1. As noted by Duckworth (1952), 174 n.63, 394 n.19.

2. Parker (1996) argues strongly that on neither of the first two occasions on which it was presented did the Hecyra ‘fail’ in the sense that it was rejected by the audience; rather, the play was interrupted on each occasion by an invasion of hoons. According to Parker these earlier productions would not have been mentioned at all if they had been genuine failures as ‘playwrights seldom draw attnetion to their flops’ (601). But this surely is the point: Terence knows that his audience knows that this is not the first time this play has been put on, and therefore directs his rhetoric towards demonstrating that it wasn’t the play that was at fault but ‘circumstances beyond his control’ (interuenit uilium et calamitas, 2). On the rhetorical strategies employed in these prologues, see Lada-Richards (2004), 56–65. See further nn.62 and 63 below.

3. Even this needs qualification, since according to its didascalia the Adelphoe was successfully produced at the funeral games for L. Aemilius Paullus whereas the Hecyra suffered its second failure at this same event. It finally achieved a successful production later in 160. Thus if one follows the order of first success, the Hecyra should come sixth with the Adelphoe coming fifth.

4. Contra Norwood (1923), 12; Slater (1987–88), 249f. Norwood’s interpretation of planest pro noua (5) as ‘entirely new’ is manifestly wrong; nor does the phrase even give support to Slater’s more cautious ‘there are good grounds for believing that Terence did not simply produce exactly the same script all three times but attempted to improve it’. To describe something as pro noua in fact implies that there is nothing ‘new’ about it at all. Cf. OLD under pro 6.

5. Ireland (1990), 105 ad loc. notes that the term uitium is taken from augury ‘where the word signified an event of ill-omen preventing the commencement of proceedings or interrupting them once begun’. This of course also serves to shift the blame—this time by implication on to a higher power. It is interesting, given the importance of it in determining our response to this play, that uitium is also the word for ‘rape’ (383; cf. Eun. 722; Ad. 296, 308); as we shall see, the Hecyra features a nouom uitium in this sense, too.

6. It is significant that Terence never refers to his audience as Plautus so often does as specta-tores (‘viewers’: Amph. 998, 1146; As. 1; Bacch. 1211; Capt. 1029; etc.). It is not enough just to watch a play; watching must be accompanied by understanding, and it is understanding that leads to appreciation (ubi sunt cognitae/placitae sunt, Hec. 20f., quoted above).

7. Rightly, but for the wrong reason. In all MSS the didascalia prefixed to the Eunuch indenti-fies it as Terence’s second play, the position it has in the oldest MS, A (and in Marouzeau’s Bud6 edition), with HT coming third. But the consular dates show that the order of first productions is And. (166), Hec. (165), HT (163), Eun. (April 161), Phorm. (Sept. 161), Ad. (160). The scepticism of Forehand (1985), 9–12, regarding the accuracy of the information contained in the didascaliae seems unwarranted; and as he himself admits, if we discard these ‘we are left with very little’ (12).

8. Thus Konstan, David’s perceptive comment about the play that it presents ‘a kind of morning-after feeling’ (Konstan [1974], 28 = [1983], 134Google Scholar) takes on an added and significant dimension.

9. The name means either ‘all-loving’ or ‘all-loved’ (or indeed a combination of both). See Austin (1921), 43f., 69f., 85f.

10. On the inadequacy of Parmeno see e.g. Norwood (1923), 92; Amerasinghe (1950), 62–72; Duckworth (1952), 174, 25If.; Perelli (1973), 97; Gilula (1979–80), 147f.; Konstan (1983), 132; Forehand (1985), 98; Goldberg (1986), 157f.; Ireland (1990), 132 ad 409–14.

11. Gilula (1980), 154f., argues on the basis of line 158 that Bacchis has always displayed a degree of tnalignitas and procacitas in her relationship with Pamphilus, drawing attention to Par-meno’s use of multo and magis. The full line reads maligna multo et magis procax facta ilicost, ‘she at once became extremely ungenerous and more self-assertive’. However, multo and magis should not be taken with both adjectives (as Barsby’s ‘much more grudging and demanding’ implies: Barsby [2001b], 161); the word order together with the separating et requires that multo go with maligna and magis with procax. This clearly shows that the malignitas only arose as a result of Pamphilus’ marriage. As far as procacitas is concerned, that is a quality that distinguishes courtesans from wives (cf. HT 227, where procax is one of a string of adjectives applied to that play’s Bacchis); as we shall see in Act 5, Bacchis is no shrinking violet when it comes to exercising her influence over Pamphilus.

