Download Full ebookname - Read Now at ebookname.

com

The Mannerheim Line 1920 39 Finnish Fortifications

of the Winter War First Edition Bair Irincheev

https://ebookname.com/product/the-mannerheim-
line-1920-39-finnish-fortifications-of-the-winter-war-first-
edition-bair-irincheev/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Discover More Ebook - Explore Now at ebookname.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

British Fortifications in Zululand 1879 First Edition Ian

Knight

https://ebookname.com/product/british-fortifications-in-
zululand-1879-first-edition-ian-knight/

ebookname.com

The Art of the Poetic Line First Graywolf Printing Edition

James Longenbach

https://ebookname.com/product/the-art-of-the-poetic-line-first-
graywolf-printing-edition-james-longenbach/

ebookname.com

In the Line of Fire A Memoir First Edition Pervez

Musharraf

https://ebookname.com/product/in-the-line-of-fire-a-memoir-first-
edition-pervez-musharraf/

ebookname.com

War in Pacific Skies First Edition Charlie Cooper

https://ebookname.com/product/war-in-pacific-skies-first-edition-
charlie-cooper/

ebookname.com
The eastern Mediterranean in the age of Ramesses II 1st
Edition Marc Van De Mieroop

https://ebookname.com/product/the-eastern-mediterranean-in-the-age-of-
ramesses-ii-1st-edition-marc-van-de-mieroop/

ebookname.com

Algae Nutrition Pollution Control and Energy Sources 1st

Edition Kristian N. Hagen

https://ebookname.com/product/algae-nutrition-pollution-control-and-
energy-sources-1st-edition-kristian-n-hagen/

ebookname.com

Selling the Nation s Helium Reserve 1st Edition National

Research Council

https://ebookname.com/product/selling-the-nation-s-helium-reserve-1st-
edition-national-research-council/

ebookname.com

Lacan and the limits of language 1st ed Edition Lacan

https://ebookname.com/product/lacan-and-the-limits-of-language-1st-ed-
edition-lacan/

ebookname.com

Engaging Young Children in Mathematics Standards for Early

Childhood Mathematics Education 1st Edition Douglas H.
Clements
https://ebookname.com/product/engaging-young-children-in-mathematics-
standards-for-early-childhood-mathematics-education-1st-edition-
douglas-h-clements/
ebookname.com
Recording Studio Design Audio Engineering Society Presents
3rd Edition Newell

https://ebookname.com/product/recording-studio-design-audio-
engineering-society-presents-3rd-edition-newell/

ebookname.com
THE MANNERHEIM
LINE 1920-39
Finnish Fortifications of the Winter War
ABOUT T H E AUTHOR AND ILLUSTRATOR
BAIR IRINCHEEV was born in 1977 in St Petersburg, Russia. He is a keen
re-enactor of the Winter War, and has created a website documenting the
fortifications of the Mannerheim Line (www.mannerheim-line.com). Bair runs
his own travel company, which organizes tours of military sites in the former
Soviet Union and Finland. He is married, and lives in Helsinki, Finland.

BRIAN DELF began his career working in a London art studio producing
artwork for advertising and commercial publications. Since 1972, he has
worked as a freelance illustrator on a variety of subjects including natural
history, architecture and technical cutaways. His illustrations have been
published in over thirty countries. Brian lives and works in Oxfordshire.
FORTRESS•88

THE MANNERHEIM
LINE 1920-39
Finnish Fortifications of the Winter War
First published in 2009 by Osprey Publishing
GLOSSARY
M i d l a n d House, W e s t W a y , Botley, Oxford 0 X 2 OPH, U K
The most common type of obstacle for stopping tanks
443 Park A v e n u e S o u t h , N e w York, NY 10016, U S A
on the Mannerheim Line. Consisted of 4-12 rows of
E-mail: [email protected] Anti-tank rock barrier
granite rocks.
A barrier made of logs attached to strong trees in
© 2009 Osprey Publishing Limited
a forest at the height of a tank's turret. Could cause
Anti-turret barrier
damage to a main gun or turret if a tank drove into it
All rights reserved. Apart from a n y fair dealing for t h e purpose of private
at high speed.
study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under t h e Copyright,
Armoured bunker A bunker on the Mannerheim Line that had its frontal
Designs a n d Patents Act, 1988, no part of this publication m a y be
wall or frontal wall and roof made of armoured plates.
r e p r o d u c e d , stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form Armoured tower/cupola Installed in roofs of cannon forts and new bunkers of
or by any m e a n s , electronic, electrical, c h e m i c a l , mechanical, optical, the Mannerheim Line. Had six slits for observation and
p h o t o c o p y i n g , recording or otherwise, w i t h o u t t h e prior written permission close-range combat.
of t h e copyright o w n e r . Enquiries should b e addressed to t h e Publishers. Casemate On the Mannerheim Line, part of the bunker where
weapons are installed, or a concrete bunker in general.
I S B N : 978 1 84603 384 1 Commander The Red Army abolished officer ranks and introduced
E-book I S B N : 978 1 84908 100 9 another name for commissioned officers during the
Russian Civil War. All officers were renamed
Editorial by llios Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK (www.iliospublishing.com) commanders. The word 'officer' only came back into
Cartography: M a p Studio, Romsey, UK use in the Red Army in 1943.
P a g e layout by Ken Vail Graphic Design, C a m b r i d g e , UK (kvgd.com) Cuckoo A Red Army nickname for a Finnish sniper.
D e a t h bunker, or d e a t h Accommodation dugout of the 2nd Heavy Artillery
T y p e s e t in Myriad Pro a n d S a b o n
dugout Battalion in Lahde. 32 Finnish artillerymen were killed
Index by Alison W o r t h i n g t o n
inside the dugout on 13 February 1940.
Originated by P P S Grasmere, Leeds, UK
A Finnish female name, the nickname of bunker
Printed in China t h r o u g h Bookbuilders No. 17 in Summankyla area.
Karelian sculptor Nickname for a heavy Red Army cannon firing at
09 10 11 12 13 1098765432 1
Finnish bunkers over open sights.
Kombrig A rank in the Red Army in 1939-40, equivalent to a
A CIP c a t a l o g u e record for this book is available from t h e British Library.
general-major.
Korsu: A Finnish term for any type of bunker: concrete,
wooden, with machine guns or without. The loose use
ARTIST'S NOTE of this term in Finnish archive sources and literature
causes a lot of confusion.
Readers m a y care t o n o t e that t h e original paintings from w h i c h t h e
L B T , Lichny Tank Boitsa A nickname for an armoured shield on skis designed to
colour plates in this b o o k w e r e prepared are available for private sale. (trooper's o w n tank) provide cover from 7.62mm ammunition during an
All reproduction copyright w h a t s o e v e r is retained by t h e Publishers. approach to the bunkers. About 50,000 such shields
All enquiries should b e addressed t o : were issued to the troops of the Red Army in the Winter
War.
Brian Delf, 7 Burcot Park, Burcot, A b i n g d o n , 0 X 1 4 3 D H , UK Official name of bunker No. 5 in the Lahde sector.
The name was given to the bunker due to its extremely
T h e Publishers regret that they can enter into no c o r r e s p o n d e n c e high cost of construction. The Red Army used the name
u p o n this matter. Millionaire to designate all the large bunkers on the
Mannerheim Line.
The name of a house next to which bunker No. 11 in
THE FORTRESS STUDY GROUP (FSG) Summankyla sector was located. The bunker was named
after the house.
T h e object of t h e F S G is t o a d v a n c e t h e e d u c a t i o n of t h e public in t h e
Poppius 2nd Lieutenant Poppius was the first commander of
study of all aspects of fortifications a n d their a r m a m e n t s , especially bunker No. 4 in the Lahde sector. During the Winter War
works constructed t o m o u n t or resist artillery. T h e F S G holds an annual the bunker retained the name of its first commander.
c o n f e r e n c e in S e p t e m b e r o v e r a long w e e k e n d w i t h visits a n d e v e n i n g Stalin's sledgehammer A nickname for a heavy Red Army cannon firing at
lectures, an a n n u a l tour a b r o a d lasting a b o u t eight days, a n d an annual Finnish bunkers over open sights.
M e m b e r s ' Day. Strongpoint In the Finnish army, a fortified position of an infantry
platoon, often built for all-round defence and featuring
T h e F S G journal FORT is published annually, a n d its newsletter Casemate extensive use of flanking fire.
is published t h r e e times a year. M e m b e r s h i p is international. For further Terttu Finnish female name, and the nickname of bunker No. 2
details, please contact: in the Summankyla sector.
Torsu Finnish nickname for the command bunker of the
T h e Secretary, c/o 6 Lanark Place, L o n d o n W 9 1BS, UK Lahde sector.
Viipuri The Finnish name for the capital of Karelia and the
Website: www.fsgfort.com main city on the Karelian Isthmus.
Vyborg The Swedish and Russian name for Viipuri.

THE WOODLAND TRUST

Osprey Publishing are supporting t h e W o o d l a n d Trust, t h e UK's leading
w o o d l a n d conservation charity, by f u n d i n g t h e dedication of trees.

FOR A C A T A L O G U E O F ALL B O O K S P U B L I S H E D BY O S P R E Y MILITARY

A N D AVIATION P L E A S E CONTACT:

Osprey Direct, c/o R a n d o m House Distribution Center,

400 H a h n Road, Westminster, M D 21157
E-mail: [email protected]

Osprey Direct, T h e Book Service Ltd, Distribution Centre,

Colchester Road, Frating G r e e n , Colchester, Essex, C 0 7 7 D W
E-mail: [email protected]

www.ospreypublishing.com
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4
The historical background

CHRONOLOGY 5

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT 9

The first fortifications . The modernizations of the 1930s . The weapons of the Mannerheim Line
Standard elements of bunker design

FIELD FORTIFICATIONS ON THE MANNERHEIM LINE 18

Trenches . Wooden bunkers . Obstacles

THE PRINCIPLES OF DEFENCE 23

THE LIVING SITES 24

OPERATIONAL HISTORY 25
The Inkila sector . Karhula . Summa village (Summankyla) . Lahde - Leipasuo - Taasionlammet
Suurniemi . Muolaa . Salmenkaita - Kekkiniemi cannon fort . Taipale and Patoniemi
The rear position around Vyborg

AFTERMATH 59

THE SITES TODAY 61

BIBLIOGRAPHY 62

APPENDIX 63

INDEX 64
THE MANNERHEIM LINE 1920-39
FINNISH FORTIFICATIONS ON THE KARELIAN ISTHMUS

INTRODUCTION
The Mannerheim Line, the system of Finnish fortifications on the Karelian
Isthmus, became legendary during the Winter War of 1 9 3 9 - 4 0 , when it was
tested in battle and finally fell to the steamroller of the Red Army offensive.
Built in the 1920s and the 1930s, this line of defences stretched from the Gulf
of Finland in the west to Lake Ladoga in the east, thus covering the entire
Karelian Isthmus, a strategically important sector of the Soviet-Finnish border.
The design, development, defence and destruction of the Mannerheim Line
make for a fascinating study, not only due to the vast variety of fortification
solutions employed in it, but also because of the battles fought over its bunkers
and trenches.

The historical background

Prior to the Winter War, Finland had had a long history of wars, conflicts
and border changes. This can be explained by its location between two larger
rival states, the Russian empire (later the USSR, now the Russian Federation)
and Sweden. During the Middle Ages and the early modern period, Finland,
then a province of Sweden, witnessed wars on a regular basis. In 1809, after
yet another war between Sweden and Russia, the latter emerged victorious
and took control over the whole of Finland as a prize. In 1 9 1 7 , after the
collapse of the Russian empire, Finland became an independent state for the
first time in its history. After a short but bloody civil war in 1918, the country
began a process of peaceful development. A peace treaty with Soviet Russia
was signed in Tartu, Estonia, in 1920. The nascent Soviet republic was still
suffering the effects of the Civil War and the terms of the peace treaty were
quite favourable for Finland; on the Karelian Isthmus the border was set at
the Sister River, the former administrative border between the Grand Duchy
of Finland and the province of St Petersburg. At the closest point the border
was only 32 kilometres from Petrograd (renamed Leningrad in 1924), the
second largest city of Soviet Russia with a population of 3.19 million people
as of 1 9 3 9 , and an important military and industrial centre. For Finland,
the Karelian Isthmus, the new border area, was also strategically important.
The isthmus comprises a stretch of land between the Gulf of Finland in the
west and Lake Ladoga in the east. This area provided the shortest route into
the heart of Finland and to the Finnish capital Helsinki. A relatively good
road and railway network and the absence of any significant natural obstacles
made the terrain even more inviting for potential attackers. The area has been
described by Finnish historians and the media as the 'key to Finland'.

4
 The Karelian Isthmus was also of great strategic importance to the Soviet
Union. The border between Finland and Soviet Russia was only some 30
kilometres from Leningrad at its closest point. The city was home to vitally
important military production factories and was also a key base for the Baltic
Red Banner Fleet.
Owing to ideological differences, recent domination in the imperial period,
and the fresh scars of the Finnish civil war, in which Soviet Russia secretly
supported the Finnish Red Guards, both national governments treated each
other with great distrust and suspicion. The Finnish leaders thought (as history
correctly showed) that Russia would at some point make a comeback as a
superpower and try to incorporate Finland into its realm again. The Soviet
leaders viewed officially neutral Finland as a hostile, capitalist state. Its
territory, and especially the Karelian Isthmus, could be used by a European
state (be it France, England, Poland or Germany) as a jumping-off position to
assault Leningrad. As the distance from the Finnish border to Leningrad was
30-50 kilometres, the Soviet leaders viewed the north-western borders of the
USSR as extremely vulnerable.
Both countries began fortifying the new border almost immediately after
signing the peace treaty in 1920. The line of Soviet fortifications south of the
border was named the KaUR, the Karelian Fortified Region. The Finnish line
of defences was named the Main Defence Line. Later it was dubbed the
Mannerheim Line, although it is important to note that this name was given to
it by foreign reporters, not by the Finnish Army. It should be noted that there is
also a common misunderstanding in Russia and in Finland about this term. For
Finns the Mannerheim Line is the line of defences, where the Red Army advance
was stopped in mid-December 1939; for the Russians, however, the Mannerheim
Line is the entire complex of Finnish fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus.

CHRONOLOGY
1917 25 October Communist revolution takes place in Russia.

6 December Finland declares independence from Russia.

LEFT
1920 14 October Finland and Soviet Russia sign the peace treaty of Tartu. A poor quality picture of a
Mannerheim Line bunker from
1920s Construction of the first Finnish defensive lines. the 1920s, taken by a Soviet
spy on a miniature camera.
1930s Modernization of fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus. The picture shows how clearly
1939 June-August Volunteers from all over Finland take part in fortification the bunkers stood out from
the surrounding terrain.
work on the Karelian Isthmus.
(Antero Uitto)

23 August The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is signed in Moscow.

RIGHT

1 September Germany invades Poland. Noisniemi artillery fort on the

Vuoksi River, photographed by
a Soviet spy in the late 1920s-
early 1930s. A map and photo
album of Finnish fortifications
on the Karelian Isthmus was
produced by the Red Army
Central Intelligence Bureau in
the USSR in 1937. However, by
1939 the album was obsolete,
as the Finns had built many
more bunkers between 1937
and 1939. (Antero Uitto)

5
ABOVE
A view of Hoviniemi Cape
from the ice of Lake Suvanto.
The formidable artillery fort
was almost invisible to the
attackers. (Bair Irincheev)

LEFT
The field of fire for the Caponier
cannons of Hoviniemi fort,
looking towards the south-east.
It was through a similar field
of fire that the 220th Rifles
Regiment desperately tried
to bring reinforcements and
supplies to its 2nd Battalion
on the northern bank during
the battle of Kelja around
Christmas 1939. (Bair Irincheev)
 17 September The Soviet Union invades Poland.

October- Several rounds of negotiations between the USSR and

November Finland take place about the border on the Karelian
Isthmus, but each ends in a failure to agree.

2 6 November The Mainila incident, which serves as casus belli for the
Soviet invasion, takes place.

2 9 November The U S S R breaks off diplomatic relations with Finland.

30 November The USSR invades Finland, without any formal

declaration of war.

1 7 - 2 3 December The first Soviet offensive against the Mannerheim

Line fails.

23 December A Finnish counteroffensive on the Karelian Isthmus fails.

2 4 - 2 7 December A renewed Soviet offensive on the Karelian Isthmus fails.

1940 January The Red Army prepares for a new, massive offensive
against the Mannerheim Line.

1940 1-3 February First reconnaissance in force against the Mannerheim

Line takes place. Battle of Sk2 'Terttu' bunker in the
Summa village sector. The S k i and Sk2 bunkers are
captured by the 355th Rifle Regiment.

11 February The grand offensive of the Red Army starts.

Breakthrough in the Lahde sector. The Sj4 Poppius
bunker is captured.

13 February The Sj5 Millionaire bunker is captured.

15 February At 15.00 hrs the Finnish commander-in-chief Marshal

Mannerheim orders his troops to fall back to the
Intermediary Line.

2 0 - 2 8 February Battles in the Salmenkaita sector.

1 7 - 2 8 February Battles in the M u o l a a sector.

28 February The Finns abandon the Intermediary Line in

the afternoon.

1-13 March The Red Army units cross the Gulf of Vyborg
and threaten to encircle Vyborg.

12 March An armistice is signed in M o s c o w by the Finnish

and Soviet delegations.

13 March At noon, M o s c o w time, the armistice comes into effect.

All military activity on the Karelian Isthmus is halted.
Finland cedes the Karelian Isthmus to the USSR.

Summer All the remaining bunkers of the Mannerheim Line are

destroyed by Red Army sappers. The Finns commence
construction of a new fortified line, called the Salpa Line,
along the new border with the USSR. In similar fashion,
construction work begins on the Harparskog Line on the
H a n k o Peninsula, which has been rented to the USSR by
Finland for 30 years for use as a naval base.
DESIGN A N D D E V E L O P M E N T
The first fortifications
After discussions and deliberations during the early years of Finnish
independence, the Main Defence Line of Finland on the Karelian Isthmus was
set to run from west to east through Rompotti, Karhula, Summa, Leipasuo,
Muolaa, and Salmenkaita and then along the northern bank of the Vuoksi
River and Lake Suvanto. The line of defence fully utilized terrain features,
defending the most crucial highways and railways, and paying particular
attention to areas that tanks could easily move in.
The first fortifications were modest in size but vast in number. The most
typical fortification during this initial period of construction were frontal-firing
concrete bunkers with one heavy machine gun emplaced. The bunkers lacked
ventilation systems, periscopes, special machine-gun mounts, and sometimes
even doors, and were often built using poor-quality concrete. The only steel
reinforcements provided were H-shaped steel bars in the roofs of the bunkers.
Such fortifications were built in the most vulnerable areas, usually next to main
roads and railways, and were built to maximize the natural defensive features
of the terrain, using small rivers and brooks as obstacle lines. The bunkers were
quite tall and stood out clearly in the surrounding terrain. To make things
worse, the bunkers were not guarded or camouflaged during peacetime, which
gave Soviet spies a perfect chance to map them and even take pictures of them
without any danger of being caught. In addition to these fortifications, concrete
shelters and small concrete trenches were built.
In general, the fortifications erected during the 1920s were of poor quality
and were built to a low budget. However, one exception to this rule was the
group of formidable cannon forts built along the northern bank of the Vuoksi
River and Lake Suvanto. Each fort had four cannons or machine guns, with
two of them providing a superb field of flanking fire in each direction. For
observation and close defence each fort was equipped with an armoured tower.
The guns installed were either Meller or Nordenfeldt cannons of 2-3-inch
calibre. A total of six such forts was built on the Lauttaniemi, Noisniemi,
Kiviniemi, Hoviniemi (at Sakkola village), Kekkiniemi and Patoniemi headlands.
The bunkers were built into the sandy hillsides in such a way that they were
virtually invisible from the other side of the lake - the direction from which any
attacker would approach.
The Finnish defences on the Karelian Isthmus were anchored on coastal
batteries and forts in the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga. Some of these
fortifications were inherited from the Russian empire, whilst others were built
in the 1920s and 1930s. The most important batteries were Kaarnajoki
(containing four 6-inch cannons) and Jariseva (containing two 120mm cannons)
behind the Taipale sector on Lake Ladoga, the Koivisto archipelago batteries
(containing six 10-inch cannons and two 6-inch cannons), Humaljoki fort
(containing eight 6-inch cannons and four 57mm cannons), Tuppura fort
(containing four 6-inch cannons and two 57mm cannons) and the Ristiniemi
battery (containing two 10-inch cannons) in the Gulf of Finland.

The modernizations of the 1930s

In the 1930s, as the world situation became more and more unstable, the
process of fortification of the Karelian Isthmus resumed. New types of bunkers
were developed and built, including the so-called 'Millionaire' bunkers.
The main features of the new construction period were the modernization
and strengthening of the existing machine-gun bunkers, the completion of
A gun-port for close-range
combat in the Sk5 bunker,
suited to a Suomi sub-machine
gun or a Lahti-Saloranta light
machine gun. (Bair Irincheev)

unfinished bunkers in the Inkila sector, and the construction of some new
bunkers that were of a completely different design. However, modernization of
the Main Defence Line had not been completed by the beginning of hostilities
between the USSR and Finland.
A unique test bunker was built in the Lahde sector, comprising a long wall
of reinforced concrete with different degrees of reinforcement within the
concrete. The bunker was then subjected to test-firing by heavy Finnish artillery
and the most durable combination of concrete and reinforcement was selected
for use in future fortification projects. At the same time, the effects of employing
protective armoured plate at different angles were explored, leading to further
crucial decisions on the design of the new bunkers.
The existing machine-gun bunkers were modernized in the following
ways. The walls and roofs were thickened with reinforcement added to the
concrete. Additional chambers were built so that the direction of fire could
be changed from frontal to flanking. Also, some bunkers were transformed
into shelters, and others had armoured towers added to them.
The new, massive bunkers built consisted of an underground shelter
(located at a depth of 2-4m) which could house 2 0 - 4 0 men and two to three
casemates. However, such structures were extremely costly and only a few of
them were built.
It is important to note that there was no absolutely standard design for
these formidable fortifications, as each bunker was built to fit the unique
features of the terrain. However, all bunkers featured certain standardized
elements of design, and standard weapons.

THE SJ5 MILLIONAIRE' MACHINE-GUN BUNKER

The Sj5 'Millionaire' (in Finnish, Miljoonalinnake) bunker was observation and close combat. It could accommodate
the most famous of all the fortifications of the Mannerheim 20-40 men in the underground shelters, and had three
Line. This reconstruction is the first ever to be attempted casemates. This bunker was built between 1937 and 1939,
of the whole site around the bunker. The bunker was about as part of the last efforts to strengthen the defences of the
60m long, and was equipped with four heavy machine guns isthmus. The bunker is shown as per December 1939, before
set up for flanking fire, and had three armoured towers for the fighting in this sector.
The Sj5 'Millionaire' machine-gun bunker
RIGHT
An intact armoured tower
on a Finnish bunker. Note the
protection for shell splinters
on the observation and
close-range defence slits.
(Carl-FredrikGeust)

BELOW
The standard air ventilation
system of a Finnish bunker.
A handle for circulating the air
can be seen in the lower part of
the picture. (Carl-Fredrik Geust)

The weapons of the Mannerheim Line

The main weapon emplaced in the bunkers was a
heavy M a x i m machine gun, set on a specially built
wooden carriage. In some cases the wooden carriage
was built with haste and machine guns were attached
to it with leather belts. The thick walls of the bunker
and the small size of the gun-ports often silenced, or
deflected, the sound of the machine gun firing. The
machine guns were attached to the water supply
system of the bunkers to allow the circulation of
water inside the weapon's cooling sleeve.
A special version of the Suomi sub-machine gun
was developed for use inside the tower; the long
wooden stock of the original Suomi was removed
and a pistol-type handle was attached to it instead.
A special narrow muzzle brake was attached to the
cooling sleeve on the barrel so that the gun could be
fired through the observation slits.
The bunkers were also equipped with additional
gun-ports for close combat. Normally, a small shelf
was built into the wall of the bunker under such
gun-ports, to hold several clips or ammunition drums.
Defenders could use rifles, Suomi sub-machine guns or
Lahti-Saloranta light machine guns for firing from
these gun-ports.
The preferred anti-tank weapon of the Mannerheim
Line defenders was the 37mm Bofors anti-tank gun,
either purchased from Sweden or produced in Finland
under licence. The cannon was capable of penetrating
the armour of all Soviet tanks, except for new top-
secret heavy tanks, which were deployed in the Summa

12
village sector in December 1939. However, the weapons were so scarce that a
Finnish battalion on the Mannerheim Line would only deploy one or two such
guns for the whole sector of defence. Due to the scarcity of these anti-tank
weapons, crews had to build several positions for their guns and be ready to
move them in the course of a battle.
The inadequacy of anti-tank defences on the Line spurred the defenders into
improvising anti-tank weapons for close-quarters combat. These included
petrol bombs, satchel charges and even shotguns for firing at the observation
slits of Soviet tanks at point-blank range. Petrol bombs, dubbed 'Molotov
cocktails' (to mock the Soviet foreign minister, who was seen in Finland as one BELOW LEFT
of the architects of the Soviet invasion), became a legend of the Winter War. Bunk beds inside a 'Millionaire'-
Initially they were improvised weapons made at the front, but later in the war type Finnish bunker, probably
the State Alcohol Factory in Rajamaki, Finland began mass production of these Ski 0 The Ten'. Note the straw
mattresses and the hooks
using cognac and vodka bottles. Recent battlefield finds suggest that even for hanging uniforms.
Viipuri's Brewery was engaged in making Molotov cocktails, filling lemonade (Carl-FredrikGeust)
bottles with flammable liquid.
BELOW RIGHT
A stove for heating and
Standard elements of bunker design cooking food inside a bunker,
Machine guns were installed in casemates for flanking fire, but this left the most likely Ski 0 The Ten'.
bunker exposed to attacks from the front. In order to solve this problem, (Carl-FredrikGeust)

13
The badly damaged frontal
armoured wall of a Finnish
armoured bunker, probably
Le6 or Le7. Note the two
wide observation slits and the
narrower gun-port below them.
(Carl-Fredrik Geust)

armoured towers with slits for observation and for engaging in close-range
combat were built into the roofs of the casemates. The towers had armoured
walls with a thickness of 12-20cm and six observation slits. The slits could be
closed by rotating an armoured ring inside the bunker. There was a hatch at
the bottom of the tower and a ladder provided access into the casemate of the
bunker. Finnish officers described the tower as a 'steel cup, large enough to fit
two people in it, that was installed upside down onto the roof of the bunker'.
An armoured tower was quite low and only protruded 30-40 centimetres
above the roof of the bunker. Observation slits were almost at the same level
with the roof of the bunker. The towers were primarily used by artillery
observers and duty observers from the bunker's garrison. Although the towers
were low, they were the only element of the bunker visible from the Red Army's
side, and were thus subjected to accurate artillery fire, often over open sights.
Most of the bunkers were gas-proof in case chemical weapons were used
by the enemy. The ventilation system of the bunkers comprised a large milk-
churning-type machine that was operated manually. When a large number of
soldiers slept inside the bunker, they had to operate the ventilation system several
times during the night, as oxygen would run low in this sealed environment.
The accommodation chambers of the bunker were equipped with bi-level
bunk beds, placed along the walls of the underground passages. The frames
of the beds were metal with wooden slats, and the mattresses were filled with
straw or hay. Small shelves were installed along the walls for the soldiers'
small personal items, like canteens and water bottles.

|jj A M A C H I N E - G U N B U N K E R IN T H E H U M A L J O K I S E C T O R , O N T H E T E R I J O K I - K O I V I S T O RAILWAY

This type of bunker was the most prevalent among the defences placed directly onto a concrete shelf below the embrasure,
of the Mannerheim Line. The bunker was located to the west It appears that the bunkers did not even have any doors
of the Terijoki-Koivisto railway line, and was made of concrete. on them. In 1939 these bunkers were mostly obsolete,
Its weaponry comprised one Maxim heavy machine gun, and being clearly visible in the terrain they fell easy prey
mounted on a standard Finnish Army tripod. The latter was to Soviet artillery.
A machine-gun bunker in the Humaljoki sector, on the Terijoki-Koivisto railway
RIGHT
A Finnish wooden bunker
destroyed by a direct hit
from Soviet heavy artillery,
in an unknown sector of
the Mannerheim Line.
(Carl-FredrikGeust)

BELOW
A Soviet prisoner of war with
some bread given to him by
Finnish soldiers, inside a Finnish
wooden bunker in Summa,
January 1940. (Bair Irincheev)

The bunkers were heated by means

of pre-installed stoves made of brick.
The chimneys were thin and long, in
order to conceal the exiting smoke, and
were protected by a layer of concrete
about 4 0 c m thick. A bunker normally
had a built-in well or two to supply
water for cooling the machine guns and
for potable water for the garrison.
The bunkers were connected to the
battalion's headquarters by an under-
ground phone cable laid at a depth of
two metres, which proved to be quite
inadequate during the heavy artillery
barrages laid down by Soviet artillery.
Some bunkers had radio sets brought
into them by artillery observation teams.
However, it is important to note that these
radio sets were not pre-installed inside
the bunkers. When phone lines were
damaged by artillery fire, the garrisons of
the bunkers had to rely on runners for the
transfer of messages.
Most of the bunkers were built of
reinforced concrete; however, the Russian
Imperial Navy left behind plenty of
armoured plates for the repair of its
battleships in Finland, and so the Finnish
Army decided to use them for bunker
construction. Live artillery test-firing at the
bunker in Lahde confirmed that a sloping
30cm-thick armour plate provided a level
of protection comparable with 1.5m of
reinforced concrete. This gave Finnish
Army engineers the idea of building

16
bunkers with the frontal wall and roof of the casemates protected by armour
plates. The casemates were very compact, low and easy to conceal in the
surrounding terrain. The best example of this is the Ink6 bunker, which stands
only a metre or so above the ground and blends completely into the hillock
on which it was built. The gun-ports of these armoured bunkers measured
3cm x 10cm, which allowed only a limited, 60-degree angle of fire. The frontal
wall of the bunkers was built at an angle to help deflect incoming artillery
rounds. During the course of the fighting this led to the myth that the bunkers
were covered with a thick layer of rubber, which caused incoming rounds to
ricochet off. The frontal walls and roofs were built of several consecutive layers
of armoured plates, each 3-10cm thick, attached to the concrete sidewalls by
large bolts. The Soviet war correspondent Sobolev described the armoured
casemates of the Ink6 bunker as 'the turrets of a battleship, buried in the ground'.
Again, there was no standard design for the armoured bunkers. The Ink6,
SklO ('The Ten') and Sj4 'Poppius' bunkers had casemates with roofs and
frontal walls of armour plate, while the Le6 and Le7 bunkers had only their
frontal walls built of this. The I n k l , Ink3, Ink4, Ink5 and Ink7 bunkers had
their casemate walls built of armour plate too.
Just before the outbreak of the Winter War, the Finnish Army decided to
change the bunker design once again, primarily due to the high cost of
construction of the 'Millionaire' bunkers. Smaller machine-gun bunkers for one
or two heavy machine guns without integrated deep underground shelters were
built in the Muolaa and Salmenkaita sectors. Each bunker had enough bunk
beds to accommodate only 6 to 10 soldiers. Larger concrete shelters were built
some 150-200m to the rear of the machine-gun bunkers, and were connected
to them by a communication trench. The concrete shelters had only a slightly
lower profile than the machine-gun bunkers, and some of them were equipped
with armoured towers (for example, shelter N o . 37 in the Salmenkaita sector).
Building a pair of smaller bunkers without a massive underground gallery at a
depth of four metres was a cost-saving solution, and the military value of these
machine-gun bunkers was the same as that of the 'Millionaire' bunkers. It is
important to note that in both the Salmenkaita and Muolaa sectors the concrete
shelters were built only in isolated locations, as the outbreak of hostilities soon
halted all work.

A barbed-wire obstacle line

in an unknown sector of the
Mannerheim Line.
(Carl-FredrikGeust)

17
 In addition to the concrete shelters, numerous wooden bunkers and
improvised concrete, iron and combined bunkers were constructed between
October and November 1939 after the Finnish Army took up defensive
positions on the Karelian Isthmus. The variation in their design was limited
only by the available construction materials and the imagination of the builders.
Although the Finnish Army had created a clear guide to fortification in the
form of a manual, the Finnish officers and soldiers at the front cared little for
these strict rules and instead opted for effectiveness.
The cannon forts at Lake Suvanto and the Vuoksi River were armed with
Meller and Nordenfeldt 2- or 3-inch fortress cannons, left behind by the
Russian Imperial Army after the collapse of the Russian empire. The Meller
gun had no recoil system and had an effective range of up to 3,000m, while
the Nordenfeldt cannon had range of up to 9,000m and a theoretical rate of
fire of up to 20 shots per minute.
The coastal batteries and artillery forts in the Gulf of Finland, the Gulf
of Vyborg and around the shores of Lake Ladoga were armed with a variety
of World War I-era 5-, 6- and even 10-inch cannon left behind by the Russian
Imperial Army or purchased in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The most
crucial batteries were those of Kaarnajoki in the Taipale sector, armed with
four Russian-built Canet 6-inch cannon, and the 10-inch battery on the
Koivisto archipelago.

FIELD FORTIFICATIONS O N T H E
M A N N E R H E I M LINE
Trenches
Many trenches had been dug in the build-up to the outbreak of hostilities, in
October and November 1939. A Finnish battle trench would be about 2m
deep, with a step for firing and individual positions for riflemen and machine-
gun crews, and the sides revetted with wooden beams. Niches for ammunition
were built into the front walls. Foxholes began to appear in the front walls of
trenches when war broke out, as the full devastating effect of Soviet artillery fire
took its toll on the defenders.
In swampy sectors, like Merkki, Taasionlammet and M u n a s u o , where
digging down was not possible, trenches had to be built on top of the boggy
ground. They consisted of two earth walls, strengthened with logs.

A barbed-wire obstacle line,

attached to steel poles,
combined with an anti-tank
rock barrier. The second row
of barbed wire can be seen in
the distance. The dark object
in the background is the Sj5
'Millionaire' bunker. The photo
was taken in the Lahde sector
of the Mannerheim Line.
(Carl-Fredrik Geust)

18
 A modern view of a
barbed-wire obstacle attached
directly to trees, in the Inkila
sector of the Mannerheim Line.
In the 60 years since the war
ended, the barbed wire has
grown into the trees.
(Bair Irincheev)

A trench network normally consisted of platoon strongpoints, and

offered the possibility of flanking fire and an all-round defence in case of an
enemy breakthrough. Communication trenches and flanking positions were
also present.
During the battles on the Mannerheim Line, when Soviet artillery pounded
the Finnish defences with up to 12,000 shells per day, most of the trenches were
destroyed or filled in by earth and debris. It took a superhuman effort by the
Finnish sappers to maintain the trenches in a battleworthy condition, rebuilding
them every night in the bitter cold.
Finnish trenches often had armoured shields installed on the breastworks
to protect individual riflemen from enemy fire. The shields were rectangular
with a gun-port and a thin roof plate, and were thick enough to protect a
defender from a standard rifle bullet and shrapnel. However, they could not
stop armour-piercing rifle bullets, and during the battles that developed Soviet
tanks would target any individual riflemen spotted, firing their main guns at
the armoured shield. Thus, in the later battles the Finnish infantry moved
between firing positions as quickly as they could in order not to be targeted
by Soviet armour.

Wooden bunkers
Wooden bunkers, built both as shelters and as machine-gun positions, were
abundant along the Mannerheim Line. The Finnish infantry built them
both for accommodation and for strengthening gaps in the Line, the relevant
sections being anchored on concrete bunkers. These bunkers varied in size,
construction materials and design. In general, although fortification manuals
were always close at hand, the Finns preferred to use common sense and
constructed bunkers according to the specific terrain features, the available
construction materials and the proximity of water sources.
In general, according to the Finnish field manuals, a wooden accommodation
bunker for a platoon was to be constructed at a depth of 8m, with two entrances,

19
a ventilation system and heating. Both rocks and soil were to be used on the
roof. According to the calculations of Finnish sappers, such a depth would give
a bunker adequate protection from enemy 6-inch artillery rounds. In reality very
few bunkers were built at such a depth, and wooden bunkers were extremely
vulnerable to heavy artillery fire, as the later fighting demonstrated.
It is important to note, though, that these bunkers provided a relatively
safe and warm place for rest and sleep (each bunker being equipped with a
stove). During the harsh winter of 1 9 3 9 - 4 0 this was an extremely important
aspect of everyday life for the troops.
Wooden machine-gun bunkers helped close the gaps between the concrete
fortifications of the line, and could normally house one machine gun with
one or two gun-ports. Army Commander of 2nd Rank Nikolai Voronov,
Chief of Artillery of the Soviet 7th Army on the Karelian Isthmus, pointed out
the strength of these bunkers in his post-war report to his superiors:

The concrete, armoured and wooden bunkers on the Karelian Isthmus fitted
very well into the terrain and were very well camouflaged. The strength of the
fortified line was in the location of the bunkers on the reverse slopes of hills,
the edges of forests and groves and behind natural obstacles. Flanking and
interlocking fire of machine guns, mortars and artillery formed the basis of
the Finnish system of fire. The Finnish Army is trained to fire at the enemy
from the flanks in front of neighbouring units, while the Red Army, despite its
high numbers of automatic weapons, is strongly inclined towards frontal fire.

