User talk:SKIDCL310

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Language and Style of Plautus

Overview

The language and style of Plautus is not easy or simple. He wrote in a colloquial style far from the codified form of Latin that is found in Ovid or Virgil. This colloquial style is the everyday speech that Plautus would’ve been familiar with, yet that means that most students of Latin are unfamiliar with it. Adding to the unfamiliarity of Plautine language is the inconsistency of the irregularities that occur in the texts. In one of his prolific word-studies, A.W. Hodgman noted that:

the statements that one meets with, that this or that form is‘common,’or ‘regular,’ in Plautus, are frequently misleading, or even incorrect, and are usually unsatisfying.... I have gained an increasing respect for the manuscript tradition, a growing belief that the irregularities are, after all, in a certain sense regular. The whole system of inflexion- and, I suspect, of syntax also and of versification- was less fixed and stable in Plautus’ time than it became later^[1].

So, it is quite clear that the difficulty of the language and style of Plautus is an old issue, one that fit the bill to be in the first ever issue of The Classical Quarterly. The issue of language and style in the plays of Plautus covers an enormous amount of ground, and it is far too expansive to go into enough detail to do it justice. This glance at Plautine language and style shall briefly try to cover the areas of archaisms, diction, syntax, poetic devices, meter, and the manifestations of the sum of these parts on stage. The purpose of such a task is to inform a first time reader of Plautus of what they should expect in the text. And in turn, this will better the understanding of the material in the collection.

Archaisms

The best place to start then, would be quickly looking at the words that come together to form the plays of Plautus. The most shocking and immediate thing one notices about Plautine diction is the use of archaic Latin forms. Some might find these difficult to understand, but there are a great many possibilities for why we find them in the plays of Plautus. It is important to note, though, that Plautus did not set out to write a play in archaic Latin, using the term “archaic” only comes from our contemporary interpretation of the text. Most scholars seem to note that the plays language is written in a colloquial, everyday speech. M. Hammond, A.H. Mack, and W. Moskalew have noted in their introduction to the text of the Miles Gloriosus that Plautus was, “free from convention... [and that] he sought to reproduce the easy tone of daily speech rather than the formal regularity of oratory or poetry. Hence, many of the irregularities which have troubled scribes and scholars perhaps merely reflect the everyday usages of the careless and untrained tongues which Plautus heard about him”^[2]. Looking at the overall use of archaisms within Plautus, one will notice that they commonly occur in promises, agreements, threats, prologues, or speeches. Plautus uses archaic forms, though sometimes for metrical convenience, but more often for stylistic effect. There are many manifestations of these archaic forms in the texts of Plautus’ plays, in fact too many to completely include them in this article^[3]. Here now, the most regular of irregularities, i.e., archaisms, will be delineated:

• the use of uncontracted forms of some verbs like malo

• the emendation of the final -e of singular imperatives

• the use of -o in some verb stems where it would normally be -e

• the is the use of the -ier ending for the present passive and deponent infinitive

• often the forms of sum are joined to the preceding word

• the deletion of deletion of the final -s and final -e when ne is added to a second singular verb

• the replacement of -u with -o in noun endings

• the use of qu instead of c, as in quom instead of cum

• the use of the -ai genitive singular ending

• the addition of a final -d onto personal pronouns in the accusative or ablative

• there is sometimes the addition of a final -pte, -te, or -met to pronouns

• the use of -is as the nominative plural ending^[4]

