maurice-structure and stagecraft in plautus' miles gloriosus

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27736151?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


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



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.



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.



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.




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.



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.




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.




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.




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.




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.



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.



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:




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.



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.



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.




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.



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.




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



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.]




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)



maurice-structure and stagecraft in plautus' miles gloriosus

Documents