Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

mysterious disorders and has sought the confines of Aesculapius' temple, conveniently situated next his own house, that in his sleep he may obtain from the god a dream which will diagnose his ills.

Thus the way is clear for the meeting of the lovers, and in a sprightly scene Phaedromus lures forth the bibulous Leaena, in whose custody Planesium has been left, and bribes her with a skin of wine. As the lovers profit by their stolen moments, let us notice more particularly the part of Palinurus.

In the initial scene the slave is an admirable foil to Phaedromus. His colloquy with the latter introduces the play excellently if we assume, as did the groundlings of Plautus' time, that Palinurus can be so ignorant of his master's affairs. His quick retorts and ready jests form an amusing contrast to the lover's sighs, and his solicitude for the wineskin adds much to the humor of the scene with Leaena. During the lover's converse he rises to the occasion and cracks many a jest at their expense. In short, he is a leading figure in these opening scenes. His rôle must have been assigned to an actor of marked ability.

Yet we miss one conventional attribute of the confidential slave. When we learn of Phaedromus' penniless state we expect Palinurus to set in motion the intrigue which will free Planesium from duress vile. But Phaedromus puts his hope in other resources. Curculio, a guileful parasite, has been sent to Caria to borrow the sum required. This is made quite clear by repetition (vss. 67 ff., 143 f., 206 f.), and the parasite's arrival is pronounced imminent.

Finally the attendant is heard unbarring the doors of the temple inclosure (vss. 203 f.) and the lovers' meeting is at an end. Phaedromus retires to his house with his retinue. The opening of the temple heralds the entrance of Cappadox,2 racked with pain and uncommonly dissatisfied with his course of treatment. As he soliloquizes,

1 Objections on this score have been raised from time to time, as by Langrehr (Plautina: De Plauti Curculione [1893], pp. 4 f.). Such suspicions regarding the integrity of the text are effectually put to rest by Leo (Plaut. Forsch.2 [1912], pp. 196 ff.): "Dies ist ein Motiv, das lediglich dem Zwecke der Exposition dient, ein Notbehelf, dessen Unwahrscheinlichkeit der dramatische Dichter hinnimmt eben um den erzählenden prologus zu vermeiden, an dessen Stelle als anderer Notbehelf die póоwτа προτατικά treten.” See also Legrand, Daos (1910), pp. 522 f.

2 Cf. Legrand, Daos, p. 472: "Il est vrai que le prostitueur, qui paraît au vers 216, était annoncé dès le vers 203."

Palinurus enters, turning to reassure Phaedromus, who is still within the house, in the matter of Curculio's arrival.1

The motive for Palinurus' entrance is not made clear.

However,

if we consider for a moment, it will appear that Palinurus is the only character thus far introduced who could carry on the ensuing colloquy with Cappadox. The latter's entrance becomes inevitable, for he must leave the temple after his incubatio. Once on the stage, why not put him through his paces? The result is a humorous scene in which, as Leo notes (Plaut. Forsch., p. 197), the ominous presage of the dream contributes slightly to the action. So Palinurus enters, for no particular reason, and his reference to Curculio diverts the attention of the spectators from this small lack of motivation.2

2

As we have seen, Palinurus is not possessed of a ready fund of sympathy, yet Cappadox in his eagerness to find relief from his ailments is quite willing to overlook this failing and to appeal for help. Palinurus' vanity is touched, and he professes himself the very man to interpret dreams-"quin coniectores a me consilium petunt."

And now comes a curious interruption. A cook enters and summons Palinurus to set forth the viands for the entertainment of the parasite upon his arrival. That this may not be delayed the cook assumes the office of interpreting the dream and Palinurus leaves him

1 Ussing's conception of the action is somewhat different. After observing that Phaedromus and his attendants enter the house (ed. Plautus [1878], p. 544), he comments on vs. 223: "Palinurus advenit cum hero. Nam quum lux facta esset, ad forum se contulerunt, ut pararent quae ad parasitum redeuntem bene accipiendum opus essent (v. 252). Herum graviter sollicitum, ne se spes fallat et inanis redeat parasitus, Palinurus inter eundum consolatur;" on vs. 229: "Phaedromus cum coquo domum intrant; Palinurum retinet lenonis allocutio." I find no reason in the text of the play for assuming a trip to the forum between vss. 215 and 223, although such an assumption would not affect materially my interpretation of the following scene. Under such a supposition it would be extremely difficult to account for the omission of all reference to this trip and for the silence of Phaedromus while crossing the stage to the house. These difficulties are avoided by my interpretation, which is quite in accordance with the technique of New Comedy. Palinurus' mode of entrance is conventional: see, for example, Bac. 526 ff., Capt. 251, Merc. 562, Miles 156 ff.

