Even in olden times Euanthius censured this practice (_de Com._ III. 6)[159]:
Naturally we shall hardly consider under this head the speech of the whole _grex_, or the “Nunc plaudite” of an actor that closes a number of the plays. It is no more than the bowing or curtain-calls of today[160], unless it was an emphatic announcement to the audience that the play was over.
B. _Inconsistencies and carelessness of composition_.
We have referred above to the voluminous mass of inconsistencies, contradictions and psychological improbabilities collected by Langen in his _Plautinische Studien_. He really succeeds in finding the crux of the situation in recognizing that these features are inherent in Plautus’ style and are frequently employed solely for comic effect, though he is often overcome by a natural Teutonic stolidity. He aptly points out that Plautus in his selection of originals has in the main chosen plots with more vigorous action than Terence. We shall have occasion to quote him at intervals, but desire to develop this topic quite independently.
1. Pointless badinage and padded scenes.
Strong evidence of loose construction and lack of a technical dramatic ideal is contained in the large number of scenes padded out with pointless badinage, often tiresome, often wholly episodical in nature, as the monodies, and putting for a time a complete check on the plot. The most striking of these is _Aul._ 631 ff., when Euclio, suspecting Strobilus of the theft of his gold, pounces upon him and belabors him:
“STR. (_Howling and dancing and making violent efforts to free himself._) What the plague has got hold of you? What have you to do with me, you dotard? Why pick on me? Why are you grabbing me? Don’t beat me! (_Succeeds in breaking loose._)
EUC. (_Shaking stick at him._) You first-class jailbird, do you dare ask me again? You’re not a thief, but three thieves rolled into one!
STR. (_Whining and nursing bruises_) What did I steal from you?
EUC. (_Still threatening._) Give it back here, I say?
STR. (_Trembling and edging off._) What is it you want me to give back?
EUC. (_Watching him narrowly._) You ask?
STR. I tell you, I didn’t take a thing from you.
EUC. (_Impatiently._) All right, but hand over what you did take! (_Pause._) Well, well!
STR. Well, what?
EUC. You can’t get away with it.
STR. (_Bolder._) Look here, what do you want?…
EUC. (_Angrier and angrier._) Hand it over, I say! Stop quibbling! I’m not trifling now!
STR. Now what shall I hand over? Speak out! Why don’t you give the thing a name? I swear I never touched or handled anything of yours.
EUC. Put out your hands.
STR. There you are! I’ve done so. See them?
EUC. (_Scrutinizing his hands closely._) All right. Now put out the third too.
STR. (_Aside, growing angry._) The foul fiends of madness have possessed this doddering idiot. (_Majestically._) Confess you wrong me?
EUC. (_Dancing in frenzy._) To the utmost, since I don’t have you strung up! And that’s what’ll happen too, if you don’t confess.
STR. (_Shouting._) Confess what?
EUC. What did you steal from here? (_Pointing to his house._)
STR. Strike me if I stole anything of yours, (_Aside to audience_) and if I don’t wish I’d made off with it.
EUC. Come now, shake out your cloak.
STR. (_Doing so._) As you please.
EUC. (_Stooping to see if anything falls out._) Haven’t got it under your shirt? (_Pounces upon him and ransacks clothing._)
STR. (_Resignedly._) Search me, if you like;” and so on with “Give it back,” What is it? “Put out your right hand,” etc., etc.
Molière again imitated almost slavishly (_L’Avare_, V. 3). Longwinded as the thing is, it is clear that the liveliness of the action not only relieves it, but could make it immensely amusing. At least it is superior to the average vaudeville skit of the present day. It must not be forgotten too that, as Plautus was in close touch with his players, he could have done much of the stage-directing himself and might even have worked up some parts to fit the peculiar talents of certain actors, as is regularly done in the modern “tailormade drama.”
There are numbers of scenes of the sort quoted above, where the apparent monotony and verbal padding could be converted into coin for laughter by the clever comedian. _Amph._ 551-632 could be worked up poco a poco crescendo e animato; in _Poen._ 504 ff., Agorastocles and the _Advocati_ bandy extensive rhetoric; in _Trin._ 276 ff., the action is suspended while Philto proves himself Polonius’ ancestor in his long-winded sermonizing to Lysiteles and his insistent _laudatio temporis acti_; in _St._ 326 ff., as Pinacium, the _servus currens_, finally succeeds in “arriving” out of breath (he has been running since 274), bursting with the vast importance of his news, he postpones the delivery of his tidings till 371 while he indulges in irrelevant badinage. This is pure buffoonery. And we can instance scene upon scene where the self-evident padding can either furnish an excuse for agile histrionism, or become merely tiresome in its iteration[161]. The danger of the latter was even recognized by our poet, when, at the end of much word-fencing, Acanthio asks Charinus if his desire to talk quietly is prompted by fear of waking “the sleeping spectators” (_Mer._ 160). This was probably no exaggeration.
When the padding takes the form of mutual “spoofing,” the scene assumes an uncanny likeness to the usual lines of a modern “high-class vaudeville duo.” Note Leonida and Libanus, the merry slaves of the _As._ in 297 ff., Toxilus and Sagaristio in the _Per._, Milphio and Syncerastus in the _Poen._ (esp. 851 ff.), Pseudolus and Simia in _Ps._ 905 ff., Trachalio and Gripus in _Rud._ 938 ff., Stichus and Sagarinus in the final scene of the _St._, and in _Ps._ 1167 ff. Harpax is unmercifully “chaffed” by Simo and Ballio. Or, in view of the surrounding drama, we might better compare these roysterers to the “team” of low comedians often grafted on a musical comedy, where their antics effectually prevent the tenuous plot from becoming vulgarly prominent.
2. Inconsistencies of character and situation.
The Plautine character is never a consistent human character. He is rather a personified trait, a broad caricature on magnified foibles of some type of mankind. There is never any character development, no chastening. We leave our friends as we found them. They may exhibit the outward manifestation of grief, joy, love, anger, but their marionette nature cannot be affected thereby. That we should find inconsistencies in character portrayal under these circumstances, is not only to be expected, but is a mathematical certainty. The poet cares not; they must only dance, dance, dance!
