Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:07:06.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspects of Plautus' Originality in the Asinaria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. C. B. Lowe
J. C. B. Lowe
Affiliation:
Institute of Classical Studies University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

That the palliatae of Plautus and Terence, besides purporting to depict Greek life, were in general adaptations of Greek plays has always been known. Statements in the prologues of the Latin plays and by other ancient authors left no room for doubt about this, while allowing the possibility of some exceptions. The question of the relationship of the Latin plays to their Greek models was first seriously addressed in the nineteenth century, mainly by German scholars, under the stimulus of Romantic criticism which attached paramount importance to originality in art. Since then the question has been constantly debated, often with acrimony, and to this day very different answers to it continue to be given. Yet the question is obviously important, both for those who would measure the artistic achievement of the Latin dramatists and for those who would use the plays to document aspects of Greek or Roman life. It is not disputed that Plautus' plays contain many Roman allusions and Latin puns which cannot have been derived from any Greek model and must be attributed to the Roman adapter. What is disputed is whether this overt Romanization is merely a superficial veneer overlaid on fundamentally Greek structures or whether Plautus made more radical changes to the structure as well as the spirit of his models.

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , May 1992 , pp. 152 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1992

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

1 E.g. Asin. 10f., Cas. 32–4, Merc. 9f., Trin. 18f., Ter. Ad. 6f., Gell. NA 2.23; cf. Michaut, G., Histoire de la comédie romaine: Plaute, ii (Paris, 1920), pp. 204–8Google Scholar, Perna, R., L'originalità di Ptauto (Bari, 1955), pp. 6f.Google Scholar

2 According to Schlegel, A. W., Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und Literatur, ed. Amoretti, G. V., i (Leipzig, 1923), pp. 171fGoogle Scholar. Plautus and Terence could not be regarded as creative artists. He allowed that the Latin adapters made some changes to their Greek models, but only for the worse. See Barchiesi, M., Maia 9 (1957), 201–3Google Scholar, Kes, B. A.. Die Rezeption der Komödien des Plautus und Terenz im 19. Jahrhundert (Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 59–65.Google Scholar

3 Michaut, , Plaute, ii.223–38.Google Scholar

4 Grauert, W. H., Historische und philologische Analekten (Münster, 1833), pp. 116–207Google Scholar‘Über das Contaminiren der Lateinischen Komiker’, Becker, W. A., De comicis Romanorum fabulis maxime Plautinis quaestiones (Leipzig, 1937)Google Scholar, Ladewig, Th., Über den Kanon des Volcatius Sedigitus (Neustrelitz, 1842)Google Scholar, id. in Pauly, A., Real-Encyclopädie der Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1848), V. 1728–39Google Scholar, Boissier, G., Quomodo graecos poetas Plautus transtulerit? (Paris, 1857).Google Scholar

5 Zwierlein, O., Zur Kritik und Exegese des Plautus, I: Poenulus und Curculio (Abh. Ak. Mainz 1990/4, Stuttgart, 1990)Google Scholar, again sees retractatio as a major cause of inconsistencies, but unconvincingly.

6 2nd edn. Berlin, 1912, pp. 87–187.

7 P.F.2 p. 87 ‘Seine Komödien sind nicht sein, und sie waren schöner und besser ehe er sie zu eigen machte’, p. 185Google Scholar ‘Plautus hat, neben einer so hoch gesteigerten Kunst des stilmässigen Ausdrucks, die eigentliche dramatische Fähigkeit… nicht entwickeln können’; cf. Mommsen, Th., Römische Geschichte 11, i (Berlin, 1912), p. 906Google Scholar ‘Ohne Zweifel hat der Bearbeiter auch hierin mehr das Gelungene der Originale festgehalten als selbständig geschaffen’. According to A. Kiessling and his pupils Plautus often reproduced mechanically what he found in his Greek models without regard to whether his audience could understand it (Perna, L'orig. di PL pp. 11f.).

8 Geschichte der römischen Literatur, i (Berlin, 1913), pp. 125–32.Google Scholar

9 Michaut, , Plaute ii.239–80.Google Scholar

10 Dziatzko, K. and Kauer, R., Ausgewählte Komödien des P. Terentius Afer, II: Adelphoe (Leipzig, 1903), pp. 7f.Google Scholar, Schwering, W., Neue Jahrb. 19 (1916), 167–85Google Scholar, Körte, A., Berl. phil. Woch. 36 (1916), 981Google Scholar, Gött. gel. Anz. 195 (1933), 355–61Google Scholar, Beare, W., The Roman Stage3 (London, 1964), pp. 310–13Google Scholar. For a brief history of the theory of Plautine ‘contamination’ see Schaaf, L., Der Miles Gloriosus des Plautus undsein griechisches Original (Munich, 1977), pp. 11–14Google Scholar; on the meaning of conlaminare see now Guastella, G., La contaminazione e il parassita (Pisa, 1988), pp. 11–80.Google Scholar