These peculiarities are the most common in the plays of Plautus, and their notation should make initial readings a bit easier. Archaic word forms in Plautus reflect the way that his contemporaries interacted. Plautus’ use of colloquial dialogue helps us understand, to a certain extent, how Roman’s would have greeted each other and consequentially responded. For example, there are certain formulaic greetings such as “hello” and “how are you?” that illicit a certain formulaic response such as a returning hello, or answer as to your state of being well. Quid agis here would mean, “How are you?” Other responses are factual and have a less fixed answer. Overall though, archaic forms present the reader with a richer understanding of the Latin language. Means of Expression There are certain ways in which Plautus expressed himself in his plays, and these individual means of expression give a certain flair to his style of writing. The means of expression are not always specific to the writer, i.e., idiosyncratic, yet they are characteristic of the writer. The two examples of these characteristic means of expression are the use of proverbs and the use of Greek language in the plays of Plautus. Plautus employs the use of proverbs in many of his plays. G.L. Beede defines proverbs as sayings currently among the folk. They are fundamentally of popular appeal, employed to drive home a point, to sum up a situation, and to characterize. Many times proverbs will addresses a certain genre such as law, religion, medicine, trades, crafts, and seafaring. Plautus’ proverbs and proverbial expressions number into the hundreds. They sometimes appear alone or interwoven within a speech. The most common appearance of proverbs in Plautus appears to be at the end of a soliloquy. Plautus does this for dramatic effect to emphasize a point. Further interwoven into the plays of Plautus and just as common as the use of proverbs is the use of Greek within the texts of the plays. J.N. Hough suggests that Plautus’ use of Greek is for artistic purposes and not simply because a Latin phrase will not fit the meter. Greek words are used when describing foods, oils, perfumes, etc. This is similar to our use of other languages in the English language such as the words garcon or rendezvous. These words give us a French flair just as the Greek would to the Romans. Slaves or characters of low standing speak much of the Greek. One possible explanation for this is that many Roman slaves would have been foreigners perhaps even speaking Greek.

Poetic Devices

Plautus also used more technical means of expression in his plays. One tool that Plautus used for the expression of his servus callidus stock character was alliteration. Alliteration is the repetition of sounds in a sentence or clause; those sounds usually come at the beginning of words. In the Miles Gloriosus, the servus callidus is Palaestrio. As he speaks with the character, Periplectomenus, he uses a significant amount of alliteration in order to assert his cleverness and, therefore, his authority. Plautus uses phrases such as “falsiloquom, falsicum,falsiiurium” (MG l. 191). These words express the deep and respectable knowledge that Palaestriohas of the Latin language. Alliteration can also happen at the endings of words as well. For example, Palaestrio says, “ linguam, perfidiam, malitiam atque audaciam, confidentiam, confirmitatem, fraudulentiam” (MG ll. 188-9). Also used, as seen above, is the technique of assonance, which is the repetition of similar sounding syllables. Word play is also a technique quite obvious in the plays of Plautus. There are various manifestations of word play in Plautus, but one instance in the Miles Gloriosus is Sceledre, scelus. This example is one of the punning of names in Plautus. Word play figures as an important technique in Plautus because it is fitting for certain characters, especially the clever slave. These poetic devices stand in the text in order to accentuate and emphasize whatever is being said in the text, and it also elevates the artistry of the language.

Meter

Further emphasizing and elevating the artistry of the language of the plays of Plautus is the use of meter, which simply put is the rhythm of the play. There seems to be great debate over whether Plautus found favor in strong word accent or verse ictus, stress. Plautus did not follow the meter of the Greek originals that he adapted for the Roman audience. Plautus used a great number of meters, but most frequently he used the trochaic septenarius. Iambic words, though common in Latin, are difficult to fit in this meter, and naturally occur at the end of verses. G.B. Conte has noted that Plautus favors the use of cantica instead of Greek meters. This vacillation between meter and word stress highlights the fact that Latin literature was still in its infancy, and that there was not yet a standard way to write verse.

Language on Stage

Meter is not the only way in which the poet expressed what he wanted to say. The poet also gave each character a certain way to speak, or perhaps society expected certain stock characters to voice their opinions in certain ways. The servus callidus functioned as the exposition in many of Plautus' plays. According to C. Stace, "slaves in Plautus account for almost twice as much monologue as any other character... [and] this is a significant statistic; most of the monologues being, as they are, for purposes of humor, moralizing, or exposition of some kind, we can now begin to see the true nature of the slave's importance"^[5]. Because humor, vulgarity, and "incongruity" are so much a part of the Plautine comedies, the slave becomes the essential tool to connect the audience to the joke through his monologue and direct connection to the audience. He is, then, not only a source for exposition and understanding, but connection - specifically, connection to the humor of the play, the playfulness of the play. The servus callidus is a character that, as McCarthy says, "draws the complete attention of the audience, and, according to C. Stace, 'despite his lies and abuse, claims our complete sympathy'"^[6]. He does this, according to some scholarship, using monologue, the imperative mood and alliteration - all of which are specific and effective linguistic tools in both writing and speaking.

