A PPROA CHE S TO A P R OD U CT IO N OF T E R E N C E `S HE A

APPROACHES
TO
A
PRODUCTION
HE A U T ON TIM ORO UM EN OS
OF
T E R E N C E ’S
B y R. Bond
1.
Initial
c onsi derati ons
W hen on e first considers any dramatic text w ith a perform ance in m ind, certain
rather ob viou s questions m ust be confronted and answ ered. It is u sefu l, to say the
least, to have som e n otion o f the particular dram atic genre to w h ich the text
b elongs. Is it a tragedy, a tragicom edy or farce? T his m ay seem a n a iv ely sim ple
statement to make. H ow ever, each individual genre arouses certain exp ectation s in
the minds o f audience, perform er and director. T he director m ust be at least aware
o f these expectations, w hen h e a ctiv ely confronts the text. It m ay w e ll be that his
directional approach w ill be in broad agreem ent with these expectations. N o t many
people w ould direct H am let as a farce - intentionally, I m ean. On the other hand,
in terms o f the b low by b lo w co n secu tiv e detail o f a production, the director may
w ish to contradict those expectations for sp ecific dramatic effects.
A c co rd in g ly , the d irector n eed s w o rk in g d e fin itio n s o f the m ajor dram atic
c a teg o ries, eith er e x p lic it d e fin itio n s - or in tu itiv e. In term s, h o w e v er , o f
com m unicating his ideas about a play to his production team and, through them to
an audience, intuition is less than useful, being notoriously hard to verbalise and so
com m unicate. The director should have som e clear and com m u n icab le idea o f the
nature and function o f, say, co m e d y , therefore, by referen ce to w h ich he can
categorise usefully an individual text and identify its individual nature and function.
For exam p le, with reference to com ed y and a co m ed y , such as the Self-Torm entor
o f T erence, it is essential to have som e idea w hether on e w ish es sim p ly to delight,
or a lso to instruct - or, indeed, both. T h is b asic idea w ill su b seq uently colou r
every individual facet o f the proposed production. O nly by con sisten t reference to
such a p o licy , con sciou sly arrived at and clearly com m unicated to the team , can any
production ach ieve the necessary and sa tisfy in g unity o f purpose w hich em erges
from the harm onious exploitation o f any drama's remarkably divergen t elem en ts plot, character, diction, them e, sp ectacle and so on. In short, the director should
ideally be a theoretician and com m unicator, as w ell as practical man o f the theatre,
w et-nurse to performers...
It is eq u ally essen tial to know h o w to relate the ch o sen tex t and the author in
question to the on going cavalcad e o f dramatic literature. W hile it is certain that a
text m ust be understood on its o w n term s, in term s o f its o w n inner unity and
5
diversity o f plot, them e and character, it is also necessary to know how T erence, for
exam ple, relates to Plautus, to M enander and to the later w estern co m ic tradition,
upon w hich his in flu en ce is so often and so rightly said to have been im m en se.
For certain m em bers o f an audience - and h op efu lly, but not n ecessarily, the critic w ill en joy the perform ance m ore d eep ly and understand it m ore c lea r ly , if an
intelligent and in telligib le con n ection is m ade with the co m ic tradition, even if the
con n ection is the co n n ectio n m ade by innovation or, p o ssib ly , the rejection o f
tradition. T his necessary in tellig ib ility o f identity and purpose relates, o f course,
both to the text, as a literary and h isto rica l o b ject, and to the m anner o f
presentation in relation to current and past philosop h ies o f direction.
Som e thought w ill also have to be g iv en , when dealing with an an cien t text, to the
question o f how the ancient au d ien ce's ex p ecta tio n s o f co m ed y w ill h ave been
different from those o f a m odem audience. D over su ggests, for exam p le, with more
than a hint o f cultural and intellectu al snobbery, that, "To ju d g e from the extant
citations, the com ic poets o f the fifth century w ere unanim ous in their adoption o f
what seem s to their modern readers”, that is, to men like D over, "a reactionary and
philistine persona, and in this respect they resem ble m odern m usic-hall com edians
rather than modern writers o f com edies". W hether this statem ent is true or false or,
if true, w hether the com m en t applies eq u ally to R om e in the seco n d century, B.C.
is a matter for debate. W hat is true and is, in fact, im plied by D over's patronising
tone is that liv e theatre, and certainly this is true to a large exten t in N e w Zealand,
is no longer part o f the popular culture. T h is m ay mean that T erence's more subtle
co m ed y w ould w ork w ell in the b o u rg eo is en v iro n m en t o f, for e x a m p le , the
p rofessional theatre in C hristchurch, better, sa y , than the m ore robust sty le o f
Plautus. H avin g said that, h o w e v e r , the m odern a u d ien ce in C h ristch u rch ,
b ou rgeois or not, has recen tly responded b est to the q u estio n a b le subtlety and
charm o f F ootrot Flats. That b ein g a matter o f record, m aybe T erence's greater
sophistication and subtlety, and h is attem pts to insert into co m ed y a certain moral
seriousness, the burden o f w hich the genre, as it then ex isted and as it ex ists here,
in the here and n ow , w as and is unable to su stain , w ou ld co n d em n the S elfTorm entor to a rather co o l reception. A s Sander M . G oldberg puts it ''Terence's
addition o f a certain seriou sn ess to the R om an tradition w ou ld c o m e o n ly at the
expense o f its m ost fundam ental appeal."1 Y es, but appeal to w hom ?
All such considerations should be in the m ind o f the director, as he or she grapples
with the problem s and details o f presentation; even before that, w hen the d ecision
2is m ade as to w hether an individual text is worth the energy that w ill need to be
expended.
