Terence: The Brothers

128 Pages·1999·4.461 MB·English

by  A. S. Gratwick, Publius Terentius Afer

TERENCE
THE BROTHERS
Edited with an introduction,t ranslation and notes by
A. S. Gratwick
ARIS ex.r nu ..L .lr.:) i..i u - vvi\ KNlli~~ i r.K - r.NGLAND
e A.S.G RATWICK19 99. All rightsr eserved.N o part of this book may be reproducedo r
utilizedi n any formo r by anye lectronicm, echanicaol r other means,n ow known or hereafter Contents
invented,i ncludingp hotocopyingo r recording,o r in any information storage or retrieval
INTRODUCTION Page
systemw ithoupt ermissioinn writingf romt he publishers. ·
1. Terencea nd Menander
ISBN limp O8 56687 23 5 I. I. Terence's life l
cloth O8 56687 24 3 1. 2. Terence's genre I
I. 3. Terence's plays
4
BritishL ibraryC ataloguing-in-PublicaDtioanta I. 4. Terence's reputation 5
A cataloguer ecordo f thisb ooki s availablefr om the Britis/1L ibrary I. 5. Menander's fate and resurrection 6
2. The Action of Terence'sB rothers
AdvisoryE ditor: ProfessorM .M. Willcock 2. I. Act-divisions in Terence 8
2. 2. The action of Terence's Brothers 8
2. 3. Terence's fidelity and independence 12
3. The Roman Contexto f Brothers
3. I. The irrelevance of the Greek Original 13
3. 2. The theme 13
3. 3. The character of the action 15
3. 4. The setting 15
3. 5. The political background 17
3. 6. The cultural background 17
3. 7. Education in Terence's Rome 19
3. 8. Roman patria potestas 21
4. Charactera nd Stereotypei n Terence
ForE dward,H enry, and Cathy 4. I. Terence's approach: the 'Two Terences' 22
4. 2. Micio and Demea in Terence 23
4. 3. Aeschinus and Ctesipho in Terence 24
4. 4. Other roles 25
! 5. The Expositioni n Terencea nd Menander
''
5. 1. The relevance of the Greek Original 25
5. 2. Exposition of the past in Terence 25
5. 3. The background to Aeschinus' affair 27
5. 4. Aeschinus, Sostrata, and Hegio 29
5. 5. Ctesipho's affair 30
5. 6. The earlier lives of Micio and Demea 31
5. 7. The place and substance ofMenander's Prologue 32
5. 8. Act-divisions and continuity in Menander 33
5. 9. Number ofactors 34
5. 10. The scene from Diphilus (155-96) 34
6. The Middle of the Play: Menander,1 tcts1 1-W
6. 1. Fidelity 36
6. 2. Menander Act II (288-510) 36
6. 3. Menander Act III (511-712) 38
6. 4. Menander Act IV (713-854) 38
Printeda nd publishedi n En~landb y Aris & PhillipsL td, Teddington House, 1. Micio, Demea,a 11dth e Ends of the Two Plays
Wanmnster,W iltshireB A12 8PQ 7. I. Micio and Demea in Menander, 26-854 38
7. 2. Micio's views in Menander 41
iv V
Preface
7. 3. The end of the play in Terence 43
7. 4. The end of the play in Menander 44
TERENCE'S Ade/phoe in Latin verse with a prose translation, The Brothers', and,
8. Menander'sP lay in S11mmary
behind both, the ghost of Menander's lost Greek original. The 1RANSLAT ION aims
8. I. Menander'ss cenario 46
to represent Terence's script in any given speech or exchange. That is not simply a
8. 2. Someq ualifications 49
matter of rendering word for word; English and Latin idiom are too different to allow
8. 3. Acts I-IV 49
that approach to communicate enough of Terence's grace and timing in what is meant
8.4. ActV 50
to be an actable version of his script. On the other hand, the translator has tried to
9. Demea'sa nd Terence'sL ast Words
~~al in a more or less self-consistent way with the same exclamations, phrases,
9. I. Demea'sv erdict( 986-8)a nd tenns (989-995) 50
1d1omsa, nd evaluative terms when they recur.
9. 2. Terence'sf arewell 52
But converting Terence into prose from verse (however direct and coUoquial)
radically changes his dramatic form, and by eliminating contrasts large and smaUt hat
Abbreviationisn theA pparatwc riticw 54
depend on the verse-form, one accidentally makes him sound more like Menander
than he really was. For Menander's Greek form and style suffer conversion into
English prose with less overall distortion.
TEXTA NDT RANSLATION 55
'We cannot step into the same river twice', said Heraclitus; and it is the same with
plays. No two live performances of the same play, let alone two different
productions, are ever quite the same, and even how and with whom we watch a film
NOTEST O THE TRANSLATION 178
affects its meaning. Our business is, in fact, with three different but related plays -
this new imitation of Terence, Terence's much freer handling of Menander, and
Menander's Greek original. Further to complicate things, what a script says is only
APPENDIXES
one aspect of what it means - that depends on the coUaboration of a producer, of
I The qualityo f the transmission 205
players, and of us, an audience in experiencing it.
Il TracesofilieGreekori~nal 206
To do justice to Terence and Menander as dramatists, it is important to keep
ill Metre
clearly separate in our minds the translation as a play in its own rights intended to
I. TheI ambo-trocbamice tres2. . Variabilityo f line-length3. . Measures
fo]]ow Terence's closely but inevitably differing from it, and in tum to keep
andd ouble~~; catalexis4.. Podica nalysis5. . Metricalp laces.
Menander's distinct from Terence's. Fortunately less here depends upon a knowledge
6. Alphabetinco tationa ndm etricasl chemes7. . Line-enda nd line-transition.
8. Somee xamples9.. Moreo n line-enda ndl ine-transition. of Greek or Latin than one might suppose, and more on tuning our sense of what
10.T hef undamentraul leo f Latin Iambo-trochavice rsification. works in the theatre and on our humanitas.