The specific type of monologue (or soliloquy) in which a Plautine slave engages is the prologue. As opposed to simple exposition, according to N.W. Slater, “these…prologues…have a far more important function than merely to provide information”^[7]. Another way in which the servus callidus asserts his power over the play – specifically the other characters in the play – is through his use of the imperative mood. This is a mood in the Latin language that includes direct statement. In English, sentences such as, “Go!” or “Stay” are in the imperative mood. This type of language is used in order for, according to E. Segal, “the forceful inversion, the reduction of the master to an abject position of supplication…the master-as-suppliant is thus an extremely important feature of the Plautine comic finale”^[8]. The language, the imperative mood is therefore used in the complete role-reversal of the normal relationship between slave and master and “those who enjoy authority and respect in the ordinary Roman world are unseated, ridiculed, while the lowliest members of society mount to their pedestals…the humble are in face exalted”^[9]. This is not only an essential tool for the stock character of the servus callidus but also an essential tool for laughter.

Contents 1 FOOTNOTES 2 Works Cited 3 The Influence and Reception of Plautus 4 Plautus and Shakespeare 5 Early Productions of Plautine Comedies 6 Echoes of Plautine Stock Characters and Plot Devices 7 WORKS 8 Works Cited

[edit] FOOTNOTES

1. ^ A.W. Hodgman. "Verb Forms in Plautus," The Classical Quarterly 1.1(1907), pp. 42-52.
2. ^ Ed. M. Hammond, A.H. Mack, & W. Moskalew, Miles Gloriosus (Cambridge and London, 1997 repr.), pp. 39-57.
3. ^ One should consult the word studies of A.W. Hodgman to grasp fully the use of archaic forms in Plautine diction.
4. ^ I compiled this short list of archaic forms from a number of word studies and syntactic texts listed in the works cited section.
5. ^ C. Stace. "The Slaves of Plautus," Greece and Rome 2.15(1968), pp. 64-77.
6. ^ C. Stace. "The Slaves of Plautus," Greece and Rome 2.15(1968), pp. 64-77.
7. ^ N.W. Slater. Plautus in Performance: The Theatre of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985, p. 152
8. ^ E. Segal. Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968, p. 122
9. ^ E. Segal 1968, p. 136

[edit] Works Cited

• Beede, G.L. “Proverbial Expressions in Plautus,” The Classical Journal 44.6(1949), pp. 357- 362.

• Coleman, R.G.G. “Poetic Diction, Poetic Discourse and the Poetic Register,” in Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry. Ed. J.N. Adams & R.G. Mayer. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 21-96.

• Conte, G.B. Latin Literature: A History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

• Echols, E.C. “The Quid-Greeting in Plautus and Terence,” The Classical Journal

45.4(1950), pp. 188-190.

• Harsh, P.W. “Position of Archaic Forms in the Verse of Plautus,” Classical Philology 35.2(1940), pp. 126-142.

• Hodgman, A.W. “Adjectival Forms in Plautus,” The Classical Review 16.9(1902), pp. 446-452.

• Hodgman, A.W. “Adverbial Forms in Plautus,” The Classical Review 17.6(1903), pp. 296-303.

• Hodgman, A.W. “Noun Declension in Plautus,” The Classical Review 16.6(1902), pp. 294-305.

• Hodgman, A.W. “Verb Forms in Plautus,” The Classical Quarterly 1.1(1907), pp. 42-52.

• Hodgman, A.W. “Verb Forms in Plautus (continued),” The Classical Quarterly 1.2(1907), pp. 97-134.

• Hoffmann, M.E. “Conversation Openings in the Comedies of Plautus,” in Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Ed. H. Pinkster. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1981, pp. 217-226.

• Hough, J.N. “The Development of Plautus’ Art,” Classical Philology 30.1(1935), pp. 43-57.

• Jocelyn, H.D. “Gods, Cult, and Cultic Language in Plautus’ Epidicus,” in Studien zu Plautus’ Epidicus. Ed. U. Auhagen. Tubingen: Narr, 2001, pp. 261-296.

• Lindsay, W.M. The Syntax of Plautus. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2002 repr.

• Lowe, J. C. B. “The Virgo Callida of Plautus, Persa,” The Classical Quarterly 39.2(1989), pp. 390-399

• McCarthy, K. Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

• Moore, T. J. Theater of Plautus: Playing to the Audience. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998.

