This article discusses the text of seven passages in the etymological books 5–7 of Varro's De lingua Latina, and proposes new conjectures for all of them. The discussions are of direct relevance to the interpretation of fragments and testimonies of lost Latin authors quoted by Varro: the scenic poets Naevius, Pacuvius, Caecilius Statius, Juventius and Atilius, and the grammarian Aurelius Opillus. The starting point for the discussions is the new Oxford edition of Varro's De lingua Latina by Wolfgang de (...) Melo. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Plautus vs. Terence: Audience and Popularity Re-ExaminedHolt N. Parker Ich seh’, die Philologen, sie haben dich, so wie sich selbst betrogen.—Goethe, Faust II, 7426–27The cliché that Plautus was boffo at the box office while Terence was an aesthetic snob kept alive only through a series of NEA grants seems ineradicable. Since the most recent book on Plautus once again bases much of its argument on this old chestnut, it (...) seems necessary to correct the widespread myth. 1 The ancient testimonia are unambiguous and will, I trust, put an end once and for all to this false picture.I. PlautusThere is exactly one piece of direct evidence about Plautus’ popularity during his lifetime. The prologue for the revival of Casina 2 states that this is a play (14): quam vos probastis qui estis in senioribus and (17): haec cum primum acta est, vicit omnis fabulas. 3 Admittedly, this is not necessarily first-person testimony, but it certainly implies that Casina, at least, had been a hit at its original performance. That is it. The endlessly repeated statements calling Plautus “the most successful comic writer of antiquity” 4 rest on nothing else. [End Page 585]Career and BackersOther than this single passage, the following have been used as evidence of Plautus’ success:Plautus wrote at least twenty-one plays, almost certainly those we now have, which were held to be his consensu omnium (Gell. 3.3.3). 5 There were probably some others which we do not have. 6 This implies a career with some degree of popularity, although over how long a period we do not know. 7 However, applying the same criterion (number of plays) with the same uncertainty (length of time), we have thirty-four titles of comedies for Naevius, forty-two for Caecilius, the same number of fabulae togatae from Afranius, and forty-three mimes from Laberius.Plautus was associated with T. Publilius Pellio for Stichus (didasc.; 200 B.C.), Menaechmi (404), 8 Epidicus (Bacch. 214–15), and probably Bacchides itself. 9 Though we have no idea how long the association lasted, Pellio’s presence in at least three plays seems to imply some form of standing relation. This in turn implies that Pellio had faith in Plautus’ popularity and that, if Pellio stuck with him for a while, his faith was justified. This association, however, allows us to infer no more about his popularity from play to play than does the steady backing of L. Ambivius Turpio for Caecilius and Terence (Hec. 14–27; see below).The only other didascalic notice for Plautus says that Pseudolus was presented at the Ludi Megalenses in 191 B.C. under M. Junius Brutus (cos. 178, RE 48), the city praetor. These were the games at which the temple of the Magna Mater was dedicated. 10 E. Fraenkel argues that [End Page 586] Plautus’ selection for such an event means that he, “a quell’epoca era considerato da giudici competenti il migliore commediografo di Roma.” 11 Rather, it means that Plautus was considered one of the best. 12 Plautus was not the only playwright presented. 13Revivals and ReputationThere is also evidence from the period after Plautus: Great stress has been laid on the fact that Plautus’ plays were given revivals. The problem lies in the word “revival,” which is used anachronistically to invoke an image of modern long runs, usually assumed to have taken place during the poet’s lifetime. 14 The best evidence for these revivals is Cas. 5–22. 15 Careful reading, however, reveals several things (11–15):nos postquam populi rumore intelleximus studiose expetere vos Plautinas fabulas, antiquam eius edimus comoediam, quam vos probastis qui estis in senioribus; nam iuniorum qui sunt non norunt, scio.After we learned from the talk of the people that you were eagerly longing for plays by Plautus, we have produced an old play of his, [End Page 587] which you approved, you who are in the older generation, for those who are younger don’t know it, I’m sure.Not only is there no evidence for any repetition during the poet’s lifetime, the passage states explicitly that Plautus, far from having... (shrink)

