Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T20:13:08.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Eunuchus: Terence and Menander*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. C. B. Lowe
J. C. B. Lowe
Affiliation:
Bedford College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A vast amount has been written on the relationship between Terence's and Menander's Eunuchus. On some points a good measure of agreement has been reached, but much remains in dispute. In an important article W. Ludwig convincingly demonstrated the inner unity of Terence's plot, against earlier theories of large-scale ‘contaminatio’ The nature of the changes made by Terence in introducing two characters from Menander's Colax (30–3) is now fairly clear, although argument is possible over details. The changes are numerous but relatively small and do not affect the main lines of Menander's plot. In this paper I shall argue that Terence made similar changes in two other parts of the play, and that these caused certain anomalies which have prompted theories of more drastic Terentian change.

Information

Type
Research Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , December 1983 , pp. 428 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Philologus 103 (1959), 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar= Die römische Komödie: Plautus und Terenz (Wege der Forschung 236, ed. Leftvre, E. (Darmstadt, 1973), 354–403Google Scholar.

2 cf. Gaiser, K. in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. Temporini, H., I. 2 (1972 1064 f.Google Scholar, with references to earlier literature, Sandbach, F. H., The Comic Theatre of Greece and Rome (London, 1977), 142–5Google Scholar.

3 Webster, T. B. L., An Introduction to Menander (Manchester, 1974), 140Google Scholar, Sandbach, in Le Monde grec – Hommages à Claire Prέaux (Brussels, 1975), 201Google Scholar.

4 Webster, , Studies in Menander (Manchester, 1950), 69Google Scholar, Ludwig (n. 1), 24 n. 1, Sandbach (n. 3), 201.

5 Donatus on 301 has personas Terentius addidit fabulae – nam non sunt apud Menandrum, cf. on 977, Sandbach (n. 3), 199.

6 cf. Gaiser (n. 2), 1078 f., Büchner, K., Das Theater des Terenz (Heidelberg, 1974), 265–72, 460–2Google Scholar. It is possible that in Menander Antipho appeared after Chaerea's monologue and that Terence brought his entrance forward (Webster, , Introd. Men. 140)Google Scholar.

7 cf. Gaiser (n. 2), 1077 f., Būchner, , Theater des Ter. 31–41, 448–51Google Scholar.

8 Webster, , Stud. Men. 89Google Scholar, Introd. Men. 114, Mette, H. J., Lustrum 10 (1965), 39, 126 f.Google Scholar, Būchner, , Theater des Ter. 382 f., 459,Google ScholarArnott, W. G., Menander, Plautus, Terence (Oxford, 1975). 49Google Scholar. For different views see Gaiser (n. 2), 1065, Martin, R. H., Terence Adelphoe (Cambridge, 1976), 242–5Google Scholar, Grant, J. N., CQ n.s. 30 (1980), 341–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Webster, , Stud. Men. 72Google Scholar, Introd. Men. 140, Ludwig (n. 1), 24 f., 31 n. 2.

10 494 f. suggest that in Menander's Eunuchus the Rival left before Thais. It would have been better that he should not be present when Thais gives instructions to Pythias concerning Chremes in 500–3.

11 Ludwig (n. 1), 2, 37, Denzler, B., Der Monolog bei Terenz (Zürich, 1968), 53–5, 132–4Google Scholar, Holzberg, N., Menander: Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik (Nürnberg, 1974), 160Google Scholar. Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 305Google Scholar.

12 Leo, F., Geschichte der römischen Literatur I (Berlin, 1913), 240Google Scholar, Haffter, H., Mus. Heh. 10 (1953), 75–8Google Scholar, Ludwig, Gr. Rom. Byz. St. 9 (1968), 176 f.Google Scholar, Denzler, , Monolog 147, Gaiser (n. 2), 1065 f.Google Scholar, Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 523Google Scholar, Register s.v. ‘Bereicherung des Būhnengeschehens’, Arnott, , Men. Plaut. Ter. 50Google Scholar.

13 Der Phormio des Terenz undder Epidikazomenos des Apollodor von Karystos (Munich, 1978), 15–20Google Scholar. I reached the same conclusion independently.

14 Gaiser (n. 2), 1077, Sandbach (n. 3), 199.

15 Stud. Men. 73 ‘Terentian multiplication and thickening up’. Cf. Ludwig (n. 1) 18 n. 1, Denzler, , Monolog 63–5Google Scholar, Sandbach (n. 3), 201.