• Nyman, M.A. “Where Does Latin Sum Come From?,” Language 53.1(1977), pp. 39-60.

• Plautus. Miles Gloriosus. Ed. M. Hammond, A.H. Mack, & W. Moskalew. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997 repr.

• Segal, E. Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.

• Slater, N.W. Plautus In Performance: The Theatre of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.

• Waite, S. “Word Position in Plautus: Interplay of Verse Ictus and Word Stress,” in The Computer in Literary and Linguistic Studies. Ed. A. Jones & R.F. Churchhouse. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976, pp. 92-105.

Mscottknight 05:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC) SKIDCL310 14:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Influence and Reception of Plautus

Despite Plautus being long dead, his influence lives on in such literary giants as Moliere and Shakespeare. The critical reception of Plautus has been much different than his influence on later literature. On one hand, scholarly reception of Plautus has come from viewing the Plautine corpus as crude to something a bit warmer and more complex. On the other hand, Plautus’ influence on later literature is impressive since it has been an influence on two literary giants, Shakespeare and Moliere. When one puts scholarly approach and the literary influence of Plautus together, you can still find pretentiousness and snobbery thwarting contemporary success of the playwright. The downright denigration of Plautus and his influence on two literary giants seems not to fit together. Plautus lived over 2,000 years ago and his memory and imprint on society still lives on. Playwrights throughout history have looked to Plautus for character, plot, humor, and other elements of comedy. His influence ranges from similarities in idea to full literal translations woven into the play. Plautus’ plays, though farcical in nature, are incredibly penetrating in their exploration of character, even if there are few obvious changes between Plautus’ stock characters from play to play. The playwright’s apparent familiarity with the absurdity of humanity and both the comedy and tragedy that stem from this absurdity have inspired his succeeding fellow playwrights centuries after his death. The most famous of these successors is Shakespeare – on whom Plautus had a tremendous amount of influence when it came to the Bard’s earlier comedies.

[edit] Plautus and Shakespeare

Shakespeare does much the same thing as Plautus. Shakespeare takes from Plautus like Plautus took from his Greek models. He has taken someone else’s plot for his own uses. C.L. Barber says that, “Shakespeare feeds Elizabethan life into the mill of Roman farce, life realized with his distinctively generous creativity, very different from Plautus’ tough, narrow, resinous genius”^[1]. So, there seems to have been a growing inclination to use Plautus as time went on, but there has always remained a resistance to him as a playwright. Perhaps one of the most famous plays that Plautine comedy influenced was William Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors. Some argue that the Comedy of Errors was a failed attempt to imitate Plautus’ Menaechmi, but H.A. Watt argues otherwise. In his article “Plautus and Shakespeare: Further Comments on Menaechmi and the Comedy of Errors,” Watt shows that while Comedy of Errors was not Shakespeare’s best work, its failure was not due to his departure from the Menaechmi as some have suggested, but due to insufficient skill in character development as it was one of Shakespeare’s earliest plays.

The Shakespearean comedy most studied for its’ Plautine influence and parallels has been The Comedy of Errors. The Plautus and Shakespeare plays that most parallel each other, according to some modern scholarship, are, respectively, The Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors. In fact, according to Marples, Shakespeare drew directly from Plautus, “parallels in plot, in incident, and in character”^[2] and is undeniably influenced by the classical playwright’s work. Marples even uses the word, “borrower” in reference to not only how Plautus borrowed plots and characters from Menander, but how Shakespeare borrowed plots and characters from Plautus – especially Plautus’ Menaechmi. However, Shakespeare didn’t just “borrow,” but he also amplified some key aspects of Plautus’ play in order to make it more relevant for and more influential over his contemporary audience.

In fact, before one explores the connections between the two plays, H.A. Watt stresses the importance of recognizing the fact that the “two plays were written under conditions entirely different and served audience as remote as the poles”^[3]. The worlds of Plautus and Shakespeare were entirely different and it is important to keep this in mind when comparing and contrasting their work, but despite such different worlds, their work was remarkably similar and equally relevant for their respective audiences as some things are eternally funny, such as the clever slave outwitting the boorish master.

