University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository

Foreign Languages & Literatures ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations

6-9-2016 Mixing the Roman miles: Development in 's Samantha Davis

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/fll_etds

Recommended Citation Davis, Samantha. "Mixing the Roman miles: Character Development in Terence's Eunuchus." (2016). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/fll_etds/31

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Foreign Languages & Literatures ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]



This thesis is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication:

Approved by the Thesis Committee:

, Chairperson



Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico iii


I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my committee chair Professor

Osman Umurhan, through whose , dedication, and endurance this thesis was made possible. Thank you, particularly, for your unceasing support, ever-inspiring words, and relentless ability to find humor in just about any situation. You have inspired me to be a better scholar, teacher, and colleague. I would also like to extend the sincerest thanks to my excellent committee members, the very chic Professor Monica S. Cyrino and the brilliant Professor Lorenzo F. Garcia Jr., whose editorial thoroughness, helpful suggestions, and constructive criticisms were absolutely invaluable. In addition, a thank you to Professor Luke Gorton, whose remarkable knowledge of classical linguistics has encouraged me to think about language and syntax in a much more meaningful way. You have all impacted me profoundly and I am forever grateful to have had the honor of being your student.

I would like to also thank my fellow graduate students at the University of New

Mexico for your friendship and counsel. I would particularly like to thank Makaila

Daeschel and Dannu Hütwohl, who have been the greatest friends and office-mates a girl could ask for. I am so thankful to have had you both throughout this process, your friendship is priceless. I would also like to thank my family for always being there for me, just a phone call away. Finally, I would like to posthumously thank my beloved father, Dr. Jeffrey R. Davis, whose absolute genius and never-ending thirst for knowledge inspired me in every way possible. “What the hell, it’s not so high.” iv

Mixing the Roman miles: Character Development in Terence’s Eunuchus

By Samantha C. Davis

B.A., Classical Studies, University of New Mexico, 2013 M.A. Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies, University of New Mexico, 2016


In my thesis I explore Terence’s innovative development of three stock characters:

Chaerea, the adulescens amator, Thraso, the , and Gnatho, the parasitus. In the

Eunuchus Terence provides each of these characters with a mythological parallel that reveals the character’s inner thoughts, motives, and justifications, as well as their self-perceived position within Roman society. The first chapter traces the development of the figure of the adulescens amator in Roman literature and examines how Terence’s incorporation of mythological burlesque defies dramatic conventions. The second chapter analyzes key dramatic relationships that suggest a parallel to the historical relationship between and her subjugated territories.

The miles gloriosus, Thraso, is cast as a socius miles, whereas Gnatho, the parasitus, appears as a ciues miles. My analysis, ultimately, offers an interpretation of how these issues respond and react to contemporary Roman political and military institutions of the second century BCE.


Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...... 1 New Stock Characters and Terentian Innovation ...... 1 New Comedy Stock Characters ...... 2 Metatheatrical : Challenging Expectation...... 5 Character Introspection and Extraspection ...... 10 Chapter Overview ...... 14 CHAPTER ONE ...... 16 Chaerea: When a Soldier is a Lover ...... 16 Chaerea as Adulescens Amator ...... 18 1.2. Jupiter and Danaë: Terence’s Burlesque ...... 20 1.3. Chaerea: A Soldier Compared to Jupiter ...... 25 1.4. Defying Conventions: Chaerea’s Character Development ...... 29 1.5. Defying Conventions: Sexual Violence ...... 32 1.6. Ludo: Sex as a Game ...... 40 1.7. Chaerea: A Reflection of Roman Reality ...... 45 1.8. Conclusions: Introspection and Extraspection ...... 52 CHAPTER TWO ...... 55 A Soldier and his Parasite: Roman Reliance on socii milites ...... 55 2.1. Thraso as Miles Gloriosus ...... 59 2.2. and : Terence’s Burlesque ...... 62 2.3. Thraso: a Soldier Compared to Hercules ...... 66 2.4. Defying Conventions: Thraso’s Character Development ...... 72 2.5. A Reflection of Roman Reality: Thraso as Roman miles ...... 76 2.6. Sisyphean parasitus: Terence’s Burlesque ...... 80 2.7. Gnatho: a Soldier compared to Sisyphus ...... 83 2.8. Defying Conventions: the Development of Gnatho ...... 87 2.9. Gnatho: A Reflection of Roman Reality ...... 91 2.10. Conclusion ...... 98 CONCLUSION ...... 101 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 105



New Comedy Stock Characters and Terentian Innovation

Publius Terentius Afer is one of the most praised authors of archaic dating to the early second century BCE. Plays written by Terence (166-161 BCE) and his predecessor (ca. 205-185 BCE) constitute the entire surviving tradition of New

Comedy at Rome, a Latin of plays famous, among other features, for its recycling of Greek material. The Greek based that both Plautus and Terence wrote are called , translated as “Greek-cloaked plays.”1 Although Terence’s plays are set in Greece and his characters typically bear Greek names, in many aspects they portray the society of the .2 References to Roman gods, localities, laws, customs, and attire can be found within Terence’s Eunuchus, but the presence of such

Romanisms has often been explained away as a feature of the ’s “Plautine” qualities.3

I argue, however, that Romanisms help contextualize Terence’s provocative development of certain stock characters, a Terentian innovation to the New Comedy genre.

This project follows a trend in recent scholarship, which demonstrates that

Terentian innovation can be found in his instances of variation and defiance of the dramatic conventions of New Comedy.4 Specifically, this thesis explores Terence’s use

1 All Latin and Greek are my own, unless specified otherwise. 2 Konstan 1983: 22 argues that Roman comedy did not ignore anxieties relating to the turbulent social scene at Rome. He discusses Roman political and social issues such as Roman allies, citizenship, familial structure and paternal authority, and marriage ritual. Hunter 1985 argues that Plautus drew material from contemporary Rome for his plays; however, he denies that Terence did the same. Goldberg 1986: 214 claims that in the plays of Plautus there are reflections of and reactions to contemporary Roman culture. However, some scholars maintain that Terence offers little to no comment on the contemporary scene at Rome. Ludwig 2001 utterly denies Terence any significant or Roman commentary and claims that he simply stuck more closely to the Greek originals than Plautus. 3 For scholars who discuss “Plautine” elements in Terence, see: Norwood 1923; Fraenkel 2007; Sharrock 2009; Christenson 2013; Franko 2013; Karakasis 2013; Packman 2013. 4 Beare 1965 claims that because of Terence’s alterations and additions to his Greek source material he was able to produce Latin plays that were poetically superior to their Greek originals. More recent scholars 2 of stock characters who drastically defy the dramatic conventions ascribed to them by the

New Comedy genre. In the Eunuchus Terence does something innovative and transformative with certain stock characters. He takes something old, the , and puts a new spin on it by infusing the character with something even older, a mythological figure, which in combination takes on new meaning within specific Roman contexts. There are three mythological references in the Eunuchus that I identify as mythological parallels and all are informed by the perspective of Roman soldiers—

Chaerea, Thraso, and Gnatho. The stock character’s self-identification with a particular mythological figure and situation from Greek culture and the transposition of that figure and situation into the Roman context help to establish a uniquely Roman characteristic extracted from Greek culture.

New Comedy Stock Characters

New Comedy offers its audience a glimpse into the life of the average well-to-do citizen and his family. The world of New Comedy was far removed from the charged political and personal invective of its predecessor Old Comedy, which would not have

focus on cultural analyses of Terence’s additions and alterations. Barsby 1999 suggests that their function is to produce a distinctively Italian production. Starks 2013 identifies references that have Roman historical significance. Papaioannou 2014: 141-2 argues, “the revision of Plautine and the creation of a distinctly personal dramaturgy via the development of different versions of the typical palliata agents express Terence’s strategy of ‘interpretation’.” Fontaine 2014 argues that the additions establish an intertextual dynamism present throughout the corpus of Terence’s plays. Terence’s characters have also been singled out as having qualities not found in other characters within the New Comedy genre. Goldberg 1986 contrasts Plautine “caricatures” developed through stage with Terentian characters who are more fully developed through dialogue. Augoustakis 2013: 9 points out that Terence’s characters have a complexity not present in those of Plautus. Franko 2013: 41 argues that Terence’s characters are three- dimensional and “give the sense of a fully realized individual.” 3 suited Rome’s political turbulence of the Middle Republic.5 New Comedy makes frequent use of stock characters that can be defined as stereotypical characters with whom could easily identify because of their recurrent appearances within the genre. The stock characters found in Plautus are: the senex iratus (“angry old man”), the adulescens amator (“young lover”), the servus callidus (“cunning slave”), the servus stultus (“foolish slave”), the miles gloriosus (“arrogant soldier”), the parasitus

(“parasite”), the leno (“pimp”), and the meretrix (“prostitute”). Stock characters represent exaggerated individuals and cultural aspects of Athenian and, arguably, Roman society.

The miles gloriosus and his parasitus represent the extravagance of military plunder, the leno and his meretrix exemplify the business of urban luxury, and the senex, adulescens, and servus embody the men of the house. These character types fundamentally represent the military, economic, and domestic institutions in which citizens and foreigners participated. Terence in the prologue to the Eunuchus (161 BCE) offers a list of commonly used New Comedy stock characters and situations in an effort to rebuff accusations of furtum:

qui magis licet currentem seruom scribere, bonas matronas facere, meretrices malas, parasitum edacem, gloriosum militem, puerum supponi, falli per seruom senem, amare odisse suspicari?

How is it more pleasing to represent a running slave, to portray good wives, woeful whores, a gluttonous parasite, a boastful soldier, that a boy is separated [at birth], that an old man is deceived by a slave, love, hate, suspicion [than to use material borrowed from other Latin sources?]

5 Rome’s intolerance for popular reprimand is demonstrated by Gabba 1989: 220 who argues that “the destruction of the ‘Books of Numa’ represented the elimination of politically dangerous texts.” 4

(Eunuchus 36-40)6

Here, Terence is defending his right to borrow certain character types not because he stole them from another source by contaminatio or furtum, but because they are stock characters that belong to the genre as a whole.7

This project calls specific attention to the adulescens amator, miles gloriosus, and the parasitus stock characters that Terence both adapts and manipulates in his Eunuchus.8

Chaerea, Terence’s adulescens amator, does not just represent a member of the Roman patrilineal hierarchy but, more specifically, symbolizes the type of predatory Roman miles who was actively engaged in the aggressive policies of Roman expansionism in the second century BCE.9 The relationship between Thraso and Gnatho, Terence’s miles gloriosus and parasitus, represents that of Rome and her recently subjugated allied soldiers beyond their association with the extravagance of plunder in general.10 Gnatho is less prominent as the typical parasite who lives off the food from another’s table than as a master of philosophically-charged and intellectual dexterity over others.

6 All Latin cited from Terence’s Eunuchus comes from Kauer and Lindsay 1965. This and all subsequent translations are my own. 7 Contaminatio is the blending of two Greek source plays into one Latin play and furtum is the theft of material from a previously produced Roman play. Barsby 1999: 15-7 describes these two accusations made by Luscius of Lanuvium, Terence’s “malevolent critic,” and notes that within the prologue to the Eunuchus, “in defending himself against a charge of furtum, Terence was in fact admitting to the practice of ‘contamination’.” 8 Papaioannou 2014: 152 claims, “the subversion of stock characters [is] the driving force of Terence’s comic .” She further argues that in the Eunuchus Chaerea “usurps the role of the ‘wily’ agent and facilitator of plot development from Parmeno when…[Parmeno] half-jokingly, half-seriously, gave the leading role to the adulescens Chaerea.” 9 Gill 1996: 17 warns against a definitive reading of texts, but supports the notion of “[engaging] ‘in dialogue’ with Greek culture, and to seek to evolve methods and attitudes which enable the texts, as thus studied, to ‘have a voice’ in this dialogue.” He also stresses that “the concerns of a specific historico- cultural situation may be such as to enable some of the ideas and thought-forms of another culture to let themselves be heard more clearly.” By this model, Latin texts help illuminate aspects of Roman culture. 10 Hunter 1985: 77 notes that the miles gloriosus was a common stock character for both Plautus and Terence given they wrote during a time of Roman conquest and expansion. He points to the dramatic character Lamachos in Aristophanes’ Acharnians as a possible source for this stock character (Hunter 1985: 8). Leigh 2004 discusses the economies of New Comedy, which explain the common presence of a boastful soldier. 5

Metatheatrical Irony: Challenging Audience Expectation

Terence abolishes the plot-related prologues so common to the plays of Plautus.

By doing this, the playwright offers his audience no foreknowledge of the upcoming production and thereby dashes its expectations to make them as emotionally vulnerable as his dramatic characters. Yet, Terence still acknowledges traditional audience- empowering metatheatricality. For example, a character’s staged recognition of their own stock role is metatheatrical and calls attention to the genre’s conventions:11

nunc, Parmeno, ostendes te qui vir sies. scis te mihi saepe pollicitum esse ‘Chaerea, aliquid inueni modo quod ames; in ea re utilitatem ego faciam ut cognoscas meam,’ quom in cellulam ad de patris penum omnem congerebam clanculum.

Now, Parmeno, you will what sort of man you are. You know that you often promised me “Chaerea, I just now found someone you’ll love,” in this [love] affair I will make sure that you know my usefulness, when I secretly pile up all your father’s provisions in the little cellar for you. (Eunuchus 307-10)

Here, Terence draws metatheatrical attention to Parmeno, the servus whose stock role includes acting as facilitator for the adulescens in his amorous affairs, and in doing so he typifies the stock character of Chaerea, too, as amator. However, the characters’ later stark defiance of these acknowledged stock roles dashes audience expectation.12 This calls into question the audience’s cultural conventions and rather than the

11 Vincent 2013: 83 suggests that Terence’s characters often display such metatheatrical self-awareness of their stock roles. Papaioannou 2014: 153 claims that Chaerea claims the role of the adulescens amator “by emphatically declaring himself love-struck upon first sight of Pamphila.” 12 Papaioannou 2014: 144 explains, “[s]everal of Terence’s characters are aware that their acting is in discordance with the general expectations raised by the career of the same character on the Plautine stage, but instead of resorting to familiar acting patterns they make unexpected decisions, thus leading to the construction of that is distinctly Terentian.” 6 stock characters’ dramatic conventions.13 Instead of metatheatricality reinforcing audience familiarity with the character, when Terence frustrates audience expectation of stock qualities the metatheatrical reference to that character becomes ironic.

I suggest that those moments where modern readers feel uneasiness or disdain at a character’s actions and justifications—the types of feelings which many scholars maintain must not be applied to Terence’s contemporary Roman audience—may qualify as moments of metatheatrical irony that encourage the audience to question existing cultural norms.14 One explicit example of this is the peculiar treatment of rape in the

Eunuchus. In the play, Chaerea rapes Pamphila, a silent female character who, although born a citizen, has been sold into slavery and given to the meretrix Thais. The rape of a girl itself is not what sets Chaerea apart from the generic adulescens amator, but rather his stark defiance of the dramatic conventions concerning the stock scenario of rape.15

Terence’s metatheatrical irony, wherein the metatheatrical moment disrupts audience expectation, provides no humorous effect, but a critical one. Sutton, for example, claims:

“If we expect something important to happen and it doesn’t, we find that funny…[but] if our expectations are deceived in the opposite way, we don’t find that funny.”16 As Sutton suggests, Terence here deceives his audience in the opposite way when he develops

Chaerea outside the stock amator into a reprehensible sexual predator. Terence does not impair his audience’s ability to inspire negative emotions in the future as a sort of healthy

13 Goldberg 1986: 117 claims, in the case of Thais, the meretrix from the Eunuchus, “Terence plays off his own characterization of Thais against this expected character.” Germany 2013: 227 credits the invention of dramatic surprise to Terence. 14 Franko 2013: 39 points out a similar phenomenon in Terence, what he calls “paradigmatic substitution,” and which he defines as the stock character’s “[assumption of] new roles within formulaic plots.” Metatheatrical irony is different from paradigmatic substitution because the stock character’s stereotypical roles and scenarios are simultaneously emphasized and distorted, but are not abandoned and replaced altogether. 15 I address Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila in detail in Chapter 1, section 1.5. 16 Sutton 1994: 21. 7 cathartic outlet.17 Rather, he does so to deprive his audience of a humorous vent.

Furthermore, Sutton describes comedic catharsis as “didactic” and “inoculatory.”18

During moments of metatheatrical irony, didactic elements of catharsis are brought forth in Terence’s works, while the inoculatory are left out. It is well worth noting that Terence presents Roman audiences with “Greek” plays that markedly highlight Roman immorality and lax ethics with regard to sexual violence and he does so in a way that lacks cathartic humor. By challenging dramatic conventions surrounding Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila, Terence didactically elevates rape to the status of an important social issue that in the playwright’s day has become a trademark feature and plot circumstance of the stereotypical comic lover.19

The metatheatrical discussion of contaminatio in the prologue of the Eunuchus also informs my reading of stock characters and character development. Contaminatio (as mentioned above) involves the blending of multiple Greek sources into one Latin play and thereby spoils the Greek sources for later use in another Roman production. It is evident that Terence used Greek plays as models; he openly admits to the practice.20

17 Sutton 1994: 81 explains the process of comedic catharsis: “When a surrogate evokes bad feelings, and the spectator laughs at the surrogate because of his appreciation of its ridiculous qualities (for such reasons as perceived incongruities), a double effect is achieved. Bad feelings are summoned by the surrogate, and the spectator transfers something of what he knows and feels about the target onto the surrogate. Thus some fraction of his bad feelings towards the target is rendered available for purgation by laughter. Simultaneously, the spectator’s thoughts and feelings towards the target are modified so that its capacity to inspire similar bad feelings in the future is prohibited.” 18 Sutton 1994: 56. 19 Papaioannou 2014: 154 argues, “Terence’s tampering with the conventions of the palliata, and the ways in which he portrays his characters confessing themselves ill-at-ease in their roles, discloses tongue-in- cheek an ingenious effort to reach across the boundaries of the palliata and experiment with the conventions of the togata, the form of Roman comic that [closest mirrored Roman life].” 20 In the prologue to the Eunuchus Terence defends his right to use literary models because, nullumst iam dictum quod non dictum sit prius. qua re aequomst uos cognoscere atque ignoscere quae ueteres factitarunt si faciunt noui. (“There is nothing now said which has not been said before. Therefore, it’s right that you understand and forgive if new [authors] perform the things which old [authors] frequently did,” Eunuchus 41-3). He also openly admits to using another play, ’s Kolax, in addition to Menander’s eunuch play. The line reads, Colax Menandrist, in east parasitus colax et miles gloriosus. eas se non negat personas transtulisse in Eunuchum suam ex Graeca. (“There is a Colax of Menander, in it 8

However, this is only the surface of an otherwise rich dynamism that infuses his plays.

When sifting through his numerous sources (Greek New Comedy plays by both

Menander and Apollodorus of Carystus), Terence makes subtle decisions regarding which plays, scenes, and characters to appropriate, as well as how and to what purpose he might adapt, innovate, and highlight those appropriations for his Roman audience.

Terence’s admitted practice of contaminatio emphasizes his of stock characters that he later develops beyond their conventional stock roles. Terence’s prologues clearly demonstrate that his habit of contaminatio is something his audience would have acknowledged and reacted to:

si id est peccatum, peccatum imprudentiast poetae, non quo furtum facere studuerit.

If it [contaminatio] is a transgression, it is the poet’s unintended outcome, he didn’t [do it] because he intended to steal [another Latin playwright’s ]. (Eunuchus 27-8)

Because contaminatio was a controversial hot topic in Terence’s day, his explicit admission to the practice is significant. Terence does more than arbitrarily appropriate characters from other plays; the characters he adds defy convention and stereotypical characterization in a marked way.

Terence offers another marked form of characterization for his audience that exposes a rare glimpse into the minds of three soldiers—Chaerea, Thraso and Gnatho.

Often he provides these soldiers with introspective moments facilitated by mythological parallels that reveal inner thoughts, motives and justifications. Terence develops each of the soldiers before our eyes by the parallel and its implications. Chaerea, for example, there is a parasite flatterer and a boastful soldier. He does not deny that he appropriated these characters into his own Eunuchus from the Greek [play, i.e. Colax],” Eunuchus 30-3). 9 diverges from the stereotypical adulescens amator when his mythological parallel reveals that the rape of Pamphila was premeditated, unnecessarily violent, and occurred within an atypical dramatic context.21 Thraso also deviates from the stereotypical miles gloriosus; his character is innovatively developed when he is afforded an introspective moment where he realizes that he is utterly ridiculous but, nonetheless, continues to the way he does because of mythological precedent. Likewise, Gnatho the parasitus is also developed by means of an introspective mythological parallel.22 Chaerea, Thraso, and

Gnatho do to an extent still represent certain stock characters. Nevertheless, Terence both renovates and rebels against dramatic convention by developing these characters beyond their generic form. He does so most strikingly by revealing a character’s individual perspective through a provocative dynamic that in my project I term “character introspection and extraspection.” This dynamic reveals a character’s introspective perspective by self-comparison to a particular mythological figure within a particular mythological context. For example, the Eunuchus’ miles gloriosus, Thraso, equates himself to Hercules, who was once a slave to Omphale. The comparison not only reveals

Thraso’s personal feeling of subordination, but also an extraspective perspective when he compares another dramatic character to another, but related, mythological figure. For example, Thraso likens the meretrix, Thais, to whom he feels subservient, to the mythological character, Omphale. This association illuminates the way Thraso views himself and his relationship to Thais; that is, he justifies his personal view with the assumption that Thais, too, would equate her relationship with Thraso to the mythological relationship between Omphale and Hercules. Furthermore, extraspection is a projection

21 Chaerea’s character development is the focus of Chapter 1. 22 The development of Thraso and Gnatho, as well as their relationship, is the focus of Chapter 2. 10 of the way the introspective character imagines he is regarded and viewed by society. I illuminate details of this innovative process in the following section.

Character Introspection and Extraspection

Overall, Terence makes use of more sparingly than Plautus; there are only five mythological references in the entire Terentian corpus, three of which are found in the Eunuchus.23 I argue that in the Eunuchus Terence experiments with the consolidation of stock characters by drawing from burlesqued mythological characters in

Satyr drama, as well as those from Plautus’ Amphitruo. In the process, he creates something new and original when he blends two types of firmly established comedic characters, the stock character and the mythological figure. The result is a unique type of mythological burlesque wherein a stock character is cast as a mythological figure instead of a mythological figure appearing in the play as its own type of stock character. This phenomenon, which is restricted to Terence’s Eunuchus, is different from the hyperbolic mythological comparisons that frequent the plays of Plautus. Terence goes beyond comparison and actually incorporates the mythological figure into his characterization of three stock characters in the Eunuchus: the adulescens amator, the miles gloriosus, and the parasitus. Additionally, those moments wherein Terence grafts the mythological figures onto the stock characters reveal the characters’ perspectives, thoughts, motives, and justifications through the dynamic of introspection and extraspection.24

23 The other two examples are discussed in the Conclusion. 24 Bortolussi and Dixon 2003: 134 justify the use of psychoanalytical criticism because, as critical approaches, they “analyze characters in terms of their psychological personality traits typically tend to fill in the textual gaps with hypotheses about the motivations, conscious or unconscious, that drive characters’ actions.” 11

Each of the mythological parallels in the Eunuchus consists of two dramatic characters that are compared to two mythological figures. The character who makes the parallel, the introspective character, compares himself to a mythological figure

(introspection) and simultaneously compares another dramatic character to another mythological figure (extraspection). The mythological contexts as well as the figures parallel the dramatic characters and situations, but only from the point-of-view of the introspective characters. Extraspection doesn’t reveal anything about the other dramatic character who is pulled into the parallel by the introspective character: it is only a social projection, a mirrored image, of the introspective perspective. Terence’s mythological parallels are more personalized and revealing than a hubristic comparison to a god that characters in Plautus frequently make.25 Chaerea the amator, for example, does not merely compare himself to Jupiter but, specifically, equates his character and his dramatic situation with Jupiter, who seduces Danaë by disguising himself and infiltrating her chamber.26 Additionally, the parallel also discloses the character’s extraspection where he ascribes his perspective onto another character. For example, when Chaerea casts Pamphila as Danaë, he makes the presumption that Pamphila, too, equates her relationship with Chaerea to the mythological relationship between Danaë and Jupiter.

Extraspection allows us better to understand how Chaerea imagines Pamphila, and how society in general, views him.

In addition to developing certain stock characters beyond their conventional characteristics, the dynamic of introspection and extraspection also intensifies and

25 Dunsch 2014: 639 observes that the mythological references in Plautus are restricted to instances where mortals hyperbolically compare themselves to a god. 26 Chaerea’s character development and mythological parallel (Eunuchus 584-5) will be discussed in detail in Chapter 1. 12 reinforces certain features associated with each the stock characters involved in the mythological parallels. Introspection can intensify the negative stereotypes associated with the stock character; for example, in Chaerea’s introspective moment, the amator takes the conventional of rape to a new level and becomes more of a predator than an amator. Extraspection can reinforce, but does not add to, preexisting stereotypes of the secondary stock character (that is, the dramatic character who is compared to a mythological figure by the introspective character); for example, in Chaerea’s extraspective comparison of Pamphila to one of ’ mortal lovers, Danaë, the cives- turned-ancilla is reinforced by Danaë’s sovereign-turned-prisoner situation. The extraspective comparison does not inform our reading of Pamphila as her own character, but it does greatly inform our reading of how Chaerea relates himself to others. Terence’s treatment of elite males “shows citizen male privilege as a socially damaging element at the heart of Rome.”27 This is especially true with regard to elite male soldiers in the

Eunuchus whose privilege and socially destructive behavior in the play, for example

Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila, is emphasized by their moments of introspection and extraspection, as when Chaerea compares himself to Jupiter and Pamphila to Danaë.

