That the seven months ofMost.470 miraculously change into six months in 954 is the sort of mistake possible to any writer. In theAmph.1053 ff., Alcmena is in labor apparently a few minutes after consorting with Jupiter; but the change of actsmayaccount for the lapse of time, here as inCas.530 ff.
But after the exhaustive work of Langen, we need linger no longer in this well-ploughed field. We repeat, the evidence all points irresistibly to the conclusion that Plautus is wholly careless of his dramatic machinery so long as it moves. The laugh's the thing!
TheSt.is an apt illustration of the probable workings of Plautus' mind. The virtue of the Penelope-like Pamphila and Panegyris proves too great a strain and unproductive of merriment. The topic gradually vanishes as the drolleries of the parasite Gelasimus usurp the boards. He in turn gives way to the hilarious buffoonery of the two slaves. The result is a succession of loose-jointed scenes177. TheAul.too is fragmentary and episodical. TheTrin.is insufferably long-winded, with insufficient comic accompaniment. TheCis.is a wretched piece of vacuous inanity178.
4. Roman admixture and topical allusions.
Plautus' frequent forgetfulness of his Greek environment and the interjection of Roman references--what De Quincey calls "anatopism"--is another item of careless composition too well known to need more than passing mention. The repeated appearance of theVelabrum,179orCapitolium,180orcircus,181orsenatus, ordictator,182orcenturiata comitio,183orplebiscitum,184and a host of others in the Greek investiture, becomes after a while a matter of course to us. We see however no need to quarrel withforum; it was Plautus' natural translation for ἀγορά. But it all adds inevitably and relentlessly to our argument--Plautus was heedless of the petty demands of technique and realism. His attention was too much occupied in devising means of amusement.
The occasional topical allusions belong in the same category as above; for example, the allusion to the Punic war (Cis.202),185thelex Platoria(Ps.303,Rud.1381-2), Naevius' imprisonment (Mil.211-2), Attalus of Pergamum (Per.339,Poen.664), Antiochus the Great (Poen.693-4). Again we have a modern parallel: the topics of the day are a favorite resort of the lower types of present-day stage production.
5. Jokes on the dramatic machinery.
But the most extreme stage of intimate jocularity is reached when the last sorry pretense of drama is discarded and the dramatic machinery itself becomes the subject of jest. So in theCas.1006 the cast is warned: Hanc ex longa longiorem ne faciamus fabulam. InPer.159-60 Saturio wants to know where to get his daughter's projected disguise:
"SAT. πόθεν ornamenta?
TOX. Abs chorago sumito. Dare debet: praebenda aediles locaverunt." (Cf.Trin.858.)
Even thePs., heralded as dramatically one of the best of the plays, yields the following: Horum caussa haec agitur spectatorum fabula (720); hanc fabulam dum transigam (562) and following speech; verba quae in comoediis solent lenoni dici (1081-2); quam in aliis comoediis fit (1240); quin vocas spectatores simul? (1332). InSt.715 ff., the action of the play is interrupted while the boisterous slaves give the musician a drink. From thePoen.comes a gem that will bear quoting at length (550 ff.):
Omnia istaec scimus iam nos, si hi spectatores sciant.Horunc hic nunc causa haec agitur spectatorum fabula:Hos te satius est docere ut, quando agas, quid agas sciant.Nos tu ne curassis: scimus rem omnem, quippe omnes simul.Didicimus tecum una, ut respondere possimus tibi.186
This is the final degeneration into the realm of pure foolery. It is a patent declaration: "This is only a play; laugh and we are content." Once more we venture to point a parallel on the modern stage, in the vaudeville comedian who interlards his dancing with comments such as: "I hate to do this, but it's the only way I can earn a living."
