Structure and Stagecraft in Plautus' "Miles Gloriosus"Author(s): Lisa MauriceSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 60, Fasc. 3 (2007), pp. 407-426Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27736151 .
Accessed: 26/03/2014 21:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MNEMOSYNE A Journal
of Classical Studies
Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 www.brill.nl/mnem
Structure and Stagecraft in
Plautus' Miles Gloriosas
Lisa Maurice Bar Ilan University, Department of Classics, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel
mauril68@bezeqint. net
Abstract
Over recent years it has been recognised that Plautus often uses metatheatricality to underscore the artificiality of his plays, and the Miles Gloriosus has been high
lighted as a particularly metatheatrical play. Metatheatricality is strengthened by the structure of the play, which consists of two balanced symmetrical tricks. Both
tricks are built of parallel balancing scenes that centre around, and highlight, act
ing and roleplay. This structure deepens the impact of the metatheatrical elements
running throughout the play, inducing a greater awareness of the artificiality of
the events being acted out on the stage, as each trick stresses the idea of role
assumption and drama as a central theme.
By emphasising the nature of roleplay, the structure of the Miles highlights the
power of drama. The audience observe the duping of Sceledrus, and witness Pyr
gopolynices' posturing and the illusion which he believes to be truth, but fools no
one. They are then able to contrast this with Palaestrio's acting ability, which does
convince his intended audience. The Miles Gloriosus underscores the paradoxical nature of drama, which convinces despite being based on nothing more than illu
sion; the play thus demonstrates that herein lies the power of true drama.
Keywords Plautus, metatheatricality, stagecraft, structure, Miles Gloriosus
1. Metatheatricality
There has been a growing trend over the last twenty years to focus on the
performance of ancient drama as well as on the text itself, and a recogni tion that the text is but one part of the dramatic production. Along with
(I) BRILL
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156852507X215445
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
408 L. Maurice /Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426
this emphasis on performance a deeper understanding has developed of
the effect that staging and live performance had upon audience perception, and a realisation that the text must be understood within such a context.
One element of this context is that the playwright could and did on occa
sion draw attention to the unreal nature of his creation, whereby the play, which purports to be a representation of truth, is shown to be an artificial
entity, through the deliberate shattering of the illusion of reality. Such an
approach to drama is characterised by an emphasis on metatheatricality. What is generally meant by metatheatricality is a conscious underscor
ing of the play as a play, whereby drama makes reference to itself as drama.
In this approach, the audience is encouraged to view the play on two levels, both as a pretence of reality and also as an unreal piece of dramatic fiction.
This approach has recently come under attack by Thomas Rosenmeyer, who objects mostly to the use of the term 'metatheatre', but does not deny the elements noted by scholars who have favoured the metatheatrical
approach.1} These elements include:
- an awareness on the part of characters that they are on a stage, as
they
self-consciously draw attention to their status as actors playing parts; - a tendency to improvise, thus usurping the role of the playwright; -
usage of the play-within-the-play, as these characters consciously take on further roles as part of the dramatic action.
Whether we call these aspects metatheatre' or simply 'theatre' is almost
irrelevant, for if the elements are present, it seems reasonable to speculate upon the dramatic effects they are likely to have produced, in the context
of a play performed upon a stage rather than a text read in classrooms.
In particular, this approach has been a focus of studies of Roman com
edy, as several scholars have stressed Plautus' metatheatrical style.2) The
Miles Gloriosus has recently been highlighted as a particularly metatheatri
!) Rosenmeyer 2002.
2) Foremost in this area has been Slater (1985). Beacham (1991) continued to develop a
performance based approach, emphasising the self-consciousness of Roman drama, while
Wright (1974, 183-96) stresses the sophistication of Plautus' audience. See also Barchiesi
1970; Muecke 1986 and Frangoulides 1997.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 409
cal play.3) In this paper I wish to take this claim further and demonstrate
how the structure of the play emphasises acting as an important theme. Some
parallel elements of the Miles have already been highlighted (Saylor 1977), but the full structure of the play has not yet been analysed in detail. A detailed
examination of the structure reveals a clear and balanced symmetry, built
around two movements, the first of which centres around a demonstration
of acting ability, and the second around a lesson in effective acting.
2. The Structure of the Miles
A long history of discussion exists about the supposed poor construction
and lack of unity of the Miles, whereby the play is regarded as the result of
contamination containing two unconnected tricks.4) More recent scholar
ship has highlighted commonality between the two halves and has sug
gested that there is a certain amount of unity in the plot.5) In particular, Charles Saylor has rightly outlined the parallel structure of the two tricks,
considering the play as a "single artistic composition", and has stressed the
many similarities between the two tricks that make up the Miles. This par allelism may be taken further, however, to reveal two parallel structures
that both are internally symmetrical and also balance each other within the
play as a whole, framed by the first and last scenes of the play. This struc
ture is depicted graphically in Fig. 1.
3) Frangoulidis 1994 and 1996; Moore 1998, 72-7. See also Williams 1993, n. 6.
4) See Leo 1912, 175-85 for the earliest statement of this view. Jachman (1931, 163) accepts this premise. Similarly, Fraenkel (1960, 245-9) states that the Miles is the only Plautine play that shows definite evidence that Plautus combined two Greek plays to make one comedy.