The nature of the differences between The Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors is undeniable. In The Menaechmi, Plautus uses only one set of twins – twin servants. Shakespeare, on the other hand, uses two sets of twins, which, according to William Connolly, “dilutes the force of [Shakespeare’s] situations”^[4]. This speaks to the idea that Shakespeare took his play “to a new level” in many different aspects. The number of twins is the most prominent. As a result of such modifications of Plautine comedy, Shakespeare succeeds in creating a comedy that is not only Plautine but also Shakespearean.

As a way to show that Shakespeare has a comedic category of fusion between Elizabethan and Plautine techniques, T.W. Baldwin writes, “…Errors does not have the miniature unity of Menaechmi, which is characteristic of classic structure for comedy”^[5]. Baldwin discusses the importance in noting that Shakespeare covers a much greater area in the structure of the actual play than Plautus ever does. This is also a result of Shakespeare’s audience because he was writing for an audience whose minds weren’t necessarily focused on house and home but also on the greater world around them and the role that they might have played in that world. Another characteristic of Shakespeare’s audience that is certainly different from the audience of Plautus is that Shakespeare’s audience was dominantly Christian. It was important for Shakespeare to acknowledge this in his writing. So, at the end of Errors, the world of the play is returned to normal when a Christian abbess interferes with the feuding. Menaechmi, on the other hand according to Niall Rudd, “is almost completely lacking in a supernatural dimension”^[6]. Rudd says that a character in Plautus’ play would never blame an inconvenient situation on witchcraft – something that is quite common in Shakespeare.

However, regardless of the differences between the two plays, Shakespeare was clearly influenced by Plautus’ work. He used many of the same elements. He used the same type of characters as well as the ever important Plautine idea of the slave versus his master. He used the same type of humor (adjusted for the time) and pushed boundaries in the way that Plautus did, an example of which being the clever slave managing to undo all the chaos created by farcical plot situations, most often a mistaken identity. It is, in the end, an acknowledgement of the brilliance and timelessness of Plautus’ work. Shakespeare, although his play is significantly different from Plautus’ Menaechmi, is a continuation of the playwrighting tradition in general. He in no way tried discredit the work of Plautus, but simply built on what had existed before him. Although he did rely heavily on Plautus’ work for his first comedy, Shakespeare eventually departed from a form of translation to a combination of Plautine devices and facets of Elizabethan drama.

Watt argues that Shakespeare’s departure from the Menaechmi is because Shakespeare takes his influence not only from Plautus, but also from Elizabethan drama. The Menaechmi already has one set of twins, and Shakespeare adds the servant twins as well. One suggestion is that Shakespeare got this idea from Plautus’ Amphitruo, in which both twin masters and twin slaves appear. Another is that the doubling is just a stock situation of Elizabethan comedy (not just Shakespeare). The relationship between a master and a clever slave is also a common element in Elizabethan comedy. Again looking to Elizabethan comedy, Shakespeare often includes foils for his characters to have one set off the other. Another Shakespearian theme stems from Elizabethan romantic comedy. In this genre it is common for the plays to end with many marriages and couplings of pairs. This is something that is not seen in Plautine comedy. In the Comedy of Errors Aegeon and Aemilia are separated, Antipholus and Luciana are at outs, and Antipholus and Luciana have not yet met. At the end of the day, all the couples are happily together. These couplings are something that Plautus would not have dealt with. By writing his comedies in a combination of Elizabethan and Plautine styles, Shakespeare helps to create his own brand of comedy, one that uses both styles. Watt concludes that Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors is not his best and this is due to lack of characterization. Here Plautus succeeds, as he has much more characterization in his comedy. The Comedy of Errors should not be looked at as a failed copy of the Menaechmi, but as a Shakespearian hybrid of Plautine and Elizabethan comedy^[7].

[edit] Early Productions of Plautine Comedies

Although a great influence on Shakespeare, Plautine comedies were translated and performed before Shakespeare’s time. W.B. Sedgwick gives us a record, as we know it, of the Amphitruo, perhaps one of Plautus’ most famous works throughout history. It was the most popular Plautine play in the Middle Ages, publicly performed at the Renaissance, and the first Plautine play to be translated into English. As well as having renaissance versions of Plautus’ work, the Elizabethans also knew of Plautus. There is evidence of imitation in Edwardes’ Damon and Pythias, Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors, and Heywood’s Silver Age. Heywood sometimes even translated whole passages of Plautus. By being translated as well as imitated, Plautus is a major influence on comedy of the Elizabethan era and the Middle Ages, as can be seen in the Stonyhurst Pageants.

