The Response of Subaltern Women to Threats
in Roman Comedy
Allison Ditmore
Department of Classics
Chapter One
Introduction
Roman Comedy is notable for its volume of subaltern women’s speech, a strikingly high percentage of which is occupied by the female characters’ responses to threats ranging from mi-nor to significant, from passing to repeated and structural. Although these threats have been little studied, they form a large, significant, complex set of materials within the corpus of Roman Co-medy. Because many of those shown as making threats would have had the social power to en-act their threats if the circumstances had taken place in en-actual Roman life, and because from an-tiquity on, the plays have been seen as representing genuine Roman social realities, these staged conflicts may reflect what Roman ancillae and meretrices, would have encountered in real life. Roman Comedy provides us a rare opportunity to read and hear words that successfully
likely to seem realistic to viewers. By examining these staged threats, we can learn much about the everyday language of threats and violence, as well as about what threats and violence Roman women from all walks of life may have encountered every day. In this thesis, I want to study the way subaltern women verbally respond to threats, using analyses both formal and contextual, in hopes of better understanding female speech as a whole, the experiences of Roman women, and the vulnerability of Roman women in general. We may also learn more thereby about the Roman female psyche, which is rarely in evidence elsewhere.
Although much attention has been paid to threats made against male slaves and the ways in which those slaves respond, there has been very little study of the plight of subaltern women under threat in Roman Comedy.1 A careful reading of the corpus reveals that subaltern men and women respond to threats in drastically different ways. Both the servus callidus and the servus currens can respond with bravado and with a lack of fear, particularly to threats of physical harm.2 This response does not seem to be an option for ancillae, who simply do not exhibit the practice even in the entirety of one of the largest corpuses of ancient literature. The meretrices likewise do not respond to threats with bravado; they attempt to deflect and defuse the threats with flirtation, teasing, and seductive speech. The typical reaction of a servus, fearlessness, is an effectively humorous manifestation of the “saturnalian overthrow,” a classic comic technique: the inversion of an established power dynamic (Segal 101). Even in the relatively liberated con-1 On this topic, recent writingssee include Eric Segal, ’s Roman Laughter, Amy Richlin’s
“Talking to Slaves in the Plautine Audience”, and Kathleen McCarthy, Parker, Richlin. ’s Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy. See also Holt Parker, “Crucially
Funny…”
text of Roman Comedy, however, ancillae do not present this behavior. The fearlessness demonstrated by the servi is an easily recognized comic ploy, not a realistic representation of Roman life. But Plautus and Terence do not present ancillae with the same saturnalian, comic ulterior motive. Thus, their responses to threats are more likely to resemble those of a typical, biographical historical ancilla and, with careful analysis, to reveal her fears, concerns, and other reactions to the common violence to which she would have been frequently exposed in historical ancient Roman life.
The meretrices of Roman Comedy play central roles in many of the plays, and their cha-racters demonstrate a flexibility that seems forbidden to other classes of women (f. A or
example, a threatened meretrix can use sexual teasing alongside and wit in order to maintain control of their her situation). In But in some ways, meretrices can be the most vulnerable class of women. EThe enslaved meretrices can be are required forced to sell themselves not for their own benefit but for the benefit of an owner. FThe free meretrices may have more choice as far as the men they accept, but they also do not live under the protection of anyone elsehave no formal social or legal support; they may have even less recourse for threats and violence because they have no owner to complain in court of damageprovide protection. Furthermore, many of the meretrices are pursued by several men who threaten the women’s bodily autonomy and who
by subalterns: male slaves rest at the top and may exhibit an unconcerned and jovial attitude to-wards all types of threats; meretrices, are in the middle, and may exhibit use teasing and mocking in response to some types of threats; and lastly, ancillae, are at the bottom, and rarely exhibit humorous responses at all to threats.
Method
Threats are made against women of all social classes but, as we shall see, certain classes of women do not encounter certain types of threats. It seems that in some situations, these threats are considered unacceptable even in the artificial world of the comic stage. Specific word choice or rhetorical devices may affect whether the threat is perceived and reacted to as legitimate, and I intend to investigate both these factors completely. These are my questions: Which speech patterns indicate fear in the women? Which patterns distinguish a legitimate threat, one that actually frightens women, from a fake threat? Which women are most likely to be subject to which kinds of threat? Which types of characters are most likely to produce which kind of threat? How do rhetorical devices contribute to the perception of the threat? Do certain words indicate that a threat is legitimate or fake?
relation-ship between the playwright, the actors, the characters, and the audience. His metatheatrical ap-proach allows him to evaluate primarily context, word choice, and humor in order to assess the social and political qualities of Roman Comedy. David Konstan’s Roman Comedy makes use of a largely sociocultural approach in Roman Comedy that can effectively surveys the social factors and systems at play in the plot adaptations and functional roles of each character as it varies across the corpus.
Chapter Two
Ancillae
Slaves endure the majority of the threats, and certainly most of the most violent threats, aimed at women, perhaps because they are constantly present.3 Ancillae compose more than half the women subjected to on-stage violence. Their low social status places them at greater risk of threat and violence than non-slaves because they rarely have recourse against the perpetrators. In addition, Roman traditionspractices, such as requiring torture to legitimize the evidence of slave witnesses, also add to the threats and violence that ancillae endure frequently. Since the ancillae can at times act as representatives of their owners, they do at times endure threats or violence ultimately intended for their owners, such as groping or other sexual violenceaggression.
In this chapter, I will discuss Astaphium from Truculentus, Mysis from Andria, Staphyla from Aulularia, and Scapha from Mostellaria. They are exposed to threats of physical violence, implied threats of physical violence, violent cursing, and on-stage violence itself among other
threats. Astaphium, the ancilla of Phronesium in Truculentus, faces on-stage violence, threats of physical violence, and violent cursing. The men who threaten her are usually directing their an-ger and violence towards her because she is Phronesium’s slave and thus functions as a stand-in for Phronesium. Mysis, the ancilla of Glycerium in Andria, encounters on-stage violence and threats of physical violence. She is the target of threats as a substitute for Glycerium, and Davus, who acts on behalf of his owner Simo, is the primary person threatening her. Staphyla, the ancil-la of Euclio in Auluancil-laria, meets with on-stage violence and threats of physical violence from Eu-clio himself as he seeks to protect his pot of gold. Scapha, the ancilla of Philematium in Mostel-laria, faces threats of physical violence. She is a retired lena who sold herself back into slavery at some point after her lover left her and she became too old to practice prostitution. When she warns her owner that the same might happen to her, Philematium threatens her with a beating.4
Staphyla of Aulularia
At the beginning of Aulularia, the first scene after the prologue introduces Euclio usher-ing Staphyla out of the house5:
EUC: exi, inquam, age exi: exeundem hercle tibi hinc est foras, circumspectatrix cum oculis emissiciis. (40-41)
EUC: Get out, I say! Go on, get out! You really must get out of here, you spy with eyes sent on a mission.
4 Scapha may have raised Philematium; the text is unclear on this matter.
The audience will recognize immediately that a master is angry at his female slave. His lang-uage characterizes him s anger as comically overwrought. The word circumspectatrix is comic because of its length, both metrical and syllabic, and the extremity of Euclio’s insult and su-spicion against Staphyla is similarly comical.6 As part of the accusatory phrase circumspectatrix cum oculis emissiciis, the additional specification cum oculis emissiciis would have increased the humor. The word emissiciis is likewise unusual,7 and it again characterizes Euclio as peculiar and entertaining. Regardless, Euclio himself is sincere in his concerted efforts to force Staphyla out of the home. In this first line, there are no fewer than six elisions: ex-inqu-ex-ag-ex-eund-hercle tib-hinc est foras. Five of these elisions occur between the first six words, creating a Frankenstein-style nine nine-syllable word that ends with swearing by Hercules. The majority of the line is heavy with long syllables. Among the first utterance, exi inquam exi age, three of the four words are imperatives and the command exi is repeated. These word choices demonstrate Euclio’s sincerity in his order and his haste. This construction gives Euclio a hurried and angry tone. He is presented the audience as absurd, open to the viewers’ amusement, but hostile to Staphyla.
