We must not understand Crito to mean, that Phania was a Rhamnusian, because we know that he and Chremes both resided in the city of Athens. Phania probably was prevented, by the confusion of the war, from obtaining a vessel at the Piræus, or either of the Athenian ports; and therefore returned to Rhamnus, and embarked for the opposite coast of Attica. Phania might, therefore, call himself Rhamnusius from Rhamnus, as being bound from Rhamnus to Smyrna, or any other Asian port. Some, instead of Rhamnus and Rhamnusius, read Rhamus and Rhamusius. NOTE 205. _Crito.――The very name._ _Chremes.――You are right._ _Crito.――Ipsa est. Chremes.――Ea est._ Terence has shewn his usual art in the arrangement of these two speeches. Upon hearing the true name, one would have expected that the father would have been the first to recognize it, but he prudently delays until Crito confirms the truth of his testimony by agreeing to the name of the long-lost Pasibula. This is finely imagined by the author, as Chremes might very well be supposed to suspect that this discovery was a trick of Davus’, (who might have heard of the loss of this infant daughter,) and taken Crito for an accomplice in the conceived imposture. Chremes, therefore, waited to know whether Crito recognised the name of Pasibula, which, if the story had been false, must have been unknown to him: for the high character of Pamphilus placed him beyond the reach of suspicion. NOTE 206. _Simo.――Chremes, I hope you are convinced how sincerely we all rejoice at this discovery._ ――――S. _Omnes_ nos gaudere hoc, Chreme, Te credo credere. In many of the old editions of our author, this passage is written _omneis_ nos gaudere; this variation has a reference to the measure of the verse. I have seen one edition in which the line is written _omnis_ nos gaudere. NOTE 207. _Pam.――Oh! that is certain._ _Simo.――I consent most joyfully._ P. Nempe. S. Scilicet.