Chapter VIII: Act V: Scene I (2)

“_Postquam est morte captus Plautus,
Comœdia luget, scena est deserta,
Deinde risus, ludus jocusque et numeri
Innumeri simul omnes collacrymarunt._”

The comic muse bewails her Plautus dead,
And silence reigns o’er the deserted stage;
The joyous train that graced the scene are fled,
And weep to lose, the wittiest of his age.
While jests and sports their patron’s death deplore,
And even laughter, now can smile no more.

NOTE 43.

_Cæcilius._

Cæcilius Statius was born in Gaul, and raised himself into eminence, from the condition of a slave, by his poetical talents: he died at Rome five or six years before the Andrian was first published. Volcatius gives Cæcilius the first place: Horace draws a sort of comparison between him and Terence in the following line,

“Vincere Cæcilius gravitate, Terentius arte.”

_Cæcilius
Excelled in force, and grandeur of expression,
Terence in art._

Quintilian tells us, “Cæcilium veteres laudibus serunt.” _The ancients resounded the praises of Cæcilius._――Also Varro, “Pathè vero, Cæcilius facile moverat.” That _Cæcilius knew how to interest the passions_.

Cæcilius wrote more than 30 comedies, now lost.

NOTE 44.

_Licinius._

Publius Licinius Tegula, a comic poet, flourished during the _second Punic war_. Aulus Gellius mentions him by the name of Caius Licinius Imbrex, author of a comedy called Neæra, but there can be little doubt but that Imbrex, and the Tegula above-mentioned were the same person.

NOTE 45.

_Cicero in his_ ΛΕΙΜΩΝ.

“Cicero wrote a poem, to which he affixed the title of λειμων, a Greek word signifying _a meadow_; he gave it this name, probably, because, as meadows are filled with various kinds of flowers, his work was a numerous collection of flowers (_of literature_) affording an agreeable variety. This poem, it seems, consisted entirely of panegyrics on illustrious persons. Nothing can be more erroneous than a supposition that these verses were the forgery of some grammarian: the Latin is too elegant, and they are too finely written, to allow us to suppose them a spurious production; and if Cicero had never written any lines inferior to these; his fame as a poet, might have equalled his fame as an orator. Ausonius had these verses in his mind, when he wrote

Tu quoque qui Latium lecto sermone Terenti,
Comis, et astricto percurris pulpita socco.

What is still more remarkable, Cæsar commences his lines on Terence, in Cicero’s words, Tu quoque, &c., for there is not the least doubt but that Cæsar undertook this work, merely with a view to irritate, and to contradict Cicero.”

MADAME DACIER.

The name of Cicero is too well known, to need any further mention here; suffice it to say, that this great orator was totally unsuccessful in his poetical attempts, the chief fault of which was want of harmony in the measure: it may be remarked of Cicero, that very frequently his prose was written with the music of verse, and his verse with the roughness of prose.

NOTE 46.

_Caius Julius Cæsar._

The poem, of which these lines formed a part, is entirely lost; what remains of it, however, proves Julius Cæsar to have been no mean poet, but he seems to have excelled in every art of war and peace;――

quem Marte, togâque
Præcipium.

The first alike in war, and peace.
OVID.

If the lines quoted by Suetonius were written in ridicule of Cicero, they are another proof in support of an opinion that has been very prevalent, that the orator was not very high in the good graces of Cæsar, whose dislike of him may be easily traced to Marc Antony, Cæsar’s intimate and favourite companion, and the most inveterate enemy of Cicero.

NOTE 47.

_The Megalesian Games._

The Megalesian games were celebrated annually at Rome, in the beginning of April, with solemn feasts, in honour of Cybele, otherwise called Rhea, the mother of the gods. Opinions vary as to their duration, some fixing it at six days, and others at not more than one. Originally instituted in Phrygia, these ceremonies were introduced at Rome, during the _second Punic war_, when the statue of the goddess was carried thither from Pessinus. They consisted chiefly of scenic sports; and women danced before this statue, which was held so sacred, that no servant was allowed to approach it, or to take any part in the games. They were called Megalesian, from the Greek words, μεγαλη, great, Cybele being known by the name of the Great Goddess, and Ευαλωσια, another name of Cybele, as presiding over husbandry. The festival ΘΕΣΜΟΦΟΡΙΑ, celebrated in Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, in honour of the same goddess resembled in many circumstances the Roman Megalesia; the Latins appear to have adopted partially, on various occasions, the religious ceremonies of the Greeks, particularly in their imitation of certain of the solemnities which were observed at the _Eleusinian_ mysteries.

