A Companion To Plautus - (Chapter 28 The Medieval Reception of Plautus's Aulularia Querolus and ... )

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT
The Medieval Reception

of Plautus’s Aulularia: Querolus
and Vitalis Blesensis
Antony Augoustakis
Plautus’s reception in the Middle Ages was eclipsed by a more fortunate reception of his suc-
cessor in Roman comedy, Terence, who seemed to offer materials more promptly relatable to
a Christian audience and readership. Plautus’s near disappearance from the literary canon of
the period can be attributed to several reasons (Molina Sánchez 1998, 2007), but Terence’s
popularity in school curricula and the moralizing tone of his comedies vanquished the more
irreverent style and archaic language of Plautus. Thus, Amphitruo, Asinaria, Aulularia,
Captivi, Cistellaria, Curculio, and Epidicus were in circulation, while the rest were not until
1429. This chapter will examine the reception and transformations of Plautus’s Aulularia
(“The Pot of Gold”), a notable exception in terms of the reception of Plautine comedies after
antiquity, in the anonymous play Querolus and in Aulularia by Vitalis Blesensis.
Aulularia recounts the fortune of Euclio, a stingy, poor old man, who discovers a pot
of gold buried in his house. As the guardian spirit of the house (Lar Familiaris) explains
in the prologue, the pot of gold was hidden by Euclio’s grandfather and is used to test
Euclio’s reverence toward the gods and to honor Euclio’s daughter, who is to be married
by the conclusion of the play. Euclio’s daughter, Phaedrium, was raped and impregnated
during the festival of Ceres by the young man Lyconides, who was drunk at the time but
Copyright © 2020. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
still remembered the identity of the girl. Lyconides’s mother, Eunomia, is trying to
arrange a marriage for her brother, Megadorus, to a woman closer to his age; Megadorus,
in turn, wishes to be married to young Phaedrium. The conflict between Megadorus and
Lyconides is resolved when Euclio agrees to allow Lyconides to marry Phaedrium on the
condition that he help him find the pot of gold, which in the meantime had been stolen
by Lyconides’s slave. The slave demands his freedom in return. Unfortunately, the ending
of the play is missing except for a few fragments (de Melo 2011; Maclennan and Stockert
2016), but we can safely surmise a happy ending with Lyconides’s union with Phaedrium
and, perhaps, his slave’s emancipation.
A Companion to Plautus, First Edition. Edited by George Fredric Franko and Dorota Dutsch.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
A Companion to Plautus, edited by George Fredric Franko, and Dorota Dutsch, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/otago/detail.action?docID=6123286.
Created from otago on 2022-12-12 02:26:01.
420 Antony Augoustakis
Querolus
Aulularia’s popularity in terms of its reception and adaptation was already evident in late
antiquity, around the fifth century (all dates ce), when an anonymous play was produced
under the title Querolus sive Aulularia (“The Grumpy” or “The Pot of Gold”). The play’s
second title comes from the manuscripts, which falsely attributed the comedy to Plautus
during the Middle Ages until the first printed edition of the play in 1564. The text is in
rhythmical prose, a “halting rhythm” (clodo pede, Prologus 10; see Jacquemard‐Le Saos
1994, pp. l–lv; García Calvo 1998). Querolus’s central character is the eponymous hero,
Querolus, whose name points to the Latin verb for complaining (queror). He has inher-
ited a treasure from his dead father Euclio, and the plot thickens when the parasite
Mandrogerus tries to stop Querolus from getting his inheritance. The play comprises a
prooemium (“Preface”), a prologus, and 15 scenes for a total of 113 chapters (following
the 1994 edition of Jacquemard‐Le Saos, p. xxv and n. 25, with discussion of the division
of the play into five acts by previous editors). As in the case with Plautus’s Aulularia, the
ending is missing. Even though we do not have precise information about the author of
this prose version of Aulularia, we know that the dedicatee is the poet Rutilius Namatianus,
the author of the late antique poem De reditu suo (“On his return,” 417). In the prooe-
mium, the anonymous author of the Querolus addresses Rutilius as a man to be honored
with great praise and claims that the play was produced for discussion and a banquet,
presumably at the house of Rutilius (on Querolus’s performability, see Jacquemard‐Le
Saos 1994, pp. xxvi–xxviii; on genre, Vidović 2009, pp. 13–15; on the influence of folk-
tales, Lockwood 1913). As Jacquemard‐Le Saos (1994, pp. ix, 105–109) points out, a
decree addressed to Rutilius in 412 (Codex Theodosianus 6.27.15) is parodied in the sixth
scene of the play. In such case, the play could be dated between 414 and 417, preceding
the publication of Rutilius’s De reditu (or 408 and 417, according to Küppers 1979).
Many theories have been advanced about the identity of this anonymous author: is it a
subordinate but close friend of Rutilius? Contemporaries such as Palladius, Axius Paulus,
Avianus, and Lucillus have been proposed, some less convincingly than others (Jacquemard‐
Le Saos 1994, pp. xii–xxiv; Vidović 2009, pp. 7–8). Of great importance, regardless of a
