This article argues that a close reading of friendship practices in the plays of Plautus, in light of the relevant social science and anthropological literature on friendship, can help us establish the parameters, discourse, and behaviors associated with Roman friendship. Application of a new analytical framework for studying such relationships in ancient literature (a "processual model of friendship interaction") to the plays of Plautus increases our understanding of Roman amicitia in that it marks the relationship as a precious (...) and all too rare social bond, fraught with paradox and ambivalence, and generative of tensions, anxieties, and asymmetries. (shrink)

In Plautus’Mercator, thesenex amatorDemipho lusts after the slave girl Pasicompsa, who is the lover of his son Charinus. Demipho knows nothing about their relationship. He believes that Charinus bought Pasicompsa as a present for his mother while he was trading on Rhodes. In an attempt to gain access to her, Demipho enlists the aid of his elderly neighbour, Lysimachus, who taunts him for his infatuation with such a young woman. Eager to persuade Lysimachus that he is truly in love, (...) Demipho offers to let him cut off his head, finger, ear, nose or lip, or even kill him with love if he is lying about his feelings (308–10):decide collum stanti si falsum loquor;uel, ut scias me amare, cape cultrum, [ac] secadigitum uel aurem uel tu nasum uel labrum:si mouero me seu secari sensero,Lysimache, auctor sum ut me amando enices.This hitherto unrecognized list of penalties for adultery not only sheds light on the nature of Charinus’ relationship with Pasicompsa, but also emphasizes the inappropriateness of Demipho's desire for her. (shrink)

This article argues that the game presented in the third scene of the third act of Plautus’ Asinaria involves a horseplay rather than an assplay (Asin. 697–710). This is suggested by the young master's name, Argyrippus, and by a list of equine terms occurring in the text: uehere, inscendere, descendere, subdomari, tolutim, quadrupedo, aduorsom cliuom, in procliui.

