In the last post I pointed out some examples in which Plautus uses military language, in a very extended description, to describe what his clever slaves are doing. It is important to note that such descriptions are only used for the servus callidus, a particular stock character: the clever slave.
In Roman comedy, the servus callidus has many responsibilities, mainly because the other two male figures who regularly serve as main characters, the young man and the old man, are lost in their own worlds. The young man is obsessed with a new love, is worried about upsetting his parents or is greatly in debt, or some combination of all three. The old man is worried about his foolish son, looking for his lost children, is worried about falling into debt or angering his wife (usually because he’s fallen for a younger woman), or some combination of these four things. In contrast, the servus callidus has no real desires for his himself: he lives to please his masters, the young man and the old man. The challenge that the servus callidus faces is how to reconcile the contradictory desires of his two masters. The answer to avoiding the conflicting demands of his two masters is for the servus callidus to come up with a complicated scheme.
Because he is a schemer, the figure of the servus callidus easily lends himself to comments on the art of drama in general. Since his schemes rely on lying and half truths, the servus callidus is easily connected to acting. Since the servus callidus has to plan for what people are going to do, he is easily connected to the role of the playwright. The connections that Plautus makes of scheming to military strategy is only another one of these such connections.
However, despite the power of the servus callidus, he is still a slave. In some plays, such as the Epidicus, Plautus emphasizes his desire to be free. In others, the servus callidus simply acts out of loyalty to his masters. But in all cases, this slave is presented as a figure of great power. What connect does this have to the lives of slaves in actual Roman society? What would slaves in the audience have thought of these characters?
What about the slaves on the stage? For the Romans did allow slaves to be actors, unlike the Greeks, whose acting troops were closely associated with ideas of Greek citizenship and therefore it’s usually safe to say that the Greeks didn’t allow slaves to become actors.
I had thought that in this post I would be able to talk about some different theories that could explain why slaves are presented as so powerful in these plays, but I think that I will get to those tomorrow.
In Roman comedy, the servus callidus has many responsibilities, mainly because the other two male figures who regularly serve as main characters, the young man and the old man, are lost in their own worlds. The young man is obsessed with a new love, is worried about upsetting his parents or is greatly in debt, or some combination of all three. The old man is worried about his foolish son, looking for his lost children, is worried about falling into debt or angering his wife (usually because he’s fallen for a younger woman), or some combination of these four things. In contrast, the servus callidus has no real desires for his himself: he lives to please his masters, the young man and the old man. The challenge that the servus callidus faces is how to reconcile the contradictory desires of his two masters. The answer to avoiding the conflicting demands of his two masters is for the servus callidus to come up with a complicated scheme.
Because he is a schemer, the figure of the servus callidus easily lends himself to comments on the art of drama in general. Since his schemes rely on lying and half truths, the servus callidus is easily connected to acting. Since the servus callidus has to plan for what people are going to do, he is easily connected to the role of the playwright. The connections that Plautus makes of scheming to military strategy is only another one of these such connections.
However, despite the power of the servus callidus, he is still a slave. In some plays, such as the Epidicus, Plautus emphasizes his desire to be free. In others, the servus callidus simply acts out of loyalty to his masters. But in all cases, this slave is presented as a figure of great power. What connect does this have to the lives of slaves in actual Roman society? What would slaves in the audience have thought of these characters?
What about the slaves on the stage? For the Romans did allow slaves to be actors, unlike the Greeks, whose acting troops were closely associated with ideas of Greek citizenship and therefore it’s usually safe to say that the Greeks didn’t allow slaves to become actors.
I had thought that in this post I would be able to talk about some different theories that could explain why slaves are presented as so powerful in these plays, but I think that I will get to those tomorrow.