Life and literature in the Roman republicFrank, Tenney
History
Life and literature in the Roman republic
Frank, Tenney
Latin literature -- History and criticism; Rome -- Intellectual life
The most striking departure of Roman comedy from the Greek resides in the
omission of the choral interludes and the substitution of long lyrical
monodies in the place of spoken and recited lines. In the Greek plays
the acts were separated by choral interludes, dances, revels, and the
like. With the careful costuming as well as with the frequent doubling of
rôles in the Greek theater, much time was required for changes of garb.
Plautus had few trained singers available for an effective chorus, few
dancers, and he needed but little time between the acts, since there was
no scene-shifting and masks were not used in his day. A Plautine play was
almost a continuous performance, and a performance with an abundance of
music. The rapid dialogue that carried the most vital action was usually
spoken without musical accompaniment in six-foot iambics. This dialogue
usually constituted about a third of the play. Soliloquies, monologues
(except in prologues), and scenes of tense emotion were apt to be sung to
the flute in a variety of meters that kept changing to suit the mood and
the emotion. These parts, called _cantica_, were rare in some plays and
especially in the early ones, while in others they took up as much as a
third of the play. To these cantica we shall presently return. Certain
scenes composed of recitative were accompanied by the flute. Such scenes
we are accustomed to even now, especially in sentimental plays where
love-making and moonlight are signals for the muted violins to accompany
the spoken words with a soft obligato. In Plautus the meters of such
scenes, usually seven- and eight-foot lines, vary considerably from the
normal dialogue verse.
There is only one passage in ancient comedy in which we happen to have
the original Greek material re-cast into a Roman canticum. A late
critic, Aulus Gellius,[11] quotes a song of Caecilius, and with it
the original Greek to demonstrate what he calls the inadequacy of the
Latin paraphrase. Gellius, however, misses the point. The substance of
the Greek—the conventional complaints of a scold-ridden husband—was
deliberately changed. The smooth narration of the original was not
suited to song, and Caecilius wanted a text that would give the musician
a chance to bring out effectively the constantly changing emotions of
the speaker. In the Greek the husband simply informs the audience, with
suitable comment, that his wife, jealous of her slave maid, has had her
sold to get her out of the house. There is of course no great depth to
the husband’s emotions, though the range from pity to sarcasm is well
enough brought out. The Latin version stresses this variation of mood by
a constant shift of meters, the verse running speedily from the tripping
trochaic septenarii through cretics, bacchiacs, cretics again, and then
iambics. The man comes on shouting to music that changes its rhythm with
every line.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account