possible identification of the author with one of Rutilius’s associates from Gaul, is that the
composer of Querolus is a person of many talents and immense learning, as evidenced by the
command of Latin literature, from Plautus to Petronius and Juvenal (Küppers 1989;
Jacquemard‐Le Saos 1994, Appendix 2; on the mélange of language employed, Golvers
1984; Jacquemard‐Le Saos 1994, pp. xliii–l; Mantzilas 2014, p. 307). This anonymous
author is one who does not simply imitate the Plautine archetype of Aulularia and his other
models but rather creates a new, original play, “characteristic of the age in which the drama-
tist lived” (Duckworth 1942, p. 895), much like Plautus had done with his Greek New
Comic models. Plautus’s creative adaptation of the Greek plays serves the author of the
Querolus as a mechanism for alteration, expansion, and transformation of the ancient plays
to a new form that speaks to the taste and needs of his readership and audience of the period.
In the late antique play, much has changed from Plautus’s Aulularia. The presence of
the Lar and Querolus’s pedigree from Euclio are retained, along with the central role of
the lost and recovered pot of gold. But the themes of the liaison of Phaedrium and
Lyconides or Megadorus’s and Lyconides’s conflict are elided from the Querolus; the
The Medieval Reception of Plautus’s Aulularia 421
slaves are replaced; the topics covered and the messages conveyed are recalibrated toward
the philosophical and religious (Mantzilas 2014, pp. 307–308). As the author observes in
the prooemium (2), sermone illo philosophico ex tuo materiam sumpsimus (“I took my clues
from that philosophical discourse of yours”). The author jokingly leaves it up to the audi-
ence to recognize the changed materials: Querolus an Aulularia haec dicatur fabula, ves-
trum hinc iudicium, vestra erit sententia (“Whether this play should be called Querolus or
Aulularia, it is your decision, it will be your judgment”). We can therefore summarize the
major alterations of the Plautine play in terms of its retention of the original material, the
deletion or elision of scenes deemed unnecessary, their replacement by new scenes, and
finally a thematic shift toward issues philosophically and morally relevant to the period. As
we will see, this adaptation of Plautus’s Aulularia substantially differs from the original
text: the anonymous author of the Querolus keeps the threads of the plot (the treasure’s
loss and recovery) but discards the elements that have become irrelevant for the audience
of this fifth‐century piece. Obviously tastes change, and the Querolus’s tendency to empha-
size the moral and philosophical over the erotic proves this point well.
Let us look at some of these alterations in more detail. In the first scene (11–15), the Lar
Familiaris unravels the threads of the plot for the audience: Euclio, Querolus’s father, died
before returning home. He was a miser, just like his son, but he had buried an urn holding
a treasure years ago, unbeknownst to his son, and used to honor it because it allegedly held
the ashes of his father. In the extensive scene that follows (16–41), the Lar appears to
Querolus himself, discloses his identity as a god, and engages with him in an altercation
about morals and sin: Querolus is made to admit to all the faults of his character; namely,
that he is a misanthrope and desires to have things that would only make him more miser-
able. The Lar instructs Querolus in humility, happiness, and satisfaction (Scene 2, 37):
Lar. T rust the one who tries to trick you and help and assist the one who tries to
trap you. If thieves come to you, receive them gladly, same for brigands …
Quer. Why?
Lar. So that you be rich.
Quer. How?
Lar. If you lose everything you have.
Quer. Why?
Lar. So that you be happy.
This soul‐searching leaves Querolus puzzled at the “heavenly apparition” (res divina
ostendetur), a clear change from the Plautine play not only in terms of the introduction of
the divine apparatus but also the acknowledgment of its potency in influencing human
affairs.
In Scene 3 (42–46), we encounter Mandrogerus for the first time, the parasite whose
name evokes the magical plant, mandragora, but also is etymologically related to mandra
(“herd of cattle, gaming table”) and mando (“eat”), plus the Greek γέρων (“old man”),
all suggestive of Mandrogerus’s evil machinations (Jacquemard‐Le Saos 1994, pp. 75–76).
He becomes the parasite par excellence who does not crave food but rather gold (Vidović
2009, pp. 25–31). He is accompanied by the aptly named Sycophanta, a flatterer parasite,
and another associate, Sardanapalus, whose name points to the famous Assyrian king. In
Scenes 4 and 5 (47–66), Sardanapallus and Sycophanta feign a dispute between themselves,
a clear metatheatrical gesture on the part of the author, to attract Querolus’s attention and
draw him in to meet the magician Mandrogerus. Since the character of the magician itself
is not a Plautine element, the author carefully weaves into the play a meaningful role for
Mandrogerus. As the two parasites engage in this set‐up dialogue with Mandrogerus
about the best kind of worship, Mandrogerus explains that there are three kinds of inferior
(minorum) gods who should be appeased (52): the powerful planets (potentes planetae),
the grievous geese (anseres inportuni), and the grim Dog‐heads (cynocephali truces). This