Williams (1958) believes that the Miles was based on only one Greek original, but that
Plautus consistently altered this original by inserting sections in the text that gives free
rein to his own creative comic spirit. More recently, Lef?vre (1984) has argued that
the play is based on one Greek original that Plautus has reshaped into a double comedy, with the inclusion of the twin sister motif that he also uses in the Amphitryo and the
Menaechmi. 5) Duckworth (1935) objected to the earlier interpretations of contaminatio, and to Jach
man's views in particular, suggesting that the play presents a unity. Hammond, Mack &
Moskalew (1970, 25-6) correctly note the figure of Palaestrio and the theme of self
deception as unifying factors. Forehand (1973) highlights the imagery that unites the vari
ous elements of the plot. Leach (1980) considers that Plautus constructed a unified play by
blending Greek and Roman elements in order to highlight particular social themes.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Acting display: Sceledrus vs. Philocomasium +
Palaestrio (354-410)
Acting display:
Sceledrus vs. Philocomasium +
Palaestrio (411-80)
O
Pyrgopolynices vs. Palaestrio + Milphidippa (991-1093)
Pyrgopolynices vs.
Palaestrio + Aero teleutium + Mil
phidippa (1216-83)
Pyrgopolynices vs. Palaestrio (947-90)
Pyrgopolynices' delusion of being a lover (874-946)
Pyrgopolynices vs. Palaestrio + Pleusicles
+ Philocomasium (1284-377)_
Pyrgopolynices' delusion of being a lover (1377-93)
I <3 s fe on
Pyrgopolynices, the great lover and soldier (1-78)
Pyrgopolynices defeated and castrated by Periplectomenus
(1394-437)
Figure 1. Structure of the Miles Gloriosus.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 411
3. The Overall Framework: The Rise and Fall of Pyrgopolynices
From this analysis, it can be seen that the first and last scenes of the play
depict Pyrgopolynices in his success and defeat respectively, and form a
framework for the play as a whole. Two separate tricks take place between
these two scenes, the first against the soldier's slave, Sceledrus, and the
second against the soldier himself. After the initial introduction to Pyrgo
ploynices in the first scene, he disappears for the entirety of the first trick, which is independent of the second in terms of the action. The first trick,
however, parallels the second by stressing the ideas of roleplaying and act
ing and the illusions created thereby. This emphasis on the illusory power of drama highlights the character of Pyrgopolynices, whose whole life is an
illusion. This becomes clear in the last scene, which mirrors the first. In the
first scene, Pyrgopolynices depicts himself as the ultimate lover and a
magnificent soldier; in the last he is beaten by a bunch of cooks and slaves
and threatened with castration.6) Thus, the gradual shattering of the illu
sion under which Pyrgopolynices lives is depicted through the symmetry of the play, and emphasised through the continual stress on acting.7)
4. Internal Structure of the Two Tricks
Symmetry is also found internally in each of the two tricks, which parallel each other. The first trick is enacted in four central scenes, all of which
feature Sceledrus, and in the central two of which Philocomasium and
Palaestrio also appear. The first of the four scenes follows immediately after
Palaestrio s theatrical demonstration, and features Palaestrio and Sceledrus; the last of the four, immediately before Periplectomenus' roleplaying show
piece, features Periplectomenus and Sceledrus. Thus there is a progression from slave versus slave to master versus slave.8) This pattern is repeated in
the second trick, which begins with Palaestrio versus Pyrgopolynices and
6) SeeSaylorl977,9.
7) Moore (1982) has successfully shown how the music in the Miles highlights the unusual
character of Periplectomenus and emphasises the contrast between the opening crisis and
final resolution, backing up this structure. As he stresses, the music also works to frame
sections, namely the Sceledrus plot, the deceptions of Milphidippa, Acroteleutium, and
Philocomasium respectively and the defeat of Pyrgopolynices. 8) See Saylor 1977, n. 5, who demonstrates these patterns clearly.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
412 L. Maurice ?Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426
ends with Pleusicles versus the soldier, once again showing a progression from slave versus master to master versus master.
The apex of both tricks are sections featuring acting. In the first half, the
audience actually witness a performance, as Philocomasium tricks Scele
drus into believing that she has an identical twin sister. The pivotal scene
of the second trick, that featuring Palaestrio's centrepiece of acting instruc
tion and direction, goes back one stage to that of rehearsal, enabling the
audience to witness the preparatory stages that lead to performances such as the one they viewed in the first half, and the one they will view in the
rest of the play. The structure of the tricks in general, and the centralised
position of these scenes in particular, interplay with the wealth of metathe
atrical elements that fill the comedy to underscore the importance of act
ing within the context of this comedy. Let us now turn to a detailed
analysis of the pairs of parallel scenes that comprise the two tricks.
5. Structure, Metatheatricality and Acting: The First Trick
5.1. The Delayed Prologue and the Lurcio Scene (79-155/813-73)
It is generally accepted that scenes that do little to further the plot are often
dramatically self-conscious.9) The Miles contains several such scenes, two of
which open and close the first trick involving Palaestrio's defeat of Scele
drus. The first of these is the plays delayed prologue, which begins with
Palaestrio speaking out of character, urging anyone who does not wish to
listen to get up and leave. Bearing in mind that this request comes some
eighty lines into the play, after the scene featuring Pyrgopolynices, who
may be expected to have captured the attention of the audience, it is
unlikely that it is to be taken seriously. Rather, the actor is self-consciously
drawing attention to the play as drama. He then moves on to outline the
trick to be played on Sceledrus, again emphasising a metatheatrical aware
ness of the audience as he explains:10)
9) Prologues are the most glaring example of this fact, but there are many other instances.
