Papaioannou (2014) Oral Textuality as a Language of Esclusive Comminication in Terences Prologues

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004270978_013

Oral Textuality as a Language ofExclusive Communication in Terences Prologues

Sophia Papaioannou

Introduction

Terences prologues address two different audiences simultaneously, the oneversed in Greek literature, the other with very limited, if any, knowledge ofwriting. Set at the opening of all six plays, the prologues strive to transmitinformation appealing to the members of both audiences. The layers or qual-itative difference in interpretation of the information communicated throughTerences prologues, and the reception of this information by the two differenttypes of spectators, sit at the core of the present study. The prologues trans-mit two types of information: firstly, a defense against a series of accusationsfor plagiarism or inappropriate tampering with the rules of model reception;and secondly, and more subtly, a statement about the introduction of a newmethodology of palliata composition. The novelty of the latter is underscoredby a series of allusions to certain poetically significant texts from the Greek lit-erary tradition.

The two types of information reach illiterate audiences or those of limitedaccess to the culture of writing, as well as audiences broadly read, highly edu-cated, who are most likely bilingual and have access to written Greek litera-ture. Both groups may have similar and extensive experience with attendingdramatic performances of palliatae, or may have attended oratorical perfor-mances such as trials. Hence both would be in a position to comprehend thesignificance of themethodological novelty introducedanovelty based on theextensive use of writing. Yet, only the educated audiencewould be able to com-prehend the multiple levels of Terences engagement with poetics as they arearticulated in the allusions to Greek literature throughout. The uneducated,illiterate audience members, with little or no exposure to written texts, wouldbe attracted to the art of Terences comic-writing through his meticulouslycrafted language that uses the techniques of oral poetrynamely the recurrentuse of key words, phrases, themes and figures of speech, which are often remi-niscent of epic formulas. The employment of language from the technology oforality is delivered in a style that deliberately echoes oratorical performances.This display communicates to the spectators, whomight otherwise be uninter-ested in the literary nuances of the comic speech, the promise of a spectacle as

oral textuality as a language of exclusive communication 219

fascinating, exciting and entertaining as a successful performance in court bya master orator. Not least, the extensive use of the techniques of orality under-scores, by juxtaposition, Terences great contribution to the evolution of fabulapalliata: full scriptwriting.

Rapportwith the audience is initially established bymeans of a conspicuouscapitatio benevolentiae. The prologues are introduced by an actor, the impre-sario Ambivius Turpio, the prologus speaker of Terences plays. He is also theleading actor of the company that will subsequently stage the play. Ambiviusspeaks on behalf of the playwright and deliberately uses language distinctlyrhetorical and reminiscent of the courts.1 The actor is self-introduced, in twoprologues, as an orator (Hecyra 9; Heaut. 11), advocate, and the members ofthe audience are addressed as judges (Heaut. 12 iudicium vostrum fecit; Ad. 4vos eritis iudices). Furthermore, the opponents bring charges against the poet;notably, one of the charges is defined as furtum, burglary, in deliberate evoca-tion of the criminal act (Eun. 28; Ad. 13).2 The oratorical terminology transformsTerences appeal for benevolence into a situation comparable to a trial, not onlyin character but also in significance: the outcome of the dramatic competitionwill determine Terences future as playwright.

Roman Comedy allows for a unique examination of the manifestation oforalcy in Roman literature, as well as a look at the earliest expression of theanxiety of intercultural and intertextual influence at Rome. Oralcy is a liminalstate where both oral and literate modes of literary expression thrive at thesame time.3 The definition of oralcy at Romeduring themiddle Republic, whenthe beginnings of Latin literature are set, is tied to an additional factor, the

1 The performative aspect is further underlined by the fact that these opening pieces are

entitled prologuesa technical term of Classical Greek drama, either for the part before

the entry of the chorus (Arist. Po. 1452b19), or for the monologue containing a narrative of

facts introductory to the main action (e.g. Ar. Fr. 1119).

2 On the relation of Terences prologues to contemporary oratory, see foremost Leo (1960:

135149), and more recently Goldberg (1986: 3160); also Focardi (1972 and 1978), which

demonstrate Terences reliance on legal language, and trace similarities of style between the

prologues and the texts of the orators. Worth consulting, finally, is the comparison between

Terences rhetorical style and the precepts of the Rhetorica ad Herrenium and Ciceros De

Inventione Rhetorica, in Barsby (2010: 3943).

3 Oralcy is the liminal stage in a societywherebothoral and literatemodes of expression exist.

The term is used interchangeably with orality in contexts of literary narrative in general (cf.

Ong 1982; Derrida 1976) and specifically for the archaic Greek epic, as the intermediate stage

in a societys progressive transition from an oral culture to a culture of writing (cf. Dederian

2001: 67, 11, 1314, 96, 117, 139, 189).

220 papaioannou

systematic reception of Greek literature and culture. The traditionally set origi-nary date of Roman literature, the year 240bce, is identified with the festival ofthe ludi Romani of that year when plays modeled on Greek ones were first cel-ebrated in Rome.4 The development of Roman literature, accordingly, shouldbe approached also as a development of a form of antagonismwhich graduallybecomes more sophisticated. Perhaps viewed as an ongoing practice of liter-ary polemic and creative aemulatioa practice understood and appreciatedin Terences day by Romans across the social spectrum, since a steadily grow-ing number of Roman farmers/soldiers were forced to serve longer periods oftime in theHellenophone areas of Southern Italy and Sicily,5 and inGreece, andtheir contact with Greek culture in the course of the third century was increas-ing in frequency, intensity and depth.6 Terences prologues, as will be pointedout, therefore, appropriatein the Roman contextprogrammatic passagesof poetic self-consciousness which transcribe the anxiety of influence as felt bykey Greek authors, specifically Aristophanes and Callimachus.

Assessment of Knowledge Communicated through the ProloguesA leading premise of the present argument is that Terences prologues, as wellas the scripts of the rest of Terences plays, were written in full from the verybeginning and were delivered on stage without changes to the original scriptbefore a socially and culturally heterogeneous audience, obviously aiming atestablishing rapport with as many members of this audience as possible.7The same texts, however, do not communicate the same information to allmembers of the audience. A substantial part of the knowledge recorded inthese prologues may be controlled only by those among his audience whohave access to literacy. Literate spectators, many of them quite erudite withaccess to the sameGreek sources Terence had, appreciated the prologuesmuchdifferently than the illiterate audienceswhomissed out on this intertextuality.8

4 E.g. Gruen (1990: 84) characterizes the ludi Romani of 240 as a cultural landmark in the history

of Rome, for it announced Romes participation in the intellectual world of the Greeks.

5 On Greek theaters in southern Italy and Sicily, see Sear (2006: 4849); on the staging of

dramatic performances in Southern Italy in the third century, see Gentili (1979: 1632).

6 On the receptivity of the Roman soldiers to Greek culture, see Bernstein (1998: 234251) and

Horsfall (2003: 4863).

7 Gilula (1989) is the first to read the prologues as theatrical scriptswritten for delivery on stage.

8 The lack of education of the great majority of the theater audiences is commented upon by

Cicero, who in his (now fragmentary) Pro Gallio pokes fun at a poorly educated mime writer

by comparing his lack of education to that of his audience:multos enim condiscipulos habet in

theatro, qui simul litteras non didicerunt (for he hasmany fellow-students in the theater who,


For the latter, the prologues (and the plays following them) were above allperformances; to the former, they represented much more than that.

The elite spectators, aristocrats well versed in Greek literature and, by Ter-ences time, the third generation of importers of Greek culture to Rome, werefamiliar with Greek New Comedy plays in writing, and may even have ownedscripts of the very Greek plays Terence and the other Roman dramatists ofthe palliata were using.9 These men were in a position to properly assess theimportance of Terences contribution to Roman comic dramaturgy upon hisstaging plays from finalized scripts. Terence confronted the actors with scriptsto be memorized in full. Before Terence, comic performances built either onmere plot outlines which the actors then took upon themselves to developby adding words, a technique that was certainly used in the case of the non-literary forms of Roman drama, namely the fabula Atellana and the Romanmime;10 or on suggestive scripts, which the actors were free to alter in per-formance and develop by improvisation, as it has been claimed for the palliataof Naevius, and later, of Ennius and Plautus generation (and, by association, ofTerences accusers).11 The implementation of this new technique by Terence is

like him, have not been schooled in literature) the fragment and its context is mentioned

in Goldberg (2005: 90 n. 6), and is discussed in detail in Crawford (1994: 145158).

