Inorganic Rôles in Roman Comedy
Inorganic Rôles in Roman Comedy
复制标题
罗马喜剧中的无机角色
DOI：
10.1086/360292
复制
发表时间：
1920
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
Henry W. Prescott
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Henry W. Prescott
在导论研究中，我不得不对利奥及其追随者的观点进行温和的纠正。利奥及其追随者认为欧里庇得斯悲剧严重影响了希腊化喜剧的形式和内容，他们的观点导致他们将拉丁喜剧的许多非艺术特征区分为罗马喜剧。“研究罗马戏剧的现代学者经常选择一些非艺术性的特征来加强关于污染的理论，或者一般来说是罗马工艺的理论，这些特征中有一些是戏剧中的人物，这些人物似乎松散地或机械地依附于动作。因此，例如，Ergasilus在Captivi中的角色，Lurcio在Miles中的角色，Syncerastus在Poenulus中的角色，Callipho和Charinus在Pseudolus中的角色，Gripus在Rudens中的角色，Gelasimus在Stichus中的角色，已经被用来证实这些戏剧要么包括罗马材料的镶嵌，要么由于来自两个或多个希腊戏剧的材料的糟糕的拼接而在结构上被削弱。在我看来，在一个特定的戏剧中分离出非艺术特征作为罗马干预的证据的方法显然是危险的。任何非艺术性的特征都可能是所有或许多戏剧的共同财产，而不是一部或几部喜剧的特有财产，为了证明罗马人的技艺，我们不能安全地估计一部特定戏剧中单个非艺术性特征的价值，除非我们在总体上考虑了这一特征在所有26部罗马戏剧中的表现。因此，在本文中，我对无机角色进行了综合研究。与希腊悲剧的不断比较，虽然必然是简短和粗略的，但将表明这两种戏剧类型彼此之间的关系。如果这些结果不能解决在考察罗马贡献的确切程度和性质时所涉及的历史问题，那么它们至少可以为戏剧技巧的一个有趣方面提供一个方便的总结。[1]参见课菲尔，十一，125 ff.; XII，405 ff.;十三，113 ff.; XIV，108 ff.;和体育。索南堡，沃赫。F. KL.菲尔，XXXIV（1917），623 ff.; Schwering，N. Jahrbb.，XXXVII（1916），167 ff. [古典哲学十五，1920年7月] 245
In introductory studies I have endeavored to apply a mild corrective to the views of Leo and his followers who, believing that Euripidean tragedy seriously affected the form and content of Hellenistic comedy, have been led by their opinion to differentiate as Roman many inartistic features of Latin comedy.' Among the inartistic features often selected by modern students of Roman plays to strengthen theories of contamination, or of Roman workmanship in general, are characters in the plays that seem to be loosely or mechanically attached to the action. So, for example, the roles of Ergasilus in the Captivi, of Lurcio in the Miles, of Syncerastus in the Poenulus, of Callipho and Charinus in the Pseudolus, of Gripus in the Rudens, of Gelasimus in the Stichus, have been used to confirm notions that these plays either include inlays of Roman material or are weakened in structure by poor dovetailing of material from two or more Greek plays. In my own opinion the method of segregating inartistic features in a given play as proof of Roman intervention is distinctly dangerous. Any inartistic feature may be the common property of all or many plays, not the peculiar possession of one or several comedies, and we may not safely estimate the value, for purposes of proving Roman craftsmanship, of a single inartistic feature in a given play until we have considered in the large the manifestation in all the twentysix Roman plays of that special feature. In this paper, therefore, I undertake a synthetic study of inorganic roles. Constant comparison with Greek tragedy, though necessarily brief and sketchy, will indicate the relation to each other of the two dramatic types. If the results do not by any means settle the historical problems involved in a consideration of the precise extent and nature of Roman contribution, they may at least provide a convenient summary of one interesting aspect of dramatic technique. 1 Cf. Class. Phil., XI, 125 ff.; XII, 405 ff.; XIII, 113 ff.; XIV, 108 ff.; and P. E. Sonnenburg, Woch. f. kl. Phil., XXXIV (1917), 623 ff.; Schwering, N. Jahrbb., XXXVII (1916), 167 ff. [CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY XV, July, 1920] 245