The Theater of Plautus: Playing to the Audience

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

ilIHIlE ilIHIlEAillER OlF IPlAUilUS PLAYING TO THE AUDIENCE

TIMOTHY

~

J.

MOORE

Univl:fsity of Texas Press Austin

s

I'romi,pi.;cc. Detail ofIJioscllncicl OfSJIllOS. Actors preparing for a pcrfi)rmJllce. I'vl(l<;alc from the Home of tIlt' Tragic Poet, Pompeii. LJte u.t c.

C.L

Musco

Archwlogico N,lzionalc, N.1plc.I, IlJly_ COllrt(:s), of:\linari/An RCOOllfCC, NY.

TO THE MEMORY OF MY GRANDMOTHER

The publintion OCtllll hook wal alli.lted by a Ulliverllty Cooperative SOCkly Sulwentioll Grant aWJrdcd by The University o! Texa.1 at Amlin.

Copyright '() I'lyH by the Univcr,ity of Tex.11 Prell

All rightl rc<;cnTd

Printed in the United St:ltes of !\nwrica Firlt Ulliversity O(T":-:,l, Press edition, 10)'.11\

RcqUCSLI for penni;sillil to rcprodllC<:

llIat~rial

fwm thil \Vork ;hUllld be ,em

to Pcnlli,sioll~,

University u(T.;xa'i Press, Uox 7Hl!), AUltill, TX 7!\7IJ-7SH).

@ The

p:lp~r

med in this publicatiuJi I11<:dS

tIll'

minilllulll r~\juir~m~Ilts of !\m~rica(l

N"tio!lal Standard for Information SCIences-Permanence ofPJper Matni.ll"

I()r

Primed LIbrary

A~SI 7.]<) •.18-1<)8.1.

Library

ofCollgr~1I

Cataloging-Ill Publicatio1l

Moor~,

Timothy j.,

1<)5<)-

The theat~r ofPbutus: playillg

p.

to

D.1Ll

the audie!lc~ I Timothy J. Moore.

cm.

Includes bibliographical

rd(:renc~.1

"n9 iI~d~xc\.

ISB~ 0-1<)1-75108-3 (;Ilk. p:Ip~r). ---,-'ISIlI' 0-1<)1-752.17-1 (pbk.· alk. paper) I. 1'1<1111111,

TiuIS lvlaccllll-Cntici'im and

(Comedy)-Hiltory "nd critici.IIlL

im~rprctatioll.

I.atin drama

3. Theater audience,-Romc-Hi.ltory.

I. Title. P'\('585 ..~uifi 872'.llI-dC2.l

1<)88 c;8-I.1 0 14

.. Ti~J3L!t,

Oil" COiNTiEil\,1TS

Preface

IX

Introduction

PART I Actors and Spectators

R

2

Characters and Spectators

3

Greece or Ronle?

4

Metatheater and Morality

24

50 67

PART II 5

Audience and Occasion: Pseudollls

6

Gods and Mo~tals: AmplzitrtlO

7

Bankers and Pimps: CllI"ClIlio

8

Prostitutes and Lovers:

9

Husbands Jnd Wives: Casil/a

10

Notes

197

203

Works Cited Abbreviations

23 I 23 I

Index of Passages Cited Index

259

108 126

TnlClli£'lltlls

Slaves and Masters: CaptiFi

Conclusion

92

253

140

15 8 1ST

SOME of my first experiences with the plays of Plautus were as an actor, pClfonlling in A1l11l1aria and .Alostellaria while an undergraduate at Millersville University. As a result, when I began to study PIautus lllore formally, I found the performance-centered work of critics such as Gianna Petrone and Niall Slater lllOst congenial. Inspired by such perfOrIl1anCe critics and my own experience onstage, I have sought to describe morc fully how P!autus's plays may have worked in performance, with particular attention paid to Plautus's actors and their relationship with their audience. In addition to a morc thorough vicw of the roles of actors and spectators, I hope to give readers of Plautus a greater appreciation of the significance of Plautine performance \V-ithin its social and historical milieu. The book has, I think, nluch to say to specialists in ancient drama and to classicists in general. At the saIne tinle, I would like this book to help bridge a Inost unfortunate gap: that between classics and theater history, \vhere Plautus-and Roman drama in general-is too often neglected. I began this "vork at Harvard University on a Mellon Faculty Fello\vship and continued it with a SUInmer Research Award from the University of Texas at Austin. The DepartInent of Classics at the University of Texas and its two chairs, Michael Gagarin and Thomas Palaima, have been very supportive. David Armstrong, Charlotte Canning, E1'.vin Cook, Karl Galinsky, Mary Womble Gerdes, Kelvin Gregory, Judith Hallett, Frances Hickson, Jerzy Linderski, and Douglass Parker read parts of the manuscript in earlier versions. Thomas Hubbard, Dan McGowan, Gwyn Morgan, Kenneth Reckford, and Andrew Riggsby were kind enough to read the entire work. The suggestions and critiques of all these readers have been invaluable, as have those ofWillian1 Anderson, Elaine Fantham, and Sander Goldberg, the readers for the University of Texas Press. Whatever inadequacies remain result fron1 my own stubbornness or negligence. I received help in preparing the manuscript fi'om John Erler, Jesse Harvey, and Chris Williams, and from Jim Burr, Sherry Wert, and the editorial stafT at the University of Texas Press. Krista M. Osnlundson created the indices. Earlier versions of portions of Chapters 6 and 7 appeared in the online publication Didaskalia and Alllericall JOllmal (~r Philo loS}' (T 99 T), respectively. A University Cooperative Society Subvention Grant a\varded by the University of Texas at Austin helped cover the costs of publication. Many friends, especially Joe and Nancy Golsan, Carol Speer, and Bill Sheldon, provided advice and encouragelnent \vhen it was nl0st needed. Finally, this book could not have been written \vithout the support of my £.11nily, especially Michael Whisenhunt, Wilma Moore, and Ilichard and Janet Moore.

.. Unless othcnvise stated, citations fl:om IVlenander, Plautus, and Terence are 6'0111

the following editions:

Menandcr, A.'J]Jis through Pcrilltlu'a: W. G. Arnott (Calllbridge, Ivlass.: Harvard University Press, 1979-). Menander, other plays: F. H. Sandbach (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). Plautns: Friedrich Leo, 2 vols. (Berlin: Weidmann, r895-9()). Terence: Robert Kauer, Wallace M. Lindsay, and Otto Skutsch (Oxford: Clarendon, (958).

All translations are

own unless other\\t"ise stated.

Illy

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

PREFACE

x

.. INTRODlUCTION Thej(lI'IlIs 4 drmllrl afljIolll.fi"O/1I the WI!/i"ontdlioll that takes pldcc bl.'fwl.'cli lilly his rllldiellCe; pla),s arc best IInderstood dS I/lays (?f illfCIISif},illg that (0/1.f!'olltafioll alld clw/gi/lg it with /IIeal/illg. dctOf (///(/

-Ivlichael Goldman

AT the core of any theatrical performance lies the relationship between its two essential components, perforIner and audience. The first step toward an understanding of any playas a work to be performed, therefore, is an appreciation of the nature of that relationship. This fact presents a great challenge to the student ofPlautns, whose plays belong to a performance tradition that vanished SOlUC two thousand years ago, leaving ahnost no evidence of its nature. Plautus's plays were first performed in tel11porary wooden theaters of which no trace remains. Virtually all the visual evidence used to reconstruct performance-vase paintings from southern Italy, n10saics and Vo.rall paintings frOl11 POl11peii and other cities, 111edievalmanuscripts ofTerence, and rellnins oflater I~Ol11an theaters-arc the subjects of intense controversy; and l:toman writers who describe performances, all of whom lived long after Plautus, are notoriously unreliable. Almost all aspects of performance, therefore, including stages, costun1es, and acting styles, rennin uncertain. 1 Most distressing of all, though we can, to my 111ind, be reasonably certain that Plautus's actors \"lore masks, that question also is controversia1. 2 We do, ho\vever, have the texts oftvvcnty of Plautus's plaYS.3 As theorists of theater repeatedly remind us, texts are \voefully inadequate as substitutes for perfonnance."1 They represent only a snull portion of the cOlnplex signsystem at work in the production of a play, and the clues they give as to performance are often open to conflicting interpretations. Texts can nevertheless reveal a good deal about the relationship between actors and audience; for much in the content, style, and structure of a play's script ["1vors certain types of conllnunication between stage and audience over others. The text is particularly useful in helping us detennine how playwright and actors encourage their audience to respond to the psychic paradox involved in watching a play. As any playgoer is a\vare, spectators at a play sin1ultaneously forget and remember that they are in a theater. They believe, on one level, that the action occurring onstage is "real"; yet at the same time they are a\vare that what they see is a performance. 5 At any moment of performance, actors can encourage the spectators' forgetful belief by ignoring the audience and maintaining the pretense that their words and actions are "real" rather than part of a perfornnnce; or they can encourage

INTRODUCTION

... awareness of the £lCt of performance by addressing the audience directly or referring explicitly or implicitly to their own status as performcrs. This distinguishing factor has becn explained in many ways. Plato (Repllblic 3.3 92d - 398b) and Aristotle (Poetics 1448a) differentiate between mimetic and diegetic performancc.() Ingarden otTers a distinction between "open" and "closed" theater; l3eckerman, between presentation and illlitation.! The nlOst common way of making the distinction has been to talk about dramatic illusion and the violation or breaking of that illusion.:-l Building on the concept of dranutic illusion, l3ertolt Brecht made a distinction between "dramatic" theater, in which perfonners ignore the fact of performance and conln1unicate with the audience only indirectly, and "epic" theater, where performers strive to keep the audience aware that they are in a theater and that vvhat they observe is a performance.') Whichever theoretical construct we choose, several conclusions become evident. First, all theatrical perforl1lances include SOBle aspects that remind the audience that they' are in a theater, and others that encourage the audience to forget that they are watching a play. There is, however, a continuum of theatrical traditions fr01n extreme forms of Natura lis Ill, which discourage direct communication \vith the audience and ren1inders of the theater, to genres like vaudeville, where such elen1ents are commonplace. Second, the way in which the two modes of coml11unication blend and interact is the central defining characteristic in the relationship between actors and audience, for it detennines the extent to which and the manner in which the former acknowledge the existence of the latter. Third, although S0l11e reminders of performance-those associated with gesture, posture, inflection, and improvisation, for example-can be appreciated only when a perfonllance is w'itnessed or described, many, such as explicit audience address and theatrical allusion, will be evident in the text. Thus, though the exact nature of the relationship bet\veen actors and audience is in the hands of directors and actors, phy\vrights can do n1uch to nlold that relationship, primarily through their choice of textual elelnents that encourage direct communication or rel11ind the audience that they are watching a performance. Finally, since all communication bet\veen playwright and audience is acc01nplished through the actors, the \vay in which playwrights l1101d the relationship between actors and audience detennines to a great extent the meaning and effect of their plays. Bearing these principles in mind, I ofter in the following pages an evaluation of how Plautus n10lded his actors' relationship with their audience. My primary focus will be on the elenlents that nlost affect that relationship: theatrical reminders and direct comnlunication frOIll stage to audience.

INTRODUCTION

2

The importance of such elelnents has been acknO\vledged in the practice, theory, and criticism of theater for some time. Brecht and many other twentieth-century playwrights have made the relationship between actors Jnd Judience their central concern, and they have employed nuny of the effects Brecht would can "epic" to lllodify that relationship. Brecht himself and others have noted that precedents for modern "epic" theater pervaded earlier drama, especially c0l11edy.10 Meanwhile, performance critics, evaluating dramatic texts \vith a sense of perfonnance in lllind, have emphasized the importance of\vhat they call "noni1lusory" techniques in all theater before the late nineteenth century. Until the rise of Naturalisnl, they have ShOWll, n10st drama valued the direct relationship between actors and audience over what later came to be called dramatic 111usion. 11 Other critics and theorists have gone still further. A good deal of dral1lJ since the H..enaissance, they have argued, not only is self-consciously theatrical, but has as one of its main interests the nature of theater itself it is, to use Lionel Abel's expression, metatheater. 12 Nor have the nonillusory aspects of Plautus's plays gone unnoticed. To his ancient and nlodern detractors, Plautus's refusal to maintain the "dramatic illusion" showed that he was a lllercenary hack, willing to sacrifice anything for a laugh. 13 Scholars nlore sYl11pathetic to Plautus have collected many of the relevant passages and proposed connections between audience address, theatrical reillinders, and the chronology of Plautus's plays. 1·1 As all Plautus's plays are aln10st certainly adaptations of Greek comedies, and it is generally agreed that they are more self-consciously theatrical than their lost Greek sources vvere, audience address and theatrical rel11inders have also played an important role in studies seeking to explain how Plautus nlodified Greek drama. 1s Finally, passages ackl10wledging the £lct of perfon11ance, viewed through the perspectives of performance criticism and Abel's theory of meta theater, have inspired one of the l110St important recent developments in Plautine studies. Analyzing devices such as play-\vithin-the-play, references to characters as actors, and descriptions of disguises as costUlnes, a number of scholars have del110nstrated that Plautus's plays, too, are Inetatheatrical: that Plautus took great delight in the ambiguous nature of theater; that his plays are filled with continual and conspicuous relninders of the fact of performance; and that portions of many plays are elaborate theatrical metaphors. 11, Students of Plautine l11etatheater and other recent critics have thus brought us very £1r: few would now suggest that Plautus's reminders of pelfonnance are unwelcome and inartistic intrusions. In spite of these advances, however, many of the effects of direct address to the audience and

INTRODUCTION

;:z

theatrical reminders remain unappreciated. A IlUlllber of questions have not been addrc:ssed adequately, Jll10ng them: Just what does Platltus accomplish through his l11etatheatrical techniques? How did 11lctathcatrical elements help Plautus's plays to succeed \vith his audience? What do such elements contribute to the overall effect of individual scenes and of whole plays? How do they relate to the social context of the plays? In short, how did Plautus mold and manipulate the relationship between his actors and their audience, and to what ends? It is to these questions that I dedicate the chapters that follow. In my first chapter I eX~lllline thc attitude Plautus encouraged his actors to adopt toward their audience. Plautus's actors, I observe, often appear obsequious: they provide many relllinders of their O\vn low social status and their necd for the spcctators' approval. At the same timc, ho\'lever, they tease, criticize, and even satirize the audience. The liccnse taken by the actors even as they keep the audience a\'lare that they are vulnerable and of low status is an important aspect of the Saturnalian escape that PIautus's plays provided. At the sanle time, it reveals the readiness of the ROlnan audience to laugh at themselves, thus opening the door for satire and social conlnlentary_ In Chapter 2 I evaluate the actor-audience relationship from the perspective of the actors as characters. Through nlonologues, eavesdropping, and othcr elel11ents, I argue, PIautns created characters who conspicuously desire that the audience synlpathize ",-ith them and vicw the action onstage through their eyes. This desire of characters for rapport \vith the audiencc contributes much to the humor of Plautus's plays, as characters cOlllpete with onc another for rapport, and many characters fail to gain that rapport in spite of their efforts. Plautus also creatcs hierarchies of rapport, as some characters nuintain a closer relationship ",-ith the audience than others, and variations in rapport, as characters beconle 1110re or less close to the spectators in thc course of a play. In many plays, for exanlple, Plautus's clever slaves attain a high degree of rapport with the audience, but they usually begin with little rapport and beconle closer to the audience as the play progresses. This delayed rapport makes it easier for the audience to accept the inversion of societal norms inhcrent in the slaves' successes. As a dcnlonstrati on of the various v\rays Plautus manipulates rapport, I conclude the chapter with an exaillination of Euclio, the miser whose relationship with the audience adds much to the theatrical efiectiveness of .:''lllill/aria. In Chapter 3 I consider Plautus's allusions to setting. While all of PIautus's plays are set in Greece, they include frequent allusions to things Ito-

INTRODUCTION

4

nun, and actors often remind the audience that the Greek setting is a product of theatrical pretense. After proposing some guidelines for evaluating how different types of gcographical allusion would affect an audience, I observe that the allusions contribute significantly to the hUll10r of the plays, to their metatheatrical effect, and to their satire. I conclude the chapter by examining Plautus's use of geographical allusions in connection with his deceptive or pleasure-loving slaves: conspicuous allusions to Greece and Rome, I argue, both distanced Plautus's Roman audience fi-onl unacceptable slave behavior and undermined that distance with hUl1lOrous irony. Chapter 4 concerns the edifying 1110ral l1la.xims that Romans expected from their theater. Plautus was a\vare of this expectation, and he fi-equently fulfill cd it: his characters are full of pithy maxims, and Plautus sometinles defends his plays as nlorally edifying. Yet Plautus's 1110ralistic self-justifications are tinged with irony·, and several characters cast doubts on the etticacy of theatricalll1oralizing. iVIiIcs giorioslIs presents a spectator deceived \\Then he believes that the play-within-the-play offers a morallnessage, and 111etatheatrical passages help to undennine the ardent nlOralizing of Plautus's two most moral-sounding plays, Rlldclls and Trimllll/lIIls. In the second part of the book I examine six plays that best demonstrate the various ways Plautus molded the actor-audience relationship in response both to the del1nnds of performance and to his social nlilieu. I begin with t\VO plays where nletatheatrical elenlents play an especially important role in winning over Plautus's audience. In PsclldoIIIS, the subject of Chapter 5, Plautus created a tour de force of expected and novel eIcments ~lIld established an unmistakable alliance between the audience and the title character. The result is a play appropriate for the i111portant festival at which PsclldoIIIS was first perfonl1ed. In Chapter 6 I argue that in AlllphitfllO, Plautus used similar techniques in response to the play's generic and religious ambiguities. Plautus averted any discomfort the play's similaritics to tragedy might have caused by repeatedly suggesting that he and his actors are nuking the potentially tragic playa c0111edy for the sake of the spectators. Another potential source of discOll1fort \vas the play's inc0l1)oration of the lighter sidc of Greek mythology_ Plautus therefore reminds his audience continually that the mischievous Mercury and Jupitcr arc not really gods at alL but actors. Though Plautus's nnnipulation of the relationship between actors and audience in PSClldoIlis and AllIphitnlO serves primarily to help win over thc spectators, in Curwiio and ThlCIIICIltllS the actors' relationship "\vith the audience does llluch to reinforce satiricalmcssages. I propose in Chapter 7 that \'lell-placed allusions to R0111e make clear that the deception in financial

INTRODUCTION

... matters that pervades Cllfwlio is as much a problem in H,D111C as it is in Greece; this association of the characters' deception with Rome comes to a head in the monologue of the costume manager, who suggests that people like the swindlers who inhabit the stage world arc present in the audience itself In Chapter 8 I argue that the satire of ThICII/CllfIlS is directed even 1110rC powerfully at the spectators themselves. Roman allusions suggest that the plight of the profligate lovers who inhabit the play is a I-tOl1Ul1 phCl1Olnenon, and 111onologues, audience addresses, and eavesdropping illlplicate the spectators in the machinations of the greedy prostitutes \vho control the plot. Similar techniques discourage the spectators [rOlll disnlissing the plot as an exanlple lnerely of the vices of won1en. In my final t\vo chapters I examine some more complex and daring connections between the actor-audience relationship and the social and historical surroundings of Plautus's plays. In Chapter 9 I propose that Casilla represents an undennining of conservative views on contemporary controversies about marriage. By disappointing his audience's expectations and manipulating their rapport with Clcostrata, who overcomes her husband, Plautus encourages his spectators to vie\v questions about the proper role of wives fi'Oln a new perspective. In 1111' last chapter I exanline CaptilJi, where slave characters continually act in vvays that an audience accllstOlned to the stock slaves of Roman cOlnedy would find surprising. By associating the play's disconcerting slave characters both with slaves in the audience and vvith the actors, Illany of vv·hOl11 \vere slaves, Plautus presents a challenge to his audience's preconceptions about both COl11ic slaves and sbves in general. Finally, I offer some general conclusions about the role of the actoraudience relationship in Plautus. Plautus's manipulation of that rebtionship contributes significantly to the hUIllor of his plays and reflects not only his O\\'n, but also his audience's fascination with the concept of theater itself The n1etatheatrical clements through \vhich Plautus molded the <1ctoraudience relationship also played a vital role in v,rinning the goodv,ri11 of the audience; and even as they contributed to the escapist and Saturnalian effect of the plays, they helped Plautus both to satirize blatantly persons present in the audience itself and to challenge sonle of his spectators' preconceptions.

INTRODUCTION

Ii

PART

po

~IiiII

EVEN in the most naturalistic theater, spectators seldom forget, as they watch characters, that they are also watching actors.! The ~l\vareness of the character as actor is greater in the nonillusory dranu that dominated the stage before the late nineteenth century; and it is still greater in plays as metatheatrical as those ofPbutus. Plautus makes many explicit and implicit allusions to the actors as actors, and his plays often mil11ic nonliterary in1provisatory £lrce, where plays resulted fr0111 the spontaneous pcrfon11ance of actors rather than fronl scripts produced by playwrights. 2 Plautus's actors not only \vere conspicuous as actors, but also had a rel1urkably close relationship with the spectators. One of the first features to strike any readcr of Plautus, or any spectator \vhen a Plautine play is performed, is the anlount of time actors spend addressing the audience directly. More than one-sixth ofPhutus's corpus-and over one-quarter of some plays-is made up of monologues.] Though a few nlonologues include the pretense that characters speak to themselves or think aloud (e.g., Epid. 81- 84; Tritl. 1008 -27), ll10St lllUSt have been addressed explicitly and cll1phatically to the audience. Through words such as spcctatorc5 ("spectators") or /J05 (plural "you"), second-person verbs,4 or pointing words likc ecce ("look") or demonstrative pronouns, as well as through their general tone, characters/actors make clear that in speaking Inonologues they arc not tnere1y thinking aloud, but wish to provide infonnation to or share their thoughts with the spectators. Given their conspicuous presence as actors and the amount of ti111e they spcnd addressing the spectators, the attitude actors adopted to\vard the audience would have had a profound effect on the il11pression madc by Plau-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

tLlS'S plays. An examination of the passages where the actors' status as actors is most conspicuous reveals that Plautus encouraged his actors to approach their audience in a self-contradictory but most effective nlanner, with a mixture of £lwning obsequiousness and brazen arrogance. Plautus's actors make clear that they desire the spectators' attention and need their approval, and they provide repeated renlinders of their own vulnerability and low status. Even as they provide such reminders, however, they also manipulate, command, and even IlIock the audience. Thus, while spectators remain aware of their power over and superiority to the actors, they are also conscious of the license given to the actors by their position onstage. Stage actors are by nature in a vulnerable position: even in the most £1vorable of circun1stances, they cannot succeed without the approval of the audience. Their vulnerability \vas still greater on the Plautine stage, where the conditions of performance \vere far from favorable. The assumption that Plautus's audience \vas made up of ignoral11uses has deservedly L1Hen from favor. s Judging fr0111 Plautus's popularity, and the sophistication of his plays w'ith respect to such elel11ents as use of the Greek language, theatrical mctaphors, and parody, many in the audience nlust have been true theatrical connoisseurs. Like the connoisseurs who nlake up lllany Italian opcra audiences, however, R0111an audiences \vere very demanding, and disturbal1Ces in the theater could disrupt performances. Terence reports that the first two attempts to perform his HccYrrl \vere undone, first by rLUll0rS of a rope walker and boxers (Hcc. 4-5, 33-30; cf PllOnll. 31-]2), then by excitement over expectation of gladiators (Hec. 39-42). Terence may bc exaggerating, or even fabricating, the incident.() It is unlikely, however, that the conditions Terence describes were pure fantasy: Terence's audience nUlst have been aware of situations in which performanccs were brought to a halt by COI1lIllotion in thc theater. In an earlier prologue, Terence suggests the possibility that his plays may be driven fr0111 the stage (All. 25 -27); and in delivering the prologue to the third attempt to perform HCCYrrl, the leader of the theatrical troupe, Lucius Anlbivius Turpio, says that in his youth he had similar problems trying to present the early plays of Caecilius:

in is quas primum Caecili didici novas partim sum earum exactu', partim vix steti. (14 - I 5) When I first put on new plays of Caecilius, sometimes I was driven fi'om the stage, and sometimes I barely held Illy ground. There is no evidence that theatrical ludi in lz..omc changed n1uch between the death of Plautus in or ncar 184 13.C.E. and the first performance of a play

ACTORS AND SPECTATORS

9

jiS

by Terence in 166 H.C.E. On at least some occasions, therefore, Plautus's comedies 111USt have been perforIned in the face of great obstacles. In re-

sponse to rumors of other entertainment, spectators not only could be distracted from the play at hand, but they, or others entering the theater, could create enough COlll111otion that the play was driven from the stage. 7 l~efer­ cnees in Terence to spreaders of rumors (Her. 39-40) and in Plautlls to claques (AlIlph. 65-85) suggest that there could also be in the audience enet11ics or cOlnpetitors who would encourage such c0ll1111otion. R Even if extrenle disasters like those Terence describes were rare, conditions of perfonnance would always have been ditllcult at best. As plays were perfonned in teinporary outdoor theaters with limited seating, a certain amount of Inilling around was inevitable.') Plautus's o\vn prologues reflect

The vulnerability of the actors also contributes to the self-conscious jokc that ends Ashwria: nunc si voltis deprecari huic seni ne vapulet, remur impetrari posse, plausunl si danlIn datis. (946-47) Nmv if ·you wish to plead for this old man not to be beaten, we think that can be accomplished, if you applaud loudly.

ne exspectetis, spectatores, dUll1 illi huc ad vos exeant: ne1110 exibit, 0111nes intus conficient negotium. ubi id erit [lctum, ornalnenta ponent; postidea loci qui deliquit vapulabit, qui non deliguit bibet. (782-85)

The lines refer not only to the character Demaenetus, in danger of being beaten by his wife (he has been caught trying to have sex \vith his son's girlfriend). The anlount of applause could in reality have detennined whether "Dcmaenetus," and the other actors as \vell, were to be beaten or rewarded for their performances. A similar double entendre occurs near the end of C7SiIUl. Lecherous old Lysidanlus, also caught by his \vife in an attelnpt at adultery, asks the spectators if anyone will be beaten for him (949-50): he jokes both as the humiliated character and as an actor who could in fact be beaten if he failed to please the audience sufficiently.12 Humiliated and driven off the stage by Charmides, the Sycophant of TrillllllllJ/1/S recognizes his opponent as an actor who can be beaten: "vapulabis Ineo arbitratu et novorum aedilium" ("You will be beaten by 111y order, and by order of the new aediles," 990; cf AlIlpli. 85). Supplementing these allusions to the actors' vulnerability are relninders of their lmv social position. The speaker of the prologue of Capli!'i associates the actors onstage with slaves and other poor spectators \vho stand in the back of the theater (T-T6; see Chapter 10). Before leaving the stage after a scene of dancing and drinking at the end of SfidlllS, the title character says to his fellows: "intra hinc abeamus nunciam: salta tum satis pro vinost" ("Let's go inside now: we have danced enough for our "vine," 774). He then addresses the audience w-ith the expected request for applause. The close parallel with the epilogue of Cisfcllaria suggests a double entendre: just as the slave characters arc pretending to dance for wine, the actors are slaves, who \vill be re\varded with wine when the performance is over. The request of Messenio, a slave character in hIe/UledI/IIi, that the audience witness his manumission (I032) gains extra humor if the actor playing Messenio is a slave.

Spectators, don't expect theln to comc out here to you: no one will come out; they will all take care of the business inside. When that has been done, they will put aside their costlllnes; attcnvards the one who has goofed up will get a beating, and the one \vho has not goofed up will gct a drink.

Not all actors were slaves. T\vo passages where Plautus makes extended allusion to characters as actors suggest that the actors are poor freedlnen. The Sycophant of Th'1I1111l1l1llS has been hired by one character to ilnperSOlute a Inessenger allegedly sent by another: his status as actor could not be clearer. 13 During the course of his unsuccessful attempt at deception,

challenging conditions: they refer to heralds whose job \vas to quiet the audience (~"'lsill. 4 - 5; Poell. I I - I 5), disruptive seating oflatecomers (Pow. 1922), passage in and out of the theater (.LViiI. 81-82; POCII. 41-43), prostitutes sitting on the stage (Poell. 17), and various other potential distractions. Although Tnany of the individual references to disturbances Inay be jests, they probably present an accurate reflection of the general atn10sphere of performance. The actors' position was still Blore precarious because of their o"vn lo"v status in society: many, if not 1110st, actors were foreigners, slaves, or freedlnen, and those who were freeborn lacked many of the rights of citizens. 1() Plautus's actors, more than nlost, depended upon the goodv.,rill of their audiences. One way Plautus had his actors respond to these challenges, and encourage the goodwill they needed, was to have them reinind the audience repeatedly of their vulnerability, dependence, and low status. The nlost poigrunt such reminders are the several passages \vhere Plautus calls attention to the fact that his actors could be punished for unsuccessful performance. The epilogue of Cistcllaria re111inds the spectators that the actors, if they fail to perform adequately, could be beaten: 11

TI-IE

THE.~TER

OF PLAUTUS

IO

.~CTORS

AND SPECTATOR.S

II

;u:u:

both the Sycophant and Charmicies, whom he tries to deceive, refer repeatedly to the former's status as an actor. Besides his threat that Channides will be beaten as an actor 111ight be, the S)!cophant explains the nalne of the play in \vhieh he performs (it is Triwl/IlI/ll/s because he was hired for three Ill/III/Hi, g43 -44). Channides calls attention to the Sycophant's costume (851-52), and the Sycophant elaborates on how the man who hired him instructed hil11 in hoyv to play the role and hired a costl1lllC for him fr0111 the clioragJls, or costl1lllC manager (853 -58, 866-67). As an actor, the Sycoplul1t is poor. He enters with a lament that poverty has driven hi111 to perform this role (847-50); he is mightily impressed both with the 111CIT three Illllllllli he has earned (R43 -44, R4R-50) and with the n10ney paid for the costume (S57); and he threatens to steal the costume (SSS-oo). Equally conspicuous as actors are the adl'ocati ("counselors") who assist in the deception of Poe/lIIllIs. l .l They refer to the kind of character they are playing (522-23), their need to entertain the spectators (S50 -52; see below), and their use of stage props (597-99; see below). Like the Sycophant, they also call attention to their own low social position. Upon their entrance they tell Agorastoc1es, the young lover who has hired them, that they are plebeii ct pal/peres (S I 5), and that they have purchased their own freedom (519). They later call themselves pallpcrwli (536). When, after the successful deception, Agorastoc1es puts off their payment, the counselors exit \vith a complaint on ho\v the rich treat the poor (809-10). Even \vhen they are not reminding the audience explicitly of their vulnerability or lo\v social status, Plautus's actors frequently provide more subtle reminders of their dependence on the spectators through their pleas for attention and approval and their obvious eagerness to please. Such renlinders are particularly evident in Plautus's prologues. Here the spectators' awareness that they watch an actor would be nl0st acute. Of Plaut us's fourteen extant prologues, seven are spoken by an actor in his o\vn person. This actor, \Vh0I11 I will call by his Latin name, prolo,~lls, is in [lct a character: prologi have idiosyncrasies of their o\vn, and they sometinles speak as if they belong in the world of the plot. Prologi nevertheless spend most of their time speaking explicitly as actors, and they refer to nunlerous aspects of the production they begin. The same is true to a lesser extent of gods or characters in the play who deliver prologues: while such speakers are undoubtedly characters within the play, they also speak as actors. IS Almost all speakers of prologues request the audience's attention and goodwill, sometiIlles 1110re than onceY' Several also ask for pernlission to say the things they say, or sometimes to perform the play at all. According to the prologlls of AsiHaria, for exalllple, the play will receive its nal11e only if the spectators are willing (12).17 The prologlls of FOCl/IIll1s reveals his deTHE THEATER. OF i'LAUTUS

pcndcnce on the audience \vith an elaborate metaphor dra\vn £1-0111 the l~o­ man census. Just as censors determined into what class a citizen \vould be p1J.ced based on what property he owned, the spectators are to be illratorl'Scensors' assistants-and are to evaluate the content of the prologlls's (//gllJ//C/lflllll (55-S8).lH Speakers of prologues also flatter the spectators or wish them wcll. The god Arcturus, speaking the prologue of Rude/IS, assumcs that the spectators are good, pious, and trustworthy (28-29). Other proiogi remind the audience of thcir success in \var and/or express their \vish that that success continue. I') Finally, prologi show their need for the audience's approval through their conspicuous desire to explain. Thcy not only offer extensive explanation, but they repeatedly state how anxious they are that the audience undcrstand who thcy arc and what they say.::!() Two prologue speakcrs even propose that they m:ve explanation to their audiencc, using the metaphor of a debtor paying a debt (Capt. T5 -TO, 23; Cist. 188 - 89)· Conspicuous concern for explanation also occurs outside of the prologues. More cxplicit cxplanation occurs in Plautus's monologues than would be necessary even for the densest of spectators, and almost no attempt is made to make the explanation seem "natural."::!l Not only do Plaurus's monologue speakers seldom disguise the explanatory purpose of their monologues, but many of thel11 seem to revel in it. The counselors of Pac/II tillS, for exan1ple, turn and tell the audience that the money used to deceive the pin1p is really only aI/mill COIll;WIII: stage money (597-99). Spectators hardly need to be told that comic actors arc not using real money: the aside serves not to cxplain, but to remind the spectators that the actors are performing for them and want thenl to follow all that happens (cf iVlcrc. 85 I; RIId. 293; 1")-lIc. 463). Actors also re11lind the audicncc that they had been explaining things earlier, as when the parasite Gelasimus says, "sed ita ut occepi lurrare vobis" ("But just as I began to explain to you ... ," Stich. 579; c£ Cas. 788; Cist. 366; Ivlil. 1130-31). In spite of their wish to keep the audience informed, PlautllS'S actors also acknmvledge that they 111USt 110t bore the spectators by repeating themselves, tel1ing them more than is necessary, or spending too nluch ti11le on static scenes. It is not surprising that Plautus's second-longest play, Poel/IIIIlS, contains three passages sho\ving such awareness. In one of the three, the counselors, responding to Agorastoc1es' concern that they be adequately prepared for the deception of the pimp Lycus, spell out the principle explicitly: 0111nia istaec scimus iam nos, si hi spectatores sciant; horUl1C hie nUllC causa haec agitur spectatorml1 fabula: hos te satius est docere, ut, quando agas, quid agas sciant. (550-S2) ACTORS AND SPECTATORS

13

jiiS

We know all those things already, if the spectators here know rheIll; this play here is being acted for the sake of these spectators: it is enough for you to inform them, so that \vhen you act, they know \vhat you are doing. It is hard to inlJgine hmv Plautus could nlOre elnphatically state that the actors are perfonning for the sake of the spectators. 22 The doctrine of brevity also appears in other plays. Early in .J\;/crcator, Charinus and his slave Acanthio banter for nearly fifty lines before the slave reveals \vhat he has run from the harbor to tell his master. Here Plautus:;:; \vas taking a risk: the long delay is humorous both in its content and because it sho\\l's the lovesick Charinus at his nlost ridiculous; but, if taken too far, it could bore the spectators. The playwright both acknowledges and averts this danger when he has Acanthio respond to Charinus's wish to speak placidc ("calmly"): "dormientis spectatores Jl1etuis ne ex son1no excites?" ("Are you afraid you'll wake up the sleeping spectators?" 160). One suspects a similar self-consciousness in other references to the length of speeches and scenes, even though connections with the length of the performance are not c),.1Jlicitly made. :;·f The

Capritd promises jokingly that all battles will remain offstage, for it \vould be unjust to perform a tragedy when the audience expects a comedy (5:-)62; cf Amph. 52-55)· Complementing these reminders of expectations met are efforts to ap-

pease the spectators \V-hen their expectations arc not fulfilled. The handmaid StcphaniUlll, for example, is careful to explain to the audience why she enters from a house other than the one in which she Eves (Stich. 673-80). Similar uses of such phrases as lie cxspcctctis ("don't expect") and IIC IIlJrclIlilli ("don't be surprised") occur throughout the plays.2i They rel11ind the audience that the actors want them to fo11ov,r what is happening, and they reveal an ,l\vareness on the part of playwright and performcrs that they should be meeting the audience's expectations, and that failure to do so requires

logical end of this concern conles in two plays where characters say they \vill allo\v lecherous husbands to escape punishlnent so that the play does not beconle too long (Cas. 1006; JVIcrc. I007-B). Perhaps the nlost important \vay in which Plautus's actors discuss their need to serve the audience is through allusions to the spectators' expectations. Plautus's plays belong to a wel1-defined genre, the palliata, or "conledy in Greek dress." As John Wright denlonstrated over t\VO decades ago, the fiagments of the plays of Plautus's predecessors, contemporaries, and successors display remarkable sinlilarities to each other and to the plays of Plautus hilnselfin language, characterization, humor, plot, and style. 2 :> Such similarities suggest that Plautus and other writers of palliatac faced an audience with a large and rather ribrid set of expectations, an audience that view'ed the job of both the playwright and the actors to be the fulfillment of those expectations, Plautus's actors often remind the spectators that they are in (lct meeting their expectations, especially those involving stock characters. Toxilus's last \vords in Pcrsa, for exanlple, nlake clear that his play has done what a comedy with a pimp should do: "spectatores, bene valete. leno periit. plaudite" ("Farewell, spectators. The pimp is ruined. Applaud," 858). Four different characters make sure the audience knows that they are ful-

justification. Appeasement is not always the way, however, that Plautus has his actors respond to the unexpected. Though 1~0111an audiences liked seeing expected elements performed \vell, they also, like most theater audiences, enjoyed novelty, and Plautus makcs it known that he and his actors are responding to thi.<; desire as \vell. Charinus, for exanlple, begins }vIcrcator by saying that he \vill tell his troubles not to Night, Day, Sun, and Moon, as other lovers do, but to the spectators themselves (3 -B). Here the audience is doubly stroked: Charinus the character wants their sympathy and attention, and Charinus the actor will provide thenl \vith a novel variation on the expected cOlnic lover's speech. 2s The obsequiousness of the actors, however, makes up only part of their relationship \\7ith the audience. The heavily theatricalized counselors of POCl/lIlIIS, for all their complaints about their low status, are far from subservient to Agorastocles, They refuse to hurry when he wants them to, they respond \\I'ith indignation ".then he insults thenl, and they even tell him proudly, "divitenl audacter solenlus nnctare infortunio" ("We often bring trouble on rich men without flinching," 5T7), The feistiness of the counselors is indicative of the disposition of actors toward their audience throughout Plautus's plays, Even as they provide renlinders of their own lowly position and their dependence on the audience's approval, actors often display an attitude of mock haughtiness to\vard the spectators, and they exercise remarkable license. Often the haughtiness and license appear together with the apparently subservient messages, so that the actors' attitude becomes a striking paradox,

filling the expected role of scn'lIs CIIlTCIIS ("running slave," All/ph. 986-S7; Capt. 778-79; ClIre. 280-8r; Epid. '94; cf Terence Ph"rl1l. 848).'" Not all relninders of expectations fulfilled involve stock characters: the prologue of

Actors sometimes deliver even the 1110St deferential messages in such a way that they become ironic jokes at the spectators' expense. This tendency is most clear in the prologues, where flattery, well-wishing, and requests

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

ACTORS AND SPECTATORS

I5

> combine to produce humorous attempts at manipulation. The proto,glls of Captilli, for cX~lll1ple, joins a 6rewell wish with praise: valete, judices iustissinli domi dllclliqnc dllcllJtores optu111i. (67-68) Farewell, most just judges at

hOll1C,

best warriors in \var.

By calling the spectators "most just judges," the prolOgll5 alludes to the £let that their Elvorable judgment determines the success of the play: the flattery is a blatant tool to gain their approval. Even more flagrant manipulation occurs in CasiJl(/, where the pro!OSIIS praises the spectators for their trustworthiness (1-2), but then asks fcn- applause to confirIn his assertion (3 -4r:!'l The nlanipulation, of course, reflects on the speaker himselt~ but it is also a way of teasing the audience, suggesting that they arc susceptible to such I1Unipulation. Even when they are not manipulating the audience, proh~iIi tend to be profoundly and hilariously self-ilnportant. The slave Palaestrio, for example, speaking the prologue oLlvliies,iIiorioslIs (79-80), asks tCH the spectators' /Jclligllitas, and promises them colllitas in return. Though both bCIJ(iI'litas and C01l1itds lnean "kindness," coll1itas implies the kindness shown by someone vvith greater power or status to someone with less power or status. 3 () Mercury, speaking the prologue of AlI/phitnJo, equates the llirtlls of actors with that of statesnlen and puts the competition between actors 011 the same level as political competition between .'ill/llllli /lid (75 -78). Given this selfilnportance, it is not surprising that Plautus's prol(~iJi can just as easily be imperious authorities as hlwning suppliants. A look back at the requests for attention and goodv,rill cited above reveals that nuny of theln COlne in the fOrIn of il11peratives: speakers of prologues pretend that they have the authority to command the audience to be silent. Palaestrio orders anyone who does not wish to hear him to leave the theater (A-fif. ST-82). Most dictatorial of all is the prologlls of POClll/ills. 31 He begins by calling hilllself illJperator ltisrriClls ("actor-general"), and he continues v-lith a long list of decrees directed at the audience, at variolls groups of spectators, and even at the magistrates overseeing the production (I -45). When he has finished the C0I11mands, he turns to the mglllllclltlllll, and he assigns himself the role of a public official nleasuring land (48 -49).32 He then prOlllises to give the play's naIlle, and he teasingly reminds the spectators that for all their power, and his own assumption of povv'er, it is the presiding magistrates who actually run the festivals:

THE THEATER OF l'LAUTUS

16

sed nisi l1lo1cst1lll1st, 110l1lCn dare vobis vola comoediai; sin adiost, dicanl tanlcn, siquidcm licebit per 11105 quibus est in manu. (50-52) If you don't mind, I want to give you the n;Ul1C of this comedy: if you do mind, 1'11 give it anyway, if only I have permission fro111 those in charge. Conspicllous explanation also offers excellent opportunities for irony and teasing. There is a fine line between concern that the audience understand and teasing suggestions that the spectators are slow on the pickup. Two prologi cross this line conspicuously, as they joke on the need to make sure the audience follows the mgllJllclJlIJll1. The prologlls of Cdptiui asks, "ian1 hoc tenetis?" ("Now do you understand this?"), then teases a real or imagined heckler who professes not to follow (ro-14). The pf(JloglIs of POClJldllS asks the sa111e question, then puns on tenere, \vhich means both "to hold" and "to understand": iamne hoc tenetis? si tenetis, ducite; cave dinl111patis, quaeso, sinite transigi. (II (] - r 7) I-lave you got it now? If you've got it, pull; please be careful not to break it; let it pass through. The prologlls's 111eaning here is not clear, but he may well be allUding to masturbation at the spectators' expense.J:) l-:teminders that actors must keep the play moving likewise carry potential for teasing \vithin apparently obsequious messages. Are Acanthio's spectators sleeping because Charinus has been going on too long, or because they are inattentive? Do plays need to be moved along and dra\vn to a close because they have proper lengths, or because the spectators have inadequate attention spans? Chrysalus, the clever slave of Baccliiries, reveals that even anxiety about the spectators' expectations can turn into ironic teasing. Before his final exit, Chrysalus manages to justify his failure to do the expected and to boast that he is doing something novel at the same time: sed, spectatores, vos nunc ne miremini quod non triumpho: pervolgatul11 cst, nil l11oror. (Bacc/1. 1072-73) But, spectators, don't be surprised because I alll not holding a triumph: they're too common; I don't care for one.

ACTORS AND SPECTATORS

17

Whether Chrysalus alludes to the plethora of triu111phs in contemporary ROllle, or the abundance of triUlllph speeches spoken by C0111ic slaves onstage, or both,]4 his "I don't care for a triumph, because they are too common" is a hilarious bit of teasing. Earlier in the play he indulged in two of the most lengthy triumph speeches in Plautus, including one that \vas completely unfounded, as his ruse had been undone: the actor 1110cks both his character and the expectations of his audience. Plautus and his actors also take advantage of the audience's expectations for more far-reaching effects. They sOIlletimes refuse conspicuously to meet the audience's expectations, without any apology \vhatsoever; in a theater as predictable as the palliata, such refusal to fulfill expectations is an il11plicit challenge to the audience, Eu different fro111 the messages of flattery and appeasement usually sent on the sur£lce of the plays. This technique of confounding expectations, \vhich was to become a principal feature of Terence's c0l11edies,Yi is particularly evident in Casilla and Captivi, described below in Chapters 9-10. The subversion of obsequious 111essages is perhaps most evident in Plautus's epilogues. Epilogues, with their request for applause, by their very nature suggest actors both dependent on the audience and assuming power of their own; for \vhile they are the clearest possible reminders that the actors need the audience's approval, they are generally expressed as imperatives, as if the actors can in t.1.ct COlll111and the spectators to applaud. 3G Plautus added to the basic request for applause more powerful renlinders of dependence, like the allusions to the actors' status and vulnerability cited above. He also included in his epilogues manipulation and teasing similar to that found in his prologues. Most of Plautus's longer epilogues, in i:1.ct, are transparent atte111pts at manipulation. Several include ironic suggestions that the spectators have a l110ral obligation to applaud. At the conclusion of the Cistellaria epilogue, the actors tell the spectators: nunc quod ad vas, spectatores, relicuonl relinguitl1r, more nuiorl1m date plausU1n postrenu in c0l110edia. (786 - 87) Now, spectators, as to what is left, it is left to you: following ancestral tradition, applaud at the end of the comedy. The actors propose absurdly that, in applauding, the spectators \vil1 be acting in accordance w-ith the revered \vays of their ancestors. 37 Captilli ends with an explicit connection between 1110rality and applause. This play, the troupe claims, is a rare exception to the typical pattern of lascivious comedies, so that all who approve of chastity should applaud (1034 -36). The epi-

TI-IE THEATER. OF I'LAUTUS

IS

logue of Alllphitrllo, a play in \vhich an actor has played Jupiter, adds reli(TiOllS to nlO1'al obligation: the spectators should applaud for Jupiter's sake ~

(1'4 6 ). Two epilogues include mock defenses of the plays' a1110ral plots. Be-

fore their request for applause in ..:'-'lsiHaria, the actors discuss the lecherous Dc-maenetus: hic senex si quid clanl Uxorenl suo animo fecit volup, neque novom neque 111irUlll fecit nec secus qual11 alii solent; nec quisquanl est tanl ingenio duro nec tam fin110 pectore quin ubi quicque occasionis sit sibi £1ciat bene. (942-45) If this old man got sonle pleasure he wanted behind his wife's back, he didn't do anything ne\v or strange, or different fro111 what others do; nobody has so strong a mind or so finn a \vill that he doesn't help himself \vhenever he gets the chance. The epilogue of Bacchides, which follow·s a scene in which t\vo old nlen are seduced by their sons' prostitute girlfriends, is more adannnt in its ironic defensiveness: the company produced such a play only because they had themselves seel1 £.lthers cOl11peting with their sons for prostitutes (T 207- TO). Several plays end \vith bogus promises. Two characters ironically prOl11ise the spectators a dinner invitation if they applaud loudly enough (Pse/Jd. 1333-35; Rlld. 1421-22); one promises that she \vill take care of the spectators' affairs the way she has taken care of her own (TrlIc. 964-66). A variation on the epilogue's promise is the decree of the young man Eutychus that ends ilifercator, procbinling that old 111en nlust neither pursue prostitutes nor interfere with their sons' love affairs. Eutychus then asks the young men in the audience to applaud extra 10udly to overCOlne the resulting hostility of the old men (TOT 5 -26). He thus simultaneously taunts the old men in the audience and manipulates the young. Chalinus, speaking the epilogue of Casilla, produces Plautus's nlost effective nlixture of manipulation, mock arrogance, and teasing. He manipulates the audience with both a promise and a claim that morality demands their applause, threatens the married male spectators, and teases them with the suggestion that they desire illicit sex: nunc vos aequomst manibus meritis meritam lllercedenl dare: qui faxit, clam uxorem ducet semper scortUlll quod volet; verlllll qui non manibus clare, quantum poterit, plauserit, ei pro scorto supponetur hirclls unctus nautca_ (1015-18)

ACTORS AND SPECTATORS

19

» Now it is right for you to give with your hands the deserved reward to us who deserve it: whoever does this will always \vin the \\Thore he \Vant5 behind his wife's back; whoever does not applaud as loud as he can-instead ofa whore, he'll get a goat perfumed with bilge-water. As the spectators laugh at these blatant attempts at manipulation, they arc in part laughing at themselves, for the actors appear to assume that they are open to such nlanipulation. When they applaud, they extend the joke still further, acting as if they have indeed responded to the manipulation. In addition to their ironic use and abuse of obsequious messages, actors tease the audience in various ways. Most of this teasing occurs in early scenes, setting the n100d for the play that is to follow. Prologi insinuate that they could cheat the spectators (C(1S. 67-78; ]'vfen. 5T-55; Poell. 79-R2), or that the spectators arc miserly (True. 6-8). Several characters/actors accuse menlbers of the audience of sexual peccadilloes (Alllpl1. 2R4; kIm. T28; Pseudo 203; Trllc. 105). In Alostcllaria, audience members are twice mocked for their subjection to wives with large dowries (279-81, 708-9). More general mockery may occur in the first scene of Clllwlio. The lovesick Phaedromus tells his slave Palinurus that he has pronlised to bring breakf:lst to Venus's altar. Palinurus Inockingly pretends to misunderstand and begins the following exchange:

diencc (e.g., Asill. II; 1\;[('11. 3; Tmc. I). It \vas the actors, however, not the playwright, \\I"ho needed to woo the audience, and the actors remained vulnerable, regardless of whose play \vas being pClformecl. We thus find an equal abundance of Incssages relllinding the audience of their power over

the actors in plays known to have been produced early in Plalltlls's career and those agreed to be late. 3K Also fonnd throughout the corpus, in plays both early and late, is the ironic use of such reminders, and the actors' audacions mocking of the audience. The mixture of blandishment and teasinlT ironv, was part of Plautus's fornlula for success throughout his career. b Neither blandishment nor teasing, of course, is unique to Plautus. Both types of message have appeared throughout dramatic presentations, especially comedy, in many theatrical traditions.)') All playwrights whose actors acknmvledge the presence of the audience, however, choose their own blend of blandishment and teasing, in response to the traditions within which they \vork, the conditions under which their plays are perfonlled, and their own aims. Significantly, Plautus's blend differs both fr0111 those of his Greek predecessors and from that of Terence, his Roman successor. Aristophanes' actors occasionally remind each other that they nUlst keep things moving for the sake of the spectators (Eccl. 581-82), seek support for the play in the competition for prizes (e.g., Peace 765-74), let it be known that they need to explain things for the spectators (J;1l asps 54-55; l(Il(~hts 36-37), praise the audience (Frogs 675-76, 1109-T8), and invite the audience to banquets (Peace 1115 -16, 1355 -57). Many of these flattering C0111mcnts are ironic, or nlixed \vith mock arrogance; and Aristophanes also

PalilllIrlIS: Quid? tll tc pones Velleri icicntaculo?

PI/(/cdroIllIlS: Me, tc atgue hosce 011111i5. Palill.: tum tll Vcnerenl

V0111ere vis.

(73 -74)

PalillllfllS: What? You're going to offer YOllrselfto Venus for breakfast'

Phacdrollllls: Yup. Me, you, and all of these. Palill.: So then you want Venus to puke, huh?

inflicts a good deal of direct abuse on the audience:lo In Aristophanes' plays, hmvever, the playwright himself is seldonl far fi'om the surfIce: the relationship between actors and audience is less important than the satire, teasing, exhortation, and flattery sent from play\vright to audience. In between Aristophanes and the next extant Greek comic playv.rright, Menander, the playwright stepped into the background; but at the same time, the status of characters as actors became less conspicuous. The epi-

While Phaedrol1llls may gesture to his slaves \vhen he says !lOsce Olllilis Ca11 of these"), the line is funnier, and n10re in keeping with the teasing \ve have

logue with a request for applause was evidently de rigueur by Menander's day; ,II and the surviving prologues of New Comedy include requests for ap-

seen elsewhere, if Phaedronlus gestures to the audience.

proval, flattery, and statements of desire to be understood:12 Each of these

We can take for granted that in their quest for the spectators' attention and goodwill, Plautus's actors had an easier time than did their colleagues

clements, however, is nlore subdued in New Comedy than in Plautus, and

\vho perfonncd the works of less popular playwrights, especially late in Plautus's career. Plautus was a very popular and successful playwright, and

by a character within the play rather than by an actor in his own person: t3 Reminders within the bodies of the plays of the actors' desire to please are

the prominence of his name in several of his prologues suggests that aware-

rare. Monologue speakers of New COInedy sOInetimes offer extensive ex-

ness that a play was by Plalltus could in itsclfhave helped to \vin over an au-

planation, but phrases that suggest enlotional outbursts or introverted mus-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

20

all prologues of New Comedy appear to have been spoken by a divinity or

ACTORS AND SPECTATORS

2I

;s: ing often limit the spectators' awareness of the actor providing necessary information. ,14 Teasing is even 11lore restricted. There is S0111C irony, of course, in the pleas of the speakers of prologues and epilogues, but it, too, is subdued, and the extant plays and fragments offer virtually no exp1icit teasing of the audience:!5 As we have seen, the conditions under which Terence's comedies were performed were in alllike1ihood nearly identical to those encountered by Pbutus. Terence's response to those conditions, however, was quite different frOlll that of his predecessor. Though Terence's prologues place the spectators in the position of judges and include pleas for the audience's goodwill and attention,4() their cTl1phasis is on polenlic rather than flattery,

of censorship and the important escapist element of Plautinc theatcr, its spectators \VeIT prepared both to laugh at themselves and to receive criticisIll 6'01n the actors they \vatched. This l11ixture of modes in the actors' audience address thus lays the foundation for a paradoxical but highly etTccrive union of dctermined gratification, escape fr01l1 reality, and social criticism that, as \\'e shall see in the following chapters, pervades Plal1tine drama.

on the playwright rather than the actor, as Terence responds to the accusations of his opponent, Luscius Lanuvinus, and to other real or alleged obstacles to his success. At least two of Tcrcnce's prologues (Hal/t.; Hec., second prologue) were delivercd by Anlbivius Turpio, the leader of the theatrical troupe performing the plays, so that the potential license of a lovvly actor assUIl1ing authority \vas drastically reduced:17 Tercnce's epilogues are brief and to the point; and although he includes smne monologues that are clearly explanatory,48 his characters, like those of New COInedy, arc lllore likely to cover their attelllpts to explain with signs of nlusing or enl0tion. Terencc's actors never tease the audiencc. Indeed, in the interest of verisimilitude, Terence appears to have restricted blandislunent and teasing, along \\lith other elements, even 1110rC than did the \vriters ofNcw

Comedy whose plays he adapted:" Plautus's emphasis on the actor-audience relationship, conlbined with the actors' mixture of flattering subservience and ironic teasing, would have had several inlportant effects. First, the flattery helped to assure the goodwill of thc audience, as the spectators were given a feeling of power: aware that they deternl1ned the actors' (lte, and that their pleasure vvas the sole end of the performcrs' efforts, the audience readily accepted teasing and found the actors' audacious nlockery all the morc hUIl1orous. The nlixture of subservicnce and arrogance also contributed significantly to the Saturnalian elell1ent of Plautine performance. Within the plots of Plautus's plays, the lO\\lliest of characters often manage to lord it over their social superiors, bringing to Plautus's audience the pleasure that conlCS with the rell10val of everyday restrictions. 50 Outside of the plot, the actors' attitude would have the same effect: Plautus never let his audience forget the actors' low status, but hc used repeatedly thcir license to nl0ck and give orders to the spectators, nlost of whom were their social superiors. Finany, the license cnjoyed by the actors opened up a wider possibility for social cOlnmentary. In spite

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

22

ACTORS AND SPECTATORS

23

> to win the alliance they desire with the spectators, or \vhen the audience observes characters competing for their attention and goodwill. Plautus also establishes a hierarchy of rapport in each of his plays, arranging lllonologues so that sonle characters are Blore successful than others at allying themselves with the audience; and he often encourages variation in rapport, causing some characters to grow closer to or morc distant fi-0111 the audience as plays progress. The principal way Plautus shovvs his characters' desire for rapport is through what I call the rhetorical monologue. PlautllS inherited fro111 his

Greek predecessors a pattern for beginning 111onologucs, used especially upon a character's entrance. The l11onologue begins with a generalization (Latin sC/ltclltia), after which the character explains that her/his situation proves thc truth of the generalization. 1 In Menander's D]'scolos, for exanlple, the young lover, Sostratos, after he has spent the day working in the flelds in rural Phyle, enters and reports on his labors:

AS much as they keep the spectators aware of their status as perfornlers, Plautus's actors nevertheless present themselves as fictional characters, and these characters, too, have a relationship with the audience. A clear distinction bet\veen actor and character, is, of course, inlpossible; and it will be evident that in nuny of the passages cited in the previous chapter, it is the character as \vell as the actor who flatters or teases the audiencc. An appreciation of the actors as characters is particularly useful when "\ve consider the aspirations of the actors/characters to win over the audience; for these aspirations contribute significantly to Piau tine characterization. The frequcncy and length of monologues noted in the previous chapter, and the emphasis on the spectators as the intended hearers of 11lonologucs, nlean not only that the actors develop a close relationship with the audience, but also that the direct relationship between the audience and the characters those actors represent gains in inlportance. Plautus increased the significance of this relationship still further through the coiltent and style of his monologues. In these nlonologues, PlaUtllS'S characters reveal at every turn that they are ren1Jrkably needy: they desperately want the spectators to pay attention to thenl, to believe what they say, to be on their side in their struggles \vith their fe11o\v characters, and to sympathize with their situations. In short, they desire rapport \vith the audience. Upon the foundation of his characters' desire for rapport, Plautus builds a number of comic and dralllatic effects. SOll1e of his funniest IllOl11ents occur \vhen characters fail

THE THEATEK OF PLAUTUS

ocrnS" anopEl KOKWV, En1
OU8EVOS" XPT) npaYl101:oS" 1:0V di cppovoiiv8' DAmS" anoyvwvoinotE' aAOl1:a yivEt' e1l:l>JEAEl<;< KOln6vql anOV1:', Eym 1:0U-WU nopaoElY>Jo viiv CPEPOl' EV 11~lEP<;< J.lti,i K01:Eipyoa>JOl ya>Jov QV ou8' av dS" n01:' 0E1' av8pdmOlv DAmS", (Soo-os)

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

25

The wise man should never despair completely of any project. Evervthing is attainable through diligence and toil. I no\\, lor' an example of tillS. In onc day I have accOlllphshed a marriane' that no human ever thought at all possible. b ,

~-

_

•

<.-

'-

•

In~

Even here, howcver, the clllphasis is on the Jrupa8E1Y).1U ("example") rathH than the maX-lIn: Sostratos has 111crely introduced the generalization in q~: der to express his joy and pride at his unexpectedly sllccesst"ltl Counshi'l:-: Plautus developed this pattern of beginning monologues in such a r' that many of his 111onologues beGU11e conspicuously aimed at persl1a~i(!" First, he added sClltclltiac where they had not existed in his Greek origirtt;~­ Eduard Fraenkel has pointed ont a number of 111011010g11e-beginnin ft ;>" ::- ,,",' tCl/tiae that the linguistic and contextual evidence suggests are Plaminc ,ld, ditions. 3 More in1portant, Plautus increased the lcngth and modified th< tone of the sCl/tclltiac, so that many of his Illonologues are blatant and Ur~ gent attempts by characters to persuade the audience of the truth of tlIt;; generalizations. Plautns expanded his originals' sClltclltiae dranlatically.4 Fraenkel argut:d correctly that this extra attention lavishcd on the sClltcl/tiac provided PLm~ tus with opportunities for farcical verbal hU1110r. 5 Additional verbal humor. hovvevcr, is not the only effect of the long sCl/tclltiac. Increased as they .m; in size, the sClltcllliac become means instcad of ends. They are not short introductions to characters' accounts of their experiences, but long attL'll1pti to provc a thesis; and the characters \vho speak thcm arc funny not only be, causc of the silly things they say, but also becausc they are so determiI1t.\l to persuade the audience. A look at two of Plautus's longest I1lonologlK\ makes this rhctorical tcndency dear. Philolaches, the young lover of iv!ostcllaria, offers PlalltUS'S most overt Jttcmpt to persuade when he proposes in a long monologue that the corruption of a vouth like himself is similar to the ruin of a ncglected house. At: tel' statin~ his thesis, Philolachcs rcveals his certainty ~hat he \vi11 make til( spectators agree: atqlle hoc hau videtur veri siIllile vobis, at ego id facia111 esse ita ut credatis. profecto ita esse ut praedico vera vincam.() atque hoc vosn1et ipsi, scio, proinde uti nunc ego esse autUlllo, quando dicta audietis nlea, haud aliter id dicetis. auscultate, argUlllenta dU111 dico ad lunc reIll: S1111111 gnarl1ris vos yolo esse hanc rem meCUlll. (93 - roo)

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

', "ms. hi"hlv unlikely to you, still I'll make you b· . . ~ "~, I' "lll\1 I will conVlllce vou that what I say IS true. 1(550, ,-c. " . ",1 ''''s I know' when,:vou have heard what I have to ';Oll \·011ISe \ 1..-., ' . " '.' '. 'ust the way I sav It IS, and not otherWise, LIsten, s:;v, ,.nll S.l~ It S J . . ', ' -' - . ." ' arcTl. lments on tillS: I want you to be aware of tIllS \vinlc I gl\ t: m~ . ~ 'I' ,.~t: \\'itl1 me, rhlHH.!; I1 t I11S St:t:

A

'. " "

(hen descri b es l'l)\\' I)ouses fall. When the house section has , j I ' 1'73111 addresses the audIence explICitly: durH,'tel. 1t:.~. , 'ledificiis dixi; nunc etiam vola "'Y'" IpTllil 1t:'llt'l • ">\TO I..-~ i;~'~~' t:'t 1,0mines aedium csse sim11is arbitremini. (118-19) ~H~'cn:, 11 ,

<

,t'lt'd mv 3rcruments regarding houses; now I also ,vant to b ~ I I.1.1.\'C :. • e !luke you believe that men are similar to houses. ,<

L

.lIulogv is strained at best, and it tells nlOre about Philolaches' 'nn,rd dUIl abo~l;t his insights into h1ll11an nature. His garrulous certainty h< 'xill persuade the audicnce serves not to make his case stronger, but fa i('illt()J'ce the humor he produces through the content of the sinlile n ..... ,;,

no other characters are as outspoken about thcir dcsire to pcr-

:;" h Philolaches, many others are just as earncst in their need to win :tudiencc. Half\vay through /vfCllaechmi, for example, one of the hrnl'Ji('pi atter whom the play is namcd returns from the forum, angry that LIb.-' to IUllch because he was drawn unwillingly to the dcfensc of a Not content with complaining, hc seeks to persuade the audience fbi: tilt: ('mire patron-client system is corrupt: hoc mimur maximc morc moro Ilwlcstoquc multuI1l, atquc uti qllique sunt \)ptumi, maxumc morem habent hune: clientcs sibi omnes volunt esse n1.ultos: honine an mali sint, id haud quaeritant; J'e;; magis guaeritur quam dientmll fides CUillS modi dueat. si cst pauper atgue haud l11allls, nequal11 habetur, \In dives mall1st, is diens frugi habetur. qui nequc leges neque acqu0111 bonl1I11 usquam colunt, 5\)llicitos patronos habent. lIt

d.ltllIl1 denegant quod datull1 est, litil1Ill pleni, rapaccs viri. fraudl1lenti,

cHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

p qui aut faenore aut periuriis habent re111 para tam, 111ens est in quo :I: eis ubi dicitur dies, simul patronis dicitur. [quippe qui pro iUis loquinulr quae male fecerunt] aut ad POPUhUll aut in iure aut apud aedilem res est. sicut me hodie ni111i5 sollicitunl cliens quidanl habuit, neque quod volui agere aut qUiCUlll1icitUlllst, ita l11ed attinuit, ita detinuit. (57 1 - 89) What an incredibly stupid custom this is, and really troublesome, too, and yet all the best people do it l1loSt! They all want nuny clients: they don't investigate whether they are good or bad; they care only about how much nl0ney their clients have, not about their reputation for good faith. If a fellow is poor, but good, he is considered \vorthless, but ifhe is rich and bad, he is considered a good client. Those who don't care at all about laws or justice keep their patrons busy. They deny that they've been given what they've been given, they're full ofla"\vsuits, they're greedy and corrupt, and they've nude their money through usury or peljury. They think about ... [here there is a gap in the textl· When they are called to court, their patrons are, too. There's a trial, either in front of the people, or in a law court, or before the aedile. That's what happened to nle today: SQIne client kept 11le too busy, and I couldn't do what I wanted or be with whom I wanted: he held me back and detained nle. Menaechn1l1s's diatribe l11ay convey SOll1e serious social conl11lentary. Its principal effect, however, is to make Menaechmus look ridiculous. He earnestly desires that the audience share his indignation, but his l11otivation -anger that he has nlissed lunch with his mistress-undermines all his authority. These 1110nologues are just two of the many attel11pts in Plautus to persuade. Characters of all types-parasites, clever slaves, "good" slaves, l11isogynists, put-upon matrons, young lovers, old lovers, stern fathers, lenient fathers-work hard to nuke the spectators believe that their generalizations are true. 8 Even when they do not employ extended generalizations, Plautus's characters are eager to persuade the audience. Sometil11es they underline their desire to persuade by using rhetorical questions. The parasite Ergasilus, for exanlple, announces upon his first entrance that his nickname is Scortl/1I1 ("Whore"). He explains the nicknal11e with a pun on il11!OcatIl5. A \vhore is iOJ/oratl/lIl ("ca11ed by name") at the throw of dice,'> and he, as a parasite,

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

28

comes to dinner illlJOcatllS ("uninvited"). He interrupts his allusion to the prostitute \\lith a direct plea to be believed: "estne invocatUl11 an non <est? est> planissUlne" ("Is the \vhore hWOcatll1ll ['called upon'] or not? Of course she is," Capt. 74)·11) Unsuccessful or nervous Plautine lovers are particularly fond of rhetorical questions: they want to make sure the spectators agree that they really are lniserable. Alcesimarchus, for example, the lovesick youth of Cistcllaria, concludes his account oflove's tortures with "estne hoc miserum nlenloratu?" ("Isn't this a terrible thing?" 229).11 The lovers are already laughable in their histrionic self-pity; they inspire still nlore laughter when they unsuccessfully try to persuade the audience that their self-pity is justified. Characters not only want the audience to believe what they say; they also plead for the audience's attention. The most subtle request for attention is the word ecce ("look"), found throughout Plautus's l11onologues. Through it characters reveal their desire for the spectators to turn their attention to what they are pointing out. More explicit arc imperatives of Fiderc ("see") or sinlilar verbs. Epignonms, for exalnple, one of the t\VO brothers \vho return honle in SticllJfs, finds that his ±ather-in-law, once angry, is mollified when he sees 110\\1- nlucb nl0ney Epignomus and his brother have made in their travels. Impressed, Epignomus addresses the audience: "videte, quaeso, quid potest pecunia" ("I ask you, look at what nl0ney accomplishes," Stid/. 410). Not content to propose a l11axinl, Epign0111l1S \vants to be sure that the spectators take note of it. 12 SOll1etill1es characters go still further in their desire for attention. Preparing to auction offhisjokes to the audience, the parasite Gdasinlus announces: "adeste sultis, praeda erit praesentium" ("Pay attention, please, there will be a reward for those present," Stich. 220). Gelasimus, of course, has every reason to want the audience to pay attention. Elsewhere, however, desire for the audience's attention overCOlnes what one would expect to motivate a character. Olynlpio addresses the audience after he bas been deceived and beaten by a fel1mv slave dressed as a woman:

operanl date, durn nlea facta itero: est operae pretium au rib us aCClpere, ita ridicula auditu, iteratu ea sunt quae ego intus turbavi.13 (Cas. 879-80) Pay attention, while I recount what I have done; it \vill be worth your while to listen to llle, for the mess I made inside is so funny both to hear and to tell.

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

29

p Even though he repeatedly stresses how asha111ed he is at what he has to tell (878, 899, 902), Olympio explicitly calls for the spectators' attention. His dcsire to win over the audience is nl0re powerful than his humiliation. Plautus achieves a still greater comic efI:ect in those passages where characters not only try to persuade the audience of the truth of their statements or plead for their attention, but even go so far as to make direct requests to the spectators. In AIIIlIlaria (715-16) and Cistcllaria (678-79), characters \vant the audience to help them find lost property, and two characters in Cllrcl/lio ask the spectators to point out SOlneone (301, 590; cf. Asill. 910). In !'vIilcs c~lorioslls (862) and Mellaccilllli (~79-~1), characters beg the audience not to tell the other characters in which direction they go when they sneak away fr0111 the stage. In l\;Icllacchmi, when the slave Messenio thinks he has been freed, he coopts the spectators as witnesses of his emancipation (1°3132). Soon after his first entrance in Sfidllls, the parasite GelaSil11US proposes to sell himself to whatever spectator will bid highest (171-73, 193 -95). He asks for bids from the audience as a whole (222-23), and he aSSUllles that one membcr of the audience nods to hiIll as ifhe wants to buy (224).14 The humor in such passages is t\vof01d. The audience laughs at the pure impossibility of the request: they are reminded, as they liked to bc often, of the inherent Lllsehood of perfor11lance. At the Sal11e time, the spectators laugh at the characters, who, like the characters who fail in their attempts to persuade, want son1ething from the audience and can110t get it. Two characters even extend such impossible requests frOlll the absurd to the outrageous, asking if anyone in the audience will be beaten or crucified in their phce (Cas. 949-50; Mostcll. 354-61). Speakers of Plautine monologues, then, leave no doubt that they want the spectators to pay attcntion to then1, to sYlnpathize \vith then1, to believe what they say, and to view the action onstage through their eyes. As a result of this desire, characters cOlllpete \vith one another for rapport \\7ith the audience. This competition is perhaps most evident in the early scencs of lvIcrcator. 15 Alcrcator begins with a 1110nologue spoken by Charinus, a young man in love: duas res sinn11 nunc agere decretu111st 111ihi: et argUll1Cnrl1111 et 111COS JlnOreS eloquar. (1-2)

I have now decided to do two things at the same tiIne: I will tell you about both the events leading up to this play and my own love.

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

30

Cha rinus will not, he says, do as he has seen other comic lovers do, tellina his troubles to Night, Day, the Sun, or the Moon, who really don't ca;e about humans' problems. Iz.athcr, he \vill share his troubles with the Judience ("vobis narrabo potius 111CaS nunc ll1iserias"; "I will tell YOll my troubles instead," ~). He thus makes clear immediately that he wants the audience's attention and sympathy; and he continues in the sanle vein throughout the prologue, cOll1plaining to them with great verbosity. His solicitation of rapport reaches its peak when he concludes his long history Jnd says of his love for Pasicompsa, the girl he has recently purchased, "vosmet videte quam mihi valde placuerit" ("See for yourselves how much she has pleased me," 103). After the prologue, Chari nus learns fi'om his slave Acanthio that his father, Demipho, has caught sight ofPasicompsa. Acanthio, playing the stock role of the sCrims ClOTCHS ("running slave"), not only brings the bad news, but competes v·/ith Charinus for the audience's favor. After a fe\v lines of talking to himself, Acanthio describes to the spectators his struggle through the crowded streets (116-19). After master and slave nleet, they banter for nearly fifty lines before Acanthio reveals his 111essage. The delay is caused primarily by the melodramatic antics of Chari nus, in response to which Acanthio assumcs an alliance with the audience, accusing his master of putting them to sleep (100). Acanthio himself then delays his message, teasing his master, and when Charinus threatens hin1, he addresses a sarcastic aside to the audience: "hoc sis vide, ut palpatur. nullust, quando occepit, blandior" ("Just look at how he coaxes me. Once he gets started, nobody's a better flatterer," 1(9). As he appears only in this scene, Acanthio presents little threat to the rapport Charinus desires with the audience. A more serious threat comes in the form of Demipho, who enters with a monologue after the departure of Charinus and Acanthio. Whereas Charinus fears that his father will be angry that he has bought the girl, Delnipho reveals that in fact he has f.l11cn in love with Pasiconlpsa himself. He c0111petes with his son not only f(H the girl, but also for the sympathy and attention of the audience. Changes in meter eillphasize the competition. Chari nus spoke his prologue in unaccompanied ial11bic senarii, which changed to accOlllpanied meters with the entrance of Acanthio. Delllipho's 1110nologue is once again in iambic senarii: without accompaniment, he, like his son, can address the audience with greater intimacy. After a long description of a dreanl he has had and of his encounter \vith Pasicompsa, Dcmipho points out to the audience the state to which love has brought him, and he echoes the very expression

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

3I

p Charinus used in dcscribing his love for the girl: "vosmet videte ceterum quanti siem" ("Oh well, see for yourselves what I am good for," 2(7)Y' Like his son, Dernipho wants the audicnce to syrnpathize with him in his snutten condition. Just as Charinus, after his long monologue, had to compete for the spectators' attention with Acanthio, so nlUst Delnipho COl1lpete with his neighbor Lysil1lachus, who enters at the end of Demipho's monologue. When Denlipho reveals to Lysilllachus that he is in love, Lysinlachus responds with an aside. He tries to bring the audience to his perspective with a variation of thc fonl1ub uscd earlier by Delllipho and Charinus: si mnquam vidistis pictul1l Jmatorenl, enl illic est. 11al11 Inco quidem animo vetulus decrepitus senex tantidcmst quasi sit signUlll piCtlllll in pariete. (3 T3 -I 5) If you ever saw a painted lover, look: there's onc. For to Illy mind at least, a decrepit old geezer is worth just as much as a picture painted on the wall. Before he leaves, Lysidanlus speaks yet another aside: "hic homo ex anlore ins an it" ("This guy is crazy from love," 325). The principal cOlnpetition for rapport relllains that bchveen Charinus and Demipho, as is evident in the next scenes. Demipho, after a brief nl0nologue, remains onstage, and Chari nus enters, once again bcm.oaning his fatc in a long monologue. A long scries of asides follows, as each lover shares with the audicnce his fear that the other suspects the truth. The "bidding" scene that follows brings to a climax the competition for rapport. Derl1ipho, rl10re ingenious than his less experienced son, not only makes up an illlaginary "buyer" for PasicOlnpsa, but points to a spectator who allegedly nods to increase the bidding (433 -37). Charinus follows Deluipho's lead: he also begins "responding" to someone "bidding" (437-40). Finally, Derl1ipho heads ofT to buy the girl, forbidding Charinus to go with him. Father leaves \vith anothcr monologue revealing his plans to the audience (466-68), and son returns to his habit oflarl1enting to the spectators

(468 -73). Much of the first half of the play is thus an extended cOl1lpetition for the attention and sympathy of thc audiencc, primarily between Charinus and Denupho, but with Acanthio and Lysirnachus cOlnpeting as well. Both lovers, in closely parallel sequences, elnphatically establish their desire for rapport in long nl0nologues, then find their rapport threatened by a second character. When f:1thcr and son meet, thcir competition for rapport comes

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

12

to a heJel: not only do they seek the audience's synlpathy in asides, but they

coopt individual spectators to their respective sides of the struggle as well. The competition between Dcmipho and Charinus continues throughout the play, as each delivers further 1110nologues seeking the audience's sylnpathy (544- 6r , 588 -600, 83 0 - 66 ,978). The struggle for rapport adds much to the humor of the play: both Dcmipho and Charinus inspire laughter as they work so hard to \\lin over an audience that only finds ther11 ridiculous. The rivalry also underlines the struggle betwccn old and young love that is the play's central theme. Through thc nunlber, length, tone, style, and content of their r11onologucs, then, Plautus's characters shoyv to an unusual degree that they desire rapport with the audience, and they earnestly cOl11pete for that rapport with other characters. Thc failurc of nlany characters to win the audience's favor in spite of this desire contributes l1luch to the humor of the plays. Plautus does more \vith rapport, ho\vever, than merely create characters \vho desire it. As important as characters' desire for rapport is the degree to which they do or do not attain it. Through r11onologues and other clements, Plautus cncourages in his plays a hierarchy of rapport, as somc characters are nlore successful than others in their attempts to form a bond with the spectators. Even if they f:1il to win the spectators' s)Tl11pathy, speakers of monologues form a bond with thc audience not shared by those who addrcss only their fellow characters. 17 One way, therefore, that Plautus encourages a hierarchy of rapport is through the anlount of time each character spends speaking monologues. lvlcrcatof is a case in point. Though both Demipho and Charinus appear ridiculous, there can bc little doubt that the btter aligns hinlself with the audience Hlore successfully than the fOrIncr does: we would certainly expect such a hierarchy, for in the struggle between old and young love, Plautus COllleS down decidedly on the side of the young. Part of the reason for Charinus's greater rapport is that he speaks about IOO nlore lincs of monologue than Dcmipho does. Even as he inspires laughter through his ranting and \-vhining, Charinus forms a bond \vith the audience dceper than that forged by his father. Further contributing to Charinus's greater rapport is the nUlllber of times he explicitly acknowledges the audience's presence. Characters like Charinus who pepper their monologues with pas, spcctatorcs, and second-person verb forms gain a connection with the audience greater than that of rl1onologue speakcrs who do not explicitly recognize the audience. One type of monologue, the aside, plays an especially important role in encouraging a hierarchy of rapport. Characters able to addrcss the audience unheard by an interlocutor onstage Illake a powerful connection \vith the

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

J3

jiiiS spectators. Characters whose asides are overheard, however, lose rapport: they arc incapable offorIning a connection with the audience not shared by their interlocutor. In terms of asides, Chari nus and DCl1lipho are relatively evenly matched. As they discllss Pasico111psa, each concealing his love for her fi:01ll the other, both manage a l1Ulllber of asides unheard by the other. Charinus gains an advantage, hov./cver, when Demipho emphasizes that he cannot understand one of his son's asides (379). The differentia1 in rapport that comes frOlll one character overhearing another is sti11morc pronounced in Plautus's nuny scenes of eavesdropping. Eavesdroppers gain a great advantage in the competition for rapport: they share with the audience a sense of power over the character being overheard, and they encourage the audience to see the actions of others through their eyes. IS Therefore, whenever one character overhears the words of another, the hearer is likely to gain rapport: the longer the eavesdropping goes on, the greater the rapport; and that greater rapport is increased when eavesdroppers conlment in asides to thc audicnce on \vhat they hear. A difference in their paralIc! scenes of eavesdropping thus gives Charinus an advantage over his father in attaining rapport. Charinus eavesdrops on Acanthio for twenty-three lines before the slave notices him, and he delivers several asides while he eavesdrops. In the paralIc! sequence, Demipho eavesdrops on Lysinuchus for only t\vc!vc lines, which include only one aside. Also important are the various ways in which characters eavesdrop. More often than not in Roman comedy, eavesdropping occurs v..,hen a character \vho has remained onstage overhears the entrance monologue of a nc\v character, or the dialogue of two characters v.rho enter.l'.l This pattern is common enough that it would have been striking \vhen characters onstage failed to notice the arrival of a nc\v character, especially if the new character spoke a long monologue unheard by the others. Thus, for exanlple, Charinus gains extra rapport relative to his £lther \vhen Demipho, though onstage, is incapable of hearing his son's long monologue (335-64). Perhaps gaining the most rapport arc those characters who deliberately allow theillselves to be overheard, for they have the power to take v. .,hat would nonllal1y be the inferior position and Illake it superior.:m Asides, monologues, and eavesdropping contribute to variations in dramatic irony, a factor that plays a significant role in establishing hierarchy of rapport. Characters gain rapport not only when they address the audience, but also when they share knmvledge \\lith the spectators not shared by others. The effect of shared knowledge is greatest in the scenes of deception that pervade Plautus's corpus, and it is here that the hicrarchy of rapport be-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

J4

comes I110st evident. All of Plautus's plays involve at least some element of deception, and most of them revolve around deception. 21 The audience, aware that the deception is occurring, is continually drav.rrl in as an ally of the deceivers. In one play, Plautus nukes this alliance quite explicit. The old woman who speaks the first prologue of Cistcllaria, after tclling the audience how she gave an abandoned baby to her friend, says: id duae nos solae SCiIllUS, ego quae illi dedi et ilIa quae a nle accepit, practer vos guidenl. (145 -46) Only \ve two kno\\' this, I who gave to her and she who took fi"OIll nle-except, of course, for all of you. Throughout his scenes of deception, Plautus uses nl0nologues and eavesdropping to reinforce the rapport attained by the deceiver. At every stage of deception, deceivers share their thoughts with the audience. They inform the spectators of their intcnt to deccive, their difilculties in devising a plan, and their arrival at a plan. 22 During the deception, they comment aside both when they feel the plan is going well and \vhen they fear disaster. Finally, they celebrate their success with the audience in Illonologues. They also eavesdrop repeatedly, both on those they deceive and on others. In /vlcrciltor, the failure ofDeInipho and LysiInachus to carry out the deception inherent in their plans for PasicOlnpsa contributes to their lack of rapport relative to their sons. As deception plays a sma1ler role than usual in klcrcator, however, let us turn to another play for an exaInple of the role of deception in creating hierarchy of rapport. In Bacchidcs, the clever slave Chrysalus deceives his nuster Nicobulus three tiInes. Throughout his deceptions, Chrysalus gives elaborate descriptions to the audience of what he plans to do and what he has done. Upon learning that his young master Mnesilochlls needs money to gain his beloved, Chrysallls immediately informs the audience that he plans to playa trick with the money he and Mncsilochus acquired in Ephesus (229- 33). He is equally explicit about the victim of his deception, as he sees his old master enter: "extexam ego ilIum pulchre iam, si di volunt" ("No\v I will fleece him beautifully, gods willing," 239). When the old man has fa11en for his story, Chrysalus spells out in detail in a tnonologlle what he has accOInplished and what he expects to happen (349-67). He returns bter with a long song oftriul11ph (640-60). When he learns that another deception is necessary, he explains nothing to those onstage, but when they leave he tells the audience that he \\Till again deceive the old man (701-09). After more asidcs reporting his deception as

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

35

p it occurs (772-73, 7~.)2-1)3), he celebrates its success with Plautus's longest nlOnody of triUl11ph (925 -78); and when he has achieved all his goals, he sums up his accomplishments in another aside (1053 -5t:O and in a final exit nl0nologue (1007-75). Two of Chrysalus's long monologues are spoken while other characters are onstage and apparcntly do not hear hinl (64067,23 925-782.J-), and one includes an enlphatic spcctatorcs (1072). Mean\vhile, Chrysalus eavesdrops on Nicobulus (235 -3 8, 770 -71), commenting aside as he does,25 and he stages an cntirc sccne for the benefit of his unwitting master (871-1)04). In short, Plautus never lets the spectators forget that they are Chrysalus's allies against those he deceives. Monologues, audience address, eavesdropping, and relative kno\vledge thus give sonle characters morc rapport with the audience than others. Plautus used the same elel11ents to nl0dulate rapport between single characters and the audience. Depending on when in the play they speak monologues, ackno\vledge the audience, eavesdrop, deceive, or are victims of eavesdropping and deccption, many characters becOl11e more Or less close to the audiencc as their play progresses. The best examples of this variation in rapport are Plautus's clever slaves. No character type enjoys greater rapport with the audience than the SCfI'IIS callidlls: as the most C01111110n plotters of deception, clever slaves al\vays share knowledge with the audience unkno\vn to others; like ChrysaIus, they indulge in nlany long monologues, often acknowledging the spectators explicitly; and they eavesdrop skillfully and frequently. Yet this great rapport is seldom uniform throughout the play: it is almost always limitcd in the first scenes but increases as the play progresses. Threc ofPlautus's scrl'i Ctlllidi-Libanus, Epidicus, and Pseudolus-share the sanle pattern of increasing rapport: each of them appears first in dialogue \vith another character, speaks his first lincs of 1110nologue to himself, and then addresses the audience. Othcr dcceiving slaves also reach their state of greatest rapport only late in their plays. Ashll1ria begins with a dialogue between Libanus and his master, Demaenctus. Libanus intcrrupts the dialogue with only one short aside (5051). It is Demaenctus \vho enjoys greater rapport with the audience here: his allusion to "onllles parentes ... qui l11i auscultabunt" ("all parents who \vi111isten to nle," 64 - (5) impEes a recognition that he has an audience beyond his interlocutor. After Libanus leaves, Demaenetus speaks a nine-line lllonologue that includes several intimacy-creating second-person verbs (II~-26) and, perhaps, an allusion to a member of the Scipio family present in the audience itself (I24).2()

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

When Libanus returns to the stage three scenes later, he first addresses to himself an admonition that he n1ust work hard to devise a deception (249))). He concludes with the following command, still addressed to hinlself:

serva erUlll, cave ttl idcm hlXis a1ii quod servi solent, qui ad eri fraudationem callidum ingeniul1l gerllnt. (256-57) Save your nlaster. Make sure you don't do the san1e as other slaves usually do, \vho have a nature clever for deceiving their masters.

