Menander and the Monologue 9783666251559, 3525251556, 9783525251553

Citation preview

HYPOMNEMATA 59

HYPOMNEMATA U N T E R S U C H U N G E N ZUR ANTIKE UND ZU I H R E M NACHLEBEN

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

H E F T 59

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

JOHNBLUNDELL

Menander and the Monologue

V A N D E N H O E C K & RUPRECHT IN G Ö T T I N G E N

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme Blundell,

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

John:

Menander and the monologue / J o h n Blundell. — Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980. (Hypomnemata; H. 59) ISBN 3-525-25155-6

© 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 Sc Co., Göttingen

Preface Extensive use of monologue is a feature of Menander's comedy that will strike the reader at first acquaintance. Since 1908, when Leo published his all-embracing account of Greek and Latin monologue ('Der Monolog im Drama') various scholars have chosen particular areas to investigate: Bickford comedy in both languages, Schadewaldt Greek tragedy, Denzler more recently Terence. In this short study of Menander, originally written as an Oxford B.Phil, thesis in 1974, I have usually confined my discussion to the Greek remains that are certainly ascribed to him, and when I mention the eight plays one may call the Latin Menander 1 it is to amplify some point arising from the Greek. There are various long, uninterrupted speeches in dialogue situations (for example Dysk. 708ff, Sik. 176ff) which I exclude though they are sometimes called 'monologues'. My area includes all those utterances which are not straightforwardly addressed to another person present on stage.2 Chapters 1 and 3 discuss special topics. Chapter 1 deals with aspects of two recurrent situations: the 'Zutrittsmonolog' (Leo's term), when someone enters an already occupied stage and has monologue before starting to converse with the others, and that type of linking monologue which fills the temporary absence of a dialogue partner. Chapter 3 examines two occasional features of monologue, the use of second person forms in self-address and in the imaginary address of someone absent. The second chapter is a more general treatment of monologues in the three plays that are best preserved, 'Epitrepontes', 'Samia' and 'Dyskolos'. Monologue here sometimes becomes an area rather than 1 Plaut. Bacch., Cist., Stich.; Ter. Andr., Η.Τ., Eun., Adel., and with some hesitation Plaut. Aul. See GS, pp. 4ff, EH, pp. 97ff, Görler, pp. 9 - 1 4 . 2 I have said little about prologues. On prologues and expository technique, the reader is referred to N. Holzberg's study 'Menander: Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik', Nürnberg 1974 (= Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft, Band 50) Chapter 2. This work and that by Η-D. Blume, 'Menanders Samia, eine Interpretation' (Darmstadt 1974) are major contributions to Menandrean studies which have appeared since my thesis was submitted. I regret that employment outside the field of Classics has prevented me from taking full account of these and other works published more recently.

5

a subject: that is, I mention many things about particular speeches which do not closely relate to their being monologues, for example links in motif between monologues, or between monologue and dialogue passages. It is still true, in spite of all the papyrus discoveries of this century, that the material on which we base our generalizations about monologue in New Comedy is very limited.3 However, to assist the reader to draw some general conclusions I have assembled comparable material from the available Menandrean plays at various points in this chapter. The text of Menander referred to is that of Sandbach in the Oxford Classical Texts series,4 except that literary fragments from those plays not preserved in papyri are cited according to Koerte volume 2. 4 It is assumed that the reader has these editions available for reference and that he is familiar with the plots of the plays. I gladly repeat the acknowledgements which I made in 1974. Dr. D. M. Bain generously allowed me to consult his doctoral thesis, which was at that time unpublished but has recently appeared as one of the Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs'.4 It is a most illuminating and thorough work from which I profited a great deal. My thanks are due to Mr. T. C. W. Stinton for lending me a copy of the thesis. Mr. P. G. McC. Brown, who supervised my word as a graduate student, not only gave all possible help and encouragement in those days but has also managed to keep alive since then the feeling that there was something in the thesis which might be of use to those who study Menander. He has drawn my attention to several recent books and articles. There are new obligations to record. It was my examiners Professor H. Lloyd-Jones and Professor W. G. Arnott who, besides suggesting various corrections and improvements, first gave me cause to hope that the work might eventually be published. And just as I was fortunate in my examiners, so I have been fortunate in obtaining considerable grants towards the costs of publication from two bodies in Oxford, the Jowett Copyright Trustees and the Derby Trustees of the Craven Committee. Without their assistance this book could not have been published. Oxford, April 1978 3 4

6

John Blundell

Cf. H. Tränkle's remarks, Mus. Helv. 1972, p. 248 n. 26. For full citations of these works, see the book list on pp. 9—10.

Contents Books referred to Chapter 1: Some formal aspects of monologue technique . . . . A. Entries with monologue on to a stage already occupied B. Link monologues during the temporary absence of a character Chapter 2: Monologues in 'Epitrepontes', 'Samia' and 'Dyskolos'

9 11 11 25 28

(i) Epitrepontes acts 3 and 4 (ii) Samia acts 3, 4 and 5 (iii) Dyskolos line 145 — end of act 1, acts 2 and 3, act 4 to line 690, 860ff ..

28 35 45

Chapter 3: Two uses of the second person in monologue . . . .

65

A. Second person in self-address

65

B. Second person in imaginary address

71

General index

83

Index locorum

86

7

Books referred to Austin = Colinus Austin, Menandri Aspis et Samia I, II, Berlin 1969, 1970. Bain = David Bain, Actors and Audience. A Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek Drama, Oxford 1977. Barigazzi = Adelmo Barigazzi, La formazione spirituale di Menandro, Torino 1965. Bickford = J o h n Dean Bickford, Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy, Diss. Princeton 1922. CGF = Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta in Papyris Reperta edidit Colinus Austin, Berolini et Novi Eboraci 1973. Del Corno = Menandri Comoediae quae exstant. Recognovit etc. Darius Del Corno, Vol. I, Milano (1966). Dedoussi = Χ Ρ Ι Σ Τ Ι Ν Α Σ Β. Δ Ε Δ Ο Τ Σ Η . ΜΕΝΑΝΔΡΟΤ Σ AMI Α, ΑΘΗΝΑΙ 1965. Denzler = Bruno Denzler, Der Monolog bei Terenz, Diss. Zürich 1968. Dohm = Hans Dohm, Mageiros, Die Rolle des Kochs in der griechisch-römischen Komödie (= Zetemata Heft 32), München 1964. EH = Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique, tome XVI: Menandre. Fondation Hardt, Vandoeuvres — Geneve 1969. Fantham = Elaine Fantham, Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery, Toronto 1972. Flury = Peter Flury, Liebe und Liebessprache bei Menander, Plautus und Terenz, Heidelberg 1968. Fraenkel Beob. zu Ar. = Eduard Fraenkel, Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes, Roma 1962. Fraenkel EPIP = Eduard Fraenkel, Elementi Plautini in Plauto, Firenze 1960. Fraenkel Q S = Eduard Fraenkel, De media et nova comoedia quaestiones selectae, Gottingae 1912. Friedrich = Wolf Hartmut Friedrich, Euripides und Diphilos, München 1953 (= Zetemata Heft 6). Görler = Woldemar Görler, ΜΕΝΑΝΔΡΟΤ ΓΝΩΜΑΙ. Diss. Berlin 1963. GP = J o h n Dewar Denniston, The Greek Particles, Oxford 1934. GS = Menander: A Commentary. A. W. Gomme and F. H. Sandbach, Oxford 1973. Handley = The Dyskolos of Menander, edited by Ε. W. Handley, London J 9 6 5 . Handley MPSC = Eric Walter Handley, Menander and Plautus: Α Study in Comparison, London 1968. Hiatt = Vergil Emery Hiatt, Eavesdropping in Roman Comedy, Diss. Chicago 1946. Jacques = J.-M. Jacques, Menandre: Tome 1:1 La Samienne (Paris 1971), Tome 1:2 Le Dyscolos (Paris 1963). Koch = W. Koch, De personarum comicarum introductione, Vratislaviae 1914.

9

Koerte II. = Menandri quae supersunt. Pars altera edidit Alfredus Koerte. Opus postumum retractavit etc. Andreas Thierfelder. Editio altera etc, Lipsiae 1959. Leo M. = Friedrich Leo, Der Monolog im Drama, Berlin 1908. Leo PF. = Friedrich Leo, Plautinische Forschungen, 2. Auflage, Berlin 1912. OCT = Menandri Reliquiae Selectae. Recensuit F. H. Sandbach, Oxonii 1972. Rieth—Gaiser = Otto Rieth, Die Kunst Menanders in den 'Adelphen' des Terenz, hrsg. von K. Gaiser, Hildesheim 1964. Sandbach: see GS Schadewaldt = Wolfgang Schadewaldt, Monolog und Selbstgespräch: Untersuchungen zur Formgeschichte der griechischen Tragödie, Berlin 1926. Schäfer = Armin Schäfer, Menanders Dyskolos: Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik, Meisenheim am Glan 1965. Theuerkauf = Armin Theuerkauf, Menanders Dyskolos als Bühnenspiel und Dichtung, Diss. Göttingen 1960. Webster SLGC 2 = Thomas B. L. Webster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy, second edition, Manchester 1970. Wilamowitz Sch. = Menander, Das Schiedsgericht. Erklärt von Ulrich v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, Berlin 1925. Zini = S. Zini, II linguaggio dei personaggi nelle commedie di Menandro, Firenze 1938.

10

CHAPTER 1

Some formal aspects of monologue technique A. Entries with monologue on to a stage already occupied One of the most characteristic structural features of Menandrean comedy is what Leo called 'Zutrittsmonolog': 1 a person who joins another, or others, already on stage does not go straight into conversation but stays apart, with monologue; dialogue between them follows usually, but not always. Several questions present themselves. How invariably is the device used? The newcomer remains unaware of the other: for how long is this situation allowed to continue? Does Menander make any dramatic use of the possibility of overhearing, which arises naturally in this situation? What are the general Characteristics of asides (which usually belong to the person already present)? Can we find any explanation why there should be asides on one occasion and not on another? How does dialogue begin afterwards? In this chapter A (or A 1, A 2) indicates the person or persons already present, Β the newcomer. (i) Incidence of Zutrittsmonolog,

and the question of unawareness

When Β joins A on stage, Zutrittsmonolog for Β is the general rule. Most exceptions are easy to account for. A may have summoned B; or else A and Β are aware of each other because they have been together lately, either on stage or off. If they have been together, quite naturally, either one may resume their dialogue. For example, A at Dysk. 401, Pk. 316 (Daos is less eager to report the second time) 989; Β at Dysk, 211, Pk. 305, Sam. 556. Elsewhere we can sometimes conceive that B's attention was caught, whilst inside, by some noise that A made (Dysk. 434, 621); at Epitr. 142, and at Sik. 169 if a new character enters, 2 Β comes on looking for A. 1 2

