surpassed himself. It is, perhaps, the best in our language in this way.

THE TEARS OF SCOTLAND. WRITTEN IN THE YEAR MDCCXLVI.-This ode, by Dr. Smollett, does rather more honour to the author's feelings than his taste. The me chanical part, with regard to numbers and language, is not so perfect as so short a work as this requires; but the pathetic it contains, particularly in the last stanza but one, is exquisitely fine.

ON THE DEATH OF THE LORD PROTECTOR.-Our poetry was not quite harmonized in Waller's time; so that this, which would be now looked upon as a slovenly sort of versification, was, with respect to the times in which it was written, almost a prodigy of harmony. A modern reader will chiefly be struck with the strength of thinking, and the turn of the compliments bestowed upon the usurper. Everybody has heard the answer our poet made Charles II.; who asked him how his poem upon Cromwell came to be finer than his panegyric upon himself. "Your Majesty," replies Waller, "knows, that poets always succeed best in fiction."

THE STORY OF PHOEBUS AND DAPHNE, APPLIED.-The French claim this as belonging to them. To whomsoever it belongs the thought is finely turned.

NIGHT THOUGHTS. BY DR. YOUNG.-These seem to be the best of the collection; from whence only the two first are taken. They are spoken of differently, either with exaggerated applause or contempt, as the reader's disposition is either turned to mirth or melancholy.

SATIRE I.-Young's Satires were in higher reputation when published, than they stand in at present. He seems fonder of dazzling than pleasing; of raising our admiration for his wit, than our dislike of the follies he ridicules.

A PASTORAL BALLAD. IN FOUR PARTS.--These ballads of Mr. Shenstone are chiefly commended for the natural simplicity of the thoughts, and the harmony of the versification. However, they are not excellent in either.

PHOEBE. A PASTORAL.-This by Dr. Byrom is a better effort than the preceding.

[1 By Waller.]

A SONG.-This ["Despairing beside a clear stream"] by Mr. Rowe, is better than anything of the kind in our language.

AN ESSAY ON POETRY.-This work, by the Duke of Buckingham, is enrolled among our great English productions. The precepts are sensible, the poetry not indifferent, but it has been praised more than it deserves.

CADENUS AND VANESSA.-This is thought one of Dr. Swift's correctest pieces; its chief merit, indeed, is the elegant ease with which a story, but ill-conceived in itself, is told.

ALMA; OR THE PROGRESS OF THE MIND.-What Prior meant by this poem I can't understand: by the Greek motto to it one would think it was either to laugh at the subject or his reader. There are some parts of it very fine; and let them save the badness of the rest.

III

ON LAUGHING AND SENTIMENTAL COMEDY [The honour of inaugurating the French comédie larmoyante is claimed for Nivelle de La Chaussée, 1691 ?-1754, whose life and work have recently been made the subject of an exhaustive study by M. G. Lanson (Hachette, 1887). His semi-serious method, coloured considerably during its progress by the influence of Rousseau and Richardson, was developed by Voltaire, Diderot (Le Fils Naturel and Le Père de Famille), Sedaine (Le Philosophe sans le savoir), and in the earlier plays of Beaumarchais. Passing to England, it took the form of "Sentimental Comedy",-its most successful exponents being Kelly and Cumberland; its bitterest foes, Foote, Goldsmith and Sheridan, with whose side the victory finally remained. In 1780, when George Colman the elder wrote his "Prologue" to Miss Lee's Chapter of Accidents, he says that "the word sentiment" was at that date as much dreaded as "low" had been in the past, and he makes penitent acknowledgment of Goldsmith's part in the reformation :

"When Fielding, Humour's fav'rite child, appear'd,
Low was the word-a word each author fear'd!
'Till chac'd at length, by pleasantry's bright ray
Nature and mirth resum'd their legal sway;
And Goldsmith's genius bask'd in open day."

[ Πάντα γέλωσ, καὶ πάντα κόνισ, καὶ πάντα τὸ μηδέν
Πάντα γὰρ ἐξ ἀλόγων ἐστὶ τὰ γίγνόμενα.

Incert. ap. Stobaum.]

In the Essay here reprinted Goldsmith is obviously endeavouring to pave the way for She Stoops to Conquer, which was produced a few weeks after it first appeared.]

AN ESSAY ON THE THEATRE

OR,

A COMPARISON BETWEEN LAUGHING AND

SENTIMENTAL COMEDY

[This essay first appeared in the Westminster Magazine for January, 1773, from which it is here reproduced. It was accepted as Goldsmith's by Reed and Percy.]

THE Theatre, like all other amusements, has its Fashions and its Prejudices; and when satiated with its excellence, Mankind begin to mistake Change for Improvement. For some years, Tragedy was the reigning entertainment, but of late it has entirely given way to Comedy, and our best efforts are now exerted in these lighter kinds of composition. The pompous Train, the swelling Phrase, and the unnatural Rant, are displaced for that natural portrait of Human Folly and Frailty, of which all are judges, because all have sat for the picture.