NOTE 48.

_Curule Ædilate._

The Curule Ædiles, created in the year of Rome 388, were at first elected from among the patricians. These magistrates were appointed to inspect all public edifices, (whence their name) to fix the rate of provisions, to take cognizance of disorders committed within the city, and to examine weights and measures: but their chief employment was to procure the celebration of the various Roman games, and to exhibit comedies and shews of gladiators; on which account, though inferior in rank to the Consuls, they precede them in the title of this play. The Ædilate was an honourable office, and a primary step to higher dignities in the republic. Curule magistrates were those who were entitled to use the _sella curulis_, viz., the consuls, prætors, curule ædiles, and censors: this chair was called _curulis_, because those privileged to use it, always carried it in their chariots, to and from the tribunals at which they presided. Tacitus informs us in his annals (_Book XIII. Chap. XXX._) that in the year 809, the power of the Ædiles, both curule, and plebeian, was very much circumscribed; that their salary was regulated anew; and limits fixed, as to the sum they were allowed to impose as a fine.

NOTE 49.

_Marcus Fulvius._

Son of the Consul for the year 564, and great grandson of the illustrious Servius Fulvius Pætinus Nobilior, the companion of Regulus; Pætinus was consul in the year 498. Marcus Fulvius obtained the consulate eight years after his Ædilate: the name of his colleague was Cneus Cornelius Dolabella. It is probable that this branch of the Fulvian family assumed the agnomen of _Nobilior_, to distinguish themselves as _nobiles_ from the rest of the Fulvii, who might not have had any claim to that title. None but those, and the posterity of those, who had borne some curule office, (_vide note 48_) were _nobiles_, or nobles. The _nobiles_ possessed the exclusive right of making statues of themselves; which were carefully preserved by their posterity, and usually carried in procession on solemn occasions: they painted the faces of these images

“Quid prodest, Pontice, longo
Sanguine censeri, pictosque ostendere vultus
Majorum.”

_What avails it to be thought,
Of ancient blood? and to expose to view,
The painted features of dead ancestors?_
JUVENAL.

NOTE 50.

_Marcus Glabrio._

This person was doubtless distinguished by another appellation which is not set down in the title to this play: under the name of Glabrio, there is no account of him extant. As Glabrio does not appear to have been the name of any _Gens_, or family in Rome, it was probably the _Agnomen_ of Marcus only, and not common to his kindred.

NOTE 51.

_By the company of Lucius Ambivius Turpio, and
Lucius Attilius._

These were the principal actors of their company, but otherwise persons of little note; for contrary to the customs of Greece, where men of the highest rank thought it no degradation to appear on the stage; the actors at the Roman theatres were not treated with that consideration to which persons of talent, who furnish the public with a polite and rational amusement, united with instruction, have a just and undeniable claim. However unjust the Romans might have been in this particular, they made an exception in favour of transcendent merit; as in the case of the admirable Roscius, though the mention made of this favourite performer by his friend Cicero, shews the truth of the foregoing remark. “Cum artifex ejusmodi sit, ut solus dignus videatur esse qui in scenâ spectetur; tum vir ejusmodi fuit, ut _solus dignus videatur qui non accedat_;” _so excellent an actor, that he only seemed worthy to tread the stage, and yet so noble a man, that he seemed to be the very last person that ought to appear there_. Though the Roman actors were not allowed their due privileges as citizens, yet some of the most eminent were often very great favourites with the people, and created so much interest among them, that (as Suetonius tells us) the parties of rival performers disputing for precedence, have proceeded so far as to terminate the quarrel in bloodshed. Turpio and Attilius were actors of the first class, and were said (_vid. Terence Phorm:_) _agere primas partes_, because they always personated the principal characters in the piece.

NOTE 52.

