A Commentary on Plautus' Mostellaria with an Introduction

A full-scale commentary on the *Mostellaria* in English remains a desideratum (Stürner 2020: 147; he does not mention Mantzilas 2014, in modern Greek). Of 20^th-century commentaries, Sonnenschein 1907² predates Fraenkel’s *Plautinisches im Plautus*; the scope of Merrill 2002² is limited by the targeted readership of early readers of Plautus; Terzaghi 1929 and Collart 1970 offer much of interest but predate recent research into metre, metatheatre and slavery. In the 21^st century, Mantzilas usefully summarises scholarship but many of his ideas are underdeveloped and the level of detail in his notes varies considerably. Biddau is preparing an edition and commentary in Italian, and his 2021 article of textual emendations is stimulating, but there are numerous places in the text in which a *communis opinio* has not been reached. After an Introduction in which I investigate, albeit not comprehensively, important issues facing a Plautine scholar reading *Mostellaria* (Section I), there are two sections of commentary. My notes strive to mimic the practice of the Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries Series (“Orange”), and summarise prevailing opinion, investigate themes hitherto underdeveloped in certain lines, and outline points of dramaturgical, historical, linguistic, or textual interest (including allusions, parallels, and adjudications of textual disputes, or emendations of my own). I have aimed to strike a balance between detailed textual analysis and evaluation of broader themes. Unless otherwise specified, my lemmata use the text of de Melo 2011d as the modern Vulgate. Section II offers notes on the first scene, to give readers an idea of what my commentary would look like. A difficulty of a commentary for a doctoral thesis is the word count: I cannot cover the whole play line-by-line, which leads to salient issues not receiving treatment. In Section III, therefore, I cover material from every scene, with introductory notes on each scene to give readers a sense of my stance on broader features of interest. While I have drafted notes for the whole play with a publishable commentary in mind, Section III offers notes on lines in which I feel I contribute the most value. I comment on the following passages: <br>I.2: 84-92, 120-31, 146-54 <br>I.3: 200-26 <br>I.4: 313-28 <br>II.1: 348-58, 384-8, 419-30 <br>II.2: 431-6, 476-81, 489-504 <br>III.1: 532-6, 603-14, 639-45, 663-72 <br>III.2: 690-703, 724-32, 760-70, 775-85, 817-30 <br>IV.1+2: 870-91 <br>IV.3: 904-8, 921-6 <br>IV.4: 983-92 <br>IV.5: 1033-40 <br>V.1: 1041-50, 1100-15 <br>V.2: 1149-55, 1178-81

Name dc:type.qualificationname

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Level dc:type.qualificationlevel

Doctoral

Grantor dc:publisher.institution

University of Cambridge

Year dc:date.issued

2024

Author dc:creator

• Gibbs, Orlando

Advisors dc:contributor.advisor

• Butterfield, David
• Oakley, Stephen

• Classical Philology
• Commentary on Classical Texts
• Latin literature
• Plautus
• Roman Comedy

Licence

• https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/aa51aa78-be55-4d62-b8e9-b870c3003d2e/download
• https://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/

Language dc:language

eng

DOI dc:identifier.doi

https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.109563

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/369980