Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:02:55.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto (Terence, Heauton timorumenos 77)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

H.D. Jocelyn
H.D. Jocelyn*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the verses of classical poetry frequently quoted by those who have had a traditional upbringing is still an iambic senarius originally uttered by an old man in a comedy by Terence:

homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto.

Few would be willing to interpret it closely. Some would see in it, as Michel de Montaigne did, a man’s confession of his emotional and spiritual weakness. Others, like John of Salisbury, perceive an expression of Christian charity. Others again make it a disavowal of intolerance and prudery in regard to human behaviour. Most would say that it had to do with being ‘humane’ in some very positive sense of this much used word and claim to hear in it a tone both elevated and elevating. The association with knowledge of literature and the fine arts which Varro and Cicero sometimes gave the abstract humanitas still exercises a powerful influence and not surprisingly the verse turns up time and again in the public discourses of University professors and in the mottos of institutions concerned with education.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 7 , 1973 , pp. 14 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Les Essais ii 2: ‘il faut qu’il frémisse, planté au bord d’un précipice, comme un enfant; nature ayant voulu se réserver ces légères marques de son autorité, inexpugnables à notre raison et à la vertu stoique, pour lui apprendre sa mortalité et notre fadaise. Il pâlit à la peur, il rougit à la honte; il se plaint à i’estrette d’une verte colique, sinon d’une voix désespérée et éclatante, au moins d’une voix casse et enrouée, humani a se nihil alienum putet.’ Montaigne probably had in mind the point made by Cicero at Off. i 30 (on which see below, p. 39) rather than the opening scene of Terence’s play. At any rate Montaigne quotes the De officiis often and Terence’s comedies quite rarely.

2 See Epist. 206: ‘amentis est, non amantis se et sua curare dumtaxat, et quae aliorum sunt ducere aliena: humunum teste comico nihil caritas a se reputai alienum, sed per congratulationem recte gaudentibus adest. et per compassionem dolentibus congemiscit’ Epist. 281: ‘ … praesertim si caritas urgeat, ut nihil humanum a se reputet alienum’; Polycraticus iii prol.: ‘non satis homo est quem aliena non mouent … uirtutis uero processus ambiguitatis huius nodum soluit, quum et comicus nihil humani alienum a se reputet, et magister coelestis hominem homini diligendum docuerit ut se ipsum.’

3 Cf. Dornseiff, F., Hermes 77 (1943), 111:Google Scholar ‘den Terenz-Vers zitieren wir mit leicht verschobener Bedeutung, und zwar in dem Sinn, “auch für das Über-raschendste und Tollste habe ich Verstàndnis, bin bestimmt nicht zimperlich” ‘: Prete, S., ‘Humanus’ nella letteratura arcaica latina (Milan, 1948), p. 46:Google Scholar ‘il verso è communemente ricordato, ai giorni nostri, … quando si vuol dire che non ci si lascia sorprendere o scandalizzare da nessuna cosa sia essa anche la peggiore che possa accadere tra gli uomini; con si vuol quindi dire che si è pieni di comprensione verso tutti in ogni circostanza anche la più spiacevole.’

4 It would be interesting to trace the way eminent men of letters have contributed to the spread of this view in the various countries of Europe. See, for example, Sir Richard Steele, writing in The Spectator, no. 502 of 6 October 1712 (see the edition of D. F. Bond, vol. iv [Oxford, 1965], p. 280): ‘ … I drew this Morning Conclusions of their Eminence in what I think great, to wit, in having worthy Sentiments, from the reading a Comedy of Terence. The Play was the Self-Tormentor. It is from the Beginning to the End a perfect Picture of humane Life, but I did not observe in the Whole one Passage that could raise a Laugh. How well disposed must that People be, who could be entertained with Satisfaction by so sober and polite Mirth! In the first Scene of the Comedy, when one of the old Men accuses the other of Impertinence for interposing in his Affairs, he answers, I am a Man, and cannot help feeling any Sorrow that can arrive at Man. It is said this Sentence was received with an universal Applause. There cannot be a greater Argument of the general good Understanding of a People, than a sudden Consent to give their Approbation of a Sentiment which has no Emotion in it. If it Were spoken with never so great Skill in the Actor, the Manner of uttering that Sentence could have nothing in it which could strike any but People of the greatest Humanity - nay People elegant and skilful in Observations upon it’; Thomson, James, To the Memory of Lord Talbot (published 1737), vv. 273 ff.:Google Scholar ‘a friend / to human kind … on the rich, the poor, the high, the low / With equal ray his ruddy goodness shone. / For nothing human foreign was to him.’ J. G. Herder set the verse as a motto on the second part of his Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit (Riga, 1784-91) and wrote at the beginning of Brief e zu Beforderung der Humanitàt. Erste Sammlung (Frankfurt-Leipzig, 1793), p. 5: ‘Mit Freude und Zustimmung, m. Fr., ist Ihr Vorschlag zu einem Briefwechsel über die Forte- oder Rückschritte der Humanitàt in alteren und neueren, am meisten aber in denen uns nächsten Zeiten von unsern sàmmtlichen Freunden aufgenommen und bewillkommet worden. “Ich bin ein Mensch,” sagt D, “und nichts was die Menschheit betrift, ist mir fremde”…’

5 See Aul. Gell, xiii 17. Humanitas is not recorded before Rhet. anon. Herenn. ii 24 (where it means something like misericordia).

6 Allen, W.S., On the Linguistic Study of Languages (Cambridge, no date [1957]), p. 4Google Scholar (=Strevens, P.D., Five Inaugural Lectures [Oxford, 1966], p. 6),Google Scholar parodies the verse in order to express the all-embracing ambitions of a certain kind of linguist: ‘linguista sum, linguistici nihil a me alienum puto!’ L. A. Moritz concludes an inaugural lecture with ‘ … “I am a man: what man concerns concerns me too” (homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto). We may not take these words to mean exactly what Terence intended them to mean; but in a wider sense they are not a bad text for some of the most important aspects of the work of a university, and of a Professor of Latin, in the second half of the twentieth century’ (Humanitas [Cardiff, 1962], p. 27).

7 Basser College, a residential college of the University of New South Wales, mutilated the verse some years ago to produce HVMANI NIHIL ALIENVM as a symbol of its pretensions. The Kings of Arms in 1972 approved the wish of the Australian Academy of the Humanities to use the same three words on its Coat of Arms.

8 Cf. T. B. Harbottle’s Dictionary of Quotations (Classical) (London-New York, 1897), p. 89: ‘I am a man; there’s nought which touches man that is not my concern’; Jones, H.P., Dictionary of Foreign Phrases and Classical Quotations, new ed. (Edinburgh, 1929), p. 52:Google Scholar ‘I am a man, and deem nothing that relates to a man foreign to my feelings’; Stevenson’s Book of Quotations Classical and Modern, 8th ed. (London—Toronto—Melbourne—Sydney, no date), p. 1492 n. 21 (s.v. Philanthropy): ‘I am a man, and nothing in man’s lot can be indifferent to me’; The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (London—New York—Toronto, 1941), p. 554 a: ‘I am a man, I count nothing human indifferent to me’.

9 Leipzig, 1890, p. 165, s.v. homo, humanus 4.

10 Vol. VI iii (Leipzig, 1936-42), 2878. 66.

11 Vol. I (Leipzig, 1900), 1575. 84.

12 Fascicle i, A-Calcitro (Oxford, 1968), p. 97, col. 2.

13 According to Marouzeau, J., REL 32 (1954), 356,Google ScholarColaclides, P., Terentiana (Athens, 1954), pp. 9–43,Google Scholar provides a detailed bibliography of the question.

14 Giovanni Planza de’ Rufinoni, 1443-1503.

15 I quote from the edition of A. H. Westerhoff (see below, note 46). To judge from Hain’s Repertorium Bibliographicum, nrs 15405, 15406 and Coppinger’s Supple-mentum, nr 5745, this work was first published at Treviso in 1474.

16 See Off. ii 60, iii 7, Att. xvi 11. 4, Pliny, Nat. praef. 22 Gell, xiii 28. 1.

17 See Stob. Ecl. ii 7.5b2 on ή χρηστότης, ή εύκοινωνησία and ή εύσυναλλαξία as subordinate parts of ή δικαιοσύνη, it is not certain just what words Panaetius used. Diogenes Laertius reports (vii 126) a Stoic distinction between ή ίσότης and ή εύγνωμοσύνη.

18 Epist. ix 358 a ήδιστον έστιν έν τω βίω τό τα αύτοΟ πράττειν … έκαστος ήμών ούχ αΰτώ μόνον γέγονεν άλλά της γενέσεως ήμών τό μέν τι ή πατρίς μερίζεται, τό 6έ τι ο! γεννή-σαντες, τό δέ ol λοιποί φίλοι (consoling Archytas for having to neglect his philosophical interests in favour of those of the state of Tarentum). The passage occurs again (Cic. Fin. ii 45) in an Academic statement of the doctrine of the natural κοινωνία.

19 See Cic. Fin. iii 67, Porphyry, De abstin. iii 20 (not, however, Cic. Nat. deor. ii 37).

20 Strassburg, 1496 (Hain 15431).

21 Spicilegiorum … commentarius primus (Frankfurt a. M. 1580), p. 215 (= J. Gruterus, Lampas siue Fax Artium IV [Frankfurt, 1604], p. 840). C. Schrevel reprints most of Palmerius’ note in his edition of Terence’s comedies (Leiden, 1662).

