Roman comedy began in the third century b.c. with the adaptation of Greek plays into Latin; yet at an early stage Roman poets also composed more independent plays set in Rome and Latium. This sub-genre, later termed togata (as opposed to palliata), survives only in fragments. In his study, Giuseppe Eugenio Rallo seeks to define the distinguishing features of the togata and to explore how its poets endowed their plays with a distinctly Roman identity. After an introduction that defines key terms and sketches the historical backdrop, the book proceeds in three substantial chapters: the first discusses the authors, ancient terminology and the various Roman and non-Roman elements traceable in the fragments; the second examines the portrayal of female and male characters; the third surveys the ancient reception and provides a lexical analysis of the fragments. The book concludes with a useful appendix (listing all ancient quotations from the togata) and an impressive bibliography.
The lexical analysis in ch. 3 constitutes the strongest and most valuable part of the book. R. offers a clear and, on the whole, reliable overview of hapax legomena, primum dicta and Graecisms in the togata fragments, juxtaposing his findings with the evidence from Plautus and Terence. He convincingly shows that Greek-derived terms are rare in the togata, which may indeed indicate the genre’s distinctive ‘Roman-ness’.
Unfortunately, the rest of the book proves less satisfying. Two principal shortcomings emerge. First, R. contributes little that is genuinely new to our understanding of the genre. Some of this is perhaps inevitable, given that the scanty evidence has long been the subject of scholarly debate; yet R. also avoids the more intricate problems. By confining his enquiry to Titinius, Afranius and Atta, he bypasses the fundamental question of whether togata and palliata can in fact always be kept distinct, or whether that distinction reflects a later scholarly classification. A striking testimony concerning Livius Andronicus (Don., Com. 5.4) is cited but not discussed, while the vexed case of Naevius is dismissed in a single sentence (40). That Naev., fr. com. 21–24 refers to inhabitants of Praeneste and Lanuvium — regarded by Leo as proof that Naevius wrote togatae — is left unmentioned.
Secondly, and more seriously, the book is replete with inaccuracies and doubtful assumptions. R.’s discussion of ancient terminology is emblematic. In ch. 1, he claims that the term togata can denote not only a ‘comedy in Latin dress’, but also ‘a theatrical genre between comedy and tragedy’ (61). To support this novel view he refers to Sen., Ep. 8.8, where Seneca remarks that togata plays possess aliquid seueritatis and are therefore inter comoedias ac tragoedias mediae. This passing remark, however, is not a definition; Seneca is merely commenting on the tone of togata plays.
This is not an isolated mishap; throughout the study R.’s treatment of ancient evidence tends to be unreliable. In ch. 3, he cites Quintilian’s important testimony that Afranius depicted pederastic love in his plays (Quint., Inst. 10.1.100). The passage in question consists of a single sentence, yet R. also quotes half of the preceding one, which refers not to Afranius but to the palliata poets, thereby distorting both the sense and the syntax of Quintilian’s words.
The problem comes into sharpest focus when R. discusses the fragments. In one case (30), he suggests that Afranius’ ab illo (Afran., com. 25) might refer to Menander, omitting the fact that Macrobius, who cites the fragment, states this explicitly. In another (111), he cites Titin., com. 74–75 as evidence of ‘misogynistic motifs’ in the togata, without noting that the speaker is female (cf. mecastor). Particularly irritating is R.’s incoherent discussion of Afran., com. 7: haut facul, ut ait Pacuuius, femina inuenitur bona. He writes (75): ‘The fragment is attributed to Afranius by Ribbeck, Daviault, and López López in their critical editions, though one cannot rule out the possibility that it might in fact be a Pacuvian fragment’. This is misleading. Nonius explicitly attributes the fragment to Afranius’ Auctio; the words ut ait Pacuvius form part of the citation. R. also suggests that the fragment ‘very likely’ (75) belonged to a prologue, even though the line, as he prints it, does not scan as a senarius. Without further comment, he then makes the contradictory, though probably correct, assertion that the words were spoken by a character within the play. A reference to Aspis 424–428, where Menander has a character cite Euripides and Chaeremon by name, would have been helpful.
Equally problematic is R.’s disregard for textual uncertainties. ‘A work based on fragments requires a philological approach’, he writes (36). Quite so. Yet he largely ignores the critical apparatus of modern editions. Apart from the lexical analysis in ch. 3, conjectures are printed as though transmitted; only added words are bracketed, and even these are left unattributed. The result is that, in many cases, readers are unwittingly presented with a text not supported by the manuscript tradition. When R. claims, for example, that Afran., com. 57–58 depicts a woman ‘with canine features’ (111), he ought to indicate that this interpretation rests entirely on a rather fanciful conjecture proposed by Ribbeck.
In a study such as R.’s, seemingly trivial details are of critical importance. In dealing with fragments, small errors can lead to major misunderstandings. They also undermine the reader’s trust, forcing them into the time-consuming task of double-checking every citation. The book is therefore likely to cause considerable frustration to both experts and beginners.
