The Language of Built Form as a Blueprint for Comedy in Plautus Mostellaria and Miles Gloriosus

By Mara Miller, advised by Robert Germany A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in the Department of Classics at Haverford College May 2010

I never metatheater I didnt like. -Professor Andrew Fenton, Latin 101

2

Abstract This paper explores the language of building, architecture and space in two of Plautus comedies. In addition to its relevance to the plot, such language functions within the plays to organize and symbolize themes both unique to each work and characteristic of the playwright overall. This language also constitutes a powerful element of metatheater, as it points in many ways to the structures-within-a-structure and the spaces-within-a-space that embody the performance experience and particularly the experience of ancient Roman comedy. While the broadest goal is to better understand the nature and practice of Plautus comedy, that objective is founded on close readings of the texts. This project consists of a critical consideration of ways in which architectural language appears in these two plays, and in turn the ways in which that language shapes the plays impact and significance.

3

The Language of Built Form as a Blueprint for Comedy in Plautus Mostellaria and Miles Gloriosus Chapter I: Introduction

Titus Maccius Plautus, c. 254-184 B.C.E., is the first Roman playwright from whom we retain an extant corpus, and his texts are a window into ancient practice and thought. The texts dont tell us everythingarchaeological evidence and historical accounts offer important information about ancient performance. But the texts are the core of what happened onstage and of the inchoate institution of Western theater that Plautus helped to shape. The 21 works of Plautus, called fabulae palliatae, are comedies modeled in some capacity, whether by direct translation, dis- and re-assembly, or thematic influence, on Greek precedent. Miles Gloriosus is believed to be one of Plautus earliest and most popular works. It is generally accepted that Mil. is a reincarnation of the Greek comedy Alazon, and that Mostellaria, another of Plautus more popular works, comes from Philemons Phasma. The extent to which Plautus both translated and fashioned original works remains under discussion, though it is agreed that he provides more than a mechanical transposition from one language to another. We retain almost no certain detail of Plautine theater except the texts; no vase paintings depicting his shows, no descriptions of costumes, no notes on acting style.1 However, much has been guessed from archaeological records and textual evidence. The Roman theater of Plautus time appears to have evolved from the wooden stands that Etruscan dancers and musicians erected for their audiences as early as 364 B.C.E.2 These stands were temporary and could be set1 2

Slater, Niall W. 1985. Plautus in Performance: the theatre of the mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 5-6. See appendix, Fig. A.

4

up in any public place or sanctuary. With the development of farce came other types of wooden podiums, varying from simple wood floors to double-decker stages.3 Plautus work was performed in such wooden theaters, which were dismantled after their use, sometimes to make room for games, races, and other festival activities. The stage itself, which Plautus called scaena4 or proscaenium, was probably less than five feet tall and long and narrow in shape, representing a segment of the street. Behind the stage, the front wall of the actors dressing room formed the stages backdrop, which was probably blank except for a few sturdy doors. An open space, similar in form to a Greek orchestra but not used by Roman performers, lay in between the stage and the seats. Neither the stage nor the seating area was covered by a roof .5 There was no provision for a change of scenery in these open-air and curtainless theaters, writes Bieber. The podium with its back wall represented whatever the poet wished it to be. Beare elaborates: The fact that an actor mentions some object as present may sometimes be evidence that that object was actually shown on the stage; at other times we know that the object was not and could not be shown.... [it] had to be suggested to imagination by words. . . it is much more likely that the references to the natural surroundings were addressed to the imagination.6 Certain objects representation, or lack thereof, were able to influence the extent to which an audience was responsible for creatively supplying parts of the space or action in their minds. The Roman theaters distinctly transitory nature, for which scholars find several reasons, is also pertinent. In addition to the need to quickly make room for other spectacles, Bieber suggests that another reason for the theaters prompt removal may have been the fire risk to densely built Rome.7 Regardless, this setup differs from that in which the Greek works that Plautus

3

See appendix, Fig. B. Scaena can mean (I) scene-building, (2) stage, (3) a picture, whether on the stage. . . or not. Beare, W. 1950. The Roman Stage. Totowa, NJ: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 176. 5 Ibid. 176-77 . 6 Ibid. 7 Bieber 1961, 168.4

5

(re)interprets were originally performed, 8 and must have influenced the evolving way in which audiences participated in and conceptualized theater.

The language of built form Mil. and Mostell. are in many capacities typical Plautine worksthere are stock comedic characters, a focus on trickery and deception, and a clear presence of witty wordplay, for example. However, there are phenomena at work in these plays that may distinguish them from the rest of the corpus. The plays dialogue contains a notable presence of the language of space and place, and especially of the built forms that demarcate, frame, and comprise that space. Most superficially this is demonstrated by a quantifiable prominence of terms such as door, roof, or house. Architectural references and metaphors sprinkled throughout the plays serve as a unifying motif and a mode of conceptual organization. Milnor writes that attention to the detail of spaces not shown onstage, so prominent in the Mostell., is unusual in Roman comedy. In a footnote she also points to the Mil. as another example of the same phenomenon within Plautus corpus.9 By studying the two plays together, we can explore ways in which Plautus employs his ideas of space and the built environment through dramatic texts. Such an exploration features a consideration of the extent to which Plautus architectural and structural language functions as a self-referential element, in line with his employment of other metatheatrical elements. Plautus regularly toys with the dramatic illusion through dialogue with the audience and references to actors and plays, for example, and scholars agree that metatheatricality finds many incarnations in his work. I argue that Plautus architectural language also functions as a metatheatrical element, in reference to the playwright himself and to8

9

See appendix, Fig. C for an example of a permanent stone theater. Milnor, Kristina Lynn. 2002. Playing house: stage, space and domesticity in Plautus Mostellaria. Helios 29 (1): 3-25, 11.

6

the craft and experience of performancean argument that opens up a broader reflection on the ways in which Mostell. and Mil. animated the ancient Roman theater and inhabited the consciousness of their audiences. In these two plays, there are some categories of architectural language that appear prominently and consistently, as well as some that make more isolated appearances. The language of the house is arguably the most pronounced, perhaps more in Mostell. where the aedes serves as an important simile and the plot revolves around two characters homes. This word group includes the generic terms aedes and domus,10 as well as more specific parts of the home, such as parietes or tegulae.11 Previous scholarship on the topic focuses on the house and its components, especially in Mostell. However, domestic structure is also present in Mil., though its peculiarities and function differ. A second category of architectural language in both Mostell. and Mil., albeit much smaller in frequency, is the language of ships. Plautus use of ship imagery draws on many of the same ideas of structure and space that may be most obvious in terms of the aforementioned domestic architecture. There are other structural terms that do not fit neatly into either of these categories, the most notable of which may be architectus, a label that appears throughout the plays though there are no actual architects involved in the action. In an article on Mostell.s house imagery, Leach cautions that an investigation of Plautine comedy based on nuances of diction could be misguided: The reputation of Plautus has never been that of a creator of subtle and significant pattern of language.12 This paper does not aim to promote Plautus as the mastermind of an immaculate linguistic system that sits waiting like buried treasure, but does afford the playwright more credit than Leach in her assessment of the his

10 11

Both house. Walls; roof. 12 Leach, Eleanor. 1969. De exemplo meo ipse aedificato: An organizing idea in the Mostellaria. Hermes 97: 318332, 318.

7

verbal dexterity. The diction of space and architecture is undeniably present and prominent in Plautus plays, especially Mostell. and Mil. Leach does at least grant Plautus a facility with figurative language and imagery, features that rely on or incorporate this vocabulary in many ways throughout the corpus. In Mostell., there are three prominent houses, and several major scenes in which Plautus language draws heavily on architectural concepts. The first home exists only in the abstract and appears in just one scene, and most of the other relevant dialogue appears in scenes concerning one or both of the other houses, Theopropides and Simos. There are ship references in several scenes as well as an interesting inclusion of an altar at the plays conclusion. Not to be disregarded are the array of architectural terms and phrases that appear sporadically in other scenes. Mil. is not quite as centered around the home but does rely on spatial manipulation and construction for the execution of its plot. Much of this plays architectural language appears in dialogue concerning a slaves peek through the impluvium and the ensuing ploy in which Philocomasium steals back and forth from one house to another through a secret passageway. There is also an isolated but powerful building metaphor, scattered mentions of spaces such as a cellar and a garden, and repeated appearances of the enigmatic architectus. Some patterns of language are consistent across both plays, while other pertain to the peculiarities of one or the other.

