Panegyris Channels Penelope: Metis and Pietas in PlautuVs Stichus
AMANDA N. KRAUSS
Plautus's Stichus is an odd play, instead of a traditional New Comic plot, we find a tripartite structure that highlights different groups of characters at the beginning, middle, and end. Furthermore, there is a marked change in the tone, which descends from a highly moral beginning to what scholars have called an "antimoral" ending.1 In the initial scenes,2 the plot focuses on two sisters, Pamphila and Panegyris,3 as they wait for their long-lost husbands to return from a journey abroad. The sisters wish to remain married to their absent husbands, but their father Antipho wishes them to remarry. A conflict between father and daughters ensues. This type of father-daughter interaction is unusual in New Comedy4 and thus offers a unique opportunity for a study in family dynamics.
Past scholars have focused mainly on the sisters' roles as ideal wives and/or daughters.5 Although they have been correct to identify the overt moral themes of the play and the sisters as impressively virtuous characters, a close study of the sisters' characterization complicates the definition of "moral." In this article, I reexamine the sisters' characterization and its implications. First, I revisit the two scenes in which the sisters appear6 and consider textual evidence for their agency and cleverness, characteristics that have only recently begun to be recognized.7 Next, I consider the sisters' mention of Penelope and its significance for the literary and social setting of the play. As T shall argue, both the text and the reference to Penelope highlight the sisters' clever manipulation of their social situation. This play is especially important because it demonstrates the presence of female agency and opposition in a father-daughter relationship, and thus provides a new understanding of daughterly pietas.8
Revisiting the Text
In the play's opening, we find the two sisters alone onstage, waiting for their husbands to return from a two-year-long voyage. Panegyris, the
HELIOS, vol, 35 no. 1, 2008 © lexas Tech University Press
29
30
HELIOS
cider sister, compares their situation to that of Penelope, whose state of mind is recognizable from their own situation (nam nos eius animum / Ac fwstris factis noscimus, 3-4).9 It is just, she claims, to be worried about their husbands (ita ut aequom est I sollicitae, 5-6). Her younger sister Pamphila responds that what is just is doing their duty, and that they need not do anything more than piety advises (nostrum officium nos facere aequomst, ncquc id magisfacimus / qnam nos monet pietas, 7-8). It is Pamphila who first brings up the ensuing conflict: she worries that their father will act unjustly (improbl viri officio uti, 14) by trying to remove them from their homes. Panegyris advises her not to worry, because he would never do such a thing, but she concedes that their father has a point: they have no idea where their husbands are, what they are doing, or if they are alive (31-3). Pamphila asks whether Panegyris is unhappy because their husbands "do not cherish their duty, when you carry out yours" (an id doles, soror, quia illi suom officium / nan colunt, quom tu tuom facis? 34-5).10 In response to Panegyris's affirmative answer {ita pal), Pamphila becomes imperious. She tells her elder sister to be quiet (tacc) and admonishes her to recognize and practice officium (34-6) even if their husbands do not (40). The scene ends wrhen Panegyris agrees to keep quiet, and Pamphila orders her one last time to remember her duty (47).
While there is doubtless an argument of sorts between the sisters, we should not overemphasize the conflict at this point. We may reasonably assume that Pamphila's underlying concern is what Panegyris will do when and if their father presses the point of remarriage. However, no particular course of action is brought up, and Pamphila's initial question reveals a concern with attitude, not strategy. Moreover, the moral terms of this debate11 do not prevent a comic scenario. When the younger sister corrects her older sister's definition of aequom or becomes imperious, we should think in terms of a short-lived sibling quarrel rather than a profound conflict.12 This point is made clear by the fact that the sisters' fight does not carry over to the second scene. By the time Pamphila's fears are realized, and their father does press the point, the sisters present a unified front of resistance.
The first scene, therefore, implies, but does not play out, the upcoming conflict. In the second scene, however, Antipho enters and con fronts his daughters. Here we see tension between the sisters' words (which indicate their devotion to their father) and their actions (which oppose their father). We are thus presented with an apparent paradox: how can the matronae be dutiful daughters and still oppose their father? The sisters themselves provide a convenient defense. Near the end of this
KRAUSS—Panegyris Channels Penelope
31
scene, they claim that it is their duty to follow their father's command— the command, that is, made two years ago (141-2). According to this logic, by staying with their husbands they are obeying their father even despite his current objections. On this interpretation, the victory might be ascribed to the sisters' unwavering filial duty, rather than to the sisters' stratég)';13 The text permits this as a possible reading of the scene. However, it suggests (and in my opinion, favors) another reading.
The sisters' response need not be taken as an earnest statement that they are acting out of duty. The text gives numerous indications that the sisters never intend to submit to their father, and quite deliberately construct a scenario to use as ammunition; in fact, they show themselves to be far more clever and rhetorically skilled (one might even say subversive) than previously believed. Their father, too, has a deliberate rhetorical strategy to use against his daughters. A close reading of the text will substantiate the evidence for motive and strategy on both sides.
The sisters remain onstage after their initial tete-á-téte, and their father Antipho makes a belligerent entrance on one side of the stage.14 For several lines, he orders his slaves to clean up the house, chastises them for their laziness, threatens them, and warns them that he will be right back. Antipho is quickly established as an authoritarian bully, suggesting that the sisters' previous fears were well founded. On the other side of the stage, Pamphila speaks next, and wonders what to do if her father stands obstinately against them (qffirmabit pater adversum nos, 68). The audience already knows that Pamphila's assessment of the situation is accurate: given his entrance, it seems entirely likely that he will oppose them. In response to Pamphila's statement, Panegyris says that they must endure whatever the one with more power does (pati nos oportet quod die faciat, cuius potestas plus potest, 69). Since she does not name her father qua father, the statement does not necessarily indicate piety but rather pragmatism.15 Panegyris refers to forced, rather than willing, submission.
It is significant that Panegyris states that they must win their case by prevailing verbally (exorando) rather than by attacking openly (advorsando), and that with kindness {per gratiam) they might get what they want (impetrassere, 71). She proclaims that an open attack would entail disgrace and wrongdoing (advorsari sine dedecore et scelcre summo haud possumus, 70-2), and she concludes that they ought to sway him with words (exoreinus, 74).
