[Transcriber's Note:This e-text includes a few phrases in accented Greek. It should looklike this: Λυδὲ γένος, πολλῶν βασιλεύ, μέγα νήπιε Κροῖσε (Ludè génos, pollôn basileú, méga nêpie Kroîse)If it does not display properly, use the transliterated (Latin-1)version instead. ]

 * * * * *

 The Augustan Reprint Society

 HENRY GALLY

 A Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings

 from his translation of

 The Moral Characters of Theophrastus

 (1725)

 With an Introduction by Alexander H. Chorney

 Publication Number 33

 Los Angeles William Andrews Clark Memorial Library University of California 1952

 * * * * *

GENERAL EDITORS

H. RICHARD ARCHER, _Clark Memorial Library_RICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_ROBERT S. KINSMAN, _University of California, Los Angeles_JOHN LOFTIS, _University of California, Los Angeles_

ASSISTANT EDITOR

W. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_

ADVISORY EDITORS

EMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_BENJAMIN BOYCE, _Duke University_LOUIS BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_JAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_EDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_LOUIS A. LANDA, _Princeton University_SAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_ERNEST MOSSNER, _University of Texas_JAMES SUTHERLAND, _University College, London_H. T. SWEDENBERG, JR. , _University of California, Los Angeles_

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

EDNA C. DAVIS, _Clark Memorial Library_

 * * * * *

INTRODUCTION

Henry Gally's _A Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings_, herereprinted, is the introductory essay to his translation of _The MoralCharacters of Theophrastus_ (1725). Of Gally's life (1696-1769) littleis known. Apparently his was a moderately successful ecclesiasticalcareer: he was appointed in 1735 chaplain-in-ordinary to George II. Hisother published works consist of sermons, religious tracts, and anundistinguished treatise on the pronunciation of Greek. 

His essay on the character, however, deserves attention because it isthe first detailed and serious discussion by an Englishman of a literarykind immensely popular in its day. English writers before Gally had, ofcourse, commented on the character. Overbury, for example, in "What ACharacter Is" (_Sir Thomas Overbury His Wife. .. _ 1616) had defined thecharacter as "wit's descant on any plain-song, " and Brathwaite in hisDedication to _Whimzies_(1631) had written that character-writers mustshun affectation and prefer the "pith before the rind. " Wye Saltonstallin the same year in his Dedicatory Epistle to _Picturae Loquentes_ hadrequired of a character "lively and exact Lineaments" and "fast andloose knots which the ingenious Reader may easily untie. " These remarks, however, as also Flecknoe's "Of the Author's Idea of a Character"(_Enigmaticall Characters_, 1658) and Ralph Johnson's "rules" forcharacter-writing in _A Scholar's Guide from the Accidence to theUniversity_ (1665), are fragmentary and oblique. Nor do either of thetwo English translations of Theophrastus before Gally--the one arendering of La Bruyère's French version, [1] and the other, EustaceBudgell's _The Moral Characters of Theophrastus_ (1714)--touch morethan in passing on the nature of the character. Gally's essay, in whichhe claims to deduce his critical principles from the practice ofTheophrastus, is both historically and intrinsically the mostimportant work of its kind. 

Section I of Gally's essay, thoroughly conventional in nature, isomitted here. In it Gally, following Casaubon, [2] theorizes that thecharacter evolved out of Greek Old Comedy. The Augustans saw a closeconnection between drama and character-writing. Congreve (Dedication to_The Way of the World_, 1700) thought that the comic dramatist Menanderformed his characters on "the observations of Theophrastus, of whom hewas a disciple, " and Budgell, who termed Theophrastus the father ofmodern comedy, believed that if some of Theophrastus's characters "werewell worked up, and brought upon the British theatre, they could notfail of Success. "[3] Gally similarly held that a dramatic characterand Theophrastan character differ only in

 the different Manner of representing the same Image. The _Drama_ presents to the Eyes of a Spectator an Actor, who speaks and acts as the Person, whom he represents, is suppos'd to speak and act in real Life. The _Characteristic_ Writer introduces, in a descriptive manner, before a Reader, the same Person, as speaking and acting in the same manner. 

Section III of Gally's essay, like Section I thoroughly conventional, is also omitted here. Gally attributes to Theophrastus the spurious"Proem, " in which Theophrastus, emphasizing his ethical purpose, announces his intention of following up his characters of vice withcharacters of virtue. At one point Gally asserts that Theophrastustaught the same doctrine as Aristotle and Plato, but

 accommodated Morality to the Taste of the _Beau Monde_, with all the Embellishments that can please the nice Ears of an intelligent Reader, and with that inoffensive Satir, which corrects the Vices of Men, without making them conceive any Aversion for the Satirist. 

It is Gally's concept of the character as an art-form, however, whichis most interesting to the modern scholar. Gally breaks sharply withearlier character-writers like Overbury who, he thinks, have departedfrom the Theophrastan method. Their work for the most part reflectscorrupted taste:

 A continued Affectation of far-fetched and quaint Simile's, which runs thro' almost all these Characters, makes 'em appear like so many Pieces of mere Grotesque; and the Reader must not expect to find Persons describ'd as they really are, but rather according to what they are thought to be like. 

And Gally attacks one of the favorite devices of the seventeenth-centurycharacter:

 An Author, in this Kind, must not dwell too long upon one Idea; As soon as the masterly Stroke is given, he must immediately pass on to another Idea. .. . For if, after the masterly Stroke is given, the Author shou'd, in a paraphrastical Manner, still insist upon the same Idea, the Work will immediately flag, the Character grow languid, and the Person characteris'd will insensibly vanish from the Eyes of the Reader. 

One has only to read a character like Butler's "A Flatterer" toappreciate Gally's point. The Theophrastan method had been to describea character operatively--that is, through the use of concrete dramaticincident illustrating the particular vice. The seventeenth-centurycharacter is too often merely a showcase for the writer's wit. Onefrequently finds a succession of ingenious metaphors, each redefiningfrom a slightly different angle a type's master-passion, but blurringrather than sharpening the likeness. 

Gally insists that the style of the character be plain and easy, "without any of those Points and Turns, which convey to the Mind nothingbut a low and false Wit. " The piece should not be tediously rambling, but compact. It must have perfect unity of structure: each sentenceshould add a significant detail to the portrait. The manner oughtto be lively, the language pure and unaffected. 

As for the character-writer's materials, they are "Human Nature, in itsvarious Forms and Affections. " Each character should focus on a singlevice or virtue, yet since "the Heart of Man is frequently actuated bymore Passions than one, " subsidiary traits ought to be included to roundout the portrait (e. G. , the covetous man may also be impudent, theimpudent man generous). Budgell had expressed a similar conception. Acharacter, he wrote, "may be compared to a Looking-glass that is placedto catch a particular Object; but cannot represent that Object in itsfull Light, without giving us a little Landskip of every thing elsethat lies about it. "[4] By Gally's time writers like Pascal, LaRochefoucauld, and La Bruyère had done much to show the complexand paradoxical nature of human behaviour. Gally, who praises LaRochefoucauld as the one modern as well equipped as Theophrastus tocompose characters, reacts with his age against the stale types whichboth comedy and the character had been retailing _ad nauseam_. Humannature, says Gally, is full of subtle shadings and agreeable variationswhich the character ought to exploit. He quotes Temple to the effectthat England is richer than any other nation in "original Humours" andwonders that no one has yet attempted a comprehensive portrait-galleryof English personality. Those writers who have come closest to Gally'sidea of how "humour" ought to be handled are the "great Authors" of the_Tatlers_ and _Spectators_, with their "interspers'd Characters of Menand Manners compleatly drawn to the Life. "

In admiring the Roger de Coverley sketches, Gally typifies theincreasingly tolerant attitude of the Augustans toward eccentricbehavior. [5] Like Sterne and Fielding he is delighted by people whoseidiosyncracies are harmless and appealing. As for the harsh satiricanimus of a character-writer like Butler, it is totally alien to Gally, who would chide good-naturedly, so as "not to seem to make any Attacksupon the Province of Self-Love" in the reader. "Each Man, " he writes, "contains a little World within himself, and every Heart is a newWorld. " The writer should understand and appreciate, not ridicule, an individual's uniqueness. 

Of course, the character as Theophrastus wrote it described the type, not the particular person. Gally, who sets up Theophrastus as his model, apparently fails to realize that a "humourist" like Sir Roger verges onindividuality. Indeed, while discussing the need for writers to studytheir own and other men's passions, he emphasizes that "without aKnowledge of these Things, 'twill be impossible ever to draw a Characterso to the Life, as that it shall hit one Person, and him only. " HereGally might well be talking of the Clarendon kind of portrait. If acharacter is "one Person, and him only, " he is no longer a type, butsomebody peculiarly himself. 