Persistent moralizers, such as Megaronides in the _Trin._, who serve but as a foil from whom the revelry “sticks fiery off,” descend themselves at moments to bandying the merriest quips (Scene I.). In _Ep._ 382 ff., the moralizing of Periphanes is counterfeit coinage. Gilded youths such as Calidorus of the _Ps._ begin by asking (290 f.): “Could I by any chance trip up father, who is such a wide-awake old boy?”, and end by rolling their eyes upward with: “And besides, if I could, filial piety prevents.” The Menaechmi twins are eminently respectable, but they cheerfully purloin mantles, bracelets and purses. Hanno of the _Poen._ should according to specifications be a staid _pater familias_, but Plautus imputes to him a layer of the _Punica fides_ that he knew his public would take delight in “booing.” And the old gentleman enters into a plot (1090) to chaff elaborately his newly-found long-lost daughters, whom he has spent a lifetime in seeking, before disclosing his identity to them (1211 ff.). Saturio’s daughter in the _Per._ is at one time the very model of maidenly modesty and wisdom (336 ff.), at others an accomplished intriguante and demi-mondaine (549 ff., esp. 607 ff.). When the plot of the _Ep._ is getting hopelessly tangled, of a sudden it is magically resolved as by a deus ex machina and everybody decides to “shake and make up.”
Slaves ever fearful of the mills or quarries are yet prone to the most abominable “freshness” towards their masters. The irrepressible Pseudolus in reading a letter from Calidorus’ mistress says (27 ff.):
“What letters! Humph! I’m afraid the Sibyl is the only person capable of interpreting these.
“CAL. Oh why do you speak so rudely of those lovely letters written on a lovely tablet with a lovely hand?
“PS. Well, would you mind telling me if hens have hands? For these look to me very like hen-scratches.
“CAL. You insulting beast! Read, or return the tablet!
“PS. Oh, I’ll read all right, all right. Just focus your mind on this.
“CAL. _(Pointing vacantly to his head._) Mind? It’s not here.
“PS. What! Go get one quick then![162].”
In order that the machinations of these cunning slaves may mature, it is usually necessary to portray their victims as the veriest fools. Witness the cock-and-bull story by which Stasimus, in _Trin._ 515 ff., convinces Philto that his master’s land is an undesirable real estate prospect. Dordalus in _Per._ (esp. 493 ff.) exhibits a certain amount of caution in face of Toxilus’ “confidence game,” but that he should be victimized at all stamps him as a caricature.
LeGrand is certainly right in pronouncing the cunning slave a pure convention, adapted from the Greek and so unsuitable to Roman society that even Plautus found it necessary to apologize for their unrestrained gambols, on the ground that ‘that was the way they did in Athens!'[163]
Certain of the characters are caricatures _par excellence_, embodiments of a single attribute. Leaena of the _Cur._ is the perpetually thirsty _lena_: “Wine, wine, wine!”[164] Cleaerata of the _As._ is a plain caricature, but is exceptionally cleverly drawn as the _lena_ with the mordant tongue. Phronesium’s thirst in the _Truc._, is gold, gold, gold! The _danista_ of the _Most._ finds the whole expression of his nature in the cry of “Faenus!”[165] Assuredly, he is the progenitor of the modern low-comedy Jew: “I vant my inderesd!” Calidorus of the _Ps._ and Phaedromus of the _Cur._ are but bleeding hearts dressed up in clothes. The _milites gloriosi_ are all cartoons;[166] and the perpetually moralizing pedagogue Lydus of the _Bac._ becomes funny, instead of egregiously tedious, if acted as a broad burlesque.
The panders[167] are all manifest caricatures, too, especially the famous Ballio of the _Ps._, whom even Lorenz properly describes as “der Einbegriff aller Schlechtigkeit,” though he deprecates the part as “eine etwas zu grell and zu breit angefuhrte Schilderung.”[168] “Ego scelestus,” says Ballio himself.[169] He calmly and unctuously pleads guilty to every charge of “liar, thief, perjurer,” etc., and can never be induced to lend an ear until the cabalistic charm “Lucrum!” is pronounced (264).
The famous miser Euclio has given rise to an inordinate amount of unnecessary comment. Lamarre[170] is at great pains to defend Plautus from “le reproche d’avoir introduit dans la peinture de son principal personnage
3. Looseness of dramatic construction.
Lorenz with commendable insight has pointed out[173] that ΤÏÏη, the goddess of Chance, is the motive power of the Plautine plot, as distinguished from the μοá¿Ïα of tragedy. A student of Plautus readily recognizes this point. The entire development of the _Rud._ and _Poen._ exemplifies it in the highest degree. Hanno in the _Poen._, in particular, meets first of all, in the strange city of Calydon, the very man he is looking for! When Pseudolus is racking his wits for a stratagem, Harpax obligingly drops in with all the requisites. The ass-dealer in the _As._ is so ridiculously fortuitous that it savors of childlike naiveté.
Characters are perpetually entering just when wanted. We hear “Optume advenis” and “Eccum ipsum video” so frequently that they become as meaningless as “How d’ye do!”[174]; though, as shown above[175], even this very weakness could at moments be made the pretext for a mild laugh.
For a complete catalogue of the formidable mass of inconsistencies and contradictions that throng the plays, the reader is referred to the _Plautinische Studien_ of Langen, as aforesaid. It will be of passing interest to recall one or two. In _Cas._ 530 Lysidamus goes to the “forum” and returns _32 verses later_ complaining that he has wasted the whole day standing “advocate” for a kinsman. But this difficulty is resolved, if we accept the theory of Prof. Kent (TAPA. XXXVII), that the change of acts which occurs in between, is a conventional excuse for any lapse of time, in Roman comedy as well as in Greek tragedy. But it is extremely doubtful that Prof. Kent succeeds in establishing the truth of this view in the case of Roman comedy. We see no convincing reason for departing from the accepted theory, as expressed by Duff (_A Literary History of Rome_, pp. 196-7): “In Plautus’ time a play proceeded continuously from the lowering of the curtain at the beginning to its rise at the end, save for short breaks filled generally by simple music from the _tibicen_ (_Ps._ 573). The division into scenes is ancient and regularly indicated in manuscripts of Plautus and Terence.”
Langen seems surprised[176] when Menaechmus Sosicles, on beholding his twin for the first time (_Men._ 1062), though he was the object of a six years’ search, wades through some twenty lines of amazed argument before Messenio (with marvelous cunning!) hits on the true explanation. It is of course conceived in a burlesque spirit. What would become of the comic action if Menaechmus II simply walked up to Menaechmus I and remarked: “Hello, brother, don’t you remember me?”
That the seven months of _Most._ 470 miraculously change into six months in 954 is the sort of mistake possible to any writer. In the _Amph._ 1053 ff., Alcmena is in labor apparently a few minutes after consorting with Jupiter; but the change of acts _may_ account for the lapse of time, here as in _Cas._ 530 ff.