Obstacles
Barbed-wire entanglements and fences were the most common infantry
obstacle on the Mannerheim Line. Several variations were noted in different
sectors of the Line. The Lahde and Salmenkaita sectors had barbed wire
attached to spear-like steel poles, which were only 3 0 - 4 0 c m above the
ground. The overall length of the poles was about 1.5m long, so the poles
were very firmly driven in. In winter, with the snow level reaching 50-100cm,
these barbed-wire fences would become invisible and the Red Army infantry
only became aware of them when they were already entangled. In some cases
these low barbed-wire fences were combined with an anti-tank barrier made
of rocks. Some fragments of these barbed-wire obstacles can still be seen
today, and are especially prominent in the Lahde sector.
In other sectors barbed wire was attached to wooden poles which protruded
about 60cm above the ground. There were normally four to six rows of wire
at the forward obstacle line. Barbed-wire fences were also present within the
defences of the Mannerheim Line itself, often forming traps for attacking
infantry. The first barbed-wire fence would be built immediately in front of the
flanking fire sector of a bunker, with a second fence placed behind the sector
of fire. As the advancing enemy infantry negotiated the first fence, they would
find themselves caught in a hail of flanking fire between the two fences. Most
of the wooden poles have rotted away in time, and very little remains of these
obstacles lines today.
Another variant of the barbed-wire fence saw the attachment of barbed
wire directly to living trees. Such obstacles were hard to spot and were
normally built between strongpoints to prevent outflanking and infiltration
of the Line by Red Army scout parties. These barbed-wire fences can still be
seen in the forests, as most of the trees are still growing there.
 The Finnish Army was well aware of the Red Army's widespread use of
armoured formations, and anti-tank obstacles were present in all sectors of the
Line that featured tank-friendly terrain. The most common form of anti-tank
obstacle was a barrier of granite rocks laid out in between four and twelve
rows. The Finnish Army did not have sufficient funds to build these obstacles
out of concrete, and the widespread presence of granite boulders and rocks in
Finland made the choice of materials an obvious one. Concrete pyramids up to
2m tall saw very limited use, mostly for blocking major highways and roads.
Before the lines of rocks were emplaced, the Finnish Army conducted
a series of field tests to try to resolve an obvious question about what size of
rocks and how many rows would be necessary to stop an enemy tank. It was
decided that four rows at a height of 70cm above the ground would render
such an obstacle impassable. The rocks were buried about a metre into the
ground, giving total rock height of about 1.5m. However, the problem was
that the only tanks that Finland possessed in the 1930s were Renault FT-17s,
dating from World War I, and Vickers six-ton tanks purchased from Great
Britain. Both tanks were smaller than the Soviet T-28 medium and BT-5 light
tanks. In the event, the larger Soviet tanks negotiated these obstacles with ease,
which came as an extremely unpleasant surprise for the Finnish defenders.
The second serious failing of the Finnish anti-tank defences was where they
were placed - namely, in front of the Mannerheim Line in open ground, where
they were clearly visible from the Red Army side. This enabled the latter to
employ both direct and indirect artillery fire in order to clear passages through
them. In addition, the Soviet tanks themselves could clear a way through the
lines by firing their main guns at the boulders; a 4 5 m m tank cannon could
destroy a rock with one direct hit.
Anti-tank ditches were employed in swampy terrain where rocks were
unsuitable (they would simply sink into the bog). The sides of the ditches were
strengthened with log revetments. The second line of defence in the Lahde
sector was protected by an impressive anti-tank ditch, which presented a serious
obstacle to Soviet armour. Once again, the weak point in the anti-tank ditches
on the Mannerheim Line was their location: they were not covered by machine-
gun fire, and Soviet infantry often used them as shelters from Finnish artillery
fire and as a jumping-off position for an assault on the Finnish trenches.

A view of Summa village after

the fighting. Soviet cars and
trucks are parked in the former
no-man's land. An anti-tank
obstacle line is visible in the
foreground. Two destroyed
T-28 tanks are also visible
in the centre of the picture.
The Finnish bunkers are
marked by vertical black lines.
The picture was taken from
a Soviet artillery forward
observation post.
(Carl-FredrikGeust)

21
 Log barriers were probably the most extravagant anti-tank obstacles on the
Mannerheim Line. In wooded areas, the logs were attached horizontally to
large trees, with wire at the height of a tank's turret. Hitting such an obstacle
at high speed could damage a tank's gun or even remove a tank's turret.
However, these barriers were given only limited use in certain areas, and are
only documented in the rear of the Lahde sector.
Barricades made of fallen trees made for an obvious anti-tank obstacle in
wooded terrain and were widely used on the Mannerheim Line. Such barricades
were sometimes booby-trapped and combined with barbed-wire entanglements.
Another form of obstacle comprised the creation of flooded areas through
the use of dams, both improvised and permanent. A tall, concrete flood dam
was constructed west of the Leningrad-Viipuri railway on the Peronjoki
River. When closed, the dam created a vast flooded area around the railway.
A tree barricade in a forest, in
the western part of the Karelian A similar dam of wood and earth was built on the Majajoki River west of the
Isthmus. (Bair Irincheev) Lahde sector. Once the area had been flooded and the first frosts had set in,
the Finns blew up both dams. As a result, a
thin layer of ice was left suspended in the
air by the force of explosion, supported
only by its attachment to hillocks and trees.
The ice could not support the weight of even
an individual soldier, rendering the terrain
completely impassable for both infantry
and armour.
Minefields were the final obstacle elements
employed. Since the Finnish Army was short
of money, anti-personnel minefields were
almost non-existent. Most minefields were
small and covered the most likely routes of
armour movement. In many cases anti-tank
mines were improvised devices, comprising
wooden boxes filled with explosives with a

22
 A destroyed flood dam in
the Leipasuo sector. A new
forest has grown up in the
intervening years, and the
view does not show how tall
the dam is. (Dmitry Satin)

primitive detonator attached. In the Inkila sector the Finns used naval mines in
their anti-tank minefields. The effect of such mines, each carrying 2 0 0 - 3 0 0 k g
of explosives, was devastating; a Soviet T-28 tank that drove over one of these
mines before the Inkila sector in December 1939 had its main turret blown off
by the power of the explosion.

T H E PRINCIPLES OF D E F E N C E
The preceding description of the features of the Mannerheim Line at the
outbreak of war in 1939 allows us to outline the main principles of defence.
The bunkers, armed with machine guns, were only capable of stopping the
enemy infantry after they had passed through the obstacle line. The sectors of
fire of the bunkers were placed so that the bunkers could lay down flanking
fire on the lines of barbed wire and anti-tank barrier obstacles. Bunkers often
had interlocking sectors of fire. Enemy armour was supposed to be stopped by
the obstacles before being dealt with by the anti-tank artillery and close-range
weapons of the Finnish infantry. The Finnish officers were well aware of
the weakness of their anti-tank artillery, but at the same time they knew
that armour alone would not be able to control the captured terrain. Thus, the
Finnish defenders of the Line saw their main task as isolating the Soviet
armour from the advancing infantry and then dealing with them separately.
The Finnish troops on the isthmus were issued strict orders to hold their
ground and fight, even if they found themselves surrounded by the enemy.
The Finns relied on the high-quality training given to the individual Finnish
infantryman, his stoicism and stubbornness, and his superior knowledge of the
terrain. Each Finnish battalion that took up positions on the Mannerheim Line
in October 1939 had two months to practise and prepare for all sorts of action
in the terrain where the actual battles took place between December 1939 and
February 1940.
Supporting artillery was stationed in fixed positions some 3 - 4 k m from
the main defence line. The possible routes of advance of the Soviet troops

23
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Terence's
Andrian, a comedy, in five acts
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Terence's Andrian, a comedy, in five acts

Translated into English prose, with critical and
explanatory notes.

Author: Terence

Contributor: Suetonius

Translator: Jr. W. R. Goodluck

Release date: February 10, 2024 [eBook #72921]

Language: English

Original publication: London: Longmans, Hurst, Rees, Orme,

and Brown, 1820

Credits: Carol Brown, Charlene Taylor and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file
was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TERENCE'S

ANDRIAN, A COMEDY, IN FIVE ACTS ***
TERENCE’S ANDRIAN.
 TERENCE’S

ANDRIAN,
A Comedy, in Five Acts,

TRANSLATED INTO

ENGLISH PROSE,
WITH

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES,

BY

W. R. GOODLUCK, Jun.

The Athenian and Roman plays were written with such a regard to morality,
that Socrates used to frequent the one, and Cicero the other.
Spectator; No. 446.
 LONDON:
PRINTED FOR LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, AND BROWN,
PATERNOSTER-ROW.

1820.
 LONDON:
Printed by W. Clowes, Northumberland-court.
 PREFACE.

If an apology for the following translation cannot be found in the

work itself, it would be to little purpose to insert it in the Preface. I
have attempted to present to the public the most celebrated
dramatist of ancient Rome, in such a dress as may enable the
English reader, learned and unlearned equally, to relish, in his own
language, the beauties of this great poet. Though the original is
composed in verse, I have employed prose in this translation,
because the verse of Terence approaches so very nearly to prose,
that in prose only is it possible to adhere faithfully to the words, and
particularly to the style of our author; as we have in our language no
measure of verse at all corresponding with that used by Terence.
To the learned reader, the number of the subjoined Notes may,
perhaps, seem excessive; and the minuteness of description which
characterizes many of them, may appear unnecessary; but, though
this work was not written professedly for the schools, yet the Notes
were not composed entirely without a view to the instruction of the
young student; and, as translations are supposed to be made chiefly
for the use of the unlearned, who cannot be expected to be much
acquainted with the manners and customs of the ancients; I thought
it better, if I erred at all, to err on the safe side, and to repeat to
some of my readers something that they knew before, rather than
run the risk of permitting any one of them to remain unacquainted
with it altogether. A French translator of Terence, the learned and
indefatigable Madame Dacier, has judged a still greater number of
Notes than I have subjoined in this work, necessary to elucidate
various passages in her translation of the play of the Andrian, and of
Suetonius’s Life of our author. One remark may be added on this
subject; it must be considered that many of the explanatory Notes
affixed to the play of the Andrian, tend to the general elucidation of
the various passages in the remaining five plays of Terence; and I
think I may venture to hope, that the Notes in general, will, in many
instances, be found useful in the exposition of many passages in the
Latin and Greek classics.
I am induced to publish this play singly, with a view of
ascertaining whether a translation of Terence’s comedies on this plan
may meet with sufficient approbation to encourage the appearance
of the remaining five plays: as I propose to give a complete
translation of the works of this celebrated author, if the present
attempt should be honoured with a favourable reception. I may say,
in the words of Terence himself,

“Favete, adeste æquo animo, et rem cognoscite,

Ut pernoscatis, ecquid spei sit reliquum,
Posthac quas faciet de integro comœdias,
Spectandæ, an exigendæ sint vobis priùs.”