22 Publius Terentius Afer. Diligenter recensait et notulas addidit (Saumur, 1671).

23 Titi Petroni Arbitri Satyricon quae supersunt (Utrecht, 1709), p. 372.

24 P. Terenti Hauton Timorumenos with . . . Notes (Cambridge, 1895), p. 73. This commentary was reprinted in 1902 and 1933. Cf. Ashmore, S.G., The Comedies of Terence (New York, 1908), p. 86.Google Scholar

25 Rome, 1612.

26 Paris, 1688.

27 London, 1689.

28 London, 1765.

29 Hermes Ixxviii (1943), 271 (= KI. Schr. II 39).

30 Cf. Körte, A., Hermes 77 (1942), 101–2;Google ScholarDornseiff, F., Hermes 78 (1943), 110–11;Google ScholarHaffter, H., Mus. H. x (1953), 95–6.Google ScholarColaclides, P., Terentiana (Athens, 1954), pp. 9–43,Google Scholar to judge from Haffter, H., Philologus c (1956), 296, chose it from the competing views.Google Scholar

31 Terence . . . texte établi et traduit, t. ii (Paris, 1948), p. 12.

32 Cf. Siess, H., WSt 28 (1906), 248 ff.Google Scholar; Zucker, F., Semantica, Rhetorica, Ethica (Berlin, 1963), p. 169;Google ScholarBarigazzi, A., La formazione spirituale di Menandro (Turin, 1965), p. 81 n. 58;Google ScholarNardo, D., Atti dell’ 1st. Veneto cxxvi (1967–8), 137, 138, 142, 150–55.Google Scholar

33 Histoire de la littérature latine 5(Paris, 1912), p. 81.

34 The Art of Terence (Oxford, 1923), pp. 151-2; cf. Plautus and Terence (London—Calcutta—Sydney, 1932), pp. 178–80.

35 Less of the clergyman manqué but the same basic view is to be found in Arnaldi, F., Da Plauto a Terenzio, II: Terenzio (Naples, 1947), pp. 95–6Google Scholar, Lana, I., ‘Terenzio e il movimento filellenico in Roma’, RFIC 75 (1947), 52,Google ScholarBüchner, K., Humanitas Romana (Heidelberg, 1957), pp. 49–50,Google ScholarParatore, E., Storia del teatro latino (Milan, 1957), p. 161,Google ScholarGagliardi, D., ‘ ‘Il concetto di “Humanitas”’,, Le Parole e le idee 7 (1965), 189–90.Google Scholar

36 Werden und Wesen der Humanität im Altertum (Strassburg, 1907), p. 13.

37 Cf. Schneidewin, M., Die antike Humanität (Berlin, 1897), p. 30;Google ScholarHeinemann, I., RE Suppl. 5 (1931), 298,Google Scholar s.v. Humanitas; Grimal, P., Le siécle des Scipions (Paris, 1953), p. 156;Google ScholarKlingner, F., Römische Geiteswelt3 (Munich, 1956), p. 658Google Scholar (reprinting an essay of 1947); Clarke, M.L., The Roman Mind (London, 1956), pp. 137–8;Google ScholarBaldry, H.C., The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 136, 172–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Cf. Bignone, E., Storia della letteratura Latina I2 (Florence, 1946), pp. 385–6,Google ScholarDe Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani IV 2. 1 (Florence, 1953), p. 36 n. 80.Google Scholar

39 Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), p. 305.

40 See in particular Arist. Eth. Nic. viii 3 1155 a 16-22 (φιλία) φύσει τ’ ένυπάρ- χειν εΌικε - - - έν ανθρώποις - - , 80εν τούς φιλάνθρωπους έπαινούμεν. “16οι δ’ ν τις καΐ έν τακ; τιλάναις ώς ο’ικείον απας άνθρωπος άνθρώπω καΐ φίλον and (without use of the actual term φιλάνθρωπος) Theophr. ap. Porph. De abstin. iii 25; also Stobaeus, Ecl. ii 7. 13. On the varied use of φιλάνθρωπος etc. in literature see S. Tromp de Ruiter, Mnem. ser. 2 lix (1931), 271–306.

41 Cf. Walzer, R., Hermes 70 (1935), 199–200;Google ScholarBarigazzi, A., La formazione spirituale di Menandro (Turin, 1965), pp. 61, 85 n. 58.Google Scholar

42 Cf. Att. xiv 13. 3 nos autem id uideamus quod in nobis ipsis esse debet, ut quicquid acciderit fortiter et sapienter feramus et accidisse hominibus meminerimus, Fam. v 17. 3 . . . ut et hominem te et uirum esse meminisses, id est ut et communem incertumque casum, quem neque uitare quisquam nostrum nec praestare ullo pacto potest, sapienter ferres et dolori fortiter ac fortunae resisteres cogitaresque et in nostra ciuitate et in ceteris, quae rerum potitae sunt, multis fortissimis atque optimis uiris iniustis iudiciis talis casus incidisse.

43 The Andria, Heautontimorumenos and Hecyra of Terence (Dublin, 1836), p. 108.

44 Byz. Zeitschr. v (1896), 336–7, Philologus lxxi (1912), 561–2 (comparing Iohannes Malalas, Chron. xiv p. 370. 20 Dindorf and Hist. Graec. anon. F.H.G. iv 198 and arguing that the argumentative structure of the original story was influenced by Menander’s Εαυτόν τιμωρούμενος [cf. ]. Demianczuk Supplementum Comicum (Cracow, 1912), p. 63]).

45 T. Petronii Arbitri Satiricon . . . accesserunt seorsim notae et obseruationes uariorum (Frankfurt, 1610).

46 P. Terentii Afri Comoediae Sex . . . commentario perpetuo illustratae … tomus primus (s’Gravenhage, 1726), p. 470.

47 See above, note 1.

48 See above, note 22.

49 Cf; Holden, H., M. Tulli Ciceronis De Officiis Libri Tres … Commentary (Cambridge, 1869), p. 159Google Scholar(new ed., Cambridge, 1899, p. 171), Reitzenstein, R., Werden und Wesen der Humanität im Altertum, p. 13.Google Scholar

50 P. Terentii … Comoediae sex … in usum Delphini (Paris, 1675).

51 Cf. Norden, E., Die germanische Urgeschichte in Tacitus Germania (Leipzig—Berlin, 1920), pp. 85–6 note;Google Scholarvon Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U., Reden und Vortrage II 3 (Berlin, 1926), p. 181 n.l;Google ScholarBickel, E., RhM 90 (1941), 352,Google Scholar xci (1942), 186–91; Mewaldt, J., Anzeig. d. Wien. Ak. phil.-hist.Kl. 79 (1942), 167–79;Google ScholarPrete, S., “Humanus” nella letteratura arcaica latina (Milan, 1948), pp. 41–6;Google ScholarDuckworth, G.E., The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952), p. 304;Google ScholarDelcourt, M., Hommages à Léon Herrmann (Brussels, 1960) [=Coll. Latomus xliv]), pp. 257–62.Google Scholar

52 Cf; Walzer, R., Hermes 70 (1935), 199–200;Google ScholarWebster, T.B.L., Studies in Menander (Manchester, 1950; 2nd. ed., 1960), pp. 65, 196;Google ScholarMette, H.J., Gymnasium 69 (1962), 398–406;Google ScholarPrimmer, A., WSt 79 (1966), 293–8.Google Scholar

53 Cf. Köhler, O., De Heautontimorumeni Terentii compositione (Diss. Leipzig, 1908), p. 6 n.l, p. 24 n.2;Google ScholarConrad, C.C., The Technique of Continuous Action in Roman Comedy (Diss. Chicago, 1915), p. 35 n.;Google ScholarJachmann, G., RE 2 V i (1934), 617, s.v. Terentius 36.Google Scholar

54 There has been controversy about the obscure vv. 4-6 but despite much scholarly effort nothing has been detected remotely like the ‘contaminatio’ admitted by Terence in the case of the Andria, Eunuchus and Adelphi. The spreading of the action over two days (cf. Eugraphius on v. 410) is as much an oddity where Roman comedy is concerned as it is where Greek is (but on the action of the Επιτρέποντες see Gomme, A.W. and Sandbach, F.H., Menander. A Commentary [Oxford, 1973], pp. 325–6).CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the argument (arising from fr. 133 [Athenaeus xiv 615 a]) as to whether the Menandrian Chrêmes gave an fipunw rather than a δείπνον to celebrate the Dionysia see Haffter, H., MusH 10 (1953), 79–80.Google Scholar For the relationship between the empty stage at v. 170 and the first appearance of the Menandrian chorus see Flickinger, R.C., CPh 6 (1911), 485, vii (1912), 24–34;Google ScholarSkutsch, F., Hermes 47 (1912), 141–5Google Scholar (=KI. Schr. 480–3); Burckhardt, G., Die Akteinteilung in der neuen griechischen und in der römischen Komödie (Diss. Basle, 1927), pp. 9, 55;Google ScholarJachmann, G., Plautinisches und Attisches (Berlin, 1931), pp. 245 ff.;Google ScholarDrexler, H., Hermes 73 (1938), 65–73.Google Scholar

55 Menander’s comedy was set in Halae Aexonides, a deme about two hours’ journey south east of Athens (see fr. 127.3 [Etym. Gen. A. s.v. δστικτον] and, in general, Eliot, C.W.J., Coastal Hemes of Attica [Toronto, 1962], pp. 25 ff.);Google Scholar likewise the “Ηρώς was set in Ptelea [see v. 22], the Δύσκολος ¡n Phyle [see v. 2]). The personages of Terence’s script refer to the scene of action in quite unspecific terms (vv. 63, 142–6, 191, 587, 732).

