When he writes his Apocolocyntosis, Seneca has already established visual cues for the immoral ma... more When he writes his Apocolocyntosis, Seneca has already established visual cues for the immoral man in his philosophical works. Thus, his descriptions of Claudius’ voice and appearance are more than simply comic. Rather, they portray Claudius as unrestrained, as laid out in Seneca’s other works.
John Wright wrote in 1975, “[P]erhaps the most important problem [of the Pseudolus], is the appar... more John Wright wrote in 1975, “[P]erhaps the most important problem [of the Pseudolus], is the apparent weakness of the central character himself, the slave Pseudolus.” Since then, metatheater has been the common solution to this problem. Niall Slater and Timothy Moore, two prominent scholars on metatheater in the plays of Plautus, use this solution in two very different ways. Slater uses metatheater to mean Pseudolus’ status as a stand-in for the playwright. He feels this status grants Pseudolus control over his surroundings and his fellow characters. Moore focuses more on techniques such as breaking the fourth wall to prove that Pseudolus exhibits a power over the audience. I posit, contrary to Slater, that Pseudolus has no authority over the other characters, and that whatever success is afforded him in the play is due to audience manipulation. My presentation examines three key events in the Pseudolus: when Pseudolus fools Harpax, when the cook talks with Ballio, and when Simia tricks Ballio. In each of these moments, it will be shown that Pseudolus exhibits no power over the other characters, but relies solely on luck. Ultimately, however, he does win the favor of the spectators, and so Moore’s argument seems the most valid. This paper goes further in that it claims Pseudolus’ luck within the play is due to the power he exhibits over the audience. By convincing the audience to favor him as the hero of the play, he causes events to conspire in his favor.
When Vegio wrote his Supplementum, he intended his work to complete what he believed to be an unf... more When Vegio wrote his Supplementum, he intended his work to complete what he believed to be an unfinished Aeneid. In accordance with Renaissance tradition, Vegio believed an epic should praise virtue and disparage vice. Accordingly, he wrote the Supplementum in such a way as to erase the ambiguities present in Virgil's Twelfth Book. This paper studies the effect of Vegio’s additions on three instances in Book Twelve of the Aeneid: the sudden conclusion, the use of ira and furor in the final scene, and the characterization of Turnus. In these instances, Vegio attempts to influence the text according to the standards of his time.
When he writes his Apocolocyntosis, Seneca has already established visual cues for the immoral ma... more When he writes his Apocolocyntosis, Seneca has already established visual cues for the immoral man in his philosophical works. Thus, his descriptions of Claudius’ voice and appearance are more than simply comic. Rather, they portray Claudius as unrestrained, as laid out in Seneca’s other works.
John Wright wrote in 1975, “[P]erhaps the most important problem [of the Pseudolus], is the appar... more John Wright wrote in 1975, “[P]erhaps the most important problem [of the Pseudolus], is the apparent weakness of the central character himself, the slave Pseudolus.” Since then, metatheater has been the common solution to this problem. Niall Slater and Timothy Moore, two prominent scholars on metatheater in the plays of Plautus, use this solution in two very different ways. Slater uses metatheater to mean Pseudolus’ status as a stand-in for the playwright. He feels this status grants Pseudolus control over his surroundings and his fellow characters. Moore focuses more on techniques such as breaking the fourth wall to prove that Pseudolus exhibits a power over the audience. I posit, contrary to Slater, that Pseudolus has no authority over the other characters, and that whatever success is afforded him in the play is due to audience manipulation. My presentation examines three key events in the Pseudolus: when Pseudolus fools Harpax, when the cook talks with Ballio, and when Simia tricks Ballio. In each of these moments, it will be shown that Pseudolus exhibits no power over the other characters, but relies solely on luck. Ultimately, however, he does win the favor of the spectators, and so Moore’s argument seems the most valid. This paper goes further in that it claims Pseudolus’ luck within the play is due to the power he exhibits over the audience. By convincing the audience to favor him as the hero of the play, he causes events to conspire in his favor.
When Vegio wrote his Supplementum, he intended his work to complete what he believed to be an unf... more When Vegio wrote his Supplementum, he intended his work to complete what he believed to be an unfinished Aeneid. In accordance with Renaissance tradition, Vegio believed an epic should praise virtue and disparage vice. Accordingly, he wrote the Supplementum in such a way as to erase the ambiguities present in Virgil's Twelfth Book. This paper studies the effect of Vegio’s additions on three instances in Book Twelve of the Aeneid: the sudden conclusion, the use of ira and furor in the final scene, and the characterization of Turnus. In these instances, Vegio attempts to influence the text according to the standards of his time.
Uploads
Papers by Charles Burke
I posit, contrary to Slater, that Pseudolus has no authority over the other characters, and that whatever success is afforded him in the play is due to audience manipulation. My presentation examines three key events in the Pseudolus: when Pseudolus fools Harpax, when the cook talks with Ballio, and when Simia tricks Ballio. In each of these moments, it will be shown that Pseudolus exhibits no power over the other characters, but relies solely on luck. Ultimately, however, he does win the favor of the spectators, and so Moore’s argument seems the most valid. This paper goes further in that it claims Pseudolus’ luck within the play is due to the power he exhibits over the audience. By convincing the audience to favor him as the hero of the play, he causes events to conspire in his favor.
I posit, contrary to Slater, that Pseudolus has no authority over the other characters, and that whatever success is afforded him in the play is due to audience manipulation. My presentation examines three key events in the Pseudolus: when Pseudolus fools Harpax, when the cook talks with Ballio, and when Simia tricks Ballio. In each of these moments, it will be shown that Pseudolus exhibits no power over the other characters, but relies solely on luck. Ultimately, however, he does win the favor of the spectators, and so Moore’s argument seems the most valid. This paper goes further in that it claims Pseudolus’ luck within the play is due to the power he exhibits over the audience. By convincing the audience to favor him as the hero of the play, he causes events to conspire in his favor.