Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:49:30.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Slaves of Plautus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

C. Stace
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before drama ever appeared in Rome, comedy in Greece had passed to its final stage of evolution; and it was this form of comedy—New Comedy—which was to provide the stimulus for Roman Comedy. It is necessary, therefore, very briefly to describe the various stages of Greek Comedy, especially New Comedy, before passing on to Plautus. This will raise at least two important issues: (i) the reason for Plautus' choice of New Comedy for his models, and (ii) his treatment of the originals.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , April 1968 , pp. 64 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 64 note 1 For his influence see Norwood, G., Greek Comedy (London, 1931), 113.Google Scholar

page 64 note 2 The agon is a contest between two characters. The parabasis was an address to the audience by the chorus (in the middle of the play).

page 64 note 3 See Aristotle, , Poetics 1449b.Google Scholar

page 65 note 1 See Duckworth, G., The Nature of Roman Comedy, (Princeton, 1952), 33 f.Google Scholar

page 65 note 2 e.g. the plot of Ion.

page 65 note 3 Three plays of Menander; two of Philemon; two of Diphilus, and one of Demophilus.

page 65 note 4 Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin, 1922).Google Scholar

page 65 note 5 The twenty-one, i.e., which have come down to us from the recension of Varro (see Aul. Cell. iii. 3) . Plautus certainly wrote many more.

page 66 note 1 Of the Plautine plays six have one, thirteen have two, and two more than two. Incidental slaves, lorarii, coqui, κωφὰ πρόωπα etc., are too numerous to mention.

page 66 note 2 Op. cit.

page 66 note 3 Op. cit. 250.

page 66 note 4 For a comparison see Williams, G.'s article in Hermes 84 (1956), 424 ff.Google Scholar

page 67 note 1 See Duckworth, , op. cit. 250.Google Scholar

page 67 note 2 Rudens 906 f.Google Scholar

page 68 note 1 p. 181.

page 68 note 2 This is the modern view. Cf. Cic. De Sen. 14. 50.Google Scholar

page 68 note 3 As Miss Wilner pointed out in CPh xxvi (1931), 266 f.Google Scholar

page 69 note 1 The Art of Terence (Oxford, 1923), 144 f.Google Scholar

page 69 note 2 The protatic figure is defined by Donatus, , ad Andr. praef. 18Google Scholar . as ‘quae semel inducta in principle fabulae in nullis deinceps fabulae partibus adhibetur’.

page 70 note 1 Blancké, , The Dramatic Values of Plautus (Geneva, N.Y., 1918), 47Google Scholar , assumes the slaves made a comic pretence of running on the spot. This could be very amusing, e.g., at Mercator vv. 123 fGoogle Scholar . Also see Duckworth, G., ‘The Dramatic Function of the Servus Currens in Roman Comedy’, in Classical Studies presented to Edward Capps (Princeton, 1936), 93–102.Google Scholar

page 70 note 2 Duckworth quotes these figures: 44 per cent, of all monologue in Plautus belongs to slaves; 25 per cent, to the senex (op. cit. 106).Google Scholar

page 70 note 3 See his articles in CPh xxxvi (1941), 284 ff.Google Scholar ; CPh xxxvii (1942), 20 ffGoogle Scholar . See also Duckworth on Act Division, in his edition of Epidicus, 206 f.Google Scholar , 309, and 372.

page 71 note 1 Varro ap. Non. 374. 9: ‘In ethesin Terentius poscit palmam’.

page 71 note 2 See Ludwig, W.'s article in Philologus 105 (1961), 44–71, 247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar , for an excellent summary of the whole play and its problems.

page 72 note 1 Unlike Terence, he is very little concerned with reality, except in so far as a caricaturist is always concerned with exaggerating what is real.

page 72 note 2 Post-Aristophanic Comedy. Studies in the Social Outlook of Middle and New Comedy at both Athens and Rome (Urbana, 1946), 115Google Scholar . See also p. 102 for another judgement of interest.

page 73 note 1 A Literary History of Rome from the Origins to the Close of the Golden Age (London, 1909). 185.Google Scholar

page 73 note 2 Probably Messenio, Grumio, etc., are much nearer reality than the other plays (which have been seen to be the minority) would suggest.

page 74 note 1 Duckworth, , op. cit., lists Aulularia 387 ff.Google Scholar , Menaechmi 966 ff.Google Scholar , Mostellaria 858 ff.Google Scholar , and Pseudolus 1103 ff.Google Scholar , as likely to be close to the truth; these are all monologues describing faithful slaves.

page 74 note 2 An ‘apology’ is given at 466 ff.: ‘atque id ne vos miremini, homines servolos potare, amare atque ad cenam condicere: licet haec Athenis nobis’.

page 74 note 3 ad Phorm. 138.Google Scholar

page 74 note 4 A remark attributed to Caesar by Suetonius, , Vita Terenti 7.Google Scholar

page 75 note 1 Fraenkel in 1922 thought that there was already enough text in fragments to show the regular trends of New Comedy.

page 75 note 2 Cf. Aristophanes, , Plutus 456.Google Scholar

page 75 note 3 See Handley, E. W.'s excellent commentary on this in his edition (London, 1965).Google Scholar

page 75 note 4 Where, Donatus informs us (ad Eun. 57)Google Scholar , ‘slaves are not allowed to outwit their masters, now that they are dressed as Romans’!

page 75 note 5 Until such time, i.e., as we discover a New Comedy play containing a slave of the stature of Pseudolus or Chrysalus.

page 75 note 6 The Original Element in Plautus (Cambridge, 1917)Google Scholar in the section on ‘Slaves and Slave Life’.

page 75 note 7 e.g. Amphitruo 179.Google Scholar

page 75 note 8 Passim, e.g., Captivi 408, 713Google Scholar ; Rudens 1218, 1388.Google Scholar

page 76 note 1 Miles 961.Google Scholar

page 76 note 2 But see Westaway, op. cit. (who believes that ‘nearly all the slaves are Greek in character’ and resemble their prototypes in Aristophanes and Menander).

Some are perhaps broadly Greek in character, but in most plays the atmosphere, and indeed characters, are very Roman in flavour.

page 76 note 3 Op. cit.

page 76 note 4 cc. 1–3. Nearly all the examples quoted are from the mouths of slaves (a significant indication of their originality): (i) ‘Mythological or other comparisons forming exaggerated beginnings of speeches’: e.g. Bacchides 925 (Chrysalus)Google Scholar . Mostellaria 775 (Tranio)Google Scholar . This is not evident in either New Comedy or Terence, , (ii) ‘Changes of Identity’: e.g. Bacchides 665, 810 (Chrysalus)Google Scholar ; Casino 124 (Olympic)Google Scholar , (iii) ‘Mythological Flourishes’: e.g. Bacchides 925–78Google Scholar (The Trojan Monody). Chrysalus' monody seems more like tragic parody than Greek Comedy translated. (But Legrand, P. E., The New Greek Comedy [London, 1917], 469Google Scholar , argues that this cannot be Plautine.) One must remember that Roman tragedy was being performed on the same stage and for the same audiences within short periods of time. (What fragments we have of tragedy do bear a marked similarity to this Trojan passage.) This could quite easily be tragic parody, which would be the natural thing for this type of comedy.

page 76 note 5 Fraenkel argues that the original of the Bacchides was a moral tale based on the philosophy of education, in which Chrysalus would have played no important part.

page 77 note 1 As Cicero suggests, De Sen., 14. 50Google Scholar ; perhaps also Plautus, , Bacchides 214?Google Scholar

page 77 note 2 Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford, 1937), 287.Google Scholar