1 GESINE MANUWALD Plautus and Terence in Their Roman Contexts Introduction Scenic productions formed a significant element of Roman festival culture from its inception. Literary versions of such performances came into being with the adoption of the dramatic genres of tragedy and comedy from Greece; soon, further dramatic genres established themselves. Out of the great number of plays written over the centuries only a few have been preserved in full: from the Republican period there are comedies by Plautus and Terence; from imperial times there are tragedies and one fabula prae- texta transmitted under Seneca’s name. It is no surprise then that works by Plautus, Terence, and Seneca have received the greatest attention; but their historical, social, and literary contexts have not always been adequately taken into account. Even though modern recipients will never be able to approach Roman dramas in the same way as original audiences did, attempts at appreciating these plays within their historical framework are possible. With regard to the comedies of Plautus and Terence from the Republican period, this means that they have to be placed within the context of their dramatic genre, which covers, beyond the two well-known playwrights, a large number of poets over an extended period of time. These dramas should also be seen within the context of other dramatic genres and of Republican literature more gener- ally, of their historical and social settings, and of the performance conditions as determined by organisational structures and audience reception. This chapter will look at these framing contexts, which mutually condition each other (on Roman vs. Greek comedy, see Telò in this volume). Context 1: The Dramatic Genre of Fabula Palliata The emergence of literary Roman drama is conventionally dated to 240 bc. In this year Rome’s first poet Livius Andronicus brought Latin drama(s) 17 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 24 Mar 2020 at 16:06:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511740466.003 the world of roman comedy based on existing Greek models on stage; his plays were shown at a festival organised by Roman magistrates right after the conclusion of the First Punic War (264–241 bc).1 Discrepancies in the sources leave it unclear whether Livius Andronicus produced one or two dramas on this occasion and whether these were a tragedy and/or comedy; at any rate the poet established Greek-style tragedy (fabula crepidata = tragedy in Greek dress) and Greek- style comedy (fabula palliata = comedy in Greek dress) in Rome. By the time Plautus (c. 250–184 bc) started producing Greek-style comedies towards the end of the third century bc, this type of drama had already been composed and watched at Rome for a few decades. In addition to Livius Andronicus (c. 280/70–200 bc), poets active in the area of comedy before Plautus or contemporary with him include Naevius (c. 280/60–200 bc) and Ennius (239–169 bc). Hence Plautus could build on established dramatic conventions and rely on the audience’s familiarity with them. The increasing sophistication of dramatic genres is probably the reason why Plautus is the first known Roman dramatist to have concentrated on one dramatic genre only (fabula palliata). In this area he seems to have been prolific: twenty-one (almost complete) plays are extant, and many more titles and fragments survive under his name, some of which, however, are likely to be spurious. Many plays came to be attributed to this successful playwright; 130 plays circulated under his name at some point, according to ancient evidence (Gell. NA 3.3). This situation served as an incentive for early scholars to look at Plautus’ output and try to separate genuine from spurious works.2 While the surviving fragments of comedies by Livius Andronicus and Ennius are meagre and do not allow a valid assessment of their specific characteristics, the extant remains of Naevius’ comedies (titles of about 35 comedies and about 140, partly incomplete, comic verses) are more substan- tial; in fact, Naevius was mainly regarded as a writer of comedies in antiquity.3 On the basis of the available titles and fragments it seems that his comedies exhibited typical motifs and plot structures of (Greek and Roman) New Comedy: there are figures such as parasites, braggart soldiers, rivals, prostitutes, twins, and even quadruplets; plots feature love affairs, conflicts between fathers and sons because of love relationships or the need for money, as well as slaves directing the course of action. Some comedies were apparently made more complex by ‘double’ plots, i.e. featuring two fathers and two sons with similar problems, by issues around mistaken 1 Cf. Cic. Brut. 72; Tusc. 1.3; Sen. 50; Liv. 7.2.8; Val. Max. 2.4.4; Gell. NA 17.21.42; Cass. Chron.,p.128 MGH AA 11.2 (on 239 bc). 