The Project Gutenberg eBook ofPrefaces to Terence's Comedies and Plautus's Comedies (1694)

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofPrefaces to Terence's Comedies and Plautus's Comedies (1694)This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Prefaces to Terence's Comedies and Plautus's Comedies (1694)Author: Lawrence EchardAuthor of introduction, etc.: John BarnardRelease date: August 13, 2009 [eBook #29684]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Dave Morgan andthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team athttp://www.pgdp.net*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREFACES TO TERENCE'S COMEDIES AND PLAUTUS'S COMEDIES (1694) ***

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Prefaces to Terence's Comedies and Plautus's Comedies (1694)Author: Lawrence EchardAuthor of introduction, etc.: John BarnardRelease date: August 13, 2009 [eBook #29684]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Dave Morgan andthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team athttp://www.pgdp.net

Title: Prefaces to Terence's Comedies and Plautus's Comedies (1694)

Author: Lawrence EchardAuthor of introduction, etc.: John Barnard

Author: Lawrence Echard

Author of introduction, etc.: John Barnard

Release date: August 13, 2009 [eBook #29684]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Dave Morgan andthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team athttp://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREFACES TO TERENCE'S COMEDIES AND PLAUTUS'S COMEDIES (1694) ***

This textuses UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding. If the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, you may have an incompatible browser or unavailable fonts. First, make sure that your browser’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font.Editor’s IntroductionPreface to TerencePreface to PlautusAugustan ReprintsNote on PaginationTypographical errors are shown in the text withmouse-hover popups. In the Prefaces, errors were corrected only if a later edition showed the same correction. All brackets are in the original.

Editor’s IntroductionPreface to TerencePreface to PlautusAugustan ReprintsNote on Pagination

Typographical errors are shown in the text withmouse-hover popups. In the Prefaces, errors were corrected only if a later edition showed the same correction. All brackets are in the original.

The Augustan Reprint SocietyLAWRENCE ECHARDPREFACESTO TERENCE’SCOMEDIESAND PLAUTUS’SCOMEDIES(1694)Introduction byJohn BarnardPUBLICATION NUMBER 129WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARYUniversity of California, Los Angeles1968

GENERAL EDITORSGeorge Robert Guffey,University of California, Los AngelesMaximillian E. Novak,University of California, Los AngelesRobert Vosper,William Andrews Clark Memorial LibraryADVISORY EDITORSRichard C. Boys,University of MichiganJames L. Clifford,Columbia UniversityRalph Cohen,University of VirginiaVinton A. Dearing,University of California, Los AngelesArthur Friedman,University of ChicagoLouis A. Landa,Princeton UniversityEarl Miner,University of California, Los AngelesSamuel H. Monk,University of MinnesotaEverett T. Moore,University of California, Los AngelesLawrence Clark Powell,William Andrews Clark Memorial LibraryJames Sutherland,University College, LondonH. T. Swedenberg, Jr.,University of California, Los AngelesCORRESPONDING SECRETARYEdna C. Davis,William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

George Robert Guffey,University of California, Los Angeles

Maximillian E. Novak,University of California, Los Angeles

Robert Vosper,William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

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

Edna C. Davis,William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

INTRODUCTIONPerhaps no higher praise can be paid a translator than posterity’s acceptance of his work. Laurence Echard’sTerence’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 . . . .”1The Prefaces to Echard’sTerence’s Comedies: Made English. . . . (1694) and to hisPlautus’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 prebendaryof 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 wereThe Roman History, from the Building of the City, to the Perfect Settlement of the Empire by Augustus Caesar. . . (1695-98), the equally comprehensiveA General Ecclesiastical History from the Nativity of Our Blessed Saviour to the First Establishment of Christianity. . . (1702), his all-inclusiveThe 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 ThomasSalusbury: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 theDuke of Savoy’s Dominions most accurately described.2These were followed in 1692 byThe 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 hisGeneral Ecclesiastical History, and by that time he was already at work upon hisRoman History(1695-98).3Into 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 Compendiumwas in its eighth edition by 1713, andThe Gazetteer’s or Newsman’s Interpreterreached 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 . . . .”4The sheer quantity of work which Echard accomplished in these early years is astonishing: it is no wonder that in the Preface to thePlautushe 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 anHistorianor 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 thePlautushe “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, thePlautus, on the evidence offered by the title-page and the Preface, was all Echard’s own. This is not the case with theTerence, 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 thePlautususes “I.” When the first edition of theTerenceappeared 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 theTerenceis the fact that the two Prefaces contradict one another over the way in which scenes should be marked. The Preface to theTerencesimply says that exits and entrances within the acts are a sufficient indication that the scene has changed without numbering them, “for theAncientsnever had any other [method] that we know of” (p. xxii). ThePlautuson the other hand, numbers the scenes, and the Preface comments, “I have all the way divided theActsandScenesaccording 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 thePlautus, which was all his own, but was, in the Preface to theTerence, 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” inThe 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).5With a family connection such as this, Echard might well have hoped for a successful career centered on his stay at Cambridge. The dedication of hisA Most Complete Compendiumin 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. HisÆsopappeared 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 thetranslation 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.6The two Prefaces differ somewhat in character. It seems clear from remarks made in the Preface to thePlautusthat it was written after theTerencehad 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 theTerenceis 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 theTerenceexplains 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 ourDramatick Poets.” Secondly, the work was undertaken for “the Honour of our ownLanguage, 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). ThePlautusPreface 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, theTerencefound its market, for where thePlautusran to only two editions, the first and that of 1716, theTerenceappeared 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 havebeen elated to learn that William Congreve owned a copy of the first edition of both translations.7The 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. TheTerencetranslates the plays which had appeared in herLes 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 herLes 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 meerVerbal Translationis 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 andGallantry 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 ofHumourthan the Original, to make it still more agreeable to our Age . . . .” (ibid., p. xxii). When speaking for himself alone in the Preface to thePlautus, 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’sAmphitryon(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,8and 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 ofvis 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 ofConversation,” and “above all inRepartée” (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 theliaisons), 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’ “essentialBeauties,” and “contenting themselves with considering thesuperficialones, such as theStile,Language,Expression, and the like, without taking much notice of the Contrivance and Management, of thePlots, 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,9is 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.10It 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 LeedsNOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION1.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 theDuke of Savoy’s Dominionsappears to be extant. It is not recorded in Wing, but appears inThe 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 1697Virgil,”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 inThe Library of William Congreve, ed. John C. Hodges (New York, 1955).Project Gutenberge-text 276068.Les comédies de Plaute, ed. and trans. Anne Dacier (Paris, 1683). For a further statement of her views, seeLes comédies de Térence(Paris, 1688).9.In particular, see his discussion of theliaisonswhich 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 asThe Whole Art of the Stage. . . . (1684).10.Plautus’s Comedies, sig. a8v;Terence’s Comedies, p. xiii.BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTEThe texts of this edition are reproduced from copies in the Brotherton Library, University of Leeds.

