Chapter I: Part 1

[This e-text comes in two forms: Latin-1 and ASCII-7. Use the one that works best on your text reader.

--In the Latin-1 version, French words like "comédie" have accents,
and "æ" is a single letter. If you see any garbage in this paragraph
and can't get it to display properly, try:
--In the ASCII-7 version, French accents and cedillas are missing,
and "ae" is two letters.

Both Prefaces were printed in italic type, with roman used for emphasis, names and quotations. Emphasis within quotations was again italicized. In these passages, the overall italics are not marked; Roman type is shown between +marks+.]

The Augustan Reprint Society

Lawrence Echard

_PREFACES_

_To Terence's_

COMEDIES

_And Plautus's_

COMEDIES

(1694)

_Introduction by_
JOHN BARNARD

Publication Number 129
WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
University of California, Los Angeles
1968

GENERAL EDITORS

George Robert Guffey, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Robert Vosper, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

ADVISORY EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_
James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_
Ralph Cohen, _University of Virginia_
Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_
Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_
Earl Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_
Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Lawrence Clark Powell, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
James Sutherland, _University College, London_
H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps no higher praise can be paid a translator than posterity's acceptance of his work. Laurence Echard's _Terence's Comedies_, first printed in 1694 in the dress and phraseology of Restoration comedy, has received this accolade through the mediation of no less a modern translator than Robert Graves. In 1963 Graves edited a translation of three of Terence's plays. His Foreword points to the extreme difficulty of translating Terence, and admits his own failure-- "It is regrettable that the very terseness of his Latin makes an accurate English rendering read drily and flatly; as I have found to my disappointment." Graves's answer was typically idiosyncratic. "A revival of Terence in English, must, I believe, be based on the translation made . . . . with fascinating vigour, by a young Cambridge student Laurence Echard . . . ."[1]

The Prefaces to Echard's _Terence's Comedies: Made English_ . . . . (1694) and to his _Plautus's Comedies, Amphitryon, Epidicus, and Rudens_ (1694) are of interest for several reasons. Both of them outline the intentions and rationale which lie behind the translations. They also throw light upon the sense of literary rivalry with French achievements which existed in some quarters in late seventeenth-century England, make comments on the contemporary stage, and are valuable both as examples of seventeenth-century attitudes to two Classical dramatists, and as statements of neoclassical dramatic theory. Finally, they are, to some extent, polemical pieces, aiming at the instruction of contemporary dramatists.

Laurence Echard, or Eachard (1670?-1730), was a minor cleric, a prolific hack, and an historian, a typical enough confusion of functions for the time. It suggests that Echard had energy, ability, and political commitment, but lacked a generous patron or good fortune to take the place of private means. Within the Church his success was modest: he was installed prebendary of Louth in 1697, but had to wait until 1712 before becoming Archdeacon of Stow. Echard achieved the little fame by which he is remembered as an historical writer. Perhaps he is more accurately described as a compiler rather than as an historian. His major works were _The Roman History, from the Building of the City, to the Perfect Settlement of the Empire by Augustus Caesar_ . . . (1695-98), the equally comprehensive _A General Ecclesiastical History from the Nativity of Our Blessed Saviour to the First Establishment of Christianity_ . . . (1702), his all-inclusive _The History of England from the first Entrance of Julius Caesar . . . to the Conclusion of the Reign of King James the Second_ . . . (1707-18), and the more detailed but equally long work, _The History of the Revolution, and the Establishment of England in . . . 1688_ (1725).

Echard's career as a publisher's jack-of-all-trades ran concurrently with his life's work on history, and showed a similar taste for the voluminously encyclopedic. In 1691 he graduated B.A. at Christ's College, Cambridge, and published four works under the imprint of Thomas Salusbury: _A Most Complete Compendium of Geography; General and Special; Describing all the Empires, Kingdoms, and Dominions in the Whole World_, _An Exact Description of Ireland . . ._, _A Description of Flanders . . ._, and the _Duke of Savoy's Dominions most accurately described_.[2] These were followed in 1692 by _The Gazetteer's or Newsman's Interpreter: being a Geographical Index_ . . . . Two years later the translations of Plautus and Terence were published.

All of this work was clearly irrelevant to his main interests: in 1695 he had been urged to undertake his _General Ecclesiastical History_, and by that time he was already at work upon his _Roman History_ (1695-98).[3] Into the bargain, he was in residence at Cambridge until 1695, for he did not gain his M.A. until that year. Despite the apparent success of his publisher's enterprises (_A Most Complete Compendium_ was in its eighth edition by 1713, and _The Gazetteer's or Newsman's Interpreter_ reached a twelfth in 1724), little of the profit reached the penurious Echard. In 1717 Archbishop Wake wrote to Addison that "His circumstances are so much worse than I thought, that if we cannot get somewhat pretty considerable for Him, I doubt He will sink under the weight of his debts . . . ."[4]

The sheer quantity of work which Echard accomplished in these early years is astonishing: it is no wonder that in the Preface to the _Plautus_ he explained that "business" had prevented him from translating more than three of the comedies, remarking, ". . . I have taken somewhat less time than was necessary for the translating such an extraordinary difficult Author; for this requires more than double the time of an _Historian_ or the like, which was as much as I cou'd allow my self" (sig. b3).

