# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the Franko interpretation that it builds upon a known plot outline and improves it. Similar to how the stock characters needed to evolve to give the play novelty so too did the plot. the plot was familiar enough that he did not need too much explained however it was enough of a twist, it had enough difference to maintain novelty and interest for the viewer.

# data[].attributes.body
Although the characters start of as stock characters they evolve dues to the demands and problems of the play. Cleostrata does not want to see her son's future wife run off with another man let alone her man! so to stop this problem she evolves from her stock character to become a clever and strong independent character in her own right. this is done I believe to make the play more interesting. stock characters are used because they are well known and need no introduction however since there is a value in novelty if the play never expanded past stock characters it would not be new and therefore interesting

# data[].attributes.body
Casina is treated like an object throughout the play which I interpret as a testimony to the way servants were treated rather than Plautus' view of women; however, modern audiences could potentially render the objectifying of Casina as offsetting the feminism put forth by Cleostrata.

-Leen Alrashed

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that it is admirable how the play contains glimpses feminism in a patriarchal society as Cleostrata stops her husband from making Casina his concubine and emerges victorious; whether, she does this with the intention of protecting Casina's women's rights or to prevent her husband from taking another, she appears as a cunning character as opposed to the usual irrational light women are portrayed in.

-Leen Alrashed

# data[].attributes.body
The characterization of women in this play was particularly interesting and seemingly counter to the traditional expectations for women. While the society clearly still favors men, the actions and thoughts of the women made me wonder if and how much Rome was more progressive with gender equality than Ancient Greece.
-Chris Abislaiman

# data[].attributes.body
I would not necessarily consider Casina to be a love comedy by any means. The character of the same name takes a very outside role, simply being the object of two men. She is not given much depth and is treated as, like many others have said, a one dimensional character. She is certainly put on the backburner when the play really hits off and characters such as Lysidamus, Cleostrata, and Euthynicus are the main characters. Casina is not even the lead woman within the play. By the end of the play I really just felt as though even the title was a bit hollow, because the play never really was about Casina; it was more about Cleostrata and her marriage above all else to me.

Paul Nichols

# data[].attributes.body
Could the relationship between slave and master be as intimate as showed in this play, or was it an attempt by the author to minimize the cruelty of the system?
-Chris Abislaiman

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with your statement, it is interesting to see the close relationship that Chalinus and Cleostrata have with one another. I find it intriguing why Chalinus does not hold any fealty to Lysidamus as he holds the patron position in the family. In addition, Chalinus is not the only other slave employed in the multitude of schemes, Olympio is also directed under Lysidamus' rule. The contrast between how the two slaves are employed to "combat" one another is interesting.

-Ryan C.

# data[].attributes.body
I would certainly agree with this interpretation of the play. Cleostrata I feel is a surprising but solid example of the early characterization of the woman in power. Given the time of Plautus, and some aspects of Roman society, it is quite intriguing to see a character such as Cleostrata, a very intelligent woman taking center stage in the play to punish her husband in the midst of his misdeeds. I really wonder what the average reception of the play was due to the representation of Cleostrata.

Paul Nichols

# data[].attributes.body
This all goes back to female empowerment and what it means to be a woman in this society where most of the words they say are not heard. It is such a male dominated society and they believe to have the most wisdom and don't need the advice of their wives so they are just silenced. This is another act of resilience towards their treatment. The wives are tired of just sitting around and allowing their husbands to take concubines and even though it is scary to do something, Cleostrata shows no cowardice because she doesn't even deny it. She is smarter and in the end, exposes the men making fools of themselves, ultimately attaining what she wanted in the beginning, to get her life back be free.

-Barbara Boylan

# data[].attributes.body
1- Why such a divergence from typical stock characters and plots?

2- Was it a shocking play for the Romans? Could they really side for the very perverse Lysidamus (according to modern standards)?

3- The social repercussions of such a play.

4- The differences and similarities between tragedy and comedy representing "strong women".

