The role of slaves in Roman Comedy

Slaves are amongst the most important character types in Roman comedy. Much scholarship on Roman comedy in twentieth century concentrated on the language use in the plays and their relation to Greek New Comedy.1 More recently discussion has opened up to include more thematic assessments of and Terence, including their use of character archetypes.2 There is now little debate that slaves were an important element of Roman comedy, although in recent years there has been increased discussion on the extent to which slaves played a role as spectator of Roman comedy.3 I am going to argue that through the various aspects of a slave’s role in Roman comedy they can be considered to be quasi- heroic. This argument is going to predominately focus on the plays Bacchides by Plautus and Heauton Timorumenos (here after referred to as Self Tormentor) by Terence, with some reference to other comedies.

I am first going to discuss the role that slaves take in the narrative of Roman comedies from both the perspective of their relation to other characters and their archetype as the clever salve. I will then move on to discuss the role that slaves have in the explicitly comedic aspects of Roman comedy and how Plautus and Terence use these characters to elicit humour before finally discussing the role that slaves have in comedy from a wider context, ending the discussion on how the role of slaves fits into the meta-theatre of Roman comedy.

Section 1. A slave’s role in the narrative. Slaves make up one of the key stock character types in Roman comedy. We can see from the two plays that I am studying that there is a variety in the types of slaves presented but the most prominent and important of these is the clever slave.4 The role that these slaves take in the plots of Roman comedy set them up as foils to their free masters and as pushers of the narrative. The archetype of the ‘clever slave’ can be seen as a foil for the young

1 Goldberg (1981) 79-80. 2 Lowe (1998) 165., McCarthy (2000) 27. 3 Brown (2020) 3., Richlin (2017) 215. 4 Sharrock (2010) 309. master they are associated with.5 In Terrence’s Self Tormentor the intelligence of the slave, Syrus, is quickly established as he, upon his introduction in act two, immediately takes control of the narrative whilst the two young lovers can do nothing more than comment or ‘misunderstood’ what he was saying.6 By convention he is the one to plan to ‘find the money’ for Bacchis and create the role-swapping ‘scheme’ wherein ‘We will pretend that your mistress is his mistress (pointing to Clinia).’7 This contrasts with the characterisation of Clitipho who does not provide anything to the plan and almost bungles it when he is caught ‘putting (his) hand into this courtesan’s bosom’ fondling his own lover, Bacchis.8

Similarly in Plautus’ Bacchides the slave, Chrysalus, is again the character to create a plan to ‘procure gold for my master’s lovesick son’ and get the young master, Mnesilochus, out of trouble.9 Again the young master almost ruins it all: ‘I’ve decided to pay back all the gold to my father immediately’.10 Both Plautus and Terrence contrast the cleverness and active role that the slave characters possess with the passiveness and air headed nature of the romantic heroes. Whilst both Syrus and Chrysalus create schemes, the sons take a relatively passive role. This effectively sets them up as foils for one another. The slaves’ cleverness highlights the sons’ lack of wit. Fitzgerald argues that the slave characters and the son characters are ‘natural allies against the father’.11 Rebellion against the all-powerful paterfamilias is not only present in both these comedies but is also a trope of the genre.12 Although, the consequences for rebellion would pan out very differently for these two types of character they are almost always united against the father figure. The unity of Syrus and Clitipho, and Chrysalus and Mnesilochus further emphasizes their status as comedic foils. As we shall see this is not the only role that a slave can talk in the narrative, often we can also interpret them as the heroes themselves.

In addition to having the role of foil, slave characters also drive the plot of Roman comedy. In Self Tormentor Syrus constructs two schemes, against his master Chremes:

5 McCarthy (2000) 27. 6 Ter.Hau.264. 7 Ter.Hau.325-35. 8 Ter.Hau.563. 9 Pl.Bac.230-34. 10 Pl.Bac.515-16 11Fitzgerald (2019) 190. Joshel (2011) 225-6. ‘Clitipho: Come on then, tell me this scheme of yours. What is it?

Syrus: We will pretend that your mistress is his mistress (pointing to Clinia).

Clit: (sarcastically) Brilliant! What will he do with his own? Will she be called his as well, as if one isn’t disgrace enough?

Syr: No, we’ll take her to your mother.’13

Syrus’ plan to swap the roles of Bacchis and Antiphilla is the inciting incident of the comedy. It not only creates humour moments such as when Clitipho is caught ‘in the bosom’ of “Clinia’s” lover, but also sets off a series of events that causes even more intrigue:

Chr: You should help him out, for the young lad’s sake.

Syr: I can do that easily if you give me the word. I’m pretty experienced and I know how these things are done.

Chr: (ironically) So much the better, by god.

Syr: (feigning hurt) I’m not used to telling lies.

Chr: Get on with it then.

