MA S TER NEGA TIVE NO. 92-80498-16 MICROFILMED 1992 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the ^ "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States ~ Title 17, United States Code — concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material... Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfilment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. AUTHOR: BICKFORD, JOHN DEAN TITLE: SOLILOQUY IN ANCIENT COMEDY PLACE* PRINCETON, N.J. DA TE : [1 922] COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT Master Negative if \» BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET Restrictions on Use: Original Material as FIN PN blCKFORD lUI!) + ID:NYCG9?-BiOiS3 CC:966S t^L I lain Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record rw 50L1LUUUY - Cluster 1 or 1 - Record added today CP:n ji) PC:s MMI): OiO 040 OSO 100 24 b 1 10 260 300 502 600 iO 65(1 6 50 LUU QD L : enq PD:19^2 OK: 22013356 NNC;--cNN(: PA3028M>. (n'ckf ot i\oao€LV kirrjXdk juot. Philemon 79, lines 1-2 ws Ifxepos At' virrjXBe yrj re Kohpavi^ Xc^at .... Cf. also footnote 158. , ' 20 E.g., Apollodorus Carystius 13, line 15; Euphron i, line i; Posidippus 26, lines 1-2; Nicolaus, lines i and 26. 21 Asin. 87 Argentum accepi, dote imperium vendidi. Cf. also Epid. 180, also in dialogue. 22 E.g., the former is represented by Menander 532 and Diodorus 3 and again in Plautus by Most. 702 flf, the latter by Menander 326. 23 E.g., Anaxandrides 52, Alexis 146 and 262, Eubulus 116-117, Menander 154 and 535. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 9 Mercator, but not precisely paralleled by any one soliloquy in Plautus.24 Another favorite topic is love,^^ still another the decay of morals and regret for the good old days.^^ Finally, we find the purely general, almost theoretical soliloquy, which we may even term philosophical:" carpediem says Plautus in Merc. 544 fif, and Antiphanes in fragment 204.28 Some moralizing soliloquies, like Most. 84 ff, are, to be sure, fetter motivated than the great majority that we have been discussing. The two soliloquies on the raising of children in Terence's Adelphi, 26 ff, by Micio, and 855 ff, by Demea, no matter how general, are dramatically well motivated; so is the complaint of senex in Men. 758 ff against old age.^^ Again, the slave's opportunity to moralize about duty is always furnished by the situation.^^ But generally there is no more motivation than there is for Hamlet's monologue to the players; playwright and audience were alike interested, and in more spacious times that was enough. The soliloquy of moralizing is put most often into the mouth of slave or of senex. It is also sometimes spoken by adulescens, as in Men. 571 ff, which is of special interest because it contains a large number of Roman social and political allusions, such as we should expect to find in soliloquies of this type adapted for Roman comedy. The soliloquies of meretrix in True. 448 ff and of her maid in 209 ff illustrate a rare variety, i.e., moralizing without morals, where the motivation is better than usual and at the same time highly ironical. A ninth type of soliloquy is used wholly, or at least mostly, for comic effect.31 Naturally it is almost always assigned to the 24 Except in general by Merc. 817 ff, which however represents the woman's point of view. 25 E.g., Plaut. Trin. 223 ff, Alexis 245, Eubulus 41, Aristophon 11. 2« E.g., Plaut. Trin. 23 ff, 1028 ff. Cf. Bacc. 419 ff for the same sentiment in dialogue. • r^ 1 .u • 27 The philosophical soliloquy, which is far more common m Greek than m Latin comedy, may be so much more profitably considered later in another connection (Section VI) that we need here only call attention to it. 28 On the general subject of what we have called moralizing, see Legrand- Loeb, The New Greek Comedy (London and New York, 1917), PP- 439 ff- 2» For the topic cf. Antiphanes 94, Menander 552, 555. 30 Aul. 587 ff, Men. 966 ff, Most. 858 ff, Pseud. 1103 ff. " On this general subject see Legrand-Loeb, pp. 463 ff- 10 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. lower characters: so we find the roguish puer, the blasphemous lenOy the bibulous lena, the rascally trapezitaP But the favorite comic characters are the cook, the parasite and the slave. The monologue of the cook is not well represented in Plautus.^^ To parallel his high-flown disquisitions on his art, which are fairly common in new Greek comedy ,^^ we have in Plautus only the short speech of the cook in Aul. 398 ff and the cook's conversation with Ballio in Pseud. 803 ff, which better reproduces the content of the Greek examples, though neither is properly a soliloquy at all. We find also a humorous attack on the cooks for their slang in Strato i, which can be paralleled only by the far more general attack of Ballio on the cook in Pseud. 790 ff, which again is not a soliloquy. The tardy cook seems also to have been a stock joke: in Merc. 697-698 senex in a soliloquy complains of the lateness of the cook, who finally arrives at line 741, just as in Menander's 'ETrtrpcTroi^res the slave complains in lines 165-167 of the cook who arrives only at line 384. As for the parasite,^^ the nearest parallels in Plautus to the elaborate defense of his calling and exposition of his art that we find in New Comedy^® are perhaps Capt. 461 ff and Pers. 53 ff. The best parallel in Latin is Ter. Eun. 232 ff, which because of the resemblance of line 238 to fragment 296 from Menander's KoXaJ we may fairly suppose closely reproduces the original. The parasite in the Stichus refers in line 233 to Hercules as his patron, but there is no parallel for the mythological derivation of his calling that we find in Diodorus 2. By way of compensation Plautus offers the comic auction of Stich. 193 ff, for which there is no parallel in the Greek. Usually, however, he shows us merely the hungry parasite, as in Capt. 69 ff and Men. 77 ff, or the parasite dis- coursing on his stomach, as in Stich. 155 ff, to which Diphilus 60 ^^ E.g., Capt. 909 fF, Poen. 449 flf, Cure. 96 flf, id. 371 flf respectively. The banker has since risen in the drama; the best commentary on his ancient position is a fragment of Antiphanes (159), where bankers are classed with priests of Cybele and fish-sellers. " See E. M. Ranklin, The R61e of the fi&yeipoi in the Life of the Ancient Greeks (Diss. Chicago, 1907). .^* E.g., Alexis 186, Sotades i, Archedicus 2, Philemon 79. '^ Besides the general discussion in Legrand-Loeb, see O. Ribbeck on the K6\a^ in Abhandlungen der s^chs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften for 1883. '• E.g., Antiphanes 80, 144, Axionicus 6, Timocles 8. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. II Is similar. Plautus in dealing with the parasite is generally more realistic than the Greek fragments, though even he hardly equals the stark realism of Epicharmus in the parasite's speech preserved from one of his plays.^^ The chief comic character is of course the slave.^s We have the drunken slave in Pseud. 1246 ff, the slave in fear of punish- ment in Most. 348 ff and Trin. 1008 ff and Menander I95» the sl^ve in love (and out of luck) in Rud. 458 ff. Commonest of all comic varieties of soliloquy, however, is the monologue of the running slave, of which the best examples are Merc, iii ff and Stich. 274 ff, burlesques of which Mercury's monologue in Amph. 984 ff is itself a burlesque.^^ There are also two running mono- logues, to call them so, for the parasite, where the parasite's part differs not at all from that of the usual slave.^^ This last fact suggests that comic soliloquies are also sometimes based upon situation rather than upon character. We have already noticed the motif of drunkenness applied to both slave and lena. So we find the appeal for help In difficulty, such as the outburst of the cook in Aul. 406 ff after being beaten and the similar outburst of Euclio id. 713 ff after being robbed. Or we might regard the latter as Illustrating the motif of the search and compare it to the soliloquy of the slave In Cist. 671 ff while hunting for the lost casket. Tenth Is a distinct type of soliloquy, easier however to recog- nize than to name, which we may call the topical-rhetorical monologue.^i The best examples are the adulescens' comparison of his character to a house In Most. 84 ff, the slave's comparison " Kaibel, Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Berlin, 1899) 34-35, ^rom the 'EXxis ^' nXoOros. No other fragment of Epicharmus offers any pomt of contact with the soliloquy in New Comedy, and none sheds any light on the precise sense in which Horace meant his well-known comment m Epist. 2, i, 58. 38 On the slave especially, but also on the parasite and the cook, see W. Suess, De personarum antiquae comoediae Atticae usu atque origine (Bonn, 1905), Part IV, and C. H. Haile, The Clown in Greek Literature after Aris- tophanes (Diss. Princeton, 1913), especially chapters 2 to 5. 39 See C. Weissmann, De servi currentis persona apud comicos Romanos (Diss. Giessen, 1911)- " Capt. 790 ff and Cure. 280 ff. . i- u . ^u « Soliloquies of the type to which we here refer are m reality what the ancient rhetoricians meant by irpoyvuvaafxara', see pp. 49-50. 12 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. of his exploits to the siege of Troy in Bacc. 925 ff, and the adulescens' trial and condemnation of Love in Trin. 223 ff, to which we might add the rather elaborate military metaphor in Pseud. 574 ff . There are no satisfactory parallels from the Greek ; possibly the nearest equivalents are the comparison drawn be- tween the hetaerae and the monsters of mythology in Anaxilas i, the analysis of the character of Love in Alexis 245 and the criti- cism of the painting of Love in Eubulus 41. So far we have distinguished ten different types of soliloquy. But in fact, as it is scarcely necessary to point out, many of the soliloquies are more or less mixed in kind. We have already indicated the obvious resemblance between exposition a^d com- ment and between announcement and deliberation, and remarked how such elements of true characterization as there are in Latin comedy and in New Comedy, so far at least as it is represented by Menander, are fused into soliloquies that must be differently classified. All the different classes, however, overlap in various ways. The comic element, for example, is very great in the clever rhetorical monologue in Bacc. 925 ff, and is in general, as would be expected, more often present than not in all the solilo- quies. A slave, to cite another example, can not philosophize like any freeman, as he does in Triri. 1028 ff and Pseud. 