incidents of the drama, proceeds to unfold the situation of the principal
characters. Dæmones, before whose house in Cyrene the scene is laid, had
formerly resided at Athens, where his infant daughter had been kidnapped,
and had been afterwards purchased by a slave merchant, who brought her to
Cyrene. A Greek youth, then living in that town, had become enamoured of
her, and having agreed to purchase her, the merchant had consented to meet
him and fulfil the bargain at an adjacent temple. But being afterwards
persuaded that he could procure a higher price for her in Sicily, the
slave-dealer secretly hired a vessel, and set sail, carrying the girl
along with him. The ship had scarcely got out to sea when it was overtaken
by a dreadful tempest over which Arcturus is figured as presiding. The
play opens during the storm, in a manner eminently beautiful and
romantic—an excellence which none of the other plays of Plautus possess.
Dæmones and his servant are represented as viewing the tempest from land,
and pointing out to each other the dangers and various vicissitudes of a
boat, in which were seated two damsels who had escaped from the ship, and
were trying to gain the shore, which, after many perils, they at length
reached. The decorations of this scene are said to have been splendid, and
disposed in a very picturesque manner. Madame Dacier conjectures, “that at
the farther end of the stage was a prospect of the sea, intersected by
many rocks and cliffs, which projected considerably forward on the stage.
On one side the city of Cyrene was represented as at a distance; on the
other, the temple of Venus, with a court before it, in the centre of which
stood an altar. Adjacent to the temple, and on the same side, was the
house of Dæmones, with some scattered cottages in the back ground.”
Pleusidippus, the lover, comes forward to the temple during the storm, and
then goes off in search of Labrax, the slave-merchant, who had likewise
escaped from the shipwreck. The damsels, whose situation is highly
interesting, having now got on shore, appear among the cliffs, and after
having deplored their misfortunes, they are received into the temple by
the priestess of Venus, who reminds them, however, that they should have
come clothed in white garments and bringing victims! Here they are
discovered by the slave of Pleusidippus, who goes to inform his master.
Labrax then approaches to the vicinity of the temple of Venus, and having
discovered that the damsels who had saved themselves from the wreck were
secreted there, he rushes in to claim and seize them. Thus far the play is
lively and well conducted, but the subsequent scenes are too long
protracted. They are full of trifling, and are more loaded than those of
any other comedy of Plautus, with quaint conceits, the quibbling
witticisms, and the scurrilities of slaves. The scene in which Labrax
attempts to seize the damsels at the altar, and Dæmones protects them, is
insufferably tedious, but terminates at length with the pander being
dragged to prison. After this, the fisherman of Dæmones is introduced,
congratulating himself on having found a wallet which had been lost from
the pander’s ship, and contained his money, as well as some effects
belonging to the damsels. The ridiculous schemes which he proposes, and
the future grandeur he anticipates in consequence of his good fortune, is
an excellent satire on the fantastic projects of those who are elevated
with a sudden success. Having been observed, however, by the servant of
Pleusidippus, who suspected that this wallet contained articles by which
Palæstra might discover her parents, a long contest for its possession
ensues between them, which might be amusing in the representation, but is
excessively tiresome in perusal. This may be also remarked of the scene
where their dispute is referred to the arbitration of Dæmones, who
apparently is chosen umpire for no other reason than because this was
necessary to unravel the plot. Dæmones discovers, from the contents of the
wallet, that Palæstra is his daughter. The principal interest being thus
exhausted, the remaining scenes become more and more tedious. We feel no
great sympathy with the disappointment of the fisherman, and take little
amusement in the bargain which he drives with the pander for the
restoration of the gold, or his stipulation with his master for a reward,
on account of the important service he had been instrumental in rendering
him.
This play has been imitated by Ludovico Dolce, in his comedy _Il
Ruffiano_, which was published in 1560, and which, the author says in his
prologue, was “_vestita di habito antico, e ridrizzato alla forma
moderna_.” The _Ruffiano_ is not a mere translation from the Latin: the
language and names are altered, and the scenes frequently transposed.
