Papers by Andrea De March
Inventing Origins? Aetiological Thinking in Greek and Roman Antiquity, 2021
This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Lampas, 2019
Summary In this article I reassess the figure of Alcumena in Plautus’ Amphitruo in order to shed ... more Summary In this article I reassess the figure of Alcumena in Plautus’ Amphitruo in order to shed new light on the interpretation both of her character and of the play as a whole, which is usually called ‘tragicomedy’ after the playful definition given in the prologue. In previous scholarship, Alcumena was seen as a tragic character embedded in a comedy, and as such she was regarded as the embodiment of the tragicomic mixture suggested by the play’s alleged self-denomination. By contrast, more recent interpretations have reread her figure as farcical, making Alcumena more consistent with the spirit of other Plautine comedies. However, this recent reassessment has neglected some elements that might undermine the new interpretation. Personally, I believe that the application of such exclusive labels as ‘tragic’ and ‘comic’ to Alcumena is not satisfactory from an exegetical point of view. My aim is therefore to overcome such tragicomic exegetical dichotomy by taking some neglected aspec...
Available in open access at: https://brill.com/view/book/9789004500433/BP000010.xml
Lampas. Tijdschrift voor classici 52 (2019) 2, 164-177, 2019
In this article I reassess the figure of Alcumena in Plautus’ Amphitruo in order to shed new ligh... more In this article I reassess the figure of Alcumena in Plautus’ Amphitruo in order to shed new light on the interpretation both of her character and of the play as a whole, which is usually called “tragicomedy” after the playful definition given in the prologue. In previous scholarship, Alcumena was seen as a tragic character embedded in a comedy, and as such she was regarded as the embodiment of the tragicomic mixture suggested by the alleged play’s self-denomination. Conversely, more recent interpretations have reread her as a farcical figure, making her more consistent with the spirit of other Plautine comedies. However, this recent reassessment has neglected some elements that might undermine the new interpretation. Personally, I believe that the application of such exclusive labels as ‘tragic’ and ‘comic’ to Alcumena is not satisfactory from an exegetical point of view. My aim is therefore to overcome the tragicomic exegetical dichotomy by taking some neglected aspects into due account, and especially by applying Pirandello’s theory of humour to the case of Alcumena. This theory’s focus on “the contrary,” unlike other definitions of humour, accounts for the simultaneity of the serious and non-serious aspects implied by her presence on stage. Once her ‘humorous’–in the Pirandellian sense–nature has been brought to light, it is then possible to overcome the dichotomous interpretation of her character as either tragic or comic. Last but not least, this new reading will allow also a better understanding of the generic interplay within the Amphitruo.
In 1948 Francesco Arnaldi defined the Pseudolus as «the most Roman of Plautus’ comedies». Such a ... more In 1948 Francesco Arnaldi defined the Pseudolus as «the most Roman of Plautus’ comedies». Such a statement must partly rely on the title-protagonist of the play, Pseudolus, the peculiar character that overwhelms many Plautine plots. This character provides specific evidence for Plautus’ general tendency to anchor some peculiar elements of his own theatre to the Greek framework of New Comedy. Actually Pseudolus, inclined to pragmatism and shrewdness, is a fully Roman character. Nonetheless, throughout the play he also engages with philosophical reflection. By analyzing this seemingly contradiction thanks to the comparison of Pseudolus to Davos, his more philosophizing counterpart in Menander’s Aspis, I aim to retrace the process through which Plautus applied his predecessors’ characterization to his own slave. The analysis of such a particular case will provide a first contribution to the definition of the concept of ‘anchoring innovation’ as inherent to Plautine art. Pseudolus is actually a meta-literary character aware of the novelty of his own figure. Yet, he is bound to some archetypical aspects of his Greek ancestor. Thanks to this strategy, Plautus made the Greek framework of the palliata familiar to his Roman audience; conversely, a spectator used to Greek theatre could appreciate the persistence of its peculiarities. Thus, speaking of a ‘double anchoring’ seems legitimate, since this strategy does not only concern the structural features of comedy as a genre, but it also involves the reciprocal cultural exchange between Greece and Rome.