By looking to the Middle Ages and the entertainment typical of its day, H.W. Cole discusses the influence of Plautus and Terence on the Stonyhurst Pageants. The Stonyhurst Pageants are manuscripts of Old Testament plays that were probably composed after 1609 in Lancashire. Cole focuses on Plautus’ influence on the particular Pageant of Naaman. The playwright of this pageant breaks away from the traditional style of religious medieval drama and relies heavily on the works of Plautus. Overall, the playwright cross-references eighteen of the twenty surviving plays of Plautus and five of the six Terence ones. It is clear that the author of the Stonyhurst Pageant of Naaman had a great knowledge of Plautus and was significantly influenced by this^[8]. As well as being performed in the early 1600’s, Plautus’ plays and their influence goes back to even the early 1500’s.

Even though few records of the plays of the 1500’s exist, Bradner discusses the first known university production of Plautus in England. Although uncertain, through the limited records we can guess that this first production was of Miles Gloriosus at Oxford in 1522. The earliest recorded performance of a Plautine play comes from the magnum jornale of Queens College which contains a reference to a comoedia Plauti in either 1522 or 1523. This fits directly with comments made in the poems of Leland about the date of the production. The next production of Miles Gloriosus that we know of from limited records, was given by the Westminster School in 1564^[9]. Other records also tell us about performances of the Menaechmi. From our knowledge, performances were given in the house of Cardinal Wolsey by boys of St. Paul’s School as early as 1527^[10]. From this we can determine that Plautus had a lasting influence on comedy throughout history. His influence ranges from little known plays such as the Stonyhurst Pageants to greats such as Shakespeare. By having such a wide range of influenced writers, Plautus lives on in others’ works.

[edit] Echoes of Plautine Stock Characters and Plot Devices

As well as passing on his plots, Plautus passed on stock characters and plot devices. Not that Plautus created the stock characters, such as the clever slave and the parasite, not that he created the pun or wordplays, but with the similar plots, it is easy to see where later authors got their inspiration for plots and stock characters and plot devices.

One of the most important echoes of Plautus is the stock character of the parasite, which appears in many of Plautus’ plays and goes on to achieve fame in the work of better known literary giants. Certainly the best example of this is Falstaff, the portly and cowardly knight who appears in three different Shakespeare plays. As J.W. Draper notes, the gluttonous Falstaff shares many characteristics with a parasite such as Artotrogus from Miles Gloriosus. Both characters seem fixated on food and where their next meal is coming from – Falstaff’s great girth and his constant call for food, for instance, echo the pleasure Artotrogus takes in a certain kind of olive spread. But they also rely on flattery in order to gain these gifts, and both characters are willing to bury their patrons in empty praise^[11]. Of course, Draper notes that Falstaff is also something of a boastful military man, but notes, “Falstaff is so complex a character that he may well be, in effect, a combination of interlocking types”^[12]. And while Shakespeare obviously had a knowledge of Latin literature, the parasite was so common in European drama at the time that he could have, in fact, not have been influenced directly by Plautus but instead received this stock character third-hand^[13].

As well as appearing in Shakespearean comedy, the Plautine parasite appears in one of the first English comedies, Ralph Roister Doister. In Ralph Roister Doister, the character of Matthew Merrygreeke follows in the tradition of both Plautine Parasite and Plautine slave, as he both searches and grovels for food and also attempts to achieve his master’s desires^[14]. Indeed, the play itself is often seen as borrowing heavily from or even being based on the Plautine comedy Miles Gloriosus^[15]. Plautus obviously became the same kind of representative of earlier comedy that he himself found in Menander; as one of the most proficient examples of an older style of comedy who became a kind of gold mine for newer writers.

