Criticism of Individuals in Roman Popular Comedy1

R. W. Reynolds

doi:10.1017/S0009838800026240

Criticism of Individuals in Roman Popular Comedy1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

R. W. Reynolds

Show author details

R. W. Reynolds: Affiliation:
Coleraine, Northern Ireland

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

In the Old Attic Comedy contemporary figures were criticized in the most outspoken manner. The legitimate stage seems to have departed from this practice in part with the advent of the Middle Comedy, and almost completely in the New. It might be tempting to imagine that direct criticism of contemporaries could still have been found on the impermanent stages of the travelling mimes. But there is no evidence to show that this was so. From the beginning the Greek mime laid the emphasis on the portrayal of character, on the delineation of types rather than of individuals. In the information that we possess about the deikelistai and other forms of immature burlesque, about the comedy of Megara, and about the phlyakes of Tarentum, there is nothing to show that the little plays took any cognizance of contemporary events; the only individualized characters introduced are the gods and heroes of mythology. The fragments of Sophron and Epicharmus give no indication that they attacked men of their own times, while the extant mimes of Herodas, like the mimic imitations in Theocritus, are concerned solely with types of humanity, not with individuals.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 37 , Issue 1-2 , April 1943 , pp. 37 - 45

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800026240 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1943

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.)

References

^{page 37 note 2} Christ-Schmid, , Geschichte der griechischen Litt., vol. i (1912), p. 440 and vol. ii (1920), p. 33Google Scholar. What little personal criticism there was occurred incidentally and in the prologues.

^{page 37 note 3} Recorded by Suidas and Photius s.v. Ῥηγ⋯νουσ the verb used is ⋯κωμῴδει, but Xenarchus is known as a mimographer from Arist, . Poet. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 4} Athen. 19 F. It is believed that μῖμοι originally emerged from the wider class of θαυματοποιο⋯; cf. Reich, l.c., pp. 320, 511–23; Nicoll, Allardyce, Masks, Mimes and Miracles (Harrap 1931), p. 35Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 5} 23. 32 = 01. 2. 19.

^{page 37 note 6} Demosthenes, ed. Dindorf, vol. viii, p. 100.

^{page 37 note 7} Titinius, 104, 107, 109, 179 Ribb.; Afranius, 3, 20, 95, 211, 272 Ribb.

^{page 38 note 1} In 57 B.C. a performance of the Simulans of Afranius was made the basis for a political demonstration, the purpose of which was the promotion of the return of Cicero, from exile (pro 118)Google Scholar. Suitable passages in the play were emphasized by the actors in such a way as to suggest allusions to the contemporary political scene. For instance, when they reached this sentence (I quote from Ribbeck's version):

‘haec, taeterrime,…

sunt postprincipia atque exitus malae vitiosae vitae’

the actors all concentrated their gaze on Clodius, who was among the audience. ‘Et is, qui antea cantorum convicio contiones celebrare suas solebat, cantorum ipsorum vocibus eiciebatur.’ The allusions were not, of course, in any way intentional on the part of Afranius, who was most probably dead before this time. In succeeding chapters of the same speech other instances are mentioned of this practice of inventing topical aptnesses in plays dealing with a bygone age; Aesopus even tampered with the text in order to pay a compliment to Cicero.

^{page 38 note 2} Rep. iv. 10, ap. Aug, . de Civ. Dei ii. 9Google Scholar: ‘veteribus displicuisse Romanis vel laudari quemquam in scaena vivum hominem vel vituperari’.

^{page 38 note 3} Auct. ad Herenn. i. 14. 24 and ii. 13. 19.

^{page 38 note 4} ad Fam. 7.11.2: ‘si diutius frustra afueris … Laberium … pertimesco; mira enim persona induci potest Britannici iurisconsulti’.

^{page 38 note 5} Actors were liable to infamia: Livy 7. 2; Cic. Rep. 4. 10; Corn. Nepos praef. 4–5; Friedländer, vol. ii, pp. 111–13; Warnecke, Boris in N. Jahrb. 1914, pp. 95 ff.Google Scholar, and in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. ‘Histrio’. Green, W. M., ‘The Status of Actors at Rome’, in Class. Phil. xxviii, 1933, pp. 301–4CrossRef Google Scholar. Frank, Tenney, in Class. Phil. xxvi, 1931, pp. 11–20CrossRef Google Scholar, believes that the stigma was applied only to the lower types of artistes, among whom he includes mimes.

^{page 38 note 6} 98–124, Ribbeck.

