University of New Mexico
UNM Digital Repository
Foreign Languages & Literatures ETDs
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
6-9-2016
Mixing the Roman miles: Character Development
in Terence's Eunuchus
Samantha Davis
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/fll_etds
Recommended Citation
Davis, Samantha. "Mixing the Roman miles: Character Development in Terence's Eunuchus." (2016).
http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/fll_etds/31
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Foreign Languages & Literatures ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Samantha C. Davis
Candidate
Foreign Languages and Literatures
Department
This thesis is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication:
Approved by the Thesis Committee:
Professor Osman Umurhan
Professor Monica S. Cyrino
Professor Lorenzo F. Garcia Jr.
, Chairperson
Mixing the Roman miles: Character Development in Terence's
Eunuchus
by
Samantha C. Davis
B.A., Classical Studies, University of New Mexico, 2013
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Masters of Arts
Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies
The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
May, 2016
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my committee chair Professor
Osman Umurhan, through whose genius, dedication, and endurance this thesis was made
possible. Thank you, particularly, for your unceasing support, ever-inspiring words, and
relentless ability to find humor in just about any situation. You have inspired me to be a
better scholar, teacher, and colleague. I would also like to extend the sincerest thanks to
my excellent committee members, the very chic Professor Monica S. Cyrino and the
brilliant Professor Lorenzo F. Garcia Jr., whose editorial thoroughness, helpful
suggestions, and constructive criticisms were absolutely invaluable. In addition, a thank
you to Professor Luke Gorton, whose remarkable knowledge of classical linguistics has
encouraged me to think about language and syntax in a much more meaningful way. You
have all impacted me profoundly and I am forever grateful to have had the honor of being
your student.
I would like to also thank my fellow graduate students at the University of New
Mexico for your friendship and counsel. I would particularly like to thank Makaila
Daeschel and Dannu Hütwohl, who have been the greatest friends and office-mates a girl
could ask for. I am so thankful to have had you both throughout this process, your
friendship is priceless. I would also like to thank my family for always being there for
me, just a phone call away. Finally, I would like to posthumously thank my beloved
father, Dr. Jeffrey R. Davis, whose absolute genius and never-ending thirst for knowledge
inspired me in every way possible. “What the hell, it’s not so high.”
iv
Mixing the Roman miles: Character Development in Terence’s Eunuchus
By
Samantha C. Davis
B.A., Classical Studies, University of New Mexico, 2013
M.A. Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies, University of New Mexico, 2016
Abstract
In my thesis I explore Terence’s innovative development of three stock characters:
Chaerea, the adulescens amator, Thraso, the miles gloriosus, and Gnatho, the parasitus. In the
Eunuchus Terence provides each of these characters with a mythological parallel that reveals the
character’s inner thoughts, motives, and justifications, as well as their self-perceived position
within Roman society. The first chapter traces the development of the figure of the adulescens
amator in Roman literature and examines how Terence’s incorporation of mythological
burlesque defies dramatic conventions. The second chapter analyzes key dramatic relationships
that suggest a parallel to the historical relationship between Rome and her subjugated territories.
The miles gloriosus, Thraso, is cast as a socius miles, whereas Gnatho, the parasitus, appears as
a ciues miles. My analysis, ultimately, offers an interpretation of how these issues respond and
react to contemporary Roman political and military institutions of the second century BCE.
v
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
New Comedy Stock Characters and Terentian Innovation .......................................... 1
New Comedy Stock Characters ................................................................................... 2
Metatheatrical Irony: Challenging Audience Expectation........................................ 5
Character Introspection and Extraspection ............................................................. 10
Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................. 16
Chaerea: When a Soldier is a Lover ............................................................................. 16
Chaerea as Adulescens Amator ................................................................................. 18
1.2. Jupiter and Danaë: Terence’s Burlesque ........................................................... 20
1.3. Chaerea: A Soldier Compared to Jupiter .......................................................... 25
1.4. Defying Conventions: Chaerea’s Character Development ............................... 29
1.5. Defying Conventions: Sexual Violence ............................................................... 32
1.6. Ludo: Sex as a Game ............................................................................................ 40
1.7. Chaerea: A Reflection of Roman Reality ........................................................... 45
1.8. Conclusions: Introspection and Extraspection .................................................. 52
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................ 55
A Soldier and his Parasite: Roman Reliance on socii milites ...................................... 55
2.1. Thraso as Miles Gloriosus .................................................................................... 59
2.2. Hercules and Omphale: Terence’s Burlesque ................................................... 62
2.3. Thraso: a Soldier Compared to Hercules ......................................................... 66
2.4. Defying Conventions: Thraso’s Character Development ................................ 72
2.5. A Reflection of Roman Reality: Thraso as Roman miles ................................ 76
2.6. Sisyphean parasitus: Terence’s Burlesque ........................................................ 80
2.7. Gnatho: a Soldier compared to Sisyphus .......................................................... 83
2.8. Defying Conventions: the Development of Gnatho .......................................... 87
2.9. Gnatho: A Reflection of Roman Reality ........................................................... 91
2.10. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 98
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 101
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 105
1
INTRODUCTION
New Comedy Stock Characters and Terentian Innovation
Publius Terentius Afer is one of the most praised authors of archaic Latin dating
to the early second century BCE. Plays written by Terence (166-161 BCE) and his
predecessor Plautus (ca. 205-185 BCE) constitute the entire surviving tradition of New
Comedy at Rome, a Latin genre of plays famous, among other features, for its recycling
of Greek material. The Greek based comedies that both Plautus and Terence wrote are
called fabula palliata, translated as “Greek-cloaked plays.”1 Although Terence’s plays
are set in Greece and his characters typically bear Greek names, in many aspects they
portray the society of the Roman Republic.2 References to Roman gods, localities, laws,
customs, and attire can be found within Terence’s Eunuchus, but the presence of such
Romanisms has often been explained away as a feature of the play’s “Plautine” qualities.3
I argue, however, that Romanisms help contextualize Terence’s provocative development
of certain stock characters, a Terentian innovation to the New Comedy genre.
This project follows a trend in recent scholarship, which demonstrates that
Terentian innovation can be found in his instances of variation and defiance of the
dramatic conventions of New Comedy.4 Specifically, this thesis explores Terence’s use
1
All Latin and Greek translations are my own, unless specified otherwise.
Konstan 1983: 22 argues that Roman comedy did not ignore anxieties relating to the turbulent social
scene at Rome. He discusses Roman political and social issues such as Roman allies, citizenship, familial
structure and paternal authority, and marriage ritual. Hunter 1985 argues that Plautus drew material from
contemporary Rome for his plays; however, he denies that Terence did the same. Goldberg 1986: 214
claims that in the plays of Plautus there are reflections of and reactions to contemporary Roman culture.
However, some scholars maintain that Terence offers little to no comment on the contemporary scene at
Rome. Ludwig 2001 utterly denies Terence any significant originality or Roman commentary and claims
that he simply stuck more closely to the Greek originals than Plautus.
3
For scholars who discuss “Plautine” elements in Terence, see: Norwood 1923; Fraenkel 2007; Sharrock
2009; Christenson 2013; Franko 2013; Karakasis 2013; Packman 2013.
4
Beare 1965 claims that because of Terence’s alterations and additions to his Greek source material he was
able to produce Latin plays that were poetically superior to their Greek originals. More recent scholars
2
2
of stock characters who drastically defy the dramatic conventions ascribed to them by the
New Comedy genre. In the Eunuchus Terence does something innovative and
transformative with certain stock characters. He takes something old, the stock character,
and puts a new spin on it by infusing the character with something even older, a
mythological figure, which in combination takes on new meaning within specific Roman
contexts. There are three mythological references in the Eunuchus that I identify as
mythological parallels and all are informed by the perspective of Roman soldiers—
Chaerea, Thraso, and Gnatho. The stock character’s self-identification with a particular
mythological figure and situation from Greek culture and the transposition of that figure
and situation into the Roman context help to establish a uniquely Roman characteristic
extracted from Greek culture.
New Comedy Stock Characters
New Comedy offers its audience a glimpse into the life of the average well-to-do
citizen and his family. The world of New Comedy was far removed from the charged
political and personal invective of its predecessor Old Comedy, which would not have
focus on cultural analyses of Terence’s additions and alterations. Barsby 1999 suggests that their function
is to produce a distinctively Italian production. Starks 2013 identifies references that have Roman historical
significance. Papaioannou 2014: 141-2 argues, “the revision of Plautine characterization and the creation of
a distinctly personal dramaturgy via the development of different versions of the typical palliata agents
express Terence’s strategy of ‘interpretation’.” Fontaine 2014 argues that the additions establish an
intertextual dynamism present throughout the corpus of Terence’s plays. Terence’s characters have also
been singled out as having qualities not found in other characters within the New Comedy genre. Goldberg
1986 contrasts Plautine “caricatures” developed through stage action with Terentian characters who are
more fully developed through dialogue. Augoustakis 2013: 9 points out that Terence’s characters have a
complexity not present in those of Plautus. Franko 2013: 41 argues that Terence’s characters are threedimensional and “give the sense of a fully realized individual.”
3
suited Rome’s political turbulence of the Middle Republic.5 New Comedy makes
frequent use of stock characters that can be defined as stereotypical characters with
whom audiences could easily identify because of their recurrent appearances within the
genre. The stock characters found in Plautus are: the senex iratus (“angry old man”), the
adulescens amator (“young lover”), the servus callidus (“cunning slave”), the servus
stultus (“foolish slave”), the miles gloriosus (“arrogant soldier”), the parasitus
(“parasite”), the leno (“pimp”), and the meretrix (“prostitute”). Stock characters represent
exaggerated individuals and cultural aspects of Athenian and, arguably, Roman society.
The miles gloriosus and his parasitus represent the extravagance of military plunder, the
leno and his meretrix exemplify the business of urban luxury, and the senex, adulescens,
and servus embody the men of the house. These character types fundamentally represent
the military, economic, and domestic institutions in which citizens and foreigners
participated. Terence in the prologue to the Eunuchus (161 BCE) offers a list of
commonly used New Comedy stock characters and situations in an effort to rebuff
accusations of furtum:
qui magis licet currentem seruom scribere,
bonas matronas facere, meretrices malas,
parasitum edacem, gloriosum militem,
puerum supponi, falli per seruom senem,
amare odisse suspicari?
How is it more pleasing to represent a running slave,
to portray good wives, woeful whores,
a gluttonous parasite, a boastful soldier,
that a boy is separated [at birth], that an old man is deceived by a slave,
love, hate, suspicion [than to use material borrowed from other Latin
sources?]
5
Rome’s intolerance for popular reprimand is demonstrated by Gabba 1989: 220 who argues that “the
destruction of the ‘Books of Numa’ represented the elimination of politically dangerous texts.” 4
(Eunuchus 36-40)6
Here, Terence is defending his right to borrow certain character types not because he
stole them from another source by contaminatio or furtum, but because they are stock
characters that belong to the genre as a whole.7
This project calls specific attention to the adulescens amator, miles gloriosus, and
the parasitus stock characters that Terence both adapts and manipulates in his Eunuchus.8
Chaerea, Terence’s adulescens amator, does not just represent a member of the Roman
patrilineal hierarchy but, more specifically, symbolizes the type of predatory Roman
miles who was actively engaged in the aggressive policies of Roman expansionism in the
second century BCE.9 The relationship between Thraso and Gnatho, Terence’s miles
gloriosus and parasitus, represents that of Rome and her recently subjugated allied
soldiers beyond their association with the extravagance of plunder in general.10 Gnatho is
less prominent as the typical parasite who lives off the food from another’s table than as a
master of philosophically-charged rhetoric and intellectual dexterity over others.
6
All Latin cited from Terence’s Eunuchus comes from Kauer and Lindsay 1965. This and all subsequent
translations are my own.
7
Contaminatio is the blending of two Greek source plays into one Latin play and furtum is the theft of
material from a previously produced Roman play. Barsby 1999: 15-7 describes these two accusations made
by Luscius of Lanuvium, Terence’s “malevolent critic,” and notes that within the prologue to the
Eunuchus, “in defending himself against a charge of furtum, Terence was in fact admitting to the practice
of ‘contamination’.” 8
Papaioannou 2014: 152 claims, “the subversion of stock characters [is] the driving force of Terence’s
comic plot.” She further argues that in the Eunuchus Chaerea “usurps the role of the ‘wily’ agent and
facilitator of plot development from Parmeno when…[Parmeno] half-jokingly, half-seriously, gave the
leading role to the adulescens Chaerea.”
9
Gill 1996: 17 warns against a definitive reading of texts, but supports the notion of “[engaging] ‘in
dialogue’ with Greek culture, and to seek to evolve methods and attitudes which enable the texts, as thus
studied, to ‘have a voice’ in this dialogue.” He also stresses that “the concerns of a specific historicocultural situation may be such as to enable some of the ideas and thought-forms of another culture to let
themselves be heard more clearly.” By this model, Latin texts help illuminate aspects of Roman culture.
10
Hunter 1985: 77 notes that the miles gloriosus was a common stock character for both Plautus and
Terence given they wrote during a time of Roman conquest and expansion. He points to the dramatic
character Lamachos in Aristophanes’ Acharnians as a possible source for this stock character (Hunter
1985: 8). Leigh 2004 discusses the economies of New Comedy, which explain the common presence of a
boastful soldier.
5
Metatheatrical Irony: Challenging Audience Expectation
Terence abolishes the plot-related prologues so common to the plays of Plautus.
By doing this, the playwright offers his audience no foreknowledge of the upcoming
production and thereby dashes its expectations to make them as emotionally vulnerable as
his dramatic characters. Yet, Terence still acknowledges traditional audienceempowering metatheatricality. For example, a character’s staged recognition of their own
stock role is metatheatrical and calls attention to the genre’s conventions:11
nunc, Parmeno, ostendes te qui vir sies.
scis te mihi saepe pollicitum esse ‘Chaerea, aliquid inueni
modo quod ames; in ea re utilitatem ego faciam ut cognoscas meam,’
quom in cellulam ad de patris penum omnem congerebam clanculum.
Now, Parmeno, you will reveal what sort of man you are.
You know that you often promised me “Chaerea, I just now found
someone you’ll love,” in this [love] affair I will make sure that you know
my usefulness, when I secretly pile up all your father’s provisions in the
little cellar for you.
(Eunuchus 307-10)
Here, Terence draws metatheatrical attention to Parmeno, the servus whose stock role
includes acting as facilitator for the adulescens in his amorous affairs, and in doing so he
typifies the stock character of Chaerea, too, as amator. However, the characters’ later
stark defiance of these acknowledged stock roles dashes audience expectation.12 This
calls into question the audience’s cultural conventions and stereotypes rather than the
11
Vincent 2013: 83 suggests that Terence’s characters often display such metatheatrical self-awareness of
their stock roles. Papaioannou 2014: 153 claims that Chaerea claims the role of the adulescens amator “by
emphatically declaring himself love-struck upon first sight of Pamphila.”
12
Papaioannou 2014: 144 explains, “[s]everal of Terence’s characters are aware that their acting is in
discordance with the general expectations raised by the career of the same character on the Plautine stage,
but instead of resorting to familiar acting patterns they make unexpected decisions, thus leading to the
construction of peripeteia that is distinctly Terentian.”
6
stock characters’ dramatic conventions.13 Instead of metatheatricality reinforcing
audience familiarity with the character, when Terence frustrates audience expectation of
stock qualities the metatheatrical reference to that character becomes ironic.
I suggest that those moments where modern readers feel uneasiness or disdain at a
character’s actions and justifications—the types of feelings which many scholars
maintain must not be applied to Terence’s contemporary Roman audience—may qualify
as moments of metatheatrical irony that encourage the audience to question existing
cultural norms.14 One explicit example of this is the peculiar treatment of rape in the
Eunuchus. In the play, Chaerea rapes Pamphila, a silent female character who, although
born a citizen, has been sold into slavery and given to the meretrix Thais. The rape of a
girl itself is not what sets Chaerea apart from the generic adulescens amator, but rather
his stark defiance of the dramatic conventions concerning the stock scenario of rape.15
Terence’s metatheatrical irony, wherein the metatheatrical moment disrupts audience
expectation, provides no humorous effect, but a critical one. Sutton, for example, claims:
“If we expect something important to happen and it doesn’t, we find that funny…[but] if
our expectations are deceived in the opposite way, we don’t find that funny.”16 As Sutton
suggests, Terence here deceives his audience in the opposite way when he develops
Chaerea outside the stock amator into a reprehensible sexual predator. Terence does not
impair his audience’s ability to inspire negative emotions in the future as a sort of healthy
13
Goldberg 1986: 117 claims, in the case of Thais, the meretrix from the Eunuchus, “Terence plays off his
own characterization of Thais against this expected character.” Germany 2013: 227 credits the invention of
dramatic surprise to Terence.
14
Franko 2013: 39 points out a similar phenomenon in Terence, what he calls “paradigmatic substitution,”
and which he defines as the stock character’s “[assumption of] new roles within formulaic plots.”
Metatheatrical irony is different from paradigmatic substitution because the stock character’s stereotypical
roles and scenarios are simultaneously emphasized and distorted, but are not abandoned and replaced
altogether.
15
I address Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila in detail in Chapter 1, section 1.5.
16
Sutton 1994: 21.
7
cathartic outlet.17 Rather, he does so to deprive his audience of a humorous vent.
Furthermore, Sutton describes comedic catharsis as “didactic” and “inoculatory.”18
During moments of metatheatrical irony, didactic elements of catharsis are brought forth
in Terence’s works, while the inoculatory are left out. It is well worth noting that Terence
presents Roman audiences with “Greek” plays that markedly highlight Roman
immorality and lax ethics with regard to sexual violence and he does so in a way that
lacks cathartic humor. By challenging dramatic conventions surrounding Chaerea’s rape
of Pamphila, Terence didactically elevates rape to the status of an important social issue
that in the playwright’s day has become a trademark feature and plot circumstance of the
stereotypical comic lover.19
The metatheatrical discussion of contaminatio in the prologue of the Eunuchus
also informs my reading of stock characters and character development. Contaminatio (as
mentioned above) involves the blending of multiple Greek sources into one Latin play
and thereby spoils the Greek sources for later use in another Roman production. It is
evident that Terence used Greek plays as models; he openly admits to the practice.20
17
Sutton 1994: 81 explains the process of comedic catharsis: “When a surrogate evokes bad feelings, and
the spectator laughs at the surrogate because of his appreciation of its ridiculous qualities (for such reasons
as perceived incongruities), a double effect is achieved. Bad feelings are summoned by the surrogate, and
the spectator transfers something of what he knows and feels about the target onto the surrogate. Thus some
fraction of his bad feelings towards the target is rendered available for purgation by laughter.
Simultaneously, the spectator’s thoughts and feelings towards the target are modified so that its capacity to
inspire similar bad feelings in the future is prohibited.”
18
Sutton 1994: 56.
19
Papaioannou 2014: 154 argues, “Terence’s tampering with the conventions of the palliata, and the ways
in which he portrays his characters confessing themselves ill-at-ease in their roles, discloses tongue-incheek an ingenious effort to reach across the boundaries of the palliata and experiment with the
conventions of the togata, the form of Roman comic drama that [closest mirrored Roman life].” 20
In the prologue to the Eunuchus Terence defends his right to use literary models because, nullumst iam
dictum quod non dictum sit prius. qua re aequomst uos cognoscere atque ignoscere quae ueteres
factitarunt si faciunt noui. (“There is nothing now said which has not been said before. Therefore, it’s right
that you understand and forgive if new [authors] perform the things which old [authors] frequently did,”
Eunuchus 41-3). He also openly admits to using another play, Menander’s Kolax, in addition to
Menander’s eunuch play. The line reads, Colax Menandrist, in east parasitus colax et miles gloriosus. eas
se non negat personas transtulisse in Eunuchum suam ex Graeca. (“There is a Colax of Menander, in it
8
However, this is only the surface of an otherwise rich dynamism that infuses his plays.
When sifting through his numerous sources (Greek New Comedy plays by both
Menander and Apollodorus of Carystus), Terence makes subtle decisions regarding
which plays, scenes, and characters to appropriate, as well as how and to what purpose he
might adapt, innovate, and highlight those appropriations for his Roman audience.
Terence’s admitted practice of contaminatio emphasizes his appropriation of stock
characters that he later develops beyond their conventional stock roles. Terence’s
prologues clearly demonstrate that his habit of contaminatio is something his audience
would have acknowledged and reacted to:
si id est peccatum, peccatum imprudentiast
poetae, non quo furtum facere studuerit.
If it [contaminatio] is a transgression, it is the poet’s unintended outcome,
he didn’t [do it] because he intended to steal [another Latin playwright’s
intellectual property].
(Eunuchus 27-8)
Because contaminatio was a controversial hot topic in Terence’s day, his explicit
admission to the practice is significant. Terence does more than arbitrarily appropriate
characters from other plays; the characters he adds defy convention and stereotypical
characterization in a marked way.
Terence offers another marked form of characterization for his audience that
exposes a rare glimpse into the minds of three soldiers—Chaerea, Thraso and Gnatho.
Often he provides these soldiers with introspective moments facilitated by mythological
parallels that reveal inner thoughts, motives and justifications. Terence develops each of
the soldiers before our eyes by the parallel and its implications. Chaerea, for example,
there is a parasite flatterer and a boastful soldier. He does not deny that he appropriated these characters
into his own Eunuchus from the Greek [play, i.e. Colax],” Eunuchus 30-3).
9
diverges from the stereotypical adulescens amator when his mythological parallel reveals
that the rape of Pamphila was premeditated, unnecessarily violent, and occurred within an
atypical dramatic context.21 Thraso also deviates from the stereotypical miles gloriosus;
his character is innovatively developed when he is afforded an introspective moment
where he realizes that he is utterly ridiculous but, nonetheless, continues to act the way he
does because of mythological precedent. Likewise, Gnatho the parasitus is also
developed by means of an introspective mythological parallel.22 Chaerea, Thraso, and
Gnatho do to an extent still represent certain stock characters. Nevertheless, Terence both
renovates and rebels against dramatic convention by developing these characters beyond
their generic form. He does so most strikingly by revealing a character’s individual
perspective through a provocative dynamic that in my project I term “character
introspection and extraspection.” This dynamic reveals a character’s introspective
perspective by self-comparison to a particular mythological figure within a particular
mythological context. For example, the Eunuchus’ miles gloriosus, Thraso, equates
himself to Hercules, who was once a slave to Omphale. The comparison not only reveals
Thraso’s personal feeling of subordination, but also an extraspective perspective when he
compares another dramatic character to another, but related, mythological figure. For
example, Thraso likens the meretrix, Thais, to whom he feels subservient, to the
mythological character, Omphale. This association illuminates the way Thraso views
himself and his relationship to Thais; that is, he justifies his personal view with the
assumption that Thais, too, would equate her relationship with Thraso to the mythological
relationship between Omphale and Hercules. Furthermore, extraspection is a projection
21
22
Chaerea’s character development is the focus of Chapter 1.
The development of Thraso and Gnatho, as well as their relationship, is the focus of Chapter 2. 10
of the way the introspective character imagines he is regarded and viewed by society. I
illuminate details of this innovative process in the following section.
Character Introspection and Extraspection
Overall, Terence makes use of Greek mythology more sparingly than Plautus;
there are only five mythological references in the entire Terentian corpus, three of which
are found in the Eunuchus.23 I argue that in the Eunuchus Terence experiments with the
consolidation of stock characters by drawing from burlesqued mythological characters in
Satyr drama, as well as those from Plautus’ Amphitruo. In the process, he creates
something new and original when he blends two types of firmly established comedic
characters, the stock character and the mythological figure. The result is a unique type of
mythological burlesque wherein a stock character is cast as a mythological figure instead
of a mythological figure appearing in the play as its own type of stock character. This
phenomenon, which is restricted to Terence’s Eunuchus, is different from the hyperbolic
mythological comparisons that frequent the plays of Plautus. Terence goes beyond
comparison and actually incorporates the mythological figure into his characterization of
three stock characters in the Eunuchus: the adulescens amator, the miles gloriosus, and
the parasitus. Additionally, those moments wherein Terence grafts the mythological
figures onto the stock characters reveal the characters’ perspectives, thoughts, motives,
and justifications through the dynamic of introspection and extraspection.24
23
The other two examples are discussed in the Conclusion.
Bortolussi and Dixon 2003: 134 justify the use of psychoanalytical criticism because, as critical
approaches, they “analyze characters in terms of their psychological personality traits typically tend to fill
in the textual gaps with hypotheses about the motivations, conscious or unconscious, that drive characters’
actions.”
24
11
Each of the mythological parallels in the Eunuchus consists of two dramatic
characters that are compared to two mythological figures. The character who makes the
parallel, the introspective character, compares himself to a mythological figure
(introspection) and simultaneously compares another dramatic character to another
mythological figure (extraspection). The mythological contexts as well as the figures
parallel the dramatic characters and situations, but only from the point-of-view of the
introspective characters. Extraspection doesn’t reveal anything about the other dramatic
character who is pulled into the parallel by the introspective character: it is only a social
projection, a mirrored image, of the introspective perspective. Terence’s mythological
parallels are more personalized and revealing than a hubristic comparison to a god that
characters in Plautus frequently make.25 Chaerea the amator, for example, does not
merely compare himself to Jupiter but, specifically, equates his character and his
dramatic situation with Jupiter, who seduces Danaë by disguising himself and infiltrating
her chamber.26 Additionally, the parallel also discloses the character’s extraspection
where he ascribes his perspective onto another character. For example, when Chaerea
casts Pamphila as Danaë, he makes the presumption that Pamphila, too, equates her
relationship with Chaerea to the mythological relationship between Danaë and Jupiter.
Extraspection allows us better to understand how Chaerea imagines Pamphila, and how
society in general, views him.
In addition to developing certain stock characters beyond their conventional
characteristics, the dynamic of introspection and extraspection also intensifies and
25
Dunsch 2014: 639 observes that the mythological references in Plautus are restricted to instances where
mortals hyperbolically compare themselves to a god.