The verbs advorsari and exorare carry certain implications. In Plautus, advorsari means "to oppose" generally, but can have more or less literal meanings. At times, it means "to stand" (literally) in the way of another
32
HELIOS
person's actions, but elsewhere its meaning is more specifically verbal, as in "to refuse or deny."16 Exorare, however, implies the persistent (but gentle) verbal persuasion of an unwilling subject.1'' It is worth considering another Plautine scene that includes five repetitions of the word exorare: the conclusion of the Bacchides.18 Here the courtesan Bacchis and her sister try to pacify (and seduce) the old man Nicobulus, who is the irate father of one of their conquests. This situation parallels the one in the Stichus: two young women are trying to persuade an aggravated older man. Baechis explicitly announces to Nicobulus her intention to convince him (1170, 1176)—and finds success. In the end, the defeated Nicobulus can scarcely believe that he has been convinced against his will: "How she wears [a man] down! Did she really persuade me [to do] what I opposed?" (ut tercbat! satin offirmatum quod mihi erat, id me exorat? 1200).19 In this scene, exorare clearly indicates a strategy of persistent and effective verbal opposition.20
Returning to our play, we should take Panegyris at her word. She rejects only one kind of opposition: the direct refusal of her father's wishes. Her initial concern is for keeping up appearances, since it is inappropriate for daughters to fight openly and publicly with their father. Her stated strategy is thus one of persuasion {exorare), rather than refusal (advorsari); but Panegyris is not merely concerned with decorum. She herself states her practical motivation: persuading with kindness (per gra-tiam) is more likely to be successful than direct confrontation. This is a savvy declaration on Panegyris's part. Their father, as a man who has much invested in his own authority, will not be swayed by a direct challenge to it. This passage therefore provides a clue to the sisters' intentions. Thev know their father will try to force them, but they intend to fight him nonetheless. Most importantly, they have a deliberate strategy for doing so. This argues against their being entirely unwilling to fight, even if thev are as moral as their language suggests. In fact, Pamphila's final statement is, "I know our dad: he can be prevailed upon" (novi ego nostras: exorabilest, 74). If we read her as naive, this statement must be one of simple optimism; if we take her as clever, it is a statement of strategy.
The scene now cuts back to Antipho wondering how he will get the upper hand (occipiam, 75), and whether it is better to approach his daughters "nicely" (that is, with rhetorical trickery) or savagely.21 He echoes the sisters' own words in line 74, saying that he knows his daughters well and that there will be a quarrel (scio litis fore, ego meas novi optime, 79). The verbal echo foreshadows the battle of wits to come; each party knows the other, and plans accordingly, Antipho's words clearly show that he is
KRAUSS—Panegyris Channels Penelope
33
anticipating resistance from his daughters, and this, too, argues for the sisters as formidable opponents. Although he hesitates to "wage war" on his own daughters (82), even the "nice" strategy {which he eventually chooses) is somewhat aggressive. Antipho's plan does include a rhetorical element {perplexim... oratione, 76; perplcxabiliter, 85; and fachtnda verba, 87), but his description also includes words like "maul" (lacessam, 76) and "terrify" {perpavefaciam pectora, 85/ 22 Moreover, the intricate rhetorical strategy does not counteract the belligerent personality that Antipho demonstrated during his entrance. At any rate, he confidently expects success from his aggressive verbal strategy, and plans to reveal his purpose "when the mood takes him" (ut animus mens crit, faciam palam, 86). Thus, the audience sees the two sides decide on their strategies in advance. Given the visual placement onstage, the drama would be heightened by the contrast not only in strategy but also in theatrical space.23
A moment before the meeting, the battle plans continue. Panegyris announces her plan to kill their father with kindness: she says they will make the first move by kissing him (fare advorsum homini occupemus osculum, 89). This line has a military ring, despite the affectionate context, and echoes their father's own warlike plan. The sisters implement their strategy immediately upon seeing Antipho. When their father protests this osculation, they begin fretting about his chair and try to put cushions beneath him. Pamphila once again affirms their devotion, but quickly returns to the topic at hand (96-8);
numquam enim nimi' curare possunt suom parentem filiae, quem aequiust nos potiorem habere quam teľ postidea, pater, viros nostras, quibus tu voluisti esse nos matres familias.
Since daughters can never worry too much about their father, Is it very right that we think anyone is more powerful than you? [We even consider! our husbands less, for whom you wanted us to be matresfamilae.
The first point to note is that Pamphila is lying—or at least not telling the whole truth. The sisters do not place their father above their husbands: the previous scene has shown how devoted the sisters are to their marriages, At the very least, their loyalties are equally distributed, and as this scene plays out, we will find that the sisters are not truly willing to put their lather's wishes first.
We should also note that though Pamphila reaffirms Antipho's power
34
HELIOS
over them with the word potior, she reminds us in the same breath that the marriage was her father's doing. Her wording is ambiguous: she seems to be telling her father that he still has ultimate authority over his daughters, but her mention of his authority in arranging the marriage is not an incidental one: it will become the basis for her sister's argument a short while later. Pamphila could be sincere, but it begins to look more likely that she has an ulterior motive in constructing this scenario.
Antipho responds with a curious compliment. He says that the women are acting correctly (bonas ut aequomst face re f'aatis) by treating their absent husbands just as they would if the husbands were present (99-100). Pamphila responds that it is the modest thing to do {pudicitiast, 100). Antipho has already announced to the audience that part of his "nice" strategy consists of acting «5 if (quasi) he were not making any accusations nor had heard anything bad about the sisters' behavior (77-8). Thus, he is not necessarily telling the truth, and he too has an ulterior motive: to stymie his daughters, as planned.