In all of his work Echard sought and acknowledged the help of a whole series of unnamed encouragers and authorities. For the _Plautus_ he "had the Advantage of another's doing their [i.e., "these"?] Plays before me; from whose Translation I had very considerable Helps . . ." (sig. b4). Apart from that aid, the _Plautus_, on the evidence offered by the title-page and the Preface, was all Echard's own. This is not the case with the _Terence_, which was translated by a symposium, with the Preface being written by Echard on the group's behalf. As a result, its Preface uses "we" throughout where the _Plautus_ uses "I." When the first edition of the _Terence_ appeared it gave the authorship as "By Several Hands," but later editions are more detailed, and specify that the work was done "By Mr. Laurence Echard, and others. Revis'd and Corrected by Dr. Echard and Sir R. L'Estrange." The fourth edition also stated firmly in 1716, "The PREFACE, Written by Mr. _Laurence Echard_" (p. i).

The only discrepancy which might seem to deny Echard's authorship of the Preface to the _Terence_ is the fact that the two Prefaces contradict one another over the way in which scenes should be marked. The Preface to the _Terence_ simply says that exits and entrances within the acts are a sufficient indication that the scene has changed without numbering them, "for the _Ancients_ never had any other [method] that we know of" (p. xxii). The _Plautus_ on the other hand, numbers the scenes, and the Preface comments, "I have all the way divided the _Acts_ and _Scenes_ according to the true Rules of the Stage . . ." (sig. b2v). Since this was an open question, however, in neoclassical dramatic theory, the simplest explanation is that Echard was free to do as he believed in the _Plautus_, which was all his own, but was, in the Preface to the _Terence_, expressing the views of the whole group of translators.

The two volumes are a testimony to Echard's remarkable industry and abilities. They were published the year before he took his M.A., when he was only twenty-four. In the years between coming up to Cambridge in 1687 and 1695, he found time not only to satisfy his university, and to do the very considerable amount of hack work which appeared in 1691 and 1692, as well as embarking upon his large historical works, but also translated two difficult Roman authors with great verve.

It would be interesting to know why, in the years between 1691 and 1694, Echard turned his attentions to the art of translation. The venture is a curious deviation from his otherwise single-minded devotion to history and to journalistic enterprises (the only other translation he is known to have done is the brief "Auction of the Philosophers" in _The Works of Lucian_ [1710-11]). The connection of Dr. John Eachard and Sir Roger L'Estrange may offer a slight clue. Echard was closely related to Dr. Eachard (1636?-1697), Master of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, and author of the lively dialogue, _Mr. Hobbs's State of Nature Consider'd_ (1672).[5] With a family connection such as this, Echard might well have hoped for a successful career centered on his stay at Cambridge. The dedication of his _A Most Complete Compendium_ in 1691 to the Master of his own college, Dr. John Covel, suggests that he was looking in this direction. L'Estrange is important not only for his intimate knowledge of the publishing trade, but also because he was a translator in his own right. His _Æsop_ appeared in 1692, and he had early put out translations of Quevedo (1673), Cicero (1680), and Erasmus (1680), and was to go on to translate Flavius Josephus (1702). Since L'Estrange had also been a student at Cambridge, there is some possibility that the translation of Terence was carried out at the instigation of a Cambridge based group. The translation might also be connected with the resurgence of interest in translation and in "correctness" which can be discerned in the 1690's.[6]

The two Prefaces differ somewhat in character. It seems clear from remarks made in the Preface to the _Plautus_ that it was written after the _Terence_ had already reached the public and after Echard's copy for the text of Plautus's three comedies was in the printer's hands. Not surprisingly the later Preface is hurried, and at times almost casual. The Preface to the _Terence_ is more ambitious, more carefully written, and more wide-ranging, though giving fewer examples of the kinds of translations made by Echard. Both Prefaces lay claim to substantially the same audience. That to the _Terence_ explains that the translation was undertaken in the first place because of the literary value of Terence's comedy. In consequence, its benefits would apply to "most sorts of People, but especially for the Service it may do our _Dramatick Poets_." Secondly, the work was undertaken for "the Honour of our own _Language_, into which all good Books ought to be Translated, since _'tis now become so Elegant, Sweet and Copious_ . . . ." Thirdly, it might rival the translations done in other countries, particularly those in France. The audience envisaged ranged from schoolboys, who would find the translation less Latinate and the notes more pointed than those of Bernard or Hoole, to "Men of Sense and Learning," who ought to be pleased to see Terence in "modern Dress." As for the dramatists, Terence might serve as an exemplar, especially since the translation could "be read with less Trouble than the Original . . ." (pp. xvii-xix). The _Plautus_ Preface is far less detailed, but refers back to these reasons, while stressing the function of the translation for the schoolboy. Judging by the number of editions, the _Terence_ found its market, for where the _Plautus_ ran to only two editions, the first and that of 1716, the _Terence_ appeared in a seventh edition in 1729. Nor was Echard's audience merely made up of students. If one of his main targets was contemporary dramatists, he would have been elated to learn that William Congreve owned a copy of the first edition of both translations.[7]

The Prefaces are perhaps a little disingenuous in acknowledging Echard's and his collaborators' debt to the contemporary French classical scholar and translator, Anne Dacier. On both occasions Echard paid her some tribute. What he does not mention is that the two volumes seem to be modelled on her example. The _Terence_ translates the plays which had appeared in her _Les comédies de Térence_ (Paris, 1688), and it is significant that despite his claims that he wished to translate more than three of Plautus' comedies, he in fact translated only those three which Mme. Dacier had already done in her _Les comédies de Plaute_ (Paris, 1683). Moreover, the notes and to some extent the Prefaces, are modelled on the French scholar's work: Echard's notes are often directly dependent upon Mme. Dacier's and are exactly described by her account of her own volume as being "avec de remarques et un examen de chaque comédie selon les règles du theatre."

