Lamarre, Naudet and Ritschl commit the error of imputing to our
poet a moral purpose. Schlegel and Scott deprecate the crudity of his wit
without an adequate appreciation of its sturdy and primeval robustness.
Langen, Mommsen, Korting and LeGrand approach a keen estimate of his
inconsistencies and his single-minded purpose of entertainment, but
Korting accuses him of attempting to create an illusion of life while
aiming solely at provoking laughter.
From this heterogeneous mass of diversified criticism we glean the
prevailing idea that Plautus is lauded or condemned according to his
conformity or non-conformity to some preconceived standard of comedy
situate in the critic's mind, without a consideration of the poet's
original purpose. We must seriously propound the question as to how far a
grave injustice has been done him almost universally in criticising him
for what he does not pretend to be. Did Plautus himself suffer from any
illusion that his plays were constructed with cogent and consummate
technique? Did he for a single instant imagine himself the inspired
reformer of public morality? Did he believe that his style was elegant and
polished? Indeed, he must have effected an appreciable refinement of the
vernacular of his age to produce his lively verse, but without losing the
robust vitality of "Volkswitz." Or is it true that nothing further than
amusement lay within his scope?
If so, we may at least posit that almost unbounded license must be allowed
the pen which aims simply to raise a laugh.
Pages:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32