Tradition and Originality in Plautus:
Studies of the Amatory Motifs in Plautine
Comedy
Published Reviews (in English):
Jocelyn Classical Review 31 (1981) 192-194
Segal American Journal of Philology 103 (1982) 217-219
Summary
Introduction (13-14) Before this book there were two main opinions of amatory convention.Some believe that much of Plautus’ ideas were from Greek models.Others say that Plautus’ amatory ideas were original.Zagagi tries to reassess how much Plautus relies on models, and reevaluate those instances that scholars have claimed as original to him.
Chapter 1 “Mythological Hyperboles in Plautus: Form and Content” (15-67) It introduces Frankel’s 1922 Plautinisches im Plautus the first book to evaluate which elements are characteristically Plautine.Frankel said that in opening monologues depreciatory passages were Plautine.She thinks these ideas must be reconsidered because of new discoveries and some overlooked areas.
I. Hyperboles in Mythological comparisons: the Greek Background
A. Literary evidence outside Attic Comedy (18-26) Frankel was too narrow in his search for parallels to Plautus’ opening monologues comparisons.There are examples of these types of passages in other Latin poets and Greek writings.The superiority element in mythological hyperboles is common in many Greek texts and is introduced the same way.There is also an abusive type of hyperbole from Alcibiades in Attic Oratory.Frankel did not survey outside examples that showed it was very common way of Greek writing, so he was wrong concluding that it was characteristically Plautine.
B. Evidence from Middle and New Comedy (26-32) In Frankel’s writing he claimed that there were no similarities between Plautus and previous writers.Another classicist, Tierney, found evidence against Frankel’s view in Alexis, Pyraunos, but it was not strong enough.Zagagi gives examples from Neottis and Amaltheia.She concludes that mythological hyperboles were in Middle and New Comedy, comparisons using a superiority verb were previously used, and Plautus used models to base his monologues.
II. The Form and Position of Mythological Hyperboles in Greek Tragedy (32-46)The type of comparison in monologues used in Plautus Comedy is also in Euripidean Drama.
A. Hyperbolic comparisons introduced through a dialogue between a Tragic Character and the Chorus (33-36) Examples from Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides show the comparison to mythological character.Euripides’ Helen uses a comparative form which was more characteristic to Greek writing than superiority, and the mythological hyperbole is in the beginning of a strophe.
B. Mythological Hyperboles in the Stasima (37-42) Gives examples from the tragedians of locations of exempla and the hyperboles in the first two sentences of monologues, specifically in Euripides.Euripides influenced Menander thus there are parallels in Plautine Comedy.
C. Mythological hyperboles in monlogues and speeches (42-46) She writes that there is evidence of mythological hyperboles in monologues only in Euripidean Tragedy because of the strong influence Euripides had on New Comedy.
IV. Notes on the Content of Some of the Plautine Hyperboles (54-64) She discusses which Greek model were used by Plautus.There are many examples of references to Herakles in Old, Middle, and New Comedy.There are also instances beyond comedy that are similar to the perception of Herakles in Plautus.New Comedy used many examples of hyperbolic comparisons to the Trojan War.
Conclusions (64-67) Mythological comparisons are not originally Plautine.He sometimes expanded the models version of comparative adverb/adjective into a comparative construction with a verb signifying superiority.This expanded way was still not only used by Plautus.The observation of Frankel that mythological scurrilities were original is also discredited by evidence from Greek literature.Finally, amatory expression is not specifically Plautine, but Greek.
Chapter 2 The AmatoryCantica of Plautus (68-105) Chapter two analyses three cantica that have many amatory themes, Cistellaria and Trinummus, to show Plautus’ dependence on Greek models.