11 E.g. Lejay, P., Plaute (Paris, 1925), p. 216Google Scholar ‘A raisonner seulement d'après les vrai-semblances, à en juger d'après le tempérament vif et le faire rapide du poète, on peut supposer que Plaute a traité les modèles grecs très librement, cousant à une intrigue une scène prise ici et une scène prise là, poursuivant une idée comique qu'il a saisie dans quelques vers d'une troisième pièce, développant, raccourcissant, mêlant, et partout y mettant du sien’; cf. Duckworth, G. E., The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952), p. 385Google Scholar, Perna, , L'orig. di Pl. p. 471Google Scholar, Taladoire, B.-A., Essaisur le comique de Plaute (Monaco, 1956), pp. 62f.Google Scholar, Paratore, E., Storia del teatro latino (Milan, 1957), p. 168.Google Scholar

12 Frequently repeated slogans are that the analytic method rests on the assumption that Greek New Comedy was perfect and without flaw, that its practitioners attribute anything good in the Latin play to the Greek original, any faults to the Latin adapter, and that they are interested only in reconstructing lost Greek plays – not entirely without truth but gross exaggerations. Since the analytic method was from the start closely associated with the theory of ‘contamination’, the two things have understandably not always been as clearly distinguished as they should be. For a vigorous defence of the method see Drexler, H., Gnomon 18 (1942), 28–30.Google Scholar

13 E.g. Legrand, Ph. E., The New Greek Comedy (London and New York, 1917), p. 43Google Scholar ‘I do not believe that a single essential element of a plot, a single important feature of a character in the plays of Plautus is fundamentally, necessarily, undeniably Roman’, p. 283 ‘I think that, as a rule, he and his rivals were content to be mere transcribers’, p. 285 ‘It appears to me that the activity of the Latin transcribers was almost restricted to making omissions and to practising contamination’, Marx, F., Plautus Rudens (Abh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. 38/5, Leipzig, 1928)Google ScholarVorwort, , ‘Das mir vorschwebende Ziel war, bei jedem Vers des Plautus den Wortlaut des griechischen Vorbilds möglichst feststellen zu können’Google Scholar; cf. Prehn, B., Quaestiones Plautinae (Breslau, 1916), p. 4Google Scholar, Friedrich, W. H., Euripides und Diphilos (Zetemata 5, Munich, 1953), pp. 259–61Google Scholar, Webster, T. B. L., Studies in Later Greek Comedy (Manchester, 1953), pp. 2fGoogle Scholar., Beare, , Rom. Stage 3, pp. 63–6Google Scholar, Zwierlein (n. 5), 5.

14 Plautinisches im Plautus (Philol. Untersuch. 28, Berlin, 1922)Google Scholar, Italian translation with Addenda Elementi plautini in Plauto (Florence, 1960).Google Scholar

15 P. im P. pp. 3–5 = El. Pl. pp. 3f.

16 E.g. Rud. 515 ∼ 540; cf. P. im P. pp. 112f. = El. Pl. pp. 106f.

17 Arnott, W. G., Menander, Plautus, Terence (Oxford, 1975), pp. 34–6Google Scholar. Sceptics include Tierney, J. J., Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 50/c (1945), 21–61Google Scholar, Prescott, H. W., TAPA 63 (1952), 103–25Google Scholar, Csapo, E., CQ 39 (1989), 148–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 P. im P. pp. 391f. = El. Pl. pp. 370f.

19 P. im P. p. 406; cf. pp. 282, 320 = El. Pl. p. 384; cf. pp. 271, 306.

20 Plautinisches und Attisches (Problemata 5, Berlin, 1931), pp. 3–104Google Scholar; cf. Prete, S., A. e R. 2 (1952), 145f.Google Scholar

21 Die Komposition von Terenz' Adelphen und Plautus' Rudens (Philologus Supp. 26, 2, Leipzig, 1934).Google Scholar

22 E.g. The Greek Aulularia (Mnemosyne Supp. 2, Leyden, 1940).Google Scholar

23 E.g. Hermes 112 (1984), 30–53Google Scholar on Miles Gloriosus.

24 Die Menaechmi des Plautus und kein griechisches Original (ScriptOralia 11, Tübingen, 1989).Google Scholar

25 See, for example, Phoenix 39 (1985), 19fGoogle Scholar. on Most. 690–713, BICS 35 (1988), 101–10Google Scholar on Poen. I 2, Nörenberg, H.-W., Rh. Mus. 118 (1975), 285–310Google Scholar on M.G. III 2, Gratwick, , Mnem. 34 [1981], 331–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar on Trin. IV 3, Primmer, A., Handlungsgliederung in Nea und Palliata: Dis Exapaton und Bacchides (Öst. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl, Sitzungsber. 441, Vienna, 1984), pp. 84–8 on Bacch. IV 9.Google Scholar

