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

In Short

This work collects the original 1694 introductory essays written by Laurence Echard (alongside his translating collaborators) for their English editions of Terence and Plautus. Rather than offering dry academic analysis, Echard lays out a practical defense of classical drama, arguing that ancient comedy can inform contemporary playwriting. The text contrasts Terence’s immaculate plot structures and refined dialogue with Plautus’s raw comic energy and vivid stagecraft. Long valued by scholars, Echard’s prefaces remain a landmark moment in English critical theory, showing how Restoration intellectuals remade classical tradition to suit their own lively theatrical tastes.

The Story

The text unfolds as a structured, critical comparison between the two giants of Latin comedy, exploring how their work can be adapted to enrich English theater. It opens with an assessment of Terence, whose writing is praised for its exquisite artifice, structural symmetry, and faithful adherence to classical dramatic rules. Terence is presented as a master of plot design, executing seamless transitions across the four traditional stages of narrative structure: the entrance, the rising action, the climax, and the final resolution. His plays preserve the three classical unities of action, time, and place. Every action fits within a single day and location, creating a cohesive theatrical experience.

However, the argument does not turn Terence into an unquestioned ideal. Echard candidly notes his limitations, pointing out that his plots can feel repetitive, his monologues overly lengthy, and his characters somewhat constrained by narrow social conventions. In addition, Terence occasionally breaks stage discipline by allowing characters to speak directly to the audience or deliver prolonged asides. From this evaluation of Terence’s formal perfection, the text turns its gaze toward the contemporary English stage. Echard delivers a sharp critique of Restoration playwriting, faulting English dramatists for abandoning structural rules. He criticizes plays that wander across multiple years and distant locations, cluttering the stage with irrelevant subplots, aimless scenes, and gratuitous antics that confuse the audience.

The focus then shifts to Plautus, who is introduced as a dynamic counterweight to Terence's restraint. Where Terence excels in refined speech, Plautus reigns through theatrical action and comic force, or vis comica. Plautus's plots are simpler and lighter, yet driven by sharper dialogue, surprising turns, and vivid comic energy. Though Plautus sometimes stoops to wordplay, puns, and lower-class absurdities, his dramatic instincts give his works an immediate, infectious vigor.

Finally, the text concludes by reflecting on the craft of translation itself. Echard argues against literal, word-for-word translation, which produces stiff, unreadable prose. Instead, he advocates for a spirited paraphrase that captures the author's underlying tone while adapting the language to the idioms, gallantry, and humor of modern English.

How It Unfolds

The case for Terence The opening section establishes Terence as the supreme model of dramatic structure, praising his mastery of plot design, his disciplined adherence to the classical unities of time and place, and his realistic character portrayals.

Flaws in the master Echard balances his praise by identifying Terence’s shortcomings, noting his repetitive story arcs, excessive use of long monologues, unnatural asides, and occasional direct addresses to the audience.

Critique of English drama The text turns toward contemporary English playwriting, chastising native dramatists for ignoring structural rules, entangling plots with unnecessary subplots, and dragging audiences through chaotic jumps in time and setting.

The energy of Plautus Echard shifts his analysis to Plautus, celebrating his raw comic force, lively stage action, and inventive dialogue, presenting him as a vibrant contrast to Terence's refined elegance.

Defending the translator's craft The closing pages lay out a theory of translation, rejecting stiff word-for-word renderings in favor of a fluent, idiomatic English style that updates ancient humor for the modern reader.

The People

• Terence: The Roman playwright portrayed as the master of artistic restraint and structural perfection. He seeks to craft double plots that maintain unity of action, keep scenes grounded in a single location, and reflect natural human conversation.
• Plautus: The Roman comedian who embodies dynamic stagecraft, lively intrigue, and raw comic power. He prioritizes bold action, surprising plot twists, and sharp dialogue over strict formal elegance.
• Laurence Echard: The young English scholar and editor who orchestrates the translation project. He aims to make ancient texts accessible and appealing to Restoration readers while defending the value of literary rules to English playwrights.
• The English Dramatists: The contemporary playwrights targeted by Echard's critique. They desire complete creative freedom, but end up producing overcrowded, structurally chaotic plays that abandon probability and order.

In Its Own Voice

"He well understood the Rules of the Stage, or rather those of +Nature+; was perfectly +Regular+, wonderful exact and careful in ordering each +Protasis+ or Entrance, +Epitasis+ or working up, +Catastasis+ or heighth, and +Catastrophe+ or unravelling the Plot..."

Echard describes Terence’s meticulous approach to dramatic structure.

"A +Poet+ indeed shou'd be free, and unconfin'd as Air, as to his Thought, Fancy and Contrivance, but then his +Poetica Licentia+ shou'dn't transport him to Madness and Extravagancy, making him phrensically transgress the Rules of +Reason+ and +Nature+..."

Echard challenges English playwrights who abandon structural discipline in the name of total artistic freedom.

"...if +Comedy+ consists more in +Action+ than +Discourse+, then +Terence+ himself must be oblig'd to give place to our Author; and as +Terence+ ought to be esteem'd as a Man who spoke admirably, +Plautus+ is to be admir'd as a +Comick-Poet+."

Echard contrasts Terence's linguistic refinement with Plautus's superior stagecraft.

What It's Really About

At its core, this work explores the tension between structural discipline and creative freedom in the arts. Echard uses classical drama to examine how writers can balance formal constraints with genuine theatrical vitality. He argues that dramatic rules—such as the unities of time, place, and action—are not arbitrary limitations meant to stifle imagination, but principles derived from human nature and reason. By measuring Restoration theater against Roman models, the text asks whether art achieves greater power through disciplined craftsmanship or through unrestricted creative instinct, concluding that true genius flourishes best when guided by order, clarity, and purpose.

Why Read It Today

This volume offers a compelling look at how late seventeenth-century thinkers wrestled with classical heritage, translation, and literary style. Echard’s writing is remarkably clear and direct, free from cumbersome jargon, making it an engaging read for anyone interested in the history of theater or literary theory. Reading the text reveals how Restoration scholars sought to revitalize English culture by engaging directly with ancient authors.

The book’s primary difficulty lies in its late-seventeenth-century printing conventions and occasional archaic phrasing, alongside its specific references to long-forgotten Restoration theatrical debates. However, Echard's energetic voice and practical literary sense easily carry the narrative forward. Scholars of classical reception, drama enthusiasts, and readers curious about the art of translation will find in these prefaces a thoughtful, surprisingly modern discussion on how to bring ancient literature back to life.

<ElicitationsGroup message="Explore further aspects of this work:"> <Elicitation label="Examine Echard's views on translating classical humor" query="Analyze Laurence Echard's approach to translating ancient Roman humor and quibbles into Restoration English based on his prefaces."/> <Elicitation label="Compare Terence and Plautus in Restoration criticism" query="Compare how Terence and Plautus were evaluated by 17th-century English critics like Echard and Dryden."/> </ElicitationsGroup>