Subiectul 8

-Plaut, creator de tipuri comice-

(Soldatul fanfaron, Amphitryon, Ulcica cu bani)

PLAUT 254 i.Hr.- 184 i.Hr.

 a fost sursa de inspiratie pentru Balzac, Shakespeare, Moliere

 S-au pastrat 20 de piese (palliate)
 Fost sclav eliberat, servitor in trupa de comedianti, unul dintre primii
scriitori profesionisti ai omenirii.
 Tipuri comice: avari, soldati fanfaroni, intriganti, escroci, sclavi abili si
inteligenti, batrani indragostiti si ridicoli, situatii de qui-pro-quo (gemeni
care se confunda intre ei), jocuri de cuvinte, confuzii, situatii absurd
 Toate au devenit mijloace clasice de realizare a comicului
 In “Ulcica cu bani” este vorba despre un batran Euclio care, fiind manat de
avaritie, isi conduce toata viata in jurul interesul financiar, ajungand sa isi
piarda averea din cauza unui lant de accidente si a santajului facut de
ginerele sau.

- Dezvoltarea temei trebuie sa inceapa cu literatura antica, cu opera parintelui comediei,

Plaut care evidentiaza in a sa Aulularia, pentru prima data, tipul avarului. Fabio
Cupaiuolo considera ca protagonistul acesteia, batranul avar, Euclio este cel mai
autentic personaj, foarte complex construit. Din alcatuirea acestuia s-au inspirat mai
multi autori ai literaturii universale. Este vorba, bineinteles, de Moliere, in piesa sa
“Avarul”, de Honore de Balzac, in “Eugenie Grandet” si chiar, in literatura engleza,
William Shakespeare cu “Negutatorul din Venetia”.
- In Aulularia avem un tablou sugestiv al avarului si al avaritiei. Euclio, un batran zgarcit, a
gasit ascunsa in pamant o ulcica de galbeni. Din aceasta clipa nu mai are liniste; norocul
i-a zdruncinat mintea. Traieste tot timpul cu teama ca i se va fura comoara si cerceteaza
necontenit locul unde a ascuns-o. Devine banuitor fata de toti si intra in panica usor, la
orice gest, la orice miscare. Nu mai iese afara din casa si devine temator, pana si fata de
copilul sau. Din nemiscarea ei, in locul unde a ascuns-o, ulcica blestemata domina toata
activitatea casei. Lyconides, pentru a obtine ca Euclio sa-si dea consimtamantul la
 casatoria lui cu Phaedria, fiica acestuia, pune la cale furtul comorii. Scena de disperare a
avarului, in momentul cand nu mai gaseste ulcica la locul ei, a devenit celebra:
- “Sunt pierdut... m-au ucis... am murit! Unde sa alerg? Unde sa nu alerg? Stai! Stai! Dar
pe cine sa opresc? Nu stiu, nu mai stiu nimic... sunt orb! Unde sa ma duc? Unde ma aflu?
Cine sunt? Nu-mi mai am capul pe umeri, nu mai stiu ce e cu mine. Ah! ... va rog, va
implor, va cad in genunchi, veniti-mi in ajutor, aratati-mi pe acela care m-a furat... Iata-l,
iata-l colo! Voi, voi, astia care va ascundeti sub hainele voastre albe si care va asezati pe
banca, vreti sa pareti oameni cinstiti... Tu, tu, vorbeste! Hei, vreau sa te cred: chipul tau
imi spune ca ai fi om cumsecade. Ce? De ce radeti? Va cunosc eu pe toti; stiu bine ca aici
sunteti multi hoti. Ce? Nu? Nimeni nu a furat-o? ... Ma sufoci, ma omori... Spune, spune
o data, cine e? ... A, nu stii? Vai, vai nenorocitul de mine! Sunt pierdut. S-a sfarsit cu
mine!...”.
- Izbitoare apare tonalitatea romana conferita intrigii: prologul este incredintat unui Lar
familiaris, care joaca rolul Providentei si recompenseaza pietatea dovedita de Phaedria
fata de el. Pe de alta parte, sentimentele lui Euclio, atitudinea lui din momentul
descoperirii comorii, „traumatismul” provocat de imbogatire exprima fara indoiala o
conceptie filozofica; sursa ei o aflam in Etica Nicomachica a lui Aristotel, care face din
avaritie una din „neputintele batranetii”.
- Avarul lui Moliere a adus celelebritate Aululariei, in care eroul, desi descopera o
comoara care il face bogat, continua sa traiasca in lipsuri, cu teama dezumanizanta ca ar
putea fi pradat. Euclio, ca expresie a unui viciu general uman, se regaseste in Harpagon,
personajul lui Moliere, care, prin renumele autorului sau, a devenit punctul de referinta
al acestei tipologii.
- Subiectul este centrat pe o singura, dar dominanta trasatura de caracter a eroului. Pe
parcursul celor cinci acte, actiunea graviteaza in jurul lui Harpagon, despre care nu stim
decat ca are aproximativ saizeci de ani, ca este tatal a doi copii, Cleant si Eliza, si ca este
indragostit de tanara Mariana. In vreme ce batranul Harpagon, indragostit de Mariana,
ezita sa o ceara in casatorie la gandul ca este lipsita de zestre, cei doi copii ai sai traiesc
si ei misterul si dramele iubirii. Eliza impartaseste dragostea cu Valeriu, care, pentru a o
