Chapter X: Part 10

"Afterwards, in the Reign of _Alexander the Great_, to expose the Vices of great Men, even without naming them, was look'd upon as an Offence to the Government. Comedy, by this Means, entirely lost its ancient Privilege of Correction, and a new Way of Writing was introduc'd, to work up an imaginary Story, and instead of _Chorus's_, or _Digressions_, to make Use of Prologues." _Vossius_ then gives us a long Account of the Writers of this new Comedy, which we don't think proper to repeat; and observes, "That _Menander_'s Character was universally allow'd to be superior to all of them. In these Comedies the Liberty of Scandal, and all the Bitterness of Abuse, was in great Measure laid aside: The _Chorus_ (as before observ'd) was entirely dropp'd, and the new Invention, _Prologue_, now succeeded. Comedy, at its first Appearance, was nothing else but a _Chorus_; afterwards, Variety of Persons and Characters were introduc'd, and the _Chorus_ taken away: So that it was first of all a _Chorus_ only, without Dialogue; and then Dialogue, without a _Chorus_. This new Comedy differ'd very much from the old; the Plots in the old Comedy were chiefly taken from real Stories, in this always from fictitious ones; that was abusive, this had its pointed Satire, but no scandalous and unmannerly Reflections. Nor were the Parts of it divided in the same Manner, or into the same Number of Acts. There was a great Variety of Measures in the old Comedy, but only _Trochaic_, or _Iambic_, in the new: And, lastly, the Style of this was more correct and elegant than the old, whose Language, as it was more elevated, so was it less regular and uniform." This new Comedy was the only Sort that ever appear'd upon the _Roman_ Stage, introduc'd thither by _Livius Andronicus_, the Author of Dramatic Poetry among the _Romans_. _Plautus_ and _Terence_ proceeded upon the same Plan, especially _Terence_; for _Plautus_'s Way of Writing has a greater Resemblance of the _Middle_ Comedy. And therefore, tho' _Aristophanes_, considering when he liv'd, and the Nature of his Poetry, was so much, and so justly celebrated; yet, rejecting utterly the old Comedy, the two last Sorts are such only as ought to be included in the general Idea of Comic Poetry: Or, perhaps, by uniting both the last together, a just Notion of Comedy may be better form'd, which, I think, may be defin'd in this Manner: _Comedy is a Sort of Dramatic Poetry, which gives a View of common and private Life, recommends Virtue, and exposes the Vices and Follies of Mankind in a humorous and merry Way of Writing_.

This Idea of Comedy, is what arises rather from joining both Sorts together, than what properly belongs to either of them: For neither, taken separately, come up to it. Virtue had not its just Commendation in the _Middle_ Comedy, nor Vice its due Correction in the _New_: There was too much Mirth in one, and Gravity in the other. This, therefore, is the Definition of a perfect Comedy, not as it _always_, or indeed _generally is_, but as it is _sometimes_, and _always ought_ to be. "Comedy (says _Vossius_) is divided by some _Greek_ and _Roman_ Criticks into the _Moral_ and the _Merry_: The first gives a natural and sober View of common Life; the other is all over Pleasantry and Ridicule." And this was undoubtedly a very convenient Division, because it takes the Case as it really is. Of the first Kind, are _Terence_'s Comedies, of the last _Plautus_'s: But both of them had been more perfect, if they had fallen a little more into each other's Way of Writing; if _Terence_ had endeavour'd more to make us laugh, and _Plautus_ to be more serious.

Comedy is defin'd by _Scaliger_[398], to be _a Dramatic Poem, representing the Business of Life, whose Event is fortunate, and Style familiar_. But to represent the Business of Life, belongs to the _Drama_ in general, and may equally be applied to Tragedy or Comedy; and therefore ought not to make Part of the distinguishing Character of either of them. Comedy, indeed, ought always to end fortunately, and the Style should be familiar: But both these are included under that Branch of our Definition which says, it must be _in a humorous or facetious Way of Writing_. Mirth and Raillery, tho' essential to this Sort of Poetry, are not taken Notice of in _Scaliger_'s Definition, and, in _Vossius_'s Opinion[399], are not at all necessary in the Idea of it. But is it possible to have any Notion of Comedy, where Mirth and Humour have no Place in it? _Scaliger_ says, in another Place[400], tho' not very consistently, that it was common, both in Tragedy and Comedy, to have the Play sometimes _conclude with a Mixture of Grief and Gladness_. He seems to have forgot his own Definition of Comedy, where he would have it always _end successfully_. He mentions, indeed, many Comedies[401], _where there it a Mixture of Mirth and Sorrow in them_; and the Observation might have been as true of all the rest. For it is scarce, if at all possible, that all the Persons concern'd in an Action should rejoice in the most fortunate and successful Conclusion of it; because, where-ever any Emulation or Competition rises, it is impossible that every Body should succeed: And were it possible, it would be improper; for Vice should always receive its Punishment, and Virtue its Reward. It is therefore to no Purpose to give us the Instances of _Thraso_ in _Terence_'s _Eunuch_, of _Chremes_ in his _Phormio_, or of others, who at the End of the Play go off in some Concern. For (not to observe that their Sorrow is very much soften'd in the Conclusion) to make the Event prosperous, it is enough, that in general, and in the main Point, it turns out successfully, and that all the Audience, tho' not all the Persons concern'd in the Action, are dismiss'd in good Humour. What _Scaliger_ says of Tragedies, (which we shall speak of hereafter) is very true, that the _Catastrophe_ neither is, nor always ought to be unfortunate. But certainly a Comedy ought always to end chearfully. And this may serve, by way of Answer, to what _Vossius_ has observ'd about the double _Catastrophe_ of some Comedies, which, with regard to different Persons, _are joyful and unfortunate_[402].

_Vossius_ defines Comedy in this Manner,[403]_A Dramatic Poem, copying the Actions of the principal Citizens, and common People, in a familiar Style, not without Mirth and Raillery_. He therefore manifestly contradicts[404] himself, when he affirms, afterwards, that Mirth is not _essential to Comedy_. Having given us this Definition, he proceeds thus: "But if we consider Comedy, as it _has generally been_ written, we might call it, _a Representation not only of public, but private Life_." Yes, truly, if we consider Comedy as it _ought to_ be written, we may venture to say, that it is a Copy of the Actions of _private Men_, and not of the chief _Magistrates_. For by the Actions of the _principal Citizens_[405] he means (as it appears plainly afterwards) those, who are concern'd in the Government, and in the Administration of Public Affairs, which are by no Means a proper Subject for Comedy.

