But Ambivius' potations resulted in an extremely spirited and lifelike imitation of the parasite character and he was forthwith forgiven his drunkenness.

Pa.s.sing mention must be made of the Terentian Mss. ill.u.s.trations, though they add but little weight to the foregoing. For a complete list of their sources and editions see Sittl, "Gebarden der Griechen und Romer," Chap.

XI, p. 203 ff.[83] But whatever be the exact date of the original, in our extant copies the old traditional gestures are lost and the gesture of everyday life supplied. In fact, in the a.n.a.lyses appended by Leo, van Wageningen and Warnecke, in the works cited above, we arrive at little but that the gestures natural to any Italian-born person in a like situation are reproduced, such as "gestus abeuntis, cogitantis, parasiti," etc. It is almost too much to make any of this a basis for argument as to cla.s.sical and pre-cla.s.sical stage-craft. It is at least significant that every character with hands free is gesticulating and the scene from _Eun._ IV. 6-7 is evidently full of vigorous action.

An old and discursive article[84] by T. Baden, containing a description and a.n.a.lysis of the gestures and posture of a number of familiar figures from comedy exemplified in some collections of statuettes (chiefly those in Borgia's Museum of Baden's time), is open to the same objection as the above. The gestures of slave, pander, parasite, etc., described in the article are lively and expressive to be sure, but contain little to differentiate them from those of daily life.

While much of our evidence is still to come, we believe that we are already justified in the deduction that the actor contemporary with Plautus must have indulged in the extravagances of the players in the Atellan farces and the mimes. The _mimus_ of the Empire, we know, specialized in ridiculous facial contortions.[85]

We must not forget too the vivacity indicated by the comic scenes among the Pompeian and Herculanean wall-paintings,[86] which have a close kinship with the Terentian MSS. pictures. Nor must we lose sight of the fact that all our pictorial _reliquiae_ portray the later masked characters, and hence play of feature, which must have been a notable concomitant of the original Plautine performance, is entirely obscured.

As our intention is fundamentally to get at the original intent of our poet and his actors, a discussion of the mask is not in order. Whether we agree with Donatus' statement that masks were first introduced for comedy and tragedy by Cincius Faliscus and Minucius Prothymus respectively,[87]

or with Diomedes' explanation[88] that Roscius adopted them to disguise his p.r.o.nounced squint, it is certain that they were not worn in Plautus'

time, when wigs and make-up were employed for characterization.[89] In fact, the early performances of Plautus, unless we except the original Terentian productions, stand almost alone in the history of Graeco-Roman comedy as unmasked plays. This would give opportunity for the practice of lively grimace and facial play.

The text itself contains not infrequent descriptions of the outward appearance of the characters, often pointing to grotesqueries of make-up that rival those of the Old Comedy. From _As._ 400-1 we learn that Saurea was:

Macilentis malis, rufulus, aliquantum ventriosus, Truculentis oculis, commoda statura, tristi fronte.

In the _Mer._ Lysimachus is described as a veritable _thensaurus mali_ (639-40):

Canum, varum, ventriosum, buculentum, breviculum, Subnigris oculis, oblongis malis, pansam aliquantulum.

Curculio was one-eyed: "Unocule, salve" (Cur. 392). Pseudolus must have been a joy to the groundlings _(Ps._ 1218 ff.):

Rufus quidam, ventriosus, cra.s.sis suris, subniger, Magno capite, acutis oculis, ore rubicundo, admodum Magnis pedibus. BA. Perdidisti, ut nominavisti pedes.

Pseudolus fuit ipsus.

His red slave's wig is thus made a feature in the characterization.

(Cf. Ter. _Phor._ 51). When Trachalio is looking for the procurer, he inquires (_Rud._ 316 ff.):

Ecquem Recalvom ad Silanum senem, statutum, ventriosum, Tortis superciliis, contracta fronte...?[90]

The precise details of the histrionic technique and "stage business" in vogue must remain more or less a mystery to us. Our limitations in this respect are admirably enunciated by Saunders (TAPA. XLIV, p. 97): "One must conclude then, that it is dangerous to dogmatize on this subject, as on most others connected with the early Roman stage. Our evidence is too slight and the period of time involved is too long...." We can, therefore, deal in little but generalities. The Romans must have imitated and developed their Greek and Etruscan models.[91] When Livius Andronicus first fathered _palliatae_, he must have chosen the New Comedy not only as the type of drama most available to him, but as wholly adaptable to his audiences. When Plautus wrote, he had the machinery already built for him, and he doubtless seized upon the _palliata_ form as the natural medium for the exploitation of his talents. By Cicero's time considerable technical equipment was required; the actor must be an adept in gesticulation, gymnastic and dancing.[92] Appreciable refinement had been reached in Quintilian's age, for he scores the comic actor who departs too far from reality and p.r.o.nounces the ideal player him who declaims with a measured artistic heightening of everyday discourse.[93] It is noteworthy that this practically coincides with the accepted standard of modern realistic acting. But the Plautine actor could never have felt himself trammeled by any such narrow and sophisticated restrictions, as we believe the evidence acc.u.mulated above amply proves. At any rate, the delineation of different roles must have been at all times strictly in character. The need of feminine vocal tones, unless another jest is intended is indicated by _Rud._ 233:

Certe vox muliebris auris tetigit meas.

