"acquainted with the humour of the Athenians, to "whom uncommon merit always gave disgust, and "therefore he made the eminent men of his time "the subject of his merriment. But the too great "desire which he had to delight the people by "exposing worthy characters upon the stage, made "him at the same time an unworthy man; and the "turn of his genius to ridicule was disfigured and "corrupted by the indelicacy and outrageousness "of his manners. After all, his pleasantry consists "chiefly in new-coined puffy language. The dish "of twenty-six syllables, which he gives in his last "scene of his Female Orators, would please few "tastes in our days. His language is sometimes "obscure, perplexed and vulgar, and his frequent 66 play with words, his oppositions of contradictory "terms, his mixture of tragick and comick, of "serious and burlesque, are all flat; and his jocu larity, if you examine it to the bottom, is all false. "Menander is diverting in a more elegant manner; "his style is pure, clear, elevated, and natural; "he persuades like an orator, and instructs like a "philosopher; and if we may venture to judge upon the fragments which remain, it appears "that his pictures of civil life are pleasing, that " he makes every one speak according to his cha"racter, that every man may apply his pictures "of life to himself, because he always follows "nature, and feels for the personages which he brings upon the stage. To conclude, Plutarch, "in his comparison of these authors, says, that "the Muse of Aristophanes is an abandoned pro"stitute, and that of Menander a modest woman." It is evident that this whole character is taken from Plutarch. Let us now go on with this remark of father Rapin, since we have already spoken of the Latin comedy, of which he gives us a description. 66 66 66 "With respect to the two Latin comick poets, "Plautus is ingenious in his designs, happy in his conceptions, and fruitful of invention. He has, however, according to Horace, some low jocularities, and those smart sayings, which made the vulgar laugh, made him be pitied by men of higher taste. It is true, that some of his jests "are extremely good, but others likewise are very "bad. To this every man is exposed, who is too "much determined to make sallies of merriment; 66 they endeavour to raise that laughter by hyper"boles, which would not arise by a just represen"tation of things. Plautus is not quite so regular "as Terence in the scheme of his designs, or in the "distribution of his acts, but he is more simple "in his plot; for the fables of Terence are commonly complex, as may be seen in his Andrea, "which contains two amours. It was imputed "as a fault to Terence, that, to bring more ac"tion upon the stage, he made one Latin co 66 medy out of two Greek; but then Terence un"ravels his plot more naturally than Plautus, "which Plautus did more naturally than Aris"tophanes; and though Cæsar calls Terence but "one half of Menander, because, though he had "softness and delicacy, there was in him some "want of sprightliness and strength; yet he has "written in a manner so natural and so judicious, that, though he was then only a copy, he is now "an original. No author has ever had a more 66 66 "exact sense of pure nature. Of Cecilius, since we have only a few fragments, I shall say nothing. All that we know of him is told us by Varrus, that he was happy in the choice of subjects." Rapin omits many others for the same reason, that we have not enough of their works to qualify us for judges. While we are upon this subject, it will perhaps not displease the reader to see what that critick's opinion is of Lopes de Vega and Moliere. It will appear, that, with respect to Lopes de Vega, he is rather too profuse of praise: that in speaking of Moliere, he is too parsimonious. This piece will, however, be of use to our design, when we shall examine to the bottom what it is that ought to make the character of comedy. "No man has ever had a greater genius for "comedy than Lopes de Vega the Spaniard. He "had a fertility of wit, joined with great beauty "of conception, and a wonderful readiness of composition; for he has written more than three "hundred comedies. His name alone gave re 66 66 putation to his pieces; for his reputation was so "well established, that a work, which came from "his hands, was sure to claim the approbation of "the public. He had a mind too extensive to be "subjected to rules, or restrained by limits. For "that reason he gave himself up to his own ge 66 nius, on which he could always depend with "confidence. When he wrote, he consulted no "other laws than the taste of his auditors, and re"gulated his manner more by the success of his "work than by the rules of reason. Thus he dis"carded all scruples of unity, and all the super "stitions of probability." (This is certainly not said with a design to praise him, and must be connected with that which immediately follows.) "But as for the most part he endeavours at too "much jocularity, and carries ridicule to too "much refinement; his conceptions are often "rather happy than just, and rather wild than "natural; for, by subtilizing merriment too far, "it becomes too nice to be true, and his beauties. "lose their power of striking by being too delicate " and acute. 66 "Among us, nobody has carried ridicule in comedy farther than Moliere. Our ancient comick "writers brought no characters higher than ser"vants, to make sport upon the theatre; but we "are diverted upon the theatre of Moliere by mar quises and people of quality. Others have ex"hibited in comedy no species of life above that of "a citizen; but Moliere shows us all Paris, and "the court. He is the only man amongst us, who "has laid open those features of nature by which "he is exactly marked, and may be accurately "known. The beauties of his pictures are so na"tural, that they are felt by persons of the least discernment, and his power of pleasantry re"ceived half its force from his power of copying.. "His Misanthrope is, in my opinion, the most 66 complete, and likewise the most singular cha"racter that has ever appeared upon the stage: "but the disposition of his comedies is always de"fective some way or another. This is all which "we can observe in general upon comedy." Such are the thoughts of one of the most refined judges of works of genius, from which, though they are not all oraculous, some advantages may be drawn, as they always make some approaches to truth. Madame Dacier *, having her mind full of the merit of Aristophanes, expresses herself in this manner; "No man had ever more discernment "than him, in finding out the ridiculous, nor a "more ingenious manner of showing it to others. "His remarks are natural and easy, and, what "very rarely can be found, with great copiousness "he has great delicacy. To say all at once, the At"tick wit, of which the ancients made such boast, appears more in Aristophanes than in any other "that I know of in antiquity. But what is most "of all to be admired in him is, that he is always "so much master of the subject before him, that, "without doing any violence to himself, he finds a way to introduce naturally things which at first appeared most distant from his purpose; and " even the most quick and unexpected of his desultory sallies appear the necessary consequence "of the foregoing incidents. This is that art "which sets the dialogues of Plato above imita 66 66 tion, which we must consider as so many dra"matick pieces, which are équally entertaining "by the action and by the dialogue. The style "of Aristophanes is no less pleasing than his "fancy; for, besides its clearness, its vigour and "its sweetness, there is in it a certain harmony "so delightful to the ear, that there is no pleasure equal to that of reading it. When he applies "himself to vulgar mediocrity of style, he descends *Preface to Plautus. Paris, 1684. |