[Sidenote: _Twenty-fourth Lecture._]

But we said Comedy was a View of _common and private Life_: Not that the lower Sort of People only are to be represented in it; for Gentlemen, and even Nobility, not only may, but ought sometimes to be introduc'd, if they do not appear in a public Character; but by no Means Princes, or Monarchs, or even Persons of lower Station in Government, as concern'd in public Affairs; Circumstances which are proper for Tragedy, not at all for Comedy. Much less should a Deity be introduc'd; for which Reason, _Aristophanes_, in his _Plutus_, and _Plautus_, in his _Amphitryo_, break thro' the Rules of Comic Poetry, by bringing _Jupiter_ and _Mercury_, and other Deities, upon the Stage. There is, indeed, as Comedy has been manag'd, two Sorts of it, the _Genteel_, and the _Low_; the one consisting of Persons of Character and inferior Life both together; the other of the Vulgar only; and is not properly Comedy, but Farce, nor so suitable to my Definition of it. For this gives a View but of _one Side_ of private Life, and that the least creditable. Nor yet are Persons of Condition only to be represented, because we should still see but _one_, tho' the better Side of Life; and because by this Means we should want Mirth and Raillery, and the true Comic Spirit; which are all best kept up by Persons of low Degree, or rather by a mix'd Conversation between those of different Circumstances. Thus _Terence_, who, in _Cæsar_'s Opinion, wanted somewhat of this _Vis Comica_, would have had scarce any of it, if we had been entertain'd only with the grave Appearance of his _Chremeses_ and _Simo's_, _Phædria's_ and _Antipho's_; and all the lower Characters of _Davus_, _Parmeno_, or _Geta_, and such merry Fellows had been omitted.

An Image of common and private Life takes in the Virtues, Vices, and Follies of Mankind; and represents them in their true Colours; Virtue as amiable, Vice as odious, and Folly as ridiculous. Nor does this at all contradict their Definition of Comedy, which _Aristotle_ has given; where he seems to determine, that whatsoever is truly valuable, and worthy of Commendation, is by no means a proper Subject for Comedy.[406] Ἡ δε κωμωδια, εστιν, ὡσπερ ειπομεν, μιμησις φαυλοτερων μεν, ου μεντοι κατα πασαν κακιαν, αλλα του αισχρου εστι το γελοιον μοριον. _Comedy, as we said, is an Imitation of the worse Part of Mankind, but not thro' all the Enormities of Vice; for it is only some Degree of it that is ridiculous._ In this Definition, _Aristotle_, according to his usual Manner, gives a short and succinct Account of his Subject, not a full and perfect Explication of it. And I may venture to say, that I have offer'd nothing that is inconsistent with this Description, by affirming that _Virtue_, as well as _Vice_ and _Folly_, is a proper Subject for Comedy. For when he tells us, that the Characters in Comedy are to be copied from the more ignominious Part of Mankind, he does not say, they are to be copied from them _only_: Nor does he mean, that none else are to be represented in it, but that none else are to be _expos'd_, and turn'd to _Ridicule_. And Vices will always appear the more odious and ridiculous, when they are plac'd in full Light against their opposite Virtues.

Mons. _Dacier_, who has given us a Translation, and Notes upon this Part of _Aristotle_, affirms, that _Ridicule is the only Subject of Comedy_[407]; which is neither true in Fact, nor agreeable to his Author's Meaning. I am sensible that the _chief_ Business of Comedy is Ridicule, but not the _only_ one. _Aristotle_ intimates, indeed, what we not only grant, but contend for, that great and scandalous Enormities, as they raise some Degree of Horror in our Minds, and are proper for Tragedy, are not so for Comic Writers. But they may bring lesser Failings upon the Stage, and perhaps some which are rather odious than ridiculous: Nor does that great Philosopher advance any Thing to the contrary: For in those Words, αλλα του αισχρου εστι το γελοιον μοριον, he only shews, what we readily allow, that the _chief_ Subject of Comedy is Ridicule: And he plainly insinuates, that scandalous and great Crimes are not proper for it, when he defines it _an Imitation of the worse Part of Mankind, but not practising every Kind of Vice_. And yet Mons. _Dacier_ defends _Aristophanes_, and other Writers of the old Comedy, who (as _Horace_ observes, in the Verses before mention'd) expos'd the worst Sort of Crimes upon the Stage, tho' he insists, at the same Time, that nothing is to be admitted in Comedy, but what is the Subject of Ridicule. He attempts, indeed, to reconcile their Practice with this Opinion, by observing, that those old Poets painted even the greatest Enormities in that Light which made them rather ridiculous than detestable, and that the Audience were to consider them only in that View: But it is very evident, that horrid and abominable Vices (such were some of those which _Horace_ mentions, and these Writers expos'd) as Murder, for Instance, can by _no sort_ of Colouring be ridiculous, nor, in the Nature of Things, become the Object of Jest and Merriment. I own there may be some Circumstances attending the greatest Crimes, which may excite rather Contempt or Laughter, than Horror or Detestation, as may be observ'd in the Instances of _Theft_ and _Adultery_, which _Horace_ mentions: Nor do I deny, that, _in this View_, they may have a Place in Comedy, provided they are but seldom, and with great Caution, represented: Tho', notwithstanding all the Caution that is possible, they had better be omitted. For, upon _the whole_, all Things consider'd, such Actions are shocking, and can never be so truly ridiculous, as they are detestable. However, to let them make the most of this Concession, it can never be admitted as an Excuse for those Poets who represent Things and Persons as ridiculous, which are in no Respect whatever the Objects of Ridicule. I mention Persons, as well as Things: For Mons. _Dacier_ defends _Plautus_ for introducing Kings and Gods upon the Stage in his _Amphitryo_, and yet, notwithstanding, pronounces it to be true Comedy, for this Reason, forsooth, because _the Subject_ (says he) _in itself tragical, is by the Poet turn'd into Ridicule_. Which is so far from being a just Vindication of him, that it is the very Fault he stands accus'd of. For what is this, but inverting the very Nature of Things? It is not _Poetry_, but _Buffoonry_; nor can the Author of such Dramatic Performances be consider'd as a _Poet_, but a _Droll_. Such Prodigies may possibly occasion a Laugh among the Vulgar, who think nothing _marvellous_, but what is _monstrous_; but Men of Taste, and Judgment, will always treat them with Contempt and Aversion. To return, then, from Persons to Things. If we restrain Comedy from meddling with enormous Vices, do we not seem to contradict _Horace_'s Judgment, who says,

[408]----_Ridiculum acri
Fortius & melius magnas plerumque secat res:
Illi, scripta quibus Comœdia prisca viris est,
Hoc stabant, hoc sunt imitandi._

Great Faults are rounded off with oily Sneer,
Not mall'able by Strokes the most severe.
This was the Drift of all those ancient Plays,
In this they may be follow'd, and with Praise.