Gally, then, is not as Theophrastan as he professes to be. True, heharks back to Theophrastus in matters of style and technique. And hedoes not criticize him, as does La Bruyère, [6] for paying too muchattention to a man's external actions, and not enough to his "Thoughts, Sentiments, and Inclinations. " Nevertheless his mind is receptive tothe kind of individuated characterization soon to distinguish themid-eighteenth century novel. The type is still his measuring-stick, buthe calibrates it far less rigidly than a Rymer analyzing Iago or Evadne. A man can be A Flatterer or A Blunt Man and still retain a privateidentity: this private identity Gally recognizes as important. Gally'sessay thus reflects fundamental changes in the English attitude towardhuman nature and its literary representation. 

Alexander H. ChorneyFellow, Clark LibraryLos Angeles, California

 Notes to the Introduction

 1. _The Characters, Or The Manners of the Age. By Monsieur De La Bruyère of the French Academy. Made English by several hands. With the Characters of Theophrastus. .. _ 1699. 2 vols. 

 2. Isaac Casaubon's Latin edition of Theophrastus appeared in 1592 and was reprinted frequently during the seventeenth century. 

 3. Eustace Budgell, _The Moral Characters of Theophrastus_ (1714), Preface, sig. A5. 

 4. _Ibid. _, sig. A6 verso. 

 5. For a full account of the shift in attitude see Edward Miles Hooker, "Humour in the Age of Pope, " _Huntington Library Quarterly_, XL (1948), 361-385. 

 6. "A Prefatory Discourse concerning Theophrastus, " in _The Characters, Or The Manners of the Age_, II, xxii. 

 * * * * *

 The Moral Characters of

 THEOPHRASTUS. 

 Translated from The Greek, with Notes. To which is prefix’d

 A CRITICAL ESSAY on Characteristic-Writings. 

 By Henry Gally, M. A. Lecturer of St. Paul’s Covent-Garden, and Rector of Wanden in Buckinghamshire. 

 Respicere exemplar vitæ morumque jubebo Doctum imitatorem, & vivas hinc ducere voces. Hor. In Art. Poet. 

 LONDON: Printed for John Hooke, at the _Flower- de-luce_ over-against St. _Dunstan’s_ Church in _Fleet-street_. MDCCXXV. 

 * * * * *

 THE

 PREFACE. 

The following Papers, which I now commit to the Public, have lain byme unregarded these many Years. They were first undertaken at theRequest of a Person, who at present shall be nameless. Since thatTime I have been wholly diverted from Studies of this Nature, andmy Thoughts have been employed about Subjects of a much greaterConsequence, and more agreeable to my Profession: Insomuch, that I hadnothing in my Mind less than the Publication of these Papers; but someFriends, who had perus’d them, were of Opinion, that they deserv’d tobe publish’d, and that they might afford an agreeable Entertainmentnot without some Profit to the Reader. _These_ Motives prevailed uponme to give _them_ a second Care, and to bestow upon them so muchPains, as was necessary to put them in that State, in which they nowappear. 

The first Piece that the Reader will meet with is, _A CriticalESSAY on Characteristic-Writings_: It treats of the Origin of thoseWritings: It points out the general Laws to be observ’d in suchCompositions, and it contains some Reflexions on _Theophrastus’s_ andMr. _de la Bruyere’s_ Performances in this Way. The Design of this atleast is, I think, new. Mr. _Fabricius_ mentions a [A]Book, which, byits Title, shou’d bear some Relation to this Essay, but tho’ I haveenquir’d after it pretty strictly, yet I never cou’d get a Sight ofit, nor have I conversed with any Person that had perus’d it. 

 [A: Georgii Paschii Professoris Kiloniensis Diatriba de philosophia Characteristica & Parænetica. 4to. _Kilonie. _ 1705. Vid. Fabric. Bib. Græc. L. 3. P. 241. ]

The next Piece is a Translation of the _Moral Characters ofTheophrastus_ from the _Greek_. This is not the first Time that_Theophrastus_ has appeared in a modern Dress. Mr. _de la Bruyere_translated him into _French_: And this was the Foundation of thoseCharacters, which he himself compos’d, and which gave Rise to thosemany Performances, that were afterwards attempted in the same Way. [B]Mr. _Menage_ has highly extoll’d this Translation. _Elle est_, sayshe, _bien belle, & bien françoise, & montre que son Auteur entendparfaitement le Grec. Je puis dire que j’y ay vu des Choses, que, peut etre, Faute d’Attention, je n’avois pas vues dans le Grec. _ Thisis great; and it must be own’d that Mr. _Menage_ was a Man of veryextensive Learning, and a great Master of the _Greek_ Tongue; but thathis Judgment was always equal to his Knowledg of Words, will not be soreadily allow’d. Besides, the Credit of the Books ending in _ana_ runsvery low, and in particular the _Menagiana_ have been disown’d by Mr. _Menage’s_ own [C]Relations, as being injurious to the Merit andMemory of that great Man. And therefore it must still be left to theinquisitive and judicious Reader to determine, whether those Faults, which I have observ’d in Mr. _de la Bruyere’_s Translation are justlycensur’d or not. 

 [B: Menagiana. Ed. _Paris. _ 1715. T. 4. P. 219. ]

 [C: Mr. _du Tremblay_. Traité des Langues. Ad fin. ]

The _Characters_ of _Theophrastus_ have been twice translated into_English_. The former Translation is _anonymous_, and the latter wasdone by the ingenious Mr. _Eustace Budgell_. It will be expected thatI shou’d say something of these two Translations. And I shall be themore ready to do this, because I shall hereby insensibly lead theReader to the Reasons which induc’d me to undertake athird. 

The anonymous _English_ Translation is said to have been done uponthe _Greek_. But this is only a Pretence, and a low Artifice of theignorant Translator: For in reality ’tis no more than a mean andinsipid Translation of the _French_ of Mr. _de la Bruyere_, revis’dupon the _Latin_ of _Casaubon_, which answers almost verbally to theOriginal _Greek_. If this were a Matter of Importance, I wou’d herefully demonstrate it: For the Fact is so glaring, that tho’ theTranslator is wholly unknown to me, yet I can aver what I haveasserted to be Truth, almost as certainly, as if I had been an EyeWitness to the doing of it_. 

Mr. _Budgell_’s Translation must be own’d to be polite: But politenessis not the only Qualification that is required in such a Translation. The learn’d Reader, who understands the Original, will consider it ina different View. And to judg of it according to those Rules whichTranslators ought to observe, it must be condemned. In general, it isnot exact and accurate enough; but what is far worse, Mr. _Budgell_gives, in too many Instances, his own Thoughts instead of representingthe true Sense of _Theophrastus_. This is perverting the _Humour_ ofthe Original, and, in Effect, making a new Work, instead of givingonly a Translation. Mr. _Budgell_ ingenuously confesses, that he hastaken a great deal of Liberty; but when a Translator confesses thusmuch, it does but give the Reader good Reason to suspect that insteadof taking a great deal, he has in reality taken toomuch. 

Antient Authors (when they are translated) suffer in nothing more, than in having the Manners and Customs, to which they allude, transformed into the Manners and Customs of the present Age. By thisLiberty, or rather Licenciousness of Translators, Authors not onlyappear in a different Dress, but they become unlike themselves, bylosing that peculiar and distinctive Character in which they excel. This is most palpable in those Authors, whose Character consists in_Humour_. Let any one read _Terence_, as he is translated by Mr. _Echard_, and he will take him to have been a Buffoon: Whereas_Terence_ never dealt in such a Kind of low Mirth. His true Characteris, to have afforded to his Spectators and Readers the gravest, and, at the same Time, the most agreeable, most polite Entertainment ofany antient Author now extant. This is, in some Measure, the Case of_Theophrastus:_ He has been transformed; and he has suffer’d in theTransformation. What I have endeavoured is, to do him that Justicewhich, I think, he has not hitherto met with, by preserving the nativeSimplicity of his Characters, by retaining those antient Manners andCustoms which he alludes to, and keeping up the peculiar _Humour_ ofthe Original as nearly, as the Difference of Language wou’d allow. This is the Attempt; how far I have succeeded, must be let to thejudicious and curious Reader to determine. Thus much I thoughtnecessary to say concerning former Translations, in order to justifymy own Undertaking, which will not acquire an intrinsic Merit from theCensures, that I have pass’d upon others. No: The Faults of otherscannot extenuate our own; and that Stamp, which every Work carriesalong with it, can only determine of what Kind it reallyis. 

The Reader will expect that I shou’d here say a Word or twoconcerning the _Notes_ which follow the _Characters_. Some Authors orCommentators (call them which you will) out of a vain Ostentation ofLiterature, lay hold of the slightest of Opportunities to expose alltheir Learning to the World, without ever knowing when they have saidenough: Insomuch, that in most Commentaries upon antient Authors, onemay sooner meet with a System of Antiquities, than with Solutions ofthe real Difficulties of the Text. Consider’d barely as a Translator, I lay under no immediate Necessity of writing _Notes_, but then asI was highly concern’d, even in that Capacity, to lay before the_English_ Reader, what I took to be the true Sense of the _Greek_, and as I farther propos’d to preserve that particular _Humour_ of theOriginal, which depends on those Manners and Customs which are alludedto, I found, my self necessitated to add some _Notes_; but yet I haveendeavoured to shun that Fault, which I have already censur’d, bysaying no more, but what was immediately necessary, to illustratethe Text, to vindicate a received Sense, or to propose a new one. 

