AMICI ET SODALES:

AN EXAMINATION OF A DOUBLE MOTIF IN PLAUTUS.

BY

LISA MAURICE

Abstract

One of the ways in which Plautus investigates friendship is through his use of the stock

characters so central to Roman comedy. Among the twelve stock characters of comedy that Apuleius

lists, appears the figure of the sodalis opitulator (the ‘helpful mate’), who has not so far drawn much

attention. Not only does Plautus use this character frequently, in five of his twenty extant plays he

employs not one friend, but two, as a double motif. In these plays, Plautus uses these double stock

characters to parody the ideals of friendship which had been developed in the literary tradition, and to

play with the conventions of drama as part of a metatheatrical approach to comedy. By a doubling this

motif, Plautus highlights friendship, in order to look at other literary or dramatic themes that include

the ideal literary friendship, the supremacy of the Plautine slave and drama itself.

Plautus seems to be very interested in friendship, a theme which is emphasized

in several plays and in particular through his use of the stock characters so central to

Roman comedy. Among the twelve stock characters of comedy that Apuleius lists

(Apuleius, Florida 16), there appears a figure, that of the sodalis opitulator (the

‘helpful mate’), who has not so far drawn much attention. 1) Not only does Plautus use

this character frequently, in five of his plays he employs not one friend, but two, as a

double motif. The two types of friends are the friend of the adulescens, the young

lover, and the friend of the senex, the old man who is often the young lover’s father.

Although it is a truism to state that Terence, rather than Plautus, was the master of the

double plot, it is striking that this motif is found in five plays out of the twenty extant

plays of Plautus. In these plays, Plautus does not only use these double

1
This issue is discussed by W. S. Anderson, Barbarian Play: Plautus’ Roman Comedy (Toronto 1993),
34-46 but he addresses only two plays, the Mercator and the Trinummus, and considers only one friend
in each, the young lover’s pal, taking no account of the senex’s friend.

1
stockacharacters to investigate the concept of friendship, but also uses this virtuous

ideal in order to mock literary and theatrical conventions.2)

The Literary Tradition of Idealised Friendship

The motif of idealised friendship in these plays draws upon a tradition beloved

of literature – ever since Homer’s depiction of Achilles and Patroclus, poets and

writers had emphasised the perfect friendship, where two companions were prepared

to give all for their friend’s sake. 3) There are several features that characterise this

friendship. Firstly, the friendship is between those of the same social rank, and so is a

relationship between equals; a relationship between a man and his slave, or indeed

between a man and a woman, is not true idealised friendship. This is an extension of

the belief that a friend is like ‘another self’, an idea frequently found in philosophical

discussions on friendship.4) The resultant implication of this is that a true friend

wants for his friend what that friend wants. Thus Damon and Phintias, models of

friendship, were so devoted to each other that when Dionysius of Syracuse decided to

execute one of them, and granted the condemned man permission to return home and

set his affairs in order before his death, the other did not hesitate to offer himself as

security for his friend's return. The story reflects another aspect of idealised

friendship of literature, namely a willingness to sacrifice all for one’s friend. Thus,

literary tradition had it, that in the story of Orestes and Pylades, when it was decided

that one of the friends should remain to be put to death, and the other should take a

letter to Mycenae, both men wanted to stay for the sake of the other, thinking that if
2
The question still remains as to whether this interest was that of Plautus’ or of his models. Was
Plautus merely copying extant traditions? While the issue of where Menander stops and Plautus starts
has plagued and fascinated scholars for generations, and while the evidence for New Greek comedy is
sparse, it should be emphasised that in only one of Menander’s extant plays, the Dis Exapaton, does
this double motif definitely feature. Other reconstructed cast lists feature one friend, usually that of the
young man, but not two, as we see in a quarter of the extant Plautine corpus. The impression is that the
emphasis on friendship is Plautine rather than Menandrian at least.
3
When dealing with Greek friendship there is of course the thorny question as to the role of
homosexuality /pederasty within the friendship. Such questions lie outside the scope of this paper,
however, especially since the author under examination is Plautus, who, while he was working from
Greek models, was also decidedly Roman. Whatever filiva might have meant to the original Greek
authors whose plays Plautus adapted, I do not believe that amicitia in Plautus has sexual overtones.
4
See e.g. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 1155a30-2.

2
he saved his friend’s life, he saved his own life. 5) It is understood that the ideal

friends of literature share common experiences, which are the basis for their

friendship. Friends might be comrades in arms, as Patroclus and Achilles were, or

have shared a common upbringing. Damon and Phintias were initiates together in the

Pythagorean mysteries, sharing this common experience.6) Not only do friends in the

literary tradition share common experiences but also common ideals, so that love of a

friend will inspire a person to noble behaviour, or conversely, shame him if he does

not behave nobly. For love of Patroclus, Achilles rushed into battle, filled with lust

for revenge, surely, in Homeric terms at least, a noble act. Later Greek literature

similarly regards friendship as the great inspiration for political and private life. In

this way, Plato states that a friend (lover) who is caught doing something

dishonourable or cowardly will be most pained at being detected by his friend (Plato,

Symposium 44). Underlying the whole friend relationship is an element of reciprocity,

whereby friends were expected to help each other reciprocally. While the importance

of reciprocity varied over time, both in societal values and thus in the literature of

those societies, it was always present to some degree, although a mutual ‘you scratch

my back and I’ll scratch yours’ was never enough to constitute a friendship, although

it may have demonstrated it.7) The rewards for acts of friendship in literature were far

greater than a mere returning of favours; those who performed acts of selflessness

were immortalised by the poets and writers, who glorified this relationship. In

summation, the idealised friendship of literature may be described as a reciprocal

relationship between equals who shared common ideals and experiences, and who

were prepared to demonstrate their devotion to each other by extreme acts of nobility

and personal sacrifice. As a result of such sacrifices, they gained the honour, undying

fame and approbation that were the greatest reward literature could endow.
5
See e.g. Pindar, Pyth. 15.35; Lucian Amores 32.
6
Val. Max. De Amicitiae Vinculo iv. 7; Plut. De Amic Mult.
7
See D.Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge 1997), ch.2.

3
Metatheatricality

Plautus takes the motif of literary friendship 8) and exploits it for its comic

potential, parodying this convention. He also goes further, however, parodying not

only the idealised friendship of literature, but through his characteristic and striking

metatheatricality, he plays with the conventions of comedy by parodying the comic

figure of the helpful friend, which is in itself a parody of the idealised friend of

literature. Metatheatricality is the conscious underscoring of the play as a play,

whereby drama makes reference to itself as drama. With this approach, the audience

is encouraged to view the play on two levels, both as a pretence of reality and also as

an unreal piece of dramatic fiction. As one scholar recently put it, metatheatre is

“drama within drama as well as drama about drama”.9)

Against a background of metatheatrical drama, parodies of literary tradition

take on new colour and depth. It may be questioned whether Plautus’ audience would

recognise this depth and relish such literary niceties during the actual performances.

Recent scholarship has highlighted both the metatheatrical aspect of Plautus’ work 10)

and the comparative sophistication of his audiences. Plautus’ plays were performed at

a time when Greek culture was beginning to be eagerly lapped up by the Romans. 11)

This is reflected for example in Plautus’ own use of mythological references that

would have been incomprehensible without exposure to Greek literature. The

idealised friendship outlined above a central theme of this literature from Homer

8
By ‘literary friendship’ I mean the idealised friendship of literature discussed above.
9
M. Ringer, Electra and the Empty Urn. Metatheater and Role Playing in Sophocles. (Chapel Hill
1998), 7.
10
See e.g. N. W. Slater, Plautus in Performance (Princeton 1985), 3-18, 168-78; T. Moore, The Theater
of Plautus. Playing to the Audience (Texas 1998), 1-49.
11
Greek scholars poured into Rome, and were warmly received at the end of the third Macedonian War.
Polybius, Ennius, and other Greek intellectuals arrived in Rome at this time. Early enthusiasm for
Greek learning can be seen in the example of Crates of Mallos, a famous grammaticus who was in
Rome in the first half of the second century BCE, having arrived as part of a delegation from
Pergamum. While in Rome he broke his leg, resulting in a period of convalescence during which he
gave a series of well-received public lectures that captivated the youth of the city (Suetonius, De
Gramm. 2).

