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_, here
reprinted, is the introductory essay to his translation of _The Moral
Characters of Theophrastus_ (1725). Of Gally's life (1696-1769) little
is known. Apparently his was a moderately successful ecclesiastical
career: he was appointed in 1735 chaplain-in-ordinary to George II. His
other published works consist of sermons, religious tracts, and an
undistinguished treatise on the pronunciation of Greek.
His essay on the character, however, deserves attention because it is
the first detailed and serious discussion by an Englishman of a literary
kind immensely popular in its day. English writers before Gally had, of
course, commented on the character. Overbury, for example, in "What A
Character Is" (_Sir Thomas Overbury His Wife..._ 1616) had defined the
character as "wit's descant on any plain-song," and Brathwaite in his
Dedication to _Whimzies_(1631) had written that character-writers must
shun affectation and prefer the "pith before the rind." Wye Saltonstall
in the same year in his Dedicatory Epistle to _Picturae Loquentes_ had
required of a character "lively and exact Lineaments" and "fast and
loose 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" for
character-writing in _A Scholar's Guide from the Accidence to the
University_ (1665), are fragmentary and oblique. Nor do either of the
two English translations of Theophrastus before Gally--the one a
rendering of La Bruyère's French version,[1] and the other, Eustace
Budgell's _The Moral Characters of Theophrastus_ (1714)--touch more
than in passing on the nature of the character. Gally's essay, in which
he claims to deduce his critical principles from the practice of
Theophrastus, is both historically and intrinsically the most
important work of its kind.
Section I of Gally's essay, thoroughly conventional in nature, is
omitted here. In it Gally, following Casaubon,[2] theorizes that the
character evolved out of Greek Old Comedy. The Augustans saw a close
connection between drama and character-writing. Congreve (Dedication to
_The Way of the World_, 1700) thought that the comic dramatist Menander
formed his characters on "the observations of Theophrastus, of whom he
was a disciple," and Budgell, who termed Theophrastus the father of
modern comedy, believed that if some of Theophrastus's characters "were
well worked up, and brought upon the British theatre, they could not
fail of Success."[3] Gally similarly held that a dramatic character
and 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 with
characters of virtue. At one point Gally asserts that Theophrastus
taught 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, which
is most interesting to the modern scholar. Gally breaks sharply with
earlier character-writers like Overbury who, he thinks, have departed
from the Theophrastan method. Their work for the most part reflects
corrupted 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-century
character:
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" to
appreciate Gally's point. The Theophrastan method had been to describe
a character operatively--that is, through the use of concrete dramatic
incident illustrating the particular vice. The seventeenth-century
character is too often merely a showcase for the writer's wit. One
frequently finds a succession of ingenious metaphors, each redefining
from a slightly different angle a type's master-passion, but blurring
rather 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 nothing
but a low and false Wit." The piece should not be tediously rambling,
but compact. It must have perfect unity of structure: each sentence
should add a significant detail to the portrait. The manner ought
to be lively, the language pure and unaffected.
As for the character-writer's materials, they are "Human Nature, in its
various Forms and Affections." Each character should focus on a single
vice or virtue, yet since "the Heart of Man is frequently actuated by
more Passions than one," subsidiary traits ought to be included to round
out the portrait (e.g., the covetous man may also be impudent, the
impudent man generous). Budgell had expressed a similar conception. A
character, he wrote, "may be compared to a Looking-glass that is placed
to catch a particular Object; but cannot represent that Object in its
full Light, without giving us a little Landskip of every thing else
that lies about it."[4] By Gally's time writers like Pascal, La
Rochefoucauld, and La Bruyère had done much to show the complex
and paradoxical nature of human behaviour. Gally, who praises La
Rochefoucauld as the one modern as well equipped as Theophrastus to
compose characters, reacts with his age against the stale types which
both comedy and the character had been retailing _ad nauseam_. Human
nature, says Gally, is full of subtle shadings and agreeable variations
which the character ought to exploit. He quotes Temple to the effect
that England is richer than any other nation in "original Humours" and
wonders that no one has yet attempted a comprehensive portrait-gallery
of English personality. Those writers who have come closest to Gally's
idea of how "humour" ought to be handled are the "great Authors" of the
_Tatlers_ and _Spectators_, with their "interspers'd Characters of Men
and Manners compleatly drawn to the Life."
