Representation Of Ancient Rome In The Swaggering Soldier By Plautus

Throughout history, researchers have been analyzing artwork, literature, and architecture in order to seek more insight during certain periods. With the help of artists from the past, university students to prolific researchers in modern times are able to time travel to different eras and be immersed in a culture that once was and now no more. By using one of many eminent playwrights, Plautus, we can get a deeper sense of what it would have been like during 254 – 184 BC ancient Rome through the eyes of a Roman citizen. Throughout The Swaggering Soldier, we are able to view how Plautus reflects certain aspects of Roman culture by the use of his characters and scenes, such as the way Romans viewed women should be in real life by portraying them as opposite in the play. He portrayed them as being double sided (property under a male dominant society versus conniving tricksters) and as what the social hierarchy interaction between masters and slaves was in real life compared to the play. Plautus portrayal of society through the play was the reversal of what the traditional Roman power structure of the time period actually was. Plautus depicts these social aspects with the help of a special character, whom some might call the director, Palaestrio, the slave.

In this Roman Comedy, we see the same formula known as the New Comedy. The basis of this play like other New Comedy: the boy lacks girl, encounters an obstacle and in the end boy plus girl acquire their happy ending. In The Swaggering Soldier, we encounter Palaestrio (main protagonist), who is a former slave to Pleusicles. An arrogant soldier known as Pyrgopolynices kidnapped Pleusicles lover, Philocomasium’s a damsel in distress along with Palaestrio. Palaestrio is rather intelligent as he directs a plan with other characters (Rome’s peasants and infamous concubines) in order to outsmart the ignorant soldier (traditional authority) and return the lovers to one another.

In the play, we see that Plautus depicted women as having two faces of one coin. For example, we have Philocomasium’s who was taken away from her lover. This portrays her as the damsel. Due to her damsel character Palaestrio, the slave must outwit his master something that in real life should occur. In order to save her and be the heroic protagonist, he has to enlist her own help amongst other women. As she begins to play this character she gets more sucked into the conniving ideals. She was intrigued by tricking the soldier. She had characteristics of being a fraud (twin sister play), in modern terms she loved the mind tricks being played on both the soldier and other servants. In my opinion, Plautus did this to portrays her as a two-faced character. One as an object and the other as a snake. She is not the only female character given some of these characteristics the actual prostitute who Philocomasium’s gathers to play her twin sister can be dissected her character as an alternate version of how men viewed women during that time in Rome's society. When in real life, respectable women were properties they were not seen skilled enough to cause such chaos rather as weak and more family friendly.

During the time the play took place. Rome is still in a political disruption. There are also tremendous transformations in art and literature taking place. With new forms of painting (fresco), other literature playwrights amongst poets blooming, and architecture evolving. Plautus is able to play with the ideas of the Greek play he was inspired by. During this period as mentioned in lecture Romans valued hierarchy, obedience, and authority. Those in charge of others were the soldiers, patricians which compared to today where 1% of society while the plebeians or merchants, servants, and harlots were at the bottom of the hierarchy. In my opinion, Plautus comic portrayal is an attempt to undermine the traditional value system that is currently taken hold of Rome. He has the character of Palaestrio make a joke out of his master, the arrogant soldier by plotting to take away his prize (Philocomasium’s). Plautus is reversing the traditional Roman power structure of the time period and putting it in his play as an alternate reality. Instead of the upper class or tradition authority composing inventive plots and calling the shots, a slave now gains these influential skills. Palaestrio is not the only one, Plautus, in fact, gives similar power to prostitutes, power away from authority figures and into the hands of the lower class.

Certain aspects of Roman culture or society we see through the play are issues closer to home. Plautus does not focus on extensive issues such as past war conquests instead he targets more household issues and dilemmas that may occur per individual level. As the professor mentioned, “Speech is power-everyone loves the theatre but should not have an effect on Roman life politically”. We also saw he portrayed soldiers in his play to feel entitled to do as they please even if that meant one might commit adultery, which was illegal and punishable. When in real life that was definitely many wanted to avoid. As for the social hierarchy interaction between masters and slave, although the soldier was not a favorable character the way the slave treated the master was not an accurate representation of what was actually going on in Rome. I believe Plautus did this in order to provide a relatable notion to the play seeing as these plays are shown during religious activities. The majority of the audience may have been Slaves themselves. The lower class dreaming of the impossible. In the end, Plautus establishes his characters centering everything the actual reality of Roman society frowned upon doing.