Staphyla’s response pleads with Euclio:
STA: nam quor me miseram verberas?
EUC: ut misera sis
atque ut te dignam, mala, malam aetatem exigas. (42-43)
STA: Why on earth are you hitting me, miserable thing that I am?
EUC: So that you’re miserable and lead the wretched life you deserve, you wretch.
6 In fact, circumspectatrix is only attested in two works: here and in Apologia, or De Magia, by Apuleius, chapter76.(chapter? Line?).
Although Staphyla’s phrase me miseram is a standard formulation heard in the lines of both men (particularly “young lover” characters) and women, her expression of distress should not be ig-nored. Indeed, her question reveals more of the stage directions than Euclio’s exclamations indi-cated. Her use of the word verberas indicates that he has actually been hitting her in order to hasten her departure. Staphyla’s status as a female slave makes her particularly vulnerable to physical violence.
Euclio’s answer, ut misera sis / atque ut te dignam, mala, malam aetatem exigas, impli-citly threatens further violence. The repetition of mala malam here produces a humorous effect. Given the unprovoked dismissiveness of ut misera sis atque ut te dignam, the sense can be taken sarcastically, and the meaning would then imply that he has no actual cause for berating and beating her. However, the elisions at the end of his reply (mal-aetat-exigas) echo the beginning of his speech and indicate that his haste and anger are escalating. Euclio openly wishes Staphyla ill (ut misera sis) and claims that she is responsible for any misfortune that befalls her (te dignam malam… aetatem). He thus makes her responsible for any beatings, even though she has, as far as the audience is aware, done nothing wrong. Following Euclio’s logic here does not require a large step to arrive at the conclusion that she will also bear the responsibility for any further su-spicion or hostility from him. Euclio’s increasing haste and anger at the end of his sentence do not bode well for her.
Staphyla’s next utterance closely resembles her first:
STA: nam qua me nunc causa extrusisti ex aedibus? EUC: tibi ego rationem reddam, stimulorum seges? illuc regredere ab ostio. illuc sis vide,
ut incedit. at scin quo modo tibi res se habet?
si hercle hodie fustem cepero aut stimulum in manum, testudineum istum tibi ego grandibo gradum.
potius quidem quam hoc pacto apud te serviam. (44-51)
STA: Why on earth have you forced me out of the house now?
EUC: I should be accountable to you, you crop of cattele-prods? Go over there, away from the door! (she obeys) Look at that, how she proceeds? But have you any idea what your situation is? If I lay my hand on a club or a cattle-prod, I’ll accelerate that tortoise pace of yours!
STA: (aside) If only the gods would drive me to hang myself instead of being your servant in this way.
Her question begins with nam [interrogative] me, and both questions are ultimately asking Euclio for the reasons for his actions. Her continued confusion is far from surprising; his previous an-swer addressed only how much he wished her ill rather than explaining his actions.8 Euclio con-tinues to be harsh in his response. He calls her stimulorum seges, “a field of whips,” meaning that her body would soon be accumulating whipmarks. This term is a threat in itself; moreover, his hostility is unprovoked. He threatens her more openly in his last two lines. The oath hercle intensifies his sincerity in the threat, and the future more vivid condition, a subset of the factual condition, similarly contributes to a strong impression of his sincerity. His speech is vulgar and his implements crude: fustem… aut stimulum in manum. Linguistically, the plosive alliteration draws attention in his last line: testudine-istum tib-ego grandibo gradum. The echoes in ego grandibo gradum are even more distinct, and an actor could use a disgusted tone with the velar g repetition.
Holland argues that Staphyla acts in the manner of a servus in her retorts to Euclio (Holland 27). However, she readily obeys him when he commands her to be quiet, a direct conflict withwhereas the typical reaction of a servus when ordered to be quiet: is simply
ignoring to ignore the command, as Gripus and Sceparnio, for example, both do to Daemones in Rudens. In addition, when Staphyla she questions him about his reason for beating her, she is provides bothing the actors and audience with straightforward stage directions, not provoking his hostility in reaction to a threat. Holland also argues that Staphyla’s deception of Euclio is a similarityresembles the behavior of to the servus callidus. However,But she has something greater at stake than the clever slave normally does: she has deceived him Euclio in order to protect his pregnant daughter, not to trick him out of money for the pouty adulescens. Her deception is vastly different in its nature: ; the servus callidus does not deceives not in order to protect a person at risk, but rather to satisfy his master’s frivolities.9 Such a deception, to protect a vulnerable citizen daughter, occurs also in Hecyra, this time perpetrated by women of other social statuses.
10
Astaphium of Truculentus
When Astaphium approaches Strabax’s house, Truculentus intercepts her and soon be-comes impatient:
TRUC: quis illic est qui tam proterve nostras aedis arietat? AST: ego sum, respice ad me.
TRUC: quid “ego”?
AST: nonne “ego” videor tibi? (256-57)
TRUC: Who is it who’s battering our house so recklessly?
9 Such deception by subaltern women, undertaken to protect a vulnerable citizen daughter, occurs elsewhere: see Hecyra and Truculentus, to name only two instances.
AST: I am the one, look at me. TRUC: What do you mean, “I”? AST: Don’t I seem an “I” to you?
Astaphium takes a teasing tone that resembles the teasings of meretrices with potential suitors. She refuses to give Truculentus a straight answer, instead imploring him to look at her and ask-ing a playful question. First person pronouns ego and me frame her reply, and they taunt him as answers and non-answers. Her command for him to look at her emphasizes her meretricious at-titude in this section; she may intend to entice him with her appearance and evidently desires a more intimate conversation than through the door. He refuses to play along, at least at the begin-ning of their conversation.
When Astaphium evades his enquiries for the second time, his response, quid tibi ad has-ce achas-cessio aedis est prope aut pultatio? shows his frustration:
TRUC: quid tibi ad hasce accessio aedis est prope aut pultatio? AST: salve.
TRUC: sat mi est tuae salutis. nil moror. non salveo. aegrotare malim quam esse tua salute sanior.
sed volo scire, quid debetur hic tibi ostrae domi? (258-61)
TRUC: Why have you come to this house or knocked thereon? AST: Be well.
TRUC: I have enough of your well-being. I don’t care for it. I’m diswell. I’d rather be ill than healthy through your well-being. But I want to know, what are you owed here in our house?
well if she should wish him well (aegrotare malimquam esse tua salute sanior). The short sentences of nil moror and non salveo make a significant impact with the negations placed in front. He is quite open with his frustration and makes it clear that she has not amused him with her teasing. Instead, he focuses on investigating Astaphium’s purpose.
When he asks her again what her business is, she replies comprime sis eiram:
AST: comprime sis eiram.
TRUC: eam quidem hercle tue, quae solita es, comprime, impudens, quae per ridiculum rustico suades stuprum.
AST: “eiram” dixi: ut decepisti! dempsisti unam litteram. nimis quidem hic truculentus.
TRUC: pergin male loqui, mulier, mihi?
AST: quid [tibi] ego male dico? 262-66
AST: Do keep your distress in check.
TRUC: No, you, who are used to doing it, keep your mistress in check, you shameless creature! You jokingly advise a country lad to have sex.
AST: I said “distress”: how you’ve tricked me! You’ve changed one letter. (half aside) He’s such a rude chappy.
TRUC: (overhearing her) Are you continuing to insult me, woman? AST: How am I insulting you?
De Melo explains the pun of comprime eiram.11 The audience is told, through this indirect stage direction, that Truculentus is, in fact, becoming frustrated and angered, and that Astaphium wish-es that he would control his anger would be controlled. The oath hercle emphasizwish-es his growing anger. Although the term impudens is not a particularly harsh name, it strengthens the impact of stuprum at the end of the line. These words, both connoting impropriety, frame the line. The
word stuprum, is unusually harsh, and does not correspond to Astaphium’s words and intentions, but the term could refer to a rape, which Truculentus intentionally misunderstands (comprime eram). His anger at such “outrage” certainly seems convenient. The term rustico is used to make him seem ignorant and therefore innocent in the matter. However, the implication as a whole is ridiculous and would have been humorous to the audience; his accusation of stuprum is used legally against women of higher classes, not of ancillae or meretrices. In a turn of dramatic irony, she refers to him as hic truculentust, which he misunderstands again.12
Still anxious to determine her Astaphium’s intent, Truculentus threatens her:
TRUC: quia enim me truncum lentum nominas. nunc adeo, nisi abis actutum aut dicis quid quaeras cito,
iam hercle ego hic te mulier, quasi sus catulos pedibus proteram. (265-67)
TRUC: By calling me a lewd chopper. Now unless you leave this instant or say quickly what you want, I’ll stamp on you with my feet here, woman, like a sow does on its litter.
The apodosis of the condition, the actual threat, is held in suspense until the end of his speech. After the protasis but before the core of the threat, Plautus inserts iam hercle ego hic te, mulier for dramatic effect. Indeed, this exclamation makes quite the impression with the elision between i-hercl-eg-hic, which in turn puts further emphasis on te, mulier. It is easy to imagine his height-ened tones of frustration at Astaphium with these rhetorical devices, especially just a few syllab-les before his threat. The repetition of hercle also shows the escalating tensions. After creating such anticipation, the quasi sus catulos pedibus proteram may seem a to be a bizarre letdown. However, his metaphor is in fact sound: a sow can easily crush her piglets by accident within the first few days of their lives. This threat implies a heartless though accidental destruction.
Truculentus’ own metaphor compares him to a sow and Astaphium to piglets. To Truculentus, the size difference between the sow and piglets both implies the ease with which he could be rid of her and corresponds to their power dynamic. His use of this metaphor deceptively reinforces his self-identification as a rusticum.
Despite this disturbing comparison, Astaphium is dismissive, describing the insult as rus merum:
AST: rus merum hoc quidem est.
TRUC: pudendum est vero clurinum pecus.
advenisti huc te ostentatum cum exornatis ossibus, quia tibi suaso infecisti propudiosa pallulam?
an eo bella es, quia accepisti armillas aeneas? (269-272)
AST: This is plain farmyard!
TRUC: What you really need to be ashamed of is your troop of monkeys. Have you come here to present yourself with your decorated bones, because you’ve dyed your little cloak with gray color, you shameless creature? Are you pretty just because you’ve got bronze bracelets?
Astaphium’s dismissiveness enrages Truculentus. At this point, his tone cannot be merely frus-trated; his words show that his tone is extremely hostile and that he wants her to be frightened. His first words, pudendum est, showcase his severity, or at least intended severity, from the be-ginning of his speech. Typical Roman word order places the verbs towards the ends of the sen-tences, so this reply is already distinguished from conversational Latin within the first two words. The strength of a passive periphrastic also draws attention to this sentence. Truculentus continues to speak in animal metaphors. However, these metaphors seem even more demeaning than his previous one, if only because he is no longer metaphorically an animal alongside herin the metaphors. In line 270, the repetition in such proximity of adjectives denoting
is portrayed here and the meretrix comic stereotype. He may also be drawing attention to her jewelry in anticipation of his next insults.
When he completes the line with ossibus, he paints a grotesque picture and betrays his anger and disgust at Astaphium. In the next line, he uses the diminutive, pallulam, in a demean-ing fashion. He calls her propudiosa, a harsh term exaggerated by the plosive alliteration, espe-cially in combination with pallulam. The actor would have performed the echoing p sound with sputtering and with an irate tone. When he completes the line with ossibus, he paints a grotesque picture and betrays his anger and disgust at Astaphium. In the next line, he uses the diminutive, pallulam, in a demeaning fashion. I would make more of the assonance and alliteration in quia accepisti armillas aeneas (plus elision) and the striking alliteration in propudiosa
pallulam} He calls her propudiosa, a harsh term exaggerated by the plosive alliteration, especially in combination with pallulam. The actor would have performed the echoing p sound with sputtering and with an irate, disgusted tone. These derogatory plosives recall his earlier angry speech, such as est prope aut pultatio.
Unfazed, Astaphium responds with a teasing line:
AST: nunc places, quom mi inclementer dicis.
TRUC: quid hoc quod te rogo?
mancupion qui accipias, gestas tecum ahenos anulos? pignus da ni ligneae haec sint quas habes Victorias. AST: ne attigas me. (273-76)
AST: Now that you talk rough to me, I like you.
TRUC: What about the question I’m asking you? Are you carrying bronze rings with you so that you can make formal purchases? Make a bet that those Victories you have aren’t made of wood.
Her retort may seem at first unexpected, because she is an ancilla who seems to be encouraging Truculentus’ rage. As the viewers know, however, she is at Strabax’s house on an errand for her meretrix mistress. Since she is acting the representative for the meretrix, she exhibits character-istics that are more commonly associated with meretrices. Her teasing, playful tone is one of these transferable characteristics. Truculentus responds by continuing his hostile tone, even by reaching out to grab her and her jewelry. Rather than oblique references to her slave status by the mention of armillas aeneas, he uses mancupion in order to directly remind her of her status as a slave. These insulting jewelry references (exornatis ossibus… armillas aeneas) are used to attack Astaphium specifically as an ancilla, not as a meretrix or representative of a meretrix.13 He then orders her with the imperative da and reaches for her.
He then orders her with the imperative da and reaches for her.
He then orders her with the imperative da and reaches out: While his speech does not prove that he grabs at her, her forbidding response, ne attigas me, functions as a stage direction and informs the audience that Truculentus is in fact attempting to touch her. When she orders him not to touch, her speech no longer reflects the playful tone of a meretrix. Instead, she uses a short, direct command. Even if performed with a teasing tone, her speech is no longer playful.
tempt to grab her; she recalls the teasing tone of her earlier lines when she states that she is look-ing for the women, mulieres, of the household.
Astaphium’s use of meretricious speech is effective at managing Truculentus, and at line 286, he threatens again, but with a very different tone:
AST: nullan istic mulier habitat?
TRUC: rus, inquam, abierunt. abi.
AST: quid clamas, insane?
TRUC: abire hinc ni properas grandi gradu, iam hercle ego istos fictos, compositos, crispos cincinnos tuos, unguentatos usque ex cerebro evellam. (285-88)
AST: Doesn’t any woman live there?
TRUC: They’ve gone to our farm, I’m telling you. Go away! AST: Why are you shouting, you madman?
TRUC: If you don’t hurry to get away from here with big steps, I’ll instantly tear those nicely arranged, fixed up, curly, perfumed locks of yours right out of your brains.
This time, he is excessive with backhanded compliments, calling her hair fictos, compositos, crispos…unguentatos. This accumulation of adjectives (three of the four being perfect passive participles) is clearly inordinate and humorous. Truculentus uses the aggregation to imply that Astaphium is a meretrix. He cannot seem to focus on his goal of making her leave the house. He continues to remark upon her presentation after she prompts him:
AST: quanam gratia?
