T. H. M. Gellar-Goad’s commentary is a valuable contribution to the Michigan Classical Commentaries. The book represents a new, up-to-date reference commentary on Curculio, Plautus’ shortest comedy yet representative of his style throughout, offering a stimulating treatment of the play, especially in terms of the socio-historical context, performance and metatheater, which will prove valuable for scholars, undergraduate and graduate students, directors and actors.
The book is organized into six parts: Introduction; “Sermo Plautinus”, a comprehensive overview of Plautus’ language; a section on Plautine meters with the symbols used in the text and the Schema metrorum; Text; Commentary; and an Appendix displaying the scansion of the sole canticum of Curculio (following Questa 1995 and Lanciotti 2008). The book concludes with a Bibliography and two very useful indices (Index Locorum and General Index).
Gellar-Goad’s introduction is delightfully concrete and instructive. He rightly expresses reservations concerning ancient biographies and cautions against giving them too much credit. He thus limits his biographical references only to Plautus’ Umbrian origin and in all probability low social status. Gellar-Goad offers a concise overview of the Greek and Italian background of the palliata. He explains in an articulate way the process of the innovative adaptation of the Greek models by the Roman playwrights, producing plays of an avowed “Greekness” for the Roman audience; here he captures the very essence of Plautus’ originality, the “creation” of the “Plautinopolis.” Gellar-Goad proceeds to give a short history of progress in the study of Roman comedy, gradually shifting from Quellenforschung to the study of Roman Comedy’s features and the original aspects of Plautine comedy.
One cannot but appreciate the clear and comprehensive way in which Gellar-Goad treats all the main questions concerning Curculio (extensively treated in Gellar-Goad 2021a, to which he makes frequent references). He accepts the play’s dating probably to 193 BCE. He gives a thorough discussion of the plot and the main themes of Curculio, the characters, and the nexus through which they are connected, represented conveniently in Figure 1, p. 10, and introduces all the distinctive Plautine humorous elements in Curculio, expressing his objection to all forms of biased humor. The section on the socio-historical context of Plautine comedy is certainly a must-read. Gellar-Goad explicates in concrete terms “race,” quite distinguishable from the modern conception, as a social construction based on cultural and geographical grounds, exploring main aspects of “otherness,” “self,” and racism in Curculio set in the background of the wider geopolitical context of the Roman expansion in the Mediterranean during the Middle Republic towards the rise of the Roman empire. He gives a clear, disillusioned description of Roman enslavement practices, based on the exploitation of the “Other,” and their aspects found in Plautine comedy and in Curculio in particular, quite rightly refusing to see any abolitionist attitude here. He is very cautious in his choice of words related to the institution. His use of the terms “enslaved person” and “enslaver” instead of “slave” and “master” and “sex-trafficker” for “pimp” sheds light on the arbitrariness and coercive and abusive nature of slavery. His association of Leaena’s enslaved status with her alcoholism in terms of her coping with trauma is an insightful, nuanced interpretation beyond the common observations on her character’s modeling on the typical comic old drunkard. The same sensitivity ought to be acknowledged in his understanding of Palinurus’ frequent angry responses (see on 314–316).
Gellar-Goad provides the reader with all the necessary information on production and performance during Plautus’ time. His observation on the impression of a changing expression of the mask owed to the actor’s virtuosity (thoroughly developed in Gellar-Goad 2021a: 67 and 2024: Ch. 1, esp. 38, 40, 42–45) is arresting. Concerning the troupe size and doubling, he estimates that the ten speaking parts were assigned to five actors, as illustrated conveniently in Table 1, p. 22. The treatment of Plautus’ musical comedy is most welcome especially as a guide for students now faced with nothing but a Latin text and meters that are hard to scan. Gellar-Goad gives a stimulating nudge to students to delve into Marshall’s and Moore’s outstanding studies (Marshall 2006: 203–244, Moore 2012) to appreciate the function of music as a fundamental element of the theatrical experience of the Roman audience. He proceeds to present the four arcs of Curculio and their peculiarities. He also outlines all the distinct aspects of Plautine metatheatricality, which receive due attention throughout the commentary. Special emphasis is laid on the Choragus’ monologue, its unparalleled metatheatrical and utterly Roman nature, breaking the fourth wall in a fascinating way, and on the difficulties entailed in its modern adaptations, which in turn shed light on its integral function within the Plautine comedy (see also previously, pp. 8–9 and in the Commentary, p. 165).