There is likewise introduced the additional character of the old man
Lucretio, father to the lover; also his lying valet Tagliacozzo, and his
jealous wife Simona. Lucretio comes from Venice to the town where the
scene of the play is laid, to recover a son who had left home in quest of
a girl in the possession of Secco the Ruffiano. The first act is occupied
with the details of Lucretio’s family misfortunes, and it is only in the
commencement of the second act that the shipwreck and escape of the
damsels are introduced, so that the play opens in a way by no means so
interesting and picturesque as the _Rudens_ of Plautus. The women having
taken refuge in a church, Lucretio offers them shelter in his own house,
which exposes them to the rage of his jealous wife Simona. By the
assistance, however, of one of these girls, he discovers his lost son, who
was her lover; and the recognition of the damsel herself as daughter of
Isidoro, who corresponds to the Dæmones of Plautus, is then brought about
in the same manner as in the Latin original, and gives rise to the same
tedious and selfish disputes among the inferior characters. Madame
Riccoboni has also employed the _Rudens_ in her comedy _Le Naufrage_.
_Stichus_—is so called from a slave, who is a principal character in the
comedy. The subject is the continued determination of two ladies to
persist in their constancy to their husbands, who, from their long
absence, without having been heard of, were generally supposed to be dead.
In this resolution they remain firm, in spite of the urgency of their
fathers to make them enter into second marriages, till at length their
conjugal fidelity is rewarded by the safe arrival of their consorts. It
would appear that Plautus had not found this subject sufficient to form a
complete play; he has accordingly filled up the comic part of the drama
with the carousal of Stichus and his fellow slaves, and the stratagems of
the parasite Gelasimus, in order to be invited to the entertainments which
the husbands prepared in honour of their return.
_Trinummus_—is taken from the _Thesaurus_ of Philemon; but Plautus has
changed the original title into Trinummus—a jocular name given to himself
by one of the characters hired to carry on a deception, for which he had
received three pieces of money, as his reward. The prologue is spoken by
two allegorical personages, Luxury, and her daughter Want, the latter of
whom had been commissioned by her mother to take up her residence in the
house of the prodigal youth Lesbonicus. The play is then opened by a
Protatick person, as he is called, who comes to chide his friend Callicles
for behaviour which appeared to him in some points incomprehensible; in
consequence of which the person accused explains his conduct at once to
the spectators and his angry monitor. It seems Charmides, an Athenian,
being obliged to leave his own country on business of importance,
intrusted the guardianship of his son and daughter to his friend
Callicles. He had also confided to him the management of his affairs,
particularly the care of a treasure which was secreted in a concealed part
of his dwelling. Lesbonicus, the son of Charmides, being a dissolute
youth, had put up the family mansion to sale, and his guardian, in order
that the treasure entrusted to him might not pass into other hands, had
purchased the house at a low price. Meanwhile a young man, called
Lysiteles, had fallen in love with the daughter of Charmides, and obtained
the consent of her brother to his marriage. Her guardian was desirous to
give her a portion from the treasure, but does not wish to reveal the
secret to her extravagant brother. The person calling himself Trinummus is
therefore hired to pretend that he had come as a messenger from the
father—to present a forged letter to the son and to feign that he had
brought home money for the daughter’s portion. While Trinummus is making
towards the house, to commence performance of his part, Charmides arrives
unexpectedly from abroad, and seeing this Counterfeit approaching his
house, immediately accosts him. A highly comic scene ensues, in which the
hireling talks of his intimacy with Charmides, and also of being entrusted
with his letters and money; and when Charmides at length discovers
himself, he treats him as an impostor. The entrance of Charmides into his
house is the simple solution of this plot, of which the _nodus_ is neither
very difficult nor ingenious. This meagre subject is filled up with an
amicable contest between Lesbonicus and his sister’s lover, concerning her
portion,—the latter generously offering to take her without dowry, and the
former refusing to give her away on such ignominious terms.