Antipho continues his "attack" by talking about his supposed desire to remarry—this, presumably is the perplexing rhetoric he planned earlier. He claims that he has come to his daughters as an inexperienced student to teachers, since they will know about the ways of good women (nam ego ad vos nunc imperitus renim et morum mulierum / discipulus venio ad magistras: quibus matronas nioribus / quae optumae sunt esse oportet, I 04—6). We should note that Antipho too is lying. His real concern is his daughters' remarriage, not his own, as he will eventually admit. The sisters first try to put him off the idea by telling him that he will have a difficult time finding a woman as good as their deceased mother. When he insists on quizzing the sisters about finding a good wife, they offer all the appropriate responses about women: that the best kind of woman is one who does not cause any gossip (113-4), does nothing inappropriate (122), and stands by her man in good times and in bad (124-5). It is true that the sisters' answers are entirely virtuous, but they have ulterior motives for promoting the qualities of good women: they are justifying their own behavior. This is clear from the insistence on the sanctity of a single marriage. Thus, the sisters cagily use unassailable ideological statements to resist their father's demands.24
In ihe end, Antipho confesses that he was testing them (edepol vos lepide tempiavi vostmmque ingenium ingeni, 126) and announces his real purpose, which is to take them back to their paternal home (abduccre domum, 128). He tries to sway them by bringing up their poverty, and Pamphila replies that he married her to a man, not to money Panegyris then
ICRAUSS—Panegyris Channels Penelope
35
stresses the importance of a willing bride, saying that an unwilling wife is an enemy to her husband (host is est uxor in pita quae ad vimm nuptum dalur, 140). At this point, the sisters are openly opposing their father—a fact that Antipho himself notes. He objects that the sisters arc refusing to follow his fatherly command (persequi impérium patris, 141). Panegyris responds that they are following it, because they are remaining with the men he chose for them (persequimur, nam quo dedisti nuptum abire nolumiis, 142). This statement returns to her sister's earlier affirmation of their father's power. He is the ultimate authority, but his decision two years ago is thus irrevocable in her construction of events. According to this logic, she is not opposing her father, because obeying his authoritative decision (made two years ago) is equivalent to obeying his authority now. Panegyris's logic is based on the Roman virtue of comtantiaP The sisters, by keeping to their word, are remaining constant; the father, by changing his mind, is not. At this point, Antipho gives up and leaves, intending to consult relatives about the situation, and the scene ends.
There are two options for interpreting the sisters' actions in the second scene. In the first scenario (discussed earlier), the sisters are answering entirely truthfully, and they sincerely believe that duty requires them to follow their father's command from two years ago. Thus, their words and moral statements might reflect their earnest (if dull-witted) devotion to their father, if they are not at all tricky or clever.
On my interpretation, Antipho is stymied by the sisters' own design. We must not forget that despite their professed devotion to their father, they do oppose him: the sisters' earlier lines show they have had a strategic plan to oppose him all along. Their statements of morality, combined with their logical deduction that a command is eternally binding, are a way of beating Antipho at his own game. By pretending that he wants to remarry, he apparently expects that they wilt give him advice about remarriage, which will give him ammunition for his own claim that they should remarry26 But they do not fall into his trap, and he must admit his true purpose. Furthermore, the sisters manage a superior rhetorical ploy, which wins (or at least ends) the fight. The sisters' sophistry reveals an ulterior motive.
The Significance of Penelope
I have suggested, in effect, that the text grants Plautus's matronae significant intelligence and capacity for deliberate opposition. I have also suggested that all three characters are "insincere" in a certain sense. The sis-
36
HELIOS
ters, while potentially sincere in their feelings towards both father and husbands, are insincere when they proclaim that they hold their father above their husbands, and when they assert that his command is eternally binding. The father, while potentially sincere in his love for his daughters, is insincere when he calls them bonac and tells them he plans to reman-v. Thus, Antipho pretends to be interested in remarriage; the sisters pretend to believe him; and most importantly, his daughters in a sense "pretend" their piety, even if it is true.
Given the metatheatrical nature of Plautine comedy, we should not assume that lack of sincerity is a negative characteristic.27 This is particularly true given the presence of Penelope's name.28 When Panegyris mentions Penelope in the play's opening, she explicitly recalls several aspects ol Penelope's story: her suffering, her solitude, and her fidelity (1-5).29 But there is one well-known trait that is not mentioned directly: cleverness (metis)?0 Penelope was renowned for her loyalty but even more for her wits—we should recall that she tricks Odysseus at the end of the Odyssey?1 In another famous scene, the suitors complain that Penelope told them she would remarry as soon as she finished Laertes' funeral shroud, but tricked them by undoing her weaving every night (2.85-110). Penelope's trickery was not necessarily a negative attribute, precisely because she used it to defend her marriage.52 In Homer, it is the suitors who demand her father's intervention (2.50—4), and it is the suitors who are the male figures whom Penelope opposes. Obviously, the situation is slightly different in the Stichus—the sisters oppose their father directly—but the issues of remarriage, the wives' opposition to it, and trickery are the same. When Panegyris recalls Penelope's animus in the first scene, she gives us a hint of her own plans. By animus, Panegyris means not only Penelope's emotional state, but also her intellectual capacity. Panegyris chooses a positive model of female agency and opposition, and justifies her upcoming trickery by invoking this positive example.
Scholars also have seen parallels in Greek tragic sources for this play's subject matter.33 In this context, Panegyris's invocation of Penelope is particularly apt. Hclene Foley (1995, 2001), for example, has highlighted Penelope's role as an ethical agent, and her ability to choose a course of action in a morally difficult situation.34 It is true that the play treats a genuine moral dilemma, as both the father and the sisters make moral claims that are valid, ideologically speaking. The sisters' claim is supported by the societal ideal of the univira, while Antipho's claim is supported by his status as paterfamilias. But it is the sisters who carry the day, because Antipho loses his moral ground soon after the initial
KRAUSS—Panegyris Channels Penelope
37
confrontation. His financial motivations for dissolving his daughters' marriages, which at first appeared altruistic, are proved false.35 When we next see Antipho, his greed is revealed (519-26) and he tries to use his daughters' dowry as leverage for demanding goods from their (now returned) husbands (560). Antipho also turns out to be something of a scnex amator. supposedly asking on behalf of a "friend," he requests a flute girl or two to keep him warm at night (5 3 9-69).36 In response to this behavior, he is made the object of derisive remarks (561-2, 570-5). Thus, he is defeated and humiliated like any other senex amator.37 Antipho's later behavior proves that his moral fiber is not all that he pretended. His comic defeats—first at the hands of his daughters, then at the hands of their husbands—resolve a potentially tragic dilemma.