The views on translation put forward by the Prefaces are an intelligent exposition of progressive contemporary notions of the art. The belief in literal translation which characterizes Jonson and Marvell in the earlier years of the century had been displaced by the more liberal concept of "imitation." Roscommon is a representative of this freer attitude, while Dryden's more severe theory of "paraphrase," whatever his practice may have been, stands somewhere between the two positions. Like Ozell and Gildon, and later Pope, Echard's aim, whether translating by himself or collectively, was to imitate the spirit of his author in English. "A meer _Verbal Translation_ is not to be expected, that wou'd sound so horribly, and be more obscure than the Original . . . . We couldn't have kept closer . . . without too much treading upon the Author's Heels, and destroying our Design of giving it an easie, _Comick Style_, most agreeable to our present Times" (_Terence's Comedies_, p. xx). To this end it was necessary to tone down the "familiarity and bluntness in [Terence's] Discourse" which were "not so agreeable with the Manners and Gallantry of our Times." This was intended to bring Terence up to the level of gentility for which he was credited by compensating for the barbarity of Roman social manners. But the translation was willing to go further than this: it added to the Roman comedy what Echard thought English comedy excelled in, "humour"-- "In some places we have had somewhat more of _Humour_ than the Original, to make it still more agreeable to our Age . . . ." (_ibid._, p. xxii). When speaking for himself alone in the Preface to the _Plautus_, Echard's claims were less grandiose. Here the translation seems much more specifically aimed at schoolboys, and Echard made firm claims for his literalness (sig. b1-2v). On the other hand, he went out of his way to praise Dryden's _Amphitryon_ (1690) for the freedom it had taken with the original, which, said Echard, "may serve for one Instance of what Improvements our Modern Poets have made on the Ancients, when they built upon their Foundations" (sig. b3v-4).

The praise of Dryden is to some extent double-edged since it is an implicit assertion of the point made in both Prefaces, that English writers had much to learn from the Roman dramatists. Echard uses the Prefaces to assess and compare Plautus and Terence, but he also uses them as a springboard for a critique of the state of English comedy. Like much neoclassical criticism it is, of course, derivative. The stock comparison of Plautus and Terence comes from Anne Dacier,[8] and Echard's footprints can be tracked in the snows of Cicero, Scaliger, Rapin, André Dacier, the Abbé D'Aubignac, and Dryden. Having set the Ancients against the Moderns, Echard is able to attack the looseness of English double plots by pointing to Terence's success within a similar structure. He is also able to praise Terence's genteel style. Against this, Echard admits, along with his precursors, Plautus' superiority in point of _vis comica_, which he defines, interestingly, as "_Liveliness of Intreague_" (sig. a8). Echard is thus able to claim, with considerable conviction, the superiority of English comedy in several areas, especially in its variety, its humour, "in some Delicacies of _Conversation_," and "above all in _Repartée_" (_Terence's Comedies_, p. xi).

What the English had to learn, in Echard's view, was "regularity," that is, the discipline imposed upon a dramatist by observing the Unities, and obeying the other "rules of the drama" (such as the _liaisons_), in pursuit of verisimilitude and tautness of structure. Echard's main hope was that his translation and notes would correct his contemporaries' habit of ignoring the Roman dramatists' "_essential_ Beauties," and "contenting themselves with considering the _superficial_ ones, such as the _Stile_, _Language_, _Expression_, and the like, without taking much notice of the Contrivance and Management, of the _Plots, Characters, etc._" (_Plautus_, sig. a1). The remarkable fact about Echard's discussion of these matters, despite his dependence at times upon that arch-pedant, the Abbé D'Aubignac,[9] is the critical intelligence with which he puts forward his argument. Unlike many neoclassical critics, Echard keeps his eyes fixed firmly on the strengths and weaknesses of Restoration comedy within the context of previous English comedy and the Restoration stage itself. A sign of this is his attention to practical details, which take the form of one or two valuable notes on the theatre of his day. We learn, for instance, that actors were in the "custom of looking . . . full upon the Spectators," and that some members of the Restoration audience took printed copies into the playhouse in order to be able to follow the play on the stage.[10] It is a real loss to the historian of drama and to the critic that these two volumes were Laurence Echard's solitary adventure into the criticism and translation of drama.

University of Leeds

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

1. _The Comedies of Terence: Echard's Translations Edited with a
Foreword by Robert Graves_ (London, 1963), pp. viii-ix. Graves
(p. ix) says that Echard's translation of Terence was made in
1689, when he was only nineteen. I have been unable to find any
evidence in support of this statement.

2. No copy of the _Duke of Savoy's Dominions_ appears to be
extant. It is not recorded in Wing, but appears in _The Term
Catalogues, 1688-1709_ . . ., ed. Edward Arber (1903-1906), II,
380. This must have been much smaller than Echard's other
publications in this year: it cost only 3d. against the first
two's 1s. 6d.

3. _A General Ecclesiastical History_ . . . . (London, 1702),
sig. b1.

4. _The Letters of Joseph Addison_, ed. Walter Graham (Oxford,
1941), p. 504.

5. Recently republished with an introduction by Peter Ure as No.
XIV (1958) in the University of Liverpool Reprints.

6. "Dryden, Tonson, and Subscriptions for the 1697 _Virgil_,"
_PBSA_, LVII (1963), 147-48. Raymond Havens makes a rather
different emphasis in his "Changing Taste in the Eighteenth
Century," _PMLA_, XLIV (1929), 501-18.

7. Items 450 and 595 in _The Library of William Congreve_, ed.
John C. Hodges (New York, 1955). [[Project Gutenberg e-text 27606]]

8. _Les comédies de Plaute_, ed. and trans. Anne Dacier (Paris,
1683). For a further statement of her views, see _Les comédies de
Térence_ (Paris, 1688).

9. In particular, see his discussion of the _liaisons_ which is
derived from François Hédelin, Abbé D'Aubignac, _La practique du
théâtre_ . . . . (Paris, 1669), pp. 117-19, 315-20. D'Aubignac's
work was translated into English as _The Whole Art of the Stage_
. . . . (1684).