See e.g. Timothy Moore's comments on the Pseudolus (1998,-92-6). 10) The text throughout is the OCT of W.M. Lindsay (1904). Translations are my own
unless stated otherwise.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 413
et mox ne erretis, haec duarum hodie vicem
et hinc et illinc mulier feret imaginem, atque eadem erit, verum alia esse adsimulabitur (150-2)
'And so that you won't be mistaken, this woman will take on the appearance
of two people in turn, in this house and in that one, but both will be the same
person, she will really be pretending to be another'
The scene that balances the prologue is the much-debated scene with Lur
cio. This scene is generally regarded as an addition to the Greek original,n) and is thought to stand out as a misplaced and unnecessary scene that
breaks up the action of the second trick that has just got underway. If the
structure of the play set out above is accepted, however, the Lurcio scene
becomes not an isolated scene dangling in the second trick, but rather the
final scene of the first trick. According to this structure, the purpose of the
scene becomes clear. Where the prologue had presented the audience with
the plan to defeat Sceledrus, the Lurcio scene demonstrates the success of
this plan.12) Palaestrio's intention had been to make Sceledrus believe that
he had not seen what he had seen. As Leach points out, in this concluding scene, Sceledrus does not even appear, having resorted to drink, presum
ably to drink ofFhis troubles (Leach 1980, 198-9). Even his cellarmans job is under threat by the end (857-61). Yet it is not Sceledrus himself who
arrives on stage but Lurcio, Sceledrus' underling, and on entering, Lurcio announces that non operaest Sceledro (818), usually translated as something like 'Sceledrus is busy. The word opera has a wide range of meanings, from
'service to need' to 'leisure', but as it is a word that can refer to the activity and efforts of a slave, it is often used by crafty Plautine slaves to indicate
their plans and tricks.13) Thus, Lurcio is also perhaps informing Palaestrio, and the audience, that Sceledrus has no such plan, and his defeat is plain. At the end of the scene, he also addresses the audience directly, breaking the dramatic illusion as Palaestrio had done in the prologue:
n) See e.g. Fraenkel 1960, 245-6; Williams 1958, 96-9. Leach (1980) believes that the
scene contributes thematically to the play, highlighting the repressive nature of Pyrgopoly nices' house and its character as a social unit, which is contrasted sharply with the house of
Periplectomenus. 12) See Saylor 1977, 2, who also places the Lurcio scene in the first half of the play, but does
not expand upon this point. 13) See e.g Epid. 653-4; As. 734 {mala opera)-, Cist. 777-8.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
414 L. Maurice ?Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426
fugiam hercle aliquo atque hoc in diem extollam malum. ne dixeritis, opsecro, huic, vostram fidem! (861-2)
TU flee somewhere and put off this evil to another day. Don't tell him, I
beseech you'/
5.2. Palaestrio andPeriplectomenus in Performance (156-271/518-812)
Immediately after the prologue and before the Lurcio scene is another pair of scenes that balance each other, both of which contain sections that act
as showcases for theatrical performances, demonstrating the acting ability of Palaestrio in the first scene, and that of Periplectomenus in the second.
In both cases, this is highlighted self-consciously, and in each case the sec
ond figure acts as a foil for the first. In the earlier scene, it is Periplecto menus who revels in Palaestrio's acting, in a speech that describes his
actions, while in the second it is Palaestrio who glorifies in Periplecto menus' skill. In the first scene, the main facts (that Philocomasium has
been spotted embracing Pleusicles, and that she should go back to the
soldier's house) are disposed of quickly, within sixteen lines (170-85). A
few lines later, however, the emphasis changes as Palaestrio and Periplecto menus launch into a self-conscious demonstration of stagecraft, as the
slave mimes, and the old man comments on and interprets Palaestrio's
posture and actions:14)
... illuc sis vide, 200
quern ad modum adstitit, severo fronte curans cogitans.
pectus digitis pul tat, cor credo evocaturust foras;
ecce avortit: nixus laevo in femine habet laevam manum,
dextera digitis rationem computat, feriens femur
dexterum. ita vehementer icit: quod agat aegre suppetit. 205
concrepuit digitis: laborat; crebro commut?t status,
eccere autem capite nutat: non placet quod repperit. (200-7)
'Just look at that, now, how he stands there, with frowning brow, considering
and cogitating. With his fingers he's knocking at the door of his breast; he's
going to invite his intelligence to come out I imagine. There, he turns away.
He rests his left hand on his left thigh, and with the fingers of his right does
14) Frangoulidis (1994, 79) stresses the theatrical quality of this speech.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 415
some calculating. Now he slaps his right thigh! A right lusty blow! He's having a difficult time deciding what to do. Now he's snapped his fingers; what a
struggle! He constantly changes his position. But look at that! He's shaking his head; he doesn't like that notion.'15)
After one more line that reminds the audience of Palaestrio's status as a
servus callidus {quidquid est, incoctum non expromet, bene coctum dabit,
'Whatever it is, he won't produce a potboiler, he'll provide a real scorcher'
(208), Periplectomenus continues with the famous lines that have occa
sioned such discussion among critics (209-12), plausibly considered to be
a reference to Naevius,16) but certainly containing a clear reference to a
poet.17) The metatheatricality is heightened by the next line: eugel euscheme
hercle astitit et dulice et comoedice, 'Hooray! He stands there fittingly, by
god, like a slave in a comedy' (213). Palaestrio, according to Periplectomenus, at this point goes into a trance, prompting the old man to wake him with
the first piece of extended military imagery in the play (219-30).18) Palaestrio then lays out his plan at last, punctuated by admiring comments
from Periplectomenus that reinforce his status as a servus callidus: Euge
euge, lepide, laudo commentum tuom_ immo optume.... nimi doctum
dolum..., 'Hooray, hooray, delightful, I praise your scheme... Really won
derful ... Such a clever trick...' (241-8), and the scene ends with Palaestrio's
declaration of his intention to set his plan in motion.
Several parallel elements may be seen in the corresponding scene at the
end of the trick, lines 596-812, which also features Periplectomenus and
Palaestrio, but with the addition of Pleusicles. The aim of the scene is
ostensibly to set out the second trick to be played on Pyrgopolynices, yet, like in the earlier scene, most of the scene is not devoted to this subject.19)
15) I use here the translation of G. Duckworth (1942, 554-5), which captures the quality of
Periplectomenus' speech nicely. 16) See Segal 1968, 125; Jocelyn 1969, 35 and 1987, 17-20; Rochette 1998, 414-6. 17) See Frangoulidis 1994, 72-86 for the metatheatrical implication of these lines. 18) Forehand 1973, 6-7. 19) Lines 614-764 in this scene, the so-called aristeia of Periplectomenus, have been criti
cised as an irrelevant interpolation, and assumed to be a section from the original Greek
play that was Plautus' model for the Miles, reflecting Athenian values. See Leo 1912, 132-3;
Webster 1970, 179-80; Grimai 1968, 143-4. Williams (1993, 95) sees the aristeia as a bor
rowing that Plautus has inserted from another Greek play.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
416 L. Maurice ?Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426
Whereas in the first case the plan was quickly disposed of within sixteen
lines, here the plot is delayed until the end of the scene and takes up only a quarter of the entire scene. As before, most of the scene is devoted to a
demonstration of theatrical ability, but this time not by Palaestrio but by
Periplectomenus, as the slave becomes the admiring audience that Peri
plectomenus himself had been in the first scene.
Periplectomenus portrays himself explicitly as a senex lepidus, a stock
character in Plautine comedy, and Palaestrio backs him up, addressing him
as: o lepidum semisenem, charming semi-old man (649),20) and Pleusicles
repeats this description ten lines later.21) This stress on the word lepidus
emphasizes that Periplectomenus is taking on a theatrical role, that of the senex lepidus. The theatricality of this role is highlighted by Periplecto
menus' next speech (661-8), in which he portrays himself as an actor able
to take on characters at whim: a fierce advocate or a gentle one, a congenial dinner companion,
a parasite,
a caterer, even a ballet dancer. He then goes
on to demonstrate this talent, as he takes role after stereotypical role for
almost one hundred lines, portraying himself first as a carefree bachelor
(672-81), then as a henpecked husband (685-700), a Roman patron (705
15), a devoted father (718-22), zpius host (736-9), a stern master (745-9) and a wise philosopher (751-62).22)
In this scene, Pleusicles' lack of comprehension of the nature of acting shows up the knowledge of the other two characters. In the second half of
the scene, where the focus shifts back to the plot of the play and the second
trick to be perpetrated against the soldier is outlined, Palaestrio, having shown off his star actor, now takes on the role of director-playwright. He
describes the plan that he has devised and the actors he will need to per form the trick, sends Periplectomenus off with his orders (765-804), and
20) Indeed, when Palaestrio first introduces Periplectomenus at his first entrance, he refers
to him specifically as a senex lepidus (155). 21) At quidem illuc aetatis qui sit non invenies alterum
lepidiorem ad omnis res nee qui amicus amico sit magis (659-60)
'You won't find another man of that age more delightful in every way, nor another who
is more of a friend to a friend' 22) That these are all dramatic parts, rather than serious statements of attitude, is perhaps underscored by Periplectomenus' last words on the subject, as he declares: hau centensumam
partem dixi atque, otium rei si sit, possum expromere, Tve scarcely told you a hundredth part of what I could display, if there was time for this' (763-4), for one of the meanings of the
word pars is a theatrical role or character.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Maurice /Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 417
even gives some acting instruction to Pleusicles, reminding him to refer to
Dicea rather than Philocomasium.23) Thus, the self-conscious nature of the
performance is kept at the forefront of the audience's mind.
