MA S TER 
 NEGA TIVE 
 
 NO. 92-80620-18 
 
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, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 PRESCOTT, HENRY W 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 AMPHITRUO OF 
 PLAUTUS 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 [CHICAGO] 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 [1913] 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 \t 
 
 BIBLIOCR APHIC MICROFORM TARHFT 
 
 *" 'P** 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 
 BK3/SAVE Books 
 Record 1 of - 
 + 
 
 ID:NYCa92-835092 
 CC:9668 BL 1 ram 
 
 FUL/BIB 
 AVE record 
 
 NYCG92-B35092 
 
 CP: ilu 
 PC:s 
 
 MMD: 
 040 
 100 1 
 
 145 14 
 260 
 300 
 LDQ 
 
 DCP:? 
 INI :? 
 
 RTYP:a 
 C3C:? 
 GPC:? 
 REP:? 
 
 
 3 r : z 
 MUD: 
 BIO:? 
 CPl:? 
 
 L:eng 
 
 PD:i913/ 
 
 OR: POL: DM: RR: 
 
 NNCtcNNC 
 
 Prescott:, Henr^y W. 
 I he Aiiiphilnio of Plautusr hi nii cr of or m 
 
 I Chl(:.iqo,!(;19L3 I. 
 
 14-22 p. 
 
 URiCi 
 
 OS-21-92 
 
 FRM: 
 SNR: 
 f-IC:? 
 FSI:? 
 COL : 
 
 I 
 
 Acquisitions 
 
 NYCG-PT 
 
 MS 
 
 EL 
 
 AlC: 
 
 r 
 
 CON:??" 
 ILL:???? 
 
 LML: 
 
 AU:05-21-92 
 UD:05-21-92 
 
 II:? 
 GEN: 
 
 BSE: 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE: ^i^TMcfi.. REDUCTION RATIO: //-< 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA Qj^ yH IID .- 
 
 DATE FILMED:_^:y^::t3_ ._ INITIALS __, ____ ^^^ 
 
 HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUDLIC/frlONS. INC WOODDRIDGE. CT 
 
c 
 
 Association for information and Image Management 
 
 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100, 
 Silver Spring. Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 12 3 4 5 6 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 
 
 7 8 9 10 11 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiL nh jiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 
 
 m 
 
 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 
 
 I I I 
 
 Inches 
 
 I ITTT 
 
 TTT 
 
 1 
 
 Ml 
 
 .0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 TTT 
 
 m 
 
 ■ 6.3 
 
 1& 
 
 IU1S.U 
 
 2.8 
 3.2 
 
 4.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 TTTJTTT 
 
 5 
 
 MRNUFRCTURED TO fillM STRNDRRDS 
 BY RPPLIED IMRGE. INC. 
 
Reprinted from Classical Philology, Vol. VIII, No. 1, January, 1913 
 
 THE AMPHITRUO OF PLAUTUS 
 By Henry W. Prescott 
 
 In a recent article {Gotting. Nachricht., 1911, 254 ff.) Leo, follow- 
 ing suggestions of Kakridis and elaborating hints of his own in the 
 first edition of his Plautinische Forschungen, has set forth a theory 
 that the Amphitruo is the result of a contamination of two Greek 
 comedies; by this theory he explains seemingly uneven and incon- 
 sistent features of the dramatic structure. Wilamowitz, in the 
 course of a study of Aristophanes' Wasps {Sitzb. Berlin. Akad., 1911, 
 485-86), briefly demurred; weakness in details, according to Wila- 
 mowitz, may be explained by the condition of our text of Plautus, 
 and the assumption that one of the two plays, in Leo's theory, 
 treated the conception of Heracles (the other his birth) presupposes 
 a drama which leads to no easily imagined dramatic issue. Wila- 
 mowitz' remarks were so brief and general, however, that Leo has been 
 able, in the second edition of his Forschungen (p. 185, n. 2), to dismiss 
 them with the rejoinder that the play in question might be brought 
 to a conclusion by the appearance of Zeus, and that the details in 
 the Amphitruo are not the disturbing element: it is the weakness 
 in the dovetailing of the larger essential parts that supports his 
 theory of contamination. 
 
