William S. Anderson

Barbarian Play: Plautus’ Roman Comedy

Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 1993.

Published Reviews (in English):

• George Bryn Mawr Classical Review 5 (1994) 273-277
• McCarthy Bryn Mawr Classical Review 5 (1994) 277-280
• Ireland Classical Review 45 (1995) 440-441
• Konstan Phoenix 49 (1995) 75-77
• McKechnie Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association 84 (1995) 122-124
• Willcock Journal of Roman Studies 85 (1995) 282-283
• Harvey The Classical World 86 (1996) 495-496

SUMMARY

Section	Subtitle	Pages	Summary
Chapter 1: Plautus and the Deconstruction of Menander		3-29	Anderson analyzes and discusses the differences between Menander’s Double Deceiver and Plautus’ Bacchides.He shows how Plautus converted Menander’s serious comic play of social values into an unconventional world of extreme circumstances.Unlike Menander, Plautus forced the audience to recognize the characters as actors and to laugh at the unexpected and ridiculous events.Throughout this chapter, Anderson describes Plautus’ ability to use deconstructive techniques to alter Menander’s original play.
Chapter 2:  si amicus Diphilo aut Philemoni es:Plautus’ Exploitation of Other Writers and Features of the Greek Comic Tradition		30-33	Anderson begins this chapter by discussing the citations of plays, which Plautus adapted.He points out that Plautus never cited Menander or Menander’s plays in the prologues.Where as, Plautus cited several other writers and written works in other adaptations.Through this introduction, Anderson also introduces Plautus’ relationship with Philemon and Diphilos.The next two subsections discuss this topic.
	Philemon’s Helpful Friend:Plautus’ Alterations of a Sentimental Stereotype	34-46	Anderson focuses on the evolution of the helpful friend from Philemon’s work to Plautus’ plays.In the Emporos and the Thesauros, Philemon presented a character who acted as a loyal friend to a love-stricken young man.The theme of friendship was so significant in these plays that the plays produced “tear-jerking” effects on the audience.In Plautus’ adaptations of Philemon’s plays, he reduced the sentimental value and asked the audience to laugh at the characters instead of crying for the characters. Anderson states that Plautus even replaced the faithful friend with a faithful servant in Mostellaria.
	Diphilos’ Big Scenes:Plautus’ Byplay with Melodrama	46-59	In this section of the chapter, Anderson describes the elements of melodrama, which both Diphilos and Menander included in some of their plays.Plautus also used this model of melodrama in his adaptations of Diphilos’ Kleroumenoi and original Rudens.While Plautus kept aspects, such as arguments among slaves, in his plays, he expanded on other features of the play and offers key roles to unexpected characters.
Chapter 3:  Plautus’ Plotting: The Lover Upstaged		60-62	The topic of love in comedy is discussed in this chapter.Menander presented love in his plays as sacred, optimitic and beautiful.Plautus, on the other hand, disagreed with Menander’s love plot and turned romantic love into sensual love.
	Did Greek New Comedy Always Feature Romantic Love?	62-65	In short, this section focuses on the various styles which Menander, Philemon and Diphilos chose to portray love in their plays.
	Plautus and Love that Eventuates in Marriage	65-87	Anderson analyzes several of Plautus’ plays that contain characters in love.He shows the reader how Plautus took the plot of the story away from romantic love and redirected it to another plot or to a humorous commentary on love by a servant.
Chapter 4:  Heroic Badness (militia):Plautus’ Characters and Themes		88-106	Throughout this chapter, Anderson describes the role of the rogue in Plautus’ comedies.He states that Plautus developed the idea of heroic badness.By using example from Plautus’ plays, Anderson illustrates the audience’s approval and appreciation of this badness.Plautus forced the audience to marvel at the deceptive plan, which a character concocted to aid the plot of the story.
Chapter 5: Words, Numbers, Movement: Plautus’ Mastery of Comic Language, Metre, and Staging	Comedy by Words	107-118	Anderson explains the difference between the writing process of Menander and Plautus.Menander developed a plot for his play and then found the words to fit the events.While Plautus made the plot fit the words, which he assigned to each character.Plautus masterfully used words to express the characters emotions and excitement throughout his plays.
	Comedy by Numbers	118-132	Like the word usage in Plautus’ plays, metre was also used to express the emotion of a character at a particular point in the play.Anderson talks about Plautus’ use of metre and the impact it has in the play and on the audience.Through this discussion, he explains Horace’s misunderstanding of Plautus’ metrical style.Horace denounced the style as an example of Plautus’ stupidity, while Anderson claims that the style was intellectual and ingenious.
Chapter 6:  Plautus and His Audience:The Roman Connection		133-151	Anderson wraps up his book by discussing the relations between Plautus and the Roman audience.He gives his own theory behind Plautus’ popularity and connection to the audience.He believes that Plautus was a successful playwright because of his ability to entice the interest of all social classes.Also, Plautus presented his plays in a way that suggested that Roman citizens were superior to Greek citizens.Since this was a major issue at the time, this approach pleased the audience.Although Anderson has a strong belief in his own theory, he considers and argues other common theories as well.