BMCR 2009.04.37: Strong on Dutsch, Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and Voices. Oxford Studies in Classical Literature and Gender Theory

Dorota M. Dutsch, Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and
Voices. Oxford Studies in Classical Literature and Gender Theory.
Oxford/New York:  Oxford University Press, 2008.  Pp. xiii, 278.  ISBN
9780199533381.  $110.00.

Reviewed by Anise K. Strong, Stanford University ([email protected])
Word count:  1335 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-37.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090437.html
-------------------------------

Preview (http://books.google.com/books?id=KOep0QQ0ncUC)

Dutsch's book provides an insightful and groundbreaking examination of
the characterization of feminine voices in the Roman comedies of
Plautus and Terence. She uses Judith Butler's theories about the
performative nature of gender to illuminate both the nature of speech
by female comedic characters as well as the ways in which discourse
marked as feminine is used by male characters.[[1]] The strongest
sections of the book are those that focus on close analyses of specific
passages of Plautus and Terence in order to generate larger conclusions
about the style and nature of feminine discourse in comedy
(Introduction, Chapters 2-3). Her study of ancient commentary on Roman
comedy, especially the work of Donatus, is also noteworthy
(Introduction, Ch. 5).

Dutsch's arguments are both weaker and less relevant to her main thesis
when she deviates onto the topics of female poisoners and magicians,
the liminal gender states of worshipers in the banned cult of Bacchus,
or the philosophical nature of "chora." In general, this book will be
invaluable both for scholars of ancient gender and for all specialists
in Roman comedy. While excerpts could be used in an advanced
undergraduate course on Roman drama, it seems to be intended for those
who already have a wide knowledge of Roman literature and culture.

Dutsch's introduction briefly outlines her theoretical approach and
definition of terms. She then engages in a detailed comparison of
relational terms of speech between male-male and female-female pairs of
characters in Roman comedy (18-46). She notes the female emphasis on
terms of affection, endearments, and expressions of suffering, which
she contrasts with the masculine characters' use of humorous insults
and competitive banter. Dutsch is careful to compare Plautus speeches
with other Plautus speeches and Terence with Terence. She draws heavily
on the work of the late Roman commentator Donatus, who similarly noted
the comedic emphasis on women's trivial concerns and overly sentimental
attitudes. Dutsch emphasizes that these "feminine words" were spoken by
male actors; what we hear in these comedies are not the actual voices
of women, but women as imagined and limited by the male authorial
imaginations of Plautus and Terence.

Chapter 2, "Plautus' Pharmacy," initially focuses on the idea of
"blanditia," soothing speech, as used by both male and female
characters in Plautus and Terence. Dutsch notes, for instance, that
"amabo," often translated simply as "please," is used almost
exclusively by female characters, even when speaking to subordinate
male characters (51-2). By using statistical word analysis, Dutsch
demonstrates that several stereotypically female terms, such as "mi" or
"mea," are also used by men in romantic interludes and other similar
situations. The key marker of gender is not the word itself but the
circumstances of utterance.

The second part of Chapter II attempts to relate blanditia to the
well-known Roman fear of female poisoners and magicians.[[2]] This part
of Dutsch's argument is less convincing; while "blandimenta" can indeed
be used to transform male attitudes towards a female character, this is
not necessarily related to love potions or poisons. Such a hypothetical
connection requires a far deeper treatment of the role of potions and
drugs in Roman comedies specifically, rather than resorting to weak
claims that the parallel "might have been quite vivid for the audience
of Roman comedy (65)." Most of the texts specifically referring to
female poisoners and love potions come from Augustan Age elegiac poetry
and the hypothetical legal cases of the 1st century CE; more
contemporaneous parallels with Roman comedy would be needed in order to
tie these ideas together.

Chapter III, "Of Pain and Laughter," focuses on the gendered
representation of suffering in Roman comedy. Dutsch again puts
statistical analysis to good use, noting, for instance, that "au" is an
interjection used only by women and only as an expression of confusion
and betrayal at treatment by a male character (103). She also discusses
the discursive practice of women empathizing both with each other and
with their own bodies over perceived physical and mental sufferings
(110).

