Begründung anfügt. Er tut dies überraschenderweise in Form eines antithetisch zugespitzten Konzessivsatzes, in dem er den süßen Gaben Amors die bitteren Folgen gegenüberstellt (258f.)." {Amor, p. 52) A similar argument could be applied to the motif expressed in lines 261—4 {fugit forum, fug{it)at suos cognatos, fugat ipsus se ab suo contutu/ ñeque eum sibi amicum volunt dici.), but here it is less imperative to adduce a Greek background for the idea: 1 4 9 "Aber dem Essen und Trinken als den hervorgehobenen Lebensfreuden . .. müßte der hohe Kostenaufwand als bittere Kehrseite entsprechen. Nichts davon; vielmehr geht Plautus völlig unerwartet dazu über, die Mißachtung des amator bei den Freunden und Verwandten hervorzuheben, die er sich durch seine Abkehr von ihnen und von jeder öffentlichen Tätigkeit zuzieht." (Amor, p. 52) It would therefore seem that, as in the case of Alcesimarchus' monody, Plautus' innovations remain at least partly within Greek Erotic traditions. 1« Cf. Amph. 310; Mil. 210; Ps. 653; Most. 816a. 1 4 7 This notion is as old as Sapph. fr. 130. 2 L.-P. See E.-M. Voigt, Sappho et Alcaeus: Fragmenta (Amsterdam, 1971), n. ad loc.; G.-P., HE, nn. ad 4459, 900f. Cist. 69f.; Truc. 1 7 8 - 9 , 346; Pi. 63, 694f.; Cas. 222f.; Cist. 219? 149 Cf. Pl. Phdr. 252A; Plut. Amat. 762E; Charito, I. 1 . 9 - 1 0 ; Prop. II. 34. 5 - 6 ; Ov. A.A. I. 752f. Forum and cognatos suggest, however, a Roman context; the emphatic variation of fugit, fugitat, fugat is definitely Plautine, and I can find no parallel in Greek Erotic traditions for the idea 'neque eum sibi amicum volunt dici'. 101

I t is m o r e difficult t o decide the nature and c o n s e q u e n t attribution o f the m e t a p h o r c o n t a i n e d in lines 2 6 5 f . ( n a m qui in amorem peius

périt

quasi saxo saliat);

famous L e u c a d i a n r o c k ?

150

praecipitavit

/

should we infer t h a t the reference is t o the or t o that form o f capital punishment, current

in b o t h Greece and R o m e , which involved the casting o f the c o n v i c t from a specific r o c k ?

151

or should we ascribe the passage t o the indirect literary

influence o f E r o t i c m e t a p h o r s involving rocks and cliffs?

152

or could Plau-

tus have been working independently o f all these sources? T h e formulation o f the statement is o f t o o general a nature t o be definitely ascribed t o one or the o t h e r culture. T h a t part o f S e c t i o n III in which Lysiteles' decision t o follow res is explicitly stated ( 2 7 0 f f . ) can be positively identified as Plautine: such c o n c e p t s as res, fides,

honor,

gloria

and gratia were e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t in R o m a n society

and formed an integral p a r t o f R o m a n social and political t e r m i n o l o g y . 1 5 3 Lysiteles, in o t h e r words, sets before himself an ideal o f life which is entirely R o m a n in t e n o r . 1 5 4 150 See Anacr. fr. 94 Gentili (= 376 PMG) with n. ad loc. 1 5 1 Brix-Niemeyer-Conrad, n. ad loc. See, however, S. Vissering, Quaestiones Plautinae (Diss. Lugduni Batavorum, 1842), p. 74: 'Interpretes . . . hue trahunt Saxum Tarpeium . . . At eiusmodi "horribilis de saxo iactu' deorsum" satis improprie Plauto voce salire expressus esset.' It is interesting to note that βάραδρον, the cleft into which criminals were thrown (esp. in Athens), is used as a nickname for a hetaera in Theophil. fr. 11. 3K (F. Bechtel, Die attischen Frauennamen (Göttingen, 1902), p. 118); in Luc. Am. 5, it is applied to heterosexual love: . . . άλλ' ό μέν νπερφυώς παώικοίς ηδετο την drtketav Αφροδίτην βάραϋρον ηγούμενος ... 152 See Λ.P. V. 25. 1 - 3 (Philodemus): Όσσάκι Κυδίλλης ύποκόλπιος, είτε κατ' ήμαρ / ε'ίτ' άποτόλμήσας ήλυΰον έσπέριος, / οίδ', οτι πάρ κρημνόν τέμνω πόρον . . . ; cf. Ον. A.A. I. 381; Philostr. Ερ. 50: . . . ήσαν άρα και έρωτος πέτραι και όφάαλμών πνεύματα, ok τις απαξ ένσχεάείς καταδύεται... For the expression in amorem praecipitavit cf. Xen. Mem. I. 2.22: . . . TOlk βίς 'έρωτας έ^κυλωϋέντακ ... 153 See D.C. Earl, Historia, 9 (1960), pp. 235ff.; Fraenkel, RhM, 71 (1916), pp. 187ff.; R. Heinze, Hermes, 64 (1929), pp. 140ff. (= Vom Geist des Römertums (3rd edn., Stuttgart, 1960), pp. 59ff.); idem, op. cit., pp. 82ff.; F. Klose, Die Bedeutung von honos und honestus (Diss. Breslau, 1933), pp. 9ff.; idem, Neue Jahrb. für Antike & deutsche Bildung, 1 (1938), pp. 268ff.; U. Knoche, Philologus, 89 (1934), pp. 102ff. 154 Burck's suggestion (Amor, p. 53; cf. p. 48; Kistrup, Die Liebe, p. 36) that Plautus composed this part of the canticum (i.e. 11. 270ff.) by drawing upon Lysiteles' remarks later in the play (11. 651, 653, 656, 663ff., 689) is quite unnecessary. Not only is the terminology employed in both passages sufficiently Roman (and Plautine) in character as to render unnecessary any attribution of either passage to the Attic model (see above, n. 153), but Burck's suggestion is inconsistent with his subsequent observations: 'Beide Partien setzen aber trotz des römischen Tenors im Original des Philemon eine ähnliche Wertskala — und zwar vermutlich an beiden Stellen — 102

My analysis of Lysiteles' monody leads me to propose the following hypothesis: that Plautus has not introduced an entirely original monody into the framework of the Thesauros, but has made certain additions to a monologue found in his model; the Philemonian monologue, which was probably a straight-forward neutral description of the financial losses consequent on association with Eros (a monologue, in other words, of the type exemplified by Men. Thesauros, fr. 198), has been transformed into a deliberation over the properties of amor and res, with the former being subjected to fierce criticism and final rejection. The method of adaptation here postulated differs fundamentally from that apparently employed in the case of Alcesimarchus' monody, for there amplifications were apparently introduced within the framework of the original monologue, whereas here we have the original monologue, possibly almost intact, prefaced and concluded with entirely Plautine sections. On the other hand, the nature of the accretions is in both cases characterised by an admixture of Greek and Roman elements. Leo considered that Plautus' inspiration for Lysiteles' monody (in his opinion entirely Plautine) may have sprung from a passage later in the play (667ff.) which he considered Philemonian. 155 This passage is, in his view, 'das Ei, aus dem das Lied hervorgegangen ist' and contains 'dieselben Dinge die er [sc. Lysiteles] vorher im Liede behandelt hat', 1 5 6 an assertion which can hardly be justified as far as lines 668ff. are concerned. 1S7 Nevertheless, several Plautine scholars share his opinion, 158 invoraus. Nur dürfte sie Lysiteles sich dort in seinem Auftrittsmonolog als Gegensatz zur lockeren Lebensführung seines Freundes Lesbonicus vergegenwärtigt haben. Bei Plautus schließt, er dagegen mit dem decidierten Entschluß, lieber dem Vorbild der boni und probi als dem unredlichen Schwätzer zu folgen (275).' If Plautus had found the ideas in question in the Philemonian monologue, what need would he have had to turn to another part of the play for the self same ideas, the more so when the way in which these ideas are contrasted to way of life of Lesbonicus in the Philemonian monologue as postulated by Burck is practically the same as that found in Lysiteles' actual remarks later in the play? And how does the process of adaptation here postulated by Burck reconcile with his own attribution earlier in the same paper (Amor, p. 49), of the verbal reminiscences and similarity of ideas between this part of Section III and the subsequent conversation between Lysiteles and his father Philto (Act. II. 2 (276ff.); cf. Kistrup, Die Liebe, p. 36) to Plautus himself? '5S GRL, p. 116, n. 2. is« ¡bid. 157 Far more striking is the analogy between Trin. 670ff. and Cist. 219—20 noted above (p. 80). 158 Brix-Niemeyer-Conrad, Trinummus, p. 72; Kistrup, Die Liebe, p. 36, n. 7. For Burck, see below.

103

eluding Burck, who makes the following comment on line 667: "Diese Behauptung hatte bei Philemon Lesbonicus sicherlich im Vertrauen auf die Reife und Urteilsfähigkeit des Lysiteles hinnehmen sollen. Plautus hat dagegen den Wunsch verspürt, den Zuschauer die Wahrheit dieser Behauptung im Stück selbst erleben zu lassen. Er ist dadurch bewogen worden, einen Prüfungs- und Entscheidungsmonolog im ersten Viertel des Stückes einzuschieben." (Amor,

p. 48)

A possibility which has been entirely overlooked, but which my analysis brings out, is that line 667 may be an allusion by Plautus to his own additions to the monody. In other words, Leo's and Burck's views on the Philemonian origin of line 667 are not above question, since if Plautus transformed the Philemonian monologue as suggested above, he may have inserted line 667 as a recapitulation of the ideas expressed by Lysiteles in Sections I and III of the monody, in order to remind the audience of what he may have considered a highly effective scene. 159 In any case, the analogy between line 667 and Lysiteles' monody is certainly not a logical justification for the attribution of the whole of the latter to Plautus, since if the line is Plautine the above argument pertains, and if it is Philemonian there is nevertheless no reason to suppose that it should have inspired Plautus to construct an entire monody and insert it at a stage in the play where an entirely different monologue existed in the model. Indeed, if it is Philemonian, all that may safely be deduced is that it may have triggered o f f the chain of ideas which Plautus expressed in his version of the monolgoue. The problem remains as to why Plautus should have made such additions to Philemon's original monologue. There seems to be no parallel in Greek Erotic traditions for his treatment of the amor-res conflict. It may not be unreasonable to draw the conclusion that the predominantly Roman character of the closing lines of Lysiteles' monody, and the typically Roman emphasis on res as opposed to amor throughout the accretions to the monologue, are indications that the point of view expressed, in exaggerated form, in the Plautine passages is consistent with a contemporary Roman reaction against the extravagances of the Hellenistic way of life, especially as they were reflected in the institution of the hetaera. A usage which seems to reflect the same attitude, and which would therefore support the above suggestion, is the Plautine use of pergraecari

160

159 A similar practice was postulated by Fraenkel (Pl. Pl., pp. 168ff. esp. p. 177) in relation to Most. 137ff. and Most. 161ff. while refuting Leo's opinion that the latter was the germ from which Plautus' inspiration f o r the former developed. >«o Poen. 603; Bacch. 813; True. 88; Most. 22, 64, 960; also Bacch. 743.

104

Conclusions The picture of Plautus' relation to his Attic models derived from the above analysis of two of his amatory cantica does not seem to correspond to modern scholarly claims regarding Plautus' originality in this area. Not only is he found to depend to a considerable extent, in matters of content, on his primary sources even in passages where he has diverged substantially in form from the originals, but even when he does introduce new elements into his adaptations, his inventiveness is often found to have been stimulated by ideas drawn from within the scope of Greek Erotic traditions, although Roman ideas are also introduced in places. His originality, then, seems to consist in the introduction of Roman elements, together with Greek elements drawn from secondary sources, into the framework of his primary models, the Greek elements being strongly predominant in the Latin version. Knowledge of most of these Greek Erotic ideas was probably gained by Plautus directly from the νέα, although the possibility of the infiltration of Hellenistic ideas into his plays through the medium of the minor dramatic forms of Southern Italy cannot be excluded, a case in point being the theme Amor-cruciabilitates animi in Alcesimarchus' monody. Since the prevalent Greek background of the two cantica here analysed seems to have been established, contrary to modern opinions that the cantica are predominantly Plautine in inspiration, could it not be suspected that other amatory passages in Plautus' works, less commonly attributed to Plautus himself, are probably even more indebted to Greek traditions? Leo, Hoelzer and Preston 161 certainly demonstrated the existence of a rich Greek background for Plautine amatory convention in general, although it did not occur to them to postulate the use by Plautus of Erotic motifs culled from secondary Greek sources: wherever they came across Greek elements in Plautine Comedy they attributed them unfailingly to the primary source itself, their approach to the Greek background thus proving rather limited. For it is suggested in this chapter that inventiveness within the framework of a much wider Greek Erotic tradition than that envisaged by the above-mentioned critics was one of the most important aspects of Plautus' originality. 161

See above, Introd., n. 3.

105

C H A P T E R III

Plautus' Juridicisation 1 of Amatory Motifs T h e extent of Plautus' indebtedness to Greek Erotic traditions, either through direct use of his A t t i c models or indirectly through other Greek C o m i c or non-Comic sources, having been demonstrated, the possibility that Plautus nevertheless introduced entirely original elements into the f r a m e w o r k of these Greek traditions should n o w b e examined. A striking e x a m p l e of such new elements is the e m p l o y m e n t of R o m a n juridical terminology in passages dealing with love or with the experiences of lovers. T h e special significance 2 of these passages lies not so m u c h in the apparent absence of corresponding p h e n o m e n a b o t h f r o m N e w C o m e d y as it is known t o us through the extant fragments and through Terence's adaptations, and from Hellenistic p o e t r y , c o m m o n l y s u p p o s e d t o have been greatly influenced b y N e w C o m e d y , 3 as in their exclusively R o m a n character, which itself lends colour t o the suggestion that they are original Plautine elements. F o r instance, in the passage f r o m the Trinummus

dis-

cussed above ( T r i n 2 6 6 ; above, p. 1 0 0 ) , it is the R o m a n f o r m u l a of divorce — tuas res tibi habeto

— that is used b y Lysiteles to indicate his rejection

o f A m o r . F e w would not agree that here any a t t e m p t to postulate a Romanisation of s o m e element derived f r o m Philemon would prove unfruitful, since there can be little d o u b t that the use of the f o r m u l a therein should b e attributed to Plautus. T h e same must apply to m a n y of the passages which will b e discussed below, the provenance of which is similarly indicated b y the terminology e m p l o y e d . J u d g i n g , moreover, b y the

Throughout this b o o k the terms 'juridicisation', 'juridicize' are used to convey the idea of transforming concepts, situations, motifs, patterns of behaviour etc. into juridical ones by investing them with juridical elements. While admitting the difficulties arising f r o m this u n o r t h o d o x usage, there seems to be no recognised terms in English f o r concisely expressing the idea in question. 2 Hitherto practically ignored by Plautine scholars, but see Preston, Sermo, pp. 50f., 54. 3 Later Greek sources, however, do provide us with two significant examples: Aristaenet. Ep. II. 1. 1 0 - 1 2 (quoted below, n. 4 2 ) and Ach. Tat. I. 11 (quoted above, ch. II, η. 34). 1

106

extant Comic fragments, the exploitation for comic effects of juridical terminology was far less common in New Comedy than in Plautus. 4 Indeed, Plautus appears to have differed in this respect not only from the writers of the νέα but also from Terence, who, seeking to give a faithful rendering of the Greek atmosphere of his models, employed such expressions with considerable restraint. 5 One should emphasise the domestic nature and predominantly intimate atmosphere of the νέα, with which the frequent mention of juridical matters and the law courts that we find in Plautus would hardly be compatible. Hence, even without reference to other considerations, and although the possibility of Romanisation cannot be excluded, it may be deduced that many such juridical motifs originated with Plautus, at least in those cases where the motifs are extraneous to the plot and are confined to increasing the comic effect, as in the examples discussed below. 6 To what may we attribute Plautus' introduction of additional juridical elements into his Greek models? The most probable explanation is the eminent suitability of a legal type of humour for an audience reared in an atmosphere pervaded with law-court activities; when Plautus portrays his characters assuming a magisterial air, 7 threatening each other with

4

For the use in Middle and New Comedy of juridical terminology for comic effect see e.g. Antiph. fr. 123. 6K; fr. 207. 10K; fr. 267K; Aristophon, fr. 11. IK; Alex. fr. 27K; fr. 56K; Philem. fr. 88. 9 - 1 IK; fr. 231K; Men. fr. 68; Dysk. 469ff. (Gomme & Sandbach, η. ad loc.; Handley, n. ad loc.)·, Epitr. 229, 368f., 401ff. (Gomme & Sandbach, η. ad 402), 417f. (Gomme & Sandbach, η. ad loc.), 1069 (Gomme & Sandbach, η. ad loc.). 5 See e.g. Phorm. 212 (F. Bertini, Plauti Asinaria (Genova, 1968), n. ad 172); Eun. 319 (Donat. n. ad loc.), 886f. (J. Straus, op. cit. (above, ch. II, η. 62), p. 2)·, Phorm. 334 (Donat. n. ad loc.), 437; cf. 439; 452 (Donat. n. ad 437), 1055 (Donat. n. ad loc.); Heaut. 351f. (L & S, s.v. accuso, II A), 354, 564; cf. Eun. 985; Phorm. 1009 (Otto, op. cit. (above, ch. I, n. 22), s.v. agere, 2); see also below, nn. 7, 11. For the juridical elements in Plautus and Terence see E. Costa, Il diritto privato Romano nelle commedie di Plauto (Torino, 1890; repr. Roma, 1968); L. Pernard, Le droit romain et le droit grec dans le théâtre de Piaute et de Terence (Diss. Lyon, 1900); O. Fredershausen, De iure Plautino et Terentiano (Diss. Göttingen, 1906); U. E. Paoli, Comici latini e diritto attico (Milano, 1962). 6 Cf. Fraenkel, addenda, p. 399. 7 Striking examples are Cleareta in Asin. 504ff. (see below, pp. 117f.); Ballio in Ps. 133ff. (below, p p . l 2 6 f . ; Fraenkel,Pl. Pl., pp. 144ff.); Ergasilus in Capt. 781ff. (Fraenkel, Pl. Pl., pp. 133f.); Periplectomenus in Mil. 156ff. (Fraenkel, Pl. Pl., p. 145, η. 1); Pseudolus in Ps. 125ff.; see also Stich. 353; Epid. 25ff.; Capt. 907. For the use of the Imperative in -tote in Plautus (and in Terence) as an imitation of magisterial diction see H. Haffter, WS, 69 (1956), pp. 363ff. For praetura see Epid. 25ff.

