Plautine criticism has displayed many different angles. As in most things,
time helps resolve the discrepancies. The general impression gleaned from
a survey of the field is that in earlier times over-appreciation was the
rule, which has gradually simmered down, with occasional outpourings of
denunciation, to a healthier norm of estimation.
Even in antiquity the wiseacres took our royal buffoon too seriously.
Stylistically he was translated to the skies. [Sidenote: Cicero] Cicero[5]
imputes to him "iocandi genus, ... elegans, urbanum, ingeniosum, facetum."
[Sidenote: Aelius Stilo] Quintilian[6] quotes: "Licet Varro Musas Aelii
Stilonis sententia Plautino dicat sermone locuturas fuisse, si latine
loqui vellent." [Sidenote: Gellius] The paean is further swelled by
Gellius, who variously refers to our hero as "homo linguae atque
elegantiae in verbis Latinae princeps,"[7] and "verborum Latinorum
elegantissimus,"[8] and "linguae Latinae decus."[9] [Sidenote: Horace] If
our poet is scored by Horace[10] it is probably due rather to Horace's
affectation of contempt for the early poets than to his true convictions;
or we may ascribe it to the sophisticated metricist's failure to realize
the existence of a "Metrica Musa Pedestris." As Duff says (_A Literary
History of Rome_, p. 197), "The scansion of Plautus was less understood in
Cicero's day than that of Chaucer was in Johnson's." (Cf. Cic. _Or._ 55.
184.)
[Sidenote: Euanthius] We have somewhat of a reaction, too, against the
earlier chorus of praise in the commentary of Euanthius,[11] who condemns
Plautus' persistent use of direct address of the audience. If it is true,
as Donatus[12] says later: "Comoediam esse Cicero ait imitationem vitae,
speculum consuetudinis, imaginem veritatis," we find it hard to understand
Cicero's enthusiatic praise of Plautus, as we hope to show that he is very
far from measuring up to any such comic ideal as that laid down by Cicero
himself.
But of course these ancient critiques have no appreciable bearing on our
argument and we cite them rather for historical interest and
retrospect.[13] [Sidenote: Festus] [Sidenote: Brix] While Festus[14] makes
a painful effort to explain the location of the mythical "Portus Persicus"
mentioned in the _Amph._,[15] Brix[16] in modern times shows that there is
no historical ground for the elaborate mythical genealogy in _Men._ 409
ff. We contend that "Portus Persicus" is pure fiction, as our novelists
refer fondly to "Zenda" or "Graustark," while the _Men._ passage is a
patent burlesque of the tragic style.[17]
[Sidenote: Becker] On the threshold of what we may term modern criticism
of Plautus we find W.A. Becker, in 1837, writing a book: "De Comicis
Romanorum Fabulis Maxime Plautinis Quaestiones." Herein, after deploring
the neglect of Plautine criticism among his immediate predecessors and
contemporaries, he attempts to prove that Plautus was a great "original"
poet and dramatic artist. Surely no one today can be in sympathy with such
a sentiment as the following (Becker, p. 95): "Et Trinummum, quae ita
amabilibus lepidisque personis optimisque exemplis abundat, ut quoties eam
lego, non comici me poetae, sed philosophi Socratici opus legere mihi
videar." I believe we may safely call the _Trinummus_ the least Plautine
of Plautine plays, except the _Captivi_, and it is by no means so good a
work. The _Trinummus_ is crowded with interminable padded dialogue,
tiresome moral preachments, and possesses a weakly motivated plot; a
veritable "Sunday-school play."
But Becker continues: "Sive enim <Plautus> seria agit et praecepta pleno
effundit penu, ad quae componere vitarn oporteat; in sententiis quanta
gravitas, orationis quanta vis, quam probe et meditate cum hominum ingenia
moresque novisse omnia testantur." We feel sure that our Umbrian fun-maker
would strut in public and laugh in private, could he hear such an encomium
of his lofty moral aims. For it is our ultimate purpose to prove that
fun-maker Plautus was primarily and well-nigh exclusively a fun-maker.