9 On the multilayered influence the culture of Greece exercised upon Republican Roman

aristocrats in the course of the 3rd and 2nd centuries bce, see Gruen (1986: 251260).

10 On the fabula Atellana, see most recently Manuwald (2011: 169177) with n. 129 where

ample earlier bibliography is cited; on the Roman mime, Manuwald (2011: 178183), with

n. 153 for earlier bibliography.

11 The textual fixidity of the palliata is seriously debated nowadays. In his study of Roman

literary literacy in the Middle Republic, Goldberg (2005, especially Chapters 2 and 3),

sensibly argues that comedies did not become literature per se at the very time they

were put on stage, but rather generations later, at the end of the second century bce

and onwards. This was the achievement of scholars who converted scripts composed for

utilitarian purposes and destined for performance into texts for study (Goldberg 2005: 81).

The plays staged during the golden era of Roman comedy were not considered literary

texts; it was not their textual dimension that mattered but their performative aspect,

namely their effective transference on stage. As a result, the fixity of the text was not an

issue to be accounted for. Marshall discusses improvisation as the dominant feature of

Plautus plays in the last chapter of his 2006 book. He argues that when Plautus playswere

originally performed, they were not based on a full scriptor the actors did not have to

observe faithfully any given script. Plautus actors built on the script they received while

they performed; after the performance, the script of the play that circulated for future

staging was altered to include successful improvisations devised by the actors during the

performance. Plautus is crafting a play, constructed from different pieces over time with

222 papaioannou

communicated in language that echoes the programmatic statements ofAristophanes and Callimachus, and temptingly casts Terence in similar light.The approval of the elite and politically powerful audience was all the moreimportant given that Terences initiative to curb the actors improvisatory riffsand take over himself, the auctor, the control of the performance in everyrespect, alarmed his rivals, the earlier generation of comic professionals.12 Thethreat behind the prospect of a wide embrace of this new type of comic dra-maturgy at Rome13 may well be the leading motive behind the attack Terencereceived fromhis unnamed opponentsor at least, this is what the poet wantshis audience to believe.

the help of his associates, and not simply writing a document that remains unchanged

(Marshall 2006: 263).

Marshalls view is, of course, impossible to prove, but in light of Marshalls skepticism

for the complete scriptedness of Plautus plays in their original form and given the indu-

bitable influence of the Atellena and the other non-literaryunscriptedformsof Italian

drama, so is the view that Plautus wrote down a completed script and handed it over to

the actors in written form, or that the script that circulated after the first performance

of the play was the same as the one composed by Plautus prior to the first performance.

The element of improvisation in Plautus has been studied extensively in the past quarter

century by Eckard Lefvre and his school, who have shown the lack of uniformity and the

infelicities in language and style in Plautus plays, which destabilize the text and the idea

of authorship, and favor instead a fluid view of the comedies that survive under Plautus

name. Representative publications of Lefvres school on Plautus improvisation include:

Benz, Strk, Vogt-Spira, and Lefvre (1995); Benz and Lefvre (1998); Lefvre (1999 and

2001); also the kindred views in Slater (1993: 113124).

12 Luscius Lanuvinus is identified as Terences main opponent by Donatus; Terence never

names his opponent; instead, he confronts him as a paradigmatic representative of a par-

ticular way of writing, which allows him to attack this style more forcefully (Manuwald

2011: 251).

13 Lefvre (1978: 43, 55, 66) has suggested Roman tragedy, too, did not have an organically

developing action;Manuwald (2011: 138n. 34), however, is skeptical about this, owing to the

insufficient evidence of fragments and later testimonia commenting on the structure of

the Republican tragoedia. More interestingly, it has been often argued that the praetexta,

the type of Roman tragedy that dramatized episodes from Roman history, had a long,

unscripted tradition that reached back to the Etruscan era (Rawson 1991: 470471); that

there have been composed far more praetextae than those attested (only ten titles are

known from the Republican era); cf. mainly Wiseman (1994: 122 and 1998: 116 and

passim). The very lack of ancient sources, however, on the existence of this unscripted

tradition, especially if this traditionused tobepopular and long, has raised concerns about

its validity; cf. Flower (1995: 173175); Manuwald (2001: 9194 and 2011: 141).


Illiterate audiences probably could not appreciate the fact that Terencespalliatae are orally performed texts. They appreciated them as performances,that is, spectacles along the same lines as, for example, Plautus plays, or ropewalking and boxingtwoother types of spectacular performance rivalingwiththe palliatae for the attention of the same audience. To these spectators, theliteracy-determined character of the play is hardly an issueas are the accusa-tions on Terences plagiarism, and by association, Terences elaborate defenseagainst them.14 It is unlikely that the Roman plebs cared at all whether Terencehad contaminated two different Greek plays. Logically, the politics of assessingan orally performed text, as well as the accusations against Terences compo-sition practices, concern a special rapport a young and ambitious dramatistwishes to build with the politically and financially powerful members of hisliterate audience.

Some of the members of this elite audience belonged to a special subgroupthat played a pivotal role in the performance business and was not only inter-ested in being entertained by the play.15 This special audience included: theaediles, the magistrates who chose the plays to be performed following nego-tiations with the impresarios with whom they agreed upon the terms of thepurchasing contract; the impresarios themselves, who were scouting for tal-ented playwrights who had the potential to compose popular and hence profit-generating plays;16 the Roman elites, who were likely to patronize a talentedplaywright; and of course, the various dramaturges, who rivaled for a spoton the magistrates performance lists since their own careers and livelihoods

14 Recently Umbrico has argued that Terences focus of attack is not on a singularmaleuolus

uetus poeta but on a whole group of poet-detractors (who have obscura diligentia at An.

21), amongwhomLanuvinus stood out;more specifically, for Umbrico, Lanuvinus acted as

magister of the collegium scribarum histrionumque (the corporazione dei poeti teatrali)

set up by senatus consultum in honor of Livius Andronicus in 207 or 206bce. Hence, in

previewing the Eunuch, Lanuvinus exercises his magisterial potestas inspiciundi, what we

might think of as quality control. Terence, an outsider to the collegium, and acting on his

patrons behalf, espouses a controversial new philhellenic poetics similar to what we find

in the works of Ennius (Umbrico 2012: 8590). Terences take on hismalevoli antagonists

will be discussed below.

15 See Beacham (1999: 244), for an extensive discussion on public entertainment in Rome,

including various technical aspects of the organization of the ludi; on the latter, see also

Brown (2002: 229231); on the function of the stage manager, see Beare (1964: 164165);

Duckworth (1952: 74); Gratwick (1982: 82); Barsby (1986: 78); Manuwald (2011: 8183).

16 On Ambivius as scout investing in Terences talent, see Ter. Hec. 157; Didascalia on Ter.

Hec.; Ter. Phorm. 3034.

224 papaioannou

depended on maintaining participation in the ludi. Without denying the non-erudite audience the ability to enjoy and appreciate a Roman comedy with acertain degree of sophistication resulting from their considerable experiencewith palliata-attending,17 it should be acknowledged that only the membersof the Roman elite, next to the professionals of the theater business, wereable to assess the many levels of engagement with the Greek literary tradi-tion in the background of a transference of one or more Greek models inLatin.

In 167bce, just a year before Terence staged his first play, the Macedonianroyal library was brought to Rome by the victor over king Perseus, the gen-eral L. Aemilius Paulus. From that year onwards, the rich collection of thislibrary was potentially available to the professional comedians who could nowhave access to a great number of Greek model texts. This library most likelyenabled Terence, who had close ties with the Paulus family, to read the playsof Menander, who was, unlike his contemporaries, popular with the Macedo-nian court.18 The ready accessibility of Menanders plays, in writing and in theoriginal Greek, may explain Terences special attraction to Menander, and alsohis decision to embrace fully written-out, author-controlled scripts and foregoa long and very successful tradition of palliatamaking that relied on the actorsability to improvise their lines during performance and drew on multiple NewComedy models.