26
Chaerea’s character development and mythological parallel (Eunuchus 584-5) will be discussed in detail
in Chapter 1. 12
reinforces certain features associated with each the stock characters involved in the
mythological parallels. Introspection can intensify the negative stereotypes associated
with the stock character; for example, in Chaerea’s introspective moment, the amator
takes the conventional plot device of rape to a new level and becomes more of a predator
than an amator. Extraspection can reinforce, but does not add to, preexisting stereotypes
of the secondary stock character (that is, the dramatic character who is compared to a
mythological figure by the introspective character); for example, in Chaerea’s
extraspective comparison of Pamphila to one of Zeus’ mortal lovers, Danaë, the civesturned-ancilla motif is reinforced by Danaë’s sovereign-turned-prisoner situation. The
extraspective comparison does not inform our reading of Pamphila as her own character,
but it does greatly inform our reading of how Chaerea relates himself to others. Terence’s
treatment of elite males “shows citizen male privilege as a socially damaging element at
the heart of Rome.”27 This is especially true with regard to elite male soldiers in the
Eunuchus whose privilege and socially destructive behavior in the play, for example
Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila, is emphasized by their moments of introspection and
extraspection, as when Chaerea compares himself to Jupiter and Pamphila to Danaë.
Furthermore, introspection is a phenomenon that Terence limits to soldiers and, not
coincidentally, these soldiers cast extraspection exclusively upon foreign individuals.28 I
maintain that this has larger implications for how the personal perspectives of his Roman
27
James 2013: 176.
Thraso, Gnatho’s extraspective counterpart, is marked as “peregrinus” (“foreign,” Eunuchus 759); Thais,
Thraso’s extraspective complement, was raised in Rhodes (Eunuchus 107); and Pamphila was considered
foreign by Chaerea, since she was taken from Sunium (Eunuchus 115).
28
13
soldiers may offer a social commentary on Rome’s military institutions and relations with
foreign kingdoms and city-states during the playwright’s day.29
The model put forth by persona theory can clarify the relationship between the
stock role and the character who assumes or defies that role.30 Although the theory has
been argued as a way to explain and separate the speakers of Roman satires from its
authors, it can also be a useful tool to explain and detach the certain stock roles within a
play, which Terence’s characters sometimes assume, but often reject. Terence’s
characters often do nod to their stock roles, but the development of those characters can
clarify that the stock roles do not by themselves inform the identity and perspective of the
character.31 At the same time, Terence’s characters often try to force another character
into an incongruent stock role. The mythological parallels, which drive an intimate form
of character development, can also be understood in terms of persona theory wherein
individuals adopt masks: in this case they are adopting the masks of mythological figures
in addition to the masks of their stock character. In the same way that an author of Roman
29
Gill 1996: 179 claims, “to explore Greek thinking more fully, we need to take into account the
relationship between the first and the second aspects of the objective-participant conception of the person:
that is, between intra-psychic interplay and socio-ethical engagement.” He adds further that his reading of
dialogue and monologue in Greek literary texts “contributes to critical understanding of these texts” (17).
30
The revolutionary work of Kernan 1959 on persona theory seeks to illuminate the difference between
Elizabethan authors of satires and the satirists, or characters. He argues that the author’s persona, or satirist,
is a feature to the genre and supports his argument by looking at Roman authors of satire, specifically
Juvenal. In his preface, Elliot 1982 explains that persona theory clarifies “the relationship between the
writer—the historical person—and the characters the writer creates.” Anderson 1982 applies persona
theory to Roman satire and separates the writer, Horace or Juvenal, from the characters within the satires.
He specifies that “the satirist” refers to the speaker, or character, in the satire and that “the satirist’s words,
ideas, and behavior will never be assumed to be identical with those of [the poet].” Braund 1996 presents
us with the different personae of the satirist, such as “the angry old man.” Holler 2013: 17 explains,
“narrative selfing and narrative recognition of others can be understood as a play with personas and
perspectives.”
31
Elliot 1982: 25 claims that the word persona, which used to refer specifically to the masks that ancient
actors wore on stage, was becoming synonymous with the role played by the actor, namely, his stock
character. Holler 2013: 27 explains, “perspective is a keyword in explorations of narrative identity…It is
through perspective that speakers are able to link themselves to the community.”
14
satire adopts different satiric personae, one of Terence’s stock characters can adopt
different comedic personae.
Chapter Overview
In this project, each of the Eunuchus’ three mythological parallels is discussed
individually and in detail. The first chapter entitled “Chaerea: When a Soldier is a
Lover,” traces the development of the adulescens amator with a discussion of the literary
tradition informing his character’s mythological parallel and Terence’s incorporation of
mythological burlesque, and how this process defies New Comedy conventions. My
analysis ultimately offers an interpretation of how these issues respond and react to
contemporary Roman political and military institutions of the second century BCE. The
second chapter entitled “A Soldier and his Parasite: Roman Reliance on socii milites,”
analyzes key dramatic relationships that suggest a parallel to the historical relationship
between Rome and her subjugated territories. For example, the miles gloriosus, Thraso, is
cast as a socius miles, whereas Gnatho, the parasitus, as a ciues miles. Their mythological
parallels illuminate the characters’ individual perspectives about themselves, their
relationships and, as I argue, their function in Roman society.
The particular context of the parallel within the text of the play will preface my
discussions of each character. Then, each of the two chapters will take a deeper look at
the literary precedents for the mythological figure and situation. Both chapters will then
examine in detail the stock character, which Terence manipulates in each scenario, in
order to emphasize the differences made to its paradigmatic structure. Next each chapter
describes the type of character development I term “Terence’s mythological burlesque,”
15
which illuminates the process of assimilation between the mythological figure and the
stock character. Following this, I offer suggestions for how the character’s association
with the contemporary scene at Rome reveals his citizenship, military rank, and Roman
mindset. Each chapter concludes with a discussion of the development of that stock
character and ultimately offers a suggestion as to how the manipulation of stock
characters paints a critical portrait of Roman soldiers and foreign policies relating to both
expansionism and Rome’s military reliance on allied soldiers during the early second
century BCE.
16
CHAPTER ONE
Chaerea: When a Soldier is a Lover
This chapter seeks to expose a distinctively Terentian imprint on the genre of
New Comedy at Rome: specifically, the meaningful development of the adulescens
amator “stock character,” Chaerea, in the Eunuchus and how that development calls into
question social and political practices and policies at Rome during the early second
century BCE.32 Terence seamlessly creates this new and original dramatic character in
Chaerea by blending two types of firmly established comedic characters that consists of
the New Comedy stock character and the burlesqued mythic figure.33 The mythic figure
in this case is the god Jupiter, who is essentially grafted onto the dramatic character,
Chaerea, during a mythological parallel, with the result that the personality and conduct
of the mythological figure are incorporated into the stock character. The dramatic
character Chaerea then identifies himself and Roman society through his self-perceived
connections to a Greek mythological figure and situation: this phenomenon can be
mirrored in the fact that Rome, during the Middle Republic, was identifying itself
through its own incorporations of and reactions to increasing contact with Greek and
other foreign cultures through a series of military conflicts abroad during the Punic Wars
32
In New Comedy in general, the adulescens amator “young lover” stock character is the play’s young,
elite, citizen protagonist. This character’s plot can be generically outlined as follows: respectable boy meets
girl, boy falls in love but must overcome familial or societal obstacles, boy marries girl. For this general
description of the adulescens amator see Barsby 1999, Karakasis 2005, Christenson 2013, Packman 2013 ,
Gruen 2014, and Konstantakos 2014.
33
I use “burlesqued” as an adjective to describe a mythological figure who has been brought down to a
human level and whose solemnity is mocked by the comparison to a mortal. The term burlesque derives
from an Athenian dramatic genre of comedy called mythological burlesque that was produced in the fourth
century BCE. For a discussion of mythological burlesque, see Konstantakos 2014 who claims that the
characters of this genre are mythological figures who have been cast as stereotypical comic stock
characters. He also argues that the genre’s humor is derived from the juxtaposition of the mythological
world and the real world that reflects contemporary Athens.
17
(264-146 BCE).34 The mythological parallel offers its audience an extremely intimate
moment with a dramatic character during which time the character’s self-perception and
cultural identity are exposed. I explain this process of character development, through
which these mythological parallels function, in what I call “the dynamic of introspection
and extraspection.”
Terence demonstrates this unique process of character development in the
Eunuchus through each of the play’s prominent soldiers: Chaerea, Gnatho, and Thraso.
Terence’s soldiers allow for similarities to be drawn between the mythological figures,
the play’s dramatic characters, and actual soldiers in Rome. Introspection, defined by a
dramatic stock character’s self-identification with a mythic figure, develops the soldiers
into individual characters who expose the mindsets and ethics of Roman soldiers during
the tumultuous Middle Republic. Each introspective character, during the moment of his
mythological parallel, is further developed by his use of extraspection, which can be
defined as the introspective character’s impersonal imposition of a secondary mythic
identity onto a secondary dramatic character. In other words, Chaerea introspectively
compares himself to Jupiter and extraspectively compares another character to Danaë.
From this impersonal, extraspective parallel the audience learns how the introspective
character perceives his societal position as it relates to another, always foreign, character.
Moreover, extraspection offers a commentary on Roman political and military
34
The idea of cultural Hellenization has been discussed by scholars such as Gabba 1989, Rawson 1989,
Gruen 1992, Wiseman 1998, Barsby 1999, Leigh 2004, Karakasis 2005, Starks 2013, and Fontaine 2014.
Gruen 1992: 1 remarks that in the Republic “[Roman] nobiles were the persons most drawn to Greek
literary achievements, religion, and visual arts.” Karakasis 2005: 89 argues that for upper class Romans in
Terence’s time there was a general trend to avoid speaking Greek and that Terence uses “Greek words
[and] hellenising [linguistic] constructions to differentiate the speech of low and rustic characters.”
Fontaine 2014: 552 offers the idea that perhaps “Rome in Terence’s time was consciously Hellenizing
[itself].”
18
institutions dealing with issues such as the subjugation of new territories and political
posts such as the praetor peregrinus.35
This chapter demonstrates how Terence’s manipulation of the stock character
Chaerea is also representative of contemporary changes in Rome’s social and political
infrastructures following the Second Punic War (202 BCE). Terence individualizes
certain stock characters beyond their genre-imposed stereotypes and confines through the
dynamic of introspection and extraspection. Introspection establishes the characters’
identities which, in turn, reveal the soldiers’ roles in Roman society, while extraspection
reveals how the soldiers situate themselves within society and how they imagine they are
perceived. This method of character development is subtle but, once identified, the
impressions it leaves articulate a stern critique of Roman society. The following analysis
explores the development of Chaerea from a stock adulescens amator into a militarized
rapist through Terence’s use of the dynamic of introspection and extraspection, and
concludes with the suggestion that his developed character metaphorically represents
Roman expansionism and subjugation of others in the second century BCE.
Chaerea as Adulescens Amator
The Eunuchus, like most of Terence’s plays, consists of a double plot. It focuses
on two brothers, Phaedria and Chaerea, who are two very different types of the
adulescens amator stock character. Chaerea’s brother Phaedria is hopelessly in love with
35
This is a formal Roman post established after the First Punic War which granted an elected official legal
jurisdiction over foreign non-citizens in Rome as well as Roman foreign relations, as Schiller 1978: 403
notes: “the praetor [urbanus as well as peregrinus] could, and sometimes did, exercise military power; he
could convoke the assembly to propose laws, he could issue orders (edicta) like any other magistrate, and
in general had the powers and duties of a magistrate with imperium.”
19
the beautiful foreign meretrix next door, Thais. Pamphila, Chaerea’s love interest, born a
citizen, has been sold into slavery before the action of the play and has been purchased as
a present for Thais by the soldier Thraso, another one of her lovers.36 While Pamphila is
being led to Thais’ house, Chaerea spots her, stalks her, and becomes obsessed with her.
Incorrectly assuming that Pamphila is merely a meretrix-in-training, Chaerea
impersonates the eunuch whom his brother intended to give to Thais, then infiltrates her
house and rapes the young girl. Upon discovering that Pamphila is a citizen, Chaerea,
without so much as a word from the silent girl, decides to marry her and thereby resolves
one half of the double-plot.
Terence defies convention by the development of New Comedy stock characters
through the expressive dynamic of introspection and extraspection; the outcome is a
plausibly accurate portrait of Roman soldiers in the early second century BCE. Chaerea’s
mythological parallel occurs in the highly charged erotic scene wherein he, the
adulescens amator stock character, boasts to his army-buddy Antipho, a character only
onstage for this brief exchange, about having raped Pamphila. A voyeuristic Chaerea
describes a painting which he views as Pamphila waits to be bathed. The painting depicts
the myth of Jupiter and Danaë:
[CH.] ibi inerat pictura haec, Iovem
36
Pamphila’s name comes from Greek, meaning “all-lover” or alternatively “loved by all.” The name is
often thought to suggest that the character is a prostitute, as Sharrock 2013: 62 notes. In Terence, Pamphila
occurs once as the name of a meretrix in the Phormio and twice as the name of a virgo, a marriageable
citizen, in the Eunuchus and the Adelphoe. The masculinized name Pamphilus occurs in the Andria and
Hecyra as the name of an adulescens amator. In using the name “Pamphila” in the Eunuchus Terence
defies expectation with dramatic irony, since its basic meaning turns out to be far from the meaning “alllover” and more like “univira.” Fontaine 2014 argues that this repetition of character names throughout the
Terentian corpus together with the fact that “his comedies allude both to the occasion of presentation (and
thus reflect life) as well as to older Roman comedies (and thus reflect art)…Terence makes his characters
self-consciously reflect earlier incarnations of themselves in a manner reminiscent of mythologically based
poetry. In so doing, he manages to combine a quality associated above all with Menandrian drama with a
quality associated primarily with the irony-rich, scholastic poetry of Alexandria” (542). 20
quo pacto Danaae misisse aiunt quondam in gremium imbrem aurem.
[CH.] This scene was [painted] on it, namely,
the myth that Jove once sent a golden shower into the lap of Danaë.
(Eunuchus 584-5)37
Here, Terence’s art imitates Roman life imitating Greek art.38 In other words, Terence’s
character Chaerea, representing a Roman soldier, sees a Greek painting depicting the
divine seduction of Danaë and, after deciding that their scenarios are comparable,
emulates the behavior of Jupiter and rapes Pamphila who, like Danaë, had been locked
away for the very purpose of avoiding intercourse.
The following discussion analyzes Terence’s innovative development of
Chaerea’s character as it is revealed through a mythological parallel: section 1.2
discusses the literary history of the Jupiter myth; section 1.3 explores Chaerea’s selfcomparison to Jupiter; section 1.4 traces how Chaerea’s stock character defies convention
and is developed through the parallel; section 1.5 examines how the parallel emphasizes
Terence’s non-conventional treatment of Chaerea’s sexual violence; section 1.6 discusses
ludo and lusus, the verb and denominative forms that are applied to both Jupiter’s and
Chaerea’s sexual antics; section 1.7 offers an interpretation of how the previous sections
react to and comment on contemporary Roman political and military institutions of the
second century BCE; and section 1.8 offers concluding remarks.
1.2. Jupiter and Danaë: Terence’s Burlesque
37
All Latin cited is taken from Kauer and Lindsay 1965. This and all subsequent translations are my own.
Paintings depicting mythological scenes would have been among the plunder being brought into Rome
from the surrounding Italian towns of Magna Graecia in Terence’s own lifetime; the same sorts of scenes
wouldn’t be locally painted until over a century later, during the late first century BCE. See Barsby 1999:
195. Gruen (1992: 1) remarks, “[Roman] nobiles were the persons most drawn to Greek literary
achievements, religion, and visual arts.”
38
21
A brief summary of this particular myth’s literary history will be helpful when
determining what aspects of Jupiter’s mythic character are intertwined with Chaerea’s
adulescens amator stock character. In Greek and Roman mythology, Danaë is the
daughter of king Acrisios who receives a prophecy that his grandson will kill him. To
prevent his daughter from getting pregnant and fulfilling such a prophecy, he locks her
away within his home. Zeus essentially breaks in and seduces Danaë, resulting in her
pregnancy with the hero Perseus. Homer lists Danaë as one of Zeus’ lovers, as will be
discussed below. Hesiod mentions Danaë in his Catalogue of Women in the context of
her role as the mother of the hero Perseus but does not specifically mention the myth of
her seduction.39 In the fifth century BCE Pherecydes Atheniensis, a Greek mythographer,
wrote the first complete account of Zeus’ seduction of Danaë.40 His version describes
how Danaë was locked up for the very purpose of avoiding intercourse, but Zeus
disguised himself, infiltrated the house, and had sex with her anyway:
θάλαµον ποιεῖ χαλκοῦν ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ τῆς οἰκίας κατὰ γῆς,ἔνθα
τὴν Δανάην εἰσάγει µετὰ τῆς τροφοῦ, ἐν ᾧ αὐτὴνἐφύλασσεν,
ὅπως ἐξ αὐτῆς παῖς µὴ γένηται. Ἐρασθεὶς δὲ Ζεὺς τῆς παιδὸς,
ἐκ τοῦ ὀρόφου χρυσῷ παραπλήσιος ῥεῖ· ἡ δὲ ὑποδέχεται τῷ
κόλπῳ· καὶ ἐκφήνας αὑτὸνὁ Ζεὺς τῇ παιδὶ µίγνυται· τῶν δὲ
γίνεται Περσεὺς,καὶ ἐκτρέφει αὐτὸν ἡ Δανάη καὶ ἡ τροφὸς,
κρύπτουσαι Ἀκρίσιον.
[Acrisios] made a bronze chamber in the courtyard of his
home under the ground, into which place he takes Danaë
accompanied by her nurse, in which he was keeping her
prisoner, for the purpose that a child not be born from her. But
because Zeus lusted after the young girl, he flows down from
the roof, resembling gold. She receives him in her lap. After
he revealed himself Zeus has intercourse with the young girl.
39
40
Fragment 129 M-W (12-13), cited from Most 2006: 150-1.
Karamanou 2006: 2.
22
Perseus is born from them, and Danaë raises him, while she
and the nurse hide him from Acrisios.41
In the first or second century CE Pseudo-Apollodorus compiled his major work,
Bibliotheca (The Library), which is essentially an overview of the main stories of Greek
mythology. Pseudo-Apollodorus, too, wrote about how Zeus disguised himself, broke in,
and seduced Danaë:
δείσας δὲ ὁ Ἀκρίσιος τοῦτο, ὑπὸ γῆν θάλαµον
κατασκευάσας χάλκεον τὴν Δανάην ἐφρούρει.
ταύτην µέν, ὡς ἔνιοι λέγουσιν, ἔφθειρε Προῖτος,
ὅθεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἡ στάσις ἐκινήθη· ὡς δὲ ἔνιοί φασι,
Ζεὺς µεταµορφωθεὶς εἰς χρυσὸν καὶ διὰ τῆς ὀροφῆς
εἰς τοὺς Δανάης εἰσρυεὶς κόλπους συνῆλθεν.
Because Acrisios was fearing this, after he built a bronze chamber
beneath the ground he kept guard over Danaë. As some men say,
Proetus seduced her, from which source the discord between them
was roused. But, as other men say, Zeus, after being transformed
into gold and after flowing down through the roof into the lap of
Danae he had intercourse [with her].42
The most salient features of this myth are the fact that Danaë was locked away and that
Zeus, by means of a disguise, entered her home and initiated intercourse with her.43 Thus
when Chaerea compares himself to Jupiter he is clearly being both hyperbolic as well as
hubristic.44 However, it is not only the god’s superiority that Chaerea identifies with, but
also the larger mythological narrative of divine seduction which chronicles Zeus’ lust for
41
Pherecydes fragment 10: Fowler 2000. The translation is my own.
Pseudo-Apollodorus Library 2.4.1. The translation is my own.
43
There were many Greek plays about Danaë with only fragmentary remains. Karamanou 2006: 13-15
explains some were written by Aeschylus (cf. Dictys), Sophocles (cf. Acrisius and Danaë), and Euripides
(cf. Danaë and Dictys) as well as lesser-known playwrights such as Samyrion, Apollophanes, Eubulus, and
Diphilus. The Latin authors Livius Andronicus, Naevius, and Ennius also wrote plays about Danaë.
44
Chaerea’s self-comparison to Jupiter will be discussed in detail in section 1.3.
42
23
mortal women.45 The Danaë myth evoked by Chaerea falls into this popular mythological
narrative—Zeus’s seduction of mortal women, alluded to by Homer as well as many
other authors of antiquity. Furthermore, Homeric references to mythic figures are
significant to discuss in the context of Terentian character development since an
audience’s (and, reasonably, Terence’s own) preconceived notions about a mythological
figure would have likely been influenced by Homeric descriptions, given their likely
familiarity with them. The only Homeric reference to Danaë occurs in Iliad 14, Hera’s
seduction of Zeus, when Zeus lists Danaë among his favorite extramarital affairs:
οὐ γάρ πώ ποτέ µ᾽ ὧδε θεᾶς ἔρος οὐδὲ γυναικὸς
θυµὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι περιπροχυθεὶς ἐδάµασσεν,
οὐδ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ἠρασάµην Ἰξιονίης ἀλόχοιο,
ἣ τέκε Πειρίθοον θεόφιν µήστωρ᾽ ἀτάλαντον·
οὐδ᾽ ὅτε περ Δανάης καλλισφύρου Ἀκρισιώνης,
ἣ τέκε Περσῆα πάντων ἀριδείκετον ἀνδρῶν.
For never yet has the desire for either goddess or mortal woman
overpowered me like this, flooding the seat of passion within
my heart, not when I lusted after Ixion’s wife, who gave birth to
Pirithous, an advisor equivalent to the gods; nor when [I lusted
after] Danaë, the beautiful-ankled daughter of Acrisius,
who gave birth to Perseus, the most distinguished of all men.
(Iliad 14.315-320)46
Although the Homeric lines occurs in the context of Hera’s seduction of Zeus, the
opening line, “οὐ γάρ πώ ποτέ µ᾽ ὧδε θεᾶς ἔρος οὐδὲ γυναικὸς…” (“For never yet has the
desire of either goddess or mortal woman overpowered me like this…,” Iliad 14.315)
emphasizes Zeus’ own particular divine seduction narrative that chronicles only his
adulterous affairs resulting in divine or heroic children. Obviously, Zeus has been
45
Zeus’ divine seduction narrative was a common plot device used in fourth century mythological
burlesques chronicling his adventures with Danaë, Io, Europa, Leda, Alcmene, and Callisto and is what
Konstantakos 2014: 174 refers to as a “comic love pattern.”
46
The text of Homer is from Monro and Allen 1920. The translation is my own. 24
stricken with love well before this time; he goes on to list a few of his favorite mortal
lovers, including Dia and Danaë. Therefore οὐ γάρ πώ ποτέ emphasizes the number of
affairs he has had, as if Zeus were telling Hera, “You’re something special, I say this
because (γάρ) I’ve had every woman I’ve ever desired, but not one like you (οὐ), not
once, not ever, not from the beginning of time until right now (πώ ποτέ).”
Within the divine seduction narrative a human female is granted character
development only through her unsolicited relationship with Zeus. As literary characters,
Zeus’ mortal lovers—not only Dia and Danaë, but also Semele, Alcmene, Europa,
Laodameia, and Leda, et al.— are defined and developed as characters solely based upon
their sexual encounter with Zeus. Apart from the details relating to their significant
maternal roles as procreators of elite progeny and their sexual roles in Zeus’ affairs, there
is no substantial information offered about the individual women involved in Zeus’
divine seduction narrative. This narrative sets a precedent for one character being
developed solely through their position to another character. Terence takes this literary
precedent and incorporates it into his use of introspection and extraspection: he develops
Pamphila’s character through Chaerea’s extraspective comparison only insofar as how
she relates to Chaerea and his introspective self-comparison. Pamphila, as a character, is
only like Danaë because Chaerea is like Jupiter, and her situation is thereby only truly
comparable to Danaë’s once she is raped by Chaerea.47
Terence explores this divine seduction narrative in the Eunuchus when Chaerea
justifies his rape of Pamphila by the precedent set by Jupiter’s seduction of Danaë.48 By
means of the mythological parallel, as I demonstrate in the following analysis, Chaerea
47
Pamphila’s development, or lack thereof, through extraspection will be discussed further in section 1.4.
Tromaras 1985 points out that Chaerea’s description of the Jupiter myth is one of only a few places in
Roman New Comedy which uses a mythological exemplum.
48
25
manipulates the existing narrative of divine seduction in three ways: by equating a citizen
raping a slave to a god seducing a mortal (section 1.3), by the addition of the element of
erotic voyeurism on behalf of Chaerea that stands in stark contrast to the mythological
exempla that chronicle Zeus’ affairs in accounts outside of New Comedy (section 1.5),
and finally by emphatically displaying Chaerea’s nonchalance and Pamphila’s trauma
from the violence (sections 1.6). Terence shows interest in the psychological trauma done
to Pamphila, the rape victim, in a similar way to Euripides’ spotlighting of Creusa’s rapeinduced psychological trauma in the Ion.49 Terence’s manipulation of the wellestablished seduction narrative thus denigrates, or burlesques, Jupiter’s literary character
and his mythological world while it simultaneously victimizes the female target by
offering pathos-inflicting information about her perspective. It is in this way that Jupiter’s
myth is burlesqued by the parallel. Konstantakos claims that an important strategy of the
fourth century mythological burlesques that “affects all aspects on dramaturgy—
characters, plot, and performance—is the assimilation of mythical material to standard
patterns of comedy. The mythical heroes are cast as stereotypical figures of the comic
stage…”50 I argue that, in the case of Chaerea, Terence is doing something similar with
the assimilation of mythical material into the Eunuchus. However, instead of casting a
god or hero as a stock character, Terence casts a stock character as a god.
1.3. Chaerea: A Soldier Compared to Jupiter
49
LaRue 1963: 128 argues that Creusa’s highly emotional monody (Ion 859-922) displays “a complete
reversal of [the] hymnal style [in which Greek gods were generally prayed to in literature] from the usual
praise of the god to an utter condemnation of him.” Christenson 2013: 265 makes a general comparison
between Terence’s treatment of rape and Euripides’ treatment of it in the Ion.
