^{page 78 note 1} Plautus (-urn, -o): Ter. An. s8 (166 B.C.), Ad. 7, 9 (160 B.C.); [P1.] Cas. 12, 14, 34, 65 (160–150 B.C.?). These from within living memory of the author ([ob.’ 184 B.C., Cic. Brut. 60), the rest problematic: Men. 3, Po. 54, Tri. 19, Tru.; [P1.] ap. Gell. N.A. 1, 24; Aelius Stilo ap. Quint. 10. 1.99; Accius didasc. ap. Varro de comoediis Plautinis i ap. Gell. N.A. 3. 3. 9; Volcacius Sedigitus ap. Gell. N.A. 15. 24. These attestations are all directly traceable to the second century B.C. In the first century s.c. (Varro, Cicero, Horace) and subsequently (grammarians, etc.), this is the regular name. N.B. The genitive Plauti is only attested for the second century B.C. once, Ter. Eun. 25.

^{page 78 note 2} Macci Titi: Mer. to (mactici B, mattici CD); Accius loc. cit. (m. accii titi PR, macticii V), corr. Ritschl, F., Parerga i, 1844, pp. 1–43. (In printed editions before Ritschl's Trinummus of 1848, these passages were emended Marci Accii [and As. 11 Marcus] and the playwright was known as M. Accius Plautus. Renaissance scholars seem to have made false inferences from Varro L.L. 8. 36. On any view, Accii is impossible at Mer. to as the only available genitive of that name is a disyllabic Acci).Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 3} Maccus: As. 11, not to be changed (e.g. Macciu' would give a split anapaest and false ecthlipsis).

^{page 78 note 4} (M)accius: Varro L.L. 7. 104 (‘Maccius in Casina’ [267]); problematic, as Varro habitually refers to ‘Plautus’, as e.g. in the immediate context); Festus p. 274 L (‘…]us poeta’) with Paulus p. 275 L (‘poeta accius’); Fronto p. 162 N. (‘accius plautus’); Pliny N.H. praef. lib. 14. (maccio plauto, m. accio plauto).

^{page 78 note 5} T. Macci Plauti Casina explicit, subscription to Carina, fol. 224a of the palimpsest; the only direct evidence for the writer's having had tria nomina, and not strong evidence either.

^{page 78 note 6} (a) Cas. 34 Plautus cum latranti nomine: this remains enigmatic even if the traditional interpretation in the light of Paulus p. 259 L (plauti appellantur canes quorum aures languidae sunt, etc.) is relevant and the connection is ‘dog’ see Leo ad loc., Ernout, A., Plaute, 1957, p. 157Google Scholar n. 1. I have no better suggestion to make. (b) Po. 54 Plautus Patruus pultiphagonides (platus cod.) is possibly a periphrasis for Maccius (not Maccus: -ius = -ides, ‘son of’). The missing links in this possible identification are (i) evidence that Maccus in Atellane Farce (see below) was an uncle; (ii) evidence that the word maccum, which occurs in a glossary as an explanation of , i.e. puls, a concoction of grain and vegetables, and which maintains a tenuous survival in some Romance dialects (Beare, W., Roman Stage, 1964, p. 139)Google Scholar would have been connected, whether by folk-etymology or rightly, with Maccus. (Lindsay's and Ernout's text is impossible, in spite of Pasoli, E., Latinitas xxviii (1960), 29–36. There is a lacuna between 53 and 54 [so Geppert, 1864], in which graece must have been expressed [cf. Cas. 32 ff., Mer. 9 f., MG 86, Tri. 18, Ter. Pho. 24 ff.; Plautus As. 10 f., graece barbare = graece latine]. One cannot make ‘Patruus’ the Latin title, because (a) one cannot supply uocat from uocatur, (b) Patruus cannot be treated as an indeclinable noun against all analogy [it is the object of the imaginary uocat], (c) the proposed hyper-baton Plautus ‘Patruus’ pulliphagonides would be incredibly harsh and pointless, as well as quite alien to the style of dramatic verse used here. Leo's text is right.)Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 7} There is no comprehensive review in English; for useful summaries, see Duckworth, G., The Nature of Roman Comedy, 1952, p. 50;Google ScholarBeare, W., The Roman Stage³, 1964, pp. 45-Google Scholar7. See further Schanz-Hosius, , Geschichte der römischen Literatur i 1927 pp. 55Google Scholar f.; Sonnenburg, , R E. xiv. 95 ff. for a proper bibliography.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} e.g. P. Sulpicius Quirinius, cos. ord. 12 A.D., C. Terentius Tullius Geminus, cos. suff. 46 A.D.; see Doer, B., Die römische Namengebung, 1937, p. 105 f., pp. 174 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 2} e.g. C.I.L. i² 2152 (end of Republic) Fronto luncius C. f.; 775 (Eleusis, 48 p.c.) Pulcher Clau]dius et Rex Mar[cius; Cicero Att. 13. 52. 1 (Barba Cassius), 8. 15. 3 (Balba Cornelius); Q. fr. 2. 4. 1 (Macer Licinius), 2. 13. 2 (Pola Seruius); fam. 13. 64. 1 (Strabo Seruilius), 6. 12. 2 (Cimber Tullius); Caelius ap. fam. 8. 12. 2 (Pola Seruius); D. Brutus ap. fam. 11. 1. 4 (Bassum Caeciliurn); id. ap. fam. 11. 9. 1 (Pollione Asinio). Cicero never does this in his speeches. C.LL. i² 2509a (Pompeii, probably ca. 80 B.c.) L. Sulla Cornelius is different in an important respect.

^{page 79 note 3} The only strict parallel seems to be Varro L.L. 5. 83 Scaeuola Quintus pontifex maximus; Ennius Ann. 303 f. V² Cornelius… Cethegus Marcus (where metre groans under the stress) is not quite the same.

^{page 79 note 4} e.g. C.I.L. 17 1024 Alfenos Luci(os), Enn. Ann. 331 V²Aeliu' Sextus, Gellius N.A. 1. 24 Pacuui Marci (2nd century B.c.), possibly Catullus 10. 30; C.I.L. i² 7 Cornelius Lucius Scipio Barbatus (third century B.C.) is not quite parallel.

^{page 79 note 5} So Leo, Plautinische Forschungen², 1912, 84; but in his edition he writes a capital M at Mer. 10.

^{page 79 note 6} So Schulze, W., Lateinische Eigennamen, 1904, p. 298. The same objections will apply to believing he was really called Titus Maccus Plautus as to believing he was really called Titus Maccius Plautus: see below.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 7} e.g., Maccius, P.P. f. Melas, C.I.L. i ². 1634.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 8} See T.L.L. s.v. maccus; W. Kroll, R.E. xiv. 126–7; Leo, F., Plautinische Forschungen¹. 1895, p. 75;Google ScholarPlautinische Cantica, 1897, p. 106; Cocchia, E., L'origine del gentilizio plautino, 1899, pp. 27Google Scholar f.; Leo, F., Plautinische Forschungen², 1912, pp. 82–6Google Scholar; Beare, W., The Roman Stage³, 1964, PP. 139 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} It is a rare but acceptable praenomen (C.I.L. i² 189 G. Magolnio Pla. f.; 34 Pl. Specios Menervai donom port[at?] 204 [?]) as well as being quite a common cognomen (C.I.L. i² 1798 L. Aufidio L. f. Plauto; 2056 L. Pomponius L. f. Plotus, cf. 2055; the urban praetor of 200 B.C. was probably named G. Sergius Plautus, see Broughton, T. R. S., Magistrates of the Roman Republic i, 1951, p. 326 n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 2} See Chase, G. D., ‘The Origin of Roman Praenomina’, HStCP viii (1897), 109 ff., 116; this is the largest single class of cognomina, constituting more than a quarter of the examples in C.I.L. i¹.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 3} Roman gentilicia are etymologically patronymic adjectives, cf. in Greek. There are 16 Plautii and 6 Plotii in C.I.L. i², and 69 Plautii and 21 Plotii in R.E. xxi.