The English translators of Plautus have remarked, that the art of the
dramatist in the conduct of this comedy is much to be admired:—“The
opening of it,” they observe, “is highly interesting; the incidents
naturally arise from each other, and the whole concludes happily with the
reformation of Lesbonicus, and the marriage of Lysiteles. It abounds with
excellent moral reflections, and the same may be said of it with equal
justice as of the _Captives_:—
‘Ad pudicos mores facta est hæc fabula.’ ”
On the other hand, none of Plautus’ plays is more loaded with
improbabilities of that description into which he most readily falls. Thus
Stasimus, the slave of Lesbonicus, in order to save a farm which his
master proposed giving as a portion to his sister, persuades the lover’s
father that a descent to Acheron opened from its surface,—that the cattle
which fed on it fell sick,—and that the owners themselves, after a short
period, invariably died or hanged themselves. In order to introduce the
scene between Charmides and the Counterfeit, the former, though just
returned from a sea voyage and a long absence, waits in the street, on the
appearance of a stranger, merely from curiosity to know his business; and
in the following scene the slave Stasimus, after expressing the utmost
terror for the lash on account of his tarrying so long, still loiters to
propound a series of moral maxims, inconsistent with his character and
situation.
The plot of the _Dowry_ of Giovam-maria Cecchi is precisely the same with
that of the _Trinummus_; but that dramatist possessed a wonderful art of
giving an air of originality to his closest imitations, by the happy
adaptation of ancient subjects to Italian manners. The _Tresor Caché_ of
Destouches is almost translated from the _Trinummus_, only he has brought
forward on the stage Hortense, the Prodigal’s sister, and has added the
character of Julie, the daughter of the absent father’s friend, of whom
the Prodigal himself is enamoured. In this comedy the character of the two
youths are meant to be contrasted, and are more strongly brought out in
the imitation, from both of them being in love. A German play, entitled
_Schatz_, by the celebrated dramatist Lessing, is also borrowed from this
Latin original. The scene, too, in _Trinummus_, between Charmides and the
counterfeit messenger, has given rise to one in the _Suppositi_ of
Ariosto, and through that medium to another in Shakspeare’s _Taming of the
Shrew_, where, when it is found necessary for the success of Lucentio’s
stratagem at Padua, that some one should personate his father, the
_pedant_ is employed for this purpose. Meanwhile, the father himself
unexpectedly arrives at Padua, and a comical scene in consequence passes
between them.
_Truculentus_—is so called from a morose and clownish servant, who, having
accompanied his master from the country to Rome, inveighs against the
depraved morals of that city, and especially against Phronesium, the
courtezan by whom his master had been enticed. His churlish disposition,
however, is only exhibited in a single scene. On the sole other occasion
on which he is introduced, he is represented as having become quite mild
and affable. For this change no reason is assigned, but it is doubtless
meant to be understood that he had meanwhile been soothed and wheedled by
the arts of some courtezan. The characters, however, of the Truculentus
and his rustic master, have little to do with the main plot of the drama,
which is chiefly occupied with the fate of the lovers, whom Phronesium
enticed to their ruin. When she had consumed the wealth of the infatuated
Dinarchus, she lays her snares for Stratophanes, the Babylonian captain,
to whom she pretends to have borne a son, in order that she may prey on
him with more facility. This drama is accordingly occupied with her
feigned pregnancy, her counterfeited solicitude, and her search for a
supposititious child, to which she persuades her dupe that she had given
birth, but which afterwards proves to be the child of her former lover
Dinarchus, by a young lady to whom he had been betrothed.
