There is of course a danger in generalizing from a small amount of material, but the above discussion suggests that our original hypothesis, with Plautus representing native Latin rhetoric and Terence reflecting Greek rhetorical theory, was simplistic and misleading. In fact the two authors employ a very similar range of rhetorical devices, and, unless Plautus studied Greek rhetorical handbooks, these must be a native Latin development. The main difference is that Terence is much more restrained in their use; and this restraint may have nothing to with Greek theory, though this, as we have seen, frowned on the excessive use of such devices as alliteration; it may equally stem from Terence’s natural inclination and his choice of Menander as his main model.
We should perhaps draw the conclusion that Plautus and Terence were both working in an evolving native Roman tradition of rhetoric which was not overly affected by Greek rhetorical theory. To determine how that tradition was evolving, we need to look at contemporary Roman rhetoric, which is represented for us by the surviving fragments of Cato’s speeches. If it were the case that Cato was himself affected to any degree by Greek rhetorical theory, as some scholars have believed, we should expect to find major differences between his style and that of the comic poets, over and above those attributable to differences in genre and between prose and verse. What we in fact find is a whole host of similarities.
The speeches of Cato are discussed in some detail elsewhere in this volume, so that here only brief illustration is required. Cato’s most effective piece of oratory among the surviving fragments is the fragment of the speech In Quintum Minucium Ther-mum (Gell. NA 10.3.17; see chapter 5). This depends for its effect on a whole host of devices which we have seen exemplified in Plautus and Terence, for example, chiasmus (Bruttiani verberavere, videre multi mortales), two examples of tricolon with anaphora and polyptoton, the first with a rhetorical question and the second with an exclamatory infinitive (quis hanc contumeliam, quis hoc imperium, quis hanc servitu-tem ferre potest?; eane fieri bonis, bonogeneregnatis, boni consultis!), accumulation of synonyms with asyndeton, homoeoteleuton, and alliteration ( iniurias, plagas, ver-bera, vibices), two successive doublets joined by atque (dolores atque carnificinasper dedecus atque maximam contumeliam), a fourfold exclamation with anaphora, asyndeton, alliteration, and homoeoteleuton (quantum luctum, quantumgemitum, quid lacrimarum, quantum fletum factum audivi!), and a final antithesis, embellished with paronomasia (servi iniurias... aegre ferunt: quid illos bono genere gnatos... opinamini animi habuisse atque habituros...). Of all these devices the only one not illustrated in the four speeches from comedy which we have examined above is the rhetorical question, and this is in fact a frequent device of both Plautus and Terence and indeed presumably of popular speech.
The logic of the argument here presented is that Cato’s oratory was not influenced by Greek rhetorical theory, or at least not to any great extent. According to Cicero (Brut. 95-6), it was only later in the second century bce that Roman orators began to study under Greek masters and to display something of the smoothness, periodic structure and artistry of style of the Greeks. It is tempting to suggest that Cato was more influenced by the practice of contemporary Roman comedy, but a moment’s reflection suggests that any such influence would have been informal and unsystematic. Later rhetorical writers, like Cicero and Quintilian, do indeed recommend certain features of comedy as a model for orators (e. g., Cic. Inv. Rhet. 1.27, De Or. 2.326-7; Quint. Inst. 9.2.58, 10.1.71), but they belong to an age when texts were readily available. If Cato learned from Plautus and Terence, we would have to envisage him sitting in the theatre in the seats reserved for senators listening to the plays, as it is unlikely that written texts of comedy were in circulation beyond the hands of the theatrical companies. As for influence in the opposite direction, if Plautus and Terence learned from Cato, we would have to imagine them listening to the speeches in the courts or public assemblies; it is clear that Cato’s speeches were written down, since Cicero allegedly had access to more than 150 of them (Brut. 64), but it is hard to imagine a wide circulation in Cato’s own day. Rather than postulating direct influence in one direction or the other, it seems better to think in terms of the development of a native Latin tradition of rhetoric in which the comic poets and the orators both shared; the aim of this chapter has been to stake a place for Plautus and Terence in the history of that tradition.
FURTHER READING
For the wider context of this chapter see the general histories of rhetoric, for instance Clarke (19963: 1-37) and Leeman (1963: 19-66). Rawson (1989) gives an overview of the Roman reaction to Greek culture in the third and second centuries bce. On the more technical side Lausberg (1998) offers a comprehensive list of the various rhetorical terms with extensive quotations from Greek and Latin rhetorical writers. On early Latin, Palmer (19613: 346-57) provides a convenient sample of archaic nonliterary texts, and Timpanaro (1988), in Italian, analyzes the formalization of the archaic language. Courtney (1999) offers a perceptive general analysis of the nature of early Latin and an extensive range of texts (including the major fragments of Cato) with commentary. On the development of the literary language (prose and verse) Palmer (19613: 74-147) is still basic reading.
The best recent discussion of Terence’s prologues and their relation to contemporary oratory is Goldberg (1986: 31-60). Leo (1898a; 1960: 135-49), in German, is still fundamental. The most detailed analysis of the structure of the prologues is the monograph by Gelhaus (1972), in German; for a critical review of this see Lefevre (1976), in German. There are useful discussions of the style of the prologues by Focardi (1972, 1978), both in Italian, who brings out the amount of legal language that they contain and traces similarities of style between the prologues and the orators respectively. There are general discussions of the styles of Plautus and Terence in Barsby (1999: 19-27) with further references, Palmer (19613: 74-94), and Duckworth (1952: 331-60). Among the more technical works Haffter (1934), in German, demonstrates that the language of long verse in comedy is more rhetorical than that of iambic senarii. Courtney (1999: 153-5) has an appendix on narrative style in Plautus.
On Cato’s oratory see chapter 5 in this volume with reference to earlier discussions. Astin (1978: 131-56) concludes that Cato was not significantly influenced by Greek theory, as does Albrecht (1989: 18-20; 1971: 35-7). Cugusi (1971), in Italian, systematically analyzes the main stylistic devices which can be identified in Cato’s speeches. On the availability of texts of Roman comedy in Cato’s lifetime see Goldberg (2004), who argues persuasively that the scripts were still then in a state of flux and in the hands of the theatrical companies. On the publication of Cato’s speeches in his own day, Astin (1978: 155-6) argues that Cato kept copies for his own practical reasons but sees no method of determining whether he distributed copies, either among a few friends or to a wider public.
On the wider issue of the relationships between drama and oratory two discussions can be recommended, both of which touch on rhetoric in Plautus and Terence in passing. Scodel (1997) traces the interplay between drama and rhetoric from Aristophanes to Seneca, while Hughes (1997) explores the use of characters, themes, and diction from comedy in the speeches of Cicero.
A Companion to Roman Rhetoric Edited by William Dominik, Jon Hall Copyright © 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
World History