4
onwards, so that it is not hard to imagine the audience being able to appreciate a

parody of this motif when acted before them in a comedy.

Such parodies may be noted in the five plays that feature the double motif of

the two helpful friends, namely the Mercator, the Trinummus, the Epidicus, the

Bacchides and the Pseudolus.12) In each of these plays, the doubling of the friend

stock character highlights and stresses the importance of this figure, drawing attention

to and emphasising the conventions that are being parodied. Even more strikingly, in

the two more sophisticated of these plays, the Bacchides and the Pseudolus,

metatheatricality features prominently, underscoring the fictitious nature of drama as

drama, highlighting even more noticeably the literary parodies being drawn.

The Double Friend Motif in Plautus

The Mercator13)

In the Mercator, friendship is a central theme of the play. The two sets of

friends, the adulescentes and the senes feature in three separate scenes each and both

friends in the Mercator represent standard acceptable Roman values. Both the senex,

Lysimachus and the adulescens, Eutychus are respectful of the gods, eager to help

their respective friends, and successful at so doing, even though the friendships cause

both men problems. In addition, the friends are typical in that they are on the same

social level and so are able to say things that another character cannot.14) Both

Eutychus and Lysimachus also represent an ideal of friendship in a relationship where

such loyalty is undeserved and unrewarded.

12
Other plays feature friendship as a theme (notably the Captivi), but without the double friend motif,
and three further plays feature friends, the Persa (Sagaristio and Toxilus); the Rudens (Palaestra and
Ampleisca; and Charmides and Labrax); the Stichus (Stichus and Sagarinus), but these cases are not of
friends to the young amator or senex and so fall outside the scope of the present study.
13
L. Nadjo’s article, L’amitié dans le Mercator de Plaute, Caesarodunum 6 (1971), 100-110, raises
many of the issues discussed here, but does not focus on the double aspect of the amici in the Mercator,
nor does he consider friendship within the wider context of Plautine comedy.
14
As Anderson (op. cit. 40) points out: ‘No lover can talk this way to any other character in comedy,
not even to his own slaves’.

5
 It is the pair of senes that we meet first. The first words we hear from

Lysimachus, before he is aware of his neighbour’s presence, are in connection with

his affairs at his farm, as he gives orders about what should be done and he then goes

on to make reference to his business at the Forum (272-3, 277-81).15 The immediate

image we have of Lysimachus is of an upright Roman man, who is fulfilling his

obligations, as a citizen should.16) His friendly greeting and pious response to

Demipho furthers this impression : Euge, Demipho, salveto. quid agis? quid fit? ….

Di melius faxint (‘Hey! Greetings, Demipho! How are you? What’s up?….May the

gods make things better’) (283-5). As soon as he sees that Demipho is troubled, he is

prepared to put aside his other business, however; a friend’s need takes precedence

over other duties in the forum (287-8). Lysimachus seems to be a pillar of society,

doing his duty by his fellow citizens, his friends and his household.

His reaction to Demipho’s love affair, is, therefore, enlightening. He is

initially shocked by his friend’s confession of love, 17) and although he denies that he

is critical of Demipho’s behaviour, he then remarks: hic homo ex amore insanit (‘This

man is crazy with love’) (316-7, 322). He seems to be torn between the demands of

society and those of friendship, as demanded by that same society. This upstanding

citizen is prepared to support his friend, as society demands, but is not blindly

supportive of his behaviour if it becomes unacceptable in the eyes of society. Indeed,

as becomes clear, part of the responsibility of friendship is to try and ensure that

friends’ behaviour is within societal norms.

This pattern of tension continues in later scenes. When next Lysimachus

appears, he is accompanying Pasicompsa, the girl with whom Demipho has fallen in

15
The texts throughout are quoted from Friedrich Leo’s edition of 1895, which remains the best edition
of the whole corpus. Translations are my own, unless noted otherwise.
16
See Konstan, Roman Comedy (Cornell 1983), 35 ff on the importance of involvement in public
affairs as a qualification for entry into society.
17
Ibid. 305-7. Tun capite cano amas, senex nequissime?...Ludificas nunc tu me hic, opinor, Demipho
(‘You’re in love, you with a grey head, you awful old man?…Now I think you’re teasing me about this
Demipho’).

6
love, and whom, we know, Lysimachus has bought at Demipho’s request. His first

words reveal the reason for his behaviour: Amice amico operam dedi: vicinus quod

rogavit, hoc emi mercimonium (‘I’ve attended to my friend in a friendly manner: I’ve

bought this purchase as my neighbour asked’) (499-500). Even when he thinks that

his friend has lied about the fact that he is married, and despite the fact that he is

uncomfortable with this news (539), he is prepared to accommodate Demipho. Correct

behaviour, which includes loyalty in friendship, is Lysimachus’ raison d’être, even

when he does not wholeheartedly approve of his friend’s behaviour. Both his

disapproval and his feelings of friendship become even more apparent in the next

scene with Demipho, where he prevents his neighbour from entering and seeing the

girl, calling him vervex (‘wether’), and demanding: ieiunitatis plenus, anima foetida,

senex hircosus tu osculere mulierem? utine adveniens vomitum excutias mulieri?

(‘would you, full of hunger, with stinking breath, a goat of an old man, kiss a woman?

Wouldn’t you send a woman vomiting as you approached?’) (574-6), a description

that is hardly complimentary. He does not, however, openly withdraw his support

from his friend at this stage, merely preventing him from coming into contact with the

girl, and providing him with reasons to postpone the meeting; he presumably hopes

that some resolution to the problem will present itself in the meantime. His is still the

perfect friend, and his role is still to advise and try and circumscribe his friend’s

behaviour so that it remains within societal norms, but to maintain his support as well.

This devotion is carried to amazing lengths as the play continues.

Lysimachus’ wife returns from the country and discovers the girl in their house, and

immediately assumes that she is her husband’s mistress. This supposition is

confirmed to her by Lysimachus’ own behaviour when questioned, for amazingly, so

keen is he to protect his friend, that he prevaricates and evades his wife’s questions

about the identity of the girl. He eventually declares that he has no connection with

7
her, but does not go as far as revealing that she is Demipho’s mistress; the ties of

friendship constrain him from betraying his neighbour, even at risk to himself. As the

complications of the plot evolve, the focus indeed moves more onto Lysimachus’

problems than those of Demipho. From the standard plot of the young man desperate

to win his girl, the play has moved through scenes of the senex amator to a play about

the nature and problems of friendship. Lysimachus complains ruefully that no good

comes of helping a neighbour (771-2), and on his wife’s departure cries in despair: at

te, vicine, di deaeque perduint, cum tua amica cumque amationibus (‘but you,

neighbour, may the gods and goddesses curse you, with your girlfriend and your love

affairs!’) (793-6). He has moved from calling his friend amicus to sodalis and now

refers to Demipho only as his neighbour. Yet he still does not betray him.

Eutychus, Lysimachus’ son, and the friend of Demipho’s son Charinus, plays a

parallel role to that of his father and acts in a similar way. The relationship between

the two young friends is set down from the first lines which Eutychus speaks, where

he describes himself as: Eutychus, tuos amicus et sodalis, simul vicinus proxumus

(‘Eutychus, your friend and mate and at the same time your nearest neighbour’)

(475). Like his father, Eutychus is supportive of his friend, offering to help him by

going to the harbour and buying the girl for him. Despite haziness over the details of

such a plan, he is prepared to do what his friend wants in his desperate state. Like

Lysimachus, however, Eutychus makes reference to Charinus’ sanity: sanun es?…

Melius sanus sis (‘are you sane?…it is better that you should be sane’) (487, 497),

echoing his father’s comment on Demipho’s behaviour. Unlike the older man,

Eutychus is unable to help his friend, however, returning unsuccessful from his

mission, since the girl has already been purchased, unbeknown by the two young men,

by Lysimachus, for Demipho.