 ^ The study of contamination in Plautus is regarded with dis- 
 approval by a prominent English scholar (cf. Lindsay, Burs. Jahresb., 
 130 [1906], 150), and one must admit that it seldom issues in mevitable 
 conclusions; but the by-products of such study are of no little 
 importance; by this means the features of Plautus' technique are 
 set in sharp relief, and ultimately by comparative study of the plays, 
 we may attain results of value to the history of Hellenistic comedy 
 as a literary type. But, however pertment and valuable the investi- 
 gation may be, in the case of a mythological travesty it is attended 
 by peculiar difficulties: every mythological travesty, in its original 
 Greek form, was the result of contamination-— a contamination of 
 the myth (usually a literary treatment of the myth) with comic 
 
 IClassical Philology VIII, January, 1918] 14 
 
The "Amphitruo" of Plautus 
 
 15 
 
 elements. The real weaknesses in the structure of the Amphitruo 
 would be found in the single play which, m my view, was translated 
 or adapted by Plautus; these weaknesses result inevitably so soon as 
 the myth is dramatized, and may well be increased so soon as the 
 dramatized myth is combined with the motives of a comedy of 
 errors for the purposes of a mythological travesty. But to the real 
 weaknesses Leo has added a structural defect which I hope to show 
 is the product merely of his own imagination. 
 
 The starting-point of Leo's theory is the fact that the presupposi- 
 tions and the conclusion of the Amphitruo cannot be reconciled with 
 the "long night" which is mentioned in the prologue (113), in the 
 first scene (270-90), and in the parting of Alcmena and Juppiter (546- 
 50). Amphitruo left Alcmena with child; at the opening of the play 
 she is pregnant with a seven-months child by Juppiter; the play 
 concludes with the birth of two sons. With this action the "long 
 night" is incompatible; for the vif^ fiaxpd is properly the wedding- 
 night of the god, and to make it immediately precede the day of 
 birth "ist ein Unding." It might, of course, be argued that these 
 eircimistances were so combined to satisfy the sense of humor of a 
 far from refined audience — such an audience, for example, as found 
 entertainment in the Greek original of Plautus' Casina. But Leo 
 might respond that in the Amphitruo there is not the slightest indica- 
 tion of any grossly comic intention; the comic effects are produced 
 by the motives of the comedy of errors; there is, to be sure, buffoonery 
 like that of vss. 664-74, but there is no emphasis upon any comic ele- 
 ment in the relation of the long night to Alcmena's condition. One 
 might even suspect that this combination of events was from a 
 tragic source, though, from a modem standpoint, it is difficult to 
 imagine a tragic drama constructed on such lines. 
 
 It is quite impossible to restore any of the ancient tragedies on 
 Alcmena and Amphitruo from the fragments of plays or from the 
 references ir ancient literature. That the long night was at times 
 included in the tragic action is clear: so much may fairly be inferred 
 from the well known passage of Ovid's Tristiay unless one regards the 
 pertinent phrase as mere periphrasis for the hero's name: 
 
 > 
 
 i 
 
 16 Henry W. Prescott 
 
 omne genus scripti gravitate tragoedia vincit: 
 haec quoque materiam semper amoris habet. 
 
 quid Danaen Danaesque nurum matremque Lyaei 
 Haemonaque et noctes quae^ coiere duasf (ii. 381-82, 401-2). 
 