Furthermore, introspection is a phenomenon that Terence limits to soldiers and, not coincidentally, these soldiers cast extraspection exclusively upon foreign individuals.28 I maintain that this has larger implications for how the personal perspectives of his Roman

27 James 2013: 176. 28 Thraso, Gnatho’s extraspective counterpart, is marked as “peregrinus” (“foreign,” Eunuchus 759); Thais, Thraso’s extraspective complement, was raised in Rhodes (Eunuchus 107); and Pamphila was considered foreign by Chaerea, since she was taken from Sunium (Eunuchus 115). 13 soldiers may offer a social commentary on Rome’s military institutions and relations with foreign kingdoms and city-states during the playwright’s day.29

The model put forth by persona theory can clarify the relationship between the stock role and the character who assumes or defies that role.30 Although the theory has been argued as a way to explain and separate the speakers of Roman from its authors, it can also be a useful tool to explain and detach the certain stock roles within a play, which Terence’s characters sometimes assume, but often reject. Terence’s characters often do nod to their stock roles, but the development of those characters can clarify that the stock roles do not by themselves inform the identity and perspective of the character.31 At the same time, Terence’s characters often try to force another character into an incongruent stock role. The mythological parallels, which drive an intimate form of character development, can also be understood in terms of persona theory wherein individuals adopt masks: in this case they are adopting the masks of mythological figures in addition to the masks of their stock character. In the same way that an author of Roman

29 Gill 1996: 179 claims, “to explore Greek thinking more fully, we need to take into account the relationship between the first and the second aspects of the objective-participant conception of the person: that is, between intra-psychic interplay and socio-ethical engagement.” He adds further that his reading of dialogue and monologue in Greek literary texts “contributes to critical understanding of these texts” (17). 30 The revolutionary work of Kernan 1959 on persona theory seeks to illuminate the difference between Elizabethan authors of satires and the satirists, or characters. He argues that the author’s persona, or satirist, is a feature to the genre and supports his argument by looking at Roman authors of , specifically . In his preface, Elliot 1982 explains that persona theory clarifies “the relationship between the writer—the historical person—and the characters the writer creates.” Anderson 1982 applies persona theory to Roman satire and separates the writer, or Juvenal, from the characters within the satires. He specifies that “the satirist” refers to the speaker, or character, in the satire and that “the satirist’s words, ideas, and behavior will never be assumed to be identical with those of [the poet].” Braund 1996 presents us with the different personae of the satirist, such as “the angry old man.” Holler 2013: 17 explains, “narrative selfing and narrative recognition of others can be understood as a play with personas and perspectives.” 31 Elliot 1982: 25 claims that the word persona, which used to refer specifically to the masks that ancient actors wore on stage, was becoming synonymous with the role played by the actor, namely, his stock character. Holler 2013: 27 explains, “perspective is a keyword in explorations of narrative identity…It is through perspective that speakers are able to link themselves to the community.” 14 satire adopts different satiric personae, one of Terence’s stock characters can adopt different comedic personae.

Chapter Overview

In this project, each of the Eunuchus’ three mythological parallels is discussed individually and in detail. The first chapter entitled “Chaerea: When a Soldier is a

Lover,” traces the development of the adulescens amator with a discussion of the literary tradition informing his character’s mythological parallel and Terence’s incorporation of mythological burlesque, and how this process defies New Comedy conventions. My analysis ultimately offers an interpretation of how these issues respond and react to contemporary Roman political and military institutions of the second century BCE. The second chapter entitled “A Soldier and his Parasite: Roman Reliance on socii milites,” analyzes key dramatic relationships that suggest a parallel to the historical relationship between Rome and her subjugated territories. For example, the miles gloriosus, Thraso, is cast as a socius miles, whereas Gnatho, the parasitus, as a ciues miles. Their mythological parallels illuminate the characters’ individual perspectives about themselves, their relationships and, as I argue, their function in Roman society.

The particular context of the parallel within the text of the play will preface my discussions of each character. Then, each of the two chapters will take a deeper look at the literary precedents for the mythological figure and situation. Both chapters will then examine in detail the stock character, which Terence manipulates in each scenario, in order to emphasize the differences made to its paradigmatic structure. Next each chapter describes the type of character development I term “Terence’s mythological burlesque,” 15 which illuminates the process of assimilation between the mythological figure and the stock character. Following this, I offer suggestions for how the character’s association with the contemporary scene at Rome reveals his citizenship, military rank, and Roman mindset. Each chapter concludes with a discussion of the development of that stock character and ultimately offers a suggestion as to how the manipulation of stock characters paints a critical portrait of Roman soldiers and foreign policies relating to both expansionism and Rome’s military reliance on allied soldiers during the early second century BCE.



Chaerea: When a Soldier is a Lover

This chapter seeks to expose a distinctively Terentian imprint on the genre of

New Comedy at Rome: specifically, the meaningful development of the adulescens amator “stock character,” Chaerea, in the Eunuchus and how that development calls into question social and political practices and policies at Rome during the early second century BCE.32 Terence seamlessly creates this new and original dramatic character in

Chaerea by blending two types of firmly established comedic characters that consists of the New Comedy stock character and the burlesqued mythic figure.33 The mythic figure in this case is the god Jupiter, who is essentially grafted onto the dramatic character,

Chaerea, during a mythological parallel, with the result that the personality and conduct of the mythological figure are incorporated into the stock character. The dramatic character Chaerea then identifies himself and Roman society through his self-perceived connections to a Greek mythological figure and situation: this phenomenon can be mirrored in the fact that Rome, during the Middle Republic, was identifying itself through its own incorporations of and reactions to increasing contact with Greek and other foreign cultures through a series of military conflicts abroad during the Punic Wars

32 In New Comedy in general, the adulescens amator “young lover” stock character is the play’s young, elite, citizen . This character’s plot can be generically outlined as follows: respectable boy meets girl, boy falls in love but must overcome familial or societal obstacles, boy marries girl. For this general description of the adulescens amator see Barsby 1999, Karakasis 2005, Christenson 2013, Packman 2013 , Gruen 2014, and Konstantakos 2014. 33 I use “burlesqued” as an adjective to describe a mythological figure who has been brought down to a human level and whose solemnity is mocked by the comparison to a mortal. The term burlesque derives from an Athenian dramatic genre of comedy called mythological burlesque that was produced in the fourth century BCE. For a discussion of mythological burlesque, see Konstantakos 2014 who claims that the characters of this genre are mythological figures who have been cast as stereotypical comic stock characters. He also argues that the genre’s humor is derived from the juxtaposition of the mythological world and the real world that reflects contemporary Athens. 17

(264-146 BCE).34 The mythological parallel offers its audience an extremely intimate moment with a dramatic character during which time the character’s self-perception and cultural identity are exposed. I explain this process of character development, through which these mythological parallels function, in what I call “the dynamic of introspection and extraspection.”

Terence demonstrates this unique process of character development in the

Eunuchus through each of the play’s prominent soldiers: Chaerea, Gnatho, and Thraso.

Terence’s soldiers allow for similarities to be drawn between the mythological figures, the play’s dramatic characters, and actual soldiers in Rome. Introspection, defined by a dramatic stock character’s self-identification with a mythic figure, develops the soldiers into individual characters who expose the mindsets and ethics of Roman soldiers during the tumultuous Middle Republic. Each introspective character, during the moment of his mythological parallel, is further developed by his use of extraspection, which can be defined as the introspective character’s impersonal imposition of a secondary mythic identity onto a secondary dramatic character. In other words, Chaerea introspectively compares himself to Jupiter and extraspectively compares another character to Danaë.

From this impersonal, extraspective parallel the audience learns how the introspective character perceives his societal position as it relates to another, always foreign, character.

Moreover, extraspection offers a commentary on Roman political and military

34The idea of cultural Hellenization has been discussed by scholars such as Gabba 1989, Rawson 1989, Gruen 1992, Wiseman 1998, Barsby 1999, Leigh 2004, Karakasis 2005, Starks 2013, and Fontaine 2014. Gruen 1992: 1 remarks that in the Republic “[Roman] nobiles were the persons most drawn to Greek literary achievements, religion, and visual arts.” Karakasis 2005: 89 argues that for upper class Romans in Terence’s time there was a general trend to avoid speaking Greek and that Terence uses “Greek words [and] hellenising [linguistic] constructions to differentiate the speech of low and rustic characters.” Fontaine 2014: 552 offers the idea that perhaps “Rome in Terence’s time was consciously Hellenizing [itself].” 18 institutions dealing with issues such as the subjugation of new territories and political posts such as the peregrinus.35

This chapter demonstrates how Terence’s manipulation of the stock character

Chaerea is also representative of contemporary changes in Rome’s social and political infrastructures following the Second Punic War (202 BCE). Terence individualizes certain stock characters beyond their genre-imposed stereotypes and confines through the dynamic of introspection and extraspection. Introspection establishes the characters’ identities which, in turn, reveal the soldiers’ roles in Roman society, while extraspection reveals how the soldiers situate themselves within society and how they imagine they are perceived. This method of character development is subtle but, once identified, the impressions it leaves articulate a stern critique of Roman society. The following analysis explores the development of Chaerea from a stock adulescens amator into a militarized rapist through Terence’s use of the dynamic of introspection and extraspection, and concludes with the suggestion that his developed character metaphorically represents

Roman expansionism and subjugation of others in the second century BCE.

Chaerea as Adulescens Amator

The Eunuchus, like most of Terence’s plays, consists of a double plot. It focuses on two brothers, Phaedria and Chaerea, who are two very different types of the adulescens amator stock character. Chaerea’s brother Phaedria is hopelessly in love with

35 This is a formal Roman post established after the First Punic War which granted an elected official legal jurisdiction over foreign non-citizens in Rome as well as Roman foreign relations, as Schiller 1978: 403 notes: “the praetor [urbanus as well as peregrinus] could, and sometimes did, exercise military power; he could convoke the assembly to propose laws, he could issue orders (edicta) like any other magistrate, and in general had the powers and duties of a magistrate with .” 19 the beautiful foreign meretrix next door, Thais. Pamphila, Chaerea’s love interest, born a citizen, has been sold into slavery before the action of the play and has been purchased as a present for Thais by the soldier Thraso, another one of her lovers.36 While Pamphila is being led to Thais’ house, Chaerea spots her, stalks her, and becomes obsessed with her.

Incorrectly assuming that Pamphila is merely a meretrix-in-training, Chaerea impersonates the eunuch whom his brother intended to give to Thais, then infiltrates her house and rapes the young girl. Upon discovering that Pamphila is a citizen, Chaerea, without so much as a word from the silent girl, decides to marry her and thereby resolves one half of the double-plot.

Terence defies convention by the development of New Comedy stock characters through the expressive dynamic of introspection and extraspection; the outcome is a plausibly accurate portrait of Roman soldiers in the early second century BCE. Chaerea’s mythological parallel occurs in the highly charged erotic scene wherein he, the adulescens amator stock character, boasts to his army-buddy Antipho, a character only onstage for this brief exchange, about having raped Pamphila. A voyeuristic Chaerea describes a painting which he views as Pamphila waits to be bathed. The painting depicts the of Jupiter and Danaë:

[CH.] ibi inerat pictura haec, Iovem

36 Pamphila’s name comes from Greek, meaning “all-lover” or alternatively “loved by all.” The name is often thought to suggest that the character is a prostitute, as Sharrock 2013: 62 notes. In Terence, Pamphila occurs once as the name of a meretrix in the and twice as the name of a virgo, a marriageable citizen, in the Eunuchus and the . The masculinized name Pamphilus occurs in the and as the name of an adulescens amator. In using the name “Pamphila” in the Eunuchus Terence defies expectation with dramatic irony, since its basic meaning turns out to be far from the meaning “all- lover” and more like “univira.” Fontaine 2014 argues that this repetition of character names throughout the Terentian corpus together with the fact that “his comedies allude both to the occasion of presentation (and thus reflect life) as well as to older Roman comedies (and thus reflect art)…Terence makes his characters self-consciously reflect earlier incarnations of themselves in a manner reminiscent of mythologically based . In so doing, he manages to combine a quality associated above all with Menandrian drama with a quality associated primarily with the irony-rich, scholastic poetry of ” (542). 20

quo pacto Danaae misisse aiunt quondam in gremium imbrem aurem.

[CH.] This scene was [painted] on it, namely, the myth that Jove once sent a golden shower into the lap of Danaë. (Eunuchus 584-5)37

Here, Terence’s art imitates Roman life imitating Greek art.38 In other words, Terence’s character Chaerea, representing a Roman soldier, sees a Greek painting depicting the divine seduction of Danaë and, after deciding that their scenarios are comparable, emulates the behavior of Jupiter and rapes Pamphila who, like Danaë, had been locked away for the very purpose of avoiding intercourse.

The following discussion analyzes Terence’s innovative development of

Chaerea’s character as it is revealed through a mythological parallel: section 1.2 discusses the literary history of the Jupiter myth; section 1.3 explores Chaerea’s self- comparison to Jupiter; section 1.4 traces how Chaerea’s stock character defies convention and is developed through the parallel; section 1.5 examines how the parallel emphasizes

Terence’s non-conventional treatment of Chaerea’s sexual violence; section 1.6 discusses ludo and lusus, the verb and denominative forms that are applied to both Jupiter’s and

Chaerea’s sexual antics; section 1.7 offers an interpretation of how the previous sections react to and comment on contemporary Roman political and military institutions of the second century BCE; and section 1.8 offers concluding remarks.

1.2. Jupiter and Danaë: Terence’s Burlesque

37All Latin cited is taken from Kauer and Lindsay 1965. This and all subsequent translations are my own. 38 Paintings depicting mythological scenes would have been among the plunder being brought into Rome from the surrounding Italian towns of in Terence’s own lifetime; the same sorts of scenes wouldn’t be locally painted until over a century later, during the late first century BCE. See Barsby 1999: 195. Gruen (1992: 1) remarks, “[Roman] nobiles were the persons most drawn to Greek literary achievements, religion, and visual arts.” 21

A brief summary of this particular myth’s literary history will be helpful when determining what aspects of Jupiter’s mythic character are intertwined with Chaerea’s adulescens amator stock character. In Greek and , Danaë is the daughter of king Acrisios who receives a prophecy that his grandson will kill him. To prevent his daughter from getting pregnant and fulfilling such a prophecy, he locks her away within his home. Zeus essentially breaks in and seduces Danaë, resulting in her pregnancy with the . Homer lists Danaë as one of Zeus’ lovers, as will be discussed below. Hesiod mentions Danaë in his in the context of her role as the mother of the hero Perseus but does not specifically mention the myth of her seduction.39 In the fifth century BCE Pherecydes Atheniensis, a Greek mythographer, wrote the first complete account of Zeus’ seduction of Danaë.40 His version describes how Danaë was locked up for the very purpose of avoiding intercourse, but Zeus disguised himself, infiltrated the house, and had sex with her anyway:

θάλαµον ποιεῖ χαλκοῦν ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ τῆς οἰκίας κατὰ γῆς,ἔνθα τὴν Δανάην εἰσάγει µετὰ τῆς τροφοῦ, ἐν ᾧ αὐτὴνἐφύλασσεν, ὅπως ἐξ αὐτῆς παῖς µὴ γένηται. Ἐρασθεὶς δὲ Ζεὺς τῆς παιδὸς, ἐκ τοῦ ὀρόφου χρυσῷ παραπλήσιος ῥεῖ· ἡ δὲ ὑποδέχεται τῷ κόλπῳ· καὶ ἐκφήνας αὑτὸνὁ Ζεὺς τῇ παιδὶ µίγνυται· τῶν δὲ γίνεται Περσεὺς,καὶ ἐκτρέφει αὐτὸν ἡ Δανάη καὶ ἡ τροφὸς, κρύπτουσαι Ἀκρίσιον.

[Acrisios] made a bronze chamber in the courtyard of his home under the ground, into which place he takes Danaë accompanied by her nurse, in which he was keeping her prisoner, for the purpose that a child not be born from her. But because Zeus lusted after the young girl, he flows down from the roof, resembling gold. She receives him in her lap. After he revealed himself Zeus has intercourse with the young girl.

39 Fragment 129 M-W (12-13), cited from Most 2006: 150-1. 40 Karamanou 2006: 2. 22

Perseus is born from them, and Danaë raises him, while she and the nurse hide him from Acrisios.41

In the first or second century CE Pseudo-Apollodorus compiled his major work,

Bibliotheca (The Library), which is essentially an overview of the main stories of Greek mythology. Pseudo-Apollodorus, too, wrote about how Zeus disguised himself, broke in, and seduced Danaë:

δείσας δὲ ὁ Ἀκρίσιος τοῦτο, ὑπὸ γῆν θάλαµον κατασκευάσας χάλκεον τὴν Δανάην ἐφρούρει. ταύτην µέν, ὡς ἔνιοι λέγουσιν, ἔφθειρε Προῖτος, ὅθεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἡ στάσις ἐκινήθη· ὡς δὲ ἔνιοί φασι, Ζεὺς µεταµορφωθεὶς εἰς χρυσὸν καὶ διὰ τῆς ὀροφῆς εἰς τοὺς Δανάης εἰσρυεὶς κόλπους συνῆλθεν.

Because Acrisios was fearing this, after he built a bronze chamber beneath the ground he kept guard over Danaë. As some men say, seduced her, from which source the discord between them was roused. But, as other men say, Zeus, after being transformed into gold and after flowing down through the roof into the lap of Danae he had intercourse [with her].42

The most salient features of this myth are the fact that Danaë was locked away and that

Zeus, by means of a disguise, entered her home and initiated intercourse with her.43 Thus when Chaerea compares himself to Jupiter he is clearly being both hyperbolic as well as hubristic.44 However, it is not only the god’s superiority that Chaerea identifies with, but also the larger mythological narrative of divine seduction which chronicles Zeus’ lust for

41 Pherecydes fragment 10: Fowler 2000. The is my own. 42 Pseudo-Apollodorus Library 2.4.1. The translation is my own. 43 There were many Greek plays about Danaë with only fragmentary remains. Karamanou 2006: 13-15 explains some were written by Aeschylus (cf. ), Sophocles (cf. Acrisius and Danaë), and (cf. Danaë and Dictys) as well as lesser-known playwrights such as Samyrion, Apollophanes, Eubulus, and . The Latin authors Livius Andronicus, Naevius, and also wrote plays about Danaë. 44 Chaerea’s self-comparison to Jupiter will be discussed in detail in section 1.3. 23 mortal women.45 The Danaë myth evoked by Chaerea falls into this popular mythological narrative—Zeus’s seduction of mortal women, alluded to by Homer as well as many other authors of antiquity. Furthermore, Homeric references to mythic figures are significant to discuss in the context of Terentian character development since an audience’s (and, reasonably, Terence’s own) preconceived notions about a mythological figure would have likely been influenced by Homeric descriptions, given their likely familiarity with them. The only Homeric reference to Danaë occurs in Iliad 14, Hera’s seduction of Zeus, when Zeus lists Danaë among his favorite extramarital affairs:

οὐ γάρ πώ ποτέ µ᾽ ὧδε θεᾶς ἔρος οὐδὲ γυναικὸς θυµὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι περιπροχυθεὶς ἐδάµασσεν, οὐδ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ἠρασάµην Ἰξιονίης ἀλόχοιο, ἣ τέκε Πειρίθοον θεόφιν µήστωρ᾽ ἀτάλαντον· οὐδ᾽ ὅτε περ Δανάης καλλισφύρου Ἀκρισιώνης, ἣ τέκε Περσῆα πάντων ἀριδείκετον ἀνδρῶν.

For never yet has the desire for either goddess or mortal woman overpowered me like this, flooding the seat of passion within my heart, not when I lusted after Ixion’s wife, who gave birth to Pirithous, an advisor equivalent to the gods; nor when [I lusted after] Danaë, the beautiful-ankled daughter of Acrisius, who gave birth to Perseus, the most distinguished of all men. (Iliad 14.315-320)46

Although the Homeric lines occurs in the context of Hera’s seduction of Zeus, the opening line, “οὐ γάρ πώ ποτέ µ᾽ ὧδε θεᾶς ἔρος οὐδὲ γυναικὸς…” (“For never yet has the desire of either goddess or mortal woman overpowered me like this…,” Iliad 14.315) emphasizes Zeus’ own particular divine seduction narrative that chronicles only his adulterous affairs resulting in divine or heroic children. Obviously, Zeus has been

45 Zeus’ divine seduction narrative was a common plot device used in fourth century mythological burlesques chronicling his adventures with Danaë, , , Leda, , and Callisto and is what Konstantakos 2014: 174 refers to as a “comic love pattern.” 46 The text of Homer is from Monro and Allen 1920. The translation is my own. 24 stricken with love well before this time; he goes on to list a few of his favorite mortal lovers, including Dia and Danaë. Therefore οὐ γάρ πώ ποτέ emphasizes the number of affairs he has had, as if Zeus were telling Hera, “You’re something special, I say this because (γάρ) I’ve had every woman I’ve ever desired, but not one like you (οὐ), not once, not ever, not from the beginning of time until right now (πώ ποτέ).”

Within the divine seduction narrative a human female is granted character development only through her unsolicited relationship with Zeus. As literary characters,

Zeus’ mortal lovers—not only Dia and Danaë, but also , Alcmene, Europa,

Laodameia, and Leda, et al.— are defined and developed as characters solely based upon their sexual encounter with Zeus. Apart from the details relating to their significant maternal roles as procreators of elite progeny and their sexual roles in Zeus’ affairs, there is no substantial information offered about the individual women involved in Zeus’ divine seduction narrative. This narrative sets a precedent for one character being developed solely through their position to another character. Terence takes this literary precedent and incorporates it into his use of introspection and extraspection: he develops

Pamphila’s character through Chaerea’s extraspective comparison only insofar as how she relates to Chaerea and his introspective self-comparison. Pamphila, as a character, is only like Danaë because Chaerea is like Jupiter, and her situation is thereby only truly comparable to Danaë’s once she is raped by Chaerea.47

Terence explores this divine seduction narrative in the Eunuchus when Chaerea justifies his rape of Pamphila by the precedent set by Jupiter’s seduction of Danaë.48 By means of the mythological parallel, as I demonstrate in the following analysis, Chaerea

47 Pamphila’s development, or lack thereof, through extraspection will be discussed further in section 1.4. 48 Tromaras 1985 points out that Chaerea’s description of the Jupiter myth is one of only a few places in Roman New Comedy which uses a mythological exemplum. 25 manipulates the existing narrative of divine seduction in three ways: by equating a citizen raping a slave to a god seducing a mortal (section 1.3), by the addition of the element of erotic voyeurism on behalf of Chaerea that stands in stark contrast to the mythological exempla that chronicle Zeus’ affairs in accounts outside of New Comedy (section 1.5), and finally by emphatically displaying Chaerea’s nonchalance and Pamphila’s trauma from the violence (sections 1.6). Terence shows interest in the psychological trauma done to Pamphila, the rape victim, in a similar way to Euripides’ spotlighting of Creusa’s rape- induced psychological trauma in the Ion.49 Terence’s manipulation of the well- established seduction narrative thus denigrates, or burlesques, Jupiter’s literary character and his mythological world while it simultaneously victimizes the female target by offering pathos-inflicting information about her perspective. It is in this way that Jupiter’s myth is burlesqued by the parallel. Konstantakos claims that an important strategy of the fourth century mythological burlesques that “affects all aspects on dramaturgy— characters, plot, and performance—is the assimilation of mythical material to standard patterns of comedy. The mythical heroes are cast as stereotypical figures of the comic stage…”50 I argue that, in the case of Chaerea, Terence is doing something similar with the assimilation of mythical material into the Eunuchus. However, instead of casting a god or hero as a stock character, Terence casts a stock character as a god.

1.3. Chaerea: A Soldier Compared to Jupiter

49 LaRue 1963: 128 argues that Creusa’s highly emotional monody (Ion 859-922) displays “a complete reversal of [the] hymnal style [in which Greek gods were generally prayed to in literature] from the usual praise of the god to an utter condemnation of him.” Christenson 2013: 265 makes a general comparison between Terence’s treatment of rape and Euripides’ treatment of it in the Ion. 50 Konstantakos 2014: 171. 26

The plot of the Eunuchus illuminates certain important aspects of the myth.