679 ff, without raising a laugh : in particular the dutiful slave moralizing on his duty is invariably comic, if for no other reason because, by dramatic irony, he is seldom doing his duty while he is talking about it. Again, Pseudolus's drunken monologue in lines 1246 ff is at the same time a narrative of past events off stage, while Olympio's narrative in Cas. 875 ff is pure farce: the only reason for placing these two soliloquies in different classes, as we have done, is that the events related in the former are trivial and the comedy the only important effect aimed at,'*^ while in the latter the events related, no matter how comic, are essential to the denouement. Similarly, the comic appeals for help in the Aulularia, mentioned above, are also explanations of or comments on action just past; perhaps the miser's laments would not even seem funny to a modern audience, as Harpagon's do not in ^ The effect of this monologue, immediately preceding the happy denoue- ment, is not unlike the typical i^os of Old Comedy, especially of the Acharnians. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 13 L'Avare, nor Shylock's for his lost daughter and his lost ducats. Still again, the monologue of the running slave— or parasite- must always be related somewhat to the soliloquy of exposition or development. On the contrary, it must not be supposed that a classification according to distinction of type, such as we have attempted, is without a sound basis. Not only are most soliloquies plainly some one thing more than any other, but there are plenty of soliloquies of pure type. A glance at Table I in the appendix will show that a majority of soliloquies are of pure type m the writer's judgment, and an examination of the passages indicated in their context in the plays will test his judgment, so that the reader will either find him right or easily prove him wrong. This table should, mo/eover, show clearly just what kinds of confusion are commonest, i.e., those that arise from a blending of comment, moralizing and comedy with other types, especially exposition and development. That is to say, all we can pretend to do is to assign any given soliloquy to the class wherein it predominantly belongs, disregarding the minor elements, to call them so, if we wish to emphasize the unquestionable existence of the different types, but calling attention to them if we wish to emphasize the confusion of the different types in practice. To provide, however, for certain soliloquies that will not con- form to any of the ten types we have distinguished, it seems necessary to make two additional classes. First— as the eleventh type-there are some soliloquies that are so evenly blended of different elements that we can only call them mixed. So we find moralizing joined with exposition in True. 22 ff, elsewhere with development and comment i^^ likewise comedy with exposi- tion,^^ and in Men. 446 ff with development. These, as we have said, are the commonest mixtures; but we find also comedy with moralizing, comment with announcement, deliberation with ex- position.^^ The soliloquy of Gripus in Rud. 906 ff, dramatically one of the best to be found in Plautus, contains explanation {i.e., development), characterization, moralizing and comic relief. Similarly the topical-rhetorical monologue that we have men- « Poen. 823 fT, Pseud. 667 flf. ** Capt. 69 flf, Most. 348 flf. . « £ g Trin. 1008 ff, Bacc. 500 ff, Epid. 81 ff respectively. 14 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. tioned in Trin. 223 ff^^ contains also considerable elements of deliberation and characterization. With these two the rhetorical monologue in Most. 84 ff might also be classified, except that there the rhetorical element predominates so decidedly that even the exposition it does contain is cast in a metaphorical form. In Menander there are two clear examples of the mixed soliloquy, 'ETTtr. 340 ff, made up of comment and characterization, and Sa/x. no ff, of characterization and deliberation. Lastly, there are a few monologues of peculiar type, always very few of a kind, which, while deserving to be distinguished, can only be lumped together in an anomalous twelfth class. These are, first, the monologue of the choragus in Cure. 462 ff, which, while it consists entirely of comment, is general comment only, without even the slight connection that the ordinary moralizing soliloquy has with the play in which it stands; secondly, two monologues that relate dreams symbolizing the entire action of the play, both by senesf thirdly, the Carthagin- ian speech of Hanno in Poen. 930 ff; finally, two soliloquies interwoven in Merc. 830-863, where neither adulescens is aware of the other's presence, a device employed also in Menander, 'Ettit. 2 1 4-225. ^s It should by now be clear in general how far the classification of soliloquies according to type and content can be carried and what its results are. It is to be hoped that it has at least been shown that clear differences in type do exist, and that at the same time many soliloquies contain minor elements of other types. It is to be hoped also that enough examples have been cited to justify the conclusions, such as they are, that have been reached ; in any case more examples can easily be found with the aid of the appended Table I. As for the attempt to give exact figures for the twelve different types, the calculation depends so *" These mixed soliloquies we shall refer to as belonging to any one of the individual types of the mingling of which they are composed, if they contain any evidence which is useful for consideration of that type, as we have already done, e.g.f in citing this soliloquy and in using the two mixed soliloquies in Ter. Adel. 26 flf and 855 ff as specimens of characterization. *^ Merc. 225 flf and Rud. 593 ff. *^ It is only the first three of these soliloquies that we shall need to mention again. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 15 much on the writer's judgment that the reader may well be induced to examine for himself the numerous examples that will appear to him dubious. The table will also show the number of soliloquies of each type and the total number spoken by each type of character, and the proportion of soliloquies belonging to any one type of character to the whole number. A glance will show to how great an extent the slave, senex and adulescens predomi- nate.-*^ " Table II, which similady analyzes the plays of Terence, is interesting in this connection; it shows that the only considerable difference in Terence is the reversal of the relative prominence of adulescens and slave, which well typifies the difference in plot, style and general tone between Plautus and Terence. II. THE FUNCTION OF THE SOLILOQUY IN THE STRUCTURE. By structure we mean the process of employing and adapting dramatic means to the dramatic end, i.e.j the development of the plot and situation to their proper conclusion. We define the sense in which we use the term in order to make plain the difference between the point of view here adopted and that of Leo in Der Monolog im Drama. He concerns himself chiefly with what we may call the purely internal economy of the play, irrespective of the dramatic end to be achieved, i.e., with the relation of the soliloquy, as one kind of dramatic device, to other parts of the play, particularly in respect to its position. So (pp. 46 ff) he classifies soliloquies as i, (a) Auftrittsmonolog (i.e., the character enters on an empty stage), (b) Zutrittsmonolog (the character enters on a stage already occupied); 2, (a) Ab- gangsmonolog (the character leaves the stage), (b) Uebergangs- monolog (the character remains on the stage); and 3, "das pathetische Sprechen tiber die Kopfe der Anwesenden fort." It is only in regard to his third class that he considers at all what we mean by dramatic end. The sum of his argument we may perhaps profitably quote here, though at the end it some- what anticipates our own: on page 62 he concludes "dass in der neuen Komodie von Anfang an die Monologe eine besondere Bedeutung ftir die theatralische Distinction der Teile gehabt haben . . . dass auch in dieser Verwendung des Monologs die junge Komodie sich unmittelbar an die spate Produktion des Euripides anlehnen konnte . . . aber . . . musste, um etwas die Technik in dieser Richtung ausbilden zu konnen, der Chor als irpocrojirov der Handlung beseitigt sein, den Euripides erst von der Biihne entfernen musste um ein Einzelspiel herbeizufiihren."^* To return to our immediate subject, it need hardly be said that the criteria that we have adopted are the criteria of Plautus's ^° Leo's theory is carefully criticized by C. C. Conrad in The Technique of Continuous Action in Roman Comedy (Diss. Chicago, 191 5), especially in the introduction and in Chapter V. His final conclusions are unfavorable to Leo^ 16 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 17 technique, not of modern technique: the question asked was not, did Plautus need to use a given soliloquy, but what use, if any, did he make of it in the structure of his play? Whether of itself the structure is good or bad— good or bad according to modern standards or even according to Plautus's own standards- makes no difference for our purpose.^^ Now, granted only that our classification be correct, the first four types of soliloquy we can easily recognize as at least largely essential. The other types we can as easily recognize are not essential at all. Of these the soliloquy to suggest character and the soliloquy of deliberation may be called useful though not necessary, but with possibly some few exceptions they are comparatively quite unnecessary. We do not mean that they are bad (in fact some of them are among the best of all the soliloquies), but only that in the structure they are practically useless and that by them the action is rather held up than helped along. Of the 193 soliloquies examined in Plautus, 70 (including most of the mixed type) seemed to the writer necessary, 9 useful, 114 not useful. It therefore appears that there is both an extraordinary reliance on soliloquies to develop the structure and a still more extraordinary number of soliloquies unnecessary for the structure. Extreme cases are, for example, Aul. 580-726, in which there are nine soliloquies (91 out of 147 lines), six of which are necessary, and Merc. 661-704, in which there are four (24 out of 44 Hnes), three of which are necessary. In Menander's Sa/xla lines 271-312 consist wholly of two soliloquies, likewise 'Ettit. 