Pro Filia, Pro Uxore: Young Women in the Conventional and Unconventional Families of Roman Comedy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PRO FILIA, PRO UXORE: YOUNG WOMEN IN THE CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL FAMILIES OF ROMAN COMEDY Hannah Sorscher A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Classics Department. Chapel Hill 2021 Approved by: Sharon L. James David Konstan Dorota Dutsch Amy Richlin Alexander Duncan ©2021 Hannah Sorscher ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Hannah Sorscher: Pro filia, pro uxore: Young Woman in the Conventional and Unconventional Families of Roman Comedy (Under the direction of Sharon L. James) In this dissertation, I explore both the diverse variability and the traditional ideologies of the Roman family in the powerfully relevant medium of Roman comedy, with a particular focus on how different types of families in the genre treat young women. Plautus and Terence reinvented their dramatic form to depict families that would be recognizable, meaningful, and resonant for their audiences in Rome and Italy of the 200s–160s BCE. These playwrights show an expanded definition of family beyond the familiar citizen form repeatedly presented in later evidence. Around the citizen families that are the focus of the genre, they stage families of choice created by marginalized people (lower-class women and foreign soldiers in particular). In Plautus’ and Terence’s plays, I identify tWo patterns: (1) a critique of the legal and social institutions that governed citizen family life in Rome of their day and (2) a counter- staging, as it were, of alternate models of families that contrast sharply with the citizen family in their structures, members, and priorities. Plautus and Terence critique the ideological vision of family relationships, with particular attention to the destructive effects of patria potestas on daughters, and they frequently stage non-legal or socially unacceptable chosen families that are oriented toward cherishing and protecting girls and young women. In Chapter One, I give background on the genre of NeW Comedy and on familial norms in Roman laW and in Plautus’ and Terence’s plays. In Chapter TWo, I analyze the harm that patria potestas and uncaring fathers can cause for citizen daughters in Plautus’ plays. In Chapter Three, I show that in contrast, in both Plautus and Terence’s plays, families led by lower-class iii Women, often meretrices, protect and support the young girls in their care, even without biological kinship or the resources of citizen men. In Chapter Four, I identify a neW form of relationship betWeen foreign soldiers and the meretrices With whom they pursue marriage-like unions. I conclude with a discussion of the resonance and legimacy these depictions Would have granted to members of such unconventional families in Plautus’ and Terence’s varied and stratified audiences. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank the Teach@Tübingen program for supporting me during my final year of dissertation writing, as well as the Philologisches Seminar at the Universität Tübingen, particularly Robert Kirstein, for graciously hosting me. Both the fellowship and department provided me with the support, resources, and time to be able to finish and defend my dissertation, and I am very grateful. Most of my support throughout this process came from the University of North Carolina and specifically the Classics Department. I owe a great deal of thanks to the staff at Davis Library at the University of North Carolina, especially for scanning and sending resources during the pandemic. In the Classics Department, I would not have made it through graduate school Without the support of Cinnamon, L.E., and Kim in the main office, who were alWays there to send reminders, fix my mistakes, help me out, and provide a friendly chat and/or some baked goods. I’d also like to thank the generous scholars on academic TWitter who sent me resources and tips when I was changing gears for my fourth chapter: Evan JeWell, Dominic Machado, Carly Silver, Michael J. Taylor, and David Meadows. I’d like to thank my dissertation committee—David Konstan, Dorota Dutsch, Amy Richlin, and Al Duncan—for working with me virtually before it was cool, and for their thoughtful comments, critiques, and suggestions throughout. Amy Richlin in particular went above and beyond to take my project seriously, and to provide me with incredibly thorough comments and edits. I’d also especially like to thank Al for offering support in the form of thoughtful comments and copyediting, friendly conversation, and discussions about baking. v I owe a great deal to my support netWork of family and friends in Chapel Hill: Uncle David, Aunt Kathleen, Daniel, (and Austin, from afar); and my fellow graduate students, especially