2 Brasse (Quatenus in fabulis Plautinis et loci et temporis unitatibus species veritatis neglegatur [1914], pp. 2 ff.) adduces under the head "Persaepe fit, ut personae causam non afferentes domo in plateam procedant" a number of passages in which there is an equal lack of motivation at the entrance of a character. It is perhaps noteworthy that Palinurus does not come from the house with the avowed purpose of inquiring for the parasite or of ascertaining when the latter may be expected. There is consequently no reason for assigning him the announcement of Curculio's approach (vss. 274 ff.).

with a flattering recommendation. Cappadox tells his tale. The cook renders appropriate comment and sends away the leno with the eminently fitting advice that he make his peace with the god as the first step toward a cure. And then, as the cook turns away with an imprecation, the entrance of Curculio is announced. The MSS read as follows at the end of the scene:

COQVOS. Hoc animum aduorte: pacem ab Aesculapio

270

Petas, ne forte tibi eueniat malum,

Quod in quiete tibi portentumst. CAPPADOX. Bene facis:

Ibo atque orabo. COQVOS. Quae res male uortat tibi.

Pro di inmortales, quem conspicio? qui(s) illic est ?

Estne hic parasitus, qui missust in Cariam?

Heus, Phaedrome, exi, exi, exi inquam ocius.

275

PALINURUS. Qui(d) istic clamorem tollis? COQVOS. Parasitum tuom Video currentem, ellum usque in platea ultuma.

Hinc auscultemus quid agat. PALINURUS. Sane censeo.1

The following is the heading of the next scene (vss. 280 ff.):

[blocks in formation]

In this scene a few words are commonly assigned to Palinurus: vs. 303, Te ille quaerit; 313, Vin aquam?; 314, Vae capiti tuo; 315, Maxime . . . . Ventum; 317, Iuppiter te dique perdant; 321, Immo si scias reliquias quae sint. After vs. 321 he takes no part whatever in the play, leaving the stage at the end of the scene and failing to

1 The Ritschl-Götz edition of the Curculio (1879) contains the following notes in the apparatus criticus on the ascription of verses:

"277 Palinuri person. praem. BEJ Coco tribuunt BEJFZ; corr. Angelius. "279 Palinuro tribuunt extrema verba BEJ, coco F."

2 Editors have assigned these verses variously: Lindsay (ed. 1910), as cited; Leo (ed. 1895), as cited; Götz-Schöll (ed.. 1895), as cited, with the exception of vs. 321, which is assigned to Phaedromus; Ritschl-Götz (ed. 1879), vss. 303 and 315 (Ventum) assigned to Palinurus, the remainder to Phaedromus; Fleckeisen (ed. 1885), as in Ritschl-Götz edition.

The MSS assign these lines to Palinurus, according to the Ritschl-Götz apparatus, with the following trifling exceptions:

[blocks in formation]

reappear. The contrast between this meager part in the action and Palinurus' earlier rôle is apparent; Ribbeck long since commented on it.1

On the other hand, Curculio's part bulks large in the remainder of the play. He enters in the manner of the servus currens, bidding an imagined throng give him place. Once come to Phaedromus, he collapses from exhaustion and must be revived by the promise of delicacies from the latter's larder. To this offer he responds with professional eagerness; yet no money is forthcoming. The dismay of Phaedromus is great, until relieved by a glimpse of hope as Curculio chronicles his exploits. He has met the soldier Therapontigonus and in devious ways obtained possession of his signet. This ring will give the bearer access to a sum of money sufficient to make a final payment to Cappadox and thus to gain possession of Planesium. In rapid succession of scenes Curculio attains this end. Then Therapontigonus enters and is maddened to find no one willing to concede the justice of his claims. While he is ruminating on his ill fortune, Curculio bursts upon the stage, and the stolen ring leads to the recognition of Planesium as Therapontigonus' sister. With Curculio officiating the girl is formally betrothed to her lover and the play ends to the satisfaction of all save Cappadox, who is made to disgorge his ill-gotten gains.