_Great_ Faults may, I own, but not the _greatest_: _Follies_ the greatest, if you will, and sometimes great _Crimes_, which (as was observ'd before) may have something ridiculous in the Manner of their Commission. Nor did the Writers of the old Comedy _always_ expose the greatest Crimes, but Crimes of a less Note, and Follies of the first Magnitude, and are in _this Respect worthy of Imitation_. But notwithstanding the ingenious and refin'd Observations of the _French_ Translator, _Aristotle_'s Rule will for ever stand in Opposition to his Sentiments, and exclude such abominable Characters from being introduc'd in Comedy, under Pretence of exposing them.[409] Το γαρ γελοιον εστιν αμαρτημα τι, και αισχ ανωδυνον, και ου φθαρτικον. Οιον, ευθυς, το γελοιον προσωπον αισχρον τι, και διεστραμμενον ανευ οδυνης. _What we laugh at, is only lesser Failings, some Immorality that is not shocking, and attended with no fatal Consequences: As, to use an obvious Instance, a ridiculous Face is ugly, and ill-shap'd, but without any Appearance of Calamity._ And is this Description of Ridicule ever to be reconcil'd with the most heinous Crimes, such as the Writers of the old Comedy have sometimes expos'd? Do such black Offences affect us with no Sorrow; are no fatal Consequences occasion'd by them? I don't then plead the Practice of these Poets against _Aristotle_'s Opinion, (which yet is a Difficulty Mons. _Dacier_ endeavours to guard against) but from the Nature and Reason of the Thing I arraign their Practice: Tho' were the Point to be decided by Authority, I should always have a greater Reverence for the Judgment of _Aristotle_, than the Example of _Aristophanes_.

Crimes, then, of this Stamp, can never agree with Comedy; not that we are for running into the other Extream, and asserting (as I observ'd before) that Ridicule is the only, because it is the principal Subject of it. _Inferior_ Crimes, of the more _odious_ Kind, may properly enough be introduc'd upon that very Account, because they are _odious_: Tho' those that are equally odious, and ridiculous, are much more _proper_ for it; as Avarice, Arrogance, Superstition, and the like. And others, of a different Turn, if represented in private Life, may, nay, ought to be expos'd on the Comic Stage, as Luxury, and the preposterous Affectation of appearing great without a Fortune, provided this is done in a merry Way, and the Humour is not lost in the Discipline. But Murder, Rebellion, ambitious Thirst of Power, and other Vices of that Strain, belong only to Tragedy. But the _Follies_ of Mankind (as they are usually term'd) that are not so much _Crimes_, as _Imperfections_, that offend against the Rules of _Decency_ rather than _Morality_, are _merely_, and in _every View_, ridiculous; and, upon that Account, furnish the _most proper_ Matter for Comedy.

But here it is necessary to observe, that all the Virtues, Vices, and Follies, we have been speaking of, take in the Passions of every Kind: For it is a very great Mistake to imagine that Comedy should be from one End to the other, a continu'd Scene of Gaiety and Mirth: Some Parts of it may be grave, sententious, and even sorrowful. Nor will any one, I believe, who is a Judge in this Way of Writing, ever find Fault with _Terence_, who, in the _Andria_, (to omit many other Passages) brings _Pamphilus_ on the Stage under all this Concern.

_Hoccine est humanum factum, aut inceptum?
hoccine officium patris?_

Was there ever such a Thing done, or thought of
yet by Man? Is this the Tenderness of a Father?

And a little afterwards,

----_Sed nunc quid primum exequar?
Tot me impediunt curæ, quæ meam animum divorse trahunt:
Amor, misericordia hujus, nuptiarum sollicitatio,
Tum patris pudor, qui me tam leni passus est animo usque adhuc
Quæ meo cunque animo libitum est facere; eine ego ut
advorser? hei mihi!
Incertum est quid agam._

But, as the Case now stands, where shall I begin first?
So many Difficulties cumber and distract my Soul at once;
on one Side, Love, Pity for that dear Creature, and the
pressing Importunities I am under to marry: On the other,
the Reverence due to my Father, who has hitherto indulg'd
me in all that Heart could wish; and shall I now turn Rebel
to him at last? Mine is a wretched Situation; which Way to
turn, I know not.

And tho' the Style of Comedy is generally familiar, yet it is sometimes capable of the _Sublime_. So _Horace_ observes, in his Art of Poetry:

_Interdum tamen & vocem Comœdia tollit,
Iratusque Chremes tumido delitigat ore._

Yet Comedy sometimes may raise her Voice,
And _Chremes_ be allow'd to foam and rail.
_Roscom._

Where Interpreters are of Opinion, that _Horace_ alludes to that Passage in the _Heautontimorumenos_:

[412]----_Non si ex capite sis meo
Natus, item ut aiunt Minervam esse ex Jove; ea causa magis
Patiar, Clitipho, flagitiis tuis me infamen fieri._

No! had you sprung out of my very Brain, as they say
_Pallas_ did from _Jove_'s, I wou'd not bear to see
myself disgrac'd by your Debauches.

But there is a wide Difference between that Distress, which prevails in Tragedy, and that which occasionally appears in Comedy. The one is like a Storm in Winter, which covers the Sky all over with Clouds and Darkness, only a few transient Gleams of Light interspers'd: The other is like a Summer's Day, which is generally serene and bright, and sometimes, tho' seldom, a little over-cast.

