University of Virginia Library

These two characters were not in the works of Menander, but were added to the Fable by Terence, lest Philumena's being left without a husband, on the marriage of Pamphilus to Glycerium, should appear too tragical a circumstance.

Madam Dacier, after transcribing this remark, adds, that it appears to her to be an observation of great importance to the Theatre, and well worthy our attention.

Important as this Dramatick Arcanum may be, it were to be wished that Terence had never found it out, or at least that he had not availed himself of it in the construction of the Andrian. It is plain that the Duplicity of Intrigue did not proceed from the imitation of Menander, since these characters, on which the double plot is founded, were not drawn from the Greek Poet. Charinus and Byrrhia are indeed but poor counterparts, or faint shadows of Pamphilus and Davus; and instead of adding life and vigour to the Fable, rather damp its spirit, and stop the activity of its progress. As to the tragical circumstance of Philumena's having no husband, it seems something like the distress of Prince Prettyman, who thinks it a matter of indifference, whether he shall appear to be the son of a King or a Fisherman, and is only uneasy lest he should be the son of nobody at all. I am much more inclined to the opinion of an ingenious French Critick, whom I have already cited more than once, than to that of Donatus or Madam Dacier. His comment on this under-plot is as follows.

“It is almost impossible to conduct two intrigues at a time, without weakening the inrest of both. With what address has Terence interwoven the Amours of Pamphilus and Charinus in the Andrian! But has he done it without inconvenience? At the beginning of the second Act, do we not seem to be entering upon a new piece? and does the fifth conclude in a very interesting manner?”

It is but justice to Sir Richard Steele to confess, that he has conducted the under-plot in the Conscious Lovers in a much more artful and interesting manner than Terence in the play before us. The part which Myrtle sustains (though not wholly unexceptionable, especially in the last act) is more essential to the Fable, than Charinus in the Andrian. His character also is more separated and distinguished from Bevil than Charinus from Pamphilus, and serves to produce one of the best scenes in the play.

Sponsam hic tuam amat. We have no word exactly answering the sense of Sponsam in this place. The familiar French expression of La Future comes pretty near it. It is, however, I hope, an allowable liberty in familiar conversation to speak of the Lady by the name of the Bride on her wedding-day, though before the performance of the ceremony.

Rogo, negat vidisse. Wonderful brevity, and worthy imitation.

Whoever remembers this Speech, as well as many other little narrations, in the original, will readily concur with the Critick; but whether the imitation recommended is very practicable, or capable of equal elegance in our language, the reader may partly determine from the present and other translations.

Terence has not put this remark into the mouth of Davus without foundation. The House of the Bride was always full, and before the Street-door were Musicians, and those who waited to accompany the Bride. Dacier.

Married women, neighbours, and relations; whose business it was to attend the Lady, whose name (Pronuba) as well as office was much the same as that of the modern Bride-maid.

Obolo. The Obolus, says Donatus, was a coin of the lowest value. Cooke tells us that the precise worth of it was one penny, farthing, one sixth.

The reciprocal dissimulation between the Father and Son, in the Fable of this Comedy, is much better managed by our Author than by Sir Richard Steele. The efforts made by each party, in order to accomplish the favourite point, which they severally have in view, very naturally keeps all the characters in motion, and produces many affecting, and pleasant situations. There is too much uniformity in the adventures, as well as character of Bevil, for the vivacity of the Drama. His supposed consent to marry is followed by no consequences, and his honest dissimulation, as he himself calls it, is less reconcileable to the philosophical turn of his character, than to the natural sensibility of Pamphilus; besides that the dissimulation of the latter is palliated by his being almost involuntarily driven into it by the artful instigations of Davus.

Hunc venientem sequor. This verse, though in every edition, as Bentley judiciously observes, is certainly spurious: for as Pamphilus has not disappeared since Byrrhia left the stage, he could not say nunc HUNC venientem sequor. If we suppose the line genuine, we must at the same time suppose Terence guilty of a monstrous absurdity.

Other Commentators have also stumbled at this passage; but if in the words follow'd HIM hither, we suppose HIM [HUNC] to refer to Simo, the whole difficulty is removed: and that the Pronoun does really signify Simo is evident from the very circumstance of Pamphilus never having left the stage since the disappearance of Byrrhia. Simo also is represented as coming on the stage homewards, so that Byrrhia might easily have followed him along the street: and it is evident that Byrrhia does not allude to Pamphilus, from the agreeable surprize which he expresses on seeing him there so opportunely for his purpose.

Donatus observes on this Scene between Byrrhia, Simo, Pamphilus, and Davus, that the Dialogue is sustained by four persons, who have little or no intercourse with each other: so that the Scene is not only in direct contradiction to the precept of Horace excluding a fourth person, but is also otherwise vicious in its construction. Scenes of this kind are, I think, much too frequent in Terence, though indeed the form of the antient Theatre was more adapted to the representation of them than the modern. The multiplicity of speeches aside is also the chief error in his Dialogue, such speeches, though very common in Dramatick writers antient and modern, being always more or less unnatural.—Myrtle's suspicions, grounded on the intelligence drawn from Bevil's servant, are more artfully imagined by the English Poet, than those of Charinus created by employing his servant as a Spy on the actions of Pamphilus.

Præter spem evenit: sentio: hoc male habet virum. All the commentators and translators have understood this whole line as spoken aside: but as the first part of it is an apt answer to what Simo had said, and in the same stile with the rest of the conversation, that Davus commonly holds with him, I rather think it was intended in reply; to which Davus subjoins the conclusion, as his sly remark aside.—Whether this was certainly the Poet's meaning, it is difficult to determine; but I think that this manner of speaking the line would have the best effect on the Stage.

The Attick Drachma was equal to seven-pence, three farthings, of English money. Cooke.

The second Act of the Andrian of Baron is, like the first, very nearly an exact translation of Terence.