In admiring the Roger de Coverley sketches, Gally typifies the
increasingly tolerant attitude of the Augustans toward eccentric
behavior.[5] Like Sterne and Fielding he is delighted by people whose
idiosyncracies are harmless and appealing. As for the harsh satiric
animus 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 Attacks
upon the Province of Self-Love" in the reader. "Each Man," he writes,
"contains a little World within himself, and every Heart is a new
World." 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 on
individuality. Indeed, while discussing the need for writers to study
their own and other men's passions, he emphasizes that "without a
Knowledge of these Things, 'twill be impossible ever to draw a Character
so to the Life, as that it shall hit one Person, and him only." Here
Gally might well be talking of the Clarendon kind of portrait. If a
character is "one Person, and him only," he is no longer a type, but
somebody peculiarly himself.
Gally, then, is not as Theophrastan as he professes to be. True, he
harks back to Theophrastus in matters of style and technique. And he
does not criticize him, as does La Bruyère,[6] for paying too much
attention to a man's external actions, and not enough to his "Thoughts,
Sentiments, and Inclinations." Nevertheless his mind is receptive to
the kind of individuated characterization soon to distinguish the
mid-eighteenth century novel. The type is still his measuring-stick, but
he 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 private
identity: this private identity Gally recognizes as important. Gally's
essay thus reflects fundamental changes in the English attitude toward
human nature and its literary representation.
Alexander H. Chorney
Fellow, Clark Library
Los 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 by
me unregarded these many Years. They were first undertaken at the
Request of a Person, who at present shall be nameless. Since that
Time I have been wholly diverted from Studies of this Nature, and
my Thoughts have been employed about Subjects of a much greater
Consequence, and more agreeable to my Profession: Insomuch, that I had
nothing in my Mind less than the Publication of these Papers; but some
Friends, who had perus’d them, were of Opinion, that they deserv’d to
be publish’d, and that they might afford an agreeable Entertainment
not without some Profit to the Reader. _These_ Motives prevailed upon
me to give _them_ a second Care, and to bestow upon them so much
Pains, as was necessary to put them in that State, in which they now
appear.
The first Piece that the Reader will meet with is, _A Critical
ESSAY on Characteristic-Writings_: It treats of the Origin of those
Writings: It points out the general Laws to be observ’d in such
Compositions, and it contains some Reflexions on _Theophrastus’s_ and
Mr. _de la Bruyere’s_ Performances in this Way. The Design of this at
least is, I think, new. Mr. _Fabricius_ mentions a [A]Book, which, by
its Title, shou’d bear some Relation to this Essay, but tho’ I have
enquir’d after it pretty strictly, yet I never cou’d get a Sight of
it, 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 of
Theophrastus_ 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 those
Characters, which he himself compos’d, and which gave Rise to those
many Performances, that were afterwards attempted in the same Way.
[B]Mr. _Menage_ has highly extoll’d this Translation. _Elle est_, says
he, _bien belle, & bien françoise, & montre que son Auteur entend
parfaitement 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._ This
is great; and it must be own’d that Mr. _Menage_ was a Man of very
extensive Learning, and a great Master of the _Greek_ Tongue; but that
his Judgment was always equal to his Knowledg of Words, will not be so
readily allow’d. Besides, the Credit of the Books ending in _ana_ runs
very low, and in particular the _Menagiana_ have been disown’d by Mr.