12. There is I think another Andrian intertext here. At And. 828–31 Philumena’s father Chremes complains to Simo that what he seems to be demanding is that Pamphilus should be ‘cured’ of his relationship with Glycerium at the cost of Philumena’s unhappiness (cf. esp. eius labore atque eius dolore gnato ut medicarer tuo, ‘so that I get to cure your son through her [Philumena’s] pain and unhappiness’, 831). The Hecyra’s Philumena certainly has to endure plenty of labor and dolor before Pamphilus finally turns from Bacchis to her. (On who actually takes the lead in the break-up with Bacchis see n.57 below.)

13. As another man’s ‘reject’, her chances of being able to make another marriage would have been at least considerably diminished (although as Fantham [1975], 69 n.52, observes, not completely destroyed). Pamphilus’ plans are of course utterly unrealistic, both for Philumena’s reputation and his own. For Phidippus’ likely response to having his daughter insulted in this way, compare Smikrines’ reaction to the way he perceives Charisios to have treated Pamphile in Menander’s Epitrepontes (124–63 Arnott).

14. It is hard to believe that we are meant to take Philotis’ remark at face value, since as far as Pamphilus’ relation to his father is concerned what he is attempting is neither pius nor pudicus. Hence I cannot accept Büchner’s, comment ‘Pamphilus’ edle Gesinnung…findet auch bei Philotium [sic] volle Resonanz’ (Büchner [1974], 123Google Scholar); there is nothing ‘noble’ about Pamphilus’ utterance, and Philotis’ response cannot therefore be said to ‘resonate’ with it. McGarrity (1980–81), 152, likewise appears to take the remark as unqualified endorsement of Pamphilus’ good character. Whatever Philotis says has to be seen in light of her friendship with Bacchis; see her original response to Parmeno’s news that the marriage is in trouble: ita di deaeque faxint, si in remsl Bacchidis (‘may the gods and goddesses make it so, if it is to Bacchis’ advantage’, 102).

15. See p.135 below.

16. Cf. Ireland (1990), 116 ad 153: ‘The playwright here lays the foundation of what is later to prove an important factor in the development of the situation: the restriction of information to the minimum number of characters.’ Not just to its development, but also its conclusion; cf. pp.l39f. below.

17. McGarrity (1980–81), 153, likewise observes Pamphilus’ frequent use of miser in relation to himself..

18. The model here is the eminently respectable Amphitruo, who sends his slave Sosia ahead to announce his imminent arrival and the success of his mission (Plaut. Amph. 195f.; see Cupaiuolo [1991], 68).

19. Terence seems to have been peculiarly fond of this stage device, occurring as it does in three out of his six plays (here, And. 473 and Ad. 486f.). Plautus uses it once only (Aul. 691f.), Menander certainly twice (Georgos 112–14 Arnott, Plokion ap. Gel. NA 2.23.15 = Men. fr. 335 Sandbach) and possibly also in the Heros (Arnott [1996], 29Google Scholar). It is interesting that in contrast to the other Roman examples no offstage lines are assigned to Philumena; the fact that she cries out audibly has to be inferred from Pamphilus’ running commentary at 314f. and 317, from Sostrata’s audio hie tumultuari (‘I hear commotion here’, 336) and from Myrrina’s appeal to Philumena face, obsecro, mea gnata (‘Please be quiet, my daughter, I beg you’, 318). This is the offstage line, another example of Terence playing with the conventions: not the normal prayer to Juno Lucina from the girl actually giving birth, but an urgent request from her mother not to utter it.

20. ‘So much for that selfless participation in her trials which he had so recently proclaimed’: Konstan (1974), 29 = (1983), 135.

21. Radice(1976), 307.

22. As Perelli (1973), 215, notes, ‘la sintassi è assai ricca di proposizioni subordinate temporali e causali, oltre che di avverbi temporali e causali nella coordinazione.’

23. There is a nice irony in having Pamphilus give Myrrina’s speech rather than bring her on stage to give it herself. It shows that her words are etched in his memory: the information about the rape, the plea to keep the birth secret, and Myrrina’s suggestion as to a way around the problem that will allow the marriage to continue. The rape oddly seems to stir no memory of his own past conduct, although the explanation that he was so drunk that he didn’t even remember what he had done is excluded by the fact that he instantly recognises the import of Myrrina’s recognition of the ring at 845’49; the plea leads to his promise not to reveal anything of what he has seen and heard (on which see n.34 below); and his rejection of Myrrina’s suggestion as to how everything might be smoothed over appears hypocritical in the extreme when one considers.that the final outcome is predicated on a deception of at least equal dishonesty to the one that he reports Myrrina here proposing (see further n.49 below).

24. It would appear in fact that Pamphilus has rushed out of the house even before the child has been delivered, because when he catches sight of Parmeno at 409 he expresses concern lest he too hear Philumena’s cries (uereor, si clamorem eius hic crebro exaudiat,/ne lne parturire intellegat, ‘I’m worried that if he hears her constant yelling he’ll realise she’s giving birth’, 412). It would be a nice touch to have Philumena screaming off stage all the time Pamphilus is delivering this controlled monologue… (And he didn’t even wait to see if the child—or indeed Philumena— survived the ordeal.)