Conference Presentations by Andrea De March
Workshop paper, 2018
Abstract: In Chapter 6 of his book, Feeney shows that, with regard to the specific context of ear... more Abstract: In Chapter 6 of his book, Feeney shows that, with regard to the specific context of early Roman literature, the translation project is not limited to the linguistic aspects, but entails an extensive process of cultural appropriation. And yet, his use of the word ‘translation’ seems to be used still in its literal (or according to our) meaning, especially for the palliatae and cothurnatae, thus marking a neat distinction from those genres that could not be ‘translated’ from Greek, lacking a direct ‘model’ (see §Beyond the Translation Project). In the following Chapter, Feeney reconstructs thoroughly the context in which the ‘new’ literature was produced and received. The new literature is put in relation with the emergence in Rome of a new class of poets characterised by a professionalism that features, as shown in Chapter 5, the knowledge and practice of Hellenistic culture, literary criticism included. In the light of this context of literary production and reception, I will explore the broader implications of concepts such as ‘translation’ and ‘(Greek) models’ hinted at–but not fully developed–by Feeney, asking the question whether it is possible to speak of a ‘rhetoric of translation’ (and ‘of models’) as a meta-literary device exploited by these new poets in order to anchor their works in that Greek tradition on which they built their professionalism.
One of the most well-known features of Plautus’ poetry is certainly the definition of his own dra... more One of the most well-known features of Plautus’ poetry is certainly the definition of his own dramas as
“barbarian translations” (i.e. into Latin) from some Greek models, whose authors are often mentioned
by name. This has led –and sometimes still leads– Plautine scholarship to concentrate most of its efforts
on trying to assess Plautus’ degree of either faithfulness or originality with respect to his models. Even
though this comparative approach has been acknowledged as misleading because of the loss (or
absence?) of the models, its persistence still prevents scholars from paying due attention to the impact
of these statements beyond a comparative perspective. This implies that the possibility that Plautus is
here trying to create a connection between his “barbarian” works and an already established genre has
still to be researched.
Thus, in this paper I will try to read Plautus’ meta-theatrical discourse as an attempt to outline an
aetiology for his own work. As such, I will also shed proper light on a recurrent aspect of his meta-theatre
that has been quite neglected, namely the claim that his poetry represents “something new”. This
statement can be seen either as in conflict with the claimed reliance on the models, or, rather, as a
different part of the same persuasive strategy by which Plautus aims at presenting his own work as a
novelty which nonetheless holds a relation of continuity with a canonized literary tradition. In order to
fulfill such an aim, aetiology seems to prove a crucial tool, allowing the poet a persuasive pattern
where the new Latin (thus “barbarian”) poetry is framed as a descendant from the Greek literary
precedent, whose authoritativeness legitimizes the new genre by virtue of its alleged chronological
continuity.
Official Roman literature, according to Livy’s famous testimony (7, 2), was born with the perform... more Official Roman literature, according to Livy’s famous testimony (7, 2), was born with the performance of a drama by the Greek freedman Livius Andronicus. We do not have any further information about this play, but from other fragments of Andronicus himself and of the considerable amount of dramas (comedies and tragedies) that were performed by his times and later on, we can infer pretty safely that it was an adaptation from a Greek original. Out of the several ‘Latin versions’ that were produced during the early stage of Latin literature only Plautus’ and Terence’s comedies have survived entirely. Given their particular nature, up to the beginning of the 20th century these plays had received great attention mostly by Hellenists, who aimed to reconstruct from them the lost Greek Middle and New Comedies. These scholars relied on the principle that Roman copies were extremely faithful to their originals, and thus Latin playwrights were credited with no originality . From a heuristic point of view, Roman sculpture had undergone the same destiny, since the approach known as Kopienkritik exploited a philological methodology inherited from textual criticism to reconstruct Greek original exemplars from the Roman ‘copies’. Fortunately, in both cases scholars have recently re-evaluated the originality of the Roman productions, so that their relationships with the Greek heritage can finally receive new light. In my paper I aim thus