# data[].attributes.body
Casina is more about how the wife does not accept her role as the doting housewife which is why I relate this interpretation to it. While the audience may be expecting a sappy love story since Casina is the eye of two men's eye, the focus of the story is more about Cleostrata outwitting her own husband and putting her life back to the way it used to be. She manages to outwit two guys and embarrass them for that.

-Barbara Boylan

# data[].attributes.body
I would also have to agree with Franko's interpretation of Casina. The play does not actually focus on Euthynicus and Casina, but in reality the play actually portrays a battle between husband and wife that is held in proxy. Like Franko had mentioned earlier the two never in show on stage, while the whole play is set up to depict how Cleostrata devises plans to set back her husbands scheme. In this way, Cleostarta is the focus in the comedy of male frustrations with women and the institution of marriage. In order to be a "successful" wife, Cleostrata must in act absolute power over her husband, to let her voice be heard, and accomplishes this task by being crafty in her schemes to disrupt Lysidamus.

-Ryan Chu

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder the social acceptance of this play. It depicts a man getting caught attempting to set up and elaborate affair, and then ultimately being bested by a woman. I also wonder what the reception of a father and son pursuing the same woman would have been. The play consists of modern day taboos, I figure some of them had to have been considered taboo in ancient Greece.
-James Loughlin

# data[].attributes.body
I find the use of servants intriguing gin the play. The servants are used as pawns in the schemes of their owners. Lysidamus and his wife Cleostrata try and coerce Casina to a side through their servants. I found this odd because when i think of servants I think of someone who is ordered to do tasks, not someone who is used in an elaborate ruse to persuade the love of a beautiful young girl.
-James Loughlin

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, I think that Casina primarily served as a one dimensional character who only served to advance the plot and cause the primary conflict in the play. Additionally, I think any "feminist" interpretations of the play must keep her characterization in mind.
when discussing "women's empowerment" in this work as well. - Sheyda Tribble

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, That was something that caught my attention too. However, I am not sure if it would've been that taboo considering the status of women and servants at that time. I also think that Lysidamus was relatively cunning in his plot to pursue Casina, as it was not overt, he intended to marry his servant to her. This play primarily made me wonder how female  servants and slaves were treated during this time. - Sheyda Tribble

# data[].attributes.body
I largely agree with Franko's interpretation of Casina. This play is not really about Casina and her interest or love for these two men. Rather, this work, primarily evolves around a family conflict over who she is to marry. This play cleverly demonstrates Cleostrata's cunning nature, wit, and intellect as it relates to her ability to do what is right for herself and her family overall. I do think there are underlying themes relating to women's empowerment and intellectual ability, however, the comical moments in this play somewhat off set that message. It is likely that an audience would have received this play pretty well, even though there are subtle themes of women's capability relating to the home sphere. - Sheyda Tribble

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Grace's statement that this play cannot be an studied as an ancient celebration of women. I believe this because, although Cleostrata is carrying out revenge on her husband for being unfaithful, she is portrayed as malicious in the way her plan embarrassed her husband. Rather than trying to establish a more loving relationship with his, she went straight to humiliation. Moreover, I believe that this is not a feminist play more so because of the time and place that it was written. A playwright, just like a film writer, caters to the mainstream opinions of their audience if they wish to be successful, and the mainstream opinion of women at the time this was written was not very empowering.

# data[].attributes.headline
Libby Furtado: I think that this interpretation of Casina is quite accurate: the plot of the play does not revolve around the character of Casina at all, but the audience seems to mainly be following the actions that Cleostrata carries out against Lysidamus. Franko's claim that this play revolves more around trickery than love can be reinforced by the several plans that Cleostrata carries out during the play against her own husband. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Libby Furtado: I think that this interpretation of Casina is quite accurate: the plot of the play does not revolve around the character of Casina at all, but the audience seems to mainly be following the actions that Cleostrata carries out against Lysidamus. Franko's claim that this play revolves more around trickery than love can be reinforced by the several plans that Cleostrata carries out during the play against her own husband. 