I su ggested earlier that the text must a lso be interpreted, in w h o le - and in part also,
on its ow n terms; but w hat o f its p la ce w ith in the d e v elo p m en t o f the actual
1 Sander M. Goldberg, Understanding Terence (Princeton, 1986) 169.
6
playw right's sk ills, his changing concerns? W hat characteristics d o es the SclfTormenior share with Terence's other plays, how d ocs it relate to those o f Plautus?
For such inform ation, as, for exam p le, that the Self-Torm entor and the B rothers
share an in telligen t interest in the relationship b etw een fathers and so n s, w ill
suggest to the director what aspects o f the drama should with profit receive special
em phasis. The director must be, therefore, ideally a theoretician o f dramatic genre,
theatre and literary historian, also literary critic; his role com b in es all three o f these
skills, along w-ith a know ledge o f acting theory and perform ance sk ills, and at least
a nodding acquaintance w'iih design - in terms o f set, costu m e, lighting, properties
and sound. It is certain that a text m ust have con sid erab le quality, if it d eserves
such attention.
The next question is sim ple - cou ld T eren ce’s text o f the S elf-T orm en tor ever be
considered worthy now o f such com m itm ent, be considered likely even to "succeed"
in a m odem performance?
2.
T ow a rd s a D e fin itio n
o f C o m edy
It is a com m onp lace am ong the drama teacher's repertoire o f tutorial gam bits that
com edy is m uch harder to d iscu ss and, indeed, su ccessfu lly perform than tragedy.
B y nature com ed y seem s more disparate, less con sisten t, m ore flirtatious than its
tragic elder sister. A lso the theoretician o f tragedy still o w e s a considerable debt to
A ristotle and the P oetics - if all E lse fails. D esp ite U m berto E co, w e don't know a
great deal about w hat A ristotle said on the su b ject o f c o m e d y , although so m e,
notably Elder O lse n 2 have attem pted a reconstruction o f A ristotle's v ie w s on
com ed y, working by analogy from his discu ssion o f tragedy. O thers such as W .D .
H ow arth3 are not op tim istic about the p rosp ects o f ach iev in g an all em bracing
theory o f the com ic and o f co m ic drama. Howarth w orks tow ards a m in im alist
definition, contenting h im self with indicating the properties and recurrent accidents
o f com ic drama. M y intention, fo llo w in g the lead o f Howarth, Elder and others, is
to essay a w orking description o f co m ed y in term s o f p lot, th em es, character,
function and so on, so that the Self-T orm entor can be con sid ered in the light o f
such a description or working definition.
First o f all let us rem o v e from co n sid era tio n and co n ten tio n the dram as o f
A ristophanes and his spiritual su ccesso rs, not that there w ere m any o f th ose, until
relatively recent tim es. I m ean, for exam ple, Jarry in France and D ario Fo in Italy.
I w ould prefer to c la ss the work o f such as th ese as p olitical farce or satire,
animated cartoons presented on the stage. T he mainstream o f the European com ic
tradition in drama begins, to all intents and purposes, with M enander and continues
with Plautus and T erence in R om e, M oliere and B eaum archais in Francc, ev en
2 Elder Olsen, The Theory o f Comedy (Bloom ington, 1968) 25-65.
3 W.D. Howarth, Comic Drama: European Heritage (New York, 1978)
7
Scribc and Sardou, to O scar W ild e and, fin ally, C h ek h ov.
G en res blend and
d efin ition s break dow n som ew hat in the tw entieth century, w here tragicom edy
bccom es the norm, as stressed by Diirrenmatt, reflecting the tragico-com ical nature
o f the century itself.
W e can, in fact, start with the notion o f "reflection" and C icero's statem ent that
co m ed y is a mirror o f life , a specu lu m vita e.
C o m ed y is an im ita tion , or
reflection, on stage o f an action or a ctio n s o f in d ivid u als lik e (or w o rse than)
o u rselv es, in v o lv ed in c iv ic and/or p rivate co n cern s (a cco rd in g to D o n a tu s),
concerns w hich in v o lv e the individual's quest for m oney or s e x /lo v e or both, or for
one as the m eans to the other. D esp ite various c o m p lica tio n s and d ifficu lties a
happy outcom e is alm ost inevitably ach iev ed , to the satisfied r e lie f o f the audience;
this resolution is ach ieved either through trickery, an un exp ected anagnorisis, or
both - one leading, but not necessarily so , to the other. In gen eral, all the ev en ts
in a com ed y should be p o ssib le, if n ot lik ely , the major im probability b ein g , as
D u ck w orth pu ts it, " statistical" 4 .
A ls o , the laughter and r e lie f is m ore
p leasu rab le, i f the happy r e so lu tio n c o in c id e s , in p o in t o f tim e, w ith the
anagnorisis - o f, say, the lo n g -lo st child. A s S cott Cutler S h ersh ow puts it "The
nodus erroris, the knot o f com p lication , is unfastened and, u su ally, a different sort
o f knot is tied for at least tw o o f the younger characters."5
Clearly, the Self-Tormentor, w ith its com bination o f star-crossed lovers, C linia and
A ntiphila, its sch em in g sla v e , Syrus, its em p h asis upon m o n ey and, o f cou rse,
curm udgeonly old m en, its d isco v e r y o f the lo n g -lo st daughter and its happy
ending, fits this particular play bill rather w ell.
3.