Specifically, the play sets up a parallel situation between the mythological and dramatic characters. Pamphila, like Danaë, is put under guard at her house to avoid sexual relations, and Chaerea, like Zeus, assumes a disguise in order to penetrate the prison and rape the girl. With this analogy, Terence implies that mythological precedent can be used not only to justify actions, but also to encourage the behavior, as seen in the following passage that describes the point in the play where Chaerea compares himself to Jupiter and the rape of Pamphila to Jupiter’s seduction of Danaë:

… [CH.] quia consimilem luserat iam olim ille ludum, impendio magis animus gaudebat mihi…

…[CH.] Because [Jupiter] once played an entirely similar game, I had a rather pleasant thought… (Eunuchus 586-7)

At quem deum! “qui templa caeli summa sonitu concutit.” ego homuncio hoc non facerem? ego illud vero ita feci—ac lubens.

But what a god! “He who quakes the highest regions of the sky with his thunder.” Should I, a mere mortal, not act like this too? Well, by all means, I acted just like him—and with pleasure. (Eunuchus 590-1)51

The analogy of Jupiter and Danaë to Chaerea and Pamphila signals an introspective moment for Chaerea in which the audience is granted personal knowledge about his inner thoughts and motives. Because Chaerea claims encouragement and justification from the

51Intertextuality between Terence and other Roman authors is a growing trend in scholarship. Goldberg 1986: 209 briefly discusses Terence’s intertextual reference to Ennius at this line, Eunuchus 590, during his discussion of Plautine . Barsby 1999: 198 notes Donatus comments more specifically that Eunuchus 590 reflects Ennius’ Danae: summa sonitu quatit ungula terram (fr. 171 Jocelyn). Sharrock 2013: 56 adds that the tragic achieved by the reference “characterizes the young man’s self-image as he plays himself into the role of a god who can get away with anything.” Karakasis 2014: 84 compares the line to Naevius’ Danae: suo sonitu claro fulgorivit Iuppiter. (trag. 11 R3). Fontaine 2014: 542-8 discusses intertextuality within Terence’s own corpus in addition to his to older Roman comedies. 27 myth, the audience can infer that Chaerea personally relates to Jupiter in the story and that he perceives Pamphila just as one could interpret Jupiter perceived Danaë—as something desired and concealed and ripe for the picking.52 During this parallel, the adulescens amator is developed into a personalized character that exceeds the confines of his stock characteristics. Chaerea might, in some respects, appear to be a generic adulescens amator: he loves the girl, he overcomes obstacles to get the girl, he marries the girl. However, when Chaerea’s inner thoughts are exposed, he is elevated beyond his stock role into an individual with his own, markedly Roman, point-of-view and personal agenda. It is not the fact that Chaerea gets the girl that is of particular interest, it is the means by which he gets her; that is, by the unprecedented day-time rape in which he felt justified because of the divine seduction narrative that he incorporates into his own personal narrative through his mythological parallel with Jupiter.

In the passages above Chaerea justifies his desire to rape Pamphila by the precedent set by Jupiter’s myth. The use of the causal conjunction quia (586) makes it clear that the reason for Chaerea’s happiness lies in the assumption that the behavior of a god in mythological contexts is not only suitable for the behavior of a mortal man, but even inevitable when the mortal is put in a perceivably similar situation to a god’s. When

Chaerea’s joy, evident from his use of gaudeo (587), is juxtaposed with Pamphila’s state of trauma (discussed in section 1.6), the playwright casts a negative light on the sexual violence. The use of homuncio (591), the diminutive form of homo, emphasizes

Chaerea’s perceived lack of personal responsibility; because he is a “little man,” or

52 Love, particularly eros, is the stated driving force of Zeus in the myth. Likewise for Chaerea, amor drives him, as he pleads: unum hoc scitio, contumeliae non me fecisse causa sed amoris. (“I know this one thing, I did it [rape Pamphila] not for the sake of assault, but for the sake of love,” Eunuchus 877-8.). I interpret both the mythological figure and the dramatic character as predatory figures. Chaerea’s predatory nature will be discussed further in section 1.5. 28 perhaps even just a “mere mortal,” he can’t be expected not to emulate the gods—or, to take it even further—he claims that he ought to act in the way in which Jupiter acts.

Chaerea’s exact moment of introspection and extraspection can be outlined in the following passage: consimilem luserat iam olim ille ludum (“[Jupiter] once played an entirely similar game,” Eunuchus 586-7). The “game” that both Jupiter and Chaerea

“play” is essentially rape.53 The key word in this passage that marks the mythological parallel is consimilem, which shows that Chaerea personally parallels his action of raping

Pamphila to Jupiter’s action of seducing Danaë: their game is the same. The character tells us that he acts in in the same manner he perceives Jupiter acting in his myth with ego homuncio hoc non facerem? ego illud vero ita feci—ac lubens (“Should I, a mere mortal, not act like this too? Well, by all means, I acted just like him—and with pleasure,”

Eunuchus 591). The repetition of ego in the line emphasizes Chaerea’s own thought process. Terence does not provide some general maxim for mortals emulating the gods; instead, he emphasizes that Chaerea uses this notion to conveniently justify his disgraceful behavior.54 The addition of ac lubens “and with pleasure” (591) emphasizes

Chaerea’s smug amusement at his actions.

Terence develops and Romanizes this New Comedy stock character in a similar manner to the way the writers of fourth century mythological burlesques would reframe, or “Atticize,” the mythological figure into a stock comic character and the mythological world into that of contemporary Athens.55 Terence achieves the of the

53 These terms in this context will be further developed in section 1.6. 54 Gellar-Goad 2013: 160 singles out this case as the only time for Terence when mythology “[plays] an active part in the play’s progression… Chaerea uses a painting of Jupiter and Danae as a basis for his decision to rape a girl.” Cain 2013: 392 notes that Augustine’s contempt for this Terentian passage was due to the fact that Chaerea “justifies his behavior by appealing to the pseudo-authority of a mythological .” 55 Konstantakos 2014: 165. 29 mythological material first by equating the traditionally amorous Jupiter with the stock amator as well as the situation of divine seduction with mortal rape; second,

Romanization is achieved by reframing the dramatic scenario through Chaerea’s associations with Roman military and political institutions, specifically his position as a citizen-soldier and his assumption of the role of praetor peregrinus (see section 1.7 below). The traditional formula of a burlesqued Jupiter, as seen in Plautus’ Amphitruo, makes Jupiter a dramatic character who is cast in the role of a stock adulescens amator; the mythological figure is burlesqued by the assumption of this comic mortal role. In the

Eunuchus, Terence inverts the traditional formula of burlesque by instead casting

Chaerea, who is the mortal comic stock adulescens amator character, as the lusty Zeus.

1.4. Defying Conventions: Chaerea’s Character Development

Mere mortals – not gods, heroes, or kings – are the players of New Comedy. So I will now examine the stock character manipulated in Chaerea’s mythological parallel to

Jupiter, in order to highlight the alterations Terence makes to its paradigmatic structure.

As I have stated previously, Chaerea represents one example of the adulescens amator stock character. The adulescens character is typically the protagonist of New Comedy plots: he is by definition a young, free citizen from a wealthy land-owning family, and he is usually at the center of an amorous plotline that results in his marriage to a respectable citizen girl and his social advancement to the role of paterfamilias. Chaerea is certainly an amatory character in the same general vein as, for example, Diniarchus, the amator in

Plautus’ . Chaerea fits the stock role in a basic sense, but his mentality about rape (section 1.5), his affiliation with Roman military institutions (section 1.7), and his 30 mythological parallel to Jupiter turn his character into a violent and self-serving predator, rather than a well-intentioned stock amator.

Chaerea’s brother, Phaedria, is the play’s other adulescens amator, and he serves as an instructive comparison to Chaerea and his amatory relationship with Pamphila.

Unlike the forceful Chaerea, Phaedria more closely foreshadows the elegiac lover developed later by the Roman elegists of the Late Republic, a figure who is essentially ineffectual in the face of his demanding domina. Moreover, Phaedria’s romantic interest,

Thais, the meretrix who lives next door and has been made responsible for Pamphila, is a fully realized dramatic character, while Pamphila is not. Chaerea’s militaristic attitude and attributes are negatively illuminated when juxtaposed with Phaedria’s more sympathetic amator character who is portrayed as somewhat weak and subservient in his relationship, abiding by the wishes of Thais even to his own discomfort.56 Terence manipulates Chaerea’s stock character by the addition of the expressive mythological parallel between Chaerea and Jupiter.57 Although Phaedria, who has no apparent association with the military, is the same type of stock character as his brother, an adulescens amator, he does not accrue his own mythological parallel and thus he is not developed in the same suggestive way as his brother, Chaerea.

Terence challenges dramatic conventions and develops Chaerea beyond a stock adulescens amator principally by means of his mythological parallel, through which the audience gets a sense of the young man’s misplaced entitlement and inflated self-image.

Chaerea’s analogy to the amorous Jupiter develops his character by means of

56 For example, in the play’s first scene (Eunuchus 95-191), Thais asks Phaedria to leave town for a few days so that she can be with her other lover Thraso and get Pamphila from him. Phaedria objects, but is ultimately persuaded by Thais and leaves town. 57 The parallel occurs at Eunuchus 585-591, as discussed above in section 1.3. 31 introspection and extraspection. I limit the term introspection to the scenario in which the dramatic character compares himself and his situation to a mythic figure and situation; thus, Chaerea is introspective when he compares himself to Jupiter (Eunuchus 586).

Introspection intensifies the negative stereotypes associated with the stock character by revealing the character’s thought process through their own use of personal analogies.

During Chaerea’s introspective moment of the mythological parallel (Eunuchus 585-

591), the conventional plot device of rape is taken to a new level and Chaerea becomes more of a predator than amator. The comparison to Jupiter reveals Chaerea’s superior mentality and sense of entitlement to do as he pleases with Pamphila; the dynamic of introspection and extraspection reveals a nuanced level of self-awareness. By equating himself to Zeus, Chaerea informs the audience that he is in a position of supreme power and feels no remorse for acting on any impulse.

Extraspection specifically refers to one dramatic character being compared by another dramatic character to a mythological figure and situation based solely on the perceptions of the introspective character; that is, Chaerea is extraspective when he compares Pamphila to Danaë by the same parallel through which he introspectively compares himself to Jupiter (Eunuchus 586). Pamphila is not personally developed by the comparison; it does not reveal anything about her own thoughts or intentions. Rather, the extraspective comparison reveals the way Chaerea perceives his relationship with

Pamphila: it is a projection of himself, but as though through the eyes of someone else.

Specifically, the extraspective parallel suggests that Chaerea deems himself superior to

Pamphila, whom he perceives to be a slave, in the same way that a god is superior to a mortal; Pamphila fits the objective role of a mortal woman in Zeus’ divine seduction 32 narrative who is developed solely through their sexual relationship. The following section discusses the sexual relationship of Chaerea and Pamphila and how it defies the conventions of the genre.

1.5. Defying Conventions: Sexual Violence

Terence’s treatment of rape is notably different from that of Plautus.58 Scholars have demonstrated that Plautus expresses a more casual attitude about rape and does not offer any sympathetic descriptions of its victims, whereas Terence represents rape as a violent and negative act.59 Terence goes even further than Menander in highlighting the negative aspects of rape by it up within contexts that differ from the conventional stock scenarios, which usually include late-night religious festivals and sympotic drunkenness.60 Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila only conforms to the conventions of the genre and the expectations of the stock adulescens amator to the extent that it serves as a catalyst for the two to become married and for Chaerea to assume the role of paterfamilias.61 However, the details surrounding this rape overtly defy convention.

Within the conventions of New Comedy, a typical amator would rape a girl only in very specific contexts—the time, setting, and procreative result of the rape as well as the mindset of the rapist are all confined to the following conventions. First, the trend in

58 Norwood 1923 notes Terence’s general negative treatment of rape. Fontaine 2014: 545 notes how Terence’s staged treatment of rape seems more suitable for a “nightmare or a ” than for a comedy. 59 Pierce 2002 argues that Terence offers a pathetic, sympathy-evoking description of his numerous rape victims, but Plautus does not. James 2013 also addresses the brutality and traumatic effect of rape in Terence. 60 Lape 2001 argues that Menandrian representations of rape do not problematize the issue and furthermore that the plot device specifically enables a wealthy male citizen to marry a poor female citizen. Mogens 2002 argues that instances of rape in New Comedy, namely Menander, Plautus, and Terence, were merely comedic convention and that they do not mirror the reality of sexual violence. 61 Hunter 1985 explains the dramatic use of rape in New Comedy as a common plot device which leads to marriage. 33 ancient drama regarding rape is that the physical act transpires before the time of the play.62 Second, the actual rape generally occurs in a nighttime festival or sympotic setting.63 Third, the rapist’s mindset generally conforms to a particular pattern: a drunk adulescens is overcome with sudden amorous passions which he recklessly acts upon and about which he later feels some degree of remorse.64 Fourth, the pregnancy resulting from the rape becomes the catalyst for much of the play’s plot.65 However, the various details surrounding Chaerea’s premeditated rape of Pamphila diverge from these generic expectations. The rape occurs during the action of the play, in the middle of the day, and by a completely sober and unapologetic assailant, and his actions do not, as far as the plot reveals, result in a pregnancy.66 Although the act itself is not represented physically onstage, Chaerea boasts about it to his army-buddy Antipho immediately after and recounts the story in surprising detail (Eunuchus 560-606). These factors defy New

Comedy conventions and in doing so call attention to Terence’s divergences. Chaerea’s

62 Goldberg 1986 marks the peculiarity of the fact that Terence places the action of the rape within the time of the play. 63 Pierce 2002: 163 notes that the setting for rape is generally at a festival and notes Terence’s Eunuchus and Hecyra as two stark examples to the contrary. 64 The characters Pamphilus, from Terence’s Hecyra, and Lyconides, from Plautus’ Aulularia, are a few examples of characters that display all of these generic behaviors and the contexts surrounding their respective rapes which conform to the genre’s conventions. Green 1985 discusses scenarios of comedic rape and drunkenness as observed in the iconography of vase paintings, mosaics, and terracottas. James 2013: 186 suggests that for a Roman audience, the combination of drunkenness and penitence was an acceptable excuse for rape. 65James 2013: 186 notes that rape in New Comedy is generally “a night-time, drunken, hit-and-run event…[and] a belated marriage solves the legal and social problem of rape by rescuing the victim and legitimating the inevitable baby.” 66Fantham 1975: 53 argues that rape in Plautus and Terence, although generally depicted as violent, is nevertheless essential to the plot insofar as it provokes marriages as seen in Adelphoe, Aulularia, and Truculentus. However, James 2013: 187 observes Terence’s high number of instances of unconventionally violent rape and suggests that Terence presents “a skeptical view of rape as the mythical foundation for Roman marriage (in the episode of the Sabine women) and for marriage in New Comedy.” Gellar-Goad 2013: 171 argues that rape is one of the ways in which Terence represents his thematically dysfunctional families. The fact that this instance of rape does not result in pregnancy supports both of these claims. Omitowoju 2002: 5 examines the issue of rape in forensic rhetoric and Athenian New Comedy and claims that “both oratory and the comedies of Menander reveal a significant investment in the stability of the oikos, and both develop the subject of sexual relations… in which female consent plays only the most marginalized part… as a central concern.” 34 mythological parallel to Jupiter displays his introspective, predatory self-awareness and his extraspective, entitled sense of superiority. This results in Chaerea’s character being negatively perceived and his actions and validations being called into question.

Terence further subverts convention and highlights the gritty dark side of rape by focusing on the psychology and point-of-view of the rapist. Terence makes this explicit when he has Chaerea compare himself to Zeus and equates his rape victim to Danaë. In the play, a voyeuristic Chaerea explains both his devious approach and the unconventional setting under which the rape occurred. In doing so, he highlights his calculating agency as well as Pamphila’s passivity in the scene. Chaerea’s character can be seen acting more as a predator than an amator in the following passage:

[CH.] iit lavit rediit, deinde eam in lecto illae conlocarunt.

[CH.] [Pamphila] went, bathed, returned; then they (i.e. the young prostitutes in Thais’ house) laid her down on the bed. (Eunuchus 593)

[CH.] interea somnu’ virginem opprimit. ego limis specto sic per flabellum clanculum; simul alia circumspecto, satin explorata sint. video esse. pessulum ostio obdo.

Meanwhile, sleep pressed down upon the virgin. I slyly looked sideways through the little fan; at the same time I surveyed the area to know if everything was okay. I saw that it was. So I locked the bolt to the door. (Eunuchus 601-3)

This description illustrates Chaerea’s voyeurism, in other words, his male gaze: Chaerea, the looking male, is the active and assertive agent and Pamphila is the passive and erotic object being seen.67 Pamphila’s passivity is especially emphasized in this passage. Her

67For an introduction to the “gaze” of sadistic voyeurism, see Mulvey 1975. For interpretations of the “male gaze” in terms of classical scholarship, see Fredrick 2002 who discusses the issue in erotic art from antiquity as well as observed in Seneca’s plays, and also Richlin 2014 who applies the “male gaze” to 35 character is described with limited agency only within the first tricolon wherein she is the subject of the third-person verbs iit, lavit, rediit (“she went, she bathed, she returned,”

Eunuchus 593). After this point in the narrative, the language accentuates Pamphila’s passivity where she is no longer the subject but rather the direct object of the verbs, deinde eam in lecto illae conlocarunt… interea somnu’ virginem opprimit (“then they put her on the bed… Meanwhile, sleep pressed down upon the virgin,” Eunuchus 593, 601).

This is not to imply that the young prostitutes in Thais’ house view Pamphila erotically when “they put her on the bed”; but Chaerea’s description emphasizes the fact that

Pamphila does not lay herself down, as an active participant, but rather that she is, like an object, laid down on the bed. Furthermore, she does not simply go to sleep, but rather sleep presses down upon on her. Pamphila’s placement as the direct object of these verbs highlights the fact that she is no longer in any position of control but is at the mercy of first the other prostitutes, then of sleep, and ultimately of Chaerea. After Pamphila falls asleep, Chaerea becomes the subject of his own story and switches to a first-person narrative with a series of first-person verbs, specto… circumspecto… video… obdo (“I looked… I glanced… I saw… I locked,” Eunuchus 601-3).

Terence’s emphasis on verbs of seeing—specto, circumspecto, exploro, and video—accentuates Chaerea’s active, voyeuristic gaze. Each of these verbs assumes its own distinct meaning. The sight suggested by the verb specto (601) is that of a spectator, a Latin term derived from specto, meaning “one who watches” or more specifically an audience member, one who observes at a distance; in the play’s context this verb

sexual violence in ’s works. Ruffell 2014: 254 applies the same concept of voyeurism and sexual violence to the study of Greek Old Comedy and argues that “sexual power here stands as a proxy for political power.” 36 highlights Chaerea’s initial voyeurism of a man watching a young woman sleep.68 The verb circumspecto (602) suggests a gaze with a heightened sense of suspicion, anxiety, or excitement; it marks the point in the narrative in which Chaerea begins to act on his sadistic impulses and goes beyond just a voyeur.69 The verb exploro (603) reminds the audience of Chaerea’s military affiliations, meaning “to do reconnaissance” or “to scout.”70 The verb video (603), in this particular context, surrounded by other verbs of sight, signals Chaerea’s progression from his voyeuristic, detached spectatorship and places him in the action of the scene. Chaerea starts out as a spectator who is peeking from behind a fan (specto), then becomes an excited spectator (circumspecto) and militaristic scout (exploro), and finally, no longer watching Pamphila sleep as a voyeur or scouting the perimeter as a soldier, Chaerea “sees” his situation, is able to reflect on it

(video), and makes the decision to rape Pamphila, as is implied when he locks the door

(603). As Ruffell notes, “this aggressive desiring comic gaze is almost exclusively directed towards slaves and foreigners.”71 The fact that Pamphila is actually a citizen, not a foreigner, subverts this convention and calls further attention to Chaerea’s domineering gaze and sexual violence. Chaerea’s voyeurism can be classified as sadistic since, later in the narrative, the audience learns that Chaerea, after he rapes the girl, also rips her clothes and pulls out her hair.72 This seemingly unnecessary cruelty highlights Chaerea as a sadistic rapist who might even be aroused by his gratuitous violence.73

68 See OLD, s.v. specto and spectator. 69 See OLD, s.v. circumspecto. 70 See OLD, s.v. exploro. 71 Ruffell 2014: 265. 72 This passage describing Chaerea’s physical violence (Eunuchus 645-6) will be discussed in more detail in section 1.6. For scholarship on modern psychiatry and of voyeurism, see Yalom 1960: 305 who points out that “voyeurs who usually come to medical and legal attention may indeed be only a sub-group of the voyeuristic perversion and could perhaps more aptly be called… offensive voyeurs.” Smith 1979 argues that the voyeur tends to be a young man with relatively low socioeconomic status. 37

Chaerea’s physical description of Pamphila is another way in which his character’s male gaze is developed at the expense of objectifying Pamphila. Terence, at

Eunuchus 318, was the first Latin author to apply the noun sucus, which in this context means “juicy” with reference to the human body.74 Before its usage here the term generally refers to the sap from a tree, any general moisture, or to a particular flavor.75

The term is used in the following passage in which Chaerea compares Pamphila’s physical description to the local girls:

CH. haud simili’ virgost virginum nostrarum, quas matres student demissis umeris esse, vincto pectore, ut gracilae sient. siquaest habitior paullo pugilem esse aiunt, deducunt cibum: tam esti bonast natura, reddunt curatura iunceas: itaque ergo amantur. PA. quid tua istaec? CH. nova figura oris. PA. papae. CH. color veru’, corpu’ solidum et suci plenum.

CH. [My] girl’s nothing like the local girls, whose mothers take pains that they have hunched shoulders, bound breasts, so that they can be thin. If anyone’s a little more voluptuous, they call her a boxer and restrict her food: Even though she’s naturally fine, they put her on diet regimens. That way, they are lovable. PA. What about your girl? CH. She’s a new kind of beauty. PA. Hot-damn! CH. Her complexion’s natural, her body’s firm and juicy. (Eunuchus 313-8)

Although the term sucus does not seem to bear any sexual connotations before Terence, it is most certainly sexualized in this context. Pamphila’s physique stands in clear opposition to the local skinny girls, as evident from haud similis (313). The phrase corpus solidum et suci plenum (“[her] body’s firm and juicy,” Eunuchus 318) refers to

73 Laws and O’Donohue 1997: 218 describe a “sadistic rapist” as one who experiences sexual arousal from “deliberately injuring the victim or causing death.” 74 Barsby 1999: 146. 75 See OLD, s.v. sucus. Adams 1990, interestingly, does not include this term on his list of Latin sexual terms. 38

Pamphila’s natural voluptuousness in comparison to the girls who try to hide their curves or lose them altogether. Chaerea criticizes the local girls for having demissis umeris esse, vincto pectore, ut gracilae sient (“hunched shoulders, bound breasts, so that they can be thin,” Eunuchus 314). Given this context, Chaerea is not calling Pamphila overweight, but rather commenting on a physical feature, specifically her large breasts, when he describes her body as suci plenum, “juicy” (318) as compared to the girls who diminish the appearance of large breasts by hunching their shoulders and binding their chests

(314). Because the term is not itself sexual, Terence’s use of it is emphasizes Chaerea’s domineering male gaze. Through Chaerea’s physical description of Pamphila, Terence paints a sort of portrait through Chaerea’s gaze which is suggestive of the “haptic eye” whose gaze is not detached, but somehow tactile.76

Displays of physical conquest, as well as the male gaze, in New Comedy are means of representing masculine sexual privilege and power.77 As Sharon James notes,

Chaerea’s character displays “a fully developed sense of masculine sexual privilege for

Roman citizen men.”78 Chaerea’s behavior does seem to be in accordance with such ideals about masculinity, his voyeurism and sexual violence can be viewed as an unquestionable assertion of his male, citizen authority. This association between rape and power is suggested by an exchange between Chaerea and Antipho, a fellow soldier who

76 Dumenil 2014: 41-42. 77 Philippides 1995: 273 argues that “[Chaerea’s] violence is significantly mitigated since the rape becomes part of the ritual of the wedding ceremony… the rape [is] an important means of helping Chaerea to reach maturity, and to indicate that the play in general shows Chaerea’s passage from adolescence to manhood.” and Christenson 2013: 265 argues that these same elements of the marriage ritual do not mitigate but rather “emphasize [the] rape.” James 2013: 183 observes that “as a rule, citizen gender and sexuality is more about family in Terence than in Plautus.” She also argues that Terence develops the adulescens’s masculinity before our eyes, as his character goes “from spineless and passive, to sexually impulsive… to fully assured of his sexual rights to the bodies of others without regard for their feelings or experience” (183). Packman 2013: 199 argues that Terence places emphasis on the adulescens’ need to get married. 78 James 2013: 184. 39 only appears onstage during this scene, immediately following the detailed account of events leading up to his rape of Pamphila:

AN. quid tum? CH. quid ‘quid tum,’ fatue? AN. fateor. CH. an ego occasionem mi ostentam, tantam, tam breuem, tam optatam, tam insperatam amitterem? tum pol ego is essem vero qui simulabar. AN. sane hercule ut dici’. sed interim de symbolis quid aetumst?

