Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

poses that they are the children of noble parents, by whom they were sold or lost in their infancy. Their birth is recognized at · the conclusion of the piece: a catastrophe which does not militate with what preceded, because the author describes them as possessing good manners and entertaining a passion but for a single objeet. He does not exhibit a single instance of those low characters which disgust us in Plautus; he has no buffoone. ry, no licentiousness, no vulgarity, no impertinence. Among the ancient comic writers, who have descended to us, he is the only one who has depicted decent manners, who has spoken the language of the passions and the tone of nature. His moral is sound and instructive, his pleasantry is exquisite, his dialogue is sprightly, natural and easy. All the decencies of the stage are observed in the conduct and plan of his pieces. In what then has he failed? he wants more force and invention in his intrigue, more interest in his subjects, more of the comic in his characters.

There is a verse, in which he is mentioned, attributed to Julius Cæsar. "And thou, oh, half-Menander; thou art placed among our greatest writers, and thou hast merited it by the pu rity of thy style. I wished that to the charm of thy writings thou hadst added that comic force which was only wanted to place thee on an equality with the Greeks, and that thou hadst not been so inferior to them in this respect. In this only wert thou deficient, oh! Terence, and this I regret."

Who were the Greek writers that possessed this comic vein which Terence wanted? and in what respect could he be called the half-Menander? We know that he generally took two Greek pieces to make one of his own, and as he never has any involution of action, it is probable that the pieces from which he borrowed were extremely simple. His execution is, in general, very good; it is only in invention that he is feeble; and, why did he not rely in this respect on the Greeks? this is one of those questions which can never be solved, in consequence of our loss of many ancient authors.

Terence was born in Africa and educated at Rome. He must have been removed thither very early in life, as is evinced by his familiarity with the Latin idiom. Afranius, a comic poet, who had some reputation at the same period, says, no one can be

compared with Terence. When he offered his first work, Adrian to the ediles, who were in the habit of purchasing pieces for representation at the public games which they gave the people, the ediles, before they made a bargain, sent him to Cecilius, a comic writer, whose success had given him great weight in these matters. The old poet was at the table, when Terence, young and unknown, presented himself to him with an appearance by no means imposing. Cecilius gave him a seat near the couch on which he was reclining, Terence began to read. He had not finished the first scene, before Cecilius rose, invited him to supper and made him sit at his table. At the end of the repast, when the comedy was concluded, he loaded him with applause: an instance of kindness and candour which is the more interesting, because it is rare to behold eminent writers disposed to praise their rivals and love their successors.

Terence was a slave: so was Phædrus, the fabulist. Plautus was obliged to work in a mill: Horace was the son of a freedman. On the other hand Cæsar and Frederic cultivated letters, which prove that study may elevate the lowest conditions, and that it cannot degrade the most lofty.

It seems that they saw the truth of this at Rome, even long before the time of Augustus; for Scipio and Lælius were supposed to have assisted in the composition of these comedies. It is certain, that he was honoured with their friendship; it is very probable, that he was assisted by their advice and that their good taste directed him to Plautus as a model.

If he congratulated himself on the favour of Cecilius, he could not be so grateful to a certain Luscius, an old poct, of whom he complains in one of his prologues, as the most zealous and bitter of his detractors. Luscius treated Terence as a plagiarist because he had translated from the Greeks, and Terence replies to him: "are not all our pieces borrowed from that source?" It seems that Luscius did not understand the art of borrowing so well as Terence did.

Nor was he always happy on the stage. His piece entitled Hecyra, the mother-in-law, was not finished; because in the midst of the representation, an exhibition of gladiators was announced, and the people ran in crowds into the circus in order

to retain their places, and the actors, being no longer attended to, were obliged to quit the stage. Of all the productions of Terence the subject of this appears to me most interesting:-it is deficient only in action and business. But the fable would serve for what is now called a drama, which, if managed with art, would produce great effect. The following is a sketch of the plot. A young Athenian, in the confusion of one of the ancient festivals, at which time great freedom prevailed, as he is going home at night from a feast, encounters a young girl, in a dark and crooked street, upon whom he commits violence. He proceeds to the house of his mistress, to whom he recounts this adventure, and gives a ring which he had taken from the unfor tunate object of his passion. Some time after, his father makes him marry. Being still enamoured of his mistress he treats his wife, for two months, with the greatest indifference. She submits to his coldness with unalterable sweetness and patience; she utters no complaint and dreams of nothing but the means of making him love her. In this she is the more successful, because he becomes weary of the ill humour of his mistress, who was displeased at his marriage. In fine, he entirely abandons her and devotes himself to his wife; whom, however, he is soon obliged to leave for sometime on account of business. The action of the piece commences at the moment of the return of Pamphilus, and what has just been related is unfolded in the prologue. Upon his arrival, Pamphilus learns that Philumena, his wife, not being able to live with her step-mother, had resided for some time past with her own parents: that on that very day his mother had gone to visit her daughter-in-law, but was not admitted. He goes himself and learns that his wife had been delivered in secret, having concealed her pregnancy from all the world. He is not astonished at this mysteriousness, because upon recollecting his conduct towards her immediately after their marriage, and comparing it with the period of the birth of the child, he is convinced that it is an illegitimate issue. His agony at this conviction of her guilt is excessive, and he resolves never to see her again. But his parents and those of his wife, being ignorant of these conjugal secrets, are at a loss to account for his behaviour, and suspect that his attachment to

[ocr errors]

Bacchis, his mistress, has been revived. The two fathers go to her; they represent the mischief which she occasions and the danger she incurs by thus seducing a young man of family from his duty. Bacchis protests that since the marriage there had been no intercourse between them. They ask if she will affirm this fact in the presence of Philumena and her mother. To this she consents, and the interview produces an explanation which removes every difficulty. The mother of Philumena recognizes on the finger of Bacchis the ring of her daughter, the same ring which had been taken from her finger in the abominable conflict between drunken passion and helpless virtue. The wretched daughter had communicated the fatal adventure to her mother; who, not being able to foresee what would pass between the husband and wife, and hoping the marriage would conceal the misfortune, had preserved the secret.

It is to be remarked that this piece, which possesses more interest perhaps than every thing else from the same pen, is but coldly conducted. Philumena does not appear upon the stage; her situation is no apology for this, for nothing would be more easy than to suppose her delivered in secret at the house of her mother, a short time before the return of her husband. Bacchis is introduced only for the purpose of unravelling the plot. These are the two persons who could give the greatest inOn the contrary the whole dialogue is ta ken up in disputes between the two fathers and the mother, equally useless and unentertaining. This piece affords the strongest illustration of the remark that Terence wants dramatic effect, and in fact the ancient comedy has not sufficient of what is called the business of the stage, an art in which the French excel.

terest to the scene.

What appears to us strange, and belongs to that difference of manners which must be noted carefully in our comparisons between the ancient and modern theatre, is, the singular bargain which is made in one of his pieces, The Eunuch, between Phædria, the lover of the courtesan Thais, and Thrason, bis rival. Thais ingeniously asks Phædria, whom she loves, to relinquish his place for a couple of days to Thrason, who has promised her a young slave, which she wishes to obtain, that she may re

« AnteriorContinuar »