6. Use of stock plots and characters.
We must touch finally, but very lightly, on the commonplaces of stock plots and characters. The whole array of puppets is familiar to us all: the cunning slave, the fond or licentious papa, the spendthrift son and their inevitable confrères appear in play after play with relentless regularity. The close correspondence of many plots is also too familiar to need discussion.187The glimmering of originality in the plot of theCap.called for special advertisement.188In the light of the foregoing evidence, the pertinence of these facts for us, we reiterate, is that Plautus merely adopted the New Comedy form as his comic medium, and, while leaving his originals in the main untouched, took what liberties he desired with them, with the single-minded purpose of making his public laugh.189
In contrast to these grotesqueries certain individual scenes and plays stand out with startling distinctness as possessed of wit and humor of high order. The description by Cleaereta of the relations of lover, mistress andlenais replete with biting satire (As.177 ff., 215 ff.). The finale of the same play is irresistibly comic. InAul.731 ff. real sparks issue from the verbal cross-purposes of Euclio and Lyconides over the words "pot" and "daughter." TheBac.is an excellent play, marred by padding. When the sisters chaff the old men as "sheep" (1120 ff.), the humor is naturalistic and human. TheCas., uproarious and lewd as it is, becomes excruciatingly amusing if the mind is open to appreciating humor in the broadest spirit. The discourse of Periplecomenus (Mil.637 ff.) is marked by homely satirical wisdom. In thePs.the badinage of the name-character is appreciably superior to most of the incidental quips. Pseudolus generously compliments Charinus on beating him at his own game of repartee (743). When Weise (Die Komodien des Plautus, p. 181) describesPs.IV. 7 as "eine der ausgezeichnetsten Scenen, die es irgend giebt," his superlative finds a better justification than usual.
When Menaechmus Sosicles sees fit "to put an antic disposition on," we have a scene which, while eminently farcical, is signally clever and dramatically effective. Witness the imitation by Shakespeare inThe Comedy of Errors, IV. 4, and in spirit by modern farce; for instance, inA Night Off, when the staid old Professor feels the recrudescence of his youthful aspirations to attend a prize-fight, he simulates madness as a prelude to dashing wildly away.
The following fromRud.(160 ff.) is theatrical but tremendously effective and worthy of the highest type of drama. Sceparnio, looking off-stage, spies Ampelisca and Palaestra tossed about in a boat. He addresses Daemones: "SC. But O Palaemon! Hallowed comrade of Neptune ... what scene meets my eye?
DAE. What do you see?
SC. I see two poor lone women sitting in a bit of a boat. How the poor creatures are being tossed about! Hoorah! Hoorah! Fine! The waves are whirling their boat past the rocks into the shallows. A pilot couldn't have steered straighter. I swear I never saw waves more high. They're safe if they escape those breakers. Now, now, danger! One is overboard! Ah, the water's not deep: she'll swim out in a minute. Hooray! See the other one, how the wave tossed her out! She is up, she's on her way shoreward; she's safe!"
Sceparnio clasps his hands, jumps up and down, grasps the shaking Daemones convulsively and communicates his excitement to the audience. It is a piece of thrilling theatrical declamation and must have wrought the spectators up to a high pitch. In general, theRud.is a superior play.
InCas.229 ff. there is developed a piece of faithful and entertaining character-drawing, as the old roué Lysidamus fawns upon his militant spouse Cleostrata, with the following as its climax:
"CLE. (Sniffling.) Ha! Whence that odor of perfumes, eh?
LYS. The jig's up."
In the whole panorama of Plautine personae the portrayal of Alcmena in theAmph.is unique, for she is drawn with absolute sincerity and speaks nothing out of character. Certainly no parody can be made out of the nobly spoken lines 633-52, which lend a genuine air of tragedy to the professedtragi(co)comoedia(59, 63); unless we think of the lady's unwitting compromising condition (surely too subtle a thought for the original audience). Note also the exalted tone of 831-4, 839-42. But all through this scene Sosia is prancing around, prating nonsense, and playing the buffoon, so that perchance even here the nobility becomes but a foil for the revelry. And in 882-955 his royal godship Jove clowns it to the lady's truly minted sentiments.
No, we are far from attempting to deny to Plautus all dramatic technique, skill in character painting and cleverness of situation, but he was never hide-bound by any technical considerations. He felt free to break through the formal bonds of his selected medium at will. He had wit, esprit and above all a knowledge of his audience; and of human nature generally, or else he could not have had such a trenchant effect on the literature of all time.
At any rate, the above lonely landmarks cannot affect our comprehensive estimate of the mise-en-scène. Enough has been said, we believe, in our discussion of the criticism and acting and in our analysis of his dramatic values, to show that the aberrations of Plautus' commentators have been due to their failure to reach the crucial point: the absolute license with which his plays were acted and intended to be acted is at once the explanation of their absurdities and deficiencies. This was true in a far less degree of Terence, who dealt in plots morestatariaand lessmotoria.190Though using the same store of models, he endeavored to produce an artistically constructed play, which should make some honest effort to "hold the mirror up to nature." We are convinced that even his extensive use ofcontaminatiowas designed to evolve a better plot. The extravagance of Plautus is toned down in Terence to a reasonable verisimilitude and a far more "gentlemanly" mode of fun-making that was appropriate to one in the confidence of the aristocratic Scipionic circle. But when all is said and done, Terence lacks the vivid primeval "Volkswitz" of Plautus. We dare only skirt the edges of this extensive subject.191
Above all, our noble jestersucceedsin his mission of laugh-producing. But his methods are not possessed in the main of dramatic respectability. And it must be apparent that our analysis and citations have covered the bulk of the plays.
We conclude then that the prevalence of inherent defects of composition and the lack of serious motive, coupled with the author's constant and conscious employment of the implements of broad farce and extravagant burlesque, impel us inevitably to the conclusion that we have before us a species of composition which, while following a dramatic form, is not inherently drama, but a variety of entertainment that may be described as a compound of comedy, farce and burlesque; while the accompanying music, which would lend dignity to tragedy or grand opera, merely heightens the humorous effect and lends the color of musical comedy or opera bouffe.192Körting is right in calling it mere entertainment, Mommsen is right in calling it caricature, but we maintain that it is professedly mere entertainment, that it is consciously caricature and if it fulfills these functions we have no right to criticise it on other grounds. If we attempt a serious critique of it as drama, we have at once on our hands a capricious mass of dramatic unrealities and absurdities: bombast, burlesque, extravagance, horse-play, soliloquies, asides, direct address of the audience, pointless quips, and so on. The minute we accept it as a consciously conceived medium for amusement only, we have a highly effective theatrical mechanism for the unlimited production of laughter. And, in fact, every shred of evidence, however scant, goes to show that the histrionism must have been conceived in a spirit of extreme liveliness, abandon and extravagance in gesture and declamation, that would not confine the actor to faithful portrayal in character, but would allow him scope and license to resort to any means whatsoever to bestir laughter amongst a not over-stolid audience.
1. E.g., Casina in theCas., Silenium in theCis., Planesium in theCur., Adelphasium and Anterastylis in thePoen., Palaestra in theRud.
2. V. infra, part II, sec. I. B. I.
3. E.g., Lorcnz's Introd. toMost.andPseud.V. infra, part I, § i.
4. We are not concerned in this question with technical discussion as to the position of the banquet table on the stage, the nature of the dog of theMost.and the like, but with the delivery and movements of the actors themselves.
5. De Off. I. 29.104.
6. X. 1.99. Cf. Ritschl's citations of Varro:Parerga, p. 71 ff. Cf. Epig. quoted by Varro and attributed to Plautus himself, ap. Gel. N.A., I. 24.1-3. But that this was a patent literary forgery is proved by Gudeman in TAPA. XXV, p. 160.
7. N.A., VI. 17.4.
8. I.7.17.
9. XIX. 8.6.
10.A.P., 270 ff. Cf.Ep.II. I.170 ff. and Fay, ed.Most., Intro. § 2.
11.De Com.III. 6, Donatus ed. Wessner. For full quotation, v. infra, Part II, Sec. II. A. 3, Note 50.
12.Excerpta de Com.V. 1.
13. For a complete list, seeTestimoniaprefixed to Goetz and Schoell's ed. of Plautus.
14. P. 217 M.
15. 404, 412, 823.
16. Ed.Men.(Leipzig, 1891), ad 410.
17. Cf. opening lines of Eurip.Iph. in Taur.
18. Pp. 13--19. V. Langen,Plautinische Studien, pp. 139-142. Cf. also comments of Brix toMenaechmipassim.
19. Op. cit., p. 146.
20. Cf. Gel. N. A., III. 3-14 ff.
21. V. infra, Part II, under 'Careless Composition'.
22.Beschluss der Critik iiber die Gefangenen des Plaulus.
23. 23: Op. cit., fin.
24.La Litterature latine depuis la fondation de Rome(Paris, 1899), Bk. II. chap. 3. sec. 15, p. 362.
25. Introd. to ed.Mosl., p. 37.
26. Bk. II, Ch. 4.
27. Lamarre, op. cit., Bk. II, Ch. 4, Sec. 12, p. 475.
28.Théâtre de Plaute(Paris, 1845), Introd. p. 18.
29.Opuscula Philologica, Vol. II p. 743.
30.0pusc.II. 733 ff.
31. InOpusc.III. 455, Ritschl relates that Varro wrote six books on drama, with Plautus as the especial object of his interest:de originibus scaenicis, de scaenicis actionibus, de actibus scaenicis, de personis, de descriptionibus, quaestiones Plautinae.