Perhaps no higher praise can be paid a translator than posterity’s acceptance of his work. Laurence Echard’sTerence’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’sTerence’s Comedies: Made English. . . . (1694) and to hisPlautus’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 prebendaryof 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 wereThe Roman History, from the Building of the City, to the Perfect Settlement of the Empire by Augustus Caesar. . . (1695-98), the equally comprehensiveA General Ecclesiastical History from the Nativity of Our Blessed Saviour to the First Establishment of Christianity. . . (1702), his all-inclusiveThe 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 ThomasSalusbury: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 theDuke of Savoy’s Dominions most accurately described.2These were followed in 1692 byThe 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 hisGeneral Ecclesiastical History, and by that time he was already at work upon hisRoman History(1695-98).3Into 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 Compendiumwas in its eighth edition by 1713, andThe Gazetteer’s or Newsman’s Interpreterreached 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 thePlautushe 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 anHistorianor 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 thePlautushe “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, thePlautus, on the evidence offered by the title-page and the Preface, was all Echard’s own. This is not the case with theTerence, 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 thePlautususes “I.” When the first edition of theTerenceappeared 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 theTerenceis the fact that the two Prefaces contradict one another over the way in which scenes should be marked. The Preface to theTerencesimply says that exits and entrances within the acts are a sufficient indication that the scene has changed without numbering them, “for theAncientsnever had any other [method] that we know of” (p. xxii). ThePlautuson the other hand, numbers the scenes, and the Preface comments, “I have all the way divided theActsandScenesaccording 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 thePlautus, which was all his own, but was, in the Preface to theTerence, 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” inThe 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).5With a family connection such as this, Echard might well have hoped for a successful career centered on his stay at Cambridge. The dedication of hisA Most Complete Compendiumin 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. HisÆsopappeared 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 thetranslation 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 thePlautusthat it was written after theTerencehad 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 theTerenceis 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 theTerenceexplains 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 ourDramatick Poets.” Secondly, the work was undertaken for “the Honour of our ownLanguage, 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). ThePlautusPreface 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, theTerencefound its market, for where thePlautusran to only two editions, the first and that of 1716, theTerenceappeared 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 havebeen 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. TheTerencetranslates the plays which had appeared in herLes 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 herLes 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 meerVerbal Translationis 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 andGallantry 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 ofHumourthan the Original, to make it still more agreeable to our Age . . . .” (ibid., p. xxii). When speaking for himself alone in the Preface to thePlautus, 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’sAmphitryon(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,8and 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 ofvis 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 ofConversation,” and “above all inRepartée” (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 theliaisons), 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’ “essentialBeauties,” and “contenting themselves with considering thesuperficialones, such as theStile,Language,Expression, and the like, without taking much notice of the Contrivance and Management, of thePlots, 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,9is 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.10It 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

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 theDuke of Savoy’s Dominionsappears to be extant. It is not recorded in Wing, but appears inThe 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 1697Virgil,”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 inThe Library of William Congreve, ed. John C. Hodges (New York, 1955).Project Gutenberge-text 276068.Les comédies de Plaute, ed. and trans. Anne Dacier (Paris, 1683). For a further statement of her views, seeLes comédies de Térence(Paris, 1688).9.In particular, see his discussion of theliaisonswhich 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 asThe Whole Art of the Stage. . . . (1684).10.Plautus’s Comedies, sig. a8v;Terence’s Comedies, p. xiii.

2.No copy of theDuke of Savoy’s Dominionsappears to be extant. It is not recorded in Wing, but appears inThe 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 1697Virgil,”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 inThe Library of William Congreve, ed. John C. Hodges (New York, 1955).Project Gutenberge-text 27606

8.Les comédies de Plaute, ed. and trans. Anne Dacier (Paris, 1683). For a further statement of her views, seeLes comédies de Térence(Paris, 1688).

9.In particular, see his discussion of theliaisonswhich 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 asThe Whole Art of the Stage. . . . (1684).

10.Plautus’s Comedies, sig. a8v;Terence’s Comedies, p. xiii.

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

TERENCE’sCOMEDIES:MadeENGLISH.WITH HISLIFE;AND SOMEREMARKSat the End.By SeveralHands.LONDON:Printed forA. SwallandT. Childe, at theUnicorn, at the West-End of St.Paul’sChurch-yard. 1694.