10. _Plautus's Comedies_, sig. a8v; _Terence's Comedies_, p. xiii.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The texts of this edition are reproduced from copies in the Brotherton Library, University of Leeds.

_TERENCE_'s

COMEDIES:

Made _ENGLISH_.

with his

LIFE;

and some

REMARKS at the End.

By Several HANDS.

_LONDON:_

Printed for _A. Swall_ and _T. Childe_, at the
_Unicorn_, at the West-End of St. _Paul_'s
Church-yard. 1694.

THE

PREFACE.

Since long +Prefaces+ are lately much in Fashion upon this and the like Occasions, why may not we be allow'd some tolerable Liberty in this kind; provided we keep close to our Author, and our own Translation of him. As for our Author, wherever Learning, Wit or Judgment have flourish'd, this Poet has always had an extraordinary Reputation. To mention all his Excellencies and Perfections were a Task too difficult for us, and perhaps for the greatest Criticks alive; so very few there are that perfectly understand all of 'em; yet we shall venture at some of the most Remarkable.

To begin with him in general. He was certainly the most Exact, the most Elaborate, and withal the most Natural of all +Dramatick+ Poets; His +Stile+ so neat and pure, his +Characters+ so true and perfect, his +Plots+ so regular and probable, and almost every thing so absolutely just and agreeable, that he may well seem to merit that Praise which several have given him, +That he was the most correct Author in the World.+ To compare him with +Plautus+, the other great +Latin Comedian+, we may observe that +Plautus+ had more Wit and Spirit, but +Terence+ more Sense and Judgment; the former's Stile was rich and glaring, the latter's more close and even: +Plautus+ had the most dazelling out-side, and the most lively Colours, but +Terence+ drew the finest Figures and Postures, and had the best Design; the one pleas'd the Vulgar, but our Author the Better sort of people; the former wou'd usually set his Spectators into a loud Laughter, but the latter steal 'em into a sweet Smile that shou'd continue from the beginning to the end of the Representation: in short, +Plautus+ was more lively and vigorous, and so fitter for +Action+; and +Terence+ more grave and serious, and so fitter for +Reading+. Tho' +Plautus+'s Beauties were very extraordinary, yet he had his Faults and Indecorums very frequent; but +Terence+'s Excellencies (tho' possibly inferior to some of the others) were more general, better dispers'd, and closer continu'd; and his Faults so inconsiderable, and so very few, that +Scaliger+ said, +There were not three to be found throughout the Six Plays.+ So that our Author seems to want nothing to make him absolutely compleat, but only that same +Vis Comica+ that +Cæsar+ wishes he had, and which +Plautus+ was Master of in such a high degree. We shall determine nothing between 'em, but leave 'em good Friends as we found 'em.

This may be sufficient for our Author's Excellencies in general; for his particular ones, we shall begin with his Stile, a thing he has been admir'd for in all Ages, and truly he deserves it; for certainly no one was ever more accurate, natural, and clear in his Expressions than he. But to be a little more particular in this Matter, we shall give you some few of our Author's Excellencies in this kind under three or four different Heads.

And first, We may observe of his +Words+, that they are generally nicely chosen, extreamly proper and significant; and many of 'em carry so much Life and Force in 'em, that they can hardly be express'd in any other Language without great disadvantage to the Original. To instance in these following. +Qui cum ingeniis _conflictatur_ ejusmodi.+ +Ut animus in spe atque in timore usque ante hac _attentus_ fuit.+ +Nisi me lactasses amantem, & falsa spe _produceres_.+ +_Pam._ Mi Pater. _Si._ Quid mi Pater? Quasi tu _hujus indigeas_ Patris.+ +Tandem ego non illâ caream, si sit opus, vel totum triduum. _Par._ Hui? _Universum triduum._+ +Quam _elegans_ formarum spectator siem.+ +Hunc comedendum & deridendum vobis _propino_.+

We shall next take notice of one or two Instances of the Shortness and Clearness of his Narrations; as that which +Tully+ mentions. +Funus interim procedit sequimur, ad Sepulchrum venimus, in ignem posita est, Fletur.+ Another may be that in +Phormio+. +Persuasum est homini, factum est, ventum est, vincimur, duxit.+

Another remarkable Beauty of his Stile appears in his Climaxes; where every Word is Emphatical, heightens the Sense, and adds considerably to what went before. As, +Hæc verba Mehercule una falsa Lachrymula, quam oculos terendo miserè vix vi expresserit, restinguet.+ +Quod ille unciatim vix de demenso suo, suum defraudans genium, comparsit miser.+

The last thing we shall give any instance of, is the Softness and Delicacy of his Turns; of which many might be produced; but we think these few may be sufficient for our purpose. +Eheu me miseram! Cur non aut isthæc mihi ætas & forma est, aut tibi hæc sententia.+ +Nam si ego digna hac contumelia sum maxime, at tu indignus qui faceres tamen.+ +Nam dum abs te absum, omnes mihi labores fuere, quos cepi, leves, præterquam tui carendum quod erat.+ +Palam beatus, ni unum desit, animus qui modeste isthæc ferat.+ +Aliis, quia defit quod amant, ægre est, tibi, quod super est, dolet.+ And as for the Purity of his Language in general; we find it very much commended even by +Tully+ himself. And +One+ of the Moderns is not at all out of the way when he tells us: That the +Latin+ Tongue will never be lost, as long as +Terence+ may be had.

