Profiting from Manipulation:
The Case of Lucrio in the Miles Gloriosus

Christopher W. Bungard (The Ohio State University)

In staging many of his characters, Plautus allows his audiences to gaze into the inward contradiction between who individuals are and who they think they are. One form that this contradiction takes comes with the manipulation of blocking figures by characters like the servi callidi. Slater (2000) has done much in exploring the various ways in which Plautus self-consciously deals with theater as theater, particularly in the case of his tricksters. His conclusions leave the potential of Plautus’ use of metatheater trapped on the stage. In reassessing Slater’s position, Batstone (2005) highlights that Plautus is not simply working with theatrics, but rather he is engaged in a project that tells us about who we are, “always an act, always a project, always a plot.” (44) Plautus exposes the dangers that come from actually believing we are one unitary self, rather than a mishmash of potentials suited to varying circumstances.

The two main blocking characters in the Miles Gloriosus both cleave to a singular identity of themselves. Both Sceledrus and Pyrgopolynices are trapped by their own self-image into seeing the world they inhabit as fixed, rather than seeing the many potentials of their world that image-manipulating Palaestrio does. Sceledrus can be trapped by Palaestrio because he can only see himself as a failed guardian, and Pyrgopolynices believes in his powers of womanly seduction so much that he comes to believe he has committed adultery with a woman he could not possibly commit adultery with. Between the deception of Sceledrus and Pyrgopolynices, Plautus stages a scene between Palaestrio and Lucrio. Though the scene serves a functional purpose, it also reaffirms the usefulness of seeing the world as a source of many flexible opportunities.

Throughout the play, we see Palaestrio refusing to take the world as fixed and essential, controlling how others will act by manipulating their fixed images of themselves. Lucrio takes this manipulation of language and images beyond serving a goal of trickery, unleashing the energy behind what Palaestrio does to others. Palaestrio accuses Lucrio of pouring out wine for Sceledrus. Keeping in mind that Sceledrus forbade him to say anything, Lucrio denies that he poured the wine, measured out a couple of liters, and Sceledrus had a drink. (830-2) Sceledrus has only forbidden Lucrio to say what he has done, not to not say what he has done. Lucrio finds a loophole available to him, and exploits that loophole for his own fun. This scene takes a further plunge into the absurd as Lucrio describes jugs refilling themselves in an unending bacchanalian dance. (851-6) The concrete world of human agents gives way to the fantastical world of the imagination’s working. By relying on the manipulation of images, Lucrio frees what is going on inside from the limitations of human agents. His fun in the cellar can take any form he wishes when it is moved solely into the realm of images and the imagination.

Lucrio maintains this carefree attitude until Palaestrio reintroduces the one person who can drag Lucrio back into the care-filled world of a fixed identity. Palaestrio tells Lucrio he is headed off to go find Pyrgopolynices in the forum. (858) As a result of this news, Lucrio’s fun in the cellar comes to a close. If only briefly, Lucrio identifies himself as a slave again, and the world of punishment returns. Yet a character like Lucrio cannot be fully drawn back into a world of fixed identity. He flees the stage with one last request for Palaestrio, “If trouble is doled out, take my share while I am away.” (865-6) His exit ends in the same spirit of potential and possibility that his entrance ensued.

This scene enacts a logical extension of the spirit that fuels what Palaestrio does throughout the play. Lucrio refuses to limit the potential use of his words to predictable responses for Palaestrio, who is seeking information about Sceledrus. Lucrio is partly able to do this because he has no investment whatsoever in the plot. He stands outside the plot, and consequently is freed from its demands. While this nonsensical banter that Lucrio partakes in can provide much humor, it cannot be the meat of a drama. Drama demands characters respond to situations they have some stake in. Palaestrio, bound by his investment in the plot, cannot fully escape the symbolic world of images and languages.