AN. What next? CH. What [do you mean] ‘What next,’ idiot? AN. Yeah, I’m an idiot. CH. Should I let such an opportunity held out to me, one so short-lived, so desired, so unexpected, slip by? Well then, [if I didn’t rape her] I swear I really would be the [eunuch] who I was pretending to be. AN. Yeah. Wow, you’re right. But, anyway, what about the pot-luck? (Eunuchus 604-7)

Chaerea seems to be offended that Antipho questions whether he raped the girl, given his mocking response of quid ‘quid tum,’ fatue? (604). The repetition of the adverb tam (605) emphasizes Chaerea’s delight in his actions, as well as his annoyance at Antipho’s questioning of his manhood, as suggested by Chaerea’s remark: tum pol ego is essem vero qui simulabar (“Well then, I swear I really would be the [eunuch] who I was pretending to be,” Eunuchus 606). Furthermore, the line’s word order is highly emphatic.

The oath-taking exclamation pol marks a raised sense of excitement and the pleonastic use of ego is… qui (“I would be the guy who…”) emphasizes Chaerea’s nominative sense of self. This, together with Antipho’s quick, colloquial response with fateor (604), and rapid transition to another subject, namely the pot-luck symbolis (607), suggest the casualness with which this type of sexual violence was treated at Rome during the time.

For Chaerea, the fact that he does, in fact, adhere to Roman ideals of masculinity makes

Terence’s negative treatment of his character revealing. Chaerea, therefore, represents one of Rome’s young, entitled soldiers during the early second century BCE. 40

In this way, Terence defies New Comedy conventions and develops Chaerea beyond a stock amator by means of the parallel between Chaerea and Jupiter. This parallel develops the character through the dynamic of introspection and extraspection.

As discussed in the sections above, introspection reveals Chaerea’s inner thoughts:

Chaerea says that he is just like Jupiter in the Danaë myth and from that personal analogy the audience members can transpose their knowledge about the mythological Jupiter onto the dramatic character of Chaerea. Chaerea’s attitude about rape is also illuminated by the parallel. Extraspection reveals Chaerea’s perception of his own as well as Pamphila’s societal positions at Rome. Chaerea views himself, a Roman citizen-soldier, as superior to Pamphila, a perceived slave, in the same way that Jupiter, a god, is superior to Danaë, a mortal. Thus, in considering the mythological parallel to Jupiter and Danaë, Terence’s treatment of Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila implies wider implications about the views of social dominance and political subjugation at Rome.

1.6. Ludo: Sex as a Game

Chaerea’s sexual violence in the Eunuchus is equated to a game; not any game, but specifically Jupiter’s game.79 The implications of Chaerea playing Jupiter’s game burlesque the Jupiter and Danaë myth. At the same time, Terence suggests Rome’s lax surrounding the issue of sexual violence are displayed by Chaerea’s nonchalant attitude.80 The verb ludo, “to play” and the noun ludus, “game” are often employed in sexual contexts in Roman literature. Moreover, ludo is one of the most common

79 See section 1.3 for Jupiter’s seduction being equated to Chaerea’s rape. 80 Antipho, by quickly changing subjects to the pot-luck (Eunuchus 607), mirrors Chaerea’s nonchalant attitude about the rape and thereby calls to question the attitudes concerning the issue in contemporary Rome. 41 euphemisms for the more graphic sexual vocabulary that can be found in the Latin language.81 Chaerea’s slave, Parmeno, entices Chaerea into disguising himself as the eunuch by emphasizing its sensuous benefits; the climactic event which is also Chaerea’s main intent, namely sex, is described using the verb ludo in the following passage:

[PA.] tu illis fruare commodis quibu’ tu illum dicebas modo: cibum una capias, adsis tangas ludas propter dormias…

[PA.] You [Chaerea] could take advantage of those favorable conditions which you were just now discussing: dine together, be together, touch her, have sex with her, sleep next to her… (Eunuchus 372-3)

The heightened excitement produced by capias adsis tangas ludas… dormias (373) provides a condensed and hasty timeline for the proposed nightly events; first you eat, then you hook up, you touch, have sex, and finally sleep. The use of asyndeton suggests the rapidity of events. Furthermore, the striking tetracolon of the first four verbs,

“dine, be near, touch, play,” paints a vivid picture that produces a great impact on the listeners, conveying a heightened sense of excitement. The position of these verbs in the line makes the sexual connotations of the verb ludo clear within the context, emphatically placed between the verb of touching and the verb of sleeping. Moreover, Pamphila’s lack of agency in these events suggests an absence of consent, and therefore the scene is more suggestive of rape than it is of seduction.82 By his remarkable word play Terence is able

81 Adams 1990: 162. 82 For scholars who argue that this scene does describe rape, and not seduction, see Norwood 1923: 62 who speaks of Chaerea gratifying “a physical appetite,” the social condemnation of which “is annulled neither by his extreme youthfulness nor by the reparation through marriage.” Hunter 1985: 93 argues that Chaerea’s future plan to marry Pamphila lessens the damage of the rape. Goldberg 1986: 115 notes the strangeness of Terence putting the rape within the time of the play. Pierce 2002: 179 points out Chaerea’s clear joy in having raped the girl. 42 to highlight the sexual for sex as a game. Furthermore, when sex is treated like a game, as ludo implies, there are winners and there are losers.

Chaerea, just as Parmeno before him, also suggests that rape is a game, as discussed previously in section 1.3, when he claims justification for his actions from the precedent set by Jupiter in the following passage:

[CH.] quia consimilem luserat iam olim ille ludum, inpendio magis animu’ gaudebat mihi…

[CH.] Because [Jupiter] once played an entirely similar game, I had a rather pleasant thought… (Eunuchus 586-7)

The poetic use of figura etymologica both emphasizes and toys with the noun ludus and the verb ludo to heighten Chaerea’s sportive and irreverent attitude towards the sexual violence he is discussing. Jupiter’s game relates to the narrative of divine seduction where the god disguises himself in order to gain access to a sexual partner who is otherwise inaccessible. The anaphora of the initial letter ‘l’ in luserat and ludum (586) is strengthened by internal assonance with the double elisions of iam olim ille (586), which sounds like i’ol’ille, and so draws even more attention to the verb ludo and the noun ludus in the line (586).

Thais’ slave, Pythias, is the play’s only character who is outwardly enraged by the sexual violence Chaerea perpetrates on Pamphila.83 No other character is shown to be bothered as much by the incident as she is. Reinforcing a negative association with the already sexualized term ludo, Pythias uses the verb ludifiscor when describing the physical act of Chaerea’s rape:

83 Pythias is also the character who describes Pamphila’s state of trauma: uirgo ipas lacrumat neque quom rogites quid sit audit dicere (“That girl weeps and when you ask her what’s up she doesn’t dare speak,” Eunuchus 659). 43

[PY.]…insuper scelu’, postquam ludifiatust uirginem uestem omnem miserae discidit, tum ipsam capillo conscidit.

[PY.]…moreover, this degenerate, after he raped the virgin, tore off all the poor girl’s clothes, then he ripped out her hair. (Eunuchus 645-6)

The verb ludifiscor is related in form to ludo and ludus but has definite negative associations that the verb ludo does not necessarily maintain. It means “treat something as a plaything” or “trifle with” something; it connotes the subject having fun at another’s expense.84 The polymetric meter of Pythias’ words, consisting of a line of trochaic septenarius (tr7) followed by a line of iambic octinarius (ia8), signals her character’s heightened emotional state.85 This passage also highlights Chaerea’s extreme use of violence, even after his sexual assault (that is, tearing her clothes and ripping out her hair). Furthermore, the conjunction postquam (645) and the adverb tum (646) show that the violence occurs after he rapes her, not before or during the rape as a necessary means to achieve his end. In his work on aggressive humor and sexual violence in Old Comedy,

Ruffell argues that “the spectacle of violence…poses questions about the exercise of power and nature of authority in fifth and early fourth century BCE Athens.”86 Terence’s description of Chaerea’s physical violence emphasizes the character’s power and authority as a Roman citizen. Like the plundering soldier he is, Chaerea despoils

Pamphila’s body by tearing her clothes and ripping her hair following his physical conquest. Furthermore, it suggests that Chaerea’s violence primarily serves to satisfy

Chaerea’s own sadistic desires that in turn highlight his militarized passion.

84 See OLD s. v. ludifiscor. 85 Moore 2013: 95. 86 Ruffell 2014: 247. 44

Pythias vilifies Chaerea through her contemptuous treatment of him after he commits the act of sexual violence, as demonstrated in the following exchange between

Thais and Pythias:

TH. nam quid ita? PY. rogitas? hunc tu in aedis cogitas recipere posthac? TH. quor non?

TH. What is it? PY. You’re still asking? Are you actually considering letting this guy back into your house after this? TH. Yeah, why not? (Eunuchus 897-8)

Pythias’ use of consecutive quizzical frequentative verbs rogitas… cogitas (897) emphasizes her criticism of Chaerea’s character. Thais’ nonchalance, suggested by her colloquial response of quor non (898), accentuates Pythias’ agitation at the notion that

Chaerea could get away with committing such a heinous crime. It is also reminiscent of

Chaerea and Antipho’s indifference towards sexual violence, as discussed in section 1.5, wherein Chaerea’s rape was thought by both characters to be the logical conclusion to being left alone with the sleeping virgin. The meter of these lines, iambic senarii (ia7), indicates that Pythias is less emotional than before and is instead speaking rationally.

Pythias and Chaerea metrically share the following lines, which again emphasize Pythias’ distress but take things further by criticizing Chaerea’s terrible service as Pamphila’s guard:

CH. non faciam, Pythias. PY. non credo, Chaerea, nisi si commissum non erit. CH. quin, Pythias, tu me servato. PY. neque pol servandum tibi quicquam dare ausim neque te servare. apage te.

CH. I won’t do [anything], Pythias. PY. I don’t believe [you], Chaerea, except if [the rape] will turn out to have not been committed. CH. Well now, you can watch over me, Pythias. 45

PY. Good lord, I would neither be so bold as to give anything over to you to watch over nor [would I dare] watch over you. Buzz off. (Eunuchus 901-4)

The use of the verb servo is remarkable in the fact that it occurs three times over two consecutive lines. It draws attention to the verb’s meaning, “to guard” or “protect.” In fact, earlier in the play we learn that something was entrusted to Chaerea for protecting, namely Pamphila herself.87 He not only fails to protect the girl but he even becomes her attacker. Terence’s interpretation of the narrative of divine seduction burlesques Jupiter’s mythic character by equating his seduction of Danaë to Chaerea’s premeditated rape of

Pamphila and thereby acts to vilify Chaerea’s character. Beyond the hyperbole that compares a man to a god, Chaerea burlesques Jupiter’s myth by his vilification of the protagonist, Jupiter. Pamphila, unlike Danaë, was not being held captive, she was supposedly being protected; therefore, Chaerea’s infiltration of her confinement is not divinely heroic but mortally disgraceful. The emphasis on Chaerea’s guard-duty recalls the social and political position of a Roman soldier during the second century BCE.

1.7. Chaerea: A Reflection of Roman Reality

A look at Rome’s contemporary political and social scene helps to contextualize the specific references to Roman political and military institutions made in Terence’s

Eunuchus, specifically Chaerea’s position as a Roman citizen-soldier, his adoption of the political role of praetor peregrinus, an his deceptive assumption of the eunuch role which has metatheatrical bearing on the festival for which it was produced. The play debuted at

87 [CH.]…commendat uirginem. AN. quoi? tibine? CH. mihi… edicit ne uir quisquam ad eam adeat et mihi ne abscedam imperat ([CH.] “…[Thais] entrusted the virgin. AN. To whom? To you? CH. To me… she declared that no man whatsoever was to go near her and she ordered me not to leave,” Eunuchus 577-8). 46 the Megalensian Games of 161 BCE; these games honored Cybele, the Magna Mater, whose worship was imported from Asia Minor into Rome in 204 BCE, during the Second

Punic War.88 It is significant to note that the priests of the Magna Mater were eunuchs, castrated men who dressed in flamboyant eastern attire.89 When Chaerea, dressed as a eunuch, shouts, o dies! (Eunuchus 560), at the beginning of his detailed account of the sexual assault on Pamphila, it seems that his metatheatrical moment conveys the festive, eunuch-attended atmosphere of the Megalensian Games into the dramatic space of the play. The phrase, o festus dies! has larger implications than just an exclamatory,

“Oh, happy day!” It is the formulaic term for a Roman holiday. , in his chapter on the Second Punic War, writes that the cult of the Magna Mater was brought in from

Phrygia because of a prophecy in the Sibylline books indicating that Rome could only win the war if they introduced the cult into Roman society. Livy’s terminology for the founding of the cult uses the exact same language as Terence has Chaerea use in the play:

non. Apr., isque dies festus fuit. populus frequens dona deae in Palatium tulit, lectisterniumque et ludi fuere, Megalensia appellata.

When April’s moon was on its first quarter, this festival was [established]. The crowded masses offered gifts to the goddess on the Palatine, religious feasting and games were [established], called the Megalensian Games. ( 29.14.14)

Livy makes it clear the isque dies festus is the festival of the Megalensian Games where plays were performed. The between Roman and external forces, especially in the

88 Rawson 1989: 427 notes that both Venus Erycina, also newly imported, and the Magna Mater were “given temples within the pomerium,” while gods like Apollo, likely considered too Greek, had their temples outside of the city limits. 89 Christenson 2013: 263 comments on the eunuchs’ garments. Fontaine 2014: 542 argues that Terence’s staging of the Eunuchus at this festival illustrates the dynamics involved in granting high levels of self- consciousness to his characters. 47 case of contemporary wars and the influence they had on the growing importation of foreign cults, bears some influence on Terence’s production of the Eunuchus and the development of its military characters. Just as the cult of the Magna Mater was incorporated into Rome because of the promised military advantage of doing so, the character of Chaerea assumes a eunuch disguise because of his promised carnal advantage.90 The cult is appropriated by Rome for essentially the same reason that

Chaerea dresses as a eunuch, for self-interested conquest. By disguising Chaerea as a eunuch during his assault of Pamphila, I argue that Terence makes the suggestion that the rape is equivalent to Roman military expansionism and subjugation of foreign territories during and after the Second Punic War.91 Chaerea desires to possess Pamphila just as

Rome desires to possess land and resources. Chaerea’s relationship with Pamphila is metaphorically representative of Rome’s relationship with the foreign territories that were being subjugated during this period of increasing Roman expansionism. Like Chaerea, when Rome spots a desirable foreign entity, Roman force overpowers it by extreme means and takes whatever resources it requires and desires in order to perpetuate its political position of control.

Military , common throughout Terence’s Eunuchus, act as some of the more common euphemisms for graphic sexual situations in the Latin language.92

Terence’s use of military metaphors for amorous relationships lays the foundation for my

90 Fontaine 2014: 542. 91 Earl 1962: 470 argues, “the Roman aristocracy defined the particular nature of man as political and his only proper function as the service of the respublica.” Starks 2013:134 argues that Terence contextualizes much of his Greek material into Roman contexts, such as with “military terminology for formations and command structures particular to Roman legions.” 92 Adams 1990 includes metaphors regarding mastering (subigio) and submitting (patior), fighting (pugno along with bellum and proelium), killing (conficio) and dying (morior), and exercising (exercitatio). Barsby 1999: 93 notes that military metaphors for love and sex are rarely found in Menander or Plautus, but occur in Terence and become common later in Roman elegy. 48 interpretation that, through extraspection, Chaerea’s relationship with Pamphila can be taken metaphorically for Rome’s relationship with foreign territories that are systematically subjugated by an expanding Roman political presence in the

Mediterranean region. The opening of the play (Eunuchus 46-206) finds Chaerea’s brother Phaedria, the play’s other adulescens amator, lamenting his position as an exclusus amator, which makes it absolutely clear that love and relationships are central to the plot. The play’s first military metaphor appears early in the text, when Phaedria is worried that he will return to his lover, Thais, infecta , “with peace not made,” (Eunuchus 53). The play reinforces the link between love and the military when Parmeno tells Phaedria love is just like war:

[PA.] in amore haec omnia insunt uitia: iniuriae, suspiciones, inimicitiae, indutiae, bellum, pax rursum…

[PA.] In love all the following offenses are contained: personal affronts, suspicions, hostilities, truces, war, then peace again… (Eunuchus 59-61)

The terms used in Parmeno’s exclamation become increasingly associated with the military, especially the phrase bellum, pax rursum, “war, then peace again” (61) that explicitly relates love to the military. Sharrock (2009) emphasizes the importance of identity and appearance to Roman comedy and that within the aesthetics of comedy, as often, there is a gap between the signifier and the signified.93 I suggest that as much as the Eunuchus is about love it is also about war, where the signifier “love” can be equated with the signified “war” and vice versa. For example, Parmeno tells Phaedria that he

93 Sharrock 2009 argues that the male characters in Roman comedy often reflect contemporary Rome. 49 should ransom himself, te redimas captum, “you should buy yourself back since you’ve been captured” (Eunuchus 74), which suggests that Thais has taken him as a prisoner of war.94 Thais also discusses their relationship in military terms, telling Phaedria potius quam te imicium habeam faciam ut iusseris (“I will do as you order rather than make you my enemy,” Eunuchus 174). Thais and Phaedria’s “war” is metaphorical for their amorous relationship. I claim, therefore, that Chaerea’s amorous relationship can be metaphorically taken as a military relationship between Chaerea, a character who emulates Rome’s relationships, and Pamphila, a character who signifies the foreign territories being subjugated by Rome during the Middle Republic. Chaerea and

Pamphila’s relationship can be read as one of pure martial subjugation at the hands of

Roman expansionism in foreign territories, such as North and South Italy, Spain, and

Africa, which were affected by Roman expansionism during the Punic and Macedonian


Terence places Chaerea in the political role of the praetor peregrinus who holds

Roman imperium over foreign matters and associates that political power with his desire to rape Pamphila. Roman imperium, or “legal authority,” was granted to high-ranking elected officials; it gave them the right to administer justice to the people. Chaerea makes it clear that he will stop at nothing to possess Pamphila when he orders his slave Parmeno to do the following:

[CH.] ipsam hanc tu mihi vel vi vel clam vel precario fac tradas: mea nil refert dum potiar modo.

[CH.] Make sure that you deliver that girl to me either by force, stealthily, or by charm: I don’t care at all as long as I get her soon.

94 Barsby 1999: 98. 50

(Eunuchus 319-20)95

The verb potior has several meanings both sexual and economical.96 First, it may mean

“to subjugate,” or as in a sexual context “to mount” a partner, or it may even describe the male orgasm.97 Second, the verb also carries economic and militaristic undertones that imply the acquisition of material goods, as well as the actual subjugation of a political entity. The OLD emphasizes the sense of personal entitlement associated to the speaker of the verb. The verb’s appearance earlier in the play foreshadows Chaerea’s later sexual violence, but here it highlights his view of Pamphila as property, and reveals his superiority complex, or indeed his military mindset that is set on obtaining and subjugating her as though she is a new foreign territory to be conquered.

Furthermore, with the phrase vel vi vel clam vel precario (319), Terence sets

Chaerea up as a Roman official, the praetor peregrinus, or “magistrate of foreign matters” who had full Roman imperium over all things foreign. Barsby (1999) points out that this phrase expresses the three ways in which property can illegally be possessed.98

Pamphila, since she is believed by Chaerea to be a foreigner, falls under Chaerea’s imperium. In the Roman legal context, the phrase vel vi vel clam vel precario is terminology taken from the actual decrees of the praetor peregrinus, referred to the means by which a citizen could legally recover stolen property.99 The official capabilities of a Roman praetor peregrinus include exerting Roman military power, proposing laws, calling official assemblies and issuing formal edicts.100 His recitation of the interdict

95 This passage is polymetric, consisting of iambic octinarius (ia8) followed by iambic senarius (ia6). 96 Adams 1990: 188. 97 See OLD, s.v. potior. 98 Barsby 1999: 146. 99 Brown 2013: 29 maintains that the phrase “is a from the praetorian interdict.” 100 Schiller 1978: 403. 51 indicates that he views Pamphila as his lawful property even though he has no legal rights to her at this point in the play. Terence has Chaerea declare this markedly Roman phrase in the context of abducting a young, ostensibly foreign girl,101 thus allowing him to assert an overtly Roman dominance over the girl and implying Rome’s political supremacy over foreign entities.

Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila also has wider implications about Terence’s views, as well as possible popular perspectives, about social dominance and physical violence at

Rome. I claim that Terence suggests a connection between Roman military language and

Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila. In fact, at one point Chaerea declares orders like a military commander:

[CH.] ubeam? cogo atque impero.

[CH.] Should I order? I compel and I command. (Eunuchus 389)

The ascending tricolon of the verbs iubeo, cogo, and impero emphasizes his character’s military involvement. The verb iubeo can be read as an official order from a general, as it is used in ’s De bello Gallico.102 The verb cogo has forceful connotations and is also used in military contexts by Caesar.103 The verb impero is more forceful than iubeo and is used often by Caesar to describe his exact orders made to his soldiers.104 The elisions of cogo and atque as well as atque and impero create a strikingly succinct phrase,

101 Although Pamphila was ex Attica… abreptam e Sunio (“from Greece… [and] stolen from Sunium,” Eunuchus 115), Chaerea thinks that she is a newly acquired foreign prostitute. 102 For example: Non nulli etiam Caesari nuntiabant, cum moveri ac signa ferri iusset, non fore dicto audientes milites (“Some even announced to Caesar, that when he ordered camps to be moved and the signal to be given, the soldiers would not listen to [Caeser who] spoke,” De Bello Gallico 1.39.7). 103 For example: multitudo procedit peditum, quae nostros coegit cedere (“a troop of foot-soldiers advanced, which forced our cavalry to leave,” De Bello Gallico 8.19.2). 104 For example: Provinciae toti quam maximum potest militum numerum imperat…pontem, qui erat ad Genavam, iubet rescindi (“[Caesar] demands that the whole territory [provide] as great a number of soldiers as possible…[and] he orders the bridge, which was in Geneva, to be torn down,” De Bello Gallico 1.7.2). 52 cog’ atqu’ impero (389), which is suggestive of how a high-ranking soldier might speak.

The three verbs can even be observed in one section of De bello Gallico where the

Romans order the Germans (cogo), the German king compelled the Gauls (iubeo) and demanded hostages (impero).105 Moreover, Chaerea is said to be on public guard and stationed at Piraeus (Eunuchus 290), a military training facility near Athens, making this type of martial language suitable for him. Chaerea’s appropriation of the praetorian interdict reflects his feelings of Roman entitlement and superiority.

1.8. Conclusions: Introspection and Extraspection

This chapter exposes how Terence individualizes certain stock characters beyond their conventional stereotypes. He offers his audience a rare glimpse into the minds of the play’s soldiers by providing them with mythological parallels that constitute extremely personal moments of self-awareness. I call this type of character development “the dynamic of introspection and extraspection.” This dynamic personalizes stock characters to expose inner thoughts and self-perceptions that, when revealed, draw attention to the distinctively Roman institutions to which the character belongs. Terence provides an inner monologue for Chaerea based on the audience’s knowledge about the Jupiter myth to which Chaerea’s character is made parallel. These illuminated inner thoughts reveal

Chaerea’s perception about his own identity, while his character’s military associations draw attention to bigger political issues and themes within the play. By incorporating and manipulating Jupiter’s mythological characteristics into the stock adulescens amator

105 De Bello Gallico 1.31. The same three verbs can be seen again at De Bello Gallico 7.4. 53 character, Terence reveals and highlights the military mindset of Chaerea, a young, predatory Roman soldier who uses mythological precedent to justify his own actions.

My analysis demonstrates that Chaerea’s self-comparison to Jupiter is a reflection of his identification as a privileged, elite Roman citizen who has the right to initiate sex as he pleases. Furthermore, because love is equated metaphorically with war in the

Eunuchus, Chaerea may be viewed as a predatory soldier. Introspection, as I have shown, personally develops the soldier into an individual character who exposes the mindsets and ethics of Roman soldiers during the tumultuous Middle Republic. This perceived relationship is comparable to Rome’s dominance over foreign polities in the second century BCE over areas such as Italy, Spain, and . Terence’s development of

Chaerea’s character paints a portrait of the elite Roman soldier that casts a negative light onto the political issue of expansionism and social issue of sexual violence.

Thus, this chapter claims that Terence portrays Chaerea’s relationship with Pamphila in order to represent Roman subjugation during the time of Roman expansionism.