8

Chapter II: Mostellaria The young man Philolaches has been enjoying himself at home with his lover (for whose freedom he borrowed a large sum of money) and his friends while his father, Theopropides, has been abroad. When Theopropides returns, his slave Tranio keeps him from entering his house and discovering Philolaches degeneracy by telling him that the building has become haunted. Then, Tranio tells Theopropides that the debt his son incurred was from a loan taken out to purchase the house next door, which actually belongs to a man named Simo. Eventually the slaves lies are found out and he begs for forgiveness, which he ultimately receives. A young mans vision Before we are introduced to either of the onstage houses, i.e. Theopropides and Simos, Philolaches delivers a canticum comprised of a lengthy and detailed simile comparing young men to houses. Onstage for the first time, Philolaches shares a revelation: novarum aedium esse arbitro similem ego hominem,/ quando natus est; ei rei argumenta dicam.13 In lines 95-118 he speaks only about buildings, describing their nature before returning to their likeness to men, and in doing so repeats variations of the word aedes five times. His symbolic aedes has tegulae, parietes, tigna, a fundamentum (several of which are also repeated), and a praiseworthy faber.14 According to Leach, while some scholars identify the simile as an exercise in rhetoric, others see it primarily as a method of characterization.15 Indeed it develops what the audience thinks about Philolaches, his experiences, and his morals, but nonetheless the canticum is elaborate and fleshed out far beyond the demands of characterization and plot. This extended simile is in fact more than an indulgence of verbal fantasy for its own sake;16 it uses detailed language to set up a group of images that at least populate, if they do not frame entirely, the rest of the play.13 14

I think men are just like new houses, from the very beginning, and Ill tell you why. Plautus, Mostellaria, 91-92. Roof; walls; beams; foundation; builder. 15 Leach 1969, 318-319. 16 Ibid.

9

Philolaches sets up the first part of his comparison between a young man and a newly completed house: both must be prepared, polished, and perfected.17 An architect who unveils such a high-quality product, he says, will be praised and envied. The concept of raising an enviable child, which Plautus suggests through this comparison, is present throughout the play as part of the emphasis on the struggle between generations and throughout a household. In this particular comparison, Plautus equates the architect to the father, and certainly throughout Mostell. the audience can envision Theopropides as a man who has built up a son and a certain way of life. However, this imaginary architect figure can also symbolize Plautus himself as an acting playwright. The imagery in Philolaches soliloquy takes this symbolism a step further, specifically alluding to a relationship between Greek comedy and Plautus work: laudant fabrum atque aedes probant; sibi quisque inde exemplum expetunt./ sibi quisque similis volunt suas.18 Each of Plautus plays follows a Greek exemplum; though he does actively create his own work, he also purposely uses an existing framework regarded in some way as ideal. Though Philolaches statement seems primarily concerned with describing what young men are like, and thus explaining to the audience the situation in which he finds himself at the plays outset, the importance of both the builder and the practice of making a replica point to another important aspect of this scene. Despite the aforementioned debate about the extent of Plautus originality, none see his work as a straightforward attempt to copy or to match the Greeks, and in this sense Plautus is not exactly like Philolaches builders. Nonetheless, he draws attention to one expression of an exemplum while using his own dramatic blueprints in his own way, both to echo them and also to create work that is distinctly Roman. I do not mean to suggest that any mention at all of an exemplum in his plays should evoke Plautus role as playwright; the connection is not17 18

paratae, expolitae,/ factae probe examussim. Ibid. 101-102. They praise the builder and admire what hes built, and use it as their own model. They want theirs to be similar. Mostell. 103-104.

10

that strong. But in this context of building with an emphasis on the builder, a context that will continue to crop up in Plautus work, the exemplum can take on that symbolism. So in several ways, what Philolaches says here influences not just how the audience envisions the action onstage but how they eventually envision the very event in which they are participating. Philolaches continues, saying that the trouble starts when someone moves into a house. On one level, this represents a young mans foray into a life without his fathers oversight. But on another, Plautus again refers directly to himself and to his role in creating theater. The new tenant is indiligens, cum pigra familia, inmundus, instrenuos19 and brings disorder to the house. This description directly parallels the way in which Plautus describes his craft throughout his corpus, as in the prologue to Trinummus for example: Philemo scripsit: Plautus vortit barbare.20 This line is often cited as evidence that Plautus did not translate directly from the Greek, and it is also noted that he uses the word twist, as opposed to something like improve, and refers to his own language as the barbarian tongue. The same idea appears in remarks throughout Mostell., such as Tranios assessment in Act II that a set of doorposts were not built by any barbarian Roman: non enim haec pultiphagus opifex opera fecit barbarus.21 With Philolaches early lines, either Plautus means to show his reverence for the Greek, or more likely to drop in a bit of humorous self-deprecation, but in any case it links Plautus speaking in his own voice to Plautus speaking in a characters voice. In the latter instance, Plautus becomes the unkempt barbarian moving into the house of Greek precedent. He does not (if the metaphor may be extended) demolish and rebuild, but he does round up his familia22 and take over. Indeed,19 20

Careless, with a dud of a family, filthy, sluggish. Mostell. 105-106. Plautus, Trinummus 19. 21 Mostell. 828. Bovie translates: No oatmeal eating Roman crucifix-carpenter/ Put this house together. Note that Roman characterization is demonstrated via architecture. (Plautus. 1995. The Haunted House. Translated by Palmer Bovie. in Plautus: The Comedies, Volume III. Slavitt, David R. and Palmer Bovie ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 370.) 22 Denotes slaves more than family, as derived from famulus. (Sturtevant 1925, 56)

11

Plautus brings a whole throng of slaves with him, who populate his plays as protagonists, schemers, and entertainers. Plautus flair for irony in wordplay is present in some of the adjectives with which he describes his surrogate self; worthless and dirty are more generic insults than sluggish and lazy, for example, which Plautus lively dialogue most obviously is not. Plautus self-referentiality at this point in the speech is doubly evident. Not only does the language specifically point to the exemplum model between Greek and Roman comedy, but the building metaphor expresses a specific reference to the temporary nature of the Roman theater structure. As the storm rails against Philolaches hypothetical house, its walls collapse completely, and must be built back up again: siquid nummo sarciri potes/ usque mantant neque id faciunt, donicum/ parietes ruont; aedificantur aedes totae denuo.23 There is no perfect parallel to be drawn between Philolaches situation and that of the Roman theater, since clearly the latter is deconstructed not by weathering or neglect but by the compulsory conclusion of a festival. However, the idea of a structures disintegrating and being by necessity rebuilt is not nearly pertinent enough to Philolaches most superficial comparison to ignore this association. At the outset he says simply that a man is like a house, but what he goes on to compare a man to is not a house in any generic sense but rather a curiously specific type of house that disappears and then reappears through the efforts of builders. He adds that this deconstruction is no fault of the builder,24 a concession that now takes on several overlapping meanings. One faber is the Greek predecessor, whether a specific author or a broad sense of precedent, who in keeping with Plautus comically self-deprecating assessment of his work can do nothing about the havoc being wreaked on his own. Another faber is Plautus, who animates his transitory, temporary, and self23

You could fix it for a little bit of money but still they putz around and do nothing while the walls fall apart, and the whole thing has to be build back up again. Mostell. 115-117. 24 Atque ea haud est fabri culpa. Mostell. 114

12

consciously bounded theater structure. Some details of this passage make no sense unless considered in this light, and Philolaches closing line may be the best example. Philolaches as an active agent has been largely absent from his own speechhe is built, he is copied, he is broken down by rainbut he concludes, nunc, postquam nili sum, id vero meopte ingenio repperi.25 Philolaches determination to restructure his life or his morals is not at all important in the rest of the play, and this concluding intention to actively and creatively construct oneself is better explained by theatrical symbolism than by needs of characterization.

The haunted house As Tranio introduces his first lie, he also reintroduces the aedes, now as the site of conflict between generations: Non modo ne intro eat, verum etiam ut fugiat longe ab aedibus?26 His question maps the opposition between inside and outside, with the aedes embodying both an object and a barrier between two worlds. The inside world is that of the young generation, overrun with drinking, women, laziness, and love, and while here the aedes represents Philolaches and his lifestyle, it also conceals it. The aedes also represents power; those who maintain control by inhabiting it continue to have the upper hand in the conflict. Tranio is able to trick Theopropides precisely because the latter cannot penetrate that boundary to see what has happened inside the house. Like other Plautine slaves, Tranio manipulates his master, but here he does so specifically by manipulating the house, its walls, and its doors. Between lines 430-470, the door in particular is emphasized. Doors are prominent throughout Plautus, most commonly as part of the creaking-door convention that announces characters entrances. The expression generally includes crepuit or

25 26

Now after Ive crumbled into nothing, I figure things out with my own talents. Mostell. 156. Want to make it so that he doesnt just stay outside, but runs far away from the house? Ibid. 390.

