Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/1013

Rh comedy were drawn up by C. Sulpicius Apollinaris.

In closing this summary of Terence's comedies, we may remark that Terence added no new characters to the repertoire of the Attic drama (comp. Prol. in Heautont. with Hor. A. P. 114), and that, even in Horace's time, in spite of the passion for spectacle and melodrama, his plays attracted crowded audiences, and were as familiarly known to the Roman populace, as the stanzas of Tasso's "Gierusalemme" to the Venetian gondoliers. (Hor. Ep. ii. 1. 60.)

An account of the principal ancient commentators on Terence will be found under the names Calliopius, Donatus, Eugraphius, and Evanthius. The earliest treatise on the Terentian metres is that of Rufinus of Antioch. Bentley, in his edition of the poet (Cambridge, 1726, 4to.), was the first to arrange them on a scientific principle: since that time no material improvement has been made either in the text or the metrical system of these comedies. For an account of Bentley 's edition, see his Life by Monk (ii. pp. 225–231, 8vo. ed). Mr.Hallam (Mid. Ages, ii. p. 342, 8th ed.) has some very ingenious and instructive remarks on the versification of Terence, and there is a satisfactory article on the same subject in the Penny Cyclopaedia (Terentian Metres). A selection of Prolegomena to Terence is prefixed to the edition of Terence by Mr. Giles, London, 8vo. 1837.

The ancient critics on Terence were very numerous. We cite the principal of them chronologically before offering any remarks of our own.

Nearest in time, Afranius wrote in his Compitalia that Terence was sui generis, really incomparable,

Varro (Parmenio, Nonius, s. v. Poscere) says he was surpassing in the portraiture of character, "in ethesin Terentius poscit palmam." Cicero (Opt. Gen. Or. 1. §3) said that he differed from his brother-artists in genere, "unum vero est genus perfecti, a quo qui absunt, genere differunt, ut ab Attio Terentius," and in a fragment of his Limo, probably a critical miscellany in verse, commends him as the interpreter of Menander,

Volcatius Sedigitus (de Poet. Com. ap. Gell. xv. 24) assigns Terence only the sixth place among the Roman comic poets, an opinion deeply resented by many modern scholars. (Rutgers Var. Lect. iv. 19; Francis. Asulanus, Ep. &c.) Horace awards him the palm of art (Ep. ii. 1. 59, "vincere Caecilius gravitate, Terentius arte"), and Ovid distinguishes his festive humour (Trist. ii. 357),

{{block center| {{fqm}}Nec liber est judicium animi; sed honesta voluntas,

{{gap|1em}}Plurima mulcendis auribus apta refert.

Accius esset atrox, conviva Terentius esset."

Quintilian (x. 1) depreciates Roman comedy generally, "in comoedia maxime claudicamus," and thinks that Terence erred in not adhering to the Senarian measure of his Greek originals; and Servius (ad Aen. i. 414) says "sciendum est Terentium, propter solam proprietatem, omnibus comicis esse praepositum; quibus est, quantum ad caetera spectat, inferior." We cite Caesar's famous epigram last, both on account of its author and of the verdict he delivers.

{{block center| {{fqm}}Tu quoque tu in summis, O dimidiate Menander,

Poneris, et merito, puri sermonis amator,

Lenibus atque utinam scriptis adjuncta foret vis

Comica, ut aequato virtus polleret honore

Cum Graecis, neque in hac despectus parte jaceres.

Unum hoc maceror et doleo tibi deesse, Terenti."}}

The preceding extracts show the ancient critics unanimous in ascribing to Terence immaculate purity and elegance of language, and nearly so in denying him vis comica. Their opinion is entitled to the more respect from their having had the entire Menander before them, and from its confirmation by modern censors from Erasmus to Colman. Yet we are not inclined to let their verdict pass unquestioned. In the first place, four of Terence's six plays are more or less comédies larmoyantes—sentimental comedies—in which vis comica is not a primary element. In the next, Terence is generally contrasted with Plautus, with whom he had so little in common that we might as justly compare Addison with Moliére. Granting to the elder poet the highest genius for exciting laughter, and the eloquence which Aelius Stilo ascribed to him (Varr. ap. Quinct. x. 1. §99), and a natural force—"virtus"—which his rival wanted, there will remain to Terence greater consistency of plot and character, closer observation of generic and individual distinctions, deeper pathos, subtler wit, more skill and variety in metre, and in rhythm, and a wider command of the middle region between sport and earnest. It may be objected that Terence's superiority in these points arises from his copying his Greek originals more servilely. But no servile copy is an animated copy, and we have corresponding fragments enough of Menander to prove that Terence retouched and sometimes improved his model. (Zimmerman, Terenz. u. Menand. 1842.) He cannot, indeed, be ranked with the dramatic poets who exert a deep or permanent influence on the passions of men or the art of representation—with Sophocles and Aristophanes, with Shakspere or Lope de Vega, with Moliére or Schiller. But we incline to class him with Massinger, Racine, and Alfieri—writers in whom the form is more perfectly elaborated than the matter is genially conceived. Nor in summing up his merits should we omit the praise which has been universally accorded him—that, although a foreigner and a freedman, he divides with Cicero and Caesar the palm of pure Latinity.

The principal editions of Terence are, "princeps," Mediol. 1470, fol.; Mureti, 1555, 1558, 8vo. frequently reprinted; Faerni, Florent. 1565, 8vo.; Lindenbrogii, Paris, 1602, 4to., Francofurt, 1623; Parei et Riccii. Neap. Nemet. 1619, 2 vols. 4to.; Bentleii, an epoch in Terentian text and metres, Cantab. 1726, 4to., Amstel. 1727, 4to., Lips. 1791, 8vo.; Westerhovii. Hagae Com. 1727, 2 vols. 4to.; Stallbaum, Lips. 1830, 8vo. and Zeune, I. K. 1774, which contains nearly every thing good in its predecessors, and ample prolegomena. There are also numerous editions of single plays.

The principal Codices of Terence are, the Vatican Bembinus, written about the fifth century, {{smaller|A.D.}}, and the Cambridge. A second Vatican Codex dates from the ninth century, {{smaller|A.D.}}, and contains drawings of the masks worn by the actors. (Boëttig. Spec. ed. Terent. Lips. 1795.) Besides the authorities already cited, see Crinit de Poet. c. 8;