Chapter IV, "(Wo)men of Bacchus," addresses the important concept in
Roman gender relations that limits and self-restraint are associated
with men, whereas women are represented as fluid and transgressive
creatures. Dutsch treats the distortions and reflection of this
paradigm within the genre of Roman comedy and theater, particularly
since male actors transgress their natural gender identities by
assuming female voices and characters. The first section of this
chapter, which focuses on the theme of moderation in Roman comedy, is
insightful and based on illuminating close analyses of the Amphitruo
and Poenulus. However, the discussion of Livy's Bacchanalian Conspiracy
and the potential relationship between Roman actors and the cult of
Bacchus seems fairly tangential to Dutsch's overall themes. Her comedic
material is rich enough to deserve a spotlight to itself.

Chapter V, "Father Tongue, Mother Tongue," explores Roman commentators'
discussions of gendered speech and the assumption of different
personae, especially the works of Donatus, Cicero, and Quintilian. Some
of the Donatus material seems to repeat from the Introduction here; the
use of Donatus in both locations is somewhat confusing for the reader.
Dutsch's excursus on Greek views of "otherness" feels extraneous to the
main thrust of her argument, and she adds little to the extensive
scholarly debate on Plato's view of femininity. Similarly, her lengthy
analysis of "chora" in both Greek and modern philosophy might well make
a valuable separate article, but it veers too far here from her central
texts.

The Epilogue summarizes Dutsch's evolving argument that Roman comedy
evokes a transitional space in which male actors "play the other," in
F. Zeitlin's parlance, by portraying female personae characterized and
limited by certain stereotypical speech patterns. At the same time,
various characters in Plautus and Terence's works undermine these rigid
gender categories by crossing the lines of normal gendered discourse
and adopting the linguistic conventions of the other gender.

Dutsch concludes by arguing, somewhat less convincingly, that these
feminine personae do represent echoes of actual female voices, rather
than merely the imagined feminine caricatures created by male authors.
This is a provocative argument that could have benefited from further
development. Among other questions, Dutsch never addresses the issue of
the later Roman appearance of female actresses and "mimae" on the Roman
stage, starting in the 1st century BCE if not before.[[3]] How might
the portrayal of these feminine characters by actual women have changed
audiences' conceptions of theatrical gender roles? If mimae did not
perform in Plautus and Terence's plays, how did Roman audiences react
to the switch between real women and cross-dressed men in their varying
theatrical entertainments? Also, any discussion of "feminine Latin"
might have benefited from at least cursory reference to the existing
corpus of actual female Latin writers, such as the two Sulpicias.

Dutsch largely neglects the central issue of the relationship between
Greek comic antecedents and Roman comedy, aside from a brief two-page
treatment in the Introduction (39-40) and occasional references later
in the text. While any lengthy discussion of this long-debated and
thorny issue might have distracted the casual reader, it is one of the
major problems of the scholarship on Roman comedy. Dutsch fails to
prove that we are not simply dealing here with Greek stereotypes about
feminine speech transplanted to the Roman stage. There are indeed
important distinctions between the portrayal of women in Greek and
Roman comedy, but they are not fully addressed here.
In general, the sections of this book that focus on Plautus and
Terence's use of gendered discourse are insightful and exemplary; they
should serve as an illuminating new way to read Roman comedies and
understand them as social and cultural texts. Dutsch has brought many
of the sophisticated tools of feminist analysis to Roman comedy that
were previously reserved for the Augustan poets and Greek tragedians.
However, her overall argument is not strengthened by tangents outside
the genre of Roman comedy. These sections might fit better into another
separate work. I look forward to seeing more close philological and
feminist studies of Roman texts from her in the future.


------------------
Notes:


1.   Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of
Identity. New York & London: Routledge, 1990. 11-33.

2.   Currie, Sarah. 'Poisonous Women and Unnatural History in Roman
Culture', in: M. Wyke ed., Parchments of Gender. Deciphering the Body
in Antiquity. (Oxford 1998) 147-168.

3.   Starks, John H.  "Pantomime Actresses in Latin Inscriptions," in
New Directions in Ancient Pantomime, ed. Edith Hall and Rose Wyles.
Oxford, 2008.