[Sidenote: Weise] K. H. Weise, in "Die Komodien des Plautus, kritisch nach
Inhalt und Form beleuchtet, zur Bestimmung des Echten und Unechten in den
einzelnen Dichtungen" (Quedlinburg, 1866), follows hard on Becker's heels
and places Plautus on a pinnacle of poetic achievement in which we
scarcely recognize our apotheosized laugh-maker. Every passage in the
plays that is not artistically immaculate, that does not conform to the
uttermost canons of dramatic art, is unequivocally damned as "unecht." In
his Introduction (p. 4) Weise is truly eloquent in painting the times and
significance of our poet. With momentary insight he says: "Man hat an ihm
eine immer frische und nie versiegende Fundgrabe des Achten Volkswitzes."
But this is soon marred by utterances such as (p. 14): "FAnde sich also in
der Zahl der Plautinischen Komodien eine Partie, die mit einer andern in
diesen Hinsichten in bedeutendem Grade contrastirte, so konnte man sicher
schliessen, dass beide nicht von demselben Verfasser sein kAnnten." He
demands from Plautus, as _ein wahrer Poet_, "Congruenz, und richtige
innere Logik <und> harmonische Construction" (p. 12), and finally declares
(p. 22): "Interesse, Character, logischer Bau in der Zusammensetzung,
Naturlichkeit der Sprache und des Witzes, Rythmus und antikes Idiom des
Ausdrucks werden die Kriterien sein mussen, nach dem wir uber die
Vortrefflichkeit und PlautinitAt plautinischer StA1/4cke zu entscheiden
haben."
On this basis he ruthlessly carves out and discards as "unecht" every
passage that fails to conform to his amazing and extravagant ideals, in
the belief that "der Achte Meister Plautus konnte nur Harmonisches, nur
Vernunftiges, nur Logisches, nur relativ Richtiges dichten" (p. 79),
though even Homer nods. The _Mercator_ is banned _in toto_. To be sure,
Weise somewhat redeems himself by the statement (p. 29 f.): "Plautus
bezweckte ... lediglich nur die eigentliche und wirksamste Belustigung des
Publicums." But how he reconciles this with his previously quoted
convictions and with the declaration (p. 16): "Plautus ist ein sehr
religioser, sehr moralischer Schriftsteller," it is impossible to grasp,
until we recall that the author is a German.
[Sidenote: Langen] Such criticism stultifies itself and needs no
refutation; certainly not here, as P. Langen in his _Plautinische Studien_
(_Berliner Studien_, 1886; pp. 90-91) has conclusively proved that the
inconsistent is a feature absolutely germane to Plautine style, and has
collected an overwhelming mass of "Widerspruche, Inkonsequenzen und
psychologische Unwahrscheinlichkeiten" that would question the
"Plautinity" of every other line, were we to follow Weise's precepts.
Langen too uses the knife, but with a certain judicious restraint.
We insist that the attempt to explain away every inconsistency as spurious
is a sorry refuge.
[Sidenote: Langrehr] Langrehr in _Miscellanea Philologica_ (Gottingen,
1876), under the caption _Plautina_[18] gives vent to further solemn
Teutonic carpings at the plot of the _Epidicus_ and argues the play a
_contaminatio_ on the basis of the double intrigue. He is much exercised
too over the mysterious episode of 'the disappearing flute-girl.'
Langen, who is in the main remarkably sane, refutes these conclusions
neatly.[19] How Weise and his confrA"res argue Plautus such a super-poet,
in view of the life and education of the public to whom he catered, let
alone the evidence of the plays themselves, and their author's status as
mere translator and adapter, must remain an insoluble mystery. The simple
truth is that a playwright such as Plautus, having undertaken to feed a
populace hungry for amusement, ground out plays (doubtless for a
living),[20] with a wholesome disregard for niceties of composition,
provided only he obtained his _sine qua non_--the laugh.[21]
[Sidenote: Lessing] In our citation of opinions we must not overlook that
impressive mile-stone in the history of criticism, the discredited but
still great Lessing. In his "Abhandlung von dem Leben und den Werken des
M. Accius Plautus" Lessing deprecates the harsh judgment of Horace and
later detractors of our poet in modern times. Lessing idealizes him as the
matchless comic poet. That the _Captivi_ is "das vortrefflichste StA1/4ck,
welches jemals auf den Schauplatz gekommen ist," as Lessing declares in
the Preface to his translation of the play, is an utterance that leaves us
gasping.