Our Author's Excellent +Latin+ is now the greatest Cause of his Esteem, and makes him so much read in the World; but for certain, he that reads him purely for his +Latin+ sake, does but a quarter read him; for 'tis his +Characters+ and +Plots+ have so far rais'd him up above the rest of the Poets, and have gain'd him so much Honour among the Criticks in all Ages. His +Stile+, tho' so very extraordinary, in a great measure may be learnt by Industry, long Custom, and continual Usage, and has been imitated to a high degree by several; and indeed this was but as rich Attire, and outward Ornaments to set off a more beautiful Body. But in his +Characters+ and +Manners+ there it is that he triumphs without a Rival; and not only +Dramatick+, but all other Poets must yield to him in that Point. For these are drawn exactly to the Life, perfectly just, truly proportionably, and fully kept up to the last; and as for their being natural, +Rapin+ says, +That no Man living had a greater insight into Nature than he.+ The more a Man looks into 'em, the more he must admire 'em; he'll find there not only such Beauty in his +Images+, but also such excellent Precepts of +Morality+, such solid Sense in each Line, such depth of Reasoning in each Period, and such close arguing between each Party, that he must needs perceive him to be a Person of strong Sense and Judgment. His +Deliberations+ are most compleat, where all the several Accidents, Events, Dangers, Casualties, good and bad Consequences are fully summed up and clearly urg'd; so are the +Answers+ of each Person as perfect, where every thing is so well fitted, so home, and so natural, that if one shou'd study upon 'em never so long, he cou'd scarce find any thing more to the purpose. He had a peculiar Happiness at pleasing and amusing an Audience, perpetually keeping 'em in a most even, pleasant, smiling Temper; and this is the most distinguishing part of his Character from the rest of the World; his Pleasantries were somewhat Manly, and such as reach'd beyond the Fancy and Imagination, even to the Heart and Soul of the Audience; and what is more remarkable yet, one single Scene shall please a whole day together; a Secret which few or no other Poet ever found out.

And as we have scarce found one Man in the World that equals him in his Characters, so we find but very few that cou'd come up to him in the Management (we mean his Art and Contrivance) of his +Plots+. We are sensible that many have been so foolish as to count his Plays a +bare Bundle of Dialogues dress'd up in a neat Stile+, and there all his Excellency to consist, or at least that they are very ordinary and mean; but such senseless Suppositions will soon vanish upon giving an Account of the Nature and Perfection of 'em. He well understood the Rules of the Stage, or rather those of +Nature+; was perfectly +Regular+, wonderful exact and careful in ordering each +Protasis+ or Entrance, +Epitasis+ or working up, +Catastasis+ or heighth, and +Catastrophe+ or unravelling the Plot; which last he was famous for making it spring necessarily from the Incidents, and neatly and dextrously untying the Knot, whilst others of a grosser make, would either tear, or cut it in pieces. In short (setting aside some few things which we shall mention by and by) +Terence+ may serve for the best and most perfect +Model+ for our +Dramatick+ Poets to imitate, provided they exactly observe the different Customs and Manners of the +Roman+ and +English+ People; and upon the same account we beg leave to be a little more particular in this Matter, which dispos'd us very much to this Translation.

The Nature of his +Plots+ was for the most part grave and solid, and sometimes passionate a little, resembling our Modern +Tragy-Comedies+; only the Comical parts were seldom so merry; the Thinness and clearness of 'em somewhat resembling our Modern +Tragedies+, only more perfect in the latter, and not crouded with too many Incidents. They were all double except the +Hecyra+, or +Mother-in-Law+, yet so contriv'd that one was always an +Under-plot+ to the other: So that he still kept perfectly to the first great Rule of the Stage, the +Unity of Action+. As for the second great Rule the +Unity of Time+ (that is, for the whole Action to be perform'd in the compass of a Day) he was as exact in that as possible, for the longest Action of any of his Plays reaches not Eleven hours. He was no less careful in the third Rule, +The Unity of Place+, for 'tis plain he never shifts his Scene in any one of his Plays, but keeps constantly to the same place from the beginning to the end. Then for the +Continuance in the Action+, he never fails in any one place, but every Instrument is perpetually at work in carrying on their several Designs, and in them the design of the whole; so that the Stage never grows cold till all is finish'd: And to do this the more handsomely and dextrously, he scarce ever brings an +Actor+ upon the Stage, but you presently know his Name and Quality, what part of the Intrigue he's to promote, why he came there, from whence he came, why just at that time, why he goes off, where he's a going, and also what he is or ought to be doing or contriving all the time he's away. His +Scenes+ are always unbroken, so that the Stage is never perfectly clear but between the Acts; but are continually joyn'd by one of the four Unions. Which according to +Mon. Hedelin+ are these; +Presence+, +Seeking+, +Noise+, or +Time+; and when the Action ceaseth (that is, upon the Stage) and the Stage is clear'd, an +Act+ is then finish'd. Then for +Incidents+, and the due Preparation of 'em, +Terence+ was admirable: And the true and exact Management of +these+ is one of the most difficult parts of +Dramatick Poetry+. He contrives every thing in such a manner so as to fall out most probably and naturally, and when they are over they seem almost necessary; yet by his excellent Skill he so cunningly conceals the Events of things from his Audience, till due time, that they can never foresee 'em; by this means they are so amus'd with the +Actors+ Designs, that the +Poets+ is unknown to 'em, till at last, being all along in the dark, they are surpriz'd most agreeably by something they never look'd for: And this is the most taking and the most delightful part of a Play. We might insist much more largely upon each of these Particulars, and upon several others, but at present we shall content our selves with saying that these +Plots+ are all so very +clear+, and +natural+, that they might very well go for a Representation of a thing that had really happen'd; and not the meer Invention of the +Poet+.

