The word “Genius” signified the tutelary God who was supposed to attend every person from the period of his birth. The signification of the word will be found further referred to in the Notes to the Translation of Plautus.
[48.] To fetch the midwife)—Ver. 299. Cooke has the following remark here: “Methinks Mysis has loitered a little too much, considering the business which she was sent about; but perhaps Terence knew that some women were of such a temper as to gossip on the way, though an affair of life or death requires their haste.” Colman thus takes him to task for this observation: “This two-edged reflection, glancing at once on Terence and the ladies, is, I think, very ill-founded. The delay of Mysis, on seeing the emotion of Pamphilus, is very natural; and her artful endeavors to interest Pamphilus on behalf of her mistress, are rather marks of her attention than neglect.”
[49.] Charinus and Byrrhia). We learn from Donatus that the characters of Charinus and Byrrhia were not introduced in the work of Menander, but were added to the Play of Terence, lest Philumena’s being left without a husband, on the marriage of Pamphilus to Glycerium, should appear too tragical a circumstance. Diderot is of opinion that Terence did not improve his Play by this addition.
[50.] Tell me nothing)—Ver. 336. It has been suggested that this refers to Byrrhia’s dissuading his master from addressing Pamphilus, or else to what he has told him concerning the intended marriage. Westerhovius thinks that Byrrhia is just then whispering some trifling nonsense in his master’s ear, which he, occupied with more important cares, is unwilling to attend to.
[51.] To a high place)—Ver. 356. He probably alludes to some part of the Acropolis, the citadel, or higher part of Athens, which commanded a view of the lower town.
[52.] Stillness before the door)—Ver. 362. Madame Dacier observes that this remark is very appropriately made by Davus, as showing that the marriage was clearly not intended by Chremes. The house of the bride on such an occasion would be thronged by her friends, and at the door would be the musicians and those who were to form part of the bridal procession.
[53.] No matron at the house)—Ver. 364. By the use of the word “matrona,” he probably alludes to the “pronubæ” among the Romans, whose duties were somewhat similar to those of our bride’s-maids. At the completion of the bridal repast, the bride was conducted to the bridal chamber by matrons who had not had more than one husband.
[54.] An obol’s worth)—Ver. 369. The “obelus” was the smallest Greek silver coin, and was equal in value to about three halfpence of our money. “Pisciculi minuti,” “little fish,” were much used for food among the poorer classes; “mena,” a fish resembling our pilchard, was a common article of food with the Romans. The larger kinds of fish went under the general name of “cetum.”
[55.] I have now followed him)—Ver. 414. “Hunc venientem sequor.” Cooke has the following remark on this line: “This verse, though in every edition, as Bentley judiciously observes, is certainly spurious; for as Pamphilus has not disappeared since Byrrhia left the stage, he could not say ‘nunc hunc venientem sequor.’ If we suppose the line genuine, we must at the same time suppose Terence guilty of a monstrous absurdity.” On these words Colman makes the following just observations: “Other Commentators have also stumbled at this passage; but if in the words ‘followed him hither,’ we suppose ‘him’ (hunc) to refer to Simo, the difficulty is removed; and that the pronoun really does signify Simo, is evident from the circumstance of Pamphilus never having left the stage since the disappearance of Byrrhia. Simo is also represented as coming on the stage homeward, so that Byrrhia might easily have followed him along the street; and it is evident that Byrrhia does not allude to Pamphilus from the agreeable surprise which he expresses on seeing him there so opportunely for the purpose.”
[56.] Inflict evil upon me)—Ver. 431. “Malum;” the usual name by which slaves spoke of the beatings they were in the habit of receiving at the hands or by the order of their irascible masters. Colman has the following remarks: “Donatus observes 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 this dialogue; such speeches, though very common in dramatic writers, ancient and modern, being always more or less unnatural.”