The methodology that has been adopted in the present study is based on an adaptation of communication pragmatics (that has been identified in the field of cybernetics and psychiatry by G. Bateson and more broadly recalled by P. Watzlawick, J. Helmick Beavin, and D.D. Jackson)1 to classical texts.2 Studies based on such a method have also enabled the in-depth study of gestural representation, where gestures are often endowed with the most explicit and intense expression of the quality of the relation at hand, while words more clearly express the content of the interaction itself. This re-elaboration revealed its particular relevance in the field of theatre studies, as its analysis is focused on the systemic dimension of interaction.
This method, starting from certain specific gestural indications that may be found in the written text, allows scholars to retrace the Roman audienceâs high level of competence in relation to gestural categories as well as their appropriateness and value around Terenceâs time. Without such competence, comedy playwrights would not have been able to use gestures to create comic effects through precise strategies that will be identified in the course of the present study in the paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2.
In paragraph 2.1, the analysis demonstrates how gestures significantly contribute to outlining the profound and noble qualities of the amicitia that Chremes offers to Menedemus and that the latter decides to reciprocate. In other words, the study of humanitas in Terenceâs works is enriched and perfected if one considers the charactersâ gestures as well as their linguistic expressions within a systemic dimension of interaction.
As today, in ancient Rome, face-to-face communication included the use of gesturesâboth in terms of body language and facial expressionsâas well as words. Such gesturing accompanied verbal language in order to prepare, enhance, and emphasise certain specific aspects or to correct and adjust it. Sometimes gestures even substituted verbal messages in order to express something that could not be explicitly voiced, that words were incapable of expressing, or that simply could not be expressed with the same force. In this last case, we may speak of âdoing things with gesturesâ in the same way things can be done with words.
Unfortunately, recent definitions of gestures do not concur: in the present study, I shall adopt a definition that I elaborated in my book on gestures and words in the Aeneid: a definition which is well suited to aid the study of interactions with verbal language. With the word âgestureâ, I refer to bodily or facial behaviour that takes on a communicative, informative, or interactive value in relation to a direct addressee or possible observer and that may be controlled by a sender.3
In Terenceâs comedies, interactions among characters present both cases: doing things with gestures and doing things with words and gestures.
1 Doing Things with Gestures
1.1 Comical Limitations Regarding the Comprehension of Gestures
[1] Terence Eunuchus 735â737
Pyth. nil dixit tu ut sequere sese? Chr. nil, nisi abiens mi innuit.
Pyth. eho nonne id sat erat? Chr. at nescibam id dicere illam, nisi quia
correxit miles, quod intellexi minus; nam me extrusit foras.
Pyth. Didnât she suggest you should follow her?
Chr. No, except that she nodded to me as she left.
Pyth. Hey, wasnât that enough?
Chr. Well, I didnât know what she meant, but the soldier set me straight by throwing me out.4
The situation is the following: the courtesan Thais, who had brought the young Chremes to the soldier Thrasoâs home for dinner after a fight with Thraso, leaves while signalling to Chremes to follow her. The young man, who is rather naive, does not understand what Thais is trying to tell him with such a gesture but is given a hint by Thaisâ maid Pythias.
Innuere has the meaning of âsignallingâ that is well known among Terenceâs contemporaries, precisely as other gestures pertaining to the same family: adnuere means âto say yes, to consentâ and abnuere âto say no, to refuseâ. According to the classification of Ekman and Friesen, they are emblems that correspond to immediate verbal translation (âEmblems are those nonverbal acts which have a direct verbal translation, or dictionary definition, usually consisting of a word or two, or perhaps a phraseâ5) and are therefore gestures that could easily attain the value of a speech act.6
In Aelius Donatusâ comment to Terenceâs comedies, Chremesâ comical naivety is underlined, and, above all, the perfect comprehensibility of Thaisâ gesture is confirmed:7
[2] Donatus ad Eunuchum 736.1
EHO NONNE ID SAT ERAT adeo simplex hic inducitur adulescens, ut a Pythia reprehendi possit. Nam quid opus fuit dicere, si innuit?