Syr: But listen, make sure you remember this conversation, if by chance, human nature being what it is, it should so happen some day that your son is in a similar situation.

Chr: The need won’t arise, I hope.’14

Syrus’ apparent plot against Mnedemus dovetails with his original scheme against Chremes: to trick him into thinking that his son in not the lover of Bacchis.15 The dialogue between Syrus and Chremes also highlights the intellectual difference between the two. Syrus has the complicated task of creating plot upon plot whilst Chremes is led to believe that he is a

13 Ter.Hau.330-35 14 Ter.Hau.543-52. 15 Lowe (1998) 164. plotter when he is actually the dupe.16 Chremes is completely blind to the fact that it is his son who is in the ‘similar situation’.17

Chrysalus in Bacchides doesn’t get quite the same level of control over his story as Syrus, nevertheless he is still the main driver of the plot. Chrysalus twice tricks Nicobulus out of money.18 The second time that Nicobulus falls for Chrysalus’ trick we could see him as exceptionally gullible or Chrysalus as exceptionally clever, perhaps a bit of both. Nevertheless, the irony of the father falling for a similar trick a second time does emphasise the slave’s mastery over the master. Within Pluatine and Terrentian comedy most of the plot relevant action comes from slaves, in this respect we can view their role as somewhat heroic. Although these characters are hardly heroes in the classical sense, Plautus still invites the audience to view Chrysalus this way:

‘Chrysalus: Mnesilochus is Alexander, who will be the end for his father’s wealth… Well, I’ve heard that Ulysses there was bold and bad, just as I am…’19

Not only does he compare the other characters to characters in the Iliad, but positively compares himself to Ulysses.20 This literary allusion though funny in its massive exaggeration of Chrysalus’ accomplishments, also bring to light the question of whether the clever slaves ought to be considered the hero of the story. Ulysses’ character -as he is presented by Plautus- bears relevant similarities to Chrysalus and other clever slaves in the genre, namely intellect and moral ambiguity. Without Ulysses the Greeks would have lost the siege of Troy and without Chrysalus and Syrus, there would be no action in the plays at all

Section 2. the role of slaves in creating comedy.

Clever slaves may be the focal point of the narrative, but this does not preclude them from being the butt of the joke. In Bacchides and Self Tormentor the slave characters Chrysalus and Syrus both refer to their fears of punishment. Both Plautus and Terrence have their

16 Lowe (1998) 167. 17 Ter.Hau.551. 18 Pl.Bac.328-47.,Pl.Bac.856 -85 19 Pl.Bac.947-59. 20 Fitzgerald (2019), 193., Scafoglio (2005) 633. clever slaves extract ‘promise(es)’ from their masters so that they ‘don’t beat me’.21 In Self Tormentor this joke is made as Syrus had never ‘believed I could misbehave with less fear of punishment’ before his ironic fake plot with Chremes.22 According to Richlin these Jokes about slaves being fearful of violence spoke to potential slaves in the audience.23 I agree that these jokes do point to the real experiences of many slaves at the time.24 But they would also have been funny to a free Roman audience because they play into tropes about slaves in this genre.25 Beating jokes made by Syrus and Chrysalus, punch down on the slaves social group, poking fun at a disadvantaged group is based on stereotypes about their characteristics.

Though not always coming to fruition, these violent jokes also tease at the idea potential for slapstick violence. In another of Plautus’ comedies, Asinaria the jokes about beatings do come to life on stage and develop into farce.26 To a lesser extent the binding of Chrysalus by Chremes can be seen as an extension of slapstick violence at the expense of a slave character.27 Although the dialogue shows Chrysalus is relatively unscathed by this, the later soliloquy demonstrates that he recognised the ‘danger’ in the situation.28 The comedy in this situation comes both from the physical slapstick on stage, of having Chrysalus tied up by the master. But also his calm jovial remarks such as ‘you poor, poor fool’ and ‘he’s worth as much as rotten mushrooms’ despite being bound.29 Although his character taking part in a physical comedy aimed at demeaning him, verbally the character still remains in control.30 Although the role of slaves in Roman comedies often involves them being the butt of violent jokes, often told by the characters themselves, this does not diminish their role as the main force behind the plots of Roman comedy.