Prosod;
IV l. Cola,c aesurae1. 2.D iaeresesM; eyer'sa ndL uchs'sl aws. 13. Beats. 209 What that word means is a minor theme of this play, and in the
INTRODUCTION and NO1ES TO THE 1RANSLAT ION the editor has kept as far ,
1.T he charactearn dp rincipleosf Terence'ps rosody 219 as possible to matters which can be profitably discussed without his assuming a
2. Diacriticisn thet ext 222 knowledge of either ancient language in the reader. These are not few or
3. Particulapr henomena. 224 unimportant: the milieux of the two plays, the genres, the dramatic content, the
1. Syll:t'>i~cati2o.n T. he runo f a phrase.3 . Synaloepha. characterisation, ironies, production.
4. Syru~1s. 5. Totale lisiona' nd' Prosodich iatus'. Our knowledge of Menander has greatly increased in the last quarter-century, and
6. Final- is and- us.1 . Resolution8.. Iambics hortening. important advances have been made in our overall appreciation of Terence's place in
9. Word-accent.
the comic tradition. The editor's main aim in exegesis is to make available to a wider
V Metricalf orma nd presentation
231 public the interesting problems of interpretation which have made Brothers a
VI Terence'st rimeter
232 particularly controversial and puzzling play ever since the Enlightenment. The notes
as such are meant to complement and certainly not to supplant the long tradition of
Booksa nd articlesr eferredt o
238 grammatical exegesis which goes back to Aelius Donatus in the fourth c. A.O. and is
represented in English by the commentaries of Martin (1976), Ashmore (1908), and
INDEXES locorum
243 Sloman (1887). Those studying the play in Latin, and those teaching it, will, it is
general
245 hoped, find this edition a useful adjunct. But Terence best explains Terence, and
they will want to consult not only those commentaries but also the greatest
vi INTRODUCTION 1
contribution to Terentian studies since Bentley's edition ( 1726), the Lexico11
Terentianumby P. McGlynn (1963n).
1. TERENCEA ND MENANDER
As for the transmitted TEXT, the editor has taken a more sceptical view of its
1. 1. Terence's Life. PUBLIUS TERENTIUS APER was supposed to have been a
quality than recent editors; see ~ppendix I. In accordance with _th_sec ope and scale
Carthaginian slave, freed 'on account of his brains and his good looks' by his Roman
of this edition, textual discussion has been kept to a bare mm1mum, and fuller
treatment is reserved for a more appropriate plaoe. Fragments of the Greek play are master; hence his Roman name and citizenship. But which representative of the
Terentian clan had been his master and when Terence was born were disputed. Some
given in Appendix II.
To appreciate Terence's best and most original qualities, the subtle variety of his said before the end of the Second Punic War (201 B.C.), others rather later (194 B.C.),
verse-rhythms, the reader must first hear his Latin as a living languages and, next, others later still (184 B.C.). The last was the prevalent view; it tidily put Terence's
become confident about his SCANSION. There is, alas, no royal road leading thither birth in the year that the comedian PLAUTUS is supposed to have died, and close to
and traditional Anglo-German axioms about ictus and accent seem unsatisfactory.
the birth of P. CORNELIUS SCIPIO AEMILIANUS (b. 185 B.C.), the noble with
m.
See Appendix The dots under the lines, the short-marks, and the layout of the
whom some evidence and much rumour later associated the playwright and whom
text are meant to help the reader's eye and ear, whichever of two ways he interprets some even claimed as the real author of the plays.1 He and his brother lavishly funded
the dots; see Appendixes m and IV. Complete beginners and the tone-deaf may just
the occasion at which Brothers was produced (160 B.C.), apparently as a special
ignore all that, read Terence as prose, and thereby sustain a long~tanding tradition of
commission, aod there was gossip which Terence does not deny that 'prominent
ignorance; but the true student of Latin and the just critic of Terence will not.
Romans kept helping Terence and closely collaborated with him in writing' (Brothers
The editor's particular thanks are due for the care of Professor M.M. Willcock,
ff.).
who read and criticised various tlTaftsi n detail, and to Professor H.M. Hine; both 15 This left room for later Roman scholars to speculate, but we shall never know
have prevented many slips. Special mention must be made of J.N. Grant's Ph.D. whether Aemilianus really did have any 'helpful' suggestions. What is certain is that
thesis (1971 a); and of R.H. Mprtin's apparatus criticus (1976) for the way the Brothersi s a brilliant play - Terence's masterpiece according to some modem critics.
Calliopian MSS are cited here. Warm thanks are also due to Miss J.H. Lambie who As to his real identity, however, even the ideas that Terence was a slave and from
typedt he camera-ready copy. Carthage may merely be unjustified inferences from the form of his name. For an ex
slave from across the water might indeed be called 'Publius of the Terentian clan, the
St AndrewsM: ay 1987 A.S. Gratwick
North.African', but it is not the case that anyone so named needs to have been either
African or an ex-slave. We simply do not know.
In preparing a second edition produced by less primitive technical means than the
These traditions for what they are worth were recorded by SUETONIUS in his
first, the opportunityb as been taken to revise the whole work extensively in the light
Life of Terence (early 2nd c. A.D.). 1Qis comes to us incorporated in DONATUS'
of experience in using it at St. Andrews for teaching both students of Latin at
commentary on Terence (mid 4th c. in origin; drastically cut and added to in the late
different levels and students of Classical Studies (Classics in translation), and
because my thinking on some matters of interpretation and on Terence's metric and antique and early mediaeval transmission). But the earlier sources used by Suetonius
prosody bas moved on. A year after the first edition came out, Soubiran's Essai sur la seem themselves to have little more to go on than what comes down in the production
versifi':'ltiodnr ~~e des Romainsa ppeared. It was encouraging to find that in notes and the argumentative prologues with which each of the six scripts begins.
~eparung _from traditional lor.e we had been working on parallel lines. As for Terence disappears after Brothers;h e is said to have died in 159 or 158 B.C. while
m~etabon of the play, not much has appeared since 1987 affecting major issues. visiting Greece (accounts differed), and to have left a modest estate and a daughter
The hst ?f works consulted has been selectively updated to about 1996. The who married in the second rank of Roman society.
