User talk:Skwarden

'''Historical Context – Ed. Susie Warden'''

The historical context within which Plautus wrote to some extent dictated the nature of his plays, in that there are certain ways in which Plautus comments on contemporary events and people. Plautus was a popular comedic playwright while Roman theater was still in its infancy, still feeling the birth pangs of theatrical evolution. Simultaneously, the Roman Republic was expanding its sphere of influence and control.

The Life of Plautus

Although we cannot verify much about Plautus’ early life, we have certain ideas. It is believed that Titus Macchius Plautus was born in Sarsina (a city in Umbria) around 254 B.C. According to Morris Marples, in the early years of Plautus’ life he worked as a stage-carpenter or scene-shifter. This might have been where his love of the theater originated. After having worked in the theater, his talent as an actor was eventually discovered, and he adopted the names 'Macchius' (a clownish stock-character in popular farces), and 'Plautus' (a term meaning "flat-footed"). Tradition also says that he eventually made enough money to go into the shipping business, but that the venture collapsed. He then is said to have worked as a manual laborer and studied Greek drama – particularly the New Comedy of Menander – in his spare time. His studies led to the production of his plays, which were first produced between c.205 BC and 184 BC. Plautus attained such popularity, that solely his name was a guarantee of theatrical success. Plautus' comedies, which are among the earliest surviving intact works in Latin literature, are mostly adaptations of Greek models for a Roman audience and are often directly based on the works of the Greek playwrights. (Some might more properly be called 'adaptations') His works include Stichus, Pseudolus, Amphitruo, Asinaria, Aulularia, Bacchides, Captivi, Casina, Cistellaria, Curculio, Epidicus, Menaechmi, Mercator, Miles Gloriosus, Mostellaria, Persa, Poenulus, Rudens, Trinummus, Truculentus, and Vidularia.

Plautus and the Gods of Roman Society

Hazel M. Tolliver discusses the state gods of Rome and their importance as seen in the Plautine Theater. These gods were an important part of everyday life to the Romans of Plautus’ time and a citizen had a duty to his state to worship them. Tolliver tells us that the gods were not exactly like our contemporary gods. They were worshipped but also stood as a national symbol, somewhat like our flag of today. State religion also served as a political tool. If the gods supported a corrupt leader, then the people should too. Plautus is sometimes accused of teaching the public indifference and mockery of the gods. Any character in his plays could be compared to a god. Whether to honor a character or to mock him, these references were demeaning to the gods. These references to the gods include characters comparing a mortal woman to a god or saying he would rather be loved by a woman than the gods. Pyrgopolynices from Miles Gloriosus (vs. 1265) to brag about his long life says he was born one day later than Jupiter. In Pseudolus Jupiter is compared to the Ballio the pimp. It is not uncommon too for a character to scorn the gods as seen in Poenulus and Rudens. However, when a character scorns a god, it is usually a character of low standing such as a pimp. Plautus perhaps does this to further demoralize the characters. The audience is not supposed to love the pimp, so by making the pimp do sometime against the proper conventions of society, the audience will dislike the character even more. Tolliver also relates the ways in which the gods are referenced to by the stock characters. Soldiers often bring ridicule among the gods. The young men, meant to represent the upper social class, often belittle the gods in their remarks. The parasites, pimps, and courtesans often praise the gods with scant ceremony. Tolliver goes on to argue that drama both reflects and foreshadows social change. There was most likely already much skepticism about the gods during Plautus’ era. Plautus did not make up or encourage irreverence to the gods, but reflected ideas of his time. Some of Plautus’ often religious beliefs may have come out in his works, but the state controlled stage productions, and Plautus’ plays would have been banned had they been too risqué. Gnaeus Naevius

