Salvete !
Recently I completed first reads through three Latin plays, one each by Plautus, Seneca, and Hrothsvitha. The following mini-reviews describe the editions read and include my superficial opinions and comments. Be warned: I am not a scholar, nor am I much of a Latinist. I’m a life-long student of comparative literature, with a focus on the classical works and languages of Western European literary culture. Please bear this in mind while reading these reviews.
Hercules Furens - Seneca
I bought a used paperback edition of Hugh MacMaster Kingery’s “Three Tragedies Of Seneca” from Amazon. The publisher was the estimable University Of Oklahoma Press, the edition is dated 1966 (it’s a reprint of a 1906 original). The book is printed well but bound badly, so if you find one of these volumes you should expect it to fall apart after some use.
Despite the book’s physical problems it is a fine work. The introduction provides a brief historical survey of Roman drama, some details regarding the life and times of the playwright, and a summary of salient linguistic and metrical details. Interested readers should note that Seneca’s language differs little from the usage of the Augustans, and a familiarity with Vergil and Cicero should be sufficient preparation for reading these plays. Metrical matters will be more or less familiar according to the reader’s acquaintance with Latin strophic verse forms. A knowledge of Horace and Catullus will be most helpful in this regard. Excellent notes are provided for the text of the plays, but no glossary is included.
Seneca’s Hercules Furens is based upon an original by Euripides, but it is not a mere translation. In Seneca’s version the story tells the tale of Juno’s curse on the hero upon his return from his labors in the underworld, his ensuing madness and the murder of his family, and his eventual steps towards redemption. The storyline provides much opportunity for sententiousness and rhetorical exercise, but there is much in it of real beauty and striking imagery.
As I read the play I wondered how well the Medieval scholars knew Seneca’s works. This exchange between Lycus and Amphitruo is the kind of thing that might have appealed to a Medieval moralist :
LYC: Quemcumque miserum videris, hominem scias.
AMPH: Quemcumque fortem videris, miserum neges.
This passage too has, for me, a Medieval quality of perception :
HERC: O lucis almae rector et caeli decus,
qui alterna curru spatia flammifero ambiens
inlustre latis exeris terris caput,
da, Phoebe, veniam, si quid inlicitum tui
videre vultus: iussus in lucem extuli
arcana mundi.
The awakening of Hercules from his madness is an oft-quoted and justly famed passage :
HERC: Quis hic locus, quae regio, quae mundi plaga ?
Ubi sum ? Sub ortu solis, an sub cardine
glacialis ursae ? Numquid Hesperii maris
extrema tellus hunc dat Oceano modum ?
Quas trahimus auras ? Quod solum fesso subest ?
Certe redimus - unde prostrata ad domum
video cruenta corpora ? An nondum exuit
simulacra mens inferna ?
Seneca could count on his intended audience knowing the play’s back-story and its mythology. I imagined the drama as it might have been performed in a private setting, it doesn’t seem like the kind of play that would succeed as a staged production. In truth, the play is almost exclusively performed in dialog, and little action accompanies the speeches. However, Seneca achieves variety in his verse forms, and the mixture of verse and strophic forms was a delight for this reader. Of course, the play succeeds best when it is read aloud.
Would I recommend this book to the general reader of Latin ? I think so, though with the caution that it is not a beginner’s read. Two or three years of solid experience with the language should be enough to afford an easy entry into Seneca’s world. His material is interesting in its own right: I’ve already begun reading his Medea from the same edition.
Amphitruo - Plautus
I read Plautus’s Amphitruo in W. B. Sedgwick’s edition published by the Manchester University Press. This edition is organized in a manner similar to Hugh Kingery’s book, with an introduction to the history of early Latin comedy, a brief biography of Plautus, and a survey of his metrical practice. Linguistic matters are dealt with in the extensive (and excellent) notes to the play.
Linguistically speaking, coming to Plautus after Seneca is a shock, to say the least. His Latin is devoid of the classical orotundity and periodicity characteristic of the great Augustan writers. It represents the language of the average Roman in the street, and it is of inherent interest to the student of Vulgar Latin. However, Plautus is also genuinely funny, and there is no doubt that this play was written for the performance stage.
Again, this play is based on a Greek original or originals. It may be a conflation of various sources, including plays by Sophocles and Euripides.
