¹ This article is a companion to ‘Is the Threat-monologue of the “servus currens” an Index of Roman Authorship?’, Phoenix 41 (1987), 399–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where an argument is made for the development of the running slave's extended threat-monologue in Greek New Comedy. There I do not deal with the arguments adduced by Fraenkel and others to show original Plautine composition in these monologues; the present article is designed to compensate for this deficiency. A balanced review of the evidence and the arguments for the Greek origins of the running slave can be found in Guardi, T., ‘I precedenti greci della figura del “servus currens” delta commediaromana’, Pan 2 (1974), 5–15Google Scholar. The question of original Roman input does not lie within the scope of Guardi's discussion.

² Fraenkel, E., Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin, 1922)Google Scholar, updated in the Italian translation Elementi plautini in Plauto (Florence, 1960)Google Scholar. References are given to the latter version. See especially pp. 123–7.

³ In addition to the articles cited in note 1, see Hunter, R. L., The New Comedy of Greece and Rome (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 164f. n. 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gaiser, K., Menander's ‘Hydria’ (AHAW Abh. I, Heidelberg 1977). p. 177 and n. 18Google Scholar on CGF 244, 348ff., the ‘Strobilos Fragment’.

⁴ The statistical argument goes back to Konrad Weissman, who argued that if the running-slave had been as important a figure in Greek as in Roman Comedy, an unimpeachable example would have survived ‘in tot comoediarum Graecarum exemplis’ (and this at a time when the remains of Greek New Comedy were far fewer): Weissmann, C., De servi currentis persona apud comicos Romanos (diss. Giessen, 1911), p. 47Google Scholar.

⁵ Prescott's, H. W. review of Fraenkel's book in CP 19 (1924), 90–3Google Scholar and ‘Criteria of Originality in Plautus’, TAPA 63 (1932), 103–25Google Scholar; Law, H. H., ‘Hyperbole in Mythological Comparisons’, AJP 47 (1926), 361–72Google Scholar; Harsh, P. W., ‘Possible Greek Background for “Rex”a s Used in Plautus’. CPh 31 (1936), 62–8Google Scholar; Tierney, J. J., ‘Some Attic Elements in Plautus’, PRIA 40 (1945), 21–58Google Scholar; Gentili, B., Theatrical Performances in the Ancient World (Amsterdam, 1979), pp. 15–45Google Scholar [= Lo speltacolo nel mondo antico (Bari, 1976), pp. 3–39Google Scholar ]; Shipp, G. P., ‘Linguistic Notes’, Antichthon 11 (1977), 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zagagi, N., Tradition and Originality in Plautus (Hypomnemata 62, Gottingen, 1980), pp. 15–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Gratwick, A. S., ‘Curculio's Last Bow: Plautus, Trinummus IV.3’, Mnemosyne 34 (1981), 331–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Good general cautions against the use of stylistic traits as criteria for separating Plautine and Attic elements are given by Dumont, J.-C., ‘La stratègie de l'esclave plautinien‘, REL 44 (1966), 182–203, at 186fGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Legrand, P. E., ‘Daos, Tableau de la comédie grecque pendant la periode dite nouvelle’, Annales de l'Universite de Lyon N.S. 11, 22 (1910), p. 430Google Scholar= The Greek New Comedy (tr. Loeb, J., London and New York, 1917), p. 342Google Scholar.

⁹ Leo, F., Geschichte der römischen Lileratur i (Berlin, 1913), pp. 142, 146Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Leo, , op. cit., p. 146Google Scholar(cf. J. L. Ussing ad he). Since Leo most scholars have considered this passage a Plautine original: Fraenkel 123; Fantham, E., ‘The Curculio of Plautus: An Illustration of Plautine Methods of Adaptation’, CQ 15 (1965), 84–100, at 88f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bertini, F., Curculio (Rocce San Casciano, 1969), p. 90Google Scholar; Monaco, G., Curculio (Palermo, 1969), p. 170Google Scholar; Gentili, B., op. cit., pp. 95fGoogle Scholar. and Petrone, G., Teatro anlico e inganno: finzioni plautine (Palermo, 1983), p. 171Google Scholar; with some cuation, Deschamps, L., ‘Epidaure ou Rome’, Platon 32–33 (1980–1981), 168 n. 116Google Scholar; Jocelyn, H. D., ‘Anti-Greek Elements in Plautus’ Menaechmi‘?’, PLLS 4 (1983), 1–25, at 2Google Scholar.

¹¹ Jocelyn, art. cit., demonstrates how unreliable this criterion is.