107

juridical action for trivial injuries, real or imaginary, 8 describing their everyday activities and negotiations in terms of binding contractual obligations, 9 or imagining themselves to be under a threat of criminal conviction or capital punishment, 10 he is employing a humoristic device which could not fail to appeal to his legal-minded audience. Moreover, Plautus must have drawn a further advantage from the interweaving of images drawn from the sphere of Roman public life into the intimate domestic atmosphere of his originals, for the resultant discrepancy lent itself to the achieving of certain effects, such as the aggrandizement of his characters and their experiences, without relying on the methods employed in his Attic models for achieving the same effects, methods which may have been less intelligible to the Roman audience. Indeed, the type of aggrandizement employed so frequently by Plautus, unlike that involving mythological hyperbole, seems to have been specifically Roman, for while nothing of the kind occurs in the extant Greek Comic fragments, similar phenomena are found occasionally (although in a less exaggerated form) in Terence. 11 Anyway, that method of aggrandizement involving juridical terminology was undoubtedly better appreciated by the Roman audience than that involving mythological hyperbole, since it reflected their everyday experiences; in other words, in thus romanizing the situations found in his Attic models, Plautus was not only achieving the particular comic effect that he was seeking, but also rendering the situation of his characters more intelligible to his audience, all the more so because the remarkable frequency of juridical terminology in Plautus suggests that it must have been regularly employed in contemporary colloquial speech. By commencing our discussion of the amatory passages in question with those which contain motifs and metaphors for which some Greek background, Comic or otherwise, may be adduced, we should be able not only to observe the poet's handling of his materials against a specific background but also to draw some instructive conclusions about his concept of love in 8 See e.g. Asín. 13If.; True. 760—2 (P. J. Enk, Plauti Truculentus (Lugduni Batavorum, 1953), vol. II, nn. ad loc.). 9 See e.g. the promises made in the form of a stipulatici in Ps. 114—17, 535—8, 1 0 7 0 - 8 . G. Williams, art. cit. (above, ch. I, n. 141), pp. 424ff. 10 See e.g. Aul. 700; Truc. 819 (Enk, η. ad loc.); Ps. 1232; Asm. 937. Lovers in New Comedy who, like Lyconides in Aul. 700, are experiencing worries about the future of their love affairs, do not express their anxiety in terms of capital punishment: see e.g. Men. Mis. 259ff.; Ter. Phorm. 606ff.; Ad. 610ff. 11 Ter. Eun. 806f.; cf. 1 0 6 3 - 6 (Donat. n. ad 806); above, n. 7.

108

general, and in so doing we may be helped towards assessing the extent of his originality vis-à-vis his models. The motif of servitium amoris12 will serve as a convenient starting point for our discussion, since the differences between the Greek and Plautine conceptions of the slavery of love are quite striking. Moreover, the analogy between the lover and the slave was one of the commonest images in Greek Erotic traditions (and Latin Love Elegy); 13 several examples of it are found even in the scanty extant fragments of Menandrian Comedy, 14 including one from the Dis Exapaton,15 from which Plautus adapted the Bacchides, the source of most of the examples quoted below. The Greek metaphor of the lover's enslavement to his beloved was emotive in tenor, expressing the lover's state of mind, his strong attachment for his mistress and his submissive attitude to her. 16 The servile vocabulary employed (δούλος, δουλεία, δουλεύω etc.) was, moreover, of a non-technical character, and had long been in metaphorical use: 1 7 it could not, therefore, even suggest the legalistic nature of the type of lover's enslavement portrayed by Plautus in Bacch. 92f. Here, young Pistoclerus finally submits

'2 See F. O. Copley, art. cit. (above, ch. I, n. 138), pp. 285ff.; S. Lilja, The Roman Elegists' Attitude to Women (Helsinki, 1965), pp. 76ff. A brief discussion of Plautus' use of legal phraseology in relation t o the servant-lover is f o u n d in Preston, Sermo, pp. 50f. As the present study will show, Copley's claim (art. cit., p. 291) that 'the works of Plautus show no example of the figure' is hardly justified. See also above, ch. II, η. 124; below, nn. 13, 16. As for Kistrup, see below, n. 36. 13 The motif under discussion was far more common in the Greek literature of the Classical and Alexandrian periods than is held by Copley (art. cit., p. 290) and was b y no means 'current chiefly, if not exclusively, in the f o r m of the godslave myth, used as exemplum' in this literature (ibid.). Copley's list of examples should be supplemented by the following: Xen. Smp. IV. 14; Mem. I. 3. 11; PI. Smp. 184C, 215E, 219E;PAdr. 252A; A.P. XII.81. 5 (Meleager); 169. 3 - 4 (Dioscorides). See also below, nn. 14, 15. i* Men. fr. 568; Λί«. fr. 2; Sam. 625. 15

Dis Ex. 24 (Gomme & Sandbach, η. ad loc.). Plautus, however, did not carry over this metaphor in his adaptation of Sostratos' monologue (Bacch. 500ff. = Dis Ex. 18ff.). 16 In view of some of the examples quoted above (nn. 13—15) there seems to be n o real basis for Copley's claim (art. cit., p. 298) that 'the romantic-sentimental idea of the lover's humble abasement, of his servile attitude, is unexampled in any Greek writings now available f r o m the period before the first century B.C.' and his consequent attribution of this to the Roman Elegists; many of the examples which he brings forward seem to have been misinterpreted by him. 17 See F. Gschnitzer, Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei. 1: Grundzüge des vorhellenistischen Sprachgebrauchs (Akad. d. Wiss. u. d. Lit. in Mainz, Abhandl. d. geistes- u. sozialwiss. Kl., Nr. 13 (1963; Wiesbaden, 1964), pp. 1289f.

109

to the wiles of the seductive meretrix Bacchis, declaring himself to be her slave in the following terms: mulier, tibi me

emancupo:

tuo' sum . . . Woman, I transfer myself to your possession through mancipatio: I am yours . . .

The terminology implies the making over of property by a formal act of sale; i.e. Pistoclerus is saying, Ί am your mancipium, your legitimate property.' Thus we find that in the Plautine version of the Greek metaphor, the emotional content of the traditional image of amatory slavery has been overshadowed by the legal implications of the technical phrase tibi me emancupo. The audience is suddenly confronted with a ceremonial act of mancipatio arbitrarily added to the simple, direct act of submission implied by the phrase tuo' sum, which may have been the form taken by the original. In other words, instead of a slavery metaphor couched in neutral terms and expressive of an emotional state of mind, Plautus presents us with a situation of actual slavery, sanctioned by a formal act of sale. The result of this comic transformation is the aggrandizement of the lover's experience. The legalistic nature of Plautine servitium amoris (as opposed to the conception of it held by the Greeks) may be further illustrated by Bacch. 1205. Here, the servants of love are the senex Nicobulus and (or so Nicobulus suggests) his friend Philoxenus; the former, having finally submitted, like Pistoclerus, to the advances made to him by the sisters Bacchis, admits his defeat in similar terms: ducite nos quo lubet tamquam quidem

addictos.

Take us where you please, just as if we were your veritable bond servants. (Nixon's translation)

Now, addictus refers to that debtor who was adjudged to his creditor as a bondsman for sixty days by praetorian verdict, as a result of his having failed to settle his debt during a period of thirty days and having become subject to a personal execution (manus iniectio); if, after this further sixty days, his debt was still outstanding, he could (at least in early historical times) either be killed by his creditor or sold by him beyond the boundaries of Rome (trans Tiberim), which latter case entailed loss of property, freedom and citizenship. 18 The implication of this servile metaphor, therefore, is 18 Gell. XX. 1. 4 2 - 7 ; W. W. Buckland, A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge, 1921), pp. 614f.; G. A. Leist, RE, I, s.v. Addictus.

110

not the voluntary undertaking by the lover himself of a permanent enslavement, as in the previous example, but rather the enforced assumption of a temporary and obligatory bondage with dire consequences. Moreover, it hints at the financial risks taken by the lover who involves himself in an affair with a hetaera, since, under the Plautine convention of exaggeration, the extravagance of the amounts lavished on this class of woman may reduce the lover to debt and slavery. The would-be amator Nicobulus, then, foreseeing both the insatiable demands of the sisters Bacchis and his own inability to resist them, already regards these expenses as an unpayable debt and looks upon himself as a debtor who, even before spending a single night with the hetaerae, has been adjudged to them as to his creditors. 19 It is unlikely that such a type of bondage was referred to in the Dis Exapaton, for although enslavement for debt was a universal institution during Classical and Hellenistic times in other Greek cities, this was not the case in Athens, where such a practice was banned by one of the Solonic laws20 (although it is possible that exceptional cases of a similar type of enslavement may be referred to in Menander and Attic Oratory). 21 In any case, it is hardly conceivable that an Athenian playwright like Menander would exploit purely for comic effect an institution banned as illegal in Athens as early as the sixth century B.C. For Plautus, on the other hand, the analogy between the lover and the addictus was probably quite frequent in the context of the lover-demi-mondaine relationship: certainly it reappears in Poen. 720, where the supposed client Collybiscus accepts the Leno's invitation to enter his house in the following manner: abduc intro. addictum

tenes.

Lead me in. In me you have your bond servant.

In both this passage and Bacch. 1205, the introduction of the juridical term addictus fulfils Plautus' habitual object of aggrandizement, by implying grave consequences for what is, after all, the very ordinary act of being led into a meretrix's house. Moreover, the juxtaposition of ducere (and abducere) and addictus, even though in different halves of the line, 19

For a similar exaggeration see Stich. 750—1: utrubi accumbo? : : utrubi : : cum ambobus volo, nam ambos amo. / : : vapulat peculium, actum est.: hoc libertas caput. Petersmann, n. ad 751; Donat. n. ad Ter. Eun. 54 (a.l. est): de iure translatum. 20 Arist. Ath. Pol. 9. On enslavement for debt in Greece see. M. I, Finley, de droit français et étranger, 43 (1965), pp. 159ff. 21 See Gomme & Sandbach, n. ad Men. Her. 36.

tu vis? : fugit actum Rev.

hist,

Ill

supports the suggestion of the Plautine origin of the jokes, since ducere was the normal technical verb used to express the idea of the creditor's leading off the debtor to his own house. 22 The Bacchides furnishes a further telling example of Plautus' representation of the lover-slave (179—81). As young Pistoclerus, the newly-initiated lover, leaves Bacchis' house, he confesses that his love is the formili surety which guarantees his return: mirumst me ut redeam te opere tanto quaesere, qui abire hinc nullo pacto possim, si velim: ita me vadatum amore vinctumque attines. It seems strange to me that you beg me so hard to come back when I could in no way leave this place even if I wished: In such a way do you hold me, bound by the bail of love and fettered by it.

It seems clear that Plautus is here juxtaposing his own conception of servitium amoris to that of Menander. For Moschion, the original of Pistoclerus, is probably bound to his mistress by emotion and devotion expressed in the neutral image of 'chains of love' (vinctum), 23 and it is undoubtedly Plautus who has added to this emotional image the terminology of a concrete juridical obligation (vadatum). 24 For it is as if the lover is a defendant summoned by his creditor (Bacchis) to appear at the law court (her house), and since his case is not completed at one session he is bound over by his own verbal surety (vadimonium) to reappear at a future session. The obligatory element inherent in the juridical metaphor, completely absent from vinctus and presumably from the Greek original, should be pointed out, especially, since it mirrors the situation in the addictus image previously quoted, which also referred to a debtor-creditor relationship. Plautus' introduction of the vadatus metaphor serves to aggrandize the bond between the lovers in the farewell scene, since the debtor to whom the lover compares himself could have been sued by his creditor for the sum promised in the vadimonium had he failed to re-present himself in court at the appointed session. 25 « See Gell. XX. 1. 45; L & S, í.y. duco, B3. 23 Cf. Plaut. Tritt. 658: ita vi Veneris vinctus·, [Men.] Pap. Antinoop.

15. 11 — 12:

αύτής έλευϋέρωι yàp ήΰει. και βίωι / δβόείς άπλάστωι την φιλούσαν ή·γάπ[ων. For vincula amoris in Hellenistic Epigram and Latin Love Elegy see M. Rothstein, Philologus, 59 (1900), pp. 451ff.; A. La Penna, Maia, 4 (1951), pp. 187ff.; Copley, art. cit., p. 296. 24 Ussing, n. ad loc: 'quasi vadibus datis obligatum, ut adsim.' 25 A. Steinwenter, RE, VIIA, s.v. Vadimonium, cols 2055, 2 0 5 9 - 6 1 .

112

The analogy between the bondage of love and vadimonium crops up again in the Curculio (162ff.), and its recurrence here suggests that Plautus may have used this image regularly in the context of gallant relationships. Phaedromus and Planesium, speaking as if they are the opposing parties in a legal action, discuss their meeting in terms of an obligatory appearance in the law court. Planesium claims that it is the goddess Venus in person who has stood surety (vadimonium) for the appearance of not only one but both of them: PL. ubi tu's qui me convadatu's26 Veneriis vadimoniis? 27 sisto ego tibi me et mihi contra itidem ut sistas suadeo. PH. adsum; nam si apsim, hau recusem quin mihi male sit, mei meum. PL.

PH.

Where are you who summoned me to appear with you (in the court) with Venus standing as surety? I present myself and request that you should do likewise. Present! for had I defaulted, I would not protest if things went badly for me, my honey.

26 The compound verb con-vador is a άπαξ Xeyoßevov. Elsewhere in his Comedies, Plautus uses the simple verb vadari, which is the usual technical term for the binding over of a person by bail to appear in court. Monaco's explanation (Plauto: Curculio (Palermo, 1969), n. ad loc.), following that of A. Traina in Comedia (2nd. edn., Padova, 1966), p. 69, that the c o m p o u n d convador, in contrast with the simple vador in Bacch. 181, signifies a punctuality of action, is unacceptable. Far more satisfactory is Ussing's interpretation: 'convadatus pro vada tus hoc uno loco legitur, sed recte, nam vadimonium m u t u u m est.' In other words, b o t h the parties involved in this trial, Phaedromus and Planesium, have bound each other over by bail to appear 'in court', that is, at their rendezvous. The prefix con- (originally com-) here designates — as is the case with many other compounds prefixed by com— the 'bringing together of objects', 'togetherness'. Plautus had undoubtedly thought up this c o m p o u n d specifically t o describe the situation of his characters as binding each other over to appear, a situation which, after all, has n o parallel in everyday juridical affairs. Translations of this passage have unfortunately omitted to take into consideration the implication of mutuality involved in this improvised compound, (see Nixon; Monaco; Paratore (Plauto: Curculio (Firenze, 1958)); Ernout). 27 Modern translators' free renderings of the expression Veneriis vadimoniis are in the main unsatisfactory and misleading: the phrase means neither 'the court of Venus' (Nixon; cf. L & S, s.v. convador) nor 'citazione amorosa' (Monaco), nor 'comparazione amorosa' (Paratore), nor 'assignation d'amour' (Ernout); a literal translation would be 'by Venus's sureties' (Plautus uses the adjective Venerius elsewhere in his Comedies exclusively to refer to the goddess herself, and not to her attributes; Lodge, Lex. Plaut., s.v.). As in the previous note, the situation of the same person standing a surety for opposing parties in a trial is relevant only as a metaphor in the unique situation on stage, and has n o literal application.

8 Zagagi (Hyp. 62)

113

The juridical terminology employed in this scene does not seem to correspond very exactly to the circumstances to which it is applied. Not only is a clearly voluntary act (a long-desired meeting between involuntarily separated lovers) presented by the parties concerned as an obligatory one, but the goddess of love herself is reduced to the stature of a human surety (vas) in an imaginary court of love. Plautus is exercising his imagination on two different levels — the public and the private — simultaneously, and a regular interchange occurs between these two levels. The slight superficial analogy between the lovers' rendezvous and a compulsory appearance in court on a set day is sufficient for Plautus to effect an 'interchange of worlds', probably without his devoting much thought in his chase after comic effects to the consequences of this 'poetic barbarism' on the emotional and personal nature of the scene and the credibility of the characters. It is this very substitution of concrete juridical terms for emotional ones that is most indicative of the ethos of both Plautus and his legal-minded audience, for it is undoubtedly the pre-eminent role of juridical affairs and concepts in contemporary Roman life which brought about the poet's introduction of the imagery of legal obligations into the context of human relationships in general, displacing the element of free will involved in these even when it is most expected. The next example once more presents a Venus involved in law court activities and is another instance of Plautus' juridicisation of the concept of servitium amoris. Early in the Pseudolus there is a dialogue between Calidorus and his slave Pseudolus which contains the following remarks (13-15): CALI, misere miser sum, Pseudole. PS. id te Iuppiter prohibessit! CALI, nihil hoc Io vis ad judicium attinet: sub Veneris regno vapulo,28 non sub Iovis. CALI. How miserable I am, Pseudolus! PS. Jove forbid! CALI. This is not a case for Jupiter! It is under Venus's jurisdiction that I am sentenced to servile flogging, not under Jupiter's.

28 Vapulare is used by Plautus mostly in connection with the punishment of slaves: see Epid. 147; Merc. 168, 397; Most. 240; Rud. 1401 ; Pers. 22, 269, 298; A sin. 479; Poen. 855; Cure. 215. Besides Ps. 15 the verb occurs once more in Plautus in the context of love: True. 357 (vah! vapulo herele ego nunc, atque adeo male.). It is also used in this sense in Prop. II. 12. 20. Burck's claim in relation to the Propertian passage (Amor, p. 61) that 'dieser Vergleich liegt, soweit ich sehe, den Epigrammen der Anthologie fem' is incorrect. See above, ch. II, η. 124; also pp. 75f. As for Copley, see above, ch. II, η. 124.

114

Here the joke depends upon the strictly defined spheres of Roman magisterial influence, especially where the different judicial magistrates, the praetors, were concerned. Calidorus speaks of Venus as of a praetor in charge of the administration of justice in cases involving lovers, and it is in this human capacity that she has sentenced him to servile flogging. There is an evident analogy between this passage and those quoted above (the vadatus and addictus imagery) as regards the conception of servitium amoris: each time the terms of reference are judicial rather than emotional, and the servant of love is also a defendant in the court of love; again, the element of obligation inherent in the judicial situation is common to all the passages, for in this last case the servile flogging — representing the torments of love and the lover's misfortune — is specifically referred to (as in the addictus image) as a sentence imposed on the lover by praetorian verdict. It has already been mentioned 2 9 that the analogy between the torments of love and the torture of slaves (of which several examples exist in Plautus, at least one of them probably culled from the Attic model) 3 0 is by no means a Plautine invention, but appears not only in Greek literature (including Attic Comedy) but also in Latin Love Elegy; again, one of the commonest features of servitium amoris as it is found in Latin Love Elegy is the concept of the slave-lover tortured in various ways by his mistress 31 — a notion which is probably also of Greek origin. 32 But the representation of the metaphorical slave punishment as subsequent to a judicial decision occurs only here, which implies that Plautus may here too have introduced a new element into the framework of the original image. Here the servile flogging no longer forms an integral part of the model of the servitium amoris but is. an external element, enforced by judicial decree and hence neutralized and voided of emotional connotations. Cist. 203—10, of which the Menandrian origin has already been demonstrated, comes to mind as a suitable passage to contrast with the line under consideration, since here too reference is made to a method of slave torture, but the manner of representation is highly emotive in tenor. The above analysis of Plautus' juridicisation of the concept of servitium amoris seems to demonstrate that his concept of love-bondage was not entirely compatible with that of the Greeks. Plautine love-bondage is by » Above, p. 73. 30 i.e. Cist. 203ff. See above, pp. 7Iff. 31 Above, ch. II, η. 123. 32 See above, ch. II, η. 124. 115

nature legalistic; although it may be voluntarily undertaken by the lover, as in Bacch. 92, this is the exception to the rule: the typical way in which the lover becomes a bondsman is through a judicial action, usually initiated by the meretrix herself in her capacity of creditor. 33 Even the servile floggings do not escape this process of juridicisation, since the lover regards them as a sentence imposed upon him by a law-court. How different this bondage is from the Greek δουλεία of love, which remained an exclusively intimate, exclusively emotional experience, devoid of obligatory or legalistic elements! 34 Indeed, the contrasts between the Plautine and the Greek conceptions of love-bondage are so striking as to suggest something more than a mere wish on Plautus' part to entertain his audience by aggrandizing his characters' experiences; could it not rather be a typically Roman conception of love that Plautus reflects in his manipulation of the metaphor? Certainly we find that Horace and the Elegists also invested the love-bondage metaphor with legalistic elements from time to time, 35 which would tend to support the suggestion that Plautus, since he was not unique among Roman poets in holding a legalistic conception of love, may in part have been mirroring his audience's mental outlook in juridicizing the traditional Greek image. Be this as it may, it is not improbable that Plautus may have been the forerunner of the above-mentioned Roman poets in his treatment of this metaphor. 3 6 Much of Plautus' originality in the above-quoted passages consists in his very transference of the lover-demi-mondaine relationship into the austere 33 Contrast with the prominance of the notion of 'èùeXoSovkeia' among the Greek examples. For this notion see above, ch. II, η. 106. 34 See, however, the use of κύριος (a legal term!) in Men. Sam. 632 and in Fr. Grenf. 27, 42, 48, 51, 60. 35 Hor. Epod. 9. 1 If.: Romanus... emancipatus feminae. (E. C. Wickham, Horace, Vol. I: The Odes, Carmen Saeculare and Epodes (2nd. edn., Oxford, 1912), n. ad loc.); Prop. III. 11. 1—2: quid mirare, meam si versât femina vitam / et trahit addictum sub sua iura virum; III. 10.18: inque meum semper stent tua regna caput (M. Rothstein, Die Elegien des Sextus Propertius (2nd. edn., Berlin, 1924), Vol. II, n. ad loc.); Ον. Am. III. 11. 3: . . . adserui tarn me (Brandt, η. ad loc.); Rem. Am. 73f.: publicus assertor dominis supressa levabo / pectora: / vindictae quisque favete suae; cf. ibid. 96; F. W. Lenz, Ovid. Heilmittel gegen die Liebe: Die Pflege des weiblichen Gesichtes (2nd. edn., Berlin, 1972), n. ad 73; Lilja, op. cit. (above, η. 12), pp. 84, 86. 36 The significance of the Plautine passages under discussion is completely overlooked by Kistrup, who failed to include them in her comparative study of Plautus and the Elegists. A graver defect is her failure to recognise the presence in Plautus of the analogy between the slave-master and the lover-mistress relationship (Die Liebe, p. 185, n. 1.). See also above, ch. II, η. 123.