Libanus's reference to scrl'i ("slaves") ·who have a callidlllll illgCJ1iIIIII ("clever nature") recalls the scrvi callidi of cOInedy. 27 The theatrical reference, an in1plicit acknowledgment that Libanus is in a theater before an audience, begins to move Libanus from introverted distance to rapport. After a set of deliberative questions that could bc addrcssed either to hinlself or to the spectators (2SS), he offers an explanation and ajoke to the audience (25964).28 He then introduces his fello\v slave Leonida to the audience, and he eavesdrops, cOIlll11enting repeatedly with insulting asides, as Leonida delivers a running-slave lllonologue. Only no\v has Libanus established his position as the primary liaison bet\veen stage and audience. The clever slave who gives his nalne to bpidiws experiences a similar increase in rapport. He begins the play in dialogue with his fcllow~ slave Thesprio, during which he speaks no asidcs. WheIl Thesprio leaves, Epidicus explicitly ignores the presence of the audience, saying, "solus nunc es" ("Now you are alone"), and he continues addressing hilllselffor four lines (81-84). The meter then changes from trochaic septenarii, a meter that oftcn suggests fon..vard Illotion, to cretics, which with their lilting rhytllln contribute to the sense that the fonvard action has stopped teIllporarily. At the sanle time, Epidicus begins describing hinlself in the first instead of the second person: hc appears to shift from self-address to audience address as he explains his predicaI11cnt (85 -93). Yet Epidicus has not yet turned hil11self completely over to the audience: after sevcrallines of explanation, he debates with himself as if the spectators are not present (94 -99). 2'0) Before he finishes the monologue, hO\vever, he announces the entrance of his young master Stratippoclcs and his friend Chaeribulus to the audience (100-103). He then eavesdrops on thc two young men and commcnts aside in response to w-hat he hears (124-26): his rapport is increasing. When the youths exit, Epidicus addresses hinlself again, then explains to the audience what he plans to do (IOI-OS).

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

37

p Epidicus's rapport grmvs still further at his next entrance (181). In a variation on the usual pattern, Epidicl1s's entrance monologue is unheard by his 11lJster, Periphanes, and his friend Apoecidcs, who are already present 011stage. Epidicus addresses the audience directly (IS [-82), announces his intention to eavesdrop (184-88), and responds to \vhat he hears with an aside (192-93). When he again addresses himself, he speaks not an introverted monologue, but a self-conscious preparation for the role of scnlJls CIIITCIl5 that he takes on: age nunciam O1'n1 te, Epidice, et palliolUll1 in eoHUI11 coniee itaque adsimulato quasi per l1rbC111 totan1 hominenl quaesivcris.

(194-95) All right, now, get yourself ready, Epidicus. Throw your cloak over your neck and pretend that you've been looking for the man all over the city. After Epidicus has deceived the two old men, he is again left onstage alone. This tilHe he does not spcak to himself, but explains to the audience in a fourteen-line monologue his hopcs and fears. Here Plautus offers the play's first extended passage in unaccOIl1panied iambic senarii, underlining Epidicus's tone of confidentiality. He has gradually built his rapport until he and the audience are in close alliance. No character achieves greater rapport with the audience than Plautus's prelnier scrvlfs callidlfs, the eponynlous character of PseudO/liS. Even in Pseudolus's case, ho\,./ever, the rapport is not immediate: Pseudolus builds his rapport in a way similar to that of Libanus and Epidicus. During his first scencs, Pseudolus foreshadows the grcat rapport to come through several asides and implied audience addresses (see Chapter S). He does not, however, address the audience explicitly or speak any long monologues. When Pseudolus and his young master, Calidorus, eavesdrop on the pimp BaIlio, it is BaHio who addresscs the audience, and for sixty lines he is uninterrupted by the eavcsdroppers. When Pseudolus and Calidorus finally do express in words their reactions to BaHio, they speak not to the audience, but to each other. Only after nearly 400 lines is Pseudolus left onstage alone; and likc Epidicus and Libanus, he at tlrst addresses himself rather than the audience (394-400). As \vas the case with Libanus, a metatheatrical reference draws Pseudolus out of his introversion: he abandons his self-address to tell the audience that he will come up with a plan out of nothing as a poet crcates from nothing (4or-S).J() The audience address continues as he explains

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

the need for caution, introduces his old master Simo and his friend Calliph o , and announces his intention to eavesdrop (409- q). Now the audience is Pseudolus's confidant, and his rapport \vith thcm continues to grO\v as hc C011111lents aside while he eavesdrops. Like Epidicus, he addresses hi111self one last time as he prepares to accost his 111aster: "iwr ad te, Pseudole. / orationcll1 tibi para advorsum senem" ("You're being attacked, Pseudolus. Make up a speech to usc against thc old nlan," 453 -54). Fronl that point on, however, he repeatedly addresses the audience explicitly and emphatically. Othcr clever slaves who do not share this precise pattern of speaking first in dialogue, then to thenlselves, and then to the audience, nevertheless experience increasing rapport. The first scene of Alostcllaria is a dialogue between the scrvlIs callidllS Tranio and his enemy, Grumio, and it is Grml1io who has greater rapport: he comments aside on his fellow slave's behavior (3 8) and ends the scene \vith a nlonologuc cOl11plaining that Tranio has ruined his young master (76-83).31 Alliances change dran1Jtically, however, when Tranio reenters nearly 300 lines later with the news that his master, Theopropides, has returned. Tranio not only addresses his comic tUl1ent directly to the audience, unobserved by the four other characters who are onstage, but teasingly asks if any spectator will be crucified in his place (348-62).32 He maintains this rapport \vith the audience throughout his deception of his master, Theopropides, continually sharing with thenl his plans, his anxicty, and his self-satisfaction. Chalinus, the male deceiving slave of CasiJla, has no n10nologues or asides during the first three scenes in which he appears. Only after more than 400 lines does he address the audience in a l11onologue (424 -36); and even here, the degree of rapport is lill1ited by a difference in knowledge: the audience kno\vs, as Chalinus does not, the plans of his master, Lysidan1us. This situation is soon rectified, and Chalinus's rapport increases as he eavesdrops on Lysidarl1us and his ally, 01yr11pio, comments frequently and aggressively on their words and actions, and learns the truth. By the end of the scene, he affirms his rapport \vith the audience with a monologue (S0414). Because of the unique nature of Casilla, where Chalinus shares the role of deceiver \vith Pardalisca, Cleostrata, and Myrrhina, the slave does not remain the principal liaison betwcen audience and stage. 33 His rapport, however, is not lost, for he delivers the play's long and humorous epilogue.:14 Pardalisca, the female slave who contributes to the deception in Casilla, speaks no lines of monologue until line 621, but is closely aligned \vith the audience thereafter (see Chapter 9). Milphio, the clever slave of Poe/Htills, has a short n10nologue (T98-20S)

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

39

p and several short asides (260, 324, 348, 352) early in the play, but he then speaks no asides for nearly 500 lines. Only late in the play does he establish sllstained rapport with the audience, as he eavesdrops on and responds to Syncerastus (817-922). This delayed rapport grows through the scene with Synccrasttls, until Milphio acknowledges the audience explicitly at its end, assuring then1 he will not repeat before them Virhat they have already heard (92I). Chrysalus's increase in rapport is morc rapid. He enters \\lith an address to Apono. When he sees Pistoclcrlls, he responds with a pro forma aside of recognition (Bacci!. 181), and he builds rapport with a conspicuous theatrical reference (214-15), a short monologue when Pistoclerus leaves (22934), and a response aside to the entrance nlonologue of Nicobulus (23942). As we have seen, he maintains exceptional rapport fr0111 that point on. Why do slaves gradually build their rapport, rather than enjoying it from the play's beginning? Part of the answer is aesthetic: the slaves' Imv rapport early 011 makes their later closeness with the spectators all the I1lore impressive and pleasurable. More iIllportant, hmvever, is the saI11e principle of inversion that explains their rapport in the first place. There can be no doubt that Plautus's audience enjoyed watching slaves. Slaves play significant roles in all of Plautus's plays, and in nine of the plays a deception devised by a clever slave provides the core of the plot. Indeed, it has been argued that the expansion of the role of slaves, especially the heroization of the SCfPIIS (allidlls, is Plautus's I110st significant modification of the Greek plays he adapted. J5 Erich Segal's explanation of Plautus's fascination with slaves remains the IllOSt persuasive: the po\ver and freedOl11 he gives to his slaves is Plautus's nlost etTective way of providing his audience \vith a joyous release from everyday ROlnan life. 3 (, As nUlCh fun as the Saturnalian power of the scmi callidi and of other slave characters nlUst have been, however, it could only work within the fantasy of the stage \\lorId, for the inversion of a nuster's authority over his slaves undernlines one of the basic foundations of a slave society. The presence of slaves both in the audience and as actors, and the vast nunlber of new slaves that followed the Roman conquests of Plautus's lifetime, can only have made most Roman spectators more sensitive to any hints of subversion associated with slaves. 37 Evidence of this sensitivity is the fact that in jablllac togatac~plays set in Italy-slaves were not generally portrayed as more clever than their nlasters (Donat. ad Ell/!. 57). The delay and gradual increase of rapport is in part a response to this situation. Instead of trying to align slaves and spectators inullediately, Plautus made the slaves the principal liaison between stage and audience only when the spectators had been

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

seduced into an acceptance of the Saturnalian world onstage; and the graduallv increasing rapport that Illost serl'i callidi experience itself contributes to the seduction. 3H This effect of delayed rapport is most evident in the case of Tranio. Tranio is surely Plautus's least excusable sCrims cdllidllS. His plots serve no real purpose except to make a fool of his master: it is clear from the beginning that they can only delay, not prevent, Theopropides' discovery of what has been going on in his household while he has been away.J,) Theopropides is a bit on the parsimonious side and not terribly bright, but he is scarcely culpable. Plautus's audience, however much it may have reveled in Saturnalian inversion, was not likely to have found such a character as Tral1io palatable, had he 11lerely been thrust upon it. Plautus therefore led his spectators to a state of mind in which they could align themselves more easily \vith Tranio and his antics. Grumio, rather than Tranio, has more rapport with the audience at play's beginning. Though Grlllllio is not the nlost lovable of characters, he expresses views on corruption and profligacy with which many in the audience probably sympathized. Before Tranio returns, the anloral fantasy onstage is gradually made more acceptable to the audience. Tranio's young master, Philolaches, through his long Illonologue, proves that he is something more than merely a stock corrupted youth, and that he feels remorse for his profligacy. The next scene reveals that Philematium, the primary reason Philolacbes is broke, is not only charming, but feels real affection and gratitude toward Philolaches. Finally, the audience is caught up in the party that occurs onstage, and all thoughts of 1110ra1ity are replaced by fascination and fun. Only then does Tranio begin his long series of addresses to the audience. The exceptions to the pattern of delayed rapport a1110ng ser!!i callidi further demonstrate the iIllportance of seduction. Chrysalus's increase in rapport is unusually h1st, but by the tinle he enters the plot of BI1(ciIidcs, it is already well advanced. The seduction of the audience has occurred with the conquest of the young man Pistoc1erus by the Bacchis sisters, and Pis toderus's rejection of the stern adillonitions of his teacher, Lydus:lO Palaestrio shares his thoughts with the audience in asides and 1110nologues from his first entrance in J\;filcs glorioslls. Palaestrio, however, also serves as the play's prologlls, so that Illuch of the first rapport he gains is less as a character than as an actor, speaking the prologue. Finally, in Persa, no masters appear, and the principal scrvus (allidlls is also the play's lover. The status of the scmi ca/lidi as slaves thus becomes less significant, and both of them, Toxilus and Sagaristio, can establish rapport with the audience immediately through monologues (1 -15).

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

4'

p Messenio, the slave of Mcnaechmus of Syracuse in i\1cllacclillli, provides a revealing contrast to the scrvi callidi. Mcssenio transcends the stock characteristics of Plautine slaves. He is not a serul/S caIlidw, for he does not deceive; but he is considerably 1110re synlpathetic than most of the "good slaves" in Plautus. Since he does not challenge the audience's sense of proper authority, Messenio does not require a delay in his rapport, but he maintains rapport with the audience during all his appearances onstage. Indeed, Ivlessenio's status as a slave lies at the heart of his rapport. His first aside is a response to a warning from his master not to speak beyond his station: em illoc cninl verba esse 111C servanl 5cio. non potuit paucis plura plane proloqui. venU11 tamen nequeo contineri quin loquar. (250-53) Ouch! When he talks like that, I kno\v I'nl a. slave. He couldn't have said more, more clearly, in so few words. Still, I can't be held back from speaking the truth. The aside aligns the audience in1n1ediatcly with Messenio: he is looking out for his master's interests but is aware of his subservient position. When Menaechnll.1S enters the house of the prostitute Erotium, Messenio shares his fears for his nlaster with the audience and again rell1inds them of his own status as slave: periit probe: ducit lembum. dierectum navis praedatoria. sed ego inscitus qui domino me postulem moderarier: dicto ll1e enlit audientem, haud i111peratoren1 sibi. (441-44) He's really done for: the pirate ship is towing our sailboat to its destruction. But hovl siBy I am to expect to contro1111Y lluster: he bought nle to obey him, not to give hin1 orders. Messenio is then absent for a long tin1e, but when he returns, his rapport with the audience is magnified, as he delivers his own variation of the "good-slave" nl0nody, explaining how obedience is preferable to punishment (966-89). Such monodies occur in 1l1any of Plaut us's plays. Usually, however, they are in some \vay ironic: the slave is not really a good slave at all, or he is a pOlnpous a.ss, or he is being duped."'! The sincerity of Messenio's nl0nody is thus particularly striking: he really is a good slave, he has done as his master ordered, and he is honestly concerned about Menacch-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

mus's welfare:!2 He nlaintains his close relationship with the audience through two asides as he rescues Epidanlnian Ivlenaechmus from the slaves who try to tie hinl up (1004-6, 1019). When he thinks he has been freed, the same character \vho throughout the play has shared with the audience the fact of his slavery appropriately addresses the spectators, asslll11ing that they agree to act as witnesses. He turns to them as if to lead then1 in the requisite formula ofennncipation: "Clll11 tu libel' es, Messenio, / gaudeo" ("Since you are free, Messenio, I rejoice," 1031-32); and then he adds, "credo hercle vobis" ("By Hercules, I believe you," 1032). It is Messenio who ultinutely brings about the recognition of the two brothers, and he shares with the audience his growing realization of the twins' identities (I071-72, 1082- 84, II 10). Finany, Messenio speaks a humorous epilogue announcing the auction of Epida111nian Menaechnms's property. portrayal ofEuc1io, the 1l1iser whose pot of gold (alllllla) gives its name to Allil/laria, ofFers an excellent example of all the phenOll1ena discllssed in this chapter: desire for rapport, failure to gain rapport, con1petidon for rapport, and hierarchy and variation of rapport. When AIIlllfaria begins, Euclio has found the pot of gold in his house. He guards it maniacally, digging it up and burying it again many times a day. Meanwhile, Euclio's daughter has been raped by a young man named Lyconides, and she is pregnant (she gives birth offstage in the course of the play). Una\vare of the rape and pregnancy, Euclio agrees to give his daughter in marriage to his neighbor, Megadorus, Lyconides' rich uncle. (Megadorus is also un~t\vare of the rape and pregnancy.) Euclio is convinced that Megadorus has sOll1ehow found out about his gold, and when Megadorus sends a troop of slaves to Euclio's house to prepare the w-edding feast, the miser panics and decides to remove the gold to the grove of the god Silvanus. Lyconides' slave,·!3 who has been sent by his master to find out what is happening at Euclio's house, sees where Euclio hides the gold and steals it. Just after Euclio discovers that his treasure is gone, Lyconides arrives to contess that he raped Euclio's daughter and to ask to marry her. After a hilarious scene of confusion, as Euclio thinks Lyconides has come to confess that he stole the gold,"!'! Euclio learns the truth about his daughter. Lyconides' slave then tells his master that he has stolen the treasure (he hopes to buy his fl.-eedom \vith it). Here the text breaks off, but an ancient SUll1mary of the play and some rcmaining fragments suggest that Euclio experienced a convcrsion and gave sonle or all of the gold to Lyconides as a dowTy."15 Euclio's 1Host conspicuous characteristic, after his obsession with the gold, is his alienation."!i) To Megadorus's kindness, he responds with paraPlaUtllS'S

CHARACTERS AND SPECTKl'ORS

43

p 11oi::1.. His encounters with the other characters in the play-Staphyla (his maid), the cooks sent by Megaciorns, Lyconides' slave, and Lyconides h1111self-are all hostile. He is reluctant to take part in C0111111U11ity events (105T2), he tries to avoid greeting his feHow citizens (r r 3), and he is so absorbed \vith his gold that he has not noticed that his daughter is in the last stages of pregnancy. Patterns of staging underline the 111iser's isolation. EucliD repeatedly leaves the stage, often in the middle of a dialogue, in order to check on the gold (G6, 203, 242, 397, 444, 627, Goo); and he spends several scenes carrying his treasure (hidden) with hin1, a visual reminder that he values the gold over his relationships with his interlocutors (449-586). Euclio does, however, have one human connection: the audience. He tries to establish rapport v.lith the spectators ahnost inllnediately, conlplaining to them that Staphyla walks too slowly (46-47) and responding with an aside when Staphyla murmurs under her breath (52). He then begins a pattern that he is to repeat throughout nlllch of the play: asides and short 1110nologues expressing his fear for his gold (60-66, 79-80). Such fear is also at the center of his next three soliloquies (105-T9, T78-81, 265-67), as well as the suspicious asides with which he responds to the kind words of Megadorus (184-216). At the end of his scene with Megadorus, Euclio leaves to buy food for the wedding. He reenters with his longest 1110nologue yet, explaining that he bought no food, because everything \vas too expensive (371 - 87). When he sees that his door is open and overhears a cook talking about a pot, he enters the house in terror, but not before he prays briefly to Apollo for aid (]94-96) and again expresses his fears to the audience (]9T-9], ]97)· After a violent encounter with the cooks, Euclio carries the gold from the house himself, explaining his nlotivations in a nl0nologue (449-71). On seeing Megadorus, he reluctantly acknowledges that he will have to talk to him (473 -74), and he responds with several asides to Megadorus's long nl0nologue against do\vered wives. In the ensuing dialogue, he continues his skeptical asides in response to Megadorus (547-48, 574-78). When Megadorus leaves, there is a subtle change in Euclio's relationship with the audience; for he now addresses not thelll, but his pot of gold, and then the goddess Fides ("Good Faith"), in whose shrine he plans to hide the treasure (580-86). This distancing of Euclio fronl the audience prepares thenl for the entrance of his antagonist, Lyconides' slave, who arrives onstage as Euclio enters the shrine. The slave speaks a variation of the "good-

slave" speech (587-607), the longest nl0nologue since the prologue that is not spoken or observed by Euclio. The monologue helps bring the slave the rapport he needs to \vin over the audience: he is, after all, both a tricky slave

THE THEATER. OF PLAUTUS

44

and a thief. At the same time, it provides the play's first significant threat to Euclio's position as principal liaison bct\veen stage and audience. \Vhen Euclio elnerges fiolll the shrine, he again addresses Fides rather than the audience, and he is overheard by the eavesdropping slave (608-15). After Euclio goes back into the house, the slave addresses the audience again (as well as the gods and Fides), and he enters the shrine to steal the gold (616- 2 3). Euclio reenters \vith a brief monologue (624-27), and after he catches the slave in the shrine, he shares with the audience his exasperation Jnd his uncertainty as to what to do (656-58). The slave, ho\vever, is now winning the battle for rapport: he also has an Jside (642), and when Euclio aoes back into the shrine, the slave informs the audience of his determina"tion to get the gold (66r-66). Euclio reenters with another 1110nologue: this time his chattiness with the audience does him in, for he reveals to the eavesdropping slave v..,here he will hide the treasure now (667-76). The series of alternating short monologues ends with the slave telling the audience that he will hide and watch Euclio conceal the gold (677-8r). Since his entrance, Lyconides' slave has spoken more Jines to the audience than Euclio has. He has also twice eavesdropped on Euclio \vithout himself being observed. This pattern, in \vhich a character enters and exits \vithout ever being aware that an eavesdropper is present, occurs only three other times in Roman comedy:17 Lyconides' slave has usurped Euclio's position as the major confider in the audience. When the slave returns, he has stolen the pot of gold, and he rejoices with another monologue (70r-r2). In sharp contrast to the slave's joy, Euclio enters in cOlllplete confusion, and he delivers his last 1110nologue of the extant portion of the play: perii interii occidi. quo curram? quo nOll curram? tene, tene. quem? quis? nescio, nl1 video, caecus eo atque equidenl quo eam aut ubi Si111 aut qui sim nequeo cum anlmo certum invcstigare. obsecro vos ego, nli auxilio, oro obtestor, sitis et hominem demonstretis, quis eam abstulerit. quid est? quid ride tis? novi omnes, scio fures esse hic c0111plures, 7I 7 qui vestitu et creta occultant sese atque sedent quasi sint frugi. 718 quid ais tu? tibi credere certl1l11 est, nalll esse bonum ex voltu COgllOSCO. 4H 719 helll, nemo habet horum? occidisti. dic igitur, quis habet? nescis?

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

45

p heu nle miserul11, miserc perij, male perditus, pessimc ornatus eo: tal1tu111 gemiti et mali maestitiaequc hie dies 111i optulit, famcm et pallpcrienl. perditissinUls ego Sllln Olllniul11 in terra; nam quid 1111 opust vita, qui tantU111 auri perdidi, quod concustodivi sedlllo? egol1lct Ine defraudavi aninlllll1que 11leUll1 geniumque 111eum; nunc eo alii laetiftcantur mea malo ct danIno. pati nequeo. (7T3-26) fmlshed! Dead! Ruined! Where should I run? Where should I not run? Grab him! Grab hinl! Grab who? Who is it? I don't know! I can't see anything! 1'111 blind, and I can't even tell for sure \\There 1'111 going or where I anI or who I ;1111! Please, you folks, I beg you, I beseech you, help nIC, and show me the guy who stole it. What is it? What are you all laughing at? I know the whole lot of you! I know there are a plenty of thieves here, hiding themselves in their nice \vhite clothing and sitting there as if they ''lere decent people. [I-Ie addresses a lIlelllber ~f the alldiCllce:j What do you say? I have decided to trust you, for I can tell fr0111 your face that you are good. Hey! Doesn't one of these have it? You've killed me. Tell 111e, then, who has it? You don't know? Oh, poor I11e! I've perished n1iserably, I'n1 conlpletely ruined, utterly destroyed: this day has brought n1e so nmch misery and evil and sadness, hunger and poverty. I'm the nlost miserable person in the whole \vorld; for what's the point ofliving, when I have lost all that gold, which I guarded so carefully? I've cheated n1yself of everything 1 might desire or enjoy, and now other people are rejoicing in this, in my suffering and loss. I can't bear it. 1'111

In his despair, Euclio seeks his bearings where he has found theln throughout the play: with the audience, whom he addresses explicitly for the first tin1e (7I 5 ~I6). He has discussed thc gold with thcm and with theln only since the play's beginning, so he naturally expects that they will help him recover it. Euclio's special relationship with the audience, however, has eroded since the entrance of Lyconides' slave, and no\'l it fails him C0111pletely. When his plea inspires only laughter, Euclio realizes that his bond with the audience as a whole is gone. He accuses then1 of being thieves: the thieves "hiding themselves in their nice white clothing and sitting there as if they were decent people" are the more respectable nleinbers of the audi-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

cnce, who wear togas whitened ''lith chalk and who sit in the available seats in the theater. ·I'! Despairing of help from the audience as a whole, Euclio appeals to an individual spectator. With the failure of this attempt to find at least one ally in the audience, Euclio's nlood changes from hysteria to despondency, and he begins to recognize that his obsession with the gold caused him to deprive himself to no avail. Euclio has slowly begun the progression that will lead to his awareness in the play's last scenes that the gold brought hin1 only trouble (frags. 3 ~4)· This recognition of his own failure is directly connected ,vith Euclio's alienation from the audience. At the same time that he acknowledges that he cheated himself, he says that others (alii, 725) gain pleasure in his situation. Those others are the spectators. 50 Euclio refers to them in the third person, for his rapport "vith them is gone. In Allhtlaria, then, Plautus uses Euclio's rapport with the audience to reinforce his association between the Iniser's gold and his alienation. He establishes through staging that Euclio is completely alienated from all other characters onstage, but he arranges his monologues and asides so that Euclio has one human connection, the audience. That connection revolves around Euclio's obsession ''lith his gold, for in ahnost all his nlonologues and asides he talks about his fears for the gold or his nliserliness. When the gold is threatened, Euclio's relationship with the audience also begins to fade; and when the gold disappears, so does Euclio's rapport with the spectators. The audience can thus appreciate Euclio's alienation, and they can feel personally involved in his conversion. 51 Rapport bet\veen characters and audience, then, is a ccntral feature ofPlautine dramaturgy, and hierarchy and variation of rapport are key elenlents in Plautus's method of characterization. Not only do characters desire rapport with the audience and compete to win over the spectators, but often the effect of entire plays depends upon which characters most succeed in winning them over, and when. As was the case with blandishment and teasing, the techniqu.es used to manipulate rapport are not unique to Plautus. They appear throughout drama, especially cOInedy, in all ages. One thinks, for example, of the importance of monologues in Illolding Hamlet's relationship with his audienceY'~ Even in a much more naturalistic tradition, rapport can play an il11portant role, as when monologues and asides align Algernon with the audience early in Wilde's The Importal1ce of Beillg Eamest. Manipulation of rapport, however, plays a uniquely inlportant role in the plays of PlautllS, where the relationship between actors and audience is so close and open, and \\There characters spend such an unusually large anlount of time

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

47

p making their case to the audience. Again, a c0111pa1'150n with the: other ancient cOlnie playwrights is reveallng. Characters in Aristophanes seek the audience's goochvm (e.g., Kllighf:; 36 -39. 1209-10; Clollds 1437-39; Birds 30), and sometimes they even ask the spectators for help (e.g., Ach. 206-7; Pedec 20-2J, 150-53). Monologues such as Strepsiadcs' at the beginning of Clo/Jds help to mold spectators' responses to characters, as do the occasional eavesdropping scenes, like the scene in \:vhich Trygaclls observes War preparing to grind up the Greck cities (Peace 236 - 88). Both eavesdropping scenes and extended monologues by characters other than the chorus, hO\vever, arc rare in Aristophancs. In the whirlwind experience of Old COInedy, where a chorus is present during most of the phy, and the playwright himself is never far from the audience's minds, rapport between characters and the audience is severely restricted. In New Conledy, rapport plays a nluch larger role. The characters of New Conledy spend a great amount of tinle speaking monologues, and Menander's plays offer several exce11ent examples of n1Jnipulatiol1 of rapport. Delnea and his son Moschion, for exall1ple, each strive to \\lin the audience's sympathy through long 1110nologues in Salida; and nl0nologues and scenes of eavesdropping encourage drastic readjustment of the audience's alignment with characters during the course of Epitrcpolltcs. Rapport does not, hmvever, appear to have had the sanle importance in New Comedy that it has in Plautus. As \ve have seen, the extant nl0nologues of New Comedy tend to be less rhetorical than those ofPlautus. Deception appears to have played a smaller role in New Comedy, and, at least in the extant plays, deceivers make lnuch less of an effort to coopt the spectators as allies. It appears, fcn- exanlple, that P!autus added a third deception when he transformed Menander's Dis ('xapato/l ("The Double Deceiver") into his Bacchides; and Menander's 11l0st extensive deception scenes, those of Aspis, show little attel1lpt to align the deceiver with the audience through n10nologues or eavesdropping. S3 Menander also has considerably fewer scenes of eavesdropping than Plautus does, and his eavesdroppers are nlllCh less likely to tell the audience that they will eavesdrop or to respond in detail to what

distribution of monologues reverses the relative rapport of the competing Micio and Demea between the beginning and the end of AdclpllOc. Nevertheless, manipulation of rapport is less central to Terence's dramaturgy than it is to Plautus's. A greater percentage of Plautus's corpus than of Tc-rence's is dedicated to monologues,s., and Terence's monologue speakers usually place less emphasis on their desire to persuade or win over the spectators. Deception also plays a smaller role in Terence, and both deceivers and eavesdroppers spend £:lr less tinle sharing their plans and reactions with the audience. lzapport is important both to the \\Triters of New Comedy and to Terence, and deserves further study; but Plautus relies on and manipulates rapport to an unusual degree. 1 have concentrated in this chapter on the status of the character/actor as character. Again, ho\vever, we will do \vell to relnelnber that Plautus seldom lets his audience forget the position of the actor as actor. The characters who so desire rapport with the spectators are also actors who want their performances to be noticed and appreciated. The same mixture of actors' attitudes evident in the previous chapter therefore applies to the phenomena described in this chapter as \velL The characters' desire for rapport is an extreme example of the perfonners' dependence on the spectators, and the major exalllples of variation in rapport, namely the clever slaves, show PlautllS adjusting his portrayal of characters to assure that his perfonners win over the audience. Even within the context of characters' desire for rapport, however, teasing of the audience is occasionally evident. The characters' requests for attention, for beliet~ for sympathy, and even for impossibilities, reveal the same kind of teasing manipulation found in the prologues and epilogues. The clement of teasing becomes more blatant-and funnier\vhen the characters ask spectators to do things detrimental to their own interests: act as witnesses to an illegal emancipation, bid for a worthless parasite, and even be beaten or crucified. The actor playing Euclio teases the spectators more directly, accusing them of being thieves. Once again, then, Plautus emphasizes two realities and two attitudes: the spectators are encouraged to respond silllultaneously to both actors and characters, and to appreciate both the subservience and the license of the actors/characters. .,tlleS

they hear. Terence offers a similar contrast. His plays, too, feature l1l0nologues , eavesdropping, asides, deception, and the other features that contribute to rapport. In each of Terence's plays, hierarchy and variation in rapport play a role, sometil1les a vital one. The long, intilnate, and unexpected monologue of the adlllcscclIs Pamphilus, tC)1· example, has a powerful effect on the a1igmllent betvveen characters and spectators in Hccym (361-414); and the

THE THEATER 01' PLAUTUS

CHARACTERS AND SPECTATORS

+9

p Fr~nch

'GlRiElE.CiE ,OR ROiTvlE? PLAUTUS not only e111phasized that his performers were both actors and characters; he also kept his audience continually a\vare that the actors/ characters were both Greek and Roman. All of Plautus's plays are set ostensibly in the Greek world, and characters repeatedly call attention to the Greek locale. Yet the way in which characters emphasize their "Grcekness" often only serves to re111ind the spectators that they are not really Greek at all; and characters also make frequent allusiol1s to Italy and l~ol11e that are incongruous coming fr01ll Greeks. This 111ixture of self-conscious geographical allusions is of profound iInportance for the history of Rome. Set in Greece but acutely and conspicuously aware of their Roman origins, Plautus's plays are, in the words of Erich Gruen, "our chief docl1Il1ent for the cultural convergence of Hellas and IlO1lle," the earliest and one of the lnost wide-ranging literary sources for the reaction to the Greek world that was to be a ddining feature ofRol1un culture. 1 For the history of European theater, Plautine geography is equally significant. Plautus's self-conscious response to setting was not completely without precedent. Aristophones' Olympus (Peace) and C1oudcuckoobnd (Birds) arc decidedly theatrical locations; and Pan, speaking the prologue of Menander's Dys(oios, asks for the help of the spectators' imagination in establishing the play's setting in Phyle (1-4).2 Naevius, Plautus's older H...OIllan conten1porary, had his Greek characters make allusions to cities near Rome (CRF 2I).3 As the first extant author of plays derived fiOIn and set in a foreign culture, however, PlautllS set the precedent for the play with place that has continued to pervade European and American drama, especially COInedy, through the twentieth century. Shakespeare's Italians, Beallmarchais's

THE THEATER. OF PLAUTUS

50

nobles disguised as Spaniards, and the vcry British Japanese of Gilbert and Sullivan's lvlikado all derive ultimately [1'0111 Pbutus's partially Romanized Greeks:! It is therefore no surprise that PlalltllS'S use of geography has received a (rood deal of scholarly attention. In placing his plays in Greece, critics have ~oted, Phutus protected hinlself £r0111 the charge that he ridiculed l<....omans, and he provided his audience \\i-jth the exoticism and prestige of Greek culture. On the other hand, SOInc scholars, noting the irony of characters' insistence that they are in Greece, have argued that Plal1tus's "Greece" is 1110St important not as a real location, but as an escape h.-om the constraints of Roman morality. Whereas some have cmphasized the Hellenophobic inlplications of Plautus's portrayal of Greeks, for others the 111ixture of Grcek and Roman ele111ents allO\vs Plautus to 1110ck both Greek and Roman life. Specific allusions to Greece and to Rome have also played an important role in Plautille studies. Scholars have made lists of Plaut us's geographical allusions and have used theIll as evidence for Plautine originality, the chronology of the plays, and Plautus's I11etatheatrical telldencies. 5 There is nevertheless more to be said both about ho\v allusions to Greece and Rome would have affected a Roman audience, and about what Plautus accomplished with the allusions. In this chapter, I will first argue that in evaluating Plautus's allusions to things l~Ol1lan, we nlust ahvays consider whether or not most nlembers ofPlautus's audience would have recognized that the institution alluded to is incongruous in a Greelc milieu, and that allusions to Greece can, depending on their intensity and context, either reinforce or undennine the Greek setting. Next I will consider how Plautus arranged his geographical allusions in order to intensify their comic, metatheatrical, and satiric effects. Finally, 1 \vill evaluate the role of geography in scenes describing illicit behavior of slaves, where Plautus uses Greek and Roman allusions both to distance the events onstage from his audience and to subvert that distance through irony. In order to appreciate the variable effect Plautus's geographical references had on his audience, it will be useful to begin with some allusions of one of his modern descendants, Cole Porter. In his Kiss 114c Kate, based on The Talning rifthe SltrC!l', Porter created one of his n10st audacious list songs. Taking his cue fro111 a line of Shakespeare, Porter has his Petruchio sing, "Where Is thc Life That Late I Led," in which he laments his marriage to Katherine and recalls his previous romanccs. Anlong the lyrics are: J

Where is Fedora, the \vild virago? It's lucky I Inissed her gangster sister from Chicago

GR.EECE OR ROME'

51

p and And sweet Lucretia, so young and gay-ce? What scandalous doin's in the ruins of P0111peii! Both sets of lyrics arc anachronisms. The two a11ach1'o111s1115, however, would have different effects on 1110St members of the audience. Almost Jll in the audience \,voltld be struck immediately by the f..1Ct that "Petruchio" could have heard of neither Chicago nor gangsters. Only the 1110re scholarly members of the audience, however, would be aware that Pompeii was not excavated until the eighteenth century, and even most of those scholars \\TQuld not notice the anachronism unless given the opportunity to reflect on it. For most lllcnlbers of the audience, therefore, the "Chicago" line would produce an immediate laugh, and a conspicuous reminder that they are watching an American actor in contenlporary United States. The "ruins ofPOlllpeii" line, however, would seenl to most members of the audience perfectly in place \\lithin the lzenaissance Italian setting of the scene. Allusions that look sinli1ar to a scholar, thercfcJre, would have quite ditTerent effects on nlost spectators. It is important to keep this fact in lnind \vhen evaluating the allusions to lZome within Pbutus's plays set in Greece. Confronted with nuny of Plaut us's lZoman allusions, the audience could not have helped but be reminded that they were watching not real events in Greece but a play in lZome. Such a reminder occurs, for exanlple, near the end of Rlldcl/s. Labrax the pimp uses as one of his several excuses for getting out of an oath the absurd assertion that he is under twenty-five (Rlldcl1s 1380-82). He refers to the lcx Plactoria, recently enacted at lZome, which removed those under twenty-five fronl responsibility for their debts. 6 This excuse nlost, if not all, members of the audie!lce would recognize as lZoman and not Greek: the line is funny for its absurdity with respect to both Labrax's age and his geographical position. Few spectators, however, would have noticed nlotT than a 6:action of the Roman allusions that scholars point out after studying Plautus in the library. Most spectators probably had at least a superficial knovvledge of Greek life and institutions.7 Phutus's own sophisticated use of the Greek language suggests that nuny of his spectators kne\v at least sonle Greek. Veterans in the audience \vould have served in Greek lands. Many Greeks visited or lived in R..ome, as sbves, diplomats, teachers, and 111erchants; and affluent Romans taught their children Greek literature and history. Nevertheless, few could have had the thorough knowledge of Greek culture necessary to recognize that many of the items peculiar to Roman life nlentioned by Plautus's characters could not be found in Greece. Furthernlore, it is doubtTl-JE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

fill that any spectators would have been on the lookout for geographical in.Olwruities in their afternoon's entertainment. Consider, for example, refl ~ cren ces to crucifixion. Crucifixion of slaves \vas [ir more common among the Romans than in the Greek world. H Still, it would be unwise to aSSUllle that Plautus'S audience would have re:cognized his slaves as Roman rather than Greek when they fret about being crucified, or when their masters threaten them with crucifixion (e.g., Asill. 548; ./1111.59; kId. 310, 372; Rlfd. 1070).<) Most in the Roman audience would have taken crucifixion for granted, unaware that it was not generally practiced as a punishment of slaves ill Greece:. Ivlore sophisticated or well-traveled spectators may have been able, upon reflection, to recall dut they had seen no crucifixions in their own experiences with Greeks, but the fast pace of performance hardly enconraged such reflection. Allusions like those to crucifixion are certainly important: they shmv Plautus making changes in his Greek originals, and they would make the plots and characters more fanliliar and understandable. Their efFect on the spectators, however, would be limited, as they would not :1ppear out of place in the Greek milieu. 10 It is impossible to distinguish for certain which R01llan allusions would and would not have been recognized as incongruous by Plautus's Judience. Indeed, each individual spectator would have had a different experience, recognizing some incongruities not acknmvledged by other spectators and missing some that others saw. In evaluating Plautus's llse of Roman allusions, therefore, it is wisest to concentrate on those which are almost cerrain to have caught the attention of most in the audience: references to specific locations in Rome or Italy, or to institutions that most Romans would recognize as exclusively ROl11an. As virtually everyone in the audience would have been familiar with Roman life and culture, 11 allusions to Greek institutions not found in lZ0111e would seldom have gone unnoticed. Here, too, however, a distinction nlust be made. Many allusions to things Greek would, of course, reinforce the Greek setting. Others, however, are presented with such intensity that they would in fact remind the audience that the characters are not really Greek at all. Petruchio's song again provides a useful tool for c0111parison. By itself, his reference to Pompeii would reinforce the Italian setting for all spectators except those very few \vho recognize the anachronism. The al1usion to Pompeii, however, come:s in the midst of a vast number of allusions to Italian places: Mona \vas in Verona, Alice in the Pitti Palace, Lisa at the Leaning To\ver of Pis a, and so forth. Together the allusions to Italian geography make the song too Italian for any approximation of verisimilitude. The audience is reminded that they are watching a play, and that Petrllchio (or rather Porter) is taking extra pains to be as Italian as possible. Sinlilarly, GREECE

Ol~

ROME'

53

p when Pblltns gratuitously piles up his allusions to things Greek or other_ wise causes his characters to be too Greek, they call attention to the flet that the"y are not really Greek at all. Such exaggerated allusions have been aptly called "hyper-Hellenization." I~ In lHcllacclillli, for exanlple, the Syracllsan McnJcchmus and his slave Messenio have recently arrived in Epidal1l11us. Mcnaechl1111s insists that Ivlcsscnio give him the purse with their travel funds. When Mcssenio asks why, the l1laster responds, "ne 111ihi danll1t1I11 in Epid~11l1nO duis" ("So that you don't damn Illy money in Epid~mlmls," 2()7). The Latin pun does more to undermine than to reinforce the Greek setting. The sophistication with which Plautus employs hyper-Hellenization is most evident when he has his characters use the term bm-{wrlIs. The Greek word ~o:p~apoc; refers to anyone \vho does not speak Greek. Not surprisingly, given the ethnocentricity of the Greeks, the word also carried Connotations of contel11pt: hence the English word "barbarian." 1:1 These two implications-nan-Greek, and uncivilized-remain 111 Plautus's Latin USe of the \vord, but Plautus almost always uses lwrbams to mean not just nonGreek, but specifically "l<--oman" or "Italian." Thus, for example, he uses it of his own adaptation of Greek plays ("Maccus vortit barbare," Asill. 11; "Plautus vertit barbare," '1HIl. 19) and ofl-tonlan auctions (Stich. 1~J3). The result is exquisite. On the one hand, by describing Italians as barbafi, characters \voltld intensity their own Greekness, expressing the contempt for non-Greeks that the l<--omans knew Greeks felt. Yet at the same time, the audience is reminded that these are in fact actors in Rome feigning disdain for things Roman. 1·1 The effect of such hyper-Hellenization is clearest in a passage of Captiui. Unable to get anyone to invite him to dinner, the parasite Ergasilus says he \vill resort to desperate measures: nunc barbarici lege certlllllst ius 111elllll omne persequi: qui cOl1sililllll iniere, quo nos victu et vita prohibeant, is dielll dicam, irrogabo nlllitam, ut mihi cenas decem meo arbitratu dent, Cl1lll cara annona sit. (492-95) Now I have decided to exercise all 111y legal rights according to barbarian la\v: those who have conspired to keep me away from food and livelihood I \vill bring to court, and I will demand a fine of ten dinners given at nly discretion, when fc)od IS expenSIve. Ergasilus enlphasizes that he is in Greece, vvhere the Roman way of bringing suit against conspirators in business call be called "barbarian law." 15 But

THE THEATER OF PU\UTUS

tIt: '-- F1LIctice 1 > ,',·on',;. of {wrb"riclIs and his own Clmiliaritv- with 1z.oman legal ;lnd legal language turn Ergasilus's Greekness on its head. Ergasilus's use of barlJt1riCIIs thus blurs the distinction between hyperHdknization and Roman allusion. That distinction is blurred still further when PlaUtl1S'S characters call themselves Greeks, as if that \vere sOlnething unusual, or use the ter111 jJClgmccdri ("act like a Greek") to describe dissolute behavior; for \\rhen characters call one another Greeks, they are in [Ict speaking not as Greeks but as Romans, to whom Greekness is something to be noted. Roman playwrights may occasionally have used such expressions with inditTerence to the resulting incongruity: Cicero reports that in one of his tragedies, Pacuvius wrote, "id quod nostri caelum memorant, Grai perhibent aethera" ("That which our people call each/III r"sky"], and the Greeks call aether," TRF Pacuvius R9 = Cic. ~T\lat. D. 2.91).1() As we shall sec, however, Plautus's uses of gmcclI.l and pClgraccari reveal 110t only that he intended the incongruity, but that he took pains to call attention to it. The humorous effect of Plaut us's play with place is obvious, and it has been observed in many previous studies. Ii The extent to which Plautus arranges Greek and l<--oman allusions for the nlaXinlUnl cOlnic effect, however, has not been sufIiciently appreciated. Throughout his corpus, Plautus introduces conspicuous allusions to things Roman and to things Greek ahnost simultaneously, thus creating \vhat I call "juxtaposition jokes." These juxtaposition jokes can occur with remarkable eftlciency, as in the dialogue between the slave Sagaristio, disguised as a Persian, and the pimp Dordalus in Persa. Asked his name, the "Persian" responds, "Vaniloquidorus Virginesvendonides Nugiepiloquides Argentumexterebronides Tedigniloquides Nugides Palponides 1K Quodsemelarripides Numquameripides" (702-5). The name is funny not only because it is so long and pompous-it means something along the lines of "Liarodore Girlsellerson, Nonsensetalkerson Moneyrubbingoutson Sayingwhatyoudeservesoll Nonsenseson Strokeson Whatol1ceIgrabson Neversnatchawayson"-but also because it is made up of Latin words with Greek suffixes: Sagaristio, pretending to be a Persian, actually speaks simultaneously as a Greek and as a ROlllan. The first scene of ill/os tel/aria shows hmv juxtaposition jokes can work on a larger scale. The rustic slave Grumio chastises his colleague, Tranio, "dies noctesqlle bibite, pergraecamini, anlicas emite liberate" ("Go ahead, drink night and day, act like Greeks, buy prostitutes and ft-ce thenl," 22-23). Eight lines later, Plautus intensifIes the joke inherent in one Athenian slave telling another, "Go ahead and act like Greeks": Grlllllio says that Tranio's master, Philolaches, used to be the finest youth cx o/IlJli Attica Cft-om all of

GREECE OR. ROME?

55

Attica"). Yes, thesc are Greeks saying, "Go act like Greeks." Later in the scene, Plautus repeats the same joke. When Grmllio again says, "Go ahead, pCIgramllllilli," Tranio responds that he is going to Piraeus to buy fish (6467). The reference to Piraeus probably conles fr0111 Plautus's Greek origi_ nal: to an Athenian, Tranio would have seemed especially profligate because he is willing to travel all the \'./ay to the harbor at Piraeus to find the best fish. I') Plautus's retention of the line, ho\vever, docs not reflect mindless rcpetition of a joke nleaningless to a l~oman audience. Rather, Plautus has used a reference to a Greek locale to help turn llluch of the scene into a joke based on the fact that these are Romans, pretending to be Greeks, insulting each other for acting like Greeks. The spectators, nmv in l~01ne, nO\\' in Greece, are left with their heads spinning. Juxtaposition jokes also renlind the spectators that the characters are in fact actors in I-tome pretending to be in Greece. This nletatheatrical effect of Greek and Ronnn allusions also has not gonc unnoticed, but again, the sustained \vay in which Plautus intensifies the effect remains insufficiently appreciated. Indeed, the Greek setting in itself encourages avvareness of theater. Here, as so often when one con;;;ider.'i questions of place, an analogy with English Renaissance drama is nlost productive. The plays of Shakespeare, Jonson, and their contelnporaries set in Italy lent themselves to l1letatheater: Elizabethan and Jacobean pla)Twrights and audicnces viewed Italians as deceitful and therefore like actors, and they associated Italy witb various fonns of theater and spectade. 2 () Ahnost the same words could describe the l~oman view of Greeks and Greece in Plautus's day. Greeks, it \vas agreed, were deceitful,21 and 111uch of the theater Plautus's audience knew, induding Plautus's own genre of comedy, derived fi'OIll Greece. Moreover, in alllikc1ihood some of Plaut us's actors were themselves Greeks resident in Rome, or lnembers of Greek guilds of actors stopping in Rome. 22 It is therefore not surprising that Plautus, like Shakespeare and Jonson, took advantage of his setting for mctatheatrical effects. Both hyperHellenization and incongruous allusiolls to l-tome often occur in scenes where the sense of "playas play" is at its rllost intense. The key passage for the theatricality of Plautus's geography is the prologue of iVicllaccllllJi. 23 After greeting the spectators, seeking their attention and goodwill, and joking that he brings them Plautus, with his tongue, not his hands ("apporto vobis PlautUln, lingua non 11unu"), the prologlls calls attention to the fact that all palliatac are set in the Greek world: atque hoc poetae faciunt in comoediis: omnis res gestas esse Athenis autumant, quo illud vobis graecu111 videatur Illagis; THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

ego I1Usqualll dicam nisi ubi (Ictum dicitur. atgue adeo hoc argumentu111 graecissat, tamen nOll atticissat, verum sicilicissitat. (7-12) This is what poets do in cOllledies: they say that everything occurs in Athens, so that it will seem 1110re Greek to vou; as for me, I will say this story occurred nowhere except wh'ere it is said to have happened. And though this 11I/SIIIIIClltIIlJl is "Greekicized," nevertheless it is not "Atticized"; rather it is "Sicilicized."

The setting of plays is Greek because playwrights make it that way; and this play will be no exception. The prolo<-~lIs's IIJ1Sqll(1I11 ("nowhere") can mean either that the play occurred only \vhere the prolo,glls heard it did, or that it occurred nowhere at al1. 2 -1- The jingling made-up verbs-inaccurate, since the play and most of the events leading up to the play do not occur in Sicily~5-reinforce this reminder that the Greek setting is a £llsehood. Moreover, Sicily was recognized as an important center of £uTical theater.~(,

The emphasis on the Greek l1lilieu as a theatrical phCllOlllenOn continwhen, in the lniddle of the mglllllclltlllll, the location of the events changes to Epidan1nus, and the prologue speaker suggests that he also will return to Epidamllus:

UeS

nunc in Epidamnunl pedibus redeundu111 est mihi, ut hanc renl vobis eX~lIllussilll disputem. si quis quid vestrunl Epidamnurl1 curari sibi velit, audacter imp erato et dicito, sed ita ut det unde curari id possit sibi. llam nisi qui argentum dederit, nugas egerit; qui dederit, magis maiores nugas egerit. vcrum illuc redeo unde abii, atque uno as to in loco. (49-56) Nmv I must return with my feet to Epidalnnus, so that I can describe this matter to you thoroughly. If any of you wants sonlething taken care of in Epidanl1111s, let hinl speak right up and tell me what he wants, so long as he gives nle the resources with which it call be taken care of for him. For if anyone does not give money, he's wasting his tilne; anyone who does give money is wasting even nlm·e. But now I am going back \vhere I canle from, and yet l aill standing in one place. The prologue speaker can go by foot to Epidal11nus: his "Epidamnus" is not the real Greek city across the Adriatic Sea, but a creation of the physical stage, and-since pcdes can also mean the feet of meter- ofPlautus's verse. GREECE OR ROME'

57

Anyone who would trust him to take care of business in .Enidal1111US ,·s. .,1 , .I fool, tl1r there is no Epid;lll1nus here, only a pretense, \vhich allows him to go to Epidamnus without moving. The mglflllclItlllll cOlllpleted, the prolog/ls calls attention yet again to the play's setting:

. _I ·llltS., Ult.'IL 1, _ I

tl'(l'

L"P . _t Ll :n • >

C\',lI1 c t:

or

who arc also the brunt characters' remarks elsnvhere (e.g., '-C(1S. 2)-28; Cure. iO()-11). In order to underline the lines' rel-

-

to Rome, Plautus includes the play's most conspicuous Tloman al-

. 11 I'n the next line: Ca.1idorus says that no one \vil1lend to hinl because • 1u.:'iO of the lex (jlliIU1I!icCIJ(1ria ("the twenty-five-year-old Lw/')-that is, the lex (303 -4)· Satirical play with place is particularly evident when characters call thl'lllSdves Greeks. Passages like Gn1l11io's sarcastic l)(.'I~l!nlC((/1l/illi not only .. ct1c-ctive J' okes and reminders of theater:. as Erich Gruen has pointed III ak '-out. the disdainful reterences arc also a parody oflZ.ol1lan disparagement of Greeks:,l They reflcct on H...ome in other ways as wcll. When Grurnio tells Tranio, "Go ahead, act like Greeks," he is speaking as if both he and Tranio wcre Romans. By implication, then, the very depravity Grumio criticizes in Tranio and his companions is placed within a P.. .oman as well as a Greek setting. The satirical possibilities of such allusions become still stronger when those who call themselves and others Greek arc themselves involved il1 immoral behavior. In Alamlor, for example, Lysimachus buys the courtesan Pasicompsa for his friend, the SCI/CX allUltor Demipho. The scene ill which Lysimachus leads Pasicompsa home is filled with racy double entendrcs. In the midst one ofthenl, involving weaving, Lysinnchus says that he will bring Pasicompsa a "sheep" sixty years old. The sheep, he says, is ,~C1Icri_l gl"(1cci ("of the Greek kind," .525) and thus \ve11 suited to being fleeced. The reference to a Greek sheep allows the audience to bugh both at the double entendre and at the incongruity of a Greek referring to a Greek sheep as ir that were sOlnething special. Even as the reference reinforces the Greekness ofDenlipho, however, Lysimachus speaks as a H. .oman might, and the audience is thus encouraged to see both Lysimachus and IJemipho as nlen who could be round in a l{.oman setting. A sinlilar use CracC1/s occurs in Asillaria. The madanl Cleareta tells the young lover Argyrippus that she and her prostitute daughter sell their goods Grdcca fide ("with Greek credit"; i.e., without giving any credit, 1.99). Plautus creates a potent mockery of Greeks by having a Greek woman herself speak of their untrustworthiness; but at the same time, Cleareta takes on a I<. .oman perspective, and thus reminds the audience that she and women like her arc not only a Greek phenOlllenon, but occur in l:z.ome as well. 32 F/dCfNill

haec urbs Epidamnus est dl1l11 haec agitur (llmla: quando alia agetur aliud fiet oppidl1ln; sicut (111liliae quoque solent nlutarier: modo hic habitat leno, modo adulescens, modo senex, pauper, mendicus, rex, parasitus, hariolus .... 27 (72-76) This city is Epidamnus while this phI' is being performed: when another play is on, it \vill be another town; just as the households also tend to change: now a pimp Jives here, no\\' a young man, now an old one, a pauper, a beggar, a rich n1an,28 a parasite, a soothsayer. ... The point could not be clearer: "Epidamnus" is restricted to the stage. Like the characters, it is an arbitrary creation the playwright and the theatrical company. A large portion of the prologue is thus a discourse on the theatricality of the Greek setting. Though the J\I!ellacc!lIl1i prologue is Plautus's longest such discourse, it is typical of the way he responds to setting throughout his work. The emphasis on the theatricality of the setting would seem to remove Plautus's geography from rea1ity.2~) Yet because geographical allusions remind the audience that the plays are occurring not in Greece, but in the audience's own lZoman world, they also have an effect on what Plautus has to say about that world. When characters undermine or even remove their pretense of being Greek, they encourage the audience to acknowledge that their behavior and that their fellow characters reflects Roman as well as, or even instead oC Greek reality. It is therefore significant that even when the allusions themselves do not rerer to contenlporary controversies, they often occur in scenes or phys that have relevance to such controversies. Another reference to the lex Plactoril1 denlonstrates well this eHect or Roman allusions. Early in Pselldo/lls, the clever slave Pseudolus and his young master, Calidorus, banter \vith the pimp Ballio. l3allio \vants Calidorus to borrow money in order to buy from him the girl he loves. Pseudolus complains about the ways of bankers (296-9b'),3() and Ba11io says that Calidorus should be like olive merchants, who use deceptive business practices (301-2). The lines are almost certainly satirical rererences to ROlnan bankers and olivc

or

or

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

or

or

Even as his use of Greek settings distanced his characters frOln his audience's reality, therefore, Plautus played \V-ith the setting in such J way as to bring those characters closer to home. At the same time, geographical allusions contributed significantly to both the humor and the l1letatheatrical nature

GREECE 01, ROME'

59

of his pbys. These various uses of geographical allus10ns playa significant role in Plamus's portrayal of slaves. As we have seen, Donatus reveals that in j(ifmlac togafac, set in Italy, slaves \vere as a rule not 1110re clever than their 11lasters. The sense that it was not acceptable tor slaves to outsmart their masters in an Italiall milieu seems to have atlected Plautus as well. Plautus's slaves, especially his sen;i callidi, arc among his 11l0St Greek-sounding char_ acters,]] and many of his most conspicuously Greek scenes are those in \vhich slaves deceive their masters or other fi'ee persons, or indulge in other behavior, such as partying or loving, forbidden to slaves ill rcallife. PlaUtllS nevertheless provides continual reminders that the slaves' Greekness i~ only a pretense, for the slaves oft:en adapt a 1~01l1an perspective even as their Greekness is emphasized. Besides Hellenizing his scrl'i callidi in general, Plautus fi'equently includes one or more cmphatic references to the Greek setting at the cl1max of a slave's deception. In Asillaria, for exall1ple, Libanus makes the play's fIrst explicit reference to its Attic setting as he is about to succeed in his deception: neque me alter est Athenis hoclie ql1isqUJn1, cui credi recte aeque putent. (492-93) There is nobody in Athens today they think they can trust as nutch as me. He then reinforces his Greekness with a gratuitous referencc to J

l~hodian

(499)· Through most of AlIllllaria, the setting is a vague foreign locale. There are no explicit allusions to the play's setting in Athens until, late in the play, Lyconides' slave enters \vith Euclio's stolen pot of gold and crows, "quis me Athenis nunc magis quisquam est homo cui di sint propitii?" ("Who is there in Athens now to \vhom the gods arc kinder than they arc to n1e?" 8 10). Whcn the slave's audacity reaches its height, Plautus underlines the Athenian setting. Epidicus makes a conspicuous allusion to the Athenian status of his master \vhen he has just succeeded in deceiving him: nullum esse opinor ego agrum in agro Attica aeque feracelll quam hic est noster Periphanes. (Epid. 306-7) I don't think there is any land in the land of Attica as fertile as this Periphanes of ours. When Periphanes learns that he has been deceived, hc en1phasizes his own Athenianness: TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

(,0

fateor ll1e omnium hominum esse Athenis Atticis ll11nimi preti. (501-2) I confess, I'nl the IllOSt worthless of all men in Attic Athens.

Finally, in his triUlllphant entrance whcn his deception has led to a S~lCC~~S ··11 brin CT~, h1nl his freedom Epidicus uses the Greek \\lord apolactlzo ( I [l:1t\\'l . I shake otl" 678). Usc of the Greek language would not autOlllatlcally have .m , aEpidicus u e · seeill particularly. Greek: already by Plautus's day, many Greek words had been incorporated into Latin, and some residents ofl~..o111e peppered their conversation with Greek words. j ·, A long and con:picuously Greek word like dpoiaaizo, hmvever, would have drawll attentIOll to the Greek milieu. J :; The conspicuous emphasis on the Greek setting here and in other scenes of deception by slaves suggests that Plautus and his audiencc were aware of the need to dissociate deceptive slaves from 1::tOll1e. No onc, of course, was tooled into believing the slaves werc actually in Greecc. Periphancs' redundant Arlicllis Articis clues us in that the Greek rcfcrences at crises of slaves' deceptions are examples of hyper-Hellenization. Furthermore, the conspicuous Greek allusions are part of a great juxtaposition joke, for even thoulyh thev' seem so Greek, Plautus's clever slaves are also Plautus's most b Roman-sounding characters. Libanus, for example, offers a parody of Rocr Ua(le in the scene "tIlYural hn before he deceives the nlerchant (259111 "11 " ,. < , • 64). Epidicus parodies l::tol1un augury (1,s2) and refers to such things as the senate (59, J88)J() and a 1~01l1an-stylc colony (343). A juxtaposition joke in the play's first scene calls attention to Epidicus's status as both Greek and Roman: ~

~

~

Thcsprio: iam tu autenl nobis practuram geris? EpidiClls: quenl dices digniorem csse hOll1inem hodie Athenis altcrLul1? Th.: at unUll1 a praetura tua, Epidice, abest. E1'.: quidnam? Th.: sC1es: lictores duo, duo ulmci fasces virgarum.

Thcsprio: So now you have a practorship over us? EpidiClls: Who else in Athens \vould you say deserves the job more? Th.: l3ut one thing is 111issing h:om your praetorship, Epidicus. E1'.: What? GREECE OR ROME?

01

p Th.: I'll tdl you: two lictors, and two t~lsces of elm rods [seil., for whipping EpidicllS1· In itseH~ Thesprio's reference to EpidicllS's practorship may not have seemed incongruous in its Greek setting, for Pbutinc characters refer to the praetor casually and frequently enough that the \vord may have been taken as a generic word for a magistrate (e.g., Alif. 3! 7; Capt. 5°5; J.Hcrc. 664; POCII. 7 2 7).:17 The addition of lie tors, however, would let the audience know that Thcsprio Bleans the Roman praetor, \vho was accompanied by herm's bearing fasces. Epidicus's usc of L~lt"Cliis thus makes a juxtaposition joke that foreshadows his simultaneous Grcckness and ROmalll1CSS later in the play. The irony of the Greek al1usions that surround slaves' deceptions is evident ill several plays where the word /)(lriJams occurs as slaves deceive their masters. In ,Vfostc{{(Jri(l, the slave Tranio convinces his master that his son has purchased his neighbor's house and convinces the neighbor that his master \vants to see the house only fCJr comparison. When this double deception reaches its greatest audacity, and Tranio is showing the house to his master while the neighbor looks on, he boasts: "non enim haec pultiphagus opifex opera fecit barbarus" ("This is not the work ofa barbarian porridgeeating lscil. "Roman"] craftsman," 82B). Tranio and those he dupes arc Greeks, to \Vh0111 lz'omans are foreign. Tranio's determined relninder that he is Greek is undone, however, by the irony of /)(Jrb(Jfl/s, reinforced by the fact that as part of the stage set, the house certainly was the \vork of craftsROlne.:m

men at The many references to Greek locales in ,Hi/es g/orioslIs (e.g., 100, 122, 239,384, 439, ~J38, [180, 1193) arc partly for clarity, in a play v,,·here there is much complicated description of movement from Athens to Ephesus and back. The frequency of such references nevertheless suggests that P!aUtLIS has taken pains to emphasize that this play, with its t\VO deceptions plotted by a slave, takes place in Greece. As Palaestrio plans his first deception, however, his fellow character Periplectomenus reminds the audience that all the Greekness is only a pretense. Observing the slave thinking, PeriplectomellUS compares him to a POC((J /)(lrbdntS, a barbarian poet (2 I r). With the word /}(lr/wrlls, Periplectomenus simultaneously reinforces the Greekness of Palaestrio and his plot and reminds the audience that the slave is an actor performing in rz.ome. The fact that the jJocta har/wI"IIs is almost certainly the lz'Olllan playwright Naevius makes the Roman reminder even stronger.:>!) Casil/(] includes several passages where reminders of the Greek setting mark places where slaves' actions are nlost audacious. The first comes in the prologue. lZ,esponding to hypothetical queries from the audience about the

THE TI-IEI\TER OF PLAUTUS

t:1C t that slaves are to marry in this phy, the pr%glls says slave marriages ocin Greece, Apulia, and Carthage: again, slaves can behave in ways • unacceptable in lz'ome because they are in Greece. As he continues, ho\vever, L-lil'

~

~

the proltlglLI reverses his claim: at ego aio id fieri in Graecia et Carthagini, et hic in nostra terra t in Apulia; maioreque opere ibi serviles nuptiae quam liberales etianl curari solent; id ni fit, mecum pignus si quis volt dato in urnam lllulsi, Poenus dunl iudex siet vel Graecus adeo, vel mea causa Apulus. quid nunc? nihil agitis? sentio, nemo sitit. (71-78) Well, I say this happens in Greece, in Carthage, and here in our own country, in Apulia. There slaves' marriages are performed with even greater care than free men's marriages. If anybody wants, ,'11 bet you ajar ofholle')red wille that this is true, so long as a Carthaginian is judge, or a Greek, or, for all I care, an Apulian. Well? No bets? I sec, no one is thirsty.

As Cartluginians, Greeks, and Apulians all had reputations for perfidy, the pr%gl/s acknowledges that he could not win the bet honestly; and he con-

cludes by admitting that even with the help of deceitful foreigners, he would lose the bet. The entire geographical explanation is nothing but a joke, and the characters are no nlore in Greece than they are in Carthage or Apulia. Later in the play, Pardalisca, who is not only a slave, but a female slave at that, deceives her nuster. In both of her t\\.'o scenes of deception, Pardalisea emphasizes that she is Greek. Persuading her master, Lysidamus, that Casina, the woma11 he hopes to sleep with, is raging madly within the house, Pardalisca says Casina acts in a way "quod haud Atticam condecct diseiplinam" ("which is hardly fitting for Athenian manners," 652). When she enters two scenes later to report that she and her fellow conspirators have been depriving her master of food, she says that the deception is more fUll than the Olympian or Nemeall games (759-62). In between the two speeches of Pardalisca is a scene in which the slave Olympia lords it over his master. This scene, too, is heavily Hellenized. Master and slave speak Greek (728-30), and when Olympio orders food, he says, "lcpide nitidcque volo, nil l11oror barbarico bliteo" ("I want things nice and elegant, I don't care ror barbarian li.e., n. .oman] spinach," 747).

CREECE OR ROME'

Again, the usc of l}{!ri}{!rims, even as it makes thc characters seem more Greek, introduces a remindcr that thc play is reall"y occurring in Rome. This rcminder that things are not really as Greek as they secn1 is reinforced by a boast by 01yn1pio that he walks parricic, that is, like a patrician, one of the uppcr class at Romc (723):1() Pscudolus is one of Plautus's n10st heavily Hellenized characters. He calls upon the youth of Attica (illl'CIlfIl.'1 .Attica, 202) to combat Ballio; Ballio addresses hi111 as "serve Athenis pcssumc" ("thc \\Torst slave in Athens," 270), and says that ifhe (Ballio) died, there would be no one worse than Pseudo_ Ius in Athens (339). Calidorus describes Pseudolus as his £DPE'[l1~ ("finder," 700),·!1 and Pseudolus boasts that he dances an Ionian dance (1275). At the crisis of one of his deceptions, as he acquires from Ha111ax the letter neces_ sary to acquire Calidorus's girl, he nlakes a Greek pun (054). At the same time, however, Pseudolus is decidedly Roman. He proclainls an edict in the languagc of a l~oman magistrate (125-28), hc boasts of holding a triumph as a l<....oman general might (586 -9 I, 105 I), and l3allio spcaks as if PscudoIus has had him convicted in a Ron1anjudicial asscmbly (1232). The first confrontation between Pseudolus and his nuster, Simo, calls attention to this paradox. Thc sccnc is thc most Greek-sounding in all of Plautus. When hc gcts excited, Pscuciolus cries not, "0 Juppiter" ("0 Jupiter"), but ""Q ZEU" ("0 Zeus," 44]). Sima describes Pseudalus's haughty appearance as a s(atlls basiliC/ls ("kingly posture"), using a word closely associated with the Greek word for king, BaCHA-Euc;" (458);·L~ and he compares Pseudolus to Socrates (4°5) and Agathocles (532). Pseudolus promises to speak as truthfully as the Delphic oracle (480), and master and slave exchangc con1ments in Greek (483 -88). Oncc again, Greek allusions surround the slave's most audacious momcnt, for it is in this scene that Pseudolus brazenly informs Simo that he is going to deceive hin1. Even hcre, however, PlautllS shatters the Greek pretense with a juxtaposition jokc. As the scene begins, Sinlo cOl1lplains about his spcndthrift son: si dc dal1lnosis aut si de amatoribus dictator fiat nunc Athenis Atticis, !lemo anteveniat filio, credo, meo. (415-T7) If a dictator should nov.,' be created fi·om among the spendthrifts and lovers in Attic Athens, I don't think anyone would be a better candidate than Iny son.

Dictator suggests not a generic magistratc, but the specific Roman magistratc given absolute powcr in times of cmergency. Combined with the

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

. l-lellenized Athcllis Afticis, the word thus creates a juxtaposition joke ,l\·per• I. ,minds all that the characters in the nlost Greek-sounding scene in r,1at c p}autliS are not really in Greece at all. PlautuS show·s his n10st self-conscious awareness of the need to keep comic slaves Greek in Sfidllls. Here there is no selHIS callidlls, but the title throws a party• for himself and his fellow slaves. When he first anc,1<1 l "lcter ' nounces his plan for a party, Stichus tclls the audience: atgue id ne vos mirelllini, hom.1nis scrvolos potare, anure atgue ad cenaln condiccre: Iicet haec Athcnis nobis. (446-4~) And don't be surprised that we slaves have drinking parties, girIfi·iends, and arranged dinners: we're alloVv·ed to do these things in Athens. Indeed, the party of Stichus and his collcagues is another of Plautus's 1l10st Greek-sounding scenes.·u Stichus's friend Sangarinlls nukes a point of addressing Athens at his entrance (649). Stichus calls the \-vinc "Dionysus," PlautllS'S only use of the Greek god's name (061), and hc encourages his Ii-iends to be as Athenian as possible (670). Later in the party Stichus cites, in Greek, a Greck drinking song (707). Just at the point \\There thc scene has become as Greek as it could possibly be, howcver, Stichus makes clear that this Greekness is a construction of the performance, for he refers to the song as a wutio Cracca ("Greek song"). No Athcnian slave, of course, would point out that his drinking song is Greek. Pcrsa features slaves involved in all the principal taboo behavior of Plautine slaves: deceiving, loving, and partying. In the first sccne of that play, Toxilus reveals to his fellow slave Sagaristio that he is smitten with a girl belonging to the pilnp next door. Sagaristio responds, "ialn servi hic amant? ("Are slaves lovers here now?" 25). To his audience, familiar with Plautus's concurrently Hellenized and lZOlnanized slavcs, Sagaristio's hie would have had a double n1eaning: the unexpected slave behavior occurs both in the characters' Athens and in the actors'-and spectators'-lzOlne. The geographical allusions of Plaut us's slaves, therefore, are the equivalent of a sly wink to the audience. Plautus makcs the slaves ever so Greek, as ifhe seeks to \vard off through geographical distancing any possible criticism for their outrageous behavior. Yet at the same tinle, remindcrs of Rome turn the Greek allusions into a kind of inside joke between actors and audience. The juxtaposition jokes say to the audicnce: "We all kno\v we're not really in Greece, but we also know that we have to be in Greece for

GREECE OR ROME'

slaves to get away with this kind of thing." The slave scenes thus provide re_ peated opportunities for hunlor, and for playful reminders of performance. They also present the paradoxical mixture of escapisnl and relevance that acconlpanies so nuny of Plautus's geographical allusions. Here, it appears, Plautus and his audience not only recognized the need £(Jr geographical dis_ tance, but Plautus had his characters acknowledge that need. Yet even as Plautus reinforced this distance through Greek allusiolls, he undennincd it through Roman allusions and hyper-Hellenization. It has becn argued that in creating his sC/Ti callidi, Plautus \vas inspired by his own f~U11iliarity with deceitful slaves in Tlome:H Whether or not the slaves actually reflect reall-tolllan slaves, Plautus's geographical allusions sug_ gested to his audience that for all their apparent Greekness, tricky and intractable slaves, like lllany other supposedly Greek features of his plays, were perhaps not such a foreign phenomenon after alL

M lEI ,l\TH E,l\Tt=, RAN DiVl0 FLz\UTY PLAUTUS'S actors/characters, then, continually reminded the spectators of their determination to please, yet at the same time they could tease and challenge their audience; and Plautus's usc of setting encouraged the spectators to recognize the relev~lllce of \vhat happened onstage to their own milieu, even as it provided an escape ti'om that milieu. This mixture of resolute gratification \vith irony and even satirc is evident as well in Plautus's response to theatricalnl0ralizing. Although the modern stereotype of Phutus's contemporaries as hopelessly stern moralists is an exaggeration, it is nevertheless undeniable that Rome had a long and honored tradition of moralizing, and that moralizing scl/tClltiac were a ubiquitous part of Roman life and literature. I Roman drama is no exception: both Roman tragedy and l-toman comedy oHered a great amount of explicit moralizing. 2 Plautus, although he also included many moralizing sCl1tclltiac in his plays, responded to the association between comic theater and moral didacticism with great skepticism. Whellever Plautus implicitly or explicitly draws a connection bet\veen theater and moralizing, his message is the same: theater, especial1y comedy, is inadequate as a purveyor of moral truths, and audiences should expect fi'om it not edification but pleasure. He sends this antididactic nlessage in several \vays. First, he includes a great Jillount of llloralizing in his heavily theatri(aEzed scenes of deception. This union of deceptive theater and moralizing suggests that theatrical moralizing is an expected elcment of drama, Orllamental rather than educational, as likely to mislead as to edif)r. Second, Piau tine characters who say they have learned sonlething from the theater are inevitably wrong, or they learn lessons of dubious value, and those who

THE THEATER OF f'LAUTUS

66

METATHEATER AND MORALITY

profess to teach the audience are v/ithout exception ironic. Finally, in three plays, conspicuously meta theatrical passages help to undennine the moral_ izing presented within the play: the moralizing epilogue to lvIfles g!orios ,ls is a nlisreading of the play-within-the-play; the moral tone of RlldclIs is replaced by nlerrinlent after a character points out that no one pays atten_ tion to the moral advice of comic actors anyway; and allusions to the the_ ater contribute to the irony that pervades Plautus's most moralistic play, Ttf III /I II 111 liS.

Many of Plaut us's moralizing sClltclltiac occur in scenes of deception, and on several occasions characters suggest that nloralization is an expected element of such scenes. Deception scenes are also nude to look like performance: they become virtual plays-within-the-play, performed by the deceivers for an audience of the deceived. This recurring combination of theatrical_ ization, 1110ralizJtion, and deception is particularly dalnaging to the notion of theatrical didacticis111. Through it, Plautus suggests that moralizing is a tool for deception and an ornal11ent of performance rather than a source of edificatioll. In Captilli, Philo crates and his slave, Tyndarus, each pretending to be the other, nloralize while they deceive Hegio. When Philocrates-as-Tyndarus discourses stoically about his status as a slave (27T-73) and says "philosophically" that he does not know whether Philocrates' father is alive or dead (282-83), Tyndarus comments aside, "salva res est, philosophatur quoque ial11, non mendax 1110do est" ("We're safe: now he's not just a liar, he's a philosopher," 284): the l110ral nlaXil11S arc tools to help Philocrates deceive Hcgio. Tyndarus-as-Philocrates also Inoralizes, reminding Hegio of the power offortune (304) and admonishing hi111 to keep his prOlllises with the ardent, "est profecto deus, qui quae nos geril11us auditque et videt" ("There really is a god, who hears and sees what we do," 313). The climax of the moralizing COIlles as Tyndarus and Philo crates say farewell. Tyndarl1s-asPhilo crates praises "Tyndarus" for his loyalty (401 - I 3), and Philocrates-asTyndarus lauds "Philocrates": "11am quasi servos l11eus esses, nihilo sctim I mihi obsequiosus sel11per fuisti" ("For you were always no less obliging to Ine, than if you had been the slave," 417-18). Hegio is nl()ved to tears by his captives' sentiments (418-21), unaware that Tyndarus and Philocrates are in fact praising themselves, and the whole dialogue is a performance for hi111. The old n1;]n is deceived by the pelfor11unce he witnesses, in part because he takes the shov.,r's 1110ralizing at face value. Moralizing is also a tool of deception in Pscl/doills. Simia, disguised as I-Iarpax, moralizes as he deceives Ballio: he reminds the pinlp that few people actually know then1selves (972-73), and he says twice that his "11135THE THEATER 0 F I'LAUTUS

ok

(er" does \vhat a good soldier should do (992, 1004)· The fOrIner bit ofphi-

losophizing inspires a reaction fi'om the eavesdropping Psclldoll1s similar to Tvndarus's response to Philocratcs: "salvos SU111, iam philosophatl1r" (''1'111 s~;ft': noW he's philosophizing," 974)· Here even nlore than in Captid, Plauthe deception as a nerform3nce: Sinlia, in costunle, performs for ruS pITsents ' r

BaHio, who is deceived in part because he accepts the sincerity of the accor's moralizing. Plautus'S most effective deceiving moralizer is the daughtet of the parasite Saturio, dressed as a Persian captive and sold to the pimp Dordall1s in Pcr3,1.3 Asked what she thinks of Athens, the girl responds with a long list of \.ices: if they afe absent, she says, the city is well protected (554-60). Later she philosophizes on slavery (6 I 5 - I 6, 62 I, 641), on friendship (655), and 011 the human condition (637-38). Like Philocrates and Simla, she 11101'a1izes to make her deception l110re etTective; and her ally, Toxilus, like Tyndarns and Pseudolus, acknowledges the effectiveness of her moralizing with an aside: "ita Ine di bene ament, sapienter" ("Damn, she's clever!" 639)· HeiT Pbutus has taken extra pains to portray the deception as a playwithin-the-play:t He pays l11uch attention to the preparation of actors, including a boast by the girl's fellow performer Sagaristio that he is as well prepared to perfornl as are "tragici et COl11ici" ("tragic and comic actors," +65 - 66), and an admonition to Saturio that he is to get his own and his daughter's costumes frOlll the ciIofa<-\ZlIs ("costl1l11e llunager," I 59-60). The reaction of the girl's "audience," Dordalus, is telling. Impressed by her first moralizing speech (about the vices to be excluded frOl11 a city), he says, "verba quidel11 haud indocte fecit" ("She really knows v.lhat she's talking about," 563).5 He says this in spite of the f':1ct that Toxilus has just re111inded him that the girl would wish Dordalus himself exiled, for Dordalus is a pcr;lInlS ICllo ("peljl1ring pi111p"), and one of the vices she would exclude fr0111 the city is peljury. Dordalus is a typical receiver of dramatic SClltClItfac: he values the moralizing for how fine it sounds, and it has no effect on his own behavior. 6 On several occasions, Plautine characters suggest explicitly that the audience will learn fro 111 their words or actions, or that they themselves have learned fro111 theater. The irony of these passages confin11s Plautus's antididactic bias. Plautl1S'S nl0st obvious claims to didacticism are the prologue and epilogue of CaptilJi. The prologlls boasts that the audience will benefit fi"om the play at hand: profecto expediet fabulae huic operal11 dare. non pertractate facta est neque ite111 l1t ceterae: METATI-IEATER AND MORALITY

neque spurcidici Insunt versus, imn1en10rabiles; hie neque periurus leno est nee meretrix mala neque miles gloriosus. (54 - 58)

ofTyndarus is similar to a pl/cri sII]Jpositio (f:--dse placing of a boy), and Tynd,lf tlS is ticed clam 5110111 patn'llI ("behind his t~lther's back'').SI The cpilogue is no ".serious clain1 to moral didacticislll, but an ironic variation on the request tor applause, as the actors jokingly suggest that n10rality requires that /l

[

It will ccrtainly profit ·you to p~ry attention to this play. It is not hackncyed, nor is it the samc as othcr plays: there are no dirty lines in it that should not be repcated; hcrc there is no lying pilllP, no bad prostitute, no braggart soldier. The prologue speaker not only boasts of the play's novelty, but he claims that it will profit thc audicnce because it lacks immoral elenlents. Yet the list of itcms allegedly 11lissing from thc play is misleading at best. Thc first character to enter at prologue's end is Ergasilus the parasite, as n1uch an unedit).!ing stock character as any of those listed by the prologuc speaker. Ergasilus's very first words provide not only the first of several otT-color jokes that will dot the play (cf. 888-89, 955-56, 966), but also a substitute for the IJJereTrix ("high-class prostitute") excluded above: "Iuvcntus nomen indidit SC01·tO mihi" ("The youths have given me the nan1e Whore," (9).1 Soon thercafter the audicnce lcarns that though the play may not have a lIlilcs glori05l1s, it does have a character \vith a braggart soldier's name: I-Iegio's son Philopolemus ("battle lover," 95). Cdptiui's epilogue claims that the play should be applauded as an inducenlent to plldiritid ("chastity"): spcctatores, ad pudicos nlores facta haec fabula est, ncque in hac subigitationes sunt neque ulla anutio nec pueri suppositio nec argenti CirClllllductio, neque ubi anul1S adulescens scortum Eberet clam SUOlll patrem. huius nl0di paucas poetae reperiunt cOllloedias, ubi boni meliores fiant. nunc vos, si vobis placet et si placuimus neque odio fllin111s, signUll1 hoc mittite: qui pudicitiae esse voltis praellliUll1, plaUSUll1 date. (T029-yJ) Spectators, this play was n1ade in accordance with chaste morals. In it there is nothing erotic, no love afbir, no £llse placing of a boy,il no stealing of nl0ney, nor does a young lover free a prostitute behind his father's back. Poets find few comedies of this type, where the good becon1e better. No\v it is your turn: if you like this and we have pleased you rather than bored you, scnd this sign: applaud, if you want chastity to be rewarded. Again, the boast to provide moral edification is ironic. As Erich Segal has pointed out, thc phy's homosexual allusions are erotic, the loss and return

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

7°

rhe spectators show their appreciation enthusiastically. Another ironic clainl to edify comes in Casilw. When Olympia is reluc[,mt to tell how he was beaten by Chalinus, disguised as Casina, Pardalisca responds, "cavebunt qui audierint faciant" ("Those \vho hear will be careful not to do the same thing," 902).10 "Those who hear" are the audience: (he only other listeners are Pardalisca's fellow conspirators. Yet Pardalisca scarcely can be serious when she ilnplies that the spectators, uninforIned by Olympio, might 611 in with an aggressive slave in drag. The line is ano~hcr ironic response to the didactic tradition with \vhich Plautus's audience would be familiar. The humor ofPardalisca's words becomes stillmore apparent when one contrasts thenl with 0lyn1pio's own speech to thc au(iience slightly carlier: operam date, dum mea tKta itero: est operac pretiUll1 auribus acclpere, ita ridicula auditu, iteratu ea sunt quae cgo intus turbavi.

(Cas_

~79-8o)

Pay attention, while I recount what I have done; it will be worth your while to listen to me, for the mess I made inside is so funny both to hear and to tell. Olympio recognizes that the audience will benefit fronl his tale, but the benefit will be pleasure rather than n10ral edifIcation or knowledge. Two Plautine characters clain1 that they themselves have learned fron1 the theater. Phronesium, the lIIeretrix of 'HI/wlcllt/IS, says to one of her exasperated suitors: venitne in mentem tibi quod verbllll1 in cavea dixit his trio: omnes homines ad suom quaestl1m callent et fastidil1nt. (Ii-lie. 931-32) Do you remember what an actor said in the theater? "All people are indifferent or squcamish in kceping with their own profIt." Phronesium's maxim is similar to cynical staten1ents elsew-here in Plal1tl1S (CiSf. I94; Stich. 520). Indeed, it echoes her o\vn words earlier in the play: "ad suom quemque aequon1 est quaestul11 esse cal1idllll1" ("It is right for

METATI-IEATER AND MORALITY

71

everyone to be clever for his o\vn profit," 416); her quotation of it proves that one is just as likely to learn selfishness as virtue from the theater. Though Plautus usually emphasizes his own genre of comedy when he casts doubts on the efficacy of theatrical nlOralizing, in ClIrCJIlio he cites tragedy also as the source of a nlisleading nlO1'al generalization. Curculio, escaping frOlll Planesium \\Then she tries to get his ring iion1 his finger, says: antiquom poetan1 audivi scripsisse in tragoedia, mulieres duas peiores esse quam unam. res itast. (591-92) I heard that an ancient poet \vrote in a tragedy that two women arc worse than one. It's true. He goes on to clainl that PlanesiUlll is the worst of all. Curculio's citation is in keeping with the nlisogynistic tendencies of the pallil1tl1 (see Chapters 8 and 9), but it is peculiarly inappropriate. It is not at all relevant to the situation, as only one woman is involved here, and Curculio is decidedly mistaken about Planesium: she is a syn1pathetic character throughout, and she is justified in trying to see Curculio's ring, the only token left of her lost f~llllily. Curculio's maxim, derived from a theatrical source, is inaccurate and useless. 1!

