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.
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.
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.”
Therefore, do not let the fear of his changing his mind prevent you from following my advice.
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,
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:
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.
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,
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.
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.”
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,
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.
The original lines are as follows,
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.
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,
Altered from the following,
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,
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,
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 7d. 2qrs.; Greaves, Arbuthnot, and Adams, at 7d. 3q.; Tillemont at 11d., and, in the Philosophical Transactions, (Vol. LXI., Part II., Art. 48.) they estimate the denarius at 8d. 1½q.
Mr. Raper makes the Attic drachm worth 9d. 286⁄1000. Greaves reckons it equal to 67 grains, which, supposing silver to be sold at 5s. per ounce, fixes the drachm at 8d. 1½qr. Dr. Arbuthnot computes it 6d. 3qr. 1368⁄4704. Others fix the Attic talent at 187l. 10s., and the drachm at 7d. 2qrs., or the eighth part of an ounce of silver. If we take the mean of these computations, we may suppose the Attic drachm to have been equal to 8d.; the Eginean to 13d. 3 qrs.; the insular to 16d.; and the drachm of Antioch, to 48d. The learned Madame Dacier speaks of the Attic drachm thus: “la drachme Attique valait à peu près cinq sols.” No person, I think I may venture to assert, was ever more habitually correct than Madame D.
NOTE 137.
Indeed, Sir, I think you are too frugal; it is not
well timed.
Tu quoque perparce nimium. Non laudo.
Donatus thinks, that the force of quoque in this line is as follows: He (Pamphilus) is much to blame for his childish petulance in taking offence at so trifling a circumstance: and you (Simo) ALSO are to blame for having made so sparing a provision for your son’s wedding supper. Terence has managed the whole circumstance very artfully: Simo intending to deceive Pamphilus and Davus, had provided to the amount of ten drachms, which was sixty times more than the expense of Chremes’ supper, which cost but an obolus, (vide Note 120,) and accounts for what he said to Sosia, Act I. Scene I. (vide Note 60.) But we are meant to suppose, that his frugality would not allow him to support the deceit by purchasing a plentiful wedding supper, which, among the Athenian citizens of rank, was a most expensive entertainment. (Vide Herodot. B. 1. C. 133. Arrian, B. 7. C. 26.)
NOTE 138.
Davus. (aside.) I’ve ruffled him now.
Simo is supposed to overhear this speech of Davus. Vide Note 210.
The whole of the second act (as well as the first) has been preserved in Baron’s Andrienne, without alteration.
In the Conscious Lovers, the second act varies considerably. Instead of the scene between Davus and his master, Indiana and Isabella are introduced, and afterwards Indiana and Bevil: but both these scenes are entirely barren of incident. Bevil protects Indiana, as Pamphilus protects Glycera; but the former is on the footing of a protector only, and remains an undeclared lover until the fifth act.
Terence has wrought up the second act of this play with the utmost art and caution: a particular beauty in the pieces written by this great poet appears in the judicious disposition of his incidents, and in his so industriously concealing his catastrophe until the proper time for its appearance. This is a circumstance of great importance in dramatic writing, to which some authors pay too little attention. An ingenious critic of the last age has pointed out a very extraordinary instance of a total deficiency of art in this respect, where both the plot and the catastrophe are completely revealed in the very title. This piece is Venice Preserved, or the Plot Discovered, which is, in other respects, a very fine production. How much such a title as this must deaden the interest that an audience would otherwise feel from their suspense! This is a point which admits of no argument.
“Vestibulum ante ipsum, primoque in limine FINIS
Scribitur.”——
NOTE 139.
Lesbia.
The circumstance of a female officiating as a medical attendant is of some importance. Caius Hyginus, a learned Spaniard, and the freedman of Augustus Cæsar, mentions in his “Mythological Fables” an ancient Athenian law, prohibiting women from the practice of physic: this prohibition was productive of great inconvenience in many cases, and afterwards repealed; when free women were suffered to practise midwifery. To ascertain the date of this repeal, would afford us some guide to fix on the times, when the scenes described in this play were supposed to happen, and the manners of which both Menander and Terence meant to portray.
NOTE 140.
Glycera.
I have taken the liberty of following the example of Bernard, Echard, and most of the French translators, in softening the word Glycerium, which, to an English ear, sounds masculine enough for the name of Cæsar or of Alexander. But, for a female’s name,
NOTE 141.
Mysis.—For, girl or boy, he has given orders,
that the child shall be brought up.
Nam quod peperisset jussit tolli.
Vide Notes 93, 126. When circumstances would not allow the father of an infant to take it up from the ground himself, if he intended to preserve it, he commissioned some friend to perform the ceremony for him. This is the meaning of jussit tolli in this passage. Vide Pitis Dict., Art. Expositio, and Athenæ. B. 10.
Simo.—O Jupiter! what do I hear? it is all over if what she says be truth!—is he so mad? a foreigner too!
I imagine that in this passage, Terence meant Simo to call Glycera a foreigner merely, and not a woman of light character, which peregrina sometimes means, (vide Note 82.) Madame Dacier translates the words ex peregrina by “quoi d’une étrangère? c’est à dire d’une courtisane, car comme je l’ai remarqué ailleurs, on donnoit le nom d’étrangères à toutes les femmes debauchées: et je crois qu’ils avoient pris cela des Orientaux; car on trouve étrangère en ce sens là dans les livres du Vieux Testament.” But peregrina will hardly bear this interpretation in this particular passage, because we must suppose that Simo had not that opinion of Glycera’s character; for he himself (Act I. Scene I.) says, that her appearance was “so modest and so charming, that nothing could surpass it.” Simo, however, had sufficient reason for exclamation; supposing that he considered Glycera merely as a person who was not a native of Athens. The Athenian laws were rigorously strict in prohibiting a citizen from contracting a marriage with any woman who was not a citizen: if such a marriage was contracted, and the parties impeached and convicted, the husband was fined very heavily, in proportion to his property; the wife sold for a slave; and any person who was proved to have used any species of deceit to induce the Athenian to form this forbidden connexion, was punished with the worst kind of infamy, which included the loss of his liberty and of his estate. The first of these punishments was called ζημία, the second δουλεία, and the third ἀτιμία. If Simo, therefore, supposed that Glycera was not a citizen, and believed Pamphilus to be her husband, his apprehensions appear very natural.
NOTE 143.
Glycera.—O Juno, Lucina, help! save me, I beseech
thee.
Though Juno was sometimes called Lucina, Diana is the goddess here called Juno Lucina. Diana received the appellation of Juno, (as I apprehend,) because she was considered by the ancients as presiding over women in child-birth: and might, therefore, very properly be termed Juno, the guardian genius of women; as Junones was the usual name for those spirits who were supposed to be the protectors of women, as the genii were thought to be the guardians of men: (vide Note 106.) Catullus addressing Diana, calls her expressly by the names Juno Lucina:
Cicero also confirms the assertion of Catullus, “Ut apud Græcos Dianam eamque Luciferam, sic apud nostros Junonem Lucinam invocant.” As the Greeks call upon Diana Lucifera, so we call upon the same goddess by the names of Juno Lucina. Diana was almost universally worshipped in Greece, where many magnificent temples were erected in her honour: amongst which, was that of Ephesus, reckoned one of the wonders of the world. Of this magnificent structure, the ruins may now be seen near Ajasalouc in Natolia. The temple was purposely burned by Eratorastus, who adopted this mode of perpetuating his name. The Greek festivals celebrated in honour of their imaginary deities were almost innumerable: and those dedicated to Diana, shew the high estimation in which she was held. A surprising number of festivals were celebrated in honour of this goddess, in various parts of Greece. The following are the names of the chief of those held in Athens,
Τεσσαρακοστὸν, Μουνυχία, Θαργήλια, Λιμνατίδια, Ἀρτεμίσια, Βραυρώνια, Ἐλαφηβόλια. Vide Athen., Δειπνοσο, B. 14.