13

concrepuit, plus ostium or foris. Duckworth notes the following typical variations in Roman comedy, attesting a similar pattern and frequency in Greek comedy:27 Ill stop talking; the door creaked; there he is, hes coming out;28 But our door creaked; who in the world is coming out?;29 and But my next-door neighbors door creaked. Ill hush.30 In Mil., a proliferation of these phrases is fitting given the plots dependency on comings and goings, but here the noisy doors extend past their prescribed role as stage cues. Though Duckworth refuses to accept Norwoods and Haights insistence that the door becomes tantamount to a leading Plautine character through an acquisition of personality, he does point out that Plautus uses the door in unique ways to assist in trickery and for comic effect, with a nod specifically to Mostell. and Mil.31 Duckworth summarizes his discussion of Roman staging techniques by noting that Plautus went far beyond his predecessors in his willingness to sacrifice realism for comic effect, not only in his constant violation of the dramatic illusion but in his incorporation of conventions such as exits and entrances.32 Plautus inclusion of such conventions has a distinctly Roman flavor, and Duckworth even claims that Plautus mocks certain conventions by developing their comic possibilities.33 It seems more accurate to say that Plautus treatment of the creaking door is not pure mockery, but rather falls more in line with the twisting he inflicts on other aspects of his predecessors work. He embraces previous works and their conventions, but not without playfully one-upping them as he makes them Roman. The large number of door-aided exits and entrances is not peculiar to Plautus, but rather a mark of genre, since as Mooney has demonstrated comedy on the whole27 28

Duckworth 1952, 116. Plautus, Amphitruo 496, cf. Plautus, Aulularia 665; Terence, Phormio 840; Terence, Adelphoe 264. 29 Plautus, Bacchides 234, cf. Plautus, Persa 404; Terence, Heauton Timorumenos 173. 30 Plautus, Mil. 410, cf. Plautus, Curculio 486; Plautus, Poenulus 741. 31 Duckworth, George E. 1994. The Nature of Roman Comedy: a study in popular entertainment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 116-117. 32 Ibid. 136. 33 Ibid.

14

includes decisively more comings and goings than does tragedy. According to Mooney, Plautus averages 40.7 entrances and exits per play, as compared to Aeschylus 16.7 or Euripides 25, for example; his figure is much closer to that of Aristophanes (41.6) or Terence (53.2).34 In addition to punctuating stage motion and livening the comedic pace, Plautus doors are critical to his plays action in several respects: they demonstrate ways in which architectural language can evoke multiple senses at once by calling on sight, sound, and touch with the same form; they underline the role that space and architecture play in the plot; and they function as symbols analogous to (and literally part of) the symbolic systems of the house or walls. In Mostell., the first significant door in the text is that of Theopropides house. As he arrives home and finds the door closed, he repeats and emphasizes his knocking: occlusa ianuast interdius./ pultabo. heus, ecquis hic est? aperitin foris?35; pultando paene confregi hasce ambas foris.36; quin pultando, inquam, paene confregi foris.37 Here the text indicates the manual sounding of a door, and not a door that creaks and crackles as entrance- and exit-marking doors do. However, both may share a similar lineage, since door-knocking also exists in Greek drama, and it makes sense for Plautus to adjust or augment the convention for his plays purposes.38 In her 2001 study, Arianna Traill explicates the ways in which a particular door in Menanders Dyskolos becomes a pronounced symbol through knocking scenes. Recall the comparison among playwrights exit and entrance frequency: Frost has identified 76 in the Dyskolos alone.39 Traills work provides a foundation, both historical and theoretical, for the discussion of Plautus doors. Following her main argument, Traill pauses to explore door34

Traill, Ariana. 2001. Knocking on Knemons Door: Stagecraft and Symbolism in the Dyskolos. Transactions of the American Philological Association 131: 87-108, 87. 35 Its dayitme and the doors are closed... Il knock. Hey, anyone there? Can you open up? Mostell. 444-445 36 I almost broke both those doors by pounding on them Ibid. 454 37 But Im telling you, I almost broke down the doors with my knocking. 38 For a complete list of door-knocking scenes in Plautus, see Brown 1995: 83. (Traill 2001, 98) 39 Ibid. 87.

15

knocking as it appears in other drama. Though Menander is possibly the first playwright to turn door-knocking into a major organizing motif, it is conventional in Aristophanes, and clearly carries through to Plautus where knocking hard enough to break (frangere) the doors is so common . . . that it becomes a stock accusation and a stock threat.40 Violent knocking is such a comic clich, writes Traill, that Plautus jokes about not doing so. Curiously, though, none of the instances Traill cites of these incorporations of door-knocking appear in Miles Gloriosus or Mostell., though there are many doors, exits, and entrances in both. This primary door-knocking scene in Mostell. should not be assumed to be a meaningless extension of precedent. In Theopropides door scene, Plautus language bridges the senses of touch, sight, and sound, and points to a valuable intersection between space, language, and performance. Though the participation of doors in a plays action is not unique to Mostell., to Plautus, or even to comedy, in this case it does underline the overarching emphasis on active and meaningful architectural language. Traill emphasizes that it is Knemons door, not his house, that comes to symbolize him and to organize the play. In the Mostell., the inverse proves true, and the house holds more thematic significance while the door functions as a part of that whole. If the walls of Theopropides house represent power or secrecy, then the door becomes a critical gateway, or even an axis, between that set of oppositions: manipulating/being manipulated, knowing/not knowing, and seeing/not seeing, all of which are encompassed by an inside/outside dichotomy. To return to Traills work, she cites as inspiration the work of Hoffman and Lowe whose structuralist approach to the Dyskolos concerns thematic oppositions made manifest through linguistic mapping.41 From that theoretical perspective, the door mediates between binaries, and can become a site of exchange, conflict, or both.

40 41

Ibid. 98. Traill 2001, 87-88.

16

In this scene, Tranio elevates the door-as-mediator to a literally untouchable status as he warns Theopropides to back away from it. The idea of touching the door, concerned with any physical contact as opposed to specifically knocking, is emphasized through repetition of the verb tangere by both Tranio and Theopropides. In lines 455-462 variations of the verb appear six times. Tranio pretends to be aghast,42 and his admonition is part of the fiction that the house is haunted, generated solely to maintain the lie against Theopropides. However, Tranios warning against pounding, knocking, or even approaching the door also introduces the idea of dramatic tangibility, and how the function of certain features can change if they are assigned intangibility. The intangibility of Theopropides door underlines the way in which the houses walls encapsulate Philolaches secrets and visibly divide the opposition between father and son. If we consider that binary with the door and house acting as a juncture, then this scene shows Theopropides incapability, or even helplessness, to reconcile that binary at this point in the play. He is already under the spell of Tranio, the one with the power to make the door untouchable. This binary is not confined to the microcosm of the play itself, but again extends to ways in which audiences experience the play. As mentioned, the overlap between sight, sound, and experience is called into question. But the idea of bounded space is reiterated, and especially bounded space that is only accessible in a certain way and through a certain frame. On one hand, the specific reason that Tranio generates for the need to stay away from the door has nothing to do with the actual conflict at hand. Traill notes that the idea of a monster lurking behind a door has roots in Old Comedy, just as other dramatic door-patterns do, and that scholars see the motif as a technique developed by Aristophanes.43 Tranios claim that something creepy awaits on the other side may draw on that motif or may not. Regardless, if we set aside

42 43

Non potest dici quam indignum facinus fecisti et malum. (Mostell. 459) Traill 2001, 100.

17

the titles indications (the little monster story) and look at what is actually spoken in the dialogue, we understand not that (in Tranios lie) there is an evil creature skulking behind the door, but that the house itself is haunted by spirits of deceased humans. Were this true, it would be consistent to say that the structure is animateda pertinent definition for several reasons. There are ways in which certain built forms, e.g. doors, can tap into multiple sensory perceptions at once by moving or making noise, thus becoming participants in the action and not merely backdrops. In imagining a house as possessed, we imagine it also as active in a way; the house thinks, the house frightens, the house speaks. Secondly, the very idea of a haunted house is an interesting foil to the model of temporary illusory space assumed thus far. In a haunted house, spirits or echoes of previously existing realities continue to exist within the confines of a certain structure; they remain, because the building remains. Tranios manipulation of this particular (supposedly) haunted house relies on how Theopropides, in addition to the audience, conceptualizes its constitution and power.

Setting sail Ship imagery first appears in Mostell. in a conversation between Tranio and Simo in Act II. As Tranio laments, ita oppido occidimus omnes,44 Simo reassures him that everything has worked out fine so far. Tranio replies, ita ut dicis facta hau nego/ nos profecto probe ut voluimus viximus;/ sed, Simo, ita nunc ventus navem nostram deseruit,45 comparing their change in fortune to a ships loss of its favorable wind. In this framework, the paralyzed ship represents the contrast between his present helpless state and the ease with which they used to44

Mostell. 733. Bovie translates Were torn down, Simo, down to the ground (Slavitt and Bovie 1995, 363). Though occidere can carry a generic death/end meaning, i.e. Were dead/in trouble, Simo, its shades of meaning relate specifically to deconstruction, ruin, and falling. Within a building-focused passage, Plautus evokes previous imagery of deconstruction with this word choice. 45 I wont deny what you say, weve done just fine for ourselves. But Simo, now the wind has failed our ship. Mostell. 735-737.

