For several years, Verlag Antike has been publishing a series of volumes that have significantly enriched scholarship on Greek and Roman comedy. The new commentary on Plautus’ Persa by Joseph Conlon fits well within this series and provides readers and scholars with a new interpretative tool. The book consists of a three-part introduction, a lemmatic commentary, a short bibliography and an Index rerum et nominum.
The introduction clearly presents the aims and structure of the commentary. The first part succinctly traces the history of scholarship on Persa, focusing in particular on Woytek’s 1982 commentary,[1] which is criticised mainly for its excessive interest in the play’s lost Greek model and its lack of attention to issues relevant to the modern reader. The second section focuses on some elements of the play that are treated in the commentary, that is, the staging of the play, Plautine language, and themes such as the peculiar treatment of stock characters, especially slaves, and the unique role of the Virgo. The third part briefly reports on the manuscript tradition and the critical editions.
The main part of the book consists of a running commentary on the Persa. Conlon does not print his own text but adopts Lindsay’s 1905 OCT.[2] Two omissions should be noted: first, the two arguments of the play are not commented upon. Second, metre is largely left undiscussed but readers are directed to the works of Woytek and Questa[3] (see pp. 27-28).
In what follows, I will focus on and evaluate some aspects of the commentary. I will refer to the book’s pages only for verbatim quotations, while otherwise I will identify notes by verse number.
Conlon’s aims are explicitly stated from the outset: he intended to make the Persa “accessible to a broader audience of readers”, to “address the interests of modern readers and scholars” outlined in the introduction, and, of course, to perform “the basic work one would expect” from a commentary, such as “explaining difficult or corrupt passages” and “providing necessary cultural and historical context” (p. 7).
As a general assessment, the book meets these objectives and seems particularly suitable for students: the commentary provides all the basic information needed for understanding the text while remaining concise and avoiding excessive detail. A non-specialist audience will surely benefit from this work. On the other hand, this very brevity may make the commentary less appealing to more advanced scholars: some notes are somewhat sketchy, not all claims are sufficiently argued, and bibliographical references are not extensively provided. This limitation can be illustrated by examining the notes in which the label “colloquial register” occurs. In several cases, the discussion—though brief—provides sufficient evidence to justify the label: examples include features displayed in lines 10, 46, 94, also collected in the introduction (pp. 30-31). In other cases, however, such a discussion is lacking, nor are bibliographical references provided, making it difficult to verify Conlon’s assertions (be they right or wrong): see, for example, lines 6, 56, 218, 591. Scholars will probably want more information, but students may well benefit from the absence of detailed argumentation that would distract them from the text.
The commentary’s primary aim is to provide a solid and thorough guide to understanding the meaning of the text. Conlon devotes careful attention to individual words, syntactic constructions, and the meaning of lines in the context of the dramatic action. This is, I believe, the major merit of the commentary: drawing on previous scholars, Conlon explains the text clearly and in detail, making the Persa accessible to a wide audience of readers.
Conlon’s sensitivity to Latin is particularly evident and enables him to propose various readings which, in my opinion, improve upon or correct earlier interpretations: at 36, I agree that ut mihi des should be understood as a polite request or as a wish rather than as a stipulative subjunctive. At 670, the joke about clothes and the meretrix’ profession fits well in the context. Dordalus’ behaviour at 722-723 is convincingly explained. Also valuable are the observations on how the meaning of the lines changes depending on their delivery (e.g., 45, 205, 374-375). Not always, however, Conlon’s attempts at arguing against Woytek’s position prove entirely convincing: at 61, taking both hunc and maiorum ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with both quaestum and locum seems difficult, since the ordo verborum rather suggests two symmetrical noun–determiner pairings (unde ego hunc quaestum optineo et maiorum locum). At 81-82, the view that sibi in the phrase sua sibi pecunia is a dative of disadvantage is unpersuasive. At 36 and 437-438, Conlon conveys the idea that the sescenti nummi which Dordalus demands from Toxilus do not represent a fixed sum but “refer to an indefinitely large quantity of money” (p. 148); however, the same figure occurs consistently every time the characters speak about that price (36, 117, 394, and 852), including at the moment of the actual payment, which rather suggests that, within the dramatic fiction, this is the exact amount (but Conlon is probably right in claiming that it is pointless to relate it to realistic prices).