Gnaeus Naevius, another Roman playwright of the late third century B.C.E., wrote tragedies and even founded the fabula praetexta (history plays), in which he dramatized historical events. He is known to have fought in the First Punic War and his birth, therefore, is placed around the year 280 B.C.E.  His first tragedy took place in 235 B.C.E.  Plautus would have been living at the exact time as Naevius, but began writing later. Naevius is most famous for having been imprisoned by the Metelli and the Scipios – two powerful families of the late third century. The Metelli and Scipios were bitter rivals of Naevius’ patron, Marcus Claudius Marcellus. Marcellus was the head of the family, the Marcelli, who were also one of the most powerful families in Rome. Naevius was caught between this rivalry and was “the victim of punishment (including incarceration) inflicted by the chief men of the state (principes civitatis, nobiles) for his attacks upon them.”  According to A.J. Boyle, there is a reference in Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus to a “foreign poet,” showing that poets might have been “imprisoned for unbridled speech.” Naevius’ imprisonment and eventual exile is a case of state censorship that may have been a factor in Plautus’ writing. Naevius was being exiled when Plautus was writing and this must have had an effect on what Plautus chose to speak about in his plays.

The Second Punic War, The Macedonian War and their Infuence on Plautus’ Plays

The Second Punic War, which occurred from 218-202 B.C.E. was the second engagement that Rome had with Carthaginian forces, especially Hannibal. M. Leigh has devoted an extensive chapter about Plautus and Hannibal in his recent book, Comedy and the Rise of Rome. He says that, “the plays themselves contain occasional references to the fact that the state is at arms...”  One good example is a piece of verse from the Miles Gloriosus, the composition date of which is not clear but often placed in the last decade of the 3rd century B.C.  Andrew F. West believes that this is inserted commentary on the Second Punic War. In his article, “On a Patriotic Passage in the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus,” he states that the war “engrossed the Romans more than all other public interests combined.”  The passage seems intended to rile up the audience, beginning with hostis tibi adesse or, “the foe is near at hand.”   At the time, the general Scipio Africanus was requesting to go out against Hannibal, a plan “strongly favored by the plebs.”   Plautus apparently pushes for the plan to be approved by the senate, working his audience up with the thought of an enemy in close proximity and a call to outmaneuver him. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that Plautus, according to P.B. Harvey, was “willing to insert [into his plays] highly specific allusions comprehensible to the audience.” M. Leigh writes in his chapter on Plautus and Hannibal that, “the Plautus who emerges from this investigation is one whose comedies persistently touch the rawest nerves in the audience for whom he writes.” Later, coming of the heels of the conflict with Hannibal, Rome was preparing to embark on another military mission, this time in Greece. While they would eventually move on Philip V in the Second Macedonian War, there was considerable debate beforehand about the course Rome should take in this conflict. In the article “Bellum Philippicum: Some Roman and Greek Views Concerning the Causes of the Second Macedonian War,” Elias Bickerman writes that “the causes of the fateful war…were vividly debated among both Greeks and Romans.”  Under the guise of protecting allies, Bickerman tells us, Rome was actually looking to expand its power and control eastward now that the Second Punic War was ended. But starting this war would not be an easy task considering those recent struggles with Carthage – many Romans were tired of conflict to think of embarking on another campaign. As William M. Owens writes in his article, “Plautus’ ‘Stichus’ and the Political Crisis of 200 B.C.,” “there is evidence that antiwar feeling ran deep and persisted even after the war was approved." 	Owens contends that Plautus was attempting to match the complex mood of the Roman audience riding the victory of the Second Punic War but facing the beginning of a new conflict.  For instance, the characters of the dutiful daughters and their father seem obsessed over the idea of “officium,” the duty one has to do what is right.  Their speech is littered with words such as “pietas” and “aequus,” and they struggle to make their father fulfill his proper role.   The stock parasite in this play, Gelasimus, has a patron client relationship with this family and offers to do any job in order to make ends meat;  Owens puts forward that Plautus is portraying the economic hardship many Roman citizens were experiencing as a result of the cost of war. With the repetition of responsibility to the desperation of the lower class, Plautus establishes himself firmly on the side of the average Roman citizen. While he makes no specific reference to the possible war with Greece or the previous war (that might be too dangerous), he does seem to push the message that the government should take care of its own people before attempting any other military actions. Plautus was notably influenced by the political events of his time and thus gives modern readers a greater insight into the politics of the ancient world and how an average Roman citizen living during his time might have viewed those events and the attitudes they might have possessed as a result.