18

pass their days, but it also vividly represents Tranios entire scheme. This is not an arbitrary metaphor. A ship is by definition a form constructed with a task in mind, and the same can be said in an abstract sense for Tranios machinations. Unlike Philolaches comparison that overtly equates man to house, though, the ship comparison is adopted with no explanation. There is little characterization or plot setup accomplished by this metaphor, and it is not delivered as an announcement or a proposition. Simo does extend the metaphor by adopting the imagery himself to ask his own question: quaene subducta erat/ tuto in terra?46 Tranio continues: quia venit navis, nostrae navi quae frangat ratem.47 Though ratis could be understood as a boat or raft, and thus be simply an equivalent term for the metaphorical ship, Sturtevant is confident that here it means timbers.48 This definition, which identifies natural materials as inert parts of a mobile whole, makes all the more clear the emphatically built nature of the ship as a visual analogy for an abstract thing. The lines that follow extend the comparison not only in its detail but in its reach into other layers of the text. Tranios second answer sets up a mirror-like relationship between the ship that arrived at port and his own abstract ship, the one whose timbers have been battered, in his use of the same term navis twice in one sentence.49 What is different about this observation, though, is that it links the literal ship on which Theopropides sailed into port with the metaphorical ship that represents the slaves scheme. Tranio cements this blend of the literal and figurative by repeating venit as he elaborates that it was in fact his master who returned from abroad on that particular ship.50 Whats more, of the two ships, the abstract one is the one said to be built of ratesphysical pieces of wood. The ship icon turns out to be strikingly similar to the46 47

Didnt we arrive safe and sound on land? Mostell. 738-39 When the ship came, it broke the beams of our ship. Ibid. 740 48 Sturtevant, Edgar H. ed. 1925. T. Macci Plauti Mostellaria. New Haven: Yale University Press, 97. 49 Mostell. 739. 50 Ibid. 740.

19

house icon in its constitution and function, especially given this ability to jump from the literal to the abstract within short segments of text. The image of the aedes in Mostell., as mentioned, has several incarnations: as the basis of metaphor, as physical spaces onstage where action takes place, and as a component of the plot that is spoken of but not exactly seen. The ship image spans the concrete and abstract as well, and goes one better by joining them in the same onstage conversation and thus pointing out their simultaneous analogy and antithesis.

An open house tour Simos dwelling is the third and final house to be introduced in Mostell., and it marks the second time Tranio uses a house as a cover-up. Following the haunted house ruse, he now tells Theopropides that Philolaches owes money due to an investment in a fine piece of property. Their exchange emphasizes the term aedes, as have previous scenes in Mostell., this time with seven repetitions: TR. aedis filius tuos emit. TH. aedis? TR. aedis. TH. euge, Philolaches patrissat. iam homo in mercatura vortitur. TR. nam postquam haec aedes ita erant ut dixi tibi, continuost alias aedis mercatus sibi. TH. ain tu aedis? TR. aedis inquam. sed scin quoius modi?51 The idea of this house functions as an excuse that comprises a major rung in the plot, and this twist certainly evokes the first instance in which Tranio tricks Theopropides. However, this time, Tranio must do double duty by deceiving both Simo and Theopropides with separate stories. As he charms Simo, though, Tranios language shifts from generalities to specifics of architectural construction. After one aedes in line 753, Tranios successive lines include the terms gynaeceum51

TR. Your son bought a house. TH. A house? TR. A house. TH. Wow, so Philolaches takes after his old man! Hes turning into a businessman. TR. Well, after this one here became haunted like I told you, He went right out and got another one. TH. Youre sure, a house? TR. Yep, a house. Do you know what kind? Mostell. 637-642.

20

(twice), balineas, ambulacrum, porticum, architectonem, and exaedificatas, plus the verb aedificare and, not to be missed, exemplum (twice). 52 The exemplum reference recalls Philolaches speech and the idea that a good young man, like a good house, often finds himself a model for other eager child-builders. It cannot be that Tranio wishes to draw on a comparison of which he is already aware, since he was not onstage during Philolaches soliloquy. Rather, Plautus uses the same concept, amidst a dialogue similarly concerned with architecture, but in the words of a different character. As Leach notes, the term exemplum occurs nine times in the play, usually referring to education and imitation. But its most striking usage, she writes, is to be found in the third act where it once more pertains to the building of a house and imitation of its outstanding features.53 Once again the playwright associates scheming, building, and imitation, all of which transcend the conflicts taking place onstage and apply to the craft of drama and particularly to Plautus comedy. One critical point about Simos house concerns its marked Greekness. Leach proves that This [house] is Greek and the Greek features are emphasized, citing architectural descriptions offered by texts from Nepos, Isidore, and Vitruvius.54 Throughout his work, Plautus plays on discrepancies in place and time in many ways; if a Greek play is set in Greece, there is one less leap away from reality than if a Roman play self-consciously declares that its action takes place somewhere else.55 Similarly, by describing Simos house with foreign terms, Plautus calls attention to the Greece-within-Rome (or is it the Rome within Greece within Rome?) that unfolds onstage. In other comedies where Plautus characters describe domestic architecture, the houses are labeled in Roman terms, though Leach grants that in many cases structures are52

womens quarters; baths promenade; also promenade; architect; constructed. Sturtevant confirms that ambulacrum and porticum are two words for the same thing (Sturtevant 1925, 98). 53 Leach 1969, 322. 54 Ibid. 324. 55 For example, the opening of Menaechmi: haec urbs Epidamnus est, dum haec agitur fabula... (Plautus, Menaechmi 71-82)

21

designated by terms that might refer either to the Roman or to the Greek style.56 The Greek aspect of Simos house functions within the play as a characterizing device that could cast Theopropides as odd, excessive, or old-fashioned. But its Greekness also serves to disorient, and perhaps later reorient, the audience by calling into question both the boundaries of time and place and the relationship of the comedy at hand to Greek comedy. Other references to Greekness also toy with the dramatic illusion; for example, Plautus use of the word pergraecari, generally understood as pejorative, serves both to align characters with and to dissociate them from the opinions that inspired the word. That is, he gives us Roman actors (in a Greek-inspired play, performed in Rome, but set elsewhere), who call Romans barbarian but also mock someone by taunting that hes acting like a Greek. Such a puzzle of orientation is echoed here by building descriptions. Leach suggests that Plautus intends his characters to assume the mindset of the audience in their unfamiliarity with the style of porticus, as evidenced by comments about where the shade would fall.57 The appeal of the passage is to an audience practically unacquainted with Greek architecture, she writes, adding that as the dialogue wanders from these particular features the question of Greek and Roman elements is kept subtly before us. 58 Plautus is most concerned with maintaining this question in his audiences mind, and does so at the expense of some accuracy and/or consistency of character. An interesting paradox is that the houses Greekness and its direct appeal to the audience look both backward and forward in time. On one hand, the language recalls the idea of a previously existing exemplum, but it could also draw on Romans fascination with Greek contributions which Leach calls new-fangled, but inevitably compelling of admiration59 and equates with novelty. This double disorientation is evidence of ways in56 57

Leach 1969, 324. Ibid. 326. 58 Ibid. 328. 59 Ibid.

22

which Plautus prompts his audience to actively think about, and even to question, where (and when) they are. Plautus puts himself in his audiences shoes to craft the best, i.e. funniest, comedy he can, and as Leach writes of the porticus joke, It would hardly seem very funny to a Greek in his native city.60 But the Greek architectural language itself, and not only the storyline of Theopropides wanting to build a model house, also speaks to the exemplum concept. The houses depicted onstage draw in whatever way on Greek examples, and are deliberately labeled as such. It is also important to consider the extent to which the detail of Simos houses interior may have been represented onstage. The scenery most likely remained very simple regardless of any elaborate buildings discussed by characters. So, it was part of the audiences experience to envision these built spaces in their imagination. This is a piece of the drama that the audience had to actively build themselveshouses, walls, fancy Greek bathrooms. In this situation where the language far outstrips the visual representation, the power that Plautus diction carries in the audiences consciousness may be more obvious than in other scenes. There are other ways in which Plautus uses the difference between what is heard and what is seen to play with the audience. For example, one of the features of Simos house which Tranio notices and tries to point out to his master is a wall mural: TR. viden pictum, ubi ludificat una cornix volturios duos? TH. non edepol video. TR. at ego video; nam inter volturios duos cornix astat; ea volturios duo vicissim vellicat. quaeso huc ad me specta, cornicem ut conspicere possies. iam vides? TH. profecto nullam equidem illic cornicem intuor. TR. at tu isto ad vos optuere, quoniam cornicem nequis conspicari, si volturios forte possis contui. TH. omnino, ut te absolvam, nullam pictam conspicio hic avem.60

Ibid.

23

TR. age, iam mitto; ignosco. aetate non quis optuerier.61 It is safe to say there is no painting of a crow sparring with vultures on Plautus stage, and the detail of the painting spelled out here, given its reliance on imagination, parallels the detail of the homes overall interior. Though the exchange is amusing because old Theopropides thinks he cannot see something that Tranio can,62 the real trick is on Tranio, or more accurately, on the play itself and its audience. He describes something that neither they nor the audience can see, since it is not there. Through repetition of the verbs videre and conspicere, as well as related terms like pictum and specta, Plautus emphasizes the idea of looking and the fact that the audience cannot see the mural either, a fact that necessarily underlies the whole undertaking. What is especially noteworthy about this exchange, and what provides a map of how to look at the architectural terms as well, is that the house to which all the characters refer is painted onto the set. Tranio is pointing at a painting, talking about a painting that is meant to be envisioned as one layer deeper into the performance-zone, though even within that fictional zone it is imaginary. Plautus is deliberately playing on the art-within-art(ifice) dynamic for a comedic effect all his own, a comedy that not only includes but intertwines both theatrical self-awareness and the fabric of the text. The same effect can be observed with Plautus architectural language and specifically conversations concerning Simos house.

