Obrázky na stránke

1565). It must be considered as the only one with any pretension to original authority, and as the source from which most of the existing manuscripts have arisen. I have often in the following notes had occasion to mention the readings of the Bembine Manuscript, and it is a strong argument for its superior authority that in many cases it gives the more difficult reading, which has evidently been misunderstood and altered by the transcriber of some other copy. I have not had the opportunity of consulting the Manuscripts. Many of their readings are quoted by the various editors of Terence. The English copies have been collated by Hare and Bentley, not, however, with any important results. Their text, as quoted by Bentley, is generally bad where it deviates from the common text. In deciding between conflicting readings, I have frequently, as will be seen in my Commentary, allowed the reading of the Bembine Manuscript to settle a doubtful point.

DONATUS is the most famous of the ancient commentators on Terence. He lived in the fourth century after Christ, and was the reputed master of Jerome. (See note on Hecyra ii. 1. 4.) Many have, however, entirely denied the genuineness of the commentary which now passes under his name, but without sufficient reason. The commentary is valuable both critically and exegetically, and I have frequently found reason to prefer it to the opinion of later editors. It is to the commentators what the Bembine Manuscript is to the Codices, and may fairly be estimated in the same manner. Often, no doubt, it contains traces of the genuine text; as often, perhaps, it is wrong. In using it we must therefore call in the aid of independent critical judgment. The Manuscripts of Donatus are confessedly very defective, and in many places hopelessly corrupt. I have always quoted from the edition of Zeune, which presents the text of Donatus in the best shape.

EUGRAPHIUS is supposed to have lived at the end of the sixth century, A.D. His commentary on Terence is merely rhetorical,

often a simple paraphrase of the author's words; and for purposes of criticism it is nearly worthless.

CALPURNIUS supplies the place of Donatus on the • Heautontimorumenos. He seems to have imitated the manner of Donatus; and in many places to have copied from him. He cannot be considered of much value.

BENTLEY's Editions (1726, 1727) were an era in Terentian criticism. The real value of his labours lies in the attention which he paid to the metres of Terence. This I have treated of fully in the Introduction. Even in this point he seems to have been led away by the love of correction, and to have introduced into the versification of Terence a greater licence and more variety than was necessary. His notes, it is unnecessary to say, abound in conjectural readings. These I have very rarely had occasion to adopt. In general nothing but authority should lead an editor to depart from the acknowledged reading of the best manuscripts. There is another defect in Bentley which makes him a bad critic,-his extremely literal turn of mind. As in Horace he was “misled

“ by want of ear and poetical taste," so in Terence he seems to have laboured under an absolute incapacity of understanding a joke; and his criticisms are in consequence often amusing from the contrast of his dry and literal captiousness with the quiet humour of the passage which he is criticizing'.

The text in this edition is that of Zeune's edition as brought out by Giles (London, 1837). Wheresoever I have deviated from it I have given the reason in my notes ; but it will be found that I have done more towards maintaining the old text than for any innovations. This edition of Zeune's Terence is the best of all the books that I have used. It contains all the comments of Donatus, Eugraphius, Calpurnius, Bentley, and Zeune, and though not of


I may refer here to Hermann's Dissertation “ De Bentleio ejusque editione Terentii" (prefixed to Vollbehr's edition of Bentley's Terence, London, &c. 1846), in which he takes many critical objections to Bentley's emendations of the text.

much use to the young or general reader, it is yet a valuable and carefully edited book.

Of other editions those that I have chiefly used have been that by Perlet (Lips. 1827), Reinhardt (Lips. 1827), and Stallbaum (Lips. 1830, 1831). The latter I used carefully only for the 'Andria.' I also have referred to the edition of Dr. Hickie (London, 1837), which is a compilation from preceding commentators without much judgment. I have noticed his mistakes in my notes more frequently than I should have done but for the fact that they are likely to mislead younger students, by whom his book is often used. Colman's translation of Terence I found useful; particu

, larly as giving in an accessible shape the opinions of some of the chief French critics upon Terence's plays.

I may here also gladly acknowledge my obligations to the Rev. A. J. Macleane and to Mr. Long, the editors of this series of classical authors. To their remarks on my notes as they have passed through the press I am much indebted; and in matters connected with law I am under particular obligations to Mr. Long. I had by me also, in writing the commentary on the · Andria,' some notes of the Rev. R. Shilleto's, whose permission I obtained, through a pupil of his, to avail myself of them.

The life and literary position of Terence, considered as a Roman Author, are discussed in the following Introduction. In the same place I have entered at some length into the question of Terentian Language and Metre. This is a subject which has till lately lain fallow in England since the time of Bentley and Hare*. Though I



• When I wrote this sentence I had not seen Mr. Key's essay "On the Metres of Terence and Plautus. My only acquaintance with his researches was through the · Varronianus' (see p. xxviii). Now that I have seen this paper, I may perhaps be allowed to express my gratification that, by an independent inquiry into the usages of Terentian language, I have arrived at results very similar to those advocated by the author ;-an agreement which tends to confirm me in my persuasion of the justice of the principles laid down in the following Introduction. Whenever I have reason, in my commentary, to disagree with Mr. Key, or other writers, I have endeavoured to express my dissent without any of that asperity which deforms the works of some modern writers.

have thrown my remarks into a shape of my own, the scholar will see that I have not sought to disguise my obligations to these and other writers on Latin Versification. The whole subject has been much neglected ; and is so important, perhaps even with a view to the future settlement of the text of Terence, that I make no apology for having entered into it fully.

The Fragments of Menander and other Greek authors have been frequently noticed in the course of the notes. But for the sake of the student I have brought together in an Excursus at the end of the volume all the undoubted passages of Menander and Apollodorus which may be referred to the plays imitated by Terence; and I have at the same time considered the general question of the relation of Terence to his Greek predecessors.

At the risk of increasing slightly the bulk of the volume I have added an Index of the Latinity of Terence, which will, I trust, be considered an addition to the usefulness of the book. This Index is based on that in Giles' edition of Zeune before spoken of; but I found it necessary to make innumerable alterations, erasures, and additions, so that the Index is to all intents and purposes a new


I have acknowledged my obligation to other editors whenever I have taken from them quotations which were evidently their own. Every classical author is, however, overlaid with a mass of illustrative matter which may be considered the common property of commentators. Of all editors of Terence perhaps most is due in this way to Westerhovius and Lindenbrog.

To avoid unnecessary length I have often referred the reader to the Dictionary of Antiquities edited by Dr. Smith.


June, 1857.



TERENCE's works give us no information concerning his life; and we are obliged to draw our materials from a memoir which is by some attributed to Donatus, by others to Suetonius. The authority of this document is at the best very doubtful, and there are some considerations which make us slow to accept its facts. Other narratives are preserved. One was copied by Gronovius from a manuscript at Oxford; and there is a Life of Terence by D. F. Petrarca in the Milan edition of A.D. 1476. These two biographies give us nothing more than we obtain from the original memoir.

According to this account Terence was a Carthaginian, who was born in the year 193, B.C. He was taken to Rome as a slave, and became the property of Terentius Lucanus, a Roman senator. By him he was brought up well, receiving a liberal education; and being finally manumitted he received the name of Publius Terentius. He is said to have lived in habits of intimate friendship with Publius Scipio Africanus, Caius Laelius, and Furius Publius ; and in their society to have pursued his studies and written his plays. He was first introduced to the notice of the literary society of Rome at the time of the representation of the * Andria.' He had offered this play to the Curule Aediles for representation. They referred him to Caecilius, who was at that time the chief comic poet at Rome. The story goes that he found the critic at supper with his friends, and was ordered to seat himself near the table, and to commence reading his play. He had not proceeded far when Caecilius, delighted with the character of the work, invited him to join

« PredošláPokračovať »