Book 13

, l. 623 to 670.

NOTE 70.

_The neglect of her relations._

The relations of unmarried women in Greece were bound by law to provide for them, either by seeing them married to some suitable person, or to furnish them with the means of support according to their rank in life; or if a woman had no near kindred, this duty devolved upon a guardian called κυριος. It is probable that this obligation extended equally to the paternal and maternal relations, though the latter generally acted only in case of the former becoming extinct. Terence warrants the supposition of relations on both sides, being compelled to act, as he uses the word _cognatus_, which signifies strictly a relation by the mother’s side, _agnatus_, on the contrary, is never employed but to designate a kinsman by the father’s side, though _cognatus_ is often used as a common term for both; and such is its meaning in this passage: for if the law had been confined to the father’s relations, Terence would certainly have used _agnatus_, and thereby clearly designated the particular persons who were bound to observe it.

NOTE 71.

_The distaff and the loom._

The Greek and Roman women led generally very domesticated lives, and passed a considerable portion of their time in spinning and weaving. The simple manners of the earlier ages obliged each family to depend, in a great measure, on itself, for the supply of its various wants, and the kings and heroes of antiquity, might doubly prize a mantle or a vest, wrought by the hands of those who were dearest to them. Wool was usually worn; but linen, though highly valued, seems to have been but rarely used. When the Greeks became more refined, this simplicity of manners among women of rank gave place to less laborious habits, and slaves were instructed in the art of spinning and weaving.

NOTE 72.

_Several lovers made their addresses to her, &c._

This passage has been elegantly and chastely softened by an ingenious French writer, who flourished about the year 1650. I shall subjoin in this, and other subsequent notes, the various alterations made by this judicious editor, together with the original passages: the lines he has introduced are beautifully written, and a close imitation of the style of Terence: I cannot doubt but they will be considered worthy of a perusal: they are a proof of a laudable delicacy, which was but too rarely to be met with in many of the poets of both England and France, _in the 17th century_.

The original passage runs thus:――

“Primùm hæc pudicè vitam, parcè, ac duriter Agebat, lana ac tela victum quæritans: Sed postquam amans accessit, _pretium pollicens, Unus, et item alter, ita ut ingenium est omnium Hominum ab labore proclive ad libidinem: Accepit conditionem, dein_ quæstum occipit.”

Which is altered by the French translator to the following:――

“Primum hæc pudicè vitam, parce, ac duriter Agebat, lana ac tela victum quæeritans: _Sed postquam ad illam accessit adolescentulus_, Unus, et item alter; ita ut ingenium est omnium Hominum ab labore _proclive ad desidiam; Sperans se cuipiam illorum uxorem fore, Famæ haud pepercit, illosque in domum suam Lubens admisit nimium familiariter_.

“At first she lived chastely, and penuriously, and laboured hard, managing with difficulty to gain a livelihood with the distaff and the loom: but soon after several lovers made their addresses to her, and as we are all naturally prone to idleness, and averse to labour, and _as they made her promises of marriage, she was too negligent of her reputation, and admitted their visits oftener than was prudent_.”

NOTE 73.

_Aha! thought I, he is caught._

In the Latin, Certè captus est. HABET. Terence borrowed this expression (_habet_) from the amphitheatre at Rome, where men called _gladiators_, who were (for the chief part) captives and slaves, fought before the people: who looked with great delight on these combats, which often terminated in death to half the persons engaged. When a gladiator was wounded, the people exclaimed HABET, _he has it_, and thus the word was often used at Rome, in the sense adopted by Terence.

NOTE 74.

_He paid his share, and supped with the rest._

In the Latin _symbolum dedit_, _he gave his ring as a token, or pledge_. This phrase is an allusion to a custom which prevailed chiefly at Rome. When a party agreed to dine together at their own expense, or, in other words, to club together for an entertainment: each of the party _gave his ring_ to him who had the care of providing the feast, as a symbol or token that he, the owner of the ring, was to join the company, and defray his share of the expense. Hence, he who paid nothing, was called _asymbolus_. Rings were also given in contracts instead of a bond: and used for tokens of various kinds. The Greeks also seem to have called rings by the same name, σύμβολα.

NOTE 75.

_To give his daughter to Pamphilus with a large dowry._

The word dowry, which is called, in Greek, προὶξ, or μείλια, or ἕδνα, originally meant the sum which a man gave to the family of the woman he married, and with which he might be said to purchase his wife: but, as the Greeks grew more refined, and also more wealthy, this custom was wholly abolished; and the dowry was given by the wife’s relations to the husband, to assist him in the maintenance of her and of her children. The dowries of women were, in Athens, considered a subject of great importance; and many laws were framed by the Athenian legislators, (particularly by Solon,) to provide for the well ordering of women’s fortunes. An heiress could be disposed of in marriage, only by her father, grandfather, or brother: if she had neither of these relations, the archons determined who was to be her husband; and it was held so important to keep her estate in the family, that _at one time_ a law prevailed, that if an heiress had no children by her first husband, she was taken from him by the authority of the archons, and given to her nearest relation. A wife, who brought a fortune to her husband, was called γυνὴ; she who brought none παλλακὴ. Solon, apprehensive of mercenary unions, at one time, passed a law, that a woman should carry to her husband only some furniture, and four or five changes of dress. But this seems to have been little observed.

The large dowry which _Simo_ says _Chremes_ offered with Philumena, we may fairly suppose to have been twenty talents, as _Chremes_ imagined he had but one daughter to portion off; when he had discovered _Glycera_, he gave her a dowry of ten talents; and we must suppose that he reserved as much more for _Philumena_. This will give us an idea of what the portions of the Athenian women usually were, and of the fortune of a citizen.

Twenty Greek talents were nearly equal to 5,000_l._ sterling, according to some authors, though writers differ widely as to the amount of the Attic talent; Dr. Arbuthnot makes it equal to 193_l._ 15_s._, Mr. Raper to 232_l._ 3_s._ It is agreed on all sides that the Attic talent consisted of 6,000 drachmæ; but the value of the drachma was never correctly ascertained. _Vide_ the table of monies in Note 208.

NOTE 76.

_I contracted my son._

The Athenian youth were not allowed to dispose of themselves in marriage without consulting their parents, who had almost unlimited authority over them: if they had no parents, guardians, called ἐπίτροποι, were appointed to control them.

But it does not appear that any particular ceremonies were used in Athens, in contracting a bride and bridegroom, previous to the day of marriage; and I rather imagine, Terence, in order to make the subject clear to his Roman auditors, alluded, by the word _despondi_, to the _Roman custom of betrothing_, called _sponsalia_, which they performed as follows:――

Some days before the wedding, the intended bride and bridegroom, with their friends, met together at the lady’s residence, and the parent or guardian of each (as I imagine) asked each other, _Spondes? Do you betroth her or him?_ Then the other party answered, _Spondeo, I do betroth, &c._ Then the deeds were signed, the dowry agreed on, and the day appointed for the marriage.

NOTE 77.

_Among the women who were there I saw one young girl._

Women were frequently hired on these occasions, to appear in the funeral procession as mourners, of whom Horace says,

“Ut quæ conductæ plorant in funere, dicunt Et faciunt propè plura dolentibus ex animoque.”

Like those, who, hired to weep at funerals, Exceed, in noisy grief, a faithful friend.

NOTE 78.

_She appeared more afflicted than the others who were there, and so pre-eminently beautiful, and of so noble a carriage, I approach._

To understand the full force of Simo’s remark, when he says how much he was struck with the contrast between Glycera and the rest of the mourners, it is necessary that the reader should be informed, that, in Athens, no woman under sixty years of age was allowed to appear at a funeral; except the relations of the deceased. Solon imposed this law upon the Athenians.

NOTE 79.

_I approach the women who were following the body._

Literally, the women who were _walking_ after the body. Though those women who were hired to follow a corpse, _walked_ in procession, it was very usual in Greece, to attend funerals in carriages, and on horseback: but Chrysis, not being represented as a citizen, the ceremonies, in respect to the procession, must be supposed to be different. The interment of the dead was considered of such extreme importance throughout the whole of Greece, that to want the rites of sepulture, was deemed by the natives of that country, a much greater misfortune than even death itself. The Greeks (and many other nations) believed that the spirit of a person whose corpse was unburied, could never obtain admittance to the Elysian fields: their imaginary place of reward for virtuous men after death. Two different methods of disposing of the dead prevailed in Greece. The most ancient of the two (as is generally allowed,) was much the same as the modern practice, the corpse was interred in a coffin, and deposited in the earth. The other mode was to burn the body, and to preserve the ashes. The Athenians seem to have used both methods indiscriminately: their funerals were usually conducted by torch-light. On the third or fourth day after death, (though the time was varied according to circumstances,) the corpse was placed on a bier, with the feet towards the door; and an obolus put into its mouth, to defray the passage across the Styx: a certain form of words was then pronounced over the body, which was afterwards carried out, and followed by the mourners: those of the same sex as the deceased were to be nearest the corpse: when it was placed on the pile, and a second form of words recited over it, some one of the mourners, (usually the nearest relation,) applied a torch to the wood; and, if the deceased was of high rank, animals of various kinds, and sometimes even _human victims_, were slaughtered, and thrown into the flames. The ashes of the dead were collected from the extinguished pile into an urn, and with some further ceremonies deposited in a sepulchre. The Romans burned their dead in a similar manner. For a further mention of Greek funerals, _vide_ Notes 77, 78, 80, 81.

NOTE 80.