26 Cambridge History of Classical Literature, ed. Easterling, P. E. and Kenney, E. J., ii (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 99–103.Google Scholar

27 Handley, E. W., Menander and Plautus. A Study in Comparison (London, 1968)Google Scholar. For subsequent discussion see Arnott (n. 17), 38–40 with n. 49, Barsby, J. A., Plautus Bacchides (Warminster, 1986), pp. 139–45.Google Scholar

28 On the five-act convention see Hermes 111 (1983), 442–4Google Scholar, on the three-speaker rule references in n. 71 below.

29 P.F.2 p. 110; cf. Barchiesi (n. 2), 185 n. 50.

30 E.g. the cook in Cure. 251–370, a doublet of Palinurus (C. Ant. 4 [1985], 95–9), Pinacium in Most. 858–903, a doublet of Phaniscus (Weide, I., Hermes 89 [1961], 198–203Google Scholar), Dorias in Ter. Eun. 615–726, a doublet of Pythias (Webster, , Studies in Menander [Manchester, 1950], p. 73Google Scholar); cf. Rh. Mus. 133 (1990), 292 n. 62.Google Scholar

31 E.g. Milphio and Agorastocles in Poen. 210–409 (BICS 35 [1988], 101–10), Palaestra and Ampelisca in Rud. 664–882, 1045–1128 (Gaiser, K., ANRW I. 2 [1972], 1075f.Google Scholar, Antipho in Ter. Pho. 465–566, 606–712 (Büchner, K., Das Theater des Terenz [Heidelberg, 1974], pp. 330–5, 338–41, 347–50, 454–7, 482)Google Scholar; cf. CQ 33 (1983), 428–14Google Scholar, 39 (1989), 390–9, Hermes 111 (1983), 431–52.Google Scholar

32 Bertini, F., Plauti Asinaria (Genoa, 1968), pp. 27–43Google Scholar, conveniently summarizes the judgements of earlier scholars.

33 Cf. F. Delia, Corte, Dioniso 35 (1961), 38–41Google Scholar = Da Sarsina a Roma2 (Florence, 1967), pp. 299–304.Google Scholar

34 Macci, T.Plauti comoediae, Asinaria (Leipzig, 1881), praef. p. xxiv.Google Scholar

35 Plauti comoediae, i (Berlin, 1885), on 127.Google Scholar

36 Rev. Phil. 29 (1905), 94–7Google Scholar. His suggestion has been accepted in the editions of Ernout, A., Plaute, i (Paris, 1932)Google Scholar, and Bertini, , by Legrand, , N.G.C. pp. 422f.Google Scholar, Burckhardt, G., Gnomon 7 (1931), 421f.Google Scholar, Munari, F., SIFC 22 (1947), 16–18Google Scholar, Della, Corte, Da Sarsina 2, p. 30Google Scholar, Traina, A., Par. Pass. 9 (1954), 202Google Scholar, Fraenkel, , El. Pl. p. 434Google Scholar, Hunter, R. L., Mus. Helv. 37 (1980), 221 with n. 29Google Scholar, Konstan, D., Roman Comedy (Ithaca and London, 1983), p. 55 n. 7.Google Scholar

37 Op. cit. (n. 36), 99; see below nn. 51, 93. So already Spengel, A., Die Akteinteilung der Komödien des Plautus (Munich, 1877), p. 47Google Scholar; cf. Bertini (n. 32), 48.

38 Quatenus in fabulis Plautinis et loci et temporis unitatibus species veritatis neglegatur (Diss. Breslau, 1914), pp. 80–2.Google Scholar

39 AJP 58 (1937), 19–37.Google Scholar

40 Dioniso 19 (1956), 46–57.Google Scholar

41 De Plauti Asinaria (Diss. Jena, 1907), pp. 29–36.Google Scholar

42 Op. cit. (n. 36), 10–16.

43 Op. cit. (n. 32), 51–3.

44 S.L.G.C. p. 235; see below n. 75.

45 SIFC 17 (1940), 181–214.Google Scholar

46 P. im P. p. 275 n. 1 = El. Pl. p. 265 n. 1, Hough (n. 39), 32 n. 30, Webster, S.L.G.C. p. 236.

47 Rh. Mus. 37 (1882), 57f.Google Scholar

48 Weise, C. H., M. Accii Plauti comoediae2, i (Leipzig, 1847)Google Scholar, Ussing, J. L., T. Maccii Plauti comoediae, i (Copenhagen 1875)Google Scholar, Leo ad loc. See n. 122 below.