_Præneste._

Præneste was a town of Latium, about twenty-four miles from Rome, and founded by Cæculus, as we are told by _Virgil, B. 7._

“Nec _Prænestinæ fundator_ defuit _urbis_,
_Vulcano genitum_que omnis quem credidit ætas
_Cæculus_.”

Nor was the founder of Præneste absent,
Cæculus, the reputed son of Vulcan.

Præneste was deemed a place of military importance, from its situation, and Cicero (_in Catal._) tells us that Catiline, when foiled in his attempt to seize the capital, endeavoured to make himself master of Præneste. This town was particularly celebrated for very cold springs, which were held in high esteem, as Strabo assures us, and Horace mentions the circumstance in one of his odes.

“seu mihi _frigidum
Præneste_, seu Tibur supinum,
Seu liquidæ placuere Baiæ.”

NOTE 53.

_Equal flutes right and left handed._

Flutes were called in Latin _tibiæ_, because they were made of the shank or shin-bone of some animal, until the discovery of the art of boring flutes, when they began to use wood,

“_Longave multifori delectat tibia buxi._”――OVID.

The manner in which these instruments were played on the stage, and the distinction of right- and left-handed flutes, has never been ascertained with any degree of certainty: few subjects have more obstinately baffled the researches of the learned. The most perspicuous detail of all that the moderns are acquainted with respecting the ancient flutes, is written by the learned Madame Dacier, part of which is quoted in the Preface to this Translation.

NOTE 54.

_It is taken from the Greek._

All Terence’s comedies were of this class, which was called _Palliatæ_, viz., plays in which the scene was laid in Greece. The class, called _Togatæ_, were pieces entirely Roman. The palliatæ were generally _new_ comedies, of which Menander was the inventor; but Pacuvius wrote the _middle_, and Livius Andronicus the _old_ comedy. (_Vide Note 33._) In the age in which Terence wrote his comedies, the Romans were some degrees less advanced in the refinements of civilization, than the Greeks. But little more than a century before, Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, thought them worthy of no better epithet than that of “_barbarians_” in comparison with his own subjects, who were not themselves the most polished nation in the world. The Romans, therefore, omitted no opportunity of improving the manners and perfecting the education of their youth, by sending them to mix with the Greeks, and to unite themselves to the disciples of those Grecian sages, who, as far as the light of reason, unassisted by _divine revelation_, could penetrate, dispelled the clouds of ignorance, and taught their followers that happiness and wisdom can be attained only by the virtuous. It was, doubtless, on this account, that Terence chose Greece as the scene of his comedies, which he intended should portray to the Romans the manners, customs, and characters of those whom they often held up as a pattern of polished refinement, worthy the imitation of the rising generation.

It is to this, doubtless, that we must attribute Terence’s choice of Athens in preference to Rome as the scene of his plays; as, particularly, in the comedy which the critics call the _comedy of intrigue_, the best judges agree that the scene is preferably laid in that country in which it is meant to be performed. But the comedies of Terence were more of that description which Dr. Blair denominates the _comedy of character_, and preferable to what he calls the _comedy of intrigue_, because “it exhibits the prevailing manners which mark the character of the age in which the scene is laid. _Incidents_ should afford a proper field for the exhibition of character: the action in comedy, though it demands the poet’s care in order to render it animated and natural, is a less significant and important part of the performance than the action in tragedy; as, in comedy, it is what men say, and how they behave, that draws our attention, rather than what they perform or what they suffer.”

NOTE 55.