M. p. 48. See GS, p. 647.

11

The remaining instances are: Asp. 299, Daos immediately addresses Chaerestratos who is lying at, or perhaps behind the door 3 ; Dysk. 81, where Pyrrhias rushes on shouting to anyone who may be present; Pk. 526, Moschion apparently to the "enemy forces"; Pk. 1010, where Polemon comes on knowing that Pataikos and Glykera are probably outside the house. At Pk. 397 Doris (B) addresses Sosias (A) — there is no sign of her presence before this, though she may have entered silently and noticed him. Finally, at Dysk. 820 Sostratos goes to call Gorgias, but he is already there and has heard everything 'έξ άρχής'. It is unclear whether he remained προς r f j θύρα inside, as does Charisios (Epitr. 883), or opened the door and was seen by the audience, but said nothing. 4 In all other cases Β has some kind of Zutrittsmonolog. Occasionally he is aware of A's presence nevertheless. So at Sam. 532ff Β has been with A 1 and A 2, and his monologue is of Leo's "third type" 5 in which a character is so transported by emotion that he speaks "over the heads" of his companions. And in the same play at 198, 301, and 713, Β enters with words spoken not to A but to someone inside the house ("spoken back" as I shall say). Elsewhere Β enters unaware of A's presence on stage. There is a kind of minimal Zutrittsmonolog when Β is looking for A, which marks and motivates his entry and may be considered a more usual alternative to the immediate address of Epitr. 142. The kernel of these speeches is generally ποΰ έστι; e.g. Dis Exap. 102f elra πού γης έση-, cf. Dysk. 588, Epitr. 442f. 6 When Getas begins έξηλθβν έ'£ω (Misum. 216) the idea is much the same. Compare also fab. inc. 20f, Epitr. 1078 where Β hears a noise or knocking, though in the latter Onesimos' speech is better described as "third person address" than monologue. 7 3 This is disputed. See GS ad loc., Del Corno, ZPE 6 (1970) 216ff, LloydJones, GRBS 1971, 183 n. 20, Holzberg, Menander, Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik, Nürnberg 1974, p. 32 n. 99. 4 In any case, we can imagine the sound of voices as Sostratos and Callippides come from the shrine has attracted his notice. — On eavesdropping behind the door, Arnott, Rh. Mus. 1965, 3 7 1 - 6 . 5 Μ. p. 48. 6 Also Sam. 690f where eine μοl, a catchphrase of Demeas (Sandbach EH, p. 122), makes little difference. In Roman comedy, e.g. Ter. Adel. 924, Eun. 1049f. 7 See p. 52 n. 22 below.

12

Three more are single lines spoken back (Dysk. 879, Pk. 181, Sik. 377 — all quite similar) and there are longer instances at Asp. 164—6, 233—5. This leaves about thirty genuine Zutrittsmonologe other than the 'minimal'. 8 Most of them pass into dialogue between A and B. The few exceptions are Dysk. 206ff, 574ff (Simiche does not reply to Getas), Pk. 181 and 354ff (dialogue eventually at 373). There are corresponding possibilities when two people (Β 1, Β 2) enter an occupied stage. Unless Β 1, for example, has been with A recently (Dysk. 860ff) we most often find a Zutrittsdialog with the newcomers unaware of A. 9 It is a theatrical convention that Β should be unaware of A; but unless an author is aiming for absurd effects, we should expect to find reasons — at least conventional ones — for this unawareness, reasons that are somehow connected with reality. No one would ask actors to arrange their movements so that A was never in B's field of vision, or A to speak asides so quietly that he was actually inaudible to B. On the other hand it would be a grotesque exaggeration if someone 8

Asp. 2 1 6 - 2 0 (unless Spinther is already with the cook) 3 9 9 - 4 1 8 , Geo. 3 5 - 9 , Dysk. 1 5 3 - 6 8 , 1 8 9 - 9 9 , 2 0 6 - 1 1 , 2 5 9 - 6 8 , 5 4 6 - 5 1 , 5 7 4 - 8 6 , 7 7 5 - 7 , Epitr. f r o m before 127 to after 140, 3 8 2 - 4 , 4 3 0 - 4 1 , 6 1 0 - 1 2 (at least this much is monologue: before and after, Karion may speak to people inside or to guests who have spilled on to the stage) 853—7 (Habrotonon), ? 908—32, Karch. 6 - 8 . Misum. 2 8 4 - 3 2 2 , Pk. 3 5 4 - 6 0 and again 3 6 6 - 7 2 , 7 7 4 - 8 , Sam. 120 or before 128, 3 5 7 - 9 , 3 9 9 - 4 0 7 , 4 2 8 - 3 0 , 4 4 0 - 5 1 , 5 6 8 - 9 , 641—57, Sik. 361. Speaking back occupies part of Dysk. 546ff (or possibly the whole speech), Pk. 366ff (Sosias probably moves towards Myrrhine's door during 3 6 9 - 7 1 ) , Dysk. 206ff, Epitr. 430ff; perhaps also Epitr. 853f (see GS ad loc., Bain, p. 197), which may however be addressed to servants of Chairestratos. Epitr.· 908ff is included doubtfully since Onesimos may, in his terror, have entered Charisios' house at 907. Sandbach believes that he has, Gomme not (GS ad v. 932); common to both is the difficulty, not overwhelming, that at the end of his monologue Charisios would notice only one of two people who are together. Assuming that σοϋ (933) means Habrotonon, as seems likely, there is still the possibility which Bain favours (pp. 145ff), that Onesimos addresses her only in imagination, and has stayed outside frozen in dread during Charisios' speech. This attractive idea, as well as Gomme's view, would make 908ff a Zutrittsmonolog. Nothing remains of a monologue for Demeas before Sam. 120; I assume that he came on first and that Moschion's is the Zutrittsmonolog, according to the customary order (p. 17 below). 9

Dysk. 4 3 0 - 4 1 , 6 9 1 - 7 0 1 , Sam. 6 1 - 9 , 2 8 3 - 9 5 , 3 6 9 - 8 3 . At Misum. 208ff Β 1 (the nurse) is drawing B 2 ' s attention to A (Demeas); Asp. 431 is like Sik. 125 in that Β 1 (pseudomedicus) is announced, then directly addressed.

13

shouted an aside, or passed directly in front of a character not supposed to see him. What sort of reasons are there for this unawareness? The text itself often provides them. The most naturalistic is found at Dysk. 550 — Getas is blind with smoke — though for some and perhaps the whole of his monologue he is speaking back into the shrine. Β often has others to address, whether it is someone inside, or the audience, or Apollo Agyieus represented by an altar on stage. Demeas' speech, Sam. 440ff, combines all three; we can compare also the re-entrance monologues Dysk. 259ff, Pk. 354ff and Sam. 120ff probably addressed to the audience, 10 and Sam. 641ff where οκεφώμβθα (645) points to the same manner of delivery (Bain, p. 202f). If A says he will step aside, we are prepared for Β not to notice him, as at Geo. 32f, Dysk. 148f. And in Epitr. 908ff it is strongly implied that Onesimos, if he does not actually go inside, at least makes himself inconspicuous. Where the text gives no reason, it should be possible to suggest one, or even alternatives. In Epitr. 430ff Onesimos and Habrotonon (she is the newcomer) remain unaware of each other; we conclude that Onesimos has moved away across the stage before Habrotonon enters from the same door, and may add that they are absorbed in thought (cf. Pk. 7 7 4 - 8 ) . In Sam. 399ff Nikeratos may address the audience, though his speech in itself gives no hint of this; and so may Smikrines in Epitr. 1 2 7 f f . n Is there a convention that B's strong emotions may cause him not to notice A? Our longest Zutrittsmonolog is Misum. 284—322. All Kleinias' efforts at conversation fail, including 312f ού]χ οράς μ€, κακόδαψον, πάλαι; Is Getas unaware of him, or simply ignoring him, and in the similar monologue Asp. 399ff is Daos, till his sudden 'eu πάντα ταύτα, Σμικρίνη' (419) pretending not to have seen Smikrines? If Handley's ir[0dev πάρ]βσι>'; (Misum. 324) is right, and Getas is genuinely surprised to see Kleinias there, then the convention does exist. In this case it may be invoked, with or in place of audience address, to account for the Zutrittsmonologe Dysk. 189ff and 574ff. Otherwise, Getas may speak "over the head" of Kleinias, and Daos pretend to be doing the same thing — just as 10

Below p. 62. And Knemon, Dysk. 153ff; but in addition Sostratos has stepped to one side to avoid being noticed. 11

14

Nikeratos in Sam. 532ff, when he obviously knows the others are there. When a Zutrittsmonolog is very short (e.g. Dysk. 775—7, Epitr. 382—4) the audience would have little time to notice any implausibility. Perhaps any newcomer is allowed a short period of unawareness, though the reasons given for unawareness during Zutrittsmonologe generally may operate even in the shortest. A character actually looking for another can enter, as we have seen, with a 'ποϋ έστιν;'. The question of length is otherwise quite separate. It is also independent of the disputed hypothesis that the dramatist had only three speaking actors at his disposal. This hypothesis would sometimes demand a minimum length for entrance monologues on an empty stage, and link and exit monologues, so that an actor could change roles; but never for a Zutrittsmonolog.12 At most, a Zutritts12

On this subject see especially GS, pp. 1 6 - 1 9 , Webster SLGC 2, 1 8 6 - 7 and An Introduction to Menander (Manchester 1974) pp. 82—4, Hourmouziades GRBS 1973, 179-88, H. J. Mette, Lustrum 1965, 114f, H.-D. Blume, Menanders Samia (Darmstadt 1974) p. 34 n. 58. Sandbach, in Le Monde Grec: Hommages ä Claire Preaux ed. J . Bingen and others, (Bruxelles 1975) pp. 197—204, inspects the Latin adaptations and concludes that the Roman dramatists rather than Menander are generally responsible for breaches of the rule. Some short monologues which would provide the whole time available for a change of röles are Dysk. 602—11, 874—8, Kith 53—65. A monologue that provides the whole time may, of course, go on for much longer than is technically necessary, e.g. Dysk. 639—65, 666—90. Of uncertain length are Dis Exap. 18ff (in the text so far published — probably little more than 12 lines) and that ending at Sam. 95. If we assume, further, that an author would avoid appreciable pauses within the act — which is not self-evident — the hypothesis would predict that an 'empty stage' within the act is either preceded or followed, or both, by either monologue or 'dialogue* of speaker and mute. This may always be the case, though there are difficulties to dispose of at Misum. 269 (GS, Webster SLGC 2, 1 8 6 - 7 , Bain, p. 133 n. 4) Epitr. 1123 (GS) and Pk. 1005, where the monologue preceding the empty stage is of less than 3 lines (see GS on 1006ff). On Sik. 271, however, see GS and Webster SLGC 2, 187). Pk. 526ff has also attracted some attention. The Moschion actor must be a different person from the Polemon and Pataikos actors who left immediately before. This accounts for three speaking actors. If Sosias, who last spoke in 4 8 I f f , were still on stage, he would make a fourth. To defend the hypothesis one would have to say either that the Sosias speaker went off and a mute then came on in the same part, or that Sosias is not on stage, in spite of ούτοσί (531). Sandbach originally thought that Sosias remained (GS on 485) but has retracted this opinion (art. cit. p. 197 η. 1).

