Having discours'd of the Nature and Genius of the Drama in general; the three great Unities, viz. of Action, Time, and Place; the Variety and Distinctness of the Characters; the Contrivance and Management of the Plot, and other Things of that Sort; Comedy comes next to be consider'd separately, as it falls under the general Rules of the Drama which are already mention'd, and as it is distinguish'd from Tragedy, which shall be treated of hereafter.

The Word Comedy is deriv'd from ???, a Village, and ?d?, a Song; because, consisting only of a Chorus, and fram'd without Dialogue or Diversity of Characters, it was sung originally in Villages, and was therefore call'd a Country Catch; its first Appearance being entirely different from that Dress, which it afterwards assum'd, and still continues to wear: Or it was call'd Comedy from kÔmos and ÔdÊ, because at Feasts (which were under the Care of the God Comus) it was usually one Part of the Entertainment.

When or where Comic Poetry had its Original, is a Question not to be determin'd, which Aristotle accounts for in this Manner;[393] ?? e? ??? te? t?a??d?a? etaase??, ?a? d?' ?? e?e???t?, ?? ?e???as??. ? de ???s?a , d?a t? ? sp??da?es?a? e? a????, e?a?e?. We are acquainted (says he) with the Alterations and Improvements made in Tragedy, and with the Authors of them; but Comedy, because less Regard was paid to it at first, we know little or nothing of. The Dignity of Tragic Poetry was the Reason why the Greeks began to improve it much earlier, and to take more Pains in it, and therefore its Rise and Progress is much better known. But altho' Tragedy was sooner refin'd, and brought under the Rules of Art, yet it is probable, that some rude Attempts in Comedy were more ancient: Because it seems natural to imagine, that Mankind, upon gathering in the Fruits of the Earth, and receiving the other Blessings of Providence, should be excited with Sentiments of Joy, affected with an innocent Gaiety, and led on to some festival Sports, before they could think of writing Poems upon the Miseries and Misfortunes of other Men; and because a Life plain, and without Shew, was more ancient than State and Magnificence[394].

Before I divide my Subject, I shou'd now, according to the Rules of Method, define it, which I wou'd comply with, if the several Parts of it wou'd properly fall under any one Definition, that wou'd equally extend to all of them. But as there were three Sorts of Comedy, and the Definition, which I propose to give, takes in only the two last and best of them, which are now in Use, it may be proper to observe, before I offer any Definition, that these three Sorts of Comedy were the Old, the Middle, and the New.

The old was of two Kinds, 1. There was the very oldest of all, of which not the least Remains are now left; but the Writers of it, as Aristotle tells us, were Epicharmus and Phormis, Sicilians; and Crates the Athenian. Their Performances were rough and artless, innocent and sententious. 2. There was, what we now more expresly call the old Comedy; the Masters in which were Eupolis and Cratinus, whose Works are lost, and Aristophanes, who was the last in that Way of Writing. It was sharp, and satirical, and extremely abusive; even Men of the first Rank, whether the Facts were true or false, if they were suspected only of any criminal Behaviour, were brought upon the Stage without any Disguise, call'd by their own Names, and us'd as severely as possible. This is what Horace alludes to in one of his Satires:

Dignus erat describi, deserv'd to be expos'd, i. e. in the Poet's Opinion; for we are not to imagine, that all Persons who underwent that theatrical Discipline, did really deserve it: It is well known, how ill Aristophanes us'd the very best of the Athenians, the almost divine Socrates. Besides, it might, and probably did often happen, that a Man who had in Justice deserv'd Correction, might be too much a Sufferer in the Measure of it. But, however, to point its Satire in plain Terms against the greatest Men, and the greatest Crimes, was a Liberty which this old Comedy assum'd; an unreasonable Liberty upon all Accounts, and not to be endur'd. For Men of the first Rank, and Crimes of the blackest Die, are not the proper Characters or Objects of Comedy, as will be shewn more at large hereafter: And in writing Satire directly to name Men, whatsoever Rank they are of, is inconsistent with all the sober Rules of Poetry: As, in the Comedy of the Clouds, Aristophanes brings Socrates upon the Stage by Name, as one of the Persons of the Drama. Indeed, this Liberty of Abuse and Defamation, was allow'd chiefly to the Chorus, and was most in Use during the Democracy of the Athenians, especially in the Time of the Peloponnesian War. But when the Thirty Tyrants had seiz'd the Government, they thought proper to make a Law against it. This Horace speaks of, in his Art of Poetry:

The most learned Gerrard Vossius has oblig'd us with so good an Account of the Rise and Progress of the two other Sorts of Comedy, I mentioned, that I am capable of giving it no Improvements; it is as follows: [397] The Government, for fear of being too freely us'd, took away the Chorus, which was generally extreamly abusive. Instead of it, succeeded pa?e?ase??, or Digressions, which, like the old Chorus, were Breaks in the Action, but design'd chiefly to censure or expose the Poets: If any other Persons were struck at, it was not done rudely, but in a modest and decent Manner. The Vices of all the Citizens, were, without Exception, brought under the Lash, but no Body was nam'd: Or if any particular Person was pointed at, it was covertly, and in Disguise. And this Sort of Comedy, after the third was invented, was call'd the Middle Comedy; introduc'd between the Old and New, but had a greater Resemblance with the Old. The most celebrated Authors of this Middle Comedy at Athens, were Philiseus and Stephanus; as is mention'd in the Prolegomena to Aristophanes. It was a Rule with them to name no Body, but Gentlemen of their own Profession; a Liberty which others were very willing to allow them: In this, alone, they follow'd the Old Comedy, which did the same Thing." Most, if not all the modern Comedies, are of this Sort, except in the last Particular, especially those of our own Country; as will be very evident, from what we have to offer upon this Subject hereafter. Such, then, was the Middle Comedy, and was succeeded by the New, which we have the History of from the same Hand.

"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.

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] ? de ???d?a, est??, ?spes e?p?e?, ??s?? fa???te??? e?, ?? e?t?? ?ata pasa? ?a??a?, a??a t?? a?s???? est? t? ?e????? ?????. 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, a??a t?? a?s???? est? t? ?e????? ?????, 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,

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]

?? ?a? ?e????? est?? aa?t?a t?, ?a? a?s? a??d????, ?a? ?? f?a?t????. ????, e????, t? ?e????? p??s?p?? a?s???? t?, ?a? d?est?ae??? a?e? ?d????.

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.

And a little afterwards,

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:

Where Interpreters are of Opinion, that Horace alludes to that Passage in the Heautontimorumenos:

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.

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

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:

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,

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,

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:

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?

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.