Born in county Roscommon, Ireland; educated at St. Omer’s college (1740–47), and spent two years in Cork in business. He then went to London and entered upon his career as literary man, dramatist, and actor. From 1752 to 1754 he published a periodical called “The Gray’s Inn Journal,” and afterwards a political Journal “The Test,” both unsuccessful. As an actor he appeared at Covent Garden and Drury Lane Theatres, but did not meet with much favor. He now adopted the study of law and began practice in 1757, but once more with little success. He had already published a farce “The Apprentice,” which had some popularity, and now occupied himself entirely in writing farces and comedies. In this he gained some wealth and a high reputation as a dramatist. Among the most successful of his pieces were, “The Upholsterer;” “The Way to Keep Him;” “All in the Wrong;” and “Know your Own Mind.” In 1792 he published an essay on Dr. Johnson, and soon after a translation of Tacitus: his life of Garrick was printed in 1801. A few years before his death a pension of £200 and the office of commissioner of bankrupts were bestowed on him by the English government.

Personal

  Though apparently formed to captivate the sex, having every advantage which a fine face, a tall and graceful person, and dignified gentlemanly manners could give, Arthur Murphy was never induced to enter the marriage-state. Politely declining a romantic proposal made to him in early life, by the brother of a lady he had never seen, there is no record of any second negotiation. With some faults of temper, which probably proved the source of all his disappointments, he seems to have possessed a warm affectionate heart and a generous unselfish spirit. His attachments were cordial and steady, and totally free from any sordid consideration respecting money; his liberality did not render him unjust; he died poor, but devoid of debt; and, though he might have repented many acts of imprudence, there was no transaction of his life of which he had cause to be ashamed. Nor was the lustre of Murphy’s talents obscured by folly of any kind; he put forth no absurd pretentions—displayed no overweening vanity; securing in society the respect of his associates, and making a distinguished figure without any ambition to shine.

  I knew Murphy long and intimately; I was introduced to him by the Piozzis at Streatham. On the first night of any of his plays, if the slightest symptoms of disapprobation were shown by the audience, Murphy always left the house, and took a walk in Covent-Garden Market: then, after having composed himself, he would return to the theatre.

General

  The attempt to naturalize the works of Tacitus has been justly considered, by the best scholars, as an achievement of great difficulty; and if Mr. Murphy has not altogether succeeded in preserving the style and manner of his author, which, terse and condensed as they are, are scarcely susceptible of transfusion, he has, however, presented the English reader with a faithful though a rather paraphrastic interpretation of a most useful and masterly historian, at the same time supplying many of the chasms which time had effected in the original.

  Murphy’s plays of “All in the Wrong” and “Know Your Own Mind,” are admirably written; with sense, spirit, and conception of character, but without any great effect of the humourous, or that truth of feeling which distinguishes the boundary between the absurdities of natural character and the gratuitous fictions of the poet’s pen. The heroes of these two plays, Millamour and Sir Benjamin Constant, are too ridiculous in their caprices to be tolerated, except in farce; and yet their follies are so flimsy, so motiveless, and fine-spun, as not to be intelligible, or to have any effect in their only proper sphere. Both his principle pieces are said to have suffered by their similarity, first, to Colman’s “Jealous Wife,” and next to the “School for Scandal,” though in both cases he had the undoubted priority. It is hard that the fate of plagiarism should attend upon originality; yet it is clear that the elements of the “School for Scandal” are not sparingly scattered in Murphy’s comedy of “Know Your Own Mind,” which appeared before the latter play, only to be eclipsed by it.

  Had the reputation of Murphy rested solely upon his tragic writings, he would have had little title to lasting fame. Notwithstanding his admiration for Shakspeare, and his capability of appreciating all the beauties of that exquisite genius, he made no attempt to pursue the same bold track, contenting himself with the turgid, pompous declamation which were the characteristics of the serious drama of his time…. No man ever did more for the cause of morality, in composing for the theatre, than the writer now under review; there is not a simple passage in any one of his plays that can justly give offence to the most fastidious reader; his wit is of a chaste and refined description, and he delighted in displaying the female character in its most charming point of view. During his public career he had to contend against prejudices occasioned by the strong part which he took in politics, and against the attack of hosts of newspaper writers, who envied him his talents, and hated him for his success; but though he did not disdain to defend himself when thus assailed, the hostilities which ensued led to nothing more than a petty kind of warfare, not worthy of a chronicle.

  The translation [Tacitus] wants the compression of the original, and is too paraphrastic. The English language would not well admit of the brevity of Tacitus without rendering the narration abrupt and obscure. The translation is distinguished for elegance and strength and dignity, and gives the sense of the original with fidelity.

  The comedies of Murphy have not in all cases lost the spirit of the originals from which he took them. Several of them were acted early in the present century. His tragedies are among the worst that have obtained any reputation. “Zenobia,” however, was played as late as 1815, and the “Grecian Daughter” many years later. Totally devoid of invention, Murphy invariably took his plots from previous writers. He showed, however, facility and skill in adapting them to English tastes.