_The consulate of Marcus Claudius Marcellus, and
Cneus Sulpicius Galba._

The consuls, the chief magistrates of the Roman republic were first created at the expulsion of the kings in the year 244: they were two in number, and chosen annually. The consuls were the head of the _Senate_, which they assembled and dismissed at pleasure, though it was not their exclusive privilege, as a dictator, his master of the horse, the prætors, military tribunes, and even the tribunes of the people, might also, on certain occasions, assemble the Senate. The consuls, however, were the supreme judges of all differences; they commanded the armies of the republic, and, during their consulate, enjoyed almost unbounded power, which could only be checked by the creation of a dictator, to whom the consuls were subordinate. It was requisite that every candidate for the consulship should be _forty-three_ years of age, and that he should previously have discharged the functions of Prætor, Ædile, and Quæstor. The consuls were always patricians till the year 388, when, by the influence of their tribunes, the people obtained a law, that henceforth one of them should be a plebeian. The ensigns of consular dignity were twelve guards, called _lictors_, (who bore the _fasces_,) and a robe, fringed with purple, worn by these magistrates, during their consulate. The names of the consuls are mentioned in the title of this play, merely to fix its date, as the Roman method of reckoning their years was by the names of the consuls. This custom continued for 1,300 years. Marcus Claudius Marcellus was the grandson of the great Marcellus, slain in the year 545; for Caius Sulpicius Galba, _vide_ Note 27.

NOTE 56.

_Prologue._

Madame Dacier grounds on the first line of this Prologue an opinion, that the Andrian was not Terence’s first play: but, if that learned and justly-celebrated lady had attentively considered the relation the sixteen following lines of the Prologue bear to the first, she could not have made this deviation from her usual extreme accuracy. Whether the Andrian was, or was not, our Author’s first production, is a question of more curiosity than real importance: it has, however, undergone some discussion among the learned; and, in my opinion, it may be clearly ascertained by an attentive perusal of the Prologue to the Andrian, and learned and unlearned are equally competent to decide upon it. Let us now examine the proof. The first seven lines inform us, that “when the poet began to write, he thought he had only to please the people, but that he finds it far otherwise; as he is obliged to write a Prologue to answer the objections of an older bard.”

If we stop here, it is natural enough to conclude, that in the Prologue to the Andrian, he is alluding to censures passed on some former play. But, if we look at the next nine lines we see that _in the prologue to the Andrian_, he repels a censure _not passed on any former production, but on the_ ANDRIAN _itself_. Listen, says he, to their objections, which are, in short, that in the composition of _this very Andrian_, he has made a confused mixture of two of Menander’s plays. What allusion is made to any former writings? None: the snarling criticisms of the older bard were directed _only_ against the _Andrian_. I imagine that the case was thus: Terence wrote the Andrian, and procured its representation, probably without any Prologue, (which was sometimes dispensed with, as we see in Plautus,) the play, and its author, were, probably, cried down and abused by this older bard and his admirers, who might envy the visible superiority of Terence, who _afterwards_ composed the Prologue in question, to answer their objections. The reader is referred for further proof, to Suetonius’s Life of Terence, a translation of which is prefixed to this play.

NOTE 57.

_To answer the snarling malice of an older poet._

According to Donatus, the name of this older bard was Lucius Lavinius: but there can be little doubt but that name is a corruption of Luscius Lanuvinus, the arch-enemy of Terence, whom he handles so roughly in his Prologue to the Eunuch. Luscius was a poet of considerable talent. Volcatius gives him the ninth place,

“Nono loco esse facilè facio Luscium.”

Luscius undoubtedly I make the ninth.

NOTE 58.

_Menander wrote the Andrian and Perinthian._

The _Perinthian_ (a fine comedy now lost) was so called from Perinthus, a town of Thrace, the name of which was afterwards changed to Heraclea, and that name is now corrupted to Herecli, or Erekli, its present appellation. Erekli is a town in the Turkish province of Romania, on the north of the sea of Marmora, and about sixty miles from Constantinople. It is a place of some consequence from its vicinity to the Turkish capital. For the _Andrian_, _vide_ Note 69.

NOTE 59.

_They censure Nævius, Plautus, Ennius._

An account of Nævius has been given in Note 41, and of Plautus in Note 42. Ennius was the tenth comic poet of Rome, according to Volcatius, who says, “Antiquitatis causâ decimum addo Ennium.” If it be true that Ennius was but the tenth in poetical merit, the greatest glory of the nine who were above him, must have been the distinguished honour of excelling this highly extolled poet. Ennius was born in the year of Rome 515, and died in 585; though he obtained the privileges of a Roman citizen, he was, by birth, a Calabrian, as _Ovid_ expressly tells us, and informs us, that his statue was placed on the tomb of the Scipios, because he had so nobly celebrated their renowned actions:

“Ennius emeruit, Calabris in montibus ortus,
Contiguus poni, Scipio, magne tibi.”