putea cere in casatorie, devine servitorul lui Harpagon, iar Cleant este indragostit chiar
de Mariana.
- Pe de alta parte, preocuparile batranului avar se indreapta si spre chivernisirea copiilor
sai, fara ca aceasta sa-i afecteze in vreun fel averea. De aceea, el doreste sa-1 insoare pe
Cleant cu o vaduva bogata, iar pentru Eliza gaseste o partida potrivita in persoana lui
Anselm, batran, dar bogat. Actul I se incheie in plina confuzie, Cleant incurajand laudele
pe care tatal sau i le face Marianei, pentru a afla cu stupoare ca acesta intentioneaza sa
se insoare cu iubita lui
- In actul al II-lea, Cleant doreste sa obtina, prin intermediul servitorului sau, La Fleche, un
imprumut, fara a sti ca in spatele camatarului nu este altcineva decat tatal sau. Pusi fata
in fata in aceasta imprejurare ridicola, cei doi se invinuiesc unul pe celalalt pentru
camatarie, respectiv pentru risipa.
- Actiunea cuprinde, in cel de-al treilea act, scenele legate de intalnirea dintre toate
personajele implicate in conflict. Pregatirea vizitei celor trei pretendenti starneste
hohote de ras: servitorii sunt instruiti sa toarne vinul cu socoteala, sa recupereze rapid
 toate resturile, sa gateasca pentru opt oaspeti, desi vor fi zece, si sa stea cu spatele la
perete pentru a nu se observa gaurile din hainele lor mult prea vechi. Dupa ce,
spulberand elanul jupanului Jacques, Harpagon decide sa se gateasca doar fasole cu o
ciozvarta de berbec gras, avarul este caracterizat de vechiul sau servitor, care se face, cu
acest prilej, ecoul celor din jur:
- „Unii spun ca tipariti pe socoteala dumneavoastra calendare in care zilele de post sunt
trecute in numar indoit si ca va siliti oamenii sa le tina, ca sa va bagati in buzunar ce v-ar
costa mancarea de dulce. a...i Altul povesteste ca ati dat in judecata pisica vecinului,
fiindca v-a mancat ce-a mai ramas dintr-o friptura de berbec. a...i Sunteti rasul si
batjocura tuturor ; nu va spun decat zgarcitul care-si mananca de sub unghie, scarbosul,
camatarul".
- Cel care descopera comoara bine ascunsa a batranului este La Fleche si i-o da stapanului
sau, care dispare cu ea. Actul final il surprinde pe Harpagon in cea mai adanca disperare,
incercand sa-si recupereze caseta eu cei zece mii de galbeni :
- « Hotii ! Hotii ! Asasinii ! Ucigasii ! Dreptate sfanta, Cerule drept ! sunt pierdut, m-au
omorat, mi-au taiat beregata, mi-au furat banii ! Cine poate sa fie ? Unde s-a dus ? Unde
e ? Unde se ascunde ? Cum sa fac sa-l gasesc ? Unde sa nu alerg ? Unde sa alerg ? Nu-i
colea ? Nu-i aici ? Cine e ? Pune mana pe el ! Da-mi banii inapoi, talharule ! ... (Se apuca
singur de brat) Ah ! tot eu sunt. Mi se turbura mintea si nu mai stiu unde ma gasesc si ce
fac. Vai ! sarmanii mei bani, sarmanii mei bani, scumpii mei prieteni ! am fost lipsit de
voi ; si pentru ca v-au rapit, mi-am pierdut propteaua, mangaierea, bucuria. Totul s-a
sfarsit pentru mine si nu mai am ce cauta pe lume. Fara voi imi e cu neputinta sa mai
traiesc. S-a ispravit, nu mai am, mor, am murit, sunt inmormantat !
- Delirul declansat de febra banilor este sugestiv si izbitor de asemanator intre cele doua
fragmente, ceea ce arata inainte de toate puterea banilor de « a lua mintile », de a
schimba comportamentul uman pana la a friza absurdul si chiar, patologicul. Se
ilustreaza foarte bine imperfectiunea naturii umane, excesele ei si faptul ca avaritia este
unul dintre defectele genetice ancestrale. Aceste replici plaseaza actiunea in domeniul
tragicomicului, pentru ca desi atat Euclio, cat si Harpagon traiesc un moment tragic,
marcati de furtul comorii, totusi replicile sustin un comic de limbaj, absolut savuros.
- Banuit de furt este Valeriu, iar, in vreme ce tanarul ii vorbeste despre iubirea sa pentru
Éliza, Harpagon crede ca subiectul este nepretuita sa caseta. Rasturnarea tipica de
situatie se produce in final, cand Anselm descopera ca Valèriu si Mariana sunt chiar
copiii sai.
- Deznodamantul, in conformitate cu normele speciei, este unul fericit, desi povestea in
sine este tragica. Personajele isi gasesc fericirea pe care o definesc in functie de idealuri
specifice. Cléant si Éliza se vor casatori cu cei pe care ii iubesc, iar Harpagon isi regaseste
caseta pierduta si isi traieste astfel fericirea ridicola intr-o existenta meschina,
intorcandu-se la vechea sa patima, camataria.
- Spre deosebire de avarii pe care ii va zugravi realismul, personajul lui Molière nu aluneca