_Menage’s_ own [C]Relations, as being injurious to the Merit and
Memory of that great Man. And therefore it must still be left to the
inquisitive and judicious Reader to determine, whether those Faults,
which I have observ’d in Mr. _de la Bruyere’_s Translation are justly
censur’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 was
done by the ingenious Mr. _Eustace Budgell_. It will be expected that
I shou’d say something of these two Translations. And I shall be the
more ready to do this, because I shall hereby insensibly lead the
Reader to the Reasons which induc’d me to undertake a
third.
The anonymous _English_ Translation is said to have been done upon
the _Greek_. But this is only a Pretence, and a low Artifice of the
ignorant Translator: For in reality ’tis no more than a mean and
insipid Translation of the _French_ of Mr. _de la Bruyere_, revis’d
upon the _Latin_ of _Casaubon_, which answers almost verbally to the
Original _Greek_. If this were a Matter of Importance, I wou’d here
fully demonstrate it: For the Fact is so glaring, that tho’ the
Translator is wholly unknown to me, yet I can aver what I have
asserted to be Truth, almost as certainly, as if I had been an Eye
Witness to the doing of it_.
Mr. _Budgell_’s Translation must be own’d to be polite: But politeness
is not the only Qualification that is required in such a Translation.
The learn’d Reader, who understands the Original, will consider it in
a different View. And to judg of it according to those Rules which
Translators ought to observe, it must be condemned. In general, it is
not exact and accurate enough; but what is far worse, Mr. _Budgell_
gives, in too many Instances, his own Thoughts instead of representing
the true Sense of _Theophrastus_. This is perverting the _Humour_ of
the Original, and, in Effect, making a new Work, instead of giving
only a Translation. Mr. _Budgell_ ingenuously confesses, that he has
taken a great deal of Liberty; but when a Translator confesses thus
much, it does but give the Reader good Reason to suspect that instead
of taking a great deal, he has in reality taken too
much.
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 this
Liberty, or rather Licenciousness of Translators, Authors not only
appear in a different Dress, but they become unlike themselves, by
losing 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 Character
is, to have afforded to his Spectators and Readers the gravest, and,
at the same Time, the most agreeable, most polite Entertainment of
any antient Author now extant. This is, in some Measure, the Case of
_Theophrastus:_ He has been transformed; and he has suffer’d in the
Transformation. What I have endeavoured is, to do him that Justice
which, I think, he has not hitherto met with, by preserving the native
Simplicity of his Characters, by retaining those antient Manners and
Customs which he alludes to, and keeping up the peculiar _Humour_ of
the Original as nearly, as the Difference of Language wou’d allow.
This is the Attempt; how far I have succeeded, must be let to the
judicious and curious Reader to determine. Thus much I thought
necessary to say concerning former Translations, in order to justify
my own Undertaking, which will not acquire an intrinsic Merit from the
Censures, that I have pass’d upon others. No: The Faults of others
cannot extenuate our own; and that Stamp, which every Work carries
along with it, can only determine of what Kind it really
is.
The Reader will expect that I shou’d here say a Word or two
concerning the _Notes_ which follow the _Characters_. Some Authors or
Commentators (call them which you will) out of a vain Ostentation of
Literature, lay hold of the slightest of Opportunities to expose all
their Learning to the World, without ever knowing when they have said
enough: Insomuch, that in most Commentaries upon antient Authors, one
may sooner meet with a System of Antiquities, than with Solutions of
the real Difficulties of the Text. Consider’d barely as a Translator,
I lay under no immediate Necessity of writing _Notes_, but then as
I 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 the
Original, which depends on those Manners and Customs which are alluded
to, I found, my self necessitated to add some _Notes_; but yet I have
endeavoured to shun that Fault, which I have already censur’d, by
saying no more, but what was immediately necessary, to illustrate
the Text, to vindicate a received Sense, or to propose a new one.