T he F u n c tio n
o f C om edy
What then is the aim and function o f this bou rgeois co m ed y o f m anners w ith its
habitual happy ending? Aut prodesse aut d electa ret Or both? First things first: it
is se lf-ev id en t that all c o m ed ie s seek to g iv e d eligh t. A s H ow arth sa y s, "Any
co m ed y, even o n e w h o se 'com ic' co n ten t is m in im a l, sh o u ld take us ou t o f
ourselves, entertain us and d eligh t us; and, w hether w e laugh im m oderately or not
at all, w e m ay w e ll sm ile w ith anticipation as w e id en tify w ith the sym pathetic
characters, w ith r e lief as w e applaud the d iscom fiture o f their op p on en ts, or with
relaxed w ell-being as w e enjoy the happy ending."6
H ow ever, som e com ed ies do seek a lso to instruct. I w ou ld , in fact, take issu e w ith
Howarth's term "sympathetic" in the con text o f a discu ssion o f character in com ed y
and the didactic co m ic purpose. It is n ot the intention o f co m e d y to produce
4 G.E.Duckworth, The Nature o f Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952) 158-60.
5 Scott Cutler Shershow, Laughing Matters: the Paradox o f Comedy (Amherst, 1986)17.
6 Howarth, 17.
characters with w hom w e sym p a th ise, or for w hom w e have or can d e v e lo p
empathy. Rather, the ey e o f com ed y is ob jective, w e laugh with ihe author at the
characters. It is through this ob jective ey e that the audience is induced to ob serve,
m ock, learn and inw-ardly d igest. W e laugh at, feel superior to - and th ese are
rational not em otional, responses. Indeed, the authors o f com ed y standardly break
the dramatic con ven tion s, by com m en tin g upon them , both to am u se and a lso to
obviate any chance o f the a u d ien ce b eco m in g in v o lv e d w ith the actors on an
em otional lev el. T he au d ien ce is not a llo w ed to forget that they are w atching
actors in performance.
T erence d o es not, o f co u rse, e x p lo it the co m ic or tragic c o n v e n tio n s for the
purposes o f com ic alienation as b o ld ly as d o es Plautus w ith , for ex a m p le, his
com m ent put into the mouth o f T ranio in M o ste lla ria , "Tell you w hat - if you
happen to know the com ic writers, D ip h ilu s or P h ilem on , you m igh t g iv e them
the story o f how' your slave put it across you; y o u d be g iv in g the fin est plot o f
cross-purposes ever seen on the stage"7 . H ow ever, the w h o le o f the prologue o f
the Self-Tormentor could or should be considered as an extrinsic alienation d evice,
esp ecia lly with its insisten ce that the elderly L. A m b iviu s T urpio isn ’t up to the
servus callidus et currens any m ore - an ironical a p o lo g y , m ock a p o lo g y , for
Terence’s more gentle style.
In the body o f the play itself, at vv. 2 1 3 -2 2 9 , C litip h o’s m ela n ch o lic so lilo q u y
exerts a subtle form o f alienation. The adulescens claim s that he w ill never be an
iratus senex him self, w h ile, o f cou rse, it is a "given" o f co m ed y that you n g m en
must grow into irati senes - if on ly to provide material for future co m ed ies. It is
a lso true that ultim ately C lin ia and A n tip h ila w ill m etam orp h ose into another
Chrem es and Sostrata; yet they w ill marry despite the forbidding and foreboding
e v id en ce before them . It is, m o reo v er, in th is su b tle and iro n ica l form o f
alienation, replete w ith im p licit com m en t or su b -text, that T eren ce m o st e x c e ls,
especially, in the Self-Tormentor in the gradual delineation o f C hrem es.
C on sid er M en ed em u s’ th em a tica lly im portant little sp ee c h at v v . 5 0 2 -5 0 7 :
M enedem us declares that it alw ays seem s to be the ca se that others, that is, in this
instance, C hrem es, are w iser and more perspicacious than o n e se lf in dealin g with
and understanding on e’s affairs. B y now the aud ien ce already k n ow o f C litip h o ’s
e x p lo its w ith B a c c h is and o f C lin ia ’s h on ou rab le d e v o tio n to A n tip h ila .
A ccordingly, they are invited to sm ile with ind u lgen ce upon M en ed em u s’ naivety,
and to laugh with satisfaction at the prospect o f the sm ug C h rem es’ in evitab le
undoing.
Terence again ex p lo its a g iv en o f co m ed y to go o d c ffc c t in v v . 5 1 4 ff. Here
Chrem es is inordinately pleased lhat his slave, Syrus, is smarter than C lin ia ’s man.
7 Plautus, Mostellaria 1149-50.
9
He ack n ow led ges the role o f the servus callidus in facilitating affairs o f the heart.
S im u lta n eo u sly , but m ista k en ly , as th in g s turn ou t, C h rem cs c o n g ra tu la tes
h im se lf on b ein g too sharp to be taken in by a sla v e. T h is is the im p lication .
T he alienation e ffe c t co m e s into play o n c e m ore w hen C h rem es, at v v . 5 2 4 ff .,
su ggests that C linia's slave is actually at fault for not h o o d w in k in g M en ed em u s.
O ne should note too Syrus' iron ically self-d ep recatory d escription o f h im self as
stultus (stupid), precisely w hen he is being his m ost M achiavellian.
"Much has been made", w rites Elder O lsen , "of Brecht's V erfrem dungsaffect , or
alienation effect, but it is m erely a m od ified form o f co m ic alienation. T he point
is that the extrem e com ic is produced by m aking the observer so indifferent to the
fortunes o f the person s that h e is o b serv in g that h e can co n cen tra te on the
absurdities o f action and fortune as such, w ithout em otion al co m m itm en t1'8, and
so, I w ould suggest, be instructed, learn.
