What do you think?
Rate this book
The Comedies of Terence
'The Comedies of Terence' presents entirely new translations, in rhyming couplets, of all six extant plays by this Latin author, dating from the period 166-60 BC. An excellent literary translation, the versions remain very close to Terence's texts; consequently they will be not only enjoyable to the general reader, but also great value to the student of classics. The Introduction is in itself a major contribution to our understanding of Terence. Matthew Leigh, who has written the Introduction to this volume, first became interested in Terence while serving as Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History at the University of Exeter. He is currently Fellow and Tutor in Classics at St Anne's College, Oxford. He is author of ' Spectacle and Engagement' (Oxford, 1997) and 'Comedy and the Rise of Rome' (Oxford, 2004).
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 19, 2009
"The Brothers"
First off, after reading a series of introductions to ancient Roman play collections, it’s become apparent that further research into the history of the Atellane farce would be really beneficial to understanding the style of Terentian—and, to a greater extent, Plautine—comedies. What are the similarities and differences between the Atellane farce and Commedia Dell’Arte?
Thematically, Terence’s The Brothers focuses primarily on the validity of a “spare the rod, spoil the child” parenting style. In addition, however, the play explores the concepts of brotherly influence (no brainer with the title), class, and curiously the Roman legal system.
As the translator notes in the introduction to The Brothers, Terentian comedy is unique among its ancient Roman counterparts; while Plautus goes simply for the laughs, Terence explores—however tangentially—fairly dark concepts in the belly of his plays. The Brothers is no different—a comic hero as an unabashed rapist? Granted, Terence doesn’t elucidate the circumstances of Aeschinus’ impregnation of the neighbor girl in much detail. However, most reading with a critical eye—particularly if they’re familiar with the body of Terence’s work, which features LOTS of plays centered on rape—can see that the initial sex act was most likely non-consensual. Which brings me to my biggest question: how would The Brothers sell to a contemporary audience, considering its unashamed chauvinistic content? Would modern viewers swallow their moral qualms for the sake of some belly-laughs?
A couple quick notes about the evolution of playwriting since Plautus:
1. As the plot unfolds, Terence infuses The Brothers with much more mystery than found in a Plautine comedy. In the latter playwright’s case, the plays’ characters are completely transparent about their backgrounds and motives as the action takes place. Conversely, Terence uses (arguably) in media res writing tricks to compel his plays’ viewers to more actively engage with his work to suss-out plot, relationships, etc.
2. Contrary to the aforementioned conclusion, when Terence does allow his characters to bare their feelings to audience members, the playwright lets them do so thoroughly and frequently. The comedic power of Aristophanes’ token parabasis seems to have evolved into a new trope: asides marked by their repetition and casual nature. Is this evidence of viewers’ greater comfort in being directly engaged by characters in a play? This new trend certainly seems like a sign of the art form’s (and viewers’) further development.
First off, after reading a series of introductions to ancient Roman play collections, it’s become apparent that further research into the history of the Atellane farce would be really beneficial to understanding the style of Terentian—and, to a greater extent, Plautine—comedies. What are the similarities and differences between the Atellane farce and Commedia Dell’Arte?
Thematically, Terence’s The Brothers focuses primarily on the validity of a “spare the rod, spoil the child” parenting style. In addition, however, the play explores the concepts of brotherly influence (no brainer with the title), class, and curiously the Roman legal system.
As the translator notes in the introduction to The Brothers, Terentian comedy is unique among its ancient Roman counterparts; while Plautus goes simply for the laughs, Terence explores—however tangentially—fairly dark concepts in the belly of his plays. The Brothers is no different—a comic hero as an unabashed rapist? Granted, Terence doesn’t elucidate the circumstances of Aeschinus’ impregnation of the neighbor girl in much detail. However, most reading with a critical eye—particularly if they’re familiar with the body of Terence’s work, which features LOTS of plays centered on rape—can see that the initial sex act was most likely non-consensual. Which brings me to my biggest question: how would The Brothers sell to a contemporary audience, considering its unashamed chauvinistic content? Would modern viewers swallow their moral qualms for the sake of some belly-laughs?
A couple quick notes about the evolution of playwriting since Plautus:
1. As the plot unfolds, Terence infuses The Brothers with much more mystery than found in a Plautine comedy. In the latter playwright’s case, the plays’ characters are completely transparent about their backgrounds and motives as the action takes place. Conversely, Terence uses (arguably) in media res writing tricks to compel his plays’ viewers to more actively engage with his work to suss-out plot, relationships, etc.
2. Contrary to the aforementioned conclusion, when Terence does allow his characters to bare their feelings to audience members, the playwright lets them do so thoroughly and frequently. The comedic power of Aristophanes’ token parabasis seems to have evolved into a new trope: asides marked by their repetition and casual nature. Is this evidence of viewers’ greater comfort in being directly engaged by characters in a play? This new trend certainly seems like a sign of the art form’s (and viewers’) further development.
Displaying 1 of 1 review