Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:10:28.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Cook Scene of Plautus' Pseudolus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. C. B. Lowe
J. C. B. Lowe
Affiliation:
London
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

H. Dohm has amply demonstrated how the cook of Plautus, Pseud. 790ff. exhibits characteristic features of the mageiros of Greek comedy. He has also argued, however, that this scene contains substantial Plautine expansion, comparable with that which has been recognised in the cook scene of the Aulularia. I wish to suggest that Dohm is largely right but that the Plautine expansion is even more extensive than he supposes.

In 790–838 Plautus is probably for the most part following his Greek model fairly closely. One can trace a logical sequence of ideas, as follows. Ballio: ‘I couldn't have found a worse cook’ (792–7). Cook: ‘Why did you hire me then?’ (798–9a). Ballio: ‘You were the only one left. And why was that?’ (799b–801a). Cook: ‘I am expensive, but nowadays people look for cheap cooks, who produce only concoctions of seasoned vegetables. That is why men are so short-lived’ (801b–25). Ballio: ‘You can make men live longer then?’ (826–8a). Cook: ‘Certainly, for 200 years’ (828b–30). The cook then proceeds to give a list of his fantastic sauces for fish and meat (834f. Neptuni/terrestris pecudes), until he is cut short by Ballio's ‘Damn your lies’ (836–8). We have here a typical comic mageiros: he is loquacious and boastful (794 multiloquom, gloriosum), claims magic powers (829f.), denigrates his rivals (810–25), reels off lists of foods, real and fictitious (814–17, 831–6), and uses grandiose language (834f. Neptuni pecudes).

Within this essentially Greek section there are three short passages which look like Plautine additions. First, Dohm is surely right, following E. Fraenkel, to see 790f. as a Plautine addition.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , December 1985, pp. 411 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Mageiros (Munich, 1964), 139–53Google Scholar; cf. Theiler, W., Hermes 73 (1938), 286Google Scholar.

2 Burck, E., Wien. Stud. 69 (1956), 265–77Google Scholar, Klingner, F., SIFC 27/28 (1956), 157–70Google Scholar, Dohm, , Mageiros, 243–59Google Scholar.

3 Cf. Men. Sam. 283–5 and Gomme, A. W. & Sandbach, F. H., Menander: a Commentary (Oxford, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ad loc.

4 Cf. Philemon fr. 79.24–6 K. ⋯θανασίαν εὕρηκα…

5 Cf. Posidippus fr. 1 K.

6 Cf. Men. Dysc. 946–53 and Handley, E. W., The Dyskolos of Menander (London, 1965)Google Scholar, ad loc.

7 Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin, 1922), 68Google Scholar = Elementi Plautini in Plauto (Florence, 1960), 64Google Scholar.

8 Artem. On. 5.82, Dem. 18.288, Kurtz, D. C. — Boardman, J., Greek Burial Customs (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 1971), 146Google Scholar.

9 Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion (Munich, 1967 3), i. 179Google Scholar.

10 Hegesipp. fr. 1 K. The same would apply to the feasts in honour of the dead which took place from the Hellenistic period, sometimes at the tomb (cf. Laum, B., Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike [Leipzig, 1914], i. 74)Google Scholar.

11 Luc. Luct. 9, 19; cf. Hdt. 5.94η2–3, Nilsson, , Gesch. gr. Rel. 179fGoogle Scholar.

12 Varro, , Men. 303 BGoogle Scholar. = Non. p. 68 L. funus exequiati laute ad sepulcrum antiquo more silicernium confecimus, id est περίδειπνον. quo pransi…, Fest. p. 376 L. <silicernium dicitur cena fu>nebris…<Caecilius Ob>olostate [fr. 122f. R.3]: cre<didi silicernium eiu>s me esse esurum, Apul. Flor. 4.95 rogum demolirentur, cenam feralem a tumulo ad mensam referrent, Tert. Apol. 13.7 quo differt ab epulo lovis silicernium?, Marquardt, J., Das Privatleben der Römer (Leipzig, 1886 2), 378, 383Google Scholar, Toynbee, J. M. C., Death and Burial in the Roman World (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 1971), 50fGoogle Scholar. It was natural that the Roman funeral meal, silicernium, should be equated with the perideipnon, despite the differences. So Plutarch, , Quaest. Rom. 95Google Scholar, speaks of the Romans using beans πρ⋯ς τ⋯ περίδειπνα.

