[20.] Being Consuls)—M. Valerius Messala and C. Fannius Strabo were Consuls in the year from the building of the City 591, or B.C. 162.
[21.] If there is one who thinks)—Ver. 4. He alludes to his old enemy, Luscus Lavinius, the Comic Poet, who is alluded to in the Prologue to the Andria, and has since continued his attacks upon him.
[22.] By translating literally)—Ver. 7. “Bene vertendo, at eosdem scribendo male.” This passage has greatly puzzled some of the Commentators. Bentley has, however, it appears, come to the most reasonable conclusion; who supposes that Terence means by “bene vertere,” a literal translation, word for word, from the Greek, by which a servile adherence to the idiom of that language was preserved to the neglect of the Latin idiom; in consequence of which the Plays of Luscus Lavinius were, as he remarks, “male scriptæ,” written in bad Latin.
[23.] Has published the Phasma)—Ver. 9. The “Φασμά,” or “Apparition,” was a play of Menander, so called, in which a young man looking through a hole in the wall between his father’s house and that next door, sees a young woman of marvelous beauty, and is struck with awe at the sight, as though by an apparition; in the Play, the girl’s mother is represented as having made this hole in the wall, and having decked it with garlands and branches that it may resemble a consecrated place; where she daily performs her devotions in company with her daughter, who has been privately brought up, and whose existence is unknown to the neighbors. On the youth coming by degrees to the knowledge that the object of his admiration is but a mortal, his passion becomes so violent that it will admit of no cure but marriage, with the celebration of which the Play concludes. Bentley gives us the above information from an ancient Scholiast, whose name is unknown, unless it is Donatus himself, which is doubtful. It would appear that Luscus Lavinius had lately made a translation of this Play, which, from its servile adherence to the language of the original, had been couched in ungrammatical language, and probably not approved of by the Audience. Donatus thinks that this is the meaning of the passage, and that, content with this slight reference to a well-known fact, the author passes it by in contemptuous silence.
[24.] And in the Thesaurus has described)—Ver. 10. Cook has the following appropriate remark upon this passage: “In the ‘Thesaurus,’ or ‘Treasure’ of Luscus Lavinius, a young fellow, having wasted his estate by his extravagance, sends a servant to search his father’s monument: but he had before sold the ground on which the monument was, to a covetous old man; to whom the servant applies to help him open the monument; in which they discover a hoard and a letter. The old fellow sees the treasure and keeps it; the young one goes to law with him, and the old man is represented as opening his cause first before the judge, which he begins with these words:—
‘Athenienses, bellum cum Rhodiensibus,
Quod fuerit, quid ego prædicem?’
‘Athenians, why should I relate the war with the Rhodians?’ And he goes on in a manner contrary to the rules of court; which Terence objects to, because the young man, who was the plaintiff, should open his cause first. Thus far Bentley, from the same Scholiast [as referred to in the last Note]. This Note is a clear explanation of the four verses to which it belongs. Hare concurs with Madame Dacier in her opinion ‘de Thesauro,’ that it is only a part of the Phasma of Menander, and not a distinct Play; but were I not determined by the more learned Bentley, the text itself would not permit me to be of their opinion; for the words ‘atque in Thesauro scripsit’ seem plainly to me to be a transition to another Play. The subject of the Thesaurus is related by Eugraphius, though not with all the circumstances mentioned in my Note from Bentley.” Colman also remarks here; “Menander and his contemporary Philemon, each of them wrote a Comedy under this title. We have in the above Note the story of Menander’s; and we know that of Philemon’s from the ‘Trinummus’ of Plautus, which was a Translation of it.”
[25.] Opportunity of viewing it)—Ver. 21. Colman thinks that this means something “stronger than merely being present at the representation,” and he takes the meaning to be, that having obtained leave to peruse the MS., he furnished himself with objections against the piece, which he threw out when it came to be represented before the magistrates. Cooke thinks that the passage only means, “that he bustled and took pains to be near enough at the representation to see and hear plainly.” The truth seems to be that Lavinius managed to obtain admission at the rehearsal or trial of the merits of the piece before the magistrates, and that he then behaved himself in the unseemly manner mentioned in the text.
[26.] Produced the piece, but still had not deceived him)—Ver. 24. There is a pun here upon the resemblance in meaning of the words “verba dare” and “fabulam dare.” The first expression means to “deceive” or “impose upon;” the latter phrase has also the same meaning, but it may signify as well “to represent” or “produce a Play.” Thus the exclamation in its ambiguity may mean, “he has produced a Play, and has not succeeded in deceiving us,” or “he has deceived us, and yet has not deceived us.” This is the interpretation which Donatus puts upon the passage.