TRUC: quia ad fores nostras unguentis uncta es ausa accedere quiaque bucculas tam belle purpurissatas habes.
AST: erubui mecastor misera propter clamorem tuom. TRUC: itane? erubuisti? quasi vero corpori reliqueris tuo potestatem coloris ulli capiendi, mala!
buccas rubric, creta omne corpus intinxti tibi. pessumae estis. (288-95)
TRUC: Because you’ve dared to come to our door perfumed with perfumes and because your little cheeks are so prettily painted with purple.
AST: Poor me, I’ve blushed because of your shouting!
TRUC: Really? You’ve blushed? As if you’d left your body the chance to take on any color, you crook! You’ve painted your cheeks with rouge and your entire body with clay. You’re absolutely vile creatures.
When he finishes with pessumae estis, much of his anger and hostility of his previous threats and insults is absent, despite calling her mala. His use of the plural is significant: to him, she belongs to a group of women who use makeup to improve their appearance, not a surprising accusation against a meretrix. His implication further supports the distinction between the speech of an ancilla and that of a meretrix. In this argument, Astaphium blends the typified speech of these two classes of women, but this unique blend is possible because of his consideration of her as a meretrix.
When Astaphium argues with Diniarchus later in the play, she lacks any aspects of the speech of meretrices.14 Her speech identifies her as an ancilla, or at the very least, as not a mere-trix. Her teasing tone is absent; she asks no playful questions and employs no puns. Instead, she is direct and self-assured throughout. When she informs him that he will not be able to obtain his money, his behavior becomes physically threatening:
AST: si volebas participari, auferres dimidium domum. nam item ut Accherunti hic <apud nos> ratio accepti scribitur; intro accipitur; quando acceptum est, non potest ferri foras. bene vale.
DIN: resiste.
AST: omitte.
DIN: sine eam intro.
AST: ad te quidem.
DIN: immo istoc ad vos <volo> ire.
AST: non potest, nimium petis.
DIN: sine experiri—
AST: immo opperire. vis est experier. DIN: dic me adesse.
AST: abi, occupata est. res ita est, ne frustra sis. DIN: redin an non redis?
AST: [si] vocat me quae in me potest plus quam potes. DIN: uno verbo—
AST: eloquere.
DIN: mittin me intro?
AST: mendax es, abi.
unum aiebas, tria iam dixti verba atque <ea> mendacia. (748-757)
AST: If you wanted to have your share, you should have taken half home: just as in the Underworld, here at our place an account is kept of goods received. One receives deposits inside; once received, there are no withdrawals. Goodbye.
DIN: Stop! (grabs her) AST: Let go!
DIN: Let me go in. AST: Yes, to your place.
DIN: No, I want to go in there to your place. AST: It’s impossible, you demand too much. DIN: Let me try—
AST: (interrupting) No, wait. Trying is violence. DIN: Say that I’m here.
AST: Go away, she’s busy. That’s how it is, don’t fool yourself. DIN: Are you coming back or not?
AST: A woman’s calling me who has more power over me than you do. DIN: In one word—
AST: (interrupting) Speak. DIN: Are you letting me in?
AST: You’re a liar, go away. You said “one word,” but you’ve uttered five now, and false ones at that.
Although he is a citizen man and she is of a much lower social class, her situation puts her in control. She uses no feminine speech markers, such as “please” or swearing by any god, showing that she feels confident in her safety at her mistress’ house.15 Because Diniarchus is seeking her favor, in hopes of retrieving his money or of receiving services from Phronesium for the money he has paid previously, Astaphium is in control of their conversation. She even draws attention to his violence—and refuses to accept it without protest—with vis est experier. In fact, she interrupts him five times in this short section by means of elision. Plautus’ careful word placement ensures that he does not interrupt her once. She interrupts at resist-omitte, intr-ad, experir-immo, adess-ab-occupata-st, and verb-eloquere. She is clearly Uuninterested in speaking with him further, and sheAstaphium is unequivocal in her refusal to let him inadmit Diniarchus (non potest, nimium petis). Indeed, when he says mittin me intro? though he asked to say merely one word, she begins her response with mendax, calling him a liar, and she finishes her response with mendacia, calling his words lies. Regardless of any previous relationship, she is acting purely as Phronesium’s slave and is firm with Diniarchus as she delivers the unwelcome news.
Astaphium’s varied responses show the reader an excellent example of code-switching.16 She takes on the role of a meretrix in addition to her socially assigned role of ancilla. Although she seems to be continuously aware of her lower social status, she is capable of managing Trucu-lentus when he loses his temper and of refusing Diniarchus when he attacks her. As an ancilla, she is subject to a level of violence that is not found against the upper classes of women. Indeed, 15 Adams shows that women proportionally use more oaths than men in Roman Comedy (48-49) and that women also proportionally use polite modifiers more than the men (55-56). Adams says of polite modifiers: “Certain verbs were used absolutely in Latin to tone down or modify an imperative or question” (55)..
the repeated physical attacks against her are found infrequently even among meretrices. The perpetrators of the violence are of vastly different social statuses. Truculentus is a slave, while Diniarchus is a citizen. She reacts differently to these men, but this difference seems to depend more upon the circumstances of their encounters than merely their social classes. Because Diniarchus approaches her as the gatekeeper for her owner, she retains control in their
conversation. In a reversal of roles, Astaphium approaches Truculentus as the gatekeeper for his owner, and he therefore has the initial upper hand in their conversation and in the power dynamic between these two characters. Astaphium’s character is complex and versatile, and she
demonstrates the variety of traits and characteristics that portray her as realistic and authentic.
Mysis of Andria
Mysis, the slave of Glycerium’s slave, demonstrates the effect of differing social power dynamics on the speech of ancillae and women in general under threat. In the conversation with Chremes and Davus, Mysis uses many markers of feminine speech, such as au, vae, miserae mihi, and obsecro. These markers are not found randomly throughout her speech, but are con-centrated around Mysis’ perception of her own vulnerability. This perception coincides with Chremes’ speech and reminders of his presence.
Her scene opens with Chremes seeking the infant and questioning Mysis about it:
CHR: revortor, postquam quae opus fuere ad nuptias gnatae paravi, ut iubeam accersi. sed quid hoc? puer herclest. mulier, tun posisti hunc?
CHR: (to himself) I’ve made the necessary preparations for my daughter’s wedding, and I’m returning to tell them to fetch her. (seeing the baby) But what’s this? Good heavens, it’s a baby! (seeing Mysis) Woman, did you put it here?
MYS: (aside) Where’s Davus got to?
Her Mysis’ first sentence is free of feminine speech markers. Chremes has just addressed her, but she ignores him, intentionally or accidentally. I It is likely that the actor would assume an agitated tone for Chremes as he turns to Mysis. The exclamation herclest shows that he is flustered by the appearance of this infant; the long syllables allow the actor to add emphasis and weight to the oath. This question is addressed more to herself as an aside and to the audience in order to explain her mindset. It is unclear whether Mysis has heard Chremes here and is asking after Davus for that reason or has simply grown tired of waiting for Davus and his tricks.
Upon her lack of response, Chremes addresses her again:
CHR: non mihi respondes?
MYS: nusquamst. vae miserae mihi! reliquit me homo atque abiit. (743-44)
CHR: Aren’t you going to answer me?
MYS: (still aside) He’s nowhere to be seen. Oh damn and blast! He’s gone off and left me.