13 Tae. Ann. 6.5.1 cum…epularetur, novendialem earn cenam dixisse, Porphyr. on Hor. Epod. 17.48 novendiale dicitur sacrificium quod mortuo fit nova die qua sepultus est, Apul. M. 9.31.2 iamque nono die rite completis spud tumulum sollemnibus, Cic. Vat. 31 quis umquam in luctu domestico, quis in funere familiari cenavit cum toga pulla?, Marquardt, , Privatleben 380Google Scholar.

14 Varro, , LL 6.13Google Scholar M. feralia…quod ferunt turn epulas ad sepulcrum, quibus ius ibi parentage (cf. Macr. S. 1.4, Fest. p. 75 L.), Dessau, H., Inscriptions Latinae Selectae (Berlin, 1892–1916)Google Scholar, no. 7258 parental. et rosar. quotann. at sepulcrum suum celebrent, Tert. Spect. 13.4 neque de sacrificio et parentato edimus; cf. Marquardt, , Römische Staatsverwaltung (Leipzig, 1885 2), iii. 310–13Google Scholar, Frazer, J. G., The Fasti of Ovid (London, 1929), ii. 431–5Google Scholar. It seems probable that cena feralis (Juv. 5.85) or epulae ferales (Plin. NH 20.113) could refer to any meal at the tomb, not only the silicernium (Apul. loc. cit. n. 12).

15 Tert. Test. Anim. 4.5 in convivio eorum quasi praesentibus et conrecumbentibus.

16 Ov. Fast. 2.538f. sparsae fruges parvaque mica salis inque mero mollita Ceres, Aug. Conf. 6.2 pultes et panem et merum, Amob. Adv. Nat. 7.20 salsas fruges.

17 Plin. NH 18.118 (puls fabata) parentando utique adsumitur, Calpurn. 3.82 ferales lupins, Plut. Crass. 19.5 ɸακοὺς κα⋯ μάζαν, Quaest. Rom. 95 ⋯σπρίοις, Fest. p. 77 L. faba.

18 Cic. Leg. 2.54 hostia…maxima parentare pietatis esse adiunctum putabat (implying that this was exceptional). It is clear from Ov. Fast. 2.533ff. that the offerings to the dead at the Parentalia could be very modest, although they would sometimes be on a larger scale (541 nec maiora veto). To sacrifice an animal, which should be black (Marquardt, , Röm. Staatsverw. iii. 174, 312Google Scholar), was perhaps not very common.

19 The Greek recipe may, however, have contained only the green leaves of the mustard plant, which are included, with coriander, among green vegetables by Thphr. Hist. Plant. 5.1.2 and Diocles of Carystus ap. Ath. 2.68d (cf. Apic. 4.2.7 patinam ex…sinapi viridi, Plin. NH 19.171). We cannot hope to reconstruct the Greek recipe in detail. It is not certain that σίλɸιον (laserpicium) was included; it is the one item in Plautus' list which cannot be a green vegetable, and to prescribe 1 lb. is a gross exaggeration. Roots (Thphr. Hist. Plant. 6.3.2) or dried stalks (Hermipp. fr. 63.4 K.; cf. Ar. Eq. 894f.) were imported into Athens from Cyrene; since the flavour was very strong, it was only necessary to grate a little over the food (Ar. Av. 1582). If the juice was used, only the smallest drop was needed (Apic. 1.10). Dohm's analysis of this passage is vitiated by a too rigid distinction between Gewürze and Gemüse; he fails to recognise that for the Greeks coriander, fennel and mustard, as well as garlic, belonged in both categories.