25. In using the term ‘double standard’, I am aware of the admonitions of Forehand and others that ‘we must avoid the urge to make modern social criticism of The Mother-in-Law’ (Forehand [1985], 104Google Scholar. But in a play that revolves around men’s misrepresentations of and prejudices about women to the extent that this one does, the term does not seem inappropriate. Cf. Hunter (1985), 61, who draws attention to ‘the inequality of the sexes’ involved. Hunter in my view errs (like many commentators) by being too sympathetic to Pamphilus, in spite of drawing attention to the fact that he never questions the validity of the ‘social and moral pressures’ which underlie his response (and here again we may draw a contrast between him and his Andrian counterpart).

26. Hunter (1985), 61, observes that here the play ‘becomes a question of what course of action is honestum and what humanum’. But really it has been that all along, at least as far as Pamphilus’ dealings with Philumena are concerned.

27. Contra Rosivach (1998), 28, who remarks immediately after quoting this very couplet, ‘The play presents all of this in a way that leads the audience to admire Pamphilus for his noble response and to feel sympathy for him as his sense of honour and circumstances beyond his control force him to surrender the woman he loves.’ As is obvious, I see nothing ‘noble’ in Pamphilus’ response; a ‘sense of honour’ seems rather hollow for one who has himself committed at least one act of rape in the past; and as Myrrina rightly points out, nothing is ‘forcing him to surrender the woman he loves’: his tibi nil est quicquam incommodi (‘there’s no difficulty for you here’, 400) if he follows her advice (cf. n.23 above).

28. Cf. 150, discussed p. 133 above. On this second occasion the thought process involved is yet more paradoxical, since the judgement as to what is or is not honestum is a social rather than an individual one; i.e. it is conduct that confers honor on the doer. If Pamphilus were to follow Myrrina’s suggestion, who would there be to criticise Pamphilus for acting dishonourably, since no-one but he, his wife and his mother-in-law would know the truth of the matter?—Of course there is the fact that Pamphilus has made sure that everyone in the theatre knows; his long monologue is not a Hamlet-style soliloquy in which the speaker is represented as thinking aloud but (as stated earlier) a messenger speech in which a story is being told (see the opening couplet where he debates with himself as to the appropriate point unde exoriar narrare, ‘from which to begin my narrative’, 362).

29. Sargeaunt (1912), 165, a rendering which seems to have led Slater (1987–88), 255, to remark that ‘he [Pamphilus] feels deep sympathy for his wife, especially as he thinks of her future.’ Barsby (2001b), 189Google Scholar, makes the appropriate correction.

30. It may be objected here that in the end Pamphilus declares that he will bow to his father Simo’s wishes even if it means abandoning Glycerium for a wife of Simo’s choosing (And. 896–98), so that even in his case and after all his declarations it would appear that pietas wins out over amor. But there are other factors at work here. What Pamphilus professes to find unbearable is the thought that his father believes that he has manufactured the story of Glycerium’s true status (899f.); his ‘surrender’ (tibi, pater, me dedo, 897) is part of a ploy to persuade Simo to give Crito a hearing. If Crito can persuade Simo that Glycerium is indeed a citizen, then there is hope that Simo will relent—a hope that in Pamphilus’ eyes may be enhanced if he adopts the role of dutiful and repentant son. In fact Crito’s revelations succeed in resolving the situation beyond Pamphilus’ wildest dreams (and allow him to produce the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle, Glycerium’s real name, himself); and his remark at 949 (de uxore, ita ut possedi, nil mutat Chremes?, ‘And as far as the matter of a wife is concerned, Chremes isn’t going to change anything about my having taken possession of her, is he?’) shows that in spite of anything he may have said at 896ff., he still regards himself as Glycerium’s—oops, Pasibula’s—husband. The question as to whether Pamphilus’ ‘surrender’ is genuine is perhaps unresolvable; but there is I think a case to be made that it is Pamphilus’ last desperate throw of the dice, and one which wins him the game.

31. By this point in the play it should be becoming clear that the Hecyra’s Pamphilus is radically and disturbingly different from the Andria’s. The fact that they share the name points up the contrast. Austin’s attempt to establish a similarity between the two by arguing that just as Pamphilus in the Andria is ‘entirely devoted to Glycerium’, so Pamphilus in the Hecyra is ‘first totally in love with Bacchis and then wholly attached to Philumena’ (Austin [1921], 86Google Scholar) I find quite extraordinary. So ‘totally in love’ with Bacchis that he rapes a girl in the street when he is on his way to see her—next door? So ‘wholly attached’ to Philumena that he can desert her when she most needs his support?