!ntroductt!n and Note11to the translation have been expanded to include a new
mterpretation of the end of Terence's (as opposed to Menander's) play, and a little
1. 2. Terence's genre The Roman 'Comedy in Gre~k Dress' (fabula palliata)
more bas ~n. addedb ~ way of textual discussion; but that is mainly confined to the
outwardly offered the story lines and dramatis personae of the latest flowering of the
apparatu~ cnticus: Th1S,t he text, the diacritics, and their application have been
Athenian theatre, the :so-called New Comedy, which focused on family life and
sys~cally reVJsed,a nd tire wording of the translation modified here and there.
romantic love; it was in verse, about five-sixths spoken and the rest 'chanted'; at its
Appendixes ill-V ,hav~ been entirely rewritten, expanded, and Appendix VI on the
nature ~f Terence s Tnmeter added. As for Prof. Willcock's expert criticism and best it was notable for conviction and directness of characterisation, as well as irony
penetraung proof-reading of the whole, cf. line 257.
So Quintilian/nst. 10.1.99., cf. Beare (1964) 93. See lhe OCD for basic biographies of
St Andrews: July 1999 those here introduced in capital letters.
A. S. Gratwick
2 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 3
and fun. It flourisheda t Athens from c. 330 to c. 270 B.C., and from about 290 B.C. Long stretches in each of the plays are truly sophisticated and highly successful
its most famouse xponents MENANDER,D IPHILUS, and PHILEMON (by then all literary translation, faithful to the pacing, tone, and substance of their models, and
dead) became central to the repertoire of the travelling Artists of Dionysus (as the potentially to their characterisation ii, production. But at the same time Terence
Greek acting profession was known) in an expanding 'circuit' of theatrical festivals· reserved the right to part company with Menander without telling us or wanting us to
throughoutt he Hellenisticw orld, includingS icily and South Italy.2 know; as if he were Menander re-incarnated, revising old scripts. But when he does
At the same time Menanderw as acquiringa permanent place alongside Homer in make changes, Terence reveals himself not as a dramatist who really thought like
an emerging 'syllabus' of Greek authors read in Hellenistic schools. Thus New Menander, but as a native Italian writer of palliatae; in particular, he shares with his
Comedya nd especiallyM enandera s the 'mirror of life' were doubly important in the Roman audience a cavalier indifference to perspective in the background to the action,
3rd c. B.C. and subsequentlyi n broadcastinga nd encapsulating what was Greek about and an attitude to dramatic characterisation that depends upon simple oppositions and
Greeks;a nd he held that Shakespeareans tatus for the next eight centuries, only losing categories. His changes go much further than was necessarily imposed by the
it in the time of JUSTINIAN( 6th c. A.O.), more because his Attic Greek was not conversion of five-act originals five-sixths in spoken verse into a continuous dramatic
reliably ptue as a model than because his humahistic ethos and his themes of love form in which the alternation of speech and 'recitative' was the main articulation;
were now out of tune with the times. much furthers in fact, than is stated in the prologues in response to criticisms made by
The earliest knownfabula palliata was put on at Rome in 240 B.C. by LMUS the 'malevolent old playwright', LUSCIUS LANUVINUS, Terence's enemy.
ANDRONICUS,a native Greek himself; then were NAEVIUS (active c. 235-201 It is not clear whether these prologues are actually from Terence's pen or from
B.C.), PLAUTUS( c. 210 (perhaps)-184 B.C.), and CAECILIUS STATIUS c. 190- that of his artistic 'director', business patron, and principal actor AMBIVIUS
168 B.C.); of whom only Plautus is well known. But the image of life which Plautus TURPIO; there is a good case for the latter, but anyway, we should be naive to
offers is anythingb ot realistic,a nd it is clear that behind his (and Naevius') work there suppose that the prologues deal exhaustively or even fairly with the views ofLuscius.4
lie Italian traditions of popular entertainment other than the New Comedy in which Apart from accusing Terence of being an upstart who depended not on his own
music and extempored evelopmento f a scenariow ere important. We only hear of the talent but that of his 'friends' (Self-Tormentor 23 ff., repeated more specifically at
so-calledA tellane Farce and know but little about it: but we should not suppose that Brothers 15-21), Luscius found fault with Terence's style as 'thin and light' (Phon11io
this kind of thing had disappearedf rom Latimn before Terence's time, the I 60's. 5). He further made what are meant to sound niggling objections to Terence's adding
Caecilius' place in the developmento f the genre is important but unclear. He material to his Greek models and so 'spoiling' or 'vandalising' them (contaminare,
later counted as its 'best' (i.e., most vigorous?)r epresentative, but not as a writer one Luscius' word): in Womano f Andros, material from ijnother play of Menander, in The
trusted for 'good Latin'. He may have been more faithful to the content of his models Eunuch, characters allegedly filched from an identifiable Latin source, Plautus' and
than Naevius and Plautus, who had no compunctions about cutting and adding and Naevius' version of Menander's Kolax, 'The Toady'; in Brothers the scene
generally transmogrifying;b ut his fragments show that he made extensive use of incorporated from a play of Diphilus. Terence is at pains to refute the charge of
polymetrics ongs and wrote in the same extravagant style as Plautus, a medium more plagiarism from Latin sources, but has no apologies to make for his additions as such,
suited to caricature than to the subtlec haracterisationa ssociated with Menander.3 simply claiming the same latitude as that taken by Naevius, Plautus, and Ennius in
Caeciliusd ied in 168 B.C.; Terence's fJJJSptl ay was produced in 166 B.C. Here their palliatae.
he appears fully himself,r ejecting and adjusting features of the genre to SOl.!ndm ore Luscius seems to have been taking the line that a play presented to the public as
authenticallyM enandrean. The overall shape of the play matters; there is no more Ade/phoe under its Greek title ought to present the same material as its model, a fair
hanky-pankyw ith the dramatic illusion; the style is pruned and realistic; song is less point if that is what he and Caecilius and most recent writers did; and his refusal to see
pro~nent; the rhythmso f the spoken verse are more various and expressive; and his merit in Terence's reformation of the stage-language suggests that he too wrote in the
openings cenes never even aim at raising a laugh sooner than engaging our interest in older extravagant style. But then Terence could justly claim that he really was being
apparentlyr eal peoplea nd their situation. more genuinely faithful than anyone so far for large stretches of his plays (a little
more than half in Brothers, in fact) and much more debatably assert that his departures
2 New Comedya ndM enanderC: HCL i 398-425, ii 77-9, 96-105, Arnott (1975, 1979), were artistically justified by his Menandrean style. One should like to know what
S~h (1973)O, m), Hunter( 1985), Brown( 1986). Luscius thought of the ending of Brothers.