And Quintilian admonishes the youth who is taking lessons from a comic actor in voice-production not to carry his precepts so far as to imitate the female falsetto, the senile tremolo, the obsequiousness of the slave, the stuttering accents of intoxication or the intonations of love, greed, fear.[94]

Where Donatus gives instructions as to the vocal expression with which certain lines are to be delivered, as in the case of his comments on gesture, they are almost painfully evident from the context. He cites for instance irony[95], anger[96], exhaustion [97], amazement [98], sympathy[99], pity[100]. He appears as the lineal ancestor of the modern "coach" of amateur theatricals in somewhat naively remarking[101] that upon leaving Thais for two days, Phaedria must p.r.o.nounce "two days" as if "two years" were written.

Another phase of the delivery of the dialogue that deserves pa.s.sing mention is song and musical accompaniment. Livy's anecdote[102] of the employment by Livius Andronicus of a boy to sing for him while he gesticulated is almost universally accepted as an exceptional instance, prompted by the failing of Livius' voice through age[103]. We are now fairly well informed of the tripart.i.te diversion of the dialogue into _cantic.u.m_ or song proper, recitative, and _diverbium_ or spoken utterance[104], with the incidental accompaniment of the _tibia_. Though there may be some dispute as to the apportionment of the various cla.s.ses, the general truth is established.[105] The important feature of this for our purpose is that, if the ancient tragedy with its music and dancing was rather comparable to modern grand opera than to drama proper, the song and musical accompaniment of comedy lend it a strong flavor of the opera bouffe and even of the musical comedy of to-day. In Part II we shall draw numerous other parallels between this style of composition and the plays of Plautus. West, in A.J.P. VIII. 33, notes one of the few comparisons to "comic opera" that we have seen. Fay, in the Introduction to his ed. of the _Most._ (-- 11), likens Plautine drama to "an opera of the early schools."

One feature of the performance still remains to be discussed--the "stage-business," that is, the movements of the actors apart from mere gesticulation and dialogue. Much of this too will find a place in Part II, in the treatment of special peculiarities, but in general we note here that the text itself contains many indications that are as plain as printed stage directions regarding the movements being made or about to be made by the characters. Examples of the more significant follow: _Amph._ 308: Cingitur: Certe expedit se; 312: Perii, pugnos ponderat. (Sosia speaks aside of Mercury and similarly during the succeeding scene); 903: Potin ut abstineas manum?; 955: Aperiuntur aedis. This motif is commonplace and frequent; 958: Vos tranquillos video; 1130: quam valide tonuit; _As._ 39: Age, age, usque excrea; _Bac._ 668: quod sic terram optuere?; _Cap._ 557: Viden tu hunc, quam inimico voltu intuitur?; 594: Ardent oculi;[106] 793: Hic h.o.m.o pugilatum incipit; _Ep._ 609: illi caperrat frons severitudine; _Mer._ 138: iam dudum spato sanguinem; _Mil._ 1324: Nefle; _Most._ 1030: vocis non habeo satis. (He must have been shouting); _Ps._ 458: Statum vide hominis, Callipho, quam basilic.u.m; 955: transvorsus ... cedit, quasi cancer solet: _Trin._ 623 f.: celeri graduc.u.n.t uterque: ille rcprehendit hunc priorem pallio.[107]

This practice of indicating business in the lines, of making the play act, is common to all the older types of drama, Elizabethan as well as cla.s.sic. A single striking example from Shakespeare will furnish a parallel, in the well-known lines from _Macbeth_:

The devil d.a.m.n thee black, thou cream-faced loon, Where gott'st thou that goose look? (V. 3).

The modern playwright robs his lines of their vividness and throws the onus on the actor through the medium of his interpolated direction, a custom which reaches its most exaggerated form in the plays of Bernard Shaw, as mentioned above.

[Sidenote: Thesis] We have now made a perceptible advance towards getting an answer to our original questions: "What manner of drama is this?" and "How was it done?" The comments of the most eminent critics on the former question have left us rather bewildered by their diversity. Almost to a man they have taken Plautus too seriously or else have arraigned him for not conforming to their preconceived code of comedy, without questioning whether it were Plautus' own or not. This has really nullified their efforts to explain away the peculiarities and absurdities of his style.