457-501. Nor can any distinction be drawn in this respect between the better and the poorer plays: of plays containing the fewest soliloquies, the Cistellaria, the Epidicus and the Asinaria (which has only one), none is among Plautus^s best, whereas of those containing the most, the Pseudolus, the Truculentus, the Trinummus, the Aulularia, the Mercator (the last two have 16 and 14 respec- tively) and the Rudens (which has 20, the largest number found), " In this connection there is a valuable warning to us how completely the modern dislike of the soliloquy must be discounted in Leo's remarks (Der Monolog. pp. 3-4) on the fact that its frequent use in ancient comedy was probably due not wholly to a dramatic or theatrical convention but partl> also to a natural Greek habit, at least in early times, of talking aloud to one s self, already abundantly illustrated in Homer. i8 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. at least four are mong his best. To consider the plays as a whole, Table I will show that, in the plays that contain more than ten soliloquies each, the number of lines of soliloquy varies from i6 to 31 per cent of the total number of lines, while in only two plays is the percentage below ten. The significance of these figures can perhaps be brought out most forcibly if we remark that even in Hamlet the proportion of lines of soliloquy is only seven per cent. Ill THE RELATION BETWEEN LATIN AND NEW GREEK COMEDY IN RESPECT TO THE SOLILOQUY. In view of these facts as to the part played by soliloquy in Latin comedy, which the most casual reader must know differ greatly from the facts as to the use of soliloquy in Aristophanes and in tragedy ,^2 ^e are naturally led to ask precisely to what extent Plautus was in this respect following his originals. In other words, to what extent does a soliloquy in Plautus imply a soliloquy in his original, or how much, in this respect, was a typical specimen of New Comedy like a typical play of Plautus? The natural way to approach this question is of course through Terence. Table II in the appendix tabulates the results of an examination of his plays similar to that we have made of Plautus. In the first place, the proportion of lines of soliloquy to total number of lines varies in the six plays from 18 per cent in the Adelphi to seven in the Heautontimoroumenos ; the highest average is below the highest in Plautus, the lowest above the lowest in Plautus. The average number of soliloquies in a play is slightly greater than in Plautus. In the second place, of the different types of soliloquy that we have distinguished, the table will show that there are in Terence specimens of all except the soliloquy as technical prologue, the soliloquy of announcement, and what we have called the topical-rhetorical monologue.^^ The absence of the first type is of no consequence, the absence of the second can hardly be thought significant in view of the presence of so many soliloquies of development, comment and deliberation; the possible significance of the absence of the third type we shall consider later. There are only two considerable differences in proportion among the different classes, as compared with Plautus. First, in Terence the soliloquy of development and the soliloquy of comment are relatively more common than in Plautus, which is, however, a fact of little importance. Second, there is only one comic soliloquy in Terence, which represents a proportion *2 This point will be considered in more detail in Section IV. M There are no soliloquies in Terence that need be classified as anomalous. 19 20 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. of the total number of soliloquies only one eighth of the corre- sponding proportion in Plautus; to this fact, which on the con- trary is of importance, we shall shortly recur. In the third place, and lastly, the ratio in Terence of soliloquies necessary or useful to those not useful differs only in being a little higher than the ratio in Plautus. All these facts stand out so plainly that we are quite justified in concluding that so far, with the exception of the topical- rhetorical monologue and the comic soliloquy, Terence's treat- ment of the soliloquy differs in no important respect from Plautus's. Now we know how closely Terence imitated his Greek originals. Therefore Plautus's treatment of those types of solilo- quy that are found also in Terence, likewise their place, or lack of place, in the structure of his plays, may safely be assumed to be the same as that of the Greek originals. In addition to the evidence of the plays of Terence themselves, the commentary of Donatus furnishes us with valuable informa- tion. First, he quotes four fragments of Menander, three on the Adelphi, one on the Eunuchus,^^ as equivalents of lines in solilo- quies in Terence; it is therefore fair to assume, if he says nothing to the contrary, that there were similar soliloquies in the originals. Second, he comments three times, once with express approval, on places where Terence has eliminated a soliloquy that he found in Menander.^^ On the contrary, only once does Donatus tell us that Terence used a soliloquy where there was none in his " Men. 'ASeX. i on Ter. Adel. 43-44; a line of which the Greek is hopelessly corrupt on Ter. Adel. 199; Men. 'ASeX. 10 on Ter. Adel. 866; Men. K6Xa^ on Ter. Eun. 238. " On Ter. Eun. 539: Bene inventa persona est cui narret Chaerea, ne unus diu loquatur, ut apud Menandrum. On Ter. And. prol. 14: Primam scaenam de Perinthia translatam . . ., ubi senex ita cum uxore loquitur ut apud Terentium cum liberto. At in Andria Menandri solus senex est. On Ter. Hec. i: Novo genere hie utraque TrporaKTiKa irpdaojira inducuntur; . . . hoc autem maluit Terentius quam aut per prologum narraret aut Oedv dird /jirjxavrjs induceret loqui. With this last comment may be compared the elimination by Turpilius in his Epicleros (frag, i, quoted by Priscian in De metris Terentii, in Keil III, p. 254) of a soliloquy of the love-sick youth, of the type unfavorably referred to in Plant. Merc. 3-4, which was apparently found in Menander's 'ExkXi7pos (frag. 164). The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 21 original, and in that instance he implies that there was a good reason.^® Similarly Aulus Gellius in his commentary on Menan- der's U\6klov quotes two fragments of soliloquies." The solilo- quies upon which these comments are based represent the types of exposition, development, and comment surely, perhaps also announcement, deliberation, characterization and moralizing. We can accordingly now go a step further and maintain that, at least with regard to those types of soliloquy, there is not only no doubt that Terence did not use the soliloquy more freely than his originals, but some probability that he used it less freely. This hypothesis receives additional support from the fact that, in the two plays of Plautus that can safely be attributed definitely to Menander, the Bacchides and the Stichus, and in the Aulularia, which can be attributed to him with a high degree of probability ,^« the percentage of lines of soliloquy in the total number of lines is respectively 18, 23 and 26, figures which, as we shall soon see, accord more nearly with the figures for the actual remnants of Menander than the corresponding figures for the plays of Terence based on Menander, which vary from seven to 18. Now what holds of Terence we have shown above surely holds of Plautus. But the converse is not necessarily true. May what holds of Plautus, if it does not hold of Terence, hold of Plautus's originals? We must, that is, seek more light on the topical-rhetorical monologue, which is not found at all in Terence, and on the comic soliloquy. The one example of the latter, Eun. 223 fT, it is true we have just seen can safely be attributed to the original of Menander. But even so conclusive an instance seems insufftcient evidence, if it is at all possible to get more, when we consider that in the Phormio, a play in which the central figure is the parasite, there is not one purely comic soliloquy spoken by him, nor in any of Terence's plays any such soliloquy spoken by a slave. Happily, while Terence's plays do not give us any information on this point, his prologues "Don. on Ter. Hec. 825: Brevitati consulit Terentius, nam in Graeca haec aguntur, non narrantur. " Aul. Gell. 2, 23; Menander 402, 404. " See F. Hueffner, De Plauti comoediarum exemplis Atticis (Diss. Gottin- gen, 1894). 22 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. do. In prol. Eun. 7-8 Terence refers to his enemy Luscius Lanuvinus, the malus poeta of the prologues, qui bene vortendo et easdem scribendo male ex graecis bonis Latinas fecit non bonas. Now in prol. ex graecis uuins i^aLiiicts iccit iiuii uuiias. That is, Lanuvinus imitated his originals closely. Heaut. 31-32 Terence again refers to him, qui nuper fecit servo currenti in via decesse populum. Lastly, in prol. Eun. 36 he mentions currentem servum scribere among the commonplaces of comedy, in line 41 concluding that nullumst iam dictum quod non sit dictum prius.^^ Apparently, then, Terence either carefully selected originals of a type less likely to contain such soliloquies or, if he did find them in his original, omitted them,^° a possibility that seems probable enough in view ot the comments of Donatus that we have just quoted.^^ For this evidence seems quite conclusive for new Greek comedy in general, particularly when reinforced from similar allusions in Plautus.^^ The same question in regard to the topical-rhetorical mono- logue is somewhat more difficult. In prol. Phor. 6-8 Terence, comparing himself to Lanuvinus, says of himself: nusquam insanum scripsit adulescentulum cervam videre fugere, et sectari canes, et earn plorare ut subveniat sibi. ** This soliloquy of the running slave may well have been a parody of such a walking soliloquy, to call it so, as that of the irpka^vs in Eur. Elec. 487 ff, which is not unlike the walking — or hurrying — soliloquy of senex in Plaut. Men. 753 ff- *° If Menander really went further than his predecessors and contemporaries in distinguishing true comedy from farce, it seems that Terence was inclined to go even further than Menander — certainly as far. •* Similar evidence of omissions by Plautus is afforded by Ter. prol. Adel. 6-10 and Plaut. Cas. 63-65. •2 Capt. 778, eodem pacto ut comici servi solent; Poen. 523, servoli esse festinantem currere; and especially Mercury's words in Amph. 986-987: num mihi quidem hercle qui minus licet dec minitari populo ni decedat mihi quam servolo in comoediis? The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 23 This perhaps hints at a rhetorical monologue somewhat similar to those found in Plautus.^^ This evidence is to be sure in- adequate. It is perhaps a little strengthened by the three fragments of New Comedy that we have already referred to®^ as probable specimens of this type of soliloquy, although, as we remarked, they also are inadequate by themselves. The strongest argument, however, is the negative one that we know of no case where either Plautus or Terence added any considerable element to his play that, even though not found in the original, was not at least the common property of New Comedy .^^ The occasional minor Roman allusions in Plautus are of course to be excepted, and even these were doubtless largely substitutes for similar Greek local allusions in the originals.