The discussion of the history of the Plautine text is a shorter version of Gellar-Goad 2021a: 138–144. Moving on to the play’s reception in antiquity, Gellar-Goad’s contribution consists in the thought-provoking suggestion that Terence’s Phormio is extensively indebted to Plautus’ Curculio, a valuable view bringing out interesting perspectives for both the history of the Plautine text and Terentian originality. His treatment extends from the Late Republic to the Middle Ages, Humanistic and Renaissance European literature, and modern college and university performances. Special mention is made of the performances directed by John H. Starks Jr. (UNC, 1991, with K.J. Reckford) and more recently by V. Sophie Klein (Boston University, 2022, via Zoom), which have contributed to his reading of the play.
The overview of Plautus’ language (“Sermo Plautinus”), including archaisms, poetic forms, colloquialisms, Greek words, syntax and style, though not exhaustive, may serve as an introduction to Plautine language for students. Some notes on the use of the indicative and subjunctive mood in indirect questions in Plautus might have been useful (a much discussed issue; see Stephens 1985 in terms of semantics-pragmatics and Žáková 2012 for Aulularia; Barios-Lech 2023 for a sociolinguistic approach). A reference to de Melo 2007 would be valuable as a suggestion for further reading.
The section on Plautine meters displays practical rules for the scansion, examples, the main meters, and a helpful piece of information about the cantica, most valuable for an area that usually discourages a beginner with Plautus; students overwhelmed and baffled by Plautus’ meters reading these pages may get the impression of being taken by the hand in a smooth yet at the same time intensive course in Plautine versification and have many questions demystified. A reference to Questa 2007 would have been valuable as a suggestion for further reading for graduate students.
For his text Gellar-Goad follows Lanciotti 2008, differing in 35 instances (listed in the Table in p. 27), comprising minor changes in readings, punctuation and distribution. Gellar-Goad’s dismissal of the “Act-Division” is refreshing and in accordance with the continuous action of the palliata (this is the norm now in all Urbino editions), with the scene-headings rightly retained. The choice of more extensive scene-headings and the insertion of indications on stage-business in square brackets in the text are most welcome and in keeping with the whole effect of the book: to give us an idea of the performance experience. Concerning the sigla in his text, Gellar-Goad follows the Leiden Conventions. The symbols used for denoting scansion are valuable. Although Gellar-Goad follows the well-grounded practice of the Editio Plautina Sarsinatis of using an approximation of the spelling of Plautus’ time following the MSS evidence (see Lanciotti 2008: 9), printing, e.g., sicophantam instead of sycophantam (463), for the name of the banker he chooses the more familiar spelling Lyco; yet the retention of Lico would be justified (also attested in some MSS; see Lanciotti 2008: 28). The capitalization of Genius, the common Plautine deification of the parasite’s patron (301, 628;), and Opportunitas (305) is well justified by Gellar-Goad on 305 and further underlines the extravagance of these typical Plautine jokes. The same choice for the Comitium (403, 470) and the Forum (403, 475) enhances the association with Roman topography and the possible site of the first performance of the play.
The Commentary begins with information about the characters (including a thorough explanation of their names), the setting (a concise treatment accompanied by a map of the Mediterranean, Figure 2, p. 90, and a schematic of the scaena, Figure 3, p. 91), and notes on the acrostic Argumentum.
Short and concise introductory observations precede the notes on individual lines concerning the content and dramatic function of each scene, the progression of the plot, characters, humor, staging, setting, meter and music, and the transition from one arc to the other. When needed there are notes at the end of each scene describing the transition to the next one. The notes on the text are wide-ranging. With a fair number of observations on syntax, language and style and frequent cross references to the “Sermo Plautinus” Gellar-Goad guides us smoothly through the text. Note, however, on ne time (520): this type of construction is not colloquial; its distribution shows that it is archaic and poetic, e.g. in Augustan poetry and Senecan tragedy (see Bennett 1910: 362, Hofmann-Szantyr 1965: 340).
In terms of dramaturgy, all the main features of Plautine comedy are duly foregrounded. Gellar-Goad investigates all possible textual indications on setting, staging, costumes, masks, props, and highlights vividly the stage-business. On 422–424 maybe there is no need to suppose that the tablets are oversized, nor is the change of Cappadox’ mask color or costume necessary either, as suggested on 455. Gellar-Goad has compellingly argued for the presence of Therapontigonus onstage at the end of Scene 11 (Gellar-Goad 2021b). Observations on meter and music are also valuable for the reader to fully appreciate the theatrical experience offered by the palliata.
