Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:44:08.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Virgo Callida of Plautus, Persa

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 theme of trickery and deception plays an important part in the comedies of Plautus is obvious. Although by no means absent from the comedies of Menander and Terence, it is not nearly so prominent in them as in Plautus. One reason for this difference may be Plautus' choice of Greek models, but there are good grounds for believing that changes made by Plautus to his models also served to emphasize the theme. E. Fraenkel showed that Plautus elevated the scheming slave into a comic hero in a manner alien to Menander and Terence. He identified as an important factor in this heroization of the slave certain features of style, notably the recurring use of military metaphors which equate the slave with a victorious general. He also showed that Plautus probably greatly expanded certain slave roles, this expansion being most evident in elaborate polymetric monodies such as Chrysalus' Troy canticum, Bacch. 925ff. These stylistic effects and the increased bulk of the roles give greater emphasis to the Plautine scheming slave and ipso facto to the element of intrigue in the plot. The omissions which naturally went together with Plautus' insertions could also distort the emphasis of the Greek play in favour of the element of intrigue; a probable example is the Casina, in which it is generally agreed that Plautus cut the original anagnorisis ending. Recent writers have stressed another aspect of Plautus' style which helps to give a particular prominence to the theme of intrigue in his plays, his liking for metatheatrical effects, which remind the spectators that they are watching a stage performance not real life; these effects are pervasive but particularly cluster around scenes of deception, emphasizing that the deception is in a special sense a performance, a play within a play.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , December 1989 , pp. 390 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

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 cf. Wieand, H. E., Deception in Plautus. A Study in the Technique of Roman Comedy (Boston, 1920)Google Scholar, Duckworth, G. E., The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952), pp. 151–75Google Scholar, Dieterle, A., Die Strukturelemente der Intrige in der griechisch-römischen Komödie (Amsterdam, 1980)Google Scholar, Petrone, G., Teatro antico e inganno: finzioni plautine (Palermo, 1983)Google Scholar. On Plautus' rich vocabulary to express the idea of deception see Lorenz, A. O. F., Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus, iv: Pseudolus (Berlin, 1876), pp. 47–9Google Scholar, Brotherton, B., The Vocabulary of Intrigue in Roman Comedy (Chicago, 1926)Google Scholar.

2 Fraenkel, E., Plautinisches im Plautus (Philol. Untersuchungen 28, Berlin, 1922)Google Scholar, Elementi plautini in Plauto (Florence, 1960), esp. ch. 8Google Scholar.

3 cf. 64–6, 1012–14, MacCary, W. T. and Willcock, M. M., Plautus, Casina (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 36fGoogle Scholar. with references, Chiarini, G., La recita. Plauto, lafarsa, lafesta (Bologna, 1979), p. 25Google Scholar.

4 Barchiesi, M., Il Verri 31 (1969), 113–30Google Scholar, Chiarini, op. cit. (n. 3), Petrone, op. cit. (n. 1), Slater, N. W., Plautus in Performance (Princeton, 1985)Google Scholar, Muecke, F., CA 5 (1986), 216–29Google Scholar.

5 Fraenkel, , De media et nova comoedia quaestiones selectae (Diss. Göttingen, 1912), pp. 100–4Google Scholar, P. im P., pp. 61–72 = El. PL, pp. 57–67.

6 El. PL, p. 403.

7 Lefèvre, E., Hermes 106 (1978), 518–38Google Scholar, Primmer, A., Handlungsgliederung in Nea und Palliata (öst. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., Sitzungsber. 441, Vienna, 1984), pp. 49–52, 65–70, 84–8Google Scholar.

8 Gaiser, K., ANRW I 2 (1972), 1082Google Scholar, Lefèvre, , Hermes 105 (1977), 451–3Google Scholar. Some of Plautus' additions had already been recognized by others; cf. Fraenkel, , P. im P., p. 62Google Scholar = El. PL, p. 58, Jachmann, G., Philologus 88 (1933), 443–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar on 574–91, Klingner, F., Hermes 64 (1929), 110–39Google Scholar, Williams, G., Hermes 84 (1956), 424–6Google Scholar.

9 Cambridge History of Classical Literature, ed. Easterling, P. E. and Kenney, E. J., ii (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 98–101Google Scholar. ‘Die Duplizität der Intrige’ of the Poenulus was the starting point for theories of ‘contamination’; according to them it was the first trick which did not derive from the Karchedonios (cf. Langen, P., Plautinische Studien (Berliner Studien 5, Berlin, 1886), pp. 181–98)Google Scholar.

