¹ W. Studemund argued for the nearly complete similarity of the two plays. He showed for the first time that the model of Vidularia might have been the Skhedia of Diphilus (‘üiber zwei Parallel-Komdien des Diphilus, mit Anhang: Die Fragmente des plaut. Vid. auf Grund einer erneuten Vergleichung des ambrosianischen Palimpsestes’, der, Verhandl XXXVI. Philologenversamml. in Karlsruhe (Leipzig, 1883)Google Scholar, 33ff., more readily available in Berl. Phil. Woch. 2 (1882), 1336ff.). Fr. Leo was of the same opinion(De Plauti Vidularia commentatio. Index schol.…Gttingen, 1894). Monographs and editions repeat the authoritative opinion of these two philologists (e.g. T. B. L. Webster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy [Manchester, 1953], 169ff. - see also n. 6). A. Ernout speaks about the ‘almost complete identity’ of the two plays (Plaute VII [Paris, 1940], 169), G. Augello traces them both back to a common model (Plauto. Le commedie HI [UTET, 1976], 772). This is no more than a radical variant of the contamination theory of W. H. Friedrich (Euripides und Diphilos, Zetemata 5, 1953). Nevertheless, the chapter on Vidularia in this book is one of the most thorough-going analyses of the play, though a number of the contentions have to be rejected. A. Marigo represents the other extreme: he thinks that the only common motif between the two plays is the shipwreck (‘Difilo comico nei frammenti e nelle imitazioni latine’, SIFC 15 (1907), 375ff., on Vidularia: 522ff.). For a list of the different opinions and a full bibliography see the preface to the latest edition, Calderan, R., Vidularia. Introduzione, testo critico, commento (Palermo, 1982).Google Scholar

² Supplemented by Fr. Leo (o.c. 4).

³ Cf. Epitr., Cist., Merc, Capt., Poen., etc.

⁴ The whole play amounts to this in his analysis ‘Nicodemus vidulum agnoscit [?], ipse a parentibus [?] agnoscitur’ (o.c. 14).

⁵ O.c. 201, 204.

⁶ It is generally treated among the other fragments, normally not even mentioned, or left untouched consciously as it is ‘trop mutilée’ (B.-A. Taladoire, Essai sur le comique de Plaute [Monaco, 1956], 1), or only a number of its details are examined, as e.g. the prologue, an example of late-Plautine prologues leading up to Terence (Duckworth, G. E., The Nature of Roman Comedy [Princeton, 1952], 213, 217), or the dialogue between Dinia and Nicodemus, remarking that it ‘gehört jedesfalls einem sehr guten Dichter’ (G. Kaibel, in RE V [1905], s.v. Diphilos 1155). The consensus about this play can be summed up in the words of F. Delia Corte: if the philological presuppositions about Vidularia are correct, Diphilus ‘avrebbe scritto due commedie molto simili’ (Da Sarsina a Roma [Florence, 1967], 122).Google Scholar

⁷ Studemund thinks that this can be easily accounted for by the fact that Diphilus wrote a lot (o.c. 1337), A. Ernout explains such duplicates by the short memory of the audience (o.c. 169).

⁸ Cf. the Perikeiromenë of Menander, in which the two characters recognized, the girl and the ‘amans iuuenis’ are sister and brother. About Perikeiromenë see e.g. A. W. Gomme and F. H. Sandbach, Menander. A Commentary (Oxford, 1973), 465ff.

⁹ So W. H. Friedrich, o.c. 206 and T. B. L. Webster, o.c. 170.

¹⁰ Studemund inclines to this solution, and he thinks that the bag is a gnörisma of the young man, but - as he sees that there must be some connexion between Nicodemus and the ring - he is forced to postulate another anulus, so as to explain the recognition of Soteris (o.c. 1339). Cf. Leo o.c. 14, A. Ernout.o.c. 168, the comment of G. Augelloon 1.6 (o.c. 772ff.). All of them think that this variation is merely formal and unimportant.

¹¹ I quote W. M. Lindsay's edition (OCT).