¹² See Gomme and Sandbach ad Men. Karchedonios 33. The word δραπετεύειν means ‘shirk’ in Demosthenes 42.25. This meaning is still prevalent in Modern Greek usage see e.g. Stamataks Lexicon s.v. ‘δραπέτης τοϋ καθήκοντος’. The Suda and Etymologicum Magnum attest to this usage in the Byzantine period, when, moreover, the false etymology of the word from δράω and πέτομαι was popular (Et.M.: ò áπόπτας καì áποστàς τής ύπερεσίας ή ό τòδράν <ήγοʊν τò πέτομαι> πεττεύων͵ τούτστιν έκκλίνων Cf. Suda, s.v. δραπέτης).

¹³ Jupp. Trag. 42 (Zalmoxis); Peregr. 21 (Peregrinus), and the passages cited in the following two notes.

¹⁴ Bis Ace. 13 (Diogenes), 17 (Polemon), 21 (Dionysius); Somn. 12 (Socrates); cf. the pseudophilosophers in Fug. 17.

¹⁵ See especially Fug. 13, and 27, 32, 33 (‘Cantharus’, ‘Lecythion‘, ‘Myropnous’).

¹⁶ Helm, R., Lucian und Menipp (Leipzig/Berlin, 1906), pp. 307–21Google Scholar.

¹⁷ To philosophy: Philo, Spec. 3.5 (also post-Lucianic, cf. Gregory of Nyssa in Migne, PG 46.557.16). From philosophy: Plut. Mor. 46e (cf. 47e); or analogues of philosophy: Philo, Migr. 209 where the mind runs away from objects of intellection to objects of sense perception (also post-Lucianic: Gregory of Nyssa, De deitate adversus Euagrion 335.15f. Jaeger [runaway from faith]; Hist. Alex. Magni T 2.35A.4 [runaway from άρετή]). The use of the term to describe philosophers may have been stimulated by the metaphorical application of the image to elusive abstractions by the philosophers themselves: PI. Meno 97d e (correct opinion); Baton, 4 PCG 2.3f. and 5.14f. (the ‘sensible man’); Luc. Vit. Auct. 27 (a joke on άκαταληψια). Fantham, E., Comparative Studies in Latin Republican Imagery (Toronto, 1972), pp. 55f.Google Scholar, expresses the opinion that the Roman use of ‘runaway’; imagery applied to concrete as well as abstract objects had Greek roots.

¹⁸ Ar. Clouds 1485, Frogs 1492; PCG 506.2; Eupolis, PCG 386, 387; Alexis fr. 180 K. See Helm, R., ‘Lucian und die Philosophenschule’, Neue Jahrb. 9 (1902), 199Google Scholar.

¹⁹ The archetype for the comic topos of the intemperance and gluttony of philosophers was probably Eupolis' Kolakes: Eupolis, PCG 157, 158, etc. See also: Baton, PCG 3.2; 5.12f.; Helm, loc. cit., 263ff; Athen. 4.162b.

²⁰ Ar. Clouds 179, 497ff., 856ff., 1498, PCG 295; Eupolis, PCG 162, 395.2; Eubulus, PCG 137.3; Ephippus, PCG 14.3. Cf. Hegesand. fr. 1.2 (Muller); Luc. Symp. 46.

²¹ Amphis fr. 13 K.; Alexis fr. 196/7.6 K. Cf. Luc. lcarom. 5, 21, Pise. 37, Vit. Auct. 7, Bis Ace 11. Dial. Mori. 10.8, Fug. 18; D.L. 7.16.

²² Varro, Sat. Men. 311; Val. Max. 2.6.10; Gell. 9.2.4. The ambiguity of ‘palliati’ need indicate no more than a felicitous translation on Plautus' part.

²³ Petrone, op. cit. 172, argues on the hypothesis that ‘pollenta’ = ‘puls’ = lupine, yet θέρμος ( = ‘lupinus’) is the Greek comic philosopher's staple κατʹ έξοχήν: Antiphanes, fr. 226/227 K.; TrGF 100 Lycophron F 2.10; Luc. Pise. 44; Dial. Mori. 1.1.1, Merc. Cond. 24, Fug. 20; D.L. 6.86. Deschamps, op. cit. 167, (following Fournier, E., s.v. ‘cibaria’, Dar.-Sag. i.3, p. 1143Google Scholar) equates ‘pollenta’ with μâζα͵ and argues that as μâζα͵ a was the ‘nourriture habituelle des Athéniens… on a done ici une plaisanterie toute Romaine sur les coutumes alimentaires d'un peuple étranger'. But μâζα is also the food of the stereotypical philosopher in the comic literature: Antiphanes, fr. 226/227 K..; adesp. 127 K.; Luc. Fug. 14. Whatever the Greek translation of ‘pollenta’ this word is attached to Greek literary stereotypes: Aus. Epigr. 49.1 (‘pera, polenta, tribon, baculus, scyphus, arta suppellex ista fuit Cynici’).