116

setting of the law courts, with the concomitant introduction of law-court imagery (vadatus, vadimonium, addictus, magisterial Venus, Venus as a vas)',31 could we not consider his resultant amatoricisation of the law courts as a rudimentary notion of a court of love? In any case, no parallel for this merging of juridical and amatory themes occurs in Greek Erotic traditions: Plautus is here employing an entirely novel method of aggrandizing his personae and their passions (and is possibly the forerunner of similar phenomena in Latin Love Elegy). 38 The recurrence of the notion twice more in Plautine Comedy suggests, moreover, that it probably formed an integral part of Plautus' stock treatment of the lover-demi-mondaine relationship: In the Truculentus, Phronesium's maid, Astaphium, dilating upon the moral justification for a meretrix's plundering of her lover's resources, credits the former with the powers of a judicial magistrate in her dealings with the lover (229-30): numquam amatoris meretricem oportet caussam noscere, quin, ubi nil det, pro infrequente eum mittat militia domum. Never should a meretrix admit a plea from a lover: were he to give her nothing, let her cashier him as a deserter. 39

In the Asinaria it is the lena Cleareta herself who, assuming a magisterial air, warns her daughter Philaenium that unless the latter's poor lover Argyrippus brings a sum of twenty minae on his forthcoming visit to their house, he will be thrown out; she concludes thus (534): hie dies summust apud me inopiae

excusatio.

This is the very last day that I have accepted pleas of poverty.

Later in the play we learn that the 'praetor' Cleareta has carried out her threat: indeed, even before hearing the lover's case, she has dismissed him, as he tells Philaenium (594):

37 For Plautus' use of law-court imagery in the context of love see also Asin. 606f.: bene vale: apud Orcum te videbo. / nam equidem me iam quantum potest a vita abiudicabo. (similar threats of suicide by lovers in New Comedy contain no such juridical elements: see e.g. Men. Mis. 320f.; Perik. 976; Sam. 91; Ter. Phorm. 202, bòli.·, And. 311); Ps. 32: advortito animum. : : non adest. : : at tu cita. (Lorenz, Pseudolus, p. 31, η. 31.); Cure. 3—6: quo Venu' Cupidoque imperat, suadetque Amor:/ si media nox est sive est prima vespera, / si statu', condictus cum hoste intercedit dies, / tamen est eundum quo imperant ingratiis. (Monaco, n. ad 5). M See below, n. 41. 39 Enk, nn. ad loc.

117

mater supremam mihi tua dixit, domum ire iussit. Your mother has announced (to me) the close of the day's session: 40 she ordered me to go home.

Plautus' imaginary court of love is a reflection of a real one, with the role of defendant usually taken by the lover and that of plaintiff (or sometimes even of judge) by the hetaera, while Venus and the demimonde administer justice (although Venus may on occasion usurp the role of vas). A similar representation of the lover-mistress relationship in terms of a plaintiff-defendant confrontation is also found in Latin Love Elegy, 41 but again has no counterpart in Greek Erotic traditions, whether Comic or otherwise. 42 On examining those passages in which the charges against the defendant-lover are either specified or implied, it is found that the prosecution of the lover stems above all from his failure to meet the financial or other demands of the hetaera or lena. In other words, it is quite likely that Plautus has juridicized the concept of amatory gifts and payments which he found in his Attic models. Indeed, there are in his plays several further examples of the same phenomenon, for which a Plautine origin is most probable. However, before discussing these passages it may be apposite to say a few words about the system of payment to the hetaera (or lena/leno). In the vast majority of texts (Roman Comedy included) relating to the maintenance of the hetaera-meretrix (or leno/lena) in the Classical world, it is quite clear that gifts, whether in kind or in pecuniary form, were not merely a customary manner of payment but where a more or less durable relationship such as we usually find in Plautus, was concerned, almost the only one. 43 It was only when a lover wished to secure himself 40

For suprema 'end of the day's session' announced by the praetor to the people in the comitium see Varr. L. L. VI. 5; Fraenkel, PL Pl., p. 43, n. 4 and p. 397. « See e.g. Prop. III. 11. 1 - 2 (quoted above, n. 35); Ov. Am. I. 7. 22 (L & S, s.v. ago, 9c; cf. Prop. II. 30. 32); II. 5. 7 - 1 2 ; 7. 1 - 2 , 28; III. 14. 4 8 - 5 0 ; Rem. Am. 695f., 661. 42 See, however, Aristaenet. Ep. II. 1. 10—12 (possibly attributable to Roman influence): èy καλείς, eu οίδα, reo νέν ëiiraioev ομολογουμένως - νέος ών enraice ν, Ικανψ δέδωκε δίκην, μη άάνατος 'έστω τού πλημμςλήσαντος ή ζημία. 43 On the maintenance of hetaera/meretrix in the Classical world see K. Schneider, RE, VIII, s.v. Hetairai, cols 1 3 4 5 - 7 ; idem, RE, XV, s.v. Meretrix, col. 1025; H. Herter, RAC, (1957), s.v. Dirne, cols 1 1 6 5 - 6 ; idem, JbAC, 3 (I960), pp. 80ff. For gifts as a form of payment in Comedy see Men. fr. 314; fr. 315; fr. 224; fr. 329; Phoenicid. fr. 4. 7ff.K; Plaut. Asin. 166, 524, 8 8 4 - 6 ; Bacch. 97; Cist. 92f., 312, 314, 487; Epid. 2 2 6 - 8 ; Men. 130, 202, 5 3 0 - 2 , 803f.; Mil. 1 0 5 - 7 , 981; Trin. 2 4 3 - 5 5 ; True. 3 0 - 5 6 , 309f., 4 2 5 - 3 0 , 4 4 3 - 5 , 5 2 9 - 4 5 , 5 5 1 - 6 1 9 , 661f., 7 0 3 - 5 ,

118

an exclusive right, over a certain period of time, to the services of the hetaera that a contract involving mer ces annua was drawn up, 4 4 whereas the regular charges (μίαόωμα, merce s)45 were apparently confined to casual unions or to the early stages of a liaison. Now, a system of payment involving gifts differs from that involving regular fees alone in that the act of the giver, although intrinsically as self-interested as a regular act of remuneration, nevertheless assumed an aura of generosity and would normally have been expected to promote a feeling of gratitude in the recipient, 46 that is, a readiness to take on the moral obligation to make a due return in the future; 47 in the case of μίσ&ωμα or merces annua, however, the element of generosity and consequently that of gratitude was entirely absent. It is precisely the spirit of the ancient gift-institution that we find reflected here, since this too involved the practice of giftdonation, based upon the anticipation of a due return but disguised as liberality with its concomitant atmosphere of binding moral obligation. 48 7 3 9 f „ 893f., 946f.; Ter. Heaut. 223; Eun. 1 3 5 - 4 1 , 1 6 3 - 9 , 214, 274, 3 5 2 - 7 , 4 5 4 - 8 5 , 7 9 I f f . ; Hec. 8 4 5 - 6 ; Preston, Sermo, pp. 18ff. 44 For the type of contract under discussion see Luc. DMeretr. 15.2; Plaut. Bacch. fr. X, 1096f.; True. 31; Asin. 229f., 746ff.; U. E. Paoli, op. cit. (above, n. 5), pp. 25f. 45 Suid. s.v. μίσθωμα: ò μισάός ò έταφικός. For merces see Plaut. Bacch. fr. XIX; Asin. 228; Preston, Sermo, p. 18. 46 See e.g. [Dem.] Neaer. 21: . . . ηΎούμβνος τα μέν ά'λλα άναλώματα την κεκτημένη» αυτήν λαμβάνειν, α δ' αν ek την έορτήν και τα μυστήρια ύπέρ αύτης άναλώση, πρός αυτήν τήν άνϋρωπον χάριν καταϋήσεσΰαι ·.-, Plaut. Truc. 582—3 (cf. 617f.), 7 0 3 - 5 , 535, 565; .; Theoc. Id. V. 96ff.; III. lOf., 34ff.; XI. 40. 51 They are certainly referred to as a gesture of love in Plaut. Truc. 441 — 7 (egone illam ut non amem? egone illi ut non bene velimi / me potius non amabo quam huic desit amor. / ego isti non munus mittam? immo ex hoc loco / iubebo ad istam quinqué perferri minas, / praeterea opsonari dumtaxat mina. / multo illi potius bene erit quae bene volt mihi / quam mihimet ...) and in Truc. 529—31 (. . . nunc experiere, mea Phronesium, / me te amare, adduxi ancillas tibi eccas ex Suria duas, / is te dono . . . ). See also True. 661—2 and Asin. 882—5. 52 True. 445 (quoted above, n. 51), 740 (a gift consisting of one mina for the purchase of opsonium, added by Diniarchus to the original munus which he has pledged himself to give in 425ff. (cf. 4 4 3 - 4 ) ) , 5 2 9 f f „ 6 6 1 - 2 , 8 9 3 - 4 ; Men. 130, 191ff., esp. 688—9: nec te ultro oravi ut dares: / tute ultro ad me detulisti, dedisti earn [sc. pallam] dono mihi. See also Asin. 884—5.

120

1) Truc. 141—6 uses for comic effects the analogy between amatory gifts and payments and the scriptura — that tax which was paid on public pastures per head of livestock pastured on them. 5 3 When the lessee failed to report his livestock and consequently omitted to pay the tax to the publicanus, the latter was entitled to confiscate the livestock in question. 54 The meretrix Phronesium proves an unscrupulous publicanus, for even after having received the scriptura she nevertheless went on to confiscate the property of her lover Diniarchus (144): nam advorsum legem meam ob meam scripturam pecudem cepit. For she confiscated my livestock illegally in return for 5 5 the tax I paid on pasturage.

Although there seems to be some evidence for the practice of farming public lands and pasture in Greece, 56 the conditions portrayed in line 144 seem to fit in better with the specific Latin background furnished by Varrò, R.R. II. 1. 16 (ad publicanum profitentur, ne, si inscriptum pecus paverint, lege censoria commit tant).57 The manner in which the idea of tax-farming is introduced also points to Plautine originality here: Diniarchus, the lover involved, accuses the maid Astaphium and her mistress Phronesium of having plundered his resources to the extent of putting him out of business (negotium) and making him a man of leisure (otiosus) (138ff.). 'An tu te Veneris publicum aut Amoris alia lege/habere posse postulas' — Astaphium retorts — 'quin otiosus fias?' (141f.). Diniarchus takes the expression publicum habere to mean 'to be a farmer of the public revenues', that is, in a technical sense, 58 and therefore answers (143f.): ilia, haud ego, habuit publicum: pervorse interpretaris; nam advorsum legem meam . . . She, not I, did the public land farming; you have got things twisted; for illegally . . . 53

See Ussing, n. ad 141. Varr. R. R. II. 1. 16 (quoted below). ss Enk, n. ad loc. 56 See A. Böckh, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener (3rd. edn., Berlin, 1886), Vol. I, pp. 372ff.; O. Fredershausen, op. cit. (above, n. 5), p. 55. 57 Cf. Preston, Sermo, p. 54; Fredershausen, op. cit., p. 56, where he also observes that 'quodsi hoc caput exemplari plane abiudicari non debet, concedemus tarnen Plauto hos iocos, quales apud ipsum legimus, propter magnam vim agri publici Romanorum multo facilius se dedisse quam poetae Attico, ubi ager publicus non magni momenti fuisse videtur'. Cases of corruption among the Roman publicani were apparently frequent: see e.g. Liv. XXV. 1. 4; 3. 9; XLV. 18. 4. 58 So do Enk, Ussing and Fredershausen (op. cit., p. 55). 54

121

But what Astaphium is really saying is: 'Do you expect to be able to enjoy public love except on the terms of becoming a man of leisure? ' 5 9 implying that by choosing to consort with a meretrix he inevitably becomes subject to lose all the money on which the continuance of his business is dependent and is thus left as an otiosus. The whole passage depends on the double meaning of the expression Veneris publicum aut Amoris ... habere. This pun could only be Plautine, for while the noun publicum was commonly used in the sense of τέ\ος, this was never the case with δημόσιον before the third century A.D. 6 0 Another point which supports the suggestion that these lines are Plautine in origin is the etymological connection between pecunia andpecwí 6 1 which appears to account not only for Diniarchus' choice of the specific type of public land-farming involving livestock to illustrate the total loss of his money, but also for the manner in which the dialogue between Astaphium and Diniarchus continues (147ff.): DI. male vortit res pecuaria mihi apud vos: nunc vicissim volo habere aratiunculam pro copia hic apud vos. AS. non arvos hic, sed pascuost ager: si arationes habituris, qui arari soient, ad pueros ire meliust. hune nos habemus publicum, illi alii sunt publicani. DI. My pasturing business has turned out badly for me here; now, in my turn, as far as you can manage it, I would like to have from you a little piece of arable land. AS. This land is not ploughland but pasture: if it is ploughing that you have in mind, better go to boys for it. They are used to being ploughed. This is the type of public land we have; those people are a different class of tax collector.

Most modern commentators consider this passage to be predominantly erotic in character. 62 Spengel went as far as to suggest that 'ex hoc loco 59

As has already been recognised by A. Spengel, T. Macci Plauti Truculentus (Goettingae, 1868), n. ad loc. See also Preston, Sermo, loc. cit.: 'The Latin phrase corpus publicare, should be quoted in connection with publicum habere.' (Plaut. Bacch. 863). See also the use of publica in Sen. Ep. 88.37, oí publicare in Quint. Inst. VII. 9. 4 and in Tac. Germ. 19, and of publicana muliercula in Cie. Verr. III. 34. 78. For δημοσιεύω in the sense of 'prostitute', see D. Η. I. 84; Plut. Mor. 519E. LSJ, s.v. δημόσιος, III 2b. 61 Varr. L.L. V. 95: pecus ... a quo pecunia universa, quod in pecore pecunia tum pastoribus consistebat.·, Fest., p. 233 Lindsay: peculatus furtum publicum a pecore dictum, sicut et pecunia, eo quod antiqui Romanorum nihil praeter pecora habebant. See also Fest. p. 232 Lindsay. 62 See Ussing, Spengel and Enk, nn. ad loc. ; Preston, loc. cit.

122

apparere videtur arandi vocabulum etsi ad omnes amores pertinet, tamen καΰ' έξοχήν de paedicatione in usu fuisse'. 63 That this view is erroneous is convincingly demonstrated by G. P. Shipp 64 who also produces the best commentary on the passage as a whole: "The allegoria of the passage is drawn not from farming in itself, but from the conditions of the tenure of public land in Italy. Once his thoughts have started running along these lines the pecunia that he has lost becomes for Diniarchus pecus or res pecuaria. Here it is not so much that a mere pun is involved as that the Romans were still conscious of the connection between the words etymologically. He can therefore no longer engage in the pastoral branch of the farming industry, but hopes that he can still habere aratiunculam, for which pecus would not be so essential. This term satisfies the requirements of the metaphor, and on the other hand readily suggests what he wants. In fact the contrast it introduces exists only on the metaphorical plane, leaving reality as it was. Astaphium, however, to dash his hopes, holds him to the strict terms of the metaphor, and tells him that, as the ager of such establishments as theirs is pascuos, as implied in what they have both said, he will have to go elsewhere. She directs him ad pueros simply because the two sexes provide a convenient pair of ideas corresponding to the two kinds of ager publicus involved." (loc. cit.) As with Ps. 13—15,65 the Plautine joke here involves an element of sharply defined 'spheres of influence', which is characteristically Roman idea. It is as if, in the Plautine world, love — just like any other activity in Roman public or private life — comes under its appropriate management, according to the type of services required. 2) Closely connected with the publicanus image, and therefore probably also Plautine, is Astaphium's joke in lines 213f.: 6 6 huic homini amanti mea era apud nos naeniam dixit [de] bonis, nam fundi et aedes obligatae sunt ob Amoris praedium. My mistress has already sung this lover the death-dirge over his goods in our house, for his lands and houses have already been mortgaged to meet the expenses of Love's farm.

