Leiden University

Faculty of Humanities

Department of Classics

Imagines poetarum

Terentian prologues as a Roman spectacle

Andreas Vourloumis

20/6/2012

2

CONTENTS

A. Introduction……………………………………………………………………3

B. The Terentian prologues……………………………………………….............5

C. Imagines maiorum and laudatio funebris in Roman

funerals……………………………………………………………………….12

D. Reflections of funerary tradition in the prologues of Terence; affinity with the

laudatio and prominence of the ancestors………………………………........16

E. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………18

Bibliography……………….…………………………………………………20

3

A. Introduction

Undoubtedly the contribution of Terence was one of the key-factors for the

development of Latin literature. Publius Terentius Afer (c. 195/4-159 BCE) was a successful

Republican comic dramatist who enjoyed a short but remarkable career as a writer of

palliatae1. Following the dramatic set-up of New Comedy, he had mainly Menander as his

index mark2 and produced six comedies, every one of which was a popular success, according

to the Roman biographer Suetonius3. The production of his comedy Eunuchus aroused a keen

enthusiasm in the spectators, achieved a repeat performance and made him the most well paid

comic poet of his time4.

His popularity was even greater after his death; in the time of Cicero, when letters

were further cultivated and Terence was meticulously studied, the poet was much more

appreciated for his pure style and his artistic finish5. His contribution to the growth and

refinement of the colloquial Latin speech, the fact that he improved and shaped it to the

rhythm and diction of Menander, the artful way with which his plots were unfolding, the

natural sequence of incidents, all these were generally acknowledged. Terence tried to attain

elegance6 and correctness of expression but also symmetry in the elaboration of his plots. The

means for the achievement of the latter were a faithful reproduction and a close imitation of

the Greek models.

However, one of the most interesting aspects of his comedies is the oratory nature of

the meta-literal prologues. While Plautus‟ main textual strategy was to provide basic

1 From the term palliurn (ἱμάηιον), a Greek cloak worn by the actor. 2 The plays Andria, Eautontimoroumenos, Eunuchus and Adelphoe were based on Menander; Hecyra

and Phormio on Apollodorus of Carystos. 3 Suetonius, Vita Terenti 2: “Et hanc autem et quinque reliquas aequaliter populo probavit, quamvis

Vulcatius dinumeratione omnium ita scribat:”Sumetur Hecyra sexta ex his fabula”.

"He pleased the people equally with both this (Andria, his first play) and with his following five plays,

despite the fact that Volcacius in his count-down of them all writes as follows 'Hecyra will be taken as

the sixth play of these [?]".

4 Suetonius, Vita Terenti 2: "Eunuchus" quidem bis die acta est meruitque pretium quantum nulla

antea cuiusquam comoedia, id est octo milia nummorum; propterea summa quoque titulo ascribitur.

Nam "Adelphorum" principium Varro etiam praefert principio Menandri.

The "Eunuch" was even acted twice in the same day and earned more money than any previous

comedy of any writer, namely eight thousand sesterces; and for this reason the sum is included in the

title-page. Indeed Varro rates the beginning of the "Adelphoe" above that of Menander.

5 Horace Epist. 2. 1. 59 6 Quintilian 10. 1. 99

4

information regarding the plot7

(literary, critical, aesthetic) and the „literary-historical‟

framework of each play, exploiting at the same time the chance for further jokes, Terence did

not content himself with a conventional type of a humorous, narrative and expository

prologue. On the contrary; grasping the convenient alternative offered by the developing art

of Roman oratory, he cast his speaker as an orator and the audience as iudices of his “case”

and created prologues that apart from announcing the play and securing a hearing were

merely rhetorical defenses of his life and practices. Hence he saw in those speeches the

opportunity to introduce questions of literary criticism and dramatic principles, refer to his

illustrious predecessors and defend himself against accusations of opponents. The content and

style of the prologues reveal the extent of Terence's debt to contemporary oratory8 and

explain why he thought that this could be a successful strategy to win his audience. The

scope of this paper is not just an analysis of oratorical features and an exegesis of the

particular reasons that led Terence to create such prologues, but also an attempt to shed a light

on what really might have inspired him in making this option.

The taste for oratory that was sweeping Rome at the time had probably a respective

influence in the imperial and aristocratic funerals as well; for Roman people those ceremonies

were a public spectacle they were quite familiar with. They included a funeral oration

(laudatio funebris) that could be seen as a branch of rhetoric provided that it was a eulogy of

an individual and his predecessors and contained accusations against other rivals or aspirants

to public offices equivalent to those of the deceased. The ceremonials were also colored with

theatrical aspects; selected actors, „funerary mimes‟, wore ancestral masks (imagines

maiorum) with which impersonated the defunct and his distinguished forefathers.

The hypothesis of this paper relies on an attempt for a parallelism between the

prologues and the spectacles of roman funerals in relation to the audience that both spectacles

were addressed to and to their context. Like a roman funeral, which takes place in front of two

groups of people (friends and family/citizens and the ancestors of the deceased who are

symbolized with the „imagines maiorum’), the prologues of Terence‟s comedies are delivered

in front of the spectators and the artistic ancestors of the poet. Since Terence‟s non-dramatic

prologues, a roman spectacle as part of some „ludi’, were also delivered at public space, I will

try to investigate them as possible „enactments‟ of a funeral and underline the role of the

audience as „imagines’ of the artistic ancestors (earlier poets) of Terence.