3 Caecihus:L eo (1913) 217-26, Warmington(1 940) 468-561 (text translation) Wright
(1974) 87-126, CHCLi i 115 f. ' ,
4 LusciusL anuvinus:G arton( 1972) 41-139, Wright( 1974) 78-80.
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 5
4
Mother-i11-Lawst ands furthest from the main tradition of the Roman Palliata in
This involves reductioa d abs11rdumof the very premises upon which the genre
the quietness of its action, subtlety, and fidelity to its model; it failed in 165 B.C. and
had depended for eighty years, and Bro~Jieriss not on!y Terence•~ last pl_ayb ~t also
again when presented on the same c.;casion as Brothers_i n 160 B.C.; it got a fair
the latest surviving of its genre. For while others continued to wnte pa/1,atae m the
hearing at last ('placuit') at a third outing later that year. The broad public was not
old, broad manner for some time, the 'Comedy in Roman Dress' (Comoedia togata)
interested in what Terence was best at doing; with them, Eu11uchw as the great
was now heir to the comic stage at Rome. Its chief exponent AFRANIUS evidently
success; someone was willing to pay what was regarded as an extraordinary fee to
admired Terence, but his fragments clearly show that this did not extend to imitation
repeat the play. Here Terence made extensive changes intended to make it appeal to a
of the dramatic form and style so ingeniously cultivated by Terence, who was first and
5 wide audience, at the same time rendering extensive parts very faithfully; his tactics in
last of his own in the Roman theatre.
Brothers were similar, but how the play went down, we do not know.
There is confusion in the production-aotice (pp. 56-57) of Brothers over the
1. 3. Terence'sp lays.T he usually accepted order is:
principal actors, and in his introduction Donatus records without espousing a view that
ANDRIA (An.) 'The Woman from Andros', 166 B.C.
Brothers was Te:,rence's second not sixth opus. There is also sorue evidence that
HECYRA (H.) 'The Mother-in-Law', 165 B.C.
different recensions of the play were in circulation in Imperial times (cf. Donatus on
H(E)AUTONTIMORUMENOS (Hn 'The Self-Tormentor', 163 B.C.
511 ff., quoted in the app. crit.). This cannot be unscrambled; it is, however, generally
EUNUCHUS (E.) 'The Eunuch', 161 B.C.
accepted that Brothers is in fact Terence's latest work and that the extant prologue
PHORMIO (Ph.)' Phormio the Parasite', 161 B.C.
refers to a first performance in 160 B.C., not some earlier trial.
ADELPHOE (Ad.) 'The Brothers', 160 B.C.
Four of these are from Menander (An., HT, E., Ad.) and two from Menander's 1. 4. Terence's reputation. Terence soon became required reading alongside
disciple APOLLODORUS OF CARYSTUS (H., Ph.). Terence keeps the Greek titles ENNIUS' new epic, the An11ales,i n a crude Latin imitation of the well established
except in the case of Ph., originally Epidikazomenos 'The claimant to her hand'. elementary rhetorical syllabus of Greek education in which Homer and Menander held
These ways ef entitling plays agree with the practice of Caecilius rather than with that vital places (see p. 2). Whether Terence had a reading audience in mind as well as a
of Plautus or Naevius, who might have preferred to call an 'A6EAcf,ole .g. Gongralia, theatrical cannot be determined but is not unlikely. His language was that of
'The Eel-Comedy' on the basis oflines 376 ff. Maybe Terence simply meant to label contemporary upper-class Roman society and was later held to be 'better' in detail than
his plays as palliataea nd not togataeb y not even going so far as to translate the Greek that of Caecilius as a model and standard. At a time when Latin was becoming an
title and give us Fratres 'Brothers'; but the implications of keeping the Greek title international language and when many dialects were still current, some written
were and are specially ambiguous in Terence's case. standard for what counted as le bon usage at Rome itself was desirable and Terence,
Most of the plays were produced first at the annual Festival of the Great Mother treated as that standard, contributed to the establishment of the Classical Latin of the
(ludiM egale,ises)h eld in Spring by the curule aediles (holders of a junior magistracy 1st c. B.C. Even the young Cicero may have had to un-leam things which sounded all
of great importance in the career of a young noble). There was by then a well right in his native Arpinum but not in the circles to which he aspired. The rumours
established local 'circuit' of public Games at Rome; the theatrical profession attended associating Terence with the nobility can only have lent him prestige in this
the public at these; and plays, light and heavy, were only some of the 'events' offered. connection. LUCILIUS, CICERO, CAESAR, and VARRO allude to Terence as
We hear of tight-rope-walkers, gladiators, and boxing-matches too (H. prologue). The someone we have all read, and when VIRGIL ousted Ennius in the classroom,
business-side was in the hands of actor-impresaril ike Ambivius Turpio, a more Terence _held his position. Little awareness however of his meires or verse-style is
important personage it seems than the mere script-writer. Such tycoons would . apparent after the time of QUINTILIAN (late first c. A.O.). Read then and later
negotiate terms with the magistrates in charge, and they owned the wooden stages, virtually as a prose-author, and fortified by Donatus' commentary, which replaced
gear, masks, and props; there was no permanent stone theatre at Rome until 55 B.C. earlier equivalents, Terence and Donatus were still there in late antiquity as rhetorical
Plays would also feature at privately financed spectacles put on by prominent families fodder;.and they survived relatively strongly alongside Virgil and his commentator
and such was the occasion for Brothers (see p. 19, p. 57). In general the SERVIUS into the Middle Ages at the heart of Latin schooling - that is, of any
c~rcumstancesi n which the Palliatah ad thrived and developed could hardly be more humanist schooling in the West. He has thus enjoyed a 'run' longer and more
different from those in which the Artists of Dionysus worked.6
continuous than any other Latin writer, but for reasons that have little enough to do
with his being playwright as such or a poeta at all. In the Renaissance and later,