MILES GLORIOSUS In iI/files <-iZlorioslls, Plautus discredits theater as a nl0ral teacher by presenting a Illoralistic misreading of a play-within-the-play. When the play begins, Pyrgopolynices, the braggart soldier, has kidnapped PhilocomasiUlll, and he has also purchased Palaestrio, the slave ofPhiiocOlllasium's lover, Pleusicles. Pleusicles, upon learning where his lovet and slave are, has beconle the guest ofPeriplectol1lenus, Pyrgopolynices' next-door neighbor, and PhilocomJsium visits hin1 through a hole dug in the wall between the two houses. Sce1cdrus, another ofPyrgopolynices' slaves, has spied Philoc0111asiu111 embracing Pleusic1es in Periplect0111enus's house. Two deceptions make up the bulk of the play. First, Philocomasiunl, by running back and forth between houses, convinces Sceledrus that Pleusiclcs embraced not hcrself~ but her twin sister. Then the conspirators add to their nUlllber the mcrctrix Acroteleutiunl, who, assisted by her handmaid, Milphidippa, persuades Pyrgopolynices that she is Periplectomenus's wife and loves the soldier madly. Pyrgopolynices sends Philocomasiu111 and Palaestrio ;l\vay and rushes into Periplectomenus's house for a tryst with Acroteleutium, only to be beaten and threatened with castration. Both deceptions, especially the second, are highly metatheatrical: the conspirators not only deceive the soldier, but

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

theY also perform. In the process, they get a great anlOunt ofp1casurc, em·,·S·'·ZilW throughout their enjoYlnent. Their nrinc111al spectator, p)rrgopI1,. ~ ~ L

'-

polynic cs , however, finds not pleasure but. what he thinks is edific~ltion in the pcrfl1rmance. He wrongly draws an Irrelevant nl0ral, assum1l1g that \\.hat he has experienced teaches a lesson against adultery. The prologue of i.Viiles, spoken by Palaestrio after the first scene, would encourage the audience to think of thc playas a play. Being delayed, it does not provide an introduction after \vhich the pretense of reality can rell1ain intact for the rest of the play, nor does it allow the audience to dissociate the rest of the play from the prologuc, as is the case \vhen the prologuc is spoken by a god or goddess, an unna11led actor, or a character who plays littk or 110 further role in the play. 12 Plautus may have inherited the position and speaker of his prologue fi"om his original/l but Plautine additions exploit its metatheatrical potential to the fullest. Palaestrio-or, 1110re precisdy, the actor playing Palaestrio-barges into the imaginary world created by the play's first scene and indulges in the same kind of bantering with the audience typical of actors identified only as prologi. He expresses his pleasure at explaining the mgllmel/tll/II, orders the audience to pay attention, and gives the Latin and Greek nan1es of the play (79-87, 98). Later he tells what will happcn in the first third of the play: he and his colleagues will make Sceledrus not sec what he sees, for one \voman will be t\VO (147-52). Palacstrio the pmlog1/s thus reveals a plan that Palaestrio the charactcr does not come up with for another ninety lines (237-41): he is simultaneously a charactcr with lilnited knowledge and an omniscicnt actor. 1.\ Palaestrio's reference to Philocomasiul11's illh1t,JO ("appearance" or "mask," 151) adds still more theatrical imagcry.1.~ I-laving thus cmphatically established the notion of "playas play" in the prologue, Plautus constructs an elaborate image of the play's t\VO deceptions as plays-within-the-play, and of Palaestrio and his cOlllrades as a troupe of comic actors performing those plays. Soon after the prologue, thc audience learns that Palaestrio is not only nlore than a character; hc is, in fact, like so many of Plautus's clever slaves, a playwright.16 As Palaestrio plans the deception of Sceledrlls, Periplectomenus, in a long address to the audience, describes ill detail the slave's gestures. Hc concludes with a direct reference to a contcmporary poet, almost certainly PlalltuS's fellow playwright Naevius: COh1l11nanl mento suffigit suo. apagc, non placet profecto Ini illaec aedificatio; nam os colmllnatmll poctae csse indaudivi barbaro,

METATI-IEATEJ" AN]) MORALiTY

73

r cui bini custodes semper totis horis occubant. eugc, cl1scheme hercle astitit d dlllice et cOlllocdice. (Mil_ 209-13) He is putting a column under his chin. Whoa! I really don't like that construction; for I happened to hear that the (lee of a barbarian poct, the onc who111 two guards \"atch at all times, was put on a column. Wow! I tell YOll, he is standing bCJutifl1ll;.', like a slave in a comedy.17 What follows is the Erst of the play's two pbys-within-the-play, as Palaestrio, Pcriplectomcnus, and PhilocomJsiu111 phy the roles necessary for the deception ofSceledrus. The nature of the deception as a play is brought to the fore as Palacstrio puns on the verb {lido ("play" or "perfonll," 3242.5), gives advice to PhilocomJsiu111 011 hmv to play her part (354-55), Jnd responds with an aside to Philocomasium's alleged dream: "Palaestrionis sonmilllll narratur" ("Palaestrio's drealll is being told," 380). Palaestrio even refers to what Scclcdrus has seen as aj(lbll{d (293), a word that Plautus almost always uses explicitly to refer to dramatic performances. 1H Periplcctomenus concludes the Sceledrus section with a double theatrical double entendre: usque adhuc actum est probe; nimilllll festivanlmulier operam praehibuit. (590 -9T) SO far we've acted \vell: that W0111an really did ajob fitting for a festival. The deception ofSceledrus is a kind of dry run. After its success, the image of a troupe of actors becomes n10re explicit as more performers are added and the conspirators prepare for their major performance, the deception of the soldier. Before the planning begins, PeriplectOlllenus indulges in a long description of his O\vn unusual personality, and it becomes clear that lTlUch of what he prides himself on is his ability as an actor. l ') He boasts of various roles he can play (642, 663 -(8), and of his ability as a dancer (608), and he says that he remembers when to say his lines, and when to remain silent (645 -46). After Periplectomenus leaves to fetch two more perforn1ers, Palaestrio admonishes Pleusicles as he would an actor: interea tace, u t nunc etianl hic agat ac tu tum partis defendas tuas. (810 - r 1) Meall\vhile, be silent, so that he, too, can act no\v, and you can sustain your part later. THE TI-IEAT'ER OF PLAUTUS

\\1ith the entrance of Acrotclcutiu111 and Iv1ilphidippa, the image of a perfornunce b~comes still clearer. Peril-~lect~menus enter~ coaching tl~e '>11 for thcIl" parts, and he boasts ot thelf costumes (~99). Palaestl"lO ,,·01 11 ". ,_ '5 over Pcriplectomenus's role of coach, and when the old man shows (.u.. e_ '-1tience with the repeated instructions, Acroteleutiu111 responds with a llllf' metaphor 6·om shipbuilding (9! 5 - 2 !): Palaestrio is arclJitcct1l5 (" designer"), 1C other characters arc farm' ("craftsmen"). The metaphor recalls not Jill1 t1 earlier descriptions ofPalaestrio as a builder (209, 90!; cf PVCIJ. TTTO), but· also an image common in ancient poetry: the poet as an architect or builckr. 2l ) Acrotcleutium \vas unwilling to hear repeated instructions t1.-0n1 pcrip1cctomenus, but she accepts then1 from Palaestrio, because he is the playwright for their play. Acroteleutiul11 also establishes 1110re precisely 0111\·

Pcriplcctomenus's r01e: si non nos materiarius rcmoratur, quod opus qui det .. cito erit parata navis. (920-2T) If our supplier, who can give us what \ve need, does not delay us ... the ship will be ready in no time. It has generally been assumed that the IIwtcrim·iJls ("supplier") is Pyrgopolynices. 21 Although Pyrgopolynices is the material upon which the conspirators work, however, he does not take an active role in providing ,my material himself. A 1110re likely explanation, and 1110rc consistent with Acroteleutium's gentle teasing ofPeriplectomenus, is that the IIJatcriarillS is Pcriplcctomenus himself, \vho provides the costumes, nlllch of the "set" (his home), and two of the actors for the play-vv·ithin-the-play. Perip1cctomellUS is thus not only an actor, but also the r/zo/'Il,glls (supplier of costumes and props).22 Here and in later scenes, PaIaestrio repeats and refines his instructions to his comrades almost to the point of tedilllll (904 -13, 10252<), I 143 -97). Such repetition of instructions, like the shipbuilding metaphor, increases the perception that a troupe of actors is carefully preparing tor a performance. 2:1 Milphidippa announces that her scene \vith the soldier is to begin a playwithin-the-play, presented, like all Roman plays, as part of {lldi ("games"): "iam est ante aedis circus ubi sunt ludi faciundi mihi" ("Here in tl:ont of the house is the circus where I 111USt hold l11'Y games," 99T).2.1 As she and Palaestrio deceive the soldier, they each ask the other hmv their acting is going: ("ut ludo?" "How am I perfc)rIning?" 1066, 1073). In the fi.nal coaching scene, Palaestrio, after tlu·ther adnl0nishing Acrote1cntiu111 and Milphidippa, tells Pleusicles to take on the costume of a ship's captain METATI-IEATER AND MORALITY

75

(1177). He describes the costume in great detail and makes clear that it will COIlle from Periplectomenus's house, that is, fr0111 the c/}(J)"(7<'
After the women's performance, Pleusicles enters, referring again to his C05_ nunc (1286), and self-consciously n1using on his role as an actor who mUSt speak in a \vay proper for his part: "oratio alio n1ihi demutandast mea" ("I must change my delivery," 12S)I). Philocomaslum performs a tOllr de force as she leaves Pyrgopolynices, and when Palaestrio's attempt to outdo her almost inspires Pyrgopolynices to keep him, he is forced to improvise (13 68 -7 2).:!{1 In the last scene of the play and of the play-within-the-play, Plautus adds one final meta theatrical touch. Though Pyrgopolynices is spared, his tormentors make a point of saying that his tunic, cloak, and sword will not be retunled frOlll Periplectomenus's house (1423): the play is over, and the cosHImes go back to the cllOraglls. The staging further contributes to the audience's sense that the deception of the soldier has been a play: everyone leaves the stage except Pyrgopolynices and his servants, who, as the spectators, remain to go home (1437) after the actors have made their exits.:!7 iHilcs glorioslIs, then, is unique al110ng Plautus's plays in the consistency and the intensity of its i111agery of performance. Plautus here makes an extra eflort to establish his SCrIms callidIls as a playv,rright, includes an unusual a1110unt of direct references to acting and instruction of actors, and provides Palaestrio V-lith a troupe of actors that even includes a r/}(J)"(7,gIlS. The play is also unique in the size of the cast of the deception plays and in the quantity of deception through performance. i\;1ilcs is thus the closest Plalltus-or any ancient playwright, for that matter-conles to producing an outright pby\vithin-the-play silnilar to those which have encouraged audiences to ponder the nature of theater in countless pieces since the I-tenaissance.:!8 Plautus offers two different perspectives on the nature of his theater. The spectator of the primary play-\vithin-the-play, Pyrgopolynices, finds a moral nlessage in the play he witnesses. HU111iliated, beaten, stripped of his armor, and made aware that he has been duped by his slave and the others, Pyrgopolynices concludes: iure factum iudico; si sic aliis Illoechis fiat, 111inus hie moechorlllll siet, magis metuant, minus has res studeant. (T 435 -3 7) I conclude that this has been done just1y. If this happened to other adulterers, there would be fewer adulterers here, they would be lnore afraid, and they would be less eager for such things.

THE THEATER 01' PLAUTUS

The trite llloral is in itself unobjectionable, but it results frorn a nlisunder_ dl·nO"~ of what Pyrgopolynices has experienced. There is no lesson about ,(.1l1 -JLU. 1 Iterv here.. as Acroteleutium and Periplect0111enus's marriage was all part ~ of the ruse. Because the deception of which he was a victim has been so l:lticallv. portrayed as a theatrical performance, Pyrgopolynices' cont ' lpl Jl' elusion is a misreading of the play he has \vitnessed. His moralizing epi"lie reveals that he is not only a profoundly stupid person, but also a failed I0" spectator. Just as in Casilla Plautus counters Pardalisca's ironic clain1 to didacticisIll \\.j[h Olympio's more accurate boast that he will bring amusement, in lvIi!cs PlaUtllS opposes references to fun to Pyrgopolynices' l11isplaced 1110ral1essoil. Unlike their audiences-Sceledrus, who is hopelessly 1111serable, and pvrgopolynices, who takes himself far too seriously-the conspirators all h~vc a wonderful tiIlle as they perfonn. The performers repeatedly describe their plays-within-the-play as lcpidlls ("pleasant," "channing," or "fun"), and one of their number even has a name that Illeans "lover of revels" (Philocomasillln).:!() In contrast to their onstage audience, the performers, toward whom Plautus directs his own and the spectators' sympathy, value theater not because it offers l11ora1 edification, but because it is a source of pleasure.

RUDENS Only the foolish Pyrgopolynices sees a moral message in lvlilcs giorioslIs. Several of Plautus's other plays, however, appear in their first scenes to have a decidedly 1110ral intent. Yet even the most earnest Plautine n10rality has a habit of collapsing in Inid-play, so that the audience realizes by the end that it has been seduced into a play that is anything but edif)ring. Bacchidcs begins with lofty thoughts about friendship and resistance of temptation and cnds with almost everyone except the deceptive slave seduced by the prostitutes. CJlrwlio's first scenes offer much talk about sexual propriety, all of it forgotten in the deception scenes that make up 1110St of the rest of the play. Sticlllls starts \vith a dialogue between two Penelope-like \vives and ends with \vild revelry.3() In Rlldcl/s, a similar seduction of the audience is accOlnpanied by explicit skepticism about the value of COIllic 1110ralizing. The play's central plot is one of virtue rewarded and evil punished. 3 ! Daemones is reunited \vith his long-lost daughter, Palaestra, after he helps her escape fro111 the pimp Labrax, who has been shipwrecked \-vhile trying to steal Palaestra from her beloved, Plesidippus. Explicit and heavy Inoralizing reinforces the lllOral message throughout the play. The god Arcturus, who delivers the prologue,

METATHEATEK AND MOKALITY

77

informs the audience that Jupiter sends hinl to observe the deeds of lllor_ tals: with this knowledge Jupiter punishes the evil and rnvards the good (930). As he delivers the mgll/l1C1ltllllJ, Arcturus establishes clearly the virtue of Daenlones (35-38) and the vice of Labrax and his companion in Cri111e, Charmides (40, 47-50), and he reveals how he, Arcturus, caused a stonn in order to punish Labrax and reward Palaestra (07-71). Throughout the first two-thirds of the play, various characters expostulate on the themes estab_ lished by Arcturus: the extent to \vhich Labrax and men like him deserve punishnlent (T58, 3I8-I9, 340, 505-0, or7-2I, 043-46, 651-56), the kindness andjllstice of the gods (261-62), and the value ofvirtlles such as hospitality (286-89, 406-11), honesty (3]8), and industry (914-25). PlaUtllS nevertheless provides several hints that the world is not as morally sinlple as his play might suggest. Palaestra argues against Arcturus's worldview, cOlllplaining after her shipwreck that the treatlllent she has received frOlll the gods is not in keeping with her virtuous life (r85-219); true, the audience knows that things wi11 eventually be set right, but her powerful rhetoric nevertheless complicates the play's easy view of morality. The fishenllen, \vho call attention to their poverty with a direct address to the audience (293), also clash with the assumption that virtue is automatically rewarded. As they make clear, they are poor, and their lives are hard: their moral states have no bearing on their economic conditions. When Plesidipplls's slave, Trachalio, tries to reassure Palaestra's companion, Anlpelisca, she reminds him that many l110rtals are deceived in their hopes (401). When Trachalio and Gripus, Daemones' slave, begin their altercation over \vho is to have possession of the trunk Gripus has fished frOlll the sea (the trunk contains tokens that will prove Palaestra's birth), both nlisuse I11Ol'almaxims in a \vay rel11iniscent of the deception scenes of other plays. Trachalio pretends that he grabs hold of the rope connected to the trunk only in order to help Grumio carry it: "at pol ego te adiuvo nam bonis guod bene fit haud perit" ("But I anl helping you, for good things done for good people are hardly done in vain," 939). After nlllCh legalistic wrangling, the two decide on an arbitrator, and it is Gripus's turn to nloralize disingenuously. Pretending that he has not met the potential arbitrator, Gripus says:

Thc arbitrator Trachalio has chosen, however, is hardly unknown, but is p.lCillon cs himself, Gripl1s's master.

These hints of skepticism tmvard and nlisuse of morality are relatively .lilrht and the play easily survives them to maintain its high nl0ral tone 'i" [,'(rh the melodramatic recognition of Palaestra by Daemones. Indeed, t no ~ '. tile reco('TJ1ition scene, Daemones provides a summary of the central .1 rCI ~ 1

'SS'jnC I1K.,'::->

in a monologue: 'satin si cui h0111ini dei esse bene factunl volunt, aliguo illud pacto optingit optatll111 piis? (1193 -94) Is it not the case that if the gods want to help someone, somehow it turns out that the pious get what they pray for?

Soon thereafter, howevcr, a particularly scathing indictmcnt of onstage di-

dJcticism brings the play's moral Llcade crashing down. Exasperated that DaC1110nes refuses to keep for himself the valuable trunk, Gripus says that his master is poor because he is "ninlis sancte pius" Ctoo righteous and honest"), and Daemones rcsponds: o Gripe, Gripe, in aetatc hominulll pIll rimae fiunt trasennae, ubi decipilllltur dolis. atgue edepol in eas plerlllllque esca imponitur: quanl si quis avidus poscit escam avariter, decipitur in trasenna avaritia sua. ille qui consulte, docte atque astute cavet, diutine uti bene licet partum bene. mihi istaec vidctur praeda praedatum irier, ut cum maiore dote abcat quam advcnerit. egone ut quod ad mc allatum esse alienulll scianl, celem? minime istuc faciet noster Daemones. semper cavere hoc sapientis aequissimumst ne conscii sint ipsi malefici suis. ego mihi cum lusi J2 nilmoror ullum lucrum. (1235-48)

Although you call nle to an unknown arbitrator, if he is honest, I kno\\/ hinl, even though he is a stranger: ifhe is not honest, he is a c0111plete stranger, even if I kno\\/ hinl.

Oh, Gripus! Gripus! In the lives of men arc many traps, where they are deceived by tricks. And often, by Pollux, bait is put in those traps: the rapacious man who greedily goes after this bait is caught in the trap because of his ovvn greed. The mall who is careful to usc his reason, his learning, and his brains can enjoy wealth earned honestly for a long time. It seems to me that plunder like that will itselfbe plundered, so that, like a divorced wife, it vV'ill carry away more dowry than it brought. Would I conceal

THE THEATER. OF PLAUTUS

METATHEATER. AND MORALITY

qualllquanl ad ignotll111 arbitrunl nle appellis, si adhibebit tldem, etsist ignotus, notus: si non, notus ignotissimust. (1043 -44)

.......................--

79

what has been brought to me and I know is someone else's? Never will our DaenlOnes do that. It is always best by far for the ,vise to be careful that they themselves do not become wronO"_ b doers in collusion \\lith their slaves. When I have acted in a plav I do not care at all for any profit for nlyself. .' Daenlones' speech is al1l0ng the most ardently moralistic in Plalltus. It is also onc of the most conspicuously meta theatrical. Daenlones begins with tragic parody in the repetition of GrllJe,33 and he concludes by jll1nping OUt of character completely. Not only the character Dacmones, but the Jctor playing Dael1l0neS vv·ishes to relay the play's centrallllessage: virtue is more profitable than vice. Griplls is not impressed: spectavi ego pridenl c01nicos ad is tunc nlodU111 sapienter dicta dicere atque eis plaudier, cun1 illos sapientis nlores nlonstrabant poplo: sed cunl inde suanl quisque ibant divorsi d0111Ul11, nullus erat illo pacto ut illi iusserant. (1249-53) I have often betore seen comic actors speak wise sayings in this way, and they were applauded, when they showed those \vise ways to the people. But \vhen the spectators left and went home to their own houses, not a one of thenl acted the vvay the actors had told them to. Daenlones provides Griplls with a nice summation of the nloral message that has run throughout the play, only to have it undennined by Gripus's all-too-perspicacious observation. Regardless of what Dae1110nes might say as character or as actor, even a playas nloralistic as RudCtls is not likely to illlprOVe its audience's 111orals. 34 Gripus's cynicism not only bursts the bubble of Delnea's 1110ralizing speech, but also introduces a change in the lnoral tone of the playas a whole. Daenlones hill1self dismisses Gripus pelfunctorily and continues with 1110re moralizing typical of comedy, telling the audience that Gripus is an example of how slaves can get into trouble (T 258 - 62). The plot of the play, however, does not recover. There is no more heavy 1110ralizing, and Labrax, who continues to peljure himselfv,rith reckless glee (1355, 1374), finds himself not punished but re\varded with dinner and the return of half his 1110ney, which he thought he had lost in its entirety. It is as ifPlautus says V-lith Gripus's speech, "Enough nloralizing; let us return to what comedy is really about."

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

So

TRINUMMUS otfers far morc moralizing than any other Plautine play, even When the play begins, Charmides has been traveling on business / -...Ill L •• . 5alne time. Onlv• his ti·iend Callic1es knows that before he 1eft, Charwr . J ,. lnd hidden treasure in his house. Channides' profligate son, Lesbonllut:~ , ~ nictlS, has since been forced to put the house up for sale, and Callicles has llOughr the house in order to save the treasure. In the early scenes, Lesbo. 'lIS'S' friend Lvsiteles offers to marry Lesbonicus's sister without a dmvry. JIll . , . . Unwilling to let Channides' daughter be dowryless, or to permit LesboniellS to sell his land, his last remaining possession, for the dmvry, or to allow the spendthrift Lesboniclls to find Ollt about the treasure, Calliclcs plots \drh his friend Megaronides to hire a shyster (the Sycophant), who \vill claim to bring a dowry frOll1 the absent Charmides. Charnlides himself, however, arrives h0l11e and intercepts the Sycophant, and comic contlJsion ensues until Callicles reveals what he has done and the play ends happily for all. Several characters supplenlent this 1110ral plot with seemingly endless discourses on nlorality. Yet irony undermines all the Il1oralizing, and the high moral tone a1most disappears before play's end; two scenes with conspicllolls allusions to acting help send the 111essage that even a playas full of moralizing as this one is 1110re valuable as a source of pleasure than of 7i"111I1I/lIIIHS '

/'/11.

edification. The goddess Luxuria ("Extravagance") opens the play with a 1110ral allegory. She commands her daughter, Inopia ("Destitution"), to cnter the home of Lesboniclls, and then explains to the audience that because Lesbonicus spent all his 1110ney with her (Luxuria's) assistance, he \vill now dwell \vith Inopia. 35 Luxuria is unrelievedly stern: she ofTers none of the bantering typical ofPlautine prologucs. Even as the prologue establishes the play's moral tonc, however, it undermines that tone, for Luxuria, the epitome of frivolity, is a profoundly ironic source of severity, especially as she describes herself in language rell1iniscent of a comic prostitute ("is rem patcrnal11 me adiutrice perdidit"; "He has destroyed his patrimony with nle as helper," 13; cf True. 107-T1, 209-17).3G The first nlortal character to appear, Megaronides, is another stern 11101'alizer. Believing that in buying Charnlides' house, Callicles has taken advantage ofLesbonicus, he delivers a long monologue on nloral decline: amicllm Glstigare ob 111eritall1 noxianl immoene est facinus, Verllll1 in aetate utile et conducibile. llall1 ego ~1I11iCUll1 hodie meum concastigabo pro comnlerita noxia,

METATHEATER AND MOR.ALlTY

51

invitus, ni id me invitet ut facial11 fides. nam hic nimium nlori-ms lllores invasit bonos; ita p1crique omnes iam sunt intermortui. sed dunl il11 aegrotl11t, interinl mores nuh quasi herba inrigua succrevere uberrinle: eorlll11 licct ianl metere nlessem l1laXUm
THE THEATER Of i'LAUTUS

.......................--

'.kga[onides is a practitioner of extrenle Roman srvrritas ("severity"), es'lL'C~1ily as he takes the unusual step of specifying that his words apply to ~porII l11eil and women: the 1<...0111an notion that one must avoid even the sus38 ',' 11 of\VTongdoing applied particularly to W0111en. In case anyone has ~'lLiO ... , .,d the fact that Mcgaronides is spollting Roman ideals, Callic1cs in~~ eludes in his response a detailed and explicit allusion to the largest tenlple ,!11 til C~ city _ of Romc, the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline:

.

ne admittallI culpam, ego meo sum promus pectori: sllspicio est in pectore alieno sita. nam nunc ego si te surrupuisse suspicer lovi coronanl de capite ex Capitolio, qui in cohulline astat SUlllnlO: si id non feceris atque id tanlen 111ihi lubeat suspicarier, qui ttl id prohibere me potes ne suspicer? (8r-87) As steward of Iny O\vn thoughts, I can control \vhether or not I do wrong: suspicion lies in someone else's thoughts. For suppose r should suspect right now that you have stolen the crO\vn from the head of the statue of Jupiter on the Capitoline I-Iill, the one that stands on the top of the temple. Even if you didn't do it, if I \\iant to suspect that you did it, how can you keep 111e from suspecting it? Depending on \vhere the play was perfol"lned, the actor playing Cal1icles may have been able to gesture direct1y toward the Capitoline itself, visible to the audicnce, as he spoke the lines. 3 ,) However ROIllan it Inay have sounded, however, Megaronides' 1110ralizing would surely have had a hUlllorous rather than a serious effect on most of his audience; for Megaronides ral11bles hopelessly. He begins his monologue \vith what we have secn is the typical monologue opening of New and Roman cOlnedy: a generalizing sClltclltia, followed by its application to his own situation. With his second 1WIIl ("for"), ho\vever, he returns to the general, unable to restrain himself frOl11 eleven nlore lines of moralizing. Most of his remarks arc cntirely irrelevant: \V-hatever Callic1es' actions may have been, they have nothing to do with the rise of cliques at the expense of the majority. Furthernlore, Megaronides is completely 111istaken abollt Callicles, \V-ho has rescued rather than abused Lesbonicus. The sentiments themselves may be admirable, but Megaronides is an old fool. After he has learned the truth from Callicles, Megaronides continues his obsession with morality. Before he exits, Callicles speaks the standard for-

METATHEATER AND MOR,ALlTY

.......................

mula of parting: "numquid vis?" ("Is there anything else you want?"). This fOrIIIUla, like the English "How do you do?" does not require an ansWer and it usually remains unanswered unless a character wants to make ajoke.~'; Megaronides, however, cannot resist the chance to nloralize, so he re_ sponds, "cures tuanl fidem" ("I want you to renuin faithful to your charge," 192). Megaronides does, to his credit, acknowledge in another long mono_ logue that he was foolish to believe the rumormongers; but his moment of self-awareness is lost in another sea of ranlbling l110ralizing about the vices of gossip (I99-222). Again, Megaronides is not content to follO\v the nOr_ malnlonologue pattern. He produces a generalization about gossiping loiterers, says ho\v he was a victilll of their slander, discourses further on the bad habits of the loiterers, returns to his own situation, then comes back yet again to the general, proposing punishment for repeaters of scandal.·!l The next scene offers another long moralizing Illonologue: a "debate" between profit and love offered by Lysiteles. Lysiteles says that he is trying to make up his own nlind whether to follow al1lOr ("love") or res ("bllSiness," 223-33). He will therefore make a trial of the nlatter, acting as both judge and defendant (233-34). His "trial," however, turns out to be a tirade against all1or. After a long list of pejorative adjectives describing love (239a-41), he explains how a lover loses all his money, adding another long list of specialized servants in the household of a mcretrix (241a-54). This train of thought leads him to a vehement apostrophe of AI/lOr Cap age te, AI11or, non places nil te utor"; "Get away, Love, I don't like you, and I have no use for you," 257), to nlore description of love's horrors (258 -70), and finally to a resounding conclusion: certUll1st ad fruge111 adplicare ani111U111, quall1quanl ibi labos grandis capitur. boni sibi haec expetunt, rem, fidenl, honore111, glorianl et gratianl: hoc probis pretiumst. eo nlihi nugis lubet cum probis potius qU~ll11 ctml illlprobis vivere vanidicis. (27T-75a) I have made up nly nlind to dedicate myself to what's worthwhile, even though that n1eans lots of hard \vorle Good people seek these things: profit, good faith, respect, glory, and goodwill; this is the reward for the virtuous. For that reason I prefer to live anlong good people rather than depraved chatterboxes. Lysiteles should have called himself advocate rather than judge and defendant. He has already nude up his lllind, and he seeks to persuade his aucli-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

., ot himself Like Megaronides, Lysiteles is a figure of fun, as he gets n . " " . . . .. d 'l\vaV, in hIS earnest deSIre to persuade the audIence oflus nlorahstIc {.true, CULt:,

\'iC\\"S.42

The next character to enter is Lysiteles' father, Philto. Like Megaronides, Philto sees the world in terms of declining nlorality. His greeting to his son .lccekrates rapidly and apparently inevitably into a discourse on the evils of >lllnOrarv' morals (280-300), as verbose and irrelevant as Megaronides' (Oil [t: t first monologue. PhiIto is more passionate than Megaronides. He delivers . . lllixture of acco111panied 111eters a diatribe twice as long as Mega111 ,1 . 'rollicles' first speech, using a powerful rhetorical style;·!3 and he tells of his personal grief at living in such all age (291-93). The passion only makes the speech nl0re hunlorous: like Megaronides and Lysiteles before him, Philto is conlpletely carried a\vay with himself, and the audience is £"1r more likely to be aUlused than nloved by his harangue. In the next scenes, Philw reveals that he just cannot stop moralizing, even in the least likely places. He fills with maxims his conversation with Lysiteles (305 - 12, 3 I 8". j""-4' _.,. J7 -,' 345, •353-54,363-64,367-68), moralizes aside as he eavesdrops on the dialogue bet\veen Lesbonicus and his slave Stasimus (416-17, 422-24), and offers variolls bits of moral advice to Lesbonicus (447, 46162,466-73,485-87). Philto even finds an opportunity to talk about bad morals when Stasimus tries to convince hinl that the land that Lesbonicl1s \Yants to give as his sister's dowry is worthless. If, says Philto, anything sown in the land perishes, //lorcs J/lali ("bad 111orals") should be sown there (53132); and if the land wears out the slaves who work it, bad slaves should be oWIl

sent to it (547-52). Like Megaronides, Philto is associated with Rome. Trying to convince Philto not to accept Lesbonicus's land as a dowry, Stasinlus says that even Syrian slaves, "genus quod patientissulllulllst hOll1iIlUl11" ("the IlI0St longsuffering race of nlen"), cannot survive six nlonths working the hard soil (5.P-44). Philto responds, "Campans genus / nlulto Surorunl iaill antidit patientia" ("Nov~' the Call1panian race far surpasses the Syrians in endurance"). PhiIto refers to the fate of the people ofCapua, enslaved because they had gone over to Hannibal during the Second Punic War:!.t In the next scene, Stasimus, describing the dialogue \,vith Philto, makes a joking reference to the Italian city ofPraeneste (609). The first half of TrilllllJlIIJllS, then, offers three characters-Megaronides, Lysiteles, and Philto-whose obsession with moralizing makes thenl look silly. Shortly after PhiIto's exit, Plautus offers a dialogue full of moralizing that is not silly, but that its onstage audience hears through self-interested ears. Lysite1es and Lesbonicus debate \vhether or not Lesbonicus should give

METATHEATER AND MORALITY

85

Lysiteles a dowry in \vhat is arguably the Illost serious eli'lio . gue In aU Plalltns. Its seventy-eight lines, as the two ')lOtlIlg men vehementl\, ',. " l1111110raII y, arc unbroken by any comical inten:u acc" cae I1 ot Iler 0 f actmg . '''<: and the arguments arc severe, even brutal. The entire scene I . Ptl<)!lL •

.

<

'

10\\CVer

h

overheard by StasllllUS, who fi-ames it \vith theatrical metaphors. A '1:' young 111cn enter, Stasimlls says that they stand "hand ineuschemc" «;; S t~l<' -) I /lellseIleille IS' ev}'d cntI ' eIegantIy," 6)2). y a word WIth connotation fgUn,. S 0

1 es considerablv after tbe theatrical reference. In the next lw du111111S 1 ' . . ~ . p ". d the areat moralIzer Megaromdes find themselves In the C,dhcks an t::>. ~ . ' . ' ~ 0' losition of plotting a deceptlOn. The Idea IS IVlegalomdes , ,·.rIlC"'s ,~. r reminiscent of c1ever slaves an d cIuracters I'k j I ?y;,,».if1 ~e t 1em w 10 •.. }l11'Tll,ltTC IS rll:-' ~ '17 deceptions elsewhere in Plautl1s:!7 Callicles, at least, is aware •

0

•

0

.wd \\ JtC

"

-,';t

we illCOll'Tfuitv: ~.

pet~

satis scite et probe; "'lm hoc llle actatis svcophantari pudet. (7 86 - 87) ~, .

fOl:mancc: clIsclielllC 15 us~d elsewhere of Palaestrio preparing his "play" i" lHdcs .!!IOn05I1S (213). StasllllUS then eavesdrops \vithour interrupt' '.

qUJ111 'l

the debate reaches Its most Il1tense pomt, and Lysiteles claims that Lesb

That's a great idea! Still, 1'111 ashallled to plot tricks at my age.

•

,

<

,

"

'~u~

.

o111_ C II' I' j cus, aL:er se .mg lIS. ast remaining property to provide a dowry for his S15_ ter, w1ll go 111to exIle as a lnercenary and leave Lvsiteles himself I00 k'lIlo J greedy and responsible for his fl.-iend's ruin. Stasin1US then comes. OUt CLrOlll~ hiding and proclaims: non enim POSSll111 quin exclamem euge. euge, Lysiteles, nD:Alv. L1Cile palman1 habes: hic victust, vicit tua con10edia. hic agit magis ex argumento et versus n1elioris faciL etian1 ob stultitian1 tuam te t curis n1ultabo mina. (7 0 5- 8)

is doomed to failure before it begins, for no sooner 'des' 1110t 1 ~

\_\c(TJfOJl1

h.l:C t1~e tWO old plotters left the stage than Chanllid~s himself en.ters, and

,

,

tlv encounters the Svcophant. What follows IS, as we saw III Chap. o· . • • f the nlOst consp1cllOusly theatncal scenes 1Il all of Plautus. the t'd I. 0 . , t- tllC' S\lcophant as an actor could hardly be elllpl1JSIZed nlOre. -;:t.ltu::; 0 . . .ctun11l'd es" "10cl"erv of that "-, ,
~ one

0

0

l~eal1y, I can't keep fr0111 shouting, "Bravo! Bravo, Lvsiteles!

Encore!" You easily win the prize. Lesbonicus here l;as been defeated; your comedy has won. Lysiteles here performs more in keeping with the plot, and he makes better verses. But vou Lesbonicus, I \vill fine a n1ina because of your stupidity. ' , In describing the debaters as actors, Stasin1US places himself in the position of a spectator, as \vell as a judge of actors:!5 As for his judgn1ent, it is certainly debatable that Lysiteles' argll111ents are superior to those ofLesbonicus: indeed, Lysiteles' sc1f-satisf:lction at the favor he is doing is less sympathetic than the remorse and concern of Lesbonicus.·H , Stasimus does not interrupt Vo/ith his praise until Lysiteles talks about his fear that LesbonicLls will becon1e a mercenary, for it is this fear, and its relevance to his own situation, that most concerns him (cf 595 -99, 7 I 8 -26). The implications for didacticism are similar to those provided by Gripus's speech in RlldcllS. Gripus's spectators liked the sound of actors' SCl1tClltiac but failed to respond to their content. Here the spectator, Stasimus, hears what he wants to hear; be approves of the sClltClltiac that suit his own interests, and he gives the prize to the actor \\Those plot, if successful, would save bin1 from becoming the slave of a mercenary. Another parallel with Gripus's speech is that here as well, the moral tone

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

'-

•

· . ., 5es the moral carnestness froIll this previously all-too-serIous play. Ult1 It cra ' "I (. Ian11 ,'des \vho enJo ovs thc Svcophant's failure inll11enselv, is the opposite ,

'

,

'

{lfthc stern moralists who have preceded him onstage:!8 By contrasting the pure fun of this scene with the failed attempts at n10ral seriousl~ess else'I"' l'j'-"ltl1S once again makes his point that the proper end ot con1edy \\. IIt: t:, 'is pleasure, not edification. Furthermorc, the audience is aware that the most severe moralist of the play, Megaronides, lies behind the Sycophant's t~liled attempt at deception. The Sycophant rcminds them of Megaronides' role with several references to his cOIlductor ("en1ployer," R53, 856, 866), and "~o

a claim that be will himself deceive Megaronides if he can: ipse ornamenta a chorago haec sumpsit suo periculo. nunc ego si potero ornalllentis hominem circumducere, dabo operam, ut n1e esse ipsum plane sycophantan1 sentiaL

(S5 8-

oo)

He himself rented the costume from the choraglls at his own risk. NO\v if I can trick the fellmv out of the costume, I'll see to it that he learns that I really am a trickster myself. Poor Megaronides fails both as a n10ralist and as a Machiavellian: his severity only causes him to look a fool, and his attcillpt at deception is a disaster:'') The moralists nevertheless make one last attelllpt to dominate the play. When the Sycophant has left in disgracc, Stasimus enters \vith a strangely

METATHEATER AND MORALITY

................------------..~..----------..............

1110raEstic variatio11 011 the running-sbve motif. After his initial adnlonition to himself to hurry, Stasilllus realizes that he has lost a ring, and he fcars that one of his good-for-nothing friends has stolen it. Then, even nlore unexpectedly than Philto and Megaronides before hinl, he turns s~lddcnIy to a bnlent for the loss of 11ctcrcs nrores ("old ways," 1028 -29)· He mdulges in a long discourse on m{lli wores ("bad \vays") ranging through the topoi of conservative complaints: decline in jJ(1rsilllollia ("thrift"), awuitio ("unfair election practices"), soldiers throwing away shields in battle, fiagitiulII ("crinle"), failure to reward the strell II l' ("the virtuous and brave"), the inadequacy of laws, perf1dy (103.2-54). His thoughts onfidcs ("trustworthiness") lead hi111 to another sudden change of topic: he hinlsclf nude a loan of a talent to a friend, and it was not returned. Finally, Stasinlus restrains hinlself, in an inlplicit acknowledgment that such matters as public morality are not the proper domain of theater: sed ego sum insipicntior, qui rebus curenl publicis potius quam, id quod proxull1umst, 111eo tergo tutelam geranl. ( 10 57-5 8)

But it's silly of 111e to worry about public matters rather than so protect 111Y own back, which is closest to 111e. Stasimns's tirade brings the crowning touch to the 1110ckery of obsessive nostalgia for old morals begun by Plautus's portrayals of MegarOl=ides an~ Philto. Stasimus echoes much of the earlier nloralizers' vocabulary,:>l and hIS pattern of thought-from disappointment in fi"iends to !/lOS and back to friends-is the same as that of Megaronides. The audience has learned enough about StaSi1l1US from earlier scenes to know that he is a nlost incongruous proponent of such nlorality. His concluding words about the loan of a talent reinforce the incongruity: ·what is he doing with such a large anlol111t of Bloney \vhen his master is broke? 52 One way in \vhich Stasimus's speech diHers fronl those of his predec:ssors is that he is overheard by Channides. Charmides' asides have been lllterpreted as words of agreenlent fronl a nl0re reliable source, who reveals that however untrustworthy and hunlOrous StasilllUS is, his words should be taken seriously.53 In fact, Channides' words are the kind of derisive response typical of one eavesdropping on a SCI'I'HS W/TCIlS (cf. Asill. 27~-95,; Capt. 793- 833). Charm ides first nlakes hunlOrous commcnts on StaSl111USS haste (lOIS-TO)5'! and the thief \\lho stole Stasimus's ring (r024)· Whcn Stasinlus turns to morcs, Channides' fIrst reaction is:

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

SK

di immortal~s, basilica hic quidenl £1.cinora inceptat loqui. vetera quaent, vetera amare hunc more nlaiortun scias. (1030 - 3 I) Immortal gods! This guy is starting to speak royally! He longs for the old ways; you can tell that he loves them, just as our ancestors did.

Bm'iliws ("kinglike") is llsed else\vhere of slaves and parasites speakinG' or acting pompously, beyond their station (Capt. RJ 1; Per.sa 29,31, 462, ~06; POCII. 577; Pselld. 458). Given this context, Charmides' assertion that Stasimus loves old ways is surely sarcastic. 55 Charmides' later \vords of approval are also playful: he recognizes that Stasimus is reciting cliches, and he enjoys them (1041-42). Such playful asides are in keeping with Chan11ides' character: he 1~1ade s~milar jokes as he listened to the Sycophant (R 5 J- 69). Just as he earlIer enjoyed the performance of the Sycophant, Chanllides now gets pleasure, not edification, from the moralizing performance of Stasiml1S. What follows is largely pro forma: Callicles explains all to Charmides Lysiteles wins Chanl1ides' daughter for hin1self and pardon for Lesbonicu~: and Lesbonicus promises to reform and to marry Callicles' daughter. It cannot be denied th~t the most important nloral example in the play, Callicles' loyalty to Channldes, remains intact in spite of all the irony and ridicule of I11oralizi.n~. 5(, Nevertheless, Inetatheatrical elements reinforce a pervasive Under1111IUng of the heavy moralizing that donlinates Inost of the play. Rather. than any of the lessons proposed by its ardently moralizing characters, Tnl1~I1IJ/IIIIS provides satire of those very moralists, and a clear signal that comedy IS for pleasure, not for moral instruction. 57 It is n.ot surprisin~, of course, that Plautus should 11lake fun of pOll1pOUS 1l10ralrs,ts: £i'onl Anstophanes' a!azollcs ("braggarts") through Shakespeare's Malvoho to the prigs and busybodies of nlodern sitC0111S, the self-righteous ~lave always been an irresistible target of comic dramatists. What is striking IS the. extent to ·which PlalltllS connects av..,rareness of performance with deflatIOn of moralizing, and the number of passages in which he explicitly debunks dramatic sClltmtiac. Taken together, the passages and plays discussed here suggest not only that Plautus was keenly aware of the usefulness of moralizing and nloralists as targets for conledy, but also that he presented a programlllatic disll1issal of comic moralizing as a source of edification. This is Ilot to say that Plautus sought to subvert the 1110ral views of his more upright characters or of his audience. With the exception of the shad-

METATf-IEATER AND MORALITY

pi ows cast upon the comfortable moral universe of Rl/dcllS, Plautus seldom suggests that the high moral principles sometimes espoused in his plays arc wrong: it is llloralizing rather than morality that Plautus nl0cks. Nevertheless, the repeated undermining of theatrical llloralizing has repercussions beyond the cOlllic stage. As I noted above, nl0ralizing was a pervasive part ofR..onlan1ife both on and off the stage. Much OfPlalltllS'S ironic moralizing, especially in Thlll/IIIIIIIIS, is reminiscent of the kind of nloralizing spectators would have heard in contemporary political and cultural debates. The persistent antididacticisnl, therefore, carries with it yet another layer of irony: even as he rejects the use of cOllledy to send moral messages, Plautlls himself sends a Illes sage of his own with distinct relevance to the llloral and

PART

political discourse of his day.

IT IT

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

,..

90

-

pi meretrix by a clever slave. Calidorus is in love with PhoeniciUll1, v-rho is

.,~UDIIENC.E ;,~ND

owned by the pilllP Ballio. Learning that BaIlio has sold Phoeniciul11 to a soldier, and waits merely for the renuining five l1unae of her twenty minae price to hand her over, Calidorus's slave, Psclldolu5, contrives to get the girl through trickery. He intercepts a letter from the soldier and gets another clever slave, Simia, to impersonate the soldier's servant, bring the owed fIve minae, and rake the girl. To this typical plot, Plautl1S added a menagerie of motifs possible in the palliata tradition, fulfilling almost every possible expectation of his audience. At the sanlC tiIllc, he extended these fa111iliar elements, ofTering novelty, surprise, and pure virtuosity; and he never let his audience forget that they were being treated to something special. It is hardly unusual for Plautus to include and elaborate elelnents not necessary to the accOlnplishIllent of a play's central plot. The nUlnber of such elements in Psclldollls, hO\vever, is \vithout parallel in Plautus's corpus. First, Plautus added to the plot a pair of bets. Early in the play, Calidorus's f;lther, S1nlO, bets Pseudolus t\venty n1inae that he will not be able to obtain Phoeniciml1. Later, BaHio promises Simo both the girl and t\venty minae ifPseudolus succeeds in his quest. Either Simo's promise of the twenty minae or BaIlio's promise of the girl alone would have been sufficient to explain, for anyone who cared to consider the nutter, why at play's end Calidonts could legally keep Phoenicium. Not content with such a simple solution, Plautus has Pseudolus end the play with both Simo's money and Ballio's girl. Though n10st scrlJi callidi overcome either their elder lnaster or a pimp, Pseudolus accomplishes both tasks, and in spectacular ways. The spectators not only see Ballio triply undone-he loses the girl, the money he bet Sin10, and the llloney he now owes the soldier-but they are treated to an extra scene ofSin10 forced to give money to Pseudolus and then begging Pseudolus for half the n10ney back.:? The superfluous but delightful bets are indicative of how Plautus approached the playas a whole. Through the play's structure, Plautus reveals his determination to include as many expected and nove1 e1enlents as possible. Pseudolus pron1ises after only 100 lines that he \vill COIlle up "\vith a plan to get Phoenicium for Calidorus; yet nearly 500 lines later, he still does DOt have a plan. After calling attention to this apparent lack of progress through a verbal echo (106-7, 566-68),3 Pseudolus leaves the stage with a promise that while he devises a plan ofEtage, the tibia player will entertain the audience (573a). Pseudolus's reference to the tibicen has often been used as evidence that l~oman playwrights regularly interrupted their plays with instrunlental interludes:1 Yet it is just as likely that Pseudolus announces

{)
fP'SJEUDOJLU:S FOI~ Plautus, then, the ain1 of theater was pleasure; and one of the primary features of the relationship bet\veen his actors and their audience was the former's conspicuous determination to provide the greatest possible pleasure to the latter. This detennination is especially proIllinent in two plays: PseudO/liS and Amphitrtlo. In Pscudollls, Plautus uses the close relationship between actors and audience to reinforce the play's effectiveness as a tour de force, appropriate for the extraordinary occasion at which the play was first produced. In Al1lphitrJ/o, blandishment of the audience and theatrical awareness help remove potentially disquieting elen1ents of the unusual plot.

A number of critics have noted the success of PSClldollls as a piece of metatheater, observing that Plautus repeatedly describes the action onstage in theatrical terms, and that he has created in the play's title character both an actor accomplishing ever more dazzling theatrical feats and a nletaphor for the play-wright hilllself 1 The success of a play, however, depends ultimately not on its playwright or actors, but on the reaction of its audience; and PSClldolllS shows a remarkable degree of self-consciousness about this third e1enlent of dranlatic performance as well. In PSClldollls, P!autus not only offers a tour de force, but also repeatedly reminds the audience that the play's unique qualities have been designed for their pleasure; and he involves the spectators in the action ollstage in unparalleled ways. The plot of PsclldolllS revolves around the very typical acquisition of a

AUDIENCE AND OCCASION: PSEUDOLUS

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

~b

______________________

~""

93

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

a novelty in naming the tibia player, and there is no good evidence that Roman comedies regularly included such interludes.:> There is evidence, ho\vever, that ti!Jicillcs played overtures before perf()fl1laIlCeS of I:z..oman pbys: Cicero claims that connoisseurs could recognize the title of a tragedy merely by hearing the music played before the play began.(, The interlude by the tibia player, then, would probably appear to the audience not like an entr'acte, but like an overture: Plautus has ofFered thenl an entire play just for fun, and nO\v he will start all over again \\'ith, as it were, a completely new play. Indeed, the portion of the play before Psclldolus's exit (Act I in the manuscripts) is only about 1561ines shorter than Pbutus's shortest play, CurCI/liD. Even after this new bcginning, Plautus delays before he gets the central

plot undcr way. Pscudolus returns \vith a song of triUl11ph, exulting in the plan he has devised; but the audience ncver even learns that plan, for Pseudolus abandons it when he discovers the slave l-larpax bringing a letter [r0111 the soldier. For the first 600 lines of the play, then, aln10st nothing happens that is neccssary for what is ostensibly thc central aim of the plot, the winning ofPhoeniciunl. Plautus has stuffed the first half of the play with monologw:s and comic scenes purely for the fun they provide the audience. The second half of thc play is alnl0st as conspicuously tIlled with extra elements. The scencs that contribute to the acquisition ofPhocniciumPseudolus's deception of l-larpax, the arrangcl11ent \vith Charinus to attain the necessary nloney and slave, and the actual deception ofBallio-make up only about 240 of the rcmaining 741 lines of the play. The rest is extra cntertail1l11ent: monologues by Pseudolus, Ballio, SinlO, l-larpax, and the plfcr ("boy slave"); a cook scene; the humorous "preparation" of Simi a for his deceptive performance; the humiliation ofBa1lio and Sinlo at the return ofH~l1vax; and Pseudolus's final celebration. A look at the list of dran1atis personae reveals even more clearly the extent to which Plautus has "pulled out all the stops" in Psclidollis. The eponymous character fi.llfills and then exceeds all the possible expectations of the stock SCrims (l111idIiS. He is one of Plaut us's l110st audacious deceivers. He delivers stellar examples of all the monologues that might be expected of a sc/'!'/ls callidIJs: two "I don't know \vhat to do" monologues (394-405, 56273a), two "I do knO\v what to do" monologues (574-91, 759-66), a philosophizing nl0nologue (007-87), a nl0nologue of anxiety (1017-36), and a song of triumph (1240-34).7 He excels in teasing his lovesick master and insulting the greedy pi111P, and he even treats the audience to some drunken dancing at play's end. In this play, however, one clever slave, even such an

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

94

outstanding one, is not enough. Sin1ia, Pseudolus's helper, far exceeds the expectations of thc typical helper in a slave's dcception, outdoing even his instructor in wiliness and braggadocio. The slaves' antagonist, Ballio, is, as one critic aptly put it, a "superpimp.":.l He steals the show as he fulfills and exceeds every expectation of a stock comic pimp. His tIrst entrance, as he threatens his slaves and prostitutes with hyperbolic punishments, is a verbal masterpiece; and it nlust also have been one OfPlalltllS'S most impressive scenes visually, for it includes an unusually large nunlber of n1ute extras, all subservient to the biggcr-thanlife pimp.'1 BaIlio remains nngniflcent through the ensuing bantering with Calidorus and Pseudolus, so that his humiliation at play's end is all the n10re impressive. It is no wondcr that Iloscius, the great actor of Cicero's day, chose to play the part of Ballio. 1() Just as Pseudolus is outdonc by Silnia, however, the verbal genius ofBallio n1eets its match in the coole The nleetincr betwecn Ba11io and the cook, the longest cook scene in extant ancient b comedy, is completely unneccssary for the acquisition of Phoenicium: it is designed to show off yet another stock character, as the cook carries the boastfulness and threats of thievery expected in a comic cook as far as they can gO.l1 The other characters also reveal a desire to [ultI11 and exceed all the audience's expcctations. Harpax, the soldier's slave who unwittingly provides the sealed letter used to deceive Ballio, manages to bring t\VO stock char
AUDIENCE AND OCCASION, PSEUDOLUS

95

~b____________________" " " " " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _

...

p nally, the plicr adds as a kind of1agniappe an obscene 1110nologllc in the center of the play14 In its plot, its structure, and its characters, then, PsclldolllS is extraordinary. Nor was Plautus content merely to write a renurkable play: throughout, he has his characters call attention to the play's extraordinary qualities and renlind the audience that those qualities are designed to fuitin and exceed their expectations, thus bringing theIn as much pleasure as possible. First, he has the actors refer repeatedly to their skill at playing the stock characters they portray. Admonished by Pseudoills to act Blore sensibly, Calidorus responds: "nugae istaec sunt: non iucundU1llst nisi amans t:lcit stulte" ("Nonsense, it's no fun unless a lover is an idiot," 238). The audience's expectations require that he, the stock young nlan in love, act foolishly. Ballia, told that he could never be expected to give good advice, replies, "non lcnoniumst" ("That's not what a pimp is supposed to do," 289); and he later promises that if given the chance, he will break his oath to the soldier: "hoc n1eU111 est offlcium" ("That's l11y duty," 377). When he overhears Sin1ia saying that he seeks a man with all the qualities of the stock pi111p ("hOlnine111 ego hie quaero l11alun1, / legirupam, in1purum, peiuru111 atgue il11pium"; "I'm looking for a man here ·who is bad, lawbreaking, foul, perjuring, and in1pious," 974-75)' BaHio responds that those adjectives are his cognoll1illa: he is the stock pin1p to a tee. Simia also refers to the C!.fficilUIl ("duty") inherent in his stock role (913); and he insists that he must be haughty in ordcr to fulfill the expectations of his role (9 T718; cf T048). He is indignant that Pseudolus should question his ability to carry out even the n10st difficult deception (93 r), and he boasts that he will outdo Pseudolus himself in lies and deceit (932-33).15 Even the old man Simo en1phasizes to the audience that he is deternlined to fulfill and exceed their expectations. As he prepares for his last cncounter with Pseudolus, he says: nunc Inihi certum est alio pacto Pseudolo insidias dare, quanl in alEs con10ediis fit, ubi CU111 sti111ulis aut flagris insidiantur: at ego ian1 intus pr0111am viginti Ininas, quas pr0111isi si effecisset; obviam ei ultro deferan1. (12 39-4 2) Now I've decided to ambush Pseudolus in a different way fronl other c01nedies, when masters al11bush their slaves with goads or whips: I will go inside now and bring out thc twenty minae I pr01nised hinl, ifhe succeeded in this, and 1'11 bring it to hinl of n1y own accord.

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

h

Simo will anlbush Pseudolus as old men often do tricky slaves near thc end of comedies, 16 but not in the same \vay: he will a111bush his slave with the money he mves hin1. The passage epitonlizes the message Plautus's char
Pselldollls: pergin? Calidoms: 0 Pseudole n1i, sinc Si111 nihili, n1irre me sis. Ps.: sino, modo ego abeam. Cali.: mane, mane, ialn ut voles n1ed esse ita ero. Ps.: nllnc tu sapis. (23 8 -40)

PSCI/dollls: Are you through? Calidorus: Oh, Pseudo Ius, let mc be worthless, please! Let 111e go! Ps.: All right, but then I'n1 outta here. Cali.: Wait! Wait! I'll act just the \vay you \vant me to now. P5.: Now you're talking sense. Pseudolus later assures Sin10 and Cal1ipho that he will produce something to be marveled at (522); and after he has provided a disquisition on Fortune of a type clearly beloved by Roman audiences, 17 he concludes, "sed laI11 satis est philosophatUI11. nilnls diu et longuI1110quor" ("Okay, that's enough philosophizing, I'm talking too long now," 687). He has c0111pleted the requisite "philosophical" monologue. Not content to show off \vith the most outrageous tragic parody as he accosts Charinus and Calidorus, Pseudolus tells the audience that he is going to act magl1l!/l(C ("I11agnificently," 702), using a word often associated in Plautus with outstanding performance. If} H. .einforcing the characters' allusions to their own acc0111plishmcnts are other characters' praise for the performances ofBallio, Simia, and PseudoIus. Observing BaHio's tirade against his slaves and prostitutes, Calidorus

AUDIENCE AND OCCASION: PSEUDOLUS

97

-

p asks Pseudolus, "satin magnitlclls tibi videtur?" ("Doesn't he seem magnificent to you?"). Pseudollls responds, "pol istc, atL]llc etianl l1ulitlcus" ("He sure does, Jnd maleficent, too," T~)4-95). Calidorus is impressed with Ba1lio's performance; and Psel1dolus's pun, rather than undermining Calidorus's praise, reinforces it, for 1I/(llijiC//s is just the \vay one would want a cOlnie p1111p to be. Later in the same scene, Calidorns becOll1es impatient with Pselldolus for nuking long asides: he docs not want to I11iss any ofBallio's pCrfOrIllanCC (208-9). Simia receives praise for his ability as an actor before he even enters (724 -50), and Pscudolus provides repeated renlinders that his colleague excels in the qualities expected in a scrFIIS Cdflidlls (90.5 -7, 93 1,934,93 8,94 2 ,944,974, IOI7-I8), Pseudo!us himself is praised by SiI110 for his ability to strut pOlnpously (458, 128.s), and by Charinus for his tragic parody (707), The n10st telling praise of performance surrounds one of the play's greatest nlOments, its parody ofajlagitatio or OCCClltiltio, an Italian custom whereby I a citizen could showcr his debtor or encIny \-vith insults on thc street. ') Calidorus and Pseudolus take turns insulting Ballio, but thc pimp responds to their revilc111ent with delight rathcr than shanle. This scenc is presented in theatrical terms that enlphasize that all three charactcrs arc fulfilling the expectations of their roles. Ballio calls his insulters ((///torcs probi ("exce11ent chanters"), implying that they are doing thcir duty as pelfoIlners wcll (3 66 ); 20 and when asked later about the incident, hc calls the insults nugas theatri, verba quae in comoediis solent lenoni diei, quac pueri sciunt. 21 (1081-82) theatrical nonsense, words that are usually said to pimps in comcdies, that boys know.

In two of Pseudolus's planning monologues, Plautus extends this emphasis on the fulfIlling and cxceeding of expectations from actors to playwright. In the first, Pseudolus has prOlllised Calidorus that he will get Phoenieium, but when Calidorus leaves, the slave adIllits to himself that he has no idea how he will carry out his promise: sed quasi poeta, tabulas CUlll ccpit sibi, quacrit quod nusquamst gentiunl, repcrit tamen, facit illud veri simile, quod mendaciunl est, nunc ego poeta fianl: viginti minas, quae nusquanl nunc sunt gentilllll, inveniam tamen. (401 -5)

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

b

But just as a poet, \vhen he has taken up his tablets, seeks \vhat is nowhere in the \vodd, and still finds it, and makes a lie likc the truth, so I will now becomc a poet. The twenty minae, \vhich are nO\vhere in the world now, I wil1 find nevertheless. Comparing hinlself to a poet, Pscudolus becomcs a metaphor tor Plautus, the playwright. 22 As he does so, he promises novel tv. Plautus, like PseudoIus, is creating something new for the audience. Latcr, after he has made promises to Si1110 as extravagant as those he nude to Calidorus, Pseudolus delivers a second plannillCT 1110noloCTue: ~

~

suspicio est mihi nunc vos suspicaricr, me idcirco haec tanta f.:1cinora promittere, quo vas oblectem, hanc fabula111 dum transiganl, nequc sim factufus quod facturum dixeranl. non dcmutabo. atquc etianl certum, quod scianl, quo id sim f:1cturus pacta nil etiam scio, nisi quia futurul1lst. nam qui in scaenam provenit, novo modo novon1 aliquid inventum adferre addecet; si id f:1.cerc nequeat, det 10cml1 illi qui queat. conccdere a1iquantispcr hinc Ini intra lubet, dum concenturio in corde sycophantias. <sed max> exibo, non ero vobis morae; tibicen vos interibi hic delectaverit. (562-73a) I suspect that you suspect that I only promise such great deeds in order to an1use you, \vhile I keep this ph)r O"oinu v,'and that , I anl not going to do what I said I would do. I \villnot rcnege. Still, so far as I know, I know nothing for sure, as to how I am going to do it, except that it is going to happen. For whoever comes onto the stagc ought to bring son1ething new done in a ne\v wa")!; ifhe can't do that, he should make room for the one who can. Now I want to go off here ;l\vhile and llluster up some trickery in my nlind. But soon, I'll come back out: I \von't hold you up. Meanwhile the tibia player herc will cntertain you. ~

What. Pseudolus thinks the audience suspects is in fact true: he is making pronllses only in order to delight thcm. Given the earlier identiflcation of ~)seu~olus and a playwright, the slave mcans also that Plautns thc play\vright IS g~l11g through the possible variations of a clever slave's planning in order to glve extra fun to thc audience. Plautus then assures the spectators that thc

AUDIENCE AND OCCASION, l'SEUDOLUS

99

fun-filled delay is only the prelude: he has in fact taken extra trouble to provide thenl with something novel, as well as everything they 111ight expect, in what follows. Like the tibia player, Pseudolus the actor and the character, and Plautus the playwright, all aim to delight the audience. Pseudolus's "non era vobis morae" ("I \,V011't hold you up") calls attention to another of the play's leitnlotifs: tillle. Throughout the play, characters present a continual struggle behveen their desire to offer additional words or action and their need to hasten. Pseudolus's first '\fords are a reluctant acknowledgnlcnt that he and Calidorus 111USt take the tinlC for questioning and response, ifhe is to learn what is troubling his Blaster (3-8). Pseudolus later tells Ballio that he and Calidorus don't want to take the time to hear the pilnp describe himself (275), and Ba11io has no tiine to listen to Pseudolus's requests (278). Pseudolus warns Calidorus that his words delay him (389, 393). Both the real Harpax and Simia dressed as Harpax are impatient as they get ready to carry out their exchanges (638, 951, 997, TOI6, 1157-58, 1166, 1174). Sinlia's pace during the second exchange is a COI1cern to Pseudolus as well (958), and both before and after that exchange, each serulI5 callidlls accuses the other of delay (920-22, 940, 94 2 , 10 44-4 8). Both Calidorus and Pseudolus are anxious that Charinus produce the Blotley, costlllne, and slave necessary for the deception quickly (75 6 -5 8); and Ballio is exasperated that the cook talks so long (889). Much of this concern \vith til11e is inlplicitly connected with the perforInance of the play. Pseudolus's words about the need for him to question Calidorus are an inlplicit allusion to the need for exposition at the beginning of a play. When Pseudolus tells Ballio not to describe himself, he seeks to end Ballio's performance, v'lith which he has stolen the show for nearly 150 lines. The references to tinle surrounding Charinus and Sinlia are about the play's most theatricalized scene, Sinlia's performance for Ba11io. All this concern \vith time thus provides another reininder to the audience that Plautus and the actors are serving their interests. Elsewhere, the connection between pacing and the audience's pleasure is Inade explicit. As we have seen, Pseudoills assures the audience that he won't be offstage too long while he devises a plan (573), and he acknowledges that he has spoken long enough in his "philosophizing" speech (68 7). Lest the spectators be in any doubt that they are the reason for the actors' concern about time, P!autus twice has Pseudolus say so categorically. First, he refuses to tell Calidorus his plan:

Calidonls: cedo mihi, quid es facturus? Psclfdollls: teB1peri ego faxo scies.

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

>

100

nolo bis iterari, sat sic 1011gae fiunt 6bulae. Cali.: optlllnllln atgue aequissinlUI1l oras. (387-89)

Calidof//s: Tell 111e, what arc you going to do? Pseudollls: I'll let you know when the time is. rio-ht • b . I don't \vant to repeat I1lyself; plays are long enongh alreadv. Cali.: That's a very excellent and fair request. . As a character, Pseudolus's real reason for reticence is that he does not yet baVL" a plan. As an actor, ho\vever, Pseudolus is concerned that the audience not be subjected to unnecessary repetition; and Calidorus the actor agrees. In a similar joke later, Plautus states the principle still nlDre explicitly. CalidonIs asks Pseudolus how he deceived Harpax, and Pseudolus responds: horulll causa haec agitur spectatorulll flbula: hi sciunt, qui hie adfuerunt; vobis post narravero. (720-21) This play is being performed for the sake of these spectators: they know [scil., how I deceived J-IarpaxJ, since they were here. I'll tell you later. All this concern with tillle in general, and with the pace of performance in particular, is both sincere and tongue-in-cheek, and in both respects it is flattering to the audience. The actors state sincerely that no llutter how much fun material playwright and performers add, they nlust keep the play moving to keep the audience entertained. In this play, ho\vever, 'vvhere so many extra characters, scenes, and monologues have been added with such self-consciousness, the characters' obsession with time is gloriously ironic. They pretend to be concerned to keep the play 11loving, all the till1e aware-and a\vare that the audience is avnre-that they and their playwright have in fact worked in just the opposite direction, drawing the play out to provide the spectators as nlllch pleasure as possible. Besides keeping the spectators aware that thev arc the end of his o\vn and his actors' extraordinary efforts, Plautus also in\:olved theln in the action in unparalleled ways. The play's two major characters, Ballio and Pseudolus. show in the extrenle both hierarchy of rapport and the desire of characters for rapport. Each seeks to nuke the spectators his allies: Ballio [1.ils miserably, Pseudolus succeeds spectacularly. Ballio first enters addressing his slaves; but after a few lines, he speaks of the slaves in the third person: he has begun to address the audience, seeking to persuade thenl that the slaves, though they look innocent enough, arc actually lazy thieves (136-42). He then shouts to the slaves once nlore, but

AUDIENCE AND OCCASION: I'SEUDOLUS

101

•

p he soon addresses the spectators again, striving to make them see the slaves through his eyes: "hoc sis vide, ut alias res agunt" ("Just look at ho\\' they do everything but \vhat they're supposed to do!" 152). Later in the play, Ballio renews his attempts to gain rapport with the spectators. Monologues frame his scene with the cook (790-S17, 892-904; the latter includes another sis vide), and Ballio otlers his own version of the stock "triU111ph monologue" when he thinks he has avoided Pseudoll1s's trickery (105262). The spectators thus get the distinct pleasure of denying their sY111pathy to the dastardly Ballia; the failed attclllpts Of:8111io the character to win rapport with theln give thel11 a great sense of power, even as they delight in the antics of Ballio the actor. Plautus reinforces this sense of power through the context and staging of Ballio's asides and n10nologues. Both his asides about the slaves and his first monologue about the cook are overheard by other characters. His next n10nologue, as he associates the cook and Pseudolus, ren1inds the audience that both characters are destined to outwit him; and his "triumph n10nologue" is spoken only 1110111ents after he has been deceived. When he learns that Pseudolus has in £lct tricked hin1 out of Phronesit1l11, Ballio addresses the audience one last time before he leaves in humiliation: nunc ne expectetis, dunl hac dOl11um redeu11 via; ita res gestast: angiporta haec certm11 est consectarier. ( 12 34-35) Don't \vait now for me to return hon1e 011 this street rsci1., the street represented by the stage]; the way things have turned out, I have decided to folhJ\v these alleyways. His words an10unt to nothing less than, "You \von't have BaHio to kick around any lllore." The spcctators can personally share responsibility tor the villain's discomfiture. In splendid contrast to 13allio's failure is Pseudolus's success in coopting the spectators as allies. From early in the play, Pseudolus makes clear that the spectators are to be on his side. As soon as he decides that he will use deception to get Phronesimll, he announces: nunc, ne quis dictu111 sib1 neget, dico omnibus pube praesenti in contione: O1nni poplo, O111nibus a1111cis notisque edico I11eiS, in hunc diem a me ut caveant, ne credant mihi. (I25-28) Now, so that no one will say he \vas not warned, I say to everybody, while the adults are present in a public meeting: I make

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

...

102

a proclamation to alllllY friends and those who know me: \-vatch out for me for this day; don't trust me. Even as he ironically suggests that they then1selves nlight be the victims of his plots, Pseudolus includes the spectators among his friends. During his ensuing scenes with Ballio and CalidorLls, he addresses to the audience insulting words about Ballio (335) 23 and a pr0111ise that he \vill succeed in deceiving the pimp (380-81). He then begins his series of monologues. The first twO, quoted above, are explicit promises to the audience. In between thcm, Pseudolus eavesdrops on Sinlo and Callipho, conlnlenting to the audience on what he hears. In case any spectators miss the implied alliance, Pseudolus makes it still clearer in the middle of his third monologue, the exuberant tril1l11ph speech after he has come up with a plan: nunc inimicum ego hunc com11lunem meum atque vostrorU111 onlnll1111, Ballionem, exballistabo 1epide: date operam modo. (584-85) Now I will very nicely" exballiate Ballio,2.1 this common enen1Y of me and all of you: just pay attention. IVlore eavesdropping ensues, as Pseudolus overhears the entrance nlOnologlle of Harpax. When he prepares to eavesdrop now, Pseudolus addresses members of the audience as if they V"Tre a fellow character, eavesdropping along with hil11: "st, tace, tace, meus hic est h01110, ni omnes di atque homines deserunt" ("Sh! Quiet! Quiet! This guy is lIIillC, unless all gods and men desert me," (00).25 In the rest of the play, in addition to the remaining four monologues, Pseudolus eavesdrops with more asides on Calidorus and Charinus (692-702), and he shares with the audience his enthusiasm and tea.rs as he watches Simia deceive Ballio (970,974,984-85). Crowning this alliance between Pseudolus and the spectators at the expense ofBallio is the implicit identification of the audience with a political or judicial assembly. In his first address to the audience, Pseudolus uses the language of a RonJan magistrate, addressing the people as if they were an assembly, a COlltiO (126).21> Near the end of the play, Ballio, in his final exit monologue, just before he adn10nishes the spectators not to expect to see him again, says: "Pseudolus mihi centuriata habuit capitis c0111itia" ("Pseudolus today had me convicted of a capital charge in the colllitia (ClIft/r/ata," 1232). The (olllitia (clltllriata, like the collfio earlier, is the audience, whom Pseudolus has led in judgn1ent against the pimp. Their status has now changed from that of a collfio-a public meeting at which no voting

AUDIENCE AND OCCASION: PSEUDOLUS

!OJ

occurred-to that of an assembly that could vote to convict defendants.:;' Led by Pseudolus, they have themselves condenlned Ballio. In the play's last scenes, a third character, Simo, also seeks rapport with the spectators. He begins with the monologue quoted above, promising the audience that he will treat thenl to an unusual variation of the stock ambush scene (1238~45). When he returns, Simo points out to the spectators Pseudolus's drunken state (1285-S6, I288-89), and tells them "\vhat he plans to do (f290). Faced with Pseudolus's arrogance, he asks the audience what he should do (1315-16). Finally Simo goes so £:lr as to ask Pseudolll s to invite the spectators to join in the party at play's end. Through Simo's request in the epilogue, and Pseudolus's response to it, Plautus shows an ironic a\vareness of the deternlination to please and involve the audience that pervades the play. Pseudolus invites Simo to join hinl and Calidorus in celebrating: PSflldaIIIS: i hac. te sequor.

Sillla: Ps.:

qum vocas spectatores simul? hcrclc me isti hall solent vocare, neque ergo ego istos; verum sei voltis adplaudere atque adprobare hunc gregem et fabulam in crastinlllll vos vocabo.:!" (133 1 -34)

PSf:'lIdoIlIs: Go on in. I'm following ~,'ou.

Silllo: Why don't you call the spectators in, too? Ps.: Well, they never invite me, so I won't invite them. But if you all want to applaud and approve of this theatrical troupe and play, I will invite you for tomorro\v. When Simo proposes that they invite the spectators, Pseudolus seems to say, "Even in this play we can't go that [11'." Yet in continuing, he suggests that perhaps they can. The flattering nlessages sent ti·Olll the stage have become so eflective that they appear even to be able to bridge the impassable gulf between fantasy and reality.:!,) Why such conspicuous deternlination to please in PsclldoIus? Plautus need not, of course, have had any special reason: mature in his dramatic skills and confident of his popularity, he may simply have produced a tour de force and then taken pains to announce that fact. It is likely, however, that at least in part, PsclldoIIIS'S uniqueness, and the reillinders of that uniqueness, were

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

104

response to the circumstances under which the play was first performed. P.'ClId()/IIS is one of only t\VO Plautine plays whose first perfonnance we can cbte with certainty: it \vas presented at the games surrounding the dedication of the temple of the Magna l'vlater in 192 R.C.F. by the urban praetor, Marcus lunius Brutus. 3{) Within a short time of this dedication, t\VO other sets of games were given: Scipio Nasica, consul this year, held games that lasted a tlll1 ten days to fulfill a vow he had made two years before while leading an army in Spain; and Gaius Licinius Lucullus gave games to accompany his dedication of a telnple ofJuvencas (Livy 36.36). So many festival days in a short period was still a rare phenomenon in the early second century: PlautllS and the theatrical company that produced PS£'IIdoIIiS nlust have been aware that s0111ething special was needed if they \vere to stand out in the midst of so much other entertainment. Those \\lho sponsored the games, I unius Brutus and the IZonnn senate, may have had sinlilar concerns. The importance of dranutic Iudi in the politics of the lllid-l~epublic has probably been overestimated. In PIautus's day, the state rather than the sponsoring magistrates themselves provided IllOSt of the funds for the great public ludi, the events at which most plays appear to have been pet{ornled; and there is little evidence that elaborate games brought political success at this date. 31 Nevertheless, magistrates would have received credit for the games they sponsored,3:! as spectators would have been ;l\vare of \vho "\vas responsible for the festival. Thus, even if the IJI(li did not have a direct effect on elections for the highest offices in the ClIrsus //(J//Or1I1I1, they nevertheless would have won nluch goodwill for political leaders.]] ;1

In several passages, Plalltus encourages this goodVv~ill by reIllinding his audiences of the role of the magistrates in sponsoring his plays. Toxilus is confident that the authority of the aediles \villmake the costllllle manager provide costumes (Pcrstl 160), and the Sycophant counts on the aediles to punish Chanllides (Trill. 990). Mercury equates tllllbitio (illicit methods of acquiring votes) in theatrical competition with {llllhitia in political elections, jokingly warning even the aediles to avoid any foul play in assigning prizes (All/ph. 72. 80). The speaker of the Poellllills prologue reminds the spectators that performance of the play depends on the will of the magistrates in charge (50-52). The prolo<~lJ5 of Asilltlria makes a wish for a wide range of people: hoc agite sultis, spectatores, nunciam, quae quidenl111ihi atque vobis res vertat bene gregique huic et dOlllinis atque conductoribus. (1-3)

AUDIENCE AND

OCC.~SION:

PSEUDOLUS

10 5

Please pay attention now, spectators, and may this turn out well for Inc and for you and for this company and its leaders and those \""ho hired llS. The coIJdllctorcs, "employers," are the magistrates responsible for the festiva1.':'·; The political possibilities of Plaut inc performance, moreover, go beyond winning favor for specific 111agistrates. The audience certainly \vollld have been aware that funds for the public festivals G1l11C ft-onl the state treasury, and that the senate \vas responsible for distributing those funds. Plays pcrfanned at state-sponsored huli would thus also be a source of goochvill between the people and the ruling class ofl"-tOl11C as a whole.}:;

1- 0). indeed, soon after she had reached Rome, Hannibal had been

.:9.1 O.--t (), dd~ated. Her temple, in front of which Psclldo/lis most likely was per-

- _ ,d would become one of the central1andmarks of the Palatine HiIL·!O

to!!11 e ,

The dedication of a temple to such an important new goddess was a re_ t.1 • ..,blc event, and it called tor a remarkable play. Psclldo/lls is such a play, n1,1 1">." 110t least because Plautus so effectively aligns the audience with its title char.lCrer, and because he never lets the spectators forget that he and his actors have worked especially hard to please thel11.

At nearly the same time as the games at which E,Clldo{'IS was performed, Scipio Nasica would have won a great deal of such goodwill through the long games he funded hilnself l~oman politics were highly conlpetitive, and the first decades of the second century B.C.L present a pattern of opposition by the aristocracy as a group to overly successful individuals. 1 (' The circunlstances surrounding Scipio's games and Iunius's dedication of the teillple of the Magna Mater appear to fit this pattern, tor they suggest senatorial concern that the influence of the popular Scipio Nasica be kept within bounds. First, the funding of Scipio's games: Scipio had requested public funding fi'om the senate, and it was refused. Second, the choice of dedicator: Scipio had been chosen over a decade bdeJre to lead the l\!1agna Mater to ROllle; he would himself therefore be a logical candidate to dedicate her telnple. 37 lunius and other members of the senate, observing or anticipating the success of Scipio's games and hoping to match it, may themselves have encouraged Plautus and the company who presented Psclldol1l5 to come up with sOlnething unique and special. Their encouragement may thus have provided part of PlautllS'S inspiration for producing a tour de force, and making sure his audience kne\v it was a tour de force. 1il This is not to suggest that Plautus was taking sides in a pohtical struggle, or that he was dependent on the leaders of one political faction: in spite of the eHiJrts of various scholars, there is no evidence to suggest that Plautus \vas dependent on any "patrons" in the Roman leadership.3') It is, however, quite possible that Plautus found in the desires of the festival's sponsors extra incentive to make Psclldoills conspicuously specia1. Even if the political desires of his sponsors had no effect on Plautus as he VvTote PSClldoiJls, he nl0st certainly created a play appropriate for the circumstances under which it was to be perfonned. The Magna Mater \vas not just any goddess: she had been brought to ROlne in response to an oracle saying that her arrival would lead to the expulsion of Hannibal (Livy

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

7

[06

AUDIENCE AN]) OCCASION: PSEUDOLUS

p

GODS ,l\ND JMORT,1~,JLS: A\ ]Y1T !P'iHl jJ r if? U iO ~EyicrTIlV ~£).nov

OE ~LOl BOKEl Blmpopav EXElV 1"0 8V Tij ITepi 8e6iv Ota).i]~lEt.

'P(O~ai(Ov rcOAl'tEWLU rcpor;

Brit tlie quality ill luhich the Roman (01II1II0/II/1C111tll is 1II0st distinctly superior is Opilliol1 the nature of their rcl(~iolls [olIvieliollS.

ill III)'

-Polybius 6.S6.o (Paton's transbtion)

A!',[PH[TRUO, like Pselldo/lls, is a tour de force. It docs 110t, however, offer a typical plot upon which Plautus builds an edifice of expected and unexpected eleillents. Rather, its plot is the IllOSt unusual in the entire Plalltine corpus. When the play begins, Jupiter, disguised as Amphitruo, has impregnated An1phitruo's wife, A1cUlllena, while Aillphitruo is away at vv·ar. Assisted by Mercury, who is disguised as Aillphitruo's slave, Sosia, Jupiter inflicts a series of ruthless and hilarious deceptions on the 1110rtal characters. After the misunderstandings nearly lead Amphitruo and A1clllllena to disaster, Alcunlena gives birth to children of both her husband and Jupiter, and Jupiter appears in his own person and explains all. Plautus's source for this unusual plot remains a mystery. Some have proposed that Plautus drew on Middle COIlledy; others, that he was inspired by South Italian farce, or that he himself adapted a tragedy.l Whatever its source, the play must have seemed quite strange to nl0st of its original aUdience. Mercury states in the prologue of the play that kings and gods belong in tragedy rather than cOllledy (6r), illlplying that lllythological burlesque was unfallli1iar to his audience. Neither extant IZoman c0111edy nor

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

loB

the surviving titles of palliatac known in Plautus's day give any hint of plays involving gods in the way AlllplzilntO docs. ~ The surviving titles of the literary Atellan Farce, another popular cDIllie genre in Republican lZol11c, do include some 111ythological nanIes. 3 Our fragments of \vritten Atcl!allac, however, all date froll1 the late Republic, and H6ttcmann has made a strong case that mythological subjects \vere first introduced by P0111ponius in the tirst century B.C.E."; Even if the earlier nonliterary Atclll1llac did deal with the same subjects as the bter literary Atcllatwc, the limited range of stock characters in Atcllallac makes it unlikely that gods played ill1portant roles in any .I\[cl1an mythological plays. This novelty is surely a large part of the reason Plautus chose to present Alllphitmo: it would give the playa special appeal. Yet that same novelty brought some serious challenges. First, the unique and cOlllplicated plot \vould have been nlore difficult to follo\v than nlost other Ronun comic plots. Second, there \Vas great potential for generic confusion: a Roman audience naturally would have associated a mythological tale involving gods and generals with tragedy rather than cOIlledy, and the situation of Alcumena, accused of adultery, is not without serious implications. s Finany, there was the question of religious propriety. The difference between nl0dern and ancient notions of piety, blasphel11Y, and reverence 111ust never be underestimated. 6 Plautus's plays themse1ves deillonstrate that difference. Though the pelfonllances were part of religious festivals, they included such features as a parasite, a lecherous old man, and a pilllP \vho call themselves Jupiter (Capt. 863; Cas. 33'-37; PsclId. 326-35), a young lover \vho says Jupiter fears hin1 (Pow. 119 I), a slave who says he would not yield to Jupiter (Cas. 323-24), and repeated parodies of religious ritual (e.g., Asill. 259-66; Epid. IS2)7 It would nevertheless be 1110St unwise to assume for Plautine R0111e the same attitude toward divinity found in the theater of fifth-century Athens, where Aristophanes could present laughable gods with in1punity. Although Greek mythol06ry had begun to influence I"toman religious thought at a very early date, Plautus's characters offer explanations of myths that suggest that much of Greek mythology \vas still relatively novel in ROllle. 8 Many members of Plaut us's audience would not yet have grown accustomed to the cavalier approach to divinity found in Illuch Greek literature. The only other gods to appear on the Plautine stage in person are the divine speakers of the prologues of AlIllllaria, Cistcllaria, RlIdcllS, and Thill/ill/Ill IS. Though these divinities are presented with a light touch," they are scarcely the victims of burlesque, and their words and actions are of iIllpcccable morality.

GODS AND MOR.TALS, flMPHITRUO

I09

-Plalltus must therefore have recognized an element of daring in pOrtraying on the comic stage a shady romantic interlude of the greatest l:tol1lan godY! Plautus responded to these challenges with techniques familiar fro111 the previolls chapters: an emphatic hierarchy of rapport; flattery of the audi_ ence; reminders of novelty and expectations fillfilled; and the explicit desire to please, persuade, and infonn the spectators. He also turned each of the play's potential difficulties to his advantage. Aware of the challenges to understanding presented by the plot, PlautllS nude 11luch of the playa puzzle for the audience to solve: in figuring out the puzzle, spectators could feel both superiority over the characters who do not know the truth, and satisfaction at their O\vn cleverness. Plautus used the play's generic unccrtainty to ren1ind the spectators of their power, as his characters suggest that the play has beconle a tragicomcdy in response to the audience's wishes. Finally, theatricalization saves Plautus from any charge ofblasphcIllY: at every turn he nukes dear that ''Jupiter'' and "Mercury" are not really gods at all, but are actors striving to please the audience. 11 In short, AlIlphitmo was a daring experiment, and manipulation of rapport and flattering reminders of the perfornlers' determination to please the audience helped assure that the experiIllent succeeded. The play begins \vith a puzzle. Thc actor playing Mercury enters, wearing a slave's costume ("cum servili schema"; "with a slave's outfit," I I7). He also wears a slave's mask, identical to that which \vill be worn by the actor playing Sosia: Mercury and Sosia will both say later that the god has taken the slave's illlago ("appearance" or "mask," T24, T4I, 265, 45 B), and Sosia will ll1Jrvel that Mercury has the same facial features as himself(444-45).12 Indeed, Mercury will later state that only the feathers in his hat will allow the audience to distinguish him fron1 Sosia (142-43). Given this costume and mask, the first \\fords of the prologue would be completely bewildering: in a remarkably long and convoluted sentence, Mcrcury adillonishcs the spectators that if they want him to bring them profit and good messages, they should listen to the play in silence (1-16). "What," spectators must have asked, "has this slave to do with profit or messages?" Ncar the end of the sentence, Mercury pauses for a parenthesis: (nan1 vos quidenl id iam scitis conceSSUll1 et datunl mi esse ab dis aliis, nUl1tiis praesim et lucro). (I I - I 2)

?

beains to solve the puzzle, establishing that he is not a slave but a He r,11.IS ~ " "I'oloCTue speaker. His "vou already know" praises the audience for dl\'I11C t " "11(1 out the puzzle even as he explains it to them. tIQ;tJl I ~ -- For those whose heads are still spinning from his first sentence, Mercury '( 5'("("S plainlvJ'ust who he is: his nanle is Mercurv, and he has been sent Ill';';: ".... . ' b\' Jupiter as a pleader to the spectators, even though Jupiter knows that he : "'d act what he wants fi'om the audience pro ill/perio ("by command"), LOU because the spectators fear and revere him (20-23). Mcrcury thus ilnplies dut the spectators themselves have power over these gods even as he praises them tor their pious obedience to divine will. The reason such a paradox is possible, of course, is becausc Jupiter and Mercury are really not gods at all, but actors, as Mercury reveals in his ncxt lines: 1;)

,

.

