One of Plautus’ more famous plays is Miles Gloriousus, a comedy about a braggart soldier. In this play Plautus creates one of his more cunning servi callidi (the archetype of the cunning slave in Roman comedy), in the form of Palaestro. Palaestro is in effect doubly a slave: he was originally a slave back in Athens, but when he was sailing he was captured and sold into slavery again, resulting in how he ended up in Ephesus, the setting of the play. Specifically, Palaestro is now a slave to the braggart soldier Pyrgopolynices, man whom Palaestro loathes. Palaestro’s goal during the play is get out of service to Pyrgopolynices and again become the slave of his old master Pleusicles. It is implied numerous times throughout the play that Pleusicles will then free Palaestro, a manumission that is very different than if Pyrgopolynices frees him.
For it is important to remember that freedmen are still bound to their former masters. The status of a freedman means that a slave has risen up within the network of relationships that include the owner’s household. It does not mean that the slave gets to cut off all ties with his former master. Because of such ties, it is important for Palaestro to be freed by the right master.
However Palaestro himself does not count on sympathy to achieve his goal. Rather, he consistently outwits and out-maneuvers all those around him, including his fellow slaves, the citizen Periplectomenus and his new master Pyrgopolynices. This reliance on wit is off of course the standard course of action for the servus callidus, but Palaestro, to me, feels different than other such slaves. This is because he quite willingly dominates the other slaves around and very much rejects any sense of solidarity that might exist among them.
nihili facio quid illis faciat ceteris. (167)
It’s nothing to me what happens to those others (i.e. the other slaves).
Furthermore, it’s not just that Palaestro lacks solidarity with the other slaves, he actually acts like a master to many of them, such as the rather fearful slave Sceledrus. Sceledrus also belongs to the soldier Pyrgopolynices, but Palaestrio gleefully reports that:
meus illic homo est (334)
That man is mine
after using a number of psychological tricks to convince Palaestrio that he needs to do exactly what he says.
One of the things that I’m currently wondering about is how this portrayal of Palaestrio as having so many traits of a master influences how we’re supposed to read his manumission. Is his control over the other slaves evidence that he doesn’t have a slavish character and therefore deserves manumission? Is it evidence of his cunning, and the Romans simply put less value on kindness? Is solidarity among slaves something Plautus felt that he had to avoid showing? I don’t what I think about any of these questions yet!
For it is important to remember that freedmen are still bound to their former masters. The status of a freedman means that a slave has risen up within the network of relationships that include the owner’s household. It does not mean that the slave gets to cut off all ties with his former master. Because of such ties, it is important for Palaestro to be freed by the right master.
However Palaestro himself does not count on sympathy to achieve his goal. Rather, he consistently outwits and out-maneuvers all those around him, including his fellow slaves, the citizen Periplectomenus and his new master Pyrgopolynices. This reliance on wit is off of course the standard course of action for the servus callidus, but Palaestro, to me, feels different than other such slaves. This is because he quite willingly dominates the other slaves around and very much rejects any sense of solidarity that might exist among them.
nihili facio quid illis faciat ceteris. (167)
It’s nothing to me what happens to those others (i.e. the other slaves).
Furthermore, it’s not just that Palaestro lacks solidarity with the other slaves, he actually acts like a master to many of them, such as the rather fearful slave Sceledrus. Sceledrus also belongs to the soldier Pyrgopolynices, but Palaestrio gleefully reports that:
meus illic homo est (334)
That man is mine
after using a number of psychological tricks to convince Palaestrio that he needs to do exactly what he says.
One of the things that I’m currently wondering about is how this portrayal of Palaestrio as having so many traits of a master influences how we’re supposed to read his manumission. Is his control over the other slaves evidence that he doesn’t have a slavish character and therefore deserves manumission? Is it evidence of his cunning, and the Romans simply put less value on kindness? Is solidarity among slaves something Plautus felt that he had to avoid showing? I don’t what I think about any of these questions yet!