^{page 80 note 4} His supposed Umbrian origin, alleged in this same note (Festus-Paulus p. 274–5 L.), may only be an inference from Mo. 770 (so e.g. Beare, W., The Roman Stages, p. 48)Google Scholar; one thinks of the quality of the argument, based on passages of the Partheneion, about the provenance of Alcman (see Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship, 1968, pp. 220Google Scholar f., pp. 241 f.). The stuff in Gellius N.A. 3. 3. 14 about his career does not represent a reliable tradition, and such plausible material as it contains (e.g., that Plautus was an actor) is inference that we too could have made. There is no other information about the writer's appearance, and that is no surprise: even in the case of Terence, there was no sound iconographical tradition. The specific-sounding information in Suetonius Vita Terenti 6 that he was ‘of medium stature, slight physique, and dark complexion’ is merely the stock physiognomy of Carthaginians, cf. Plautus' nurse Giddenis, Po. 1112 statura hau magna, corpore aquilo. See Leo, F., Plautinische Forschungens², pp. 69–78.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 5} The suggestion was first made, as far as I know, by E. Cocchia, op. cit. p. 19, as something so absurd as not to warrant attention, a judgement characteristic of the poor quality of the book as a whole. G. Duckworth (The Nature of Roman Comedy, 1952, p. 50) and W. Beare (The Roman Stages, p. 47) take the point more seriously, but do not emphasize it sufficiently.

^{page 80 note 6} Atta (ob. 77 B.C.) Aedilicia, tog. fr. 1 Ribbeck ‘daturin estis aurum? exultat planipes …’; Juvenal, 8. 189 ‘populi frons durior huius, qui sedet et spectat triscurria patriciorum, planipedes audit Fabios, ridere potest qui Mamercorum alapas’; Gellius N.A. 1. 11. 12 ‘quid enim foret ista re ineptius, si ut planipedi saltanti ita Graccho contionanti numeros et modos et frequentamenta quaedam uaria tibicen incineret’; Ausonius ep. 11 ‘nee de mimo planipedem nec de comoediis histrionem’; Macrobius Sat. 2. 1. 9 ‘planipedis … impudica et praetextata uerba iacientis’. Excalceatus was virtually a synonym for planipes: Seneca ep. 8. 7 ‘… quam multa Publi<1>ii non excalceatis sed cothurnatis dicenda sunt.’ The opposition is between the bare feet of the nimble actors of farce or mime (see, e.g., A. D. Trendall, Phlyax Vases² [B.I.C.S. Suppl. 19], 1967, no. III and passim; Bieber, M., The History of the Greek and Roman Theater², 1961, fig. 539 and passim), and the high-soled boot of tragedy.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 1} G. D. Chase, op. cit. p. 152, p. 135 gives the following league-table from C.I.L. i¹: Lucius (535 cases), Gaius (527), Marcus (404), Quintus (241), Publius (224), Gnaeus (I 10), Aulus (99), Titus (82). Much the same result is obtained from a cursory check of the magistrates for the years 250–180 B.c. (in Broughton, op. cit.): Gaius (59), Marcus (47), Lucius (39), Quintus (29), Publius (24), Gnaeus (1s), Titus (9), Aulus (8).

^{page 81 note 2} A.L.L. ii (1885), 118–20 = Kleine Schnften iii 77 f.; σ in Pers. Sat. 1. 19–21 ‘titi columbae sunt agrestes’; Isid. orig. 12. 7. 62 ‘palumbes … quas uulgus titos uocant’; cf. O. Skutsch, Hermes lxviii (1933), 353, on C.L.E. 50.

^{page 81 note 3} Plautus Ba. 68 turturem = penem (and so too palumbem 51? cf. Arnott, W. G., Gnomon xxxix [1967], 139). In Greek, = ‘lecher’ as well as ‘dove’ (Hsch. s.v.), cf. ‘lecher’, corn. adesp. 592, and the name applied to a famous parasite in Menander (Kolax fr. 2), and Longus' characterization of the lustful Gnathon, 4. 11. 2. Whether Menander intended the name to have this implication we cannot tell, but it is worth observing that Plautus names three of his parasites in such a way as to indicate lechery as well as greed, which suggests that he at least took Strouthias to imply that vice (he knew and translated the play: Ter. Eun. 25). (a) Scortum in Cap., also called Ergasilus, cf. ‘brothel’ (D. 59. 67, etc.), 4ryacrta ‘prostitution’ (D. 18. 129). (b) Curculio in Cu., ‘weevil’, the true para-sitos, but also ‘penis’, cf. Persius sat. 4. 38 inguinibus quare detonsus gurgulio (the same word) extat. (c) Peniculus in Men.; the explanation in 78 is patently ‘against expectation’, and editors should print ideo quia—mensam quando eda detergeo. The parasite strolls in and raises a belly-laugh before beginning his speech proper (79 ff.), with which the opening couplet has no connection whatever. If the explanation were not ‘against expectation’, this couplet would be perhaps the worst-placed and feeblest joke in ancient comedy.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 4} See further Festus p. 142 L, Paulus p. 543 L; Lucilius 78 Marx with his notes ad loc.; Vahlert R.E. xvi. 981–5 s.v. Mutunus Tutunus.