1;)

eteninl ille, cuius hue iussu venio, Iuppiter non minus quanl vostrun1 qui vis fonnidat malUln: hlllnana nutre natus, hununo patre, mirari non est aequonl, sibi si praetilllet; atque ego quoque etianl, qui Iovis SL1l11 filius, contagione mei patris 111etuo nullllll. (26 - 3 I) For you see, the guy who ordered me to COlne here, Jupiter, fears trouble no less than any of you; as he is descended fronl a human mother, and a human £lther, it is no wonder that he fears for himself; and I, \vho am Jupiter's son, also fear trouble along \virh my £1.ther. ''Jupiter'' is no god at all, but a human; and the fact that he gives orders to "Mercury," the actor who delivers the prologue, suggests that he is the lead actor of the company performing the play, and the trouble (lI/all/lIl) he fears is f:1ilure ofthc production. Mercury also fears lIlall/lIl, a word often used of punishments given to slaves. 13 The actor playing Mercury, probably a slave, fears that he will be beaten if the performancc is not successful. The layering of ambiguity is exquisite: "Mercury" is a slave, pretending to be a god, pretending to be a slave. 1·1 The audience has the pleasure offiguring out this verbal and visual puzzle, and they remember their power over the fate of the actors, even when those actors are "gods." Mercury continues \\'ith some tonguc-tvvisting moralizing, in \vhich his implicit flattcry of the spectators becomes explicit:

(For certainly you already know that it has been bestowed upon and granted to ll1e by the other gods, that I be in charge of messages and profit).

iustanl rem et facilem esse oratan1 a vobis volo, nam iusta ab ius tis iustus sunl orator datus. nam iniusta ab iustis impetrari non decet,

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

GODS AND MORTALS, AMP]-llTRUO

[]O

III

-

p iusta autcnl ab iniu5t15 pctcre insipientia est; ql1ippe i11i iniqui ius ignorant neque tcncnt. (33 - 37)

I \\lish to request from you something fair and easy, for I have been assigned to be a just requester of just requests from just people. For it is not right to seek unjust things fi"Olll just people, and it is foo11sh to seel( just things [r0111 unjust people, since the unjust neither know nor care for justice. He then turns fro111 the spectators' justice to his own andJupiter's worthiness: nunc ian1 hue aninlU111 oml1CS quae 10quar advortite.

debetis veHe quae velimus: Incruinl11S et ego et pater de vobis et re publica; nal11 quid ego InClllorcm (ut alios in tragoediis vidi, NeptUl1U111 Virtutcm Victorianl Martem Bellonan1, com111el11orare quae bona vobis fecissent) quis bene Etctis 111eUS pater, deorUl11 regnator :1: architectus OI11nibus? sed n10S nU111quan1 illi fuit patri 111eO, -tut exprobraret quod bonis faeeret boni; gratUl11 arbitratur esse id a vobis sibi n1eritoque vobis bona se facere quae facit. (38-49)

Now, then, all of you, pay attention to \vhat I am going to say. You ought to wish what we wish: both my father and I have done vvell by you and the state; for why should I recount what benefits my father, the king of the gods, the ehiefbuilder for everyone, has brought (as I have seen other gods-Neptune, Virtus, Victory, Mars, Bel1ona-reeount in tragedies the good things they have done for you)? But it was never l11y father's \vay to take the good to task for the good he has done theI11; he thinks that you Jre grateful to him for what he has done, and that you have earned the good things he does for you. On one level, Mercury, in character, reI11inds the audience of the benet~lc­ tions they have received fro111 the king of the gods; but given the identifications Mercury has made, "Jupiter's" kindnesses are also the previous theatrical successes of his cOlllpany. Mercury reinforces the identification of Jupiter as chief actor by calling him architcctlls, a word Plautus uses elsewhere of play-producing clever slaves. 15 The other gods Mercury Illentions here are probably deities who recited their accomplishments in the prologues of tragedies. 1() His analogy between

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

II2

hi111 selfand these speakers of tragic prologues leads Mercury to eXJlnine the t1cnre of the play at hand: ~

nunc quam rem oratun1 hue veni pri111um proloquar, post argumentum huius eloquar tragoediae. quid? contraxistis frontel11, quia tragoedianl dixi futura111 hane? deus SUl11, COI11mutavero. eandenl hane, si voltis, tlcian1 ex tragoedia eomoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? sed ego stultior, quasi nesciam vos velle, qui divos sienl. teneo quid aniI11i vostri super hac re siet: £lciaI11 ut conu11ixta sit: <sit> tragicomoedia. 17 nan1 nle perpetuo [leere ut sit comoedia, reges quo veniant et di, 110n par arbitror. quid igitur? quoniaI11 hie servos quoque partes habet, facianl sit, proinde ut dixi, tragicomoedia. (50-63) Now first I'n1 going to tel1 you what I have come here to ask; then I'll give the background of this tragedy. What's that? Are you frov./ning, because I said this would be a tragedy? I'm a god, I'll change it. If you want, I'll turn this tragedy into a comedy, using the very same verses. Do you want that, or not? Silly nle, as if, being a god, I didn't know that's \V-hat you want. I understand what you think about this: I'll make it mixed: let it be a tragicomedy. For I don't think it would be right for it to be continually a comedy, since there are kings and gods in it. I-low about it, then? Since a slave also has a part here, I wiJ1make it a tragicomedy, just as I said. The spectators are as likely to be frowning in perplexity as in discontent. Mercury has been teasing thenl both in his appearance and in his \\lords. They nm\! nlust ask themselves not only, "What is this god doing in a slave's costume and mask?" "HO\v can Jupiter be human?" and "What is Jupiter's request?" but also, "What is this tragedy business?" Again, Mercury solves the puzzle as he presents it, and at the samc time he reminds the spcctators of the playwright and actors' desire to please them. Mercury's pretense is that he agrees to nuke the playa conledy rather than a tragedy in response to real or imagined dissatisfaction in the audience. Only after he has established that the play \vill in fact be a comedy does he go on to discuss his proposal that the play be a tra~f!icoJ/Jocdi{/, and bter in the prologue he twice refers to the playas a cOllloedia (88, 96). This

CODS AND MORTALS: "oMPI-iiTRUO

II3

--

p is the first extant OCCllrrence of the word "tragicomedy" anywhere. Plautus's rragicol/lOcdia, however, is far removed from the true 111ixture of serio lIS and comic elements that tragicomedy has beC0111C in its various manifesta_ tions since the Itenaissance. 18 Mercury's tragicomedy is not, in f:1Ct, a separate serio-comic genre, but a kind of one-sided generic battle, in which comedy triu111ph5 over tragedy in response to the desires of the audience, even when the verses themselves arc tragic. When Mercury finally reaches Jupiter's request, he ofrers the petition llOt of a god, but of an actor. Jupiter \V~lllts investigators to search the audience for claques: those guilty of unfair practices fworing one actor over another in the cOl11petition for prizes, even the magistrates in charge of the performance, will be punished (64-74). In spite of Mercury's ironic assumption that he and his boss have power over the spectators and even the nlagistrates, the request in fact reminds the audience yet again of their power to make or break the performance. It also remains phrased in tenllS flattering to the

III." 3pparently a headband or tassel (r4T-47).21 Mercury's feathers and jupiter's tomllls serve as visual equivalents to the direct addresses that keep

spectators:

Plautus's longest prologue thus demonstrates clearly and cmphatically to the spectators that regardless of how strange the ensuing play llUy appear, it is designed to give thenl the greatest possible pleasure. The prologue also establishes a remarkable degree of rapport between Mercury and the audience that wi11 reillain as long as he is onstage. Altogether Mercury speaks more lines of nlonologue than any other Plautine character; and he repeatedly acknmvledges the audience explicitly. He peppers his scenes with asides, spends more time eavesdropping than any other character in PIautus, and speaks Plautus's longest passage in which a character deliberately allows himself to be overheard (301-40). To increase his intimacy with the spectators still further, Plautus has Mercury spend nlost of his tinle speaking in unaccompanied iambic senarii, whereas the Inorta1 characters of Al1lphitrtlo generally use accompanied meters.22

virtute dixit vos victores vivere. non al11bitione nequc pcrfidia: qui minus eadelll histrioni sit lex quae sunllllO viro? (75 -77) He [scil. Jupiter] said that you live as victors because of your excellence, not through bribery or deception: why should this law apply any less to an actor than it does to a statesnun? As he had earlier turned fr0111 explicit flattery of the audience to a rclllinder of the actors' service, he now moves fro111 flattery to a relninder of the actors' vulnerability: actors guilty of unfair practices in seeking prizes \,vi11 be beaten and wi11lose their costllnleS (85). Mercury next makes "Jupiter's" real status completely clear: the audience should not marvel that Jupiter cares about actors, for Jupiter himself \vill perfornl in this comedy (86-88). As a precedent for his father's perfon11ance, Mercury cites Jupiter's response to the prayers of actors in the previous year, probably as de1/5 ex lIl(1chilla in a tragedy. 1') The audience begins to see Mercury's principle of tragiconledy at work: c01nedy has taken over a tragic nlotif, the appearance ofJupiter (89-92). When Mercury tlnally begins the atgl/l/Iel/fllll1 after nearly 100 lines, he shows even more pointedly than I110St prologue speakers his desire that the audience understand. 2 () Al110ng the things he explains are his ov·/n and Jupiter's appearance: the audience will distinguish the t\VO gods from their n10rtal counterparts because Mercury will wear feathers, Jupiter a gold tOf/l-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

114

the spectators aware of what is happening throughout the play. Both costuIlleS and words allO\v the audicnce to feel superior to the ignorant nlOrtal characters and pleased at their ability to figure out the ongoing puzzle. Mercury also rel11inds the spectators of the novelty that makes this play so special: "vcterenl atque antiquanl rem novam ad vos proferal11" ("I will bring vou an old and ancient nlatter, nude ne\v," I 18). He concludes with an ad;llonition that it will be worth the audience's while to \vatch attentively: adeste: erit operae pretiunl hic spectantibus lovem et Mercurium facere histrioniam. (151-52) Pay attention: it will be worth your while to watch Jupiter and Mercury perform as actors here.

Mercury uses his rapport nlost successfully in the next scene. At prologue's end, Sosia enters, sent h0111e to report Amphitruo's victory, and it soon becomes evident that Sosia and Mercury are two actors competing for the audience's sympathy and attention. 23 Sosia tries to convince the spectators (and perhaps himself as well) of his courage (153 -54), C0111plains about the danger of being punished (155-62), and bel110ans his lot as slave of a rich man (163 -75). The eavesdropping Mercury tries S01ne oneupmanship: he should be the one complaining, for he is now acting as a slave, though he is free, while Sosia was born a slave: "hic qui verna natus est qlleritur" ("This guy, \vho was born a house-born slave, is cOl11plaining," I79). Sosia is not to be outdone: he echoes Mercury ("sunl vero verna verbero"; "I really anl a rascal of a house-born slave," ISO), showing that

GODS AND MOR.TALS: AMPHITRUO

lI5

--

p even if, as a character, he is not yet aware of Mercury's presence, as an actor he is.:!.{ When Sosia describes A111phitruo's victory to the audience in a long speech, the competition bet\veen slave and god becomes also a struggle between comedy and tragedy. Almost every \\lord of Sosia's battle report would be at h0111e in a tragedy. Its subject, war, Plautus explicitly associates \vith tragedy elsewhere (Capt. 01-62); and its patriotic and eulogistic Content, serious tone, and numerous religious and legal fonnulas are suitable for a tragedy in the style of Plautus's conten1poraries Ennius and Naevius. 25 This "tragic messenger speech," ho\vever, is nlade con1ic by its context. First, however he nlay speak, Sosia establishes himself as a typical deceitful cmnic slave: "si dixero mendacium, solens n1eo more fecero" ("If I tell a lic, I will do what I usually do," T98). Second, Sosia introduces his battle description by saying that it is all a lie: he hid inside his tent during the battle, and his dignified report is merely hearsay (199-200); he knows the battle lasted all day only because he missed his lunch (254).26 Mercury reinforces this incongruity when he informs the audience in an aside that he, unlike Sosia, really was present at the battle (248-49). Third, the audience knO\vs that Sosia's battle report is too late: Mercury has told then1 that Jupiter at this n10ment is inside telling Alcunlena what happened on the battlefield (133 -]4). Sosia has fulfilled the promise Mercury made in the prologue: tra.gedy has becon1e comedy in the same verses. The speech concluded, Mercury reveals that the tragic messenger speech will be further undone, for he will prevent Sosia fr0111 delivering it: quando imago est huius in me, ccrtullI est hOIninem eludere. et enim vero quonialll formam cepi huius in !lIed et statum, deeet ct facta 1110resque huius habere Inc similes itenl. itaque me l1lalUll1 esse opoftet, callidum, astutU111 adrllodu111 atque hunc, telo suo sibi, llulitia a foribus pellere. (265-69)

Because I have this guy's 111ask, I've decided to make fun ofhi111. And since I've taken his appearance and bearing, it's fitting for Inc to be like him in what I do and the way I act. So I should be bad, clever, and really tricky, and drive this fellow from the house with his own weapon, trickery. Because Mercury looks like a comic slave, he \vill act like onc. It has become clear by this point that Mercury's slave costume is a metaphor for the playas a whole. Just as the god Mercury is tun1ed into the cmnic slave by his costmne, the story of Hercules' birth is turned into cOInedy by the accoutre111ents, visual and verbal, that accmnpany the basic plot. TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

r 16

What follows is a long series of asides, as each actor addresses the spectatofS, fighting for their attention. Sosi;} makes three attclllpts to impress the

audience, each of which is underInined by an aside of Mercury (27T-90). \Vhen Sosia finally discovers Mercury, he addresses a series of pointing words to the audience (292, 294, 296, 298): he \vants the spectators to see his potential opponent through his eyes. Mercury then al1O\vs himself to be overheard by Sosia, and he announces that he will perform ("clare advorsum fabulabor, hic auscultet quae loquar"; "I will speak out loudly, so that this fellow can hear \vhat I say," 300). Sosia addresses several lines to rvlercury, and when he remains unacknowledged, he speaks aside again, renc\ving his string of pronouns and adjectives that point out Mercury to the Judience (3 17, 319, 320, 323). It is as if, failing to reach Mercury, Sosia appeals to the audience for an ally. The asides end with a sun1n1Jtion for the audience by both sides. Mercury, \vith an elnphatic CCc//lIl, announces his pleasure that Sosia approaches him (335), and Sosia proclaims both his fear and his deterInination to bluff his way to the door (335-40). The competition between the actors also continues the lopsided contest between tragedy and comedy. Observing the length of the night (as Mercury has revealed in the prologue, Jupiter has made the night longer so that he can spend nlore tinle \vith Alcumena), Sosia describes the constellations in fme-sounding astronOInical language that ·would certainly have been at home in a tragedy (272-75).:!7 His description, however, is presented as an argument for Sosia's o\vn explanation of the long night: the god Nox (Night) nlUst be drunk. To undo the elevated language further, Mercury responds with an address to Nox, encouraging hin1 to keep up the good work, helping out in Jupiter's adultery; and Sosia says that only the night he spent hanging, punished, seemed longer to him (277-81). When Sosia returns to his theory of drunken gods, suggesting that since Sol (Sun) has not risen, he must also be drunk, Mercury responds with another aside: "ain vero, verb era? de os esse tui silnilis putas?" ("What's that, you rascal? Do you think the gods are like you?" 284). The irony, of course, is that in this play, the gods arc like Sosia, both in appearance and in action. In spite of Mercury's claim in the prologue that gods nlean tragedy, gods here fit lnuch better in the comic \vodd represented by Sosia's character and actions than in the tragic nlilieu suggested by his elevated astronomical discourse. The next pair of asides undoes the gods' pretensions to tragedy still further:

Sosia: ubi sunt isti scortatores, qui soli inviti cubant? haec nox scita est exercendo scorto conducto male. ]\I[CfWfY: meus pater nunc pro huius verbis recte et sapienter facit, GODS AND MORTALS: AMPHITnuo

117

• qui complexus Clm1 Alcumcna cubat amans anin10 obsequens. (28 7-9 0 )

Sosia: Where are those \vhoremongers v\lho hate to be in bed alone? This night is perfect for llsing all expensive whore. JV1crCllry: My father follows that advice well and cleverly; for he is in bed making love with Alcul11cna to his heart's delight. In spite of the £1ct that Alcumena is hardly a scortl/ll/, IVlercury speaks of Jupiter as ifhe \vere a typical lover of cornedy, enjoying the favors of a prostitute (cf. iVIcrc. 985, lOIS). The ensuing dialogue bet\veen god and slave contains two nl0re abortive atten1pts to introduce tragedy. Mercury fIrst addresses Sosia with an overblown allusion to the lanlp he carries: "quo alnbulas tu, qui Volcanu111 in cornu conclusunl geris?" ("Whither do you walk, you ·who carry Vulcan closed up in a container of horn?" 34I).~B The tragic tone collapses when Mercury asks whether Sosia is free or a slave. Sosia responds that he is whichever he pleases: as an actor, he can play either role. His response leads to a typical comic joke obout slave beatings (344-45). Soon thereafter, Sosia nukes an attenlpt at tragedy. Asked his nanle, he responds, "Sosi3n1 vocant Thebani, Davo prognatllln patre" ("The Thebans call me Sosi3, the scion ofDavus," 365).29 Besides being undermined by its incongruous source, a slave who by l~ol1lan law has no parent,:m Sosia's tragic tone is instantly destroyed by the long string of puns that follows (360-75). The battle of identities reaches its clinux, and both "Sosias" argue their cases directly to the audience. Mercury says aside, "hie h01no sanus non cst" ("This fellow is crazy," 402). Sosia seeks reassurance fr01n the audience that he is Sosia: quid, n1JIUln, non sun1 ego servos Anlphitruonis Sosia? nonne hac noctu nostra navis ex portu Persico venit, quae nle advexit? nonne me hue erus nlisit n1eus? nonne ego nunc sto ante aedes nostras? non mi est lanterna in manu? non loquor, non vigilo? nonne hic horno modo me pugnis contudit? (403 -7) Well, damInit, am I not Sosia, the slave of All1phitruo? Didn't our ship conle here tonight frorn the Persian port, carrying me? Didn't my n1aster send nle here? Anl I not standing in front of our house right now? Anl I not holding a lanlp in nly hand? An1 1 not talking, and staying awake? Didn't this guy just plaster nle with his fists? TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

7

As Sosja becomes increasingly aware of the persuasiveness of Mercury's arguments, he confides his doubts to the audience (416-17, 420, 42326, ,P9, 43 r - 3 2, 441 - 49); and he annOllnces to the audience that he will make an attelnpt at playing his own stock role, and \vill try to deceive Mercury (424). The attempt is a failure, for as he reminds 505ia, Mercury is the character, and the actor, with power: "ubi ego Sosia nolinl esse, tu esto sane Sosia" ("When I do not Vlant to be 505i3, then by all means you be 50513," 439)·

When Sosia is finally put to flight, it becomes clear that his entire scene \vith Mercury was only for fun, for Mercury returns to the m~\ZIIII/CIHIIIIJ. He summarizes the plot of the play, emphasizing his own role as trickster, and he promises the audience a happy ending, thus helping to assure that the scenes that follow will be c0111ic rather than tragic. Ah110st as an afterthought, he adds \vhat fron1 a 111ythological standpoint is the 1110st important part of the story, the birth of Hercules. In this "second prologue," Mercury continues his conspicuous concern for the audience's understanding, asking them if they ore following (485) and using phrases of 0 decidedly explanatory nature (479, 491). Mercury's high level of rapport and his concern for the audience's understanding remain evident as he eavesdrops on the ensuing entrance of Jupiter and Alcu111eIu. WatchingJupiter charm his conquest, Mercury C0111111ents to the audience: nimis hie scitust sycophanta, qui quidenl Ineus sit pater. observatote <eum>, quam blande mulieri palpabitur. (506 -7) This guy is really a great flatterer. Well, he is Ill)' father after al1. Just watch ho\,v s\veetlv he'll soften the woman. Mercury continues to make asides throughout the scene, helping the audience to follow the dialogue and, Inore importantly, prorlloting a tone appropriate to COIned),. The comic tone is unthreatened in the next scene, as Sosia Elils to convince Amphitruo that there are two of hinl. Like Sosia before hinl, Anlphitruo appeals to the audience when he cannot seem to get through to his interlocutor, seeking their confirmation that Sosia is drunk or insane (574, 576-77,605-6). He \vill do the same in the next scene, when he becomes exasperated with Alcunlena (769,818); and near the end of the play, when he has reached the height of anger and confusion, he directs several desperate questions to the spectators (r040 -46). AInphitruo's asides, however, only reinforce his position on the bottom of the hierarchy of rapport, for GODS AND MORTALS, AMP/-Il'J'lIlfO

119

r ,

• n

Mercury calls attention to the £let that he is fulfilling the expectations of the stock SCflJIIS CII'TC/lS, or running slave, the most stereotypical of cOInic char_ acters;:;i he has nude his potentially tragic role exceedingly cOl1lie in order to please the audience. He even adjusts his 11lcter to suit this role. Up to this point, the two gods have always spoken in llnaCC0111panied iambic senarii when alone onstagc: Mercury here uses an accompanied meter (iambic Octonarius), as do all OfPlautllS'S other running slaves. 3S As he continues, Mercury boasts still more of his versatility as an actor: pater vocat nIC, cum segnor, eills dicta imperio Sllll1 alldiens; ut filill111 b011UIn parri esse oportet, itidc111 ego SUlll patri. annnti sllbparasitor, hortor, ads to, adl1lol1eo, gaudeo. si quid patd volup est, voluptas ea I1li 111l11to l11.axurnast. al1nt: sapit; recte fa cit, animo quando obsequitur suo, quod OIllnis hOIllines £1.cere oportet, dUln id Inodo fiat bono. (99 1 -9 6 ) My father calls me: I follow him, and I obey his word, his C0111nnnd; I behave to\vard 111y f:1ther just as a good son should. I help hinl when he is in love as a parasite \vould; I encourage him, I stand beside hinl, I give him advice, and I take pleasure in his success. If anything pleases Illy father, it really pleases me, too. He loves: he's snurt; he does right, \-vhen he follows his hankerings; all nlen 39 should do that, so long as they do it in llloderation.

traaic stage appearance into the play's most farcical comic ltl'lllate the u ' 0 '-. . . . . .. I-lis words to the audIence aSSOCIate thIS converSIOn \\lIth thcIr wIll

C\·c'nt.

.

,lnd pleasure: probe iam hic deludetur, spectatores, vobis inspectantibus. (997-98) [lXO

I'll see to it that this fellow is finely fooled, spectators, while you watch. i~1111 i11e hie deludetur probe, siquidem vos voltis auscultando operall1 dare:!::! (TOOS -6)

Right now that fellow here will be tlnely fooled, so long as you wish to take the trouble to listen. Unfortunately, much of the next scene, in which Mercury douses poor Amphitruo with water, has been lost, along with several other scenes:D When the text resumes, both "Amphitruos" are onstage. Amphitruo's friend, Blepharo, who has been called upon to decide which is really Al1lphitruo, gives up in bnvilderment, and Jupiter sneaks into the house to help Alcumena give birth (1039). Left alone onstage, A111phitruo nukes a determined attelllpt to turn the play into a tragedy. I-Ie threatens to bring the imposter before the king (1°42), a figure associated with tragedy in the prologue (6T); and when he sees that Jupiter is gone, he makes a drastic decision:

Mercury not only plays sill1ultaneously the roles of god, clever slave, and running slave, but he is also acting the role of a parasite (s/JbpamsitOl); ·11) and his speech is a variation of the" good slave" speech, as he is playing a slave and boasts of how obedient he is. Indeed, Mercury's en1phasis on the likemindedness of himself and Jupiter echoes a "good slave" speech delivered by Sosia in the previous scene (960-61). Furthermore, by eI11phasizing his own position asfili/Js ("son") and then praising love, Mercury would remind the audience of the stock comic ad1l1cscclIs, though Mercury is a Inost atypical adlficscclIs, as he helps his L1ther's love affair. Mercury goes unusually fIr out of his way to call attention to his next action: he describes in detail how he \vill go onto the roof and, pretending that he is 50sia, drive away Amphitruo. No other Plautine characters appear on the roof, or even suggest that the scene building has a visible roof: the roof seems to have been reserved for divine epiphanies in tragedies:11 Just as he has turned a tragic character into a C0111ic one, Mercury no\v converts

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

122

certumst, intro rU111pam in aedis: ubi queinque hominen1 aspexero, si ancilla111 seu serV0111 sive uxoren1 sive adulterum seu patren1 sive aVOl1l vidcbo, obtruncabo in aedibus. neque me Iuppiter neque di omnes id prohibebunt, si volent, quin sic faciam uti constitui. perga111 in aedis nuncian1. (104~ -52) That's it, then: I will burst into the house, and \vhoever I see there, whether it's serving girl, slave, \-vife, adulterer, father, or grandfather, I'll cut then1 down right in the house. Neither the will ofJupiter nor all the gods will stop mc frOll1 doing as I have decided. l:tight nmv I \vill go into the house. Amphitruo's words are classic tragedy, echoing the hubris of Capaneus, \\lho was struck dmvn after he boasted that even Zeus could not stop hin1

GODS AND MORTALS; AlcIPHITRUO

12 3

--

p fro111 surmounting the walls ofThebes.~4 Fortunately for Amphitruo, he is in a comedy, not a tragedy. His determination is comic irony rather than tragic hubris, since Jupiter is inside as Amphitruo speaks. Jupiter remains true to the principles of genre he and Mercury have established throughout the play: with a thunderbolt, he prOlllptly ends Amphitrllo's attclllpt to produce tragedy, and the hapless mortal is left unconscious on the stage. Bromia, Alcumcna's maid, now enters and delivers the third long 1110110lognc that in itself could fIt in a tragedy. In emotional and elevated language, she reports her o\Vl1 terror and the supernatural events that surrounded the birth of Hercules (r053-71)." The tragic tone of her speech, hovvever, is undennined by the presence onstage of the thunderstruck Al11phitruo, especially when she finally notices him and says: "sed quid hoe? quis hie est senex, qui ante aedis nostras sic iacet?" ("But what's this? Who's this old man lying like this in front of our house?" I072).0!6 Amphitruo, who in the traditionallnyth is still a young man (Apollodorus 2.4.6-8), has become a stock c0111ic .'Ie/leX (c£ 1032). Bromia now tells Amphitruo about the birth and parentage of Hercules. Even as he becOIlles nlore avvare of what is going on, Alnphitruo still wants to be in the world of tragedy. He plans to go and consult the seer Tiresias, a character with stellar tragic credentials (II28-29):-17 Before he has a chance to do so, Jupiter once again uses sonle stage thunder to nlake sure the play remains a comedy. This time he not only thunders, but appears as himself Here is another excellent opportunity for tragedy: a god, this time undisguised, appears on the roof Jupiter's speech, ho\vever, is nlatter-offact and prosaic, with no tragic pretensions. He has acconlplished his purpose of amusing the audience V-lith a long string of comic tours de force. Now he simply goes through the motions of providing the necessary ending. Anlphitruo finally gets the message. He decides to forget Tiresias, the tragic seer, and go inside to his wife: to the domestic world of conledy. Before he leaves, he asks the audience to applaud "Iovis sumnli causa" ("for

to make sure the audience responded warmly to his plays. Whereas in

F._clldollls, manipulation of rapport and flattery of the audience converted whJt might have been a typical play into a work appropriate for an ex[fJordinary occasion, in Alllpliitl"llo, those same elements assured Plautus's Sllccess, even though the content of the play was audacious and unusual.

the sake ofJupiter almighty," r 146). Jupiter almighty is a powerful god; but he is also the chief actor. He and his C0111pany have flattered and stroked the audience throughout the performance, created an unInistakable hierarchy of rapport with the gods on top and Illortals on the bottom, and provided a series of entertaining puzzles. Most ilnportant, they have given the spectators what they wanted: a comedy. Like PsclldolllS, then, Alllphitr1fo shows most clearly how Plautus 11lanipubted the close relationship between his actors and their audience in order

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

GODS AND MOR.TALS: AkIPHITRUO

12 5

ell/miio, like most Plautine plays, has deception at its center. Phaedronlus Iewe \vith PlanesiUln, \..\Tho belongs to the pimp Cappadox and has been promised to the braggart soldier Therapontigonns. After several conlic scenes between Phaedromus, Cappadox, and various other characters, PhaedroIllUS's parasite Curculio enters. He has stolen Therapontigonus's seal with it, he acquires Planesium for Phaedromus by deceiving eapn·'1(T· ~, adox and Lyco, the banker who holds on deposit the nloney Theraponti;'onus will pay for Planesium. When Therapontigonus tries to reclaim o Planesium, he discovers that she is his long-lost sister, and he willingly gives her to Phaedromus. The deception in ClIrClllio has t\VO distinctive features. First, it is more varied and widespread than that of 1110St Plautine plays. Though neither the intrigues of the parasite nor the pimp's attenlpts to defraud are unusual, by adding his portrayal of the banker Lyco, Plautus depicts a \vorId with a greater share of deceit than an average comedy requires. Lyco, \vho is barely necessary to the plot and whose scenes sho\v clear evidence of Plautine reworking of his Greek original, 1 shows continually a "\villingness to deceive for profit. PJautus elsewhere portrays greedy 1110neylenders on stage (Epid. 620-47; Allostcll. 532-654) and offers harsh satire of mgclltarii as a class (Cas. 25-28; Pma 433-]6,442-43; PSClid. 296-98), but only in this play does a deceptive banker playa major role. Second, deception in CII/"mlio is intinlately connected with courts of law. Legal imagery and parody abound in the play, and Cappadox and Lyco both see the praetor's court as a place where they can get out of paying debts. CII/"Clllio is not the only Plautine play, of course, where la\\' courts playa role. Trips to court or threats of suits occur throughout Plautus's plays.2 Nowhere else, however, is the leitmotif oflaw courts as conspicuous as it is in C/J1"C11lio. Another distinguishing feature of CI/lmlio is its ROlllan allusions. The play has no prologue to establish its setting,3 and Epidaurus, where the plot occurs, is not named until alnlOst 350 lines into the play. The audience thus is discouraged frOlll associating the action with a specific Greek locale:! A number of conspicuous lz,oman allusions encourage tllenl instead to connect the play's plot with lz'0l1le. 5 These three salient features-deception, references to la\V and the courts, and Roman allusions-turn the play into sharp satire; for through them, Plautns insists that the spectators acknowledge that the play offers not just a parcel of deceitful foreigners, but criticism of deception and legalillisconduct in their own lz'Ollle. The themes of deception, la\V, and Romanness begin in the play's first Scenes. Phaedromus and PlanesiUlll meet behind the back of Cappaclox, .. 1 1S 11

B,4]['\1 ~\ .1;:, R S /\ iN D f' JIVI f' S:

CUFrCULTO Ill/lie

flero a malli ad Hortem fcsto atqllc profcsto

tofus itclII paritcrqllc die POpUillSqllC lJtltrcsqllc

dc{cdcrc /1I15qlllllll; I/lli sc atqllc cidelll studio Oil/lieS rlderc ct artiuaba d,1/"c lit (dllte passin!, pI/gnarl' dofosc, /dl1lulilia cerra fe, iJ011ll1I1 sillll/lare Pirlllll se, illsiriiasjilcC1'c lit sf hostcs silll oll/lIibliS Oil/ill'S.

iartdH' iI/til/film Sf Oil/lieS,

it is,Imlll IIWrIlillg tilllll~!ZhtJ 011 holiday and workday, the Hi/JOlc COII/awl the s{'nators too, all alike go bllsrlillg about ill the FOI"I1l1l (lI/d 1I00U!Jcrc leave it; ,Iff giue thclI/selves lWeI" to OIlC alld the 5111111.' intercst alld l1rt(ficcs/lilli/ely to be ar)it to sll'iIJdlc luith impunity, to fight wlillillgly, to striFc, IIsillg sl?fi UJords as lucapOIIS, to act the 7illeIelloll') " to lie ill wait, as though all 4 thclll lucre cllcmics (?FalllllCl1. Bllt, liS

1/10115

-LllCilius [145-5 [ Warmington (Warlllington's

tr~l11sbtion)

IN both Pseudo/Hs and A1I1phitmo, the dominant nlode of interaction bet\\ieen actors and audience is blandishnlent. The conspicuous metatheatrical elements that pervade those plays flatter the audience and relnind them of the performers' desire to serve them. The next tv.ro plays to be considered, CIII'CII/iO and T/"l/CIIIC/ltlls, reveal a very diHcrent approach to the relationship between actors and audience. In these plays, tbe dominant mode is not blandishment, but satire. Monologues provide far more teasing than flattery, and pervasive allusions to Ronle suggest tbat illicit actions onstage have relevance in a I<..oman milieu.

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

IlANKERS AND PIMPS, ClIHCliLIO

p \vith the help of the bibulous old servant Leaena, and to the chagrin of Phaedronlus's nlOralistic slave, Palinurus, who disapproves of clCllldcstillll S amo/' ("hidden love," 49). The scenes are peppered \vith legallanguage,f> including Phaedronlus's first \vords, a clainl that he \vill not leave his beloved's door, even ifhe is called to a lawsuit (3 -6). Phaedr01l1us renlinds the audience of the falseness of the Greek locale when he asks the bolts on the door of the pimp's house to become Illdii lwrbari ("barbarian dancers," ISO) and jump open, so that he can see Planesil1Ill. The barbarian dancers arc entertainers on the Italian stage: 7 PhaedrOIllus speaks as a Greek, but his allusion to performers reinforces the reminder, already inherent in his use of the vvord varlJelms, that his Greekness is itself only the inlaginary product of performance. Soon after the entrance of Cappadox, one of the play's prinlary deceivers, a conspicuous l~oman allusion establishes the connection between l~ome and deception. When Cappadox reports that he has been trying to cure his illness by spending the night in the temple of Aesculapius (the god of nledicine), his interlocutor suggests that since he is a peljurer, the pimp should seek healing instead by sleeping in the tenlple of Jupiter, who \vatches over oaths. Cappadox responds:

siql1idenl incubare ve1int qui periuraverint, locus non praebcri patis est in Capitolio. (268-69) If those who pCljl1red wanted to spend the night there, there would be no r00111 left on the Capitoliu111.

The list of persons threatened is unmistakably Greek, but its length suggests hyper-Hellenization. Fllfthernlore, it is quite possible that Curculio Inoves through the audience as he speaks. H If so, the "Greeks" he threatens are in tact Roman spectators. Whether or not Curclllio is Jll10ng the spectators, he switches to a Roman's perspective with his next words: he complains about Gracci palliati (Greeks \vearingpallia) who walk about with books and baskets, offer thelf opinions \vhen they arc not "van ted, Jnd drink too 111uch (288-95). The Gracci palliali are evidently "intellectuals," either Greeks or philhellenes, resident in R. ome.'-J Whoever they are, Curculio speaks as a Roman when he calls thenl Graeci. Curculio concludes by threatening slaves who play in the street (296-98). The slaves belong to sCl/rrac ("men about town"), another type associated with I~01l1e.lO The play's first long monologue thus joins Greeks, R0111ans, and in all likelihood the spectators thel11selves as victims of Curculio's satire. The next character to enter, Lyco the banker, intensifies the association between R01ne, deception, and law courts. Though Lyco himself is generally called by the Greek nanle tmpczitel, he and the other characters refer to his class by the Latin ternl m;gelltarii, suggesting that his behavior represents that of bankers in l~ome.l1 Lyco tIrst enters with a confident claim that he is rich, so long as he does not repay the deposits people have left with him (]73). If anyone demands said deposits, he will simply go before the praetor, as most mgclltarii do (375-8r).I.2 An interchange in the ensuing dialogue between Lyco and Curculio encourages the audience to recognize the praetor to Wh0111 Lyco takes his case as the l~onlJn magistrate responsible for many law cases:

He refcrs to R01l1e'S most inlportant tenlple, that to Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill. Curculio furthers the internlingling ofR01ne and Greece at his first entrance. He plays the running slave, warning anyone in his way to move or else. No one, he says, is powel{ul enough to escape his wrath:

Cllrwlio:

quacso ne me incOlllities.

Lyco: licetne inforare, si inconlitiare non licet? ClIrc.: non inforabis me quidcm, nec 111ihi placet tuom profecto nec forum nec COlllitiunl. (400-403) CllfClllio: Please don't pester n1e.

nec quisquamst tanl opulentus, qui mi obsistat in via, nec strategus nec tyrannus quisquanl, ncc agoranonlus, nec denlarchus nee comarchus, nec cum tanta gloria, quin cadat, quin capite sis tat in via de semita. (284 - 87) Nor is there anyone so rich-I don't cafC if he's a stratc,t,Jos, a tyrant, an (~t,JolmlOlIllIs, a demarch, a comarch, or sOlllebody with so much glory-that he won't fall and land on his head on the side of the road if he gets in 111y way.

THE THEATER. OF PLAUTUS

128

Lyco: Can I poke you, if I can't pester you? Cure.: You will not poke mc. I really don't like your poking place [lit., your fOrl1I11] or your pestering place [lit., your conlitiUlllJ. The double pun depends on the siIllilarities bet\veen cofllititlll1 (a meeting place on the north side of the Ronlan forunl) and illcomitio ("abuse"), and fOrt/III and it!forarc ("Sod0111ize"). The joke continues the leitnlotif ofR. onlan topography begun by Cappadox's allusion to the Capitoliu11l. It also con-

BANKERS AND PIMPS: CURCULIO

12 9

nects the topography with the theme of courts and the fraudulent use of courts; for the court of the practor IIrul1JllIs, who generally tried cases betwecn l~0111an citizens, was located in the c01l1itium; 13 and that of the praetor percgril1l1s, who normal1y dealt with cases involving noncitizens, \vas in the forllll1 (see below) The close association R0111ans made between thc forum and comitiu111 and law cascs is evidcnt from a passage in the Twelve Tables, Romc's oldest recorded laws: "ni pacunt, in C01l1itio aut in foro ante 1l1eridiem causam coniciunto" ("If [two parties in a disagreel11ent] do not reach an agreell1ent, let thenl make a sumnnry statcnlent of their case before noon in the comitiUll1 or in the forUl11," 1.7).1.1 Lyco and Curculio then 111eet Cappadox, and the three go off to get PlanesiU111. When they return, Curculio indulges in a tiradc against both pi111pS and bankers. He continues the topographical themc with nvo allusions to the forUll1. Any association \'lith pimps, hc says, brings shame: nee vobiscu111 quisqualll in foro frugi consistere audet; qui constitit, culpant eU111, eonspicitur vituperatur, eum ren1 fidclllque pcrdere, tam etsi nil fecit, aiunt. (502-4) And no decent person dares stand beside you in the [orUlll. If anyone does, he is censured, eyed, condcIllned; he is on the road to ruin, they say, even though he has done nothing. IS When Lyco congratulates Curculio on his knowlcdge of pimps, Curculio says that bankers are no different from pil11pS: codem. herc1e vos pan a et para: parissi111i estis hibus: hi saltel11 in occuItis locis prostant, vas in foro ipso; vas faenore h0l11ines, hi l1nle suadendo et lustris lacerant. (506 - 8) By Hercules, I put you both in exactly the same category: you are exactly like thel11. At least they do business in hidden places; you work in the forum itself; you harnl peoplc with interest, they do it with seduction and vice. Curculio's final words against bankers bring to a climax the connection between lZOIlle and Epidaurus: rogitationis plurUll1as propter vos populus scivit, quas vos rogatas rumpitis: aliquanl reperitis ril11
THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

13 0

The peoplc have passcd countlcss lav·,'s because of you, but you just break thcm; you find some loophole; you think b\vs beconle obsolete as fast as boiling water grmvs cold. The reference to laws against bankers and the flouting of those laws connects Lyco and his antics to contenlporary controversies in Rome over moneylending. In 193 H.C.E., new laws were passed to prevent moneylenders 6:0111 avoiding earlier laws against usury by lending in the names of noncitizcns (Livy 35.7.2-5; thc earlier Ll\:vs applied only to citizens).I() The allusion to Roman laws and the flaunting of those laws makes clear what Plautus has il11plied throughout the play: Lyco is a satirical portrait not so much of a hypothetical Greek banker as of a Roman (lI~llc/Jti1ril/s. After such an explicit connection with IZOlllC, the audience will not £lil to recognizc that Plautus has ROll1Jn courts in mind when he describes several shady or questionable legal dealings in the play's last scenes. Cappadox complains that only the adnlonitions of his fi·iends prevented Lyco iiolll pleading before the practor to avoid paying the ten minae he owcd him; like Lyeo himself carlier, Cappadox considers Lyco's behavior typical of mgclltarii (679-85). The pill1P also tries to avoid paying \vhat he owes the soldier by means of a trip to the praetor (72I-22). Meanwhilc, PhaedrOlllus threatens to take Therapontigonus to court \vhen the soldier trics to take baek Planesium (621-25), and he prctends to act as praetor in deciding that Cappadox owes Therapontigonus nloncy (70 1-17). Crowning these connections between deception, law courts, and Roman topography is the play's longest lllonologue, and the longest and most striking Roman allusion in all of Plautus. When Curculio goes off \'lith Cappadox and Lyco to arrange the transfer o[Plancsium, the rI/Oraglfs enters and makes thc following speech: 17 edepol nugatoren11epidum lepide hunc nactust Phaedromus. halapantam an sycophantan1 magis csse dical11 nescio. ornan1enta quae locavi metuo ut possim recipere; quaIllqllanl cum istoc mihi negoti nihil est: ipsi Phaedromo 465 credidi; tamcn asservabo. sed dum hie egreditur foras, commonstrabo, quo in quemque hominen1 facile invcniatis loco, ne nin1io opcre SUI1Dt operanl si qucm conventum vclit, vel vitiosum vel sine vitio, vel probum vel il11probum. 470 qui periurum convenirc volt hOlllinem ito in comitium; qui n1endaccl11 et gloriosunl, apud Cloacinae sacrum, ditis damnosos nuritos sub basilica quaerito. ibiden1 enmt scorta exoleta quique stipulari solent,

BANKERS AND PIMPS: CUliCULIO

13 1

r

p

F

synlbolanml collatores apud forum piscariUlll. in foro infinlo boni homines atgue clites Jillbulant, 475 in l11edio propter canalenl, ibi ostentatores meri; confidentes garrulique et malevoli supera lacu111, qui alter! de nihilo audacter dicunt contumeJianl et qui ipsi sat habent quod in se possit vere dicier. sub veteribus, ibi sunt qui dant quique accipiunt faenoIe. 480 pone aedem Castoris, ibi sunt sub ito quibus credas l1ule. in Tusco vieD, ibi sunt h0111ines qui ipsi sese venditant. in Velabro vel pistorem vellaniu111 vel harllspicem 1K vel qui ipsi vorsant vel qui aliis ubi vorsentur praebcant ... [ditis danll10S0S l11a1'it05 apud Leucadian1 Oppian1] 48519 sed interin1 fores crepuere: linguae moderandUln est n1ihi. (462 - 86)

By Pollux, Phaedromus has nicely found hin1self a nice liar here. I don't know whether I should can him a con man 20 or a shyster. 1'111 afraid I ",/on't be able to get back the costumes I rented out; but I don't have business with him: I entrusted then1 to Phaedromus himself; still. I'll keep watch. But while he's away, I'll point out where you can easily find any kind of person, so that nobody spends too lnuch effort if he wants to meet someone, someone either with or without vices, someone good or bad. Anyone \vho wants to n1eet a peIjuring fenow should go to the cOlnitium; if he wants to n1eet son1eone who lies and boasts, he should go to the shrine of Venus Cloacina. Let hin1100k for rich profligate husbands under the walls of the basilica. In the saIl1e place will be male prostitutes, and the ones who get promises of 1110ney; the ones who contribute to group meals are at the fish market. At the bottOll1 of the forun1 good and rich Inen stroll about; but in the middle, near the gutter, are the pure pretenders. The ones who are arrogant, talkative, and spiteful, who brazenly speak slander against someone else on no grounds, and who have plenty that could truly be said against themselves, are just above the Lacus Curti us. In the shadow of the old shops are those who give and receive money at interest. Go behind the ten1ple of Castor and Pollux: right there are those you would be a fool to trust. In the Vicus Tuscus are the people who sell themselves; on the Velabrum [you can find] a baker [or miller] or a butcher or a seer. or those who themselves cheat or offer others a place where they can cheat.... But I hear the door creaking: I need to shut up. The dlOra,'SlIs, who not only provided costUll1es, but son1etimcs acted as stage nunager (Donat. ad EI!Il. 967), is both a character and part of the apTHE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

1]2

N

\

Fi~h ~larket

Basilica

cum",umO

Bankers' Shops (?)

o Venus Shrine of Cioacina ~

@J Lacu~

Curtius

carl.t~iS

I

C_ _ _J \ Old Shops

Vdabrum

Forum

Forum Infimum

Medium

D

TemPkuf and Poll!!x Ca~tor

Vicus Tuscus

\ \

Plautus's Forum

paratus of production; and he is hired by the magistrate responsible for the play f1'01n the R0111an world outside of the performance (Pel". r 59- 60). His appearance is thus a most efIective \vay for Plautlls to jun1ble together the play's Greek setting, the pelfonnance, Jnd the Roman surroundings of the performance. In his opening lines, the dlOraglls takes advantage of his own ambiguous position to suggest that "Epidaurus" and Rome are one, joined in the production itself He begins by admiring the good luck ofPhaedro111US in finding Curculio: he is still in Epidaurus (462-63). He then n10ves to the production of the phy: he is concerned about his costLl1nes, but not too concerned, for his business is with Phaedr0111US, not Curculio (4 6 466). The actor playing Phaedro111US is the play's chief actor, \vho rented the costumes frOIn the dlOraglls. Finally, the dlOraglls steps beyond the production into the \\Torld of the audience, saying that he will show them \vhere they can find anyone they are looking for (466-69). The dlOraglls's "\vords encourage the audience to realize that in what fol1ows, the joke will be at least in part on then1, for he assun1es members of the audience would \\'ish to associate themselves with the shady characters he is going to describe. The first stop in the ensuing tour sets the tone for what is to follow: spectators can find a perillflls-a petjurer-in the conlitil1ln (470; see fig.). Peril/filS i· ,,1 y tIe . d wit .l ' . , . s so cI ose 1 pImps 1I1l~0l11an cOInedy that Plautus s audIence IlANKERS AND PIMPS, CURCULIO

133

, cannot but have thought of that stock character here. ~1 They \vill be SUrprised and ~ul1used to learn that this peril/nls is SOll1cone speaking before the tribunal of the urban praetor in the comitiu111. 22 The choraglls has entered the IlOlllan forum, but he has brought the stock characters of COl1l_ edy with hin1. The cI/Oraglls's next stop is the shrine of Venus Cloacina, where, he says, one can find SOll1cone "mendax et gloriosl1s" ("lying and boastful," 471). Again he suggests a stock comic character, for hearing gl01"1051 -vvithout an accompanying noun, the audience \vould think of the lIIiles gIMiosl/s, the braggart soldier.23 It appears that the shrine ofCloacinJ was associated with purification after battle. 24 Plalltus has soldiers perforIning such a purifica_ tion in lnind when he refers to the shrine. By calling them gloriosi, he produces scathing satire ofRDnun military Inen, suggesting that some of them are no different from the stock braggart soldiers of his plays. Next the cI/(m~l]tls suggests that in the shadow of the basi1ica, one can find dites d(lIll1lOsi lIlariti-"rich and profligate husbands" (472). Dalllllosi in a conlic setting suggests nlen squandering money on prostitutes. 25 Here the d(/IIl/lOs; are nurried and rich: such a combination-n1arried, rich, and a lover-evokes another stock comic character, the SCIICX amator. Again the cllOraglls humiliates the l<--oman victims of his satire-those who hire the prostitutes on the north side of the forum-by equating them \\i-ith a "Greek" stock character. Where there are sellcs alllatorcs, one might expect to find another stock character, the prostitute_ Plautus does not disappoint, but he does add an unexpected twist, for the r1lOraglls suggests that one can find in or near the basilica not fenule but male prostitutes: scor!a cxolcta (473).2(, Also around the basilica with the prostitutes and their potential lovers are qui stiplliari .'101m!: those who exact a promise of nloney. Joined as they are to the seO!"!l1, q1li stiplllar; solcllt appear to be pin1ps, demanding money for the services of the prostitutes. 27 The satire will be particularly effective when the audience hears Cl1rculio say thirty lines later that anyone even standing ncar pimps in the forl1n110ses his reputation (502-4; see above)_ The verb stl]mjari, however, is used of any fm-nul oral agreelnent, and it \-vas the fOrIll of contract used when 1110ney was lent at interest. 2K Given, then, that bankers' shops were located here on the north side of the forum, next to the basilica,:;~ qlli stl]J1Ilari solmt could also be the bankers and their Cl1stOlners. JO The ambiguity is deliberate. Elsewhere Plautl1S associates prostitutes, pilnps, and bankers, as Diniarchl1s places thenl all together "circa argentarias" ("around the bankers' shops," Trlle. 66-73). Here Plautus goes one step further: by using a phrase that could mean pimps or bankers, he suggests that bankers are no

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

134

better than pimps. He thus prepares thL audience for the explicit equation of pimps and bankers to be nude by Curculio in the next scene (506-8; see above). He undermines, however, the assertion Cllrclliio will make in the same lines, that pilnps \:\Tork "in occultis locis" ("in hidden places"): the dJlln~!?IIS proclaims ill the open what his victims think is hidden.

When he moves northeast of the basilica to the fish market, the c!lOfiWIIS remains in the world of cOIlledy; for the market ofTers not ordinary Tlomans buying provisions, but s}'lIlbolartllll collatorcs: those \vho make contributions for a dinner party C-!-74). Preparations for parties and banquets are a topos of Roman comedy.3! Plautus's only other reference to a dinner for \vhich the guests contribute sYlIlbolac is the party of Stich us and his fellow slaves (Sticli. +32,438), in a passage set emphatically in a Greek milieu (Stich. 446-48) that is probably a parody of dinners elsewhere in c0111edy.32 Likewise Terence, in conspicuously Greek settings, refers to con1ic ddlJ/cscclltcs arranging dinners with sJllI/boldc (All. 88; EIIII. 540).33 Again the choragJ/s has placed in the heart ofl<--ome behavior else\vhere considered a part of the Greek cOlnic world. The north side of the forUlll, then, is crmvded with characters like those one might find in the supposedly Greek setting of the Ihllliata. As he reaches the eastermnost side of the forum, the j(mllli ilijiI/lJ/m,3.1 the e/tomgJls tenlporari1y abandons the characters of comedy and provides the only fulfillment of his prOIllise to speak of the good as \vell as the bad: here walk "boni homines atque dites" ("good and w·ealthy men," 475). B0111 homilies for the upper class is very respectful l<--onun language, as £:1.r relllOved fronl the seedy world of comedy as the clwmSlIs will get; yet even here, the verbal echo of ditcs reminds the audience that they are not that £1.r fl.-om other rich Ronuns \vho are f~lr fronl good. The next line reveals that the b(J/Ji have been included merely for the sake of contrast with poorer people who put on airs, pretending to be bOlli and ditcs; for the clwragJls continues, "in medio propter canalem, ibi ostcntatores meri" ("In the Iniddle near the cl1/Ii1/is are the pure pretenders," 476). The (al/alis was an open drain that ran south h:on1 the shrine ofVenl1s Cloacina through the middle of the forUlll. 35 The ostctltato/"cs IIlcri are probably the loiterers called wllalirolac ("gutter d\vel1ers") because they lounged about near this drain.3() That such loiterers already abounded in the Illiddle of the forUlll in Plautus's day is evident fi·om the desire of Cato the Elder to cover the forum with sharp stones in order to discourage such loitering (Pliny. 1-11.\1 19.24). The chofdg/ls spends more tinle 011 the next group, the arrogant, hostile, talkative speakers of slander, than on anyone else (477-79). The lines have generally been taken to be a reference to gossips loitering in the forUlll. 37 It

BANKERS AND PIMPS: CURCULIO

135

is not clear, however, why gossips should be called arrogant or speak brazenly: they seem to be doing nothing particularly daring; and in the five other passages where PlaUtllS uses colltIlllldia ("insulting language") of words rather than of general mistreatment or bad reputation, the col/tll/llelia is an insult or accusation spoken directly fron1 one person to another, not anything spoken behind one's back. 38 Plautus's .'II/pew laC/IIII provides a clue as to \\lho the lIlalc!Joli 111ight be, for it is almost certain that the tribunal of the praetor peregrinus was located just to the west of the Lacus Curtius.:I() The COIif1-dClltCS and gdrmli are those who are brazen enough to accuse others before the praetor even though they are guilty of worse crinles themselves. Moving to the south side of the forum, the chora<.QlIs first cal1s attention to the tabcmac l'ctcrcs ("old shops"), where, he says, one can find those who give and receive money at interest (480). Having hinted at bankers in the reference to stiplI/atio above, Plautus now makes clear that the third of the play's three main antagonists, hke the pimp and the braggart soldier, would feel right at hOl11e in the l:toman forum: Hl Nor is the clwraJ,ZlIs through \vith bankers. His next stop is behind the temple of Castor and Pollux, where he claims to know of those qllibliS crcdas lIlale ("whom you would trust to your loss," 481). Cicero reveals that the tables of nloney-changers were near the sanle temple (QlIillct. 4.I7), and two inscriptions referring to bankers behind the tenlple confirm this location (ClL 6.363, 9I77). There is no reason to doubt that in Plautus's day as well, a group of {//;gclltarii worked post acdcl/1 Castoris:11 One begins to get the impression that untrustworthy bankers like Lyco are everyv.rhere around the cllOraglls's forum. Moving flrther south, the cllOraSlIs suggests that on the "vicus Tuscus" ("Etruscan Street"), one can find "honlines qui ipsi sese venditant" ("persons who sen themselves," 482): nlore prostitutes ..}] The nusculine pronoun

ipsi reveals that the prostitutes are once again male (or both male and fenlale), but they are a different class from the scorta cxolctd above, for they are not the property of pimps, but sell their own services.'}J The (hO/'(~r,;l/s'S last stop is the Velabrum (483). Here, he says, are piston's ("nli11ers" or "bakers"), [al/ii ("butchers"), and /wf/lspiccs ("seers"). Although all these professions are hardly foreign to l:tome,'}·1 each is also a conspicuous feature in the background of the \vorld of the palliata:15 Also on the Velabrum, one can tlnd "either those who themselves cheat, or those who offer to others a place \\lhere they can cheat."·16 Various lnerchants had businesses on the Velabnu11: 47 "those who cheat" are the merchants, deliberately left undefined to give the impression of a general atnlosphere of deception on the Velabnull. "Those who offer others a place where they can

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

13 6

cheat" are persons who provide stalls to the petty businessmen on the hill. The implication is that anyone who acquires such a stall has swindling in mind. ·18 The effect of this tour of the 1:toman forUlllmust have been stunning, tor it is not merely a reference to things 1<""0111an, but the nlOst blatant possible reminder that the production occurs in the city of H. .onle. All distinction bet\veen play, production, and "real life" has been obliterated; and as the physical landscapes of "Epidaurus" and Rome become onc, the audience is forced to recognize the applicability of the Epidaurian social landscape to their own city, Rome. The chomglls takes advantage of this association of places to introduce into the ROlllan world characters reminiscent of con1edy in general and of CI/rm!io in particular. The resulting identification of actors' pretense and audience's reality would have been especially effective if, as is probably the case, the spcctators themselves stood and sat in the midst of the places the cllOmglls pointed OUL· I') Though evidence for the locations of theatrical performances in Plautlls's day is meager, what there is suggests that on SOl11e occasions, plays were perfonned in the fOrl1111. 50 As has long been observed, the clwm,\!l/s's tour is both restricted and on:lerly.51 It includes only places in the illlmediate vicinity of the fOfl1111, east of the western end of the comitium. It is nlost unlikely that, if the play were performed at some other location, Plautus would have discussed only this small area, or that the chomglls ·would have been so careful to lead his spectators from the COlllitium east along the north side of the forum to the fish market, then back through the middle of the forum to the west of the Lacus Curtius, then along the south side of the forum to the tenlplc of Castor and Pollux, and finally south a little to the Velabrum. Given, then, that the clwmgl/s does not mention such places farther west in the forunl as the temples of Saturn or Concordia, there is every indication that he speaks from a stage just south of the conlitium, facing east. Almost everything on the tour would be visible to the clzoraglls and his audience,5:? and spectators would actually be watching the play fronl some of the locations cited. At several points in the speech, the clwmglls takes advantage of the presence of the audience to make jokes at their expense. It appears that the comitium was customarily covered for the II/di, probably so that \vealthier citizens could watch the gladiatorial games and, presumably, the plays, protected fi'Olll the elenlents. 5:> If this is in fact the case, the clwri1,~lIs's location of the PCrillrllS in the comitiulll is a double joke: he satirizes the peljurers \vho plague the praetor's court daily, and he rather daringly 1110cks the wealthy, \vho watch him fr0111 the Roman equivalent of box seats. Other

B.ANKERS AND PIMPS: CliRCULIO

137

--

spectators, watching f1'0111 the balconies that lined the north and south sides of the fOrllll1, would bear the brunt of PlautllS's references to wealth\' profligates near the basilica and to lenders and borrmvcrs ncar the shops.5.l If spectators watched from the area directly in front of the porticoes, PlautllS'S references to the shrine ofCloacina is also a double entendre. The choraglls lllocks the very last rows of his audience, standingjllst to the west of the drain that ran through the middle of the forum, \vhen he refers to the pure pretenders near the gutter. Finally, the cllOra~\flls himself is probably standing on a stage just above the LaCllS Cllrtius. His reference to the loquacious speakers of slander is in part a bit of self-mockery, as he acknowledges that his O\'ln speech and those of the actors arc often unjustified

old

insults. In both its context and its content, thcn, the r!Jora<-\ZlIs's speech breaks do\'ln the barriers between what the spectators see onstage and their OWn experience. Plautus chooses for the speech the cI/(Jf(~~lIs, a character. who himself bridges the gaps bet\veen pretense, performancc, and reality; and by pointing out places visible fi"0111 the stage, thc choraglls unites Rome and "Epidaurus" physically. Plautus encourages this geographical confusion by refusing to distinguish between characters and actors at the beginning of the speech, and by including in the c/wl'aglls's list oflaughablc people many who seern to belong in the supposedly Greek world of the palliata. Double entendres, in which the c//(m~~lIs refers both to what goes on daily in the places he points out and to the audience or actors currently present, reinforce this lack of distinction. Plautus n1akes the speech relevant to CllrCIIlio in particular by including in the forum characters similar to Cappadox, Therapontigonus, and Lyco, and by referring twice to the praetors' courts, \'lhich play an important role elsewhere in the play. As he n10ves fi'0lll the imaginary Epidaurus through the current performance to the audience's ROlne, the c1wraglls takes the theme of deception

;1lJ(.1ience, that his tour of the forum and its surroundings will include those \\'ho are good as \vell as those who are bad (4°9), nearly every stop is filled onl\' with the latter, especially \'lith those who deceive: peljurers, liars, illici~ lovers; prostitutes and pimps, always considered dishonest; people who pretend to greater \'lealth than they have; people who make £llse accusarions; untrustworthy bankers; butchers, known to be cheats (cf Pseudo 197); seers, often accused of being charlatans; 5(, and, finally, simply "those who cheat." The audience can draw only one conclusion: deception is as widespread in their own IZome as it is in Curculio's Epidaurus.

CurCl/lio is Plautus's shortest play. The satirical monologues-the cllOmgtls's speech, Lycus's and Cappadox's descriptions of mgclltarii, and Curculio's running-slave speech-thus stand out all the l110re conspicuously. Together with the play's other IZol1un allusions, they make clear that the deceitful practices of n1en like Lyco and Cappadox can be found in lZomc as well as in Greece. Plautus's satire, however, applies not only to bankers and pimps. Fides-trustworthiness-was one of the ROl1uns' cardinal virtues, and one of the ways they liked to distinguish themselves from other peoples. 57 By portraying an Epidaurus in which fides is nonexistent, and then associating that Epidaurus unmistakably with IZOllle, and even with the audience itsel( PblltuS challenges his audience's assul11ption that even though other peoples (Greeks, for example) might practice deception regularly and willfully, Romans can be trusted. The further association of deception with Roman courts of law and the topographical centers of lZoman religious, cconomic, and civil1ife would nuke the satire stillmore da111ning. Even as they delighted in the characters' antics, many spectators nlust have found thcmselves agreeing \'lith Cllrculio's rebuke of Lyco early in the play: "I really don't like your fonlIll or your comitium" (403).

\'lith him. He begins by praising Curculio's skill as a trickster (402-03). When thc d/Omglls reveals his own fear that Curculio \'lill \valk ofF with his costume, he extends the idea of deceit from \'lithin the in1Jginary world of the play to the performance, fr0111 the character Curculio to the actor playing Curculio. He then reveals that the actor playing Curculio is not the only perfOrl11er who is unconcerl1ed with ethical business practices, for he implies that he hin1self does not rea11y care about the costU111eS, as hc can still hold Phaedrol1lus responsible. 55 His O\'ln attitude is thus reminiscent of that of Cappadox and Lyco, both of \'lh01n are cOlnpletely unconcerned with the logistics of their transactions with Therapontigonus, so long as each gets his money. Although the cliof(JglIs pr01nises, when he enters the world of the

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

13 8

BANKERS AND PIMPS, CURCUUO

139

F

iPROSTHUTlES .,~ND LOVlERS: TR UCULEJNTTUS eatoll£' (mllsclII/fc qllidmll edit dcJorllicc; qllel1l, Wll1fllgcrCt, I"clJo((lvit ct Imldauit. Postea WI/I fiTqllCllfills ('//111 CXCI/lltem de codclI1 il/lulI/l1fi I'idissct, dixissc IeI'll/I': adll{cscClls, - ego tf lalldmJi, tallJqlldlll hue illrer/lel/ires, 11011 ((//lIqll(1111 1/l'C

hahitarcs. A certain //Jail cmlle Ollt cif a hrothcllvhilc Cato {ihe CCIIsorj !Fas ,r:oillg by. f,YhCII the 1111111 started to rllll dll!(l}" Calo called him back alld praised him fscil. because he I1'Il5 releasing his libido with prostitutes rather thall lIJith 1!{)giIlS Of married IIIOII/CIl]. Late); Ill/len he had scell him colllillg quite (1rclI Ollt of the same brothel, he said, as the story goes: "YOIIII,\! 1I1(l1l, I pr[liscd YOII 011 the assllmption that YOII visited here, l1(H tlldt you filJcd here." -Pseudo-Acron on Horace Sat.

1.2·3 [-32

WHEIZEAS the satire of CllrCJIlio extends from the specific l1lachinatiol1s of Lyco and Cappadox to deccption in gencral, in TmCJIZCIltlis Plautus concentrates his satire on one phenon1enon: the squandering of wealth on prostitutes.1 Phronesil1lll, Plautus's l110St outrageous femn1e fatale, has three lovers. The first, Diniarchus, has spent an his money on her and has been relegated to the position of confidant. The second is the soldier Stratophanes; PhronesiUI11 pretends that she has just had his baby in order to get l110re nloney fron1 him, using for the purpose someone else's Ul1\vanted infant. Most of the plot is PhronesiulT1's manipulation of these two and a third lover, Strabax, a young rustic. She is assisted by her handn1aid, Astaphiul1l, who also manages in the course of the play to seduce Truculentus, Strabax's grinI and severe slave. Meanwhile, it becomes known that the baby Phrone-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

140

,iUlll is using for her charade is actually the product ofDiniarchus's rape of Ilis former fiancee. Diniarchus agrees to marry the girl he raped; but he is persuaded by Phrone~il1111 to let her keep the baby until she has gotten more [lloney from the soldler, and he seems destined to continue his desperate attemptS to \vin her more securely for himself As the play ends, Strabax and Srratophanes con1pete for Phronesiunl with gifts while the prostitute and her handnlaid look on in delight. PhroncsiUlll, like most of Plautus's meretrices, is almost certainly derived from a prostitute in Plautus's Greek original. 2 Most prostitutes of Greek comedy reflect real-life hetaerae, courtesans \\'ho played an important role in Greek sexual and sociallife. 3 Before considering the satirical significance of Phronesium and her lovers, therefore, it is necessary to deterllline whether Plautus's prostitutes could have appeared at all relevant to his audience, or if they represented an exotic Greek species totally foreign to Rome. There can be no doubt that prostitutes were a conspicuous feature of Plautus'S Rome. The anecdote about Cato cited above dates fr0111 during or shortly after Plautus's lifetime. Other evidence suggests that prostitutes were not only present in Ron1e in the late third and early second century, but that their numbers were increasing: l:z.ome's incessant vvarfare caused nI0re slaves to be captured and llude prostitutes, and nlore free \VOll1en became prostitutes for want of any other means of support. 4 Plautus himself, as we have seen, has his clIOragus refer to prostitutes in and around the Roman forum (CIlfC. 473, 482); and one of his prologi alludes to llule prostitutes in the theater itself (Pow. 17-18). The portrayal of lIleretr;ces at the temple of Venus in Poe/l1IillS nuy reflect contenlporary Roman religious controversies involving prostitutes. 5 Several plays include jokes about nleInbers of the audience or persons known to the actors hiring prostitutes (Alilph. 287; Bacch. 120 9- 10; Cas. 84-86,1015-18; Alac. IOT7-24): though the jokes are not to be taken seriously, their c01nic effect depends upon the audience's familiarity with prostitutes and their custonlers. It might be argued that although the l11eInbers of Plautus's audience would be £lnIiliar with low-class scorta like those who could be found both in the brothels and on the streets of Rome, they would have found higherclass lIleretrices such as Phronesium strange and exotic. 6 Polybius, after all, writes that it was at the end of the Third Macedonian War, about sixteen years after Plautus's death, that ROllUIl youths gave themselves over to cour~esans, boy-lovers, and other such luxuries (31.25.4-7). Polybius, however, IS at pains to draw a contrast between the other Roman youths and Scipio Aemilianus, \\'ho reached adulthood in the early r60s; and he does not suggest that courtesans or any of the other luxuries were conlpletc1y absent

PROSTITUTES AND LOVER.S: TRUCULENTUS

from Rome before the \var \\lith Macedon. Further evidence for the exis_ tence of figures like Plautus's mcrctriccs in the early second century comes fronl the historian Livy. His Hispala Faecenia, who helped to bring to light the so-called Bacchanalian Conspiracy in I 86 H.C.E., is a prostitute of some refinement, a long-tenll mistress of her lover, Aebutius, l11uch like Phro_ ncsium and many of the other meretrices of Ronun conledy (39·9·5 -7). Though the details of Livy's account may themselves have been influenced by CGIllic motifs, the status ofHispala is probably historical. 7 Thus, although thc hctaera had not yet becomc in R.Dnle the kind of institution she was in nlllCh of the Greek world, IllOSt in Pbutus's audience would certainly have known of meretriccs with llluch higher pretensions than the average SCOr(WI!. Nor are Phronesiul11 and Astaphium conlpletely renloved frGIll the lowcr_ class prostitutes whonl Plautus's audience would find nl0st ['u11iliar. Plautus Illakes the housc ofPhronesium and Astaphil1ll1 seenl1ike a brothel, where such lower-class prostitutes would live and work: he gives the il11pression that a large nl1I11ber of lovers passes through Phronesil1I11's door, and Astaphium even says that sonIC of thenl pilfer fronl the prostitutes (9~ - I I I, 658, 760, 944)·" Though the greed and the success of Phronesium are grossly exaggerated, then, both residents of Rome and, presumably, somc nlel11bers of Pbutus's audience spent l1l0ney on mcrctriccs llke her: the play's satirical trcatment of prostitutes and their lovers could have relevance for Romans. Through his arrangenlent of I=lOI11an allusions, addresses to thc audience, eavesdropping, and nl0nologues, Plautus made clear that the events of the play were in fact relevant to l=lonle and to the audience. Conspicuous a11usions to ROIne and Italy are arranged so as to encourage the spectators to recognize that thc play's profligate lovers are Roman as much as Greek phenOI11ena. TrtlwlC/1tlls also has nlore lines of monologue relative to its total length than aInlost any other Plautine play,') and characters repeatedly address the audience explicitly: the nlonologues and dircct addresses arc arranged in such a \vay as to illlplicate the audience in the action onstage. Finally, scencs of eavcsdropping cause the lovers thcmselves to be spectators, paralle1 \\'ith the actual spectators. The prologue of ThlCltiCIlt!l5 begins \vith joking similar to that of the

!vICI1aechllli prologue (sec Chapter 3): perparvanl partem postulat Plautus loci de vestris magnis atque ailloenis nloenibus, Athcnas quo sine architectis conferat. quid nunc? daturin estis an non? adnuont.

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

scio rem guidenl urbis nle ablaturllln sine nlora; quid 5i de vostro quippianl oreI11? abnuont. eu hercIe in vobis resident nlO1·es pristini, ad dcnegandum ut celeri lingua utanlini. sed hoc agamus qua huc ventunlst gratia. Athenis nlutabo ita ut hoc est proscaeniull1 tantispcr dUlll transigiIllus hanc comoedianl. (I-IT) Plautus requests a little spot from your great and pleasant city w'here he can introduce Athens without any builders. What do you say? Will you give a spot or not? They say they \vill. I sec that I can take public land, at least, \vith no trouble. What if I ask for SQl11e of your own property? They say they won't. Great! You still maintain the ancient virtucs, for you arc quick to refuse to pay anything. But let's get back to what I came here for. I will change this stage so that it is in Athcns as long as we are perfonning this conledy. The basic joke here is the same as that in j\t[cnaccizllJi: this is Greece, but it isn't. There are, however, SOlne important ditTercnces. Whilc the prolo/llls of iHc/laedlllli is concerned mainly w-ith the inherent [llseness of the theatrical setting, the proh~'5l1s of TmCfllclltlls enlphasizes that even as Plautus and the actors create "Athens," they remain within the audience's Ronle. The association of the play's action with Rome continues as the proio,s:lIs describes Phronesimn: "haec huius saecli nlores in se possidet" ("This woman possesses the ways of this age," 13). The ways ofPhronesium are to be found specifically in contenlporary ROl11e. Though the prologue thus associates the play's actions with I.zDnle, it \vould seenl at 6rst sight to separate the spectators fronl the actions of the play.!O The spectators, aftcr all, are praised for their morcs pristilzi ("old ways," 7), whereas Phronesiul11 and prostitutes like her have 'willS saccIi mores ("the \vays of this age," I3). The prologue spcaker, however, is teasing the audience, suggesting that the thrift on which they and l=lomans like them so praiscd themselves was in fact stinginess. The irony of the praise undermines as \vel1 the distinction between audience and characters it might seenl to illlply. The ensuing lal11ent by Diniarchus sets a pattern of Roman allusion and involveInent of the audience that will continue throughout the play. In a remarkably long expansion of the nlonologue-beginning generalization, Diniarchlls delivers a tirade against prostitutes for IHore than fifty lines. In the middle of this discourse, he 1ists itenlS denIJnded by a prostitute, ill-

PROSTITUTES AND LOVERS, TRUCULENTUS

143

..--

P.< J-;;

eluding (lr11Ulrio/a CmCC!1: Greekje\vel boxes (55). As no Athenian would re_ fer to a "Greek jewel box," Diniarchlls has entered the l:toman world where Greekness is something worthy of remark. It is thus frol11 a R0 I11J1 : perspective that Diniarchus offers the suggestion that follo\vs: iflovers COn_ sulted their fathers, there would be fewer pimps, prostitutes, and profligates. As it is, Oiniarchu5 says, pimps and prostitutes are morc (0111111011 than flies in the Sl1llll11cr, and they sit every day near the ilIgclltariac ("bankers' tables," 64 -73)· I3y presenting prostitutes who sit outside along with pimps, and bv alluding to a [1l11iliar feature of l~onlan topography, the bankers' tables the forUlll, Diniarchus leaves little doubt that he is talking not about exotic hetaerae, but about prostitutes in a Roman nlilieu. He concludes his general comnlents by explaining the abundance of pimps and prostitutes in language that nlakes the connection \vith lZonle still clearer:

i;l

postremo id nlagno in populo multis 11 hOll1inibus, re placida atque otiosa, victis hostiblls: anure oportet O1nnis qui quod dent habent. (74-7()) In short, that is what happens among a great people with a large population, when the state is at peace and tranquil, and the eneInies have been defeated: everybody who has the nl0ney has to play the lover. Diniarchus's string of ablatives is a parody oflZ01nan official language, and the reference to peace and victory ahnost certainly refers to the situation at IZ01ne \vhen the play was produced, shortly before Plautus's death. 12 When Diniarchus fina11y turns fro111 his generalizations to his ovvn situation (77), he does not abandon his Roman perspective, for he complains that PhroneSiUll1 wants to pelgraecari ("Greek it up") with his rival, the soldier (87). Finally, as if to say, "Oops! I'nl supposed to be in Athens," Diniarchus ends his monologue with a reference to his O\vn recent return to Athens from Lemnos (91). The juxtaposition joke cames too late to ITnlove the strong connection Diniarchus has established bet\veen the events of the play and the audience's IZOll1e. At the saIne time, Diniarchus associates himself and lovers like hill1 with the spectators themselves. The length of this monologue-at seventy-three lines, it is one of Plautus's longest-in itself connects Diniarchus and the spectators to an unusual degree, and intinute modes of address reinforce the connection. Though he begins \vith the third person, he uses a secondperson verb early in the speech: "temptat benignllsne an bonae fi'ug1 sies" ("She tests ta see if you are nice to her or a worthwhile person," 34). Al-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

144

(Th the second person can be interpreted as impersonal, it nevertheless

rIIOU::>

.. s 51leake-r and addressee, as does Diniarchus's next second-person verb: jL)lJ1 . .

~. H-ius guam unum dederis, centum quae po scat parat" ("Before you can

~., l,er one thing, she has a hundred other demands,"

"1\ c

51)- Diniarchus thus

~jOll- 15' the Sl)ectators with himself and lovers like him, so that they• appear to

-be included as subjects of the first-person plural verbs that follo\v: atque haec celamus nos clanl magna industria, quoIH reIn fidem que nosque nOSl1let perdil11us, ne qui parelltes neu cognati senti ant; quos cum cc1amus si faxi111us conscios, qui nostrae aetati tempestivo teIllperent, unde anteparta demus postpartoribus, faxim lenonul1l et scortorum t plus est et minus dal1lnosorum hominum quaIll nunc sunt siet. (57-63) And we take great pains ta keep these affairs secret, \vhile we destroy our property and our credit and ourselves, so that no parents or relatives find out; if instead of hiding it fi"om them, we told those who could restrain our youth in time, so that we could hand our inheritance on to others, I bet there \vould be fewer pimps, prostitutes, and bankrupts than there are now. Later, when speaking of the money the abundant prostitutes keep track of, Diniarchus makes clear that he is taking the spectators into his confidence: "accepta dico, expensa ne qui censeat" ("I Inean nlOney that has been received, lest anyone think I meanl110ney paid out," 73). As we have seen, it is hardly unusual for Plautus's characters to draw close to the audience in their monologues. The C0111bination of D1niarchus's general IZol11anness and thc intimacy of his address, however, nleans that here, not only do the spectators see the action through Oiniarchus's eyes, but they themselves becomc implicated in his attitudes and his behavior. The association ofDiniarchus and lovers like him with the spectators increases as Diniarchus eavesdrops on Astaphiul11 in the next scene. As she enters, Astaphiul11 makes the play's 1110St obvious connection between spectators and lovers. After complaining to her fellow handmaids that prostitutes' CllStomers rob theIH, she suddenly addresses the spectators: fit pol hoc, et pars spectatorum sci tis pol haec vos me hau l1lentiri. ibist ibus pugnae et virtuti de praedonibu' praedaIn capere. at ecastor nos ruslllniepide referillm' gratianl furibu' nostris:

PROSTITUTES AND LOVERS: TRUCULENTLiS

nan1 ipsi vident quom eorl1I11 abgerimus bona atgue etiam ultro ipsi aggerunt ad nos. 13 (105 ~II) That's what happens, by Pollux, and some of you spectators are \vell aware that I'm not lying. That's where their glorious battle is: taking booty fi'om the booty-takers. But we repay our thieves nicely, by Castor: for they themselves watch while we carry off their possessions, and they even bring then1 to us of their own accord. The unexpected accusation of "some of you spectators" is nude in fun and could hardly have been taken seriously. Indeed, it is one of a number of teasing audience addresscs that Plautus places early in his plays in order to help "wan11 up" the audience (see Chapter I). Yet the link between the spectators and lovers that has already been established gives this teasing audience address extra significance: l11embcrs of the audience are now eXplicitly included in the class of nlen who lose their \vealth to prostitutes. Diniarchus responds to Astaphiu111's words with an aside: nle i11is quidem haec verberat verbis, nanl ego huc bona mca degessi. (I 12 -

I

3)

I'nl the one she strikes with those words, for I have brought all Illy possessions here. As an eavesdropper, Diniarchus is himself a spectator. His application of Astaphil1I11's audience address to hin1self de1110nstrates that the universal generalities, the specifIc characters ol1stage, and the audience arc all intertwined. After a dialogue full of quips about the perils of loving prostitutes, Diniarchus reveals to Astaphiu111 that he is not cOl11pletcly broke, but still has a house and an estate. Astaphil1Ill's attitude therefore changes fro111 hostility to welconle, and she lets hil11 enter the house to wait for Phroncsium. When he has left the stage, Astaphium rejoices: hahahae, requievi, quia intro abiit odium nleunl. tandem sola sun1. nunc guidenl n1eo arbitratu loquar libere quae volam et quae lubebit. (209-12)

?

1iWI1 of course, is not reany alone. She uses her freedom fron1

·\Sf.lP1 , . . . "1!'chus not to n1use introspectively, but to offer her o\vn perspective to null.

, '!l!dience delivering in an intimate tone a long n10nologue on thc tIlt: ' ' er" way "pro P . for prostitutes to impoverish their lovers. She continues to of'~'r her perspective through the next scene, hcr first encounter with Trucu" [liS She t\V'ice comments aside on the slave's gruffness and boorishncss 1.cIl .' '. ')69) , and \vhen she leaves, she telJs the spectators that she hopes to se[2 (I). ~

l1uct: him (3 1 S- 21 ). Diniarchlls thcn reenters, and he continues his close relationship with the .nHiit'nce. He speaks two more monologues (322~2S, 33S~SI), and when ht: finally sees Phronesill1n, he presents her to the audience with a secondpersoll verb ("ver vide, ut tota floret, ut olet, ut nitidc nitcr!" "Look! The Spring! What a s\veet smelling, glistening flower she is!" 3 53 ~54)' He shares with the audience both his suffering (357) and his joy (371) as PhronesiUl11 st:duces him; and after Phronesium tel1s him about her plan to deceive the soldier, Diniarchus rejoices in another monologue (434~47). It is nmv Phroncsium's turn to iInplicate the audiencc. She had left the stage before Diniarchus's last monologue. When she returns, she addresses her handmaids (448), then the audience (448-75), then the handmaids again (476~SI): the audience is as l11uch a part oftbe action as those onstage. Like Diniarchus and Astaphill111, Phronesillm cagerly discusses her "ices with the audicnce, gloating in her own greed and duplicity. Just as in the previous scene Phrol1csium had nude Diniarchus an accomplice in her conspiracy against Stratophanes, she now does the sanle to the audience, addressing them explicitly: vosmet iam vidctis, ut ornata incedo: puerperio ego nunc llled esse aegraI11 adsil11ulo, (463 ~64) See for yourselves how properly 1'111 dressed: I 111eal1 to look as though I've just givcn birth. H Phronesium's next victim, the soldier Stratophanes, enters inullediately after Phronesium's 1110nologue with a monologue of his OW11. Plautus thus otTers thrce monologues in a row, a pattern vcry rare even in his monologue-filled corpus. 1S Like Diniarchus before hin1, Stratophanes takes on a Roman perspective; and he addresses the audience even n10re explicitly than Dilliarchus had:

Hooray! Now I can rest: 111y nen1esis has gone inside. At last I'm alone. Now I will say freely what I wish and what I fecllike, at Illy own discretion.

ne exspectetis, spectatores, Ineas pugnas dum pracdiccm: manibus duelJa praedicare soleo, haud in sermoniblls.

THE THEATER 01' PLAUTUS

PROSTITUTES AND LOVERS: TRUCULENTUS

147

r

5cio ego 111ultos menl0ravisse mi1itcs 111endaciUln: et H0111cronida et postilla 111il1e l11CIlIOrari potc, qui et convicti et condCll1nati t~tlsis de pugnis 5ient. non laudandust cui plus credit qui audit quaIl1 qui videt: [non placet quem illi plus landant qui Jucliunt, quaIll qui vident.J pluris est oculatus testis unus quanl auriti decem; qui Juciiullt audita dicunt, qui vi dent plane sciunt. non placet quem scurrae laudant, manipularis mussitant, neque illi quorUlll lingua gladiorul11 aeienl praestringit dami. strenui ni111io plus prosunt populo qualll argl1ti et cati: facile sibi [1.cunditatcm virtus argutanl invenit, sine virtute argutum civenl ll1ihi habeanl pro praefica, quae alios conlaudat, capse sese vera non potest. nunc ad JmiCanl decimo I11ense post Athenas Atticas viso, quan1 gravidam hic reliqui mco con1pressu, quid ea agat.

(482 -98) Spectators, don't expect n1e to tell you about l11y battles: I generally announce n1y wars with deeds, not vvords. I know that many soldiers have told lies: I could mention Homcronides and a thousand after hin1, who have been convicted and condemned for L'llse battles. The one who persuades a listener I110re than an eyewitness does not deserve praise: one eyewitness is v·wrth more than ten listeners. Those \vho hear just say what they have heard: those who see really know. 1 don't care for the one whon1 the loiterers praise, while the soldiers are quiet, or those whose tongues blunt the edges of swords at home. The people benefit a lot more from the brave than fron1 the talkative and clever: courage easily finds abundant eloquence for itself; but I consider the talkative citizen without courage like a professional mourner, \vho praises others, but can't honestly praisc herself. No\v I am visiting Attic Athens in the tenth l110nth after I left it, to sec how I11Y mistress is doing: she was pregnant from 111Y embrace when I left. The l11onologue is, first of all, a metatheatrical statement. Stratophanes boasts that he will not act like thc stock braggart soldiers of con1edy, something the audience would ccrtainly expect seeing the soldier's costume and the grand procession of slaves and gifts that accompanies him. Hc thus nukes an even bigger fool of himself when he does act the part of the braggart soldier in the next scene, calling himself Mars (515), and \vondering why his five-day-old son has not yet won any battles (508). The speech is also topical, ho\vever. It responds to the nun1erous allegations in the years

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

bdo re the first production of ThlClliclltllS that ItOIl1an generals sought triU1nphs on [lIse pretenses; Stratophanes 11UY even echo the title of a speech arCata, "In Q. Minucium Then1lum de Falsis Pugnis" ("Against Quintus ivlil1ucius Therll1us Concerning His False Battles," Cell. 10.3. r 7; Cato ORr 58).16 Besides introducing some direct satire on contemporary controversies, the topical allusion places Stratophanes, like Diniarchus before hil11, \vithin a 1~0ll1an 11lilieu. 17 Like Diniarchus, Stratophanes ends the Roi11JI1 Jllusion w-ith a juxtaposition joke-he even uses the tautologous "Atric Athens"-but the satirical daIl1age has already been done. StrJtophanes' long t11onologlle also connects hiIl1 closely \vith the spectators: he acknmvledges theI1l explicitly, and he appears to address theI11 without being understood by Astaphiull1 and Phronesiun1, although they are onstage throughout the n10nologue. 18 The soldier maintains his connection v.rith the spectators through the next scenes: he comments aside when he first sees Phronesium and Astaphium (502, 503), and he shares with the spectators his exasperation when Phronesiull1 refuses to be impressed or pleased with the gifts he brings (5]5, 5]8, 542-46). I-Ie then eavesdrops while Cyan1us, the cook vvho brings presents from Diniarchus, delivers his own long monologue on the perils of aI/lOr. Cyamus, like Phronesiull1 earlier, begins by addressing the slaves who accompany him (55 I-52), then changes to audience address (55]). The subject of his intimate audience address is the saI11e as those of Diniarchus, Astaphiull1, and PhronesillI11: the financial perils ofloving prostitutes. Like his predecessors, he is remarkably frank about his own vices: he reveals that he regularly pilfers [r0111 Diniarchus. Plautus calls attention to the fact that Cyamus shares with the audience things he does not \vant the other characters to know: when he sees that Phronesium is present, he is afraid that she has overheard his monologue (575). There is no indication, however, that Phronesiulll, Astaphiull1, or even the eavesdropping Stratophanes hears what Cyan1us says. When Cyaillus observes Stratophanes, the soldier renews his series of asides to the audience, telling thcnl of his anger (603). What nlust have been a visually hilarious scene follows, as Stratophanes, armed v.lith a sword, and Cyamus, brandishing a kitchen iinplement, threaten each other. CyaIl1US then leaves, confessing his cowardice to the audience (630), and Phronesiul11 leaves as \vell. Left alone, Stratophanes again tells his troubles to the audience, seeking their sytnpathy with a series of rhetorical questions (6]5-44). The next character to enter is Phronesiun1's third lover, the rustic Strabax. Strabax's entrance 1110nologue is shorter than those of his predecessors,

PROSTITUTES AND LOVERS: TRliCliLENTUS

but it is equally self-incriminating. After reporting that he has in his Posses_ sion twenty I1linae that he was supposed to use to buy sheep for his f,1ther he says that he intends to impoverish his father, and then his mother, in or~ der to bring IUDIley to PhronesiUll1 (645-62). The sheep Strabax Was to have bought \vere opes ThrClltil/ac: Tarentine sheep (649). Sheep from the re_ gion of the Italian city ofTarentulll were faIllOUS throughout the Greek and lZoman \vorld, and they may have been exported to cities on the Greek mainland like Athens. 1') TarentuIll itself was a Greek colony. Nevertheless, the allusion to an Italian city associates Strabax with rural Italy, and hence \vith the lZoman world: the rustic, like the soldier and the eflete urbanite is a kind of character both present and seduced in lZonle. 21l All three suitors, then, take on a Roman, or at least Italian, perspective as they enter, and not only the suitors, but the seducing lIIeretrices and the observing cook as well, have aligned themselves closely \vith the audience. The one exception to these patterns has been the play's eponynlous character, Truculentus. When he first encountered AstaphiU111, Truculentus exenlplified in 11l3ny ways the virtues traditionally expected in IZomans: he opposed vehenlently the corruption of his young master Strabax; he praised Strabax's father for his parsiHI011ia ("thrift," 3 fO) 21 and his duritia ("endurance." 3 TT); and even Astaphimll admitted that he was dedicated to his master (3 T6). There \vas nevertheless no allusion in that first scene that placed Truculentus in IZOIlle, and he did not speak any lines of monologue. After Astaphium has led Strabax into Phronesium's house, however, Plautus presents the play's biggest surprise. Truculentus enters, and it looks as if the earlier hostile encounter between Truculentus and Astaphiulll will be repeated. Truculentus wonders if Strabax has gone into Phronesiul11's house, which he calls Strabax's corfllptcla (the source of his corruption). Astaphimll comments aside that she expects Truculentus to shout at her again (672). Then, without any warning, Truculentus reveals that hL, too, has been seduced. He tel1s Astaphim11 that he is no longer trJIClliClltllS ("ferocious"), and that he will do \vhatever she \vishes. After S01lle weak attem-pts at wit and one last burst of indignation at Strabax's behavior (69495), Truculentusjoins his nlaster in PhronesiUl11's house. Here, after he has been seduced, Truculentus suggests that he, too, is a lZoman ..He describes himsclfas exchanging uctacs //lores ("old ways"), for Ilovi mores ("new w'ays," 677), echoing the language ofIZOI11an debate over changing morals; and he indulges in a joke at the expense of the Praenestine dialect that no Athenian could have understood (690-91).22 He also addresses five lines to the audience, including two in which, like Diniarchus and Strabax before him, he acknowledges his depravity (609-71, 697-98).