50
Konstantakos 2014: 171.
26
The plot of the Eunuchus illuminates certain important aspects of the myth.
Specifically, the play sets up a parallel situation between the mythological and dramatic
characters. Pamphila, like Danaë, is put under guard at her house to avoid sexual
relations, and Chaerea, like Zeus, assumes a disguise in order to penetrate the prison and
rape the girl. With this analogy, Terence implies that mythological precedent can be used
not only to justify actions, but also to encourage the behavior, as seen in the following
passage that describes the point in the play where Chaerea compares himself to Jupiter
and the rape of Pamphila to Jupiter’s seduction of Danaë:
… [CH.] quia consimilem luserat
iam olim ille ludum, impendio magis animus gaudebat mihi…
…[CH.] Because [Jupiter] once played
an entirely similar game, I had a rather pleasant thought…
(Eunuchus 586-7)
At quem deum! “qui templa caeli summa sonitu concutit.”
ego homuncio hoc non facerem? ego illud vero ita feci—ac lubens.
But what a god! “He who quakes the highest regions of the sky with his
thunder.” Should I, a mere mortal, not act like this too? Well, by all
means, I acted just like him—and with pleasure.
(Eunuchus 590-1)51
The analogy of Jupiter and Danaë to Chaerea and Pamphila signals an introspective
moment for Chaerea in which the audience is granted personal knowledge about his inner
thoughts and motives. Because Chaerea claims encouragement and justification from the
51
Intertextuality between Terence and other Roman authors is a growing trend in scholarship. Goldberg
1986: 209 briefly discusses Terence’s intertextual reference to Ennius at this line, Eunuchus 590, during his
discussion of Plautine intertextuality. Barsby 1999: 198 notes Donatus comments more specifically that
Eunuchus 590 reflects Ennius’ Danae: summa sonitu quatit ungula terram (fr. 171 Jocelyn). Sharrock
2013: 56 adds that the tragic tone achieved by the reference “characterizes the young man’s self-image as
he plays himself into the role of a god who can get away with anything.” Karakasis 2014: 84 compares the
line to Naevius’ Danae: suo sonitu claro fulgorivit Iuppiter. (trag. 11 R3). Fontaine 2014: 542-8 discusses
intertextuality within Terence’s own corpus in addition to his allusions to older Roman comedies.
27
myth, the audience can infer that Chaerea personally relates to Jupiter in the story and
that he perceives Pamphila just as one could interpret Jupiter perceived Danaë—as
something desired and concealed and ripe for the picking.52 During this parallel, the
adulescens amator is developed into a personalized character that exceeds the confines of
his stock characteristics. Chaerea might, in some respects, appear to be a generic
adulescens amator: he loves the girl, he overcomes obstacles to get the girl, he marries
the girl. However, when Chaerea’s inner thoughts are exposed, he is elevated beyond his
stock role into an individual with his own, markedly Roman, point-of-view and personal
agenda. It is not the fact that Chaerea gets the girl that is of particular interest, it is the
means by which he gets her; that is, by the unprecedented day-time rape in which he felt
justified because of the divine seduction narrative that he incorporates into his own
personal narrative through his mythological parallel with Jupiter.
In the passages above Chaerea justifies his desire to rape Pamphila by the
precedent set by Jupiter’s myth. The use of the causal conjunction quia (586) makes it
clear that the reason for Chaerea’s happiness lies in the assumption that the behavior of a
god in mythological contexts is not only suitable for the behavior of a mortal man, but
even inevitable when the mortal is put in a perceivably similar situation to a god’s. When
Chaerea’s joy, evident from his use of gaudeo (587), is juxtaposed with Pamphila’s state
of trauma (discussed in section 1.6), the playwright casts a negative light on the sexual
violence. The use of homuncio (591), the diminutive form of homo, emphasizes
Chaerea’s perceived lack of personal responsibility; because he is a “little man,” or
52
Love, particularly eros, is the stated driving force of Zeus in the myth. Likewise for Chaerea, amor drives
him, as he pleads: unum hoc scitio, contumeliae non me fecisse causa sed amoris. (“I know this one thing, I
did it [rape Pamphila] not for the sake of assault, but for the sake of love,” Eunuchus 877-8.). I interpret
both the mythological figure and the dramatic character as predatory figures. Chaerea’s predatory nature
will be discussed further in section 1.5.
28
perhaps even just a “mere mortal,” he can’t be expected not to emulate the gods—or, to
take it even further—he claims that he ought to act in the way in which Jupiter acts.
Chaerea’s exact moment of introspection and extraspection can be outlined in the
following passage: consimilem luserat iam olim ille ludum (“[Jupiter] once played an
entirely similar game,” Eunuchus 586-7). The “game” that both Jupiter and Chaerea
“play” is essentially rape.53 The key word in this passage that marks the mythological
parallel is consimilem, which shows that Chaerea personally parallels his action of raping
Pamphila to Jupiter’s action of seducing Danaë: their game is the same. The character
tells us that he acts in in the same manner he perceives Jupiter acting in his myth with ego
homuncio hoc non facerem? ego illud vero ita feci—ac lubens (“Should I, a mere mortal,
not act like this too? Well, by all means, I acted just like him—and with pleasure,”
Eunuchus 591). The repetition of ego in the line emphasizes Chaerea’s own thought
process. Terence does not provide some general maxim for mortals emulating the gods;
instead, he emphasizes that Chaerea uses this notion to conveniently justify his
disgraceful behavior.54 The addition of ac lubens “and with pleasure” (591) emphasizes
Chaerea’s smug amusement at his actions.
Terence develops and Romanizes this New Comedy stock character in a similar
manner to the way the writers of fourth century mythological burlesques would reframe,
or “Atticize,” the mythological figure into a stock comic character and the mythological
world into that of contemporary Athens.55 Terence achieves the Romanization of the
53
These terms in this context will be further developed in section 1.6.
Gellar-Goad 2013: 160 singles out this case as the only time for Terence when mythology “[plays] an
active part in the play’s progression… Chaerea uses a painting of Jupiter and Danae as a basis for his
decision to rape a girl.” Cain 2013: 392 notes that Augustine’s contempt for this Terentian passage was due
to the fact that Chaerea “justifies his behavior by appealing to the pseudo-authority of a mythological
fiction.” 55
Konstantakos 2014: 165.
54
29
mythological material first by equating the traditionally amorous Jupiter with the stock
amator as well as the situation of divine seduction with mortal rape; second,
Romanization is achieved by reframing the dramatic scenario through Chaerea’s
associations with Roman military and political institutions, specifically his position as a
citizen-soldier and his assumption of the role of praetor peregrinus (see section 1.7
below). The traditional formula of a burlesqued Jupiter, as seen in Plautus’ Amphitruo,
makes Jupiter a dramatic character who is cast in the role of a stock adulescens amator;
the mythological figure is burlesqued by the assumption of this comic mortal role. In the
Eunuchus, Terence inverts the traditional formula of burlesque by instead casting
Chaerea, who is the mortal comic stock adulescens amator character, as the lusty Zeus.
1.4. Defying Conventions: Chaerea’s Character Development
Mere mortals – not gods, heroes, or kings – are the players of New Comedy. So I
will now examine the stock character manipulated in Chaerea’s mythological parallel to
Jupiter, in order to highlight the alterations Terence makes to its paradigmatic structure.
As I have stated previously, Chaerea represents one example of the adulescens amator
stock character. The adulescens character is typically the protagonist of New Comedy
plots: he is by definition a young, free citizen from a wealthy land-owning family, and he
is usually at the center of an amorous plotline that results in his marriage to a respectable
citizen girl and his social advancement to the role of paterfamilias. Chaerea is certainly
an amatory character in the same general vein as, for example, Diniarchus, the amator in
Plautus’ Truculentus. Chaerea fits the stock role in a basic sense, but his mentality about
rape (section 1.5), his affiliation with Roman military institutions (section 1.7), and his
30
mythological parallel to Jupiter turn his character into a violent and self-serving predator,
rather than a well-intentioned stock amator.
Chaerea’s brother, Phaedria, is the play’s other adulescens amator, and he serves
as an instructive comparison to Chaerea and his amatory relationship with Pamphila.
Unlike the forceful Chaerea, Phaedria more closely foreshadows the elegiac lover
developed later by the Roman elegists of the Late Republic, a figure who is essentially
ineffectual in the face of his demanding domina. Moreover, Phaedria’s romantic interest,
Thais, the meretrix who lives next door and has been made responsible for Pamphila, is a
fully realized dramatic character, while Pamphila is not. Chaerea’s militaristic attitude
and attributes are negatively illuminated when juxtaposed with Phaedria’s more
sympathetic amator character who is portrayed as somewhat weak and subservient in his
relationship, abiding by the wishes of Thais even to his own discomfort.56 Terence
manipulates Chaerea’s stock character by the addition of the expressive mythological
parallel between Chaerea and Jupiter.57 Although Phaedria, who has no apparent
association with the military, is the same type of stock character as his brother, an
adulescens amator, he does not accrue his own mythological parallel and thus he is not
developed in the same suggestive way as his brother, Chaerea.
Terence challenges dramatic conventions and develops Chaerea beyond a stock
adulescens amator principally by means of his mythological parallel, through which the
audience gets a sense of the young man’s misplaced entitlement and inflated self-image.
Chaerea’s analogy to the amorous Jupiter develops his character by means of
56
For example, in the play’s first scene (Eunuchus 95-191), Thais asks Phaedria to leave town for a few
days so that she can be with her other lover Thraso and get Pamphila from him. Phaedria objects, but is
ultimately persuaded by Thais and leaves town.
57
The parallel occurs at Eunuchus 585-591, as discussed above in section 1.3.
31
introspection and extraspection. I limit the term introspection to the scenario in which the
dramatic character compares himself and his situation to a mythic figure and situation;
thus, Chaerea is introspective when he compares himself to Jupiter (Eunuchus 586).
Introspection intensifies the negative stereotypes associated with the stock character by
revealing the character’s thought process through their own use of personal analogies.
During Chaerea’s introspective moment of the mythological parallel (Eunuchus 585591), the conventional plot device of rape is taken to a new level and Chaerea becomes
more of a predator than amator. The comparison to Jupiter reveals Chaerea’s superior
mentality and sense of entitlement to do as he pleases with Pamphila; the dynamic of
introspection and extraspection reveals a nuanced level of self-awareness. By equating
himself to Zeus, Chaerea informs the audience that he is in a position of supreme power
and feels no remorse for acting on any impulse.
Extraspection specifically refers to one dramatic character being compared by
another dramatic character to a mythological figure and situation based solely on the
perceptions of the introspective character; that is, Chaerea is extraspective when he
compares Pamphila to Danaë by the same parallel through which he introspectively
compares himself to Jupiter (Eunuchus 586). Pamphila is not personally developed by the
comparison; it does not reveal anything about her own thoughts or intentions. Rather, the
extraspective comparison reveals the way Chaerea perceives his relationship with
Pamphila: it is a projection of himself, but as though through the eyes of someone else.
Specifically, the extraspective parallel suggests that Chaerea deems himself superior to
Pamphila, whom he perceives to be a slave, in the same way that a god is superior to a
mortal; Pamphila fits the objective role of a mortal woman in Zeus’ divine seduction
32
narrative who is developed solely through their sexual relationship. The following section
discusses the sexual relationship of Chaerea and Pamphila and how it defies the
conventions of the genre.
1.5. Defying Conventions: Sexual Violence
Terence’s treatment of rape is notably different from that of Plautus.58 Scholars
have demonstrated that Plautus expresses a more casual attitude about rape and does not
offer any sympathetic descriptions of its victims, whereas Terence represents rape as a
violent and negative act.59 Terence goes even further than Menander in highlighting the
negative aspects of rape by setting it up within contexts that differ from the conventional
stock scenarios, which usually include late-night religious festivals and sympotic
drunkenness.60 Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila only conforms to the conventions of the genre
and the expectations of the stock adulescens amator to the extent that it serves as a
catalyst for the two to become married and for Chaerea to assume the role of
paterfamilias.61 However, the details surrounding this rape overtly defy convention.
Within the conventions of New Comedy, a typical amator would rape a girl only
in very specific contexts—the time, setting, and procreative result of the rape as well as
the mindset of the rapist are all confined to the following conventions. First, the trend in
58
Norwood 1923 notes Terence’s general negative treatment of rape. Fontaine 2014: 545 notes how
Terence’s staged treatment of rape seems more suitable for a “nightmare or a tragedy” than for a comedy. 59
Pierce 2002 argues that Terence offers a pathetic, sympathy-evoking description of his numerous rape
victims, but Plautus does not. James 2013 also addresses the brutality and traumatic effect of rape in
Terence.
60
Lape 2001 argues that Menandrian representations of rape do not problematize the issue and furthermore
that the plot device specifically enables a wealthy male citizen to marry a poor female citizen. Mogens
2002 argues that instances of rape in New Comedy, namely Menander, Plautus, and Terence, were merely
comedic convention and that they do not mirror the reality of sexual violence.
61
Hunter 1985 explains the dramatic use of rape in New Comedy as a common plot device which leads to
marriage. 33
ancient drama regarding rape is that the physical act transpires before the time of the
play.62 Second, the actual rape generally occurs in a nighttime festival or sympotic
setting.63 Third, the rapist’s mindset generally conforms to a particular pattern: a drunk
adulescens is overcome with sudden amorous passions which he recklessly acts upon and
about which he later feels some degree of remorse.64 Fourth, the pregnancy resulting
from the rape becomes the catalyst for much of the play’s plot.65 However, the various
details surrounding Chaerea’s premeditated rape of Pamphila diverge from these generic
expectations. The rape occurs during the action of the play, in the middle of the day, and
by a completely sober and unapologetic assailant, and his actions do not, as far as the plot
reveals, result in a pregnancy.66 Although the act itself is not represented physically
onstage, Chaerea boasts about it to his army-buddy Antipho immediately after and
recounts the story in surprising detail (Eunuchus 560-606). These factors defy New
Comedy conventions and in doing so call attention to Terence’s divergences. Chaerea’s
62
Goldberg 1986 marks the peculiarity of the fact that Terence places the action of the rape within the time
of the play. 63
Pierce 2002: 163 notes that the setting for rape is generally at a festival and notes Terence’s Eunuchus
and Hecyra as two stark examples to the contrary.
64
The characters Pamphilus, from Terence’s Hecyra, and Lyconides, from Plautus’ Aulularia, are a few
examples of characters that display all of these generic behaviors and the contexts surrounding their
respective rapes which conform to the genre’s conventions. Green 1985 discusses scenarios of comedic
rape and drunkenness as observed in the iconography of vase paintings, mosaics, and terracottas. James
2013: 186 suggests that for a Roman audience, the combination of drunkenness and penitence was an
acceptable excuse for rape.
65
James 2013: 186 notes that rape in New Comedy is generally “a night-time, drunken, hit-and-run
event…[and] a belated marriage solves the legal and social problem of rape by rescuing the victim and
legitimating the inevitable baby.”
66
Fantham 1975: 53 argues that rape in Plautus and Terence, although generally depicted as violent, is
nevertheless essential to the plot insofar as it provokes marriages as seen in Adelphoe, Aulularia, and
Truculentus. However, James 2013: 187 observes Terence’s high number of instances of unconventionally
violent rape and suggests that Terence presents “a skeptical view of rape as the mythical foundation for
Roman marriage (in the episode of the Sabine women) and for marriage in New Comedy.” Gellar-Goad
2013: 171 argues that rape is one of the ways in which Terence represents his thematically dysfunctional
families. The fact that this instance of rape does not result in pregnancy supports both of these claims.
Omitowoju 2002: 5 examines the issue of rape in forensic rhetoric and Athenian New Comedy and claims
that “both oratory and the comedies of Menander reveal a significant investment in the stability of the
oikos, and both develop the subject of sexual relations… in which female consent plays only the most
marginalized part… as a central concern.” 34
mythological parallel to Jupiter displays his introspective, predatory self-awareness and
his extraspective, entitled sense of superiority. This results in Chaerea’s character being
negatively perceived and his actions and validations being called into question.
Terence further subverts convention and highlights the gritty dark side of rape by
focusing on the psychology and point-of-view of the rapist. Terence makes this explicit
when he has Chaerea compare himself to Zeus and equates his rape victim to Danaë. In
the play, a voyeuristic Chaerea explains both his devious approach and the
unconventional setting under which the rape occurred. In doing so, he highlights his
calculating agency as well as Pamphila’s passivity in the scene. Chaerea’s character can
be seen acting more as a predator than an amator in the following passage:
[CH.] iit lavit rediit, deinde eam in lecto illae conlocarunt.
[CH.] [Pamphila] went, bathed, returned; then they (i.e. the young
prostitutes in Thais’ house) laid her down on the bed.
(Eunuchus 593)
[CH.] interea somnu’ virginem opprimit. ego limis specto
sic per flabellum clanculum; simul alia circumspecto,
satin explorata sint. video esse. pessulum ostio obdo.
Meanwhile, sleep pressed down upon the virgin. I slyly looked sideways
through the little fan; at the same time I surveyed the area to know if
everything was okay. I saw that it was. So I locked the bolt to the door.
(Eunuchus 601-3)
This description illustrates Chaerea’s voyeurism, in other words, his male gaze: Chaerea,
the looking male, is the active and assertive agent and Pamphila is the passive and erotic
object being seen.67 Pamphila’s passivity is especially emphasized in this passage. Her
67
For an introduction to the “gaze” of sadistic voyeurism, see Mulvey 1975. For interpretations of the “male
gaze” in terms of classical scholarship, see Fredrick 2002 who discusses the issue in erotic art from
antiquity as well as observed in Seneca’s plays, and also Richlin 2014 who applies the “male gaze” to
35
character is described with limited agency only within the first tricolon wherein she is the
subject of the third-person verbs iit, lavit, rediit (“she went, she bathed, she returned,”
Eunuchus 593). After this point in the narrative, the language accentuates Pamphila’s
passivity where she is no longer the subject but rather the direct object of the verbs,
deinde eam in lecto illae conlocarunt… interea somnu’ virginem opprimit (“then they put
her on the bed… Meanwhile, sleep pressed down upon the virgin,” Eunuchus 593, 601).
This is not to imply that the young prostitutes in Thais’ house view Pamphila erotically
when “they put her on the bed”; but Chaerea’s description emphasizes the fact that
Pamphila does not lay herself down, as an active participant, but rather that she is, like an
object, laid down on the bed. Furthermore, she does not simply go to sleep, but rather
sleep presses down upon on her. Pamphila’s placement as the direct object of these verbs
highlights the fact that she is no longer in any position of control but is at the mercy of
first the other prostitutes, then of sleep, and ultimately of Chaerea. After Pamphila falls
asleep, Chaerea becomes the subject of his own story and switches to a first-person
narrative with a series of first-person verbs, specto… circumspecto… video… obdo (“I
looked… I glanced… I saw… I locked,” Eunuchus 601-3).
Terence’s emphasis on verbs of seeing—specto, circumspecto, exploro, and
video—accentuates Chaerea’s active, voyeuristic gaze. Each of these verbs assumes its
own distinct meaning. The sight suggested by the verb specto (601) is that of a spectator,
a Latin term derived from specto, meaning “one who watches” or more specifically an
audience member, one who observes at a distance; in the play’s context this verb
sexual violence in Ovid’s works. Ruffell 2014: 254 applies the same concept of voyeurism and sexual
violence to the study of Greek Old Comedy and argues that “sexual power here stands as a proxy for
political power.”
36
highlights Chaerea’s initial voyeurism of a man watching a young woman sleep.68 The
verb circumspecto (602) suggests a gaze with a heightened sense of suspicion, anxiety, or
excitement; it marks the point in the narrative in which Chaerea begins to act on his
sadistic impulses and goes beyond just a voyeur.69 The verb exploro (603) reminds the
audience of Chaerea’s military affiliations, meaning “to do reconnaissance” or “to
scout.”70 The verb video (603), in this particular context, surrounded by other verbs of
sight, signals Chaerea’s progression from his voyeuristic, detached spectatorship and
places him in the action of the scene. Chaerea starts out as a spectator who is peeking
from behind a fan (specto), then becomes an excited spectator (circumspecto) and
militaristic scout (exploro), and finally, no longer watching Pamphila sleep as a voyeur or
scouting the perimeter as a soldier, Chaerea “sees” his situation, is able to reflect on it
(video), and makes the decision to rape Pamphila, as is implied when he locks the door
(603). As Ruffell notes, “this aggressive desiring comic gaze is almost exclusively
directed towards slaves and foreigners.”71 The fact that Pamphila is actually a citizen, not
a foreigner, subverts this convention and calls further attention to Chaerea’s domineering
gaze and sexual violence. Chaerea’s voyeurism can be classified as sadistic since, later in
the narrative, the audience learns that Chaerea, after he rapes the girl, also rips her clothes
and pulls out her hair.72 This seemingly unnecessary cruelty highlights Chaerea as a
sadistic rapist who might even be aroused by his gratuitous violence.73
68
See OLD, s.v. specto and spectator.
See OLD, s.v. circumspecto.
70
See OLD, s.v. exploro. 71
Ruffell 2014: 265.
72
This passage describing Chaerea’s physical violence (Eunuchus 645-6) will be discussed in more detail
in section 1.6. For scholarship on modern psychiatry and psychoanalysis of voyeurism, see Yalom 1960:
305 who points out that “voyeurs who usually come to medical and legal attention may indeed be only a
sub-group of the voyeuristic perversion and could perhaps more aptly be called… offensive voyeurs.”
Smith 1979 argues that the voyeur tends to be a young man with relatively low socioeconomic status.
69
37
Chaerea’s physical description of Pamphila is another way in which his
character’s male gaze is developed at the expense of objectifying Pamphila. Terence, at
Eunuchus 318, was the first Latin author to apply the noun sucus, which in this context
means “juicy” with reference to the human body.74 Before its usage here the term
generally refers to the sap from a tree, any general moisture, or to a particular flavor.75
The term is used in the following passage in which Chaerea compares Pamphila’s
physical description to the local girls:
CH. haud simili’ virgost virginum nostrarum, quas matres student
demissis umeris esse, vincto pectore, ut gracilae sient.
siquaest habitior paullo pugilem esse aiunt, deducunt cibum:
tam esti bonast natura, reddunt curatura iunceas:
itaque ergo amantur. PA. quid tua istaec? CH. nova figura oris. PA.
papae.
CH. color veru’, corpu’ solidum et suci plenum.
CH. [My] girl’s nothing like the local girls, whose mothers take pains
that they have hunched shoulders, bound breasts, so that they can be thin.
If anyone’s a little more voluptuous, they call her a boxer and restrict her
food: Even though she’s naturally fine, they put her on diet regimens.
That way, they are lovable. PA. What about your girl? CH. She’s a new
kind of beauty. PA. Hot-damn!
CH. Her complexion’s natural, her body’s firm and juicy.
(Eunuchus 313-8)
Although the term sucus does not seem to bear any sexual connotations before Terence, it
is most certainly sexualized in this context. Pamphila’s physique stands in clear
opposition to the local skinny girls, as evident from haud similis (313). The phrase corpus
solidum et suci plenum (“[her] body’s firm and juicy,” Eunuchus 318) refers to
73
Laws and O’Donohue 1997: 218 describe a “sadistic rapist” as one who experiences sexual arousal from
“deliberately injuring the victim or causing death.”
74
Barsby 1999: 146.
75
See OLD, s.v. sucus. Adams 1990, interestingly, does not include this term on his list of Latin sexual
terms.
38
Pamphila’s natural voluptuousness in comparison to the girls who try to hide their curves
or lose them altogether. Chaerea criticizes the local girls for having demissis umeris esse,
vincto pectore, ut gracilae sient (“hunched shoulders, bound breasts, so that they can be
thin,” Eunuchus 314). Given this context, Chaerea is not calling Pamphila overweight,
but rather commenting on a physical feature, specifically her large breasts, when he
describes her body as suci plenum, “juicy” (318) as compared to the girls who diminish
the appearance of large breasts by hunching their shoulders and binding their chests
(314). Because the term is not itself sexual, Terence’s use of it is emphasizes Chaerea’s
domineering male gaze. Through Chaerea’s physical description of Pamphila, Terence
paints a sort of portrait through Chaerea’s gaze which is suggestive of the “haptic eye”
whose gaze is not detached, but somehow tactile.76
Displays of physical conquest, as well as the male gaze, in New Comedy are
means of representing masculine sexual privilege and power.77 As Sharon James notes,
Chaerea’s character displays “a fully developed sense of masculine sexual privilege for
Roman citizen men.”78 Chaerea’s behavior does seem to be in accordance with such
ideals about masculinity, his voyeurism and sexual violence can be viewed as an
unquestionable assertion of his male, citizen authority. This association between rape and
power is suggested by an exchange between Chaerea and Antipho, a fellow soldier who
76
Dumenil 2014: 41-42.
Philippides 1995: 273 argues that “[Chaerea’s] violence is significantly mitigated since the rape becomes
part of the ritual of the wedding ceremony… the rape [is] an important means of helping Chaerea to reach
maturity, and to indicate that the play in general shows Chaerea’s passage from adolescence to manhood.”
and Christenson 2013: 265 argues that these same elements of the marriage ritual do not mitigate but rather
“emphasize [the] rape.” James 2013: 183 observes that “as a rule, citizen gender and sexuality is more
about family in Terence than in Plautus.” She also argues that Terence develops the adulescens’s
masculinity before our eyes, as his character goes “from spineless and passive, to sexually impulsive… to
fully assured of his sexual rights to the bodies of others without regard for their feelings or experience”
(183). Packman 2013: 199 argues that Terence places emphasis on the adulescens’ need to get married.
78
James 2013: 184.
77
39
only appears onstage during this scene, immediately following the detailed account of
events leading up to his rape of Pamphila:
AN. quid tum? CH. quid ‘quid tum,’ fatue? AN. fateor. CH. an ego
occasionem
mi ostentam, tantam, tam breuem, tam optatam, tam insperatam
amitterem? tum pol ego is essem vero qui simulabar.
