Chapter II: Introduction

Little is known of the life of Titus Maccius Plautus. He was born about 255 B.C. at Sarsina, in Umbria; it is said that he went to Rome at an early age, worked at a theatre, saved some money, lost it in a mercantile venture, returned to Rome penniless, got employment in a mill and wrote, during his leisure hours, three plays. These three plays were followed by many more than the twenty extant, most of them written, it would seem, in the latter half of his life, and all of them adapted from the comedies of various Greek dramatists, chiefly of the New Comedy.[15] Adaptations rather than translations they certainly were. Apart from the many allusions in his comedies to customs and conditions distinctly Roman, there is evidence enough in Plautus’s language and style that he was not a close translator. Modern translators who have struggled vainly to reproduce faithfully in their own tongues, even in prose, the countless puns and quips, the incessant alliteration and assonance in the Latin lines, would be the last to admit that Plautus, writing so much, writing in verse, and writing with such careless, jovial, exuberant ease, was nothing but a translator in the narrow sense of the term.

Very few of his extant comedies can be dated, so far as the year of their production in Rome is concerned, with any great degree of certainty. _The Miles Gloriosus_ appeared about 206, the _Cistellaria_ about 202, _Stichus_ in 200, _Pseudolus_ in 191 B.C.; the _Truculentus_, like _Pseudolus_, was composed when Plautus was an old man, not many years before his death in 184 B.C.

Welcome as a full autobiography of Plautus would be, in place of such scant and tasteless biographical morsels as we do have, only less welcome, perhaps, would be his own stage directions for his plays, supposing him to have written stage directions and to have written them with something more than even modern fullness. We should learn how he met the stage conventions and limitations of his day; how successfully he could, by make-up and mannerism, bring on the boards palpably different persons in the Scapins and Bobadils and Doll Tear-sheets that on the printed page often seem so confusingly similar, and most important, we should learn precisely what sort of dramatist he was and wished to be.

If Plautus himself greatly cared or expected his restless, uncultivated, fun-seeking audience to care, about the construction of his plays, one must criticize him and rank him on a very different basis than if his main, and often his sole, object was to amuse the groundlings. If he often took himself and his art with hardly more seriousness than does the writer of the vaudeville skit or musical comedy of to-day, if he often wished primarily to gain the immediate laugh, then much of Langen’s long list of the playwright’s dramatic delinquencies is somewhat beside its intended point.

And in large measure this--to hold his audience by any means--does seem to have been his ambition: if the joke mars the part, down with the part; if the ludicrous scene interrupts the development of the plot, down with the plot. We have plenty of verbal evidence that the dramatist frequently chose to let his characters become caricatures; we have some verbal evidence that their “stage business” was sometimes made laughably extravagant; in many cases it is sufficiently obvious that he expected his actors to indulge in grotesqueries, well or ill timed, no matter, provided they brought guffaws. It is probable, therefore, that in many other cases, where the tone and “stage business” are not as obvious, where an actor’s high seriousness might elicit catcalls, and burlesque certainly would elicit chuckles, Plautus wished his players to avoid the catcalls.

This is by no means the universal rule. In the writer of the _Captivi_, for instance, we are dealing with a dramatist whose aims are different and higher. Though Lessing’s encomium of the play is one to which not all of us can assent, and though even the _Captivi_ shows some technical flaws, it is a work which must be rated according to the standards we apply to a _Minna von Barnhelm_ rather than according to those applied to a _Pinafore_: here, certainly, we have comedy, not farce.

But whatever standards be applied to his plays their outstanding characters, their amusing situations, their vigour and comicality of dialogue remain. Euclio and Pyrgopolynices, the straits of the brothers Menaechmus and the postponement of Argyrippus’s desires, the verbal encounter of Tranio and Grumio, of Trachalio and the fishermen-- characters, situations, and dialogues such as these should survive because of their own excellence, not because of modern imitations and parallels such as Harpagon and Parolles, the misadventures of the brothers Antipholus and Juliet’s difficulties with her nurse, the remarks of Petruchio to the tailor, of Touchstone to William.