The Special Rapport with the Literate AudienceThe opening of the Andria, Terences first play, with a prologue that developsaround a polemic hardly justified by realism (the prologue defends Terenceagainst accusations for improper playwriting, yet the Andria about to beginis the very first play of a nineteen-year-old dramatist) has rightly raised doubtsabout the actual existence of these rivals. Instead, the recurrence of the same

17 On the capabilities of thepalliata audience seeHandley (1975: 117132); thepaperdiscusses

specifically Plautus audience, but the argument applies more soundly to the more expe-

rienced theatergoers of Terences generation.

18 On L. Aemilius Paulus transporting of Perseus library to Rome for the education of his

two sons, see the testimony in Plut. Aem. Paul. 28.6. The library had a full collection of

Menander, andvery likelyplays of otherGreekdramatists, soTerence,whomusthavebeen

particularly close to the family of Paulus given that twoof his plays, the (successful)Hecyra

and the Adelphoe were staged specially, at the funeral games in the honor of Aemilius

Paulus in 160bce, as recorded in the didascaliae of the plays, could have ready access to

Menanders texts; cf. e.g. Wiles (2011: 6061); on Menander as the favorite author of the

Macedonian rulers, see Umbrico (2012: 109110).


polemic rhetoric in every prologue, often in identical phraseology,19 urges fora less literal reading of Terences poetic rivalry, in light of the kindred literaryantagonism that distinguishes important pieces of Greek literature of program-matic literary character.20

In their deliberate resemblance to pieces of judicial oratory, the prologuesshare striking analogies with the parabases of Aristophanic comedy as state-ments of comic agonism. The same agonistic element engrosses Terences con-sistent reference to his antagonists in his prologues, and the need to defendones own status as a professional dramatist, and it is expressed through setphraseology that is artfully arranged in the prologue text, often in the samepartof the prologue. The language as a whole is strongly reminiscent of the com-petition between Aristophanes and his rivals, most notably Cratinus.21 Aristo-phanes and Cratinus transferred to the comic stage their conflicted views onthemethodology, objectives and aesthetics of comic composition. Intriguingand instructive for reassessing the antagonistic interaction between Terenceand his rivalsis the likely hypothesis that Aristophanes and Cratinus drama-tized in reality the rivalry between themselves on purpose, upon realizing thatthis excited the audience and generated popularity.22 The dramatization of aliterary rivalry by Aristophanes and Cratinus started a tradition in Attic Com-edy, creating a motif: gibes and counter-gibes of collaboration, plagiarism andthe like had by [the end of the fifth century bce] become a stock comic toposa recurrent motif in the twin techniques of self promotion and denigration ofothers that played an explicit part in the rivalry of comic poets competing for

19 Noted already in Donatus, who ad Eun. 1 (Si quisquam est qui placere studeat bonis) notes:

attendenda poetae copia, quod in tot prologis de eadem causa isdem fere sententiis variis

verbis utitur (Wessner 1962/3 I: 270).

20 My analysis owes much to the recent discussion on the agonistic character of Terences

prologues in Sharrock (2009: 6396), who reads the six pieces as a comic way of making a

programmatic statement. Sharrocks analysis rightly identifies the kinship of Terences

prologues to the agonistic language of Aristophanes, Callimachus Aetia prologue, and

Plautus prologizing monologues.

21 Cf. Sharrock (2009: 7778); on the antagonism between Aristophanes and Cratinus as

typical among competing comic dramatists in the Old Comedy era, see recently Bakola

(2010, esp. chapter 1, Poetic Persona and Poetic Voice in Cratinus Comedy) and Biles

(2011). On the agonistic character of Old Comedy more broadly, see Harvey and Wilkins

(2000).

22 This hypothesis has been argued convincingly in Luppe (2000: 1523), depicting the

explicit rivalry between Aristophanes and Cratinus as bothmutually exploited and highly

creative.

226 papaioannou

public prizes.23 The extent to which these direct metatheatrical references todramatic competitionwere true is not possible to ascertain, and itwas probablynever expected to be. The internationalization of Attic Comedy and the com-position of plays beyond the scope of local (Athenian) dramatic competition,in the next century, however, caused self-referential comments on rivalry, self-praise for originality, and accusations for plagiarism to disappear even thoughconscious intertextuality was as close and openly pursued as ever.24 The rea-sons for this are obvious: before an international audience unfamiliar with themodels of a givenplay, charges of plagiarismwould simply be difficult to conveyand of little interest.

Terence seems to reach backwards in time to the Old Comedy rivalry motif;hence the close resemblance in his description of the dramatic rivalries inearly second century bce Republican Rome to the conventions of the comicagondetected inAristophanes: poetic antagonismwith competitors, defendingones own status as professional dramatist, charting ones own new coursein the evolution of the performance genre and engaging the audience, thuslinking real world to stage world. The reasons for this decision to revive thelanguage of dramatic rivalrywill be examined below. Presently one should notethat the detection of intertextualitymay be appreciatedmore thoroughly by anaudience able to access the preexisting literary Greek tradition of dramatizedpoetic antagonism and the advertizing of ones own status as a dramatist, aswell as his novel contribution to the particular category of the genre. It is likelyboth that Terence was familiar with the conventions of Old Comedy and thatthe Roman elite had access to the plays of Aristophanes and his rivals.25 This

23 Halliwell (1989: 519); cf. Slater (1985 and 1995: 33).

24 Slater (1995: 3334); Hunter (1983: 155 ad Eubulus fr. 67 K-A) and earlier bibliography on

the extensive literary borrowing in Middle Comedy.

25 Admittedly, there is no substantial evidence to sustain such a hypothesis; the heavily

politicized content and the topicality of Aristophanes plays resulted in the drastic reduc-

tion of Old Comedy plays from the repertories of the travelling Hellenistic thiasoi, yet

performances of Aristophanic playswere held in 4th c. Southern Italy. Themost important

relevant evidence is the depiction of a performance of AristophanesThesmophoriazousae

on a South Italian vase; see Taplin (1987a, 1987b, and 1993: 3641, and 1993: 4445 on other

depictions of Aristophanes plays on South Italian vases); Green (2003: catalogue no. 2);

Rusten (2011: 434435); cf. Slater (1995: 33n. 14): Surely themajority, indeed the vastmajor-

ity, of Greek performances in South Italy were of contemporary plays. One would assume

that Aristophanes was no larger a proportion of the current repertoire in the fourth cen-

tury than G.B. Shaw is todaya classic, not a staple, in other words. Other well-known

plays of Old Comedy that were likely performed in Southern Italy as they seem to be

depicted on vases of the 4th century, include CratinusNemesis (Taplin 1993: 8283; Green


realization invites one to revisit Terences commentary on poetic rivalry (andalso his recurrent mention of the charges and the threats of the rivals in everyprologue) and consider themaspart of a literary discussiononengagingoneselfdynamically and creatively within a long literary tradition.

Terences proximity to Callimachus and his pioneering poetics articulated inthe context of self-defense against his poetic rivals, the Telchines, give furtherreason to see the rivalry theme in the prologues as poetically determined. Theproximity is observed in theway Terence seems to paraphrase key phrases fromtheprogrammatic texture of the Aetiaprologuephraseswhich stress particu-larly the spirit of poetic agonism. Tomention just a few pointed examples. Theword poeta in the opening of the prologue to the Andria, Terences first play,evokes the vocative that opens Apollos address to Callimachus in Aet.1.23. All of Terences prologues emphasize writingscribere, a no less program-matic termfeatures in the first line of the Andria prologue and becomes thetechnical term to signify playwriting for Terence and recalls Apollos placingof a deltos, a writing tablet, on Callimachus knees in Aet. 1.22. Other Calli-machean elements are the naming of the opponent as malevolus (cf. Ad. 15,malevoli; malevolent decrepit poet, in An. 6 f., malevoli veteris poetae; Heaut.22, malevolu vetu poeta) in evocation of the Callimachean for theTelchines; and, most importantly for our purposes, the defense of a differentstyle of comic poetics, indirectly extracted from the dismissal of what is con-sidered acceptable comic writing in e.g. the Phormio prologue (68).26

2001: catalog no. 10; Rusten 2011: 190191) and EupolisDemes (Storey 2003: 117; Green 2008:

212213; Rusten 2011: 232). On the evolution of comic drama in the 4th century as a result

of the pan-Hellenization of Comedy, see most recently Konstantakos (2011). On the other

hand, the rarity of Old Comedy revivals in the repertories of the ludi does not mean that

the Romans of the Middle Republic were ignorant of Aristophanes plays as texts: several

among the Roman elites who occupied the front seats in Terences theater likely owned

copies of Greek texts not widely circulating in Rome, including copies of Aristophanes.

