robust vitality of "Volkswitz." Or is it true that nothing further than
amusement lay within his scope?

If so, we may at least posit that almost unbounded license must be allowed
the pen which aims simply to raise a laugh. We do not fulminate against a
treatise on Quaternions because it lacks humor. If the drawings of
cartoonists are anatomically incorrect, we are smilingly indulgent. Do we
condemn a vaudeville skit for not conforming to the Aristotelian code of
dramatic technique? Assuredly we do not rise in disgust from a musical
comedy because "in real life" a bevy of shapely maidens in scant attire
never goes tripping and singing blithely though the streets. If then we
can establish that Plautus regarded his adapted dramas merely as a rack on
which to hang witticisms, merely as a medium for laugh-provoking sallies
and situations, we have at once Plautus as he pretended to be, and in
large measure the answer to the original question: "What manner of drama
is this?"

We say only "in large measure," because it is part of our endeavor to
settle accurately the position of our author in the dramatic scale,
considered of necessity from the modern viewpoint. We cannot believe that
he had any pretensions to refined art in play building, or rather
rebuilding, or to any superficial elegance of style, or to any moralizing
pose. We believe him an entertainer pure and simple, who never restricted
himself in his means except by the outer conventions and form of the Greek
New Comedy and the Roman stage, provided his single aim, that of affording
amusement, was attained. To establish this belief, and at the same time to
interpret accurately the nature of his plays and the means and effect of
their production, is our thesis.

If then we run the gamut of the dramatic scale, we observe that as we