Y es, but learn about w hat? P ut q u ite sim p ly , the a u d ien ce w ill learn, or be
exp ected to learn, how to avoid the banana skins o f life. Put m ore seriou sly, w e as
audience are expected to learn about eth ics, th ose traditionally a ccep ted norm s o f
behaviour, o cca sio n a lly rationalised by p h ilosop h ers, according to the dictates o f
w hich our fam ily liv es and various other so cia l relationships are supposed to be
conducted. T h ese p lays, o f N e w and R om an c o m ed y , d o g iv e , w ithin lim its, a
reasonably accurate reflection o f the co m ed y o f life. A s H enri B ergson put it in
1900, "in fact, there are sc e n e s in real life so c lo s e ly bordering on h ig h -cla ss
com ed y that the stage m igh t adapt them w ithout ch an gin g a sin g le w ord."9 T he
reverse is also true.
A ccord in gly, the p lays are cap ab le o f b ein g u sed to in v estig a te the relationships
w hich e x ist b etw een the gen eration s, b etw een the se x e s and the differen t so cia l
strata.
B y so d oing the p la y s can d em on strate the p itfa lls co m m o n to badly
m anaged relationships, badly m anaged in term s o f the traditionally accepted norms
o f behaviour. Further, the m ore ad ven tu rou s p la y w rig h t, such as T eren ce or
C h ek h o v , S h aw or W ild e , m ay d em o n stra te actu al sh o r tc o m in g s in th o se
traditional b e lie fs, in, w hat w as ca lled by M arxist critic M ikhail B akhtin, "the
people's u n official truth". T h is w as, I b e lie v e , m ost certainly T eren ce's aim , to
am use and instruct.
That striking phrase, "the p eop le's u n o fficia l truth" is worth so m e com m en t. It
bears on the question o f w hether co m ed y is, lik e superannuation, "portable", from
one period o f history to another. T he o b v io u s answ er is "yes", b ecau se w e still do
enjoy perform ances o f Shakespeare, o f M oltere or W ild e, if o n ly , in part, because
8 Olsen, 78.
9 Henri Bergson, Laughter: Essay on the Meaning o f the Comic (Philadelphia, 1977) Tr.
Richard West.
10
w c are exp ected to. H ow ever, how m uch do w c lo se, sim p ly b ecau se co m ed y ,
even more than tragedy, is by nature topical in its reference, not on ly in term s ol
political even ts, but more in sid iou sly (and so m ore im portantly) in term s o f "the
people's unofficial truth'? Are som e co m ed ies more "portable" than others? W hat
o f the Self-Tormentor!
It is clearly recognised that tragedy both in its form and content is supportive o f the
p olitical and so cia l status quo. S o a lso co m ed y , far from b ein g a disturbing
influence, itself reinforces traditional moral values. Thus Albert C ook in The Dark
Voyage and the Golden Mean:
"Com edy, violating the stage co n v en tio n s, sa y s, 'Ah, but this is on ly a
play; these characters are abnormal; or if the licen se o f their abnorm ality
is our secret d esire and th ese sin s our fo ib le s, they are to be ritually
ex p elled by our so cia l lau gh ter...’ B a sica lly c o m ed y is approval not
disapproval, o f present so ciety , it is conservative not liberal."
D ealing for a m om ent in sp ecifics, w e cannot really understand M enedem us' guilt,
or the reason w hy a Roman audience w ould take delight in Chremes' undoing in the
Self-Torm entor, w ithout a clear grasp o f R om an attitudes to ed u cation and filial
piety. It may be that M enedem us' harshness towards C linia w as e x c e ss iv e , but it
w as an e x c e ss o f a proper attitude tow ards education and C lin ia is, by R om an
standards, a more proper young man than C hrem es' son C litip h o , w h o se moral
education w as apparently neglected , because o f his father's m ed d leso m e interest in
the affairs o f others, o f p eop le ou tsid e his fam ily. T he dual result has b een that
C litip h o is in v o lv ed w ith the m ercenary p r o fe ssio n a l, B a c c h is, C lin ia w ith
A ntiphila, a m odel o f m aidenly virtue.
In brief, the moral platform o f com ed y tends to the conservative; it relates c lo se ly
to sp ecifics o f lim e and place. O f som e plays this is m ore true than others. T hey
are poten tially less "portable", less capable o f b ein g su c c e ssfu lly r eceiv ed by a
m odem audience, let alone an antipodean one.
4.
T eren ce in th e C o n te x t o f C o m ed y
C ertainly the S elf-T orm en tor is a com ed y o f m anners, w'hich presents for our
entertainment and edification a hum orous v iew o f fam ily life, recogn isab le to us as
such and to which w e can in som e degree respond. It deals with bourgeois concerns
- m on ey and m arriage, co m m u n ica tio n b etw een the g en era tio n s and so w ith
education, with friendship, with self-k n o w led g e and self-d ecep tion . T he problem s
w hich enm esh the characters in the play arise from either a deviation from the then
accepted standards o f polite society, or from an inhumane and too strict adherence to
those traditional m oral standards. T he question o f h o w p recisely relevant and
com m unicable these problem s as fram ed are to us, in the here and now must aw ait
exploration o f the text as a blueprint for dramatic perform ance.
11
H ow ever, it can be said that Terence's co m cd ics arc le ss dircctly topical than sonic.
