Even the _Ps._, heralded as dramatically one of the best of the plays, yields the following: Horum caussa haec agitur spectatorum fabula (720); hanc fabulam dum transigam (562) and following speech; verba quae in comoediis solent lenoni dici (1081-2); quam in aliis comoediis fit (1240); quin vocas spectatores simul? (1332). In _St._ 715 ff., the action of the play is interrupted while the boisterous slaves give the musician a drink.
From the _Poen._ comes a gem that will bear quoting at length (550 ff.):
Omnia istaec scimus iam nos, si hi spectatores sciant.
Horunc hic nunc causa haec agitur spectatorum fabula: Hos te satius est docere ut, quando agas, quid agas sciant.
Nos tu ne cura.s.sis: scimus rem omnem, quippe omnes simul.
Didicimus tec.u.m una, ut respondere possimus tibi.[186]
This is the final degeneration into the realm of pure foolery. It is a patent declaration: "This is only a play; laugh and we are content." Once more we venture to point a parallel on the modern stage, in the vaudeville comedian who interlards his dancing with comments such as: "I hate to do this, but it"s the only way I can earn a living."
6. Use of stock plots and characters.
We must touch finally, but very lightly, on the commonplaces of stock plots and characters. The whole array of puppets is familiar to us all: the cunning slave, the fond or licentious papa, the spendthrift son and their inevitable confreres appear in play after play with relentless regularity. The close correspondence of many plots is also too familiar to need discussion.[187] The glimmering of originality in the plot of the _Cap._ called for special advertis.e.m.e.nt.[188] In the light of the foregoing evidence, the pertinence of these facts for us, we reiterate, is that Plautus merely adopted the New Comedy form as his comic medium, and, while leaving his originals in the main untouched, took what liberties he desired with them, with the single-minded purpose of making his public laugh.[189]
In Conclusion
In contrast to these grotesqueries certain individual scenes and plays stand out with startling distinctness as possessed of wit and humor of high order. The description by Cleaereta of the relations of lover, mistress and _lena_ is replete with biting satire (_As._ 177 ff., 215 ff.). The finale of the same play is irresistibly comic. In _Aul. _ 731 ff. real sparks issue from the verbal cross-purposes of Euclio and Lyconides over the words "pot" and "daughter." The _Bac._ is an excellent play, marred by padding. When the sisters chaff the old men as "sheep"
(1120 ff.), the humor is naturalistic and human. The _Cas._, uproarious and lewd as it is, becomes excruciatingly amusing if the mind is open to appreciating humor in the broadest spirit. The discourse of Periplecomenus (_Mil._ 637 ff.) is marked by homely satirical wisdom. In the _Ps._ the badinage of the name-character is appreciably superior to most of the incidental quips. Pseudolus generously compliments Charinus on beating him at his own game of repartee (743). When Weise (_Die Komodien des Plautus_, p. 181) describes _Ps._ IV. 7 as "eine der ausgezeichnetsten Scenen, die es irgend giebt," his superlative finds a better justification than usual.
When Menaechmus Sosicles sees fit "to put an antic disposition on," we have a scene which, while eminently farcical, is signally clever and dramatically effective. Witness the imitation by Shakespeare in _The Comedy of Errors_, IV. 4, and in spirit by modern farce; for instance, in _A Night Off_, when the staid old Professor feels the recrudescence of his youthful aspirations to attend a prize-fight, he simulates madness as a prelude to dashing wildly away.
The following from _Rud._ (160 ff.) is theatrical but tremendously effective and worthy of the highest type of drama. Sceparnio, looking off-stage, spies Ampelisca and Palaestra tossed about in a boat. He addresses Daemones:
"SC. But O Palaemon! Hallowed comrade of Neptune ... what scene meets my eye?
DAE. What do you see?
SC. I see two poor lone women sitting in a bit of a boat. How the poor creatures are being tossed about! Hoorah! Hoorah! Fine! The waves are whirling their boat past the rocks into the shallows. A pilot couldn"t have steered straighter. I swear I never saw waves more high. They"re safe if they escape those breakers. Now, now, danger! One is overboard! Ah, the water"s not deep: she"ll swim out in a minute. Hooray! See the other one, how the wave tossed her out! She is up, she"s on her way sh.o.r.eward; she"s safe!"
Sceparnio clasps his hands, jumps up and down, grasps the shaking Daemones convulsively and communicates his excitement to the audience. It is a piece of thrilling theatrical declamation and must have wrought the spectators up to a high pitch. In general, the _Rud._ is a superior play.
In _Cas._ 229 ff. there is developed a piece of faithful and entertaining character-drawing, as the old roue Lysidamus fawns upon his militant spouse Cleostrata, with the following as its climax:
"CLE. (_Sniffling._) Ha! Whence that odor of perfumes, eh?
LYS. The jig"s up."
