The two volumes under review complete the four-volume edition of Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta. The first two volumes appeared in 2012 (Volume I: M. Schauer, Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Tragici minores, Fragmenta adespota; Volume II: G. Manuwald, Ennius), with updated second editions in 2023. The general foreword by W.-W. Ehlers and B. Seidensticker is repeated in all four volumes, followed by a general introduction (in both German and English). In each volume section 6 of the introduction explains the order in which the fragments are discussed and the abbreviations used in the apparatus, and section 7 provides an overview of the scholarship on which the edition is based. Sections 6 and 7 are the road map of where one can go for further information; interpretation is kept to a minimum.
Treatment of the fragments follows a similar format in both volumes. To take at random an example from Schierl, TrRF III (Pacuvius, Atalanta, F 28–50): an overview of other dramatic treatments of the story is followed by what is known of the particular myth, even if not all of it can be reasonably assigned to the fragments that survive, for which Hyginus and Ps.-Apollodorus are often cited. Bibliography is given in chronological order; then the fragments are presented. Since the sources are often grammarians, there is no redundancy between the introduction to a group of fragments and the fragments.
Two points on the editing. Any fragments for which attribution to Pacuvius or to Accius is not directly attested are placed among the Adespota in the first volume. Further, as opposed to O. Ribbeck2–3, E.H. Warmington and G. D'Anna for Pacuvius and Ribbeck2–3, Warmington and J. Dangel for Accius, if the play to which a fragment is attributed is not manifestly clear, it has been moved to ex incertis fabulis of the respective playwright. Second, lists of abbreviations are provided at the end of the volumes. The items in the abbreviations and bibliography are easy to follow and easy on the eyes because the abbreviations or names of authors, editions and manuscripts are set off in a box to the left edge of the page and the complete entry continues the box to the right. In the text itself sources cited in sections 6 and 7 are given as briefly as possible. Full entries for collections of fragments, editions of Pacuvius/Accius, editions of other Latin authors cited in the text, including codices for Cicero and the scholiasts, and general bibliography (Studia) are presented in the same format. The metrical conspectus and the concordances of editions are columnar as are the index verborum and the index of ancient sources.
As to Pacuvius, the best comparison with Schierl is Schierl's 2006 publication of the fragments, itself an offshoot of her thesis (2004). This new publication in no way diminishes the importance of Schierl (2006); rather, the volumes complete one another. One example must suffice for many. The word fortuna appears in F 166 from Pacuvius’ Niptra, on the washing of the feet of Odysseus. The important fragment (F 225), in which different interpretations of fortuna are discussed, however, is found in the section on ex incertis fabulis. It is of great interest as a possible expression of the natural philosophy of Pacuvius, as outlined by D'Anna (1967, 105–15), and a concept that is ambient in much of Seneca's tragedies (as well as elsewhere). Schierl moved F 225 to ex incertis fabulis because Auctor ad Herennium 2.36–7 noted that it was by Pacuvius, but did not name the play. The more than five pages (pp. 256–61) on F 225 devote most of their space to readings in the codices of Auctor ad Herennium (bibliography 2.4.25, pp. 398–402), variant readings in the editions, principally in Ribbeck, and readings adopted by scholars from G. Voss (1620) through to K. Lennartz (2003). The single line in a fragment of Menander (682 K.-A.) and Seneca, Phaedra 978–80 are both much shorter than the eleven lines in Pacuvius, but they suggest a pedigree both before and after Pacuvius. It leaves the abbreviation of the third parallel passage, Ceb. Tab. 7.1, unexplained, for which Schierl (2006, F 262, pp. 535–6) attributes it fully to Cebes, a Theban contemporary of Plato, whose philosophical Tabula is probably a work of the first century ce. The discussion of F 262 in Schierl (2006) is extensive (pp. 533–6), noting its affinities with Pacuvius’ Dulorestes, Orestes and Chryses, but this fragment too is placed among ex incertis fabulis. The information in the volume under review gives the essential unobstructed bare bones; the discussion in Schierl (2006) adds the flesh.
