CHAP. II.

OF THE GENIUS OF COMEDY.

Bur it may not be amiss to express myself a little more fully as to the genius of comedy; which for want of passing through the hands of such a critic as Aristotle, has been less perfectly understood.

Its end is the production of humour: or which comes to the same thing, "of that pleasure, which the truth of representation

tr

affords, in the exhibition of the private cha"racters of life, more particularly their spe

r

cific differences." I add this latter clause, because the principal pleasure we take in contemplating characters consists in noting those differences. The general attributes of humanity, if represented ever so truly, give us but a slender entertainment. They, of course, make a part of the drama; but we chiefly delight in a picture of those peculiar traits, which distinguish the species. Now these discriminating marks in the characters of men are not necessarily the causes of ridicule, or pleasantry of any kind; but accidentally, and

according to the nature or quality of them. The vanity, and impertinent boasting of Thrasɔ is the natural object of contempt, and, when truly and forcibly expressed in his own character, provokes ridicule. The easy humanity of Mitio, which is the leading part of his character, is the object of approbation; and, when shewn in his own conduct, excites a pleasure, in common with all just expression of the manners, but of a serious nature, as being joined with the sentiment of esteem.

But now as most men find a greater pleasure in gratifying the passion of contempt, than the calm instinct of approbation, and since perhaps the constitution of human life is such, as affords more exercise for the one, than the other, hence it hath come to pass, that the comic poet, who paints for the generality, and follows nature, chuses more commonly to select and describe those peculiarities in the human character, which, by their nature, excite pleasantry, than such as create a serious regard and esteem. Hence some persons have appropriated the name of comedies to those dramas, which chiefly aim at producing hu mour, in the more proper sense of the word; under which view it means "such an ex"pression or picture of what is odd, or inor

"dinate in each character, as gives us the "fullest and strongest image of the original, "and by the truth of the representation exposes the ridicule of it." that comedy receives great presentations of this kind. well subsist without them.

And it is certain, advantage from re

Nay, it cannot
Yet, it doth not.

exclude the other and more serious entertainment, which, as it stands on the same foundation of truth of representation, I venture to include under the common term.

4

Further, there are two ways of evidencing the characteristic and predominant qualities of men, or, of producing humour, which require to be observed. The one is, when they are shewn in the perpetual course and tenor of the representation; that is, when the humour results from the general conduct of the person in the drama, and the discourse, which he holds in it. The other is, when by an happy and lively stroke, the characteristic quality is laid open and exposed at once.

The first sort of humour is that which we find in the ancients, and especially Terence. The latter is almost peculiar to the moderns; who, in uniting these two species of humour,

have brought a vast improvement to the comic scene. The reason of this difference may perhaps have been the singular simplicity of the old writers, who were contented to take up with such sentiments or circumstances, as most naturally and readily occurred in the course of the drama: whereas the moderns have been ambitious to shew a more exquisite and studied investigation into the workings of human nature, and have sought out for those peculiarly striking lineaments, in which the essence of character consists. On the same account, I suppose, it was that the ancients had fewer characters in their plays, than the moderns, and those more general; that is, their dramatic writers were well satisfied with picturing the most usual personages, and in their most obvious lights. They did not, as the moderns (who, if they would aspire to the praise of novelty, were obliged to this route), cast about for less familiar characters; and the nicer and less observed peculiarities which distinguish each. Be it as it will, the observation is certain. Later dramatists have apparently -shewn a more accurate knowledge of human life: and, by opening these new and untryed veins of humour, have exceedingly enriched the comedy of our times. tec

But, though we are not to look for the two species of humour, before-mentioned, in the same perfection on the simpler stages of Greece and Rome, as in our improved Theatres, yet the first of them was clearly seen and success"fully practised by the ancient comic masters; and there are not wanting in them some few examples even of the last. "The old man in 1966 the Mother-in-Law says to his Son,

Tum tu igitur nihil adtulisti huc plus und sententiá.

This, as an excellent person observed to me, asian is true humour. For his character, which "was that of a lover of money, drew the ob❝servation naturally and forcibly from him. "His disappointment of a rich succession made

him speak contemptibly of a moral lesson, which rich and covetous men, in their best « humours, have no high reverence for. And "this too without design; which is important, "and shews the distinction of what, in the "more restrained sense of the word, we call

humour, from other modes of pleasantry. "For had a young friend of the son, an un"concerned spectator of the scene, made the "observation, it had then, in another's mouth, "bern wit, or a designed banter on the father's

disappointment. As, on the other hand,