I am not conscious of having made any great Excursions beyond the
Bounds which these Rules prescrib’d to me, unless it is in the Chapter
concerning _Superstition_. And even here, unless the Commentary had
been somewhat copious, the Text it self wou’d have appear’d like a
motly Piece of mysterious Nonsense. Thus much I thought my self
oblig’d to do in Justice to _Theophrastus_; and as for the
Enlargements which I have made, over and above what wou’d have
satisfy’d this Demand, they will not, ’tis hop’d, be unacceptable to
the curious Reader. They are Digressions I own; but I shall not here
offer to make one Digression to execute another, or, according to the
Custom and Practice of modern Authors, beg a thousand Pardons of the
Reader, before I am certain of having committed one Offence. Such a
Procedure 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 Chance
for the Event. If what he has said does not immediately relate to the
Matter in Hand, it may nevertheless be _a propos_, and good in its
Kind; and then instead of Censure, he will probably meet with Thanks;
but if it be not good, no prefatory Excuses will make it so: And
besides, it will ever be insisted on, that ’tis an easier Matter to
strike out bad Digressions, than it is to write good
Apologies.
One Word more, and then I have done. Since Mr. _Budgell_ has thought
fit 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 la
Bruyere_ 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 a
Translator of an antient Author intends to preserve the peculiar
Character of the Original, _Notes_ become absolutely necessary to
render the Translation intelligible to a modern Reader. The Learn’d
may pass them over; and those, for whom _Explanatory Notes_ are
chiefly designed, must not think it too much Trouble, to bestow a
second Reading on the Text, after they have given a First to the
Whole. This Trouble (if any thing ought to be call’d so that conveys
Instruction) is no more than what many persons, who have attained to
no small share of Knowledg in the learn’d Languages, must submit to,
at the first Perusal of an Original Author. If in a translated Author
any Difficulties occur, on this Head, to a modern Reader, and the
Translator has taken Care to clear up those difficulties by adding
_Notes_, the modern Reader ought to thank him for his Pains, and not
think his Labour superfluous.
’Tis hop’d then that the _Notes_, that I have added, will be kindly
receiv’d. The Reader will nevertheless be at full Liberty to peruse
them, or to pass them over. If he if but so favourable as to approve
of the Translation it self, this will be a sufficient Satisfaction to
the Translator, and be looked upon as no finall Commendation of the
Performance. For a Translation, if it be well performed, ought in
Justice to be receiv’d as a good Commentary_.
SECT. II.
There is no Kind of polite Writing that seems to require a deeper
Knowledge, a livelier Imagination, and a happier Turn of Expression
than the Characteristic. Human Nature, in its various Forms and
Affections, is the Subject; and he who wou’d attempt a Work of this
Kind, with some assurance of Success, must not only study other Men;
he has a more difficult Task to perform; he must study himself. The
deep and dark Recesses of the Heart must be penetrated, to discover
how Nature is disguis’d into Art, and how Art puts on the Appearance
of Nature.--This Knowledge is great; ’tis the Perfection of Moral
Philosophy; ’tis an inestimable Treasure: But yet if it shou’d fall
into the Hands of one, who wants proper Abilities to communicate his
Knowledge to the World, it wou’d be of no Service but to the Owner: It
wou’d make him, indeed, an able Philosopher, but not an able Writer of
Characters.
The Mind has its peculiar Features as well as the Body; and these
must be represented in their genuine and native Colours, that so the
Picture 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 that
Piece and Nature.
Every Action has its proper Thought, and every Thought its proper
Expression. And these Correspondences are not imaginary, but have a
real Foundation in Nature: For when any one of these is wanting, the
whole is lame and defective, but when they all meet and conspire
together, the Character is then genuine and compleat, the Thing
or Person design’d is drawn to the Life, and the Reader is left
uncertain, whether the Character, that lies before him, is an Effect
of 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 Critic
in Thoughts, and a Critic in Language.
A superficial Knowledge of human Nature, will never qualify a Man to
be a Writer of Characters. He must be a Master of the Science; and
be able to lead a Reader, knowingly, thro’ that Labyrinth of the
Passions, which fill the Heart of Man, and make him either a noble or
a despicable Creature. For tho’ some, who have never attempted any
thing of this kind, may think it an easy Matter to write two or three
Pages of Morality with Spirit, to describe an Action, a Passion, a
Manner; yet had they made the Experiment, the Event wou’d not have
answer’d their Expectation, and they wou’d have found, that this easy
Work was more difficult than they, at first, imagin’d.