THEPREFACE.SInce longPrefacesare 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 allDramatickPoets; HisStileso neat and pure, hisCharactersso true and perfect, hisPlotsso 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 withPlautus, the other greatLatin Comedian, we may observe thatPlautushad more Wit and Spirit, butTerencemore Sense and Judgment; the former’s Stile was rich and glaring, the latter’s more close and even:Plautushad the most dazelling out-side, and the most lively Colours, butTerencedrew 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,Plautuswas more lively and vigorous, and so fitter forAction; andTerencemore grave and serious, and so fitter forReading. Tho’Plautus’s Beauties were very extraordinary, yet he had his Faults and Indecorums very frequent; butTerence’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, thatScaligersaid,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 sameVis ComicathatCæsarwishes he had, and whichPlautuswas 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 hisWords, 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 ingeniisconflictaturejusmodi. Ut animus in spe atque in timore usque ante hacattentusfuit. Nisi me lactasses amantem, & falsa speproduceres.Pam.Mi Pater.Si.Quid mi Pater? Quasi tuhujus indigeasPatris. Tandem ego non illâ caream, si sit opus, vel totum triduum.Par.Hui?Universum triduum.Quamelegansformarum spectator siem. Hunc comedendum & deridendum vobispropino.We shall next take notice of one or two Instances of the Shortness and Clearness of his Narrations; as that whichTullymentions.Funus interim procedit sequimur, ad Sepulchrum venimus, in ignem posita est, Fletur.Another may be that inPhormio.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 dedemensosuo, suumdefraudansgenium, 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.Eheume 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 unumdesit, 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 byTullyhimself. AndOneof the Moderns is not at all out of the way when he tells us: That theLatinTongue will never be lost, as long asTerencemay be had.Our Author’s ExcellentLatinis 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 hisLatinsake, does but a quarter read him; for ’tis hisCharactersandPlotshave 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. HisStile, 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 hisCharactersandMannersthere it is that he triumphs without a Rival; and not onlyDramatick, 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,Rapinsays,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 hisImages, but also such excellent Precepts ofMorality, 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. HisDeliberationsare most compleat, where all the several Accidents, Events, Dangers, Casualties, good and bad Consequences are fully summed up and clearly urg’d; so are theAnswersof 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 hisPlots. We are sensible that many have been so foolish as to count his Plays abare 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 ofNature; was perfectlyRegular, wonderful exact and careful in ordering eachProtasisor Entrance,Epitasisor working up,Catastasisor heighth, andCatastropheor 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)Terencemay serve for the best and most perfectModelfor ourDramatickPoets to imitate, provided they exactly observe the different Customs and Manners of theRomanandEnglishPeople; 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 hisPlotswas for the most part grave and solid, and sometimes passionate a little, resembling our ModernTragy-Comedies; only the Comical parts were seldom so merry; the Thinness and clearness of ’em somewhat resembling our ModernTragedies, only more perfect in the latter, and not crouded with too many Incidents. They were all double except theHecyra, orMother-in-Law, yet so contriv’d that one was always anUnder-plotto the other: So that he still kept perfectly to the first greatRule of the Stage, theUnity of Action. As for the second great Rule theUnity 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 theContinuance 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 anActorupon 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 goesoff, where he’s a going, and also what he is or ought to be doing or contriving all the time he’s away. HisScenesare 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 toMon. Hedelinare these;Presence,Seeking,Noise, orTime; and when the Action ceaseth (that is, upon the Stage) and the Stage is clear’d, anActis then finish’d. Then forIncidents, and the due Preparation of ’em,Terencewas admirable: And the true and exact Management oftheseis one of the most difficult parts ofDramatick 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 theActorsDesigns, that thePoetsis unknown to ’em, till at last, being all along in the dark, they are surpriz’dmost 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 thesePlotsare all so veryclear, andnatural, that they might very well go for a Representation of a thing that had really happen’d; and not the meer Invention of thePoet.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 vindicateTerencethe 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 theActionbegan very late in the Evening, and ended betimes in the Morning (of which we have said something in ourRemarksat the end) so that the whole cou’dn’t containaboveEleven hours; but as for that of theCessation of the Action, ’tis answer’d two ways, either by the necessity of Sleep at that Interval, and consequently noCessation, or (which is more probable) by the Persons being busie at the Treat atChremes’s House, that being a necessary part of the mainAction. The two following are Mr.Dryden’s Exceptions; where first he lays an Error to our Author’s Charge in matter ofTime.In the Eunuch(says he)whenLachesentersThais’s House by mistake, between hisExitand the Entrance ofPythias, who comes to give ample Relation of the Disorder he has rais’d within,Parmenowho is left upon the Stage has not above fiveLines to speak.In answer to this,Pythiasmakes no suchample Relation, but rather tells him whatDisorderssuch 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,Parmenomight ha’ been gone, and her Mirth qualified when she saw the good FortuneChæreahad met withal. His other Exception is, that our Author’sScenesare several times broken. He instances in the same Play,ThatAntiphoenters singly in the midst of the third Act, afterChremesandPythiaswere gone off. As for this, ’tis to be consider’d thatScenesare united byTimeas well asPresence; and this is a perfectUnion of Time, apparent to all who understand theArt of the Stage. A little farther he says,ThatDoriasbegins the fourth Act alone;——She quits the Stage, andPhedriaenters next.HereDoriasdoes not quit the Stage till threeScenesafter, as appears byPythias, 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 anUnion of Timenevertheless, as there is in all other places, where theScenesseem broken. Some make this Objection; that in the beginning of many Scenes, twoActorsenter 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 magnificentRoman 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 twoActorscoming down two different Streets or Lanes cou’dn’t be seen by each other, tho’ theSpectatorsmight see both, and sometimes if theydid 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 anActorenters upon the Stage out of some House, he might take a turn or two under thePortico’s,Cloysters, or the like (that were usual at that time) about his Door, and take no notice of anActor’s being on the other side the Stage.But since we propose our Master as the bestModelforDramatick Poetsto 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 hisActorsin some places speak directly, and immediately to theAudience(of which thatMonologueofMysisin the first Act of the first Play is an instance) which is contrary to the Rules ofDramatick Poetry, or rather indeed ofNature; and this is the only real Fault thatTerencewas guilty of, as his want ofVis Comicawas the only real Defect. HisPlotswere 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 hisCharacters; 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 hisMonologuesor Discourses by single Persons, were less frequent, and sometimes shorter too; for tho’ they are all of ’em full of excellent Sence, sound Reasoning, ingeniousDeliberations, and serv’d truly to carry on the main Design; yet several parts of ’em, especially allNarrations, wou’d ha’ been more natural as well as Artificial, if told by Persons of theDramato one another. Then hisApartsorAsides(that is when oneActorspeaks 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 hehas not sometimes too much Elevation of Passion, or Borders too nigh uponTragedyfor 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 aModel, besides all such as belong purely to the various Customs of Countries, and to the difference ofTheatres; but those are obvious enough to all.But there’s still one great Objection against thesePlaysin general; that is,IfTerence’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 theRomansand our selves inCustoms,Humors,MannersandTheatresis such, that it is impossible to adapt their Plays to our Stages. TheRomanPlots 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 cunningParasite; to hear a Glutton talk of nothing but his Belly, and the like. OurPlotsgo 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’tlike to have a Lady marry’d without knowing whether she gives her consent or no, (a Custom among theRomans) 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 moreexact,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 theMatterandIncidentsof ourPlots; the Intrigues thicker and finer; theStoriesbetter, 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 ofIncidentstho’ 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 excelTerencein that which we callHumour, that is in ourComical 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 ofRanksandQualities, of allProfessionsandTrades, and of allNationsandCountries, so admirably, and so lively, that in this no Nation among the Ancients or Moderns were ever comparable to us. Lastly, OurComediesexcel his in some Delicacies ofConversation; particularly in the Refinedness of ourRaileryandSatyr, and above all inRepartée. Some of these things (especially when mix’d withHumour) have made many an ordinaryPlottake 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 ourComedies, we hope it may be pardonable if we mention also some principal Faults in ’em, which seem to need a Regulation. And first, OurPoetsseldom or never observe any of the three greatUnities of Action,TimeandPlace, which are great Errors; For what breeds more Confusion than to have five or six mainPlotsin 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 ofFairy Landwhere all is Inchantment, Juggle and Delusion? Next, our Plays are too often over-power’d withIncidentsandUnder-plots, and our Stage as much crowded with suchActors, as there’s little or no occasion for; especially at one time. Then theMatter, 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 theMatterandDiscoursedo 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’sName,QualityorBusinessis 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 thePlay-houseto 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 ofRuleshas occasion’d the great Miscarriages of so many excellent Genius’s of ours, particularly that of the immortalShakespear. 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 ourDramatick Poetsby the Observance of this Author’s Ways and Rules might out-do all theAncientsandModernstoo, both atTragedyand atComedy; for no Nation ever had greaterGenius’s than ours for Dramatick Poetry. These ha’ been but little observ’d as yet, so that all our fineImitations of Naturemay often be call’dLucky 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 theGreekandRomanTheatres; and by a strict Observance of theUnity of Place, the Stage may be made far more handsome and magnificent with less Charge; and by that oftheUnity 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. APoetindeed shou’d be free, and unconfin’d as Air, as to his Though, Fancy and Contrivance, but then hisPoetica Licentiashou’dn’t transport him to Madness and Extravagancy, making him phrensically transgress the Rules ofReasonandNature, as well asPoetry. These that we mention are not any Man’s ArbitraryRules, but pure Nature only Methodiz’d: They never hamper aPoet’s Fancy or clip his Wings, but adorn their Thoughts, and regulate their Flights so as to give ’em a clearer insight intoNature,ProbabilityandDecency, without something of which it is impossible to please. And these are no more aConfinementto aPoet’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 theGreatness 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 choiceMaster-stroaksthey had; and upon the same account a couple of goodSceneshave 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 manyIndecencies,Improbabilities,Absurditiesthat are so frequent in our Plays. ’Tis true, there has been a considerable Regulation among many of ’em since the Days ofShakespear, 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, allStorieswhatsoever are not fit for aDramatick Poem; yet there may be an excellentPlotwithout 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; andfirst for theUnity of Time, we may mention the Play call’d,The Adventures of Five Hours, the wholeActionlasting no longer (much less a day, the extent allow’d for aDramatick Poem) yet this is one of the pleasantestStoriesthat ever appear’d upon our Stage, and has as much Variety ofPlotsandIntrigues, without any thing being precipitated, improbable or unnatural as to the mainAction; so by this