THE THEAI'ER OF PLAUTUS

7

ISO

NoW that each of the seduced men has been associated both with Ronle with the audience, Pbutus returns to his first and nlost important lIll . Air-rate: Diniarchus enters with yet another nlonologue. This tiI11e he pro :::>' tellS the spectators how happy he is at Cyamus's report that Phroneslunl pretcrn:d his gifts to Stratophanes', and he continues to confess to them his ()\\'n worthlessness (699-710). After the monologue, he again becomes a spectator himself, eavesdropping on the entering Astaphium. AstaphiUln 'OIllptlV disabuses hiI11 of his happiness, informing him that Strabax IS P I,. ~ inside with PhrOneSll1111. Refused entry and left alone by Astaphimll, Dini.lfchus again conlplains to the audience (758). He then shouts into the .j

house: iam hercle ego tibi, inlecebra, ludos facianl clanlore in via, quae adverSllIl1 legem accepisti a plurinlis pecunial11; iam hercle apud novas omnis nUglstratus fa..xo erit nOlnen tUOI11. (759- 61 ) Now, by Hercules, I'll have SOl11e fun, shouting out your crimes in the street, you enchantress, you who have taken nloney fronl lots of people against the law; now, by Hercules, I'll bring your nanle before all the new magistrates. \Vhile lJIagistratlls could be the n1Jgistrates of any state, Diniarchus's 1101JOS suggests magistrates in Ronle, who took office shortly before the performance of the play.23 He is once nlore in a Ronun I1lilieu. He also renuins joined \\lith the audience, whonl he addresses again vvhen he realizes that his threats are futile (760-(,9), Diniarchus then eavesdrops yet again, in a scene that brings to a climax the pattern of eavesdropping found throughout the play. As we have seen, eavesdroppers usually share \vith the audience a sense of superiority. The eavesdropping scenes of ThlCIIlcllttlS, however, have quite the opposite effect. The principal eavesdroppers in this play are Diniarchus and Stratophanes, and \vhat they observe and hear gives thenl not superiority, but frustration and even desperation. Their eavesdropping thus leaves the spectators feeling not superior, but inlplicated in the lovers' foolishness. This time the spectators find themselves learning the truth about "PhronesiUln's" baby along with the guilty Diniarchus. Visual effects have been very important in this play: PhronesiUlll's entrance surrounded by handmaids; the grand procession of Stratophanes \'lith his attendants and gifts for Phronesium; the competing procession of Cyamus with the food and gifts fronl Diniarchus; and the n1.ock battle that

PROSTITUTES AND LOVERS: TRUCULENTUS

15 I

F

ensues. The most striking vistlall110lnent, however, would probably be the scene that follows. As Diniarchus watches, Callicles enters with two bound women: PhronesiUlll's hairdresser, and one of Callicles' handmaids. The spectators learn together with Diniarchus that the WOlncn acquired for Phrollesiulll the baby of Callicles' daughter. Several asides by Diniarchus, moving fr0111 bc\vildermcnt to comprehension, parallel the spectators' OWn gradual awareness that the baby is the result of Diniarchlls's rape of the daughter (770-74, 785-B6, 794-95, 8r8-20, B23-24), When his misdeed has come to light and he has arranged with Cal1ic1cs that he will recover the baby and 111Jrry the girl \\!ith a reduced dowry, Diniarchus again addresses the audience, telling the111 he will retrieve the baby fr0111 Phronesiulll, but

confessing that she still has povver over him (850-53). The revelation that Diniarchus is the father of the child has brought the play closer to the 11101T fal11iliar and, it 11light be thought, predictable world of typical New and Ronun conledy, \\There young men who have raped virgins inevitably marry the girl, and a happy ending results.2.·\ Plautus, however, is not finished shocking his audience. PhronesiuJ11 enters, again confessing her trickiness to the spectators (854-57). When she tens Diniarchus she knows exactly what he has COI11e to ask her, Diniarchus's last aside sums up the attitude not only ofPhronesiun1, but of ah110st a11 of the characters of TnlwlclltllS, who have divulged their vices to the spectators in monologue after monologue: "di inullortales! ut planiloqua est!" ("Good gods, how frank she is!" 864). Then, with no struggle at all, Diniarchus allows Pllronesium to use his own child for her greedy ends, and reveals that his nlJrriagc will not end his n10ral and financial slavery to her. One scene remains to make still clearer how ridiculous n1en are when they become subject to merctrices. Stratophanes and Strabax c0111pete with gifts for Phronesium's attention. Both continue to speak asides (912-13, 9T 4 -16, 925 -26, 944), but it is an aside by Astaphium that summarizes the situation nlost accurately: "stultus atque insanus damnis certant: nos salvae sunlus" ("We're safe: a fool and a nudman are trying to out-ruin each other," 950).2.5 We saw in the last chapter how in CurCl/lio Plautus discouraged his spectators fr0111 vie\V-ing his satire as relevant only to outsiders from \vhom they themselves could feel a c0111forting distance. He prevented his audience from concluding, "These are just Greeks," by l11eans of well-placed Roman allusions; and through nlonologues he encouraged the spectators to acknO\vledge that the satire applied to themselves as well as to bankers and pin1ps, t\vo groups that most in the audience could easily consider alien. Si111ilar techniques arc at \vork in TntCIIlclIlIIs. 1Z0111an allusions prevent the

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

15 2

spectators fr0111 thinki~lg that o.nly Greeks arc bein~ mocked, .and n1onologue'S and eavesdroppmg aSSOCIate the characters with the audIence. Thc:re remains in TniC/I/ClltIlS a potential scapegoat for satire perhaps more po\n:~rful than an:' other: w~n1en.2.() Satire against women pervades the Plautille corpus. BeSides many Jokes at the expense of individual women, the plays include numerous generalizations about \:VOlllen or various classes of WoII1t'l1, including prostitutes.:?7 Such generalizations, even when delivered by women characters,2.8 arc alnlost inevitably negative. Although Plautus's J~ldiel1ce included won1en (POCII. 28-35; Ter. Hcc. 35), characters assume that the spectators share their own misogynistic views; women in the audience are themselves the victims of an insult in one of Plautus's prologues ([Jam. 32-35). Indeed, misogyny was so much a recognized part of the palliard that PlaUtllS makes a self-conscious joke about it in Cistelfaria. Halisca, the handmaid of two IIIcrctrices, has lost a basket. Desperate to find it (it contains the tokens through \vhich her mistress \\'ill discover her parents), Halisca begs the audience for help: mei h0111ines, l1lei spectatores, facite indicium, si guis vidit, quis eanl abstulerit quisve sustulerit et utrUl1l hac an illac iter institerit. non Sl1l11 scitior, quae hos rogen1 aut quae fatigem, qui semper malo n1uliebri sunt lubentes. (Cist. 678-81) Dear people, dear spectators, if any of you have seen who carried this off or picked it up, point him out to I11e, and tell me \..vhether he went this way or that. But what a fool I al11 to wear these people out with questions: they ahvays take pleasure in women's troubles. Halisca's plea to the audience parallels that ofEuclio in AIIIII/aria (sec Chapter 1). Whereas Euclio responded to the spectators' laughter with a \vild accusation, however, Halisca speaks the truth \V-hen she accuses the audience of enjoying the troubles of won1en. Because of the misogynistic tendencies of the palliata, the spectators have on countless occasions laughed not only at individual women, but at the expense of womankind as a v,Thole. Given the pervasiveness of such lllisogynistic the111es, the audience would certainly be prepared to vie\\' TfllCIIlcllll/S as just another del11onstration of the evils of WOl1len. Plautus appears at first sight to encourage such a view. In addition to its ruthlessly conniving women characters, TruCII/ClltIlS offers several Inisogynistic generalizations. The prologll.\· considers Phronesium's behavior typical of her gender as a whole:

PROSTITUTES AND LOVERS; 'f'lUJCULENTUS

r 53

s

haec huius saedi n10res in se possidet: nun1quan1 ab amatore (suo) postulat id quod datumst, sed relicuon1 dat operan1 ne sit relicuOl11, poscendo atque auferendo, ut mos est 111Ulierl1l11; nan1 on1nes id £lCiunt, cm11 se amari intellegunt. (13- 17) This \\1oman possesses the \vays of this age: she never den1ands fron1 her lover \vhat has already been given, but she sees to it that what's left is not left by demanding and taking, as WOl11en usually do; for they all do that, when they realize they are loved. During her longest 1110nologue, Phronesiunl herself tw~ice connects hcr actions with the vices of womcn in general: ut nliserae matres sollicitaeque ex anin10 sumus crucianlurque! edepol C0l11mentm11 male, cumque ealll rem in cOl'de agito, nimio~minus perhibenlur malae qualll sumus ingenio, (448-52) How wretched we 1110thers are, and what troubles we have in our souls, and how \ve suffer! You know, it's a wicked lie, and \vhen I ponder it in my heart, I think that really .. , we arc considered less bad than \ve really are by nature, nule quod n1ulier faeere incepit, nisi effieere perperrat, id illi morbo, id illi seniost, ea illi nliserae llliseriast; bene si facere incepit, eius rei nil11is cito odium percipit. llill1is quanl paucae sunt defessae, nule quae facere occeperunt, nin1isque paucae efilciunt, si quid fa cere occeperunt bene: mulieri ni111io nule f:tcere levi us onus est qua111 bene. (405 -7 0 ) When a wonlan has set out do to sOlnething bad, if she doesn't acconlplish it, she feels sick, she feels gloomy, she feels wretched, poor soul; but if she has set out to do something good, she immediately becon1es bored with it. I-low few' \vonlen have become worn out when they started sOl11ething bad, and how few aCC0111plish the good things they have started to do: for a WOl1lan, doing bad is a lot easier than doing good. Meanwhile, Diniarchus cOlllplains that W0111en take too long in beautifying themselves (322-25), echoing a misogynistic complaint com1110n both in Plautus and throughout l~oman literature. 2'1 In spite of these misogynistic statel11ents, however, Plautus does not allow his audience to dismiss this playas just another example of the evils of THE THEATER. OF PLAUTUS

\\"oJ11cn. Instead, he repeatedly reminds thenl that men's vices more than \\"O!1l cn'S wiles create the problems presented in the play: that is, the disastroUS transfer of wealth is less the responsibility of the JIleretrices, \Vh0l11nlost illembers of the audience can easily dis111iss as alien to themselves, than of (heir m~!le lovers, \vho are repeatedly associated \vith the audience. The S(ring of counters to the characters' misogynistlc assl1ll1ptions cllhl1inates in a direct contradiction of one such assl1l11ption, Immediately foHowing the prologue, as we have seen, is Diniarchus's tirade against voracious prostitutes: no lover's wealth, he claims, can satisfy t heir demands. Before he finishes, however, Diniarchus acknowledaes that " as the real fault lies in the lovers themselves (57-03), the persons whon1, we have seen, Diniarchlls associates both with the Ronlan \vodd and \vith the spectators. During the ensuing dialogue bet\veen Diniarchus and Astaphiul1l, the young man offers a discourse on the relative vices of male and female prostitutes. In response, Astaphimll again turns the blame from seducer to seduced:

AstdphitllJJ: male quae in nos vis, ea 0111nia tibi dicis, Diniarche, et nos tram et illoru111 vicem. DilliarcllllS: qui istuc? Ast.: rationem dical11: quia qui alteru111 incus at probri, smnpse enitere oportet. tu a nobis sapiens nihil habes, nos nequam abs ted habcl1lus. (ISS-6I) AstaphilllJJ: All the bad things you want to say against us, Diniarchus, you say against yourself, instead of against us lscil., WOIl1en prostitutes] and thelll [sciL, male prostitutesJ. Dilli(//·r1l11s: How is that? As!.: I'H tell you the reason: it's because the one \vho accuses another of vice ought to be free of it himself YOll, who are so wise, have nothing frolll us, while we \\rorthless ones have what used to be yours, Early on, then, Plautus's characters nuke clear that the siphoning of wealth to prostitutes is a product of men's profligacy more than of women's wickedness. The point beconles increasingly clear as the play progresses and each of Pluonesiulll's victims, especially the continually confessing Diniarchus, proves himself worthless. The inadequacy of typical 111isogynistic explanations is presented nl0st emphatically when it is revealed that Diniarchus raped his former fial1d~e. PROSTITUTES AND LOVERS: TIUiCULENTUS

I55

While Oi11iarch115 eavesdrops, Callicles responds aside to the revel"t· '. lOllS made by the t\VO women:

._

I 11dl11aid thus brings to a climax a thenlC that has run throughout hL' 1;1 . ' . " the aSSUI11ptlOJ1, typIcal of the palltata, that problems such as those the pI<1:. . .. ted in TfI/(l//Clltlls can be attributed to the wickedness of wmllen is 1

t,rc)cll

Calliclcs: vide sis facinus 111uliebre. AI/cilia.: Illagis pol haec malitia pertinet ad viros quaIll ad nlUlieres: vir illam, non nl1tlier praegnatenl fecit. CIl.: idem ego istuc 5cio tu bona ei custos fuisti. Allc.: plus potest qui plus valet. vir erat, plus valebat: vicit, quod pete bat abstulit. (80 9- T3) Calliclcs: Just look at the crimes women do. Handmaid: Goodness, this vice applies more to nlen than to wonlen: a man, not a woman, made her pregnant. Ca.: I knmv that. And you ·were a fine guardian for her. HmldJllaid: The one who is stronger can do what he wants. He was a man, he was stronger: he won, and he took \vhat he v./anted. Callicles' ''Just look at the crimes women do" is almost certainly an aside to the audience: he directs at thenl a misobrynistic interpretation of the play's events with which nuny would probably agree. The handmaid accurately and eftcctively spells out what is implied throughout the play: such interpretations are inadequate. Unusual staging underlines her nlessage. The handIluid not only overhears Calliclcs' aside, but, in a Illovement unparalleled in Plautus, she sees and reveals to Callicles Diniarchus, who stands eavesdropping unchastised while the WOlnen are punished: "tacui adhuc: nunc <non> tacebo, quando adest nec se indicat" (I've been silent up to no"\v: but now I will not be silent, since he is here and doesn't show himself, 817). No\vhere else in Plautus's plays does an extended eavesdropping scene end with the eavesdropper being discovered against her or his will. Then, \vhile Diniarchus pleads with Callicles, the handmaid calls attention to the inconsistent treatment of men and women:

ill:lCCurate.

There is no escape for the spectators. They cannot simply attribute the r' I,1\.',•.situations to the evils of women; and the hapless lovers, who receive ·.t of the blame for \vhat happens, are associated both with l~.Dnle and mo s \\'ith the audience. Crowning this pointing of the satire to\vard the audi__ 1·5 Plautus's most daring epilogue, spoken by Phronesiu111: cnLL ' lepide ecastor aucupavi atque ex nlea sententia, meamque ut rem video bene gestanl, vostranl rUSl1l11 bene geram: rem bonanl si quis:l() anin1Jtust facere, faciat ut scialn. Veneris causa adplaudite: eius haec in tutelast fabula. 31 (964-67) Well, I have done my bird-catching weU, the way I wanted to; and as I see that nly aff..lirs have been taken care of well, I will take care of yours well in turn. If anyone has in mind to do well for himself, see that I find out about it. Applaud for Venus's sake: this play is under her protection. The spectators wi11laugh at the inlplication that they, too, could beconle subject to the \viles of the likes of Phronesium. Yet it will be a nervous laugh, for the nlisfortunes ofPhronesiunl's lovers have throughout the play been placed in the context of the audience's own Rome; and, through monologues, eavesdropping, and direct addresses, the spectators have been implicitly and even explicitly associated with those lovers.

Callicles, vide in quaestione ne facias iniuriall1: reus solutus causam dicit, testis vinctos attines. (836-37) Ca1licles, watch out that you don't do wrong in your investigation: the defendant is pleading his case unbound while you are keeping the witnesses tied up.

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

PROSTITUTES AND LOVERS: TRUCULENTUS

157

whether one marriage is a sufflcient punishn1ent (I I 84 - 86); and PeripleccoI11cnus, the old bachelor of J.VIilcs glorioslIs, delivers a long discourse on the evils of wives (681-7 00 ; cf. .11111.154-57). The wives who receive the nl0st severe lampooning in Plautus are those who have brought their husbands large dowries: throughout Plautlls's corpus, characters argue that such wives

Jh1USBL~iNDS

AND

~71T1VES:

G,.!\\STNA si sille IIxorc pati POSSCIIIIIS, Quir/fes,

O}lIlU'5 Cil

molestia carC),CIIIIIS; set qU(J!Iiml!

ita Ili1f11m fmdielit, lit IICC Will ilfis satis ((JI11/1lOdc, IICC sillc i!lis lI110 IIlOdo Iliui

possif, salliti jJL'lpCfllilC potills quam hrevi I{ IIlC could get 011 IFir/u}/1t (/ !lItfe, IJllt si1J[c /Ia-fmc (1(15 ordaillcd that /lor at allll'irllOlIt thelll, IUC /III/sf

(1/(/1/ .fiJI' the pleasure

~f the

l'o/lIptati colI.'i1I/cnd'llll

cst.

//iOItld all Quoie! thllt I1IlIIo}'dllre; lleither i£l'C wry cOI1lj(Jfta/;{y Ijl!t!r thell! take thollghtJor OIn lastillg 1/lel/-bellig faltu')" ROil/mis, lI'C II'C call

IIIO/llCllt.

_Q. Ivlctellus Numidicus, censor, lation; see McDonnell 1987

011

102 ILC.E.

(Gell.

1.0.2,

Rolfe's trans-

attribution)

WIVES do not for the most part [we well in Plalltus. Al1l0ng his plays' most C0111111011 jokes arc second-century B.C.E. variations of Henny Youngman's "Take my wife-please." Demaenetus, for examplc, the sCllex milt/tor of

AsiHaria, says he loves his \vife only \vhen she is not around (900). Callicles wishes his wife \vere dead (TUII. 42) and jokes with his friend Megaronides about whose wife is the greater evil (TUII. 58-65).1 Menaeclullns is thrilled that he has been able to rob his wife, whon1 he c011lpares to a ravenoUS lioness (AIC1l. 127-34, 159). Even dead wives do not escape their husbands' wit: Periphanes complains that marriage to his now-dead \vife was \vorse than a labor of Hercules (Epid. 17H -79; cf Cisl. 175).' Supplementing these remarks about individual wives are danlning generalizations about \vives in general. When, for exan1ple, the profligate Lesbonicus is made to marry at the end of Trilllllll1llllS, his father and his father's friend debate about

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

5

bring endless troubles to their husbands. 3 Most of the lIIatrallac \vho appear on the Plautine stage seenl to con6r111 the male characters' stereotypes. Two wives \vho are said to have brought their husbands large dowries, Arten10na of Asillaria and the unnamed lIIarr(llla of lVJc/lacchllli, are imperious agelasts."1 Most of the \vives presented with sympathy arc comfortably and enlphatically under the control of their husbands. AlcUTllena boasts that she considers her dowTy to be her fel11inine virtues, including her obedience to her husband ("nl0rigera tibi," :Jlllph. 842). The two \vives who begin Sticlllls are sympathetic precisely because of their determined loyalty to their husbands, whom they refuse to leave even though they have been a"\vay for three years. Whether presented with sympathy or hostility, Plautus's IlJatrOlJaC almost never bond with the audience: almost without exception, their ll10I1Ologucs are few and short. Alcumena's longlllonologue on lJirtlls (Alllph. 633-53) is the exception that proves the rule: as we saw in Chapter 6, AlcUl11ena, a l11ale actor stufied to look pregnant, "\vould be the object of the audience's laughter even as she offers rhetoric with which they would agree. Throughout nl0st of the Plautine corpus, then, matnmac are without question placed into the category of Other. Playv.rright, actors (all of whom, it must be ren1el11bered, were male), and audience join together to make married women the object of their laughter. What of the wives in the audience? They are ignored, except where Plautus extends his characters' rhetoric against \vives to include them as well. The prolo<~lIs of POCl/IIIIlS, while giving orders to the spectators, turns a stereotype about wives against the JIlatnm(lC in the audience themselves: matronae tacitae spectent, tacitae rideant, canora hic voce sua tinnire temperent, d0111U111 sernl0nes fIbulandi conferant, ne et hie viris sint et domi 11l01estiae. (POCll. 32-35) Wives are to watch silently and laugh silently; they should keep their nlelodious voices fr0111 ringing, and take their gossip h0111e, so that they are not a pain to their husbands both here and at hOl1le.

HUSBANDS AND WIVES: CASINA

I59

.-The prologlls assumes that wives in the audience, like wives as described b so l1lJ.ny of Plaut us's characters, are loquacious and bothersome to tll"'1 ' _ ell 1l1S_ bands.:' In i.\1ostcllaria, two characters joke that members of the 'ludie ' nee ;lre henpecked by dowered wives (279- 8 T, 708 -9). Jokes at the expense of wives are hardly, of course, unique to 1)1 autus The tensions and disappointments of marriage have IJroved an irres·· 'bl' .IStl e source of laughter since the beginnings of COIned,,· and since 1110st ' ... ~ 'J' . COIll_

:led before the nl:wistrates and besieged the homes of the tribunes pIeJl 0 10 " '>r~ vetoin a the b\v's repeal (34·1.5-7,8.1-2). \,,:}1O \ H: t: 1;) . members of Plautus's audience, therefore, must have felt that some ~any _ .. 1 , . specially those with large dmvries, had grown too po\verful wltlun 'SI\·CS, e . . ... . . . 'uTi,wc:s. The deI1l0nstratlons surroundlllg the repeal of the lex Op[heIr J]1. 1;) • . , ild have confinl1ed such fears for many, as they wItnessed lIlatnmae "1.1 \\ at I, to l'iIf1uence the political process. Their anxieties would have made

edy until_ very r~cently has been written by Incn for audiences made up mostly of men, Jokes abollt l1lJrriagc have more often than not been directed against wives. G The virulence of comic rhetoric against \Vi'",S ' ,-' ',-. III Plautus's plays, hO\vever, appears to reflect historical conditions as weU as conlic tradition.

"1 spectators eager listeners to comic criticism of wives. . For all its asperity, however, the rhetoric of Plautus's characters against , .. does. not 0era unchallenged. Megadorus's tirade against dowered wives \\'!\CS ...... ...

>

Plautus and his audience witnessed change, controversy, and anxiety surrounding the institution of marriagc. The continual war£ue of Plautus's time, by rCIlloving husbands frOIl1 home for long periods of time, reduccd the force of traditionallcgal and social restrictions on wives' freedom of Jetion. Left to 111anage households on their own, wives exercised prerogatives that had traditionally been granted only to their husbands or guardians.! Meanwhile, as wealthy ROIllanS grew weJlthier, both the inheritances and the dowries of elite WOInen became larger. Much Roman popular wisdom held that wealthy wives with large dowries destroyed the proper powcr structure of a nnrriage. Inflated by the awareness that their husbands were dependent on thenl for much of their wealth, dowered wives, it was argued, henpecked their husbands and denunded luxuries. K Other factors may also have contributed to greater fi-eedonl and power on the part of wives and subsequent discOlnfort on the part of 11uny men: divorce was becoming nlore common, and a11 increasing number of marriages were si/lc I/W/1II, in \vhich the \-vife remained legally a member of her father's household, rather than the nlore traditional (/Jill IIWIl/I, in which the husband became the wife's legal guardian. 9 Meanwhile, a group of deternlined \vives found themselves in the middle ofa cause celebre of Plaut us's day. In 215 B.r:.E. the Romans had passed the appian La\v, which forbade women fro111 having more than one-half ounce of gold, fi-ol11 wearing 1111tlticolored gannents, or from riding in carriages in or near the city unless they were involved in religious ritual (Livy 34. I .3). In 195, against the opposition ofCato the Elder, \vho was then consul, the lex Oppia was repealed (Livy 34.1-8.3), Livy reports that in support of the repeal, wonlen took extraordinary action. They lined the roads to the forum, begging the nlen as they passed to vote to revoke the law, and they

THE THEATER OF PU\UTUS

100

""veIl

frYIng

,;tIL 1 .

in ..trill/fenia, Plaurus's longest, actually parodies those who deliver such di.tttl,'b"s IHercator includes both an explicit fell1inist statcIllent and an inlplicit "cknowledgment that cOInedy does not treat wives justly. Most significantly, Casilla turns conlic stereotypes of \vives upside down and aligns the 1.."

•

audience with a powerful wife against her husband. The words against wives all conle from the mouths of fallible characters, and their context sOll1etimes makes them ironic. The lecherous Denlaene(Us, for example, has little credibility when he criticizes his v.life; and when Menaechmus denounces his v./ife, he is himself in the dubious position of standing onstage wearing her clothing. Even the prologlls who teases mamJJlile in the audience does not speak for Plautus: he is himself a character who has already proved himself pOll1pOUS and silly. The effect of characterization and context on characters' tirades against wives is nlost evident in the case of Megadorus, the old bachelor of AlIfufaria, who offers Plautus's longest speech against dowered wives. Megadorus boasts to the audience of his prudence in choosing for a bride the dowryless daughter of his neighbor, Euclio; and he argues that the state would be far better off if all men followed his lead (475-535), He condemns dowered wives with the greatest severity: they cause dissension, he says, their love of luxury bankrupts their husbands, and their large dO\vries invert the proper hierarchy in a marrIage. Megadorus's words reflect not only controversy over dowries, but also the debate over repeal of the lex Oppia. Livy attributes to Cato a long speech in favor of keeping the law (34.2-4). Though the historian's version of Cato's speech is his O\vn creation,ll Livy probably had some knowledge of the arguments made against the lav/s repea1. It is therefore not without significance that Cato's speech and Megadorus's harangue have sonle remarkable similarities, Both Cato (Livy 34,4, I 5; cf 34,7,5 -7) and Megadon1s claim that the measures of control they favor would prevent envy

HUSBANDS AND WIVES: CASINA

ror

among and Cato are troubled by \vhat thev.'See as '- women; both Megadorus 'contenlporary corruption (Livy 34.4.6-11); both lIse a direct quotation of a hypothetical luxury-loving \V0111a11 on a carriage (34·3·9); and both share a basic fear that husbands are unable to control their wives (Livy 34. 2 .I-.j., 34.2.I]-3.3. 34.4.15-I~; cf. 34.7. 11 - 13)12 Even ifLivy's speech comes entirely fro111 his own inlaginatiOl1, and the lIse of similar 111isogynistic topoi by Livy's Cato and Plautus's Megado ms is coincidental, MegadoIlls'S speech is clearly \vithin the context of contem_ porary argUlllcnts familiar to l1uny in the audience: for he phrases his diatribe in ternlS reminiscent of the provisions of the Oppian Law. \3 His fIrst evidence of the dowered wives' illxlIria is that I1lules, used to pull women's carriages, are nlOre expensive than horses (493 -95); and he later claims that as things stand, the city is nlore full of wagons than the country (505 -6). He creates a hypothetical dowered wife, who speaks as follows: equidenl dotel1l ad te adtuli maiorel1l nlulto quanl tibi erat pecunia; eni111 1nihi quid em aequol11st purpura111 atgue aurU111 dari, ancillas, 11u1los, l11uliones, pedisequos, salutigerulos pueros, vehicla qui vehar. (498-502) Well, I brought you a dowry worth 111uch 1110re nloney than you had; so it is certainly fair that I should be given purple and gold, handmaids, mules, nluleteers, attendants, pages, and carriages to ride in. Megadorus thus imagines a dowered \vife who wants gold, purple clothing, and carriages, the very things forbidden by the law; and the other elements he mentions-maidservants, I1lules, nlule-drivers, and servants to follow the carriage and greet people-would accOI11pany the WOl1lal1 riding on the illicit carriage. l·j The exactness with which Megadorus cites the specific items forbidden by the Oppian Law suggests that Plautus does indeed have in nlind the debate surrounding the law's repeal, in spite of the skepticism of smne scholars. IS The passage has thus been seen by smne as evidence of Plautus's Catonian conservatisl11, or of his desire to please a nlisogynistic audience. lil Plautus's treatnlcnt of the arguments against dowries, however, is parodic rather than sYl11pathetic; for Megadorus, whose very name ("Creat Gift") suggests pomposity, gets ridiculously carried away. He begin.s in a calm and straightfonvard, even businesslike, way, reporting in short sentences that his friends approve of his choice ofa bride (475-77). When he turns fi'om the specific

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

he begins to get nlore excited, and he underlines his reasons [I lL" aeneral, ~ . I 11 c.'avv-handed polysyndeton: \\·tt 1 .

tl1

et multo fiat civitas concordior, et invidia nos I11inore utanlUl- QUJ111 utiIllur, ct ilIae maLInl rem metuant guanl llletuont magis, et nos min ore sumptu simus gual11 SUI11US. (48 T- R4) Our state would become much more han11onious, alld we \vould experience less envy than we do now, awl \vomen would fear punishment more than they do now, alld we would have less expenditure than we do now. From here to the end of the speech, Megadorus becon1es more and nl0re impassioned. After he gives the discourse on wagon-carried wives cited above, he lists for fifteen lines tradesn1en who con1e for payment from the husband of a dowered wife, beginning with Emlil]ar merchants (dyer, Cll1broiderer, gold worker, and \'vool worker, 508), and building up through a wild rni.xture of Grcek and Latin nanles for highly specialized craftsmen, until he concludes with the 1110st obscure (hem-makers, box-makers, and dyers in saffron, .5 19-21). I-Ie twice suggests that he is going to finish, only to add stillmore specialized businessmen (517-22). Finally, he claims that the husband of a dowered "\\i-ife has no nlOney left to pay a soldier who carnes requesting pay, 17 and he concludcs with a fervent sllIl1111ation: haec sunt atque aliae multae in nlJgnis dotibus inco1111110ditates sumptusquc intolerabiles. nam quae indotata est, ea in potestate est viri; dotatae lllactant et nlalo et damno viros. (532-35) These and many other nuisances, and intolerable expenses, come with great dowries. For the woman who has no dowry is in the power of her husband; the ones with a dowry afHict their husbands \vith both trouble and expense. Megadorlls is another of Plaut us's overly ardent l11oralists, so obsessed with his diatribe, so determined to convince the audience of the truth of his opinion, that he becomes ridiculous. Euclio, eavesdropping on Megadorus's monologue, finds his neighbor's arguments persuasive and inlpressive (49697, 503 -4, 523 -24, 537). His enthusiasm, however, scarcely makes Megadarus's speech less silly; for Euclio, an absurd caricature throughout the play, has just strangled his rooster for scratching the ground in the \vrong

HUSBANDS AND WIVES, CASIN""

163

place. Rather than a serious discourse on luxury of lIIatnJ//ac, then, Mega_ dorus's speech is a parody of speeches nude against ·wives in general, and probably of specific speeches contenlporary \vith the first perfonnance of

AlIllllaria. 1S In iVIcrcator, Plautus provides a more explicit counter to the bias against wives of so n1Jny of his characters. After Eutychus learns that his nlother has discovered a WOIllan she thinks is her husband's mistress in her house, he enters the house himself, commanding his mother's old slave Syra to follow him. ("sequere nle," SIG). The audience would expect the scene to end at this point: characters in ROIllan comedy who leave the stage after ordering another to accom.pany them are almost always followed pr0111ptly.l'l Yet Syra ren1Jins onstage. The unusual staging draws attention to the surprising monologue she speaks: ecastor lege dura vivont nlulieres l1lultoque iniquiore nliserae quam viri. nam si vir scortunl duxit clanl uxorem suaIn, id si rescivit uxor, inpunest viro; uxor virUlll si clam dOIno egressa est foras, viro fit causa, exigitur 111atril11onio. utinam lex esset eadelll quae uxori est viro; naIll uxor contenta est, quae bona est, uno viro: qui I111nus vir una uxore contentus siet? ecastor £'1XiIll, si itidem plectantur viri, si quis clanl uxoreIll duxerit scortmll suaIll, ut illae exiguntur quae in se cuipaln CDIllIllerent, plures viri sint vidui quanl nunc nlulieres. (817-29) By Castor, we unfortunate \vomen live under a harsh law-, nlllch less £.1.ir than that which governs nlen. For if a man goes out with a whore behind his wife's back, and the wife finds out, the man goes scot-free; but if a wife goes out behind her husband's back, the man has grounds, and she is divorced. I wish husbands were subject to the same law as wives; for a wife, if she is good, is content with just her husband: why shouldn't a husband be content with just his wife? By Castor, if husbands were punished in the saille way, "\vhenever a husband took out a whore behind his wife's back, just as wives who bring blanle upon themselves are divorced, I bet there would be nlore divorced men than there are WOIllen now. The speech is not without its irony. The eighty-four-year-old Syra is llUl11orous in her doddering antiquity,2() and she and her mistress are Illistakcn THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

about ElltychllS'S ('1ther (Lysimachus): the girl they have tound in the house is in fact being kept for his neighbor, Del11ipho.~l Nevertheless, the speech dot'S provide a striking inteIjection of the wife's perspective into a theatri"',I crenre that is more often than not antagonistic to IIl(/trollae.~"2 l' t> This fleeting moment of feminism adds extra force to the ending of Alcr{t/tllf. A relninder by Lysimachus tllJt Demipho will pay dearly when his wite finds out what has been going on leads to the following dialogue: L

DClIlipho: nihil opust resciscat. Elltycll/ls: quid istic? non resciscet, ne tilne. ean1US int}"o, non utibilest hic locus, (1.ctis tuis, dum memoranll1S, arbitri ut sint qui praetereant per vias. DClIlip//(): hercle qui tu recte dicis: eadem brevior fabula erit. eamus. (1004 - S) DClIlipho: She doesn't need to find out. Ellt)'chlls: All right. She won't fmd out, don't worry. Let's go

inside. This is not a good place for us to recount what you've done, where anybody who \..valks by on the street can hear us. DCIIlljJ/IO: By Hercules, you're }"ight: and in the same way the play \vill be shorter. Let's go.

The joke regarding the length of the play is patently out of place, for at 1026 lines, lHcrcator is shorter than the average Plautine play.n Nor do the characters really need to go inside: they have been discussing Demipho's vices in the street for over an hour. The double Inetatheatrical irony calls attention to the fact that Denlipho's situation with respect to his \vife is being ignored. The issues necessary for the resolution of the CDIllic plot have been resolved: Charinus, Demipho's SOil, has acquired his girl, and Lysinuchus is freed frOIll blan1e. Resolution of the other potential issue, Demipho's wife, is simply avoided, although it is hard to see how she call be kept in the dark, I1mv that Lysinuchus's wife knows the truth. The joke is a conspicuous \vay of disregarding the problelll: this is a cOInedy, and the concerns of \vives do not require resolution. The disnlissal of the wife through Inetatheatrical means opens the way fo}" an epilogue that OIllits her. Eutychus proposes a "law" that old ll1en, whether married or not, should neither hire prostitutes nor prevent young men fr0111 doing so. The conflict between generations, not that between husband and wife, gets the characters' attention. Similar words about the length of the play occur ncar the end of Casltw."2-lHere, the refusal to resolve the conflict bet\veen husband and wife is even HUSBANDS AND WIVES: C1SINA

---more striking, for Casillil offers Plautus's most serious challcn bu e to tI,e assumptions of so l11any of his characters concerning I1urriage and wives. Elsewhere in Phutus, the stnlgg1e bet\veen husbands and wives is peripheral to the main plot. In C(Jsilw, however, that struggle is the plot. At the beginning of Casilla, both Lysidanll1S Jnd his son arc in love With Casina, the handmaid ofLysidalllus's wife, Cleostrata. Lysidanlus wants his bailiff, Olympia, to marry the girl, so that he hinlself can have sex with her Lysidalllus's wife and son seek to ''lin the girl for the son by marrY'lno-b htr ~. to the son's annor-bearer, Chalinus. After neither slave can be persuaded to give up his claim to the girl, the opponents agree to draw lots. Olympio \vins, and Lysidamus conspires \v1th his neighbor, Alcesinlus, to USe the neighbor's house for his liaison with Casina. Made aware of the plan by the eavesdropping Chalinus, Cleostrata, assisted by her servant Pardalisca and Alcesilllus'S wife Myrrhina, plots to undo the marriage. The \vomen first cause confusion between Alcesimus and Lysidamus, then they persuade Lysidan1us that Casina rages inside with a sword, threatening to kill her would-be husband and his nlaster. Finally, they dress Chalinus as a bride and send him in place of Casina to Alcesin1US's house, where he beats and 11llmiliates both Olympia and Lysidan1us. Scholarship on Casil/a has tended to concentrate on the character of Lysidalllus. As a SCIICX alllator (an old man in love), Lysida111us belongs to a type seldom presented \vith 111uch sympathy; and Plautus makes him even more ridiculous and lecherous than other SClles ml/afOres.:?5 However obnoxious Lysidanlus nuy be, though, Cleostrata's victory over hin1 nevertheless represents a break fr0111 the rest of Plautine comedy; for she becomes aligned with the spectators in spite of her initial characterization as a stock shrewish wife. Both her characterization and her success thus undermine the assml1ptions nude about husbands and wives elsewhere in Plautus's

plays. The play's prologue both revells the importance of the: conflict between husband and wife and suggests that that i111portance is to a large dearee the LL ~ 0 result of Plautus's reworking of the play he adapted from the Greek playwright Diphilus. 2 (' The mglllllclltlllll begins with an introduction of Lysidalllus: "senex hic maritus habitat" ("a nlarried old man lives here," 35): the unnecessary epithet II/aritlls is the first hint that Lysidall1us's status as husband will be important. Immediately thereafter, the proI(~\]tlS reveals that the old man also has a son, that both men are in love \vith Casilltl, and that each has assigned his slave as surrogate. The spectators are thus prepared for a plot for one 0!Tirl. As similar to Asillaria or iVfercator, \vhere son and father stnFygle 0L he continues, however, the proIoglIs reveals that this plot is to have a tV-list:

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

166

senis uxor sensit virum amori operanl dare, propterea una consentit cum filio. ille autell1 postguam filium sensit suom eandenl illam amare et esse impedimenta sibi, binc adulescentem peregre ablegavit pater; sciens ei mater dat operam absenti tamen. is, ne expectetis, hodie in hac comoedia in urben1 non redibit: P]autus noluit, pontem interrupit, qui erat ei in itinere. (58-66) The old nun's wife has figured out that her husband is after love, so she is in agreelnent with her son. But after the old nun realized that his son was in love with the san1e girl and \vas getting in his \vay, he sent the young nun away. Aware of what is going on, his nlother is helping her son out while he is away. Don't expect the son to conle back to the city during this comedy today: Plautus didn't want hilll to, so he destroyed the bridge that was on his way. The battle will be not bet"\veen Lither and son, but between husband and wife: the son \vill not even appear in the play. Plallflls llOIlIit ("Plautus didn't want hin1 to") suggests that the son did appear in Diphilus's play: Plautus has removed hin1, nuking Cleo strata's role more centra1. In £lct, Plautus appears to have relnoved fron1 his source play not only the son, but also the anagnorisis that revealed that the son could marry Casina legally (he n1erely states in the epilogue that Casina \vill be discovered to be the daughter of Lysidamus's neighbor); and he may well have added part or even all of the deception that Cleo strata carries out on her husband in the last half of the play.:n He has turned a typical play of generational rivalry and anagnorisis into a farcical trimllph of lI/(/trolla over SCIICX. Though neither sCllex nor 1//(/tro1la appears in the play's first scene, that scene hints at a pattern that is to detennine the relationship between characters and audience in what follows. hl11nediately after the prologue, Olympia enters, pursued by Chalinus, and he asks in exasperation: non mihi licere meam rem me solum, ut volo, logui atque cogitare, sine ted arbitro? (89-90) Can't I talk and think about ll1y own atIlirs alone, as I wish, without you as witness? After the two have exchanged a nunlber of insults, Olympio exits, and

HUSllANDS AND WIVES, CflSINA

• ChaIinns continues to follow him, saying, "hie quicienl pol certo nil ages sine Ineel arbitro" ("1 tell you, you won't do dllythillg here withollt me as w-itness," T43). Olympio's inability to speak without Chalinus hearing fo re _ shadO\vs his situation throughout the play. He will be at the bottom of the hierarchy of rapport J1110ng the play's major characters, managing only Onchalf of one Ene aside to the audience without being heard (723). Nor does the foreshadowing apply only to Olympio: Cleostrata and her allies, including Chalinus, repeatedly overhear the 1110nologllcs and asides of their opponents, Lysidal1ll1S and 01Y111Pio, and this ability to eavesdrop SUccess_ fully will help considerably in aligning Cleostrata's side with the spectators. Such an alliance \vill scarcely seem likely, however, when Ol')rn1pio and Chalinus leave the stage and Cleo strata first enters; for Cleostrata is very much the stock con1ic shrew. 2H She leaves the housc cOIl1l1landing that the larder be locked up, for she refuscs to obey Lysidamus's order that she have his lunch prepared; and she spcaks of her husband in the lllOSt threatening and insulting terms (I48-()2). Aside fro111 hcr tone, Cleostrata's pmver in the household would seem to dan1n her. Why is she capable of keeping her husband out of the larder? According to Plutarch, substituting keys, along with adultery and nll1rdering childrcn, was one of the few reasons for which ROll1ulus allowed a husband to divorce his wife without pcnalty (ROlli. 22.3). Though R..on1ulus's law nuy be apocryphal, it reflects the importance early RonlJns placed upon a husband's access to his possessions.:!') Even though no n1ention is made of Cleostrata's dowry, therefore, she has the characteristics of a stcreotypical IIxor dotata, appropriating power that should be her husband's. MyrrhinJ then enters, presenting what looks at first like a clear contrast between the bad wonlan and the good. The entrances of the two \vomen are closely parallel in staging: both enter talking back to their servants; both explain that they are going to visit their neighbor, in case their husbands should wallt then1; and both, presumably, proceed toward the neighbor's house, meeting in the middle. 30 The parallel staging serves to en1phasize the apparent contrast between the two. Whereas Cleostrata entered \vith a refusal to do what the audience would see as her wifely duty, Myrrhina is in the middle of such duty: she has been spinning \.vool, and she asks that her distaff be brought to her as she goes to visit her neighbor. 31 The difference in tone is conspicuous as each woman tells her servants that her husband can find her at the neighbor's. Cleo strata gives a harsh comnland, and she in1plies that exasperating ber husband is one reason she is leaving the house:

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

16S

ego huc transeo in proxu111U111 ad nleanl vicinam. vir si quid valet nle, £.lcite hinc accersatis. (145 -4()) I am going over here to my neighbor's next door. If my husband wants anything of nle, make him sun1nlOn me from here. Nlyrrhina is ill1perious to her slaves (163 -(5), but when she refers to her husband, she is more accon1nlodating, and she nlakes clear that she is leaving so that she can do her weaving more efficiently: ego hic ero, vir si aut quispiam quaerct. nam ubi dOll1i sola sum, sopor nlanus calvitur. (166-67) I will be here, if my husband or anyone looks for me. For when I'm at hOll1e by myself, sleepiness makes my hands slmv. When Cleostrata COll1plains to Myrrhina of her husband's behavior, Myrrhina responds with a joke at the expense of wives, nlUch like those found throughout Plautus's pbys. Told by Cleostrata that her husband is depriving her of her illS (\vhat is rightfully hers), Myrrhina responds: mira SUllt, vera si praedicas, lUll1 viri ius suom ad n1uiieres optinere haud qucunt. (T9T-92) That's amazing, if you are telling thc truth; for usually husbands can't get \'"hat is rightfully theirs from theif women. creostrata's insistence that Casina belongs to her inspires the follmving exchange:

iHyrrllilJa:

un de ea tibi est? nam peculi probam nil habere addecet clam VirU111, et quae habet, partUlll ei baud commode est, quin viro aut subtrahat aut stu pro invcnerit. hoc viri censeo esse on1ne, quidquid tuom est. Cleostrata: tu quidenl advorsUll1 tuanl amicam omnia loqueris. i\1)'.: tace sis, stulta, et n1i ausculta. noli sis tu i1li advorsari, sine amet, sine quod libet id faciat, quando tibi nil domi delicuOll1 est. C/.: satin sana es? n~lll1 tu quidem advorsus tU~lll1 istaec relll loquere.

HUSBANDS AND WIVES: CASINA

1Vly.:

e!.: j\;fy.:

insipiens, SClnper tu huic verba vitato abs tuo viro. cui verba? ei foras, Il1ulier (19 8 -21 Ii

lHYlThilIa: Since when is she yours? For a virtuous woman should have no property of her own behind her husband's back, and the one who does have her O\Vll property got it in an improper Wav stealing it froll1 her husband or getting it through adultery. I .' think whatever is yours-everything-is your husband's. Clcostmta: Well! Everything you say you say against your friend. .k!}'.: Oh, be quiet, silly, and listen to me. Don't oppose him, please; let hinl have his love affairs, let him do what he likes, as long as he doesn't do you \\JTong at home. CI.: Are you crazy? For really, you're speaking against your O\\'n interests! l'I[]'.: Silly! Always avoid hearing these words fr0111 your husband ... Cl.: What words? !vI}'.: "Get out of nly house, w0111an!" 32 Myrrhina's opinions about a wife's property reflect the nl0st traditional Roman type of n1arriage: marriage W/Il lIIal1l1, in which a v.life and all her property are legally in the power of her husband. 33 Myrrhina's assumptions about the duties of wives toward their husbands \vould no doubt be shared by nuny in the audience. She is the prudent and obedient wife, whereas Cleostrata is the troublesome shrew, who, like a stereotypical uxor dotata, seeks to invert the proper po\ver structure of her marriage. In what follows, however, the spectators' response to Cleostrata becomes gradually more c0111plicated. Not only does Lysidalllus bec0111e l110re and l110re outrageolls, but Plautus manipulates the hierarchy of rapport between characters and audience, so that the spectators beconle aligned with Cleo strata and her allies. hnnlediately following Myrrhina's reference to the divorce formula, Lysidanlus enters, speaking the first long monologue of the play.:H He sings an encomiUIll to love, which he says is superior to all things and should be used instead of spices by cooks. He offers his own love for Casina, which caused hinl to visit the perfume shops, as a denl0nstration of the maxim, and he curses his wife (217~27). Lysidanlus thus assumes that he can confide in and win the sympathy of the audience. Yet his entrance is observed by

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

'kosrrara.Y; This lnonologue establishes the pattern of rapport that is to . l.t throughout the play. Lysidal11us speaks f:lr nl0re lines of monologue '~rc\ a " all)' other character of the play; but his soliloquies and asides are ! 1.111 • . :ltedlv ovt:rheard by other characters, and frOIll the very beginning f"l·:PC. • • "~:kostrata knows Lysidanlus's plans. 3 (j Lysidal11us thus aSSUllles tlut he has

l.

[.,pport with th~ specta.tors, but in fact Cleo strata and her allies attain a hig;her position In the 11lerarchy of rapport. The dialogue that fo11O\vs reinforces this hierarchy, as Cleo strata overhe,u's her husband's asides:

Lysidallllls: Clcostrata: nolo anles.

Ly.:

qualn ted anl0! non pates impetrare.

Cl.:

emcas.

Ly.:

vera dicas ve1im.

C/.:

credo ego istuc tibi. respice, a mi lepos. ne111pe ita ut tu 111ihi es. unde hic, al11abo, unguenta alent? oh perii! nunufesto nuser teneor. cesso caput pallia detergere. ut te bonu' Mercurius perdat, myropola, quia haec mihi dedisti. 37 (2}2-J8)

Ly.: Cl.:

Ly.:

Lysidal1ltls: How I love you! Clcostrata.: I don't want you to love I11e. Ly.: You can't stop nle. Cl.: You're killing me. Ly. (aside): [ wish [ were. Cl. (aside): [ believe you in that. Ly.: Look at Ine, my charming one. CI.: Sure, just like you're charming to me. Tell me, please, where's that smell of perfume coming fl.·om? Ly. (aside): Oh! I'm done for! Poor me, I'm caught in the act. Quick, [' d better wipe my head with my cloak. May good Mercury destroy you, perfl1l11e salesman, for giving nle this stuff. Neither Lysidamus's use of perfume nor his aside to the audience eludes Cleostrata. There is 110 sign, however, that Lysidamus overhears Cleo strata's aside. After Cleostrata exits, Lysidamus calls attention to the [lct that he was

HUSBANDS AND WIVES, CASINA

17 1

unable to speak around her v-hile she was onstage: "Hercules dillue ist· ~ . ,lin perciant, quod nllllC liceat dicere" (" fvlay Hercules and all the gods destrav her! I hope I can say that now," 275). He then curses Chalinus, and he j's again overheard:

\Vhat he learns from his eavesdropping, however, is that Cha1inus and Ckostrata know son1ething he would wish concealed, his own hostility to Ckostrata. Given the fact that Greek dranutists ahllost always followed the rule of actors, the ensuing lot scene ahllost certainly included only LysilLunUS, Chalinus, and Olympia in Plautus's Greek original: Plautus added Clt'ostrata, thus continuing his el11phasis on the struggle between husband .uId wife. 3H As he did so, he nude Lysidal11us's inability to hide anything from Cleostrata still nl0re obvious; for the old man comll1its a chain of what ".c could call Freudian slips, all of them noted by Cleo strata: t!lft: e

LysidaJ/lI/s.: qui ill1ll1l di 0111ne5 deaeque perdant! Chalilllls.: te uxor aicbat tlla me voearc. (279-80)

Lysidallllls: That man! Mayall the gods destroy. CllalillllS: YOll, your \vife said, wanted me.

.!

The joke in Latin depends on the £let that without the delayed I/Ie !loca!"c, the phrase tc Ilxor aievat til a, after the curse, means, "Your wife was saying that she wishes all the gods would destroy YOll." Another hierarchy of rapport is established, and again Lysidal1lus is on the bottom, for he has no idca Chalinus's words are a double entendre, and that the end of his 111cmologue has been overheard. In fact, Lysidamus still aSSUllles that he has the power to guide the audience's reactions. After he £lils to persuade Chalinus to give up Casina, he indulges in another nl0nologue, beginning with a rhetorical question seeking syn1pathy frOlll the audience: "sumne ego n1iser hon10?" ("Am I not a wretched nun?" 303). Fearing that Cleo strata \vill persuade Olympia to abandon his claim to the girl, he continues with a mournful plea for C0111nliseration (305); and he nlelodramatically threatens to stab himself if he loses Casina (307-R). As Olympia enters, telling Cleo strata that he will not give up his claim to Casina, Lysidamus even manages some overhearing of his own; and he responds to what he hears with a joyful aside (312). In the ensuing scene, Olympio and Lysidan1us pepper their dialoguc with insults against Cleostrata like those used to abuse \vives else\vhere in Plautus: she argues continually with Lysidan1us (3T8); she is a bitch (320); Lysidanms wishes she were dead (Olynlpio turns this insult into an obscene joke as well, 326-27). The fanli1iar insults further place Cleo strata within the category of the stock I1wfJ"(lIW. The manipulation of rapport, however, has made it less easy for spectators simply to agree with the insults and disl11iss Cleo strata as an unsympathetic character. This dissonance between Lysidamus's assUlllptions and the aligl1l11ent of the audience continues as Lysidamus overhears Cleo strata and Chalinus entering (353 -55). This is the only place in the play where Lysidan1us overhears words of his opponents not intended for his ears. Not surprisingly, his brief n10nlent of greater theatrical power leads hinl to another joke at the expense of Cleostrata (35 6).

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

!7 2

Lysid(//Ill/s: atque ego censui aps te posse hoc n1e in1petrare, uxor n1ea, Casina ut uxor n1ihi daretur; et nunc etialn censeo. Clcostrata: tibi daretur illa? Ly.: n1ihi enim-ah, non id volui dicere: dUlll mihi volui, huic dixi, atque adeo l11ihi dUlll Cupl0-perperaI11 ial11 dudUlll hercle 6bulor. pol tu quidem, atque etianl Cl.: facis_ huic-in11110 hercle l11ihi-vah, tandem redii vix Ly.: veran1 In VIanI. Cl.: per pol saepe peccas.

Lysidallllls: Nevertheless, [ thought that [ would be able to persuade you to do this for me, dear wife, to give Casina to me to marry; and I still think I can persuade you. Clcostrata: To give her to YOIl? Ly.: Yes to Ine-ah, that's not what I wanted to say: when I wanted to say "to n1e" I said "to hinl," and since I really \-vant her for me-now I keep on saying the vlrong thing. Cl.: You sure do, and you keep doing the wrong thing, too. L),.: For hill1-goodness no, I mean for nle-ah! I still can hardly get it right. Cl.: You really say the wrong thing a lot. When OlYl11pio wins the lot, all characters leave the stage except Chalinus, who delivers the longest n10nologue of the play thus far that is not observed by another character (excluding the prologue). [n it he reveals that he, like his n1istress, is suspicious of Lysidamus's motives (424-36). Before he left the stage, Lysidamus had emphasized to Olympia that he did

HUSBANDS AND WIVES: CAS/Nfl

'73

• not want to be overheard by Chalinus (423). The dIeet on relative rap_ port is thus al1 the greater ,vhen Lysidanms and Olympia next enter to plot stratcbry, and Chalinns eavesdrops on theIll (437-503). The Juciience learn;; along with Chalinus that Lysidal1lus plans to have Casina brought to the neighbor's house. The shared knmvledge creates rapport bet\"vecn slave' and spectators, and the rapport is reinforced as Chalinus C0111111cnts aside repeat_ edly on what he hears and ends the scene v\rith a long lllonologllc (504- -I{).Y! When Cleo strata returns to the stage, she possesses without doubt all the knowledge she needs to condemIl Lysidanllls, and she is indubitably ill charge. She frames the next scene, during which she inspires strife between Lysidamus and i\lcesimus, \vith monologues (531-38, 558-(2). She also seems to overhear A1cesil1111s'S monologue, either remaining onstage or listening from behind the door (558);.\0 and she overhears another entrance monologuc ofLysidal11us. Iftherc \vas some doubt as to how l11uch ofLysi_ dal11us's previous monologue Cleo strata heard, this tilne Plautus makes the difference in rapport obvious. After eleven highly incriminating lines, Lysidamus finally notices his wife watching hin1:

Lysidm/l//s: sed uxoren1 ante aedis eccam. ei n1isero n1ihi, n1etuo ne non sit sllrda atque haec audiverit. Clcostrata: audivi ecastor cU111malo nlJgno tuo. (574-70)

Lysidallllls: But look! There's my wife in front of the honse. Oh, poor me! 1'111 afraid that she's not deaf and she heard \\i·hat I said. Clcos/l'Il!a (aside): I heard, all right, and you'll pay for it. Ao-'lin L,:sidamus's monoloo-ue is overheard, but Cleo strata's aside is not. 0' , .r a Finally, Cleostrata speaks a brief exit monologue, unheard by Lysidamus, even though he is onstage (589-90). The nonnal pattern, of course, is for exit n10nologues to be spoken only after the other characters have lcft the stage. 41 After he has straightened out the contllsion Cleostrata created with Alcesimlls, Lysidan1us gets to be an eavesdropper himself, but only because Pardalisca performs for him, pretending that she flees a raging Casina. This inversion of the knowledge surrounding eavcsdropping places Lysidamus in a still lower position in the hierarchy of rapport. As Pardalisca then explains to her master what is al1egedly happening within, she, like her mistress before her, overhears and responds to his asides (667-68, 681) and catches him in "Freudian" slips (072, 703). Pardalisca intensifies her own alliance with the spectators, established at the expense of Lysidanllls, by telling them il1 an aside exactly what she is doing:

THE THEATER 01' PLAUTUS

I74

ludo ego hunc facete; na111 quae facta dixi O111nia huic falsa dixi: era atque haec dolul11 ex prOXl11110 hunc protulerunt, ego hunc miss a sumludere. (685-88) I'm playing a great trick on hi111; for everything I told him is talse. My mistress and her next-door neighbor here caille up with this deception, and 1 have been sent to trick him. The alliances of the play are now ull111istakablc: the audiencc is aligncd with Cieostrata ~ll1d her onstage allies against LysidanlUs and his allies. Signific.l!1tiy, the "linking monologue" Lysidamus speaks benveen the exit of p,Il'dalisca and the ensuing entrance ofOlympio lasts for only one line (720); ,md his status falls still further \vhen he reports Pardalisca's ne\vs to 01yn1pio. Unlike his gullible nlaster, Olympio immediately realizes that the story of the sword-bcaring Casina was nothing but the \'lomen's ruse (75T-52). The audience sees the next deception entirely through Pardalisca's eyes: she reports how the cooks and the womcn have kept Olympio and Lysid:1.Il1l1s from getting any supper. Pardalisca thcn eavesdrops on LysidanlUs (780-89); and when she leaves the stage, the old man again rel11inds the audience that his attempts to COn1nltlllicate \\i'ith them are being repeatedly toiled \vhile others are onstage: "ian1ne abiit illaee? dicere hie ql1idvis licet" ("Has she gone nO\v? Now I can say 'whatever I want," 794). Even now that he is alone, he only 111anages one line on the glories oflove (795) before he sees Olympio and the tihicc/1 entering, ready for the \vedding. The climax of Cleo strata's plot follows, as Chalinus, disguised as Casina, is led to Olynlpio's bridal cluI11ber. Lysidaml1s, this time with Olympio, again overhears what the \VOnlen want him to hear, as Pardalisca advises "Casina" to be a domineering and deccptive wife: sensim supera toIle lilllen pedes, mea nova nupta; sospes iter incipe hoc, uti viro tuo scmper sis superstes, tuaque ut potior pollentia sit vincasque vinu11 victrixque sies, tua vox superet tuomque in1periulll: vir te vestiat, tll vinll11 despolics. noctuque et diu ut viro subdola sis, opsecro, memento. (8 I 5 -2 T) Lift your feet gently over the threshold, Illy ne\\! bride; make this journey safely, so that you can always stand above your husband, and so that your power will be greater, so that you \vill overcome

HUSIlANDS AND WIVES, CASINA

175

• your husband, and be the victor, so that your word and your command will \vin the day: let your husband clothe you, while you strip hinl. And please, be sure to rCll1Clnber to deceive Your husband day and night. Pardalisca parodies Roman wedding ritual and inverts l~oll1an ideals of \\rifely obedicnce .. !~ "Casina," like the stereotypicallixor dotata, should want power and luxuries. Plautus has now established an alliance between the spectators and those who explicitly associate themselves \\rith the quintes_ sential outsiders of Plautinc comedy: wives who want po\ver over their husbands. When Olynlpio and Lysidanll1S, after receiving several blmvs fro III "Casina," have led "her" into Alcesimus's house, Myrrhina, Pardalisca, and Cleo strata enter to watch what happens. Myrrhina describes the events to COIlle in decidedly theatrical terms: acceptae bene et commode eximus intus ludos vis ere huc in vial11nuptialis. (855-50) Now that we have been entertained pleasantly and welJ indoors, we are COIning out here into the street to watch the nuptial gaInes. The WOInen are now an audience, aligned \vith the real audience watching the discon1fltl1re of Olympio and Lysidamus. They are also the playwrights responsible for the performance they will watch, as Myrrhina points out in the next Jines: nec fal1aciam astutiorem ulJus fecit poeta, atque ut haec est fabre facta ab nobis. (860-6r) No poet ever made a more clever trick than this one we have crafted so skillfully.43 Unaware of the WOIl1en'S presence, Olylnpio enters, fleeing his bride. He addresses the spectators explicitly (879), and he delivcrs a long and incriminating Inonologue, only to learn to his chagrin that he is being observed by the women (8~J3). He then delights both onstage and ofEtage spectators \vith an obscene report of his n1isadventure \vith "Casina": he was beaten when he tried to deflower "Casina" before Lysidamus could get to her, and what he thought was a sword \vas actually "Casina's" phallus.

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

Finally, Lysidamus enters, bruised and disheveled by his encounter with "Casina." Staging undcrscores the fact that Lysidalllus has reached his nadir, it)r he is overheard now by no fewer than five eavesdroppers: Pardalisca, Chalintls, Ckostrata, Ivlyrrhina, and his former allyl, OIYIl1pio. He is in fact . llaht riaht bet\vecn the eavesdroppers: when he later attell1pts to escape lJ:7 b (he pnrsuing Chalinus, he funs into his wife and her colleagues (969). This \"isual situation brings intensc dramatic irony to Lysidalllus's opening \vords: max-umo ego ardeo fhgitio nee quid aganl lneis rebus scio, nec n1eam ut Uxorell1 aspicial11 contra oculis, ita disperii; <01n>nia paLm1 sunt probra, omnibus 1110dis occidi miser. (937-40) I'm burning froll1 the greatest shan1e, and I don't knmv what I should do for 1l1ysclf, nor how I can look nly \-vife in the face, I'm so utterly ruined. All my vices are in the open, and-poor me!-I'll1 finished in every \vay. Lysida1l111S will have to look his wife in the face sooner than he thinks, for she is watching hin1 as he speaks: his vices are even more in the open than he realizes. Nevertheless, Lysidalllus still aSSUll1eS that he can confide in the :1lldience. He even asks if any spectator will be beaten for hin1 (949-50):1.1 He also continues to aSSllme that the spectators share his hostility to his wife: forced to choose betwecn running back to Chalinus and running into the women, he says he chooses between wolves and bitches, his wife and her female allies being the latter (971-73). By nm\' the inadequacy of such insults will be more than obvious. Lysidamus's utter hUllliliation is further reinforced visually by the wretched state of his dress: he has lost his staff and cloak. When he tries to blame the loss on bacchants, he is rebufTed by Myrrhina:

Clcostrata: quin responde, tuo quid [1.ctum est pallia? Lysidal/llls: Bacchae herc1e, uxorCl.: Bacchae? Bacchae herele, uxori\4yrrllil1a: nugatl1r sciens, nan1 ecastor nunc Bacchae nullae ludunt. Ly.: oblitus fui, sed tamcn BacchaeLy.:

HUSBANDS AND WIVES: CASINA

177

~L______________________. ._ " " " '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._

F quid, Bacchae?

C/.:

Ly.:

sin id fieri non potest_

C/.:

times ecastoL

(978-8'1\ -I

Clcostmta: All right no\v, answer me: what happened to Vour cloak? . Lysidal/1115: By Hercules, dear wife, it \\'as Bacchants. CI.: Bacchants? Ly.: By Hercules, dear wife, it was Bacchants .... kfyrrhiJw: That's nonsense and he kl1o\vs it, for goodness, now there arc no bacchic revelries. Ly.: I forgot; blltjust the S~l.lne, Bacchants. C/.: What's that? Bacchants?

Ly.: Well. ifthat"s not possibleCl.: My, but you arc frightened. With her theatrical double entendre, fudl/Ilt, Ivlyrrhina renunds Lysidamus that the women have gained power over the perfornul1ce: their play, not a pCl{ormance with bacchants, is now being perfonned. The reference to bacchants is also topical. Lysidamus alludes to the contemporary controversy over nocturnal rites held by \vorshipers of Bacchus. rites brutally crushed after a decree of the senate in 186 B.C.£' ·15 One of the accusations made against the worshipers of Bacchus \vas that female revelers made male participants have sex with one another: Lysidamus, caught trying to have sex with his 111ale slave, offers the excuse that women worshiping Bacchus forced hi111 to do it :t(, He cites an cxtrenle example of wOI11en's power over men, an ideal exemplulll for those seeking to keep wives and other women "in their place." Myrrhina's response reminds him and the audience that here wOl11en's power is not a heinous aberration, but a positive force. LysidaInus then begs his wife for forgiveness, and Myrrhina proposes leniency. Cleo strata agrees:

.i1 Iyrrhilla: censeo ecastor venial11 hanc dandall1. Clcostrata: £1cial11 ut iubes. I

propter eam rcm hanc tibi nunc veniam lninus gravate prospero, hanc ex longa longiorenl ne faciamus £1.bulanl. (T 004 - 6) j\;[yrrhhw: I think, really, you should forgive hinl this time.

Clcostrata: I \vill do as you suggest. Here's why I'm forgiving you 11lore willingly nO\v: so that \ve don't make this long play longer.

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

Ckostrata's reason for forgiving Lysidanuls is not personal but theatrical: .l!!.lin, Lysidamus and the audience arc re1ninded that the \vomen control play:!! As in klercafor, the sclf~deprecating joke about the length of the pl.I)' is ironic, for Cas-ilia, at 1018 lines, is even shorter than A4crcatOr:!H Behind the joke lies an additional message: the inversion of the expected roles l1f men and women has gonc on far enough, and the real issue of the lllarit.Il relationship is not to be dealt \vith in a conledy:!') Not surprising, then, is Lysidamus's response to Cleostrata's 111ercy, using icpidllS, \\i-ith its COllllO[;1rions of excellent performance: "lepidiorcm uxorelll nemo quisquam quam ego habeo hanc habet" ("Nobody has a wife more charming than this one of mine," I 008). Here, however, issues of husbands and wives are not as easily dismissed .15 they were in l\;fcrcator. Cleostrata's release ofLysidanllls and the audience frolll those issues leads to the epilogue, which ostensibly returns to a nar~ roW masculine perspective and \vishcs for the spectators access to a prostitute behind their wives' backs if they applaud enthusiastically. The epilogue's sudden association of the spectators with Lysidanlus, as they, like him, are assmned to \vant sex behind their wives' backs, makes a great joke at the audience's expense. It also renlinds the111 that in most plays, they would ill fact be aligned with a 11un like Lysidamus against a wife like Cleostrata. 50 This play, however, has been a c0111pletely different experience. In GUilla, then, Plautus oHered a daring plot, involving the triumph of ,lll!atl'Ol1(J who at first appears to match the characteristics of some of Plalltt1S'S least sYll1pathetic characters. One of the ways he overcame potential resistance to this unusual plot was by establishing a clcar hierarchy of rapport, with Cleo strata and her allies on the top and Lysidamus on the bottom, a hierarchy made still nlore powerful because through nlost of the play, Lysidanlus thinks he is on top.

the

It might well be asked \vhy PlautllS chose to present such a play at all. One reason \vas certainly the value of novelty. Just as AlIlphitruo gave Plau[tiS the chance to present a new variation on comic motifs, Cleostrata's triumph presents something different. An additional Illative nlust have been the Saturnalian fun inherent in a wife overcoming her husband: the Sllccess of the usually subservient wife would bring pleasure similar to that produced by Plautus's nuny successful slaves. It has also been proposed that Plautus offered in Lysida11111s a negative example of unbridled lust: his defeat at the hands of his 'vvife reinforces his own worthlessness.·s1 There is more at work here, however, than simply variety, topsy-turviness for its OWn sake, or moralizing about lust. Cleostrata's victory over Lysidaillus rep-

HUSBANDS AND WIVES, CASINA

179

______________________~. .________________~s

• resents a niahtnure COInc true for those on the conservative side of co no tCll1porary debates about lIlatrollClC. Like the \vorst stereotypes of WOl11en !lOt sufficiently controlled by mcn-\vives with big dowries, IIIntrollac whl] protested against the lex Oppia, waHlen involved in Bacchanalia--Cl eo _ strata gains cOll1plete po\ver over her husband. Yct in spite of their initial inlpression of her as an unsynlpathetic stock matrolll1, the spectators find thenlselves aligned "\vith Cleo strata against Lysidanlus. The stereotype of the frightful "WOl1Ul1 on top" has proved inadequate; and the spectators are in a position like that of Myrrhina, who begins the play on Lysidamus's side but becomes Cleostrata's ally by play's end. Plautus thus encourages the audience to view frOIll an entirely different perspective contenlpOrary Con_ troversies about the proper role of married WOIllen. '~lL

lU!' J='~) ~I~ ,t:;

~._ il~"

.

f'. .

1\ ]1" T . /l'=.\ Jl "l J]"",J

,C' A !QJ-!'IT' , __ .n\./J. iV, , . .IT' IN responding to controversies about nurriage and II/atnmac, then, Plautus often echoed the views that were probably held by nlost llleillbers of his audience. Some aspects of the plays, however, subtly undermine those views; and in one play, Casil1a, he cOIllpelled his audience to view the issue frOlll a different perspective by confounding their expectations and manipulating their relationship with characters. A silnilar pattern emerges in Plautus's response to questions regarding slaves and slavery. Though nluch of Plaut us's corpus would reinforce spectators' assumptions that slaves are nlorally inferior to free persons, the plays also contain eleillents undenllining those assumptions; and in one play, Captilli, Plautus uses nletatheatrical techniques to contest the notion that slaves are inherently inferior. I noted in earlier chapters the illlportallce of slaves in Plautine theater, the potential discOlllfort caused by the outrageous behavior of slaves onstage, and how PlautL1S averted or overcanle this discomfort through manipulation of setting and rapport. I also noted the special relevance of questions about slavery to Plautus's l~ome, where slaves were beconling a 1110re and more conspicuous presence; and to Plautine theater, where lllany of the actors were slaves, and slaves were present in the audience. I have not yet addressed, ho\vever, one of the nlost illlportant questions raised by Plautus's portrayal of slaves: What was the playwright's response to the ideological COnstlUCt of servile inferiority? As slavery in the ancient world \vas not based on skin color, no physical differences distinguished slave fronl free; and in Ronle, widespread lllanumission, which usually brought citizenship \vith it, further discouraged easy

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

ISO

SLAVES AND MASTERS, CAPTIVI

181

ditTcrentiation between slave and free. 1 Indeed, Roman jurists , Wt"t"t"1n(, some centuries after Plautus, would recognize the natural equality of s1a\""~ and fi"ee, acknowledging that slavery was a product of the illS gCl/tilll/1 (th~ law ofl1ations), in opposition to nature (Dig. I.5·4·I).~ Nevertheless, a prej_ udice that slaves were not the moral equals of free persons pervaded RO tll ,111 " culture. A wide range of sources fro111 all periods of Roman history reveals the C01111110n assumption that slaves ,vere inferior to free persons in every way: uglier, less intelligent, and generally worse. This assumption Wa'i most pronounced in the area of morality. As Keith Bradley puts it, "The prevalent Roman attitude \vas that the dmvl1ward move [scil. from free_ dom to slavery] \\'as shalning, so that socially 10\v and Il10rally low became one and the sanle."} To nlost Romans, true 1110ral worth was the domain of the free.'! The \videspread prejudice against slaves, however, did not go unchal_ lenged. At least fi-om the fifth century B.CE., some Greek philosophers had argued that there "\-vas no natural difference between masters and slaves. In spite of the opinions of Aristotle to the contrary (Politics 1.2.13-15), Hellenistic philosophy, especially Stoicism, brought more argunlents about the lack of difference between slaves and free, so that by the first century of our era, Seneca and others could write eloquently on the shared humanity of slaves and fi-ee persons. Nor was the debate about the nature of slaves confined to the writings of philosophers. Euripides raised the question repeatedly in his tragedies, and New COInedy contained not only many sympathetically portrayed slaves, but 1Inplicit and explicit rebuttals of the assumption that slaves were by nature inferior. The "pro-slave" side of the debate never led to an abolitionist movement, or even to significant reforms in the institution of slavery. It nevertheless made problematic the automatic association between slavery and l1loral inferiority.:; There is much in Plautus that would appear to confirm the prejudice that slaves were l110rally inferior to free persons. Plautus's serF; callidi revel in their trickiness, reinforcing the stereotype that slaves are by nature given to deception. 6 Other slaves, who boast about how good they are, usually make clear that they are "good slaves" only in their fawning obedience: they behave obediently not out of virtue, but because they fear punislunent. 7 One of the nlost significant signs of the moral degradation of a character like Lysidamus is that he beconles like a slave (see Chapter 9, note 44). Other aspects of Plautine theater, however, had the potential to undernline asslll1lptions of servile inferiority. As we have seen, slaves in Plautu~ are often 1110re intelligent, or at least more clever, than their nlasters and other free persons, and young masters become subservient to the clever o

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

•

. who help theln win the wonlen they love. In a few plays, slaves are ~l.l\ eS "I" lorallv. sunerior to their masters: Chalinus and Pardalisca, for example, . \0 n r." -ertainlv on a higher moral plane than Lysidamus is, and Palaestrio is Ire c ' . ... .nIGra11\!. superior to Pvrgopolvnices. Furthermore, the actors' perforInances _...dves blurred the distinction bet\veen slave and fi-ee, as slave actors tlt'll 1 ls oed the roles of free I11en and women, and free actors played slaves' roles. H 1 F~. . Through most of Plaut us 's corpus, these potential threats to assumptions of " "t"le inferioritv lie discreetly- in the background, or their implications are .;Cl \ ' . '--' ;g:!1 ored . In Captil'i, however, P!autus brings both threats and il1lplications to the fore.

The plot of CaptilJi revolves around the failure to distinguish slaves from fret' persons. When the play begins, the slave Tyndarus has been captured in war, along with his master, Philo crates. Hegio purchases both captives, hoping to trade Philocrates for his son Philopolelllus, also a captive. Hegio is unaware that Tyndarus is also his son, stolen as a child by a fugitive slave, Sralagmus, and sold to Philo crates' father. Tyndarus and Philon-ates secretly change identities, and Philo crates returns hOl1le. The deception leads to disJ,ster when Aristophontes, another captive who knows Philo crates, reveals that Tyndarus is a slave. Sent to the quarries by the angry Hegio, Tyndarus is rescued when Philocrates returns with Philopolenlus and with Stalagmus, who reveals that Hegio is Tyndarus's flther. Philo crates, Aristophontes, and PhilopolcnlUs, as free men taken captive in \var and sold, are nO\v slaves: they are addressed and referred to as slaves (195-200, 334-35, 372,454), and they call themselves slaves (305, 543, 621). Indeed, as captives they are in nuny v/ays the quintessential slaves. A principal bulwark of the ideology upon which ancient slavery was based \vas the equation of slaves with captives. By allo\ving thenlselves to be spared when defeated in battle, it was argued, slaves had both demonstrated their inferiority and relinquished all rights. Hence slavery was often defined as the result of capture, even though many were slaves because of birth, piracy, or exposureY Philocrates himself echoes the connections made bet\veen slaves' inferiority and capture in war when he learns that Philopolemus was also captured: "non igitur nos soli ignavi fuimus" ("Then we weren't the only cowards," 262). Nevertheless, Philo crates and Aristophontes distinguish themselves from slaves such as Tyndarus and I-legio's henchll1en, speaking as if they themselves \vere still free. Stillmore problematic is the status of Tyndarus, not only a free person made a slave, but a slave to his own father. The prologlls announces this extraordinary £let inll1lediately (5), and he repeats it tv,rice, with appropriate philosophizing (21-22, 50-51). After the prologue, verbal ironies keep

SLAVES AND MASTERS, CAPTIVI

I8J

r Tyndarlls's double status very 111llCh in the audience's mind. Pret' I> t'l1l lll'~ • ~ be Philo crates, Tyndarus repeatedly says things llnknowinn-Iv tIl" . ~ ;'t b. Jtlclhl" the audience ofhi5 true status: he talks about how he was previo I. _L,.1 L

..

us;. !rt>-

(3 0 5,574-75,628), and how he consIders h1l11selffree except that I " ' . . . It: IS Un~ der guard (394)· Both Tyndarus and PhIlocrates usc VarIatIons ofthc 1'0 p 1I '1'_" hOI/ore llOlIcstare ("to honor in keeping with one's station," 247 'l"(i ~ " . . . ' J) l, .l~'::~: the phrase, whIch appears only one other tIme 111 extant Latin liteI" atllt;: . '. is a conspicuolls rel11inder that persons in this plav are not in fact ".-,11 1 . ' " lee according to their station. Even more telling is Hegio's unintentional>II>011\· when he says to Tvndarus, "ego virtute dellln et maior1l111 nostnlIll cI>1\\',> ,-sunl satis" ("Thanks to the virtue of the gods and our ancestors, I am rich enough," 324).11 As the expected fonnllla is virtlltc lIlaiOfllll1 IIIC!l/II ("til an k''l to the virtuc of Ill)' ancestors"), 12 Hegio unwittingly acknowledges that he and Tyndarus in fact share the same ancestors, though as a slave, Tyncbnl) \vould have no anccstors according to Roman la\V.13 >

'-

<

The difficulty in distinguishing slave fi.-onl free is further underlined a~ Aristophontes and Hegio fail when they think they know how free pcrson~ and slaves differ. Aristophontes nearly destroys Tyndarus because of his inability to recognize that a slave, like a free person, can be noble, honest, and unselfish. Though he begins his dialogue with Tyndarus with an acknowl_ edglnent of the truth -"tam Sllln scrvos quanl tu" ("I a111 as much a slave as you are," 543)-he repeatedly harps upon Tyndarus's slave status (574, 577, 580, 590), and he addresses Tyndarus v·lith insults reserved for slaves (IlIrcifi'r, 503, 577; lIlastigia, (00). Hegio shows an equal inability to recognize that a slave can have virtue. When Tyndarus discourses nobly on his loyalty to Philocrates, Hegio can see only the tricky slave, and he refuses to rise above the level of the cmnic deceived nuster. Nor is Hegio converted: in spite of his awareness at play's end that he has punished Tyndarus unjustly, he does not express real remorse until he learns that his victin1 v,ras not a slave, but his OW11 son. H Spectators could respond to all this anlbiguity in t\VO \vays. By conCClltrating on the noble actions of Tyndarus and the £tct that they kllo\v all along that he is freeborn,15 spectators could see the playas a demonstration that in spite of appearances, the character of a freeborn person does in £lct remain distinct from that of a slave. They could feel snIugly superior to the characters onstage, who do not perceive that a character as adnlirable as Tyndarus nlllst be £i-eeborn. They could also, however, consider the broader inlplications of the plot: fortune, not character, turns people into slaves, and slaves and free persons are not nearly so easily distinguishable as sonle may wish to think. Plautus takes advantage of his audience's f~l1niliarity with the

TI-IE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

of the pallwta to encourage the second response. He extends "rt'ntW I1S ~ bilTl1ltV between slavc and free frOll1 the plot to the performance, tnl' ,UBI ,:;> _ )11- tonndinc1 the audience's expectations regarding COll1ic slaves. "1.!tfl kss ·y Cl 0 , , -e he draws connectIOns bet\vecll the performance onstage and ':'lfdw nno1 , . ."'. I> I.. 'oflZ.ome' thus0 makin a clear that the dIfficulty m dlstmgulshmg tt... rca lrIes l'''' t-> 11 free a1l11lies to life as well as to theater. Hi !.\'e 101 I" ~h' The play's usc of nusks would in all likelihood havc given the ~pectators > > t- >[s'urprise. As I noted in my introduction, evidence regardmg nlasks .l1(~lf uS . ~ •• 11 '111 comedy is Ineacrer and contradictory. What evidence there IS, w~ 0 »> > . ' .. ". _ strol1(11y SlJ
L

Ill)\\ c\ cl,

0

0__

'-

.

d.lS5, and that slave nusks \vere very dIfferent fronl the nusk~ of free per, 17 The probability of this distinction allows some speculatIon about the ~oi1S. _ >lle '-ombinations of nusks \vorn by Tvndarus and Philocrates. Ifboth ,.leWIS»\\>ore free Il1en'S nusks throuahout the play, the audience watched ' o · ~g)

L

,

- OIlstZJCTe take for granted that both nlen were slaves even as they saw . b' -the evidence that they wen~ free. If Tyndarus wore a slave mask through'co-io would accelJt that the man wearing the free man's mask is a slave (Hit, I-:l b 'and vice versa, and Tyndarus would still have a slave's nusk even after it is fe\.ealed to all that he was born frce. The latter dilenul1a could be avoided ifTyndarus changed masks at thc end, but there is no suggestion that such changes occurred on the Roman stage. Even snch a drastic nleasure \vould not solve the problenl, for Tyndarus would still show characteristics gener
[lOse I

<

that one's imago," 39), bIJa}!o often nleans appearance in general, but it can also mean "nusk"; and the tvvo other uses ofjero imagille/II in Plautus suggest that the prologue speaker may \vellmcan that each young man is wearing the other's mask. IS In that case, the man really free but thought to be a slave wears the free nIan's mask, and the nun known to bc free (although he has just nO\v been enslaved) wears the slave's mask. What mask, then, would each man wear in the end? Would Philo crates \vear the nusk that Tyndarus has \vorn, and Tyndarus appear in an as-yet-unseen fiee nun's mask? Or would Tyndarus appear in his slave's mask, previously \vorn by Philo crates,

SLAVES AND MASTERS, CAPT/VI

•

1 at the moment in which he is proved to be free? To make thillers b still 11 lore enigmatic, Philocratcs' l1lask was topped by a head of red hair (648). Els('_ where in Plalltus and Terence, red-haired men are always 1 . slaves (.-lsil1 . "too'

Pseud. 1218; P11O/"Illio 51), and the granlll1arian Pollux, describing the l11ask~ of New Comedy, explicitly connects red hair with comic slaves (-1-.149). Whatever masks were used, there was a clear contradiction between "'IlClt the audience saw and what happened onstage. This contradiction is inune_ diately and emphatically presented to the audience in the play's unique pro_ logue. The two captives, in an unparalleled staging, are present through_ out the prologue, and the first thing the prologue does is call attention to tlH~lll. 1') Another conspicuous visual feature of the prologue is thc chains the captives wear. Viewers of pallit1tae would be accustomed to hearing about chains and other forms of binding: throughout the plays, slavcs joke about the danger of being bound, and masters threaten slaves vvith chains and manacles. 20 Almost never, hO\vevcr, are slaves actually bound, and when they are, they are prOlllptly released. 21 In CaptiFi, on the other hand, Plautus repeatedly calls attention to chains and other tC)l"ll1S of binding that appear on the slaves. The first words ofTyndarus and Philocrates are a lament that they wear chains (200a-203); Hegio makes a show of rcplacing the captives' large chains Witll small (110-13), ofrcmoving all the chains when he sends ofF Philo crates (354-55), and of having Tyndarus bound before he is sent to the quarry (657-59; cf 721-22). Tyndarus returns from the quarries in large chains (997), which arc to be placed on the unrepentant Stalagl11us (1025-28), w·ho himself enters \vearing a collar (888-89). The visualleitlllotif of chains and binding presents the audience with cmphatic and unparalleled onstage reminders of the reality of slavery.22 Supplen1enting these visual surprises is unusual behavior by the play's characters, most notably Tyndarus. Tyndarus is not, of course, the only slave in Plautus discovered to be freeborn: New and l<...oman comedy both are full of exposed or abducted maidens freed from greedy pimps in the nick of timc. Indeed, Philo crates echoes language used to describe this character type when he tells Hegio that Tyndarus was "bene pudicequc educatlls" ("brought up \vell and chastely," 992).23 As a male who is cnslaved but should bc free, however, Tyndarus is unique. Neither extant Roman comedies nor the titles or fragments oflost cOllledies suggest a parallel for Tyndarus's situation, and the phy's prologue and epilogue claim that its plot is unusual (55, r029-34). The audience would thus not know how to respond to Tyndarus. Plautus increases their uncertainty by sending contradictory n1essages regarding Tyndarus's character. Just when the spectators afe pre-

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

186

1.lfed to respond to Tyndarus as a free person, he acts likc a stock clever f.1.. .1\.,c. Yet when they think they can Fllace him easily in the cateGory· o[scrlms t::> <

•

,',Jllidll s, he speaks and acts in ways incOInprehensible in a con1ic slave. Tvndarus's first speeches arc those of a dignitied fi·eeborn person: he l>s:pr~sscs shame that he and Philo crates are enchaincd (203).2.! When Trndarus and Philo crates plot strategy, it is the latter who sounds like a 5~he111ing slave (see below); Tyndarus shows a noble willingness to help philocr:ltes and an understandable concern that he not be aba11doned (228"1) The audience \vill knO\v what to expect ofTy;ncbrus: he will show his ,~, . ' ;-r-ecbo rn nature in spite of his vicissitudes. Just when they have becOlne comfortablc in this assumption, however, the deception ofHegio begins. As he hears Philo crates lying to Hegio, Tynd.1WS delivers three humorous asides, each ofv,rhich recalls the vvords ofsCJ'ui {,dlidi elsewhere. First he says that l-legio is in a barber's shop, for he is about to be fleeced (266- 69). Palaestrio uses the same metaphor to describe the deception ofPyrgopolynices (hIil. 7(8), and the notion of "fleecing" is used of slaves' deceptions elsewhere, as victims are compared to sheep (Bdcch. 2.p-42; Epid. 616; Pasa 829).25 Whcn Philo crates philosophizes about his acceptance of slavery, Tyndarus says that he is smarter than Thales (274 -76). The exaggerated mythological or historical c0111parison is not restricted to .'CfJli mUidi, but it is a device of which they are particularly fond, especially when they are describing their deceptions in asides (Alii. 701-4; Baccll. 925-78, 1053-58; 1\,fostcl/, 775-77),'" Also typical of serFi callidi is Tyndaws's praise of Philo crates tor his "philosophical" attitude (2~4). Among male characters in other plays, it is only sef!'; callidi who show such exultation in pure trickery as Tyndarus shows here; and Tyndarus's asides would remind the audience of other scenes in which the planner of a dcceptionusually a .'Ie/HIS callidlls-observes and comments while his assistant helps to carry out the deception. 27 At this point, the audience would be in some doubt: is Tyndarus a SCrlllIS caffidlls or a freeborn youth in distress? The next scenes \vould do little to answer this question. When he himself speaks \vith Hegio, and w·hen he says his f;lrewells to Philocrates, Tyndarus again sounds the way one might expect a freeborn character to speak. His philosophizing goes well beyond that of any of Plautus's slaves, as he admonishes Hegio that a god \-vatches human actions (313-16) and praises Hegio ill highly 1110ral terms (333, 355-56, 39T-92). His professions offi-icndship to Philocrates are filled with the abstract nouns of exalted discourse (4TO, 413). Hegio, moved to tears by both Tyndarus and Philo crates, Flraises master and slavc for their "inueniUlll " sho\'./ liberale" ("freeborn nature," 419). The high-flown sentiments, which

SLAVES AND MASTEKS: CAI'TiVI

____________________. .~. .________________~J

no sign of being parodic,2fl would leave the audience be\vildered. Not onl . do they seenl inconsistent with Tyndarus's earlier \."\'ord5, but the _, . ~ entire

scene is a deception; so when Tyndarus sings the praises of "Tvndarus " Ile is in fact boasting and seeking his own freedOlll (see Chapter 4). Two scenes later, Tyndarus reenters in hyperbolic desperation , el'lbo , rat_ ing in a Ill0nologue and several asides the degree to \vbieh the arrival of Aristophontes has destroyed him (5I6-40). The exaggerated assurance of doom \vQuld rClllind the audience of the almost inevitable reaction of SClvi callidi to setbacks in their plans (Bacci!. 681; Epid. 81- 84,610-17; Mil. ISO' i\![ostell. 348-65; Pseudo r032); and the sinlilarity is reinforced by verbal anc; stylistic features.:?') After he decides to accuse Aristophontes of insanity Tyndarus improvises a deception just as other clever slaves do, and he coi~ ors it with a frivolous pun (578), and with the lllythological allusions that are a trademark of ingenious scrvi callidi (562-63, 615). When he realizes his plan will fail, Tyndarus turns to the gruesome humor characteristic of clever slaves faced "\vith punislullent. He jokes about his racing heartbeat (63637), and he personifies the rods that will beat him and the fetters that will bind him (650-52; cf Epid. 93). When Tyndarus's ruse docs not succeed, the audience is prepared for another stock scene, the "an1bush" scene, in which the n1aster has his henchmen bind the slave who has deceived hin1. 30 Tyndarus, they expect, like other servi callidi, will blithely thumb his nose at his blustering nlaster. Tyndarus appears to set the expected tone as he responds to Hegio's anger with a silly joke (662-63; c£ iVIostcll. IIIR). After such a beginning, Tyndarus's next replies to Hegio would sound at first like the disingenuous protestations of innocence familiar frOlll other serlJi callidi: 31 L

•

'

;Ul

Then, however, Tyndarus reveals that in fact he is completely serious, d he has moved the discourse to a new level:

"

decet innocentell1 serVOln atque innoxiun1 confidenten1 esse, suon1 apud erUll1 potissiIl1UIll. (665-66) A good and innocent slave should be self-assured, especially in the presence of his master. fateor, Olllnia facta esse ita ut dicis, et fallaciis abiisse eUll1 abs te ll1ea opera atque astutia; an, obsecro hercle te, id nunc suscenses Illihi? (677-80; c£ 669)

dLlll1 ne ob male facta, perean1, parvi aestull10. si ego hic peribo, ast ille ut dixit non redit, at erit m1 hoc factum mortuo memorabile, meum erum cap tum ex servitute atque hostibus reducem fecisse liberum in patriam ad patren1, mcumque potius Ine caput periculo praeoptavisse, quaIn is periret, ponere. (682-88) So long as it is not on account of evil deeds, let 111e perish, I do not care. If I perish here, and Philocrates does not return as he said he \vould, at least this deed of mine will be ren1en1bered when I all1 dead: that I allowed n1y captured master to return hOll1e to his fatherland and his £1ther, free from slavery and his enemies, and I preferred to endanger ll1Y own life rather than let him perish. Tyndarus has suddenly abandoned the \vodd of the scrvlls callidus, leaving the audience aware that their expectations have deceived then1. His next words are a powerful sentcntia, far renloved from the ironic sClltclltiae of semi wllidi: "qui per virtuten1, periit, at non interit" ("He who perishes through virtue does not really die," 690). He renuins on a high 1110rallevel for most of the rest of the scene, responding to Hegio's accusations with protestations ofloyalty to Philocrates (705 -20) and philosophical reflections on the brevity of life (739-43). Before he leaves for the quarries, Tyndarus turns from noble sentin1ents to bitter acceptance of his £1te (744~46). To disorient the spectators even further, ho\vever, Tyndarus returns to his sefVllS c(llNdlls persona as he leaves, joking about being pushed and pulled at the saIne time (750). Even more perplexing to the audience than what Tyndarus says would be what he suffers. The prologue speaker had revealed how the play would end: et hic hodie expediet hanc docte £111aciaIll, et suom erUll1 faciet libertatis cOIllpotelll, eodemque pacto fratrelll servabit SUOlll reducenlque faciet liberull1 in patriam ad patrem. (40-43)

I confess, everything was done just as you say, and he escaped frOll1 you through trickery, thanks to n1y industry and cleverness; but goodness, are you really angry at 1l1e for that?