And now deign to favour the play with your attention, and
give it an impartial hearing, that you may know what is in
future to be expected from the poet, and whether the
comedies that he may write hereafter, will be worthy to be
accepted, or to be rejected by you.—Prologue to the Andrian.
These lines contain very strong presumptive proof that the
Andrian was Terence’s first production; and, for that reason, it has
been selected for this essay, and not on account of its being
supposed to be superior to his other plays: for so great, so steady
was the equality of this poet’s genius, that no critic of eminence,
ancient or modern, could ever yet venture to assign to any one of
his plays a claim of superiority to the rest. The celebrated Scaliger
has asserted that there were not more than three faults in the six
plays of Terence.
 The ancients seem to have been least partial to the Step-mother:
Volcatius says,
“Sumetur Hecyra sexta ex his fabula.”
The Step-mother is reckoned the last of the six. This was the only
piece written by our author, in which the plot was single; and the
want of a double plot, which the Romans then preferred, was,
doubtless, the reason of its being postponed to Terence’s other
productions.
The force of custom has given authority to an erroneous
disposition of these comedies, which are usually printed in the
following order:

The Andrian,
The Eunuch,
The Self-tormentor,
The Brothers,
The Step-mother,
The Phormio.

They were written and represented at Rome as follows:

Year of Rome.
The Andrian 587
The Step-mother 588
The Self-tormentor 590
The Eunuch 592
The Phormio 592
The Brothers 593
The original cause of the order of these plays being changed by
the ancient transcribers is not known; though it is conjectured that
they classed them thus, that the four plays taken from Menander
might be placed together. This leads me to mention Terence’s close
imitation of the Greek dramatists, amounting, in fact, to a partial
translation of them; and it is necessary to bear this in mind during a
perusal of his writings, lest, under the impression that this author
wrote originally in Latin, the reader should forget that the scene is
always laid in Greece; that the persons of the drama are not Romans
but Greeks; and that, consequently, the manners, customs, names,
and things, there mentioned, are almost uniformly Grecian.
Roman literature had emerged from obscurity just previous to the
times of Terence: that sun, which was destined to shed its splendour
over all future ages, was then scarcely risen from the darkness
which shrouded it during the rude infancy of the Roman
commonwealth; and even for a long period after Rome assumed the
highest rank in the scale of nations. Livius Andronicus, the first poet
of eminence, wrote dramatic pieces in the year of Rome 513. He was
followed by Nævius, Ennius, Tegula, and Cæcilius; next comes
Pacuvius, who excelled in tragedies; then follow Plautus and his
cotemporaries Plautius, Aquilius, and Acutius; and, lastly, Terence
brought the Latin drama to its highest perfection about the year of
Rome 590, eighty years after its first appearance. But, in Greece,
dramatic writing had attained the highest pitch of excellence under
Menander, more than one hundred years before; and the Latin poets
copied most closely from the refined writings of the Greeks. At that
time, and for many years after, Greek was almost as much in fashion
at Rome, as French has of late years been in fashion in England: it
formed a necessary branch of a polite education; and many of the
Romans quitted their native city, and resided in Greece a
considerable time, for the purpose of perfecting themselves in the
Greek language, and enjoying the advantage of associating
themselves with the philosophers and other learned men of that
country.
Our author, therefore, complied with the taste of the age, and no
man succeeded better in making the Greek poets speak Latin. He
copied chiefly from Menander: the four entire plays, the Andrian, the
Eunuch, the Self-tormentor, and the Brothers, were taken from the
writings of that great poet, as were also some parts of the Step-
mother and the Phormio.
 Terence’s great rival in dramatic fame was Marcus Accius Plautus,
who flourished a few years before him; and has left twenty comedies
replete with wit and spirit. To draw a comparison at length, between
these great poets, would be an undertaking by no means suited to a
Preface; and far more arduous than I should at present feel
prepared to enter into: the learned Madame Dacier very happily
observes, “Il est certain qu’il n’y a rien de plus difficile que cette
espèce de critique qui consiste à juger des hommes, et à faire voir
les avantages qu’ils ont les uns sur les autres. Il y a tant d’égards à
observer; tant de rapports à unir, tant de différences à peser, que
c’est une chose presque infinie; et il semble que pour s’en bien
acquitter, il faudroit avoir une esprit supérieur à ceux dont on juge,
comme il est nécessaire que la main qui se sert d’une balance soit
plus forte que les choses quelle veut peser.”—It is certain, that no
species of criticism is more difficult than that which consists of
judging generally of an author; and in pointing out those
excellencies, in which he is superior to other writers. There are so
many points to be considered, so many similarities to be compared
with each other, so many differences to be weighed against each
other, that the task is almost endless; and appears to require talents
superior to those of the person whose productions are to be
criticised; as the hand which holds the balance ought to possess a
power more than equal to the weight of whatever is to be placed in
it.
Most of those critics who have undertaken to compare Terence
and Plautus with each other, have, on a general estimate of their
merits, decided in favour of Terence; though in one or two particular
excellencies they allow Plautus to have surpassed him. They judged
Plautus to be chiefly recommended by his humour, by the amusing
variety of his incidents, by the liveliness and spirit of his action, and
by his rich, agreeable, and witty style. Terence they praise for his
delicacy of expression, his unequalled skill in the delineation of
characters and of manners, and in the construction and
management of his plots, for the well-timed introduction of his
incidents, and for the evenness, purity, and chasteness of his style.
 Terentio non similem dices quempiam.—Afranius.

Terence stands unrivalled.