theological exposition leads to many comic moments in the scene, as Mandrogerus uses
infernal imagery to instill fear of the unknown in Querolus, the intended recipient of the
diatribe. For instance, the planets are guarded by harpies, dog‐heads, furies, screechowls,
and night owls (55), and Mandrogerus claims to have seen Cerberus itself (57). Querolus
takes the bait and asks how good luck can be worshipped (61), to which Mandrogerus
replies that one must worship the Lares Familiares. The magician then instructs Querolus
on how to purify his ill‐fortuned place: a ceremony must be performed inside the shrine,
while Querolus is outside; he must provide Mandrogerus and his associates with an empty
chest in which the evil spirits will be caught. Querolus sends Pantomalus to find his friend,
Arbiter (“Witness”), for assistance. Scene 7 (77–79), when Mandrogerus has completed
the purification, exhibits another extensive innovation emphasizing the religious and the
ceremonial: “I don’t recall any house was ever so purified before” (77). Little does
Querolus know that he is carrying in the chest his whole fortune. Mandrogerus instructs
him not to leave the house for the next three days, or bad luck should return. The anony-
mous author of Querolus insists on introducing un‐Plautine elements that have little
relevance to the world of the Plautine original but obviously have great relevance to his
own audience. The pagan and the religious blend to create a hybrid world where fantasy
and superstition reign supreme.
In Scene 9 (81–82), Pantomalus returns with Arbiter only to find the house in complete
silence due to the curfew imposed by Mandrogerus. In following scene (83–89), the three
conspirators, having just realized that what they stole was an urn full of ashes, mourn as if
at a funeral. Mandrogerus decides to avenge Euclio and his son by sending Sardanapallus
to frighten the superstitious Querolus by claiming that he is the misfortune that has
returned to haunt him. But this ruse backfires as soon as Querolus calls on his people to
come to the door, and the three conspirators flee in fright: Mandrogerus throws the urn
from the window inside the house, and Sardanapallus hears the cries of joy from Querolus
and the others who have now discovered the gold. He painfully exclaims:
Life was there (in the urn), where we thought death was buried. Wretched we were wrong,
but not simply deceived and not once. A transformation (metamorphosis) is happening here:
we took away ashes, and we threw away gold. (89).
Thus the play emphasizes that this pursuit for gold was ultimately in vain. By pointing to
the metamorphosis taking place, the playwright underscores this futility as part of a wider
theological message, as we see next.
This metamorphosis prompts the Lar Familiaris in the next scene (90–91) to proclaim
that the urn “has given birth, being pregnant with gold, a worthless mother gave birth to
a great child.” This scene alludes to childbirth scenes in Greek and Roman New Comedy,
except that this childbirth is metaphorical, part of the shift of themes to the philosophical
and religious rather than comic per se, as we have seen above. And this symbolism is
quickly followed by a moralistic, religious message (Scene 11, 90): “And all men should
now understand that they cannot get a hold of or lose anything unless he favors them who
has all power.” This affirmation of the all‐powerful being who oversees human fate and
fortune is combined with a promise for Mandrogerus’s punishment. In Scene 12 (92–94),
Querolus, Arbiter, and Pantomalus come to the stage, and Querolus acknowledges the
role of the Lar in his fortune (Scene 12, 93): “This is clearly that which the Household
God foretold me that all good things would come to me even though I would oppose and
fight against it.”
When Mandrogerus returns in Scene 13 (95–109), he hands over to Querolus a letter,
allegedly from his father Euclio, which explains that Mandrogerus deserves half of the
treasure, “if his trust (fides) and labor require it” (96). Querolus interrogates Mandrogerus,
who reveals that he threw the urn with the gold though the window, and thus he confesses
the crime. True to his name as judge and witness, Arbiter urges Querolus to forgive
Mandrogerus: “forgive and let go: this is the true victory” (102). But Mandrogerus com-
mitted two crimes, theft and sacrilege: he stole the urn of gold and desecrated the urn of
ashes. Arbiter intervenes once again to implore Querolus to take Mandrogerus in his
service: he has, after all, an ingenium lepidissimum (“a most charming talent,” 107). As
preserved, the play’s ending is unsatisfactory after Scene 14, which ends with the unfinished
sentence digna causa (“a worthy reason,” 110). The manuscripts preserve a lengthy scene
after this sentence, called the Lex convivialis or Decretum parasiticum (“Banquet Law” or
“Decree for Slaves”), which editors omit as spurious (Ranstrand 1951) or transfer to
Scene 13 (Corsaro 1965). It is best, however, to assume a lacuna after Scene 14 and that
the pronouncement of the Lex concludes the play (Peiper 1875; Jacquemard‐Le Saos
1994, pp. 113–114).
Vitalis Blesensis
Querolus’s adaptation of Plautus’s Aulularia in the fifth century served as the model for
the Aulularia of Vitalis Blesensis (William of Blois), composed c. 1125–1145 (Bertini

1976). Its author was a monastic abbot in Sicily, and earlier he had produced the Latin
comedy Geta, a free adaptation of Plautus’s Amphitruo (c. 1125–1130, according to
Bertini 1976). Geta was apparently more popular than Aulularia, as Geta survives in over
60 manuscripts as opposed to the two for Aulularia (cf. the assessment of Elliott 1984,
p. xxxvii: “[Aulularia] lacks Geta’s sparkle”). Here we focus on Vitalis’s Aulularia in
order to trace the development of the Plautine comedy and its reception through the
twelfth century. This comedy is in elegiac distichs, a nova comedia (Suchomski 1975) – a
form preferred by those writing in this genre in the period that combines the classical
playwrights with Ovid (Bertini 1979; Crawford 1987; on whether these are elegiac com-
edies, Latin comic tales, or Latin fabliaux, see Elliott 1984, pp. xv–xviii, who emphasizes
that these works do not fit “into a single generic pigeon‐hole”; cf. Molina Sánchez 2007;
Mantzilas 2014).
Vitalis’s Aulularia is much shorter than Querolus, at 792 verses (following Molina
Sánchez’s 1999 edition). The source of inspiration is Querolus itself rather than Plautus’s
original play (Bianchi 1956), which is not surprising given that Querolus was a text studied
in the schools of Orleans (Bate 1979a). The twelfth‐century condensed version of Querolus
follows the plot closely but with changes, again reflecting on its time and place in France:
there is considerable focus on the physical and astronomical sciences, with satire directed
at the school at Chartres (Elliott 1984, pp. xxxviii–xxix). Scholars have debated the per-
formability of this piece, and as with Querolus, it is difficult to discern whether or not the
play was meant to be staged or simply read (Girard 1931, p. 67 on the impossibility of
performing this Aulularia; contra Bate 1979b and Elliott 1984, pp. xviii–xxvi, who points
out that these “comedies were intended to be presented, not merely read,” p. xxvi).
In the prologue, which is characteristically Terentian (Molina Sánchez 2007, pp. 130–131;
Mantzilas 2014, p. 310), Vitalis explains his technique:
Maybe whoever rereads Plautus will be startled that I have altered the names of the personae
dramatis in my writings. There is a reason for having done so: my verses need domesticated
words; my meter fears names more grandiose than normal. So I created changed or shortened
names that could fit in my verses, while the plot remains the same. Someone could accuse me
that my comedy talks about fate and the stars and sings about themes too lofty; they may
allege that I deviated and that my pen foolishly escaped towards lofty affairs. But Plautus is to
blame. It is not my fault. I follow Plautus and the subject matter requires great things for
itself. This comedy, mine or Plautus’s, got its name from a pot, but what was formerly
Plautus’s has now become mine. I shortened Plautus, and this loss should make him happy.
Vitalis’s writings earn Plautus a good name. My Amphitruo before, and now my Aulularia,
oppressed by age, finally felt Vitalis’s aid. (1–28)
Vitalis clearly boasts of his accomplishments (Braun 1985, p. 61): he has made Plautus
trendy again (26) by having wrought significant changes on his model, not simply by
shortening the names of his characters to fit the meter (Mandrogerus has become Sardana;
Sardanapallus has become Gnatho; Bisanti 2007, pp. 97–112, 2009), but, and perhaps
most importantly, by introducing such lofty topics as astronomy, theology, and philoso-
phy. Vitalis believes that Querolus is Plautus’s work, and as such the prologue dignifies the
play through the link, allowing Vitalis to claim a place in the literary tradition through his
significant changes to the original (a frequent device among the authors of the nova come-
dia; Molina Sánchez 2007, esp. pp. 130–131; Kendrick 2014 on medieval adaptations as
rejuvenations).