Lucilius, the father of Roman Satire and Terences contemporary, was traditionally held

in antiquity to have modeled his caustic speech under the influence of the Old Comedy

language (cf. Hor. Sat. 1.4.1 ff.), and his deep knowledge of Aristophanes is firmly acknowl-

edged nowadays; cf. Zimmermann (2001); Sommerstein (2011). Lucilius modeled his style

on theAristophanic verse knowing that hewould gainpopularity by embracing a language

of social criticism already popular with his fellow-countrymen. It is logical that Terence

wouldhavehad first-handknowledgeofAristophanes plays, aswell; copiesmayhavebeen

supplied to him by the travelling thiasoi, along with copies of Greek New Comedy plays,

or by his aristocratic patrons (including Aemilius Paulus, who had transported Perseus

library to Rome) who had copies in their personal collections.

26 See most recently Sharrock (2009: 7883).

228 papaioannou

The rebuking of the malevoli opponents along with their poetics deservescloser attention. On two occasions Terences malevolent adversaries are addi-tionally described as old. The poetic connotations of old age are alreadyfound inAristophanic agonistic poetry. In several of his plays thewar of the gen-erations is at once political and poetic.27 This is well illustrated in the Knights.In this play, the Sausage-seller is anxious for a victory over his rival, the Paphlag-onian. This victory is described characteristically in a programmatic oracle setin the opening scene (128143) as a political succession, where the Sausage-seller is foretold that he will ascend after three other consecutive sellers ofdifferent wares (the last of whom, a tanner, is a clear allusion to Cleon). Onanother level, however, the same victory reflects the struggle between Aristo-phanes, who stands as the youngest of four comic poets, and his rivals to securethe favor of the audience. In light of the Sausage-seller, Aristophanes opposesan established, and thus hard to fight, tradition of older poets. The old age ofthe rivals is emphasized by the repeated mention of the young age of both theSausage-seller and Aristophanesa young age accompanied by inexperience(178179, 182, 211212, 222224; and611 on the youthfulness of the Sausage-seller;513516, 541, and 545 on the young age of Aristophanes). In order to overcometheir inexperience and succeed against their rivals, both the Sausage-seller andAristophanes will need the succor of the chorus, the Athenian demos (in termsof the political rivalry), or the audience (in terms of the poetic one).28

In Callimachus the old age motif evolves. It does not actually apply tothe poets themselvesliterallybut to their poetry: old age represents theburden of tradition, specifically Homeric-style epic and all epic literature pro-duced thereafter, while young is any poet in Callimachus generation whowishes to compose poetrywith a personal character. Thepoetically determineddichotomy of young vs. old is particularly well-illustrated in the Aetia prologue.At Aet. 1.2124 Callimachus is introduced as a young poet just beginning towrite poetry, when in his quasi-Hesiodic dream he is instructed by Apollo to

27 In Old Comedy the conflict of generations is politically and culturally determined, with

distinct forensic touches, as exemplified e.g. in the argument between Philocleon and

Bdelycleon in the Wasps, but it also advances Aristophanes poetics against that of his

rivals, most notably Cratinus; cf. Sidwell (1995) on the politics and poetics articulated in

the Wasps as to parody Cratinus Pytine; and Sutton (1983) for the conflict of generations

motif in Comedy.

28 On Aristophanes projecting his rivalry against his older rivals on the political contest of

the Sausage-seller against his own opponents, see Biles (2011: 121126). For rivalry between

older and younger/new poets during the 420s in Athens, cf. Russo (1994: 1920); Biles

(2001); Olson (2007: 2122).


apply himself to the service of the . And yet, a few lines earlier(Aet. 1.56) he is an older poet, when he is accused by the Telchines that despitehis advanced age he has not ceased from playing with his verse-making justlike a boy does with his toys. Finally, towards the end of the prologue (Aet. 1.3335) the poet wishes to free himself from the burden of old age, like the cicada.As iswidely established nowadays, the cicada is associatedwith poetics as earlyas Sappho 58.29 In this poem, the cicada symbolizes poetic rejuvenation andimmortality, while the burden of old age is the burden of the epic past, but alsothe burden of a long tradition of literary voices themselves, like Callimachus,conscious of following a venerable tradition.30

Terence borrows from both traditions as he infuses the poetics of rejuve-nation with the element of agonism. He interprets Callimachus apology asa declaration that he is introducing a new style of comic dramaa style thatis viewed antagonistically by the established old order of palliata makers. Tothis end, he invites his erudite audience to understand the prologues as pro-grammatic pieces of a new trend in Roman dramaturgy, according to whichliterary production intended for the stage is decidedly scripted. For Terence, lit-eracy, understood as the production of performances that reproduce faithfullythe playwrights original script, is a key element that brands the originality ofCallimachus verse, including epic, against the venerable, orally delivered epictradition of the Homeric epics. In the Aetia prologue the young Callimachusreceives Apollos epiphany and inspiration with a deltos, a writing tablet, onhis knees (fr. 1.21Pf.). This emphasizes writing and communication in writing,in direct contrast to oral delivery and circulation as the distinct characteris-tic of literary expression.31 Along this literacy-determined line of argument,Terences prologues convey a polemic against opponents who fight him vig-orously not only because he is a rival contestant but because he is willing toexperiment with new poetics in the reformation of the palliata genre. LusciusLanuvinus and the rest of Terences opponents are worried because if Terences

29 See e.g. West (2005); Janko (2005); Greene (2011).

30 On the poetics of old age as a tradition beginning with Hesiod but transformed into a

motif in Callimachus where for the first time it is juxtaposed to young age in the context

of the desire for rejuvenation, see detailed discussionmost recently in Harder (2012: 7071

[commentary ad Aet. 1.30] and 7982 [commentary ad Aet. 1.3536, where ample earlier

bibliography is recorded]).

31 Nonetheless, it should be noted that the ancient Greeks themselves were largely unaware

that the epics of Homerwere orally fashioned; theHellenistic poets, like Callimachus, saw

him as a writer, like themselves, though they did note Homers attention for oral delivery

(repetition instead of variation, etc).

230 papaioannou

experiment is proven agreeable to the refined tastes of the elite spectators, prof-itable for the impresarios, and able to generate popularity for the aediles, thissuccess will threaten their own prospects and overall professional survival aspalliata poets henceforth. In short, by evoking a token piece of sophisticatedliteracy meaning to serve primarily as a literary manifesto, Terence communi-cates that he may harbor similar ambition, but also casts his opponents in theshadow of those malevolent rivals of Callimachus, who embody crusty, anti-quated, and unattractive poetics.32

In the same context of literacy-determined palliata performance we shouldconsider the revival in Terences prologues of the metatheatrical references tocomic agonism known from Old Comedy. There references have a program-matic function. Terence invites his rivals and critics to study his scripts and, asa result, identify his textual debt to the plots of his Greek models, which hiserudite audience might have known from a scripted version as well. To Lus-cius and the other rivals, this provable plagiarism might be culpable, evenagainst the rules, but Terence saw in it an opportunity, first, for self-promotion,and second, for originality. For Terence, the accusation of plagiarism essen-tially advertizedevenmore prominently, through the projection of his antag-onists admissionthat he utilized, by direct access, the full spectrum of hisearlier sources. The young poet could publicize the successful ways in whichhe adapted multiple earlier New Comedy models, both Greek and Latin, butin ways so sophisticated that no certain opinion could be formed, and he alsocould divulge and debate upon these accusations for model mishandling inthe fashion of the self-consciously dramatized literary criticism of Old Com-edy. Then, the emphasis on the compositional methodology of his plays thatinevitably would follow the charge of plagiarism enabled Terence to illustratethe original character of his dramaturgy. By ordering his actors to follow hisscript to the letter, Terence impeded them from intervening in his composi-tion, and by extension in his own, original reading of his earlier models. Also,he impeded them from reproducing themselves. Stand-up comedy actors todaytypically repeat their most successful gigswe have little reason to doubt thatthe actors of the pre-Terentian comic stage did not as well. Further, in demand-ing loyal observance of the script, Terence implicitly places himself in theshoes of Aristophanes and embraces the literary polemic of the latter, typicallyclaiming that his rivals employ jokes that are stale, clichd and overused. He

32 See Goldberg (1986: 3160 and 1983, 198211), who rightly reckons Terences quarrel with

Luscius Lanuvinus as more a dramaturgical device than a historical record. On Luscius,

see the inventive reconstruction by Garton (1972: 41139).


also indirectly rejects the Plautine dramaturgy of improvisatory, shtick-basedlaughter-production.