The Features of every single Passion must be known; the Relation which
that Passion bears to another, must be discover’d; and the Harmony and
Discord which result from them must be felt. Many have studied these
Things, 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 that
it shall hit one Person, and him only.
We have all of us different Souls, and our Souls have Affections
as different from one another, as our outward Faces are in their
Lineaments. Each Man contains a little World within himself, and
every Heart is a new World. We cannot therefore attain to a perfect
Knowledge of human Nature, by studying others or our selves alone, but
by studying both. ’Tis this Knowledge which sets the Philosopher above
the Peasant, and gives the Preference to one Author above another.
This Knowledge has a Force, something like to that of Magic Charms: by
the help of it one, who is Master of the Science, can turn Men inside
outwards, and expose them to the Eyes of the World, as they really
are, and not as they wou’d fain appear to be. By the help of this
Knowledge an intelligent Writer can form to his Reader the most
agreeable, most instructive Entertainment that can possibly be
desir’d; transport him, with the greatest Ease imaginable, from the
Solitude of his Chamber to Places of the greatest Concourse; there to
see and learn the Virtues of Men; there to see and shun their Vices,
without any danger of being corrupted by the Contagion of a real
Commerce.
How absolutely necessary a thorough Insight into the Heart and
Passions of Man is to a Writer of Characters, will be more evident by
descending to some Particulars, and pointing out some of those nice
Circumstances, which a Writer of Characters must accurately observe,
and by which his Capacity in this Way may be easily judg’d
of.
It must be observ’d then, that the Heart of Man is frequently actuated
by more Passions than one: And as the same Object does, by its
different Position, afford to the Spectator different Representations,
so does the same Affection of the Mind, by exerting it self after a
different manner, lay a real Foundation for so many distinct
Characters. The under Passions may, by their various Operations, cause
some Diversity in the Colour and Complexion of the Whole, but ’tis the
Master-Passion which must determine the Character.
Since therefore the under Parts of a Character are not essential, they
may or may not be reciprocal. A covetous Man may be impudent, or he
may have some share of Modesty left: On the other Hand, an impudent
Man may be generous, or his Character may be stain’d by Avarice. And
therefore to make the Features of one Virtue or Vice enter, as under
Parts, into the Character of another Virtue or Vice, is so far from
being a Transgression of the Nature of Things, that, on the contrary,
all the Beauty of _Characteristic-Writing_, and all the Beauty which
arises from the Variety of an agreeable Mixture, entirely depends on
_this_. The main Difficulty consists in making the Master-Passion
operate so conspicuously throughout the Whole, as that the Reader may,
in every step of the Performance, immediately discover
it.
The Truth of it is, that there are some Affections of the Mind, which
not only constitute of themselves a distinct Virtue or Vice, but are
also the Foundation of many others. Avarice is of this extensive
Nature; it constitutes, of it self, a distinct Character, and it
enters 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 the
Practice of _Theophrastus_, whose Conduct, in this Respect, ought
to be look’d upon as an authentick Pattern. Rusticity, Avarice and
Impudence, are in their own Nature distinct Vices, but yet there is a
very near Relation between them, which has a real Foundation in the
Actions of Men. And, as on the one Hand, _Theophrastus_ has drawn
distinct Characters of these Vices, so, on the other Hand, he has made
the peculiar Features of one or more of these Vices enter into the
Characters of the other. This is Matter of Fact; and if the Reader
will be at the Pains to compare the _6th_, _9th_, and _11th_,
Chapters, as he will be perswaded of the Truth of what is here
asserted, so will he be convinc’d, at the same Time, that
_Theophrastus_ has not confounded by this Mixture the real Nature
of Things, or transgress’d thereby, in any wise, the Rules of
_Characteristic-Justice_.
Again; Loquacity and an ill-tim’d Behaviour are two very different
Vices in common Conversation; but yet _Theophrastus_ has concluded his
Character of Loquacity, with the same Stroke which begins that of an
ill-tim’d Behaviour; because tho’ these Vices are of a different
Nature, yet do they not exclude each other; and the Actions of Men
manifestly prove, that they are frequently to be found in the same
Subject.
The nice Reader therefore, instead of being offended to find the
peculiar Features of one Vice interspers’d in the Character of
another, ought, on the contrary, to admire the Judgment and Accuracy
of _Theophrastus_ in this Respect: For this Mixture does not proceed
from Inaccuracy, but is founded in Nature: And ’tis the Work of a
sagacious Head, as well to discover the near Relations that are
between different things, as to separate those Things, which by
Nature are nearly related, but yet are really distinct.
The Beauty of every Kind of Writing arises from the Conformity
which it bears to Nature; and therefore the Excellency of
_Characteristic-Writings_ must consist in exact Representations of
human Nature.--This Harmony between Art and Nature may be call’d
Justice: And tho’ the Boundaries of it may be more extensive in those
Works, in which a greater Range is allow’d to the Imagination, yet
still, 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, and
all the Extravagances of Nature are natural, when they are well
represented.
It requires, I own, a great deal of Penetration to hit exactly this
Point of Reality: But then it must be confess’d, that as the great
difficulty of _Characteristic-Writing_ consists in this, so does the
main Beauty and Force of it too: For Objects are apt to affect and
move us according to their Presence or Absence; and a Character will
naturally strike us more forcibly, the more the Images, which it
consists of, are lively and natural; because the Object is then most
present to our Mind.
Since every Feature must be drawn exactly to the Life, great Care must
be taken, that the Strokes be not too faint, nor yet too strong: For
Characteristic-Justice is to be observ’d as strictly by the Writers of
this Kind, as Poetic-Justice is to be by Poets. That Medium must be
copied, which Nature it self has mark’d out; whatever falls short of
it is poor and insipid, whatever is above it is Rant and
Extravagance.
[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 the
very Soul of _Characteristic-Writing_; for every particular Stroke, as
well as the whole Character, has a proper Degree of Perfection. To
attain this Point, and to bring the several Parts, as well as the
Whole, exactly to this Pitch, is the Work of a sagacious Head, and
of a perfect Judgment.--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. 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 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.
An honest Writer, who has the Profit as well as the Pleasure of his
Reader in View, ought always to tell the Truth. But as he is at
Liberty to chuse his manner of telling it, so that Method of
Instruction ought to be observ’d in _Characteristic-Writings_,
which will keep up the good Humour of the Reader, altho’ he is, at
the same Time, made sensible of his Errors. And this Artifice ought
industriously to be pursu’d, since the proper Management of it is so
necessary to the Success of _Characteristic-Writings_. For those who
love and admire Truth themselves, must yet be sensible that ’tis
generally unwelcome, both to themselves and to others, when the Point
of Self-Interest is concern’d. And the Reason of it is, not because
Truth is really ugly and deform’d, but because it presents to our View
certain Inconsistencies and Errors, which Self-Love will not allow us
to condemn. And therefore the great Art and Difficulty, in making
Truth pleasant and profitable, is so to expose Error, as not to seem
to 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 in
this 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 laid
down by [H]_Libanius_ in the following Words. Ἐργάση τὴν ἠθοποιίαν
χαρακτῆρι σαφεῖ, συντόμῳ, ἀνθηρῷ, ἀπολύτῳ, ἀπηλλαγμένῳ πάσης πλοκῆς
τε καὶ σχήματος. “When you describe Manners you must use a plain,
concise, florid, easy Style, free from all artificial Turns and
Figures.” Every Thing must be even, smooth, easy and unaffected;
without any of those Points and Turns, which convey to the Mind
nothing 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: And
therefore, as _Characteristic-Writings_ are professed Representations
of Nature, an Author in this Way is immediately concern’d to use a
simple and natural Style: Nor has he any Reason to fear, that this
will any ways prejudice his Performance, and make it appear low, flat
and insipid; for in Reality there is nothing more noble than a true
Simplicity, and nothing more beautiful than Nature, when it appears in
the easy Charms of its own native Dress.