I am not conscious of having made any great Excursions beyond theBounds which these Rules prescrib’d to me, unless it is in the Chapterconcerning _Superstition_. And even here, unless the Commentary hadbeen somewhat copious, the Text it self wou’d have appear’d like amotly Piece of mysterious Nonsense. Thus much I thought my selfoblig’d to do in Justice to _Theophrastus_; and as for theEnlargements which I have made, over and above what wou’d havesatisfy’d this Demand, they will not, ’tis hop’d, be unacceptable tothe curious Reader. They are Digressions I own; but I shall not hereoffer to make one Digression to execute another, or, according to theCustom and Practice of modern Authors, beg a thousand Pardons of theReader, before I am certain of having committed one Offence. Such aProcedure seems preposterous. For when an Author happens to digress, and take a Trip ὑπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμμένα, beyond the Bounds prescrib’d;the best, the only consistent thing he can do, is to take his Chancefor the Event. If what he has said does not immediately relate to theMatter in Hand, it may nevertheless be _a propos_, and good in itsKind; and then instead of Censure, he will probably meet with Thanks;but if it be not good, no prefatory Excuses will make it so: Andbesides, it will ever be insisted on, that ’tis an easier Matter tostrike out bad Digressions, than it is to write goodApologies. 

One Word more, and then I have done. Since Mr. _Budgell_ has thoughtfit to censure Mr. _de la Bruyere_, for troubling his Reader with_Notes_, I think my self oblig’d, in order to justify both Mr. _de laBruyere_ and my self, to shew that this Censure is very unreasonable, and very unjust. [D] Mr. _Budgell’s_ Words are as follow. 

 _Theophrastus_, at the Time he writ, referr’d to nothing but what was well known to the meanest Person in _Athens_; but as Mr. _Bruyere_ has manag’d it, by hinting at too many _Grecian_ Customs, a modern Reader is oblig’d to peruse one or two _Notes_, which are frequently longer than the Sentence it self he wou’d know the meaning of. But if those Manners and Customs, which _Theophrastus_ alludes to, were, in his Time, well known to the meanest _Athenian_, it does not follow that they are now so well known to a modern Reader. 

 [D: Preface to his Translation of _Theophrastus_. ]

_Mr. _de la Bruyere’s_ Fault does not consist in having put _Notes_to his Translation, but rather in not having put enough. When aTranslator of an antient Author intends to preserve the peculiarCharacter of the Original, _Notes_ become absolutely necessary torender the Translation intelligible to a modern Reader. The Learn’dmay pass them over; and those, for whom _Explanatory Notes_ arechiefly designed, must not think it too much Trouble, to bestow asecond Reading on the Text, after they have given a First to theWhole. This Trouble (if any thing ought to be call’d so that conveysInstruction) is no more than what many persons, who have attained tono small share of Knowledg in the learn’d Languages, must submit to, at the first Perusal of an Original Author. If in a translated Authorany Difficulties occur, on this Head, to a modern Reader, and theTranslator has taken Care to clear up those difficulties by adding_Notes_, the modern Reader ought to thank him for his Pains, and notthink his Labour superfluous. 

’Tis hop’d then that the _Notes_, that I have added, will be kindlyreceiv’d. The Reader will nevertheless be at full Liberty to perusethem, or to pass them over. If he if but so favourable as to approveof the Translation it self, this will be a sufficient Satisfaction tothe Translator, and be looked upon as no finall Commendation of thePerformance. For a Translation, if it be well performed, ought inJustice to be receiv’d as a good Commentary_. 

SECT. II. 

There is no Kind of polite Writing that seems to require a deeperKnowledge, a livelier Imagination, and a happier Turn of Expressionthan the Characteristic. Human Nature, in its various Forms andAffections, is the Subject; and he who wou’d attempt a Work of thisKind, with some assurance of Success, must not only study other Men;he has a more difficult Task to perform; he must study himself. Thedeep and dark Recesses of the Heart must be penetrated, to discoverhow Nature is disguis’d into Art, and how Art puts on the Appearanceof Nature. --This Knowledge is great; ’tis the Perfection of MoralPhilosophy; ’tis an inestimable Treasure: But yet if it shou’d fallinto the Hands of one, who wants proper Abilities to communicate hisKnowledge to the World, it wou’d be of no Service but to the Owner: Itwou’d make him, indeed, an able Philosopher, but not an able Writer ofCharacters. 

The Mind has its peculiar Features as well as the Body; and thesemust be represented in their genuine and native Colours, that so thePicture may strike, and every Reader, who is concern’d in the Work, may presently discover himself; and those, who are unconcern’d may, nevertheless, immediately perceive a just Correspondence between thatPiece and Nature. 

Every Action has its proper Thought, and every Thought its properExpression. And these Correspondences are not imaginary, but have areal Foundation in Nature: For when any one of these is wanting, thewhole is lame and defective, but when they all meet and conspiretogether, the Character is then genuine and compleat, the Thingor Person design’d is drawn to the Life, and the Reader is leftuncertain, whether the Character, that lies before him, is an Effectof Art, or a real Appearance of Nature. --A Master-Piece of this Kind, requires the Hand of one who is a Critic in Men and Manners, a Criticin Thoughts, and a Critic in Language. 

A superficial Knowledge of human Nature, will never qualify a Man tobe a Writer of Characters. He must be a Master of the Science; andbe able to lead a Reader, knowingly, thro’ that Labyrinth of thePassions, which fill the Heart of Man, and make him either a noble ora despicable Creature. For tho’ some, who have never attempted anything of this kind, may think it an easy Matter to write two or threePages of Morality with Spirit, to describe an Action, a Passion, aManner; yet had they made the Experiment, the Event wou’d not haveanswer’d their Expectation, and they wou’d have found, that this easyWork was more difficult than they, at first, imagin’d. 

The Features of every single Passion must be known; the Relation whichthat Passion bears to another, must be discover’d; and the Harmony andDiscord which result from them must be felt. Many have studied theseThings, but few have thoroughly understood them. The Labour is vast;’tis almost infinite; and yet without a Knowledge of these Things, ’twill be impossible ever to draw a Character so to the Life, as thatit shall hit one Person, and him only. 

We have all of us different Souls, and our Souls have Affectionsas different from one another, as our outward Faces are in theirLineaments. Each Man contains a little World within himself, andevery Heart is a new World. We cannot therefore attain to a perfectKnowledge of human Nature, by studying others or our selves alone, butby studying both. ’Tis this Knowledge which sets the Philosopher abovethe Peasant, and gives the Preference to one Author above another. This Knowledge has a Force, something like to that of Magic Charms: bythe help of it one, who is Master of the Science, can turn Men insideoutwards, and expose them to the Eyes of the World, as they reallyare, and not as they wou’d fain appear to be. By the help of thisKnowledge an intelligent Writer can form to his Reader the mostagreeable, most instructive Entertainment that can possibly bedesir’d; transport him, with the greatest Ease imaginable, from theSolitude of his Chamber to Places of the greatest Concourse; there tosee and learn the Virtues of Men; there to see and shun their Vices, without any danger of being corrupted by the Contagion of a realCommerce. 

How absolutely necessary a thorough Insight into the Heart andPassions of Man is to a Writer of Characters, will be more evident bydescending to some Particulars, and pointing out some of those niceCircumstances, which a Writer of Characters must accurately observe, and by which his Capacity in this Way may be easily judg’dof. 

It must be observ’d then, that the Heart of Man is frequently actuatedby more Passions than one: And as the same Object does, by itsdifferent Position, afford to the Spectator different Representations, so does the same Affection of the Mind, by exerting it self after adifferent manner, lay a real Foundation for so many distinctCharacters. The under Passions may, by their various Operations, causesome Diversity in the Colour and Complexion of the Whole, but ’tis theMaster-Passion which must determine the Character. 

Since therefore the under Parts of a Character are not essential, theymay or may not be reciprocal. A covetous Man may be impudent, or hemay have some share of Modesty left: On the other Hand, an impudentMan may be generous, or his Character may be stain’d by Avarice. Andtherefore to make the Features of one Virtue or Vice enter, as underParts, into the Character of another Virtue or Vice, is so far frombeing a Transgression of the Nature of Things, that, on the contrary, all the Beauty of _Characteristic-Writing_, and all the Beauty whicharises from the Variety of an agreeable Mixture, entirely depends on_this_. The main Difficulty consists in making the Master-Passionoperate so conspicuously throughout the Whole, as that the Reader may, in every step of the Performance, immediately discoverit. 

The Truth of it is, that there are some Affections of the Mind, whichnot only constitute of themselves a distinct Virtue or Vice, but arealso the Foundation of many others. Avarice is of this extensiveNature; it constitutes, of it self, a distinct Character, and itenters into the Competition of several others. St. _Paul_ says, that_the love of money is the root of all evil_; which Maxim the spurious_Phocylides_ has express’d in the following Verse, Ἡ φιλοχρημοσύνη μήτηρ κακότητος ἁπάσης. 