The next chapter will argue that the relationships of the play’s two other soldiers, who are also developed through mythological parallels, together represent Rome’s relationship with her already subjugated territories and the allied troops from these territories that Rome required. In particular, the next chapter seeks to expose a critique of

Rome’s reliance on allied soldiers in the second century BCE whereby Gnatho represents a cives miles and Thraso a socius miles. My methodology will remain the same, relying on the same provocative dynamic of character introspection and extraspection to support my claims. Thraso, the miles gloriosus stock character, compares himself to Hercules and likens Thais, the meretrix, to Omphale (Eunuchus 1027). Hercules, the epitome of 54 belligerent masculinity, is enslaved in the Omphale myth and engages in activities that undermine his masculinity and position of control. The parallel essentially grafts this mythological version of Hercules, an enslaved hero, onto the stock miles gloriosus to create a unique character who represents a socius miles in Terence’s time. Gnatho, the play’s parasitus stock character, compares himself to Sisyphus and equates Thraso to

Sisyphus’ rock (Eunuchus 1085). This parallel, which grafts the cunning Sisyphus onto the freeloading parasite, reveals an ironic point-of-view in which Gnatho feels burdened by the relationship between himself, the parasite, and Thraso, the parasite’s host. Gnatho relies on Thraso to maintain his lavish lifestyle at no cost to himself, a situation comparable to Rome’s demands of its allies who had to provide for, arm, and feed their own troops for Roman use, without any financial support from Rome.106 Gnatho’s self- righteous feelings of burden reveal a plausible Roman reaction to the incorporation of foreign soldiers into its ranks. This analysis will demonstrate that when making changes to the paradigmatic nature of the stock characters Thraso and Gnatho, Terence draws attention to the type of Roman soldier each one represents, either the ciuis or socius miles. Moreover, their dramatic relationship can be read metaphorically for Rome’s parasitical relationship with its socii milites whereby the socii took on all the burdens of war for Rome while Rome provided nothing of substance in return.

106 Gabba 1989. 55


A Soldier and his Parasite: Roman Reliance on socii milites

This chapter aims to expand upon the previous chapter’s discussion of character development and socio-historical in Terence’s Eunuchus by exploring the meaningful development of the miles gloriosus and parasitus “stock characters,” Thraso and Gnatho. Terence constructs these original dramatic characters by blending New

Comedy stock characters together with burlesqued mythological figures. He uses the same process to develop Thraso and Gnatho as he did Chaerea: mythological parallel through which the essential characteristics of the dramatic character are spliced with those of the mythological figure.107 In the previous chapter I demonstrate how Terence develops the soldier Chaerea’s adulescens amator stock character into a sexual predator by revealing his inner thoughts, intentions and justifications for the rape of Pamphila through the character’s self-comparison to the mythological figure, Jupiter. This process is Terence’s innovative variation of mythological burlesque by which he transforms

Chaerea not only into an adulescens amator, but also a Jupiter who possesses a unique combination of character traits associated with each of the two figures. In an entirely similar manner, Terence splices Thraso, the miles gloriosus, with Hercules and then

Gnatho, the parasitus, with Sisyphus. In the play, both characters identify themselves and their positions in Roman society through self-professed comparisons to Greek mythological figures and situations.

107 See Chapter 1 for a full discussion of Chaerea’s character development and mythological parallel to Jupiter. 56

In this chapter I continue to argue for the actual process of character development in terms of “the dynamic of introspection and extraspection” through which the characters expose particular desires, mindsets, ethics, and their self-perceived societal positions.108 Terence creates identities for these characters that are revealed through introspection and extraspection; this chapter seeks to expose how these identities showcase the Roman roles that influence their points-of-view and stimulate their personal desires. Terence’s method of character development expresses a stern critique of Roman political and military institutions.109 Specifically, through the relationship between

Thraso and Gnatho, Terence criticizes Roman dependence upon and exploitation of

“allied” soldiers in Rome’s military following the Italian Wars (327-220 BCE) during the course of which the bulk of Italy fell under Roman political control: Italian territories were plundered, confiscated as ager publicus (public land), and were established as

Roman colonies.110 William Harris emphasizes that, after Italian territories became

Roman allies, “the allied states had to finance large contingents to fight for the Roman state, but had no prospect, as states, of obtaining plunder and indemnities.”111 In addition,

108 “The dynamic of introspection and extraspection” explains the processes by which the stock character is developed during a mythological parallel. The introspective process is facilitated by a dramatic character’s self-comparison to a mythological figure in specific relation to another mythological figure. The extraspective process is facilitated by the same introspective character’s comparison of another dramatic character to the other mythological figure. As discussed in Chapter 1, Chaerea doesn’t compare himself to Jupiter in general; rather, he compares himself and the character Pamphila specifically to Jupiter and Danae whom he seduces by disguising himself and infiltrating her house. 109 It is a trend in recent scholarship to discount socio-historical and historico-political allegory in New Comedy in general and even more so in Terence specifically. Gruen 2014: 602 refers to such endeavors as a “parlor game”; however, he concedes, “[t]he plays may not be reflections of reality, but they do present the playwrights’ reflections of reality.” Fontaine 2014a: 422 compares the practice to “conspiracy theories,” because, “with a few connections and a little ingenuity, they are easily devised, hard to disclaim and, despite an author’s best protestations, impossible to disprove.” However, Fontaine 2014b: 542 makes no hesitation in arguing that within Terence’s plays there are references to certain contemporary circumstances surrounding performance such as the Megalensian Games and the funeral of Lucius Aemelius Paullus (229- 160 BCE), a who conquered Macedon and put an end to the Antigonid dynasty at the battle of Pydna (168 BCE). 110 Harris 1979: 59-61. 111 Harris 1979: 62. 57 through his development of Gnatho, Terence criticizes recent Roman laws such as the expulsion of philosophers in 161 BCE as well as sumptuary laws that aimed at restricting

Roman luxury and excess.

Furthermore, the dramatic relationship between Thraso and Gnatho in Terence’s

Eunuchus, produced for the Megalensian Games in 161 BCE, suggests a parallel to the historical relationship between Rome and its subjugated territories. Specifically, I claim that these characters typify the relationship between Rome (and its citizen-soldiers) and the allied-soldiers demanded as a part of Italian subjugation.112 New Comedy at Rome was produced during the series of Punic Wars (264-146 BCE) that saw the expansion of

Rome unlike any other era before it.113 As a result, the qualifications for service in

Rome’s military changed dramatically during this time. No longer did the consist exclusively of the wealthiest Roman citizens, but now consisted of socii milites, the non-citizen allied troops from recently subjugated territories.114 Around the time of

112 Gabba 1989: 221-2 notes, “Latin and Italian allies were obliged to meet Rome’s requests for contingents of troops under the laws establishing colonies and under individual treaties, which will have laid down the two parties’ reciprocal obligations to give military assistance and the services to be rendered by the allies…the allied communities were entered in a kind of military register or roll, the so-called formula togatorum, which formed the basis of Rome’s annual demands for the required allied contingents.” Potter 2014: 58 clarifies, “The alliance system…gave Rome the ability to mobilize the manpower of its allies with unprecedented efficiency.” He also defines the terms of these alliances, that they “establish peace between Rome and the other signatory and stipulate that each shall assist the other with armed force if attacked…the levying of troops from allies and Latin colonies became an annual event as Rome’s wide-ranging interests and obligations made annual campaigns, and eventually a standing army, a necessity” (240). 113 Lazenby 2014: 260 explains, “before the first [Punic War], Rome was a purely Italian power and its forces had never operated outside peninsular Italy; by the end of the last, its armies had fought in Sicily, Africa, Albania, France, Spain, Greece, and Turkey, and it had acquired its first provinces in Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and Africa and now dominated the Mediterranean world.” Cornell 1995: 381 examines Rome’s economic development leading up to the First Punic War (264 BCE) and notes, “Rome’s increasing prosperity is reflected in the development of the city and the growth of its population. The profits of conquest, in the form of booty and indemnities, were used to finance a programme of public building on a scale that had not been seen since the great age of the Tarquins.” 114 Potter 2014: 58 clarifies that following the defeat of the in 338 BCE, “Rome would no longer deal with the Latin League as a military institution. Instead, each city would have an individual treaty with Rome specifying the contribution the it would henceforth make to the Roman army.” Gabba 1989: 222 argues that in the time following the Second Punic War, “there are many indications that the Roman 58

Terence’s literary output (166-161 BCE) the Roman army was heavily reliant on the use of socii. In fact, the total number of socii serving with the Roman army likely outnumbered the citizen-soldiers three to one.115 Rachel Vishnia notes: “The disinclination of the rich [citizens] to serve, while fully enjoying the remunerations of war, shifted the military burden…to Rome’s allies and to less affluent citizens”116

Rome’s Social War in 90 BCE shows that within approximately seventy years after

Terence’s literary output (166-160 BCE) the political friction caused by parasitic Roman dependence on socii milites would eventually prove to be detrimental to Rome’s social make-up.117 The following analysis explores the development of Thraso and Gnatho from their respective stock characters into individuals who, I argue, represent an allied-soldier and a citizen-soldier. The chapter concludes with the suggestion that these developed characters can be read as a socio-historical allegory for Rome’s reliance on socii milites in the second century BCE wherein Rome demanded copious amounts of allied soldiers who had to be armed and cared for without any financial assistance from Rome.118

This chapter demonstrates how Terence’s comic and burlesqued figures of his dramatic world exhibit a strong correspondence with Rome’s larger social and political realities of the mid second century BCE that are beyond mere coincidence. The first half

government tended to place the greater part of the military burden on the allies … [whose military] participation now meant involvement as subordinates in a policy of expansion.” 115 Kendall 2013: 81 conjectures that at this time the total number of socii serving with the Roman army likely outnumbered citizen soldiers 3:1. Gabba 1989: 222 argues that the ratio of allied troops to Roman soldiers would have varied over history, but that around the time of the Second Punic War and Terence’s literary output there were either two or three times as many allies as there were Roman soldiers. 116 Vishnia 1996: 162. 117 Lomas 2014: 254 explains that in 90 BCE a majority of Roman allies “revolted and formed a breakaway state centered at the Apennine community of Corfinium. ...The result of this short but bitter conflict was that Rome was forced to grant citizenship to all Italian communities south of the river Po, thus creating a politically unified Italy for the first time.” 118 Gabba 1989: 229 argues, “the financial burden on the allied communities deriving from their responsibility for the pay of their troops will have fallen increasingly on the upper classes.”

59 of this chapter analyzes Terence’s development of Thraso through introspection and extraspection, which act through a mythological parallel. Section 2.1 looks into Thraso’s position as a miles gloriosus stock character and sections 2.2 and 2.3 discuss the literary history of the Hercules myth to which Thraso compares himself as well as the mythological parallel. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 trace Terence’s non-conventional treatment of the miles gloriosus and consider how Thraso represents a Roman socius miles in the

Middle Republic. The second half of this chapter analyzes Terence’s development of

Gnatho, the parasitus. Sections 2.6 and 2.7 examine Gnatho’s role as a parasitus,

Gnatho’s self-comparison to Sisyphus, and the literary history of Sisyphus in mythology.

Section 2.8 describes Terence’s defiance of convention through his development of

Gnatho, and section 2.9 suggests that Gnatho can be interpreted as a civis miles. Section

2.10 offers an interpretation of how all of the previous sections react to and comment upon the socio-historical relationship between Rome and its recently subjugated territories in the second century BCE as well as other concluding remarks.

2.1. Thraso as Miles Gloriosus

The Eunuchus focuses on the two adulescentes amatores Phaedria and Chaerea who also feature as part of the play’s double plot. The first plot follows Phaedria who is hopelessly in love with the beautiful and foreign meretrix next door, Thais, and competes for her affections with another of her clients, Thraso, Terence’s sole miles gloriosus character of his extant corpus. Thraso gifts Thais with Pamphila, a citizen who has been sold into slavery before the time of the play and introduced as an ancilla who will become Chaerea’s love interest and whose relationship constitutes the play’s second plot. 60

Chaerea, in the end, resolves his half of the play’s double-plot by his resolution to marry

Pamphila. Phaedria resolves his half of the double-plot when his father enters into a patron-client relationship with Thais, ensuring her affection for his son.119 Although this would be a suitable stock ending within the New Comedy genre, as in Plautus’ Miles

Gloriosus wherein the rival, Pyrgopolynices, loses his love interest to the amator and is left on stage beaten up and humiliated, Terence does not end the Eunuchus play here.

Rather, he escalates the confusion further when the amator, Phaedria, is convinced by

Thraso’s parasitus, Gnatho, to allow Thraso to continue his relationship with Thais on the condition that he continues to endow his largess upon her, thus saving Phaedria from spending too much money on her.120 Goldberg interprets the play’s ending, being

“Thraso’s reward for his foolishness,” as an example of Terence rejecting conventional stock elements.121

Terence defies the conventions of New Comedy characters by not adhering to all of the typical features of a stock miles gloriosus.122 Thraso has moments of insightfulness, which contradict the character’s foolishness; Terence never represents

Thraso as physically overpowered in a fight, and the soldier’s overall demeanor is not remarkably boastful of his military excellence. Instead, Thraso compares himself to

Hercules and Thais, the meretrix, to Omphale. The mythological parallel occurs when

119 Saller 1982:1 defines a patron as “a person who uses his influence to assist and protect some other person, who becomes his ‘client,’ and in return provides certain services to his patron.” Williams 2012: 48- 9 explains that there is a necessary mutual benefit derived from the patron-client relationship and friendship in general. Wallace-Hadrill 1989: 223 notes that this relationship “can function as the prime mechanism in the allocation of scarce resources and the dominant means of legitimizing the social order.” In the play’s context, Phaedria’s father entering into such a social contract with her legitimizes Thais’ social status. In return for her elevated social status, as it seems, Thais will provide Phaedria with a sexual relationship. 120 Goldberg 1986: 120 argues, “Gnatho brings Thraso and Phaedria together by satisfying what has become the idealism of the soldier and the materialism of the young man. Thraso is willing to share; Phaedria realizes that he must.” 121 Goldberg 1986: 16. 122 The stock features of the miles gloriosus character are discussed in section 2.4. 61

Thraso explains to his parasitus Gnatho why they have gone after Thais when Phaedria’s father has already become her patron and Thraso’s situation as a suitor seems hopeless:

[THR.] egone? ut Thaidi me dedam et faciam quod iubeat. qui minu’ quam Hercules seruiuit Omphale?

[THR.] Me? [I came] to surrender myself to Thais and to do whatever she orders. How [could I want to serve Thais] less than Hercules served Omphale? (Eunuchus 1026-7)123

Thraso’s language in these lines is strong and militaristic; the verb dedo “hand over” in military contexts is the technical term for surrender, and the verb iubeo “order,” with its military overtones, effortlessly ranks Thais as Thraso’s commanding officer.124 In doing so, he upsets military protocol by allowing himself, a ranking officer, to be placed under the authority of a foreign prostitute.125 Hercules is usually the epitome of belligerent masculinity, but in the Omphale myth he is enslaved and engages in activities that undermine his masculinity and position of control/battlefield advantage. The parallel effectively splices this mythological version of Hercules, a subjugated hero, onto the stock figure of the miles gloriosus and thereby creates a unique character who simultaneously identifies with dominating and being dominated. Terence’s development of Thraso’s character can be read as a socio-historical allegory that represents a socius miles in Terence’s time.126 Specifically, I argue that Thraso’s character can be read

123 All Latin cited is taken from Kauer and Lindsay 1965. This and all subsequent translations are my own. 124 See OLD, s.v. dedo and iubeo. 125 Thraso’s rank in the Roman military can be observed when Gnatho refers to him as the leader of a century, as will be discussed in section 2.3. 126 Goldberg 1986: 116 following the notes of Donatus, suggests that Thraso is a “rivalis [soldier], not socius, because Thraso is an opponent easily beaten.” However, Thraso is never shown beaten physically and in the end he achieves his primary objective as it has been laid out in the play: he is allowed to continue his romantic relationship with Thais. 62 metaphorically as representing one of Rome’s allied troops who served in the Roman army before and during the time of Terence’s literary output.

2.2. Hercules and Omphale: Terence’s Burlesque

Because Thraso identifies with Hercules in the Omphale myth, a brief overview of the myth’s literary history helps determine the specific Herculean attributes with which

Thraso identifies. The myth’s details about gender roles and expectations, particularly

Hercules’ assumption of women’s domestic work (and even women’s clothing!), play a significant role in my analysis. The story generally follows that Hercules was willingly sold into slavery for killing Iphitus and bought by Omphale, the Queen of Lydia. During his time with Omphale, Hercules killed or captured the Cercopes, killed the

Syleus and his daughter, leveled Itoni, and destroyed a giant snake which was disturbing

Lydia. As Fowler asserts: “The spectacle of the most manly of Greek heroes doing time as a slave to a woman, and a foreign one at that, is one of the most striking in Greek mythology.”127 Some accounts also include details about the relationship between

Hercules and Omphale, for example, switching clothes with each other and engaging in activities that subvert societal gender roles, such as Hercules spinning thread and

Omphale beating him with her slipper.128 These details appear primarily in later accounts such as the erotic elegy of and Ovid’s Fasti, as well as Seneca’s Phaedra and

127 Fowler 2013: 320. 128 According to Ovid, cultibus Alciden instruit illa suis (“she [Omphale] dressed up the grandson of Alceus in her own clothes,” Fasti 2.318). Cyrino 1998: 211 notes, “Greek sources also record that gender reversal was a feature of some wedding ceremonies, where it was customary for both bride and groom temporarily to assume the dress and activities of the opposite sex.” 63

Hercules Oetaeus.129 However, there are fragments from Omphale, a fifth-century satyr- play by Ion that “refutes those critics who wish to make the episode a late or ‘Hellenistic’ addition to the .”130 The details of the myth, such as spinning and cross- dressing, are also attested by earlier Greek vase paintings. For example, “On an amphora stylistically close to Exekias, Queen Omphale is shown sitting on her throne, wearing

Herakles’ lion-skin and holding his bow in her left hand…Herakles appears to be standing in front of her, playing the kithara.”131 Terence’s Eunuchus itself confirms the detail about Omphale beating Hercules with her slipper.132

Diodorus Siculus, during the Late Republic, offers an account of the myth that highlights Hercules’ willing subjection to female domination. However, it leaves out the details concerning transvestism and his engagement with activities that contradict his masculine demeanor:

ἐκεῖ δ᾽ ὑποµείνας ἑκουσίως ὑπό τινος τῶν φίλων ἐπράθη, καὶ παρθένου δοῦλος ἐγένετο Ὀµφάλης τῆς Ἰαρδάνου, βασιλευούσης τῶν τότε Μαιόνων, νῦν δὲ Λυδῶν ὀνοµαζοµένων. καὶ τὴν µὲν τιµὴν ὁ ἀποδόµενος τὸν Ἡρακλέα τοῖς Ἰφίτου παισὶν ἀπέδωκε κατὰ τὸν χρησµόν, ὁ δ᾽ Ἡρακλῆς ὑγιασθεὶς καὶ δουλεύων τῇ Ὀµφάλῃ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν χώραν λῃστεύοντας ἐκόλασε. ἡ δ᾽ Ὀµφάλη ἀποδεχοµένη τὴν ἀνδρείαν τὴν Ἡρακλέους, καὶπυθοµένη τίς ἐστι καὶ τίνων, ἐθαύµασε τὴν ἀρετήν, ἐλεύθερον δ᾽ἀφεῖσα καὶ συνοικήσασα αὐτῷ Λάµον ἐγέννησε.

129 Propertius 3.11.17-20, 4.9.47-60; Ovid’s Fasti 2.303-358; Seneca’s 371-317, and Phaedra 317-24. 130 Cyrino 1998: 219. The surviving fragments of Ion’s Ὀµφάλη σάτυροι can be found in TrGF 1 (19) frr. 17-33, the most pertinent of which (21) reads, ἐνιαυσίαν γὰρ δεῖ µε τὴν ὁρτὴν ἄγειν (“I need to spend a year making holiday”). Other early references to the myth include Sophocles Trachiniae 68-70, 252-253. 131 Schefold and Giuliani, 1992: 158. See also Fowler 2013: 320 who confirms the appearance of these details in fourth-century Greek art and adds: “Transvestism in Greek cult may have provided some inspiration for this development in myth (Ovid in the Fasti links it to the Roman Lupercalia, as a reason for not cross-dressing), but in its earliest form, where it is linked to an especially vile crime, the punishment is one of necessary severity and humiliation, and only on the most general grounds might one surmise that the myth was aetiological; there is no direct evidence in this case.” 132 After Thraso tells Gnatho of his desire to serve Thais just like Hercules served Omphale, Gnatho, in an aside adds, utinam tibi commitigari videam sandalio caput! (“I wish I could see your head hit with a sandal!” Eunuchus 1028). 64

There [in Asia], submitting himself willingly, [Herakles] was sold by one of his friends, and he became the slave of the unmarried Omphale, daughter of Iardanus, she who rules over who were then called the Maeonians, now the Lydians. And the man who delivered over Herakles [into slavery] gave payment to the sons of Iphitus according to the oracle, and since Herakles was healed and serving Omphale he punished the men throughout the land who practice robbery. Omphale approved of the bravery of Herakles, and after learning who he was and from what [parents], she marveled at his excellence and after setting him free and cohabitating with him she gave birth to Lamus. ( 4.31.5-6; 4.31.8)133

This passage highlights Hercules’ willingness to submit, a trait with which Thraso particularly identifies, as well as Omphale’s foreign status, which Thraso links to Thais, as well as their romantic relationship that Thraso wishes to emulate. In Pseudo-

Apollodoros’ version of the myth additional details are added. He writes that after

Hercules unsuccessfully robs Apollo’s temple, the Pythia gives an oracle that Hercules could rid himself of his disease by being sold into slavery for three years and paying the sons of Iphitus the money from the sale. Omphale then buys Hercules from Hermes and

Hercules continues to perform minor labors while in her service.134 In general, the most striking features of this myth are that Hercules willingly submits himself to slavery and that during his servitude, whether he cross-dressed and spun thread or not, he continues to conquer Herculean labors and prove his sexual virility.135 These are the characteristics with which Thraso identifies: he strongly desires a relationship with Thais in which, although he is made subordinate to her, he can continue to display masculine feats of military aggression and sexual potency.

133 Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 4.31.5, 6, and 8. The translation is my own. 134 Bibliotheca 2.6.3. 135 Ancient sources note that fathered a son with Omphale, but do not agree on his name: he is named Lamos (Ovid Fasti 9.54), Agelaus (Pseudo-Apollodorus Bibliotheca 2.7.8), or even Tyrsenus ( 2.21.3). Herodotus (1.7) speaks of a Heraclid dynasty in Lydia tracing its decent from Heracles and “a slave woman of Irdanus,” a figure perhaps to be identified with Omphale in other traditions. 65

Although Homer does not specifically refer to the Omphale myth, I turn to

Homeric descriptions of Heracles because, as a canonical text, the Iliad seems to have informed Terence’s characterization of Thraso.136 This brief reference to Heracles showcases his incredible martial abilities of siege and plunder:

ἀλλ᾽ οἷόν τινά φασι βίην Ἡρακληείην εἶναι, ἐµὸν πατέρα θρασυµέµνονα θυµολέοντα: ὅς ποτε δεῦρ᾽ ἐλθὼν ἕνεχ᾽ ἵππων Λαοµέδοντος ἓξ οἴῃς σὺν νηυσὶ καὶ ἀνδράσι παυροτέροισιν Ἰλίου ἐξαλάπαξε πόλιν, χήρωσε δ᾽ ἀγυιάς.

But some say that he was the sort of man of Heraclean might, [Heracles] my father, the lion-hearted stand-your-ground-man: who then upon arriving here on account of the Laomedian horses with only six ships and rather few men, sacked the Trojan city and plundered the streets. (Iliad 5.641-2)137

This passage equates Heracles’ ability to stand his ground and his ability to sack a town with few men. Thraso embarks on a smaller-scale mission with his attempted siege of

Thais’ house in search of Pamphila. Terence changed the names of both Thraso and

Gnatho from Menander’s Kolax, from which source Terence claims to have taken both characters. The Kolax names its soldier Bias, or “brute force.” I suggest that there is an association between Thraso’s character and the Homeric Heracles. This association is more explicitly made when Thraso makes his introspective comparison between himself and the hero. The Homeric epithet for Heracles is θρασυµέµνων “the man who boldly stands his ground.” 138 Given Thraso’s explicit self-comparison to Hercules and his name

136 Schefold and Giuliani 1992: 182 argue, “we can infer the existence of an in the Homeric style about Herakles’ passionate love-life.” 137 The text of Homer is from Monro and Allen 1920. The translation is my own. 138 Iliad 5.639; Odyssey 11.267. 66

Thraso (which means “braggart” or “bold one”), I propose that Heracles’ Homeric epithet influenced the naming of this miles gloriosus character.139

Thraso spins the myth into a sort of burlesque by comparing his desire to be a prostitute’s love-slave to the situation of Hercules’ expiatory services for a queen.140

Thraso isn’t the first character in the Eunuchus to associate Thais with royalty. Phaedria informs us that Thais desires the status of a regina for herself, explaining why she wanted a eunuch in the first place.141 The mythic figure of Omphale, who, as an actual queen, had real political power, is also burlesqued by the comparison to a common meretrix whose only power over Thraso lies in her desirability to him. Evoking Hercules in this myth brands Thraso as a subordinated would-be tough-guy. Thraso’s character is a distorted, burlesqued version of the Heracles character from the myth; Terence created this character by blending the of New Comedy and literary mythology together while infusing them with contemporary details.142 Terence creates his own version of burlesque with Thraso and Hercules, as he did with Chaerea and Jupiter, by casting a dramatic figure as a mythic hero.143

2.3. Thraso: a Soldier Compared to Hercules

The plot of the Eunuchus illuminates some of the more prevalent features attributed to Hercules in mythology, such as his brute force and liminal status as a man who occupies a social position of being both divine and mortal, as well as his atypical

139 The name Thraso is derived from the Greek noun θράσος (“courage, boldness,” even “over-boldness”) or from the adjective θρασύς (“bold, confident, rash,”): Liddell and Scott 1996. 140 For a description of the Greek genre of mythological burlesque, see Chapter 1, footnote 33. 141 Thais’ reason for desiring a eunuch was, quia solae utuntur his reginae (“because only queens use them,” Eunuchus 168). 142 The contemporary details which are infused with the character will be discussed in section 2.6. 143 For Terence’s burlesque of Chaerea cast as the god Jupiter, see Chapter 1, section 1.2. 67 relationship with Omphale. Just as the play sets up a parallel situation between Chaerea and Jupiter of the Danaë myth (discussed in Chapter 1), the mythological parallel between Thraso and Hercules highlights Thraso’s self-effacing desires to be dominated by a woman as well as his liminal status as a lover and a soldier, as a foreigner and a

Roman ally. Burkert comments on the liminality of Hercules as a mythological figure:

“The wall which separates [gods and heroes] is impermeable: no god is a hero, and no hero becomes a god; only Dionysos and Heracles were able to defy this principle.”144

Hercules is all about liminal states and boundary crossing: he is the son of a god and a mortal, he is a hero who ultimately becomes a god, and in the Omphale myth, Hercules is made subordinate, even effeminate, but still dominates his enemies and expresses his virility by impregnating Omphale. Fowler, speaking about the Omphale myth and subversion of gender roles, notes: “The story reveals both the harshness of Greek gender stereotypes and anxiety about them; it also illustrates the astounding capacity of this figure [Herakles], no less than Dionysos, to combine (but not to reconcile) opposites.”145

Terence’s character, Thraso, embodies the dual gendered characterization of Hercules from the Omphale myth and his status as both a foreigner (peregrinus) and a Roman soldier demonstrates Hercules’ mortal/divine dichotomy. Thraso fits into both worlds, but does not wholly fit into either.

In the play, Thraso becomes jealous of Thais’ suitors and decides that he will take back Pamphila, the girl whom he had purchased for her, even if he must do so by force.

144 Burkert 1985: 205. Burkert also notes that Dionysos can identify, as well as clash, with multiple gods and argues, “Dionysos eludes definition and for this very reason his relations to the other Olympian gods are ambivalent and indeed paradoxical: proximity becomes the secret of the mysteries, antithesis turns into identity” (222). Thraso’s liminal and paradoxical identities can be found in the figures of both Hercules and . 145 Fowler 2013: 320-1. 68

In an attempt to get her back, Thraso ineffectively lays siege to Thais’ house just before

Thraso’s comparison of himself to Hercules and Thais to Omphale. Thraso’s siege is similar to Hercules’ unsuccessful ransacking of the oracle at before his enslavement to Omphale. Like Hercules, Thraso’s first instinct is violence. His incompetence and rag-tag army fits the character of a stereotypical miles gloriosus, however, since he never actually starts the siege and is comically thwarted. Rather, when

Thais goes inside her house and it is revealed that Pamphila is a citizen, Thraso dismisses his troops and leaves (Eunuchus 805-815). Hercules is lampooned by Thraso’s comparison, his superhuman strength and boldness is mocked by Thraso’s general cowardice and desire to submit himself to a prostitute.146 The description of Thraso made by Sanga, his cook-turned-soldier during the siege of Thais’ house, is comparable to the

Homeric description of Hercules from the Iliad previously discussed:147

[SA.] egon? imperatoris uirtutem noueram et uim militum: sine sanguine hoc non posse fieri…

[SA.] Me? I knew about the general’s [i.e. Thraso’s] merit and the army’s strength: this [siege] can’t happen without bloodshed… (Eunuchus 778-9)

The first lines of both passages place an emphasis on physical and martial strength; βίην

Ἡρακληείην (Iliad 5.641) is the same notion expressed by imperatoris uirtutem noueram et uim militum, because uirtutem and uim together take on the meaning of the Greek work

βίην. The noun uis carries the same notion of bodily strength as βία, while uirtus captures

146 Austin 1921: 114 suggests that naming the miles θράσων was done ironically, calling attention to his “amusing precautions and eagerness to arbitrate and willingness to surrender.” Many scholars call attention to the name’s metatheatrically significant etymological function, as a miles gloriosus character could be identified by a name meaning “forceful” or “bold.” Brown 1987 discusses names and masks used as a general indication of a New Comedy stock character and argues, “the [Greek or Roman] audience has certain expectations that a character with a particular name will be of a certain age, sex and status” (192). 147 The passage is discussed in section 2.2. 69 the masculine quality of that strength.148 Thraso’s military prowess is put to the test in the following passage where Thraso undermines Roman military formation when he takes a

Pyrrhic offensive strategy and applies it to a Roman maniple.

[THR.] tu hosce instrue. ego hic ero post principia: inde omnibus signum dabo. [GN.] illuc est sapere: ut hosce instruxit, ipse sibi cauit loco. [THR]. idem hoc iam Pyrrhus factitauit.

[THR.] You, draw up [the troops]. I’ll [station myself] here behind the first rank: from that position I’ll give the signal. [GN.] That’s smart thinking, right there: as he drew up these [troops], he protects himself by his position. [THR.] Pyrrhus always used to use this same [military tactic]. (Eunuchus 781-3)

The miles gloriosus’ reference to Pyrrhus recalls the Roman war against Pyrrhus (280-

275 BCE) and the employment of his infamous Pyrrhic tactics.149 In accordance with my interpretation of Thraso as a socius miles, his reference to the Pyrrhic war, in which both armies relied heavily on such allies, highlights Terence’s topical critique on the excessive reliance upon Rome’s allies.150 Thraso compares himself to Hercules and Thais to

Omphale (Eunuchus 1027) only after his unsuccessful siege of her house (Eunuchus 771-

148 The the noun uir, “man,” is the etymological root of uirtus and this fact supports the translation of “manliness” or even “one’s masculine worth.” Maltby 1991: 649 cites Varro who wrote ut viritus a virilitate (“that manliness is a manly thing sprung from manhood”). 149 Pyrrhus was from Epirus and, as Rawlings 2007: 46 notes, he was “trained in the arts of Hellenistic warfare, with his army of 25,000 men and 20 elephants.” Goldsworthy 2003: 164 summarizes that Pyrrhus was “hired by Tarentum to fight against Rome [and he] defeated two Roman armies before finally succumbing in a third, hard-fought battle.” Barsby 1999: 233 suggests that these lines reference actual Roman military positions wherein the young troops are placed in the front ranks, the higher ranking troops behind them, and if absolutely necessary the veteran troops take the rear. 150Rawlings 2007: 52 suggests that Rome’s victory over Pyrrhus was due to their organization and integration of socii troops. Erdkamp 2007: 101 cites the war against Pyrrhus, in which he was aided by Italian allies, as a prime example of Italian defection from the Roman army. Hoyos 2004: 74 discusses how Pyrrhus’ tactics of placing Italian maniples before his phalanx brigades were effective but resulted in “dispiriting attrition to his own side.” Gabba 1989: 2014 notes that in the context of Roman military organization, “the allied contingents are depicted as integrated and homogeneous parts of the Roman army.” 70

816) when all hope of a continued relationship between himself and Thais seems lost. It is then discovered that Thais has entered into a formal patron-client relationship with

Phaedria’s father (Eunuchus 1039).151 Thraso’s position at this particular point in the plot parallels Hercules’ position in the myth when he has unsuccessfully robbed Apollo’s temple and knows that his only salvation can be found in servitude. Because Thraso’s siege of Thais’ house was unsuccessful and because Thais has been placed into an elevated social position, Thraso is able to compare his relationship with Thais as Hercules with Omphale. Before this point, Thraso’s relationship as a client of Thais, the meretrix, does not constitute a logical parallel.

The Hercules myth introspectively informs the audience of Thraso’s self-image.

Hercules is usually the epitome of manliness, but, in making the comparison to a particular myth, Thraso chooses the one myth that de-masculinizes the characteristically ferocious hero. I suggest that Thraso consciously characterizes himself in this way and, in the process, distances himself from the stock miles gloriosus, who typically represents a soldier who views himself as the full embodiment of masculinity and heroism. Thraso is represented as effeminate and subordinate in his relationship with Thais, while she is portrayed as a dominant meretrix, or regina. This reversal of gender roles inverts the

Roman virtue of masculinity. Thraso, like Hercules, is a warrior who should represent military vis but, as a burlesqued version of the myth, desires to be comically dominated by a woman.

During the same mythological parallel in which Thraso is personally developed by introspection, he impersonally characterizes Thais by extraspection; in other words,

151 Starks 2013: 145 argues, “both Phormio and Thais, lower-class clients and intermediaries among the privileged class, seek, foster, even reconstitute the nexus of paternalistic, aristocratic patronage.” 71

Thraso tells the audience that Thais is just like Omphale, a mistress of Hercules, who famously occupied a dominant position. Thais, however, is neither Thraso’s mistress nor in any real position of power. Her only power is the apparent hold she has on Thraso as a prostitute. Thais is characterized by Thraso’s extraspection only in terms of the way she is perceived by him. The parallel tells us nothing about the real Thais as presented by

Terence, since the extraspective parallel says more about Thraso than it does Thais. For example, Thais has nothing to do with the military; however, because Thraso does not separate himself from military institutions and attitudes about relationships in terms of domination and subordination, he associates Thais with a queen in the parallel and at another time as his commanding officer.

Terence develops and Romanizes the stock character Thraso first by equating the stock miles gloriosus with the Roman Hercules, not the Greek Herakles, and second by using terminology which belongs to the Roman military. In the following passage, which occurs during the siege of Thais’ house, Thraso informs us that his cook Sanga is acting as a centurion:

[THR.] ubi centuriost Sanga et manipulus furum?

[THR.] Where is Sanga the centurion and his maniple of thugs? (Eunuchus 775)

The military terminology used here is explicitly Roman, since centurio and manipulus are technical terms that, respectively, describe a Roman military-ranking officer and his military unit.152 The fact that Thraso is the commander of the centurion at this time makes him , a technical term meaning “general,” which has at this point already

152 See OLD, s.v. centurio and manipulus. 72 been formally applied to him by Parmeno, the slave of Thraso’s rival, Phaedria.153 He claims justification for his willingness to undermine Roman military institutions as well as ideals of masculinity from a precedent set by the subversive relationship between

Hercules and Omphale. In this section, then, we have seen that Thraso’s character, like

Hercules, inhabits a sort of liminal state of being a Roman miles and yet not a Roman citizen. He is a dominant soldier who is willingly and consciously dominated by a woman, but simultaneously envisions that he retains his military virility and sexual potency in the process.

2.4. Defying Conventions: Thraso’s Character Development

Terence manipulates the miles gloriosus stock character by grafting a burlesqued

Hercules character onto it. When the two figures are combined, it exposes intimate details about the character’s point-of-view and societal position. In New Comedy in general, the miles gloriosus was a free man without citizenship or land who was a mercenary soldier by profession.154 Thraso is the only type of this character represented in the entire

Terentian corpus. He is set apart from the stereotypical miles gloriosus, such as

Pyrgopolynices in Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus, who incessantly brags about his military exploits. Terence calls attention to the gloriosus when Phaedria’s trusty slave,

Parmeno, trying to encourage Thais to choose Phaedria over Thraso, falsely links Thraso

153 The reference Parmeno makes is, “it’s not at all proper for a general to walk together in the street with a girlfriend” (haud conuenit una ire cum amica imperatorem in uia, Eunuchus 495). 154 Hunter 1985: 66 notes that the comic soldier portrays a mercenary soldier and suggests, “the pomposity of the soldier is associated with the pomposity of tragedy and the two are combined in the figure of the war-loving Aeschylus in Frogs” (163 fn 18). Leigh 2004: 134 observes, “the boastful soldier habitually enters the stage from abroad and lives from one peregrination to another in the mercenary service of whichever king can pay his hire. He never fights in the defence of his own community.” Gruen 2014: 602 points out that the mercenary soldier would have been common in Hellenic warfare but uncommon in the Roman military. 73 to the generic characteristics of a stock miles gloriosus. This is a form of metatheatrical extraspection by which I mean, specifically, one dramatic character telling the audience that another dramatic character is, by all intents and purposes, a specific stock character.

Parmeno employs another instance of metatheatrical extraspection when he inappropriately classifies Thais as a stereotypical mala meretrix who will manipulate

Phaedria’s emotions entirely for her own gain (Eunuchus 65-70). This instance of metatheatrical extraspection develops Thraso’s character only in a superficial way and is presented entirely from Parmeno’s perspective:

[PA.] neque pugnas narrat neque cicatrices suas ostentat neque tibi obstat, quod quidam facit.

[Phaedria] neither rambles about battles nor shows of his scars nor stands in your way, which a certain guy [i.e. Thraso] does. (Eunuchus 482-3)

This description fits the stereotypes associated with the miles gloriosus in New Comedy before Terence, that is, telling battle stories and showing off battle wounds.155 In actuality, Terence never presents Thraso showing off scars or babbling about battles.

Instead, Thraso boasts about how funny, entitled, and well-liked he is. The closest to a war antic he describes is a bar fight he gets into while presumably stationed at Rhodes.156

Thraso focuses on his people-pleasing skills and how well he has been received in the past in the following passage:

[THR.] rex semper maxumas mihi agebat quidquid feceram: aliis non item.

155 For example, Pyrgopolynices, the soldier in Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus, begins the play by boasting about many of his military achievements (Miles Gloriosus 1-77). 156 Eunuchus 419-21. For the discussion of this passage, see section 2.5 below. 74

[THR.] The king always used to give great [thanks] to me for whatever I did: to others, not so much. (Eunuchus 397-8)

Instead of boasting about how bravely he fought or how he crushed a brave enemy,

Thraso boasts about his social skills. Again, Thraso does not list his military achievements, but only that he was well received and well rewarded. This type of boasting is not typical of the miles gloriosus stock character.

Pyrgopolynices is the braggart soldier in Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus and serves as a helpful comparison to Thraso’s character.157 Franko calls Pygropolynices “the braggart soldier for all time.”158 Pyrgopolynices, like Thraso, has his own parasitus in addition to a group of minions who carry his enormous shield behind him. Pyrgopolynices incessantly boasts about military exploits and at the end of the play he is beaten up in his own home by an old man and a cook, begs the men to stop, and eventually pays them one hundred drachmae to leave. This character is very clearly vainglorious and completely ineffectual. Thraso is not an over-the-top character like Pyrgopolynices nor is his physical strength ever put to the test to be ridiculed. During his siege of Thais’ house, it is the citizen Chremes, not Thraso, who is portrayed by Terence as a vainglorious soldier who runs away from a fight.

Terence challenges dramatic conventions by his development of Thraso most strikingly by his mythological parallel between Thraso and Hercules. During this parallel the audience understands Thraso’s introspective desires and his justifications as well as

157 Duncan 2006: 101 points out, “Pyrgopolynices in the Miles Gloriosus differs from [Plautus’] other braggart soldiers in degree, not in kind. The plot of the play has him not only fooled, as usual, but humiliated, beaten, and threatened with castration.” She also argues, “the miles is a sort of stock character among the stock characters, someone so predictable and so hollow that he is an easy mark for his fellow characters.” 158 Franko 2013: 41. 75 his extraspective perceptions, that is, a projection of the way he assumes he is viewed by

Roman society. Thraso is introspective when he compares himself to Hercules (Eunuchus

1027) and in the process exaggerates the negative stereotypes associated with his stock character. During the parallel, it is revealed that Thraso wants to be in a servile position to a prostitute, a fact that goes far beyond the behavior of a stereotypical miles gloriosus, but highlights the fact that such a character is never actually in a dominant position, although they may see themselves in that light. Thraso is self-aware of his ridiculous situation, but, by indulging himself, he allows himself to be manipulated by both Thais and Gnatho. Thraso is also aware that he undermines cultural ideals of manliness as well as military protocol when he, above all people, should not. Thus Thraso is not the stereotypical miles gloriosus in particular because he has a sense of genuine self- awareness.159 Thraso knows that his desires are absurd:

[THR.] siquidem me amaret, tum istuc prodesset, Gnatho.

[THR.] If only she did love me, then that [plan] might help, Gnatho [but she doesn’t, so it wouldn’t]. (Eunuchus 446)

The present contrafactual condition siquidem amaret… tum ... prodesset displays

Thraso’s self-awareness at his situation and heightens the absurdity of his servile impulse.160 Thraso is fully aware that at this point in time Thais does not love him; but, nevertheless, he will fully submit himself to her. Thraso’s final line reveals a somewhat delusional sense of self, saying that he is loved by everyone wherever he goes:

159 Goldberg 1986: 116 contends, regarding Thraso and Thais’ relationship: “Thraso has no illusions, and is perhaps the only character who does not. He is certainly the only character who has learned humility and the only one prepared to make a sacrifice.” 160 It seems to be the case that a dramatic character’s use of contrafactual conditions marks awareness of self and the circumstances in which he finds himself. The use of contrafactual conditions, instead of other conditional claims, can mark a particularly thoughtful and introspective moment. 76

[THR.] numquam etiam fui usquam quin me omnes amarent plurumum.

[THR.] I’ve still never been anywhere without everyone loving me most. (Eunuchus 1092)

It has been quite clearly shown in the play that Thraso, in fact, is loved by nobody.

Thraso, as discussed in section 2.3, has a dual quality to him that accounts for his moments of genuine self-reflection, such as his mythological parallel, as well as moments of comedic delusion, such as the case in this line. He is a character who is both self-aware and unaware. Immediately after this line, Gnatho exposes Thraso’s stupidity by sarcastically stating that he is the epitome of Attic elegance (1093).

Extraspection occurs when Thraso compares Thais to Omphale (Eunuchus 1027).

It reveals that Thraso views himself as a superior to Thais, as Hercules, a half-divine hero was to the queen, but a superior who will make himself subordinate to her in their relationship. By equating himself to Hercules, the hero who continued his valiant exploits despite his service to Omphale, Thraso informs the audience that he, too, would not lose his virility but would persevere throughout the de-masculinizing ordeal of playing slave to a prostitute. Like Hercules, Thraso is a figure who can inhabit, but not reconcile, two worlds simultaneously: he is a lover and a soldier; he is a braggart and a self-effacing individual. Thais is by no means a queen, she is a foreign meretrix who is desperately seeking security throughout the play. It is only through Thraso’s eyes that Thais and

Omphale can be associated.

2.5. A Reflection of Roman Reality: Thraso as Roman miles


It is clear Thraso is a military man when he refers to being stationed at locations which bear contemporary significance for the Roman army. Specifically, Thraso recounts stories about times he was in Rhodes and events that pertain to the Punic and Macedonian

Wars. During one of his few boastful moments, Thraso describes the opponent of a bar- fight as a very young Rhodian man. The fact that he describes a bar-fight over a girl and not a military battle marks this character’s particular type of boasting as atypical of the stock miles gloriosus.161 At the end of the story we find out that Thraso never physically beat up the kid, but that he humiliated him publicly. In addition to Romanizing Thraso’s military service, these references additionally offer the opportunity for a social critique on Roman policies and practices. In light of the Second Macedonian War, waged between 200 and 197 BCE by Rome on behalf of the Rhodians, it is interesting that

Thraso, as a Roman soldier, gets into a fight with a Rhodian.162

Thraso also refers to war elephants. Such a reference, whether the elephant was technically Indian, Asian, or African, would likely bring to mind the recent Punic and

Macedonian Wars wherein war elephants were employed. Thraso identifies one Strato as a fellow-soldier who was particularly envious of his status and privilege:

[THR] inuidere omnes mihi, mordere clanculum. ego non flocci pendere.

161 The line reads, erat hic quem dico Rhodius adulscentulus. forte habui scortum; coepit ad id alludere et me irridere. ‘quid ais,’ inquam ‘homo imprudens? lepus tute’s’ pulpamentum quaeris?’ (“There was this very young Rhodian whom I’m talking about. By chance, I had a whore; he started to play with her and mock me. ‘What’re you saying,’ I said, ‘shameless man? You, you, a rabbit: you’re hunting fresh-meat?’” Eunuchus 423). 162 Cornell 1995: 363 argues that a “consistent feature of Rome’s foreign policy [was] her support for the upper classes in the communities of Italy, who regarded Rome as their natural ally, whereas the masses were normally hostile.” He also notes, “the treaties (foedera) probably differed from one another in detail, but the basic provision common to all of them was the allies’ obligation to supply military aid to Rome” (365). Starks 2013: 137 points out: “Rhodian mistakes, unilateralism, and, above all, perceived arrogance in their responses to Rome appear as central charges, the subject of refutations and confessions in the ongoing arguments over Rhodes’ (in)actions regarding the war with Perseus, the heated deliberations on how to punish them afterward, and Rhodes’ ambassadorial pleas for clemency, which led to a deleted formal alliance (164 BCE).” 78

illi inuidere misere, uerum unus tamen impense, elephantis quem Indicis praefecerat. is ubi molestus magis est, ‘quaeso,’ inquam ‘Strato, eon es ferox quia habes imperium in beluas?’

[THR.] Everyone envied on me, stings [me] privately. I don’t care a hair. They envied [me] horribly, and yet one in particular, the one whom [the king] had appointed over the Indian elephants, when he was being rather annoying, I said ‘Pray tell, Strato, are you savage because you have authority over beasts?’ (Eunuchus 413-5)

There were, in the time of Terence’s literary output, recent and notorious Roman wars fought against kings: namely those against Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus, as well as the

Macedonian Wars, against king Philip V. However, if Thraso had fought for either of these kings he would not be a Roman ally, but rather a member of one of the Roman subject territories that defected during the wars. Thraso’s continued financial success, from military endeavors, indicates that he belongs to one of the allies who remained loyal to Rome.163 Instead of Pyrrhus or Philip V, I suggest that Thraso resembles king

Masinissa, the King of Numidia who was a Carthaginian ally but defected to Rome during the Second Punic War. The association with this king would not only serve to place Thraso in the time of Rome’s Mid-Republic, but also would explain Thraso’s peregrinus status at Rome.164 Masinissa assisted the Roman general Africanus in the battle of Zama (202 BCE), which was the decisive Roman victory that ended the

163 Gabba 1989: 208 notes that “punitive measures [were] taken against disloyal allies…The allies who had remained loyal to Rome certainly shared in the spirit and benefits of victory and derived from it a new incentive to loyalty and obedience.” 164 Hassall 2002: 685 notes, “through the award of citizenship (civitas) to the more intelligent and ambitious of the peregrine, the most influential sections of provincial society came to identify their own interests with those of the greater body of the Roman state.” Cornell 1995: 351 distinguishes between types of non-native Roman citizens, saying that “they possessed the rights of conubium and commercium…the Latins were technically foreigners (peregrini), whereas the Oscan-speaking Campanians and Volscians were technically citizens (cives).” 79

Second Punic War. Although Hannibal did not employ elephants at this specific battle,

Hannibal in general did incorporate war elephants into his army. Therefore, the mention of elephantis, even though it is modified by Indicis, surely must have brought Hannibal to mind.165

Terence also makes it clear that Thraso is a foreign soldier. After Pamphila is discovered to be a citizen and the long-lost sister of Chremes, Thais tries to persuade

Chremes to stand his ground against Thraso, who is on his way to lay siege to Thais’ house and take Pamphila by force. While convincing Chremes to do this, Thais establishes Thraso’s foreign status compared to Chremes’ citizen status in the following passage:

[TH.] immo hoc cogitato. quicum res tibist peregrinus est, minus potens quam tu, minus notus, minus amicorum hic habens.

[TH.] Just ponder this. The guy [Thraso] whom you have an issue with is foreign, [he’s] less powerful than you, less known, has fewer friends here. (Eunuchus 759-60)

This passage highlights Thraso’s political and social inferiority to a Roman citizen.

Terence’s use of peregrinus (759) and the repetition of minus (760) emphasize Thraso’s political inferiority and social subordination.166 Thraso’s imperator status, together with the fact that he has been labeled as peregrinus (Eunuchus 759), supports my claim that

Terence casts Thraso as a socius miles, a Roman soldier from one of Rome’s allied

165 Barsby 1999: 161 adds that war elephants were starting to be used by Rome during Terence’s lifetime, for example at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BCE. 166 Mattingly 2007: 14 argues: “Various factors can be suggested as bearing on individual and group identity in the Roman world: status; wealth; location; employment; religion; origin; proximity to the imperial government; legal status and rights; language and literacy; age and sex. Status incorporated various broad categories: slave, free, freed, dependent, independent, barbarian, Roman citizen, non-citizen, humiliores, honestiores, curial class, equestrian, senator, imperial household.” 80 territories.167 This interpretation encompasses the contemporary Roman additions that

Terence makes to Thraso’s burlesqued Hercules-miles gloriosus character.

Chaerea, in Chapter 1, has already been linked to the office of praetor peregrinus by which he is granted political and judicial authority over foreign matters.168 He makes the final decisions and presents the facts regarding the fates of the play’s three foreigners:

Pamphila, Thais, and Thraso. Chaerea asserts his authority over Pamphila first by raping her when he thought she was a foreigner (Eunuchus 584-606), then deciding to marry her after finding out she is a citizen (Eunuchus 1036). He asserts his authority over Thais by announcing her newly acquired patron-client relationship with his family, which guaranteed her protection (clientelam, 1039) and credit (fidem, 1040). Although this would be a suitable stock ending within the New Comedy genre, with both Roman adulescentes having resolved their amorous issues, Terence does not end his play here.