The power dynamic here is significant: she is no longer on equal footing as she had been in her conversation with Davus, a fellow slave. Instead, she is beset by the citizen man Chremes. His agitated tone may have turned to anger when he believes that she is ignoring him. The meter lends itself to a crescendo in performance with the long syllables throughout non… respondes.
m-hom-atqu-abiit. She evidently feels pressured by Chremes’ demand, and she recognizes her vulner-ability before the angry citizen man. Her awareness of her own peril is evidenced with her ex-clamation vae miserae mihi! This phrase, along with reliquit, is fully enunciated and therefore marks a strong contrast with the nusquamst and me homo atque abiit, the elision found at the be-ginning and end of her speech. The exclamation vae is further emphasized by its echo in the last syllable of miserae, particularly because vae and –ae are long syllables while miser- contains two short syllables.
After her exclamation, Davus returns:
DAV: di vostram fidem!
quid turbaest apud forum! quid illi hominum litigant! tum annona carast. quid dicam aliud nescio.
MYS: quor tu, obsecro, hic me solam—?
DAV: hem! quae haec est fabula?
eho, Mysis, puer hic undest? quisve huc attulit? MYS: satin sanu’s qui me id rogites? (744-49)
DAV: (reappearing from the right, and pretending not to see Mysis or Chremes) Heaven help us! What a crowd in the forum! People arguing everywhere! And the high prices! (aside) I don’t know what else to say.
MYS: (to Davus) Why did you leave me here alone, for heaven’s sake?
DAV: (ignoring her) Hey! What’s this nonsense? (to Mysis) Here you, Mysis, where does this baby come from? Who brought it here?
MYS: (uncomprehending) Are you in your right mind? Asking me that?
figuring out Davus’ plots. His schemes remain a mystery to Mysis also, and she is continually confused by his questions throughout the conversation. Davus already knows the answers of all the questions he asks Mysis, so she does not understand why he is asking them at all (satin sanu’s qui me id rogites?). In a turn of dramatic irony, the audience will understand that the character Davus is performing within the play for Chremes. Davus makes use of Mysis in order to further his plots, but she is unaware of the part she plays in his scheme. Therefore, she responds to his questions with frustration and confusion or even refuses to answer his questions altogether because she believes that he already knows the answer and she does not know that he is asking for Chremes instead of himself. By asking her a multitude of questions and engaging her in direct conversation, he distracts her from Chremes’ presence and allows her to respond to him without the feminine speech markers that she would need with a citizen man. Indeed, her reply not only lacks feminine speech markers but addresses Davus with a straightforward demand. She is not shy about expressing her frustration or confusion with him in a
confrontational tone. Notably, in this section and following, both Davus and Mysis ask each other questions without one answering the other. Davus uses the questioning in an attempt to distract Mysis from her own line of thought, but Mysis uses it to insist that Davus answer her.
This back-and-forth interaction, particularly remarkable in the following section where they consistently often share lines, gives the audience the impression of equality between the two slaves:
DAV: quem ego igitur rogem
qui hic neminem alium videam?
CHR: miror unde sit.
DAV: dictura’s quod rogo?
MYS: au!
DAV: concede ad dextram.
DAV: verbum si mihi unum praeterquam quod te rogo faxis, cave! male divis? undest? dic clare.
MYS: a nobis. (749-54)
DAV: Who am I supposed to ask? There’s no one else here. CHR: (aside) I wonder where it does come from.
DAV: (to Mysis, threateningly) Are you going to answer my question? MYS: (as Davus grabs her arm) Ow!
DAV: Come over here to the right. (drawing her further away from Chremes) MYS: You’re crazy. Didn’t you yourself—?
DAV: (whispering) Just answer my questions. If you utter a single word more, look out! (aloud) Abusing me, are you? Where does it come from? Tell me straight.
MYS: It’s from our house.
interactions who has more social power than Davus, he is the only character who could interfere, but he chooses not to do so.
Away from Chremes, Mysis speaks directly with Davus again, with her tone bordering on belligerence in response to him dragging her: deliras. non tute ipse—. Davus responds harshly, ordering her to play along, “or else.” The line lacks any elision, so each word of the threat would have been specifically enunciated. The enunciation allows the actor to show anger with little re-straint.17 Afterwards, Mysis responds to him directly without indications of her confusion. Her answer, only two words (a nobis), clearly answers his question. She does not question him at all or demand that he explain his actions. His threat is effective at least for the moment, and her change of tone and phrasing indicates that she believes his threat should be feared.
With Chremes listening to her once again, Mysis changes her method of speech once again:
DAV: propera adeo puerum tollere hinc ab ianua. mane. cave quoquam ex istoc excessis loco.
MYS: di te eradicent! ita me miseram territas. (759-61)
DAV: Hurry up and remove the baby from the doorstep. (whispering) Wait! Don’t move an inch from where you are.
MYS: May the gods blast you! You’re frightening a poor woman out of her wits.
exclamation would force an actor to fully enunciate each syllable so her distress cannot be ignor-ed. Her choice of me miseram as well as reference to her fear, territas, is supplicatory. She is clear about her own vulnerability and appeals to the men’s sense of pity to protect herself against potential harm from them. Her second sentence does not contain any elisions, so the actor must take a woeful, slow tone. For a slave woman, this situation is a dangerous power dynamic: Da-vus has not explained his plan to her, he is about to accuse her of being deceitful (impudenter, line 755), he is using harsh word choice and placement such as the juxtaposition of mane and cave, and Chremes, the citizen, is beside him. Davus has already used physical force against her during the course of this conversation, and she herself would have no legal or social recourse should anything go awry for her without the aid of her owner.
In an effort to get the answers he desires, Davus engages Mysis directly:
DAV: tibi ego dico an non?
MYS: quid vis?
DAV: at etiam rogo?
cedo, quoium puerum hic apposisti? dic mihi. MYS: tu nescis?
DAV: mitte id quod scio. dic quod rogo. MYS: vostri.
DAV: quoius nostri?
MYS: Pamphili.
DAV: hem! quid? Pamphili?
MYS: eho, an non est?
CHR: recte ego has semper fugi nuptias. (762-66)
DAV: (aloud) Are you listening to me or not? MYS: What do you want?
DAV: You’re not still asking? Come on, whose baby have you put here? Tell me. MYS: (still puzzled) Don’t you know?
DAV: (whispering) Never mind what I know. Tell me what I ask. MYS: Your master’s.
DAV: Which master? MYS: Pamphilus’.
MYS: Oh! Isn’t it?
CHR: (aside) I was right to be against this wedding all along.
He aggressively suggests that she listen and answer him (tibi ego dico an non?... at etiam rogo? ... dic mihi). Mysis obeys and answers him directly with no feminine speech markers. During this speech, she interacts only with Davus, not with Chremes, and therefore does not exhibit feminine speech markers. In line 753, Mysis asks quid vis? which may be a subtle pun on vīs, the same form both as a form of volo and as the nominative noun “force,” and a reference to Davus’ threatening nature because he grabbed her just 12 lines earlier at 750. Davus continues his pattern of imperatives from the previous section, here using dic mihi, which echoes the dic clare of line 754, and dic quod rogo just a line later. Between the repeated imperative verbs dic, Davus uses another imperative, mitte. This repeated structure implies that the actor’s tone must have been severe and harsh towards Mysis. The back-and-forth between Mysis and Davus in line 765 alone is fantastic and must have been entertaining to the audience. With Davus repeating Mysis’ words back to her, and with Mysis confirming Davus’ questions, this would have been quite the fun exchange.
Their back-and-forth becomes even more ridiculous in the next section:
DAV: o facinus animadvortendum!
MYS: quid clamitas?
DAV: quemne ego heri vidi ad vos afferri vesperi? MYS: o hominem audacem!
DAV: verum. vidi Cantharam suffarcinatam.
MYS: dis pol habeo gratiam
quom in pariundo aliquot adfuerunt liberae. (767-771)
DAV: (shouting) It’s wicked! It’s criminal! MYS: What are you shouting for?