âHey, wasnât that enough?â] Here the young man [scil. Chremes] is portrayed as being so naive that he is scolded by Pythias. In fact, what need was there for Thais to speak if she had sent him a signal?8
Such a scholium provides explicit recognition of the fact that gestures, compared to verbal language, sometimes have the ability to express messages that are directed at the addressee more efficiently or in accordance with the needs of the context at hand. At that time, like nowadays, communicative competence required the ability to decode gestures that, among other things, were preferable to verbal messages in delicate situations such as the conflict between Thais and the soldier. Such gestures are often signs of understanding that the addressee must not miss: Chremes is a foreigner to the ways of life in the city so that he does not understand them, just as he does not understand the situation he finds himself in. Naturally, all of this has the effect of making the audience laugh.9
Once inserted in the context, a gesture like innuere acquires a specific value as a speech act (according to Poggi [1983], lexical gestures or emblems do not contain a particular performative value like holophrastic gestures, so they draw it from the context in which they appear). In this case, the performative value of the gesture appears to be the requestive âfollow meâ gesture, which corresponds to sequere me in Latin. Austin (21975: 155â157) speaks of âexercitive actsâ.10
From a relational point of view, the agreement on the action to be carried out, which is necessarily conveyed by Thais as not to be immediately grasped by the miles, does not take place right away, due to Chremesâ comical inability to understand the language of gestures. Nevertheless, in the course of the comedy, such an agreement between the courtesan and the young man will be gradually instated and attain the relationship of amicitia that Thais desired: naturally, in this case, it consists of a clientele form of amicitia between patronus and cliens, with the meretrix taking on the role of cliens and young Chremes that of patronus.
Overall, the verb innuere, which recurs in Plautus and Terence, does not appear often in prose and even less frequently in poetry.11
In Terenceâs plays, the verb innuere occurs three timesâone of which has already been examinedâand in all three cases, there is a requestive performative (i.e. an exercitive act in the terminology of Austin [21975: 155â157]). Thus, in Ter. Ad. 170, young Aeschinus commands a slave to beat the leno Sannio by means of a gesture.
[3] Terence Adelphoe 170â171caue nunciam oculos a meis oculis quoquam demoueas tuos,ne mora sit, si innuerim, quin pugnus continuo in mala haereat.
Now make sure you donât take your eyes off mine. If I nod, donât wait. Plant your fist in his jaw instantly.
This passage represents, quite well, the need for the slave to be attentive to his ownerâs slightest gesture and ready to obey. The nod (nutus), which is generally executed with the head or sometimes with the eyes or eyebrows, conveys the order in precisely the same manner as verbal language and, not by coincidence the term nutus may also mean âcommandâ.
The confirmation of this other meaning is offered by
[4] Cicero Tusculan Disputations 5.61
tum ad mensam eximia forma pueros delectos iussit consistere eosque nutum illius intuentes diligenter ministrare.
Then he told chosen slave-boys of exceptional beauty to stand by the table, watch for his nods, and wait on him attentively.12
In its third appearance in Terenceâs plays, the value of innuere is the same as in the second, which may be found a few verses earlier:
[5] Terence Adelphoe 173â174
 Aes. geminabit nisi caues. San. ei miseriam!
Aes. non innueram, uerum in istam partem potius peccato tamen.
Aes. Heâll do it again if you donât look out.
San. (as Parmeno strikes him again) Ow! That hurts! (he loosens his grip on the girl)
Aes. (to Parmeno) I didnât nod. But itâs a fault in the right direction.
1.2 A Singular Language of Courtship
[6] Terence Heautontimorumenos 369â373sed heus tu, uide sis ne quid imprudens ruas.patrem nouisti ad has res quam sit perspicax.ego te autem noui quam esse soleas impotens.inuersa uerba, euersas ceruices tuas,gemitus, screatus, tussis, risus abstine.
But listen, please make sure you donât spoil everything by being careless. You know how keen-scented your father is for this sort of thing; and I know how headstrong you can be. None of your double meanings, side glances, sighs, throat clearing, coughs, laughs.
Here the slave Syrus, while leading Bacchis, the courtesan beloved by Clitipho, to his ownerâs home while pretending that her lover is the young Clinia, reminds his young owner to not betray himself before his father, Chremes, with communicative behaviour that could reveal that he is the meretrixâs lover.
Gestures of courtship and seduction appear, for instance, in the famous verses of Naeviusâ Tarentilla:
[7] Naevius Tarentilla 74â7613quasi pilain choro ludens datatim dat se et communem facit.alii adnutat, alii adnictat, alium amat, alium tenet.
As though she were playing at ball, give-and-take in a ring, she makes herself common property to all men. To one she nods, at another she winks; one she caresses, another embraces.14
It seems to pay homage to such verses by emphasising the furtive nature of the gestures:
[8] Plautus Asinaria 784neque illa ulli homini nutet, nictet, annuat.
She shall not nod, wink, or make any signs to any man.15
This is one of the clauses of the comical contract that the parasite drew up for young Diabolus; in exchange for twenty silver minae, this contract granted exclusive possession of the courtesan Filenia for one year.