7 Plautus and Caecilius also used, occasionally, meta-literal prologues in addition to the exposition of

the plot. 8 E.g. Cato.

5

My research question will be based on the theory of intertextuality, mainly as it has

been approached by Kristeva (social/cultural texts) and Conte (as poetic memory) and his

argument that a poetic text is connected with its index mark directly through the social

context and indirectly through the tradition. Terence, in order to achieve the coherence of his

texts, adapts from a broad framework of cultural elements that reflect the tradition (such as

ideas, literary conventions etc.) those motifs that can be familiar or easily recognized by the

spectators. In such a case the procedure of “poetic memory” will be successful. Following

Conte‟s theory I will try to examine Terence‟s prologues as “social texts”.

B. The Terentian prologues

Before proceeding to an analysis of content and structure, a clarification of the

reasons that prompted Terence to adapt oratorical techniques in his prologues would be

illuminating. The answer to this question basically involves his life and art, his rivals, the era

and the audience and might explain why Terence substituted the explanatory prologues of

Menander with polemical9 ones: to reply to the criticisms of his work, namely charges

regarding his poetic style and techniques, the use of his models, his creativity and

independence etc.

During his short career Terence had the support or for others the active creative

assistance of some important and highly-placed Romans interested in Greek literature and

culture. Terence, a Libyphoenician slave, was a graceful person gifted with intellectual assets

that helped him attain his freedom. Especially after that point he granted access and

permanent perception within the aristocratic circle of literary men in Rome. Some of his

young noble friends were P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (Africanus Minor, 185/4 – 129

B.C), Gaius Laelius and L. Furius Philus, who all consisted the so-called “Scipionic circle of

litterati”10

. He was also in contact with older and acknowledged literary men, such as

Sulpicius Gallus, Q. Fabius Labeo and M. Popilius. These men had Terence‟s respect and

admiration and he tried to please them with his comedies.

The social connections and his modus operandi in handling the Greek models caused

fierce attacks against him. The charge was plagiarism and hypocrisy. It‟s been implied, for

9 In the second and third production of Hecyra the prologues are not polemical but rather literary for

they only intend to secure a hearing for the play. 10 “A philosophic and literary coterie of mid-second-century philhellenes known as “the Scipionic

circle” sought… to promote the study of Greek at Rome and to develop the Latin language and

literature” (T.F Carney (ed.), P. Terenti Afri Hecyra (Salisbury, Rhodesia, 1963, 6). According to Astin

(294) the Scipionic circle is "essentially an invention of modern criticism".

6

example, that Scipio and Laelius wrote some parts of Terence‟s comedies which he presented

as they were solely his own compositions.

That was probably a rumor or a gossip11

, extracted from the fact that Terence had

friendly relations with these noble men and because two of his plays were performed at the

funeral games of Scipio‟s father, L Aemilius Paullus12

. What is intriguing though is that in

two of his prologues13

the comic poet brings up the charges that he got help, but he is denying

to confirm or to refute; instead he is replying evasively, something that is not necessarily

proof that he was the front of their creative activities but might just be an indication that he

enjoyed their friendship and was listening to their opinions. Terence was probably reading his

compositions in front of his literary friends and was definitely interested in their criticism,

insight and useful remarks. For instance, as a young and with a foreign origin poet did

definitely gain benefits from his contact with the most refined society of his time, something

that can be seen in the elegance and purity of his language and style.

Terence was also accused of contaminatio, the practice of combining parts of two

or more Greek models in order to form a single Latin comedy14

. The Terentian contaminatio

was reprobated as a method by the poetic circles of the era, where only a close adherence and

imitation of the Greek models was appreciated. These artistic trends aroused as a reaction

mainly after the Plauitine comedies in which little attention had been paid to the Greek

originals. The fact however that Terence, apart from the contaminatio, was as strict in

imitating his Greek sources as were his contemporary poets might prove that this criticism

was the outcome of jealousy and envy.

Although his Greek models‟ prologues were most probably providing information

about vital facts of the plot, Terence decided to cut them out leaving the spectators in total

ignorance. This tactic made the plot too difficult for the audience to follow15

, but helped him

increase the suspense and respond to severe criticism by justifying his dramatic principles of

borrowing from earlier poets. Terence, following the παπαβάζειρ in Aristophanes, assigned

an impresario or a member of the troupe to deliver his prologues. At the Ludi Megalenses of

166 BC he staged his first comedy, the Andria:

11 Suetonius, Vita Terenti 3.

12 E. S. Gruen, 201: “Selection of Terentian plays to grace the games of Aemilius Paullus reflects the reputation of the poet, not the patronage of the family. The house of Scipio was the beneficiary, not the

benefactor.” 13 Hau. 22ff.; Ad. 15ff. 14 For example, Andria was based on two plays of Menander, the Ἀνδπία and Πεπινθία, and Eunuchus

on Eὐνοῦσορ and Κόλαξ. 15 As in the Hecyra.

