Page images

ous. But there are certain difficulties in the way of being always certain that the stage is vacant and these difficulties have given rise to mistakes on the part of commentators. Characters have remained on the stage as mutes and have been supposed not to be there, as Rudens 688-885, where Palaestra and Ampelisca stay in ara and leave without speaking. Then there is such a question as arises at Asinaria 126: Libanus announces his departure and leaves at 117; Demaenetus similarly leaves at 126; there is vacant stage, and no clue is given as to who will enter. Should a division be indicated so soon after the beginning of the play? It may be possible that there is a variation in the kinds, so to speak, of vacant stage. Certain occasions of vacant stage undeniably indicate divisions in the play and other occasions do not; yet at all these points the stage is empty. A solution of this difficulty may lie in assuming a different length of wait for these two classes of vacant stage. If a break in the action is demanded because the plot has attained a certain point in its development, the wait will be just long enough to be apparent to the audience. At these times we mark a division point. If the stage appears vacant to us as we read, but no division is demanded by the development of the plot, we must assume that this occasion of vacant stage was almost non-existent in time because the oncoming actor closely followed the outgoing one. It would not be justifiable to indicate a division point at these places.

Certain other considerations will also assist us in determining when the stage may properly be termed vacant. One of these considerations is that the range of the third criterion, viz. no clue being given as to the identity of the oncoming actor, may be expanded to include that portion of the play which immediately precedes the point at issue. A good example of this point is to be found in the Trinummus. At 614 Callicles says, ibo ad meum castigatorem atque ab eo consilium petam, and then leaves the stage to carry out his announced intention. At 728, the stage is apparently empty for Lysiteles has departed at 716, Stasimus announces his departure at 727, and there is no immediate sign of entrance. But Callicles enters with his castigator, Megaronides, and they converse on the question of the dowry which has been troubling Callicles. It is ap

parent that 728 cannot be considered as a division-point because the succeeding subject-matter is closely linked to that which was being discussed at the last appearance of Callicles, and his remark just quoted must be considered as showing that he was about to re-enter the stage and so it is a clue as to his reappear



A second consideration may, for want of a better single name, be termed insidiae. There are numerous occasions when an actor retires to some secret place on the stage, in order that he may overhear a conversation. This device is also common in the modern drama, as any one will recall. Apparently three places on the Roman stage were employed for this purpose: angiportus, or alley-way between the houses; ara, the actor either concealing himself behind it, or else grasping it for protection; and ianua or ostium where he hid behind a pillar. We find conventional phrases which are used to indicate such withdrawal, as concede huc; we need not necessarily believe that the actor had to be entirely hidden, because the audience must be kept aware of the fact that he was on the stage. If, then, an actor has retired to the insidiae, the stage cannot be termed vacant even if there are times when no other actor is in view. The whole point can well be summed up by referring to Miles 595. Here there is an undoubted division for all the criteria are in evidence. Then Palaestrio appears and looks about ne uspiam insidiae sient, so that they may safely converse.


Leo deals with the monologue as a criterion to indicate the ancient divisions. Monologues may accompany a division but a division-point does not necessarily exist wherever there are monologues. No generalization as to the value of this criterion can be made, but a close comparison of the results obtained by Leo with those which are obtained by the application of our three criteria to the plays will show that the monologue is not an unfailing criterion.

It may now be profitable to apply our criteria to the plays. For present purposes the prologues will be disregarded.

AMPHITRUO. The division-points according to our criteria occur at 550, 860, and 1052, thus forming four divisions. Leo

8 Asin. 741.

9 Der Monolog im Drama, pp. 49-62 for Plautus.

arrived at practically the same results but he included one more section, viz. 860-983, thus finding five divisions. Against this conclusion is the statement of Jupiter in 976, Nunc tu, divine Sosia, huc fac adsies. This command serves as an announcement of the entrance of Mercury, and hence violates the criterion that no clue as to the identity of the oncoming actor be given. Our divisions correspond with the acts indicated in the MSS., except that we do not allow a division-point at 1008 which is the end of Act III. Mercury at 1005 announces the entrance of Amphitruo with the words eccum Amphitruonem; advenit. This announcement of entrance violates the same criterion as that just mentioned, and so 1008 cannot be a division point. One might contend that a division-point does not exist at 1052 because Amphitruo was struck by Jupiter just before leaving the stage, fell down apparently dead, and so vacant stage could not be said really to exist as Amphitruo was still in sight. Strictly speaking, this contention would hold, but as a matter of fact Amphitruo was for the moment non-existent on account of the blow, and, for dramatic purposes, the stage was empty. This occurrence is unique among the plays of Plautus, and does not come under the head of insidiae for Amphitruo was not feigning unconsciousness nor had he any reason so to do.

