Roman Republican Theatre by Gesine Manuwald (review)

This book admirably fills a long-standing void by providing a synoptic overview of the “sweeping and imprecise term ‘Roman Republican drama’” with clarity, precision, and scrupulous attention to the constraints of fragmentary evidence. Manuwald has created a reference book essential for any classics collection that, barring major new discoveries, should remain the standard for a half century.

Manuwald offers not a potted retrospective but rather a solid platform for further contributions to the field. The introduction, for example, offers a thoughtful survey of the problems inherent in the nomenclature, taxonomy, and methodologies facing anyone attempting to treat the subject: “Roman” or “Latin”; “Republican” or “archaic”; “theatre” or “drama”; “serious and light drama” or “tragedy and comedy”; synchronic or diachronic analysis; fragmentary or complete scripts; and so on. On no topic does Manuwald presume to offer the final word, for throughout the book she succinctly explains her choices while acknowledging alternative approaches, usually in footnotes and often with direct quotation. Readers may dissent, and copious references provide the tools for further investigation. Footnotes of secondary sources are comprehensive, including significant reviews; the parenthetical and footnoted citations of ancient sources include not only the convenient authorities such as Livy but also the likes of Festus and Orosius. Some pages (e.g., 113 on Ciceronian allusions to scripts) may function as handy checklists. That said, the book is no mere catalog of data, for Manuwald frames the evidence to suggest avenues for further exploration. For instance, the opening salvo on page 64 observes that: “The stage was the essential feature of a Roman theatre . . . and the dramatic festivals, the ludi scaenici, are named after it. . . . This vocabulary indicates that the Roman theatre developed from the stage as its constituent feature, whereas the Greek term ‘theatre’ . . . emphasized the auditorium.” This observation invites us to ponder how differing venues reflected and shaped not only the contents of scripts but also the expectations of Greek and Roman audiences (or should we say “spectators”?).

Manuwald adroitly balances the need for providing coherent and plausible reconstructions with underscoring the limits of our disparate and frequently fragmentary evidence. One phrase could serve as a mantra: “neat distinctions are problematic in view of the meager evidence” (49 n.25), and the text abounds with “seems,” “could,” “might,” “suggests,” and “probably.” This circumspect approach avoids generalizations based upon stray remarks from ancient grammarians, asking instead in what sense a remark can be true. One small complaint in this regard: a brief listing and general assessment of the ancient scholars upon whom we rely for the quoted fragments would be useful. Cicero receives judicious treatment, but readers not overly familiar with the quirks of Gellius or Donatus might wonder how their preoccupations have shaped the tentatively charted landscape of fragmentary authors. Readers might wonder why Diomedes appears throughout the text but is tagged for discussion only once in the index, or why Donatus, Gellius, and Euanthius are not in the index but Volcacius Sedigitus receives three citations.

Throughout, the old questions and approaches receive their due, often freshened and augmented by the new. For example, moving beyond the traditional evaluative comparisons of Roman adaptations and Greek “originals,” Manuwald offers more modern and nuanced discussions of intertexts and metatheatre, again with clarity in describing how she and others have used those terms. Modern approaches illuminate not only extant scripts but also fragmentary authors; thus the section on Naevius touches upon metaliterary aspects of his prologues and invites us to view some of his Roman allusions through the twin lenses of historical topicality and metatheatre. Given that different evidence generates different questions and answers, the relative length of sections may cause occasional surprise. For instance, the chapter on genres devotes as many pages to the shadowy togata/tabernaria as to the amply represented palliata. Good shows leave an audience wanting more, and a second edition might expand the five-page section on “language, style, meter, music.” But in a word: plaudite!