to look at how such a relationship can be redefined. On the one hand, in Roman statues very often the name of the Greek ‘copist’ occurs, followed by his patronymic or ethnic origin and the verb epoiei/epoie(se) (like in the signature on the ‘copy’ found in the Villa dei Papiri in Herculaneum: Apollonios Archiou / Athenaios / epoese). The Greek ethnic origin of the ‘copist’ instead of the indication of his demos, besides the incision of the signature on the statue itself (for the sake of visibility) shows that the artifact was meant for the Roman market. On the other hand, some Plautine prologues bear both the name of the adapter (Plautus himself) with the language in which he is adapting (either Latine or barbare) and the name of the Greek model (e.g. Asin. 11 Demophilus scripsit, Plautus vortit barbare). Despite their big differences, these two labels share the same target, namely making themselves more attractive for the Roman addresses by remarking their Greek connection. Actually, as Hallet observes about Roman statues, «the Romans wanted works that through their reference to the Greek past conferred a greater value on the Roman present». Similarly, Plautine prologues, by means of rhetoric and irony, aim to insert the Latin fabula palliata in the tradition of Greek comedy. The comparison of the materiality of the signatures to the persuasive function of the prologues sheds thus a new light on this important feature of Plautine art, which can be considered as a signature/sphragis as well, and contributes to a better understanding of its anchoring function , for it can be tailored to it what Anguissola 2015, 244 claims for Roman statues: «quotations of Greek sculptural (≈literary) styles, masters and masterpieces played a central role within Roman culture, since they provided the visual (≈poetic) vocabulary for artistic expression of new Roman values and qualities».
In this paper I will give a brief overview and a possible explanation of Plautus’ ambiguous attit... more In this paper I will give a brief overview and a possible explanation of Plautus’ ambiguous attitude towards the Greeks. Actually, on the one hand he presents his plays as a barbarized (i.e. corrupted) version of certain Greek comedies. On the other, the Greek characters of Plautine plays are not portrayed positively (the word graecari labels in fact the barbarian behavior par excellence). Such a seeming contradiction can be solved by considering Plautus’ twofold aim. Calling the Latin version ‘barbarian’ is an ironic device meant to anchor the newborn genre of the Roman palliata to the more authoritative tradition of Greek Middle and New comedy. Conversely, the negative portrayal of the Greek characters mirrors a contemporary Roman stereotype familiar to the audience. I will then consider the possibility to apply even to an early author like Plautus the theoretical approach ‘Greek-knowledge, Roman power’, which from the Augustan age (e.g. Horace) up to now (e.g. Veyne) has been used to describe the Greco-Roman relationship.
In this paper I investigate a particular aspect of Plautus’ art, namely how Roman elements relate... more In this paper I investigate a particular aspect of Plautus’ art, namely how Roman elements relate to the Greek frame of the fabula palliata, a Latin comedy which is generally presented by the playwright himself as a translation of a Greek play. Despite this premise, the Latin poet is not strictly bound to the original, since some evidences show that throughout the ‘translated’ work his own creativity manifest more or less massively. By reconsidering the characterization of Hanno, the protagonist of the Poenulus, I aim to reverse the perspective of such a poetic process and regard the original work (or, possibly, the professed original), as an arrival rather than as a starting point. I will try to explain how Plautus exploits the generic features of his Greek model to bring on stage some elements of his own poetry. In other words, my purpose is to describe such a device in terms of ‘anchoring’ and show that this strategy aims at the recognition of this early Latin dramatic form within the official and established literary system, represented of course by the Greek heritage. Firstly, I will point out all the elements contributing to portray Hanno, who is himself a foreigner, as a character consistent with the Roman scenario, and thus suggest that Hanno’s characterization is Plautus’ original creation. Secondly, I will focus on some features that can be assumed to have been peculiar of the Greek model of the Poenulus. Then, it will be possible to describe how Plautus exploited the framework of his source to present his own invention as conforming to the established literary system. I regard this device as an interesting attitude representative of early Latin literature, which after a period of improvised pre-literary performances was striving to establish itself as an official and authoritative entity.