A s G oldberg puts it:
"...the p lays seem to lack a sen se o f period. T erence m akes no reference
to liv in g p e o p le, G reek or R om an. H is la n g u a g e is n o t rich in the
vocabulary o f R om an law , nor d o es he play on the p olitical sig n ifica n ce
latent in such words as gloria and virtus ...”10
T h is fact, alo n g w ith other m ore p o sitiv e attributes, m ay m ak e the p la y s o f
Terence more rather than less accessib le, less esoteric rather than more.
W e can now state categorically w hat w as never actually in doubt. T eren ce is a
writer o f com cd y. H is aim s are to am use, to instruct and, presum ably, to m ake a
liv in g.
W hat, then, are his particular strengths and w ea k n esses, the correct a ssessm en t o f
w hich is so central to su ccessfu l presentation? A nd, as w e attem pt to answ er this
qu estion , it is e ssen tia l to bear in m ind G old b erg's w arning that, "W e m u st
m easure the p lays against h is ow n g o a ls, lim itin g our reference to reconstructed
Greek standards", with w hich I w ould agree, "or", he g o e s o n , "to a m odern sen se
o f dram atic e x c ellen ce" , w ith w h ich , o f co u rse, in the co n te x t o f the present
discu ssion, I cannot afford to agree. I w ould add too that com parisons with Plautus
are necessary and fruitful.
It is a co m m o n p la ce o f T erentian criticism that T eren ce is m ore su b tle than
Plautus, esp ecially in his handling o f character, that his relating o f character to plot
is m ore intricate w ith the result that, on the o n e hand, im portant th em es em erge
with a skilfully con cealed art, but, on the other hand, T erence lack s the vis com ica
o f his great predecessor. W alter E. Forehand in h is relatively recent b ook , entitled
sim p le T e re n c e , rem inds us that this w a s the resu lt o f c o n sc io u s p o lic y on
Terence's part, "He bem oans the current practice callin g for considerable w ild action
on the stage and alerts the a u d ien ce that the u p com in g play w ill rely h ea v ily on
purity o f d ia lo g u e" ,11 this in the p ro lo g u e, o f cou rse.
C o m m en t is m ade in
Forehand's b ook and elsew h ere that T erence p lays dow n extraneous elem en ts, d oes
not exp and co m ic "routines" at the ex p en se o f plot. A s in m o st co m m o n p la ces
there are elem en ts o f truth here, e sp e c ia lly regarding the e v o c a tio n o f them e
through the skilled interplay b etw een character and plot. Forehand again:
"Dryden is right. T he p lots o f N ew C om ed y are too predictable and the
dramatic roles too uniform to be interesting in th em selves. T he appeal o f
10 q.v. Goldberg, 12.
11 Walter E. Forehand Terence, (Boston, 1985) 18.
12
a M enandrian play co m e s instead from the interplay o f the tw o , as the
dram atist u ses the tw ists o f the p lo t to c h a lle n g e h is ch aracters in
unexpected w ays and forces them to grow before our eyes."
For our purposes w e m ust change Menandrian to Terentian, and a lso consider how
the tw ists o f the plot consistently ex p o se the true nature o f C hrem es.
H ow ever, as G oldberg points out, neither should w e think o f Terence m erely as the
prototypical creator, along with his m odel M enander, o f the w ell-m a d e play. That
is the type o f crafted bourgeois drama brought to a peak o f popularity in nineteenth
century France by Scribe and Sardou; the latter o f w hich pair's w ork earned the
nicknam e "Sardoodledum" from G eorge Bernard S h a w .12 S o that, w h ile il m ay be
true that, "By avoiding fantasy and exaggeration, T erence freed h im se lf to present
characters rather than caricatures and to d ev elo p rather than ob scu re the gen u in e
problem s o f fam ily relationships and so cia l obligations", (G old b erg) and true that
the plays are "well organised", (G oldberg on the Phorm io ), neverth eless they "lack
the com p lexity and ex o ticism that S cribe and h is su ccesso rs valu ed so highly",
(G oldberg again). "...To call it w ell-m a d e is thus in exact and unhelp fu l" .13 T he
intrigue, then, is not Terence's major concern in the Self-Tormentor.
In fact, there is a certain arbitrariness in the handling o f Syrus' m achinations in the
earlier part o f S elf-T o rm en to r. "The p lot o f the H e a u to n tim o ro u m e n o s" , as
Forehand puts it, "is certain ly not am o n g the sim p ler story lin e s o f R om an
co m ed y " .14 I do not b eliev e that the audience w as intended to be ab le to fo llo w
the convolutions and intrigue. The rather inconsequential and truncated handling o f
Syrus’ m achinations in v v . 3 1 1 -3 8 0 should be seen to be the result o f T erence's
realisation o f the need to maintain, by m eans o f the slave's an tics, the m om ent by
m om ent m om entum o f a plot w hich w as primarily d esign ed to e x p o se C hrem es for
what he is, by confronting him w ith a series o f situations d ed icated to that end.
S in ce co m p le x ity o f p lo ttin g in term s o f s e r v ile trickery is n ot o f central
im portance in the S e lf-T o rm en to r, it is d ev e lo p e d no further than is strictly
n ecessary to reveal the actual nature o f C hrem es, alo n g w ith th o se m atters o f
them atic im portance the exposure o f w hich is contingent upon that revelation. It
is unsurprising, therefore, that a m uch more satisfactory scen e o f servile intrigue is
that betw een Syrus and Chrem es in vv. 5 1 2 -5 6 1 . T h is passage o f arms sets up the
eventual discom fiture o f Chrem es and, as m entioned, exp loits the e ffects o f a subtle
com ic alienation, variously contrived. S im ilarly, the settlin g o f C litip h o's lo v e
life , in a m atter o f h a lf a p a g e o f rather u n lik ely d ia lo g u e after the m ajor
12 On the 'well-made play', see T.F.Driver, Romantic Quest and M odern Query. A History
o f the Modern Theatre. (New York, 1980) 45-57.