As pointed out above, in this new genre of elegiac comedy, narrative and dialogue are
enmeshed to provide the reader and audience with the necessary information regarding the
plot. The first scene (29–130) opens with Querolus blaming the gods for his predicament
and his name: Querolus denotes a miser, a misanthrope; why could he not have been
named Plato, Socrates, or Pythagoras instead (64)? Then Querolus states that he likes
Plato’s doctrine about the nonexistence of gods (83). In a direct reversal of Querolus (and,
in turn, of Plautus’s Aulularia), Querolus now directs his attacks against the worship of the
Lar, who along with the protagonist has no use for him (91–100). The only god recog-
nized by Querolus is the one who feeds him most (104). Molina Sánchez (2007, pp. 130–
131) observes that here Vitalis exploits Querolus and its message regarding fate, divine
order, and Christianity, but ultimately subverts the fifth‐century play, according to the spirit
of the twelfth century: Vitalis attacks the teachings of the magistri at the various schools in
France regarding Neoplatonic fate and the demiurge as a precursor to Christianity. As we
have seen in the case of Querolus, the thematic shift becomes important in order to convey
the playwright’s message. Vitalis satirizes aspects of his society by changing the themes he
wishes to focus on in this retelling of the classic story of the pot of gold.
Such a thematic change can be seen in the next scene (131–184), where the Lar tries to
enlighten the protagonist regarding the order of the world, fate, and human nature. The
god proclaims that Jupiter commands things to happen according to a preordained order
(157–164): ordinis est ordo (“there is an order to order”), and this divine order blesses
everything, allowing no place for the miserable (sicque implicat ordo beatus, /Cuncta beans,
misero quod locus omnis abest, 163–64).
The following scene (185–284) is a flashback in time: Euclio discloses to his slave
Sardana the secret about the pot of gold that he bequeaths to his son through Sardana,
with the provision that the slave be the messenger of good news to Querolus and obtain
his freedom after this (and a new name, Paul). But the cunning slave, emboldened by the
disclosure of the secret, leaves the funeral of his master in haste in order to mobilize his
plan to steal the money from Querolus by digging up the pot of gold from the altar of the
Lar, and to appropriate it by claiming that he is Paul, the heir of a Roman consul.
Sardana returns home after seven days and, in the next scene (285–382), he meets his
associates, Gnatho and Clinia, to organize the plan to deceive Querolus. This is a different
Sardana: he now believes he is Paul; he prefers Latin to Greek (301); he is puffed up by the
stroke of good luck. He wants to pass as a magician and rob Querolus of the pot of gold from
his house. As Gnatho says to Sardana: Sit persona magi, Romani lingua, potentis / Vultus,
phylosophi sermo, studentis opus (“let your character be a magician, your language Latin, your
face of a powerful man, your speech of a philosopher, your work of a scholar,” 353–354). The
plan is set in motion by Gnatho and Clinia (383–564), while Querolus is eavesdropping.
Gnatho elaborately praises the skills of Paul, the magician, a new Aristotle and Plato, but a
Roman one, who knows the future better than Jupiter himself! As we saw in Querolus, Vitalis
blends in his play the pagan with the Christian, creating a hybrid world wherein elements
from all periods can coexist. Clinia engages in a dialogue with Gnatho, knowing that Querolus
is paying close attention to what they say. In the next scene (565–674), Gnatho and Clinia
take Querolus to the house where Sardana is staying: there Sardana impresses Querolus by
guessing all his personal information. He proclaims that Querolus’s problem is none other
than the Lar, whose altar is cursed and whose ground is ill‐omened. But Sardana has the