In the first act of this play an account is given of the mysteries of a
courtezan’s occupation, which, with a passage near the commencement of the
_Mostellaria_, and a few fragments of Alexis, a writer of the middle
comedy, gives us some insight into the practices by which they entrapped
and seduced, their lovers, by whom they appear to have been maintained in
prodigious state and splendour. In a play of Terence, one of the
characters, talking of the train of a courtezan, says,
“Ducitur familia tota,
Vestispicæ, unctor, auri custos, flabelliferæ, sandaligerulæ,
Cantrices, cistellatrices, nuncii, renuncii(265).”
The Greek courtezan possessed attainments, which the more virtuous of her
sex were neither expected nor permitted to acquire. On her the education
which was denied to a spotless woman, was carefully bestowed. To sing, to
dance, to play on the lyre and the lute, were accomplishments in which the
courtezan was, from her earliest years, completely instructed. The habits
of private life afforded ample opportunity for the display of such
acquirements, as the charm of convivial meetings among the Greeks was
thought imperfect, unless the enjoyments were brightened by a display of
the talents which belonged exclusively to the Wanton. But though these
refinements alone were sufficient to excite the highest admiration of the
Greek youth, unaccustomed as they were to female society, and often
procured a splendid establishment for the accomplished courtezan, some of
that class embraced a much wider range of education; and having added to
their attainments in the fine arts, a knowledge of philosophy and the
powers of eloquence, they became, thus trained and educated, the
companions of orators, statesmen, and poets. The arrival of Aspasia at
Athens is said to have produced a change in the manners of that city, and
to have formed a new and remarkable epoch in the history of society. The
class to which she belonged was of more political importance in Athens
than in any other state of Greece; and though I scarcely believe that the
Peloponnesian war had its origin in the wrongs of Aspasia, the Athenian
courtezans, with their various interests, were often alluded to in grave
political harangues, and they were considered as part of the establishment
of the state. Above all, the comic poets were devoted to their charms,
were conversant with their manners, and often experienced their rapacity
and infidelity; for, being unable to support them in their habits of
expense, an opulent old man, or dissolute youth, was in consequence
frequently preferred. The passion of Menander for Glycerium is well known,
and Diphilus, from whom Plautus borrowed his _Rudens_, consorted with
Gnathena, celebrated as one of the most lively and luxurious of Athenian
Charmers(266). Accordingly, many of the plays of the new comedy derive
their names from celebrated courtezans; but it does not appear, from the
fragments which remain, that they were generally represented in a
favourable light, or in their meridian splendour of beauty and
accomplishments(267). In the Latin plays, the courtezans are not drawn so
highly gifted in point of talents, or even beauty, as might be expected;
but it was necessary to paint them as elegant, fascinating, and expensive,
in order to account for the infatuation and ruin of their lovers. The
Greeks and Romans were alike strangers to the polite gallantry of Modern
Europe, and to the enthusiastic love which chivalry is said to have
inspired in the middle ages. Thus their hearts and senses were left
unprotected, to become the prey of such women as the Phronesium of the
_Truculentus_, who is a picture of the most rapacious and debauched of her
class, and whose vices are neither repented of, nor receive punishment, at
the conclusion of the drama. Dinarchus may be regarded as a representation
of the most profligate of the Greek or Roman youth, yet he is not held up
to any particular censure; and, in the end, he is neither reformed nor
adequately punished. The portion, indeed, of the lady whom he had
violated, and at last agrees to espouse, is threatened by her father to be
diminished, but this seems merely said in a momentary fit of resentment.
This play, with all its imperfections, is said to have been a great
favourite of the author(268); and was a very popular comedy at Rome. It
has descended to us rather in a mutilated state, which may, perhaps, have
deprived us of some fine sentences or witticisms, which the ancients had
admired; for, as a French translator of Plautus has remarked, their
approbation could scarcely have been founded on the interest of the
subject, the disposition of the incidents, or the moral which is
inculcated.
The character of Lolpoop, the servant of Belfond Senior, in Shadwell’s
_Squire of Alsatia_, has been evidently formed on that of the Truculentus,
in this comedy. His part, however, as in the original, is chiefly
episodical; and the principal plot, as shall be afterwards shown, has been
founded on the _Adelphi_ of Terence.