[Sidenote: Dacier] But Lessing's idea of the purpose of comedy is a
combination of Aristotelian and mid-Victorian ideals: "die Sitten der
Zuschauer zu bilden und zu bessern, ... wenn sie nAmlich das Laster
allezeit unglA1/4cklich und die Tugend am Ende glA1/4cklich sein lAsst."[22] It
is on the basis of this premise that he awards the comic crown to the
_Cap._[23] His extravagant encomium called forth from a contemporary a
long controversial letter which Lessing published in the second edition
with a reply so feeble that he distinctly leaves his adversary the honors
of the field. How much better the diagnosis of Madame Dacier, who is
quoted by Lessing! In the introduction to her translations of the
_Amphitruo_, _Rudens_ and _Epidicus_ (issued in 1683), she apologizes for
Plautus on the ground that he had to win approval for his comedies from an
audience used to the ribaldry of the _Saturae_.
[Sidenote: Lorenz] Lorenz in his introductions to editions of the _Most._
and _Pseud._ is another who seems to be carried away by the unrestrained
enthusiasm that often affects scholars oversteeped in the lore of their
author. Faults are dismissed as merely "Kleine Unwahrscheinlichkeiten"
(Introd. _Ps._, p. 26, N. 25.) "Jeder Leser," says he, "<wird gewiss>
darin beistimmen, dass ... der erste Act <des _Pseudolus_> eine so
gelungene Exposition darbietet, wie sie die dramatische Poesie nur
aufweisen kann." Such a statement must fall, by weight of exaggeration. In
appreciation of the portrayal of the name-part he continues: "Mit welch'
A1/4berwAltigender Herrschaft tritt hier gleich die meisterhaft geschilderte
Hauptperson hervor! Welche packende Kraft, welche hinreissende _verve_
liegt in dem reichen Dialoge, der wie beseelt von der feurigen Energie des
begabten Menschen, der ihn lenkt, frAhlich rauschend dahin eilt,
A1/4bersprudelnd von einer Fulle erheiternder Scherze und schillernder
Spielereien!"
In curious contrast to this fulsome outpouring stands the expressed belief
of Lamarre[24] that the character of Ballio overshadows that of Pseudolus.
In support of this view he cites Cicero (_Pro Ros. Com._ 7.20), who
mentions that Roscius chose to play Ballio.
Lorenz in his enthusiasm exalts the _Epid._ to an ideal of comic
excellence (Introd. _Ps._ p. 27). He even goes so far as to contend that
Plautus lives up to the following characterization:[25] "Nicht blos durch
naturgetreue and lebhafte Charakterschilderungen und durch eine komisch
gehaltene, aber die Grenzen des Wahrscheinlichen und des GraziAsen nicht
A1/4berschreitende Zeichnung des tAglichen Lebens soll der Dichter des
Lustspiels seine Zuschauer interessiren und ihr heiteres GelAchter
hervorrufen, sondern auch so reiche Anwendung zu geben, durch die es in
den Dienst einer sittlichen Idee tritt, und so gleichsam die moralische
AtmosphAre ... zu reinigen."
Such emotional superlatives merely create in the reader a cachinnatory
revulsion. Yes, Plautus was great, but he was great in a far different
way. He approached the Rabelaisian. It is doubtful if "die Grenzen des
GraziAsen" lay within his purview at all.
[Sidenote: Lamarre] The treatment of Lamarre cited above contains[26] a
highly meritorious analysis of the Plautine characters, discussed largely
as a reflection of the times and people, both of New Comedy and of
Plautus, without imputing to our poet too serious motives of subtle
portrayal. But he too ascribes to Plautus a latent moral purpose: "En
faisant rire, il veut corriger"![27]
[Sidenote: Naudet] This sounds ominously like an echo from Naudet[28] who,
in the course of lauding Plautus' infinite invention and variety of
embroidery, would translate him into a zealous social reformer by saying:
"L'auteur se proposait de faire beaucoup rire les spectateurs, mais il
voulait aussi qu'ils se corrigeassent en riant." All this is
disappointing. We should have expected Gallic esprit to rise superior to
such banality.
[Sidenote: LeGrand] The celebrity of French criticism is somewhat redeemed
by LeGrand in his monumental work entitled _Daos Tableau de la comedie
grecque pendant la periode dite nouvelle_ (Annales de l'UniversitA(C) de
Lyon, 1910), in the conclusion to the chapter on 'Intentions didactiques
et valeur morale' (Part III, Chap. I, page 583): "Tout compte fait, au
point de vue moral, la I1/2I-I+- dut Atre inoffensive (en son temps)." This is
the culmination of a calm, dispassionate discussion and analysis of the
extant remains of New Comedy and _Palliatae_.