This Doctrine may be made yet more sensible by applying it to thePractice of _Theophrastus_, whose Conduct, in this Respect, oughtto be look’d upon as an authentick Pattern. Rusticity, Avarice andImpudence, are in their own Nature distinct Vices, but yet there is avery near Relation between them, which has a real Foundation in theActions of Men. And, as on the one Hand, _Theophrastus_ has drawndistinct Characters of these Vices, so, on the other Hand, he has madethe peculiar Features of one or more of these Vices enter into theCharacters of the other. This is Matter of Fact; and if the Readerwill be at the Pains to compare the _6th_, _9th_, and _11th_, Chapters, as he will be perswaded of the Truth of what is hereasserted, so will he be convinc’d, at the same Time, that_Theophrastus_ has not confounded by this Mixture the real Natureof Things, or transgress’d thereby, in any wise, the Rules of_Characteristic-Justice_. 

Again; Loquacity and an ill-tim’d Behaviour are two very differentVices in common Conversation; but yet _Theophrastus_ has concluded hisCharacter of Loquacity, with the same Stroke which begins that of anill-tim’d Behaviour; because tho’ these Vices are of a differentNature, yet do they not exclude each other; and the Actions of Menmanifestly prove, that they are frequently to be found in the sameSubject. 

The nice Reader therefore, instead of being offended to find thepeculiar Features of one Vice interspers’d in the Character ofanother, ought, on the contrary, to admire the Judgment and Accuracyof _Theophrastus_ in this Respect: For this Mixture does not proceedfrom Inaccuracy, but is founded in Nature: And ’tis the Work of asagacious Head, as well to discover the near Relations that arebetween different things, as to separate those Things, which byNature are nearly related, but yet are really distinct. 

The Beauty of every Kind of Writing arises from the Conformitywhich it bears to Nature; and therefore the Excellency of_Characteristic-Writings_ must consist in exact Representations ofhuman Nature. --This Harmony between Art and Nature may be call’dJustice: And tho’ the Boundaries of it may be more extensive in thoseWorks, in which a greater Range is allow’d to the Imagination, yetstill, Invention and Fiction must be admitted in _Characteristic-Writings_, when the Characters design’d are of a general Nature;for then the Writer does not copy from an individual Original, andall the Extravagances of Nature are natural, when they are wellrepresented. 

It requires, I own, a great deal of Penetration to hit exactly thisPoint of Reality: But then it must be confess’d, that as the greatdifficulty of _Characteristic-Writing_ consists in this, so does themain Beauty and Force of it too: For Objects are apt to affect andmove us according to their Presence or Absence; and a Character willnaturally strike us more forcibly, the more the Images, which itconsists of, are lively and natural; because the Object is then mostpresent to our Mind. 

Since every Feature must be drawn exactly to the Life, great Care mustbe taken, that the Strokes be not too faint, nor yet too strong: ForCharacteristic-Justice is to be observ’d as strictly by the Writers ofthis Kind, as Poetic-Justice is to be by Poets. That Medium must becopied, which Nature it self has mark’d out; whatever falls short ofit is poor and insipid, whatever is above it is Rant andExtravagance. 

 [E] _Quodcunque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi. _

 And whatsoever contradicts my Sense, I hate to see, and never can believe. Ld. _Roscommon_. 

 [E: Horat. Art. Poet. _v. _ 188. ]

A consummate Delicacy of Sentiments, and an exquisite Judgment are thevery Soul of _Characteristic-Writing_; for every particular Stroke, aswell as the whole Character, has a proper Degree of Perfection. Toattain this Point, and to bring the several Parts, as well as theWhole, exactly to this Pitch, is the Work of a sagacious Head, andof a perfect Judgment. --An Author, in this Kind, must not dwell toolong upon one Idea: As soon as the masterly Stroke is given, he mustimmediately pass on to another Idea. This will give Life to the Work, and serve to keep up the Spirit of the Writing, and of the Reader too:Forif, after the masterly Stroke is given, the Author shou’d, in aparaphrastical Manner, still insist upon the same Idea, the Work willimmediately flag, the Character grow languid, and the Personcharacteris’d will insensibly vanish from the Eyes of theReader. 

An honest Writer, who has the Profit as well as the Pleasure of hisReader in View, ought always to tell the Truth. But as he is atLiberty to chuse his manner of telling it, so that Method ofInstruction ought to be observ’d in _Characteristic-Writings_, which will keep up the good Humour of the Reader, altho’ he is, atthe same Time, made sensible of his Errors. And this Artifice oughtindustriously to be pursu’d, since the proper Management of it is sonecessary to the Success of _Characteristic-Writings_. For those wholove and admire Truth themselves, must yet be sensible that ’tisgenerally unwelcome, both to themselves and to others, when the Pointof Self-Interest is concern’d. And the Reason of it is, not becauseTruth is really ugly and deform’d, but because it presents to our Viewcertain Inconsistencies and Errors, which Self-Love will not allow usto condemn. And therefore the great Art and Difficulty, in makingTruth pleasant and profitable, is so to expose Error, as not to seemto make any Attacks upon the Province of Self-Love. 

 [F] _Omne vafer vitium ridenti Flaccus amico Tangit, & admissus circum præcordia ludit, Callidus excusso Populum suspendere naso. _

 [F: Persius Sat. I. V. 116, &c. ]

 ----With conceal’d Design, Did crafty _Horace_ his low Numbers join: And, with a sly insinuating Grace, Laugh’d at his Friend, and look’d him in the Face: Wou’d raise a Blush, where secret Vice he found; And tickle, while he gently prob’d the Wound. With seeming Innocence the Crowd beguil’d; But made the desp’rate Passes, when he smil’d. Mr. _Dryden_. 

This was the Character of one of the greatest _Roman_ Poets; and inthis Art, amongst the Moderns, [G]_Benserade_ particularly excell’d, if we may believe his Successor and Panegyrist _Pavillon_. 

 [G: Dictionaire de _Bayle_. Artic. _Benserade. _ Not. L. ]

What is the proper Style for _Characteristic-Writings_ is briefly laiddown by [H]_Libanius_ in the following Words. Ἐργάση τὴν ἠθοποιίανχαρακτῆρι σαφεῖ, συντόμῳ, ἀνθηρῷ, ἀπολύτῳ, ἀπηλλαγμένῳ πάσης πλοκῆςτε καὶ σχήματος. “When you describe Manners you must use a plain, concise, florid, easy Style, free from all artificial Turns andFigures. ” Every Thing must be even, smooth, easy and unaffected;without any of those Points and Turns, which convey to the Mindnothing but a low and false Wit, in which our Moderns so much abound, and in which they seem to place their greatest Beauties. 

 [H: Ap. _Is. Casaub. _ Proleg. Ad Theophrast. ]

The primary Standard for Style is the Nature of the Subject: Andtherefore, as _Characteristic-Writings_ are professed Representationsof Nature, an Author in this Way is immediately concern’d to use asimple and natural Style: Nor has he any Reason to fear, that thiswill any ways prejudice his Performance, and make it appear low, flatand insipid; for in Reality there is nothing more noble than a trueSimplicity, and nothing more beautiful than Nature, when it appears inthe easy Charms of its own native Dress. 

In _Characteristic-Writings_ both the Way of Thinking and the Stylemust be Laconic: Much must be contained in a little Compass. Brevityof Diction adds new Life to a good Thought: And since every perfectStroke ought to be a distinct Representation of a particular Feature, Matters shou’d be so order’d, that every perfect Sentence may containa perfect Thought, and every perfect Thought may represent oneFeature. 

Many other Particulars might have been observ’d and recommended tothose, who wou’d attempt a Performance in this Kind, with someAssurance of Success. The Laws of good Writing, in general, may andought to be applied to _Characteristic-Writing_, in particular, as faras the Nature of it will bear. But to pursue these Things accurately, wou’d carry me beyond the Bounds which the Title of this Workprescribes to me. To shew the peculiar Nature; to point outthe principal Beauties, and to lay down the general Laws of_Characteristic-Writing_, is all that was propos’d. Besides, I shallhave Occasion, in the Sequel of this Essay, to make some furtherObservations relating to the Constitution of _Characteristic-Writings_;which, to prevent Repetitions, I forbear mentioning here; but if theReader be religious in the Observance of a strict Method, he is atfull Liberty to alter the Situation of them, and to refer them to thisSection. 

SECT. IV. 

Mr. _de la Bruyere_ has given us a Translation of the Characters of_Theophrastus_; to which he has annex’d what he calls the Charactersor Manners of the present Age. This Work was receiv’d with Applause, and the Author gain’d by it a great Reputation amongst Men of politeLiterature. And if to make a great deal of Noise in the World, and toundergo several Editions, were infallible Proofs of the intrinsickMerit of a Book, Mr. _de la Bruyere_’s Performance would, upon boththese Accounts, sufficiently recommend itself to our Approbation. --I confess, there are very considerable Beauties in this Piece: butyet if it should be examin’d by those Rules of Characteristic-Writing, which I have already mention’d, and which I take to be essential toPerformances in this Kind, I am afraid it would not be able, in everyRespect, to stand the Test of an impartial Examination. 