Where the women are61

TR. Do you see that picture there, where the crows playing with two vultures? TH. Um, nope... TR. But I see it: the crows standing between the two vultures, nibbling at them one at a time. Look where Im looking, and youll see. Now? TH. I still dont see a crow in there. TR. Look over there, maybe if you cant see the crow, you can still make out the vultures. TH. Really, forget it, I dont see any birds over there. TR. Oh, dont worry about it, I forgive you, its not your fault youre old. Mostell. 831-840. 62 As Milnor notes in reference to Fraenkel, the painting is understood to be an invention of Tranio at the expense of the old men (Milnor 2002, 11).

24

In Milnors view, Simos house and the detailed language that describes it underlie the second half of the plays emphasis on building up as opposed to the first halfs breaking down. First of all, Milnors work supports my observation that a mode of literary, and by extension theatrical, building is closely tied to the very language of building in the text. She agrees that Philolaches imagery speaks not to buildings in a generic sense but to the precise characteristic of deconstruction and reconstruction. Secondly, she sees Simos scenes as the place in Mostell. where domestic architecture becomes most prominent of all. It is oversimplistic to say that previous scenes treat walls as inconsequential, as Milnor dismisses them. There is however, as she says, a shift toward a tighter focus on the opposition between inside and outside space as evidenced by detailed descriptions of rooms lying behind closed doors.63 This is a variation on the same binary that has been demonstrated by other language, which here is pronounced by the complex details offered about the homes interior that the audience cannot see. In addition, Milnors sees the divide between inside and outside space as markedly gendered, as evidenced by ways in which characters label certain rooms of the house and link them with social spheres. One of the rooms initially named by Tranio is the gynaeceum.64 This particular term sets off a chain of remarks throughout the following dialogue that relate to the place, role, and representation of women in Mostell., which turn out to be relevant to a discussion of architectural language in the play. First of all, we may take for granted the emphasis on domestic architecture, given that so much of the action concerns houses, whether real or imaginary. But the very idea of domesticity and its dual identity as a place and a social sphere is inextricable from the definition, or at least envisioning, of domesticity as a feminine concept, and there are several ways in which the plays text reflects this discourse.

63 64

Milnor 2002, 19. See appendix, Fig. D.

25

The room Plautus calls a gynaeceum, or the womens quarters, was famously found among the Greeks who, the Romans thought, practiced female domestic seclusion.65 Scholars remain unsure whether this supposition about the Greeks is true, as archaeologists have recently argued that the way the room was actually used differs greatly from the way in which it is depicted in certain primary sources. Still, it is the mention of this particular room that inspires several comments about women that figure in moral characterization. Tranio tells Simo why his master wants to add the room: volt uxorem filio quantum potest66comical, given that the audience is aware of Philematiums participation in the debauchery that overtook Theopropides house, and the fact that sealing her in a gynaeceum would be too little too late.67 Then, Tranio stops Theopropides from barging in by admonishing, heus tu, at hic sunt mulieres,68 and even later the old man pauses as he goes to enter: at enim mulieres.69 The thread begun by the introduction of the gynaeceum thus serves to characterize Theopropides and also to emphasize the contrast between him and his son, a contrast also portrayed through other spatial imagery and specific house terminology. For example, one of the most noted scenes in Mostell. is that in which Philematium makes herself beautiful and shares thoughts on men with her maid Scapha, to be interrupted by an eavesdropping Philolaches. This scene is arguably the plays most famous, writes Milnor, partly because of how it ignores ancient stage conventions by setting a remarkably domestic scene in the space between the two skene doors that supposedly represents the public street.70 She sees this use of outside space by Philolaches in contrast with his fathers desire to maintain gendered boundaries between inside and outside and within the house

65 66

Milnor 2002, 19. Mostell. 758. 67 Milnor 2002, 12. 68 Hey, you, there are women in there Mostell. 680. 69 But what about the women? Ibid. 808. 70 Milnor 2002, 12.

26

itself.71 In addition to characterization and thematic development, this casts us back to the discussion of Theopropides house, which focused on language of inside and outside before the intricate additions to his imaginary new home were even brought up. If the audience follows Milnors suppositions, they can envision the inside, stealthy space as a feminine space, divided from the male outside by the walls and here by the door in particular. A similar motif recurs in Mil. in a short passage which until considered in this light seems to bear little importance in the scheme of the play.72 If there is at first a struggle to reconcile what can easily be taken for misogynistic interpolations with the other elements of character and plot, it may be partially solved by recognizing that Plautus is concerned less with commenting on the good or evil of women than on suggesting a model of gender as another way to envision the structures and spaces that frame his action.

A concluding altarcation Though the rest of the play, from the first mention of Simos house until the conclusion, introduces none of the dominant domestic structures, it is still sprinkled with architectural allusions, many of which draw on concepts introduced in earlier scenes. The fourth act opens with a soliloquy from a slave Phaniscus, who says near the middle, si huic imperabo, probe tectum habebo,/ malum quom impluit ceteris, ne inpluat mi.73 First of all, he evokes Philolaches house which was broken down specifically by symbolic rain and storms. Secondly, he subtly points to the built divide between inside and outside; the roof is what separates Phaniscus from the others, marking a boundary inside which he remains dry but outside of which people are pelted by mala. Just twenty lines later, another minor character Pinacium comes up71 72

Ibid. See chapter III. 73 Ive got a good roof, and storms that soak other people dont touch me. Mostell. 870-71.

27

with an interesting insult for his fellow slave: tace sis, faber, qui cudere soles plumbeos nummos.74 Though the emphasis is on the counterfeit money, he does use the word faber, which the audience last heard as part of Philolaches simile. Pinacium resurrects the second houses imagery by pounding loudly on its door75 and repeating variations on foris three more times in as many lines, and Theopropides does the same for the ships imagery: servavisti omnem ratem.76 The play concludes with an introduction of a new spatial variation by Tranio, still the master architect. When he climbs atop the onstage altar, the built forms of the internal drama and the external theater experience finally collide. It is an instance in which the form indicated by the dialogue77 is actually present onstage, and does not call for an active imaginary construction by the audience. Sturtevants only comment is that it would be impious to take Tranio or Simos slaves from the altar by force or to inflict punishment or torture upon them while seated on the altar,78 but he does not expand on whether the altar is part of the scenic decoration or part of the stage building. In this scene it is by necessity both. In much the same way that Philematium manipulates not only actual spaces but the concepts of those spaces, and Tranio flees by scaling the altar, Plautus uses norms and audience expectations to make meaning via specific spatial language and staging, which are often intertwined. For example, following the famously odd outdoor dressing scene, Delphium (another female character) reiterates the mix-up between private space inside the house and public space in front of it: cave modo, ne prius in via accumbas,/ quam illi, ubi lectus est stratus, concumbimus.79 Though no strictly architectural terms are used, the issue at hand is encapsulated by the bounded space that the house represents. As Milnor rebukes Rees claim that74 75

Quiet, builder, youre only good for counterfeit money. Ibid. 892. Faciam et pultabo foris (Ibid. 898) 76 I saved the whole ship. Mostell. 918. 77 Sed tu, istuc quid confugisti in aram? (Ibid. 1135) 78 Sturtevant 1925, 120. 79 Careful, dont lie down out on the streetwait til we get to the bed thats ready inside. Mostell. 326-27.

28

these scenes are meant to be played in the prothuron in order to minimize the violence they do to the stage conventions that designate the stage as public space, she writes that such violence is precisely what Plautus aims to highlight.80 Throughout Mostell., violence is exactly what Plautus not only highlights but inflicts through his various deployments of architectural language. It is a violence that seeks to point out and then to shake up the walls that encapsulate a space, a time, a reality. Mostell. is infused with concepts of building and inhabiting that serve to characterize and to underscore the plays broader themes. But the very basis of this infusion is formed of unanswerable questions about theaters essence. Modern audiences call performance art theater without thinking twice, but sports fans do not list stadium as an interest. There is violence within the architectural language of Mostell.and not just the violence of topsy-turvy disorientation but violence of manipulation and powerbecause the audience is engaged in a battle between reality and fiction whose boundaries disappear, reappear, and follow an unwritten set of rules. Milnor subtitles her chapter on rebuilding Ita ubi nunc sim nescio, quoting Theopropides: perii hercle! quid opust verbis? ut verba audio, non equidem in Aegyptum hinc modo vectus fui, sed etiam in terras solas orasque ultumas sum circumvectus; ita ubi nunc sim nescio.81 Under the spell of words, an audience asks, where am I? and when am I? Theopropides, at least, hopes to understand: verum iam scibo.82

Chapter III: Miles Gloriosus80

Milnor 2002, 15-16. Damn, Im dead! Whats the use of words? From what I hear, I didnt go to Egypt, but got carried all over to the corners of the earth, and now I have no clue where I am. Mostell. 993-996. 82 Maybe Im about to find out. Ibid. 997.81