8
 Charinus’ reaction is striking at this point. He is unreasonably outraged,

regarding this failure as a betrayal and failure of Eutychus as a friend: Eutyche,

capital facis….. Quia aequalem et sodalem, liberum civem, enicas (‘Eutychus, you’re

committing a capital offence…because you are killing your peer and friend, a free

citizen’).18) Eutychus’ response is reminiscent of his father’s reaction in his mention

of the gods: Ne di sierint (‘The gods forbid!’) he exclaims piously. Such truisms do

not console Charinus, however, who continues to show his exasperation with

Eutychus. Em istucinest operam dare bonum sodalem? (‘Is this how a good friend

provides a service?’) (620), he asks rhetorically, revealing his expectations of how a

friend ought to behave. Charinus would prefer that his friend do suffer as he is

suffering for this is the only thing which will convince him that his friend has real

empathy with his suffering. He goes on to criticise Eutychus for failing to accomplish

the mission Charinus had laid upon him, and Eutychus shows no resentment at this

abuse, asking helplessly what he should do. To his dismay, Charinus declares

dramatically that he will go into exile, and leaves the stage in a temper. Once Charinus

has gone, Eutychus reveals the reason for his disapproval of Charinus’ plan: heu

misero mihi, si ille abierit, mea factum omnes dicent esse ignavia (‘Oh, wretched me,

if he goes away, everyone will say that it was done because of my laziness’) (662).

He seems not only to be agreeing with Charinus that he has let him down, but also to

be saying that society will agree with Charinus. This leads him to resolve to use all

his resources to find the girl, and so rectify his error. The whole situation is so

exaggerated as to be absurd in this case. Charinus is carrying the obligations of

friendship to ridiculous lengths, holding Eutychus responsible for his own problems,

and Eutychus accepts this, letting Charinus’ complaints spur him on to greater efforts.

18
Ibid. 611-2. It is perhaps from this dramatic statement that Charinus derives the inspiration for his
whole exile plan, exile (or death) being the accepted punishment for one who committed a capital
crime.

9
These efforts are reflected in Eutychus’ words when he reappears, complaining that he

is worn out with searching for Charinus’ beloved.19)

Despite this exhaustion, unlike many Plautine friends, Eutychus finally

accomplishes his goal, finding the girl in his own house, where his mother wrongly

supposes her to be his father’s new mistress. When he reencounters Charinus, the

young lover is about to go into exile, and a hilarious mock-tragic parody follows, with

Charinus miming and acting out the journey of a tragic exile, 20) full of histrionic

extravagance. As Zagagi has noted,21) Charinus has already stated on what condition

he will change his plans to go into exile, declaring that he will not do so: sin sodalis

quod promisit fecit (‘if my mate has done what he promised’) (594). He makes his

actions, in other words, dependant upon his friend’s accomplishments, rather than his

own. This threat of exile, as Zagagi stresses, “plays an important role in bringing

about the solution to the complications of the plot”. 22) When the two friends meet in

this scene, Eutychus has good news for Charinus; he greets him triumphantly, and

eventually tells him that he has found his beloved girl. Charinus greets this news with

joy, urging Eutychus to wish for whatever he desires, adding uncharacteristically:

Deos orato ut eius faciant copiam (‘Pray the gods that they will make an abundance

of it’) (908). This surely signals to us that he is not to be taken seriously, and in fact

Eutychus takes this comment that way, saying uncertainly: Derides (‘You’re laughing

at me’). From this point on, euphoric in his joy, he continues to mock his friend, and

his own plans which are now unnecessary, and even drama itself, with his exile

parody. It is notable throughout this scene that Eutychus, who was to have been the
19
Ibid. 805-6. Defessus sum urbem totam pervenarier: nihil investigo quicquam de illa muliere (‘I am
worn out with searching all through the city; I find nothing whatsoever about this woman’).
20
For the elements of tragedy that this scene parodies, see F.Leo, Plautinische Forschungen (Berlin
1912) (2nd. Ed, repr. 1966), 134-6, who suggests that Sophocles’ Teucros was the model for Plautus’
own model, Philemon. E. Fraenkel, Elementi plautini in Plauto (Florence 1960), 56 n.1 believes that
this section was added by Plautus, but Zagagi, Exilium amoris in New Comedy, Hermes 116 (1988),
198 disagrees. Whether it is Plautine, or Philemonean, it is clear that tragedy is the background being
parodied, however.
21
N. Zagagi, op. cit. 197.
22
Ibid. 199.

10
cause of the exile, is unaware that this is mockery. The more Charinus throws himself

into his part, the wilder he gets, the less Eutychus understands what is happening. He

tries to reason with his friend, he again comments on Charinus’ sanity, and he remains

earnest and well intentioned to the last (925-956). He is disturbed by Charinus’

flights of imagination, and completely unaware of the mockery that is happening here.

He plays the ‘straight man’ to Charinus’ ‘funny man’.

Anderson has suggested that the effect of this scene is to increase our

sympathy with Eutychus, and decrease that with Charinus. He maintains that the

more extravagant Charinus’ excesses become, and the more ridiculously he behaves

towards his friend, the ‘more attractive Eutychus becomes in his tolerance and

continued dedication to service.’ He goes on to state: “Finally when Charinus starts to

act out his tragic role…he emotes thus at the moment when we and Eutychus know

that all his problems have, in fact, been solved. So he seems particularly ridiculous, in

contrast to the real and deserved satisfaction that his friend is allowed to voice and

feel in a service ably performed”. 23) I would agree that Charinus is ridiculous in this

scene; but I would hesitate to eulogise Eutychus in this way. I suggest that our

sympathy with Charinus does not grow here and that the effect is to mock the earnest

idealised friendship of Eutychus, rather than to idealise it. Eutychus is so worthy, and

devoted that he becomes ridiculous, lacking in humour, and a figure of fun. What

Plautus is doing here, I believe, is parodying the idealised tradition of devoted

friendship so beloved in literature.24) If Plautus is presenting any philosophical

question, it is perhaps that of what happens when these lofty ideals are presented in

terms of ordinary, non-idealised people and situations as opposed to epic heroes and

mythological characters.

23
Anderson, op. cit. 40.
24
See Nadjo, op. cit. 108; Anderson, op. cit. 35-6.

11
 This being comedy, however, rather than real life, good still wins out, and

nothing shows the focus of this play better than the final scene. In this scene, both

friends, Eutychus and Lysimachus, appear together with Demipho, and emerge

triumphant over him. Lysimachus learns that his wife is no longer angry, provoking

the pious response, true to character: Di me servant (‘the gods are saving me!’). This

exclamation stands in contrast to Demipho’s reception of the news that he has no

mistress: Di te perdant (‘May the gods destroy you’) (966-7), an exchange

reminiscent of the earlier words in the friends’ first scene (285). Lysimachus and his

son Eutychus then unite in attacking Demipho quite savagely. The word ambo is

stressed in this scene: Optima opportunitate ambo advenistis….. animum advortite

igitur ambo…. Quin tibi ambo operam damus…. ego adsistam hinc altrinsecus.

quibus est dictis dignus, usque oneremus ambo (‘you have both met me at the most

opportune time….therefore, both of you, pay attention….well, let us both give you

our attention…I’ll stand here on the other side, let us both burden him with such

speeches as he deserves’) (965; 968; 977-8); but whereas the pairing in the first three

cases is that of the two old men, Demipho and Lysimachus, by the final example,

Lysimachus has changed camps, and sides with his son against Demipho, who

quickly concedes his guilt, and promises to return the girl to his son. This

reconciliation, and the fact that Charinus himself does not appear in the final scene at

all emphasises how the play has changed form a standard ‘boy gets girl’ love story, to

an examination of the issue of friendship. The doubling of the stock character of the

sodalis opitulator here emphasises the importance of friendship in this play, and

brings this theme to the forefront.