In the whole panorama of Plautine personae the portrayal of Alcmena in the _Amph._ is unique, for she is drawn with absolute sincerity and speaks nothing out of character. Certainly no parody can be made out of the n.o.bly spoken lines 633-52, which lend a genuine air of tragedy to the professed _tragi(co)comoedia_ (59, 63); unless we think of the lady"s unwitting compromising condition (surely too subtle a thought for the original audience). Note also the exalted tone of 831-4, 839-42. But all through this scene Sosia is prancing around, prating nonsense, and playing the buffoon, so that perchance even here the n.o.bility becomes but a foil for the revelry. And in 882-955 his royal G.o.dship Jove clowns it to the lady"s truly minted sentiments.
No, we are far from attempting to deny to Plautus all dramatic technique, skill in character painting and cleverness of situation, but he was never hide-bound by any technical considerations. He felt free to break through the formal bonds of his selected medium at will. He had wit, esprit and above all a knowledge of his audience; and of human nature generally, or else he could not have had such a trenchant effect on the literature of all time.
At any rate, the above lonely landmarks cannot affect our comprehensive estimate of the mise-en-scene. Enough has been said, we believe, in our discussion of the criticism and acting and in our a.n.a.lysis of his dramatic values, to show that the aberrations of Plautus" commentators have been due to their failure to reach the crucial point: the absolute license with which his plays were acted and intended to be acted is at once the explanation of their absurdities and deficiencies. This was true in a far less degree of Terence, who dealt in plots more _stataria_ and less _motoria_.[190] Though using the same store of models, he endeavored to produce an artistically constructed play, which should make some honest effort to "hold the mirror up to nature." We are convinced that even his extensive use of _contaminatio_ was designed to evolve a better plot. The extravagance of Plautus is toned down in Terence to a reasonable verisimilitude and a far more "gentlemanly" mode of fun-making that was appropriate to one in the confidence of the aristocratic Scipionic circle.
But when all is said and done, Terence lacks the vivid primeval "Volkswitz" of Plautus. We dare only skirt the edges of this extensive subject.[191]
Above all, our n.o.ble jester _succeeds_ in his mission of laugh-producing.
But his methods are not possessed in the main of dramatic respectability.
And it must be apparent that our a.n.a.lysis and citations have covered the bulk of the plays.
We conclude then that the prevalence of inherent defects of composition and the lack of serious motive, coupled with the author"s constant and conscious employment of the implements of broad farce and extravagant burlesque, impel us inevitably to the conclusion that we have before us a species of composition which, while following a dramatic form, is not inherently drama, but a variety of entertainment that may be described as a compound of comedy, farce and burlesque; while the accompanying music, which would lend dignity to tragedy or grand opera, merely heightens the humorous effect and lends the color of musical comedy or opera bouffe.[192] Korting is right in calling it mere entertainment, Mommsen is right in calling it caricature, but we maintain that it is professedly mere entertainment, that it is consciously caricature and if it fulfills these functions we have no right to criticise it on other grounds. If we attempt a serious critique of it as drama, we have at once on our hands a capricious ma.s.s of dramatic unrealities and absurdities: bombast, burlesque, extravagance, horse-play, soliloquies, asides, direct address of the audience, pointless quips, and so on. The minute we accept it as a consciously conceived medium for amus.e.m.e.nt only, we have a highly effective theatrical mechanism for the unlimited production of laughter.
And, in fact, every shred of evidence, however scant, goes to show that the histrionism must have been conceived in a spirit of extreme liveliness, abandon and extravagance in gesture and declamation, that would not confine the actor to faithful portrayal in character, but would allow him scope and license to resort to any means whatsoever to bestir laughter amongst a not over-stolid audience.
Footnotes
[1]: E.g., Casina in the _Cas._, Silenium in the _Cis._, Planesium in the _Cur._, Adelphasium and Anterastylis in the _Poen._, Palaestra in the _Rud._
[2]: V. infra, part II, sec. I. B. I.
[3]: E.g., Lorcnz"s Introd. to _Most._ and _Pseud._ V. infra, part I, -- i.
[4]: We are not concerned in this question with technical discussion as to the position of the banquet table on the stage, the nature of the dog of the _Most._ and the like, but with the delivery and movements of the actors themselves.
[5]: De Off. I. 29.104.
[6]: X. 1.99. Cf. Ritschl"s citations of Varro: _Parerga_, p. 71 ff.
Cf. Epig. quoted by Varro and attributed to Plautus himself, ap. Gel.
N.A., I. 24.1-3. But that this was a patent literary forgery is proved by Gudeman in TAPA. XXV, p. 160.
[7]: N.A., VI. 17.4.
[8]: I.7.17.
[9]: XIX. 8.6.
[10]: _A.P._, 270 ff. Cf. _Ep._ II. I.170 ff. and Fay, ed.
_Most._, Intro. -- 2.
[11]: _De Com._ III. 6, Donatus ed. Wessner. For full quotation, v.
infra, Part II, Sec. II. A. 3, Note 50.
[12]: _Excerpta de Com._ V. 1.
[13]: For a complete list, see _Testimonia_ prefixed to Goetz and Schoell"s ed. of Plautus.
[14]: P. 217 M.
[15]: 404, 412, 823.