Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Dave Morgan and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
[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 "comedie" have accents,
and "ae" 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 _AEsop_ 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 comedies de Terence_ (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 comedies 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
comedie selon les regles 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, Andre Dacier, the Abbe 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 _Repartee_" (_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 Abbe 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 comedies de Plaute_, ed. and trans. Anne Dacier (Paris,
1683). For a further statement of her views, see _Les comedies de
Terence_ (Paris, 1688).
9. In particular, see his discussion of the _liaisons_ which is
derived from Francois Hedelin, Abbe D'Aubignac, _La practique du
theatre_ . . . . (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 +Caesar+ 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 illa 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, +Haec verba Mehercule una falsa
Lachrymula, quam oculos terendo misere 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 isthaec mihi aetas & forma est, aut tibi haec 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, praeterquam tui carendum quod erat.+ +Palam beatus, ni unum
desit, animus qui modeste isthaec ferat.+ +Aliis, quia defit quod
amant, aegre 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 +Chaerea+ 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 Repartee 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
+Repartee+. 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.