_We follow, and arrive at the tomb._

Tombs, called by the Greeks τάφοι, or τύμβοι, which signify both the grave and the monument, were not allowed to be within the city of Athens, but were placed either in the public burial-place, or in private grounds belonging to the relatives of the deceased: it was not unusual to erect them by the road side at some distance from the city, whence the expression, so common on monuments, _Siste Viator_, _Stay Traveller_. The public burial-place of the Athenians was in that part of the Ceramicus situated beyond the city: it was very extensive. The other part of the Ceramicus contained the old forum, called ἀρχαία ἀγορὰ.

NOTE 81.

_The corpse is placed on the pile, and quickly enveloped in flames; they weep; while the sister I was speaking of, rushed forward, in an agony of grief, toward the fire; and her imprudence exposed her to great danger._

An eminent English poet, Sir Richard Steele, has endeavoured to adapt Terence’s Andrian to the taste of an English audience, and has succeeded in that attempt, in his play, called _The Conscious Lovers_, as well as circumstances would permit. A French poet of equal eminence, Monsieur Baron, has made a similar attempt in French verse, and has met with equal success in his Andrienne: he has kept much closer to the original than has Sir Richard Steele; indeed, many scenes of the Andrienne are a literal version of Terence. I purpose to point out the most material changes which the two modern poets have made in the incidents: the bent of the dramatic taste of the nation of each, may be discovered, in some measure, from a comparison between the _English_, the _French_, and the _Roman_ dramatist. M. Baron has not made any alteration in the scene at Chrysis’ funeral, where Simo discovers his son’s attachment to Glycera; but Sir R. Steele, has altered the mode of discovery to _a quarrel at a masquerade_; and his scene, though it may want the pathos of the original, yet displays the filial affection of Bevil, the English Pamphilus, in a very amiable light. Sir Richard has modernized the characters of Simo and Sosia in Sir John Bevil and Humphrey.

“_Sir J._ You know I was, last Thursday, at the masquerade: my son, you may remember, soon found us out. He knew his grandfather’s habit, which I then wore, and though it was in the mode of the last age, yet the maskers followed us, as if we had been the most monstrous figures in the whole assembly.

“_Humph._ I remember a young man of quality, in the habit of a clown, was particularly troublesome.

“_Sir J._ Right: he was too much what he seemed to be: he followed us, till the gentleman, who led the lady in the Indian mantle, presented that gay creature to the rustic, and bid him (like Cymon in the fable) grow polite, by falling in love, and let that worthy gentleman alone, meaning me. The clown was not reformed, but rudely offered to force off my mask; with that the gentleman, throwing off his own, appeared to be my son; and, in his concern for me, tore off that of the nobleman. At this, they seized each other, the company called the guards, and, in the surprise, the lady swooned away; upon which my son quitted his adversary, and had now no care but of the lady; when, raising her in his arms, ‘Art thou gone,’ cried he, ‘for ever?――Forbid it, Heaven!’――She revives at his known voice, and, with the most familiar, though modest gesture, hangs in safety over his shoulders weeping; but wept as in the arms of one before whom she could give herself a loose, were she not under observation. While she hides her face in his neck, he carefully conveys her from the company.”――CONSCIOUS LOVERS.

Sir John Bevil makes the same trial of his son, as Simo of his: and young Bevil makes the same reply with Pamphilus. The only difference in the conduct of the plot in that part is, that Bevil is not apprized of his father’s stratagem by his own servant; but by Humphrey, which, as it shews a sort of half-treachery in him, is an inferior arrangement to that of the Latin poet.

NOTE 82.

_That Pamphilus had actually married this strange woman._

The expression ξένα, _peregrina_, or _strange woman_, was generally used amongst eastern nations, to signify a woman of light character: it is very frequently employed in the Holy Writings in that sense. _Vide_ Judges, chap. xi. ver. 2; Proverbs, chap. v. ver. 3. 10, 20. Thais, in the Eunuch, speaking of her mother, says,

“_Samia mihi mater fuit: ea habitabat Rhodi._”

_My mother was born in Samos, and dwelt in Rhodes._

Athenian citizens were not allowed to marry foreign women, even of reputation and virtue; this law was not strictly observed: the penalty for the violation of it was fixed at one thousand drachms. Simo mentions the epithet _peregrina_, as what Chremes said he had heard Glycera called; but does not himself drop the slightest hint against her, but, on the contrary, praises her modest demeanour; as he must have been well aware, that she did not deserve such an epithet, being her opposite neighbour, and having seen her abroad: ξέναι, or _strange women_, when they appeared in public, were obliged to wear striped dresses, to distinguish them from women of innocent conversation.

NOTE 83.

_Of a wicked mind, one can expect nothing but wicked intentions._

In the Latin, _mala mens, malus animus_. It is not easy to discriminate with accuracy the different meanings the Romans attached to _mens_ and _animus_. Some think that _animus_ meant the _heart_, and _mens_ the faculty of thinking. Grotius has, in this passage, taken those words to signify _conscience_ and _judgment_: but, I think it probable, that the word _animus_ was usually employed when they spoke of the _soul_, and that _mens_ was intended to express what we understand by the word _mind_, when we speak of _greatness of mind_, or _littleness of mind_. _Animus_ was, perhaps, about equivalent to that elegant expression,――_instinctus divinitatis_.

NOTE 84.

_Exit Sosia._

“Here we take our last leave of Sosia, who is, in the language of the commentators, a _protatick personage_, that is, as Donatus explains it, one who appears only once in the beginning (the _protasis_) of the piece, for the sake of unfolding the argument, and is never seen again in any part of the play. The narration being ended, says Donatus, the character of Sosia is no longer necessary. He therefore departs, and leaves Simo alone to carry on the action. With all due deference to the ancients, I cannot help thinking this method, if too constantly practised, as I think it is in our author, rather inartificial. Narration, however beautiful, is certainly the deadest part of theatrical compositions: it is, indeed, strictly speaking, scarce dramatic, and strikes the least in the representation: and the too frequent introduction of a character, to whom a principal person in the fable is to relate in confidence the circumstances, previous to the opening of the play, is surely too direct a manner of conveying that information to the audience. Every thing of this nature should come obliquely, fall in a manner by accident, or be drawn as it were perforce, from the parties concerned, in the course of the action: a practice, which, if reckoned highly beautiful in epic, may be almost set down as absolutely necessary in dramatic poetry. It is, however, more adviseable, even to seem tedious, than to hazard being obscure. Terence certainly opens his plays with great address, and assigns a probable reason for one of the parties being so communicative to the other; and yet it is too plain that this narration is made merely for the sake of the audience, since there never was a duller hearer than Master Sosia, and it never appears, in the sequel of the play, that Simo’s instructions to him are of the least use to frighten Davus, or work upon Pamphilus. Yet even this _protatick personage_ is one of the instances of Terence’s art, since it was often used in the Roman comedy, as may be seen even in Plautus, to make the relation of the argument the express office of the prologue.”――COLMAN.

Monsieur Baron does not dismiss Sosia here, but brings him on the stage again; once in the third act, and once in the fourth. Sir R. Steele introduces Humphrey again in the first act, and also in the fifth. We are told by Donatus, that in the Andrian and Perinthian of Menander, which are similar in the plot, the first scene is the same as in Terence, but that in the Perinthian, the old man consults with his wife instead of Sosia; and, in the Andrian he opens with a soliloquy.

NOTE 85.

_But, here he comes._

It has been objected against many dramatic writers, that they are guilty of great neglect in first bringing their characters on the stage, without preparing the audience for their appearance, and acquainting them with their names; and sometimes it happens that an actor has been on the stage a considerable time, before the audience know whom he is meant to personate. Terence’s art is admirably shown in this particular; a new character scarcely ever appears on the stage after the first scene, before his name, and character, and perhaps what he may be expected to say or do, is announced to the audience. For example, in the Andrian, Act I. Scene I., Simo describes the occupation and character of Davus before he appears; and names him to the audience as he comes on the stage. In Act I. Scene III., Davus introduces Mysis: in Act I. Scene IV., Mysis prepares the audience for the appearance of Pamphilus: in Act III. Scene IV., Simo announces Chremes, and Mysis is the nomenclator of Crito in the last scene of the fourth Act. This rule of preparation for the next scene was called, among the ancients, παρασκευὴ.

NOTE 86.

_How this rascal prates!_

_Carnifex_ quæ loquitur. _Carnifex_, or _carnufex_, means literally an executioner: this was one of the most opprobrious epithets used by the Romans. Of all their public servants, the carnifex was the lowest in rank: his office extended only to crucifixion, which was never inflicted in Rome on any but those who were considered as the very worst of criminals. The person of the carnifex was held in such abhorrence, that he was never suffered to reside in Rome, and rarely (though sometimes) permitted to enter the city. _Vide Cicero’s Oration for Rabirius._ Carnifex means literally _a butcher_; and most of the writers of later ages have used it in that sense.

NOTE 87.

_No: I am not Œdipus, but Davus._

This is as much as to say, _I am a plain man, I am no reader of riddles_: because Œdipus, king of Thebes, was particularly celebrated for solving an enigma, which had long baffled the penetration of all the Thebans. Ancient writers relate the story thus: Europa, the sister of Cadmus, the first king of Thebes, having been carried off by Jupiter; Juno, in her jealousy, wreaked her vengeance on Europa’s family, and persecuted Cadmus and his descendants with the most inveterate hostility. During the reign of Creon, one of the successors of Cadmus, Juno sent to destroy Thebes, a dreadful monster, called Sphinx, which was described as having the face and voice of a woman, the wings of a dragon, the body of a dog, and the claws of a lion. This extraordinary monster dwelt in a cave, immediately in the neighbourhood of Thebes, and seizing every one that ventured to approach, proposed the following well-known riddle, “_What walks in the morning on four legs, at noon on two, and at night on three?_” Those who were unable to solve the enigma were instantly torn in pieces; and, as the Thebans were, in general, so remarkable for their slowness and sluggishness, that they were called “_Theban pigs_” by the rest of Greece, it may be readily believed that the monster’s question long remained unanswered. When the city was in danger of total demolition, Creon the king offered his daughter Jocasta, and his crown, to him who should solve the riddle, as the oracle declared that to be the only means of deliverance. This was at last accomplished by _Œdipus_, who replied, that it was _man_: _who crawls in his childhood, walks upright in the vigour of his age, and who uses a crutch when he grows old_: on hearing this answer, the Sphinx slew herself.