There is no doubt that references to Greek tragedy or epic would have been understandable to audience members with the correct background. Nonetheless, we must exercise caution when analyzing Greek influence on Roman drama, and particularly in this situation, for three reasons. The first (and most general) reason lies in the problematic nature of the audience itself. While the sisters' debate may have evoked themes and scenes from Greek literature for elite audience members, we have good evidence (both from Flautus's own prologues and from Livy) that the audience contained many nonelite viewers.38 We should not assume, therefore, that every audience member was familiar with the Greek literary tradition or would have appreciated Greek cultural references. This is particularly true given the ambiguity of this play's situation. When it comes to the father's attempts to dissolve his daughters' marriages, it is impossible to isolate either a Greek or a Roman legal context.39 That is to say, nothing about the situation stands out as particularly Greek. Most importantly, humor is culturally specific. Anthony Corbeill (1996) has given an eloquent rebuttal to the assumption that Roman humor, in particular Ciceronian invective, can be based on Greek values.40 The same argument may be applied to Roman comedy Thus, while it is entirely valid to analyze the interaction of Greek and Roman elements in comedy, that methodology is not fruitful for explaining our scenes and their significance for a Roman audience. We can (and should) address these scenes in a particularly Roman context.
As mentioned earlier, Antipho's behavior fits into the mold of a typically Plautine character, the senex amator. The battle of wits with his daughters, too, has clear parallels in other comic "battles" fought between members of a household.41 But while these parallels explain the humor of the play,42 there may be a more serious side to the sisters' comic
38
HELIOS
victory: Antipho's "punishment" (that is. his status as object of laughter) may lay bare his claims of authority. Katherine McCarthy (2000, 29) describes the senex am a tor as "a paterfamilias 'rebelling' against his own dependents," but concludes (99) that this bid for comic heroism is unsuccessful, in part because the character fails to maintain his authority over the household. Thus, Antipho's eventual downfall may highlight his failure to maintain his authority over his daughters, and thus invite the audience to critique his authoritarian stance.43 In this sense, the scenes play off Roman concerns about authority and hierarchy.
This play is also significant for understanding the Roman conception of pietas, the virtue that scholars have identified as the issue at stake in the second scene.44 Older definitions of pietas assumed that it refers primarily to obedience owed by the child to the parent. But more recent scholars refute this definition. Richard Sailer (1988), for one, defines pietas as a reciprocal relationship of respect and affection that is owed by all family members to each other.45 By Sailer's definition, Antipho does not show pietas to his daughters. His behavior is bullying and he disrespects their status as married women. The sisters, however, show precisely this respect and affection to their father by deflecting his aggressive tactics, ostentatiously showing their fondness for him, and initially playing along with his game.46 When pressed, they construct a scenario that preserves both his authority and their fidelity: essentially, they refuse to refuse him. Clearly, pietas is not mutually exclusive of agency or opposition. In fact, the sisters' pietas may lie precisely in their ability to oppose their father in an indirect fashion, to prevent anyone from getting a bad reputation, and to allow their father to save face. Thus, the sisters' behavior and justification thereof suggest that pietas is a mode of action and not merelv an abstract emotion.
In this play, we see a rare glimpse at the negotiation of the terms of daughterly pietas. Recall that in the opening, the younger Pamphila was less concerned with pietas (towards her father) than with spousal duty (ofjicium): she said they were not required to do more than what pietas advised (8).47 Her words framed pietas negatively, as a simple obligation that need not be exceeded. In her mind, they should fulfill the minimal obligation to their father, and concentrate on spousal devotion. But Pan-egyris differed from her sister. She allowed that their father had a point, and for a moment conceded to his side of the argument. By doing so, she did not intend to submit; far from it, for she was contemplating a plan, as indicated by her reference to Penelope. In the second scene, Panegyris appropriates Penelope's trickery and agency. It is she who takes the lead.
KRAUS S—Panegyris Channels Penelope
39
It is she who, recognizing her father's strategy and investment in authority, constructs the rhetorical defense that allows both spousal fidelity and filial duty. Panegyris, then, formulates a method of pietas, namely a strategy for dealing with their father when he is being unreasonable. The model she chooses, moreover, is Penelope.48 In the end, her trickery (that is, the absence or presence of sincerity in her rhetorical argument) is not at odds with her devotion towards her father.
The Stichus's debate on pietas was timely. The play (one of the few datable Plautine works) was put on in 200 B.C.E., directly after the end of the Second Punic War. It is probable that many members of the audience—whether soldiers, veterans, family members of military men, or wives (if they were present)—would have had personal experience (or at least understanding) of absent spouses and the social pressures of such a situation. The confrontation of father and daughters may be humorous, but we should not discount the moral underpinnings of its argument.49
In the Stichus, then, we need not look for a right or wrong answer regarding the dictates of piety. We should recognize the grounds for competing constructions of authority, and enjoy Plautus's comic explication of the problem. As it happens, Plautus makes it easy for his audience, and renders the question moot soon after it is posed. The husbands return, the problem is solved, the wives disappear altogether, and the play continues. The resolution of the conflict parallels the usual New Comic ending, wherein the social problem of romantic love is solved by marriage, or at least the lovers' being united.50 These scenes are simply a microcosm in a New Comic universe that resolves social tensions with pat endings, and the sisters' dilemma is resolved with a simple plot twist. Although the resolution to the situation is generic, the issues presented are not entirely removed from reality By adapting a Greek heroine to a Roman context, Plautus's Stichus renders a potentially serious debate entertaining and provides the audience with entertainment that is anything but mindless.51
Works Cited
Arnott, W. G. 1972. "Targets, Techniques, and Tradition in Plautus' Stichus." BICS 19: 54-79.
-. 1974. "Reflexions sur le 'Stichus' de Platíte." Dioniso 45: 549-55.
Bannon, C. 1997. The Brothers of Romulus: Fraternal Pietas in Roman Law, Literature and Society. Princeton.
Beare, W. 1964. The Roman Stage: A Short History of Latin Drama from the Time of the Republic. London,
40
HELIOS
Bonner, S. E 1949. Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire. Liverpool. Corbeill, A. 1996. Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton.
Dohcrty, L. I 99 1. "Athena and Penelope as Foils for Odysseus in the Odyssey." QUCC 39.3: 31-44.
Duckworth, G. 1952. The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment. Princeton.
Duncan, A. 2006. Performance and Identity in the Classical World. Cambridge. Fel son-Rubin, N. 1994. Regarding Penelope: From Character to Poetics. Princeton. Foley, H. 1995, "Penelope as Moral Agent." In B. Cohen, ed., The Distaff Side: Representing the Female in Homer's Odyssey Oxford. 93-1 I 5.
-. 2001. Female Acts in Greek Tragedy. Princeton.
Fraenkel, E. 1 960. Elementi plautini in Plauto. Florence, Frye, N. 1957. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton. Griten, E. 1990. Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden.