# data[].attributes.body
Morgan Harney: I think that there are many instances within films even nowadays that contain female characters that are not necessarily "strong feminists." Although this can make the ideology questioned, in most circumstances people still are able to strongly relate to empowered female characters. Cleostrata is a strong female role, similar to characters like the Hunger Games lead character, Katniss. Many science fictions revolve around female heroins much like many ancient plays as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Morgan Harney: I understand that Casina is seen as the main female character in this play, however, I think that Cleostrata is the hidden talent woven in the lines of the play. Her refusal to accept the fate of being an ordinary housewife shows feminism in the smallest form, during a time when the ideology wasn't introduced yet. I find it interesting that these small moments appear in many ancient texts even though women were oppressed.

# data[].attributes.body
Stories about these three women, they are all on behalf of the outstanding Athenian women. There are still huge differences among them.
Lysistrata is heads-up and appealing, she uses the power of other women and takes use of the desire of women who want their husband to come back from war. In the end she gets what she wants. Medea uses a more radical strategy to fight for her power, she is brave but not wise. Cleostrata takes advantage of her wit totally to punish her husband and makes everything go back to normal in the end. She is a real winner.
-Haicen Xu

# data[].attributes.headline
I agree with the interpretation from Franko. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I agree with the interpretation from Franko. 

# data[].attributes.body
As previous play we have read such as Lysistrata, Medea, the playwrights want to portray a outstanding female character and also a powerful male to set off the courage and unfair position of women. In this play, the playwright focus on the wit of Cleostrata, and her roundabout strategy. The story of Casina is rarely a background for the description of the story of Cleostrata.
-Haicen Xu

# data[].attributes.body
Although there is something significant about Casina celebrating the accomplishments of Cleostrata, I do not believe that the play can be strictly studied as an ancient celebration of feminism. While Cleostrata might be written as cunning and strong, Casina's character  lacks autonomy. If the play was made to truly celebrate women, all female characters would have been written with the same strength as Cleostrata.
-Grace

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Franko's interpretation. The love story of Casina was written as a byproduct of the main action: Cleostrata's ploys. Casina celebrates Cleostrata's ability to detach herself from the stereotypical female role. This is evident by her emerging victorious over her husband at the end of the play.
-Grace

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Franko's interpretation of the play, while reading I was always more interested in the discourse between Cleostrata and Lysidamus than the lovers. Cleostrata's wit and use of her resources really make this play stand out amongst others of the time, giving this woman the power to triumph over her strong willed husband by pure wit.
--Andrea

# data[].attributes.body
I find it interesting that the route of Cleostratas cleverness and reasoning for her trickery resides in something that was seemingly deemed quite common and acceptable during that time. This being that a husband would engage in extramarital affairs. Just the fact that Cleostrata took a stand against this could have sent a huge message to the audience; particularly the women. She in turn uses her trickery and cunningness to prevent Lysidamus from carrying out his scheme to indulge in such activities. This, I would assume, would be very uncharacteristic of the time. -Alex C

# data[].attributes.body
We have seen many instances in the past where women have been portrayed as cunning and powerful characters, which would have been somewhat uncharacteristic of the general sentiment of women during the time both in plays and outside life. We have not however, seen a version such as this where the female character in power is not brought to light until the later parts of the play. I would be curious to see how this would have effected the audiences feelings towards the role of women? Would this version, in which the power of the female character is somewhat of a big reveal, have the message better received by the audience? -Alex C

# data[].attributes.body
I believe even though Medea and Cleostrata approach in different ways when facing kind of the same situation (I believe Medea is more despairing than Cleostrata, so her revenge is much stronger) Both plays show that the women can not be trifled with. The plays not only tell the female audience to stand up and be independent, but also the male audience to be kind and loyal to their wives.
-Yichang