A. Frickenhaus argued that in Plautus’ Pseudolus and Stichus and Terence’s Heauton Timorumenos, Hecyra and Phormio the Latin dramatist was responsible for a third stage-house, whereas the Greek models of these plays had only two, the norm for New Comedy. Frickenhaus’ unjustly neglected arguments are here revived and reinforced. It is also argued that Plautus’ Cistellaria and Trinummus are further cases of the same phenomenon.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Characterization of Hanno in Plautus’ PoenulusGeorge Fredric FrankoPoenulus commands our attention because it is the one specimen of Roman New Comedy in which the main characters are not Greeks. Although the action takes place in the Aetolian city of Calydon, the young lover Agorastocles, his beloved Adelphasium, her sister Anterastilis, and the title character Hanno are all natives of Carthage. While the first three are represented as (...) if they were typical Greeks in Roman comedy, Hanno is represented as patently Punic in his physiognomy, dress, speech, and behavior, making him the earliest extant portrayal of a Carthaginian in Latin literature. Since the Carthaginians were the most formidable and vilified enemies of the Romans, any Roman portrayal of a Carthaginian figure holds our interest. Yet the portrayal of Hanno rouses special interest because he is not a villain. Modern readers familiar with the anti-Punic discourse prevalent throughout Latin literature are continually struck by the “sympathetic” portrayal of this Carthaginian, especially since Poenulus was composed when the Second Punic War was in recent memory. A. S. Gratwick, in his masterly chapter on Roman drama in the Cambridge History of Classical Literature (vol. 2, 94) observed that Hanno’s “portrayal is wholly (if disparately) sympathetic, and there is no trace of xenophobia, although the play was certainly produced within Hannibal’s lifetime.... that Plautus should even have envisaged its successful production tells us something of his authority in the theatre and of the openmindedness of his audience.” Others have seen more than mere sympathy and openmindedness. For example, a review of a recent performance of Poenulus observed that “the play is timely in light of the American university’s recent preoccupation with multiculturalism” and proceeded to make much ado about the sympathetic portrayal of the Carthaginian title character and the magnanimity that such sympathy reveals. The review even saw proof of “Plautus as humanitarian and social commentator” (Frauenfelder, “Plautus non manu”). Certainly the fact that an amiable Carthaginian is portrayed as neither villain nor scapegoat deserves our close attention; however, Poenulus must not be appropriated as an example of benevolent Roman multiculturalism without reflection because while there are indeed cosmopolitan elements in the play there are also powerful images of xenophobia and ethnocentrism. We must not allow our present-day preoccupations with magnanimous pluralism to influence our interpretation of [End Page 425] how the play was understood by a Roman audience. This analysis of Hanno’s characterization will reveal that the attractive aspects of his portrayal are offset by some unsavory ethnic stereotyping.We should not dismiss Hanno’s portrayal as “sympathetic” (whatever one takes that word to mean) without further comment, for his portrayal is far more complex than that, containing strongly positive and strongly negative elements which do not permit encapsulation by such a simple adjective. In fact, there are at least four distinct components or layers of Hanno’s characterization and these components constantly play off of each other. 1) Hanno is first and foremost a senex filling traditional roles in the palliata. He is primarily the father who recovers his lost children, a pater pius like Hegio in Captivi or Daemones in Rudens. He also assumes the role of senex lepidus, like Periplectomenus in Miles, and thus at times he behaves like a servus callidus (Gratwick, “Drama” 110). He is indeed the “master of many roles” (Slater, “Plautine Negotiations” 143). 2) But Hanno is unique because he is our only extant Carthaginian senex and the Roman audience must have viewed him differently from other senes because of his Punic ethnicity. The speaker of the prologue, the slave Milphio, and the soldier Antamoenides draw the audience’s attention to negative stereotypes of Punics and attribute perceived vices in Hanno’s behavior to his non-Greek ethnicity. 3) Although Hanno does display some stereotyped Punic vices, he also manages to display two peculiarly Roman virtues, namely, exemplary pietas and a mastery of Roman law. This is not a mere sidelight but a central issue of the play: Hanno uses Roman strengths, not the expected Punic or servile trickery, to recover his family and achieve a happy ending. 4) Yet Hanno also uses these Roman strengths for frivolous... (shrink)

This paper examines the "Freudian" dimensions of two instances of psycholinguistic performance error in Plautus' comedies, viz., a slip of the tongue in Rudens 422 and a tip-of-the-tongue situation in Trinummus 906–22. In each case, I argue, the error serves as a vehicle for puns and ironic jokes. So understood, novel implications for interpretation, staging, and possible modes of delivery are suggested. An appendix discusses the text of Trinummus 915 and 922.

When Lysidamus arrives on stage in Plautus′ Casina, he delightedly announces that he is in love with the slave girl Casina. He is returning, he says, from an expedition to buy perfume which he hopes has made him appealing to his beloved. Casina′s name is derived from the fragrant spice casia. Cassia and the related spice cinnamon originate in the Far East and were imported to Rome through Arabia or Africa.Like other ancient spices, cassia was used as perfume, condiment, (...) and in medicinal and religious contexts. (shrink)

If Greek New Comedy never presented more than three concurrent speakers, then any scene in the Palliata with four or more concurrent speakers contains renovations. Plautus uses ensemble scenes to underscore lively or dramatically significant symposia, eavesdropping, or family reunions and be-trothals, especially at the finale. Terence uses ensemble scenes more pervasively for shorter, calmer, and less significant episodes. The authorship of the Greek original may influence the extent of ensemble scenes. Plautus probably created ensemble scenes by rearranging (...) entrances and exits and by endowing mute characters with speech, often transforming silent women into important speaking characters. (shrink)