_Ennius, among Calabrian mountains born,
Deserves, O Scipio, to be placed by thee._

The reader cannot become acquainted with the enthusiastic admiration of the Romans for the brilliant performances of Ennius, better than by a perusal of some of the many and great encomiums passed on him by those who, though they lived after him, may be called his competitors for literary fame. _Cicero_ calls him,

“Ingeniosus, poeta et auctor valde bonus.”――_A man of great abilities and wit, and an admirable writer both of poetry and of prose._ _Horace_ also

“Ennius et sapiens, et fortis, et alter Homerus.”

_Ennius the wise, and strong, another Homer._

_Quintilian_ speaks of him thus, “Ennium sicut sacros vetustate lucos adoremus, in quibus grandia et antiqua robora jam non tantam speciem habent quam religionem.”――_We revere Ennius, as we revere the groves, sacred for their antiquity, in which the great and ancient oaks are not reckoned precious for their beauty, but because they are consecrated to religious purposes._

_Lucretius_ thus,

“Ennius―――――――――――――― primus amœno
Detulit ex Helicone perenni fronde coronam.”

_Ennius first wore the never-fading crown,
Gain’d at the Muses’ seat, the pleasant Helicon._

And, lastly, _Ovid_,

“Ennius ingenio maximus, arte rudis.”

_Ennius, the first in wit, though wanting art._

Ennius wrote tragedies, comedies, annals, _&c._, of which some fragments remain: he died of the gout, brought on by drinking. _Horace_ tells us, that Ennius was in the habit of raising his imagination by large draughts of wine, when he intended to write a description of any warlike action.

NOTE 60.

Simo. _Carry in these things directly._

What “_those things_” were, though a subject of no great importance, has been discussed with extreme diligence by various learned commentators, who have not a little differed in opinion. The idea of a French commentator, who supposed Simo to allude to furniture bought by him for his son’s wedding, is ridiculed by the learned Madame Dacier, who has herself suffered the same treatment under the hands of some of our English critics, for interpreting them in the sense I have adopted. That Simo should provide furniture for a marriage which he had but slight hopes of negotiating at that time, is not very probable. But Athenian slaves performed all domestic offices in their masters’ houses: and Sosia, even after he became a freedman might have practised cookery, in which, perhaps, he excelled. He uses the words “_mea ars_,” _my art_, and Simo answers him with “_isthac arte_,” _that art_, by which it is clear that he means some particular art. The word art has in English both a general and particular sense; but, in Latin, “_ars_” is generally used only in the latter.

“Rara quidem facie, sed rarior _arte_ canendi.”――OVID.

_Her beauty charms us; and oh! how much more
Her matchless skill in_ arts _of melody._

Again,

“Hac _arte_ Pollux, et vagus Hercules
Innixus, arces attigit igneas.”――HORACE.

_Supported by this_ art,
_Pollux and Hercules were raised to heaven._

Sosia speaks in this character also at the end of the scene, “Sat est _curabo_,” curo, meaning to cook; he uses also more than once the word _rectè_, which is peculiarly a term of cookery, thus “_rectiùs cœnare_,” PLAUTUS; and, at Rome, when patrons invited their clients or followers to supper, where a very plentiful banquet was always served up: the supper was particularly designated CŒNA RECTA. The art of cookery, in Greece, was, in the earlier ages, far from being accounted degrading, and was, indeed, frequently practised by men very far above a servile station.

I mention this, lest those who are unacquainted with these customs, might object against our author, that _Simo_ was guilty of an inconsistent condescension, in making a confidant of one who held an office of this nature.

NOTE 61.

_When I first bought you as my slave._

Slaves, among the Greeks, formed a very considerable portion of the population of a city, and, in some places, were more numerous than the citizens themselves. In Athens, all domestic offices were performed by slaves, who were employed also in the capacities of tutors, scribes, stewards, overseers, and husbandmen, according to their respective talents: when a slave manifested great abilities, he was taught the art or science for which he seemed most fitted. Some were instructed in literature, and often so distinguished themselves by their writings, that they obtained their freedom. The slaves of the Athenians were either taken in war, or purchased, or reduced to slavery for some crime: they were divided into _two_ classes: 1. those who were natives of some part of Greece, who had the privilege of redeeming themselves; who, if cruelly treated, might appeal to the archons, and change their master; and whose lives were not in their master’s power; 2. those slaves who were transported from barbarous nations, who were wholly at the disposal of their owners in every respect. The price of a slave varied according to his qualifications; some were worth about 10_l._ sterling, some were valued at 20_l._, and others much higher. The Athenians were celebrated for the gentleness with which they treated their slaves. Xenophon informs us, that they frequently spoiled them by excessive indulgence. Slaves were made free, if they rendered any essential service to the government; and frequently received their liberty as a reward for their fidelity and attachment to their master, and his family. For further information respecting the Athenian slaves, and remarks on their habits and manners, _vide_ Notes 62, 63, 64, 68, 86, 88, 110, 131, 154ᴮ, 195, 196.

NOTE 62.

_I gave you freedom._

The ceremony of Ἀπελεύθερια, or giving a slave his liberty, was performed in Athens as follows, the slave kneeled down at the feet of his master, who struck him a slight blow, saying, “_Be free_;” or he took the slave before a magistrate, and there formally declared him at liberty. These ceremonies were extremely similar to those used by the Romans on the same occasion. The Greeks sometimes set their slaves at liberty in a public assembly, which Æschines describes as follows, Ἄλλοι δέ τινες ὑποκηρυξάμενοι, τοὺς αὑτῶν οἰκέτας ἀφίεσαν ἀπελευθέρους, μάρτυρας τῆς ἀπελευθερίας τοὺς Ἕλληνας ποιούμενοι.”――_Others, when they had obtained silence by means of the heralds, gave their household slaves their liberty; and made the assembled Greeks witnesses of their manumission._

The same author mentions a very singular law, which stigmatized with infamy any person who should proclaim the freedom of a slave in the theatre. “Καὶ διαῤῥήδην ἀπαγορεύει μήτε οἰκέτην ἀπελευθεροῦν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ――――――――ἢ ἄτιμον εἶναι τὸν κήρυκα.”――_And_ this law _clearly forbids that any person shall manumit a slave in the theatre――――――――and decrees infamy to the herald who shall proclaim his freedom there_.

Slaves were called οἰκέται, and πελάται, but, after they became free, received the appellation of ἀπελεύθεροι, and enjoyed all the privileges granted to the νόθοι, or illegitimate citizens, who were not admitted to all the rights of those whose parents were both freeborn Athenian citizens. It was usual for a freedman to continue with his master, who was called his προστατης, or patron; he was also allowed to choose a sort of guardian, who was called ἐπίτροπος.

NOTE 63.

_Nor have you given me any cause to repent that I
did so._

An emancipated slave was bound to perform certain services for his former master: he was to assist him in any emergency to the utmost of his power: and, if he proved remiss in these duties, was liable to a severe punishment. No freedman could appear in a court of justice against his patron, either to give evidence in his own suit, or in that of another.

NOTE 64.

_It pains me to be thus reminded of the benefits you have conferred
upon me, as it seems to upbraid me with having forgotten them._

By the Athenian laws, any freedman convicted of ingratitude to his former master, was reduced a second time to a state of slavery: but, if a freedman was brought to a trial on a charge of this nature, and acquitted of it, he was declared τελέως ἐλεύθερος, _perfectly free_, and was then wholly released from all obligations of service to his former patron.

NOTE 65.

_You shall hear every thing from the beginning._

This is the _initium narrationis_, the first part of the narration, and, by far the longest: it is, in the original, inimitably beautiful. Scarcely any branch of dramatic writing is more difficult than _narration_, which, unless composed in that happy vein, attainable by so few, generally proves embarrassing to the actor, and tiresome to the auditors. The writings of Terence abound with narrations, a necessary consequence of his strict adherence to the unities. A judicious French writer, whose opinions (_as a critic_,) have ever been treated with deference, speaking of our author’s excellence in this branch of the drama, makes his eulogium in just and forcible terms.

