We must not suppose, that the sentiments of Pamphilus were really such as Davus here insinuates: this would be representing him as an unblushing profligate; who, because he was disinclined to marriage, wished his character to be so very black, that no reputable family in Athens would admit him as a son-in-law: for this is the sense of what Davus says, though I have rather softened his expression. Whoever attentively peruses what Simo says of his son, (in Act I. Scene I.) must perceive how inconsistent such a wish must be with the character of Pamphilus. Madame Dacier observes very aptly on a similar expression of Sosia, “_les valets prennent toujours tout du mauvais côte_, slaves always look on the dark side of every thing. In respect to the _before-mentioned passage_, I am rather inclined to the opinion of a late ingenious commentator, who speaks of it as follows: “Mr. Davus talks here as if he did not know what to say. In my humble opinion, these four lines are no ornaments to the scene: Nam quod tu speras, Propulsabo facile: uxorem his moribus Dabit nemo: inopem inveniet potius, quam te corrumpi sinat: Sed si te æquo animo ferre accipiet, negligentem feceris; Aliam otiosus quæret: interea aliquid acciderit boni. Here are _poor_ sentiments in _pure_ Latin, which is more than once the case in our poet. The speech closes better with tibi jure irasci non queat.”――COOKE. NOTE 126. _Pamphilus. But we must take care that he knows nothing of the child, for I have promised to bring it up._ _Davus. Is it possible!_ An allusion is here made to the exposure of children, for an account of which, see Note 93. Pamphilus, in this sentence, says pollicitus sum: there is very great force in this expression, which cannot be gracefully expressed in English. Pollicitatio, writes a learned commentator, magnarum rerum est promissio, means the promise of something of great consequence. It signifies also something promised over and over again, after great persuasion and entreaty. NOTE 127. _So as I saw the old man coming this way, I followed him._ Id propterea nunc _hunc_ venientem sequor. Dr. Bentley thinks that this line ought to be omitted as spurious, because the word _hunc_ refers to Pamphilus, who had not quitted the stage at all, from the time of Charinus’ departure until that moment: and, therefore, what Byrrhia says about following him thither must be nonsense. This passage is made very clear by Madame Dacier, who shews that Id propterea is the commencement of another sentence, and makes _hunc_ refer to Simo, instead of Pamphilus. The lines ought to be read thus, _Byrrhia._ Herus me, relictis rebus, jussit Pamphilum Hodiè observare, ut quid ageret de nuptiis Scirem. Id propterea nunc hunc venientem sequor. NOTE 128.