 If the vase-painting2 regarded by archaeologists as suggested by a 
 tragedy, and perhaps by Euripides' tragedy, is accepted as evi- 
 dence, the appearance of Eos in the scene of Alcmena's rescue from 
 Amphitruo by Zeus must point to early morning as the tune of 
 the action, and, as the action is the climax or catastrophe, the presence 
 of Eos presupposes earlier action in the preceding night and, pre- 
 sumably, the long night. Finally, the Ni>f MaKpd of the comic 
 poet Plato may suggest that the tragic material which it parodied 
 covered the long night. Even in Plautus' play the impressive dig- 
 nity with which Juppiter dismisses the long night (546-50) perhaps 
 comes, ultimately, from a tragic source. The pv^ /laKpd was primarily 
 the night of generation and foreboded the strength of the heroic 
 Heracles: Diod. iv. 9. 2; Lucian, Dial. Dear, x; Ovid, Her, ix. 9 
 (". . . . nox .... una nontantiuttantusconcipererefuit"); Seneca, 
 Agam. 824 ("sensit ortus, sensit occasus Herculem nasci: violentus 
 ille nocte non una poterat creari"); Here, 23 (where ortus is to be 
 interpreted by nasa .... creari in the Agamemnon), Nor can there 
 be any doubt, I think, that Leo's answer to Wilamowitz' objection 
 (that the drama on the generation of Heracles "ist gar nicht zu Ende 
 zu denken") is sufficient; the appearance of Zeus would bring about 
 a solution of the difficulties and a dramatically impressive conclusion; 
 indeed, the opening sentences of Apollodorus' account of the myth 
 {Bibl, ii. 4. 8) would serve as a description of a good plot: Z€v<; 
 &a PVKTO^: i\Oa)v Kal rr/v fiiav TpL7r\a<nd(Ta<: vvfcra ofjLoco<: *AfjL(l>iTpvcopt 
 y€p6p^po<: *A\fCfiijp7j avprjvpdadrt Koi r^ y€p6fi€Pa irepl TrjXefio&p Sir)- 
 yna-aro, *AfM<f>LTpvQ)p Be irapayepofiepo^ m ovx iiopa (fyiXo^popov- 
 fiePTjp 7r/>09 avTOP rrjp yvpacfca iirvpOdpeTO rrjp air tap- eiirov<Tr)^ Be 
 OTi ry Trporepaia pvktI 7rapay€p6fjLepo<i avry avy/ceKOifiTjTai, fiapddpei 
 irapa Teipealov rrjp yepofieprjp tov Ato? avpovaiap 
 
 » According to Owen's apparatus this is the reading of aU the MSS (except L, which 
 has gui for quae) ; but many modern editors since Heinsius accept the emendation nodes 
 cu% coiere auae. 
 
 rr „'C^- Engelmann Beitr. zu Euripides I, Alcmene (Berlin, 1882); Murray Joum 
 Hellen Stud- XI. 225 S., and Plate VI. Murray, however, thikks the v^TZw^^l 
 ship with the Apuhan vases, and suggests the influence of later tragedy in southern 
 italy. In general cf. Roscher Myth. Lexikon, and PWRE., s.v. "Alkmene." 
 
The "Amphitruo" of Plautus 
 
 17 
 
 If the absence of Teiresias in an active rdle from Plautus* play 
 (but cf. 1128, 1145) requires us to imagine another expounder and 
 prophet, obviously Zeus himself would satisfy all the demands of the 
 situation. The birth, then, in such a tragedy was probably foretold 
 in connection with an explanation of the dilemma. 
 
 Nor is it difficult to imagine a second type of tragedy in which 
 the birth is announced as an accomplished fact, with an account of the 
 strangling of the serpents; to that extent the birth becomes part of 
 the dramatic action. The splendid effect of the action of the Amphit- 
 ruo 1052, at which pomt Amphitruo is struck down by a thunderbolt 
 and discovered by Bromia in the midst of her excited announce- 
 ment of the birth and the strangling of the serpents, can hardly have 
 come from any but a tragic source; and the whole of the last three 
 acts constitutes a unit of uninterrupted action, as Leo sees, and 
 essentially tragic without any emphasis upon the motives of the 
 comedy of errors. This unity is anticipated in the prologue-speech of 
 Juppiter at the opening of the third act when he appears "ne banc 
 incohatam transigam comoediam'* (868). In such a tragedy the 
 long night of generation might well have been among the presupposi- 
 tions stated in the prologue, but it will be observed that the action 
 would require a visit from Zeus immediately preceding Amphitruo's 
 return m order to provide the dramatic complications; such a night 
 might conceivably be not the long night of generation but a night, 
 long or short, of dalliance. In other words I should exactly reverse 
 Wilamowitz' criticism of Leo: I find it easy "to think out to the 
 end" a plot in which the night of conception is part of the action; 
 I find it difficult to imagme the beginning of a plot that issues 
 in the birth, unless that plot includes in the early part of the 
 action a visit from Zeus by night; and once that condition is 
 satisfied, I feel that there is some difficulty in introducing a night 
 that is differentiated from the long night of the myth. It may be 
 noted that the difficulties in the way of a serious dignified presenta- 
 tion of a tragedy m which the conception is presupposed, the long 
 night as a night of dalliance introduced, and the birth reported 
 as an accomplished fact at the end are difficulties that a tragic poet 
 might at least alleviate by brief reference to the conception in the 
 prologue and by minimizing the element of voluptas in the action; the 
 
 18 
 
 Henry W. Prescott 
 
 t 
 
 impressiveness of Amphitruo 546-50 and of the action at 1052 is 
 essentially tragic; one belongs to a plot involving the long night, the 
 other to a plot of Heracles' birth; that they come from one and the 
 same tragedy is, of course, not incontestable. 
 