If we compare the two preceding examples with Terenceâs verses, we may notice that in Syrusâ list of prohibited behaviours there are certain comical modifications having the intent of highlighting Clitiphoâs excesses, like euertere ceruices, which indicates an unnatural position of the neck that is so unexpected and exaggerated that it made the audience laugh.
While the context specifies that this gesture has the intent of making his beloved notice him, the ancient commentatorâs various explanations do not clarify whether this entails tilting oneâs neck backwards which, by analogy with the term abnuo, could indicate a proud refusal, or pride in general, as Eugraphius asserted in his comment to Heautontimorumenos:
[9] Eugraphius ad Heautontimorumenum 372EVERSAS CERVICES TUAS quod iactantia et superbia est.
YOUR SIDE GLANCES (gesture) that indicates exhibitionism and pride16
and is partially confirmed in
[10] Scholia Terentiana ad Heautontimorumenum 372 SchleeEVERSAS dissolutas et supinas, huc illucque reuertentes.
SIDE the (neck) is relaxed, tilted backwards, and turns here and there.17
In this scholium, exhibitionism is associated with a sideways turn of the neck, which also has the aim of drawing attention.
Another possible interpretation refers to the opposite movement of the neck, i.e. downwards, as confirmed by
[11] Scholia Bembina ad Heautontimorumenum 372 MountfordEVERSAS infractas, inflexas, amatorieque deiectas.
SIDE the (neck) is loose, bent, and directed downwards as is typical of a person in love.18
More recent studies translate it with âstorcere il colloâ (âto twist the neckâ) Ronconi (1960) and similarly: e.g. âtes contorsions du couâ (âyour contortions of the neckâ) Marouzeau (1942â1949 II); Lietzmann (1974) translates euertere with âumdrehen, verdrehenâ; Barsby (2001) recurs to the expression âside glancesâ, and Bianco (1993) âstorcere la testaâ (âto twist the headâ).19
It is very difficult to recreate with certainty a gesture that is executed in a singular and comical manner, even when it is located within a verbal context (although we do not have clear indications about the context, which could have been a banquet imagined by Syrus) and in the presence of a clear intent, i.e. drawing the attention of the woman one loves. The fact that the term euersas is chosen, among other things, in order to achieve a paronomasia with inuersa uerba, must be taken into consideration. After all, one must keep in mind that a gesture is never a perfect equivalent of words.
In this case, the performative is requestive along the same lines as saying âlook at meâ or âpay attentionâ to his beloved.
Moreover, if risus indicates laughter and not smiles, then this facial gesture would also be too obvious to be part of a sort of knowing and refined courtship that must only be understood by its addressee.
The series of paralinguistic behaviours that Syrus imagines could be attributed to Clitipho include gemitus, screatus, and tussis; however, while gemitus could be considered appropriate should it be executed with scarcely any sound, the other two (screatusâa hapax legomenonâ and tussis) have a comical effect because they are more readily associated with an old phlegmy man than an amans ephebus.
Eugraphius (ad Heautontimorumenum 373) proposes a different explanation: GEMITUS SCREATUS TUSSIS haec omnia adulescentuli faciunt, quotienscumque uidere aut uideri uolunt ab his, quos desiderant, ita sub quodam metu, ut, quasi dum aliud necessitate conficiunt, sic impleant uoluntatem: âyoung men do all this whenever they want to see or be seen by the people they care about, if they are under the influence of a certain fear, so they may satisfy their desire while, so to say, executing âsomething elseâ out of dutyâ. The mention of a secret sort of communication between the adulescentuli, despite their fear while they are compelled to accomplish something else, seems to be a scholastic situation, rather than a courtship that must remain a secret.
The scholia Bembina ad loc. refer to the furtive convening between the lovers GEMITUSâRISUS quae faciunt amantes ad conuertendos in se oculos eorum quos amant ut significare furtim aliquid mutuo nutu possint: âthings that lovers do to make their belovedâs eyes turn towards them, so that they may communicate in secret by means of a mutual nodâ. Interestingly enough, three paralinguistic notations (gemitus, screatus, and tussis) and one gesture (risus) are summarised and explained with a mutual nod (mutuus nutus). The situation is thus enriched with elements that are not present and defer to common forms of communication between lovers. The scholia Terentiana ad loc. have: SCREATUS screare est spuere et phlegma purgare âcoughing up phlegm involves spitting and eliminating moist humourâ, which is more faithful to the comical tone of the context.