Some commentator on Terence very ingeniously observes, that Davus, by saying that he is not Œdipus, and cannot understand his riddle, covertly insinuates that Simo is a second Sphinx.

NOTE 88.

_The grinding-house._

Terence has rendered by the word _pistrinum_, the Greek σωφρονιστήριον, or house of correction, whither criminals were sent for the various terms of imprisonment proportioned to their offences. Slaves, while in this prison, were employed chiefly in grinding corn, which, from a deficiency of mechanical knowledge, was, in those times, a very laborious employment. The Athenians, who were universally celebrated for their kind and gentle treatment of slaves, were very reluctant to proceed to severer punishments than whipping or imprisonment: but when a flagrant delinquency rendered it necessary to make an example, they either burned the criminal with a hot iron, in the offending member, if possible; or put on his feet a torturing instrument, called χοῖνιξ. If the law required the criminal to suffer death, which happened in very few cases, he was either hung, beaten to death with clubs, or cast into a deep pit, called βάραθρον, filled at the bottom with sharp spikes. They sometimes had recourse to other extraordinary modes of punishment: but the before-mentioned were the most common.

NOTE 89.

_In truth, friend Davus, from what I have just heard._

This scene contains the second part of the narration, which possesses all the requisites enumerated by Cicero, _perspicuity, probability, brevity, and sweetness_. It is introduced with Terence’s usual art, and enough is said respecting Glycera’s birth, to prepare the mind for the _dénouement_ in the last act. This scene, and that before it, are omitted in the Conscious Lovers; and a dialogue between Humphrey and Tom, and another between Tom and Phyllis, the English Davus and Mysis, are substituted instead of them: but Phyllis is the servant of Lucinda, the lady Sir J. Bevil wishes his son to marry: and not of Indiana, the modern Glycera. The two scenes above mentioned contain only one incident: the conveyance of a letter from young Bevil to Lucinda, apprizing her of his disinclination to the match.

NOTE 90.

_This affair must be handled dexterously, or either my young master or I must be quite undone._

The original of this passage is as follows: _Quæ si non_ astu _providentur, me, aut herum pessundabunt_. A deviation from the customary mode of expression sometimes occurs in our author’s writings. I shall set down the most remarkable words of this nature that are to be found in this play.

_Abutor_, with an accusative. _Alterco_, for altercor. _Astu_, for Astutia. _Complacita est_, for placuit. _Catus._ _Claudier_, for claudi. _Conflictatur_, cum ingeniis ejusmodis. _Duint_, for dent. _Diecula._ _Emergere se_, for emergere. _Face_, for fac. _Introspicere._ _Ipsus._ _Immutarier_, for immutari. _Morigera._ _Maximum facere hominem_, for maximi. _Ornati_, for ornatus. _Preci_, for precibus. _Postillà_, for posteà. _Symbola_, for symbolum. _Spero_, for timeo. _Subsarcinatam._ _Tetulit._ _Tumulti_, for tumultus.

NOTE 91.

_If he finds out the least thing I am undone._

Terence has the art of making us feel interested in the favour of almost all his characters: they insensibly gain ground in our good opinion: even this Davus, who certainly has a spice of the rogue about him, creates a warm interest in his favour by his fidelity to Pamphilus; and his generosity in risking his own safety to serve him: he braves the threats of Simo, when, by assisting him, and betraying Pamphilus, he must have secured the old man’s favour, and consequently great advantages to himself. But very few of the worst characters in Terence’s plays seem to us to be wholly unamiable.

NOTE 92.

_I think their intentions savour more of madness than of any thing else._

Terence plays upon the words in the original of this passage, which is as follows,

“Nam inceptio est _amentium_, haud _amantium_.”

Literally, For they act like _mad people_, not like _lovers_. This pun cannot be preserved in an English translation, till two words can be found alike in sound, one meaning “_mad people_,” and the other “_lovers_.” The only attempt in English is the following: but the author has rather altered the sense.

“For they fare as they were _lunaticke_, and not _lovesicke_.” BERNARD.

Terence plays upon words in this manner several times in this play,

_Maledicere_, _malefacta_ ne noscant sua. _Solicitando_, et _pollicitando_ eorum animos lactas. Quia habet aliud _magis_ ex sese, et _majus_. Quo _jure_, quaque _injuria_. Ipsu’ sibi esse _injurius_ videatur, neque id _injuriâ_. P. Quid vis _patiar_? D. _Pater_ est Pamphile.

The ancients manifested very great partiality for this species of wit, which the Greeks called παρανομασία and the Romans _agnominatio_. The writings of Plautus abound with puns above all others, and he is thought to have applied them with great ingenuity: the following may serve as a specimen.

_Boius_ est, _Boiam_ terit. Advenisse _familiares_ dicito. Nescio quam tu _familiaris_ es: nisi actutum hinc abis, _Familiaris_, accipiere faxo haud _familiariter_ _Optumo optumè optumam operam_ das.

Though the Greeks and Romans considered puns an ornament to writings and discourses of all kinds, modern critics have decided that they ought to be admitted only in writings of a light nature; and that they decrease the force and beauty of grave and serious compositions, which ought to wear an air of dignified sublimity, unmixed with any thing of a trivial nature.

The lines immediately preceding the before-mentioned passages are thus altered by a French editor. _Vide_ Note 72.

Ad hæc mala hoc etiam mihi accedit; hæc Andria, _Quam clam patre uxorem duxit Pamphilus_, gravida ab eo est.

The original lines are,

Ad hæc mala hoc etiam mihi accedit; hæc Andria, _Sine ista uxor, sine amica est_ gravida a Pamphilo est.

NOTE 93.

_Boy or girl, say they, the child shall be brought up._

In the Latin,

Quidquid peperisset decreverunt tollere.

Boy or girl, they have resolved that it shall be _taken up_. The words _taken up_ allude to the custom which prevailed in Greece, of destroying children. This barbarous cruelty was practised on various pretences; if an infant was, at its birth, deformed in any of its members, or if it appeared extremely feeble or sickly, the laws allowed, and even enjoined, that it should be exposed: sometimes illegitimacy was considered a sufficient cause for the exposure of a child. Though the parents were generally allowed to choose whether their offspring should be destroyed or preserved; in some parts of Greece all the inhabitants were compelled to send their new-born infants to officers appointed to examine them: who, if they found them not robust and healthy, cast them immediately into deep caverns, called ἀποθέται, which were dedicated to this purpose. It was customary, in Athens, to place a new-born infant on the ground at the feet of its father, if he then took it up in his arms, it was considered that he bound himself to educate and provide for the child: hence, the expression _tollere_, _to take up_: but, if on the contrary, he refused to acknowledge it, a person appointed for that purpose conveyed it to some desert place at a distance from the city: and there left it to perish. The Thebans are said to have been the only people in Greece, among whom this barbarous custom did not prevail: but the story of Œdipus, a prince who was exposed, though afterwards preserved, is a proof that they did not altogether abstain from this practice.

NOTE 94.

_To prove that she is a citizen of Athens._

Women were allowed to enjoy the privileges of Athenian citizens, and, at the building of Athens, by Cecrops, they carried a point of no less importance than the choice of a name for the new city, in opposition to the votes of the men. Varro tells us that _Neptune_ wished the new-built city to be called after his name, and that _Athena_, or _Minerva_, rivalled his pretensions. The question being put by Cecrops to his people, the men all voted for _Neptune_, but the women voted for _Minerva_, and gained, by one vote, the privilege of naming the city. The women were wholly excluded from any share in the government of Athens, in later ages; though they still retained various privileges as Athenian citizens.

For a further explanation of the rights of the Athenian citizens; and for some account of the city of Athens, _vide_ Notes 150, 179, 180, 181, 193, 197.

NOTE 95.

_Once upon a time, a certain old merchant._

The title of _merchant_ we are to suppose to be added by Davus to embellish the tale. Neither Chremes nor Phania are described as _merchants_. This addition is well managed by the author, as Davus, who thought the whole a fabrication, imagined he was more likely to gain credit by telling the tale that way; as a considerable traffick was carried on between Athens and the island of Andros, which was a very fertile spot.

M. Baron has translated this scene with great fidelity and beauty. Davus developes in it a plan to break off the dreaded match with Philumena, by introducing Glycera to Chremes: which incident is substituted instead of the birth of the child. There is a break in the French lines which renders them inimitably beautiful.

“De ce vieillard fougueux pour calmer la furie, Quoi! Ne pourrions nous pas résoudre Glycérie A venir à ses pieds lui demander――――? Helas! Glycérie est malade, et je n’y songe pas.” BARON.

NOTE 96.

_Well, I’ll betake myself to the Forum._

A forum, both in Athens and Rome, was a large open space within the city, dedicated to various purposes. The forum was a place where the people met for _public worship_, for _the administration of justice_, and to debate on the _public affairs_. In the Forum, also, were the _temples_, _hospitals_, _sanctuaries_, and the _markets of all kinds_: in short, it was a place of general rendezvous for men of all ranks and professions, and was, in many respects, very similar to those places of meeting we call by the name _Exchange_.

In Rome there were six great forums, 1. the Roman, 2. the Julian, 3. the Augustan, 4. the Palladian, 5. the Trojan, 6. the Forum of Sallust. In Athens, the principal Forum was called ἀρχαία ἀγορὰ; it was extremely spacious, and decorated with some very fine buildings, and statues of eminent persons. There were also many others, but the most considerable was called _the Forum_, by way of distinction.