# data[].attributes.headline
I totally agree with this interpretation.

# data[].attributes.subject
I totally agree with this interpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
The play shows the cleverness and wit of women. Lysidamus is the example of the ordinary men during the period of time. He treats Casina like an object that can be play around and be his sex toy. However, his wife Cleostrata does not let this happen. She is a woman who has the position to speak out, and even against her husband. It is not a typical woman at that time. But I believe the reason that Plautus gives the power to Cleostrata is because he wants women to be that way in the future.
-Yichang

# data[].attributes.body
I do also agree that Casina is a particularly one-sided character and is often treated as an object throughout the play. While there are feminist aspects of the play in the way that Cleostrata is characterized, this is contrasted by the negative portrayal of Casina.

# data[].attributes.body
I find this interpretation of Casina to be true - the play is more focused on the battle of wits and Cleostrata's cleverness rather than the emotional consequences for the young couple. There are feminist leanings in the way that the play addresses Cleostrata and her intelligence, especially because she technically "wins" in the end.
- Bridget

# data[].attributes.headline
I agree with this interpretation of Cleostrata and think it is interesting to compare her to Medea because both women were facing their husband's love for another. Though their circumstances are different, Medea took to revenge killing while Cleostrata took to cleverness and manipulation of the situation. They approached a similar problem in very different ways. They both did not sit down and take it though.

# data[].attributes.subject
I agree with this interpretation of Cleostrata and think it is interesting to compare her to Medea because both women were facing their husband's love for another. Though their circumstances are different, Medea took to revenge killing while Cleostrata took to cleverness and manipulation of the situation. They approached a similar problem in very different ways. They both did not sit down and take it though.

# data[].attributes.body
-Alex G

# data[].attributes.headline
It is hard to separate my modern reading because I was very caught up in the idea of the father and son being in love with the same woman which seemed very wrong. I wonder if that was acceptable or odd at the time and if the audience would have thought about it at all.  - Alex G.

# data[].attributes.subject
It is hard to separate my modern reading because I was very caught up in the idea of the father and son being in love with the same woman which seemed very wrong. I wonder if that was acceptable or odd at the time and if the audience would have thought about it at all.  - Alex G.

# data[].attributes.body
I initially was surprised to see that Cleostrata had a slave. I wasn't sure if that was the norm for prominent females at the time. Furthermore, I found their relationship to be quite profound. The fact that Cleostrata felt comfortable disguising Chalinus as Casina shows the extent of their relationship.
- Sabrina Facey

# data[].attributes.body
I found it extremely interesting that Plautus allowed Cleostrata to engage in a battle with her husband, and ultimately win and humiliate him. I'm very curious to know the social repercussions of something like this taking place in a play. Cleostrata was made such a powerful  figure in this play. What were the reactions and social effects?
- Sabrina Facey

# data[].attributes.body
The characterization of women in this work reminds me somewhat of the way in which Euripides often used both positive and negative characteristics and traits to build more complex female characters in his plays. Here, Cleostrata is portrayed as clever, but her scheming and plotting is understated and not shown as some sort of 'evil' plan which I think supports the argument that this work is slightly feminist in nature.
Sophia Donovan

# data[].attributes.headline
I find this interpretation interesting, and in general I would agree with it. One thing I noticed is that Plautus tends to use similar characters or tropes such as the wife who is smarter than her husband (in this case, of course Cleostrata) and the slave who was born free. I thought there could be somewhat of a feminist interpretation of the work, although of course its not very serious. Also, the complete objectification of Casina doesn't help this narrative. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I find this interpretation interesting, and in general I would agree with it. One thing I noticed is that Plautus tends to use similar characters or tropes such as the wife who is smarter than her husband (in this case, of course Cleostrata) and the slave who was born free. I thought there could be somewhat of a feminist interpretation of the work, although of course its not very serious. Also, the complete objectification of Casina doesn't help this narrative. 