^^ So far as the writer is aware, the only case where it has been suggested that either poet used a non-dramatic source is Ter. Phor. 339 ff, where for the illegible name in Donatus's comment "haec non ab Apollodoro sed de . . . translata sunt omnia" Vahlen would read a reference to Ennius's satires, for which, however, he seems to produce no good evidence. Similarly, the only case known to the writer where it has been plausibly suggested that any con- siderable portion of a play of either is original is the comic auction in Stich. 193 ff, which, on the basis of lines 1 93-1 95." Leo argues^^ could not have been in the Greek play. Leo's argument we must grant succeeds in establishing at least an interesting possibility, but even if we grant him his conclusion we have only a solitary instance, for he himself adduces no parallels. «' On the contrar}', it may indicate only a scene similar to Plaut. Men. 835 ff. "See p. 12. ^ Such additions, exclusive of contamination, are the addition of characters not found in the original, of which Donatus informs us on And. 301 and Eun. 539, and minor alterations of dramatic detail, where Donatus thinks Terence has improved on his original, e.g.. And. 891, Phor. 91, 482. 6«See Westaway, Original Elements in Plautus (Cambridge, 1917). which confirms this suggestion by comparing, e.g., the Mercator and the Pseudolus in this respect. 67 Haec verba subigunt med ut mores barbaros discam atque ut faciam praeconis compendium itaque auctionem praedicem ipse ut venditem. • w Plaut. Forsch. pp. 152 ff. 24 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. To sum up the argument, we are thus brought to the conclusion first, that of the twelve types of soliloquy which we distinguished in the case of Plautus, exclusive only of the first and last classes, the new Greek comedy contained examples of all; second, that soliloquies in New Comedy were as frequent, and occupied pro- portionately as large a part of the play, as in Latin; third, that in New Comedy soliloquies played practically the same part in the structure as in Latin. It is only in respect to the tenth class, the topical-rhetorical monologue, that we are reduced to claiming no more than a high degree of probability; for all the others we can safely claim absolute certainty. The remnants we possess of New Comedy will when examined bear out these conclusions in their entirety. Table III in the appendix contains the results of such an examination of Menander's 'ETrtrpeTrovres, UepLKeLpojjLevrj and 2a/ita. Through- out Section I we referred to such examples as there are in Menander of soliloquies of the different types. All are repre- sented, again exclusive of the first and last classes, except the soliloquy of exposition, the comic soliloquy and the rhetorical monologue. ^^ The last we have discussed fully. The absence of the comic soliloquy can only mean, as we have already sug- gested, in connection with its rarity in Terence, that Menander individually avoided it, or else that the fragments we have are all from plays where it happened not to occur, such plays as Terence by preference chose as his originals. The soliloquy of exposition would doubtless be found if we had preserved the beginnings of the plays, since it is found in Menander's Teoipyos and is common enough in Terence. ^° The only striking difference ^^ The occurrence of two soliloquies of announcement in Menander justifies our conclusion above (p. 19) that their absence in Terence is of no significance. "° In the opinion of Prof. Edward Capps of Princeton University, Prof. A. M. Harmon, now of Yale University, has demonstrated that the St. Peters- burg fragment, placed by Capps in Four Plays of Menander (Boston, etc., 1910) after line 408, and printed by Korte as Fabula Incerta II, really belongs to the irpoXoyos of the ^ETnTpk-rrovret. In that case we have two soliloquies in the irpoXoyos, one of exposition, one of moralizing. Harmon also argued that the r61e of the cook, who has a soliloquy in lines 391 ff, also belongs to the irpoXoyos. The results of his study were not published, and his papers are still inaccessible, because of the intervention of the war. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 25 in proportion is the relatively large number in Menander of soliloquies for characterization, as compared to the Latin come- dians, a difference which is perhaps not surprising. If we had these three plays complete, the results of an examina- tion might be somewhat different, although it is scarcely con- ceivable that they could be fundamentally so. At any rate, as they stand, the average number of soliloquies to a play and the percentage of lines of soliloquy in the total number of lines are higher than in either Plautus or Terence.^^ Moreover, the three plays of Plautus that may be attributed to Menander show, as we have pointed out above, a percentage of lines of soliloquy likewise considerably higher than the average for Plautus, so that on this question, at least for Menander individually, all doubts may safely be dismissed. In Menander the proportion of necessary and useful soliloquies is 50 per cent, in Terence 46, in Plautus 41 . In Menander senex, adulescens and slave together have 85 per cent of all soliloquies, in Terence 83, in Plautus 80. Surely these facts speak plainly enough for themselves. The comic fragments we have used as much as possible in Section I to furnish examples of different types of soliloquy. For all questions as to the part played by soliloquies in the structure they were of course almost useless. At most all they could be expected to prove is the existence in New Comedy of such struc- turally unnecessary soliloquies as those of moralizing and comedy. For now that we have demonstrated the presence of such solilo- quies by more reliable evidence, we may more safely take the fragments of philosophizing and the speeches of cooks and para- sites as examples of soliloquy, even though we can seldom prove conclusively that they were soliloquies. A few fragments do, however, really supply probable examples of structurally neces- sary soliloquies: Menander 13 seems a parallel to Plaut. Bacc. 170 ff, where the returned traveler greets his homeland, and Antiphanes 206 and Diphilus 33 to Aul. 371 ff» where the man returning from market complains of high prices. The conclusions that we have thus reached may perhaps be further confirmed in a negative way. In the first place, if we examine the comedies of Plautus with reference to the authors 71 The average percentage in Plautus is 17, in Terence 12, in Menander 32. 26 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. of the originals, ^2 we find that in the Mercator, the Mostellaria and the Trinummus, which we know were translations of Phile- mon, the average percentage of lines of soliloquy in the total number of lines is 23, slightly higher than the average for the plays from Menander, while in the Rudens and the Casina of Diphilus^^ it is 16, somewhat lower. This would seem to indicate that, even though the figures for Menander, or for the plays of Plautus based on Menander, are higher than the average for all the Plautine plays, little if any significance can be attached to this fact. For if we conclude that Menander did rea ly use the soliloquy more freely than the ordinary poet of New Comedy, then so too, we must conclude, did Philemon. But since the average for Diphilus is not only lower than that for Menander and Philemon, but also a little lower than the average for Plautus, while the two plays of Diphilus upon which the average is based stand, in respect to number of soliloquies, almost at opposite extremes (there are only nine in the Casina as against 20 in the Rudens), it seems more reasonable to suppose that none of the differences matter much, so long as we find no reason to suppose that soliloquy in New Comedy was less common than in Plautus, — find, that is, nothing to disturb our conclusion that in this respect new Greek comedy and Plautine comedy were exactly alike. The one play of Plautus that is commonly assigned to an origiral of Middle Comedy, i.e., the Persa,^^ shows a percentage of soliloquy (12) lower than the percentage we have found in Menander, Philemon and Diphilus, and lower than the general average in Plautus, but the difference is hardly great enough, nor one example sufficient, to allow us to base thereon any infer- ence as to a gradual increase in the use of soliloquy throughout Middle Comedy, only culminating in the New as represented, e.g., by Menander, although such a gradual development is plausible and, as we shall soon see reason to think, indeed probable. In the second place, if we examine the plays of '2 Leo attempts something of this sort, from his own particular point of view, in Der Monolog, pp. 63 flf. " Of all these plays except the Mostellaria the author of the original is named in the prologue; for the last see Hueflfner, De Plauti comoediarum etc., p. 68. ^* See Hueflfner, pp. 70 flf. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 27 Plautus from the point of view of date of composition, we are brought back again to the same conclusion. The use of soliloquy does not depend in the least on any special development of Plautus's own technique or on any growth of his originality. For (to take a few easily dated examples) in the Menaechmi and the Stichus, both early plays,^^ the percentage of lines of soliloquy is 14 and 23 respectively; in the Poenulus, the Pseudolus and the Truculentus, all late,^^ respectively 7, 16 and 28. 7»The Menaechmi can be dated by the allusion in lines 408-409 to King Hiero of Syracuse, who died in 215, as still living; the Stichus is assigned by the didascalia to 200. '« The Poenulus is placed after the capture of Sparta in 189 by line 665^ the previous capture in 222 being out of the question because of the frequent mention in the play of Philippean money, which came into use first in 194; the Pseudolus is placed in 191 by the didascalia, and the Truculentus classed with it as a production of Plautus's old age by Cicero in De Senectute, 14, 50- IV. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE CHORUS AND THE SOLILOQUY. If we are to account for the part played by the soliloquy in New Comedy, it is necessary first to see what its function was in Old Comedy and tragedy, where its use was still conditioned by the presence of the chorus. Referring to our definition of soliloquy in the introduction, we should naturally infer that in tragedy — to consider that first, — so far as concerns the chorus, a soliloquy can occur only in the irpoXoyos, or thereafter only when it would be dramatically possible for a character to ignore the presence of the chorus, or when the chorus leaves the ^tage entirely. The other alternative that we mentioned for New Comedy, i.e., that a character should without ignoring the pres- ence of another still ignore the possibility of conversation with him, is scarcely conceivable in the case of a chorus that is normally present throughout the whole of the play after the irpoXoyos. The question of the presence of a second character we do not here need to consider at all, so long as the chorus is present. This inference we find to be in fact correct. In tragedy soliloquies are already used in the irpoXoyos by Aeschylus and Sophocles.