NOTE 97.

_Act_ I. _Scene_ IV.

Of all writers ancient or modern, except Seneca, Terence was the most indefatigable in endeavouring to embellish his writings with all the ornaments that _alliteration_ could give them. It is not my intention to enter in this place into a discussion of the advantages, or disadvantages that verses may derive from alliteration; a subject on which critics differ as widely as they can on any other point. The practice of many first-rate writers, however, both ancient and modern, who have thought that alliteration adorned their compositions, entitles it to attention. Although eminent critics have argued against this literary ornament, that its success is but a trivial excellence, I cannot but remark that it is allowed on all sides that great labour, care, and patience, are requisite, to succeed in alliteration; which must certainly contribute to render it of some value, and afford an absolute proof of the excessive labour and deliberation with which Terence wrote his plays, every line of which was, as I may say, weighed, before he wrote it down: for no author, ancient or modern, (with the before-mentioned exception,) ever employed alliteration so frequently, nor, in my opinion, with better effect than Terence.

The following lines will afford the reader a specimen of the almost astonishing extent to which alliteration was used by some of the ancient authors, Greek and Latin.

I. From Terence.

“_A_udivi, _A_rchillis, jamdudum: Lesbi_a_m _a_dduci jubes Sane pol illa _t_emulen_t_a est mulier, et _t_emeraria Nec sati digna _c_ui _c_ommittas _p_rimo _p_artis mulierem. _T_amen eam _a_dducam. Impor_t_uni_t_a_t_em spec_t_a_t_e _a_niculæ; Quia compotrix ejus est. _D_iana _d_a facultatem, obsecro, Huic _p_ariundi, atque illi in alius _p_otius _p_eccandi locum. Sed, quidnam Pamphilum exanimatum _v_ideo? _v_ereor quid siet. Opperiar, ut sciam, numquidnam hæc _t_urba _t_ris_t_i_t_iæ adferat. Ut _a_nimum _a_d _a_liquod stadium _a_djungant, _a_ut equos―― _A_lere, _a_ut canes _a_d venandum, _a_ut _a_d philosophos. _I_n _i_gnem _i_mposita est. Fletur. _I_nterea hæc soror. _M_ala _m_ens, _m_alus ani_m_us. _Q_uem _q_uidem ego _s_i _s_ensero. Ipsum _a_nimum _æ_grotum _a_d deteriorem _p_artem _p_lerumque _app_licat, Nec, quid _a_gam, cerium est; Pamphilumne _a_djutem, _a_n _a_uscultem seni. Faci_t_e, fingi_t_e, inveni_t_e, effici_t_e, qui de_t_ur _t_ibi. _A_liquot me _a_diere, ex te _a_uditum qui _a_iebant. Quid _i_sthuc? si _i_ta _i_sthuc animum _i_nduxti esse utile, _M_ala ingeram _m_ulta? _A_tque _a_liquis dicat, nihil pro_m_overis. _M_ultum, _M_olestas certe ei fuero, atque ani_m_o _m_orem gessero. _Q_uibu’ _q_uidem _q_uam facile poterat _q_uiesci, si hic _q_uiesset. Age, _s_i hic non in_s_anit _s_atis _s_uà _s_ponte, in_s_tiga. _A_uscult_a_. _A_udivi jam omni_a_. _A_nne tu omni_a_? _A_udivi inquam _a_ principio. _A_udistin’? ――――――――opta_v_it _p_arare hic di_v_itias, _P_otius quam in _p_atria honeste _p_au_p_er _v_i_v_ere. _S_a_t_i’ jam _s_a_t_i’ _S_imo, _s_pec_t_a_t_a. In _a_lio occup_a_to _a_more, _a_bhorrenti _a_b re uxori_â_. _P_ro _p_eccato magno _p_aulum su_pp_licii satis est _p_atri. Nam hunc _s_cio mea _s_olide _s_olum gavi_s_urum gaudia. _S_olus est quem diligunt Di. _S_alvus _s_um _s_i hæc veca _s_unt.”

II. From _Seneca_.

“_M_eleagre, _m_atris Impius _m_actas; _m_orerisque dextra _M_atris iratae _m_eruere cuncti _M_orte quod.”

_A_ccingere, _a_nime; bella non levia _a_pp_a_r_a_s.

_S_ervate _s_ontem _s_axeo inclu_s_um _s_pecu.

_P_astor triformis littoris Tartessii. _P_eremptus, acta est _p_ræda ab occasu ultimo Notum Cythæron _p_avit Oceano _p_ecus. _P_enetrare jussus solis æstivi _p_lagas.

_C_onquesta domum: li_c_et ipse velit _C_larus niveos inter olores, Istrum _c_ygnus Tanaimque _c_olens, Extrema loqui; li_c_et Al_c_yones _C_ey_c_a suum fluxu leviter. Plangente sonent, _c_um tranquillo Male _c_onfisae _c_redunt interum. _O_bliquatque; _o_cul_o_s, _o_raque. Tandemque _v_enias _v_ictor ad _v_ictam domum.

III. From _Cicero_.

De _s_cripto dicta _s_ententia est, quam Senatus frequens _s_ecutus est _s_ummo _s_tudio magnoque con_s_en_s_u.

IV. From _Pliny_.

Cum sciam, Domine, ad testimonium laudemque morum meorum, _p_ertinere tam boni _p_rinci_p_is judicio exornari, rogo, dignitati, ad quam me _p_rovexit indulgentia tua, vel auguratum, vel septemviratum, quia vacant, adjicere digneris: ut jure sacerdotii _p_recari deos _p_ro te _p_ublicè _p_ossim, quos nunc _p_recor _p_ietate _p_rivatâ.

V. From _Horace_.

Acriter el_a_trem, pretium _æ_t_a_s _a_lter_a_ sordet. Ambigitur.

VI. From _Ovid_.

Se cu_p_it im_p_rudens. Et qui _p_robat i_p_se _p_robatur. Dumque _p_etit, _p_etitur; _p_ariterque.

VII. From _Plutarch_.

Κόσμος ἐστιν ὡς ἔλεγε Κράτης, τὸ Κοσμοῦν. Κοσμεῖ δὲ τὸ Κοσμιώτερον.

VIII. From _Tyrtæus_.

Ἡ δ’ Ἀρετὴ τόδ’ Ἄεθλον ἐν Ἀνθρώποισιν Ἄριστον.

IX. From _Æschines_.

Οἱ Ἐξ Ἐκείνου Ἔχοντες Ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ.

ΤαῦΤα μὲν οὖν μοι δοκῶ καὶ Τἄλλα Τὰ ΤούΤοις.

Ἔοικε, Φειδίας Ἐνεργολαβεῖν Εἰργάσατο καὶ Ἐνεπιορκεῖν.

X. From _Anacreon_.

Τί Μοι, τί Μοι γόων, Τί Μοι Μέλει Μεριμνῶν.

Μέσον, ναῒ ΦορήΜεθα σὺν Μελαίνᾳ, ΧειΜῶνι Μοχθεῦντες Μεγάλῳ.

NOTE 98.

_However, I’ll bring her._

Mr. Cooke makes this speech come from Archillis, and writes it thus: _Tamen eam adduce_, _I say, fetch her_. This reading is taken from Guyetus: but Dr. Bentley objects to Archillis within calling to Mysis without. But as Mysis uses the expression _importunitatem_ SPECTATE _aniculæ_, _see_ the old woman’s importunity, and not _audite_ importunitatem, _hear_, &c.: we must suppose Archillis to show her impatience by gestures, as she stood at the door of Glycera’s house.

NOTE 99.

_Mark, how importunate this old baggage is._

Importunitatem spectate _aniculæ_. _Anicula_ is a word of singular derivation, and signifies literally a sorceress; being compounded of two Latin words, one signifying _an old woman_, and the other _to howl_: because sorceresses always _howled_ when they made their incantations. We must not suppose that Mysis here meant to call Archillis a sorceress, but merely used the word above mentioned as a term of reproach. According to Antonius Magnus, the _aniculæ_ were not a little mischievous, as he proposes to shew by the following quotation: “Retulit Leonardus Varius, lib. I. de Fascino, multas hac nostra tempestate existere _aniculas_, quarum impuritate non paucos effascinari pueros, illosque non modo in gravissimum incidere discrimen, verum atque acerbam sæpissime subire mortem. Pecudes insuper partu, et lacte privari, equos macrescere, et emori, segetes absque fructu colligi, arbores arescere, ac denique omnia pessum iri quandoque videri.”――ANTONIUS MAGNUS. Perscrutator rerum abditarum naturæ. Norimberga, 1681, p. 39.

NOTE 100.

_Well, may Diana grant my poor mistress_, &c.

The common reading of this passage is, DI _date facultatem_, _May the_ GODS _grant_, &c., but I should rather imagine that Terence wrote, DIANA _da facultatem_, _May_ DIANA _grant_, &c., because, on these occasions, the Greeks never invoked the assistance of all the gods, but usually requested the help of Diana, as Glycera does afterwards, when she calls upon her by the name of Juno Lucina, (_vide_ Note 143). Diana was supposed to preside over women in childbirth, and was called Εἰλείθυια.

NOTE 101.