In Plautus’ Mostellaria, the enslaved Tranio covers up the young Philolaches’ purchase of the meretrix Philematium’s freedom by telling Philolaches’ father Theopropides that his son blew a fortune on the house next door. Though Philematium is hidden out of sight for much of the play, her body materializes in the feminizing language through which Tranio, Theopropides, and the owner Simo describe this house. Their conversation at the threshold transforms Theopropides into the literary trope of the meretrix ’s excluded lover (...) and calls to mind both the disempowerment of meretrices through the process of aging and the power they wield through pregnancy. (shrink)

What is the dry garment which Sceparnio offers to the sea-soaked Charmides? First of all, there is doubt about the spelling of the word. The Palatine tradition is tigillum, though T has tixillum; the Ambrosian palimpsest is provokingly defective at this point and Studemund was unable to determine whether the vowel is e or i. Since the beginning of the sixteenth century editors have chosen to print tegillum, being influenced by notes preserved in the collections of two grammarians—Nonius and Paulus. (...) I quote these from Lindsay's Teubner editions. (shrink)

Latin is one of the best documented and most extensively studied of any language: nearly every area has been subject to continued and intense scrutiny, with ideas from recent subfields of linguistics providing a fresh look at some old topics. The Latin future imperative, the form that conveys commands for non-immediate execution, constitutes precisely such a topic in Latin linguistics: from the Roman Imperial period on, students have demarcated the usages, syntax and context-specific features associated with this form; more recently, (...) scholars have applied ideas from various linguistic subfields to achieve new insights. Given that the –toimperative is so well understood, it might come as a surprise to find that some matters pertaining to it are still debated. This paper will address four such contested areas: first, its register ; second, the form's politeness ; third, the temporal scope of the –toimperative ; and fourth, the sensitivity of the form to social factors, that is, to the identity of the speaker and the addressee. (shrink)

Editors and writers on the prosody of Plautus and Terence disagree about the prosody of the final -a in the nominative and vocative of proper names taken from the Greek First Declension. The fact that they are often quoted as examples of syllaba anceps either at the diaeresis of longer iambic lines or at loci Iacobsohniani would seem to imply that they normally scan as Latin First Declension nouns with short -a in the nominative and vocative singular. So R. (...) Kauer in the commentary of his edition of Terence's Andria on line 301 writes ‘die griechischen Eigennamen auf -a —Sosia, Byrria, Chaerea, Phaedria usw.—haben bei Terenz stets kurzes -a’. (shrink)

The phrase ei mihi is used fifteen times by Plautus. On all but one occasion these words introduce a new speaker. The single ‘exception’ is, I suggest, rather an error of transmission. I quote the line in context, Bac. 1171–4 NIC. Ni abeas, quamquam tu bella es, malum tibi magnum dabo iam. BACCH. Patiar, non metuo, ne quid mihi doleat quod ferias. NIC. Ut blandiloquast! ei mihi, metuo. SOR. Hie magis tranquillust. 1173 non – blandiloquast uno versu B 1174 (...) SOROR B: B D. (shrink)