5 Beare( 1964)1 28-36,C HCLi i 821 ff.
6 The Palliata:D uckworth( 1952),B eare( 1964),C HCL ii 77-127.
INTRODUCTION
6 INTRODUCTION 7
7
Terence influenced all the emerging national Dramas of Europe _and counted for
model used by Plautus in his Bacchides 'The Bacchis Sisters', and one in Sikyonioi
· · th model of theatrical correctness and the true representative of Menander,
cnt1cs as e · 1 d" · 'The Sicyonians' as the probable model of an alien insertion made by Plautus in his
tow ho m, however' he is in fact at once a most accurate and mo.s t m11s eAa bm g w1i0t0n eBss C. Poenulus 'The Carthaginian'.12 These with passages quot~d by GELLIUS from
His fortune in the live Roman theatre was much more equ1voca .' out . .
Menander's Plokio11'T he Necklace' along with Caecilius' Latin versions are the only
hie :fig ures sixth in a list of the ten 'best' (i.e., funniest?) repre~enta~ves of the ~en~e, extensive examples of the way that earlier writers of palliatae 'translated' Menander.13
b then evidently a closed book;Bi n the 1st c. B.C. Varrop rruses his charactensat1on
As yet, nothing in Greek of any length can be quoted from the originals of any of
general and says he prefers Terence's version of_t he beginning of Brothers t~ the
Terence's plays, but a good daal of Terence stands to be positively identified as pretty
originat.9 Caesar and Cieero refer respectfully to his pulie style, but Caesar quahfi_es
pure Menande"r.
this by referring to him as 'Menander halved' (~ dimidiate M~nande~)a nd_f ound _him Ancient criticism ra1ed Menander very highly .14 ARISTOPHANES OF
generally. wanting in 'drive' (uis) and 'comic ~x~~llan~e ~conuca uirtus), 1.e.,
BYZANTIUM (c. 257-180 B.C.) originated the tag 'O Menander and Life, which of
'Menandrean quality'. In the 1st c. A.O., Qumtlhan m his ~urvey of_ Ro_man you imitated the other?', and reckoned him second only to Homer;15 this is clearly
achievement versus Greek in the then long-established genres of hterature d1sm1sses
related to Menander's place in the Hellenistic school syllabus (p. 2), and that syllabus
the palliata as represented by Plautus and Caecilius as a disaster-area compared with
was probably being used at Rome by Greek schoolmasters already before the end of
Menander's New Comedy. But 'nevertheless Terence's plays .are the most
the Second PUnic War. Cicero later defined Comedy as 'the imitation of life, the
discriminating (elegantes)i n that genre and would have had still more grace if he had mirror of behaviour, the image of truth';16 the theory of drama implicit in this was
kept to trimeters', i.e. spoken senarii rather than recitative.10 Such evidence :15th ere is
possibly already current in Menander's own time (see on line 428), and was adopted in
from this whole period for actual theatrical performances of Terence 1s at best
the Renaissance from Latin sources it is most memorably stated by Hamlet in his
ambiguons, 11a nd from Horace's time (late 1st c. B.C.) ignorance of Teronce's metres well-known Advice to the Players (Shakespeare, Hamlet iii 2). The point of the
and of his dramatic structure is such as to cast doubt on the continuing existence of a
'mirror' theory of Comedy was to give it status a~ something 'serious'; it was a
real acting tradition to compare with that of the Greek Artists of Dionysu& who were
particular application of an older conception of poetry in general as mimetic (so
still keeping Menander very much alive in the theatre.
PLATO), therefore potentially didactic, therefore worthwhile, and putting Comedy on
a par with Tragedy as literature: if the comic poet portrays us with conviction, he may
1. 5. Menander'sf ate and resurrection.M enander failed to survive the bottleneck of
make us think in ways that the caricaturist will not.
direct transmissicin through the Byzantine period (cf. p. 2), and this is less remarkable
In the Roman world QUINTILIAN went so far as to say that Menander 'even by
than that any of the great Athenian dramatists did survive - AESCHYLUS,
himself would, if carefully read, be sufficient to bring about everything that one seeks
SOPHOCLES, EURIPIDES in Tragedy, ARISTOPHANES repres,enting Old
to impart in a rhetorical education; so well has he imprinted the image of life, such is
Comedy. For in each case the survival of a single copy over a lengthy period appears
his fertility of ideas and facility of language, so accurately tuned is he to every subject,
to have been crucial. It is nnly in the last century and more particularly the last
personality, and emotion'.17 What disappointed GELLIUS in comparing Caecilius
quarter-century that Menander has been emerging in tattered guise from papyri
with Menander 18 was the Roman writer's positive disregard for the very best things in
preserved in the Egyptian desert. Some eighteen plays out of more than a hundred are Menander - his 'simplicity, truth, and charm' (simplex et uerum et delectabile}. Both
now known in stretches of varying length. Of these only Dyskolos 'The Bad-tempered
writers are referring to what we should call character; and they are right. Though
Man' is virtually cttmplete; but we haive more than half of six, of which Samia 'The
farce and theatricality are by no means absent from Menander, and though his
Woman of Samos' is particularly relevant to Brothers. Of the others, some scenes of dramatis perso11ae can be categorised externally by class, type, even name, he
Dis Exapato11'T he Double Deceiver' are important as preserving passages of the presents real individuals and rarely if merely relies on our a priori expectation of
sentiment and behaviour. His stagecraft is superbly economical, and one technical
7 Duckworth (1952) 384-441; English and Freneh descendants of Brothers, ibid. 400,
405 f., 428 f., 431.