^^ Elsewhere they use the soliloquy only where it is psychologically and dramatically plausible that a character should ignore the presence of the chorus. The few examples of such soliloquies are all of this type, and all dramatically well motivated: lo's frenzy, the greeting of Agamemnon's herald to the fatherland, Cassandra's prophecy, the soliloquy of Ajax (where he ignores Tecmessa also) and Teucer's soliloquy over the dead body of his brother.^^ These are the only examples before Euripides. The only other case is the soliloquy of Ajax alone on the shore, between his leaving the chorus before his tent at line 814 and their reappearance on the shore at line 866.''^ " The only cases are Aesch. Prom. 88 fiF (Prometheus), Sept. 69 ff (the prayer of Eteocles), Agam. i ff (the watchman), Eum. i ff (the priestess), id. 94 ff (the ghost of Clytaemnestra to the sleeping Furies); Soph. Trac. i ff (Deianeira), Elec. 86 ff (Electra). 78 Aesch. Prom. 566 ff and 877 ff; Agam. 503-523; id. 1072 ff; Soph. Aj. 646 ff; id. 992-1027 respectively. " The presence of mutes on the stage, which must have been almost con- 28 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 29 At this point we should perhaps call attention to the very common confusion of soliloquy and apostrophe. We find this already in the address to the fatherland just mentioned from the Agamemnon, and in the address to a house or a tomb,^^ which we find represented in New Comedy respectively by the greeting to the fatherland in Plant. Bacc. 170 ff and Menander 13^^ and by the farewell to the ancestral home in Plant. Merc. 830 fif. Probably all these, certainly at least those in comedy, we may safely call soliloquies. But in the case of the frequent apos- trophes to express strong emotion, particularly in Sophocles, ^^ who, as Leo remarks, ^^ used the soliloquy mostly for irados, it seems impossible to say that the presence of the chorus was really ignored. We need therefore add no soliloquies from this source to those just enumerated. In Aeschylus and Sophocles it is important to observe that all these soliloquies are carefully motivated. Not to speak of those that occur after the wpoXoyos, where in every instance the high tension of feeling under which the character speaks makes the presence of the chorus inconsequential, the soliloquies in the irpoXoyos also are each one thoroughly natural and convincing. Euripides, on the contrary, almost entirely abandoned dramatic motivation for soliloquies in the irpoKoyos, i.e., soliloquies of exposition. We need not here speak of the typical Euripidean prologue delivered by a god, whether the god reappears in the play or not. To consider, then, only soliloquies spoken by other tinuous in tragedy, need not be taken into account in this connection, as it was always quite natural for a character to ignore their presence. For example, in Eur. Elec. 140 and 150 Electra addresses an attendant whose presence is proved by line 218, and yet lines 1 12-166 are clearly a soliloquy. «" E.g., to a house Eur. Here. Fur. 523 ff, Orest. 356 ff, Bacc. 1024 ff ; to a tomb Hel. 1165 ff. *^ Also in Old Comedy by a new fragment of the A^^ot of Eupolis, which may be a soliloquy, published by Korte in Hermes, 19 12, pp. 276 ff (Fragmente einder Handschrift der Demen des Eupolis) as Iv, of which lines 13-14 read: oj 777 iraTpcoa Xatpe. ae yap aaTd^ofiai Traacjp iroKeoiv kKirayXoTOLTrj Kal <}>L\TdTrf. «2 E.g., Phil. 1081 ff, Elec. 1126 ff, Trac 983 ff, O. T. 1391 ff; in the case of the last two we should also remember the influence of the conventional public or semi-public forms of lamentation. *3 Der Monolog, p. 13. 30 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. characters, we find that only in the Cyclops is both the presence and the speech of the character (Silenus) in the irpoKoyos moti- vated.^ In the Medea, on the contrary, wherein Hnes 57-58^* the nurse even states her motive for speaking as she does in her soliloquy in lines 1-48, yet it is plain that her only purpose, either in coming out of the house when she did or in speaking as she did, was to address the audience. The motivation here given is not only no longer genuine, as Leo shows that it was in Homer, ^^ nor even dramatically logical, as it is in the two places where it is adduced in Aeschylus, ^^ but purely conventional and wholly unreal, as it always is wherever it is found in Euripides. ^^ Pre- cisely the same may be said of the same motivation, i.e.^ the address to the elements, with the added motif of sleeplessness, that we find in Elec. 54 ff. We may accordingly be sure that whenever we find this motivation in comedy^^ it is likewise wholly artificial, and conceals but slightly a speech designed merely for the benefit of the audience. The case is the same with the second of the motivations for soliloquy, i.e., the address to one's self. We find it in the irpoXoyos in Euripides in Troi. 8^ This may well have been the case also, certainly in respect at least to motivation of the presence of the character, with the soliloquy that we know from Dion. Chrys. 59 opened the Philoctetes. It is certainly the case with the monologue of Apollo that opens the newly found 'Ixv^vral I^arvpoi, of Sophocles (Pearson, The Fragments of Sophocles, Cambridge, 191 7, Vol. I). But in this case it is questionable if Apollo's speech, announcing the loss of his cattle and a reward for their return, is not rather an address to the audience after the manner of Old Comedy than properly a soliloquy; for a genuine soliloquy in New Comedy under somewhat similar circumstances cf. Plant. Aul. 713 fT,. which likewise in part address the audience, but with very different effect. ^ wad* tjmepoi ^i' virrjXBe yfj re KOVpavC^ Xc^at jjLoKovan devpo MrjSeLas ruXas. ^^ Der Monolog, pp. 3 ff. *^ Prom. 106-107, Agam. i ff. 88 Also Andr. 91-95, Elec. 54 ff, Iph. Taur. 42-43. *^ The address to the elements is illustrated by Philemon 79, where lines 1-2 are obviously a parody of Med. 57-58: wad' X/jiepds fi vTrrjXde yv ^e KovpavQ Xc^ai /mXovtl Totov cos kaKtvaaa. With the added motif of sleeplessness it is found in Old Comedy in Arist. Clouds I ff, and in Menander 164, and is unfavorably criticized in Plaut^ Merc. 3-5. The Soliloquy in Ancifnt Comedy. 31 98-100, though more commonly in soliloquies after the 7rp6Xo7os,®° also in Old Comedy, the comic fragments and Menander, ^^ and often in Latin comedy,^^ in the form of either a simple address to the self, usually by name,^' or an address to the spirit or heart or some part of the body.^* The third possible motivation, prayer to the gods, is not represented by any one soliloquy in Euripides, but is found in Aesch. Sept. 69-77; on the contrary, it preserves, even where it occurs in comedy, ^^ something of its original genuineness. We may therefore conclude that soliloquies spoken by a character in the irpoXoyos in Euripides, ^^ whether motivation is assigned, as in the cases we have cited, or, as more commonly, not, are in fact all alike not dramatically motivated at all, but expressly designed for, if not addressed directly to, the audience. That is, Euripides has here taken a long step from tragedy as represented by Aeschylus and Sophocles towards New Comedy. On the other hand, soliloquies after the irpoXoyos are conditioned almost as strictly as in Aeschylus and Sophocles by the dramatic plausibility of the character's ignoring the chorus.^^ Sometimes in such cases there is even particularly good motivation, as in the two soliloquies of Hercules and Orestes waking from sleep, ^^ and the ravings of Phaedra, ^^ which also are imitated in comedy.^^^ But on the two occasions where between irapodos and erodes he gets the chorus off the stage. Ale. 747 fif and Hel. 386 ff , Euripides fills up the interval until their reappearance largely with solilo- quies that show no motivation whatever: in the Alcestis with 90 E.g., Med. 401 ff, 1056 ff, 1242 ff; Ion 1041-1044; Ale. 837 ff. 91 E.g., Arist. Achar. 480-489; Alexis 186; Anaxandrides 59; Menander 2a/x. Ill'ii3, 134-141- « E.g., Plant. Asin. 249 ff, Trin. 1008 ff. ^^ E.g., Eur. Med. 402, Menander Za/x. iii. Plant. Trin. 1008. ^E.g., Eur. Ale. 837 (KapdiaKal xeip), Med. 1056 {Ovtie), Ion 1041 (ttous); cf. Plant. Pseud. 1246 (pedes). ^^E.g., Plaut. Mil. 431-444, Poen. 950-960. «« Med. I ff, Andr. 91 ff, Orest. 126 ff, Troi. 98 ff, Elec. 54 ff, Ion 82 ff, Cycl. I ff. ^"^ E.g., Med. 364-409, 1021-1080, 1242-1250. 98 Here. Fur. 1088 ff, Orest. 211-214; cf. also Soph. Trac. 983 ff. ••Hipp. 215-222, 228-231. "0 For the first variety cf. Arist. Clouds 25 ff ; for the second cf. Plaut. Men. 835 ff and see Ter. prol. Phor. 6-8. 32 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. soliloquies of development and announcement, in the Helen with a second prologue and a soliloquy of deliberation. ^°^ Here the contrast is great to the highly dramatic soliloquy of the lone Ajax in the only case outside Euripides where the chorus is thus removed from the stage. ^^^ To pass now to the consideration of soliloquy and chorus in Old Comedy, we find in Aristophanes five soliloquies in the irpoXoyos.^^^ Thereafter we should expect to find very few if any, since the chorus in comedy was not only always present, as in tragedy, but generally took a far larger part in the action than in tragedy. In the first nine plays, indeed, we find only Dicae- opolis' address to his heart in Achar. 480 H and Cinesias' burlesque prayer in Lys. 973 ff that are plainly soliloquies (both of com- ment). Perhaps also Socrates's comment in Clouds 627 ff", al- though dubious in character, since in Old Comedy it was always possible really to address remarks to the audience, might be reckoned as a soliloquy. But since between the first nine and the last two of the extant plays of Aristophanes a great difference came about in the function of the chorus, we might expect to find a corresponding difference in the use of soliloquy. In the Ecclesiazusae the chorus is absent from line 310 until the second wdpodos beginning at line 478. Nothing is written for it after line 582 until the lines of the coryphaeus in 1127 ff, thereafter only the closing song (1179-1182). xopov is read in our texts at lines 729, 876, iiii.i<^^ In the Plutus no part is written for it after the end of the Trdpodos at line 315 except the lines for the cory- phaeus in 328 ff, 631 ff, 962 ff, and the closing lines, also for coryphaeus (1208-1209). xopov is read at lines 321, 626, 770, 801, 958, 1096. It is obvious that, except perhaps at the be- binning of the Ecclesiazusae, the chorus in these two plays is no longer an actor at all, although the coryphaeus still is to a slight degree. The chorus itself, except in Eccl. 310-478, seems to have been on the stage throughout, but in any case it could i«i Ale. 747 fif, 837 fif; Hel. 386 flf, 483 ff respectively. »<» Aj. 815 ff. 10' Achar. i ff, Clouds i ff, 41 ff, 60 fr, Lys. I ff, Eccl. i ff, Plut. i ff. It is a question whether or not the monotogue of Trygaeus in Peace 150 ff should be included; probably not. i'**On Xopov and its significance see footnote iii. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 33 have been plausibly ignored by a character almost anywhere in the play after the Tdpodos.^^^ In point of fact, already in the Frogs the chorus is hardly an actor, but that fact makes no difference so far as soliloquies go, there being none in the play. Did the same fact make any difference in the last two plays? In this respect they are apparently different; that is, the effect of the removal of the chorus from the action is not yet consistent. For in the Ecclesiazusae there are four soliloquies during its absence from the stage, or after its withdrawal from the action of the plot,^^^ while in the Plutus there is only one.^^^ The choral songs of these two plays, except for the wdpoSoL and the one ode at the beginning of the dycov of the Ecclusiazusae (571- 581), are therefore only what Aristotle calls kn^oXLiia.^^^ The seclusion of the chorus in comedy from the action was accord- ingly a gradual process, the beginning of which we can see in the Frogs, the continuation in the Ecclesiazusae and the Plutus, had on the use of soliloquy we shall now proceed to examine; its survival, in the form in which it survived, could have had none. the culmination in New Comedy. In tragedy too, if we had specimens extant covering the first quarter of the fourth century, we should expect to find a similar process, ^°^ differing only, if the Rhesus is typical of its period, in being carried perhaps not ^^ Plutus 766-767 nrj vvv /icXX' en ws avbpts kyyvs eiaip t^Stj tS>p dvpwv. are so much like similar references in New Comedy to the approach of the incidental chorus, e.g., Menander, Fab. Inc. II, 33~34 ucfji€v COS Kal /xeipaKvWiccv oxXos els rbv tottov tls ?pXe^' viro^efipeynhoiv, that, although the lines in the Plutus refer not to the chorus proper but to the incidental band of revelers, yet it is easy to discern in them a step towards the later use of the chorus itself as the incidental kuims, which had to some extent already been anticipated by the employment of the auxiliary chorus in the Frogfs. ^^ See Table IV in the appendix. ^^' I.e., 802 flp, which is addressed to the audience, but clearly resembles the soliloquies of New Comedy more than it resembles Clouds 627-632, to which we have referred above (p. 32). !<>* Poet. 1456 a. On the whole question of kn^okLfxa see Flickinger, The Greek Theater and Its Drama (Chicago, 1918), pp. 144 ff. !•>' Flickinger (p. 146) calls attention to the occurrence of xopov in a new fragment of a Medea of the fourth century. 34 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. quite so far. For Aristotle says that Agathon used e/zjSoXt/xa, and before him we can see how Euripides, even though that term is not appHcable to any of his choral odes, gradually removed the chorus from participation in the action, and in one case at least, i.e. J the Suppliants, even employed a chorus that had no more connection with the plot in personnel than it had in action. ^1° In the last two plays of Aristophanes we may say, then, that no part written for the chorus was published by the author, or at any rate retained in the text by scholars, except the irdpodoL and one other ode (Eccl. 571-581). In New Comedy so far as we know no part whatever was published, perhaps none even written by the poet himself, for the chorus. The question of what the chorus actually was in New Comedy we have here no occasion to discuss,^^^ nor the question of what traces of it, if any, may be found in Latin comedy.^^^ Suffice it to say that in the Greek plays it took no part in the action and appeared on the stage only in the intervals set for its performances, while in the Latin even its appearance at all in a few plays is open to doubt. A trace of the old chorus is doubtless to be found in Plant. Rud. 290-305, where a band of fishermen recite what reminds us of a irapoSos, but only through the mouth of the single leader who speaks for them in the following dialogue (305-324). Perhaps Menander 547-548 is similar, but these two are the only such cases, unless we include some of the scenes where groups of supernumeraries appear.^^^ What effect the loss of the chorus had on the use of soliloquy we shall now proceed to examine; its survival, in the form in which it survived, could have had none. "•'This is practically a typical chorus of New Comedy, at least in so far as its r61e in the play is concerned. The chorus in Aristophanes's Plutus falls midway between this chorus and that of New Comedy. "^ See Leo, Der Monolog, pp. 39 flF. Conrad, Technique of Continuous Action, etc., introduction and Chapter V. Legrand-Loeb, The New Greek Comedy. Flickinger, The Greek Theater and Its Drama. ^^2 See Conrad; also Flickinger, xopov in Terence's Heauton, etc., Class. Phil. 7, pp. 24 ff. "' Conrad gives a list of such scenes on p. 76, note 12. V. THE CAUSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRUCTURALLY USEFUL SOLILOQUY. The soliloquies that we have been enumerating from tragedy and Old Comedy are all of the necessary or useful classes. In tragedy, not to speak of soliloquies of exposition in the wpoXoyos, we have found soliloquies of development, announcement and deliberation.^^'* Euripides especially favored the purely infor- mative or explanatory soliloquy in the irpoXoyos, which obviously anticipated the type as it exists unmotivated in New Comedy, as opposed to the more dramatic soliloquy represented, for example, by Aesch. Prom. 88 ff. Euripides also, when he could get the chorus off the stage, i.e., in the Alcestis and the Helen, was, as we have seen, quick to take advantage of t^'^ situation to employ the soliloquy. His motive we can easily guess: he was aiming always for immediate effect on his audience, and the soliloquy is a convenient device to save time and trouble. This in particular because the effect he desired was to be got, not through dramatic action, but chiefly through irdOos of situation: the soliloquy accordingly helped to dispose as quickly and expeditiously as possible of the necessary details of plot, leaving him free to elaborate those parts of the play that really interested him. What he would have done with soliloquies of all types if he could have got rid entirely of the chorus we can imagine, especially from what he actually did with the monody: doubtless precisely what we know that the poets of New Comedy did. In Old Comedy, moreover, we have seen a development analogous to that in tragedy, which likewise favored the growth of the soliloquy in New Comedy. In the first nine plays of Aristophanes we found three soliloquies of exposition in the TrpoXoyos, in the last two plays one each, while elsewhere in the last two there are three of development, one of comment and one of deliberation^^^ against only three of comment in the first nine together.^^^ "* E.g., Eur. Ale. 747 ff ; id. 837 ff ; Hel. 483 ff and Med. 364 ff respectively. "** Eccl. 311 ff, id. 377 ff and Plut. 802 ff; Eccl. 938 ff; id. 746 ff respectively. "« Achar. 480 ff. Clouds 627 ff, Lys. 973 ff. 35 36 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. But it IS probable that on New Comedy Euripides was the greater influence in this particular if he was in general the greater influence ;^^^ his obvious influence in the related matter of the prologue is especially strong evidence in this connection. ^^* In so far, then, as New Comedy was subject to the influence of Euripides, then especially in so far as it was a comedy of manners it was especially subject to his influence towards development of the plot by means of soliloquies. On the other hand, in so far as New Comedy was interested in plot as distinct from characterization, we might have expected it to return to the carefully wrought manner of exposition of Sophocles. Needless to say, it was interested in plot far more than either Euripides or Old Comedy, yet it developed for the exposition of the plot the very means that Euripides had begun to employ to escape tbe necessity of troubling himself with the action and to leave himself free to elaborate the situation. This fact is to be ex- plained by several general considerations, to which it is necessary only to call attention, without amplifying greatly. In the first place, the audience knew in general the plot of a tragedy as soon as they heard its title, while one of the comedian's chief aims was necessarily novelty of plot.^*® Antiphanes com- plains of this disadvantage under which the comic poet labored in a clever fragment (191), in which he names as examples of the tragedians' old stock in trade Oedipus, Alcmaeon, Adrastus, Peleus, Teucer. Incidentally, this suggests the possibility that Euripides was somewhat influenced in his choice of the explana- tory prologue by his preference both for less known myths such as "^ As a further slight bit of evidence for what has come, under Leo's influence, to pass for an established fact, we may cite here (not to quote Quintilian's familiar comment in 10, i, 69, nor the quotations of Euripides in Menander 'Eirir. 583-584 and Diphilus 60, lines 2-3, nor the reference to his Alcmena in Plaut. Rud. 86) especially the phrase 6 Kar&xpvcros 'EvpiiriSrjs in Diphilus 60, line i. Prescott in Class. Phil. 13, pp. 113 ff, argues against what he thinks the too quick, too careless and too inclusive acceptance of Leo's theory of Euripidean influence. 1'* The question of the prologue and Euripidean influence Leo has discussed fully in Plaut. Forsch., IV. "» Cf. Plaut. Capt. 53 flF, especially line 55 non pertractate facta est neque item ut ceterae. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 37 (to cite only extant plays) the stories of the Ion and the Iphigeneia in Tauris, and for variants and innovations in well-known myths, such as those of the Helen and the Electra, which would at once give him the greater freedom in plot which we have seen that he desired and yet require more initial explanation. In the second place, if, with this general fact as to the plot of all comedies in mind, we take into account the conditions of performance, we shall see at once how and why the poets of New Comedy, already subject to the influences that we have observed from tragedy and Old Comedy, were naturally driven to employ the soliloquy as they did. We might almost say that irrespective of influence from the older drama they would have been driven to adopt some such device. The play was performed in an out-of-door theater, where there is plenty of evidence to show how difficult it was to get a hearing, especially in Rome,^^** and how quick the audience was to show its displeasure. ^^^ Hence the damnable iteration of some of Plautus's prologues, e.g.f the prologue of the Menaechmi. Hence also the soliloquies of announcement and deliberation anticipating development, and the vast number of soliloquies of — to us — useless com-^ ment.^22 Moreover, the attention not only of the ears but also of the eyes must be held constantly, and in a theater that was comparatively huge; only in such a theater under such condi- tions is such a soliloquy as that in Mil. 200 ff conceivable. ^^^ Again, there was no particular scenery, especially little if any possibility of changing scenery: hence, beside the general in- ^20 E.g.f consider the prologues of several of Plautus's plays, especially the. Captivi, and the fate of Terence's Hecyra. "^ E.g., see Antiphanes 191, lines 17-21, TTCLvra 5ct ivpttv, dvSfiaTa Kaiva, tol du^Krjfxeva Trp&Ttpov, TO. vxjv TrapSpTa, riiv KaTa'fiVf rifv hafioXriv. 6.v tv rt, rohrosv trapaklTr-Q Xpk/jirjs TLS ^ ^€L8(t}P Tis, (KavpiTTeTal. "2 Legrand discusses (pp. 430 fi) the necessity of this reiteration. Henry Ward Beecher remarked that you must tell an audience the same thing three times, once that it is going to happen, then that it is happening, finally that it has happened, after which some of them may understand. Many of the soliloquies that we have called structurally useless may have been very neces- sary in their way, after all. "' See p. 5. 38 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. congruity of having to show all the action in a scene representing a public place, the impossibility also of acting and the necessity of narrating so much important, even essential, action, which in the modern theater would not occur ofif stage at all. So, for ex- ample, in the Rudens, the speech in lines i6o ff, which, as we have remarked (page 4), closely resembles a soliloquy, represents a scene at the sea-shore, the soliloquies in lines 559 ff and 615 ff a scene in the temple, and the soliloquy in lines 892 ff a scene in Daemones' house. Even Shakespeare's simple sign-board would have relieved the ancient comedian marvelously, still without requiring the niusance of scenery and scene-shifting, or over- taxing the imagination of the audience more than Sophocles overtaxed it by requiring them to see the stage in the Ajax first as a camp, then as a sea-shore. Finally, there seem to have been no distinct individual costumes, ^^'^ and there were certainly no programs: hence the necessity which so many soliloquies serve of announcing the entrance of a new character.^25 All these general considerations, it is important to remember, must be taken in connection with the loss of the chorus, by which, so far as concerns the soliloquy, their influence and effect was largely conditioned. We have seen that it was in the irpoXoyos, before the appearance of the chorus, that tragedy and Old Comedy chiefly employed the soliloquy, i.e., for exposition. Elsewhere the chorus was normally present, both to speak and to be spoken to. Many soliloquies of comment are obviously the equivalent of the running commentary on the action that the old chorus supplied, which was in reality, doubtless more than we are apt to think, for the benefit of the audience.^^^ On the other hand, everything in the development of the plot that was managed by address to or dialogue with the chorus was left in New Comedy to take the form either of monologue — i.e.j an undisguised appeal to the audience — or of dialogue with a char- *** See C. Saunders, Costume in Roman Comedy (Diss. New York, 1909); e.g., p. 47, on the confusion of costume between two adulescentes in the same play. 12* E.g., Plaut. Amph. 1005-1008. See W. Koch, De personarum comi- carum introductione (Diss. Breslau, 1914). Many of these introductions were of course not soHloquies but asides or parts of the dialogue. «« E.g., Pseud. 667 ff. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 39 acter to be found to replace the chorus. In the wpoXoyos it was possible to employ a wpoacoTrop wporaKTiKov, as Terence preferred to do,^2^ but elsewhere it was not so easy to invent a character that was at once in the action and yet not of it, although Terence attempted this also at least once.^^^ Hence it is no wonder that the poets of New Comedy never consistently made any attempt to limit their employment of the structurally useful soliloquy, not even, so far as we know, an attempt on such a small scale as Terence did really make. The soliloquy of development in particular often plainly repre- sents the messenger's narrative in tragedy. ^^^ The considerable proportion of such narratives that are addressed to the chorus alone^^^ is significant of what would naturally happen when the chorus disappeared. Even in comedy, to be sure, such soliloquies are occasionally motivated, ^^^ but far more often not, whereas, on the contrary, Aeschylus and Sophocles were usually careful even to motivate those narratives where the mere presence of the chorus was not dramatically sufificient.^^^ g^t Euripides was content to let his messengers address the chorus without further motivation, — the chorus ostensibly, the audience really, — being here again the precursor of New Comedy. It is, however, not only in respect to the messenger's narrative that the soliloquy of development largely owes its existence to the loss of the chorus. Another excellent illustration is furnished by a comparison of the manner in which the different poets used dreams for dramatic purposes. ^^ In Aesch. Pers. 176 fif Atossa recounts to the chorus a dream she has had; in Choe. 527 ff the chorus recounts "' See footnote 55. ^28 Don. on Ter. Eun. 539: Bene inventa persona est cui narret Chaerea, ne unus diu loquatur, ut apud Menandrum. ^^^ On the general topic of narratives in tragedy and comedy see E. Fraenkel, De media et nova comoedia quaestiones selectae (Diss. Gottingen, 1912) , Chapter I. 130 Aesch. Sept. 791 ff; Soph. Aj. 719 ff, O. T. 1237 ff, O. C. 1586 ff; Eur. Iph. Taur. 1284 ff, Bacc. 1043 ff. Here. Fur. 922 ff, Ion 1122 ff, Ale. 152 ff, Rhes. 756 ff. 1" E.g., Men. 'Ettit. 202 ff, Plaut. Bacc. 368 ff, Ter. Adel. 610 ff. "2 E.g., Aesch. Prom. 441-446, Soph. Trac. 531-535. ^'' On this general subject see W. S. Messer, The Dream in Homer and Greek Tragedy, New York, 19 18. 40 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. Clytaemnestra's dream to Orestes; in Soph. Elec. 417 ff Chryso- themis tells Clytaemnestra's dream to Electra and the chorus; in Eur. Hec. 65 ff Hecuba tells the chorus her own dream. In all these cases the chorus either acts as audience or itself speaks through the coryphaeus. In Iph. Taur. 42 ff, however, Iphigeneia recounts her dream in a soliloquy. A specious motivation, to be sure, is assigned, ^^^ but Plaut. Merc. 225 ff and Rud. 593 ff show that in New Comedy even the pretext was abandoned and the dreams told quite frankly to the audience. Old Comedy supplies one instance of a dream, told and interpreted in the dialogue of the two slaves in Wasps 13 ff, a method imitated by Plautus in Cure. 260 ff, where the cook interprets the dream that the procurer tells him. But here again Euripides, not Old Comedy, seems to have set the standard for New Comedy. The technique of the structurally necessary or useful soliloquy we accordingly see that New Comedy owed rather more largely to Euripides than to Old Comedy, even though such soliloquies are actually more numerous in Aristophanes than in Euripides. There was, however, one very important inheritance of New Comedy from Old, i.e., the liberty of the dramatist to address the audience directly. We have seen that Euripides in practice took the same liberty, sometimes with an attempt at motivation, usually without, but only in the wpoXoyos or thereafter when the chorus had been removed from the stage.*^^ The poet in Old Comedy had this liberty throughout the play. Not to mention the parabasis, we find four monologues in Aristophanes addressed by a character specifically to the audience that can not possibly be called soliloquies. ^^^ Then again we find an address to the audience such as Plut. 802 that precisely resembles a soliloquy of New Comedy. The decisive factor in the interval is of course the disappearance of the chorus. It is this influence from Old Comedy that doubtless chiefly explains the indifference to dra- matic motivation that characterizes the soliloquies of New Comedy. And not only indifference to motivation: for even cases where the audience is addressed quite gratuitously are fairly common, which can only be explained by reference to such "4 See footnote 88. "5 The best example is the second prologue in Hel. 386 ff. *»« Knights 50 flf, Wasps 54 ff, Peace 50 flf, Birds 30 ff. The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 41 a soliloquy as Plut. 802 ff, which in turn had developed from such a monologue as the four just cited from the earlier plays. This address to the audience we find in Menander,!^^ and in Latin comedy it occasionally extends to include an entire solilo- quy 138 Finally, it is the combination of these influences from Euripides and Old Comedy that leads to such anomalous soliloquies as Plaut. Merc, i ff and Mil. 79 ff, where the character even steps out of the play entirely to address the audience about the play in which he is a character. There can hardly have been anything precisely like these two monologues in new Greek comedy, but there were surely precedents similar enough to warrant Plautus in taking still a little greater liberty. ^" E.g., Zafji. 54, 114, 338; see Leo, Der Monolog, pp. 79 ff. "« E.g., Plaut. Stich. 673-682, Ter. Phor. 465-470. VI. THE CAUSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRUCTURALLY USELESS SOLILOQUY. So far we have considered only the structurally necessary or useful soliloquies, i.e., those of exposition, development, an- nouncement, deliberation, together with many of particular com- ment. We have left to consider the structurally useless solilo- quies, i.e., those of more general comment, which verge upon those of moralizing, and finally the comic and topical-rhetorical monologues. Here it will be plain that the freedom in addressing the audience inherited from Old Comedy was far more im- portant. For here we are dealing with the soliloquies that most nearly reproduced the parabasis and the AaKpareidj] to tr/ceXos fiapvptTai. and Plaut. Merc. 123-124 genua hunc cursorem deserunt; peril, seditionem facit lien, occupat praecordia. "' Of the apparent 7rdpo5os in Rud. 290 ff we have spoken on p. 25. ^** Technique of Continuous Action, etc., p. 79. 