_A._ I. _S._ V. _Pamphilus, Mysis._

This scene contains the third and last part of the narration, which is entirely pathetic, and its length is very artificially and successfully relieved by the figure called by the Greeks προσωποποια, which is introduced with so many moving and pathetic graces, as afford ample proof that Terence was as great a master of the passions, as even Trabea, Attilius, and Cæcilius themselves, who were so highly extolled by the ancients for their excellence in compositions of that nature. Terence has admirably relieved the necessary length of his narration in this play, by his judicious method of dividing it: the first part is serious, (_vide_ Note 65,) and raises our curiosity: the second part is comic, (_vide_ Note 89,) and excites our laughter; the third part is pathetic, and moves our pity. The lines in which Pamphilus describes the death of Chrysis are so extremely moving, that some of the most eminent critics have considered them at least equal, if not superior, to all attempts in the pathetic both ancient and modern. The finest passage in M. Baron’s Andrienne is, (in my opinion,) his imitation of the before-mentioned speech of Pamphilus: and the inimitable beauty which so much strikes us in the _French copy_ ought to impress us with a just idea of the splendid merit of the _Latin original_.

The whole speech is too long to be inserted here, the following are extracts:

“Si je m’en souviendrai! Qui? moi? Toute ma vie. Ce que me dit Chrysis parlant de Glicérie, Elle me dit, (Misis j’en verse encore des pleurs.) Elle est jeune, elle est belle, elle est sage, et je meurs. Je vous conjure donc par sa main que je tiens; Par la foi, par l’honneur, par mes pleurs, par les siens; Par ce dernier moment qui va finir, ma vie, De ne vous séparer jamais de Glicérie. Elle prit nos deux mains, et les mit dans la sienne: Que dans cette union l’amour vous entretienne; C’est tout.――Elle expira dans le même moment. Je l’ai promis, Misis, je tiendrai mon serment.” _Andrienne_, A. I. S. VII.

NOTE 102.

_And why has Chremes changed his mind._

“Id mutavit, quoniam me IMMUTATUM videt.”

The verb _immutare_ in other Latin authors, and even in other parts of Terence himself, signifies _to change_; as in the Phormio, Antipho says, _Non possum_ immutarier. I cannot _be changed_. But here, the sense absolutely requires that _immutatum_ should be rendered _not changed_. Madame Dacier endeavours to reconcile this, according to a conjecture of her father’s, by shewing that _immutatum_ stands for _immutabilis_, as _immotus_ for _immobilis_, _invictus_ for _invincibilis_, &c. But these examples do not remove the difficulty; since those participles always bear a negative sense, which _immutatus_ does not: and thence arises all the difficulty. Terence certainly uses the verb _immutare_ both negatively and positively, as is plain from this passage, and the above passage in the Phormio: and I dare say, with strict propriety. In our own language, we have instances of the same word bearing two senses, directly opposite to each other. The word _let_, for instance, is used in the contradictory meanings of _permission_ and _prohibition_. The modern acceptation of the word is indeed almost entirely confined to the first sense; though we say, even at this day, _without let or molestation_. Shakspeare, in Hamlet, says,

‘I’ll make a ghost of him that _lets_ me;’

“That is, _stops_, _prevents_, _hinders_ me, which is directly opposite to the modern use of the word.”――COLMAN.

“_Immutare_ always signifies to _change_, _immutatus_ therefore cannot mean _unchanged_: we see, moreover, that Pamphilus has been all along in love with Glycera, and that he never for a moment entertained the slightest idea of forsaking her. This passage was very difficult; but my father has made it easy, by shewing that _immutatus_ is put for _immutabilis_, and that composed adjectives, which are derived from passive participles, do not always express what is _done_, but sometimes what _may be done_; that is to say, they become potentials. For example, _immotus_ for _immobilis_, _infectus_ for _what cannot be done_, _invictus_ for _invincibilis_, _invisus_ for _invisibilis_, _indomitus_ for _indomabilis_, thus _immutatus_ is for _immutabilis_.”――MADAME DACIER.

The reader will judge whether the arguments used by these two learned and ingenious critics, will justify them in translating _immutatus_ in a sense directly _opposite_ to its usual meaning, in the writings of Cicero, and the most learned of the Roman authors. With all the respect which is unquestionably due to the pre-eminent talents of Madame Dacier and Mr. Colman, I am inclined to believe that the sense of this passage is made more clear by the reading I have adopted. If we allow their arguments to be of force, we must translate the sentence thus, _is Chremes changed because he sees that I am unchanged_. But if we allow _immutatus_ to retain its usual signification, the sentence must be read thus, _is he changed because he sees that I am changed_: i. e., _because I, who had so high a character for prudence, am changed, and by my connexion with Glycera have proved that I am imprudent_. It is, in short, as if he said, Chremes has changed his mind once on account of my connexion with Glycera, and now, I suppose, he changes it again for the same wise reason. This would not, (in my opinion,) be an unnatural expression for an impatient man: and the sequel of the same speech seems to favour this interpretation.

NOTE 103.

_I shrewdly suspect that this daughter of Chremes is either hideously ugly, or that something is amiss in her._

In the Latin _aliquid monstri alunt_, _they breed up some monster_.

This expression took its rise from the custom of exposing and destroying monstrous and deformed children, (_see Note 93_) which was required by law: therefore, those parents who resolved, notwithstanding, to educate a child of that kind, were compelled to do so with the utmost secrecy: hence, the phrase “_alere monstrum_,” _to breed up a monster_, was used in Rome, to express any thing done in great secrecy. Terence has, by no means, violated probability, in representing Pamphilus as unacquainted with the person of Philumena: _though she had been contracted to him_; as Grecian women very seldom appeared abroad, and never, unveiled: and it not unfrequently occurred, that the bridegroom was introduced to the bride for the _first time_ on the day of marriage.

NOTE 104.

_She is in labour._

In the Latin, _Laborat e dolore_. Cooke thinks that these words mean merely _she is weighed down by grief_: and argues, that if Pamphilus had understood her words in any other sense, he would have urged her to more haste; as he does, when she tells him that she is going for a midwife. But _laboro_ sometimes means to strive or struggle, as in _Ovid_,

“Et simul arma tuli, quæ nunc quoque ferre _laboro_.” _Metam._, B. XIII. L. 285.

’Twas then I bare Achilles’ arms, which now _I strive_ to wear.

Also, in _Horace_,

――――――――――――――“_laborat_ Lympha fugax trepidare.” _Od._, B. II. O. 3. L. 11.

The rushing water _strives_ To force a swifter passage.

And that, doubtless, is its meaning, when joined to _dolore_. What Mysis says, moreover, to Lesbia the midwife, in the first scene of the third act, is sufficient to justify this interpretation.

NOTE 105.

_Can I suffer, that she, who has been brought up in the paths of modesty and virtue, should be exposed to want, and, perhaps, even to dishonour?_

By the expression _sinam coactum egestate ingenium immutarier?_ _shall I suffer her innocence to be endangered by want?_ I am inclined to believe that Terence meant, the want of friends and protection, and not poverty, because we are told afterwards, (_Act_ IV.) that Glycera was possessed of the property of Chrysis, which we are to imagine, from what Crito says concerning it, to have been something considerable. I believe _egestate_ is often put for want of any kind. It may appear somewhat enigmatical, that Terence should speak of the liberal and virtuous education of Glycera, by such a person as Chrysis was said to have been; but it is a circumstance in no wise repugnant to the manners of the Greeks; as we see in the Eunuch in the instance of _Thais_ and _Pamphila_.

NOTE 106.

_I call upon you, then, by the pledge of this hand you now extend to me, and by the natural goodness of your disposition._

Quod ego te per hanc dextram oro, et _ingenium_ tuum. Some read _genium_, _by your genius_, or _by your good angel_, and quote the following passage from Horace in support of this reading:

“Quod te per _genium_ dextramque, deosque penates Obsecro et obtestor.” _Epistles_, B. I. E. 7. L. 94.

The difference, however, between the _genius_ and the _ingenium_, is not very material; as the _ingenium_ or disposition, was supposed by the ancients to be prompted by the _genius_, or tutelar spirit, who presided over and directed all the actions of mankind. Each person was thought to have a good and also an evil spirit, who never quitted its charge till death: the spirits attendant on the men were called by the Romans _genii_, and those belonging to the women were named _junones_. The Greeks considered these aërial beings as of a nature between that of gods and men: and that they communicated to the latter the will of the former by oracles, dreams, _&c._ Apuleius takes the genius to be the same as the lar and larva: but it is most probable, that the larvæ, lemures, and dæmones, were all used as names for what were termed the _evil genii_.

NOTE 107.

_Be to her a friend, a guardian, a parent._

_Amicum_, tutorem _patrem_. The word _tutorem_ in this line, alludes to the Roman custom of appointing _guardians_, which was usually performed with great ceremony: frequently on a dead-bed. The person who intended to constitute a _tutor_ or guardian, made use of a set form of words, which were spoken before witnesses, when the ward was delivered to the guardian, with these words, “_Hunc (vel hanc) tibi commendo, Tutor esto._” _I commend him (or her) to your protection, be to him a guardian._ Thus Ovid,

“Hæc progeniesque mea est _Hanc tibi commendo_.” Trist., B. III. El. 14. L. 14.

To your protection I commit my offspring.

Some words were also addressed to the ward, as “_Hunc tibi tutorem do_,” _I appoint this person your guardian_.

Donatus observes, that the line

――――“Te isti virum do, amicum, tutorem, patrem,”

ought to be read with a long pause between each word, as Terence intended to describe the broken, interrupted voice of a person at the point of death.

NOTE 108.

_Charinus, Byrrhia._

“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.

