ty of
Accius and Silena; but a certain woman, Vicina, now comes forward, with
her two children, Maestius and Serena, to explain that the imbeciles are
really her own offspring and that the son and daughter of Memphio and
Stellio are Maestius and Serena. The willing alliance of these two
brings the original plans to a happy conclusion. Mother Bombie herself
is a fortune-teller to whom recourse is had at various times by the
young folk, and whose oracular statements provide mysterious clues to
the final events.

As a consequence of the meaner nature of its characters this play is
less tainted with euphuism than the rest, while its dialogue is as
lively as ever, the four servants finding in their masters excellent
foils to practise their wit upon. Deception and cross purposes are
conducted with much skill to their conclusion, though the elaborate
balance of households rather oppresses one by its artificiality. As one
of the earliest Comedies of Intrigue, if not actually the first, it
presents possibilities in that direction which were eagerly developed by
later writers. Thus again we observe the originality of the author
preparing the way for his successors.

In summing up the contributions of Lyly to drama we naturally lay stress
upon three points, namely, his creation of lively prose dialogue, his
uplifting of comedy from the level of coarse humour and buffoonery to
the region of high comedy and wit, and his painting of pure romantic
love. We attach value, also, to his discovery of the dramatic
possibilities of sex disguises, to his introduction of fairies upon the
stage, to his persistence in the good fashion of interspersing songs
amongst the scenes, and to his use of pastoralism as a background for
romance. Nor may his efforts in Comedy of Intrigue be overlooked. On the
other hand, we lament as a grievous failing his inability to draw real
men and women, or indeed to differentiate his characters at all except
by gross caricature or the copying of traditional eccentricities. Sir
Tophas and Diogenes we remember as distinct personalities only for their
peculiar and very obvious traits: the rest of his characters either stay
in our memory solely through the charm of particular scenes in which
they take part, or fade from it altogether. As less regrettable faults,
because hardly avoidable if euphuism was to bring its benefits, may be
remembered the weakness of his plots (notably in _Campaspe_, _Sapho and
Phao_ and _Mydas