[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, ASec. 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. ASec. 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.
[16]: Ed. _Men._ (Leipzig, 1891), ad 410.
[17]: Cf. opening lines of Eurip. _Iph. in Taur._
[18]: Pp. 13--19. V. Langen, _Plautinische Studien_, pp. 139-142. Cf.
also comments of Brix to _Menaechmi_ passim.
[19]: Op. cit., p. 146.
[20]: Cf. Gel. N. A., III. 3-14 ff.
[21]: V. infra, Part II, under 'Careless Composition'.
[22]: _Beschluss der Critik iiber die Gefangenen des Plaulus_.
[23]: 23: Op. cit., fin.
[24]: _La Litterature latine depuis la fondation de Rome_ (Paris,
1899), Bk. II. chap. 3. sec. 15, p. 362.
[25]: Introd. to ed. _Mosl._, p. 37.
[26]: Bk. II, Ch. 4.
[27]: Lamarre, op. cit., Bk. II, Ch. 4, Sec. 12, p. 475.
[28]: _ThA(C)Actre de Plaute_ (Paris, 1845), Introd. p. 18.
[29]: _Opuscula Philologica_, Vol. II p. 743.
[30]: _Opusc._ II. 733 ff.
[31]: In _Opusc._ III. 455, Ritschl relates that Varro wrote six books
on drama, with Plautus as the especial object of his interest: _de
originibus scaenicis, de scaenicis actionibus, de actibus scaenicis, de
personis, de descriptionibus, quaestiones Plautinae_.
[32]: Langen, op. cit., p. 127.
[33]: _Opusc._ II. 746.
[34]: Op. cit., p. 165.
[35]: Op. cit., p. 167.
[36]: _Mil._ 522 ff. (All citations from Plautus are based on the text
and numbering of the lines in the text of Goetz and Schoell).
[37]: _History of Rome_, (Transl. Dickson, Scribner, N.Y., 1900), Vol.
III, p. 143.
[38]: E.g., LeGrand, _Daos_, V. supra. Cf. also N. 80, Part II.
[39]: P. 190, trans. John Black (London, 1846), Lecture XIV.
[40]: _Theatre of the Greeks_, p. 443.
[41]: P. 197.
[42]: Cf. Ritschl's opinion, Note 30.
[43]: V. supra.
[44]: P. 620. But cf. Note 37.
[45]: Cf. further Plessis, _La poA(C)sie latine_ (Paris, 1909), p. 54
ff.; Patin, _A%tudes sur la poA(C)sie latine_ (Paris, 1869), Vol. II, p.
224 ff.; Ribbeck, _Geschichte der rAmischen Dichtung_ (Stuttgart,
1894), Vol. I, p. 57 ff.; Tyrrell, _Early Latin Poetry_, p. 44 ff. A
very excellent discussion is contained in Duff, _A Literary History of
Rome_ (N.Y., 1909), p. 183 ff.
[46]: _History of Rome_, Vol. III, p. 139. Cf. note 37.
[47]: Cf. Prol. _Poen._ 28-9.
[48]: Prol. _Poen._, II ff.
[49]: _Plaudere_, IEuroII"II1/2, _sibilare_ or _exsibilare, explodere,
eicere_ were expressions used to indicate approval or disapproval.
Cf. the discussion of Oehmichen, article _BA1/4hnenwesen_ in Von MA1/4ller's
_Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_, 5ter Band, 3te
Abteilung, ASec. 73. 2, p. 271.
[50]: Cf. Prol. _Poen._ 36 ff.
[51]: Cf. Tac. _Ann._ I. 77. V. Oehmichen, op. cit., ASec. 39.3, p. 220.
[52]: V. Prol. _Amph._ 52-3:
Quid contraxistis frontem?
Quia tragoediam Dixi futuram hanc?
[53]: _Parad._ III. 2.26. Cf. _Or._ 51.173, _de Or._ III.
50.196: _"theatra tota reclamant_"; Hor. _Ep._ II. 1.200 ff.;
Suet. _Nero_, 24.1.
