It has long been recognised that William Beare's The Roman Stage (1^st edn. 1950; 3^rd edn. 1964), the standard comprehensive treatment of Roman republican drama, is in need of updating, partly because of advances in scholarship since the mid-sixties.Footnote ¹ Among the more exciting of these advances have been the publication of the papyrus representing a fragment of Menander's Dis Exapaton (Handley 1968) and the partial decipherment of parts from Caecilius' Obolostates sive Faenerator (Kleve 1996; 2001). M.'s volume, in updating Beare's treatment, promises to become the standard work of reference for all those interested in almost any aspect of Roman republican drama.

M.'s aim is to provide a synoptic overview of the tradition of Roman republican drama, built up from a careful consideration of testimonia, fragments and extant plays. Within this larger project, M.'s more specific interests are (1) to identify developments within each dramatic genre and in Roman drama as a whole; (2) to show how changes in Roman society and politics impact the development of each genre and of republican drama generally; and (3) to investigate the interactions and mutual influences among dramatic poets. Indicative of her holistic emphasis, M. lavishes almost equal attention on genres and authors that exist only in fragments, as on those whose works are complete. She incorporates two approaches: detailed treatments of authors and genres on the one hand, and essays dealing with broader themes on the other.

In Part 1 M. takes a fresh look at the origins and development of Roman drama, then considers various aspects of its production and reception (e.g. festivals, staging, theatre audiences, etc.). There are stimulating re-appraisals of well-worn topics (e.g. on the origins of Roman drama), necessary correctives (e.g. on what the images on the so-called Phlyax vases represent) and re-considerations based on a fresh review of the evidence (e.g. the long-standing refusal of the senate to build a stone theatre in Rome). Throughout, M. draws on her impressive command of the vast secondary literature, and on her mastery of the primary materials both literary and archaeological.

The three sections in Part 2 treat genres, authors and ‘dramatic themes and techniques’. The subsections on each genre deal with the origins of the genre, its distinguishing characteristics and development over time. The discussions provoke and challenge the reader to return to the evidence and evaluate it for him or herself, and to reconsider familiar topics. For instance, M. considers the characterisations of Greeks and Romans in tragedy, certainly a more complex matter than can be captured in the dichotomy ‘good’ Romans vs ‘bad’ Greeks. Likewise, in the section on praetexta, a genre on which M. has written extensively, M. engages various recent hypotheses on its pre-literary antecedents: was there a long and flourishing tradition of Roman historical drama (the literary versions being just one instantiation of it), one of whose aims was to inculcate a sense of civic identity? Was the literary praetexta a continuation of earlier, non-literary dramatisations based on local legends?

Throughout the book, ‘entertainment’ and ‘messages’ are critical terms which M. uses to characterise Roman drama and distinguish its varieties. By ‘entertainment’ M. means slapstick, spectacular staging and song; by ‘messages’ she refers to those aspects of a drama that provide some instructive value, for example the paradigmatic or didactic value assigned to certain characters, or broader discussions that broach philosophical, ethical or religious questions. Accordingly, Roman drama on the whole is ‘characterized by a mixture of messages and impressive presentation’ (pp. 321–2). In particular, with regard to the difference between togata and palliata, M. writes that the ‘descriptions [on the greater seriousness of the togata] could only be given if togatae did not consist merely of entertainment, but also conveyed messages, apparently to a greater degree than palliatae’ (p. 161). So, while Roman drama contains a mix of ‘messages’ and ‘entertainment’, the proportion will vary from genre to genre. This is a sensible, even quantifiable way of describing the content of Roman drama, but M. could have emphasised more the fact that social values and concerns may be communicated both directly through ‘messages’ and in a more implicit manner. Her observations on the happy ending of Roman comedy, in which the traditional order is re-established by re-affirming the importance of marriage, or restoring the harmonious relationship between younger and older generations, are a perfect example of the way in which drama implicitly communicates social values.

The section on authors discusses the author's vita, surviving works and extant titles; his relation to Greek models and to other poets; ancient criticism of his work; and a summation which places his work in the tradition. The last section takes into account two relatively recent approaches to Latin drama and poetry: metatheatre and intertextuality. The section on intertextuality is unsurprising given M.'s interest in exploring connections between different authors. While M. identifies ‘intertextual allusions’, she does not provide the criteria by which she distinguishes such allusions from mere verbal parallels. Consequently, readers who follow up the citations might find themselves unconvinced in certain cases.Footnote ²

A coda, ‘Overview and Conclusions’, summarises M.'s findings in the form of a tentative outline of a history of Roman republican drama. For those who approach M.'s book as a reference, this is a good place to start, for here she ties together observations and points made throughout the book. A sequential reading, however, is the best way to appreciate the connections between authors and genres, and the developments in republican drama.

The volume achieves its aim of providing a synoptic overview of the tradition. This is especially impressive since M. deals mainly with fragments of plays from genres which are often otherwise poorly attested. She is acutely aware of the methodological difficulties inherent in working with fragments (e.g. pp. 9–10, 211), and her interpretations should serve as models of a thorough, careful, sensible and imaginative approach (e.g. the discussion of Andronicus' Ajax Mastigophorus, p. 192, or on Terence's and Afranius' approach to sources, pp. 310–11). In some of these discussions, it would have been desirable to witness more frequently the interpreter at work, specifically, as she lays out the evidence, draws inferences from it and then explains why particular inferences are drawn from that evidence. Perhaps because of considerations of space, on some occasions only results and conclusions are presented. In this context it must be acknowledged that M. expects a reader willing to work through the sources with her, and always aware of the difficulties of interpreting fragments.

Omissions are few and minor. The absence of images is felt especially in the discussions on vase paintings and on stone theatres, and in a book of this scope and ambition, the Latin could be quoted more often. As noted by other reviewers, there is little discussion of language apart from brief characterisations;Footnote ³ nor does M. consider extensively aspects of dramatic technique (e.g. eavesdropping, entrances and exits). The section on metre deals cursorily with technical points. These quibbles aside, M.'s book will undoubtedly become an indispensable resource for students and scholars: it offers updated treatments on many topics and its discussions provide useful points of departure for further investigation. On this latter point, M. acknowledges that particular views or interpretations will inevitably be contested due to the fragmentary nature of the evidence, but one of her aims is to provoke discussion. M. succeeds not only in this aim, but in providing a variety of perspectives from which to appreciate the richness and vibrancy of the dramatic traditions of republican Rome.