Weissman's conclusions are worth a summary. He notes the following as the
usual essential concomitants: 1. It is mentioned in the text that the
slave is on the run. 2. He is the bearer of news of the moment; 3. He
fails to recognize other characters on stage; 4. He is halted by the very
man he is so violently seeking. He cites as the genuine occurrences of the
_servus_ or _parasitus currens_, besides the passages mentioned above,
_Cap._ 781 ff., _Ep._ 1 ff., 192 ff., _Mer._ 111 ff., _Per._ 272 ff.,
_St._ 274 ff. Furthermore, he argues convincingly that this was an
independent Roman development without a prototype on the Greek stage and
neatly refutes Weise and LeGrand by proving that there are no extant Greek
fragments sufficient to furnish a ground for any but the most tenuous
argument. Above all, he correctly interprets the poet's aim with the
dictum: "Praeterquam quod hac persona optime utitur ad actionem bene
continuandam id maxime spectat ut per eam _spectatorum risum_ captet." And
this from a German youth of twenty-two!

It is in his attempt to explain the mechanism that we believe Weissman
fails. He essays an exegesis of each passage, though the separate
explanations are naturally similar. It will suffice to quote one, that to
_As._ 267 ff.: "Hoc nullo modo aliter mihi declarari posse videtur nisi
sic: Oratio Leonidae currentis maior est quam ut arbitrari possimus
currentem semper eum habuisse eam. Ex versu 290 Leonidam de celeritate sua
remisisse plane apparet. Quod semel solum eum fecisse cum non satis mihi
esse videatur, saepius--bis vel ter--per breve tempus eum cursum suum
interrupisse, circumspexisse, Libanum autem non spectavisse (hoc consilium
poetae erat, licentia poetica est) et hoc modo per totam scaenam cursum
suum direxisse arbitror."

It will be observed that for lack of any tangible evidence he very
properly makes use of subjective reasoning. Now it has long been the