The reference is to Diniarchus' earlier mention (174) of his lands and houses as a possible form of payment by means of which he will obtain 63

N. ad, loc. This view is also shared by Enk, n. ad 149. 'Notes on Plautine and other Latin', Antichthon, 4 (1970), pp. 28f. 6S Above, pp. 114f. κόλποισιν Ò νήπιος Òpùpwà •παίζων I άστρα-γάλοκ τούμόν πνεϋμ' έκύβευσεν "Ερως. 22 Cf. Call. Α.Ρ. XII. 73. 1 - 2 . 17

136

That here it is not through 'eine aktive Hingabe', either on the part of the lover or on the part of the soul itself that the lover's soul becomes resident in the beloved one, but rather through 'eine aktive Einnahme' on the part of Eros or on that of the beloved himself, does not imply a different conception from that of the Romans, as suggested by Flury in connection with Call. A.P. XII. 73. 1—2.23 Rather, we have here the same conception described from a different point of view. One is also reminded of the use of ψυχή as a term of endearment, 24 attested from the Hellenistic period onwards, and corresponding exactly to the Plautine and the Terentian anime, anime mi·, see Gow, η. ad Theoc. Id. XXIV. 8; Mart. Χ. 68.5; Juv. VI. 195 with Schol. ad loc.; Aristaenet. Ep. I. 24. 38; Nie. Eug. VI. 58 with Boissonade's n. ad loc. (Nicetas Eugenianus (Lugduni Batavorum, 1819) vol. II, pp. 285ff.); also A.P. V. 155. 2 (Meleager); XII. 52.2 (Meleager). The evidence presented above 2S seems to cast a certain amount of doubt upon the validity of Flury's hypothesis. Not only is the notion of 'eine aktive Hingabe' of one's soul to the beloved one found to be as Greek as it is Roman, but its very existence among the Greeks proves beyond doubt that they at least did not regard this as being incompatible with their fundamental conception of love as a divine force. They considered that it was Eros who deprived the lover of his soul and put it into the beloved one, but that at the same time it was also the lover that carried out this process in collaboration with his soul. No inconsistency exists here, but merely two different ways of considering the matter, since, as has been amply demonstrated by H. Lloyd-Jones, it is through the man's own emotions and thoughts that the Greek gods work upon him. 26 Nothing, therefore, compels us to believe that Terence substituted the Roman conception of love for a Greek one in his adaptations. Nor is it in every case necessary to posit the introduction by Plautus and Terence of the notion under discussion into their respective models. Rather, it seems safer to assume that some among the Plautine and the Terentian passages in question may have been rendered from the Attic originals. In any case, one can hardly speak of a specifically Roman conception of love in Flury's sense, since the notion in question appears to have been shared by the Greeks and the Romans. » Ibid., pp. 33f. 24 Entirely ignored by Flury. 25 See also Weissert, op. cit. (above, ch. II, η. 50), pp. 104ff. 26 The Justice of Zeus (2nd edn., Los Angeles & London, 1973). 137

Bibliography Works Referred

to:

Arnott, W. G., Menander, Plautus, Terence (G & R, New Surveys in the Classics, No. 9 (1975)). Austin, C., Menandri Aspis et Samia (Berlin, 1969—70), 2 vols. —, Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta in Papyris Reperta (Berolini & Novi Eboraci, 1973). Bailey, C., Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura libri sex (Oxford, 1947), 3 vols. Bechtel, F., Die attischen Frauennamen (Göttingen, 1902). Beckby, H., Anthologia Graeca (München, 1957—8), 4 vols. Benveniste, £., 'Don et échange dans le vocabulaire indo-européen', Ann. Sociol., 1 9 4 8 - 9 , pp. 7 - 2 0 . Bertin, E., De Plautinis et Terentianis adolescentibus amatoribus (Diss. Paris, 1879). Bertini, F., Plauti Asinaria (Genova, 1968). Blänsdorf, J., Archaische Gedankengänge in den Komödien des Plautus (Wiesbaden, 1967). Böckh, Α., Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener (3rd. edn., Berlin, 1886), Vol. I. Böhme, J., Die Seele und das Ich im homerischen Epos (Leipzig, 1929). Boissonade, Jo. Fr., Aristaeneti Epistolae (Lutetiae, 1822). —, Nicetas Eugenianus (Lugduni Batavorum, 1819), Vol. II. Bond, G.W., Euripides: Hypsipyle (Oxford, 1963). Brandt, P., P. Ovidi Nasonis Amorum libri tres (Leipzig, 1911; repr. Hildesheim, 1963). Braun, L., Die Cantica des Plautus (Göttingen, 1970). Brix, J . & Niemeyer, M., Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus. 3 Bd.: Menaechmi (6th edn., rev. by F. Conrad, Leipzig & Berlin, 1929). —, Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus 1 Bd.: Trinummus (6th edn., rev. by F. Conrad, Leipzig Sc Berlin, 1931). Buckland, W. W., A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge, 1921). Burck, E., 'Amor bei Plautus und Properz (Plautus, Trinummus 223—275; Properz II, 12)' Arctos, 1 (1954), pp. 32—60 (= Vom Menschenbild in der römischen Literatur, Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. by E. Lefèvre (Heidelberg, 1966)), pp. 45ff. Calboli, G., Cornifici Rhetorica ad Herennium (Bologna, 1969). Canter, H.V., 'The Mythological Paradigm in Greek and Latin Poetry', AJPh, 54 (1933), pp. 2 0 1 - 2 4 . Chalmers, W. R., 'Plautus and his Audience', in Roman Drama, ed. by T. A. Dorey & D. R. Dudley (London, 1965), pp. 2 1 - 5 0 . Collart, J., T. Maccius Plautus: Curculio (Paris, 1962). Copley, F. O., 'Servitium amoris in the Roman Elegists', TAPhA, 78 (1947), pp. 285-300. Costa, E., Il diritto privato Romano nelle commedie di Plauto (Torino, 1890; repr. Roma, 1968). Crusius, F., Die Responsion in den plautinischen Cantica (Leipzig, 1929). 138

Crusius, O., 'Grenfells Erotic fragment und seine literarische Stellung', Philologus, 55 (1896), pp. 3 5 3 - 8 4 . Dale, A. M., Euripides: Helen (Oxford, 1967). Daremberg, Ch. Sc E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines d'après les textes et les monuments (1877—1919). Day, Α. Α., The Origins of Latin Love Elegy (Oxford, 1938). Duckworth, G. E., T. Mac ci Plauti Epidicus (Princeton, 1940). —, The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment (Princeton, 1952; repr. 1971). Dumont, J.-Chr., 'La stratégie de l'esclave plautinien', REL, 44 (1966), pp. 1 8 2 - 2 0 3 . E ari, D. C., 'Political Terminology in Plautus', Historia, 9 ( I 9 6 0 ) , pp. 2 3 4 - 4 3 . Edmonds, J . M., The Fragments of Attic Comedy (Leiden, 1957—61), 3 vols. Egli, J . , Die Hyperbel in den Komödien des Plautus und in Ciceros Briefen an Atticus (Progr., Zug, 1 8 9 2 - 4 ) , 3 parts. Enk, P. J . , Plauti Mercator (Lugduni Batavorum, 1932), 2 vols. —, Sex. Propertii elegiarum liber I (Lugduni Batavorum, 1946). —, Plauti Truculentus (Lugduni Batavorum, 1953), 2 vols. Ernout, Α., Plaute: Comedies (Paris, 1 9 3 2 - 4 0 ) , 7 vols. — Sc Meillet, Α., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Latine: histoire des mots (4th edn., Paris, 1959). Finley, M. I., 'Marriage, Sale and Gift in the Homeric World', Seminar: An Annual Extraordinary Number of the Jurist, 12 (1954), pp. 7—33. —, The World of Odysseus (London, 1956). —, 'La servitude pour dettes', Rev. hist, de droit français et étranger, 43 (1965), pp. 1 5 9 - 8 4 . Flury, P., Liebe und Liebessprache bei Menander, Plautus und Terenz (Heidelberg, 1968). Fordyce, C. J . , Catullus (Oxford, 1961). Fraenkel, E., 'Zur Geschichte des Wortes Fides', RhM, 71 (1916), pp. 1 8 7 - 9 9 . - , Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin, 1922). —, Aeschylus: Agamemnon (Oxford, 1950), Vol. III. —, Elementi plautini in Plauto, (transi, by F. Munari, Firenze, 1960). —, 'Eine Anfangsformel attischer Reden', Glotta, 39 (1961), pp. 1—5. Frankel, H., Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy (transi, by M. Hadas & J . Willis, Oxford, 1975). Frank, T., Life and Literature in the Roman Republic (Berkeley, 1930). Fredershausen, O., De iure Plautino et Terentiano (Diss. Göttingen, 1906). Gaiser, K., 'Die plautinischen "Bacchides" und Menanders "Dis Exapaton'", Philologus, 114 (1970), pp. 5 1 - 8 7 . —, 'Zur Eigenart der römischen Komödie: Plautus und Terenz gegenüber ihren griechischen Vorbildern', in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, I 2 (Berlin, 1972), pp. 1 0 2 7 - 1 1 1 3 . Galinski, G. K., The Herakles Theme: The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature from Homer to the Twentieth Century (Oxford, 1972). Gigante, Μ., 'Il papiro di Grenfell e i cantica Plautini', PP, 2 (1947), pp. 3 0 0 - 8 . Gollnisch, Th., Quaestiones elegiacae (Diss. Vratislaviae, 1905). Gomme, A. W. Sc Sandbach, F. H., Menander: A Commentary (Oxford, 1973). Gow, A. S. F., Theocritus (Cambridge, 1965), 2 vols. —, Sc Page, D. L., The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge, 1965), 2 vols.

139

Gronovius, I. F., Lectiones Plautinae (Amsterdam, 1740). Gschnitzer, F., Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei. 1 : Grundzüge des vorhellenistischen Sprachgebrauchs (Akad. d. Wiss. u. d. Lit. in Mainz, Abhandl. d. geistes- u. sozialwiss. Kl., Nr. 13 (1963; Wiesbaden, 1964). Gurlitt, L., Erotica Plautina (München, 1921). Haffter, H., 'Zum Problem der überlangen Wortformen im Lateinischen', WS, 69 (1956), pp. 3 6 3 - 7 1 . Handley, E. W., The Dyskolos of Menander (London, 1965). —, Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison (London, (1968). Hands, A. R., Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (London, 1968). Hanson, J . Α., 'Scholarship on Plautus since 1950', CW, 59 (1965-6), pp. 1 0 3 - 7 , 126-9, 141-8. Headlam, W., Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (Cambridge, 1922). Heinze, R., 'Fides', Hermes, 64 (1929), pp. 140—66 (= Vom Geist des Römertums, Ausgewählte Aufsätze, ed. by E. Burck (3rd edn., Stuttgart, 1960), pp. 59—81. —, 'Zur römischen Moral', in Vom Geist des Römertums, pp. 82—6. Herter, H., RAC, 3 (1957), s.v. Dirne. —, 'Die Soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Lichte des heidnischen und christlichen Schrifttums', JbAC, 3 (1960), pp. 7 0 - 1 1 1 . Hicks, R. D., Aristotle: De Anima (Amsterdam, 1965). Hoelzer, V., De poesi amatoria a comicis atticis exculta, ab elegiacis imitatione expressa (Diss. Marburg, 1899). Hosek, R., 'Herakles auf der Bühne der alten Komödie', in ΓΕΡΑΣ: Studies Presented to George Thomson on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, ed. by L. Varel Sc R. F. Willetts (Prague, 1963), pp. 1 1 9 - 2 7 . Hughes, J . D., A Bibliography of Scholarship on Plautus (Amsterdam, 1975). Immisch, O., Zur Frage der plautinischen Cantica, (Sitzungsber., Heidelberger Akad. d. Wm., philos.-hist. Kl., 7 Abhandl. (Heidelberg, 1923)). Jocelyn, H. D., 'Chrysalus and the Fall of Troy (Plautus, Bacchides 9 2 5 - 9 7 8 ) ' , HSPh, 73 (1969), pp. 1 3 5 - 5 2 . Jolliffe, R. O., Phases of Corruption in Roman Administration in the Last Halfcentury of the Roman Republic (Diss. Wisconsin, 1919). Kannicht, R., Euripides: Helena (Heidelberg, 1969), 2 vols. Kassel, R., Menandri Sicyonius (Berlin, 1965). Kistrup, I., Die Liebe bei Plautus und den Elegtkern (Diss. Kiel, 1963). Klose, F., Die Bedeutung von honos und honestus (Diss. Breslau, 1933). —, 'Altrömische Wertbegriffe (honos und dignitas)', Neue Jahrb. für Antike und deutsche Bildung, 1 (1938), pp. 268ff. Klotz, Α., Rev. of E. Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus, PhW, 1923, pp. 459ff. Knoche, U., 'Der römische Ruhmesgedanke', Philologus, 89 (1934), pp. 102ff. Kranz, W., Stasimon: Untersuchungen zu Form und Gehalt de* griechischen Tragödie (Berlin, 1933). Kroll, W., 'Lateinische Syntax, Sprachgeschichte und Metrik', Glotta, 14 (1925), pp. 2 7 5 - 9 8 . Kühner, R., M. Tulli Ciceronis Tusculanarum Disputationum libri quinqué (5th edn., Hannoverae, 1874). Laet, S. J . de, Portorium: Étude sur l'organisation douanière chez les Romains, sourtout à l'époque du haut-empire (Brugge, 1949). Lana, I., Rev. of E. Fraenkel, Elementi plautini in Plauto, RFIC, 90 (1962), pp. 67-71.

140

Langen, P., Plautinische Studien (Berlin, 1886). La Penna, Α., 'Note sul linguaggio erotico dell'elegia latina', Maia, 4 (1951), pp. 187-209. Lasserre, F., 'Ερωτικοί λόγοι', ΜΗ, 1 (1944), pp. 1 6 9 - 7 8 . —, La figure d'Eros dans la poésie grecque (Thèse Lausanne, 1946). Law, H. H., 'Hyperbole in Mythological Comparisons', AJPh, 47 (1926), pp. 3 6 1 - 7 2 . Leeuwen, J . van, Aristophanis Ranae (Lugduni Batavorum, 1896). Leist, G. Α., RE, 1, s.v. addictus. Lejay, P., flaute (Paris, 1925). Lenz, F. W., Ovid. Heilmittel gegen die Liebe: Die Pflege des weiblichen Gesichtes (2nd edn., Berlin, 1972). Leo, F., 'Epistula Plautina', RhM, 38 (1883), pp. 1 - 2 7 , 3 1 1 - 1 2 . —, Plauti comoediae (Berolini, 1895—6), 2 vols. —, Die plautinischen Cantica und die hellenistische Lyrik (Berlin, 1897). —, Der Monolog im Drama: Ein Beitrag zur griechisch-römischen Poetik (Berlin, 1908). —, Plautinische Forschungen (2nd edn., Berlin, 1912). —, Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Berlin, 1913), Vol. I. Leutsch, E. L. von, & Schneidewin, F. G., Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum (Goettingae, 1 8 3 9 - 5 1 ) , 2 vols. Lewis, C. T., & Short, C., A Latin Dictionary (1879). Liddell, H.G., & Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon (9th edn.; repr. 1968, rev. by H. S. J o n e s & alii, with Supplement). Lilja, S., The Roman Elegists' Attitude to Women (Helsinki, 1965). Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus (2nd edn., Los Angeles & London, 1973). —, Rev. of D. Page, Aeschyli septem quae supersunt tragoediae (Oxford, 1972), CR, 26 (1976), pp. 6 - 8 . Lodge, G., Lexicon Plautinum (Lipsiae, 1924—33), 2 vols. Lorenz, Aug. O. Fr., Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus. 4 Bd.: Pseudolus (Berlin, 1876). —, Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus. 2 Bd.: Mostellaria (2nd edn., Berlin, 1883). Ludwig, W„ 'Plato's Love Epigrams', GRBS, 4 (1963), pp. 5 9 - 8 2 . Maas, P., 'The Γ Ρ Τ Λ Λ Ο Σ Papyrus', G & R, 5 (1958), pp. 1 7 1 - 3 . Marti, H., Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik bei Plautus und Terenz (Winterthur, 1959). Marx, F., Plautus: Rudens (Leipzig, 1928; repr. Amsterdam, 1959). Mauss, M., The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (transi, by I. Cunnison, London, 1954). Mazon, P. & Dain, Α., Sophocle (Collection Budé, Paris, 1955), vol. I. Middelmann, F., Griechische Welt und Sprache in Plautus' Komödien, (BochumLangendreer, 1938). Monaco, G., Paragoni burleschi degli antichi (Palermo, 1963). - , Plauto: Curculio (Palermo, 1969). Nixon, P., Plautus (Loeb Classical Library, 1 9 1 6 - 3 8 ) , 5 vols. Oehler, R., Mythologische exempta in der älteren griechischen Dichtung (Diss. Basel, 1925). O t t o , Α., Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer (Leipzig, 1890; repr. Hildesheim, 1964). O t t o , W. F., Die Manen, oder von den Urformen des Totenglaubens: Eine Unter-

iii

suchung zur Religion der Griechen, Römer und Semiten und zum Volksglauben überhaupt (Darmstadt, 1958). Page, D. L., Greek Literary Papyri (London, 1942), Vol. I. - , 'P. Oxy. 2331 and Others', CR, 7 (1957), pp. 1 8 9 - 9 2 . Palmer, L. R., 'The Concept of Social Obligation in Indo-European', in Hommages à Max Niedermann (Collection Latomus, Vol. XXIII (1956), pp. 2 5 8 - 6 9 . Paoli, U. E., Comici latini e diritto attico (Milano, 1962). Paratore, E., Plauto: Curculio (Firenze, 1958). - , Rev. of E. Fraenkel, Elementi plautini in Plauto, RCCM, 4 (1962), pp. 413ff. Perna, R., L'originalità di Plauto (Bari, 1955). Pernard, L., Le droit romain et le droit grec dans le théâtre de Piaute et de Térence (Diss. Lyon, 1900). Petersmann, H., T. Maccius Plautus: Stichus (Heidelberg, 1973). Pöschl, V., Die neuen Menanderpapyri und die Originalität des Plautus (Sitzungsber. Heidelberger Akad d. WWÍ. (Heidelberg, 1973)). Prescott, H. W., 'The Antecedents of Hellenistic Comedy', CPh, 13 (1918), pp. 1 1 3 37. - , 'The Antecedents of Hellenistic Comedy', CPh, 14 (1919), pp. 1 0 8 - 3 5 . - , Rev. of Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus, CPh, 19 (1924), pp. 9 0 - 3 . - , 'Criteria of Originality in Plautus', TAPhA, 63 (1932), pp. 1 0 3 - 2 5 . Preston, K., Studies in the Diction of the Sermo Amatorius in Roman Comedy (Diss. Chicago, 1916). Pringsheim, F., The Greek Law of Sale (Weimar, 1950). Questa, C., T. Maccius Plautus: Bacchides (Firenze, 1965). Reinhardt, U., Mythologische Beispiele in der Neuen Komödie (Menander, Plautus, Terenz), Teil I (Diss. Mainz, 1974). Reis, H., Die Vorstellung von den geistig-seelischen Vorgängen und ihrer körperlichen Lokalisation im Altlatein (München 1962). Reitzenstein, R., Zur Sprache der lateinischen Erotik (Sitzungsber., Heidelberger Akad. d. Wiss., philos.-hist. Kl., 12 Abhandl. (Heidelberg, 1912)). Ribbeck, O., Kolax: Eine ethologische Studie (Abhandl. d. philol.-hist. Cl. d. königl. sächs. Gesellschaft d. WI'ÍÍ. 9 Nr. 1 (Leipzig, 1883)). Rogers, B. B., The Comedies of Aristophanes. IX: The Frogs (London, 1902). Rohde, E., Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen (10th edn., Tübingen, 1925), 2 vols. Roscher, W. H., Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Leipzig, 1884-1937), 6 vols. Ross Jr., D. O., Style and Tradition in Catullus (Cambridge, Mass., 1969). Rothstein, M., 'Nachträgliches zu Properz', Philologus, 59 (1900), pp. 441—65. - , Die Elegien des Sextus Propertius (2nd edn., Berlin, 1920-1924), 2 vols. Sandbach, F. H., The Comic Theatre of Greece and Rome (London, 1977). Schmid, W., 'Menanders Dyskolos und die Timonlegende', RhM, 102 (1959), pp. 1 5 7 - 8 2 . Schneider, K., RE, VIII, s.v. Hetairai. - , RE, XV, s.v. Meretrix. Segal, E., Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus (Cambridge, Mass., 1968). Shipp, G. P., 'Notes on Plautine and Other Latin', Antichthon, 4 (1970), pp. 2 5 - 9 . Snell, B., Die Entdeckung des Geistes: Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen (4th edn.; rev., Göttingen, 1975). Spengel, Α., T. Mac ci Plauti Truculentus (Goettingae, 1868).