I do not intend to enter upon an exact Critique of this Piece; theintended Brevity of this Essay will permit me to take Notice of butsome few Particulars. --I have no Design or Desire to derogate from theReputation of the deceas’d Author; but this I take to be a standingRule in Critical Writings, as well as in judicious Reading, that weought not to be so struck with the Beauties of an Author, as to beblind to his Failings; nor yet so prejudiced by his Failings, as tobe blind to his Beauties. 

The original Design of Characteristic-Writings is to give us realImages of Life. An exact Imitation of Nature is the chief Art which isto be us’d. The Imagination, I own, may be allow’d to work in Piecesof this Kind, provided it keeps within the Degrees of Probability; ButMr. _de la Bruyere_ gives us Characters of Men, who are not to befound in Nature; and, out of a false Affectation of the Wonderful, hecarries almost every thing to Excess; represents the Irregularities ofLife as downright Madness, and by his false Colours converts Men intoMonsters. 

[I]_Troilus_ is a very supercilious Man: And ’tis no ways inconsistentwith this Character to suppose, that he may entertain a naturalAntipathy against an ugly Face, or a bad Voice; but our Authorrepresents him as labourirg under this Distemper to such a Degree ofExcess, as, I believe, has never been observ’d in any Man. I do notknow by what Name it may be call’d. _Troilus_ conceives an immediateAversion against a Person that enters the Room where he is; he shunshim, flies from him, and will throw himself out at the Window, ratherthan suffer himself to be accosted by one, whose Face and Voice hedoes not like. --Is this Humour, or, rather, are not these the genuineSymptoms of Madness and Phrenzy? And if _Troilus_ does really actafter this manner, is he not rather an Object of Pity, than a Subjectfor Humour and Ridicule?

 [I: De la Societè & de la Conversation. Ad init. ]

The Character of _Cleanthes_, in the same [K]Chapter, is aMisrepresentation of Nature. --“_Cleanthes_ is a very honest Man; hehas chosen a Wife, who is the best and the most reasonable Woman inthe World: They, each of them, in their respective Ways, make up allthe Pleasure and Agreeableness of the Company they are in: ’Tisimpossible to meet with more Probity or Politeness. They part toMorrrow, and the Deed of their Separation is ready drawn up at theNotary’s. There are, certainly, some Kinds of Merit that were nevermade to be together, and some Virtues that are incompatible. ” Butthose who are endow’d with such good Qualities, as Mr. _de la Bruyere_ascribes to _Cleanthes_ and his Wife, can never agree to a willfulSeparation. Nay, ’tis a Contradiction to their Character to supposethat either of ’em is faln into those Circumstances, which only canmake a Separation become lawful and just. ’Tis true, some Virtues andAccomplishments, as well as some Vices, may be inconsistent with eachother. But to apply this Maxim to the present Case must betray a greatWant of Judgment and Knowledge in the Nature of Things: For where canone expect to meet with a more perfect Harmony of Virtues, than in thereciprocal Honesty, Reason and Good-breeding of _Cleanthes_ and hisWife?

 [K: Ibid. Fere. ]

An absent Man often acts out of the Way of common Life, when the Fitof Absence is upon him; but that this Fit should dwell upon a Man, so long as it does upon Mr. _de la Bruyere_’s[L] _Menalcas_ I confess, passes my Belief. --_Menalcas_ rises in the Morning; and from that Timetill he goes to Bed again, he never recovers from his Fit of Absence:The Distractions of his Mind admit of no Cessation or Interruption:His whole Life is a continued Series of the greatest Follies. _Menalcas_ is really never _Menalcas_; he has no lucid Intervals;he is always another Man. 

 [L: C. De l’Homme. ]

If we consult the Operations of our Soul, to discover the properCauses of what is call’d _Absence of Mind_, we shall perceive thatthe Powers of it are sometimes contracted within themselves by aMultiplicity of Thought: In these Cases the inward Exercise of theSoul makes it unable to attend to any outward Object. But at otherTimes the Soul wanders from itself; and in these Cases the Soul beingconversant about remote Objects, cannot immediately recover itself, soas to reflect duly on those which are present. So that this Absence ofthe Mind must proceed, either from a Fulness and Intention of Thought, or from a Want of Reflexion. If it proceeds from a Fulness of Thought, I say ’tis impossible for the Mind to keep bent so long, as that of_Menalcas_ does: It must necessarily have some Relaxations. If itproceeds from a Want of Reflexion, it must be confess’d, that he whocan live so many Hours without reflecting, must be either whollystupid, or some Degrees below the Species of Mankind. 

But what makes the Character of _Menalcas_ still more ridiculousand unnatural is, that he is stupid and sensible at the sameTime. --_Menalcas_ is in the Drawing-Room at Court; and walking verymajestically under a Branch of Candlestics; his Wig is caught up byone of them, and hangs dangling in the Air. All the Courtiers fall alaughing. --_Menalcas_ unluckily loses his Feeling, but still retainsthe Use of his Ears. He is insensible that his Wig is taken off hisHead; but yet is so happy as to hear the loud Mirth of the Courtiers, and has still so much good Humour left as to join in Company withthem. --_Menalcas_ plays at Backgammon. --He calls for a Glass of Water;’tis his Turn to throw; he has the Box in one Hand and the Glass inthe other; and being extremely dry, and unwilling to lose Time, heswallows down both the Dice and almost the Box, and at the sameTime throws the Glass of Water into the Tables. --If this is notto overstrain the Bow, to carry Things to an unnatural Excess andExtravagance, and to make no Distinction between Absence of Mind andInsensibility, or downright Folly, I confess, I know not what is. _Mr. De la Bruyere_ should have consider’d, that a Man, who has lost hisFeeling, is not, in that Respect, a proper Subject for Ridicule, and that ’tis no Jest to take away a Man’s Senses. Extravagances ofthis Nature are no Beauties in any Kind of Writing, much less inCharacteristics. In Performances of this Kind there must be Spirit andStrength, but especially there must be Justice. The real Images ofLife must be represented, or the Probabilities of Nature must strictlybe observ’d. 

 [M] _Respicere exemplar vitæ morumque jubebo Doctum imitatorem, & vivas hinc ducere voces. _

 These are the likeliest Copies, which are drawn By the Original of human Life. Ld. _Roscommon_. 

 [M: Horat. In Art. Poet. _v. _ 317, &c. ]

The Strokes which compose a Character must be bold, but notextravagant. Nature must not be distorted, to excite either Ridiculeor Admiration. Reason must hold the Reins of the Imagination: Judgmentmust direct the Fancy; otherwise we shall be apt to miscarry, andconnect inconsistent Ideas, at the very Time, when we think we hit thePoint of Humour to the Life. 

The only Thing that can be said to excuse Mr. _de la Bruyere_ on thisHead, is what the Abbot _Fleury_ has alledg’d to his Praise; namely, [N]that his Characters are sometimes loaded, on purpose that theymight not too nearly resemble the Persons design’d. 

 [N: On trouve dans ses Characteres une severe Critique, des Expressions vives, des Tours ingenieux, des Peintures quelquefois chargeés exprés, pour ne les pas faire trop ressemblantes. _Discours prononcé dans l’Academie Française. _ 1696. ]

’Tis very dangerous, I confess, to make free with the Characters ofparticular Persons; for there are some Men in the World, who, tho’they are not asham’d of the Impropriety of their own

Manners, yet are they easily offended at the public Notice which istaken of ’em. But tho’ Mr. _de la Bruyere_ might have very goodprudential Reasons for not making his Characters too particular, yetthose Reasons cannot be urg’d, as a just Plea for his transgressingthe Bounds of Characteristic-Justice, by making his Images unnatural. 

In every Kind of Writing there is something of an establish’d Naturewhich is essential to it. To deviate from this, is to deviate fromNature it self. Mr. _de la Bruyere_ is not the only _French_ Man whois guilty in this Point. Others of his Country-Men have committed muchthe same Fault in Pastoral and Comedy. Out of a vain Affectation ofsaying something very extraordinary and remarkable, they have departedfrom the nature of Things: They have given to the Simplicity of theCountry, the Airs of the Town and Court, introduced upon the StageBuffoonry and Farce instead of Humour; and by misrepresenting the realManners of Men, they have turn’d Nature into Grimace. 

