Reading Roman Comedy: Poetics and Playfulness in Plautus and Terence by Alison Sharrock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
430 PHOENIX towards him.Priapus, unlike Silvanus orFaunus, orTiberinus, caneasily become an object ofmockery. Thefinal chapter examines "GodsinStatian Settings," documenting first intheSihaethepoet's population ofhis"villa poems" andothers with godsofthe landscape. Thesegods, nowdomesticated andbrought under human control, relish and thrive intheimproved version ofItaly built byStatius' patrons. In narrative sections of theSihae(suchas Pan'spursuit ofPholoëin2.3) andintheThebaid , Fantham sees Statius' depictions ofthegodsofthelandscape asvivid andsentimental, butpushed into therealm offantasy rather than treated asa realpart oftheItalian land. Thesefinal three chapters areallunobjectionable in themselves, andoffer strong preliminary readings oftheissues they focus on.Asintherest ofthe volume Fantham's readings areonly lightly situated inprevious scholarship, which makes the book readable, butnonetoohelpful for those whowishtodigdeeper. Moreimportantly, I amnot entirely convinced that the"diptych" Fantham points toinherintroduction reads well asa whole work ofart.Thesecond half ofthebookdoesnottruly cohere initself and adds veiy little tothe first.«In general, I found thefirst three chapters ofFantham's study much more valuable than thesecond andI suspect this would have beena better book haditbeena smaller one. University ofMississippi MollyPasco-Pranger ReadingRoman Comedy: PoeticsandPlayfulness inPlautusandTerence.By AlisonSharrock.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009.Pp.xi,321. Asthe title ofherstudyindicates,Sharrock approaches theplays ofPlautus and Terence aspoetic texts, andfrom a reader's perspective (20): I would certainly not want tosetupanopposition between performance criticism andliterary criticism, but nonetheless itisa major part ofmy aim inthis book to(re)introduce the concept of the literary artist inthese works and sotore-evaluate, for modern readers rather than audiences, the study oftexts onwhich sophisticated work inperformance criticism hasprovided a basis for progress inliterary analysis. Before reading this programmatic statement, ithadnever occurred tomethat performance critics, inthecaseofancient dramatic texts atleast, werenotalsonecessarily engaged inliterary analysis. Noris theidentity ofthese hypothetical modern readers ever revealed, andformulations suchas "this bookoffers whatis primarily a literary reading oftheplays ofPlautus andTerence, itsimplied reader [Roman comedy's? This study's?] being a reader oftexts whoisa member ofanaudience only byprojection and imagination" (18) areeven lesshelpful. Still, thisis anoften illuminating study that both specialists inRoman comedy and"less-than-avid-readers ofPlautus andTerence" (ix),Sharrock's target audience, will benefit from reading, even ifSharrock isnotalways pellucid inlaying outher book's ownvarious programs. Sharrock's first chapter, "Art andArtifice," moves from some general reflections onart anddeception tolocate drama asfundamentally engaged inthelatter. Sharrock isolates three terms - consilium , architectus , turbare ("aself-referential plot, a clever plotter anda comic mess" [17]) - tocapture theessence ofRoman comedy. Thissomewhat reductive chapter serves itsintroductory purpose well, especially for non-specialists. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTESRENDUS 431 In Chapter Two,"Beginnings," Sharrock acknowledges thatthevaried means by which Plautus begins plays defy categorization; nonetheless, sheneatly identifies ritualistic aspects ofhisprologues (especially callsfor silence, prayer formulae, benedictions). In a refreshing discussion ofTerence's prologues, Sharrock makes an intriguing casefor Callimachean models behind thevetus poeta , i.e.,theTelchines oftheAetia prologue andEnvy intheHymn to Apollo. In this light, "Terence's prologues aresixmeditations on thequestion ofwhatitmeans towrite a playinthepalliata tradition, in Rome inthe160sb.c.,"andthey constitute "a highly original wayofdrawing an audience intotheworld oftheplay,andteaching them towatch withan eyeto convention anddifference, to allusion andintertext" (93). Thisrepresents a definite advance on viewing Terence's prologues merely asspecimens ofearly Roman rhetoric, evidence for contemporary theatrical conditions, ormanifestations ofanhistorical dispute with Luscius Lanuvinus that is detached from theparticular plays.I alsowonder whether someof Plautus' prologues (especially those ofAmphitryon , Casina , Captivi ,Rudens) share atleast some ofthese same goalsSharrock identifies for Terence's (without, ofcourse, evoking Callimachus). Thischapter is marred bya fewdrastic interpretative leaps,as when Sharrock asserts that Amphitryon , initsprologue andthroughout, is"ahymn toJupiter 'Iuppiter optimus moechusì ] andHercules" (61). Chapter Three, "Plotting andPlaywrights," traverses mostly familiar territory, with itsfocus on comic "deceit." Sharrock gives a reasonable account ofclever slaves and their occasional surrogates (e.g., Phronesium inTrue .),andofhowtheir roles asplotters ofplots may serve as metaphors for performance, even when theservus callidus fails at histask (ashappens inTerence). Butwhile Sharrock avers that she"[does] notintend toimply .. . that 'metatheatre' is the'answer towhat is going onintheplays" (96), theterms "metatheatre" and"metatheatrical" figure prominently throughout thechapter. I amfar lesscertain thanSharrock that theplays, through thesharing ofknowledge between actors andaudience, recognition scenes andsuch, ultimately assert thestability ofidentity (theargument here seems toshift imperceptibly from readers toaudiences).1 Commitment tothis idealeadsSharrock toanunpersuasive assessment ofCaptivi ,a play that challenges thestability ofsocial identity atevery turn, wherein sheultimately figures thesenex Hegioas"akind ofhonorary comic...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".