The promise of originality due to literacy-determined fixidity is establishedin the text of the prologues. Terences initiative in introducing fully written-outperformances justifies the recurrence of scribere, to write, in various formsand no less than seventeen times in the prologues alone. Moreover, these ref-erences are set in prominent places throughout. For example, we find them inthe first line of the Andria prologue, which also happens to be Terences veryfirst words, in the opening lines of other prologues, and even in the last line ofthe prologue to the Adelphoe, Terences last play.33 Writing, thus, is paired tothe old vs. new poetics dichotomy. These two themes, both effective rhetoricaltools, holdprominentplaces inTerences programmatic texts andaddress thoseamonghis audience able to appreciate the literary discussionwithCallimachusand the Hellenistic tradition of innovative poetics. The dismissive characteri-zations of Terences comic speech, the phrases tenui oratione, thin of speech,and scriptura levi, light in writing (Phorm. 5), may be read along these lines,34as anticipatory to the literary meaning they will acquire a century later whenthey will transfer the Callimachean into a comparable Roman poeticcontext.35 Literacy is paramount for the production of groundbreaking dramabecause this new poetics of palliata-composition, Terence claims, is to be styl-ized, codified. Codification is best realized through writing. The semiotics ofwriting as code for denoting poetic originality is part of the message delivered

33 The seventeen attestations of scribere and its various forms are: An. 1 ad scribendum

adpulit; 5 in prologis scribundis; Phorm. 3ne scribat parat; 5 scriptura levi; 6 insanumscripsit

adulescentulum; Hec. 13 cum poeta scriptura evanescerent; 24 scripturam sprevissem; 27 ne

alias scriberet;Heaut. 7 nunc qui scripserit; 15 orationemhanc scripsit; 43 novas qui scribunt;

Eun. 7 et easdemscribendomale; inThesauro scripsit; 36 licet currentemservumscribere; Ad.

1 poeta sensit scripturam suam; 17 adsidueque una scribere; 26 poetae ad scribendumaugeat

industriam.

34 Terence in turn accuses his literary opponent of extravagant tragic coloring not befitting

the comic style (Phorm. 68; cf. Barsby 2001: 13; Sharrock 2009: 8183; Bianco 2009).

35 The programmatic use of the Latin translation of , tenuis, to express Callimachean

allegiance is widespread. See e.g. Verg. Ecl. 1.2, tenui avena, in a particularly programmatic

position, the second verse of Vergils entire corpus; also Verg. Ecl. 6.8 (in a Callimachean

context): agrestem tenuimeditaboharundineMusam (I nowwillmeditate the rusticMuse

on slender reed, tr. Lee); likewise, in Verg. Ecl. 5.2, tenuis is replaced by levis as modifier

of the Vergilian pipe (metaphor for poetry): tu calamos inflare levis; see e.g. Reitzenstein

(1931: 3437); Clausen (1964 and 1987: 3); Schmidt (1972: 2126); Ross (1975: 2627); Toohey

(1996: 75); and Hubbard (1998: 101) on tenuis as translation of .

232 papaioannou

in Terences prologues.36 Literacy is at the core of Terences self-defense againsthis opponents charges of inappropriate playwriting.

The two principal charges hurled at Terences originality and authenticityare furtum, theft, burglary, and contaminatio, inappropriate mixing of differ-ent Greek models. Contaminatio is mentioned in the prologues of the Andria(1621), and the Heauton Timorumenos (1618). On both occasions the poetdenies that he has committed any violation; on the contrary, on both occasionshe defends himself in a similar way, by saying that he is following a prece-dent. This precedent in the Heauton Timorumenos concerns the existence ofan exemplum bonorum (Heaut. 20). These boni in the Andria are identified:they are the great comic dramatists of the earlier generation, Plautus, Naeviusand Ennius. Furtum is mentioned in the prologues of the Eunuch (28) and theAdelphoe (13), and refers to the use of material which has already appearedin a Latin play. In light of this strong precedent, Terence rightly claims to beabsolved from the charge that he tampered with his models in an inappropri-ate way.37

36 Terences employment of the vocabulary of writing with the Callimachean, literarymean-

ing of the term, as code for the new type of epic poetry that distances itself from the

Homeric archetype, calls tomindCatullus projection of themeaning of the Callimachean

code word onto the use of the same word in Sappho fr. 31; on the latter, cf. Kubiaks

comments on Catullus translating in Sappho fr. 31 with tenuis in his own trans-

lation of the Sapphic poem in his carmen 51 ( /

~ tenuis sub artus / flamma demanat): A further Alexandrian reference may be present

here as well. It was a happy accident that Sapphos poem contained the adjective ,

a word that was to acquire for the Alexandrian poets a very specific meaning, and which

became a part of the vocabulary of the Callimachean literary programme When Catul-

lus found the word in Sappho he translated it with a Latin equivalent which was to have

equal significance for the neoteric poets and their successors (Kubiak 1979: 139140).

37 FromTerences text it seems that contaminatio is a culpable thing onlywhen it involves the

inappropriate mixing of several Greek texts, not the mixing itself, given that, as Terence

points out in Andria 1821, all the famous comic dramatists prior to Terence (Ennius,

Plautus, and Naevius) practiced it. What exactly was appropriate and what inappropriate

in the model-mixing process is not clearly stated in the prologues; Terence describes

the use of the practice by his predecessors with the term neglegentia, carelessness,

implying the absence of some specific and rule-determined process. The contaminatio

in Terences prologues is discussed also in Heaut. 1621 and Eun. 2534, the other two

plays in which Terence mentions the mixing of two different models. On contaminatio

and furtum in Terence, see Goldberg (1986: 91122, esp. 9197); Gratwick (1982: 116121);

Sandbach (1977: 139141); Arnott (1975: 4850); Ludwig (1968: 171175); Simon (1961); Beare

(1959) on contaminatio; Duckworth (1952: 202208).


The recurrent mention of the charges in the prologues and the effort todismiss themunderscores Terences conscious effort to stress the importanceofusing written models received through their written versions rather than stageacting. It is possible to ascertain the extent to which Terence contaminatedhis plays by infusing his principal Greek model with parts of a second Greekplay only after consulting a written version of both texts. Only the educatedelite in the audience were able to do this, and more specifically, only thoseamong them who owned copies of Menanders plays or had access to them.To these audience members, Terence is anxious to communicate the attackshe has received along with his defenses against them. An illiterate audiencemay have had opportunity to attend performances of the Greek and Latin playsmentioned by Terence, but it is highly unlikely that their memories servedthemwell enough to recall particular details of these plays and so to be able tounderstand the literary allusions.Whether Terence committed contaminatio orfurtum can only be shownwhen the spectators have the opportunity to consultwritten versions of the original Greek plays of Menander and the Latin allegedmodels of Ennius, Naevius and Plautus, and compare them side by side withTerences scripts.