“Terence is without a rival, especially in his narrations,
which flow along with a smooth and even course, like a
clear and transparent river. We see no parade of sentiment,
no glare of obtrusive wit: no smart epigrammatical
sentences, which Nicole and Rochefoucault only can make
acceptable. When he applies a maxim, it is in so plain and
familiar a manner, that it has all the simplicity of a
proverb. He introduces nothing but what appertains to the
subject. I have perused, and re-perused the writings of
this poet with the greatest attention, and have laid them
aside with the impression that there is not a scene too
much in any play, nor a line too much in any scene.”
DIDEROT _on dramatic poetry_.

For further remarks on the narrations of the Andrian, _vide_ Notes. Nos. 89. 95. 101. I shall postpone a continuance of observations on the very obvious inconvenience attendant on narrations; and pursue a remark made in the commencement of this note, respecting the source from which has flowed so many of these narrations, which require all the _art_ and wit of a Terence to prevent them from seeming too prolix.

This source may be found in those irksome _unities_ of _time_ and _place_, those leaden fetters of dramatic genius, which, by chaining down the imagination and talents of many of the ancient, and even some of the modern, dramatic writers, have deprived the world of more, than the embellishments they may have given to composition can ever repay.

Terence, in all his works, in compliance with the reigning taste of his age, observed the unities of _action_, _time_, and _place_, with the most scrupulous exactness: and this observance is the chief reason that his comedies can never succeed on any modern stage. His plays are crowded with narratives, which, however beautifully written, will never yield that attraction to an audience, which they find in busy and lively action. He cannot bring on the stage what is supposed to happen in the next street, or adjoining house, it must therefore be _related_. All the story of the piece _must_ be supposed to pass in a very few hours: all those events which cannot be imagined to take place in _one day_, and which, when represented to the spectators in the _modern drama_, are often of the greatest interest, must, by the law of the unity of time be _related_. Of what a scene, to instance one of _many_, has the unity of place robbed us in Terence’s Eunuch! where Laches (_Act 5_) rushes into the house of Thais. How many modern plays, in which the unities were preserved, ever kept the stage a month? None: if we except Ben Jonson’s “_Silent Woman_,” “_The Adventures of Five Hours_,” and a very few others; and it may well be doubted whether even our immortal SHAKSPEARE himself, if he had shackled his genius with these rules, would not have been generally confined to the closet. The practice of that great poet, and of most of the modern dramatists of all countries; who have observed _only_ (the rule of all stages, ancient and modern,) unity of action, is a tacit condemnation of the other two: and the fiat of Dr. Johnson speaks a yet plainer language. He has decided on the value of the unities in his preface to Shakspeare: and though what he has written respecting them is too long to be inserted here, the following extracts will not be unacceptable, as they shew the grounds on which it is assumed that dramatic writers ought, in general, to dispense with the unities of _time_ and _place_.

“The critics hold it impossible, that an action of months or years can be possibly believed to pass in three hours. The spectator, who knows that he saw the first act at Alexandria, cannot suppose that he sees the next at Rome; he knows that he has not changed his place, and that the place cannot change itself; that what was a house can never become a plain; that what was Thebes, can never be Persepolis. Such is the triumphant language with which a critic exults over the miseries of an irregular poet; it is time, therefore, to tell him, that he assumes as an unquestionable principle, a position, which, while his breath is forming it into words, his understanding pronounces to be false. It is false, that any representation is mistaken for reality; that any dramatic fable, in its materiality was ever credible, or, for a single moment, was ever credited. The objection arising from the impossibility of passing the first hour at Alexandria, and the next at Rome, supposes that when the play opens, the spectator really imagines himself at Alexandria; and believes that his walk to the theatre has been a voyage to Egypt, and that he lives in the days of Antony and Cleopatra. Surely he that can imagine this may imagine more. He that can take the stage at one time for the Palace of the Ptolemies, may take it in half an hour for the promontory of Actium: delusion, if delusion be admitted, has no certain limitation. The truth is, that (judicious) spectators are always in their senses, and know from the first act to the last, that the stage is only a stage, and that the players are only players: and by supposition as place is introduced, time may be extended.” Dr. Johnson concludes this subject as follows; “He that, _without diminution_ of any other _excellence_, shall preserve all the unities unbroken, deserves the like applause with the architect, who shall display all the orders of architecture in a citadel, without any deduction from its strength; but the principal beauty of a citadel is to exclude the enemy; and the greatest graces of a play are to copy nature, and instruct life.”