To affirm a thing by the temple of Pollux, was a very common expression among the ancients; and is frequently used in the plays of Terence, where it seems to have been particularly the oath of slaves. It was natural enough that Athenian slaves should asseverate by this temple, as it was the place where they were bought and sold by the inhabitants of Attica. This splendid building, which was so unworthily employed, was situated in the κάτω πόλις, or the lower city, towards the sea; and was called Ἀνάκειον, because Castor and Pollux were called ἄνακες. In the Greek mythology, Castor and Pollux were the twin sons of Leda: their father, Jupiter, rewarded their virtues, by giving them a place in the heavens, where they are called Gemini. They were supposed to preside over martial exercises, (for their skill in which they were

## particularly eminent,) and they had the power of allaying storms.

These fables have caused the names of Castor and Pollux to be given to that well-known meteor which sometimes appears at sea in the shape of several fire-balls, which seem to adhere to the vessel, and which are judged to indicate an approaching calm. This phænomenon is called by the French, Spaniards, and Italians, San Elmo, or Hermo.

NOTE 110.

_Byrrhia.――I beseech you, O Charinus, to wish for something possible, since what you now wish for is impossible!_

Terence always admirably preserves the characters of domestics, in the style of the advice they give their masters, which is very often conveyed in some trite adage, or formal apothegm. This is another instance of our author’s art. Want of attention to the dialogue of the inferior characters, is a frequent fault among dramatic writers; and often proves hostile to the success of a piece, particularly of a comedy, where it is absolutely essential.

NOTE 111.

_To nourish a hopeless passion._

Madame Dacier observes, with her usual judgment, that Terence simplifies a philosophical maxim in so elegant and familiar a manner, that it assumes a grace, even from the lips of a domestic. Diderot makes a similar remark in the Preface to his Père de Famille; which he probably remembered from the learned lady before mentioned. Montaigne has elegantly expressed the sense of Byrrhia’s speech. C’est _foiblesse_ de ceder aux maux, mais c’est _folie_ de les nourrir.

NOTE 112.

_Charinus.――What think you, Byrrhia, shall I speak to him?_

_Byrrhia.――Why not? that even if you can obtain nothing, you may make him think, at least, that Philumena will find a pressing gallant in you, if he marries her._

The original of these lines is the most exceptionable passage in this play.

“C. Byrrhia, Quid tibi videtur? Adeon’ ad eum? B. Quidni? si nihil impetres, _Ut te arbitretur sibi paratum mœchum, si illam duxerit_.”

The ingenious French editor, mentioned in Note 72, has given the following elegant and delicate turn to this objectionable passage.

“C. Byrrhia, Quid tibi videtur? Adeon’ ad eum? B. Quidni? ut, si nihil impetres, _Te sibi cavendum credat, si illam duxerit_.”

NOTE 113.

_You see me to-day for the last time._

Though Charinus means, that the misery of losing Philumena would cost him his life, as he expressly tells Davus in the next scene, yet he only insinuates this by saying, You will never see me again: and avoids the mention of _death_: which was considered among the Greeks as a word that should scarcely ever be named: and it was reckoned the height of ill breeding to discourse in company respecting human mortality; which was a subject to be spoken of only by distant hints: (_vide Note 190_.) This whole scene is admirably written; and as well as the last scene in the first act, is a specimen of Terence’s powers in the pathetic. Some very ingenious remarks on this scene are to be found in Donatus, and in the Miscellanies of Nonnius.

NOTE 114.

_Now, if either you, or Byrrhia here, can do any thing; in Heavens name, do it; contrive, invent, and manage, if you can, that she may be given to you._

It does not appear that Charinus and Byrrhia set any stratagem on foot, in compliance with the wishes of Pamphilus, to break off the treaty between Simo and Chremes; indeed, they are rather inactive throughout the play, and the under-plot proceeds separately from the principal plot: this, I attribute to Terence’s close imitation of Menander, in what respects Pamphilus’s intrigue, as the characters of Charinus and Byrrhia were added by Terence: Menander’s play being written with a single plot; which was doubled by our author, in compliance with the taste of his age. It is supposed that Terence’s reputation for art was gained chiefly by his success in combining two intrigues in one play: a mode of dramatic writing which the Romans in those times considered a great novelty. The Stepmother is the only play written by Terence, in which the plot is single, and though critics in general argue with Volcatius,

“Sumetur _Hecyra sexta_ ex his fabula,”

that it is not equal to the rest of his productions, many persons, very eminent for their judgment, have attributed the superiority of the other five plays, to the advantages they possess over the Stepmother, both in portraiture of character, and in the conduct of the catastrophe, and of the fable in general, rather than to any additional attraction which they can derive from a double plot. The Carin and Byrrhie of M. Baron, are, in every respect, the counterparts of the Charinus and Byrrhia of Terence; but Sir R. Steele has very much enlivened the character of Charinus; his Myrtle is one of the most entertaining personages in the piece. _Vide_ Notes 108, 159, 162, 163.

NOTE 115.

_I know your affair also._

From _Byrrhia_, whom he had just parted from, as he afterwards relates: this, though a trivial circumstance, shews Terence’s great art. Donatus reads this sentence,

“Et tu quid _timeas_ scio.”

but the measure of the verse does not seem to admit of timeas.

NOTE 116.

_Not a soul do I see before the door._

The marriage ceremonies of the Greeks were, in many respects, very similar to those of the Romans. In Athens, as at Rome, sacrifices were deemed necessary preliminaries to the celebration of a marriage: and the bride, accompanied by bride-women, whom the Latins called _pronubæ_, the Greeks νυμφεύτριαι, was conducted to her husband’s house with great ceremony; if the parties were of rank, the bride’s train was increased by the attendance of many of her friends and relatives, who previously assembled at her father’s house. It is to the absence of the bride’s train, and of the musicians who usually assembled before her door, and attended her to her new habitation, that Davus alludes, when he says, that he could perceive no company in the house, or before the door. For further information respecting the marriages of the Greeks and Romans, _vide_ Notes 70, 75, 76, 117, 118, 148, 149, 181.

NOTE 117.

_Every thing is quite still and quiet._

Cecrops, the first king of Athens, seems to have been the reputed founder of marriage-ceremonies among the Greeks: the Athenians accounted it so dishonourable to grow old in a single state, that their laws peremptorily required, that all the αὐτοκράτορες, στρατηγοὶ, πολέμαρχοι, and ταξίαρχοι, who were the principal military officers, also the ἄρχοντες and ἱεροφύλακες, or chief priests, as well as the archons and other chief magistrates, should be chosen from the married men only.

Numerous ceremonies were always performed at Grecian marriages, many of which were performed at the house of the bride, and in procession from it: it is exceedingly well managed by Terence, that Davus should discover Simo’s stratagem, by finding Chremes’ house “quite still and quiet,” because the house of a bride was generally full of noisy company. The following extracts from a learned writer on antiquities will afford some valuable information respecting the Greek marriages.

“The Athenian virgins were presented to Diana before it was lawful for them to marry. This ceremony, which was performed at Brauron, an Athenian borough, was called ἀρκτεία. There was also another custom for virgins, when they became marriageable, to present certain baskets, full of little curiosities, to Diana, to obtain permission to leave her train, and to change their state of life. Indeed we find Diana concerned in the preparatory solemnities before all marriages; for a married state being her aversion, it was thought necessary for all who entered upon it, to ask her pardon for dissenting from her. The ancient Athenians paid the same honour to Heaven and Earth, which were believed to have a particular concern in marriages, of which they were thought a proper emblem. (_Procl. in Timæ. Platon. Comment. 5._) The fates and graces being supposed to join, and afterwards to preserve the tie of love, were partakers of the same respect. (_Pol. lib._ III. _cap._ 3.) Before the marriage could be solemnized, the other gods were consulted, and their assistance also implored by prayers and sacrifices. When the victim was opened, the gall was taken out and thrown behind the altar, as being the seat of anger and revenge, and therefore the aversion of all the deities who superintended the affairs of love. The married persons, with their attendants, were richly adorned, according to their rank. The house, in which the nuptials were celebrated, was also decorated with garlands. (_Hierocl. in Frag._ περὶ γάμον; _Stob. Serm. 186_, _Senec. Thebaid. v. 507_;) a pestle was tied upon the door, (_Poll. lib._ III. _cap._ 3. _seg._ 37;) and a maid carried a sieve, (_Id. ibid._) the bride herself bearing φρύγετον, φρύγετρον, or φρύγητρον, which was an earthen vessel, in which barley was parched, (_Poll. lib._ I. _cap._ 12. _seg._ 246; _Hesych._) and which was intended to signify her obligation to attend to the business of a family. The bride was usually conducted in a chariot from her father’s to her husband’s house in the evening. She was placed in the middle, her husband sitting on one side, and, on the other, one of his most intimate friends, who was called πάροχος. They were sometimes accompanied by bands of musicians and dancers, (_Hom. Il._ σʹ. _v. 491._) The song with which they were entertained on the road was called ἁρμάτειον μέλος, from ἅρμα, the coach in which they rode, and the axle-tree of which they burned as soon as they arrived at the end of their journey; thereby signifying that the bride was never to return to her father’s house. The day of the bride’s leaving her father was celebrated in the manner of a festival, which was distinct from the nuptial solemnity, which was kept at the bride-groom’s house, and began at evening, the usual time of the bride’s arrival.”――ROBINSON’S _Archæologia Græca_.

NOTE 118.

_But can see no bridemaid._

Matronam nullam: Some commentators think that matrona and pronuba have a similar meaning; but though it is clear that both those words were used to describe females who attended the bride at a Roman marriage, I am inclined to believe that they have each a distinct signification. The Latin poets used matrona as a name for all married women without distinction: thus, Horace evidently speaks of wives in general, when he says,

“Matronæ præter faciem nil cernere possis, Cetera, ――――demissa veste tegentis.”