insa pe panta dezumanizarii totale, pastreaza o aparenta de confort, chiar daca de o
simplitate ridicola, nu isi trateaza copiii cu brutalitate, iar atitudinea sa este receptata cu
umor.
- Comicul de caracter se sustine prin forta de sugestie a personajului pe care dramaturgul
il aduce in scena pentru a intruchipa un defect criticabil. Harpagon are rezonanta
avaritei, a zgarceniei peste masura, astfel incat, de-a lungul timpului, gratie si renumelui
piesei, el a devenit sinonimul acestor pacate omenesti. Personajul se defineste si prin
limbaj, canalizat in sensul ingrosarii defectelor, caci replica ,,fara zestre" devine un tic, si
prin vestimentatia cenusie, rezistenta, cu urme evidente de uzare, semn al zgarceniei
indreptate impotriva propriei fiinte.
- Avaritia, de-abia comprimata, porneste de indata in mod automat si tocmai acest
automatism este cel pe care Moliere a vrut sa-l scoata in evidenta prin repetarea
masinala a unei fraze in care se exprima regretul pentru banii pe care va fi nevoit sa-i
dea : « Ce naiba cauta pe acea galera ? ». Aceeasi observatie pentru scena in care
Valeriu incearca sa-l convinga pe Harpagon ca ar fi nedrept sa-si marite fata cu un
barbat pe care nu-l iubeste. « Fara zestre ! » intrerupe mereu avaritia lui Harpagon.
- Harpagon nu e un avar, este avarul de totdeauna. E fara doar si poate avarul-tip : daca
insa ne intereseaza pe toti, explicatia e ca si omul cel mai putin zgarcit e din cand in cand
Harpagon. Harpagon e dezvoltarea durabila a unui mare caracter de ansamblu, dar este
si amplificarea anumitor detalii neinsemnate ale unor caractere nezgarcite, vazute sub
lupa. « Fiecare este Harpagon -; zice de altminteri Alain -; fiecaruia i-a trecut prin minte
acel Fara zestre , dar nimeni n-a spus-o niciodata... »
- Honore de Balzac pune in evidenta, in a sa « Eugenie Grandet » aceeasi tipologie
marcanta a avarului. Spre deosebire de protagonistul Aululariei, care pastra secretul
averii pentru sine, devenind banuitor fata de toti, considerand ca unic scop al tuturor
furtul comorii lui ; Pere Grandet isi acumulase averea prin afaceri, si avea totusi cativa
oameni de incredere : « Se soptea despre el ca are o avere fabuloasa, milioane, vii,
pamanturi... Cat de mare era aceasta avere, nimeni nu stia, in afara de dl Cruchot,
notarul, (...), tacut si discret, ca orice notar cumsecade » ; pe fiica sa « o initiaza in multe
taine ale averii sale, ascunsa altora ». In timp ce Grandet isi permitea « sa riste
cumpanit, dupa multa chibzuiala si cu sanse sigure de casig, dar totusi sa riste », Euclio
nu iesea din casa nici macar pentru a-si ridica alimentele distribuite gratuit din zilele de
serbari publice.
- Caracteristica atemporala a oricarui avar este, insa, indeplinita de ambele personaje :
ambii se complaceau, « conform claselor traditionale, in mici si meschine economii
ridicole » ; iubeau aurul, le placea « sa-l alinte, sa-l mangaie, sa-l cloceasca, sa-l
incalzeasca, sa-l stranga la piept ».
- In disperarea sa de a-si pastra comoara intacta, Euclio se izolase complet de lume, fara
prieteni, fara ajutor. Ii lasa mereu vorba servitoarei sa nu imprumute nimic nimanui, din
frica de a nu descoperi cineva vreun indiciu in legatura cu marele lui secret. Grandet, in
schimb, « a avut functii publice : a fost primarul oraselului Saumur si i-a chivernisit bine
interesele -; fara sa uite, fireste de ale sale -; stia sa dea sfaturi, le dadea chiar cu mare
placere ; daca prin aceasta nu-si creeaza un neajuns ».
- Euclio, asemenea lui Grandet nu voia sa-i ofere fiicei satisfactii materiale, in timpul vietii
sale. Totusi, Pere ii mai dadea, uneori, la ocazii speciale, cate un ban de aur. Insa, in timp
ce personajul balzacian o pregatea pe Eugenie pentru a-l mosteni, la un moment dat,
batranul plautin punea pastrarea fara un scop anume a averii, zgarcenia, deasupra
 sentimentelor fata de unicul copil. Astfel, el le spunea tuturor ca nu poate oferi o zestre
demna de fiica sa pentru cel care o va lua in casatorie. Creeaza, initial, impresia ca nu
este capabil de sentimente, nici macar de cel al paternitatii, lucru care il deosebeste de
Grandet, care « este un monstru, dar un monstru veridic, reprezentand, cu trasaturile
ingrosate, ce-i drept, o intreaga casta de burghezi activi, dar hrapareti, ascunsi printre
proviinciile franceze ducand aceeasi viata (...) de economie si acumulare ».
- Euclio traia tot timpul cu senzatia ca exista persoane care ar incerca sa-i fure comoara si,
de aceea, se creeaza o antiteza intre el si lumea reala. Aceasta antiteza nu este valabila
si pentru personajul balzacian, pentru ca Grandet exista si traieste prin si in real,
desfasurandu-si afacerile cu tact si diplomatie iscusita : « Vorbind negustoreste, domnul
Grandet era asemenea tigrului si a sarpelui boa ; stia sa se piteasca, sa se ghemuiasca, sa
ocheasca prada indelung, sa se repeada asupra-i ; apoi casca gura pungii, inghitea o
sumedenie de banet si se culca domol, ca sarpele care mistuie nepasator, rece, metodic.
»
- Si William Shakespeare pentru a crea opera sa « Negutatorul din Venetia » foloseste, ca
sursa de inspiratie, de acum cunoscuta comedie a lui Plaut, Aulularia. Desi pasnic si
cinstit, comertul venetienilor sta de la primele pagini ale piesei sub semnul acumularii
banesti. Prima scena descrie valorile Venetiei : orasul este total absorbit de bani si
maniere. Antonio e trist, dar raspunde : « Prostii ! » cand e intrebat daca nu cumva e
indragostit. Dragostea nu este o valoare in aceasta lume in care femeile sunt « de
vanzare », Venetia intelege numai limbajul economic.
- Salarino si Salanio se dau in vant dupa bani si posesiuni si aproape ca se ridica la nivelul
poeziei avantate cand discuta despre asemenea lucruri. Pe Gratiano si Lorenzo ii
preocupa banii si bunele maniere, impresionandu-l pe bogatul Antonio. Antonio insusi si
Shylock se inrudesc de aproape. Dar banii sunt un scop in sine pentru Shylock, care este
evreu, caracterizare fara indoiala menita sa satisfaca reprezentarile si prejudecatile
renascentiste, dar a carui comportare este mai degraba puritana... Shylock da bani cu
imprumut pentru a face bani, silindu-i astfel sa rodeasca.
- Spre deosebire de « negutatori », Shylock nu-si castiga banii prin munca, ci prin camata,
si cum crestinismul interzicea imprumutul cu dobanda, iar Antonio apara cu strasnicie
acest principiu, se poate afirma ca acesta este motivul principal al urii lui Shylock
impotriva lui Antonio. Dealtfel, in importantul aparateu rostit in prima sa aparitie pe
scena, Shylock insusi subliniaza o asemenea motivare : « Il urasc pentru ca e crestin ; dar
si mai mult pentru ca/ Da bani cu imprumut pe gratis si face sa scada/ Camata obisnuita
aici la noi, in Venetia ».
- In legatura cu puternica inclinatie achizitiva a lui Shylock se pune intreabarea ce anume
scop urmareste el realizand castiguri « cinstite ». Marilyn French afirma raspicat : «
strange bani de dragul banilor », opinie impartasita si de alti cercetatori, unii bazandu-se
pe citate din text, astfel Launcelot Gobbo se plange ca « a murit de foame in casa lui »,
Jessica, iarasi, ca « iad ne este casa », Shylock insusi afirmand ca banii sunt mijlocul cu
care traieste.
- Diferenta dintre cele patru personaje, Euclio, Harpagon, Pere Grandet si Shylock se
datoreaza, in cea mai mare parte stilurilor operelor si a scriitorilor care ii zugravesc. In
timp ce personajul plautin si batranul Harpagon sunt comice, ridiculizate pana la extrem
 cu cinism si ironie, personajul balzacian si cel shakespearian sunt schitate cu realism si
complexitate. Avaritia ii uneste pe toti acestia si se evidentiaza, in general, prin detaliile
caracteristice acestei tipologii, indiferent de coordonatele temporale si spatiale.
- In incheiere ni se pare util sa facem referire si la proverbe. Proverbul, fara a avea o
incarcatura de intelepciune populara, reprezinta si o modalitate de expresie artistica.
Proverbele au o mare rezistenta in timp si pot disparea doar daca dispar imprejurarile,
faptele sau comportamentele care au determinat apartitia lor, si cum avaritia este un
defect vechi de cand lumea si care se manifesta destul de frecvent si in zilele noastre, ni
s-a parut elocvent sa facem referire la unele proverbe romanesti. Poate cel mai potrivit
cu tema despre care am discutat ar fi : « Lacomia strica omenia », zicere care subliniaza
caracteristica dezumanizanta a avaritiei, pe care am precizat-o inainte. Pe langa romanii
darnici si generosi, proverbele spun ca ar mai exista si altii : « zgarie-branza » ; care «
dau cu o mana si iau cu doua ». De altfel se spune despre bogat ca « nu e stapan pe
banii lui ci banii il stapanesc pe el ». S-ar putea concluziona ca goana fara ragaz dupa
avere fara innobilarea pe care o da generozitatea, nu este numai dezumanizanta, dar
ajunge pana la extrem, pana la iesirea totala din real, din ceea ce inseamna omul si
omenia.

The clever slave

In his article "The Intriguing Slave in Greek Comedy," Philip Harsh gives evidence to show that
the clever slave is not an invention of Plautus. While previous critics such as A. W.
Gomme believed that the slave was “[a] truly comic character, the devisor of ingenious
schemes, the controller of events, the commanding officer of his young master and friends, is a
creation of Latin comedy,” and that Greek dramatists such as Menander did not use slaves in
such a way that Plautus later did, Harsh refutes these beliefs by giving concrete examples of
instances where a clever slave appeared in Greek comedy. [57] For instance, in the works of
Athenaeus, Alciphron, and Lucian there are deceptions that involve the aid of a slave, and in
Menander’s Dis Exapaton there was an elaborate deception executed by a clever slave that
Plautus mirrors in his Bacchides. Evidence of clever slaves also appears in
Menander’s Thalis, Hypobolimaios, and from the papyrus fragment of his Perinthia. Harsh
acknowledges that Gomme’s statement was probably made before the discovery of many of
the papyri that we now have. While it was not necessarily a Roman invention, Plautus did
develop his own style of depicting the clever slave. With larger, more active roles, more verbal
exaggeration and exuberance, the slave was moved by Plautus further into the front of the
action.[58] Because of the inversion of order created by a devious or witty slave, this stock
character was perfect for achieving a humorous response and the traits of the character
worked well for driving the plot forward.
[edit]The lusty old man
Another important Plautine stock character, discussed by K.C. Ryder, is the senex amator. A
senex amator is classified as an old man who contracts a passion for a young girl and who, in
varying degrees, attempts to satisfy this passion. In Plautus these men are Demaenetus
(Asinaria), Philoxenus and Nicobulus (Bacchides), Demipho (Cistellaria), Lysidamus (Casina),
Demipho (Mercator), and Antipho (Stichus). Periplectomenos (Miles Gloriosus) and Daemones
(Rudens) are regarded as senes lepidi because they usually keep their feelings within a
respectable limit. All of these characters have the same goal, to be with a younger woman, but
all go about it in different ways, as Plautus could not be too redundant with his characters
despite their already obvious similarities. What they have in common is the ridicule with which
their attempts are viewed, the imagery that suggests that they are motivated largely by animal
passion, the childish behavior, and the reversion to the love-language of their youth. [59]
[edit]Female characters
In examining the female role designations of Plautus's plays, Z.M. Packman found that they are
not as stable as their male counterparts: a senex will usually remain a senex for the duration of
the play but designations like matrona, mulier, or uxor at times seem interchangeable. Most
free adult women, married or widowed, appear in scene headings as mulier, simply translated
as “woman”. But in Plautus’ Stichus the two young women are referred to as sorores,
later mulieres, and then matronae, all of which have different meanings and connotations.
Although there are these discrepancies, Packman tries to give a pattern to the female role
designations of Plautus. Mulier is typically given to a woman of citizen class and of marriageable
age or who has already been married. Unmarried citizen-class girls, regardless of sexual
experience, were designated virgo. Ancilla was the term used for female household slaves,
with Anus reserved for the elderly household slaves. A young woman who is unwed due to
social status is usually referred to as meretrix or “courtesan.” A lena, or adoptive mother, may
be a woman who owns these girls.[60]
[edit]Unnamed characters
Like Packman, George Duckworth uses the scene headings in the manuscripts to support his
theory about unnamed Plautine characters. There are approximately 220 characters in the 20
plays of Plautus. Thirty are unnamed in both the scene headings and the text and there are
about nine characters who are named in the ancient text but not in any modern one. This
means that about 18% of the total number of characters in Plautus are nameless. Most of the
very important characters have names while most of the unnamed characters are of less
importance. However, there are some abnormalities—the main character in Casina is not
mentioned by name anywhere in the text. In other instances, Plautus will give a name to a
character that only has a few words or lines. One explanation is that some of the names have
been lost over the years; and for the most part, major characters do have names. [61]
Plautus and Shakespeare
Shakespeare borrowed from Plautus as Plautus borrowed from his Greek models. C.L. Barber
says that “Shakespeare feeds Elizabethan life into the mill of Roman farce, life realized with his
distinctively generous creativity, very different from Plautus’ tough, narrow, resinous genius.” [76]
The Plautine and Shakespearean plays that most parallel each other are, respectively,
The Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors. According to Marples, Shakespeare drew directly
from Plautus “parallels in plot, in incident, and in character,” [77] and was undeniably influenced
by the classical playwright’s work. H. A. Watt stresses the importance of recognizing the fact
that the “two plays were written under conditions entirely different and served audience as
remote as the poles.”[78]