Gellar-Goad indicates distinctive aspects of Plautine humor in this play: verbal humor (mockery, wordplay, deliberate misunderstandings, word twisting, comic invective, bickering), topsy-turviness, farcical humor, medical symptomatology, and the religious tone recalling (and parodying) Roman religious and ritualistic language and practice. For the seruus currens scene, a reference to the other Plautine parasite assuming this function, Ergasilus in the Captiui, in a scene presenting noticeable similarities with that in Curculio, might have been helpful. Gellar-Goad also frequently foregrounds improvisational elements (ingeniously retaining in these terms line 485 pace most editions of the text) and Plautine metatheatricality.
Gellar-Goad fully explores the Roman context of the play: Roman details, practices, institutions, legal language and practice, topography (suggesting, by the way, the Comitium as the site of the first performance of the play, see on 399–402 and 470, and of course laying special emphasis on the Choragus’ monologue, where the notes are supplemented by Figure 4, p. 166, representing the Roman Forum). Concerning the basilica (472) one should also consider the existence of an earlier basilica (c. 195–191 BCE) in the exact location of the Basilica Aemilia (see Duckworth 1955, Gorski-Packer 2015).
A most valuable contribution, already anticipated in the Introduction, is the stress laid on Roman constructions of identity, class and sex, and on all forms of biased humor (pertaining to marginalized social groups, class distinctions, sex, sexuality, physical or mental illness, and denoting abuse): Gellar-Goad projects these complex issues through the lens of the modern reader, suggesting at least cautiousness in treating them.
References to bibliography and parallels are economical and always to the point. Gellar-Goad’s diction is remarkable for its concision, concreteness and immediacy throughout. We ought to appreciate, and enjoy, the occasional use of the parenthesis, second person, puns and interjections, achieving clarity, vividness and humor and at the same time doing justice to Plautine humor and offering a pleasant reading experience. It is a privilege to have these features in a book on Plautus’ comedy, bearing in mind its comparative absence in many studies.
Plautus was a man of theater, and his texts are above all drama. Through the pages of his commentary Gellar-Goad offers us a unique, pleasant, “real time” experience of Plautine theater, as it were, taking us by the hand to lead us in an all-inclusive tour in Plautinopolis.
References
Barrios-Lech, P. 2023. “Indirect Questions in ‘Early Latin’.” In Early Latin: Constructs, Diversity, Reception, edited by J. N. Adams, A. Chahoud and G. Pezzini, 157–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, C. E. 1910–1914. Syntax of Early Latin, vol. I–II. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
de Melo, W. 2007. The Early Latin Verb System: Archaic Forms in Plautus, Terence, and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Melo, W. 2011. Plautus. Vol. 2, Casina. The Casket Comedy. Curculio. Epidicus. The Two Menaechmuses. Loeb Classical Library 61. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Duckworth, G.E. 1955. “Plautus and the basilica Aemilia.” In Ut Pictura Poesis. Studia Latina Petro Ioanni Enk Septuagenario Oblata, edited by De Jong, P., Jonkers, E. J., Mulder, H. M., Schutter, K. H. E., Sluiter, Th. H. and Westendorp-Boerma, R. E. H., 58–65. Leiden: Brill.
Gellar-Goad, T.H.M. 2021a. Plautus: Curculio. London: Blommsbury.
Gellar-Goad, T.H.M. 2021b. “Therapontigonus Was on Stage the Whole Time: A Note on Stagecraft in Plautus’ Curculio.” Mnemosyne 74 (1): 144–151.
Gellar-Goad, T.H.M. 2024. Masks. Berkeley: Tangent/punctum.
Gorski, G. J. and Packer, J. E. 2015. “The Basilica Æmilia.” In The Roman Forum: A Reconstruction and Architectural Guide, 91–115. chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hofmann, J. B.-Szantyr, A. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck.
Lanciotti, S. 2008. Titus Maccius Plautus: Curculio. Urbino: QuattroVenti
Lindsay, W.M. 1907. Syntax of Plautus. Oxford: James Barker and Co.
Marshall, C.W. 2006. The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, T. J. 2012. Music in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Questa, C. 1995. Titi Macci Plauti Cantica. Urbino: QuattroVenti.
Questa, C. 2007. La metrica di Plauto e di Terenzio. Urbino: QuattroVenti.
Stephens, L. 1985. “Indirect Questions in Old Latin: Syntactic and Pragmatic Factors Conditioning Modal Shift.” ICS 10: 195–214.
Žáková, A. 2012. “Konjunktiv versus Indikativ in den indirekten Fragen der Plautus-Komödie Aulularia.” Graeco-Latina Brunensia 17: 107–123.