estimate of the mise-en-scene. Enough has been said, we believe, in our
discussion of the criticism and acting and in our analysis of his dramatic
values, to show that the aberrations of Plautus' commentators have been
due to their failure to reach the crucial point: the absolute license with
which his plays were acted and intended to be acted is at once the
explanation of their absurdities and deficiencies. This was true in a far
less degree of Terence, who dealt in plots more _stataria_ and less
_motoria_.[190] Though using the same store of models, he endeavored to
produce an artistically constructed play, which should make some honest
effort to "hold the mirror up to nature." We are convinced that even his
extensive use of _contaminatio_ was designed to evolve a better plot. The
extravagance of Plautus is toned down in Terence to a reasonable
verisimilitude and a far more "gentlemanly" mode of fun-making that was
appropriate to one in the confidence of the aristocratic Scipionic circle.
But when all is said and done, Terence lacks the vivid primeval
"Volkswitz" of Plautus. We dare only skirt the edges of this extensive
subject.[191]

Above all, our noble jester _succeeds_ in his mission of laugh-producing.
But his methods are not possessed in the main of dramatic respectability.
And it must be apparent that our analysis and citations have covered the
bulk of the plays.

We conclude then that the prevalence of inherent defects of composition
and the lack of serious motive, coupled with the author's constant and
conscious employment of the implements of broad farce and extravagant
burlesque, impel us inevitably to the conclusion that we have before us a
species of composition which, while following a dramatic form, is not
inherently drama, but a variety of entertainment that may be described as
a compound of comedy, farce and burlesque; while the accompanying music,
which would lend dignity to tragedy or grand opera, merely heightens the
humorous effect and lends the color of musical comedy or opera
bouffe.[192] Koerting is right in calling it mere entertainment, Mommsen is
right in calling it caricature, but we maintain that it is professedly
mere entertainment, that it is consciously caricature and if it fulfills
these functions we have no right to criticise it on other grounds. If we
attempt a serious critique of it as drama, we have at once on our hands a
capricious mass of dramatic unrealities and absurdities: bo