7

Poeta quom primum animum ad scribendum adpulit,

id sibi negoti credidit solum dari,

populo ut placerent quas fecisset fabulas.

verum aliter evenire multo intellegit;

nam in prologis scribundis operam abutitur, 5

non qui argumentum narret sed qui malevoli

veteris poetae maledictis respondeat.

nunc quam rem vitio dent quaeso animum adtendite.

Menander fecit Andriam et Perinthiam.

qui utramvis recte norit ambas noverit: 10

non ita dissimili sunt argumento [s]et tamen

dissimili oratione sunt factae ac stilo.

quae convenere in Andriam ex Perinthia

fatetur transtulisse atque usum pro suis.

id isti vituperant factum atque in eo disputant 15

contaminari non decere fabulas.

faciuntne intellegendo ut nil intellegant?

qui quom hunc accusant, Naevium Plautum Ennium

accusant quos hic noster auctores habet,

quorum aemulari exoptat neglegentiam 20

potius quam istorum obscuram diligentiam.

de(h)inc ut quiescant porro moneo et desinant

male dicere, malefacta ne noscant sua.

favete, adeste aequo animo et rem cognoscite,

ut pernoscatis ecquid spei sit relicuom, 25

posthac quas faciet de integro comoedias,

spectandae an exigendae sint vobis prius

The Poet, when first he applied his mind to writing, thought that the only duty which

devolved on him was, that the Plays he should compose might please the public. But he

8

perceives that it has fallen out entirely otherwise; for he is wasting his labor in writing

Prologues, not for the purpose of relating the plot, but to answer the slanders of a malevolent

old Poet. Now I beseech you, give your attention to the thing which they impute as a fault.

Menander composed the Andrian and the Perinthian. He who knows either of them well, will

know them both; they are in plot not very different, and yet they have been composed in

different language and style. What suited, he confesses he has transferred into the Andrian

from the Perinthian, and has employed them as his own. These parties censure this

proceeding; and on this point they differ from him, that Plays ought not to be mixed up

together. By being thus knowing, do they not show that they know nothing at all? For while

they are censuring him, they are censuring Naevius, Plautus, and Ennius, whom our Poet has

for his precedents; whose carelessness he prefers to emulate, rather than the mystifying

carefulness of those parties. Therefore, I advise them to be quiet in future, and to cease to

slander; that they may not be made acquainted with their own misdeeds. Be well disposed,

then; attend with unbiased mind, and consider the matter, that you may determine what hope

is left; whether the Plays which he shall in future compose anew, are to be witnessed, or are

rather to be driven off the stage.

In this prologue16

the charge here is contaminatio. In the argument of lines 5-7 (nam

in prologis… respondeat) the prologue speaker informs the audience that there are two kinds

of prologues; one that has a dramatic value and one that is a waste of effort. He claims that

the poet was compelled to choose the second type so as to respond to the animadversions

made on him, namely the way he treated his originals. By this distinction Terence is achieving

two things; he disclaims the blame for a dull prologue and seizes the opportunity to defend

himself. Here he singles out one man who he calls malevolus vetus poeta17

. After admitting

that he transferred to Andria suitable elements from another Menandrian play, the Πεπινθία,

the lines 13-16 (quae convenere… fabulas) are given rhetorically colored: he states what he

did, spots the charges against his practice and says that his opponents differ from him. After

that, in lines 18-21, he claims he has precedents. He quotes as examples Naevius, Plautus and

Ennius, poets who also used contaminatio and treated freely (neglegentia) their Greek

models; those are his poetic exempla. Therefore if he did spoil his plays with contaminatio, so

did Naevius, Plautus, and Ennius. An interesting point here is that the actor‟s speech is being

addressed both to the audience of the play and to those earlier poets, who consist Terence‟s

ideal audience.

16 Goldberg, (207): “This prologue is the oldest example of Roman rhetorical argument to survive

intact. Its diction builds on Cato, not Plautus. Its persona is the courtroom pleader, and its content is

shamelessly manipulated.” 17 This particular critic was the dramatist Luscius Lanuvinus “of Lanuvium”, according to ancient

commentators.

9

The oratory nature of this prologue is apparent also because of its structure and

vocabulary. There is exordium (1-8), narratio (9-16), argumentantio (17-23) and conclusio

(24-27) which all recall a well structured full-scale oration. As for the vocabulary, it has

certainly a legal hue18

that is strengthened by alliteration, repetition, homoioteleuton,

paronomasia and parallelism.

The next prologue comes from the Hecyra, the third and successful performance at

the Ludi Romani of 160 BC. The first two attempts failed because rumors for upcoming

performances of a gladiator and a tightrope walker (or a boxer) were spread and both plays

were cancelled.

Hecyra est huic nomen fabulae. haec quom datast

nova, novom intervenit vitium et calamitas

ut neque spectari neque cognosci potuerit:

ita populus studio stupidus in funambulo

animum occuparat. nunc haec planest pro nova, 5

et is qui scripsit hanc ob eam rem noluit

iterum referre ut iterum possit vendere.

alias cognostis eius: quaeso hanc noscite.