29

The slave Palaestrio used to serve a young man, Pleusicles, whose girlfriend Philocomasium was abducted by the soldier Pyrgopolynices while Pleusicles was abroad. Soon after, the slave was seized by pirates and by chance sold to Pyrgopolynices himself. Palaestrio was able to reach Pleusicles with his and Philocomasiums whereabouts, and the young man hurried there and camped out next door, with a helpful neighbor Periplectomenus. Palaestrio has fashioned a passageway between the houses so the lovers can meet secretly. When a slave, climbing on the roof, spies the lovers together, Palaestrio & company must convince him that the girl was actually Philocomasiums (made-up) twin sister. They need another ploy to get Pyrgopolynices to relinquish Philocomasim to her original lover, so they enlist the help of several other women to fool the soldier. Pyrgopolynices, now confident he is more interested in someone else, gracefully sends away Philocomasium while Pleusicles comes to pick her up in disguise. In the end, the soldier is beaten up for his pompousness, but concludes that he learned his lesson. The prologue and Palaestrios plan Ordinarily, the opening of Plautus plays take the form of a prologue. While prologues tend to take place before any other dialogue, Mil.s prologue follows an opening scene, featuring the eponymous soldier Pyrgopolynices and his slave Artotrogus. Hammond et al. note that this prologues delayed appearance is unusual, but point to Mostell. as another example, since that opening scene is a dialogue between slaves Tranio and Grumio, and Philolaches subsequent soliloquy fills in for a prologue. In Mil., the prologue does not interrupt the action, but explains the first intrigue.83 The initial banter welcomes the audience with colorful images of conquest and glistening shields, not to mention the awful chore of being handsome, and once Pyrgopolynices and Artotrogus step offstage, Palaestrio enters to address the audience and prepare them for the show. Right away, the language of place and space assume importance. Familiarity with the Plautine prologue is helpful in conceptualizing the ways in which dialogue and theater experience interact. The ostensible purpose of such a prologue is to orient the audience to the situations in which the characters they are about to meet have found

83

Hammond, Mason, Arthur M. Mack, and Walter Moskalew ed. 1997. Plautus: Miles Gloriosus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 23.

30

themselves.84 Of course Plautus did not invent the prologue convention, nor was he the only dramatist to use it in personalized ways. The nature of the Plautine prologue has been somewhat difficult to define, since each seems to provide a different type, and even amount, of explanation, revelation, and foreshadowing. Moreover, six of Plautus plays have no prologue at all (including Mostell.)85. The personae who speak Plautus prologues can be more than just uninvolved announcers; they are characters and even gods, and the information they share ties in some way to the action that will take place later. In Mil., Palaestrios first reference to place is in festivo loco86 as he situates the theater and everyone in it within its festival context. As the frame of reference shifts from that of the festival to that of the plays action, it is Palaestrios spatial language that both links the two and points out a difference. He glides from Were all gathered in this festive spot to hoc oppidum Ephesust.87 With the latter statement, he establishes the dramatic reality both in contrast and as a parallel to the holiday zone in which the audience, the actors, and the characters coexist, a place within a place. As he introduces the play, Palaestrio warns anyone not in the mood to pay attention: exsurgat foras.88 Though the phrase literally means outdoors and refers to a spectators relocation from inside the theater to outside, that theater does not actually have any doors. When the fores return in line 155, the terminology refers to what we might think of as imaginary doorsthe ones involved in the plays actionbut these are in fact the doors that physically exist. Through this strange equation and inversion of realities through identical diction, the experience of a spectator who leaves the theater both overlaps and trades places with that of a character who hears his neighbor coming. In between the two opposing door references is the first appearance of aedes.89 At this point in84 85

Duckworth 1994, 211. Ibid. 86 In this festive place Mil. 83. 87 This towns called Ephesus Mil. 88, cf. Menaechmis This is Epidamnus (Plautus, Menaechmi 71-82.) 88 Those people can step outdoors. Mil. 81. 89 Mil. 121.

31

the prologue, though, the concept of the house has little resonance except for the fact that its naming marks a point at which Palaestrio situates himself firmly in the plays inner reality. The prologue also includes Palaestrios explanation of his masters plight and the way they schemed to overcome it: itaque ego paravi hic intus magnas machinas qui amantis unum conclave, concubinae quod dedit miles, quo nemo nisi eapse inferret pedem, in eo conclavi ego perfodi parietem qua commeatus clam esset hinc huc mulieri.90 Here, machinas could be read primarily as either a military or a building metaphor, but Hammond et al. argue that the most elaborate imagery in the entire play is that of architecture and building as applied to the intellectual cleverness of Palaestrio and that the latter interpretation is more fitting.91 An envisioning of Palaestrios cleverness as a pursuit of construction evokes several comparisons to Mostell. It is Tranio, also in the clever slaves role, whose machinations are associated with architecture. He does not label himself a builder as Palaestrio does, but instead uses houses, doors, and detailed interior descriptions to trick his master, and remains in control by controlling those buildings and spaces. The machine metaphor also resonates with Mostell.s reference in which Tranio compares his plan to a ship just as Palaestrio here compares his to a war-machine,92 as both are hypothetical built structures that symbolize intellectual mastery. This mastery is the same ability that Plautus himself knowingly demonstrates; he creates the plot, the characters, and the event of performance through verbal cleverness. Palaestrio repeats later in the play, Quantas moveo machinas!,93 this time with90

And so inside here I got ready with this master plan. So the room that the soldier gave the girl-- its her own, and nobody else can set foot there. In that very room I bored through the wall so she can go back and forth for her secret rendezvous. Mil. 138-143. 91 Hammond et al. 1997, 48. 92 The ship itself reappears later in Mil. 915-921. 93 What awesome machinations Im setting into motion! Mil. 813.

32

moveo instead of paravi, a choice that demonstrates more clearly the action and animation involved in this form of building. There is an emphasis on dynamic construction as opposed to static forms. This passage also introduces a new term, conclave,94 which does not appear beyond these lines, as rooms become less important than the houses they comprise and especially the walls that separate them. The only place in Mostell. where individual rooms assume as much importance as houses is in Simos home, where the terminology that labels those rooms proves as telling as if not moreso than the organization of the space itself. The term paries, absent in Mostell., here refers to the wall that Philocomasium crosses over via the secret passageway, the construction of which is summarized in this passages last two lines. With the verb perfodi, Plautus highlights the puncture of the wall moreso than the construction of the passage, juxtapositioning the concept of boundaries and their limits (and their possible fallibility) with the overarching motif of building. In Mostell., Theopropides is unable to penetrate the door of his house, keeping all control in Tranios hands. In Mil., the slave also manipulates other characters by manipulating the accessibility of a wall when he opens up a gap and a window where there was none before. In this case the in/out dichotomy is not as clear-cut as in some other situations, since the gap in the wall leads not from inside to outside but from one inside to a different inside. There is still secrecyPlautus includes clambut hinc huc is key. There will be motion across this boundary that has no real analogue in Mostell.. This passage hints at the here/there focus that both parallels and adjusts Mostellarias in/out focus.

Roof reconnaissance

94

Room

33

As Palaestrio finishes his prologue, the door creaks and Periplectomenus enters, flustered by the discovery of the slave Sceledrus spying on his home. His outcry includes tegulae, domus, and impluvium, each twice.95 In the following conversation in which he explains to Palaestrio what the slave saw, he repeats the same terms even when that information seems unnecessary. Granted, Plautus is known for his repetition and hyperbole, and may have intended only comic effect in this dialogue. However, the terms tegulae and impluvium remain particularly noteworthy, because as compared to the domus, they were probably not represented onstage. In a Roman house, he impluvium was a square aperture in the ceiling of a central atrium. Surrounding walls sloped up toward this skylight, and precipitation that entered through it collected into a shallow compluvium which in turn fed into a cistern.96 Since these structures are not present onstage, their imaginative construction depends on the audience, much like the interior detail of Simos house. The standard Roman theater, stage, or set probably included no roof at all, and it is unlikely that one would have been installed for a specific play.97 In his guess at the plays staging, Hammond et al. suggest that Periplectomenus and Pyrgopolinices houses were represented immediately adjacent to one another, partially based on the way Sceledrus moves freely from one roof to the other while chasing a monkey,98 but since Sceledrus only reports that event in the past tense it remains unlikely that actors scaled a prop roof onstage. A variation on tegulae has already appeared in the initial exchange between Pyrgopolynices and Artotrogus, as the slave flatters his master: nempe illum dicis cum armis aureis,/ quoius tu legiones difflavisti spiritu/ quasi ventus folia aut paniculum tectorium.99 The95 96

Mil. 156-165. See appendix, Figs. E and F. 97 Beare 1950, 176. 98 Hammond et al. 1997, 18. See appendix, Fig. G. 99 And that guy with the golden armoryou blew away his legions in a puff just like the wind scatters leaves or blows off a thatched roof. Mil. 16-18. Editors define paniculum tectorium as roof thatch. Normally the first part appears panicula, as a feminine noun. (Hammond et al. 1997, 78-79)

34

simile of a houses ruin by the elements was explored at length at Mostell.s outset. Here it is tucked amidst the war imagery used to introduce the title character. Tegulae, literally rooftiles, is understood to indicate the whole singular roof. Ancient roofs were covered by these shingle-like pieces which overlapped at the edges.100 The terms relationship to tegere is also relevant; though the verb can be translated simply as cover, its shades of meaning (protect, shield, hide) imply the sort of closedness that covers or encapsulates something dangerous or stealthy. The impluvium is a uniquely Roman architectural feature. Leach points to the terms use in Mil. as the most notable example of Plautus specific use of Roman domestic structure, though it is also mentioned in Amphitruo in addition to a mention of atria, also Roman, in the same work.101 Hammond et. al., however, do not see originality in Plautus use of the impluvium, noting that since Gr. houses were built around a courtyard or aule, Plautus presumably substituted the Roman impluvium for the aule of his original.102 Leach also concedes that in many cases the rooms of houses are designated by terms that might refer either to the Roman or to the Greek style, indicating that impluvium could represent something no different than what would have appeared in a Greek house.103 However, Plautus has shown no aversion from Greek architectural labels, so it is reasonable to conclude that this house and this skylight, elements of the house with both dramatic and symbolic force, are Roman and not neutral. The audience actively participates in the construction of the house, and does so in a distinctly Roman way; the language prompts a continued engagement with the relationship between Romanness and Greekness, or even simply otherness.