^{page 39 note 1} Macr, . Sat. 2. 7. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 2} 88, Ribbeck.

^{page 39 note 3} pedibus ire in alienam sententiam. Festus, s.v. ‘Pedarium senatorem’ (317 Linds.): ‘Qui itaappellatur quia tacitus transeundo ad eum cuius sententiam probat quid sentiat indicat.’ For a discussion of these pedarii see Gellius iii. 18 and Tyrrell, and Purser, , Correspondence of Cicero, contionum significationes sunt nonnunquam vol. i, additional note 4Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 4} Dio Cass. xliii. 47. 2; cf. ibid. 27. 2; Suet, . Div. Iul. 41. IGoogle Scholar.

^{page 39 note 5} Ribbek 63–4; Merry, Select Fragments of Roman Poetry, Oxford 1898, p. 239Google Scholar; the reading at the end of the first line is very uncertain.

^{page 39 note 6} Cf. Suet, . Div. Iul. 41. 1 and 52. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 7} 38–9 Ribbeck

^{page 39 note 8} The verse of Laberius already quoted (‘necesse est multos timeat, quem multi timent’) is said by Seneca, to have compelled the attention of everyone, ‘non aliter … quam si missa esset vox populi adfectus’ (Dial. iv. II. 3)Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 9} ad Att. xiv. 2 and 3.

^{page 39 note 10} ad Att. i. 16. 11. Cicero gave his opinion—biased, it may be, by the circumstances under which it occurred—of the genuineness of applause of this type in pro Sest. 115: ‘Comitiorum et contionum significationes sunt nonnunquam vitiatae atque corruptae: theatrales gladiatoriique consessus dicuntur omnino solere levitate nonnullorum emptos plausus exiles et raros excitare; ac tamen facile est, cum id fit, quem ad modum et a quibus fiat et quid integra multitudo faciat videre. quid ego nunc dicam, quibus viris aut cui generi civium maxime plaudatur? neminem vestrum fallit.’

^{page 39 note 11} Such a demonstration occurred at the ludi Apollinares held later in the same year, or so Cicero would have us believe (Att. xvi. 5. 2; Phil. i (15), 36; ii (13), 30). But see Appian, , B.C. iii. 24Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 1} Caes, . B.C. iii. 34 ff. and 55Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 2} Aug. 53; the story is retold by Orosius, , adv pag. vi. 22. 4Google Scholar, who adds: ‘dominumque posthac se appellari ne a liberis quidem aut nepotibus suis vel serius vel ioco passus est’.

^{page 40 note 3} Ibid. 68. The charges of unnatural vice spread about Octavian by his enemies Sextus Pompeius, Marcus Antonius, and others are perhaps without foundation.

^{page 40 note 4} Vesp. 19.

^{page 40 note 5} By actors, App. Pun. 66. By the general's own soldiers, Suet, . Div. Iul. 49 and 51Google Scholar; Livy, iv. 20. 2; 53. 11–12; v. 49. 7; vii. 10. 38; x. 30. 6; xxviii. 9. 18; Mart. i. 4. 3–4. Scaenici artifices were present at Julius Caesar's funeral, but Suetonius, (Div. Iul. 84)Google Scholar does not describe their performance.

^{page 40 note 6} e.g. Tac, . Hist. ii. 5Google Scholar: ‘Si avaritia abesset, antiquis ducibus par.’.

^{page 40 note 7} In the reign of Tiberius a scurra seized the opportunity of a passing funeral to launch an attack on the emperor: ‘Scurram, qui praetereunte funere clare mortuo mandarat, ut nuntiaret Augusto nondum reddi legata quae plebei reliquisset, adtractum ad se recipere debitum ducique ad supplicium imperavit et patri suo verum referre’ (Suet, Tib. 57. 2)Google Scholar. This scurra was most probably some wit who chanced to be watching the procession; but he may have been a mime— v. inf. p. 44, note 3.

^{page 40 note 8} Seneca, , Dial. xii. 19. 6Google Scholar, calls Alexandria ‘loquax et in contumelias praefectorum ingeniosa provincia, in qua etiam qui vitaverunt culpam non effugerunt infamiam’. Alexandria was a great centre of mimic activity, and one may surmise that mimes played their part in contumacious criticism of their governors. Cf. Cicero, , pro Rab. Post. 12. 35Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 1} ad Fam. ix. 16. 7: 46 B.C.