Ennius began his Annals with a prayer to the Muses: Musae quae pedibus magnum pulsatis Olympum. In this he differs from his predecessors. Livius in his Odusia had substituted Camena for Homer's Μοσα, and the ‘novem Iovis concordes sorores’ to whom Naevius addresses himself in the Carmen Belli Punici also bore the name of Camenae, as we may infer with some confidence from Naevius' epitaph: ‘Immortales mortales si foret fas flere Flerent divae Camenae Naevium poetam.’ The mysterious Carmen (...) Priami likewise speaks of the Camenae: ‘Veteres Casmenas cascam rem volo profari.’ For general reasons it seems unlikely that before Ennius' time the Romans were altogether unfamiliar with the name of Musae. Evidence, however, to show that they knew it is not available. Nevertheless, even if the name Musae was known, in invoking their patronage for his poem Ennius is making a departure from the habits of earlier poetry, of which he is both conscious and proud. In the beginning of the seventh book he speaks with scorn of his predecessor Naevius: ‘scripsere alii rem Versibus quos olim Fauni vatesque canebant Cum neque Musarum scopulos…’ Now the reign of the Muses begins, and the grave virus of the Saturnian line is driven out by the munditiae of the hexameter. (shrink)

The development of the law of libel at Rome during the second and first centuries B.C. is important for an understanding of the changing attitude on the part of society towards public criticism. This article attempts to trace the development from Naevius to Augustus, by bringing together the scattered references in our literary and legal sources, and, by setting them in their historical perspective, to make the attitude of society towards criticism more easily discernible.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 127.1 (2006) 149-152 [Access article in PDF] Mario Erasmo. Roman Tragedy: Theatre to Theatricality. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004. xii + 211 pp. Cloth, $45. [Erratum]This is a study of Roman tragedy from Livius Andronicus to Seneca. Erasmo states that his aim is to study the development of the form, "focusing on the process of how Roman tragedy became increasingly theatricalized and the role (...) [End Page 149] played by Roman culture in shaping the perception of theatricality on and off the stage" (x). The center of the study is, therefore, the incorporation into Roman tragedy, either in the script produced by the dramatist or in the same script as manipulated in performance, of material drawn from Roman life and political culture and, by extension, the reflection of theatrical figures and motifs in the world outside. Most interesting, therefore, is the material handled in chapters 3 and 4 (52–121), where Erasmo engages inter alia with Pompey's restaging of the Clytemnestra of Accius, with the Iter of Cornelius Balbus, and with the Thyestes of Varius Rufus. There are some provocative suggestions here which merit attention. There is also much of which this cannot fairly be said.Erasmo begins his account with the tragedies of Livius Andronicus (9–14) and moves on to Naevius (14–18), Ennius (18–28), Pacuvius (34–42), and Accius (42–51). Each author is given a brief introduction, and his place in the history of the genre is set out. Erasmo then takes one play of each of these writers and attempts to set out what can be inferred from the extant fragments that remain. It often appears that the principal criterion for selection of this sample work is simply that its remains are rather more numerous than those of any other work of the author in question. There is little guarantee that they will actually develop Erasmo's central thesis. This finally makes for one rather unsatisfactory coda after another. More effective is the deployment of the material to hand in chapters 3 and 4 (52–121), although it was probably unnecessary to print the dream narrative of the Accian Tarquin twice (62–63 and 92–93). Seneca takes center stage only in the brief chapter 5 (122–39).Erasmo notes the rather different definitions of the term "metatheatre" offered by Gentili and Slater (5). It is probably fair to say that the definition drawn from the latter ("theatre that demonstrates an awareness of its own theatricality") is rather more familiar to most modern readers. Yet Erasmo has a further claim, and this is summarized on the same page: "allusions to personalities or events outside of the theatre or to the dramatic action of the play are needed to understand the play." This is a markedly unclear piece of prose, but what Erasmo is trying to say probably emerges rather better if we delete "outside of" and read "external to." For what "metatheatre" means in Erasmo's discussion of Ennius (19 and 22) is the playwright's inclusion in his adaptation of Euripides' Iphigenia and Medea of language redolent of Roman society and custom. Now this does not directly draw attention to the modes of representation of the play at issue to the same extent as does, for example, the appearance on stage of the choragus in the Curculio, but there is little doubt that Erasmo is reaching here for something important.Some interesting work has been done of late on Pompey's rather unfortunate identification of himself with Agamemnon (see especially E. Champlin in D. Braund and C. Gill [eds.] Myth, History and Culture in Republican Rome [Exeter, 2003], 295–319; and F. R. Berno in Maia 56 [2004]). Erasmo offers his own contribution to this issue with his discussion of the staging of the Clytemnestra of Accius (83–91). Pointing to Cicero Ad Familiares 7.1.2, he treats the grand [End Page 150] spectacle of Agamemnon's entry as a reperformance of Pompey's own triple triumph six years before. Yet why put all this in the context of a drama... (shrink)