100 101

See appendix, Fig. H. Plautus, Amphitruo 1108; 518. Leach 1969, 324. 102 Hammond et al. 1997, 91. 103 Leach 1969, 324.

35

The roof and impluvium both reappear in several characters dialogue as the play progresses. Sceledrus tells Palaestrio: nisi quidem ego hodie ambulavi dormiens in tegulis, certo edepol scio me vidisse hic proxumae viciniae Philocomasium erilem amicam sibi malam rem quarere.104 and repeats again, simiam hodie sum sectatus nostram in horum tegulis and forte fortuna per impluvium huc despexi in proxumum.105 Periplectomenus adds a twist later as he chastises Sceledrus not just for spying but for ruining his property: meas confregisti imbricis et tegulas.106 Imbrex, a curved tile that covered the juncture between the turned-up edges of two overlapping tiles, most likely comes from imber as it protected the roofs tiled joints from rainfall;107 such a detail is reminiscent of the plays initial mention of the figurative roof blown off by a storm. The language of roofs and skylights is obviously important to the plot, since if it werent for the slaves vantage point the lovers could carry on unseen and the fundamental conflict would not exist. These particular terms, however, are also closely linked with thematic elements of power and knowledge similar to those in Mostell. For the moment, the spying slave has the power, since it is he who manipulates the building to gain knowledge. In Mil., Plautus diction is closely tied to the ideas of (and opposition between) seeing and not seeing. When Periplectomenus asks about the plan, Palaestrio begins, Ut eum, qui se hic vidit, verbis vincat ne is se viderit.108 To counter what was spied from the roof, they must make the seen unseen, and do so with wit and wordsa sentiment that echoes what Palaestrio promised near the end of104

Seriously, unless I was asleep while I was up there on the roof, I know for sure that I saw the masters girlfriend Philocomasium right there, in the neighbors house, asking for trouble. Mil. 272-4. 105 Today I chased a monkey up on our roof; I happened to glimpse down through the skylight into the neighbors house; Ibid. 284; 287. 106 Since you busted my tiles and roof Mil. 504 107 Hammond et al. 1997, 123. See appendix, Fig. G. 108 Weve gotta win with words, and make it so that what he saw, he didnt really see. Ibid. 187.

36

his prologue: ei nos facetis fabricis et doctis dolis/ glaucumam ob oculos obiciemus eumque ita/ faciemus ut quod viderit non viderit.109 The same idea appears again in 199: id visum ut ne visum siet110; and again, in 226-7: cedo calidum consilium cito,/ quae hic sunt visa ut visa ne sint, facta ut facta ne sient.111 Being seen is the opposite of being concealed, and it is the houses, walls, and eventually secret passageways that allow that concealment, and other architectural features that challenge it. Periplectomenus house acts as a physically bounded space for secrecy in much the same way that Theopropides did in Mostell. But architectural forms do not only facilitate concealment, but allow penetration, as in a houses doors or a particular impluvium; architecture thus is shown to underlie both sides of the thematic opposition. The impluvium especially, featured only here in Plautus work, provides an accessible model of boundedness that thoroughly mirrors the theater experience. The skylight is not only an aperture but a frame; a gap that allows a secret peek but also four solid sides that dictate where that possibility for vision ends. Here, Palaestrio follows a similar problem-solving pattern to that of Tranio in Mostell.; a conflict sparked by a certain structure must be smoothed out by means of another structure. What was seen from the roof is unseen in two ways: by using the constructed passageway that allows Philocomasium to go back and forth, now as both herself and her sister, and by articulating the claim that she is in fact secure at home. Both plays cover-ups involve building, but both also draw on the verbal play that Palaestrio describes, as in verbis vincat or facetis fabricis. The latter phrase in particular spans the overlap successfully, since it can be understood as witty plans but draws on the vocabulary of craftsmanship and construction.

109

With clever crafts and witty wiles, well blur his vision so the things that were seen become unseen. Ibid. 147149. 110 So the seen might be unseen 111 Quick, out with the plan while its hotlets make what was seen unseen, and what was done undone.

37

The ultimate goal of these machinations remains the same: quae hic sunt visa ut visa ne sint, facta ut facta ne sient. No line could more aptly summarize the process that takes place at a performances conclusion. In the theater, things that have been done are made undone as the alternate reality space, no longer bounded by the dramas location and time, dissolves into and is absorbed by the audiences previous and future reality. A character orders the audience to applaud, and once they leave the space where they sat is removed. In this case, Palaestrio is Plautus onstage surrogate. As he enacts the stock role of the clever slave by orchestrating others doings in an effort to fool someone, he mirrors Plautus craft. This correlates with other textual references to putting on a show or playing a role, but here is more specifically related to the process of envisioning and its inextricability, in Mil. at least, from the framework of space and structure.

Women and the home Immediately following the introduction of the roof, skylight, and main conflict, and still within the first 200 lines of the play, are two successive instance of architectural imagery that differ greatly in their form and function. The first is Palaestrios brief and somewhat out-of-place commentary on womens wiles, which in two lines includes five instances of domi; the second is a metaphor delivered by Periplectomenus comparing Palaestrios cogitation to a building project. This is the first emphatic or repetitive appearance of domus. So far, the term has appeared only in the following lines: hic postquam in aedis me ad se deduxit domum; ait sese Athenas fugere cupere ex hac domu, and mi equidem iam arbitri vicini sunt meae quit fiat domi.112 It is used as a neutral word, as home is made out to be neither a good place nor a bad one, nor

112

Afterwards he brought me home, here, to his place; She says she wants to escape from this house and go back to Athens; So now I guess all the neighbors get to watch the show that goes on in my house. Ibid. 121; 126; 158.

38

one with any special characteristics. The inevitable question arises as to whether we understand this word as a social institution or as a built form. It is impossible to isolate one meaning, but this is both the problem with and the power of domus in this text. In this scene, Palaestrio explains to Periplectomenus that Philocomasium will need to use her womanly wiles to convince her observer that he is mistaken: os habet, linguam, perfidiam, malitiam atque audaciam, confidentiam, confirmitatem, fraudulentiam. qui arguat se, eum contra vincat iureiurando suo: domi habet animum falsiloquom, falsificum, falsiiurium, domi dolos, domi delenifica facta, domi fallacias. nam mulier holitori numquam supplicat si quast mala: domi habet hortum et condimenta ad omnes mores malificos.113 First of all, this passage features Plautus trademark wordplay and alliteration and draws immediate attention to the subtleties of his diction. It also distinctly points to the importance of the word domi by beginning the list without it, then adding it for emphasis. By repeating domi throughout his litany, Palaestrio reinforces the idea seen in Mostell. of the house as a closed-off and secret place. Hammond et al. equate the phrase domi habet to she has in her supply or she controls,114 which also fits with Mostell.s model of power as represented by structural manipulation. However, Palaestrios statement itself is jarring in its jocular misogyny, as none of the dialogue so far has indicated that women are to be the brunt of the plays mockery or even the real cause of its conflicts. In fact, later in the play, several women show themselves to be intelligent and capable accomplices. In looking to bring the tone of this passage to terms with the rest of the play and even the adjacent passages, it is helpful to consider the way in which113

Shes got a mouth, a tongue, plenty of treachery, malice, and boldness, impudence, obstinacy, and dishonesty. At home, shes got a lying, conniving, and promise-breaking soul, at home she has tricks, at home she has traps, at home she has lies.. But a woman, if shes really evil, never has to do business with the grocer: At home shes got a garden and ingredients for all her despicable ways. Ibid. 188-194. 114 Hammond et al. 1997, 95.