32. Suggestions such as that of Goldberg (1986), 160, that the audience is left completely in the dark as to the eventual outcome (‘there is no hint that the attacker whom Myrrina says has taken Philumena’s ring is Pamphilus’) thus need some qualification. Technically this is true, in that we have to wait until Act 5 to learn exactly how the ring is going to do its job; but as soon as we hear about a ring, we know in general terms the dramatic use to which it will eventually be put.

33. On the hypocrisy of Pamphilus’ posturing here see Konstan (1974), 29–31, and (1983), 136–38.

34. At 402 Pamphilus sententiously declares pollicitus sum et seruare in eo certumst quod dixi fidem (‘I gave my word and it is axiomatic that I will keep faith in the matter about which I pronounced it’). Like Hippolytus, Pamphilus’ oath is to a third party, one with a tutelary role in the life of the younger woman on whose behalf she is speaking; and as with the Nurse in Hippolytus, Myrrina has reason to doubt whether Pamphilus will keep his word (Hec. 575f. ~ Hipp. 612–15). Like Hippolytus, Pamphilus makes a fetish of ‘doing the right thing’ while at the same time displaying no meaningful compassion where it really counts (Hec. 615f. ~ Hipp. 1060–63); like Hippolytus, Pamphilus’ refusal to reveal the truth that he has sworn to conceal leads to his father jumping to the wrong conclusion; like Hippolytus, Pamphilus seeks to counter this by swearing an oath that things are not as his father believes them to be (Hec. 697 ~ Hipp. 1025–27); like Hippolytus, Pamphilus is given to egregious expressions of self-pity (Hec. 701f. ~ Hipp. 1078f.); both virtually exile themselves from their fathers’ domain, Hippolytus from Troezen and Pamphilus from Laches’ house. And in the final outcome the truth is revealed by a dominating female figure with whom the young man has an intimate relationship: Artemis in the case of Hippolytus, Bacchis in that of Pamphilus. The resemblance is striking and undoubtedly intentional; it adds to our view of Pamphilus as both self-righteous and morally blinkered. And as Pamphilus is meticulously observing his promise while at the same time refusing any thought of taking the compassionate path and accepting Philumena back, he might reflect on the fact that by his own admission she was equally meticulous in not revealing his appalling treatment of her in the early days of their marriage (302f.).

35. The significant word is tollent, used of the father ‘raising’ or ‘picking up’ the child as a symbolic gesture of acknowledgement (OLD s.v. 2a). In the Andria, Pamphilus and Glycerium are said to have determined to ‘raise’ (tollere) their child no matter what it turns out to be (And. 219 with Barsby [2001a], 70f. n.19).

36. Cf. Fantham (1975), 69f. Rosivach (1998), 28, reads this as ‘irony’, and goes on to make the astounding assertion that ‘The irony is, however, unconscious, and we should not suppose that Terence was aware of it, much less that he wished to call it to his audience’s attention.’ This suggests that Terence had no idea of what he was doing, or that he is as insensitive as the character that he has created. On the contrary, as I am attempting to show, Terence knew exactly what he was doing and how he wanted his audience to respond. Rosivach later claims (29) that ‘no-one criticises Pamphilus for anything that he has done: not for the rape, not for the inconsistency between his own behaviour and the standard which he sets for Philumena, not for the pain and suffering which he has obviously caused her.’ That Myrrina, as quoted by Pamphilus himself (that is irony), refers to the rapist as improbus (’scumbag’, 383—cf. n.46 below) would seem criticism enough for the rape; that Bacchis fails to criticise him for any of these faults says more about her than about him; and Pamphilus’ insistence on keeping everything quiet is designed to avoid the criticism that would inevitably fall upon him if the full truth were known (cf. pp.l39f. below). The play emphatically does not ‘endorse his [Pamphilus’] behaviour’ (Rosivach [1998], 30Google Scholar); the ‘happy ending’ is there because the genre demands it be there (this is not a tragedy), but as I shall argue its genuineness as ‘happy’ is seriously called into question.

37. Epitr. 913, 918; expressions of self-reproach for which we have been prepared by Onesimos’ melodramatic description of his ekstasis (‘lunacy’) at 883–901. For the comparison with Pamphilus, cf. Perelli (1973), 24f.; Biichner (1974), 170; Hunter (1985), 60f.; Goldberg (1986), 150–52; Slater (1987–88), 258f.; James (1998), 44. For a sympathetic view of Charisios, see Konstan (1995), 141–52. For further comparisons between Charisios and Pamphilus, cf. n.45 below.

38. Cf. also Clinia at HT 693. In the Eunuch, Chaerea describes a wall-painting depicting Jupiter’s rape of Danae as both inspiring and excusing his own actions (Eun. 584–91); in addition to the obvious allusion to his Andrian counterpart, the Hecyra’s Pamphilus’ effusion incorporates also an ironic recall of divine rapes such as this. Cf. Slater (1987–88), 258 (‘a divine rapist in the spirit of Jupiter’).