²⁴ D.L. 6.13 does not seem to indicate the contrary.

²⁵ πήρα and books occur together in Luc. Pise. 44; Vit. Auct. 9.19.

²⁶ FHG. 4.413.3. The adjective is of uncertain meaning: Gulick, C. B. translates ‘cloaks-over-shoulders-slinging’ (Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists ii [Cambridge, MA, 1967], p. 237)Google Scholar and LSJ ‘one who wraps his cloak about him’.

²⁷ Sen. Ep. 114.6; Juv. 13.110. See Bosscher, H., De Plauti Curculione disputatio (diss. Leiden, 1903), p. 38Google Scholar.

²⁸ Diod. 38/39.19.1.11 ff.; Dio Cass. 58.11.2; John Chrysostom, In Psalmum 118 (Migne, PG 55.685).

²⁹ Gruen, E., The Hellenistic World and the Rise of Romei (Berkeley, 1984), pp. 250ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Jocelyn, H. D., ‘The Ruling Class of the Roman Republic and Greek Philosophers’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 59. 2 (1977), 323–66, esp. pp. 332, 343, 350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Athen. 12.547a; Aelian, VH 9.12; Sueton. Gramm. 25.1; Gell. 15.11.1.

³² The very convention that the running-slave is obstructed by characters typically found in the agora/forum ought to show the Greek origins of the motif: according to Greek theatre convention, the agora is just off the right wing and beyond it the road to Peiraeus, both the principal sources of news for running slaves: Pollux 4.126f.; Vita Aristophanis (Dindorf, , Prolegomena de comoedia 36Google Scholar); Haigh, A. E., The Attic Theatre ³ (New York, 1968), p. 194 n. 1Google Scholar. There have been several attempts to prove on the basis of Vitruvius 5.6.8 that forum and harbour were consistently at opposite ends in the Roman theatre and that Roman stage conventions were consistently different from the Greek: e.g. Simon, A., Comicae Tabellae (Emsdetten, 1936), p. 143 n. 6.Google Scholar; Beare, W., The Roman Stage (London, 1950), pp. 240–7Google Scholar; Duckworth, G., The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952), pp. 85–7Google Scholar. In at least one instance the Greek convention is observed on the Roman stage. In Epidicus, Epidicus and Thesprio enter from the port, followed by the two young men. They go into the nearest house, which is that of Chaeribulus (67a ff.: ‘ille me votuit domum venire, ad Chaeribulum iussit hue in proxumum’). When Epidicus exits he sees the old men standing in front of Periphanes' house (186) and runs towards them pretending to come from the forum (208). In this case the same wing must lead from the forum and ‘a peregre’.

³³ New Comedy frequently adds conventional material without troubling to adapt it to unconventional settings, e.g. Cur. 644ff.: Planesium is abducted at the Dionysia (a variation on the rape-at-festival motif), yet drama at Epidaurus was part of the Asclepieia. Collart's observation (ad loc.) that the collapse of the seats in the theatre described by Planesium necessarily describes a Roman theatre is incorrect. The theatre of Dionysus at Athens had wooden tiers of benches until the building of the ‘Lycurgan’ theatre (at some time around 330 B.C.). Planesium describes events that are presumably about fifteen years old. In any case the lines are acceptable to any Greek audience which knew, as proud Athenians did, that not all Greek theatres had stone seats.

³⁴ Fraenkel, , op. cit., p. 123Google Scholar. Hellenistic Greek despots naturally avoided ‘tyrannus’ as an official title, but men like Demetrius of Phaleron and Lachares were styled ‘tyrants’ in the popular vocabulary of the time (Berve, H.. Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen [Munich, 1967], pp. 386f.Google Scholar). All of these officials are known to contemporary Attica.

³⁵ E.g. Xen. Vect. 3.11.4; Isoc. Amid. 30.8f., Philip. 81.2f.; PI. Alc.ii 142c7f.. Leg. 908d5f.; Plut. Aral. 15.3; Luc. Necvom. 14, 17; Dial. Mort. 1.1.1 OF.; com. adesp. 145 K.; Walz, Rhet. Gr. 4.544.24; 8.37.12ff.

³⁶ Fraenkel, , op. cit., pp. 124, 408–13Google Scholar.