56 This man’s property, which came to the value of 15 talents (see vv. 145-6), was considerable in Menandrian terms (I assume from Demosthenes xxvii 4-5 that Athenian fathers usually allotted about one seventh of their wealth to the dowry of an only daughter [assumptions possible on the basis of Menander, Dysc. 738 and Isaeus iii 49-51 would favour my general argument even more] and note that Menander s personages regard 2 talents as a normal dowry from a city-dwelling land-holder [see Asp. 135–6, 268–9, Misum. 446, Com. anon. P. Oxy. 2533. 6–11] and 3 as large [see Dysc. 842–4, Peric. 1013–15]; the 4 talents of Epitrep. 134 and the 10 of fr. 333.11 are clearly exceptional; on actual dowry sizes see Finley, M.I., Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens 500–200 B.C. [New Brunswick, N.J., 1951], pp. 79–80,Google Scholar 266–8, Wolff, H.J., RE 23 i [1957], 139–40,Google Scholar s.v. προίξ ) but not all that large in those of Roman comedy (one of Terence’s city gentlemen provides a dowry of 10 talents [Andr. 950–51], an amount which, in view of Plaut. Cist. 561–2, Merc. 703, Trin. 1158, Truc. 845, would not have surprised the audience).

57 See w. 110–12.

58 Μενέδημος, a name whose shape and etymology suggested high social origins, could well have been the name of Menander’s personage but was not necessarily so; for new evidence of the Latin poets’ tendency to alter the names of the original scripts see Handley, E.W., Menander and Plautus: a Study in Comparison (London, 1968), pp. 9, 19.Google Scholar

59 The dowry of 2 talents which he considers appropriate for his newly found daughter (see vv. 838, 940) suggests a wealth of 14 talents. The land he owns is not as valuable as Menedemus’ (see vv. 63–4).

60 He considers himself to be of social standing comparable with that of Menedemus, one based on achievement (uirtus; see v. 56 and for this sense of uirtus cf. Plaut. Pseud. S’il); he acts as an arbiter in neighbourhood disputes (see vv. 498–500); he is very jealous of his moral reputation in the community (see vv. 797–9).

61 He is proud of having acquired his wealth through his own efforts (see vv. 841).

62 The name has associations with meanness; the Χρέμης of Aristophanes’ Έκκλησιάζουσαι is obviously a poor man; at Antiphanes, Com. fr. 191. 22 (Athenaeus vi 223 a) the name is coupled with Φείδων; at Alciphro i 29. 5 with ΦεΙδυλος; Hor. Epod. 1. 33 refers to an auarus … Chremes. The Terentian Chremes is no homo auarus but the squandering of wealth, even where other men are concerned, bothers him (see vv. 201 ff., 449 ff., 749 ff., 909); in poorer days he did not allow sentiment to dissuade him from ordering the exposure of a female child (see vv. 626 ff.).

63 The participial title had reference to the striking initial scene rather than to the play as a whole; cf. Menander’s Επιτρέποντες, Συναριστώσοα, Diphilus’ Κληρούμενοι, Apollodorus’ Έπιδικαζόμενος.

64 Most extant comic scripts, Greek and Latin, require only two. The Δύσκολος, however, A ulularía and Curculio require two houses and a temple. Three houses are required certainly by the Pseudolus and probably by the Stichus and the Hecyra.

65 This can be deduced from vv. 54 and 169. See Dalman, C.O., De aedibus scaenicis comoediae nouae (Leipzig, 1929), pp. 13–15.Google Scholar The counter arguments of Marti, H., Untersucliungen zur dramatischen Technik bei Plautus und Terenz (Winterthur, 1959), p. 79 n. 7, are not persuasive.Google Scholar

66 See vv. 1-2. On the central door and the πρωταγωνιστής 0f tragedy see Pollux iv 124.

67 For the consequent changes in the early scenes of the play see most recently Lefèvre, E., Die Exposilionstechnik in den Komödien des Terenz (Darmstadt, 1969), pp. 27 ff.Google Scholar (in particular, p 33).

68 The prologue could also, of course, have followed the conversation between Chremes and Menedemus in the manner of that spoken by Tyche in the Ασπίς (vv. 97 ff.) or Agnoia in the Περικειρομένη (see vv. 127–8 Sandbach) or Auxilium in the Cistellaria (vv. 149 ff., relating to Menander’s Συναριστωσαι).

69 See Pollux iv 145 δέ Λυκομήδειος ούλόκομος, μακρογένειος, άνατείνει την έτέραν δφρύν, πολυπραγμοσύνην παρενδείκνυται (cf. Quint. Inst, xi 3. 74–9). Comedies with the title Πολυπράγμων are attributed to Timocles, Heniochus and Diphilus. On the source of Pollux’s knowledge see Pickard-Cambridge, A.W., The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd ed., rev. Gould, J. and Lewis, D.M. (Oxford, 1968), pp. 177 ff.Google ScholarWebster, T.B.L., Bull. John Rylands Library 32 (1949–50), 100,Google ScholarGreek Theatre Production2 (London, 1970), p. 77, suggests the Smicrines of the Επιτρέποντες and the Megaronides of the Trinummus as personages who might have worn the ‘Lycomedean’ mask.

70 The evidence for the late introduction of masks into the Roman theatre is good; see Cic. De oral, iii 221, Festus, p. 238. 12, s.v. personata, Donatus, De com. 6.3 (p. 26.7 Wessner), Diomedes, Gramm. Lat. I 489. 11. Donatus’ belief (Eun. praef. i 6, Ad. praef. i 6) that Terence’s actors did wear masks was probably based on illustrations of the text current in his own day; see Leo, F., RhM 38 (1883), 342–3.Google Scholar

71 Cf. Plato, Rep. iv 433 a, Gorg. 526 c, Leg. vii 821 a, Men. Epitrep. 655–8, Peric. 374. Some of the diatribe against the πολυπράγμων at Plut. Mor. 515 d - 23 b may derive from Ariston of Chios; see Hense, O., RhM 14 (1890), 541–54.Google Scholar

72 Cf. Plato, Apol. 19 b, Men. Epitrep. 573–6, Theophr. Char. 13.

73 Cf. Plaut. Stich. 198 ff., Ter. Eun. 553 ff., Catull. 7. 11-12, Cic. Nat. deor. iv 55 and, in general, Varro, Ling, vi 46. Curiosas did not, however, correspond exactly with πολυπράγμων (see Gellius xi 16. 8-9).

74 Charondas excluded the πολυπράγμων and the adulterer from his ban on comic lampoons (see Plut. Mor. 519 b). Early Christian communities classed the άλλοτριοεπ(σκοπος with the murderer and the thief (see Peter, Epist. i 4. 14). For the emperor Marcus Aurelius (Med. ii 1 ) the περίεργος ranked among the ungrateful, the violent, the treacherous, the envious and the unsociable. The leaders of the Athenian democracy, however, had accepted with some complacence the charge of πολυπραγμοσύνη against their own behaviour and the behaviour of Athens in regard to other Greek states (the evidence is discussed by Ehrenberg, V., JHS 67 [1947], 46–67).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Cf. vv. 521-4 and Chremes’ ill-concealed lubricity.

76 Earlier (v. 507) Menedemus had said of Chremes: hic mihi nunc quanto plus sapit quam egomet mihi. The substance of vv. 922–3 was that of a frequent criticism of Athenian demagogues; cf. Ar. Eccl. 400–402 οΰ δεινά τολμδν τουτονί δημη. γορεΐν, καΐ ταΰτα περί σωτηρίας προκειμένου, δς αυτός αυτω όλεφαρίδ’ ούκ έσώσατο;, Aesch-ines i 30τόν γάρτήν ιδίαν οίκίαν κακώς οίκήσαντα, και τά κοινά της πόλεως παραπλησίως ήγήσατο διαθήσειν, καΐ ούκ έδόκει οιόν τ’ είναι τω νομοθέτη τόν αύτόν άνθρωπον ιδία μέν είναι πονηρόν. δημοσία δέ χρηστόν, ούδ’ ώετο δείν τόν ρήτορα ήκειν έπΐ τό βήμα τών λόγων έπιμεληθέντα πρότερον, άλλ’ ού του βίου.

77 Cf. Theophr. Char. 13. 6 on the περίεργος who tries to show someone the way and gets lost himself.

78 Terence did not, however, portray Chremes as totally unsympathetic. M. Delcourt, Hommages … Herrmann, p. 258, reacts too violently against the common view in calling him ‘un vieux hobereau rapace, vaniteux et brutal’. Chremes’ exposure of an unwanted female child and use of strong language towards a disobedient wife would not have upset an ancient audience as much as it does an educated woman of present-day Europe.

79 See above, note 17.

80 See above, note 40.

81 For the rejection of this part of τα ήθικά by Ariston of Chios see Cic. Off. i 6, Sen. Epist. 89. 13, Sext. Emp. Math, vii 12.