 But whatever difficulties a tragic poet might have met in com- 
 bmmg the long night with the plot of birth, no comic poet need have 
 been troubled by the resulting complications. To any poet the 
 possibilities arising from a combination of the long night with the 
 birth must have made a strong appeal. The picturesque and the 
 dramatic effects of the long night, the thunder-storm, the bui;h, and 
 the strangling of the serpents, although one or two of them may be 
 sufficient for any single drama, become tremendously effective when 
 combined in one play; and at least in a comedy the complications 
 which lead Leo to call the combmation an "Unding" cannot be 
 considered for a moment in comparison with the dramatic advantage 
 offered by the combmation, and illustrated even in Plautus by the 
 conclusion of the first act and the action at 1052. 
 
 In brief I must deny that there is anything inevitable in Leo's 
 ascribing to Plautus the merging of the long night with material 
 that is alien to it. Any Greek poet— comic poet if you insist— would 
 be more naturally tempted than Plautus (whose sensitiveness to 
 dramatic effects is certainly not easily established) to make this 
 combination. The myth supplies a long night of generation and a 
 birth at a natural interval; but once the poet, tempted by dramatic 
 possibilities, combines the two elements, an inevitable result follows: 
 the normal limitation of dramatic action to twenty-four hours leaves 
 the poet an option between (1) keeping the long night as a night of 
 generation and making the birth a miraculous birth on the following 
 day, and (2) changing the long night to a night of dalUance, and setting 
 back the generation so that the birth may follow naturally on the 
 morning after the long night. The second of these two alternatives 
 was chosen by the poet of the Greek original of the Amphitruo, 
 
 II 
 
 Although the starting-point of Leo's theory is far from inevitable, 
 he seems to have made out a strong case in his analysis of ii. 1, and ii. 2, 
 in their relation to i. 3— at least if the reader of the play conceives 
 
The "Amphitruo" op Plautus 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 the scene-setting as Leo does. In his view these two scenes are 
 essentially repetitions of each other: both take place before the 
 house of Alcmena; in the first Amphitruo arrives with Sosia, scolding 
 his slave, doubtmg the slave's story of Mercury's presence; at the 
 end of the scene he enters the house to test the truth of Sosia's state- 
 ments, accompanied by Sosia (Leo rejects 629-32 as a later addition) ; 
 Alcmena appears and deHvers her monody (633 ff .) ; m the following 
 dialogue Amphitruo and Sosia are again present; they appear not 
 to have heard the monody; Amphitruo makes no reference to the 
 previous action; the scene seems to mark their first arrival at the 
 house, duplicatmg ii. 1 ; the first scene continues the comedy of errors; 
 the second has no organic connection with the comedy of errors. 
 
 Before offering a different explanation of the situation, I must 
 express a mild dissent upon some details of Leo's contention. The 
 monody of Alcmena in his view is unique: it is contrary to the usual 
 practice that Amphitruo and Sosia should not hear this monody or 
 refer to it in any way, or (as Leo neglects to say) that Alcmena should 
 not at the end of her monody note the presence of the other two and, 
 with or without a slight interval, accost them or be accosted by them. 
 This failure to note their presence is the more noticeable defect; 
 for otherwise the situation is not very different from Bacch, 385 ff. 
 compared with 405 ff. or Persa 52 ff. compared with 81 ff.; and in 
 Bacch, 169 ff. compared with 179 ff. Chrysalus delivers his mono- 
 logue (to be sure, of a special type) and notes the presence of Pisto- 
 clerus (who, in my understanding of the action, left the stage at 
 169, and comes out of the house of Bacchis at 179) only at 182. I 
 venture to suggest that the essential difference— the failure to note 
 the arrival of Amphitruo and Sosia— is due to the fact that the 
 passage is an emotional aria like that of Philolaches in the Mostellana, 
 and the prosaic announcement of the presence of Amphitruo and 
 Sosia less appropriate; shnilarly Philolaches does not mention the 
 presence of the two women till they have begun their conversation. 
 Again, Leo remarks (p. 256) that the monody of Alcmena cannot 
 originally have stood before the dialogue that begins at 654; as he 
 reconstructs the original (p. 257), after Juppiter's departure in 550 
 (Mercury left the stage at 543) Alcmena remamed on the stage and 
 expressed her grief at bemg so soon separated from her lover. In 
 
