_Amicum_, tutorem _patrem_. The word _tutorem_ in this line, alludes to the Roman custom of appointing _guardians_, which was usually performed with great ceremony: frequently on a dead-bed. The person who intended to constitute a _tutor_ or guardian, made use of a set form of words, which were spoken before witnesses, when the ward was delivered to the guardian, with these words, “_Hunc (vel hanc) tibi commendo, Tutor esto._” _I commend him (or her) to your protection, be to him a guardian._ Thus Ovid, “Hæc progeniesque mea est _Hanc tibi commendo_.” Trist., B. III. El. 14. L. 14. To your protection I commit my offspring. Some words were also addressed to the ward, as “_Hunc tibi tutorem do_,” _I appoint this person your guardian_. Donatus observes, that the line ――――“Te isti virum do, amicum, tutorem, patrem,” ought to be read with a long pause between each word, as Terence intended to describe the broken, interrupted voice of a person at the point of death. NOTE 108. _Charinus, Byrrhia._ “These two characters were not in the works of Menander, but were added to the fable by Terence, lest Philumena’s being left without a husband, on the marriage of Pamphilus to Glycerium should appear too _tragical_ a circumstance.――DONATUS. Madame Dacier, after transcribing this remark adds, that it appears to her to be an observation of great importance to the theatre, and well worthy our attention. Important as this dramatic arcanum may be, it were to be wished, that Terence had never found it out, or, at least, that he had not availed himself of it in the construction of the Andrian. It is plain that the duplicity of the intrigue did not proceed from the imitation of Menander, since these characters, on which the double plot is founded, were not drawn from the Greek poet. Charinus and Byrrhia are indeed but poor counterparts, or faint shadows of Pamphilus and Davus; and, instead of adding life and vigour to the fable, rather damp its spirit, and stop the activity of its progress. As to the tragical circumstance of Philumena’s having no husband, it seems something like the distress of Prince Prettyman[A], who thinks it a matter of indifference, whether he shall appear to be the son of a king or a fisherman, and is only uneasy lest he should be the son of nobody at all. I am much more inclined to the opinion of an ingenious French critic, whom I have already cited more than once, than to that of Donatus or Madame Dacier. His comment in this underplot is as follows:――