142

Spies, Α., Militât omnis amans: Ein Beitrag zur Bildersprache der antiken Erotik (Diss. Tübingen, 1930). Steinwenter, Α., RE, VIIA, s.v. Vadimonium. Straus, J . P., Terenz und Menander: Beitrag zu einer Stilvergleichung (Diss. Bern, 1955). Süss, W., 'Zwei Bemerkungen zur Technik der Komoedie', RhM, 65 (1910), pp. 441 -60. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Lipsiae, 1900— ). Thierfelder, Α., De rationibus interpolationum Plautinarum (Lipsiae, 1929). Tierney, J . J . , 'Some Attic Elements in Plautus', PRIA, 40 (1945), pp. 2 1 - 6 1 . Ussani, V., Rev. of E. Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus, RFIC, 52 (1924), pp. 533ff. Ussing, J . L., T. Maccti Plauti comoediae (Hauniae, 1875—92), 5 vols. Vissering, S., Quaestiones Plautinae (Diss. Lugduni Batavorum, 1842). Voigt, E.-M., Sappho et Alcaeus: Fragmenta (Amsterdam, 1971). Volkmann, R., Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig, 1885; repr. Hildesheim, 1963). Webster, T. B. L., Studies in Menander (2nd edn., Manchester, 1960). —, Studies in Later Greek Comedy (2nd edn., Manchester, 1970). —, An Introduction to Menander (Manchester, 1974). Wehrli, F., Motivstudien zur griechischen Komödie (Zürich & Leipzig, 1936). Weissert, D., Untersuchungen zur Erwähnung von Körperteilen insbesondere zum leib-seelischen Parallelismus in der antiken Komödiensprache: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Originalität des Plautus (Diss. Tübingen, 1959). Wheeler, A. L., 'Erotic Teaching in Roman Elegy and the Greek Sources' (Part I), CPh, 5 (1910), pp. 4 4 0 - 5 0 . —, 'Erotic Teaching in Roman Elegy and the Greek Sources' (Part II), CPh, 6 (1911), pp. 5 6 - 7 7 . Wickham, E. C., Horace, Vol. I: The Odes, Carmen Saeculare and Epodes (2nd edn., Oxford, 1912). Wifstrand, Α., Studien zur griechischen Anthologie (Lunds Univers. Arsskrift. 23, Nr. 3 (Lund & c, 1926)). Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, 'Des Mädchens Klage: Eine alexandrinische Arie' Nachr. d. K. Gesell, d. WIM. ZU Göttingen, philol.-hist. KL, 3 (1896), pp. 2 0 9 - 3 2 . —, Aischylos: Interpretationen (Berlin, 1914). - , Der Glaube der Hellenen (Berlin, 1931), Vol. I. Williams, G., 'Some Problems in the Construction of Plautus' Pseudolus', Hermes, 84 (1956), pp. 4 2 4 - 5 5 . —, 'Some Uses of gratus and gratia in Plautus: Evidence for Indo-European?', CQ, 9 (1959), pp. 1 5 5 - 6 3 . —, Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968). Zucker, F., Freundschaftsbewährung in der neuen attischen Komödie: Ein Kapitel hellenistischer Ethik und Humanität (Berichte über die Verhandl. d. sächs. Akad. d. Wi«. zu Leipzig, 98, I (1950)).

143

Index Locorum Accius Epigoni, fr. VIIIR: 84 η. 74 Achilles Tatius I. 6, 9: 84 η. 76; 11: 73 η. 34, 106 η. 3; II. 3: 84 η. 76; 4: 60; 8: 84 η. 76; 35: 67 η. 159; IV. 7, 8: 84 η. 76; V. 13: 84 η. 76; 21: 67 η. 159; 26, 27, VI. 6, 10, 17, 18, 19: 84 η. 76 Adaeus Α.Ρ. VII. 51.2: 96 η. 120 Aeschines Ctesiph. 228: 23 η. 30 Aeschylus Ag. 1 1 4 0 - 9 : 33f.; 1629ff.: 21 η. 27; Ch. 5 8 6 f f „ 6 0 2 - 2 2 , 6 2 3 - 3 0 : 38; 6 3 1 - 2 : 38f., 42; 6 3 1 - 8 : 38; Pr. 4 2 5 - 7 : 37 n. 81; Th. 4 2 7 - 3 1 : 42 n. 91; 428: 32 n. 64; 4 6 8 - 9 : 42 n. 91; 469: 21 n. 26, 32 n. 64 Agathias A.P. V. 299: 135; XI. 379: 54, 63 Alcaeus fr. 283. 4, 9 L.-P.: 85 n. 77 Alcaeus Messenius A.P. V. 10: 129 n. 88 Alciphro I. 15.5: 45 n. 97; III. 5.2, 14.1: 124 n. 68; IV. 12.3: 27 n. 43 Alexis Apokoptomenos, fr. 20K: 92 n. 98; Phaedros, fr. 245K: 92 n. 98; Pyraunos, fr. 201K: 27; Traumatias, fr. 234K: 92 n. 98; Fr. 27K, fr. 56K: 107 n. 4; fr. 277.4K: 79 n. 55; fr. 289K: 92 n. 98 Alpheius A.P. XII. 18.6: 84 n. 76 Anacreon fr. 4 West, fr. 15 Gentili (= 360 PMG): 85 n. 77; fr. 38.4 Gentili (= 396 PMG): 60; fr. 94 Gentili

144

(= 376 PMG): 102 n. 150; fr. 346.12 PMG: 85 n. 77 Anacreontea 14.27: 84 n. 76; 26: 63 n. 147; 2 7 . 5 - 8 : 84 n. 76; 31: 81 n. 66 Anaxagoras fr. A100 Diels: 86 n. 82 Anaxandrides Pharmakomantis, fr. 49K: 28 n. 50; fr. 61K: 92 n. 98 Anaxilas Neottis, fr. 2 2 . 1 - 7 K : 27f„ 47, 98 n. 127; fr. 2 2 . 3 0 - 1 K : 28 n. 47 Andocides Alcib. 22[And.]: 25; Περί των μυστηρίων, 129: 25 η. 35 Antipater Sidonius Α.Ρ. VII. 2 1 8 . 5 - 6 : 23 η. 31; 743. 7 - 8 : 23 η. 31, 47 Antipater Thessalonicensis Α.Ρ. VI. 256, IX. 517, 5 5 7 . 3 - 4 : 23 η. 31 Antiphanes Boeotis, fr. 58K (= Eriphus, fr. 2K): 56; Misoponeros, fr. 159.7K: 28 n. 50; Neaniskoe, fr. 166K: 30 n. 58; Fr. 122.15K: 31 n. 63; fr. 123.6K, fr. 207.10K, fr. 267K: 107 n. 4 Anthologia Palatina (anon.) V. 11: 82 η. 69; XII. 99.1: 81 η. 66; 100: 82 η. 69, 125 η. 73; 152: 136; 156: 82 η. 69 Anthologia Planudea (anon.) 9 2 . 1 3 - 1 4 : 60 η. 137; 103, 104, 214.6, 215.4: 60 Apollonius Rhodius III. 4 4 6 - 7 , 1 0 1 5 - 6 : 135 Appendix Nova Epigrammatum {App. Anth.) II. 4 8 6 . 5 - 8 : 23 n. 31, 50; 521: 23 n. 31; 6 5 9 . 5 - 6 : 23 n. 31, 59 n. 133

Appuleius Met. III. 9: 75 η. 41; VI. 30: 48; Χ. 10: 75 η. 41 Archias Α.Ρ. V. 59: 81 η. 66 Archilochus fr. 191.3 West, fr. 193.2 West: 85 η. 77 Aristaenetus Ep. I. 16.9: 84 n. 76; 17: 63 n. 147; 24.38: 137; II. 1 . 1 0 - 1 2 : 106 n. 3, 118 n. 42; 2.11: 95 n. 106; 7.8, 33; 11.8, 13: 84 n. 76; 19.20: 136 n. 20; 21.6: 84 n. 76 Aristophanes Ach. 398ff.: 79 n. 55; 598: 97; Av. 363: 28 η. 50; 1103f.: 31 η. 63; Eq. 79: 79 η. 55; Lys. 845f.: 75; 960: 85 η. 77; Pax, 669: 79 η. 55-, PL 149ff.: 98 η. 127; 210: 31 η. 63; Ran. 615, 618: 75 η. 41; V. 92f.: 79 η. 55 Aristophon Pythagoristes, fr. U K : 92 η. 98, 107 η. 4 Aristoteles A th. pol. 9: 111 η. 20; de An. 41 l b . 5 , 4 2 9 a . 2 2 f f „ 432a.26: 83 n. 74; Rh. 1368a. 19ff.: 23f.; 1413b. 1: 23 n. 31; Rh. Al. 1426a. 1 8 20, 1428a. I f f . : 23 n. 31 Asclepiades A.P. V. 64.5: 81 n. 66; 209: 82 n. 69; XII. 46: 129 n. 88; 50: 81 n. 66, 129 n. 88; 162.4: 84 n. 76; 166: 86, 129 n. 88 Athenaeus II. 63d: 29; XIII. 596b: 130 n. 89 Auctor ad Herennium IV. 33.44: 19 n. 18 Bacchylides fr. 20B.8 Snell: 85 n. 77 Caecilius Plocium, fr. I. 5 - 6 R : 77 n. 47 Callimachus A.P. XII. 73: 81 n. 66, 8 4 n. 74, 86, 86 n. 86, 8 8 f „ 89 n. 91, 99 n. 137, 131 n. 92, 134 n. 4, 135 n. 13, 136 n. 22, 137; 118.4: 81 n.

10 Zagagi (Hyp. 62)

66; 149: 94; ap. Str. IX. 438: 49 n. 109 Cato Orat. fr. 132 Malcovati: 127 n. 77 Catullus 5.11: 130 n. 90; 8 . 1 - 2 : 130 n. 90; 51.2: 50 n. 111; 65.4: 78 n. 50; 76.9: 130 n. 90; 85.2: 73 n. 34 Catulus, Quintus Lutatius fr. 1 Morel: 84 n. 74, 88 n. 90, 99 n. 137, 131 n. 92, 134 n. 4, 135 n. 13 Charito I. 1 . 9 - 1 0 : 101 n. 149; II. 4: 84 n. 76; 6: 49; 9: 45 n. 97; III. 2, IV. 2: 84 n. 76; VI. 1: 84 n. 76; 2: 73 n. 34; 3 - 4 , VIII. 3: 84 n. 76 Cicero Phil. II. 27.67: 25 η. 36; XII. 5.12: 128 η. 86; Pis. 20.47: 25 η. 36; 35.86: 127 η. 77; Rab. Perd. 3.8: 128 η. 86; Tuse. I. 10.20, II. 21.47, IV. 5.10: 83 η. 74; V. 9.24: 75 η. 41; Ven. III. 34.78: 122 η. 59; IV. 18.39, 43.95, V. 56.146: 25 η. 36 Clearchus αρ. Ath. XIV. 619c: 54 η. 119 Comica Adespota Austin, CGFPR, fr. 253.12 (Adesp. Nov. P. Oxy. 10): 100 η. 144; fr. 257.37 (Adesp. Nov. P. Sorb. 72r): 28 n. 50; Page, Greek Literary Papyri, I, fr. 6 7 . 2 3 - 4 : 67 n. 159 Cratinus fr. 460K: 31 n. 63 Demetrius Phalereus Eloc. 124, 126, 161: 19 n. 18 Democritus fr. 28A.45 Diels: 85 n. 82; fr. A l Diels: 86 n. 82; fr. A105 Diels: 83 n. 74; fr. A106, fr. A l 13, fr. A135, fr. B72 Diels: 86 η. 82 Demosthenes Epit. 10: 24; 1 0 - 1 1 : 61; Neaer. 21[Dem.]: 119 nn. 46, 47 Diogenes Laertius VII. 110: 83 η. 74 Dionysius Halicarnassensis I. 84: 122 η. 59

145

Diophanes A.P. V. 309: 96 nn. 118, 119 Dioscorides A.P. V. 138: 63 n. 147; XII. 169. 3 - 4 : 109 n. 13 Donatus η. ad Ter. Eun. 54: 111 η. 19; 319: 107 η. 5; 806: 108 η. 11; Phorm. 150: 125 π. 71; 334, 437, 1055: 107 η. 5 Empedocles fr. 28Α. 45 Diels: 85 η. 82 Ennius Iph. fr. 3 . 7 - 8 R : 80; Trag. 360f.R: 80 n. 60 Ephippus fr. 17K: 56 n. 127 Epicrates fr. 2 - 3 K : 98 Epicurus Schol. ad Ep. 1.67: 83 n. 74 Eriphus fr. 2K (= Antiph. Boeotis, fr; 58K): 56 Eubulus Amaltheia, fr. 7.1-2K: 28f., 36, 62; Astytoe, fr. 14.3K: 40 n. 86; Kampylion, fr. 41K: 92 n. 98; Fr. 67.1, 8K: 96 n. 120 Eupolis fr. 48K: 125 n. 72 Euripides Andr. 3 6 8 - 9 : 44, 45, 62; 369: 29 n. 52; Ba. 404f.: 85 n. 77; Cyc. 2 7 3 - 4 : 32 n. 64, 45; 3 2 0 - 1 : 32 n. 64, 44, 45; 3 5 0 - 2 : 44, 45, 62; Hec. 6 5 8 - 6 0 : 48 n. 107; HF. 1 0 1 6 - 2 0 : 39ff., 46, 51; 1019: 47, 49 n. 109; 1 0 2 1 - 4 : 41 n. 88; Hei. 3 7 5 - 8 5 : 35f., 41 n. 88, 42, 44, 45; Hipp. 317, 505, 527, 764, 775, 1268: 85 η. TT; Hyps. fr. 1, col., III, IV: 34, 35 n. 72; Ion, 1 2 6 1 - 5 : 44; 1 2 6 4 - 5 : 45; Med. 8: 85 n. 77; 5 4 2 - 3 : 44; 543: 32 n. 64; 637: 85 n. 77; 1 2 8 2 - 9 0 : 38; 1 3 4 2 - 3 : 32 n. 64, 44; Supp. 504: 32 n. 64, 44; Tr. 3 5 6 - 8 : 44, 45; 357: 32 n. 64, 44; 948ff„ 9 7 6 - 8 : 32 n. 64, 44; 992: 85 n. 77; Fr. 322N: 96 146

nn. 119, 120; fr. 400N, fr. 431N (= Soph. fr. 684 Pearson): 85 η. 77; fr. 524N: 96 η. 120; fr. 895N: 96 η. 119; fr. 897N, fr. 898N: 95 n. 109; fr. 1054N: 85 n. 77, 128 n. 83 Festus pp. 232, 233 Lindsay: 122 η. 61 Gellius, Aulus II. 2 3 . 9 - 1 0 : 77 η. 47; XX. 1.42-7: 110 η. 18; XX. 1.45: 112 η. 22 Heliodorus (scriptor eroticus) I. 8, 9, Π. 5, 16, III. 5, 7, 10, IV. 7, V. 2, 5, VI. 5, VII. 4, 10, Vili. 6: 84 η. 76 Heraclitus fr. B45, B115 Diels: 85 η. 82 Herodas II. 90: 19 η. 17 Herodotus VII. 20.2: 24 η. 33, 53, 61 η. 143 Homerus II. III. 442: 85 η. 77; IX. 3 8 8 - 9 0 : 19 η. 17; XIV. 294: 85 η. 77; 315ff.: 19 η. 17; 316: 85 η. 77; XVII. 398f.: 21 η. 26; Od. II. 118ff.: 19 η. 17; V. 126, XVIII. 212, 282; h. Ven. 7, 33, 38, 45, 53, 57, 143: 85 η. 77 Horatius Epod. 9.1 If.: 116 η. 35; 1 4 . 1 3 - 6 : 63 η. 147; 15.22: 48; Od. I. 33.14, IV. 11.23-4: 95 η. 106; Sat. I. 2.31ff.: 127 n. 79 Hyperides Epit. 35: 49 Ibycus fr. 286.13 PMG: 85 n. 77 Irenaeus A.P. V. 2 4 9 . 3 - 4 : 95 n. 106 Isocrates Busiris, 7: 2 4 f E u a g o r . 65: 23f., 49, 61; Panegyr. 83: 24, 49 Juvenalis VI. 195: 137; 286ff.: 127 n. 78 Leonidas A.P. V. 1 8 8 . 2 - 4 : 129 n. 88 Livius XXV. 1.4, 3.9: 121 n. 57; XXXVIII. 5 4 - 5 : 128 n. 86;

XXXIX. 6.7: 127 η. 78; XLV. 18.4: 121 η. 57 Longinus Yiepl ϋφους, 38.5: 19 η. 18 Longus I. 13, 15, 17, 18: 84 η. 76; 32: 81 η. 66, 84 η. 76, 136; II. 7, 8: 84 η. 76 Lucianus Am. 2: 59f.; 3: 73 η. 34; 5: 102 η. 151 ; 53: 67 η. 159; Dem.Enc. 25: 49; DMeretr. 15.2: 119 η. 44; DMort. 9.4: 21, 63; 14.6: 58 η. 132; Fug. 23: 27 η. 43; Herrn. 20: 49; 73: 50; Icar. 2: 49; Im. 13: 54; Merc.Cond. 20: 49; Nav. 6: 49; Ner. 3: 49, 58; Pr. Im. 19: 25, 57; Rh.Pr. 13: 49; Tim. 23: 20, 63; 42: 53; Tox. 15: 124 n. 68 Lucillius A.P. XI. 95: 59 n. 135; 239: 48 Lucretius III. 615: 78 n. 50; 9 9 2 - 4 : 76 n. 43; 1 0 4 2 - 4 : 50 n. I l l ; IV. 758: 78 n. 50; 1123: 96 n. 121; V. 22ff.: 59 n. 132; 149, VI. 1183: 78 n. 50 Lyrica Alexandrina Adespota Fragmentum Grenfellianum, 11 ff.: 94f.; 15f.: 84 n. 76; 27, 42, 48, 51, 60: 116 n. 34; Κ ω μ α σ τ ή ς , 9 (Powell, Coll.Alex. p. 181): 84 η. 76 Macedonius A.P. V. 235: « 2 η. 69; 235.4: 82 η. 69, 84 η. 76, 89 η. 91 Marcus Argentarius A.P. IX. 2 2 1 . 5 - 6 : 60 Martialis V. 65, IX. 101: 59 η. 132; Χ. 68.5: 137 Meleager A.P. V. 24.1, 56.2: 84 η. 76; 57: 87, 129 η. 88; 139.3: 81 η. 66; 148: 47; 1 5 2 . 7 - 8 : 59 η. 135; 155.2: 137; 156: 125 η. 73; 166.6: 84 η. 76; 1 7 1 . 3 - 4 : 136; 177: 95 η. 110; 180: 81 η. 68, 95 η. 110; 1 8 0 . 1 - 2 : 129 η. 88; 190: 82 η. 69; 204: 125 η. 73; 215: 129 η.