ASINARIA. The division points in this play are at 248, 503, 544, 745, and 827, thus making six divisions. Leo would mark a division at 126, does not mention 544, and finally indicates a division point at 809 rather than at 827. These variations are all worthy of comment. The question of the division point at 126 is at best a dubious one, as was said above. The criterion of no clue as to the identity of the oncoming actor is of particular service at this point. The difficulty should be cleared up if it can be shown that the entrance of Argyrippus has been announced, for if it has been announced no division-point can be made at 126. The following lines may be noted: 74-5, nam hodie me oravit Argyrippus filius uti sibi amanti facerem argenti copiam; 116; apud Archibulum ego ero argentarium; 126, manebo apud argentarium. These lines are all spoken by Demaenetus and show clearly that his purpose in leaving the stage is to secure for his for his son Argyrippus a sum of money. Argyrippus has not yet appeared

on the stage, but when he comes on at 127 he delivers an indignant monologue against Cleareta, whose entrance is announced by the words eccam inlecebra exit. I believe that the lines quoted serve as an announcement of entrance which is clear enough to forbid a division at 126, and in addition, the development of the plot does not allow a division point until 248.

Leo would mark a division at 503 but not at 544. To be sure, forty-one lines is rather a small number for a division, though not a prohibitively small number. The evidence given by the criteria must decide the difficulty. We have first the departure of Philaenium at the command of Cleareta, intro abi, and that she did depart is shown by 585, Philaenium estne haec quae intus exit atque una Argyrippus? No express announcement of the departure of Cleareta is made, but she probably left with Philaenium as she does not appear again during the play. There is no announcement of the entrance of Libanus and Leonida and there is vacant stage. Leo probably did not mark a division on account of the absence of monologues, but this is not an invariable criterion. The division is of importance, because in it Cleareta forbids Philaenium to have anything more to do with Argyrippus. For these reasons I indicate a divisionpoint at 544. There are two difficulties connected with the question as to whether there should be a division-point at 809 or at 827. In the first place, as Scaliger has noted, the text is undoubtedly corrupt; secondly, the conversation before and after 809 is practically continuous. Our criteria show a division at 827 and consequently there can hardly be one at 809 as eighteen lines is too small a number for a section. There are a number of instances where a break occurs in the manuscripts with the same characters on either side of it.10 Occasionally these breaks coincide with original division points, but a further examination must be made before a general rule can be formulated.

AULULARIA. We find division points at 119, 279, 370, 586, and 681, thus making six divisions. Leo refuses to allow a division-point at 586 and one might think that he regards 370807 as one division. Against his conclusion is the fact that all

10 Aul. 78. Bacch. 169, 385, 572, Cist. 630, Curc. 462, Merc. 543, 691, 802, Mil. 1394, Persa 52, 250, Pseud. 573a, Sti. 672.

the criteria, together with monologues, are in evidence at this point: Megadorus announces departure at 579, eo lavatum; Euclio departs at 586 with the words ibo ad te; there is vacant stage and no clue is given as to the identity of the oncoming actor.

In this play our criteria render a service towards the rehabilitation of the text. At 363, according to the manuscripts, Pythodicus makes his sole appearance. The whole scene has been carefully discussed by Goetz11 with the conclusion that, owing to the process of retractatio, the name Strobilus has in some unknown manner been changed to Pythodicus. Goetz admits that certain solution is attended with great difficulty. I believe that the name Pythodicus should be changed to Strobilus for the following reasons: Strobilus does not announce his departure while departure is provided for Staphyla, Congrio, the cooks, and others by the words of Strobilus in 362, duc istos intro, and so it would seem that Plautus had intended that Strobilus should remain on the stage; no new entrance is announced; the speech in 363-70 harmonizes with the words of Strobilus in 351-2; and finally, with a division point at 370, the division comes to an end with the usual monologue, and in no other instance in Plautus is such a final monologue spoken by any other than one of the actors who has recently been on the stage. The introduction of a new character in such a situation is unparalleled. For these reasons, in addition to the other possible reasons which are mentioned by Goetz, I believe that the speech in 363-70 must be assigned to Strobilus.

BACCHIDES. The division points are at 108, 367, 525, 572, 924, and 1075, thus making seven divisions. Leo includes 169, though in a note he admits some doubt as to whether it is really 'a division point, and says nothing about 572. It is true that the departure of both Pistoclerus and Lydus is indicated at 169 by the words sequere hac me ac tace, and that no clue as to the coming of Chrysalus is given. Our criteria would seem to indicate a break were it not for the words of Pistoclerus, which show that he saw Chrysalus coming before he had left the stage, and so, vadatum amore,1 12 he had remained on the

11 praef. Aul. p. VIII.

1 qui abire hinc nullo pacto possim, si velim; ita me vadatum amore vinctumque attines, 180-1.

« PreviousContinue »