Twenty years after his excellent edition of Plautus’ Amphitruo (2000), C. has published another ‘Green and Yellow’ volume on Plautus – this time on Pseudolus. Arguably, it is one of the most brilliant comedies by the Sarsinate, which explores to the fullest the potential of his creative language, dramaturgy and metatheatricality. The last commentary by M.M. Willcock (1987), due to its extreme brevity (168 pages), could not give the text the detailed and multifaceted analysis it deserves. Thus, there was a need for a new guide to this satisfyingly complex play, especially if one considers the dynamic development of the Plautine scholarship during the last few decades.
The introduction deals concisely with the circulating biographical traditions of the elusive playwright, while stressing his – often overlooked – familiarity with Greek literature from Homer to Callimachus (see p. 3 n. 15). C. takes some additional space to explain the methods of Plautus’ translation and creative re-working of his Greek originals through a detailed comparison of Dis Exapaton and Bacchides (pp. 13–19). The repertoire of Plautine elements later continues in the section on the probable Menandrean source (P. Freib. 12) for the opening scene in Pseudolus (pp. 19–25). Within these paragraphs one can highlight the insightful treatment given to the ‘dynamic conflation’ of the foreign (Greek) and the domestic (Roman) elements in the play (pp. 22–3). The central part of the introduction belongs to a critical essay on Pseudolus, its plot, characters and poetics (pp. 24–47). This erudite and engaging analysis gathers and synthesises most of the ideas later developed in the commentary, where they are supplied with additional references. Among many issues related to the (scripted) improvisation, metapoetics and linguistic brilliance, C. draws on M. Fontaine (Funny Words in Plautine Comedy [2010]) in order to convincingly vindicate ‘the notion of P[lautus] as a sophisticated Hellenistic and intertextual poet’ (p. 47). This learned line of reading the comedy will often appear in the commentary, where it coexists with more farcical interpretations of the passages (e.g. the final canticum by Pseudolus, scene 20).
As in many introductions to Roman comedies, a separate section deals with Plautine language (pp. 47–51). However, after a short mention of different registers used onstage, the main focus returns to the literary stylistics and poetics, since the ‘linguistic mastery’ of the characters (Pseudolus, Ballio and the cook) is understood as a creative use of figurative language ‘to perform conceptual and thematic work’ in the play (p. 51). Perhaps one would expect a more properly linguistic approach to the diction represented onstage, one that would also be able to show naturalistic aspects of controlling the communication by the prominent characters. Still, many interesting insights on linguistic usage in the play are dispersed throughout the commentary, but, in comparison to other issues, they seem rather neglected or are misinterpreted. The rest of the introduction is reserved for such obligatory matters of Roman comedy as metre, transmission and the reception of the text. Necessarily more space is given to the explanations of Latin prosody and the metrical schemes (pp. 52–63), which, by being particularly clear and concise, should serve any inexpert reader.
The edition does not include an apparatus criticus nor does it offer a list of the main changes regarding other editions (as C. did in his Amphitruo), whereas the most important textual issues are discussed in the commentary. As a result, the Latin text of the play is printed in a very neat, almost aseptic, form, which nevertheless incorporates some basic stage directions. As for the metrical phenomena, the edition marks graphically only hiatuses, leaving issues such as iambic shortening, synizesis (and the like) for the commentary. There one can also find the scansion (in alphabetic notation) of the most problematic verses and a few additional notes on rhythmical colouring (e.g. ‘light’ vs ‘heavy’ lines, see Ps. 94, 126, 144, 198 etc.). Therefore, the model user of the book is different from the ‘Green and Yellow’ editions of Casina (W.T. MacCary and M.M. Willcock [1987]) or Menaechmi (A.S. Gratwick [1993]), whose texts were printed with an extensive apparatus criticus and the varied notation of metrical phenomena (including colon-boundaries). These editorial decisions – a signum temporis in themselves – seem to be responding to the main objective of C.'s commentary to ‘help make Plautus accessible to new audiences’ (p. viii). Accordingly, the optically ‘lighter’ version of the Latin text might seem more inviting for a novice reader of Plautus, although it does not promote its rhythmical reading aloud. On the other hand, the commentary is – perhaps unnecessarily – saturated with philological terminology that is not always explained: a short definition, for instance, is given for antanaclasis (‘repetition of a word in a different sense’, p. 49), asteismus (‘urbanity’, p. 161) and desis (‘complication’, p. 32), but not for catachresis, metalepsis, adynaton, litotes or hyperbaton (see the index of subjects). Admittedly, this inconsequence can hinder the usage of the commentary, while, in the end, possibly limiting the ‘new audiences’ to professional philologists.
Furthermore, it should be stressed that Pseudolus has always attracted much scholarly attention, and C. has done an admirable job of critically using the most important contributions to enrich his interpretation of the text. The analysis offered by the commentary benefits particularly from advances in the study of the Plautine metre, musical structure (especially the examination of the play given in T.J. Moore, Music in Roman Comedy [2012]) and stagecraft. It also draws succinctly on the many revisions of the social dimensions of the Roman ‘slave theatre’ (e.g. R. Stewart, Plautus and Roman Slavery [2012]).
Among the many philological areas competently managed by C., I dare only to address some minor issues closer to my expertise. The lexemes vah! (Ps. 205, 207, 254) and heia! (275) are labelled as ‘all-purpose’ or ‘versatile’ interjections, whereas the study by L. Unceta (‘Cuando los sentimientos irrumpen: valores expresivos de las interjecciones primarias en las comedias de Plauto’, in R. López Gregoris [ed.], Estudios sobre teatro romano [2012], pp. 379–86) shows that in Plautus both forms regularly convey protest or reproach. Furthermore, the expression quid ais in Ps. 351 is not ‘a formula of surprise / amazement’, but it prefaces a question (just like C. notes for 479 and 615), often marking a change of the addressee (see also 1169, 1176). The commentary quotes H. Thesleff (Yes and No in Plautus and Terence [1960]) to state that fiat in Ps. 559 is a ‘submissive reply’ to a command. According to E. Karakasis (Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy [2005], p. 118), however, the third-person subjunctive form (at least in Terence) is preferred by free-born characters, who, as explained by Donatus (ad Eun. 500), express compliance with fiat as if giving orders to themselves. The same (face-saving) linguistic strategy is used by Calidorus in geratur mos tibi (Ps. 559), which, contrary to the suggestion by C., may sound less subservient than mos tibi geretur (22). The pragmatic markers quaeso (Ps. 22) and opsecro (29) seem to be identified simply as ‘polite modifiers’ (pp. 119, 121) although they do not accompany ‘real’ questions (requests for information) and instead serve as a ‘set-up for a conundrum to follow’ (p. 119). Within an interrogative sentence type, these items go beyond politeness and, as recently demonstrated by C. Fedriani (‘Quapropter, quaeso? “Why, for pity's sake?”: Questions and the pragmatic functions of quaeso, obsecro, and amabo’, in C. Denizot and O. Spevak [edd.], Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek [2017]), they convey a variety of expressive, interjection-like functions. It should be noted, however, that C. gives more nuance to sis in Ps. 48, glossed as ‘an imperatival intensifier’ (p. 126) with ‘ironic’ overtones in Plautus (p. 151).
Despite these occasional slips in (pragma)linguistic matters, the commentary is undoubtedly a solid and expertly written guide to Pseudolus, which will definitely allow readers (especially those with some philological competence) to appreciate fully Plautus’ artistry and – more importantly – his (wonderfully) sophisticated humour.