[54]: Cic. _de Or._ I.61.259, I.27.124.
[55]: _Hist. Rome_, ed. cit., Vol. III, p. 140.
[56]: _Cist._ 785: Qui deliquit vapulabit, qui non deliquit bibet. Cf.
_Trin._ 990. _Amph._ 83-4, (if this is not merely an imitation
of the Greek original).
[57]: Tac. _Ann._ 1.77.
[58]: _Amph._ 65 ff., _Poen._ 36 ff., Ter. _Phor._ 16 ff.,
Cic. _ad Att._ IV. 15.6, Hor. _Ep._ II. 1.181.
[59]: _Cas._ 17 ff., _Trin._ 706 ff. But others argue that these
passages are only translations from the Greek. V. Leo in _Hermes_,
1883, p. 561, F. Ostermayer, _De hist. fab. in com. Pl._ (Greifswald,
1884), p. 7. Ritschl (_Parerga_, p. 229) argues that the passages
refer to cases of extraordinary public approval, not to formal contests.
Cf. Var. _L.L._ V. 178.
[60]: Cic. _pro. Ros. Com._ 10.28-9, Plin. _N. H._ 7.39.128, Dio
77.21. Cf. Sen. _Ep._ 80.7.
[61]: KArting, op. cit., p. 244 ff.
[62]: Cic. _de Or._ I.59.251, Suet. _Nero_ 20, Quint. XI. 3.19.
[63]: I.ii.i-2, I.ii.12.
[64]: Quint. XI.3.iii.
[65]: Cic. _Or._ 31.109.
[66]: Quint. XI.3.178, Juv. III. 98-9.
[67]: Cic. _de Off._ I.31.114, _ad Att._ IV.15.6.
[68]: Ap. Athen. XIV. 615 A.
[69]: For a full discussion of the ancient actor v. Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft_, s. v.
_histrio_; Friedlander in Marquardt-Mommsen _Handbuch der romischen
Altertumer_, VI. p. 508 ff.; J. van Wageningen, _Scaenica Romana_;
Warnecke, _Die Vortragskunst der romischen Schauspieler_, in _Neue
Jahrbucher_, 1908, p. 704 ff.
[70]: Cf. _de Or._ III.56.214, III.22.83, Quint. XI. 3.125, 181-2.
[71]: Quint. XI.3.112.
[72]: Cf. Quint. XI.3.89.
[73]: Cic. _ad Att._ VI.1.8.
[74]: Cf. _de Or._ III.26.102, Quint. XI.3.71, 89.
[75]: For further treatment of the gestures of orators see Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encyclopadie_, s. v. _histrio_; Warnecke in _Neue
Jahrbucher_, 1910, p. 593; Sittl, _Die Gebarden der Griechen und
Romer_, Chap. XI; Mart. Cap. 43. In the other rhetoricians of the later
Empire there is much copying of Cicero and Quintilian, but nothing of
significance for our purpose, unless it be the comparison of the rigid
training recommended to the embryo orator. For further citations, v.
Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit.
[76]: 0p. cit., p. 203.
[77]: _Wiener Studien_, Vol. XIV, p. 120.
[78]: _Scaen. Rom._, p. 52. Cf. Karsten in _Mnem._ XXXII, (1904),
pp. 209-251, 287-322, who concludes that at least four hands aided in the
commentaries.
[79]: E.g., Donat. ad _And._ 88, _Eun._ 187, 986, _Phor._
315.
[80]: A11 the passages in Donatus dealing with gesture have been collected
by Leo, _Rheinisches Museum_ XXXVIII, p. 331 ff.
[81]: E.g., Donat. ad _And._ 180, 363, 380-1, _Eun._ 209, 559,
974, _Ad._ 84, 499, 661, 795, 951, _Hec._ 612, 689, _Phor._
49, 315. Cf. _Ad._ 285: superbe ac magnifice. Cf. Schol. ad
_And._ 332: Vultuose hoc dicitur, hoc est cum gestu. Cf. also
Warnecke in _Neue JahrbA1/4cher_, 1910, note 75.