82 See below, p. 32.

83 See v. 101 ui et uia peruolgata patrum; cf. Cic. Cael. 37 (speaking of a Caecilian senex), HOr. A.P. 173–4.

84 For paternal indulgence see Plaut. Asin. 64 ff., Bacch. 405 ff., Ter. Ad. 46 ff. Menedemus later (vv. 924-7) mischievously describes Chremes’ attitude at vv. 151–7 as one of approval for such indulgence.

85 See vv. 106–8 and note also the report of his proud boast simul rem et gloriam armis belli repperi (v. 112). For dignitas among the aristocratic politicians of the first century see Wegehaupt, H., Die Bedeutung und Anwendung von Dignitas in den Scliriften der republikanischen Zeit (Diss. Breslau, 1932);Google Scholar for gloria Knoche, U., ‘Der romische Ruhmesgedanke,’ Philologus 89 (1934), 102–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86 Cf. Plaut. Capt. 960–61 recle et uera loquere, sed neque < tu > uere neque recte udhucl’fecisti umquam (mere word-play), Ter. Ad. 986–8 quod te isti facilem et festiuom putant, id non fieri ex uera uita neque adeo ex aequo et bono,/ sed ex adsentando indulgendo et largiendo. In Republican drama a uera uirtus is sometimes distinguished from the uirtus which depends upon the judgment of ordinary men (cf. Plaut. Cas. 88, Cist. 198, Enn. Trag. 257, Plaut. Ampli. 75, Mil. 57).

87 Contrast on the one side Plautus, Mil. 706 nunc bene uiuo et fortunate atque ut nolo atque animo ut lubet, Most. 736 nos profecto probe ut uoluimus uiximus and on the other Plaut. Capt. 321–3 ne patri … decere uideatur magis,/ me saturum seruire apud te sumptu et uestitu tuo / potius quam illi, ubi minime honestumst, mendicantem uiuerc, Ter. Andr. 797–8 sese inhoneste optauit parere hic ditias / potius quam honeste in patria pauper uiueret (on the use of honeste before it became affected by philosophical καλώς see Klose, F., Die Bedeutung von honos und honestus [Diss. Breslau, 1933], pp. 98 ff.).Google Scholar

88 Cf. Ter. Heaut. 490 uidere uera atque uti res est dicere, 711 uera dicendo, 766 uerum dico, 993 uerum dicis.

89 Cf. Plato, Gorg. 526 d χαίρειν oOv έάσας τάς τιμάς τας των πολλών ανθρώπων, τήν άλήθειαν άσκών. Lach. 127b, Crito 48 c et al. The ‘Pythagorean’ Aeschylus had said of the warrior seer Amphiaraus [Sept. 592) ού γάρ δοκείν άριστος άλλ” είναι θέλει.

90 For Zeno’s doctrine see Diogenes Laert. vii 87; for that of Epicurus Diog. L. χ 128 and the reflections at Lucr. ν 1117 (siquis uera uitam ratione gubernat) and ν 1433 (uera uoluptas). Terence’s phraseology is reminiscent of Plato, Gorg. 525 a ουδέν ευθύ δια τό άνευ αληθείας τεθράφθαι, 526 C (ΨυΧήν) … είσιδών όσίως βεβιωκυίαν και μετ’ άληθείας. Rep. vi 490 b … μιγε’ις ™ δντι όντως, γεννήσας νοΰν και άλήθειαν, γνοΐη τε και άληθώς ζώη, 495 C έρημον και άτελή φιλοσοφίαν λείποντες αύτοί τε δίον ού προσήκοντα ούδ’ άληθή ζώσιν,Leg ii 663 άναγκαιον άρα τόν άδικον δίον ού μόνον αίσχίω και μοχθηρότερον, άλλά κάιάηδέστερον τή άληθεία τού δικαίου τε είναι καί όσιου βίου, Epist. vii 327 d Δίων … μεγάλας έλπίδας εΐχεν … δίον άν εύδαίμονα καί άληθινόν έν πάση τή χώρα κατασκευάσαι.

91 See Arist. Rhet. i 5. 1 ff. 1360 b 4 ff.

92 See Diog. L. vii 102. Cic. Fin. iii 33–4.

93 See Cic. Off. i 146. The far from philosophical Demea of the Adelphi (vv. 414–18), however, takes a similar view, as will Horace’s freedman father (Sat. i 4. 105 ff.).

94 See Arist. Eth. Nic. ii 6–9 1106 b 36–1109 b 26, Pol. iv 11 1295 a 38, Cic. Off.i 89.

95 Cf. Cic. Off. i 140. The philosophical doctrine is, of course, not always easy to distinguish from the popular μηδέν άγαν; see, for example, Ter. Andr. 58–61.

96 For philosophas see Plaut. Rud. 986, Ter. Andr. 57, Eun. 263, Pacuv. Trag. 348, 366, 372, Turpil. Com. 144; for philosophari see Plaut. Capt. 284, Merc. 147, Pseud. 687, 974, Enn. Trag. 340; for the particular philosophi Thaïes and Socrates see Plaut. Batch. 122, Rud. 1003, Pseud. 465; for the Cynici see Plaut. Persa 123–6, Stich. 703–4. On the Plautine passages see Middelmann, F., Griechische Welt und Sprache in Plautus’ Komòdien (Diss. Münster, 1938), p. 71.Google Scholar

97 For the different connotations of sapiens and philosophas in regard to the tag γνώθι σεαυτόν contrast Plaut. Stich. 123–4 and Pseud. 971–4. The boundary was not always clear; at Plaut. True. 78 a sapientia is the equivalent of φρόνησις, at Enn. Ann. 218 and Afran. Tog. 299 of σοφία. In general see Homeyer, H., ‘Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von “Sapientia”’, AC 25 (1956), 301–18,Google ScholarLuck, G., ‘Zur Geschichte des Begriffs “sapientia”’, Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 9 (1964), 203–15;Google Scholar G. Garbarino, ‘Evoluzione semantica dei termini sapiens e sapientia nei secoli III e II a.c.’, AAT c (1965–66), 253–84; Klima, U., Untersuchungen zu den Begriff Sapientia von der republikanischen Zeit bis Tacitus (Bonn, 1971).Google Scholar

98 The tragedies of the philosophical Euripides (cf. schol. Hippol. 953 τοιούτος έστιν άεί, τά ηρωικά πρόσωπα ε’ισάγων φιλοσοφοΟντα) were frequently translated; for philo-sophica in the surviving fragments of Roman tragedy see Enn. Trag. 183–90, 237–9, 269–71, 340, Pacuv. Trag. 86–93, 366–75. The mass of material presented by Coleman-Norton, P.R., ‘Philosophical Aspects of Early Roman Drama’, CPh 31 (1936), 320–37, needs to be sifted critically.Google Scholar

99 See Ter. Andr. 55–7.

100 See Heaut. 22–4, Ad. 15–21. Scholarly gossip identified these nobiles with Scipio Africanus and C. Laelius (see Cic. Att. vii 3. 10, Quint. Inst, x 1. 99, Donat. Vit. Ter. 4). In the year of the first production of the Heauton timorumenos Scipio would have been about 22 and Laelius 27. Scipio’s intercourse with Panaetius did not take place until many years later.

101 See Plut. Mor. 1100 d, Ath. xii 547 a, Sext. Emp. Math, ii 25, Ael. V.H. ix 12, fr. 39 (Suda, S.V. Επίκουρος).

102 See Suet. Rhet. 1, Geli, xv 11. 1.

103 See Plut. Cat. mai. 22. 7. For the whole episode see the rest of ch. 22 and Cic. De orat, ii 155, Ac. ii 137, Geli, vi 14. 8-9, Lact. Inst, v 15.

104 See Plato, Ap. 19 b (of Socrates) περιεργάζεται, ζητών τά τε υπό γης καί ουράνια.

105 See Plato, Leg. vii 821 a τον μέγιστον θεόν καί δλον τόν κόσμον φαμέν οϋτε ζητεϊν δεΐν ουτε πολυπραγμονείν τάς αιτίας έρευνώντας, Timon ap. Diog. Laert. ix 112 ίσπετε νυν μοι δσοι πολυπράγμονές έστε σοφιστα,ί, Horace, Sat. ii 3. 16–20 (dramatizing an encounter between himself and the Stoic Damasippus) di te, Damasippe, deaeque / uerum ob consilium donent tonsore. sed unde / tam bene me nosti ? ‘postquam omnis res mea lanum / ad medium fracta est, aliena negotia curo, / excussus propriis’. Philosophers themselves used the same pot of prejudice for stirring up feeling against those with wider or different interests from themselves; cf. Plato, Phaedr. 229 d où δύναμαί πω κατά τό Δελφικόν γράμμα γνώναι έμαυτόν γελοΐον δή μοι φαίνεταιτοΰτο Ετι άγνοοΟντα τά άλλότρια σκοπείν, Seneca, Epist. 118.2 sua satius est mala quam aliena fracture (complaining about the political content of Cicero’s letters to Atticus).