AN. sane hercule ut dici’. sed interim de symbolis quid aetumst?
AN. What next? CH. What [do you mean] ‘What next,’ idiot? AN. Yeah,
I’m an idiot. CH. Should I let such an opportunity held out to me, one so
short-lived, so desired, so unexpected, slip by? Well then, [if I didn’t rape
her] I swear I really would be the [eunuch] who I was pretending to be.
AN. Yeah. Wow, you’re right. But, anyway, what about the pot-luck?
(Eunuchus 604-7)
Chaerea seems to be offended that Antipho questions whether he raped the girl, given his
mocking response of quid ‘quid tum,’ fatue? (604). The repetition of the adverb tam (605)
emphasizes Chaerea’s delight in his actions, as well as his annoyance at Antipho’s
questioning of his manhood, as suggested by Chaerea’s remark: tum pol ego is essem
vero qui simulabar (“Well then, I swear I really would be the [eunuch] who I was
pretending to be,” Eunuchus 606). Furthermore, the line’s word order is highly emphatic.
The oath-taking exclamation pol marks a raised sense of excitement and the pleonastic
use of ego is… qui (“I would be the guy who…”) emphasizes Chaerea’s nominative
sense of self. This, together with Antipho’s quick, colloquial response with fateor (604),
and rapid transition to another subject, namely the pot-luck symbolis (607), suggest the
casualness with which this type of sexual violence was treated at Rome during the time.
For Chaerea, the fact that he does, in fact, adhere to Roman ideals of masculinity makes
Terence’s negative treatment of his character revealing. Chaerea, therefore, represents
one of Rome’s young, entitled soldiers during the early second century BCE.
40
In this way, Terence defies New Comedy conventions and develops Chaerea
beyond a stock amator by means of the parallel between Chaerea and Jupiter. This
parallel develops the character through the dynamic of introspection and extraspection.
As discussed in the sections above, introspection reveals Chaerea’s inner thoughts:
Chaerea says that he is just like Jupiter in the Danaë myth and from that personal analogy
the audience members can transpose their knowledge about the mythological Jupiter onto
the dramatic character of Chaerea. Chaerea’s attitude about rape is also illuminated by the
parallel. Extraspection reveals Chaerea’s perception of his own as well as Pamphila’s
societal positions at Rome. Chaerea views himself, a Roman citizen-soldier, as superior
to Pamphila, a perceived slave, in the same way that Jupiter, a god, is superior to Danaë,
a mortal. Thus, in considering the mythological parallel to Jupiter and Danaë, Terence’s
treatment of Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila implies wider implications about the views of
social dominance and political subjugation at Rome.
1.6. Ludo: Sex as a Game
Chaerea’s sexual violence in the Eunuchus is equated to a game; not any game,
but specifically Jupiter’s game.79 The implications of Chaerea playing Jupiter’s game
burlesque the Jupiter and Danaë myth. At the same time, Terence suggests Rome’s lax
morals surrounding the issue of sexual violence are displayed by Chaerea’s nonchalant
attitude.80 The verb ludo, “to play” and the noun ludus, “game” are often employed in
sexual contexts in Roman literature. Moreover, ludo is one of the most common
79
See section 1.3 for Jupiter’s seduction being equated to Chaerea’s rape.
Antipho, by quickly changing subjects to the pot-luck (Eunuchus 607), mirrors Chaerea’s nonchalant
attitude about the rape and thereby calls to question the attitudes concerning the issue in contemporary
Rome.
80
41
euphemisms for the more graphic sexual vocabulary that can be found in the Latin
language.81 Chaerea’s slave, Parmeno, entices Chaerea into disguising himself as the
eunuch by emphasizing its sensuous benefits; the climactic event which is also Chaerea’s
main intent, namely sex, is described using the verb ludo in the following passage:
[PA.] tu illis fruare commodis quibu’ tu illum dicebas modo:
cibum una capias, adsis tangas ludas propter dormias…
[PA.] You [Chaerea] could take advantage of those favorable conditions
which you were just now discussing: dine together, be together, touch her,
have sex with her, sleep next to her…
(Eunuchus 372-3)
The heightened excitement produced by capias adsis tangas ludas… dormias (373)
provides a condensed and hasty timeline for the proposed nightly events; first you eat,
then you hook up, you touch, have sex, and finally sleep. The use of asyndeton suggests
the rapidity of events. Furthermore, the striking tetracolon climax of the first four verbs,
“dine, be near, touch, play,” paints a vivid picture that produces a great impact on the
listeners, conveying a heightened sense of excitement. The position of these verbs in the
line makes the sexual connotations of the verb ludo clear within the context, emphatically
placed between the verb of touching and the verb of sleeping. Moreover, Pamphila’s lack
of agency in these events suggests an absence of consent, and therefore the scene is more
suggestive of rape than it is of seduction.82 By his remarkable word play Terence is able
81
Adams 1990: 162.
For scholars who argue that this scene does describe rape, and not seduction, see Norwood 1923: 62 who
speaks of Chaerea gratifying “a physical appetite,” the social condemnation of which “is annulled neither
by his extreme youthfulness nor by the reparation through marriage.” Hunter 1985: 93 argues that
Chaerea’s future plan to marry Pamphila lessens the damage of the rape. Goldberg 1986: 115 notes the
strangeness of Terence putting the rape within the time of the play. Pierce 2002: 179 points out Chaerea’s
clear joy in having raped the girl.
82
42
to highlight the sexual metaphor for sex as a game. Furthermore, when sex is treated like
a game, as ludo implies, there are winners and there are losers.
Chaerea, just as Parmeno before him, also suggests that rape is a game, as
discussed previously in section 1.3, when he claims justification for his actions from the
precedent set by Jupiter in the following passage:
[CH.] quia consimilem luserat iam olim ille ludum,
inpendio magis animu’ gaudebat mihi…
[CH.] Because [Jupiter] once played an entirely similar game,
I had a rather pleasant thought…
(Eunuchus 586-7)
The poetic use of figura etymologica both emphasizes and toys with the noun ludus and
the verb ludo to heighten Chaerea’s sportive and irreverent attitude towards the sexual
violence he is discussing. Jupiter’s game relates to the narrative of divine seduction
where the god disguises himself in order to gain access to a sexual partner who is
otherwise inaccessible. The anaphora of the initial letter ‘l’ in luserat and ludum (586) is
strengthened by internal assonance with the double elisions of iam olim ille (586), which
sounds like i’ol’ille, and so draws even more attention to the verb ludo and the noun
ludus in the line (586).
Thais’ slave, Pythias, is the play’s only character who is outwardly enraged by the
sexual violence Chaerea perpetrates on Pamphila.83 No other character is shown to be
bothered as much by the incident as she is. Reinforcing a negative association with the
already sexualized term ludo, Pythias uses the verb ludifiscor when describing the
physical act of Chaerea’s rape:
83
Pythias is also the character who describes Pamphila’s state of trauma: uirgo ipas lacrumat neque quom
rogites quid sit audit dicere (“That girl weeps and when you ask her what’s up she doesn’t dare speak,”
Eunuchus 659).
43
[PY.]…insuper scelu’, postquam ludifiatust uirginem
uestem omnem miserae discidit, tum ipsam capillo conscidit.
[PY.]…moreover, this degenerate, after he raped the virgin,
tore off all the poor girl’s clothes, then he ripped out her hair.
(Eunuchus 645-6)
The verb ludifiscor is related in form to ludo and ludus but has definite negative
associations that the verb ludo does not necessarily maintain. It means “treat something
as a plaything” or “trifle with” something; it connotes the subject having fun at another’s
expense.84 The polymetric meter of Pythias’ words, consisting of a line of trochaic
septenarius (tr7) followed by a line of iambic octinarius (ia8), signals her character’s
heightened emotional state.85 This passage also highlights Chaerea’s extreme use of
violence, even after his sexual assault (that is, tearing her clothes and ripping out her
hair). Furthermore, the conjunction postquam (645) and the adverb tum (646) show that
the violence occurs after he rapes her, not before or during the rape as a necessary means
to achieve his end. In his work on aggressive humor and sexual violence in Old Comedy,
Ruffell argues that “the spectacle of violence…poses questions about the exercise of
power and nature of authority in fifth and early fourth century BCE Athens.”86 Terence’s
description of Chaerea’s physical violence emphasizes the character’s power and
authority as a Roman citizen. Like the plundering soldier he is, Chaerea despoils
Pamphila’s body by tearing her clothes and ripping her hair following his physical
conquest. Furthermore, it suggests that Chaerea’s violence primarily serves to satisfy
Chaerea’s own sadistic desires that in turn highlight his militarized passion.
84
See OLD s. v. ludifiscor.
Moore 2013: 95.
86
Ruffell 2014: 247. 85
44
Pythias vilifies Chaerea through her contemptuous treatment of him after he
commits the act of sexual violence, as demonstrated in the following exchange between
Thais and Pythias:
TH. nam quid ita? PY. rogitas? hunc tu in aedis cogitas
recipere posthac? TH. quor non?
TH. What is it? PY. You’re still asking? Are you actually considering
letting this guy back into your house after this? TH. Yeah, why not?
(Eunuchus 897-8)
Pythias’ use of consecutive quizzical frequentative verbs rogitas… cogitas (897)
emphasizes her criticism of Chaerea’s character. Thais’ nonchalance, suggested by her
colloquial response of quor non (898), accentuates Pythias’ agitation at the notion that
Chaerea could get away with committing such a heinous crime. It is also reminiscent of
Chaerea and Antipho’s indifference towards sexual violence, as discussed in section 1.5,
wherein Chaerea’s rape was thought by both characters to be the logical conclusion to
being left alone with the sleeping virgin. The meter of these lines, iambic senarii (ia7),
indicates that Pythias is less emotional than before and is instead speaking rationally.
Pythias and Chaerea metrically share the following lines, which again emphasize Pythias’
distress but take things further by criticizing Chaerea’s terrible service as Pamphila’s
guard:
CH. non faciam, Pythias. PY. non credo, Chaerea,
nisi si commissum non erit. CH. quin, Pythias,
tu me servato. PY. neque pol servandum tibi
quicquam dare ausim neque te servare. apage te.
CH. I won’t do [anything], Pythias. PY. I don’t believe [you],
Chaerea, except if [the rape] will turn out to have not been
committed. CH. Well now, you can watch over me, Pythias.
45
PY. Good lord, I would neither be so bold as to give anything over
to you to watch over nor [would I dare] watch over you. Buzz off.
(Eunuchus 901-4)
The use of the verb servo is remarkable in the fact that it occurs three times over two
consecutive lines. It draws attention to the verb’s meaning, “to guard” or “protect.” In
fact, earlier in the play we learn that something was entrusted to Chaerea for protecting,
namely Pamphila herself.87 He not only fails to protect the girl but he even becomes her
attacker. Terence’s interpretation of the narrative of divine seduction burlesques Jupiter’s
mythic character by equating his seduction of Danaë to Chaerea’s premeditated rape of
Pamphila and thereby acts to vilify Chaerea’s character. Beyond the hyperbole that
compares a man to a god, Chaerea burlesques Jupiter’s myth by his vilification of the
protagonist, Jupiter. Pamphila, unlike Danaë, was not being held captive, she was
supposedly being protected; therefore, Chaerea’s infiltration of her confinement is not
divinely heroic but mortally disgraceful. The emphasis on Chaerea’s guard-duty recalls
the social and political position of a Roman soldier during the second century BCE.
1.7. Chaerea: A Reflection of Roman Reality
A look at Rome’s contemporary political and social scene helps to contextualize
the specific references to Roman political and military institutions made in Terence’s
Eunuchus, specifically Chaerea’s position as a Roman citizen-soldier, his adoption of the
political role of praetor peregrinus, an his deceptive assumption of the eunuch role which
has metatheatrical bearing on the festival for which it was produced. The play debuted at
87
[CH.]…commendat uirginem. AN. quoi? tibine? CH. mihi… edicit ne uir quisquam ad eam adeat et mihi
ne abscedam imperat ([CH.] “…[Thais] entrusted the virgin. AN. To whom? To you? CH. To me… she
declared that no man whatsoever was to go near her and she ordered me not to leave,” Eunuchus 577-8).
46
the Megalensian Games of 161 BCE; these games honored Cybele, the Magna Mater,
whose worship was imported from Asia Minor into Rome in 204 BCE, during the Second
Punic War.88 It is significant to note that the priests of the Magna Mater were eunuchs,
castrated men who dressed in flamboyant eastern attire.89 When Chaerea, dressed as a
eunuch, shouts, o festus dies! (Eunuchus 560), at the beginning of his detailed account of
the sexual assault on Pamphila, it seems that his metatheatrical moment conveys the
festive, eunuch-attended atmosphere of the Megalensian Games into the dramatic space
of the play. The phrase, o festus dies! has larger implications than just an exclamatory,
“Oh, happy day!” It is the formulaic term for a Roman holiday. Livy, in his chapter on
the Second Punic War, writes that the cult of the Magna Mater was brought in from
Phrygia because of a prophecy in the Sibylline books indicating that Rome could only
win the war if they introduced the cult into Roman society. Livy’s terminology for the
founding of the cult uses the exact same language as Terence has Chaerea use in the play:
non. Apr., isque dies festus fuit. populus frequens dona deae in Palatium
tulit, lectisterniumque et ludi fuere, Megalensia appellata.
When April’s moon was on its first quarter, this festival was
[established]. The crowded masses offered gifts to the goddess on
the Palatine, religious feasting and games were [established],
called the Megalensian Games.
(Ab Urbe Condita 29.14.14)
Livy makes it clear the isque dies festus is the festival of the Megalensian Games where
plays were performed. The conflict between Roman and external forces, especially in the
88
Rawson 1989: 427 notes that both Venus Erycina, also newly imported, and the Magna Mater were
“given temples within the pomerium,” while gods like Apollo, likely considered too Greek, had their
temples outside of the city limits.
89
Christenson 2013: 263 comments on the eunuchs’ garments. Fontaine 2014: 542 argues that Terence’s
staging of the Eunuchus at this festival illustrates the dynamics involved in granting high levels of selfconsciousness to his characters.
47
case of contemporary wars and the influence they had on the growing importation of
foreign cults, bears some influence on Terence’s production of the Eunuchus and the
development of its military characters. Just as the cult of the Magna Mater was
incorporated into Rome because of the promised military advantage of doing so, the
character of Chaerea assumes a eunuch disguise because of his promised carnal
advantage.90 The cult is appropriated by Rome for essentially the same reason that
Chaerea dresses as a eunuch, for self-interested conquest. By disguising Chaerea as a
eunuch during his assault of Pamphila, I argue that Terence makes the suggestion that the
rape is equivalent to Roman military expansionism and subjugation of foreign territories
during and after the Second Punic War.91 Chaerea desires to possess Pamphila just as
Rome desires to possess land and resources. Chaerea’s relationship with Pamphila is
metaphorically representative of Rome’s relationship with the foreign territories that were
being subjugated during this period of increasing Roman expansionism. Like Chaerea,
when Rome spots a desirable foreign entity, Roman force overpowers it by extreme
means and takes whatever resources it requires and desires in order to perpetuate its
political position of control.
Military metaphors, common throughout Terence’s Eunuchus, act as some of the
more common euphemisms for graphic sexual situations in the Latin language.92
Terence’s use of military metaphors for amorous relationships lays the foundation for my
90
Fontaine 2014: 542.
Earl 1962: 470 argues, “the Roman aristocracy defined the particular nature of man as political and his
only proper function as the service of the respublica.” Starks 2013:134 argues that Terence contextualizes
much of his Greek material into Roman contexts, such as with “military terminology for formations and
command structures particular to Roman legions.”
92
Adams 1990 includes metaphors regarding mastering (subigio) and submitting (patior), fighting (pugno
along with bellum and proelium), killing (conficio) and dying (morior), and exercising (exercitatio). Barsby
1999: 93 notes that military metaphors for love and sex are rarely found in Menander or Plautus, but occur
in Terence and become common later in Roman elegy.
91
48
interpretation that, through extraspection, Chaerea’s relationship with Pamphila can be
taken metaphorically for Rome’s relationship with foreign territories that are
systematically subjugated by an expanding Roman political presence in the
Mediterranean region. The opening of the play (Eunuchus 46-206) finds Chaerea’s
brother Phaedria, the play’s other adulescens amator, in medias res lamenting his
position as an exclusus amator, which makes it absolutely clear that love and
relationships are central to the plot. The play’s first military metaphor appears early in the
text, when Phaedria is worried that he will return to his lover, Thais, infecta pace, “with
peace not made,” (Eunuchus 53). The play reinforces the link between love and the
military when Parmeno tells Phaedria love is just like war:
[PA.] in amore haec omnia insunt uitia: iniuriae,
suspiciones, inimicitiae, indutiae,
bellum, pax rursum…
[PA.] In love all the following offenses are contained: personal affronts,
suspicions, hostilities, truces,
war, then peace again…
(Eunuchus 59-61)
The terms used in Parmeno’s exclamation become increasingly associated with the
military, especially the phrase bellum, pax rursum, “war, then peace again” (61) that
explicitly relates love to the military. Sharrock (2009) emphasizes the importance of
identity and appearance to Roman comedy and that within the aesthetics of comedy, as
often, there is a gap between the signifier and the signified.93 I suggest that as much as
the Eunuchus is about love it is also about war, where the signifier “love” can be equated
with the signified “war” and vice versa. For example, Parmeno tells Phaedria that he
93
Sharrock 2009 argues that the male characters in Roman comedy often reflect contemporary Rome.
49
should ransom himself, te redimas captum, “you should buy yourself back since you’ve
been captured” (Eunuchus 74), which suggests that Thais has taken him as a prisoner of
war.94 Thais also discusses their relationship in military terms, telling Phaedria potius
quam te imicium habeam faciam ut iusseris (“I will do as you order rather than make you
my enemy,” Eunuchus 174). Thais and Phaedria’s “war” is metaphorical for their
amorous relationship. I claim, therefore, that Chaerea’s amorous relationship can be
metaphorically taken as a military relationship between Chaerea, a character who
emulates Rome’s martial relationships, and Pamphila, a character who signifies the
foreign territories being subjugated by Rome during the Middle Republic. Chaerea and
Pamphila’s relationship can be read as one of pure martial subjugation at the hands of
Roman expansionism in foreign territories, such as North and South Italy, Spain, and
Africa, which were affected by Roman expansionism during the Punic and Macedonian
Wars.
Terence places Chaerea in the political role of the praetor peregrinus who holds
Roman imperium over foreign matters and associates that political power with his desire
to rape Pamphila. Roman imperium, or “legal authority,” was granted to high-ranking
elected officials; it gave them the right to administer justice to the people. Chaerea makes
it clear that he will stop at nothing to possess Pamphila when he orders his slave Parmeno
to do the following:
[CH.] ipsam hanc tu mihi vel vi vel clam vel precario
fac tradas: mea nil refert dum potiar modo.
[CH.] Make sure that you deliver that girl to me either by force,
stealthily, or by charm: I don’t care at all as long as I get her soon.
94
Barsby 1999: 98.
50
(Eunuchus 319-20)95
The verb potior has several meanings both sexual and economical.96 First, it may mean
“to subjugate,” or as in a sexual context “to mount” a partner, or it may even describe the
male orgasm.97 Second, the verb also carries economic and militaristic undertones that
imply the acquisition of material goods, as well as the actual subjugation of a political
entity. The OLD emphasizes the sense of personal entitlement associated to the speaker
of the verb. The verb’s appearance earlier in the play foreshadows Chaerea’s later sexual
violence, but here it highlights his view of Pamphila as property, and reveals his
superiority complex, or indeed his military mindset that is set on obtaining and
subjugating her as though she is a new foreign territory to be conquered.
Furthermore, with the phrase vel vi vel clam vel precario (319), Terence sets
Chaerea up as a Roman official, the praetor peregrinus, or “magistrate of foreign
matters” who had full Roman imperium over all things foreign. Barsby (1999) points out
that this phrase expresses the three ways in which property can illegally be possessed.98
Pamphila, since she is believed by Chaerea to be a foreigner, falls under Chaerea’s
imperium. In the Roman legal context, the phrase vel vi vel clam vel precario is
terminology taken from the actual decrees of the praetor peregrinus, referred to the
means by which a citizen could legally recover stolen property.99 The official capabilities
of a Roman praetor peregrinus include exerting Roman military power, proposing laws,
calling official assemblies and issuing formal edicts.100 His recitation of the interdict
95
This passage is polymetric, consisting of iambic octinarius (ia8) followed by iambic senarius (ia6).
Adams 1990: 188.
97
See OLD, s.v. potior. 98
Barsby 1999: 146.
99
Brown 2013: 29 maintains that the phrase “is a quotation from the praetorian interdict.”
100
Schiller 1978: 403.
96
51
indicates that he views Pamphila as his lawful property even though he has no legal rights
to her at this point in the play. Terence has Chaerea declare this markedly Roman phrase
in the context of abducting a young, ostensibly foreign girl,101 thus allowing him to assert
an overtly Roman dominance over the girl and implying Rome’s political supremacy over
foreign entities.
Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila also has wider implications about Terence’s views, as
well as possible popular perspectives, about social dominance and physical violence at
Rome. I claim that Terence suggests a connection between Roman military language and
Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila. In fact, at one point Chaerea declares orders like a military
commander:
[CH.] ubeam? cogo atque impero.
[CH.] Should I order? I compel and I command.
(Eunuchus 389)
The ascending tricolon of the verbs iubeo, cogo, and impero emphasizes his character’s
military involvement. The verb iubeo can be read as an official order from a general, as it
is used in Caesar’s De bello Gallico.102 The verb cogo has forceful connotations and is
also used in military contexts by Caesar.103 The verb impero is more forceful than iubeo
and is used often by Caesar to describe his exact orders made to his soldiers.104 The
elisions of cogo and atque as well as atque and impero create a strikingly succinct phrase,
101
Although Pamphila was ex Attica… abreptam e Sunio (“from Greece… [and] stolen from Sunium,”
Eunuchus 115), Chaerea thinks that she is a newly acquired foreign prostitute. 102
For example: Non nulli etiam Caesari nuntiabant, cum castra moveri ac signa ferri iusset, non fore
dicto audientes milites (“Some even announced to Caesar, that when he ordered camps to be moved and the
signal to be given, the soldiers would not listen to [Caeser who] spoke,” De Bello Gallico 1.39.7).
103
For example: multitudo procedit peditum, quae nostros coegit cedere equites (“a troop of foot-soldiers
advanced, which forced our cavalry to leave,” De Bello Gallico 8.19.2).
104
For example: Provinciae toti quam maximum potest militum numerum imperat…pontem, qui erat ad
Genavam, iubet rescindi (“[Caesar] demands that the whole territory [provide] as great a number of
soldiers as possible…[and] he orders the bridge, which was in Geneva, to be torn down,” De Bello Gallico
1.7.2).
52
cog’ atqu’ impero (389), which is suggestive of how a high-ranking soldier might speak.
The three verbs can even be observed in one section of De bello Gallico where the
Romans order the Germans (cogo), the German king compelled the Gauls (iubeo) and
demanded hostages (impero).105 Moreover, Chaerea is said to be on public guard and
stationed at Piraeus (Eunuchus 290), a military training facility near Athens, making this
type of martial language suitable for him. Chaerea’s appropriation of the praetorian
interdict reflects his feelings of Roman entitlement and superiority.
1.8. Conclusions: Introspection and Extraspection
This chapter exposes how Terence individualizes certain stock characters beyond
their conventional stereotypes. He offers his audience a rare glimpse into the minds of the
play’s soldiers by providing them with mythological parallels that constitute extremely
personal moments of self-awareness. I call this type of character development “the
dynamic of introspection and extraspection.” This dynamic personalizes stock characters
to expose inner thoughts and self-perceptions that, when revealed, draw attention to the
distinctively Roman institutions to which the character belongs. Terence provides an
inner monologue for Chaerea based on the audience’s knowledge about the Jupiter myth
to which Chaerea’s character is made parallel. These illuminated inner thoughts reveal
Chaerea’s perception about his own identity, while his character’s military associations
draw attention to bigger political issues and themes within the play. By incorporating and
manipulating Jupiter’s mythological characteristics into the stock adulescens amator
105
De Bello Gallico 1.31. The same three verbs can be seen again at De Bello Gallico 7.4.
53
character, Terence reveals and highlights the military mindset of Chaerea, a young,
predatory Roman soldier who uses mythological precedent to justify his own actions.
My analysis demonstrates that Chaerea’s self-comparison to Jupiter is a reflection
of his identification as a privileged, elite Roman citizen who has the right to initiate sex
as he pleases. Furthermore, because love is equated metaphorically with war in the
Eunuchus, Chaerea may be viewed as a predatory soldier. Introspection, as I have shown,
personally develops the soldier into an individual character who exposes the mindsets and
ethics of Roman soldiers during the tumultuous Middle Republic. This perceived
relationship is comparable to Rome’s dominance over foreign polities in the second
century BCE over areas such as Italy, Spain, and Africa. Terence’s development of
Chaerea’s character paints a portrait of the elite Roman soldier that casts a negative light
onto the political issue of expansionism and social issue of sexual violence.
Thus, this chapter claims that Terence portrays Chaerea’s relationship with Pamphila in
order to represent Roman subjugation during the time of Roman expansionism.