We cannot exclude the possibility that the actor who personified Syrus could have emphasised these bodily and paralinguistic singularities in his reciting, thus increasing the audienceâs entertainment.20
The enjoyment of the spectators at seeing how Clitipho betrays himself before his father must have been even greater, surpassing the comical expectations that had been triggered by the slave. In fact, instead of the inappropriate and ridiculous use of gestures and paralinguistic behaviour, the young man, who is even more incapable of controlling himself than Syrus had foreseen, directly takes action and is discovered by his father, Chremes, while slipping his hand over the courtesanâs breast. This obviously is an action rather than a gesture:
[12] Terence Heautontimorumenos 562â564
Chr. quid istuc, quaeso? qui istic mos est, Clitipho? itane fieri oportet?
Clit. quid ego feci? Chr. uidin ego te modo manum in sinum huic meretrici inserere?
Chr. Tell me, what are you up to? What sort of behaviourâs this, Clitipho? Is this the proper way to act?
Clit. What have I done?
Chr. Didnât I see you just now putting your hand inside that womanâs bosom?
Clitipho is impotens, as Syrus claims (371), and incapable of controlling his amorous desires, but there is probably an anthropological factor in this sequence of behaviours that is relevant for that time, i.e. the possibility that simulating could be disreputable for an adulescens. In comedies, simulation is often naturally part of comical games based on successful or unsuccessful deceptions, and as such may also involve free characters (see, for example, Ter. Phorm. 210). Nevertheless, there may be reflections of the negative value that it had at the timeâespecially in political, judicial, and commercial contextsâand that was destined to be expressed efficiently by Cicero.21 In the same comedy, Clitiphoâs father, Chremes, refuses to actively participate in the scam weaved by the slave Syrus:
[13] Terence Heautontimorumenos 781â784
Syr. ⦠non ego dicebam in perpetuom ut illam illi dares,
uerum ut simulares. Chr. non meast simulatio.
ita tu istaec tua misceto ne me admisceas.
egon, quoi daturus non sum, ut ei despondeam?
Syr. ⦠I wasnât suggesting that you should give her to him permanently, but just pretend.
Chr. Pretence is not my way. You do your stirring but keep me out of the pot. Engage her to a man I donât intend to marry her to?
The fact that gestures of seduction are typical of courtesans in Naeviusâ Tarentilla does not seem to be a coincidence; likewise, the simulated seduction is only in Syrusâ, the slaveâs, mind, while his young free owner, Clitipho, is not pretending and reveals himself bluntly and directly.
The mentality of Ovidâs time seems to have greatly changed and, in his Amores, the poet personally plays with the furtive gestures of hidden courtship:
[14] Ovid Amores 1.4.17â19me specta nutusque meos uultumque loquacem;excipe furtiuas et refer ipsa notas.uerba superciliis sine uoce loquentia dicam.
Keep your eyes on me, to get my nods and the language of my eyes; and catch my stealthy signs, and yourself return them.22
2 Doing Things with Words and Gestures
2.1 Gestures That Intensify the Expression of a Feeling
In the opening scene of the Heautontimorumenos, Menedemus bursts into tears during his exchange with Chremes, who invites him to stop crying and confide in him and promises to help him.
[15] Terence Heautontimorumenos 83â86
 Men. eheu!
Chr. ne lacruma atque istuc quidquid est fac me ut sciam.
ne retice, ne uerere; crede, inquam, mihi.
aut consolando aut consilio aut re iuuero.
Men. (sobbing) Oh dear, oh dear!
Chr. Donât weep. Whatever your trouble is, tell me all about it; donât keep it to yourself. Donât be afraid; trust me, I say. Iâll help you whether you need consolation or counsel or money.
A senex who sheds tears on the stage amounts to a situation that is very different from those in Plautusâ works due to the role of the character who is crying and Terenceâs respect for him.23 The different portrayal of the senex in Plautus is particularly evident in the case of the senex amator who becomes his sonâs rival over desire for a woman and, on the basis of the anthropological context, is destined to be defeated and even punished or at least mocked.24 At the end of this first scene, the two elderly men, who have become friends, take their leave and Chremes, now alone, speaks in a brief monologue of his profound compassion for his neighbour, one so intense that it made him cry. At this point, the audience learns that Chremes has also shed tears:
[16] Terence Heautontimorumenos 167â168lacrumas excussit mihimiseretque me eius.
He made me shed a tear, and Iâm sorry for him.
The gesture of crying is holophrastic and generally presents an informative performative (a âbehabitive actâ in the terminology of Austin [21975: 160â161]).
In this case, as opposed to the previous one, the mention of tears does not occur simultaneously, but in retrospect. The old manâs emotional involvement before his neighbourâs suffering was already perceivable from the conversation between the two. Then why does Terence have the senex say something that could have been understood by what preceded the monologue? In truth, there are various reasons for this.