But after the exhaustive work of Langen, we need linger no longer in this well-ploughed field. We repeat, the evidence all points irresistibly to the conclusion that Plautus is wholly careless of his dramatic machinery so long as it moves. The laugh’s the thing!
The _St._ is an apt illustration of the probable workings of Plautus’ mind. The virtue of the Penelope-like Pamphila and Panegyris proves too great a strain and unproductive of merriment. The topic gradually vanishes as the drolleries of the parasite Gelasimus usurp the boards. He in turn gives way to the hilarious buffoonery of the two slaves. The result is a succession of loose-jointed scenes[177]. The _Aul._ too is fragmentary and episodical. The _Trin._ is insufferably long-winded, with insufficient comic accompaniment. The _Cis._ is a wretched piece of vacuous inanity[178].
4. Roman admixture and topical allusions.
Plautus’ frequent forgetfulness of his Greek environment and the interjection of Roman references–what De Quincey calls “anatopism”–is another item of careless composition too well known to need more than passing mention. The repeated appearance of the _Velabrum,_[179] or _Capitolium,_[180] or _circus,_[181] or _senatus_, or _dictator_,[182] or _centuriata comitio,_[183] or _plebiscitum,_[184] and a host of others in the Greek investiture, becomes after a while a matter of course to us. We see however no need to quarrel with _forum_; it was Plautus’ natural translation for á¼Î³Î¿Ïά. But it all adds inevitably and relentlessly to our argument–Plautus was heedless of the petty demands of technique and realism. His attention was too much occupied in devising means of amusement.
The occasional topical allusions belong in the same category as above; for example, the allusion to the Punic war (_Cis._ 202),[185] the _lex Platoria_ (_Ps._ 303, _Rud._ 1381-2), Naevius’ imprisonment (_Mil. _ 211-2), Attalus of Pergamum (_Per._ 339, _Poen._ 664), Antiochus the Great (_Poen._ 693-4). Again we have a modern parallel: the topics of the day are a favorite resort of the lower types of present-day stage production.
5. Jokes on the dramatic machinery.
But the most extreme stage of intimate jocularity is reached when the last sorry pretense of drama is discarded and the dramatic machinery itself becomes the subject of jest. So in the _Cas._ 1006 the cast is warned: Hanc ex longa longiorem ne faciamus fabulam. In _Per._ 159-60 Saturio wants to know where to get his daughter’s projected disguise:
“SAT. ÏÏθεν ornamenta?
TOX. Abs chorago sumito. Dare debet: praebenda aediles locaverunt.” (Cf. _Trin._ 858.)
Even the _Ps._, heralded as dramatically one of the best of the plays, yields the following: Horum caussa haec agitur spectatorum fabula (720); hanc fabulam dum transigam (562) and following speech; verba quae in comoediis solent lenoni dici (1081-2); quam in aliis comoediis fit (1240); quin vocas spectatores simul? (1332). In _St._ 715 ff., the action of the play is interrupted while the boisterous slaves give the musician a drink. From the _Poen._ comes a gem that will bear quoting at length (550 ff.):
Omnia istaec scimus iam nos, si hi spectatores sciant. Horunc hic nunc causa haec agitur spectatorum fabula: Hos te satius est docere ut, quando agas, quid agas sciant. Nos tu ne curassis: scimus rem omnem, quippe omnes simul. Didicimus tecum una, ut respondere possimus tibi.[186]
This is the final degeneration into the realm of pure foolery. It is a patent declaration: “This is only a play; laugh and we are content.” Once more we venture to point a parallel on the modern stage, in the vaudeville comedian who interlards his dancing with comments such as: “I hate to do this, but it’s the only way I can earn a living.”
6. Use of stock plots and characters.
We must touch finally, but very lightly, on the commonplaces of stock plots and characters. The whole array of puppets is familiar to us all: the cunning slave, the fond or licentious papa, the spendthrift son and their inevitable confrères appear in play after play with relentless regularity. The close correspondence of many plots is also too familiar to need discussion.[187] The glimmering of originality in the plot of the _Cap._ called for special advertisement.[188] In the light of the foregoing evidence, the pertinence of these facts for us, we reiterate, is that Plautus merely adopted the New Comedy form as his comic medium, and, while leaving his originals in the main untouched, took what liberties he desired with them, with the single-minded purpose of making his public laugh.[189]
In Conclusion
In contrast to these grotesqueries certain individual scenes and plays stand out with startling distinctness as possessed of wit and humor of high order. The description by Cleaereta of the relations of lover, mistress and _lena_ is replete with biting satire (_As._ 177 ff., 215 ff.). The finale of the same play is irresistibly comic. In _Aul. _ 731 ff. real sparks issue from the verbal cross-purposes of Euclio and Lyconides over the words “pot” and “daughter.” The _Bac._ is an excellent play, marred by padding. When the sisters chaff the old men as “sheep” (1120 ff.), the humor is naturalistic and human. The _Cas._, uproarious and lewd as it is, becomes excruciatingly amusing if the mind is open to appreciating humor in the broadest spirit. The discourse of Periplecomenus (_Mil._ 637 ff.) is marked by homely satirical wisdom. In the _Ps._ the badinage of the name-character is appreciably superior to most of the incidental quips. Pseudolus generously compliments Charinus on beating him at his own game of repartee (743). When Weise (_Die Komodien des Plautus_, p. 181) describes _Ps._ IV. 7 as “eine der ausgezeichnetsten Scenen, die es irgend giebt,” his superlative finds a better justification than usual.
When Menaechmus Sosicles sees fit “to put an antic disposition on,” we have a scene which, while eminently farcical, is signally clever and dramatically effective. Witness the imitation by Shakespeare in _The Comedy of Errors_, IV. 4, and in spirit by modern farce; for instance, in _A Night Off_, when the staid old Professor feels the recrudescence of his youthful aspirations to attend a prize-fight, he simulates madness as a prelude to dashing wildly away.
The following from _Rud._ (160 ff.) is theatrical but tremendously effective and worthy of the highest type of drama. Sceparnio, looking off-stage, spies Ampelisca and Palaestra tossed about in a boat. He addresses Daemones:
“SC. But O Palaemon! Hallowed comrade of Neptune … what scene meets my eye?
DAE. What do you see?
SC. I see two poor lone women sitting in a bit of a boat. How the poor creatures are being tossed about! Hoorah! Hoorah! Fine! The waves are whirling their boat past the rocks into the shallows. A pilot couldn’t have steered straighter. I swear I never saw waves more high. They’re safe if they escape those breakers. Now, now, danger! One is overboard! Ah, the water’s not deep: she’ll swim out in a minute. Hooray! See the other one, how the wave tossed her out! She is up, she’s on her way shoreward; she’s safe!”