it appears that this Rule is no Spoiler or Murderer of a finerStory. Then for theUnity of Timeand Action too,Ben. Johnson’s Silent Womanis a remarkable Instance; an excellentComedyindeed, where theActionis perfectly single, and the utmost extent of theTimeexceeds not three Hours and a half (the shortest we ever find) yet still thePlot,Intrigues, and above all theIncidentsare very fine, and no ways unnatural. Lastly, For all threeUnities, Mr.Dryden’s All for Love(tho’ aTragedy, and somewhat foreign to our business) is worthy to be taken notice of, that being perfectlyRegularaccording to the Rules of the Stage, the Scenes unbroken, theIncidentsexactly and duly prepar’d, and all things noble and beautiful, just and proportionable. This we reckon one of the bestTragediesof our Nation. Now can any Man justly think that these Plays we now mention’d were ever the worse for thatRegularitythey had; or indeed have we many better in the Nation forPlot; 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 hisCharacters) plainly deserves a greater Name for hisPlots, than he does for hisLanguage.Come we next then to our own Vindication, in which we shall briefly shew theReasonswhy we did it, and likewise what our Performances have been in this Version.The mainReasonswhy we undertook it were these. First, For the Excellency and Usefulness of this Author in general: And consequently for the benefit (as we shall shew by and by) of most sorts of People, but especially for the Service it may do ourDramatick Poets. Next, for the Honour of our ownLanguage, into which all good Books ought to be Translated, since’tis now become so Elegant, Sweet and Copious: And indeed nothing refines, or gives Foreigners a greater Opinion of any Language than its number of good Translations; of which theFrenchis a great Instance. Thirdly, Because most of our Neighbours have got it in theirLanguage, particularly theFrench, who have done it with good Success; and we have no reason for our being out-done by any of our Neighbours, since we have aLanguagewe dare set against any in the World. Lastly, Since the Author is so excellent, we undertook it because no other Persons wou’d. ’Tis strange that none of our great Wits wou’d undertake it before, but let us Persons of Obscurity, take their Works out of their Hands; when we can perceive by our little Performances that ourLanguagewill do it to a very high degree, undoubtedly better than theFrench.The most considerable Objections that have been made against our Translation are these. First,What real Use or Advantage can this Translation be to the Publick? As for school-Boys and Learners,Bernard’s andHool’s Translations, the great number of Notes, a School-Master, or their own Industry will well enough teach ’em to construe it. Men of Sense and Learning, they read it wholly for the Latin sake; therefore a Translation is of no use to them.Lastly,They won’t fit our Stage; and consequently they are impertinent at best.To these we answer; First, As toSchool-BoysandLearners;Bernard’s andHool’s Translations are very often false, mostly so obsolete, flat and unpleasant, that a Man can scarce read half a Page without sleeping; the latteris full ofLatinisms, and both are often more obscure than the Original. TheNotessometimes don’t express the Author’s Sense; and often very obscurely: In some things they are too short,in others too long and tedious: And most of them have the slight of running very nimbly over those Places which they are afraid they shou’d stick in.School-Mastersoften want time,and nowand thenJudgment and Learning to explain things as they ought; then to leave Boys by themselves to pick out the Sense of such a difficult Author as this, is very inconvenient; which besides the Discouragement sometimes of not being able to do it, will often lead ’em into such Errors and Mistakes, as perhaps they’ll ne’re get clear of. So that this will be of great use even toSchool-BoysandLearners: Beside the great Advantage of teaching ’em, perhaps not the worstEnglish; and something of the Idiom of our Tongue.As for the second part of the Objection,That Men of Sense and Learning read it only for the Latin sake; This is or ought to be look’d upon as a great Mistake: SinceTerencehas other and greater Excellencies than his Style, as we have before shewn. But however ingenious Persons must needs receive some pleasure in seeing such excellent Latin now speak tolerable goodEnglish; and likewise in seeing somewhat of the Conversation, Humour and Customs of the oldGreeksandRomansput into a modern Dress; and perhaps not quite out of the Fashion. Besides, since many of these do sometimes upon an occasion make use ofNotes, ’twill be of equal use (in that respect) to them as to allLearners. And that they have often need of such, will appear from the several difficult places (especially as to the Plot) and some obscure dubious Passages in this Author, which the utmost Skill in theLatinTongue will not teach to explain; since there is as great a necessity for the understanding of theRomanCustoms and Theatres in this Case, and of the Art of the Stage, as of theLatinTongue. How extraordinary useful aTranslation can be in perfectlyclearing an Author,Roscommon’s Translation ofHorace’sArt of Poetryis an apparent Instance; which shews the Sense, Meaning, Design, &c. ofHoracebetter and easier than all theParaphrasesandNotesin the World.Thirdly, Tho’ ourTranslationwill never fit our Stage, yet it may be of considerable use to some of theDramatick Poets; which we had some respect to, when we did it; they will serve ’em (as was said before) forModels; and tho’ many of our Poets do very well understand the Original, yet ’tis plain that some of ’em do not understand it over much. But however, it may not be wholly useless to those that do, and more proper for their business, being ready explain’d to their hands: And upon some accounts to be read with less trouble than the Original: For that is in many places very obscure by reason of corrupted Copies, wrong Points, false Division of wholeActsas well asScenesand the like: Further, if these Plays come to be frequently read by the more ordinary sort of People, they will by little and little grow more in love with, and more clearly see the true Excellencies of these Rules, and these livelyImitations of Nature, which will be the greatest Encouragement our Poets can have to follow ’em. And besides, the common People by thesePlaysmay plainly perceive thatObscenitiesandDebaucheriesare no ways necessary to make a goodComedy; and the Poets themselves will be the more ready to blush when they seeHeathensso plainly out-do usChristiansin theirMorals; for their principal Vices in their Plays, were chiefly from the Ignorance of the Times, but we have no such pretence. This alone might ha’ been a sufficient reason for our undertaking this Design.But to come now to what we have done; ’tis not to be expected we shou’d wholly reach the Air of the Original; that being so peculiar, and the Language so different; We have imitated our Author as well and as nigh as theEnglishTongue and our small Abilities wou’d permit; each ofus joyning and consulting about every Line, not only for the doing of it better, but also for the making of it all of a piece. We follow’d no oneLatinCopy by it self, because of the great Disagreements among ’em, but have taken any that seem’d truest. We look’d over all theNotes, sometimes they would help us a little, and often not; some hints we had from theFrench,but not very many; besides we had considerable helps from other Persons far above our selves, for whose Care and Pains we shall ever acknowledge our Gratitude. A meerVerbal Translationis not to be expected, that wou’d sound so horribly, and be more obscure than the Original; but we have been faithful Observers of his Sence, and even of his Words too, not slipping any of consequence without something to answer it; nay farther, where two Words seem to be much the same, and perhaps not intended to be very different by the Author, we were commonly so nice as to do them too; such asSegnitiaandSocordia,ScireandNoscere, and the like, which is more exact than most, if not all, our modern Versions. We cou’dn’t have kept closer (especially in this Author, which several ingenious Persons told us,Is the hardest in the World to translate;) 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. If we have been guilty of any Fault of this nature, it seems to be that of keeping too close.But still to be more particular; we did all we cou’d to prevent any of the Meaning and Grace of the bestWordsto be lost; so that we were often forc’d to search and study some time for those most proper, and oftentimes to express ’em by two, and sometimes by aCircumlocution: Which MadamDacierher self, as accurate as she is accompted, has often neglected: And thereby has wholly lost the Force and Beauty of many Emphatical Words.Terencehad some Words taken in a great many several Sences, such asContumeliaandInjuria,Odiosus,Tristis,&c. thesewehave been very careful about; but where he plays upon Words (tho’ never so prettily) he ought not in some places to be imitated at all, because the Fineness is more lost that way, than the other; yet we try’d at several when they were Natural and tolerable inEnglish. As for hisAllusionsand the like, many of them perhaps are quite lost to us. However they are commonly lost in our Language. On such places (as well as some others) we madeRemarksorNotesat the latter end; some of which we are oblig’d to theFrenchLady for; these serving to shew our Author’s fine Stroaks, as well as to vindicate our Translation. For hisSenseandMeaning, we have taken more than ordinary care about, and weigh’d all Circumstances before we fix’d. Several of the Passages are done contrary to the general Opinion, and some few differently from all, both as to thePerson that speaksas well as theMeaning, but not without good Grounds; and if any be so nice in censuring, we desire that Person to shew us threeTerencesthat exactly agree with one another, either in Points or Words, for two Acts together. Of those Passages that were absolutely doubtful, we always took the best, and that, which seem’d to us, the most probable Way and Meaning; and all such as were difficult, knotty or obscure in the Original, we made as plain and clear as we cou’d; and we presume to phansie there are very few Passages in ours, unintelligible to the meanest Capacity. In hisJestsandRepartees(except they wereAllusionsor the like) we hope that the force of ’em is seldom lost. For making every Person speak so exactly like themselves (a thing that our Author was so famous for) is much more difficult inEnglishby reason of its greater variety ofIdiomsandPhrasesthan in theLatin; and to suit these always right, requires a greaterGeniusthan we can pretend to.Terence, tho’ reckon’d very genteel in his Days, seems in some place to have a sort of familiarity and bluntness in his Discourse, not so agreeable with the Manners and Gallantryof our Times; which we have mollify’d as well as we cou’d, still making theServantssawcy enough upon occasion. In some places we have had somewhat more ofHumourthan the Original, to make it still more agreeable to our Age; but all the while have kept so nigh our Author’sSenceandDesign, that we hope it can never be justly call’d a Fault. We can’t certainly tell whitherWilliamthe Conqueror, theGrand Seignior(and the like) may pass with some: They may possibly take’emfor Blunders in time: which are now become Proverbial Expressions; the first signifying only a great while ago, and t’other a great Man.As for the Division of theActsandScenes, all the commonTerencesare most notoriously false: TheActsare often wrong, but theScenesoftener; and these have bred some obscurity in our Author’sRules. MadamDacierhas been more exact in this than all others before her; yet, still she’s once mistaken in herActs, and very often in herScenes. We have follow’d her as to herActs, except one in thePhormio; but we have not divided theScenesat all by Figures, because they are of no such use; only the Reader may take notice that whenever any particularActorenters upon the Stage, or goes off, that makes a differentScene; for theAncientsnever had any other that we know of. ThePrologues, by the Advice of several Judicious Persons, are left out, as being the Meanest, the fullest of Quibbles, and the least Intelligible of any thing he wrote: They relating chiefly to private Squabbles between ourAuthorand thePoetsof his time: The Particulars of which ’tis impossible for us to understand now, and we need not be much concern’d that we don’t. Besides, in the main, they are so much beneath theAuthor, that ’tis much question’d whether they are his or no, especially the Third. TheArgumentsare certainly none of his, and so far from being useful, that they only serve to forestall thePlots, and take away the Pleasure of surprizing.Lastly, That there might be nothing wanting that might make this Translation as intire and clear as possible; we’ve all the way intermix’dNotes of Explanation, such as,Enter,Exit,Asides, and all other things ofAction, necessary to be known, and constantly practis’d among our ModernDramatick Poets. These serve extreamly to the clearing of thePlotswhich wou’d be obscure without ’em; especially since their Theatres were so different from ours. And as this sort ofNotesare theshortest, that are generally us’d, so they are mostcompleat,usefulandclear, by the help of which any Child almost may apprehend every thing. Perhaps we might have omitted some of ’em, but we havebetteroffend this way than the other.Thus have we said as much as we thought requisite in Vindication of our Master’s Honour, and of our own Undertaking. And if we had said ten times as much; and ne’re so much to the purpose, People will still think, and talk what they please, and we can’t help it.