solution: he will cleanse the ground (“I control the stars and I repudiate fate with my spells:
all will rejoice exorcised by my skill,” 599–600). After a mock religious rite of cleansing and
exorcism to drive away ill fate, an innovative element introduced to poke fun at religious
practices in a world that has become all the more enlightened, the slaves dig the pot out from
the ground, and Sardana orders Querolus to have an empty chest ready to go. Finally, Sardana
instructs Querolus to stay at his home, with doors and windows shut.
But as the cunning slaves run away and reach a forest (675–732), they realize the pot of
gold is nothing but a funerary urn, holding the ashes of Tripericius, a man from the times
of Julius Caesar. There is nothing left to them but return and throw the urn back into the
house of Querolus.
In the penultimate scene (733–772), the slave Pantolabus discovers the pot of gold,
now thrown back into the house. Sardana, who has been looking through the cracks, real-
izes the deceit: the gold was hiding in the pot. Querolus recognizes the slave Sardana, who
is no longer in the garb of Paul; Sardana tries to ingratiate himself to the master by saying
that through fraud he has proved his faith (sic in commissa est fraude probata fides, 772).
In the final scene (773–792), the Arbiter acknowledges that Sardana is trustworthy:
fides est tua digna fide (“your loyalty is worthy of trust,” 790). Vitalis then ends his work
with Querolus giving Sardana his part of the treasure: Fert lucra ficta fides; lis cadit, acta
placent (“false trust brings profit; the quarrel is dropped, the action is pleasing,” 792).
In his rendition of the Aulularia through Querolus, Vitalis removes any depth from the
presence of a divine plan and broadens the role of the prehistory of his work. He shortens
the plot to get to the end faster and gives up the unity of the place for dramatic purposes
(Braun 1985, p. 70). Vitalis, however, distances himself from both Querolus and Plautus
intentionally and consciously, adapting his play to the climate and trends of his own time
period (Mantzilas 2014, p. 310), emphasizing those themes that can speak to his readers
and audience while discarding others as irrelevant.
As we saw in our examination of the medieval reception of Plautus’s Aulularia, there is
no doubt that each author working with the archaic Latin materials strives to outdo the
models of the Roman past and adapt the play to the demands of the time, whether in late
antiquity, as the anonymous author of Querolus does, or as Vitalis does several centuries
later in France (Molina Sánchez 1999, p. 38: “Vitalis as poeta de su tiempo”).
FURTHER READING
Further and detailed bibliography on Querolus can be found in Lana (1985) and Lassandro
and Romano (1991). On the presence of rhetoric and the construction of dialogues in
Querolus, see Gómez (2017). Translations of the Aulularia by Vitalis of Blois are to be
found in Cohen (1931) (French) and Suchomski and Willumat (1979) (German). For the
reception of the Aulularia in Germany in the eponymous work of Johanes Burmeister
(1629), see the edition by Fontaine (2015).
REFERENCES
Bate, K. (1979a). Language for school and court: comedy in Geta, Alda, and Babio. In:
L’eredità classica nel Medioevo: Il linguaggio comico (ed. F. Doglio), 143–156. Viterbo:
Agnesotti.
Bate, K. (1979b). Twelfth‐century Latin comedies and the theatre. Papers of the Liverpool
Latin Seminar 2: 249–262.
Bertini, F. (1979). La commedia latina del XII secolo. In: L’eredità classica nel Medioevo:
Il linguaggio comico (ed. F. Doglio), 61–80. Viterbo: Agnesotti.
Bertini, F. (ed.) (1976). Commedie latine del xii e xiii secolo I. Genoa: University of Genoa.
Bianchi, D. (1956). Per il Querolus di anonimo e l’Aulularia di Vitale di Blois. Rendiconti
dell’Instituto Lombardo 89: 63–78.
Bisanti, A. (2007). L’interpretatio nominis nel Geta, nell’Aulularia, nell’Alda e nella

Lidia (e in altre “commedie elegiache”). Maia 59: 83–149.
Bisanti, A. (2009). L’interpretatio nominis nelle commedie elegiache latine del XII e XIII
secolo. Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo.
Braun, L. (1985). Die ‘dramatische’ Technik des Vitalis von Blois und sein Verhältnis zu
seinen Quellen. In: The Theatre in the Middle Ages (eds. H. Braet, J. Nowé and G.
Tournoy), 60–83. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Cohen, G. (1931). La “Comédie” latine en France au XIIe siècle. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Corsaro, F. (1965). Querolus: Studio introduttivo e commentario. Bologna: Pátron.
Crawford, J.M. (1987). Da Menandro e Plauto alla commedia Latina del XII secolo. In:
Studi Della Corte, vol. V, 319–333. Urbino: Università degli Studi di Urbino.
de Melo, W. (ed.) (2011). Plautus, Amphitryon, the Comedy of Asses, the Pot of Gold, the
Two Bacchises, the Captives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Duckworth, G.E. (1942). The Complete Roman Drama (2 vols.). New York: Random
House.
Elliott, A.G. (1984). Seven Latin Comedies. New York: Garland.
Fontaine, M. (ed.) (2015). Joannes Burmeister: Aulularia and Other Inversions of Plautus.
Leuven: Leuven University Press.
García Calvo, A. (1998). La versificación del Querolus y el doble condicionamento prosód-
ico del ritmo. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica: Estudios Latinos 15: 323–332.
Girard, M. (1931). Vital de Blois, Aulularia. In: La “comédie” latine en France I (ed. G.
Cohen), 59–106. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Golvers, N. (1984). Le Querolus et le parler de Marseille. Latomus 43: 432–437.
Gómez, L.U. (2017). Estrategias de cortesía lingüística en Querolus. Latomus 76: 140–161.
Jacquemard‐Le Saos, C. (ed.) (1994). Querolus (Aulularia): Le Grincheux (Comédie de la
petite marmite). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Kendrick, L. (2014). Medieval vernacular versions of ancient comedy: Geoffrey Chaucer,
Eustache Deschamps, Vitalis of Blois and Plautus’ Amphitryon. In: Ancient Comedy and
Its Reception (ed. S.D. Olson), 377–396. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Küppers, J. (1979). Zum Querolus (p. 17.7‐22 R.) und seiner Datierung. Philologus 123:
303–323.
Küppers, J. (1989). Die spätantike Prosakomödie Querolus sive Aulularia und das Problem
ihrer Vorlagen. Philologus 133: 82–103.