The whole Compass, then, of our Passions, may be represented in Comedy, as well as Tragedy; but in a _Manner_ intirely different, on account of the Difference of the Characters from which they arise. For it is certainly true, on the one Hand, that the Foundations of human Happiness and Misery, all the Springs and Sources of our Affections, are, in the main, the same, and common to all Mankind: But, it is as evident, on the other, that every Man, according to his Station in Life, expresses those Affections in a different Manner, and with peculiar Images. Thus, in a human Body, the several Parts are in all Men nearly the same; but the great Variety in their Condition, Education, and Ways of living, makes the same Variety in their Appearance and gives a different Turn, even to their Countenance. A Monarch may be as merry as any of his Subjects; but how different is the Air of his Mirth, from that jovial Rusticity with which the merry Peasant overflows! A Shepherd, or Swain, may feel all the Anguish and Distress of Love; but how unlike are his Complaints to those which a Prince or Sultan would pour out upon these Occasions! Nay, and the lowest Part of Mankind are not without _Ambition_; but how widely distant is it from the high and boundless Views with which Monarchs are affected!

But tho' every Passion may be properly represented in Comedy, yet the first Place must always be assign'd to Ridicule; that should be, thro' the whole, the prevailing Turn. But how difficult it is for an Author to succeed in _just Ridicule_, is very obvious, not only to them who have attempted it, but to every Body who has duly consider'd this Way of Writing. It is no easy Performance to rally the Follies of Mankind in an agreeable Manner; and to _laugh with a good Grace_, is no vulgar Attainment. But most of the Moderns seem to be quite of another Opinion, and think, that nothing is more easy, than to _make a Man ridiculous_. And it must be own'd, that _Laughing_, in their Way, is one of the easiest Things imaginable, with whom a wry Face is a Joke, and every Joke a certain Mark of Wit: But _Horace_ and _Terence_ were unluckily of another Way of thinking Our Witlings, whilst they divert themselves with the Follies of others, expose their own; and the Laughter they are so ready to raise, returns upon themselves. But, to say the Truth, our present Taste for Ridicule is itself ridiculous, and that not only in Comedy, but many _other Compositions_, especially in _Prose_, which have met with great Approbation from many; with whom, to invert the Nature of Things, and misrepresent with trivial Gestures, and low Mimickry, is reckon'd a Proof of a great Genius. Sometimes, indeed, there may be a great deal of Wit in this Sort of Burlesque, in describing Heroes and great Actions in ludicrous and low Images, and setting off Trifles with the Air and Majesty of the Sublime: But if this is coarsly done, the Composition languid, and over-run with Foppery, nothing is more nauseous. To trifle in a sprightly Manner, is exceeding pleasant; but nothing more odious than an affected Dulness, and being downright foolish: Which is too often the Case with these Wits, who are wonderfully pleas'd with their own most ingenious Compositions; who are dealing perpetually in Ironies, and making Sport (as they imagine) with others. There is, indeed, a peculiar Beauty in an easy and well-turn'd Irony, which these toothless Snarlers know nothing of; but to utter a heavy and palpable Falsity, under the Shew of it, is mere Stupidity.

_Res est severa voluptas_----

True Pleasure's sacred Name revere;
Itself is solid, and its Laws severe.

A Maxim, which, if all Writers would remember, the best Judges would be more agreeably entertain'd in reading them.

[Sidenote: _Twenty-fifth Lecture._]

It may be ask'd, Whether Writers, who would professedly expose the Follies and Vices of Mankind, ought to make their Figures larger than the Originals, or describe them exactly as they are, without Addition or Improvement. Each Side of the Question is not without its Authorities. _Plautus_ is alledg'd in Favour of the first Opinion, and _Terence_ of the last. But granting that _Aristophanes_ and _Plautus_, among the Ancients, and most of the modern Comic Writers, have taken too much Liberty in this Point; yet it is an allow'd Privilege to Poets, as well as Painters, not to be confin'd, either in Panegyric, or Satire, to the strict Rules of Truth. Such Heightnings are no more than meer _Hyperboles_; nor do those write, or these paint, _contrary_ to Truth, but _above_ it. The Strokes must be daring and strong, if you would draw Men, or Characters, to the Life: It is not enough barely to draw the Outlines of Vice and Folly, if you intend to make the one ridiculous, or the other detestable; some Colourings must be added, both by the Painter, and the Poet.

_Prologues_ were anciently made use of only before Comedies; but with us they are equally suited to them and Tragedy. They who have a Mind to know the several Sorts of them, may consult _Vossius_. The Ancients had no _Epilogue_, which is intirely modern, and us'd in common both to Tragedy or Comedy. _Terence_'s Prologues have no Wit, and very little Fancy in them; which cannot be said of our Prologues and Epilogues, full, as they often are, of the most lively Entertainment.

They who wou'd be acquainted with the _Chorus_, the _Cantica_, and the _Pantomimes_ of the Ancients, must consult _Vossius_ and _Scaliger_, and such Writers: For these Particulars belong rather to the History of Poetry, than to any Branch of Critic. The Use of them, especially the Pantomimes, was to relieve the Audience, that it might not grow weary of the Play: A Practice which can never be mention'd to their Honour: For it is a certain Evidence of a bad Taste, when an Audience cannot bear to sit out a dramatic Entertainment, without being reliev'd by such low Diversions: But we have the less Reason to wonder at this, who have seen in our own Time and Nation, Rope and Ladder-Dancers, and other wonderful Artists of that Class, not only admitted upon the Stage, but (to our Shame be it spoken) receiv'd there with the utmost Applause. The Age, indeed, even of _Augustus_, fell into much the same Depravity, which _Horace_ thus rallies for it:

----_Media inter carmina poscunt
Aut ursum, aut pugiles._

Let _Hockley-hole_ Diversions grace the Stage,
And Dog with Bear, _Stokes_ with his Wife engage.

They, surely, must be of very low Genius, that cannot be content with a Comedy, unless it is disgrac'd with somewhat lower, a ridiculous Farce.

From what we have said of the Nature and Turn of this Kind of Poem, that it is a Representation of common and private Life; some Persons will, perhaps, imagine it to be a Work of Amusement, compos'd without much Difficulty, or Genius. But this is so far from making it easier, that it increases the Difficulty of writing it. Take _Horace_'s Opinion,

_Creditur, ex medio quia res arcessit, habere
Sudoris minimum; sed habet Comœdia tanto
Plus oneris; quanto veniæ minus._

As Comedy takes all its Characters
From common Life, 'tis thought a Work of Ease;
Yet where the less Indulgence is allow'd,
The greater Pains and Judgment are requir'd.
_Ch. Carthy._

Nor yet do we, therefore, affirm in general, that Comedy is a Work of greater Difficulty or Genius than Tragedy, which was the Opinion of _Antiphanes_, a Comic Poet, as _Vossius_ tells us[415], whom the Reader may consult for the Arguments and Replies on both Sides.