SInce longPrefacesare 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 allDramatickPoets; HisStileso neat and pure, hisCharactersso true and perfect, hisPlotsso 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 withPlautus, the other greatLatin Comedian, we may observe thatPlautushad more Wit and Spirit, butTerencemore Sense and Judgment; the former’s Stile was rich and glaring, the latter’s more close and even:Plautushad the most dazelling out-side, and the most lively Colours, butTerencedrew 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,Plautuswas more lively and vigorous, and so fitter forAction; andTerencemore grave and serious, and so fitter forReading. Tho’Plautus’s Beauties were very extraordinary, yet he had his Faults and Indecorums very frequent; butTerence’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, thatScaligersaid,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 sameVis ComicathatCæsarwishes he had, and whichPlautuswas 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 hisWords, 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 ingeniisconflictaturejusmodi. Ut animus in spe atque in timore usque ante hacattentusfuit. Nisi me lactasses amantem, & falsa speproduceres.Pam.Mi Pater.Si.Quid mi Pater? Quasi tuhujus indigeasPatris. Tandem ego non illâ caream, si sit opus, vel totum triduum.Par.Hui?Universum triduum.Quamelegansformarum spectator siem. Hunc comedendum & deridendum vobispropino.

We shall next take notice of one or two Instances of the Shortness and Clearness of his Narrations; as that whichTullymentions.Funus interim procedit sequimur, ad Sepulchrum venimus, in ignem posita est, Fletur.Another may be that inPhormio.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 dedemensosuo, suumdefraudansgenium, 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.Eheume 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 unumdesit, 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 byTullyhimself. AndOneof the Moderns is not at all out of the way when he tells us: That theLatinTongue will never be lost, as long asTerencemay be had.