“This play is called Hecyra. When it was newly given, a new misfortune and disaster interrupted it, so that it could be neither watched nor appreciated, as a crowd, open-mouthed in their enthusiasm, had set

their hearts on a tightrope walker. Now it clearly counts as a new play, and the writer did not want it to

be repeated just for this reason - that he could sell it again. You have appreciated his other plays;

please, get to know this one, too”.

Here we are dealing with a short, stiff but highly polemical prologue. The speaker

states mere facts; while the play was in progress, a crowd (populus), which had their minds

filled (animum occuparat) with a rope dancer, broke into the theater and the play was

interrupted. Terence here follows a smart strategy; the play had already the audience‟s

attention and was cancelled due to an unfortunate circumstance (vitium et calamitas), not

because it was flawed. And then the poet defends himself, as if he was accused for the

cancellation of the play so he could stage it again and make new profit. It‟s been said that, in

18 Goldberg, (209): “The essentially argumentative quality that runs throughout the prologue finds

further confirmation in Terence's vocabulary, which has consistent legal overtones. Such words as

maledicta and its echoes, disputare, accusare, favere, cognoscere and fateor, aequus, isti referring to

the opposition, the shortened perfect convenere, and the connective atque all suggest the law court”.

10

order to win his audience, Terence should have given a joke or an argumentum, not an

argument. It seems though, in my opinion, that there is a sense of sarcasm in this argument;

Terence seems to be joking with his audience. The prologue closes with the actor asking the

audience for a better treatment this time.

The Hecyra prologue is symmetrical and balanced as well. We find alliteration,

chiasmus, repetition, emphasis, homophones, word play, which are all elements of the

rhetorical art.

In 163 BC the Heautontimorumenos was staged at the Ludi Megalenses. In this

prologue the actor, as a pleader and advocate, refers to Terence‟s influence from earlier

distinguished poets and brings up the accusations of his rivals (contaminatio again), who are

questioning his achievements. After that he replies to the enemy fire. Particularly the poet

claims through his representative that his example19

(auctores) is the good (boni) earlier poets

(20-21):

Habet bonorum exemplum, quo exemplo sibi

licere id facere quod illi fecerunt putat.

“He has the example of good Poets; after which example he thinks it is allowable for him to do what they have done”.

Another charge is that the poet had relied on his friends (amici) who allegedly aided

him in writing his plays (lines 22-24):

Tum quod malevolus vetus poeta dictitat,

repente ad stadium hunc se applicasse musicun,

amicum ingenio fretum, haud natura sua;

“Then, as to a malevolent old Poet20 saying that he has suddenly applied himself to dramatic

pursuits, relying on the genius of his friends, and not his own natural abilities”.

19 It is probably Naevius, Plautus and Ennius as mentioned in Andria (18-19). 20 He refers to the dramatist Luscius Lanuvinus.

11

Thereafter he asks for the audience‟s soundness of judgment and fair assessment of

his work value. By placing himself among the just and his enemies among the unfair, in lines

26-30, (quare omnis vos orators volo/ ne plus iniquom posit quam aequom oratio/ facite

aequi sitis: date crescendi copiam/ novarum qui spectandi faciunt copiam sine vittis21

) the

poet manages to praise himself and incur blame against his rivals. Especially against the

anonymous spiteful poet, Terence strikes back with a specific counter-charge (lines 30-32); he

selects a vitium of his rivals‟ work, a scene that proves lack of originality (ne ille pro se

dictum existumet/ qui nuper fecit servo currenti in via/ decesse populum: quor insano

serviat?22

). With this strategy Terence creates an antithesis that highlights his own work. It

seems that he reveals his personal system of dramatic values in contrast to the one of his rival.

The same principles occur in the Eunuchus and Phormio prologue, where the poet

presents his personal credo and refers to his integrity and dignity. Against the accusation for

lack of poetic value he opposes the fact that his rival is using devious means of physical and

ethical extermination of his opponents but after this point he responds calmly with self-

restraint, moderation and lack of revengefulness. Finally in the Adelphoe prologue Terence

reopens the issue regarding his rival‟s system of values, treats his audience as judges and asks

for their fair judgment.

21 “Wherefore I do entreat you all, that the suggestions of our antagonists may not avail more than

those of our favorers. Do you be favorable; grant the means of prospering to those who afford you the

means of being spectators of new plays; those, I mean, without faults.” 22 “That he may not suppose this said in his behalf, who lately made the public give way to a slave as

he ran along in the street; why should he take a madman's part?”

12

C. Imagines maiorum and laudatio funebris in Roman funerals

As I have stated in the introduction, the scope of this paper is to investigate reasons

but also possible sources of inspiration that might have led Terence to form these oratorical

prologues, sources that could be traced in the meta-theatrical reality of the era. After this brief

analysis of the Terentian corpus I will proceed to a presentation of the theatrical and rhetorical

parameters of an aristocratic funeral. These ceremonies, private or public, were open

spectacles important in shaping the collective memory and establishing the mutual history and

moral values of the Roman people. From this point of view and because of their theatrical

aspects (mainly the funerary oration – laudatio funebris and the funerary masks – imagines of

the distinguished ancestors of the deceased) the Roman funerals can be examined as “social

texts” – sources that might have influenced the prologues.