The Language of Comedy is by that learned Author[416] consider'd in two Lights; in general, with regard to its Elegance; and more particularly, as it relates to the Stage. "As to Elegance, he says, that the Language of _Aristophanes_, and other Writers of the old _Greek_ Comedy, was more correct and beautiful than _Menander_'s and other Writers of the new. Among the _Latins_, _Terence_, for Beauty, and Purity of Style, is superior to all; _Plautus_ is honour'd but with the second Place, tho', in _Varro_'s Judgment, he deserv'd the first." But no Body has been so indulgent to _Varro_'s Opinion, as to approve of it[417]. _Horace_ thought very differently, whose Sentiments of _Plautus_ appear from the Verses already quoted. He proceeds, "If we consider the Language with regard to the _Drama_, it must be suitable to the Subject, and not at all sublime; but, on the contrary, easy and familiar, and not set off with too many Ornaments." It is needless to say more upon this Subject, because I have already observ'd, in a former Lecture, that the Style of Comedy is not properly poetical, but an elegant Kind of Prose.

The Names of the _Greek_ Comic Poets have been taken Notice of already. Among the _Romans_, the most distinguish'd were two, whose Works are lost, _Cæcilius_, and _Afranius_; and two, which we now have, _Plautus_, and _Terence_. _Horace_ has observ'd of them,

_Vincere Cæcilius gravitate, Terentius arte._

Compar'd in Character, _Cæcilius_' Part
Is Gravity, and _Terence_'s is Art.

The latter Part of this Observation is clear and obvious, but what that Gravity was, in which _Cæcilius_ excell'd _Terence_, and which itself seems in him to superabound, is difficult to guess. By _Art_, says _Acro_, as _Vossius_ quotes him, is meant, the Propriety of Language, in which _Terence_ was superior to all other Poets. But I should rather think, as _Vossius_ does, that by _Art_ is meant the Management and Disposition of the Plot; in which he far excell'd _Plautus_ also. In Comedy, as the same learned Author observes, the _Romans_ are much inferior to the _Greeks_; and he cites _Quintilian_[419] in Support of his Opinion, who has deliver'd his Thoughts of _Terence_ with great Freedom. _Miratus sæpius ego sum, qui tanta fuerit populi Romani gravitas atque constantia, tantusque latinæ dictionis amor, ut_ Terentianis _fabulis capi potuerit; in quibus tam pauci risus, usque adeo rara scommata, &c. Sed agnosco tempora: Vivebant tum Scipiones; Catonesque erant in pretio: Et incrementa fiebant tum temporis illius imperii. Moribus populi in voluptatem prolabentibus, oratio facta est solutior._ "I have wonder'd," says he, (and I am no less surpriz'd at the Man's wonderful Way of Thinking) "that the _Romans_ should have so much Gravity and Composure in their Tempers, such a violent Affection for the Elegancies of their own Language, as to be fond of _Terence_'s Plays, where there is so little Mirth, scarce a Joke to be found. But it was the Turn of that Age: The _Scipio's_, and _Cato's_, were their Men of Taste, and in high Esteem: They were all Gravity, and their Thoughts ran only upon Conquests, and Increase of Power. But as the Morals of that People grew less severe, their Writings had in them more Gaiety and Pleasure." This is _Quintilian_'s Opinion, as partial, as it is severe. The Verses which _Cæsar_ wrote upon _Terence_, and _Suetonius_ has handed down to us, are so well known, that it might be thought an unpardonable Omission, when we are treating upon this Subject, to take no Notice of them:

_Tu quoque, tu in summis, ô dimidiate Menander,
Poneris, & merito, puri sermonis amator;
Lenibus atque utinam dictis adjuncta foret vis
Comica, & æquato virtus polleret honore
Cum Græcis, neque in hac despectus parte jaceres:
Unum hoc maceror, & doleo tibi deesse, Terenti._

And thou, who mak'st _Mænander_'s Beauties thine,
Shalt foremost in the List of Writers shine;
Correct in Language, chaste in ev'ry Thought,
In all the Rules of Art without a Fault.
Oh! did thy gently-pleasing Scenes impart
As much the Force of Nature, as of Art,
Did but those Strokes of Wit attend thy Lines,
Which thro' the _Grecian_ Page distinguish'd shines,
Thy Works with Rapture wou'd be studied o'er,
Nor _Roman_ Elegance have wish'd for more.

But granting that _Terence_ was no way remarkable for his Talent at Wit and Repartee, yet (with Submission to so great a Judge) so sharp and severe a Censure seems more than he deserves. For there are many, and those of the best Taste, who are more pleas'd with a Writer, that perpetually keeps up an agreeable Smile, and an easy Chearfulness; than one, who is every now and then throwing them into Fits of Laughter, and violent Emotions.

Our modern Comedy, as I observ'd before, has a much greater Resemblance with what the Ancients call'd the _Middle_ Comedy, than either the _Old_, or _New_. It is much graver, and less satirical than the first, and has more delicate Touches of Wit and Raillery than the last. _Terence_ seems neither by Genius, nor Inclination, to have had the least Turn for the sharp and satirical Way of Writing: His Excellency lies rather in copying the common Characters of Human Nature, and drawing them in the exactest Manner, and truest Light; than in painting any of its Extravagancies, whether in Vice, or Folly. The modern Comedies have certainly more Wit and Humour in their Composition, than the ancient; more Art in working up, and unravelling their Plots; and a greater Variety of Persons concern'd in them: And especially in genteel Comedy, our Characters have more good Breeding, and Politeness; and even in Low Life, our comical Figures are more ridiculous. But then, on the other Hand, the Language of _Terence_ is more pure and correct, more expressive and elegant than ours: He has drawn his Characters more natural, and more accurately observ'd the Rules of Art. But to give the Moderns an absolute Superiority in this Way of Writing, they have nothing more to do, than to prune and retrench some Excrescencies, without studying for any further Improvements: Let them abate of their Luxuriancy, and the Business is done at once. Nay, they seem to me already superior to them in all other Respects, except (which I am asham'd to own) in that intire Regard to Modesty which is preserv'd in all _Terence_'s Characters. If we compare the modern Comic Writers in the several Parts of _Europe_, Mons. _Rapin_ tells us, that the _Spaniards_ have one or two, but one, especially, that is considerable; the _Italians_ have none worth taking Notice of. The Dispute, therefore, will lie betwixt the _French_ and us. And who has more Wit and Humour, is more elegant in Style, or natural in his Characters, than _Moliere_? Tho', in general, if we are not too partial to our own Performances, we are in this, as in all other Parts of Poetry, superior to the _French_; but the Superiority is no where so disputable.

As to our _English_ Comedies, which are written in Prose, if any over-nice Critic questions whether they can be justly reckon'd poetical Compositions, because in the Definition of Poetry, which we have already given, some Sort of Numbers are made essential to it; the plain Answer is this: If we keep close to the Terms of that Definition, our Comedies may justly be consider'd as Poems, in every other Respect but this: The Definition is form'd upon the universal Practice of the Ancients, who are, and ought to be our great Masters in this Art; and it is more reasonable to continue, than alter it, in Compliance with the Practice of modern Writers. But the Question, whatever Way it is determin'd, is only an idle Controversy about Words, and of very little Moment: For the Verses of the ancient Comedies differ'd so little from Prose, that the nicest Ear could not always distinguish them: They had their proper Measures, but so loose and uncertain, that it is often difficult to determine which is the true Way of scanning them: And in Comedy more regular and confin'd Measures had been ridiculous. How inexcusable, then, is the Practice of the _French_ Poets, who have written whole Comedies in Rhyme, and Heroic Verse? Rhymes are ridiculous enough in Tragedy; but that an easy and familiar Conversation, such as Comedy is suppos'd to be, should be all in Rhyme and Epic Verse, has something in it so extravagantly absurd, that I am surpriz'd a Nation, so remarkable for Wit and good Sense, could bear with it.

The Source of those agreeable Reflections, that Comedy supplies us with, is so obvious, that it needs no Enquiry. Mirth is always pleasing, and so is a lively Representation of Human Nature, of the Incidents of common Life, and those Characters which are every Day before us. Nor is the Cause of that ill-natur'd Pleasure less easy to be assign'd, which arises from Satire, and Ridicule: Every Body is so civil to himself, as to suppose he is not the Person aim'd at. Who, upon these Occasions, ever thinks of _Horace_'s Observation?

----_Quid rides? mutato nomine de Te
Fabula narratur._

What, dost thou laugh, and think that thou art free?
Fool, change the Name, the Story's told of thee.

The Images, then, of the Vices and Follies of other Men, flatter that Pride, which is too natural to Mankind; who are apt to think their own Characters rais'd, by the Ruin of others: This is such a Pleasure as we ought to be asham'd of. But some there are, of a quite different Turn, who are as much delighted with the Moral of the Play, the Success of Virtue, and the Punishments or Disappointments which Vice meets with in it: And others have no Regard to any Character but the Poet's, are taken only with the Turns of Wit, and the Genius of the Writer. But _Errors_ and _Imperfections_ are the great Source of Delight in all Dramatical Performances, especially in Comedy, which has, in general, more Friends and Admirers than Tragedy: Because there are few Persons of so great a Genius, or so refin'd a Taste, as to be sensible of those generous and agreeable Emotions, which arise from Tenderness, and Compassion, and even Distress itself. Scenes of Mirth are pleasing to every Imagination, those of Sorrow only to a few. I can only wish, that these different Passions which arise from the Gravity of Tragedy, or the Gaiety of Comedy, were made useful and instrumental to Virtue; and that our Theatres were not more frequented for the Amusements they supply us with, than for the Lessons of Morality and good Sense instill'd in them.

FOOTNOTES:

[393] Περι Ποιητικης, c. V.

[394] As to the prior Antiquity of Comedy or Tragedy, History must be our only Guide; for I think it cannot be suppos'd that either of them existed, before Mankind knew what State and Magnificence was. Both had their Rise from the Songs at the Feasts of _Bacchus_. _Susarion_ is said to be the Inventor of the first, and _Thespis_ of the latter. So _Marm. Arundel. &c._ And yet _Horace_ says, _Successit vetus his Comœdia_, having spoken before of Tragedy and Satire; which is reconcil'd by supposing _Epicharmus_ (who liv'd later than _Thespis_) the _Inventor_ of Comedy in _Horace_'s Judgment, because he was the first _Writer_ of it. See _Bentley's Answer to Boyle_, p. 238, 199, 200.

[395] Lib. I. Sat. IV. ℣ 1.

[396] ℣ 281.

[397] Inst. L. II. c. 27. p. 139, 140.

[398] Poetic. L.I. c. V. p. 27.

[399] P. 123.

[400] P. 45, & 367.

[401] P. 45.

[402] P. 125.

[403] P. 110.

[404] No more than he himself was aware. He observes, if, as St. _Jerome_ says, it is a Copy of common Life, for the Improvement of the Audience, it need not be mix'd with Mirth, were it not for the Sake of pleasing them.

[405] _Vossius_ takes Care to tell us, that this Definition is suited to the Old Comedy; and gives us others from _Camerarius_ and _Jul. Scaliger_, that comprehend the New.

[406] De Poetica, cap. V.

[407] In Poet. Arist. p. 58, 59.

[408] L. I. Sat. X. ℣ 14.

[409] Cap. V.

[410] Andria, Act. I. Scen. penult.

[411] De Art. ℣ 93.

[412] Act. V. Scen. IV. 12.

[413] Ad August. ℣ 185.

[414] ℣ 168.

[415] Inst. Poet. L. II. c. XXIV.

[416] Ibid. c. XXV.

[417] _Lipsius_ was of _Varro_'s Mind, who says, in a Letter to _A. Schottus_, _Terentium amo, admiror; sed Plautum magis_. This blind Love for _Plautus_, led him into a strange Affectation of his Style, for which he was expos'd by _Henry Stephens_, in his Book entitled, _De Lipsii Latinitate Polæstra_.

[418] Ad Aug. ℣ 59.

[419] A Mistake. _Vossius_, L. II. c. XXIII. cites _Antonius Lullius Balearis_ melioris notæ Rhet.

[420] Lib. I. Sat. I. 69.

LECTURE XXVI, _&c._
_Of_ TRAGEDY.

In discoursing upon the Drama in general, I have already mention'd the Origin of Tragedy. The Word is deriv'd from τραγος, _a Goat_, and ωδη, _a Song_: because a Goat was the Reward propos'd to the Competitors in this Art; as _Horace_ has plainly intimated:

_Carmine qui tragico vilem certavit ob hircum._

The first Competitors in Tragic Strain,
When a poor Goat was all the Victor's Gain.

For they deserve no Regard, who would derive τραγωδια, as if it were τρυγωδια, from τρυξ, _the Lees of wine_; because the Actors, before _Æschylus_ invented the Use of Masks, discolour'd their Faces with Wine Lees. This Etymology is harsh, and unnatural[422]; the other is easy, and agreeable to the Rules of Analogy, without changing so much as one Letter, as the other does.[423]Their Opinion, who think it was call'd τραγωδια, as if it were τραχεια ωδη, a _rough Song_; has still less Countenance from the Analogy of that Language, or the Nature of the Poem. But it is not worth While to dwell upon these Trifles.

_Aristotle_, whose Discourse on Poetry is employ'd chiefly on this Subject, defines Tragedy in this Manner,[424] Εστιν ουν τραγωδια μιμησις πραξεως σπουδαιας, και τελειας, μεγεθος εχουσης, ἡδυσμενω λογω, χωρις εκαστου των ειδων εν τοις μοριοις δρωντων, και ου δι' επαγγελιας, αλλα δι' ελεους, και φοβου, περαινουσα την των τοιουτων παθηματων καθαρσιν. _Tragedy is the Imitation of a serious, entire, and important Action, in an agreeable Style, the different Sorts of which Style must be regularly varied in the several Parts; and not by Narration, but by the Means of Terror and Pity purging the like Passions in us._ All I would observe of this Definition, at present, is, that there are two Parts of it which want some Explication. The first is, χωρις εκαστου των ειδων εν τοις μοριοις δρωντων; that is, says[425]_Vossius_, "That the several Sorts of Style should not be mix'd together, but brought in separately in their several Parts. For _Aristotle_ adds, immediately after, _Some Parts are perform'd in Metre only, some with Music_[426]." This Clause, therefore, of the Definition, can belong only to the ancient Tragedy, and not to our modern, which is entirely without a Chorus. The other Difficulty is, in ου δι επαγγλελιας. _Vossius_ and _Dacier_ are both of Opinion, that this Part of the Definition was added for no other Reason, but to distinguish Tragedy from Epic Poetry, which is form'd, not upon Action, but Narration. But still there is a Doubt left, which neither of them attempt to clear up: Must we, therefore, exclude all Sort of Narration from Tragedy? Has not _Horace_, and all the Poets and Critics after him, made a proper Distinction between Things represented and related in the Drama?

_Aut agitur res in scenis, aut acta refertur._

Some Things are acted, others only told.
_Roscom._

The Answer to which Question, I think, is this; That there is undoubtedly a Dramatic Narration, but always related by some Persons in the Play, not by the Poet himself, as in Epic Poetry; and this latter Sort of Narration is what _Aristotle_ meant in the Definition before us. There is no Occasion to explain the several Parts of it any further, since _Vossius_ has express'd the Substance more clearly, and fully, in the following Definition.[428]_Tragedy is a Dramatic Poem, imitating some great, but unfortunate Event, in a grave and majestic Style_: To which, says he, if you please, you may add, _to raise the Passions, and purge the Mind from them_. All this is intelligible, and to the Point: But I wonder this learned Writer should think the last Clause rather not impertinent, than essential, by that negligent Introduction, _that you may add it if you please_; which, as _Dacier_ observes with great Judgment, is much the best Part of _Aristotle_'s Definition, and deserves, of all others, to be most accurately explain'd. He should also (as _Aristotle_ has done) have particularly mention'd the two prevailing Passions of _Pity_ and _Terror_, which are the proper Objects of Tragedy, and chiefly affected by it: And further, in Imitation of the same great Author, the Beauties of the Style should not have been intirely forgot. I shall therefore, from these two Definitions, endeavour to form a third, much clearer than _Aristotle_'s, and more compleat than _Vossius_'s. _Tragedy is a Dramatic Poem, imitating some great, but unfortunate Event, in a grave, majestic, and entertaining Style, to raise the Passions, especially those of Pity and Terror, and to purge the Mind of them._

This Definition, expresly, or by Implication, contains these several Parts; _the Argument, or the Subject Matter, the Sentiments, the Language and Versification, the Characters and Manners, and, lastly, the Moral, or the propos'd Effect_. All which agree in this, that they ought to be great and sublime; for with Regard to all these, Tragedy is the noblest Kind of Poetry, except one.

The Subject is always some serious and important Event, as the Expulsion of a Tyrant, the Death of a Hero, and the like; which Event turns, and depends intirely upon some violent Passion, either good or bad; as Ambition, Revenge, Friendship, and especially Love, (for Love, as I have before observ'd, is the chief Subject of the modern Drama, whether Tragedy, or Comedy;) or else upon the divine Justice, which gives either to Virtue, or Vice, or to both at once, their proper Retributions. It is likewise necessary, that the Manners, the Thoughts, the Language, (for these are so nearly allied, that they are much better consider'd jointly, than separately) should be grave, sublime, and magnificent. Hence _Horace_, in his Art of Poetry, after laying down Rules for the Style of Comedy,

_Versibus exponi tragicis res comica non vult_,

goes on thus,

_Indignatur item privatis, & prope socco
Dignis carminibus narrari cœna Thyestæ._

A Comic Subject loves an humble Verse:
_Thyestes_ scorns a low and Comic Style.
_Roscom._

And again:

_Effutire leves indigna Tragœdia versus,
Ut festis matrona moveri jussa diebus,
Intererit Satyris paulum pudibunda protervis._

For Tragedy shou'd blush as much, to stoop
To the low mimick Follies of a Farce,
As a grave Matron wou'd, to dance with Girls.

And _Ovid_:

_Omne genus scripti gravitate Tragœdia vincit._

In Majesty the Tragic Muse excels.