Thesis Chapters by Andrea De March
![Research paper thumbnail of Lost in Barbarian Translation: The Anchoring Function of the Greek Models and the Poetics of Originality in Plautine Comedy (PhD dissertation, Leiden 2015-2019) [Table of contents]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/63283491/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Lost in Barbarian Translation: The Anchoring Function of Greek Models and the Poetics of Originality in Plautine Comedy , 2015
This dissertation reassesses the function of the Greek models mentioned or implied by the Roman p... more This dissertation reassesses the function of the Greek models mentioned or implied by the Roman playwright Plautus (c. 255-184 BC) in some of his comedies. The research presented in this work questions traditional approaches to Plautus’ plays as extant Latin (un)faithful translations of some lost Greek originals. New light is shed instead on the discursive function of the mentions of or allusions to Greek models in Plautus’ oeuvre. This reassessment shows that the claimed or implied presence of Greek models in Plautine comedy works better as a persuasive means aiming to meet the expectations of an audience concerned with the Greekness of literary genres. Plautus’ fabulae palliatae feature a strong Italic indigenous taste, thus they could sound as extremely innovative, or, as Plautus himself ironically admits, ‘barbarian’, to a philhellenic spectator. Greek literary genres formed an established canonical system whose generic features applied also to Roman literature. Therefore, in order to promote his ‘barbarian’ plays and make them look more Greek, Plautus needed to dress them in a Greek ‘cloak’ (this is what fabula palliata means) by anchoring them in the established Greek tradition. Claiming or implying the presence of Greek models proves to be the strategy chosen by Plautus.
Reviews by Andrea De March
Bollettino di studi latini 48,2018, fasc. I, 2018
Uploads
Papers by Andrea De March
Conference Presentations by Andrea De March
“barbarian translations” (i.e. into Latin) from some Greek models, whose authors are often mentioned
by name. This has led –and sometimes still leads– Plautine scholarship to concentrate most of its efforts
on trying to assess Plautus’ degree of either faithfulness or originality with respect to his models. Even
though this comparative approach has been acknowledged as misleading because of the loss (or
absence?) of the models, its persistence still prevents scholars from paying due attention to the impact
of these statements beyond a comparative perspective. This implies that the possibility that Plautus is
here trying to create a connection between his “barbarian” works and an already established genre has
still to be researched.
Thus, in this paper I will try to read Plautus’ meta-theatrical discourse as an attempt to outline an
aetiology for his own work. As such, I will also shed proper light on a recurrent aspect of his meta-theatre
that has been quite neglected, namely the claim that his poetry represents “something new”. This
statement can be seen either as in conflict with the claimed reliance on the models, or, rather, as a
different part of the same persuasive strategy by which Plautus aims at presenting his own work as a
novelty which nonetheless holds a relation of continuity with a canonized literary tradition. In order to
fulfill such an aim, aetiology seems to prove a crucial tool, allowing the poet a persuasive pattern
where the new Latin (thus “barbarian”) poetry is framed as a descendant from the Greek literary
precedent, whose authoritativeness legitimizes the new genre by virtue of its alleged chronological
continuity.
Thesis Chapters by Andrea De March
Reviews by Andrea De March
“barbarian translations” (i.e. into Latin) from some Greek models, whose authors are often mentioned
by name. This has led –and sometimes still leads– Plautine scholarship to concentrate most of its efforts
on trying to assess Plautus’ degree of either faithfulness or originality with respect to his models. Even
though this comparative approach has been acknowledged as misleading because of the loss (or
absence?) of the models, its persistence still prevents scholars from paying due attention to the impact
of these statements beyond a comparative perspective. This implies that the possibility that Plautus is
here trying to create a connection between his “barbarian” works and an already established genre has
still to be researched.
Thus, in this paper I will try to read Plautus’ meta-theatrical discourse as an attempt to outline an
aetiology for his own work. As such, I will also shed proper light on a recurrent aspect of his meta-theatre
that has been quite neglected, namely the claim that his poetry represents “something new”. This
statement can be seen either as in conflict with the claimed reliance on the models, or, rather, as a
different part of the same persuasive strategy by which Plautus aims at presenting his own work as a
novelty which nonetheless holds a relation of continuity with a canonized literary tradition. In order to
fulfill such an aim, aetiology seems to prove a crucial tool, allowing the poet a persuasive pattern
where the new Latin (thus “barbarian”) poetry is framed as a descendant from the Greek literary
precedent, whose authoritativeness legitimizes the new genre by virtue of its alleged chronological
continuity.