MYS: (aside) The impudence of this man!
DAV: It’s true. I saw Canthara with something under her cloak.
MYS: I thank the gods that there were several free women present at the birth.
Mysis’ exclamation, o hominem audacem!, is dramatic, although not entirely unexpected; it mi-mics exactly the structure of Davus’ exclamation two lines earlier, o facinus animadvortendum! After Mysis’ outcry, Davus’ next statement, verum. vidi Cantharam / suffarcinatam, is spoken to Chremes, not to Mysis, and brings Chremes back into the conversation. Thus, Mysis’ following speech with its feminine speech marker, the use of pol in line 770, is addressed at least to Chre-mes and possibly also to Davus. The imbalance of power between Mysis and ChreChre-mes makes her feel vulnerable, and she uses feminine speech markers to emphasize her social vulnerability.
Mysis also demonstrates code-switching, and her speech clearly shows how an ancilla is expected to react to men of different social classes. She shows that the typified feminine speech markers do not simply mark an innate hysterical or garrulous nature among women but in fact serve a particular purpose and are used strategically by the women to protect themselves and their households.
Scapha of Mostellaria
belongs to a lower social class, she is more experienced in life and survival as a meretrix than her own mistress. Mostellaria begins the actions of the play with a conversation between these wo-men, and Philolaches observes and comments upon their interactions. Scapha advises Philema-tium against remaining faithful to Philolaches, who has just bought the younger woman’s freedom19:
SCA: equidem pol miror tam catam, tam doctam te et bene eductam 186 nunc stultam stulte facere.
PHILE: quin mone quaeso, si quid erro.
SCA: tu ecastor erras quae quidem illum exspectes unum atque illi morem praecipue sic geras atque alios asperneris.
matronae, non meretricium, est unum inservire amantem 190 …
PHILE: nolo ego mihi male te, Scapha, praecipere. 194
SCA: I’m really surprised that you, such a smart, such a clever, such a well-brought-up girl, are now behaving so terribly stupidly.
PHILE: Do give me advice, please, if I’m making a mistake.
SCA: You’re indeed making a mistake by waiting on him alone, showing him your special favor like this, and despising others. It’s appropriate for a married woman, not for a prostitute, to be at the beck of a single lover.
…
PHILE: I don’t want you to give me crooked advice, Scapha.
In Scapha’s first sentence, the audience hears evidence of the unusual power dynamic be-tween the two women. In the first line, 186, Scapha is exaggeratedly complimentary. Her striking rhetorical devices, such as the repetition of tam and the tricolon crescens of catam…doctam… beene eductam, combine with her use of a feminine speech marker, pol, to give the impression of either a sycophant or a sarcastic servant. In line 187, Scapha uses a very different register. The
now I *** I was loved; and I devoted myself to just one man. When this head changed color because of old age, he left and deserted me,” (199-202). From this explanation, we can surmise that Scapha was previously a prostitute but did not make money from multiple suitors; when her single benefactor abandoned her, she was forced to sell herself back into slavery.
audience could not have missed her juxtaposition repetition of stultam stulte, a bold claim for an ancilla to her mistress. Philematium’s response encourages Scapha to explain herself, so Phile-matium must indeed value Scapha’s advice. Her request and her use of quaeso place Scapha in a position of social power; assuming that her request is genuine, Philematium is seeking a favor from Scapha (that Scapha give her advice), and Scapha can choose whether or not to dispense her solicited advice.20 When Scapha holds the social power in the conversation, her use of the feminine speech marker ecastor intensifies her expression of genuine disapproval for Philema-tium’s favor towards Philolaches. Oaths often intensify or exaggerate the sentiment with which they are used. Typically, oaths as feminine speech markers are used in conjunction with pleas or expressions of fear. However, Scapha’s use of such blunt language of disapproval (tu… erras) alters the common sense of equivocation that feminine speech markers connote so often. This usage differs from the usage of feminine speech markers elsewhere, primarily to draw attention to a woman’s social vulnerability.21 Philematium, however, does not hesitate to disregard Scapha’s advice.
Eventually, Philematium tires of disagreeing with her ancilla on the topic:
PHILE: si quid tu in illum bene voles loqui, id loqui licebit: nec recte si illi dixeris, iam ecastor vapulabis. (239-40)
PHILE: If you want to say anything nice about him, you’ll be allowed to say it. If you abuse him, you’ll get a thrashing.
Philematium uses her word placement in juxtaposition to emphasize the desired attitude for Sca-pha towards Philolaches: illum bene. Because of the elision of loqu-id loqui, the echo of loqui is further highlighted. This repetition draws the audience’s attention, as does the lateral alliteration: 20 If Philematium’s quaeso is sarcastic, then Scapha is digging herself into a hole.
illum bene voles loqu-id loqui licebit. With this threat, Philematium reminds Scapha of their re-spective social classes and relationship as a mistress and her ancilla. Thus, Philematium’s use of ecastor does not emphasize any lack of social power, as feminine speech markers can when the woman uttering them is already in a socially vulnerable position. Instead, the oath indicates her sincerity about the threat; she is swearing that Scapha will be beaten if she speaks ill of Philola-ches. This condition is a future more vivid clause, a structure that shows that Philematium con-siders her own threat to be genuine. In addition, vapulabis itself is so violent that her word choice is aas to strong indicate stronglyor that she is sincere.22 This is an active verb with a passive meaning, “to be beaten, to receive a beating.” The word allows speakers to attribute agency to the person being beaten, thereby removing responsibility from the attacker. Because tu (Scapha) is the subject of the verb, any and all fault for the beating is placed squarely on
Scapha’s shoulders and no attacker, master, or mistress is mentioned.
Scapha’s response demonstrates she also thinks the threat is legitimate and fears reprisal:
SCA: video [enim] te nihili pendere prae Philolache omnis homines. nunc, ne eius causa vapulem, tibi potius assentabor,
si acceptum sat habes, tibi fore illum amicum sempiternum. (245-47)
SCA: I can see that you consider all men as worthless compared with Philolaches. Now I’ll agree with you rather than get a beating for his sake, if you’re fully convinced that he’ll be your friend for good.
would be tortured (vapulem) if she were to provide evidence in a court of law. Her word place-ment with illum amicum recalls illum bene from Philematium’s threat and is an indicator that Scapha will follow Philematium’s order.
Scapha ’s character provides the reader with another excellent example of the speech of ancillae. She demonstrates that ancillae often respond similarly to threats from their owners, regardless of the owner’s gender. Her responses also provide the reader She also provides with insight into some of the necessary sacrifices and hardships of being a meretrix. However, despite her past, Scapha’s identity in this passage is clear onethat of an ancilla, not of a meretrix; the form and tone of her responses to Philematium are clear in this way.
Syra of Truculentus
Near the end of this play, Cthe senex Callicles questions Phronesium’s hair-dresser ancilla Syra, along with anunnamed female slave of his, both tied up, in order to determine the heritage of the adopted childwho had raped and impregnated his daughter. Callicles reminds them that he has already tortured them mentions their early torture (rogitavi ego vos verberatas ambas pendentis simul, 777), and theatens them by comparing them to animals he could kill (ne duplicis habeatis linguas, ne ego bilinguis vos necem, 779). His actions and speech are
Conclusion
Chapter Three
Meretrices
This chapter addresses meretrices, whose situations and personalities show significant variation: some are slaves, some are free, and some are retired.23 These women tend to be highly skilled at handling tense or uncomfortable situations, so analysis of their responses can beis com-plicated. Although the meretrices manage unpleasant situations expertly, men still threaten and act violently towards them. These meretrices are not all slaves, but they all belong to a low social class, so many of the threats levied against them could legitimately menace their well-being.
