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 nobly
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 nobility becomes but a foil for
the revelry. And in 882-955 his royal godship 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-scA"ne. Enough has been said, we believe, in our
discussion of the criticism and acting and in our analysis 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 noble 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 analysis 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] KArting 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 mass 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 amusement 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.