The above-mentioned plays are the twenty dramas of Plautus, which are
still extant. But, besides these, a number of comedies, now lost, have
been attributed to him. Aulus Gellius(269) mentions, that there were about
a hundred and thirty plays, which, in his age, passed under the name of
Plautus; and of these, nearly forty titles, with a few scattered
fragments, still remain. From the time of Varro to that of Aulus Gellius,
it seems to have been a subject of considerable discussion what plays were
genuine; and it appears, that the best informed critics had come to the
conclusion, that a great proportion of those comedies, which vulgarly
passed for the productions of Plautus, were spurious. Such a vast number
were probably ascribed to him, from his being the head and founder of a
great dramatic school; so that those pieces, which he had perhaps merely
retouched, came to be wholly attributed to his pen. As in the schools of
painting, so in the dramatic art, a celebrated master may have disciples
who adopt his principles. He may give the plan which they fill up, or
complete what they have imperfectly executed. Many paintings passed under
the name of Raphael, of which Julio Romano, and others, were the chief
artists. “There is no doubt,” says Aulus Gellius, “but that those plays,
which seem not to have been written by Plautus, but are ascribed to him,
were by certain ancient poets, and afterwards retouched and polished by
him(270).” Even those comedies which were written in the same taste with
his, came to be termed _Fabulæ Plautinæ_, in the same way as we still
speak of Æsopian fable, and Homeric verse. “Plautus quidem,” says
Macrobius, “ea re clarus fuit, ut post mortem ejus, comœdiæ, quæ incertæ
ferebantur, Plautinæ tamen esse, de jocorum copia, agnoscerentur(271).” It
is thus evident, that a sufficient number of jests stamped a dramatic
piece as the production of Plautus in the opinion of the multitude. But
Gellius farther mentions, that there was a certain writer of comedies,
whose name was Plautius, and whose plays having the inscription “Plauti,”
were considered as by Plautus, and were named Plautinæ from Plautus,
though in fact they ought to have been called Plautianæ from Plautius. All
this sufficiently accounts for the vast number of plays ascribed to
Plautus, and which the most learned and intelligent critics have greatly
restricted. They have differed, however, very widely, as to the number
which they have admitted to be genuine. Some, says Servius, maintain, that
Plautus wrote twenty-one comedies, others forty, others a hundred(272).
Gellius informs us, that Lucius Ælius, a most learned man, was of opinion
that not more than twenty-five were of his composition(273). Varro wrote a
work, entitled _Quæstiones Plautinæ_, a considerable portion of which was
devoted to a discussion concerning the authenticity of the plays commonly
assigned to Plautus, and the result of his investigation was, that
twenty-one were unquestionably to be admitted as genuine. These were
subsequently termed Varronian, in consequence of having been separated by
Varro from the remainder, as no way doubtful, and universally allowed to
be by Plautus. The twenty-one Varronian plays are the twenty still extant,
and the _Vidularia_. This comedy appears to have been originally subjoined
to the Palatine MS. of the still existing plays of Plautus, but to have
been torn off, since, at the conclusion of the _Truculentus_, we find the
words “Vidularia incipit(274):” And Mai has recently published some
fragments of it, which he found in an Ambrosian MS. Such, it would appear,
had been the high authority of Varro, that only those plays, which had
received his indubitable sanction, were transcribed in the MSS. as the
genuine works of Plautus; yet it would seem that Varro himself had, on
some occasion, assented to the authenticity of several others, induced by
their style of humour corresponding to that of Plautus. He had somewhere
mentioned, that the _Saturio_ (the Glutton,) and the _Addictus_, (the
Adjudged,) were written by Plautus during the period in which he laboured
as a slave at the hand-mill. He was also of opinion, that the _Bœotia_ was
by Plautus; and Aulus Gellius concurs with him in this(275), citing
certain verses delivered by a hungry parasite, which, he says, are
perfectly Plautinian, and must satisfy every person to whom Plautus is
familiar, of the authenticity of that drama. From this very passage,
Osannus derives an argument unfavourable to the authenticity of the play.