^{page 82 note 1} Roman boys wore phallic emblems on necklaces as talismans, Varro L.L. 7. 97, Marx, F.Lucilius, 1904, p. xliv,Google Scholar and his note on Lucilius 78. We ought not to rule it out as impossible that a Roman father might give his son the name Titus ominis causa (on the eighth or ninth day after birth, when praenomina were given: Marquardt, J., Römische Altertümer, 1886, vii. 10) as having a definite meaning, ‘well endowed’. But it is unlikely that this was so in historical times, because no other praenomen was any longer given as having a definite meaning: they were just labels. For example, the relative frequency of the numeral-names Quintus, Sextus, Decimus, etc., shows that they can neither have indicated order of birth nor the month of the year in which the child was born. Moreover the very fact that the meanings of praenomina was already a research topic in Varro's time shows that they can no longer have been given according to a transparent system. The anonymous de praenominibus (attached to the end of Valerius Maximus) 6 tells us that Titus a Sabino famine Tito fluxit, Appius ab Atto, eiusdem regionis praenomen, which ties in with the first part of the Persius-scholiast's comment. The second part of his remark, which is clearly very pertinent to the full nastiness of the satirist's lines, is transmitted nowhere else, and was overlooked by G. D. Chase, op. cit., p. 152, but deserves credence all the same.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 2} See A. D. Trendall, op. supra cit., p. 80 n. 6 ad fin.

^{page 82 note 3} See Reich, H., Der Minus, 1908, i 258 n., citing the scholiast on Juvenal 6. 65 (‘sicut in amplexu subito et miserabile longum’), sc. penem ut habent in mimo, mime being Juvenal's subject here; Arnobius adv. nat. 7. 33 ‘delectantur … Stupidorum capitibus salapittarum’ (Scaliger: salpinctarum) ‘sonitu atque plausu, factis et dictis turpibus, fascinorum ingentium rubore’.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 4} Ru. 432 perhaps suggests that Sceparnio is wearing the phallus; there are other lowbrow elements in this play, e.g. the references to Atellane Farce at 535 f. There is no reason why Plautus' practice should have been uniform in this respect.

^{page 82 note 5} So Leo, Plautinische Forschungen² p. 83; some freedmen were beginning to adopt cognomina on manumission as well (e.g. L. Livius Andronicus), but these will have been distinguished by their humble or alien forms from the pure Roman or Italian cognomina, and in fact the great majority of liberti listed in C.I.L. i² p. 829 do not have cognomina. For a later period, see I. Kajanto, ‘The Significance of non-Latin cognomina’, Latomus xxvii (1968), 517–34.

^{page 82 note 6} See Sommer, F., Kritische Erlaüterungen zur lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre, 1914, p. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 7} The Farce in Plautus' time was subliterary: no doubt a scenario would be worked out in some detail, but a good deal was improvised and depended upon the skills of the actors. The commedia dell'arte before Goldoni provides a parallel. A century after Plautus, the Farce and the Mime—genres which ought not to be thought of as clearly distinct—became ‘literary’, i.e., people began to write fixed scripts (Novius, Pomponius, etc.). The fragments of literary Farce are exceedingly obscene, which is striking, seeing that the great majority of citations come from grammarians who cite these writers not to illustrate their tone, but to discuss odd words or forms.

^{page 83 note 1} Plautus is a rare but acceptable praenomen: see above, p. 80 n. I.

^{page 83 note 1} Quintilian 10. 1. 99, quoting Aelius Stilo (through Varro, no doubt); see E. Fraenkel, C.R. lvii (1943), p. 109 for an interesting note on the source and progeny of this remark.