RhM 154 (2011) 285–299 THE FINALE OF PLAUTUS’ CURCULIO In the final scene of Plautus’ Curculio, 679 ff., the distribution of the dialogue between speakers has been much disputed. In par- ticular editors have disagreed on whether the eponymous hero of the play, the parasite Curculio, is present, and, if so, whether he has a speaking part; the editors who do give him a speaking part have generally confined it to two utterances in 712–14, where they have some support from the MSS.1 Recently, however, S. Lanciotti, in his edition of the play2 and in a paper preparing for that edition,3 has broken new ground by giving Curculio a major speaking rôle in the scene. I believe that Lanciotti is right but does not go quite far enough. I shall also argue that the scene is in all probability en- tirely Plautine invention, replacing the original ending of his Greek model. Underlying the disagreements of editors are the divergent and incomplete attributions of the MSS. Neither the notae personarum nor the scene-headings of the MSS, however, have any authority. It is virtually certain that they do not represent an authentic tradition 1) So A. Ernout, Plaute III (Paris 1935), J. Collart, T.Maccius Plautus, Cur- culio (Paris 1962); cf. O. Ribbeck, Beiträge zur Kritik des Plautinischen Curculio, Ber. über d. Verh. d. Kön. Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1879) 98 f., J. Wright, Plautus: Curculio (Ann Arbor 1981) ad loc., E. Lefèvre, Curculio oder Der Triumph der Edazität, in: E.Lefèvre / E. Stärk / G. Vogt-Spira (edd.), Plautus bar- barus (Tübingen 1991) 80 n. 50, C. W.Marshall, The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy (Cambridge 2006) 109 n. 81. Curculio is given no speaking part in the scene by J. L. Ussing, T.Maccii Plauti comoediae II (Copenhagen 1878), F.Leo, Plauti comoediae I (Berlin 1895), G. Goetz / F.Schoell, T.Macci Plauti comoediae III (Leipzig 1901), H. Bosscher, De Plauti Curculione disputatio (Diss. Leiden 1903) 160–3, W.M. Lindsay, T.Macci Plauti comoediae I (Oxford 1904), E. Paratore, Plauto Curculio (Florence 1958) 21f. = Anatomie plautine (Urbino 2003) 99–101; that he is not present is argued explicitly by E. Fantham, The Curculio of Plautus: an Illustration of Plautine Methods in Adaptation, CQ 15 (1965) 97 f., G. Monaco, Plauto Curculio (Palermo 1969) 216 f. 2) S. Lanciotti, Titus Maccius Plautus Curculio, Editio plautina sarsinatis VIII (Urbino 2008). 3) S. Lanciotti, In margine ad una prossima edizione del Curculio, in: R. Raf- faelli / A. Tontini (edd.), Lecturae plautinae sarsinates VIII, Curculio (Urbino 2005) 56–67. 286 J. C. B. Lowe going back to the time of Plautus; probably all have been added by readers at one time or another to an original bare text.4 Even the indication by the MSS of a change of speaker is worth little. An- cient dramatic texts did mark changes of speaker, but in ways that were very vulnerable to mistakes in copying.5 The only safe guide is the text. In the scene in question a pattern of dialogue can be dis- cerned that allows us at least partly to reconstruct the distribution of speakers with confidence, although on certain lines doubt will always remain as to the speaker intended by the dramatist. The theme of the scene is the final defeat of the pimp Cappa- dox, the villain of the piece. Having been tricked into releasing his slave Planesium to Curculio posing as the representative of the soldier Therapontigonus, he has received from Therapontigonus’ banker Lyco the agreed price of the girl (685). He has promised, however, to return the money if the girl is discovered to be free- born (490–4, 667–9). The final scene depicts his reluctant fulfil- ment of this promise under prolonged verbal and physical bully- ing. The net result is that Cappadox has lost his property, whereas Phaedromus has won without cost his beloved Planesium, who has moreover been discovered to be Therapontigonus’ sister and there- fore eligible for a legitimate marriage. The previous scene, which brought about the recognition of Planesium, ended with Phaedromus, Therapontigonus, Planesium and Curculio on stage, and without any indication in the text of the exit of any of them. Lanciotti6 rightly argues that the absence of any indication of the exit of Curculio is at least prima facie evidence that he remains on stage during the following scene; it is not conclusive, however, since an unmarked exit cannot be ruled out.7 The an- nouncement by Therapontigonus,8 of the approach of Cappadox, 676–8 sed eccum lenonem, incedit, thensaurum meum, links the two scenes. In his entrance-lines 679–86a Cappadox, who must be sup- 4) J. Andrieu, Le dialogue antique (Paris 1954) 209–29, B. Bader, Szenentitel und Szeneneinteilung bei Plautus (Diss. Tübingen 1970) 144, C. Questa, Sulla divi- sione in scene del teatro plautino, Maia 26 (1974) 301–19, Lanciotti (as n. 3) 58, 60. 5) J. C. B. Lowe, The Manuscript Evidence for Changes of Speaker in Aristo- phanes, BICS 9 (1962) esp. 38 f. 6) Lanciotti (as n. 2) 57, 65. 7) It is assumed by Fantham (as n. 1) 98. 8) So editors rightly with most MSS; Phaedromus B3. Thensaurum meum implies Therapontigonus’ expectation of the return of his money by Cappadox. The Finale of Plautus’ Curculio 287 posed at his last exit to have gone in search of Lyco (cf. 559), reveals that he is on his way home from the market-place, having been paid by the banker.9 He is at once accosted and subjected to a verbal assault; and it is clear that in 686b–92 this assault is carried out by a pair of other characters. Twice Cappadox addresses his opponents as vos ambo (687, 692), there is an obvious parallelism in 686b–687a heus tu, leno, te volo :: et ego te volo?, and in view of Cappadox’s reply in 688b–9a quid mecum est tibi? | aut tibi? it is probable that 687c–8a sta sis ilico :: atque argentum propere propera vomere should be divided between two speakers, although the MSS do not mark a change of speaker before 688. Again there are balancing threats in 689b–92a quia ego ex te hodie faciam pilum catapulta - rium | atque ita te nervo torquebo, itidem ut catapultae solent :: delicatum te hodie faciam, cum catello ut accubes, | ferreo ego dico. That one of Cappadox’s assailants is Therapontigonus is indicated by the military language of 689 f., whether or not M. Fontaine10 is right to see a sexual double entendre in nervo, and is confirmed when in 697 Planesium asks her brother to spare Cappadox on the grounds that he has kept her bene et pudice. The intervention by Planesium is prompted by Cappadox’s appeal for help in 696 to Planesium, et te, Phaedrome, which also prompts Phaedromus to offer his services as arbitrator, 701 animum advortite <hoc>, si possum hoc inter vos componere, 702–3a dicam meam sententiam, | siquidem voltis quod decrero facere. Lanciotti11 has recognized that Phaedromus’ offer to arbitrate is inconsistent with his having taken part in the verbal as- sault on the pimp and shown that Cappadox’s second assailant can therefore only have been Curculio; and this is Lanciotti’s conclusive argument for Curculio’s presence in the scene. Moreover there is another reason for believing that Phaedromus has not been involved in the attack on Cappadox: 702b accede huc, leno provides a clue to the grouping of characters on stage, suggesting that Phaedromus has up to now been standing with Planesium somewhat apart from the 9) It is not necessary here to discuss the lack of clarity, attributable to Plau- tine neglegentia, over the sums involved; cf. P.Langen, Plautinische Studien (Berlin 1886) 134–6, Lefèvre (as n. 1) 86–8. 10) M. Fontaine, Funny Words in Plautine Comedy (New York 2010) 118. Despite his eventual status as brother of Planesium and brother-in-law of Phaedro- mus, Therapontigonus is to some extent characterized as a miles gloriosus; cf. Lefèvre (as n. 1) 95 f. 11) Lanciotti (as n. 3) 65. 288 J. C. B. Lowe others. Lanciotti12 is surely right, then, to assign to Curculio 687a, 688a, 691–2a, 694a; in each case the parasite echoes the threats of Therapontigonus,13 and the play on the double meaning of catello in 691–2a fits his rôle as the funny man of the play.14 In his earlier dis- cussion Lanciotti15 assigned 693b to Curculio, 694a to Therapon- tigonus, but the violence of the threat favours the attribution to the soldier of 693b collum opstringe, abduce istum in malam crucem (equivalent to an in ius vocatio),16 and 694a quidquid est, ipse ibit potius, playing on the literal meaning of in malam crucem and its common use as a mere imprecation,17 is more appropriate to the parasite. It is not clear why Leo and Lindsay,18 rejecting the MSS’ attribution to Therapontigonus, assigned 693b to Phaedromus, but it is hardly appropriate to the would-be arbitrator. Phaedromus’ offer to arbitrate is accepted by Therapontigo- nus, 703b tibi permittimus, and with a qualification by Cappadox, 704 dum quidem hercle ita iudices, ne quisquam a me argentum auferat. It is unrealistic, but dramatically effective, that the pimp does not yet know why money has been demanded of him, what the arbitration is to decide, or that Planesium has been recognized as Therapontigonus’ sister, and does not receive this information until 716 f.19 Cappadox’s unwillingness to accept a decision which would involve him in loss of money is in character, and it prompts a reminder that he has promised to repay the price of his slave if she should turn out to be freeborn, 705 quodne promisti? Who raises the subject of Cappadox’s promise and who conducts the interrogation of the pimp which leads up to Phaedromus’ adjudi- cation in 714b–17 is not immediately obvious, but Cappadox’s rôle is clear enough.