13 Forehand, 90.
14 Forehand, 56.
13
denouem ent, sh ow s that the rom antic elem en t is o f little concern to T erence. The
inessential is subordinated to the essential.
A perfect parallel in Shakespearian c o m ed y is the setting up and resolution o f
intrigue in the m ost arbitrary fa sh io n im a g in a b le in As You Like It, sim p ly
b ecause Shakespeare concentrates his en ergies on the essen tial matter o f the play,
the different types o f love dem onstrated by Orlando, R osalind, C elia, O liver and the
rest.
C hrem es, then, is the m ost interesting figure in the play. W e learn about him in
detail as h e interacts w ith various other characters - M en ed em u s, his ow n son
C litipho and, not least, his w ife Sostrata. That C hrem es and M en ed em u s are more
vital to the life o f the play than their lo v e-sic k son s has lon g been recogn ised . For
exam ple, E. Fantham , "The characters o f the fa th e r s ... are far m ore co m p lex and
clearly the real focus o f interest for playw right and audience."15
Sim ilarly, Goldberg:
"The character o f each old man is carefu lly drawn. M en ed em u s, though
w e ll- o ff, w orks hard and k e ep s to h im se lf.
H e barely k n o w s his
neigh bou r C h rem es, sp eak s sim p ly ... C h rem es is p erp lex ed by such
u n so cia b ility . H is lo n g -w in d e d o p en in g sp e ec h r e v e a ls the g o s s ip ’s
observant e y e and insatiable curiosity. L ike m ost b u syb od ies, he is a lso a
slick talker."16
The question, then, is how to deal w ith the role o f C hrem es in particular, so that
what Forehand recognises as the tw o major them es "the relationship b etw een father
and son ... and self-k n ow led g e versus self-ignorance"17 can em erge. A s to dealing
with Chrem es on stage, Forehand p asses the buck squarely to the director:
"The so lu tio n to the p rob lem o f C hrem es' ch aracterisation m ay lie
ultim ately in the hands o f the director, w h o m ust eith er create in us
en ough sym pathy for C h rem es to be v iew e d kin d ly in the fa ce o f the
play's irony, or bring h is character m eth o d ica lly to h is fin a l, ironic
unveiling."1**
I have already given so m e in d ication s o f h ow I w ou ld approach the character o f
C h rem es.
W ith ou t h a v in g d irected th e p la y I w o u ld still sa y that the
15 E. Fantham, "Heautontimoroumenos and Adelphoe: a Study in Fatherhood in Terence and
Menander'', Latomus (1971) 970-88.
16 q.v. Goldberg 137.
17 q.v. Forehand 6 6 .
^ q.v. Forehand 6 6 .
14
unsym pathetic approach to C hrem es is m ore likely to su cceed . Such an approach
also seem s to be in tune with Terence's attem pts to raise co m ic drama to a new
level o f seriousness and sophistication. The them es identified by Forehand w ould
also em erge better if the audience w ere encouraged to take an ob jective or alienated
view o f the m eddlesom e Chremes.
5.
A p p r o a c h in g
th e
e x p o s itio n .
Is C hrem es intended to appear i n i t i a l l y as a m ed d lin g b u sy b o d y or as an
humanitarian? The play w ill prove m ore interesting from any poin t o f v iew , and
esp ecially in perform ance, if the depiction o f C hrem es’ sh a llo w n ess, h ypocrisy and
actual lack o f humanity em erges gradually through the play. T he later scen es w-ith
C litipho and Sostrata ultim ately sh ow him up to b e sh a llo w , h yp ocritical and so
on. H ow ever, in the opening scene with M enedem us enough is d on e by T erence to
ensure that our attitude to C hrem es is at the least am b ivalen t. It w ill be m ore
satisfying if the revelations about C hrem es do not co m e as a co m p lete surprise. In
the sam e w ay the presentation o f M enedem us as u nsociable and curm udgeonly is
soon tem pered with understanding. For w e realise, little by little, as C hrem es'
personality is revealed in parallel, that M en ed em u s now has a g en u in e hum anity
and hum ility, bom out o f suffering - paihei maihos.
H ow then are the tw o old m en, the senes , to be presented by the actors, w orking
w ith the director, in the crucial first scen e? A nd crucial it is b eca u se it quite
sim ply colours the expectations o f the audience for the rem ainder o f the play. The
first appearance o f C lin ia and C litip h o at v v . 1 7 5 ff. w ill a lso be o f critical
im portance for reasons indicated earlier. The audience must be m ade to realise that
they have both been shaped by paternal guidance, or lack o f it.
In approaching the play's op en in g the first essential is to visu a lise the set and how
it should be lit. Are w e goin g for a naturalistic set, or on e lhat is m ore stylised - a
recreation, m a y b e, o f the R om an sta g e in term s o f s iz e and a ll-im p o rta n t
proportions? H ow do the old men look in terms both o f physique and o f costum e?
W hat d oes the body language o f each tell us about the individ u als before even a
single word is spoken? W hat are their position s on stage relative to each other and
the au d ien ce, in other w ord s w hat are the sp atial d y n a m ics?
P resu m ab ly
M enedem us is "discovered". Is C hrem es also on stage or d oes he enter? W hich o f
these latter alternatives is the m ost useful and w hy? W hat properties are required?