Hellegouarc'h, J. 1963. Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la Re'publiquc. Paris.
Hoffmann, Z. 1988. "Zur pietas-konzeption des Plautus." Helikon 28: 129—44. Konstan, D, 1983. Roman Comedy. Ithaca.
Lape, S. 2004. Reproducing Athens: Menandcrs Comedy, Democratic Culture, and the Hellenistic City. Princeton. Leo, E 1 895-1896. Plauti Comoediae. Berlin.
Lopez, Aurora. 2000. "El arqueüpo de Penelope en el teatro: Plauto, Buero Vallejo e Itziar Pascual." In K. Andresen, J. V Banuls, and E de Martino, eds,, El teatre classic al marc de la cultura grega i la seua pervivencia dins la cultura occidental, 3: La dualitat en el teatre: Universität de Valencia, 5-8 de maig 1999. Valencia. 207-25.
Löpez-Fonseca, Antonio. 2001. "Stichus: dUna comedia sin tram a ni eomposicion dramätRa?" In E. Crespo and M. J. Barrios Castro, eds., Actus del X Congreso Espahol de Estudios Cldsicos (21-25 de septiembre de 1999). Madrid. 423-30.
Marquardt, P. 1985. "Penelope 'nOAYTPOllOX ."' AfP 106: 32-48.
McCarthy, K. 2000. Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy. Princeton.
Moore, T. 1998. "Music and Structure in Roman Comedy." AJP 119: 245-73. Murnaghan, S.  1986. "Penelope's Agnoia: Knowledge, Power and Gender in the
Odyssey." Helios 13.2; 103-15. Owens, W. 2000. "Plautus' Stichus and the Political Crisis of 200 B.C." AJP 121:
385-408.
Petersmann, H. 1973-7? Maccius Plautus: Stichus. Einleitung, Text, Kommentar. Heidelberg. Petrone, G. 1 976. "Stichus c Pap. Didot 1." Pan 3: 45-52.
--. 1977. Morale c antimoralc nelle commcdic di Plauto: Ricerche sullo Stichus. Palermo.
Questa, T. 1995, Cantica Titi Macci Plauti. Urbino.
Sailer, R. 1988. "Pietas, Obligation, and Authority in the Roman Family." In P. Krieissl and V. Losemann, eds., Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftgeschichte: Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 6.5. Geburstag. Darmstadt. 393—410.
--. 1991. "Corporal Punishment, Authority and Obedience in the Roman Household." In B. Rawson, ed., Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome. Oxford. 144-65.
KRAU S S—Panegyris Channels Penelope
41
-. 1993. "The Social Dynamics of Consent to Marriage and Sexual Relations:
The Evidence of Roman Comedy." In A. Laiou, ed,, Consent and Coercion to Sex and Marriage in Ancient and Medieval Societies. Washington. 83-104.
Scafuro, A. 1997. The Forensic Stage: Settling Disputes in Graeco-Roman New. Comedy. Cambridge.
Segal, E. 1971. Roman Laughter: The Comedy ofPlautus. New York.
Slater, N. 1985. Plautus in Performance: The Theatre of the Mind. Princeton.
Slatkin, L. 1991. "Composition by Theme and the Metis of the Odyssey." In S. Schein,
ed., Reading the Odyssey: Selected Interpretive Essays. Princeton. 223-37. Taladoire, B. 1956. Essai sur le comique de Plaute. Paris.
Treggiari, S. 1993. Roman Marriage: Iusti coniuges/ram the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford.
Wilson, P. 1998. "Something for Everyone: Plautus and His Heterogeneous Audience."
Ph.D. diss., University of Victoria, Newcastle. Winkler, J. 1990. TJw Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient
Greece. Routledge. Winterbottom, M. 1980. Roman Declamation. Bristol. Zucker, F. 1944. "Socia unanimans." RhM 92: 193-217.
Notes
1 The unusual nature of the plot has been noted since Duckworth (1952, 146 and 178). Lopez-Fonseca (2001) dissects (and defends) the tripartite structure most thoroughly, while Pctrone (1977) has most fully explicated the "antimoral" movement of the plot. We should note that the moral nature of the initial scenes seems to exclude it from the Saturnalian moral reversal generally associated with Roman comedy (on which, see Segal 1971, 7-14).
2 Moore (1998) argues that metrical patterns are a better indication for the play's structure than later scene divisions. But we should note that the text treated in this article occurs in the initial series of accompanied lines (1-155), which provides a sound metrical reason for analyzing these sections as a single narrative unit. Furthermore, the break between the first and second "scenes" corresponds to a change of meter: the sisters' initial polymetric eanticum is interrupted by the appearance of their father. The meter then changes to trochaic septenarii. Because there is viable metrical and dramatic evidence for the modern scene breaks, and because the word "scene" is more meaningful to the modern reader than "metrical section," I will continue to refer to the sections as scenes. On the metrical pattern of the Stichus, see Moore 1998, 259-60; on the eanticum, Questa 1995, 382-5.
3 In the manuscripts, the younger sister is named Pamphila in the scenedieading of only one transmission, leading many to believe that, the name is not originally Plau-tine: Petersmann 1973, 85; Arnott 1972, 74 note 2; Leo 1895-1896, apparatus criticus. For the sake of clarity, however, I will call the younger sister Pamphila,
4 There are a few other father-daughter conflicts in New Comedy, but none are satisfactory parallels for this scene. In Plautus's Persa, Saturio's daughter argues with him about his plan to "sell" her, but though the daughter also uses a moral argument (355-6, 376-7) and the father objects to her lack of obedience (378), the debate does not center around pietas either explicitly or implicitly. In Poenulus 1232ff, Hanno pre-
42
HELIOS
tends to take his daughters to court. In Mainechmi 781-2, we see the opposite of the Stichus's situation when a daughter demands that her father take her away from her husband and his home, and in Terence's Hetyra (243-80) a father defends his daughter's decision to leave her husband. We see a parallel in Menander's Epitrepontes. as Scafuro (1997, 313-5) discusses: a father wants to take his daughter away from her no-good husband (655—60) but she resists (714-6). However, there is no discussion in the play of the father's or daughter's duty or legal rights.