15

monolog can be part of a passage with two actors on stage during which the third changes parts, and the proportion of that passage which it occupies is irrelevant (e.g. Asp. 216—20 in 214—33). Menander uses great length for humorous effect in Misum. 284—322 and Asp. 399—418: ούδέ παύσβταν, asks the frustrated Smikrines (415). Otherwise, disregarding Epitr. 908ff where Onesimos, if present, must be in hiding, only four of our Zutrittsmonologe exceed twelve lines (a figure arbitrarily chosen): Sam. 641—57 without asides, Dysk. 5 7 4 - 8 6 and Epitr. 1 2 7 - 4 0 with them, and Dysk. 1 5 3 - 6 8 which is not interrupted but followed by them. Epitr. 127—40 is incomplete, and we cannot tell how much longer Smikrines continued in monologue (GS on 149—60). We shall return later to asides. (ii) Overhearing Not quite all overheard monologues are Zutrittsmonologe. At Dysk. 214ff and 596ff characters overhear monologue after dialogue; at Asp. 465—7 Daos perhaps does so too (Sandbach on 467 suspects not, but see Bain pp. 106—8); and Asp. Iff is probably spoken in the presence of Smikrines, who seems to have met Daos before they enter. 13 But these exceptions are so few that we can conveniently discuss here overheard monologues in general. The 'Zutritt', whether of one speaker or two, always affords the possibility that A will overhear Β (or Β 1 and Β 2); and this is mostly realized, as we may learn from asides or subsequent dialogue, or deduce from the fact that A has announced B. However, precisely because Zutrittsmonologe are very common we should expect the overhearing of them to be insignificant on most occasions, as indeed it is. Significant overhearing is often of dialogue. Thus Moschion comes upon Pataikos and Glykera examining recognition tokens (Pk. 774ff); in 'Epitrepontes' Onesimos makes a similar entry while Syros is talking to his wife (382ff); a little later Habrotonon overhears Onesimos and Syros in the carefully engineered scene 430ff. 1 4 It happens that 13 Ch. 3. Β 1. 14 In outline: Onesimos is obviously glad to leave the house, and then to ward off Syros' urgent demands has to reveal his true suspicions; by that time Habrotonon has come out to avoid being pestered (430f). Everything here has its motivation.

16

in none of these cases is the overhearing situation brought about by straightforward Zutrittsdialog. Not A 1 and A 2 but Β becomes the overhearer. This is the less common state of affairs, and potentially less natural-seeming than the other. The customary order is that the person overheard arrives after those that overhear him. Menander avoids implausibility twice by the same means: in both the 'Perikeiromene' passage and Epitr. 382ff those present are engrossed in examining recognition tokens; this also allows A 1 and A 2 to be silent long enough for B's Zutrittsmonolog. 1 5 As for Epitr. 430ff — where Syros appears later than the overhearer Habrotonon, and is therefore not strictly A 2 — once Menander has created the situation that Onesimos and Habrotonon are simultaneously on stage, neither aware of the other, there is no further implausibility in having Habrotonon notice the others when voices are raised (442ff), whilst Onesimos can attend to no one but Syros. There is one highly important overhearing of dialogue by a character behind the door, when Charisios eavesdrops on Pamphile's conversation with her father: see Epitr. 883ff, 919ff. Charisios' whole attitude towards his wife is altered by what he hears. In act 5 of 'Dyskolos' Menander uses Gorgias' overhearing of dialogue simply as a short cut (see Handley on 821 f); whether Gorgias is visible to the audience or not, what concerns us now is that this again is not Zutrittsdialog. When Β 1 and Β 2 enter together and are overheard by A, we never find, in extant Menander, that their conversation reveals important secrets. Even when Chrysis in 'Samia' says that she will eavesdrop on Moschion and Parmenon (line 60 — the sense of the restoration is not in doubt) all that she hears is information she would readily have been given. The author simply wants a few lines of two-part dialogue before Chrysis joins in again. 16 How the significant overhearing of dialogue was brought about in 'Hiereia' (see the hypothesis, OCT p. 305, λαλουσών δέ κτλ.), and whether it was on stage or off, we cannot tell.

15

Fraenkel EPIP, p. 204 η. 1. The other instances are Dysk. 691ff, ? Epitr. 933ff, Misum. 208ff, Sam. 283ff, 369ff and presumably the entrance of Syros and Daos at or before Epitr. 218. 16

2 BlundcU (Hyp. 99)

17

It is no surprise if deviations from the usual structure are associated with important Overhearings of dialogue; dramatic need has brought them about. 17 It would be rash to assume on present evidence, however, that Menander made a point of avoiding the Zutrittsdialog situation when he wanted a conversation to be overheard with important consequences. At any rate there is no inherent reason why an audience must be present at such a conversation earlier than the overhearer himself. Equally we cannot rule out use of overheard Zutrittsmonolog to advance the plot. But the difficulties would seem greater. If eavesdropping is combined with monologue we have two artificialities at the same time. To extract advantage from that situation could easily give an impression of threadbare technique and lose the audience's favour. And, since it is somewhat odder that A should be unaware of Β than the reverse, such use of the deviant pattern would present greater risks still. I can find no examples of the latter. The single importantly overheard Zutrittsmonolog, if we can call it that, is spoken off-stage. In act 3 of 'Samia' Demeas tells the audience in careful detail how he came to be concealed in his store-room and overheard an old nurse. Her first words were to the baby she was holding (242—3), but having begun to talk she babbled on in soliloquy (245ff). Demeas' misunderstanding of this soliloquy is a turning point in the play as a whole, even though the crucial point, that Moschion is the baby's father, is repeated in overheard dialogue (253—4). Its indirect consequences even dominate the last act. 18 Menander and other ancient dramatists conceive of monologue as an audible utterance not only when a character addresses the audience, but also when he speaks to himself. Hence characters off-stage, where there is no audience, may still overhear monologue, as when the nurse προς αυτήν φηοιν (Sam. 245) and when Charisios Xeyet (Epitr. 423, cf. 895). Monologues on stage may be completely selfdirected too. For example, Charisios' monologue in Epitr. 908ff is 17

This is obviously true in Epitr. 382ff, Pk. 774ff, but may need qualification in respect of Epitr. 43 Off, which is an altogether exceptional scene in extant Menander. Things are so contrived that Onesimos is unaware of Habrotonon's presence. No doubt he would be reluctant for Habrotonon to hear the story of the Tauropolia — he tells Syros only because he is forced to — but an inversion of entries would equally leave him unaware of her: first we would have entrance monologue for her, then Zutrittsmonolog for him. 18 See p. 42 below on 616ff.

18

as self-directed as a monologue could be, yet if Onesimos is present he will have overheard. However it is possible to take quite a different view of what monologue should be. Here is Corneille's opinion: le poete se doit souvenir que quand un acteur est seul sur le theatre il est presume ne faire que s'entretenir en lui-meme, et ne parle qu'afin que le spectateur sache de quoi il s'entretient, et ä quoi il pense. Ainsi ce serait une faute insupportable si un autre acteur apprenait par la ses secrets. On excuse cela dans une passion si violente qu'elle force d'eclater, bien qu'on n'aye personne ä qui la faire entendre . . ," 1 9 Corneille prescribes, then, that monologue should be a conventional representation of inward thoughts. Quite against this conception, Menander frequently makes his monologue-speakers address the audience directly. It happens that none of the preserved monologues with 'ώνδρβς' is overheard. Of the three re-entrance monologues already mentioned {p. 14) there are no consequences when Dysk. 259ff is overheard; in Sam. 12 Off Moschion suddenly realizes that Demeas is present and exclaims 'άκήκο' άρα' (128) but nothing comes of the overhearing; from Sosias' speech, Pk. 354ff, however, Daos infers that his master's rival Polemon is back in town (361 ό ξένος άφϊκται probably means this 2 0 ) — though that is no secret. Other overheard monologues which could be spoken to the audience include Dysk. 153ff, Epitr. 127ff and Pk. 369ff. Though all these provoke asides, only in 'Epitrepontes' does the overhearing have consequences (132—4 Chairestratos draws conclusions, 164f his decision) and we cannot tell whether these were of any significance. Corneille makes an exception for overheard monologues spoken by characters in a highly emotional state, presumably on the grounds that they correspond to actual utterances, rather than unspoken thoughts, in real life. Since Menander's monologues are not to be taken as representations of inward thoughts, and whatever the audience hears may also be heard by an eavesdropper, it is no surprise to find a lack of correlation betweeen the speaker's emotional level

19

Trois discours sur le poeme dramatique, ed. L. Forestier, Paris 1963, p. 68. 20 GS ad loc.

19

and the importance of the overhearing. Thus the nurse in 'Samia' is simply garrulous when Demeas learns, or half-learns, the secret; her ' ώ τάλαLV' έ γ ώ ' (245) indicates no great depth of emotion. On the other hand there are many more passionate speeches the overhearing of which is quite trivial. From Nikeratos' outburst, Sam. 5 3 2 f f , Demeas learns only what Nikeratos means to tell him in any case; when Getas overhears Knemon's lament, Dysk. 5 9 6 f f , the only consequence is an offer of help at once rejected; 2 1 and if in Epitr. 908ff, a highly emotional speech by Charisios, Onesimos is in fact present, there are no consequences at all. 22 In spite of his different conception of monologue, Menander has done little that would gravely have offended Corneille. Sometimes an overhearing of monologue does help the action forward in a small way: it is from the words of Knemon's daughter in Dysk. 189ff that Sostratos gets his excuse for approaching her, and a little later Daos' existing suspicions are sharpened when he overhears Sostratos reassuring himself: έ'σται κατά τρόπον (215). Demeas' overhearing the nurse is much more important, and she is not overpowered by emotion; but Menander has done what he can in characterization and scene-setting to make the course of events credible. It is a pity that the text of Epitr. 6 1 5 f f is badly damaged. Smikrines must learn somehow from Karion that Charisios has acknowledged Habrotonon's baby; but is it in dialogue or through overheard monologue? 2 3 However, we have enough material to say that Menander does not often use overheard monologue as a means of advancing the action in an important way; nor, to return to our starting point, does he much exploit the possibilities inherent in the 'Zutritt' situation to this end, even when there are two newcomers rather than one. 2 4 2 1 Getas in Misum. 284ff has a long impassioned monologue overheard by Kleinias. Kleinias has expressed the hope 'πάντ' ακούσομαι σαφώς' (283) but this remains unfulfilled, at least during the monologue. For the moment he merely gets confirmation of something he has already been told (300f, cf. 277b). 2 2 His presence, supposed by Gomme, is in fact unlikely. See GS ad loc. 2 3 Cf. GS on 6 1 5 - 2 1 . 2 4 A common situation is where Β at his entry speaks back into the house. Overhearing of this kind of speech is nowhere significant in the papyrus plays (the instances are Asp. 164, 233, Dysk. 546, Pk. 181, 366, Sam. 3 0 1 , 440, Sik. 3 7 7 ) ; but see Ter. Andr. 481ff (with 490ff) which is known to be Menandrean (frr. 36, 37): Thierfelder, Hermes 1936, 3 3 0 - 1 . On the technical features of eavesdropping in Latin comedy, Hiatt, Ch. 2.

20

(iii) Asides and the lack of them It is useful to distinguish eavesdropping asides before dialogue — which the Zutrittsmonolog convention allows — from those of characters already involved in conversation (Bain, pp. 105f). Menander is sparing in his use of the second type 2 5 but comparatively free with the first, which can be handled more easily: a whole series of eavesdropping asides may go completely unnoticed when the two speakers are at a distance from each other, whereas a character in dialogue cannot plausibly ignore his partner's turning aside. 26 Β (or Bl, Β 2) can come announced or unannounced, A (or A 1 and A 2) can either keep quiet or utter asides. We find all combinations. 27 As we saw, it is usually A that is in the position to speak asides; deviations included Epitr. 382ff and Pk. 774ff. Dysk. 206ff differs in that one of those overheard is temporarily absent when Β enters. And at Asp. 467 Daos as Β has an aside without Zutrittsmonolog to precede. If we attempt a rough classification by content, witty or facetious remarks on the other speaker's words form an easily distinguished group: those in Dysk. 574ff, 2 8 Pk. 367ff, Epitr. 127ff, 2 9 and at Epitr.