Though his best drawn characters can and should stand by themselves, it is interesting to note how many favourite personages in the modern drama and in modern fiction Plautus at least prefigures. Long though the list is, it does not contain a large proportion of thoroughly respectable names: Plautus rarely introduces us to people, male or female, whom we should care to have long in the same house with us. A real lady seldom appears in these comedies, and--to approach a paradox--when she does she usually comes perilously close to being no lady; the same is usually true of the real gentleman. The generalization in the Epilogue of _The Captives_ may well be made particular: “Plautus finds few plays such as this which make good men better.” Yet there is little in his plays which makes men--to say nothing of good men--worse. A bluff Shakespearean coarseness of thought and expression there often is, together with a number of atrocious characters and scenes and situations. But compared with the worst of a Congreve or a Wycherley, compared with the worst of our own contemporary plays and musical comedies, the worst of Plautus, now because of its being too revolting, now because of its being too laughable, is innocuous. His moral land is one of black and white, mostly black, without many of those really dangerous half-lights and shadows in which too many of our present day playwrights virtuously invite us to skulk and peer and speculate.

Comparatively harmless though they are, the translator has felt obliged to dilute certain phrases and lines.

The text accompanying his version is that of Leo, published by Weidmann, 1895-96. In the few cases where he has departed from this text brief critical notes are given; a few changes in punctuation have been accepted without comment. In view of the wish of the Editors of the Library that the text pages be printed without unnecessary defacements, it has seemed best to omit the lines that Leo brackets as un-Plautine[16]: attention is called to the omission in each case and the omitted lines are given in the note; the numbering, of course, is kept unchanged. Leo’s daggers and asterisks indicating corruption and lacunae are omitted, again with brief notes in each case.

The translator gladly acknowledges his indebtedness to several of the English editors of the plays, notably to Lindsay, and to two or three English translators, for a number of phrases much more happily turned by them than by himself: the difficulty of rendering verse into prose-- if one is to remain as close as may be to the spirit and letter of the verse, and at the same time not disregard entirely the contributions made by the metre to gaiety and gravity of tone--is sufficient to make him wish to mitigate his failure by whatever means. He is also much indebted to Professors Charles Knapp, K.C.M. Sills, and F.E. Woodruff for many valuable suggestions.

Brunswick, Me.,

September, 1913.

[Footnote 15: The _Asinaria_ was adapted from the Ὀναγὸς of
Demophilus; the _Casina_ from the Κληρούμενοι, the _Rudens_ from
an unknown play, perhaps the Πήρα, of Diphilus; the _Stichus_, in
part, from the Ἀδελφοί ά of Menander. Menander’s Δὶς ἐξαπατῶν
was probably the source of the _Bacchides_, while the _Aulularia_
and _Cistellaria_ probably were adapted from other plays (titles
unknown) by Menander. The _Mercator_ and _Trinummus_ are adaptations
of Philemon’s Ἐμπορος and Θησαυρός, the _Mostellaria_ very
possibly is an adaptation of his Φάσμα, the _Amphitruo_, perhaps,
an adaptation of his Νὺξ μακρά.]

[Footnote 16: It seemed best to make no exceptions to this rule;
even such a line as Bacchides 107 is therefore omitted. Cf. Lindsay,
_Classical Quarterly_, 1913, pp. 1, 2, Havet, _Classical Quarterly_,
1913, pp. 120, 121.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

_Principal Editions:_
Merula, Venice, 1472; the first edition.
Camerarius, Basel, 1552.
Lambinus, Paris, 1576; with a commentary.
Pareus, Frankfurt, 1619, 1623, and 1641.
Gronovius, Leyden, 1664-1684.
Bothe, Berlin, 1809-1811.
Ritschl, Bonn, 1848-1854; a most important edition; contains only
nine plays.
Goetz, Loewe, and Schoell, Leipzig, 1871-1902; begun by Ritschl,
as a revision and continuation of the previous edition.
Ussing, Copenhagen, 1875-1892; with a commentary.
Leo, Berlin, 1895-1896.
Lindsay, Oxford, 1904-1905.
Goetz and Schoell. Leipzig, 1892-1904.

_English Translations:_
Thornton, and others, London, second edition, 1769-1774; in blank
verse.
Sugden, London, 1893; the first five plays, in the original metres.

_General:_
Ritschl, _Parerga_, Leipzig, 1845; _Neue plautinische
Excurse_, Leipzig, 1869.
Müller, _Plautinische Prosodie_, Berlin, 1869.
Reinhardstoettner (Karl von), _Spätere Bearbeitungen
plautinischer Lustspiele_, Leipzig, 1886.
Langen, _Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung des Plautus_,
Leipzig, 1880; _Plautinische Studien_, Berlin, 1886.
Sellar, _Roman Poets of the Republic_, Oxford, third edition,
1889, pp. 153-203.
Skutsch, _Forschungen zur lateinischen Grammatik und Metrik_,
Leipzig, 1892.
Leo, _Plautinische Forschungen_, Berlin, 1895; second
edition, 1912; _Die plautinischen Cantica und die
hellenistische Lyrik_, Berlin, 1897.
Lindsay, _Syntax of Plautus_, Oxford, 1907.

PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS

Ambrosianus palimpsestus (A), 4th century.
Palatinus Vaticanus (B), 10th century.
Palatinus Heidelbergensis (C), 11th century.
Vaticanus Ursinianus (D), 11th century.
Leidensis Vossianus (V), 12th century.
Ambrosianus (E), 12th century.
Londinensis (J), 12th century.

P = the supposed archetype of BCDVEJ.

SOME ANNOTATED EDITIONS OF PLAYS IN THE FIRST VOLUME

_Amphitruo_, A. Palmer 1890.
_Asinaria_, Gray; Cambridge, University Press, 1894.
_Aulularia_, Wagner; London, George Bell & Sons, 1878.
_Captivi_, Brix; 6th edition, revised by Niemeyer; Leipzig,
Teubner, 1910.
_Captivi_, Sonnenschein; London, W. Swan Sonnenschein &
Allen, 1880.
_Captivi_, W.M. Lindsay 1900.

* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *

AMPHITRUO

AMPHITRYON

* * * * *

ARGVMENTVM I[1]

ARGUMENT OF THE PLAY (I)

[Footnote 1: None of the Arguments prefixed to the plays is by Plautus.
Their date is disputed, the acrostics having been written during the
first century B.C., perhaps, the non acrostics later.]

In faciem versus Amphitruonis Iuppiter,
dum bellum gereret cum Telobois hostibus,
Alcmenam uxorem cepit usurariam.
Mercurius formam Sosiae servi gerit
absentis: his Alcmena decipitur dolis.
postquam rediere veri Amphitruo et Sosia,
uterque deluduntur in mirum modum.
hinc iurgium, tumultus uxori et viro,
donec cum tonitru voce missa ex aethere
adulterum se Iuppiter confessus est. 10

While Amphitryon was engaged in a war with his foes, the
Teloboians, Jupiter assumed his appearance and took the loan
of his wife, Alcmena. Mercury takes the form of an absent
slave, Sosia, and Alcmena is deceived by the two impostors.
After the real Amphitryon and Sosia return they both are
deluded in extraordinary fashion. This leads to an
altercation and quarrel between wife and husband, until
there comes from the heavens, with a peal of thunder,
the voice of Jupiter, who owns that he has been the
guilty lover.

ARGVMENTVM II

ARGUMENT OF THE PLAY (II)

*A*more captus Alcumenas Iuppiter
*M*utavit sese in formam eius coniugis,
*P*ro patria Amphitruo dum decernit cum hostibus.
*H*abitu Mercurius ei subservit Sosiae.
*I*s advenientis servum ac dominum frustra habet.
*T*urbas uxori ciet Amphitruo, atque invicem
*R*aptant pro moechis. Blepharo captus arbiter
*V*ter sit non quit Amphitruo decernere.
*O*mnem rem noscunt. geminos Alcumena enititur.[2]

Jupiter, being seized with love for Alcmena, changed his
form to that of her husband, Amphitryon, while he was doing
battle with his enemies in defence of his country. Mercury,
in the guise of Sosia, seconds his father and dupes both
servant and master on their return. Amphitryon storms at his
wife: charges of adultery, too, are bandied back and forth
between him and Jupiter. Blepharo is appointed arbiter, but
is unable to decide which is the real Amphitryon. They
learn the whole truth at last, and Alcmena gives birth
to twin sons.

PERSONAE

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

MERCVRIVS DEUS
SOSIA SERVUS
IVPPITER DEUS
ALCVMENA MATRONA
AMPHITRVO DUX
BLEPHARO GUBERNATOR
BROMIA ANCILLA

MERCURY, _a god._
SOSIA, _slave of Amphitryon._
JUPITER, _a god._
ALCMENA, _wife of Amphitryon._
AMPHITRYON, _commander-in-chief of the Theban army._
BLEPHARO, _a pilot._
BROMIA, _maid to Alcmena._

_Scaena Thebis._

_Scene:--Thebes. A street before Amphitryon’s house._

PROLOGVS[3]