Despite the generally good quality, some of Conlon’s explanations fail to take account of better readings or contain questionable statements about what happens on stage. The misunderstandings at 369-371 are better explained by Woytek and Ernout: the Virgo takes malo (369) not as the ablative of malum understood as “moral or social disgrace” (p. 138), as Conlon thinks, but as the dative of malus “bad person”. At 195, Paegnium does not begin to exit but simply moves away from Toxilus and remains on stage for the rest of the scene. At 201, Sophoclidisca is said to have eavesdropped on the preceding dialogue: in fact, while she is on the stage at the same time as Toxilus and Paegnium, she neither notices nor is noticed by either of them. The notes on 825, 825-826, and 828 mistakenly consider 824-825 spoken by Paegnium instead of Sagaristio.
Considerable space is devoted to linguistic information about the origins of words and inflectional forms. Although originality is not their primary aim, these notes will significantly help students to learn Latin and more specifically Plautus’ Latin, and, as such, render a valuable service to the reader. The information given is mostly correct and sometimes insightful, as, for example, in the note on med at 39. Readers should, however, be aware of some inaccuracies: at 13, the pronoun hic is connected with gr. ὁ, which, however, derives from i.e. *so-. At 11, the proposed etymology for haud “possibly < ho (demonstrative […]) + au (~ab) + de (as in unde)” (p. 42) is far-fetched. At 151, de Vaan is cited, but in fact he does not explain autumo as autem + aio, but directly as a derivative from autem. At 225, cedo and cette are not contractions of the future cedito and the present cedite, but remnants of old aorist imperatives.
Another valuable feature of the commentary lies in its attention to the formal and sonic aspects of the play. Conlon’s notes once again demonstrate how pervasive and important alliteration and sound play are in Plautine verse. Good examples can be found at 77-80, 118, 168, 280a, and the artistry and careful construction of 753-762 are effectively highlighted in the notes on the passage. Toxilus’ jokingly solemn thanks to the gods at 753-762 contains several such features, as the notes on the passage effectively highlight (such as the rising tricolon at 754 bello exstincto, re bene gesta, integro exercitu et praesidiis, and the alliterations at 760 hilaros, ludentis, laetificantis faciam ut fiant). Many observations concern possible directorial choices for the staging, helping readers to visualize the play more vividly and partially restoring aspects of the performance that could be easily lost in reading alone:
to give just one example, at 406-416 and 437, Conlon nicely points out how Toxilus, instead of handing Dordalus the purse full of money he owes him, repeatedly dangles it in front of him and mockingly pulls it away whenever Dordalus tries to snatch it.
Metatheatrical elements are also appropriately highlighted several times (e.g., 124, 159, 306, 676). Another recurring theme is the transformation and subversion of comic stock characters, which Conlon underlines on several occasions (e.g., 25, 35, 273). The commentary effectively highlights these features, enabling readers to develop a more refined appreciation of the play.
Textual criticism also plays an important role. Many textual problems are raised and discussed, helping readers to orient themselves amongst the different texts of the principal editions (however, Ernout’s absence is particularly noticeable).[4] Conlon’s arguments often privilege the text’s appropriateness to the context and the characters’ personalities, its comic effects and its performance, over linguistic evidence, loci paralleli, and the characteristic features of the genre. His choices are generally moderate and reasonable: he rightly defends Lindsay’s text in several cases (such as 131, 360, 534) but is also prepared to depart from it when appropriate (e.g., 48, 190). One might disagree in some cases: Woytek’s seclusion of te at 208 is particularly attractive, and Friedrich Bothe’s addecet at 220 may fit the surrounding dialogue better.[5] Nevertheless, Conlon’s choices remain perfectly defensible.