Even Ritschl fails to escape the taint of degrading Plautus to the status
of a petty moralizer[29]. In particular, he lauds the _Aul_ unreservedly
as a _chef d'oeuvre_ of character delineation and pronounces it
immeasurably superior to MoliA"re's imitation, "L'Avare."[30] This whole
critique, while interesting, falls into the prevailing trend of imputing
to Plautus far too high a plane of dramatic artistry.[31]
[Sidenote: Langen] Indeed, Langen has already scored Ritschl on this very
point in remarking[32] that Ritschl's condemnation of an alleged defect in
the _Cas_[33] implies much too favorable an estimate of Plautus' artistic
worth, as the defects cited are represented as something isolated and
remarkable, whereas they are characteristic of Plautine comedy. Langen
still displays clear-headed judgment when he says of the _Miles_[34]:
"Wenn die Farben so stark aufgetragen werden, hort jede Feinhet der
Charakterzeichnung auf und bereinem Dichter, der sich dies gestattet, darf
man bezuglich der Charakterschilderungen nicht zu viele Anspruche machen.
Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich dass Plautus mit Rucksicht auf den Geschmack
_eines_ Publikums die Zuge des Originals sehr vergrobert hat."
But Langen fails to follow this splendid lead. Without taking advantage of
the license that he himself offers the poet, he severely condemns[35], the
scene in which Periplecomenus shouts out to Philocomasium so loudly that
the soldier's household could not conceivably help hearing, whereas he is
supposed to be conveying secret information.[36] If carried out in a
broadly farcical spirit, the scene becomes potentially amusing.
[Sidenote: Mommsen] Mommsen in his _History_[37], in the course of an
interesting discussion on _palliatae_ and their Greek originals, has a far
saner point of view. He says of the authors of New Comedy, "They wrote not
like Eupolis and Aristophanes for a great nation; but rather for a
cultivated society which spent its time ... in guessing riddles and
playing at charades.... Even in the dim Latin copy, through which we
chiefly know it, the grace of the original is not wholly obliterated. <In
_palliatae_> persons and incidents seem capriciously or carelessly
shuffled as in a game of cards; in the original a picture from life, it
became in the reproduction a caricature."
Naturally we are not concerned with any consideration of the value of his
estimate of New Comedy. Assuredly he rates it too highly, as later
investigations have indicated.[38] But here for the first time we are able
to quote a well-balanced appreciation of some essential features of
Plautine drama: a "capricious shuffling of incidents" and "caricature." In
fact it will be our endeavor to show that the _palliata_ was not a true
art form, but merely an outer shell or mold into which Plautus poured his
stock of witticisms.
[Sidenote: Korting] Still more trenchant is the conclusion of Korting in
his _Geschichte des griechischen und rAmischen Theaters_ (P. 218 ff.):
"Die neue attische KomAdie und folglich auch ihr Abklatsch, die romische
Palliata, war nicht ein Lustspiel im hAchsten, im sittlichen Sinne des
Wortes, sondern ein blosses Unterhaltungsdrama. AmA1/4sieren wollten die
KomAdiendichter, nichts weiter. Jedes hAhere Streben lag ihnen fern. Wohl
spickten sie ihre Lustspiele mit moralischen Sentenzen.... Aber die
schAnen Sentenzen sind eben nur Zierat, sind nur Verbramung einer in ihrem
Kerne und Wesen durch und durch unsittlichen Dichtung ... Mit der
Wahrscheinlichkeit der Handlung wird es sehr leicht genommen: die
seltsamsten ZufAlle werden als so ziemlich selbstverstAndliche
MAglichkeiten hingestellt ... Es ginge das noch an, wenn wir in eine
phantastische MArchenwelt gefA1/4hrt werden, in welcher am Ende auch das
Wunderbarste mAglich ist, aber nein! es wird uns zugemutet, A1/4berzeugt zu
sein, dass alles mit natA1/4rlichen Dingen zugehe.
"Alles in allem genommen, ist an dieser KomAdie, abgesehen von ihrer
formal musterhaften Technik, herzlich wenig zu bewundern.... An
Zweideutigkeiten, ObscAnitAten, Schimpfscenen ist Aoeberfluss vorhanden."