The closest parallel for these scenes appears in Plautus's Asinaria, where the prostitute Philematium argues with her lena mother and is accused of not showing appropriate pietas. Hoffmann (1988, 140-1) categorizes this pictas as "parodie" rather than real, while she considers the pictas in Stichus "sincere" (ernsthaji, 136). While we should not discount the Asinarias discussion of pietas completely, it is a problematic parallel because the two prostitutes are less inherently believable and/or respectable than the matronae in this play.
-1 Segal (1971, 22) mentions Panegryis and Pamphile as exceptions to the rule of shrewish matronae. More recent theoretical studies of Plautine comedy, such as those of McCarthy 2000 and Konstan 1983, do not address these scenes. The play also has made appearances in topical studies, such as Scafuro 1997, 3 12-3, 320-3; Sailer 1 993, 87-8 and 1988, 402 note 42; and Treggiari 1993, 232-6. Owens's (2000) article is the most recent, as the bibliography reflects. Regarding the sisters' characterization, Arnott (1972, 59) captures the general trend of scholarship: "Plautus wished to endorse current Roman values about the position of the Roman matrona in society and the sanctity of her one and only marriage." Also Petrone 1977, 44: "Le due donne sono eredibili eroinc di un dramma borghese"; Petersmann 1973, 38: "So sind die beiden Frauen Ver-fechterinnen des Guten"; cf. Owens 2000, 394 and Duckworth 1952, 256 and 282. Petrone (1977, 20-^1) explicitly defines this morality as Catonian, while Arnott and Owens define this morality more temporally, that is, apropos to 200 b.c.e.
6 The elder sister appears once more, in die second act, but her function there is merely to act as a foil to the back-and-forth of the parasite Gelasmius and the servus currens Pi naci urn. This is an important scene because Pancgyris finds out that her husband has returned. But it is just as important to note that owing to her few lines and long silences (e.g., lines 342-55 and 374-89 [thirteen- and fifteen-line gaps, respectively j), we cannot infer much more character development, and we must conclude that the locus is really on the parasite and slave. We may note, however, that as mistress of the house she has control over feeding Gelasimus and chooses not to do so.
7 The sisters' strategy and agency have only recently been recognized at all. Lopez (2000, 211) alludes to cajoling as a "quasi-strategy" (come strategia) generally employed by women, but does not pursue the analysis. Scafuro's (1997, 321) analysis most fully recognizes the sisters' "forensic strategy." While Scafuro's reading and mine overlap on some points, it will become clear that we differ significantly on many points of interpretation, as well as having very dissimilar goals in reading the scenes (see below, esp. notes 20-2, 26, and 44).
K Despite topical studies (e.g., Bannon 1997 and Hoffmann 1988), Sailer (1988) is the only scholar to treat the topic of daughterly pietas. and he does so under the rubric of parent-child pietas.
9 The Latin text follows Leo's edition of Plautus, except where noted. All Latin translations are my own.
KRAU SS—Panegyris Channels Penelope 43
10 It is possible that //// refers to both the husbands and the father, given that Pam-phila has explicitly mentioned her father's improper attention to duty earlier. But her later admonishments specifically turn to the husbands.
11 On which see Anion 1972,57-61.
12 Arnott (1972, 59) suggests that the moral terms may be a setup for later humor but Owens (2000, 393) is the only scholar who admits the possibility of any humor within the scene itself. He suggests an ironic reading wherein the ostentatious repetition of moral terms creates a comic exaggeration and produces a sort of political parody, in which the sisters are repeating sound bites that the audience would recognize. 1 add only that the topical humor would be increased by the incongruity ot such words being used by young women. Finally, Lopez (2000, 214) considers that the Penelope reference allows for a formal parody of the Odyssey.
Bickering siblings, however, are a common source of humor in New Comedy. The most obvious examples are Demea and Micio in Terence's Adelphoc. Furthermore, Demipho and Chremes do not see eye to eye in Terence's Phormio, while Lunomia and her brother Megadorus disagree about marriage in Plautus's Aulularia. In both Bacchides and Poaiulus, we have sisters who arc prostitutes, and whose interactions may show friendly disagreement or bickering, depending on how one reads the tone. Finally, we should consider examples like the Menaechmus brothers, who do not bicker openly but are clearly contrasted, as well as the general tendency to use contrasting characters as comic fodder (on which see Duckworth 1952, 184ff.).
[3 As Owens (2000, 393) does.
14 One may compare Periplectomenus's first entrance in Plautus's Miles gloriosus 156-9.
15 Pace Owens 2000, 393, who takes this as a sign of Panegyris \s willingness to submit.
16 "To oppose"; Amph. 703; Capt. 403; Cas. 150, 205, 253, 277; Merc. 377; Péts; 26, 839; Rud. 306. "To refuse/deny": Asia. 509; Aut. 142; Men. 420; also adversatrix vs. adse Matrix in Mas tell. 257.
17 General sense of "prevail": Asin. 707, 917; Capt. 210; Cas. 43; Cist. 303; Epid. 687 (sarcastically); Men. 518; Poen. 375. Resistance to the request implied: Asin. 707; Aul. 309; CM. 269, 304; Men. 518; Pen. 43; Pseud. 76. The term is often used in requests for intervention through a third party {Poen. 357, 380; Cas. 697705; Mil. 1072, 1224), especially by slaves begging a third person to intervene with their masters {Batch. 521, 689; Mostell. 11, 1 175, 1180; Rud. 12 18-9).
18 The lines in which exorare occurs are: Bacch. 1 170, 1 1 76 (bis), I I 77, and 1200. All instances of the word carry the same meaning.
19 Note, too, that the old man uses the same word for resistance, offirmatum. There are two other instances in which prostitutes are said to persuade (exorare) men in general {Ti-uc. 27) and by means of kissing and loving {Asin. 687).
20 Note that this differs slightly from Scafuro's (1997, 322) characterization of the strategy" of exorandum as an "appeal to authority." As I hope I have made clear, I feel that the word carries not only the implication of an appeal, but of a more active opposition and/or persuasion.
21 The text of the initial deliberation is difficult. The manuscripts show leniter or leviter in line 78, but Leo corrects this to saeviter, and brackets line 79 following. Regardless of whether one accepts Leo's correction, it is clear that Antipho is weighing two different strategies by the presence of ulrum... an in lines 76 and 78.