106 See Cic. Fin. v 6, v 49, Tuse, i 108.

107 with vv. 922-3 compare Eur. fr. 905 μισδ σοφιστήν δστις ούχ αύτφ σοφός, Enn. Trag. 240 qui ipse sibi sapiens prodesse non quit nequiquam sapit, 274 qui sibi semitam non sapiunt, alteri monstrant uiam, Mark, Evang. 15. 31 άλλους έσωσεν, έαυτόν où δύναται σώσαι. For the parallel criticism of demagogues see above, note 76.

108 Cf. his unwillingness to involve himself in the deception of another at vv. 782–3.

109 I have aside the much debated question of what stood in the Latin poet’s original. Certainly Menander’s open references to ot φιλόσοφοι (cf. Asp. 340, Sam. 725, frs 204, 622) are on the whole quite as uncomplimentary as are those of his immediate predecessors and contemporaries (cf. Alexis frs 36 [Ath. xii 544 e], 135 [Ath. iv 164 b], 245 [A"i. xiii 562 c], Xenarchus, fr. 7 [Ath. vi 225 c], Philemon, frs 71 [Stob. Ecl. iv 14 5], 85 [Diog. L. vii 27], Anaxippus, fr. 4 [Ath. xiii 610 f]). The comic poets made their personages reflect feelings strongly held among their audiences and philosophical education was still a live political issue at Athens at the end of the fourth century (see Diog. L. v 38).

110 See Soph. O.C. 260–63, 1125–7, Eur. Suppl. 187–90, Isoc. Ant. 20. For the altars of “Ελεος see Paus. i 17. 1, Sext. Emp. Math, ix 187. For the reputation of the Athenians among other nations see Callimachus, Aet. fr. 51, Cic. Phil, ν 14. In unphilosophical eyes this quality marked them off not so much from unreasoning animals as from the gods on one hand (see the beginning of Sophocles’ Ajax) and ol βάρβαροι (see Menander, Epitrep. 898–9) on the other. The Stoics, of course, regarded το Ιλεος35 an irrational passion unworthy of the wise man (see Diog. L. vii 111); Epicurus, as in many things, took the traditional Athenian view (see Lucr. ν 1019–23, Diog. L. χ 118).

111 See vv. 119–20, 151–7.

112 Above v. 78 in Grüninger’s edition (see above, note 20) is the gloss ’ut te non excrucies’. Palmerius (see above, note 21) summarized vv. 53-74 with ’sciscitabatur Chremes, quid tantopere animum Menedemi angeret’.

113 They had heard the title Heauton timorumenos from the prologus (v. 5) and perhaps read it on advertisements. They did not read it on every other page of a printed book.

114 See Varro, Rust, ii 11. 12. For the labourer’s διφθέρα cf. Ar. Nub. 72, Plato, Crit. 53 d, Menander, Dysc. 415, Epitrep. 229.

115 See vv, 88, 92. For the heaviness of these implements see Virg. Georg, i 164, Ov. Met. xi 36. In general see White, K.D. , Agricultural Implements of the Roman World (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 52–6.Google Scholar

116 Cf. Menander, Asp. 250 ff., Plautus, Pseud. 415 ff. The old man of the Pseudolus makes his first appearance from off stage rather than from his own house. Beare, W., Hermathena 74 (1949), 36,Google Scholar visualizes the scene correctly; some (e.g. Warnecke, B., Philologus 84 [1929], 118–19),Google Scholar postulate a change of scenery between v. 170 and v. 171; others (e.g. Drexler, H., Hermes 73 [1938], 66)Google Scholar have Chremes come out of his house at v. 53.

117 See v. 56 uel uirtus tua … uel uicinitas.

118 Contrast the approach of Gorgias to Sostratus at Men. Dysc. 269 ff., of Eunomia to Megadorus at Plaut. Aul. 120 ff., of Megaronides to Callicles at Trin. 45 ff. Chremes is aware, however, that he could be accused of audacia (see v. 58). This was a disposition strongly disapproved of by the personages of comedy (see, e.g., Ter. Andr. 217, 401, 613, 769) and by right-thinking Roman gentlemen in the next century (cf. Ch. Wirszubski, JRS li [1961], 12–20).

119 For the comparative wealth of the two old men see above, notes 56 and 59.

120 For maliuolentia and curiositas among poor men see Plaut. Stich. 198–208.

121 Cf. Hdt. i 8 πάλαι δέ τά καλά άνθρώτίοισι έξεύρηται έξ ών μανθάνειν δεί’ έν τοΐσι êv τόδε έστί,σκοπέειν τινά τά έαυτοΟ (Gyges to Candaules), Plato, Charm. 161 b ΥάΡ άνεμνήσθην - ó ήδη του ήκουσα λέγοντος - δτι σωφροσύνη άν εΐη τό τά έαυτοΟ πράττειν, Tim. 72 a εδ καί πάλαι λέγεται τά πράττειν καί γνώναι τά τε έαυτοΟ καί έαυτον σώφρονι μόνω προσήκειν, Men. Monost. 629 Jäkel πράττων τά σαυτοϋ, μή τά των άλλων σκόπει. The conventions of men were reflected in those the poets imagined among the gods; cf. Poseidon’s complaint about the behaviour of Zeus, Homer, II. XV 187 ff., the Erinyes’ complaint about Apollo, Aesch. Eum. 574–5.

122 Cf, Plato, Rep. iv 433 a δτι γε τό τά έαυτοΟ πράττειν καί μή πολυπραγμονεΐν δικαιοσύνη έστί, καί τούτο άλλων τε πολλών άκηκόαμεν καί αύτοί πολλάκις εϊρήκαμεν.

123 I have in mind the law forbidding scaenici to name citizens (see Anon. rhet. Herenn. ii 19) and the care with which orators behaved when referring to citizens by name (cf. Cic. S. Rose. 6). See also Cic. Lael. 45 (on the relationship between amici) partim fugiendas esse nimias amicitias … satis superque esse sibi suarum cuique rerum, alienis nimis implicari moiestum esse. Off. i 125 (on the relationship between peregrinus and ciuis) peregrini autem atque incolae officium est nihil praeter suum negotium agere, nihil de alio anquirere minimeque esse in aliena re publica curiosum.

124 See Men. Dysc. 326 ff. Praxagora’s communism (Ar. Eccles. 651) entails all agricultural work being done by slaves. The normal pattern of behaviour among second century Roman country gentlemen can be deduced from Cato’s treatise De agricultura.

125 For the censor as πολυπράγμων See Plaut. Trin. 871–2.

126 Cato’s expulsion of a man from the senate for kissing his wife in the presence of their daughter was recorded (Plut. Cat. mai. 17. 7, Mor. 139 e) as an eccentricity.

127 Chremes is not even an amicus of Menedemus as Megaronides is of Callicles in the Trinummus. The other comic πολυπράγμων listed by T. B. L. Webster (see above, note 69), the Smicrines of the “Επιτρέποντες, had the excuse of needing to protect his own daughter’s welfare.

128 Contrast Men. Sam. 454-5 ούχί σόν,/μά τόν Άπόλλω, τοΟργον έστίν άλλά παντελώς έμόν. Plaut. Cure. 631 quid istuc ad uos attinet?, Most. 940 heus senex, quid tu percontare ad le quod nihil attinet?, Persa 235 quid id ad te attinet?, 284 quid id attinet ad te?, Stick. 666 quid id ad te attinet?

129 129 Contrast the tone with which similar language is used at Plaut. Mil. 994-5 numquis hie prope adest qui rem alienanm potius curet quam suam,/ qui aucupet me quid agam, qui de uesperí uiuat suo?, Most. 940–42 heus senex, quid tu percontare ad te quod nihil attinet?/ : : nihil ad me attinet? : : nisi forte factu’s praefectus nouos,/ qui res alienas procures, quaeras, uideas, audias. Stich. 198-200 sed curiosi sunt hic complures mali, / alienas res qui curant studio maxumo, / quibus ipsi s nullast res quam procurent sua, Truc. 136–7 nimis otiosum te arbitror hominem esse. : : qui arbitrare? / : : quia tuo uestimento et cibo alienis rebus curas.

130 Cf. André, J.-M., L’Otium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine (Paris, 1966), pp. 67 ff.Google Scholar

131 For Menedemus’ intent cf. Syrus’ words at vv. 591–3 quid ilium porro credas facturum, Chreme, / nisi e um … seruas castigas mones? / : : ego istuc curabo. Whereas the noun cura extends quite often in Republican drama from managerial effort (on the original difference between this word and φροντίς see M. Hauser, Der römische Begriff cura [Diss. Basle, 1954]) to mental anxiety (cf. Ter. Andr. 260, 304, p horm. 160, 441, Hec. 347; hence Varro’s misleading etymology cura quod cor urat [Ling, vi 46]), the denominative curare goes much less often in the same direction (not at all in Terence, possibly at Plaut. Mil. 201, Persa 264).

132 Cf. Schulz, F., Classical Roman Law (Oxford, 1951), p. 339.Google Scholar

133 Alienus actually occurs in a fragment of the Twelve Tables Law (8, 8b Bruns). It belongs formally with the adjectives in -inus (cf., in the legal language, diuinus, Latinus et sim., peregrinus, uicinus), the -e- being brought about by the preceding -i- (cf. lanius and [taberna] laniena). Rem alienam / negotium alienum curare did not have in itself a bad sense (cf. Cic. Top. 66, Sail. lug. 83. 1).