Sceparnio clasps his hands, jumps up and down, grasps the shaking Daemones convulsively and communicates his excitement to the audience. It is a piece of thrilling theatrical declamation and must have wrought the spectators up to a high pitch. In general, the _Rud._ is a superior play.
In _Cas._ 229 ff. there is developed a piece of faithful and entertaining character-drawing, as the old roué Lysidamus fawns upon his militant spouse Cleostrata, with the following as its climax:
“CLE. (_Sniffling._) Ha! Whence that odor of perfumes, eh?
LYS. The jig’s up.”
In the whole panorama of Plautine personae the portrayal of Alcmena in the _Amph._ is unique, for she is drawn with absolute sincerity and speaks nothing out of character. Certainly no parody can be made out of the nobly spoken lines 633-52, which lend a genuine air of tragedy to the professed _tragi(co)comoedia_ (59, 63); unless we think of the lady’s unwitting compromising condition (surely too subtle a thought for the original audience). Note also the exalted tone of 831-4, 839-42. But all through this scene Sosia is prancing around, prating nonsense, and playing the buffoon, so that perchance even here the nobility becomes but a foil for the revelry. And in 882-955 his royal godship Jove clowns it to the lady’s truly minted sentiments.
No, we are far from attempting to deny to Plautus all dramatic technique, skill in character painting and cleverness of situation, but he was never hide-bound by any technical considerations. He felt free to break through the formal bonds of his selected medium at will. He had wit, esprit and above all a knowledge of his audience; and of human nature generally, or else he could not have had such a trenchant effect on the literature of all time.
At any rate, the above lonely landmarks cannot affect our comprehensive estimate of the mise-en-scène. Enough has been said, we believe, in our discussion of the criticism and acting and in our analysis of his dramatic values, to show that the aberrations of Plautus’ commentators have been due to their failure to reach the crucial point: the absolute license with which his plays were acted and intended to be acted is at once the explanation of their absurdities and deficiencies. This was true in a far less degree of Terence, who dealt in plots more _stataria_ and less _motoria_.[190] Though using the same store of models, he endeavored to produce an artistically constructed play, which should make some honest effort to “hold the mirror up to nature.” We are convinced that even his extensive use of _contaminatio_ was designed to evolve a better plot. The extravagance of Plautus is toned down in Terence to a reasonable verisimilitude and a far more “gentlemanly” mode of fun-making that was appropriate to one in the confidence of the aristocratic Scipionic circle. But when all is said and done, Terence lacks the vivid primeval “Volkswitz” of Plautus. We dare only skirt the edges of this extensive subject.[191]
Above all, our noble jester _succeeds_ in his mission of laugh-producing. But his methods are not possessed in the main of dramatic respectability. And it must be apparent that our analysis and citations have covered the bulk of the plays.
We conclude then that the prevalence of inherent defects of composition and the lack of serious motive, coupled with the author’s constant and conscious employment of the implements of broad farce and extravagant burlesque, impel us inevitably to the conclusion that we have before us a species of composition which, while following a dramatic form, is not inherently drama, but a variety of entertainment that may be described as a compound of comedy, farce and burlesque; while the accompanying music, which would lend dignity to tragedy or grand opera, merely heightens the humorous effect and lends the color of musical comedy or opera bouffe.[192] Körting is right in calling it mere entertainment, Mommsen is right in calling it caricature, but we maintain that it is professedly mere entertainment, that it is consciously caricature and if it fulfills these functions we have no right to criticise it on other grounds. If we attempt a serious critique of it as drama, we have at once on our hands a capricious mass of dramatic unrealities and absurdities: bombast, burlesque, extravagance, horse-play, soliloquies, asides, direct address of the audience, pointless quips, and so on. The minute we accept it as a consciously conceived medium for amusement only, we have a highly effective theatrical mechanism for the unlimited production of laughter. And, in fact, every shred of evidence, however scant, goes to show that the histrionism must have been conceived in a spirit of extreme liveliness, abandon and extravagance in gesture and declamation, that would not confine the actor to faithful portrayal in character, but would allow him scope and license to resort to any means whatsoever to bestir laughter amongst a not over-stolid audience.
Footnotes
[1]: E.g., Casina in the _Cas._, Silenium in the _Cis._, Planesium in the _Cur._, Adelphasium and Anterastylis in the _Poen._, Palaestra in the _Rud._
[2]: V. infra, part II, sec. I. B. I.
[3]: E.g., Lorcnz’s Introd. to _Most._ and _Pseud._ V. infra, part I, § i.
[4]: We are not concerned in this question with technical discussion as to the position of the banquet table on the stage, the nature of the dog of the _Most._ and the like, but with the delivery and movements of the actors themselves.
[5]: De Off. I. 29.104.
[6]: X. 1.99. Cf. Ritschl’s citations of Varro: _Parerga_, p. 71 ff. Cf. Epig. quoted by Varro and attributed to Plautus himself, ap. Gel. N.A., I. 24.1-3. But that this was a patent literary forgery is proved by Gudeman in TAPA. XXV, p. 160.
[7]: N.A., VI. 17.4.
[8]: I.7.17.
[9]: XIX. 8.6.
[10]: _A.P._, 270 ff. Cf. _Ep._ II. I.170 ff. and Fay, ed. _Most._, Intro. § 2.
[11]: _De Com._ III. 6, Donatus ed. Wessner. For full quotation, v. infra, Part II, Sec. II. A. 3, Note 50.
[12]: _Excerpta de Com._ V. 1.
[13]: For a complete list, see _Testimonia_ prefixed to Goetz and Schoell’s ed. of Plautus.
[14]: P. 217 M.
[15]: 404, 412, 823.
[16]: Ed. _Men._ (Leipzig, 1891), ad 410.
[17]: Cf. opening lines of Eurip. _Iph. in Taur._
[18]: Pp. 13–19. V. Langen, _Plautinische Studien_, pp. 139-142. Cf. also comments of Brix to _Menaechmi_ passim.
[19]: Op. cit., p. 146.
[20]: Cf. Gel. N. A., III. 3-14 ff.
[21]: V. infra, Part II, under ‘Careless Composition’.
[22]: _Beschluss der Critik iiber die Gefangenen des Plaulus_.
[23]: 23: Op. cit., fin.
[24]: _La Litterature latine depuis la fondation de Rome_ (Paris, 1899), Bk. II. chap. 3. sec. 15, p. 362.