With admirable clarity of vision, Korting has spied the vital spot and
illuminated it with the word "Unterhaltungsdrama." That amusement was the
sole aim of the comic poets we firmly believe. But if this was so, why
arraign them on the charge of trying to convince us that everything is
happening in a perfectly natural manner? The outer form to be sure is that
of everyday life, but this is no proof that the poets demanded of their
audiences a belief in the verisimilitude of the events depicted. Can we
have no fantastic fairyland without some outlandish accompaniment such as
a chorus garbed as birds or frogs? But we reserve fuller discussion of
this point until later. We might suggest an interesting comparison to the
nonsense verse of W. S. Gilbert, which represents the most shocking ideas
in a style even nonchalantly matter-of-fact. Does Gilbert by any chance
actually wish us to believe that "Gentle Alice Brown," in the poem of the
same name, really assisted in "cutting up a little lad"?
Korting regains his usual clear-headedness in pronouncing 'that there is
little in the technique of _palliatae_ to excite our admiration.' Again we
insist (to borrow the jargon of the modern dramatic critic) it was but a
"vehicle" for popular amusement.
[Sidenote: Schlegel] Wilhelm Schlegel, in his _History of the Drama_[39]
has the point of view of the dramatic critic, rather than the professional
scholar; while expressing a measure of admiration for the significance of
Plautus in literature, he is impelled to say: "The bold, coarse style of
Plautus and his famous jokes, savour of his familiarity with the vulgar
... <He> mostly inclines to the farcical, to overwrought and often
disgusting drollery." This is doubtless true, but, by making the
incidental a criterion for the whole, it gives a gross misconception to
one that has not read Plautus.
[Sidenote: Donaldson] J. W. Donaldson, in his lectures on the Greek
theatre[40], has plagiarized Schlegel practically _verbatim_, while giving
the scantest credit to his source. His work thus loses value, as being a
mere echo, or compilation of second-hand material.
We learn from Schlegel that Goethe was so enamored of ancient comedy that
he enthusiastically superintended the translation and production of plays
of Plautus and Terence. Says Schlegel[41]: "I once witnessed at Weimar a
representation of the _Adelphi_ of Terence, entirely in ancient costume,
which, under the direction of Goethe, furnished us a truly Attic evening."
[Sidenote: Scott] In this connection the opinion of Sir Walter Scott may
be interesting. He too, not being a classical scholar _par excellence_,
may be better equipped for sound judgment. In the introduction to Dryden's
_Amphitryon_ he says: "Plautus ... left us a play on the subject of
Amphitryon which has _had the honour_ to be deemed worthy of imitation by
MoliA"re and Dryden. It cannot be expected that the plain, blunt and
inartificial style of so rude an age should bear any comparison with that
of the authors who enjoyed the highest advantages of the polished times to
which they were an ornament." There speaks the sophisticated and conscious
literary technician![42]
[Sidenote: LeGrand] The most comprehensive and judicious estimate of all
is certainly attained by LeGrand in _Daos_.[43] He appreciates clearly
that "la nouvelle comA(C)die n'a pas A(C)tA(C), en toute circonstance stance, une
comA(C)die distinguA(C)e. Elle n'a pas dA(C)daignA(C) constamment la farce et le gros
rire."[44] How much more then would this apply to _palliatae_!
We now believe that we have on hand a sufficiently large volume of
criticism to appreciate practically every phase of judgment to which
Plautus has been subjected.[45] The ancients overrated him stylistically,
but he was a man of their own people. Men such as Becker, Weise, Lorenz
and Langrehr have proceeded upon a distinctly exaggerated ideal of
Plautus' eminence as a master dramatic craftsman and literary artist and
therefore have amputated with the cry of "Spurious!" everything that
offends their ideal. Lessing is obsessed with too high an estimate of the
_Captivi_. Lamarre, Naudet and Ritschl commit the error of imputing to our
poet a moral purpose. Schlegel and Scott deprecate the crudity of his wit
without an adequate appreciation of its sturdy and primeval robustness.
Langen, Mommsen, Korting and LeGrand approach a keen estimate of his
inconsistencies and his single-minded purpose of entertainment, but
Korting accuses him of attempting to create an illusion of life while
aiming solely at provoking laughter.