8 VolcaciusS edigitusa p. GelliumN .A. 15. 24; Beare( 1964) 117 f. 12 CHCL ii. 101-3.
13 Gellius N.A. 2. 23; Wright (1974) 87-126.
9 Varro De sermonel atino 5 fr. 60 (Charisiusp . 315 Barwick); Varro ap. Donatum Vita
Terenti3 (quotedp . 206). 14 Nineteen ancient iudicia, see K.-Th. (1959) 7-11.
15 Syrianus in Hennogenem2 . 23 Rabe; Pfeiffer (1968) 190 f.
JO QuintilianI nst. JO. 1. 99; Brothers seems to illustrate this point very well in that the
16 Quoted from a lost source in DonatusD e comoedia5 . I (p. 22. 19 Wessner).
dictiono f someo f the scenes in octonariii s artificiallyi nflated. For the views of Caesar
and Ciceroc f. Donatus,V itaT erenti1 , Leo( 1913)2 53 17 Quintilian Inst. 10. 1. 69.
11 Goldberg( 1981)1 03-4,R eeve( 1983)4 12-3. 18 Gellius N.A. 2. 23.
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 9
8
* sons (47).
manoeuvre in the plot will unobtrusivelya chieve several aims at once, like a good
Micio has brought the young man up from babyhood and all his happiness lies in his
move in a game of chess.19 This is importanta s a means of identifying in Terence the
Menandreana nd the Terentian in dramaturgy;f or Terence's standards in dramaturgy lov~ ~or Ae~chinus; he_~ ims ~o make him reciprocate that love by liberality and
are really those of the older palliata, looser and more tolerant of implausibility, av01dmg prymg and trammg his son to be frank with him in ways that conventional
awkwardness,a nd redundancyt han Menander's2.0 strictness fails to achieve (58). Demea does not approve but he is too strict himself
(64);
* and in general the key to maintaining authority (not just paternal) is not
2. THEA CTIONO F TERENCE'SB ROTIIERS
* vigilant repression but open-handednessw hich will inspire children to give as
2. 1. Act-divisionsi n Terence.T he act-divisions given more or less prominence in
* good as they get (77).
printed editions are an inept impositiono n Terence made in later antiquity in the light
of Horace's precept that plays ought to have five acts.21 In what follows the ends of Demea arrives from his farm with news that Aeschinus has abducted a slave-girl; it is
the talk of the town; Micio is to blame; Demea's younger son Ctesipho is a paragon by
these 'acts' are noted in Roman numbersi n brackets. The real articulation of Terence
contrast (97).
was metrical; it is enough here to distinguishs poken verse (SV), i.e., iambic senarii,
Micio avoids the issue by attacking Demea's outlook and interference and
and recitative (R), i.e., the longer iambic and trochaic measures which were somehow
accompaniedb y the musician2.2 There is also one very short 'aria' (A) not in iambo threatens to return Aeschinus to Demea's jurisdiction if he goes on. Demea backs
down and leaves for town (140).
trochaicv erse.
. M_icioe xplain~ that the news does alarm him, but that there was no point in
Menander's play was in five acts (the Greeks simply said 'parts') separated by
mflam1~gt he volall!e D~mea by agreeing with him; the only way to deal with his fiery
entr'actesf or the chorus; the decline of the dramatic role of the chorus is seen already
temper 1s to treat him hke a fierce dog. Micio had been hoping that Aeschinus was
in the late works of Aristophanes,a nd in New Comedy its 'numbers' were unscripted
nearly pa~t.the adolescent phase; the other day, he mentioned marrying and settling
and were integral only in that they might cover the passage of dramatic time. Further,
down. M1c10l eaves for town to look for Aeschinus (154). (I)
some appropriateg od or abstractioni nterruptedt he first act to give us the background
* (Menander'sp rologuef ol/owed here)
in a set speech; the technique is well known in Menander (e.g. Aspis 'The Shield',
*
155-287 (R): Aeschinus and his retinue bring the slavegirl home to the
Synarfs tosai 'The Ladies at Elevenses'). Roman scholars started to go wrong by
* protests of her master Sannio, a procurer. She and the other 'extras' are sent in
labelling the b~eakf or Menander'sp rologue as their 'Act I'. In Menander, probably
* to Micio's ( 175). Aeschinus outfaces Sannio's bluster and proposes to offer
only about a sixth was not in spoken iambic trimeters; io Terence the balance of
* him what he himself paid for the girl as compensation or face prosecution for
spoken and chanted verse is about even.
* depriving a freeborn girl of her status; he leaves (196). Sannio reflects on his
2. 2. The Actiono f Terence'sB rothers. * chances of getting any money at all (208),
and Syrus, the senior servant in Micio's households enters assuring those within that
26-154 (SV): It is dawn. Micio enters from his house alarmed at the absence of his
he will have Sannio eating out of his hand. Posing as a neutral party he criticises
son A~hinus and ~f the escort sent to fetch him home last night. Any loving father
Sannio's tactics and reveals that he knows Sannio is in a hurry to be off to Cyprus
make~ hn~self a uruque prey to anxiety: has there been some dreadful accident. ..?
(227).
~ow Illog_ica(lb ut human) to choose and cherish something more dear than one's own
228-53 (SV): This revelation undermines Sannio, who ends begging Syrus to take his
hf~!. ~es1des, Aeschinus is not Micio's natural son but an adopted nephew, son of
M1c10s brother Demea: part.
* ( * 254-87 (R): Ctesipho arrives, overjoyed at hearing what Aeschinus has done;
40) a man of very differento utlook from Micio, who has gone for a life of
* urbane easea s a bachelor;D emea has gone for a life of thrift and hard work as * for it is Ctesipho, not Aeschinus, who loves the girl; Aeschinus is covering
* a farmer,d oing his duty and marrying;M icio has adopted the elder of his two * for his brother by taking the blame (264). Aeschinusj oins the other three;
* Ctesipho had been thinking of leaving Athens, Aeschinus had found out
19 In Brothers, the dramaturgya t 26 ff. 141 ff. 364 ff 435 ff 486 ff 540 ff 635 ff * 'almost too late' (272); Ctesipho is despatched indoors; the others go to town
775 ff• is tY P1·c a10 f Me nander'se con'o mya nd' origina'' lityin h.a, ndlingt· •h e 'synt·a• x'o f th·e• * to find Micio and setfle (287) (II).
theatre.
