184. Ps. 748. For a fairly complete collection, v. LeGrand, Daos, p. 44 ff. Cf. Middleton and Mills, Students' Companion to Latin Authors, p. 20 ff.
185. Cf. West in A.J.P. VIII. 15. Cf. note 1, Part II, supra.
186. Cf. Amph. 861 ff., As. 174 f., Cap. 778, Cur. 464, Her. 160, Poen. 1224.
187. Cf. Daos, Part I, Chap. III: Les personnages, and p. 303 ff.; Mommsen, Hist. pp. 141 ff.
189. For a discussion of the relation of Plautus to his originals, v. Schuster, Quomodo Plautus Attica exemplaria transtulerit; LeGrand, Daos, passim; Ostermayer, de hist. fab. in com. Pl.; Ritschl, Par. 271, etc. The efforts to distinguish Plautus from his models have so far been fragmentary and abortive and will not advance appreciably until a complete play that he adapted has been found. At any rate, the discussion has no real bearing on our subject, since we can consider only the plays as actually transmitted; their sources cannot affect our argument. The comparisons in Daos seem to indicate that Plautus did not debase his originals so much as Mommsen, Körting, Schlegel and others had thought. Even in 1881, Kiessling (Anal. Plaut. II. 9) boldly expresses the opinion: "Atque omnino Plautus multo pressius Atticorum exemplarium vestigia secutus est quam hodie vulgo arbitrantur". Cf. Kellogg in PAPA. XLIV (1913).
190. Euanthius, de Com. IV. 4.
191. For an interesting comparison of Plautus and Terence, v. Spengel, Über die lateinische Komödie, (Munich 1878).