32. Langen, op. cit., p. 127.
33.Opusc.II. 746.
34. Op. cit., p. 165.
35. Op. cit., p. 167.
36.Mil.522 ff. (All citations from Plautus are based on the text and numbering of the lines in the text of Goetz and Schoell).
37.History of Rome, (Transl. Dickson, Scribner, N.Y., 1900), Vol. III, p. 143.
38. E.g., LeGrand,Daos, V. supra. Cf. also N. 80, Part II.
39. P. 190, trans. John Black (London, 1846), Lecture XIV.
40.Theatre of the Greeks, p. 443.
41. P. 197.
42. Cf. Ritschl's opinion, Note 30.
43. V. supra.
44. P. 620. But cf. Note 37.
45. Cf. further Plessis,La poésie latine(Paris, 1909), p. 54 ff.; Patin,Études sur la poésie latine(Paris, 1869), Vol. II, p. 224 ff.; Ribbeck,Geschichte der römischen Dichtung(Stuttgart, 1894), Vol. I, p. 57 ff.; Tyrrell,Early Latin Poetry, p. 44 ff. A very excellent discussion is contained in Duff,A Literary History of Rome(N.Y., 1909), p. 183 ff.
46.History of Rome, Vol. III, p. 139. Cf. note 37.
47. Cf. Prol.Poen.28-9.
48. Prol.Poen., II ff.49.Plaudere, πάλιν,sibilareorexsibilare, explodere, eicerewere expressions used to indicate approval or disapproval. Cf. the discussion of Oehmichen, articleBühnenwesenin Von Müller'sHandbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 5ter Band, 3te Abteilung, § 73. 2, p. 271.
50. Cf. Prol.Poen.36 ff.
51. Cf. Tac.Ann.I. 77. V. Oehmichen, op. cit., § 39.3, p. 220.
52. V. Prol.Amph.52-3:
Quid contraxistis frontem?Quia tragoediam Dixi futuram hanc?
53.Parad.III. 2.26. Cf.Or.51.173,de Or.III. 50.196:"theatra tota reclamant"; Hor.Ep.II. 1.200 ff.; Suet.Nero, 24.1.
54. Cic.de Or.I.61.259, I.27.124.
55.Hist. Rome, ed. cit., Vol. III, p. 140.
56.Cist.785: Qui deliquit vapulabit, qui non deliquit bibet. Cf.Trin.990.Amph.83-4, (if this is not merely an imitation of the Greek original).
57. Tac.Ann.1.77.
58.Amph.65 ff.,Poen.36 ff., Ter.Phor.16 ff., Cic.ad Att.IV. 15.6, Hor.Ep.II. 1.181.
59.Cas.17 ff.,Trin.706 ff. But others argue that these passages are only translations from the Greek. V. Leo inHermes, 1883, p. 561, F. Ostermayer,De hist. fab. in com. Pl.(Greifswald, 1884), p. 7. Ritschl (Parerga, p. 229) argues that the passages refer to cases of extraordinary public approval, not to formal contests. Cf. Var.L.L.V. 178.
60. Cic.pro. Ros. Com.10.28-9, Plin.N. H.7.39.128, Dio 77.21. Cf. Sen.Ep.80.7.
61. Körting, op. cit., p. 244 ff.
62. Cic.de Or.I.59.251, Suet.Nero20, Quint. XI. 3.19.
63. I.ii.i-2, I.ii.12.
64. Quint. XI.3.iii.
65. Cic.Or.31.109.
66. Quint. XI.3.178, Juv. III. 98-9.
67. Cic.de Off.I.31.114,ad Att.IV.15.6.
68. Ap. Athen. XIV. 615 A.
69. For a full discussion of the ancient actor v. Pauly-Wissowa,Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, s. v.histrio; Friedlander in Marquardt-MommsenHandbuch der romischen Altertumer, VI. p. 508 ff.; J. van Wageningen,Scaenica Romana; Warnecke,Die Vortragskunst der romischen Schauspieler, inNeue Jahrbucher, 1908, p. 704 ff.
70. Cf.de Or.III.56.214, III.22.83, Quint. XI. 3.125, 181-2.
71. Quint. XI.3.112.
72. Cf. Quint. XI.3.89.
73. Cic.ad Att.VI.1.8.
74. Cf.de Or.III.26.102, Quint. XI.3.71, 89.
75. For further treatment of the gestures of orators see Pauly-Wissowa,Real-Encyclopadie, s. v.histrio; Warnecke inNeue Jahrbucher, 1910, p. 593; Sittl,Die Gebarden der Griechen und Romer, Chap. XI; Mart. Cap. 43. In the other rhetoricians of the later Empire there is much copying of Cicero and Quintilian, but nothing of significance for our purpose, unless it be the comparison of the rigid training recommended to the embryo orator. For further citations, v. Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit.