Our Author’s ExcellentLatinis 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 hisLatinsake, does but a quarter read him; for ’tis hisCharactersandPlotshave 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. HisStile, 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 hisCharactersandMannersthere it is that he triumphs without a Rival; and not onlyDramatick, 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,Rapinsays,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 hisImages, but also such excellent Precepts ofMorality, 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. HisDeliberationsare most compleat, where all the several Accidents, Events, Dangers, Casualties, good and bad Consequences are fully summed up and clearly urg’d; so are theAnswersof 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 hisPlots. We are sensible that many have been so foolish as to count his Plays abare 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 ofNature; was perfectlyRegular, wonderful exact and careful in ordering eachProtasisor Entrance,Epitasisor working up,Catastasisor heighth, andCatastropheor 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)Terencemay serve for the best and most perfectModelfor ourDramatickPoets to imitate, provided they exactly observe the different Customs and Manners of theRomanandEnglishPeople; 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 hisPlotswas for the most part grave and solid, and sometimes passionate a little, resembling our ModernTragy-Comedies; only the Comical parts were seldom so merry; the Thinness and clearness of ’em somewhat resembling our ModernTragedies, only more perfect in the latter, and not crouded with too many Incidents. They were all double except theHecyra, orMother-in-Law, yet so contriv’d that one was always anUnder-plotto the other: So that he still kept perfectly to the first greatRule of the Stage, theUnity of Action. As for the second great Rule theUnity 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 theContinuance 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 anActorupon 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 goesoff, where he’s a going, and also what he is or ought to be doing or contriving all the time he’s away. HisScenesare 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 toMon. Hedelinare these;Presence,Seeking,Noise, orTime; and when the Action ceaseth (that is, upon the Stage) and the Stage is clear’d, anActis then finish’d. Then forIncidents, and the due Preparation of ’em,Terencewas admirable: And the true and exact Management oftheseis one of the most difficult parts ofDramatick 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 theActorsDesigns, that thePoetsis unknown to ’em, till at last, being all along in the dark, they are surpriz’dmost 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 thesePlotsare all so veryclear, andnatural, that they might very well go for a Representation of a thing that had really happen’d; and not the meer Invention of thePoet.

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 vindicateTerencethe 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 theActionbegan very late in the Evening, and ended betimes in the Morning (of which we have said something in ourRemarksat the end) so that the whole cou’dn’t containaboveEleven hours; but as for that of theCessation of the Action, ’tis answer’d two ways, either by the necessity of Sleep at that Interval, and consequently noCessation, or (which is more probable) by the Persons being busie at the Treat atChremes’s House, that being a necessary part of the mainAction. The two following are Mr.Dryden’s Exceptions; where first he lays an Error to our Author’s Charge in matter ofTime.In the Eunuch(says he)whenLachesentersThais’s House by mistake, between hisExitand the Entrance ofPythias, who comes to give ample Relation of the Disorder he has rais’d within,Parmenowho is left upon the Stage has not above fiveLines to speak.In answer to this,Pythiasmakes no suchample Relation, but rather tells him whatDisorderssuch 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,Parmenomight ha’ been gone, and her Mirth qualified when she saw the good FortuneChæreahad met withal. His other Exception is, that our Author’sScenesare several times broken. He instances in the same Play,ThatAntiphoenters singly in the midst of the third Act, afterChremesandPythiaswere gone off. As for this, ’tis to be consider’d thatScenesare united byTimeas well asPresence; and this is a perfectUnion of Time, apparent to all who understand theArt of the Stage. A little farther he says,ThatDoriasbegins the fourth Act alone;——She quits the Stage, andPhedriaenters next.HereDoriasdoes not quit the Stage till threeScenesafter, as appears byPythias, 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 anUnion of Timenevertheless, as there is in all other places, where theScenesseem broken. Some make this Objection; that in the beginning of many Scenes, twoActorsenter 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 magnificentRoman 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 twoActorscoming down two different Streets or Lanes cou’dn’t be seen by each other, tho’ theSpectatorsmight see both, and sometimes if theydid 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 anActorenters upon the Stage out of some House, he might take a turn or two under thePortico’s,Cloysters, or the like (that were usual at that time) about his Door, and take no notice of anActor’s being on the other side the Stage.

But since we propose our Master as the bestModelforDramatick Poetsto 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 hisActorsin some places speak directly, and immediately to theAudience(of which thatMonologueofMysisin the first Act of the first Play is an instance) which is contrary to the Rules ofDramatick Poetry, or rather indeed ofNature; and this is the only real Fault thatTerencewas guilty of, as his want ofVis Comicawas the only real Defect. HisPlotswere 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 hisCharacters; 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 hisMonologuesor Discourses by single Persons, were less frequent, and sometimes shorter too; for tho’ they are all of ’em full of excellent Sence, sound Reasoning, ingeniousDeliberations, and serv’d truly to carry on the main Design; yet several parts of ’em, especially allNarrations, wou’d ha’ been more natural as well as Artificial, if told by Persons of theDramato one another. Then hisApartsorAsides(that is when oneActorspeaks 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 hehas not sometimes too much Elevation of Passion, or Borders too nigh uponTragedyfor 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 aModel, besides all such as belong purely to the various Customs of Countries, and to the difference ofTheatres; but those are obvious enough to all.