5.3. The Play in Action: The Deception of Sceledrus (272-595)
In the central four scenes of the first trick, the audience is treated to a dis
play of acting ability as Palaestrio, Philocomasium and Periplectomenus all
put on a show for Sceledrus, convincing him that the girl he has seen kiss
ing a young man, is really Philocomasium's twin sister. Throughout these
scenes the artificiality of the pretence is stressed again and again. Thus, there are constant stage directions,24) as Palaestrio warns Philocomasium to
follow his instructions (354-7) and Periplectomenus gives her orders:
heus, Philocomasium, cito
transcurre curriculo ad nos, ita negotiumst.
post, quando exierit Sceledrus a nobis, cito
transcurrito ad vos rursum curriculo domum (522-5)
'Hey, Philocomasium, run across quickly, at full speed, to our house, you have
to! Then, when Sceledrus comes out of our house, run across again quickly at
full speed to your house'
Similarly, characters comment on what is happening in asides to the audi
ence.2^ Palaestrio declares in glee, meus illic homo est, deturbabo iam ego ilium depugnaculis, 'That man is mine, now I will drive him from his strong holds' (334), comments on Philocomasium's performance {ut utrubique
23) Those who favour the theory of contaminatio have seized upon by these lines with
delight, since they appear immediately after the outline of the plan involving the fake 'wife',
in which the phantom twin sister, Dicea, does not appear at all (see e.g. Jachmann 1931,
165; Fraenkel 1960, 245). As Duckworth has pointed out, however, Palaestrio's words here
can be an instruction to Pleusicles that when he appears in the role of the ship captain later
on, he must be careful to use the same name for the imaginary twin sister that had been
used earlier; Palaestrio even refers to these instructions later on in the play, when he gives Pleusicles further orders (1175) (see Duckworth 1935, 231-2). This argument is even more
convincing when it is noted that both sets of instructions occur during the scenes in which
acting and Palaestrio's role as a director are central themes. 24) See also Moore 1998, 74. 25) See Slater 1985, 158-60 on the metatheatrical effect of asides.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
418 L. Maurice / Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426
orationem docte divisit suam, ut sublinitur os custodi cauto, conservo meo,
'how skilfully she changed her speech for each part, how the cautious
guard, my fellow slave, is being bamboozled' (466-7)), and later remarks:
numquam edepol hominem quemquam ludificarier magis facete vidi et magi' miris modis, 'By Pollux, I have never seen any man fooled more easily and
in such wonderful ways' (538-9). Similarly Periplectomenus expresses con
cern as to whether she will carry the plan off {nuncpol ego metuo ne quid
infuscaverit, 'now I fear in case she makes a mess of it' (526)) and com
ments on Sceledrus' stupidity and the success of their trick (586-95). These asides are in contrast to frequent comments by Sceledrus himself.
Whereas the other characters' words are addressed to the audience, and
reveal conscious knowledge of what is happening, Sceledrus' are addressed to himself and demonstrate his ignorance of the situation. After his first
encounter with Palaestrio in this section, he explains his dilemma and
helplessness:
quid ego nunc faciam? custodem me illi miles addidit: 305 nunc si indicium facio, interii; <interii> si taceo tarnen,
si hoc palam fuerit. quid peius muliere aut audacius?
dum ego in tegulis sum, illaec sum ex hospitio edit foras;
edepol facinus fecit audax. hocine si miles sciat,
credo hercle has sustollat aedis totas atque hunc in crucem. 310
hercle quidquid est, mussitabo potius quam inteream male;
non ego possum quae ipsa sese venditat tutarier (305-12)
'Now what shall I do? The soldier has appointed me her guard. Now if I reveal
it, I'm dead; if I keep silent, I'm dead anyway, if it comes to light. What is worse or more impudent than a woman? While I was on the roof, she took
herself outside from her house: By Pollux it was a daring crime that she did. If the soldier finds out about this, I think he'll destroy the whole household
here, by Hercules, and crucify me. By Hercules, whatever happens, I'll keep
quiet rather than die badly. I can't guard a woman who's selling herself!'
At the end of the scene, he has a similar speech that shows his bewilder
ment (345-53), and again at the very end of the trick he reveals his confu
sion, totally misreading Periplectomenus' behaviour, as he believes that the
old man and Palaestrio have tricked him, but is completely mistaken about
the nature of that trick:
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 419
Dedit hie mihi verba, quam b?nigne gratiam fecit ne iratus esset! scio quam rem gerat:
ut, miles quom extemplo a foro adveniat domum,
domi comprehendar. una hic et Palaestrio
me habent venalem: sensi et iam dudum scio. (576-80)
'He's tricked me. How kindly he pretends that not to be angry. I know what he is doing: as soon as the soldier comes home from the forum, I'll be under
house arrest. This man and Palaestrio have me up for sale, I suspected it and
now I know it.'
The word venalem in this speech picks up the word vendidat in his earlier
words, indicating that nothing has changed; Sceledrus continues to see the
world as he always has, and has not changed his beliefs. Rather his suspi cions are now confirmed, as he states plainly (580). Yes ironically, although he is correct to be suspicious, his reading of the situation is completely wrong, for the actors in the play, Philocomasium, Palaestrio and Periplec tomenus, have convinced him that he had not seen what he had believed
that he saw.26) The power of illusion, in the form of words and acting, is
stronger than the power of sight upon which Sceledrus depends.