49 Op. cit. (n. 41), 13–23.

50 Loc. cit. (n. 36).

51 Hough (n. 39), 24–6, Webster, , S.L.G.C. p. 235Google Scholar. Munari (n. 36), 18 n. 1, following Burckhardt (n. 36), 422, supposes the loss of a reference to Diabolus from the prologue ‘senza di che lo spettatore non poteva capire chi fosse l'adulescens di 1,2–3’. Hunter (n. 36), 221 admits ‘any audience might, however, be forgiven for believing this young man to be Argyrippus in the light of the opening scene between the senex and his slave’. Hough (n. 39), 29 and Rambelli (n. 40), 53f. suppose for the Onagos an appearance of Argyrippus earlier than 585. Havet [n. 36], 99f., supposes for Plautus’ play a lost Argyrippus/Cleareta scene.

52 Ahrens (n. 41), 21; cf. Munari (n. 36), 18 n. 1.

53 There are collections of Plautine inconsistencies in Langen, P., Plautinische Studien (Berliner Studien 5, Berlin, 1886)Google Scholar and Marti, H., Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik bei Plautus und Terenz (Diss. Zurich, 1959).Google Scholar

54 Ahrens (n. 41), 16f., Hough (n. 39), 25 n. 13.

55 Cf. Hough (n. 39), 25, Rambelli (n. 40), 46–8, Della, Corte, Da Sarsina 2, p. 299.Google Scholar

56 BICS 35 (1988), 101–10Google Scholar; cf. Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 147–52, 277fGoogle Scholar. = El Pl pp. 140–5, 267, Gaiser (n. 31), 1083, Gratwick, C.H.C.L. ii. 105–10. I am not persuaded by the attempt of Zwierlein (n. 5), 149f., to explain away the inconsistency; and he himself admits (152) the possibility that Plautus here exaggerated the ‘Hetären-Züge’.

57 Cf. Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 142–206 = El Pl pp. 135–95.Google Scholar

58 Op. cit. (n. 45).

59 Gestri probably underestimates the extent of Plautus' rewriting. He does not address the inconsistency with III 1 of the references to Argyrippus' gifts in this scene. His attempt to reconstruct an outline of how the dialogue went in the Onagos is perhaps over-optimistic.

60 Cf. Fraenkel, , P. im P. p. 178Google Scholar = El. Pl. p. 169. Gestri (n. 45), 185–91 shows that the fish simile of 178–85 has probably been similarly expanded by Plautus; it is significant that in the development of the simile the lover's gifts are emphasized (181 f.).

61 Leo on 127, P.F. 2 p. 149, Munari (n. 36), 25 n. 1, Webster, , S.L.G.C. p. 235.Google Scholar

62 Ahrens (n. 41), 17f., Hough (n. 39), 25 n. 13.

63 Langen, , Pl. Stud. pp. 99f.Google Scholar, Della, Corte, Da Sarsina 2, p. 299Google Scholar, Hunter (n. 36), 221 n. 29. In 209–14 also Argyrippus implies that Philaenium's attitude to him has changed and he addresses her and Cleareta as pessumae; cf. Gestri (n. 45), 201f.

64 The monologue of Mnesilochus, Bacch. 500–25, in comparison with the corresponding monologues of Sostratos in Menander's Dis Exapaton, well illustrates how differently the two dramatists depict the emotions of a lover; cf. Handley, , Men. and Pl. pp. 14f.Google Scholar, Barsby ad loc.

65 Cf. Della, Corte, Da Sarsina 2, p. 299Google Scholar. Havet, and Freté, A., Pseudo-Plaute, Le prix des ânes (Paris, 1925), p. 7Google Scholar, followed by Rambelli (n. 40), 50, unconvincingly take 191 aetalis atque honoris…tui, in conjunction with 135, as suggesting a middle-aged merchant (cf. Havet [n. 36], 102).

66 Cf. Ussing ad loc., Rud. 579.

67 Ribbeck (n. 47), 55. Ahrens (n. 41), 14–16.

68 Ahrens (n. 41), 18f.

69 Ahrens (n. 41), 20, makes too much of the fact that Cleareta did not hear Argyrippus' soliloquy, 243–8.

70 The theory of Rambelli (n. 40), 57–78, that III 1 and 3 are from a second Greek play rests on unconvincing arguments and is very improbable.

71 Diomedes, Gramm. Lat. i. 490, Σ ad Aesch. Choeph. 899, Gaiser (n. 31), 1037f., 1073–9, Sandbach, F. H. in Le monde grec – hommages à Claire Préaux, ed. Bingen, J., Cambier, G. and Nachtergael, G. (Brussels, 1975), pp. 197–204Google Scholar, Frost, K. B., Exits and Entrances in Menander (Oxford, 1988), pp. 2–5Google Scholar. We need not here concern ourselves with the question whether a three-actor rule in the strict sense was valid for New Comedy.