It lies beyond the focus of this book, but at some point or in some way one might want to weigh what relationship the fragments might have with Seneca, the author of eight of the surviving ten Latin tragedies from antiquity. Parts of Pacuvius seem familiar to readers used to Senecan ‘interiority’. Seneca's fondness for oracles and prophecies, as apparent especially in the Manto scene in his Oedipus, is in line with Pacuvius particularly in the Chryses (F 51, F 52, F 53, F 54, F 63 and F 229 [moved to ex incertis fabulis]). But these are matters of understanding the text and not stabilising it, which is Schierl's writ. Introducing Fragments 51–71 of the Chryses, in addition to the plot summary by Hyginus, Fabulae 120.5 and 121.1–3, Schierl in the volume under review notes that some fragments once attributed to this play have been moved to Adespota in volume I or to ex incertis fabulis in this volume. As elsewhere, the history of the text and scholarship on the text is given in great detail. What leaps out from the parallel passages is how often Ennius is cited as the source of a concept in the later tragedians.
The volume on Accius by Schultheiss shows how far he has gone beyond Ribbeck3. The comparison, at one level, is perhaps unfair because of the century and a quarter that separate the two scholars, but is it hard to envision that anyone could have done a better, fuller and more rigorous job. The exegesis that Schultheiss has done on Augustine (Generationenbeziehungen in den Confessiones des Augustinus. Theologie und literarische Form in der Spätantike [2011]) and post-Augustinian writers has prepared him well for this task. The interest that the grammarian Nonius Marcellus took in mining Accius (eight columns in the Index fontium; double that for Pacuvius) yields more citations by later grammarians but also a higher percentage of single-line quotes. Atreus (F 103–13) is an interesting contrast with Ribbeck3. Schultheiss, for example, accepts only eleven fragments as passing the double standard of both poet and play named as opposed to 19 in Ribbeck3.
Choosing, again, one example to represent all, one might cite the most famous quote from Accius (Atreus, F 103: oderint dum metuant). The section on Atreus (F 103–13) begins with the long list of known plays in Greek and Latin with the title Atreus (or Thyestes) that treat the subject matter. The myth is referred to numerous times by tragedians in other plays, including by Accius himself, and nine fragments in ex incertis fabulis have at one time or another been assigned to this play, true also of nine fragments in Adespota in volume I, to which Schultheiss directs readers. The mask of Atreus from a performance is one of few cited in sources from having seen it in performance (p. 160, Cicero, pre-57 bce). The influence on Seneca has been discussed since Ribbeck2, and Seneca himself quotes the line three times. Not surprisingly, the scholarship is immense, but Schultheiss is right to note that, unusually among fragments, F 103 is used not just many times but in many different contexts. Euripides and Seneca are the source for most of the parallel passages. It is one of Accius’ few plays for which there are testimonia. Servius on Virgil, Aeneid 8.130 (T 25), notes that Accius in Atreus mentioned that Atreus and Evander belonged to different branches of the same family. Gellius 13.2.1–6 (T 53) preserves the anecdote according to which the young Accius read his Atreus to the elderly Pacuvius. This section is far richer and more detailed than Ribbeck on Atreus.
The testimonia on Accius are extensive, and Schultheiss does as fine a job as Schierl. Helpfully, at the beginning of the testimonia both give a brief listing of ones that refer to the poet's life as opposed to individual plays, style and assessment in antiquity. Comparison of the two usefully shows that Pacuvius and Accius had the same arc in popularity. Pacuvius drew more attention from Virgil (through his scholiasts), and both are mentioned in Horace's Epistulae and Ars poetica. There is Cicero, of course, but then the late Flavian writers, particularly Quintilian, Martial and Tacitus, and then the middle of the second century ce, particularly Gellius and Fronto.