6. Structure, Metatheatricality and Acting: The Second Trick
6.1. Pyrgopolynices' Delusion of Being a Lover (874-946/1377-93)
Although the foundation and explanation of the second trick is found
towards the end of the Sceledrus trick, its implementation actually begins at line 874, and centres around Pyrgopolynices' delusion that he is a highly desirable paramour. It is this fault that is constantly stressed, and which
makes the entire trick possible, and it is in the correction of this fault that
the final resolution comes.
The trick opens with a scene featuring Periplectomenus, Acroteleutium,
Milphidippa and Palaestrio, as they outline the plan. Acting and pretence are stressed as the heart of the trick, as Palaestrio orders: huius uxorem volo
26) The theme of sight is a central one in the play. See, in the first trick, 147-9; 187-8;
289-93; 336; 341; 345; 368-9; 376-7; 405; 518; 544; 556-7; 564, together with Saylor 1977, 6.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
420 L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426
<ted> adsimulare... quasi militi animum adieceris simulare, T want you to pretend to be this man s wife... and to act as if you love the soldier'
(908-9). That this pretence is in contrast to the true state of affairs is
emphasised as Acroteleutium states her true opinion of the soldiers nature:
populi odium quidni noverim, magnidicum, cincinnatum, moechum unguen tatum, cHow could I not know that public enemy, the big-mouth, coifFured, scented sex-fiend?' (923-4). The success of the deception is demonstrated
in the short parallel balancing scene with the slave boy, as he tells the
soldier: intro te ut eas obsecrat, te volt, te quaerit, teque exspectans expetit,
amantifer opem, 'She begs that you go inside, she wants you, she's desiring you, she's dying waiting for you. Bring hope to someone who's in love'
(1385-7). That he is also acting is clear, however, as, like Acroteleutium
earlier, he follows this up with the true state of affairs: eum oderunt qua viri
qua mulleres, 'They hate him, both the men and the women' (1392).
6.2. The Dismissal of Philocomasium (947-90/1284-377)
The next pair of scenes stress the theme of drama more directly. In the first, there is a move from planning the trick to its implementation as the first
stage of the plot is enacted. Palaestrio persuades Pyrgopolynices that there
is a neighbour who is desperately in love with him, prompting the soldier's
desire to rid himself of Philocomasium, and advancing the plot along con
siderably. Not only do the audience witness deception and roleplaying in
action, but there are also nuances and double entendres that remind them
that this is not reality but drama, as Palaestrio also urges Pyrgopolynices to
send Philocomasium away together with ornamenta (981), a word that
means not only 'trinkets', but in a dramatic context costume'.27)
In the parallel scene to this, we witness Philocomasium's actual depar ture. Once again the stress is upon costume, for, echoing the earlier scene,
Pyrgopolynices orders Palaestrio to bring out aurum, ornamenta, vestem,
pretiosa omnia, gold, trinkets, clothing, all the precious things' (1302).
Additionally, Pleusicles enters dressed, to his chagrin, as a sea captain and
stresses that it is only for love that he is appearing ornatu, 'in costume'
(1286). Pleusicles then consciously takes on the role he is supposed to be
playing: oratio alio mihi demutandast mea, 'Now I must change my manner
of speech' (1291).
27) See also Moore 1998, 75-6.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 All
This scene, the final one in which Palaestrio appears, also shows him
keeping a directorial role over the play. Where in the first scene he had
devised the plan for the soldier and explained to him how to implement it, here he controls the pace of the action. When the plot threatens to unravel, as Pleusicles fondles Philocomasium, ostensibly reviving her from the faint
into which she has supposedly fallen on seeing Pyrgopolynices, it is
Palaestrio who covers up for him. He invents excuses (1330-4), warns the
lovers (1337) and expresses fear of discovery to Pleusicles (1348), while
continually drawing attention from them by acting out his mock grief at
being parted from his master (1326-8, 1339-41, 1354-72). Palaestrio
remains the playwright and director of the play put on to deceive the sol
dier and entertain the audience, right to the end.
6.3. Pyrgopolynices against Palaestrio and the Women (991-1093/1216-83)
Dramatic self-awareness is even more obvious in the next pair of scenes,
those featuring the entrapment of Pyrgopolynices, by Palaestrio and the two women. The first of the two scenes (991-1093) opens with Milphi
dippa explicitly referring to the trick she is about to undertake as a play: iam est ante aedis circus ubi sunt ludi faciundi mihi, 'the circus, where my
plays must be performed, is already here before the house' (991), and
explaining how she will begin this play with a piece of acting: dissimulabo, hos quasi non videam neque esse hic etiam dum sciam, 'I'll pretend that I
don't see them and that I don't yet know they're here' (992). She then
ostentatiously pretends to check that she is alone, and declares her mistress'
love for the soldier. After the two men approach, the scene is peppered with dialogue between Palaestrio and Milphidippa that breaks the dra
matic illusion in the play they are putting on for Pyrgopolynices. Milphi
dippa asks for instruction (1020-30), and then urges Palaestrio to end the scene before it kills her (1084-5). The two also compare notes on their
progress (1066-6a, 1073-4) and talk about Pyrgopolynices behind his back
(1044, 1045, 1078). These actions continually underscore the fact that
Palaestrio and Milphidippa are acting, as they step in and out of their roles,
performing for their unconscious audience (Pyrgoploynices) and for the conscious spectators watching the comedy.28) The irony is heightened by
28) Ibid. 75-6.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
422 L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426
Pyrgopolynices' own asides throughout the scene, for whereas the actors'
asides demonstrate their control of the situation, the soldier's comments
reveal that he is completely deceived.