72 Spengel, , Akteinteilung, p. 47Google Scholar, Goetz-Loewe (n. 34), xxiv, Havet (n. 36), 96, Hough (n. 39), 25, Munari (n. 36), 18f., 21, Rambelli (n. 40), 50f.

73 Duckworth, , N.R.C. pp. 118–21Google Scholar. This was one of the ways the dramatist could control offstage space, time and action so as to avoid glaring inconsistencies which might distract the audience; cf. Handley, , Entretiens Hardt 16 (1970), 9f.Google Scholar

74 Johnston, M., Exits and Entrances in Roman Comedy (Geneva, N.Y., 1933), pp. 137–43Google Scholar, Duckworth, , N.R.C. p. 119Google Scholar with n. 43, Beare, , Rom. Stage 3, p. 181.Google Scholar

75 E.g. in Ter. Phormio it seems probable that Terentian changes are responsible for the inconsistent exit and re-entry of Phaedria at 310 and 484 (Hermes 111 [1983], 450) and of Demipho at 314 and 348 (Lefèvre, , Der ‘Phormio’ des Terenz und der ‘Epidikazomenos’ des Apollodor von Karystos [Munich, 1978], p. 17)Google Scholar. The hypothesis of Webster, S.L.G.C. p. 235, that Plautus omitted a scene in which Argyrippus was seen to return, would explain this anomaly but not the others; Rambelli (n. 40), 53f. also supposes the omission of such a scene as part of an unconvincing complex of changes.

76 Handley, , Men. and Pl. p. 20 n. 11.Google Scholar

77 Cf. Hough (n. 39), 26f. with n. 17. It is somewhat awkward that both Libanus and Demaenetus go to the forum, their exits being separated only by Demaenetus' short monologue (618–26), and Libanus' trip achieves nothing (Langen, Pl. Stud. p. 99, Hough [n. 39], 23f., Rambelli [n. 40], 52). There is little to commend Hough's theory that in the Onagos Libanus remained on stage for a scene which Plautus cut; more likely is Rambelli's suggestion that he went into Demaenetus' house (coming out again in the next act – the rest of Rambelli's reconstruction of his movements in the Onagos is unconvincing).

78 Hough (n. 39), 31.

79 Goetz-Loewe (n. 34), xxiv, Hough (n. 39), 25 n. 12, Perna, L'orig. di Pl. p. 245 n. 4, Rambelli (n. 40), 53.

80 Cf. Men. Sam. 368 ύπαποστήσομαι, Leo, , Der Monolog im Drama (Abh. Gött. Ges. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. N.F. 10, 5, Berlin, 1908), p. 68Google Scholar, Fraenkel, , Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome, 1962), pp. 22–6.Google Scholar

81 On Most. 687–717 (687 huc concessero), introducing a flagitatio, see Phoenix 39 (1985), 20f.; on Pseud. 410–44 (414 huc concedam), bridging a Greek act-division, ibid. 20, n. 45; on Poen. 203-329 BICS 35 (1988), 105–9Google Scholar; on Pers. 548–74 (548 taciti contemplemus) CQ 39 (1989), 396f.Google Scholar; on Cas. 424–503 (434 concedam huc) Lefèvre, Hermes 107 (1979), 321f.; on Trin. 516–68 (517 huc concede) Jahn, G., Hermes 60 (1925), 33–49Google Scholar (wrongly supposing a transposition from later in the play; cf. Jachmann, , Pl und Att. pp. 230f.)Google Scholar; on Trin. 1008–23 (1007 huc concessero), a servus currens entrance, Gratwick, , Mnem. 34 (1981), 331–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Men. 571–601 (570 huc concedamus) Stärk, , Menaechmi pp. 91f.Google Scholar; cf. Barsby on Bacch. 404.

82 Cf. Barsby on Bacch. 1149–65. In Ter. Eun. 1053–60 the aside dialogue is between Thraso and Gnatho, the two characters introduced by Terence, on his own admission (30–3), into his main Greek model; cf. Denzler, B., Der Monolog bei Terenz (Zurich, 1968), pp. 53–5Google Scholar. Zwierlein (n. 5), 158, asserts that the similarity of technique in a ‘doppelter Zweierdialog’ in Poenulus I 2 and V 4 ‘kann nicht auf Plautus zurückgehen’. Why not? Zwierlein does not discuss the other Latin parallels which suggest that it does.

83 Plautus used variants of the same idea on several other occasions: Pers. 265 hominibus (bobus Ritschl, alii alia) domitis…ex crumina, 317 boves…in crumina, True. 654f. minas ovis in crumina, 956 pecua… in crumina. On Plautine riddles see Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 48–50Google Scholar = El. Pl. pp. 45f., on Belebung des Unbelebten P. im P. pp. 101–10 = El. Pl. pp. 95–104.

