We are now prepared to advance a definite thesis, that shall gather up the random threads of argument and suggestion scattered through the foregoing pages and shall, we hope, provide a conclusive and final answer to both of our original questions. If we can establish: that our author's sole aim was to feed the popular hunger for amusement; that, while after leaving much of his Greek originals practically untouched, he considered them in effect but a medium for the provocation of laughter, but a vessel into which to pour a highly seasoned brew of fun; that to this end his actors went before the public, potentially speaking slap-stick in hand, equipped by nature with liveliness of grimace and gesture and prepared to act with verve, unction and an abandon of dash and vigor that would produce a riot of merriment; that his dramatic machinery is hopelessly crippled and that his evident intentions and effects are hopelessly lost unless interpreted in this spirit: then we relegate Plautine drama to a low plane of broad farce, where verisimilitude to life becomes wholly unnecessary because undesirable; where the canons of dramatic art become inoperative; where, contrary to what Körting says, we are not asked to believe that "everything is happening in a perfectly natural manner"; where the poet may stick at nothing provided the laugh be forthcoming; where all the apparently absurd conventions of palliatae cease to be absurd, vanish into thin air and become unamenable to literary criticism, inasmuch as they are all only part of the laugh-compelling scheme. This is the solvent that we propose. To establish this, let us proceed to an examination of the internal mechanism of the plays.

Part II

An Analysis of the Dramatic Values in Plautus

The salient features that characterize the plays of Plautus include both his consciously employed means of producing his comic effects, and the peculiarities and abnormalities that evidence his attitude of mind in writing them. We should make bold to catalogue them as follows:

  1. Machinery characteristic of the lower types of modern drama--farce, low comedy, musical comedy, burlesque shows, vaudeville, and the like.
    1. Devices self-evident from the text.
      1. Bombast and mock-heroics.
      2. Horse-play and slap-sticks.
      3. Burlesque, farce and extravagance of situation and dialogue.
        1. True burlesque.
        2. True farce.
        3. Extravagances obviously unnatural and merely for the sake of fun.
    2. Devices absurd and inexplicable unless interpreted in a broad farcical spirit.
      1. The running slave.
      2. Wilful blindness.
      3. Adventitious entrance.
  2. Evidences of loose composition which prove a disregard of technique and hence indicate that entertainment was the sole aim.
    1. Solo speeches and passages.
      1. Asides and soliloquies.
      2. Lengthy monodies, monologues and episodical specialties.
      3. Direct address of the audience.
    2. Inconsistencies and carelessness of composition.
      1. Pointless badinage and padded scenes.
      2. Inconsistencies of character and situation.
      3. Looseness of dramatic construction.
      4. Roman admixture and topical allusions.
      5. Jokes on the dramatic machinery.
      6. Use of stock plots and characters.

Let us illustrate these points by typical passages and endeavor to insert such stage-directions as would indicate how the most telling effects could be produced and hence aid the reader in visualizing the actual performance.

I. Machinery Characteristic of the Lower Types of Modern Drama

A. Devices self-evident from the text.

1. Bombast and mock-heroics.

It is a little difficult to sublimate this entirely from burlesque, but its true nature is instanced by the opening lines of the Miles, where the vainglorious Pyrgopolinices, with many a sweep and strut, addresses his attendants, who are probably staggering under the weight of an enormous shield: