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.