Lorenz with commendable insight has pointed out[173] that IIII., the
goddess of Chance, is the motive power of the Plautine plot, as
distinguished from the I1/4I?a?-II+- of tragedy. A student of Plautus readily
recognizes this point. The entire development of the _Rud._ and _Poen._
exemplifies it in the highest degree. Hanno in the _Poen._, in particular,
meets first of all, in the strange city of Calydon, the very man he is
looking for! When Pseudolus is racking his wits for a stratagem, Harpax
obligingly drops in with all the requisites. The ass-dealer in the _As._
is so ridiculously fortuitous that it savors of childlike naivetA(C).
Characters are perpetually entering just when wanted. We hear "Optume
advenis" and "Eccum ipsum video" so frequently that they become as
meaningless as "How d'ye do!"[174]; though, as shown above[175], even this
very weakness could at moments be made the pretext for a mild laugh.
For a complete catalogue of the formidable mass of inconsistencies and
contradictions that throng the plays, the reader is referred to the
_Plautinische Studien_ of Langen, as aforesaid. It will be of passing
interest to recall one or two. In _Cas._ 530 Lysidamus goes to the "forum"
and returns _32 verses later_ complaining that he has wasted the whole day
standing "advocate" for a kinsman. But this difficulty is resolved, if we
accept the theory of Prof. Kent (TAPA. XXXVII), that the change of acts
which occurs in between, is a conventional excuse for any lapse of time,
in Roman comedy as well as in Greek tragedy. But it is extremely doubtful
that Prof. Kent succeeds in establishing the truth of this view in the
case of Roman comedy. We see no convincing reason for departing from the
accepted theory, as expressed by Duff (_A Literary History of Rome_, pp.
196-7): "In Plautus' time a play proceeded continuously from the lowering
of the curtain at the beginning to its rise at the end, save for short
breaks filled generally by simple music from the _tibicen_ (_Ps._ 573). The
division into scenes is ancient and regularly indicated in manuscripts of
Plautus and Terence."
Langen seems surprised[176] when Menaechmus Sosicles, on beholding his
twin for the first time (_Men._ 1062), though he was the object of a six
years' search, wades through some twenty lines of amazed argument before
Messenio (with marvelous cunning!) hits on the true explanation. It is of
course conceived in a burlesque spirit. What would become of the comic
action if Menaechmus II simply walked up to Menaechmus I and remarked:
"Hello, brother, don't you remember me?"
That the seven months of _Most._ 470 miraculously change into six months
in 954 is the sort of mistake possible to any writer. In the _Amph._ 1053
ff., Alcmena is in labor apparently a few minutes after consorting with
Jupiter; but the change of acts _may_ account for the lapse of time, here
as in _Cas._ 530 ff.
But after the exhaustive work of Langen, we need linger no longer in this
well-ploughed field. We repeat, the evidence all points irresistibly to
the conclusion that Plautus is wholly careless of his dramatic machinery
so long as it moves. The laugh's the thing!
The _St._ is an apt illustration of the probable workings of Plautus'
mind. The virtue of the Penelope-like Pamphila and Panegyris proves too
great a strain and unproductive of merriment. The topic gradually vanishes
as the drolleries of the parasite Gelasimus usurp the boards. He in turn
gives way to the hilarious buffoonery of the two slaves. The result is a
succession of loose-jointed scenes[177]. The _Aul._ too is fragmentary and
episodical. The _Trin._ is insufferably long-winded, with insufficient
comic accompaniment. The _Cis._ is a wretched piece of vacuous
inanity[178].