 Henry W. Prescott 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 T 
 
 this way Leo suggests the mtimate relation between i. 3 and ii. 2, 
 and the interruption occasioned by ii. 1. This intimate relation I 
 do not question, but what becomes of the dramatic effect of Juppiter's 
 dignified dismissal of the long night in 546-50 (marking the end of a 
 fiepo^ in Leo's own scheme of fieprj in Der Monohg, p. 61) if, instead 
 of marking the end of a /lepo?, it feebly issues into a pathetic monody 
 followed without interval by a dialogue scene ? Are there not obvious 
 dramatic advantages in ending a /tepo? with the dismissal of the long 
 night by Juppiter, and in accentuating this climax by resummg after 
 it the action of the comedy of errors in ii. 1, deferring to ii. 2 the 
 transition to tragic action ? And who is more likely to be sensitive to 
 these niceties of dramatic technique ? Plautus or his Greek original ? 
 But, apart from these reservations, I should have to accept Leo's 
 argument if I conceived the action of these two scenes as he does; 
 and I might even strengthen his case by pointing out the repetition 
 of sequere hoc in 660 and 674 after the sequere hoc of 628; apparently 
 the case is obvious: we have two versions of Amphitruo's first arrival 
 at home, clumsily juxtaposed in the process of contamination. 
 
 Unhappily Leo has misconceived the entire situation: in his view 
 ii. 1 takes place before or m close proximity to the house of Alcmena; 
 but he can hardly have noted significant phrases in ii. 1 which clearly 
 indicate that the action takes place at a considerable distance from 
 Alcmena's house. If the action occurs before Amphitruo's home 
 what possible sense can be extracted from his threat m 583 ff.: "at 
 tie ego faciam hodie promde ac meritus es, ut minus valeas et miser 
 sis, salvos domum si rediero: iam sequere s^sf " Obviously Amphit- 
 ruo has not returned home and is not very near to it if he may say 
 conditionally, ''salvos domum si rediero"; there are .some risks, 
 imaginary but plausible, before he can reach home. And if Sosia 
 is standing near the very house that he attempted to enter the night 
 before, why in 603 does he say "prius multo ante aedis stabam quam 
 illo adveneram" ? Why not ''hue adveneram" ? In 613 why does 
 Sosia say: "Sosiam servom tuom praeter me alterum, mquam, 
 adveniens faciam ut offendas domi " ? Why the conditional participle 
 or temporal participle adveniens if he has already got within sight of 
 the house ? And has not 587 ("nunc venis etiam ultro mrisum domi- 
 num") the proper force only in case, after his misadventure at 
 
The "Amphitruo** op Plautus 
 
 21 
 
 the house of Alcmena, Sosia has returned to the harbor and at the 
 harbor, or between the harbor and the house, is now addressing 
 Amphitruo in this scene ? Finally if they are already at home what 
 possible point is there in the clear contrasts of 562 and 593 : " scelestis- 
 sume, audes mihi praedicare id, domi te esse nunc qui hie ades (562) ; 
 quo id, malum, pacto potest .... fieri, nunc uti tu<et> hie sis ei 
 domi" (593)? That they are near or at the harbor is clear from 
 the verses 629-32, which Leo, in his misconception of the situation, 
 has ejected from the text because they seem to suggest that Sosia 
 is sent baek to the ship; certainly they are difficult verses if the action 
 occurs before the house of Alcmena; but if the speakers are at the 
 ship already, the lines become absolutely pertinent, and Leo's " hier 
 wird die Sachlage getnibt" (p. 255, n. i) turns out to be only a con- 
 fession of his own unnecessary mystification. 
 