The Trinummus

12
 In the Trinummus, Plautus presents us with the usual sets of friends, the young

men, Lesbonicus and Lysiteles, and the pair of elderly friends, Megaronides and

Callicles, both of whom are also friends of Lesbonicus’ father, Charmides. 25) This

play has been criticised, particularly by Erich Segal, who declared that “though

Plautus wrote both good plays and bad, this is his only boring one”, 26) citing the play’s

morality as the reason for this boredom. Anderson went some way towards showing

that the morality here is not necessarily to be taken seriously however. 27) I would

suggest that this is indeed the case, and that Plautus mocks the morality, and in

particular the ideal friendship so central to morality, through the dual motif of men

who are depicted as going to ridiculous lengths to help their friends, and whose ideal

behaviour is parodied throughout the play.

Friendship is such an important theme in this play that not only is friendship

the subject of the first words spoken in the play proper, the very first word spoken is

itself amicus. Megaronides who has come in order to rebuke his friend, Callicles,

appears and declares:

Amicum castigare ob meritam noxiam

immoene est facinus, verum in aetate utile

et conducibile. nam ego amicum hodie meum

concastigabo pro commerita noxia,

invitus, ni id me invitet ut faciam fides.

(‘To rebuke a friend for a deserved fault is a thankless task, but a truly beneficient and

expedient one in life. For I will chastise my friend severely today for a well deserved

fault, unwillingly, but my loyalty bids me to do it’) (23-7).

25
The play also features a fourth old gentleman, Philto, father of Lysiteles, but since he seems to have
no relationship with the other two old men, he will not be discussed here.
26
E.Segal, The Purpose of the Trinummus, AJPh 95 (1974), 252. He attributes this remark to
Wilamowitz.
27
W.S. Anderson, Plautus’ Trinummus: The Absurdity of Officious Morality, Traditio 25 (1979), 333-
345.

13
 From the outset, Megaronides is setting out his view of friendship, with its

responsibilities and expectations. Like Lysiteles in the Mercator, Megaronides is the

most moral of friends, holding true to his ideal standards of friendship; 28) and like

Lysiteles, he believes that even when it is unpleasant, a friend must not shirk his duty,

for he also shares responsibility for the behaviour of his comrades, and their glories

and disgraces reflect upon him. If a man sees a friend behaving in a way likely to

bring disgrace upon himself, he is obliged to rebuke him, and if he does not do so,

then that disgrace falls upon himself as well. As a good friend – an ideal friend even,

living up to these high standards - Megaronides has come to castigate Callicles now

for what he believes is a lack of responsibility Callicles has shown towards another

friend – he is rebuking him according to the unwritten laws of friendship for not

following those same laws of friendship. Even the argument Megaronides produces

as to why Callicles should not act as he seems to have done is based upon how his

other friends will view him for having betrayed his friendship with Charmides. 29) In

other words, unsocial behaviour brings disgrace not only upon the perpetrator, but

also upon his friends, who have not fulfilled their obligations and who share

responsibility for his actions. We are reminded here of Eutychus’ fear in the

Mercator, a fear which spurs him on to act. Megaronides uses the ideal of friendship

to castigate Callicles’ lack of friendly action towards Charmides, while holding

himself up perhaps as the model of responsible friendship as he performs his duty,

however disagreeable it may be.

This perfect friend is soon shown up however. Callicles quickly explains that

there is a secret hoard of gold hidden in the house, and that he has bought the house in

order to safeguard the money and so provide a dowry for Charmides’ daughter.

28
See T. J. Moore, The Theatre of Plautus (Texas 1998), 81-4.
29
Trinum. 75-6. He declares that: omnibus amicis morbum tu incuties gravem, ut te videre audireque
aegroti sient (‘you will be producing a serious illness for all your friends, so that they feel ill when they
see and hear you’).

14
Callicles states that Charmides regarded him as a true friend, a fact he proves by

saying that when Charmides had to go away he entrusted his daughter and all his

property and affairs to him (113-5). Similarly, when Charmides told him of the

hoard, he made him swear per amicitiam et per fidem (‘by his friendship and by his

loyalty’) that he would never reveal it. Clearly, Charmides had no doubts about

Callicles’ loyalty. Equally clearly, his trust was not misplaced, as a remorseful

Megaronides quickly agrees.

Callicles also regards Megaronides as his friend, and believes that he is a good

friend: sed tu ex amicis mi es certis certissimus (‘But of my certain friends, you are

the most certain’). He agrees that it is incumbent upon Megaronides to reproach his

friend if he sees him behaving in a manner that is unfitting; such are the burdens of

friendship: si quid scis me fecisse inscite aut improbe, si id me non accusas, tute ipse

obiurgandus es (‘if you know that I have done something stupid or shameful, you

yourself should be rebuked if you do not call me to account’) (94-6). If it is apparent

from the outset that Megaronides is a good friend to Callicles, carrying out his duty

without hesitation; it is soon obvious that Callicles behaves with equal devotion

towards the absent Charmides. These virtuous acts help neither man, however.

Megaronides finds that he has made a fool of himself, for he has misjudged Callicles,

who has himself suffered as a result of his efforts on behalf of Charmides. Even

Charmides himself, when he returns, at first misjudges Callicles. The theme recurs in

the scene between Callicles and Charmides, after Charmides arrives home and

discovers that Callicles has bought his house from Lesbonicus. He confronts his

friend with the words: O Callicles, o Callicles, o Callicles, qualine amico mea

commendavi bona? (‘Oh Callicles, oh Callicles, oh Callicles, to what sort of friend

did I entrust my goods?’). Callicles is able to set him right, however, (1094-6) and

15
continues to be depicted consistently as an ideal friend, as Charmides’ slave,

Stasimus, notes:

Hic meo ero amicus solus firmus restitit,

neque demutavit animum de firma fide,

quamquam labores multos

sed hic unus, ut ego suspicor, servat fidem.

(‘That one steadfast friend has held out for my master, never did he change his mind

from solid loyalty, although he underwent many troubles, this man alone, so I suspect,

has kept faith’) (1110-1113).30)

It seems not to occur to him that this wonderful behaviour has brought him nothing

but problems - problems which Plautus takes delight in exploiting for their comic

potential.

A similar emphasis is evident in the relationship between Lesbonicus,

Charmides’ son, and his friend, Lysiteles. Even before Lesbonicus appears, Plautus

has created a picture of what these two men are like. Lysiteles, when talking with his

father, describes Lesbonicus as: Adulescenti hinc genere summo, amico atque aequali

me (‘a young man of the highest family, a friend and contemporary of mine’) (326-7),

and goes on to explain that his friend lost his money partly: Per comitatem edepol,

pater (‘through friendliness, by Pollux, Father’) (33-334). This explanation is proved

accurate in the next scene when the words of Lesbonicus’ slave, Stasimus, who

grumbles that some at least of Lesbonicus’ financial worries were caused by a young

man to whom Lesbonicus had lent money but who failed to pay his debts, leaving

Lesbonicus, as guarantor with the bill (428). Lesbonicus agrees, but says that he was

sorry for his friend, which seems to him a justification for his actions.

30
This passage is heavily corrupt and read in various ways, but the general sense seems clear enough.

16
 Lysiteles’ father, Philto, is unimpressed by his choice of friend, who has lost

his fortune through no good reason, and warns: nil moror eum tibi esse amicum cum

eius modi virtutibus (‘I do not want him to be a friend of yours with virtues of this

sort’) (337). Philto eventually succumbs to Lysiteles’ plea that he marry Lesbonicus’

sister without a dowry, because Lysiteles wants to form a tie of amicitiam et gratiam

friendship and gratitude with his friend’s family, to place them in a reciprocal, but

unequal relationship, which has long term benefits for both sides (382-3). Once

again, a tie of friendship is the pivot around which the plot revolves, and once again,

Lysiteles is portrayed as a perfect friend, eager to help his mates, and prepared to

suffer even financial loss for this cause, while Lesbonicus has allowed himself to be

impoverished partly for the same reason.