Passing judgment on a dramatic performance at a ludus event, then, is adecidedly literate activity. A judgment, moreover, does not refer only to theappreciation of the performance once the play has been staged, as the epi-logue to the Andria seems to observe. Much more important was the initialdecision of the aediles, the presiding officers of the performances, who pur-chased the plays directly from the playwrights38 and had their names insertedin the didascaliae. A successful play made the aediles who chose it popular,and earned for them a reputation for sophistication among their aristocraticand well-educated peers. Terences effort to interpret the charges, then, may beseen to function as a code of exclusive communication between himself andthe aediles as no less sophisticated individuals. Therefore, the dramatist, who isaccused of plagiarism, appeals to the erudition of themagistrates who selectedhis play for performance prior to becoming aware of the attack against the playthey chose. He presumes their familiarity with themodels but also their abilityto check the plagiarism charges due to their owning copies of the texts he isaccused of handling inappropriately; as he flatters them by taking their erudi-

38 We are precisely informed by the ancient sources that Terence sold at least two plays

directly to the aediles on separate occasions: the Andria and the Eunuchus. Andria: Suet.

Vita Ter. 1.3: qui primam Andriam ante quam aedilibus venderet; Eunuchus: Ter. Eun. 20:

Menandri Eunuchum, postquam aediles emerunt.

234 papaioannou

tion for granted, Terence challenges them to stand by their initial decisionavery intelligent form of captatio benevolentiae.39

The Appeal to the Illiterate

By far the greater part of the audience consisted of illiterate Romans, who couldnot have been able to partake of the subtle games of literary culture Terencedesigned for his elite spectators. Still, the illiterate audiences, by the powerof their numbers, could cause a palliata to succeed or fail. The majority ofthe people were watching the performances standing, and their attention waseasily distracted by other, more exciting spectacles; to captivate the audiencesand convince them to watch a palliata to the end required more than thepromise of an entertaining play.40 Terence succeeds in this by describing theattack against him by Luscius as a personal assault reminiscent of a trial. Thesuccess of Terences plea then relies as much on his argument as on his castingof Ambivius Turpio (the most famous actor of his day)41 for the part of theorator (Heaut. 11; Hec. 9; also 10 [exorator]). The prologue becomes a role ina separate imaginary play, an agon, in which Ambivius, an individual morerenowned than the young Terence, undertakes to fight in order to defend theoriginality of Terences compositions.

The language and structure of the prologues, further, readily recall the styleof Plautus informativemonologues. Terences prologue-speakers employmanyfigures of speech previously favored by Plautus, such as alliteration and asso-nance, and, at the end of all prologues, they use similar traditional formulae forcalling the audience to attention andasking for their approval.Other importantfigures, such as the formal delivery of the prologue and the direct appeal to theaudience outside the context of the plot, or the consideration of the speakerin the Plautine informative monologues as a reflection of Plautus himself, sug-

39 Sharrock (2009) rejects any idea of a Callimachean-type appeal to an elite on Terences

part, which seems at odds with her arguments elsewhere in her book, as for instance

when she parallels the appeal of Terences prologues to an audience of informed spec-

tators through an illuminating comparison to prefaces Henry James wrote for a special

edition of his novels addressing an upmarket New York audience (26 n. 14), or when she

claims that the overall purpose of the book is to demonstrate the plays literary sophisti-

cation.

40 Marshall (2006: 7382) discusses variousways bywhichPlautus kept his audience engaged

and manipulated them into becoming part of the action on stage.

41 Tac. Dial. 20; Symmachus, Ep. 1.31.3; 10.2.


gest that we consider Terences prologues-speakers in light of the Plautine servicallidi and their extradiegetic informative opening speeches. Terences plays donot offer long informative monologues for the plays narrative background. Inthis respect, Terences prologues are suggestive, alternative versions to thosepieces in Plautus plays that communicate crucial information toward the sto-ryline, the characters, and the plot about to unfold.42 Terences prologues, inotherwords, are as informative about theobjectives of theplay asPlautus infor-mativemonologues, only the informationeachplaywrightwishes to emphasizeis different. The Plautine character of Terences prologues was intended to benoticed by literate and illiterate audiences alike, and this anticipatory tech-nique enforced the competitive aspect of the new comic style. Terence is moreconcerned with emphasizing the factor of competition with Plautus and theearlier dramatists than instructing his audience on the details of his storyline.He invites his audiences to appreciate a unique agonistic performance on twoseparate levels. The invitation is appealing, and probably more attractive to arestless audience eager to choose some fighting contest over attending a poten-tially less exciting performance.

Notably, the enduring impression of the success, on Terences part, in mak-ing the audience envision the prologue as an attack against Luscius, with eliteprofessional performer Ambivius taking the stand for the inexperienced Ter-ence, is suggested by a depiction of the prologue in Vat. Lat. 2205, a c. 1100cemanuscript of Terence.43 The author of Vat. Lat. 2205 sets at the opening of theAndria a picture of a stage performance which depicts not an episode from theAndria, but the prologue, which the author understands as an agon betweenLuscius and Terence. The dominating top portion depicts Terence seated onthe left and Luscius on the right, with Calliopius, an early redactor of Terencesplays, playing the part of the referee. Calliopius here personifies the reader ofthe codex, and is accordingly projected as a kind of a literary judge, mediat-ing between the two opponents and reading from a book. This book on his lapshould logically be themanuscript to follow the depiction, the Andria text, butactually it is the prologue to the Andria, not the text of the play; and the Roman

42 On the Plautine character of Terences prologues, see Sharrock (2009: 6875).

43 The medieval manuscripts of Terence probably derive from Calliopius copy, which dates

from the 4th or 5th century ce. The manuscripts in Calliopius recension are divided into

two groups, one of which is distinguished by being illustrated with miniatures, evidently

depicting scenes of the play. The most convenient collection and discussion of these

illustrations is found in Jones and Morey (1931) and more recently in Wright (2006). The

miniatures on the manuscripts originated, most likely, in Calliopius 5th-century edition,

and transcribe the contemporary perception of staging a Terentian play.

236 papaioannou

public in the middle register watching that spectacle, in reality watches thedebate between Terence and Luscius, not the Andria.44

Rhetorical speech is effective because it follows structure. Argumentationis compartmentalized in distinct sections arranged in specific order, whilestylistic consistency is pivotal in terms of employment of set programmaticterminology and figures of speech, and is even a marked feature of trial lan-guage. Such stylistic consistency is omnipresent in Terences prologues. Thiscarefully charted use of language presupposes a culture with a long traditionin the study of the technology of oral performance. In the Homeric epics wehave ample material to understand how an oral tradition can work and ana-lyze the techniques of theoral performers. Thebards orally performedpoemsofgreat length, which they reproduced in-performance in revised form. In orderto be able to reproduce frommemory hundreds of verses, the bards developedtechniques of memorization based, among other things, on devising a collec-tion of stereotyped descriptive words and phrases, often of set metrical valuefor specific metrical placement, but also images, themes, and concepts, evenset scenes and whole narratives. The formulaic character of these verbal andconceptual/narrative schemes is determined by their recurrence. These stockexpressions served the twofold function of lightening the oral poets task intelling the story, but also of making it easier for the audience to follow, whiletheir repetitive character enhanced the effect of familiarity among the audi-ence. The same effect of familiarity and the forging of rapport are sought bythe recurrence, in the prologues of all six Terentian plays, ofwords, phrases, andconcepts. Taken together they compose a code of quasi-formulaic orality thatinfuses the prologues with the spontaneity and immediacy of an oral deliveryin-performance. This simulation of bardic oralitywas expected to appeal to anyaudience trained to process complex knowledge received orally. In addition tothe recurring accusations and the dismissal of the opponents as malevolentand old, the following examples are representative of this mannerism.

Fiveof the sixprologues (theHecyraprologuebeing the sole exception) openwith a subordinate clause, aimed at drawing in the audience andmaking themattentive and welcoming of more information as they subconsciously wait forthemain clause and the full sense.45 Similarly, a set of closural phrases (appeals

44 Otter (2010: 165ff.).

45 Cf. Sharrock (2009: 68) for further analysis on the oral style of the prologues: In three

Terentian cases (An., Ph., Ad.) the subordination is one of time, as is appropriate to the

beginning of an oral story and to the creation of the world that is greater than the world

of the play. Two prologues throw the play and its issues out into the world, most explicitly


to pay attention and show equanimity toward the upcoming performance)feature in all six prologues, and as noted earlier, play and draw upon Plautusprologues.