[82]: Cf. XI.3.103, _Auct. ad Her._ III.15.27.
[83]: Their precise age and antiquity have been disputed with some
acrimony. With Sittl cf. Bethe, _Praef. Cod. Ambros._ p. 64; van
Wageningen, op. cit., p. 50 ff.; Leo in _Rhein. Mus._ XXXVIII, p. 342
ff. V. reproductions in Wieseler, _TheatergebAude und DenkmAler des
BA1/4hnenwesens bei den Griechen und RAmern,_ Tafel X; and Bethe, ed. of
Codex Ambrosianus.
[84]: _Neue Jahr._, Sup. Band I (1832), p. 447 ff.
[85]: Quint. VI.3.29, Mart. Cap., Chap. 43, p. 543 ed. Kopp.
[86]: V. reproductions in Baumeister, _DenkmAler des klassischen
Altertums_, s. v. "Lustspiel" and Wieseler, op. cit., note 83.
[87]: Donat. _de Com._ VI. 3. There is some suspicion that the names
have been interchanged.
[88]: _Ars Gram._ III, p. 489, 10 K; Festus, s.v. _personata_,
p. 217. Cf. Cic. _de Nat. Deo._ I. 28.79. Ribbock, _Romische
Tragodie_ p. 661, and Dziatzko in _Rhein. Mus._ XXI. 68, have made a
violent effort to reconcile the conflicting statements by arguing
that Roscius belonged to the troupe of Minucius. This is denied by
Weinberger, _Wien. Stud._ XIV. 126. For further discussion v. van
Wageningen, _Scaen. Rom._ p. 34 ff.; Leo in _Rhein. Mus._ XXXVIII.
342; Oehmichen, op. cit. p. 250; B. Arnold, _Ueber Antike
Theatermasken_; Teuffel, _Romische Litteraturgeschichte_ ASec.16.
Sec. 13; Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit., s.v. _histrio_, pp. 2120-21. A
recent article by Saunders (A.J.P., XXXII, p. 58) gives an admirable
summing-up of the whole controversy, with substantial proof that at
any rate the performers of Plautus' day were unmasked.
[89]: Diom. III. p. 489.10 K. Cf. Saunders, _Costume in Roman
Comedy_; Marquardt-Mommsen, _Handbuch der romischen Altertumer_,
VI. p. 525; Pauly-Wissowa, l.c. Cf. Cic. _ad Fam._ VII. 6.
[90]: Cf. _Mil._ 629 ff., 923, _Ps._ 967, _Rud._ 125 f., 313
f., 1303, _Trin._ 861 f., _Truc._ 286 ff.; Ter., _Phor._
51.
[91]: V. van Wageningen, op. cit. pp. 40 f.
[92]: _De Or._ III. 22.83.
[93]: II. 10.13. Cf. XI. 3.91.
[94]: I. II. 1-2
[95]: Donat. ad _And._ 505, _Eun._ 224, 288, 403, _Ad._ 187,
395.
[96]: Ad _And._ 194, 301, _Eun._ 467, 986, _Hec._ 98, 439,
640, _Ad._ 101. Cf. _Ad._ 96.; cum admiratone indignantis; 97;
intento digito et infestis in Micionem oculis.
[97]: Ad _Eun._ 1055.
[98]: Ad _And._ 633, _Eun._ 233, 451, _Hec._ 63, _Ad._
259.
[99]: Ad _Phor._ 145.
[100]: Ad _Ad._ 200.
[101]: Ad _Eun._ 187.
[102]: VII. 2.8-10.
[103]: Cf. Diom. 291, 23 ff., K; Ribbeck, _Rom. Trag._ p. 634,
believes that this was the rule, but he is apparently alone in the
opinion. Cf. Budensteiner in Bursian's _Jahresbericht_ CVI, p. 162
ff., who agrees with the proof of van Eck, _Quaest. Sten. Rom._
(Amsterdam 1892), that it was an isolated intance.
