The Theater of Plautus: Playing to the Audience

THE THEATER OF PLAUTUS ilIHIlE ilIHIlEAillER OlF IPlAUilUS PLAYING TO THE AUDIENCE TIMOTHY ~ J. MOORE Univl:fsit...

Author: Timothy J. Moore

176 downloads 1583 Views 8MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

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 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)


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-


20

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


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


22


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 JEAElJov 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 ,

~-

_

•

\TO I..-~ i;~'~~' t:'t 1,0mines aedium csse sim11is arbitremini. (118-19) ~H~'cn:, 11 ,

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.


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.


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


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


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


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-


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


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()


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).


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 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)


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


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).


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-


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?


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-


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


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


+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


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 ,',·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 l11 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." 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


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


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,


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


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-


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


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


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 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.


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

.. 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.


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


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


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

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


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:


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:


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.


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


'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).


!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:


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.


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; 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.:


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.


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


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


•

. 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 >

'-

> 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 SlJlle '-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
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


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.


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 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: 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. "Basilica Fulvia, modo Aemilia." In SII/dies ill C/.lSsical Art ilIlif Archacology: ./1 'Jl-ibllte to Peter Heil/rich !Jon Blallckcnha. "The lIliles i1lJPflll15U5 ofPbut. AlIl. 528." Latollllls 48: 344-45. RosIer, Wolfgang. 1986. "IVlichail Bachtin und die Karnevalskllltur im anti ken Griechenlanel." Qllmieflli Urbill.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

The Theater of Plautus: Playing to the Audience

Playing to the World's Biggest Audience: The Globalization of Chinese Film and TV

The Art of Theater

Playing to the World's Biggest Audience: The Globalization of Chinese Film and TV

Audience

Desperately seeking the audience

Desperately Seeking the Audience

Audience

Audience

Talking to the Audience: Shakespeare, Performance, Self

American theater of the 1960s

Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus

Plautus & Terence

The Butcher's Theater

The Butcher's Theater

The Art of Clarinet Playing

The Butcher's Theater

The Butcher's Theater

The Theater Cat

The Art of Piano Playing

Audience Economics: Media Institutions and the Audience Marketplace

In the Theater of Consciousness: The Workspace of the Mind

Plautine Elements in Plautus

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Playing Guitar

Playing Easy to Get

Playing Hard to Get

Playing by the Rules

Playing The Field

Playing by the Rules

Playing The Field

Playing the Player

The Theater of Plautus: Playing to the Audience

Playing to the World's Biggest Audience: The Globalization of Chinese Film and TV

The Art of Theater

Playing to the World's Biggest Audience: The Globalization of Chinese Film and TV

Audience

Desperately seeking the audience

Desperately Seeking the Audience

Audience

Audience

Talking to the Audience: Shakespeare, Performance, Self

American theater of the 1960s

Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus

Plautus & Terence

The Butcher's Theater

The Butcher's Theater

The Art of Clarinet Playing

The Butcher's Theater

The Butcher's Theater

The Theater Cat

The Art of Piano Playing

Audience Economics: Media Institutions and the Audience Marketplace

In the Theater of Consciousness: The Workspace of the Mind

Plautine Elements in Plautus

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Playing Guitar

Playing Easy to Get

Playing Hard to Get

Playing by the Rules

Playing The Field

Playing by the Rules

Playing The Field

Playing the Player

Recommend Documents