The differences between The Menaechmi and The Comedy of Errors are clear. In
The Menaechmi, Plautus uses only one set of twins—twin brothers. Shakespeare, on the other
hand, uses two sets of twins, which, according to William Connolly, “dilutes the force of
[Shakespeare’s] situations.”[78] One suggestion is that Shakespeare got this idea from
Plautus’ Amphitruo, in which both twin masters and twin slaves appear.
It can be noted that the doubling is a stock situation of Elizabethan comedy. On the fusion
between Elizabethan and Plautine techniques, T. W. Baldwin writes, “…Errors does not have the
miniature unity of Menaechmi, which is characteristic of classic structure for
comedy.”[79] Baldwin notes that Shakespeare covers a much greater area in the structure of the
play than Plautus does. Shakespeare was writing for an audience whose minds weren’t
restricted to house and home, but looked toward the greater world beyond and the role that
they might play in that world.
Another difference between the audiences of Shakespeare and Plautus is that Shakespeare’s
audience was Christian. At the end of Errors, the world of the play is returned to normal when a
Christian abbess interferes with the feuding. Menaechmi, on the other hand, “is almost
completely lacking in a supernatural dimension.” [80] A character in Plautus’ play would never
blame an inconvenient situation on witchcraft—something that is quite common in
Shakespeare.
The relationship between a master and a clever servant is also a common element in
Elizabethan comedy. Shakespeare often includes foils for his characters to have one set off the
other. In Elizabethan romantic comedy, it is common for the plays to end with multiple
marriages and couplings of pairs. This is something that is not seen in Plautine comedy. In
the Comedy of Errors,Aegeon and Aemilia are separated, Antipholus and Adriana are at odds,
and Antipholus and Luciana have not yet met. At the end, all the couples are happily together.
By writing his comedies in a combination of Elizabethan and Plautine styles, Shakespeare helps
to create his own brand of comedy, one that uses both styles.[78]
Also, Shakespeare uses the same kind of opening monologue so common in Plautus’s plays. He
even uses a “villain” in The Comedy of Errors of the same type as the one
in Menaechmi,switching the character from a doctor to a teacher but keeping the character a
shrewd, educated man.[78] Watt also notes that some of these elements appear in many of his
works, such asTwelfth Night or A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and had a deep impact on
Shakespeare’s writing.[78]
Later playwrights also borrowed Plautus's stock characters. One of the most important echoes
of Plautus is the stock character of the parasite. Certainly the best example of this is Falstaff,
Shakespeare's portly and cowardly knight. As J. W. Draper notes, the gluttonous Falstaff shares
many characteristics with a parasite such as Artotrogus from Miles Gloriosus. Both characters
seem fixated on food and where their next meal is coming from. But they also rely on flattery in
order to gain these gifts, and both characters are willing to bury their patrons in empty praise.
[81]
 Of course, Draper notes that Falstaff is also something of a boastful military man, but notes,
“Falstaff is so complex a character that he may well be, in effect, a combination of interlocking
types.”[81]
As well as appearing in Shakespearean comedy, the Plautine parasite appears in one of the first
English comedies. In Ralph Roister Doister, the character of Matthew Merrygreeke follows in
the tradition of both Plautine Parasite and Plautine slave, as he both searches and grovels for
food and also attempts to achieve his master’s desires. [81] Indeed, the play itself is often seen as
borrowing heavily from or even being based on the Plautine comedy Miles Gloriosus.[82]
H. W. Cole discusses the influence of Plautus and Terence on the Stonyhurst Pageants. The
Stonyhurst Pageants are manuscripts of Old Testament plays that were probably composed
after 1609 in Lancashire. Cole focuses on Plautus’ influence on the particular Pageant of
Naaman. The playwright of this pageant breaks away from the traditional style of religious
medieval drama and relies heavily on the works of Plautus. Overall, the playwright cross-
references eighteen of the twenty surviving plays of Plautus and five of the six extant plays by
Terence. It is clear that the author of the Stonyhurst Pageant of Naaman had a great knowledge
of Plautus and was significantly influenced by this.[83]
There is evidence of Plautine imitation in Edwardes’ Damon and Pythias and Heywood’s Silver
Age as well as in Shakespeare's Errors. Heywood sometimes translated whole passages of
Plautus. By being translated as well as imitated, Plautus was a major influence on comedy of
the Elizabethan era.
In terms of plot, or perhaps more accurately plot device, Plautus served as a source of
inspiration and also provided the possibility of adaptation for later playwrights. The many
deceits that Plautus layered his plays with, giving the audience the feeling of a genre bordering
on farce, appear in much of the comedy written by Shakespeare and Molière. For instance, the
clever slave has important roles in both L’Avare and L’Etourdi, two plays by Molière, and in both
drives the plot and creates the ruse just like Palaestrio in Miles Gloriosus.[84] These similar
characters set up the same kind of deceptions in which many of Plautus’ plays find their driving
force, which is not a simple coincidence.