This pattern is repeated in the parallel scene where Acroteleutium joins
Milphidippa and Palaestrio, and which opens with words reminiscent of
the earlier scene. Whereas Milphidippa had decided to pretend that she
had not seen the two men, she now tells Acroteleutium: aspicito limis, ne
ille nos se sentiat videre, 'Look sideways, so that he won't realise that we see
him' (1217). As Milphidippa had done earlier, Acroteleutium takes on her
acting role consciously, using the word mala, often used of the servus calli
dus, and urging her maid: edepol nunc nos tempus est malas peiores fieri, 'wow! Now it is time for us wicked girls to become worse!' (1218), and
gives her instruction as she talks: ne parce vocem, ut audiat, 'Don't spare
your voice, so he can hear' (1220). With the knowledge that the two
women are acting firmly in place, Acroteleutium goes on to give a dazzling
performance, ostentatiously pretending exaggerated love, while Pyrgop
olynices drinks in every word, providing a double show for the audience.
6.4. The Philocomasium Thread Continues (1094-136/1200-15)
Two more short scenes, in which the audience see the continuation of the
Philocomasium theme, provide the frame for the central, pivotal scene of
the trick. In the first of the scenes Palaestrio urges the soldier to talk to
Philocomasium himself and send her away with all the gifts he had given her; in the second, we see the result of this conversation. Although the
audience do not see Philocomasium's acting at this point, they will know,
coming as it does straight after the scene featuring Milphidippa, that it
follows much the same pattern as that already demonstrated by the slave
girl. Similarly, at the beginning of the scene starring Acroteleutium, audience expectation builds upon the successful methods employed by Philocomasium in the previous scene and adds to the richness of the
impression.29) It is clear that Philocomasium has played her part magni
ficently, securing not only her own release, along with all her possessions, but also that of Palaestrio.
29) Frangoulidis (1998, 40-3) also points out the structural and thematic parallels between
the reactions of Acroteleutium and Philocomasium on seeing the soldier.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Maurice /Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 423
6.5. Acting Instruction (1137-99)
It is in the central scene of the second trick that theatrical awareness is at
its height, as Palaestrio takes on the role of playwright-director, instructing Acroteleutium, Milphidippa and Pleusicles as to how to act their parts.30) In the first scene of the trick, where acting had been stressed, the actors of
the plot had described Palaestrio as the architectus of the trick (901-2, 915,
919); Milphidippa and Acroteleutium both now address him by the same
title. Although there is a connection here with the building imagery of the
play,31) the word architectus is used elsewhere in Plautus to mean a con
triver of trickery, and it is in this sense that the term should be understood
here.32) Palaestrio is the master playwright, who contrives the trick that will
defeat the villain of the piece, and is acknowledged as such. Despite his own praise of Milphidippa, Palaestrio remains in firm control of the plot,
providing reassurance and advice:
bono animo es; negotium omne iam succedit sub manus;
vos modo porro, ut occepistis, date operam adiutabilem (1143-4)
'Cheer up; the whole affair is falling into place now; you just continue as
you've begun, to lend a hand'
He makes reference once more to the aurum atque ornamenta, and guides the inexperienced actor, Pleusicles, warning him against overconfidence, and stressing that need for tricks (1150-4). At this point, Acroteleutium turns to him, explicitly asking for guidance, since this is the most danger ous stage of the deception. Pointing out that nunc quom maxume opust dolis, 'now is the greatest need of trickery' (1153-4), he replies to Acrotel
eutium's request for direction: lepidus facitis!, you've done delightfully!' (1159), using the word lepis once again. Palaestrio then assumes another
role, that of an imperator giving orders to his troop of actors, and declaring
emphatically: militem lepide et facete, laute ludificarier vol?, T want the
soldier to be fooled delightfully, wittily and elegantly' (1161-2). Again, the
30) For further examples of this phenomenon, see Slater 1985, particularly 168-9, and
Moore 1998, 75-6, 98-9. See also Frangoulidis 1994, who covers Palaestrio's role in
depth. 31) See Forehand 1973, 10-1. 32) CiPoen. 1110.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
424 L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426
word ludificarier signals both the trickery and its connection with acting, within the context of this ludus ('play'). Acroteleutium goes over the plan, and Palaestrio offers more direction and advice (1166-73), coaching her in
her role and concluding by asking: satinpraeceptumst?, 'Enough direction?'
(1173). Turning to Pleusicles, his instructions concern the costume that he
is to wear (1175-82), and the lines he is to use (1184-8). His final orders to the young man are: abi cito atque
orna te... haec ut memineris, 'Go
quickly and get into costume... remember these things' (1195), and with a final chivvying the women into place (1196-8), the scene closes.
There is no doubt that the deception of Pyrgopolynices is based upon, and succeeds because of, his own inability to appreciate the play put on by Palaestrio. Like Sceledrus, the soldier does not ever grasp the reality of
what is happening. His understanding of the events at the end of the play is that he has learnt a lesson about adultery (1435-7). Yet this is missing the
point entirely. As Timothy Moore (1998, 77) states:
There is no lesson about adultery here, as Acroteleutium and Periplectomenus'
marriage was all part of the ruse. Because the deception of which he was a
victim has been so emphatically portrayed as a theatrical performance, Pyr
gopolynices' conclusion is a misreading of the play he has witnessed. His
moralizing epilogue reveals that he is not only a profoundly stupid person,
but also a failed spectator.