[25]: Introd. to ed. _Mosl._, p. 37.
[26]: Bk. II, Ch. 4.
[27]: Lamarre, op. cit., Bk. II, Ch. 4, Sec. 12, p. 475.
[28]: _Théâtre de Plaute_ (Paris, 1845), Introd. p. 18.
[29]: _Opuscula Philologica_, Vol. II p. 743.
[30]: _Opusc._ II. 733 ff.
[31]: In _Opusc._ III. 455, Ritschl relates that Varro wrote six books on drama, with Plautus as the especial object of his interest: _de originibus scaenicis, de scaenicis actionibus, de actibus scaenicis, de personis, de descriptionibus, quaestiones Plautinae_.
[32]: Langen, op. cit., p. 127.
[33]: _Opusc._ II. 746.
[34]: Op. cit., p. 165.
[35]: Op. cit., p. 167.
[36]: _Mil._ 522 ff. (All citations from Plautus are based on the text and numbering of the lines in the text of Goetz and Schoell).
[37]: _History of Rome_, (Transl. Dickson, Scribner, N.Y., 1900), Vol. III, p. 143.
[38]: E.g., LeGrand, _Daos_, V. supra. Cf. also N. 80, Part II.
[39]: P. 190, trans. John Black (London, 1846), Lecture XIV.
[40]: _Theatre of the Greeks_, p. 443.
[41]: P. 197.
[42]: Cf. Ritschl’s opinion, Note 30.
[43]: V. supra.
[44]: P. 620. But cf. Note 37.
[45]: Cf. further Plessis, _La poésie latine_ (Paris, 1909), p. 54 ff.; Patin, _Ãtudes sur la poésie latine_ (Paris, 1869), Vol. II, p. 224 ff.; Ribbeck, _Geschichte der römischen Dichtung_ (Stuttgart, 1894), Vol. I, p. 57 ff.; Tyrrell, _Early Latin Poetry_, p. 44 ff. A very excellent discussion is contained in Duff, _A Literary History of Rome_ (N.Y., 1909), p. 183 ff.
[46]: _History of Rome_, Vol. III, p. 139. Cf. note 37.
[47]: Cf. Prol. _Poen._ 28-9.
[48]: Prol. _Poen._, II ff.
[49]: _Plaudere_, Ïάλιν, _sibilare_ or _exsibilare, explodere, eicere_ were expressions used to indicate approval or disapproval. Cf. the discussion of Oehmichen, article _Bühnenwesen_ in Von Müller’s _Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_, 5ter Band, 3te Abteilung, § 73. 2, p. 271.
[50]: Cf. Prol. _Poen._ 36 ff.
[51]: Cf. Tac. _Ann._ I. 77. V. Oehmichen, op. cit., § 39.3, p. 220.
[52]: V. Prol. _Amph._ 52-3:
Quid contraxistis frontem?
Quia tragoediam Dixi futuram hanc?
[53]: _Parad._ III. 2.26. Cf. _Or._ 51.173, _de Or._ III. 50.196: _”theatra tota reclamant_”; Hor. _Ep._ II. 1.200 ff.; Suet. _Nero_, 24.1.
[54]: Cic. _de Or._ I.61.259, I.27.124.
[55]: _Hist. Rome_, ed. cit., Vol. III, p. 140.
[56]: _Cist._ 785: Qui deliquit vapulabit, qui non deliquit bibet. Cf. _Trin._ 990. _Amph._ 83-4, (if this is not merely an imitation of the Greek original).
[57]: Tac. _Ann._ 1.77.
[58]: _Amph._ 65 ff., _Poen._ 36 ff., Ter. _Phor._ 16 ff., Cic. _ad Att._ IV. 15.6, Hor. _Ep._ II. 1.181.
[59]: _Cas._ 17 ff., _Trin._ 706 ff. But others argue that these passages are only translations from the Greek. V. Leo in _Hermes_, 1883, p. 561, F. Ostermayer, _De hist. fab. in com. Pl._ (Greifswald, 1884), p. 7. Ritschl (_Parerga_, p. 229) argues that the passages refer to cases of extraordinary public approval, not to formal contests. Cf. Var. _L.L._ V. 178.
[60]: Cic. _pro. Ros. Com._ 10.28-9, Plin. _N. H._ 7.39.128, Dio 77.21. Cf. Sen. _Ep._ 80.7.
[61]: Körting, op. cit., p. 244 ff.
[62]: Cic. _de Or._ I.59.251, Suet. _Nero_ 20, Quint. XI. 3.19.
[63]: I.ii.i-2, I.ii.12.
[64]: Quint. XI.3.iii.
[65]: Cic. _Or._ 31.109.
[66]: Quint. XI.3.178, Juv. III. 98-9.
[67]: Cic. _de Off._ I.31.114, _ad Att._ IV.15.6.
[68]: Ap. Athen. XIV. 615 A.
[69]: For a full discussion of the ancient actor v. Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft_, s. v. _histrio_; Friedlander in Marquardt-Mommsen _Handbuch der romischen Altertumer_, VI. p. 508 ff.; J. van Wageningen, _Scaenica Romana_; Warnecke, _Die Vortragskunst der romischen Schauspieler_, in _Neue Jahrbucher_, 1908, p. 704 ff.
[70]: Cf. _de Or._ III.56.214, III.22.83, Quint. XI. 3.125, 181-2.
[71]: Quint. XI.3.112.
[72]: Cf. Quint. XI.3.89.
[73]: Cic. _ad Att._ VI.1.8.
[74]: Cf. _de Or._ III.26.102, Quint. XI.3.71, 89.
[75]: For further treatment of the gestures of orators see Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopadie_, s. v. _histrio_; Warnecke in _Neue Jahrbucher_, 1910, p. 593; Sittl, _Die Gebarden der Griechen und Romer_, Chap. XI; Mart. Cap. 43. In the other rhetoricians of the later Empire there is much copying of Cicero and Quintilian, but nothing of significance for our purpose, unless it be the comparison of the rigid training recommended to the embryo orator. For further citations, v. Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit.
[76]: 0p. cit., p. 203.
[77]: _Wiener Studien_, Vol. XIV, p. 120.
[78]: _Scaen. Rom._, p. 52. Cf. Karsten in _Mnem._ XXXII, (1904), pp. 209-251, 287-322, who concludes that at least four hands aided in the commentaries.
[79]: E.g., Donat. ad _And._ 88, _Eun._ 187, 986, _Phor._ 315.
[80]: A11 the passages in Donatus dealing with gesture have been collected by Leo, _Rheinisches Museum_ XXXVIII, p. 331 ff.
[81]: E.g., Donat. ad _And._ 180, 363, 380-1, _Eun._ 209, 559, 974, _Ad._ 84, 499, 661, 795, 951, _Hec._ 612, 689, _Phor._ 49, 315. Cf. _Ad._ 285: superbe ac magnifice. Cf. Schol. ad _And._ 332: Vultuose hoc dicitur, hoc est cum gestu. Cf. also Warnecke in _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1910, note 75.
[82]: Cf. XI.3.103, _Auct. ad Her._ III.15.27.
[83]: Their precise age and antiquity have been disputed with some acrimony. With Sittl cf. Bethe, _Praef. Cod. Ambros._ p. 64; van Wageningen, op. cit., p. 50 ff.; Leo in _Rhein. Mus._ XXXVIII, p. 342 ff. V. reproductions in Wieseler, _Theatergebäude und Denkmäler des Bühnenwesens bei den Griechen und Römern,_ Tafel X; and Bethe, ed. of Codex Ambrosianus.
[84]: _Neue Jahr._, Sup. Band I (1832), p. 447 ff.
[85]: Quint. VI.3.29, Mart. Cap., Chap. 43, p. 543 ed. Kopp.
[86]: V. reproductions in Baumeister, _Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums_, s. v. “Lustspiel” and Wieseler, op. cit., note 83.
[87]: Donat. _de Com._ VI. 3. There is some suspicion that the names have been interchanged.
[88]: _Ars Gram._ III, p. 489, 10 K; Festus, s.v. _personata_, p. 217. Cf. Cic. _de Nat. Deo._ I. 28.79. Ribbock, _Romische Tragodie_ p. 661, and Dziatzko in _Rhein. Mus._ XXI. 68, have made a violent effort to reconcile the conflicting statements by arguing that Roscius belonged to the troupe of Minucius. This is denied by Weinberger, _Wien. Stud._ XIV. 126. For further discussion v. van Wageningen, _Scaen. Rom._ p. 34 ff.; Leo in _Rhein. Mus._ XXXVIII. 342; Oehmichen, op. cit. p. 250; B. Arnold, _Ueber Antike Theatermasken_; Teuffel, _Romische Litteraturgeschichte_ §16. Sec. 13; Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit., s.v. _histrio_, pp. 2120-21. A recent article by Saunders (A.J.P., XXXII, p. 58) gives an admirable summing-up of the whole controversy, with substantial proof that at any rate the performers of Plautus’ day were unmasked.
[89]: Diom. III. p. 489.10 K. Cf. Saunders, _Costume in Roman Comedy_; Marquardt-Mommsen, _Handbuch der romischen Altertumer_, VI. p. 525; Pauly-Wissowa, l.c. Cf. Cic. _ad Fam._ VII. 6.
[90]: Cf. _Mil._ 629 ff., 923, _Ps._ 967, _Rud._ 125 f., 313 f., 1303, _Trin._ 861 f., _Truc._ 286 ff.; Ter., _Phor._ 51.
[91]: V. van Wageningen, op. cit. pp. 40 f.
[92]: _De Or._ III. 22.83.
[93]: II. 10.13. Cf. XI. 3.91.
[94]: I. II. 1-2
[95]: Donat. ad _And._ 505, _Eun._ 224, 288, 403, _Ad._ 187, 395.
[96]: Ad _And._ 194, 301, _Eun._ 467, 986, _Hec._ 98, 439, 640, _Ad._ 101. Cf. _Ad._ 96.; cum admiratone indignantis; 97; intento digito et infestis in Micionem oculis.
[97]: Ad _Eun._ 1055.
[98]: Ad _And._ 633, _Eun._ 233, 451, _Hec._ 63, _Ad._ 259.
[99]: Ad _Phor._ 145.
[100]: Ad _Ad._ 200.
[101]: Ad _Eun._ 187.
[102]: VII. 2.8-10.
[103]: Cf. Diom. 291, 23 ff., K; Ribbeck, _Rom. Trag._ p. 634, believes that this was the rule, but he is apparently alone in the opinion. Cf. Budensteiner in Bursian’s _Jahresbericht_ CVI, p. 162 ff., who agrees with the proof of van Eck, _Quaest. Sten. Rom._ (Amsterdam 1892), that it was an isolated intance.
[104]: We are not even remotely concerned with metrical analysis. For that phase, with a discussion as to the effect of the various metrical systems, see Klotz, _Grundzuge der altromischen Metrik_, esp. p. 370 ff. Cf. Duff, _A Lit. Hist. of Rome_, p. 196. Note Donat, _de Com._ VIII. 9 and Diom. 491, 23K.
[105]: For arguments as to the divisions of the three classes, v., besides Klotz, Ritschl, _Parerga_, p. 40; Conradt, _Die metrische Komposition der Komodien des Terenz_ (Berlin 1876); Bucheler in _Neue Jahr. fur Phil._ CXLI (1871), p. 273 ff.; Dziatzko in _Rhein. Mus._ XXVI (1871), pp. 97-100: G. Hermann, _de Canticis in Romanorum Fabulis, Opusc._ I. 290; which have all been landmarks in the discussion. Cf. also Teuffel, _Rom. Lit._, § 16. Sec. 5, etc.
[106]: Cf. Cic. _de Or._ II.46.193.
[107]: Cf. _As._ 265, 587, 640, 403, _Bac._ 611, _Cap._ 637, _Cas._ 845 ff., _Cis._ 53 ff., _Cur._ 278, 309, 311, _Ep._ 623 ff., _Men._ 828 f., 910, _Mer._ 599 f., _Mil._ 200 ff. (quoted infra, Part II), 798-9 (Palaestrio must shout at Periplecomenus to provoke such a reply), _Most._ 265 ff., 594, _Per._ 307 f., _Ps._ 911, 1287, _St._ 271, 288 f., _Trin._ 1099, _Truc._ 276, 476 ff., 549, 593 f., 599 ff., 822. Cf. also Ter. _Phor._ 210-11 and Moliere’s imitation in _Les Fourberies de Scapin_, l. 4.
[108]: Cf. Sittl, _Gebarden_, p. 201 and Warnecke’s citations from the Scholiast to Aristophanes in _Neue Jahr._ 1910, p. 592.
[109]: _Daos_, p. 617.
[110]: A.J.P. VIII. 15 ff.
[111]: Cf. _As._ 554 ff., _Bac._ 710 ff., _Cap._ 159 ff. _Cur._ 572 ff., _Ep._ 437 ff., _Men._ 1342., _Per._ 753 ff., _Ps._ 761 ff., _Trin._ 718 ff., etc.