« Below, p. 55 with n. 28. 26 Cf. Bain, pp. 156—8. As he says (p. 157) there is no exact Menandrean equivalent to phrases like 'quid tu solus tecum loquerc?', 'quid tute tecum?' which sometimes follow asides in Plautus and Terence. However, τί ψί?ς; at Sam. 545 (rather than 456), while it does not express the idea that the other speaker withdraws or speaks to himself, at least seems to occur in a comparable position after an aside. 27 Announcement and asides: Dysk. 153, 189, 775, Karch. 6, Misum. 284, Pk. 366. Asides only: Asp. 399, Dysk. 574, Pk. 181, Sam. 440. Asides, uncertain whether there was an announcement: Epitr. 127, 603 (??). Announcement only: Asp. 233 (?), Geo. 35, Dysk. 206, 259, 588, Epitr. 908 (if Zutrittsmonolog at all), Sam. 301, 568, 641. Neither: Asp. 164, 216, Dysk. 546, 879, Pk. 354, Sam. 357, 399, 428, Sik. 377 and most 'πού έστιν;' monologues. No asides, uncertain whether there was an announcement, Sam. 120. No announcement, uncertain whether there were asides, Sik. 361. Zutrittsdialog, A remaining apart from Β 1, Β 2: announcement and asides, Dysk. 690 (if 701f is an aside), Misum. 208, Sam. 369; asides, Dysk. 430; announcement, Sam. 61, 283; neither, Epitr. 933 (??); uncertain, Epitr. 218 (no asides preserved). 28 583 should be called an aside in spite of the second person, Simiche taking no heed: it is the form of direct address without the reality, cf. Plaut. Cist. 555, Ter. Η. Τ. 3 9 7 - 4 0 0 , Eun. 941f; also Men. fr. 97 if Fraenkel's suggestion

21

609f. One can imagine these delivered 'ad spectatores', apart perhaps from those with the second person, but there is no proof. The only aside with 'άνδρες', Dysk. 194, cannot be of this kind. The aside-speaker sometimes draws conclusions from what he overhears, as at Misum. 300f, Sam. 383 and in most of Moschion's asides in Pk. 779ff (but note 793 που πότ' βίμι γης;). In none of these, however, is the audience making a discovery along with the character; the asides merely show that he has understood. Some other asides express strong emotions, as in Dysk. 189ff and Misum. 208ff. More often the feelings are less profound: impatience (Asp. 415) or, in particular, interest, curiosity, suspicion, provoked either by what is overheard or by the mere presence of the other person. It is useful, in a theatre which allows characters to remain unaware of each other, to show the audience, through asides, that the speaker's attention is engaged. A concise example is Epitr. 387 τι ταύτα; with which we can compare Asp. 403 τι ποτε ßoüXeraL; and the similar formulation at Dysk. 212, all these the first of a series; in later positions we find Sam. 535 u ποτ' έρεϊ; and perhaps Sam. 386 u έοτιν; (if u is correct; but see Sandbach ad loc.). 'τό κακόν' sometimes appears (Dysk. 431, Misum. 311). Of course, the same stereotyped phrases can be used elsewhere, as in monologue at Dysk. 218, 464 and Sam. 362. 30 A further type is the aside in which the speaker decides to approach the other person, or sometimes how to approach him. So the cook in 'Samia' (383) tells himself 'προσίτέον', which corresponds to Latin 'adibo' etc.; 31 and we can compare 'θορυβήσω τούτονV (Asp. 467) 32 and the dialogue asides when two people plan their approach to a third, Dysk. 777ff and Sam. 451. is right, EPIP, p. 175 n. 3. If at Dysk. 587f Getas really addresses Simiche, she is too terrified to pay attention. 29 To be precise, the second and third of Chairestratos' preserved remarks, which draw out the implications of Smikrines' words; the first foreshadows part of the development. Note syntactic continuity across an aside at 137—9, here alone in Menander (Denzler, p. 108); but it would not be surprising if Menander did this more often than our papyri suggest, since we find continuity across other sorts of interruption quite frequently, e.g. Epitr. 391—4, Dysk. 7 5 1 - 2 , Sam. 4 6 1 - 2 , Sik. 1 3 4 - 5 , 3 6 6 - 8 . 30 See Leo PF, p. 104 on such expressions generally. 31 Koch section 26; nothing else exactly comparable in our Menander, Bain, p. 179 n. 3. 32 Again without Menandrean parallel.

22

Some asides prepare for events or decisions that immediately follow, often something important to the plot. So Daos resolves in his monologue, Dysk. 218ff, to fetch his master; Knemon — reacting to the presence of strangers rather than their words — decides in monologue (Dysk. 442ff) to stay at home; Onesimos reclaims the ring (Epitr. 39 Iff); less momentously, the cook's asides in Sam. 369ff prepare for his intervention in the scene with Demeas and Chrysis. Asides can also achieve a temporary comic effect, either by wit and irony or by showing the speaker's bewilderment. Smikrines is kept in deeper ignorance by Daos' faked monologue, Asp. 399ff, than Kleinias by Getas' genuine one, Misum. 284ff; yet even Kleinias overhears nothing to explain the puzzling incident with the sword (276ff). Further, just as the audience is sometimes kept in suspense by generalizations at the beginning of monologues (e.g. Sam. 206ff), so too may an aside-speaker: see Sam. 532ff (535 τι ποτ' έρεϊ;) and Karch. 6ff (n.b. 14 Ö TL λεγεις X^ye). When A has no asides we can sometimes see good reasons for the lack of them. In Sam. 357ff, for example, when Demeas is preparing to hurl himself indoors, the cook is nothing to him but a physical obstacle, and he is certainly not interested in what the man says. Chrysis in 399ff is hardly in a condition to take notice of Nikeratos. A may have no distinct attitude towards what he overhears. When Demeas announces Parmenon and his companions, his words (Sam. 28If) explain the temporary restraint and prepare for his silence till 295. Once the Zutrittsdialog is over he resumes his affairs, the nature of which is starkly contrasted with that of the dialogue. 33 So does Moschion after Parmenon's Zutrittsmonolog Sam. 641ff; but this time the announcement (639f) gives no hint that Moschion will hold back so long. In these two cases, A's attitude towards B's presence is expressed before Β appears; similarly in Dysk. 259ff, where Gorgias and Daos may be listening but probably think they understand the situation well enough already. After such uninterrupted monologues (or dialogues) the action proceeds as if they had never been spoken. 34 In this situation asides, 33

Cf. Ter. (Apollodoros) Hec. 415ff for a similar contrast. Still, an eavesdropper's presence may contribute to the scene even if he is silent: e.g. in Sam. 641ff when Moschion overhears a recital of his own past misdeeds; and at the beginning of Dysk. act 5, if Gorgias is visible to the audience, as he hears Sostratos moralizing somewhat as he himself did earlier. (797ff, cf. 27Iff). 34

23

unless of the kind that aims at momentary comic effect, would have created an expectation of consequences. Elsewhere, though, the only justified answer to the question why asides are lacking may be that Menander liked variety and was sparing in his use of artificial conventions. Thus when Syros enters at Epitr. 442 Habrotonon must begin to pay attention, but instead of being given a ' η ταύτα;' aside she has to show this by gesture or movement. This, and the absence of any transition monologue for Onesimos after Syros leaves, help the scene's rapid movement. In Sam. 61ff Chrysis might have reacted with an aside to Parmenon's news, and Sostratos in Dysk. 546ff might have expressed surprise at seeing Getas. One can say comparable things when A has asides only at the end of a substantial Zutrittsmonolog. For example, in Dysk. 153—66 Sostratos hears nothing that will modify the attitude he took in the long entrance announcement; but in Sam. 440ff Moschion particularly must be surprised and baffled, and might conceivably have had asides. The humorous or ironic sort of aside, e.g. in Dysk. 574ff, Epitr. 127ff, can obviously change the whole character of a scene or our impressions of a person involved in it. But it would be unprofitable to speculate in which other scenes Menander might have introduced them. (iv) Transitions from

Zutrittsmonolog

to

dialogue35

In moving from Zutrittsmonolog to dialogue, either A or Β can initiate conversation, and they do so roughly an equal number of times in Menander as in Latin comedy. The usual situation is that A observes Β without being observed himself. Here the easiest and most natural transition is for A to come forward and address B, as happens at Dysk. 199, 269, Sam. 430 and (after Zutrittsdialog) at Sam. 69, 295. There are three rather special cases. In Dysk. 167ff we find alternate asides for Β (once he catches sight of A) and A before A starts dialogue — there are Plautine parallels, e.g. Bacch. 534f, Aul. 811—7, but Plautus tends towards artificial symmetry; the transition to awareness of A, but not to address, comes within the Zutritts35 Bain has devoted much space to this subject. See pp. 135—44 on Menander, also pp. 6 1 - 5 , 101, 1 5 8 - 6 1 .

24

monolog itself at 167 οϊμοι.36 In Misum. 284ff. A's third attempt (at least) to begin conversation succeeds: πόύβν πάρεστι; (324) if correctly restored would be an ironic joke on the convention of prolonged unawareness. In Asp. 399ff A makes similarly unsuccessful attempts; when Β suddenly answers him, his words eu πάντα ταύτα, Σμικρίρη (419) remind us that of course he knows A has witnessed the entire performance. If Β first addresses A there are often reasons apparent from the text: Β may be looking for A and have merely a 'πού έστιν;' monologue, or may himself have become the eavesdropper (e.g. Epitr. 382ff). In several passages, however, neither condition applies. Twice we find a pattern frequent in Euripides 37 , two transitions within the entrance speech, the first to awareness of A, the second to direct address: Sam. 127f, 405—7. In Geo. 41, however, the first is omitted. Why, in these cases, does Β notice A? As when we asked why Β remained unaware of A during his monologue (p. 14 above), we expect to be able to suggest reasons, but not always reasons apparent from the text itself. At Geo. 41, Β (Daos) probably sees A 1 and A 2 when he turns to address his companion; in Sam. 405—7 Β observes A as he makes to go inside (cf. Dysk. 167). However, the text of Sam. 127f (as it stands, without Jacques' uncompelling suggestion that A should be given 126 ήν άβέλτερος) provides no reason; Β is plainly continuing his monologue and in performance might simply start to pace about at ώς δ' οΰν, a new section of his speech. In Dysk. 777ff, B's 'ήριστήκατε;' echoes A l ' s 'άριστησάτω', but this does not necessarily mean B's attention was engaged by the sound of voices, 'τί τούτο;' is not 'what's that you say?' but a common expression of surprise. 38

B. Link monologues during the temporary absence of a character Leo's 'Übergangsmonologe' (Μ. p. 48) are speeches delivered by a person left alone after dialogue who then remains after someone else arrives. For our purposes it makes a difference whether the character who was on stage with the monologue speaker A before 36 37 38

Cf. Euripidean ea etc., Bain, p. 136 n. 2. Leo M, p. 3Of, Bain, pp. 6Iff. Cf. Handley and GS ad loc.