39. On Pamphilus’ egocentrism, see Konstan (1983), 138; Goldberg (1986), 151; Pierce (1997), 173.

40. See e.g. Deacy & Pierce (1997); Lape (2001); Omitowoju (2002), esp. 169–203; Lape (2004), 24–30, 92f., 243–53.

41. This is more the approach of Pierce (1997) and Rosivach (1998), 13–50.

42. In this I am in accord with James (1998), who concludes (44): ‘Terence has deliberately removed a crucial opportunity to provide audience sympathy for Pamphilus, since a young man’s regret at hurting his beloved wife, his recognition of his own faults and hypocrisy, or his self-reproach would go a long way towards excusing him. But Terence gives Pamphilus none of these ameliorating elements.’

43. Cf. Pierce (1997), 164. Rape at a religious festival features as part of the background to Menander’s Epitrepontes, Plokion, Samia, Phasma and Plautus’ Aulularia and Cistellaria. This last play in fact presents both the high and low versions of the ‘festival rape’ (the phrase is taken from Pierce [1997], 172Google Scholar). At 89–95 Selenium describes how she and Alcesimarchus got together at the Stcyonian Dionysia; uitium it may have been, but there is no hint whatsoever that the feelings of the two participants were anything but mutual. Later we learn from the delayed prologue delivered by the god Auxilium that many years earlier, at the same festival, Demipho raped Phanostrata and escaped back to Lemnos leaving her pregnant—with Selenium. Demipho obviously thought better of it after a while (and the termination of his first marriage with the death of his wife) because he returned to Sicyon and married Phanistrata, though by this time the baby had disappeared. While Demipho’s case resembles Pamphilus’ in that the rape does occur in the street (Cist. 156–62), the overall context is still that of a festival, a feature totally absent from the rape in Hecyra. And unlike Pamphilus, Demipho, like the Truculentus’ Diniarchus (n.53 below), is aware of who he has raped and seeks—albeit belatedly—to make amends.

44. Bacchis suggests that Pamphilus was reluctant to confess to her what he had done, and only comes clean after some persuasion (824–27). Rosivach’s, attempt to use this fact to have us see Pamphilus in a better light (‘Pamphilus’ agitation…shows that he was upset at what he had done, but it also suggests that what he had done was out of his normal character and that wine had beclouded his mind’, Rosivach [1998], 29Google Scholar) simply does not work. Pamphilus is obviously reluctant to tell the woman who regards herself as his girlfriend that he’s just had it off with another woman in the street; the gift of the ring is just another example of a young man’s attempt to pacify an angry or coquettish meretrix by giving her a present. The fact that she not only accepts it but goes on to wear it (both for the duration of their relationship and after Pamphilus has left her to marry Philumena) is itself psychologically intriguing. There is a continuing bond between these two, as will become more and more apparent.

45. Detailed comparison with Menander’s Epitrepontes underlines the way in which everything in Hecyra is radically altered, and altered to Pamphilus’ disadvantage. In Epitrepontes Charisios is remorseful, in Hecyra Pamphilus is exultant; in Epitrepontes Charisios forms his relationship with the hetaira Habrotonon only after finding out that Pamphile has had a child, in Hecyra Pamphilus continues his relationship with Bacchis long before the child becomes an issue in his marriage; in Epitrepontes Pamphile’s child is born while Charisios is away and he only hears about it from the gossipy slave Onesimos, in Hecyra Pamphilus returns in time to be present at the birth and makes sure the gossipy slave knows nothing about the pregnancy; in Epitrepontes grief over the break-up of his marriage leads Charisios not to partake of the sexual pleasures he has paid Habrotonon for, in Hecyra grief over the threat to his liaison with Bacchis leads Pamphilus petulantly to refuse to make love to his wife; in Epitrepontes it is the victim who seizes the vital ring from the unknown rapist, in Hecyra the rapist seizes it from his victim; in Epitrepontes Habrotonon uses the ring to deceive Charisios into thinking that she was the girl he raped and made pregnant and acts very much in Pamphile’s interests (see esp. 854–77), in Hecyra Bacchis uses the ring to reveal the truth and continue to exercise her control over Pamphilus; in Epitrepontes the revelations take place on stage and everyone gets to know the truth, in Hecyra the revelation takes place off stage and there is a conspiracy of silence. This must call into question comments such as that of Fantham (1975), 68: ‘…Apollodorus was influenced by admiration of this play to compose his Hecyra, preserved to us only in Terence’s Latin adaptation.’ Apollodorus may have admired Menander’s skills as a playwright; but the way in which the Epitrepontes’ plot and its young love-hero have been radically rewritten suggests that both Apollodorus and Terence found that Menander’s treatment of the rape motif glossed over too many of its unsavoury aspects.