It is needless to add any thing to these arguments, as they must be deemed conclusive. The plays of our author are better calculated, perhaps, to please in the closet by his mode of writing, as it adds to perspicuity: Terence is, probably, the greatest practical champion for the three unities that ever did, or ever will, exist. His easy flowing _narratives_, judiciously divided, and introduced with so much art, as in some places to seem no narratives until they are concluded, remedy as much as possible the inconveniences attendant on this mode of writing.

NOTE 66.

_When my son Pamphilus arrived at man’s estate._

In the Latin, _postquam excessit ex Ephebis_, _after he was removed from the class of young men called_ ἔφηβοι.

All the Athenian citizens were publicly registered three several times. 1. In their _infancy_, on the _second day_ of the festival ἀπατούρια, called ἀνάῤῥυσις. 2. When they were _18 years of age_, they were registered on the _third day_ of the ἀπατούρια, called κουρεῶτις, when they received the title of ἔφηβοι. 3. At _20 years of age_, they were registered for the last time at the feast called βενδίδεια on the 19th of the month, Thargelion, when they were said to be admitted “_among the men_.” These ceremonies were used to prevent the intrusion of persons, who had no claim to the title of Athenian citizen, which was an honour, that even foreign kings thought worthy of their pursuit. Having quitted the class of the ἔφηβοι, Pamphilus, at the time mentioned by Simo, must have been 20 years of age.

NOTE 67.

_The schools of the Philosophers._

Several schools of Philosophy were established at Athens, in which philosophers of different sects presided, and gave instructions to those of Athens, and of other countries, whose fortunes allowed them leisure to pursue studies of this nature. The buildings in which the philosophers delivered their lectures were provided at the public expense: they were called _Gymnasia_, and built in divisions, some for study called στοαὶ, and others for various exercises, as wrestling, pugilism, dancing, &c.; these were denominated παλαίστρα. The principal _Gymnasia_ in Athens were the Lyceum, where Aristotle taught; the academy, in which Plato presided; and, lastly, the Cynosarges, which gave the name of Cynics to that sect of philosophers, founded in this place by Antisthenes. (_vid. Plutarch’s Life of Themistocles_).

NOTE 68.

_In these times flattery makes friends; truth, foes._

Madame Dacier has elucidated this passage in an elegant and ingenious criticism, which clears Pamphilus from the charge of flattery which Sosia appears to insinuate against him. The sentence in the original runs thus: “namque hoc tempore _obsequium amicos veritas odium parit_.” “When Simo spoke of the obliging temper of his son, he intended to describe him as behaving with that complaisant politeness which is as remote as possible from flattery; the practice of which never requires of a man any thing inconsistent with the laws of truth and candour; otherwise he would have blamed his son, instead of praising him. But Sosia, following the example of people of his own rank, who always look on the dark side of every thing, takes this opportunity of censuring the manners of the age, by declaring that people were unwilling to hear the truth. Thus he mistakes _obsequium_, which really means _an amiable mildness of manners_, for _assentatio_, _servile flattery_, a vice which shows weakness of mind, and baseness of heart: and which renders those of our friends who practise it, more dangerous than even our enemies themselves. There is more ingenuity in this passage than appears at first sight.”

MADAME DACIER.

For some further very valuable critical observations, the reader is referred to the preface to a translation of Phædrus’s fables, published at Paris, about the middle of the 17th century. Besides very able remarks on the Andrian, and the rest of Terence’s plays, the translator gives an ingenious comparison between fable and comedy; he also translated into French, three of Terence’s comedies, viz., The Andrian, The Brothers, and Phormio.

NOTE 69.

_The Island of Andros._

This island is situated in the Ægean sea, or, as it is now called, the Archipelago; it is distant from the Piræus, or port of Athens, about 500 of the stadia Olympica, or rather more than 50 English miles. It retains its original appellation. Bacchus seems to have been the reputed patron of this island; which was also called Antandros, and has been mistaken by some for the Antandros of Phrygia Minor, where Æneas built his fleet. _Vide_ Ovid’s Meta. 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.