An important scholarly tool is provided at the start of the presentation of the fragments. Schultheiss gives the name and year of what he considers the most relevant scholarship. More importantly, he then gives a not-insubstantial list of 59 fragments that have appeared in other editions of Accius that are now among the Adespota (Volume I). He then cites the eight cycles of plays established by Dangel (1995, 41–7 and 2002), an organisation that has largely been adopted by scholars, not just for Accius, but also when discussing more broadly Greek myth cycles in Roman drama (family of Pelops; Trojan cycle; return of the heroes; family of Prometheus and Minos; Dionysus and Thebes; Argonauts; Theban dynasty of Oedipus; Hercules and his successors). Republican comic poets sometimes addressed their audience, often in prologues; Republican tragic poets very rarely do, so F 23–4 from Accius’ Alphesiboea stands out (to which comparison of Seneca and Pomponius in Quintilian is intriguing).
Fabula praetexta receives its own section and nomenclature (F praet.). For Pacuvius it hardly matters as the four fragments from his Paulus are all lexical curiosities preserved in Gellius and the grammarians. For Accius, the number of fragments of Aeneadae vel / aut Decius are the same as in Ribbeck but the order differs greatly. The introduction (p. 603) to Accius’ historical plays by Schultheiss confirms what is alleged elsewhere, namely that Livy used plays as source material, so F 5 and Livy 1.27.10; F 8 and Livy 10.29.20; F 9 and Livy 10.28.13, although Accius himself was not above borrowing from Ennius, Annales 363 Va.2. If all of the fragments of Aeneadae vel / aut Decius are preserved in Nonius Marcellus, two of the three fragments of Brutus come from Cicero, not surprisingly, given his closeness to the Brutus of his generation and how he twisted one line especially in Pro Sestio 123 to apply to himself: Tullius qui libertatem civibus stabiliverat. Schultheiss, here as elsewhere, quotes much more of the surrounding context than Ribbeck.
The natural comparison for TrRF is TrGF (1971–2004), cited often in Schierl and Schultheiss among parallel passages and also published by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. The publisher is deserving of praise for the flawless excellence of such attention to detail. TrGF I (B. Snell, revised R. Kannicht) with its catalogues of tragedies and tragedians perhaps belongs more to a discussion of TrRF I with its much shorter discussion of Roman tragici minores. TrGF II (Kannicht and Snell) is devoted entirely to fragmenta adespota, which is only a part of TrRF I. TrGF III (S. Radt) for Aeschylus (as now also the Loeb fragments edited by A. Sommerstein) pays much more attention to the history of the author and historical circumstances than is possible for either Pacuvius or Accius. The same is true for TrGF IV (Radt) for Sophocles (Loeb fragments by H. Lloyd-Jones), which not only discusses the author and historical circumstances, but also compares Sophocles to other prominent tragedians. As extensive and informative as the fragments of Roman tragedians, TrGF V (Kannicht) for Euripides at 1,164 pages of just fragments (Loeb fragments by C. Collard and M.J. Cropp) is a reminder of how deep and rich the vein is that Roman tragedians could mine.
For fragments of Roman drama, all roads lead back to Ribbeck's two Teubner volumes (18973 / 18983) on tragedy and comedy. His volumes are restricted to just the fragments themselves and their ancient sources. The number of pages for fragments of all of Roman tragedy (335) pale in comparison to just Euripides. Tragedy among the Romans is much simpler than comedy in the execution of the texts (performance is another matter), which allows for more coherence in the two volumes under discussion. There are no satyr dramas to consider unless one wants to read much into Novius’ Exodium, in typology a comic fragment. Aeschylus’ Persae places historical drama conceptually within tragedy as the editors do here as fragmenta praetextae (Pacuvius, pp. 322–6; Accius, pp. 603–24). By contrast, a volume on Roman comedy would have to contend with palliata, togata, trabeata, fabula Atellana and mime (never mind pantomime); the indexes in Ribbeck (pp. 386–93) are sobering.
The concordances in Schierl (pp. 453–92) and in Schultheiss (pp. 763–813) are essential. There are great differences in numbering among the editions by Ribbeck, Warmington, D'Anna and even between Schierl (2006) and this volume. The same is true of Schultheiss: his numbering is rarely in agreement with Ribbeck, Warmington and Dangel.
These are both massive monuments of scholarship that will facilitate future research on Pacuvius and Accius.