The parasite exclaims against the person who first distinguished hours,
and set up the sun-dials, of which the town was so full. Now, Osannus
maintains, that there were no sun-dials at Rome in the time of Plautus,
and that the day was not then distributed into hours, but into much larger
portions of time(276). The _Nervolaria_ was one of the disputed plays in
the time of Au. Gellius; and also the _Fretum_, which Gellius thinks the
most genuine of all(277). Varro, in the first Book of his _Quæstiones
Plautinæ_ gives the following words of Attius, which, I presume, are
quoted from his work on poetry and poets, entitled _Didascalica_. “For
neither were the _Gemini_, the _Leones_, the _Condalium_, the _Anus
Plauti_, the _Bis Compressa_, the _Bœotia_, or the _Commorientes_, by
Plautus, but by M. Aquilius.” It appears, however, from the prologue to
the _Adelphi_ of Terence, that the _Commorientes_ was written by Plautus,
having been taken by him from a Greek comedy of Diphilus(278). In
opposition to the above passage of Attius, and to his own opinion
expressed in the _Quæstiones Plautinæ_, Varro, in his treatise on the
Latin Language, frequently cites, as the works of Plautus, the plays
enumerated by Attius, and various others; but this was probably in
deference to common opinion, or in agreement with ordinary language, and
was not intended to contradict what he had elsewhere delivered, or to
stamp with the character of authenticity productions, which he had more
deliberately pronounced to be spurious(279).
From the review which has now been given of the comedies of Plautus,
something may have been gathered of their general scope and tenor. In each
plot there is sufficient action, movement, and spirit. The incidents never
flag, but rapidly accelerate the catastrophe. Yet, if we regard his plays
in the mass, there is a considerable, and perhaps too great, uniformity in
their fables. They hinge, for the most part, on the love of some dissolute
youth for a courtezan, his employment of a slave to defraud a father of a
sum sufficient to supply his expensive pleasures, and the final discovery
that his mistress is a free-born citizen. The charge against Plautus of
uniformity in his characters, as well as in his fables, has been echoed
without much consideration. The portraits of Plautus, it must be
remembered, were drawn or copied at a time when the division of labour and
progress of refinement had not yet given existence to those various
descriptions of professions and artists—the doctor, author, attorney—in
short, all those characters, whose habits, singularities, and whims, have
supplied the modern Thalia with such diversified materials, and whose
contrasts give to each other such relief, that no caricature is required
in any individual representation. The characters of Alcmena, Euclio, and
Periplectomenes, are sufficiently novel, and are not repeated in any of
the other dramas; but there is ample range and variety even in those which
he has most frequently employed—the avaricious old man—the debauched young
fellow—the knavish slave—the braggart captain—the rapacious courtezan—the
obsequious parasite—and the shameless pander. On most of these parts some
observations have been made, while mentioning the different comedies in
which they are introduced. The severe father and thoughtless youth, are
those in which he has best succeeded, or at least they are those with
which we are best pleased. The captain always appears to us exaggerated,
and the change which has taken place in society and manners prevents us,
perhaps, from entering fully into the characters of the slave, the
parasite, and pander; but in the fathers and sons, he has shown his
knowledge of our common nature, and delineated them with the truest and
liveliest touches. In the former, the struggles of avarice and severity,
with paternal affection, are finely wrought up and blended. Even when
otherwise respectable characters, they are always represented as disliking
their wives, which was not inconsistent with the manners of a Grecian
state, in which marriage was merely regarded as a duty; and was a feature
naturally enough exhibited on the theatre of a nation, one of whose most
illustrious characters declared in the Senate, as a received maxim, that
Romans married, not for the sake of domestic happiness, but to rear up
soldiers for the republic.