The main Beauty of _Characteristic-Writings_ consists in a certainLife and Spirit, which the Writer ought to endeavour to keep up, byall the Arts which he is Master of. Nothing will contribute to thismore, than the Observance of a strict Unity in the very Conception ofa Character: For Characters are Descriptions of Persons and Things, asthey are such: And, as [O]Mr. _Budgell_ has very judiciously observ’d, “If the Reader is diverted in the midst of a Character, and hisAttention call’d off to any thing foreign to it, the lively Impressionit shou’d have made is quite broken, and it loses more than half itsForce. ” But if this Doctrine be applied to the Practice of Mr. _de laBruyere_, it will find him Guilty. He sometimes runs his Charactersto so great a Length, and mixes in ’em so many Particulars andunnecessary Circumstances, that they justly deserve the Name, ratherof Histories than Characters. --Such is the [P]Article concerning_Emira_. ’Tis an artful Description of a Woman’s Vanity, in pretendingto be insensible to the Power of Love, merely because she has neverbeen exposed to the Charms of a lovely Person; and there is nothing inthis Character, but what is agreeable to Nature, and carried on with agreat deal of Humour. But the many Particulars which Mr. _de laBruyere_ has drawn into the Composition of it, and which, in Truth, are not essential to the main Design, have quite chang’d the Nature ofthe Character, and converted it into a History, or rather a littleRomance. --’Tis true, Histories are Pictures as well as Characters; butyet there will ever be as wide a Difference between ’em, as there isbetween a Picture at full Length, and one in Miniature. 

 [O: Preface to _Theophrastus_. ] [P: C. Des Femmes. Ad fin. ]

The [Q]Characters of _Giton_ and _Phebon_ are humorous enough. Andthey are allow’d to be kept within the just Bounds of Probability. ButMr. _de la Bruyere_ has heap’d up so many Particulars and unnecessaryCircumstances, which do not convey any new Ideas, that the Charactersgrow languid and tedious. --_Giton_ is respected; every thing that hesays or does is approved of. _Phebon_ is despis’d; no Notice is takenof what he says or does. The Reason of this Difference is not somysterious, but that it may be told in less than two or three Pages. _Giton_ is rich, and _Phebon_ is poor. 

 [Q: C. Id. Ibid. Feré. ]

Sometimes there is such a Confusion in Mr. _de la Bruyere’s_ Designs, that one cannot easily discover whether he intended to draw theCharacter of a particular Person, or to make a Picture of someprevailing Vice, or only a moral Reflexion. --Such is the [R]Article of_Zenobia_. Was it design’d for the Character of _Zenobia_? But ’tisrather a Description of the Magnificence, and beautiful Situation ofthe Palace, which she was then building. Or was it design’d to censureand lash the Publicans of the Age, for the Extortions which theypractis’d, and the immense Riches which they amass’d by Fraud andOppression? But this Satir comes in only by the by, and in a veryjejune Manner. Or lastly, was it intended only for a moral Reflexionon the sudden Revolutions and Vicissitudes of Fortune? But the Lengthof this Article is inconsistent with the nature of a Reflexion; and ifany thing like this was intended, it must come in as the ἐπιμύθιον, the Moral of the Fable; which will make the Contents of this Article, still more different from the nature of a Character, than any thingthat has yet been mentioned. 

 [R: C. Des Biers de Fortune. Sub fin. ]

’Tis not enough that a Character be drawn conformable to thatExistence which it really has, or probably may have in Nature: It mustfurther be cloath’d in proper Sentiments, and express’d in a simpleand natural Style. But Mr. _de la Bruyere_, consider’d as a Writer ofCharacters, is too affected in his way of Thinking, and too artificialin the Turn of his Expressions. 

The previous Apology which he made for himself in this Point, is sofar from the Purpose, that nothing is more so. 

 Recollecting, [S]says he, that amongst the Writings ascrib’d to _Theophrastus_ by _Diogenes Laertius_, there is one which bears the Title of _Proverbs_, i. E. Of loose unconnected Observations, and that the most considerable Book of Morality, that ever was made, bears that Name in the sacred Writings; we have been excited by such great Examples to imitate, according to our Capacity, a like Way of Writing concerning Manners. 

--’Tis true, that in the Catalogue of _Theophrastus _ his Works, preserv’d by [T]_Diogenes Laertius_, there is one Book under the Titleπερὶ παροιμιῶν concerning _Proverbs_: But that, probably, was nothingbut a Collection of some of those short, remarkable, useful, pithySayings, which are of common Use in the World, and which every Nationhas peculiar to it self. However, tho’ we cannot exactly tell, what theNature of that Performance was, because the Book is now lost, yet we arecertain, on the other Hand, that the Design of _Solomon_ was not towrite Characters, but to deliver some Maxims of Morality by way ofAdvice and Instruction. So that for a profess’d Writer of Characters, to take a Book of _Proverbs_ for a Model, is as inconsistent, as if anyone, who intended to compose an Oration, shou’d form his Diction upon aPoem. _Proverbs_ consist of short Sentences, which contain in themselvesa full and compleat Sense; and therefore they do not essentially requirea strict Relation and Correspondence; but _Characteristic-Writings_do require such a strict Relation and Correspondence. And Mr. _de laBruyere_ is so faulty in this Point, that almost every where he has novisible Connexion. --_Characteristic-Writings_ ought, I own, to have alively Turn, and a Laconic Air: but there is a wide Difference betweenusing a concise Manner, and writing as many Aphorisms asSentences. 

 [S: Discours sur _Theophraste_. ] [T: Lib. 5. Segm. 45. ]

How far Mr. _de la Bruyere_ is defective as to Propriety of Style andJustness of Expression, I chuse to set down in the Words of one of his[V]Countrymen, a very judicious Writer, and a better Judge in thisMatter than I pretend to be. 

 [V: Melanges de Vigneul Marville. _Edit. Rot. _ T. 1. P. 336. ]

 Mr. _de la Bruyere_, qui n’a point de Style formé, ecrivant au hazard, employe des Expressions outrées en des Choses tres communes; & quand il en veut dire de plus relevées, il les affoiblit par des Expressions basses, & fait ramper le fort avec le foible. Il tend sans relache a un sublime qu’il ne connoit pas, & qu’il met tantot dans les choses, tantot dans les Paroles, sans jamais attraper le Point d’Unité, qui concilie les Paroles avec les choses, en quoi consiste tout le Secret, & la Finesse de cette Art merveilleux. 

--This is the Censure which an ingenious Author, under the feign’dName of _Vigneul Marville_, has pass’d upon Mr. _de la Bruyere’s_Style. However, I think my self oblig’d in Justice to inform theReader, that Mr. _Coste_, in his Defence of Mr. _de la Bruyere_, hasendeavour’d to prove that this Censure is ill grounded. But I will notpretend to decide in a Case of this Nature. Matters relating to Styleare the nicest Points in Learning: The greatest Men have grosly err’don this Subject. I only declare my own Opinion on the Matter, that Mr. _de la Bruyere_’s Style appears to me forc’d, affected, and improperfor Characteristic Writings. Several ingenious _French_ Gentlemen, whohave themselves writ with Applause in this Language, entertain thesame Sentiments, and have ingenuously confess’d to me, that they couldnever read ten Pages together of Mr. _de la Bruyere_, without feelingsuch an Uneasiness and Pain, as arises from a continued Affectationand a perpetual Constraint. But the Reader is still left free. To forma right Judgment on Correctness is an easy Matter by the ordinaryRules of Grammar, but to do the same concerning the Turn and Air, andpeculiar Beauties of Style, depends on a particular Taste: They arenot capable of being prov’d to those who have not this Taste, but tothose who have it, they are immediately made sensible by a barepointing out. 

The running Title which Mr. _de la Bruyere_ has given to his Bookdoes, by no Means, square with the several Parts of it. With Relationto my present Purpose I observe, that, strictly speaking, thisPerformance is, but in Part, of the Characteristic-Kind. TheCharacters, which are interspers’d in it, being reducible to a verynarrow Compass, and the main Body of it consisting of miscellaneousReflexions. And these are not confin’d, as is pretended, only to thepresent Age, but extend themselves both to past and present Times. Sothat if Mr. _de la Bruyere_ had, with his View, chosen another Titlefor his Book, tho’ it wou’d not have been so uncommon, yet wou’d ithave been more proper than the present Title; and the Performance itself wou’d then, in some Measure, have less deserv’dCensure. 

Tho’ Mr. _de la Bruyere’s_ Work is not perfect in that Kind, in whichit is pretended to excel, it must nevertheless be confess’d, that ithas many Beauties and Excellencies. To deny this, wou’d be an Affrontto the Judgment of the Gentlemen of the _French_ Academy: But yet ourComplaisance ought not, cannot go so far, as to prejudice our ownJudgment. We cannot think, as [X]some of ’em did, that Mr. _de laBruyere_ has excell’d _Theophrastus_, the great Original which hepropos’d to himself. Mr. _de la Bruyere_ had a more modest Opinionof himself: He wou’d have been proud of the Title of _littleTheophrastus_. And in Truth, it deserves no small Share of Praise, tocome up to _Theophrastus_ in any Degree of Comparison. --If then Mr. _de la Bruyere_ has committed some Faults, ’tis nothing but whatothers have done, both before and since him: But if he has, as I havealready allow’d him to have, some considerable Beauties; ’tis morethan a great many other Authors have, tho’ of greater Bulk: And theseExcellencies ought in Justice to be admitted as some Excuse for thoseDefects. 