There are two or three remarkable Objections against our Author which we can't but take notice of. First, 'tis said, +That he has not kept to the Unity of Time in his Heautontimoreumenos, or Self-Tormenter; which contains the space of two days. Then, between the second and third Acts, there's an absolute failure of the Continuance of the Action.+ These are generally believ'd by several Men, and such as are famous too; and some to vindicate +Terence+ the better have added another Mistake, +That the Play was always acted two several times, the two first Acts one, and the three last another.+ But 'tis plain from all Circumstances, that the +Action+ began very late in the Evening, and ended betimes in the Morning (of which we have said something in our +Remarks+ at the end) so that the whole cou'dn't contain above Eleven hours; but as for that of the +Cessation of the Action+, 'tis answer'd two ways, either by the necessity of Sleep at that Interval, and consequently no +Cessation+, or (which is more probable) by the Persons being busie at the Treat at +Chremes+'s House, that being a necessary part of the main +Action+. The two following are Mr. +Dryden+'s Exceptions; where first he lays an Error to our Author's Charge in matter of +Time+. +In the Eunuch+ (says he) +when _Laches_ enters _Thais_'s House by mistake, between his _Exit_ and the Entrance of _Pythias_, who comes to give ample Relation of the Disorder he has rais'd within, _Parmeno_ who is left upon the Stage has not above five Lines to speak.+ In answer to this, +Pythias+ makes no such +ample Relation+, but rather tells him what +Disorders+ such a foolish Act of his was like to raise; and in truth it is not probable she shou'd stay above five or six Lines speaking, since after she saw her Cheat had taken, she cou'dn't keep her countenance within Doors, and was so eager to revenge her self by laughing at the Fool without. Besides here's an excellent Artifice of the Poets, for had she tarry'd longer, +Parmeno+ might ha' been gone, and her Mirth qualified when she saw the good Fortune +Chærea+ had met withal. His other Exception is, that our Author's +Scenes+ are several times broken. He instances in the same Play, +That _Antipho_ enters singly in the midst of the third Act, after _Chremes_ and _Pythias_ were gone off+. As for this, 'tis to be consider'd that +Scenes+ are united by +Time+ as well as +Presence+; and this is a perfect +Union of Time+, apparent to all who understand the +Art of the Stage+. A little farther he says, +That _Dorias_ begins the fourth Act alone;---- She quits the Stage, and _Phedria_ enters next.+ Here +Dorias+ does not quit the Stage till three +Scenes+ after, as appears by +Pythias+, bidding her carry in such things as she had brought with her from the Captain's Entertainment; but if she did, there wou'd be an +Union of Time+ nevertheless, as there is in all other places, where the +Scenes+ seem broken. 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 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 Allies; so two +Actors+ coming down two different Streets or Lanes cou'dn't be seen by each other, tho' the +Spectators+ might see both, and sometimes if they did see each other they cou'dn't well distinguish Faces at sixty Yards distances. Besides upon several accounts it might well be suppos'd when an +Actor+ enters upon the Stage out of some House, he might take a turn or two under the +Portico's+, +Cloysters+, 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 the Stage.

But since we propose our Master as the best +Model+ for +Dramatick Poets+ to follow, we ought in Justice to mention such things wherein he was any ways faulty, or at least where he ought not to be imitated. The first is, He makes his +Actors+ in some places speak directly, and immediately to the +Audience+ (of which that +Monologue+ of +Mysis+ in the first Act of the first Play is an instance) which is contrary to the Rules of +Dramatick Poetry+, or rather indeed of +Nature+; and this is the only real Fault that +Terence+ was guilty of, as his want of +Vis Comica+ was the only real Defect. His +Plots+ were not always the best for Story, tho' for Contrivance, and wanted somewhat of Length and Variety, fully and compleatly to satisfie an Audience. Take 'em all together, they were too much alike to have always their deserv'd Effect of surprizing; which also gave a mighty Limitation to the Variety of his +Characters+; a great pity for a Man that had such an admirable Knack of drawing them to the Life. It were also to be wish'd that his +Monologues+ or Discourses by single Persons, were less frequent, and sometimes shorter too; for tho' they are all of 'em full of excellent Sence, sound Reasoning, ingenious +Deliberations+, and serv'd truly to carry on the main Design; yet several parts of 'em, especially all +Narrations+, wou'd ha' been more natural as well as Artificial, if told by Persons of the +Drama+ to one another. Then his +Aparts+ or +Asides+ (that is when one +Actor+ speaks something which another that is present is suppos'd to not hear, tho' the Audience do) are sometimes too long to be perfectly natural. Whether he has not sometimes too much Elevation of Passion, or Borders too nigh upon +Tragedy+ for such inferior Persons, we leave to others. These are the main things to be taken notice of by all that make use of him for a +Model+, besides all such as belong purely to the various Customs of Countries, and to the difference of +Theatres+; but those are obvious enough to all.