Lysiteles proposal that he marry Lesbonicus’ sister without a dowry is an

extraordinary measure of generosity, to which his father had agreed with reluctance. 31)

Lesbonicus does not view this act in the same way, however. When Lysiteles and

Lesbonicus meet, it is their two different views of Lysiteles’ act of friendship that is

the focus. When the two friends appear, Lysiteles is chasing Lesbonicus, and the two

are quarrelling. Lesbonicus accuses Lysiteles of doing amico iniuriam, while

Lysiteles thinks that he is doing beneficium and describes himself as benevolens.

Both of these misapprehensions are based upon the ideals of friendship. Lysiteles’

attitude is that he is doing Lesbonicus a favour, because he is prepared to take his

sister without a dowry and is leaving the last remaining property, a farm, for him,

which will give him a means of support (687). Lesbonicus’ fear is for his reputation,

if this happens (692-4). His concern is that people will castigate him for his actions,

and this takes priority in his mind over Lysiteles’ friendship. For this reason he

throws his friend’s extravagant generosity back in his face.

31
W.S. Anderson, op. cit. above n.3 42 emphasises that Lysiteles’ motivation ‘becomes so ‘good’ as to
be preposterous’.

17
 Finding his generosity rejected, Lysiteles also expresses concern about his

reputation. He fears that Lesbonicus will go into voluntary exile as soon as his sister

is married, since he has no means of support, and that people will say that this is due

to Lysiteles stinginess (703). Both young men are worried about their reputations, but

whereas Lesbonicus is worried about what people will say about how he has treated

his sister, Lysiteles is concerned about what they will say about his treatment of a

friend. Clearly, Stasimus is on Lysiteles’ side: euge, Lysiteles, palin. facile palmam

habes: hic victust, vicit tua comoedia (‘Hooray, Lysiteles, encore! You win the prize

easily: this one is defeated, your comedy has won!’) (705-6) he cries in a burst of

metatheatrical praise. This is not surprising, however, for Stasimus is desperate to

keep the farm to avoid having to accompany his master into exile, with all its

concomitant hardships. Neither figure seems particularly sympathetic. Lysiteles is

self-righteous and self-satisfied, and it is unclear how his proposal benefits anyone

except himself; it is accepted in new comedy that to marry without a dowry is

unacceptable for a respectable woman, and to give a woman in marriage without a

dowry a disgrace.32) Paradoxically, when it comes down to it, rather than compromise

his own ideas on what being a good friend means, he is prepared to break off his

friendship with Lesbonicus. It is a measure of his feelings that his lasts words to

Lesbonicus in this scene are: sin aliter animatus es, bene quod agas eveniat tibi, ego

amicus numquam tibi ero alio pacto. sic sententia est (‘but if you think otherwise,

may what you do turn out well for you, I will never be your friend on any other terms.

That is my decision’) (715-6). Lysiteles, who has been portrayed from the beginning

as a model youth, respectful of his father, devoted to his friends, and well aware of his

responsibilities which he attempts to fulfil without fail, is ultimately unable to live up

to the ideals of friendship and is prepared to cast off his friend when his pride is hurt,

in a true mockery of these ideals.

32
See V.J.Rosivach, When a Young Man Falls in Love (Routledge 1998), 14-15.

18
 Once again, this being comedy, the two friends are eventually reunited, thanks

to Charmides’ arrival solving the problem of the dowry. Once again, friendship as a

theme is central. We hear of the friendship between Charmides and Callicles (1125-

6), that between Callicles and Megaronides and Charmides (1147-8) and that between

Lesbonicus and Lysiteles (1177). By the end of this scene, both young men are to be

married, and through these arrangements, friendship is restored all round. Yet the

portrayal of the different friends during the main body of the play lingers;

Megaronides so full of self-importance and self-rightousness, his conceit pricked like

a bubble, having exercised his duty as a friend pointlessly; Lesbonicus, making grand

gestures of generosity, only to have them rejected to his dismay; even Charmides’

readiness to believe that Callicles has betrayed his trust. Plautus seems to examine the

nature of friendship in the Trinummus, and the comic complications friendship entails,

at different stages of life. By employing two such friends, he is highlighting that

everyone is bound and confined by the chains of friendship, whether they are young

lovers or old men. As in the Mercator, the friends in this play perform amazing acts

of friendship, causing themselves substantial problems in their fulfilment and finding

that friendship is in actuality a very different affair from how it is traditionally

perceived. Once again, the traditional stereotype of the devoted friend is being

mocked for its comic effect,33) and the overall impression is that these ideal friends

have suffered more than they have gained by their friendship. This being Plautus not

tragedy, this is a subject for mirth not tears.

33
Anderson, op. cit. 41-5 sees the extreme virtue of the friends and its incongruity as resulting from
Plautus’ adaption of Philemon, and his differing interests and priorities; I suggest rather that these
qualities are exploited for their comic potential as parody, than that they are the result of slipshod
joining on Plautus’ part.

19
 The Epidicus

A different kind of mockery occurs in the Epidicus, a mockery connected

closely with the central theme of the play, namely the supremacy of the slave,

Epidicus.34) Unlike the friends in the Mercator and the Trinummus, the friends in the

Epidicus are completely inept. Early on in the Epidicus, Stratippocles, the young

lover, is seen with his friend, Chaeribulus, who sympathizes with Stratippocles’

problems in acquiring money to pay for the girl, but is of no practical use, being

unable to lend his friend the money, due to his own financial problems (118).

Stratippocles is unimpressed by this state of affairs. He has already declared what a

true friend is in his opinion: is est amicus, qui in re dubia re iuvat, ubi est opus (‘he’s

a friend, one who is of use in an emergency, when there is need of him’) and now he

goes on to exclaim in exasperation that he has no use for friends such as these (111-

12; 119). From this point on, the action of the scene moves to the slave, Epidicus,

who, ironically is the person who most meets Stratippocles’ ideas of what a friend

should be; Chaeribulus is no more than a spectator, playing no part whatsoever in

furthering the plot.

Chaeribulus reappears once more in one later scene, with Stratippocles, at the

start of which Stratippocles is awaiting Epidicus’ return, anxious to know whether the

slave has procured the money he requires. Chaeribulus first declares his lack of faith

in Epidicus’ ability and promises vengeance on the slave (324-7). A little later,

Epidicus himself comes out and presents Stratippocles with the money, proving

Chaeribulus completely wrong. He then plays a very minor role in the rest of this

scene, but makes admiring noises at Epidicus’ cleverness, completely changing his

negative stance of a few lines earlier, and showing himself to be easily swayed. His
34
See S. Goldberg, Plautus’ Epidicus and the Case of the Missing Original, TAPA 108 (1978) 88f; N.
W. Slater, Plautus in Performance (Princeton 1985) 35f; E. Segal, Roman Laughter (Oxford 1987)
(2nd. Ed), 109-110, 122.

20
ineffectuality is also clear in this scene; he would give his friend the money if only he

had it, but he cannot. Stratippocles turns upon his friend, criticising him, resentful of

his inability – or unwillingness – to help him (328-9), but whereas such comments

provoke other friends to greater efforts to fulfil the obligations of friendship,

Chaeribulus’ reply is one of helplessness. He can offer only vague philosophical

generalisations in answer to Stratippocles’ problems, which Stratippocles gives short

(331-6). Chaeribulus is no friend to him, when push comes to shove; rather it is

Epidicus who provides what is necessary. This is the final impression we receive of

Chaeribulus. At the end of the scene, he enters his house with Stratippocles and is not

seen again in the play.