But as in describing Nature it is presented with a double face, either of mirth or sadness, our modern Writers find themselves at a loss which chiefly to copy from; and, it is now debated, Whether the Exhibition of Human Distress is likely to afford the mind more Entertainment than that of Human Absurdity?

Comedy is defined by Aristotle to be a picture of the Frailties of the lower part of Mankind, to distinguish it from Tragedy, which is an exhibition of the Misfortunes of the Great. When Comedy therefore ascends to produce the Characters of Princes or Generals upon the Stage, it is out of its walk, since Low Life and Middle Life are entirely its object. The principal question therefore is, Whether in describing Low or Middle Life, an exhibition of its Follies be not preferable to a detail of its Calamities? Or, in other words, Which deserves the preference? The Weeping Sentimental Comedy, so much in fashion at present, or the Laughing and even Low Comedy, which seems to have been last exhibited by Vanbrugh and Cibber?

If we apply to authorities, all the Great Masters in the Dramatic Art have but one opinion. Their rule is, that as Tragedy displays the Calamities of the Great; so Comedy should excite our laughter by ridiculously exhibiting the Follies of the Lower Part of Mankind. Boileau, one of the best modern Critics, asserts, that Comedy will not admit of Tragic Distress.

Le Comique, ennemi des soupirs et des pleurs,
N'admet point en ses vers de tragiques douleurs.1

Nor is this rule without the strongest foundation in Nature, as the distresses of the Mean by no means affect us so strongly as the Calamities of the Great. When Tragedy exhibits to us some Great Man fallen from his height, and struggling with want and adversity, we feel his situation in the same manner as we suppose he himself must feel, and our pity is increased in proportion to the height from whence he fell. On the contrary, we do not so strongly sympathise with one born in humbler circumstances, and encountering accidental distress; so that while we melt for Belisarius, we scarce give halfpence to the Beggar who accosts us in the street. The one has our pity; the other our contempt. Distress, therefore, is the proper object of Tragedy, since the Great excite our pity by their fall; but not equally so of Comedy, since the Actors employed in it are originally so mean, that they sink but little by their fall.

Since the first origin of the Stage, Tragedy and Comedy have run in distinct channels, and never till of late encroached upon the provinces of each other. Terence, who seems to have made the nearest approaches, yet always judiciously stops short before he comes to the downright pathetic; and yet he is even reproached by Cæsar for wanting the vis comica. All the other Comic Writers of antiquity aim only at rendering Folly or Vice ridiculous, but never exalt their characters into buskined pomp, or make what Voltaire humorously calls a Tradesman's Tragedy.

Yet, notwithstanding this weight of authority, and the universal practice of former ages, a new species of Dramatic Composition has been introduced under the name of Sentimental Comedy, in which the virtues of Private Life are exhibited, rather than the Vices exposed; and the Distresses, rather than the Faults of Mankind, make our interest in the

[ Boileau (Art Poétique, Chant iii.), who borrows his precept from Horace.]

piece. These Coinedies have had of late great success, perhaps from their novelty, and also from their flattering every man in his favourite foible. In these Plays almost all the Characters are good, and exceedingly generous; they are lavish enough of their Tin Money on the Stage, and though they want Humour, have abundance of Sentiment and Feeling. If they happen to have Faults or Foibles, the Spectator is taught not only to pardon, but to applaud them, in consideration of the goodness of their hearts; so that Folly, instead of being ridiculed, is commended, and the Comedy aims at touching our Passions without the power of being truly pathetic in this manner we are likely to lose one great source of Entertainment on the Stage; for while the Comic Poet is invading the province of the Tragic Muse, he leaves her lovely Sister quite neglected. Of this, however, he is no way solicitous, as he measures his fame by his profits.

But it will be said, that the Theatre is formed to amuse Mankind, and that it matters little, if this end be answered, by what means it is obtained. If Mankind find delight in weeping at Comedy, it would be cruel to abridge them in that or any other innocent pleasure. If those Pieces are denied the name of Comedies; yet call them by any other name, and if they are delightful, they are good. Their success, it will be said, is a mark of their merit, and it is only abridging our happiness to deny us an inlet to Amusement.

These objections, however, are rather specious than solid. It is true, that Amusement is a great object of the Theatre; and it will be allowed, that these Sentimental Pieces do often amuse us: but the question is, Whether the True Comedy would not amuse us more? The question is, Whether a Character supported throughout a Piece with its Ridicule still attending, would not give us more delight than this species of Bastard Tragedy, which only is applauded because it is new?

A friend of mine who was sitting unmoved at one of these Sentimental Pieces, was asked, how he could be so indifferent. "Why truly," says he, as the Hero is but a Tradesman, it is indifferent to me whether he be turned out of his Counting-House on Fish-street Hill, since he will still have enough left to open shop in St. Giles's."

The other objection is as ill-grounded; for though we should give these Pieces another name, it will not mend their efficacy. It will continue a kind of mulish production, with all the defects of its opposite parents, and marked with sterility. If we are permitted to make Comedy weep, we have an equal right to make Tragedy laugh, and to set down