84 Traina, , Par. Pass. 9 (1954), 187Google Scholar‘la beffa dell'amor patetico’, Comoedia – antologia delta palliata 2 (Padua, 1966), p. 66Google Scholar, Flury, P., Liebe und Liebessprache bei Menander, Plautus und Terenz (Heidelberg, 1968), pp. 84f., 91fGoogle Scholar.; contra Munari (n. 36), 13f., Perna, , L'orig. di Pl. p. 207Google Scholar. There is probably also a Roman joke in 594; mater supremam mihi tua dixit, domum ire iussit (suppremum codd.: corr. Turnebus) can be taken as referring to Argyrippus' impending death, but Fraenkel recognized an allusion to the praetor's formula for announcing the end of the day's session in the comitium (P. im P. p. 43 n. 4 = El. Pl. p. 40 n. 4). The use of juridical terminology in an amatory context is characteristic of Plautus (cf. 131f., 607, Zagagi, N., Tradition and Originality in Plautus [Hypomnemata 62, Göttingen, 1982], pp. 106–31)Google Scholar.

85 Slater, N. W., Plautus in Performance (Princeton, 1985), p. 63.Google Scholar

86 Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 215–17 = El. Pl. pp. 206–8Google Scholar; cf. Jachmann, , Pl und Att. pp. 35–7.Google Scholar

87 I follow the distribution of speakers printed by recent editors, although this is not entirely in accordance with the evidence of the MSS. and is open to dispute (cf. Bertini's apparatus criticus). It is hardly possible to differentiate the characters of the two slaves or their rôles in this scene so as to assign each speech to one or the other with confidence. This uncertainty does not affect my argument.

88 Cf. Liv. 7.2.7, Hor. Ep. 2.1.145f., Blänsdorf, J. in Lefèvre, E., ed., Das römische Drama (Darmstadt, 1978), p. 96Google Scholar with n. 14, Stärk, , Menaechmi, p. 73Google Scholar with n. 324. See Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 401fGoogle Scholar. = El. Pl. pp. 379f. on Plautine altercationes. With 618 circumsistamus compare Pseud. 357 adsiste altrim secus introducing a Roman flagitatio; cf. Usener, H., Rh. Mus. 56 (1901), 1–28Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. iv.356–82.

89 Fraenkel, , P. im P. p. 49Google Scholar = El. Pl. pp. 45f.

90 Cf. 45, M.G. 1038, Stich. 469, Trin. 436f, 1152, Hor. S. 2.8.75f.

91 Cf. 592f., Enk, P. J., Plauti Truculentus (Leyden, 1953)Google Scholar, on True. 126, 259, Hough, , AJP 66 (1945), 282–302.Google Scholar

92 Cf. 43, M.G. 1039f.

93 Havet (n. 36), 99, implausibly supposes that Argyrippus learnt of Diabolus' offer in a lost Argyrippus/lena scene.

94 Cf. Munari (n. 36), 15, against Hough (n. 39), 21f. This does not exclude the possibility of some superficial Plautine additions; the play with perdo/pereo may well be one (∼ 243f.; cf. the play with perire in Truc. 45-50, 707, Flury, , Liebe, pp. 81, 84f.Google Scholar), although it is not inconceivable that there was something similar in the Greek.

95 Cf. 677 delusisti, 679 delude, 711 delusistis, 730 ludatis, 731 sati' iam delusum.

96 Cf. Bertini on 618.

97 Rambelli (n. 40), 76 supposed this passage a Plautine insertion, but for inadequate reasons.

98 Havet-Freté suppose a lacuna after 638.

99 648c ecquid est salutis? would follow well after 638 ne formida. In its Plautine context the phrase makes sense if Argyrippus supposes the purpose of the slaves to be to devise a scheme for his benefit (Ussing on 639, Havet-Freté on 638).

100 Cf. Men. 571–87, Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 159–62Google Scholar = El. Pl. pp. 152–4, Stärk, , Menaechmi, pp. 90f.Google Scholar, Rosivach, S. J., Maia 35 (1983), 86fGoogle Scholar. with n. 11. Another scheming aside dialogue is Bacch. 1149–54, in a four-speaker finale (cf. Barsby ad loc).

101 Cf. Handley, , Men. and Pl. pp. 14, 17.Google Scholar

102 Cf. Lilja, S., Arctos 16 (1982), 57–64Google Scholar, Hughes, D., Rh. Mus. 127 (1984), 51 n. 8Google Scholar. Bertini is wrong to follow the MSS. in distributing 643 between Argyrippus and Leonida, and in rejecting Pylades' correction of haec to hic. After 641 non omnia eadem aeque omnibus…suavia, 643 ego forms the necessary antithesis to 642 vobis and must be spoken by the same speaker; and in the context of Argyrippus' suggestion that the slaves embrace each other a reference to Philaenium is out of place.