One natural defect the critics have charged Terence with, and
only one, viz., the want of what the ancients called the vis comica,
which is usually interpreted humour: and, in this requisite, they
judged him to have fallen short of Plautus. One fault also is objected
against him, being no less than a direct breach of the rules of
dramatic writing; which is, that he makes the actors directly address
the audience in their assumed characters; as in the fourth scene of
the first act of the Andrian, and also in the last scene of the last act.
Against the latter charge, no defence can be made, except we urge
the authority of custom; but the imputation against our author of a
want of humour may, in a great measure, be repelled.
The vis comica of the ancients, though we translate it by the
word humour, which approaches nearer to its true signification than
any other expression in our language, could not have been exactly
the same kind of humour with that of our own times; which has
been usually considered as peculiar to the English drama, and has
not even a name in any other modern language. If we allow the vis
comica, or comic force, to be divided into two species, namely, the
vis comica of the action, and the vis comica of the dialogue, (and is
there not a humour of action, as there is of words?) we must also
allow, that Terence’s writings, far from being devoid of the humour
of action, are replete with it throughout. The Eunuch, particularly,
abounds with this kind of humour, especially in the eighth scene of
the fourth act, where Thraso forms his line of battle; and, in the
fifth, sixth, and seventh scenes of the last act, between Laches,
Pythias, and Parmeno, which are specimens of the vis comica of
action, not inferior to many of the witty Plautus’s attempts to exhibit
this species of dramatic manners.
I shall conclude by giving the reader some account of the rise and
conduct of dramatic entertainments at Rome: which cannot be so
conveniently introduced in the Notes. A knowledge of these things is
very necessary to a right understanding of Terence’s plays; as his
mode of writing could not be reconciled to the modern method of
dramatic representation, which differs very materially from the
ancient manner.
About an hundred and twenty years before regular plays were
first exhibited at Rome, a sort of entertainment called ludi scenici
was introduced there by the Etrurians: it consisted merely of dancing
to the sound of a pipe. This simple amusement was soon improved
upon, and the dancers began also to speak. They spouted a species
of rude satirical verses, in which they threw out rough jests, raillery,
and repartee against each other: these were called Saturnian verses,
or Satires, from their god Saturn: hence this name was afterwards
applied to poetry composed for the purpose of lashing vice or folly.
The Saturnian verses, set to music, and accompanied by dancing,
continued a favourite diversion, till they were superseded by regular
plays about the year of Rome 515. The places where they were
represented, (called theatra, theatres, from a Greek word signifying
to see,) were originally tents, erected in the country, under the
shade of some lofty trees: afterwards they performed in temporary
buildings formed of wood: one of these is recorded to have been
large enough to contain eighty thousand spectators. Pompey the
Great erected the first permanent theatre: it was built of stone, and
of a size sufficient to accommodate forty thousand persons.
Some critics have objected against Terence, that he is guilty of an
impropriety in making one actor speak very frequently without being
heard by another; and introducing two or more persons on the
stage, who, though they are both of them seen by the spectators,
yet do not perceive each other for a considerable space of time.
These objections are easily answered when we reflect on the
magnificent size of the Roman theatres. An ingenious writer of the
last century has given a very clear explanation of this subject: I shall
give it in his own words.
 “Some make this objection, that in the beginning of many scenes,
two actors enter upon the stage, and talk to themselves a
considerable time before they see or know one another; which they
say is neither probable nor natural. Those that object to this don’t
consider the great difference between our little scanty stage and the
large magnificent Roman theatres. Their stage was sixty yards wide
in the front, their scenes so many streets meeting together, with all
by-lanes, rows, and alleys; so that two actors coming down two
different streets or lanes, couldn’t be seen by each other, though the
spectators might see both; and sometimes, if they did see each
other, they couldn’t well distinguish faces at sixty yards’ distance.
Besides, upon several accounts, it might well be supposed when an
actor enters upon the stage out of some house, he might take a turn
or two under the porticoes, cloisters, or the like, (that were usual at
that time,) about his door, and take no notice of an actor’s being on
the other side of the stage.”
Of course, the extensive size of the Roman theatres made it
impossible that the natural voice of the actors should be distinctly
heard at the distance they stood from the audience: to remedy this
inconvenience, they had recourse to a sort of mask, which covered
both the head and the face: it was called persona, from two Latin
words, signifying to sound through: the mouth of this mask was
made very large, and with thin plates of brass they contrived to
swell the sound of the voice, and, at the same time, to vary its
tones, so as to accord with the passions they wished to express.
Instructions in the use of these masks formed an essential and
important branch of the education of a Roman actor.
The plays represented at Rome were divided into two classes: 1.
the palliatæ, 2. the togatæ. In the first, the characters of the piece
were entirely Grecian: in the latter, they were entirely Roman. The
second class, viz., the togatæ, were subdivided into the prætextatæ,
when the play was tragedy: the tabernariæ, when the scenes lay in
low life: the atellanæ, or farces: and the trabeatæ, when the scene
lay in the camp: they had likewise mimes and pantomimes.
 The chorus consisted sometimes of one person, though generally
of several, who stood on the stage during the representation, at
first, without any share in the action of the piece: some suppose
that they were there partly in the character of spectators: if this
conjecture be correct, Terence may be excused for making the
actors address them. Their business seems originally to have been
singing between the pauses in the action, and delivering moral
reflections on what was represented on the stage: afterwards they
were incorporated with the action, as a species of attendants. These
theatrical appendages were at last laid aside, because it was thought
to appear improbable, that intrigues, which usually are to be kept
secret, should be carried on in their presence.
Flutes were played during the whole time of the performance,
and the chief musician beating time, directed the actors when they
were to raise, and when they were to depress their voices.
Sometimes one person recited the words, and another performed
the action of the same part. The tibiæ, or flutes, were of various
kinds: the best account of the manner in which they were used is
given us by Madame Dacier, as follows:
“The performers played on two flutes during the whole of the
representation. They stopped the vents of one of them with the right
hand: that flute was, therefore, called right handed: the other was
stopped with the left, and called a left-handed flute. In the first,
there were but a few holes; which occasioned it to give a deep, bass
sound: in the other, the holes were very numerous: this flute
sounded a sharp shrill note.
“When a comedy was accompanied by two flutes of a different
sound, it was said to be played Tibiis imparibus dextris et sinistris,
unequal flutes, right and left handed. When the flutes were of the
same sound, it was said to be played Tibiis paribus dextris, with
equal right-handed flutes, if they were of a deep sound: and Tibiis
paribus sinistris, with equal left-handed flutes, when they were of a
sharp shrill sound. The right-handed flutes were called Lydian; the
left-handed Tyrian; the unequal Phrygian; as were also the crooked
flutes.”
The tragic and comic actors were distinguished from each other
by the covering of their feet. The tragedians wore a sort of boot,
called cothurnus, with a very high heel; which was intended to give
them a commanding, majestic appearance. The comedians wore a
light shoe, or slipper, called soccus.
The Romans appear to have been very partial to dramatic
entertainments. Magistrates were appointed to exhibit them: and the
people even devoted to the theatre part of that time which is usually
allotted to more weighty concerns: as their plays were usually
performed in the day-time. Magnificent theatres were erected at the
public expense; and sometimes even by private individuals. A
description of one of these buildings is recorded by Pliny. The scenes
were divided into three partitions, one above another. The first
consisted of one hundred and twenty marble pillars; the second of
the same number of pillars, most curiously covered and ornamented
with glass: the third of the same number of pillars, covered with
gilded tablets. Three thousand brazen statues filled up the spaces
between the pillars. This theatre would contain eighty thousand
persons. Independently of the ordinary representations, plays were
performed on all solemn occasions: at the public feasts and games,
and at the funerals of eminent citizens. No opportunity seems to
have been neglected to introduce this species of amusement at
Rome: no nation, ancient or modern, appears to have cultivated the
drama with greater diligence than the Romans; and few have had
more success. It is our misfortune, that so few specimens of the
excellence of their dramatists have descended to our times. Let us,
however, admire and profit by what we have. The writings of
Terence and of Plautus present us with an inexhaustible source of
pleasure and instruction. As long as virtuous and humane sentiments
do not lose their appeal to the heart; as long as purity, delicacy of
expression, wit, and spirit, and well-wrought fable continue to satisfy
the judgment; so long the names of Terence and of Plautus must
remain immortal.
 THE

LIFE OF TERENCE,

Translated from the Latin

OF

CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS[1].

Publius Terentius[2], born at Carthage, in Africa, was slave to

Terentius Lucanus, a Roman senator: who, justly appreciating his
great abilities, gave him not only a polite education, but also his
liberty in the earlier part of his life. He is supposed by some to have
been made a prisoner of war: but Fenestella[3] refutes this opinion;
as [4]Terence was born after the conclusion of the second Punic war,
and died before the commencement of the third: neither, if he had
been made a captive by the [5]Numidians, or Getulians, could he
have fallen into the hands of the Romans, as there was no
commerce between the Italians and Africans, before the destruction
of Carthage.
Terence lived in the closest intimacy with many of the Roman
nobility, but particularly with Scipio Africanus[6] and Caius Lælius[7],
who were about his own age[8], though Fenestella makes Terence
rather older than either of them. Portius[9] commemorates their
friendship in the following verses:

Dum lasciviam nobilium; et fucosas laudes petit:

Dum Africani vocem divinam inhiat avidis auribus:
Dum ad Furium se cœnitare et Lælium pulchrum putat:
Dum se amari ab hisce credit, crebro in Albanum rapi
Ob florem ætatis suæ, ipsus sublatis rebus ad summam
Inopiam redactus est.
Itaque e conspectu omnium abiit in Græciam in terram ultimam.
Mortuus est in Stymphalo Arcadiæ oppido: nihil Publius
Scipio profuit, nihil ei Lælius, nihil Furius;
Tres per idem tempus qui agitabant nobiles facillime,
Eorum ille opera ne domum quidem habuit conductitiam,
Saltem ut esset, quo referret obitum domini servulus.

“While Terence joins in the pleasures of the nobles, and seeks

their empty praise; while he listens with delight to the divine voice of
Africanus; and thinks himself most happy to sup with Lælius and
with Furius[10]; while he believes them to be his true friends; while
he is frequently carried to the [11]Albanian villa; his property is
spent, and he himself reduced to the greatest poverty: on which
account he goes, avoiding all mankind, to the most distant parts of
Greece, and dies at Stymphalus[12], a town in Arcadia: his three
great friends Scipio, Lælius, and Furius, give him no assistance; nor
even enable him to hire a house; that there might, at least, be a
place where his slave might announce to Rome his master’s death.”
He wrote six comedies: when the first of them, the Andrian, was
presented to the Ædiles[13]; he was desired to read it to Cærius[14];
he accordingly repaired to his house, and found him at supper; and,
being meanly dressed, was seated on a stool near the couch of
Cærius[15], where he commenced the reading of his play; but
Cærius had no sooner heard the first few lines than he invited the
poet to sup with him; after which, the play was read, to the great
admiration of Cærius, who betowed on the author the most
unbounded applause. The other five comedies met with equal
commendation from the Romans, though Volcatius[16], in his
enumeration of them, says,
Sumetur Hecyra sexta ex his fabula.

The Step-mother is reckoned the last of the six.

The Eunuch was acted twice in one day[17]; and the author
received for it a higher price than was ever paid for any comedy
before that time, viz., eight thousand sesterces[18]: on account of
the magnitude of the sum, it is mentioned in the title of that play.
Varro[19] even prefers the opening scenes of the Brothers of Terence
to the same part in Menander. The report that Terence was indebted
to Scipio and Lælius, with whom he was so intimate, for parts of his
comedies, is well known; and he himself scarcely seems to have
discouraged the assertion, as he never seriously denies it: witness
the Prologue to the Brothers:

Nam quod isti dicunt malevoli, homines nobiles

Eum adjutare, assidueque una scribere:
Quod illi maledictum vehemens existimant,
Eam laudem hic ducit maximam, cum illis placet
Qui vobis universis, et populo placent:
Quorum opera in bello, in otio, in negotio
Suo quisque tempore usus est sine superbia.

“And as for what those malicious railers say[20], who assert that
certain noble persons assist the poet, and very frequently write with
him, what they think a reproach, he considers as the highest praise;
that he should be thought to please those who please you, and all
Rome; those who have assisted every one in war, and peace, and
even in their private affairs, with the greatest services; and yet have
been always free from arrogance.” It is likely, that he might wish, in
some measure, to encourage this idea, because he knew that it
would not be displeasing to Scipio and Lælius: however, the opinion
has gained ground, and is strongly entertained even to the present
day. Quintus Memmius[21], in an oration in his own defence, says,
Publius Africanus, qui a Terentio personam mutuatus, quæ
domi luserat ipse, nomine illius in scenam detulit.——
“Publius Africanus, who borrowed the name of Terence for
those plays which he composed at home for his
diversion.——”
Cornelius Nepos[22] asserts, that he has it from the very first
authority, that Caius Lælius being at his country-house at [23]Puteoli,
on the first of March[24], and being called to supper by his wife at an
earlier hour than usual, requested that he might not be interrupted;
and afterwards coming to table very late, he declared that he had
scarcely ever succeeded better in composition than at that time;
and, being asked to repeat the verses, he read the following from
the Self-tormentor, Act IV, Scene III.