44
HELIOS
Scafuro (1997, 321 note 98) suggests that Antipho's deliberation is "none-too-lucid" and is a result of Plautine adaptation. It is true that Antipho displays a strong ambivalence towards his strategy, but this is consistent with a dramatic soliloquy We can see a definite back-and-forth movement in his thoughts: he first considers acting as though they have done nothing wrong, that is, leniently (76-7). He then considers approaching them savagely (78). He initially rejects this plan [mm faciam), asking whether it is really necessary to fight with his own family for no good reason (81-2). He further reasons that he does not want to make trouble {nolo turban, 83). But despite his wavering, his actions follow the plan he outlines: he acts as though the sisters have done nothing wrong (99-100); attempts rhetorical trickery by claiming he wants to remarry (108); and reveals his true purpose (126).
21 Some scholars (Scafuro 1997, 321; Sailer 1993, 88; Pet rone 1977, 40) have read Antipho's decision as a definitive rejection of a belligerent strategy. But his final decision is not necessarily a lenient plan. Even if we accept Leo's omission of line 84, in which Antipho makes a decisive assertion (sicfaciam) that he will act as though the sisters have done something wrong, the fact remains that he uses strong terms of fear (iacessam and peiyavcfatiam) to describe his strategy (Scafuro [1 997, 32 1J rightly translates "frighten with perplexity"). Regardless of what one classifies as the predominant element, it is fair to say that his plan includes both rhetorical and emotional components.
Given the arrangement of lines, it is not likely that the sisters leave the stage before their hither enters, and their presence onstage grants them the capability of eavesdropping while Antipho lays his plans. Since Pamphila professes to hear Antipho's voice only as he is entering their house, however, the audience may be expected to suspend its disbelief and assume that the sisters cannot hear Antipho's speech. The fact remains that the sisters and the father are onstage at. the same time, providing a visual contrast in addition to the characterization suggested by the text.
24 One might compare Lape's (2004, 251) analysis of Pamphile in Menander's Epitrepontes as a woman whose "very dedication to her marriage... winds her a release from the official ideology of marriage and sexual control."
Jl While the term constantia is not used explicitly in the text, it lies beneath the sisters' construction of events. This scene neatly demonstrates Hellegouarc'h's (1963, 283-5) two facets of constantia: following the demands of one's conscience in all events, and keeping one's word. Hellegouarc'h (285) further connects constantia with fides, a virtue that is explicitly mentioned in the text.
26 Scafuro (1997, 321 note 98) considers this as a possible reading of the scene, but then rejects it: "The test could have provided a thematic link with the object of Antipho's visit: just as he is now contemplating a new marriage ... so his daughters should be contemplating a new marriage,,.. But Plautus has not developed the 'test' this way."
li Characters in Plautus act out plays-within-plays constantly, and dueling deceits are a common plot material (cf, Duckworth 1952, 160-75). On the phenomenon of characters "acting," sec Slater 1985, 12-6, 52^, and 168-78 and Duncan 2006, 128-31.
2H Fraenkel (1960, 93-4) considers that the reference may have a Menandrean basis rather than being a true Plautine addition. It is interesting to note that this is the first attestation of Penelope's name in Latin literature. Odysseus/Ulysses does appear else-
K RAU S S—Panegyris Channels Penelope
45
where in Plautus (Bacch. I, 940, 946, 949, 962; Men. 902; Pseud. 1063, 1244); Fraenkel (1960, 89ff.) discusses this theme.
2y Lopez (2000, 214) identifies fidelity, solitude, and suffering as the traits that Plautus chose to emphasize from the Penelope legend,
■i(> Penelope's epithet in the Odyssey is "thoughtful" (periphron), and she uses the word metis in 19.158. Dohcrty (1991), Winkler (1990, 129-61), and Slatkin (1991, 233^1) connect her to the theme of metis in the Odyssey.
31 Marqtiardt (1 985) deals directly with the need for recognizing Penelope's intelligence as a defining characteristic equal to her chastity and loyalty.
32 This is not to say that her cunning is unequivocally positive. Earlier scholarship, especially, expressed deep discomfort with Penelope's deceit (and possible leading on) of the suitors. Recent scholarship, however, defends her behavior by placing it in its sociohistorical context, emphasizing Penelope's trickery as a necessary means to preserve her marriage and a match for Odysseus's personality: Marqtiardt 1985, 33-5; Murnaghan 1986, 103—4 and 112-3; Pel son-Rubin 1994,39.
33 Arnott (1972, 62-4) and Petrone (1976) concentrate on the parallels with tragedy. A later parallel for this particular debate is found in Seneca, Sims. 2.5. In this declamation, a father tries to make a woman divorce her no-good husband (who faked his own death), while the woman (who made a death pact with the no-good husband) prefers to die rather than leave. The jurists arc debating the legal facets of the problem, but those arguing for wife's side bring up the conflict between wifely and filial duty (2.2.2-3). Argentarius neatly sums up the problem by saying that the wife now has two problems, neither of which would exist if she loved her husband or her father less (si aut minus amaret virum aut minus amaret patrem, 2.2.3). This is precisely the problem implied-—although not explicitly debated—in the Stichus. Granted that Seneca's text comes from a much later time and that many of the scenarios of the suttsoriae resemble (or are drawn directly from) comic plots (Bonner 1949, 37 and 137; WinterboUom 1980, 10), the fact remains that this was apparently a feasible topic tor later debates, and one suspects, for debates at the time of Plautus.
34 Foley 1 995 and 200 I, passim but esp. 2001,11 8-9 and 1 25-6.
35 Antipho's financial motives, like his legal rights, are ambiguous in their Greek or Roman origins. We should also note that his initial claim is quite unusual for Roman comedy. In Plautus we hear more often about daughters' engagement and the concomitant dowry as a financial burden, rather than boon. For example, Megadorus's tirade against dowry in Plautus, Aid. 475-535, or the negative comments about uxores dotatae (for which see Segal 1971, 22-3).
3h Although no one has explicitly identified Antipho's character with a senex amtitor, his eventual descent into immorality has been noted. Petersmann (1973, 37) describes him as "grotesk-komische Alte" while Owens (2000, 401) writes: 'Antipho and his sons-in-law fail to meet their Roman officio and give themselves over to Greek indulgence." But given the importance of reading plays "horizontally" to determine the significance of a given character type (McCarthy 2000, 15-6), Antipho's sexual misbehavior need not be characterized as particularly "Greek" since all other series amatores act the same way. Petrone (1977, passim) reads the sisters' scenes as a bookend, showcasing good Catonian morality only to highlight its destruction in the "antimoral" ending.