134 See above, note 51.

135 I should fill out the ellipses with <si istuc> rectumst … <si> non est and regard both ego ut faciam and te ut deterream as dependent on percontari. Most students (I have not seen de Meo, C., Latinitas 15 [1967], 199–201)Google Scholar seem to follow either directly or indirectly the explanation suggested by G. Faernus (Florence, 1565): ’puta me uel percontari hoc uel monere: percontari quidem, ut si rectum est quod tu facis, cum tantum laboras, ego quoque cum id cognouero rectum esse, idem faciam; monere uero, ut si non est rectum, te ab ea re deterream.’

136 See Plaut. Bacch. 330 et al.

137 See Plaut. Amph. 79 et al.

138 See Plaut. Batch. 732, Epid. 553, Ter. Ad. 920.

139 An unconventional personage of different stamp utters at Ad. 98–9: homine imperito numquam quicquam iniustiust, / qui nisi quod ipse fecit nil rectum putat.

140 140.For the absolute distinction between τά όρθόν and κατόρθωμα among the Stoics see Diog. L. vii 127. For the verb κατορθοΟν and the noun τό στρεδλόν in the technical vocabulary of Chrysippus see Plut. Mor. 1041 c. The terminology, however, was not particularly Stoic; cf. Plato, Rep. vii 540 d οί ώς αληθώς φιλόσοφοι δυνάσται . . . τό δέ όρθόν περί πλείστου ποιησάμενοι.

141 Cf. Isoc. Nicoci. 52 XP” τοις είρημένοις ή ζήτει βελτίω τούτων (philosopher to royal ex-pupil), Cic. Tuse, v 82 habes quae fortissime de beata aita dici putem, et quomodo nunc est, nisi quid tu melius attuleris, etiam uerissume (Cicero, in role of magister, to young discipulus). There are parodies of the formula at Plaut. Epid. 263–4 si place bit utitor, / consilium si non placebit, reperitole rectius (a slave is playing the sapiens; contrast Ter. Andr. 679–80) and at Hor. Epist. i 6. 67–8 si quid nouisti rectius istis / candidas imperli: si nil, his utere mecum. Roman emperors adopted it in speaking to the Senate; cf. Cass. Dio lv 4. 1 τοΐζ βουλειπαΐς άναγνώναι έπέτρεψεν δπως αν τι μέάρέση αύτούς ή καί έτερον τι βέλτιον συμβούλευσαν δυνηθωσιν εΐπωσιν (writing of Augustus), Claudius, BGU 611 (col. iii 10-14 [= E. M. Smallwood, Documents 367]) haec, patres conscripti, si uobis placent, statim significate simpliciter et ex animi uestri sententia; sin displicent, alia reperite … remedia. E. Fraenkel’s article in Philologus lxxxv (1930), 355 (not reprinted in Kleine Beiträge) is wrong-headed but contains instructive material.

142 See the speech put into the mouth of Hippias at Plato, Prot. 337 c and the papyrus fragments of Antiphon, P. Oxy. xi 1364 (B 44 Diels). For the history of the doctrine see F. Heinimann, Nomos und Physis (Basle, 1945); Guthrie, W.K.C., A History of Greek Philosophy 3 (Cambridge, 1969) pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar

143 See Cic. Ac i 19 ff.

144 See Plato, Rep. iii 416 d - 417 a.

145 See Plato, Rep. iv 423 e, v 457 c - 466 d, Philod. De Stoicis col. 9, Plut. Cat. min. 25. 3, Diog. L. vii 131.

146 Cf. Cic. Off. i 21, ii 73, Sen. Epist. 88. 12.

147 Cf. Ar. Eccles. 590 ff.

148 Cf. Ar. Nub. 1075 ff.

149 The excuse of the Euripidean heroine,ή Φύσις έβοΰλεθ’, J νόμων ούδέν μέλει- γυνή δ’ έπ” αότφ τωδ’ ίφυν, became famous (see the material collected by Nauck on fr. 920 and add Men. Epitr. 1123–4).

150 Cf. Cic. Fam, xv 17. 3 multos miseriis leuauit et … se in his malis hominem praebuit.

151 Cf. the conjunction of the abstracts humanitas and misericordia at Anon. rhet. Herenn. ii 24, 26, 50.

152 Cf. the conjunction of humanitas and beniuolentia at Cic. Verr. ii 3. 59 and the use of humanus at Cat. m. 59 of Persian Cyrus (for the latter’s φιλανθρωπία see Xen. Cyrop. i 2. 1, i 4. 1, viii 2. 1).

153 Heinemann, J., RE Suppl. V (1931), 299–300, s.v. Humanitas, S. Prete, “Humanus” nella letteratura arcaica latina, 15 ff., and H. Haffter, Mus.H x (1953), 95–6, Neue Schweizer Rundschau n.s. xxi (1953–4), 722–3, exaggerate the closeness of the link between the usage of drama and some of the usages observable in the writings of Cicero and Varro.Google Scholar

154 Cf. Plaut. Amph. 60–61 me perpetuo facere ut sit comoedia, / reges quo ueniant et di, non par arbitror.

155 See Plaut. Asin. 712 ff., Capt. 860 ff., Cas. 331 ff., 406 ff., Persa 99 f., Pseud. 324 ff., 709, 736, Caecil. Com. 36, 264.

156 Cf. Varro, Ling, v 66. The archaic form diuos was used occasionally (by Terence only at Ad. 746) as a paratragic variant of deus.

157 Cf. Priscian, Gramm. Lat. II 26. 25 uetustissimi … ’huminem’ pro ’hominem’ preferentes. Quint. Inst, i 6. 34 sneers at what seems to have been Varro’s hominem … quia sit humo natus.

158 Cf. Plato, Cratyl. 399 c σημαίνει τούτο τό δνομα ó άνθρωπος δτι τά μέν αλλα θηρία ων όρά ούδέν έπισκοπεί ούδ’ άναλογίζεται ούδ’ άναθρεΐ, δ δέ άνθρωπος άμα έώρακεν … καί άναθρεΐ καί λογίζεται τούτο ο δπωπεν μόνον τών θηρίων όρθως ô άνθρωπος άνθρωπος ώνομάσθη, άναθρων δπωιτεν, Etym. Magri, p. 99. 16 άνθρωπος, παρά τό άνω θρεΐν, βλέπειν ... ή παρά τό εΰαρθρον £χειν τήν όπα, τουτέστι τήν φωνήν.

159 Cf. Plaut. Asin. 495 lupus est homo homini, non homo, quom qualis sit non nouit, Stich. 64 non homines habitare mecum hic uidentur sed sues. Here might also be noted Ter. Hec. 214 me omnino lapidem, non hominem putas.

160 cf. Plaut. Bacch. 1169 non homo tuquidem es, qui istoc pacto tam lepidam inlepide appelles, Ter. Hec. 554-6 nam si is posset ab ea sese derepente auellere / quicum tot consuesset annos, non eum hominem ducerem / nec uirum satis fir mum gnatae.

161 Cf. Plaut. Poen. 89 si leno est homo, Ter. Eun. 460 ex homine hunc natum dicas?, Ad. 107-8 et tu ilium tuom, si esses homo, / sineres nunc facere dum per aetatem decet, 934-5 si tu sis homo, / hic faciat, Turpil. Com. 165 quare esse dicat quisquam illum hominem aut quidquam facere humanitus.

162 Homo is not used to distinguish males from females except perhaps at Plaut. Cist. 723.

163 Cf. Plaut. Amph. 210 ui uirisque, 212 uiri … uirtute et uiribus, Lucr. v 964 uiolenta uiri uis, Livy xxii 5. 2 ui ac uirtute (xxv 23. 1, xxvi 39. 11).

164 Tragedy has uir 20 times, homo 10; the figures for Plautus are 246 : 780, for Terence 65 : 177, for the rest of comedy 5 : 23.

165 Cf. Ter. Hec. 522.

166 Cf. Plaut. Amph. 502, 710, 716, 812, Cas. 586, 588, 974, Mil. 687, 691, Ter. Heaut. 622, 1005, 1015, 1048, Phorm. 991, 1002, Hec. 235.

167 Cf. Plaut. Cas. 266, Ter. Heaut. 1003.

168 Cf. Ter. Phorm. 1005 (it is not, however, completely clear who the addressee is here). Note also Ter. Hec. 524–6.

169 For homo see Plaut. Epid. 575, 637, Mil. 425, Ter. Andr. 778; for mi homo see Plaut. Cist. 719, 723, Epid. 640, Persa 620, Truc. 942, Ter. Andr. 721, 778, Eun.756, Ad. 336.

170 Cf. Plaut. Cist. 231, Men. 325.

171 Cf. Plaut. Curc. 412, Men. 826, Trin. 970, Ter. Eun. 804.

172 Cf. Plaut. Mil. 624, 684.

173 Cf. Plaut. Capt. 583 est miserorum ut maleuolentes sint, Ter. Hec. 529 neque adeo arbitrari patris est aliter.

174 For meus see Plaut. Asin. 189-90 maledictis te earn dudare postulas./:: non meum est. : : nec meum quidem edepol ad te ut mittam gratiis, Mil. 1363 ne me deseras. : : non est meum, Persa 46 hoc meum est ut faciam seduto, Rud. 341 uera praedicas. :: non est meum, Trin. 123 quid feci ? :: quod homo nequam : : non istuc meumst, 630-31 facis . . . iniuriam./ : : : ; neque meumst, Ter. Heaut. 549 non est mentiri meum, 782 non meast simulatio; for tuus see Plaut. Poen.573 nec tuom quidem est amicis per iocum iniusta loqui, Stich. 718 haud tuom istuc est te uereri; for noster see Ter. Heaut. 578 nostrum est intellegere utquomque atque ubiquomque opus sit obsequi; for uester see Plaut. Poen. 572 hau uostrumst iracundos esse quod dixi ioco.

