ive. The stock
comparison of Plautus and Terence comes from Anne Dacier,[8] and
Echard's footprints can be tracked in the snows of Cicero, Scaliger,
Rapin, Andre Dacier, the Abbe D'Aubignac, and Dryden. Having set the
Ancients against the Moderns, Echard is able to attack the looseness of
English double plots by pointing to Terence's success within a similar
structure. He is also able to praise Terence's genteel style. Against
this, Echard admits, along with his precursors, Plautus' superiority in
point of _vis comica_, which he defines, interestingly, as "_Liveliness
of Intreague_" (sig. a8). Echard is thus able to claim, with
considerable conviction, the superiority of English comedy in several
areas, especially in its variety, its humour, "in some Delicacies of
_Conversation_," and "above all in _Repartee_" (_Terence's Comedies_,
p. xi).

What the English had to learn, in Echard's view, was "regularity," that
is, the discipline imposed upon a dramatist by observing the Unities,
and obeying the other "rules of the drama" (such as the _liaisons_), in
pursuit of verisimilitude and tautness of structure. Echard's main hope
was that his translation and notes would correct his contemporaries'
habit of ignoring the Roman dramatists' "_essential_ Beauties," and
"contenting themselves with considering the _superficial_ ones, such as
the _Stile_, _Language_, _Expression_, and the like, without taking much
notice of the Contrivance and Management, of the _Plots, Characters,
etc._" (_Plautus_, sig. a1). The remarkable fact about Echard's
discussion of these matters, despite his dependence at times upon that
arch-pedant, the Abbe D'Aubignac,[9] is the critical intelligence with
which he puts forward his argument. Unlike many neoclassical critics,
Echard keeps his eyes fixed firmly on the strengths and weaknesses of
Restoration comedy within the context of previous English comedy and the
Restoration stage itself. A sign of this is his attention to practical
details, which take the form of one or two valuable notes on the theatre
of his day. We learn, for instance, that actors were in the "custom of
looking . . . full upon the Spectators," and that some members of the
Restoration audience took printed copies into the playhouse in order to
be able to follow the play on the stage.[10] It is a real loss to the
historian of drama and to the critic that these two volumes were
Laurence Echard's solitary adventure into the criticism and t