rire."[44] How much more then would this apply to _palliatae_!

We now believe that we have on hand a sufficiently large volume of
criticism to appreciate practically every phase of judgment to which
Plautus has been subjected.[45] The ancients overrated him stylistically,
but he was a man of their own people. Men such as Becker, Weise, Lorenz
and Langrehr have proceeded upon a distinctly exaggerated ideal of
Plautus' eminence as a master dramatic craftsman and literary artist and
therefore have amputated with the cry of "Spurious!" everything that
offends their ideal. Lessing is obsessed with too high an estimate of the
_Captivi_. Lamarre, Naudet and Ritschl commit the error of imputing to our
poet a moral purpose. Schlegel and Scott deprecate the crudity of his wit
without an adequate appreciation of its sturdy and primeval robustness.
Langen, Mommsen, Korting and LeGrand approach a keen estimate of his
inconsistencies and his single-minded purpose of entertainment, but
Korting accuses him of attempting to create an illusion of life while
aiming solely at provoking laughter.

From this heterogeneous mass of diversified criticism we glean the
prevailing idea that Plautus is lauded or condemned according to his
conformity or non-conformity to some preconceived standard of comedy
situate in the critic's mind, without a consideration of the poet's
original purpose. We must seriously propound the question as to how far a
grave injustice has been done him almost universally in criticising him
for what he does not pretend to be. Did Plautus himself suffer from any
illusion that his plays were constructed with cogent and consummate
technique? Did he for a single instant imagine himself the inspired
reformer of public morality? Did he believe that his style was elegant and
polished? Indeed, he must have effected an appreciable refinement of the
vernacular of his age to produce his lively verse, but without losing the