# data[].attributes.body
Sophia Donovan

# data[].attributes.headline
I like how plays like Lysistrata and Casina depict the main female characters as displaying characteristics opposite to the ideal Roman woman during those times. I agree that it celebrates cleverness and the breakthrough of the societal "glass ceiling. Plays like these can be considered profound milestones for women during the Greek/Roman era which embraces a sense of feminism.

# data[].attributes.subject
I like how plays like Lysistrata and Casina depict the main female characters as displaying characteristics opposite to the ideal Roman woman during those times. I agree that it celebrates cleverness and the breakthrough of the societal "glass ceiling. Plays like these can be considered profound milestones for women during the Greek/Roman era which embraces a sense of feminism.

# data[].attributes.body
-Nicole Ferrer

# data[].attributes.headline
I really appreciated the comedic nature in which a "battle of the sexes" ensued in the plot of Casina between Cleostrata, Myrrhina, and Paradalisca vs Lysidamus, Olympio, and Alcesimus. It reminded me of the themes of Lysistrata, which characterized a strong female presence using comedy.

# data[].attributes.subject
I really appreciated the comedic nature in which a "battle of the sexes" ensued in the plot of Casina between Cleostrata, Myrrhina, and Paradalisca vs Lysidamus, Olympio, and Alcesimus. It reminded me of the themes of Lysistrata, which characterized a strong female presence using comedy.

# data[].attributes.body
-Nicole Ferrer

# data[].attributes.body
In response to Shea, I agree with her overall characterisation of the play. Any positives in the portrayal of Cleostrata are at the least countered by the overall way women are portrayed. Cleostrata might be the exception to the roman norm, however she is the only subversive character in the play and in and of herself does not make the entire play subversive, as the entire plot is centred
on the ownership of a woman inspired by lust.

-Madeleine Sides

# data[].attributes.body
I found that Casina had a dual nature in it's treatment of women. Firstly, as many other comments have said, there is a large focus on Cleostrata, her intelligence, and her cunningness esp. in contrast to Lysidamus' lustful and foolish categorisations. Second, the object of lust, love, and plans, Casina, is not herself given any voice in the play. In this way, Casina serves as an object for others to manipulate and is not granted personhood. I am therefore conflicted about the ultimate intention of this play towards the image and presentation of women.

-Madeleine Sides

# data[].attributes.body
In response to Alexandra's post:

I also remarked on the relationship between Myrrhina and Casina, and was super surprised by the presence of an independent female friendship in this play. I am curious as to whether this type of friendship is commonly found in Roman drama. It seems as though female characters are generally pitted against each other or only shown in relation to men rather than allowed to freely interact with each other.

Shea Savage

# data[].attributes.body
While I do believe Casina shows Cleostrata in a more capable light than women have been portrayed in many of the plays we have read so far, I say that it would be inaccurate to extrapolate that the show therefore serves as a celebration of female cleverness and agency. While Cleostrata is clearly shown to be capable and clever in her own right, the show is far from free of the usual, wife-hating tropes rampant in Roman drama. In addition, the object of the play and of the men's desire never even appears on stage. It is surprising, therefore, but stops short of being subversive.

Shea Savage

# data[].attributes.body
I really like how in Casina, there almost seems to be a friendship between the women, or at least no sort of hatred. It made me think of Clytemnestra and Cassandra in a way, being the oppisite of Myrrhina and Casina. Here, Myrrhina blamed her husband and got revenge on just him, rather than take her anger out on the other woman as well, who herself did nothing wrong. -Alexandra D.

# data[].attributes.body
Going off on Gabby's question, I think it's also interesting to consider the dynamic of a slave and Roman man relationship. In class, we talked about how slaves could not legally marry anyone and how all slaves were available for sex with citizens. I think these are really important elements to consider in regards to Casina and Lysidamus. I think that maybe this idea may have been ridiculous to many, but not necessarily unheard of if that makes sense -Alexandra D.