The Roman funeral was expressing characteristically the aristocracy‟s system of

values; the ceremony, a “recall to remembrance”, was taking place in public space with the

Roman people as the audience. It was an honor dedicated solely to the deceased Roman

officials and their glorious ancestors. The values of those illustrious aristocrats were generally

appreciated and embraced by the people. The ceremony included three parts: the funerary

procession (pompa funebris), the funeral oration – eulogy (laudatio funebris) and the funeral

games/gladiatorial contests (ludi funebres – munera). The first -but mainly the second part-

constituted a way of expressing and celebrating the past of an aristocratic family and of the

Roman people in general; a way of presenting and defining the community of past family

members and Roman citizens, while pointing out the close relation to those that they still live.

And the spectators were probably feeling they were an integral part of the celebration of this

common heritage.

The most impressive part of the funeral was the procession (pompa); starting at the

house with destination the forum, it was passing through busy parts of the city (probably

attracting considerable crowds) and prepared the audience for the climax of the laudatio

which stands as a “commentary” to the previous pompa. The theatrical quality of these

processions is apparent; apart from friends and relatives, there was the participation of

professional mourners, musicians (flute players), comic dancers23

and mimes (histriones). The

mimes, usually in full magisterial costume, impersonated the dead24

and his illustrious

23 Flower, H, (106): “The presence of the dancers in costume demonstrates the element of public

entertainment included in the funeral procession.” 24 Flower, H (104): “Although the ancient sources available to us do not prove that the dead man was

represented by an imago at his own funeral, it is most likely that he was.”

13

ancestors and wore the ancestral masks (imagines25

). They proceeded, leading the pompa, to

the forum where they formed apart from the audience for the laudatio delivered from the

speaker‟s platform (rostra26

) and seated themselves on curule chairs. The mimes were usually

carefully chosen by the family for their likeness in stature and bearing to the ancestor they

were to represent providing a realistic portrayal27

of a man‟s character. This portrait included

also gestures and probably words, as it was common, according to Suetonius, for the mime to

present words and deeds of the deceased to the crowd28

. Mockery, insults and jesting were

also presented, as for example happened at the funerals of Vespasian and Julian.

I think that special allusion should be made here regarding the imagines maiorum.

Daut and Lahusen have extensively studied the term and, relying mainly on Cicero and Livy,

agree that its initial meaning is “ancestor portrait”29

. Of course the term is quite flexible, thus

had more meanings; exact likeness and copy (Plautus) or reflection, imitation, simile, model,

example of personification, reality, truth or even illusion for other Roman authors. The

imagines were significant symbols in Roman culture; they enabled Romans to view their past

mutual history through a spectacular parade bringing to their minds the ancestors‟ deeds and

values. Polybius is a precious source; he says that the imagines were realistic masks kept in

wooden cupboards in the atrium of the house, after the funeral. They had a life-like quality

that along with the active performance of the mimes during the procession created a theatrical

atmosphere30

.

The second part of the funerary ritual was the delivery of the laudatio funebris.

During the oration the imago of the deceased was placed next to the speaker in a horizontal or

vertical position and the “ancestors” were seated in chronological order. The speech was

delivered by the son of the deceased31

or (if there was not one) by a distinguished relative or

an official. Given that only officials had the right to give a funeral speech it was a good

25 The technical term for Roman wax portraits of male ancestors kept in the atrium and displayed at

aristocratic funerals. The imagines were closely associated with nobility of office (at least the office of

aedile). 26 The fact that the laudatio was delivered from the rostra in the Forum demonstrates its intrinsic

political nature. 27 Diodorus (31. 25. 2) talks about the realism of the character acting in the pompa. 28 Suet. Ves. 19. 2: Sed et in funere Favor archimimus personam eius ferens imitansque, ut test

mos, facta et dicta vivi, interrogatis palam procuratoribus, quanti funus et pompa constaret, ut audit

sestertium centiens, exclamavit, centum sibi sestertia darent ac se vel in Tiberim proicerent.

Nay, at his funeral, Favo, the principal mimic, personating him, and imitating, as actors do,

both his manner of speaking and his gestures, asked aloud of the procurators, "how' much his funeral

and the procession would cost?" And being answered "ten millions of sesterces," he cried out, "give

him but a hundred thousand sesterces, and they might throw his body into the Tiber, if they would." 29 Daut R. (1975), 43, Lahusen G. (1982), 103. 30 Polybius Histories 6.53.5-9. 31 The presence of the imagines was adding authority to the youth of the speaker.