Satis pol proterve me Syri promissa huc induxerunt

Decem minas quas mihi dare pollicitus est, quod si is nunc me
Deceperit, sæpe obsecrans me, ut veniam, frustra veniet:
Aut, cum venturam dixero, et constituero, cum is certe
Renunciârit; Clitiphon cum in spe pendebit animi
Decipiam, ac non veniam; Syrus mihi tergo pænas pendet.

“Truly this Syrus has coaxed me hither, impertinently enough, with

his fine promises that I should receive ten minæ; but, if he deceives
me this time, ’twill be to no purpose to ask me to come again; or, if I
promise, and appoint to come, I’ll take good care to disappoint him.
Clitipho, who will be full of eager hope to see me, will I deceive, and
will not come; and Syrus’ back shall pay the penalty.”
 Santra[25] thinks, that if Terence had required any assistance in
his comedies; he would not have requested it from Scipio and
Lælius, who were then extremely young[26]; but from [27]Caius
Sulpicius Gallus, a man of great learning, who also was the first
person who procured[28] the representation of comedies at the
consular games or from [29]Quintus Fabius Labeo; or from[30]
Marcus Popilius Lænas, two eminent poets, and persons[31] of
consular dignity: and Terence himself, speaking of those who were
reported to have assisted him, does not mention them as young
men, but as persons of weight and experience, who had served the
Romans in peace, in war, and in private business.
After the publication of his six comedies, he quitted Rome, in the
thirty-fifth year of his age, and returned no more. Some suppose
that he undertook this journey with a view to silence the reports of
his receiving assistance from others in the composition of his plays:
others, that he went with a design to inform himself more perfectly
of the manners and customs of Greece.
Volcatius speaks of his death as follows:

Sed ut Afer sex populo edidit comœdias

Iter hinc in Asiam fecit: navim cum semel
Conscendit, visus nunquam est. Sic vita vacat.

“Terence, after having written six comedies, embarked for Asia,

and was seen no more. He perished at sea.”
Quintus Consentius[32] writes, that he died at sea, as he was
returning from Greece, with one hundred and eight plays, translated
from Menander[33]. Other writers affirm, that he died at Stymphalus,
a town in Arcadia, or in Leucadia[34], in the consulate of[35] Cneus
Cornelius Dolabella and Marcus Fulvius Nobilior, and that his end was
hastened by extreme grief for the loss of the comedies which he had
translated, and some others which he had composed himself, and
sent before him in a vessel which was afterwards wrecked.
He is said to have been of a middle stature, well-shaped, and of a
dark complexion. He left one daughter, who was afterwards married
to [36]a Roman knight, and bequeathed to her a garden of [37]XX
jugera, near the Appian Way, and close to the [38]Villa Martis: it is
therefore surprising that Portius should write thus:

——nihil Publius
Scipio profuit, nihil ei Lælius, nihil Furius:
Tres per idem tempus qui agitabant nobiles facillime,
Eorum ille opera ne domum quidem habuit conductitiam:
Saltem ut esset, quo referret obitum domini servulus.

“His three great friends, Scipio, Lælius, and Furius, give him no
assistance, nor even enable him to hire a house, that there might at
least be a place where his slave might announce to Rome his
master’s death.”
Afranius[39] prefers Terence to all the comic poets, saying, in his
Compitalia[40].
Terentio non similem dices quempiam.

“Terence is without an equal.”

But Volcatius places him not only after [41]Nævius, [42]Plautus,
and [43]Cæcilius, but even after [44]Licinius. [45]Cicero, in his
ΛΕΙΜΩΝ, writes of Terence thus,

Tu quoque qui solus lecto sermone, Terenti,

Conversum, expressumque Latina voce Menandrum
In medio populi sedatis vocibus effers,
Quicquid come loquens, ac omnia dulcia dicens.
 “And thou, also, O Terence, whose pure style alone could make
Menander speak the Latin tongue, thou, with the sweetest harmony
and grace, hast given him to Rome.”
Also Caius Julius Cæsar[46],

Tu quoque tu in Summis, O dimidiate Menander,

Poneris et merito, puri sermonis amator,
Lenibus atque utinam scriptis adjuncta foret vis
Comica ut æquato virtus polleret honore,
Cum Græcis neque in hac despectus parte jaceres,
Unum hoc maceror, et doleo tibi deesse Terenti.

“And thou, also, O thou half Menander, art justly placed among
the most divine poets, for the purity of thy style. O would that
humour had kept pace with ease in all thy writings; then thou
wouldest not have been compelled to yield even to the Greeks; nor
could a single defect have been objected to thee. But, as it is, thou
hast this great defect, and this, O Terence, I lament.”
 THE ANDRIAN,
A Comedy,

ACTED AT

THE MEGALESIAN GAMES[47];

IN THE [48]CURULE ÆDILATE OF [49]MARCUS FULVIUS AND
MARCUS GLABRIO[50]; BY THE COMPANY[51] OF LUCIUS
AMBIVIUS TURPIO, AND LUCIUS ATTILIUS[52],
OF PRÆNESTE.

Flaccus, the Freedman of Claudius, composed the Music for [53]equal

Flutes, right and left handed.
[54]Itis taken from the Greek, and was published during the
Consulate of Marcus Claudius Marcellus, and Cneus Sulpicius
Galba[55].
Year of Rome 587
Before Our Saviour 162
Author’s Age 27
 THE ARGUMENT.
There were in Athens two brothers, Chremes and Phania. The former
making a voyage to Asia, left his infant daughter, named Pasibula,
under the protection of Phania; who, to avoid the dangers of a war
which shortly after convulsed the Grecian States, quitted Athens,
and embarked also for Asia with the infant Pasibula, designing to
rejoin his brother Chremes. His vessel being wrecked off Andros, he
was received and hospitably entertained by an inhabitant of the
island, where he died, bequeathing his niece to his host, who
generously educated her with his own daughter Chrysis; changing
her name from Pasibula to Glycera. After some years he also died,
and his daughter Chrysis, finding herself reduced to poverty, and
avoided by her relations, removed to Athens, accompanied by her
adopted sister Glycera, or Pasibula. Here, supported by her
industry, she lived for some months in a virtuous seclusion; but
after that period became acquainted with several young Athenians
of good family, whose visits she admitted, hoping perhaps to
accomplish an advantageous marriage either for Glycera or for
herself. She was seduced by pleasure, and her conduct from that
time became very far from irreproachable. Meanwhile a young
man, named Pamphilus, is accidently introduced at her house, sees
Glycera, is enamoured of her; she returns his affections, and they
are privately betrothed; a short time previous to the death of
Chrysis, which happens about three years after her removal to
Athens. Chremes, whom we left in Asia, returned to Athens, and
became the father of another daughter, who was called Philumena;
he had long before formed a friendship with Simo, the father of
Pamphilus. Pamphilus being a youth of great worth and high
reputation, Chremes wishes to bestow on him the hand of his
daughter Philumena. Here the play opens. A report of the
connexion between Pamphilus and Glycera reaching the ears of
Chremes, he breaks off the marriage. Simo conceals this, and to try
the truth of the rumour, proposes Philumena again to his son, and
desires him to wed her instantly. Apprized by his servant Davus of
his father’s artful stratagem, Pamphilus professes his willingness to
marry, thinking by this measure to disappoint it; but he defeats
himself, for from his ready consent, Chremes concludes the rumour
false, and renews the treaty to the great embarrassment of
Pamphilus, which, with the artifices Davus employs to extricate him,
form the most diverting scenes of the play. However, when the
affairs of Pamphilus and Davus are reduced to extremity, and a
breach between father and son appears inevitable on account of
the marriage with Glycera, and the refusal to accept Philumena, a
stranger called Crito, most opportunely arrives from Andros, and
discovers Glycera to be Pasibula, the daughter of Chremes, who
willingly confirms her the wife of Pamphilus, and bestows Philumena,
his other daughter, on Charinus, a friend of Pamphilus, to the great
satisfaction of all parties.
 DRAMATIS PERSONÆ.

Simo, an old man, the father of Pamphilus.

Sosia, the freedman of Simo.
Pamphilus, the son of Simo.
Davus, servant to Pamphilus.
Charinus, a young man, the friend of Pamphilus.
Byrrhia, servant to Charinus.
Chremes, an old man, the friend of Simo.
Crito, a stranger, from the island of Andros.
Dromo, a servant.
Glycera, the Andrian.
Mysis, her maid.
Lesbia, a midwife.

MUTES.

Archillis, Glycera’s nurse.

Servants belonging to Simo.

The Scene lies in Athens, in a street between the

houses of Simo and Glycera.
The Time is about nine hours.
 PROLOGUE[56].

Our poet, when first he bent his mind to write, thought that he
undertook no more than to compose Comedies which should please
the people. But he finds himself not a little deceived; and is
compelled to waste his time in making Prologues; not to narrate the
plot of his play, but to answer the snarling malice of an older
poet[57]. And now, I pray you, Sirs, observe what they object against
our Author: Menander wrote the [58]Andrian and Perinthian: he who
knows one of them knows both, their plots are so very similar; but
they are different in dialogue, and in style. He confesses that
whatever seemed suitable to the Andrian, he borrowed from the
Perinthian, and used as his own: and this, forsooth, these railers
carp at, and argue against him that Comedies thus mixed are good
for nothing. But, in attempting to shew their wit, they prove their
folly: since, in censuring him, they censure Nævius, Plautus[59],
Ennius, who have given our author a precedent for what he has
done: and whose careless ease he would much rather imitate than
their obscure correctness. But henceforth let them be silent, and
cease to rail; or I give them warning, they shall hear their own faults
published. And now deign to favour the play with your attention; and
give it an impartial hearing, that you may know what is in future to
be expected from the poet, and whether the Comedies that he may
write hereafter, will be worthy to be accepted, or to be rejected by
you.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookname.com