meni, Progamos, Synaristosae, Synephebi, Titthe. The titles themselves are divided into three classes; 1) merely Latin ones, in the manner of Plautus; 2) double titles, in Latin and in Greek; 3) merely in Greek, in the manner of Terence and Turpilius. The last by far preponderate in number. Hence it may be inferred that Caecilius at first treated his originals with great freedom, but afterwards adhered to them more and more closely.

4. VARRO ap. Non. 374 in argumentis Caecilius poscit palmam; ap. Charis. GL. 1, 241 ráon Trabea, Atilius, Caecilius facile moverunt. Cf. HOR. E. 2, 1, 59 and other notices in TEUFFEL, Tüb. Progr. 1858, 3. Being an Insubrian by birth and having come late to Rome, Caecilius could not be considered a competent authority for good Latin; Cic. ad Att. 7, 3, 10. Cf. Brut. 258 (§ 105, 4). Criticism: LFRUTERIUS, RhM. 33, 243.-In general see MOMMSEN, RG. 18, 902 and TEUFFEL, Caecilius Statius etc. Tüb. 1858, 1.

107. In the time of Caecilius, Trabea was another poet of palliatae, and perhaps also Atilius, who seems to have resembled him; so was the author of the Boeotia, Aquilius, and Licinius Imbrex. Luscius Lanuvinus was an older contemporary and rival of Terence.

1. VARRO ap. Charis. GL. 1, 241 wáðŋ Trabea, Atilius, Caecilius facile moverunt. Cf. RITSCHL, Parerga 194, who accordingly places the time of the two former before that of Caecilius, who came to Rome when a full-grown man. Trabea's nomen gentile is unknown, the praenomen Q. without any authority. Two fragments of lively tone and polished language are found in RIBBECK, com. 2 p. 31.

2. The scanty fragments of Atilius (p. 32 Ribb.2), as a poet of palliatae designated by the title of Misogynos, are more archaic. Cic. ad Att. 14, 20, 3 calls him poeta durissimus and so also LICINIUS (correctly Licinus § 146, 3; DDETLEFSEN, Phil. 42, 182 incorrectly writes Lucilius) ap. Cic. fin. 1, 5 calls Atilius who translated Sophokles' Elektra (cf. SUET. Iul. 84) 'Ferreum scriptorem: verum, opinor, scriptorem tamen Ut legendus sit'. Thus the two may be presumed to be identical; see RIBBECK, röm. Trag. 608. It is less probable that he is identical with the actor L. Hatilius of Praeneste (§ 16, 14) who performed in the plays of Terence (at the beginning of the 7th century ? DZIATZKo, RhM. 21, 72).

3. The Boeotia (Boeotis? see Kоcк, com. gr. 2, 35), shown by its title to be a palliata, which was considered to be by a certain Aquilius even in (or before) Varro's time, was yet attributed by the latter to Plautus on account of its Plautine style (GELL. 3, 3, 3), though L. Accius had emphatically protested against this supposition (ib. 9). The historical allusions point to a. 580/174-600/154. RITSCHL, Parerga 82. 123. 208. RIBBECK, com. p. 33.

4. Licinius Imbrex, vetus comoediarum scriptor, in fabula quae Neaera (in)scripta est, GELL. 13, 23, 16. Cf. PAUL. Festi 109. NoN. 196, 24 Licinius in Marte (cf. BERGK, JJ. 101, 832)? Rather Licinius Macer (§ 156, 5). VOLCAC. SEDIG. ap. Gell. 15, 24 si erit quod quarto detur dabitur Licinio. Perhaps identical with Licinius Tegula (§ 114, 3)?

5. Luscius Lanuvinus (Lavinius: see on this perhaps incorrect form DZIATZKO on the Phorm., p. 100), the chief adversary of Terence (malivolus vetus poeta) who is bitterly attacked in all the Terentian prologues except the one to the Hecyra. He translated Menander's Þáoμa (TER. Eun. prol. 9) and a Oŋoavpós (ib. 10) by the same author (?) so faithfully as to preserve even details which were

sure to displease a Roman audience, and blamed Terence's deviations from his Greek originals and his additions from other Greek plays (§ 16, 9) as faults. TER. Eun. prol. 10. Cf. Andr. prol. 15. Heaut. 16. Phorm. prol. 1. Ad. 1. GRAUERT, Analekten 116. LADEWIG, Kanon des Volc. Sed. 12. RIBBECK, com.2 83.—On Plautius see § 96, 5.

108. P. Terentius Afer was a native of Carthage, but at an early age came to Rome, where he was the slave of a senator Terentius Lucanus, by whom he was educated like a free man, and soon manumitted. Perhaps on account of his African birth, he came into intimate relations with Africanus the Younger, a fact which gave rise to the rumour that the latter was the real author of his plays. After having exhibited six plays, Terence went to Greece (a. 594/160) in order to study there. He died there, while on his way home, a. 595/159, in the prime of life.

1. Our principal source is the extract from Suetonius' work de poetis (§ 347, 7) preserved by Donatus (§ 409, 3) in the introduction to his commentary on Terence, mostly a compilation of the frequently conflicting notices of the grammarians. See Ritschl's edition in Reifferscheid's Sueton. (Lpz. 1880), now also in his opusc. 3, 204. See also BERGK, Phil. 16, 627. HSAUPPE, Gött. Nachrichten 1870, 111. JVAHLEN, SBer. d. Berl. Ak. 1876, 789.

2. The notice in HIERON. ad Euseb. 1859-596/158 and the vitae (Norimbergensis, Ambrosiana) preserved in MS. are collectively derived from Sueton. (n. 1). RITSCHL, Opusc. 3, 374. Only the very short addition to the vita of Suetonius by Donatus possesses an independent value (p. 35, 1 R.).

3. Terence came to Rome perhaps through a slave-dealer, who either bought or caught him in Africa. He cannot have been a prisoner of war, as he was born after the end of the second Punic war (553/201) and died before the commencement of the 3rd (605/149); see FENESTELLA in Suetonius 1.1. BERGK, 1.1. 628. AL. 734 PLM. 5, 385 Romanis ducibus bellica praeda fui.

4. The praenomen Publius he may have received either from his patron or from another protector, perhaps Africanus the Younger. Cf. Cic. fam. 13, 35, 1. Att. 4, 15, 1.

5. SUET. p. 27, 2 Reiff. cum multis nobilibus familiariter vixit, sed maxime cum Scipione Africano et C. Laelio. quibus etiam corporis gratia conciliatus existimatur

non obscura fama est adiutum Terentium in scriptis a Laelio et Scipione, eamque ipse auxit numquam nisi leviter (cf. prol. to Heaut. and Ad.) refutare conatus. The latter he may have done because the rumour was offensive to neither party. Comments on it in SUET. 1.1. Cf. Cic. Att. 7, 3, 10 Terentium, cuius fabellae propter elegantiam sermonis putabantur a C. Laelio scribi. QUINT. 10, 1, 99 licet Terentii scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur. +VALLEGIUS in actione (§ 147, 3) ap. Donatus (SUET. p. 35, 5 R.). It is possible that, before publishing, Terence used to read his compositions in the circle of his friends and avail himself of their observations and suggestions. We may, at all events, consider this rumour as a sufficient warrant for the genuine Roman character of Terence's style and language. Cf. besides VAHLEN, MBer. d. Berl. Ak. 1876, 797.

6. SUET. p. 32, 4 post editas comoedias nondum quintum atque vicesimum (the

number XXXV is only in interpolated MSS., RITSCHL, op. 3, 253) egressus (Ritschl, ingressus) annum, causa vitandae opinionis qua videbatur aliena pro suis edere seu (studio added by Ritschl) percipiendi Graecorum instituta moresque, quos non perinde exprimeret in scriptis, egressus (GBECKER in Graeciam profectus) est neque amplius rediit. Q. Cosconius redeuntem e Graecia perisse in mari (FLECKEISEN, krit. Miszell. 59 here adds the words sinu Leucadiae and omits the words below) dicit cum C et VIII fabulis conversis a Menandro (on this corrupt passage see RITSCHL 1.1. 257. EBÄHRENS and AFLECKEISEN, JJ. 113, 594. RPEIPER, RhM. 32, 517. JHILBERG, epistula ad Vahlen., Wien 1877, 17): ceteri mortuum esse in Arcadia Stymphali [sinu Leucadiae] tradunt Cn. Cornelio Dolabella M. Fulvio Nobiliore coss. (a. 595/159, following which JEROME writes ad a. 1859-596/158 Terentius moritur), morbo implicatum ex dolore ac taedio amissarum sarcinarum, quas nave praemiserat, ac simul fabularum quas novas fecerat. Cf. LUCAN. 5, 651 oraeque malignos Ambraciae portus, on which the SCHOL. observes: malignos dixit, sive quia ! saxosi sunt sive quia Terentius illic dicitur periisse. Auson. ep. 18, 16 Arcadiae medio qui iacet in gremio.

...

7. The date of his death was traditional (n. 6): but that Terence died in his 25th year and therefore was born about a. 570/184 has only been inferred by the Roman historians of literature, chiefly from the fact of his being a contemporary of Scipio (born a. 569/185) and of Laelius (§ 131, 1, 3): cf. SUET. p. 27, 6 Nepos aequales omnes (Ter. Scip. Lael.) fuisse censet. But the fact remains established even if Terence was several years older than these. Fenestella already asserted (SUET. 1.1.) utroque maiorem (Terentium) fuisse, and Santra (SUET. 1.1.) even calls Scipio and Laelius adulescentuli as compared with Terence. That he may have been born earlier there is evidence in the fact that the oldest of the plays (Andr.) was performed 588/166. That the elaborate purist Terence should have taken his place as a writer for the stage in his 18th year, is hardly credible, nor is it likely that his opponent, with whom he often quarrels in the prologues, would have omitted to reproach him with this precocity. KLROтн, RhM. 12, 183. HSAUPPE, Gött. Nachr. 1870, 114. CDZIATZKO, Ter. com. p. v.

8. SUET. p. 33, 4 fuisse dicitur mediocri statura, gracili corpore, colore fusco (SUET. 1.1., cf. VERG. Moret. 32 Afra genus, tota patriam testante figura, torta comam labroque tumens et fusca colore). His portrait in vignette in the MSS. Vatic., Paris., Basilic., Ambr. (§ 109, 2) and also on a contorniate in Gotha, all unauthentic; equally unauthenticated is a bust with a mask (rather tragic than comic) on the right shoulder, which was found in 1826 in the neighbourhood of the site indicated by Suetonius, and which is now in the Capitoline Museum. Ann. d. Inst. archeol. 1840, p. 97 tav. GVISCONTI, iconogr. rom. 1, 317. JJBERNOULLI, röm. Ikonogr. 1, 68.-SUET. p. 33, 5 reliquit filiam, quae post equiti rom. nupsit, item hortulos XX iugerum via Appia ad Martis (cf. PRE. 12, 158; WILMANNS 320, 7).

109. All the six comedies written and exhibited at Rome by Terence are extant. The numerous MSS. are divided into two classes, the very ancient Bembine and those representing the text of Calliopius. His plays were also annotated; we possess only the commentaries of Donatus and Eugraphius. There are also important didascaliae to the plays (though in a very difficult text), and metrical arguments.

1. SUET. p. 28, 8 scripsit comoedias sex, ex quibus primam Andriam etc. Cf.

AUSON. ep. 18, 15 on the number six: protulit in scenam quot dramata fabellarum

etc.

2. Manuscripts: the best is Vatic. 3226 (A, s. IV/V, Bembinus; facsimile ap. WATTENB.-ZANGEM. t. 8 and 9; CHATELAIN t. 6): in competition with this are the other MSS. which are all derived from the text, sound in its basis but greatly damaged by arbitrary alterations, of the unknown grammarian Calliopius (of s. IV or III? CBRAUN, quaestt. Ter. 21. FLEO, RhM. 38, 321). The subscriptio (§ 41, 2 ad fin.) reads: Calliopius recensui and feliciter Calliopio; cf. OJAHN, Lpz. Ber. 1851, 362. To these Calliopian MSS. belong among others Paris. 7899 (P), Vat. 3868 (C), Ambros. (F), Basilicanus (B), all s. X; further, as a separate group, important on account of their close connection with A: Victorianus (D, s. X in Florence) and Decurtatus (G, Vatic. 1640 s. XI/XII), Lps. s. X (OBrugmann, JJ. 113, 420. KDZIATZKO, RhM. 39, 340), Paris. 10304 s. XI (AFRITSCH Phil. 32, 446. DZIATZKO 1.1. 344). Facsimiles of MSS. BCDFGP are also to be found in ChateLAIN t. 7-11.—The MS. C is specially notable for its illustrations (to the Terentian comedies) which are based on old tradition (FLEO, RhM. 28, 335): partly reproduced in D'AGINCOURT, Hist. de l'art 5, pl. 35. 36. FWIESELER, Denkm. d. Bühnenwesens, Gött. 1851, t. 10. Similar designs are to be found in F and P. Those in F ap. AMAI, Plauti fragm. etc., Mail. 1815.-On the Terence MSS.: RITSCHL, opusc. 3, 281. FUMPFENBACH before his edition p. 1. CSYDOW, de fide librorum Ter. ex Calliopii recensione ductorum, Berl. 1878. FLEO, RhM. 38, 317. Dziatzko, RhM. 39, 339. WPRINZHORN, de libris Ter. qui ad recens. Calliopianam redeunt, Gött. 1885. WFÖRSTER, Lyoner fragm. zum Hautontim. s. VIII, ZföG. 26, 188.— EBARTELS, de Ter. ap. Nonium, Diss. Argentor. 9, 1 (see § 390, 3). On the quotations from Terence in Arusianus (they generally agree with D) HSchindler (n. 9) cap. 1.-ASTEUBING, anall. ad testimonia Terentiana, Marb. 1872.-GEPPert, zur Gesch. der terentianischen Kritik, Jahn's Archiv 18, 28. JBRIX, de Ter. libris mss. a Bentleio adhibitis, Brieg 1852. AWILMS, de personarum notis in codd. Ter., Halle 1881 (§ 16, 8). FUMPFENBACH, Phil. 32, 442.

3. For all the plays metrical tables of contents are preserved, consisting each of 12 senarii, which in the Bembine severally bear the superscription: GSulpici Apollinaris periocha: § 99, 3. 357, 2.—Commentators: Valerius Probus, Aemilius Asper, Helenius Acro, Aelius Donatus, Euanthius; doubtful are Arruntius Celsus and the writer, whose name is corrupt, mentioned ap. DONAT. on Ter. Eun. 4, 4, 22: Ego Adesionem sequor, qui recte intellexit etc. SURINGAR, hist. crit. schol. lat. 1, 77. RITSCHL, Parerga 361. The commentary of Donatus preserved to us (§ 409, 3) is also valuable for its comparative references to the Greek originals, but it is wanting for the Heauton timorumenos: to supply its place JCALPHURNIUS wrote in the 15th cent. a commentary which has no value for us; FJLÖFFLER, de Calphurnio (†1503) Ter. interprete, Diss. Argentor. 6, 261. The commentary of Eugraphius (§ 482, 2) is without independent value; HGERSTENBERG, de Eugraphio, Jena 1886. See the scholia of the cod. Bembinus ap. FUMPFENBACH, Herm. 2, 337, and on them WSTUDEMUND, JJ. 97. 546. 125, 51. Cf. UMPFENBACH's edition p. xxxvII.—Differentiae (synonyms) Terentii ap. HHAGEN, anecd. Helv. p. cxxxIII. A glossary to Ter. from Vat. 1471 s. IX was published by GGOETZ, ind. schol. Ienens. 1885.

4. The didascaliae are preserved in a twofold text, viz. in that of the Bembine, and in the Calliopian (n. 2): with the latter are connected the praefationes of Donatus. The basis of both was a collection (originally more complete) of scenic notices, which had probably been compiled from official records (commentarii magistratuum, annales maximi) and literary research, most likely from Varro de actis scaenicis (§ 166, 5). Out of this the Bembine has preserved a selection, which,

though incomplete and confused, is not systematically or intentionally garbled; the Calliopian version on the other hand gives a deliberate and to some extent arbitrary selection, which is limited in each case to a single performance (the first). KDZIATZкO, RhM. 21, 87. Cf. generally RITSCHL, Parerga 263. WWILMANNS, de didascaliis Ter., Berl. 1864. DZIATZко, RhM. 20, 570. 21, 64. 39, 339. CSTEFFEN, act. soc. Lips. 2, 152. FSCHOELL, RhM. 31, 469.-On the number of actors etc. in Ter. see § 16, 4. See also below n. 6.

5. The enumeration in § 110 follows the Bembine, which arranges the plays in the supposed order of their composition. This MS. alone marks this succession regularly with 'facta I' (prima or primo loco) 'facta II' etc. up to 'facta VI,' whereas the other MSS. only three times give the number, but in so doing correspond with the Bemb. The illustrated MSS. CPF have the following succession: Andr. Eun. Heaut. Ad. Hec. Phorm., while DG have: Andr. Ad. Eun. Phorm. Heaut. Hec. Conjectures as to the cause of these differences of arrangement e.g. WW VAGNER, JJ. 91, 291. FLEO, RhM. 38, 318. Cf. § 110, 6, n. 1. During the lifetime of Terence, according to the didascaliae, the following representations took place: a. 588/166 the Andria in April (lud. meg.). 589/165 Hecyra 1 (first time, lud. meg.). 591/163 Heauton timorumenos (lud. meg.). 593/161 Eunuchus (lud. meg.). Phormio (lud. rom. in September). 594/160 Hecyra 2 (second trial) and Adelphoe (at the funeral games for Aemilius Paulus). Hecyra 3 (complete performance; lud. rom.). DZIATZкO, RhM. 21, 84. Cf. HPÄCKELMANN, de ordine Ter fabularum, potissimum prologis adhibitis, Halle 1875.

6. ALRLIEBIG, de prologis Ter. et Plaut., Görlitz 1859. KDZIATZкo, de prologis Plaut. et Ter., Bonn 1863. GBOISSIER, les prologues de Ter., Mélanges Graux (Par. 1884) 79. AROEHRICHT, quaestt. scaen. ex. prologis Ter. petitae, Diss. Argentor. 9, 293.

7. Collective editions: Ed. princeps: Strassb. 1470. Edition s. 1. et a. in Italy about 1470-75 (Jahn's Archiv 4, 325). Editions by MURETUS (Venet. 1555), GFAERNUS (Florent. 1565), FLINDENBROG (c. Donati et Eugraphii comm., Paris 1602; Francof. 1623), PHPAREUS, (Neust. 1619), JHBOECLER (acc. comm. FGuieti, Strassb. 1657), in usum Delphini (with index of words, Par. 1675).-Ex rec. et c. not. RBENTLEJI, Cantabr. 1726 (with vocabulary, reprint by EVOLLBEHR, Kiel 1846; on Bentley's English MSS. of Ter. see FUMPFENBACH, Phil. 32, 442. MWARREN, Americ. journ. of philol. 3, 59). Comm. perp. illustr.; acced. Donat. Eugraphius etc., cur. AWESTERHOVIUS, Haag 1726 II (reprint by CSTALLBAUM, Lps. 1830). Ed. FGBоTHE in Poet. scen. T. IV (Mannh. 1837). Illustr. NELemaire, Par. 1827 III. Cum schol. Donati et Eugraphii ed. RKLOTZ, Lps. 1838. 39. II.-Rec. AFLECKEISEN, Lps. 1857. With notes etc. by RStJPARRY, Lond. 1857; by WWAGNER, Lond. 1869. Ed. et apparatu crit. instruxit FUMPFENBACH, Berl. 1870. Rec. KDZIATZKO, Lps. 1884.

8. Recent translations (German): by THBENFEY, Stuttg. 1837 sqq.; remodelled (Andr. Eun. and Ad.) Stuttg. 1854: by FJACOB, Berl. 1845; JHERBST, Stuttg. 1854 sqq. JJCDONNER, Lpz. u. Heidelb. 1864 II. In English verse, by GEOCOLMAN, Lond. 1802.

9. Criticism and explanation: GHERMANN, de Bentleio eiusque edit. Terent., in opusc. 2, 263. JKRAUSS, quaestt. Ter. crit., Bonn 1850. AKLETTE, exercitt. Ter., Bonn 1855. JBRIX, de Ter. fabulis post Bentleium emendandis, Liegnitz 1857. THLADEWIG, Beitr. z. Kritik des Ter., Neustrelitz 1858. EBRUNER, quaestt. Ter., Helsingfors 1868; acta societ. scient. fennicae 9, 1 sqq. MADVIG, advers. crit. 2, 12. FUMPFENBACH, analecta Ter., Mainz 1874. HBosse, quaestt. Ter., Lps. 1875. WKocks, interpolationes Ter. in d. Festschr. des Friedr.-Wilh.-Gymn., Köln 1875,

R.L.

'M