16 Drexler, H., Hermes 73 (1938), 93Google Scholar, Denzler, , Monolog 131 fGoogle Scholar.

17 St. It. Fil. Cl. 13 (1936), 130–60Google Scholar.

18 Monolog 45–51.

19 Denzler, , Monolog 109Google Scholar.

20 A lapse of time is required between 205 an d 236 for Simo to go to the forum to meet Pamphilus (253–5) and for Pamphilus to come home, and between 227 and 338 for Davus' trip to the forum and back by a circuitous route (355 ff.). Webster, , Stud. Men. 78Google Scholar, Introd. Men. 117, and Mette (n. 8), 43 f. suppose the act-division at 227, but the appearance of Mysis at the very end of the act would be characteristically Menandrian (Handley, E. W., Entretiens Hardt 16 [1970], 11)Google Scholar.

21 Denzler, , Monolog 35 f.Google Scholar, shows that overheard monologues are much commoner in Terence I than in Menander.

22 Webster, , Stud. Men. 85Google Scholar, Introd. Men. 145, Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 190–3, 453 f.Google Scholar, ‘. Sandbach (n. 3) 200. I am not persuaded by the attempt of Brothers, A. J., CQ n.s. 30 (1980), 108–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, to show that Bacchis, is a Terentian addition in H.T. 381 ffGoogle Scholar.

23 Drexler, , Die Komposition von Terenz' Adelphen und Plautus' Rudens (Leipzig, 1934), 12 f., 24 f.Google Scholar, Fantham, E., Philologus 112 (1968), 206–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Gaiser (n. 2), 1065, Sandbach (n. 3), 202.

24 Webster, , Stud. Men. 89Google Scholar, suggested that Terence kept Sannio on stage in 254–80. Drexler (n. 23), 12–16, 23 f. however convincingly detected the hand of Terence in all the passages of this scene which involve Syrus (252b–3, 260–4, 276–87); there is therefore no reason to suppose Syrus to have been present during the meeting of Ctesipho and Aeschinus in Menander. Denzler, , Monolog 61 f.Google Scholar, showed that the presence of Sannio and Syrus to overhear Ctesipho's entrance monologue 254 ff. is abnormal for New Comedy and likely to be due to Terence. An exit monologue of Ctesipho will save the 3 actor rule in 287 f.; this is more likely than the act-division supposed here by Sandbach (n. 3), 202, since an act-division is probable at 354 to cover Geta's trip (354–447) to fetch Hegio (cf. Grant [n. 8], 354). I hope to discuss this passage more fully elsewhere.

25 I take it as probable that in Apollodorus’ Hecyra the anagnorisis was completed in the Bacchis-Pamphilus scene (cf. Donatus on 825, Gaiser [n. 2] 1072 f.). Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 163 f.Google Scholar, points out that Parmeno could not know where to find Pamphilus. Lefèvre, , Die Expositionstechnik in den Komödien des Terenz (Darmstadt, 1969), 75Google Scholar, observes the improbability that Bacchis takes no notice of Pamphilus and Parmeno in 841–53. I discuss this passage more fully in Hermes 111 (1983)Google Scholar.

26 Theater des Ter. 330–5, 338–41, 347–50, 454–7. Cf. Denzier, , Monolog 62 f.Google Scholar, on the unusual features of 465–84.

27 Donatus’ note on 482 non optat salvum patruum venire secundum Apollodorum seems to imply that this line is based on Apollodorus. In Apollodorus the wish that Chremes might not return could have been expressed by Geta in his monologue, picking up Demipho's last words in 460–2.

28 cf. Sandbach (n. 3), 199f.

29 Menander and the Monologue (Göttingen, 1980)Google Scholar.

30 Men. Mon. 45–8, cf. Denzler, , Monolog 109–11, 125–32Google Scholar.

31 Monolog 5, 145 f.

32 Monolog 103.

33 Monolog 109–11.

34 Monolog 105.

35 Marouzeau, J., Térence I (Paris, 1942)Google Scholar, ad loc.

36 I shall use the familiar Terentian names even when speaking of Menander's Eunuchus.

37 Reitzenstein, E., Terenz ah Dichter (Leipzig, 1940), 54 f.Google Scholar, Flury, P., Liebe und Liebessprache bei Menander, Plautus und Terenz (Heidelberg, 1968), 23 f.Google Scholar, Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 231 fGoogle Scholar.

38 cf. Eun. 1028 uttnarn tibi conmitigari videam sandalio caput! spoken by Gnatho in a passage probably invented by Terence. Terence may have taken the motif from the opening scene of Menander's Eunuchus (Knoche, U., Nachr. Gött. Ges. 1936, 180 n. 2)Google Scholar.