14

opportunity for a first public appearance for young orators who had not yet undertaken public

offices. This opportunity was sometimes exploited by older office holding members of the

family who were showing off their rhetorical skills. Some laudationes were also published

after the funerals as written examples of a rhetorical genre32

, publications that most likely

reflected the original structure and content of the orations. They were consisted of two parts; a

eulogy of an individual and of his ancestors. In content, the laudatio was expressing a close

association between the deeds of the ancestors33

and the achievements of the deceased34

,

something that was obviously emphasized by the presence of the imagines as both audience

and background of the oration. The impersonation of the ancestors and the allusion to their

morality and deeds were highly important and symbolic. Often during the oration the

ancestors, as exempla, exceeded the praises of the deceased who was not always equivalent to

their value but was still a distinguished member of the generation who earned the right to join

their ranks. They were the companions on the deceased‟s final journey. A striking example is

what happened at the funeral of Drusus; his coffin was in the atrium of the house with the

ancestors‟ imagines placed around it, a symbolism that verifies this companionship35

.

32 Stroh W. (1975), 31-54. 33 Flower H, (129): “Ancestors were also treated in several other types of rhetoric, in both political

and judicial context.” 34 Crawford C, (24): “It would seem, then, that the purpose of the laudatio funebris was to mark the

place of the defunct in the long train of descendants from a common ancestor, and to set in relief his

lofty actions and honors as his contribution to the family glory.” 35 Tacitus Annales 3. 5: Fuere qui publici funeris pompam requirerent compararentque quae in

Drusum patrem Germanici honora et magnifica Augustus fecisset. ipsum quippe asperrimo hiemis

Ticinum usque progressum neque abscedentem a corpore simul urbem intravisse; circumfusas lecto

Claudiorum Iuliorumque imagines; defletum in foro, laudatum pro rostris, cuncta a maioribus reperta

aut quae posteri invenerint cumulata: at Germanico ne solitos quidem et cuicumque nobili debitos

honores contigisse. sane corpus ob longinquitatem itinerum externis terris quoquo modo crematum: sed

tanto plura decora mox tribui par fuisse quanto prima fors negavisset. non fratrem nisi unius diei via,

non patruum saltem porta tenus obvium. ubi illa veterum instituta, propositam toro effigiem, meditata

ad memoriam virtutis carmina et laudationes et lacrimas vel doloris imitamenta?

“Some there were who missed the grandeur of a state-funeral, and contrasted the splendid

honours conferred by Augustus on Drusus, the father of Germanicus. "Then the emperor himself," they

said, "went in the extreme rigour of winter as far as Ticinum, and never leaving the corpse

entered Rome with it. Round the funeral bier were ranged the images of the Claudii and the Julii; there

was weeping in the forum, and a panegyric before the rostra; every honour devised by our ancestors or

invented by their descendants was heaped on him. But as for Germanicus, even the customary

distinctions due to any noble had not fallen to his lot. Granting that his body, because of the distance of

the journey, was burnt in any fashion in foreign lands, still all the more honours ought to have been

afterwards paid him, because at first chance had denied them. His brother had gone but one day's

journey to meet him; his uncle, not even to the city gates. Where were all those usages of the past, the

image at the head of the bier, the lays composed in commemoration of worth, the eulogies and laments,

or at least the semblance of grief?"

15

The laudatio was a praise of the life and deeds of the dead and an enumeration of the

offices and achievements of each ancestor, starting with the most ancient. Besides the

encomium (a praise of justice, moral qualities, leadership, fortitude, liberality, honor, brevity,

simplicity or any other virtue), which most of the times was delivered in an exaggerated

way36

, the laudatio also included the element of blame, expressed through accusations37

against possible opponents and aspirants of the public offices and achievements equivalent to

those of the deceased. The element of blame has a hue of prevention or deterrence; it

functions as a deliberate inversion of the deceased‟s good image (social status) and luck

(bona fortuna) so as this positive image will not be set aside because of the divine jealousy

(θθόνορ). Lastly we could say that the funeral ceremony is a public spectacle that has a

competitive character38

; it is an excellent opportunity for the family members to expose recent

prominences through the framework of their entire history in contradistinction to the

achievements of other important aristocratic families. The fact that the defunct and his

ancestors managed to rise successfully to eminence allowed the family to highlight not only

their own glory and values but also the values of the upper aristocratic class.

36 Crawford C, (24): “Indeed, we have evidence that "amplification" and "embellishment" were almost

as customary as the delivery of the oration itself.” 37 Such were vice and corruption, lack of moral values etc. Cicero (Brutus 61-2) though criticizes the

laudationes as a means of family propaganda and claims that they provided unreliable information. 38 It was a competition for prestige and recognition of superiority in nobility and values.

16

D. Reflections of Roman funeral tradition in the prologues of Terence; affinity with the

laudatio and prominence of the ancestors

The dominance of the ancestors in Roman public life had made them a standard

subject for orators speaking in a variety of settings (mainly in political and legal speeches).

That came naturally since many customs relied entirely on the mos maiorum. The allusion to

ancestors of exceptional authority was an efficient persuasive technique39

when was given

through a definitely wide spread rhetoric framework. Its success relies on a catholic

acceptance and familiarity of the Roman people with this concept and on the popularity of

rhetoric art. Of course Terence was totally aware of that “fertile soil” and applied both

elements, in a sense, of this concept to the prologues of his comedies.