[104]: We are not even remotely concerned with metrical analysis. For that
phase, with a discussion as to the effect of the various metrical systems,
see Klotz, _Grundzuge der altromischen Metrik_, esp. p. 370 ff. Cf.
Duff, _A Lit. Hist. of Rome_, p. 196. Note Donat, _de Com._
VIII. 9 and Diom. 491, 23K.
[105]: For arguments as to the divisions of the three classes, v., besides
Klotz, Ritschl, _Parerga_, p. 40; Conradt, _Die metrische
Komposition der Komodien des Terenz_ (Berlin 1876); Bucheler in _Neue
Jahr. fur Phil._ CXLI (1871), p. 273 ff.; Dziatzko in _Rhein.
Mus._ XXVI (1871), pp. 97-100: G. Hermann, _de Canticis in Romanorum
Fabulis, Opusc._ I. 290; which have all been landmarks in the
discussion. Cf. also Teuffel, _Rom. Lit._, ASec. 16. Sec. 5, etc.
[106]: Cf. Cic. _de Or._ II.46.193.
[107]: Cf. _As._ 265, 587, 640, 403, _Bac._ 611, _Cap._ 637,
_Cas._ 845 ff., _Cis._ 53 ff., _Cur._ 278, 309, 311,
_Ep._ 623 ff., _Men._ 828 f., 910, _Mer._ 599 f.,
_Mil._ 200 ff. (quoted infra, Part II), 798-9 (Palaestrio must shout
at Periplecomenus to provoke such a reply), _Most._ 265 ff., 594,
_Per._ 307 f., _Ps._ 911, 1287, _St._ 271, 288 f.,
_Trin._ 1099, _Truc._ 276, 476 ff., 549, 593 f., 599 ff., 822.
Cf. also Ter. _Phor._ 210-11 and Moliere's imitation in _Les
Fourberies de Scapin_, l. 4.
[108]: Cf. Sittl, _Gebarden_, p. 201 and Warnecke's citations from the
Scholiast to Aristophanes in _Neue Jahr._ 1910, p. 592.
[109]: _Daos_, p. 617.
[110]: A.J.P. VIII. 15 ff.
[111]: Cf. _As._ 554 ff., _Bac._ 710 ff., _Cap._ 159 ff.
_Cur._ 572 ff., _Ep._ 437 ff., _Men._ 1342., _Per._
753 ff., _Ps._ 761 ff., _Trin._ 718 ff., etc.
[112]: For further examples of bombast and mock-heroics v. _As._
405-6, _Bac._ 792 f., 842 ff., _Cis._ 640 ff., _Cur._ 96
ff. 439 ff., _Ep._ 181 ff. (in similar vein most of the soliloquies
of the name part), _Her._ 469 ff., 601 ff., 830 ff., _Mil._ 459
ff., 486 ff., 947 ff., _Per._ 251 ff., _Poen._ 470 ff., 1294
ff., _Ps._ 1063 f., _Truce._ 482 ff., 602 ff.
[113]: V. _Amph._ 370 ff., _As._ 431, _Cas._ 404 ff.,
_Cur._ 192 ff., 624 ff., _Mil._ 1394 ff., _Mos._ i ff.,
_Per._ 809 ff., _Poen._ 382 ff., _Rud._ 706 ff.
[114]: V. Frag. IV, G. & S., ap. Non. p. 543.
[115]: Cf. _Bac._ 581 ff., 1119, _Cap._ 830 ff., _Most._ 898
ff., _Rud._ 414, _St._ 308 ff., _Truc._ 254 ff.
[116]: Cf. also _Bac._ 925 ff., _Per._ 251 ff., _Men._ 409
ff. (v. supra, Part I, ASec. I, s.v. _Festus, Brix_). On _Bac._ 933,
v. Ribbeck, _Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta_, on Enn., frag.