But there's still one great Objection against these +Plays+ in general; that is, +If _Terence_'s Plays are so good as is pretended, why doesn't some Poet or other translate one or more of 'em for the Stage, so save himself the trouble of racking his Brain for new Matter+. We own they wouldn't take upon our Stage; but to clear all, we shall give these two Reasons: First, The Difference between the +Romans+ and our selves in +Customs+, +Humors+, +Manners+ and +Theatres+ is such, that it is impossible to adapt their Plays to our Stages. The +Roman+ Plots were often founded upon the exposing of Children, and their unexpected Delivery, on buying of Misses and Musick-Girls; they were chiefly pleas'd to see a covetous old Father neatly bubbled by his Slave of a round Sum of Money; to find the young Spark his Son (miserably in want of Cash) joyn with the Slave in the Intrigue, that he may get somewhat to stop his Mistress's Mouth, whom he keeps unknown to his Father; to see a bragging Coxcomb wheadled and abus'd by some cunning +Parasite+; to hear a Glutton talk of nothing but his Belly, and the like. Our +Plots+ go chiefly upon variety of Love-Intrigues, Ladies Cuckolding their Husbands most dextrously; Gallants danger upon the same account, with their escape either by witty Fetches, or hiding themselves in dark Holes, Closets, Beds, &c. We are all for Humour, Gallantry, Conversation, and Courtship, and shou'dn't endure the chief Lady in the Play a Mute, or to say very little, as 'twas agreeable to them: Our amorous Sparks love to hear the pretty Rogues prate, snap up their Gallants, and Repartée upon 'em on all sides. We shou'dn't like to have a Lady marry'd without knowing whether she gives her consent or no, (a Custom among the +Romans+) but wou'd be for hearing all the Courtship, all the rare and fine things that Lovers can say to each other. The second Reason of their not taking upon the Stage is this, tho' +Terence+'s Plays are far more +exact+, +natural+, +regular+, and clear than ours, and his Persons speak more like themselves than generally ours do; yet (to speak impartially) our Plays do plainly excel his in some Particulars. First, in the great Variety of the +Matter+ and +Incidents+ of our +Plots+; the Intrigues thicker and finer; the +Stories+ better, longer, and more curious for the most part than his: And tho' there's much confusion, huddle and precipitation in the generality of 'em; yet the great variety and number of +Incidents+ tho' ill manag'd, will have several Charms, and be mighty diverting, especially to a vulgar Audience, like the Sight of a large City at a distance, where there is little of Regularity or Uniformity to be discern'd just by. Next, we do much excel +Terence+ in that which we call +Humour+, that is in our +Comical Characters+, in which we have shewn and expos'd the several Humours, Dispositions, Natures, Inclinations, Fancies, Irregularities, Maggots, Passions, Whims, Follies, Extravagancies, &c. of Men under all sorts of Circumstances, of all sorts of +Ranks+ and +Qualities+, of all +Professions+ and +Trades+, and of all +Nations+ and +Countries+, so admirably, and so lively, that in this no Nation among the Ancients or Moderns were ever comparable to us. Lastly, Our +Comedies+ excel his in some Delicacies of +Conversation+; particularly in the Refinedness of our +Railery+ and +Satyr+, and above all in +Repartée+. Some of these things (especially when mix'd with +Humour+) have made many an ordinary +Plot+ take and come off well; and without a pretty quantity of some of 'em, our Plays wou'd go down very heavily.

Since we are accidentally fall'n into the Excellencies of our +Comedies+, we hope it may be pardonable if we mention also some principal Faults in 'em, which seem to need a Regulation. And first, Our +Poets+ seldom or never observe any of the three great +Unities of Action+, +Time+ and +Place+, which are great Errors; For what breeds more Confusion than to have five or six main +Plots+ in a Play, when the Audience can never attend to 'em? What more extravagant than to fancy the Actions of Weeks, Months, and Years represented in the Space of three or four Hours? Or what more unnatural than for the Spectators to suppose themselves now in a Street, then in a Garden, by and by in a Chamber, immediately in the Fields, then in a Street again, and never move out of their place? Wou'dn't one swear there was Conjuration in the Case; that the Theatres were a sort of +Fairy Land+ where all is Inchantment, Juggle and Delusion? Next, our Plays are too often over-power'd with +Incidents+ and +Under-plots+, and our Stage as much crowded with such +Actors+, as there's little or no occasion for; especially at one time. Then the +Matter+, and Discourse of our Plays is very often incoherent and impertinent as to the main Design; nothing being more common than to meet with two or three whole Scenes in a Play, which wou'd have fitted any other part of the Play ev'n as well as that; and perhaps any Play else. Thus some appear to swear out a Scene or two, others to talk bawdy a little, without any manner of dependance upon the rest of the Action. But besides this (which is another great Error) when the +Matter+ and +Discourse+ do serve to carry on the main Design, commonly Persons are brought on to the Stage without any sort of Art, Probability, Reason or Necessity for their coming there; and when they have no such Business as one that comes in to give you a Song or a Jigg. They come there to serve the Poets Design a little, then off they go with as little Reason as they came on; and that only to make way for other Actors, who (as they did) come only to tell the Audience something the Poet has a mind to have 'em know; and that's all their business: And truly that's little enough. This we see frequently in the chief Actor of the Play, who comes on and goes off, and the Spectators all the time stand staring and wondring at what they know not what. Another great Fault common to many of our Plays is, that an Actor's +Name+, +Quality+ or +Business+ is scarce ever known till a good while after his appearance; which must needs make the Audience at a great Loss, and the Play hard to be understood, forcing 'em to carry Books with 'em to the +Play-house+ to know who comes in, and who goes out.

The Ancients were guilty of none of these Absurdities, and more especially our Author; and indeed the Non-observance of +Rules+ has occasion'd the great Miscarriages of so many excellent Genius's of ours, particularly that of the immortal +Shakespear+. Since these are such apparent Faults and Absurdities, and still our Beauties are so admirable as to cover, and almost to out-weigh our Errors (else our Plays were not to be endur'd) undoubtedly our +Dramatick Poets+ by the Observance of this Author's Ways and Rules might out-do all the +Ancients+ and +Moderns+ too, both at +Tragedy+ and at +Comedy+; for no Nation ever had greater +Genius+'s than ours for Dramatick Poetry. These ha' been but little observ'd as yet, so that all our fine +Imitations of Nature+ may often be call'd +Lucky hits+, and more by Accident than by Art. We very much need a Reformation in this Case, and our Plays can never arrive to any great Perfection without it; therefore the nigher they come up to this Standard, the more they will be admir'd and lov'd by all Judicious Persons, provided they still keep to those Excellencies before-mention'd. Besides, these are as easily practicable upon ours as upon the +Greek+ and +Roman+ Theatres; and by a strict Observance of the +Unity of Place+, the Stage may be made far more handsome and magnificent with less Charge; and by that of the +Unity of Action+ (especially by the help of an Under-plot or so) the Story may be made far more fine and clear with less trouble.