The scenes involving the other friend, Apoecides, who is the amicus of

Stratippocles’ father, Periphanes, closely parallel those involving Chaeribulus and

Stratippocles. Immediately after the first scene involving the two young friends,

Periphanes and his friend Apoecides appear. Apoecides’ first speech, in which the

idea of pudor reoccurs five times (pudet…pudendum…pudor…pudeat…pudendum)

(166-9), echoes Chaeribulus’ ‘idne pudet te’ (107), while both men are concerned

with the issue of their friends’ relationships with a female, or more specifically, how

the rest of society looks upon these relationships. Like the other elderly friends of the

Mercator and Trinummus, Apoecides is a pillar of virtue, representing the moral

Roman values. Apoecides is supportive of his friend, as his son is supportive of his,

but seems more resourceful at first sight, coming up with the plan to solve Periphanes’

worries, namely that Stratippocles should be married off at once. 35) This plan comes

to nothing, but provides Epidicus with the inspiration for his trick to obtain the

money. From this point, as in the earlier scene, Epidicus takes centre stage and

Apoecides plays a supporting role to that of Periphanes, lending his approval to as

Epidicus explains his supposed plan. Apoecides is completely fooled by Epidicus :

35
189-90 – there is a lacuna of 2 lines at this point.

21
‘fieri oportet….’, ‘quid ego iam nisi te commentum nimis astute intellego?’(‘’It ought

to be done’….’what should I except that I think you’ve arranged it very cleverly’’)

(270, 281), and the scene ends with him preparing to go to the forum with Epidicus to

purchase the flute-girl, who is supposedly the mistress of Stratippocles. When he

reappears accompanied by the girl whom Epidicus has hired, Apoecides is full of

praise and admiration for Epidicus, as Chaeribulus had been in the scene before. 36)

His mission accomplished, Apoecides heads off to the forum to fulfil an obligation to

another friend,37) leaving Periphanes to muse upon the delights of friendship: nihil

homini amicost opportuno amicius: sine tuo labore quod velis actumst tamen (‘A man

can have no better friend than a friend in need. Without any work from you, whatever

you want will happen’) (425-6), words heavy with dramatic irony.

Apoecides makes a final appearance in the last scene of the play, worn out

with accompanying Periphanes in his hunt for Epidicus. He has participated in this

search because of his loyalty to his friend, but that loyalty is now wearing thin. He

suggests that Periphanes would do well to seek another companion (668-9, 679). At

that point Epidicus appears, in order to perform his final victorious trick, and

Apoecides slips once more into a supporting role, first of all warning Periphanes

against the slaves’ wiles, but quickly being persuaded by him, replying to Periphanes’

helpless, appeal for advice, quid agas? Mos geratur (‘What should you do? Obey

him’), and going on to admit, ei, non illuc temerest (‘There is some good reason for

this’) (693, 714).

Neither Apoecides nor Chaeribulus do anything to further the plot of the

Epidicus particularly; it is true that Apoecides does bring back the fake Acropolistis

from the Forum, but this is hardly a crucial phase of plot development which the

audience have to witness in order to comprehend the events of the play. Rather, the

36
Apoecides declares at 410: Ne tu habes servom graphicum et quantivis preti, non carust auro contra.
37
Cf. Lysimachus in the Mercator, above.

22
function of both friends seems to be to complement and enhance the characters of

Periphanes and Stratippocles, highlighting their ideas of what constitutes friendship,

and how far these two characters are from being the ideal friends of their imagination.

Apoecides is willing to help – at least until this becomes burdensome – but reveals

himself inept and incapable, as easily fooled as Periphanes by the slave Epidicus,

despite his reputation as the wiser senator of the two. Chaeribulus mouths platitudes

about wanting to help, but is of no practical use whatsoever. It is clear that Epidicus

fills the role which true friends should fill in a way in which neither Chaeribulus nor

Apoecides can do. Once again, Plautus is mocking the convention of literary

friendship, whilst also exploiting one of his favourite stock characters and themes,

that of the servus callidus, by creating a slave who fulfils the duties of friendship

better than either of the ‘helpful friends’ of convention.

The Bacchides

In the Bacchides a slave is also able to help where friends are not, but here the

issue is more complicated. In this play, as Tatum has pointed out, everything is

doubled; there are two sisters, two slaves, even two plays here, so it is unsurprising

that there are two young lovers and two old fathers as well. 38) It is not even clear who

is actually the leading adulescens in the play and who is his friend. The first young

man we meet is Pistoclerus, and it is his love affair that dominates the first scenes of

the play. He, at first glance appears to be the central figure. Yet when Mnesilochus’

slave Chrysalus appears, we learn that Mnesilochus has requested help from

Pistoclerus, his friend, setting Pistoclerus up as the friend rather than the central

figure.

38
J. Tatum, Plautus: the Darker Comedies (John Hopkins 1983), 16.

23
 Mnesilochus mistakenly believes that Pistoclerus has betrayed him and this

prompts him to hand his father all the money he has brought with him, wrecking

Chrysalus’ carefully wrought plan. When Mnesilochus reappears, having learnt the

truth, he castigates himself severely in yet another soliloquy, upbraiding himself for

his lack of fellow feeling and trust towards his friend; he now fulfills the role of

adulescens to Pistoclerus’ helpful friend.39) Pistoclerus, like a typical supportive

friend, tries to console and rebuke him in the standard way, with the usual mixture of

appeal to the gods, rebuke (combined with comments about sanity) and consolation.40)

Yet despite these conventional roles, there is confusion here. It is still not clear who is

the main adulescens and who the friend. In this play, which revels in duplex

everything, the traditional roles blur; there are in place of the usual adulescens, two

adulescentes, both of whom are in love, and both of whom play supporting roles as

each other’s friends as well. Not only does each actor probably play more than one

role,41) the characters play multiple roles as well. Thus both Pistoclerus and

Mnesilochus are helpful friends and young lovers, and the line between the two roles

is blurred and even interchanged. The two men even perform a parody of the usual

‘lover and friend’ routine: Pl: si mihi sit, non pollicear. Mn: scio, dares, novi. Sed nisi

ames, non habeam tibi fidem tantam (‘Pi: If I had it, I wouldn’t offer. Mn: I know,

you would give it, I understand. But if you weren’t in love, I wouldn’t have such faith

in you’) (635-6). In place of the friend’s usual ‘If I only had it I’d give it to you’, ‘No

you wouldn’t!’, we have ‘If I had it I wouldn’t offer it to you!’ ‘Yes you would’. 42)

Whereas the friend is usually not in love himself, and so can be trusted to help his

sodalis putting his worries before his own, here Mnesilochus declares that he trusts

Pistoclerus because he is in love. In this play of dazzling doubles, everything is

39
See N. Slater op. cit. 102.
40
Bacch. 626-8, 630: di melius faciant….non taces, inspiens?...sanu’ sati’ non es….heia, bonum habe
animum (‘May the gods make things better…can’t you be quiet, idiot?…you are too crazy….come on,
take heart’).
41
See D. N. Lacey, Like Father, Like Son: Comic Theme in Plautus’ Bacchides, CJ 74 (1978), 132-5.
42
Cf. Epidicus 116-9.

24
inverted and no one is entirely as he seems. The young friends are not entirely the

stock characters of tradition nor are they completely the young lovers of convention,

and thus they defy the audience’s expectations of what these stock characters were

doing.

Despite this lack of clarity, it is clear is that they regard each other as friends

and that their friendship is a central defining and motivating factor in their lives. It is

some time before we see the two adulescentes, Pistoclerus and Mnesilochus, together,

but by the time the two men appear, we have already heard the word sodalis eighteen

times. In every case, Mnesilochus and Pistoclerus are described as sodales, this is the

term they use to address each other and talk about each other, and this is the term

others use to refer to their relationship. 43) The word amicus has also figured six times,

once again in reference to the relationship between the two young friends –

Mnesilochus explains to Lydus that Pistoclerus had been performing a service for him

as amico et…suo sodali – and five times in general statements about the wider group

of a man’s ‘friends’.44) Even before they appear together, the friendship between the

two men is firmly fixed in our minds and depicted as the central characteristic that

conditions and motivates their behaviour. It is in part this friendship that prompts

Pistoclerus to agree to Bacchis’ plan (60). It is because Mnesilochus believes that

Pistoclerus has betrayed his friendship and stolen his love that he hands over all the

money to his father, Nicobulus, leading to the quarrel scene between the two friends.