^{page 41 note 2} Tac., Ann. iv. 14Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 3} Tib. 45. The pun defies translation. See also Tarver, J. C., Tiberius the Tyrant, Constable, London, 1902, pp. 359 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 41 note 4} Suet, . Cal. 27Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 5} Suet, . Nero 39. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 6} Suet, . Galba 13Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 7} ‘Cuncti simul spectatores consentiente voce reliquam partem rettulerunt ac saepius versu repetito egerunt.’

^{page 41 note 8} Suet, . Galba 12Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 9} So Lachmann and Ribbeck.

^{page 41 note 10} So Reich, p. 190, following the earlier editors.

^{page 41 note 11} Suet, . Galba 21Google Scholar. Simus is a rustic in comedy (Pollux iv. 19). The name is applied to satyrs in CIG 7417, 7459, 7460, &c; but it is going too far to imagine, as Müller, K. O. did (Hist, of Lit. of Ancient Greece, London 1840, vol. ii, p. 43 n.)Google Scholar, that Simus was now a stock character in the Atellan.

^{page 42 note 1} Suet, . Dom. 10. 4Google Scholar: ‘Occidit et Helvidium populo, filium, quasi scaenico exodio sub persona Paridis et Oenones divortium suum cum uxore taxasset’.

^{page 42 note 2} viii. 185 ff.

^{page 42 note 3} loc. cit., also 4. 21.

^{page 42 note 4} Tac, . Ann. 13. 28Google Scholar; Hist. 4. 5–6 and 43, &c.

^{page 42 note 5} Suet, . Dom. 3. 1Google Scholar: ‘Eandem Paridis histrionis amore deperditam repudiavit, intraque breve tempus impatiens desiderii, quasi efflagitante populo, reduxit.’ Cf. also Dio Cass. 67. 3. 1.

^{page 42 note 6} It could scarcely have been a pantomime, for it is difficult to see how a performance in dumb show could have conveyed the impression of topical allusions. There is, in any case, no evidence that pantomimes were ever used as exodia.

^{page 42 note 7} His Atalanta, Sisyphus, and Ariadne are not certainly Atellans.

^{page 43 note 1} Cap, . Vita M. Ant. phil. 8Google Scholar: ‘Adepti imperium, ita civiliter se ambo egerunt, ut lenitatem Pii nemo desideraret, cum eos Marullus sui temporis mimographus cavillando impune perstringeret.’

^{page 43 note 2} Cap, . Verus, 7. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 3} Cap, . M. Ant. phil. 29Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 4} Juv. viii. 196–7.

^{page 43 note 5} 1. 17.

^{page 43 note 6} Cap, . M. Ant. phil. 19 and 29Google Scholar. Both he and Dio Cassius report the rumour that she was involved in, even largely responsible for, the rebellion made against him by Cassius, but both writers admit that the case was unproved; cf. Dio Cass. 71. 22 and 29. Faustina's honour is upheld by Sedgwick, H. D., Marcus Aurelius, Yale U.P., 1921, pp. 188–9, 204Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 7} Cap, . M. Ant. phil. 26Google Scholar; cf. 19. Dio Cass. 71. 30–1; Eutrop. 8. 5.

^{page 43 note 8} Lamp, . Com. 1Google Scholar: ‘lam [tam: Salmasius] in his artifex quae stationis imperatoriae non erant, ut… saltaret, cantaret, sibilaret [i.e. played the flute], scurram denique et gladiatorem se perfectum ostenderet.’ Cf. Malalas, , Chron., pp. 285–6, ed. Dindorf, L., Bonn, 1831Google Scholar. Scurra is perhaps here used in the sense of scurra mimicus, for which see Capitolinus' story on the next Cf. Reich, p. 199.

^{page 43 note 9} Lamp, . Com. 3. 4Google Scholar. There is another reading, ‘appareret’.

^{page 44 note 1} Max. duo ix. 2–5.

^{page 44 note 2} Treb. Pollio, , Gallieni duo, 7–9Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 3} Pollio calls them simply scurrae. The Historiae Augustae Scriptores frequently designate mimes by the terms scurrae mimici, scurrae mimarii. See above, Capit, . Max. duo 9Google Scholar; id. Verus 8; Vopiscus, , Aurel. 42Google Scholar; Prudentius in Migne, , P.L. lx. 316Google Scholar ‘dum scurra saltas fabulam’.

^{page 44 note 4} Vopiscus, , Aurel. 42Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 1} Apologia Mimorum 120–1 (pp. 371–2 in the Teubner edition) = 14. 10–11 ed. Graux, (Revue de Philologie, i (1877), p. 238)Google Scholar.

Article contents

Criticism of Individuals in Roman Popular Comedy1

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests