PREFACE.

LONDON:Printed byW. Clowes, Northumberland-court.

PREFACE.

Ifan apology for the following translation cannot be found in the work itself, it would be to little purpose to insert it in the Preface. I have attempted to present to the public the most celebrated dramatist of ancient Rome, in such a dress as may enable the English reader, learned and unlearned equally, to relish, in his own language, the beauties of this great poet. Though the original is composed in verse, I have employed prose in this translation, because the verse of Terence approaches so very nearly to prose, that in prose only is it possible to adhere faithfully to the words, and particularly to the style of our author; as we have in our language no measure of verse at all corresponding with that used by Terence.

To the learned reader, the number of the subjoined Notes may, perhaps, seem excessive; and the minuteness of description which characterizes many of them, may appear unnecessary; but, though this work was not written professedly for the schools, yet the Notes were not composed entirely without a view to the instruction of the young student; and, as translations are supposed to be made chiefly for the use of the unlearned, who cannot be expected to be much acquainted with the manners and customs of the ancients; I thought it better, if I erred at all, to err on the safe side, and to repeat to some of my readers something that they knew before, rather than run the risk of permitting any one of them to remain unacquainted with it altogether. A French translator of Terence, the learned and indefatigable Madame Dacier, has judged a still greater number of Notes than I have subjoined in this work, necessary to elucidate various passages in her translation of the play of the Andrian, and of Suetonius’s Life of our author. One remark may be added on this subject; it must be considered that many of the explanatory Notes affixed to the play of the Andrian, tend to the general elucidation of the various passages in the remaining five plays of Terence; and I think I may venture to hope, that the Notes in general, will, in many instances, be found useful in the exposition of many passages in the Latin and Greek classics.

I am induced to publish this play singly, with a view of ascertaining whether a translation of Terence’s comedies on this plan may meet with sufficient approbation to encourage the appearance of the remaining five plays: as I propose to give a complete translation of the works of this celebrated author, if the present attempt should be honoured with a favourable reception. I may say, in the words of Terence himself,

“Favete, adeste æquo animo, et rem cognoscite,Ut pernoscatis, ecquid spei sit reliquum,Posthac quas faciet de integro comœdias,Spectandæ, an exigendæ sint vobis priùs.”

“Favete, adeste æquo animo, et rem cognoscite,

Ut pernoscatis, ecquid spei sit reliquum,

Posthac quas faciet de integro comœdias,

Spectandæ, an exigendæ sint vobis priùs.”

And now deign to favour the play with your attention, and give it an impartial hearing, that you may know what is in future to be expected from the poet, and whether the comedies that he may write hereafter, will be worthy to be accepted, or to be rejected by you.—Prologue to the Andrian.

These lines contain very strong presumptive proof that the Andrian was Terence’s first production; and, for that reason, it has been selected for this essay, and not on account of its being supposed to be superior to his other plays: for so great, so steady was the equality of this poet’s genius, that no critic of eminence, ancient or modern, could ever yet venture to assign to any one of his plays a claim of superiority to the rest. The celebrated Scaliger has asserted that there were not more thanthreefaults in thesixplays of Terence.

The ancients seem to have been least partial to the Step-mother: Volcatius says,

“Sumetur Hecyra sexta ex his fabula.”

The Step-mother is reckoned the last of the six. This was the only piece written by our author, in which the plot was single; and the want of a double plot, which the Romans then preferred, was, doubtless, the reason of its being postponed to Terence’s other productions.

The force of custom has given authority to an erroneous disposition of these comedies, which are usually printed in the following order:

They were written and represented at Rome as follows:

The original cause of the order of these plays being changed by the ancient transcribers is not known; though it is conjectured that they classed them thus, that the four plays taken from Menander might be placed together. This leads me to mention Terence’s close imitation of the Greek dramatists, amounting, in fact, to a partial translation of them; and it is necessary to bear this in mind during a perusal of his writings, lest, under the impression thatthis author wrote originally inLatin, the reader should forget that the scene is always laid in Greece; that the persons of the drama are not Romans but Greeks; and that, consequently, the manners, customs, names, and things, there mentioned, are almost uniformly Grecian.

Roman literature had emerged from obscurity just previous to the times of Terence: that sun, which was destined to shed its splendour over all future ages, was then scarcely risen from the darkness which shrouded it during the rude infancy of the Roman commonwealth; and even for a long period after Rome assumed the highest rank in the scale of nations. Livius Andronicus, the first poet of eminence, wrote dramatic pieces in the year of Rome 513. He was followed by Nævius, Ennius, Tegula, and Cæcilius; next comes Pacuvius, who excelled in tragedies; then follow Plautus and his cotemporaries Plautius, Aquilius, and Acutius; and, lastly, Terence brought the Latin drama to its highest perfection about the year of Rome 590, eighty years after its first appearance. But, in Greece, dramatic writing had attained the highest pitch of excellence under Menander, more than one hundred years before; and the Latin poets copied most closely from the refined writings of the Greeks. At that time, and for many years after, Greek was almost as much in fashion at Rome, as French has of late years been in fashion in England: it formed a necessary branch of a polite education; and many of the Romans quitted their native city, and resided in Greece a considerable time, for the purpose of perfecting themselves in the Greek language, and enjoying the advantage of associating themselves with the philosophers and other learned men of that country.

Our author, therefore, complied with the taste of the age, and no man succeeded better in making the Greek poets speak Latin. He copied chiefly from Menander: the four entire plays, the Andrian, the Eunuch, the Self-tormentor, and the Brothers, were taken from the writings of that great poet, as were also some parts of the Step-mother and the Phormio.

Terence’s great rival in dramatic fame was Marcus Accius Plautus, who flourished a few years before him; and has left twenty comedies replete with wit and spirit. To draw a comparison at length, between these great poets, would be an undertaking by no means suited to a Preface; and far more arduous than I should at present feel prepared to enter into: the learned Madame Dacier very happily observes,“Il est certain qu’il n’y a rien de plus difficile que cette espèce de critique qui consiste à juger des hommes, et à faire voir les avantages qu’ils ont les uns sur les autres. Il y a tant d’égards à observer; tant de rapports à unir, tant de différences à peser, que c’est une chose presque infinie; et il semble que pour s’en bien acquitter, il faudroit avoir une esprit supérieur à ceux dont on juge, comme il est nécessaire que la main qui se sert d’une balance soit plus forte que les choses quelle veut peser.”—It is certain, that no species of criticism is more difficult than that which consists of judging generally of an author; and in pointing out those excellencies, in which he is superior to other writers. There are so many points to be considered, so many similarities to be compared with each other, so many differences to be weighed against each other, that the task is almost endless; and appears to require talents superior to those of the person whose productions are to be criticised; as the hand which holds the balance ought to possess a power more than equal to the weight of whatever is to be placed in it.

Most of those critics who have undertaken to compare Terence and Plautus with each other, have, on a general estimate of their merits, decided in favour of Terence; though in one or two particular excellencies they allow Plautus to have surpassed him. They judged Plautus to be chiefly recommended by his humour, by the amusing variety of his incidents, by the liveliness and spirit of his action, and by his rich, agreeable, and witty style. Terence they praise for his delicacy of expression, his unequalled skill in the delineation of characters and of manners, and in the construction and management of his plots, for the well-timed introduction of his incidents, and for the evenness, purity, and chasteness of his style.

Terentio non similem dices quempiam.—Afranius.Terence stands unrivalled.

Terentio non similem dices quempiam.—Afranius.

Terence stands unrivalled.

One natural defect the critics have charged Terence with, and only one,viz., the want of what the ancients called thevis comica, which is usually interpretedhumour: and, in this requisite, they judged him to have fallen short of Plautus. One fault also is objected against him, being no less than a direct breach of the rules of dramatic writing; which is, that he makes the actors directly address the audience in their assumed characters; as in the fourth scene of the first act of the Andrian, and also in the last scene of the last act. Against the latter charge, no defence can be made, except we urge the authority of custom; but the imputation against our author of a want of humour may, in a great measure, be repelled.

Thevis comicaof the ancients, though we translate it by the wordhumour, which approaches nearer to its true signification than any other expression in our language, could not have been exactly the same kind of humour with that of our own times; which has been usually considered as peculiar to the English drama, and has not even a name in any other modern language. If we allow thevis comica, or comic force, to be divided into two species, namely, thevis comicaof the action, and thevis comicaof the dialogue, (and is there not a humour of action, as there is of words?) we must also allow, that Terence’s writings, far from being devoid of the humour of action, are replete with it throughout. The Eunuch, particularly, abounds with this kind of humour, especially in the eighth scene of the fourth act, where Thraso forms his line of battle; and, in the fifth, sixth, and seventh scenes of the last act, between Laches, Pythias, and Parmeno, which are specimens of thevis comica of action, not inferior to many of the witty Plautus’s attempts to exhibit this species of dramatic manners.

I shall conclude by giving the reader some account of the rise and conduct of dramatic entertainments at Rome: which cannot be so conveniently introduced in the Notes. A knowledge of these things is very necessary to a right understanding of Terence’s plays; as his mode of writing could not be reconciled to the modern method of dramatic representation, which differs very materially from the ancient manner.

About an hundred and twenty years before regular plays were first exhibited at Rome, a sort of entertainment calledludi sceniciwas introduced there by the Etrurians: it consisted merely of dancing to the sound of a pipe. This simple amusement was soon improved upon, and the dancers began also to speak. They spouted a species of rude satirical verses, in which they threw out rough jests, raillery, and repartee against each other: these were called Saturnian verses, or Satires, from their god Saturn: hence this name was afterwards applied to poetry composed for the purpose of lashing vice or folly. The Saturnian verses, set to music, and accompanied by dancing, continued a favourite diversion, till they were superseded by regular plays about the year of Rome 515. The places where they were represented, (called theatra, theatres, from a Greek word signifyingto see,) were originally tents, erected in the country, under the shade of some lofty trees: afterwards they performed in temporary buildings formed of wood: one of these is recorded to have been large enough to contain eighty thousand spectators. Pompey the Great erected the first permanent theatre: it was built of stone, and of a size sufficient to accommodate forty thousand persons.

Some critics have objected against Terence, that he is guilty of an impropriety in making one actor speak very frequently without being heard by another; and introducing two or more persons on the stage, who, though they are both of them seen by the spectators, yet do not perceive each other for a considerable space of time. These objections are easily answered when we reflect on the magnificent size of the Roman theatres. An ingenious writer of the last century has given a very clear explanation of this subject: I shall give it in his own words.

“Some make this objection, that in the beginning of many scenes, two actors enter upon the stage, and talk to themselves a considerable time before they see or know one another; which they say is neither probable nor natural. Those that object to this don’t consider the great difference between our little scanty stage and the large magnificent Roman theatres. Their stage was sixty yards wide in the front, their scenes so many streets meeting together, with all by-lanes, rows, and alleys; so that two actors coming down two different streets or lanes, couldn’t be seen by each other, though the spectators might see both; and sometimes, if they did see each other, they couldn’t well distinguish faces at sixty yards’ distance. Besides, upon several accounts, it might well be supposed when an actor enters upon the stage out of some house, he might take a turn or two under the porticoes, cloisters, or the like, (that were usual at that time,) about his door, and take no notice of an actor’s being on the other side of the stage.”

Of course, the extensive size of the Roman theatres made it impossible that the natural voice of the actors should be distinctly heard at the distance they stood from the audience: to remedy this inconvenience, they had recourse to a sort of mask, which covered both the head and the face: it was calledpersona, from two Latin words, signifying tosound through: the mouth of this mask was made very large, and with thin plates of brass they contrived to swell the sound of the voice, and, at the same time, to vary its tones, so as to accord with the passions they wished to express. Instructions in the use of these masks formed an essential and important branch of the education of a Roman actor.

The plays represented at Rome were divided into two classes: 1. the palliatæ, 2. the togatæ. In the first, the characters of the piece were entirely Grecian: in the latter, they were entirely Roman. The second class,viz., the togatæ, were subdivided into the prætextatæ, when the play was tragedy: the tabernariæ, when the scenes lay in low life: the atellanæ, or farces: and the trabeatæ, when the scene lay in the camp: they had likewise mimes and pantomimes.

The chorus consisted sometimes of one person, though generally of several, who stood on the stage during the representation, at first, without any share in the action of the piece: some suppose that they were there partly in the character of spectators: if this conjecture be correct, Terence may be excused for making the actors address them. Their business seems originally to have been singing between the pauses in the action, and delivering moral reflections on what was represented on the stage: afterwards they were incorporated with the action, as a species of attendants. These theatrical appendages were at last laid aside, because it was thought to appear improbable, that intrigues, which usually are to be kept secret, should be carried on in their presence.

Flutes were played during the whole time of the performance, and the chief musician beating time, directed the actors when they were to raise, and when they were to depress their voices. Sometimes one person recited the words, and another performed the action of the same part. The tibiæ, or flutes, were of various kinds: the best account of the manner in which they were used is given us by Madame Dacier, as follows:

“The performers played on two flutes during the whole of the representation. They stopped the vents of one of them with the right hand: that flute was, therefore, called right handed: the other was stopped with the left, and called a left-handed flute. In the first, there were but a few holes; which occasioned it to give a deep, bass sound: in the other, the holes were very numerous: this flute sounded a sharp shrill note.

“When a comedy was accompanied by two flutes of a different sound, it was said to be playedTibiis imparibus dextris et sinistris, unequal flutes, right and left handed. When the flutes were of the same sound, it was said to be playedTibiis paribus dextris, with equal right-handed flutes, if they were of a deep sound: andTibiis paribus sinistris, with equal left-handed flutes, when they were of a sharp shrill sound. The right-handed flutes were called Lydian; the left-handed Tyrian; the unequal Phrygian; as were also the crooked flutes.”

The tragic and comic actors were distinguished from each other by the covering of their feet. The tragedians wore a sort of boot, called cothurnus, with a very high heel; which was intended to give them a commanding, majestic appearance. The comedians wore a light shoe, or slipper, called soccus.

The Romans appear to have been very partial to dramatic entertainments. Magistrates were appointed to exhibit them: and the people even devoted to the theatre part of that time which is usually allotted to more weighty concerns: as their plays were usually performed in the day-time. Magnificent theatres were erected at the public expense; and sometimes even by private individuals. A description of one of these buildings is recorded by Pliny. The scenes were divided into three partitions, one above another. The first consisted of one hundred and twenty marble pillars; the second of the same number of pillars, most curiously covered and ornamented with glass: the third of the same number of pillars, covered with gilded tablets. Three thousand brazen statues filled up the spaces between the pillars. This theatre would contain eighty thousand persons. Independently of the ordinary representations, plays were performed on all solemn occasions: at the public feasts and games, and at the funerals of eminent citizens. No opportunity seems to have been neglected to introduce this species of amusement at Rome: no nation, ancient or modern, appears to have cultivated the drama with greater diligence than the Romans; and few have had more success. It is our misfortune, that so few specimens of the excellence of their dramatists have descended to our times. Let us, however, admire and profit by what we have. The writings of Terence and of Plautus present us with an inexhaustible source of pleasure and instruction. As long as virtuous and humane sentiments do not lose their appeal to the heart; as long as purity, delicacy of expression, wit, and spirit, and well-wrought fable continue to satisfy the judgment; so long the names of Terence and of Plautus must remain immortal.

Back to Index Next