And this fellow [scil., Tyndarus] will carry out this deception cleverly today, and he \\Till get his 111aster his freedom, and in the

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

SLAVES AND MASTERS: C/IPTIVI

r 88

r89

saIne way he \vill save his brother and \vill enable him to return a fi-ce man to his f:ltherland and his f;lther. The prologue speaker thus establishes that the ruse ofTyndarus and Philo c_ rates will succeed, and he later assures his hearers that the play is a comedy (61). The audience will expect a typical Plautine deception play: Tyncbrlls, like all other clever slaves, will escape punishment for his disobedience. The expectation will only get stronger through the scenes leading up to Tyndarus's fin~ll confrontation with Hegio. The great fun of the despair of sC!"!'i callidi is that the audience knows it is unfounded: the slave \\Till, either through cleverness, luck, or stage convention, escape any real sulTering. Tyndarus's "despair speeches" and his 6rcical attempt to persuade Hegio that Aristophontes is insane give every sign that he \vill have equal good fortune. Just as they would know hO\v Tyndarus will behave in the "alllbush" scene, so they would know what he \\Till experience: sonlething like what happens in the "alnbush" scenes ofEpidiC/ls, \vhere Periphanes binds Epidicus but then must beg him to let him release hiln; or i\lfostcllarid, where Tranio is rescued by Callidamates; or BllccfJidcs, where Nicobulus, determined to get vengeance on Chrysalus, ends up seduced by the Bacchis sisters. As the scene begins, Hegio adds to the sense that this is ~l typical ambush scene. He had shown the gullibility of the stock SCI/CX, believing the most outrageous things Tyndarus said; now he uses language very similar to that used by other stock SCIICS when they realize they have been duped (04 14 2 ,05 1,053-57, oOO-GI, 670-77, (81).32 Visually as well, the scene has all the trappings of the stock "ambush" scene, as the lom!"ii ("henchmen") come on and bind the recalcitrant slave. One lora!"ills even contributes to the anticipation of all1usement \vith a joke (658). The first clue that something is not right is aural: the musical aCC0111paniment stops when Hegio orders that Tyndarus be bound. The sudden silence from the fibi(1 player in lllid-scene hints that the ensuing ambush scene may not be as amusing as the audience expects. 33 Gradually, the Inetrical omen 15 fulfilled. Unlike all other clever slaves, Tyndarus's fears of being carried otT in chains actually come true. At this point, some spectators \:vould reca11 that although the prologue speaker assured them that Tyndarus vlOuld succeed in making the exchange between Philocrates and Philopolc111US (40-43), he did not mention the f:1te of Tyndarus himself: their assumption that he would avoid all real trouble has led them astray, and they have no \vay of knowing for sure that Philocrates ",,·ill return in time to save Tyndarus.

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

Il)O

Philo crates does, of course, return, but the play's dcnouelnent otTers no resolution to the audience's perplexity. When Tyndarus first reappears, he is sbvdike again, even though his true identity has now been revealed to the other characters: he nukes a wild mythological allusion and a pun about the pickax he is carrying (998-1004). As Tyndarus himself learns his identity, the fi·ivolity is replaced not with the joy an audience would expect in a comic anagnorisis, but with bitterness. When Hegio calls Tyndarus gllatc ("son"), Tyndarus responds with a sardonic joke (Io06-~l), and his greeting to Philocrates is hardly enthusiastic: "et tu, quoius causa hanc acrmnnanl exigo" ("And you, for whose sake I suffer these troubles," 1009). Equally disrupting to C01lllC stereotypes is the behavior of Philo crates. It is made clear throughout Roman comedy that deception, especially vl'·hen it involves the pretense of being someone else, is suitable for slaves and for members of the lowest classes, such as parasites and IlIcrcfriccs. 3 -1 The adl/-

Icscells Pleusicles is exceedingly uncomfortable with the disguise he dons in kIilcs (I284-89), as is the freeborn maiden of Pcrsa (337-89). Lovers ahnost inevitably get their slaves or a parasite to do their deceptions for thenl. When Megaronides and Callicles plan a deception in lU,lIIIII//llIS, they hire an actor, and in Casil/a, Cleo strata and Myrrhina use the slaves Pardalisca and Charinus to carry out the core of their deception. Philo crates, however, takes on the role of the deceiving slave with enthusiasln, and he often sounds nlore like a stock sCrims callidlls than does Tyndarus. When the two captives talk between themselves, Philocrates takes charge, inverting the usual fonll of Plautine planning scenes, where slaves give orders to their masters. Like the clever slaves Palaestrio OvIil. 590-6°9) and 1'ranio (j\;fostcll. 472-74), Philocrates elaborates on the need to avoid eavesdroppers (2I928); and he uses the stock language of slave planners, describing the plan as fallacia (221) and doli (222), and admonishing Tyndarus to act Jocfe (226).35 Philocrates thus acts like a SCf1l11S callidus even before it is necessary for him to play the slavc. 3o When he speaks \vith Hegio, Philocrates shows that he has taken on the slave's role c0111pletely. He had earlier told Hegio's henchmen, when they suggested that he and Tyndarus would flee if their chains were relnoved, that he would certainly never imitate fugitive slaves (209ro). Now he contradicts his previous words and echoes the henchmen, saying that he and his c0111panion should not be blamed, if they try to flee (259-60). Like so many Plautine slave tricksters, Philocrates exaggerates wildly, giving his father a long Greek name (Thensaurochrysonicochrysides) and attributing extreme greed to him (285-92). When Hegio later asks him to accomplish the exchange between "Philocrates" and Philopole-

SLAVES AND MASTEllS CAPTIVI

19 1

Il1US, Philo crates remains the COI1lic slave, joking that I-legio can use him as a \vheel, turning hinl however he wishes (368 -70).37 In many ways, the antics of the parasite Ergasilus provide a welcome relief fi'onl the disconcerting actions of the main plot. He el11bodies the spirit of escapist conledy: the serious dilenll11as of the pby proper becol1le for hil11 nlere obstacles to dinner, and when Hegio wants to talk about his plan to get his son back, Ergasilus changes the subject (172-73). Yet even Ergasilus blurs the distinction between slave and free, calling attention in his Own conlic way to the questions that pervade the main plot. When he ofi:ers to sell himself to Hegio in return for dinner, he recalls ironically the sale ofhunun beings going on in the pby proper (179- 8 I). The nlOst conspicuously metatheatrical moment of the play comes \\i·hen Ergasilus enters as a run-

Lomrills: omnes profecto liberi lubentius sunlUS qual11 servimus. I-Iegio: non videre ita tu quidem. si non est quod denl, mene vis denl ipse~in pedes? Lo.: He.: si dederis, erit exteillplo mihi quod delll tibi. (119-22) LomrillS: All of us of course are nluch happier to be free than slaves. He,gio: That doesn't seem true of you at least. Lo.: If I don't have anything to give lscil., Bloney to buy my freedOI11 \vithl, do you \vant me to give nlyself-to flight? 1-/c.: If you do that, I'll have something to give you right away lscil., punisllIllent].

ning slave: nunc certa res est, eodenl pacto ut cOl11ici servi solent conicianl in col1unl palliunl. (778-79) Now I have made up 111y nlind; I will put nly cloak over nly shoulder in the sanle \vay conlic slaves do. This is not the only time in Plautus a character calls attention to the fact that he is doing the "running slave" routine (cf Amph. 984-R9; Epid. T94-95), nor is it the only tinle a parasite plays "running slave" (cf Cllre. 280-98). Here, however, the self-consciousness has special significance, for it continues in a hunl0rous vein the confusion over what makes a COl11ic slave. It is as ifErgasilus is saying, "No one is doing the slave parts right, so I will have to." Finally, just as Ergasilus tried to make himself Begio's slave at his first appearance, in his nlonlent of triumph he tries to make Begio his slave, ordering the old nun about until Hegio fmally says, "tu ll1i igitur erus es" ("So then, you are nly master," 857)·38 The play's unusual lorarii ("henchmen") also call attention to the paradoxes of slavery.:"; Elsewhere in Plautus, lorarii are mere oafs who say practically nothing.") In Captivi they have dialogues with both Begio and the captives, in \vhich they provide realistic correctives to the opinions of the nuin characters regarding slavery and freedom. Their unparalleled eloquence confounds yet another set of expectations about c0111ic slaves. Hegio first enters accOIllpanied by a /orarills. He admonishes the slave to watch the captives carefully, for a libel' captiFos ("£ITe captive" or "captive free person": the expression itself is an oXYl11oron indicative of the rampant anlbiguities here) is 1ike a bird, \vho flies away if given the chance. The l(l~

rarills responds:

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

The banter between lorarills and master is unparalleled in l:toman comedy. The first thing the audience sees, after the introductory words of the prologue and Ergasilus, is a philosophical discourse fl:OIll a slave character of a type usually Illute or nearly so. The uniqueness of his speech will cause the iOfarills to get the audience's attention as he reveals the great blind spot of Hegio: Hegio cannot see the perspective of a slave, but naively assumes that his o\\,n slave does not wish to be free. Lomrii likewise accOl11pany the first entrance of Phi]ocrates and Tyndarus, and again they provide a realistic perspective. The lomrfi 4l admonish the new arrivals that slavery must be endured: "indigna digna habenda sunt, erus quae facit" ("Whatever your master does you lllUSt consider deserved, even if it is undeserved," 200). When Philo crates shows disdain for slaves who flee (hypocritically, as he is concurrently planning his own escape), the lorm'ii again are l1l0re realistic: they say they vlOuld recommend that the captives do flee, if given the chance (210). To some, perhaps, Stalagnlus would provide a solution to the probleills presented by the play. He, they could argue, is the real slave, showing the baseness that Tyndarus, a free man by birth, lacks. Hence Stalagmus is to receive Tyndarus's chains at play's end. 42 Yet Stalagmus, too, is problematic to anyone [lmiliar with the palliata. No less than Tyndarus and the lorarii, he is unique and unexpected. Like Tyndarus, he echoes the language of serFi [(/1lidi but fails to meet the expectations of that language. As he boasts that he was never good (956), openly confesses what he has done (96T), reminds Hegio that he is no stranger to blows (96J-64), and jokes about the fact that he will receive Tyndarus's heavy chains (1028), he sounds very much like slaves of other comedies who revel in their badness:!3 Yet the same kind of confession that in the mouth of Stasimus or Tranio creates comic fun is

SLAVES AND MASTERS: CAPTIVI

193

fro111 Stalagmus bitter cynicism, for the audience realizes that Stalagl11us is not merely lIlalIls in the C0111ic sense of tricky, but is truly an evil man; and whereas other comic slaves only talk about fleeing, Stalagnlus has actuallv been a fugitive. Thus, though Stalagn1us provides the audience Some COl11~ fort as a scapegoat, this sinister variation of thc scr!'lIs callidlls raises yet another question about thc nature of the comic slave; and, like the articulate lomrii and Tyndarus's punishment, he provides a reminder of the rcality that lies behind the fantasy of comic slavery. Plautus thus extends the uncertainty regarding the distinction between slave and free from the plot of Captil'i to its performancc. The audience sees not only that Tyndarus, though he is freeborn, is treated as a slave, but that their own expectations regarding the portrayal of slaves and free persons on the cmnic stage are inadequate. The theatrical confusion encourages them to recognize that morc is at stake herc than a simple case of a fi'ee person unjustly enslaved: basic assU111ptions about the distinctions between slaves and free are cal1ed into question. Plautus further cncourages his audience to consider the plot's broader implications by drawing connections betwcen the pelformance and thc world of the audience. Even as he provides a comic escape fr0111 the difficult questions of the nuin plot, Ergasilus connects that plot \vith thc audience by repeatedly crossing the geographical1inc between the play's setting in Aetolia and the audience's Roman milieu. Each of Ergasilus's three appearances includes conspicuous I~oman allusions (90, T56-64, 489. 492-94, 8T3-22;!'1 R818)). In his final Roman allusion, Ergasilus connects the then1es of shvery and captivity vvith contemporary ROllle, as he dcscribes Stalagn1us, whom Philopolenuls and Philo crates lead h0111e vvith a collar around his neck:

ErgasihlS: sed Stalagmus quoius erat tunc nationis, nUll hinc abit? Hegio: Siculus. Elg.: at nunc Siculus non est, Boius est, Boiam tcrit: liberorun1 quaerundonull causa ei, credo, uxor datast. (887-89)

Elgasihls: But what nationality was Stalagmus, when he left here? Hegio: A Sicilian. EI~Il.: Well, now he is not a Sicilian, but a Boian, for he's rubbing

against a Boian woman [or "a collar"]: I suppose a \vife was given to hin1 for the sake of producing children. The Latin includes a double pun. Tero, meaning "to rub," can be a euphemisnl for sexual intcrcourse, and boia is a word for either a collar or a Boian wonun. The Boians, a Gallic tribe of northern Italy, had recently been defeated by the Romans, and nuny of then1 were enslaved .. !5 THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS

194

IVlost of the play's conspicuous Roman allusions are reserved for the Erg;\silus sccnes. The one obvious ROlnan reference made by Tyndarus, howt'vc: r , is significant. Tlcwrning fi'onl the quarries, Tyndarus jokes that he was given a pickax just as patricii pucri ("patrician boys") are given toys (1002). This is the moment when the slave-free ambiguity is at its most intense: Tyndarus, now recognized to be free, enters wearing the chains of a slave. Verbal ambiguity reinforces the visual effect, for the word pl/cr, like "boy" in the antebellum South, could mean cithcr a male child or a slave. The reference to the l<--oman upper class at such a n10nlent encourages the audience to acknO\vledge the relcvance of the question to their O\V11 Romc."!() The Roman allusions could pcrhaps be dismissed as mere jokes. Less easy to ignore \vould be an association between the characters, the actors, and members of the audience made in the play's prologue. The pfolo,t,Jlls not only points out Tyndarus and Philo crates in chains; he also connects thcm \vith somc of the spectators: hos quos videtis stare hic captivos duos, illi quia astant, hi stant ambo, non sedent;·\7 hoc vos mihi testes estis nle verun1loqui. (1-3) Both these two captives \Vh0111 you see standing here, are standing, not sitting, because those folks are standing; you are witnesses that I am telling the truth. Lindsay proposed that illi ("thosc folks") are latecomers who have not fOllnd a seat .. !8 Other Plautine passages, hO\vcver, suggest that social status rather than time of arrival detern1ined who got seats in the early I~oman theater: those standing are not latecomers, but slaves, and perhaps some members of the poorest classcs.-I ') The line is thus not only a joke, but also an explicit connection between both the characters and actors onstage and those \\lho stand in the back of the theater. The t\VO captives, like many if not all of the standing spectators, are slaves; and the actors, like those forced to stand, are either slavcs or others of the lowest classes. By calling upon the sitting spectators (vas), whom he later equates with the Roman propcrtied classcs,3() to \vitncss the connection, the speakcr makcs a rare acknowledgment of the slaves and other standees \vho are usually ignorcd. This awareness of slaves onstage and in the audience helps explain the odd sentencc with v,rhich the prologue speaker ends his mglllllelltlllll: "haec res agetur nobis, vobis f..lbula" ("This matter will be acted as reality for us, as a play for you," 52). The line is an amusing pleasantry relying on the doublc meaning of both res ("matter" and "reality") andfavlIla ("play" and "fiction").5! Like so many jokes in Plautine prologues, it reminds the audiSLAVES AND MASTERS, CAVJ'/VI

195

ence that dramatic perfoIlnance is sinutltaneously real and false. It has addi_ tional significance, however, in the context of the previous references to slaves on and ofT the stage. First, it relllinds the audience that onstage, slave and free really are interchangeable, as slave actors pretend to be free, and free men pretend to be slaves. More iIl1portant, it associates the slaves onstage and in the audience with the plight ofTyndarus. The prologl/s has repeated several times the fact that Tyndarus is a slave to his own master, and he has connected Tyndarus's predicanlent with the hunun condition (2122, 50-5I). Now he reminds the free spectators that in their presence are persons who know all too well the significance of Tyndanls's situation and of the mSU/JlClltlllll as a whole. "To you free spectators," he says, "this is only a fiction, but we (the slave actors and the previously-nlentioned slave spec~ tators) know the reality of slavery." It would be unwise to exaggerate the subversiveness of Captivi; the play is no more an abolitionist tract than are any of the other ancient argul11en~s on the hUlnanity of slaves. 52 Nevertheless, by choosing a play in which distinctions between slave and free were blurred, then presenting that play in a nunner that confounded expectations regarding slaves in cOl11edy, and then drawing a connection between the enslaved characters and slaves in the presence of the audience, Plautus produced one of antiquity's nlost powerful challenges to conlforting assunlptions regarding the inferiority of slaves.

TI-IE THEATER. OF PLAUTUS

IT is time to return to the question posed in the introduction: What did p}aUtLlS acc0111plish through his manipulation of the actor-audicnce relationship? I hope I have dCIl10nstrated in the preceding chapters that that relationship is central to Plautus's hunlor, that it involved a great sense of fun in the awareness of theater itself, that it was a vital part of how Plautus won over his audiences, and that it reflects sophisticated and varied responses to the sodal Inilieu of the plays' performances. In the all-too-serious pursuit of scholarship, it is easy to forget the most conspicuous strength ofPlautine theater: "Plautus made thenllaugh." 1 Hu1110r is an inevitable product of almost all the \vays PlautLlS shapes the actoraudience relationship. In spite of their nonillusory tendencies, Plautus's plays offer enough pretense of being "real" that sudden blatant renlinders of the £lct of performance would inspire laughter in the audience. Most of the metatheatrical techniques exanlined above involvc an intensification of this cmnic effect. Passages where actors express their need for the audicnce's approval beconle hun10rously transparent attcIllpts at manipulation. The f.1ilure of son1e characters to gain rapport \vith the audience in spite of their most earnest attempts is itself comical, and the principal emotion shared bet\vcen the audience and those \vho have rapport is laughter at the expense of those who do not. Allusions to place produce juxtaposition jokes shared by actors and audience. The inadequacies of theatrical nl0ralizing are a source of aIllusement throughout the plays; and satire like that found in TrI/ClIlclltllS and C/lfCll/io is always funny, even when it is most harsh. Much of the challenge to spectators' assmnptions offered in plays like Casil1a and CaptilJi is accomplished through unexpected sources of laughter. Closely related to hUlllor is the enchantment with \vbich PIautus's audience responded to the phen01nenon of theater itself Previous studies of Plautine metatheater have rightly emphasized Plautus's own fascination with theater. Plautus's highly metatheatrical plays, however, would not have succeeded if many members of his audience had not shared the same £lscination. Theater, at least as a part of official festivals, was still relatively new in Rome. Many in Plautus's audience therefore found the very existence of theatrical pretense enchanting, and they liked to be renlinded that \vhat they vie",~ed onstage \vas both real and inlaginary. Like humor, this fascination with theater is evident in each of the areas studied above. Desire for approval, teasing, and concern with rapport are the attitudes siIl1ultaneously of both characters and actors and thus are a renlinder of the anlbiguous nature of performance. A principal efiect of Plautus's play with his setting is

CONCLUSION

1<)7

to rClllind the audience that it watches not real events in Greece ' bllt·l, P::tv I in IZomc. Plautus's self-conscious responses to the theatrical conVCI1t·lOns. surrounding moralizing, misogyny, and slaves depend tor their effect uPOJl the audience's J\vareness of those conventions. Awareness of the playas pbv lies at the heart of both the flattery of the spectators that pervades PSCl/do!t;s and AlIlphitnw and the challenges presented in CasillJ and Captivi. Ivlanv of Plautl1S'S I110St pointedly satirical 1110l1lCnts, such as the speech of the cl;ora_ gus in CII/"Clllio and Stratophanes' entrance in Th1W1C/ltlls, would inspire delight because of their extreme mctathcatricality even if they did not inclUde critical allusions to contemporary IZome. Inspiring laughter and playing v·,rith the nature of theater are two of the vvays Plautus llsed the relationship benveen actors and audience to maintain the spectators' goodwil1. There are others. Even as they teased and criticized, actors never let the spectators forget that they aimed to please them and were dependent on their approval. Characters' desire for rapport likewise made the spectators feel inlportant and superior. The rejection of didacticisnl brings with it an emphasis on the spectators' pleasure as the end of perforInance. The importance of the actor-audience relationship in winning over spectators is nlost conspicuous in plays like PsclIdolllS, which Plautus wanted to make special, and plays like Alllphitl'llo and Casilla, which presented special challenges. Even plays as meta theatrical as Plautus's, however, are not only about theater, or even about pleasing the audience. How he manipulated the relationship between his actors and their audience was also a large part of the way Plautus responded to the social context in which his plays \vere performed. Now is therefore an appropriate tinle to evaluate in general terms Plautus's response to his social surroundings. By this point, Illy sympathies with the approach to PlalltUS of Erich Segal will be evident. Many details ofSega1's book have beenjllstly criticized: he exaggerated the difference between Plautine and New Conledy, the extent to which legitimate authority tIgures are undone in Plautus's plays, and the separation betvveen comic theater and reality; and he presented an oversimplitled vieVv~ of Ronlan society in the second century 13.C.E. 2 Segal's theory nevertheless explains much of the efFect of Plautine cOIlledy. The escape from everyday taboos is one of the essential elelnents of conledy in general,;} and that element is especially illlportant in Plautus. Much of Plautus's manipulation of the actor-audience relationship contributed to this SaturnaIi an effect. Plautus encouraged a bond between actors and audience, even though IllOSt of the former were of the lowest social classes; and he granted his actors the license to tease and satirize the audience itself, and SOll1etimes

CONCLUSION

even the magistrates in charge of the production. He arranged nlonologlles, t'Jvesdropping, and other elements so that the audience \vould teel the nreatest rapport with the characters \vho overturn social hierarchies most ~t1ectively: the sCl'ui callidi and other deceivers. His self--conscious play with setting reinforced the audience's awareness that his "Greece" was an imaginary land where Roman 11101'al restrictions could be flouted; and his rejectiOil of theatrical 1110ralizing emphasized the removal fr0111 everyday nloralitV still further . . Saturnalian inversion, however, is only part of the story. Even comedy that provides its audience with the most topsy-turvy escape from everyday reality nevertheless participates in social discourse:l As nlllCh as he may have o-iven his spectators all escape fr0111 their society, Plautl1S nevertheless reo sponded to that society in each play. The changes 111entioned in earlier chapters with respect to religion, v<,Iives, prostitutes, banking and moneylending, and slaves were only a part of the sea change affecting r-z..ome during Plautus's career, as Romans responded to their nc\v wealth and power and to the ever-increasing influence of Greek culture. Scholars have ditfered radically in their views of hO\\l- Plautus responded to these changes. To some, Plautus was a conservative, aligned with Cato the Censor in opposition to "newfangled" features ofIZ.oman life such as Greek philosophy and culture, luxury, and greater freedOI11 for women. s Others tInd in Plautus's plays a progressive philhellenist's alternative to traditional Roman 111ores. 6 Erich Gruen sees in Plautus a less partisan observer who n10cks various extremes on all sides of contell1pOrary controversies.! Gruen is closest to the truth. Only tendentious picking and choosing of evidence can make Plautus consistently either conservative or subversive: he mocks reactionary vie\vs, but his responses to Hellenic culture and the vast changes in his society were al11bivalent at best. Both Greeks and Romans, reactionaries and philhellenists, are the victims of Plautus's h111110r. Yet Plautus did not merely laugh frOlll a distance at the controversies of the day. By its very nature, theater ofiers perspectives different fron1 those found in everyday life; and theater like Plautus's, which inverts social norms, always has the potential to subvert those norms. s By the way they approach their plays, p1aywrights can reduce or increase the degree to \vhich their new perspectives and their carnivalesque inversion challenge their audience. Plautus had strong nlotivation to rein in the potentially subversive elements of his theater. The IZ.oman audience was vcry conservative, as Vv~as the theatrical tradition to \vhich Plautus belonged; and ultimate control over theatrical production was in the h~ll1ds of magistrates and other mell1-

CONCLUSION

I99

.------------------------_..........................-

bel's of the ruling class whose interests \vould not be served by ch~lllenges to existing authority. It is not surprising, therefore, that in our exal11ination of Plautus's approach to the actor-audience relationship, \ve have often found the playwright using techniques that restricted potentially subversive clements in his plays. Actors repeatedly sho\v deference to the audience, in keeping with their low social status. lzapport with slaves who behave unac_ ceptably is delayed, so that it is kept nlore clearly within the fantasy world of the play; and slaves' forbidden behavior is placed emphatically in Greece. Plautus consistently elevates the audience's pleasure over any nlcssages the plays may send them. In AlI!phitn/O, this enlphasis on pleasing the audience, along with insistent theatricalization, eliminates any threat to the religious status quo. In PsclldoillS, P!autus may even have given extra enlphasis to the audience's pleasure in response to desires of those who sponsored the production. In his portrayal of women and of slaves, Plautus usually COnfIrll1S his audience's stereotypes, and nluch of his satire is directed at "out-groups" fronl \VhOnl nlost of the spectators could easily dissociate themselves: extreme Il1isers, pinlps, bankers, foreigners, prostitutes. Perhaps most importantly, Pbutus's enlphasis on the theatrical, his insistence that his audience remain a\vare of the playas play, encourages spectators to dissociate potentially subversive action onstage fi"om the world outside of the theater. This very awareness of theater, however, along with the actors' close relationship with the spectators, could also be used to make the plays more challenging. For all their obsequiousness, actors teased the audience, and this teasing sometilnes went beyond Saturnalian license to social criticism. lzapport "\vith clever slaves was delayed, but it existed nonetheless, subtly challenging the assumed distance between slaves and free; and juxtaposition jokes undennined the geographical alienation fronl the audience of unacceptable activity by slaves and others. Plautus's rejection of theater that sends nlessages ironically sends a message of its o\vn, questioning the traditional Ronun penchant for moralizing. Through Roman allusions and addresses to the audience, Plautus iInplicates the spectators in the deception found in CurCl/lio and in the depravity that pervades TnlCJlielltlls. The clearcst challenges COIlle in CaptiJJi and Casilw, whcre Plautus molds the actor-audience relationship in such a way that the spectators are encouraged to reconsider their preconceptions about wives and slaves. Pbutus was without a doubt first and forcInost an entertainer. Even the nlost detennined entertainer, however, can have something to say. Plautus rejected overt didacticism, and he nude sure his audience knew" that he and his fellow perfornlers were working to alnuse theln. Yet within that context of diversion and even escapisn1, Plautus offered sonle scathing satire, and on

CONCLUSION

200

more than one occasion he cha11enged the preconceptions of many spectators. Plautus Il101ded the relationship between his actors and their audience in such a \vay as to create an atmosphere of goodwi11 betw"een stage and audience. Relying on that atInosphere of goodwill, Plautus used those same techniques of shaping the actor-audience relationship not only to entertain, but also to provoke and challenge his audience.

CONCLUSION

201

...--------------------_..........................

:f'\JOTES . . ... INTRODUCTION I. For what can be recovered about the logistics of perfOrI1UIlCe in Pbutus's d::ry, see cspcci:111y Duckworth 1952, 73 - j 38; Loitold 1957; Bieber 1961, 1.+7- 89; Beare

1964,159-232,24[-63,267-309,335-39; Csapo and Slater 1995, 207-20, 27585, 306-17, and passim. See ;).1so, on the evidence frol11 vases, Trend::dl 1907 and Taplin 1993; Oil Pompcian paintings, Beacham 1992, 56-85; on the Terence manuscripts, Weston 1903, 37-54;jones :lIld Morey 1930 -3 r; on bter Roman theaters, Bcach::lI11 1992, T57-B3; on stages, Tanner 1969; Rosivach 1~:nO; Wiles 1991,5562; on acting styles, Taladoire 1951; Garton 1972, r09-88; Wiles I9SlI, 192-208; 011 blockillg, Steidle 1975; on costumes, Saunders 1909; and on props, Ketterer 1986a, 1986b, 1986c. 2. Beare (1964, 303 -9) made what I consider a cOllvincing case that Plautus's actors wore masks, and that the late antique grammarian Diomedes is wrong when he claims that masks were not worn until well after Plautus's death (Keil 1:489). Manv, however, remain ullconvinced. See, in favor of the use of masks, Duckworth 1952: 92-94; Gratwick 1982, 83 -84; Wiles 199', 132-33; against the use of masks, Maurach 1964, 578; Della Corte 1~)75; Kinsey 1980; Dupont 1985, 80-81. 3. A nventy-first play, Vidll!drid, is hopelessly frabTmentary. Also invaluable are the six plays ofPlautlls's successor, Terence, and the fragments of a number of other Roman comic playwrights. 4. See, for example, Ubersfcld 1982,22-23; Beckerman 1990, ,86-87; Bennett 1990, rOI; De Marinis 1993, 15-30. 5. C( Beckenl1~111 '970, 133-34; Ubersfeld 1981, 311-18. 6. C( Lucas 1968, 25H-72; Rau 1970,91-92; Flasl1J.r 1974. 7. Ingarden 1971,530; Beckerman 1970, 14-17. C( Elam 1980,90-92; De Marinis 1993, 48 - 51. Beckerman later refined his views of theatricalism versus realism and direct versus indirect presentation (1990, 38, 110- [I). R. See, for example, Crahay and Delconrt 1952; Langer 1953, 306-25; Koestler 1964, 30f-lO. On the problems inherent in the concept of"dral1latic illusion," see Sifakis 1971, 7-14.; 13ain 1977, 3-7· 9. Brecht 1904, 22-24, 33-42, 57-61, 191-97, and passim; [967,263-65, 683-84, and passim. Cf Pfister 198H, 09-84. 10. Brecht 1904, 224; 1967,305,3]0-11,362-64,680. Cf. Witzmann 1964, 19-22,39-40,75-123, and passim; C6rler 1973; Warning 1976,313-15; Lada 199 0 . 1 I. On performance criticism and its history, see Styan 1977; Thompson and Thompson 1989, 13-23; Slater [993a, 3 - 11. On nonillusory theater, see Styan 1975, [80-223. 12. See especially Nelson 1958; Righter 1962; Abel 1963; Caldenvood 1971; Hornby 1986. 13· E.g., EV~l11thills Dcfalmla 3.R; Norwood 1932, 15-99; Blanckc 191R, 51-09 (somnvhat more favorable). 14. Collections of passages: Knapp 19[9; Terzaghi 1930; Kraus 1934; Duckworth 1952, 132-36. Chronology: I-lough 1940a. 15. See especially Leo 1908,46-89; Fraenkel 1960, 135-221 and passim; Gaiser 1972, 1047-50, 1088-93; Slater 1985C. Note also the recent efforts by Eckard Lefevre and his school of Nco-Analysts to prove, in part by pointing out the

NOTES TO PAGES 1-3

203

'f !

llletatheatricalnature ofPbmine theater, that Plautus was more dependent on the Italian t3.rcical tradition than has previously been assumed (Stark 19S9: Lefcvfl' St:irk, and Vogt-Spin 1991; Benz, St~irk, and Vogt-Spin 1995; Lefevre 1995; ct~ Slater 1993b). On the other hand, meta theatrical elements have J.lso been observed in the remains of Greek New Comedy (Leo 1908, 70-89; 1960, 3-9; Bain 1977, 105-34, 185-222; Blundell 1980, passim; Dedoussi 1995; and Otto Zwierlein has proposed that many of the 111etatheatrical passages in our texts J.re the work of later interpolators 1991a, 228-35 and passim; see also Z\vierlein 199 0 , 1901b, and 1992). For an excellent concise history of the "originality question," see Lowe 1992,15 2 -57. 16. Barchiesi 1969; Schiappa de Azevedo 1975-70; Chiarini 1979; Btinsdorf 1982,131-35,141-44; Petrone 19S3, 5-98, 153-209; Slater 1985b; Muecke 1986.

CHAPTER

I

I. Cf. Goldman J975, 0-7; Beckerman 1990, 40-41; Bennett 1990, Hi2-63. 2. On Plautus's mimicry of improvisation, see especially Sbter 198 5b, 16 - I S and passim; 1993b; Benz, Stark, and Vogt-Spira 1995, passim. 3. Bickford 1922, 60. For convenience I call any speech in which a character is clearly not addressing another character a monologue. My term "monologue" thus includes what many would describe as "soliloquies" (usually used of speeches spoken while a character is alone onstage) and "asides" (speeches that are made while another character is onstage but that are not intended to be heJ.rd by the other character). It also includes what some call "monodies": pJ.ssages not addressed to other characters that \vere accomp::mied and m;lY have been sung. On the vJ.rious functions of monologues in New Comedy and Roman comedy, see especially Leo 1908, 38-89; Dickford 1922; Prescott 1939; Duchvorth 1952, 103-9; Denzler 1968; Swoboda 1971, 63-76; Bain 1977, 105-134; Blundell 1980; Slater 1985b, 155-60; Frost 1988. 4. Fraenkcl (1967) argued correctly that second-person verbs need not be addressed to anyone in particular. In Plautus, however, where the presence of the spectators is so readily acknowledged, it seems most likely that second-personplural verb forms not addressed to others ollStage are in f:lct directed to the audience. Second-person-singular verb forms need not be directed explicitly J.t the audience, which is, of course, plural. Actors who use second-person-singular verbs conceivably could have spoken the lines as if they were merely thinking aloud, as \vhen modern speakers of English mutter things like, "You \-vould think he would know better," "Imagine that!" or, "You can't take it \'lith you." Cf. Barsby 1986,108. The second-person verbs, however, especially \vhen they cluster together, create an intimate, conversational tone, and therefore \vould encourage actors to acknowledge that they intend their \-vords for the audience. Actors may also have addressed individlulmembers of the audience when they used secondperson-singular verbs. In two passages, such J.ddresses to individuals are made explicit in the text (Alii. 719-20; Stich. 224). 5. See Ccbe 1960; Chalmers 1905, 43-47; Wright 1974, 190-92; Handley 1975. MacMullen, however, exaggerates the extent to which Plautus's spectators were members of the upper classes (1991, 421-22). 6. Gruen (1992, 210-15) argues that the two prologues ofI-IcL}'m describe inugined rather than real events. Though Cruen does \vell to point out some of the problems in the prologues (as does Goldberg [1995, 40-43}), he does not to my

NOTES TO PAGES 3-9

mind provide sufficient evidence to overturn the logical assumption that Terence, e\'en if he does exaggerate somewhat, describes actual events. Cf Gilula 198 I; Vo(;r-Spira 1995, 236 n. 28. ;. Parker (1990,592-601) makes a persuasive case that those who disrupted the first tWO performances of Hccym were not actlul members of the audience, but others who entered the theater from outside. Regardless of who the persons creating the disturbance~ were, the basic diffIculties of pel{Orlnance and the vulnerability of the actors rellUIIl. s. For the severity of bter Roman audiences in judging actors' performances, see Cic. Q Rose. 30 (a comic actor is driven off the stage w'ith hisses and insults), [JilradlJ.ya Stoicorlllll 3.26 (actors \vho make minor errors are hissed and driven off the stJge). 9. On scating, see Moore 1994· !G. Some of the disdain for actors expressed by writers in the late Republic and empire may postdate Plautus (so Gruen 1990, 89-90; Goldberg 1995, 30-31), but it is unlikely that professional actors as a group were respected at J.ny time in Romall history. On the social class of actors, see Rawson 1985, II2; Dumont 1987, iI7-24. On the legal disabilities of freeborn actors (il!falllia), see Green 1933; Dupont 1985,95-98; Ducos 1990;Jory 1995,139-45. On attitudes tmvard actors in general, see Edwards 1993, 123-31; Csapo and Slater 1995, 270-79. II. On the susceptibility of actors to beatings, see Cic. Plane. 30-31; Suet. Aug. +5; Tac. A11I1. 1.77; Naudet 1830, 241; Edwards 1993, 124. 12. Cf. Naudet 1830, 648. 13. Cf. Muecke 1985. 14. On the adlJocati and their status as actors, see Petrone 1983, 16-33. IS. Portions of Plautus's prologues may be bter interpolations (part of the Casilla prologue certainly is). Most of the prologues, however, are probably Plautine. See Abel 1955, 105-6 and passim. For the role of prologi in providing induction into the world of the play, see Slater 1985b, 149-52. 16. Asill. I, 14; Capt. 6; Cas. 21-22, 29; Cist. 154-55; lvlel/. 4-5; lvIcrc. 14-15; Mil. 79-80, 98; POCII. 3,58, 123; Trill. 4-5, 22. 17. Cf. A1erc. 14-15; j\1if. 79-80; Trill. 20-21; T/"I/c. 1-8. IS. On the sense of this passage, sec Maurach 1988, 55. When used in a prologue, mgl/Illel/tlllll is the summary of background information leading IIp to the situation at the beginning of the play, and sometimes contains some prediction of \vhat will happen in the plot itself. 19. Asill. 15; Capt. 67-68; Cas. 87-88; Cist. 197-202; Rlld. S2. 20. E.g., Asill. 6-7; AI/f. I; Cist. 155; lvICli. 23, 47, 50; Alit. 150; Poell. 47, TT6; TrilJ.4-7. 21. Cf. Bain 1977, 153, on Plautus's (and to a lesser extent Terence's) "almost Homeric delight in certain more or less fixed formulae" of expbnation in monologues. 22. Cf. POCII. 920-22,1224; Pscud. 387-89, 720-21; Petrone 1983,25-27. 23. Such an extended series ofjokes is more likely to be the creation ofPlautus than of Philemon, \vhose play Plautus adapted. Cf. Fraenkcl 1960, 215; Lefevre 1995,22-24· 24· E.g., Asill. 307; Epid. 376,665; iHcll. 760; lvIcrL 3 T-38, 008; Pcrsa 167; Pseudo 573,687; 1UII. 806. 25· Wright 1974. 26. Some other examples of characters reminding the audience that they them-

NOTES TO PAGES 10-14

20 5

selves or other c11J.racters are fulfilling the expectations of their stock character. Bacch. 71'2; Cist. 120-23, ISO; Cllrc. 6S-66; 1\;fil. 213; Pef.'id 118-26, 280a, POcII. 328,613,861; Rllli. 47-48, 341. ' 27. E.g., Aul. 1; C1S. 64-00; Cist. 782-S3; PSC1ld. [234; Stich. 446; Trill. ](i' 'Fmc. 482. Cf. TeL All. 9So; Ad. 22. ' 28. Cf. Asill. 256-57; Clpt. 55; Pscud. 1239-41; TeL All. S82- S4; Hee. S6(i_

2');:

67· 29. Cf A~·i/l. 1-3, 14-1S· 30. Hellegouarc'h 1972, 21S-16; Moore 19S9, 98-100. 31. On the PoC/wllls prologue, see Jocelyn 1969a; Slater T99 2a . Slater is right, I believe, to defend the prologue's authenticity against Jocelyn's criticisms. 32. Cf Gargola 1995, 46-47. 33. So Pius and Lambinus, cited by MauDch (1988, (1). Scaliger and others, also cited by Maurach, have suggested that the prologm alludes to a children's game involving a rope. 34. Contemporary triumphs: Ritschl 1845, 423-27; Barsby !9 S0 , 181; Gruen 1990,137. Comic slaves: Fraenkel 1900,227; Wright 1974, lOS· This seems to me a case where the allusion is both topical and metatheatrical. 35. See especially Wright 1974, 127-51; Goldberg 1986, 209-19· 36 . Of Plaut us's nineteen extant epilogues, fourteen are in the form of imp eratives. On Plautus's epilogues, see Monaco 1970. 37. On the importance of 11105 II1l1ionllll in Roman society, see BarrO\v 1949, 14 -20. 38. On Plautine chronology, see Schutter 1952. 39. Cf, for example, the epilogues of Shakespeare's 7i11e!fth jVigllt, l'l/iidsUlllIIIcr N~!?ht's Dreall1, Tcmpest, All's IVel! That Ends lVell, and, especially, As 1'011 Like It and Tmillls allli Crcssida; and the prologues and epilogues of Restoration and eighteenth-century British plays, on which see Knapp 1901. 40. For the mixture of blandishment and teasing, note especially the addresses to the judges by the choruses of Clouds (Clouds 1 115-30) and Birds (Birds 110117), promising rewards if they grant their play the prize, but threatening them if they do not. For abuse, note, e.g., Clouds 607-26, 1096-1 TOI; Lys. 121 9- 2 0; ThcslII. 814-45; Fmgs 276; Ece!. 439-40, 888-S9. On Aristophanes' audience addresses, see Stow 1936, 22-56; Schmid and S6hlin 1946, 47; Chapman 19 8 3, 3; Russo 1984, 1)5; Hubbard 1991. <po Surviving examples: fvlenander D}'s. 965-69; AiisOllmcllos 993-96; Sal/!. 733-37; Sik),ollios 4 20 - 2 3. 42. Requests for approval: Menander D)'s. 45-46; Pk. 170-71; Sikyollios 2324; Philemon PCG 50 (cf Aristoph;mes Kllights 37-.19). Flattery: Menander, fr. 13 Koerte; fr. 396 Koerte (cf. CCP 252,9-10). Desire to be understood: Menander Aspis 113-14, 146-47; Pk. 1.27-28; Salll. 5-6; P{'asllJa 19-20 (cf Aristophanes Kllights 36-37; a'iups 54-55; Heniochus PCG 5.5). On audience address in thc prologues ofNe\v Comedy, see Bain 1977, 18(i-89. Cf. Hubbard 1991, I n. l. 43. Bain 1977, 188-89· 44. Cf. ibid., 142, 179, and passim. 45. An exception: Hegesippus PCG 1.29-30. Given the exceedingly fragtnentary state of Middle and New Comedy, we must not exclude the possibility .that there was a Good deal more blandishment and teasing in lost comedies, espeCIally o . those of playwrights other than Menander. We can be confident, however, that neither flattery nor teasing ever reached the levels found in Aristophanes or Pbutus. ~

NOTES TO PAGES 15-22

206

--\-6. All. S, 24-27; Hi1l1t. 1.2,25-30, 3S; EIIII. 44-45; Plwrlll. 29-34; Hce. 8-57; -ld. 4-5. 24- 2 5. . 47. Tnrpio suggests (Ht1Ilt. [-3) that it was u11l1sUJI for the lead actor to speak the prologue. On Terence's prologues, see Gelhaus !972; Arnott 1985; Goldberg 19 S6 , 3 I-60; Slater 1992b, S6-9S. .~8. E.g., All. 215-27, 231-32; EIIII. 670, 919; Hee. 30T-414, 799-800; Ad. 2680,83, 54 8 . 49. See Hamer 1953, 85-IOO; Posani 1962, 6S; Denzler 1908,152-54; and COIIcr,l, Lud\vig 1968, [78. 50. On Pblltus's Satllrnalian plots, sec especially Segal 1987.

CHAPTER

2

I. The practice goes back to Greek tragedy. Fraenkel (1960, 166) proposed that the phenomenon reflects a general Greek tendency. Cf Leo 1908, 75 -78; Williams 1968,581-82; Swoboda 1971,04. 2. Contrast Plaut. PcrS(/ 449-58, where a similar st'lltclltia receives considerably more attention. 3. Fraenkel 1960, IS4-59· Note also that Plautus's successor Caecilius added a gcneralizing SClltClitia to the beginning of his adaptation of a monologue from Menander's Plocioll (Menander fr. 333 Sandbach; Caecilius CRF 142-43). On the fondness of Roman playwrights in general for sCI/tclltiac introducing speeches, see Jocelyn 1972, 1004 n. 103. 4. Cf Leo 190R, 75-78; Fraenkel 1900, 150. 5. FraenkellS)60, 13 6. o. Leo's brackets around these three lines are unnecessary. 7. On the significance of Philolaches' monologue for l.\1ostellaria as a whole, see Leach 1969a. 8. Both Philolaches' simile and Menaechmus's lament show clear signs of Plautine workmanship. On Philolaches' monologue, see Fraenkel 1960, 160 - 69; Leach 1969a, 319. On Menaechmus's speech, see Fraenkel 1960, 152-54; St~irk 1989, 90. Some other examples of rhetorical monologues: Bacch. 385-403 (Mnesilochus works to convince the audience of the value of a good friend); 1\11'11. 127-34 (Mcnaechmus \vants the audience to appreciate the heroism of his thcft of his wife's cloak), 446-61 (Peniculus argues that people who have luncheon invitations should not be expected to attend political meetings); iV!cre. 544-.H (DC111ipho argues that old men rather than young should be lovers); AliI. 21 -24 (Artotrogus on the boastfulness ofPyrgopolynices); Pow. 823 -44 (Syncerasrus 011 the depravity of his master's household); 1-;-/lc. 209-45 (Astaphium defends the greedy behavior of prostitutes). 9· Ergasilus refers to the custom of calling out the name of one's beloved for good luck while throwing dice (cf. ./15ill. 780; Cllre. 350). 10. Cf. Pcrsa6,t, 474-75; Stich. 294. II. Cf Bacch. 015a, 623; Cas. 303; .Mere. 5.sS; TflIe. 635-36. 12. Cf. Amph. 507; Asill. 149; All!. 46-47; Bacch. 137; CIIS. 246; Cllrc. 188; AiCll. 472; Aiac. r09; iHil. 200; lHostcll. 887; Pcrsa7S8; Pseudo 152,892,1288; Stich. 270, 310; Trill. 847; Tflle. 353, 001, 809; Terence All. 231; EIIII. 265, 670, 919; Ad. 228. 13· Cf Terence All. 217. 14· Cf l\1erc. 431-37, \vhere similar assumptions of "buyers" are made during an auction conducted in dialogue (see below). Also in this category may be the

NOTES TO PAGES 22-30

20 7

places where characters call upon ciucs or populatcs ("fellow citizens") for help, if the actor addresses such lines to the audience (AlIlph. 376; Allf. 406-7; J\1clI. 1000: Rue! 615-26; Terence Ad. 155). . 15. Lefevre (1995, 2 I -3 I) makes a strong case that most of these scenes are additions by PbutllS to his Greek original. 10. Nixon's translation. 17. On the monologue as a unifier of actor and audience, cf Styan 1975, 15356; 1989, 19R-200; Berry 1989· 18. Cf Slater 19R5b, I(l2-63· 19. Hiatt 1946, 4-7. Cf. Loitold 1957, 177· 20. Cf Slater 19R5b, 164. For examples, see Chapters 6 (Mercury in Amp/II'frllll) and 9 (Pardalisca in Ca;;illa). 21. C£ Wieand 1920, 9-15; Petrone 1983, 5-9R. 22. Cf Petrone 1983,53 -50. 23. Pistoclerus and Ivlnesilochus observe Chrysalus's entrance, but they show no sign of hearing any of his triumph monologue. 24. Nicobulus is evidently onstage reading Mnesilochus's letter throughout this scene. C£ Barsby !9R6, 169. 25. On Chrysalus's aside at 772, see Slater 1983. 26. "Nam ego iHud argentum tam para tum filio / scio esse quam me hUllC scipionem contui" ("For I am as sure that money is ready for my son as I am that I see this stafi~" 123-24). Ifa Scipio \vas the magistrate in ciurge at the games where Asilllftia was first produced, the line \vould be a particularly pleasing allusion. Radermacher (1903) proposed from this line that Asillaria \vas first performed in 212, \vhen P. Cornelius Scipio was curule aedile. Cf Schutter 1952, 14-20. 27. The first author to use SCITUS wllidlls explicitly of a stock comic character is Quintilian (Inst. 11.3.!7R). His and Apuleius's (F'lor. 16) use of the term in lists of stock characters, however, suggests that the name had become a standard description long before their day. Cf. Amph. 268; Ter. i-latlf. 886-87; EUI/. WI I. 28. He also addresses the imaginary birds \vho give him a sign (2or). 29. For some intriguing speculation on how this scene might have bcen played, see Slater 1985b, 23-24. 30. I follow Leo in deleting line 31)8. If the line is authentic (Lindsay does not bracket it), Pseudolus may begin addressing the audience in that line, when he says, "neque nunc quid faciam scio" ("Nor do I know what to do now"). 3 1. On the tirst scene, c£ Wright 1974, I-TO; Mariotti 1992. 32. Contrast Cas. 949-50, where a similar request by Lysidamus fails to win him rapport because it is overheard. 33. Indeed, Anderson 1983 has argued that Chalinus is not a stock SCfU/IS callitills. Cf. Slater 1985b, 82-83· 34. Chalinus may also address the audience at 814, as he enters in drag, but the attribution of the line is not certain. See MacCary and Willcock 1976, 1R6-S7; O'Brvhim 1989, 93 -95· 35: Fraenkel 1960, 223-41. Cf Spranger 1984, 98; Anderson 1993, RB-I06. 36. Segal 1987, 99-130. Cf. Lefevre 1988. Dingel (r9RI), Dumont (1987, 44 6 5R), and Anderson (1993, 147-50) have argued that the Satumalian clement of slaves' deception is limited, for most victims of the slaves' deceptions are themselves unsympathetic and i111moral characters. Though it is true that many of those deceived in Plautus are unworthy of the audicnce's sympathy, the deceivers are nevertheless slaves, so their successful deception would remain unacceptable outside the theater.

NOTES TO PAGES JO -40

208

,

'-j . Slaves in the audience: POCI!. 23 (cf Moore 1994, 116-17). Arrival of new slaves: cf Westermann 1955, 60-62; I3runt 1971, 17-19; Harris 1979, 80-85· Parker (19S9, 242-46) has suggested that many members of the audience would on
NOTES TO PAGES 40-4"

20 9

" f

ography); Lowe 1989,390-91; Owens 1994, 3Hr-98. Aspis: cf. BJin 1977, loo-t:). Goldberg 1980, 29-43; Btinsdorf 1982,137-41. On deception in New Comedr' cf Petrone 1983,144-51. .' 54. According to Bickford (1922, 00 - (2), 17% of Plautus's corpus is made up of monologues, 12% of Terence's.

CHAPTER 3 Gruen 1990, 157. Cf Momigliano 1975, 49· Note also the self-conscious play with placc in the remains of a prologuc bv Heniochus (PCG 5), and a reference to Athenians in a play by Macho, set in Athcn's but performcd in Alexandria (PCG 1). 3. Tcrence, howcver, avoids both incongruous allusions to Rome and emphatic references to Greek locales and institutions. Cf Haffter 1953, 80-84; William.'i 1968,290 -95. 4. On Slukespeare's sclf-collScious use of the Italian setting, sce especially Levith 1989; McPherson 1990; Marrapodi et al. 1993. On play \.vith setting ill iHibufo, see Williamson 1953, 143; Hayter 1987, 45-46, 59-60. 5. Not ridiculing Romans: Perna 1955, 225; Chalmers 1965, 24. Escapc: Petrone 1977, 66-67; Segal 1987, 31-39. Hellenophobia: Della Corte 1952, 92-93; Owens 1986; Anderson 1993, 133-51. Mockcry of Greek and Roman life: Chalmcrs 1965, 25; Grucn 1990, 156-57. Lists: Middclmann 1938; Duckworth 1952, 136. Origilulity: Westaway 1917, J6 -70; Fraenkel 1960, 378, PJssim; Gaiser 1972, 1079-93. Chronology: see especially Buck 1940, passim; Hough 1940a; Schutter 1952, passim; and thc cautions of HJrvey 1986. Metatheater: Chiarini 1979, 24; Petrone [983, 31 - 37; Gilula 1989, 103 - 6. Cf. Williams 1968, 285 - 89; Rawson 1989,438. 6. Watson 1967, 157-58. 7. C£ Colin 1905, 143-47; Seaman 1954, II5-16; Chalmers 1965, 30-45; Perna 1955, 226; BI::insdorf 1~J78, 106-7; Gruen I992, 232. 8. Cf. Hengel 1977, 51. 9. Pacc Parker (1989, 239-40). 10. On the importance of Roman allusions in making plays £1J1liliar, cf. Chalmers 1965, 28. 11. There is no evidence for foreign visitors in Plautus's Judience, but some may have been prcsent. 12. Deschamps I9So-SI, 151. IJ. L5} JOo. 14. See Pocii1a 1976, 425-32; Leeman 1983, 350-52; Petrone 1983, 31-37; Dumont 1987, 580-83; Gilula 1989, 104-5; and cf. Hoenselaars 1993, 36-38, on allusions to England by Shakespeare's Italian characters. 15. Ergasilus refers to thc practice whereby a magistrate brought a prosecution before the colllitia trilmta. See Hallidie 1891, 144. 16. As the context of the Pacuvius passage hJS not survived, it is possible that the use of Graii here had some intended effect, or that the lines were spoken by a nonGreek, but Cicero's comments suggest othenvise ("quasi vcro non Graius hoc dicat!" "As if it were not a Greek who says this!"). A similar passage OCCllrs in Seneca's 111],CStCS 396, where the chorus of Argive elders refers to Qlliritcs (Romans). J7. E.g., Duckworth 1952, 136; Fraenkcl 1960,378. 18. Leo unnecessarily brackets Tedigniloquides Nugidcs Palponidcs. I.

2.

NOTES TO PAGES +9-55

210

[9. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Williams 1968,289-90. See McPherson 1990,40-42,91-116; Lombardo 1993; Ivlullilli 1993. Cf. Petrochilos 1974, 43-45; Segal 1987, 37-3S. See Jory 1970, 229-30; Gruen 1990, S7-88. For various opinions on the significance of this passage, see Segal 1987, 37; Gilula 1989, 102-3; Gruen 1990, 156; Anderson 1993, 137-3S. 24. Grat\vick 1993, 134. Note also, JS Kenncth Reckford has pointed out to me in private correspondence, that IIbi facwlIl dicitllr ("where it is said to have happened") "takes away with one hand whJt it gives with the other": the location remains the product of hearsay. 25. The two Menacchmus brothers were born in Sicily, but the Jbduction that sets the m;t!IIIIlClltllll/ in motion occurs in Tarentum, and the play is sct in Epidamnus. 26. Cf. Hor. Epist. 2.1.58. Stark (1989, 56) proposes that PIautus is making a programmatic statement here: his play will not have a traditional Attic Ne\v Comcdy plot, but will draw on thc Italian farcical tradition. 27. Lindsay's tcxt. There is no need to follow Watling (1965, 104) and Grat\vick ([993, (34) in moving these lines to a place earlier in the prologue. The prologue speaker is an incorrigiblc rambler, and he is obsessed \'lith the falseness of the play's location. I-Ie therefore does not establish the sctting firmly until thc mgl/mc/wIIII is completed, and he rambles on about the false setting after references to place are unnecessary. Cf. Groton 1995, 616. 28. Because of its proximity to parasiflls, and because kings, unlike the other characters mentioned in these two lines, have no role in palliatac, r havc read rex as a rich man, who would be thc patron ofa parasite, a common meaning of the \vord (cf. Ash!. 919; Capt. 92; l\1C11. 902; Stich. 455; TeL PflOfm. 70). 29. So, for example, Williams 1968,288. 30. On the identity of PseudoIus's salis poti Firi as bankers, see Willcock 1987, 109. Arcellaschi (1978,139) argues unconvincingly that the satis poti ]Jiri are priests. 31. Gruen 1992,262-63. 32. Cf. Easterling 19H5, 9, on Euripides' use of anachronism to encourage his spectators to "look closely at the disturbing implic.1tions" of events within the heroic \'lorld of tragedy. 33. C£ Owcns 1986, 163-93. 34· Shipp 1953; Chalmers 1965, 39-42; Gruen 1990, 156. 35· Cf. Hofmann 1992, 151-58; Maltby 1995. 36. References to the senate need not necessarily have struck Plautus's audience as incongruous in a Greek setting, for SCllatlis could be used of an assembly in a Greek city (R.lld. 713). Combined with the other Roman allusions, however, the allusion to the scnate reinforces Epidicus's Romanness. 37· C£ Dumont 1987, 498. 38. Cf. Go\.vers 1993, 53-54. 39· On the identification of the pocta barbarus as Nacvius, see Marmorale 1953, II2-16;Jocclyn 1969b, 34-37; Gaiser 1972,1091; Frangoulidis 1994, 72-73. For more skeptical views, see Gruen 1990, 104; Goldberg 1995, 33-j(l. 40. Aside from Capt. 1002, on which see Chapter 10, the ILL (10.1.748-41; cf. lO·1.746.20) cites no other uses ofjJatricills applied to non-Romans before Seneca. 41. Lindsay's text. Leo's crux here is unnecessary. 42. On biB'dims and basaice, c£ Harsh 1936, 65; Fraenkel 1960, 1R3-86. 43· Cf. O\'lens 1986, 190-92; Scgal 1987,32-33. 44· Bradley 1987, 28-29.

NOTES TO PAGES 56-66

21 I

, , f

CHAPTER 4 I. See, for example, Oppermann 1962 and 1967; Earl 1967; Otis 196 7, 197- 20 3: Williams 1968, 578-633. On the extent to which notions of the Roman obsession with morality have been eXJ.ggerated, see Momigliano 1975, 16; Bondanella 19 87 S - I 8 and passim. ' 2. See Duckworth 1952,272-304; Rawson 1987. There was also a strong tra_ dition of moral didacticism in Greek comedy, although the cOllntless moral precepts gathered fi'om the plays of Menandcr and others are often ironic within their original context. Sec, on Aristophanes, McLeish 1980, 59-61; Reckford 19 87. 285 - 3 I I and passim; Hubbard 199 r , passim; MacDowell 1995, 3 - 6; and, 011 New Comedy, Webster 1970, 135-41, 159, 171-72; ]974,43-55; Sandbach 1977, 1012; Hunter 1985, l.n-47; Zagagi 1994, 33-38; Easterling 1995, 155-60. 3. The IIi/go as a speaking part is most likely a creation of Plautus himscl( See Lowe 1989. 4. Cf Chiarini 1979, 35-178; Slater T9R5b, 41-50; Gerdes 1995, 125-28. 5. Hlllld il/doc{e, echoing Toxilus's doetc from earlier in the scene (55 I), also implies that the !lilgo has learned her part well. Cf Chiarini 1979, 147· 6. Other moralizing by deceivers: AJI/ph. 938-43; Cure. 494-515; Epid. 225 -35; lvIil. 477, 563-65, 1292-95; POCII. 633-36; Pscwi. 460-61, 492-93; TUIl. 92+, 946 -47. 7. Cf Segal 1987, 195· 8. These words refer to the situation in other comedies (e.g., Truwlclltlls) in which a prostitute pretcnds that she is the mother of somcone else's infant. Cf Ter. EIIII. 39.

9. Segal 1987,211. 10. Lindsay's text. 1 I. Plautus probably added both the Clllmlio passagc and the TrllwlCllII/S passage to his Greek originals. See Fraenkcl 1900, 157-00. 12. Cf. Crahay and Delcourt 1952, 88. 13. Schaafl977, 120-24, 149, 192-97. Cf Webster 1970,175· 14. The most common explanation of this apparent incongruity is that PlaUtllS felt that Palaestrio's step out of character was necessary for the audience to follow the plot (Gaiser 1972, 1050). In £1Ct, these lines are more likely to confuse than to clarify; for in spite of his IIC erretis ("so that you do not misunderstand"), there is no clarity in Palaestrio's reference to one woman as two, for which the audiencc has no context. Williams (1958a, lOT) suggests that Plautus, anxious to keep his audience's attention, could not resist the temptation to tell the audience "somcthing of the treat in store for thcm." Cf. Frangoulidis 1996. 15. Cf Fantham 1973, 199· 16. On Plautus's sewi callidi as playwrights, see Petrone 1983, 7 and passim; Slater 1985b, 172-77 and passim. 17. Palaestrio is putting his chin on his hand, like Rodin's "Thinker." On the allusion to Nacvius, see Chapter 3, note 39. On Periplectomenus's obscure os CO{II/11/lalWII, which may have a metaphorical rather than a physical meaning, see Allen 1896; Killeen 1973; Jocelyn 1987; Gruen 1990, 104. I8. Knapp I!.H9, 39-41. T9. Cf Gerdes 1995, 165 - 66. Gerdes points out that Periplectomenus even does some acting in this scene, mimicking the speechcs of hypothetical wives (687-98). 20. E.g., Pind. 01.6.1-4; Pyth. 7.3; Ar. Peace 749-50; Hor. CaJ"/lJ. 3.30.1; Ov. A1ct. 15.871. Cf Taillardat 1965, 438-49; Stcincr 1986, 55.

NOTES TO PAGES 67-75

1.12

lI. Hammond, Ivlack, and Moskalew 1963, 154; Forehand 1973b, 9; Schaaf 1977,3 02 . 22. On the role of the chomglls, see Fredershausen 1906, 68; Saunders 1909, 1719. It is even possible that the actor playing Periplectomenus was the actual c/iora,JI/S of the play, given that the chofl1gtlS appears onstage in Ctllwlio (4(i2- 86; see Chapter 7)· Cf Persa 159; TUIl. 858. 23. On the importance of instruction in Plautine metatheater, see Petrone 1983, 37-42 and passim. 24. On ludi in Plautus as a reference to games featuring theatrical performances, sec Knapp 19 1 9, 45· Cf. Plautus ComiCIIla, frag. I. 25. Asill. 69 implies that dressing up as a ship's captain in order to get a girl may have been a comic topos. The use of a tlllllclcriws Ol"lllltliS would thus further reinforce the imagc of actors performing a play. 26. Cf Slater 1985b, 49 n. 12. 27. This bit of staging will be especially effective if, as somc editors suggest, the SCI"I'IIS of the last scene is Sceledrus, the other major spectator of a deception play. 28. On the significance of the play-within-the-play in modern drama, see the works cited at Introduction, note 12. Plautus's original must also have included some playacting, but even conservative judges of Plautine originality would J.gree that much of the metatheater in the J\1i/cs is original to Plautus. The reference to a poCtll bathonls that establishes Palaestrio as a playwright is obviously Roman; and the other passages most important in reinforcing the notion of a comic troupePeriplectomenus's long description of himself (cf. Lefevre 1984, 43 - 46), Acroteleutium's elaborate metaphor of shipbuilding (cf Shipp 1955, 15 I; Pomey 1973, 502-3; SchaafI977, 302), and the three long instruction scenes (cf Fraenkel 1960, 61- 62; Lercvre 1984, 37-3 8)-all show clear signs ofPlautine workmanship. Several of the metatheatrical references depend for their effect on Latin puns or wordplay (293,324-25,590-91,991, [066, 1073). Cf Frangoulidis 1994. 29. The word lcpidl/s occurs thirty-five times in Aiiles, far more often than in any other Plautine play. Even accounting for the [1ct that i\;Iiles is Plautus's longest play, the frequency is remarkable. The thirty-five occurrences mean that the word appears almost once every forty-one lines. In POCIIIIIIIS, where the word is next most frequent, it appears approximately once every seventy-one lines. On the association between lepidlls and performance, see Chiarini T979, 70 n. 80, 124. 30. On the varying moral tone of SfidlllS, cf Arnott 1972; Petronc 1977, 307I. 31. Cf. Garzya [969. For two elegant interpretations of the play's moral messages, see Leach I974; Konstan 1983, 73-95. 32. CUIIl {llsi is the reading of the manuscripts. Some editors, including Leo, have considered the words a crux, and Lindsay proposed the hapax Wllll/silll. As Petrone (1983, 201) points out, hO\vever, c//111 fllsi makes sense if we consider the possibility ofa meta theatrical reading. Cf Marx 1928, 213. 33. Cf. Marx 1928, 211. 34· On Gripus's speech, cf Hunter I985, 140-41; Slater I99I, 22. For a more serious reading of the scene, see Konstan 1983, 83 - 85. Riemer (1990, 159 - 61) presents a cogent argument that the entire role of Gripus is an addition by PlaUtLtS to his Greek original. 35· The dialogue-prologue is almost certainly original to Plautus, as Luxuria says that Plautus gave her and Inopia their names (8-9). cr. Abel 1955,24; Lefevre I995, 80-87,120; and colltra, Hunter 1980, 226. 36. Cf. Stein 1970, 7.

NOTES TO PAGES 75 -HI

1.13

37. On the similarities bet\veen CJ.to J.nd MegJ.ronides, see Benz 1990; Lefevre 1993,181-88; 1995, 139-45· 38. Livy's LucreriJ., for eX3mple, kills herself even though she is innocent of wrongdoing becJ.use she does not want other uncluste women to live with her as an eX3mple (1.5R. 10). Caesar divorced his \vife even though she was prob3bly nOt guilty of the sexual crime for which she W3S charged, saying that his wife mUst be above suspicion (Plut. Cal's. 10.6). 39. On plays performed in the formll, just below the Capitoline, see C!upter 7. 40. E.g., AIil. 575: "Scclcdms: numquid nunc alind me vis? Pcrip!ectoIllCIIlIs: Be Ille noveris" (" Sceledms: You don't want anything else of me, do you? Pcrip!cctoIlICIIIIS: Yes, that you don't know me"). C( Hough 1945, 283-84. 41. On the Pbutine nature of this passage, sec Fraenkel 1960, 177-80. On the loiterers (Latin swrme), see Corbett 1986,27-43. 42. On the degree to which P!autus has altered the Greek original ofLysiteles' speech, see Fraenkel 1960, 1.13; Anderson 1979, 336-39; Zagagi 1980, 90-IO.~; Lefevre 1995,94-95. 43. Asyndeton combined with inconcinnity (mpa.'\: IlFllrl/S illJlidllS joined \'lith plural verbs, 286; mpe tmhe,.filge !Ilte, \vith no grammatical connection to the Surrounding words, 291). 44. Philto also jokes that the C3puans, always known for their effete \vay oflife, are passive homosexuals: paticlltia can mean both "ability or willingness to endure" and "submission to sexu31 intercourse" (OLD, s.v.). 45. The theatrical reference is probably Plautine r3ther than an importation from Philemon. Cf Slater 1985a. On the metatheatrical effect of this scene, c( Lefevre 1995, 103 -4· 46. C£ Anderson 1979, 343· 47. SdtulIl collsifill/II (764, cf. AI/Jph. 506; Bllcch. 209; PSC1/d. 748), graph icc (767, cf. Persa 306, 464, 843), s}'cop/wllta (815, cf. Amph. 506; Asill. 546; Bacc/1. 764; Pasa 325; POCII. 376, 425, 654; Pselld. 527, 572, (72). 48. On Charmides, see Anderson 1979, 339-40; Muecke 1985, 184· 49. Cf. Stein 1970, II. 50. C£ Pena 75-76: "sed sumne ego stultus, qui rem curo publicam, / ubi sint magistratlls, quos curare oporte3t?" ("But isn't it foolish for me to worry about public 3£[1irs, when there are magistrates \vhose job is to worry about such things?"). On Plautus's expJ.I1sion of Stasimus's speech, sec Fraenkel 1960, 146-50; Hunter 19RO, 227-30. 51. Vctcrcs mores (StJ.simllS, 1028; Megaronides, [alltiqui //Jorcs J, 73 -74; Philto, [morcs lI/aiOf/IIII], 295, [1IIorcs autiqui], 297), mores l/1a!i (Stasimus, 1029, 1O.~o; MegJronides, 30, 33; Philto, 286,531), 1IJorcs (Stasimus, 1032, 1037, 1044; Megaronides, 28; Philto, 284, 299), plIbliCIIS (Srasimus, 1046, 1057; Megaronides, 38, 220; Philto, 287, 331, 548), .fidcs (Stasimus, 1048; Megaronides, 27, 117, 128, 153), .F1/gi (Stasimus, TO I 8; Megaronides, I 18; Phil to, 320, 32 I). 52. Rose (1924, 156) proposed that Stasimus could not have had access to J. fidl Athenian talent, and that he mcans the much less valuable Sicilian or South Italian talent. Given what Stasimus said earlier about his pilfering of Lesbonicus's coffers, however (413), it seems quite likely that Stasimus did have that much money at his disposal. The rest of Rose's argument, that tillentlllll alone in Plautus meJ.IlS a South Italian rather than an Athenian talent unless the context makes clear that J.n Athenian talent is meant, is not convincing. C( Lefevre 1995, 79· 53. Slater 1987, 268.

NOTES TO PAGES 82-88

2I4

54. If Grat\vick (1981), followed by Slater (1987), is correct, Charmides compares Sr;}simus to the. tid,e chara.ct.cr ~fPlautus's o\vn C1I1wlio (Grat.wick reads Cllf(/Ifill for the m;muscnpts g1llgll!1O 111 bne ID16). Thc echo docs not Imply, howevcr, that Channides gives an endorsement of Stasi mus's words (PI1(C Slater). 55. C£ POCll. 845-46, where Milphio responds aside to Syncerastus, who C0111pbins about the evil goings-on in the pimp's house: "proinde habet orationem, qUJsi ipse sit frugi bonae, / qui ipsus hercle ignaviorem potis est [1cere Ignavi3m" ("You know, he speaks as ifhe himself wcre worth something, but by Hercules he himself could make Sloth herself more slothful"). 56. Though as Stein (1970, 8) and Lefevre (1995, 93) point out, Calliclcs docs break his promise to Channides when he tells Megaronides about the hidden treasure. 57. Lefevre (1995, 61-123) makes a strong case that the roles of fvlegaronides and Philto are additions by Plautus to his Greek original. Riemer (1996, 28-132) is inclined to attribute Philto and Megaronides (in 3 much smaller role) to Philemon's play, but he makes an even stronger case that the entire Sycophant scene is Plautine. The othcr passages cited in my 3rgument-the prologue, Lysiteles' speech, Stasimus's framing of the debate between Lesboniclls and Lysiteles, and Srasimus's moralizing monologue-3re creJ.tions original to Plautus or VJst expan~ sions of passages in Philemon's 'Thcsl1IIros. For less ironic readings Of'l'i-iIlIIllIIlI1IS, see \Vright 1982, 519-20; Segal 1987,214-26.

CHAPTER 5 I. See especi311y Taladoire 1956, 13 S - 41; Barchiesi 1969, 127-29; Wright 1975; Petrone 1983, 5-6,64-74; Slatcr 1985b, 118-46; Barsby 1995; Sharrock 1996. 2. On the importance of the bets in PSCW!OIIlS, and the likelihood that Plautus added them to his Greek original, sec Gorler 1983; Lefevre 1997, 23 -27. C( Lefevre 1977. 3. C£ Petrone 19R3, 09· 4. E.g., by Frete 1929-30,289; and Primmer 1984, IR-19. 5. See especially Conr3d 1915; Duckworth 1952,98-101; Paratore 1959; Beare I964, 212-13; Questa 1970, 210-13· 6. Lilt. 20. Cf. Donat. Dc co1l1oedia 8. I I; Wille 1967, 22. 7. On the monologues, cf. Petrone 1983,64-74. 8. Petrone 1981, 113. 9. Cf. Fraenkel 1960, 142, 414. 10. Cic. Q Rosc. 7.20. Cf. Garton 1972,169-88. 11. Cf. Dohm 1964,139-54, and Lowe 1985, on the extent to which Plautus prob3bly expanded the cook scene he found in his Greek original. Lefevre (1997, 69-76) has argued that the Greek original of Pseudo!lIs had no cook. Gowers (1993, 93-107) 3nd Hallett (1993) propose that the cook, like Pseudolus, is a metaphor for Plautus himself. 12. Thus when Pseudolus first hears Callipho speak, he exclaims, "lepidum senem" 435. Cf. Sharrock 1996, 164. 13. For parallel sets of friends, cf. Bacch., Epid., lvlcrc., lV[osfcli., and 'JUn. 14. On the pileI' scene, cf. K\vintner 1992. 15. On Simia as performer, cf. Slater I985b, 136-40. 16. Cf. Epid. 666-74; IVlostcll. 1064-1115. 17. Cf. ./lsill. 727; 11-1/c. 219; Pacuvius TRF 366-75.

NOTES TO PAGES

88-~7

215

F 18. On IIwgnifiClis as a word describing perfornunce, see Slater 1985b, 122-23. Slater is \\Tong, I think, to suggest that the \vord implies a criticism. 19. See Usencr 1913, 377-80; Kelly 1966, 21-23; Lintott 19M;, 8-]0. 2.0. GlIltorcs is a reference both to the cluntlikc nature ofj1agitdfio or O((Clltmio and to the chanting or singing of actors. On the connection ber-ween probitas (" excellence") and (~[1lCilllll ("duty"), see I-Icllcgonarc'h 197 2 ,286. 2. [. Leo nnnecessarily brackets these lines. 22. For pocta in Plautus meaning "playwright," c£ Capt. I033; Cos. r,s, 861:

Cure. 591; "'IIcII. 7· 23. C£ Petrone 1981, 114· 24. The Latin has a pun dependent

011

the word ballista: "missile" (cf Jocelyn

1990 ,5- 0 ).

25. C£ Slater I9SSb, 132 n. 20. Leo unnecessarily brackets the line. 20. Cf Morel 1964, 377-81; Dunn 1984, 58-59· 27. Elsewhere PlaUtllS uses the phrases de capite (OIlIitia (AliI. 700) and capiti (OlIIitia (lhlc. 819), but there the phrases are merely met:lphors for important decisions about the speakers to be made on or off the stage. Ballio's addition of (clltl/riata to ((llllitia makes much stronger the allusion to a specific Roman assembly that decided cases. Cf. Mommsen 1886, 357-58; T;:rylor !906, 2-3· 28. Lindsay's tcxt. 29. Ritschl (1845, 296) proposed plausibly that Pseudolus invites the audience to a performance on the next day. Note the contrast with the similar passagc at the end of Rlldells. There DaC1110nes says that he will invite the spectators to dinner if they come back in sixtcen years, emphasizing the promise's impossibility rather than suggesting a possibility. . . 30 . Thc date is revealed by the play's didascalia, or list of productIOn mformation, one of only two that survive from Plautus's plays (the other is fi'0111 SticflllS, produced in 200). The date given for the dedication is April 191; but as the Roman calendar \vas four months out of sync at this time, the actual date \vould have been in late 192 (Drury 1982, B08). 31. Veyne 1976, 419-21; Morgan !990, 27-29; Gruen 19~2, rRR-97· It is not clear what role theatrical presentations usually played at pnvately sponsored llldi such as votive games, triumphal games, and funeral games (see Gruen 199 2 , 195-97). 32. As they do in the annalistic notices preserved in Livy (e.g., 27. 0 . 19, 31.5 0 .2 , 32 .7. 1 4). 33. Cf. Millar 1984,12; Gold 1987,41. 34. Gruen (1992, 194) argues that the colldJl({orcs are "contra~tors or ~ub­ contractors, such as the c/wfIlgi, \vho had responsibility for the partlcuIars ot the production." Gruen's argument, that "the proposition that aediles who ?resi~ed over the event were placed last in the roster and given a vague desIgnatlOll strains credulity," is not convincing. The condll((ores are in fact at the end of a crescendo of importance. After the generic "me and you" (cf. I\;lell. 2), the speaker begins again \.vith the company, then builds to the leaders of the company.(though, as Gruen snggests, these need not be masters of sIaves, the name dOl/WillS docs suggest a position of authority; cf. 'I'LL 5.1.1915; Jory 1966,.103; Dumont 19 87, 520 - 22 ), then to thc magistrates who hired the company and Its leaders. The n~n:e w'ill be clear enough. Note also the possible allusion later in Asil/aria (124) to a SClpio presiding over the games at which that play was performed (see Chapter 2, note 26).

NOTES TO PAGES 97-106

~z~

210

35· Within this context, PlautLlS'S several parodic allusions to SCI/allis in the plavs would all be taken in good fun. Cf. Hoffillann 1987. On scnatorial domination ~f the theatrical flldi, see Gruen 1992, 22! -22. ]<). Gruen! 990, 09-72. 37· Cf. Briscoe 198 I, 275· As Briscoe points out, Scipio's colleague in the con~ sulship, Manius Acilius, if he was still in Rome (Livy's text contradicts itself re~ garding the date of his departure for Asia), would also have a claim to dedicate the temple: he was about to lead an army to Asia against Antiochus, and the Magna Mater had come from Asia. Briscoe suggests that Iunius may have been chosen as a compromise between the two consuls' claims. 38. This scenario does not require that we accept H. H. Scullard's theory of a competition bet\veen a Scipionic faction and other groups running throughout the first decades of the second century (1973, 75-189). If, hmvever, there is some truth in Scullard's proposal, it is probably not \vithout significance that according to Scullard, M. Iunius finds himself elsewhcre aligned with the anti~Scipionic faction (ibid., I R4). 39· For the political autonomy of poets in Pbutus's day, see Gruen 1990, 79123; Goldberg 1995, 31-33, 111-34. 40. On the importance of the Magna Mater, sec Gruen 1990, 5-33; Burton 1996. On the temple, and performances there, see I-Janson 1959b, 13 - 16; Richard~ son 1992, 242.

CHAPTER 6 1. Middle Comedy: Reinhardt 1974; Hunter 1987. South Italian farce: Stewart 1958; Chiarini [980. Tragedy: Lefevre 1982; Slater 1990. Steidle [979 suggests that Plautus added the report ofHeracles' birth to a play ofNc\v Comedy. 2. Cf Niebergall 1937, 25. Caecilius's Aetlzcrio or Acthrio (CRF 4) may have in~ eluded gods, but it was almost certainly written after the death of Plautus. 3· E.g., Ariadllc, Armol'll/ll Jlldicil/lIl, A1ars),a, Sisyphlls. Cf. CRF, pp. 391-92; Frassinetti 1967, 9,13. 4· Hottemann 1993, 93 -96. 5· Cf. Costa 1965, 91; Wright 1974,130, n. 9. Segal (1987, 171-91) argues that the play offers a Satumalian inversion of the important Roman ideal of feminine chastity. 6. Cf. Cebe 1966,67-69; Jocelyn 1966, 101; Liebeschuetz 1979, 1-4; Tatum 1993,13-14. 7· Cf Gulick 1890; Tolliver 1952; Hanson 1959a; Cebe 1966, 70-71. 8. Early influence of Greek mythology: see especially Wissowa 19 I 2, 47-52; Altheim 1938, 247-55; Latte 1960, 213-31, 264-65; Dumczil 1970, 2:441-56; Radke 1987, 3 I-57; Wiseman 1989, 131-36. Explanations: AliI. 555-57, 559 (Eu~ clio explains allusions to Argus and Pirene), Pocn. 443-44 (MiJphio explains an al~ lusiol1 to Oedipus), Pselld. 199-201 (Ballio explains the £lte of Dirce). Brooks (1981, 2-3, 76-82) argues that most of Plamus's mythological allusions were drawn from contemporary tragedy. Cf. Latte 1960,265 n. 1. 9· Auxiliul1l, for example, is put out that the lcna who spoke before him has re~ vealed part of the plot (Cist. 149-53). Cf. the gently humorous portrayal of Pan in the prologue of Menandcr's Dyscofos. 10. Cf. Bailey 1932, 130; Niebergall 1937, 33; Tolliver 1952, 54-55 (though she exaggerates the impiety here and elsewhere in Plautus); DUI1lczil 1970,2:492.

NOTES TO PAGES

I06- [10

21 7

__________________....~..................______s

q i

II. Compare the insistent theatricality of medieval religious dn.mJ, on which sec Kolvc 1966, 8-32; Goldman I~J75, 77-80. 12. C£ Fanti1J.l1l 1973, 198. 13. E.g., .ods/II. 316,474; Bacel!. 147,463; Cas. 41 I; ivfcl/. 249, 977; hIiI. 547, SS.1-; iHostcfl. 858, 860; Pcr.1'il 36[; II-lie. Sq. 14. On the analogous situation ill Captipi of a slave playing a free man playing a slave, c£ Segal 1987, 2T2. 15 ..Mil. 901, 902, 915, 919, ! [39; POcll. II 10; c£ Slater 1990, 106. 16. Cf Apollo in Ennius JI6-ISJocc1yn (pace Ribbeck IS75, J48). r 7. The manuscript reading tmgirocolllocdia, abzmdoned by almost all editors, is defended by Ussing (1875-92,1:239-40) and Scidensticker (1982,21). rS. On tragicomedy as it has developed since Giambattista Guarini's COllljJwdio della pocsia tmgiwlIJica (160 I), see espccially Guthke 1966; I-Erst ! 984; Dutton 1986; Sha\vcross 19R7. 19. Cf. Stc\vart 1958, 360-61. 20. "Nunc de Alcumella ut rem telleatis rcctius" ("Now so that you may understand bettcr about Alcul11cna," ITo); "nunc ne hunc ornatUl1l vas meum admiremini" ("Now don't be surprised at this costume I am wearing," 110). 21. The meaning of tom!lIs, literally a "little knot," is not clear here. Cf OLD, s.v. 22. On the accompanied and unaccompanied scenes of AlIlphitrl/o, cf Dupont

19 R7· 23. This scene is largely, if not completely, oribrinal to Plautus (Milch 1957, 16809; Fraenkel 1960, 21, 9R, 171-72; Lerevrc !982, 8-13). 24. Slater 1990, 109· 25. Cf. Ennius 8 Jocelyn (patriotism); Ennius 9, 153-54, T65, 381 Jocelyn (battle reports); Fraenkel 1912, 38-39; 1960, 333-35; Leo 1912, 134; Hcrrmann 1948, 3T9-21; Galinsky 1966,204-6; Slatcr T990, T09 n. 18. As Slater points out, the speech has a "tragic" effcct, whether or not Sosia's words also parody thc language of inscriptions (Marollzeau 1932, 272), requests for triumphs (Hall~in 1948; cf. Cugusi 1991, 298 - 302), or epic (Lelievre 1958; Oniga 1985), or recall a spcciflc recent battle or campaign (Janne 1933; Traina 1954; Galinsky 1960, 223 -25). 20. Cf. Hunter 1987, 293. 27. Cf Ennius 188-91 Jocelyn; Accius TRF TOO, 566-67, 691. 2R. Cf. Naevius TRF 45 (from LyclI/gus): "ut videam Volcani opera haec fial11mis flora fieri." 29. Cf. Naevius TR.. F 46-47 (also from LycwgJ/s): "proinde hue Dryante regcm prognatum patre, / Lycurgul1l eettel" The two rcminiscences of LyclI/gus so close togcther may reflect deliberate parody of that play in this scene. 30. For the joke ofa slave speaking of his parcnts or his ancestors, ef. Cas. 418; }dil. 373. See also Chapter 10. 31. For tragic praise of IJirtus, c£ Ennius 254 -57 Jocelyn. 32. Cf. Chiarini 1980, 120-21; Perelli 1983; Phillips 1985; Slater [990, 113. A l1lodern analogy for this scene is the sccne in Frmll)' Girl where Fanny Brice sings her tender bridal song with a pillO\v tucked under her dress. 33. 700-701,707,718-19,723-24,738-40,775-76,784-80, SOL, 814, 82529, S43, 845-46, 855-5 6 . 34. On the force of l1C trdllsigmn here, see Garcia-Hern{l11dez T9S4· 35. On J llpiter's status as an actor here, see Dupont 1976, 135 - 36. Dupont even proposes that ill slIjJcriorc ... habito ecnaw!a refers to the actor's own upstairs room in a Roman apartment building.