The next chapter will argue that the relationships of the play’s two other soldiers,
who are also developed through mythological parallels, together represent Rome’s
relationship with her already subjugated territories and the allied troops from these
territories that Rome required. In particular, the next chapter seeks to expose a critique of
Rome’s reliance on allied soldiers in the second century BCE whereby Gnatho represents
a cives miles and Thraso a socius miles. My methodology will remain the same, relying
on the same provocative dynamic of character introspection and extraspection to support
my claims. Thraso, the miles gloriosus stock character, compares himself to Hercules and
likens Thais, the meretrix, to Omphale (Eunuchus 1027). Hercules, the epitome of
54
belligerent masculinity, is enslaved in the Omphale myth and engages in activities that
undermine his masculinity and position of control. The parallel essentially grafts this
mythological version of Hercules, an enslaved hero, onto the stock miles gloriosus to
create a unique character who represents a socius miles in Terence’s time. Gnatho, the
play’s parasitus stock character, compares himself to Sisyphus and equates Thraso to
Sisyphus’ rock (Eunuchus 1085). This parallel, which grafts the cunning Sisyphus onto
the freeloading parasite, reveals an ironic point-of-view in which Gnatho feels burdened
by the relationship between himself, the parasite, and Thraso, the parasite’s host. Gnatho
relies on Thraso to maintain his lavish lifestyle at no cost to himself, a situation
comparable to Rome’s demands of its allies who had to provide for, arm, and feed their
own troops for Roman use, without any financial support from Rome.106 Gnatho’s selfrighteous feelings of burden reveal a plausible Roman reaction to the incorporation of
foreign soldiers into its ranks. This analysis will demonstrate that when making changes
to the paradigmatic nature of the stock characters Thraso and Gnatho, Terence draws
attention to the type of Roman soldier each one represents, either the ciuis or socius
miles. Moreover, their dramatic relationship can be read metaphorically for Rome’s
parasitical relationship with its socii milites whereby the socii took on all the burdens of
war for Rome while Rome provided nothing of substance in return.
106
Gabba 1989.
55
CHAPTER TWO
A Soldier and his Parasite: Roman Reliance on socii milites
This chapter aims to expand upon the previous chapter’s discussion of character
development and socio-historical allegory in Terence’s Eunuchus by exploring the
meaningful development of the miles gloriosus and parasitus “stock characters,” Thraso
and Gnatho. Terence constructs these original dramatic characters by blending New
Comedy stock characters together with burlesqued mythological figures. He uses the
same process to develop Thraso and Gnatho as he did Chaerea: mythological parallel
through which the essential characteristics of the dramatic character are spliced with
those of the mythological figure.107 In the previous chapter I demonstrate how Terence
develops the soldier Chaerea’s adulescens amator stock character into a sexual predator
by revealing his inner thoughts, intentions and justifications for the rape of Pamphila
through the character’s self-comparison to the mythological figure, Jupiter. This process
is Terence’s innovative variation of mythological burlesque by which he transforms
Chaerea not only into an adulescens amator, but also a Jupiter who possesses a unique
combination of character traits associated with each of the two figures. In an entirely
similar manner, Terence splices Thraso, the miles gloriosus, with Hercules and then
Gnatho, the parasitus, with Sisyphus. In the play, both characters identify themselves and
their positions in Roman society through self-professed comparisons to Greek
mythological figures and situations.
107
See Chapter 1 for a full discussion of Chaerea’s character development and mythological parallel to
Jupiter.
56
In this chapter I continue to argue for the actual process of character development
in terms of “the dynamic of introspection and extraspection” through which the
characters expose particular desires, mindsets, ethics, and their self-perceived societal
positions.108 Terence creates identities for these characters that are revealed through
introspection and extraspection; this chapter seeks to expose how these identities
showcase the Roman roles that influence their points-of-view and stimulate their personal
desires. Terence’s method of character development expresses a stern critique of Roman
political and military institutions.109 Specifically, through the relationship between
Thraso and Gnatho, Terence criticizes Roman dependence upon and exploitation of
“allied” soldiers in Rome’s military following the Italian Wars (327-220 BCE) during the
course of which the bulk of Italy fell under Roman political control: Italian territories
were plundered, confiscated as ager publicus (public land), and were established as
Roman colonies.110 William Harris emphasizes that, after Italian territories became
Roman allies, “the allied states had to finance large contingents to fight for the Roman
state, but had no prospect, as states, of obtaining plunder and indemnities.”111 In addition,
108
“The dynamic of introspection and extraspection” explains the processes by which the stock character is
developed during a mythological parallel. The introspective process is facilitated by a dramatic character’s
self-comparison to a mythological figure in specific relation to another mythological figure. The
extraspective process is facilitated by the same introspective character’s comparison of another dramatic
character to the other mythological figure. As discussed in Chapter 1, Chaerea doesn’t compare himself to
Jupiter in general; rather, he compares himself and the character Pamphila specifically to Jupiter and Danae
whom he seduces by disguising himself and infiltrating her house.
109
It is a trend in recent scholarship to discount socio-historical and historico-political allegory in New
Comedy in general and even more so in Terence specifically. Gruen 2014: 602 refers to such endeavors as
a “parlor game”; however, he concedes, “[t]he plays may not be reflections of reality, but they do present
the playwrights’ reflections of reality.” Fontaine 2014a: 422 compares the practice to “conspiracy theories,”
because, “with a few connections and a little ingenuity, they are easily devised, hard to disclaim and,
despite an author’s best protestations, impossible to disprove.” However, Fontaine 2014b: 542 makes no
hesitation in arguing that within Terence’s plays there are references to certain contemporary circumstances
surrounding performance such as the Megalensian Games and the funeral of Lucius Aemelius Paullus (229160 BCE), a Roman consul who conquered Macedon and put an end to the Antigonid dynasty at the battle
of Pydna (168 BCE).
110
Harris 1979: 59-61. 111
Harris 1979: 62.
57
through his development of Gnatho, Terence criticizes recent Roman laws such as the
expulsion of philosophers in 161 BCE as well as sumptuary laws that aimed at restricting
Roman luxury and excess.
Furthermore, the dramatic relationship between Thraso and Gnatho in Terence’s
Eunuchus, produced for the Megalensian Games in 161 BCE, suggests a parallel to the
historical relationship between Rome and its subjugated territories. Specifically, I claim
that these characters typify the relationship between Rome (and its citizen-soldiers) and
the allied-soldiers demanded as a part of Italian subjugation.112 New Comedy at Rome
was produced during the series of Punic Wars (264-146 BCE) that saw the expansion of
Rome unlike any other era before it.113 As a result, the qualifications for service in
Rome’s military changed dramatically during this time. No longer did the Roman army
consist exclusively of the wealthiest Roman citizens, but now consisted of socii milites,
the non-citizen allied troops from recently subjugated territories.114 Around the time of
112
Gabba 1989: 221-2 notes, “Latin and Italian allies were obliged to meet Rome’s requests for contingents
of troops under the laws establishing colonies and under individual treaties, which will have laid down the
two parties’ reciprocal obligations to give military assistance and the services to be rendered by the
allies…the allied communities were entered in a kind of military register or roll, the so-called formula
togatorum, which formed the basis of Rome’s annual demands for the required allied contingents.” Potter
2014: 58 clarifies, “The alliance system…gave Rome the ability to mobilize the manpower of its allies with
unprecedented efficiency.” He also defines the terms of these alliances, that they “establish peace between
Rome and the other signatory and stipulate that each shall assist the other with armed force if attacked…the
levying of troops from allies and Latin colonies became an annual event as Rome’s wide-ranging interests
and obligations made annual campaigns, and eventually a standing army, a necessity” (240).
113
Lazenby 2014: 260 explains, “before the first [Punic War], Rome was a purely Italian power and its
forces had never operated outside peninsular Italy; by the end of the last, its armies had fought in Sicily,
Africa, Albania, France, Spain, Greece, and Turkey, and it had acquired its first provinces in Sicily,
Sardinia, Spain, and Africa and now dominated the Mediterranean world.” Cornell 1995: 381 examines
Rome’s economic development leading up to the First Punic War (264 BCE) and notes, “Rome’s
increasing prosperity is reflected in the development of the city and the growth of its population. The
profits of conquest, in the form of booty and indemnities, were used to finance a programme of public
building on a scale that had not been seen since the great age of the Tarquins.”
114
Potter 2014: 58 clarifies that following the defeat of the Latins in 338 BCE, “Rome would no longer
deal with the Latin League as a military institution. Instead, each city would have an individual treaty with
Rome specifying the contribution the it would henceforth make to the Roman army.” Gabba 1989: 222
argues that in the time following the Second Punic War, “there are many indications that the Roman
58
Terence’s literary output (166-161 BCE) the Roman army was heavily reliant on the use
of socii. In fact, the total number of socii serving with the Roman army likely
outnumbered the citizen-soldiers three to one.115 Rachel Vishnia notes: “The
disinclination of the rich [citizens] to serve, while fully enjoying the remunerations of
war, shifted the military burden…to Rome’s allies and to less affluent citizens”116
Rome’s Social War in 90 BCE shows that within approximately seventy years after
Terence’s literary output (166-160 BCE) the political friction caused by parasitic Roman
dependence on socii milites would eventually prove to be detrimental to Rome’s social
make-up.117 The following analysis explores the development of Thraso and Gnatho from
their respective stock characters into individuals who, I argue, represent an allied-soldier
and a citizen-soldier. The chapter concludes with the suggestion that these developed
characters can be read as a socio-historical allegory for Rome’s reliance on socii milites
in the second century BCE wherein Rome demanded copious amounts of allied soldiers
who had to be armed and cared for without any financial assistance from Rome.118
This chapter demonstrates how Terence’s comic and burlesqued figures of his
dramatic world exhibit a strong correspondence with Rome’s larger social and political
realities of the mid second century BCE that are beyond mere coincidence. The first half
government tended to place the greater part of the military burden on the allies … [whose military]
participation now meant involvement as subordinates in a policy of expansion.”
115
Kendall 2013: 81 conjectures that at this time the total number of socii serving with the Roman army
likely outnumbered citizen soldiers 3:1. Gabba 1989: 222 argues that the ratio of allied troops to Roman
soldiers would have varied over history, but that around the time of the Second Punic War and Terence’s
literary output there were either two or three times as many allies as there were Roman soldiers.
116
Vishnia 1996: 162.
117
Lomas 2014: 254 explains that in 90 BCE a majority of Roman allies “revolted and formed a breakaway
state centered at the Apennine community of Corfinium. ...The result of this short but bitter conflict was
that Rome was forced to grant citizenship to all Italian communities south of the river Po, thus creating a
politically unified Italy for the first time.”
118
Gabba 1989: 229 argues, “the financial burden on the allied communities deriving from their
responsibility for the pay of their troops will have fallen increasingly on the upper classes.”
59
of this chapter analyzes Terence’s development of Thraso through introspection and
extraspection, which act through a mythological parallel. Section 2.1 looks into Thraso’s
position as a miles gloriosus stock character and sections 2.2 and 2.3 discuss the literary
history of the Hercules myth to which Thraso compares himself as well as the
mythological parallel. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 trace Terence’s non-conventional treatment of
the miles gloriosus and consider how Thraso represents a Roman socius miles in the
Middle Republic. The second half of this chapter analyzes Terence’s development of
Gnatho, the parasitus. Sections 2.6 and 2.7 examine Gnatho’s role as a parasitus,
Gnatho’s self-comparison to Sisyphus, and the literary history of Sisyphus in mythology.
Section 2.8 describes Terence’s defiance of convention through his development of
Gnatho, and section 2.9 suggests that Gnatho can be interpreted as a civis miles. Section
2.10 offers an interpretation of how all of the previous sections react to and comment
upon the socio-historical relationship between Rome and its recently subjugated
territories in the second century BCE as well as other concluding remarks.
2.1. Thraso as Miles Gloriosus
The Eunuchus focuses on the two adulescentes amatores Phaedria and Chaerea
who also feature as part of the play’s double plot. The first plot follows Phaedria who is
hopelessly in love with the beautiful and foreign meretrix next door, Thais, and competes
for her affections with another of her clients, Thraso, Terence’s sole miles gloriosus
character of his extant corpus. Thraso gifts Thais with Pamphila, a citizen who has been
sold into slavery before the time of the play and introduced as an ancilla who will
become Chaerea’s love interest and whose relationship constitutes the play’s second plot.
60
Chaerea, in the end, resolves his half of the play’s double-plot by his resolution to marry
Pamphila. Phaedria resolves his half of the double-plot when his father enters into a
patron-client relationship with Thais, ensuring her affection for his son.119 Although this
would be a suitable stock ending within the New Comedy genre, as in Plautus’ Miles
Gloriosus wherein the rival, Pyrgopolynices, loses his love interest to the amator and is
left on stage beaten up and humiliated, Terence does not end the Eunuchus play here.
Rather, he escalates the confusion further when the amator, Phaedria, is convinced by
Thraso’s parasitus, Gnatho, to allow Thraso to continue his relationship with Thais on
the condition that he continues to endow his largess upon her, thus saving Phaedria from
spending too much money on her.120 Goldberg interprets the play’s ending, being
“Thraso’s reward for his foolishness,” as an example of Terence rejecting conventional
stock elements.121
Terence defies the conventions of New Comedy characters by not adhering to all
of the typical features of a stock miles gloriosus.122 Thraso has moments of
insightfulness, which contradict the character’s foolishness; Terence never represents
Thraso as physically overpowered in a fight, and the soldier’s overall demeanor is not
remarkably boastful of his military excellence. Instead, Thraso compares himself to
Hercules and Thais, the meretrix, to Omphale. The mythological parallel occurs when
119
Saller 1982:1 defines a patron as “a person who uses his influence to assist and protect some other
person, who becomes his ‘client,’ and in return provides certain services to his patron.” Williams 2012: 489 explains that there is a necessary mutual benefit derived from the patron-client relationship and friendship
in general. Wallace-Hadrill 1989: 223 notes that this relationship “can function as the prime mechanism in
the allocation of scarce resources and the dominant means of legitimizing the social order.” In the play’s
context, Phaedria’s father entering into such a social contract with her legitimizes Thais’ social status. In
return for her elevated social status, as it seems, Thais will provide Phaedria with a sexual relationship.
120
Goldberg 1986: 120 argues, “Gnatho brings Thraso and Phaedria together by satisfying what has
become the idealism of the soldier and the materialism of the young man. Thraso is willing to share;
Phaedria realizes that he must.”
121
Goldberg 1986: 16. 122
The stock features of the miles gloriosus character are discussed in section 2.4.
61
Thraso explains to his parasitus Gnatho why they have gone after Thais when Phaedria’s
father has already become her patron and Thraso’s situation as a suitor seems hopeless:
[THR.] egone? ut Thaidi me dedam et faciam quod iubeat.
qui minu’ quam Hercules seruiuit Omphale?
[THR.] Me? [I came] to surrender myself to Thais and to do whatever she
orders. How [could I want to serve Thais] less than Hercules served
Omphale?
(Eunuchus 1026-7)123
Thraso’s language in these lines is strong and militaristic; the verb dedo “hand over” in
military contexts is the technical term for surrender, and the verb iubeo “order,” with its
military overtones, effortlessly ranks Thais as Thraso’s commanding officer.124 In doing
so, he upsets military protocol by allowing himself, a ranking officer, to be placed under
the authority of a foreign prostitute.125 Hercules is usually the epitome of belligerent
masculinity, but in the Omphale myth he is enslaved and engages in activities that
undermine his masculinity and position of control/battlefield advantage. The parallel
effectively splices this mythological version of Hercules, a subjugated hero, onto the
stock figure of the miles gloriosus and thereby creates a unique character who
simultaneously identifies with dominating and being dominated. Terence’s development
of Thraso’s character can be read as a socio-historical allegory that represents a socius
miles in Terence’s time.126 Specifically, I argue that Thraso’s character can be read
123
All Latin cited is taken from Kauer and Lindsay 1965. This and all subsequent translations are my own.
See OLD, s.v. dedo and iubeo.
125
Thraso’s rank in the Roman military can be observed when Gnatho refers to him as the leader of a
century, as will be discussed in section 2.3. 126
Goldberg 1986: 116 following the notes of Donatus, suggests that Thraso is a “rivalis [soldier], not
socius, because Thraso is an opponent easily beaten.” However, Thraso is never shown beaten physically
and in the end he achieves his primary objective as it has been laid out in the play: he is allowed to continue
his romantic relationship with Thais.
124
62
metaphorically as representing one of Rome’s allied troops who served in the Roman
army before and during the time of Terence’s literary output.
2.2. Hercules and Omphale: Terence’s Burlesque
Because Thraso identifies with Hercules in the Omphale myth, a brief overview
of the myth’s literary history helps determine the specific Herculean attributes with which
Thraso identifies. The myth’s details about gender roles and expectations, particularly
Hercules’ assumption of women’s domestic work (and even women’s clothing!), play a
significant role in my analysis. The story generally follows that Hercules was willingly
sold into slavery for killing Iphitus and bought by Omphale, the Queen of Lydia. During
his time with Omphale, Hercules killed or captured the Cercopes, killed the outlaw
Syleus and his daughter, leveled Itoni, and destroyed a giant snake which was disturbing
Lydia. As Fowler asserts: “The spectacle of the most manly of Greek heroes doing time
as a slave to a woman, and a foreign one at that, is one of the most striking in Greek
mythology.”127 Some accounts also include details about the relationship between
Hercules and Omphale, for example, switching clothes with each other and engaging in
activities that subvert societal gender roles, such as Hercules spinning thread and
Omphale beating him with her slipper.128 These details appear primarily in later accounts
such as the erotic elegy of Propertius and Ovid’s Fasti, as well as Seneca’s Phaedra and
127
Fowler 2013: 320.
According to Ovid, cultibus Alciden instruit illa suis (“she [Omphale] dressed up the grandson of Alceus
in her own clothes,” Fasti 2.318). Cyrino 1998: 211 notes, “Greek sources also record that gender reversal
was a feature of some wedding ceremonies, where it was customary for both bride and groom temporarily
to assume the dress and activities of the opposite sex.”
128
63
Hercules Oetaeus.129 However, there are fragments from Omphale, a fifth-century satyrplay by Ion that “refutes those critics who wish to make the episode a late or ‘Hellenistic’
addition to the Herakles saga.”130 The details of the myth, such as spinning and crossdressing, are also attested by earlier Greek vase paintings. For example, “On an amphora
stylistically close to Exekias, Queen Omphale is shown sitting on her throne, wearing
Herakles’ lion-skin and holding his bow in her left hand…Herakles appears to be
standing in front of her, playing the kithara.”131 Terence’s Eunuchus itself confirms the
detail about Omphale beating Hercules with her slipper.132
Diodorus Siculus, during the Late Republic, offers an account of the myth that
highlights Hercules’ willing subjection to female domination. However, it leaves out the
details concerning transvestism and his engagement with activities that contradict his
masculine demeanor:
ἐκεῖ δ᾽ ὑποµείνας ἑκουσίως ὑπό τινος τῶν φίλων ἐπράθη, καὶ παρθένου δοῦλος
ἐγένετο Ὀµφάλης τῆς Ἰαρδάνου, βασιλευούσης τῶν τότε Μαιόνων, νῦν δὲ
Λυδῶν ὀνοµαζοµένων. καὶ τὴν µὲν τιµὴν ὁ ἀποδόµενος τὸν Ἡρακλέα τοῖς
Ἰφίτου παισὶν ἀπέδωκε κατὰ τὸν χρησµόν, ὁ δ᾽ Ἡρακλῆς ὑγιασθεὶς καὶ
δουλεύων τῇ Ὀµφάλῃ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν χώραν λῃστεύοντας ἐκόλασε. ἡ δ᾽ Ὀµφάλη
ἀποδεχοµένη τὴν ἀνδρείαν τὴν Ἡρακλέους, καὶπυθοµένη τίς ἐστι καὶ τίνων,
ἐθαύµασε τὴν ἀρετήν, ἐλεύθερον δ᾽ἀφεῖσα καὶ συνοικήσασα αὐτῷ Λάµον
ἐγέννησε.
129
Propertius 3.11.17-20, 4.9.47-60; Ovid’s Fasti 2.303-358; Seneca’s Hercules Oetaeus 371-317, and
Phaedra 317-24.
130
Cyrino 1998: 219. The surviving fragments of Ion’s Ὀµφάλη σάτυροι can be found in TrGF 1 (19) frr.
17-33, the most pertinent of which (21) reads, ἐνιαυσίαν γὰρ δεῖ µε τὴν ὁρτὴν ἄγειν (“I need to spend a
year making holiday”). Other early references to the myth include Sophocles Trachiniae 68-70, 252-253.
131
Schefold and Giuliani, 1992: 158. See also Fowler 2013: 320 who confirms the appearance of these
details in fourth-century Greek art and adds: “Transvestism in Greek cult may have provided some
inspiration for this development in myth (Ovid in the Fasti links it to the Roman Lupercalia, as a reason for
not cross-dressing), but in its earliest form, where it is linked to an especially vile crime, the punishment is
one of necessary severity and humiliation, and only on the most general grounds might one surmise that the
myth was aetiological; there is no direct evidence in this case.”
132
After Thraso tells Gnatho of his desire to serve Thais just like Hercules served Omphale, Gnatho, in an
aside adds, utinam tibi commitigari videam sandalio caput! (“I wish I could see your head hit with a
sandal!” Eunuchus 1028). 64
There [in Asia], submitting himself willingly, [Herakles] was sold by one of his
friends, and he became the slave of the unmarried Omphale, daughter of
Iardanus, she who rules over who were then called the Maeonians, now the
Lydians. And the man who delivered over Herakles [into slavery] gave payment
to the sons of Iphitus according to the oracle, and since Herakles was healed and
serving Omphale he punished the men throughout the land who practice robbery.
Omphale approved of the bravery of Herakles, and after learning who he was and
from what [parents], she marveled at his excellence and after setting him free and
cohabitating with him she gave birth to Lamus.
(Diodorus Siculus 4.31.5-6; 4.31.8)133
This passage highlights Hercules’ willingness to submit, a trait with which Thraso
particularly identifies, as well as Omphale’s foreign status, which Thraso links to Thais,
as well as their romantic relationship that Thraso wishes to emulate. In PseudoApollodoros’ version of the myth additional details are added. He writes that after
Hercules unsuccessfully robs Apollo’s temple, the Pythia gives an oracle that Hercules
could rid himself of his disease by being sold into slavery for three years and paying the
sons of Iphitus the money from the sale. Omphale then buys Hercules from Hermes and
Hercules continues to perform minor labors while in her service.134 In general, the most
striking features of this myth are that Hercules willingly submits himself to slavery and
that during his servitude, whether he cross-dressed and spun thread or not, he continues to
conquer Herculean labors and prove his sexual virility.135 These are the characteristics
with which Thraso identifies: he strongly desires a relationship with Thais in which,
although he is made subordinate to her, he can continue to display masculine feats of
military aggression and sexual potency.
133
Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 4.31.5, 6, and 8. The translation is my own.
Bibliotheca 2.6.3.
135
Ancient sources note that Heracles fathered a son with Omphale, but do not agree on his name: he is
named Lamos (Ovid Fasti 9.54), Agelaus (Pseudo-Apollodorus Bibliotheca 2.7.8), or even Tyrsenus
(Pausanias 2.21.3). Herodotus (1.7) speaks of a Heraclid dynasty in Lydia tracing its decent from Heracles
and “a slave woman of Irdanus,” a figure perhaps to be identified with Omphale in other traditions.
134
65
Although Homer does not specifically refer to the Omphale myth, I turn to
Homeric descriptions of Heracles because, as a canonical text, the Iliad seems to have
informed Terence’s characterization of Thraso.136 This brief reference to Heracles
showcases his incredible martial abilities of siege and plunder:
ἀλλ᾽ οἷόν τινά φασι βίην Ἡρακληείην
εἶναι, ἐµὸν πατέρα θρασυµέµνονα θυµολέοντα:
ὅς ποτε δεῦρ᾽ ἐλθὼν ἕνεχ᾽ ἵππων Λαοµέδοντος
ἓξ οἴῃς σὺν νηυσὶ καὶ ἀνδράσι παυροτέροισιν
Ἰλίου ἐξαλάπαξε πόλιν, χήρωσε δ᾽ ἀγυιάς.
But some say that he was the sort of man of Heraclean might,
[Heracles] my father, the lion-hearted stand-your-ground-man: who
then upon arriving here on account of the Laomedian horses with only six
ships and rather few men, sacked the Trojan city and plundered the streets.
(Iliad 5.641-2)137
This passage equates Heracles’ ability to stand his ground and his ability to sack a town
with few men. Thraso embarks on a smaller-scale mission with his attempted siege of
Thais’ house in search of Pamphila. Terence changed the names of both Thraso and
Gnatho from Menander’s Kolax, from which source Terence claims to have taken both
characters. The Kolax names its soldier Bias, or “brute force.” I suggest that there is an
association between Thraso’s character and the Homeric Heracles. This association is
more explicitly made when Thraso makes his introspective comparison between himself
and the hero. The Homeric epithet for Heracles is θρασυµέµνων “the man who boldly
stands his ground.” 138 Given Thraso’s explicit self-comparison to Hercules and his name
136
Schefold and Giuliani 1992: 182 argue, “we can infer the existence of an epic in the Homeric style about
Herakles’ passionate love-life.”
137
The text of Homer is from Monro and Allen 1920. The translation is my own.
138
Iliad 5.639; Odyssey 11.267.
66
Thraso (which means “braggart” or “bold one”), I propose that Heracles’ Homeric epithet
influenced the naming of this miles gloriosus character.139
Thraso spins the myth into a sort of burlesque by comparing his desire to be a
prostitute’s love-slave to the situation of Hercules’ expiatory services for a queen.140
Thraso isn’t the first character in the Eunuchus to associate Thais with royalty. Phaedria
informs us that Thais desires the status of a regina for herself, explaining why she wanted
a eunuch in the first place.141 The mythic figure of Omphale, who, as an actual queen, had
real political power, is also burlesqued by the comparison to a common meretrix whose
only power over Thraso lies in her desirability to him. Evoking Hercules in this myth
brands Thraso as a subordinated would-be tough-guy. Thraso’s character is a distorted,
burlesqued version of the Heracles character from the myth; Terence created this
character by blending the genres of New Comedy and literary mythology together while
infusing them with contemporary details.142 Terence creates his own version of burlesque
with Thraso and Hercules, as he did with Chaerea and Jupiter, by casting a dramatic
figure as a mythic hero.143
2.3. Thraso: a Soldier Compared to Hercules
The plot of the Eunuchus illuminates some of the more prevalent features
attributed to Hercules in mythology, such as his brute force and liminal status as a man
who occupies a social position of being both divine and mortal, as well as his atypical
139
The name Thraso is derived from the Greek noun θράσος (“courage, boldness,” even “over-boldness”)
or from the adjective θρασύς (“bold, confident, rash,”): Liddell and Scott 1996.