One of these consists in a peculiar feature of Terenceâs monologues, which appear, from a communicative point of view, like a dialogue between one part of the âEgoâ that expresses its feelings, reflects on what has happened, informs on the facts, and another part of the âEgoâ that may be a silent speaker that only listens or an active conversant who asks, comments, and contests (e.g. in Phorm. 185â190).25 For this reason, what a character says in the absence of others in a dialogue with oneâs self is conventionally considered a sincere expression of their feelings. In other words, the compassion that Chremes feels for Menedemus is not a ruse to gain something from the conversation but rather a true sentiment that Chremes perceives in himself and is therefore presented by the poet as sincere compassion.
In particular, the effect that is obtained by Chremesâ tears, i.e. the intensification of mercy, is a valid reason for this retrospective mention. The gesture, in this case, is therefore a display of affection, or proof of emotions.
The third reason may be found in the authorâs desire to add an element that integrates and confirms the portrayal of the two senes as well as their relationship. In this case, in fact, we have contagious tears (or a contagion of tears): the fact that the friendship between the two senes had already been instituted is attested precisely by their mirroring one anotherâs gesture of crying and is confirmed in the course of the comedy by the way in which the events unfold.26 The contagion of tears reveals not only Chremesâ emotional involvement before his friendâs suffering but especially the intensity and nobility of such involvement.27
The presence of painful situations that are indicated by tears must not be excluded in comedies: the expectation, however, is that situations of suffering are concentrated at the beginning of the comedy and gradually decrease as problems are solved by fate or the charactersâ intervention and reach a peaceful ending. In De comoedia, Evanthius underlines such a feature:
[17] Evanthius De comoedia 4.2
illic [scil. in comoedia] prima turbulenta, tranquilla ultima, in tragoedia contrario ordine res aguntur.
[In comedies] the opening scenes are turbulent, the final serene; in tragedies, the order of the scenes is the contrary.28
Such an expectation is confirmed by positioning tears in the initial scenes of the comedy and rigorously eliminating them in the final scene.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the most relevant findings of the present analysis, consisting of specific cases from Terenceâs works, include the following:
-
The significant knowledge of the second century BC Roman audience in relation to the use of gestures during face-to-face exchanges is confirmed. On the basis of such competence, comic playwrights may entertain the audience by emphasising, e.g., young Chremesâ comical limitations in his ability to understand the meaning of gestures (1.1).
-
Specific types of relations, e.g. courtship, featured distinctive and appropriate gestures: the comical plot twists created by such gestures were an excellent opportunity to entertain the audience and were employed by the slave Syrus to underline young Clitiphoâs inability to control his passion for the meretrix Bacchis. The enjoyment of the spectators at seeing how Clitipho betrays himself before his father must have been all the greater, surpassing the comical expectations that had been triggered by the slave (1.2).
-
Small clues emerge from the written text by means of which it is possible to reconstruct some of the comical plays on gestures that were, for the most part, improvised by the actor during performances and otherwise would have been irretrievable (1.2).
-
The way in which interacting characters influence each otherâs behaviour may be studied in light of the methodology of communication pragmatics. Such a close connection between different charactersâ behaviour clearly surfaces in the course of the exchanges between Chremes and Menedemus (2.1).29
-
Gestural notations represent necessary keys to understanding the quality of the relationships that are established among characters in Terenceâs theatrical works, as well as Chremesâ profound nobility, which is revealed by his contagion of tears (2.1).
Watzlawick et al. (1967). Since 1982, such adaption has been carried out by our research group (Licinia Ricottilli, Renata Raccanelli, and Evita Calabrese), which has published a series of studies that re-elaborated the methodological tools of pragmatics of human communication and provided new ones in order to make them more functional in relation to the analysis of literary texts and, in particular, those of ancient Greek and Latin cultures. This re-elaboration has been successfully tested in analysing Greek and Latin authors (e.g. Menander, Plautus, Terence, Virgil, and the philosopher Seneca). This method was easily integrated into the present study, given its shared pragmatic framework with the speech act theory of J.L. Austin.
For more on this, see Ricottilli (2009) and a preliminary review of contributions relating to theatre in Ricottilli (2010). The results of the research group until 2009, composed by Licinia Ricottilli, Renata Raccanelli, and Evita Calabrese, have been analysed in the two previously mentioned contributions; as far as the groupâs publications since 2009 are concerned, providing further confirmation of the validity of such a methodology, along with in-depth analyses that assist in improving and extending its possible applications, see the following selected bibliography: Ricottilli 2018c (including contributions by R. Raccanelli and E. Calabrese); Calabrese (2017a, 2017b, 2018); Raccanelli (2010, 2012, 2016); Ricottilli (2013, 2018a, 2018b).