25

his monologue was B, the person who joins him afterwards, or someone else (C). In the latter case there is generally no connexion between B's entrance and C's earlier departure. A's monologue may be long or short, as the author wishes. 39 It is by choice then, at least in this respect, that Menander brings on Β at Asp. 216 and Sam. 399 after only a few words of monologue, but at Asp. 299 and Sam. 357 at the end of considerable speeches. When one and the same person is on stage with A before and after the monologue he is generally absent between times for a known reason, to carry out his own stated intentions or A's instructions. Before Β returns there must be enough time not so much for the unseen events to happen as for the audience to believe that they have; or rather, an even more modest requirement, to avoid creating disbelief and so disturbing the dramatic illusion. The monologue (or dialogue of A 1 and A 2) has a time-filling function, then. 40 The straightforward cases of monologue are: Pk. 300—4 and 311—6, 3 6 1 - 5 , 9 8 4 - 9 , Sam. 2 9 8 - 3 0 1 , 3 6 0 - 8 , 5 4 7 - 5 5 and 5 6 3 - 7 , 6 6 4 - 9 and 682—6, among which we find three pairs. Sam. 520—32 between the disappearance and re-entry of Nikeratos is wholly dialogue and followed by one of the pairs; Dysk. 855—65 is dialogue and then monologue; in Dysk. 203—11 A's monologue and the Zutrittsmonolog of a new character together span B's absence. We cannot tell, because of a lacuna, whether the monologue Asp. 433ff formally belongs to this group. Here other characters themselves have to avoid raising A's suspicions; they must allow enough time for the supposed medical inspection. B's business inside is often quite simple, and takes only a moment (see e.g. Sam. 297, Dysk. 203), and no reports are needed afterwards. In Pk. 295ff Daos goes in to find out three things, but his task is all observation and we are not surprised when he returns after only five lines of monologue. His next errand, though, is a different matter. The task is shorter still (309f) but he comes back with more 39

Occasionally we find a connexion: at Dysk. 145 B's imminent arrival scares C away, so that A's monologue could hardly be a very long one. If we accept Zuntz's attractive εναιών in Dysk. 194 (C. R. 1970 p. 7), the entry of Β at 189 is causally linked with C's going into the house at 178. The important difference here is that we are not expecting B's entry during the link monologue 179ff. *> On this in Latin comedy, Prescott, Class. Phil. 1939, 1 1 6 - 2 6 .

26

than its execution to report. In fact he narrates a dialogue between himself and Myrrhine which fills as many lines as the monologue that makes time for it. An audience is less likely to be worried by this sort of implausibility in a report afterwards than if a programme announced beforehand were carried out in too short a time. The double errand creates more bustle in an already lively scene, and allows a comic contrast between the slave's two reappearances. Moschion's thoughts in the second monologue are a natural sequel to those of the first. Similarly at Sam. 684 ' # p n ' in the second monologue of a pair is a direct reference to the earlier train of thought. During act 4 of 'Samia' Nikeratos rushes three times into and out of his house, whirlwind-like (555f). Twelve tetrameters of dialogue (520ff) give him a relatively long time to see Plangon suckling the child and time enough for her to faint; on stage, however, Moschion needs time to explain matters privately to Demeas. By contrast it seems that during the eight lines of Demeas' first monologue (547ff) Nikeratos has accosted Chrysis, Plangon and his wife — at least, his report afterwards implies this. Menander takes liberties, then, in the timing of off-stage events. He sometimes takes advantage too of A's temporary isolation. Not, in the monologues that we have, in so decided a way as he utilizes Nikeratos' absence in Sam. 520ff (dialogue); but for example, Demeas can more easily reproach himself and Moschion of 'Perikeiromene' dwell on his own attractiveness in monologue than in self-directed remarks during dialogue (Sam. 551, cf. 544f, Pk. 302f, cf. 308f); both Moschions can speculate what will happen next (Pk. 31 If, Sam. 664ff, 682 — in 'Samia', moreover, there is comic value in Parmenon's ignorance of his master's purpose); and Asp. 433ff and the complacent speech Dysk. 860ff are certainly better spoken in solitude. On the other hand, what Demeas says during Parmenon's absence, Sam. 298ff, could equally be conveyed in dialogue, and sometimes the speaker is merely filling time. For example, in Sam. 360ff the cook, a minor character with nothing important to say, finds himself alone and makes a monologue out of nothing — exclamations, commentary on noises within, (cf. 552ff) and fear for his utensils (cf. Plaut. Aul. 433, 445f).

27

CHAPTER 2

Monologues in 'Epitrepontes', 'Samia' and 'Dyskolos' (i) Epitrepontes acts 3 and 4 Act 3 Lines 419—576 form a scene, involving Onesimos, Habrotonon and Syros, the text of which is almost wholly preserved. It begins and ends with monologues for Onesimos: despondent at first, fearful and at a loss; afterwards, not exactly happy, but relieved to be temporarily out of trouble, he ponders at length on what has occurred. 419ff·. He comes outside, glad (as we realize later) to be out of Charisios' way. ' τον δακτύ\ιον' resumes the subject emphatically 1 but we learn that he has not shown his master the ring after all; an example of Menander's technique of disappointing expectations. 2 (This must be the next day, the avpiov of 414, GS p. 325). The first sentence ends in anticlimax with a bald 'άναδύομαι', but he does go on briefly to explain his behaviour, and then congratulates himself on his restraint. The audience must have heard of his earlier μηνύματα in the exposition, when he was perhaps happy with his meddlesome behaviour (nepLepyia, fr 2). What he has overheard Charisios saying to himself gives him cause for fear. Charisions is not ready to be reconciled yet — it will take the shock of moral realization expressed in his act 4 monologue to bring him to that — but the signs are there. Onesimos reports his master's state of mind π much the same way as Sosias in the monologues Pk. 172ff and 354ff. But while Sosias pities Polemon (358—60) Onesimos, whose fluctuating fortunes are one focus of interest in the play, considers 1 2

See Handley MPSC, p. 20 n.8. Friedrich, p. 155; Schäfer, pp. 83ff.

28

the possible reconciliation only as it affects himself, repeating the ominous phrase he has just quoted, 'τον φράσαντα ταύτα'. We do not hear the entire reasoning that lies behind his rejection of the earlier plan. It might seem that fear of punishment for the disastrous μηνύματα is his sole motivation. 'κάνταΰθα' (429), however, anticipates an explanation and must mean 'in showing the ring, as before in disclosing Pamphile's confinement'. His fears are indeed more precise. The details have to be withheld till the narration to Syros which Habrotonon is to overhear (448ff). He dismisses a second possibility, returning the ring to Syros, as 'Άτοπον' (435f). Hence an aporia in which he appeals to the audience (442 ικετεύω cannot be to Habrotonon). We can imagine, if we like, that after 429 and 436 he continues deliberating silently as Habrotonon speaks. Onesimos has no reason to tell her the story directly, but the plot demands that she must hear it. Now she is introduced with 'Zutrittsmonolog', at first speaking back. He is represented as too deep in thought to notice. She might have seen him on turning from the door and overheard his monologue, speaking asides, but Menander prefers that her own monologue should continue. 3 From her we get a second picture of Charisios' present behaviour, immediately after the first. His abstention from her is another sign of his feelings towards Pamphile. Onesimos speaks again, avoiding too long a silence, but Habrotonon's monologue still continues — an unusual interlacing of two quite independent speeches. 4 Syros interrupts Onesimos' thoughts; after his 'minimal' Zutrittsmonolog of the 'πού 'στιν;' type (see p. 12 above) dialogue is continuous until 555. By then Habrotonon has evolved her plan, with Onesimos' approval, and as she goes indoors very appropriately (in two senses — GS ad loc.) invokes Peitho. Schadewaldt aptly compares Ae. Suppl 523, another exit-line. 5 The scene rehearsed on stage (513—35) has now to be played through indoors, and create the disturbance that will motivate Karion's entry. Two monologues share the time-filling task, those of Onesimos and Smikrines. 3

Both come from the same house. Presumably Onesimos has moved well away by 430; this also gives Syros an effectively long movement when he rushes on. 4 Cf. 853ff, if Habrotonon sees Pamphile only at 857. Terence offers no parallels, but Plaut. Merc. 830ff is comparable. See Denzler, p. 107. s MS, p. 102 n.3.

29

557ff: Onesimos is left alone to ponder on these events. In the middle of his speech (566—71) he draws the likely conclusion about Pamphile's fate, in a matter-of-fact way without expressing feelings of his own. After a divine prologue, or through familiarity with comic conventions, the audience would be able to identify the girl in Habrotonon's story with Pamphile; so there is dramatic irony when Onesimos speaks as if two different women had claims upon Charisios. The rest of the speech relates more personally to Onesimos. Lines 557—66 are linked closely to the preceding scene, particularly to the end of the dialogue after Habrotonon has explained her plan. At that moment (538) his immediate response was to raise the question of her gaining freedom; and now he interprets all her behaviour, both during and before the conversation, as a consistent plan with this aim in mind. His own character has made it easier for him to detect the self-interest that is certainly one of her motives (see 548; and note the similarity between 544ff and 458ff) even, it appears, as early as 515f 'άρτι yap νοώ'. A little later he asked, somewhat pathetically, 'άλλ' [η] χάρις πς τούτων έμοι';' (542) and in spite of her assurances remained mistrustful. In the monologue he regains, for a moment, the hope of getting something from her as he deserves to (562f). The next minute he dismisses the thought as absurd: it is foolish to expect thanks from a woman, and he only hopes he may escape harm.6 Admiration for her ingenuity echoes several applauding remarks during the scene (525, 535 etc.). We know from her entrance speech that she will get nowhere 'κατά τον έρωτα' (558); Onesimos has not heard this, but will have seen it for himself. A new element in the monologue is that he laments his own lack of intelligence — in an asyndetic list of attributes, cf. fr. 11 — shown up by Habrotonon's superior cunning. In the course of his thought he comes to a sudden break, then continues, with asyndeton, repudiating what he has just said (ώς κβνά κτ\., 563) — a means of enlivening monologues where the speaker utters present thoughts rather than reporting past deliberations. Such turns, sometimes with an element of self-rebuke, are often marked by a shift to the second person (Chapter 3 A). Similar turns are

These gnomic lines were preserved by Stobaeus in an altered form. See GS on 566.