Conlon’s textual criticism is at its most interesting, in my opinion, when dealing with line attributions. At 186-188, Conlon brings back to our attention Lambinus’ attribution of 187 to Toxilus, which is intriguing and worth considering—although, as far as I can see, at 188 Lambinus does not print eo as Conlon says, but ego, and I would interpret the text in a slightly different way from Conlon: Toxilus’ bet would mock Paegnium by implying that he does not know the number of his fingers either. Between ll. 223 and 245, Conlon discusses the attributions several times fruitfully: the discussion of 229-231 is one of his strongest, and at 236-238 and 245, Conlon’s new attributions, again based on Lambinus’, are engaging and thought-provoking.
As a general remark, however, a certain haste in the philological discussion may be noted. This probably reflects the desire not to burden the text with excessive detail and is therefore an appropriate choice for a student audience. For the specialist reader, though, some problems are dismissed rather quickly: at 498, for instance, Conlon merely notes that the word order is disputed without explaining why, and provides Woytek’s and de Melo’s alternative solutions without indicating whether he considers them preferable to Lindsay’s..[6] In addition, the treatment of the manuscript evidence sometimes lacks precision: at 91, the reading in ordine is found not in “a 17th century codex” (p. 70) but (the so-called “codex vetus” of the 10th century, one of the most important manuscripts of Plautus). At 330, perpetuo cibo is the reading not only of the Ambrosian palimpsest A, but also of the Palatine branch. At 39, as in many other cases, the information about the manuscripts is omitted altogether.
The book is well written overall and readily understandable to an international audience as well. Conlon focuses on the essential issues and presents them in clear and effective language. However, the Latin lemmas diverge from Lindsay’s OCT in a strikingly large number of cases. Sometimes, word order is altered (at 42, sicin te mi hoc is written instead of sicine hoc te mi), a word is omitted altogether (at 632-633, only omnium appears instead of omnium bonarum), a word is given in the wrong inflectional form (at 140-141, the correct form is edis, not edes), a misprint occurs (at 174, one finds nefans instead of infans), or an erroneous change of speaker is introduced (at 144, the words quid est? are attributed to Saturio but are in fact a continuation of Toxilus’ preceding line). Without making a complete list, I have counted 47 incorrect lemmas. More often still, Lindsay’s spelling has been altered. A more careful revision of the Latin texts would have been helpful.
In conclusion, this new commentary on the Persa will be a valuable resource above all for students: it is generally reliable and provides a wealth of information for understanding the text and learning Latin, although a few inaccuracies occur. It will hopefully help to broaden Persa’s audience of readers, and for this Conlon deserves particular thanks. In addition, the scholarly community will profit especially from Conlon’s linguistic sensitivity, which enables him to propose interpretations that are often persuasive and in any case worthy of consideration. This commentary will not replace Woytek’s—nor was it intended to—but rather will usefully complement it.
Notes
[1] Erich Woytek, T. Maccius Plautus, Persa. Einleitung, Text und Kommentar (Wien, 1982).
[2] Wallace M. Lindsay, T. Macci Plauti Comoediae, tom. II (Oxford, 1905).
[3] Cesare Questa, Titi Macci Plauti Cantica (Urbino, 1995) and id., La metrica di Plauto e Terenzio (Urbino, 2007).
[4] Alfred Ernout, Plaute. Comédies. Tome V : Mostellaria – Persa – Poenulus (Paris, Belles Lettres, 1938).
[5] Friedrich H. Bothe, M. Atti Plauti comoediae quae exstant. Tomus tertius (Torino, 1823).
[6] Wolfgang de Melo, Plautus. The Merchant. The Braggart Soldier. The Ghost. The Persian (Cambridge (MA), 2011)