Rather, the romantic situation between Thais and Phaedria is confused when the two adulescentes are convinced by Gnatho, Thraso’s parasitus, to allow Thraso to maintain his relationship with Thais on the condition that he continues to endow his largess upon her, thus saving Phaedria from spending too much money on her. Chaerea decides to grant Thraso continued access to Thais as Phaedria’s rival, to which Phaedria agrees

(Eunuchus 1083). Thais is never asked, or heard from in the play again, and Phaedria seems happy to share the woman he allegedly loves with Thraso.

2.6. Sisyphean parasitus: Terence’s Burlesque

167 Thraso’s position as an imperator commanding centurions who had their own maniples is discussed in section 2.3. 168 See Chapter 1, section 1.7. 81

Gnatho’s primary role in the Eunuchus is as Thraso’s parasitus who makes a living by mooching off of the soldier, Thraso. However, Gnatho is not a typical parasite, such as Ergasilus, from Plautus’ Captivi, or Artotrogus, from Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus, both of whom provide incessant flattery and display an obsession with food. Instead,

Gnatho drives four major plot points in the Eunuchus. First, he introduces Parmeno to

Pamphila while he takes her to Thais. Second, he urges Parmeno to receive Thraso as a threat to Phaedria’s relationship with Thais. Third, he convinces Thraso that Thais prefers

Phaedria and that he should take Pamphila back. Finally, Gnatho brokers the final deal between Thraso and Thais.

Introspection and extraspection is a dynamic that displays character self- awareness, as well as an image of how that character imagines he is viewed by others.

This dynamic can be observed through mythological parallels between dramatic characters and mythological figures that splice the mythological figure with the stock character and create a burlesqued character, as we have already seen with Chaerea, the

Jupiter amator, and Thraso, the miles Hercules. For example, Thraso becomes a more realized character, and less of a stock figure, when he sees himself as Hercules

(introspection) and he sees Thais as Omphale (extraspection) and situates himself in a particular type of relationship with her and in society in general. Through Gnatho’s moment of introspection and extraspection, the audience knows that Gnatho, the parasitus stock character, fully understands and relishes the fact that he lives off of hand- outs which he acquired by flattering, yet deceitful rhetoric. In the play, Gnatho compares himself to Sisyphus, the deceitful, hubristic mortal king who successfully tricks men and gods alike to satisfy his own ends. He compares Thraso to the rock that Sisyphus futilely 82 pushes up a hill for all time. The mythological parallel occurs at the end of the play while

Gnatho, speaking to the two adulescentes, brokers the deal between Thraso and Phaedria and gains admittance into their grex (1084):

[GN.] sati’ diu hoc iam saxum vorso.

[GN.] I keep rolling that stone, sufficiently, for a long time now. (Eunuchus 1085)

Gnatho’s comparison emphasizes his introspective point-of-view as a burdened Sisyphus as well as his extraspective point-of-view that equates Thraso to an eternal punishment.

The extraspective comparison also takes a jab at Thraso’s intelligence. The audience is able to transfer the information they know about the mythological figure Sisyphus onto the dramatic character of Gnatho.

An overview of Sisyphus in Homer reveals which specific details of Gnatho’s character are informed by this treacherous figure of mythology. I turn to Homeric descriptions of Sisyphus from the Iliad because they seem to have particularly informed the mythological figures’ in each of the Eunuchus’ three mythological parallels: Chaerea to Jupiter, Thraso to Hercules, and Gnatho to Sisyphus. Homer describes Sisyphus as follows:

ἔνθα δὲ Σίσυφος ἔσκεν, ὃ κέρδιστος γένετ᾽ ἀνδρῶν.

There was Sisyphus, the man who, out of all men, became the one who profits most. (Iliad 6.153)

The epithet ὃ κέρδιστος is generally translated as “the slyest” or “the most cunning”; however, the word also assumes pecuniary connotations. Autenrieth, for example, lists 83

“gain, profit” as the primary definition of κέρδος.169 Both definitions in combination suggest that this slyness is a calculated means for personal advantage. This type of selfish cunning, expressed through deceitful rhetoric, is characteristic of Sisyphus who cheats death not once, but twice.170 Odysseus, for example, is associated with a different type of cunning; he is πολύµητις (“full of wisdom,” Iliad 1.310) and πολυµήχανος (“full of craft,” Iliad 2.173), but he is never κέρδιστος. It could be argued that Odysseus also has personal profit as a primary motivation; however, his Homeric epithets do not emphasize this aspect as much as they do his practical skill and cleverness. From the Homeric description of Sisyphus, I identify deceitful rhetoric as a means to personal advantage; and it is this main characterization that is grafted onto the parasitus stock character to create a burlesqued parasitus Sisyphus character, Gnatho. to Sisyphus creates an original dramatic character in Gnatho who, like a parasite, leeches off of another and, like

Sisyphus, achieves his desired end by expressing rhetorical dominance over all adversaries, whether they are kings or gods or death itself.

2.7. Gnatho: a Soldier compared to Sisyphus

Gnatho’s mythological parallel, which grafts the cunning Sisyphus onto the freeloading parasite, reveals an ironic point-of-view in which Gnatho feels burdened by the relationship between himself, the parasite, and Thraso, the parasite’s host. Gnatho relies on Thraso to maintain his lavish lifestyle at no cost to himself, a situation comparable to Rome’s demands of its allies who had to provide for, arm, and feed their

169 Autenrieth 1876: 160. 170 According to the myth, Sisyphus chained up Thanatos thus preventing anything living from dying. After Thanatos was released, Sisyphus returned to the underworld and convinced Hades to let him return home to reprimand his wife for negligence, after which he grows old on Earth (Cyrino 2008: 133). 84 own troops for Roman use, without any financial support from Rome.171 Gnatho’s self- righteous feelings of burden reveal a plausible Roman reaction to the incorporation of foreign soldiers into its ranks.

Using the mythological parallel to Sisyphus and his punishment, Gnatho impersonally develops Thraso, comparing him to the eternal punishment Sisyphus endures. He also locates himself in relation to Thraso, as the one supporting him even though it is Thraso fronting the bill. Nevertheless, Gnatho self-righteously feels as though he is the one burdened by their relationship. In this comparison, Gnatho tells us that, just like pushing the same boulder up the same hill every day, Thraso is difficult to put up with, tedious, and redundant; at least that is the way this moment of extraspection portrays his character. Gnatho’s moment of extraspection does not develop Thraso’s character. However, it does help to refine Gnatho’s own self-image as developed by his introspective comparison to Sisyphus. Terence’s particular treatment of Gnatho highlights the fact that his flattery is insincere and at times malicious, as evident from the following passage:

[THR.] …quid illud, Gnatho, quo pacto Rhodium tetigerim in conuiuio, numquam tibi dixi? [GN.] numquam; sed narra, obsecro. plus miliens audiui…

[THR.] …What about that time when I beat up the Rhodian at a party, Did I never tell you, Gnatho? [GN.] Never, but please do tell the story. [aside, to the audience] I’ve heard it more than a thousand times…

171 Gabba 1989: 200 notes that in addition to not paying their allied troops, Rome gave away vast amounts of Italian land to its citizen-soldiers following the Second Punic War. He argues, “the burden was heaviest for the allies, this fact—along with the phenomenon of emigration—could explain why complaints about a decline in population were voiced primarily by the allies” (202). Eckstein 2006: 248 discusses the original terms of Rome’s Italian allies and explains that Rome “found a way, via diplomacy, to mobilize the resources of Latium as a whole.” He further notes that the Second Punic war was devastating to Italians, both to the regions that defected to Hannibal and to those who remained loyal to Rome (263). Vishnia 1996: 147 argues, “Rome’s allies…shouldered the main burden of providing supplementary troops.” 85

(Eunuchus 419-22)

This passage displays Gnatho’s deceitfulness and flattery. To Thraso he seems sincere and interested, but the audience knows that he is insincere and utterly disinterested.

Terence constructs Gnatho as a devious, mooching, citizen-soldier, whose characterization is derived from various sources. Firstly, he mooches and employs insincere flattery just like the comic stock character typically does. The Sisyphus character also informs Gnatho’s use of rhetoric and deceitful cunning. Additionally,

Gnatho’s societal position as a Roman citizen can be determined from Ghatho’s admittance into a grex (Eunuchus 1084), which is defined as a social group of peers, between Chaerea and his brother Phaedria. Gnatho’s citizenship is determined because a grex can only be composed of analogous parts and the adulescentes are undeniably citizens. Terence also classifies Gnatho as a soldier, which made evident from his role during Thraso’s siege of Thais’ house (Eunuchus 771-816).

Overall, Gnatho’s mythological parallel offers insight into the way his character perceives himself, his relationship with others, and ultimately informs what can be interpreted as a larger Roman perspective on Rome’s military reliance on socii milites.

What I argue, specifically, is that Gnatho’s dependence upon Thraso acts as a metaphor for Rome’s dependence upon socii milites. From his moment of introspection and extraspection (Eunuchus 1085) we get a critical perspective about Roman allies: even though the socii milites bear the burden of Roman war to a higher degree than citizen soldiers, those citizen soldiers still feel as though they do the heavy lifting by their association with foreigners and their assimilation of foreign soldiers into their ranks.172

172 For citations concerning Roman reliance on socii milites, refer to footnotes 110-118, 150 and 162-164. 86

Gnatho provides the citizen soldier’s perspective with his mythological parallel when he compares the eternal punishment of Sisyphus to his own reliance upon Thraso. Gnatho relies upon Thraso in order to maintain his lavish lifestyle at no cost to himself, a situation comparable to Rome’s demands of socii milites that include providing, arming, and feeding their own soldiers with little or no payment in return. His lavish lifestyle can be observed in the following passage:

dum haec loquimur, interea loci ad macellum ubi aduenamus, concurrunt laeti me obuiam cuppedenarii omnes, cetarii lanii coqui fartores piscatores, quibus et re salua et perdita profueram et prosum saepe. salutant, ad cenam uocant, aduentum gratulantur.

While [the bum and I] discussed [the art of being a flattering parasite], in the meantime when we arrive at the market, all the happy confectioners run together to meet me, fish-sellers, butchers, cooks, sausage-makers, fishermen, men whom I had been and often still am beneficial to, both when my [monetary] status was sound and [now] when bankrupt. They greet [me], call [me] to dinner, thank [me] for coming. (Eunuchus 255-9)

Gnatho’s sumptuous lifestyle is made evident by his emphasis on his continued patronage of the food vendors. The repetition of prosum (258), first in the pluperfect tense

(profueram) followed by the (prosum) places weight on the continued action in the sense that Gnatho had been beneficial to them at a set point in the past

(indicated by the pluperfect tense) and continues to be beneficial in the present (indicated by the present tense). Gnatho is placed at Rome when he describes strolling through the recently established macellum.173 The detailed description of snack-sellers is consistent

173Scholars such as Barsby 1999: 132 and Brown 2013: 30 have emphasized that Gnatho is located at Rome. References to a Roman macellum also appear in Plautus’ Amphitruo (1012), Aulularia (264, 373, and 376), (169), and (979). Rosivach 2007: 6 notes that luxurious food items, the sort at which the sumptuary laws aimed, were sold at the macellum. 87 with the types found in Plautine markets; both authors mention the lanii, coqui, and piscatores as being represented at the Roman marketplace.174 Furthermore, the distinction between lanii and coqui is distinctively Roman, as the Greek occupation µάγειρος fulfilled both duties.175 This section has discussed how Terence locates Gnatho in Rome and develops Gnatho’s character into an insincere Sisyphean parasite who somehow feels burdened by his relationship with Thraso. It has also suggested how Gnatho’s paradoxical sense of burden is parallel to Roman attitudes towards socii milites.

2.8. Defying Conventions: the Development of Gnatho

It is helpful to compare Gnatho’s character to the only other parasitus in

Terence’s corpus, Phormio, in order to define the particular developments made to

Gnatho in the Eunuchus, produced in April of 161 BCE for the ludi Megalenses. The

Phormio was produced in 161 BCE for the in September and, in both the

Eunuchus and the Phormio, the parasite character describes his superior parasitic technique when he first appears on stage.176 Although in some respects both Gnatho and

Phormio typify the stereotypical stock parasite, Phormio has been characterized more specifically as the type of parasite who gets his dinner by practical scheming and manipulation, a sort of quid pro quo, whereas Gnatho does so specifically by an insincere technique of ironic flattery wherein he immediately contradicts his toadying statements in asides.177 Both of Terence’s parasitus characters, Gnatho and Phormio, are themselves distinct, they both differ from singlemindedness displayed by more stereotypically food-

174 See Plautus’ Pseudolus (804-9), Captiui (4.2.39), and Rudens (4.3.48). 175 Barsby 1999: 132. 176 Starks 2013: 139. 177 Barsby 1999: 126. 88 obsessed parasites.178 Terence’s parasites both conform to the stereotype to the extent that free meals are their reward for their services, but neither fits the generic characteristics of the stock parasitus who are single-mindedly fixated on food.

Terence changes the names of many of his characters, including Gnatho, when appropriated from his Greek sources.179 The name Terence assigns this character can inform our reading because of the connotations associated with that name. Some of

Terence’s characters’ names, whether changed or not, are stock names belonging to stock characters which are repeated even within the small corpus of Terence.180 Terence changes the name of the parasite in Menander’s Kolax, from Στρουθίας, meaning

“sparrow,” to Gnatho.181 Gnatho’s name can be linked with Greek root *γνώ- as seen in the verb γιγνώσκω (to know), which suggests the character’s awareness, as I would argue both regarding himself and the contemporary scene at Rome. Vincent suggests that

Gnatho’s name is a general reference to a parasite’s greatest tool and greatest concern, his mouth. She posits two interpretations for the etymology of his name: one, as many other scholars have noted, is “the Jaw” from the Greek word γνάθος, meaning “jaw,” and the

178 Starks 2013: 140 discusses Phormio and Gnatho as distinct from Plautus’ parasites and Peniculus who dwell on “the stereotypical fixation” of food. 179 Austin 1921: 51 provides an early discussion of Terence’s naming of this character. Fontaine 2014 suggests that Terence creates an intertextual dynamism throughout his own corpus by his practice of naming multiple characters from different plays the same name. There is little scholarly discussion about what motives, if any, Terence may have had in changing the names of his characters. 180 Examples would be the names Pamphilus or Pamphila for an amatory character and Chremes for a senex. It is noteworthy that in the Eunuchus Chremes, Pamphila’s brother, does not fit his stereotypical name since he is an adulescens. 181 Sandbach 1990: 166. It cannot be determined from the surviving text whether there were two parasites, one Strouthia and one Gnatho, or if Gnatho was a nickname of Strouthia. Sparrows (struthoi) were associated with lustiness and gluttony in antiquity. For example, struthos represents sex in Sappho 1.10 and an appetite for food and sex in Clement of Alexandria’s Paedagogus 3.7. Dunbar 1998: 265 explains the gluttonous aspect associated with struthos in Aristophanes’ Birds, “The House (US ‘English’) Sparrow (Passer domesticus) in agricultural districts lives mainly (75%) on corn.” Henderson 2002: 164-5 notes on the use of struthos in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, “Small birds would be numerous on or under roofs. In addition, sparrows were especially associated with Aphrodite (e.g. Sappho I.9-10), and struthos was a slang term for phallos, CA 592, Paulus-Festus 411.” 89 other is that the name stems from Greek verbs of knowing, γιγνώσκω.182 This reading acquires stronger resonance than the more common association with the Greek γνάθος, or

“jaw.” Based solely off of Gnatho’s stock character, the parasitus, it is tempting to call

Gnatho “The Jaw” because that stock character generally is exclusively food-obsessed.

However, Terence does not portray Gnatho as a gluttonous parasite, but rather one who uses his education to procure a seat at another’s dinner table. This could very well be an intended Terentian discrepancy, wherein he creates expectations by using formulaic and stereotypical details only to dash that expectation in his development of the stock character throughout the play. Gnatho’s unique mix of appetite and intelligence is a

Sisyphean trait: Terence draws the intelligence out of his “jaw” character through introspection.

Terence continues to develop Gnatho’s character into a soldier parasitus in several innovative ways. He marks Gnatho’s close association with the miles Thraso by his use of military terminology and by his knowledge of battle-formation techniques that are displayed in Thraso’s siege of Thais’ house. Gnatho’s role as the miles’ stock parasitus is exposed in a metatheatrical moment when Parmeno, Chaerea’s servus, introduces Gnatho to the audience:

[GN.] sed quis hic est qui huc pergit? attat hicquidemst parasitus militis.

[GN.] Hey, who’s the guy making an entrance? Oh, that must be the soldier’s parasite. (Eunuchus 228-9)

In this line, Terence explicitly refers to Gnatho’s stock character, the parasitus.

Furthermore, he draws explicit attention to the correspondence between the parasitus

182 Vincent 2013: 78. 90 character and the miles. The association of the two characters can also be seen in the following line of the play’s prologue:

[GN.] parasiti personam inde ablatam et militis.

[GN.] From that source [Menander’s Colax] the parasite and soldier characters were appropriated. (Eunuchus 26)

Terence binds the parasite to the soldier in the Eunuchus from the play’s beginning and as Goldberg observes, “more stage time is devoted to [Thraso and Gnatho] than to anyone else in Eunuchus.”183 The line’s symmetry demonstrates how connected the two characters are from the prologue; the parasite and soldier attractively frame the verse end of each line. These two characters are linked together in terms of military service as well as Gnatho’s reliance upon Thraso. Furthermore, the line’s elisions combine nearly every word (except two), to produce a run-on effect (parasiti person’ind’ablat’et militis) that accentuates the two words that do not elide, the parasite (parasiti) and the soldier


Gnatho’s role in Thraso’s siege of Thais’ house indicates that he was familiar with military techniques such as combat maneuvers. The parasitus himself is not by definition a soldier.184 However, Gnatho’s role during Thraso’s siege of Thais’ house provides Gnatho’s character with military prowess, as seen in the following passage between Gnatho, the cook-turned-soldier Sanga, and Thraso:

[GN.] iam dimitto exercitum? [THR.] ubi uis. [GN.] ita fortis decet milites, domi focique fac uicissim ut memineris. [SA.] iamdudum animus est in patinis. [GN.] frugi’s. [THR.] uos me hac sequimini.

183 Goldberg 1986: 113. 184 In fact, Packman 2013: 195 specifically claims that the parasitus stock character is not a mercenary soldier like Thraso. 91

[GN.] Do I dismiss the army now? [THR.] Whenever you want. [GN.] Okay, as befits brave soldiers, make sure that you remember home and hearth again. [SA.] Just this second my thoughts are in the saucepans. [GN.] You’re helpful. [THR.] Follow me now, soldiers. (Eunuchus 814-5)

Here, Gnatho officially discharges Thraso’s “troops” from his siege of Thais’ house in a military and epic manner. It is clear from Gnatho’s question – iam dimitto exercitum?

(“Do I dismiss the army now?”) – that his following remark effectively serves to discharge the troops. The terminology of domi focique memineris (“make sure that you remember your home and hearth again”) is strongly reminiscent of Livy’s account of the general Furius Camillus and an address to his troops.185 The moment is parodied by

Sanga’s literal reading of domi focique, which causes his mind, and notably not Gnatho’s, to think about food.186

2.9. Gnatho: A Reflection of Roman Reality

In addition to Gnatho’s mythological parallel to Sisyphus, his military qualities, and his lack of food-obsession, Terence develops his character through allusions to contemporary Roman social and political institutions. The Eunuchus, as well as

Terence’s other plays featuring a parasite, the Phormio, were both produced in 161 BCE.

The presence of a parasitus stock character, limited in Terence to these two plays, brings

185 The passage reads: ut qui meminissent sibi pro aris focisque et deum templis ac solo in quo nati essent dimicandum fore” (“[he said] that those [troops] who remembered their altars and hearths and temples of the gods and on which land they were born for the purpose of fighting,” Ab Urbe Condita 5.30.1). This passage is found in the context of senators going to the in the same spirits as soldiers would return home from battle. In the play, Thraso’s siege ends when the citizenship of Pamphila, the girl he had come to repossess, is discovered and subsequently dismisses his troops. 186 Barsby 1999: 239. 92 the issue of dinner parties to the forefront, just as the lex Fannia cibaria became a charged topic of that year. The lex Fannia cibaria aimed at limiting the extravagance of dinner parties and was specifically aimed at the Megalensian Games because of the lavish feasting associated with the Asian goddess Cybele.187 The grounds for the lex Fannia cibaria began years earlier with a senatus consultum that restricted the purchase of certain luxury goods, such as imported wine. This legislation worked in accordance with the lex Orchia of 182 BCE that placed restrictions on dinner seating: five seats were allowed on market days, three on other days.188 The atmosphere of the Megalensian

Games was excessive and spectacular and for that reason was a likely source of contention when placed against Roman virtues of moderation.189 This conflict between

Roman and external forces, which calls Roman mores into question, must have influenced Terence’s construction of the Eunuchus and the development of its military characters, since excessive luxury could soften a soldier’s hardiness and endurance when on campaign. The reason for the cult’s introduction to Rome was military advantage; as discussed in Chapter 1, the reason for Chaerea’s eunuch disguise was carnal advantage from a military standpoint and the reason for the incorporation of the cult of Cybele into

Rome was due to a prophecy from the Sibylline books which stated that by the cult’s

187 Astin 1989: 184 explains that the lex Fannia of 161 BCE “had required leading citizens who were to entertain each other during the Megalensian games to take an oath before the consuls that they would not exceed specified expenditure limits.” Rosivach 2007: 1 argues that in Republican Rome, “the expression leges sumptuariae referred solely to legislation intended to limit expenditures on food.” Harris 1979: 89 argues, “the legal stipulations against luxury seem to have had a quite straightforward political purpose, namely to reduce illicit influences in elections.” 188 Astin 1989: 184. 189 Astin 1989: 184 suggests that the reasons for such laws had to do with “a widespread assumption that indulgence in luxury was liable to undermine traditional military virtues, above all physical and mental hardiness.” Rosivach 2007: 12 argues, “the 2nd century BC was a period of rapid social, economic, intellectual and even change at Rome. We may see in the lex Fannia and the earlier senatus consultum evidence of a widespread uneasiness about the effect of these changes on the public sphere, the special preserve of the senatorial elite.” 93 incorporation Rome could win the Second Punic War.190 In light of the lex Fannia, with its particular connection to the Megalensian Games, as well as Gnatho’s lack of food- obsession, I suggest that Terence is transforming the gluttonous parasite to suit a contemporary Roman attitude of moderation.

Besides the introduction of a foreign cult, and the subsequent political consequences of such an introduction, the Eunuchus also alludes to other contemporary acts of legislation and cultural practices.191 For example, Gnatho appears to respond to the senatus consultum of 161 BCE that expelled philosophers and rhetoricians from

Rome when Gnatho seeks to replace the recently banished form of persuasive oratory with his own militarily informed philosophical rhetoric. Gnatho’s entrance monologue showcases his talents as a philosopher-parasite, spreading his message throughout the streets of Rome.

[GN.] di immortales, homini homo quid praestat? stulto intellegens quid interest?

[GN.] Immortal gods, how does a man surpass over [another] man? How is an intelligent man different from a ? (Eunuchus 232-3)

Barsby (1999) claims that this entire speech “has no bearing on the plot.”192 This may be true in terms of plot, but it is not true with regard to character development. The speech does influence the way Gnatho, the parasite, is developed beyond the confines of his stock character. First of all, it establishes Gnatho as a citizen who has squandered away

190 See Chapter 1, section 1.7. 191 References to Roman laws and institutions in the Eunuchus include: gladiatorial references (Eunuchus 54-5, 417, 420, 930); mention of Rome’s newly built macellum (Eunuchus 255-7); references to people and places that have Roman military significance, i.e. to Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Rhodes, etc. (Eunuchus 107, 412, 423, 778, 781, 783,); Roman political jargon (Eunuchus 319, 807, 1065); as well as references to Roman patron-client relationships (Eunuchus 278, 1039). 192 Barsby 1999: 126. 94 his inheritance and as a result has developed a new way to provide himself with sustenance: being a parasite.193 Gnatho’s citizen status is significant to my interpretation of his relationship with Thraso as representative of one between a socius miles and a ciuis miles. The audience immediately associates his character with the misuse of rhetoric for deceitful purposes. The following speech calls specific attention to Terence’s innovative treatment of the parasitus colax:

[GN.] olim isti fuit generi quondam quaestus apud saeclum prius. hoc nouomst aucupium; ego adeo hanc primus inueni uiam…

[GN.] Once at some early time there was the former occupation. This is a new way to catch game; I, in fact, first found this path… (Eunuchus 246-7)

[GN.] hisce ego non paro me ut rideant, sed eis ultro arrideo et eorum ingenia admirer simul. quidquid dicunt laudo; id rursum si negant, laudo id quoque; negat quis, nego; ait, aio. postremo imperaui egomet mihi omnia assentari. is quaestus nunc est multo uberrimus. [PA.] scitum hercle hominem! hic homines prorsum ex stultis insanos facit.

