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.