The exclusive use of oratorical prologues in each one of Terence‟s comedies shows

us why this technique was successful; it was innovative, intriguing and achieved the captatio

benevolentiae, but the success had also to do with the “educated” audience; the spectators of

Terence processed critical thinking40

, were interested in literary criticism and had been quite

familiar with Roman oratory and its methods. Being aware of the latter, the poet was actually

appealing on this exact taste for oratory that was sweeping Rome. He applied the atmosphere

of the Roman courtroom to his plays, which share similar elements with a rhetorical

environment: the spectators – iudices, the actor – advocate of the poet, the opponent – litigant

poet, the herald – praecor who must impose order in the theater, they all reflect intimate

figures to an audience that has further experience of laudationes or other rhetorical speeches.

The noticeably elaborate and personal style of his prologues appears thus to go

beyond the textual limits; combined with the content it creates conditions that allow those

texts to be understood as being facing the outside world, the external, out of text, reality.

What connects this meta-theater reality to the prologues is a plexus of literary and cultural

codes (easily recognizable by the Roman spectators as a part of their cultural identity and

everyday practice) that can be examined as motifs, repeated stereotypes connected to society,

politics, religion etc. According to Kristeva‟s41

theory of intertextuality such texts can be

approached as social or cultural, namely as a network of ideas, loci similes, institutions and

39 Flower H, (150): “In a highly conservative society any advocate could further his cause by trying to

show it was in harmony with the practices of the ancestors.” 40

Parker, (604): “Terence chose this type for his prologues precisely because they were to be

delivered to a critical crowd, a critical crowd who were won by Terence's prologues and plays."

41 Kristeva J, Desire in Language - "Word, Dialogue and the Novel", 1980

17

stereotypes. Conte42

embraces the idea that a text can be read only in connection with, and in

opposition to, other texts and explains that “intertextuality, far from being a matter of merely

recognizing the ways in which specific texts echo each other, defines the condition of literary

readability”. He argues, just like Kristeva does, that a literary text is a matrix; what connects

the poetic text to the culture and tradition of the past is poetic memory43

.

The poetic memory exists in these loci similes, these networks of mutual ideas.

Tradition and culture is a broad background where Terence finds recognizable motifs for his

audience, cultural codes that will enable the poetic memory. He needed a certain closeness

with his audience and found (through this poetic memory) a new way to create it. First of all

the funerals and the comedies are public spectacles, both parts of some ludi. Secondly he

exploits the motifs of funerary oration and ancestral masks. The laudatio funebris is

addressed to the audience and to the ancestors of the deceased. Similarly the prologue of

Andria is addressed to the audience and the poet‟s ancestors, who are recognized as exempla

and are his ideal spectators. In both cases the ancestors lent the power of authority to the

speakers. As for the imagines, in the prologue of Eunuchus (lines 35-41) there are fixed

characters that we see in New Comedy which could be compared to the ancestors‟ masks in

the sense that the imagines represent stereotypical human types (e.g. a military governor, a

serious politician etc.). In the first and second prologue of Hecyra (lines 1-5, 29-42) the poet

divides the audience in two groups; one that is carefully watching (or is about to watch) the

play and another group of people who interrupt or leave the play for another show (e.g.

gladiators). There is an interesting but hypothetical analogy lying here, in my opinion,

between the first group and the imagines maiorum on the one hand, the second group and the

funeral spectators who react to everything they listen or see, on the other. That would be

rather a daring parallelism. I would say though that, in general, the audience in the prologues

could be seen as the imagines of the artistic ancestors of Terence (“imagines poetarum”),

since those ancestors are the ideal spectators of the play and are metaphorically present in the

theater.

In content the similarities between the prologues and the laudationes are more

apparent, as we have seen so far. They both contain efforts in order to build prestige and

recognition, defenses against accusations, attacks against rivals and constant references to the

glorious ancestors. The deceased on the one hand and the poet on the other always bear some

of the ancestors‟ virtues and are integral parts of a legacy (in Terence‟s case the legacy is

poetic). Structure and style are following the trends of the rhetoric art; the art of antithesis,

42 Conte G, The rhetoric of imitation, 1986 43 Conte G, (49): “Memory has the responsibility of assimilating and selecting the vital elements

present in the undifferentiated cultural matrix.”

18

alliterations, repetitions, emphasis, use of superlatives, climax of the speech, courtroom

vocabulary, symmetry and balance, careful diction etc. are elements that can be traced in both

the prologues and other rhetorical texts.

E. Conclusion

I hope I have shown sufficiently so far the thematic and structural resemblances of

the Terentian prologues with the laudatio that was delivered during an imperial funeral and

highlighted the dominant role of the ancestors in both cases. It would be dangerous though to

connect the prologues‟ features entirely with this particular source of influence, for this

correlation is problematic. The repeated allusions to ancestors occur also in political and legal

texts, not only in the laudatio funebris, and are absolutely recognized values by the Roman

society. As for the similar content, the prologues might have been also influenced by the

broader wave of rhetoric of this time in Rome. On the other hand the funeral laudatio, as one

of the most important genres of rhetoric in rehearsing the deeds and offices of the ancestors,

might have indeed influenced Terence.