23 In my discussion, I will be limited to free and retired meretrices. The social status of
Philocomasium of Miles Gloriosus is not entirely clear, and the audience is not informed whether she is a slave or free. Melaenis of Cistellaria is now employed as a lena. However, it is
The meretrices I will study in this chapter are Bacchis of Adelphoi, Bacchis of Bacchides, Philocomasium of Miles Gloriosus, and Melaenis of Cistellaria. Bacchis of Adelphoi is met with on-stage violence and threats of physical violence. She is caught in an argument between Sannio and Aeschinus, during which she is grabbed. Bacchis from Bacchides encounters threats of phy-sical violence and general force. Her lovers, or men who view her as a potential lover, are the men who threaten her. Philocomasium is actually subjected to on-stage violence in Miles Glor-iosus. The violence in this play is exceptional, and there is a continuous threat of physical vio-lence. Melaenis faces implied threats of physical violence and violent cursing in Cistellaria. She is a retired meretrix, and her primary role as advisor to Selenium puts her at risk.
In Plautus’ Bacchides, the senes Nicobulus and Philoxenus repeatedly threaten Bacchis and Soror at the end of the play. The men begin with hostile threats:
NIC: heus Bacchis, iube sis actutum aperiri fores, nisi mavoltis fores et postis comminui securibus.
BAC: quis sonitu ac tumultu tanto [nomine] nominat me atque pultat aedis? NIC: ego atque hic.
BAC: quid hoc est negoti? nam, amabo, quis has huc ovis adegit? (1118-21)
NIC: (knocking on Bacchis’ door) Hey, Bacchis, have this door opened immediately, will you? Unless you prefer your door and the doorposts to be cut to shreds with axes.
BAC: Who is calling me and banging at the house with such great noise and uproar? NIC: He and I.
BAC: (to her sister) What’s the matter? Please, who drove these sheep here?
house with axes (securibus), he is metaphorically, if as yet unwittingly, threatening rape. In a turn of dramatic irony, the audience would understand these underlying connotations, but Nicobulus himself does not realize the implications of his own words. The sexual aspect of this threat will play throughout the entire conversation. The inference of the threat of rape also elucidates underscores the impulsive and perhaps unanticipated extreme hostility shown by Nicobulus from the beginning of the exchange.25 Bacchis’ response also gives prominence to the violence of Nicobulus’ threat. Her question is permeated by the repeated sounds of t, k, and d:
quis sonit-actumulto tanto nominat m-atque pultat aedis?
These alveolar and velar plosives serve as onomatopoeia to mimic the sound of the men banging on the door, about which Bacchis complains.26 She brings his attack on her door to the forefront by directly addressing the noise that the men are making and demanding to know the identity of her attackers. In Nicobulus’ reply, the plosives and the double elision make him sound hurried, angry, and forceful: eg-atqu-hic. Because two of his three syllables are long by position, his answer may sound quite heavy and thus reflect the similarly heavy address of his first speech to Bacchis (heus Bacchis).
Bacchis, demanding more information, teasingly calls her elderly attackers “sheep,” showing her method of managing the men and minimizing the damage they could cause. Despite the potential gravity of her situation, Bacchis handles the men’s anger fearlessly. As they scream
25 The severity of the term securibus here comes into question. While it can imply a house-hold tool or hatchet, its other connotations should not be discounted in this highly loaded dia-logue. The term securis can also denote an executioner’s axe, the axe that completes the bundle of sticks to become the fasces carried by lictores (Lewis & Short 1655-56). Ironically, this meaning can have the implication of the men enacting legal justice by breaking down Bacchis and Soror’s door to attack them.
and bang at her door, she remains calm and denies them what they seek: her house, her body, and her fear. Instead, she turns them into sheep with her speech, implying that they are loud but fool-ish and ultimately harmless. She takes more control by withholding agency from them: they are the objects of adegit. In addition, her plea of amabo is ironic. She does not use a polite modifier in her earlier question, when she is genuinely seeking answers concerning the events as they hap-pen: quis sonitu ac tumulto tanto [nomine] nominat me atque pultat aedis? In traditional but con-spicuous phrasing, Bacchis withholds the last two words, ovis adegit, delaying the realization (with possible dramatic effect) by the audience and Nicobulus that she is in fact mocking the old men.27
Later in this dialogue, Nicobulus openly threatens the Bacchises:
NIC: haec oves vobis malam rem magnam quam debent dabunt. BAC: si quam debes, te condono: tibi habe, numquam aps te petam. sed quid est quapropter nobis vos malum minitamini?
PHIL: quia nostros agnos conclusos istic esse aiunt duos. NIC: et praeter eos agnos meus est istic clam mordax canis: qui nisi nobis producuntur iam atque emittuntur foras,
arietes truces nos erimus, iam in vos incursabimus. (1142-48)
NIC: These sheep will give you the good thrashing they owe you.
BAC: If you owe us one, I’ll let you off the hook. Have it for yourself, I’ll never demand it from you. But what’s the reason for threatening us with a thrashing?
PHIL: Because they say our two lambs are locked up there. (points to Bacchis’ house) NIC: And besides these lambs my dog is secretly in there, a real biter. Unless these are produced for us immediately and let out, we’ll be ferocious lambs and attack you this instant.
Nicobulus refers to himself and Philoxenus as the sheep (oves), thereby participating in Bacchis’ earlier teasing. This interaction indicated to viewers that while he may still be angry, he is no longer so enraged. The homophony of debent dabunt contributes to an overall impression of a lighter tone in Nicobulus’ scolding. However, his sinister threat of malam rem magnam reveals that he is still angry. This threat is vague and does not specify any specific punishment, but the audience was conscious of the disparate social statuses between of the old citizen men and the young meretrices. This social imbalance would have made the threat more frightening. However, the playful juxtaposition of debent dabunt, as well as Nicobulus’ continued use of the term oves, would have mitigated some of the fear instilled by his threat of malam rem magnam.
Bacchis’ response demonstrates how masterfully she manages the men’s angry threats. She challenges Nicobulus with her first sentence, si quam debes te condono. She questions the entire basis of his threat, that she owes the men (quam debent). Her formulation, te condono, cleverly allows her to pacify Nicobulus and create a sense of debt from Nicobulus him to herself. She can acquiesce to his demand without fear that she is agreeing to be attacked, as malam rem magnam implies. This remarkable sentence shows just how capable and these meretrices are, how well-versed in the delicate rhetoric of insult, threat, and response.28
Bacchis’ next sentence, tibi habe, numquam aps te petam, demonstrates another manner for meretrices to manage the men’s violent threats. The imperative habe implies a confidence that Nicobulus will comply. With the form petam, she retains agency for herself. This phrase indicates that she, not Nicobulus, decides whether she will endure the consequences of the vague threat, the malam rem magnam. With this sentence, Bacchis places herself in a position of power over Nicobulus by ordering him and by giving herself agency.
Bacchis’ repetition of interrogative pronouns at the beginning of the final sentence above (quid est quapropter) shows her state of confusion. Although the men have been knocking and yelling at her door and conversing with her for several lines, they have yet to identify themselves or to explain their purpose. Her hostility, a response to Nicobulus’ threat, is suspended until the end of her short reply, and its impact is certainly felt. She continues her teasing tone with malum minitamini, bringing his threat to the forefront and forcing him to confront the physicality of his threat, malam rem magnam. Still, her tone and her earlier repeated interrogatives would keep this echo of his threat from being confrontational. Thus, Bacchis has addressed any genuine concern without fearing any repercussions from angering him. The placement of the words nobis vos in the middle of the sentence, in such close proximity, contributes to the teasing tone by implying a closeness between the Bacchises and the old men. It may also recall the beginning of Nicobulus’ threat, haec oves vobis, in which haec oves is the equivalent of nos.29 This is yet another level of Bacchis’ direct address of the threat.
