Publius Terentius Afer (Terence) Andria 2.5

Henry Thomas Riley (Translator), George Colman (Translator)

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Line
← Previous Next →

Andria. Publius Terentius Afer (Terence). Henry Thomas Riley (Translator), George Colman (Translator). Ney York. 1874.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by NSF, NEH: Digital Libraries Initiative, Phase 2.

Current edition Perseus

Andria; or, The Fair Andrian (English) (Terence. The Comedies of Terence. Riley, Henry Thomas; Colman, George, translators. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1872.)

Editions (1)
Andria Perseus (Terence. Publii Terentii Comoediae Sex. Parry, Edward St. John, editor. London: Whittaker and Co.; George Bell, 1857.) — 2.5 focus

Notes on the current edition

Andria; or, The Fair Andrian

1. I have now followed him:
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 rakes 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.
2. Inflict evil upon me:
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.