Wright compares lines 1-8 of the Mostellaria to other plays of Plautus in order to demonstrate unity of style, repetition of phrases, and recurrence of specific events throughout his works. He explains these occurrences by stating his premise for the bookBAThe most logical explanation for the phenomena we have found here is that Plautus was working in a firmly established, traditional dramatic style@ (9). The author claims that this style was most likely used by all the Roman playwrights of the comoediapalliata, with the exception of Terence. 

Pretending for the sake of demonstration that only fragments remain of Plautus= plays, Wright shows that much can be reconstructed from the excerpts of his plays that are cited by other ancient authors. Such reconstruction can done by drawing conclusions based on an Aestablished, traditional dramatic style.@ The author therefore feels confident in reconstructing the fragments of the twelve other playwrights of the comoediapalliata, using the same method. By looking at these authors, Wright hopes to justify his primary assertion.

The author fittingly begins his examination of the twelve playwrights with Livius Andronicus because tradition maintains that Latin literature began when he translated a Greek play into Latin in 240 B. C. Although only six brief fragments survive from this playwright, Wright makes comparisons of Adiction, sound-effects, meter, and perhaps even characterization@ (32) between Livius Andronicus and Plautus. Among other things, he argues for the comic motif of the mockery of a soldier=s deeds in battle, suggests an appearance of the stock character of the seruuscallidus, and demonstrates a line of trochaic septenarius.

Wright turns his attention to Naevius, an Italian comic playwright whose first play was thought to have been performed in 235 B. C., around the time of Livius Andronicus. In antiquity there was confusion over whether he or Plautus was the author of some of his playsBa fact which the author suggests indicates the similarity between their plays (and thus supports his thesis of an established literary tradition for Roman comedy). 

Wright reconstructs the Tarentilla by comparing its surviving fragments to Plautus= plays and then extrapolating the plot. While doing this, he points out an obvious delight in the way the lines sound rather than simply a focus on what action is taking place, which is plainly characteristic of Plautus. 

From the Tarentilla and other plays of Naevius, Wright demonstrates the appearance of several stock characters (seruuscallidus, meretrix, senex, miles gloriosus, and parasitus), in addition to a stock situation of slave punishment and several meters that are characteristic of Plautus.

The slave CaeciliusStatius was brought from Insubrian Gaul to Rome, where he gained his freedom and subsequently became a playwright (fl. 179). According to Cicero, he was the best-liked of the Roman comic playwrights. 

Before examining the surviving fragments of CaeciliusStatius, Wright argues that the present-day opinion of this playwright as a transitional figure between Plautus and Terence is based on faulty assumptions. The author then shows that the playwright=s use of stock characters (cocus, senexiratus, parasitus, etc.), stock situations (such as slave punishment, slapstick humor, and the seruuscurrens), and style (such as the use of military imagery) indicates that he held to the same dramatic tradition of Plautus rather than being a precursor to Terence.

Far from conforming to any established tradition, Wright says that Terence purposely wanted to distinguish himself from the other comic playwrights of his genre. He writes that Afar more often [. . .] he explicitly rejects the traditions and conventions of the Roman stage@ (128), such as stock characters and stock situations. 

Wright compares two similar scenes that occur in both Terence and Plautus (from the Eunuchus and Poenulus, respectively). In fewer than ten lines Terence is able to advance his plot, as compared to the nearly 200 lines that Plautus uses to convey essentially the same events. This phenomenon occurs because Terence is concerned with creating realistic dialogue and believable characters, whereas Plautus is concerned with creating a humorous scene with well-established characters and aesthetically-pleasing dialogue. 

The author makes further comparisons by looking at how each playwright treats the common situation of a traveler returning home. By comparing Plautus' Bacchides to Menander's Dis Exapaton, he sets out four elements inherent to this frequent situationBthe presence of baggage carriers, a prayer of thanks to a god for the safe journey, a greeting from a friend and invitation to dinner, and entrance into the friend's house. Wright shows that when Plautus used  any of these four elements, he used them to his advantage in creating a comic effect. Predictably, when Terence used any of these, it was for the purpose of advancing the plot or making the play more realistic.

Although Turpulius was younger than Terence, it is possible that there was an overlap of the time periods in which the two playwrights were active. By demonstrating that Turpulius was more like Plautus than Terence, Wright strengthens his assertion that Terence was a deliberate exception to the established dramatic tradition of Roman comedy. He makes this argument by showing the following:the presence of stock characters in Turpulius, which Terence professed to dislike; the informative nature of an opening scene of one of his plays, whereas Terence was loathe to immediately enlighten his audience about his plot; and the use of at least some slapstick humor in Turpulius, in contrast to Terence=s lack of it. 

Wright proceeds from there to show from Turpulius= Leucadia similarities to Plautus in Amethods of composition, as well as [Turpulius=] diction and style@ (172).

Wright concludes his work by hinting that in the prologues of Terence, the playwright might have been addressing a guild composed of playwrights and actors called the Collegium poetarum, Aa major force in creating, developing, and maintaining the Roman comic style@ (185). Such a group, says the author, would not be favorably inclined to changes to this style. 

The author also explores three possible sources that helped mold the style of the comoedia palliata, namely the theatrical setting at Tarentum, where Livius Andronicus was from; the Atellan farce, a type of Oscan drama; and the unique Roman theatrical atmosphere, where there was a close relationship among writers, actors, and the audience. 

Wright ends his work by asserting that a proper understanding of Plautus= plays can only exist if the reader first understands that the playwright was writing within an established dramatic style which his audience expected from him. If the playwright ventured away from this styleBas Terence didBhe risked a cold reception.