10 Hermes 112 (1984), 32–7Google Scholar. The proponents of ‘contamination’ had already argued that the Sceledrus deception did not derive from the Alazon; cf. Schaaf, L., Der Miles Gloriosus des Plautus und sein griechisches Original (Studia et testimonia antiqua 18, Munich, 1977), pp. 22–119Google Scholar. Lefèvre's view that 185b–258 are a Plautine insertion is supported by the repeated phrases 182 iube transire ∽ 255f. iube…transire, 185 nisi quid aliud vis ∽ 259 numquid aliud? (cf. Fraenkel, , P. im P., pp. 111 fGoogle Scholar. = El. Pl, pp. 105f.). In all probability the Alazon did contain an encounter between Philocomasium and Pleusicles observed by Sceledrus. How did this take place? Lefèvre, , art. cit. 46Google Scholar, suggests ‘vielleicht durch Zuruf von Balkon zu Balkon’, but I would not entirely rule out a hole in the wall, despite the objections that have been raised against this. That the miming of 195ff. is Plautus' invention has been widely recognized, e.g. by Thierfelder, A., Gnomon 11 (1935), 145Google Scholar, Williams, , Hermes 86 (1958), 83Google Scholar, Schaaf, , Miles 223fGoogle Scholar. On Philocomasium's malitia see Chiarini, , Recita 41 n. 42Google Scholar.

11 Gaiser, in Die römische Komödie: Plautus und Terenz, ed. Lefèvre, E. (Wege der Forschung 236, Darmstadt, 1973), p. 243Google Scholar, ANRW I 2 (1972), 1074Google Scholar, Lefèvre, , Hermes 112 (1984), 37–41Google Scholar. Milphidippa's rôle in enticing the soldier into Periplectomenus' house (Schaaf, , Miles 315Google Scholar) could have been performed by Palaestrio. Lefèvre argues persuasively that iv 2 also and the whole rôle of Milphidippa are Plautine additions. I am not convinced by the arguments of Gaiser and Lefevre that Acroteleutium is Plautus' creation and that in the Alazon the rôle of Periplectomenus' ‘wife’ was played by Philocomasium (Gaiser) or her mother (Lefèvre), nor in general by their attempts to reconstruct the Alazon. If Plautus has altered his model to the extent that they suppose, which is indeed possible, our chances of reconstructing the Greek play are not good. Lefèvre does, however, make a good case for supposing III 3, in which the mala meretrix is rehearsed in her role in the scheme, largely Plautine.

12 Phoenix 39 (1985), 6–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 ‘Plautus’ choruses' (Rhein. Mus. forthcoming).

14 Gaiser, , ANRW I 2 (1972), 1037f.Google Scholar, 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.

15 Chiarini, , Recita 164Google Scholar.

16 cf. Woytek, E., T. Maccius Plautus Persa (öst. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. KX, Sitzungsber. 385, Vienna, 1982) on 654Google Scholar. Woytek is willing to attribute the inconsistency to the Greek dramatist, although more inclined to believe that Plautus turned a furtiva into a Kriegsgefangene than vice versa.

17 Chiarini, , Recita 142f.Google Scholar; cf. Partsch, J., Hermes 45 (1910), 604–11Google Scholar on the Greek law underlying 715–18.

18 cf. 632f., 656. If the nucleus of the idea is to be attributed to the Greek dramatist, Plautus is probably responsible for developing it in 569–73 (see below, p. 397) and 632f. (comment on the girl's preceding remark).

19 Chiarini, , Recita 138–41Google Scholar, argues plausibly that the conception of the Orient which lies behind this and other geographical references in the Persa is Roman rather than Greek. See Woytek, , Persa, pp. 12–17Google Scholar, on inferences drawn from 506–9 for the date of the Greek original by Wilamowitz and others.

20 cf. Woytek, , Persa, pp. 47–53Google Scholar.

21 cf. Fraenkel, , P. im P., p. 239Google Scholar n. 1 = El. PI., p. 231 n. 1.

22 RCCM 18 (1976), 235–41Google Scholar, Recita 87–114.

23 cf. ‘Plautus’ parasites and the Atellana’ (forthcoming); Woytek, , Persa pp. 53–6Google Scholar.

24 Comparisons with a tragic agon have justly been made; cf. Blänsdorf, J., Archaische Gedankengänge in den Komödien des Plautus (Hermes Einzelschr. 20, Wiesbaden, 1967), p. 13Google Scholar; Woytek, , Persa, pp. 50fGoogle Scholar. Rawson, E. in Homo viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble, ed. Whitby, M., Hardie, P. and Whitby, M. (Bristol, 1985), p. 84Google Scholar, rightly arguing that Roman audiences liked to listen to moralizing, serious and comic, seems to me not to distinguish sufficiently between the more serious tone of this scene and the girl's comic sententiousness in 550–60. It is true that in 379–81, after she has promised to obey her father's orders, she uses words which foreshadow her later play-acting rôle (cf. Chiarini, , Recita 110Google Scholar, Petrone, , Teatro ant. e ing., p. 39Google Scholar). In 380 the phrase docte calleo does indeed suggest a Plautine callida (cf. 305, Poen. 578–81). In its context, however, it would hardly lead the audience to suppose that the girl's reluctance to adopt this role was itself faked; she goes on to state that she is being forced to become a mala (382). Other phrases too are typical of the ‘rehearsal’ which in several plays precedes a deception scene and the reference to the girl's parentes prepares for the interrogation episode. In writing these lines (as also 148–53), Plautus no doubt had the later scene in mind; and I suspect that they are entirely a Plautine addition (∼ 333f.). Plautine expansion has been suggested as the explanation of the girl's pietas in III 1 by Prescott, H. W., CP 11 (1916), 135Google Scholar, who sees her as ‘a staid Roman virgin’, and Marti, H., Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik bei Plautus und Terenz (Diss, Zurich, Winterthur, 1959), p. 69 n. 15Google Scholar; that Plautus may have added something I would not deny, although I do not see anything specifically Roman here, but I do not find it credible that Plautus should have transformed a mala into a bona.

25 cf. True. 451–73, Chiarini, , Recita 41Google Scholar.

26 BICS 35 (1988), 101–10Google Scholar, Gaiser, , ANRW I 2 (1972), 1083Google Scholar, Gratwick, , Camb. Hist. Class. Lit. ii. 110Google Scholar. Fantham, E., Pap. Liv. Lai. Sem. 3 (1981), pp. 13f.Google Scholar, shows that in Epid. 317f. and 372–5 Plautus depicts the lyre-girl as more dolosa than is justified by the following action, duplicating the play-acting motif originally attached to Acropolistis. I shall argue elsewhere that inconsistencies in the character of Philaenium in the Asinaria result from Plautus' expansion of her rôle.

27 Woytek, , Persa on 709, and p. 56Google Scholar on Dordalus' character in general.

28 Phoenix 39 (1985), 24fGoogle Scholar. No doubt Plautus learnt the device from Greek comedy (cf. Ter, . Eun. 473Google Scholar, 476–8, Eur, . Hel. 1288ff., 1405ff.Google Scholar), but the important point is that he was capable of using it independently. Repeated use of a motif is characteristic of Plautus. So he likes to duplicate the originally Greek meeting-formula ‘Is it x? It is.’ (BICS 20 [1973], 98Google Scholar); and he multiplies the traditional thieving-cook motif (CA 4 [1985], 88Google Scholar, CQ 35 [1985], 411–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Different are cases where a schemer exploits the suspicion of his dupe to deceive him by telling the truth, e.g. Plaut, . Bacch. 699–701Google Scholar (cf. Primmer, , Handlungsgl. pp. 51fGoogle Scholar). Different again are cases where the audience's superior knowledge enables it to perceive comic irony when a character unintentionally speaks the truth, e.g. Plaut, . Capt. 310Google Scholar.

29 cf. the praise for a successfully completed performance in Poen. 683 bonam dedistis mihi operam ∼ Per. 673f. edepol dedisti, virgo, operam adlaudabilem, probam et sapientem et sobriam ∼ M.G. 591 nimiam festivam mulier operam praehibuit.

30 cf. Slater, , Plautus, p. 49Google Scholar ‘What can be the dramatic motivation for Toxilus to break off a line of action leading to the conclusion he desires? Only this – his pride as a playwright. Whatever the risks, he cannot forgo the pleasure of manipulating Dordalus and the girl through their scene’.

31 art. cit. (n. 13).

32 Woytek, Persa ad loc, Slater, , Plautus, p. 48Google Scholar.

33 BICS 35 (1988), 105–8Google Scholar, Fraenkel, , P. im P. pp. 142–50Google Scholar = El. PL, pp. 134–42; cf. Duckworth, , N.R.C., pp. 113f.Google Scholar, Slater, , Plautus, pp. 162–5Google Scholar.

34 cf. Fraenkel, , P. im P., pp. 212–20Google Scholar = El. Pl., pp. 203–11.

35 cf. Stich. 649, Gomme, A. W. and Sandbach, F. H., Menander: a Commentary (Oxford, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar on Sam. 101.

36 Chiarini, , Recita 229fGoogle Scholar., draws attention to the fact that the catalogue of civic vices would have a particular resonance for Plautus' Roman audience; cf. Rawson, loc. cit. (n. 24) ‘of a political and therefore unsuitably masculine cast’.

37 cf. 130 forma lepida el liberali, 521. The connection between forma virginis and quaestus meretricius is obvious enough, but a particularly good parallel is provided by Rud. 51–6.

38 Chiarini, , Recita 148f.Google Scholar; Woytek, , Persa on 568fGoogle Scholar.

39 Plautinische Forschungen 2 (Berlin, 1912), p. 155Google Scholar.

40 His use of the thieving-cook motif is comparable; see above, n. 28.

41 Woytek, , Persa, p. 34Google Scholar.

42 747–9, alluding to antestatio, are clearly a Plautine addition; cf. Woytek, , Persa on 747Google Scholar.

43 Fraenkel, , P. im P., p. 14Google Scholar = El. PL, p. 13; Gestri, L., SIFC 17 (1940), 250–60Google Scholar.

44 art. cit. (n. 13).

45 Langen, , PL Stud., p. 180Google Scholar.

46 Fraenkel, , P. im P., pp. 144–50Google Scholar = El. PL, pp. 136–42.

47 cf. Woytek, , Persa on 722fGoogle Scholar.

48 See references in n. 14.