6

30

found in Sam. 668, where Moschion suddenly admits to the fear that he will be unconvincing 7 and in Ter. Adel. 202 'sed ego hoc hariolor', closely similar to our present passage, in a monologue Rieth believes to be Menandrean (Rieth-Gaiser, pp. 42ff). A monologue speaker may reject an idea in the course of his deliberation (Dysk. 516ff) or correct himself (Dysk. 7f). He may also introduce in a merely rhetorical way mistaken beliefs which are then refuted (fr. 333 12ff; fr. 568 2,4; fr. 656 4,6) or the words of an imaginary objector (fr. 407 4f, cf. Ter. Andr. 640). 8 These last examples, though, do not involve genuine reversals of thought. The section on Pamphile (566ff) is straightforward, the abruptness of the transition to it perhaps softened by an association of ideas through 'γυναικός' (565). Then Onesimos reverts to assessing his own position with Charisios. Here a verbal repetition emphasizes the link with his earlier monologue, κυκάσΰαί 573 recalling κυκαν 428. (The word is not found elsewhere in extant Menander.) Two things have contributed to the seeming improvement. The ring problem is resolved, and his master's reconciliation with Pamphile — dangerous for him (425—7) — appears less likely. However, he makes only the first of these factors explicit. Next he renounces τό πολλά πράττβιν, the irepiepyia that had impelled him to bring Charisios τα τρότβρον μηνύματα (422f). As before (427f) he congratulates himself, this time on escaping involvement in the scheme. Lines 574b—6a are textually puzzling, but it is attractive to suppose that έκ,τεμβιν raises the idea of castration, which is then dispelled by τούς όδόντας at the end of the sentence. Onesimos may be offering himself to the audience for punishment if he does not keep his word, in the same way as Euclio to Staphyla in Plaut. Aul. 250—1. Finally, the sight of Smikrines sends him hurrying off (cf. Ter. Η. Τ. 1000). We have an extended announcement 9 concerned not only with the newcomer's demeanour (578) 10 but also with explaining his return. Did Onesimos get rid of him earlier by some deceit? 583ff with 127ff: Mere shreds remain of Smikrines' monologue, but enough to make it clear that he is once more complaining 7

Not on Gueraud's interpretation, but see p. 43 n. 16 below. On λήρος, Misum. 171, GS ad loc. » See p. 45 below on Dysk. 145ff. 10 Cf. e.g. Dysk. 145ff, Sik. 123f. 8

31

about Charisios' dissipated life. In his earlier monologue (127ff) partly preserved in the Petersburg fragment, the audience would realize that there were two reasons for his disapproval of Charisios — the way the young man treats Pamphile and his extravagance with the dowry — though Smikrines hardly distinguishes between them, as is neatly brought out by the juxtapositions of 134—7. Again towards the end of the play Onesimos links the two, dowry first and daughter second (1079, cf. schol. Od. 7.225); before then they have come together in Smikrines' conversation with Pamphile (749ff) and perhaps also in the present monologue. At least, κοα>ωνο[ (594) suggests that as well as grumbling about Charisios' drinking, dancing and music girls he lamented the way Pamphile was being cheated of a normal married life: and κοινωνός occurs in line 920 in a report of what she has said. The exact relationship between the two monologues, and any variations on the theme Menander may have introduced, elude us. In general, textual damage and deficiency much hinder our appreciation of Smikrines' character. Another possible monologue is lost at the beginning of act 2. Since, naturally enough, with Daos and Syros on stage he has nothing to say at his exit (371) about what he found indoors or what he intends to do next, this must have been made plain beforehand. The first six lines of act 2, of which the beginnings are preserved, have no paragraphi, and Wilamowitz suggested (Sch. p. 55) that Smikrines began with a monologue. But a likely explanation of 576ff is that Onesimos has told him some story which sends him back to town; therefore others have suggested Onesimos as the monologue-speaker, and no one can be sure which proposal, if either, is right. 11 Act 4 We come to the successive and closely linked monologues of Onesimos and Charisios. Neither of them knows, as do the audience, that Pamphile is the mother of Charisios' child. The latter's ignorance, however, detracts nothing from the value of his self-reproach. 878ff: As early as the explanatory parenthesis in 880, it is clear that Onesimos is addressing the spectators, as before at 441 f and " Cf. Görler, pp. 4 5 - 6 .

32

574—6. The customary vocative 'äi>δρες' comes within the narrative (887), and is well placed. In Dysk. 666, Sik. 405 and fr. 24,3, for example, while the vocative catches attention and in the first two emphasises the speaker's jubilation and misery respectively, 12 it has no particular links with the sentence it is placed in. Here, however, the show of restraint in 'ούδ' ειπείν καλόν' goes well with the acknowledgement that there are listeners present. We are reminded of Moschion's modesty, Sam. 47—50, and perhaps the old man's 'σιωπαν βούλομαι' fr. 333,9, though we find 'άνδρες' in neither of these. 13 After the excited stuttering start, Onesimos presents his narrative as evidence for his deduction that Charisios is mad (883 ydp). All he can judge by is his master's behaviour and what he overheard; what happened outside he can only guess (886 ώς εοικε). His old fears (425—7), abated by Habrotonon (572), surge back and are most emphatically reasserted (901) and justified (902—3) after the narrative. Here there are echoes of his first preserved monologue: αντόν με τον διαβαλόντα (902—3) recalling με τον φράσαντα ταϋτα και συνειδότα (425—7), τυχόν άποκτείνειεν äv (903) μη άφανίσχι . . . ; 14 and within the narrative, more substantial quotations of Charisios' words than in that earlier monologue. We notice that Menander strongly contrasts at least the second quotation of Charisios (894—9) with Onesimos' own words. After the short asyndetic clauses, oaths and varied repetitions at the beginning, the narrative has a straggling sentence structure with δέ and τε the most frequent particles (but μεν 886, γάρ 894, asyndeton 899b). Lines 894—9a form a single period; two participial phrases precede the main verbs, agreeing with eyoo, another follows, in agreement with έκείνχ). It is a short example of the participle-clustering we find most notably in divine prologues. 15 12

Cf. Bain, p. 191f on the word's "almost exclamatory function" 13 On fr. 333, however, see Bain, p. 205. 14 A resemblance of ideas rather than words. Verbal echoes between monologues: see esp. Dis. Exap. 101 ιταμωτάτην 21 Ιταμή; 9 3 πιΰανενομένην, 27 πιϋαι>[€υομέν}η; p. 31 above on κυκαν; in fr. 336 (Plokion) spoken by a slave (line 6) it is the echoes and general similarity with fr. 335 that suggest the same slave is speaking: fr. 335.1 όστις ώι> πένης, cf. fr. 336.1, fr. 335.6 ταλαιπ ώ ρ φ ßlLf), cf. fr. 336.5; the idea of concealing one's misfortune in fr. 335.5 and fr. 3 3 6 . 7 - 9 . is See Dysk. 1 4 - 1 6 , 3 1 - 4 , 37, 3 9 - 4 3 ; Asp. 108f, 1 3 0 - 2 and 1 3 8 - 4 3 ; and especially Pk. 1 2 1 - 4 4 , 1 5 1 - 3 . 3 BlundeU (Hyp. 99)

33

We have become interested in the slave's varying fortunes for their own sake, largely through monologues, and part of the value of making him the precursor 16 lies in presenting his reactions. But the arrangement also means that when Charisios appears he does not have to explain about his eavesdropping. In fact there is no need for any narrative elements that would detract from the emotional intensity. The initial idea of Charisios' monologue is already clear from 894—9 — the moral realization that his behaviour in raping a girl (Habrotonon, as he thinks) and begetting a bastard child is equivalent to Pamphile's in bearing such a child. Thus he can refer to the equivalence in a brief, imprecise way (915 εις ό'μοι' έπταικότα) and concentrate on the difference of reactions: his own harshness, Pamphile's forgiveness. Also the slave's monologue is a building up to what may be Charisios' first appearance, at a moment when it might superficially seem that reconciliation will be an uncomplicated business. 908ff: Menander achieves consistency between Charisios' reported and observed behaviour without being too repetitive. First, some obvious links. Both Charisios and Pamphile have suffered άτυχήματα in both speeches (891 and 918, 898 and 914), indeed, Pamphile had already spoken to Smikrines of her husband's άτύχημα (921). 1 7 Selfrebuke is as fierce in the second monologue as before: at least the epithet βάρβαρος recurs (924, cf. 898), though those in 9 0 8 - 1 0 and 'σκαιός ά^νώμων re' (918) are new. Charisios begins his speech with έγώ (908) as before (894), with the piling on of epithets and participial phrases in apposition. Novelty, on the other hand, comes chiefly from the fact that Charisios, unlike Onesimos, knows exactly what Pamphile has said. Starting from his moral realization already established, Charisios contrasts his own behaviour with hers, in antitheses. He applies the second person to himself both in self-address 1 6 As is the servant in Eur. Ale. 7 4 7 f f ; Leo M. p. 8 4 makes the comparison. Herakles though, unlike Charisios, has no Zutrittsmonolog. 1 7 If we had the complete text o f act 4 we should probably find a link monologue for Pamphile between Smikrines' exit and Habrotonon's entrance (so Wilamowitz Sch., p. 9 4 , Del Corno, p. 2 5 3 , GS, p. 3 5 7 ) . Whether this was extensive and in some sense a companion piece to Charisios' monologue we can only guess; but as Charisios himself draws comparisons explicitly, I incline to think not. There is; incidentally, no sign that Charisios overheard anything but dialogue.

34

and in the imagined words of τό δαιμόνων (see Chapter 3 A 9). The second antithesis contrasts her reported words to Smikrines with Charisios* own former thoughts. Although we lose the latter account in the lacuna of papyrus C, 0 4 largely fills the gap and we know at least the proportions of the monologue, βάρβαρος (924) may belong to the σύ Si clause; afterwards the connexion of thought is obscure, 'μέτβισι δια τέλους' one might say of a supernatural agent; perhaps το δαιμόνων, as Wilamowitz suggests (Sch. p. 101), even if Wilamowitz's supplement in 927 is too long (GS ad loc.). 18

(ii) Samia acts 3, 4 and 5

Act 3 This act is dominated by two long monologues from Demeas: the first mainly narrative, the second reflective, ending with a decision that gives the impetus for events extending well into the next act. 206ff: By the end of act 2 everything seemed set fair. One might perhaps have guessed that the continuing deceit, by which Chrysis posed as the mother of Moschion's and Plangon's baby, would somehow lead to trouble, but scarcely the manner in which it does. Menander devises off-stage events, assumed to happen during the interval, that cause Demeas to discover a half of the truth but not the whole of it. In essence what happens is that he overhears a carelessly talkative nurse speak of the baby as Moschion's, and when, immediately afterwards, he sees Chrysis giving it the breast, this apparent confirmation that she is the mother knocks him completely off balance. In this state he comes before the audience. The speech has a long, elaborate introduction, most of it an analogy between his recent experience and a sudden storm at sea. 1 Demeas' peaceful and pleasant activities of a short time ago were 18

A few more points on this speech: τις 908 already seems to create an ironic tone (cf. Zini, p. 82) as again in 922 τις υψηλός σφόδρα which echoes Smikrines' υψηλός ών τις 691. Note anacoluthon in 91 Iff which leaves βγώ hanging; also the gnomic quality of 912—3, with which Wilamowitz aptly compares fr. 251. 1 Add this, and Karch. 6, to Fantham's lists of nautical metaphors pp. 19ff. Also CGF 255.10ff (= PSI 1176).

35

like easy sailing in fine weather — and now seem somewhat ridiculous. Here Demeas expresses irony in two asyndetic definite article phrases (211), a recognized stylistic device that recurs at Pk. 172f, Pnth. 17.2 In those places irony is directed at others rather than at the speaker himself, but in all three 'άρτιω?' marks a recent reverse of fortune. When Demeas tells us that he has been almost shocked out of his wits, we wonder not only about the cause but also how he will be able to give a lucid, reasonable account of his experience. Before the narrative he appeals to the audience (216—8). Since he can hardly trust his senses, he will lay the evidence before them and let them judge. The fact that Demeas sets himself the task of remaining objective helps us to accept what would otherwise seem psychologically improbable. Afterwards, when he renews the fictitious appeal, he claims to have presented the evidence 'ούκ ά-γανακτών ούδέπω' (271), and he has indeed kept his narrative fairly free of emotion. We lack a few lines at the crucial point of the story; in what we have, the most emotive language seems to be merely his reference to Chrysis as 'την Σαμΐαν' (265, cf. 353f). Emotional detachment is not, of course, a necessary feature of narrative monologues. In "Misumenos" Getas conveys a report quite successfully along with his own highly excited reaction to the events narrated (284ff). But we easily discover why Demeas must be so precise. The elegant construction of this part of the play would be obscured if he were not. Menander wants to show how circumstances compel a perfectly intelligent man to adopt an utterly mistaken belief; hardly anyone could have avoided the mistake, and very few would have been equally cautious. The narrative comprises three episodes: 219—31a, from the time he went in, when the audience last saw him; 231b—61, the overhearing episode (which involves a report of the nurse's monologue — 245 προς αυτήν φησa>);3 262—6, his coming out. It is straightforward and needs little commentary here. Part of the aesthetic appeal is that all 2 See E. Fraenkel, Glotta 1963, 285f. 3 Cf. Epitr. 424f, 888ff. Report of the speaker's own monologue, in direct speech: Epitr. 253ff, Pk. 547ff and e.g. Ter. Andr. llOff, H.T. 128ff, Eun. 636ff. Thus monologue and eavesdropping conventions hold good in the offstage world. A striking example is Pk. 542ff, where the reported errand and "link monologue" are just like the on-stage events in 309ff.