This scene centres around friendship. Pistoclerus’ first words on entering are:

estne hic meu sodalis? (‘is this my mate?’), while Mnesilochus responds on his part

with: estne hic hostis quem aspicio meus? (‘is this my enemy whom I see?’) (534).

Mnesilochus goes on to explain that he has been wronged: ab homine quem mi

43
Sodalis is found at: Bacch. 26, 60, 175, 187, 389, 404, 414, 435, 453, 460, 467, 468, 475, 484, 489,
495, 501.
44
Bacch. 347, 377, 380, 386, 475, 477.

25
amicum esse arbitratus sum antidhac (‘by a man whom I judged to be my friend until

now’) (539), leading to a series of generalisations about the nature of friends (the

word amicus occurs five times in the space of twenty lines), packed with irony due to

Pistoclerus’ ignorance of having done anything wrong.45) Eventually Mnesilochus

bursts out with his accusation: Pistoclere, perdidisti me sodalem funditus

(‘Pistoclerus, you have destroyed me completely, your friend’) referring to him for the

first time in this scene as his sodalis (560). This betrayal by his sodalis, hurts as much

as, or possibly even more than, the supposed loss of Bacchis. Friendship - or his

belief that his friendship had been betrayed - was the central cause of Mnesilochus’

actions, and yet this lack of trust reveals that he himself is a less than perfect friend.

Both his expectations of friendship and his own inability to live up himself to those

expectations cause his hopes and plans to come tumbling down around him.

It should also be noted that Plautus diverges from Menander considerably at

this point, cutting out two father-son conversations between the

Sostratos/Mnesilochus figure, and expanding the scene between the two friends in its

place. 46) In this expansion, as Barsby points out, 47) he adds “a moralising discussion

on false friends (540-8)” and makes “Mnesilochus unwilling to name Pistoclerus

outright (549-58)”. The result is that, amongst other things, “the moral aspects of the

alleged betrayal are heavily underlined”. Plautus is also once again stressing and

examining the theme of friendship, by placing it firmly before our eyes, and once

again highlighting that, contrary to literary ideals, to be a friend is a thankless task.

45
Ibid. 539, 541, 547, 549, 557.
46
See also Handley’s classic study, Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison (London 1968); J.
R. Clark, Structure and Symmetry in the Bacchides of Plautus TAPA 106 (1976), 85-96 who points out
the increased symmetry of the play and also stresses how this symmetry emphasises the theme of
friendship (93); and V. Pöschl Die Menanderpapyri und die Originalität des Plautus (Heidelberg 1973)
who stresses how Plautus has enhanced Mnesilochus’ character in comparison with that of Menander’s
Sostratos.
47
J. Barsby, Plautus: Bacchides (Aris and Phillips 1986), 143.

26
Like Callicles in the Trinummus, Pistoclerus has done all that his friend asked; but he

is distrusted and unrewarded by his friend.

Unable to help each other, the friends, as in the Epidicus, turn to another figure

for assistance: tuam copiam eccam Chrysalum video (‘I see Chrysalus, your source of

supply’) (639) declares Pistoclerus in relief. From this point onwards it is the slave,

Chrysalus, who takes centre stage. Like Chaeribulus in the Epidicus, Pistoclerus falls

into the role of admiring and willing assistant to the crafty slave, fetching the

necessary utensils as commanded, supporting his friend readily, and obeying

Chrsyalus’ instructions without demur, finally exclaiming in admiration: o

imperatorem probum! (714-60). Yet what seems to be happening in the Bacchides is

one stage more advanced from the set up of the Epidicus. In that play, the usual roles

of the helpful friends were nullified in a glorification of the eponymous slave figure,

Epidicus. In the later play, we witness not only a nullification, but also a reversal of

the standard role. In a conventional helpful friend set-up, the friend succeeds in

helping the adulescens to solve his problems; in the Epidicus, the friends were unable

to help; in the Bacchides despite Pistoclerus’ success before the play actually starts,

once the play is underway the friend not only cannot help, but actively causes the

problems, in the sense that Mnesilochus’ returning all the money brings Chysalus’

first plan tumbling down around his ears. Contrary to literary tradition, once again,

Plautus highlights the futility of trying to be a perfect friend, at least within a comedy,

but in the Pseudolus he does so in such a way that the very convention of the helpful

friend character is mocked as he toys with the audience’s expectations of who this

character is and how he will behave. Plautus blurs and inverts these expectations,

moving the focus to Chrysalus the slave who is also master contriver and master

playwright, in charge of this production.48)

48
See Slater, op. cit. 94-117 for a full discussion of Chrysalus’ role as playwright and the
metatheatricality of this play.

27
 Equally unexpected is the behaviour of the second pair of friends, the two

senes, who appear together in the final scene of the play. These are at first sight, not

friends at all, being bound to each other through their sons rather than through a

common societal bond or neighbourliness. Thus Philoxenus calls Nicobulus pater

Mnesilochi (‘father of Mnesilochus’) (1104). The two old men soon discover a

common bond however. Nicobulus rejoices at seeing his socium aerumnae et mali

(‘partner in trouble and misfortune’) (1105), and the two men discover that they share

a common affliction (their sons’ having taken mistresses) and purpose (to summon the

women outside and demand that they give up the affair). Thus, they are now friends,

and when the Bacchides begin to seduce them, Philoxenus addresses Nicobulus as

such, saying that he wants to tell him something, which makes him ashamed, but:

amico homini tibi quod volo credere certumst (‘since you’re a friend I am resolved to

confide to you what I want’) (1156). His confession is that: ego amo (‘I’m in love’).

In other words, he is transformed into a senex amator. Simultaneously, Nicobulus is

transformed into the parallel figure, the sodalis opitulator (the helpful mate).

Predictably, he responds with disgust, as a good helpful friend should (1162-3). Soon,

however, Nicobulus is weakening (1174). He struggles to maintain his grip on his

character: vidi ego nequam homines, verum te neminem deteriorem (‘I have seen good

for nothing men, but truly none worse than you’), but then unlike typical friends, he

suddenly gives up his role and his principles, exclaiming: age iam, id ut ut est, etsi est

dedecori, patiar, facere inducam animum (‘Well, come on, that’s it, even if it is

dishonour, I will suffer it, I will persuade my soul to do it’) (1180, 1191). The play

ends with the unexpected scene of the two old men, being led into the house of the

Bacchis sisters. They are no more old man and helpful friend than the young men

were young man and helpful friend. Nicobulus is no true friend – he fails to maintain

his role and criticise and prevent his friend from doing wrong; and in fact succumbs to

28
the same temptation himself. The ideal of friendship has once again failed, and

become the subject of mockery for Plautus as he plays with the conventions of

friendship to reveal that in comedy they are doomed to disappointment. In this play

of duplexes, the double friendship is as empty as perverse as the end of the play is

unexpected. At the end of the play the two sets of friends are together, but united not

in virtue and resolution of problems, but in corruption and an inversion of Roman

morality and identity. It seems that the senes and the adulescentes are equal, maybe

even interchangeable. As such, they are both sets of helpful friends, in the comic

tradition, but friends who do not fulfil expectations as Plautus uses the stock figures to

play with the typical conventions of comedy.

Pseudolus

This trend is carried even further in the Pseudolus, which is, as Slater49) and

Wright50) have pointed out, a play riddled with metatheatricality. This theme is

reflected in Plautus’ use of the double friend motif here too, even though the two

friends in the Pseudolus figure less prominently than those in many of the other plays,

appearing in only one scene each. Simo appears together with his friend Callipho at

line 415, where Simo opens his heart to his friend, sharing his worries about the

rumours he has heard about the behaviour of his son, Calidorus. Callipho’s first

words are a standard moral old man approach, a generalisation, which is a pseudo-

philosophical condemnation of rumourmongers, and is reminiscent of the old friend in

the Trinummus (427-8). He maintains his philosophising air as he goes on to play

down the seriousness of the charges laid against Calidorus (433-5), setting himself up

in the role of the kindly old man, as Pseudolus immediately comments, using the term

senex lepidus, which is a term used to describe the stock character and which conveys

49
Slater, op. cit. 118-146.
50
J. Wright, The Transformations of Pseudolus, TAPA 105 (1975), 403-16.

29
approval of a character. In this state he is in contrast to the figure of Simo, who plays

the typical harsh father, standing in the way of his son’s love. Callipho continually

stands in opposition to Simo, rebuking his attitude to his son. He points out that his

behaviour as a young man was reprehensible, and that this is the direct cause of his

son’s profligacies (440-2), his position as an equal enabling him as usual to castigate

his fellow senex. So far, he is the stock character, the helpful friend and kindly old

man, combined.