NOTE 144.
Why, Davus, your incidents are not well timed at
all, man.
Another allusion to the drama: Simo compares Davus’s supposed plot to a comedy, and Davus the contriver of it he calls magister, which was the title of the person who instructed the actors in their parts, or perhaps the title of the author. Simo accuses Davus of bringing forward his catastrophe too soon, and asks him whether the actors in his piece (discipuli) had forgotten their parts.
Ancient dramatic writers were very strict in adhering to their rules of composition.
According to Vossius, the ancients divided a comedy into three parts: 1. protasis, 2. epitasis, 3. catastrophe. The protasis occupied Act I., and was devoted to the explanation of the argument. The epitasis took up Act II. III. IV., contained the incidents, and wrought up the mind to a degree of interest, taking care to leave it in doubt; which brought on the catastrophe, which unravelled and cleared up the whole; and is defined by Scaliger thus, “conversio negotii exagitati in tranquillitatem non expectatam:” a sudden changing of the hurry and bustle of action into unexpected tranquillity. The same learned critic adds a fourth part to the before-mentioned three, which he calls catastasis, and places immediately before the catastrophe: he defines the catastasis as follows, “vigor ac status fabulæ, in qua res miscetur in ea fortunæ tempestate, in quam subducta est:” that liveliness and issue of the plot, in which the various incidents are mixed up in such a commotion of fortune as to be in a proper state to be brought down to the catastrophe.
NOTE 145.
What a laughing-stock would this rascal have made
of me.
Quos mihi ludos redderet.
This is an allusion to the games which were exhibited among the ancients with a view to entertain the people; and also to create in them a spirit of emulation in glorious actions. Games, both in Greece and Rome, constituted a part of religious worship; they were divided into three classes, 1. what the Romans called ludi equestres, or horse, and chariot-races; 2. ludi agonales, or combats of gladiators and others, and also of beasts; 3. ludi scenici et musici, or dramatic exhibitions of all kinds, music, dancing, &c. The chief games among the Greeks were, 1. the Olympic, dedicated to Jupiter; 2. the Pythian, to Apollo; 3. the Nemæan, to Hercules; 4. the Isthmian, to Neptune; 5. the games celebrated at the observation of the Eleusinian mysteries, in honour of Ceres and Proserpine: 6. the great Panathenæa, dedicated to Minerva. Those who obtained the victory in these games, were universally distinguished; and their success reflected glory on their family, and even on the cities from whence they came; part of the wall of which was thrown down to admit them in triumph on their return. Those Athenians who were conquerors in the Olympic games, were afterwards (at their own option,) maintained at the public charge, and enjoyed various extraordinary privileges. Among the Romans, the principal games were, 1. the Ludi Romani, dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva; 2. the Sæculares, to the deities and the fates; 3. the Consuales, to Neptunus Equestris; 4. the Capitolini, to Jupiter Capitolinus. The Romans celebrated their games chiefly in the Circus Maximus; which, as a place of entertainment, was magnificently extensive. Pliny asserts that it would contain one quarter of a million of spectators; and more modern authors have augmented that number to 380,000.
NOTE 146.
Now, first, let her be bathed.
Nunc primum fac——ut lavet.
Though I have followed the common reading in this passage, as it is not a point of any importance, I think it doubtful whether Terence meant Lesbia to speak of the mother or the child, when she said the words fac ut lavet, as the Greeks practised a remarkable ceremony on new-born infants, in order to strengthen them. A mixture of water, oil, and wine, was made in a vessel kept for the purpose, which they called λουτρὸν and χύτλος, and, with this liquid, they washed the children; as some think, they wished to try the strength of the infant’s constitution, which, if weak, yielded to the powerful fumes of the wine, and the children fell into fits. I imagine that this was done, when it was the question if an infant should be exposed, as puny, sickly children sometimes were. (Vide Note 93.)
NOTE 147.
Davus.—Truly, at this rate, I shall hardly dare
open my mouth.