Synopsisuri

Amphytrion

Amphitryon begins with a prologue given by the god Mercury, in which he gives some

background information to the audience. Amphitryon and his slave Sosia have been away at
war and are returning to Thebes. Meanwhile, the god Jupiter is sleeping with Amphitryon’s
wife Alcmena. Jupiter is in the guise of Amphitryon so that Alcmena is unaware that he is not
her husband.
Mercury's job is to buy his father Jupiter some time by deceiving those who would interfere. He
changes his appearance to look like the slave Sosia, and when the real Sosia arrives, he beats
him up and sends him away from the house. Thoroughly confused by having been beat up by
himself, Sosia returns to the ship to relay what happened to his master Amphitryon.
The following morning, Amphitryon sets off for the house, annoyed by his slave's foolish
sounding story. Jupiter leaves only moments before Amphitryon arrives, and when Alcmena
sees her real husband, is confused as to why he has returned. Amphitryon doesn't appreciate
this strange welcome after being gone for so many months, and confusion turns to anger and
jealousy after learning that she has slept with a man who is not himself.
After a long argument, Alcmena is ready to leave her untrusting husband but is stopped by
Jupiter. He soon begins to set things right, and in a miraculous event, Alcmena gives birth to
twin boys. One is the son of Amphitryon, the other is Hercules, the son of Jupiter. To quell
Amphitryon’s anger, he explains to him what he did, and Amphyitryon is then honored to have
shared his wife with a god.

Ulcica cu bani (Aulularia)

Lars Familiaris, the household deity of Euclio, an old man with a marriageable daughter named
Phaedria, begins the play with a prologue about how he allowed Euclio to discover a pot of gold
buried in his house. Euclio is then shown almost maniacally guarding his gold from real and
imagined threats. Unknown to Euclio, Phaedria is pregnant by a young man named Lyconides.
Phaedria is never seen on stage, though at a key point in the play the audience hears her
painful cries in labor.
Euclio is persuaded to marry his daughter to his rich neighbor, an elderly bachelor named
Megadorus, who happens to be the uncle of Lyconides. This leads to much by-play involving
preparations for the nuptials. Eventually Lyconides and his slave appear, and Lyconides
confesses to Euclio his ravishing of Phaedria. Lyconides’ slave manages to steal the by now
notorious pot of gold. Lyconides confronts his slave about the theft.
At this point the manuscript breaks off. From surviving summaries of the play, we know that
Euclio eventually recovers his pot of gold and gives it to Lyconides and Phaedria, who marry in a
happy ending. In the Penguin Classics edition of the play, translator E.F. Watling actually wrote
the ending as it might have originally been constructed, based on the summaries and a few
surviving scraps of dialogue. Other writers down through the centuries have also written
endings for the play, with somewhat varying results.