¹² According to the comment of G. Augello on this fragment (783), Gorgines when he learns Nicodemus' identity ‘reveals it to his father, Dinia’, and so the iuuenis is recognized. Cf. W. H. Friedrich, o.c. 206, T. B. L. Webster, ox. 170. For similar solutions see R. Calderan, o.c. 79.

¹³ So W. H. Friedrich, o.c. 203.

¹⁴ As here, too, a solution similar to that of Rudens is not improbable, i.e. that the bag contains the things that happened to be with Soteris when she disappeared, as in the other case the casket contained the toys of Palaestra.

¹⁵ It is certain that before the journey Nicodemus and Soteris used to live in a town (32 urbanaegestas, 35 mollitia urbana). It is only a conjecture from their circumstances that the girl and her father were living in a town before.

¹⁶ About the tragic, Euripidean elements of Rudens: T. B. L. Webster, o.c. 7, W. H. Friedrich, o.c. 42ff.; on the parallels of this locus in New Comedy: R. Calderan, o.c. 57 n.2.

¹⁷ It is more usual to contrast two different iuuenes - one active, the other passive (Adelph.B, Dis exap.). Nicodemus resembles the Pleusicles of the Miles most closely on this account, but the situation of the latter is far less extreme.

¹⁸ The honest Aspasius could not have suggested his own master as umpire, just as Gripus did not recommmend Daemones in Rudens.

¹⁹ 58 hicine uos habitatis? - Cacistus asks Gorgines, but uos must refer to Gorgines and Aspasius.

²⁰ litem perdidi. - Cacistus loses all hope, as he realizes that the umpire he chose is not impartial, but he is the master of his enemy.

²¹ 21 R. Calderan rightly extends this trick into a whole ‘adulescens actio’ (see o.c. 56f., 82–6): on the evidence of fr. 16 (fr. 17 in his numbering) he postulates that another iuuenis must have been involved in the plot of Vidularia. This other iuuenis must have been attached to Soteris in the play in some way or other (85f.). Calderan ascribes very great importance to this ‘adulescens actio’ in the plot, though we cannot tell what it consisted of.

²² R. Perna says that Trachalio's behaviour changes because he realizes that the umpire is the same man whom he had helped to save the girls and that Daemones is the master of Gripus, and it is better to avoid conflict with him (Originalitá di Plauto [Ban, 1955], 92). The extant text does not bear this out.

²³ W.Studemund, o.c. 1339; Thiele, G., Plautusstudien, Hermes 48 (1913), 522f.; W. H. Friedrich, o.c. 206. A contrary opinion: A. Marigo, o.c. 526.Google Scholar

²⁴ This is the conjecture of F. Skutsch. Leo's reading is (o.c. 12f.) inter murtos latuit, insidias dedit.

²⁵ W. H. Friedrich, o.c. 206, T. B. L. Webster, o.c. 170.

²⁶ It is easy to think of either of the senes. If Dinia puts the question, the ring could have belonged to Nicodemus originally and been transferred to Soteris only later, e.g. as a pledge of love. In this case both Nicodemus and Soteris are identified by the ring and its stamp, only in a different manner, and the uidulus loses all importance as a gnörisma. If on the other hand Gorgines asked Nicodemus about the ring, then it might have belonged to Soteris originally and Nicodemus' gnörismata have been in the bag. There is no way to choose between these possibilities; moreover it is quite possible that the question was put from sheer curiosity, without any connexion to the problem of recognition.

²⁷ One serious objection might be raised against this: why does Aspasius tell all this only on the occasion of the arbitration and not earlier, e.g. when they deposit the bag at Gorgines?' I cannot tell. We can certainly produce a number of guesses: that he did not think then of the importance of the stamp, or just after a dispute the situation was not favourable for this. But guesses will remain guesses as we do not know the details of this scene. One thing is beyond doubt among the host of uncertain details: there is nobody else in the comedy among the roles we know about who can be connected in any way to Soteris, who is absent.

²⁸ So R. Calderan o.c. 79 n. 53.