D oes the audience realise the w eigh t, for exam p le, o f M enedem us' grubber before
Chrem es takes it o ff him, or not until then? A ll these questions and a m ultitude o f
others m ust be answ ered in or before the first rehearsals, sin ce each o n e - and
others, sound e ffects, for ex a m p le (although o n e w ouldn't w ant a S ta n isla v sk i
corncrake) - each one o f these diverse elem en ts w ill speak tellin gly to an audiencc
before any actual w’ords are uttered. T h ese elem en ts w ill o n ly be satisfactorily
realised, if the basis o f a coherent plan for the interpretation o f the play and the
realisation o f the differen t characters e x ists in the director's m ind. N o th in g ,
15
how ever, must be sc l in co n crctc in the first instance. The input o f individual
performers and their varying abilities w ill inevitably m odify direction.
W ithout an actual em pty sp ace in m ind it's d ifficu lt to address th ese problem s.
H ow ever, it is p o ssib le to a n a ly se the actual w ords o f, for ex a m p le , C h rem es’
opening speech.
6.
T he o p e n in g sp e ec h
(A)
Its Structure
o f C h re m es
(i)
vv. 5 3 -6 0 - an apparently embarrassed and halting
approach by C hrem es to M enedem us, broken by a
parenthesis (v. 54).
(ii)
vv. 6 1 -6 6 - an outburst, p o ssib ly tinged with
indignation, because M enedem us has either m ade no
response or, through body language, a m ute but clearly
negative response.
(iii)
vv. 6 7 -7 4 - C hrem es forces h im self upon M enedem us'
attention, p o ssib ly by p h ysically intruding betw een
M enedem us and his work.
The director and actor m ust be together to structure the sp eech so that the w h ole
m akes a total sense. Each part, from the p ace and in flection , lin e by lin e, dow n to
the volum e and em otive inflection o f individual w ords, m ust contribute to the total
effect, this is com bination w ith gesture, facial exp ression , e y e con tact and p hysical
and psychical responses betw een the perform ers, if w e assu m e m asks are not to be
used.
(B)
A pproach es
to
d e liv e r y
In approaching the Latin text o n e has to work at first around the c o n c e ssiv e clause,
the paren th esis (v . 5 4 ) and the d e la y e d m ain verb to a c h ie v e an e ffe c t o f
em barrassm ent and h esitation .
T he latter co u ld be a cco m p lish ed by the actor
p layin g C hrem es m aking it clear, dem onstrating to the au d ien ce, by a sh ift o f
dem eanour, dem onstrating the basic "gest", in the Brechtian sen se, that his attitude
to M enedem us is not on e o f genuine altruism .
H ow ever on e deals w ith the p h ysical sid e o f perform ance, the first lin e should be
hesitant. T he explanatory parenthesis - in e ffe c t m ainly for the b en efit o f the
a u dien ce - sh ould be d eliv ered sw iftly . T hen C h rem es m ust m ake a p oin t o f
searching out such key w ords as virtu s and v icin ita s ; a certain self-sa tisfa ctio n
w ould be m anifested in the ach ievem en t o f an e ffe ctiv e alliteration. There fo llo w s
16
a plunge towards the con clu sio n o f the sen ten ce w ith em p h asis upon a u d a cte r
("boldly"), delivered with sim ulated d iffid en ce. There should be warmth in the
enunciation o f the com fortab le fa m ilia r ite r , a lso on the k ey a m ic itia e in the
previous line. The d elivery sp eed s up on the rhetorical flourish o f the repeated
praeter (vv. 59f.); there fo llo w s a lengthy pause w hich shifts from self-satisfaction
on C hrem es’ part at the elo q u en ce o f his appeal, to a state o f frustration and
possible embarrassment at its being alm ost totally ignored. The ech o in g silen ce is
filled only by the sound o f M enedem us’ grubber thumping into the ground.
The silen ce provokes an outburst o f short sen ten ces, and ev en an oath, from
Chrem es, indicative o f his lack o f patience, sym ptom atic o f a man used to getting
his ow n w ay. First, then, w e h ave an indignant ex p o stu la tio n and question;
secon dly (w ith more vital inform ation for the audience) com m en t on M enedem us'
age, the quality o f his land, the number o f his slaves.
The continuing lack o f response provokes another tactic. C hrem es stresses that he
is a w itn ess to M en ed em u s’ torm enting o f self.
A tellin g contrast is im p lied
b etw een Chrem es' com fortab le dom um and M en ed em u s’ se lf-im p o se d torm ent,
although the audience soon realise that Chrem es' d om estic setup is far from ideal.
This co m es across m ost clearly for a m od em audience in the scen e w ith his w ife
Sostrata, when the rediscovery o f the lo n g -lo st daughter, A ntiphila is announced to
Chrem es. I assum e that the fact o f exp osu re, as a m echanism o f p lot, w ould not
have had any real em otional im pact upon the sen sib ilities o f the ancient audience,
although O edipus w as m iffed that his parents w ere w illin g to abandon him on
C ithaeron. In a m od em production o f the S elf-T o rm en to r , h o w ev er, a director
w ould be able to exp loit the inevitable revulsion at the very though o f exp osu re, so
that C hrem es' in itial con cern for M en ed em u s w o u ld u ltim a tely ring h o llo w ,
because o f his perceived harshness to his ow n fam ily.
T he three in fin itiv e s in v. 6 9 d ese r v e em p h a sis; there is a h in t o f k in d ly
rem onstration in v. 70. Then, I w ou ld su g g est, a h a lf pause; C h rem es attem pts
irony on the p red icative dative v o lu p ta ti.