Ricottilli (2000: 16). Since the present study provides examples of gestures that are more effective and suitable for the context than words, it carries forth the approach adopted by Corbeill (2004) and Aldrete (2017), who studied the importance and power of gestures in the ancient Roman cultural system and interactions, respectively. Nevertheless, the pragmatic framework that recalls the theories of speech act of J.L. Austin and that of agency of A. Duranti (which have already been used for âpowerful wordsâ in Bettini [2004]) and applies them to the gestures that may be found in Latin literature decisively differentiates the present contribution from those by A. Corbeill and G.S. Aldrete, which quote neither J.L. Austin (or J.R. Searle), nor A. Duranti. Another distinguishing element lies in the authorâs definition of gesture, in that it is narrower than that proposed by Aldrete (2017: 151) but has the advantage of facilitating the comparison between gestural communication and linguistic communication, and therefore that of consolidating the application of âagencyâ (and more specifically Duranti [2007: 87â122]), which is typical of words, to gestures. Moreover, all of the studies on gestures in ancient Rome are indebited to the pioneering research of Sittl (1890); further useful information has also been provided by numerous more recent studies, among which Brilliant (1963) regarding the fine arts, Maier Eichhorn (1989) and Graf (1991) on orators and actors, Aldrete (1999) on gestural acclamations and Corbeill (2005) on Roman law.
Texts and translations from Terence are taken from Barsby (2001).
Ekman and Friesen (1969: 63). From a different perspective, Poggi (1983) classifies these as lexical gestures that correspond to a single word of a language, like pointing to the ground near oneself instead of saying âhereâ or rotating oneâs wrist loosely to say âveryâ in modern Italy. On the contrary, holophrastic gestures are the equivalent of a sentence carrying out a performative: for instance, brushing the back of oneâs hand under oneâs chin with an outwards movement, in modern Italy, corresponds to the sentence âI donât care at allâ. It contains an informative performative (i.e. an âexpositive actâ according to Austin [21975: 161â163]), consisting in my informing someone that I do not care about something or someone at all. Facial expressions are usually holophrastic: for example, a happy face expression conveys the message âI am happyâ, while a sideways glance (see Homeric á½ÏόδÏα ἰδών or Latin acerba tuens, lumine toruo) corresponds to the sentence âI am angry with youâ or âI despise youâ. In these cases, we have an informative performative as well.
Other emblems, along with the ones that have previously been seen, consist in gestures used to greet when meeting or leaving someone. See, for example, Capponi in this volume.
As is known, this is a comment in which the reflections of earlier scholars, e.g. Valerius Probus and Aemilius Asper, converged. For a comment by Donatus on Terence, see in particular Ferri (2016: 256): âDonatus comments on another use of deictic pronouns and adverbs, in which the speakers use deixis to form elliptical, highly idiomatic sentences which need an accompanying gesture to acquire meaning for an interlocutorâ; see also Basore (1908); Madyda (1953); Thomadaki (1989).
The translations of the Commentum Terenti are mine.
Some commentators explain that Chremesâ inability to comprehend the nod was due to his drunkenness, but such a theory does not conform to his own words (736 at nescibam id dicere illam) or to the scholium quoted as text [2].
For more on this, see also Sbisà (1989: 113â130).
The use of the verb innuere in Plin Ep. 7.27.9 is also noteworthy.
Text and translation are taken from Douglas (1990); this is the famous episode of Damoclesâ sword.
For more on this, see the excellent analysis in Traina (52000: 34â35); for more on the complexity of the problems related to these verses, Barchiesi (1978: 67â150) is of fundamental importance.
Text and translation are taken from Warmington (21961).
Texts and translations of Plautus are taken from de Melo (2011â2013).
The translations of Eugraphiusâ Commentary are mine. An analogous use is present in Sen. Ben. 2.13.2 libet itaque interrogare, quid se tanto opere resupinet, quid uultum habitumque oris peruertat, ut malit personam habere quam faciem? âAnd so I feel like asking why a donor is so stuck up, why he contorts his facial expression so much that he seems to prefer a mask rather than a normal face.â (the translation is taken from Griffin and Inwood 2011).
My translation.
My translation.
Different translations: Wagner (1872) compares it to Ov. Her. 16.233 uersa ceruice recumbo âI stretch by turning my head in the opposite directionâ and observes that âdem gegenüber euersae komisch klingt beinahe âaus dem Gelenke gedrehtââ¯â. Brothers (1988) interprets it as âthose over-the-shoulder glances of yoursâ, while Gray (1902) chooses âto crane his neck in the hope of catching sight of herâ.