The matron muffled in her modest stole, Will scarce allow her features to be seen.

because married women only were allowed to wear the _stola_, a large robe which covered the person from head to foot. Matrons were distinguished as follows, matronas appellabant, quibus _stolas habendi_ jus erat: those only were called matrons, whose rank entitled them to wear the stola, (_Alex. ab. Alex. lib._ 5. _cap._ 18.) as women of inferior rank wore the instita. The pronubæ were always chosen from those women who had been married only once; and it appears that a bride had several pronubæ to attend her, but only one matrona. Terence says nullam matronam, whereas the pronubæ were spoken of as being four or five in number. I think it not unlikely that the first in rank of the pronubæ was chosen to preside over the rest of the bridemaids, and to attend immediately on the person of the bride, whence she was called matrona pronubarum, the chief of the bridemaids. Servius thinks that matrona was used to designate a woman who had one child: and thus distinguished from the mater-familias who had several. But Aulus Gellius is of opinion that all married women were called matronæ, whether they had any children or not. Thus Ovid, speaking of Hersilia, the wife of Romulus, who had no offspring, calls her matrona.

“O et de Latiâ, O et de gente Sabinâ Præcipuum matrona decus; dignissima tanti”――

And thou, O matron, ornament of Latium, The chiefest glory of the Sabine race, Most worthy consort of so great a hero――――

Nonnius supports Gellius in this opinion.

NOTE 119.

_All was silent._

Nil tumulti. Terence here compares guests, called together in a hurry, to soldiers raised on any sudden emergency of great importance. As no marriage had been thought of till that day, _if_ Chremes _had_ invited any guests, they could have had scarcely an hour’s notice; Davus, therefore, aptly calls such a hasty assemblage tumultus, which word was used to signify a very quick muster of soldiers on any pressing occasion, when all that took arms were called tumultuarii. (_Vide_ Liv. I. 37, 35.) Numerous allusions of this kind, which abound in the writings of Terence, cannot be happily preserved in a translation.

NOTE 120.

_Besides all this, as I was returning, I met Chremes’ servant, who was carrying home some herbs, and as many little fishes for the old man’s supper, as might have cost an obolus._

What a supper for a man of fortune! as we must suppose Chremes to have been, since he could give Glycera and Philumena each a dowry of ten talents. The Athenians were remarkable, _even to a proverb_, for their extreme frugality. To tell a person that he lived ἀττικηρῶς or like an Athenian, was to tell him in other words that he lived penuriously. The food of the common people was very coarse; being such as they could procure at a slight expense. Mάζα, a very common food among them, was a mixture of meal, salt, water, and oil: and another, called μυττωτὸν, was a composition of garlick, eggs, and milk. Many of those who drank water, drank it warm; as the water of the hot fountains, (of which there are many in Greece,) was reckoned highly restorative. This simple diet, however, soon gave place to greater delicacies, and, in Greece, as in all other countries, refinement and luxury kept pace with each other. For the value of an obolus, see the table of money in Note 208. An obolus worth of food was, probably, as much as would furnish a coarse meal for one person. Plutarch tells us, that the Athenian women were forbidden, by law, to travel with more food than could be purchased with an obolus: this harsh law must have been formed with a view to prevent them from making any long stay abroad. _Vide_ Notes 71, 103.

NOTE 121.

_If you do not use all your endeavours to gain the support of the old man’s friends, you will be no nearer your wishes than ever._

Nisi vides, nisi senis amicos oras, _ambis_. The meaning of ambis in this line is very equivocal; ambire means to solicit, and also to run round. Some commentators give ambis the same sense with oras: but that makes Davus’s speech incomplete. I have seen an attempt to support this reading by making Pamphilus speak the word ambis, with which he breaks in upon Davus. The learned reader will judge what degree of attention ought to be paid to this reading; I have adopted that which seemed to me to be most agreeable to the sense. If frustra had been added, the line would have been more intelligible. Ambit has much the same meaning in the following passage,

“Locum, quo me Dea texerat inscius _ambit_.”――OVID.

NOTE 122.

_Glycera, moreover, is destitute and friendless._

Terence here alludes to the Athenian law, which compelled all sojourners in Athens to choose a patron and protector: we must suppose that Glycera had neglected that ceremony after Chrysis’ death. Davus insinuates that it would afford Simo a sufficient pretext to drive her from the city. If a suit at law, called ἀποστασίου δίκη, was instituted against a sojourner in the before-mentioned circumstances: all the offender’s property was confiscated to public use.

NOTE 123.

_To banish her from the city._

Banishment, among the Athenians, was of three kinds, 1. φυγὴ, temporary exile, the length of which was fixed by the judges. 2. Ὀστρακισμὸς, ten years’ banishment, during which the exile was allowed to receive the proceeds of his estate. 3. ἀειφυγία, perpetual banishment. The last kind was chiefly inflicted on murderers, the second on men, who grew so extremely popular and powerful as to endanger the security of a republican government. Mr. Cooke thinks, with Dr. Bentley, that “the original of this passage should be read, eam _eiciat_ oppido,” instead of _eam ejiciat_ oppido: he supports this reading by the following quotation,

Tityre, pascentes a flumine _reice_ capellas.――VIRGIL.

where the measure determines the spelling.

“In the three manuscript copies of Terence, in the possession of Dr. Mead, two of them have eiciat; and what is worthy the reader’s notice, that which has ejiciat is written in the manner of prose.”

NOTE 124.

_Therefore, do not let the fear of his changing his mind prevent you from following my advice._

――――Nec tu ea causa minueris Hæc quæ facis, ne is suam mutet sententiam.

It is impossible to ascertain, beyond a doubt, what Terence meant to express by these lines, and the most ingenious critics have differed entirely respecting their true signification. Some think this sentence should be interpreted thus: Be careful not to discontinue your visits to Glycera, lest Chremes should think you have broken off your connexion with her, and change his mind in consequence, and resolve to give you his daughter. In short, _don’t quit your intrigue, and reform, lest Chremes should hear of it, and give you Philumena_: among those who read the words in this sense, the most eminent are _Bernard, Echard, M. Baron, the authors of the old Paris edition of 1671, and of the old English edition with notes_. At the head of those who have adopted a contrary interpretation are _Cooke_, _Colman_, and _Madame Dacier_, who translate the lines thus, _Let not the fear of Chremes’ changing his mind, and resolving to give you his daughter, make you hesitate in doing this_, i. e., in telling your father that you’ll marry. I have adopted the latter translation, which seems more pertinent to the subject on which Davus and Pamphilus were conversing. The word hæc, moreover, usually refers to something immediately present, as was the topic of Pamphilus consenting to the marriage to deceive Simo. Terence, I think, if he had intended to allude to the visits, letters, _&c._, to Glycera, would have used the word isthæc. I conclude this note with the opinion of Madame Dacier respecting this passage, which that learned lady translates as follows:――

“_Car que Chremès ne veuille pas vous donner sa fille, cela est hors de doute. Gardez vous donc bien que la crainte qu’il ne change de sentiment, et ne veuille que vous soyez bon gendre, ne vous fasse changer quelque chose au conseil que je vous ai donné._

This passage is extremely difficult. I have been obliged to take a little latitude to make it clear. I shall explain the words literally: Nec tu ea causa minueris hæc quæ facis, ne is mutet suam sententiam. This is the construction, nec tu minueris hæc quæ facis, ea causa ne is mutet suam sententiam. Change not your intention to do what you are going to do; that is to say, what I advise you to do: ea causa; on this pretext; ne is mutet suam sententiam; that you fear lest Chremes should change his mind: minuere, to diminish, is used for to change, as in the Stepmother,

Sed non minuam meum consilium.

But I will not alter my resolution.” MADAME DACIER.

NOTE 125.

_As to the hopes you indulge, that no man will give his daughter to you, on account of this imprudent connexion that you have formed; I will soon convince you of their fallacy._

We must not suppose, that the sentiments of Pamphilus were really such as Davus here insinuates: this would be representing him as an unblushing profligate; who, because he was disinclined to marriage, wished his character to be so very black, that no reputable family in Athens would admit him as a son-in-law: for this is the sense of what Davus says, though I have rather softened his expression. Whoever attentively peruses what Simo says of his son, (in Act I. Scene I.) must perceive how inconsistent such a wish must be with the character of Pamphilus. Madame Dacier observes very aptly on a similar expression of Sosia, “_les valets prennent toujours tout du mauvais côte_, slaves always look on the dark side of every thing. In respect to the _before-mentioned passage_, I am rather inclined to the opinion of a late ingenious commentator, who speaks of it as follows:

“Mr. Davus talks here as if he did not know what to say. In my humble opinion, these four lines are no ornaments to the scene:

Nam quod tu speras, Propulsabo facile: uxorem his moribus Dabit nemo: inopem inveniet potius, quam te corrumpi sinat: Sed si te æquo animo ferre accipiet, negligentem feceris; Aliam otiosus quæret: interea aliquid acciderit boni.

Here are _poor_ sentiments in _pure_ Latin, which is more than once the case in our poet. The speech closes better with tibi jure irasci non queat.”――COOKE.

NOTE 126.

_Pamphilus. But we must take care that he knows nothing of the child, for I have promised to bring it up._

_Davus. Is it possible!_

An allusion is here made to the exposure of children, for an account of which, see Note 93.

Pamphilus, in this sentence, says pollicitus sum: there is very great force in this expression, which cannot be gracefully expressed in English. Pollicitatio, writes a learned commentator, magnarum rerum est promissio, means the promise of something of great consequence. It signifies also something promised over and over again, after great persuasion and entreaty.

NOTE 127.

_So as I saw the old man coming this way, I followed him._

Id propterea nunc _hunc_ venientem sequor.

Dr. Bentley thinks that this line ought to be omitted as spurious, because the word _hunc_ refers to Pamphilus, who had not quitted the stage at all, from the time of Charinus’ departure until that moment: and, therefore, what Byrrhia says about following him thither must be nonsense. This passage is made very clear by Madame Dacier, who shews that Id propterea is the commencement of another sentence, and makes _hunc_ refer to Simo, instead of Pamphilus. The lines ought to be read thus,

_Byrrhia._ Herus me, relictis rebus, jussit Pamphilum Hodiè observare, ut quid ageret de nuptiis Scirem. Id propterea nunc hunc venientem sequor.