To refer to his plays, Terence employs two terms, fabula and comoedia. Themore common of the two, fabula, appears ten times in the six prologues; in allbut two it occupies the last three syllables of the verse (An. 3, 16; Phorm. 4, 11a;Eun. 23, 25; Ad. 7, 22). The second term, comoedia, occurs four times, and in allfour cases it occupies the end of the line (An. 26; Phorm. 25; Heaut. 4; Ad. 6);in Hec. 45 a periphrasis for the comedy, ludos scaenicos, is set at the end of theline, as well.

The word poeta naturally is a pivotal one, with fifteen attestations in totalin the six prologues (An. 1, 7; Phorm. 1 (twice), 13, 29; Hec. 13, 21; Heaut. 2,22; Eun. 3, 23, 28; Ad. 1, 25); it features in the opening line of three of them,and on the first three lines in five of them (the prologues to the Hecyra beingthe only exception). In five of the six prologues (except the Andria prologue),the second attestation of the term poeta is set between the 22nd and the29th line from the top. The omnipresence of the term is further enhancedin light of the realization that it occupies every possible metrical positionin Terences versethe only recurring term to do so. Even more dominanta term, scribere, the activity emphasized as the core of Terences demiurgicidentity, in various forms of conjugation as noted above,46 never opens a verse,and on only three occasions is it the concluding word of the verse. In severalcases it clusters with fabula in scribere fabulam/s, an expression that is usedinterchangeably with facere fabulam/s and facere comoediam/sall phrasesrecasting Terences poeta creator identity47 and as such referring not merelyto the composition of comic plays but specifically to the production of scriptsaccording to Terences particular style.

Codified speech had as great an effect on the literate spectators as on theilliterate, since they lived in the same, primarily oral culture, and they wereequally keen in detecting polished speech. Their assessment of the stylisticallypolished orality of the prologues, however, is filtered through the conscious-ness that this orality is indeed polished, that is, designed to seem oral innature. At the same time, these informed audiences are able to identify the

in theHeauton Timorumenos, with the implicit question about the identity of the speaker,

but also in the Eunuchus, with the universalizing si quisquamst qui .

46 See note 33 above.

47 On the concept of the poeta creator, including its genesis and evolution in ancient litera-

ture and thought, see Lieberg (1982); also Tigerstedt (1968).

238 papaioannou

multiple layers of interliterary and intercultural discourse that accompany theartful simulation of orality. For instance, the systematic placement of the termpoeta at the opening lines of the prologues in conjunction with the completeabsence of Terences ownnameobviously communicates to a learned spectatorthat the dramatist wishes to introduce himself (and be known and addressedhenceforth) as the mastermind of a new trend in Roman comic dramaturgy.

Conclusion

When Terence appeared on the comic stage in 166bce, he was fully aware thatif he was going to succeed he needed to confront a long and very successful tra-dition of comic dramaturgy at Rome, which had reached its peak a few yearsearlier with Plautus. Terence did not follow the traditional method of comicplaywrights who relied considerably on improvisation in performance andfrequently altered their original scripts after their performances to incorpo-rate successful jokes improvised by the actors during performance; instead, hechose to present his actors with completed scripts and instruct them to mem-orize the fully written-out parts, and not improvise. Anticipating the strongreaction from his rivals and possibly the negative reception by the audience,Terence invented a clever technique to stifle potential opposition even before ithad the chance to ignite: he opened his play with an prologue that would com-municate the originality of the production about to be performed along with adefense against an alleged systematic and vicious attack already at workanattack that would make him appear as an innocent victim before the eyes ofhis spectators.

In order to create this desired strong rapport with his audience, Terence hadto address a diverse array of expectations. The spectators included membersof the Roman plebs, who had little or no knowledge of literacy and were, con-sequently, not in a position to appreciate the ties to the literary tradition ofNew Comedy; and members of the aristocratic elite, including the magistratesfor the financing of the production of his plays. The plebs expected an enter-taining spectacle full of excitement and action on stage; these expectationsTerence addressed by situating at the core of his prologues the attack of hisrivals onhis playwriting andhis defense in return, and also by articulating theseprologues in language reminiscent of Plautus informative monologues. Theerudite spectators were treated to a double intertextual discourse with themesof programmatic significance conspicuously articulated previously in the textsof Aristophanes and Callimachus. To both audiences, Terence transmitted newinformation that involved a revolutionary transition in the technology of pal-


liata production, from orality to literacy. Since the two audiences had vastlydifferent opinions about the quality of a performance and received the infor-mation accordingly, it stands as a great accomplishment on Terences part tohave forged successful separate andmeaningful dialogueswith each group, andto have secured their approval.48

Bibliography

Arnott, W.G. 1975. Menander, Plautus, Terence. New Surveys in the Classics 9. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Bakola, E. 2010. Cratinus and the Art of Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barsby, J. 1986. Plautus. Bacchides. Edited with Translation and Commentary. Warmin-

ster: Aris and Phillips.

. 2001. Terence Vol. II: Phormio, the Mother-in-Law, The Brothers. Loeb Classical

Library 23. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

. 2012. Native Roman Rhetoric: Plautus and Terence, in W. Dominik and J.M.

Hall, eds., A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Malden, MA/Oxford/Chichester: Wiley-

Blackwell, 3853.

Beacham, R.C. 1999. Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome. NewHaven/Lon-

don: Yale University Press.

Beare, W. 1959. Contaminatio, The Classical Review 9: 711.

. 1964. The Roman Stage. Third Revised Edition. London: Methuen.

Benz, L., E. Strk, G. Vogt-Spira, and E. Lefvre, eds. 1995. Plautus und die Tradition des

Stegreifspiels (ScriptOralia 75). Tbingen: Narr.

Benz, L. and E. Lefvre, eds. 1998. Maccus barbarus: Sechs Kapitel zur Originalitt der

Captivi des Plautus (ScriptOralia 74). Tbingen: Narr.

Bernstein, F. 1998. Ludi publici. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der

ffentlichen Spiele im republikanischen Rom. Historia, Einzelschriften 119. Stuttgart:

Franz Steiner Verlag.

Bianco, M.M. 2009. Il Phormio e le intemperanze di Terenzio, Aevum 83: 6988.

Biles, Z. 2011. Aristophanes and the Poetics of Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

48 I would like to thank Professor Ruth Scodel, for invitingme to present an earlier version of

this paper to the 10thConference onOrality andLiteracy in theAncientWorld atAnnArbor,

and benefit from the comments of the participants; and no less, for reading this chapter

in draft form and offering a number of important suggestions which have substantially

improved the argumentation.

240 papaioannou

. 2001. Aristophanes Victory Dance: Old Poets in the Parabasis of Knights,

Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 136: 195200.

Brown, P.G. McC. 2002. Actors and Actor-managers at Rome in the Time of Plautus

and Terence, in P. Easterling and E. Hall, eds., Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of

an Ancient Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 225237.

Clausen, W. 1964. Callimachus and Latin Poetry, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

5: 181196.

. 1987.VirgilsAeneidand theTraditionsofHellenistic Poetry. Berkeley:University

of California Press.

Crawford, J.W. 1994. M. Tullius Cicero: The Fragmentary Speeches. An Edition with Com-

mentary. American Classical Studies 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Dederian, K. 2001. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of

Literacy. Mnemosyne Supplement 209. Leiden: Brill.

Derrida, J. 1976. Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore and

London: Johns Hopkins (Original edition: De la grammatologie. Paris: Les ditions

de Minuit, 1967).

Duckworth, G.E. 1952. The Nature of Roman Comedy. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Flower H. 1995. Fabulae praetextae in context: when were plays on contemporary

subjects performed in Republican Rome?, Classical Quarterly 45: 170190.

Focardi, G. 1972. Linguaggio forense nei prologhi terenziani, Studi Italiani di Filologia

Classica 44: 5588.

. 1978. Lo stile oratorio nei prologhi terenziani, Studi Italiani di Filologia Clas-

sica 50: 7089.

Garton, T. 1972. Personal Aspects of the Roman Theater. Toronto: Hakkert.

Gentili, B. 1979. Theatrical Performances in the Ancient World. Hellenistic and Early

Roman Theatre. London Studies in Classical Philology 2. Amsterdam/Uithoorn:

Gieben.