140
For a description of the Greek genre of mythological burlesque, see Chapter 1, footnote 33.
141
Thais’ reason for desiring a eunuch was, quia solae utuntur his reginae (“because only queens use
them,” Eunuchus 168).
142
The contemporary details which are infused with the character will be discussed in section 2.6.
143
For Terence’s burlesque of Chaerea cast as the god Jupiter, see Chapter 1, section 1.2. 67
relationship with Omphale. Just as the play sets up a parallel situation between Chaerea
and Jupiter of the Danaë myth (discussed in Chapter 1), the mythological parallel
between Thraso and Hercules highlights Thraso’s self-effacing desires to be dominated
by a woman as well as his liminal status as a lover and a soldier, as a foreigner and a
Roman ally. Burkert comments on the liminality of Hercules as a mythological figure:
“The wall which separates [gods and heroes] is impermeable: no god is a hero, and no
hero becomes a god; only Dionysos and Heracles were able to defy this principle.”144
Hercules is all about liminal states and boundary crossing: he is the son of a god and a
mortal, he is a hero who ultimately becomes a god, and in the Omphale myth, Hercules is
made subordinate, even effeminate, but still dominates his enemies and expresses his
virility by impregnating Omphale. Fowler, speaking about the Omphale myth and
subversion of gender roles, notes: “The story reveals both the harshness of Greek gender
stereotypes and anxiety about them; it also illustrates the astounding capacity of this
figure [Herakles], no less than Dionysos, to combine (but not to reconcile) opposites.”145
Terence’s character, Thraso, embodies the dual gendered characterization of Hercules
from the Omphale myth and his status as both a foreigner (peregrinus) and a Roman
soldier demonstrates Hercules’ mortal/divine dichotomy. Thraso fits into both worlds, but
does not wholly fit into either.
In the play, Thraso becomes jealous of Thais’ suitors and decides that he will take
back Pamphila, the girl whom he had purchased for her, even if he must do so by force.
144
Burkert 1985: 205. Burkert also notes that Dionysos can identify, as well as clash, with multiple gods
and argues, “Dionysos eludes definition and for this very reason his relations to the other Olympian gods
are ambivalent and indeed paradoxical: proximity becomes the secret of the mysteries, antithesis turns into
identity” (222). Thraso’s liminal and paradoxical identities can be found in the figures of both Hercules and
Dionysus.
145
Fowler 2013: 320-1.
68
In an attempt to get her back, Thraso ineffectively lays siege to Thais’ house just before
Thraso’s comparison of himself to Hercules and Thais to Omphale. Thraso’s siege is
similar to Hercules’ unsuccessful ransacking of the oracle at Delphi before his
enslavement to Omphale. Like Hercules, Thraso’s first instinct is violence. His
incompetence and rag-tag army fits the character of a stereotypical miles gloriosus,
however, since he never actually starts the siege and is comically thwarted. Rather, when
Thais goes inside her house and it is revealed that Pamphila is a citizen, Thraso dismisses
his troops and leaves (Eunuchus 805-815). Hercules is lampooned by Thraso’s
comparison, his superhuman strength and boldness is mocked by Thraso’s general
cowardice and desire to submit himself to a prostitute.146 The description of Thraso made
by Sanga, his cook-turned-soldier during the siege of Thais’ house, is comparable to the
Homeric description of Hercules from the Iliad previously discussed:147
[SA.] egon? imperatoris uirtutem noueram et uim militum:
sine sanguine hoc non posse fieri…
[SA.] Me? I knew about the general’s [i.e. Thraso’s] merit and the army’s
strength: this [siege] can’t happen without bloodshed…
(Eunuchus 778-9)
The first lines of both passages place an emphasis on physical and martial strength; βίην
Ἡρακληείην (Iliad 5.641) is the same notion expressed by imperatoris uirtutem noueram
et uim militum, because uirtutem and uim together take on the meaning of the Greek work
βίην. The noun uis carries the same notion of bodily strength as βία, while uirtus captures
146
Austin 1921: 114 suggests that naming the miles θράσων was done ironically, calling attention to his
“amusing precautions and eagerness to arbitrate and willingness to surrender.” Many scholars call attention
to the name’s metatheatrically significant etymological function, as a miles gloriosus character could be
identified by a name meaning “forceful” or “bold.” Brown 1987 discusses names and masks used as a
general indication of a New Comedy stock character and argues, “the [Greek or Roman] audience has
certain expectations that a character with a particular name will be of a certain age, sex and status” (192).
147
The passage is discussed in section 2.2.
69
the masculine quality of that strength.148 Thraso’s military prowess is put to the test in the
following passage where Thraso undermines Roman military formation when he takes a
Pyrrhic offensive strategy and applies it to a Roman maniple.
[THR.] tu hosce instrue. ego hic ero post principia: inde omnibus signum
dabo.
[GN.] illuc est sapere: ut hosce instruxit, ipse sibi cauit loco.
[THR]. idem hoc iam Pyrrhus factitauit.
[THR.] You, draw up [the troops]. I’ll [station myself] here behind the
first rank: from that position I’ll give the signal.
[GN.] That’s smart thinking, right there: as he drew up these [troops], he
protects himself by his position.
[THR.] Pyrrhus always used to use this same [military tactic].
(Eunuchus 781-3)
The miles gloriosus’ reference to Pyrrhus recalls the Roman war against Pyrrhus (280275 BCE) and the employment of his infamous Pyrrhic tactics.149 In accordance with my
interpretation of Thraso as a socius miles, his reference to the Pyrrhic war, in which both
armies relied heavily on such allies, highlights Terence’s topical critique on the excessive
reliance upon Rome’s allies.150 Thraso compares himself to Hercules and Thais to
Omphale (Eunuchus 1027) only after his unsuccessful siege of her house (Eunuchus 771 148
The the noun uir, “man,” is the etymological root of uirtus and this fact supports the translation of
“manliness” or even “one’s masculine worth.” Maltby 1991: 649 cites Varro who wrote virtus ut viritus a
virilitate (“that manliness is a manly thing sprung from manhood”).
149
Pyrrhus was from Epirus and, as Rawlings 2007: 46 notes, he was “trained in the arts of Hellenistic
warfare, with his army of 25,000 men and 20 elephants.” Goldsworthy 2003: 164 summarizes that Pyrrhus
was “hired by Tarentum to fight against Rome [and he] defeated two Roman armies before finally
succumbing in a third, hard-fought battle.” Barsby 1999: 233 suggests that these lines reference actual
Roman military positions wherein the young troops are placed in the front ranks, the higher ranking troops
behind them, and if absolutely necessary the veteran troops take the rear.
150
Rawlings 2007: 52 suggests that Rome’s victory over Pyrrhus was due to their organization and
integration of socii troops. Erdkamp 2007: 101 cites the war against Pyrrhus, in which he was aided by
Italian allies, as a prime example of Italian defection from the Roman army. Hoyos 2004: 74 discusses how
Pyrrhus’ tactics of placing Italian maniples before his phalanx brigades were effective but resulted in
“dispiriting attrition to his own side.” Gabba 1989: 2014 notes that in the context of Roman military
organization, “the allied contingents are depicted as integrated and homogeneous parts of the Roman
army.” 70
816) when all hope of a continued relationship between himself and Thais seems lost. It
is then discovered that Thais has entered into a formal patron-client relationship with
Phaedria’s father (Eunuchus 1039).151 Thraso’s position at this particular point in the plot
parallels Hercules’ position in the myth when he has unsuccessfully robbed Apollo’s
temple and knows that his only salvation can be found in servitude. Because Thraso’s
siege of Thais’ house was unsuccessful and because Thais has been placed into an
elevated social position, Thraso is able to compare his relationship with Thais as Hercules
with Omphale. Before this point, Thraso’s relationship as a client of Thais, the meretrix,
does not constitute a logical parallel.
The Hercules myth introspectively informs the audience of Thraso’s self-image.
Hercules is usually the epitome of manliness, but, in making the comparison to a
particular myth, Thraso chooses the one myth that de-masculinizes the characteristically
ferocious hero. I suggest that Thraso consciously characterizes himself in this way and, in
the process, distances himself from the stock miles gloriosus, who typically represents a
soldier who views himself as the full embodiment of masculinity and heroism. Thraso is
represented as effeminate and subordinate in his relationship with Thais, while she is
portrayed as a dominant meretrix, or regina. This reversal of gender roles inverts the
Roman virtue of masculinity. Thraso, like Hercules, is a warrior who should represent
military vis but, as a burlesqued version of the myth, desires to be comically dominated
by a woman.
During the same mythological parallel in which Thraso is personally developed
by introspection, he impersonally characterizes Thais by extraspection; in other words,
151
Starks 2013: 145 argues, “both Phormio and Thais, lower-class clients and intermediaries among the
privileged class, seek, foster, even reconstitute the nexus of paternalistic, aristocratic patronage.”
71
Thraso tells the audience that Thais is just like Omphale, a mistress of Hercules, who
famously occupied a dominant position. Thais, however, is neither Thraso’s mistress nor
in any real position of power. Her only power is the apparent hold she has on Thraso as a
prostitute. Thais is characterized by Thraso’s extraspection only in terms of the way she
is perceived by him. The parallel tells us nothing about the real Thais as presented by
Terence, since the extraspective parallel says more about Thraso than it does Thais. For
example, Thais has nothing to do with the military; however, because Thraso does not
separate himself from military institutions and attitudes about relationships in terms of
domination and subordination, he associates Thais with a queen in the parallel and at
another time as his commanding officer.
Terence develops and Romanizes the stock character Thraso first by equating the
stock miles gloriosus with the Roman Hercules, not the Greek Herakles, and second by
using terminology which belongs to the Roman military. In the following passage, which
occurs during the siege of Thais’ house, Thraso informs us that his cook Sanga is acting
as a centurion:
[THR.] ubi centuriost Sanga et manipulus furum?
[THR.] Where is Sanga the centurion and his maniple of thugs?
(Eunuchus 775)
The military terminology used here is explicitly Roman, since centurio and manipulus are
technical terms that, respectively, describe a Roman military-ranking officer and his
military unit.152 The fact that Thraso is the commander of the centurion at this time
makes him imperator, a technical term meaning “general,” which has at this point already
152
See OLD, s.v. centurio and manipulus.
72
been formally applied to him by Parmeno, the slave of Thraso’s rival, Phaedria.153 He
claims justification for his willingness to undermine Roman military institutions as well
as ideals of masculinity from a precedent set by the subversive relationship between
Hercules and Omphale. In this section, then, we have seen that Thraso’s character, like
Hercules, inhabits a sort of liminal state of being a Roman miles and yet not a Roman
citizen. He is a dominant soldier who is willingly and consciously dominated by a
woman, but simultaneously envisions that he retains his military virility and sexual
potency in the process.
2.4. Defying Conventions: Thraso’s Character Development
Terence manipulates the miles gloriosus stock character by grafting a burlesqued
Hercules character onto it. When the two figures are combined, it exposes intimate details
about the character’s point-of-view and societal position. In New Comedy in general, the
miles gloriosus was a free man without citizenship or land who was a mercenary soldier
by profession.154 Thraso is the only type of this character represented in the entire
Terentian corpus. He is set apart from the stereotypical miles gloriosus, such as
Pyrgopolynices in Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus, who incessantly brags about his military
exploits. Terence calls attention to the gloriosus stereotype when Phaedria’s trusty slave,
Parmeno, trying to encourage Thais to choose Phaedria over Thraso, falsely links Thraso
153
The reference Parmeno makes is, “it’s not at all proper for a general to walk together in the street with a
girlfriend” (haud conuenit una ire cum amica imperatorem in uia, Eunuchus 495).
154
Hunter 1985: 66 notes that the comic soldier portrays a mercenary soldier and suggests, “the pomposity
of the soldier is associated with the pomposity of tragedy and the two are combined in the figure of the
war-loving Aeschylus in Frogs” (163 fn 18). Leigh 2004: 134 observes, “the boastful soldier habitually
enters the stage from abroad and lives from one peregrination to another in the mercenary service of
whichever king can pay his hire. He never fights in the defence of his own community.” Gruen 2014: 602
points out that the mercenary soldier would have been common in Hellenic warfare but uncommon in the
Roman military. 73
to the generic characteristics of a stock miles gloriosus. This is a form of metatheatrical
extraspection by which I mean, specifically, one dramatic character telling the audience
that another dramatic character is, by all intents and purposes, a specific stock character.
Parmeno employs another instance of metatheatrical extraspection when he
inappropriately classifies Thais as a stereotypical mala meretrix who will manipulate
Phaedria’s emotions entirely for her own gain (Eunuchus 65-70). This instance of
metatheatrical extraspection develops Thraso’s character only in a superficial way and is
presented entirely from Parmeno’s perspective:
[PA.] neque pugnas narrat neque cicatrices suas
ostentat neque tibi obstat, quod quidam facit.
[Phaedria] neither rambles about battles nor shows of his scars
nor stands in your way, which a certain guy [i.e. Thraso] does.
(Eunuchus 482-3)
This description fits the stereotypes associated with the miles gloriosus in New Comedy
before Terence, that is, telling battle stories and showing off battle wounds.155 In
actuality, Terence never presents Thraso showing off scars or babbling about battles.
Instead, Thraso boasts about how funny, entitled, and well-liked he is. The closest to a
war antic he describes is a bar fight he gets into while presumably stationed at Rhodes.156
Thraso focuses on his people-pleasing skills and how well he has been received in the
past in the following passage:
[THR.] rex semper maxumas
mihi agebat quidquid feceram: aliis non item.
155
For example, Pyrgopolynices, the soldier in Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus, begins the play by boasting about
many of his military achievements (Miles Gloriosus 1-77).
156
Eunuchus 419-21. For the discussion of this passage, see section 2.5 below.
74
[THR.] The king always used to give great [thanks] to me for whatever I
did: to others, not so much.
(Eunuchus 397-8)
Instead of boasting about how bravely he fought or how he crushed a brave enemy,
Thraso boasts about his social skills. Again, Thraso does not list his military
achievements, but only that he was well received and well rewarded. This type of
boasting is not typical of the miles gloriosus stock character.
Pyrgopolynices is the braggart soldier in Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus and serves as a
helpful comparison to Thraso’s character.157 Franko calls Pygropolynices “the braggart
soldier for all time.”158 Pyrgopolynices, like Thraso, has his own parasitus in addition to
a group of minions who carry his enormous shield behind him. Pyrgopolynices
incessantly boasts about military exploits and at the end of the play he is beaten up in his
own home by an old man and a cook, begs the men to stop, and eventually pays them one
hundred drachmae to leave. This character is very clearly vainglorious and completely
ineffectual. Thraso is not an over-the-top character like Pyrgopolynices nor is his
physical strength ever put to the test to be ridiculed. During his siege of Thais’ house, it is
the citizen Chremes, not Thraso, who is portrayed by Terence as a vainglorious soldier
who runs away from a fight.
Terence challenges dramatic conventions by his development of Thraso most
strikingly by his mythological parallel between Thraso and Hercules. During this parallel
the audience understands Thraso’s introspective desires and his justifications as well as
157
Duncan 2006: 101 points out, “Pyrgopolynices in the Miles Gloriosus differs from [Plautus’] other
braggart soldiers in degree, not in kind. The plot of the play has him not only fooled, as usual, but
humiliated, beaten, and threatened with castration.” She also argues, “the miles is a sort of stock character
among the stock characters, someone so predictable and so hollow that he is an easy mark for his fellow
characters.”
158
Franko 2013: 41.
75
his extraspective perceptions, that is, a projection of the way he assumes he is viewed by
Roman society. Thraso is introspective when he compares himself to Hercules (Eunuchus
1027) and in the process exaggerates the negative stereotypes associated with his stock
character. During the parallel, it is revealed that Thraso wants to be in a servile position
to a prostitute, a fact that goes far beyond the behavior of a stereotypical miles gloriosus,
but highlights the fact that such a character is never actually in a dominant position,
although they may see themselves in that light. Thraso is self-aware of his ridiculous
situation, but, by indulging himself, he allows himself to be manipulated by both Thais
and Gnatho. Thraso is also aware that he undermines cultural ideals of manliness as well
as military protocol when he, above all people, should not. Thus Thraso is not the
stereotypical miles gloriosus in particular because he has a sense of genuine selfawareness.159 Thraso knows that his desires are absurd:
[THR.] siquidem me amaret, tum istuc prodesset, Gnatho.
[THR.] If only she did love me, then that [plan] might help, Gnatho
[but she doesn’t, so it wouldn’t].
(Eunuchus 446)
The present contrafactual condition siquidem amaret… tum ... prodesset displays
Thraso’s self-awareness at his situation and heightens the absurdity of his servile
impulse.160 Thraso is fully aware that at this point in time Thais does not love him; but,
nevertheless, he will fully submit himself to her. Thraso’s final line reveals a somewhat
delusional sense of self, saying that he is loved by everyone wherever he goes:
159
Goldberg 1986: 116 contends, regarding Thraso and Thais’ relationship: “Thraso has no illusions, and is
perhaps the only character who does not. He is certainly the only character who has learned humility and
the only one prepared to make a sacrifice.”
160
It seems to be the case that a dramatic character’s use of contrafactual conditions marks awareness of
self and the circumstances in which he finds himself. The use of contrafactual conditions, instead of other
conditional claims, can mark a particularly thoughtful and introspective moment.
76
[THR.] numquam etiam fui usquam quin me omnes amarent plurumum.
[THR.] I’ve still never been anywhere without everyone loving me most.
(Eunuchus 1092)
It has been quite clearly shown in the play that Thraso, in fact, is loved by nobody.
Thraso, as discussed in section 2.3, has a dual quality to him that accounts for his
moments of genuine self-reflection, such as his mythological parallel, as well as moments
of comedic delusion, such as the case in this line. He is a character who is both self-aware
and unaware. Immediately after this line, Gnatho exposes Thraso’s stupidity by
sarcastically stating that he is the epitome of Attic elegance (1093).
Extraspection occurs when Thraso compares Thais to Omphale (Eunuchus 1027).
It reveals that Thraso views himself as a superior to Thais, as Hercules, a half-divine hero
was to the queen, but a superior who will make himself subordinate to her in their
relationship. By equating himself to Hercules, the hero who continued his valiant exploits
despite his service to Omphale, Thraso informs the audience that he, too, would not lose
his virility but would persevere throughout the de-masculinizing ordeal of playing slave
to a prostitute. Like Hercules, Thraso is a figure who can inhabit, but not reconcile, two
worlds simultaneously: he is a lover and a soldier; he is a braggart and a self-effacing
individual. Thais is by no means a queen, she is a foreign meretrix who is desperately
seeking security throughout the play. It is only through Thraso’s eyes that Thais and
Omphale can be associated.
2.5. A Reflection of Roman Reality: Thraso as Roman miles
77
It is clear Thraso is a military man when he refers to being stationed at locations
which bear contemporary significance for the Roman army. Specifically, Thraso recounts
stories about times he was in Rhodes and events that pertain to the Punic and Macedonian
Wars. During one of his few boastful moments, Thraso describes the opponent of a barfight as a very young Rhodian man. The fact that he describes a bar-fight over a girl and
not a military battle marks this character’s particular type of boasting as atypical of the
stock miles gloriosus.161 At the end of the story we find out that Thraso never physically
beat up the kid, but that he humiliated him publicly. In addition to Romanizing Thraso’s
military service, these references additionally offer the opportunity for a social critique
on Roman policies and practices. In light of the Second Macedonian War, waged
between 200 and 197 BCE by Rome on behalf of the Rhodians, it is interesting that
Thraso, as a Roman soldier, gets into a fight with a Rhodian.162
Thraso also refers to war elephants. Such a reference, whether the elephant was
technically Indian, Asian, or African, would likely bring to mind the recent Punic and
Macedonian Wars wherein war elephants were employed. Thraso identifies one Strato as
a fellow-soldier who was particularly envious of his status and privilege:
[THR] inuidere omnes mihi,
mordere clanculum. ego non flocci pendere.
161
The line reads, erat hic quem dico Rhodius adulscentulus. forte habui scortum; coepit ad id alludere et
me irridere. ‘quid ais,’ inquam ‘homo imprudens? lepus tute’s’ pulpamentum quaeris?’ (“There was this
very young Rhodian whom I’m talking about. By chance, I had a whore; he started to play with her and
mock me. ‘What’re you saying,’ I said, ‘shameless man? You, you, a rabbit: you’re hunting fresh-meat?’”
Eunuchus 423).
162
Cornell 1995: 363 argues that a “consistent feature of Rome’s foreign policy [was] her support for the
upper classes in the communities of Italy, who regarded Rome as their natural ally, whereas the masses
were normally hostile.” He also notes, “the treaties (foedera) probably differed from one another in detail,
but the basic provision common to all of them was the allies’ obligation to supply military aid to Rome”
(365). Starks 2013: 137 points out: “Rhodian mistakes, unilateralism, and, above all, perceived arrogance in
their responses to Rome appear as central charges, the subject of refutations and confessions in the ongoing
arguments over Rhodes’ (in)actions regarding the war with Perseus, the heated deliberations on how to
punish them afterward, and Rhodes’ ambassadorial pleas for clemency, which led to a deleted formal
alliance (164 BCE).”
78
illi inuidere misere, uerum unus tamen
impense, elephantis quem Indicis praefecerat.
is ubi molestus magis est, ‘quaeso,’ inquam ‘Strato,
eon es ferox quia habes imperium in beluas?’
[THR.] Everyone envied on me,
stings [me] privately. I don’t care a hair.
They envied [me] horribly, and yet one in particular,
the one whom [the king] had appointed over the Indian elephants,
when he was being rather annoying, I said ‘Pray tell, Strato,
are you savage because you have authority over beasts?’
(Eunuchus 413-5)
There were, in the time of Terence’s literary output, recent and notorious Roman wars
fought against kings: namely those against Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus, as well as the
Macedonian Wars, against king Philip V. However, if Thraso had fought for either of
these kings he would not be a Roman ally, but rather a member of one of the Roman
subject territories that defected during the wars. Thraso’s continued financial success,
from military endeavors, indicates that he belongs to one of the allies who remained loyal
to Rome.163 Instead of Pyrrhus or Philip V, I suggest that Thraso resembles king
Masinissa, the King of Numidia who was a Carthaginian ally but defected to Rome
during the Second Punic War. The association with this king would not only serve to
place Thraso in the time of Rome’s Mid-Republic, but also would explain Thraso’s
peregrinus status at Rome.164 Masinissa assisted the Roman general Scipio Africanus in
the battle of Zama (202 BCE), which was the decisive Roman victory that ended the
163
Gabba 1989: 208 notes that “punitive measures [were] taken against disloyal allies…The allies who had
remained loyal to Rome certainly shared in the spirit and benefits of victory and derived from it a new
incentive to loyalty and obedience.”
164
Hassall 2002: 685 notes, “through the award of citizenship (civitas) to the more intelligent and
ambitious of the peregrine, the most influential sections of provincial society came to identify their own
interests with those of the greater body of the Roman state.” Cornell 1995: 351 distinguishes between types
of non-native Roman citizens, saying that “they possessed the rights of conubium and commercium…the
Latins were technically foreigners (peregrini), whereas the Oscan-speaking Campanians and Volscians
were technically citizens (cives).”
79
Second Punic War. Although Hannibal did not employ elephants at this specific battle,
Hannibal in general did incorporate war elephants into his army. Therefore, the mention
of elephantis, even though it is modified by Indicis, surely must have brought Hannibal to
mind.165
Terence also makes it clear that Thraso is a foreign soldier. After Pamphila is
discovered to be a citizen and the long-lost sister of Chremes, Thais tries to persuade
Chremes to stand his ground against Thraso, who is on his way to lay siege to Thais’
house and take Pamphila by force. While convincing Chremes to do this, Thais
establishes Thraso’s foreign status compared to Chremes’ citizen status in the following
passage:
[TH.] immo hoc cogitato. quicum res tibist peregrinus est,
minus potens quam tu, minus notus, minus amicorum hic habens.
[TH.] Just ponder this. The guy [Thraso] whom you have an issue with is
foreign, [he’s] less powerful than you, less known, has fewer friends here.
(Eunuchus 759-60)
This passage highlights Thraso’s political and social inferiority to a Roman citizen.
Terence’s use of peregrinus (759) and the repetition of minus (760) emphasize Thraso’s
political inferiority and social subordination.166 Thraso’s imperator status, together with
the fact that he has been labeled as peregrinus (Eunuchus 759), supports my claim that
Terence casts Thraso as a socius miles, a Roman soldier from one of Rome’s allied
165
Barsby 1999: 161 adds that war elephants were starting to be used by Rome during Terence’s lifetime,
for example at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BCE.
166
Mattingly 2007: 14 argues: “Various factors can be suggested as bearing on individual and group
identity in the Roman world: status; wealth; location; employment; religion; origin; proximity to the
imperial government; legal status and rights; language and literacy; age and sex. Status incorporated
various broad categories: slave, free, freed, dependent, independent, barbarian, Roman citizen, non-citizen,
humiliores, honestiores, curial class, equestrian, senator, imperial household.” 80
territories.167 This interpretation encompasses the contemporary Roman additions that
Terence makes to Thraso’s burlesqued Hercules-miles gloriosus character.
Chaerea, in Chapter 1, has already been linked to the office of praetor peregrinus
by which he is granted political and judicial authority over foreign matters.168 He makes
the final decisions and presents the facts regarding the fates of the play’s three foreigners:
Pamphila, Thais, and Thraso. Chaerea asserts his authority over Pamphila first by raping
her when he thought she was a foreigner (Eunuchus 584-606), then deciding to marry her
after finding out she is a citizen (Eunuchus 1036). He asserts his authority over Thais by
announcing her newly acquired patron-client relationship with his family, which
guaranteed her protection (clientelam, 1039) and credit (fidem, 1040). Although this
would be a suitable stock ending within the New Comedy genre, with both Roman
adulescentes having resolved their amorous issues, Terence does not end his play here.