NOTE 128.

_Byrrhia. (aside.) Now, for my master’s sake, I dread to hear his answer._

Some commentators make this speech come from Davus; but it certainly is more natural from Byrrhia: because, by the word _dread_, he expresses a suspense about what the answer might be, which Davus could not feel, because he and his master had previously agreed upon it.

NOTE 129.

_Byrrhia. (aside.) Ha! I am struck dumb; what did he say?_

Hem! obmutui! quid dixit!

I think this reading seems more consistent than that which is usually printed, where obmutuit comes from Davus: as _Byrrhia_ might well be supposed to _express surprise_ at Pamphilus’s answer, which was _directly different from what Pamphilus and Charinus had previously agreed on_.

The dialogue of this scene is carried on too unconnectedly, as Mr. Colman observes.

“Donatus remarks on this scene between Byrrhia, Simo, Pamphilus, and Davus, that the dialogue is sustained by four persons, who have little or no intercourse with each other: so that the scene is not only in direct contradiction to the precept of Horace excluding a fourth person, but is also otherwise vicious in its construction. Scenes of this kind are, I think, much too frequent in Terence, though, indeed, the form of the ancient theatre was more adapted to the representation of them than the modern. The multiplicity of speeches _aside_ is also the chief error in his dialogue; such speeches, though very common in dramatic writers, ancient and modern, being always more or less unnatural. Myrtle’s suspicions, grounded on the intelligence drawn from Bevil’s servant, are more artfully imagined by the English poet, than those of Charinus, created by employing his servant as a spy on the

## actions of Pamphilus.”――COLMAN.

NOTE 130.

_Byrrhia. (aside.) From what I hear, I fancy my master has nothing to do but to provide himself with another mistress as soon as possible._

Herus, quantum audio, uxore _excidit_.

“This expression is extremely elegant; excidere uxore means to lose all hope of obtaining the woman he courted, Excidere lite, to lose a cause, is a similar phrase. This mode of expression is in imitation of the Greeks, who used ἐκπιπτεῖν in the same sense.”――MADAME DACIER.

Terence, undoubtedly, was extremely happy in the choice of his words; and his expressions are frequently so terse and nervous, that they cannot be translated but by a circumlocution which very much diminishes their grace: the following are words of that description which occur in this play,

“_Liberaliter, conflictatur, familiariter, invenustum, indigeas, pollicitus, excidit, lactasses, ingeram, in proclive, produceres, conglutinas, illicis, attentus._”

NOTE 131.

_Byrrhia. Well, I’ll carry him an account of what has passed. I suppose I shall receive an abundance of bad language in return for my bad news._

Renunciabo, ut pro hoc malo mihi det malum.

There is a jest in the Latin, which it is impossible to preserve in a translation: it turns on the word _malum_, which was used at Rome to signify the punishment inflicted on a slave, who played his part badly on the stage: as the inferior characters in a Roman play were personated by slaves. Thus, Byrrhia means to say, I shall rehearse my part so little to my master’s satisfaction, that I am sure to be punished. The writings of Terence abound with allusions of different kinds. It is not improbable that Terence acquired a taste for dramatic writing, by frequenting the stage in his youth, before he obtained his liberty: as slaves were employed in the theatres in considerable numbers. It is remarkable that several very eminent Latin and Greek writers were originally slaves; Terence, Cæcilius, Æsop, Diocles, Rhianus, Epictetus, Tyrannion, and (_as some say_) Plautus, were all elevated from a servile station. A celebrated writer remarks on this subject as follows:――

“Of the politest and best writers of antiquity, several were slaves, or the immediate descendants of slaves. But all the difficulties occasioned by their low birth, mean fortune, want of friends, and defective education, were surmounted by their _love of letters_, and that generous spirit, which incites,

Ἀὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων.

Still to be first, and rise above the rest.

Stimulos dedit æmula virtus: Nec quemquam jam ferre potest Cæsarve priorem Pompeiusve parem.――LUCAN.

’Twas emulative virtue spurred them on; Cæsar no longer a superior brooks, And Pompey scorns an equal.”――KNOX.

Byrrhia’s whole speech, from which the before-mentioned line was taken, has been thus altered by the learned French writer mentioned in Notes 72 and 112. _Vide_ Note 133.

“Ego illam vidi virginem: formâ bonâ Memini videre, quo æquior sum Pamphilo, Si se illam uxorem quam illum habere maluit. Renunciabo, ut pro hoc malo mihi det malum.”

The original lines are as follows,

“Ego illam vidi virginem: formâ bonâ Memini videre; quo æquior sum Pamphilo, Si se illam in somnis, quàm illum, amplecti maluit. Renunciabo, ut pro hoc malo mihi det malum.”

NOTE 132.

_Davus. (aside.) He has missed his aim! I see this nettles him to the quick._

M. Baron has lengthened this scene considerably: and makes a trial of repartee between Simo and Davus: one passage in which I think the ancient is surpassed by the modern, particularly deserves to be recorded.

“Puis-je espérer qu’aujourd’hui sans contrainte La vérité pourra, sans recevoir d’atteinte, Une fois seulement de ta bouche sortir.” _Andrienne_, A. II. S. VII.

Tell me, slave, Is’t possible that truth can pass thy lips, And be for once unsullied in its passage.

NOTE 133.

_Davus. While circumstances allowed him, and while his youth, in some measure, excused him, I confess he did._

This is the last passage in this play that has been altered by the learned French writer, whom I have already cited several times. He has varied the lines as follows,

“Dum licitum est illi, dumque ætas tulit, Si vixit liberius, at cavit ne id sibi Infamiæ esset, ut virum fortem decet.”

Altered from the following,

“Dum licitum est illi, dumque ætas tulit, Amavit: tum id clam. Cavit ne unquam infamiæ Ea res sibi esset, ut virum fortem decet.”

I have now completed my extracts of the alterations made by this very learned and judicious writer, of various passages in our author, which might sound somewhat harsh to a delicate ear. I cannot but think that these alterations are worthy of the attention of the editors of Latin classics, who might adopt them with advantage in those editions of Terence, which are intended to be introduced into schools. It is impossible to be too cautious respecting those writings which are placed in the hands of youth: that work, perhaps, has the greatest merit, which can be submitted to their perusal most unreservedly.

“Virtutem doctrina paret.”――HORACE.

I shall conclude this subject with an extract from that inestimable Tractate of Education, addressed by Milton to Mr. Samuel Hartlib: after various instructions to those who superintend the studies of youth, he observes, “Either now, or before this, they may have easily learnt, at any odd hour, the _Italian_ tongue; and soon after, but with _wariness and good antidote_, it would be wholesome enough to let them taste some choice comedies, _Greek_, _Latin_, or _Italian_. Those tragedies, also, that treat of household matters, as _Trachiniæ_, _Alcestis_, and the like.”

NOTE 134.

_He was cautious as a gentleman should be._

Cavit――――ut _virum fortem_ decet.

The words virum fortem in this passage do not mean a brave man, but a noble, well-bred, or honourable man. Latin authors sometimes used fortis in that sense. Thus, Ovid, speaking of Polyxena, says,

“Rapta sinu matris, quam jam propè sola fovebat, Fortis, et infelix, et plusquam fœmina, virgo Ducitur ad tumulum; diroque fit hostia busto.”

The noble maid, her mother’s only hope, Torn from her fostering arms by barbarous force, Was led a victim to Achilles’ tomb: Where, to appease the hero’s angry shade, They offered up the life of her he loved.

The Romans used virtus also in a similar manner to signify virtue, bravery, and nobleness. The Greek word καλὸς was of the same signification with the Latin fortis: it meant sometimes a brave, sometimes a virtuous man. Menander employs τα καλα in this sense,

“Ἐν μυρίοις τα καλα γιγνεται πονοι.” MENANDER.

A man, ere he deserves the name of great, Must overcome ten thousand difficulties.

NOTE 135.

_Simo. Yet he appeared to me to be somewhat melancholy._

This is admirably contrived by our author. Pamphilus is a youth of so open and ingenuous a disposition, that he cannot attempt to practise the slightest deceit upon his father, without a visible uneasiness and sadness in his demeanour. Terence conducts this affair in a manner infinitely more natural than does Sir R. Steele; who makes young Bevil counterfeit an eagerness to attend the lady his father designs for him, that is rather inconsistent with strict ingenuousness. But Terence has shewn wonderful art in his portraiture of Pamphilus’s behaviour in this scene: he asks his father no questions; he is silent and spiritless; and sedulously avoids mentioning any thing connected with his marriage, or his intended bride, and, as Mr. Colman ingeniously suggests, Pamphilus’s dissimulation may find some palliations in the artful instigations of Davus.

NOTE 136.

_Ten drachms for the wedding supper._

Instead of referring the reader to the Table of Money in Note 208, for the value of the drachma, I purpose to enter more at large, in this place, into a subject that has so much occupied the attention of the learned. The drachma, (δραχμὴ,) it is generally agreed, was equal to three scruples, six oboli, (ὀβολὸς,) and eighteen siliqua, (κέρατιον). Pliny, Valerius Maximus, and Strabo, believed the Attic drachma and the Roman denarius to be equivalent. But, if we admit of the correctness of this estimation, it affords us no certain information, as authors can agree as little on the value of the denarius, as on that of the drachma. Kennett computes the Roman denarius at 7_d._ 2_qrs._; Greaves, Arbuthnot, and Adams, at 7_d._ 3_q._; Tillemont at 11_d._, and, in the Philosophical Transactions, (Vol. LXI.,