Terence's Andrian, a comedy, in five acts

by Terence

“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.—Donatus.

Madame 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 dramatic 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 the 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[A], 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 critic, whom I have already cited more than once, than to that of Donatus or Madame Dacier. His comment in this underplot is as follows:—

“It is almost impossible to conduct two intrigues at a time without weakening the interest 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?”—Diderot.

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 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[B] in the play.” Colman.

[A] The following extract will explain Mr. Colman’s allusion,

Thimble.	Brave Prettyman, it is at length revealed,
	That he is not thy Sire who thee conceal’d.
Prettyman.	What oracle this darkness can evince!
	Sometimes a fisher’s son, sometimes a prince.
	It is a secret, great as is the world;
	In which I, like the soul, am toss’d and hurl’d.
	The blackest ink of fate sure was my lot,
	And when she writ my name, she made a blot.
	[Exit.
Bayes.	There’s a blustering verse for you now.
Smith.	Yes, Sir; but why is he so mightily troubled to find he is not a fisherman’s son?
Bayes.	Phoo! that is not because he has a mind to be his son, but for fear he should be thought to be nobody’s son at all.
Smith.	Nay, that would trouble a man, indeed.
	Rehearsal, A. III. S. IV.

[B] A. IV. S. I.

[NOTE 109.]
Byrrhia.—I beseech you, O Charinus.

Quæso ædepol, Charine. Ædepol means literally by the temple of Pollux, being an abbreviation of the words per templum Pollucis, as pol was used for per Pollucem: and hercle for per Herculem. These ancient expletives are of a similar nature to those in modern use, which are almost all of religious derivation.