In all sources, Amphitruo is the husband of Alcmena, the eventual mother of Hercules. In Plautus’s story Amphitruo is cuckolded by Jupiter and further deceived by the god. A case of mistaken identity ensues, along with predictably great confusion, until the god reveals himself and makes all well again. The plot affords Plautus with much opportunity for broad humor, verging on slapstick at times. In the following exchange Amphitruo is derided by his servant Sosia (actually the god Mercury) in a dialog that might have come from Abbott & Costello :
ME: Prodigum te fuisse oportet olim in adulescentia.
AM: Quidum ? ME: Quia senecta aetate a me mendicas malum.
AM: Cum cruciatu tuo istaec hodie, verna, verba funditas.
ME: Sacrufico ego tibi. AM: Qui ? ME: Quia enim te macto infortunio.
AM: At ego te cruce et cruciatu mactabo, mastigia.
Despite the early Latin (Plautus wrote two centuries before the Augustans) the play is quite readable, thanks in no small part to Mr. Sedgwick’s fine notes. Like Seneca, the playwright enjoys a reputation as an influence on Shakespeare, but Plautus is highly recommended for his own virtues. He is a master of his language, and his metrical variety is a delight. Obviously this play is not a deep or profound work, nor should we expect depth or profundity in a comedy of this sort. However, Plautus displays genuine wit, his characters are engaging, and he keeps the action going.
Incidentally, if you want to learn more about the common (i.e. vulgar) usage of Latin adverbs, interjections, exclamations, imprecations, and other particles of speech, you definitely want to look at the works of Plautus.
Due to the difficulties of the earlier language I should caution beginners (and even not-so-beginners) that they will encounter much in Plautus that is foreign to the prose of Caesar and the poetry of Ovid and Vergil. His syntax is considerably simpler than that of the Augustans, but his meters may prove to be a complex issue for readers new to dramatic verse. Nevertheless, this is vivid and lively Latin that must be read out loud to feel its full effects.
Dulcitius - Hrothsvitha
I did not originally plan to read Hrothsvitha’s Dulcitius, but when I looked at it in Karl P. Harrington’s Medieval Latin I realized it would be an easy task. The play is entire in that volume, and Mr. Harrington has provided his typically helpful notes to help give the reader an idea of Hrothsvitha’s talent.
Dulcitius is an unusual work in many ways: It is a Medieval religious drama, written during a period when the Church was disinclined towards such activities (thanks largely to Tertullian, the killjoy), and it was composed by a woman. Apparently the nun Hrothsvitha wanted her charges to read something more edifying than Terence, she obviously saw that people like plays, and she saw that a play could be an appropriate vehicle for morality tales and other religious purposes.
The language is 10th-century Latin, displaying many ecclesiastical and other Medieval influences. The play itself is composed in prose, with a few rhythmic passages, and it can be read easily even by relative beginners. Obviously an acquaintance with Medieval and Biblical Latin will be helpful, but Mr. Harrington’s notes should clarify any obscurity in the language, and the absence of meter may be a minor blessing for novices.
The story depicts the persecution and martyrdom of three “saintly maidens” and the embarassment of Dulcitius, their “would-be lover”. As Mr. Harrington points out, there is little in the play that is actually humorous, although this scene has some element of broad humor (iste stultus = Dulcitius) :
HIRENA: Ecce, iste stultus, mente alienatus, aestimat se nostris uti amplexibus.
AGAPES: Quid facit ?
HIRENA: Nunc ollas molli fovet gremio, nunc sartagines et caccabos amplectitur, mitia libans oscula.
CHIONIA: Ridiculum.
HIRENA: Nam facies, manus ac vestimenta adeo sordidata, adeo coinquinata, ut nigredo quae inhaesit similitudinem Aethiopis exprimit.
AGAPES: Decet ut talis appareat corpore, qualis a diabolo possidetur in mente.
HIRENA: En, parat regredi. Intendamus quid illo egrediente milites pro foribus expectantes.
MILITES: Quis hic egreditur ? Daemoniacus, vel magis ipse diabolus. Fugiamus !
Okay, it won’t have anyone rolling on the floor laughing, but it’s easy to imagine how the play might have been performed and received. The intended audience would have known the general outline of the play, and its story is edifying enough. The contemporary reader may find some inherent interest in Hrothsvitha’s language, perhaps even in her subject matter. This play has also the virtue of being easily staged, making it a prime candidate for a sight-read performance in a classroom.