In terms of plot, or perhaps more accurately plot device, the method of conveying his plot, Plautus served as a source of inspiration and also provided the possibility of adaptation for later playwrights. The many deceits that Plautus layered his plays with, giving the audience the feeling of a genre bordering on farce, appear in much of the comedy written by Shakespeare and Moliere. For instance, the clever slave, which is also a Plautine stock character, has important roles in both L’Avare and L’Etoudri, two plays by Moliere, and in both drives the plot and creates the rouse just like Palaestrio in Miles Gloriosus^[16]. These similar characters set up the same kind of deceptions in which many of Plautus’ plays find their driving force, and it is not a simple coincidence.

Beyond this, Shakespeare has many other Plautine elements appear in his work: he uses the same kind of opening monologue so common in Plautus’ plays and includes many Greek names and places, to mention a few of such Plautine elements. He even uses a “villain” in The Comedy of Errors of the same type as the one in Menaechmi, switching the character from a doctor to a teacher but keeping the character a shrewd, educated man^[17]. While Watt also notes that this is one of Shakespeare’s least successful plays, it is clear that some of these elements appear in many of his works, such as Twelfth Night or A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and had a deep impact on Shakespeare’s writing^[18]. Even though Plautus’ influence did not make the first Shakespearean comedy a success, Plautine stock characters do make later Shakespearean comedies successful.

It is in many ways fitting that Plautus became such a source for writers of any age to look at for inspiration, considering his own reference to the New Comedy works of Greece. Many of his tropes have become so commonplace, or so frequently used, that most people wouldn’t even realize the true source of the technique. His popularity in Elizabethan England clearly had a hand in this, as one of the greatest writers of that or any time, Shakespeare found it fit to borrow from Plautus’ writing for his own plays. Like Plautus, he was able to take certain elements, work with them, and create something very original and very fitting for his own time. It is to Plautus’ great credit that his work has remained so influential and accessible in a future that is so different from his own time. It is clear that Plautus was a poet who had many direct influences, such as the Greek author Menander and various other writers of New Comedy. In fact many have written off Plautus as simply a talented translator, but Plautus imbued his work with his own original genius and he himself went on to influence writers hundreds of years in the future. His use of stock character, deceptions, and farce all trickled down from playwright to playwright, appearing in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and 17th Century France.

[edit] WORKS

1. ^ C.L. Barber, C.L. “Shakespearian Comedy in the Comedy of Errors,” College English 25.7(1964), p. 493.
2. ^ Marples, M. “Plautus.” Greece & Rome 8.22 (1938), p. 2.
3. ^ Watt, H. A. 1925. “Plautus and Shakespeare: Further Comments on Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors.” CJ 20:401-407.
4. ^ Watt, H. A. 1925. “Plautus and Shakespeare: Further Comments on Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors.” CJ 20:401-407.
5. ^ Baldwin, T.W. 1965. On the Compositional Genetics of The Comedy of Errors. Urbana, IL. Chapter 14, “Compositional Method of Analysis and Synthesis upon Menaechmi,” 200-209.
6. ^ Rudd, N. 1994. The Classical Tradition in Operation. Toronto. Chapter 2, “Shakespeare and Plautus,” 32-60.
7. ^ H.A. Watt. “Plautus and Shakespeare, Further Comments on Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors,” The Classical Journal 20.7(1925),pp. 401-407.
8. ^ H.W. Cole. “The Influence of Plautus and Terrence Upon the Stonyhurst Pageants,” Modern Language Notes 38.7 (1923),pp. 393-399.
9. ^ L. Bradner.“The First Cambridge Production of Miles Gloriosus. Modern Language Notes, 70.6 (1955),pp. 400-403.
10. ^ Cole, H. W. 1923. “The Influence of Plautus and Terence Upon the Stonyhurst Pageants.” Modern Language Notes 38:393-399.
11. ^ Draper, John W. 1938. “Falstaff and the Plautine Parasite.” CJ 33:390-401.
12. ^ Draper, J. W. 1938. “Falstaff and the Plautine Parasite.” CJ 33:390-401.
13. ^ Draper, John W. 1938. “Falstaff and the Plautine Parasite.” CJ 33:390-401.
14. ^ Draper, J. W. 1938. “Falstaff and the Plautine Parasite.” CJ 33:390-401.
15. ^ Cole, H. W. 1923. “The Influence of Plautus and Terence Upon the Stonyhurst Pageants.” Modern Language Notes 38:393-399.
16. ^ Cole, S. V. 1921. “Plautus Up-to-Date.” CJ 16:399-409.
17. ^ Watt, H. A. 1925. “Plautus and Shakespeare: Further Comments on Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors.” CJ 20:401-407.
18. ^ Watt, H. A. 1925. “Plautus and Shakespeare: Further Comments on Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors.” CJ 20:401-407.