_Androm._ 81; Kiessling, _Analecta Plautina_, I. 14 f.;
Ostermayer, _De historia fabulari in comoediis Plautinis_, p. 9. On
_Men._ 808 ff., v. Kiessling, II. 9.
[117]: Cf. further _As._ 606 ff., _Cur._ 147 ff., _Most._
233 ff., _Poen._ 275 ff. and passim, _Truc._ 434 ff.
[118]: Cf. _Ep._ 580 ff. Cf. also "bombast," supra A. 1, and "copious
abuse" infra, A. 3. c. Cf. also wall-painting labeled "Der erzurnte
Hausherr," in Baumeister, _Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums_, s.
v. _Lustspiel_.
[119]: Cf. _Mil._ 596 ff., _Most._ 454 ff., _Trin._ 517 ff.
[120]: Cf. _Mer._ 748 ff., _Men._ 607 ff.
[121]: Cf. further _Most._ 265 ff., 456 ff. and note Donat. ad
_Phor._ 210-11: hic locus magis actoris quam lectoris est.
[122]: Cf. _Most._ 38 ff., _Poen._ 1309 ff. Cf. also "Lavishing
of terms of endearment," supra, A. 3. c.
[123]: Cf. also _Poen._ 426 ff., _Rud._ 938 ff.
[124]: Cf. similarly _Cap._ 121 ff., 177 ff., _Cas._ 725 ff.,
_Most._ 909, 999 f. Cf. infra II. B.5.
[125]: _Plaut. Stud._ pp. 121 f. Cf. pp. 101, 137 f., 158 f., 217, 229
f.
[126]: _Die Kom. des Pl._, pp. 70-71.
[127]: _Daos_, p. 430-1.
[128]: Prol. _Haut._ 32-40, Prol. _Eun._ 35-40. Cf. Eugraphius ad
_Haut._ 31: quid tale hic est, cum servus currit, cum populus
discedit, quod domino insano oboediat servus? Cf. also ad _Haut._ 37;
Donatus ad _Phor._ 1.4.
[129]: _And._ 338 ff., _Phor._ 179 ff., 841 ff., _Ad._ 299
ff. Weissman agrees with Donat. that in the last passage humor is not the
object. Cf. _ancilla currens_ in _Eun._ 643 ff.
[130]: Cf. _servi currentes_ supra. Cf. also _Aul._ 811 ff.,
_Ep._ 195 ff., _Mer._ 865 ff., _Ps._ 243 ff., _St._
330 ff., _Trin._ 1068 ff., _Truc._ 115 ff.
[131]: For other passages containing the comedy of "peering," v.
_Bac._ 534, _Ep._ 526 ff., _Rud._ 331 ff., et al. Cf.
Weise, op. cit., p. 72 f.
[132]: Further comments infra II. B. 3.
[133]: Cf. _As._ 403, and passim.
[134]: Cf. _As._ 447, _Cur._ 111, _Men._ 125, 478 f., 909,
_Mer._ 364, 379, _Mil._ 275, _Most._ 548, _Per._ 99,
_Poen._ 840, _Ps._ 445, 615, 908, _Rud._ 97, _St._ 88,
_Trin._ 45, 567, _Truc._ 499, etc.
[135]: _Daos, p. 431 ff._ See Dieterich, _Pulcinella, PI. II_.
Note esp. _As. 851 ff._
[136]: Cf. _Per. 81 ff., 599 ff., Poen. 210 ff., et al._
[137]: V. _Amph._ 952-3, _As._ 118 ff., 243 ff., _Aul._ 67
ff., 667 ff., 701 ff., _Bac._ 170 ff., 349 ff., 573 ff., 761 ff.,
_Cas._ 504 ff., _Cis._ 120 ff., _Cur._ 216 ff., 591 ff.,
_Mer._ 544 ff., 588 ff., _Mil._ 464 ff., _Most._ 931 ff.,
1041 ff., _Rud._ 1191 ff., _St._ 674 ff., et al.
