The Dramatic Values in Plautus | Page 6

Schlegel, in his History of the Drama[39]
has the point of view of the dramatic critic, rather than the professional
scholar; while expressing a measure of admiration for the significance

of Plautus in literature, he is impelled to say: "The bold, coarse style of
Plautus and his famous jokes, savour of his familiarity with the
vulgar ... mostly inclines to the farcical, to overwrought and
often disgusting drollery." This is doubtless true, but, by making the
incidental a criterion for the whole, it gives a gross misconception to
one that has not read Plautus.
[Sidenote: Donaldson] J. W. Donaldson, in his lectures on the Greek
theatre[40], has plagiarized Schlegel practically verbatim, while giving
the scantest credit to his source. His work thus loses value, as being a
mere echo, or compilation of second-hand material.
We learn from Schlegel that Goethe was so enamored of ancient
comedy that he enthusiastically superintended the translation and
production of plays of Plautus and Terence. Says Schlegel[41]: "I once
witnessed at Weimar a representation of the Adelphi of Terence,
entirely in ancient costume, which, under the direction of Goethe,
furnished us a truly Attic evening."
[Sidenote: Scott] In this connection the opinion of Sir Walter Scott may
be interesting. He too, not being a classical scholar par excellence, may
be better equipped for sound judgment. In the introduction to Dryden's
Amphitryon he says: "Plautus ... left us a play on the subject of
Amphitryon which has had the honour to be deemed worthy of
imitation by Molière and Dryden. It cannot be expected that the plain,
blunt and inartificial style of so rude an age should bear any
comparison with that of the authors who enjoyed the highest
advantages of the polished times to which they were an ornament."
There speaks the sophisticated and conscious literary technician![42]
[Sidenote: LeGrand] The most comprehensive and judicious estimate
of all is certainly attained by LeGrand in Daos.[43] He appreciates
clearly that "la nouvelle comédie n'a pas été, en toute circonstance
stance, une comédie distinguée. Elle n'a pas dédaigné constamment la
farce et le gros rire."[44] How much more then would this apply to
palliatae!
We now believe that we have on hand a sufficiently large volume of

criticism to appreciate practically every phase of judgment to which
Plautus has been subjected.[45] The ancients overrated him stylistically,
but he was a man of their own people. Men such as Becker, Weise,
Lorenz and Langrehr have proceeded upon a distinctly exaggerated
ideal of Plautus' eminence as a master dramatic craftsman and literary
artist and therefore have amputated with the cry of "Spurious!"
everything that offends their ideal. Lessing is obsessed with too high an
estimate of the Captivi. Lamarre, Naudet and Ritschl commit the error
of imputing to our poet a moral purpose. Schlegel and Scott deprecate
the crudity of his wit without an adequate appreciation of its sturdy and
primeval robustness. Langen, Mommsen, Korting and LeGrand
approach a keen estimate of his inconsistencies and his single-minded
purpose of entertainment, but Korting accuses him of attempting to
create an illusion of life while aiming solely at provoking laughter.
From this heterogeneous mass of diversified criticism we glean the
prevailing idea that Plautus is lauded or condemned according to his
conformity or non-conformity to some preconceived standard of
comedy situate in the critic's mind, without a consideration of the poet's
original purpose. We must seriously propound the question as to how
far a grave injustice has been done him almost universally in criticising
him for what he does not pretend to be. Did Plautus himself suffer from
any illusion that his plays were constructed with cogent and
consummate technique? Did he for a single instant imagine himself the
inspired reformer of public morality? Did he believe that his style was
elegant and polished? Indeed, he must have effected an appreciable
refinement of the vernacular of his age to produce his lively verse, but
without losing the robust vitality of "Volkswitz." Or is it true that
nothing further than amusement lay within his scope?
If so, we may at least posit that almost unbounded license must be
allowed the pen which aims simply to raise a laugh. We do not
fulminate against a treatise on Quaternions because it lacks humor. If
the drawings of cartoonists are anatomically incorrect, we are smilingly
indulgent. Do we condemn a vaudeville skit for not conforming to the
Aristotelian code of dramatic technique? Assuredly we do not rise in
disgust from a musical comedy because "in real life" a bevy of shapely

maidens in scant attire never goes tripping and singing blithely though
the streets. If then we can establish that Plautus regarded his adapted
dramas merely as a rack on which to hang witticisms, merely as a
medium for laugh-provoking sallies and situations, we have at once
Plautus