103 cf 689f Cas 739, Most 406–8 Rud 1265f., 1280, Segal, E., Roman Laughter (Harv. stud, in comp. lit. 29, Cambridge, Mass., 1968), p. 106 et passim.Google Scholar

104 See references in n. 46 above.

105 The view of Rambelli (n. 40), 63f., that Philaenium does not actually kiss Leonida seems refuted by 679 age sis tu in partem…amplexare hanc.

106 Cf. p. 16 above with n. 88, Segal, , Rom. Laughter, p. 105Google Scholar, Pers. 1–6 ∼ 7–12 (Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 227fGoogle Scholar. = El. Pl. pp. 218f.), 168–82 ∼ 183–99 (Hughes, [n. 102], 54f.).

107 BICS 35 (1988), 104f., Gratwick C.H.C.L. ii.110 n. 2; cf. Fraenkel, loc. cit. (n. 46). Amatory language is similarly parodied in Pseud. 64–73 (cf. 1259–61, Cas. 134–8, 837, Jachmann, , Philologus 88 [1933], 451)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Perna, L'orig. di Pl. ch. 7 on ‘la parodia dell'amore’ in general. Another exoratio of a slave by a free man is Epid. 728–31 (cf. Segal, , Rom. Laughter, pp. 109f., 122fGoogle Scholar., Fantham, E., Pap. Liv. Lat. Sem. 3 [1981], 22f.).Google Scholar

108 Fraenkel, , P. im P. p. 116Google Scholar = El. Pl. p. 110; cf. Segal, , Rom. Laughter, pp. 108f.Google Scholar

109 Cf. 670f., Epid. 728f., Pseud. 1285ff., Segal, Rom. Laughter, ch. 4.

110 Cf. Aul. 637, Capt. 867, Poen. 612, Rud. 1074, Mendelsohn, C. J., Studies in the Word-Play in Plautus (Univ. of Pennsylvania, Ser. in Phil, and Lit. XII. 2, Philadelphia, 1907), p. 84Google Scholar, Stockert, W., T. Maccius Plautus Aulularia (Stuttgart, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on Aul. 637 and references in n. 102 above. I am not persuaded by suggestions that there are other obscene allusions in the passage (cf. Bertini on 702–10, Segal, , Rom. Laughter, p. 203 n. 20Google Scholar. Mendelsohn, op. cit. 26, sees play with Argyrippus' name in the action of this scene; but, if the horseplay was in the Onagos, this could have inspired the Plautine character's name (cf. Ussing [n. 48], i.349).

111 Rambelli (n. 40), 76f., noted that there is no sign of Philaenium's presence during the actual handing over of the money; but in a short passage this fact would by itself not necessarily be significant.

112 See above p. 17 on Pers. 777ff., BICS 32 (1985), 83f. on M.G. 1394ff., Rh. Mus. 133 (1990), 287 on Poen. 1120ff., Barsby on Bacch. 1120ff., Sandbach (n. 71), 199–204 on Ter. And. 904ff., H.T. 1045ff., Eun. 1025ff., Ad. 958ff.; cf. Cas. 963ff., Curc. 599ff., Trin. 1125ff., Truc. 893ff.

113 Munari (n. 36), 20, Rambelli (n. 40), 64, and references in Bertini on 930.

114 Johnston, , Exits, p. 144Google Scholar. It would be very rash to assume that drinking scenes on stage never occurred in Greek New Comedy, but those supposed by Webster, , Stud. Men. p. 112Google Scholar n. 1, are quite uncertain.

115 Op. cit. (n. 31), 1074f.

116 See above p. 17. 767 in summo (cf. 771a) suggests the seating arrangements of a Roman triclinium (Woytek, E., T. Maccius Plautus Persa [Öst. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., Sitzungsber. 385, Vienna, 1982], ad loc.)Google Scholar.

117 Cf. Bacch. 1074, R-E vii.510 s.v. triumphus. Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 234–40Google Scholar = El. Pl. pp. 226–31, showed that in 753–7 Toxilus uses the traditional language of Roman triumphs.

118 Hughes (n. 102), 46–57.

119 Gaiser (n. 31), 1084; but cf. Fraenkel, , El. Pl. p. 443.Google Scholar

120 Weise on 828f., Kunst, K., Studien zur griechisch-römischen Komödie (Vienna, 1919), p. 156Google Scholar and Webster, , S.L.G.C. p. 237Google Scholar, amongst others, suppose Plautus' scene played with the banqueters off stage and seen through a partly opened door, but nothing in the text justifies this interpretation (Johnston, , Exits p. 144Google Scholar, Beare, , Rom. Stage3, p. 179).Google Scholar

121 Flickinger, R. C., The Greek Theater and its Drama4 (Chicago, 1936), pp. 237–43.Google Scholar

122 Cf. Ussing on 821, Brasse (n. 38), 81, Thierfelder, A., De rationibus interpolationum Plautinarum (Leipzig, 1929), pp. 129fGoogle Scholar., Perna, , L'orig. di Pl. p. 245 n. 4Google Scholar. Ussing and Leo follow Weise in deleting 828f., but this would not change the basic situation; moreover there are significant verbal parallels between these lines, Most. 308f. age accumbe igitur. cedo aquam manibus, puere, appone hic mensulam and Pers. 768–9ahoc age, accumbe…date aquam manibus, apponite mensam.