In _Characteristic-Writings_ both the Way of Thinking and the Style
must be Laconic: Much must be contained in a little Compass. Brevity
of Diction adds new Life to a good Thought: And since every perfect
Stroke ought to be a distinct Representation of a particular Feature,
Matters shou’d be so order’d, that every perfect Sentence may contain
a perfect Thought, and every perfect Thought may represent one
Feature.
Many other Particulars might have been observ’d and recommended to
those, who wou’d attempt a Performance in this Kind, with some
Assurance of Success. The Laws of good Writing, in general, may and
ought to be applied to _Characteristic-Writing_, in particular, as far
as the Nature of it will bear. But to pursue these Things accurately,
wou’d carry me beyond the Bounds which the Title of this Work
prescribes to me. To shew the peculiar Nature; to point out
the principal Beauties, and to lay down the general Laws of
_Characteristic-Writing_, is all that was propos’d. Besides, I shall
have Occasion, in the Sequel of this Essay, to make some further
Observations relating to the Constitution of _Characteristic-Writings_;
which, to prevent Repetitions, I forbear mentioning here; but if the
Reader be religious in the Observance of a strict Method, he is at
full Liberty to alter the Situation of them, and to refer them to this
Section.
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 Characters
or 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 polite
Literature. And if to make a great deal of Noise in the World, and to
undergo several Editions, were infallible Proofs of the intrinsick
Merit of a Book, Mr. _de la Bruyere_’s Performance would, upon both
these Accounts, sufficiently recommend itself to our Approbation.
--I confess, there are very considerable Beauties in this Piece: but
yet 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 to
Performances in this Kind, I am afraid it would not be able, in every
Respect, to stand the Test of an impartial Examination.
I do not intend to enter upon an exact Critique of this Piece; the
intended Brevity of this Essay will permit me to take Notice of but
some few Particulars.--I have no Design or Desire to derogate from the
Reputation of the deceas’d Author; but this I take to be a standing
Rule in Critical Writings, as well as in judicious Reading, that we
ought not to be so struck with the Beauties of an Author, as to be
blind to his Failings; nor yet so prejudiced by his Failings, as to
be blind to his Beauties.
The original Design of Characteristic-Writings is to give us real
Images of Life. An exact Imitation of Nature is the chief Art which is
to be us’d. The Imagination, I own, may be allow’d to work in Pieces
of this Kind, provided it keeps within the Degrees of Probability; But
Mr. _de la Bruyere_ gives us Characters of Men, who are not to be
found in Nature; and, out of a false Affectation of the Wonderful, he
carries almost every thing to Excess; represents the Irregularities of
Life as downright Madness, and by his false Colours converts Men into
Monsters.
[I]_Troilus_ is a very supercilious Man: And ’tis no ways inconsistent
with this Character to suppose, that he may entertain a natural
Antipathy against an ugly Face, or a bad Voice; but our Author
represents him as labourirg under this Distemper to such a Degree of
Excess, as, I believe, has never been observ’d in any Man. I do not
know by what Name it may be call’d. _Troilus_ conceives an immediate
Aversion against a Person that enters the Room where he is; he shuns
him, flies from him, and will throw himself out at the Window, rather
than suffer himself to be accosted by one, whose Face and Voice he
does not like.--Is this Humour, or, rather, are not these the genuine
Symptoms of Madness and Phrenzy? And if _Troilus_ does really act
after this manner, is he not rather an Object of Pity, than a Subject
for Humour and Ridicule?
[I: De la Societè & de la Conversation. Ad init.]