* (Here was the end of Menander'sf irst act)
20 This is to state a diffierencoef k"m d , not a d1' sparagemenat;n d 1. t 1. s not suggestedt hat * 288-354 (R): Sostrata, a widow, and Canthara, an old nurse, enter from next
Me nandern evern. odded.C f. Brown( 1983).
21 HoraceA.P1. 89f ., Beare( 1964) 196-218 * door. Sostrata's daughter Pamphila is about to have a baby; Aeschinus is the
22 See AppendiIxI I. .
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 11
10
* father he has been their mainstayt hese recent months (298). * Mi_ci_aon d Hegio _returnf rom town, where Micio has corrected Hegio's wrong
* Get~, an old servant, arrives with the news about Aeschinus: he has * opinion of Aeschmus and learnt from Hegio of the rape, pregnancy, and
* evidentlya bandonedt hem all for someonee lse without a thought for the * ~angement with Sostrata. He promises to do the proper thing and they go
* m to Sostrata's.
• poor girl he had raped (308); he is outraged (319). Sostrata is cast down:
* Aeschinush ad sworn to approach his father for permission to marry once the 610-637 (A, R): Aeschinus, shocked at the suspicion he has incurred and learnt about
* child was born (!) (334). Geta argues for keeping quiet (341) ; Sostrata rejects i~ Town from Canlhara outside a midwife's establishment (616), gradually brings
* that (350); Geta is to fetch the daughter'so nly male relative Hegio and tell himself under control, reviewing his position, and blaming himself for not telling his
* fath1er (630); he resolves to be more positive, and, screwing up his courage to
him everything;m aybe he will help them to prosecute. Canth ara is to fetch
* a midwife from town. Exe11nste verally( 354). approach Sostrata, is faced with the person he least expected - his father leaving her
house after his visit (637).
355-516 (SV): Demea returns, disturbedt o hear that Ctesipbo had some active part in
638-678 (SV): Micio pretends that he has been supporting the claim of a 'friend from
last night's affray. In comes Syrus, laden with 'the goodies' for a celebration at
Miletus' to the hand of Pamphita; he is the closest kin and as such has the option to
Micio's. He explains that they had found Micio, told him about Ctesipho and the girl,
marry her; but the women claim there is 'someone else', the alleged father of an
and that Micio was very pleased; he settled with Sannio in the spot and gave extra for
alleged baby - all nonsense of course, says Micio. Aeschinus is dismayed (678).
the celebration( 371) .
Demea reveals his presence; Syrus coolly goes on dealing with his purchases 679-712 (R): Micio reveals that he knows the whole story, lectures Aeschinus, and
while making out that he disapproveso f Micio's eccentric ways. Flattering Demea for givas permission for his marriage (696). He Is delighted; Micio goes home (706);
* Aeschinus follows him after expressing appreciation of Micio not as a wise
his sagacity, Syrus tells him that Micio intends to let Aeschinus keep the girl at home
* and humane individual but as a bizarre but convenient inversion of what one
(390). Demea 'casually' mentions Ctesipho; Syrus determines to get rid of Demea.
* expects of a father-figure; in future he will be very anxious not to hurt his
Lying, he says that Ctesipho is at Demea's farm: Syrus had earlier put him on the road
* feelings.
there himself (402); but Ctesipho onexpectodly turned up at the moment of the
* (Here was the end of Menander'st hird act)
settlement in town, and roundly denouncedA eschinus' profligacy (410). This relieves
and pleases Demea and prompts him to describe his 'system' of education - precept 713-854 (SV): Frustrated and exhausted, Demea returns and at last finds Micio at
and observation' as if in a minor' of what draws praise and blame in others' behaviour. home (720). He is aghast at discovering that Micio seems content to house both a
Syrus ironicallye ndorses all this with his own below-stairs parallels and goos in (432) poor wife and a mistress for Aeschinus (747). Micio goes to see Sostrata, leaving
confident that Demea is leaving for the farm. But as Demea makes to leave he sees Demea alone to comment on the lunacy of Micio's household (762) (IV, edd.). He is
Geta bringing his old friend Hagio from the country (446) and he stays behind to · i joined by Syrus, now tipsy. Demea is further outraged that they can be carousing
under the circumstances (775) (IV, Do11at11s).
speak to him.
A slave calls out that Ctesipho wants Syrus' company. Syrus cannot prevent
On greeting Hegio, Demea is shocked by the grave charges of rape and
Demea's irruption; he follows; Micio returns from Sostrata's; commotion from within;
abandonment now laid against Aeschinus, and the baby arrives on cue in Sostrata's
eruption of Demea (789).
house (486). Hegio champio11st he womcm's cause and rominds Demea of the
Demea reminds Micio of their agreement not to interfere with each other's charge
responsibilities of rich men like him and Micio. Demea indicates that he means to
and Micio counters by proposing that henceforth they should pool their resources for
find Micio in 10,ivna nii tell hhn; Hegio and Geta go into Sostrata's; Demea leaves for
the benefit of both boys: 'friends say not mine and thine but ours' (804).
town (511; the end of Menander'ss econd act). Hegio returns from Sostrata's and also
He argues that Demea had reckoned that by hard work he could create enough
leaves for town to look for Micio (5 l 6) (III).
wealth to leave a good inheritance for both his sons, and has succeeded; Micio's own
517-609 (R): Syrus complacentlyr eassures a nervous Ctesipho that Demea has gone
fortune was an unexpected windfall; let thorn use that up, and inherit from Demea
home, but suddenly (537) he turns up from town complaining that he cannot find
~icio and. that he has heard Ctesipho is not at home (542). Syrus with comic (819). As to their characters, there are signs in people which allow one to say that X
difficulty disposes of Ctesipho and pretends he has been beaten by hiht for his part in can get away with that,b ot Y would be harmed; it is the doet as well as the deed that
must be assessed. What signs does Micio see in the boys that makes him confident
the purchase of the music-girl. This again wins Demea's pleasure and approval (564) .