For more on the margin of freedom that actors enjoyed when performing, see Panayotakis (2005).
In Cicero, the act of simulating damaged the credibility of a person and the accusation of simulating was used as a weapon to strike an adversary: see Cic. Pis. 1; Clu. 72; Rab. Post. 35; Red. Sen. 15; for more on this in general, see also Off. 2.43, 3.61; see also Sall. Cat. 31.7.
The translation is taken from Showerman (1963); analogous examples may be found in Ov. Am. 2.5.15â20; Her. 17.79â92.
See Dutsch (2008: 96â97) who, in referring only to flere and plorare, observes how Terence, as opposed to Plautus, avoids presenting characters who cry loudly on stage.
See Bettini (1982: 72â77).
For more on Terenceâs monologues, see Haffter (21969: 55, with the comment of D. Nardo, 129); Denzler (1968); Minarini (1995).
See Lefèvre (1994). An important anthropological investigation on friendship in Plautusâ comedies may be found in Raccanelli (1998). For further details on contagious tears in Terence, see Ricottilli (2018a: 154â166).
Some critics do not seem to have paid much attention to the elements that reiterate the characterâs positive portrayal: as a result, an unjustified tradition of antipathy in relation to it has emerged. For example, Perelli (1973: 51) sustains that Chremes âviene sempre fatto sentenziare a vanveraâ, while Brothers (1988: 20, 168) portrays Chremes as a busy body.
My translation.
See Ricottilli (1994: 191â205).
References
Aldrete, G.S., (1999), Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome, Baltimore/London.
Aldrete, G.S., (2017) âGesture in the Ancient Mediterranean Worldâ, in F.S. Naiden & R.J.A. Talbert (eds.), Mercuryâs Wings: Exploring Modes of Communication in the Ancient World, Oxford, 149â163.
Austin, J.L., (21975 [1962]), How to Do Things with Words, Oxford.
Barchiesi, M., (1978), La Tarentilla rivisitata. Studi su Nevio comico, Pisa.
Barsby, J., (2001), Terence, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass./London.
Basore, J. W, (1908), The Scholia on Hypokrisis in the Commentary of Donatus, Baltimore.
Bettini, M., (1982), âVerso unâantropologia dellâintreccio. Le strutture semplici della trama nelle commedie di Plautoâ, Materiali e discussioni per lâanalisi dei testi classici 7, 39â101.
Bettini, M., (2004), âParole potenti, parole screditate. Lâatto del fari nella cultura romanaâ, in S. Beta (ed.), La potenza della parola. Destinatari, funzioni, bersagli, Fiesole (Florence), 33â78.
Bianco, O., (1993), Commedie di Publio Terenzio Afro, Turin.
Brilliant, R., (1963), Gesture and Rank in Roman Art: the Use of Gestures to Denote Status in Roman Sculpture and Coinage, New Haven.
Brothers, A.J., (1988), Terence, The Self-Tormentor, Warminster.
Calabrese, E., (2017a), Aspetti dellâidentità relazionale nelle tragedie di Seneca, Bologna.
Calabrese, E., (2017b), âMadri sul campo di battaglia. Rapporto tra relazione e identità nella vicenda delle Sabine di Livioâ, Paideia 72, 483â498.
Calabrese, E., (2018), âQuartilla, ovvero la comunicazione in scenaâ, in Ricottilli 2018c, 71â96.
Corbeill, A., (2004), Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome, Princeton/Oxford.
Corbeill, A., (2005), âGesture in Early Roman Law: Empty Forms or Essential Formalities?â, in D. Cairns (ed.), Body Language in the Greek and Roman Worlds, Swansea, 159â176.
Denzler, B., (1968), Der Monolog bei Terenz, Zurich.
Douglas, A.E., (1990), Cicero, Tusculan Disputations II and V with a Summary of III and IV, Warminster.
Duranti, A., (2007), Etnopragmatica. La forza nel parlare, Roma.
Dutsch, D.M., (2008), Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: on Echoes and Voices, Oxford.
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W.V., (1969), âThe Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Codingâ, Semiotica 1, 49â98.
Ferri, R., (2016), âAn Ancient Grammarianâs View of How the Spoken Language Works: Pragmalinguistic Observations in Donatusâ Commentum Terentiiâ, in R. Ferri & A. Zago (eds.), The Latin of the Grammarians: Reflections about Language in the Roman World, Turnhout, 237â275.
Graf, F., (1991), âGestures and Conventions: the Gestures of the Roman Actors and Oratorsâ, in J. Bremmer & H. Roodenburg (eds.), A Cultural History of Gesture. From Antiquity to the Present Day, Cambridge, 36â58.
