Quae istaec fabulast? In Search of Comedy in Plautus’ Rudens

Abstract

While the prologue of Plautus’ comedy Rudens suggests that it is meant exclusively to edify its audience, the text itself reveals that edification is neither its only nor its main purpose. The prologue fosters expectations about the content, highlighting such concepts as pietas and fides, encouraging spectators to strive for these qualities, and warning them that villainous actions will be reported to Jupiter, who is to judge them again (“iterum … rem iudicatam iudicat”). The comedy features individuals who act in accordance with pietas and fides, as well as those who undermine them. The positive values are represented by the old man, Daemones, and his daughter Palaestra, who regain their lost identities precisely through their virtues. Their foil is the leno Labrax, the only character whose identity seems to admit no doubt, being determined by convention as well as discussed by the other characters. The play thus operates at the level of two systems, cause and effect versus convention: the former is personified by Jupiter, an invisible deity represented by the star Arcturus, while the latter emerges through metatheatrical comments on the characters and the action. Both systems are controlled by the author and exploited for a comic effect. Significantly, the choice of setting hardly suits a comedy; Palaestra’s name, alluding to her trade, is at variance with her pious real nature; there are admixtures of tragic elements, etc. (It is noteworthy that Palaestra is never referred to by name after the discovery of her true identity: the last mention occurs in her father Daemones’ line (1364): “Tua quae fuit Palaestra, ea filia inventast mea.”).

The message of the prologue is refuted: Labrax, who should be destroyed according to the prologue, endures. Rather than judge his characters’ actions, the author distances himself from asserting moral messages, “iterum ille (sc. Iuppiter) eam rem iudicatam iudicat” (19): the only binding judgements are pronounced by Jupiter, who is to judge again what has already been judged. But since Jupiter does not appear in this comedy, the responsibility for making moral judgements is thus foisted on a deity who will decide on them later and outside the play. The precise setting of the judgement is given in lines 1249–1253: “Spectavi ego pridem comicos ad istunc modum / sapienter dicta dicere atque eis plaudier, / cum illos sapientis mores monstrabant poplo: / sed cum inde suam quisque ibant divorsi domum, / nullus erat illo pacto, ut illi iusserant.” These lines are crucial for understanding the piece as they call attention to the characters’ awareness of their play – a play for which the author alone is responsible. It is the author who holds all the strings and determines both content and form. All characters, all content are merely and exclusively in the service of the play. The play is paramount, the message peripheral. While the prologue exhorts spectators to such Roman virtues as pietas and fides, a character’s words in the course of the play suggest that everything addressed in the comedy is relative: the weight attached to the utterances rests, in the final analysis, with the spectator.