Rather, the romantic situation between Thais and Phaedria is confused when the two
adulescentes are convinced by Gnatho, Thraso’s parasitus, to allow Thraso to maintain
his relationship with Thais on the condition that he continues to endow his largess upon
her, thus saving Phaedria from spending too much money on her. Chaerea decides to
grant Thraso continued access to Thais as Phaedria’s rival, to which Phaedria agrees
(Eunuchus 1083). Thais is never asked, or heard from in the play again, and Phaedria
seems happy to share the woman he allegedly loves with Thraso.
2.6. Sisyphean parasitus: Terence’s Burlesque
167
Thraso’s position as an imperator commanding centurions who had their own maniples is discussed in
section 2.3. 168
See Chapter 1, section 1.7.
81
Gnatho’s primary role in the Eunuchus is as Thraso’s parasitus who makes a
living by mooching off of the soldier, Thraso. However, Gnatho is not a typical parasite,
such as Ergasilus, from Plautus’ Captivi, or Artotrogus, from Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus,
both of whom provide incessant flattery and display an obsession with food. Instead,
Gnatho drives four major plot points in the Eunuchus. First, he introduces Parmeno to
Pamphila while he takes her to Thais. Second, he urges Parmeno to receive Thraso as a
threat to Phaedria’s relationship with Thais. Third, he convinces Thraso that Thais prefers
Phaedria and that he should take Pamphila back. Finally, Gnatho brokers the final deal
between Thraso and Thais.
Introspection and extraspection is a dynamic that displays character selfawareness, as well as an image of how that character imagines he is viewed by others.
This dynamic can be observed through mythological parallels between dramatic
characters and mythological figures that splice the mythological figure with the stock
character and create a burlesqued character, as we have already seen with Chaerea, the
Jupiter amator, and Thraso, the miles Hercules. For example, Thraso becomes a more
realized character, and less of a stock figure, when he sees himself as Hercules
(introspection) and he sees Thais as Omphale (extraspection) and situates himself in a
particular type of relationship with her and in society in general. Through Gnatho’s
moment of introspection and extraspection, the audience knows that Gnatho, the
parasitus stock character, fully understands and relishes the fact that he lives off of handouts which he acquired by flattering, yet deceitful rhetoric. In the play, Gnatho compares
himself to Sisyphus, the deceitful, hubristic mortal king who successfully tricks men and
gods alike to satisfy his own ends. He compares Thraso to the rock that Sisyphus futilely
82
pushes up a hill for all time. The mythological parallel occurs at the end of the play while
Gnatho, speaking to the two adulescentes, brokers the deal between Thraso and Phaedria
and gains admittance into their grex (1084):
[GN.] sati’ diu hoc iam saxum vorso.
[GN.] I keep rolling that stone, sufficiently, for a long time now.
(Eunuchus 1085)
Gnatho’s comparison emphasizes his introspective point-of-view as a burdened Sisyphus
as well as his extraspective point-of-view that equates Thraso to an eternal punishment.
The extraspective comparison also takes a jab at Thraso’s intelligence. The audience is
able to transfer the information they know about the mythological figure Sisyphus onto
the dramatic character of Gnatho.
An overview of Sisyphus in Homer reveals which specific details of Gnatho’s
character are informed by this treacherous figure of mythology. I turn to Homeric
descriptions of Sisyphus from the Iliad because they seem to have particularly informed
the mythological figures’ characterizations in each of the Eunuchus’ three mythological
parallels: Chaerea to Jupiter, Thraso to Hercules, and Gnatho to Sisyphus. Homer
describes Sisyphus as follows:
ἔνθα δὲ Σίσυφος ἔσκεν, ὃ κέρδιστος γένετ᾽ ἀνδρῶν.
There was Sisyphus, the man who, out of all men, became the one who
profits most.
(Iliad 6.153)
The epithet ὃ κέρδιστος is generally translated as “the slyest” or “the most cunning”;
however, the word also assumes pecuniary connotations. Autenrieth, for example, lists
83
“gain, profit” as the primary definition of κέρδος.169 Both definitions in combination
suggest that this slyness is a calculated means for personal advantage. This type of selfish
cunning, expressed through deceitful rhetoric, is characteristic of Sisyphus who cheats
death not once, but twice.170 Odysseus, for example, is associated with a different type of
cunning; he is πολύµητις (“full of wisdom,” Iliad 1.310) and πολυµήχανος (“full of
craft,” Iliad 2.173), but he is never κέρδιστος. It could be argued that Odysseus also has
personal profit as a primary motivation; however, his Homeric epithets do not emphasize
this aspect as much as they do his practical skill and cleverness. From the Homeric
description of Sisyphus, I identify deceitful rhetoric as a means to personal advantage;
and it is this main characterization that is grafted onto the parasitus stock character to
create a burlesqued parasitus Sisyphus character, Gnatho. Allusion to Sisyphus creates an
original dramatic character in Gnatho who, like a parasite, leeches off of another and, like
Sisyphus, achieves his desired end by expressing rhetorical dominance over all
adversaries, whether they are kings or gods or death itself.
2.7. Gnatho: a Soldier compared to Sisyphus
Gnatho’s mythological parallel, which grafts the cunning Sisyphus onto the
freeloading parasite, reveals an ironic point-of-view in which Gnatho feels burdened by
the relationship between himself, the parasite, and Thraso, the parasite’s host. Gnatho
relies on Thraso to maintain his lavish lifestyle at no cost to himself, a situation
comparable to Rome’s demands of its allies who had to provide for, arm, and feed their
169
Autenrieth 1876: 160.
According to the myth, Sisyphus chained up Thanatos thus preventing anything living from dying. After
Thanatos was released, Sisyphus returned to the underworld and convinced Hades to let him return home to
reprimand his wife for negligence, after which he grows old on Earth (Cyrino 2008: 133).
170
84
own troops for Roman use, without any financial support from Rome.171 Gnatho’s selfrighteous feelings of burden reveal a plausible Roman reaction to the incorporation of
foreign soldiers into its ranks.
Using the mythological parallel to Sisyphus and his punishment, Gnatho
impersonally develops Thraso, comparing him to the eternal punishment Sisyphus
endures. He also locates himself in relation to Thraso, as the one supporting him even
though it is Thraso fronting the bill. Nevertheless, Gnatho self-righteously feels as though
he is the one burdened by their relationship. In this comparison, Gnatho tells us that, just
like pushing the same boulder up the same hill every day, Thraso is difficult to put up
with, tedious, and redundant; at least that is the way this moment of extraspection
portrays his character. Gnatho’s moment of extraspection does not develop Thraso’s
character. However, it does help to refine Gnatho’s own self-image as developed by his
introspective comparison to Sisyphus. Terence’s particular treatment of Gnatho
highlights the fact that his flattery is insincere and at times malicious, as evident from the
following passage:
[THR.] …quid illud, Gnatho,
quo pacto Rhodium tetigerim in conuiuio,
numquam tibi dixi? [GN.] numquam; sed narra, obsecro.
plus miliens audiui…
[THR.] …What about that time when I beat up the Rhodian at a party,
Did I never tell you, Gnatho? [GN.] Never, but please do tell the story.
[aside, to the audience] I’ve heard it more than a thousand times…
171
Gabba 1989: 200 notes that in addition to not paying their allied troops, Rome gave away vast amounts
of Italian land to its citizen-soldiers following the Second Punic War. He argues, “the burden was heaviest
for the allies, this fact—along with the phenomenon of emigration—could explain why complaints about a
decline in population were voiced primarily by the allies” (202). Eckstein 2006: 248 discusses the original
terms of Rome’s Italian allies and explains that Rome “found a way, via diplomacy, to mobilize the
resources of Latium as a whole.” He further notes that the Second Punic war was devastating to Italians,
both to the regions that defected to Hannibal and to those who remained loyal to Rome (263). Vishnia
1996: 147 argues, “Rome’s allies…shouldered the main burden of providing supplementary troops.”
85
(Eunuchus 419-22)
This passage displays Gnatho’s deceitfulness and flattery. To Thraso he seems sincere
and interested, but the audience knows that he is insincere and utterly disinterested.
Terence constructs Gnatho as a devious, mooching, citizen-soldier, whose
characterization is derived from various sources. Firstly, he mooches and employs
insincere flattery just like the comic stock character typically does. The Sisyphus
character also informs Gnatho’s use of rhetoric and deceitful cunning. Additionally,
Gnatho’s societal position as a Roman citizen can be determined from Ghatho’s
admittance into a grex (Eunuchus 1084), which is defined as a social group of peers,
between Chaerea and his brother Phaedria. Gnatho’s citizenship is determined because a
grex can only be composed of analogous parts and the adulescentes are undeniably
citizens. Terence also classifies Gnatho as a soldier, which made evident from his role
during Thraso’s siege of Thais’ house (Eunuchus 771-816).
Overall, Gnatho’s mythological parallel offers insight into the way his character
perceives himself, his relationship with others, and ultimately informs what can be
interpreted as a larger Roman perspective on Rome’s military reliance on socii milites.
What I argue, specifically, is that Gnatho’s dependence upon Thraso acts as a metaphor
for Rome’s dependence upon socii milites. From his moment of introspection and
extraspection (Eunuchus 1085) we get a critical perspective about Roman allies: even
though the socii milites bear the burden of Roman war to a higher degree than citizen
soldiers, those citizen soldiers still feel as though they do the heavy lifting by their
association with foreigners and their assimilation of foreign soldiers into their ranks.172
172
For citations concerning Roman reliance on socii milites, refer to footnotes 110-118, 150 and 162-164.
86
Gnatho provides the citizen soldier’s perspective with his mythological parallel when he
compares the eternal punishment of Sisyphus to his own reliance upon Thraso. Gnatho
relies upon Thraso in order to maintain his lavish lifestyle at no cost to himself, a
situation comparable to Rome’s demands of socii milites that include providing, arming,
and feeding their own soldiers with little or no payment in return. His lavish lifestyle can
be observed in the following passage:
dum haec loquimur, interea loci ad macellum ubi aduenamus,
concurrunt laeti me obuiam cuppedenarii omnes,
cetarii lanii coqui fartores piscatores,
quibus et re salua et perdita profueram et prosum saepe.
salutant, ad cenam uocant, aduentum gratulantur.
While [the bum and I] discussed [the art of being a flattering parasite],
in the meantime when we arrive at the market, all the happy confectioners
run together to meet me, fish-sellers, butchers, cooks, sausage-makers,
fishermen, men whom I had been and often still am beneficial to, both
when my [monetary] status was sound and [now] when bankrupt.
They greet [me], call [me] to dinner, thank [me] for coming.
(Eunuchus 255-9)
Gnatho’s sumptuous lifestyle is made evident by his emphasis on his continued patronage
of the food vendors. The repetition of prosum (258), first in the pluperfect tense
(profueram) followed by the present tense (prosum) places weight on the continued
action in the sense that Gnatho had been beneficial to them at a set point in the past
(indicated by the pluperfect tense) and continues to be beneficial in the present (indicated
by the present tense). Gnatho is placed at Rome when he describes strolling through the
recently established macellum.173 The detailed description of snack-sellers is consistent
173
Scholars such as Barsby 1999: 132 and Brown 2013: 30 have emphasized that Gnatho is located at
Rome. References to a Roman macellum also appear in Plautus’ Amphitruo (1012), Aulularia (264, 373,
and 376), Pseudolus (169), and Rudens (979). Rosivach 2007: 6 notes that luxurious food items, the sort at
which the sumptuary laws aimed, were sold at the macellum.
87
with the types found in Plautine markets; both authors mention the lanii, coqui, and
piscatores as being represented at the Roman marketplace.174 Furthermore, the distinction
between lanii and coqui is distinctively Roman, as the Greek occupation µάγειρος
fulfilled both duties.175 This section has discussed how Terence locates Gnatho in Rome
and develops Gnatho’s character into an insincere Sisyphean parasite who somehow feels
burdened by his relationship with Thraso. It has also suggested how Gnatho’s paradoxical
sense of burden is parallel to Roman attitudes towards socii milites.
2.8. Defying Conventions: the Development of Gnatho
It is helpful to compare Gnatho’s character to the only other parasitus in
Terence’s corpus, Phormio, in order to define the particular developments made to
Gnatho in the Eunuchus, produced in April of 161 BCE for the ludi Megalenses. The
Phormio was produced in 161 BCE for the ludi Romani in September and, in both the
Eunuchus and the Phormio, the parasite character describes his superior parasitic
technique when he first appears on stage.176 Although in some respects both Gnatho and
Phormio typify the stereotypical stock parasite, Phormio has been characterized more
specifically as the type of parasite who gets his dinner by practical scheming and
manipulation, a sort of quid pro quo, whereas Gnatho does so specifically by an insincere
technique of ironic flattery wherein he immediately contradicts his toadying statements in
asides.177 Both of Terence’s parasitus characters, Gnatho and Phormio, are themselves
distinct, they both differ from singlemindedness displayed by more stereotypically food 174
See Plautus’ Pseudolus (804-9), Captiui (4.2.39), and Rudens (4.3.48).
Barsby 1999: 132.
176
Starks 2013: 139.
177
Barsby 1999: 126.
175
88
obsessed parasites.178 Terence’s parasites both conform to the stereotype to the extent that
free meals are their reward for their services, but neither fits the generic characteristics of
the stock parasitus who are single-mindedly fixated on food.
Terence changes the names of many of his characters, including Gnatho, when
appropriated from his Greek sources.179 The name Terence assigns this character can
inform our reading because of the connotations associated with that name. Some of
Terence’s characters’ names, whether changed or not, are stock names belonging to stock
characters which are repeated even within the small corpus of Terence.180 Terence
changes the name of the parasite in Menander’s Kolax, from Στρουθίας, meaning
“sparrow,” to Gnatho.181 Gnatho’s name can be linked with Greek root *γνώ- as seen in
the verb γιγνώσκω (to know), which suggests the character’s awareness, as I would argue
both regarding himself and the contemporary scene at Rome. Vincent suggests that
Gnatho’s name is a general reference to a parasite’s greatest tool and greatest concern, his
mouth. She posits two interpretations for the etymology of his name: one, as many other
scholars have noted, is “the Jaw” from the Greek word γνάθος, meaning “jaw,” and the
178
Starks 2013: 140 discusses Phormio and Gnatho as distinct from Plautus’ parasites Curculio and
Peniculus who dwell on “the stereotypical fixation” of food.
179
Austin 1921: 51 provides an early discussion of Terence’s naming of this character. Fontaine 2014
suggests that Terence creates an intertextual dynamism throughout his own corpus by his practice of
naming multiple characters from different plays the same name. There is little scholarly discussion about
what motives, if any, Terence may have had in changing the names of his characters.
180
Examples would be the names Pamphilus or Pamphila for an amatory character and Chremes for a
senex. It is noteworthy that in the Eunuchus Chremes, Pamphila’s brother, does not fit his stereotypical
name since he is an adulescens.
181
Sandbach 1990: 166. It cannot be determined from the surviving text whether there were two parasites,
one Strouthia and one Gnatho, or if Gnatho was a nickname of Strouthia. Sparrows (struthoi) were
associated with lustiness and gluttony in antiquity. For example, struthos represents sex in Sappho 1.10 and
an appetite for food and sex in Clement of Alexandria’s Paedagogus 3.7. Dunbar 1998: 265 explains the
gluttonous aspect associated with struthos in Aristophanes’ Birds, “The House (US ‘English’) Sparrow
(Passer domesticus) in agricultural districts lives mainly (75%) on corn.” Henderson 2002: 164-5 notes on
the use of struthos in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, “Small birds would be numerous on or under roofs. In
addition, sparrows were especially associated with Aphrodite (e.g. Sappho I.9-10), and struthos was a slang
term for phallos, CA 592, Paulus-Festus 411.”
89
other is that the name stems from Greek verbs of knowing, γιγνώσκω.182 This reading
acquires stronger resonance than the more common association with the Greek γνάθος, or
“jaw.” Based solely off of Gnatho’s stock character, the parasitus, it is tempting to call
Gnatho “The Jaw” because that stock character generally is exclusively food-obsessed.
However, Terence does not portray Gnatho as a gluttonous parasite, but rather one who
uses his education to procure a seat at another’s dinner table. This could very well be an
intended Terentian discrepancy, wherein he creates expectations by using formulaic and
stereotypical details only to dash that expectation in his development of the stock
character throughout the play. Gnatho’s unique mix of appetite and intelligence is a
Sisyphean trait: Terence draws the intelligence out of his “jaw” character through
introspection.
Terence continues to develop Gnatho’s character into a soldier parasitus in
several innovative ways. He marks Gnatho’s close association with the miles Thraso by
his use of military terminology and by his knowledge of battle-formation techniques that
are displayed in Thraso’s siege of Thais’ house. Gnatho’s role as the miles’ stock
parasitus is exposed in a metatheatrical moment when Parmeno, Chaerea’s servus,
introduces Gnatho to the audience:
[GN.] sed quis hic est qui huc pergit? attat hicquidemst parasitus militis.
[GN.] Hey, who’s the guy making an entrance? Oh, that must be the
soldier’s parasite.
(Eunuchus 228-9)
In this line, Terence explicitly refers to Gnatho’s stock character, the parasitus.
Furthermore, he draws explicit attention to the correspondence between the parasitus
182
Vincent 2013: 78.
90
character and the miles. The association of the two characters can also be seen in the
following line of the play’s prologue:
[GN.] parasiti personam inde ablatam et militis.
[GN.] From that source [Menander’s Colax] the parasite and soldier
characters were appropriated.
(Eunuchus 26)
Terence binds the parasite to the soldier in the Eunuchus from the play’s beginning and
as Goldberg observes, “more stage time is devoted to [Thraso and Gnatho] than to
anyone else in Eunuchus.”183 The line’s symmetry demonstrates how connected the two
characters are from the prologue; the parasite and soldier attractively frame the verse end
of each line. These two characters are linked together in terms of military service as well
as Gnatho’s reliance upon Thraso. Furthermore, the line’s elisions combine nearly every
word (except two), to produce a run-on effect (parasiti person’ind’ablat’et militis) that
accentuates the two words that do not elide, the parasite (parasiti) and the soldier
(militis).
Gnatho’s role in Thraso’s siege of Thais’ house indicates that he was familiar
with military techniques such as combat maneuvers. The parasitus himself is not by
definition a soldier.184 However, Gnatho’s role during Thraso’s siege of Thais’ house
provides Gnatho’s character with military prowess, as seen in the following passage
between Gnatho, the cook-turned-soldier Sanga, and Thraso:
[GN.] iam dimitto exercitum? [THR.] ubi uis. [GN.] ita fortis decet
milites, domi focique fac uicissim ut memineris.
[SA.] iamdudum animus est in patinis. [GN.] frugi’s. [THR.] uos me hac
sequimini.
183
Goldberg 1986: 113.
In fact, Packman 2013: 195 specifically claims that the parasitus stock character is not a mercenary
soldier like Thraso. 184
91
[GN.] Do I dismiss the army now? [THR.] Whenever you want. [GN.]
Okay, as befits brave soldiers, make sure that you remember home and
hearth again. [SA.] Just this second my thoughts are in the saucepans.
[GN.] You’re helpful. [THR.] Follow me now, soldiers.
(Eunuchus 814-5)
Here, Gnatho officially discharges Thraso’s “troops” from his siege of Thais’ house in a
military and epic manner. It is clear from Gnatho’s question – iam dimitto exercitum?
(“Do I dismiss the army now?”) – that his following remark effectively serves to
discharge the troops. The terminology of domi focique memineris (“make sure that you
remember your home and hearth again”) is strongly reminiscent of Livy’s account of the
general Furius Camillus and an address to his troops.185 The moment is parodied by
Sanga’s literal reading of domi focique, which causes his mind, and notably not Gnatho’s,
to think about food.186
2.9. Gnatho: A Reflection of Roman Reality
In addition to Gnatho’s mythological parallel to Sisyphus, his military qualities,
and his lack of food-obsession, Terence develops his character through allusions to
contemporary Roman social and political institutions. The Eunuchus, as well as
Terence’s other plays featuring a parasite, the Phormio, were both produced in 161 BCE.
The presence of a parasitus stock character, limited in Terence to these two plays, brings
185
The passage reads: ut qui meminissent sibi pro aris focisque et deum templis ac solo in quo nati essent
dimicandum fore” (“[he said] that those [troops] who remembered their altars and hearths and temples of
the gods and on which land they were born for the purpose of fighting,” Ab Urbe Condita 5.30.1). This
passage is found in the context of senators going to the forum in the same spirits as soldiers would return
home from battle. In the play, Thraso’s siege ends when the citizenship of Pamphila, the girl he had come
to repossess, is discovered and subsequently dismisses his troops.
186
Barsby 1999: 239.
92
the issue of dinner parties to the forefront, just as the lex Fannia cibaria became a
charged topic of that year. The lex Fannia cibaria aimed at limiting the extravagance of
dinner parties and was specifically aimed at the Megalensian Games because of the lavish
feasting associated with the Asian goddess Cybele.187 The grounds for the lex Fannia
cibaria began years earlier with a senatus consultum that restricted the purchase of
certain luxury goods, such as imported wine. This legislation worked in accordance with
the lex Orchia of 182 BCE that placed restrictions on dinner seating: five seats were
allowed on market days, three on other days.188 The atmosphere of the Megalensian
Games was excessive and spectacular and for that reason was a likely source of
contention when placed against Roman virtues of moderation.189 This conflict between
Roman and external forces, which calls Roman mores into question, must have
influenced Terence’s construction of the Eunuchus and the development of its military
characters, since excessive luxury could soften a soldier’s hardiness and endurance when
on campaign. The reason for the cult’s introduction to Rome was military advantage; as
discussed in Chapter 1, the reason for Chaerea’s eunuch disguise was carnal advantage
from a military standpoint and the reason for the incorporation of the cult of Cybele into
Rome was due to a prophecy from the Sibylline books which stated that by the cult’s
187
Astin 1989: 184 explains that the lex Fannia of 161 BCE “had required leading citizens who were to
entertain each other during the Megalensian games to take an oath before the consuls that they would not
exceed specified expenditure limits.” Rosivach 2007: 1 argues that in Republican Rome, “the expression
leges sumptuariae referred solely to legislation intended to limit expenditures on food.” Harris 1979: 89
argues, “the legal stipulations against luxury seem to have had a quite straightforward political purpose,
namely to reduce illicit influences in elections.” 188
Astin 1989: 184.
189
Astin 1989: 184 suggests that the reasons for such laws had to do with “a widespread assumption that
indulgence in luxury was liable to undermine traditional military virtues, above all physical and mental
hardiness.” Rosivach 2007: 12 argues, “the 2nd century BC was a period of rapid social, economic,
intellectual and even moral change at Rome. We may see in the lex Fannia and the earlier senatus
consultum evidence of a widespread uneasiness about the effect of these changes on the public sphere, the
special preserve of the senatorial elite.”
93
incorporation Rome could win the Second Punic War.190 In light of the lex Fannia, with
its particular connection to the Megalensian Games, as well as Gnatho’s lack of foodobsession, I suggest that Terence is transforming the gluttonous parasite to suit a
contemporary Roman attitude of moderation.
Besides the introduction of a foreign cult, and the subsequent political
consequences of such an introduction, the Eunuchus also alludes to other contemporary
acts of legislation and cultural practices.191 For example, Gnatho appears to respond to
the senatus consultum of 161 BCE that expelled philosophers and rhetoricians from
Rome when Gnatho seeks to replace the recently banished form of persuasive oratory
with his own militarily informed philosophical rhetoric. Gnatho’s entrance monologue
showcases his talents as a philosopher-parasite, spreading his message throughout the
streets of Rome.
[GN.] di immortales, homini homo quid praestat? stulto intellegens quid
interest?
[GN.] Immortal gods, how does a man surpass over [another] man? How
is an intelligent man different from a fool?
(Eunuchus 232-3)
Barsby (1999) claims that this entire speech “has no bearing on the plot.”192 This may be
true in terms of plot, but it is not true with regard to character development. The speech
does influence the way Gnatho, the parasite, is developed beyond the confines of his
stock character. First of all, it establishes Gnatho as a citizen who has squandered away
190
See Chapter 1, section 1.7.
References to Roman laws and institutions in the Eunuchus include: gladiatorial references (Eunuchus
54-5, 417, 420, 930); mention of Rome’s newly built macellum (Eunuchus 255-7); references to people and
places that have Roman military significance, i.e. to Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Rhodes, etc. (Eunuchus 107, 412,
423, 778, 781, 783,); Roman political jargon (Eunuchus 319, 807, 1065); as well as references to Roman
patron-client relationships (Eunuchus 278, 1039). 192
Barsby 1999: 126.
191
94
his inheritance and as a result has developed a new way to provide himself with
sustenance: being a parasite.193 Gnatho’s citizen status is significant to my interpretation
of his relationship with Thraso as representative of one between a socius miles and a ciuis
miles. The audience immediately associates his character with the misuse of rhetoric for
deceitful purposes. The following speech calls specific attention to Terence’s innovative
treatment of the parasitus colax:
[GN.] olim isti fuit generi quondam quaestus apud saeclum prius.
hoc nouomst aucupium; ego adeo hanc primus inueni uiam…
[GN.] Once at some early time there was the former occupation.
This is a new way to catch game; I, in fact, first found this path…
(Eunuchus 246-7)
[GN.] hisce ego non paro me ut rideant,
sed eis ultro arrideo et eorum ingenia admirer simul.
quidquid dicunt laudo; id rursum si negant, laudo id quoque;
negat quis, nego; ait, aio. postremo imperaui egomet mihi
omnia assentari. is quaestus nunc est multo uberrimus.
[PA.] scitum hercle hominem! hic homines prorsum ex stultis insanos
facit.
I don’t offer my services to them so they can laugh, but rather I laugh at
them and at the same time I glorify their talents. I commend whatever they
say; if they deny [what they just said], I commend that as well; [if he asks
whether] anyone denies, I deny; [if he asks whether] he affirms, I affirm.