³⁷ Fraenkel, , op. cit., pp. 411fGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Berthiaume, G., Les Roles du Mageiros (Mnemosyne Suppl.70, Montreal, 1982), pp. 62ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Lowe, J. C. B., ‘Cooks in Plautus’, ClAnl 4 (1985), 78fGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Fraenkel, . op. cit., pp. 109fGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ On the related question of meat-eating in Greece, see Tierney, , art. cit., pp. 48–51Google Scholar.

⁴² For the question of the origin of the basilica see Sear, F., Roman Architecture (Ithaca, NY, 1983), pp. 22fGoogle Scholar. No building of the basilica type is known in Athens before Hadrianic times (see Hesp. 42 [1973], pp. 136ff.). It is theoretically possible, but very unlikely, that the Greek models referred to Aetolian and Epidaurian topography.

⁴³ Fraenkel, , op. cit., p. 125Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Fraenkel, , op. cit., p. 179Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Perhaps also Aristophanes, Plutus 170; see Holzinger, K., ‘Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar zu Aristophanes’ Plutos', SBWien 218 (1940), ad heGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ Berve, Cf., op. cit., pp. 3ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ These statistics are based upon the entries in Allen and Italie's Concordance to Euripides (London/Berkeley. 1954)Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Note, however, that in Wasps 464–549 ‘tyrannis’ and ‘basileia’ are both used to designate ‘absolute power’, the choice of word depending on whether the attitude is positive or negative (464, 488, 489, 495, 498, 546, 548; cf. 502, 507).

⁴⁹ Based on Lodge, G., Lexicon Plautinum (Leipzig, 1924Google Scholar) and McGlynn, P., Lexicon Terentianum (London/Glasgow, 1963Google Scholar).

⁵⁰ As observes, Fraenkel, op. cit., p. 187Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Cf. Dziatzko, K. and Kauer, R., Ausgewahlte Komodien des P. Terentius Afer ii (Amsterdam, 1964)Google Scholar, ad be, who compare also Ter. Ph. 405.

⁵² Harsh, , op. cit., p. 66Google Scholar, deserves credit for first arguing that ‘rex’ translated more Greek words than ‘basileus’ alone. By arguing that ‘rex’ covers for ‘tyrannos’ I do not mean to exclude ‘satrapes’ and other terms signifying ‘powerful personage’. Harsh, (op. cit., pp. 65f.)Google Scholar collects examples of τυραννικός as parallels for the adjective ‘basilicus’, which Fraenkel considered especially Plautine, (op. cit., pp. 183ff.)Google Scholar, but Harsh did not find a comic parallel for the adverb ‘basilice’, which is present in Aristophanes, Wasps 507(τυραννικá).

⁵³ Fraenkel, , op. cit., pp. 125, 182Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Shipp, , art. cit., 7–9Google Scholar, argues that βασιλεύς does in fact signify a parasite's patron in Hellenistic Greek.

⁵⁵ Cf. Prescott, , art. cit. (1932), 124 n. 21Google Scholar. Harsh, , op. cit., p. 63Google Scholar, suggests that the same pun may be implicit in Luc. Paras. 23.

⁵⁶ Zagagi, , op. cit., pp. 15–67Google Scholar; Tierney, , op. cit., pp. 21ff.Google Scholar; Prescott, , art. cit. (1932). 104–7Google Scholar and CP 19 (1924), 91f.Google Scholar; Law, , op. cit., pp. 361ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁷ Fraenkel, , op. cit., pp. 64, 125Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Prescott, , art. cit. (1932), 107–13Google Scholar; cf. Lana, I., RFIC 90 (1962), 70Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Fraenkel, , op. cit., pp. 123ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ See Tierney's, remarks, op. cit., pp. 32–4Google Scholar. Tierney refers to the use of generic motifs with the anachronistic term ‘plagiarism’. Note that Tierney (pp. 34–41) demonstrates that the other passages identified by Fraenkel as Plautine ‘cataloghi di costumi’ are solidly planted in the Greek tradition.

⁶¹ Leo, F., Der Monolog in Drama (Abh. Gott. 10, Berlin, 1908), p. 89Google Scholar; Bain, D., Actors and Audience (Oxford, 1977), pp. 90f., lOOff., 105ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Fraenkel, , op. cit., p. 126Google Scholar.

⁶³ SIG ³ 546, 30ff. = IG ix.1.188.

⁶⁴ Each member of the league kept its local officials, see Dubois, M., Les Ligues Étolienne el Achéenne (Paris, 1885), p. 210Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Fraenkel, , op. cit., pp. 126fGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁶ Aristophanes, , Ach. 723f., 968Google Scholar, with scholia ad loc.; Pollux 10.177.

⁶⁷ The question of the limits of the aedile's power of ‘coercitio’ is complicated by the fact that the lex Portia de tergo civium falls within Plautus' productive period. Cat o the Elder's law (of 198 or 195 B.C.) forbade the whipping of Roma n citizens as a form of ‘coercitio’. An exception to this was apparently the power granted the aediles to whip actors; see Mommsen, T., Romische Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), p. 47Google Scholar. But even before the lex Porcia the power of ‘coercitio’ had probably been gradually limited (Mommsen, , loc. cit.). Trinummus 990Google Scholar (‘vapulabis meo arbitratu novorumque aedilium’) may, however, be evidence for flogging by aediles before the lex Porcia, because it is difficult to see what jurisdiction an Athenian ‘agoranomus’ may have had in this case: ‘Charmides’ lives beyond the ‘horoi’ of the agora and though it is possible to summon a wrongdoer to the ‘agoranomoi’ (cf. Aristophanes, , Wasps 1407Google Scholar) the particular kind of fraud here in question does not seem to lie within the jurisdiction of the ‘agoranomoi’. Lintott, A. W., Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford, 1968), p. 94Google Scholar, believes that the Trinummus passage may reflect the vulnerability of actors to aedilician flogging.

⁶⁸ Fraenkel, , op. cit., pp. 181fGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁹ Cf. Fraenkel, , op. cit., p. 101Google Scholar. See the examples of Greek personifications of parts of the body an d the further discussion below.

⁷⁰ Cf. Aristophanes, Frogs 478. The expression is borrowed from the language of tragedy, cf. Rau, P., Paratragodia (Zetemata 45, Munich, 1967), p. 117Google Scholar and finds its counterpart in the expression στ⋯σαι πόδα (E. Ba. 647; POxy 2746.1).

⁷¹ Fraenkel, , op. cit., pp. 146–50, 416–21Google Scholar.

⁷² Gratwick, , op. cit., p. 334Google Scholar.

⁷³ Gratwick, , op. cit., pp. 331–42Google Scholar. Cf. Hunter, R., ‘Philemon, Plautus and the Trinummus’, MH 37 (1980), 227f.Google Scholar, who argues for Plautine expansion in the second section of Stasimus' monologue.

⁷⁴ So Gratwick restates Fraenkel's argument: Gratwick, , op. cit., p. 335Google Scholar; Fraenkel, , op. cit., p. 149Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Gratwick, , op. cit., pp. 335ffGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁶ Gratwick, , op. cit., pp. 335fGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁷ Other plays with rings from drunken men: Ter. Ad. 347 (see Gratwick, , op. cit., p. 336 n. 3Google Scholar); Men. Epitr. 471ff.; possibly, Men. Daktylios (see Webster, T. B. L., Introduction to Menander [Manchester, 1974] pp 127–9Google Scholar); in Hecyra 821ff. the convention is reversed, the drunken youth steals the ring from the girl he rapes. See, further, Fraenkel, , op. cit., p. 150Google Scholar n. I; Gratwick (loc. cit.) fails to discount the possiblity that this ring could have been a recognition token in its original context. For the Auge: Pilling, C., Quomodo Telephi fabulam et scriptores et artifices veteres tractaverint (diss. Halle, 1886), pp. 28–31Google Scholar; Koenen, L., ‘Eine Hypothesis zur Auge des Euripides und tegeatische Plynterien’ ZPEi (1969), 7–18Google Scholar, at 10, ad II. 7–8. A silver bowl recently discovered in Rogozen, Bulgaria, shows a naked and bedraggled Auge (inscribed) clasping the hand of Herakles, who barely sits upright in a drunken stupor. The bowl perhaps depicts the theft of the ring after the rape.

⁷⁸ Gratwick, , op. cit., p. 340Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Aristophanes, Frogs 571, 575; Pherek. fr. 32.3 K., fr. 108.7 K.; Crobylus, , PCG 8Google Scholar; Eubulus, PCG 137.2; E. Cvc. 215; Aristotle EN 1118a33; see Gow ad Machon. 88 and Headlam ad Herod. 6.16.

⁸⁰ Cf. especially Ar. Frogs 571, 575.

⁸¹ E.g. Aristophanes, , Clouds 193Google Scholar, Peace 325, Frogs 415, Plutus 275. Cf. Fraenkel, , op. cit., p. 101Google Scholar.

⁸² E.g. Horn. Od. 6.133; Ar. Lys, 928; Xen. Mem. 1.6.8, 2.1.2.

⁸³ Ar. Frogs 571, Eubulus, , PCG 137.2Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Fraenkel, , op. cit., p. 36Google Scholar.