Referring once more to vss. 270 ff., quoted above, we are confronted by several difficulties. When does Palinurus re-enter? What becomes of the cook? From the time of Fleckeisen these questions have been commonly answered by the assumption of a lacuna at vs. 273.2 In its mysterious depths the cook vanishes, and

1 "Beiträge zur Kritik des Plautinischen Curculio," Ber. d. sächs. Ges., XXXI (1879), 84. Leo (Plaut. Forsch.,2 p. 197, n. 1) has noted, without dwelling upon its significance, that "Palinurus nach dem Auftreten Curculios verschwindet und nicht eigentlich eine Vertrautenrolle spielt."

2 I am unable to find any statement of Fleckeisen's arguments on this passage. Ribbeck (op. cit., pp. 80 f.) states the case fairly: "Auf eine klaffende Lücke in der zweiten Scene des zweiten Actes hingewiesen zu haben (nach V. 273), ist Fleckeisens Verdienst. Eben war Palinurus abgegangen, um für das zu rüstende prandium Vorräthe herauszugeben; da soll er plötzlich ohne alle Motivirung wieder erscheinen, nur um den Parasiten von fern kommen zu sehen und den Herrn herauszurufen. Wollte man aber etwa, zum Theil nach Anleitung der Handschriften, dem Koch, welcher so eben dem Kuppler seinen Traum gedeutet hat, die Worte des Palinurus

Palinurus re-enters with a suitable entrance monologue. No further part in the action is assigned to the cook, and the announcement of Curculio's approach falls to Palinurus.

The assumption of a lacuna is necessarily a confession of despair on the part of the critic. There is here no well-marked indication of the loss of a portion of the text-no broken verse, no unended colloquy; it is hard to conceive how a lacuna could have left the text so seemingly intact. This encourages resort to interpretation of the manuscript reading and to consideration of the part this scene has in the play.

Such an attempt to return to the manuscript reading has been made within recent years. Basing his views upon the inconcinnity of vss. 263-67, Bosscher1 assigns vss. 267 ff. (Item . . . concorditer) to Palinurus, who he thinks hid upon the stage, thus giving an unsuspected turn to vs. 258: "Facit hic quod pauci, ut sit magistro obsequens." This obviates the necessity of a lacuna at vs. 273. Vs. 277 ("Quid istic clamorem tollis?") is assigned to Palinurus, the preceding ones to the cook. But after vs. 278 a lacuna is discovered (op. cit., p. 34): "Tum verisimile mihi videtur Phaedromum coquum intro iri (sic) iussisse, ut quae ad prandium opus essent, pararet et his se ad servum convertisse verbis: 'tu Palinure huc concedamus et hinc auscultemus quid agat.' This interpretation seems to me quite unsound. Bosscher's conception of the action introduces a situation unexampled in New Comedy. The assumption of a lacuna at vs. 278 discloses the impasse into which he has been led.

[ocr errors]

Yet if we accept for the moment the view of Ussing, that between vss. 215 and 223 Phaedromus visits the forum and returns with a

übertragen, so wäre des letzteren Anwesenheit in der folgenden Scene vollends unmotivirt, während der Koch, der gar nichts weiter auf der Bühne zu thun hatte, schon vorher seinen Weggang nach unverbrüchliche Sitte der alten Komödie erklärt haben musste." The extent of the lacuna is not generally considered great. Ussing states (2d ed. [1878], p. 548): "Itaque dubitari nequit, quin nova haec scena sit, cuius praescriptio quoniam in codd. non invenitur, integrum folium excidisse apparet." Götz (ed. [1879], praef., xxii, n. 1) took exception to this, stating his own views as follows (op. cit., xxi f. ): “Hoc demum saeculo Fleckeisenus post v. 273 maiorem lacunam detexit: sed cur idem neget scaenam II 2 esse absolutam non satis perspicio: immo praeter versus aliquot qui ad Palinurum pertinent plura intercidisse non video quo iure coniciamus."

1 De Plauti Curculione (1903), pp. 31 ff.

« ZurückWeiter »