At the beginning of Plautus’ Casina, there is a very interesting discussion about the play itself by a character simply named “Prologus”. This Prologue tells the audience about the history of the play, how the Greek writer Diphilus originally called it Κληρούμενοι. The Prologue also explains how Plautus has changed the original play, essentially removing a character (my guess is that he did this in order to have the play end on the slapstick climax). But more intriguing for me is that the Prologue anticipates objections from the audience about one of the play’s subplots: two slaves, Olympio the rustic slave and Chalinus the urban slave are competing with each other to marry the woman Casina. The Prologue then defends this plotline by reminding the viewers that they are watching a play set in Greece (specifically Athens).
‘quaeso hercle, quid istuc est? serviles nuptiae?
servine uxorem ducent aut poscent sibi?
novom attulerunt, quo fit nusquam gentium.’
at ego aiio id fieri in Graecia et Carthagini,
et hic in nostra terra in terra Auplia;
maioresque opere ibi serviles nuptiae
quam liberales etiam curari solent (68-74)
‘By Hercules, what is this? Servile weddings?
Slaves taking wives or presenting themselves [to marry]?
They have stumbled into a new thing, since it does not occur among any nations.’
Indeed I say this thing occurs in Greece and in Carthage,
and here in our land, in Apulia
there servile weddings are grander works
than free folks are accustomed to care to.
So here we have a very interesting example of a Roman author asserting a difference between Greek and Roman practices of slavery. In fact, he thinks that the difference is great enough that he needs assuage his audience that he’s not pulling a fast one on them but actually representing the customs of another people.
However we do need to keep the comedic context of this line in mind. Why should the Prologue feel the need to defend this part of the play rather than how the slave tricks an old man into having sex with a man whom he thinks is a woman? Is it safe to assume that a Roman audience would accept such a plot twist as simply part of comedy but would otherwise demand that the plays resemble Roman life?
‘quaeso hercle, quid istuc est? serviles nuptiae?
servine uxorem ducent aut poscent sibi?
novom attulerunt, quo fit nusquam gentium.’
at ego aiio id fieri in Graecia et Carthagini,
et hic in nostra terra in terra Auplia;
maioresque opere ibi serviles nuptiae
quam liberales etiam curari solent (68-74)
‘By Hercules, what is this? Servile weddings?
Slaves taking wives or presenting themselves [to marry]?
They have stumbled into a new thing, since it does not occur among any nations.’
Indeed I say this thing occurs in Greece and in Carthage,
and here in our land, in Apulia
there servile weddings are grander works
than free folks are accustomed to care to.
So here we have a very interesting example of a Roman author asserting a difference between Greek and Roman practices of slavery. In fact, he thinks that the difference is great enough that he needs assuage his audience that he’s not pulling a fast one on them but actually representing the customs of another people.
However we do need to keep the comedic context of this line in mind. Why should the Prologue feel the need to defend this part of the play rather than how the slave tricks an old man into having sex with a man whom he thinks is a woman? Is it safe to assume that a Roman audience would accept such a plot twist as simply part of comedy but would otherwise demand that the plays resemble Roman life?