When Pseudolus appears, Callipho sets himself up as his ally, however, and

stands against Simo. When Simo wants to attack Pseudolus, Callipho urges caution

(448-50). When Simo expresses outrage at Pseudolus’ insolence in expressing anger

with his master, Callipho sides with the slave (476-7). Even when Pseudolus admits

to having deceived Simo, Callipho’s mild response is: numquid pecatum est, Simo?

(‘Has he sinned, Simo?’) (495). Throughout this scene, Callipho maintains his

support of Pseudolus, against Simo. Plautus emphasises the theatricality of

Pseudolus’ personality in this scene, as the slave adopts different roles as the occasion

requires.51) As Slater has suggested, Simo becomes “an audience here for Pseudolus’

poetic creation and, what is more a paying audience”. I would suggest that Callipho’s

role is similar, in that he is also a spectator to Pseudolus’ plays, but he is an admiring

and appreciative audience. He exclaims: edepol mortalem graphicum, si servat

fidem! (‘By Pollux, he’s a masterly creature, if he keeps his word’) (519), and declares

enthusiastically: studeo hercle audire, nam ted ausculto lubens (‘I’m dying to hear,

by Hercules, for I listen to you with pleasure’) (523). Finally he states plainly

lubidost ludos tuos spectare, Pseudole (‘I fancy watching your games, Pseudolus’)

(552), setting out Pseudolus’ role as actor and his own as spectator.

Callipho leaves at this point, and does not appear again, despite Pseudolus’

injunction to him to stay on hand for the day. The problem of why Plautus
51
Slater op. cit.127-30.

30
emphasises the need for Callipho to remain on hand, but then fails to introduce him

again has troubled critics for generations. I would suggest that the reason for this is

connected with the metatheatricality of the play. Callipho’s role does not change from

this point on; and Pseudolus does have a task for him, namely to act as audience to his

ludus. A recent article has even suggested that Callipho is placed in the audience

itself rather than on the stage for the rest of the play.) 52 While I would not necessarily

go so far as to state this, I would suggest that one reason for Plautus’ emphasis upon

Callipho’s remaining on hand, and providing a service here is to stress the

metatheatrical role which he plays. It also has the effect of inverting audience

expectations about how he will behave; having been set up as the typical helpful

friend, he is neither successful, as in the Mercator and Trinummus, nor unsuccessful

as in the Epidicus and Bacchides, but rather pushed into the role of passive spectator

who is so ineffectual that he can do nothing. Once again, it is a slave who can take

the lead, as Pseudolus comes into his own.

Yet even Pseudolus stands in danger of being challenged by another figure in

the play, the young friend, Charinus, with whom Plautus lets his metatheatrical bent

take wing. Pseudolus has asked the young lover, Calidorus, to find a kindly young

man to assist him in the plan he is going to devise. Calidorus appears with Charinus,

who introduces himself as et amicum et benevolentem (699). This young man seems

to be a new friend – he does not recognise Pseudolus. 53) When Pseudolus instructed

Calidorus to find someone who is capable and kindly disposed, the young master has

seized upon Charinus, a young man who fulfils both of these conditions, and who, in

addition, declares himself to be an amicus. It may be argued that what Charinus, the

52
H. Takahashi, Plots and Play in Plautus’ Pseudolus, Classical Studies of Kyoto University 13 (1996).
53
Willcock complains (Plautus: Pseudolus, Bristol Classical Press 1987), 121 that it is not explained
why “Calidorus’ close friend Charinus should not know Pseudolus by sight. It is mutual (712)” but it
seems more likely that Calidorus has only just met this new ‘friend’ Charinus.

31
character, and the actor, is saying here is that he is prepared to play that well known

role of the amicus. It is for this purpose that Calidorus has brought him here.

Pseudolus’ plan has now changed, however; whereas before he needed a

helper, now that he has changed his plan (or formulated a new one), he does not need

someone to play the part of the amicus; rather he needs a slave, and a typical crafty

Plautine slave at that. Charinus is still eager to do his part but Pseudolus is

unenthusiastic (713). Charinus insists however that he does want to help, and

Pseudolus explains that he can achieve his goals: si modo mihi hominem invenietis

propere (‘if only you will find me a man quickly’) (724). The word he uses here,

invenio has a double meaning; it means both ‘find’ and ‘invent’. I suggest that in the

metathetarical context of this play, the latter meaning is implicit. Pseudolus is asking

Charinus to create a character, and he outlines in detail what sort of character it should

be.54) Charinus agrees that he can create such a persona, and adds some details of his

own to meet the circumstances.55) Pseudolus is delighted with this, and then

continues with his demands, asking for money, and a soldier’s uniform. Charinus

agrees easily – this is fiction after all – to Pseudolus’ delight, and the two then return

to the issue of the character’s details, an area at which Charinus proves so adept that

Pseudolus exclaims: Eugepae, lepide, Charine, meo me ludo lamberas, which may be

translated as: ‘Wow! Great, Charinus, you are tearing me to pieces at my own

game!’), or also ‘in my own play’ (743). Pseudolus is in danger of being usurped in

his own eponymous play by this figure who is as creative as he is. Thus the figure of

Charinus is yet another example of self-conscious theatre, as the actor takes on role

54
Ibid. 724-7. Malum, callidum, doctum, qui quando principium prehenderit, porro sua virtute teneat
quid se facere oporteat; atque qui hic non visitatus saepe sit (“Bad, crafty, clever, someone who once
he has grasped the beginning, then can hold on by his own ability to what he needs to do, but someone
who is not too well known here”).
55
Ibid. 729-31. Posse opinor me dare hominem tibi malum et doctum domo, qui a patre advenit
Carysto nec dum exiit ex aedibus quoquam neque Athenas advenit umquam ante hesternum diem (‘I
think I am able to give you a bad and clever man from my house, who arrived from Carystus from my
father, and who hasn’t yet gone out of the house nor has he ever been to Athens before yesterday
evening’).

32
after role, the adulescens, the helpful friend, and even the crafty slave. 56) Plautus

takes the conventional figure of the helpful friend here and parodies not the idealised

friend of literary tradition, but the stock character of the comic theatre, and he does

this, not once but twice, possibly by way of emphasising his point. Charinus is a

friend who is no real friend, having only just made Calidorus’ acquaintance, and takes

on the role not of ‘helpful friend’ as the audience would expect, but that of the ‘crafty

slave’, and does so in a supremely self-conscious way. If Callipho is not only player

but also audience, then Charinus, is not only character, but also playwright. It is

through exploitation of the stock character of the friend, and our expectations of what

the role of this figure is, that Plautus puts a spin on these two figures within the

Pseudolus.

* * *

The five plays in which Plautus uses two sets of friends are very different; and yet I

believe that they have commonality too. Plautus highlights a subject that interested

him, friendship, by a doubling of the motif in order to look at other literary or

dramatic themes. These themes include the ideal literary friendship, the supremacy of

the Plautine slave and the whole issue of the drama itself. It is through the

exploitation of these ideas that much of the humour of the plays derives, as Plautus

uses them for their comic potential in a representation of human life of which

friendship is a central feature.57

Department of Classics,
Bar Ilan University,
Ramat Gan
Israel
email: lmaurice@bezeqint.net

56
It is also possible that the same actor played both the part of Charinus and that of the ‘slave’ Simia,
adding to the multi-layered illusion here.
57
I wish to thank the editor and referee, as well as David Schaps, who read an earlier draft of this paper,
for their helpful remarks.

33