Im p atien ce fin a lly m ust issu e in
physical intervention. T his could be as little as a hand on a shoulder, on the handle
o f the grubber, or the intervention o f Chrem es' body b etw een M en ed em u s and his
work.
T his response o f M enedem us is curt to the p oin t o f ru d en ess, e s p e c ia lly as it
answ ers Chremes' speech o f tw enty tw o lines:
ME. Chrem es, tantumne ab re tuast oti tibi
aliena ut curas ea quae nil ad te attinent?19
M e. Chremes, have you so much leisure from your own affairs, that you pay attention to
the affairs o f others that have nothing to do with you?
17
A lthough the audience cou ld /sh ou ld have been induced to have reservations about
Chrem es' m otives, the abruptness o f this co u p let, cou p led w ith in tellig en t use o f
body lan g u age, gesture and tone o f v o ic e , w o u ld sw in g their favour tow ards
C hrcm cs. H ow ever that m ay be, M enedem us' charge is that C h rcm cs is afflicted
with polyupragm osyne. T h is charge w ill be stored in the audience's su b con sciou s
as the play d evelop s. C o n scio u sn ess o f the charge w ill resurface w hen C hrem es
busies h im self w ith the affaires o f his other neighbours.
M enedem us' curt response is p ointed up in its o p en in g lin e by a neat ch iasm u s.
T here is a lso a bitter use o f alliteration and a sso n a n ce. In v . 7 6 the contrast
b e tw e e n a l i e n a and a d te is e m p h a s is e d a s th e y p iv o t a ro u n d the
demonstrative/relative ea quae.
But, am I exp ectin g to perform this play in Latin today? H ardly, although I did
direct the H ecyra o f T eren ce in Latin in Christchurch so m e tw en ty years ago.
W ell, then, w hat can w e d o w ith a read ily a v a ila b le E n g lish tex t o f the S elf-
Tormentorl
In fact, w hat is clear from ev en a relatively cursory com p arison o f the Latin text,
w ith, for exam p le, B etty R adice's Penguin version 20 is that so m uch o f Terence's
reputation, d eserv ed as it is, rests up on the e le g a n c e , cla rity and dram atic
su p p len ess o f h is Latin v erse. T h is is n ot to say that h is su b ject m atter is
uninteresting, rather that it is saved from any danger o f banality by the e x c e lle n c e
o f the language into w hich it has been cast.
E xam ining R adice's text w e im m ed ia tely ign ore all her stage d irectio n s.
We
realise also that the E nglish syntax, straightforward as it is, d o es not in itse lf ev o k e
the em barrassm ent, real or sim ulated, o f C hrem es. A cco rd in g ly , com p en sation
must be m ade through hesitancy o f d elivery, pau ses, facial ex p ressio n s and all the
"tricks" o f acting m ethod, w hether Stanislavski's Brecht's or aw ful E n glish "ham",
o f w hich I hope I have been cured. Let's see:
CHREM ES
I know it’s not lo n g sin ce w e b ecam e acquainted, in fact it all
started w ith your buying the farm n ext to m in e, and this is the
first tim e w e've really had m uch to do with each other .... A ll
the sam e, there's som eth in g about you - or m ayb e it's the fact
that we're neighbours, w h ich I alw a y s think is the n ex t best
thing to b ein g friends - w hich m akes m e feel that I ought to
speak out. ... T o be quite frank, your behaviour doesn't seem to
m e to be right for a man o f your age and circum stances.
20 Terence, Phormio and Other Plays tr. Radice (Harmondsworth, 1967).
18
In short, w hereas the language o f the original sustains the interest, through a happy
blend o f form and content, the E nglish version depends alm ost entirely on content
and the form , I w ould argue, throughout the p lay is in ca p a b le o f su stain in g
audience interest. In production the danger w ould lie in the direction o f ruining the
subtlety o f T erence through over-actin g to com p en sate for an apparent banality.
Plautus' m ore m uscular and a ctive p la y s respond w e ll to such treatm ent, not, I
suspect, those o f Terence. I could im agine Terence objecting to a m o d em director's
attempts to en liven his text in the sam e manner that C hekhov a lw a y s objected to
the naturealistic exuberan ce o f S tan islavsk i's d irection o f The S eagu ll or The
Cherry Orchard.
The C herry O rch ard is, in fact, o n e o f the m ost subtly am u sin g and m o v in g
com ed ies o f modern tim es. It has a certain am ount in co m m o n w ith the SelfTormentor. H ow ever, despite C hekhov's ow n reservations (he couldn't co n c e iv e o f
it surviving translation), it has been translated w e ll, by M ich a el F rayn.21 The
Cherry O rchard has the pow er to m o v e and am use us in Frayn's version p recisely
because, although it is set in pre-revolutionary R u ssia, its co n cern s an ticip ate,
through C hekhov's affectio n a tely o b jectiv e and prophetic e y e , the social tragi­
com edy o f the twentieth century. It speaks to us in the here and now . I'm not sure
that the Self-Torm entor , stripped o f its c h ie f ex celle n c e , its language, can speak to
us in any w orthw hile w ay in the here and now . It’s not that the p lay is by any
means a failure, taken on its ow n terms. It's sim ply that I don't b eliev e T eren ce in
translation to be "portable" - the eleg a n ce o f lan gu age is g o n e and the subject
matter su p erficia lly too fam iliar, b ecau se o f the co m ic tradition, and, y et, a lso
in escap ab ly alien , b eca u se o f the d ifferen t eth ica l b ack grou n d , w h ich is an
interesting paradox.
21 Anton Checkhov, The Cherry Orchard : a Comedy in Four Acts, translated and introduced
by M ichael Frayn (London, 1978).