Finally, I gave myself strict orders to agree with everything. Now this
business is the most successful by far. [PA.] My god, what a [rhetorically]
knowledgeable man! He makes men absolutely insane from being [mere]
fools.
(Eunuchus 246-7; 249-250)
193
These lines read as, conueni hodie adueniens quondam mei loci hinc atque ordinis, himinem haud
impurum, itidem patria qui abligurrierat bona (“When I was on my way today I met a certain man of my
own rank and station, a man by no means ignoble, who, just like me, had squandered his inheritance in
luxury,” Eunuchus 234-5).
95
In this section Gnatho commandeers rhetorical philosophy and weaponizes it against
Thraso, a representative of the socii milites. The opening sentence refers to the old
characterization of a stock parasitus character while hoc nouomst aucupium (“this is a
new way to catch game”) emphasizes the changes in occupation that Terence has made.
Gnatho is not like the old parasite who acts as the brunt of jokes and abuses, but rather he
turns the table and turns his host into the punchline. Parmeno’s aside to the audience
acknowledges Gnatho’s rhetorical domination scitum hercle hominem! (“My god, what a
[rhetorically] knowledgeable man!”) while adding the suggestion that listening to his
philosophy could convert foolish men into his school: homines prorsum ex stultos
insanos facit (“he makes men absolutely insane from being [mere] fools”). Gnatho goes
so far as to publicly preach his newfound philosophy based on his parasitic technique
(Eunuchus 232-64). Gnatho specifically links his type of rhetoric with philosophical
rhetoric in the following passage:
[GN.] ego ardeo hanc primus inueni uiam…
[GN.] I, in fact, first found this path…
(Eunuchus 247)
[GN.] tamquam philosophorum habent disciplinae ex ipsis uocabula,
parasiti ita ut Gnathonici uocentur.
[GN.] just as schools of philosophers take their names from those,
just exactly like this let the parasites be called ‘Gnathonics.’
(Eunuchus 263-4)
The language in this passage is highly emphatic; ego…primus (“I first”) emphasizes
Gnatho’s personal involvement in the founding of this philosophical parasite-school. The
96
terminology philosophorum disciplinae suggests the formal schools of philosophy.194
Terence composes it, or at least intentionally adapts this section, in order to Romanize
and simultaneously vilifiy Gnatho’s character, again through a Greek filter, but this time
one of philosophy instead of mythology. Gnatho, as a parasite, is intentionally
commandeering the intellectual property of the expelled philosophers, that is, rhetorical
persuasion used to satisfy his own ends. I propose the possibility that Gnatho’s
philosophically-charged rhetoric in general, but particularly in the lines above, represents
a hypothetical militaristic effect of the recent expulsion of philosophers and rhetoricians
from Rome in 161 BCE.
In addition to the senatus consultum that expelled philosophers from Rome,
Gnatho is linked with other edicts of 161 BCE that were a series of sumptuary laws
aimed at curbing excess and luxury.195 This link can be observed in Parmeno’s following
comment regarding Gnatho:
[PA.] uiden otium et cibus quid facit alienus?
[PA.] See what a life of idleness and dining on someone else’s tab does for
a person?
(Eunuchus 265)
The reference to otium (“leisure”) and cibus (“food”) signal the sumptuary provisions
expressed by the lex Fannia aimed specifically at curbing the luxury surrounding
elaborate feasts.196 The additional adjective alienus, however, adds new meaning to the
194
This falls in line with Barsby 1999: 134 who notes, for example, the “Platonici, Socratici, etc.”
These laws are the lex Oppia and the lex Fannia. Vishnia 1996: 91 argues: “the lex Oppia was in
essence a sumptuary law that intended to curb female luxury at a time when many women were coming
into large fortunes because of the great number of war casualties… However, the Oppian law does not
seem to fit within the category of sumptuary laws which normally set bounds on lavish entertainment.” For
citations on the lex Fannia, refer to footnotes 187-189.
196
See OLD, s.v. otium and cibus. Suetonius, describing the enforcement of sumptuary laws, writes: legem
praecipue sumptuariam exercuit dispositis circa macellum custodibus, qui obsonia contra vetitum
195
97
sentiment. Admittedly, the use of alienus here can each be simply translated as
“another’s” and assumed to refer to Gnatho’s habit of eating meals provided by Thraso.
However, a more specific notion of foreignness, implying non-citizenship status can also
be applied which can inform our reading of the text.197 Parmeno’s emphasis on the food’s
foreignness suggests importation and military plunder. In light of this, the same line can
be read as follows:
[PA.] uiden otium et cibus quid facit alienus?
[PA.] See what [an citizen soldier’s] leisure and plundered food does for a
person?
(Eunuchus 265)
The word otium refers to Gnatho’s own leisure as a Roman citizen soldier, compared to
the more strenuous wartime requirements of the socii milites, while cibus refers to
Gnatho’s lavish dinners on Thraso’s dime. The previous statement (Eunuchus 263-4)
followed by this question (Eunuchus 265) introduces a new breed of parasite that
epitomizes an additional threat to Rome. He is a product of the excessive amount of
military plunder that has entered the city determined by the actions of socii instead of
cives milites. As this chapter has discussed, Terence’s development of Gnatho, through
the mythological parallel to Sisyphus, transforms him into a Sisyphean ciuis miles
parasitus. Terence transforms the parasitus into a citizen with reference to his acceptance
into a grex alongside other citizens and transforms him into a soldier by the military
terminology he employs during the siege of Thais’ house.
retinerent (“[Caesar] oversaw the sumptuary laws because guards were placed around the macellum, who
detain luxury food items as an opponent against what has been forbidden,” Julius Caesar 43). 197
See OLD, s.v. alienus entry which includes definitions such as: “belonging to another, independent, of
another country, foreign, unrelated.”
98
2.10. Conclusion
My analysis has demonstrated that when making changes to the paradigmatic
nature of the stock characters Thraso and Gnatho, Terence draws attention to the type of
Roman soldier each one represents, either the ciuis (as is the case with Gnatho) or socius
(as is the case with Thraso). Moreover, their dramatic relationship can be read
metaphorically for Rome’s parasitical relationship with its socii milites wherein the socii
assumed most burdens of war for Rome, while Rome provided little of substance in
return. Furthermore, Thraso’s character reverses socially established gender roles and
undercuts Roman military practices. With the mythological parallel that Thraso makes,
Thais is portrayed as a dominant figure, reigning over Thraso as a prostitute regina.
Thraso turns the Hercules myth into a sort of burlesque by comparing his ridiculous
desire to prostrate himself before a prostitute to the situation of Hercules who was
required to serve the queen, Omphale, as expiation for homicide. Thraso’s reasons for
being willing to submit himself to a woman are different than those of Hercules, but the
submission itself is entirely similar. Thraso’s introspective parallel develops his character
beyond the formulaic miles gloriosus by revealing his tendency to undermine Roman
military procedures as well as gender roles. Terence creates an original dramatic
character that combines characteristics of the stereotypical miles gloriosus and the
subordinate, passive Hercules. Terence’s appropriation and development of the miles
gloriosus, particularly his title of imperator (Eunuchus 778) and his service as a leader of
a maniple (Eunuchus 781-3), reminds one of a high-ranking socius miles at Rome.
Terence develops Gnatho’s character, too, beyond his stock role in multiple ways.
One significant mode, I have demonstrated, is through the dynamic of introspection and
99
extraspection. Facilitated by a mythological parallel, this dynamic reveals Gnatho’s inner
thoughts and social perspectives. His self-comparison to Sisyphus places emphasis on his
rhetorical prowess while also revealing a paradoxical point-of-view in which he
somehow feels burdened by the relationship between himself, the parasite, and Thraso,
the parasite’s host. This parasitic relationship, as previously discussed, can be taken
metaphorically for the relationship between Roman ciues milites and socii milites.
Gnatho’s self-righteous feelings of burden reveal a plausibly Roman standpoint, as
evinced by Rome’s reluctance to offer citizen status to its allies, and the absurdity of the
parallel points to a satirical tone regarding the ciues milites in Terence’s work. The
development of Gnatho’s character is the result of Terence blending stock characters of
comedy with those of mythology.
I have established how introspective and extraspective characters can be
metaphorically equated to Rome and the territories that she subjugated: the parasite,
Gnatho, signifies Rome, and Thraso its host, or ally. Terence gives Thraso and Gnatho
their individual perspectives through the dynamic of introspection and extraspection
initiated by mythological parallel. In addition, beyond mapping out how the dynamic of
introspection and extraspection develops stock characters, I hope to have exposed a level
of cynicism regarding the author’s representation of soldiers in the Eunuchus. These
soldiers compel their audience to interrogate the integrity of Roman imperialism and
Rome’s dependence on allied soldiers. The military mindsets that introspection and
extraspection illuminate offer a critical look at the brazen soldiers involved in the
aggressive Romanization of the Mediterranean during Terence’s lifetime of the early
second century BCE. Introspection exposes the psychological effects of Romanization,
100
extraspection the sociological effects on Rome’s citizen and allied soldiers. The social
and military stations revealed through extraspection paint a satirical portrait of Rome’s
foreign relations. As a foreigner and likely a prisoner of war himself, Terence offers a
unique narrative perspective that does not necessarily champion Rome’s military and
political authority over conquered tribes and nations.198
198
Goldberg 1986: 218 claims, “the new kind of seriousness that Terence brought to comedy was not a
Roman seriousness, and, ultimately, his comedy failed to be a Roman comedy.” He adds: “Thraso is a
worthy successor to Pyrgopolynices…Yet the values Terence assigns these familiar figures, their abiding
significance after the laughter has stopped, are indeed new and had an unsettling effect on his successors”
(219).
101
CONCLUSION
This thesis has set out to demonstrate how Terence’s use of mythology and
mythological burlesque in the Eunuchus is both innovative and unique. In Chapter One, I
have argued that Terence achieves his unique imprint by dramatic character selfcomparison and expression by way of introspection and extraspection. The introspective
character proposes a mythic figure as a parallel to its own dramatic personality and the
myth as an equivalent to the dramatic situation that, in turn, exposes his/her individual
motives, thoughts, intentions, and justifications. The comparison of the character’s
relationship to another character reveals his perceived placement in society. The character
is thereby individualized and elevated beyond the confines of his “stock” character
trait(s). In a genre so saturated with stock elements, Terence’s changes to the
paradigmatic structure are significantly marked.
One aspect of Terence’s innovative and distinct subtlety is revealed through his
use of character development, which individualizes and transforms certain New Comedy
stock characters while drawing attention to the classes of Roman citizen or non-citizen to
which the characters belong. Terence individualizes and transforms his characters by
means of introspection and extraspection, which is facilitated by the adaptation and
manipulation of preexisting Greek mythological narratives, such as the myths concerning
the unsolicited amorous affairs of Zeus that I discussed in Chapter One. I have suggested
that Terence renovates paradigmatic stock characters in the Eunuchus by merging their
characteristics with those of a mythological parallel. Burlesqued characteristics of Zeus
are grafted onto Chaerea, the lustful youth (Chapter One); Hercules is merged with
102
Thraso, the arrogant-turned-subservient soldier (Chapter Two); and finally Gnatho, the
tricky charmer, is characterized through Sisyphus (Chapter Two).
Besides the Eunuchus’ three mythological references there are only two others in
the entire Terentian corpus. Although on a smaller and less personal scale, Terence’s
other two mythological references still reveal information about the characters that make
the reference. In each, a character poses, but significantly rejects, a self-comparison to a
mythological figure. Davos, a servus in the Andria, complains that the other character is
speaking in riddles and that he does not know the answer:
[DA.] Davos sum, non Oedipus.
[DA.] I’m Davos, not Oedipus.
(Andria 194)
In this reference, Davos rejects the identification with Oedipus who received his
incestuous kingdom by answering the sphinx’s riddle correctly. In Terence’s other
rejected mythological parallel, Chremes, a senex in Heauton Timorumenos, says that he
wouldn’t believe his son even if he was his favorite child, as Minerva was:
[CH.] non si ex capite sis meo natus, item ut aiunt Minervam esse ex
Iove…
[CH.] Not even if you were born from my head, just as they say Minerva
was [born] from Jove…
(Heauton Timorumenos 1036)
The rejection of the mythological parallels still develops the character; however, instead
of learning what the character is, we learn what he is not, thereby still facilitating a form
of character development refined in the Eunuchus.199 I suggest, therefore, that mythology
and character development are fundamentally intertwined in Terence’s works. The
199
Germany 2013: 235 suggests that Davos asserts here that he is “a comic slave, not a tragic mastermind.”
103
phenomenon is especially developed in the Eunuchus wherein burlesqued mythic figures
are essentially grafted onto stock characters in a way that highlight contemporary Roman
political and military institutions. In the Eunuchus Terence experiments with the merging
of stock characters with the type of burlesqued mythological characters found in Satyr
drama and the Amphitruo of Plautus. Terence then creates something original by blending
the stock character with the mythological figure to create innovative characters that
transcend the established stock comedic characters.
In the Eunuchus it is only the elite Roman soldiers (Chaerea, Thraso and Gnatho),
both citizen and ally, who receive this uniquely provocative type of character
development. Introspection establishes identities that reveal the soldiers’ roles in Roman
society and extraspection reveals how those roles influence their world-views and
actions. Introspection personally develops the soldiers into individual characters who
expose the mindsets and the ethics of Roman soldiers during the tumultuous Middle
Republic. Furthermore, the soldiers’ perceived relationships with other characters,
established through extraspection, offer a commentary on Roman political and military
institutions dealing with foreign relations such as expansionism and the use of socii
milites, Rome’s allied troops, to fulfill these expansionist policies.
Beyond mapping out how the dynamic of introspection and extraspection
develops stock characters, I have exposed a level of cynicism and satire present in
Terence’s development of the milites in the Eunuchus. These characters force the
audience to call into question the integrity of Roman imperialism and the elite male
entitlement that accompanies it. The military mindsets which introspection reveals offer a
cynical look at entitled males involved in the aggressive Romanization of the
104
Mediterranean in the second century BCE.200 Where introspection exposes the
psychological effects of Romanization, extraspection does its sociological effects. The
social and military stations revealed by extraspection paint a satirical portrait of Rome’s
foreign relations. Specifically, the extraspective relationships satirize Roman bloodlust,
reliance on Italian allies, and the sociological effects Romanization has on Roman milites,
as well as Rome’s socii milites.
The individualized development of these stock characters is a Terentian invention
that highlights Roman military institutions and Roman ideologies concerning philosophy,
masculinity and sexual violence. Specifically, I have argued how Gnatho’s character can
be seen as a reflection of and militaristic reaction to the expulsion of philosophers and
rhetoricians from Rome in 161. Thraso’s character can be read as a Romanized
peregrinus soldier who subverts Roman gender roles, as well as military rank and
standards. Chaerea’s character embodies the war-machine that is the burgeoning Roman
empire of the Middle Republic. By imbuing his stock characters with more substance,
Terence ultimately casts a more critical spin on the soldiers and the Roman institutions to
which they belong.201
200
Since Terence was a Carthaginian slave brought to Rome, Augoustakis 2013: 3 calls him “a validation
of the mechanisms in place of so-called Romanization.”
201
A further investigation into the presentation of soldiers throughout the Terentian corpus could help
unpack some of the ubiquity of this figure on the Roman stage, as well as in Roman life.
105
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J. 1990. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Anderson, W. 1982. Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Astin, A., R. Ogilvie, M. Frederiksen, and F. Walbank (edd.). 1989. The Cambridge
Ancient History. Vol. 8, Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Augoustakis, A. and A. Traill (edd). 2013. A Companion to Terence. Oxford and Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Austin, J. 1921. The Significant Name in Terence. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of
Illinois. University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, Vol. VII, No. 4.
Urbana: The University of Illinois.
Autenrieth, G. 1876. A Homeric Dictionary. New York: American Book Co.
Barsby, J. 1999. Terence: Eunuchus. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Beare, W. 1965. The Roman Stage: A Short History of Latin Drama in the Time of the
Republic. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Bortolussi, M. and P. Dixon. 2003. Psychonarratology Foundations for the Empirical
Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braund, S. 1996. The Roman Satirists and Their Masks. London: British Classical Press.
Brown, P. 1987. “Masks, Names and Characters in New Comedy.” Hermes 115: 181202.
———. 2006. Terence: The Comedies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2013. “Terence and Greek New Comedy.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 1732.
Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
106
Cain, A. 2013. “Terence in Late Antiquity.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 380-396.
Christenson, D. 2013. “Eunuchus.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 262-279.
Cornell, T. and D. Rogers. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the
Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC). London: Routledge.
Cyrino, M. 1998. “Heroes in D(u)ress: Transvestism and Power in the Myths of Herakles
and Achilles.” Arethusa 31 (2): 207-241.
———. 2008. A Journey through Greek Mythology. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Pub.
Co.
Dumenil, L. 2014. “The Haptic Eye: On Nan Goldin’s Scopophilia.” In G. Padva and N.
Buchweitz (edd.), Sensational Pleasures in Cinema, Literature and Visual
Culture: The Phallic Eye. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 35-49.
Dunbar, N. 1998. Aristophanes: Birds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Duncan, A. 2006. Performance and Identity in the Classical World. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dunsch, B. 2014. “Religion in Roman Comedy.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014: 634-652.
Dutsch, D. 2008. Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and Voices. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Earl, D. C. 1962. “Terence and Roman Politics.” Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte
11 (4): 469-485.
Edwards, H. J. (ed.). 1917. The Gallic War. Loeb Classical Library, 72. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Elliott, R. 1982. The Literary Persona. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Erdkamp, P. (ed.). 2011. A Companion to the Roman Army. Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell.
Erdkamp, P. 2011. “War and State Formation in the Roman Republic.” In Erdkamp 2011:
96-113.
107
Fantham, E. 1975. “Sex, Status, and Survival in Hellenistic Athens: A Study of Women
in New Comedy.” Phoenix 29: 44–74.
Flower, H. (ed.). 2014. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fontaine, M. 2014. “The Terentian Reformation: From Menander to Alexandria.” In
Fontaine and Scafuro 2014: 538-554.
Fontaine, M. and A. Scafuro (edd.) 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman
Comedy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Foster, B. O., F. G. Moore, E. T. Sage, and A. C. Schlesinger (edd.). 1948. Livy. Loeb
Classical Library, no. 114, 133, 172, 191, 233, 295, 301, 313, 332, 355, 367, 381,
396, 404. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fowler, R. 2000. Early Greek Mythography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2013. Early Greek Mythography. Volume 2; Commentary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fraenkel, E. 2007. Plautine Elements in Plautus (Plautinisches im Plautus), translated by
T. Drevikovsky and F. Muecke. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Franko, G. 2013. “Terence and the Traditions of Roman New Comedy.” In Augoustakis
and Traill 2013: 33-50.
Fredrick, D. 2002. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Gabba, E. 1989. “Rome and Italy in the Second Century B.C.” In Astin, Ogilvie,
Frederiksen, and Walbank 1989: 197-243.
Gellar-Goad, T. H. M. 2013. “Religious Ritual and Family Dynamics in Terence.” In
Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 156-174.
Germany, R. 2013. “Andria.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 225-242.
Gill, C. 1996. Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy: the Self in Dialogue.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
108
Goffman, E. 1997. “Self Presentation: From The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.”
In C. Lemart and A. Branaman (edd.), The Goffman Reader. Malden, MA:
Blackwell. 21-25.
Goldberg, S. 1986. Understanding Terence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 2005. Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic: Poetry and its Reception.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goldsworthy, A. 2003. The Complete Roman Army. New York: Thames & Hudson Inc.
Green, J. R. 1985. “Drunk Again: A Study in the Iconography of the Comic Theatre.”
American Journal of Archaeology 89:465-472.
Gruen, E. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
———. 2014. “Roman Comedy and the Social Scene.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014:
601-613.
Harris, N. 1989. “Roman Expansion in the West.” In Astin, Ogilvie, Frederiksen, and
Walbank 1989: 107-162.
Hassall, M. 2002. “Romans and Non-Romans.” In T. Wacher (ed.), The Roman World.
New York: Routledge. 685-700.
Henderson, J. 2002. Aristophanes: Lysistrata. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Holler, C. 2013. Rethinking Narrative Identity, Person, and Perspective. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hoyos, D. 2011. “The Age of Overseas Expansion (264-146 BC).” In Erdkamp 2011: 6379.
Hunter, R. 1985. The New Comedy of Greece and Rome. Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
James, S. 2013. “Gender and Sexuality in Terence.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 175194.
109
Karakasis, E. 2005. Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy. Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2013. “Masters and Slaves.” In Augoustakis. and Traill 2013: 211-222.
———. 2014. “Tragic and Epic Interactions in Terentian Comedy.” In Papaioannou
2014: 75-94.
Karamanou, I. 2006. Euripides, Danae and Dictys: Introduction, Text and Commentary.
Munich and Leipzig: K. G. Saur Verlag.
Kauer, R. and W. Lindsay (edd.). 1965. P Terenti Afri Comoediae. Oxford Classical
Texts. Oxford: Clarendon.
Kendall, S. 2013. The Struggle for Roman Citizenship: Romans, Allies, and the Wars of
91-77 BCE. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Kernan, A. 1959. The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renaissance. Yale studies in
English, 142. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Konstan, D. 1983. Roman Comedy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Konstantakos, I. 2014. “Comedy in the Fourth Century I: Mythological Burlesques.” In
Fontaine and Scafuro 2014: 160-180.
Lape, S. 2001. “Democratic Ideology and The Poetics of Rape in Menandrian Comedy.”
Classical Antiquity 20: 79-119.
LaRue, J. 1963. “Creusa’s Monody: Ion 859-922.” Transactions and Proceedings of the
American Philological Association 94: 126-136.
Laws, R., and W. O’Donohue. 1997. Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and
Treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
Lazenby, J. 2014. “Rome and Carthage.” In Flower 2014: 260-277.
Leigh, M. 2004. Comedy and the Rise of Rome. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
110
Liddell, H., R. Scott, H. Stuart Jones, R. McKenzie (edd.). 1996. A Greek-English
Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lomas, K. 2014. “Italy During the Roman Republic, 338-31 B.C.” In Flower 2014: 233259.
Ludwig, W. 2001. “The Originality of Terence and His Greek Models” In E. Segal (ed.),
Oxford Readings in Menander, Plautus, and Terence. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 205-215.
Maltby, R. 1991. A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies. ARCA, 25. Leeds: Cairns.
Mattingly, D. 2007. An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC-AD
409. London and New York: Penguin.
Mogens, L. 2002. “Vis comica: Consummated Rape in Greek and Roman New Comedy.”
Classica et Mediaevalia 53: 173-196.
Monro D. and T. Allen (edd.). 1920. Homeri Opera. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Moore, T. 2013. “Meter and Music.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 89-110.
Most, G. 2006. Hesiod. Loeb Classical Library, no. 57, 503. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Mulvey, L. 1975. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16: 6-18.
Norwood, G. 1923. The Art of Terence. Oxford: Basil-Blackwell.
Omitowoju, R. 2002. Rape and the Politics of Consent in Classical Athens. Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press
Packman, Z. 2013. “Family and Household in the Comedies of Terence.” In Augoustakis
and Traill 2013: 195-222.
Papaioannou, S. 2014. Terence and Interpretation. Pierides, v.4. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
———. 2014. “Terence’s Stock Characters and Plots: Stereotypes ‘Interpreted.’” In
Papaioannou 2014: 142-175.
111
Philippides, K. 1995. “Terence’s Eunuchus: Elements of the Marriage Ritual in the Rape
Scene.” Mnemosyne 48: 272-284.
Pierce, K. 2002. “The Portrayal of Rape in New Comedy.” In S. Deacy, K. Pierce, and K.
Arafat (edd.), Rape in Antiquity. London: Classical Press of Wales in association
with Duckworth, 163-184.
Potter, D. 2014. “The Roman Army and Navy.” In Flower 2014: 54-76.
Rawlings, L. 2011. “Army and Battle During the Conquest of Italy (350-264 BC).” In
Erdkamp 2011: 45-62.
Rawson, E. 1989. “Roman Tradition and the Greek World.” In Astin, Ogilvie,
Frederiksen, and Walbank 1989: 422-476.
Richlin, A. 1992. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosivach, V. 2006. “The Lex Fannia Sumptuaria of 161 BC.” CJ 102 (1): 1-15.
Ruffell, I. 2014 “Humiliation, Voyeurism, Violence, and Humor in Old Comedy.” Helios
40: 247-277.
Saller, R. 1982. Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire. Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sandbach, F. (ed.). 1990. Menandri Reliquiae Selectae. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Schefold, K. and L. Giuliani. 1992. Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schiller, A. 1978. Roman Law: Mechanisms of Development. The Hague: Mouton.
Sharrock, A. 2009. Reading Roman Comedy: Poetics and Playfulness in Plautus and
Terence. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2013. “Terence and Non-Comic Intertexts.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 5267.
112
Smith, S. 1976. “Voyeurism: A Review of Literature.” Archives of Sexual Behavior: The
Official Publication of the International Academy of Sex Research 5: 585-608.
Starks, J. 2013. “Opera in bello, in otio, in negotio: Terence and Rome in the 160s BCE.”
In Augoustakis and Traill 2013: 132-155.
Sutton, D. 1994. The Catharsis of Comedy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
TrGF = B. Snell, S. Radt, R. Kannicht (edd.) 1971-2004. Tragicorum Graecorum
Fragmenta. 5 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tromaras, L. M. 1985. “Ibi inerat pictura haec: Terent. Eunuch. 584-9.” Hellenika 36:
268-277.
Vincent, H. 2013. “Fabula Stataria: Language and Humor in Terence.” In Augoustakis
and Traill 2013: 69-87.
Vishnia, R. 1996. State, Society and Popular Leaders in Mid-Republican Rome 214-167
BC. London and New York: Routledge.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1989. Patronage in Ancient Society. London and New York:
Routledge.
Williams, C. 2012. Reading Roman Friendship. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wiseman, T. P. 1998. Roman Drama and Roman History. Devon, UK: University of
Exeter Press.
Yalom, I.D. 1960. “Aggression and Forbiddenness in Voyeurism.” Archives of General
Psychology 3: 305-319.