36

the events are made to seem quite natural. The description of the old woman (236—8) prepares for her musings later on. She has been upstairs (232), so that unlike the others she does not know Demeas is within earshot. Demeas makes a point of this (240f, cf. 276f), aware that people who know they are overheard may alter what they say (cf. 257). 'οπβρ βίκός' (225) expresses the ordinary predictability of events; there are similar phrases in narrative at 42, Asp. 47. 4 Why the last episode (265—6)? Demeas already "knows" that Chrysis is the child's mother. Seeing her with it at that particular moment has obviously had a devastating effect on him; but there is also a parallelism with Nikeratos' experience later (below, p. 42). In the peroration, 267ff, Demeas draws one obvious — though mistaken — conclusion, but refuses, with a significant aposiopesis at 269, to draw the other for which he has the nurse's unambiguous words as authority. He returns to the audience as judges, this time explaining why he can hardly believe his ears. It is because Moschion has always been so well-behaved and considerate towards him in the past (272—4, cf. 17f). The final section (apart from the announcement), though it sounds for a moment like the mustering of essential points of evidence, leads once again not to the obvious conclusion, but to 'έζέστηχ όλως'. In the scene with Parmenon, Demeas narrowly misses learning the whole truth. Parmenon lies at first (314), but his answer 'eon' at 320 is perfectly true, and no doubt we are to think he would have blurted out a full admission if Demeas had not lost his temper.5 325ff: Parmenon has fled, and Demeas begins his second major monologue of the act, no longer doubting that Moschion is the child's father. After an extravagant Euripidean outburst he breaks off, with comic suddenness, in self-address6 and makes the remarkable stateOne might perhaps compare Latin '(ita) ut fit': Ter. An. 8 0 , Eun. 9 8 , 6 0 0 , 6 3 0 , Hec. 1 5 8 ; Plaut. Capt. 2 5 ; O x f o r d Latin Diet. s.v. fio 3b.

4

5 ' e o n ' is true because of the way Demeas expresses himself in line 3 1 8 . There are two aspects. F o r Demeas this is euphemism. But the formulation is dramatically essential. Moschion's return is motivated by a meeting with Parmenon ( 4 3 1 f ) . If Parmenon had understood Demeas' true suspicions, that the child's parents were Moschion and Chrysis, we should expect him to enlighten Moschion; then the misunderstandings of act 4 would have been impossible. 6

See chapter 3 A 7.

37

ment: ούδέν άδικβϊ Μοσχίων ae. This is meant to be remembered at two important stages in act 4: first when Moschion's behaviour upsets his expectations (456 συναδίκβϊ μ'ούτος); and then when he is fully convinced of the truth (537 ουδέν άδίκβϊς Μοσχίων (μ'), with Sandbach's supplement). There the matter might have rested, but as we shall see in discussing 616ff it does not. Here he turns again to the audience, promising to justify this proposition. The structure of his argument is: (i)

330—5a, a valid proof that Moschion is innocent of any άδίκημα, on the basis of his present behaviour (if A then B; but not B; therefore not A);

(ii)

335b—7, a misguided reinterpretation of the motives underlying that behaviour. The logic is momentarily obscure, because this section coheres with (iii) rather than (i). To digress a little, 4 ώς έη/ώ TOT' φόμην' probably refers back to the monologue 163ff where we read (165f) €χον[τα ]l έρωτίκώς. It would be neater if Moschion had not said he was in love; should έρώ (146) then be Ί shall say' or else Ί am eager (to marry)'? The conclusion Demeas now repudiates must be that which he drew in 153f. It is when Moschion's pleading for Chrysis shows the reinterpretation to be false that Demeas begins to think him guilty (456);

(iii) 338—42, the statement that Chrysis is to blame — this seems to follow from Moschion's supposed innocence — and then an inference about the probable course of events which is supported by a generalization. One thinks here of Sostratos, Dis Exap. lOOff; (iv) 342—7, a second argument for Moschion's innocence, repeated from 272—4 where it was implicitly Demeas' grounds for disbelieving that Moschion was the child's father. He is willing therefore to consider the business, on Moschion's side, as an Ατύχημα.1 Till now the monologue has been, outwardly, reflection rather than deliberation. But he has called Chrysis 'that Helen of mine', and now, adding more abuse, he announces his twofold decision — to eject Chrysis, while keeping the disgrace quiet for Moschion's sake — 7

Barigazzi, p. 148 n.59.

38

with a return to self-exhortation in the second person. Because of the decision his behaviour becomes incomprehensible to the other characters. He had seemed reconciled t o the fact that Chrysis had kept the child against his orders (see 412ff, also GS on 141—2); now, that is the only pretext he will offer for expelling her. Hence the oddities which must baffle Chrysis in the expulsion scene (372 ούδέν, 374f aposiopesis, 379f); Nikeratos thinks him mad (416); and hence Demeas' efforts to draw Moschion aside in act 4 (476, cf. 500; also 705f). Monologue speakers often begin their deliberations with a question, usually self-directed: "what shall I d o ? " or "shall I do X ? " 8 Decision arrives without such a question at Dysk. 226ff; but a more interesting parallel to our present passage is Dis Exap. 25. Whereas it is clear, retrospectively, that Demeas was reasoning his way towards this resolution, Sostratos' thoughts are shifting and turbulent, no sooner formed than uttered. We are hindered by lacunae, but the sequence after self-address is something like this: "I am completely her slave; ή δ' ώ[ς κενόν συ]μπβισάτω κτλ.", with the decision presented obliquely in the imperatival clause before the direct statement of it. 357ff: Apart from comic effect in the cook's amazement, the function of this speech is structural. It allows Demeas to leave the stage and return with Chrysis during the act; also, the cook's continued presence brings some relief to the passionate scene that follows. His monologue is spun from little material: grumbles, exclamations, and a commentary on off-stage noises. For him, these mean danger to his utensils; Demeas himself responds to similar noises later with an urbane witticism (554f — Keuls 9 suggests a pun on ϋδιον). 399ff: Nikeratos too provides comic relief, immediately after Demeas' last tirade and Chrysis' forlorn reply: six lines of humour at the starving sheep's expense, with use of topoi (cf. Dysk. 447ff), before he notices Chrysis and the action moves forward again. 8

The first: Dysk. 190, answered at 196f after narrative and reflection; Dysk. 457 with immediate answer; Sam. 682 to the audience. The second: Dysk. 18If, 516ff, with immediate answers; Kith. 66ff. 9 ZPE 10 (1973), p. 14.

39

Act 4 Although the only women who appear on stage are Chrysis and, presumably, her old attendant (374), the women of the two households are constantly kept in our minds by references, narrative and offstage address. It is entrance monologue and "speaking back" 1 0 that tell us now both houses are in turmoil (42Iff, 440ff). In addition to these non-dialogue forms there are several asides — some between two speakers — invocations of Agyieus, and remarks 'ad spectatores'. Various factors cause this proliferation: the high emotion which makes Nikeratos forget the others present (532ff), Demeas' desire for secrecy (476ff), his continuing dialogue with the audience and perhaps, in the case of Moschion's asides (494, 515), the dramatic need to keep the true situation quite clear. 42Iff: Nikeratos, like Demeas twice before him, reappears after an unpleasant experience between acts. His house will be the scene of some riotous happenings, for which we are now prepared. 428ff: Moschion wanders on, unannounced, with a brief lover's complaint in monologue. This is his second reentrance. On the first occasion he had left with a particular purpose in mind (94f) and so, when he came back, had to report how far he had carried it out (120ff); the audience's expectations had to be satisfied. But since he went off at 162 with no definite intentions, on a 'deambulatio' like Clitipho's (Ter. Η. Τ. 585, 805) though of his own choosing, no report is necessary this time; and he may well be talking to himself rather than the audience. His prologue speech, of more than 100 lines, established them as his confidants. But after his exit at 162 the rapport he enjoyed with them may not be renewed till he asks for advice (682f). His monologues before then (428ff, 616ff, 664ff) contain at least no verbal indications of being addressed to the audience. 11 10 Cf. the use of "speaking back" in Asp. 164, 233. Some words on the prologue as audience address. Lines 5—6 acknowledge the situation directly — at least, that he is going to explain things for their benefit, though not that he is prologue speaker in a play. See also 19f (cf. fr. 152.2—3); and 47—50, where his suitably modest language is meant to retain sympathy for him (also pp. 32—3 above on Epitr. 878ff). For the use of second person in 5f, compare e.g. Asp. 113, Phas. 19f. Its omission in 19f and 11

40

440ff: The conversation that follows is interrupted by Demeas' sudden and terrible outburst. He begins by "speaking back", then prays to Apollo, comically turning to the audience in parenthesis to reassure them about the wedding. At least since the act 3 monologues he has been allowed an intimacy with them, appealing to their judgment, arguing before them to support his paradoxical opinion. He may have addressed them earlier: we have almost certainly lost a short monologue of his that began act 2, 12 most of his end-of-scene monologue 163ff, and possibly exit monologues to end acts 1 and 2. One imagines he speaks to them in the link monologue 298ff. And since his words in 456ff (to 458 ye[yovevai) refer back to an argument addressed to them (330ff), these are probably 'ad spectatores' too; and if these, then perhaps also 454, 461f (with ορα[θ'), 473f. Note also his Εναντίον των παρόντων' (487f), and 600ff, where he names people who are conceivably in the audience. The effect of all this must be that Demeas is almost presenting the action that he observes, making the audience his co-spectators. The irony of the situation is that they have independent, superior know47—50 is unimportant. (So too at Sik. 2,0τ?μι, given the genre. Bain, however, rejects the inference of audience address in tragedy when narrators use verbs of saying in the first person: C.R. (NS) 25. 1975, p. 18 with n.2). Speakers may also acknowledge their narrative function indirectly, by using devices that help the listener to understand. Here again, second person is optional: compare the identifications of characters who have already appeared in Pk. 127f and Asp. 114. Sometimes with verbs of saying, e.g. Asp. 130 Önep ύπεϊπα, Pk. 152— as naturally as in dialogue narration (Asp. 65). The lacuna after Sam. 57 hides from us whether Moschion made a captatio benevolentiae as do prologue deities (e.g. Dysk. 45f, Pk. 170f). Bain raises this question (p. 187 with n.5), noting that Palaestrio steps out of his r61e in the prologue to 'Miles Gloriosus'. In the remains of our prologue Moschion is always Moschion. The audience are openly addressed, but not reminded of their being an audience, any more than by those who address them within the play. Dramatic illusion is hardly violated here. Agnoia, by contrast, calls them 'Oeaταί' (Pk. 171); but the appearance of an allegorical figure has already surrendered the illusion. Note finally fr. 656, another monologue recognizing narrative function. The lover searches for the best simile to communicate his feelings to the audience. Leo (M. p. 80) thinks this may be prologue; but it could introduce a later narrative, cf. e.g. Sam. 206ff. 12 There is no reason why Menander should have deviated here from the normal pattern (p. 17 above); so Demeas will have entered before Moschion whom he overhears.