NOTES TO PAGES

110-121

yi. Cf. Lefevre ISl82, 25; Slater 1990, 114. 37. For the ubiquity and predictability of the serullS ClIlTCIIS, c( Tercncc [-Jallt. 37; Duckworth 1936,93; 1952, 106-7; Petrone 1983, 166-70. 38. Cf. Dupont 19R7, 52. 39. Note that ':Jupitcr" is again associated with the cbss hOlllilles, human beings. 40. Elsnvhcre 111 PlautllS, parasites deliver thcir own versions of the sel"lJllS W/TC1lS spcech (Capt. 778-R35; Cmc. 280- .104), and one of the frequent tasks of parasites in New and Roman comedy is to assist lovers (cf DaIllon 1997,31-32). Ivlercury had earlier made an unsuccessful attempt at playing the parasite's role (5 I 5 -2 r). On Mercury as parasite, sce Guilbert 1963. 41. Reference is made to a roof on the house of Peri pIe eta menus (jHil. 173), but there is no suggestion that the roof appears onstage; nor need we assume that the roof is visible whcn Sceparnio refers to roof tiles lost to the storm in Rlldclls (S 3,s8). Characters may have appeared. in a second-story window or balcony of Thais's house in Terence's El/IlI/ch 783. Cf. Loitold 1957, 71, 209 11. 255; Stewart 1958, 370-71. At least one tragcdy fro111 during or shortly after PlalltUS's lifetimc whose title has survived almost certainly cnded with an appearance on the roof: Ennius's jHcdm (cf. the end of Euripides' !UcdcII). 42. Line 1006, and the next two lines, in which Mercury cxplains what he will do, switch unexpectedly back to unaccompanied iambic senarii. As the lines are redundant, they may be an interpolation (so Ussing I S75 -92, 1:327). The switch to iambic senarii, hO\vever, is effective, for it encourages a close link between Mercury and the audicnce before he performs the dousing of Amphitruo for them. 43· For a plausible reconstruction of the lost scenes, see Fantham 1973. 44· Aeseh. Sept. 422-36; Soph. Ant. 127-37; OC 1318-19; Eur. Supp. 496-99; PhoCII. 1172-86. For Jupiter's thunderbolt in tragedy contemporary \vith Plautus, cf. Naevius TR.. P TO, 12 (fi'om Dllllae, where it is quite possible that Jupiter himself also appcared; cf. Ribbeck 1875, 55). 45· C£ Fraenkel 1912, 39, 65; 1960, 335; Lefevre 1982, 36-37; Deuling 1994, 16-21. 46. Nixon's translation. 47- Cf. Tiresias's role in Sophocles' ./lllt~gOIlC and Oedipus I}I/WI/IOS, and Euripides' Bilcr//(rc and Phocllissac.

CHAPTER 7 1. Cf. Lefevre, S6rk, and Vogt-Spira 1991,77-79. 2. E.g., PW·11 7,~5 and passim (cf. Scafllro 1993); POCII. passim (on the similarities between CII/mlfo and POC/II/!IIS, see Zwierlein 1990, 272-80); Rlld. 866-67,128185; I;-/lc. 76[-63. .,. On the absence ofa prologue, cf. Fantham 1905, 85. 4· Cf. Zwicrlein 1990, 20I. 5· On the play's Roman allusions, cf. Deschamps 1980 - 8 T, T 51 -77. 6. 30-]2 (a pun on testis ["witness" and "tcsticlc"l), 35-38 (reference to laws on sexual morality), 47-48 (metaphor drawn from legal language of lending and borrmving [lIJlItIl0Il1jt/cl'I"e]), r62-64 (metaphor drawn from appearance in court 011 secll~ity lUi1(IiIllOlliIl11l]), 174 (metaphor drawn from legal transfer of ownership [aba!/CIwrc]), 212 (manumission [FilldictlllJ1 parare]). 7· C£ Us sing 1875-92, 2:317, 539; Warnecke 1927; Petrone 1983, 37 n. 23. H. C£ Wilcs 1991, 59-60. 9· Leo 1913, 146; Zwierlein 1990, 242-43.

NOTES TO PAGES

121-12S1

21 9

10. Corbett 1986, 27~43. Petrone (r9R3, 170-75) proposes that the Gmcci pa/lidti and the slaves of the swrmc are actors, and that Curculio'5 threat to force fr0111 the Gmcci paflidti a crcpiws polelltarills ("barley~meal fart") is an allusion to the Roman practice of eating porridge. The effect on the audience would be the saBle '\vhether Plautus created the passage himself from scratch (Fraenkel 1960, 123 -27) or derived most of it from his Greek origillJJ (Csapo 1989, 150-54). 11. On Plautus's use of tmpczita and mgclltarills, see Shipp 1955, 139-41; Andreall 1968,468-77,488-89; Giangrieco Pessi 1981, 51-97. 12. There is no need to follow Leo in deleting lines 377-79. 13. F. Coarelli in Steinby 1993, .110 - I I. Cf. Milphio's description of the adllo_ cati hired by Agorastocles as colllitiales lIleri (Poell. 584), and Agorastoc1es' request that these same adFocali meet him ill COlllilio (POCII. 807). q. Cf. N. Purcell in Steinby 1995, 332: "Thefol"lllil ROIIII1IIIIIII was synonymous with legal justice." 15. Nixon's translation. 16. C£ Schutter 1952, 63-64. The connection between Curculio's rogitdtiollcs and the la'\vs of 193 was first made by Teuffel (1889, 325). Even if, as Schutter suggests, the reference to rogitatiollcs is insufficient to date Curwlio to 193 R.C.E., Curclllio's \vords almost certainly refer to contemporary Roman controversies. Livv records that in 192, the curule aediles gained enough money from fines levied against moneylenders to place gilded four-horse chariots and t'\velve gilded shields on the Capitolium (35.41.9-10). Andre (1983) connects tbe concern over moneylending in CIII"Clllio and other plays with a shortage of credit in the early second century. Cf. Billeter 1898, 153-54; Gruen 1990, 146-48; Lefevre, Stark, and VogtSpira 199 I, 102 - 3. 17. On the speech, see Moore 1991a, and the bibliography cited there. Cf. also Dumont 1987, 50T-2, 585. 18. On the authenticity of this line, unjustifiably placed in brackets by Leo, see Moore 1991a, 354~55. The cllOraglis interrupts himsclfat the end ofline 484 before he reaches the verb on which depend pistorclIl, /a/liwII, hmmpicelll, and the assumed antecedents of the two 1l1is. I have altered the punctuation accordingly. 19. This line has been justifiably excised by almost all editors. See Moore 1991a, J 58. 20. The meaning of {wlapallta is not certain. C£ Owens 1986, 172; Moore 1991a, 361 n. 61. 21. Cf. Capt. 57; PSClld. TORT-R3; Ter. Ad. 188-89· 22. C( Ussing 1875-92, 2:565; Bosscher 1903, 76. 23. Cf. Capt. 58; CUfe. 633; iHil. H7; TeL EIIII. 31, 38; Cic. Amic. 9!';' 24. See Moore 1991a, 348. C£ Hill 1989, II. 25. Cf. Bacci!. 117; Epid. 319; Pseudo 415; Tme. 63, 82; TeL Haut. 1034; Ussing 1875-92,2:5 6 5. 26. Nearly all commentators and translators have assumed that the scorti1 here are female, but the TLL (5.2.1543, lines 11-12) suggests that s(Ort(/ cxoleta, like exolcti elsewhere in Latin literature, are male. That the TLL is correct is confirmed by Poell. 17, where the prologlls modifies SCOftllll1 exoletllll! \vith a masculine adjective. C( Abel 1955, 146 n. 559; Adams 1983, 322. On male prostitutes elsewhere in Plautus, sec Lilja 1983, 30. 27. Cf Cist. 375; Jordan 1880,130; Amatucci 1904, 331. 28. DClZ. 45.1; de Zulueta 1953, 149. Cf. Kaser 1968, 37-38. 29. Coarelli 1985, 149-50; Andreau 1987a, 159. Richardson (1979, .210-11) suggests that when CII/mlio was first performed, the t(/hefl/dC mgclltariac ("bankers'

NOTES TO PAGES 129-134

220

shops") on the north side of the forum bad not 'yet been rebuilt after the fire of .21 0 (Livy 26.27.2-4), and temporary tabef//(/c were in the basilica itself Cf. Gros 1983, 65 n. 13· On the identity of the basilica, see Gaggiotti 1985. 30. So Bosscher 1903, 84. Alldreau's objection (198730, 16T) that the chon~l!lIs would not refer to a professional class such as mgmtarii in such a vague way is unconvincing, given the vagueness of references throughout the passage. 31. E.g., Cas. 490-503, 719; ivIm. 208-13; 1\lcrc. 754; JVIostell. 66-67; Tl"llc. 740; TeL Ad. 117,964-65; Naevius CRF 50; Caecilius CRF 180. 32. See Chapter 3. Epidicus also jokes about sJ'm/;oli1e prepared for his shoulder blades when he fears a beating (Epic!. 125). 33. Cf. PhOflllio 339. That dinners provided with s}'mholae were not considered ordinary events in Rome even much later is evident in Biblia VlIlgata, Proverbs 23.21, where dmlfes s}'lIIbola is used for the Hebrew zolel, which means a frivolous squanderer or glutton. 34. On the identification of the fort/Ill il!fillllllll, see Ussing 1875-92, 2:566. 35. C£ Richardson 1992,68; H. Bauer in Steinby 1993, 226. 36. Paulus's Festus 40 L: "canalicolae forenses homines pauperes dicti, quod circa canales fori consisterent" ("Poor men who hang about the forum are called gutter dv~rellers, because they stand around the gutters of the fonlIn"). 37. Friedrich 1891, 711; Bosscher 1903, 86; Corbett 1986, 31. 38. Asill. 489; Bacch. 267; iHeli. 520; Psclld. 1173; Tmc. 299. 39· Huclsen 1909, 149-53; Johnson 1927, 48-53; Gioffredi 1943, 268-71; \Velin 1953,75 -96; Richardson 1973,223 -24; Small 1982,79-82. For the history of the debate regarding the location of the praetors' courts, see Moore 199 la, 352 n.27· 40. Andreau (1968, 481 n. I; I9R7a, T61; 1987b, 335 n. 14) has suggested that those lending money here Jre not mgclltarii like Lyco, but moneylenders like the dallistac of Epidiws and i.Wostcllaria. Though Andreau is correct that Plautus distinguishes between moneylenders and mgClltarii, and he usually presents the mgclltarii as keeping money on deposit rather than lending money (Andreau, 1987a, 157-59; cf. Barlow 1978, 68-72), Plautus ignores the distinction in CI/fwlio, where Curculio accuses Lyco and all mgcntarii of destroying people withjlCllIls ("interest," 50S; mgelltllrii are also clearly lenders of money at Cas. 25). Nor is it likely that the tabcnwe Feteres, which were also called tabcl"llile mgclltllriac (Coarelli 1985, 142), lacked mgclltarii. C£ Frank 1933,206. 41. That qllibliS aedas male are mgclltarii seems more likely than that they are slave-dealers (pacc Harris 1980, 138 n. 90; Spranger 1984, (2). .p. De Robertis (1963, 57 ll. 25) argues that sese VCIlditll1lt is a scornful reference to manual workers. In Aliles g!orioslls, however, after Sceledrus sees Philocomasium in the arms of Pleusicles, he complains: "non ego possum quae ipsa sese venditat tutarier" ("I can't guard her when she sells herself," 312). The direct parallel, and a reference in a later writer to prostitutes on the Fiws TtISWS (pseudo-Acro ad HOL Sat. 2.3.228), suggests that Plautus speaks not of workers here, but of prostitutes. 4J· Cf. Lilja 198J, JO. 44. For the Romanness of Imlii in particular, see Fraenkel 1960, 124~25, 40813· Harl/spiccs are of Etruscan origin and therefore would be a Roman rather than a Greek phenomenon. Pliny's Jssertion (I-IN 18.107) that professional bakers did not v·/ork in Rome until the time of the Third Macedonian War (171-168 D.C.E.) is probably v·nong. If it is correct, the pistOl" here is a miller rather than a baker. C( Moore 1991a, 355 n. 37. 45· Pistorcs: Asill. 200, 709; Baccll. 781; Capt. 160-61; Epid. 121; 1\lostel1. 17;

NOTES TO PAGES

134~I36

221

" !

Pscud. 494; Trill. 407; Naevius eRF 114; TeL All. 199; Hmlt. 530; PflOfllJ. 249. Ldllii: Capt. SIS, 905; Epid. 199; Pseudo 197, 3:n; Trill. ,~07; Ter. EIIII. 257·

I-lmwpiccs: .Alllplz. 11]2; J\Iil. 093;

POCII.

403, 74°, 791, 1206, 1209; Naevim CRF

20 -2-1-; Ter. PllOnll. 709.

46. On the textual and intelvretivc problems in this line, see Moore I991a, 35 6 -5 8 . 47. Ibid., 357 n. 50; Richardson [99 2 ,406 . 4S. Cf Clpt. 489, where Ergasilus refers to a dishonest cartel of oil merchants on the Velabrnm. 49. Cf Gacro-iotti 19S,:;. 60. 50. Sa~l11de~'~ 1913, 93·~95. Cf. Staccioli 1901; N. Purcell in Steinby 1995,332. 51. Ussing [875-92,2:565; Huclsen 1909, 14; Duckworth 1955,59· ')2. Possible exceptions arc the fish market, \vbieb may have been obscured from vi~\V bv the basilica, the area behind the temple of Castor and Pollux (though the audien~e \.vould luve becn able to see the temple itself), and the Vebbrum, which mav have becn hidden behind the raiJcflwc FClcrcs. Also visible to many of the spectatl~rs over the back of the stage would be the Capitolium, referred to earlier (209). 53. Huclsen 1909, 5; Saunders 19 13, 95· 54. On the balconies, called hldCllialla, see Coarelli 1985, 146; Gaggiotti 19R5, 60; Richardson 1992, .175-76. 55. Cf. Trill. S58, where the Sycophant says of Megaronides, who hired him: "ipse ornamenta a chorago haec sumpsit suo periculo" ("He himself took this costume from the dlOragtls at his own risk"). S6. Cf Slater 1991, 3-8. 57. See especially Freyburger 1986,103-225; Non 1989,102-3; Owens 1994, 399-4 0 1.

CHAPTER 8 I. On the satirical nature of TiwtllclIllls, cf. Della Corte 1952, 21)0-88; Enk 1964; Grimal 1970,95-97; 1971-74, 540-43; Dessen 1977; Konstan 19 S3, T4264; Lefevre, Stark, and Vogt-Spira 1991, 189-99; and cOlilra, Broccia 1982, 157- 60. 2. Lefevre, however, proposes that the play may be modeled not on a Greek play, but on an Italian farce (Lefevre, Stark, and Vogt-Spira 1991, 17 8). 3. Cf. Fantham 1975, 50-52,63-66; Henry 1985; BrO\vn 1990. 4. Schuhmann [975,213-19; J(71), 101; Bradley 19H7, 147; Evans 199 1, 13942, 144· S. Galinsky 1969· So Leo 1913, 144; and Fraenkell960, T44-45. On the semantic distinction between /IIen.'fri."\: and scortlllll, see Adams 1983, 321-27. Note, however, tiut scortllll1 can be used of any prostitute, regardless of her pretensions, if the speaker wants to produce a more pejorative effect. . .. 7. Comic influence: Scafuro 1989, and bibliography cited there. HIstOrICIty of Hispala: Tierney 1947, Il6; PailleI' 19S8, 369; Gruen 1990, 64- 0 5. 8. Cf. the descriptions of the houses of the pimps Lycus (Poell. 831-44) and Ballio (Pseud. 173 -229)· 9. According to Bickford (1922, (0), Trl/wlcllllIS is 28%1 soliloquy. Only iV!em:ro r has a higher percentage of lines of soliloquy (3 [(Xl), and the figure for that phy meludes Charinus's long prologue. 10. So Dessen 1977, 148.

6.

NOTES TO PAGES 136-143

222

Lindsay's text. Leo rcads t //IlIlil.T. 12. Schutter 1952, 149; Enk 1953, 1:28-29. Cf Tatum 1983,209 n. 2. 13. Enk's text. 14. Tatum's translation. I5. Cf Lefevre, Stark, and Vogt-Spira 199[, 182. 16. Cf Schutter 1952, [50-51; Gruen 1990,129-33; Goldberg 1995, I I I . Because he is associated syntactically with militcs, I am inclined to identif)' Stratophanes' Homeronides as a miles glorioslts from a lost comedy. Frank (1939, 86-87) proposed that Plautus makes a topical allusion to Ennius, who described the exploits of Marcus Fulvius Nobilior, and who claimed to be a reincarnation of Homer (Lucr. 1. I 20 -26). Richard Thomas, in responding to an earlier version of my araument, proposed that Homeronides may be Livius AndronicllS, the first writer of Roman comedy (hence the first Rom~u~ to produce braggart soldiers) and, as a translator of the Odyssey, metaphorically a descendant of Homer. On the possible identities of Homeronides, cf Enk 1953, 2: 117-18. 17. On the Roman qualities of Pbutus's lIlilitcs gloriosi in general, see H;:msoll 1965,52-61; and colltra, Maurach 1966,677-78. I8. Phronesiull1 recognizes at the end of the monologue that Stratophanes has been speJ.king, but she does not recognize who he is; and neither she nor Astaphium appears to understand what he says. 19. Frayn 1984, 168. 20. C£ Dessen 1977, 152: "All of Rome's income fro111 business ventures in the city, rural wealth, and the spoils of war is being dissipated in the same unprofitable luanner. " 21. On the importance ofpanilllollia in the traditional Roman value system, see Moore 1989,133-34. 22. Cf Ramage 1960, (1)-70; 1973,29,33-34. 23· Schutter 1952, 151-52; Enk 1953, 1:30,2:173. 24. E.g., £1111.; Men. Salll.; Ter. Ad. Cf Men. Epit. and Ter. Hcc. 25. The last scene may also contain yet another conspicuous allusion to Italy, if we accept Schoell's emendation of line 942, which includes a reference to a Campanian. Cf. Enk 1953,2:211. 26. On Plautus's portrayal of women, see Leffingwell 1918, 39-56; Grimal 1970; Schuhmann 1975 and 1978; Petrone 1989; Perez Gomez 1990; Gerdes 1995. Cf RichEn 1984, on the importance ohvomen as an "out-group" in Roman satire. 27. Some examples for individual \-vomen: Asill. 16-24,43, R7, 893 -95,900901; Cas. 227, 353-54; Cislo 175; Epid. 173-80; iHcIJ. 127-34, II60; .iV/err. 76061; Rlld. 895-96, 1203-4; Trill. 42, 58-65. Women in general: Ali/ph. 831"); iHif. 185-94,456,464-65; POCII. 875-76, IT45; Rlld. II14. Prostitutes: Asill. 220-25; Bacch. 40; lvlostell. 190; cf. Ter. E11II. 931-33; 1-Iec. 756-57, 834. On Plautus's portrayals of wives, see Chapter 9. 28. E.g., £1111. 123 -26, 138 -40; Epid. 546; .A4il. 887-90; Pom. 2 IQ-3 1,240 -47, 1201-4; R..lId. 685-86. Cf Petrone 1977, 76-77. 29. See especially lvIi!. 1292-95; POCII. 210-15; Stich. 744-47; Livy 34.7.7-10. Cf. Wyke 1994, 136. 30. RCIIl bOllallJ is a plausible suggestion ofBuechcler for the manuscripts' hopelessly corrupt )"OJ/wvo. Schoell, who provided the correction of the manuscripts' ql/id to qui:; andfaciam tofacial, made the intriguing suggestion of ROI/wc lwfn'o-"llive in Rome"-for I"OlI1avo. The emendation has not \.von support (Enk proposes "si guis quid ob amorem animU5t f.1cere"; both Leo and Lindsay keep the Cnlx), and indeed, it seems unlikely that even Plautus would be quite so audacious about re1[.

NOTES TO PAGES [44-157

223

moving the pretense of a Greek setting. Still, Schoell's proposal is in keeping with the spirit of TfliW/ClltIlS, for if Phronesiul1l herself does not live at Rome, the pLl\" suggests that she and all the play's othcr characters have their equiv:llents in R01l1~, and that men like her lovers em be found among the spectators themselves. 3 I. The redundancy of an additional line, "spectatores, bene valetc, plalldite atque exurgite" (968), suggests that it is an alternate ending used in productions af. . ter Plautus's death (Enk 1953, 2:216).

CHAPTER 9 1. See Anderson 1979,334-35; and Riemer T992, 53 n. 16, on the probability that Plautus added these words against \vives to his Greek original. . 2. Cf. Caecilius CRF 163. Other statcments made by Plautinc char:lcters against individual wives: Asill. 19-24,43, H7, 8~)J-95, 900-90r; 111ell. 1160; hlerc. 76061; R..I/d. H95-96, [203-4· 3. E.g., Alii. 167-69; Epid. IHo; .!.Hil. 679-81; iHostell. 703-10. Cf Caecilius 144 -46. 4. Cf. Segal 1987, 23 -29· 5. Cf. Cas. 497-98; .j\;fcrc. 556-57; Rlld. 90S. 6. See Rogers 1966,200 ;md passim. For Aristophanes, cf. Taafe 1993, 54-55, 89, and passim. For Greek New Comedy, cf. Hunter 1985, 9I. For twentietbcentury American and British situation comedies, cf. Gray 1994, 46-57 and passim. Nor is mockery of wives a phenomenon only of Western comedy: it is, for example, a central thcme in:l number ofJapancse Kyogen plays (c.g., Kenny 1989, 49-52, 5 8 - 6 9). 7. Pomeroy 1975, 180-HI; Evans 1991, 26-33· 8. See Cato ORF 158; Schuhmann 1975,90-124, 200-208; 1976, 32; 1977; Evans 199 I, SO - IDO; Treggiari 1991, 329- 3 1. Stark (1990) argues that Plamus's 11:>:orcs datatae reflect not historical conditions, but the influence of popular farce. 9. Cf. Pomeroy 1975, ISS; Hallett 1984, 91-95; Dixon 1985; 1992, 71-79; Wiles 1989,41; Evans 199[, 17-20, 50-100. It has also been mggcsted (Veyne 1978,48; Hallett 1984, 211-43) that marriages in the Roman Republic tended to involve less mutual affection than is expected in most modern marriages. Cf. Bradley 1991, 6-8; and colltra, Treggiari [991,243-01; Dixon 1992,83-90. 10. On the events surrounding the repeal, see especially Pomeroy 1975, 180; Culham 1982; Hallett 1984, 229-30; Evans 1991, 10,63-64. IT. See Scullard 1973, 257; Astin 1~.J78, 25-26; Johnston 1980, 147; Briscoe 1981,39-40. Kienast (1954, 20-22), howcver, argues that Livy \"Tote the speech with Cato's speech before him. Cato later delivered a speech de vcstitu et vchiCIIlis (ORF93). C£ Wagner 1864,15-16; Evans [991,63. 12. Cato in a later speech expressed similar concerns about husbands unable to control wives with dowries (ORF 158). 13. Cf Schutter 1952, 21-22; Stockert 1983,136. 14. Cf Culham 1982, 790. 15. E.g., Harvey 1986, 300-3OT; Gruen 1990, 144-45. Megadorus also refers to dowered wives' carriages and purple earlier in the play, when he objects to his sister's suggestion that he marry a woman with a large dowry (168-69). The echoes of the debate would have the samc effect whether the AIIIl/laria was first produced shortly before or shortly after the law's repeaL 16. Catonian: Schuhmann 1975, 20R; Cugusi 1991,291-92. Included to please misogynists: Perelli r97R, 309. Cf. Evans 1991,64.

eRr

NOTES TO PAGES 157-[62

17. On the mysterious reference to the lIlifes illlprallslls (the soldier left without bislullch), see Fraenkel 1960, 130-31; Gabba 1979, ,pO-II; Rosivach 1989. 18. Cf.Johnston 1980, qS-49; Gruen 1990, 146. 19. Of the numerous passages in Plautus and Terence where a speaker says scquer!.' ("follow me") to his interlocutor and then leaves thc stage (e.g., lv/crc. 542; pcrsa 328; Poel/. 808), there are only three other places where the person ordered to follow speaks a monologue after the interlocutor has left. Two of these monologues are very short and would provide little delay (Capt. 766-67; Ter. Hec. 879So); before the third monologue, Epidicus warns Periphanes that he will not follow him yet (l::.j)id. 305). Cf. Hough 1940b, 46; Frost 1988, 14. 20. In fact, Syra does not necessarily disobey Eutychus's order to follow: as her entrance revealed (072-75), she is remarkably slow, so that it may just take her the time it takes to say her monologue to get in the door! Cf Leo 1912, 120 -21 . 21. Cf. Hunter 1985, 86-87. 22. For a far different perspective on the double standard roughly contemporary with Plautus, see Cato ORF 222. 23. The average length of Plautus's extant plays is approximately T05R lines (I have not counted the alter exitlls of PocllIdIlS). Unless Otto Zwierlein's extreme view regarding the amount of interpolation in thc extant plays is correct (see Z\,\lierlein 1990, 1991a; 1991b; 1992), the original average must have been considerably higher, as Alllphitrllo, AI/llliaria, Bacchidcs, and Cistellaria are all missing large portions. 24. On the similarities between Casilla and iV!crcatof, cf. O'Bryhim 1989, 85 - 87. 25· Cf. Forehand [973a, 240; Cody 1976, 454-61; Chiarini 1978, 119-20; Slater 1985b, 82-84, 93; O'Bryhim 1989, 96-T02; Beacham 1992,232 n. 20; Sutton 1993, 104-6. Tatum, however, argues that even as they laugh at Lysidamus, the spcctators feel a "wry affection for him" (1983, 89). For possible connections between Lysidamus and contemporaries of Plautus, see Hallett 1996. 20. While a portion of the prologue must postdate Plautus, as it refers explicitly to a revival, most of the prologue is probably authentic. See Leo 19! 2, 207 n. 2; Abel 1955, 55-61; MacCary and Willcock 1976, 97; and contm, Slater 1985b, 7074· 27· See Cody 1976, 461-76; Lefevre 1979; O'Bryhim 1989. 28. On the similarity between Clcostrata and other stock lIJatrolli1C such as Arte1110na in AS/Ilaria or the III1Jtrona in i.Hellacchllli, see Schuhmalln 1975, 90-ll0; Gerdes 1995, 49-52. 29· Cf. Treggiari 1991, 441. 30. Cf. Beacham 1992,94. Beacham's chapter on Casilla (86-[ T6) is a useful guide to staging throughout the play. 3 I. On the importance of wool-\vorking in the life of an ideal Roman matron, see Pomcroy 1975, 199-200; Tregbriari 1991, 243-44. 32. Ei foms ("Get out of my house!") is a Roman formula for divorce. Cf Rosenmcycr 1995, 206 -7, 212-13. For similar sentiments, see JV!CII. 120 -22, 784802; and the debate between Adriana and Luciana in Shakespeare's Ca/lledy af Erron 2. I. 33· Cf. Treggiari 1991, 29. 34. Slater argucs that lines 151-62 are a monologue, and that thcy allow Clcostrata to "bring her case for sympathy directly to the audience" (191)5b, 157). It seems more likely, howcver, that Cleostrata addresses most, if not all, of those lines to Pardalisca, who follows her out of the house, and whom she addresses explicitly in 148.

NOTES TO PAGES 163 -170

225

35. It is not cle:1r how much of Lysidamus's monologue Cleostrata actually he:1rs: she does not react explicitly to anything he S:1ys (cf. the similar situation ;t AIC11. 562-603). Since she announces his entrance before he begins speaking (213), however, she is clearly onstage watching through his entire monologue. 36. While Cleostrata only learns the details of Lysidanms's plot several scenes later, she knows from the play's beginning that Lysidamus \.vants Casina for himself (58,150, 196,243,266,276-78). On the role of this extra knmvledge in drawing the audience's sympathies toward Cleostrata, cf. Slater 1985b, 74-75· 37. Lindsay's text. 38. Cf. Lefevre 1979,327; Anderson 1993, 55-58. 39. On the progress of Chalinus's r:1pport, see Chapter 2. 40. Sec Hiatt 1946, 65. For a character overhearing another character's mono_ logue from ofEtage, cf. iHercator 477. 41. Cf Ducbvorth 1952, 107· 42. Williams 1958b, 17-T9; O'Bryhim 1989, 89-90. Williams proposes that the lines here are spoken not by Pardalisca, but by Cleostrata herself. 43. Cf Petrone 1983, 11-12; Slater 1985b, 88. 44. The request makes Lysidamus seem like a slave who fears punishment (cf iHostell. 354-61). He goes on to suggest that he should imitate a fugitive slave, and to fear for his shoulder blades, as slaves often do (cf Asill. 315; Epid. T25; Pena 32; POClI. 153; Trill. 1009). He then follows the formula with which clever slaves end othcr comedies: he seeks forgiveness using an advocate (Myrrhina), and he promiscs that he will be subject to punishment ifhe does wrong again (cf. the end of lvlostellm·ia). Cf. Forehand 1973a, 249; Slater 1985b, 89-90. 45. Cf. Schutter 1952, 49-50; MacCary J.nd Willcock 1976,207; Slater T985b, 91-92. The effects ofthc allusion proposed here would be thc SJ.me whether, as most scholars have argued, Myrrhina's IJIIIlC Baa/we 1l1l11(]c 'lldlllif means thJ.t the rites have already been suppressed, or, as Gruen proposes (1990, lSI n. 145), she means only t1ut the rites J.re not onsragc J.t this moment. 46. MacCary 1975. 47. C[ Hallett 1989, 69· 4H. The tattered state of the manuscript bet"\.veen lines 899 and 989 docs not appear to have affected the number of lines significantly. 49. Cf Forehand 1973a, 251. 50. Compare the epilogue of TnlCl/fcllfllS, which cJ.pped an alliance bet\veen lovers and spectators that Iud pervadcd the play. Here, the original alliance betwecn spectators and Lysidamtls has eroded in the course of the play, only to be ironically assumcd at play's end. 5T. So ForehJ.nd 1973a, 254. Cf Slater 1985b, 93·

CHAPTER

10

r. Lack of physical distinction: cf Snowden 1983,70-71; Thompson 1989, J 220. Ivlanumission: cf Hopkins 1978, I I 5 - I H; Finley 1980, 97-98. 2. Cf Buckland 1908, 1-3; Watson 1987, 7-R. 3. BrJ.cUey 1994,27· 4. The evidence is collected by Bradley (1994, 122-24, 142-45, and passim). See also Westermann 1955, 77; Freyburger 1977; Finley 19S'0, 117-20; Wiedemann ]981,61-77; Patterson 1982, 89-92 and passim. 5. Philosophy: see especially Davis 1966,62-63,66-82; Guthrie 1969, 15560; Vogt 1975, 14; CambiJ.no 1987; Brunt 1993, 351-56; Garnsey 1996, 04-72 and NOTES TO PAGES 171-182

passim. Euripides and Nc\v Comedy: see especiJ.lly Dumont 1987, 524-75 (for a dif]:crent vicw of slaves in New Comedy, sec Wiles 1988a). Lack of abolitionist movement or serious reform: sec especially Treggiari 1969, 241-43; 'ilvetz 1988, lIS-IR; Bradley 1994, 134-40; Garnsey 1990, 237-40 and passim. 6. Cf. Vogt 1975, 129; BrJ.dley 19R7, 28-29. 7. C[ Bradley 19H7, 38-39. 8. Cf Garton 1972, 171-72; Dumont 19H7, 523 -24. 9. See especially D(~. 1.5.4.2. Cf Watson 1987, 8; Bradley 1994,25-26. 10. Sail. Cat. 35.3. I-]ol1csta)'c is used with the pluL11 hOllorilJ//s at Pall. L1t. 3.1.3 and 3.25.5. I I. Leo's deletion of this linc is unnecessary. 12. Pcrsa 390; Psclld. 581. Cf TUII. 346. Plautus uses l'irtlltc dC1I1II ct lIIaionllll I/O$tflllll elsewhere only at Alit. 166, where Megadonts is addrcssing his sister, Eunomia. 13· Notc Aristophontes' response when Hegio spcaks of Tyn(,hrus's bther: "quem patrem, qui servos est?" ("What do you mean, 'father'? I-Ie's a slave!" 574). Cf Dumont 1987, 415 -16. On the importance of"natJ.l alieI1J.tion" in defining the slavc, see Patterson 19R2, 35-76. 14· C( Konstan 1983, 70; Dumont 1987, 592. 15. Had Tyndarus been a Roman, he would not legally be a slave, having been kidnappcd. Cf Watson 1987, 20-21. 16. The author of the Greek original of Captiui was clearly also interested ill the question of slavcry (Grimal 1969; Kraus 1977; Konstan 1983, 57-72), but mllch of the meta theatrical manipubtion of slave roles is probably original to Plautus. 17· See Bieber 1961, 155-56; Questa 1982; Wiles 1991, 133-·10, 150-87. 18. AlIlph. 141; lHil. 151. Cf Fantharn 1973, 199. 19. Lowe (1991, 35-36) makes a strong case that Philocrates and Tyndarus did not appear onstage at the beginning ofPlautus's Greek original. 20. E.g., Amph. 280; Asill. 301, 342, 549-50; .Mostcll. 1065. C( AI/f. 347; Pena 21-22; RI/d. 476-77. 21. Bacch. 862; Epid. 722-3 I; T/'II[. 838. Cf: Ketterer 1986b, 101-2, [07-8.

22. On the significance of the chains, cf. Ketterer 1986b, 113-18; Dumont T9 8 7,39 0 -9 2 . 23· Cf Cist. 172-73; Curc. 518, 698. 2,~. Spranger 1984, 29 (though Spranger is wrong to suggest that Tyndarus never acts like a slave [271). 25· See Brotherton 1926, 50-5T. 26. Cf Fraenkel 1960,7-20. 27· Cf. J\1il. 3H6, 464-68; PeHa 622-35; Poell. 647-84; Psclld. 969-I037; Petrone T98 3, 86. 28. On Tyndarus's seriousness herc, sec Franko 1995, 160-66. 29· Lists of abstract qualities that have abandoned him (517-23,529; cf. iVlostell. 350-51); clauses beginning with lIisi (529-30,539; c[ Epid. 81-84); deliberJ.tive questions (53 I, 535 - y:l; cf Asill. 258; Epid. 9B; Psc//d. 395 -96); military imagery (534; cf. Asill. 106; Pcrsd 753-56; Pscl/d. 580-83,1027; Fraenkel 1960,223-26); a curse (537-38; cf. klostell. 655-56). On Tyndarus's similarity to a stock SCrllllS CIlllidlls here, cf. Pasquali 1927; Ivluecke 1986, 229. 30. That such ambush scenes were very £1l11iliar is obvious from Simo's claim that he will ambush Pseudolus in a diflerent manner from l1usters in other comedies (Psclld. 1239-41). 31. Cf., c.g., klostcll. 1II6; Psmd. 460-61.

NOTES TO PAGES 11l2-!88

227

32. Cf. Leach 1969b, 285; Segal 19B7, 205· 33. Terence achieves a similar effect in Andria: the meter ch;mges to iambic scnarius as Simo has his slave Davos dragged otfthe stage (866). C£ Bruder l~nO, H 34. C£ Petrone 1983, 42. . 35. Falldcli1: c£ Asill. 250, 266; POcll. 195; Psc1ui. 672, 705a, 765; Brotherton 1926,8-9. Doli: c£ Asill. 312; Bacdl. 643, 950, 952,1070; bpid. 88, 375; .!.Hil. Lp 198,773, 1154; Alostell. 716; Persa 480; POcll. 1110; Pseudo 580,614,67 2 , 705a, 927: 932; Brotherton 1926,14-15. Docle: cf. Epid. 373; lvlil. 466,1087; Persa 148, 551; Pseud·7 6 5. 36. Cf Segal 1987, 199· 37. I do not mean to suggest that free adl1/escclltes in Plautus do not make jokes: indeed, some of them are quite ridiculous. Pure unmotivated silliness like Philocrates', however, is more typical of sbves. 38. On Ergasilus, cf. Leach 1969b. 39. On the lora!'i; here as a Plautine innovation, see Lowe 199 I, 33 - 38. On the sentiments of the lomrii, cf. Spranger 1984, 21-22; Dumont 1987, 391, 472-77. 40. Lorarii speak only a few words in Pscudollls (159) and Rl1dellS (764, 826-36, 879-80), and they cry out when they are driven off by Messenio in AfcI1accfll!1i (lOr 5 -16). Elsew-here they are mute. 41. Or one of the lorm·ii: it is not clear \vhether they speak individually or as a group. 42. Cf. Konstan 1983, 70-71; Dumont 1987, 464-65. 43. E.g., Asill. 310-16; Baedl. 649-61; Epid. 10; klostell. 1178-79; Pasa 21-22; Pseudo 932-33; 71'1·11.413. 44. C£ Moore 1991b. 45. See Lindsay 1900, 320; Schutter 1952, 29, 47-48; Wellesley 1955, 298-99; Franko 1995, 169· 46. On patricills, see Chapter 3, note 40. 47. Lindsay's text. The manuscripts read "illi qui astant, hi lor i1 stant ambo, non sedent." Even for a Plautine prologue, this makes an exceptionally insipid joke, and it requires that illi and i or hi refer to the same persons, a very unusual usage. Lindsay's addition of a single a gives the line a much more reasonable sense and removes the need for more radical emendation. 48. Lindsay 1900, 117_ 49. Moore 1994· 50. "Vas qui potestis ope vestra censerier" ("You who can be counted among the propertied classes in the census," IS). 5 l. Cf. Hallidie I R9 I, H6. 52. Cf. Spranger 1984, 6, r09, TIR; Anderson 1993, 141. Dumont (1974; 19 87, 588-93) likewise assumes too much when he concludes that Cdptiui is an anti\.var

CONCLUSION 1. Segal 1987, 7. 2. Piautus and Ne\\" Comedy: Fantham 1977, 27 n. 13. Authority figures: see Chapter 2, note 36. Separation of theater and reality: Sutton 1993, 64. Secondcentury society: Wiles 1988b, 263-65; Anderson 1993, '43-44. 3. On. the importance of the rejection of everyday morality and authority in both anCIent and modern comedy, sec especially Barber 19S9; Bakhtin 1968, 1S8; Donaldson l~nO; Carriere 1979,29-.12; RosIer 1986,36-39; Halliwell 1991, 294-9 6 . 4. On the extent to which Saturnalian inversion docs not preclude social commentary, see especially Rayner 1987, S-23; Lada 1996,100-102. 5. E.g., Della Corte 1952, 81-93; Petrone 1977, 20-24; Dingcl 1981; Cugusi 1991; Hoffinann 1991, 186. On Cato's views, which are not as one-sided as has often been thought, see Astin 1978, 91-103,157-81, and passim; Gruen 1992, 5283. Anderson (1993, 133-SI) argues that Plautusjoins with his audience in their anti-Hellenic bias. 6. E.g., MOl11l11sen 1907, 894-97; PerelE 1978; Gizewski 1989,91-93; Sutton 1993,55- lOs . 7. Gruen T990, 157· 8. Different perspectives: cf. Styan 1975, 239-41. Potential for subversion: Davis 1975, 97- I ST; Bristol 1985, 26-39 and passim.

play. This chapter was in press before I obtained Thalmann 1996. Thalmann proposes that Capfil'i combines the "suspicious" model of slavery, according to which slaves (e.g., Stalagmus) are by nature inferior, and the "benevolent" model, which aeknO\vledges the possibility of the "good slave" (scil. Tyndarus) and assimilates the master-slave relationship to kinship. Through this juxtaposition of models, Thalmann argues, "CdjJtil'i negotiates ;mxieties surrounding slavery and the master-slave relation in order finally to exorcise them" (r 16). A number of Thalmann's arguments parallel my O\vn, but to my mind his reading of the play does not account for Tyndarus's characterization as a scnJIIS callidlls or for the play's other metatheatrieal ironies.

NOTES TO PAGES 190 - J 96

228

NOTES TO PAGES 197 -ll)l)

229

r

'i ,\!VOfU\S errED ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations of ancient works are those in The O:,;ford Classical Dirtiollar)" 3d ed., edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, I~J96).

ceF

COlllicorll1H

GmC(()f1Il11 lra}~lIIellt(/

ill papyris fcperla, Ed. Colin Austin.

Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973.

CIL

COIPIIS illScriptiOllllll1 Latil/artllll.

CRF

ri::: 63-· COlllicomlll ROlllil/lOfllIIl jragllJc/lta. Ed. Otto Ribbeck. 3d cd.

Jocelyn

Keil Koerte Lindsay

L5]

Nixon OLD

OR!'

pce Sandbach

TLL TR!' Wannington

Berlin: Reimer, de Gruytcr,

Leipzig: Teubner, 1898. The Tmgcdics of EII/ljl/s: The Fra,f!lJIcllts. Ed. H. D. Jocelyn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Grall/matiei Latini. Ed. Heinrich Keil. 8 vals. Leipzig: Teubner, 18 55-7 8 . .Melland,-! ql/ae SlIjJC/"slIllt. Ed. Alfi'cd Koerte. Part 2, revised by Andreas Thierfeldcr. Leipzig: Teubner, 1959. T iHacci Plallti collloedide. Ed. Wallace M. Lindsay. 2 vo1s. Oxford: Clarendon, 1904-5. A Greek-English Lexicoll. Compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, revised by Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Plmltlls. Trans. Paul Nixon. 5 vols. C:unbridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1916-31-\. O.':.!ord Latill Dictiol/afY. Ed. P.G.W. Glare. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968-82. OmtOf/11Il ROllltlllOrl/1II jraglllCllta liberae rei publicae. 2d ed. Ed. Enrica Malcovati. Turin: I. B. Paravia, 1955. Poetae colllici Graeci. Ed. R. Kassel and C. Austin. Berlin: de Gruyter,1983-. iHCIlalldri reliqlliae seleclae. Ed. F. H. Sandbach. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Thesaurus Lillguae Latillae. Leipzig: Teubner, 1900-. 1I'agicorJlIll ROllltlllOfl/m!mgIllCllfa. Ed. Otto Ribbeck. 3d ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1897. Remaills of Old Lath!. Trans. E. H. Warmington. 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935-40.

Abel, Karlhans. 1955. Die Plalltllsprologc. Miilheim (Ruhr)-Saarn: Carl Fabri. Abel. Lionel. 1963. }\;Ietatheatre: A 1\'e1l' View (ifDmlllafic FOri/I. New York: Hill and Wang. AdalTIS, J. N. 191-\3. "Words for 'Prostitute' in Latin." Rheillisclies !v[l/scJ/llljiir Philologie 126: 321-51-\. Allen. F. D. 1896. "On 'os colllllmatlllll' (Plautus M.G. 21 I) and Ancient Instruments of Confinement." Hmvard Stl/dies ill Classical Philology 7: 37- 64.

WORKS CITED

231

q, AltheilTI, Franz. 1938. A History C!fRolllall Rcligioll. Trans. Harold Mattingly. London: Methuell. Anlatucci, Aurelio-Giuseppe. 1904. Review of Hen nann Bosscher, Dc Plallti Clllmliollc displltdfio. Rivisto di Fil%gia c d']stl'llziollc ell/ssiCd 32: 329-3 2 . Anderson, Willianl S. 1979. "Plautus' lUI/WillI/liS: The Absurdity ofO±licious Morality." Traditio 3 5: 3 3 3 - 45· - - - . ry83. "Chalinus m'llligcr in Plautus' Casilw." lflillOis Classical Studies i:): 11-21.

- - - , 1993. Barbarial1 Play: Pfautlls' ROIl/llII Comcdy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Andre, Jean-Marie. 1983. "L'Argent chez Plame: Autour du CurCI/lin," Vicli£alla 12: 15-35. Andreau, Jean. 1968. "13anque grecque et banque romaine dans Ie theatre de Plaute et de Terence." )vIClrlllgcs d'Archcologic ct d'Histoire de l'Ecole Frmli;aise de ROllle 80: 461-526. - - - . 1987a. "L'Espace de la vie financicre i Rome." In L'Urbs: Espace IIrbdill ct histoire (rr s[cde dV.)' C.-JII" s[cde ap.]. C.), pp. 157-74. Rome: Ecole Fran<;aisc de Rome. - - - . 1987b. La Vie fillllllcihe dal15 Ie mOllde I"OlIlI1ill: Les .Mi:ticrs de /lUlllielirs d'a/"gCllt (ITF sicde 1l1'.].C.-JIJ" siede IIp.]. C.). Rome: Ecole Franpise de Rome. Arcellaschi, Andre. 1978. "Politique et religion dans Ie Pscudollls." RClJlIe des Etlldcs Latillcs 56: TT5 -41. Arnott, W. Geoffrey. 1972. "Targets, Techniques, and Tradition in Plautus' Stielllls." Blilletin o.f the Il15titlite (~f Classim{ Sturiies (if the UllilJcrsity of LO/ldol! 19: 54-79· - - - . 1985. "Terence's Prologucs." Papers oIthe LiIlClpoof Latin SCllli/wr 5: 1-7. Astin, Alan E. 1978. Cato the Cel/sor. Oxford: Clarendon. Bader, Bernd. 1970. "Der verlorclle Anfang der plautinischen 'Bacchides'." Rheinisches All1sclllllji"ir Philo{oj.:ic 113: 304 -23. Bailey, Cyril. 1932. Phascs ill the Rcl(lZio/l oIAncicnt ROllle. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bain, David. 1977. Actors Illld AlidiellCe: A Swdy (if Asides alld Related COlllJClltiollS ill Grcck Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1968. Rabclais dlld His f,Forld. Translated by Helene Tswolsky. Cambridge, Mass.: IvUT Press. Barber. C. L. 1959. Shakespeare:~ FestiFe Comedy: A Stlldy (~f Dramatic Form alld Its Rclatioll to Social ClIstom. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Barchiesi, Marino. 1969. "Plauto e il 'metateatro' antico." II f/crri 3 I: 1 13 - 30. Barlow. Charles T. 1978. "Bankers, Moneylenders, and Interest Rates in the Roman Republic." Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Barrow, R. H. 1949. The R.OII/ilIIS. Harrnondsworth: Penguin. Barsby. John, ed. and trans. 19H6. PIIlIWIS: Bacchides. Oak Park, Ill.: BolchazyCarducci. - - - . 1995. "Plautus' PseudolllS as Improvisatory Drama." In Benz, S6rk, and Vogt-Spira 1995, 55-70. Beacham. Richard C. 1992. ~I71e Romall Theatre mui Its Alldicllcc. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Beare, Williarn. 1964. The ROIl/IlIl Stage: .A Short History o.f L(/tin Drama ill the Ti11le 4thI.' RcplI{)lic. 3d ed. London: Methucn.

WOR.KS CITED

Beckertnan, Bernard. 1970. Dyllall/ics C!.fDrall/a: Theory illld iHetllOd (if Alla/ysis. New York: Alfi-ed A. Knopf _ . 1990. Thcatriml Presclltatioll: Pc~fi.J/"mel; Alidicllcc alld Act. Edited by Gloria Brim Beckerman and William Coco. New York: Routledge. Bennett, Susan. 1990. Theatre Alidiellccs: A Theory 0.( Productioll allli Rcccptioll. London: Routledge. Benz. Lore. 1990. ".Ivlegaronides Censorius-Eine ant1catonische KOllzeption im plautinischen Trinummus?" In Theater IIl1d Gesellscl/{~ft illl Imperilllll ROI1UlIlIlIlI, eeL Jiirgen BHinsdorf, pp. 55 -68. Ti.ibingen: Francke Verlag. Benz, Lore. Ekkehard Stark, and Gregor Vogt-Spira, eds. 1995. PlmltllS IlIld die 1'imlitioll des Stegretf;picls. Ti.ibingen: Gunter NaIT. Berry, Ralph. 191)9· "Hamlet and the Audience: The Dynamics of a Relationship." In Shakespcare alld thc SCIISC (?f Pc~f(m/Jallce: Essays ill the Tradition (?f Perj(lflll(//ICe Criticism ill HOllor qIBcmdrd Beckermall, ed. Marvin and Ruth Thompson, pp. 24-2R. Newark: University of Delaware Press. Bickford. John Dean. 1922. Soliloquy ill Allciellt Comedy. Princeton: John Dean

Bickford. Bieber. Margarete. 1961. The History (if the Greef.: alld Rom(/I/ Thcater. 2d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Billeter. Gustav. 1898. Gesrhichrc des Zill.~fl/sses im gricchisc/J-riimischell Altcrflllll bis ilI!fjl/stilliall. Leipzig: Teubner. Blancke, Wilton Wallace. [918. The Dralllatic Valllcs ill Plal/tlls. New York: Humphrey. Blansdorf. Jiirgen. 1978. "Voraussctzungen und Entstehung der romischcn Komodie." In Das nJmischc Dramll, ed. Eckard Lefevre, pp. 91-134. Dannstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. - - - . 191)2. "Die Komodienintrige als Spiel 1m SpicL" Alltike IIlld Avelldlalld 28: 131-54. Blundell. John. 1980. Aicnallllcr alld thc AI01I0!oglle. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Bondanella. Peter. 1987. The EtCfl1i11 City: ROlllall Ima,gcs ill the lHodem Hl(lrld. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Bosscher. Hermann. 1903. De Plmai CllfCllliollC DispHtatio. Leiden: Brill. Bradley. Keith R. 191)7. Slaves dnd lviasters ill the ROil/ali Empire: A Study ill Soci(d COlltrol. New York: Oxford University Press. - - - . 1991. Discoverillg the ROllldl/ Family: Stl/dies ill Romall Social Histor}'. New York: Oxford University Press. - - - . 1994. Slal'ery dud Society at ROll1e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brecht. Bertolt. 1964. Brecht all Theatre: The DeFclopl1lellt (!f all Aesthetic. Edited and translated by John Willett. Ncw York: Hill and Wang. - - - . 1967. Cesml/lJlelte Hlerkc ill ae/a Biilldcll: VII: SchrlftCll I: ZI/m I1/catcr. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Briscoe. John. 19Sr. A Commentary 011 Lipy Books XXXIV-XXXI/II. Oxford: Clarendon. Bristol. Michael D. 1985. CamilJal alld Theater: Plebeian Clllture alld the Strtlctllre (?f Allthority jll RCIlaissi1I1ce Ellglalld. New York: Methuen. Broccia. Giuseppe. 1982. "Appunti sull'ultimo Plauto: Pcr l'interpretazione del Truculentus." TVieller Stl/diell 9): 149-64. Brooks, Robert A. 1981. Ellllills illld ROlllall Tragcdy. New York: Arno.

WORKS CITED

233

Brotherton, Blanche. 1926. The [/iJCablllar}, tif IlItr(lJllc ill ROlllall COllledy. Ivlenasha, Wis.: George Banta. Brown, P. G. McC. 1990. "Plots and Prostitutes in Greek New COl11edv." Papers (?f the Lecds blternatiollal Lalill Semillar 0: 24 I - 00. ' Bruder, Hans Werner. 1970. Bede/lfIlIIg ulld Fllllktioll des [/i'fS!fJcchscls I)l'i 7I:'I"CI1:::. Ztirich: Juris. Brunt, P. A. 197]. Social COI!flicts ill rhe Roman Republic. New York: W. W. Norton. - - - . 1993. Sflldies itl Greek History mid Thollght. Oxford: Cbrendon. Buck, Charles Henry, Jr. 1940. A Chrollolo,lJy-(?f the Pla],s (?f Plmllus. Baltimore. Buckland, W. W. 1908. The ROlllml Law ~f Simler)': The COllditioll tif the Siavl' ill Prilh1te Lawji'ol/J AlIglIslI/s to jllstilliall. Cambridge: Cambridge Universitv Press. ' Burton, PauiJ. 1996. "The Summoning of the Magna Mater to Rome (205 B.C.)." Historia 45: 36-63_ Calderwood, Jatues L. 1971. Shakcsl)carcl1Il A!fctadfllllla. Minne:lpolis: University of Minnesota Press. . Caillbiano, Giuseppe. 19H7. "Aristotle and the Anonymous Opponents ofSbvery." In Classical Slaucl'j', cd. IvI. I. Finley, pp. 22-41. London: Frank Casso Carriere, Jean Claude. 1979. Le CIlnzmh11 et la ]lolitique: Ulle Illtroductioll (lla comedic grecquc sllipic d'lIll cllOix de.n-agIllCllts. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Cebe, Jean-Pierre. 1960. "Le Niveau culturel du public plautinien." Revill' des Etudes Latillcs 3H: 101-6. - - - . 1966. La Caricatllre et la parodic dalls Ie mal/de rolllaill (J//tiqlle des origil/cs a JUl'ellal. Paris: E. de Boccard. ChalITlers, Walter R. 1965. "Plautus and His Audience." In Roman Drallla, ed. T. A. Dorey and Donald R. Dudley, pp. 21-50. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ChapITlan, G.A.H. 19H3. "Some Notes on Dramatic Illusion in Aristophanes." Alllericall jOllfllal (?f Philology 104: 1-23. Chiarini, Gioachino. 1978. "Casina 0 delb metamorfosi." Latollllls 37: 105-20. - - - . 1979. La recita: Pial/to, lafarsa, lajesta. Bologna: P~ltron. - - - . [980. "Compresenza e conflittualid dei generi nel teatro latino arcaico (per una rilettura deJ1'Amphitmo)." iHateriali e DisCl/ssitJlli per I'allalisi dci tcsti classici 5: 87-124. Coarelli, Filippo. 1985. IIforo ROlllmJO II: Periodo repllbblirallo e allgllstco. Rome: Quasar. Cody, Jane M. 1976. "Thc sellex alllator in Plautus' Casilla." Hermes 104: 453 -7 0 . Colin, G. 1905. ROI/Je et la Grece de 200 146 al'alltjcslIs-Christ. Paris: Albert Fontemoing. Conrad, Clinton C. 1915. The Tcclllliqlle ({Com/II/lOlls ActiOlI ill Roma/l COII/edy. Menasha, Wis.: George Banta. Corbett, Philip. 1986. The SCI/I'm. Edinburgh: Scottish Acadcmic Press. Costa, C.D.N. 1965. "The Amphitryo Theme." In ROI/Ja/l Drallla, cd. T. A. Dorey and Donald R. Dudley, pp. 87-122. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Crahay, R., and M. Delcourt. 1952. "Lcs rupturcs d'illusion dans Ies comedies antiques." All/waire de l'IlIstitllt de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales ef Slm'es de l'Ulliversitc Libre de Bfllxclles 12: H3~92.

a

WORKS CITED

I

234

Csapo, Eric. 1989. "Plautine Elements in the Running-Slave Entrance Monologues?" Classic(d Qllarterly 39: I4H-03. Csapo, Eric, and WilliaITl J. Slater. 1995. The COl/text of Anciellt Dral/Ja. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. . Cugusi, Paolo. 1991. "Plauto e C:ltone." Bollettino di Stl/di Latilli 21: 291-305. Culhmu, Phyllis. 1982. "The Lex Oppia." Latollllis 41: 786-93. Dmnon, Cynthia. 1997. The iV!ask if the Parasite: A Pathology ojRomall PatrollI1ge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Davis, David Brion. 1966. 171c Problem (?fSlm'er), ill Hlcsll'rtl Cllltllre. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Davis, Natalie Zelnon. 1975. Society alld Clllture ill Earl)' i.HodcfIl Frallce. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Dedoussi, Christina. 1995. "Greek DrZlll1a and Its Spectators: Conventions and Relationships." In St(~r;e Directiolls: Essa)'s ill Allciellf Drall/a itl HOIlOHr of E. T-1>: HilIldlC}l, ed. Alan Griffiths, pp. 123-32. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London. Della Corte, Francesco. 1952. Da SafSilla a ROil/a: Ricefche Plmaille. Geno:l: Istituto Universitario di Magistero. ---.1975. "Maschere e person:lggi in Plauto." Diolliso46: 103-93. De Marinis, Marco. 1993. The Semiotics (if Pe~fom/(!Ilcc. Translated by Aine O'Healy. Bloomington: Indi:lna Univcrsity Press. Denzler, Bruno. 1968. Der AJollolor; bei Tcrellz. Zurich: P. G. Keller. Deschaillps, Lucienne. 1980 "Epidaure ou Rome? A propos du CII/"wlio dc Plaute." Platoll 32-33: 144-77. Dessen, Cynthia S. 1977. "Plautus' Satiric Comcdy: The TfIlCIIlellllls." Philological Quarterly 56: 145-68. Deuling, Judy. 1994. "Canticul1l Bromiae (et al.)-AlllphitnlO 1053 -1130." PmdCllfia26, 2: 15-25. Dingel, J. 19SI. "Herren und Sklaven bei Pbutus." Gy/lllwsilllll HH: 4H9-504. Dixon, Suzanne. 1985. "Polybius on Roman Women and Property." Alllericall jOllrnal C!f Philology 100: 147-70. - - - . 1992. The ROlllatl FllIIlily. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Dohll1, Hans. 1964. iHageiros: Die Rolle des Kochs ill der griechiscll-riillJischell KOJllodie. Munich: Beck. Donaldson, Ian. 1970. The H10rld Upside-DolI'll: COJlledyjrollljollsoll to Ficldillg. Oxford: Clarendon. Drury, Martin. 1982. "Appendix of Authors and Works." In 171e Call/bridge History 4 Classical Literatllre II: Latill Litemtme, cd. E. J. Kenney and W. V. Clausen, pp. 799-935. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duckworth, George E. 1936. "The Dr:ll1utic Function of the SCrtJIIS wrrells ill Roman Comedy." In Classical Studies Prescllfed to Edward Capps Oil His SctJelltieth Birthday, pp. 93-102. Princeton: Princeton University Press. - - - . 1952. The l'.,Tatufe oj ROil/ali COI/Jedy: A Swdy ill Popular ElitertailllllelJt. Princeton: Princeton University Press. - - - . 1955. "PlaUtllS and the Basilica Aemilia." In Ut picttlfa poesis: Stlldia latilla Petro Iohmllli Ellk sepfll(~r;(,IWfio ohlata, ed. P. de Jonge et aI., pp. 58-65. Leiden: Brill. Ducos, Michele. 1990. "La Conditions des acteurs a Rome: Donneesjuridiques et sociales." In Theater I/Ild Gesellscluift ill1 IlIIperilll/J ROlllalllllll, cd. Jlirgen Blansdorf, pp. 19-33. Tubingen: Francke Verlag.

HI.'

WORKS CITED

235

Dumezil, Georges. 1970. Archaic ROIIUlII Rel(Rioll. Translated by Philip Krapp. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dun:lOnt, Jean Christian. 1974. "Guene, paix et servitude dans les C1ptifs." Law/IIIIs 33= 505-22. . - - - . 1987. Scnms: ROlllc ct l'csclallagc SOliS la rCpllbliqllc. Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome. ' Dunn, William Richard. 1984. "Formal Language in Plautus." Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Dupont, Florence. 1976. :'Signification thdtralc du double dans l'Amphitr}'oll de Plaute." RClille des Etl/des Latillcs 54: 129-41. - - - . 1985. L'Actellr-roi, 011, Lc T11Mtre dmls la Rome alltiquc. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. - - - . 1987. "Calltica et dil'erbia dans l'AlllphitryolI de Plaute." In Filologia C {(mllc letrerarie: Studi offerti a Frallccsco Della Corte 2: 45-56. Urbino: Univ~rsit:1 degli Studi di Urbino. Dutton, Richard. 1986. i.Hoderll Ti'agico/lledy iIIld thc British Traditio/I. Norman: University of Oklahonu Press. Earl, Donald C. 1967. T1lc iWoral alld Political Ti'aditioll (if ROlllc. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Easterling, Pat E. 1985. "Anachronism in Greek TrJ.gedy." jourIlal C!fHellellic Stlldies T05: I-TO. - - - . 1995. "Menander: Loss and Survival." In Stagc Dircctiolls: Essays ill Allciellt Drama ill HOllollrofE. TV: Halldley, ed. Alan Griffiths, pp. 153-60. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London. Edwards, Catharine. 1993. Thc Politics (:( Immorality ill A'lcicllt Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elam, Keir. 1980. T1/e Sellliotics ifYheatre and DrallJa. London: Methuen. Enk, P. J. 1953. Plmlti TfllwlelltllS. 2 vols. Leiden: A. W. SijthofE - - - . 1964. "Plautus' Th/C/Ilellt/Is." In Classical, iHcdiacl'al and RellaisSdllce Stlldies ill HOllor of Berthold LlIis Ullmall, vol. I, ed. Charles Henderson, Jr., pp. 4965. Rome: Edizioni di Staria e Letteratura. Evans, John K. 1991. TlVm~ TVolIJCII IlIld Childrm ill Anciellt Rome. London: Routledge. Fanthaln, Elaine. 1965. "The CllfCl/lio of Plautus: An Illustration ofPbutine Methods in Adaptation." Classical Qllarterly IS: 84-TOO. - - - . 1973. "Towards a Dramatic Reconstmction of the Fourth Act ofPlautus' Alllphitfllo." Philologlls 1I 7: 197-2 I 4. - - - . 1975. "Sex, Status, and Survival in Hellenistic Athens: A Study of Women in New Comedy." PhoCilix 29: 44-74. - - - . 1977. "Adaptation and Survival: A Genre Study of Roman Comedy in Relation to Its Greek Sources." In Versions C!.(iv[ediwa{ Comedy, ed. Paul G. Ruggiers, pp. 19-49. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Finley, Moses I. 1980. Alldmt Slaucf)' llIul A10dc/"Il Ideology. New York: Viking. Flashar, Helltnut. 1974. "Aristoteles und Brecht." PoetiCil 6: 17-37. Forehand, Walter E. 1973a. "Plautus' Casilla: An Explication." Aretllllsa 6: 233 -56. - - - . 1973b. "The Use of Imagery in Plautus' i.\1iles Glorioslls." Riuista di Swdi Classici 21: 5-16. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1912. Dc media ct 1/001a collloedia quaestio/Ies selectae. Gottingen: Officina Academica Dieterichiana.

WORKS CITED

_ _ . 1960. Elelllcllfi PIal/filii ill PIal/to. Transbted by Franco Munari. Florence: La Nuova Italia. _ _ . 1967. "Anreden J.n llur gedachte Zuhorer." lVIl/sCIIIII RelueticlI/lI 2,r 190-93· Frangoulidis, Stavros A. 1994. "Palaestrio as Playwright: Plautus, iHilcs GlorioSIIS 209-212." In Stl/dies ill Latill Litemtllre alld ROII/i1Ill-listory VII, eel. Carl Deroux, pp. 72-86. Collection Latomus 227. Brussels: LJ.tomus. - . 1996. "A Prologue-within-a-Prologue: Plautus, ldiles Glorioslls 145153." Latoll/l/s 55: y"l8-70. Frank, Tenney. 1933. All Ecollolllic SlIrlle), (?fAllciellt ROil/C. Vol. I, ROllle llI/d It,lly (?f the Repllhlic. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ---.1939. "Plautus Comments on Anatolian Aff.lirs." In Anatolian Stlldies Presellted to IVillialll l-icpbllrll BI/ckler, ed. W. !v1. Calder and JosefKeil, pp. 85-,s,s. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Franko, George Fredric. 1995. "Fides, Actolia, and Plautus' Capti1!i." Tim/sactiolls if the Alllericall Philologiwi Associatioll 125: 155 -76. Frassinetti, Paolo, ed. 1967. AtcllallilcJilblllae. Romc: Ateneo. Frayn, Joan M. 1984. Shccp~Rc(/fillg and the f;[iool Ii·mll' ill ltal]' Durillg the ROlililll Pcriod. Liverpool: Francis Cairns. Fredershausen, Otto. 1906. Dc illfe Plalltino et Tcn'lltii1llO. Gottingen: Goldschmidt und Hubert. Frete, A. 1929-30. "Essai sur la structure dramatique des comedies de Plaute." RC1!I/C des Etudes Latilles 7: 282-94, and 8: 30-81. Freyhurger, Gerard. 1977. "La Ivlorale et la fides chez l'esclave de la comedie." Rellllc dcs Etl/dcs Latillcs 55: 113 -27. . - - - . 1986. Fidcs: Etl/de sClIlantiqllc et rel(qiellse dept/is les ori,gilU;sjllsqll'til'cpoqllc I/1lgllstcellc. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Friedrich, Gustav. 1891. "Die Parabase im Clllmlio des Plautus." Jahrbiichcrfiir classische Philologie 3T 708 - 12. Frost, K. B. 1988. Exits illld Elltrillices ill jHellilllder. Oxford: Clarendon. Gahba, Emilio. 1979. "Sui miles inpransus delL~lltllllariil di Plauto." Rendicollti dell' Istituto LOI/Jbilrdo, Clilssc di Lefferc, Sciellze lHorali e Storichc 113: 408-1"~. Gaggiotti, Marcello. 1985. "Atrium regium-basilica (Aemilia): Una insospettata continuitl storica e una chiave ideologica per 1a soluzione del problema dell'origine della basilica." ./llwlccta Romd//(/ Illstitllti Dallici 14: 53-80. Gaiser, Konrad. 1972. "Zur Eigenart der romischcn Komodie: Plautus und Terenz gegenuber ihren griechischen Vorbildern." AI!fstieg I/Ild NiedC/)Zallg der riilllischclI nHt 1,2: 1027-1113. - Galinsky, G. Karl. 1966. "Scipionic Themes in Plautus' Al1lphiTrlIO." Tiw/sactiolls 4 the Alllericall Philological Associatioll 97: 203 - 35· - - - . 1969. "Plautus' Poenl/ills and the Cult of Venus Eryci11a." In HOllllllllgCS tl Alilreel Rellard, cd. Jacqueline Bibauw, I: 358 - 04. Brussels: Latol11us. Garcia-Hernandez, Benjalnin. 1984. "Plaut. Alllph. 867-868: Soluci6n semantic a de una cuesti6n de traducci6n y de critica textuaL" I-labis 15: 117-24. Gargola, Daniel J. 1995. Lands, Lm/fs, and Gods: i.Hagistratcs illUl CerelllollY ill the Regl/lilrioll 4 PI/blic Lilllds ill Repllblican ROllle. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Garnsey, Peter. 1996. Ideils (~( Slaueryji'ol1l Aristotlc to Augllstillc. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WORKS CITED

237

Garton, Charles. 1972. Personal Aspects (?Fthe ROIIIIlll Thealre. Toronto: J-hkkert. Garzya, Antonio. 1969. "A propos de l'interpn~tation du Rur/ells de Plaute." In HOl/lll1ages II ]lAarcc/ Rward, ed. Jacqueline Bibauw, I: 365 -73. Brussels: LatoJ1111s. Gelhaus, Hennann. 1972. Die Profoge des Tcrellz: Eille Erkfdfllll}: IIlleh r/ell LeInen FOil del' illl'elltio //lId disjJositio. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Gerdes, Mary WOlnble. 1995. "Women in Performance in Plautus." Ph.D. diss., University of North CaroliI1J., Chapel Hill. Giangrieco Pessi, Maria Vittoria. 19SI. "Argentarii e trapeziti ncl teatro di Plauto." ArchiIJio Giurir/iro 20I: 39-I06. Gilula, Dwora. 19S1. "Who's Afraid of Rope-Walkers and Gladiators? (Tel'. Hec. I-57)·" AthclWCll/1I 59: 29-37· ---.1989. "Greek Drama in Rome: Some Aspects of Cultural Transposition." In Thc PIIlY aliI cifColltcxt: TmlL~fcrril1g PlaysJi'O/lI Cultllrc to Clllture, ed. Hanna Scolnicov and Peter Holland, pp. 99-109. Cambridge: Cambridge University Prcss. Gioffredi, Carlo. 1943. "I tribunali del Foro." Stl/dia et DOCI/II/elltil I-listoriae ct Illfis 9,2: 227-82. Gizewski, Christian. 1989. "lVlores maiol"llm, regimen morum, licentia: Zur Koexistenz catonischer und plautinischer Sittlichkeitsvorstellungen." In Festschrift Rohert I+'i.Tllcr zu SCillCIII 65. Gc{mrtstag, ed. Werner Dahlheim et al., pp. HI-I05. Konstanz: Universitatsverlag Konstanz. Gold, Barbara K. 19H7. Literary Piltrollll.qe ill Grcac a/ld ROllle. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Goldberg, Sander M. 1980. '111e J\1akillg 4A1ella/u{cr's COlllcdy. Berkeley: University of Califol"l1ia Press. - - - . 19So. Ulldcrstandillg 'ferellce. Princeton: Princeton University Press. - - - . 1995. Epic ill ReplIlJlicatl Rome. New York: Oxford University Press. Goldman, Michael. 1975. 'Thc Actor's Frecdolll: TOU'llrd a Theory (?FDmllla. New York: Viking. GorIer, Woldelnar. 1973. "Ober die Illusion in der antiken KOl11odie." Alltike IlIld Alwlldlalld IH: 41-57. - - - . T9H3. "Plautinisches im Pseudolus." rV{irzbl/lgerjahrbJ"icherJi·ir die AltertlllllSllJissell5cllaft 9: H9- I 07. Gowers, Elnily. 1993. The Loaded Table: Representatiolls cifFood ill ROl/ldll Li[emtlIl"C. Oxford: Clarendon. Gratwick~ Adrian S. 1981. "Curculio's Last Bow: Plautus, Trilllll/llllllS IV.3." hlllclllosYlle 34: 33 I-5 0 . - - - . 19H2. "Drama." In The Calli bridge History ~rChl:;siral Litemtllrc II: Latill Literatl/re, cd. E.]. Kenney and W. V. Clausen, pp. 77-137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - - - , ed. 1993. Plalltlls: A1cllaechllli. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gray, Frances. 1994. T1>()J}lell and Laughter. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Green, Willialn M. 1933. "The Status of Actors at Rome." Cldssical Philolo.qy 28: 30I-4. Grill1al, Pierre. 1969. "Le Modele et la date des C{/ptiFi de Plaute." In HOIIImages (I hlllrccl RellaI'd, eeL Jacqueline Bibau\v, 1: 394 -4 [4. Brussels: Latol11us. - - - . 1970. "A propos du TfllCIIlelltlls: L'Antifcminis111c de Plaute." In 1V[C/dllgCS J.\1arcc/ Dllrry (= RelJlle des .f'tlldes Latincs 47 bis, 1969: 85-98). Paris: Les Belles Lettt·cs.

WORKS CITED

-.1971-74. "Lc 'Truculemus' de Plaute et l'esthetique de la 'palliata.'" Diolliso 45: 532-48. Gros, Pierre. 19R3. "La Basilique de Forum seIon Vitn1\'e: La Norme et l'experimentation." In Billlplall1l1lg //lId BmlThcorie del' Alltike, pp. 49-69. Berlin: Delltsches Arch::i.ologisches Institl1t. Groton, Anne H. 1995. Review of A. S. Gratwid::, ed., Plalltlls: ,Hcllaec/lIl1i. Bryll i\1ml'r Classiwl Revie//! 6: 613-16. Gruen, Erich S. 1990. Studies ill Grcek Cllitllrc (//u{ ROilld11 Policy. Leiden: Brill. - - - . 1992. ClIltlire allli J.,\Tatiollal [del/tity itl Repllblical/ ROllle. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Guilbert, D. 1963. "Mercure-Sosie dans l'AlllphitryolI de Plaute: Un Rble de parasite de comedie." Les Etudes Clm·siqlles 31: 52-63. Gulick, Charles Burton. 1H96. "Omens and Augury in Plautus." Harvdrd Studies ill Classiwl Philology 7: 235 - 47. Guthke, Karl S. 1966 . .!.Hodefll T/"(~qicollledy: All IIlFe.\·tigdtioll illto the l\/dtwc (~fthe Gellre. New York: Random House. Guthrie, W.K.C. 1969 ...d History 4 Greek Philosophy. Vol. 3: The FiJilz-Cclltl/1"y Elll(qllfCII/Hellt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haffter, Heinz. 1953. "Terenz unci seine kiinstlerische Eigenart." 111I1SCIIIII Hel!'etiwlII 10: 1 -20, 73 - I 02. Halkin, Leon. I94H. "La Parodie d\me demande de triomphe dans l'AlllphitryolI de Plaute." L'Amiql/ite Classique IT 297-304. Hallett, Judith P. 1984. [-(Ithcrs alld Ddl/ghters ill Romall Society: H~J/IICII ilIld the Elite Ew/ily. Princeton: Princeton University Press. - - - . 19H9. "Women as Sallie and allier in Classical Roman Elite." Helios 16: 59-7 S. ---.1993. "Plalltine Ingrcdicnts in the Performance of the Pse//dollls." CI{/ssicill H10rld S7= 21-26. - - - . 1996. "The Political Backdrop OfPlalltus's Casilld." In Trallsitiolls to Ell/pire: Essays ill Greco-ROil/ali History, 360- LJ6 B.C., ill HOllOI' tif E. Bildian, ed. Robert W. Wallace and Edward M. Harris, pp. 409-3S. Norman: Universitv of Oklahoma Press. Hallidie, Archibald R. S., ed. 1891. The Captil'i qf T JHaccills Plal/tlls. London: Macmillan. Halliwell, Stephen. 1991. "The Uses of Laughter in Greek Culture." Classiml Qllarterly 41: 279-96. Hauullond, Mason, Arthur M. Mack, and Walter Moskalew, eds. 1963. T. ,Hacci Plallti iHilcs Glorioslls. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Handley, Eric Walter. 1975. "Plautus and His Public: Somc Thoughts on New Comcdy in Latin." Diolliso 46: 1I7-32. Hanson, John Arthur. 1959a. "Plautus as a Source Book for Roman Religion." Transactions o.f thc ./ll1lel"iwlI Philologiwl ASSOcliltioll 90: 4H -101. - - - . I959b. ROlllilll Theater- Tcmples. Princeton: Princeton University Press. - - - . [965. "The Glorious Military." In ROil/ail Drama, ed. T. A. Dorey and Donald R. Dudley, pp. 5I-H5. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Harris, Williatn V. 1979. IVaI' mzd IlIlperialism ill Repllblical/ Romc 327-70 B.C'. Oxford: Clarendon. - - - . 19Ho. "Tmvards a Study of the Roman Slave Trade." in The SealJOl"/le COllllllercc (~FAnciellf Romc: Studies ill Arcllilcolo.qy ilIld History, ed. J. I-I. D'Arms and E. C. Kopff. Rome: American Academy in Rome. (= .Mell/oirs 4thc Allleriwil AwdelllY ill ROllle 36: 117-40.)

WORKS CITED

Harsh, Philip Whaley. 1930. "Possible Greek Background for the Word rcx as Used in Plautus." Classiral Philoloc~Y 31: 62-M). ---.1944. A Hl11ldbook eifClassiwl Drama. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Harvey, Paul B., Jr. 1986. "Historical TopicJ.lity in Plautus." Classical f+(l/-!d 79: 297-304· Hayter, Charles. 1987. Gilbert 111111 SlIllil'all. New York: St. Martin's. Hellegouarc'h, J. 1972. Lc T/()w/JII!airc !drill dcs relatiolls er dcs Jhlrfis politiqlles SOliS la RCplIldiqlle. 2d ed. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Hengel, Martin. 1977. Cr1lcifixioll ill the .dncicllt Hl(n!d and the [-olly oJthe .Message qf the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Henry, Madeleine Mary. 1985. jUcllalUler's COllrtesans alld the Greck Comic 1;'aditioll. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Herrnlann, Leon. 1948. "L'Actualite dans l'AmphitryolI de Plaute." L'Allliqllitc Classiq1le IT 317-22. Hiatt, Vergil Etnery. 1940. "Eavesdropping in Roman Comedy." Ph.D. cliss., University of Chicago. HilI, Philip V. 19,1)9. The A;fOI11II11Cl/ts q( Ancielif ROllle as COil1 Typcs. London: 13. A. Seaby. Hirst, David L. 19,1)4. Tragicolllcdy. London: Methuen. Hoenselaars, A.]. 1993. "Italy Staged in English Renaissance Drama." In Marrapodi et al., 1993,30-4,1). Hoflinann, Zsuzsanna. 1987. "Der Senat bei PJautLlS." Acta Classiw Uniwl'Sitatis SciClltianll1l Dc/;rcccllicllsis 23: 27-29. - - - . 1991. "Die 1101'11 .flagitia bei Plautus." GylllllllSiul/I 98: 180 - Ro. Hoftnalln, Walter. 1992. "Zllr Fllnktion der Fremdspnchen bei Plautus." In ZWII UIII}Jallg lIIitfrellldclI .'))rachclI ill del' gricchisr/l-riilllischclI Anti/..'c, ed. Carl Werner Miiller, Kurt Sier, and Jurgen Werner, pp. 143 - 58. Stuttgart: FrJ.llZ Steiner. Hopkins, Keith. 1~)78. Conqucrors and S{(/!lcs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornby, Richard. 1986. Drallla, J.Hrtadrmllrl IIlId Pcrceptioll. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press. Hottetnann, Barbara. 1993. "Phylakenposse llnd Atellana." In BeitragI.' zlIr lIIiilldlichCll Kultllr der ROlllcr, ed. Gregor Vogt-Spira, pp. H9-1I2. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Hough, John N. 194OJ.. "Miscellanea Plautina: Vulgarity, Extra-Dramatic Speeches, Roman Allusions." Th1l1sactiolls cd' the .dlllerican Philological .Associ!ltiO/I 71: ISo-9R. - - - . 1940b. "Plautine Technique in Delayed Exits." Classical Philoh~f!), 35: 39-48. ---.1945. "The /lilli/quid /lis Formula in Roman Comedy." Alllcri[iJ/lJOllfl1l1{ (?f Philology 00: 282- 302. Hubbard, Tholl1as K. 1991. Thc AJllsk cljColllcdy: Aristophallcs ilIld the illterrextllal Pomf){lsis. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Huelsen, Christian. 1909. The Roman Fort/III: Its History and Its iVIOI1lII11ClltS. Translated by Jesse Benedict Carter. New York: G. E. Stechert. Hunter, Richard L. 1980. "Philemon, Plautus and the TriIllIllIIllIlS." Alliselllll Hc/rJctiCIIII/ 37= 216-30. - - - . 1981. "The 'Alliularia' OfPlalltllS and Its Greck Original." ProcCl.'dillgs (:f the Cmll{)fi((~e Philological Socierr 27: 37-49.

WOR.KS CITED

---.19,1)5. The lVClIJ COII/cdy e!fGrrecc alld ROIlIC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - . 1987. "Middle Comedy and the A1I1phitmo ofPbutllS." Diolliso 5T 281-98. Ingarden, ROll1an. 1971. "Les Fonctions du langage au the:itre." Translated by Helene Roussel. Poeriqlle 8: 53 1-3B. ]anne, Henri. 1933. "L'Amphitryon de Plaute et M. Fulvius Nobilior." RelJllC Bc(\Zc de Philologie et d'Histolrc 12: 515-3I. Jocelyn, Henry David. 1960. "The Roman Nobility and the Religion of the RepublicJ.n StJ.te." J01tr1lil1 ~f Religiolls History 4: 89-104. - - - . 1909a. "Imperalor histri{lls." 't';lIc Classi({l{ Srlldies 21: 95 - 123. - - - . 1969b. "The Poet en. Naevius, P. Cornclius Scipio and Q. Caecilius Metellus." AI/tichthol/ 3: 32-47. ---.1972. "The Poems of Quintus Ennius." Alifsrieg IIl1d .i\TiedClgallg del' riilllischell TVcit I, 2: 987- IQ20. - - - . [987. "Plautus, 1\1iles Clorioslls 209-2T2." SiteI/o 13: 17-20. - - - . 1990. "Plalltus, POClI/tllIS 200-202 and the ballistdrilllll." LiFClpool ChJSsirl11 klollfhly ! 5: 5 - 8. Johnson, Harriet Dale. 1927. "The Roman TribunaL" Ph.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Johnston, Patricia A. 1980. "POCl/llftIS 1,2 and Roman Womcll." Trallsdctions (?f the Amcricall Philological Associatioll 110: 143 -59. Jones, Leslie Webber, and C. R. Morey. 1930 -3 I. Thc i\Iilliatllrcs ~(rhe 11111111/scriprs 4 Tercnce Prior to Ihe Thirteellth Celltllry. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jordan, H. 1880. "Die Parabasc im Curculio des Plautus." Hermcs 15: 116-36. Jory, E. ]. 1966. "Domil/lls xn:~is?" Classical Philology 0 I: 102 - 5. ---.1970. "Associations of Actors in Rome." Henlles 98: 224-53. - - - . 1995. "Ars ludicra and the ludus talarius." In Stage Dircctiolls: Essa}'s ill Ancicnt Dral/la ill HOl/ollr (:fE H:: HilIldley, ed. Alan Griffiths, pp. 139-52. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London. Kaser, Max. 1908. Riimisdles Pril'atrccht: Eill Stlliliel/tmef/. 6th cel. Munich: Beck. Kelly,]. M. 1966. ROlIlllll Lit(~dtiOl/. Oxford: Cbrendon. Kenny, Don. 19B9. 171e K}'oge/l Bool.!: All Anthology (ifJapallese Classical Comedics. Tokyo: Japan Times. Ketterer, Robert C. I98oJ.. "Stage Properties in Plautine Comedy L" SCllliotim 58: [93-2[6. - - - . 19Sob. "Stage Properties in Plautille Comedy fl." Selllioricil 59: 93 - I 35. - - - . 1986c. "Stage Properties in Plalltine Comedy Ill." SCllliotica 60: 29-72. Kienast, Diett11ar. 1954. Cato del' ZClIsor: Seille Persijnlidlkeit III/d seillc Zeit. Heidelberg: Quelle llnd Ivleyer. Killeen, J. F. 1973. "Plautus .Miles Glorioslls 21 I." Classiwl Philology 0,1): 53 - 54-. Kinsey, T. E. 1980. "Masks on the Roman Stage." RCFlle BC(\fe de PlIilologie 1'1 d'Histoire 58: 53-55· Knapp, Charles. 1919. "References in Plautus and Terence to Plays, Playcrs, and Playwrights." Classical Phifolo,~)' 14: 35 -5 5. Knapp, Mary Etta. 196J. Prologllcs and bpiloglles of the E~~flTcenrh Cellfllry. New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press. Koestler, Arthur. 1904. The Act 4Crealioll. New York: Macmillan. Kolve, V. A. 1966. The PIll}, C(lllcd Co/piiS Christi. Stanford, CJ.liL Stanford University Press.

WORKS CITED

.l.p

4f KOl1stan, David. 1983. ROl/luli Comcd),. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. - - - . I~J95. Greek COIIII.-dy alld Idco}o.!.ty. New York: Oxford University Press. Kraus, Walther. 193-1-. '''Ad spectatores' in der r0111ischen KOl1lodie." TViclia StudtI'll 52: 66-83· - - - . 1977. "Die C:lptivi im neuen Lichte Mcnanders." In Latillitiit IIl1d _-I.frc Kirchc: Festschrift flir Rudo!f HmlSlik ;:111/1 70. Gclmrtsrag, pp. 159-70. Vienna:

Hennann B6hbu. Kwintncr, M. 1992. "PbutllS PsclldoirlS 7S2: _A. Fullonius Assault." Classical Plzilol(l~Q}, ST 2}2-33· Lada, ISl1.1ene. 1996. '''Weeping for Hecuba': Is It a 'Brechtian' Act?" Arcrllllsa 29: 87-124.