Gilula, D. 1989. The First Realistic Roles in European Theatre: Terences Prologues,

Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 3: 95106.

Goldberg, S.M. 1983. Terence, Cato, and the Rhetorical Prologue,Classical Philology 78:

198211.

. 1986. Understanding Terence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

. 2005. Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Gratwick, A.S. 1982. 5. Drama, in E.J. Kenney and W.V. Clausen, eds. The Cambridge

History of Classical Literature II: Latin Literature. Cambridge/London/NewYork, etc.:

Cambridge University Press, 77137.

Green, J.R. 2001. Comic Cuts: Snippets of Action on the Greek Comic Stage, BICS 45:

3764.


. 2003. Smart and Stupid: The Evolution of Some Masks and Characters in

Fourth Century Comedy, in J. Davidson and A. Pomeroy, eds., Theaters of Action:

Papers for Chris Dearden. Auckland: Polygraphia, 118132.

. 2008. Theater Production 19962008, Lustrum 50: 7302.

Greene, E. 2011. Sappho 58: Philosophical Reflections on Death and Aging, Classics@

Vol 4: E. Greene and M. Skinner, eds. The Center for Hellenic Studies of Harvard

University, online edition of March 11, 2011. http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=

ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=3534.

Gruen, E.S. 1986. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley/Los Angeles:

University of California Press.

. 1990. Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden/New York/Cologne:

Brill.

Halliwell, S. 1989. Authorial Collaboration in the Athenian Comic Theatre, Greek

Roman and Byzantine Studies 30: 515528.

Handley, E.W. 1975. Plautus and His Public: Some Thoughts on New Comedy in Latin,

Dioniso 46: 117132.

Harder, A. 2013. Callimachus: Aetia. 2 vols. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Harvey, F.D. and J.M.Wilkins (eds). 2000. TheRivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian

Old Comedy. London/Swansea: Duckworth and Classical Press of Wales.

Horsfall, N. 2003. The Culture of the Roman Plebs. London: Duckworth.

Hubbard, T.K. 1998. The Pipes of Pan: Intertextuality and Literary Filiation in the Pastoral

Tradition from Theocritus to Milton. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hunter, R.L. 1983. Eubulus: The fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Janko, R. 2005. Sappho Revisited, Times Literary Supplement December 23.

Jones, L.W. and C.R. Morey. 1931. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence Prior to

the Thirteenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Konstantakos, I.M. 2011. Conditioning of Playwriting and the Comic Dramatists Craft

in the Fourth Century, Logeion 1: 145183.

Kubiak, D.P. 1979. Cicero, Catullus, and the Art of Neoteric Translation. Diss. Harvard

University, Cambridge, MA.

Lefvre, E. 1978. Versuch einer Typologie des rmischen Dramas, in E. Lefvre, ed.,

Das rmischeDrama. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Grundri der

Literaturgeschichten nach Gattungen), 190.

. 1999. Plautus Amphitruo zwischen Tragdie und Stegreifspiel, in Thomas

Baier, ed., Studien zu Plautus Amphitruo (ScriptOralia 116). Tbingen: Narr, 11

50.

. 2001. Plautus Persa zwischen na und Stegreifspiel, in Stefan Faller, ed.,

Studien zu Plautus Persa (ScriptOralia 121). Tbingen: Narr, 1194.

Leo, F. Analecta Plautina de Figuris Sermonis II. Gttingen 1898; reprinted in Aus-

gewhlte kleine Schriften. Rome 1960, 123162.

242 papaioannou

Lieberg, G. 1082. Poeta creator: Studienzueiner Figur der antiken Dichtung. Amsterdam:

Gieben.

Ludwig, W. 1968. The Originality of Terence and his Greek Models, Greek, Roman and

Byzantine Studies 9: 169182.

Luppe, W. 2000. The Rivalry Between Aristophanes and Cratinus, in Harvey and

Wilkins 2000, 1521.

Manuwald, G. 2001. Fabulae praetextae. Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der Rmer.

Munich: C.H. Beck.

. 2011. Roman Republican Theater. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Marshall, C.W. 2006. The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Olson, S.D. 2007. Broken Laughter. Select Fragments of Greek Comedy. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ong,W. 1982.Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of theWord. New York: Routledge

(Second edition, 2002).

Otter, M. 2010. Vultus adest (the face helps): Performance, expressivity and interiority,

in M.J. Carruthers, ed. Rhetoric Beyond Words: Delight and Persuasion in the Arts of

the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 151172.

Rawson, E. 1991. RomanCulture and Society. Collected Papers. Oxford: OxfordUniversity

Press, 468487; reprint of the original: Theatrical life inRepublicanRomeand Italy,

PBSR 53 (1985) 97113 [quoted from the reprint].

Reizenstein, E. 1931. Zur Stiltheorie des Kallimachos, in E. Frnkel and H. Frnkel eds.,

Festschrift Richard Reizenstein. Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 2369.

Ross, D.O. 1975. Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Russo, C.F. 1994. Aristophanes: AnAuthor for the Stage. Trans. KevinWren. London/New

York: Routledge [Revised and expanded English edition of Aristofane autore di

teatro, Firenze 1962; revised Italian edition 1992].

Rusten, J. ed. 2011. The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents, and Art from Athenian Comic

Competitions, 486280. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sandbach, F.H. 1977. The Comic Theatre of Greece and Rome. London: Chatto and Win-

dus.

Sear, F. 2006. Roman Theaters: An Architectural Study. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Schmidt, E.A. 1972. Poetische Reflexion: Vergils Bukolik. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

Sharrock, A. 2009. Reading Roman Comedy: Poetics and Playfulness in Plautus and

Terence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sidwell, K. 1995. Poetic Rivalry and the Caricature of Comic Poets, in A. Griffiths, ed.,

Essays in honour of E.W. Handley. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 5680.


Simon, M. 1961. Contaminatio und furtum beiTerenz. Verhltnis zu Vorbildern und

Vorgngern, Helikon 1: 487492.

Slater, N.W. 1985. Play and Playwright References in Middle and New Comedy, Liver-

pool Classical Monthly 10: 103105.

. 1993. Improvisation in Plautus, in G. Vogt-Spira, ed., Beitrge zurmndlichen

Kultur der Rmer (ScriptOralia 47). Tbingen: Narr, 113124.

. 1995. The Fabrication of Comic Illusion, in G.W. Dobrov, ed., Beyond Aristo-

phanes: Tradition and Diversity in Greek Comedy. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 2945.

Sommerstein, A. 2011. Hinc Omnis Pendet? Old Comedy and Roman Satire, Classical

World 105: 2538.

Storey, I. 2003. Eupolis, Poet of Old Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sutton, D.F. 1993. Ancient Comedy: TheWar of the Generations. New York: Twayne/Max-

well Macmillan International; Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan.

Taplin, O. 1987a. Classical Phallology, Iconographic Parody, and Potted Aristophanes,

Dioniso 57: 95109.

. 1987b. Phallology, Phlyakes, Iconography and Aristophanes, Proceedings of

the Cambridge Philological Society n.s. 33: 92104.

. 1993. Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama through Vase-

Paintings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tigerstedt, E.N. 1968. The Poet as Creator: Origins of a Metaphor, Comparative Litera-

ture Studies 5: 455488.

Toohey, P. 1996. Epic Lessons: An Introduction to Latin Didactic Poetry. London: Duck-

worth.

Umbrico, A. 2010. Terenzio e i suoi nobiles. Invenzione e realt di un controverso legame.

Testi e studi di cultura classica, 44. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.

West, M.L. 2005. The New Sappho, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 151: 19.

Wiles, D. 2011. Theater and Citizenship: the History of a Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Wiseman, T.P. 1994. Historiography and Imagination. Eight Essays on Roman Culture.

Exeter: Exeter University Press.

. 1998. Roman Drama and Roman History. Exeter: Exeter University Press.

Wessner, P. 1962/3. Aeli Donati Commentum Terenti. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner.

Wright, D.H. 2006. The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence. Documenti e riproduzioni,

6. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

Zimmermann, B. 2001. Lucilius und Aristophanes, in G. Manuwald, ed., Der Satiriker

Lucilius und seine Zeit. Mnchen: C.H. Beck, 188195.