I don’t offer my services to them so they can laugh, but rather I laugh at them and at the same time I glorify their talents. I commend whatever they say; if they deny [what they just said], I commend that as well; [if he asks whether] anyone denies, I deny; [if he asks whether] he affirms, I affirm. Finally, I gave myself strict orders to agree with everything. Now this business is the most successful by far. [PA.] My god, what a [rhetorically] knowledgeable man! He makes men absolutely insane from being [mere] fools. (Eunuchus 246-7; 249-250)

193 These lines read as, conueni hodie adueniens quondam mei loci hinc atque ordinis, himinem haud impurum, itidem patria qui abligurrierat bona (“When I was on my way today I met a certain man of my own rank and station, a man by no means ignoble, who, just like me, had squandered his inheritance in luxury,” Eunuchus 234-5). 95

In this section Gnatho commandeers rhetorical philosophy and weaponizes it against

Thraso, a representative of the socii milites. The opening sentence refers to the old characterization of a stock parasitus character while hoc nouomst aucupium (“this is a new way to catch game”) emphasizes the changes in occupation that Terence has made.

Gnatho is not like the old parasite who acts as the brunt of jokes and abuses, but rather he turns the table and turns his host into the punchline. Parmeno’s aside to the audience acknowledges Gnatho’s rhetorical domination scitum hercle hominem! (“My god, what a

[rhetorically] knowledgeable man!”) while adding the suggestion that listening to his philosophy could convert foolish men into his school: homines prorsum ex stultos insanos facit (“he makes men absolutely insane from being [mere] fools”). Gnatho goes so far as to publicly preach his newfound philosophy based on his parasitic technique

(Eunuchus 232-64). Gnatho specifically links his type of rhetoric with philosophical rhetoric in the following passage:

[GN.] ego ardeo hanc primus inueni uiam…

[GN.] I, in fact, first found this path… (Eunuchus 247)

[GN.] tamquam philosophorum habent disciplinae ex ipsis uocabula, parasiti ita ut Gnathonici uocentur.

[GN.] just as schools of philosophers take their names from those, just exactly like this let the parasites be called ‘Gnathonics.’ (Eunuchus 263-4)

The language in this passage is highly emphatic; ego…primus (“I first”) emphasizes

Gnatho’s personal involvement in the founding of this philosophical parasite-school. The 96 terminology philosophorum disciplinae suggests the formal schools of philosophy.194

Terence composes it, or at least intentionally adapts this section, in order to Romanize and simultaneously vilifiy Gnatho’s character, again through a Greek filter, but this time one of philosophy instead of mythology. Gnatho, as a parasite, is intentionally commandeering the intellectual property of the expelled philosophers, that is, rhetorical persuasion used to satisfy his own ends. I propose the possibility that Gnatho’s philosophically-charged rhetoric in general, but particularly in the lines above, represents a hypothetical militaristic effect of the recent expulsion of philosophers and rhetoricians from Rome in 161 BCE.

In addition to the senatus consultum that expelled philosophers from Rome,

Gnatho is linked with other edicts of 161 BCE that were a series of sumptuary laws aimed at curbing excess and luxury.195 This link can be observed in Parmeno’s following comment regarding Gnatho:

[PA.] uiden otium et cibus quid facit alienus?

[PA.] See what a life of idleness and dining on someone else’s tab does for a person? (Eunuchus 265)

The reference to otium (“leisure”) and cibus (“food”) signal the sumptuary provisions expressed by the lex Fannia aimed specifically at curbing the luxury surrounding elaborate feasts.196 The additional adjective alienus, however, adds new meaning to the

194 This falls in line with Barsby 1999: 134 who notes, for example, the “Platonici, Socratici, etc.” 195 These laws are the lex Oppia and the lex Fannia. Vishnia 1996: 91 argues: “the lex Oppia was in essence a sumptuary law that intended to curb female luxury at a time when many women were coming into large fortunes because of the great number of war casualties… However, the Oppian law does not seem to fit within the category of sumptuary laws which normally set bounds on lavish entertainment.” For citations on the lex Fannia, refer to footnotes 187-189. 196 See OLD, s.v. otium and cibus. , describing the enforcement of sumptuary laws, writes: legem praecipue sumptuariam exercuit dispositis circa macellum custodibus, qui obsonia contra vetitum 97 sentiment. Admittedly, the use of alienus here can each be simply translated as

“another’s” and assumed to refer to Gnatho’s habit of eating meals provided by Thraso.

However, a more specific notion of foreignness, implying non-citizenship status can also be applied which can inform our reading of the text.197 Parmeno’s emphasis on the food’s foreignness suggests importation and military plunder. In light of this, the same line can be read as follows:

[PA.] uiden otium et cibus quid facit alienus?

[PA.] See what [an citizen soldier’s] leisure and plundered food does for a person? (Eunuchus 265)

The word otium refers to Gnatho’s own leisure as a Roman citizen soldier, compared to the more strenuous wartime requirements of the socii milites, while cibus refers to

Gnatho’s lavish dinners on Thraso’s dime. The previous statement (Eunuchus 263-4) followed by this question (Eunuchus 265) introduces a new breed of parasite that epitomizes an additional threat to Rome. He is a product of the excessive amount of military plunder that has entered the city determined by the actions of socii instead of cives milites. As this chapter has discussed, Terence’s development of Gnatho, through the mythological parallel to Sisyphus, transforms him into a Sisyphean ciuis miles parasitus. Terence transforms the parasitus into a citizen with reference to his acceptance into a grex alongside other citizens and transforms him into a soldier by the military terminology he employs during the siege of Thais’ house.

retinerent (“[Caesar] oversaw the sumptuary laws because guards were placed around the macellum, who detain luxury food items as an opponent against what has been forbidden,” 43). 197 See OLD, s.v. alienus entry which includes definitions such as: “belonging to another, independent, of another country, foreign, unrelated.” 98

2.10. Conclusion

My analysis has demonstrated that when making changes to the paradigmatic nature of the stock characters Thraso and Gnatho, Terence draws attention to the type of

Roman soldier each one represents, either the ciuis (as is the case with Gnatho) or socius

(as is the case with Thraso). Moreover, their dramatic relationship can be read metaphorically for Rome’s parasitical relationship with its socii milites wherein the socii assumed most burdens of war for Rome, while Rome provided little of substance in return. Furthermore, Thraso’s character reverses socially established gender roles and undercuts Roman military practices. With the mythological parallel that Thraso makes,

Thais is portrayed as a dominant figure, reigning over Thraso as a prostitute regina.

Thraso turns the Hercules myth into a sort of burlesque by comparing his ridiculous desire to prostrate himself before a prostitute to the situation of Hercules who was required to serve the queen, Omphale, as expiation for homicide. Thraso’s reasons for being willing to submit himself to a woman are different than those of Hercules, but the submission itself is entirely similar. Thraso’s introspective parallel develops his character beyond the formulaic miles gloriosus by revealing his tendency to undermine Roman military procedures as well as gender roles. Terence creates an original dramatic character that combines characteristics of the stereotypical miles gloriosus and the subordinate, passive Hercules. Terence’s appropriation and development of the miles gloriosus, particularly his title of imperator (Eunuchus 778) and his service as a leader of a maniple (Eunuchus 781-3), reminds one of a high-ranking socius miles at Rome.

Terence develops Gnatho’s character, too, beyond his stock role in multiple ways.

One significant , I have demonstrated, is through the dynamic of introspection and 99 extraspection. Facilitated by a mythological parallel, this dynamic reveals Gnatho’s inner thoughts and social perspectives. His self-comparison to Sisyphus places emphasis on his rhetorical prowess while also revealing a paradoxical point-of-view in which he somehow feels burdened by the relationship between himself, the parasite, and Thraso, the parasite’s host. This parasitic relationship, as previously discussed, can be taken metaphorically for the relationship between Roman ciues milites and socii milites.

Gnatho’s self-righteous feelings of burden reveal a plausibly Roman standpoint, as evinced by Rome’s reluctance to offer citizen status to its allies, and the absurdity of the parallel points to a satirical tone regarding the ciues milites in Terence’s work. The development of Gnatho’s character is the result of Terence blending stock characters of comedy with those of mythology.

I have established how introspective and extraspective characters can be metaphorically equated to Rome and the territories that she subjugated: the parasite,

Gnatho, signifies Rome, and Thraso its host, or ally. Terence gives Thraso and Gnatho their individual perspectives through the dynamic of introspection and extraspection initiated by mythological parallel. In addition, beyond mapping out how the dynamic of introspection and extraspection develops stock characters, I hope to have exposed a level of cynicism regarding the author’s representation of soldiers in the Eunuchus. These soldiers compel their audience to interrogate the integrity of Roman imperialism and

Rome’s dependence on allied soldiers. The military mindsets that introspection and extraspection illuminate offer a critical look at the brazen soldiers involved in the aggressive Romanization of the Mediterranean during Terence’s lifetime of the early second century BCE. Introspection exposes the psychological effects of Romanization, 100 extraspection the sociological effects on Rome’s citizen and allied soldiers. The social and military stations revealed through extraspection paint a satirical portrait of Rome’s foreign relations. As a foreigner and likely a prisoner of war himself, Terence offers a unique narrative perspective that does not necessarily champion Rome’s military and political authority over conquered tribes and nations.198

198 Goldberg 1986: 218 claims, “the new kind of seriousness that Terence brought to comedy was not a Roman seriousness, and, ultimately, his comedy failed to be a Roman comedy.” He adds: “Thraso is a worthy successor to Pyrgopolynices…Yet the values Terence assigns these familiar figures, their abiding significance after the laughter has stopped, are indeed new and had an unsettling effect on his successors” (219). 101


This thesis has set out to demonstrate how Terence’s use of mythology and mythological burlesque in the Eunuchus is both innovative and unique. In Chapter One, I have argued that Terence achieves his unique imprint by dramatic character self- comparison and expression by way of introspection and extraspection. The introspective character proposes a mythic figure as a parallel to its own dramatic personality and the myth as an equivalent to the dramatic situation that, in turn, exposes his/her individual motives, thoughts, intentions, and justifications. The comparison of the character’s relationship to another character reveals his perceived placement in society. The character is thereby individualized and elevated beyond the confines of his “stock” character trait(s). In a genre so saturated with stock elements, Terence’s changes to the paradigmatic structure are significantly marked.

One aspect of Terence’s innovative and distinct subtlety is revealed through his use of character development, which individualizes and transforms certain New Comedy stock characters while drawing attention to the classes of Roman citizen or non-citizen to which the characters belong. Terence individualizes and transforms his characters by means of introspection and extraspection, which is facilitated by the and manipulation of preexisting Greek mythological , such as the concerning the unsolicited amorous affairs of Zeus that I discussed in Chapter One. I have suggested that Terence renovates paradigmatic stock characters in the Eunuchus by merging their characteristics with those of a mythological parallel. Burlesqued characteristics of Zeus are grafted onto Chaerea, the lustful youth (Chapter One); Hercules is merged with 102

Thraso, the arrogant-turned-subservient soldier (Chapter Two); and finally Gnatho, the tricky charmer, is characterized through Sisyphus (Chapter Two).

Besides the Eunuchus’ three mythological references there are only two others in the entire Terentian corpus. Although on a smaller and less personal scale, Terence’s other two mythological references still reveal information about the characters that make the reference. In each, a character poses, but significantly rejects, a self-comparison to a mythological figure. Davos, a servus in the Andria, complains that the other character is speaking in riddles and that he does not know the answer:

[DA.] Davos sum, non Oedipus.

[DA.] I’m Davos, not Oedipus. (Andria 194)

In this reference, Davos rejects the identification with Oedipus who received his incestuous kingdom by answering the sphinx’s riddle correctly. In Terence’s other rejected mythological parallel, Chremes, a senex in Heauton Timorumenos, says that he wouldn’t believe his son even if he was his favorite child, as Minerva was:

[CH.] non si ex capite sis meo natus, item ut aiunt Minervam esse ex Iove…

[CH.] Not even if you were born from my head, just as they say Minerva was [born] from Jove… (Heauton Timorumenos 1036)

The rejection of the mythological parallels still develops the character; however, instead of learning what the character is, we learn what he is not, thereby still facilitating a form of character development refined in the Eunuchus.199 I suggest, therefore, that mythology and character development are fundamentally intertwined in Terence’s works. The

199 Germany 2013: 235 suggests that Davos asserts here that he is “a comic slave, not a tragic mastermind.” 103 phenomenon is especially developed in the Eunuchus wherein burlesqued mythic figures are essentially grafted onto stock characters in a way that highlight contemporary Roman political and military institutions. In the Eunuchus Terence experiments with the merging of stock characters with the type of burlesqued mythological characters found in Satyr drama and the Amphitruo of Plautus. Terence then creates something original by blending the stock character with the mythological figure to create innovative characters that transcend the established stock comedic characters.

In the Eunuchus it is only the elite Roman soldiers (Chaerea, Thraso and Gnatho), both citizen and ally, who receive this uniquely provocative type of character development. Introspection establishes identities that reveal the soldiers’ roles in Roman society and extraspection reveals how those roles influence their world-views and actions. Introspection personally develops the soldiers into individual characters who expose the mindsets and the ethics of Roman soldiers during the tumultuous Middle

Republic. Furthermore, the soldiers’ perceived relationships with other characters, established through extraspection, offer a commentary on Roman political and military institutions dealing with foreign relations such as expansionism and the use of socii milites, Rome’s allied troops, to fulfill these expansionist policies.

Beyond mapping out how the dynamic of introspection and extraspection develops stock characters, I have exposed a level of cynicism and satire present in

Terence’s development of the milites in the Eunuchus. These characters force the audience to call into question the integrity of Roman imperialism and the elite male entitlement that accompanies it. The military mindsets which introspection reveals offer a cynical look at entitled males involved in the aggressive Romanization of the 104

Mediterranean in the second century BCE.200 Where introspection exposes the psychological effects of Romanization, extraspection does its sociological effects. The social and military stations revealed by extraspection paint a satirical portrait of Rome’s foreign relations. Specifically, the extraspective relationships satirize Roman bloodlust, reliance on Italian allies, and the sociological effects Romanization has on Roman milites, as well as Rome’s socii milites.

The individualized development of these stock characters is a Terentian invention that highlights Roman military institutions and Roman ideologies concerning philosophy, masculinity and sexual violence. Specifically, I have argued how Gnatho’s character can be seen as a reflection of and militaristic reaction to the expulsion of philosophers and rhetoricians from Rome in 161. Thraso’s character can be read as a Romanized peregrinus soldier who subverts Roman gender roles, as well as military rank and standards. Chaerea’s character embodies the war-machine that is the burgeoning of the Middle Republic. By imbuing his stock characters with more substance,

Terence ultimately casts a more critical spin on the soldiers and the Roman institutions to which they belong.201

200 Since Terence was a Carthaginian slave brought to Rome, Augoustakis 2013: 3 calls him “a validation of the mechanisms in place of so-called Romanization.” 201 A further investigation into the presentation of soldiers throughout the Terentian corpus could help unpack some of the ubiquity of this figure on the Roman stage, as well as in Roman life. 105


Adams, J. 1990. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Anderson, W. 1982. Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Astin, A., R. Ogilvie, M. Frederiksen, and F. Walbank (edd.). 1989. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 8, Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Augoustakis, A. and A. Traill (edd). 2013. A Companion to Terence. Oxford and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Austin, J. 1921. The Significant Name in Terence. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Illinois. University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, Vol. VII, No. 4. Urbana: The University of Illinois.

Autenrieth, G. 1876. A Homeric Dictionary. New York: American Book Co.

Barsby, J. 1999. Terence: Eunuchus. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Beare, W. 1965. The Roman Stage: A Short Drama in the Time of the Republic. New York: Barnes & Noble.

Bortolussi, M. and P. Dixon. 2003. Psychonarratology Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Braund, S. 1996. The Roman Satirists and Their Masks. London: British Classical Press.

Brown, P. 1987. “Masks, Names and Characters in New Comedy.” Hermes 115: 181- 202.

———. 2006. Terence: The Comedies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 2013. “Terence and Greek New Comedy.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 17- 32.

Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 106

Cain, A. 2013. “Terence in Late Antiquity.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 380-396.

Christenson, D. 2013. “Eunuchus.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 262-279.

Cornell, T. and D. Rogers. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC). London: Routledge.

Cyrino, M. 1998. “Heroes in D(u)ress: Transvestism and Power in the Myths of Herakles and Achilles.” Arethusa 31 (2): 207-241.

———. 2008. A Journey through Greek Mythology. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.

Dumenil, L. 2014. “The Haptic Eye: On Nan Goldin’s Scopophilia.” In G. Padva and N. Buchweitz (edd.), Sensational Pleasures in Cinema, Literature and Visual Culture: The Phallic Eye. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 35-49.

Dunbar, N. 1998. Aristophanes: Birds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Duncan, A. 2006. Performance and Identity in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dunsch, B. 2014. “Religion in Roman Comedy.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014: 634-652.

Dutsch, D. 2008. Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and Voices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Earl, D. C. 1962. “Terence and Roman Politics.” Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 11 (4): 469-485.

Edwards, H. J. (ed.). 1917. The Gallic War. , 72. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Elliott, R. 1982. The Literary Persona. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Erdkamp, P. (ed.). 2011. A Companion to the Roman Army. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.

Erdkamp, P. 2011. “War and State Formation in the Roman Republic.” In Erdkamp 2011: 96-113. 107

Fantham, E. 1975. “Sex, Status, and Survival in Hellenistic Athens: A Study of Women in New Comedy.” 29: 44–74.

Flower, H. (ed.). 2014. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fontaine, M. 2014. “The Terentian Reformation: From Menander to Alexandria.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014: 538-554.

Fontaine, M. and A. Scafuro (edd.) 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Foster, B. O., F. G. Moore, E. T. Sage, and A. C. Schlesinger (edd.). 1948. Livy. Loeb Classical Library, no. 114, 133, 172, 191, 233, 295, 301, 313, 332, 355, 367, 381, 396, 404. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fowler, R. 2000. Early Greek Mythography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2013. Early Greek Mythography. Volume 2; Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fraenkel, E. 2007. Plautine Elements in Plautus (Plautinisches im Plautus), translated by T. Drevikovsky and F. Muecke. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Franko, G. 2013. “Terence and the Traditions of Roman New Comedy.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 33-50.

Fredrick, D. 2002. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gabba, E. 1989. “Rome and Italy in the Second Century B.C.” In Astin, Ogilvie, Frederiksen, and Walbank 1989: 197-243.

Gellar-Goad, T. H. M. 2013. “Religious Ritual and Family Dynamics in Terence.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 156-174.

Germany, R. 2013. “Andria.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 225-242.

Gill, C. 1996. Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy: the Self in Dialogue. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 108

Goffman, E. 1997. “Self Presentation: From The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.” In C. Lemart and A. Branaman (edd.), The Goffman Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 21-25.

Goldberg, S. 1986. Understanding Terence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 2005. Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic: Poetry and its Reception. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Goldsworthy, A. 2003. The Complete Roman Army. New York: Thames & Hudson Inc.

Green, J. R. 1985. “Drunk Again: A Study in the Iconography of the Comic Theatre.” American Journal of Archaeology 89:465-472.

Gruen, E. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

———. 2014. “Roman Comedy and the Social Scene.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014: 601-613.

Harris, N. 1989. “Roman Expansion in the West.” In Astin, Ogilvie, Frederiksen, and Walbank 1989: 107-162.

Hassall, M. 2002. “Romans and Non-Romans.” In T. Wacher (ed.), The Roman World. New York: Routledge. 685-700.

Henderson, J. 2002. Aristophanes: Lysistrata. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Holler, C. 2013. Rethinking Narrative Identity, Person, and Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hoyos, D. 2011. “The Age of Overseas Expansion (264-146 BC).” In Erdkamp 2011: 63- 79.

Hunter, R. 1985. The New Comedy of Greece and Rome. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

James, S. 2013. “Gender and Sexuality in Terence.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 175- 194. 109

Karakasis, E. 2005. Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2013. “Masters and Slaves.” In Augoustakis. and Traill 2013: 211-222.

———. 2014. “Tragic and Epic Interactions in Terentian Comedy.” In Papaioannou 2014: 75-94.

Karamanou, I. 2006. Euripides, Danae and Dictys: Introduction, Text and Commentary. Munich and Leipzig: K. G. Saur Verlag.

Kauer, R. and W. Lindsay (edd.). 1965. P Terenti Comoediae. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Clarendon.

Kendall, S. 2013. The Struggle for : Romans, Allies, and the Wars of 91-77 BCE. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.

Kernan, A. 1959. The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English . Yale studies in English, 142. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Konstan, D. 1983. Roman Comedy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Konstantakos, I. 2014. “Comedy in the Fourth Century I: Mythological Burlesques.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014: 160-180.

Lape, S. 2001. “Democratic Ideology and The of Rape in Menandrian Comedy.” 20: 79-119.

LaRue, J. 1963. “Creusa’s Monody: Ion 859-922.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 94: 126-136.

Laws, R., and W. O’Donohue. 1997. Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. New York: Guilford Press.

Lazenby, J. 2014. “Rome and .” In Flower 2014: 260-277.

Leigh, M. 2004. Comedy and the Rise of Rome. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.


Liddell, H., R. Scott, H. Stuart Jones, R. McKenzie (edd.). 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon.

Lomas, K. 2014. “Italy During the Roman Republic, 338-31 B.C.” In Flower 2014: 233- 259.

Ludwig, W. 2001. “The Originality of Terence and His Greek Models” In E. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Menander, Plautus, and Terence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 205-215.

Maltby, R. 1991. A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies. ARCA, 25. Leeds: Cairns.

Mattingly, D. 2007. An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC-AD 409. London and New York: Penguin.

Mogens, L. 2002. “Vis comica: Consummated Rape in Greek and Roman New Comedy.” Classica et Mediaevalia 53: 173-196.

Monro D. and T. Allen (edd.). 1920. Homeri Opera. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Clarendon.

Moore, T. 2013. “Meter and Music.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 89-110.

Most, G. 2006. Hesiod. Loeb Classical Library, no. 57, 503. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mulvey, L. 1975. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16: 6-18.

Norwood, G. 1923. The Art of Terence. Oxford: Basil-Blackwell.

Omitowoju, R. 2002. Rape and the Politics of Consent in Classical Athens. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press

Packman, Z. 2013. “Family and Household in the Comedies of Terence.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 195-222.

Papaioannou, S. 2014. Terence and Interpretation. Pierides, v.4. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

———. 2014. “Terence’s Stock Characters and Plots: Stereotypes ‘Interpreted.’” In Papaioannou 2014: 142-175.


Philippides, K. 1995. “Terence’s Eunuchus: Elements of the Marriage Ritual in the Rape Scene.” Mnemosyne 48: 272-284.

Pierce, K. 2002. “The Portrayal of Rape in New Comedy.” In S. Deacy, K. Pierce, and K. Arafat (edd.), Rape in Antiquity. London: Classical Press of Wales in association with Duckworth, 163-184.

Potter, D. 2014. “The Roman Army and Navy.” In Flower 2014: 54-76.

Rawlings, L. 2011. “Army and Battle During the Conquest of Italy (350-264 BC).” In Erdkamp 2011: 45-62.

Rawson, E. 1989. “Roman Tradition and the Greek World.” In Astin, Ogilvie, Frederiksen, and Walbank 1989: 422-476.

Richlin, A. 1992. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosivach, V. 2006. “The Lex Fannia Sumptuaria of 161 BC.” CJ 102 (1): 1-15.

Ruffell, I. 2014 “Humiliation, Voyeurism, Violence, and Humor in Old Comedy.” Helios 40: 247-277.

Saller, R. 1982. Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sandbach, F. (ed.). 1990. Menandri Reliquiae Selectae. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Clarendon.

Schefold, K. and L. Giuliani. 1992. Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schiller, A. 1978. : Mechanisms of Development. The Hague: Mouton.

Sharrock, A. 2009. Reading Roman Comedy: Poetics and Playfulness in Plautus and Terence. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2013. “Terence and Non-Comic Intertexts.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 52- 67.


Smith, S. 1976. “Voyeurism: A Review of Literature.” Archives of Sexual Behavior: The Official Publication of the International Academy of Sex Research 5: 585-608.

Starks, J. 2013. “Opera in bello, in otio, in negotio: Terence and Rome in the 160s BCE.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 132-155.

Sutton, D. 1994. The Catharsis of Comedy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

TrGF = B. Snell, S. Radt, R. Kannicht (edd.) 1971-2004. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. 5 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Tromaras, L. M. 1985. “Ibi inerat pictura haec: Terent. Eunuch. 584-9.” Hellenika 36: 268-277.

Vincent, H. 2013. “Fabula Stataria: Language and Humor in Terence.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 69-87.

Vishnia, R. 1996. State, Society and Popular Leaders in Mid-Republican Rome 214-167 BC. London and New York: Routledge.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1989. Patronage in Ancient Society. London and New York: Routledge.

Williams, C. 2012. Reading Roman Friendship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wiseman, T. P. 1998. Roman Drama and Roman History. Devon, UK: University of Exeter Press.

Yalom, I.D. 1960. “Aggression and Forbiddenness in Voyeurism.” Archives of General Psychology 3: 305-319.