^{page 279 note 1} Band, R.E.v A I (1934), 598–650.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 2} Norwood, G., The Art of Terence, 1923Google ScholarCroce, B., La Critica, xxxiv (1936), 422Google Scholar ff. = Poesia antica e moderna (1943), 29 ff.; Reitzenstein, E., Terenz als Dichter (1940).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 3} Haffter, H., ‘Terenz and seine kunstlerische Eigenart’, Mus. Helm x (1953), 1 ff and 73 ff. (reprinted Darmstadt, 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 4} Ludwig, W., The Originality of Terence ant His Greek Models, G.R.B.S. ix (1968), 169 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 5} ‘In no case was a radical alteration of the construction of the primary model necessary in order to work in the desired parts of the secondary model’: Ludwig, loc. cit. 175; ‘jedenfalls lag dem Terenz daran, so gut wie nur möglich, es an keiner Stelle sichtbar zu lassen, dass der dramatische Aufbau des originalen Stückes verdndert wurde’: Haffter, loc. cit. 73–4 = 21–2.

^{page 280 note 1} See Dziatzko, K. and Kauer, R., Adelphoe, 2nd edn. (1903), p. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 2} Several of the inconsistencies discovered in the scene by Drexler, H., Philologus, Suppl.- Band 26, Heft 2 (1934)Google Scholar, have been shown to be illusory. See Rieth, O., Gnomon x (1934), 636 ffGoogle Scholar. and Die Kunst Menanders in den Adelphen des Terenz, ed. K. Gaiser (1964) and Fantham, Elaine, Philologus cxii (1965), 196 ( = Fantham I).Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 3} Cf. Fantham I, 201; Arnott, W. G., Gnomon xxxvii (1965), 258 takes this difficulty too seriously.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 4} It is true, as Rieth on p. 36 of his book remarks, that the audience does not know Ctesipho till he arrives and talks to Syrus. But after seeing the first act only a very stupid theatre-goer would fail to understand.

^{page 280 note 5} Donatus, ed. Wessner, ii. 46, 12 ff.; see Gaiser ap. Rieth, loc. cit., 136 ff. andFantham I, 205.

^{page 281 note 1} See Fantham I, 206.

^{page 281 note 2} Rieth, p. 32 n. 61 is rightly careful not to insist that Parmeno's small part is a mark of contamination; cf. Fantham I, p. 205 n. I.

^{page 281 note 3} See Harrison, A. R. W., The Law of Athens i (1968), 178 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 4} See Rieth, 56–9 and Fantham 202. Rieth's notion (p. 58; cf. p. 119) that Terence had to let Aeschinus play what in Diphilus was his trump card in order not to spoil Diphilus' scene, even though in Terence's play Syrus will later play a different trump card, conflicts with everything we know about Terence's method of work. For a doxography of the problem, see H. Marti, Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik bei Plautus and Terenz, Diss. Zürich, 1959, pp. 98–9, with n. 4,. For various works in which K. Büchner takes the same view as Rieth, see the notes on p. 244 of Tränkle's article cited below, p. 282 n. 2.

^{page 282 note 1} On the Nachleben of the Adeiphi, see Rieth's introduction (pp. 1 ff.).

^{page 282 note 2} See above, p. 280 n. 2; also K. Gaiser, ‘Zur Eigenart der römischen Komödie: Plautus und Terenz gegenüber ihren griechischen Vorbildern’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der rōmischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini, i (1972), 1100 ff. (a reference I owe to Dr. Cohn Austin).

^{page 282 note 3} See Carrubba, R. W., Dioniso xlii (1968), 16Google Scholar ff.; Johnson, W. R., California Studies in Classical Antiquity i (1968), 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fantham, Elaine, Latomus xxx (1971), 970Google Scholar ff. (= Fantham II); Tränkle, H., Museum Helveticum xxix (1972), 241 ff. All these scholars take a general view of the play which is substantially right as against that of Rieth and Buchner; Tränkle's valuable article, which reached me after I had begun to write my own, has enabled me to make mine much shorter.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 4} Rieth, pp. 4.12 ff.; cf. pp. 37 and 119.

^{page 282 note 5} See Dotatus, ed. Wessner, ii. 62.

^{page 283 note 1} 149–50.

^{page 283 note 2} Lefevre, E., Die Expositionstechnik in den Komodien des Terenz (1969), 39 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 3} Donatus, ed. Wessner, ii. 176, 20: apud Menandrum senex de nuptiis non gravatur.

^{page 283 note 4} Wilamowitz, , Menanders Schiedsgericht (1925), 137. When Leo, Geschichte der römischen Literatur (1914), 245 says that Menander must somehow have prepared the audience beforehand for Micio's marriage, he misunderstands Menander, as Haffter, loc. cit. 89 = 37 has pointed out.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 5} See Dziatzko-Kauer, op. cit. above, p. 280 n. I.

^{page 283 note 6} See Thierfelder, A., Menandrea (1960), 107Google Scholar ff.; cf. Arnott, W. G., Greece and Rome x (1963), 140 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 283 note 7} Wilamowitz, , Griechische Verskunst (1921), p. 125 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 8} Süss, W., Rh. Mus. lxv (1910), 450Google Scholar ff.; see the sensible comments of the lamented Schafer, Armin, Menanders Dyskolos: Untersuchungen zur dramatischen Technik (1965), 71.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 9} Ludwig, W., Philologus ciii (1959), 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 283 note 10} Loc. cit. 36–7.

^{page 283 note 11} See Ludwig, loc. cit. 26.

^{page 284 note 1} Ludwig is well aware of this; at p. 37 n. 3 he reproaches Hauschild, H., Die Gestalt der Hetaira in der griechischen Komödie (Diss. Leipzig, 1933), 36 with making Thais too unselfish.Google Scholar