Lana, G. (1985). Rassegna critica di studi sul Querolus dal 1800 al 1979. Bolletino di Studi
Latini 15: 114–121.
Lassandro, D. and Romano, E. (1991). Rassegna bibliografica degli Studi sul Querolus.
Bolletino di Studi Latini 21: 26–51.
Lockwood, D.P. (1913). The plot of the Querolus and the folktales of disguised treasure.
Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 44: 215–232.
Maclennan, K. and Stockert, W. (eds.) (2016). Plautus, Aulularia. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.
Mantzilas, D. (2014). Προσλήψεις της Πλαυτιανής Aulularia: Querolus, Vitalis Blesensis
και Joannes Burmeister. In: M Rideamus igitur: To Xioύμορ στη Λατινική Γραμματεία
(eds. M. Voutsinou‐Kikilia, A.N. Michalopoulos and S. Papaioannou), 305–316.
Athens: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
Molina Sánchez, M. (1998). La recepcíon de Plauto y Terencio en la comedia latina medi-

eval. In: Estudios sobre Plauto (eds. A. Pociña and B. Rabaza), 71–100. Madrid: Ediciones
Clásicas.
Molina Sánchez, M. (ed.) (1999). Vital de Blois, Aulularia. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
Molina Sánchez, M. (2007). Plauti per vestigia: La auctoritas plautina en la comedia latina
medieval. Los ejemplos del anónimo Querolus sive Aulularia y de la Aulularia de Vital
de Blois. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica, Estudios Latinos 27: 117–133.
Peiper, R. (ed.) (1875). Aulularia sive Querolus: Theodosiani Aevi Comoedia Rutilio dedi-
cata. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.
Ranstrand, G.e. (1951). Querolus sive Aulularia: Incerti auctoris comoedia una cum indice
verborum. Göteborg: Wettergren and Kerbers.
Suchomski, J. (1975). Delectatio und Utilitas: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis mittelalterli-
cher komischer Literatur. Bern: Francke.
Suchomski, J. and Willumat, M. (1979). Lateinische Comediae des 12. Jahrhunderts.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Vidović, G. (2009). Dish to Cash, Cash to Ash: The Last Roman Parasite and the Birth of a
Comic Profession. MA thesis. Budapest: Central European University.

A Companion To Plautus - (Chapter 28 The Medieval Reception of Plautus's Aulularia Querolus and ... )

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Companion To Plautus - (Chapter 28 The Medieval Reception of Plautus's Aulularia Querolus and ... )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT

The Medieval Reception

Lar. So that you be happy.

the Aulularia of Vitalis Blesensis (William of Blois), composed c. 1125–1145 (Bertini

Bisanti, A. (2007). L’interpretatio nominis nel Geta, nell’Aulularia, nell’Alda e nella

ihrer Vorlagen. Philologus 133: 82–103.

Molina Sánchez, M. (1998). La recepcíon de Plauto y Terencio en la comedia latina medi-

You might also like