39 Webster, , Stud. Men. 70Google Scholar.

40 Ludwig (n. 1), 30 n.

41 Because of the lack of definite indications in the text, which will be discussed below, it has been doubted whether Terence intended Parmeno and Phaedria to leave the stage at all, most recently by Brothers, A. J., CQ n.s. 19 (1969), 317 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. It would have been unnatural however to keep them on stage during Thais' monologue 197–206, which they must not hear. Moreover in 207 they give the impression of entering in conversation; and isti (cf. 189 illi) suggests that they have just seen the Ethiopian and eunuch in the house (Burckhardt, G., Die Akteinteilung in der neuen griechischen und in der römischen Komödie [Diss. Basel, 1927], 10Google Scholar, Denzler, , Monolog 10n. 34)Google Scholar.

42 De Terentio eiusque fontibus (Livorno, 1891), 83 fGoogle Scholar.

43 Grieksche Origineelen en Latijnsche Navolgingen (Amsterdam, 1936), 19 ffGoogle Scholar.

44 Stud. Men. 70.

45 Theater des Ter. 236–44.

46 Gnomon 15 (1939), 127Google Scholar.

47 art. cit. (n. 1), 30 n.

48 Expositionstechnik 20.

49 Rh. M. 116 (1973), 326Google Scholar.

50 Klotz, A., Wūrzb. Jahrb. 1 (1946), 4Google Scholar.

51 Expositionstechnik 21 f.

52 Gnomon 44 (1972), 825.Google Scholar, Die römische Komödie (n. 1), 404.

53 op. cit. (n. 2), 1053.

54 Menander 89.

55 Brothers (n. 41), 317.

56 Būchner, , Theater des Ter. 243 n. 25Google Scholar.

57 cf. reviews by Gratwick, A. S., CR n.s. 22 (1972), 29–32Google Scholar and Brown, P. G. McC., JRS 63 (1973), 301 fGoogle Scholar.

58 Steidle (n. 49), 327, Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 243 n. 25Google Scholar.

59 art. cit. (n. 1), 23, cf. Steidle (n. 49), 327 f.

60 op. cit. (n. 57), 31 n. 1.

61 Expositionstechnik 23–5.

62 op. cit. (n. 2), 1053.

63 art. cit. (n. 41), 314–19.

64 Whether 191–6 are Terentian is not crucial to the present argument. Brothers sees the passage as ‘almost entirely padding by Terence’ and as having ‘a Roman solemnity about it’. He notes that it starts from’ Phaedria's humorous literal interpretation of numquid vis aliud?' and that this formula is here used abnormally. I see nothing abnormal in the use of the formula; in Ad. 432 it is similarly addressed by Syrus, who is about to return to his house, to Demea, who is about to go off to the country. Even if this passage is Terentian in form however, it does not follow that it is not Menandrian in substance. Flury, , Liebe 63 fGoogle Scholar. and Steidle (n. 49), 333 f. wisely argue rather for Terentian Umgestaltung. 190 in hoc biduom, Thais, vale seems an inadequate farewell from the emotional Phaedria, and a final injunction to Thais ‘Remember to think of me when you are with the soldier’ is eminently appropriate.

65 art. cit. (n. 49), 334.

66 Brothers (n. 41), 316 n. 5 admits this, but suggests that Terence ‘has considerably altered the last part of the play’.

67 Ludwig (n. 1), 36 f.

68 Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 241Google Scholar.

69 Steidle (n. 49), 334.

70 Knoche (n. 38), 176 f., Ludwig (n. 1), 26, Holzberg, , Menander 158 fGoogle Scholar.

71 Holzberg, , Menander 76Google Scholar, oddly supports it with the argument that Parmeno was called Daos in Menander and that the first acts of Asp., Dysc. and Perk, end with a monologue of a Daos.

72 art. cit. (n. 16), 74.

73 Nachr. Gött. Ges. 1938, 35 f., Hermes 76 (1941), 253–6Google Scholar, cf. Drexler, , Hermes 76 (1941), 75 fGoogle Scholar.

74 Even before Sophrona provides proof of her identity, Pamphila is regularly described as Chremes' sister: 617, 621, 745, 766, 806, 891. These references admittedly follow the second meeting of Thais and Chremes at Thraso's house, but that meeting was cut short by Thaso's jealousy (623 ff.) and can hardly have advanced Thais’ knowledge much.

75 Reitzenstein, , Ter. als Dichter 16Google Scholar.

76 art. cit. (n. 38), 181 n. 2.