88; XII. 4 7 : 136 η. 21; 48: 60, 129 η. 88; 52.2: 137; 57.8: 84 η. 76; 80: 73 η. 34, 87, 88, 89 η. 91, 135; 81.1: 84 α. 76; 81.5: 109 η. 13; 82.1: 81 η. 66; 83.6: 84 η. 76; 84: 81 η. 66, 82 η. 69; 85: 81 η. 66, 82 η. 69; 92: 87, 88; 106.4, 125.7, 127.8: 84 η. 76; 132: 87, 88 η. 88; 132a: 87; 1 3 3 . 5 - 6 : 136; 157: 82 η. 69, 84 η. 76, 89 η. 91; 159: 82 η. 69, 135; 167: 82 η. 69; 256.2: 84 η. 76 Men ander Anepsioe, fr. 53: 92 η. 98; Asp. 15: 42 η. 90; 56: 74 η. 36; 2 8 4 - 7 : 72 η. 25; 287: 72 η. 25; 288ff.: 77 η. 48; Dis Ex. 18ff.: 99, 109 η. 15; 24: 76 η. 45, 109 η. 15; Dysk. 153ff.: 2 9 f „ 30 η. 59, 42 η. 90; 469ff.: 107 η. 4; 522ff.: 77 η. 49; 6 8 3 - 4 : 42 η. 90; Epitr. 229, 368f., 4 0 I f f . , 417f.: 107 η. 4; 557ff.: 77η. 49; 1069: 107 η. 4; Her. 18: 84 η. 75; 36: 111 η. 21; fr. 2: 92 η. 98; Kolax, fr. 2: 21 η. 2b \ Mis. A l Α16: 42 η. 90; A4: 72 η. 27; Α 4 5: 72; A6ff.: 77 η. 48; 2 1 0 - 1 5 : 42 η. 90; 259ff.: 108 η. 10; 267: 84 η. 75; 307f.: 74 η. 36; 320f.: 117 η. 37; 360: 84 η. 75; 361: 76 η. 45; fr. 2: 109 η. 14; Perik. 5 3 2 6: 72, 72 η. 27; 537ff.: 77 η. 48; 9 7 6 : 117 η. 37·, Plokion, fr. 333: 77 η. 47; Sam. 12, 90: 72 ηη. 25, 26, 27; 91: 117 η. 37; 91ff.: 77 η. 48; 206ff.: 76 η. 45, 77 η. 49; 4 9 5 - 7 : 30, 53; 4 9 5 - 9 : 42 η. 90; 4 9 7 : 30 η. 62, 40 η. 86; 498: 42 η. 90; 5 8 9 - 9 0 : 40 η. 86; 625: 76 η. 45, 109 η. 14; 632: 116 η. 34; 674: 42 η. 9 0 ; Sift. 10: 74 η. 36; 1 76f.: 42 η. 90; Synaristosae, fr. 383, fr. 569: 92 η. 98; Thesauros, fr. 198: 92, 92 η. 98, 96 η. 119, 103, 130 η. 90; Fr. 14: 73 η. 31; 68: 107 η. 4; 142: 73 η. 31; 224, 314, 315, 329: 118 η. 43; 333, 335: 76 η. 45; 568: 76 η. 45, 84 η. 75, 94, 109 η. 14; 656: 76 η. 45; Pap.Antinoop.l5[Men.]. 1-2:

147

72; 3ff.: 77 η. 4 8 ; 1 1 - 1 2 : 112 η. 2 3 ; 12: 76 η. 4 5 Moschus I. I f f . : 95 η. 110; 8 - 9 : 81 η. 67; 8 f f . : 81 η. 6 8 ; 8 - 1 1 : 128 η. 83; 5.£p¿í.[Mosch.] 3 7 - 4 4 , 5 5 - 6 : 23 η. 3 1 Musaeus 7 1 - 2 : 136; 1 4 9 f f . : 60 η. 138 Nicetas Eugenianus I. 329, II. 12, 1 5 - 8 , 2 6 - 7 , 4 2 , 9 2 - 3 : 84 η. 76; II. 9 2 - 6 : 76 η. 4 4 ; 141f.: 81 η. 66; 2 0 2 - 3 : 5 4 ; IV. 1 1 9 - 2 0 : 54; 178: 81 η. 6 6 ; 188: 45 η. 9 7 ; VI. 5 8 : 137; 4 1 2 : 97 η. 124; 6 2 7 - 8 : 67 η. 159; 6 3 1 - 2 : 45 η. 97 Nonnus Dion. I. 5 3 3 - 4 : 135 η. 9 ; VII. 2 6 7 - 8 : 136; X V . 3 3 1 : 9 4 ; X X V . 2 4 2 f f . : 54, 5 8 ; X X I X . 2 4 0 - 2 : 58 η. 129; X X X I I I . 2 3 5 - 6 , X L I I . 4 3 9 - 4 1 : 136 Ovidius A.A. I. 3 6 3 - 4 : 63 η. 147; 3 8 1 : 102 η. 152; 6 6 9 f . : 130 η. 9 0 ; 752f.: 101 η. 149; II. 174, 2 9 1 - 3 , 5 1 3 , III. 4 8 6 , 4 8 9 : 130 η. 9 0 ; Am. I. 7.22: 118 η. 4 1 ; 10.15: 96 η. 117; II. 5 . 7 - 1 2 , 7 . 1 - 2 , 7.28: 118 η. 4 1 ; 12: 6 2 f . ; III. 11.3: 116 η. 35; 1 4 . 4 8 - 5 0 : 118 η. 4 1 ; Her. IX. 2 4 - 5 : 6 0 ; Rem.Am. 73f., 9 6 : 116 n. 3 5 ; 3 0 0 : 130 n. 9 0 ; 3 0 2 : 124 n. 68; 4 5 1 : 130 n. 9 0 ; 6 6 1 , 6 9 5 f . : 118 n. 4 1 ; 6 9 8 : 130 n. 9 0 Oxyrhynchus Papyri I X , no. 1176, fr. 39, col. VII (Satyros, βίος Εύριπίδον): 41 η. 89; no. 2 3 3 1 : 5 8 ; X X V I I (1962), no. 2 4 5 2 , fr. 3 . 1 0 f f . (= R . Carden, Pap. Frag, of Soph., no. 5, p. 119): 4 2 n. 9 2 Parmenides fr. A l , fr. 2 8 A . 4 5 Diels: 85 η. 82 Paroemia Graeca et Latina vid. General Index, s.v. Proverbial expressions Paulus Silentiarius A.P. V. 2 3 6 : 45 n. 97, 67 n. 159;

148

2 4 6 : 67 n. 159; 2 5 4 . 7 - 8 : 97 n. 124; 2 7 4 . 4 : 84 n. 76; 3 0 1 . 6 - 8 : 48 Philemon fr. 8 8 . 9 - 1 I K , fr. 2 3 1 K : 107 n. 4 Philetaerus Atalante, fr. 3 K : 28 η. 50, 49 η. 109, 60 η. 139 Philodemus Gadarensis A.P. V. 2 5 . 1 - 3 : 102 η. 152; 131.3: 84 η. 76; Χ . 21: 82 η. 6 9 , 125 η. 73 Philostratus Ερ. 7: 96 η. 117; 11, 12: 84 η. 76; 19: 127 η. 80; 3 7 : 45 η. 9 7 ; 5 0 : 102 η. 152 Phoenicides fr. 4 . 7 f f . K : 118 η. 43 Phrynichus Monotropos, fr. 2 2 K : 28 η. 50; fr. 5 2 K : 31 η. 63 Pindarus O. I. 4 1 , P. II. 27, IV. 219, Χ . 6 0 : 85 η. 77; Fr. 108.2: 85 η. 77 Plato Euthd. 2 9 7 C : 22 η. 29, 5 7 ; Euthphr. 1 IC—E: 22; 15B: 22 η. 28; Grg. 4 9 3 Α : 86 η. 82; Lg. 6 6 0 Ε , 71 I E : 22 η. 29; Phd. 9 9 C : 22 η. 29-,Phdr. 2 3 0 A : 22 η. 29; 2 5 1 A 2 5 2 C : 86 η. 8 4 ; 2 5 2 A : 9 5 η. 106, 101 η. 149, 109 η. 13; 2 5 4 Β 2 5 6 Α : 86 η. 8 4 ; R. IV. 4 3 5 C 4 4 1 C : 86 η. 8 3 ; Smp. 1 7 8 B - C , 1 8 0 Β - 1 8 1 Β : 9 5 η. 109; 183Α: 9 5 η. 106; 184C: 95 η. 106, 109 η. 13; 1 8 5 B - C , 1 8 6 Α - Β , 1 8 7 D - E , 1 8 8 C - D , 193Β, 193D, 1 9 5 Α 197Α: 95 η. 109; 195Ε, 196Β: 85 η. 77; 2 0 3 C - D : 96 η. 117; 2 0 3 C 2 0 4 Β : 95 η. 109; 2 1 5 B - C : 21; 2 1 5 Ε : 85 η. 77, 109 η. 13; 2 1 9 Ε : 22 η. 29, 109 η. 13; 2 2 1 C : 23 η. 3 0 ; Th.t. 1 6 9 Α - Β : 21; 1 6 9 Β : 22, 57; Ti. 4 3 Ä f f . : 82 η. 69; A.P. V. 78[Plato]: 85, 86, 135, 135 η. 13 Plautus Amph. 3 1 0 : 101 n. 146; Asin. 128, 1 2 9 : 120 n. 49; 131f.: 108 n. 8; 136f.: 119 n. 4 6 ; 137: 120 n. 4 9 ; 1 4 1 : 135 n. 9; 1 5 6 - 8 : 125; 159:

125, 125 η. 72; 161: 120 η. 49; 164: 119 η. 46; 166: 118 η. 43; 172: 107 η. 5; 228: 119 η. 45; 229f.: 119 η. 44; 233f., 2 4 3 - 8 : 124 η. 68; 479: 114 η. 28; 504ff.: 107 η. 7; 524: 118 η. 43; 534: 117; 548: 74 η. 37; 594: 117f.; 606f.: 117 η. 37; 709: 74 η. 37; 746ff.: 119 η. 44; 8 8 2 - 5 : 120 η. 51; 8 8 4 - 5 : 120 η. 52; 8 8 4 - 6 : 118 η. 43; 889: 74 η. 37; 9 3 7 : 108 η. 10; Aul. 45: 74 η. 37; 181: 78 ηη. 51, 53; 631: 74 η. 37; 700: 108 η. 10; 701ff.: 16 η. 10; Bacch. 73: 100 η. 142; 92f.: 109f., 116; 97: 118 η. 43; 1 7 9 - 8 1 : 112; 181: 113 η. 26; 372: 100 ηη. 141, 142, 143; 500ff.: 99, 109 η. 15; 584: 74 η. 37; 743, 813: 104 η. 160; 863: 122 η. 59; 9 2 5 : 40 η. 86; 9 2 5 - 3 0 : 16 η. 10, 29, 40, 42, 61ff., 66; 9 2 5 78: 61 η. 141; 929: 53, 54; 1096f.: 119 η. 44; 1159: 74 η. 38; 1183a: 74 η. 37; 1205: 11 Of.; fr. Χ: 119 η. 44; fr. XV: 16 ηη. 9, 10, 39, 40, 42, 63; fr. XIX: 119 η. 45; Capt. 597, 691, 731: 74 η. 37; 7 8 1 f f „ 9 0 7 : 107 η. 7; 998: 4 0 η. 86; 998ff.: 16 η. 10, 43; Cas. 222f.: 101 η. 148; 276: 74 η. 38; 447: 74 η. 37; Cist. 69f.: 101 η. 148; 72: 128f., 131; 8 6 - 8 : 128; 92f.: 118 η. 43; 203ff.: 115 η. 30; 2 0 3 - 5 : 16 η. 9, 71 ff.; 2 0 3 - 2 1 0 : 115; 2 0 3 - 2 8 : 68, 69ff., 132f.; 205: 39 η. 85; 211f.: 135 η. 11; 219: 101 η. 148; 2 1 9 - 2 0 : 103 η. 157; 312, 314, 4 8 7 : 118 η. 43; 653: 74 η. 3 7; 653f.: 18; Cure. 3 - 6 : 117 η. 37; 4 6 - 8 : 130 η. 89; 162ff.: 113f.; 174: 130; 215: 114 η. 28; 598: 100 η. 141; Epid. 25ff.: 107 η. 7; 147: 114 η. 28; 1 7 8 - 9 : 16 η. 10, 30 η. 60, 55ff.; 179: 36 η. 76, 52; 2 2 6 - 8 : 97 η. 126, 118 η. 43, 125f.; 530: 78 η. 50; Men. 130: 118 η. 43, 120 η. 52; 19 I f f . : 120 η. 52; 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 : 16 ηη. 9, 10, 30 π. 60, 41, 5 5 f f „ 66; 202: 118 η. 43; 359, 371, 372: 120 η. 49; 4 5 1 -

2: 73 η. 32; 5 3 0 - 2 : 118 η. 43; 6 8 8 - 9 : 120 η. 52; 803f.: 118 η. 4 3 ; 9 5 1 : 74 η. 37; Merc. 18ff.: 92 η. 98, 93, 96; 38: 129f.; 168: 114 η. 28; 334: 135 η. 9; 335f.: 72 η. 25: 3 4 I f f . : 77 η. 48; 345ff.: 79; 3 9 7 : 114 η. 28; 469: 40 η. 86; 4 6 9 - 7 0 : 16 ηη. 9, 10, 30 η. 58, 31, 40, 53f., 66; 470: 74 η. 38; 589: 78, 78 η. 51, 79, 135 η. 11; 618: 74 η. 37; 8 5 2 - 4 : 62 η. 144; Mil. 1 1 - 1 2 : 21 η. 26; 1 0 5 - 7 : 118 η. 43; 156ff.: 107 η. 7; 210: 101 η. 146; 9 0 9 : 135 η. 9; 9 8 1 : 118 η. 43; 1032, 1068, 1163: 74 η. 38; Most. 22: 104 η. 160; 5 5 - 7 : 74 η. 37; 64: 104 η. 160; 1 3 7 f f „ 161ff.: 104 η. 159; 214: 119 η. 46, 120 η. 49; 220: 119 η. 46; 232: 119 η. 46, 120 η. 49; 240: 114 η. 28; 303ff.: 129; 436, 697: 100 η. 141; 775: 40 η. 86; 775ff.: 40 η. 87; 816a: 101 η. 146; 960: 104 η. 160; Pers. 1: 60 η. 139, 73 ηη. 32, 33; 1 - 2 : 16 ηη. 9, 10, 18 η. 14, 41, 66; 1 5: 5 5 f f „ 59ff., 69; 2: 39; 3 - 5 : 27 η. 43, 60; 22, 269, 298: 114 η. 28; 555: 128 η. 82; 709: 78 η. 51; 795: 74 η. 37; Poen. 156f.: 74 η. 38; 225: 100 η. 141; 603: 104 η. 160; 720: l l l f . ; 855: 114 η. 28; Ps. 1 3 - 1 5 : 114f., 123; 15: 114 η. 28; 32: 117 η. 37; 34: 78 η. 51, 79 η. 55; 63: 101 η. 148; 1 1 4 - 1 7 : 108 η. 9; 1 2 5 f f „ 133ff.: 107 η. 7; 177ff.: 126f.; 181, 190f., 198f., 213, 228: 126; 320: 120 η. 49; 5 3 5 - 8 : 108 η. 9; 653: 101 η. 146; 694f.: 101 η. 148; 1 0 7 0 - 8 : 108 η. 9; 1232: 108 η. 10; 1240: 74 η. 37; 1244: 16 η. 10, 39, 41, 61, 63f.; Rud. 5 0 8 : 36 η. 76; 5 0 8 - 9 : 16 η. 10, 30 ηη. 60, 62, 36 η. 76, 52; 1401: 114 η. 28; Stich. 2 7 4 - 5 : 16 η. 10, 41; 3 0 5 : 41; 3 0 5 - 6 : 16 η. 10; 353: 107 η. 7; 436: 74 η. 37; 7 5 0 - 1 : 1 1 1 η . 19; Triti. 2 2 3 - 7 5 : 13, 68, 90ff., 132f.; 2 4 3 - 5 5 : 118 η. 43; 266: 100, 101, 106, 129; 2 7 0 f f „ 2 7 6 f f „ 651, 653, 656: 102 η.

149

154; 658: 1 1 2 n . 2 3 ; 6 6 3 f f . : 102 η. 154; 667ff.: 103f.; 6 7 0 - 2 : 80, 103 η. 157; 689: 102 η. 154; 838: 100 η. 141; 1 0 2 4 - 6 : 130 η. 90; Truc. 3 0 56: 118 η. 43; 31: 119 η. 44; 88: 104 η. 160; 138ff.: 121; 1 4 1 - 6 : 121 f. ; 147ff.: 122f.; 174ff.: 123f.; 1 7 8 - 9 : 101 n. 148; 213f.: 123f.; 2 2 9 - 3 0 : 117; 2 3 9 - 4 3 : 124f.; 309f.: 118 n. 43; 339: 78 n. 51; 346: 101 n. 148; 357: 114 n. 28; 4 2 5 - 3 0 : 118 n. 43; 425ff.: 120 n. 52, 124; 4 4 1 - 7 : 120 n. 51; 443ff.: 124; 4 4 3 - 4 : 120 n. 52; 4 4 3 - 5 : 118 n. 43; 445: 120 n. 52; 529ff.: 120 n. 52; 5 2 9 - 3 1 : 120 n. 51; 5 2 9 - 4 5 : 118 n. 4 3 ; 535: 119 n. 46; 542: 120 n. 49; 551ff.: 124; 5 5 1 - 6 1 9 : 118 n. 43; 565, 5 8 2 - 3 , 617f.: 119 n. 46; 661f.: 118 n. 43, 120 nn. 51, 52; 687ff.: 130 n. 89; 7 0 3 - 5 : 118 n. 43, 119 n. 46; 739f.: 119 n. 43; 740: 120 n. 52; 7 6 0 - 2 : 108 n. 8; 819: 108 n. 10; 853: 74 n. 38; 866: 78 n. 51, 135 n. 11; 893f.: 119 n. 43, 120 n. 52; 9 1 2 - 1 3 : 130 n. 89; 946f.: 119 n. 43 Plinius H.N. XXXIII. 148: 127 n. 78 Plutarchus Amat. 5: 119 n. 47; 759C: 134 n. 3; 762E: 101 n. 149; Cat.Ma. 9.5: 134 n. 3; Mor. 59C: 56; 519E: 122 n. 59; Per. 28.5: 62 n. 143; Pomp. 4 : 128 η. 86; Fr. 134: 94; fr. 136: 81 nn. 67, 68, 96 η. 119 Polybius XXXI. 25.4 (= XXXII. 11.4): 127 η. 78 Polystratus A.P. XII. 91.1: 87, 88 Posidippus A.P. XII. 98.4: 84 n. 76; 45: 129 n. 88 Propertius I. 7.26: 130 n. 90; 9.19f.: 76 n. 43; 13.17: 136 n. 20; 16.48: 74 n. 38; II. 12: 13; 1 2 . 3 - 4 : 96 n. 119; 12.20: 73 n. 34, 114 n. 28; 14.1ff.:

150

63 n. 147; 14.3ff.: 63; 22.34: 63 n. 147; 2 3 . 7 - 8 : 59; 24A.25ff.: 59 n. 136; 26A.37: 63 n. 151; 30.32: 118 n. 41; 3 4 . 5 - 6 : 101 n. 149; III. 10.18: 116 n. 35; 1 1 . 1 - 2 : 116 n. 35, 118 n. 41; 1 2 . 2 3 - 3 8 : 63 n. 151; 12.38: 48 Pythagoras fr. 5 8 B l a Diels: 86 nn. 82, 83; fr. 58B15, 58D8 Diels: 86 n. 82 Quintiiianus Inst. VII. 9.4: 122 η. 59; VIII. 6.75: 26 η. 37 Rufinus A.P. V. 1 4 . 3 - 4 : 136; 22: 95; 75.2: 84 η. 76 Sappho fr. 1.22 L.-P.: 120 η. 50; fr. 1.4, 18, 27 L.-P., fr. 47 L.-P., fr. 86.4 L.-P.: 85 η. 77; fr. 130.2 L.-P.: 81 η. 68, 101 η. 147 Seneca Agam. 23ff.: 48; Herc.Oet. 2 3 3 - 6 , 2 8 4 - 5 : 46 n. 100; 474: 6 0 ; H i p p o l . 757: 48; Octav. 5 - 9 : 46 n. 100; 7 - 9 : 48; 5 7 - 9 : 46 n. 100; 5 4 4 - 6 , 6 2 1 - 3 : 48; 762ff.: 46 n. 100; 775: 48; Phoen. 3 6 3 - 7 0 : 46 n. 100; Thy est. 18f.: 48; Ep. 88.37: 122 n. 59 Simonides fr. 509 PMG: 23 n. 31, 25 n. 34, 57 Sophocles Ant. 782: 96 n. 119; 792: 85 n. 77; EL 8 3 7 - 4 9 : 34; Ph. 6 7 6 - 8 5 : 37, 39, 42, 76 n. 43; Tr. 575: 85 n. 77; 1046ff.: 42f., 46 n. 98; fr. 6 8 4 Pearson (= Eur. fr. 4 3 I N ) : 85 n. 77; fr. 941 Pearson: 85 n. 77, 95 n. 109; fr. 1015N[Soph.]: 81 n. 67 Statius Silv. I. 2.38f.: 59 n. 136; 2 . 8 5 - 9 0 : 50; II. 1 . 1 2 4 - 5 : 59 n. 132; 6 . 5 4 5: 50; V. 3.51f.: 50; 114: 64; 1 1 4 15: 50, 63 Strato A.P. XII. 181.4: 84 n. 76 Suidas s.v. μίαϋωμα: 119 η. 45

Tacitus Germ. 19: 122 η. 59 Terentius Ad. 61 Off.: 108 n. 10; 855ff.: 77 n. 49; And. 260: 74 n. 38; 303f.: 80; 311: 117 n. 37; 716ff.: 77 n. 49; Eun. 54: 111 n. 19; 59ff.: 92 n. 98; 1 3 5 - 4 1 : 119 n. 43; 143: 135 n. 9; 1 6 3 - 9 : 119 n. 43; 164: 120 n. 49; 214, 274: 119 n. 43; 275: 119 n. 46; 319: 107 n. 5; 3 5 2 - 7 : 119 n. 43; 383f.: 74 n. 38; 3 9 I f f . : 119 n. 46; 4 5 4 - 8 5 : 119 n. 43; 585: 40 n. 86; 756: 100 n. 145; 791ff.: 119 n. 43; 806f.: 108 n. 11; 816: 78 n. 51; 886f.: 107 n. 5; 9 0 4 : 100 n. 145; 985: 107 n. 5; 1027f.: 60 n. 138; 1 0 6 3 - 6 : 108 n. 11; Heaut. 223: 97, 119 n. 43; 3 5 1 f „ 354: 107 n. 5; 390: 135 n. 9; 449ff.: 98 n. 127; 564: 107 n. 5; 751ff.: 98 n. 127; 805ff.: 77 n. 49; 1036: 40 n. 86; 1063: 78 n. 51 ; Hec. 169: 135 n. 13; 281f.: 72 n. 25; 294: 135 n. 11; 297f„ 6 8 9 : 135 n. 9; 8 4 5 - 6 : 119 n. 43; Phorm. 150: 125 n. 71; 202: 117 n. 37; 212, 334, 437, 439, 452: 107 n. 5; 551f.: 117 n. 37; 606ff.: 108 n. 10; 1009, 1055: 107 n. 5 Theocritus Id. I. 97f.: 60; III. 10f„ 34ff.: 120 n. 50; IV. 8 - 9 : 59 n. 133; V. 96ff.: 120 n. 50; VII. 125: 60; XI. 40: 120 η. 50; 52: 84 η. 76; XXIV. 8: 137; XXVII. 6 1 - 2 : 135; 62: 84 η. 76 Theognis 457ff. (= Theophil. fr. 6K.): 125 η.

73; 6 9 9 - 7 1 8 : 20; 1123ff.: 63; 1235: 85 η. 77; 1 2 6 3 - 6 : 120 η. 49; 1273f.: 125 η. 73; 1295: 85 η. 77; 1353: 81 η. 68, 95 η. 110, 96 η. 118; 1388: 85 η. 77 Theophilus fr. 4.4Κ: 100 η. 144; fr. 6Κ. (= Thgn. 457ff.): 125 η. 73; fr. 11.3Κ: 102 η. 151 Theophrastus ap. Stob. Flor. 64.29: 84 n. 76 Thucydides I. 3ff.: 24 n. 33 Tibullus II. 1.73f.: 96 n. 119; 4.53f.: 124 n. 68; III. 6 . 1 3 - 7 : 60; 19.17 (= IV. 13.17): 130 n. 90; IV. 1.81: 63 Trabea fr. 5R: 50 n. 111 Turpilius, Sextus Leucadia, fr. VIIIR: 74 n. 38 Tyrtaeus fr. 1 2 . 3 - 8 West: 20 Valerius Maximus IX. 1.3: 127 n. 78 Varrò L.L. V. 95: 122 n. 61; VI. 5: 118 n. 40; R.R. II. 1.16: 121, 121 n. 54 Vergilius Aen. VI. 801ff.: 59 n. 132 Xenophon Cyr. VI. 1.41: 85 n. 77; Mem. I. 2.22: 102 η. 152; 3.11: 96, 109 η. 13; Smp. I. 9: 85 η. 77; IV. 14: 95 η. 106, 109 η. 13 Xenophon Ephesius I. 1: 94 η. 105; 5, 9, III. 5, 6: 84 η. 76

151

General Index Acheruns: 43 n. 94 Addictus: 1 1 0 - 1 2 , 115, 116 n. 35, 117, 124, 129, 131; (addictum) ducere, l l l f . Aeschylus: mythological hyperboles καΰ' ύπεροχψ, 33f„ 38f., 42, 45 Agamemnon: 34 Aggrandizement of characters and their experiences: accumulation of images, 76f.; amatory, 66f.; magisterial and juridical terminology, ch. III, passim, s.v. Magisterial representation; merging of juridical and amatory themes, 116f.; mythological comparisons κα&' ύπεροχήν, 17, 52, 64, 66f., 108, 133; verbs denoting superiority, 52, 64 Alliteratio: extensively used by Plautus, 74, 80, 125 Amatory gifts and payments to the hetaera/meretrix: Roman society's attitude to in the time of Plautus, 127; concept of, juridicized by Plautus, 118ff. ; in the form of fundi et aedes, 124 n. 68; as a loan, 123ff., s.w. Addictus, Vadatus, Vadimonium; presented as an obligation enforced by a magisterial edict, 126f.; obligatory element, aggrandized by Plautus, 120ff. ; as portorium, 125; as scriptura, 121 ff.; as tributum, 125f. See also s.w. Gift-giving, Hetaera/Meretrix Amor: bitter-sweet, 101 ; as a carnufex, inventor of camuficina, 69, 71—6, 82; -cruciabilitates animi (Cist. 203ff.), Hellenistic origin of the theme, s.v. E ros-ψυχή relationships; elegans, 96 n. 120; ludificator, 70, 80, 81; as a magistrate accused of having commited peculatus, 128f., 131 ; perfidiosus, 128f.; publicus, 121f., 128; renounced, lOOf., 104, 106, 129; as opposed to res, s.v.

152

Conflicts; points of similarity between him and Eros, 59f. (Pers. 1 - 5 ) , 8 I f . , 83ff. (Cist. 203ff.), 93ff., 96, 101 (Trin. 223ff.),passim; as a tamer of wild beasts, 60; the vessel of the soul sunk by, 70, 8 I f . ; as a wrestler, 60. See also s.v. Love Amphiaraus: 34 Anima: semantic development compared with that of ψυχή, 83 n. 74. See also s.v. Animus Animus: animum in aliquo/ aliqua re/ alicubt esse, 78; and anima combined = ψυχή in its later semantic development, 83 n. 74; and anima used in the same sense by Latin writers, 83 n. 74; anime, anime mi, 137, s.v. Ψυχή; cruciabilitates animi, s.v. "Αθλιος; decern animi, 79; divorced from the man, 78f., 134—7; lassus animi, 80; mens animi, 78 n. 50; nubila mens animi, 70, 78; in the sense of ψυχή, 83 n. 74; the rational and emotional soul, 84 n. 74; sunk by Amor, 8 I f . ; surrendered to the beloved, 78ff., 1 3 4 - 7 ; tormented by Amor, s.v. Amor Antaios: 22, 27 n. 43, 57 Antithesis: extensively used by Plautus, 70, 80 Apagc: (Gr. Üuaye), lOOf. Aper Aetolicus: 27 n. 43, 55 n. 120 Ares: 21 n. 26 Asclepiades: see s.v. Callimachus Asyndeton: extensively used by Plautus, 74, 80 "Αάλως: 72 n. 27 Bailey, C.: 76 n. 43, 84 n. 74 Βάραύρον·. applied to love, 102 n. 151; as a nickname for a hetaera, ibid. Beneficium: 120 Bene merens: 120 Benignitas: 120

Braun, L.: 69 nn. 7, 8, 9, 70 n. 11, 71, 91 n. 97 Burck, E.: 13, 15 n. 2, 68, 69 nn. 8, 9, 70 n. 11, 71, 71 nn. 19, 20, 73 n. 34, 9 0 - 1 0 4 , 114 n. 28 Byzantine love poetry: 76 η. 43 Callimachus: Asclepiadean influence, 88 η. 89; ψ υ χ ή tormented by Eros, 8 8 f „ 89 n. 91 Callisto: 35f. Cantica, amatory: 68ff.; Cist. 2 0 3 - 2 8 , 69ff.; derivation f r o m secondary Greek sources, 77ff., 83ff., 89, 98ff., 103, 105, 132f.; indebtedness to the primary Greek models, 59ff., 7 1 - 6 , 82f., 89, 92ff., 103f.; indirect influence of Hellenistic love poetry, 83ff., 89, 105, 132f.; Pers. 1 - 5 , 55ff., 59ff., 69; Plautus* methods of adaptation, 89, 103f.; previous scholarly contributions, 68; Trin. 2 2 3 - 7 5 , 90ff. Carnufex: as a term of abuse, 73 n. 30; Amor compared to, s.v. Amor Carnuficina: see s.v. Amor Cassandra: 33f. Catullus: relationship with Lesbia represented in terms of a political alliance, 131; love represented in financial terms, 130 Γελοϊον: see s.v. Comedy, New Chains of love: 112, s.v. Vincula amoris Χάρις: 119 nn. 46, 47, 119f. Comedy, Attic: Old, Middle and New, mythological hyperboles K a â ' νπβροχήν, see s.v. ; mythological scurrilities, 26ff., 65f.; Middle and New, accumulation of mythological material, s.v. Mythology; New, Euripidean influence, s.w. Euripides, Mythological hyperbole(s) Kad' ύπεροχήν; Γελοϊον, an important element of, 66, 133; as a forerunner of Hellenistic love poetry, 66f.; juridical terminology, 106f.; lovers, 66, 108 n. 10, 117 n. 37; primary source of Plautus' knowledge of Gr. Erotic traditions, 89, 105, 132. See also s.w. Ερωτικοί

λόγοι, Hellenistic love poetry, Herakles, Meleager, Ovid, Plautus Conflicts: introduced by Plautus into monologue openings, 99, 103; introduced by other Roman writers into their Greek models, 99 n. 137; amor-res, 92, 98ff., 103, 104 Convador: 113 n. 26 Copley, F. O.: 60 n. 138, 97 nn. 123, 124, 109 nn. 12, 13, 16, 112 n. 23, 114 n. 28 Court of love: 1 1 6 f f „ 131 Credere: double meaning o f , 124f. Crusius, F.: 69 nn. 8, 9, 70 n. 12, 74 n. 37 Cuculus: = κόκκυζ as a term of abuse, 97 Daedalus: 22, 22 n. 28, 49 Δημόσιον: see s.v. Publicum Edicts: see s.v. Amatory gifts and payments to the hetaera/meretrix Egli, G.: 19 n. 17, 26 n. 38 Είκάξειν: see s.v. Είκασμοί EΙκασμοί: Herakles, s.v. Plato; mythological hyperboles Kad' ίτπεροχήν (Plato), 19, 21ff., 51, 57, 59 Electra: 34 'Ελλιμένισα: 125 n. 72 Emancupo: 110, 116 n. 35 Encomia: see s.w. Oratory (Attic), Lucían Έ π ί τροχού στρεβλούν/-οϋσδαι: see s.v. Vorsare Eros: as a boxer, wrestler, 60; discussions of the nature of, 92f., 95f., s.v. 'Ερωτικοί λόγοι; as a flatterer, 81, 96; Herakles conquered by, 60; as a liar, 96; as being in pursuit of man's possessions, 96; ambivalent nature of, 81; as poor, 96; connection with ψυχή, s.v. Ψ υ χ ή ; ψ υ χ ή tormented by, 84ff., s.u. Eros-ψυχή relationships; as rapacious, 96; as a tamer of wild beasts, 60; treatment of his victims, 81; wounds inflicted b y his arrows, 129. See also s.w. Love, Amor Eros-ψυχή relationships: see s.w. Eros, Ψ υ χ ή , Hellenistic love poetry, Meleager, Callimachus, Asclepiades, Plato

153

Erotic traditions: Greek, original elements introduced into b y Plautus, ch. III, passim·, Plautus' indebtedness to, s.v. Cantica (amatory), 132f.; (sources of) Plautus' knowledge of, 89, 105, 132f.; Roman, 132 ' Ε ρ ω τ ι κ ο ί λόγοι: and Middle and New C o m e d y writers, 92f. ; and Triti. 2 2 3 - 7 5 , 9 2 f . , 9 5 . See also S.D. Plato Έΰελοδουλεία: 95 η. 106, 116 η. 33 Euagoras: 23f. Euripides: and Menander, 4 1 f . ; mythological hyperboles καά' ύηεροχήν, 19, 32, 33, 3 4 f f . , 37 η. 79, 38, 3 9 f f „ 42, 4 4 f f „ 4 7 , 51, 62; and New C o m e d y , 41 n. 89, 41f., 45f. Exanimor: 75 n. 3 8 ; exanimatus/a, ibid.. Female extravagance and luxury: 9 7 f „ 104 Fides: 102 Flury, P.: 14, 15 n. 2, 68, 69 n. 8, 71 nn. 19, 20, 72 n. 27, 74 n. 37, 75 nn. 39, 4 1 , 76 n. 43, 77 n. 46, 78 nn. 50, 52, 54, 79 nn.55, 56, 5 8 , 80 n. 6 5 , 82 nn. 70, 72, 9 0 n. 9 4 , 93 n. 104, 128 n. 85, 129 n. 87, 1 3 4 - 7 Fraenkel, E d . : 13, 1 5 - 6 7 , 68, 7 1 f „ 72 n. 28, 73 n. 29, 9 0 n. 9 3 , 91, 97, 99, 100, 102 n. 153, 104 n. 159, 107 nn. 6, 7, 118 n. 40, 126, 133 Fredershausen, O.: 107 η. 5, 121 nn. 56, 57, 58, 125 η. 72, 126 Gift-giving: as an expression of love in antiquity, 120; ancient institution of, 1 1 8 f f . ; as a customary form of payment to the hetaera/ meretrix, 118ff. See also s.w. Amatory gifts and payments to the hetaera/meretrix, Beneficium, Bene merens, Benignitas, Χάρις Gloria: 102 Gratia, Gratus: in the context of amatory payments, 119f., 119 nn. 4 6 , 4 7 ; in a political and social sense, 102

154

Gronovius, I. F.: 128 η. 85 Handley, E. W.: 29, 99 η. 136 Helen: 3 5 f „ 4 4 , 4 8 , 4 9 Hellenistic love poetry: Eros-ψυχή relationships, 8 4 f f . ; may have influenced Plautus, 8 4 - 9 , 105, 132f.; maritime metaphors, 81f., 89 n. 91; mythological hyperboles KO&' ύπεροχήν, 6 6 f . ; and New Comedy, 59 n. 135, 6 6 f „ 106 Herakles: his ά $ λ α identified with, surpassed b y the πόνοι of love, 59f.; conquered by Eros, 6 0 ; in hyperbolic comparisons καϋ' ύπεροχήν, 29, 39, 4 1 , 4 2 f . , 55ff., s.w. Plato, Simonides; ούδέ Ηρακλής προς δύο, 59; servitude to Omphale used as an exemplum of servitium amoris, 6 0 n. 138; a stock-figure in Attic C o m e d y , 55f. Hetaera: see s.v. Meretrix Έύρετής: 60 n. 139, 73 Hoelzer, V.: 13, 60, 67 nn. 159, 160, 76 n. 43, 82 nn. 69, 70; 105 Homer: concept of ψυχή, 85; gods, heroes surpassed by a mortal, 19, s.v. Ares; ΰυμός, 86 n. 8 3 ; ϋυμός and φρένες as seats of love, 84 n. 76, 85 n. 77 Homoeoteleuton: extensively used by Plautus, 74 Honor: 102 Horace: servitium amoris, 95 n. 106, 116 ' Τ π έ ρ + Accusative: see s.v. Mythological hyperbole(s) και?' ύπεροχήν Hyperbole(s): types of, 19 n. 18; καϋ' ύπεροχήν, ibid. See also s.v. Mythological hyperbole(s) και?' ύπεροχήν Hypsipyle: 34, 35 n. 72 Imagery, accumulated: see s.w. Aggrandizement of characters and their experiences, Monologues Inconsistencies: in the cantica, 77, 82, 91, 98, 100, 101; in dialogues, 113f., 1 2 3 f „ 124 n. 68, 128f. Iolaos: 57 Ionic Philosophy: ψ υ χ ή as a seat of emotions and thoughts, 85

Ita, explanatory: 69 η. 8, 71, 78 η.