[138]: V. Cas. 424 ff., 759 ff., _Ep._ 81 ff., _Men._ 1039 ff.,
_Ps._ 1017 ff., 1052 ff., 1102 ff., _Rud._ 892 ff., 1281 ff.,
_St._ 641 ff., _Trin._ 199 ff., 1115 ff., _Truc._ 322 ff.,
335 ff., 645 ff., 699 ff.
Cf. the treatment of Le Grand, _Daos_, p. 412 ff., where he has an
analysis from a different point of view. The soliloquy and aside are
evidently not so frequent in New Comedy.
[139]: _Daos_ p. 379. Cf. p. 550.
[140]: _Aul._ 587 ff., _Men._ 966 ff. Cf. _Most._ 858 ff.
and _As._ 545 ff., a duologue in _canticum_.
[141]: _Bac._ 640 ff. Cf. _Ps._ 767 ff.
[142]: _Cap._ 461 ff., Cf. _Per._ 53 ff.
[143]: _Men._ 77 ff., 446 ff., _St._ 155 ff.
[144]: _Cur._ 371 ff., (Cf. 494 ff.), _Men._ 571 ff.,
_Poen._ 823 ff.
[145]: _Ep._ 225 ff.
[146]: _Cas._ 217 ff., _Trin._ 223 ff. (Cf. 660 ff.)
[147]: _Men._ 753 ff.
[148]: _Aul._ 475 ff. (496-536 branded as spurious by Weise, op. cit.,
pp. 42-44).
[149]: _Mer._ 817 ff.
[150]: _Poen._ 210 ff. (though not a solo), _Truc._ 22 ff., 210
ff., 551 ff.
[151]: _Ps._ 790 ff.
[152]: _Truc._ 482 ff.
[153]: _Mer._ 825 ff., _Rud._ 593 ff.
[154]: _Mosl._ 85 ff.
[155]: _Ps._ 1246 ff.
[156]: _St._ 683 to end.
[157]: _Ps._ 133 ff. For further passages of the episodical type, cf.
_Bac._ 925 ff. (v. supra under "bombast," I. A. 1), _Poen._ 449
ff., _Rud._ 906 ff., _Trin._ 820 ff. (v. supra under
"burlesque," I. A. 3).
[158]: Cf. further _Amph._ 463, 998, _Bac._ 1072, _Cap._ 69
ff., _Cas._ 879, _Cis._ 146, 678, _Men._ 880, _Mer._
313, _Mil._ 862, _Most._ 280, 354, 708 ff., _Poen._ 921 f.,
_Ps._ 124, _St._ 224,446, 674 ff., _Truc._ 109 ff., 463
ff., 965 ff. Cf. infra II. B. 5.
[159]: In Donat. ed. Wessner.
[160]: V. _As., Bac., Cap., Cis., Cur., Ep., Men., Mer., Most., Per.,
Rod., St._ Cf. _Cas._ 1013 ff., _Poen._ 1370 f.
[161]: V. _Bac._ 235-367, _Cap._ 835-99, _Cis._ 203 ff.,
540-630, 705 ff., _Cur._ 251-73 and passim (this play is full of
bandying of quips), _Ep._ 1 ff., _Men._ 137-81, 602-67,
_Mer._ 474 ff., 708 ff., 866 ff., _Most._ 633 ff., 717 ff., 885
ff., _Per._ 1 ff., 201 ff., _Poen._ 210 ff., _Ps._ 653 ff.
and passim, _Rud._ 485 ff. (the jokes here are unusually good), 780
ff., _St._ 579 ff., _Trin._ 39 ff., 843 ff., _Truc._ 95 ff.
[162]: Cf. Sosia im _Amph._ (esp. 659 ff.), Libanus in _As._ 1
ff., Palinurus in _Cur._, Acanthio in _Mer._ (esp. 137 ff.),
Milphio in _Poen._, Sceparnio in _Rud._ (esp. 104 ff.) and
Trachalio, Pinacium in _St._ (esp. 331 ff.), Stasimus in _Trin._
[163]: _St._ 446 ff., Prol. _Cas._ 67 ff. For an exhaustive
discussion of the 'truth to life' of the characters, v. LeGrand,
_Daos_, Part I, Chap. V.