At this point, Philoxenus replies, interrupting the dialogue between Bacchis and Nicobu-lus. He attempts to answer Bacchis’ questions, and Nicobulus continues to be more difficult than Philoxenus when he refuses to answer her himself. Philoxenes responds that they have arrived at the Bacchises’ door in search of their sons, nostros agnos conclusos. Philoxenus also participates in the sheep metaphor by referring to their sons as lambs. At this point, Nicobulus’ and Philoxen-us’ cooperation with the sheep metaphor shows the audience that it was not so offensive, regard-less of Bacchis’ intentions.
Nicobulus then furthers the metaphor with his mordax canis. He too continues the sheep metaphor by referring to their sons as lambs. Chrysalus, Nicobulus’ slave, is the dog to whom
Nicobulus refers. Chrysalus’ snappy replies and treacherous nature earn him the title mordax. The clam adds to Chrysalus’ association with trickery, especially since he has just tricked Nico-bulus out of his money in order to help Mnesilochus. NicoNico-bulus’ use of istic, repeated after Phi-loxenus, highlights the old men’s continued goal of entering the sisters’ house. The connotation of istic, instead of illic, which would serve the same metrical and denotative purpose, expresses the old men’s disgust at the meretrices. Although the old men play into the metaphors and have calmed down from their earlier rage, they have not entirely lost the hostility from their previous statements, threats, and demands.
With the phrase iam in vos incursabimus, he moves to a real threat, attempting to turn Bacchis’ metaphor against her. The etymological relationship between incursare and currere strengthens the impression of the old men ramming down the door. Indeed, incursare iscan also
be used post-classically to describe the attack of a woman particularly.30 Therefore, Nicobulus is continuing to threaten to rape the women. At this point, he is doing so more openly than before. Nicobulus’ iteration with the prepositional phrase in vos serves to magnify the hostility even further. The verb incursabimus is the most aggressive word used yet, and the hyperbaton here is very effective. Placed at the end of Nicobulus’ speech, and at the end of a line, a sentence, and a threat, the sense of the word is amplified even further from its already violent connotations.
At this point, Bacchis turns to her sister, seeking to speak to her alone. The audience has observed that her attempts to manage the men are effective until they are reminded of their pur-pose, namely their sons and their lost money. Their anger and animosity are renewed at the me-mory of their original intentions. Thus, the meretrices intend to attempt another method of handl-ing the men:
BAC: senem illum tibi dedo ulteriorem, lepide ut lenitum reddas; ego ad hunc iratum aggrediar, <si> possumus nos hos intro illicere huc.
SOR: meum pensum ego lepide accurabo, quam<quam> odio est mortem amplexari! BAC: facito ut facias.
SOR: taceas. tu tuom facito: ego quod dixi hau mutabo. (1150-53)
BAC: (to her sister) I’m handling that old chap over to you, the one further away (points to Philoxenus), so that you soften him up beautifully; I will go up to this angry one (points to Nicobulus) to see if we can entice them in here.
SIS: I’ll take care of my task beautifully, although it’s tedious to embrace a corpse! BAC: Do do it.
SIS: Be quiet. You do your part; I won’t change what I said.
In this passage, the audience sees that meretrices always have one a last-resort way to manage even these old men when teasing and distraction alone are insufficient. The women’s safety and livelihood is are at stake unless they placate the citizen men. The Bacchises’ Their distaste for the men— (quamquam odio est mortem amplexari—) was likely humorous to the ancient audience: . tThe sisters even command each other to approach the men as though each one is unable to make herself do it without the other’s encouragement.
In this scene, the women’s household is abruptly attacked, and they are abruptly threat-ened. However, they are able to remain level-headed and ultimately protect their physical safety and financial security. This feat was not accomplished without a quick wit and a sensitivity to the vulnerabilities of their seemingly invulnerable opponents, angry citizen men. Bacchis maintained maintains control of the conversation and therefore also of Nicobulus throughout their
interaction.
Philocomasium of Miles Gloriosus
Before the action of Miles Gloriosus begins, Pyrgopolinices had violently kidnapped Philocomasium (invitam mulierem, 113), thereby placing her in implicit but significant danger for the entiretythroughout of the play. Thus, she is at a heightened risk compared to other
meretrices under similar threats. When she is accused of infidelity, Sceledrus’ The accusation, by his slave Sceledrus, of her infidelity is essentially a threat to her physical well-being:safety:
PHIL: ubi iste est bonus servos qui probri me maxumi innocentem falso insimulavit?
PHIL: Where is that good slave who is wrongly accusing me of greatest disgrace, even though I’m innocent?
PAL: (pointing to Sceledrus) Here you go! He told me what I told you.
Philocomasium’s speech here would have had a sarcastically angry tone. She mocks Sceledrus with the juxtaposition of bonus servos and with the word choice of iste over ille or another mod-erate pronoun. The impact of iste is exaggmod-erated by its placement; it is framed by elision (ub-ist-est) and the echo of ist-est emphasizes her choice of the pronoun. The synchesis of bonus servos … probri me contrasts the phrase bonus servos with the word placement of probri me, whose placement implies some association between me and probrum, although the two phrases do not have identical structures. She employs synchesis as well with probri me maxumi innocentum. This rhetorical device prevents any linguistic separation between probri maxumi and me inno-centem. Indeed, the elision between maxum-innocentem not only prevents any enunciated separ-ation but also denies the audience certainty over whether the adjective modifies probri (as max-umi) or me innocentem (as maxumam, which also would have been elided). The use of probri itself is a clever pun since it can mean either unchaste conduct or libel: the allegation itself is a damaging act against Philocomasium in her precarious position as a kidnapped woman, regard-less of the truth of her involvement. Her juxtaposition of innocentam falso further muddles the boundaries between the wicked deed and her innocence. In a similar to maxumi,Similarly, the elision of fals-insimulavit prevents the audience from knowing whether the term modifies me.
on its head, and Palaestrio capitalizes on this humor with his phonetically comic reply. The repetition of words (tibi and dixit) as well as the echoing i sound—there are no fewer than eleven instances of i within this half-line —combine to make the sound of this speech more comic than the content. Still, his tone is presumably eager and full of feigned innocence. This “innocence” is dramatic irony, since Palaestrio explained the trajectory of the play in the first scene, and it likely added to the humor. Palaestrio’s use of hic shows that he wishes to be perceived by Sceledrus as on his side, particularly compared to Philocomasium’s use of iste.31
She next returns to questioning Sceledrus:
PHIL: tun me vidisse in proxumo hic, sceleste, ais osculantem? PAL: ac cum alieno adulescentulo dixit.
SCE: dixi hercle vero. (366-67)
PHIL: (to Sceledrus) Do you claim to have seen me here next door kissing, you criminal? PAL: And what’s more, he said you were doing so with an unknown young man.
SCE: I did indeed say so.
Philocomasium’s own accusatory tone appears with her beginning tun. She uses the word hic not in reference to Sceledrus to decrease their metaphorical distance but as a locative, and to be clear she immediately calls him sceleste. The term sceleste, with its root in scelus,32 indicates an extremely serious crime; DeMelo hastranslated translates it well well as you criminal. She also uses a mild hiatus by delaying osculantem until the end of her line, and the accusatory tone can be supplied throughout her response, particularly with tun, sceleste, and osculantem. She could have been quite intimidating, and Sceledrus’ hesitancy to respond, (at least until Palaestrio
31 Hic can also indicate physical proximity (“this man here”) and iste can also indicate physical distance (“that man over there”), so the usages of these demonstratives may be two-fold: meta-phorical space and physical space, i.e. stage directions.