[112]: For further examples of bombast and mock-heroics v. _As._ 405-6, _Bac._ 792 f., 842 ff., _Cis._ 640 ff., _Cur._ 96 ff. 439 ff., _Ep._ 181 ff. (in similar vein most of the soliloquies of the name part), _Her._ 469 ff., 601 ff., 830 ff., _Mil._ 459 ff., 486 ff., 947 ff., _Per._ 251 ff., _Poen._ 470 ff., 1294 ff., _Ps._ 1063 f., _Truce._ 482 ff., 602 ff.
[113]: V. _Amph._ 370 ff., _As._ 431, _Cas._ 404 ff., _Cur._ 192 ff., 624 ff., _Mil._ 1394 ff., _Mos._ i ff., _Per._ 809 ff., _Poen._ 382 ff., _Rud._ 706 ff.
[114]: V. Frag. IV, G. & S., ap. Non. p. 543.
[115]: Cf. _Bac._ 581 ff., 1119, _Cap._ 830 ff., _Most._ 898 ff., _Rud._ 414, _St._ 308 ff., _Truc._ 254 ff.
[116]: Cf. also _Bac._ 925 ff., _Per._ 251 ff., _Men._ 409 ff. (v. supra, Part I, § I, s.v. _Festus, Brix_). On _Bac._ 933, v. Ribbeck, _Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta_, on Enn., frag. _Androm._ 81; Kiessling, _Analecta Plautina_, I. 14 f.; Ostermayer, _De historia fabulari in comoediis Plautinis_, p. 9. On _Men._ 808 ff., v. Kiessling, II. 9.
[117]: Cf. further _As._ 606 ff., _Cur._ 147 ff., _Most._ 233 ff., _Poen._ 275 ff. and passim, _Truc._ 434 ff.
[118]: Cf. _Ep._ 580 ff. Cf. also “bombast,” supra A. 1, and “copious abuse” infra, A. 3. c. Cf. also wall-painting labeled “Der erzurnte Hausherr,” in Baumeister, _Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums_, s. v. _Lustspiel_.
[119]: Cf. _Mil._ 596 ff., _Most._ 454 ff., _Trin._ 517 ff.
[120]: Cf. _Mer._ 748 ff., _Men._ 607 ff.
[121]: Cf. further _Most._ 265 ff., 456 ff. and note Donat. ad _Phor._ 210-11: hic locus magis actoris quam lectoris est.
[122]: Cf. _Most._ 38 ff., _Poen._ 1309 ff. Cf. also “Lavishing of terms of endearment,” supra, A. 3. c.
[123]: Cf. also _Poen._ 426 ff., _Rud._ 938 ff.
[124]: Cf. similarly _Cap._ 121 ff., 177 ff., _Cas._ 725 ff., _Most._ 909, 999 f. Cf. infra II. B.5.
[125]: _Plaut. Stud._ pp. 121 f. Cf. pp. 101, 137 f., 158 f., 217, 229 f.
[126]: _Die Kom. des Pl._, pp. 70-71.
[127]: _Daos_, p. 430-1.
[128]: Prol. _Haut._ 32-40, Prol. _Eun._ 35-40. Cf. Eugraphius ad _Haut._ 31: quid tale hic est, cum servus currit, cum populus discedit, quod domino insano oboediat servus? Cf. also ad _Haut._ 37; Donatus ad _Phor._ 1.4.
[129]: _And._ 338 ff., _Phor._ 179 ff., 841 ff., _Ad._ 299 ff. Weissman agrees with Donat. that in the last passage humor is not the object. Cf. _ancilla currens_ in _Eun._ 643 ff.
[130]: Cf. _servi currentes_ supra. Cf. also _Aul._ 811 ff., _Ep._ 195 ff., _Mer._ 865 ff., _Ps._ 243 ff., _St._ 330 ff., _Trin._ 1068 ff., _Truc._ 115 ff.
[131]: For other passages containing the comedy of “peering,” v. _Bac._ 534, _Ep._ 526 ff., _Rud._ 331 ff., et al. Cf. Weise, op. cit., p. 72 f.
[132]: Further comments infra II. B. 3.
[133]: Cf. _As._ 403, and passim.
[134]: Cf. _As._ 447, _Cur._ 111, _Men._ 125, 478 f., 909, _Mer._ 364, 379, _Mil._ 275, _Most._ 548, _Per._ 99, _Poen._ 840, _Ps._ 445, 615, 908, _Rud._ 97, _St._ 88, _Trin._ 45, 567, _Truc._ 499, etc.
[135]: _Daos, p. 431 ff._ See Dieterich, _Pulcinella, PI. II_. Note esp. _As. 851 ff._
[136]: Cf. _Per. 81 ff., 599 ff., Poen. 210 ff., et al._
[137]: V. _Amph._ 952-3, _As._ 118 ff., 243 ff., _Aul._ 67 ff., 667 ff., 701 ff., _Bac._ 170 ff., 349 ff., 573 ff., 761 ff., _Cas._ 504 ff., _Cis._ 120 ff., _Cur._ 216 ff., 591 ff., _Mer._ 544 ff., 588 ff., _Mil._ 464 ff., _Most._ 931 ff., 1041 ff., _Rud._ 1191 ff., _St._ 674 ff., et al.
[138]: V. Cas. 424 ff., 759 ff., _Ep._ 81 ff., _Men._ 1039 ff., _Ps._ 1017 ff., 1052 ff., 1102 ff., _Rud._ 892 ff., 1281 ff., _St._ 641 ff., _Trin._ 199 ff., 1115 ff., _Truc._ 322 ff., 335 ff., 645 ff., 699 ff.
Cf. the treatment of Le Grand, _Daos_, p. 412 ff., where he has an analysis from a different point of view. The soliloquy and aside are evidently not so frequent in New Comedy.
[139]: _Daos_ p. 379. Cf. p. 550.
[140]: _Aul._ 587 ff., _Men._ 966 ff. Cf. _Most._ 858 ff. and _As._ 545 ff., a duologue in _canticum_.
[141]: _Bac._ 640 ff. Cf. _Ps._ 767 ff.
[142]: _Cap._ 461 ff., Cf. _Per._ 53 ff.
[143]: _Men._ 77 ff., 446 ff., _St._ 155 ff.
[144]: _Cur._ 371 ff., (Cf. 494 ff.), _Men._ 571 ff., _Poen._ 823 ff.
[145]: _Ep._ 225 ff.
[146]: _Cas._ 217 ff., _Trin._ 223 ff. (Cf. 660 ff.)