There are although other sources of influence that might have led Terence to an

adaptation of this non-dramatic prologue. Social and historical circumstances might have also

created a need for making emphatic allusions to his personality as a poet and responding to

the criticism of his work. These circumstances might be related to the programmatic

principles of the Hellenistic literature; the poetic art of this era did not imitate the classical

tradition, but, being more true and vivid, it paved the way that allowed dramatists to allude to

their personal dramatic remarks and principles. Influence could be also traced in the

ἐπιδεικηικούρ λόγοςρ of Isocrates44

. The exordiums of two rhetorical speeches are not

associated with the entire speech; they are independent and maintain a more personal style.

This exact independent function of an exordium is pointed out and supported by Aristotle,

who states in his Rhetorics45

that he might have been influenced as well by the Isocratic

theory and practice. Finally we should not underestimate the influence by the Plautine

comedies; in the non-expository prologue of the play Asinaria we find a particular line that

could be an index mark for Terenece in creating oratorical, non-dramatic prologues (line 13):

“insest lepos ludusque in hac comoedia46

.”

44 Isocrates‟ Busiris and Helen. 45 Aristotle Rhetorics, III 14, 1414b27. 46 “In this play there is both pleasantry and fun.”

19

One general conclusion of this paper is that Terence tried to construct and establish in

his prologues a system of evaluation of his poetic work, a system that is based on the values

of the aristocratic class. In this way he achieved, in my opinion, to upgrade both his

personality and dramatic value, since those are filtered and evaluated on the basis of a

superior system of ethics. A second conclusion is that the poet has succeeded in creating a

new type of prologue, in which contemporary Roman reality and aesthetics become a means

of reading and interpreting the theatrical reality.

Innovative or not, the fact that Terence deliberately exploited the cultural background

of Rome by adapting elements from different rhetorical genres gave him the opportunity to

introduce his comedies in an innovative and stylistic way for drama, respond to attacks and

discuss on literary criticism. Goldberg goes further and characteristically says: “In adapting

oratorical techniques to dramatic requirements, Terence worked changes in both drama and

oratory, and he created a role for himself not only in the history of drama, but in the evolution

of prose style from Cato to Cicero47

.”

47 Goldberg S, (1983) 206.

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Anderson W. S, 2003, Terence and the Roman rhetorical use of the Andria, Leeds

- Ashmore S. G, 1910, The comedies of Terence, New York

- Barsby J. A, 1999, Eunuchus, Cambridge

- Brothers A. J, 1988, Terence: the self-tormentor, Warminster

- Brothers A. J, 2000, The Eunuch, Warminster

- Beacham R, 1991, The roman theatre and its Audience, London

- Carney T. F, 1963, P. Terenti Afri Hecyra, Salisbury, Rhodesia

- Colman G, 2007, The comedies of Terence, Project Gutenberg

- Conte, G.B, 1986, The rhetoric of imitation: genre and poetic memory in Virgil and

other Latin poets, New York.

- Crawford O. C, 1941, Laudatio Funebris, The Classical Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 17-27

- Dupont F, 2003, Η Αςηοκπαηοπία ηος ηθοποιού, ηο θέαηπο ζηην απσαία Ρώμη, μτφρ.

Σ. Γεωργακοπούλου , ΜΙΕΤ Αθήνα

- Erasmo M, 2008, Reading death in ancient Rome, Columbus, The Ohio State

University Press

- Fantham, E, 2002, Orator and/et Actor, Easterling and Hall: 362–76

- Flower D, 2000, Roman constructions: readings in postmodern Latin, Oxford

- Flower H. I, 1996, Ancestor masks and aristocratic power in Roman culture, Oxford

- Goldberg S. M, 1983, Terence, Cato, and the Rhetorical Prologue, Classical

Philology, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 198-211

- Gruen E. S, 1992, Culture and national identity in republican Rome, New York

- Ireland S, 1990, The mother in law, Warminster

- Kennard E, 1932, The Art of Terence's Eunuchus, Transactions and Proceedings of

the American Philological Association, Vol. 63, pp. 54-72

- Kristeva J, Desire in Language - "Word, Dialogue and the Novel", 1980

- Kyle, D. G, 1998, Spectacles of death in ancient Rome, London.

- Lada-Richards I, 2004, Authorial Voice and Theatrical Self-Definition in Terence and

beyond: The "Hecyra" Prologues in Ancient and Modern Contexts, Greece & Rome,

Second Series, Vol. 51, pp. 55-82

- Manuwald G, 2011, Roman Republican Theatre, Cambridge/ New York

- Mercier C, 1998, Brothers, Newburyport, MA

- Parker N. H, 1996, Plautus vs. Terence: Audience and Popularity Re-Examined, The

American Journal of Philology, Vol. 117, pp. 585-617

21

- Prescott H. W, 1916, The Interpretation of Roman Comedy, Classical Philology, pp.

125-147

- Scodel, R. S, 1993, Theater and Society in the classical world, University of

Michigan Press

- Sumi G. S, 2002, Impersonating the Dead: Mimes at Roman Funerals, The American

Journal of Philology, Vol. 123, pp. 559-585