But our Nation by long Custom, and the Success of Irregular Pieces, seems naturally averse to all Rules; and take it very ill to have their Thoughts confin'd and shackled, and tied to the Observance of such Niceties: Therefore in the first place they tell us, That Poets of all Men in the World are perfectly freely, and by no means ought to confine their Noble Fancies to dull pedantick Rules; +For this+ (say they) +is like taking of Bees, cutting off their Wings, and laying such Flowers before 'em to make Honey as they please+. A +Poet+ indeed shou'd be free, and unconfin'd as Air, as to his Though, Fancy and Contrivance, but then his +Poetica Licentia+ shou'dn't transport him to Madness and Extravagancy, making him phrensically transgress the Rules of +Reason+ and +Nature+, as well as +Poetry+. These that we mention are not any Man's Arbitrary +Rules+, but pure Nature only Methodiz'd: They never hamper a +Poet+'s Fancy or clip his Wings, but adorn their Thoughts, and regulate their Flights so as to give 'em a clearer insight into +Nature+, +Probability+ and +Decency+, without something of which it is impossible to please. And these are no more a +Confinement+ to a +Poet+'s Fancy, than the true Proportion of Pillars, the Regularity and Uniformity of Windows are to an Architect; or the exact Imitation of Nature to a Painter: As if there could be half so much Beauty in Grotesque and irregular Whims, as in the due Observation of the Rules of Prospect, Shadows and Proportion.

Another Objection is, +That our Nation will never bear Rules, but are much better pleas'd with the ways now in practice.+ 'Tis true, several of our most irregular Plays have come off with a great deal of Applause, but certainly never the more for their Irregularity; but because most of the Audience knew no better, being often dazzled by the Greatness of the Author's Genius, and the Actor's Performances; and those that did, were willing to pardon the Faults for the sake of some choice +Master-stroaks+ they had; and upon the same account a couple of good +Scenes+ have many times carry'd off a very indifferent Play: 'Tis plain that want of Use and Knowledge have been the only Cause of these ways seeming so unpracticable; and if the middle sort of Persons were once truly brought to a Sight of the Excellencies of this, and the Deformities of the other way (as the well reading of these Plays wou'd in a great measure do, being chiefly design'd for them) they wou'd esteem of it far more than now; and certainly they cou'd never pardon those many +Indecencies+, +Improbabilities+, +Absurdities+ that are so frequent in our Plays. 'Tis true, there has been a considerable Regulation among many of 'em since the Days of +Shakespear+, but not to bring things half to perfection. And thus Regulation has made hope for a further, as the Age will be brought to bear it.

The last Objection is more particular: They say, +That the Unities of Action, Time and Place must needs take off from the great Variety of the Plot, and a fine Story by this means will be quite murder'd.+ 'Tis true, all +Stories+ whatsoever are not fit for a +Dramatick Poem+; yet there may be an excellent +Plot+ without crowding together Intrigues (little depending upon one another) of half a dozen couple, suppose, in one Play; without hurrying over the Business of three Months in three Hours time, or perhaps without skipping from Gardens to Mountains, from thence to Groves, and then to Town in an Act or two: But our prying, curious Sparks can't rest here, but must be for peeping into Chambers, Closets, and Withdrawing-Rooms, ay, and into Beds too (sometimes with the Ladies in 'em) and have all things brought openly upon the Stage, tho' never so improper, and indecent. But this Objection may yet be better answer'd by Instances; and first for the +Unity of Time+, we may mention the Play call'd, +The Adventures of Five Hours+, the whole +Action+ lasting no longer (much less a day, the extent allow'd for a +Dramatick Poem+) yet this is one of the pleasantest +Stories+ that ever appear'd upon our Stage, and has as much Variety of +Plots+ and +Intrigues+, without any thing being precipitated, improbable or unnatural as to the main +Action+; so by this it appears that this Rule is no Spoiler or Murderer of a finer +Story+. Then for the +Unity of Time+ and Action too, +Ben. Johnson's Silent Woman+ is a remarkable Instance; an excellent +Comedy+ indeed, where the +Action+ is perfectly single, and the utmost extent of the +Time+ exceeds not three Hours and a half (the shortest we ever find) yet still the +Plot+, +Intrigues+, and above all the +Incidents+ are very fine, and no ways unnatural. Lastly, For all three +Unities+, Mr. +Dryden's All for Love+ (tho' a +Tragedy+, and somewhat foreign to our business) is worthy to be taken notice of, that being perfectly +Regular+ according to the Rules of the Stage, the Scenes unbroken, the +Incidents+ exactly and duly prepar'd, and all things noble and beautiful, just and proportionable. This we reckon one of the best +Tragedies+ of our Nation. Now can any Man justly think that these Plays we now mention'd were ever the worse for that +Regularity+ they had; or indeed have we many better in the Nation for +Plot+; or many that have better pleas'd the generality of Persons than these; If so this sufficiently shows the Truth of what we offered; and withal commends our Master's great Judgment in this Point: Who, in our Opinion (besides the Excellency of his +Characters+) plainly deserves a greater Name for his +Plots+, than he does for his +Language+.

Come we next then to our own Vindication, in which we shall briefly shew the +Reasons+ why we did it, and likewise what our Performances have been in this Version.