I. Cistellaria 203-28: Alcesimarchus’ Monody (adapted from Menander’sSynaristosae) (69-89) The monody is broken into six sections.Section one is the introductory theme and applying it to Alceimarchus, similar to how Menander does it.The second section has ten verbs describing the suffering of Alcesimarchus.This and the use of metaphors to express their feelings are specifically Plautine additions.Section three: the main character's mind is distanced from himself.Plautus and Terence began to often use opposites to describe his state.In the fourth section Plautus has many verbs grouped together and then has antitheses, things which Menander never did.Parts of this section are similar to Greek Erotic motifs.Section five is a comparison of Alcesimarchus’ love to a storm, which is frequent in Hellenistic poetry.Since the metaphor is not normal to Menander’s works Zagagi believes that sections three, four, and five are Plautine additions.Section six returns to Menander's model of exposition.A significant difference in writing that occurred was that Plautus added more emotions to his than Menander.Plautus also introduced a theme for his monologue where Menander did not.Her main conclusion is the originality of Plautus in the monologue came from Greek Erotic traditions by the influence of New Comedy and Hellenistic poetry.
II. Trinummus 223-75: Lysiteles’ Monody (adapted from Philemon's Thesauros) (90-104) Several scholars, namely Burck, believe that this entire passage is original.This monody she divides into three analyzed sections.Section one is the introduction, dealing with whether he should pursue love or not.Then his thoughts while he is debating these ideas.Section two most likely derived from Philemon, Plautus explains amoris artes, the craft of love.It was common to name their characteristics for those of Eros. In the last section, Lysiteles decides to avoid Love and focus on other parts of life.He uses juridical terminology for humor, which is typically Plautine.She concludes that Plautus made additions to Philemon's framework, disproving Burck’s hypothesis.
Conclusions (105) The modern scholars are mainly wrong when saying that Plautus is original in these monodies.When Plautus does change from his model, he adds elements that are from Greek Erotic traditions and some Roman ideas.An essential aspect of Plautus’ originality was his originality inside the framework of the model.
Chapter 3 Plautus’ Jurisdiction of Amatory Motifs (106-131) Plautus applies Roman juridical terminology to his passages concerning love and its experiences.There are not examples of the terminology in New Comedy, so people believed it was original.This legal humor worked well because the audience could relate due to legal developments happening at that time.Servitium amoris, the slavery of love, is an idea from Greek Erotic tradition; Plautus employs it many times in Bacchides.There are more examples of legal terms such as addictus, having been assigned, in Bacchides. Legal mention of Venus is made in both Curculio and Pseudolus as a regulator in the court of love.Research shows that not only does this legal jargon have beginnings from Greek Erotic traditions but also from Latin Love Elegy.Plautus splits from his Attic models and ideal of gift-giving in his comic aggrandizement of amatory payments and their necessity of the lover to pay.She gives six examples of this sort of exaggeration.Plautus probably reveals these obligatory gifts in such a way to mock his audience’s thoughts on the high cost of an affair with a prostitute.Multiple examples show that Plautus made the analogy between love and legal matters involving money an important aspect of his humorous depiction of love.Plautus’ method of addressing love probably influenced other later Latin writers.
Conclusions (130-131) Aspects of Plautus were original with his juridical terminology in showing lovers and their relationships.He changes the traditional motifs of servitum amoris and the gifts and payments to the prostitute.Zagagi states, “He also seems to have introduced entirely new elements into the framework of these traditions.”Plautus’ use of the legal terminology for the amatory relationship is certainly for humor.
Epilogue (132-133) Plautus was writing at the time when Greek culture began streaming into Roman culture.He was the first Latin writer to flirt with Erotic traditions.He creatively adapted his models, while others translated more literally.He mixed Roman ideas of loved with Greek ideal.The most significant aspect of his originality was his expansion within the framework of contemporary Greek tradition, and his influence Greek literature.Although Frankel was wrong in some aspects, he was right in his notion that mythological elements in his passages were not specifically based on his models.Discussing the Plautine elements, “The most important of these is the aggrandizement of characters and their experiences by means of mythological comparisons,” says Zagagi.
Appendix “Flury’s Attribution to the Early Romans of the Concept of the Lover’s Surrender of his Soul to the Beloved: Counter-evidence from Greek Sources” (134-137) Flury hypothesized that the surrender of one’s soul to a lover is a Roman thing, Menander never wrote in this way.Menander portrayed his characters surrender unconditionally to the potent love god.Plautus’ and Terence’s characters hand themselves over by their own doings.Examples are given from imitators of Hellenistic poetry, which showed sometimes Eros had control over the lover and other times when the lover had power over his own soul.Therefore Flury’s idea of a purely Roman way of love is incorrect; the concept was shared by the Greeks and Romans.