The role of slaves in Roman comedy, when it comes to providing comedic moments, stems from their archetypes. As we have seen in section one, slaves in Roman comedy were often

21 Pl.Bac.746-7. 22 Ter.Hau.560. 23 Richlin (2014) 177. 24 Bodel (2011) 330. 25 Joshel (2011) 218. 26 Pl.As.431-35. 27 Pl.Bac.799. 28 Pl.Bac.956. 29 Pl.Bac.814., Pl.As.21. 30 Pl.Bac.814-21. written as the target of beating jokes.31 This isn’t where their comedic value ends. In Bacchides Chrysalus jokes that ‘he’s worth as much as a rotten mushroom’ at Nicobulus’ expense.32 Likewise in Self Tormentor Syrus makes fun of Clinia’s woes with the sarcastic aside ‘I’m sure they were’.33 Even though these examples do not constitute Latin word play they are sarcastic and in the latter instance break the fourth wall. Which all contributes to the verbal humour of the scenes. According to Fontaine there are not so many puns in roman comedy as would be expected, whilst I agree that some assessments on the presence of puns have been overstated there are still some present.34 A clear example of the kind of word pun Fontaine was discussing comes from Pseudylus. When Harpax asks Pseudylus if he is ‘Phallio’ and he responds that he is his ‘Sub-Phallio’. Plautus relies on the inherent sexual double-entrdre with the prefix ‘sub’, Plautus is hinting at the word beneath in terms of rank and beneath in a sexual context.35 Of this kind of comedy is not exclusive to clever slaves in Bacchides the Senex character, Chremes, makes sarcastic comments at Chrysalus but even in that scene he is outclassed by Chrysalus.36 The witty humour of slaves combined with their control of the plot contribute to their position as the clever slave archetype and their position as the most intelligent characters in their plays.37

Additionally, a slave’s role in creating comedy comes from the active part that these characters play in turning the established world upside down. Syrus becomes the master of the play despite being a slave. On several occasions he amusingly orders around his young master such as telling him to ‘Ask them about your suspicion’ and making his old master a double dupe by fooling him into thinking they are scheming together.38 This type of action is common for slaves in Roman comedy and can also be seen in Bacchides. Chrysalus steals from his master twice without much consequence.39 The topsy turvey nature of the world Roman comedy is pushed even further in Asinaria where the two slave characters are able to get away with physically dominating the free characters in addition to verbally and

31 Richlin (2014) 177. 32 Pl.Bac.821. 33 Ter.Hau.401. 34 Fontaine (2020) 202. 35 Pl.Pse.607-8. 36 Pl.Bac.812-13. 37 Moodie (2015) 14. 38 Ter.Hau.994., 543-2. 39 Pl.Bac.328-47.,Pl.Bac.856 -85. intellectually dominating them.40 The behaviour of these slaves fuels the upside down nature of the constructed world they inhabit. 41 Plautus and Terrence use these types of characters to create humour by balancing and exploiting the two halves of the clever slave archetype. Both writing them as the victim of threating jokes (often made by the slaves themselves) and dominating scenes over their free counterparts. Thus, slave characters can be used to create a comedic setting that is both socially normative and socially subversive.

Section 3 the role of slaves in context

In order to fully understand the tole of slaves in Roman comedy, their context ought to be discussed. Richlin argues that to an extent slaves were a part of the intended audience for Roman comedy.42 A mixed audience of ‘’ and ‘’ is mentioned in the prologue of iii which does seem to suggest that slaves were present.43 Furthermore, as has been discussed in previous sections, many elements of a slave’s role in comedy was reflective of the genuine experiences of slaves in the Roman world.4445 It is possible then to interpret this as an element designed to be recognisable to slaves in a cathartic environment as well as presenting a fantasy world where swindling the master is possible. Brown however, argues that the context of these elements is better explained by considering slaves as authors rather than audience members.46 It seems that slaves were unlikely to be the target audience for comedy because for the most part it seems they were cleared from the kinds of festivals where comedy was performed.47 I am more inclined to agree with Brown because if in the initial run of the plays slaves were not present, then there is little reason for the role of slaves to be written to appeal to them. Therefore, it is probably more useful to contextualise slaves as producers of comedy rather than consumers.

Roman comedy was both produced by and acted by slaves as it is generally considered that both Plautus and Terrence were slaves themselves.48 The roles that slaves played in Roman

40 Pl.As.700-706. 41 Fontaine (2014) 530. 42 Richlin (2017) 215. 43 Pl. Poen.17-25. 44Pl.Bac.746-7., Ter.Hau.560. 45 Bodel (2011) 330. 46 Brown (2020) 3. 47 Cic.Har.resp.27. 48 Richlin (2017) 136., Lowe (2007) 115. comedy can thus be contextualised.49 In Self Tormentor Syrus can be viewed as an author self-insert. Throughout its course, as has been discussed in the previous sections, Syrus weaves several different storylines at once.50 Significantly almost all the plot relevant action in Self Tormentor is initiated in some way by Syrus. Just as Terrence physically writes the play, Syrus does so within the narrative. Because of this we can view Syrus as having a meta- poetic role, representing the slave playwright on the stage. Not only does Syrus create the intrigue that permeates Self Tormentor, but he also sets the plot in motion. First by ‘bringing your Bacchis’ to his young master without being asked to51 and then by creating the role swapping scheme to get Clitipho and Clinia out of a situation that he himself engineered.52 Here Syrus’ character constructs roles for the other characters to play thus ,like Terrence, can be viewed as a playwright himself. We can also view the work of Plautus in this meta- theatrical context. In Bacchides Plautus references himself as a playwright through the character of Chrysalus:

‘It’s not the action, but the actor that’s wounding my heart with tedium. Even the , a play I love as much as myself—well, there’s no play I enjoy watching less if Pellio is acting in it.’53

Plautus constructs a meta textual reference to himself, and, through Chrysalus’ dialogue refers to the profession of acting itself. Although Chrysalus is not aware of the fact that he is in a narrative, nonetheless, he is aware of the playwright who is writing him.54 The actions of genre savvy Libanus in Asinaria can be viewed as a comment on the genre of Roman comedy. Unlike Chrysalus, he aware that he is in a narrative and aware that he needs to ‘get back to your old clever ways!’ in order to live up to the narrative conventions of comedy.55 Chrysalus and Syrus, both conform without trouble to those conventions. Slave characters are used in such a way as to indirectly break the fourth wall by referencing the existence of

49 Christenson (2019) 137. 50 Ter.Hau.543-2., 605-610. 51 Ter.Hau.311. 52 Ter.Hau.320-35. 53 Pl.Bac.213-15. 54 Pl.Bac.213-15. 55 Pl.As.249-64. the author and the genre.56 Both Plautus and Terrence use clever slaves in their plays to comment on the art of playwriting and theatre as a concept.

Section 4. Conclusion

The role that slave characters have is diverse. That being said, Slave characters were used by Terence and Plautus to drive the plot and main themes of comedy and can thus be considered quasi-heroes even if conflict of the plot does not centre around them. The treatment of slaves in comedy toes the line between being demeaning and uplifting. Because of their role at the centre of the narrative clever slaves like Syrus and Chrysalus are able to exist as both victims of and perpetuators of cruel jokes. The archetype of the clever slave is used as a foil for the romantic hero, amplifying that character’s traits, whilst at the same time being the creator of the plot in a meta-poetic sense.57 The prominent position that many slaves hold within Roman comedy, and the fact that comedy was authored by slaves makes it important to understand how their role manifested.

56 Christenson (2019) 147. 57 Christenson (2019) 147. Bibliography

Primary Sources

Cicero (2015) De Haruspicum Responso, Translated by J.H. Freese, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Plautus (2015) Asinaria, Translated by W.D. Cirilo De Melo, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Plautus (2015) Bacchides, Translated by W.D. Cirilo De Melo, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Plautus (2014) , Translated by W.D. Cirilo De Melo, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Terence (2014) Heautontimorumenos, Translated by J. Barsby, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Secondary Sources

Bodel, J. (2011) ‘Slave Labour and Roman Society’ in Bradley, K. and Cartledge, P. (eds) The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 311-336.

Brown, P, (2020) ‘Were there Slaves in the Audience of Plautus’ Comedies’, The Classical Quarterly, First View, 1-18.

Christenson, D. (2019) ‘Metatheatre’ in Dinter, M. (eds) Cambridge Companion to Roman Comedy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 136-150.

Fitzgerald, W. (2019) ‘Slaves and Roman Comedy’ in Dinter, M. (eds) Cambridge Companion to Roman Comedy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 188-199.

Fontaine, M. (2010) Funny Words in Plautine Comedy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fontaine, M. (2014) ‘Between Two Paradigms: Plautus’ in Fontaine, M. and Scafuro, A. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 517-37.

Goldberg, S. (1981) ‘Scholarship on Terence and the Fragments of Roman Comedy 1959- 1980’, The Classical World, 75(2), 78-113.

Joshel, S. (2011) ‘Slavery and Roman Literary Culture’, in Bradley, K., Cartledge, P.(eds) Cambridge World History of Slavery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 214-240.

Lowe, E. (1998) ‘ The Intrigue of Terrence’s Heauton Timorumenos’, Neue Folge, 141(2), 162-171.

Lowe, E. (2007) ‘VI Terrence’, New Surveys in the Classics, 37, 115-132.

Richlin, A. (2014) ‘Talking to Slaves in the Plautine Audience’, Classical Antiquity, 33(1), 174- 226.

McCarthy, K. (2000) Slaves, Masters and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Moodie, E. (2015) ‘License to Thrill: Humor and Linguistic Accuracy in Translations of Roman Comedy’, The Classical Journal, 111(1), 11-23.

Scafoglio, G (2005) ‘Plautus and Ennius: A Note on Bacchides 962-5’, Classical Quarterly, 55(2), 632-638.

Sharrock (2010) ‘Roman Comedy’ in Bispham, E., Harrison, T. and Sparkes, B. (eds) Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 309-312.