46. As reported by Bacchis he simply called her nescioquam (’some chick or other’, 828)—a nice echo of Myrrina’s a nescioquo improbo (‘by some scumbag or other’, 383) to describe the unknown rapist.

47. There is a clear contrast here with the other egregious rape presented in Terence, viz. Chaerea’s rape of Pamphila in the Eunuch (and so I cannot agree with James [1998], 31, who regards them both as ‘present[ing] rape in the worst possible light’). It is quite clear that Chaerea is besotted with Pamphila from the time he first sees her (see his opening speech at 292–97, esp. deleo omnis dehinc ex animo mulieres, ‘From now on I wipe all other women out of my mind’, 296), the rape arises out of a combination of meticulous planning and opportunism, and the eventual outcome is the standard happy ending: she is revealed to be a citizen and is betrothed to him (1034–36). Love of the kind professed by Chaerea cannot be used to defend Pamphilus’ action because it was simply not a factor: he couldn’t see her face in the dark, he was drunk, and it was an exercise of sheer animal lust (a case where that crudely sexist McKenzieism, Barry, ‘You don’t look at the mantlepiece when you’re stoking the fire’ [Humphries & Garland (1971), 9Google Scholar], would fit the circumstances completely). Even the Menandrian young men who commit rape at religious festivals spend some time thinking about it (cf. Moschion’s description of his conduct at Samia 38–49) or at least have the taste to pick on a good-looking girl (cf. Habrotonon’s description of the young Pamphile at Epitr. 483–85). Lape, ’s comment that ‘the suppressed conclusion of this bizarre situation whereby a male citizen rapes a female citizen while en route to a rendezvous with a courtesan is that the female citizen is more sexually appealing than her courtesan rival’ (Lape [2001], 103Google Scholar) does not really fit the facts in this case.

48. See esp. 689f., 691–96, 714. In the confrontation between Pamphilus and the two series in Act 4 scene 3 we are led to believe that Pamphilus is playing his Hippolytus role, allowing his father (and father-in-law) to jump to wrong and damaging conclusions about his conduct rather than violate the oath he swore to Myrrina. After all, he has transferred his affections to his wife (the non-procax one), hasn’t he? But when we see him and Bacchis engaged in this intimate conversation in the final scene we should perhaps reconsider our earlier response. Pamphilus’ relationship with Bacchis has lurked in the background to this play from the third line of Act 1 scene 1 until the end; the very fact that she shares this final scene with Pamphilus (and I see no real necessity for Barsby’s stage direction which has Bacchis exiting at 872 [Barsby (2002b), 239]—I would have her on stage right to the end watching Pamphilus and Parmeno crossing back to the matrimonial home) reinforces its significance.

49. The principal lie is in the oath sworn by Bacchis at 752 (me segregatum habuisse, uxorem ut duxit, a me Pamphilum, ‘that since he took a wife I have kept Pamphilus right away from me’), shown to be false by Parmeno’s story of Pamphilus’ daily visits to her at 157–59. (For discussion of this inconsistency see Gilula [1980], 157–60, and Cupaiuolo [1991], 61, with bibliography cited ibid, n.65.) The fact that this is false gives a nice irony to the remark in Bacchis’ next speech (sed nolo esse falsa fama gnatum suspectum tuom, ‘I don’t want your son to be subject to any suspicion based on false report’, 758: falsa fama is exactly what she is peddling). The secondary lie is the concealment of the rape, which is what Pamphilus is referring to in the passage quoted. The only people who know the whole truth are Bacchis, Pamphilus and Myrrina (and presumably Philumena, who needs to know that her child is legitimate). (As is clear from 851, Parmeno doesn’t have a clue as to the significance of his news about the ring.) Pamphilus can reasonably expect Myrrina to keep his secret as he kept hers; and as Bacchis suggests, she is the more inclined to do so because she believed—or found it prudent to believe (870f. is intriguingly ambiguous)—Bacchis’ (false) oath (869–71). But one can’t help feeling that this whole edifice is built on very shaky foundations. Cupaiuolo (1991), 147, perceptively relates this to the whole issue of the way ‘family’ works: ‘Costante è presso i personaggi dell’ Hecyra la preoccupazione di non divulgare, anzi soffocare per quanto è possibile, i segreti, gli screzi, gli scandali interni, come se questi potessero rappresentare un elemento negativo in una istituzione, la famiglia, a cui dalla società romana viene attribuita la massima importanza.’ Cf. also Slater (1987–88), 260; James (1998), 45f.

50. Cf. Konstan (1974), 33: ‘[T]he hero of the play seems, not a comic scoundrel or a mad lover, but a subtle and dubious manipulator of the moral tradition.’

