Apollonians and Dionysians of the Plautinopolis

Manic pixie dream girls, tortured artists, Mary Janes—within modern literature lie recurring archetypes which direct a character’s actions and are indicative of their virtues. Although seeming to reduce a character’s self-derived autonomy and complexity, these generic prototypes may sometimes lead to simultaneous depth and dissonance within a figure as they reconcile their outward actions and internal desires with the responsibilities of their assigned stock character. In ancient literary works (most notably tragedy), these archetypes have traditionally presented themselves in the Apollonian-Dionysian dichotomy proposed by Friedrich Nietzsche, in which the Apollonian appeals to restraint and rationale while the Dionysian epitomizes instinct and emotion. However, in Roman comedy, particularly fabula palliata (plays set in Greece rather than Rome), the behavior of stock characters seem to diverge from Roman society’s expectations for its citizens. Taking place in the caricatured Plautinopolis, the Grecian setting and comedic delivery of stock characters mask the performances’s commentary on Roman society and its citizens' behavior. In this inverted world, characters transgress tradition and assume roles near-opposite to the ones expected of them in customary Roman society—the ‘clever slave-servant’ exhibits Apollonian self-determination and virtue as he outsmarts high-born members of the upper class; the matrona patronizes her husband in an overbearing manner. In Plautus’s The Haunted House and The Brothers Menaechmus, the incongruencies created by the Menaechmi, wives and women, and slave-servant stock characters pose criticisms on the infrastructure of Roman society—however, these critiques are discreetly concealed by Plautus under the guise of fabula palliata.

In The Brothers Menaechmus, the mistaken identities of Plautus’s protagonists prevent the audience from distinguishing the two brothers and their respective virtues as they continuously are mistaken to be the same individual—however, the homogeneity between the characters exemplifies the inextricably-intertwined nature of the Apollonian-Dionysian dichotomy, posing a greater commentary on the assumed exemplum for Roman citizens when contrasted with the ‘clever slave’ archetype. During Plautus’s lifetime, the exemplum for the Roman man was characterized by the term virtus, used to describe an honorable citizen who upholds the pillars of marital success and religiosity. However, while the Romans seemed to idealize Apollonian restraint, the typical fantasy of the Roman male appeared to be rooted in the indulgence of luxury without consequence; the ability to buy into prostitution and decadence. This jarring contradiction is exemplified by the Menaechmi—while Menaechmus II indulges in the typical fantasies of a male Roman citizen without repercussion, Menaechmus I bears the burden of their mistaken identity despite both similarly encompassing the archetype of ‘the young man.’ Following his encounter with Erotium, his twin brother’s prostitute, Menaechmus II exclaims with joy, “[I’ve] received more pleasures, though expecting none at all: / I’ve wined, I’ve dined, I’ve concubined, and robbed her blind,” further appealing to Dionysian excess (Plautus, The Brothers Menaechmus, 98). In a society where order, rationality, and logical thought are idealized, Menaechmus II causes further disarray not only by causing further confusion surrounding his identity but also feigning madness. Claiming to hear divine figures, Menaechmus II addresses the two very gods which construct the Apollonian-Dionysian dualism, exclaiming, “Bacchus! Yo-ho, Bacchus, in what forest do you bid me hunt? [...] / “What, Apollo? Now your oracle commands me: [...] / set this woman’s eyes on fire (Plautus, The Brothers Menaechmus, 114).” Menaechmus II’s appeal to Dionysian chaos and madness stands in stark contrast to Menaechmus I’s responsibility to restore order following his brother’s lawlessness, which perhaps acts as a metaphor for internal strife and the warring of psyches. Ostensibly set in Greece, Plautus’s play may act as an inward criticism towards those in Rome who indulge in decadence without having properly earned the privilege or merit to do so; those who reap the benefits of a socially stratified lifestyle without consequence.

However, of notable importance is the fact that the Menaechmi’s high-born status does not guarantee them immunity from Plautus’s antics—under the guise of comedy, Plautus crafts his slave-servant stock characters to be more intelligent and clever than their masters. In the Mostellaria, the slave Tranio concocts an impromptu maneuver to prevent his master’s father from finding out about the former’s ostentatious spending; in The Menaechmi, Menaechmus I’s slave, Messenio, is the first to realize the familial relations between the protagonists of the same name. By highlighting the slave figures’ Apollonian rationale and intellect, Plautus actively undermines the aristocratic (senatorial and equestrian) classes—the predominant sectors within Roman politics and law. The Plautinopolis, a world of reversal in which the roles of slaves and masters are opposite of those desired in Roman society, is further exemplified in Mostellaria, where Tranio acts as an author-surrogate for Plautus, narrating, “if a man has talent, it’s no different if he’s a slave or master”—this statement can be contextualized with Plautus’s past as a slave-turned playwright (Plautus, The Haunted House, 407). Through subverting the intellect of the aristocratic class and making “slave[s]” and “master[s]” equivalent upon the basis of talent, the playwright seems to present opinions which may cause controversy in the public eye and contradict the vast majority of (aristocratic) public opinion. However, Plautus may have skillfully been able to avoid criticisms to his work under the guise that his comedies are set in Greece—considerable emphasis is placed on the setting of The Menaechmi during its prologue, in which the actor speaks of the “comic poets,” who claim, “‘It all takes place in Athens, folks,’ [...] / So that everything will seem more Greek to you (Plautus, The Brothers Menaechmus, 9).” By claiming his comedies are commentaries on Greek (rather than Roman) society as well as the usage of comedic stock characters, the playwright disguises his criticisms for ancient Rome through allowing the predominantly-Roman audience to remove themselves and dissociate from the critiques interlaced throughout his plays.

Further elements, such as the role of the wife or matrona, are added to the play in order to heighten the outlandishness of the Plautinopolis. Plautus’s matrona, for example, treats her husband as if he were her slave, further transgressing the norms of ancient Roman society with her overbearing nature. While acceptable in Plautus’s inverted world, the exclamations of Menaechmus I’s wife as she demands a divorce would not be considered acceptable in Roman society, in which the exemplum of wives is expected to be subservient, demure, and content with domesticity. Instead, the wife of Menaechmus I exclaims to whom she presumes is her husband (but in actuality is her brother-in-law), “I won’t stand for that. I won’t! I won’t! / I’ll die a divorcée before I’d live with you”—this brash declaration further allows the audience to separate the play from reality while allowing the playwright to make radical and experimental commentary without facing repercussions himself (Plautus, The Brothers Menaechmus, 726).

The usage of comedic stock characters within ancient Roman comedy is counterbalanced by the rich nuance and strife within multiple figures across texts—the playwright appeals to not only setting but also the expectations of audience members in order to establish a variety of identities within a singular character trope, resulting in complex contradictions which are representative of his criticisms of the world at large.