76. 0p. cit., p. 203.
77.Wiener Studien, Vol. XIV, p. 120.
78.Scaen. Rom., p. 52. Cf. Karsten inMnem.XXXII, (1904), pp. 209-251, 287-322, who concludes that at least four hands aided in the commentaries.
79. E.g., Donat. adAnd.88,Eun.187, 986,Phor.315.
80. A11 the passages in Donatus dealing with gesture have been collected by Leo,Rheinisches MuseumXXXVIII, p. 331 ff.
81. E.g., Donat. adAnd.180, 363, 380-1,Eun.209, 559, 974,Ad.84, 499, 661, 795, 951,Hec.612, 689,Phor.49, 315. Cf.Ad.285: superbe ac magnifice. Cf. Schol. adAnd.332: Vultuose hoc dicitur, hoc est cum gestu. Cf. also Warnecke inNeue Jahrbücher, 1910, note 75.
82. Cf. XI.3.103,Auct. ad Her.III.15.27.
83. Their precise age and antiquity have been disputed with some acrimony. With Sittl cf. Bethe,Praef. Cod. Ambros.p. 64; van Wageningen, op. cit., p. 50 ff.; Leo inRhein. Mus.XXXVIII, p. 342 ff. V. reproductions in Wieseler,Theatergebäude und Denkmäler des Bühnenwesens bei den Griechen und Römern,Tafel X; and Bethe, ed. of Codex Ambrosianus.
84.Neue Jahr., Sup. Band I (1832), p. 447 ff.
85. Quint. VI.3.29, Mart. Cap., Chap. 43, p. 543 ed. Kopp.
86. V. reproductions in Baumeister,Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums, s. v. "Lustspiel" and Wieseler, op. cit., note 83.
87. Donat.de Com.VI. 3. There is some suspicion that the names have been interchanged.
88.Ars Gram.III, p. 489, 10 K; Festus, s.v.personata, p. 217. Cf. Cic.de Nat. Deo.I. 28.79. Ribbock,Romische Tragodiep. 661, and Dziatzko inRhein. Mus.XXI. 68, have made a violent effort to reconcile the conflicting statements by arguing that Roscius belonged to the troupe of Minucius. This is denied by Weinberger,Wien. Stud.XIV. 126. For further discussion v. van Wageningen,Scaen. Rom.p. 34 ff.; Leo inRhein. Mus.XXXVIII. 342; Oehmichen, op. cit. p. 250; B. Arnold,Ueber Antike Theatermasken; Teuffel,Romische Litteraturgeschichte§16. Sec. 13; Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit., s.v.histrio, pp. 2120-21. A recent article by Saunders (A.J.P., XXXII, p. 58) gives an admirable summing-up of the whole controversy, with substantial proof that at any rate the performers of Plautus' day were unmasked.
89. Diom. III. p. 489.10 K. Cf. Saunders,Costume in Roman Comedy; Marquardt-Mommsen,Handbuch der romischen Altertumer, VI. p. 525; Pauly-Wissowa, l.c. Cf. Cic.ad Fam.VII. 6.
90. Cf.Mil.629 ff., 923,Ps.967,Rud.125 f., 313 f., 1303,Trin.861 f.,Truc.286 ff.; Ter.,Phor.51.
91. V. van Wageningen, op. cit. pp. 40 f.
92.De Or.III. 22.83.
93. II. 10.13. Cf. XI. 3.91.
94. I. II. 1-2
95. Donat. adAnd.505,Eun.224, 288, 403,Ad.187, 395.
96. AdAnd.194, 301,Eun.467, 986,Hec.98, 439, 640,Ad.101. Cf.Ad.96.; cum admiratone indignantis; 97; intento digito et infestis in Micionem oculis.
97. AdEun.1055.
98. AdAnd.633,Eun.233, 451,Hec.63,Ad.259.
99. AdPhor.145.
100. AdAd.200.
101. AdEun.187.
102. VII. 2.8-10.
103. Cf. Diom. 291, 23 ff., K; Ribbeck,Rom. Trag.p. 634, believes that this was the rule, but he is apparently alone in the opinion. Cf. Budensteiner in Bursian'sJahresberichtCVI, p. 162 ff., who agrees with the proof of van Eck,Quaest. Sten. Rom.(Amsterdam 1892), that it was an isolated intance.