77 Steidle (n. 49), 329 f.

78 op. cit. (n. 57), 30.

79 art. cit. (n. 38), 182 n. 2, cf. Steidle (n. 49), 328–31, Gratwick (n. 57), 30.

80 Thais also had a psychological reason for not telling Phaedria of the impending visit of Chremes, fear of aggravating Phaedria's jealousy; cf. Reitzenstein, , Ter. als Dichter 15Google Scholar, Gratwick (n. 57), 31.

81 cf. n. 41. See especially Prescott, H. W., C. Ph. 37 (1942), 19 n. 53Google Scholar.

82 art. cit. (n. 16), 82.

83 art. cit. (n. 38), 171.

84 Webster, , Introd. Men. 26 n. 5Google Scholar. Cf. Plaut. Merc. Lysimachus, True. Strabax.

85 We may assume that a country house often supplied the needs of the town house, as happens in Men. Georg. 35 ff., or vice versa, as is mentioned in Plaut, . Most. 62, 68Google Scholar. In the Adelphi Demea does not have a town house, but his country house is near the town (as his son complains in 523 ff.) and Demea can come and go between country and town during the play.

86 cf. Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 241 ‘ohne Funktion’Google Scholar.

87 art. cit. (n. 38), 172.

88 cf. also 207isti and n. 41.

89 Lustrum 10 (1965), 67Google Scholar.

90 Knoche (n. 38), 165 f., Drexler (n. 16), 86, Ludwig (n. 1), 31 n. 3.

91 loc. cit. n. 20.

92 A lapse of time is necessary for Gnatho to return to Thraso with Thais' acceptance of his invitation to dinner and for Thraso to come to fetch her (287–391), also for Chaerea to disguise himself (390–472, most of which was added by Terence).

93 Webster, , Introd. Men. 75 fGoogle Scholar.

94 Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 244Google Scholar.

95 Gratwick (n. 57), 31 ‘Thais…is in the unusual position of knowing the whole truth…’.

96 Entretiens Hardt 16 (1970), 95Google Scholar.

97 cf. Steidle (n. 49), 328 n. 90a, who cites Sam. 163, and Holzberg, , Menander 111Google Scholar.

98 op. cit. (n. 57), 31. Ludwig (n. 1), 20 n. 1, 28 n. 4, suggested the possibility that Terence cut a reference to the nurse from i. 2.

99 cf. Asp., Dysc, Epitr., Peric, Plaut, . Bacch. 107Google Scholar, Handley, on Dysc. 230–2Google Scholar.

100 Bain, D., Actors and Audience (Oxford, 1977), 186 ffGoogle Scholar.

101 Jachmann, G., Nachr. Gött. Ges. 1921, 82–5Google Scholar = Ausgewä;hlte Schriften, ed. Gnilka, Ch. (Königstein/Ts., 1981), 145–8, Klotz (n. 50), 26Google Scholar, Holzberg, , Menander 159 f.Google Scholar, Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 295 f.Google Scholar, cf. Ludwig (n. 1), 35 n. 4.

102 Webster, , Stud. Men. 74Google Scholar, Ludwig (n. 1), 35 n. 4.

103 Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 292Google Scholar.

104 Webster, , Stud. Men. 74 n. 1Google Scholar, Görier, W., Philologus 105 (1961), 305Google Scholar.

105 In And. 234 Mysis’ announcement of the approach of Pamphilus prepares for her eavesdropping on his monologue and is therefore probably due to Terence.

106 Menander 159 f.

107 cf. And. 343 f. sed ubi quaeram ?… habeo, 702–4 consilium quaero… quin iam habeo. Men. Asp. 315b–19a (perhaps spoken entirely by Daos as a reflective monologue, cf. Bull. Inst. Cl. St. 20 [1973], 95)Google Scholar, Ar. Thesm. 765–9, 849 f., Eccles. 363–5.

108 In Terence she speaks one word. V. supra p. 429 with n. 14.

109 Klotz (n. 50), 26, Webster, , Introd. Men. 141Google Scholar and Sandbach (n. 3), 201 suggested that in 910–12a Terence has shortened a longer monologue of Pythias. My arguments in support of the Terentian changes posited by Sandbach, in H.T. 375–80Google Scholar and Eun. 910–12 reinforce his case for the validity of the 3-actor rule in Menander.

110 Jachmann (n. 101), 83, Arnott, , Rh.M. 108 (1965), 374–6Google Scholar, Büchner, , Theater des Ter. 295Google Scholar, Bain, , Actors 173 fGoogle Scholar.

111 art. cit. (n. 110), 376.

112 Actors 171.