But there’s still one great Objection against thesePlaysin general; that is,IfTerence’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 theRomansand our selves inCustoms,Humors,MannersandTheatresis such, that it is impossible to adapt their Plays to our Stages. TheRomanPlots 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 cunningParasite; to hear a Glutton talk of nothing but his Belly, and the like. OurPlotsgo 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’tlike to have a Lady marry’d without knowing whether she gives her consent or no, (a Custom among theRomans) 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 moreexact,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 theMatterandIncidentsof ourPlots; the Intrigues thicker and finer; theStoriesbetter, 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 ofIncidentstho’ 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 excelTerencein that which we callHumour, that is in ourComical 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 ofRanksandQualities, of allProfessionsandTrades, and of allNationsandCountries, so admirably, and so lively, that in this no Nation among the Ancients or Moderns were ever comparable to us. Lastly, OurComediesexcel his in some Delicacies ofConversation; particularly in the Refinedness of ourRaileryandSatyr, and above all inRepartée. Some of these things (especially when mix’d withHumour) have made many an ordinaryPlottake 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 ourComedies, we hope it may be pardonable if we mention also some principal Faults in ’em, which seem to need a Regulation. And first, OurPoetsseldom or never observe any of the three greatUnities of Action,TimeandPlace, which are great Errors; For what breeds more Confusion than to have five or six mainPlotsin 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 ofFairy Landwhere all is Inchantment, Juggle and Delusion? Next, our Plays are too often over-power’d withIncidentsandUnder-plots, and our Stage as much crowded with suchActors, as there’s little or no occasion for; especially at one time. Then theMatter, 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 theMatterandDiscoursedo 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’sName,QualityorBusinessis 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 thePlay-houseto 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 ofRuleshas occasion’d the great Miscarriages of so many excellent Genius’s of ours, particularly that of the immortalShakespear. 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 ourDramatick Poetsby the Observance of this Author’s Ways and Rules might out-do all theAncientsandModernstoo, both atTragedyand atComedy; for no Nation ever had greaterGenius’s than ours for Dramatick Poetry. These ha’ been but little observ’d as yet, so that all our fineImitations of Naturemay often be call’dLucky 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 theGreekandRomanTheatres; and by a strict Observance of theUnity of Place, the Stage may be made far more handsome and magnificent with less Charge; and by that oftheUnity 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. APoetindeed shou’d be free, and unconfin’d as Air, as to his Though, Fancy and Contrivance, but then hisPoetica Licentiashou’dn’t transport him to Madness and Extravagancy, making him phrensically transgress the Rules ofReasonandNature, as well asPoetry. These that we mention are not any Man’s ArbitraryRules, but pure Nature only Methodiz’d: They never hamper aPoet’s Fancy or clip his Wings, but adorn their Thoughts, and regulate their Flights so as to give ’em a clearer insight intoNature,ProbabilityandDecency, without something of which it is impossible to please. And these are no more aConfinementto aPoet’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 theGreatness 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 choiceMaster-stroaksthey had; and upon the same account a couple of goodSceneshave 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 manyIndecencies,Improbabilities,Absurditiesthat are so frequent in our Plays. ’Tis true, there has been a considerable Regulation among many of ’em since the Days ofShakespear, 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, allStorieswhatsoever are not fit for aDramatick Poem; yet there may be an excellentPlotwithout 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; andfirst for theUnity of Time, we may mention the Play call’d,The Adventures of Five Hours, the wholeActionlasting no longer (much less a day, the extent allow’d for aDramatick Poem) yet this is one of the pleasantestStoriesthat ever appear’d upon our Stage, and has as much Variety ofPlotsandIntrigues, without any thing being precipitated, improbable or unnatural as to the mainAction; so by this it appears that this Rule is no Spoiler or Murderer of a finerStory. Then for theUnity of Timeand Action too,Ben. Johnson’s Silent Womanis a remarkable Instance; an excellentComedyindeed, where theActionis perfectly single, and the utmost extent of theTimeexceeds not three Hours and a half (the shortest we ever find) yet still thePlot,Intrigues, and above all theIncidentsare very fine, and no ways unnatural. Lastly, For all threeUnities, Mr.Dryden’s All for Love(tho’ aTragedy, and somewhat foreign to our business) is worthy to be taken notice of, that being perfectlyRegularaccording to the Rules of the Stage, the Scenes unbroken, theIncidentsexactly and duly prepar’d, and all things noble and beautiful, just and proportionable. This we reckon one of the bestTragediesof our Nation. Now can any Man justly think that these Plays we now mention’d were ever the worse for thatRegularitythey had; or indeed have we many better in the Nation forPlot; 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 hisCharacters) plainly deserves a greater Name for hisPlots, than he does for hisLanguage.

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

The mainReasonswhy we undertook it were these. First, For the Excellency and Usefulness of this Author in general: And consequently for the benefit (as we shall shew by and by) of most sorts of People, but especially for the Service it may do ourDramatick Poets. Next, for the Honour of our ownLanguage, into which all good Books ought to be Translated, since’tis now become so Elegant, Sweet and Copious: And indeed nothing refines, or gives Foreigners a greater Opinion of any Language than its number of good Translations; of which theFrenchis a great Instance. Thirdly, Because most of our Neighbours have got it in theirLanguage, particularly theFrench, who have done it with good Success; and we have no reason for our being out-done by any of our Neighbours, since we have aLanguagewe dare set against any in the World. Lastly, Since the Author is so excellent, we undertook it because no other Persons wou’d. ’Tis strange that none of our great Wits wou’d undertake it before, but let us Persons of Obscurity, take their Works out of their Hands; when we can perceive by our little Performances that ourLanguagewill do it to a very high degree, undoubtedly better than theFrench.

The most considerable Objections that have been made against our Translation are these. First,What real Use or Advantage can this Translation be to the Publick? As for school-Boys and Learners,Bernard’s andHool’s Translations, the great number of Notes, a School-Master, or their own Industry will well enough teach ’em to construe it. Men of Sense and Learning, they read it wholly for the Latin sake; therefore a Translation is of no use to them.Lastly,They won’t fit our Stage; and consequently they are impertinent at best.To these we answer; First, As toSchool-BoysandLearners;Bernard’s andHool’s Translations are very often false, mostly so obsolete, flat and unpleasant, that a Man can scarce read half a Page without sleeping; the latteris full ofLatinisms, and both are often more obscure than the Original. TheNotessometimes don’t express the Author’s Sense; and often very obscurely: In some things they are too short,in others too long and tedious: And most of them have the slight of running very nimbly over those Places which they are afraid they shou’d stick in.School-Mastersoften want time,and nowand thenJudgment and Learning to explain things as they ought; then to leave Boys by themselves to pick out the Sense of such a difficult Author as this, is very inconvenient; which besides the Discouragement sometimes of not being able to do it, will often lead ’em into such Errors and Mistakes, as perhaps they’ll ne’re get clear of. So that this will be of great use even toSchool-BoysandLearners: Beside the great Advantage of teaching ’em, perhaps not the worstEnglish; and something of the Idiom of our Tongue.

As for the second part of the Objection,That Men of Sense and Learning read it only for the Latin sake; This is or ought to be look’d upon as a great Mistake: SinceTerencehas other and greater Excellencies than his Style, as we have before shewn. But however ingenious Persons must needs receive some pleasure in seeing such excellent Latin now speak tolerable goodEnglish; and likewise in seeing somewhat of the Conversation, Humour and Customs of the oldGreeksandRomansput into a modern Dress; and perhaps not quite out of the Fashion. Besides, since many of these do sometimes upon an occasion make use ofNotes, ’twill be of equal use (in that respect) to them as to allLearners. And that they have often need of such, will appear from the several difficult places (especially as to the Plot) and some obscure dubious Passages in this Author, which the utmost Skill in theLatinTongue will not teach to explain; since there is as great a necessity for the understanding of theRomanCustoms and Theatres in this Case, and of the Art of the Stage, as of theLatinTongue. How extraordinary useful aTranslation can be in perfectlyclearing an Author,Roscommon’s Translation ofHorace’sArt of Poetryis an apparent Instance; which shews the Sense, Meaning, Design, &c. ofHoracebetter and easier than all theParaphrasesandNotesin the World.

Thirdly, Tho’ ourTranslationwill never fit our Stage, yet it may be of considerable use to some of theDramatick Poets; which we had some respect to, when we did it; they will serve ’em (as was said before) forModels; and tho’ many of our Poets do very well understand the Original, yet ’tis plain that some of ’em do not understand it over much. But however, it may not be wholly useless to those that do, and more proper for their business, being ready explain’d to their hands: And upon some accounts to be read with less trouble than the Original: For that is in many places very obscure by reason of corrupted Copies, wrong Points, false Division of wholeActsas well asScenesand the like: Further, if these Plays come to be frequently read by the more ordinary sort of People, they will by little and little grow more in love with, and more clearly see the true Excellencies of these Rules, and these livelyImitations of Nature, which will be the greatest Encouragement our Poets can have to follow ’em. And besides, the common People by thesePlaysmay plainly perceive thatObscenitiesandDebaucheriesare no ways necessary to make a goodComedy; and the Poets themselves will be the more ready to blush when they seeHeathensso plainly out-do usChristiansin theirMorals; for their principal Vices in their Plays, were chiefly from the Ignorance of the Times, but we have no such pretence. This alone might ha’ been a sufficient reason for our undertaking this Design.

But to come now to what we have done; ’tis not to be expected we shou’d wholly reach the Air of the Original; that being so peculiar, and the Language so different; We have imitated our Author as well and as nigh as theEnglishTongue and our small Abilities wou’d permit; each ofus joyning and consulting about every Line, not only for the doing of it better, but also for the making of it all of a piece. We follow’d no oneLatinCopy by it self, because of the great Disagreements among ’em, but have taken any that seem’d truest. We look’d over all theNotes, sometimes they would help us a little, and often not; some hints we had from theFrench,but not very many; besides we had considerable helps from other Persons far above our selves, for whose Care and Pains we shall ever acknowledge our Gratitude. A meerVerbal Translationis not to be expected, that wou’d sound so horribly, and be more obscure than the Original; but we have been faithful Observers of his Sence, and even of his Words too, not slipping any of consequence without something to answer it; nay farther, where two Words seem to be much the same, and perhaps not intended to be very different by the Author, we were commonly so nice as to do them too; such asSegnitiaandSocordia,ScireandNoscere, and the like, which is more exact than most, if not all, our modern Versions. We cou’dn’t have kept closer (especially in this Author, which several ingenious Persons told us,Is the hardest in the World to translate;) 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. If we have been guilty of any Fault of this nature, it seems to be that of keeping too close.

But still to be more particular; we did all we cou’d to prevent any of the Meaning and Grace of the bestWordsto be lost; so that we were often forc’d to search and study some time for those most proper, and oftentimes to express ’em by two, and sometimes by aCircumlocution: Which MadamDacierher self, as accurate as she is accompted, has often neglected: And thereby has wholly lost the Force and Beauty of many Emphatical Words.Terencehad some Words taken in a great many several Sences, such asContumeliaandInjuria,Odiosus,Tristis,&c. thesewehave been very careful about; but where he plays upon Words (tho’ never so prettily) he ought not in some places to be imitated at all, because the Fineness is more lost that way, than the other; yet we try’d at several when they were Natural and tolerable inEnglish. As for hisAllusionsand the like, many of them perhaps are quite lost to us. However they are commonly lost in our Language. On such places (as well as some others) we madeRemarksorNotesat the latter end; some of which we are oblig’d to theFrenchLady for; these serving to shew our Author’s fine Stroaks, as well as to vindicate our Translation. For hisSenseandMeaning, we have taken more than ordinary care about, and weigh’d all Circumstances before we fix’d. Several of the Passages are done contrary to the general Opinion, and some few differently from all, both as to thePerson that speaksas well as theMeaning, but not without good Grounds; and if any be so nice in censuring, we desire that Person to shew us threeTerencesthat exactly agree with one another, either in Points or Words, for two Acts together. Of those Passages that were absolutely doubtful, we always took the best, and that, which seem’d to us, the most probable Way and Meaning; and all such as were difficult, knotty or obscure in the Original, we made as plain and clear as we cou’d; and we presume to phansie there are very few Passages in ours, unintelligible to the meanest Capacity. In hisJestsandRepartees(except they wereAllusionsor the like) we hope that the force of ’em is seldom lost. For making every Person speak so exactly like themselves (a thing that our Author was so famous for) is much more difficult inEnglishby reason of its greater variety ofIdiomsandPhrasesthan in theLatin; and to suit these always right, requires a greaterGeniusthan we can pretend to.Terence, tho’ reckon’d very genteel in his Days, seems in some place to have a sort of familiarity and bluntness in his Discourse, not so agreeable with the Manners and Gallantryof our Times; which we have mollify’d as well as we cou’d, still making theServantssawcy enough upon occasion. In some places we have had somewhat more ofHumourthan the Original, to make it still more agreeable to our Age; but all the while have kept so nigh our Author’sSenceandDesign, that we hope it can never be justly call’d a Fault. We can’t certainly tell whitherWilliamthe Conqueror, theGrand Seignior(and the like) may pass with some: They may possibly take’emfor Blunders in time: which are now become Proverbial Expressions; the first signifying only a great while ago, and t’other a great Man.

As for the Division of theActsandScenes, all the commonTerencesare most notoriously false: TheActsare often wrong, but theScenesoftener; and these have bred some obscurity in our Author’sRules. MadamDacierhas been more exact in this than all others before her; yet, still she’s once mistaken in herActs, and very often in herScenes. We have follow’d her as to herActs, except one in thePhormio; but we have not divided theScenesat all by Figures, because they are of no such use; only the Reader may take notice that whenever any particularActorenters upon the Stage, or goes off, that makes a differentScene; for theAncientsnever had any other that we know of. ThePrologues, by the Advice of several Judicious Persons, are left out, as being the Meanest, the fullest of Quibbles, and the least Intelligible of any thing he wrote: They relating chiefly to private Squabbles between ourAuthorand thePoetsof his time: The Particulars of which ’tis impossible for us to understand now, and we need not be much concern’d that we don’t. Besides, in the main, they are so much beneath theAuthor, that ’tis much question’d whether they are his or no, especially the Third. TheArgumentsare certainly none of his, and so far from being useful, that they only serve to forestall thePlots, and take away the Pleasure of surprizing.

Lastly, That there might be nothing wanting that might make this Translation as intire and clear as possible; we’ve all the way intermix’dNotes of Explanation, such as,Enter,Exit,Asides, and all other things ofAction, necessary to be known, and constantly practis’d among our ModernDramatick Poets. These serve extreamly to the clearing of thePlotswhich wou’d be obscure without ’em; especially since their Theatres were so different from ours. And as this sort ofNotesare theshortest, that are generally us’d, so they are mostcompleat,usefulandclear, by the help of which any Child almost may apprehend every thing. Perhaps we might have omitted some of ’em, but we havebetteroffend this way than the other.

Thus have we said as much as we thought requisite in Vindication of our Master’s Honour, and of our own Undertaking. And if we had said ten times as much; and ne’re so much to the purpose, People will still think, and talk what they please, and we can’t help it.

Back to Index Next