I am entirely of[432]_Vossius_'s Opinion, who says, "that Tragedy is nearly allied to Epic Poetry, nay, often superior to it, in the Choice of Words, and Majesty of Expression." Which makes _Horace_ say of it,

_An Tragica desævit & ampullatur in arte?_

Or swell with noble Rage the Tragic Style.
_Ch. Carthy._

Not that all the Persons in Tragedy are suppos'd to speak with equal Dignity, which is as inconsistent with the Nature of Things, as of Men; nor should the Language of a Messenger, or a Nurse, be as sublime as that of a Monarch, or a Deity: Tho' great Care ought to be taken, that nothing mean or trifling appear in these lower Characters, much less like Joke or Repartee, (a Fault which modern Writers, especially those of our own Country, are shamefully guilty of) lest Tragedy should sink below itself. A judicious Tragic Poet will be less concern'd at the Hiss, than the Laugh of an Audience.

Nor should the highest Characters talk _always_ with equal Majesty, for that is as great an Absurdity; much less should they fall into Expressions of Low Life, improper for Tragedy, even when they are talking about Things of no Moment: For even in them there is a Sort of Dignity, inseparable from Kings and Heroes. Mr. _Dryden_, therefore, has well observ'd, that in _Seneca_'s _Hippolytus_ the Poet very judiciously makes _Theseus_ order his Servants to open the Door (a very familiar Circumstance) in pompous Words:

_Reserate clusos Regii postes Laris._

Unbar the Portals of the Royal Dome.

In expressing Grief, when void of Anger, (for Anger is insolent in all Circumstances, and in great Men always swelling) the Style of Tragedy abates something of its Majesty, and descends almost into the Ease and Freedom, not of Comedy, (as[435]_Vossius_, less accurately, expresses it) but of familiar Conversation. "Especially if Heroes are introduc'd fallen from the Height of Fortune; whose Spirits are less rais'd, and their Language, of Course, is less tragical." As Anger, therefore, raises the Style of Comedy; Sorrow sinks that of Tragedy: Both which _Horace_ observes, in these Words:

_Interdum tamen & vocem Comœdia tollit,
Iratusque Chremes tumido delitigat ore:
Et Tragicus plerumque dolet sermone pedestri;
Telephus, & Peleus, cum pauper, & exul uterque,
Projicit ampullas, & sesquipedalia verba,
Si curat cor spectantis tetigisse querela._

Yet Comedy sometimes may raise her Voice,
And _Chremes_ be allow'd to foam and rail:
Tragedians too lay by their State, to grieve:
_Peleus_ and _Telephus_, evil'd and poor,
Forget their swelling and gigantick Words,
If they wou'd have Spectators share their Grief.
_Roscom._

The Reason of which is too plain, to want Explication. By _Sermo pedestris_, the Poet means a more familiar Style, but without Meanness; not quite degenerating into Prose, much less into what is vulgar, rude, or scurrilous: Tho' plain, it should be elegant; tho' humble, and complaining, yet graceful, and truly poetical. The Thoughts may, and often ought to be great, even when the Language is far otherwise. For there is a Sort of majestic and heroical Humility; and tho' Kings and Queens don't express their Grief in pompous and sonorous Words, yet there is some Difference betwixt theirs, and vulgar Sorrows. There is the same Distinction of Style, as in the Habit of Mourners. The Monarch may exchange his Purple for Sable, yet, in his Behaviour, in his Looks, there is such a Reserve of Majesty, as will easily distinguish him from a private Person in the same Attire.

As we observ'd elsewhere, there were two Sorts of Satire, the one of a lower Kind, and less confin'd; the other of a graver and severer Turn, and more sublime: So the former is suited to Comedy, the latter to Tragedy: For it is the Business of the one to ridicule the Follies of Mankind, and of the other to lash Vices, and Crimes of a deeper Dye. Hence _Juvenal_, a Writer of the sublimer Kind of Satire, seems to propose the Tragic Style for his Imitation.

_Grande Sophocleo carmen bacchamur hiatu._

The Satyr in a Rage,
Struts in the Buskins of the Tragic Stage.
_Dryden._

Nor is it less the Province of Tragedy to improve Virtue, than correct, and expose Vice; Virtue, I say, and that heroic too: For Tragedy is a Sort of heroic Drama; no Kind of Poetry is more sacred; none, to which the noblest and best Sentiments are so suitable; none, in which more exalted Precepts of Virtue are, or, at least, may be deliver'd.

Tragedy, therefore, is, in all Respects, adapted to the Sublime: But if it should be ask'd, how I can reconcile this to Nature, that Men, of what Quality and Rank soever, should be suppos'd, in their private and common Conversation, to make such solemn Speeches, of so much Art and Elegance; when, in Fact, they rarely, if ever, talk in such Language: I must ingenuously own, that this Objection lies stronger against those Poems in which Actions are represented, than in which they are barely describ'd; and therefore, in this Respect, Tragedy must give Place to Epic. It may be observ'd, however, that even in Comedy, (which is suppos'd to be less concern'd in this Objection) it is impossible to imagine, that Persons should really support a Conversation, as they are represented to do, upon the Stage, and that it is full as natural to ascribe this Sublimity of Style to Kings and Heroes, as those smart Repartees, and fine Turns of Wit, to Persons of inferior Rank. But, upon the whole, the true Apology to be made for both, is, that these are _probable_ Circumstances, if not _true ones_: It is enough, if they bear a near Resemblance to Truth, or if, as _Horace_ has well express'd it,

_Ficta voluptatis causa sint proxima veris._

What was for Pleasure feign'd, be near the Truth.

For it is impossible that any Degree of Fiction should be the very Truth. Poets, as well as Painters, are allow'd to go beyond the Life: Nay, this is the very Point that shews their Skill most. When these imaginary Touches affect as strongly as real Truths; if we can be agreeably deceiv'd, even in spite of Conviction, how great is the Art, and how just the Triumph of the Deceiver? And this is what _Horace_ means, in the following Lines:

_Ille per extentum funem mihi posse videtur
Ire Poeta, meum qui pectus inaniter augit,
Irritat, mulcet, falsis terroribus implet,
Ut magus, & modo me Thebis, modo ponit Athenis._

I freely own, that Poet seems to shew
The greatest Force of Genius, and of Art,
Whose pow'rful Images can fill the Soul
With Terrors not her own; can Pity raise,
Or Joy, or soft Complacency diffuse:
Who, by the wond'rous Magic of his Pen,
With strong Deception on my Fancy plays,
Now fixes me at _Athens_, now at _Thebes_.
_Ch. Carthy._

[Sidenote: _Twenty-seventh Lecture._]