104. We are not even remotely concerned with metrical analysis. For that phase, with a discussion as to the effect of the various metrical systems, see Klotz,Grundzuge der altromischen Metrik, esp. p. 370 ff. Cf. Duff,A Lit. Hist. of Rome, p. 196. Note Donat,de Com.VIII. 9 and Diom. 491, 23K.
105. For arguments as to the divisions of the three classes, v., besides Klotz, Ritschl,Parerga, p. 40; Conradt,Die metrische Komposition der Komodien des Terenz(Berlin 1876); Bucheler inNeue Jahr. fur Phil.CXLI (1871), p. 273 ff.; Dziatzko inRhein. Mus.XXVI (1871), pp. 97-100: G. Hermann,de Canticis in Romanorum Fabulis, Opusc.I. 290; which have all been landmarks in the discussion. Cf. also Teuffel,Rom. Lit., § 16. Sec. 5, etc.
106. Cf. Cic.de Or.II.46.193.
107. Cf.As.265, 587, 640, 403,Bac.611,Cap.637,Cas.845 ff.,Cis.53 ff.,Cur.278, 309, 311,Ep.623 ff.,Men.828 f., 910,Mer.599 f.,Mil.200 ff. (quoted infra, Part II), 798-9 (Palaestrio must shout at Periplecomenus to provoke such a reply),Most.265 ff., 594,Per.307 f.,Ps.911, 1287,St.271, 288 f.,Trin.1099,Truc.276, 476 ff., 549, 593 f., 599 ff., 822. Cf. also Ter.Phor.210-11 and Moliere's imitation inLes Fourberies de Scapin, l. 4.
108. Cf. Sittl,Gebarden, p. 201 and Warnecke's citations from the Scholiast to Aristophanes inNeue Jahr.1910, p. 592.
109.Daos, p. 617.
110. A.J.P. VIII. 15 ff.
111. Cf.As.554 ff.,Bac.710 ff.,Cap.159 ff.Cur.572 ff.,Ep.437 ff.,Men.1342.,Per.753 ff.,Ps.761 ff.,Trin.718 ff., etc.
112. For further examples of bombast and mock-heroics v.As.405-6,Bac.792 f., 842 ff.,Cis.640 ff.,Cur.96 ff. 439 ff.,Ep.181 ff. (in similar vein most of the soliloquies of the name part),Her.469 ff., 601 ff., 830 ff.,Mil.459 ff., 486 ff., 947 ff.,Per.251 ff.,Poen.470 ff., 1294 ff.,Ps.1063 f.,Truce.482 ff., 602 ff.
113. V.Amph.370 ff.,As.431,Cas.404 ff.,Cur.192 ff., 624 ff.,Mil.1394 ff.,Mos.i ff.,Per.809 ff.,Poen.382 ff.,Rud.706 ff.
114. V. Frag. IV, G. & S., ap. Non. p. 543.
115. Cf.Bac.581 ff., 1119,Cap.830 ff.,Most.898 ff.,Rud.414,St.308 ff.,Truc.254 ff.
116. Cf. alsoBac.925 ff.,Per.251 ff.,Men.409 ff. (v. supra, Part I, § I, s.v.Festus, Brix). OnBac.933, v. Ribbeck,Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta, on Enn., frag.Androm.81; Kiessling,Analecta Plautina, I. 14 f.; Ostermayer,De historia fabulari in comoediis Plautinis, p. 9. OnMen.808 ff., v. Kiessling, II. 9.
117. Cf. furtherAs.606 ff.,Cur.147 ff.,Most.233 ff.,Poen.275 ff. and passim,Truc.434 ff.
118. Cf.Ep.580 ff. Cf. also "bombast," supra A. 1, and "copious abuse" infra, A. 3. c. Cf. also wall-painting labeled "Der erzurnte Hausherr," in Baumeister,Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums, s. v.Lustspiel.
119. Cf.Mil.596 ff.,Most.454 ff.,Trin.517 ff.
120. Cf.Mer.748 ff.,Men.607 ff.
121. Cf. furtherMost.265 ff., 456 ff. and note Donat. adPhor.210-11: hic locus magis actoris quam lectoris est.
122. Cf.Most.38 ff.,Poen.1309 ff. Cf. also "Lavishing of terms of endearment," supra, A. 3. c.
123. Cf. alsoPoen.426 ff.,Rud.938 ff.
124. Cf. similarlyCap.121 ff., 177 ff.,Cas.725 ff.,Most.909, 999 f. Cf. infra II. B.5.125.Plaut. Stud.pp. 121 f. Cf. pp. 101, 137 f., 158 f., 217, 229 f.