 [X: Discours de l’Abbé Fleury deja cité. ]

SECT. V. 

Theophrastus has not only prevented, but he has also out-done theModerns in _Characteristic-Writings_. Yet Mr. _de la Rochefoucault_had an extraordinary Genius. He seems to be the only one, amongstall the Moderns, who was equal to so great a Work. He had studied Manin himself; and, in a small Collection of moral Reflexions, he haslaid open the various Forms and Folds of that Heart, which by Natureis deceitful above all Things. He has given us, as it were, theCharacters of all Mankind, by discovering those secret Springs of SelfLove, which are the Source of all our _Actions_. --Self Love is bornwith us; and this great Author has shewn, that there is no Principlein human Nature so secret, so deceitful: ’Tis so Hypocritical, that itfrequently imposes on it self, by taking the Appearances of Virtue forVirtue it self. It borrows all the Disguises of Art: It appears in athousand Forms, and in a thousand Shapes; but yet the Principle ofError is still the same. 

 [Y] ---- _Velut Silvis ubi passim Palantes Error certo de Tramite pellit, Ille sinistrorsum, hic dextrorsum abit: unus utrique Error, sed variis illudit Partibus. _

 As Men that lose their Ways in Woods, divide, Some go on this, and some on t’other Side. The Error is the same, all miss the Road, Altho’ in different Quarters of the Wood. 

 Mr. _Creech_. 

 [Y: Horat. Lib. 2. Sat. 3. V. 48, _&c_. ]

’Tis true Mr. _de la Rochefoucault_’s Design was too general, and hisPiece cannot properly be reckoned among _Characteristic-Writings_. Buttho’ he did not professedly write Characters, yet this Work shews thathe was very able to do it; and it may be of very great Service tothose, who wou’d attempt any thing in this Kind. 

I have often wonder’d that no _English_ Writer has ever professedlyattempted a Performance in the Characteristic-Way. I mean, such aprofess’d Performance, as wou’d extend it self to the differentConditions of Men, and describe the various Ends which they propose tothemselves in Life; as wou’d take in the chief Branches of Moralityand Behaviour, and, in some Measure, make a compleat Work: For as toloose Attempts and Sketches in this Kind, there are many Years sincewe had some; the most considerable of which, I mean of those that bearthe Title of Characters, are printed together with Sir _ThomasOverbury_’s Wife. These are said to have been written, partly by thatunfortunate Knight, and partly by some of his Friends. And if theEditor had not taken Care to give us this Notice, yet still that greatDisparity which appears but too visibly in them, wou’d manifestlyprove that they were compos’d by very different Hands. --There are, I confess, many good Things to be met with in these Characters, butthey are very far from making a compleat Work: And really this was notintended. Besides, nothing can possibly be more contrary to the Natureof _Characteristic-Writings_, than the corrupted Taste which prevail’din the Age. A continued Affectation of far-fetch’d and quaintSimile’s, which runs thro’ almost all these Characters, makes ’emappear like so many Pieces of mere Grotesque; and the Reader mustnot expect to find Persons describ’d as they really are, but ratheraccording to what they are thought to be like. 

This Censure may be thought hard; but yet it leaves Room for someExceptions: And that I may do Justice to Merit, where it is reallydue, I shall here set down one of those Characters, which seem’d to meto be exquisite in its Kind. And this I shall the rather do, becausethe Book it self is not in every body’s Hands. The Image is taken fromlow Life; ’tis a beautiful Description of Nature in its greatestSimplicity, and ’tis the more beautiful because ’tis natural. 

 A fayre and happy MILKE MAID. 

 Is a Country Wench, that is so farre from making herselfe beautifull by Art, that one Looke of hers is able to put all _Face-Physicke_ out of Countenance. Shee knowes a fayre Looke is but a dumbe Orator to commend Vertue, therefore mindes it not. All her Excellencies stand in her so silently, as if they had stolne upon her without her Knowledge. The Lining of her Apparell (which is her selfe) is farre better than Outsides of Tissew: for tho’ shee be not arraied in the Spoyle of the Silke Worme, shee is deckt in Innocency, a far better Wearing. Shee doth not, with lying long a Bed, spoile both her Complexion and Conditions; Nature hath taught her, _too immoderate Sleepe is rust to the Soul_: She rises therefore with _Chaunticleare_ her Dames Cocke, and at Night makes the Lambe her _Corfew_. In milking a Cow, and straining the Teates through her Fingers, it seemes that so sweet a Milke-Presse makes the Milke the whiter, or sweeter; for never came Almond Glove or Aromatique Oyntment on her Palme to taint it. The golden Eares of Corn fall and kisse her Feete when shee reapes them, as if they wisht to be bound and led Prisoners by the same Hand that fell’d them. Her Breath is her owne, which sents all the Yeere long of _June_, like a new made Hay-cocke. Shee makes her Hand hard with Labour, and her Heart soft with Pitty: And when Winter Evenings fall early (sitting at her merry Wheele) she sings a Defiance to the giddy Wheele of Fortune. Shee doth all things with so sweet a Grace it seemes _Ignorance_ will not suffer her to do Ill, being her Minde is to do Well. Shee bestowes her Yeeres Wages at next Faire; and in chusing her Garments, counts no Bravery i’th’ World, like Decency. The Garden and Bee-hive are all her Physicke and Chyrurgerie, and shee lives the longer for’t. Shee dares goe alone, and unfold Sheepe i’th’ Night, and feares no manner of Ill, because shee meanes none: Yet to say Truth, shee is never alone, for shee is still accompanied with old Songs, honest Thoughts, and Prayers, but short ones; yet they have their Efficacy, in that they are not pauled with insuing idle Cogitations. Lastly, her Dreames are so chaste, that shee dare tell them; onely a Fridaies Dreame is all her Superstition; _that_ she conceales for feare of Anger. Thus lives shee, and all her Care is shee may die in the Spring-Time, to have Store of Flowers stucke upon her winding Sheet. 

What makes me wonder that no _English_ Writer has ever attempted aprofess’d Performance in the _Characteristic-Way_ is, that we are, certainly, more able to undertake a Work of this Nature than any otherNation; because our Countrymen afford a greater Variety of SubjectMatter than any other People. --Human Nature, as I observ’d before, inits various Forms and Affections, is the Subject of _Characteristic-Writings_: And from this Diversity of Manners arises that, which isproperly call’d _Humour_, and which, upon a double Account, seems tobe peculiar to our Nation; not only because there is no Word in anyother Language so expressive, but also because there is no Nation, inwhich we can find a greater Variety of original _Humour_, than amongstthe _English_. Sir _William Temple_, speaking of the DramaticPerformances of the Stage, expresses himself after the followingManner. --[Z]

 [Z: Essay on Poetry, p. 355, _&c_. ]

 In this the _Italian_, the _Spanish_, and the _French_, have all had their different Merit, and receiv’d their just Applauses. Yet I am deceiv’d, if our _English_ has not in some Kind excell’d both the Modern and the Antient; which has been by Force of a Vein, natural perhaps to our Country, and which with us is call’d _Humour_, a Word peculiar to our Language too, and hard to be express’d in any other; nor is it (that I know of) found in any Foreign Writers, unless it be _Moliere_, and yet his it self has too much of the Farce, to pass for the same with ours. _Shakespear_ was the first that opened this Vein upon our Stage, which has run so freely and so pleasantly ever since, that I have often wonder’d to find it appear so little upon any others; being a Subject so proper for them, since _Humour_ is but a Picture of particular Life, as Comedy is of general; and tho’ it represents Dispositions and Customs less common, yet they are not less natural than those that are more frequent among Men. 

_Humour_ is the only genuine Source of all that agreeable Variety oforiginal Characters, which is so entertaining to a Spectator andReader: And Sir _William Temple_ proceeds to observe, that in thisPoint the Moderns in general, and the _English_ in particular, havefar excell’d the Antients. This Observation is very just, howeverpartial it may seem to a Foreigner, and the Reason of it is veryobvious. I shall represent ’em both in Sir _William_’s own Words. ThePassage is somewhat long, but the Goodness of it will amply pay theReader for his Trouble in perusing it. 

 It may seem a Defect (says he) in the antient Stage, that the Characters introduc’d were so few, and those so common, as a covetous old Man, an amorous young, a witty Wench, a crafty Slave, a bragging Soldier. The Spectators met nothing upon the Stage, but what they met in the Streets, and at every Turn. All the Variety is drawn only from different and uncommon Events; whereas if the Characters are so too, the Diversity and the Pleasure must needs be the more. But as of most general Customs in a Country, there is usually some Ground, from the Nature of the People or Climat, so there may be amongst us for this Vein of our Stage, and a greater Variety of _Humour_ in the Picture, because there is a greater Variety in the Life. This may proceed from the native Plenty of our Soil, the Unequalness of our Climat, as well as the Ease of our Government, and the Liberty of professing Opinions and Factions, which perhaps our Neighbours may have about them, but are forc’d to disguise, and thereby they may come in Time to be extinguish’d. Plenty begets Wantonness and Pride, Wantonness is apt to invent, and Pride scorns to imitate; Liberty begets Stomach or Heart, and Stomach will not be constrain’d. Thus we come to have more Originals, and more that appear what they are; we have more _Humour_, because every Man follows his own, and takes a Pleasure, perhaps a Pride, to shew it. 

