After detailing the characteristics of the Greek mageiros, namely that they used to have religious authority, they oversaw a number of different parts of food preparation and that they are incredibly boastful, Low moves onto cooks in Roman life.
Low begins with the lanii, who were butchers, most often of pigs, which were a staple of the Roman diet. The lanii were also meat procurers; that is, middlemen in the sale of meat. Popae, on the other hand, were religious experts in sacrificing animals. Unlike the mageiroi, there is no evidence that popae cook any sort of meals. Both of these professions are fairly obscure.
The much more common one is that of cocuus. Here things get complciated because the Romans would often translate the Greek word mageiros to the Latin cocuus. Unfortunately, Plautus himself is the go-to source for depictions of couci in the early Republic. But fortunately for Low, other writers do talk about these figures, including the writer Cato. Cato’s hostile comments about the coci (combined with some other sources), suggests to Low that the couci were always slaves. What changed for the Romans is that they began to put more and more value on fine dining. As a result, in the Imperial Period, a coucus could be the prize possession of a slave-owner. However, Plautus’ time was quite removed from the Imperial period, and if Cato’s complaints about the Romans only recently adopting luxurious ways of living are chronologically accurate, then it seems likely that the original cocui were not very skilled cooks.
So how does this connect back to how Plautus manipulated Greek comedies? Well, after creating these two different depictions, Low then goes through the cooks in Plautus and ask if they more resemble a Roman cocus or a Greek mageiros. If the character is closer to a cocus, it is likely that Plautus has changed a character who was originally a slave in the Greek comedy into a cocus. If the character is more like a mageiros, then Plautus most likely translated that character’s role, magieros, to the Latin position of cocus. As a result, Plautus’ plays contain cooks that sometime act like Greeks and sometimes like Romans.
Low begins with the lanii, who were butchers, most often of pigs, which were a staple of the Roman diet. The lanii were also meat procurers; that is, middlemen in the sale of meat. Popae, on the other hand, were religious experts in sacrificing animals. Unlike the mageiroi, there is no evidence that popae cook any sort of meals. Both of these professions are fairly obscure.
The much more common one is that of cocuus. Here things get complciated because the Romans would often translate the Greek word mageiros to the Latin cocuus. Unfortunately, Plautus himself is the go-to source for depictions of couci in the early Republic. But fortunately for Low, other writers do talk about these figures, including the writer Cato. Cato’s hostile comments about the coci (combined with some other sources), suggests to Low that the couci were always slaves. What changed for the Romans is that they began to put more and more value on fine dining. As a result, in the Imperial Period, a coucus could be the prize possession of a slave-owner. However, Plautus’ time was quite removed from the Imperial period, and if Cato’s complaints about the Romans only recently adopting luxurious ways of living are chronologically accurate, then it seems likely that the original cocui were not very skilled cooks.
So how does this connect back to how Plautus manipulated Greek comedies? Well, after creating these two different depictions, Low then goes through the cooks in Plautus and ask if they more resemble a Roman cocus or a Greek mageiros. If the character is closer to a cocus, it is likely that Plautus has changed a character who was originally a slave in the Greek comedy into a cocus. If the character is more like a mageiros, then Plautus most likely translated that character’s role, magieros, to the Latin position of cocus. As a result, Plautus’ plays contain cooks that sometime act like Greeks and sometimes like Romans.