126.Die Kom. des Pl., pp. 70-71.
127.Daos, p. 430-1.
128. Prol.Haut.32-40, Prol.Eun.35-40. Cf. Eugraphius adHaut.31: quid tale hic est, cum servus currit, cum populus discedit, quod domino insano oboediat servus? Cf. also adHaut.37; Donatus adPhor.1.4.
129.And.338 ff.,Phor.179 ff., 841 ff.,Ad.299 ff. Weissman agrees with Donat. that in the last passage humor is not the object. Cf.ancilla currensinEun.643 ff.
130. Cf.servi currentessupra. Cf. alsoAul.811 ff.,Ep.195 ff.,Mer.865 ff.,Ps.243 ff.,St.330 ff.,Trin.1068 ff.,Truc.115 ff.
131. For other passages containing the comedy of "peering," v.Bac.534,Ep.526 ff.,Rud.331 ff., et al. Cf. Weise, op. cit., p. 72 f.
132. Further comments infra II. B. 3.
133. Cf.As.403, and passim.
134. Cf.As.447,Cur.111,Men.125, 478 f., 909,Mer.364, 379,Mil.275,Most.548,Per.99,Poen.840,Ps.445, 615, 908,Rud.97,St.88,Trin.45, 567,Truc.499, etc.
135.Daos, p. 431 ff.See Dieterich,Pulcinella, PI. II. Note esp.As. 851 ff.
136. Cf.Per. 81 ff., 599 ff., Poen. 210 ff., et al.
137. V.Amph.952-3,As.118 ff., 243 ff.,Aul.67 ff., 667 ff., 701 ff.,Bac.170 ff., 349 ff., 573 ff., 761 ff.,Cas.504 ff.,Cis.120 ff.,Cur.216 ff., 591 ff.,Mer.544 ff., 588 ff.,Mil.464 ff.,Most.931 ff., 1041 ff.,Rud.1191 ff.,St.674 ff., et al.
138. V. Cas. 424 ff., 759 ff.,Ep.81 ff.,Men.1039 ff.,Ps.1017 ff., 1052 ff., 1102 ff.,Rud.892 ff., 1281 ff.,St.641 ff.,Trin.199 ff., 1115 ff.,Truc.322 ff., 335 ff., 645 ff., 699 ff.
Cf. the treatment of Le Grand,Daos, p. 412 ff., where he has an analysis from a different point of view. The soliloquy and aside are evidently not so frequent in New Comedy.
139.Daosp. 379. Cf. p. 550.
140.Aul.587 ff.,Men.966 ff. Cf.Most.858 ff. andAs.545 ff., a duologue incanticum.
141.Bac.640 ff. Cf.Ps.767 ff.
142.Cap.461 ff., Cf.Per.53 ff.
143.Men.77 ff., 446 ff.,St.155 ff.
144.Cur.371 ff., (Cf. 494 ff.),Men.571 ff.,Poen.823 ff.
145.Ep.225 ff.
146.Cas.217 ff.,Trin.223 ff. (Cf. 660 ff.)
147.Men.753 ff.
148.Aul.475 ff. (496-536 branded as spurious by Weise, op. cit., pp. 42-44).
149.Mer.817 ff.
150.Poen.210 ff. (though not a solo),Truc.22 ff., 210 ff., 551 ff.
151.Ps.790 ff.
152.Truc.482 ff.
153.Mer.825 ff.,Rud.593 ff.
154.Mosl.85 ff.
155.Ps.1246 ff.
156.St.683 to end.
157.Ps.133 ff. For further passages of the episodical type, cf.Bac.925 ff. (v. supra under "bombast," I. A. 1),Poen.449 ff.,Rud.906 ff.,Trin.820 ff. (v. supra under "burlesque," I. A. 3).
158. Cf. furtherAmph.463, 998,Bac.1072,Cap.69 ff.,Cas.879,Cis.146, 678,Men.880,Mer.313,Mil.862,Most.280, 354, 708 ff.,Poen.921 f.,Ps.124,St.224,446, 674 ff.,Truc.109 ff., 463 ff., 965 ff. Cf. infra II. B. 5.