Melanie, Katie, Katelin, Kelly, and Nick. Katelin and Kelly deserve special thanks: Kelly, for spending almost every day of 2019/2020 with me, from the gym to the office to Sharon’s class to coffee shops to Linda’s, and continuing to work virtually with me until we both finished our dissertations this summer; Katelin, for being a skilled faux-philologist and my surrogate life partner in navigating an insane move to Germany during a global pandemic. I’d like to thank my family. First of all, my friends who are family: Kelsye, for cheerleading my academic progress every step of the way, and Kayla, for being my non- biological sister and role model since We were tWo years old. I also need to thank Grandma and Poppie, for being supportive and interested in everything I achieve; my dad, for Friday night texts, fashion advice, and unflinching support without which I literally would not have attempted graduate school; my mom, for walk and talks, Hallmark movie nights, and a lifetime of love, support, and absurdity; and finally, Nick, Sam, and Jake—my brothers and my best friends. I would have quit graduate school a long time ago without the support of my husband Brian, who believed in me before I did. What a bonus to live with your own personal Homeric dictionary, willing RA, and eagle-eyed editor. More importantly: an unerringly loving, kind, moral, supportive, and goofy-as-hell man, who comes with a glorious black cat, Percy. You taught me not to judge passion, people, or pets. Finally, my last acknowledgment goes to Sharon, the best mentor out there. Before I kneW what I wanted to study, I kneW I wanted to be her student. Her encyclopedic expertise on Roman Comedy aside, she supported me with weekly (or more) meetings; superhuman speed and copyediting; colored notebook paper, pens and hot-pink ink, and a multi-year mission to vi boost my confidence. I probably would not have finished this dissertation if, during the pandemic, she and Palaestra hadn’t sat quietly on Zoom with me tWice a week because I had a hard time self-motivating. The fact that she’d do that for her students says much more than I can. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE. Introduction.……………………………….......………………………………1 CHAPTER TWO. The Perils of Potestas: The Father’s Authority and the Daughter at Risk.…………………………………………………………….……….…37 CHAPTER THREE. Women Helping Women: Adoptive Motherhood and the Protected Daughter…………………………………..……...…………………………...71 CHAPTER FOUR. A Marriage By Any Other Name: The Soldier and the Specific Girl………………….…………………………………………………….......109 CHAPTER FIVE. Conclusion: Representation Matters……………………...…………….......142 WORKS CITED…………………..…………………………………………………………....147 viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION This dissertation studies the way different types of families in Roman Comedy treat daughters and young women. I argue here that Plautus and Terence expand the definition of family beyond the familiar citizen form repeatedly presented in later evidence (as discussed below). Around the citizen families that are the focus of the genre, the Roman playwrights stage families of choice, which show both similarities to and differences from the citizen families that dominate our sources on family life. These families of choice focus their priorities on the girls and young women who are important to them. In this way, Plautus and Terence critique the ideological vision of family relationships, with particular attention to the destructive effects of patria potestas on daughters, and they frequently stage non-legal or socially unacceptable chosen families that are oriented toward cherishing and protecting girls and young women. Thus, for example, independent meretrices regularly bring up lost daughters with great care, as marked in the phrase bene ac pudice.1 Less obvious are the relationships that Plautine soldiers pursue with meretrices, which amount to marriages and neW families. Such households are of no concern to Roman laW and citizen society, but as my chapters show, they are frequently warmer, more supportive, and focused on the welfare and importance of individual girls and young women. By contrast, the citizen families that adhere to ideological, utilitarian vieWs of daughters often put those girls at risk in Ways that Plautus and Terence repeatedly critique. Patria potestas is shown as damaging both to the psyches of these girls and to their futures. 1 Chrysis in Andria (274, bene et pudice eius doctum et eductum) and Melaenis in Cistellaria (172–73, eaque educauit eam sibi pro filia / bene ac pudice). Similarly Thais’ mother in Eunuchus: mater ubi accepit, coepit studiose omnia / docere, educere, ita ut si esset filia (116–17). These girls are eventually restored to their families. The text of Plautus throughout is de Melo’s (2011–2013) and the text