Gray, J.H., (1902), P. Terenti Hauton Timorumenos, Cambridge.
Griffin, M. & Inwood, B., (2011), Seneca, On Benefits, Chicago/London.
Haffter, H., (21969 [1953]), Terenzio e la sua personalità artistica. Introduzione, traduzione e appendice bibliografica di D. Nardo, Rome.
Lefèvre, E., (1994), Terenzâ und Menanders Heautontimorumenos, Munich.
Lietzmann, K., (1974), Terenz, Heautontimorumenos (Der Selbstquäler), Münster.
Madyda, L., (1953), De Donato Histrionum praeceptore, WrocÅaw.
Maier Eichhorn, U., (1989), Die Gestikulation in Quintilians Rhetorik, Frankfurt a.M./Bern.
Marouzeau, J., (1942â1949), Térence, Comédies, 3 vols., Paris.
Melo, W. de, (2011â2013), Plautus, 5 vols., Cambridge, Mass./London.
Minarini, A., (1995), Il monologo di Gnatone. Spunti e appunti sul metateatro terenziano, Bologna.
Panayotakis, C., (2005), âNonverbal Behaviour on the Roman Comic Stageâ, in Cairns 2005, 175â187.
Perelli, A., (1973), Il teatro rivoluzionario di Terenzio, Florence.
Poggi, I., (1983), âLe analogie fra gesti e interiezioni: alcune osservazioni preliminariâ, in F. Orletti (ed.), Comunicare nella vita quotidiana, Bologna, 117â133.
Raccanelli, R., (1998), Lâamicitia nelle commedie di Plauto: unâindagine antropologica, Bari.
Raccanelli, R., (2010), Esercizi di dono. Pragmatica e paradossi delle relazioni nel De beneficiis di Seneca, Palermo.
Raccanelli, R., (2012), Cicerone, Post reditum in senatu e Ad Quirites. Come disegnare una mappa di relazioni, Bologna.
Raccanelli, R., (2016), âReti di amicitia nel Trinummus: paradossi delle relazioni e paradossi comiciâ, in R. Raffaelli & A. Tontini (eds.), Lecturae Plautinae Sarsinates XIX, Trinummus, Urbino, 35â61.
Ricottilli, L., (1994), âModalità e funzioni del silenzio nello âHeautontimorumenosââ¯â, in C.A. Augieri (ed.), La retorica del silenzio, Atti del Convegno internazionale (Lecce, 24â27 ottobre 1991), Lecce, 184â205.
Ricottilli, L., (2000), Gesto e parola nellâEneide, Bologna.
Ricottilli, L., (2009), âAppunti sulla pragmatica della comunicazione e della letteratura latinaâ, in A. Barchiesi & G. Guidorizzi (eds.), La stella sta compiendo il suo giro. Atti del convegno internazionale di Siracusa, 21â23 maggio 2007, Florence, 121â170.
Ricottilli, L., (2010), âTeatro latino e pragmatica della comunicazioneâ, Dionysus ex Machina 1, 360â379.
Ricottilli, L., (2013), âStrategie comunicative a carambola in Terenzio (Phorm. 350â377; Andr. 459â497; 740â795)â, Dionysus ex Machina 4, 133â145.
Ricottilli, L., (2018a), âLacrime e sympatheia in Terenzioâ, in Ricottilli 2018c, 145â169.
Ricottilli, L., (2018b), âCatullo e Virgilio: due scene a confronto (Catull. 64,212â237 e Verg. Aen. 8, 558â584)â, Paideia 73, 2175â2190.
Ricottilli, L. (ed.), (2018c), Modalità della comunicazione in Roma antica, Bologna.
Ronconi, A., (1960), Terenzio, le commedie, Florence.
Sbisà , M., (1989), Linguaggio, ragione, interazione. Per una teoria pragmatica degli atti linguistici, Bologna.
Showerman, G., (1963), Ovid, Heroides and Amores, Cambridge, Mass./London.
Sittl, C., (1890), Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer, Leipzig.
Thomadaki, M., (1989), âLa mise en scène du théâtre de Térence dans les commentaires de Donatâ, Dioniso 59, 365â372.
Traina, A., (52000 [1960]), Comoedia. Antologia della palliata, Padua.
Wagner, W., (1872), P. Terenti Hauton Timorumenos, Berlin.
Watzlawick, P., Helmick Beavin, J., & Jackson, D.D., (1967), Pragmatics of Human Communication: a Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes, New York.
Warmington, E.H., (21961 [1936]), Naevius, in E.H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, vol. 2, Cambridge, Mass./London, 45â156.