 In brief, the action is as follows: at 550 the long night is dis- 
 missed; the scene changes; we are at the harbor; Sosia has returned 
 after his encounter with Mercury (cf. 460) and reported to Amphit- 
 ruo; Amphitruo refuses to believe the story and abuses Sosia; 
 Amphitruo is about to start for home, and orders Sosia to accompany 
 him (551: "age i tu secundum," and Sosia's reply: "sequor, sub- 
 sequor te"). But the two delay to indulge in abuse and attempted 
 explanation until 628 when Amphitruo, making a new start, says: 
 "sequere hac igitiu" me, nam mi istuc primum exquisito est opus." 
 He must go home and look into the matter; but he wishes to take 
 home the trophies, especially the eistellula (cf . 773) containing the 
 (xurea patera of the king, Rerela, whom he has conquered; so he says 
 to Sosia (629) : "sed vide ex navi ecferantur quae imperavi omnia." 
 Sosia, however, has not forgotten his orders, and while he is stating 
 this fact (630-31) a train of slaves appears bearing the baggage 
 (cf. "due hos intro," 854); Amphitruo, Sosia, and the slaves leave 
 the harbor as Amphitruo remarks: "utinam di faxint infecta dicta 
 re eveniant tua" (632). The scene now changes; we are again 
 before the house of Alcmena; she appears and delivers her monody; 
 in the course of it, or toward the end, the party that left the harbor 
 at 632 appears before the house; without noticing the presence of 
 Alcmena, Amphitruo expresses the belief that he will be welcomed by 
 his wife (654 ff.) ; they stop at some distance from the door; Amphitruo 
 
 22 
 
 Henry W. Prescott 
 
 urges Sosia on ("sequere hac," 660); Sosia sees Alcmena (664 ff.), 
 who has already discovered them (660) ; but Amphitruo's eyes are 
 turned in a different direction, and he does not discover her until she 
 comes to meet him (675-76) ; and there is nothing in the consequent 
 action that conflicts with the sketch that I have drawn; the eistellula 
 and the slaves (854) have been accounted for in our description of ii.l. 
 Nor need Leo any longer be surprised that ii. 2 contains no reference 
 to the matter of ii. 1 ; the more important complications introduced 
 in 683 by Alcmena's casual remark make the confusion in the Sosia- 
 Mercury doublet of secondary interest as compared with the ques- 
 tion. Who is Amphitruo's double? 
 
 I think any reader will see that this was the action mtended 
 by the poet; it solves at once all the difficulties that Leo has foisted 
 upon the text. When Ussmg^ introduced the scene ii. 1 with the 
 comment "nova scena non ante aedes Alcmenae agitur, sed prope 
 naves," etc., he destroyed, without knowing it, Leo's theory of 
 contamination. I am glad that I need not be held responsible for 
 such a disposal of this ingenious if mistaken interpretation of one 
 with whom every student of Plautus seldom disagrees, and then 
 only with reluctance. 
 
 Leo will hardly expect a consideration of the details of his argu- 
 ment; he has admitted in his answer to Wilamowitz that it is not a 
 matter of details but of "das Gefuge des Stuckes." Nor, I hope, 
 will anybody question my interpretation because this changing of 
 scene is unique. Such change of scene is Aristophanic;^ mythological 
 travesty belongs to the Old Comedy and to the transition period 
 from Old to New; this unique element is not to be questioned because 
 of its isolation; it means simply that the Amphitruo is the most 
 important document that we possess (with the Persa) for recon- 
 structing the antecedents of the New Comedy of Hellenistic Athens. 
 
 Untversitt op Chicago 
 
 lUssing marred his interpretation by rejecting vss. 629-31 on grounds that Langen 
 (Plautin. Studien, 237) found to be invaUd. Palmer says: "Amphitruo .... is on 
 his way from the harbor to his home." 
 
 * It is at present immaterial how the change of scene was managed; but it should 
 be noted that if the interpretation above is convincing and the scenes appeared in the 
 Greek original, the question whether there was a change of background in the supposed 
 changes of scene in the Old Comedy can hardly be considered in future without includ- 
 ing the pertinent material in the Amphitruo. 
 
 I