# data[].attributes.body
It's hard to neglect how clever the characterization in this story took its form. We start off with a fairly simple base, complete with our Roman Comedy tropes. I only realized what was actually going on, who was really pulling the strings, close to when it was already too late for our main men. I can imagine a revelation like this occurring on a widespread scale, like that of a theater, creating a type of literary and cultural upheaval.
Brian James

# data[].attributes.body
I was very surprised at the incredibly forward nature of Chalinus, the man who dressed as Casina to fool Lysidamus and Olympio at the end of the play. He seemed to have no inhibitions, no regrets, for dressing as a woman and taking the two men to the bed chambers. I'm curious as to how this would be received by the audience. Is it a simple joke, or does it continue to play on the idea of "trickery and bawdiness"?
Brian James

# data[].attributes.body
In highlighting discord, was it Plautus's intention to comment on the Roman world? In Casina, Plautus gives us a woman in power that is not tragic, men who are subordinate to their whims, and a society that understands infidelity.  Were these differences that could be seen in Roman society, or was humor derived from these scenarios just because they were so preposterous?  -Leah

# data[].attributes.body
I found Casina to be a perversion of the typical 'pure' or 'true' love narrative .  Instead of dealing with the love of Euthynicus for Casina, Plautus focuses on the shameful, lusty, and inappropriate schemes of Lysidamus to have Casina as his bed-mate. In this way, Plautus utilizes a humor closer to Aristophanes's Lysistrata than to Menander's the Grouch. -Leah

# data[].attributes.body
I would be interested in knowing how ridiculous this play would have seemed to Roman audiences in ancient Rome. In modern times, the idea of a man trying to secretly marry a second wife, or get another man to marry a woman so that he could have access to her, would be extremely looked down upon. But since Casina was a slave, and also because this was set during the time of Rome, would such a situation have been surprising for an audience, or more expected? - Gabby

# data[].attributes.body
Casina is a clear example of female intelligence, which I found curious considering that in many Greek dramas crafty women were frowned upon, and would have expected a similar reaction to such women in Roman dramas. Instead, I seems like Plautus was comfortable with the idea of making a woman the victor over a man at the end of Casina. - Gabby

# data[].attributes.headline
I'm curious to know what caused the divergence from typical stock characters and plots. While the characters still hold some of the stereotypical characteristics, the play itself steers away from the plot that I was expecting, especially for having two characters never actually appear on stage. What inspired Plautus to change the established method? -Annie

# data[].attributes.subject
I'm curious to know what caused the divergence from typical stock characters and plots. While the characters still hold some of the stereotypical characteristics, the play itself steers away from the plot that I was expecting, especially for having two characters never actually appear on stage. What inspired Plautus to change the established method? -Annie

# data[].attributes.headline
What I found enjoyable about Casina was that at first, it seemed like Cleostrata was in fact going to fit the nagging matron stereotype. However, the play progressed and her character progressed with it. Cleostrata's genius was almost understated in a way, it wasn't discussed in detail, she didn't brag about how clever she was. That made it even more enjoyable to watch her scheming work out flawlessly. -Annie 

# data[].attributes.subject
What I found enjoyable about Casina was that at first, it seemed like Cleostrata was in fact going to fit the nagging matron stereotype. However, the play progressed and her character progressed with it. Cleostrata's genius was almost understated in a way, it wasn't discussed in detail, she didn't brag about how clever she was. That made it even more enjoyable to watch her scheming work out flawlessly. -Annie 

# data[].attributes.headline
What do you think of this interpretation? Franko (2001) writes about the play: 

# data[].attributes.subject
What do you think of this interpretation? Franko (2001) writes about the play: 

# data[].attributes.body
"Casina does not focus on the young lovers and the obstacles they overcome: the two do not even appear on stage. Rather, the play revels in trickery, bawdiness, and repeated delays or departures from the hackneyed traditional story pattern. Casina is not a celebration of harmony, reconciliation, and happiness; it is a celebration of Cleostrata's cleverness and refusal to accept the passive role of nagging matron. (Prof. Noel).