... Sciebat Laelio et Scipioni non ingratam esse hanc opinionem, quae tum magis et usque ad posteriora tempora valuit.’
Sueton. p. 31, also repeats a story that C. Laelius was the author of the lines H.T. 723 sqq.
Cf. also Cic. ad Att. vii. 3, 10, ‘Terentium, cuius fabellae propter elegantiam sermonis putabantur a C. Laelio scribi.’
Quint. x. 1, 99, ‘Licet Terentii scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur.’
The remark that ll. 20-1 of the above extract from the Adelph. could not refer to young men like Scipio and Laelius was made even in antiquity.
Sueton. ibid. p. 31, ‘Santra (a grammarian of the time of Augustus) Terentium existimat, si modo in scribendo adiutoribus indiguerit, non tam Scipione et Laelio uti potuisse, qui tunc adulescentuli fuerint, quam C. Sulpicio Gallo, homine docto, quo console Megalensibus ludis initium fabularum dandarum fecerit, vel Q. Fabio Labeone et M. Popillio, consulari utroque ac poeta. Ideo ipsum non iuvenes designare qui se adiuvare dicantur, sed viros quorum operam et in bello et in otio et in negotio populus sit expertus.’
In K. Dziatzko’s opinion (second edition of Phormio, p. 10, Leipzig, 1885), the expression ‘homines nobiles’ points to the literary circle of Terence, including old as well as young men, while in what follows he touches upon the general reputation of those noble families among the Roman people. There is nothing to show that Terence got more than general support and advice from his friends. That his diction reflects the conversational language of the better classes is recognized.
In B.C. 166, Terence submitted to Caecilius Statius, the examiner of plays, his first work, the Andria, which was accepted, and performed in that year.
Sueton. ibid. pp. 28-9, ‘Scripsit comoedias sex. Ex quibus primam Andriam cum aedilibus daret, iussus ante Caecilio recitare ad cenantem cum venisset, dicitur initium quidem fabulae, quod erat contemptiore vestitu, in subsellio iuxta lectulum residens legisse, post paucos vero versus invitatus ut accumberet cenasse una, dein cetera percucurrisse non sine magna Caecilii admiratione.’
From the fact of Caecilius’ not recognizing him we may conclude that Terence had as yet no connexion with the guild of poets. This fits in with H.T. prol. 23-4,