3/ Relative to other senss amatores, Antipho gets off easy. In As'maria and Mereator, the old characters are made the butts of copious jokes at the hands of their wives, sons,
40
HELIOS
and slaves, and in Casina one senex is "married" to a male slave. It may be that Antipho's light sentence reflects the tact that, unlike other sates amatores, he is not married. On the "punishment" of the Senex amator, see McCarthy 2000, 99-100.
'm Pocnulus (17-34: the prologue) gives the most information about the general audience, and mentions wet-nurses, prostitutes, soldiers, mutroiiac, and merchants. Livv (34.44. 34.54) reports a change in seating arrangements in 194 B.c.E. tiiat divided the senators from the populus. For a discussion or" the audience, see Wilson 1998, 21-5; Beare 1964, 71-5; and Taladoire 1956, 21-30. Note that this differs from Scafuro's (1997, 11-2) assumption that most audience members would have knowledge of Greek practices, and McCarthy's (2000, 6) suggestion of "elite investment in popular literature." Sailer {1993, 99-104) and Gruen (1990, 125-8) defend the use of Roman comedy as a source for Roman social history.
19 Scafuro (1997, 312-20 and 325-6) discusses this question in depth and concludes that, despite the paucity of evidence, Greek and Roman practices are likely to be similar She writes (321): "Because of the proximity of practice, it is impossible to decide whether Plautus, when he speaks of the lather's impcrium in Stichus, is translating or adapting his Menandrian model."
1,1 Corbeill (1996, 5-6) has convincingly argued that Roman humor must be based on a Republican Roman set of values; that is to say, the humor of Roman comedy is not based on the literary/cultural interaction of Greek original with Roman reception, but on a Roman set of values. This is why when considering these scenes as comic scenarios, I will address their context as Roman.
11 Duckworth (1952, 160-75) and Fraenkel (I960, 238ff.) discuss the humorous use of military terminology in Plautus.
'" I do not pretend to explain the humor behind the play in any comprehensive theoretical terms. To do so would require a consideration of several humor theories, as well as the viewpoint of every member of the heterogeneous audience; such is impossible in this short study. Duckworth (1952, 305-30) is still an excellent analysis of humor, precisely because it considers manv different aspects. By noting comic parallels. 1 hope I have demonstrated how the play's humor fits into the comic idiom of Plautus.
n The subject of McCarthy's concern is of course the comic slave as character who negotiates authority (2000, 3-34). 1 am hesitant to apply her argument too broadly, simply because she does not treat this type of father-daughter interaction, concentrating instead on the male adulesccifi (2000, 74-6, 126, ) 78). Despite the sisters' victory, we should note that Plautus's presentation of the problem is more subtle than merely endorsing one side as unequivocally correct.
44 Anion 1974, 551. IVtrone 1977, 42; Owens 2000, 393. Owens rightly emphasizes the "Romanness" of the sisters' characterization, particularly regardingpietas. He holds that ah hough the use of moral terms may take its cue from Menander, "foremost in the mind of Plautus' audience would have been the Roman notion of moral obligation ... and not its Greek equivalent" (2000, 392). Thus, while the inspiration may be Menandrean, the audience would not consider the sisters, or their speeches, Greek. Arnott (1972. 56-7) and Pctersmann (1973, 38) assume a Menandrean origin for the women's morality and speech, while Scafuro (1997. 11) emphasizes the Greek presence in general. Finally, Zueker (1 944) attempts to discern the Greek terms corresponding to pietas and officium.
KRAUSS—Pancgyris Channels Penelope
47
45 Though Sailer (1993) is generally concerned with the father-son relationship, he does adduce this play, as well as another Plautine example where the father shows pietas for his daughters in Pocnulus—indicating that father-daughter pietas existed at the time of Plautus and was reciprocal. Hoffmann (1988, 136) notes that father-daughter pietas in the Rudens is an instance of "serious" pietas.
4i' As Scafuro (1997, 321) notes, they "conceal from their father the offensiveness of his questions."
47 Although Lopez (2000, 214) and Sailer (1988, 402 note 42; 1993, 86) explicitly identify the pietas in line 8 as conjugal, Pamphila almost certainly means filial pietas here. The word pietas does not apply to spouses anywhere else in Plautus. It usually means either duty towards the gods (Cas. 383, 418; Miles 1319; Pseud. 268; Rud. I I. 29), duty between parent and child (Asin. 508, 509, 831; Poen. 77, 113; Pseud. 121, 291, 292, 293; Trin. 280) or both (Puch. 1 190, 1255; Rud. 1176), with one occurrence as a term of endearment (Cure. 639). Aside from Lopez and Sailer, most other scholars Iake pietas as filial in this instance.
48 Penelope is associated with pietas in a much later version of the story as well. Ovid's Penelope complains (Heroides 1.81-6):
me pater Icarius viduo discedere lecto
cogit et immensas increpat usque moras, increpet usque licet: tua sum, tua drear oportet;
Penelope coniunx semper Ulixis cro. ille tamen pietate mea precibusque pudicis
frangitur et vires temperat ipse suas.
My father Icarius tries to force me (now a "widow") to leave behind my marriage bed, and constantly impresses upon me your countless delays. Let him press all he wants; I am yours, and it is right that I be called yours. I, Penelope, will always be the wife of Ulysses. At any rate, he is beaten back by my pietas and my chaste entreaties, and he moderates his anger.
Penelope's pietas (as expressed by entreaties) softens her father's demands and protects her marriage. Importantly, here too we see pietas not as a mute emotion, but as a stratég)' for dealing with a parent.
49 Sailer (1993, 99-104) discusses Roman comedy as a historical source that reflects topical Roman concerns. Gruen (1990, 125-8) discusses Plautus's general topical treatment of contemporary issues. Owens (2000, 385-91) makes a detailed connection between the historical setting and the play's themes, although he applies this to the character of Gelasimus rather than the sisters.
50 Originally theorized by Frye (1957, 44), but Konstan's (1983, 15-32) introduc-f km describes the phenomenon most succinctly and pertinently for ancient comedy.
51 I would like to thank Tim Moore, who has worked with me since this material was still part of my dissertation. I am also grateful to M. Gwyn Morgan, Tom McGinn, Andrew Riggsby, and especially less Miner for providing excellent suggestions during revisions. Finally, I thank the anonymous referees tor their bibliographic input, and for helping to clarify my argument.