[edit] Works Cited

Baldwin, T.W. 1965. On the Compositional Genetics of The Comedy of Errors. Urbana, IL. Chapter 14, “Compositional Method of Analysis and Synthesis upon Menaechmi,” 200-209.

Barber, C.L. “Shakespearian Comedy in the Comedy of Errors,” College English 25.7(1964), pp. 493-497.

Bradner, Leicester. (1955, June). The First Cambridge Production of Miles Gloriosus. Modern Language Notes, 70 (6), 400-403.

Cole, Helen Wieand. 1923. “The Influence of Plautus and Terence Upon the Stonyhurst Pageants.” Modern Language Notes 38:393-399.

Cole, Samuel Valentine. 1921. “Plautus Up-to-Date.” CJ 16:399-409.

Draper, John W. 1938. “Falstaff and the Plautine Parasite.” CJ 33:390-401.

Marples, Morris. 1938. “Plautus.” Greece & Rome. 8:1-7.

Rudd, Niall. 1994. The Classical Tradition in Operation. Toronto. Chapter 2, "Shakespeare and Plautus,” 32-60.

Sedgwick, W.B. (1997, July 1927). The History of a Latin Comedy. The Review of English Studies,, 3 (11), 346-349.

Watt, H. A. 1925. “Plautus and Shakespeare: Further Comments on Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors.” CJ 20:401-407.

Wiles, D. “Recent Critical Approaches to Plautus,” in Farce. Ed. J. Redmond. Cambridge 1988. pp. 261-272.

Wymer, Rowland. (2004). Shakespeare and the Mystery Cycles. English Literary Renaissance, 34 (3), 265-285.

ed. Cbahlman;

• Anderson, W. S., Barbarian Play: Plautus’ Roman Comedy (Toronto, 1993).

• Anderson, W.S., "The Roman Transformation of Greek Domestic Comedy," The Classical World 88.3 (1995), pp. 171-180.

• Arnott, W. G., "A Note on the Parallels between Menander’s ‘Dyskolos’ and Plautus’ ‘Aulularia," Phoenix 18.3 (1964), pp. 232-237.

• Castellani, V., "Plautus Versus Komoidia: Popular Farce at Rome," in Farce, Ed. J. Redmond (Cambridge and New York, 1988), pp. 53-82.

• Connors, C., "Monkey Business: Imitation, Authenticity, and Identity from Pithekoussai to Plautus," Classical Antiquity 23.2 (2004), pp. 179-207.

• Dorey, T.A, and Donald R. Dudley, eds., Roman Drama, (New York, 1965).

• Fantham, E., "The Curculio of Plautus: An Illustration of Plautine Methods in Adaptation," The Classical Quarterly 15.1 (1965), pp. 84-100.

• Halporn, J., "Roman Comedy and Greek Models," in Theater and Society in the Classical World, ed. Ruth Scodel ((Ann Arbor, 1993), pp. 191-213.

• Lloyd, R. F., "Two Prologues: Menander and Plautus," The American Journal of Philology 84.2 (1963, April), pp. 146-161.

• Lowe, J.C.B., "Aspects of Plautus’ Originality in the Asinaria," The Classical

Quarterly 42 (1992), pp. 152-175.

• Marples, M., "Plautus," Greece & Rome 8.22 (1938, October), pp. 1-7.

• Owens, W. M., "The Third Deception in Bacchides: Fides and Plautus'

Originality," The American Journal of Philology 115 (1994), pp. 381-407.

• Prescott, H.W., "Criteria of Originality in Plautus," Transactions and Proceedings

of the American Philological Association 63 (1932), pp. 103-125.

• Seaman, W.M., "The Understanding of Greek by Plautus’ Audience," Classical

Journal 50 (1954), pp. 115-119.

• Stace, C., "The Slaves of Plautus," Greece & Rome 15 (1968), pp. 64-77.

• Sutton, D. F., Ancient Comedy: The War of the Generations (New York, 1993).

SKIDCL310 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)