2 Cf. Manuwald’s chapter on reception in this volume. 3 Cf. Gell. NA 15.24; Hieron. Ab Abr. 1816, 201 bc (p. 135g Helm). 18 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 24 Mar 2020 at 16:06:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511740466.003 Plautus and Terence in Their Roman Contexts identity or by metatheatrical statements, some of which seem to come from 4 prologues. The prologue to Terence’s Andria claims that Naevius was one of the Roman comic poets who used contaminatio, i.e. who combined elements from several Greek models into one Latin play (Ter. An. 15–21). On the whole Naevius kept the Greek setting and the Greek point of view of his models, while at the same time including allusions to Roman reality as well as references to Roman virtues and socially and politically relevant values.5 Equally, Naevius enhanced the Roman element in other literary genres, composing dramas and an epic on topics from Roman history. All this points to creative adaptation and poetic originality in Naevius’ output. As has been recognised, there are similarities in diction and individual 6 motifs between Naevius and Plautus, and a few titles are assigned to both poets in the textual tradition (Carbonaria, Colax, Nervolaria).7 Plautus is said to have revised and updated plays of older poets, which thereby gained characteristic features of his style and were ascribed to him (Gell. NA 3.3.13). This relationship to predecessors and the fact that some traits commonly associated with Plautus are already present in the works of his older contemporary indicate that Plautus worked in an emerging comic tradition and developed existing elements further. The dramas by Plautus and those by Terence (c. 195/4–159 bc) are separated by several decades, during which the poet Caecilius Statius (c. 230/20– 168/7bc) was active. Owing to this chronological position, modern scholars often regard Caecilius as an intermediary or transitional figure.8 As his dramatic output only survives in fragments (42 titles of comedies and almost 300, partly incomplete, lines), it is difficult to get a proper idea of his plays. But Caecilius’ comedies must have been impressive: Cicero says that 4 3 Cf. e.g. parasites (Naev. Colax [cf. Ter. Eun. 23–34]; Pall. 60 R. = 57 W.); braggart soldiers (Naev. Colax [cf. Ter. Eun. 23–34]); rivals (Naev. Pall. 41–2 R.3 = 42–3 W.); prostitutes (Naev. Pall. 75–9 R.3 = 74–9 W.); conflicts between fathers and sons on account 3 of love relationships and money (Naev. Pall. 95; 96–8 R. = 105; 94–6 W.); twins and even quadruplets (Naev. Pall. 2–3 R.3 = 2–3 W.; Quadrigemini); love affairs (Naev. Pall. 55; 90–1; 96–8 R.3 = 60; 88–9; 94–6 W.); banquets (Naev. Pall. 81 R.3 = 72 W.); important role of slaves (names of slaves as titles); double plots (Naev. Pall. 83–4; 86 R.3 = 80–1; 82 W.); 3 confusions between characters (Naev. Pall. 2–3 R. = 2–3 W.); metatheatrical statements (Naev. Pall. 1; 17; 72–4 R.3 = 1; 15; 69–71 W.). 5 Cf. e.g. Naev. Pall. 69; 83–4; 92–3; 108–10 R.3 = 67; 80–1; 90–1; Inc. 1–3 W. 6 3 3 Cf. e.g. Naev. Pall. 53 R. = 58 W.: Plaut. St. 118–19 – Naev. Pall. 82 R. = 84–5 W.: Plaut. 3 Most. 323–4 – Naev. Pall. 95 R. = 105 W.: Plaut. Most. 233–4. 7 In the case of Nervolaria this depends on an emendation of the title for Naevius’ play as transmitted in Nonius Marcellus (Non., p. 151.2 M. = 220 L.: Nervularia Ritschl: herularia codd.). 8 On the position of Plautus, Caecilius Statius, and Terence within the palliata tradition cf. esp. Wright (1974); Franko (2013). 19 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 24 Mar 2020 at 16:06:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511740466.003 the world of roman comedy Caecilius may ‘perhaps’ (fortasse) be called the greatest comic writer (Cic. Opt. gen. 2); Volcacius Sedigitus’ canon (c. 100 bc) of the ten best writers of comedy is headed by Caecilius (cf. Gell. NA 15.24); Quintilian reports that the ancients extolled Caecilius (Quint. Inst. 10.1.99); and (on one occasion) Gellius refers to him as ‘that famous writer of comedies’ (Gell. NA 4.20.13: ille comoediarum poeta inclutus).9 Caecilius’ impact may have been based on stunning scenes as well as on sophisticated and dramatically effective plot construction (cf.