Unless you have studied Roman comedy before, Plautus will probably be the most difficult text to read this semester: the language is archaic, the vocabulary is often unfamiliar, and the meters are not at all easy. Christenson's commentary is a great deal of help in this, however, and you should use it.

As you read, you might also consider the following:

1. Roman comedy is generally (and rightly) said to be based on Greek New Comedy; one of the major strands of Plautine criticism until recently has been to try to detect what is "Plautine" or "Roman" in Plautus. (There is only one substantial passage where we have the Greek original for a Plautine text, the Bacchides and Menander's Dis Exapaton--see E. Handley, "Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison" and discussion in the handbooks.) Better to ask yourselves what Plautus is doing to make his plays at home in Rome: does he use Roman rather than Greek laws and customs? is Sosia's great speech on the battle meant to evoke Roman experience?

2. From that, the next question is how and why Plautus is commenting on his own society, and how much of what is parodic/hyperbolic in Roman allusions is simply an aspect of comic writing in general? Is this meant to be funny, or is it social criticism?

3. Another main strand of more recent criticism (esp. Segal) is to look at Plautine character and scene as a function of festival--the world turned upside down. Does that work for this play?

4. Is this play funny? Mercury in the prologue uses the word tragicomoedia. What does he mean by that? What is the effect of a "doubles" comedy (as also in Menaechmi) in which one of the pairs is god/king and the other is god/slave?