Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
2013.
A companion to Terence.
p.
482.
Article contents
Terence's Selbstaussöhnung: Payback Time for the Self (Hautontimorumenus)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Extract
- There is no such thing as society.
- Friends and neighbours, that's where it's at
- friends and neighbours, that's a fact.
All Terence's ½-doz. plays come complete with instructions on how to read them. They give you a fair idea, for a start, of what you're going to get yourself involved in. They always did, delivering audiences to the exponentially expanding Roman culture of the 160s BCE, delivering drama, and theatre culture, from that critical world-beating juncture in the history of the West to a constantly self-renewing, and ultimately perpetual, Graeco-Roman education, through language + learning: Prologue (§1).
Before all, this is the play with the unpronounceable Greek handle. Just about its only Hellenism to survive processing into Terence's expertly screened Latinity. A word-and-a-half set to catch any lover of language—it made Baudelaire write a poem, just so he could list Hautontimoroumenos as a title in Fleurs du Mal: Je te frapperai sans colèrelet sans haine comme un boucher.… (For us, his line-and-a-half must be: Je suis de mon coeur le vampire.) The word-title is a paradigmatic slogan that roars—fortissimo—that complex internal relations between the person and the self feature as the semiotic-cum-problematic of this play. L'innommable—beyond Latinity to put into words, hence the compulsion to dramatise: Title (§2).
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Aureal Publications 2004
References
This essay was the J.P. Sullivan Memorial Lecture in Classics, delivered at UCSB on 5/7/04. I was honoured to be invited by Judy and the Cttee, and thank Francis Dunn and rest of my friends at the Classics Dept for making it such a great visit for me. Of course John’s influence on my idea of what Classics is about was deep and wide. I could never understand why he did not write on Roman theatre, particularly on Comedy; and that must be what made me write for Ramus on Plautus in his memory (Henderson [1995]). Obviously I still can’t, and now here is Terence. My engagement with these plays goes back to the early 1980s (cf. Henderson [1988]): back then, ‘literary feuding’ and ‘the politics of Roman poetry’ spelled JPS. This essay, however, also represents current work-in-progress on a complete study of HT.
1. Sociological reading of HT: Cupaiulo (1991), esp. 116f., 128, 143f., 152–54, 175, 198–200, 204f.; axiomatic-deontological reading: Perelli (1973), esp. 69–75, 177–79, 225–28, 232–34. Pro-Menedemus, anti-Chremes onslaught: Fantham (1971), 976–83; ‘a little of both’: Forehand (1985), esp. 65; standard readings: Büchner (1974), Kruschwitz (2004), chapter 3; duplex comoedia: Goldberg (1986), 135–48; Syrus’ intrigue: Lowe (1998 and 2001). The discourse of self-appraisal: Browne (1943). Paternity and identity anxiety: Gunderson (2003). Revenge and repetition: Irwin (1975). Debunking homo sum: Jocelyn (1973); Bettini and Ricottilli (1989) [non uidi]; neighbourliness: Blanchard (1983), 249f.; exposure of Roman infants: Corbier (2001); alimenta payable by a parent for the upkeep of an exposed child on recovery: Seneca Controuersiae 9.3; Bonner (1969), 125–27; the social-sexological status of Antiphila: Konstan (1995), 120–30; mother involved in finding son a bride: Treggiari (1991), 134; fathers’ coercion of and affection for sons: Sailer (1993), 92f., 97–99, 101; Menedemus as (quasi) arbitrator of dowry and inheritance: Scafuro (1997), 183f., 470f.
- 1
- Cited by