7. Conclusion
The Miles Gloriosus is composed of two tricks, the first played out against Sceledrus and the second against his master Pyrgopolynices. Both tricks are built of parallel balancing scenes that centre around, and highlight,
acting and roleplaying. The structure of each trick therefore deepens the
impact of the metatheatrical elements running throughout the play, induc
ing a greater awareness of the artificiality of the events being acted out on
the stage, as each trick stresses the idea of role assumption and drama as a
central theme.
By emphasising the nature of roleplaying, the structure of the Miles
underscores the message of the play, which is very much concerned with
the nature of illusion and reality. As a result of the roleplaying of Philoco
masium, under the direction of Palaestrio, Sceledrus allows himself to be
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L. Maurice ?Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426 425
convinced that he has not seen what he did indeed see, and is persuaded to
doubt the empirical evidence of his eyes. Pyrgopolynices himself lives in a
fantasy world of illusion; but he does so in the context of a drama, which
is to be an illusion. The audience observe the duping of Sceledrus, and wit
ness his master's posturing and the illusion that he believes is truth, but
which fools no one. They are then able to contrast this with Palaestrio's
acting ability that does convince his intended audience. The Miles Glorio
sus underscores the paradoxical nature of drama, which convinces despite
being based on nothing more than illusion; the play thus demonstrates
that herein lies the power of true drama.
Bibliography Barchiesi, M. 1970. Plauto e il metateatro' antico, II verri 31, 113-30
Beacham, R.C. 1991. The Roman Theatre and Its Audience (London)
Duckworth, G.E. 1935. The Structure of the Miles Gloriosus, Classical Philology 30,
228-46
Duckworth, G. 1942. The Complete Roman Drama (New York)
Forehand, W. 1973. The Use of Imagery in Plautus Miles Gloriosus, Rivista di Studi
Classici 21, 5-16
Fraenkel, E. I960. Elementiplautini in Plauto (Florence)
Frangoulidis, S. 1994. Palaestrio as Playwright: Plautus Miles Gloriosus 209-212, in:
Deroux, C. (ed.) Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, 7 (Brussels), 72-86
Frangoulidis, S. 1996. A Prologue-within-a-Prologue: Plautus, Miles Gloriosus 145-153,
Latomus 55, 568-70
-. 1997. Handlung und Nebenhandlung: Theater, Metatheater und Gattungsbewusst sein in der r?mischen Kom?die (Stuttgart)
-. 1998. The Entrapment of Pyrgopolynices in Plautus Miles Gloriosus, Pp. 53, 40-3
Grimai, P. 1968. Le Miles Gloriosus et la viellesse de Philemon, REL 46, 129'-44
Hammond, A., Mack, M., Moskalew, W. 1970. Plautus: Miles Gloriosus (Cambridge,
MA) [rev. ed.]
Jachman, G. 1931. Plautinisches und Attisches (Berlin)
Jocelyn, H.D. 1969. The Poet Cn. Naevius, P Cornelius Scipio and Q. Caecilius Metellus,
Antichthon 3, 32-47
-. 1987. Plautus, Miles Gloriosus 209-212, Sileno 13, 17-20
Leach, E.W. 1980. The Soldier and Society: Plautus Miles Gloriosus as Popular Drama,
Rivista di Studi Classici 28, 185-209
Lef?vre, E. 1984. Plautus-Studien, IV: Die Umformung des 'AXa? vzu der Doppel-Kom?die des Miles Gloriosus, Hermes 112, 30-53
Leo, F. 1912. PLtutinische Forschungen: Zur Kritik und Geschichte der Kom?die (Berlin)
[2nd ed.]
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
426 L. Maurice I Mnemosyne 60 (2007) 407-426
Lindsay, W.M. 1904. T. Macci Plauti Comoediae (Oxford)
Moore, T.J. 1982. Music and Structure in Roman Comedy, AJP 119, 245-73
-. 1998. The Theater of Plautus (Austin)
Muecke, F. 1986. Plautus and the Theatre of Disguise, CA 5, 216-29
Rochette, B. 1998. Poeta barbarus (Plaute, Miles Gloriosus 211), Latomus 57, 414-6
Rosenmeyer, T.G. 2002. Metatheater: An Essay on Overload, Arion 10, 87-119
Saylor, OF. 1977. Periplectomenus and the Organization of the Miles Gloriosus, ?ranos 75,
1-13
Segal, E. 1968. Roman Laughter (Oxford)
Slater, N.W. 1985. Plautus in Performance (Princeton)
Webster, T.B.L. 1970. Studies in Later Greek Comedy (Manchester) [2nd ed.]
Williams, B. 1993. Games People Play: Metatheatre as Performance Criticism in Plautus
Casina, Ramus 22, 33-59
Williams, G. 1958. Evidence for Plautus'Workmanship in the Miles Gloriosus, Hermes 86,
79-105
Wright, J. 1974. Dancing in Chains: the Stylistic Unity of the commoedia palliata (Rome)
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:43:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions