Roman literature had emerged from obscurity just previous to the times of Terence: that sun, which was destined to shed its splendour over all future ages, was then scarcely risen from the darkness which shrouded it during the rude infancy of the Roman commonwealth; and even for a long period after Rome assumed the highest rank in the scale of nations. Livius Andronicus, the first poet of eminence, wrote dramatic pieces in the year of Rome 513. He was followed by Nævius, Ennius, Tegula, and Cæcilius; next comes Pacuvius, who excelled in tragedies; then follow Plautus and his cotemporaries Plautius, Aquilius, and Acutius; and, lastly, Terence brought the Latin drama to its highest perfection about the year of Rome 590, eighty years after its first appearance. But, in Greece, dramatic writing had attained the highest pitch of excellence under Menander, more than one hundred years before; and the Latin poets copied most closely from the refined writings of the Greeks. At that time, and for many years after, Greek was almost as much in fashion at Rome, as French has of late years been in fashion in England: it formed a necessary branch of a polite education; and many of the Romans quitted their native city, and resided in Greece a considerable time, for the purpose of perfecting themselves in the Greek language, and enjoying the advantage of associating themselves with the philosophers and other learned men of that country.
Our author, therefore, complied with the taste of the age, and no man succeeded better in making the Greek poets speak Latin. He copied chiefly from Menander: the four entire plays, the Andrian, the Eunuch, the Self-tormentor, and the Brothers, were taken from the writings of that great poet, as were also some parts of the Step-mother and the Phormio.
Terence’s great rival in dramatic fame was Marcus Accius Plautus, who flourished a few years before him; and has left twenty comedies replete with wit and spirit. To draw a comparison at length, between these great poets, would be an undertaking by no means suited to a Preface; and far more arduous than I should at present feel prepared to enter into: the learned Madame Dacier very happily observes, “Il est certain qu’il n’y a rien de plus difficile que cette espèce de critique qui consiste à juger des hommes, et à faire voir les avantages qu’ils ont les uns sur les autres. Il y a tant d’égards à observer; tant de rapports à unir, tant de différences à peser, que c’est une chose presque infinie; et il semble que pour s’en bien acquitter, il faudroit avoir une esprit supérieur à ceux dont on juge, comme il est nécessaire que la main qui se sert d’une balance soit plus forte que les choses quelle veut peser.”—It is certain, that no species of criticism is more difficult than that which consists of judging generally of an author; and in pointing out those excellencies, in which he is superior to other writers. There are so many points to be considered, so many similarities to be compared with each other, so many differences to be weighed against each other, that the task is almost endless; and appears to require talents superior to those of the person whose productions are to be criticised; as the hand which holds the balance ought to possess a power more than equal to the weight of whatever is to be placed in it.
Most of those critics who have undertaken to compare Terence and Plautus with each other, have, on a general estimate of their merits, decided in favour of Terence; though in one or two particular excellencies they allow Plautus to have surpassed him. They judged Plautus to be chiefly recommended by his humour, by the amusing variety of his incidents, by the liveliness and spirit of his action, and by his rich, agreeable, and witty style. Terence they praise for his delicacy of expression, his unequalled skill in the delineation of characters and of manners, and in the construction and management of his plots, for the well-timed introduction of his incidents, and for the evenness, purity, and chasteness of his style.
Terentio non similem dices quempiam.—Afranius.
Terence stands unrivalled.
One natural defect the critics have charged Terence with, and only one, viz., the want of what the ancients called the vis comica, which is usually interpreted humour: and, in this requisite, they judged him to have fallen short of Plautus. One fault also is objected against him, being no less than a direct breach of the rules of dramatic writing; which is, that he makes the actors directly address the audience in their assumed characters; as in the fourth scene of the first act of the Andrian, and also in the last scene of the last act. Against the latter charge, no defence can be made, except we urge the authority of custom; but the imputation against our author of a want of humour may, in a great measure, be repelled.
The vis comica of the ancients, though we translate it by the word humour, which approaches nearer to its true signification than any other expression in our language, could not have been exactly the same kind of humour with that of our own times; which has been usually considered as peculiar to the English drama, and has not even a name in any other modern language. If we allow the vis comica, or comic force, to be divided into two species, namely, the vis comica of the action, and the vis comica of the dialogue, (and is there not a humour of action, as there is of words?) we must also allow, that Terence’s writings, far from being devoid of the humour of action, are replete with it throughout. The Eunuch, particularly, abounds with this kind of humour, especially in the eighth scene of the fourth act, where Thraso forms his line of battle; and, in the fifth, sixth, and seventh scenes of the last act, between Laches, Pythias, and Parmeno, which are specimens of the vis comica of action, not inferior to many of the witty Plautus’s attempts to exhibit this species of dramatic manners.
I shall conclude by giving the reader some account of the rise and conduct of dramatic entertainments at Rome: which cannot be so conveniently introduced in the Notes. A knowledge of these things is very necessary to a right understanding of Terence’s plays; as his mode of writing could not be reconciled to the modern method of dramatic representation, which differs very materially from the ancient manner.
About an hundred and twenty years before regular plays were first exhibited at Rome, a sort of entertainment called ludi scenici was introduced there by the Etrurians: it consisted merely of dancing to the sound of a pipe. This simple amusement was soon improved upon, and the dancers began also to speak. They spouted a species of rude satirical verses, in which they threw out rough jests, raillery, and repartee against each other: these were called Saturnian verses, or Satires, from their god Saturn: hence this name was afterwards applied to poetry composed for the purpose of lashing vice or folly. The Saturnian verses, set to music, and accompanied by dancing, continued a favourite diversion, till they were superseded by regular plays about the year of Rome 515. The places where they were represented, (called theatra, theatres, from a Greek word signifying to see,) were originally tents, erected in the country, under the shade of some lofty trees: afterwards they performed in temporary buildings formed of wood: one of these is recorded to have been large enough to contain eighty thousand spectators. Pompey the Great erected the first permanent theatre: it was built of stone, and of a size sufficient to accommodate forty thousand persons.