41

ledge which the real theatrical setting, contrary to t h e fiction Demeas has used, does n o t allow t h e m to share with him. 532ff: Nikeratos has gone in, determined to expel Chrysis; meanwhile, Moschion tells his father the t r u t h . In the sequel, Nikeratos is whisked through a m u c h accelerated equivalent of what Demeas has endured. His discovery of Plangon with t h e child at her breast, unlike Demeas' discovery of Chrysis, really is a revelation. This entrance monologue is analogous to 2 0 6 f f . In Nikeratos' lamentation (532—4) έμμανής recalls 217 μαίνομαι, άπροσδοκήτφ the same word in 207, and 215 [ π λ η γ ί ή ν would be recalled b y π λ η γ ε ί ς . Then the explanation, analogous to 219ff. Demeas presently has t w o link monologues (547ff, 5 6 3 f f ) , corresponding to the cook's ( 3 6 0 f f ) ; and Chrysis another snatch of paratragic lament, though at an earlier stage t h a n b e f o r e (568f, with elevated ' δ ρ ά σ ω ' ; 398). 1 3 Act 5 Once again, an audience could hardly guess where the material for a new act would be f o u n d . After act 2 there was at least the continuing deceit. Now, b o t h fathers know the t r u t h , and the wedding is on. Again it is a monologue (616ff) that gives t h e fresh impulse. As t h e finale of Terence's ' A d e l p h o e ' 1 4 springs f r o m the monologue (855ff) in which Demeas announces his change of heart, or perhaps of tactics, so Moschion's is the source of all the remaining action except the betrothal and ceremonies. We can see the starting point retrospectively, in the confession Demeas made: ούδέν άδικβίς Μοσχίων {μ'ϊέ^ώ δέ σέ, ύπονοών τοιαύτα (537f). In that fast-moving scene there was no time f o r protests. Menander makes a virtue of that necessity and has Moschion say that he became angry n o t at once b u t only as he pondered more and more (τότε μέν ώς δέ ... 13

Some other reminiscences: earlier in the scene 519, spoken by Nikeratos, echoes 475 and 483. Demeas now thinks Nikeratos mad: 563, cf. 416. σκα-

τοφάγος 550 and σκατοφα-γεΐ 427. 14

It is unnecessary here to discuss whether Terence has substantially altered the ending of 'Adelphoe' or faithfully reproduced his Menandrean original. On this question see, for example, W. G. Arnott 'Menander, Plautus, Terence' (Oxford 1975) pp. 5 4 - 5 , p. 61 n.102; R. H. Martin's commentary on 'Adelphoe' (Cambridge 1976) p. 22 n.2, pp. 26ff. No doubt there was a corresponding monologue in Menander from which most, if not all, of the final section sprang.

42

616, 619). 15 He has decided to punish Demeas. Because his intentions are already fully formed, he can present the first possible method in a way that implies its rejection from the start (el μέν ... νΰν δέ 623, 630). In οι) μην ταπεινώς κτλ. we have the actual plan, and what he hopes to gain by it. Moschion's discontent is natural for someone who values his relationship with his father so highly. It is another symptom of the sentiment which created the trouble; he was more concerned to preserve his good reputation with Demeas than to tell him the truth — αίσχύνομαι τον -πατέρα (67). After Parmenon's diverting monologue Moschion sets about his mean purpose of scaring Demeas, and in time achieves it. But Demeas' reaction is neither of the simple ones Moschion has anticipated. Moschion fills in time during Parmenon's two absences in the house by planning his own behaviour. Parmenon is not made privy to this scheme, and so it is the link monologues (664ff, 682ff) that continue the thought of 616ff. More precisely, lines 664—7 give the intention he begins with; at 668 a doubt creeps in; 16 and in the second monologue a graver doubt, over which he asks the audience for advice. The entrance speech was constructed out of long balanced periods, and rather verbose with several pairs of synonyms. 17 The two shorter ones are markedly different: short clustering clauses, more parataxis, ellipse, reversals of thought, verbal repetitions in and between them both. Demeas has enough insight to know at once what feelings have prompted Moschion and begins his speech (695ff) by recognizing what is creditable in his behaviour. Moschion, on the other hand, has disregarded the good will shown by all his father's past kindness — described in the prologue — and never asked himself how the mistake arose. Fortunately Moschion is saved from having to 15

Cf. Plaut. Bacch. 1076ff, Ter. Eun. 507ff. Past thoughts reported in entrance monologue without the idea of 'more and more': Plaut. Aul. 379ff, Bacch. 385ff, Ter. Eun. 629ff. 16 He suddenly admits the fear that he will be unconvincing. Gueraud's interpretation (BIFAO 1927, p. 112), favoured by Sandbach on v. 667, would rule this out. The line then becomes a somewhat flat reminiscence of 630—2. It is better to allow Moschion the sudden weakness of comic lovers, cf. e.g. Dysk. 145. 17 Dedoussi ad loc. Chaireas' lament, Asp. 284ff, gives a similar impression of fullness.

43

reply (713); καταλελιπαρήκατβ beößevoi μου (721f) is an empty triumph that goes unchallenged. This is how his monologues fit into the scene. What about Parmenon's (641ff), which provides a different sort of comedy between the announcement of the plan and its execution? Obviously the two long speeches lack the intimate connexions that hold between the consecutive monologues in 'Epitrepontes' (878ff, 908ff). Their juxtaposition points out similarities and contrasts between the speakers. Both are returning fugitives. Moschion too fled, in a sense, ούδέν άδικών (643); 18 but given his present mood he naturally says nothing of that indignity. Parmenon's whole speech shows him urging himself home, until the climax is reached in a two-voice dialogue (cf. Chapter 3 A l ) . At the same time his speech recapitulates, so that Moschion's sins are recited in the sinner's presence. Moschion hastily dismisses 'all this nonsense' (658); and the monologue, like their reported encounter (431f), is quite forgotten. *

I omitted any general discussion of monologues in 'Epitrepontes' because the play is so incomplete. 'Samia' however is well enough preserved, now that we have the Bodmer papyrus, for us to gain some overall idea of the importance of its monologues. When we make allowance for lacunae, monologue can hardly count for less than 370 lines in a play of about 900. Of the 370 about 230 are comprised in the four longest and most significant: Moschion's prologue speech, the two Demeas monologues in act 3 which dominate the middle of the play, and Moschion's which is the source of most of act 5. We saw that Demeas had more monologue during the first two acts than we now possess. Moschion had an exit-entrance pair. In fact, at least five of the six speaking characters are given monologue. The sixth, Chrysis, has certainly the two short laments (398, 568f), and possibly a more extended monologue after the prologue. 19 18

For Moschion, see line 537. At 61 Moschion is surely re-entering with Parmenon, so that οΰκουν άκονβΐζ; is used in the same way as at 369. The only possible sign that anyone but Chrysis is on stage meanwhile is the plural ήμάς (59); but see GS ad loc. After 61 Moschion takes no notice of Chrysis; I should guess that he is unaware of her, so that the play may have begun with two consecutive monologues, no dialogue intervening. 19

44

The two chief characters act alone for much of the time. It is isolation that breeds their wilder thoughts: everything is kept secret till the plans announced in monologue are carried out to the great bewilderment of others. Demeas' fantasy in his second act 3 monologue is unrestricted because no one — except the silent audience — is there to check it and urge him not to be so precipitate. Moschion, having come and gone in acts 1—4 usually as a solitary figure, returns in act 5 with plans conceived in solitude.

(iii) Dyskolos line 145 — end of act 1, acts 2 and 3, act 4 to line 690, 860ff Act 1 Leaving aside Pan's prologue, the first half of act 1 (to 144) contains no genuine monologue at all, whereas the second has little else. In particular, the fifty lines or so between Knemon's exit and the end include only four lines of dialogue. Sostratos is alone — a stranger in Phyle and deserted by his companions. But there are dramatic advantages in restricting the amount of conversation he has with the characters he meets. 1 145ff: Sostratos' link monologue is mainly an elaborate announcement of Knemon. A character entering by a parodos can be seen several lines before he arrives on stage. This allows those present to express their attitude towards the newcomer, as in lines 255—8, 607—11 of this play, to decide how to behave towards him (e.g. Ter. Adel. 361—4), or to absent themselves (Epitr. 576—82). Terence's Demea, in a monologue structurally similar to Dysk. 602ff, uses the opportunity for a long encomium of Hegio (Adel. 438—46). Here, Sostratos' fears rapidly increase as Knemon draws nearer. As elsewhere, he admits his own shortcomings (15If) though not necessarily as yet to the audience. 153ff: That Knemon's first words should concern Perseus is totally unpredictable, and the opening statement most enigmatic. But he 1 I shall not repeat the arguments about whether Pyrrhias leaves altogether at 145 or merely hides from Knemon. The former seems more likely: see p. 66 n.9.

45

is probably using a form with which the audience would be familiar. Ten 'literary' fragments of New Comedy begin with an ' e i r a ού' rhetorical question, three of these (Menander frr. 198, 718, Aristophon fr. 11K) involving mythological exempla. The momentary puzzle and its resolution are best paralleled in Xenarchos fr. 14K: eh' elatv oi rimyes ούκ βύδαίμονες, ών ταΐς yvvai^iv ούδ' ότιοΰν φωνής έ'μι;2 Puzzling the audience at the start of a monologue is a recurrent technique for catching or keeping their attention. 3 For example, Daos in 'Georgos' does this (35f), and Sikon in 'Dyskolos' (639). And 'είτα' suggests that Knemon enters in mid-thought, an effect achieved by 'και' at Kith. 5 3 4 and 'άλλά' in fr. 161 (Ter. Eun. 46) if self-addressed. 5 At Pk. 774, however, it is probably Moschion's manner that must convey this. The structure of 153—66 is chiastic. Perseus was lucky first in being "winged" so that he could avoid people, second in being able to petrify troublemakers; I wish I could do that; as it is (160) I cannot avoid them. Knemon presents his ideal of autarky (cf. esp. 327ff, 713f) in comic guise with sarcasm (162f) and exaggeration (165f). The transition to dialogue is unusually elaborate, 6 but in keeping with Sostratos' fright and Knemon's extreme reluctance to converse with people. 179ff: Sostratos is left alone to ponder the situation and decide how to meet it. The decision is first announced (question and affirmative answer) and then justified, as in Sikon's monologue later (514ff). The creaking door detains Sostratos, but the exit motivation is kept. In 186f we catch an ironic echo, perhaps, of what Chaereas had said (62f) on the need for quick action, with very 2

See further Theuerkauf, pp. 42—3. These fragments cannot be proved monologues, of course: Antiphanes fr. 102K appears not to be. 3 Görler, pp. 6 7 - 7 0 . 4 An entrance in the same style as Plaut. Cist. 774. 5 Connectives can be used similarly when two people enter in conversation (e.g. αλλά Geo. 22, elkv - see LSJ s.v. - Asp. 250, οΰκουν Sam. 96, 369) as well as deictic words (όντως Dysk. 233, τοϊσδe Geo. 24) and 'τι φή