[164]: V. esp. 96 ff.
[165]: 603 ff.
[166]: Pyrgopolinices in _Mil._, Therapontigonus in _Cur._, the
_miles_ in _Ep._, Anthemonides in _Poen._ Stratophanes in
_Truc_, is not so violent.
[167]: Cappadox in _Cur._, Dordalus in _Per._, Lycus in
_Poen._, Labrax in _Rud._ Similarly the _lenae_.
[168]: Introd. to ed. of _Ps._
[169]: 355. Cf. 360 ff., 974 ff.
[170]: _Hist. de la lit. lat._ Bk. II, Ch. III., Sec. 4. p. 307.
[171]: _Plaut. Stud._, p. 105.
[172]: _Daos_, pp. 557 f. Cf. 218 f.
[173]: Introd. to _Ps._ Cf. _Daos_, p. 452 ff.
[174]: E.g., _Amph._ 957, _Bac._ 844, _Cas._ 308,
_Men._ 898, _Mil._ 1137, 1188, _Per._ 301, 543,
_Poen._ 576, _Rud._ 1209, _St._ 400-1, _Trin._ 482.
[175]: Part II, Sec. I. B. 2.
[176]: P. 157.
[177]: Cf. _Daos_, p. 60.
[178]: Cf. in general the conclusions of LeGrand, _Daos_, p. 550, and
his admirable analysis (Part II) of "La structure des comedies." He has
recognized the existence of a number of the characteristics treated above,
but his discussion is in different vein and with a different object in
view.
[179]: _Cap._ 489, _Cur._ 483.
[180]: _Cur._ 269, et al.
[181]: _Mil._ 991.
[182]: _Ps._ 416, et al.
[183]: _Ps._ 1232.
[184]: _Ps._ 748. For a fairly complete collection, v. LeGrand,
_Daos_, p. 44 ff. Cf. Middleton and Mills, _Students' Companion to
Latin Authors_, p. 20 ff.
[185]: Cf. West in A.J.P. VIII. 15. Cf. note 1, Part II, supra.
[186]: Cf. _Amph._ 861 ff., _As._ 174 f., _Cap._ 778,
_Cur._ 464, _Her._ 160, _Poen._ 1224.
[187]: Cf. _Daos_, Part I, Chap. III: Les personnages, and p. 303 ff.;
Mommsen, _Hist._ pp. 141 ff.
[188]: Prol, 53 ff.
[189]: For a discussion of the relation of Plautus to his originals, v.
Schuster, _Quomodo Plautus Attica exemplaria transtulerit_; LeGrand,
_Daos_, passim; Ostermayer, _de hist. fab. in com. Pl._;
Ritschl, _Par._ 271, etc. The efforts to distinguish Plautus from his
models have so far been fragmentary and abortive and will not advance
appreciably until a complete play that he adapted has been found. At any
rate, the discussion has no real bearing on our subject, since we can
consider only the plays as actually transmitted; their sources cannot
affect our argument. The comparisons in _Daos_ seem to indicate that
Plautus did not debase his originals so much as Mommsen, KArting, Schlegel
and others had thought. Even in 1881, Kiessling (_Anal. Plaut._ II.
9) boldly expresses the opinion: "Atque omnino Plautus multo pressius
Atticorum exemplarium vestigia secutus est quam hodie vulgo arbitrantur".
Cf. Kellogg in PAPA. XLIV (1913).
[190]: Euanthius, _de Com._ IV. 4.
[191]: For an interesting comparison of Plautus and Terence, v. Spengel,
_Aoeber die lateinische KomAdie_, (Munich 1878).
[192]: The importance of the music is indicated by the transmission of the
composer's name in all extant _didascaliae_, esp. those of Terence.
V. Klotz, _AltrAm. Met._ p. 384 ff.