39

Mostell. represents certain spaces as female, specifically the womens quarters, and by extension the interior of the home, which make up the domestic sphere that is naturally paired with women. One of the questions Milnors article on Mostell. explores is the way in which its primary female character Philematium harnesses the domus for her own purpose. Milnor argues that she manipulates the moral attitude linked with a certain configuration of house and home to portray herself as a good Roman wife instead of a courtesan. While there is some contrast between this situation and that in Mil., since Philematium makes herself look good while Palaestrio associates the domestic sphere with mala, there is also overlap as evidenced by some of the specific evils Palestrio namesa conniving mind, tricks, lies that use different vocabulary but all refer to deception. These match the motif of domesticity as a realm of concealment, and the idea that knowledge kept inside a structure can be hidden from and used against those outside it. Domus and its variations appear countless times throughout the rest of the play, often in the locative case. Though subsequent uses, whether in reference to a woman or not, are not quite as loaded with feminine or evil associations, the link between femininity and concealment does not disappear entirely. In line 1016, Milphippida tells Palaestrio, cedo signum, si harunc Baccharum es.115 Hammond et al. define signum as password, here for a secret meeting, and add that Bacchus followers, predominantly women, met in secret gatherings presumably with a password for admission.116 Milphippida, a woman herself, again alludes to the relationship between women and secrecy which throughout Mil. also maps onto spatial language and symbolism. In uses without these associations, the domus continues throughout the play to designate a safe and controlled location in which people or knowledge can be encapsulated.

115 116

Give me the password, if youre part of Bacchus club. Hammond et al. 1997, 169.

40

Creaking fingers and a pounding heart Following Palaestrios digressive comments on women and the home, he reorients the audience with a familiar qui illam hic vidit osculantem, id visum ut ne visum siet,117 moving away from the tangent on domesticity and back toward the type of imagery used in the roof and impluvium dialogue. As Palaestrio mulls over his plans, Periplectomenus steps aside to describe the slave in an extended comparison that draws on several forms of architectural terminology and brings them together in one powerful image. As the old man temporarily removes himself from the action, he speaks more directly to the audience. His imperatives could be interpreted as his thinking aloud to himself, but given Plautus tendencies, it is more likely that Periplectomenus means to situate himself alongside the audience in his observation of Palaestrio. This setup adds force to his comparisons since it means they are founded on the theatrical self-awareness of both their in-character speaker and their original author. Periplectomenus observes: pectus digitis pultat, cor credo evocaturust foras; ecce advortit: nixus laevo in femine habet laevum manum, dextera digitis rationem computat, feriens femur dexterum. ita vehementer icit: quod agat aegre suppetit. concrepuit digitis: laborat, crebro commutat status. eccere autem capite nutat: non placet quod repperit. quidquid est, incoctum non expromet, bene coctum dabit. ecce autem aedificat: columnan mento suffigit suo. apage, non placet profecto mihi illaec aedificatio; nam os columnatum poetae esse indaudiui barbaro, quoi bini custodes semper totis horis occubant. eugae! euscheme hercle astitit et dulice et comoedice; numquam hodie quiescet prius quam id quod petit perfecerit.118117

so that the guy who saw her kissing might unsee what he saw. Mil. 199. Hes pounding his chest with his fingers... maybe hes going to call his heart outside. Look, hes turning: now hes holding himself up, his left hand on his left leg, and now hes counting something on the other hand. Look how hard he hits his leg now! He cracks his knuckles: hes struggling, he keeps shifting his stance. Now look how hes shaking his headhe doesnt seem pleased with what hes found. Whatever the plan is, it wont come out uncooked. Check it out, hes building something: he tops a column with his head. Quit that, I dont like that building one bit, Word on the street is, a certain barbarian stands that same way, a guy who has two guards keeping tabs on him all the time.118

41

Hammond et al. translate pultat as pounds or beats and notes, as was seen in Mostell. and in particular with respect to Theopropides house, that Plautus regularly uses the same verb for door-knocking.119 In Mil., this use appears three times.120 When Plautus uses this verb early in the play in Periplectomenus comparison, he cannot intend to recall any door-knocking that has already taken place onstage, since those uses do not appear until the plays final 200 lines. For example, in line 1249 when Milphippida tells Acroteleutium that the doors are closed, the latter threatens to break them,121 and later Pleusicles uses the verb identical to Periplectomenus in sed fores pultabo.122 However, even at its initial use in Periplectomenus description, an audience familiar with Plautus work or even with other ancient comedy would associate the verb pultare with doors, whether as setpieces onstage, exit and entrance markers, or thematic symbols. If there is still doubt as to the verbs association with architecture, cor credo euocaturust foras dispels it, and moreover, the only previous use of foras as outside (as opposed to foris concrepuit for example, as in line 154) was in the prologue and referred to the area outside the entire theater. The ubiquitous creaking doors appear in this passage as well with concrepuit digitis.123 Concrepuit, like pultat, is so linked in Plautus with doors that though they are not mentioned here as they were above the reference is clear. Here, Plautus continues to layer architectural symbolism with self-referentiality. The comparison does not merely liken something to something else within the play, but crosses over to the audiences perspective by referring to something that is part of the theater building, the staging equipment, the text and dramaticWell done! Wow, he stands there so perfectly, perfect for a slave, perfect for a comedy; He wont relax today before he finishes this whole thing just right. Mil. 202-214. 119 Hammond et al. 1997, 95. 120 Mil. 1254; 1297; 1298. 121 Ecfringam. Mi. 1249 122 Alright, Ill pound on the doors. Mil. 1296. 123 Mil. 206.

42

convention, and the sensory experience of performance all at once. Which doors are real, and what happens when we go through them? Here Palaestrios fingers creak in the same way that doors of stage houses are said to creak. Duckworth lists several other examples of Plautus punning on the convention,124 such as the retort in Pseudolus: CA. Ostium lenonis crepuit. PS. Crura mavellem modo125 and another in Poenulus:. COLL. fores hae fecerunt magnum flagitium modo./ ADV. quid id est flagiti? COLL. crepuerunt clare.126 Interestingly, in the former, it is a character who (hypothetically) behaves like a door, whereas in the latter, the door behaves like a person. Are characters no more real than make-believe doors, or just as real as tangible doors? These questions and more are distilled in Plautus precise diction. Though this incorporation of a stage convention into the plays comedy can be seen throughout Plautus corpus, it is also an important component of Mil.s broad focus on built form and its often transcendental qualities. In addition, the use of concrepere in Periplectomenus description is not quite a pun, but rather an inconspicuous part of the equation of man to structure made through familiar vocabulary. With ecce autem aedificat, Periplectomenus associates Palaestrio not only with built structures, as he has done so far, but with the builder of those same structures; here he is both project and architect. He continues with another creative metaphor: columnam mentem suffigit suo. The column is an interesting addition because it has no obvious link to anything else in the text, since columns do not play a role in the action as houses or walls do. However, in the wooden phylakes stages that evolved into those that Plautus companies performed on, the bottom-most support beams were sometimes replaced with columns, so it is possible that Plautus venues did have Greek-influenced columns visible to the audience and that a mention of124 125

Duckworth 1952, 117. Others listed are Poenulus 609 and Pseudolus 952. CA. The pimps door cracked. PS. I wish his legs cracked instead. Pseudolus 130-131. 126 CO. These doors did something pretty rude just now. AD. They did what? CO. They grumbled out loud! Plautus, Poenulus 609.

43

the term may have drawn their attention there.127 Plautus repeats aedificatio and columnatum to reinforce the metaphor, and continues; the building does not please Periplectomenus, as he recognizes that a certain barbarian poet once assumed a similar stance. There are several possible interpretations of this reference. One, which would explain the presence of the column as an outlier compared to the plays other building terms and is generally accepted, is that the barbarus is the poet Naevius, who was imprisoned in 206 B.C.E. It is possible that Naevius was chained to a column as part of his punishment and that and an audience would have made this connection,128 and so in this case, the architectural language would point to an external reality in reference to a current political event. One could also say the poet is Plautus, suggesting that this use of barbarus falls in line with its other appearances as a comically self-deprecating term for a Roman, and specifically, himself. Plautus often plays with perspective through such vocabulary, both flipping and inverting points of view, as in the use of pergraecari in Mostell.129 Thus it is difficult to pin down exactly whose perspective barbarus speaks to, but it may not even be necessary, as these two interpretations are not mutually exclusive and the language has even more force if it evokes both meanings at once. If barbarian is a reorienting term for Romans, then the Greek interjection eugae and the following adverbs remind the audience that Greekness must also be kept in mind; euscheme (euschemos), dulice (doulikos), and comoedice (komoidikos) all come from Greek but have Latin adverbial endings. While these words may seem to be little more than evidence that Plautus transposed the passage directly from Greek text with little attempt to cover his tracks, there are other possibilities. First of all, euschemes root scheme relates closely to concepts of structure as well as those of show, pretence, and appearance, and if we translate gracefully, handsomely as127 128

Bieber 1961, 167. See appendix, Fig. I. Hammond et al. 1997, 96. 129 See chapter I, page 18.

44

Hammond et al. do we miss some subtlety of meaning.130 The second and third adverbs, in fitting with Periplectomenus temporary status as observer instead of participant, have a distinctly metatheatrical aspect. When this character says that Palaestrio is standing or behaving in a slavelike manner, he does not mean a manner in which a real ancient Roman slave would be understood to act, but the manner in which Plautus (and other playwrights) stock slave characters act. Though the final line of the passage quoted above contains no specifically architectural terminology, the verb perfecerit does have a sense of making, creating, and polishing off that retain