175 For lenonius see Plaut. Pseud. 289; meretricius Plaut. Bacch. 40; patrius Ter. Ad. 74.

176 See below, p. 36.

177 Officium shifted from ’deed’ to ’duty’ in the same way; see E. Bernert, De ui atque usu uocabuli officii (Diss. Breslau, 1930).

178 It is instructive to compare what Geta reports himself as saying to Phormio about his master Demipho at Ter. Phorm. 637-9 (si tu aliquam partem aequi bonique dixeris, / ut est ille bonus uir, tria non commutabitis / uerba hodie inter uos) with what he says to Demipho about Phormio at v. 774 haud scio hercle, ut homost, an mutet animum.

179 Note vv. 477–8 tun libero homini / male seruos loquere ?

180 Cf. Plaut. Trin. 563–4 quid censes ? homost:/ uolt fieri liber.

181 Cf. Plaut. Amph. 258–9 deduntque se, diuina huinanaque omnia, urbem et liberos / in dicionem. The word’s formal companions in comedy were germanus, publicanus, Romanus, urbanus and the like. Its exact historical relationship with humus and homo is in dispute.

182 See Schultz, F., Prinzipien des römischen Rechts (Munich, 1934), pp. 128 ff.Google Scholar

183 Cf. Afranius, Tog. 289-90. The case of Ter. Heaut. 550-52 is doubtful; this could refer to what Clitipho may do rather than to what Chremes may suffer.

184 Cf. Plaut. Merc. 319 humanum amare est, humanum autem ignoscere est, Truc. 218 humanum facinus factumst, Ter. Andr. 236 hoccinest humanum factu aut inceptu? hoccinest officium patris?, Ad. 466–71 filiam eius uirginemluitiauit … humanumst, 686–7 uirginem uitiasti … iam id peccatum primum sane magnum, at humanum tamen. In these phrases humanum est corresponds with hominis est at Ter. Ad. 733–6 (see above, p. 35). Likewise humani ingeni est (cf. Plaut. Most. 814, Ter. Andr. 113–14) is another stylistic variant of hominis est.

185 See Andr. 277–80 adeon me ignauom putas, / adeon porro ingratum aut inhumanum aut ferum, / ut neque me consuetudo neque amor neque pudor / commoueat neque commoneat ut seruem fidem?, Phorm. 509–10 hicine? quod homo inhumanissimus,/ Pamphilam meam uendidit, Hec. 85–6 cum milite / Corinthum hinc sum profecta inhumanissimo, 499 non credidi edepol adeo inhumanum fore. Cf. Eun. 880 non adeo inhumano ingenio sum (and Plaut. True. 780 uos colubrina ingenio ambae estis). Plaut. Rud. 767 is totally obscure.

186 For uix humane see Ad. 145; for non humanitus Heaut. 99; for inhumane Heaut. 1046 (cf. Ad. 107-8, 733-6). Negation is implied at Turpil. Com. 165, Humanitus is used positively, however, at Afran. Tog. 290 (cf. Cic. Tusc. ii 65 for humane ferre) in a way that suggests one common Greek use of άνθρωπος and such passages as Cic. Fam. v 16. 2 and v 17. 3 (see above, note 42).

187 See Plaut. Amph. 28, Cas. 334, Mil. 1043 (conjecture).

188 See above, p. 21.

189 Cf. Plaut. Merc. 611/Mil. 1321, Psued. 95, Trin. 513, 557. See further below, p. 41.

190 It would be accident that the phrase common in classical writings, non alienum est (uidetur, esse puto), is not recorded before Anon. rhet. Herenn. ii 16. This phrase is of a piece with those described above in note 174.

191 Cf. Pohlenz, M., Antikes Führertum (Leipzig-Berlin, 1934), p. 29 n.Google Scholar 4, Hermes Ixxviii (1943), 275 (=Kl. Schr. II 43), Brink, C.O., TLL 6 iii (Leipzig, 1936–42), 2878. 74, s.v.Google Scholarhomo, W. Ehlers, ibid. 3090. 53, s.v. humanus. For protests against taking Cicero’s quotations in the same way as Seneca’s see Prete, S., ’Humanus” nella letteratura arcaica latina, pp. 43–5;Google ScholarDelcourt, M., Hommages … Herrmann, pp. 257–8.Google Scholar

192 For a list of performances see G. Krókowski, ’De ueteribus Romanorum tragoediis primo post Chr. n. saeculo adhuc lectitatis et de Thyeste Annaeana’, Tragica I (Prace Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego Ser. A. Nr. 41, Wroclaw, 1952), 114–15.

193 See Rhet. anon. Herenn. iv 7, Cic. De orat. i 154, i 246.

194 See the verses quoted by Donatus, Vit. Ter. 7 (p. 9. 2 Wessner) and Att. vii 3. 10.

195 See Schafler, J., ‘Ciceros verhaltnis zur altromischen Komodie’, Blatt. f.d. Bayer. Gymnas. 20 (1884), 285 ff.,Google ScholarSchollmeyer, E., Quid Cicero de poetis Romanorum iudicauerit (Diss. Halle Sax. 1884), pp. 9 f.Google Scholar, 24 f., Kubik, J., ‘De M. Tullii Ciceronis poetarum Latinorum studiis’, Diss. Phil. Vindob. 1 (1887), 321 ff.,Google ScholarTschernjaew, P., Terentiana: De Ciceronis studiis Terentianis (Kazan, 1897), pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar, Bertrand, E., Ciceron au theatre (Grenoble, 1897), pp. 20 f.Google Scholar, Zillinget, W., Cicero und die altròmischen Dichter (Würzburg, 1911), pp. 39 ff.Google Scholar, Malcovati, E., Cicerone e la Poesia (Pavia, 1943), pp. 163 ff.Google Scholar, Laidlaw, W.A., ‘Cicero, Plautus and Terence’, PACA 2 (1959), 21–4.Google Scholar

196 See Varro, Rust, ii 11. 12.

197 The attempt of Testard, M., ‘Ciceron lecteur de Terence’, Caesarodunum 4 (1969), 157–69Google Scholar (see also REL xlvii [1969], 8), to psychologize the way Cicero uses his knowledge of the play is hardly convincing.

198 For references by the Stoic Chrysippus to Menander see Plut. Mor. 450 a, Diog, L. vii 68. Chrysippus’ copious references to poetry of all kinds (see Galen, Plac. Hipp, et Plat, iii 2–3, Diog. L. vii 180) tended to percolate through later literature, even through that from rival schools.

199 Cf. Cic. Tusc. iv 35.

200 Cf. Cic. Cael. 37.

201 Plato, Rep. i 343 c. Cf. Arist. Eth. Nie. v 1. 17 1130 a 3, v 6. 2 1134 b 5.

202 Cf. the quotation of Caecil. Com. 211-14 at Nat. deor, i 13. M. Pohlenz (see above, note 191) derived all Off. i 29-30, including the poetical reference, from Panaetius’ treatise.

203 See above, p. 32.

204 “Ανθρωπος was however, so used by Menander (cf. fr. 484 ώς χσρίεν έστ- άνθρωπος άν άνθρωπος ft and note Clem. Alex. Strom, viii 3. 5). For homo and knowledge of the social proprieties see Cic. Att. xiii 52. 2 homines uisi sumus (boasting of the success of the dinner party he gave for the aristocrat Caesar) and in general Off. i 96 generale quoddam decorum . . . sic fere definiri solet, decorum id esse, quod consentaneum sit hominis excellentiae in eo, in quo natura eius a reliquis animan-tibus differat, i 144 ut, si qui, cum causant sit acturus, in itinere aut in ambulatione secum ipse meditetur, aut si quid aliud attentius cogitet, non reprehendatur, at hoc idem si in conuiuio facial, inhumanas uidealur inscitia temporis, i 145 … ea quae multum ab humanitate discrepant, ut si qui in foro cantet.

205 See Tuse, i 36-7 (Trag. inc. 73-7), i 106 (Pacuv. Trag. 197–201), Diu. ii 104 (Enn. Trag. 269-70), Fin. v 63 (Pacuv. Trag. 365), Lael. 24 (Pacuv. Trag. 365). Greek writers told similar stories; cf. Plut. Vit. Arisi. 3. 5 (Aesch. Sept. 592), Mor. 33 c (Eur. fr. 19), 756 b (Eur. fr. 480). Greek philosophical sources would underlie Cic. Tusc. iv 63 (Eur. Orest. 1–3) and Sen. Epist. 115. 14-15 (Eur. fr. 324).