The Character of _Cleanthes_, in the same [K]Chapter, is a
Misrepresentation of Nature.--“_Cleanthes_ is a very honest Man; he
has chosen a Wife, who is the best and the most reasonable Woman in
the World: They, each of them, in their respective Ways, make up all
the Pleasure and Agreeableness of the Company they are in: ’Tis
impossible to meet with more Probity or Politeness. They part to
Morrrow, and the Deed of their Separation is ready drawn up at the
Notary’s. There are, certainly, some Kinds of Merit that were never
made to be together, and some Virtues that are incompatible.” But
those who are endow’d with such good Qualities, as Mr. _de la Bruyere_
ascribes to _Cleanthes_ and his Wife, can never agree to a willful
Separation. Nay, ’tis a Contradiction to their Character to suppose
that either of ’em is faln into those Circumstances, which only can
make a Separation become lawful and just. ’Tis true, some Virtues and
Accomplishments, as well as some Vices, may be inconsistent with each
other. But to apply this Maxim to the present Case must betray a great
Want of Judgment and Knowledge in the Nature of Things: For where can
one expect to meet with a more perfect Harmony of Virtues, than in the
reciprocal Honesty, Reason and Good-breeding of _Cleanthes_ and his
Wife?
[K: Ibid. fere.]
An absent Man often acts out of the Way of common Life, when the Fit
of 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 Time
till 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 proper
Causes of what is call’d _Absence of Mind_, we shall perceive that
the Powers of it are sometimes contracted within themselves by a
Multiplicity of Thought: In these Cases the inward Exercise of the
Soul makes it unable to attend to any outward Object. But at other
Times the Soul wanders from itself; and in these Cases the Soul being
conversant about remote Objects, cannot immediately recover itself, so
as to reflect duly on those which are present. So that this Absence of
the 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 it
proceeds from a Want of Reflexion, it must be confess’d, that he who
can live so many Hours without reflecting, must be either wholly
stupid, or some Degrees below the Species of Mankind.
But what makes the Character of _Menalcas_ still more ridiculous
and unnatural is, that he is stupid and sensible at the same
Time.--_Menalcas_ is in the Drawing-Room at Court; and walking very
majestically under a Branch of Candlestics; his Wig is caught up by
one of them, and hangs dangling in the Air. All the Courtiers fall a
laughing.--_Menalcas_ unluckily loses his Feeling, but still retains
the Use of his Ears. He is insensible that his Wig is taken off his
Head; 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 with
them.--_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 in
the other; and being extremely dry, and unwilling to lose Time, he
swallows down both the Dice and almost the Box, and at the same
Time throws the Glass of Water into the Tables.--If this is not
to overstrain the Bow, to carry Things to an unnatural Excess and
Extravagance, and to make no Distinction between Absence of Mind and
Insensibility, or downright Folly, I confess, I know not what is. _Mr.
de la Bruyere_ should have consider’d, that a Man, who has lost his
Feeling, is not, in that Respect, a proper Subject for Ridicule,
and that ’tis no Jest to take away a Man’s Senses. Extravagances of
this Nature are no Beauties in any Kind of Writing, much less in
Characteristics. In Performances of this Kind there must be Spirit and
Strength, but especially there must be Justice. The real Images of
Life must be represented, or the Probabilities of Nature must strictly
be 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 not
extravagant. Nature must not be distorted, to excite either Ridicule
or Admiration. Reason must hold the Reins of the Imagination: Judgment
must direct the Fancy; otherwise we shall be apt to miscarry, and
connect inconsistent Ideas, at the very Time, when we think we hit the
Point of Humour to the Life.
The only Thing that can be said to excuse Mr. _de la Bruyere_ on this
Head, is what the Abbot _Fleury_ has alledg’d to his Praise; namely,
[N]that his Characters are sometimes loaded, on purpose that they
might 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 of
particular 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 is
taken of ’em. But tho’ Mr. _de la Bruyere_ might have very good
prudential Reasons for not making his Characters too particular, yet
those Reasons cannot be urg’d, as a just Plea for his transgressing
the Bounds of Characteristic-Justice, by making his Images unnatural.