1** Der Monolog, p. 59. "® It should be remembered that Leo is bent upon showing wherever he can that the acts begin or end or both with a monologue of one type or another, so that most of his examples could not possibly be regarded as descended from the ee E. Fraenkel, De media et nova comoedia quaestiones selectae, Chapter III a, De parasitorum aliorumque orationibus quae ex antiquae comoediae parabasi in mediam novamque fluxerunt. VII. OUTSIDE INFLUENCES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLILOQUY. • We have seen that the structurally useful soliloquy shows a clear course of development entirely due to internal, or at any rate purely dramatic, influences. But it is not difficult to per- ceive that, to aid the development of the structurally useless types of soliloquy that we have just been discussing, besides all possible influence from Old Comedy, certain external influences were at work on New Comedy. These influences have been studied exhaustively in connection with the elegy and the epigram and their relation to New Comedy,^^^ so that it will suffice to indicate here how they operated particularly upon the soliloquy. We need scarcely say more to emphasize how the soliloquy acted as a convenient vehicle for the influence exerted upon comedy by philosophy.^^^ The chief outside influence was of course the common rhetoric that underlay all the diff^erent literary genres. Illustrations are almost innumerable; for example, not to mention the Characters of Theophrastus, which may even have been based immediately on New Comedy, the soliloquy in Plant. True. 98 ff is a working-up in a different genre of the same material that we find in the second mime of Herondas. This same poem, moreover, illustrates the special influence of oratory and the rhetoric of the courts, which, already visible in the dLKavLKol \oyoL of Euripides, appears in New Comedy in the opening scene of Menander's 'EinTpewovTes and in the trial of Love in the soliloquy in Plant. Trin. 223 ff. Perhaps the best instance of the operation of this common rhetoric is the similar treatment of the theme of love in the various genres.*^^ "'See Reitzenstein in Pauly-Wissowa on Epigram and Crusius ibid, on Elegy. "* See Pohlenz, Die hellenistische Poesie und die Philosophie, in XApires to Leo, pp. 76 ff. Leo gives examples of philosophical t&jtoi from Latin comedy in Der Monolog, pp. 76-78. "* See footnote 25. The intensive study of this subject all springs from Leo, Plant. Forsch., pp. 126 ff. E.g., see Holzer, De poesie amatoria a comicis exculta ab elegiacis imitatione expressa (Diss. Marburg, 1899), and Wheeler in Class. Phil. 1910^ pp. 440 ff and id. 191 1, pp. 56 ff. 48 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. 49 So far as specifically concerns the soliloquy, the influence of rhetoric is manifested in various ways. In the first place, we find the elaborate working out of a simile^^® in several soliloquies in Plautus,^" while in Menander 536 the speaker complains that he can find no adequate simile for love. In the second place, many soliloquies represent the common rhetorical types, especially the kyKoj/jLLov (latidatio) and the ^6705 {vituperatio)}"^^ So we find kyKi^tiia of solitude, of peace, and of poverty.^^^ To compensate for the attacks on the hetaerae mentioned above, we find Philemon praising Solon for establishing them in the state by law.^^° Similar praise of individuals is found in Alexis's commendation of Solon and Aristonicus for laws against the fish-sellers. ^^^ Still more important is the ejKcofjLLov of the simple life, particularly country life,^^^ which sometimes takes an ironical form, as in Philemon 98. The soliloquy in the form of \l/6yos likewise embraces a variety of topics. The typical ^6701 of marriage, philosophy and love we have already referred to.^^ We find also the ^6705 of wealth and money,^^^ of poverty,^*^ of old age,^^^ and of war.^^^ Other ^^' I.e., the type of irpoyvupaana called avyKpiais {comparatio). "' E.g., Bacc. 925 ff. Most. 84 ff. Pseud. 574 ff. "* This suggests that many soliloquies that we have not actually classified as topical-rhetorical might no doubt, containing as they do so large a rhetorical element, be regarded as Trpoyv/ivdafiara and classified accordingly, just as legitimately as the more striking examples that we have so classified. The types of TrpoyvyLvaatxara are conveniently defined in Westermann, Geschichte der Beredtsamkeit (Leipzig, 1833), Vol. I, pp. 265-266; see also G. Reichel, Quaestiones progymnasmaticae (Diss. Leipzig, 1909). ^^* Menander 466, Philemon 71, Philemon 92 respectively. "0 Philemon 4; cf. Propertius 3, 17 (Muller). "^Alexis 125-126. See footnote 168. Cf. also the allusion to Solon in Plaut. Asin. 599. ^^E.g., Philemon 105, Amphis 17. Cf. Theoc. 7; Hor. Epod. 2; Tib. I, i; I, 10; 2, i; 2, 3; Prop. 3, 8; 4, 12 (Muller). See W. Meyer, Laudes inopiae (Diss. Gottingen, 1916). "3 See footnotes 22, 23; 159; 25 respectively. ^^E.g., Menander 537 and Philemon 92; cf. Propertius 4, 6 (Muller). ^" E.g., Menander 404, from the li\6Ku>v, in which the situation is similar to that in Plautus's Aulularia. 1" E.g., Antiphanes 94, Menander 552, 555, Plaut. Men. 758 ff. "^ E.g., Apollodorus Carystius 5. 50 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. rhetorical types represented in soliloquies are the controversial e.g., Plaut. Trin. 223 ff, and the irapaKkavaldvpov.^^^ Finally, we find soliloquies in which a ^670$ begins with some such common rhetorical tottos as the pereat qui primus sentiment of Eubulus 41 in regard to the painters of Love,^^^ and of Menander 154 directed against the "inventor" of marriage, these much like the ^6701 in condemnation of the greatest of all inventors, Prometheus, for making men inconsistent and for making women at all.^^'^ 188 E.g., Arist. Eccl. 960 flf and Plaut. Cure. 147-154. Cf. Theoc. 7, 122 ff; Catul. 67; Hon Od. 3, 10; Prop, i, 16, 17-42; 2, 17 (Mijller); Ov. Amor, i, 6; i, 9, 8 ff. 189 Cf. Propertius 3, 3 (Muller). "° Philemon 89 and Menander 535 respectively. VIII. THE RELATION BETWEEN SOLILOQUY AND METER. It is futile to attempt any inference from the meter of solilo- quies, although one is tempted to make the effort because of the obvious choral origin of certain types of soliloquy. We see, as soon as we begin to examine the soliloquies from the point of view of meter, that Plautus used all sorts of meters for all sorts of soliloquies. For every soliloquy representing a choral element, whether from parabasis, (TTdaLna or 7rdpo5os, that is cast in the form of a monody, and thereby seems to reveal its descent from the chorus in meter as well as in substance, we can find another soliloquy similar in every respect save that its meter is the ordi- nary trimeter or senarius. If, therefore, there be any principles determining the relation between form and content in Plautine comedy — which is dubious at best, — in any case they can be no different for monologue from whatever they may be for dia- logue.^^^ All we can say is that in New Comedy there are soliloquies not only in the ordinary trimeter, but in the only other meter that we know was used in New Comedy, i.e., trochaic tetram- eter.^^^ fhe same is the case for Middle Comedy.^^^ We know also that Plautus restored the monody arid the duet, or lyric dialogue, which had been discarded in New Comedy, at least so far as it is represented by extant fragments, although in several fragments of Middle Comedy we find traces of its existence. ^^* Whether he was herein influenced by Euripides, ^^^ by Old Com- edy/®^ or by the Alexandrian mime,^^^ we can not tell, and it *" On this general subject see Leo, Die plautinischen Cantica und die hellenistische Lyrik (Berlin, 1897). ^^ E.g., Men. UeptK. IIO-II4, 121-195; 'Za/x. 203-210, 337 ff. ^^ Alexis 98 and Anaxilas 22 are in trochaic tetrameter. ^•* E.g., Anaxandrides 41 and Mnesimachus 4 are monodies, while Epicrates II is a duet. ^^ Monodies in Euripides that are also soliloquies are, e.g., Troi. 98 ff and Ion 82 ff. *•• Arist. Excl. 938 ff is a soliloquy in the form of a monody, which combines with the asides to make a duet. "^ Cf. the song in Theoc. 15, 100 ff. 51 52 The Soliloquy in Ancient Comedy. does not matter.^®^ For while we find many monodies in Plautus that are also soliloquies,^^^ we find, beside the lyric duets, many monodies that are not soliloquies. Further consideration of meter is therefore not germane to this study. "8 Terence stands in respect to freedom of meter midway between New Comedy and Plautus. "9 Examples are Amph. 633 fF, Capt. 498 ff, Cas. 937 flF, Epid. 81 flF, Men. 571 ff, Most. 84 ff, Pseud. 1246 ff, Trin. 223 ff. Even these few examples represent six different types of soliloquy. APPENDIX. Table I: Soliloquies in Plautus. In the first column the soliloquies are denoted by line; in the second the speakers are indicated. The third column indicates the content. Where a soliloquy seemed clearly to contain more than one element but also to belong predominantly to some one class, the minor element is indicated in parenthesis, but the soliloquy is not considered mixed. It is from the third column that the statistical summaries at the end of the table have been drawn up. A few very short, unimportant soliloquies have not been included in the table. Amph. Asin. Aul. 153- 292 Slave Exposition (comedy) 463- 498 Mercury Announcement 633- 653 Alcumena Character (comment) 861- 881 Jupiter . Announcement 882- 890 Alcumena Character 974- 983 Jupiter Comment 984-1005 Mercury Comedy (announcement) I 009-1 020 Amphitruo Development I 053-1 075 Slave t( 249- 266 n Deliberation 67- 78 (< Exposition 105- 119 Senex Character 371- 389 << i( 406- 414 Cook Comedy 460- 474 Senex Character 475- 535 <( Moralizing 580- 586 <( Announcement 587- 607 Slave Moralizing; development 608- 615 Senex Development 53 54 Appendix. Bacc. Capt. Cas. 6i6- 623 661- 666 667- 676 677- 681 701- 712 713- 726 170- 177 349- 367 368- 384 385- 404 500- 525 612- 624 649- 666 761- 769 925- 978 1076-1086 1087-1103 69- 109 461- 497 498- 515 516- 531 768- 780 781- 789 790- 828 901- 908 909- 921 217- 424- 502- 531- 549- 558- 563- 759- 875- 937- 227 436 514 538 557 562 573 779 891 960 Slave (I Senex Slave <( Senex Slave Paedag. Adulesc. (( «( Slave it (( Senex Parasite ii Senex Slave Parasite Senex Parasite Parasite Puer Senex Slave Matrona Senex Matrona Senex Slave it Senex Announcement Comment Announcement ti Development Comedy Exposition Comment Announcement (comment) Moralizing (comment) Announcement; comment Comment it Announcement Topical-rhetorical Comment (development) II Exposition; comedy Comedy Development Comment Comedy (announcement) Comment Comedy II