51. As Gilula (1980), 157–60, rightly observes, the positive view of Bacchis’ behaviour in the final act is largely based on what she herself says about her actions. Whatever her motivation for acting as she does (Gilula suggests that she realises it is in her best interests not to alienate Laches), she clearly enjoys the fact that Pamphilus is still very much under her spell.

52. There is an intriguing ambivalence about Pamphilus’ final words to Bacchis: speroque hanc rem esse euenturam nobis ex sententia, ‘and I hope that this whole thing will turn out the way we want it to’, 872. It contains more than a hint that what ‘we’ want may well be a continuation of the relationship. The scaenae frons presents us with three houses; if we put Laches’ house in the middle of the three (as 719f. suggests we should), then Bacchis is still right next door… (cf. next note). (This also raises interesting questions about the rape. Pamphilus was either coming out of Laches’ house to visit Bacchis next door or decided to drop in on her as he was coming home late from a party—the more likely scenario, since as Bacchis says it was already dark [node prima] and he was pretty drunk [822f.]—and encountered Philumena as she was on her way home to Phidippus’. This means that the scene of the rape is right in front of us.)

53. The situation is comparable to that of Diniarchus in Plautus’ Truculentus. Here too we are confronted with an adulescens expected to transform himself into respectable paterfamilias on the instant; but in spite of his recognition that his duty (both moral and legal) is to marry Callicles’ daughter and acknowledge the child born as a consequence of his rape of her, it does not take long for his girlfriend Phronesium to overcome his protestations that he must now leave her (compare non uoluptas, aufer nugas, nil ego nunc de istac re ago, ‘Don’t call me your sweetheart; scrub that nonsense; I have nothing to do with any of that any more’, 861, with his final exit line operae ubi mi erit, ad te uenero, ‘Whenever I get the chance, I’ll come to you’, 883). But even Diniarchus is morally superior to Pamphilus, in that at least he knows who it is that he has raped (as soon as he sees Callicles approaching at 770 he realises what the issue is) and himself offers to make amends.

54. The name is the present passive participle of and so means ‘she who is loved’ it embodies and perpetuates the distinction between , (‘lover’) and (‘beloved’) so prominent in Plato’s Symposium and thus gives no room for any expression of feeling on her part. She is a victim throughout: of rape, of Pamphilus’ ill-treatment of her in the early days of their marriage, of Pamphilus’ lust when he turns his attention away from Bacchis to her, of Pamphilus’ rejection when she gives birth to the child that was engendered by the rape, and finally of the attentions of a husband who has been responsible for all the above and who obviously still feels very much at home with his original girlfriend. And yet it is hard to agree totally with Rosi-vach (1998), 28, when he claims that ‘Philumena has no independent existence: she exists only in terms of her husband and of his feelings for her.’ We hear of how she responded to Pamphilus’ ill-treatment (164–66), we hear her cries offstage as she is in the throes of giving birth (314‘414—cf. n.19 above), we hear of her mother’s concern and love for her (318, 386–401), and she even gets an endorsement (of sorts) from Bacchis (perliberalis uisast, ‘she seemed a very proper lady’, 864—just the type for the newly respectable married man) after she sees her when she visits Myrrina. With the possible exception of the last, all of these build up audience sympathy for Philumena and give us a sense that there is a real person here; and it is that that enhances our feelings of foreboding about her prospects of finding the kind of happiness that marriage to the Andria’s Pamphilus will give Pasibula. Contrast Austin (1921), 91, who as with ‘Pamphilus’ insists that the name ‘Philumena’ must indicate a similar function in both plays; but whereas the Andria’s is truly and devotedly ‘loved’ by Charinus, there is more than a hint that the Hecyra’s is not the sole or even principal target of her husband’s affections.

55. Cf. Konstan (1983), 141: ‘Remaining within the formal conventions of its genre, the Hecyra challenges and confounds their customary meanings.’

56. Drunkenness is often regarded as an acceptable defence in these situations, since the behaviour to which it gives rise can be regarded as somehow aberrant (see e.g. Scafuro [1997], 254f.). But as Scafuro herself observes, this is not always the case; at 258f. she cites Plaut. True. 831f. where Callicles pointedly responds to Diniarchus’ attempt to mitigate his offence in this way with non uinum uiris moderari, sed uiri uino solent/—qui quidem probi sunt (‘wine does not normally control men but men control wine—men who are of good character, that is’). Myrrina has already (as quoted by Pamphilus) dubbed Philumena’s rapist improbus (cf. n.36 above), and there seems no reason why we should allow his drunkenness to amend this view. As Callicles goes on to say (True. 832f.), an improbus is an improbus, whether drunk or sober. Cf. Lape (2001), 93 n.55.