Langer, Susanne K. 1953. Feeling mill [imll: A Theory (~rArr Dcuclopcd F:rolll Philosophy ill (/ IVclI' Key. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Latte, Kurt. 1960. ROlllrsche RclZ(,!ioll.l)~cs(hidilc. Munich: Beck. Law, Helen. 1929. "The Metrical Arrangement of the Fragments of the Ba(chides." Classical Philology :2.4: 197~201. Leach, Eleanor Winsor. 1969a. "De exemplo meo ipse aediflcato: An Organizing Idea in the .iVIostellariil." Hermes 97: 3 I 8 - 3 2. - - - . 1969b. "Ergasilus and the Ironies of the CdptiIJi." CIIIssiw et iVledrllclJalitl 30: 263 -96. - - - . 1974. "Plautus' Rlldells: Venus Born from a Shel1." 'Ii:XilS Stlldies ill LiteriltllrC d/Jd LlIIglIlIge 15: 915 - 3 I . Leell1an, A. D. I9H3. "L'Hyperbole et l'ironie chez les Romains en tant que mcchanismes de defense et d'assimilation i l'egard de la culture Grecque." In HOllllllagcs {I Rohert Scliillillg, ed. Hubert Zehnacker and Gustave Hentz, pp. 347~55. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Lefevre, Eckard. 1977. "Plautus-Studien I: Der doppelte Gcldkreislaufim Pseudolus." I-Jcrlllcs r 05: 44 r - 54. - - - . 1978. "Pbutus-Studien II: Die Brief-Intrige in Menandcrs Dis c.yaparoll und ihre Verdoppelullg in den Bacchides." Hermcs 106: 518~38. - - - . 1979. "Plautus-Studien Ill: Von del' Tyche-Herrschaft in Diphilos' Klerumenoi ZU111 Triu111matronat der Casina." Hermcs 107: 311-39. - - - . 1982. JH{/(Cl/s vortit hm·bare: r/(l/1/ tragischell Alllpliilr),oll ZIII11 tf{~'Sikollliscll(.'1I AII/phitn/O. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. - - - . 1984. "PJautus-Studien IV: Die Umformung des 'AAaswv zu der Doppel-Kolllodie des 'Miles Gloriosus.'" Henlles 112: 30-53. - - - . 198H. "Saturnalia und palliata." PoctiCiJ 20: 32-46. - - - . 1993. "Politics and Society in Pbutus' 1"rhIlIlIlIlI1lS." In ThcIller and S'oeicl}' ill tlie Classical Wc)rld, cd. Ruth Scodcl, pp. 177~90. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. - - - . 1995. PIal/illS IlIId Philellloll. Ti.ibingen: Gunter Narr. - - - . 1997. Pla/lflls' PscHdolllS. Ti.ibingen: Gunter Nan-. Lefevre, Eckard, Ekkehard Stark, and Gregor Vogt-Spira. 1991. Plaw/IS /){/r/Jllrlls: Seells Kapifc! zlIr Or~~illalifiit des Plallflls. Ti.ibingen: GUllter Narr. Leffingwell, Georgia Williams. ! 9! 8. Social ilIld Pril'atc Lffe lit ROllI(' ill the Time elf PIIlUtllS al/d Tcrc/lcc. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public La\v 81.!. New York: Cohullbia University. Lelievre, F. J. 195H. "Sosia and Roman Epic." Phocnix 12: 117-24. Leo, Friedrich. 1908. Der i\1OllOlog im Drama, Eill Beitrag zlIr gricchiscll-riillliscllcli Poetih. Gottingen: Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft.

WORKS CITED

l - . 1912. Plaulillisdle F(lrscllllll}~C1/: ZlIr Kritik lind Gesehiclitc riC/" J(ollliidic. 2d eeL Berlin: Weidmann. - - - . T913. Gcschiclitc der riilllischell Litemtllr. Vol. I, Dre mrllllisclie Lilcf<1tlll". Berlin: Weidmann. - . 1960. AlIsgell'dhltc klcitlc SchrlftclI. Edited by Eduard Fraenkel. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Levith, Murray 1- 191)9. Shakespcare's !ttlliilll Scttillgs and PI,lYs. New York: St. Martin's. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. 1979. COllfillllity IIlId Chilllge ill Romall Religioll. Oxford: Clarendon. Lilja, Saara. 1983. J-Iolllosex/hJlify ill RepuhliCiJII alld AII<~IISt{/1i ROlliI'. Societas 5cientiarLlm Fennica, Commelltationes HU11lanaru11l Litterarum 74. Eken:is: Eken;is Tryckcri. Lindsay, Wallace M., eel. 1900. 171c Cdptil'i (!f Plalltlls. London: Ivlethuen. Lintott, A. W. 190R. Violcllce ill Republicall ROlllc. Oxford: Clarendon. Lodge, Gonzalez. 1904-33. Lcxicoll Plmitillllll!. Leipzig: Teubner. Loitold, Elfriede. T957. "Untersuchungen zur Spicltechnik der Pbminischen Komodie." Ph.D. diss., Vienna. LOlnbardo, Agostino. 1993. "The Veneto, Metatheatre, and Slukespeare." In Ivlarrapodi et a!. 1993, Ll3 -57. Lowe, J.e.B. 19H5. "The Cook Scene ill Plautus' Pscudolus." Cldssiwl Quarterly 35: 4II~16. - - - . 19H9. "The I'ilgo [{dlida ofPbutus, PCI:'la." Classiwl Quarterly 39: 390~9S1. ---.1991. "Prisoners, Guards, and Chains in PJautus, Capti!'i." Alllcriw/ljomltal if Philology 112: 29-44. ---.1992. "Aspects of Plaut us' Originality in the Asillaria." Classiwl Quarterly 42: 15 2 -75. Lucas, Donald WillialTI. 1968. Aristotle: Poetics. Oxford: Clarendon. Ludwig, Walther. 1961. "Aulubria-Probleme." Philologlls 105: "'H~71 and 247-62. - - - . 196H. "The Originality of Terence and His Greek Models." Greek, ROIIIIllI Illid Byzol1tillc Studics 9: 169- 82. MacCary, W. ThOinas. 1975. "The Bacchae in Plautus' Cdsillil." I-Jerlllcs [03: 459-63· MacCary, W. ThOinas, and M. M. Willcock, eds. 1976. Plmltlls: Casilll1. Canlbridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonnell, Myles. ISlS7. "The Speech of Numidicus at Gellius, .iVA. 1.6." A IIICricall jOl1f11111 (?f PlIilolc~gy 108: 8 [-94. MacDowell, Douglas M. 1995 . .ilristop/ulIIcs lllu/.AthcllS: All IlItrodllClioll to the Plays. New York: Oxford University Press. McLeish, Kenneth. 19So. The Theatre (if Aristopflmlcs. London: Thames and Hudson. MacMullen, Ranlsay. ISlSlI. "Hellenizing the Romans (2m} Celltury B.C.)." Historia 40: 419-3H. McPherson, David C. 1990. SIlI1kc.lpeare,jollsoll, 1I1It! the k/rttz 4 Vel/icc. Nnvark: University of Debware Press. Maltby, R. ISlSl5. "The Distribution of Greek Loan-Words in Plautus." Popers qf the Leeds Jntc/"IIatiolJt11 utili Scmilldr~: 31-69. Mariotti, Italo. ISlSl2. "La prima scena della Mostellaria di Plauto." .Muselllll HelFetiolll/ 49: 105-23. Mar1110rale, Enzo V. 1953. J.\/IlCf!iIlS Pocta. Florence: La Nuova Italia.

WORKS CITED

2-13

Marouzeau, J. 1932. Rcvic\v of A. Stein, Riilllisdic illsdlfijtell ill der (//Itikcn Litefatllf. Rellue des Etlu/es Lltizles 10: 271-72. Marrapodi, Michele, A. J. Hoenselaars, Marcello Cappuzzo, and L. Falzon Santucci, cds. 1993. Shakespeare\- Ital}': FlIlleriolls c!fltillil1l1 LOCt1tiolls ill RClI(lisSllIlce Drama. Ivlanchester: Manchester University Press. Marx, Friedrich, eel. I92R. Plmlliis Rudells. Leipzig: Hirzel. Repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1959. Maurach, Gregor. 1964. Revinv of Mason I-lammond, Arthur W. Mack, and Walter Moskalew, cds., T IVJacci Plallti Aliles Glorioslls. GIIOIllOIl 36: 577- 80. - - - . 1966. Review ofT. A. Dorey ;:md Donald R. Dudley, cds., ROlllall Drallla. GIlOIllOIl 3S: 676-79. - - - . 19RR. DCI' Poem tillS des Plallflls. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Middelmann, Franz. 1938. "Griechische Welt und Sprache in Plautus' Komadien." Ph.D. diss., Ivliinster. Milch, Wilhehn. 1957. "Zum Kapitel 'Plautinische Zwischenreden.''' Hcrlllcs 85: I59-69· Millar, Fergus. 1984. "The Political Character of the Roman Republic, 200 -IS I B.C." JOllrnal 4 ROIIlI1ll Studics 74: [ - ! 9. M0111igliano, Arnaldo. 1975. AliclI rVisdolll: The Lilllits c!f HelleniZ'afioll. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. M01111usen, Theodor. 1886. Riilllisdics Staatsrccht. Vol. 3, part r. Leipzig. Repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verbgsanstalt, 1952. - - - . 1907. Riilllisdic Gcschiclitc. Vol. I: Bis ZI/I' Schl(/cht FOil P)'d/1a. 10th ed. Berlin: Weidmann. Monaco, Giusto. 1970. "Spectatores, plaudite." In Studia Florcllfilld Alexalldra ROIICOlli scx(~r;elldrio obiatd, pp. 255-73. Rome: Ateneo. Moore, Timothy J. 19R9. Artistry alld Ideology: Lip)"s [li)mlm/ar}, of Virtl/c. Frankfurt: Athen:iul11. - - - . 1991a. "Palliata togata: Plautus, Clllmlio 462-86." AllleriwlljolJfIlal tif Philology 112: 343 -62. 1991b. "Pbutns, CaptiPi, 818-822." Latolll/IS 50: 349-SI. ---.1994. "Seats and Social SCltUS in the Plautine Theatre." Classicaljollnzal 90: Il3- 2 3· Morel. J.-P- 1964· "'Pube praesenti in contione, omni poplo' (Plaute, Pseudoills, v. 126): Puhes et collfio d'aprcs Plaute et Tite-Live." RelJIlC des Etl/dcs Lafilles 42: 375-88. Morgan, M. Gwyn. 1990. "Politics, Religion and the Games in Rome, 200ISO B.C." Philologlls 134: 14-36. Muecke, Frances. 1985. "Names and Players: The Sycophant Scene of the Trill/lillI/illS (Trill. 4.2}." Transactiolls of the AlllericClII Philological Associatioll I I s: I67-86. ---.1986. "Plautus and the Theatre of Disguise." Classical Alltiquity S: 216-29· Mullini, Roberta. 1993. "Streets, Squares and Courts: Venice as a Stdge ill Shakespeare and Ben Jonson." In Marrapodi et a1. 1993, 1S8-70. Naudet, J., cd. 1830. AI ..,."lccii Plallti COII/oediae. Vol. I. Paris: Nicolaus Eligius Lemaire. Nelson. RobertJ. 1955. Pia}, IVithill a Play: The Dralllatist's COIICeptioll (if His Art: Shakespeare to Allollith. Ne\v Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press.

WORKS CITED

244

Niebergall, Volker. 1937. "Griechische Religion lind Mythologie in der altesten LiterJ.tllr der RameL" Ph.D. diss .. Giessen. Norr, Dieter. 1989. Aspekte des r(JlllisdlCll VGlkcrrcchrs: Die BrollZC({ifef !lOll Aldl/tam. Ivlunich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Norwood, Gilbert. 1932. Pial/fils alld Terence. New York: Longmans, Green. O'Bryhi111, Shawn. 1989. "The Originality ofPlautns' Casi,lil." .Alllcricdlljolll'llal (?fPhiiology 110: SI-103. Oniga, Renato. 1985. "II camicum di Sosia: Forme stilistiche e lllodelli culturali." i.Hafcriali c DisClisslolli per l'Al/alisi dci «'sri Classici 14: 113 -20S. Oppermann, Hans, ed. 1962. Riilllcrflllll: Allsgcll'dlzlre AI!f,atZ'c 111111 Arbeitell atlS dm jahrm 1921 bis 1961. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. - - - , cd. I967. Riil1lischc rVertbegritJe. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Otis, Brooks. 1967. "The Uniqueness of Latin Literature." Arioll 6: IRS-206. Owens, Willialu Martin. 19S6. "Ethnic Characterization in Plautus." Ph.D. diss., Yale University, Ne\v Haven, Ct. - - - . 1994. "The Third Deception in Baccllides: Fidc~' and Plautus' Originality." Alllericall JOIln/al (?F Philology [ 15: 3R1-407. Pailler, Jean-Marie. 19R5. Ba[{hallalia: La R(;pressioll dc 186 rlIJ.j.-C il Romc ct ell Italic: r/est~l!es, ill/ages, tmditiol/. Rome: Ecole Franyaise de Rome. Paratore, Ettorc. 1959. "II flautista nel LlUG"KOAOS- e nello Pseudollls." Rivistu di Clllfllm Classica e iVIedioe/lil/e I: 310-25. Parker. Holt. 19R9. "Crucially Funny or Tranio on the Couch: The SeflJIIS Cedlidlls and Jokes about Torture." Tr(///S{lctiollS C!f the Alllericall Philolo.l!irdl Associarioll [19: 233-46. - - - . 1996. "Plautus vs. Terence: Audience and Popularity Re-examined." Alllerica/l JOIlflwf of Philology 117: 585 - 6 I 7. Pasquali, Giorgio. 1927. "Un monologo dei C1pril'i." Ril'istd di Filologia 55: 24-3 0 . Paton, W. R., trans. 1923. Pofyf)illS: The Histories. Vo1. 3. Cambridge, Mass.: H~rv;)rd University Press. Patterson, Orlando. [982. Shlllery alld Social Dearh: A COlllparatiFC Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Perelli, Luciano. 197R. "Societa romana e problematiea sociale nel teatro plautino." Stlldi ROil/alii 26: 307-27. ---.1983. "L'Alcmem. plautina: Personaggio serio 0 parodieo?" CiF/ita Classica c Cristimlil 4: 383 -94. Perez GOluez, Lconor. 1990. "Roles sociales y conflictos de sexo ell la comedia de Plauto." In La 1I!1~icr Cil ellllll/ldo IIIcdircrf(llllleO aIllC!?/IO, ed. Aurora Lopez, Candida Martinez, and Andres Pociih, PP.137-67. Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada. Perna, Raffaele. I955. L'Orzr;illalitil di PIli/ito. Bari: "Leonardo da Vinci." Petrochilos, Nicholas. 1974. ROlllall Attitlldes to tfte Greeks. Athens: S. Saripolos. Petrone, Gianna. 1977. Alomle e alltill/oralc nelle cO/lllllcdic di Pial/to: Riccrche sullo Stidllls. Palermo: Palumbo. ---.1981. "Iuppiterlenonius: Aproposito di Psclld. 335-339." P(/fJ T 113-18. - - - . 1983. Teatro alltico c illgml/w: FillZ'iolli plal/tille. Palermo: Palumbo. - - - . ! 9R9. "Ridere in silenzio: Tradizionc misogina e trionfo dell'intelligcnza femminile nella c0111media plautina." In Afti del 11 COIlFCgllO llaziOlll1le di swdi Sll la dOIllUl llel,IlO/ufo alllico, ToriI/O 18-19-20 Aprile 1988, ed. Renata

WORKS CITED

Uglione, pp. 87-103. Turin: AssociJ.zione Italiana di Cultura ClassicI, Ddc_ gazione di Torino: Regione PieillOlltC, Assessorato alIa Culmra. Pfister, Manfred. 1988. The Thcory alld Allalysis (;f Drmlld. Translated by John Halliday. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phillips; Jane E. 1985. "Alcu111ena in the AmphitnlO of Plautus: A Pregnant Lady Joke." Classiml J01lrnal 80: 121-26. . Pociua, Andres. 1976. "El barbarus en Plauto: (Critica social?" Hellllllllticd 2;: 4 2 5 -p. POl11eroy, Sarah B. 1975. Goddcsscs, Hi/ lOres, TVilJCS, illld Slal'es: r+i.Jlllell ill CI(ls~'i­ ml AlltiqllitJ'. New York: Schocken. POl11ey, Patrice. 1973. "Plautc et Ovide J.rchitectes navals!" JHClal/gcs de {'Ecole Frallfaise de ROllle: AIltiq1litc 85: 483 - 515. Posani, Maria Rosa. 1962. "Aspetti del comico in Terel1zio." Atcne (' ROlli" T 65-76. Prescott, Henry W. 1939. "Link Monologues in Roman Cometiv." Classiml Philology 34: 116-26. . Pritnn1.er, Adolf 19tLt. Halldhlllg.~gliedeml1}J ill Ned lind Hdliata: Dis Exapatoll lind Bacchides. Vienna: Verlag der ()sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Questa, Cesare. 1970. "Alcune strutture sceniche di Plauto e Menandro." In Al(;l1alldre, ed. Eric G. Turner, pp. 183 -215. Fondation Hardt Entretiens 16. Geneva: FondJ.tion Hardt. - - - . 1982. "Maschere e funzioni nelle commedie eli Plauto." Ji1l1tcriali e DisCIIssiolli per {'mUllisi dci testi classici 8: 9-64. Radennacher, L. 1903. "Die Zeit del' Asinaria." Rheillisches iHlIselllllji'ir Philol(Jgic 58: 636-38. Radke, Gerhard. 1987. 2ur Ellfll'icklllllg der GotteS!Jorstellllllg IIl1d der GortcsI!erehrl/n<~ ill ROlli. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Rmnage, Edwin S. 1960. "Early Roman Urbanity." AllierirmlJollfllal '!FPhifofogy 81: 65-72. - - - . 1973· Urbanitas: AI/dellt SOjJhistimtioll alld R~fillelllellt. Norm;m, OK: University of Oklahonu Press. Rau, Peter. 1970. Review of Eberhard Rechenberg, Beobaclitllll,lZclI fiber das T7crhiiltllis dCI" Altell attischcII KOllliidie ZII ihl"elll Pllldiklllll. CIlOIlIO/; 42: 91-92. Rawson, Elizabeth. 1985. "Theatrical Life in Republican Rome J.nd Italy." Pilpers (?Fthe Britislt School at ROllle 53: 97-113. - - - . 1987. "Speciosa loeis morataque reete." In HOlIJo piator: Classical Essays 101"Joll1/ Bramble, ed. Michael Whitby, Philip Hardie, and Mary \Vhitby, pp. 79-88. Oak PJ.rk, Ill.: Bolchazy-CJ.rducci. - - - . 1989· "Roman Tradition and the Greek World." In The Cambridge Alldmt History, Vol. 8: ROlllc IIwl the lHeditelT<1I1CI1I1 to 133 B.C., cd. A. E. Astin et aI., 2d cd., pp. 422-76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rayner, Alice. 1987. Comic PerslIasion: I\loml Stmctllrc ill British COlllcdyjimll Slwkcspeare to Stoppard. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reckford, KennethJ. 1987. Aristopltm/cs' Old-alld-Ncll' Comcdy. Vol. I: Six Essays ill Perspectiue. Chapel Hill: Ulliversity of North Carolina Press. Reinhardt, Udo. 1974. "Amphitryon llnd Amphitruo." In All1sa io(Osa: AriJcitell abcr HI/mor IIlld rVitz, KOlllik IIlId KOIII(i"die del" Alltike: AIII/rcils Thicifelder ZI/III siebzigstCil G('IJl/rtst,~~ alii 15Jllili 1973, edd. Udo Reinhardt and Klaus Sall11lJ.l1n, with Karl Heinz Chelius, pp. 95 -130. Hildeshcim: Georg OlnlS.

WORKS CITED

Ribbed" Otto. 1875. Die Riilllischc Tmgadic illl Zcitilltcr der Rcp/lblik. Leipzig: Teubner. Richardson, Lawrence, Jr. 1973. "The Tribunals of the Praetors of Rome." iVIitteilllllgell des Del/tsd/ell ArchiiologischclI Institllts, Ramische Ahfeilllllg So: 219-33· - - - . 1975>. "Basilica Fulvia, modo Aemilia." In SII/dies ill C/.lSsical Art ilIlif Archacology: ./1 'Jl-ibllte to Peter Heil/rich !Jon Blallckcnha<~cl/, ed. Clinter Kopcke and Mary B. Moore., pp. 209-15. Locust Valley, N.Y.: J. J. Augustin. - - - . 1992 . .A Neill Tbpogmplzict11 Dictimldr], td"Alldellt ROllle. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Richlin, Amy. 1984. "Invective Against Women in Roman Satire." Aretllllsil IT 67- 80. Rieiner, Peter. 1992. "Plautus 1;-;IIIIIIIIIIIIS 48-67." Prol/Jethelis 18: 49-57. - - - . 1996. Das :-'picl il/J Spiel: Srl/diCil ZIIIII plmlfillisrhell Agoll ill "'ii'iIlIlI/JIIIUS" IIl1d "RlldClls." Stuttgart: Teubner. Righter, Anne. 1962. Shakespeare ilIld the Idea lifthe Play. London: Chatto J.nd Windus. Ritschl, Friedrich. 1845. Pmnga ZII Plal/tlls liIlil Ti.'I"CIlZ. Vol. I. Berlin. Repr. Amsterdam: HJ.kkert, 1965. Robertis, Francesco Maria de. 1963. Lworo e {afJoratori llell/wl/do rOlllano. Dari: Adriatica. Rogers, Katharine M. 1966. The Ti"Ollblesollle Helplllate: .:"'1 History 4 J\1isog}'ll}' ill Literatl/re. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Rolfe, John C., trans. 1946. Thc Attic IV(V./zts (!FAlIll/s Cellills. Vol. I. Rev. ed. Cambridge, IVlass.: Harvard Ulliversity Press. Rose, H. J. 1924. "Dc talento Plautino." Clilssim{ ReFiell' 38: 155-57. RosenI11eyer, Patricia A. 1995. "Enacting the Law: Plautus' Use of the Divorce Formula on Stage." Phoellix 49: 201-17. Rosivach, VincentJ. 1970. "Plautine Stage Settings (Asill., All!., hlell., TUII.)." Tiw/sileriolls (?fthe American Philological Assod(/tioll 101: 445-6l. - - - . 198s>. "The lIliles i1lJPflll15U5 ofPbut. AlIl. 528." Latollllls 48: 344-45. RosIer, Wolfgang. 1986. "IVlichail Bachtin und die Karnevalskllltur im anti ken Griechenlanel." Qllmieflli Urbill<1ti di Cllitllfl1 Classica, n.s. 23, 2: 25-44. Russo, Carlo Ferdinando. 198't. Arist(ji1llc aI/tore di tcalro. 2d cd. Florence: Sansoni. Sandbach, F. H. 1977. The Comic Theatre 4 Grcccc awl ROlliI'. Ne\"\' York: Norton. Saunders, Catharine. 1909. CostUIlIC ill ROI/Ja/l Comedy. NC\v York: Columbia University Press. ---.1913. "The Site of Dramatic Performances at Rome in the Times of Plautus and Terence." Tmllsactiolls qf the Alilcrimil Philologiml Associatioll 44: 87-97· Scafuro, Adele C. 1989. "Livy's Comic Narrative of the Bacchanalia." Heli(Js 16: 1 [9-42. ---.1993. "Staging Entrapment: On the Boundaries of the L1\V in Plautus' Pcrsa." In Illtertcxtlldlifiit ill dcr oriechisclt-fiilllisc/lell KOllliidic, ed. NiJ.ll W. Slater and Bernhard Zinul1ermJ.nn (~ Drama 2: 55-77). Stuttgart: M und P Verlag fijI" Wissenschafi: und Forschung. Schaaf, Lothar. 1977. Del" lvliles Clorioslls des Plmltlls IIIlil scillgricC/zisdles Original: Eill Beitmg zlIr KOlltlll1lil1atiollSji"agc. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.

WORKS CITED

Schiappa de Azevedo, Maria Teresa. 1975-70. "Ul11l11ol11ento Pbutino: 'sed quasi poeta .. .'." l-lllllllllliTIlS 27-28: 95-130. Sclllnid, Wilhehn, and Otto Stahlin. 1940. GcschichfC dcrgricchiscflcil LiTeratlll; J: Die klassisellc Pcriode, 4. Munich: Beck. Schuhn1.ann, Elisabeth. 1975. "Die soziale SteHung der Frau in den KOl11odien des Plautus." Ph.D. diss., Leipzig. - - - . I~J76. "Ehescheidungen in den KOl1lodien des Plautus." Zcitsdzr{ft der Sal'igll),-Sttftlll1g .Fir Rcchtsgcschidlte 93: 19- 32. - - - . 1977. "Dcr Typ der uxor dotatd in den KOl11odien des Plautus." Philohl,~IIS 121: 45-65. - - - . 1971). "Zur sozialen SteHung der Frau in den Komodien dcs PlautllS." Alrcrtll11124: 97-105· Schutter, Klaas Hernlan Eltjo. 1952. QlliI)IIS millis col/lOedillc Pllllltillac prill1l1111 IIctdC .'lim qllilcrifllr. Groningen: Dnvaal. Scullard, H. H. 1973. ROIIIIIII Politics, 220-150 H.C'. 2d ed. Oxford: Cbrendon. Sealnan, WillialTI M. 1954. "The Understanding of Greek by Plautus' Audience." C1IIssicai JOllfllal 50: I IS -19· Segal, Erich. 1987. ROIl1I1I1 Lllllghter: Ihc COllledy ~fPl(//ltlis. 2d ed. Nnv York: Oxford University Press. Seidensticker, Bernd. 1982. Palintono.'l HllnllOllill: Stlldicll ZII kOlllischCll E1ClII('lltCIl in dergriechisdlclI Tragddic. Gottingen: Vandenhocck und Ruprecht. Sharrock, A. R. 1990. "The Art of Deceit: Pseudolus and the Nature of Reading." Classicill QllI1rterly 46: 152-74. Shawcross, John T. 1987. "Tragicomedy as Genre, Past and Present." In Rel/(liss(JIw.' Tragicollledy: Exploflltiolls in Gcnrc Illld Politics, ed. Nancy Klein Maguire, pp. 13 -32. New York: AMS Press. Shipp, G. B. 1953. "Greek in Plamus." rViellcr STlldiell 66: I05 -12. - - - . 1955. "Plautine Terms for Greek and Roman Things." Glotta 34: 139-52. Sifakis, G. M. 1971. Pdwbasis illld Allilllill Chofllses: A COllfrilmtioll to the History of Attic Comcdy. London: Athlollc. Slate~, Niall W. 19"'3. "A Note on Plautus' Bilrdlides 772." Chu."sical r+'orfd 7T 20-21. - - - . 191)5a. "A Note on Plautus' Ti-illllllJ11I1/S 705-707." Cld.'lsical r+'orld 79: 33 -]4.

- - - . 191)5b. PI(JIItIlS ill Pe~fo/"ll/{lIlcc: The Thclltre C?Jthe tHind. Princeton: Princeton University Press. - - - . 191)5C. "Pby and Play\vright Refercnces in Ivliddle and Nnv Cornedy." Lil'crpool Cldssical jHollthly 10: 103-5. - - - . 191)7. "The Date of Plaut us' Cllrmlio and Trillllll/III11S Reconsidered." Alllcrimll JOIir/lIll (:f Phitolo.IIY 108: 264 -69· - - - . 1990. "AlllphitrllO, BacdUlc, and Metathcatre." Lexis 5-6: 101-25. - - - . 199f. "Thc Market in Sooth: Supernatural Discourse in Plautus." Unpublishcd manuscript. - - - . 1992a. "Plautine Negotiations: The Pocllllius Prologue Unpacked." y{dc Classiall Stlldies 29: 13 f - 46. - - - . 1992b. "T\vo Republican Poets on Drama: Tcrence and Accius." In Alltike DfIllllelitheoricll lI1ld illrc Rczeptioll, ed. Bernhard Zimmermann (= DfIllll1l I: 85-103). Stuttgart: Ivl und P Verlag fUr Wissenschaft und Forschung. - - - . 1993a. "From Ancient Performance to Ncw Historicism." Inllltertexfllalitat ill dcrgficrhisch-romisrhell [(oll/tidic, ed. Niall W. Slatcr and Bernhard

WORKS CITED

ZimmcrI1unn (= DfIll!la 2: 1-13). Stuttgart: I"v1 und P Verlag tl.ir \Vissellschaft und Forschung. - - - . 1993 b . "Improvisation in Pbutus." In Beitragc ::lIr llliilldlidiell J-:lIlzllr dcr Riilller, ed. Grcgor Vogt-Spira, pp. 113 -2+. Tilbingen: Gunter NaIT. Snlall, Jocelyn Penny. 191)2. Caws IIl1d !H,mTas ill ErfllHo-RollIlllI LeoClld. Princcton: Princeton Universiry' Press. .~ Snowden, Frank M., Jr. 1983· B(:fore Color Prejudice: The .4.lIciCllt ViL'II' of BI,Il·b. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. . Spranger, Peter P. 191)4. Historische UlltCl5l1dlllllgi'll ZII dell SklmJcl!/igllrcli dcs PldlltliS IIlId TcrclI::. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Staccioli, R01110Io A. 1961. "Spettacoli antic hi e moderni al Foro Romano." Capitoliulll 36: 18-22. Stiirk, Eld(ehard. 19B9. Die AIC1l1lcdlllli des Plauflls IIl1d kcill gricrfli3Chcs Origillal. Tiibingen: Gunter NaIT. - - - . 1990. "Plautus' uxores dotatae im Spalll1L1ngsfeld literarischer Fiktiol1 und gesellschaftlicher Realitat." In Theater IIIld Gesell.'lcflC!.ft illl IlIIpcrilllll ROII/mllllll, ed. Ji.lrgen BHinsdorf pp. 69-79. Tiibingen: Franckc Verlag. Steidle, Wulf. 1975. "Probleme des Btihnenspiels in der Neuen Komodie." Grazer Beitri(Re 3: 341-86. ---.1979. "Plautus' AlllphitnlO und sein griechisches Original." Rhcinisches lvII/scuII/Iiir P/zilo/o,gic 122: 34-4B. Stein, J. Peter. 1970. "Morality in PlaUtllS' T/"ill/IIIIIIIIIS." Classiml Bulletin 4T 7- 1 J. Steinby, Eva Margareta, cd. 1993. Lexicoll TopographiCl/1II Urhis ROllllle. J: .ll-C. Rome: Quasar. - - - , ed. 1995. Lexicoll TOfJogmphiCll11l Urhi.'l ROII/ae, II: D-G. Romc: Quasar. Steiner, Deborah. 191)6. The Croll'lI 4 Song: Aletllplior ill Hlldar. London: Duckworth. Stewart, Zeph. 1958. "The AII/phitwo of Plautus and Euripides' Bacelll1c." Tmnsactiolls 4thI' AIIICriml1 Philoiogiwl.Associatioll 89: 348-73. Stockert, Walter, cd. 1983. T. Alacriu5 P/IllltllS Alllulilria. Stuttgart: Teubner. Stow, Harry Lloyd. 1936. "The Violation of the Dramatic Illusion in the Comedies ofAristophanes." Ph.D. diss., Chicago. Styan, J. L. 1975. DfI1[1/t1, StllgC, mid ./lIU/iCIl{C. New York: Cambridge University Press. - - - . 1977. Thc Slzakespedrc Rel'ollltioll: CriticislII dlld Pe~foflllllllCC ill thc Ii{lclltieth CClltllf)'. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - - - . 1989. "Stage Space and. the ShaLespeare Experience." In Thompson and Thompson, 191)9, 195 - 209. Sutton, Dana F. 1993. Al/cieHt Comcdy: The Weir c:f If Ie Gellcmtiolls. New York: Twavne. Swobod~, Michael. 1971. "Dc soliloquiorul11 in ;mtiquo drammate ab Aeschyli temporibus usque ad Terentiutl1 adhibitorum munere scaenico." Eos 59: 57-7 6 . Taafe, Lauren K. 1993. A/"istophillies (JIld H/o lllell . London: Routledge. Taillardat, Jean. 1965. Lcs ill/ages d'.ArisIOplll1l1c: Etudes de lilIlgllc et dc style. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Taladoire, BartheU~ll1y-A. 1951. COllllllclltaircs slIr la lIIillliql/e et {'expressioll co/"porellc dll WIIICdiCIJ !"OlIIaill. Montpellier: Ch. Dehan. - - - . 1956. E.'lsm' sllr lc w11!iqllc de PIllUte. Monte Carlo: Impril11erie Natioll;lIe de Monaco.

WORKS CITED

249

r

Tanner R. G. 1909. "Problems in Plautus." Prorccdillgs (?{thc Ca/llbridge Phil(llogi~ cal Society 15: 95-105. Taplin, Oliver. 1993. Comic .Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Dr<11111l throll.~h [/{lsc-Pailltillgs. Oxford: Clarendon. Tatmll, Jalnes, trans. 1983. Plmlflls: 'The Darker Comedies: Bacchidcs, Casillll, IIlId ~lh/ClIlcl1tlls. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. TatmTI, W. Jeffrey_ 1993. "Ritual and Personal Morality in Roman Relif:,rlon." Syllccra Classien 4: 13 -20. Taylor, Lily Ross. [900. ROl1ulIl f/lJtillg ASSClllblicsj;'olll the Hallllibalie H/I-n to the Dictatorship of Caesar. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Terzaghi, N. 1930. "Pbuto, Terenzio, il pllbblico." Arti della Socicta Italianll pcr if

Progrcsso delle SciCIlZC IS, I: 749-81. Teuffel, W. S. IBB9 . .';,'tlldim IIIJ({ ClwraktcristikCll zlIrgricchischCll IlIld r(jlllischclI Liferatll1~q{'schlchtc. Lcipzig: Tcubner. Thalnlann, Willialll G. 1996. "Versions of Slavery in the CaptiIJi of Plaut liS." Rail/liS 25: 112-45. Thompson, Lloyd A. 1989. ROil/ailS alld Blacks. Norman: University of Oklahom:1 Prcss. Thompson, Marvin, and Ruth Thonlpson. 1989. "Performance Criticism: From Granville-Barker to Bernard Beckerman and Beyond." In Shakespcafc alld thc Sellse of Pcd(l/'II/allcc: Essays ill thc Ii"aditioll of PedOfl/Jallcc Criticism ill HOllOI' (?f Bcmard Bcckermall, ed. Marvin Thompson and Ruth Thompson, pp. 13-23. Newark: University of Delaware Press. Tierney, J. J. 1947· "The Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus." Proceedings {:f the Royal Irish AcadclIIY 51, sec. C, no. 5: 89 - I 17. Tolliver, Hazel M. 1952. "PlalltllS and the State Gods of Rome." C[assicaljollfll al 4 B: "t9-57· Traina, Alfonso. 1954. "De primo Amphitruonis cantico." Latillitas 2: 127-32. Trcggiari, Susan. 1969. ROil/ail Frecdmcn Dllrillg the Late Rcpublic. Oxford: Clarcndon. ---.1991. ROlllall hfarria,ge: Illsti COI/Illgesfrolll the Time cifCiccro to thc TIllie of [..lIp/ail. Oxford: Clarendon. . Trcndall, A. D. 1967. Phylax T/(15CS. 2d ed. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London. Ubersfeld, Annc·. 198 T. L' Ecolc dll spectatcllr: Lirc Ic th(;Atre 2. Paris: Editions Sociales. - - - . 1982. Lirc lc tllciitrc. 4th cd., with addcnda. Paris: Editions Sociales. Usener, Hennann. 1913. Klcille Schr{{tell. VoL 4: Arheitcn zlIr Rci(r.:iollsgcschiclitc. Leipzig: Teubner. Ussing, Johan Louis. 1875 -92. COlIIlIIClltarills ill Plallfi COl1loedias. Copcnhagen. Repr. witb addenda by Andrcas Tbicrfc1der, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 197 2 . Veyne, Paul. 1976. Lc Paill ct Ic cirqllc: Sociologic historiqlle d'ull plllwlismc poliriqllc. Paris: Seuil. - - - . 1~n8. "Le Famille et l'amour som Ie haut-cmpire romain." AllIlales: Ealllomies, SociCt(;s, Ciuilisatiolls 33: 35-63. Vogt, Joseph. 1975. AI/ciellt SlaFcr}, and thc Ideal (if jUan. Translated by Thomas Wiedemann. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Vogt-Spira, Gregor. 1995. "PlalltuS und dic Ubcfwindung des Stegreifspiels." In Benz, St~irk, and Vogt-Spira 1995,229-39. Wagner, Wilhehll. I S64. Dc Plallti AlIllllaria. Bonn: apud A. Marcum.

WORKS CITED

Warnecke, B. 1927. "Llldii barbari." Rheillischcs iHlIsclIlIIFir Pllilologie 70: 22021.

Warning, Rainer. 1970. "Elcmcntc einer Pragm:lsemiotik del' Komodie." In Dos [(ollliselle, cd. Wolfgang Preisendanz ::md Rainer Warning, pp. 279-333. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Watling, E. F., trans. 1905. PloliTl/s: The Pot of Cold, nlc PrisOl/c):", Thc Brorhers j\.1('110CCIlIllIlS, The Swagqcrillg SoldiCl~ Psclld~llls. London: Penguin. Watson, Alan. 1967. The La1/' (!lPersons ill rhe Laler Roman RejJllhlic. Ox±c)1'd: Clarendon. - - - . 19t:l7. ROllwlI SlaFc Lmr'. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Webster, T.B.L. 1970. Studics ill Later Creek COlllcdy. 2d cd. New York: Barnes and Noble. - - - . 1974. All illtrodllction to .AIcl/ander. New York: Barnes and Noble. Welin, Erik. 1953. Swdien zlir Yi1Pogmphic des Forulll ROlllillllllll. Lund: C.W~.K. Gleerup. Wellcsley, K. 1955. "Thc Production Date of Plaut us' Coptilli." Alllcri((lIIjolll"lwl tif Philolog}' 76: 298-305. Westaway, Katharine Mary. 1917. Thc Original Elelllellt in Plalltlls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Westcnnann, William L. 1955. The Sh/lle Systellls (!fCrccf..; and ROllw/l Alltiqllity. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Weston, Karl E. [903. "The Illustrated Terence Manuscripts." Hanlunl Studies ill Classical Philo{o,t!y q: 37-5"~. Wieand, Helen E. 1920. Dcccptioll ill Plalltlls. Boston: Richard G. Badger. Wiedeillann, Tho111as. 1981. Greek amI R.Olllrlll SlmJer},. Baltimore: Thc J01111S Hopkins University Press. Wiles, David. 1988a. "Greek Theatre and the Legitimation of Slavery." In SlmJcry ilIld Other Forms of UI!(rCC Lobour, cd. Leonie J. Archer, pp. 53 - 67. London: Routledge. - - - . 1988b. "Taking F:lrce Seriously: Recent Critical Approaches to Plal1tus." In Ihcliles ill Dmmll, vol. 10: ['£Inc, ed.James Redmond, pp. 201-7T. C:mlbridge: Cambridge University Press. - - - . 1989. "Marriage and Prostitution in Cbssical New Comedy." In Thcmcs ill Drama, voL II: H'tmlcil ill Thcatrc, cd. James Redmond, pp. 31-48. Cambridgc: Cambridge University Press. - - - . 1991. The J11asks 4 iUelltllldcr: S(r,1l ilIld iUcanillp, ill Greck dlul ROllwlI Peljmllllllcc. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pl:ess. Willcock, M. M., cd. T987. Plallflls: PSCildo/lIs. O:l\;: Park, Ill.: BolchazyCarducci. Wille, Gunther. 1967. AIlIsim ROil/alia: Dic Bcdclltllng dcr .MlIsik illl Lebcn del' Riilller. Amsterdam: Verlag P. Schippers. Williaills, Gordon. 1958a. "Evidence for Plautus' Workmanship in the J.'viilcs CloriosllS." I-Ierllles 86: 79-105. - - - . 1958b. "Some Aspects ofRon13.n Marriage Ceremonies and Ideals." }ouflwi (?f Romall Swdies 48: 16-29. - - - . 1908. Ti"aditioll and Or(Rillafity ill ROIlJaIl Poetry. Oxford: Cbrendon. Willialnson, Audrcy. 1953. Gilbert ilI/d SIIl/iuall Opcra: A NCIIl Asscssmcnt. London: Rockliff Wiscillan, T. P. 1989. "Roman Legend and Oral Tradition."joll/"llal C!.j"ROIIWII 5'flldies 79: 129-37. Wissowa, Georg. ! 912. Religioll lind Klllllls der Riilllcr. Munich: Beck.

WORKS CITED

25 1

4 Witzl1.l.ann, Peter. 1964. Alltr'kc Tmdirioll 1111 r+crk Berro!! Bra/lfs. Berlin: Akadcmie-Verlag. Wright, John. 1974. DallciltQ ill Challis: The Stylistic Llllir}' l!fthc COlllocdit1 Palliata. Rome: American AC:1dcmy in Rome. - - - . 1975. "The Transformations of Pseudolus." ThIllS(/(tiolls l?f the Alllerican PliilohWi{dl Associatioll 105: 403 -16. ---.1982. "PiautllS," In AIiCicllt H/ticers: Greece aud ROII/c, vol. 1: HOIIIC1" to Caesar, cd. T. James Lucc, pp. 501-23. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Wyke. Maria. 1994. "Woman in the Mirror: The Rhetoric of Adornment in the Roman World." In HlolI/ell ill Ancicllt Societies: An IllIISioll 4 thc j\i~,
H\1DIE)( Of

P,~SSAGt,S

Accius

CITl::,D

QUiliCI., 4.17, 13()

TRF; 100, 2IS11.:n; 566-567, 211)11.27;

elL, 6.363, 136; 6.9177, 13 6

691,2ISn.27

Aeschylus

Diges(a, 1.5"1.1, If;2; 1.5.4.2, 22711.\); 015.1,

Sept., .j22-436, 21911-4-4Apollodorlls, 2.4.6-8, I2.~ Apttleius FIOI:, 16, 20Hn.27 Aristophancs £1cll., 206-207, 48 Biras, 50; 30,48; 1101-1117, 20611AO Clot/as, 48; 607-626, 200n.4-0; 1096-1101, 20611.40; 1115-1130, 206n ..to; 101371439,4 8 Ecc/., .139-0140, 20611.40; 581-582, 21; 888-889, 20611.40 Trogs, 276, 200n.40; 675-676, 21; 11091118,21 KIIZ~/Jls, 36-37, 21; 36-39, .tS, 20611.42; 1209-1210,48 L),s., 1219-1220, 206nAo Peace, 50; 20-21, 4.';; 150-153,48; 236288, 4R; 7.f.9-i50, 2I2rl.20; 765-ii4, 21; 1115-1116, 21; 1355-1357,21 TlIeslIl., 8101-845, 206rl.40 I+(/sps, 54-55, 2], 200lLP

Aristotle Poet., 1-1-/811, 2 Pol., 1.2.13-15, IS2

22011.28

DiOluedes, Keill 489, 20311.2 Donatus ad Enn., 57, .~o, 60; 96i, 132 Dc (Omoeaia 8.11, 215n.6 Ennius (all fragmcms from Jocelyn), 8, 21811.25; 218n.25; 2IHn.2j; 218n.I6;

9, 218n.25; 153-154, 165, 2I8n.25; 188-191, 25.f.-25i, 218n.3I; 316-318, 381, 2I8n.25

Euripides

PllOcn., 1172-1186,21911.44 SlIpp., 496-499, 2T9n.44

Evallthius DeJalmla 3.8, 203n.13 Festus, 40 L, 22111.30 Gellius, 1.6.2, 158; 10.3.17, 149 Hegesipptts PCG, 1.29-30,20611.45

Heniochus PCG, 5, 21011.2; 5.5, 2oon.4-2

Horace Carlll., 3.30.1, 21211.20

Biblia Vulglltll

Epist., 2.1.58, 2IIn.26

Proverbs, 23.21, 22111.33

Livy, 1.58.10, 2I4n.3S; 26.27.2-4, 220-

Caecilius CRF; .f., 21711.2; 142-1.f.3, 20711.3; 144-

146,22411.3; 163,22411.2; 180, 221n.31

Cato ORF, 58, 149; 93, 2:?4n.II; 158, 224-11n.8,12; 222, 22511.22

CGF, 252.9-10, 200nA:? Cicero AlIlic., 98, 22011.23

Lilc., 20, 2I5n.6 1'v'at. D., 2.91, 55

Paradoxa StoiCOrrllll, 3.26, 205n.8 Planc., .:10-.'11, 20511. I I Q Rose, 7.20,21511.10; 30, :?osn.8

WORKS CITED

INDEX OF PASSAGES CITED

22In.29; 27.6.19, 210n.32; 29.10.01-8, I06-I07; 31.50.2, 21611.32; 32.7.1-/, 21on.p; 34.1-8.3, 100-162; 34.7.710,22311.29; 35.7.2-5,131; 35.41.9-10, 22on.I6; 36.36, 105; 39·9·5-7, 14 2

Lucilius, /1015-1151

Hil11'I1Iill),'tOIl,

126

Macho PCG, 1, 2IOrl.2 Menander .Aspis, 48; I1j-1Q, 20011.42; 1016-147, 20611.4 2

Dis cxapatoll, 48

253

~7_________________________. "____" " " "•

..........J

D),s., ~tr.. 217IU); 1-./, SO: --15-./6, 2001l ..p; 52~-5:!5, 2S; 860-865, 252(j: 965-969, 200n ...j.I Epirrcj1olltcs, 4S KoerteF 13.20011.42;j;·.396,20011.p A1isollmClllls, 993-996, 2061LP PhaslIl11, 19-20, 206n ..p Pic., 127-128.20011.42; 170-/71, 200n·42 Sal/l., -\.8; 5-6, 20611.-\.2; 733-737, 20on.-\.1 Sa11dbachF 333. 207 n ·3 Silc),ol1ios, 23-~--I, 20611.-\.2; --120-.123, 20611 ..p

Naevius C1U~;

20-2--1, 221-22211·-\.5: 21, SO; 50, 22111.31; 11./, 221-22211.4S TJ?l~ 10, 21911.44; 12, 21911. ~.~; ·/5, 21811.20; ./6-47. 21011.29

Ovid JHct., 15.871,21211.20

Pacuvius TJ?F, 89, 5S; 366-}75, 2IS11.17 Ptllle~l!}'rjci Latiui, 3·1.3, 22711.1 0; 227 11 . 10

3·~5

5,

Philemon PCG, 50, 20011 ..\2

Pindar 01., 6.1---1,21211.20 P)'III., 7.3. 21211.20

Plato Rcsp., 3.3i}2t!-:.;g8h, 2

Plautus (references to individual passages are gel1er;dly l10t included here when they are part of chapters or portions of chapters dedicated to the playas a whole) Ampll., 108-12S; 52-55,15; 65-85, 10: 75-78,10; 85, II; /./1,22711.10; 268, 20Hn.27; 280, 22711.20; 28-/, 20; 287, i..j.1; 376, 207-208n.q; 506. 214ILP; 5()7, 20711. I 2; 633-653, IS9; ,~'}6, 22311.27: 8--12, 1.'09; 938-9-13, 21211.6; 984 -989, I y2: 986-987, 14; 1006- 1008, 21YI1.42; 1132, 221-222IL~S; 11--16, IH- I9 Asill., 30-37; 1, 20SIl.16; 1-3, IOS-106, 20611.29; --I-j, 10; 6-7, 20sn.20; 11,

INDEX 01" PASSAGES CITED

21, H; 12, 12; 1./, 205n.10; 1--1-15, 200n.29; 15,20511.19: 16-2--1, 22j11.27: 19-2./,22411.2; .f-3, 22311.27, 22411.2; 50-126,36; 6i}, 21311.2S; 87, 22311.27, 224-11.2; 106,22711.29; 123-12--1, 20811.26; 12./, 2 I on.3...J.; 1--19, 20711.12; 199, S9: 200,

22111..~S;

220-225,

22311.27; 2·/9-~6--1, 37; 250, 228Il·35;

2j6-257, 20611.28; 258, 22711.29; 25926.f-, 01; 259-266,109; 266, 22811.j5; 272-295,88; 3(11, 22711.20; 307, 20511.24-; 31tl-:')16, 22811·4j: 312, 22811.35; 315, 220n . ..j.4; 316, 218n.13; 3P, 22711.20; --100,180; .f-7--1, 21811.13; -189,22111.38; .f-92---I99, 60; 5--16, 2Lj.IL~7; 5-18, S3; 5--19-550, 227 n . 2o ; 709, 22In.-\.s; 727, 21511.17; 780, 20711.9; 893-Si}5, 22311.27, 22.p1.2; 900, IS8; 900-901, 22311.27, 224tl.2: 910, jO; 919,21 111.28; 9-12-9--/5, 19; 9-16-9./7, I I AliI., 4j-47; 1,20511.20, 200tl.27; !fT, 109; --16-./7, 20711.12; 59,53; 123-126. 223Il.20; 138-QO, 22311.2S; 154-157, 159; 166, 227tl.12; 167-169, 224n·3; 168-16i), 22411.15; 317, 02; 3n, 22711.20; 406---107, 207-20811.14; -/75535,161-104; 555-557, 21 7 11 • 0 ; 559, 21711.8; 587-607, 2091LP; 700, 2Ion.27; 701-70-1, IS7: 7(3-726, '~547; 715-716, 30; 719-72(l, 204n.4-; 72 5, 20911.50; 810, 60; frags. 3---1, 47 nl((iI., 3S-30, 41, 77; --10, 22311.27: 117, 22011.25; 137, 20711.12; 1--17,21011.13; 181-2-/2,40: 209, 2qn ..p; 2--11-2P, 187; 267, 22Il1.38; 38j---I03, 20711.8: -163, 2INn.13; 61511, 207n.1 1: 623, 207n.II; 6--/3, 228n.3S; 6--19-661, 22811.43; 681, ISS; 76--1, 2l..j.n.-\.7: 772, 205-206n.26, 20Nn.25; 781, 22111.45; 862,22711.21; 925-978, 187: 950, 22})11.3S; 952, 22811.35; 1053-1058, ,S7: 1070, 22Sn.35: 1072-1073, 17-18; 1207-1210, IS); 1209-1210, ql Capt., os)-71, 183-196; 1-16, 1 1,195196; 6, 20511.16; 10-Q, 17; 15-16, 13; 23, 13: 5--1-58, 09-70; 55, 20011.28; 57, 22011.21; 58, 22011.23: 58-62,14-15; 61-62, 110; 67-68, 16, 20SIl.I9; 69, 70; 7--1,28-29; 92,21111.28; 95, 70; 160-161, 2211L~S; 271--/21, oS; --189, 59,22211.48; ·/92---I9j, 54-55; 505, 02;

254

517-539,22711.29; 5N, 22711.13; 766 -

767,22511.19; 778-779, q; 778-835. 21911..~0; 793-833, 88; 811, S9; 818, 221-222n.4-5; 863, 109; 888-889, 70; 905, 221-222n·4S; 905-956, 966, 70; 1002, 195, 21 1l1..~0; 11l33, 21611.22; 1029-1036, 70 -71: 103--1 -1036, 18

CIS., 62-64, 165-180; 1-2, 16; 18,

210n.22; 21-22. 20511.10; 25, 22111.-\.0; 25-28, .'Is), 127; 29, 20SI1·IO; 5S, 226n.36; 6--1-66, 20611.27; 67-78, 20; 71-78,02-03; 8.f--86, 141; 87-88, 20511.19; 1./8,22511.34; 150-278, 22611.30; 151-162,22511.34; 227, 22311.27; 246, 20711.12; 303, 20711. I I: 323-337, lO9: 353-35.f-, 22311.27; --Ill, 21811·13; 418, 21811·30; '12--1-4.36, 39; ./90-503, 22111.jl; --197---198, 22.pl.5; 50--1-51-1,39; 65 2-7 62 , o3-o-\.; 7 19, 22111.31; 788, 13; 81--1, 20811.34; 861, 21611.22; 878-902, 29-30, 71; 9.f-9950, I 1,30,20011.32; 1006, 14; 10151018, 19-20, ql

Cist., 120-123,205-20611.26; 1.15-1--16, 35; 1.19-153, 21711.9; 1--19-202, 109; 150,205-20611.26; 154-155, 20S11.10; 155, 20sn.20: 172-173,22711.23; 175, 158, 22jl1.27; 188-189, 13: 194,71; 197-202, 205tl.19; 229, 29; 366,13; 375,22011.27; 678-681, 30,153; 78276,}, 20611.27; 782-785, 10; 786-787, 18 COl"lliw/a, fi:ag. 1,21311.24 Cllrr., 77,126-139; 30-48, 21911.6; 6566,205-20611.26; 73-N, 20; 162-212, 21YI1.6; 188,20711.12; 269, 22211.)2; 280-281,14; 280-298, 192; 280-30--1, 2191l.40; 301,30; 356, 207n.S); --162--186, 131-13s), 21311.22; 473,141; --182, LP; --19--1-515, 21211.0; 506-511, 59; 508, 2211L~0; 518, 22711.23; 590, 30; 591, 2Ion.22; 591-592, 72, 21211.Il; ('13,22011.23; 698, 22711.23 Epid., 37-jS, Oo-(j2; 10, 22011.,U; 2528,61-02; 59, 61; 81-S./, 8, ISS, 227Tl.29; 81-195, 37-38; 88, 22811.35; 93,180; 98, 22711.29; 121, 22In.45; 125, 22In.]2, 22011.44; 173-180, 22311.27; 178-179, IS8; 180, 22411.j: 182,01, 109; 188,01; 19-1, 14; 19--1-195, 192; 199,221-22211.45: 225-235, 21211.0; 30j, 22511.19; 306-.)07,60; 319,

INDEX OF PASSAGES CITED

22011.25; 3·/3, 01; 373, 22811·35; 375, 22811.35; 376, 20S11.24; 398, 20SI1·30; 501-5(l2, (jO-OI; .'i.f-6, 223r1.28; 610617,108; 616, 187; 620-6U, 127; 665, 20511.2-\.; 666-67./, 21511.10; 678, 61; 722-731,22711.21 Mm., 42-.U, 1-76, SO-58, I42-q3; 2, 21011.3-\.; 3, 21: --1-5, 20S11.16: 7, 21611.22; 10, 211n.24; 23, 20511.20; --17, 20511.20; 50. 20511.20: 51-55, 20: 120122, 225n.32; 127-13--1, 158, 207r1.8, 22311.27; 128, 20: 159, 158; 208-213, 22111.31; 2--19, 218n.13; 250-253, -\.2: 267, 54; -1./1-.1--1--1, 42: H6---I61, 20 7 11 . 8 ; --172,20711.12; 520, 22111.38; 5 62 - 603, 22611.3S; 571-589, 27-28, 20711.8; 760, 205n.2-\.; 78--1-802, 22STl.j2; 879-881, 30; 902, 21 1tl.28; 977, 21011.13; l(lOO, 207-200n.14; 1015-1016, 220n.-\.0; 1031-1032, 11,30; 1160,223 11. 27, 22411.2 Merr., 30-35, 104-165; 3-8,15; 1.1-15, 20sn11.16,17; 31-38,20511.24; 160, 14; 169,2°711.12; --/31--137, 207 11 .14; --/77, 22611..tO; 525, S9; 5--12, 225 11 . 19; jH-j5--1, 20711.8; 556-557, 22411·5: 588, 207rl.1 I; 608, 20511.24; 66./, 62; 672-675,22511.20; 75./, 22111.31; 760 761,22311.27, 224n.2; 816-829, 164105; 851, Ij; 985, 118; 100--1-/008, 14, 165; 1015-1026, 19; 1017-1024, ql; lOIS, lIS i.Hil., 41, 02, 72-77; 21-24, 207r1·8; 7980, 16,2051111.16,17; 81-82, 10, 16; 87, 220n.23; 98, 20511.10; 147, 22811·3S; 150,20511.20; 151, 22711.10; 173, 21911.41; 180, 100: 185-19--1,22311.27; 198,22811.35; 200, 207tl.12; 209-213, 73-74; 213, 86, 205-20611.26; 293, 21311.20; 310, S3; 312, 22II1.42; 324325, 21311.21): 372, 53; 373, 21 8n·3 0 ; 386,22711.27; .156, 22jIl.27; .f-64-465, 22311.27; --16--1---168, 22711.27; ./66, 22811·35; 477, 212n.0; 5--17, 21811.13; 563-565, 212n.o; 575, 21411.40; 58.f-, 21 on. 13; 590-591, 21311.28; 596- 609, I~.)l; 679-681, 22411.3; 681-700, 159; 693, 221-222n·45; 768, IS7; 773, 22f)n.3S: 862, 30; 887-890, 22311.20; 901-919, 21811.1S; 991,1066,1073, 21311.20; 1087, 228n.3S: 1130-1131, 13;

255

1139, 21~hl.IS; 115--/-,22811·35; 128--/-1289, Iyl; 1292-1295,21211.6, 22311.29; 1D5- 1n7,7(i-77

Mosrell., 39, ..p; 17, 22IlLtS; 22-23, 5556; 38, 3Y; 6-1- 67, 50; 66- 67, 221 n.3 I; 76-,')),39; 93-119, 26-27, 20 7 11 . 8; 190, 22311.27; 279-281. 20, 160; 3-18362,39; 3.18-365, 188; 35 0 -35 1 , 22711.29; 35-1-361, 30, 22611.+4; -172-li.I, I~)I; 532-65.1, 127; 655- 656, 2:37n.29; 703-710, 22.tl1.3; 708 -7u9, 20,160; 716, 2281l.35; 775-777,187; 828,62; 858, 21811.13; 858-88-1, 20911-+ I; 860, 2 I tln.13; 887, 207n.12; 106-1-1115,2[511.16; 10 65,22711.20 ; 1116,22711.31; 1118, 188; 1178-1179, 22811·43 PcrSIl, 69, 21911.2; 1-15, .p; 7-12,

20911-41; 21-22, 22711.20, 22811-43; 25,65; 29, 8y; 31,89; 32,22611.44; 6-1,20711. [0; 75-76, 2f4.11.50; 118-126, 205-20611.26; 1-18, 228n.]5; 159-160, (i9, 105, 133, 21]n.22; 167, 20511.24; 208a, 20S-20011.26; 291, 205-20611.26; 306,21411.47; 325, 21411.,n; 328,

22511.19; 337-389,191; 361, 21811.13; 390, 227n. 12; ·I.13-n6, 127; .14 2 --143, 127; +1-9-,158, 20711.2; -162, 89; -16-1, 21411.47; 47.J-'1l5, 20711.lO; ,180, 22811.3S; 551, 21211.5, 228n·3S; 622-635,22711.27; 702 -7 05, 55; 745,

21911.2; 753-756,22711.29; 788, 20711.12; 806, H9; 829, 187; 843, 2r411..~7;

858, q POCI/., 39-40, 219n.2; 1--19, 10, 16; 3, 20511.16; 17-18, I41, 22011.26; 23, 20911.37; 28-35,153, ISY-l(iO; 47, 20511.20; 48-52, 16; 50-52,16-17, 105; 55-58,12-13; 58, 2°511.16; 7982,20; 116-117, 17,20511.20; 123, 20SI1.16; 153, 22611·H; 195, 22R11·35; 198-205,39; 210-215, 22311.29; 2102-17,22311.28; 260-352, 40; 328, 20S20611.26; 376, 21411.47; -125, 21411.47; -143-4--1--1, 2[711.R; -163, 22 [-22211..+S; 515-599,12-15; 577, 89; 58.1, 22011.13; 613, 20S-2Q(i11.26; 633-636, 21211.6; 647-68-1,22711.27; 65-1, 2ql1.,p; 727, 62; 746, 221-22211.45; 791,221222Il.+5; 807, 220n.13; 808, 225tl.19; 809-816, 12; 817-922, 40; 823-8-14,

INDEX OF PASSAGES CITED

20711.8; 831-8.1-1, 22211.S; 8'15-8-16, 21S11.55; 861, 20S-20(in.26; c','75-876, 22311.27; 920-922, 20SI1·22; 1110, 7S, 2[on.15, 22811·35; 11-15,22311.27; 1191, lOy; 1201-120-1, 22311.28; 1206-1209, 221-22211.+5; 1224, 20S11.22 PstJld., 38-39,64-65, (iR-69, 92-107, 22811.35; 152,20711.12; 159,22811.40; 173-229,22211.8; 197, 139,22122211.45; 199-201, 2I7n.8; 203, 20; 296-298,127; 296-30-1, 5H-59; 326335, 109; 327, 221-22211.45; 387-389, 20511.22; 39-1--105. 3tl; 395-396, 227n.29; -109-.11./-, 39; -115, 22011.25; --1-35, 2IS11.12; .J.53--I54, 39; --/-58, Ry; -160---/-61, 212!l.6, 22711.31; -192-.193, 21211.6; -I9.J., 221-22211·45; 527, 214ILJ.7; 572, 2ql1.4-/; 573, 20511.24; 580-583,22711.29; jl\l, 22711.12; 672, 2qIL~7; 687, 20511.24; 72("1-721, 20511.22; N8, 21411.+7; 892, 20711.12; 932-933, 22tl11.43; 969-1037, 22711.27; 972-1004,68-09; lOp, 188; 1("127, 227n.29; 1081-10c',~), 22011.21; 11031123,20911.41; 1173, 22111.3tl; 12/8, IS6; 123.1, 206n.27; 1239-12-11, 2Q(il1.28, 22711.]0; 1288,20711.12;

3--/-6, 22711.12; .107, 221-22211.45; -113, 2Qn·52, 228n··n; 806, 2051l.24; S.13-867, 12; 8.J.7, 20711.12; 858, 21311.22,22211.55; 92.1, 21211.6; 9469-17,21211.0; 990, II, lOS; 1008-1tl27, 8; 1009,22011.4+; 118--/--1186, 158-159 ·1I"lIe., 140-157; 1,21; 1-8,20511.17; 68,20; 63, 220n.25; 66-73, 134: 82, 22011.25; 105, 20; 209-2-15, 20711.8; 219, 21511.17; 299, 22111.38: 353, 207ll.12; -116,71-72; ,163,13; 482, 20611.27; 601,20711.12; 635-636, 207t1.1 I; 7.J0, 22111.31; 761-763, 21911.2; 809, 207n.12; 81-1, 21811.13; 819, 21611.27; 838,22711.21; 931-932, 7 1 -72, 21211.11; 9-12, 22]!l.25; 96-1-966, 19;

oe,

Tacitus AlIll., 1 77, 20SI1.11

Terence Ad., .tS-49; 4-5, 20711.46; 22, 20011.27: 2-1-25, 207fQ6; 26-80. 2071l.+S; ,~~), 20711.4S; 117. 22111.31; 155. 207208tl. 14; ISS-189, 22011.21: 228, 20711.12; 5-18, 20711..~S; 96-1-965, 22111·3 1 All., 8, 207I1.46; 2--/--27, 207Il.46; 25-27, 9; 88, 135; 199, 221-222n·45; 215-227, 20711.4:-1; 217, 20711.13; 231, 20711.12; 231-232, 20711.4H; 582-58--/-, 20611.28; 980, 20()n.27 EIIIl., 31, 3S, 220n.23; 39, 21211.8; -1-1--15, 20711.+6; 257, 221-22211-45; 265, 20711.12; 5-10, 135; 670, 207I1n.4R, 12; 783, 219n·41; 919, 207I11L~S,12; 931933, 223n.27: 1011,20811.27 HaJJ!., 1-3,20711.+7; 12, 25-30,35, 20711.46; 37, 21911.37; 530, 22122211.45; 886-887, 208n.27; 103-1, 22011.25 HeL, -1--12, 9; 8-57, 20711..t6; 35,153; 39--10, 10; 361-41./, 48, 20711..~S; 756757,22311.27; 799-806, 20711·4S; 834, 22]tl.27; 866-867, 20(in.2R; 879-880, 225 11 . 19 [J/Wflll., 29-34, 20711.+6; 31-32, 9; 51, IS6; 70, 21111.28; 2--/-9, 221-22211·45;

968, 224n·3 1

Pliny the Elder Hi\', 18.107, 22I1L~4; 19.2-1, 135 Plutarch eM'S.,

10.6, 21.j.n.3S

Rom., 22.3, lOS Pollux, -1.149, 186 Polybius, 6.56.6, loR; 31.25.--/--7, LP-I42 Pseudo-Acron ad Hor. Sat., 1.2.31-}2, 140, LP; 2.3.228, 22111 .. p

1333-1335, Iy

Rud., 77-80; lIf, 109; 28-29,13; -17-4 8, 205-206n.26; 82, 20511.19; 6)-88, 21911.+1; 3-11,205-20611.26; -I76 -.J.77, 22711.20; 615-626, 207-20811.14; 68j686,22311.28; 713, 21 In.](); 76--/-, 228n.40; 826-836, 22RIl..~0; 866-867, 219tl.2; 879-880, 228IL~0; 895-896, 22311.27, 22411.2; 905, 22+n·5; 906-937, 20ytlAI; 1070, 53; 1114, 223 n .2 7; 1203-1204,22311.27, 22.j.n.2; L~351253,79-80; 1281-1285, 2Iyn.2;

Quintilian 11151., 11.3.178,208n.27

Sallust Cat., 35.3, 22711.10

Seneca "I/J},cstcs, 396, 21011.16 Sophocles Allt., 127-137, 21911.44

1318-1319. 21911..~.t

Suetonius Aug., -15, 20SI1·11

339,22111·33; 709, 221-22211·4S;

8-18, 14

Twelve Tables, 1.7, 1]0

1380-1]82,52; 1421-1.J.22, 19

Sric/I., 171-22.1,30; 193,54; 220, 29; 22-1, 20411.4; 270, 20711.12; 29-1, 207n.lO; 310,20711.12; -110, 29; -/32,135; 43 8, 135; .J.J6, 20011.27; -1-16---/--18, 05, 135; 455, 211I1.2tl; 520, 71; 579,13; 6·197°7,65; 673-680,15; 7N, II; 74-1-7-/7, 223 11.29, Tril1., fll-Ry; ~[f, 109; 4-5, 205 n . 10 ; 4-7, 20SI1.20; 16, 20611.27; 19, 54; 20-21,20511.17; 22, 20511.16; 42, 158, 223n.27; 58-65, 15 8 ,223 11. 2 7;

INDEX OF PASSAGES CITED

2S7

I

...

!

ITNDEX Abel, Lionel, J

bakers, 136

actors: :is actors, H-23 (sec ,11$0 liccnsc;

bankers: as characters (::ce (//:~('//tllfiw'); in

obsequiollsness); as characters, ·~9, 73 (sec also rapport); Crcl:ks as, J 0, 56; low statlls of, 10-12, IS, 22; males as, 120; pllnishmclltof. 10-[2, III, 11+; slaves as, 10-11,40, [1)3, 195-190; three-actor fuk, 173; vulnerability ot~ 9-]3, ro, ril, 20,2[, 24-, .~9, I q address!:s to audience (scc also aside; monologues), oS, 23, 33, 36-39, 41, 43-.P, 101-103,117, 119, J.p, 145-LP, 1491)2, 176 Ildll{cSCC/lS,

29,30-31, .p, 95-97, 122,135,

19 1

adultery, 11,76-77,109.117, lOS age (old vs. young), 19,33, lOS, H)7 IImbilio, 8.s, 105

"ambush" scene, so, 10-1-, 1,s8, IyO anachronism,

52,

53,

21

153,155- 157,174- 176 I

r, ! 8 -1 9, 71; in

Menander, 21 (/fciliICCfUS, 75,

I

12

mgclltllfitls, as character, 127, 129, 130-131,

139

basilica, 134, 138 /}{]si/iws, 64, o'l9 battle report" I 15 - 116 beating. Sec punishment

Beaumarchais,50-5 1 Beckerman, Bernard, 2 binding, ofsbves on stage, 186, I8S, 19019 1 ,193,195

boui hOlllillCS, 135 Bf
Capm, 85, 223n.25 Cato the Elder, 82,135,140,160-162,199 census, Roman, ! 3, 2281l.50 chains. Sec binding challellge to audience's assumptions, 139,

m:~lIIl1C/l{l/III,

20511 l.'l

Aristophanes, 21, 48, 50, 89,109,21211.2, 224n.o aside, 33-4-\-, 47, 85, So'l, 102, lI5-121, qO-I47, 149-150, [52, 150, [68, 172, 17'~,

187, 20.p1.3; in Terence, 48 assemblies, Roman, 04, 102-104 Atelbn (Irce, 109 attention: actors' desire for, 12, 10,20; chaLlcters' desire for, 29-32, 49, 50; in Terence, 22 audience: as judges, 13, To, 103 - IO.~; nature or~ 9-IO, -I-O-,p, 52, 53,109, 120, r.p, 153, 161, 170, 197, 199; power oC over;lctors, 21, 22,102,110, III; seduction of, 40-41, -1-9, 77; Terence and, 9-10, 22 augury, language oC 61 Bacchallalian Conspiracy, 142, J 77- I 80

INDEX

h

139, I4-\IhIrbarIls, 5.~, 55, ri2, 03-6,~, 128

In.3:?

(IIldl/a, 39, 63, 12.t, 145-147, '50-151,

applause, request tor,

Rome, 58,129,131, IH-J30, 138,

259

153-157,166,179-180,190, '99-200 characters (scc also rapport): as actors, 6869,73-70,86,87,97,98, IOO, 21511.15, 2!8ll.35; gods as, 12, 108-125; neediness of, 24; as playwrights, 38, 73, 75-76, 92, 98 -99, 12 I, 176; as spect;ltors, 68 - 6r), 73,70, .'l5-8(j, l.p, 146, 151, 17ei [2, 6y, 75, 70,105,131-139 chronology, Platltinc, 21, 51,105, 22+n.15 claques, 10, 1 q

cllOf,lgIIS,

colony, Roman, 61

colilitill!ll, 129, 130, 133, '34, 137 (ondllctor, .'l7, 105-106 conserv;ltism: in Plautus, I Y9; in Romc, 82, 88,102, IHo, 199 colltllmelia, 136

cook, 9-1-, 95, 100, q9 costumes, 1,3, 12.69,75,70, Y5, 100, 110, 1I4-Ilri, 121, 133, 138, 148, 177, 191 crucifixion, 30, 39, 53

..,

r ,

deception, scenes of (se[' also pby-\vithinthe-play), 9-1--96,100,102,175,187ISH, 190-191; Gn:ekness in, 6o-6.~; in Iv1t:nander, -1-8; moralizing in, 68-69; in Nc\v Comedy, 4.1); rapport and, H-+'; relevance to Rome, 138-139; in Terence,49 demonstrative pronouns, S, 20 dictator, 64-65 dinner parties, 19, ::>.8-29, 41, 65,104,135 Diphijus, 166-167 divorce, 160, 168, [70 dowry (s('c also 1I.I:or do/ala), oS I, 85 - 86, 152, 160-161

dramatic illusion, 2, 3 dramatic irony, 34--36, 39, IfLJ-

II),

174, '77,

eavesdropping, 34-40, 45, H5, 88, 102103, I 15, IIg, 120, 142, QS - 146, 149, 151,153,156, [68, '71-177; in Aristophanes, .1-8; in Menandcr, .~S; in Nc\"\' Comedy, +H; in Terence, 48-49 ecce, 8, 29 English drama, 56, 20611.39 "epic" theater, 2, 3 epilogues, 10-II, 14, 18-20,70-71,7677,104, 157, 165, 179; ill British drama, 20611.39; in New Comedy, 21; in Terence, 22 escapism, 51, 59, 65-66,198-199 Euripides, 182,21 m.p etlsellclIlc, 8o expectations, audience's, 14-15, 17-18, 6tl, 93-98,110,122,104,185,189,190, 192-194,196; in Terence, 18 explanation, 13, 15, 17, 100, IIO, 114, 119, 121; in Aristophanes, 21; lllythological, 109; in New Comedy, 21; in Terence, 22

fa[mla, 74, 195 farce, 8, 26, 123, 107, 190; Italian, 57, 108, 203-204n.15,222n.2 fathers. Sec SCI/ex first person, use of, 37, 145 fish market, 135, 137, 222n·52 j1agitatio, 98 flattery of audience, 13, 15-10,21,101, I04, lID-III, 143; ill Aristophanes, 21; in New Comedy, 2I; in Terence, 22

INDEX

"fleecillg" imagery, 59, IS7 tonml, Roman, 129-130, 134-139, 141, l.l'( Fraenkel, Eduard, 26 FWlII)' Girl, 218n.32 geographic allusions. Sec Greek allusions; Italian allusions; Roman allusions Gilbert, -'Vl. S., and Arthur Sullivan, 51 goodwill, 10,22,105-106,201; actors' requests for, 12, 16, 20, 56: in Aristophanes, 4S; characters' competition for, 25: in Terence, 22 CmcCllS, 55, 59, 65,129, J43-I4·t Greek allusions, 50-00 passim, 129, 144 Greek language, 9, 52, 61, 64, 65, 86 Gruen, Erich, 50, 59, 199 Hannibal, IOO-107 Iwrtlspircs, 136, 139

I-Idlenophobia, 51, 59, 61,199 hetaerae, 141-142 hie ("here"), 65, 82 I-lispaia Faecenia, 142 homosexual allusions, 70-71, 2I.plA4 hOllore IlOlIcst,11'e, I tl4 Houeman, Barbara, 109 humor, 27-2tl, 49, 55-56,197 hyper-Hellenization (sec a/so Greek allusions), 54-50, 61, 64-65,129,144,149 illla~(!o (sce also masks), 73, I 10, 185 imperatives, 16, IS, 29, I02, I47 Ingarden, Roman, 2 interlude, musical, 93 -94 interpolation, 203 -204n.1 5, 205n.I 5, 219n ..P, 224n.3I, 225 n .2 3 irony (sec also dramatic irony), 15-23,28,

42,55,62,67-70,81, S9, 90, 143, [04165; in Ne\v Comedy, 22 Italian allusions, 85, 150, 223n.25 Iunius Brutus, Marcus (cos. 178), 105 -IOO illr,ltO/·cs (censors' assistants), 13 Japanese Kyogen plays, 22.pl.6 Jonson, Ben, 50 juxtaposition jokes, 55-56, 61-62, 04-65, 144, 149 Lacus Curtius, 136, 137, 138

law courts, 127-13~ passim bws, allusion to Roman, 13 I; Ie.Y Op)!i,l, 160-162,180; lex P[,lC{oria, 52, 58-59 legal language, 55, 84, 116,128 {ClIO, as character, 70, 93, 95, 96, 98, 127, 13 0 ,133- 135 lepidliS, 77,179 license, given to actors, 9, [5-21, .~9; in Aristophanes, 2 [; in Menander, 21-22; in New Comedy, 21-22; in Terence, 22 Licinius Lucullus, Gaius (t1'. pI. 196), 105 hewr, 01- 02 /omrills, 190-193

lovers. Sce adlllcscCIIs; SCI/CX, amafor flldi, 9-10, 75,105-106,137 /lIdo, 74, 75, 17H Luscius Lanuvinus, 22 magistrates: language of, 0+, 103, 144; presiding over llldi, 10-17, lO5-100, r 14, 133,151,200 Magna Mater, I05-[07

lIlagllUims,

~7-98

marriage, 160-179; (lUll manti, 160, 170; sille //WI/II, 160 masks, 1,73, lIO, 185,20311.2 /Ilatrond, as character, 120, 158-180 medieval religious drama, 2 I 8n. I I Men:mder, 2 I -22, 25 -26,48, 50, 21 2n.2, 2I7n·9 merchants, 58-5Sl, 136-137 mCfetrix, as character, 70, HI, ~3, 95,140157, 191; in Greek Comedy, 141 messenger speech, I I 6 metatheater (sec also play-within-the-play), 3,4,9,73,92, 100, 14R, 165, 176, lSI, 192, 197,200, 200ll.34, 22711.16; geographic:li allusions and, 5 I, 56-58, 59; morality :l1ld, otl, 76, 80, 8 I, 86 - H7, 09; rapport and, 37, 3S, 40 meter, 31, 37, 3H, 57, 85, 1I5, 122, 190, 21911.42 Middle Comedy, 108 IlIi/cs,!!/orioslls, :IS character, 70, 76-77, 95, 134, 148 misogyny, 72,153-157,158-102,169 Moliere, 209nn.44,5 I monody (sec II/SO monologues), 20411.3 monologues, 8, 24, H3-84, 94, 98-IOO, 102-104, II), 120, 126, 142, 144, J.p,

INDEX

261

149-153,159,171-176; in Aristophanes. 48; explanation in, 13; in Greek tragedy, 20711.I; in New Comedy, 2122,25-26,40; rapport and, 25-.P; rhetorical, 25 -28, 83, 84, 143; in Terence, 22, +9 morality: applause and, IS - 19; of slaves, 182- 18 3 moralizing, 67-90, III, 150, 163-164; in Greek comedy, 2I2n.2; Roman tradition of, 67,90 musical accompaniment. Sec meter; tibia'l1 mythological allusions, 109, IHo, 19[ mythological burlesque, IOS-109 Naevius, Gnaeus, 50, 62, 73 -7.t Naturalism, 2, 3, 8 lie cxspcctctis, 15 I1C mirclllini, 15 New Comedy, 2 I -22, 40 -4Sl, 102, 203204n.15, 210n.2, 212n.2, 224n.6 "nonillusory" techniques, 3 novelty, 15, 17, 93, 9'~, 97, 99, IOO, 104, 108-11O, I1 5,179,IHo 1I1IIIUjllid vis? 84 obsequiousness, actors', 9,10-15,20-21, 49; in Aristophanes, 21; in Menander, 21-22; in New Comedy, 21-22; subversion of, 15-20; in Terence, 22 orcelltatio. See j/a..!!itatio originality, Plautus's, 3,26, +0, 4H, 51, 53,73,127,16O-167,173,205n.23, 207n.8, 208n.15, 209n-47, 2T2nn.3,1 I, 2I3nn.28,34,35, 215nn.2,11,57, 2ISn.23, 224n.l, 227nn.I6,I9, 22Hn·39 overture, 9+

pa/lillta,jliJJl[a, 14, 1o, 56, 72, lO9, 136. 153 jJamsillls, 2tl-29, 70, 122, 127, 191, 192 parody (sec also tragedy, language of), 9, 59,61,98,109,127,135,144,101-104, I70,2IRn.25 patricills, 64, 195 patronage, of playwrights, 106 patroll-client system, 27 performance: conditions of, I, 9-! 0, 22, 195; location of, 83, 107, 137-138; of Pselido/lIs, 105-107 jJcrgraecari, 55 - 56, 59, 144

4 pCriUfl/5, 133-13--1-, 137 persuasion, characters' desire for, 25, 32, --1-9, S.~-85, IOI-I02, 101-16--1-; in Terence, --1-1) philhdlenism, 129, 199 pimps: as characters (scc /el1o); in Rome, 13--1-- 1 35,

l..J-4 planning scenes, 12,09,75-76,94,98-99, 191 pby-within-the-play, 3, 08-09, 72-77, 176, 17 R playwright. See characters, as playwrights phy\vright, "presence of": ill Aristopi1alles, 21, 48; in Mcnander, 21; in Terence, 22 pleasure: as end of comic theater, 22, l)2, 99-IOI, I07, lIO, 113, 115, 119,122, 198; opposed to edification, 7 I, 73, 77, 81,87,89 pointing words, 8, 20, 117 politics, Roman, 90,105-106,160-161 Pompon ius, Lucius, 10l) popularity, Plautus's, 9, 20-21,10+ Porrer, Cole, 51-52, 53 Praeneste, 85, 150 praetor (sec a/50 law courts), 62 profligacy oflovers, 41, 134, 138, 144 - 147, 149- 1 50 ,155 prologues, 10, 12-17,20-21,30-31, 56-58,62-63, fi9-70, 73, 77-78, 81, 105-100,101), [10-115, 142-'43, 166167,183,185-180, IR9-11)0, 195-196; in New Comedy, 21-22; in Terence, 9-IO, 22 pro/O<~/lS, as character, 12, 16,41,56,73; in Terence, 22 promises, by actors, il), 93, I03, 104, 119, 135; in Aristophanes, 21 props, 12, 13,44,141),151,177,186,191, 203n.1 prostitutes: as characters (see lIIerctri.y); lllale, 134,136, I41, 155; in Rome, 10, 134136, 141 :-143 pller, 70, 1)6, 195 pun: Greek, 64-; Latin, 54, 74, 98,129, 213n.28, 216n.24, 219n.0 punishment: of actors (sec actors, punishment of); of slaves (sec a/50 bindillg; crucifixion), 4-2, 95,118,182,188, 20l)I1.38, 226n.4

INDEX

questiollS, rhetorical, 2S-29, 149, [72 rape, 4-3, J.p, 152, ISS rapport: in Aristophane~, 48; characters' desire for, 15,24-30,101-102,104, lIS, 117,120,145,149,170; competition for, 30-34, +4-.~6, II5-11l); [;Iilme to win, 33, IOI-102; hierarchies of, 33-36,41,4+-47,101-104,110, II9, 121, 124, 166, 168,171-179; in Menallder, 48; in New Comedy, +8; in Terence, {.'l-4-9; variations in, 36---1-1, H-+7,220n·5 0 religion: in Aristophanes, 109; in Pbutus, 18-19,01, I09, IIO; in Rome, 109-110, 134, I.p requests of audience (sec a/so applause; attention), 15-16, 30, 153, 177; in Aristophanes, .t8 Ramal! allusions, 13, 16, 18,36,50-66 passim, 1)3, 85, 120-139,144,148-151, 178, 19.}-195 rooC on stage, I 22, 12.~ Roscius, Quintus, 95 satire, 5S-59, 81-oS5, 87-90, 126-139, qO-157,200-201 Saturnaliall inversion, 22, +O-,p, 179, 1!)8- 199,21711.5 Scipio, in audience, 36 Scipio Aemilianus (cos. I47), 141 Scipio Nasicl (cos. 191), 105-106 scorllllll, 28-29, 70, II7-II8, 134, 141-142 sCI/I'm, 129, 2L}nAI second person, use oC 8, 33, 36, 14-4-[45, 147, 195 seers, 136, 139 Segal, Erich, 40, 70-71,190 Seneca the Younger, 182 senate, Rom;ln, 61,105,106

\"vrights); (IIlTCIlS,

1.j.,

31, 38, 88, 122, 128,

139. 19 2 setting, theatricality oC 50, 56-58, q3

sCI'criras, .'l3 Shakespeare, \Villiam, {7, So - 51, 56, 20611.39,2IOn.l..Jshipbuilding metaphor, 75, 2131L'..'l situation comedies, television, 22.p1.0 slaves (sec ,lis() actors, slaves <1s), .to, 66, 118. 12!), 141, [81-190; assumed inferiority of, 18I-IS3; in audiellce, II, -1-0,1951!J6; as characters (sec ilIlcilla; SCI'I'IIS); clever (sec sm'lls, callidlls); good (SCI' S('fUIIS, bOllus); marriages of, 6]; running (sec SCITHS, [1/1Tells)

50ci<11 commentary, 22-23, 28, 9°,157, 17l)-I80, 196, 199-201, 229 n .. } soldiers: as characters (sce miles gftJrioms); in Rome, 134, 149 soliloquy (SCI' also monologue), 204 n ·3 spccUlfores, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, l.'l, 33, 36. 70, 101,104,105,123,145-146,147,153, 22{n.3 I spectators. Sec <1udience sta!-.,'1ng/visual effects, 44, 76, 95,102,120, 122,129,151-152. 16{, 108, 177, 186, 11)5,20811.29

stock ch<1racters (see a/so IWI!1CS (if cilar,leter cl'pes), 14,28,96-98,134,168, IS7 subversive elemellts, 199-200

s}'lIlho/ae, 135 sympathy. Sec rapport

ta/wnwc mgelltllrim', 13·t, [44 tabenUlc l'ctcrcs, 136, 13S Tarelltum, 150 teasing, of audience, 15 -21 , 49, I 13, 13713H, r.p, Q3, 146, 179; in Aristophanes, 2 I; in New Comedy, 22; in Terence, 22 Temple: Capitoline, 83, 12S, 222n.)2; of

SCIICX, 124, 190; allhllor, I3.L 166-ISO; dUfIIS, 95 -97; lelJis, 95 sCIltClltiae: generalizing, 25-26, 83; moralizing, 07-09, 71-72, 78, oS5, H6, 89, 189

se'lllcre /!Ie, 104 serullS, as character, 42, 03-05,182-196, 22011..t4; iJml1lS, 42, 44, 95, 122, 182; mI-

IidIlS, 35-42, 4.~-45, 49, 60-62, 04-66, 87, 1)3 -IOO, I 16, 122, 182- I 84, 187I!)I, 193-19.~ (sec '1/50 characters, as phy-

INDEX

Castor and Pollux. I](i. 137. 2221l.~2: of Magna I'dater. 105-107: (shrine) Venus Cloacill;], I ).}, I i~. 1)8 Terence, l)-IO. 18, 2'2 ..}R·~.~~: 20'-;11.21. 210n·3,22Sn·33 text, and perfOrllLl!1L"C-, 1-2 third person, use oC 4-7. 101, I..J-.I libicCII, 93-9.}, 99,175, Jr)O tO~~<1ta,jllil1lhl, .to, 60 topicalallllsions, IS, 52, 5S-5l), 130-131. 14{, q8-Ql), 1ST, 161-](12, 17f;. I I).}, 208n.26 tragedy, 15,55,67,69,72, !J.t, 108-109, IIO, 120, 122-12--1-, TS2, 207n.l, 2IIn.32, 217n . .'l; language of~ So, 97, 116-IIS, 120, 123-12+ ImgicOJ/locdia, I 13 - I l{

0;'

trdpezira, 129 triumphs, 17-18, q1l-14l) triulllph speeches, 17-IS, 35, 36, 9·t, 102. 103 Turpio, Lucius Ambivius, 9, 22 1I.l:o)"dolalo, 159-16], 108, [70, 176, ISO

vaudeville. 2 Velabrum, 136, 137, 222n·5 2 ViCllS TuscllS, 136 wedding, Roman, 176 Wilde, Oscar, 47 wives: as characters (5(,1' l1IalroIW); in Rome, 159-162, 16 4 women (5(,1' also misob'yny; prostitutes; wives): in PLnHm, 153-157, 15 8 - 106 , 177-180; in Rome, 83, I.P-Q2, 16010 [, 21711·5 Wright. Jolm, I4 YOllth. Sec adu/escClls