The form of this paper, which has more than one purpose, needs a word of explanation and perhaps of excuse. I had had it in mind to bring together and discuss a number of passages of Plautus in which gratus or gratia occurred. Then I came across an interesting paper by Professor L. R. Palmer in Hommages à Max Miedermann , Bruxelles, 1956, pp. 258–69, entitled ‘The Concept of Social Obligation in Indo-European: A Study in Structural Semantics’. There Palmer (...) dealt, among other things, with gratus and related words; he seemed to me, however, to treat the Latin evidence, the greater part of it from Plautus, in a way which I felt to be mistaken. In addition it seemed that a preconceived theory, derived from a special interpretation of the Mycenean tablets, was being read into Roman thought and institutions against the evidence. I have therefore taken the opportunity to discuss the passages of Plautus in which I was first interested within a general examination of Palmer's treatment of the Latin evidence for his theory. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Feminine Role Designations in the Comedies of PlautusZ. M. PackmanThere is a considerable degree of inconsistency in the role designations applied to female characters in the list of personae published with each of the Plautine comedies in the standard modern editions. My purpose here is to compare these role designations as they appear in modern editions with the designations attested by the scene headings of the manuscripts, identifying and (...) where possible accounting for discrepancies, and to propose, on the one hand, a general reading of the system of female role designations as assigned in the manuscripts, and, on the other, a critique of modifications introduced by modern editors. Editions chiefly referred to are the Oxford Classical Texts and the Teubner and Budé series. 1 For role designations in manuscripts I have depended on the text and apparatus of Friedrich Leo (1895–96) as well as the apparatus of the Budé texts.To begin with the role of matrona: of all characters so designated in the OCT, only one—the nameless wife of the local Menaechmus in Menaechmi—is so called also in both the Teubner and the Budé editions. In other cases, those designated matrona in the OCT are called uxor in the Teubner and the Budé (Alcumena in Amphitryo and Phanostrata in Cistellaria), or, in those same editions, mulier (Eunomia in Aulularia, Cleostrata and Myrrhina in Casina, and Dorippa in Mercator). In one case (Artemona of Asinaria) the OCT’s matrona is also matrona in the Budé, but uxor in the Teubner. Philippa in Epidicus, Philocomasium in Miles Gloriosus, and Palaestra and Ampelisca in Rudens are each called mulier in the Personae of the OCT, Budé, and Teubner—but Telestis in Epidicus, called mulier in the OCT, is identified as virgo in the Budé and Teubner editions. In the one play where the OCT uses the word uxor as a role designation (for the young sisters in Stichus), the same characters are designated sorores in the Teubner, and uxor (singly) and sorores (together) in the Budé. [End Page 245]Where the OCT applies the designation virgo (Phaedria in Aulularia, Planesium in Curculio, and Lucris in Persa), or the designation meretrix (Philaenium in Asinaria; the Bacchises in Bacchides, with the addition of the word sorores; Selenium and Gymnasium in Cistellaria; Erotium in Menaechmi; Pasicompsa in Mercator; Acroteleutium in Miles Gloriosus; Philematium and Delphium in Mostellaria; Lemniselenis in Persa, and Phronesium in Truculentus), the Teubner and the Budé do the same—but in the case of the Poenulus the Personae of the OCT, inconsistently, describes as puellae characters called meretrices in the Teubner and the Budé (Adelphasium and Anterastilis).Like meretrix, the role designation ancilla is relatively stable, and persons so designated in the Personae of the OCT are so called also in the Teubner and the Budé (Bromia in Amphitryo, Pardalisca in Casina, Halisca in Cistellaria, Milphidippa in Miles Gloriosus, Scapha in Mostellaria, Sophoclodisca in Persa, Crocotium and Stephanium in Stichus, and Astaphium in Truculentus, as well as one unnamed character in Menaechmi). In two cases the designation anus stands in all three of the editions under consideration (Staphyla of Aulularia and Leaena of Curculio), and this degree of consistency is observable in other relatively uncommon female roles, like lena (Cleareta in Asinaria, Melaenis and Syra in Cistellaria), fidicina (Acropolistes in Epidicus), and nutrix (Giddenis in Poenulus). Just once the OCT becomes expansive about a character designated ancilla in the Teubner and the Budé: Syra of Truculentus is here called tonstrix (ancilla Phronesii). One character called simply anus in the OCT (Syra in Mercator) is called anus ancilla in the Teubner and the Budé. In the case of Ptolemocratia of Rudens, called sacerdos in the Teubner and the Budé, it is once again the OCT, with sacerdos Veneris, which becomes expansive.By comparison with those assigned to female characters, the role designations of male characters in the Personae of standard editions of Plautus’ comedies are relatively stable. There is absolute consistency among the editions here under consideration with respect to role designations in such occasional types as parasitus, cocus, leno, and miles, and also with the even rarer designations like mercator, danista, and medicus. Some thirty characters are... (shrink)