Some _solvent_ of these difficulties is needed.

As to the second question, we have examined briefly the extant evidence regarding the actor's employment of gesture and business, his delivery of the dialogue, make-up and character delineation, and found a disappointing paucity, but a general and irresistible trend towards liveliness, vivacity and broad undiluted comedy that must have been the sort of dramatic fare demanded by the primeval appet.i.te of the Plautine audience. But again we find ourselves falling short of a satisfying answer to our question.

Again, some _solvent_ is needed. As the last resort, we turn to the evidence of the plays themselves and the unbounded realm of subjective criticism.

From the earliest times gesture and business in Aristophanes and the Old Comedy were marked by the riotous license of all the media of that notable epoch[108] of comedy. From the broad spirit of its frank and vivid burlesque not even the most stolidly Teutonic of humorless critics ever thought of demanding a "picture of life." But with the abandonment of the purpose of political propaganda, the consequent disappearance of the chorus with its burlesque trappings (largely through motives of state economy), and the establishment in the New Comedy of a type of dramatic machinery that had a specious outer sh.e.l.l of reflection of characters and events in daily life, the critics instantly seem to demand the standard of dramatic technique of Aristotle and Freytag and condemn all departures from this standard. In reality, we believe that the kinship of Plautus with Aristophanes is much closer than has usually been realized.

Is, then, the change from Old to New Comedy as great as has been represented? Does not the change consist rather in the outer form and in the ideas expounded than in the spirit of the histrionism and mimicry? And must not the vigor, from what we have seen, have been intensified in Plautus? LeGrand alone seems to have caught the essence of this:[109] "Que dire de la mimique? D'apres les indications contenues dans le texte meme des comedies, d'apres les commentaires--notamment ceux de Donat, d'apres les monuments figures--en particulier les images des ma.n.u.scrits, elle devait etre en general tres vive, souvent trop vive pour le gout des modernes.... Et puis, ils s'addressaient a des spectateurs meridionaux, coutumiers dans la vie quotidienne d'une gesticulation plus animee que la notre." And this is said as a combined estimate of New Comedy and _palliatae_.

We are now prepared to advance a definite thesis, that shall gather up the random threads of argument and suggestion scattered through the foregoing pages and shall, we hope, provide a conclusive and final answer to both of our original questions. If we can establish: that our author's sole aim was to feed the popular hunger for amus.e.m.e.nt; that, while after leaving much of his Greek originals practically untouched, he considered them in effect but a medium for the provocation of laughter, but a vessel into which to pour a highly seasoned brew of fun; that to this end his actors went before the public, potentially speaking slap-stick in hand, equipped by nature with liveliness of grimace and gesture and prepared to act with verve, unction and an abandon of dash and vigor that would produce a riot of merriment; that his dramatic machinery is hopelessly crippled and that his evident intentions and effects are hopelessly lost unless interpreted in this spirit: then we relegate Plautine drama to a low plane of broad farce, where verisimilitude to life becomes wholly unnecessary because undesirable; where the canons of dramatic art become inoperative; where, contrary to what Korting says, we are not asked to believe that "everything is happening in a perfectly natural manner"; where the poet may stick at nothing provided the laugh be forthcoming; where all the apparently absurd conventions of _palliatae_ cease to be absurd, vanish into thin air and become unamenable to literary criticism, inasmuch as they are all only part of the laugh-compelling scheme. This is the _solvent_ that we propose. To establish this, let us proceed to an examination of the internal mechanism of the plays.

Part II

An a.n.a.lysis of the Dramatic Values in Plautus

The salient features that characterize the plays of Plautus include both his consciously employed means of producing his comic effects, and the peculiarities and abnormalities that evidence his att.i.tude of mind in writing them. We should make bold to catalogue them as follows:

I. Machinery characteristic of the lower types of modern drama--farce, low comedy, musical comedy, burlesque shows, vaudeville, and the like.

A. Devices self-evident from the text.

1. Bombast and mock-heroics.

2. Horse-play and slap-sticks.

3. Burlesque, farce and extravagance of situation and dialogue.

a. True burlesque.

b. True farce.

c. Extravagances obviously unnatural and merely for the sake of fun.

B. Devices absurd and inexplicable unless interpreted in a broad farcical spirit.

1. The running slave.

2. Wilful blindness.

3. Advent.i.tious entrance.

II. Evidences of loose composition which prove a disregard of technique and hence indicate that entertainment was the sole aim.

A. Solo speeches and pa.s.sages.

1. Asides and soliloquies.

2. Lengthy monodies, monologues and episodical specialties.

3. Direct address of the audience.

B. Inconsistencies and carelessness of composition.

1. Pointless badinage and padded scenes.

2. Inconsistencies of character and situation.

3. Looseness of dramatic construction.