Soldatul fanfaron (Miles Gloriosus)

The Back-story and prologue

The play commences with the entrance of Pyrgopolynices, looking heroic and posing in a
pompous manner. Behind him is his “parasite”, Artotrogus, who earns his meals by flattering
the soldier excessively, and several minions who carry his monstrous shield. At these opening
moments we get a sense for Pyrgopolynices' true nature. He constantly boasts about his
accomplishments and portrays himself as a fantastic military hero. In reality, his
accomplishments are far smaller—hence the play's title. After he leaves the stage we meet one
of the main characters of the play, Palaestrio, who formerly served a young Athenian,
Pleusicles. His former master had a girlfriend named Philocomasium who was kidnapped from
Athens and taken by Pyrgopolynices. When Palaestrio tried to reach his master with this bad
news, the slave was seized by pirates and sold, by chance, to the same soldier. Both he and the
girl have been living in the soldier’s house in Ephesus, but Palaestrio has sent a letter secretly to
his former master telling him where they are. Now Pleusicles has come to Ephesus and is
staying with Periplectomenus, who lives next door to the soldier, and the wise Palaestrio has
cut a hole in the wall so the two lovers can see one another.
Palaestrio’s Trickery
Periplectomenus then enters, worried because he has caught one of Pyrgopolynices' slaves on
the roof between the two houses, looking in through the skylight. This slave claims he was
chasing a monkey, but Periplectomenus is sure that Philocomasium has been seen. Palaestrio
comes up with a plan to tell Pyrgopolynices that Philocomasium has a twin sister, Honoria, who
is visiting Ephesus with her lover and mother and staying with Periplectomenus. Should
Sceledrus make accusations, then Palaestrio will just refute the claim, and say it’s her twin.
Periplectomenus goes back inside to tell Philocomasium what has happened and to tell her the
plan. Meanwhile, Philocomasium goes through the hole in the wall back into Pyrgopolynices'
house, emerging from it shortly afterwards with Palaestrio and Sceledrus. Philocomasium tells
Sceledrus that she had a dream that her twin sister had arrived from Athens. Sceledrus has his
doubts, so Philocomasium goes back into Pyrgopolynices' house, then through the hole in the
wall and comes out of the other house as her twin sister Honoria. Meanwhile, Sceledrus stands
guard outside Pyrgopolynices' house. Meanwhile, Philocomasium comes out of
Periplectomenus' front door, giving orders to slaves inside. She challenges Sceledrus when he
addresses her as Philocomasium, and her manner is that of a free woman. She says her name is
Honoria and that she has arrived the previous night from Athens, and wants to try to find her
twin sister Philocomasium. Sceledrus is now convinced. He promises Palaestrio that he will not
speak of this again. Just then Periplectomenus comes out and is furious at Sceledrus and how
he has treated his “lady guest.” He threatens to whip him but gets over it right away. Sceledrus
who still thinks he’s been tricked, and thinks that there is a plot to get Pyrgopolynices to sell
him to another master, decides to say nothing for the moment.
The Plan to fight the Braggart
Palaestrio, Periplectomenus, and Pleusicles all emerge from the house and Palaestrio has come
up with yet another plan to bring down Pyrgopolynices and get back Philocomasium. On
request, Periplectomenus hands his ring to Palaestrio, who then explains his plan. He needs
Periplectomenus to find an accomplished and beautiful woman, who can act the part of
Periplectomenus' wife and can claim to be desperate to leave Periplectomenus for
Pyrgopolynices. He also stipulates that this woman should have a maid. Periplectomenus knows
just the woman - Acroteleutium - who has a maid called Milphippida. He brings both back to his
house, having explained the plot and their role in it. Meanwhile, Palaestrio tells Pyrgopolynices
all about Periplectomenus' 'wife' and gives him the ring. Pyrgopolynices agrees to meet her but
doesn’t know what to do with Philocomasium. Palaestrio tells him to let her go but to also let
her keep all the gold and jewels that he got her, just so she would not be upset. Pyrgopolynices
follows Palaestrio’s advice and runs inside to tell her. Moments later, he comes back and tells
the audience he has succeeded. He gave her everything that she wanted, and he even gave her
Palaestrio! At this time, Acroteleutium has come out of the house, and begins to describe what
she is feeling for the soldier. How she can’t take it anymore, and how her eyes will cut off her
tongue when she catches a glimpse of him. The two meet, and Acroteleutium tells
Pyrgopolynices to come to her husband’s house. Pyrgopolynices is hesitant in this, but she
explains that it was in her dowry that she gets to keep the house. The soldier tells her to wait
inside for him; just then Pleusicles comes in dressed as a sailor to help gather Palaestrio and
Philocomasium.
The end of the Play and the Braggart
The soldier says his final good-byes to Palaestrio and Philocomasium, and goes back inside to
meet Acroteleutium. Just then he is ambushed by Periplectomenus, and his cook Cario. The two
men begin to beat him for trying to make advances on a married woman. Pyrgopolynices begs
them to stop; eventually giving the men a hundred drachmae to halt their punches. The men
leave the beaten soldier to his own accord; suddenly Sceledrus enters and lets the soldier know
what really happened. Pyrgopolynices realized he has been tricked, but does not seem upset
about the whole ordeal. The play comes to an end when he tells the audience to applaud