From this heterogeneous mass of diversified criticism we glean the
prevailing idea that Plautus is lauded or condemned according to his
conformity or non-conformity to some preconceived standard of comedy
situate in the critic's mind, without a consideration of the poet's
original purpose. We must seriously propound the question as to how far a
grave injustice has been done him almost universally in criticising him
for what he does not pretend to be. Did Plautus himself suffer from any
illusion that his plays were constructed with cogent and consummate
technique? Did he for a single instant imagine himself the inspired
reformer of public morality? Did he believe that his style was elegant and
polished? Indeed, he must have effected an appreciable refinement of the
vernacular of his age to produce his lively verse, but without losing the
robust vitality of "Volkswitz." Or is it true that nothing further than
amusement lay within his scope?
If so, we may at least posit that almost unbounded license must be allowed
the pen which aims simply to raise a laugh. We do not fulminate against a
treatise on Quaternions because it lacks humor. If the drawings of
cartoonists are anatomically incorrect, we are smilingly indulgent. Do we
condemn a vaudeville skit for not conforming to the Aristotelian code of
dramatic technique? Assuredly we do not rise in disgust from a musical
comedy because "in real life" a bevy of shapely maidens in scant attire
never goes tripping and singing blithely though the streets. If then we
can establish that Plautus regarded his adapted dramas merely as a rack on
which to hang witticisms, merely as a medium for laugh-provoking sallies
and situations, we have at once Plautus as he pretended to be, and in
large measure the answer to the original question: "What manner of drama
is this?"
We say only "in large measure," because it is part of our endeavor to
settle accurately the position of our author in the dramatic scale,
considered of necessity from the modern viewpoint. We cannot believe that
he had any pretensions to refined art in play building, or rather
rebuilding, or to any superficial elegance of style, or to any moralizing
pose. We believe him an entertainer pure and simple, who never restricted
himself in his means except by the outer conventions and form of the Greek
New Comedy and the Roman stage, provided his single aim, that of affording
amusement, was attained. To establish this belief, and at the same time to
interpret accurately the nature of his plays and the means and effect of
their production, is our thesis.
If then we run the gamut of the dramatic scale, we observe that as we
descend from the higher forms, such as tragedy, psychological drama and
"straight comedy," to the lower, such as musical comedy and burlesque, the
license allowed playwright and actor increases so radically that we have a
difference of kind rather than of degree. Certain conventions of course
are common to all types. The "missing fourth side" of the room is a
commonplace recognized by all. If we ourselves are never in the habit of
communicating the contents of our letters, as we write, to a doubtless
appreciative atmosphere, we never cavil at such an act on the stage. The
stage whisper and aside, too, we accept with benevolent indulgence; but it
is worth noting that in the attempted verisimilitude of the modern
"legitimate" drama, the aside has well nigh vanished. As we go down the
scale through light comedy and broad farce these conventions multiply
rapidly.
With the introduction of music come further absurdities. Melodious voicing
of our thoughts is in itself essentially unnatural, to say the least.
Grand opera, great art form as it may be, is hopelessly artificial.
Indeed, so far is it removed from the plane of every day existence that we
are rudely jolted by the introduction of too commonplace a thought, as
when Sharpless in the English version of "Madame Butterfly" warbles
mellifluously: "Highball or straight?" And when we reach musical comedy
and vaudeville, all thought of drama, technically speaking, is abandoned
in watching the capers of the "merry-merry" or the outrageous "Dutch"
comedian wielding his deadly newspaper.
It is important for our immediate purposes to note: first, (as aforesaid),
that the amount of license allowed author and actor increases immeasurably
as we go down the scale; second, that the degree of familiarity with the
audience and cognizance of the spectator's existence varies inversely as
the degree of dramatic value. Thus, at one end of the scale we have, for
instance, Mrs. Fiske, whose fondness for playing to the centre of the
stage and ignoring the audience is commented upon as a mannerism; at the
other, the low comedian who says his say or sings his song directly at the
audience and converses gaily with them as his boon companions. Now it will
be shown that familiar address of the audience and the singing of monodies
to musical accompaniment are essential features of Plautus' style, and
many other implements of the lower types of modern drama are among his
favorite devices. If then we can place Plautus toward the bottom of the
scale, we relieve him vastly of responsibility as a dramatist and of the
necessity of adherence to verisimilitude. Where does he actually belong?
The answer must be sought in a detailed consideration of his methods of
producing his effects and in an endeavor to ascertain how far the audience
and the acting contributed to them.