Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

LIGHT DRAMA
and even spectacular — Bacchis' entrance is excellent theatre. Nevertheless this
was not enough; those who deserted the Hecyra may have yawned at Heauton.
The Phormio is taken from a sparkling and lively piece, and, unlike Terence's
other plays, is dominated by a single strong character. 1 It is noteworthy that
Terence felt the need to justify his change of the title of the original by pointing
this out; the play could be seen in the Roman tradition of a motaria like
Pseudolus, where the dominion of the slave was due to the Roman dramatist.
In his Eunuchus and Adelphoe his alien additions and his adjustments of the
final scenes show no technical improvement. This did not matter, for his
purpose was to strengthen the variety and farcical element to please a conservative
public unconcerned with niceties of structure.
(ii) Techniques and tone. Plautus had sometimes dropped an expository
prologue (Trinummus), even in recognition plays (Epidicus, Curculio); Terence
made this a rule, for the models of all five of his recognition plays as well as the
Adelphoe had expository prologues identifying persons to be found, and
explaining circumstances: thus the audience was able to appreciate ironies
arising from their superior knowledge. Terence's departure from Greek practice
has imposed re-casting of material in all the plays, particularly in the early
scenes, and while it affords Terence the opportunity for some clever foreshadowing
(An. 22.off.), it also introduces surprises of questionable dramatic
merit — the arrival of Crito in Andria, Phormio's knowledge of Demipho's
double life, the discovery that Ctesipho is the lover in Adelphoe. The omissions
also lead to un-Menandrian obscurities, for example the unexplained detectivework
by which Thais (Menander's Chrysis) had found Chremes and identified
him as the likely brother of her protegee in the Eunuchus. Again, Terence
follows Roman practice in running together and adjusting the act-divisions of
his originals, and though Terence is more careful about this than Plautus, here
too he fails to hide his traces (H.T. I7of., Ad. 51 iff.). Terence has only a very
small amount of non-iambo-trochaic canticum (An. 4816% 62.$ff., Eun. 560,
Ad. 61 off.), a significant shift towards the more prosaic voice of New Comedy
away from the styles of Plautus and Caecilius; but the fact that there is any
canticum at all, that only half the dialogue is in spoken iambic senarii, that the
rest is in longer iambo-trochaic metres, often used in a new way and certainly
'sung' — these contrast Terence as strongly with New Comedy practice as with
his Roman predecessors, within whose firmly established tradition he remains.
He evidently followed his predecessors in regularly working up a good deal
of trimeter-dialogue into longer, musically-presented Roman metres. These
exhibit a somewhat more prolix and decorated manner than his senarii, and this
too is an inheritance. On the other hand, he could be far more faithful over
1 Arnott (1970) 31—57.
121
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008