52, 79 η. 59 Ιχίοη: 37, s.v. Τροχός Juridical terminology: see s.w. Comedy ( N e w ) , Plautus, Terence Juridicize, Juridicisation: 106 η. 1 Kissing: handing over of the soul to the beloved, 136f. Kistrup, I.: 14, 15 n. 2, 68, 71 nn. 19, 20, 74 n. 38, 80 n. 65, 90, 91 nn. 96, 97, 93 nn. 103, 104, 96 n. 113, 97 n. 123, 98 n. 128, 99, 100 nn. 138, 140, 102 n. 154, 103 n. 158, 109 n. 12, 116 n. 36 Κόκκυξ: see s.v. Cuculus Κολακεύματα: see s.v. Mythological hyperbole(s) κ at?' ύπεροχήν Lasserre, F.: 92f. Latin L o v e Elegy: commercial attitude to love, 130; love as a divine force, 93f.; mythological hyperboles και?' νπεροχήν, 76 η. 43; lover-mistress, a plaintiff-defendant relationship, 117, 118; and Plautus, J.D. Plautus; servitium amoris, 73, 73 n. 34, 97, 97 n. 124, 109, 109 nn. 12, 16; 115, 116, 117, f.v. Vincula amoris·, technical vocabulary, 131 Law, Η. H.: 15, 19, 21 n. 26, 26, 26 n. 38, 32 n. 64, 42 n. 91, 43 n. 94, 45 n. 97, 47f., 49 n. 109, 50 n. I l l , 54 n. 118, 58 n. 129, 59 n. 132, 67 n. 159 Leda: 35f. Lena: as a creditor, 123ff.; as a portitor, 125; as a praetor, 117f., 131; as a publicanus, 1 2 I f f . ; system of payment to, 118ff. Leno: as a magistrate, 126f.; system of payment to, 118ff. Leo, F.: 13, 27 η. 43, 41 η. 89, 55, 60 η. 139, 67 η. 160, 68, 69 nn. 7, 8, 70 η. 11, 72f., 73 nn. 29, 31; 90, 91, 91 nn. 95, 96, 97; 93, 93 nn. 102, 103; 96, 103f., 104 n. 159, 105 Lloyd-Jones, H.: 34 n. 67, 137 Loans: see s.v. Amatory gifts and payments to the hetaera/meretrix Love: Roman conception o f , 116, 130,

131; as a divine force, 93ff., 134, 137; represented in financial terms, 129f.; fires of, 129; as handing over of the soul to the beloved, s.w. Animus, Ψυχή; compared to jumping from a rock, 102, s.v. Β άραôpov; seats o f , s.w. Φρήν, Ψυχή, θυμός; as slavery, s.w. Servitium amoris. Slave-lover, Slave-torture; sought after independently of divine intervention, 93ff., 134, 137; as a storm at sea, 8 I f . ; technical vocabulary used in the context of, 131; as vadtmonium, s.w. Vadatus, Vadimonium; Plautine world o f , 123, 131, s.v. Court of love. See also s.w. Amor, Byzantine love poetry, Eros, Herakles, Lover-mistress relationship Lover-mistress relationship: creditordebtor, 1 1 0 - 1 4 , 116, 123ff., 129, 131, s.w. Addictus, Vadatus; plaintiff-defendant, 1 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 1 6 - 1 8 , 131, s.w. Addictus, Vadatus, Vadimonium·, slave-mistress, s.v. Servitium amoris Lucian: mythological hyperboles K£H?' ύπεροχήν. 20f., 49f.; in κολακεύματα, s.v. Mythological hyperbole(s) και?' νπεροχήν; in Encomia, 25; expressions denoting superiority, 49f. Lupanar:

relatively cheap services,

127; Cato's attitude to, 127 n. 79 Magisterial representation: 107f., s.w. Amor, Lena, Leno, M ere trix, Venus Marsyas: 21 Medea: 38, 44 Meleager: and N e w Comedy, 59 n. 135; ψυχή, frequent use of, 88 n. 87; ψυχή tormented by Eros, 87f. Menander: amatory images, 76f.; antitheses, 80; Dis Exapaton and Bac chides, see Index Locorum; Euripidean influence, s.v. Euripides; imagery and expository details, s.v. Monologues; love, 73, 94, 128f., 134; mythological hyperboles Had' ύπεροχήν: Bacchides in relation to Dis Exapaton, 3 9 - 4 2 , 61 ff.; Me-

155

nandrian fragments, 29ff., 53, 66, 7 I f f . ; mythology, 42 n. 90; and Plautus, 29f., 72ff., 74, 76f., 80, 83, 94, llOff., 115, 128f„ 134; Plokion, 77; Pseudherakles, 56; servitium amoris, llOff., 115; Synaristosae and Cist. 203ff., 69ff., 103, 128f.; Tereus and Thyestes combined, 30 n. 62; verbs (accumulated), 74 n. 36. See also Index Locorum Merces (= μίσϋωμα): 119; annua, ibid. Meretrix (= hetaera): as a creditor, see s.v. Lover-mistress relationship; as a magistrate, 117 ; as a plaintiff, s.v. Lover-mistress relationship; in the time of Plautus, 127; as opposed to prostibulum, 127; as apublicanus, 121ff., 131; identified with the Roman state, 125f.; system of payment to, s.w. Gift-giving, Merces Μίσϋωμα: see s.v. Merces Monaco, G.: 21 n. 27, 113 nn. 26, 27, 117 n. 37 Monologues: expanded by Plautus, 76ff., 89, 98ff., 103; expository details, 77, 82f.; generalization at the outset, 72f.; images accumulated, 76f.; opening sections: a) conflicts, s.v. Conflicts b) mythological hyperboles καϋ' ύπεροχήν, 16ff., 2 7 - 3 0 , 31, 39, 41, 42ff., 64ff., 7If. c) mythological scurrilities, 16f., see above, opening sections (b) and passim Mythological exempla: verbs denoting hearing, seeing and saying, 40 n. 86 Mythological hyperbole(s) Kaô' ύπεροχήν: Attic Comedy, 26ff., 31 n. 63,54ff.; definition of, 19; είκασμοί see s.v. ; Euripidean influence, s.v. Euripides; encomiastic poetry, 23 n. 31, 25, 59; form and position of: a) Attic Comedy, 31, 47, 51ff., 64f. b) comparative, 29, 35f., 37, 44ff., 5Iff., 64, 71f. c) Ùnép + Acc., 49f. d) nugae maxumae ... praeut, 16, 30f., 53f. e) Plautus, 1 5 - 1 8 , 28, 29f., 31, 35f., 38ff., 46ff., 64f., 7If. f) Greek Tragedy, 32ff., s.w.

156

Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles g) verbs denoting superiority, 16, 28, 31, 36, 38ff., 46ff. ( 6 4 f „ 71f., s.v. Verbs (denoting superiority); Fraenkel's theory criticised, 15ff.; κολακεύματα, 20f., 63; Oratory: a) Attic, see s.v. Oratory (Attic) b) Roman, 25 n. 36. See also s.v. Plautus Mythological scurrilities: Attic Comedy,í.d. Comedy, Attic; Fraenkel's view on, 16ff., 65f.; may also be Plautine, 65,;in monologue openings, s.v. Monologues. See also s.v. Mythological hyperbole(s) κ α ϋ ' ύπεροχήν Mythology/-ical: knowledge of in the time of Plautus, 65 ; lapsus memoriae in Gr. Comic writers, 55 n. 120; material accumulated, 28, 30 n. 62; used by Plautus independently of the Gr. models, 65, 133 Non liquet: 99 Non places: 101 Νους: as part of the ψυχή, 83 η. 74, 85 η. 82 passim, 86 η. 83 Nugae maxumae praeut: see s.v. Mythological hyperbole(s) καϋ' ύπεροχήν Odysseus: hyperbolic comparisons και?' ύττβροχήν, 63f.; labores Ulixis, 63 η. 151; 'Οδυσσέως συνετώτερος, 64; πολύμητις, hyperbolic comparisons καϋ' ύπεροχήν, 63f. Omnia ingenia: 79 Oratory, Attic: Encomia and Vituperations, mythological hyperboles καϋ' ύπεροχήν, 23ff., 61; hyperboles, 23 n. 31; mythological hyperboles καϋ' ύπεροχήν, verbs denoting superiority, 48f.; depreciation of the Trojan War and its heroes, 24, 61 Orphism: ψνχή, semantic development, 85f. Ovid: Am. 11.12, New Comedy influence, 62f., 63 n. 148 Payments: see s.w. Meretrix, Amatory gifts and payments to the hetaera/ meretrix Peculatus: see s.v. Amor; peculatum faceré, 128 nn. 85, 86

Pecunia:

etymologically connected

with pecus, 122f. Pentheus: 31, 40, 53, 66 Pergraecari: 104 Perseus: 29f., 66 Philemon: Merc. 18ff., catalogue of vi tía amoris and the Emporos, 95f.; discussions of the nature of love, 95f.; Trin. 223ff. in relation to the The sátiros, 9 Off. Philoctetes: 37 Φρήν, φρένες: in the context of love, 84 n. 76, 85 n. 77 Plato: connection between Eros and ψυχή, 86; depreciatory attitude towards Herakles, 57; Phaedros, Symposion and the έρωτίκοί λόγοι, 92; mythological hyperboles κ α â ' ύπεροχήν, s.v. Είκααμοί; tripartite division of the ψυχή, 85f. Plautus: methods of aggrandizing characters and their experiences, s.v. Aggrandizement of characters and their experiences; and his audience, 65, 104, 107f., 114, 116, 127, 128f.; and the minor dramatic forms in Southern Italy, 89, 105, 132; elaboration of elements derived from the originals, 74f., 83, 89, 95, 97, 98, 99, 104; and the ancient gift-institution, 118ff. ; and Gr. Erotic traditions, see s.v. ; also s.v. Hellenistic love poetry; attitude to his Gr. models, 64f., 105, 130f., 132f.; juridical terminology in the context of love, 106ff.; love, see i.D.; and N e w Comedy, 66f., 89, 1 0 6 - 8 , 132f.; aspects of his originality, 5 I f f . , 6 4 f „ 68, 82, 8 8 f „ 103, 106ff., 130f., 132f.; mythological hyperboles καϋ' ύπεροχήν, originality in the treatment of, 5 I f f . , 64f., 7 I f . ; 'poetic barbarism', 114, 128f.; as a forerunner of later Roman poets (Horace, Catullus, the Elegists et alii), 116, 117, 118, 130, 131, 132; stylistic features, s.w. Alliteratio, Antithesis, Asyndeton, Homoeoteleuton, Repetitiousness, Ubertas sermonis, Verbs (accumulated)

Πολλά, ττολλοί: in speech openings, 43 Portitor: see s.v. Lena Portorium: see s.w. A m a t o r y gifts and payments to the hetaera/meretrix, Έλλιμένων Praetor: see s.w. Lena, Meretrix, Venus Prescott, H. W.: 15, 19, 23 n. 30, 26. 26 n. 38, 41 n. 89, 45 n. 97, 4 7 f „ 50 n. I l l , 55 n. 120 Prostibulum: see s.v. Meretrix Preston, K . : 13, 75 n. 39, 76 n. 44, 96, 105, 106 n. 2, 109 n. 12, 119 nn. 43, 45, 121 n. 57, 122 nn. 59, 62, 125 n. 72 Procne: 33f., 41 n. 88 Proverbial expressions: mythological hyperboles και?' υπεροχήν·. a) Greek, 20, 53, 57 n. 128, 59, 64 b ) Latin, 20 n. 22 Ψυχή: animus and anima in relation to, s.w. Anima, Animus; as a term of endearment (= anime, anime mi), 137; connection with Eros, 84ff., i.D. Plato; tormented by Eros, s.v. Eros- ψυχή relationships; in the context of love, 84ff., 134ff.; νούς as part o f , s.v. Νούς; ψυχαπάτης, ψυχοτακής, 84 n. 76; as a seat of emotions and thoughts, 85f.; as the main seat of love, 84 n. 76, 85f.; semantic development, 83 n. 74, 85f., s.w. Ionic philosophy, Orphism; as a runaway slave, 89 n. 91 ; handed over to the beloved, 134ff., s.v. Kissing. See also s.w. Asclepiades, Callimachus, Homer, Meleager Publicanus: see s.v. Lena, Meretrix Publicum: and δημόσιον in the sense of τέλος, 122; publicum habere, double meaning, 1 2 I f . Reinhardt, U.: 16 n. 6, 26 n. 38, 27 nn. 44, 45, 46, 28 n. 51, 29 nn. 52, 54, 30 nn. 59, 61, 31 n. 63, 40 n. 86, 66 n. 157 Reis, Η.: 69 n. 8, 75 n. 38, 78 nn. 50, 52, 79 nn. 56, 58, 59, 83 n. 74 Repetitiousness: 98, 100 Res: 102; as opposed to amor, s.v. Conflicts

157

Rota (= τροχός): as a Greek instrument of torture, 75, 76 n. 43; amoris, s.v. Vorsare Satis accipere, 124f.

dare: double meaning,

Scriptura: s.v. A m a t o r y gifts and payments to the hetaera/meretrix Scurrility, scurrilous: 17 n. 12. See also s.v. Mythological scurrilities Seneca: mythological hyperboles κ α ύ ' νπεροχφ: speech openings, 46 n. 100; vincere in the sense of 'surpass', 48 Sermo amatorius: Greek poetry, 76 n. 44; Roman, 131; Roman Comedy, 73, 74, 134 Servitium amoris: concept of, juridicized by Plautus, 109ff., 130; Plautine and Greek conceptions, 109— 16 passim·, flogging, 114f., 116, s.v. Vapulare; in later Roman poets, s.w. Latin Love Elegy, Horace; slave-lover, tortured by his mistress, 97, 115; torments of love, compared to slave-torture, s.w. Carnufex, Carnuficina, Rota, Slave-torture, Vapulare·, vocabulary, Greek, 109, s.v. Έ π ί τροχού στρεβλούρΙ-ούσΰαι, 73 η. 34. See also s.w. Chains of love, ΈιΪελοδουλεία, Herakles, Slave-lover Shipp, G. P.: 123 Simonides: Herakles surpassed by a mortal, 57, 59 Slave-lover: see s.w. Addictus, Chains of love, Emancupo, Έόελοδουλεία, Servitium amoris, Vadatus, Vadimonium Slave-torture: Plautine Comedy, expressions pertaining to, 73 n. 30, 74 n. 37; emotional experiences, love included, conceived in terms o f , 73, 74, 114f. Socrates: 21f., 57 Sophocles: mythological hyperboles καϋ' νπεροχήρ, 32 η. 64, 34, 37, 4 2 f „ 45 Southern Italy: minor dramatic forms, s.v. Plautus Spengel, Α . : 127 nn. 59, 62, 122f.

158

Statius: mythological hyperboles κ at?' υπεροχήν, verbs denoting superiority, 50f., 64 Stimulare: 74 nn. 37, 38, 76 n. 44 Tantalus: 67 n. 159 Taxes: see s.w. Portorium, Scriptura, Tribu tum Terence: amatory images, 76, 77; animus: divorced from the man, s.v. Animus; surrendered to the beloved, s.v. Animus·, juridical terminology, 107, 108; discussions of the nature of love, 96; in relation to Plautus, 17, 26, 76f., 100, 107, 108, 130, 134, 137. See also Index Locorum Theseus: 57 Θυμός: in the context of love, 84 n. 76, 85 n. 77; and ψυχή, 83 η. 74, 86 η. 83 Tierney, J. J.: 15, 27, 26 η. 38, 55 η. 120, 65 η. 154, 97f. Tragedy, Greek: see s.v. Mythological hyperbole(s) καϋ' ύπεροχήρ Tributum: see s.v. Amatory gifts and payments to the hetaera/meretrix Τ ρ ο χ ό ς : of Ixion, Cist. 206ff.?, 76 n. 43 Trojan War: hyperbolic comparisons καύ' υπεροχήν, 61ff., s.v. Oratory ( A t t i c ) ; in the context of love, 62f.; μείζον ή Τ ρ ο ί α ν èXelv, 62 Tuas res tibi habeto: 100, 101, 106, 129 Ubertas sermonis: 74, 80 Ussing, I. L.: 112 n. 24, 113 n. 26, 121 nn. 53, 58, 122 n. 62, 128 n. 81 Vadatus: 112ff., 115, 117, 124, 129. See also s.v. Vadimonium Vadimontum: 112ff., 117; Veneriis vadimoniis, 113 n. 27. See also s.w. Convador, Vadatus Vapulare: 114 η. 28 Vas: see s.v. Venus Venus: as a praetor, 114f., 117, 118, 131; as a vas, 113f., 117, 118, s.v. Vadimonium Verbs: accumulated, 70, 74, 80; denoting superiority: antecedere, 16, 28, 46ff., 50; anteire, 16, 28, 38, 40, 46ff.; antidire, 16, 28, 39 η.

85, 46ff.; Sieveyneïv, 49; imepßakXeaôcu, 39, 49, 49 η. 109, 60 η. 139; im epèxeiv, 28; vi καν, 47f., 48 η. 107; παραδραμεϊν, 39; παραμείßeiv, 50; praecedere, 50; πρεσβεύεσùai, 38f.; superare, 16, 28, 38, 39 η. 85, 41, 46ff., 50, 50 η. I l l , 60 η. 139, 64; supergredi, 50; transgredí, 50; vincere, 48, 50; Attic Comedy, non-mythological hyperbolic comparisons, 28 n. 50; pleonastic use of, 39 n. 85. See also s.w. Aggrandizement of characters and their experiences, Mythological hyperbole(s) καΰ' υπεροχήν

Vessel of the soul: in the context Df the sea of love, 70, 8 If., 89 n. 91 Vincula amoris: 112 n. 23 Vituperations: see s.v. Oratory (Attic) Versare: /-ri in rota = èm τροχού οτρεβλούνΙ-ούαΰαι, 75; in amori' rota, 74ff., 89; in connection with slave-torture, 75 Weissen, D.: 78 η. 50, 79 nn. 55, 56, 137 η. 25 Wheel of love: see s.v. Rota Williams, G.: 61 n. 141, 108 n. 9, 119 n. 47, 131 n. 94

159

Scenae suppositiciae oder Der falsche Plautus Eingeleitet, herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert von Ludwig Braun. 1980. 208 Seiten, kartoniert (Hypomnemata 64)

Ludwig Braun • Die Cantica des Plautus 1970. 210 Seiten, kartoniert

Gregor Maurach · Untersuchungen zum Aufbau plautinischer Lieder 1964. 289 Seiten, kartoniert (Hypomnemata 10).

Ulrich Knoche · Die römische Satire 3., veränderte Auflage 1971. 142 Seiten, kartoniert (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft 5)

Carl Becker · Das Spätwerk des Horaz 1963. 257 Seiten, Leinen DM 3 6 , -

Rudolf Giingerich - Kommentar zum Dialogus des Tacitus Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von Heinz Heubner. 1980. 215 Seiten, kartoniert Der Herausgeber hat das unvollendet gebliebene Manuskript mit den nötigen Ergänzungen, vor allem aber mit einem ausführlichen Nachwort versehen, das die mit der Gesamtschrift zusammenhängenden Einzelfragen wie Entdeckung, Verfasser, Handschriften, Umfang der großen Lücke, Abfassungszeit, Gesprächsdatum, Diskussionsteilnehmer und anderes behandelt.

Wolf-Hartmut Friedrich · Dauer im Wechsel Gesammelte Aufsätze. Herausgegeben von C. Joachim Classen und Ulrich Schindel. 1977. 440 Seiten, Leinen Aus dem Inhalt Zur altlateinischen Dichtung / Ennius-Erklärungen (Auszug) / Otto Ribbeck und die Römischen Tragiker / Exkurse zur Aeneis (Auszug) / Europa und der Stier. Angewandte Mythologie bei Horaz und Properz / Lückenbüßer: Zu Ausonius / Sprache und Stil des Hercules Oetaeus / Cato, Caesar und Fortuna bei Lucan

Ulrich Schindel · Die lateinischen Figurenlehren des S. bis 7. Jahrhunderts und Donats Vergilkommentar (mit zwei Editionen) 1975. 293 Seiten, broschiert (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl. 91) Beachten Sie bitte die Gesamtübersicht

HYPOMNEMATA

auf der 4. Umschlagseite

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT IN GÖTTINGEN UND ZÜRICH