57. Gilula (1980), 181, argues that ‘it was not Bacchis but Pamphilus that terminated their relationship’, citing Parmeno’s words paullatim elapsust Bacchidi (‘he gradually withdrew from Bacchis’, 169, tr. Barsby). To this I would respond that (a) the middle elapsus is hardly a strong indicator of the exercise of moral choice (following be it noted the passives deuinctus and uictus in 168) and more importantly (b) what has happened here is that Bacchis has succeeded with Pamphilus where Pamphilus failed with Philumena, i.e. making oneself so objectionable that one’s partner is virtually forced to leave: Philumena has the moral fibre to put up with Pamphilus’ iniuriae (165) but Pamphilus cannot withstand Bacchis’ (uictus huius iniuriis, ‘overcome by her unjust treatment’, 168). Gilula’s comment (ibid. 156) that Pamphilus’ is ‘chiefly’ motivated in making his choice ‘because he has found his match’ misunderstands 170’s par ingenium nactus est. What this really means is that ‘he found a nature that he could put up with’ (that is what par means to this self-centred Pamphilus); in light of what we are discovering and will discover about Pamphilus and Philumena, Gilula’s ‘found his match’ and a fortiori Barsby’s ‘found a similar nature to his own’ (Barsby [2001b], 163) simply make no sense.

58. It is this new status that leads to Pamphilus being put in charge of dealing with a tricky piece of family business on Imbros, a fact that the still immature and amatory young man bitterly resents (173).

59. Cf. McGarrity (1980–81), 153, who not inappropriately describes Pamphilus as ‘a vacillating adolescent concerned with preservation of his reputation rather than with proper behaviour’ (though I would prefer to insert ‘genuinely’ before ‘proper’).

60. Cf. Forehand (1985), 104: ‘He [Pamphilus] is very much in danger of treating his wife with the same unfairness as they [Laches and Phidippus] have treated theirs.’ But I cannot agree with Forehand when he goes on to say that ‘the young couple [Pamphilus and Philumena] can rise above the behaviour of their elders’ (ibid.). The way the play concludes leaves little hope for that.

61. Cf. Goldberg (1986), 152: ‘Like so many Terentian adulescentes, he [Pamphilus] is a rather unappealing “hero”.’ But ‘unappealing’ to my mind does not go far enough for this Pamphilus.

62. Parker (1996) maintains that what the first prologue implies is that it was not the audience in the theatre who were distracted by the funambulus but a mob coming in from outside, as happened in the second production with the mob who had heard there was to be a gladiatorial contest (39–42). Lada-Richards (2004), 58, takes issue with this view, pointing out that the audience in the theatre ‘could have been fighting to preserve their seats not out of unswerving loyalty to Terence or the comic genre but, quite the opposite, out of anxiety lest they would miss the promised alternative delights’, but even this seems to be reading too much into the text. Neither the first prologue (1–5) nor Turpio’s elaboration (33–36) need imply any invasion of the auditorium other than by rumour (the pugilum gloria and funambuli expectatio of 33f.). The subsequent unruly behaviour was a consequence of that. The subject of interuenit at line 2 is not populus but uitium et calamitas; and the ‘inauspicious event’ and ‘disaster’ that ‘intervened’ was a consequence of the short attention span and/or incomprehension of the audience. They were a stupid lot (populus… stupidus, 4). Cf. Ireland (1990), 105, ad 4.

63. And so the answer to Gilula’s, objection that ‘one must still explain why these flaws [that caused the first two failures] went unnoticed during Hecyra’s third, and successful, performance’ (Gilula [1981], 32Google Scholar) is in the case of the first that the audience of 160 was more attuned to Terence’s style of comedy than the audience of 165. Lada-Richards (2004), 59, refers disparagingly to ‘the long-lived perception of Terence as “the high-brow playwright”…who never managed to charm the Roman masses in the way his predecessor Plautus did’, but in the case of this play and the timing of its first performance, to an audience expecting another Mtn-Andria, there may be something to be said for the traditional view. The Andria’s prologue concluded by inviting the audience to judge on the basis of that play whether his future works were spectandae an exi-gendae (‘to be watched or to be driven out’, And. 27); to give them something that so radically challenged the conventions of the genre within which the Andria operated clearly risked—and received—the second option (fecere ut ante tempus exirem foras, ‘they forced me to get out before the play was over’, Hec. 36). Certainly Terence appeared to learn from the experience. In the prologue to his second adaptation of an Apollodorus script after two more Menanders, he made a point of requesting the audience not to treat it as they had the first (Phorm. 30–34, recycling the Andria’s phraseology: adeste aequo animo, ‘approach with open mind’, Phorm. 30 = And. 24). And it worked—with the concession of a title change. (The failure of the second attempt to produce Hecyra can be put down to sheer bad luck—perhaps courted to some extent by an ambitious attempt to put on two plays at the one set of ludi.)—For a thoughtful analysis of what was wrong with the Hecyra from the Roman audience’s point of view, see Goldberg (1986), 161–69.