20 Lorenz, A. O. F., Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus, IV: Pseudolus (Berlin, 1876)Google Scholar, ad loc. and Dohm, , Mageiros, 149Google Scholar, compare the mageiros of Hegesipp. fr. 1 K., who has only to lift the lid of his pot to turn the tears of the mourners at a funeral to laughter; but the difference is more significant than the similarity. Iuppiter incenatus may be compared with Aul. 368 superi incenati, which is probably Plautine invention (cf. Dohm, , Mageiros, 246Google Scholar).

21 Cf. Fraenkel, , P. im P. 111ff.Google Scholar = El. Pl. 105ff.

22 Apparently idiomatic; cf. Cato, , Agr. 2.2Google Scholarsi…opus non apparet, Cic. Fam. 16.18.3 fac opus appareat, Ps. Quint. Decl. 13.15 ut tantum factum opus appareat, Hor. Ep. 2.1.224 lamentamur non apparere labores nostros, OLD s.v. appareo 3, TLL ii. 265.12–21.

23 Dohm, , Mageiros, 129–34Google Scholar.

24 Plautinisches and Attisches (Berlin, 1931), 57 n. 1.Google Scholar

25 It has something in common with other exaggerated catalogues of orders to slaves which show Plautine expansion: Pseud. 133ff. (Fraenkel, , P. im P. 143–6Google Scholar = El. Pl. 136–9), Stich. 58ff. (Hermes 111 [1983], 451Google Scholar, Fraenkel, , P. im P. 162–5Google Scholar = El. Pl. 154–7).

26 Fraenkel, , P. im P. 82fGoogle Scholar. = El. Pl. 77f. It was an easy mistake to make, since Pelias, Aeson's half-brother, was notoriously also cooked by Medea on the pretext that he would thereby be rejuvenated. Cicero, , Sen. 83Google Scholarquo quidem me proficiscentem haud sane quis facile retraxerit, nec tamquam Pelian recoxerit, seems to make the same mistake, although he does not go so far as to state that Pelias was in fact rejuvenated. Varr. Men. 285 B. Pelian Medeae permisisse, ut se vel vivum degluberet, dum modo redderet puellum does not necessarily imply that Pelias was rejuvenated, but only that he wished to be (whereas in the usual version of the story the intention was not his but his daughters'). The theory of Meyer, H., Medeia and die Peliaden (Rome, 1980), 114–20Google Scholar, that Plautus, Cicero and Varro refer to a lost Greek comedy or satyr-play, which gave a new twist to the myth in depicting the rejuvenation of Pelias, is unconvincing. Meyer shows that there is no evidence in Greek literature or art for the rejuvenation of Pelias (although in some versions of the story Jason was rejuvenated).

27 Hermipp. fr. 24 K. ῥύζων ἄπαντας ⋯πέδομαι τοὺς δακτύλους (cf. Suda ῥαζεῖν κα⋯ ῥυζεῖν, τ⋯ ὑλακτεῖν, Hesych. ῥάζειν: τρώγειν, κυρίως ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ν κυν⋯ν), Alexis fr. 172.5 K. ⋯⋯ν παραθ⋯ σοι, προσκατέδει τοὺς δακτύλους σαυτῷ γε χαίρων, Aristophon fr. 9 K. παράθες αὐτοῖσιν ἰχθ⋯ς ἢ κρέας κἄν μ⋯ κατεσθίωσι κα⋯ τοὺς δακτύλους, ⋯θέλω κρέκασθαι δεκάκις. Rather different is Pherecr. fr. 13 K. ⋯πόταν δ' ἤδη πειν⋯σιν σɸόδρα…περιτρώγειν αὑτ⋯ν τοὺς δακτύλους.

28 E.g. Amph. 309–34.

29 Cf. Aul. 306f., Poen. 490.

30 Cf. Men. Asp. 233ff., Dysc. 441, Sam. 105.

31 Cf. Emout, A., Plaute vi (Paris, 1938)Google Scholar, ad loc.

32 Classical Antiquity (forthcoming).