123 Bain, D., Actors and Audience (Oxford, 1977), pp. 162–71.Google Scholar

124 There are also other echoes of earlier parts of the play: 834 merito tuo facere possum ∼ 737 meritissumo eiius quae volet faciemus, 835f. nolo ego metui, amah mavolo, mi gnate, me aps te ∼ 67 volo amari a meis (cf. 77).

125 It seems not unlikely that the terms demanded by Demaenetus in return for handing over the 20 minae to Argyrippus, the enjoyment of Philaenium for one night, are a Plautine invention. This motif is introduced suddenly in 735f. and not prepared in I 1 (Langen, , Pl. Stud. p. 104Google Scholar, Hough [n. 39], 22f., Munari [n. 36], 23, Webster, , S.L.G.C. p. 234Google Scholar, Perna, , L'orig. di Pl. p. 247)Google Scholar. The fact that Demaenetus had aided and abetted the trick to misappropriate Artemona's money (cf. 814f.), aggravated by his participation with Argyrippus and Philaenium in a drinking party in Cleareta's house, would be a sufficient cause for Artemona to take revenge on him. That Artemona's revenge probably does derive from the Onagos (if not the Prügelmotif of 936 and 946; cf. Schuhmann, E., Philologus 121 [1977], 62f.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar is implicit in my arguments above. After the scheme, which forms the main strand of the plot, has been brought to a successful conclusion and the young lovers have been reunited, the revenge of Diabolus and Artemona at Demaenetus' expense provides an amusing ending to the play; similarly in Terence's Phormio the parasite Phormio takes his revenge on Chremes by reporting him to his wife (Kunst [n. 120], 154, Webster, , S.L.G.C. p. 237)Google Scholar. It is appropriate that Demaenetus should be made to pay for his part in the deception of his wife; and it is well prepared by the characterization of Artemona in I 1.

126 Schuhmann (n. 125), 55–64, observes that the expression by a husband of his distaste for sexual relations with his aging uxor dotata (894f.; cf. 872–4) and of his wish for her early death (901, 905; cf. 909) are motifs found elsewhere in Plautus (e.g. Most 703–7, Trin. 41, 51) but not in Menander or Terence, and shows that the characterization of the Plautine uxor dotata is in large measure to be attributed to the Latin adapter. Stärk, , Menaechmi, pp. 31–6,47–59Google Scholar, plausibly sees the influence of the pre-literary Atellan farces in the crude comedy which Plautus regularly attaches to the figures of the senex amator and uxor dotata, noting that their typically Plautine features can more easily be paralleled in the literary Atellana than in Greek New Comedy; but some allowance must be made for the influence of the palliata on the literary Atellana. Gratwick (n. 81), 341 n. 4, believes the adventitious use of the palla motif in 884–6 (cf. 929f.) a Plautine borrowing from the Menaechmi, where the motif plays a central rôle in the plot (cf. Fantham, E., C. Ph. 63 [1963], 176f.)Google Scholar; and he may be right. It seems likely, however, that the motif was a stock one in New Comedy (pace Stärk, Menaechmi, pp. 14f.), even if it is not actually attested in the Greek fragments; Plautus could have used it without having a specific model. The verbal similarities which Gratwick sees between this scene and the Menaechmi are hardly sufficient to prove the priority of the Menaechmi.

127 Gestri (n. 45), 205; cf. Jachmann, , PL und Att. p. 69.Google Scholar

128 Gell. NA 3.3, Duckworth, , N.R.C. pp. 50f.Google Scholar

129 Grauert (n. 4), 205, Körte, , Berl. phil. Woch. 36 (1916), 981Google Scholar, Schaaf, , Miles, pp. 378–80.Google Scholar

130 Men. 7–9, Stick 446–8.

131 Leo, P.F.2 p. 111, Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 400fGoogle Scholar. = El. Pl. pp. 378f., Williams, G., JRS 48 (1958), 18Google Scholar, Spranger, P. P., Historische Untersuchungen zu den Sklavenfiguren des Plautus und Terenz2 (Stuttgart, 36 (1985), p. 117Google Scholar, Segal, , Rom. Laughter passim, Gaiser (n. 31), 1079, 1107.Google Scholar