--_Shakespear_, _Johnson_, _Shadwell_, _Etherege_, and _Wycherly_ haveshewn the Richness of this Source: They excell’d in the Variety and_Humour_ of the Characters which they exhibited; and in this they havereceiv’d just Applauses: But yet they did not exhaust the Spring fromwhence they drew: The ingenious Mr. _Congreve_ has pursu’d the sameVein of _Humour_; and he has imitated his Predecessors so well, thathe has by far out-done ’em all. In his Dramatic-Pieces there is thegreatest Variety of _Humour_ and of original Characters, set off bythe greatest Delicacy of Sentiments, and adorn’d with the Beauties ofthe justest Diction that can possibly be imagined. Mr. _Dryden_ mustbe allow’d to be a competent Judge in an Affair of this Nature, and hehas given us the true Character and Panegyric of Mr. _Congreve_ in thefollowing Lines. 

 In him all Beauties of this Age we see; } _Etherege_ his Courtship, _Southern_’s Purity; } The Satir, Wit and Strength of manly _Wicherly_. }

’Tis true, there is some Difference between the Characters whichenter into the Composition of Dramatic Pieces, and those which arerepresented by _Characteristic-Writers_; but this Difference is sosmall, that I doubt not but he, who is an able Master in one of theseKinds, would as successfully perform in the other. For, in reality, the essential Parts of the Characters, in the _Drama_, and in_Characteristic-Writings_, are the same. They are both an Image of oneLife; a Representation of one Person: All the Diversity lies in thedifferent Manner of representing the same Image. The _Drama_ presentsto the Eyes of a Spectator an Actor, who speaks and acts as thePerson, whom he represents, is suppos’d to speak and act in real Life. The _Characteristic_ Writer introduces, in a descriptive manner, before a Reader, the same Person, as speaking and acting in the samemanner: And both must be perform’d in such a natural and livelymanner, as may deceive the Spectator and Reader, and make them fancythey see the Person represented or characteris’d. 

But tho’ no _English_ Author has attempted a Performance in this Kind, yet it must be confess’d that in some late diurnal Papers we have hadexcellent Specimens in the Characteristic-Way. The Papers, which Imean to point out, are the _Tatlers_ and the _Spectators_. They are ofthe miscellaneous Kind, and were design’d for the universal Delightand Instruction of the _British_ Nation. In these Papers are containedAbundance of true Wit and _Humour_, lively Descriptions of humanNature in its various Forms and Disguises, the Praises of Virtue, and pointed Satir against Vice; and here and there are interspers’dCharacters of Men and Manners compleatly drawn to the Life. --If thegreat Authors, who were concerned in the Composition of those Papers, would have join’d their Abilities to form a Work of this Kind, I doubtnot but it would have been inimitable, and deserv’d the next Place, in Point of Fame, to that of _Theophrastus_: For this is the highestPitch to which Moderns can aspire. A greater Design would bePresumption, and would only serve to shew the greater Vanity of theAttempt. An establish’d Reputation of above two thousand Years cannotbe easily shaken. _Theophrastus_ is, and ever will be, an Original in_Characteristic-Writings_. His Fame still lives in our Memory, and theMain of his Characters still subsists in our Actions. 

 _FINIS. _

 * * * * *

 PUBLICATIONS OF THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY FIRST YEAR (1946-47)

[Transcriber’s Note:Many of the listed titles are or will be available from ProjectGutenberg. Where possible, the e-text number is given in brackets. ]

Numbers 1-4 out of print. [#13484, #14528, #14973]

5. Samuel Wesley’s _Epistle to a Friend Concerning Poetry_ (1700) and _Essay on Heroic Poetry_ (1693). 

6. _Representation of the Impiety and Immorality of the Stage_ (1704) and _Some Thoughts Concerning the Stage_ (1704). [#15656]

SECOND YEAR (1947-1948)

7. John Gay’s _The Present State of Wit_ (1711); and a section on Wit from _The English Theophrastus_ (1702). [#14800]

8. Rapin’s _De Carmine Pastorali_, translated by Creech (1684). [#14495]

9. T. Hanmer’s (?) _Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_ (1736). [#14899]

10. Corbyn Morris’ _Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, etc. _ (1744). [#16233]

11. Thomas Purney’s _Discourse on the Pastoral_ (1717). [#15313]

12. Essays on the Stage, selected, with an Introduction by Joseph Wood Krutch. 

THIRD YEAR (1948-1949)

13. Sir John Falstaff (pseud. ), _The Theatre_ (1720). 

14. Edward Moore’s _The Gamester_ (1753). [#16267]

15. John Oldmixon’s _Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to Harley_ (1712); and Arthur Mainwaring’s _The British Academy_ (1712). 

16. Nevil Payne’s _Fatal Jealousy_ (1673). 

17. Nicholas Rowe’s _Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespeare_ (1709). 

18. “Of Genius, ” in _The Occasional Paper_, Vol. III, No. 10 (1719); and Aaron Hill’s Preface to _The Creation_ (1720). [#15870]

FOURTH YEAR (1949-1950)

19. Susanna Centlivre’s _The Busie Body_ (1709). 

20. Lewis Theobold’s _Preface to The Works of Shakespeare_ (1734). [In Preparation]

21. _Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Grandison, Clarissa, and Pamela_ (1754). 

22. Samuel Johnson’s _The Vanity of Human Wishes_ (1749) and Two _Rambler_ papers (1750). [#13350]

23. John Dryden’s _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ (1681). [#15074]

24. Pierre Nicole’s _An Essay on True and Apparent Beauty in Which from Settled Principles is Rendered the Grounds for Choosing and Rejecting Epigrams_, translated by J. V. Cunningham. 

FIFTH YEAR (1950-51)

25. Thomas Baker’s _The Fine Lady’s Airs_ (1709). [#14467]

26. Charles Macklin’s _The Man of the World_ (1792). [#14463]

27. Frances Reynolds’ _An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Taste, and of the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty, etc. _ (1785). [#13485]

28. John Evelyn’s _An Apologie for the Royal Party_ (1659); and _A Panegyric to Charles the Second_ (1661). 

29. Daniel Defoe’s _A Vindication of the Press_ (1718). [#14084]

30. Essays on Taste from John Gilbert Cooper’s _Letters Concerning Taste_, 3rd edition (1757), & John Armstrong’s _Miscellanies_ (1770). [#13464]

31. Thomas Gray’s _An Elegy Wrote in a Country Church Yard_ (1751); and _The Eton College Manuscript_. [#15409]

32. Prefaces to Fiction; Georges de Scudéry’s Preface to _Ibrahim_ (1674), etc. [#14525]

William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

_General Editors_

H. RICHARD ARCHERWilliam Andrews Clark Memorial Library

R. C. BOYSUniversity of Michigan

E. N. HOOKERUniversity of California, Los Angeles

JOHN LOFTISUniversity of California, Los Angeles

The Society exists to make available inexpensive reprints (usuallyfacsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth centuryworks. The editorial policy of the Society continues unchanged. As inthe past, the editors welcome suggestions concerning publications. Allincome of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of publication andmailing. 

Publications for the sixth year [1951-1952]

(At least six items, most of them from the following list, will bereprinted. )

Thomas Gray: _An Elegy Wrote in a Country Church Yard_ (1751). Introduction by George Sherburn. [#15409]

James Boswell, Andrew Erskine, and George Dempster: _CriticalStrictures on the New Tragedy of Elvira_ (1763). Introduction byFrederick A. Pottle. [#15857]

_An Essay on the New Species of Writing Founded by Mr. Fielding_(1751). Introduction by James A. Work. 

Henry Gally: _A Critical Essay on Characteristic Writing_ (1725). Introduction by Alexander Chorney. 

[John Phillips]: _Satyr Against Hypocrits_ (1655). Introduction byLeon Howard. 

_Prefaces to Fiction. _ Selected and with an Introduction by BenjaminBoyce. [#14525]

Thomas Tyers: _A Biographical Sketch of Dr. Samuel Johnson_ ([1785]). Introduction by Gerald Dennis Meyer. 

 * * * * *

[Problems Noted by Transcriber:

p. Xv, xvii, xxiv judg; knowledg _spellings as in original_

p. 16 is said to have been done upon _original has_ is sa d to. .. 

p. 78 and in a very / jejune Manner _original has_ . .. J june Manner

p. 88 yet this Work shews _original has_ ye this Work. .. (_with extra space_)

List of ARS Publications: 20. Lewis Theobold’s _Preface to The Works of Shakespeare_ (1734). _so in original: correct spelling is_ Theobald

Publications for the sixth year: . .. Gray’s _Elegy_ and . .. _Prefaces to Fiction_) _so in original: see titles 31 and 32, fifth year_ ]