159. In Donat. ed. Wessner.
160. V.As., Bac., Cap., Cis., Cur., Ep., Men., Mer., Most., Per., Rod., St.Cf.Cas.1013 ff.,Poen.1370 f.
161. V.Bac.235-367,Cap.835-99,Cis.203 ff., 540-630, 705 ff.,Cur.251-73 and passim (this play is full of bandying of quips),Ep.1 ff.,Men.137-81, 602-67,Mer.474 ff., 708 ff., 866 ff.,Most.633 ff., 717 ff., 885 ff.,Per.1 ff., 201 ff.,Poen.210 ff.,Ps.653 ff. and passim,Rud.485 ff. (the jokes here are unusually good), 780 ff.,St.579 ff.,Trin.39 ff., 843 ff.,Truc.95 ff.
162. Cf. Sosia imAmph.(esp. 659 ff.), Libanus inAs.1 ff., Palinurus inCur., Acanthio inMer.(esp. 137 ff.), Milphio inPoen., Sceparnio inRud.(esp. 104 ff.) and Trachalio, Pinacium inSt.(esp. 331 ff.), Stasimus inTrin.
163.St.446 ff., Prol.Cas.67 ff. For an exhaustive discussion of the 'truth to life' of the characters, v. LeGrand,Daos, Part I, Chap. V.
164. V. esp. 96 ff.
165. 603 ff.
166. Pyrgopolinices inMil., Therapontigonus inCur., themilesinEp., Anthemonides inPoen.Stratophanes inTruc, is not so violent.
167. Cappadox inCur., Dordalus inPer., Lycus inPoen., Labrax inRud.Similarly thelenae.
168. Introd. to ed. ofPs.
169. 355. Cf. 360 ff., 974 ff.
170.Hist. de la lit. lat.Bk. II, Ch. III., Sec. 4. p. 307.
171.Plaut. Stud., p. 105.
172.Daos, pp. 557 f. Cf. 218 f.
173. Introd. toPs.Cf.Daos, p. 452 ff.
174. E.g.,Amph.957,Bac.844,Cas.308,Men.898,Mil.1137, 1188,Per.301, 543,Poen.576,Rud.1209,St.400-1,Trin.482.
175. Part II, Sec. I. B. 2.
176. P. 157.
177. Cf.Daos, p. 60.
178. Cf. in general the conclusions of LeGrand,Daos, p. 550, and his admirable analysis (Part II) of "La structure des comedies." He has recognized the existence of a number of the characteristics treated above, but his discussion is in different vein and with a different object in view.
179.Cap.489,Cur.483.
180.Cur.269, et al.
181.Mil.991.
182.Ps.416, et al.
183.Ps.1232.
184.Ps.748. For a fairly complete collection, v. LeGrand,Daos, p. 44 ff. Cf. Middleton and Mills,Students' Companion to Latin Authors, p. 20 ff.
185. Cf. West in A.J.P. VIII. 15. Cf. note 1, Part II, supra.
186. Cf.Amph.861 ff.,As.174 f.,Cap.778,Cur.464,Her.160,Poen.1224.
187. Cf.Daos, Part I, Chap. III: Les personnages, and p. 303 ff.; Mommsen,Hist.pp. 141 ff.
188. Prol, 53 ff.
189. For a discussion of the relation of Plautus to his originals, v. Schuster,Quomodo Plautus Attica exemplaria transtulerit; LeGrand,Daos, passim; Ostermayer,de hist. fab. in com. Pl.; Ritschl,Par.271, etc. The efforts to distinguish Plautus from his models have so far been fragmentary and abortive and will not advance appreciably until a complete play that he adapted has been found. At any rate, the discussion has no real bearing on our subject, since we can consider only the plays as actually transmitted; their sources cannot affect our argument. The comparisons inDaosseem to indicate that Plautus did not debase his originals so much as Mommsen, Körting, Schlegel and others had thought. Even in 1881, Kiessling (Anal. Plaut.II. 9) boldly expresses the opinion: "Atque omnino Plautus multo pressius Atticorum exemplarium vestigia secutus est quam hodie vulgo arbitrantur". Cf. Kellogg in PAPA. XLIV (1913).
190. Euanthius,de Com.IV. 4.
191. For an interesting comparison of Plautus and Terence, v. Spengel,Über die lateinische Komödie, (Munich 1878).
192. The importance of the music is indicated by the transmission of the composer's name in all extantdidascaliae, esp. those of Terence. V. Klotz,Altröm. Met.p. 384 ff.