206 For this use of stultus in a Stoic context see Cic. Fin. iii 60–61.

207 cui sententiae ferunt etiam theatra tota … applausisse. Doubtless there was only one theatrum in the original story. In the two letters to Macedonius (153 and 155) an unusually large amount of reference is made to pagan literature and philosophy. For Augustine’s hostility to the public stage see C. D. i 32, ii 8–13 (based largely on a passage of the fourth book of Cicero’s De republica), iv 1, 10, 26 and, in general, Weismann, W., Kirche und Schauspiele. Die Schauspiele im Urteil der lateinischen Kirchenvater (Wiirzburg, 1972).Google Scholar

208 Cf. Lact. Inst. diu. vi 10 and, in general, see Pétré, H., Caritas (Louvain, 1948), pp. 200 ff.Google Scholar

209 As had been many pagan writers, like Seneca (see below , p. 43) and Marcus Aurelius (cf. Med. ix 42. 4 δ άνθρωπος ευεργετικός πεφυκώς, δπόταν τι εΰεργετικόν ή άλλως εις τά μέσα συνεργετικόν πράξη, πεποίηκε προς ο κατασκεύασται καί έχει τχ> έαυτοΟ). On the sub-branches of ή δικαιοσύνη in stoic ethical theory see above, note 17.

210 W. Headlam had this passage of Cicero in mind rather than homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto when he supplemented Men. fr. 602 Kock (=fr. 475 Körte) as <.άνθρωπος είμ’•άνθρωποφούδείς έστί μοιò άλλότριος, άν ή ανχρηστό? … (CR xiii [1899], 7) and suggested that this was Terence’s original.

211 Cf. Plaut. Capt. 146-8 alienas quom eius incommodum tarm aegre feras, / quid me patrem par facerest, quoi ile est unicus? / :: alienus? ego alienus illi?, Ter. Phorm. 545 ego uobis, Geta, alienus sum? :: haud puto, Cic. Vatin. 3 quem a te alienis-simum cum dixisses, Dom. 1ll quidam homo nobilis, non alienus ab hoc religioso Lìbertatis sacerdote, Cluent. 87 hominem ab utroque alienissimum. There is a perceptible extension of the usage in Ter. Hec. 158-9 postquam hunc alienum ab sese uidet, / maligna multo et mage procáx facta ilico est, Ad. 326 Aeschinus … alienus est ab nostra familia: evidence appears earlier of a corresponding extension of meus from ’a person whom 1 own’ to ’a person who feels affection for me’ (cf. Plaut. Cist. 21, 53, 59, 71, 95, 107 et al.).

212 See Porphyry, De abstin. iii 19 and, for the relations between Stoic οίκε,ίωσις and the teachings of earlier schools, C. O. Brink, Phronesis i (1955), 123–45, HSCPh lxiii (1958), 193–8.

213 213 See above, p. 31.

214 For conciliare and women cf. Plaut. Mil. 801, 1212; and slaves Plaut. Epid. 472, Persa 538, Pseud. 133, Ter. Eun. 669.

215 For commendare cf. Plaut. Cist. 245, Trin. 113, 877, Ter. Eun. 577, 886 (a paradoxical use and thereby the more instructive), 1039, Phorm. 218, 288, Ad. 457.

216 See Fin. iii 16 placet his … simulatque natum sit animal … ipsum sibi conciliari et commendari ad se conseruandum et ad suum statum eaque, quae conseruantia sunt eius status, diligenda, alienari autem ab interim Usque rebus, quae interitum uideantur aferre, 18 a falsa autem assensione magis nos alienatos esse …, 21 prima est enim conciliatio hominis ad ea quae sunt secundum naturam, 22 non inest in primis naturae conciliationibus honesta actio, 23 quem ad modum saepe fit, ut is, qui commendatus sit alicui, pluris eum facial, cui commendatus sit, quam ilium a quo, sic minime mirum est primo nos sapientiae commendari ab initiis naturae, post autem ipsam sapientiam nobis cariorem fieri, quam ilia sint, a quibus ad hanc uenerimus. With hominem ab homine … non alienum contrast Off. i 12 eademque natura ui rationis hominem conciliat homini, i 50 ratio et oratio quae … conciliat inter se homines. The language of the Greek Stoics percolated into rhetorical eulogy; cf. Lucian, Demon. 10 Φίλος μέν ήv άπασι καί ούκ εστίν δντινα ούκ οϊκεϊον ένόμιζεν, ανθρωτιόν γε δντα.

217 Cf. Fin. iii 64–8, v 65–8, Lael. 32, Off. i 22, i 42–60, ii 62, iii 27, iii 52–3.

218 See above, notes 5, 152, 204.

219 See R. Reitzenstein’s account of Cicero’s usage, Werden und Wesen der Humanität im Altertum, pp. 23–5, and H. Haffter’s account, Philologus c (1956), 301 n. 1, of Mayer’s, M. unpublished dissertation, Humanitas bei Cicero (Freiburg, i. Br. 1951).Google Scholar

220 See Seneca’s own remarks at Dial, v 37. 5, Epist. 58. 5, ap. Gell, xii 2. 3–9. Contrast Persius’ allusion to Menander’s Εύνοχος at 5. 161–3 (see schol.) with Horace’s to Terence’s version at Sat. ii 3. 259–71.

221 Afranius’ Incendium was performed during Nero’s reign (Suetonius, Ner. 11. 4), more, however, because of the opportunity for spectacle it offered than because of any excellence perceived in its script.

222 See Suet. Gramm. 16 (on Q. Caecilius Epiroca), 23 (on Remmius Palaemon).

223 Cf. that of Plaut. Trin. 23-6 taken from a common source by Anon. rhet. Herenn. ii 35 and Cic. Inuent. i 95; on this source see Matthes, D., Lustrum 3 (1958), 92–3.Google Scholar

224 Trag. 15 at 102. 16. Cf. Cic. Tusc. iv 67, Fam. v 12. 7, xv 6. 1.

225 Most scholars (cf. Heinemann, J., Poseidonios’ metaphysische Schriften 2 [Breslau, 1928], p. 47,Google ScholarTheiler, W., Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus2 [Berlin-Zürich, 1964], p. 120)Google Scholar make Posidonius the source of Seneca’s argument. Gomoll, H., Der stoische Philosoph Hekaton (Bonn, 1933), p. 56, gives it to Hecaton.Google Scholar

226 Cf. Nat. iv pr. 18, Epist. 4. 10.

227 Cf. Epist. 99. 20, 115. 3, Benef. vi 29. 1.

228 Cf., a little earlier, Valerius Maximus v 1 (’de humanitate et dementia’).

229 See Tac. Dial, passim, Mart, xi 90. Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria has more quotations of Terence than of other Republican dramatists but very few seem to be arguably first-hand quotations.

230 See Suet. Gramm. 24.

231 See Jocelyn, H.D., Antichthon 1 (1967), 61–2.Google Scholar

232 See 1. 20, 165.

233 See 6. 634–7 where it is Sophoclean tragedy which is made the opposite pole to satire.

234 Zeno is named at vv. 106–7 and many commentators (e.g. L. Friedlaender, p. 590) have seen Stoicism in vv. 131–58; for the old Stoic attitude to τό Ελεος, however, see above, note 110 and for Seneca’s Clem, ii 4. 4, ii 5. 1. M. Coffey, ’New Introduction’ to Duff’s, J.D.Fourteen Satires of Juvenal (Cambridge, 1970), p. lxxiv,Google Scholar is careful with his ’Juvenal’s impassioned plea for human pity . . . has the colouring of organised philosophy’.

235 See Servius, Virg. Aen. i 410, Arusianus Messius, Gramm. Lat. vii 449 ff., Jerome, Comm. in Hiezechielem, prol. lib. vii, Apol. adu. lib. Rufin. i 16, Augustine, Conf. i 16. 26.

236 On the scholia in the Bembine codex see Mountford, J.E., The Scholia Bembina, edited with annotations (Liverpool-London, 1934).Google Scholar

237 On the sources of the Donatus commentary see Wessner, P., Aemilius Asper. Ein Beitrag zur römischen Literaturgeschichte (Halle, 1905), pp. 12 ff.Google Scholar, Aistermann, J., De M. Valerio Probo Berytio (Bonn, 1910), pp. 33 ff.Google Scholar

238 Donatus’ reference to female actors (Andr. 716) can hardly come from any very old commentator. It must be said, however, thai the archaeological considerations adduced by Webster, T.B.L., AJA 66 (1962), 333 ff.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar have little weight.

239 See above, p. 40.

240 Ambrose did have some direct knowledge of Terence; see Courcelle, P., RFL 1 (1972), 223–31.Google Scholar

241 Off. i 22 is conflated with i 30. For the influence of Cicero’s discussion of iustitia (i 20–60) on that of Pomerius (iii 21–8) see Hagendahl, H., Latin Fathers and the Classics (Göteborg, 1958Google Scholar= Stud. Grace, et Lat. vi), pp. 373 ff.

242 It is possible that Julianus, who liked to exhibit his knowledge of the pagan authors, had quoted homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto and that Augustine simply throws the quotation back at him.

243 There are two other allusions to Terence’s scripts in Paulinus’ letters (7. 3 [Ad. 96–7], 34. 5 [Ad. 394]), Ausonius, who taught Paulinus in Bordeaux, certainly knew Terence well; see C. Schenk’s ‘Index scriptorum’, p. 268.

244 Augustine quotes the scripts often (cf. H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics [Stockholm, 1967 = Stud. Graec. et Lat. Gothoburg. XX ii], pp. 378 ff.) and on one occasion (Conf. i 16. 26) expresses shame at the pleasure reading them once gave him.

245 See above, p. 40.