they will turn out as the fathers wish? Discriminution, appropriate respect, mutual
~e wants to know where Micio is; Syrus sends him on a wild-goose-chase to the far
affection; one can tell mettle and spirit; they will respond to the whistle whenever one
s1~eo. f Athens (586). Sure this time that Demea has gone, Syrus joins the party in
M1cio'sh ouse (591). wishes them to (830). Thirdly, their extravagance is a symptom of their age; in due
12 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 13
course they will lend towards the oppositee rror (835). Lastly, Micio asks Den:1eal o substantially from Menander; or, to put it another way, those set to the margin are the
be cheery just for today for the wedding. Demea relucta~tly agrees, and without stretches where Terence appears to be following Menander more or less closely. The
explicit promptingf rom Micio proposes to keep the slave-girl on the farm where she evidence for this diagnosis is set out on pp. 25--45 and in the Notes to the Translation,
is to earn her keep the hard way. Micio goes in, inviting Demea to follow (854). and a scenario for Menander's play is sketched on pp. 46--50. But our first business is
(Here was the e11do f Me11a11de/0r1's1 rtlai ct) to do as we are bidden in the prologue (24) and try to become fair-minded Roman
* 855-81 (R): Alone, Demear eflects that one is never too old to learn; . spectators in 160 B.C.
* henceforthh e is going to change his ways; why? Anyone can see from him
* and his brothert hat easy-goingm ildnessi s 'better'. (861). Micio's life has 3. The Roman Context or Brothers
* been one of Epicureans ociability,a voidinga ll offence; result, universal 3. 1. The Irrelevance or the Greek Original. Terence neither invited nor expected
* popularity. (865). Demaah as played the part of the thrifty, f~ nnid~~le his broad audience to make comparisons: since the original is lost (all but the flotsam
* peasant-farmerm, arryinga nd having sons; result, they hate him; M1c10h as on pp. 206--8) we easily qualify on that count. But it is not so easy for the alien visitor
* unscrupulouslyd ivertedt heir affection( 876). Since Micio challenges him to to Terence's city-state to attune his values and attitudes appropriately. The social
* it, Demeap roposest o try affabilitya nd mildness;h e too wants to be fabric of the Hellenistic city-state was very different from that of any modem society;
* appreciatedb y his own; if that means fawninga nd largesse, he will not play as Hellenistic city-states Menander's Athens and Terence's Rome differed; and in
* second fiddle. Ruin? So what? He is eldest; apres lui le deluge (881). Terence's time, Roman life itself was changing under Greek influence in ways which
* 882-933 (SV): After rehearsinga ffabilityf irst on Syrus (888), then Geta are imperfectly documented and of which Terence's plays are themselves one complex
ee
* (898), Demea wins instant favour with Aeschinusb y proposing that Syrus symptom. We should not expect this approach to straightforward, but we must at
* should breach the garden wall so that the bride may cross over that way (911) . least try it.
* Demeat alcesm aliciousp leasurei n thinkingw hat Micio will make of that
* (9 I 5) and sends Syrusi n. Gela thanks Demea and goes back to Sostrata. 3. 2. The Theme. A perennial topic: the means chosen by parents (so we would say;
* Micio comes out in surprise( 924). He agrees that they must do all possible but then it was father's business more than mother's) in dealing with teenagers to make
* to unite the honseholds;t he logic of that, says Demen,i s that Micio should them responsible adults and good citizens, and the effectiveness of the means. Should
* marry Sostrata( 933). fathers be strict and old-fashioned,o r pennissive and modern?
* 934-55 (R): Micio objentst o this strongly;b ut he gives way to the combined One cause of confusion among modern critics may be disposed of at once.
* pressureo f Demeaa nd Aeschinus( 945), who shows himself utterly Neither Greeks nor Romans believed in either Original Sin or in Primal Innocence.
* 'unimproved'b y his education; Demeaf urther extracts financial help for . I Terence to be sure starts by making Micio expound a general theory of education
* Hegio from an unwillingM icio, I behind which there lies an optimist's view of human nature: anyone will respond well
* 95fr7 (SV), who reluctantlyc oncedesb ecause Aesehinus wnnts it. to liberality (65-77). In context, this is certainly meant to convince and win applause
* 95~997 (R): Syrus reports that the wall is breached;D emea proposes that he (65-77). But it appears to be Terentian simplification and expansion, for it is not
* be freed for his good services;M icio concedesb ecause Aeschinus wants strictly compatible with Micio's views as expressed in 820 ff.; Micio's axiom there is
* it (970); Demeao ffers to pay for the freedomo f a female slave of Micio's to be that there are good and bad natural dispositions and that it is certainly wrong to allow
* Syrus' bride (977); and Syrus is to be given financialh elp by Micio (983). bad dispositions free rein. This apparently more subtle position in fact corresponds
* Asked why he has becomes o generous,D emear eplies to Micio that it was to better with popular Roman and Athenian belief about human nature. In the good old
* teach us a lesson: Micio'se asy-going,j olly ways are not the expression of a days, everyone was virtuous; but this is the degenerate Age of Iron; the quality of
* true philosophyo f life but of fawning,l axness,a nd extravagance;t he verdict is mankind has been constantly declining and will probably get worse, until, perhaps, a
* surprisinglyh arsh. He ends by proposingh imself, take him or leave him, as a new Golden Age comes. What is 'born in' a person (his i11-geni11mi)s a matter of
* true and wise father-figuref or the boys. Aeschinuss ubmits to his authority for breeding, or, as we might say, his genes. Naturally good i11geniaa re nowadays rare
* himself and Ctesipho,w ho, Domear ules, is to be allowed to keep his girl, but (e.g. Hegio, 440 ff.); so moral education is more important now than ever it was - if,
* she is to be his first and last (997). that is, virtue is teachable - because there are so many bad influences about. In this
play both fathers tacitly agree that the boys have the right raw material, but may go
2. 3. Terence's fidelity and independence.I n the above, the passages asterisked are wrong if handled wrongly. Their views differ on the content and aim of moral
those where for various reasons Terence can be seen to be departing more1o r less education and the proper nature of a father-son relationship. The play deals with the