[147]: _Men._ 753 ff.
[148]: _Aul._ 475 ff. (496-536 branded as spurious by Weise, op. cit., pp. 42-44).
[149]: _Mer._ 817 ff.
[150]: _Poen._ 210 ff. (though not a solo), _Truc._ 22 ff., 210 ff., 551 ff.
[151]: _Ps._ 790 ff.
[152]: _Truc._ 482 ff.
[153]: _Mer._ 825 ff., _Rud._ 593 ff.
[154]: _Mosl._ 85 ff.
[155]: _Ps._ 1246 ff.
[156]: _St._ 683 to end.
[157]: _Ps._ 133 ff. For further passages of the episodical type, cf. _Bac._ 925 ff. (v. supra under “bombast,” I. A. 1), _Poen._ 449 ff., _Rud._ 906 ff., _Trin._ 820 ff. (v. supra under “burlesque,” I. A. 3).
[158]: Cf. further _Amph._ 463, 998, _Bac._ 1072, _Cap._ 69 ff., _Cas._ 879, _Cis._ 146, 678, _Men._ 880, _Mer._ 313, _Mil._ 862, _Most._ 280, 354, 708 ff., _Poen._ 921 f., _Ps._ 124, _St._ 224,446, 674 ff., _Truc._ 109 ff., 463 ff., 965 ff. Cf. infra II. B. 5.
[159]: In Donat. ed. Wessner.
[160]: V. _As., Bac., Cap., Cis., Cur., Ep., Men., Mer., Most., Per., Rod., St._ Cf. _Cas._ 1013 ff., _Poen._ 1370 f.
[161]: V. _Bac._ 235-367, _Cap._ 835-99, _Cis._ 203 ff., 540-630, 705 ff., _Cur._ 251-73 and passim (this play is full of bandying of quips), _Ep._ 1 ff., _Men._ 137-81, 602-67, _Mer._ 474 ff., 708 ff., 866 ff., _Most._ 633 ff., 717 ff., 885 ff., _Per._ 1 ff., 201 ff., _Poen._ 210 ff., _Ps._ 653 ff. and passim, _Rud._ 485 ff. (the jokes here are unusually good), 780 ff., _St._ 579 ff., _Trin._ 39 ff., 843 ff., _Truc._ 95 ff.
[162]: Cf. Sosia im _Amph._ (esp. 659 ff.), Libanus in _As._ 1 ff., Palinurus in _Cur._, Acanthio in _Mer._ (esp. 137 ff.), Milphio in _Poen._, Sceparnio in _Rud._ (esp. 104 ff.) and Trachalio, Pinacium in _St._ (esp. 331 ff.), Stasimus in _Trin._
[163]: _St._ 446 ff., Prol. _Cas._ 67 ff. For an exhaustive discussion of the ‘truth to life’ of the characters, v. LeGrand, _Daos_, Part I, Chap. V.
[164]: V. esp. 96 ff.
[165]: 603 ff.
[166]: Pyrgopolinices in _Mil._, Therapontigonus in _Cur._, the _miles_ in _Ep._, Anthemonides in _Poen._ Stratophanes in _Truc_, is not so violent.
[167]: Cappadox in _Cur._, Dordalus in _Per._, Lycus in _Poen._, Labrax in _Rud._ Similarly the _lenae_.
[168]: Introd. to ed. of _Ps._
[169]: 355. Cf. 360 ff., 974 ff.
[170]: _Hist. de la lit. lat._ Bk. II, Ch. III., Sec. 4. p. 307.
[171]: _Plaut. Stud._, p. 105.
[172]: _Daos_, pp. 557 f. Cf. 218 f.
[173]: Introd. to _Ps._ Cf. _Daos_, p. 452 ff.
[174]: E.g., _Amph._ 957, _Bac._ 844, _Cas._ 308, _Men._ 898, _Mil._ 1137, 1188, _Per._ 301, 543, _Poen._ 576, _Rud._ 1209, _St._ 400-1, _Trin._ 482.
[175]: Part II, Sec. I. B. 2.
[176]: P. 157.
[177]: Cf. _Daos_, p. 60.
[178]: Cf. in general the conclusions of LeGrand, _Daos_, p. 550, and his admirable analysis (Part II) of “La structure des comedies.” He has recognized the existence of a number of the characteristics treated above, but his discussion is in different vein and with a different object in view.
[179]: _Cap._ 489, _Cur._ 483.
[180]: _Cur._ 269, et al.
[181]: _Mil._ 991.
[182]: _Ps._ 416, et al.
[183]: _Ps._ 1232.
[184]: _Ps._ 748. For a fairly complete collection, v. LeGrand, _Daos_, p. 44 ff. Cf. Middleton and Mills, _Students’ Companion to Latin Authors_, p. 20 ff.
[185]: Cf. West in A.J.P. VIII. 15. Cf. note 1, Part II, supra.
[186]: Cf. _Amph._ 861 ff., _As._ 174 f., _Cap._ 778, _Cur._ 464, _Her._ 160, _Poen._ 1224.
[187]: Cf. _Daos_, Part I, Chap. III: Les personnages, and p. 303 ff.; Mommsen, _Hist._ pp. 141 ff.
[188]: Prol, 53 ff.
[189]: For a discussion of the relation of Plautus to his originals, v. Schuster, _Quomodo Plautus Attica exemplaria transtulerit_; LeGrand, _Daos_, passim; Ostermayer, _de hist. fab. in com. Pl._; Ritschl, _Par._ 271, etc. The efforts to distinguish Plautus from his models have so far been fragmentary and abortive and will not advance appreciably until a complete play that he adapted has been found. At any rate, the discussion has no real bearing on our subject, since we can consider only the plays as actually transmitted; their sources cannot affect our argument. The comparisons in _Daos_ seem to indicate that Plautus did not debase his originals so much as Mommsen, Körting, Schlegel and others had thought. Even in 1881, Kiessling (_Anal. Plaut._ II. 9) boldly expresses the opinion: “Atque omnino Plautus multo pressius Atticorum exemplarium vestigia secutus est quam hodie vulgo arbitrantur”. Cf. Kellogg in PAPA. XLIV (1913).
[190]: Euanthius, _de Com._ IV. 4.
[191]: For an interesting comparison of Plautus and Terence, v. Spengel, _Ãber die lateinische Komödie_, (Munich 1878).
[192]: The importance of the music is indicated by the transmission of the composer’s name in all extant _didascaliae_, esp. those of Terence. V. Klotz, _Altröm. Met._ p. 384 ff.